06/23/2026 Item No.15.
ATTACHMENT 2
Appraisal Report
06/23/2026 Item No.15.
Appraisal Report
River District / Historic District Land
APNs 070-0046-026 and 070-0046-002
Folsom, California 95630
Appraisal File #14786
rRE
Date of Report: February 27, 2026
Prepared for:
Pam Johns, Director
Community Development Department
City of Folsom
50 Natoma St
Folsom, CA 95630
Prepared by:
John T. Ashworth, MAI, SRA
06/23/2026 Item No.15.
Ashworth Appraisal Services
1 Ashworth Appraisal Services
705 E Bidwell St, Suite 2-412
Folsom CA 95630
(530) 888-9803
www.realestatevalue.com
February 27, 2026
Pam Johns, Director
Community Development Department
City of Folsom
50 Natoma St
Folsom, CA 95630
RE: River District / Historic District Land
APNs 070-0046-026 and 070-0046-002
Folsom, California 95630
Dear Ms. Johns:
At your request, Ashworth Appraisal Services has prepared an Appraisal Report to estimate the value of the fee simple interest in the above property. This report is written in conformance with the requirements set forth under the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP).
The subject represents two adjacent unimproved parcels of real property in the incorporated city of Folsom, California, within an area planned for redevelopment over the next few years. More details regarding characteristics of the property are contained within the report.
As a result of my analyses, it is my opinion the as-is market value of the fee simple interest in the subject property as of January 20, 2026, in accordance with the assumptions and limiting conditions set forth on pages 10 through 12 of this report, is:
ONE MILLION DOLLARS
$1,000,000.
The estimate of market value assumes a transfer would reflect a cash transaction or terms considered to be equivalent to cash. The estimate is also premised on an assumed sale after reasonable exposure in a competitive market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, with both buyer and seller acting prudently, knowledgeably, for their own self-interest and assuming neither is under duress.
This letter must remain attached to the report, which contains 41 pages, in order for the value opinion contained in the report to be considered valid.
06/23/2026 Item No.15.
Ashworth Appraisal Services
2 I hereby certify the property has been inspected and I have impartially considered all data collected in the investigation. Further, I have no past, present or anticipated future interest in the property.
The appraiser certifies this appraisal assignment was not based on a requested minimum valuation, a specific valuation, a direction in value, or the approval of a loan or other future event.
This appraisal has been performed in accordance with the requirements of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) and the Code of Professional Ethics and Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice of the Appraisal Institute.
Sincerely,
John T. Ashworth, MAI, SRA
State Certification #AG001835
Expiration Date: August 18, 2026
06/23/2026 Item No.15.
Ashworth Appraisal Services
3 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Transmittal Letter
Table of Contents
Introduction
Summary of Important Facts and Conclusions 4
Area Map Showing Location of Subject 5
Property Overview and History 5
Type and Definition of Value 6
Client, Intended User and Intended Use of the Appraisal 6 Property Rights Appraised 7
Appraisal Report Format 7
Dates of Inspection, Value and Report 7
Scope of Work 7
Extraordinary Assumptions and Hypothetical Conditions 9 General Assumptions and Limiting Conditions 10
Certification Statement(s) 12
Market Area
Overview of Folsom Market Area 13
Market Overview 14
Subject Property
Property Identification and Legal Data 19
Subject Property and the Corporation Yard Redevelopment 23 Photographs of Subject Property 26
Valuation Analysis
Highest and Best Use 27
Valuation Methodology 28
Sales Comparison Approach to Value 30
Maps of Subject and Comparable Sales 36
Reconciliation and Conclusion of Market Value 38
Exposure Time 39
Addenda
Qualifications of the Appraiser 41
06/23/2026 Item No.15.
Ashworth Appraisal Services
4 SUMMARY OF IMPORTANT FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS
Appraised Property: Unimproved Land
Street Address: Leidesdorff St [no number assigned] for parcel -026 1118 Sutter St for parcel -002
Folsom, California 95630
Census Tract Number: 84.04
Assessor’s Parcel Number: 070-0046-026 and 070-0046-002 Owner of Record: Brian E. Martell
Zoning: HD-PD Historic District – Planned Development
R-4 Multifamily Residential
MU Historic Folsom Mixed-Use
Site Area: 56,192 SF 070-0046-026
27,443 SF 070-0046-002
9,240 SF abandoned roadway between the two1
92,875 SF Total site area of subject
Highest and Best Use As-Is: Redevelopment in Folsom’s Corporation Yard area Highest and Best Use If Vacant: Redevelopment in Folsom’s Corporation Yard area Exposure Time: 6-18 months
Date of Last Inspection: January 20, 2026
Effective Date of Value: January 20, 2026
Date of Report: February 27, 2026
Property Rights Appraised: Fee Simple Interest
Conclusion of Market Value: $1,000,000
The conclusion of value is subject to the General and
Extraordinary Assumptions, Limiting Conditions and
Hypothetical Conditions referenced on pages 9
through 11 of this report.
1 See hypothetical condition on page 9 and the Descriptions of Subject Property section.
06/23/2026 Item No.15.
Ashworth Appraisal Services
5 AREA MAP SHOWING LOCATION OF SUBJECT
Property Overview and History
Within the city’s Historic District, the subject property, consisting of two parcels, has never been developed. Location is on the west side of the Folsom Blvd corridor near Lake Natoma (American River). The immediate area and the region have an active history dating back to the mid-1800s when heavy exploration of the American River began at the start of the California Gold Rush.
06/23/2026 Item No.15.
Ashworth Appraisal Services
6 According to public records and Costar commercial real estate database, the subject, consisting of two parcels of real property, was a portion of a four-parcel sale in December of 2025, approximately one month prior to the effective date of this appraisal, for a price of $2,000,000. It had been listed for sale for sale for almost three years, with an initial asking price of $3,250,000. The same four-parcel grouping sold previously for $650,000 in 2014, and for $750,000 in 2003. Following the recent sale at the end of 2025, the four contiguous parcels are owned by Brian E. Martell, who subsequently has offered to sell the subject (two of those parcels) to the City of Folsom.
Currently, the primary portion of the property—its lower level and primary street frontage in the proposed redevelopment—is not currently accessible because that future roadway is within the city’s gated Corporation Yard. It is accessible from above via the adjacent parcels under the same ownership, but it is a steep drop down from those parcels above to the subject below. Public utilities are in place at the Corporation Yard but no utility connections are in place to the subject site.
Type and Definition of Value
The purpose of this appraisal is to estimate the as-is market value of the subject property as of the effective date.
market value. The most probable price that a property should bring in a competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and seller, each acting prudently, knowledgeably and assuming the price is not affected by undue stimulus. Implicit in this definition is the consummation of a sale as of a specified date and the passing of title from seller to buyer under conditions whereby:
• Buyer and seller are typically motivated;
• Both parties are well informed or well advised, and acting in what they consider their own best interest;
• A reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market; • Payment is made in terms of cash in U. S. Dollars or in terms of financial arrangements comparable thereto; and
• The price represents the normal consideration for the property sold unaffected by special or creative financing or sales concessions granted by anyone associated with the sale.2
Client, Intended User and Intended Use of the Appraisal The client in this appraisal assignment is the City of Folsom. The intended use of the appraisal is to assist the client in decisions regarding a potential purchase of the subject. There were no other intended users identified by the client. This report is intended only for use by the client and 2 Federal Register, vol. 55, no. 163, August 22, 1990, 34228 and 34229.
06/23/2026 Item No.15.
Ashworth Appraisal Services
7 identified intended user(s), if any; it is not valid, or to be relied upon, for any other intended use, user or purpose.
Property Rights Appraised
The property rights being discussed in this report are defined as follows:
fee simple estate. Absolute ownership unencumbered by any other interest or estate, subject only to the limitations imposed by the governmental powers of taxation, eminent domain, police power, and escheat.3
In this appraisal, the rights valued are based on the fee simple interest, which accurately reflects the “as is” value of vacant land. The valuation of the property rights appraised are subject to the Extraordinary Assumptions, Hypothetical Conditions, General Assumptions and Limiting Conditions contained in this report, as well as any exceptions, encroachments, easements and rights-of-way recorded.
Appraisal Report Format
This report documents an Appraisal Report, intended to comply with the reporting requirements set forth under the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP).
Dates of Inspection, Value and Report
An inspection of the subject property was completed on January 20, 2026, which is also the effective date, or date of value, of the report. This appraisal report was completed on February 27, 2026.
Scope of Work
This appraisal report has been prepared in accordance with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP). This analysis is intended to be an “appraisal assignment,” as defined by USPAP; the intention is that the appraisal service be performed in such a manner that the result of the analysis, opinions, or conclusion be that of a disinterested third party.
The only individual involved in the preparation of this appraisal was John T. Ashworth, MAI, SRA.
Legal and physical aspects of the property were researched and documented. A physical inspection of the property was completed on January 20, 2026. The inspection serves as the basis for the property descriptions contained in this report. Ms. Pam Johns, Director of the Community Development Department for the City of Folsom, provided access to the property, and information about the property, its location in the Historic District and River District, and details of the planned redevelopment of the area. I gathered and documented additional property characteristics via the City of Folsom’s website. 3 The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, 6th ed. (Chicago: Appraisal Institute, 2015), 90.
06/23/2026 Item No.15.
Ashworth Appraisal Services
8 Property tax information for the current tax year was obtained from the Sacramento County Tax Collector’s Office. No preliminary title report was made available.
The appraiser analyzed and documented data relating to the subject’s neighborhood and surrounding market area. This information was obtained through personal inspections of the neighborhood and market area and analyzing market data and trends; additional general market research which included online articles and reports; business and real estate publications; real estate conferences; and interviews with various market participants, including some or all of the following: owners, sellers, property managers, brokers, developers and local government agencies.
The highest and best use of the subject property as though vacant and as improved, based on the four standard tests (legal permissibility, physical possibility, financial feasibility and maximum productivity) was determined. In addition, a reasonable exposure time associated with the market value was estimated.
The valuation employed one of the three traditional approaches to value – the sales comparison approach – to estimate the market value of the property. The other two approaches, the cost approach and the income approach, were excluded because they are typically not applicable to the valuation of unimproved land.
With respect to the physical inspection of the subject property, the scope of work involved a walking observation of much of the site from the hilltop / bluff above, and the lower portion from within the city’s adjacent Corporation Yard.
The appraiser has not checked the land records for recorded easements, and has reported only readily apparent easements, encroachments and other apparent adverse conditions. The client should review a title report prepared by a title company for recorded easements and the most up to date items affecting title. The appraiser has not researched any public or private databases regarding registered sexual offenders reported to be living in the area. The appraiser has not performed any research regarding other criminal offenders or general crime statistics or reports in the area. The appraiser has not researched known or registered contaminated sites or hazardous waste facilities proximate to the subject. These specialized data are beyond the scope of this appraisal assignment, and the client is urged to obtain appropriate research and reports if there is concern in any of these areas, or if this level of market area analysis is desired.
The reader should be advised that appraisals are the result of an inexact science and that estimated market value is as of a specified point in time, but is dependent upon conditions and perceptions of market value that are likely to change over time. This valuation represents an opinion estimate only and is not intended to be a guarantee or assurance of resale value.
06/23/2026 Item No.15.
Ashworth Appraisal Services
9 EXTRAORDINARY ASSUMPTIONS AND HYPOTHETICAL CONDITIONS It is noted the use of an extraordinary assumption or hypothetical condition can affect the results of an appraisal.
Extraordinary Assumptions4
There is steeply sloping land to the rear of the subject. Though it could not be confirmed with available topographical maps, it appears that the steep downslope area is located on the parcels to the rear (south) of the subject. It is assumed the subject is all, or nearly all, level and that the site area could be fully utilized for development. A survey would be needed to confirm the location of property lines and the location of the steeply sloping area.
Hypothetical Conditions5
There is a recorded public right-of-way (road) easement between the two parcels as part of the original mapping of the area in the 1800s. The road is denoted as Burnett St on the plat map, however, this street was never built, nor will it be due to the changing usage of the area. This rightof-way area will be abandoned by the city so that the two parcels could be developed together. The area is 66’ wide by 140’ long, which equals 9,240 sf, which will be added to the areas of the two parcels which make up the subject. Accordingly, the subject is valued using a hypothetical condition that, as of the effective date, the public right-of-way area between the two parcels had been abandoned by the city, and assembled with the two subject parcels to create one large parcel for future redevelopment.
4 An assumption, directly related to a specific assignment, which, if found to be false, could alter the appraiser’s opinions or conclusions. Extraordinary assumptions presume as fact otherwise uncertain [or unknowable] information about physical, legal or economic characteristics of the subject property; or about conditions external to the property such as market conditions or trends; or about the integrity of data used in an analysis. Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP), 2016-2017 ed.). 5 A condition, directly related to a specific assignment, which is contrary to what is known to the appraiser to exist on the effective date of the assignment results, but is supposed for the purpose of analysis. Comment: Hypothetical conditions are contrary to known facts about physical, legal or economic characteristics of the subject property; or about conditions external to the property, such as market conditions or trends; or about the integrity of data used in an analysis (USPAP 2016-2017 ed.).
06/23/2026 Item No.15.
Ashworth Appraisal Services
10 GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS
1. No responsibility is assumed for the legal description provided or for matters pertaining to legal or title considerations. Title to the property is assumed to be good and marketable unless otherwise stated.
2. No responsibility is assumed for matters of law or legal interpretation.
3. Although the property may be encumbered with typical trust deeds, it is appraised free and clear of any or all liens or encumbrances, in fee simple ownership.
4. The information and data furnished by others in preparation of this report is believed to be reliable, but no warranty is given for its accuracy.
5. It is assumed there are no hidden or unapparent conditions of the property, subsoil, or structures that render it more or less valuable. No responsibility is assumed for such conditions or for obtaining the engineering studies that may be required to discover them.
6. It is assumed the property is in full compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local environmental regulations and laws unless the lack of compliance is stated, described, and considered in the appraisal report.
7. It is assumed the property conforms to all applicable zoning and use regulations and restrictions unless nonconformity has been identified, described and considered in the appraisal report.
8. It is assumed all required licenses, certificates of occupancy, consents, and other legislative or administrative authority from any local, state, or national government or private entity or organization have been or can be obtained or renewed for any use on which the value estimate contained in this report is based.
9. It is assumed the use of the land and improvements is confined within the boundaries or property lines of the property described and there is no encroachment or trespass unless noted in the report.
10. Unless otherwise stated in this report, the existence of hazardous materials, which may or may not be present on the property, was not observed by the appraiser. The appraiser has no knowledge of the existence of such materials on or in the property. The appraiser, however, is not qualified to detect such substances. The presence of substances such as asbestos, ureaformaldehyde foam insulation and other potentially hazardous materials may affect the value of the property. The value estimated is predicated on the assumption there is no such material on or in the property that would cause a loss in value. No responsibility is assumed for such conditions or for any expertise or engineering knowledge required to discover them. The intended user of this report is urged to retain an expert in this field, if desired.
11. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) became effective January 26, 1992. I have not made a specific survey or analysis of this property to determine whether the physical aspects of the improvements meet the ADA accessibility guidelines. Since compliance matches each owner’s financial ability with the cost-to cure the property’s potential physical characteristics, the real
06/23/2026 Item No.15.
Ashworth Appraisal Services
11 estate appraiser cannot comment on compliance with ADA. A brief summary of the subject’s physical aspects is included in this report. It in no way suggests ADA compliance by the current owner. Given that compliance can change with each owner’s financial ability to cure nonaccessibility, the value of the subject does not consider possible non-compliance. Specific study of both the owner’s financial ability and the cost-to-cure any deficiencies would be needed for the Department of Justice to determine compliance.
12. The appraisal is to be considered in its entirety and use of only a portion thereof will render the appraisal invalid.
13. Possession of this report or a copy thereof does not carry with it the right of publication nor may it be used for any purpose by anyone other than the client without the previous written consent of Ashworth Appraisal Services.
14. Neither all nor any part of the contents of this report (especially any conclusions as to value, the identity of the appraiser, or the firm with which the appraiser is connected) shall be disseminated to the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales, or any other media without the prior written consent and approval of Ashworth Appraisal Services.
15. The liability of Ashworth Appraisal Services for errors and omissions, if any, in this work is limited to the amount of its compensation for the work performed in this assignment.
16. Acceptance and/or use of the appraisal report constitutes acceptance of all assumptions and limiting conditions stated in this report.
17. The exact locations of typical roadway and utility easements, or any additional easements, which would be referenced in a preliminary title report, were not provided to the appraiser. The appraiser is not a surveyor nor qualified to determine the exact location of easements. It is assumed typical easements do not have an impact on the opinion (s) of value as provided in this report. If, at some future date, these easements are determined to have a detrimental impact on value, the appraiser reserves the right to amend the opinion (s) of value.
18. This appraisal report is prepared for the exclusive use of the appraiser’s client and the identified intended users. No third parties are authorized to rely upon this report without the express consent of the appraiser.
19. The appraiser is not qualified to determine the existence of mold, the cause of mold, the type of mold or whether mold might pose any risk to the property or its inhabitants. Additional inspection by a qualified professional is recommended.
06/23/2026 Item No.15.
Ashworth Appraisal Services
12 CERTIFICATION STATEMENT
I certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:
• The statements of fact contained in this report are true and correct; • The reported analyses, opinions and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions, and are my personal, impartial and unbiased professional analyses, opinions, and conclusions;
• I have no present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this report, and no personal interest with respect to the parties involved;
• I have performed no services, as an appraiser or in any other capacity, regarding the subject property within the three-year period immediately preceding acceptance of this assignment. • I have no bias with respect to the property that is the subject of this report or to the parties involved with this assignment;
• My engagement in this assignment was not contingent upon developing or reporting predetermined results;
• My compensation for completing this assignment is not contingent upon the development or reporting of a predetermined value or direction in value that favors the cause of the client, the amount of the value opinion, the attainment of a stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event directly related to the intended use of this appraisal;
• I have made a personal inspection of the property that is the subject of this report; • The reported analyses, opinions and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice; • No one provided significant real property assistance to the person signing this certification; • The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in conformity with the Code of Professional Ethics and Standards of Professional Practice of the Appraisal Institute;
• The use of this report is subject to the requirements of the Appraisal Institute relating to review by its duly authorized representatives;
• As of the date of this report, I have completed the continuing education program for Designated Members of the Appraisal Institute;
• I certify that my State of California real estate appraiser license has never been revoked, suspended, canceled or restricted;
• I have the knowledge and experience to complete this appraisal assignment and have appraised similar properties in the past. Please see the Qualifications of Appraiser portion of the Addenda to this report for additional information.
JOHN T. ASHWORTH, MAI, SRA DATE: February 27, 2026
State Certification No.: AG001835 (Expires: August 18, 2026)
06/23/2026 Item No.15.
Ashworth Appraisal Services
13 OVERVIEW OF FOLSOM MARKET AREA
Folsom is an incorporated city in extreme easterly Sacramento County, bordering on the El Dorado County line to the east. It is within the greater Sacramento region Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), and is generally recognized as having a distinct identity due to the high-quality management of the city, and its interesting history (part of the California Gold Rush in the mid-1800s and a stop on the famous but short-lived Pony Express). Despite being home to well-known Folsom Prison, it is ranked as one of the safest cities in California, and is among the top-ranked public-school systems in the state. Location is along the Highway 50 corridor approximately 15 miles east of downtown Sacramento, the California state capitol. East of Folsom the terrain becomes increasingly mountainous, leading quickly to the Sierra Mountains and Lake Tahoe region, with elevations approaching 10,000 feet above sea level.
The city consists of an historic downtown area, surrounded by some original and older neighborhoods, with extensive modern suburban development expanding city limits greatly over the last 40 to 50 years. Folsom grew steadily starting in the late 1970s, followed by particularly rapid expansion in the last 20 years. Most of the residential development outside of the core downtown area consists of production (tract) housing, much of it of high quality, especially in the last 10 to 15 years. In terms of commercial development, Folsom has become a technology hub, most notably being corporate headquarters for Intel corporation, one of its largest private employers. It has also an increasing medical services sector, fueled by population increases. Pricing for commercial and residential real estate is among the highest in Sacramento County.
According to the US Census and California Department of Finance, Folsom’s 2020 population was 80,454, and by 2025 it had grown to 92,577, an increase of just over 15%. This growth level ranks it the second-highest in California for cities with a population under 300,000, and the fourth-highest for cities with a population over 30,000. Median household income in 2023 was $139,263, up 73% from 2020, and almost 45% greater than the 2023 California statewide figure of $96,364. Due to its rapid growth, especially within the technology sector, household income has increased at an extraordinary rate over the last several years, resulting in rapid growth and increasing demand for residential and general commercial real estate.
The subject property is located in a secondary portion of the city’s Historic District, an area along the American River slated for complete redevelopment in the next few years. The Folsom residential and commercial and markets will be briefly analyzed in the next section, followed by descriptions of the subject’s attributes and its potential uses.
06/23/2026 Item No.15.
Ashworth Appraisal Services
14 MARKET OVERVIEW
Because the subject property is speculative land in an area slated for redevelopment which will not be actively entering its construction phase for several years, the market overview will encompass a brief summary of current market conditions. These will cover single-family residential, multifamily residential and retail uses, the property types most likely to be developed in the future at the subject.
Single-Family Residential
The market has experienced many changes since the onset of the pandemic in 2020, when values began increasing rapidly. Values then declined in the second half of 2022, rebounded in much of 2023, though still not having achieved the post-pandemic highs from early 2022. The two graphs on the following page show sale pricing over the last five years in Folsom. The first graph exhibits that price per square foot ($/SF) has stayed fairly level over the last two years. The second graph shows that median sales prices have been declining for the last six months. However, the average pricing has been more stable, though it too began to ease, slightly, in the last few months.
It is concluded that values have been generally stable but are currently experiencing some downward pressure. With respect to valuing the subject, the takeaway is that the single-family residential market, though slightly soft in the present, has been generally stable to strong for several years.
Marketing times remain very short for properly priced properties. An investor considering purchasing the subject would likely not assume or factor in declining values for single-family residential properties over the mid- to long-term horizon of this investment.
06/23/2026 Item No.15.
Ashworth Appraisal Services
15 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES PRICE PER SF TRENDS: FOLSOM SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES SALE PRICE TRENDS: FOLSOM
06/23/2026 Item No.15.
Ashworth Appraisal Services
16 Multifamily Residential
The multifamily market refers to the market for apartment projects, typically five or more units. This property type is typically valued on a price per unit basis. For example, if it was concluded that the market value of a certain multifamily property is $250,000 per unit, then the value of a 20-unit building would be $5M (20 units x $250,000). The graph below, sourced from Costar Analytics, shows the sharp decline in values experienced a year or so after the pandemic began, but recovery and stability since 2024. Continued stability is forecast through 2027, followed by slow but steady growth in the following three or more years. This is important data for a potential buyer/investor of the subject, as there is a strong likelihood that the ultimate development of the property could include a multifamily (apartment) component. More than one multifamily development project has been explored in and around the subject property in recent years.
MULTIFAMILY SALE PRICE PER APARTMENT TRENDS: SACRAMENTO REGION
06/23/2026 Item No.15.
Ashworth Appraisal Services
17 Retail
Retail market activity has been low in the Sacramento region since 2023. Values, as shown below on a sale price per square foot ($/SF) basis, declined very slightly in 2024 and 2025. They are projected to be flat (stable) through 2026, then to begin gradually improving. With respect to valuing the subject, and the thought process of a potential investor of the property, the retail market would likely be viewed as stable going forward. Retail uses likely to be developed at the subject would be specialty sales and services geared toward a recreational, visitor-friendly destination. These future uses would be part of a new development and extension of Folsom’s historic district, with architecture and theme reflecting the city’s history and heritage located adjacent to state park lands and the American River. An investor’s concern would be less likely focused on the broader retail market (which often reflects major chains and big box stores), and more so on the general economy.
RETAIL SALE PRICE PER SQUARE FOOT TRENDS: SACRAMENTO REGION
06/23/2026 Item No.15.
Ashworth Appraisal Services
18 Summary
The preceding market analyses reflect markets—residential, apartment, and retail—that appear generally stable and forecasted to continue in a positive direction in the next few years. However, market projections are very limited in their reliability, particularly beyond the short-term (one year).
Five or more years—the waiting period for development and, hopefully, return on investment, is a very long horizon, and this may be the largest area of concern for the typical investor of a property such as the subject (risks inherent in a purchase of the subject are discussed in some detail in the valuation section of the report). Based on current and recent market data and metrics, there is little or no observable concerns indicated for the uses that would likely be developed at the subject site.
Again, however, projections for any real estate market beyond the near-terms is very limited in its reliability.
06/23/2026 Item No.15.
Ashworth Appraisal Services
19 PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION AND LEGAL DATA
Location
Folsom is an incorporated city in extreme easterly Sacramento County, and has complete shopping and services. Sacramento, the state capitol, is less than half an hour away. The subject property is located in an area just east (and across Folsom Blvd) of the core historic downtown area. It is currently used as the city’s Corporation Yard (fleet maintenance and storage, an industrial use). An established residential neighborhood, and other pockets of residential uses are located to the south and east of the Corporation Yard. The Corporation Yard will be relocated, slated to begin in the next one to two years, with four to five years for completion of the move. The city’s plan is to redevelop the Corporation Yard and some surrounding parcels (such as the privately-owned subject) into a visitor-friendly commercial and recreational destination along the state park lands at the riverfront, with a pedestrian-linked access to the existing historic district a few blocks away.
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH
subject indicated by arrow; to the north and west is the current Corporation Yard, which is scheduled to be moved in the next two years, allowing for complete redevelopment of the area surrounding the subject; Folsom Auburn Blvd is the large north-south traffic corridor through the west side of Folsom; on its eastern side is the existing core Historic District, currently connected by roadway; ultimately, pedestrian linkage between the two historic district areas is planned
06/23/2026 Item No.15.
Ashworth Appraisal Services
20 Street Address
Leidesdorff St [no number assigned] for parcel 070-0046-026 1118 Sutter St for parcel 070-0046-002
Folsom, California 95630
Census Tract Number
84.04 Assessor’s Parcel Numbers
070-0046-026
070-0046-002
Owner(s) of Record
Brian E. Martell
Legal Description
LOT 1 TO 8 INCL. BLOCK 18 FOLSOM (APN 070-0046-026)
LOTS 1 TO 4 INCL BLK 17 FOLSOM (APN 070-0046-002)
A title report should be obtained if a current and complete legal description is needed. The legal description would ultimately include a portion of public right-of-way between the two parcels, and is appraised as such, using the Hypothetical Condition detailed on page 9.
Property Taxes
The property tax system in California was amended in 1978 by Article XIII to the State Constitution, commonly referred to as Proposition 13. It provides for a limitation on property taxes and for a procedure to establish the current taxable value of real property by reference to a base year value, which is then modified annually to reflect inflation (if any). Annual increases cannot exceed 2% per year. Taxes totaled $4,943 for tax year 2025-2026, however, for appraisal purposes they will be appropriately re-calculated based on the estimated market value.
The subject is located in tax rate area 04018. The 2025-2026 tax rate in this area is 1.0907% of assessed value. There are no other taxes or direct assessments. The recent purchase of the property, as part of a four-parcel purchase in December of 2025, has resulted in a much higher current assessment (and annual taxes). Importantly, from a valuation perspective, property is re-assessed upon a sale based on the sale price (and the assumption that it reflects market value). Therefore, in
06/23/2026 Item No.15.
Ashworth Appraisal Services
21 valuing the subject the tax burden is calculated based on the appraised market value, which would become the new assessed value if sold at market value. The formula to be applied to calculate the tax amount for appraisal purposes is appraised value times 1.0907%. The resulting figure would reflect the annual tax burden to a new owner having purchased the subject at market value.
Zoning
The subject is zoned HD-PD-HF in the City of Folsom. Denoted Historic District (and also within the Planned Development and Historic Folsom overlay districts). It is also denoted MLD— Multifamily Low Density—if Folsom’s General Plan. These zoning and general plan designations allow for a wide variety of commercial and residential uses, though the HF overlay district allows for mixed-use (residential and non-residential on the same site), with permitted density up to 30 residential units per acre.
PORTION OF FOLSOM ZONING MAP
two arrows denote the two parcels that make up the subject; the right-of-way easement between the two parcels (in white) will be abandoned and included in the combined area of subject as assembled
06/23/2026 Item No.15.
Ashworth Appraisal Services
22 More important than the zoning is the subject’s location in the River District Vision Plan, and, in particular, the Corporation Yard, one of five key redevelopment sites within the broader plan. The current envisioning of the area leans toward extensive, all-new commercial and recreational uses, with some residential and possibly some mixed-use projects. Notably, the subject is directly across the street from the prime area of the shopping and restaurants, apparently the “main drag” of the new district. Given the very flexible nature of the zoning designations in the area, coupled with the city’s general plan, and the unfolding plan for the Corporation Yard redevelopment, it is probable that any desired use or combination of uses of retail, recreational or residential would ultimately be approved if appropriate for the proposed character and quality desired within the plan.
Conditions of Title
No preliminary title report was made available for the subject property for this appraisal report. The appraiser assumes no negative title restrictions impact the subject property. The appraiser accepts no responsibility for matters pertaining to title or vesting. If information becomes available at some future point regarding item(s) of title that may specifically impact the value or marketability of the subject, the appraiser reserves the right to update the report and amend the opinion(s) of value if necessary.
Easements
It appears the subject contains easements for roadways and public utilities; however, these easements are typical for the area and are not considered to adversely affect the value or marketability of the subject property. The appraiser is not a surveyor nor qualified to determine the exact location of any easements. It is assumed any easements do not have an impact on the opinion(s) of value set forth in this report. If, at some future date, any easements are determined to have a detrimental impact on value, the appraiser reserves the right to amend the opinion(s) of value contained herein. Note: see the hypothetical condition on page 9 regarding the adjacent right-of-way easement being abandoned.
Flood Zone
The property is located in a non-flood zone, Zone X, on FEMA Map Panel 06067C0116J dated February 22, 2024. It is recommended that the client obtain a flood zone certificate and undertake additional research if there is further concern regarding the proximity to FEMA-identified flood zones.
06/23/2026 Item No.15.
Ashworth Appraisal Services
23 SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE CORPORATION YARD REDEVELOPMENT The property consists of two adjacent parcels of unimproved land assembled together as a single property, including an area of abandoned right-of-way between them, which increases slightly the size of the subject as appraised. It will have good visibility and exposure from a future Leidesdorff St when the redevelopment is underway in the next few years. Site attributes and features noted include the following.
• Rectangular-shaped site
• Approximately 666’ of frontage along the future Leidesdorff St • Site size 92,875 square feet (2.13 acres) including the abandoned right-of-way area • Appears mostly or all level; steep rear upslope behind appears to be on adjacent parcels6 • Heavily treed, especially in the middle and the rear (upsloping) portions • Public utilities not connected to site but are nearby and presumed available • Future Leidesdorff St frontage area not accessible due to location in gated Corporation Yard • Rear of site adjacent to unimproved single-family residential lots on Sutter St • Site effectively landlocked if ownership is separated from Sutter St parcels • No offsite improvements (i.e., curbs, sidewalks, lighting, etc.) The location has very limited access, effectively none if ownership does not include the two other parcels on Sutter St (all four currently under the same ownership). But this access from above is poor due to the steep slope. However, it is somewhat immaterial given the time frame to development, and it is presumed that the City of Folsom would allow reasonable access to the lower portion from its Corporation Yard, as the city will be partnering with all stakeholders in the redevelopment process.
The property effectively has little or no current utility or value; its value is in its potential use(s) in the future redevelopment of the Corporation Yard. As privately-owned property the subject is extremely well-located with respect to the envisioned vibrant and visitor-friendly shopping and recreation destination adjacent to state park land and the riverfront, and an extension of the current historic district. It would be directly across the street from the planned “main drag” of that future redevelopment. On the following page is a plat map showing the subject, followed by a brief overview of the Corporation Yard redevelopment.
6 Topographical maps did not identify parcel boundary lines but it appears that the steep slope is located on the adjacent parcels; it is assumed the subject is level or nearly so and that its area is fully developable. See Extraordinary Assumptions on page 9.
06/23/2026 Item No.15.
Ashworth Appraisal Services
24 PLAT MAP
Most streets and individual lots shown on the above map do not exist, as the area was never developed into residential neighborhoods as envisioned in this mapping from the 1800s Corporation Yard Redevelopment
Describing the motivation of the City of Folsom to undertake the broad River District Vision Plan, the plan’s introduction states that “…its primary project goal is to activate the City’s expansive waterfront for recreation and economic development through strategic partnerships and land use opportunities, as well as inspired urban and community design ideas and solutions.” Improved access to Lake Natoma (American River) is highly desired at the Corporation Yard redevelopment, one of five key sites in the plan. New development will have to maintain much of the character, heritage and design elements of Folsom’s first one hundred years (1850-1950). The city’s vision is that it will become a premiere recreational destination developed with high-quality designs and improvements.
Additional guidelines and restrictions may be informed by the California Department of State Parks and Recreation, which manages the adjacent riverfront and trails. Most of the desired usages currently expressed focuses on recreational and commercial development and selected, perimeter residential development. This may ultimately lean somewhat more residential, as the need for
06/23/2026 Item No.15.
Ashworth Appraisal Services
25 housing (and affordable housing) is in demand and may become more of a consideration. It is quite possible that the subject may ultimately be all or mostly developed with some form or residential uses. The current envisioning of the redevelopment of the Corporation Yard area is shown in the rendering below. The timeframe to redevelopment is lengthy. The Corporation Yard is slated to begin moving within the next year or two but may take four to five years to complete. It is possible that some construction could begin prior to final completion. The city expects that within the next year or so decisions on specific development plans will start becoming finalized. Following that some stakeholders may be able to being working on vetting and entitlements of their plans. It is probably at least five to six years before significant economic returns could be expected by owner/investors.
CORPORATION YARD CONCEPTUAL PLAN (2024)
two parcels that make up the subject identified by arrows; location is directly across from the proposed commercial, restaurant, service corridor in the current envisioning of the redevelopment
06/23/2026 Item No.15.
Ashworth Appraisal Services
26 SUBJECT PHOTOGRAPHS
Sutter Street to South of Subject Bluff Above Subject at Adjacent Parcels Portion of Subject Below Seen from Bluff Portion of Subject Below Seen from Bluff
06/23/2026 Item No.15.
Ashworth Appraisal Services
27 HIGHEST AND BEST USE ANALYSIS
The term “highest and best use,” as used in this report, is defined as follows:
The reasonably probable use of property that results in the highest value. The four criteria that the highest and best use must meet legal permissibility, physically possibility, financial feasibility and maximum productivity.7
Possible Legal Uses
The property’s current general plan and zoning designations, include Historic District, Planned Development, Historic Folsom Mixed-Use and Multifamily Residential. Among these a wide variety of residential, multifamily, commercial and recreational uses are allowed.
Physically Possible Uses
The site is essentially level at its frontage along the future Leidesdorff St. There is a steep upslope behind the subject, but the sloped area appears to be on the adjacent parcels, not the subject (see important Extraordinary Assumption on page 9 and the assumption that the subject is essentially fully usable. All the legal uses noted above would be physical possible, and there should be no substantial limitations on physical use or development of any legal use which would be appropriate for the size of the site.
Feasible Uses and Maximally Productive Use
The unfolding vision and the gathering of strategic partners toward the Corporation Yard redevelopment over the next few years will begin to drive and determine the specific future use of the subject. As planning and implementation progresses an experienced investor will hone in on the most productive (i.e., valuable) use of the subject. Incentives from the city and and/or collaborations with other partners/developers may also guide some of that decision-making. The highest and best use of the subject is speculative, holding to participate in the planned redevelopment of the Corporation Yard, or selling to a developer or partner as redevelopment plans and entitlements are becoming finalized. The most probable buyer would be an experienced local or regional investor or stakeholder who is flexible with respect to the specific future use, and willing to undertake a likely time frame of five-to-six-years or more before achieving an anticipated return.
7 The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, 6th ed. (Chicago: Appraisal Institute, 2015), 109.
06/23/2026 Item No.15.
Ashworth Appraisal Services
28 VALUATION METHODOLOGY
The valuation process is a systematic procedure employed to provide the answer to a client’s question about the value of real property. This process involves the investigation, organization and analysis of pertinent market data and other related factors that affect the market value of real estate.
The market data is analyzed in terms of any one or all of the three traditional approaches to estimating real estate value. These are the cost, sales comparison, and income approaches. Each approach to value is briefly discussed and defined as follows:
Cost Approach
The cost approach is based on the premise that a prudent buyer would pay no more for a particular property than the cost to acquire a similar site and construct improvements of equivalent desirability and utility. Thus, this approach to value relates directly to the economic principle of substitution, as well as supply and demand. The cost approach is most applicable when valuing properties where the improvements are new or suffer only a minor amount of accrued depreciation, and is especially persuasive when the site value is well supported. The cost approach is also highly relevant when valuing special-purpose or specialty properties and other properties that are not frequently exchanged in the market.
cost approach. A set of procedures through which a value indication is derived for the fee simple estate by estimating the current cost to construct a reproduction of (or replacement for) the existing structure, including an entrepreneurial incentive or profit; deducting depreciation from the total cost; and adding the estimated land value. Adjustments may then be made to the indicated value of the fee simple value in the subject property to reflect the value of the property interest being appraised.8
Sales Comparison Approach
The sales comparison approach is based on the premise that the value of a property is directly related to the prices being generated for comparable, competitive properties in the marketplace. Similar to the cost approach, the economic principles of substitution, as well as supply and demand are basic to the sales comparison approach. This approach has broad applicability and is particularly persuasive when there has been an adequate volume of recent, reliable transactions of similar properties that indicate value patterns or trends in the market. When sufficient data are available, this approach is the most direct and systematic approach to value estimation. Typically, the sales comparison approach is pertinent for almost all property types, the primary exception being special purpose properties (such as churches, museums, public buildings, etc.) for which the market lacks sale data. 8 The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, 6th ed. (Chicago: Appraisal Institute, 2015), 54.
06/23/2026 Item No.15.
Ashworth Appraisal Services
29 sales comparison approach. The process of deriving a value indication for the subject property by comparing sales of similar properties to the property being appraised, identifying appropriate units of comparison, and making adjustments to the sale prices (or units prices, as appropriate) of the comparable properties based on relevant, market-derived elements of comparison. The sales comparison approach may be use to value improved properties, vacant land, or land being considered as though vacant when an adequate supply of comparable sales is available.9
Income Approach
The income approach is based on the premise that income-producing real estate is typically purchased as an investment. From an investor's point of view, the potential earning power of a property is the critical element affecting value. The concepts of anticipation and change, as they relate to supply and demand issues and substitution, are fundamental to this valuation approach.
These concepts are important because the value of income-producing real estate is created by the expectation of benefits (income) to be derived in the future, which is subject to changes in market conditions. Value may be defined as the present worth of the rights to these future benefits. The validity of the income approach hinges upon the accuracy of which the income expectancy of a property can be measured. This approach is only used in the valuation of income producing properties.
Summary – Appraisal Methodology
The sales comparison approach is the only reliable approach in valuing the subject. Although the buyer of the subject would be an investor seeking a future return, it is still a speculative purchase. It is too early and there are too many unknowns with respect to future development to attempt use an income approach to “back into” a present land value; any inputs regarding future returns would be too wide and uncertain to be reliable. Most speculative investors would view a purchase of the subject as land value discounted for the time frame, and for the risks that the redevelopment project does not take place as generally planned (or takes much longer). An income approach would not be reliable. The cost approach is not applicable to the valuation of unimproved land bought for speculation, as it is far too early for specific development plans.
In this appraisal, the value of the fee simple interest is being estimated. The fee simple interest reflects the value of a property with all typical rights of ownership, unencumbered, with no tenancies, and fully available for owner use or development. 9 The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, 6th ed. (Chicago: Appraisal Institute, 2015), 207.
06/23/2026 Item No.15.
Ashworth Appraisal Services
30 SALES COMPARISON APPROACH TO VALUE
In the sales comparison approach, the market value of the subject property is estimated by a comparison to similar properties that have recently sold, are listed for sale, or are under contract. The underlying premise of the sales comparison approach is the market value of a property is directly related to the price of comparable, competitive properties in the marketplace.
This approach is based on the economic principle of substitution. According to The Appraisal of Real Estate, 14
th Edition (Chicago: Appraisal Institute, 2013), “According to the principle of substitution, a buyer will pay not pay more for one property than for another that is equally desirable.”
The proper application of this approach requires obtaining market sale data for comparison with the subject. The search criteria for comparable sales in order of importance were: use (redevelopment as the likely motivation for purchase); zoning (land zoned for residential, multifamily and/or commercial/retail use), general location (Folsom and the broader greater Sacramento area), specific location (within an area undergoing redevelopment); and, importantly, generally similar in appeal to the same potential or typical buyer of the subject (redevelopment potential or speculative). In order to assemble the comparable sales, public records and other private data sources were searched for leads, then the data confirmed as needed with parties familiar with the transactions. The most useful and appropriate comparable data were then analyzed to arrive at indicators of value for the subject.
The properties will be analyzed on a price per square foot ($/SF) basis, as this is the most useful and relied upon indicator of value for smaller, urban and suburban parcels of unimproved land. Almost all buyers and sellers look to a price per square foot indicator when considering substitute or potentially competing properties.
Several sales were located which are, individually and in the aggregate, reliable indicators of value.
The sales selected for analysis have been divided into three sets of data: sales in Folsom, sales in Sacramento or West Sacramento in or near their riverfront districts, and other sales in the region. All were sales of land, or improved sales bought for land value; all reflect redevelopment opportunities.
The comparable sale data will be analyzed qualitatively. All reflect sales of the fee simple interest.
The following arrays identify and summarize the data. Each data set array is presented in order of sale price per square foot ($/SF), starting with the lowest. Following the array are qualitative analyses of the data and a conclusion of value for the subject based on the sales comparison approach, and maps of the subject and comparable sales.
06/23/2026 Item No.15.
Ashworth Appraisal Services
31 Subject Overview
Address Month Sold @ $ Land SF $/SF
Leidesdorff St / Sutter St, Folsom N/A 92,875 N/A
The subject is just over two acres in size and is in an area slated for redevelopment. However, as discussed in detail, this redevelopment project is in the planning stages. The planning of specific projects on specific sites cannot likely begin for at least a year, when the specifics of the land use within the Corporation Yard site are finalized. Around then or shortly after the existing actual Corporation Yard in use will begin relocating, a project that is not likely to be completed for four to five years from the present, according to the client. Actual construction, particularly vertical construction likely could not begin until the Corporation Yard is moved, or nearly so. As such, an investor/owner is looking at a period of at least five years to begin to see any revenues or returns on investments.
Speculative Use and Risks
As of the effective date, the value of the subject is based on a speculative use: that the planned redevelopment of the Corporation Yard site will take place largely as planned and roughly on the timeline envisioned. There are many risks associated with this speculation. • Timeline may become extended or scope of the project could be reduced o Community resistance
o Lower than anticipated funding revenue or fewer partnerships o Previously undiscovered historical/archaeological resources o Soil contamination or environmental concerns (current use is undustrial) • Change in market conditions
o Recession
o Higher interest rates
o Other local or broader macroeconomic headwinds
A purchase for redevelopment in a proposed plan or project is riskier than a purchase for a property that is ready for redevelopment at the time of the sale. In the latter case the investor can immediately start executing plans and move toward securing entitlements. In fact, some redevelopment opportunities already come with some plans and even approvals in place. The subject redevelopment opportunity has a much longer timeline than typical—at least five to six years before returns on investment. Issues can arise, the market and the economy can change, and the vision can morph, especially over several years. While there is only a slight risk that this project simply would not
06/23/2026 Item No.15.
Ashworth Appraisal Services
32 happen, there is a real chance that there could be delays or simply take longer than anticipated, or that it could be reduced or altered in scope; possible factors that could contribute are shown in the subheadings under timeline. In addition, there could be external factors that change the attractiveness or feasibility of investing in the project. As noted above the changes could include broad economic trends or challenges, so socio-economic shifts.
Any issue that reduces the attractiveness or return on investment, or that delays or reduces the scope of the development, add to the risk of the investment, and therefore the demand for a higher return by a potential buyer. The higher the required or desired return is, the lower the present value—the price willing to be paid today—will be. Notably, all of the data analyzed below reflect purchases of properties that were largely ready for redevelopment; several already had some of the initial planning completed and a few had progressed in the approval process. There were no sales available of properties in an area planned for slated for redevelopment for which returns could not be achieved for several years.10 Following analyses of the data and conclusions of value, discounting will be applied for the timeframe and other associated risks.
Sales in Folsom
Address Month Sold @ $ Land SF $/SF
102 E Natoma St, Folsom 10/21 @ $2,900,000 211,702 $13.70 Zoned Bus/Prof Planned Dev; approved for senior living facility; proximate to subject 751-792 Harrington Way, Folsom 07/25 @ $1,400,000 84,942 $16.48 Zoned Bus/Prof Pl. Dev; buyer develops affordable housing; approved for senior housing 925 Riley St, Folsom 11/24 @ $2,040,000 121,968 $16.73
Zoned mixed-use; purchased by a multifamily developer; location in prime comm. corridor 3197 Roslyn Ct + others, Folsom mid-2023 @ various (1 to 5 ac) $19.53- $23.94
various parcels purchased by Lennar Homes for SFR production homes in Folsom Ranch These data indicate that, within the Folsom market area, land available for immediate residential or commercial development, has a value in the range of roughly $14 to $24 per square foot. 10 Speculative land purchases are usually longer term, 5-10 years or more before movement in the process begins. The common example is the purchase of outlying land or farm land in the path of suburban expansion where future development appears certain but still some years away. The value has begun to exceed rural/farm land but is still well below transitional land where development is more imminent. With the subject land the opportunity appears imminent and specific but the countdown is quite long.
06/23/2026 Item No.15.
Ashworth Appraisal Services
33 Sales in Sacramento (Railyards Redevelopment near river) or West Sacramento River District Address Month Sold @ $ Land SF $/SF
840-850 Delta Ln, W Sacramento 04/25 @ $3,000,000 165,092 $18.17 In Bridge District near Raley Field and riverfront; purchased by multifamily developer 1610-1616 N C Street, Sacramento 05/21 @ $ 943,112 48,000 $19.65 In new Railyards development; old industrial buildings; likely planned major redevelopment 701 Dos Rios Blvd, Sacramento 06/23 @ $3,701,000 181,645 $20.37 Very high-density commercial land near Railyards; potential for up to 200 res. units These three sales indicate that land for redevelopment in the large Railyards project near the river in downtown Sacramento, or in the riverfront district in West Sacramento, had values on the order of $20 per square foot. Values on the riverfront in an extension of Folsom’s historic district should be similar or higher than the above properties, all else being equal.
Other Sales in the Sacramento Region
Address Month Sold @ $ Land SF $/SF
459 Upland Dr, Roseville 10/25 @ $2,000,000 312,325 $ 6.40 Approved for development of 192-unit low-income multifamily property 8740 Bruceville Rd, Elk Grove 12/24 @ $1,150,000 165,528 $ 6.95 Approved for development of 125 multifamily units
Bridgecross & Honor Pkwy, Sacramento (Natomas) 04/23 @ $1,090,000 150,282 $ 7.25 Infill lot in N Natomas; likely streamlined approval process for residential development 5691 Lonetree Blvd, Rocklin 10/25 @ $3,725,000 296,208 $12.58 Approved for 165-unit multifamily project with construction set to start this year 8480 Elk Grove Florin Rd, Elk Grove 02/23 @ $1,250,000 95,832 $13.04 In commercial corridor; zoned for multifamily (25 units/ac); commercial rezone possible 960 Wildcat Blvd, Rocklin 05/24 @ $6,020,000 270,072 $22.29 Purchased by regional builder JMC; to be developed with 43 SFRs; welcome center built 826 Drummond Ave, Davis 12/25 @ $1,000,000 44,200 $22.62 Zoned for 3-6 SFRs; rezone for 16 potential res. units; Davis is a very high-end market 8877 Stratham Way, Elk Grove 04/23 @ $5,132,500 217,800 $23.57 Part of a large master planned community; 95 SFRs approved for subject site The properties in the last data set above are quite varied, but all are located in the Sacramento region.
The first three, at under $10 per square foot, are notably inferior for various reasons. The nature of the transaction for the sale at 459 Upland Dr is not fully known; the seller was a church. The following two in Elk Grove and Natomas are inferior areas (i.e., notably lower price values across all
06/23/2026 Item No.15.
Ashworth Appraisal Services
34 property types). The last three sales, in Rocklin, Davis and the new master planned community in Elk Grove, reflect higher-end areas with strong price points within the region for the finished residential developments, likely generally similar to Folsom.
Reconciliation and Conclusion of Value
The data analyzed from Folsom, and from the better select market in the Sacramento region, indicate values of $14 to $24 per square foot for land suited for redevelopment. Again, these and the other data analyzed are properties for which redevelopment plans can begin right away.
Folsom’s historic district, and an extension of it in the planned Corporation Yard redevelopment along the American River and state park lands, would, in the view of most potential investors, likely be at or near the upper end of market within greater Sacramento. The project has good potential to become a desirable and popular destination. Value for housing in Folsom are close to the upper end in greater Sacramento. Accordingly, it is concluded that the value applicable to the subject property, were it ready for immediate redevelopment as part of the envisioned Corporation Yard project, and also mostly level with the ability to achieve maximum site utility, would have a value of $25 per square foot.
Adjustments to Value
The following two adjustments are necessary to arrive at an appropriate as-is value of the subject as of January 20, 2026.
For the extended timeframe of at least five years (to being construction in earnest) due to the nature of the redevelopment opportunity, a 22% deduction will be applied. This reflects the deduction needed to calculate present value for a 5% annual return compounded over five years. The 5% return reflects a base level of passive income for the opportunity cost of the initial investment for a holding period of five years.
For the risk that the subject project changes significantly to the downside and/or faces significant delays, a 35% deduction will be applied. This is appropriate given the lengthy time frame, and likely reflects the thought process of a typical investor who understands the opportunity but would naturally have significant concerns about how and when the project may ultimately unfold.
06/23/2026 Item No.15.
Ashworth Appraisal Services
35 Conclusion of Value by Sales Comparison Approach
Absent the risk factors for the lengthy timeline of the development plus the risks of further delays and/or issues that could negatively impact the anticipated project, the subject would have a value estimated at $25 per square foot. As discussed above, discounting estimates necessary for these factors were 22% for the minimum timeline of five years before a return could be anticipated plus 35% for factor(s) which could ultimately alter or negate the development and/or further lengthen that timeline. These risk factor estimates total 57%, which results in the final calculation of the current as-is value of the subject on a price per square foot basis.
Value estimate without the additional risks $25.00/SF
Less total risk factor estimates of 57% - 14.25/SF
Current As-Is Value of Subject $10.75/SF
Considering all of the preceding analyses, a conclusion of $10.75 per square foot is reasonable and well-supported by the available market data. The value of the subject is calculated as follows. 92,875 SF RBA x $10.75/SF = $998,406
It is my opinion that the market value of the subject property utilizing the sales comparison approach to value, as of January 20, 2026, appropriately rounded, is $1,000,000.
Test of Reasonableness of the Value Conclusion Based on Recent Sale of Subject As previously noted, the subject (two parcels) sold very recently, in December of 2025, for $2,000,000 as part of a four-parcel grouping. This appeared to be a market-based sale, with an informed buyer and seller, and the property was on the market for almost three years, with an initial asking price of $3,250,000. It is presumed that if the property was worth substantially more to a willing and able buyer that there was ample time to have achieved that. The subject’s two parcels, including the area of the abandoned right-of-way between them, have a total site size of 2.13 acres or 92,875 SF. The other two parcels total 0.8 acres without the right-of-way areas, and it is assumed the similar right-of-way areas would have increased that size to roughly 0.9 acres, or 39,204 SF. Those upper areas are zoned for single-family residential use are accessible from Sutter Street in the neighborhood to the south (and not part of the Corporation Yard area), and appear ready for development in the near-term. Assuming a value of $25/SF, as concluded in the previous analyses of land ready for development in Folsom, those two parcels would have a total value of 39,204 SF x $25/SF, or $980,000, roughly half of the $2,000,000 purchase price. This supports the conclusion of $1,000,000 for the subject, also half of that total purchase price in December.
06/23/2026 Item No.15.
Ashworth Appraisal Services
36 LOCATION MAP SHOWING SUBJECT AND LOCAL COMPARBLE SALES
06/23/2026 Item No.15.
Ashworth Appraisal Services
37 LOCATION MAP SHOWING SUBJECT AND ALL COMPARBLE SALES
06/23/2026 Item No.15.
Ashworth Appraisal Services
38 RECONCILIATION AND CONCLUSION OF VALUE OF MARKET VALUE The purpose of this appraisal was to estimate the current market value of the fee simple interest in the subject property. There was sufficient market data available to complete the sales comparison approach in a credible manner, and the conclusion of the value of the fee simple interest is believed to be accurate and reliable. The value conclusions derived via the approaches to value are summarized as follows.
Cost Approach $ N/A
Income Approach $ N/A
Sales Comparison Approach $ 1,000,000
Indicated Value $ 1,000,000
The income approach and the cost approach were not used, as they would not have been reliable or appropriate. Therefore, as a result of my analyses, and in accordance with the assumptions and limiting conditions contained on pages 9 through 11 of this report, it is my opinion the market value of the fee simple interest in the subject property, as of January 20, 2026, is:
ONE MILLION DOLLARS
$ 1,000,000.
06/23/2026 Item No.15.
Ashworth Appraisal Services
39 EXPOSURE TIME
Exposure time is the period a property interest would have been offered on the market prior to the hypothetical consummation of a sale at market value on the effective date of the appraisal (i.e., a sale at the estimated value on the effective date of the report). Based on the data accumulated and analyzed during the appraisal process, and considering the particularly long-term nature of the investment for a redevelopment property, is estimated that a range of 6 to 18 months is a reasonable exposure time for the subject, as of the effective date.
06/23/2026 Item No.15.
Ashworth Appraisal Services
40 ADDENDA
06/23/2026 Item No.15.
Ashworth Appraisal Services
41 John T. Ashworth, MAI, SRA
LICENSED CA Certified General Appraiser #AG001835 since 1991 APPOINTED California Probate Referee for Sacramento Superior Court by State Controller in 2024 EXPERIENCE Owner Ashworth Appraisal Services
Folsom, CA 95630
530-888-9803
[email protected]
Commercial Appraisal: Multifamily, Industrial, Land, Retail, Office, Agricultural Residential appraisal and appraisal review.
Greater Sacramento; North Shore Tahoe/Truckee; other areas.
Qualified as an Expert Witness.
1991 to present.
Appraiser Ashworth and Associates, Inc.
St. Thomas, United States Virgin Islands 00802
Residential appraisals; some commercial exposure
Construction draw inspections.
1990 - 1991
EDUCATION Appraisal Institute Courses (partial list of most recent courses) Standards of Professional Practice, Parts A and B
Real Estate Finance, Statistics and Valuation Modeling
Residential Highest and Best Use
General [Commercial] Highest and Best Use
General [Commercial] Sales Comparison Approach
General [Commercial] Cost Approach and Site Valuation
Income Capitalization Part I
Income Capitalization Part II
Appraisal Seminars Completed (partial list of most recent) Rates and Ratios
The Appraiser as an Expert Witness
Appraising Green Residential Buildings (Certification)
Review Appraising
Appraising from Plans and Specifications
Residential Construction Basics
Technology and the Future of the Appraisal Industry
Appraising the Top Dollar SFR Market
Appraising After the Earthquake
Residential Appraisal Forum
Appraising Small Residential Income Properties
Environmental Screening in Real Estate Transactions
College Degree
B. A. in Economics, 1981, Wabash College, Crawfordsville, Indiana PROFESSIONAL Appraisal Institute, MAI and SRA Designations MEMBERSHIPS Appraisal Institute, President, Sacramento-Sierra Chapter, 2015 Appraisal Institute, Vice-President, Sacramento-Sierra Chapter, 2014 Appraisal Institute, Sect.-Treasurer, Sacramento-Sierra Chapter, 2013 Appraisal Institute, Board of Directors, Sacramento-Sierra Chapter, 2008-2010 Appraisal Institute, Board of Directors, Central Coast Chapter, 2001 Appraisal Institute, Board of Directors, Ventura Chapter, 1998 WEB SITE See www.realestatevalue.com for more information
06/23/2026 Item No.15.
This page is intentionally left blank
to facilitate double-sided printing
and minimize paper use.
06/23/2026 Item No.15.
Folsom City Council Meeting
Additional Information
Transmittal
Instructions to staff: Deliver original and 30 stapled/double-sided copies to the City Clerk’s Department; City Clerk’s Department will distribute via email and hardcopy to City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, and City Clerk.
Updated: Jan 2026
MEETING DATE: 6/23/2026
AGENDA SECTION: New Business
STAFF REPORT TITLE
Resolution No 11659 – A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Purchase and Sale Agreement with
Brian Martell and Moe Hirani in the Amount of $1.55 Million for the Purchase of Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 070-0046-026 and 070-0042-002 and Appropriation of Funds (Folsom
Housing Fund 238)
FROM: Community Development Department
Staff is providing the attached additional information for the above-referenced agenda item. • Comment Letter from Bob Delp sent to the City Clerk Office on 6/22/26 • Letter from Moe Hirani & Brian Martell in response to Bob Delp's comment letter • Landowner appraisal
06/23/2026 Item No.15.
1 Karen Sanabria
From: Karen Sanabria
Sent: Monday, June 22, 2026 3:34 PM
To: Karen Sanabria
Subject: FW: Comments to City Council re: 6-23-2026 Agenda Item 15 - $1.55 million land purchase
From: Bob Delp <
Sent: Monday, June 22, 2026 9:21 AM
To: Christa Freemantle <[email protected]>; City Clerk Dept <[email protected]> Cc: Sarah Aquino <[email protected]>; Barbara Leary <[email protected]>; Justin Raithel <[email protected]>; Anna Rohrbough <[email protected]>; Mike Kozlowski <[email protected]>; Bryan Whitemyer <[email protected]>; Sari Dierking <[email protected]> Subject: Comments to City Council re: 6-23-2026 Agenda Item 15 - $1.55 million land purchase CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear City Council:
Please consider the following with regard to City Council 6/23/2026 agenda item 15, “Resolution No 11659 – A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Purchase and Sale Agreement with Brian Martell and Moe Hirani in the Amount of $1.55 Million for the Purchase of Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 070-0046-026 and 070-0042-002 and Appropriation of Funds (Folsom Housing Fund 238).” While a purchase price reflecting the appraisal’s $1 million might be warranted following an assessment of the properties for potential contamination and other adverse conditions, the proposed purchase price of $1.55 million is more than 50% higher than the appraised value and would reflect an irresponsible financial decision by the Council. The Council should avoid using public funds to purchase property in excess of its appraised value without substantiating and documenting that such a higher purchase price is justified. No such justification is provided.
The appraisal notes that the “property effectively has little or no current utility or value; its value is in its potential use(s) in the future redevelopment of the Corporation Yard.” The current owner does not control future redevelopment of the Corporation Yard, and unless and until the City makes future decisions and takes future actions pertaining to the Corporation Yard, the subject properties’ effective “little or no current utility or value” will remain until the City takes future action(s). However, the appraisal is not based on that fact and, instead, assumes the hypothetical and optimistic future conditions in which the City has taken the actions that the appraisal concludes will then increase the property value from its current “little or no value” to $1 million (still well below the $1.55 million currently proposed purchase price). Achieving future conditions necessary for the properties to reach the appraised value of $1 million will be costly to the City and such costs are not reflected in the $1 million appraised value. These facts reduce the property value as compared to the appraised value and certainly do not support the notion of paying $550,000 more than the appraised value.
06/23/2026 Item No.15.
2 Moreover, the appraisal notes that “the appraiser has not checked the land records for recorded easements, and has reported only readily apparent easements, encroachments and other apparent adverse conditions.
The client should review a title report prepared by a title company for recorded easements and the most up to date items affecting title.” There is no indication in the staff report that the City has heeded this advice and confirmed that no easements, encroachments, or other adverse conditions are present.
Additionally, the appraisal advises that, “the appraiser has not researched known or registered contaminated sites or hazardous waste facilities proximate to the subject. These specialized data are beyond the scope of this appraisal assignment, and the client is urged to obtain appropriate research and reports if there is concern in any of these areas, or if this level of market area analysis is desired.” There is no indication in the staff report that the City has performed any such recommended due diligence to determine whether the City’s acquisition might inadvertently subject the City to liability associated with potential existing contamination or other adverse site conditions. These unknown factors create a risk to the prospective buyer (here, the City) and do not support paying more for the property than the already optimistically appraised value of $1 million.
Please postpone a purchase decision for these properties until such time as the City performs and documents due diligence in-line with the recommendations of the appraisal and please do not expend City funds for the purchase of property in excess of the property's optimistically appraised value.
Thank you for considering my comments.
Bob Delp
06/23/2026 Item No.15.
1 Karen Sanabria
From: Karen Sanabria
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2026 9:02 AM
To: Karen Sanabria
Subject: FW: Response to Bob Delp Letter
From: Brian Martell <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 22, 2026 4:56 PM
To: Sari Dierking <[email protected]>
Subject: Response to Bob Delp Letter
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Sari, Can you please forward the following letter to City Council and City Staff:
Dear Mayor, Members of the Folsom City Council, and City Staff:
I am writing in response to public comments submitted regarding Agenda Item 15, specifically the letter from Mr. Bob Delp. We appreciate Mr. Delp’s engagement and share his interest in the responsible use of public funds. However, several important clarifications are necessary concerning property valuation and due diligence.
The City’s Ashworth appraisal assumes a speculative, long-term “holding” use tied to future redevelopment of the Corporation Yard, describing the property as currently having “little or no utility or value.” This conclusion is based on several material issues that deviate from standard USPAP appraisal practice, including:
An incorrect assessment of site accessibility.
Failure to properly apply the four mandatory Highest and Best Use (HBU) tests. Reliance on non-comparable larger multifamily redevelopment sites at ~$25/SF. Application of an excessive 57% risk/timeline discount based on a 5–6+ year speculative horizon.
In contrast, our independent LaBella Appraisal (dated January 27, 2026) correctly identifies residential development (single-family or small-lot mixed-use) as the Highest and Best Use under current HD-PD zoning and the HF General Plan. It utilizes recent, highly comparable residential lot sales in the same Theodore Judah grid of the Historic District (averaging approximately $50 per square foot) and concludes a fair market value of $5,225,000 for the full four-parcel assemblage.
Regarding Mr. Delp’s due diligence concerns:
06/23/2026 Item No.15.
2 Easements, Encroachments, and Title Matters: We provided the City with a complete ALTA/NSPS Land Title Survey (completed March 4, 2024 by Atlas Geospatial). This survey confirms no encroachments, full access availability from Sutter Street (and side access from Burnett Street), and no material adverse easements or conditions affecting the parcels. (See attached survey for reference.)
The proposed $1.55 million purchase price for the two parcels reflects a reasonable effort to bridge the gap between two credible but differing appraisals — a common occurrence when Highest and Best Use is disputed. We fully support thorough due diligence and have been transparent in providing all requested documentation.
We remain committed to working cooperatively with the City to reach a fair, market-supported agreement that recognizes actual transaction data in the Historic District while advancing the Corporation Yard redevelopment goals. We respectfully request that the Council consider directing staff to reconcile the appraisal differences or proceed with negotiations at a value supported by current market evidence.
We are available to answer any questions from the Council or staff prior to or during tomorrow’s meeting.
A copy of our prior detailed letter to Ms. Johns and a summary of the LaBella Appraisal are available upon request.
Thank you for your consideration and service to the City of Folsom.
Respectfully,
Moe Hirani & Brian Martell
06/23/2026 Item No.15.
February 26, 2026
Visione Investments
8272 Robert Court
Granite Bay, CA 95746
In response to your request and authorization, I have formed an opinion of value for the property located in the City of Folsom, Sacramento County, California. Assessor Parcel Numbers 070-0042-002/003-0000; 070-0046-024/026-0000 containing a total of 2.71± net acres of mixed-use land.
Based on an inspection of the property, an analysis of market and other pertinent data and subject to the Assumptions and Limiting Conditions of this report, my opinion of the value as of January 16, 2026, is:
$5,225,000
Five Million Two Hundred Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars
The following appraisal report sets forth the data and the reasoning leading to the appraisal conclusion. The report is presented in an Appraisal Report format. If you would like to discuss the report, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
_________________________________
David LaBella
Certified General Real Estate Appraiser
California Certificate Number AG042672
06/23/2026 Item No.15.
APPRAISAL REPORT
MIXED USE LAND
CITY OF FOLSOM
SACRAMENTO COUNTY
CALIFORNIA
FOR
VISIONE INVESTMENTS
8272 Robert Court
Granite Bay, CA
EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE APPRAISAL
JANUARY 16, 2026
DATE OF THE REPORT
FEBRUARY 26, 2026
06/23/2026 Item No.15.
1 LaBella Appraisal, Inc.
INTRODUCTION
The property appraised is identified as approximately 2.71± net acres of mixed-use land, described as Assessor's Parcel Numbers 070-0042-002/003-0000 and 070-046-024/026- 0000. The site is located within the Historic District of the City of Folsom, Sacramento County, California. The parcel is zoned HD PD (Historical District Planned Development).
The General Plan designation is HF (Historic Folsom Mixed-Use). The subject property is located at 1118, 1115 and 1108 Sutter Street and Leidesdorff Street in the City of Folsom, bordered by Leidesdorff Street to the north, Sibley Street to the east, and Sutter Street to the south. The intended use of this appraisal report is to determine the market value as of January 16, 2026, for the clients’ internal purposes. The intended user of this report is Visione Investments, and their authorized representatives.
This is an Appraisal Report, which is intended to comply with the reporting requirements set forth under Standards Rule 2-2(a) of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice for an appraisal report. As such, it presents summary detail, explanations of methods, reasoning, and conclusions, that were used in the appraisal process to develop the appraiser's opinion of value.
The sales comparison approach is the only appropriate method of valuation that will produce a credible indication of value for the subject property. The cost and income approaches to value are not utilized in this report. There is no departure from USPAP.
The analyses, opinions and conclusions communicated within this appraisal report were developed based upon the requirements and guidelines of the current Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP), the requirements of the Code of Professional Ethics and the Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice of the Appraisal Institute.
06/23/2026 Item No.15.
2 LaBella Appraisal, Inc.
SUMMARY OF REPORT
OWNER OF RECORD: Visione Investments
PROPERTY
DESCRIPTION:
The subject property is identified as 2.71± net acres of Historic District Planned Development. It is located at 1108 Sutter Street in the City of Folsom, bordered by Leidesdorff Street to the north, Sibley Street to the east, and Sutter Street to the south.
ASSESSOR PARCEL NO: 070-0046-024/026-0000, 070-0042-002/003-0000 LAND SIZE: 2.71± net acres (118,294 square feet net) per Assessors’ map.
SITE INFLUENCES: The subject is located in the HF (Historic Folsom Mixed-Use District).
ZONING: The site is currently zoned for H-D PD (Historic District Planned Development) by the City of Folsom Planning Department.
GENERAL PLAN: HF (Historic Folsom Mixed-Use)
HIGHEST AND BEST
USE:
The highest and best use of the subject property is for a mixeduse development.
VALUATION DATES: Effective Date of the Appraisal: January 16, 2026 Date of the Report: February 26, 2026
OPINION OF VALUE: $5,225,000
06/23/2026 Item No.15.
3 LaBella Appraisal, Inc.
PREMISES OF THE APPRAISAL
Client – Visione Investments
Intended users – Visione Investments and its authorized representatives Intended use of this appraisal report – The purpose of this appraisal is to provide an opinion of market value of the subject property is for the client’s internal purposes. This report is subject to the Assumptions and Limiting Conditions of this report, and this report is not to be used for any other purpose.
Effective date of the appraisal – January 16, 2026
Date of the report – February 26, 2026
Definition of market value – The most probable price which a property should bring in a competitive and open market under all condition’s requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and seller, each acting prudently, knowledgeably and assuming the price is not affected by undue stimulus.
Implicit in this definition is the consummation of a sale as of a specified date and the passing of title from seller to buyer under conditions whereby:
a) buyer and seller are typically motivated;
b) both parties are well informed or well advised, and each acting in what he considers his own best interest;
c) a reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market; d) payment is made in terms of cash in U.S. Dollars or in terms of financial arrangements comparable thereto; and
e) the price represents the normal consideration for the property sold unaffected by special or creative financing or sales concessions granted by anyone associated with the sale. 1 1 Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, 2003 ed., page 224
06/23/2026 Item No.15.
4 LaBella Appraisal, Inc.
PREMISES OF THE APPRAISAL (Continued)
Property interests appraised – The property interests appraised in this report is the fee simple estate defined as follows:
Fee simple estate – absolute ownership unencumbered by any other interest or estate, subject only to the limitations imposed by the governmental powers of taxation, eminent domain, police power, and escheat.2
Market exposure time – The appraised value is based on an estimated market exposure time of six months or less. This marketing time opinion is based on actual marketing time for the various properties described herein.
Report format – The appraisal report has been developed under Standards Rule 1 and prepared in an Appraisal Report format as set forth under Standards Rule 2-2(a) of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP). The Appraisal Report format is the level of detail of presentation and is for client use only.
The sales comparison approach is the only appropriate method of valuation that will produce a credible indication of value for the unimproved acreage. The cost and income approaches to value were not utilized as they do not apply to vacant land. 2 Appraisal Institute, The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, 3rd ed. (Chicago, Illinois: Appraisal Institute, 1993), 140.
06/23/2026 Item No.15.
5 LaBella Appraisal, Inc.
ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS
• Title to the property is marketable, free and clear of any encumbrances or liens prohibiting right, title, or use of the property, unless specified in the report. • No survey of the property has been conducted. Legal descriptions, dimensions, and improvement areas used are assumed correct.
• Data and information furnished by the client, their agents, or others are assumed accurate and correct, not guaranteed.
• No responsibility is assumed for matters of legal interpretation. • It is assumed that there are no physical conditions, surface or subsurface, which would affect the use and value of the property.
• In this appraisal assignment, the existence of potentially hazardous material and/or toxic waste, which may or may not be present on the property, has not been considered. The opinion of market value assumes that there are no such materials that could affect the value of the property. The appraiser is not qualified to detect such substances. The client should retain a licensed professional in this field to detect such substances. No disclosures were made concerning hazardous material or waste.
• Any toxic mold contamination will have to be determined by a professional inspector licensed and approved in these areas. The appraiser does not have the expertise to detect and recommend remediation measures and/or costs for any toxic conditions, specifically mold. Without a clear report and determination by an expert in this field, this report assumes that there is no contamination on or in the real or personal properties that are described in this report and the appraiser reserves the right to reconsider the concluded opinion of value(s) presented in this report should information be provided that the property or properties suffer mold contamination.
• This appraisal assumes that the sources for all information and data used in this appraisal are reliable, correct, and accurately disclosed. If any data or information reported incorrectly or not disclosed would change the opinion of value(s), the appraiser retains the right to make the appropriate changes without consequence.
• Possession of this report or a copy of it does not carry with it the right of publication, or its use by anyone other than the client, or for purposes other than those for which it was prepared, except as specifically authorized by the Client and/or the Appraiser. • The property appraised may or may not be subject to the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). The appraiser makes no representation of compliance with this Act.
06/23/2026 Item No.15.
6 LaBella Appraisal, Inc.
SCOPE OF WORK
• The appraisal report has been prepared in accordance with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP). The intention is for the appraisal service to be performed in such a manner that the result of the analysis, opinions or conclusion is that of a disinterested third party.
• The appraiser inspected the subject property during the appraisal assignment.
Photographs were taken at the time of the inspection.
• Sales of unimproved residential lots similar to the property appraised and pertinent to this valuation have been investigated and analyzed.
• The appraiser studied information concerning the subject region and neighborhood; analyzed the subject market area; and researched the current zoning and General Plan data.
• Highest and best use alternatives were examined.
• Data sources include Multiple Listing Service, public records, real estate salespersons, and subscription data services. Reliable sources familiar with the transactions analyzed have been used to confirm the details of the data used in this appraisal. • The market data investigated was analyzed to determine its relevancy and contribution to the opinion of value presented in this report.
• After assembling and analyzing the data discussed in this report, an opinion of market value has been prepared using the sales comparison approach to value.
06/23/2026 Item No.15.
7 LaBella Appraisal, Inc.
Folsom, California is a city in northeaster Sacramento County, known for its diverse population and rich history. The city’s demographics include a mix of ethnic groups and the city’s population density is 4,052 people per square mile. Folsom’s economy is supported by various industries, including education and healthcare, and the city is home to Folsom Lake College, which contributes to the local educational landscape.
History
The Nisenan Maidu tribe of Native Americans had long inhabited the area. The Gold Rush of 1849 brought violence, disease and overwhelming loss for the tribes. The Maidu populations were greatly diminished with the arrival of Euro-Americans in this area as the natives had no immunity to many of the diseases which came with the new immigrants. Childhood diseases, such as measles and chickenpox, were lethal and spread through whole villages leaving few survivors. The discovery of gold further diminished the Indian population when they were driven from their land, and their hunting grounds were disturbed.
The earliest written record concerning Folsom goes back to the "Diary of Ensign Gabriel Moraga's Expeditions of Discovery in the Sacramento Valley" where an entry described a visit to this area in October 1808. The second Euro-American known to have visited the Folsom area was Jedediah Smith, who camped in the area in April 1827 with a group of trappers. The first man to play a part in the establishment of the City of Folsom was William Alexander Leidesdorff. Leidesdorff was born in the Danish West Indies in 1810. His father was Danish and his mother was an Islander of African ancestry. Leidesdorff arrived in California in 1840 and in eight short years rose to become one of the most prominent men in the state. He was a successful merchant and trader in San Francisco, who acquired large parcels of land in that city before the
06/23/2026 Item No.15.
8 LaBella Appraisal, Inc.
discovery of gold escalated land prices. He served as a member of the City Council and School Committee. He served as Town Treasurer and Vice Consul for the U.S. in San Francisco. In August 1844 Leidesdorff, a naturalized Mexican citizen, petitioned Governor Micheltorena for a land grant of 8 sq. leagues on the banks of the American River adjoining the property of John Sutter. The grant, which included the areas of present-day Rancho Cordova and Folsom, was issued and Leidesdorff took possession of 35,521 acres of land, called Rio de los Americanos.
Leidesdorff died suddenly four years later at the age of 38 and was buried at Mission Dolores with elaborate ceremony. The cities of Folsom and San Francisco have recognized him with streets named in his honor, and today he is remembered as one of the most prominent AfroAmerican men in early California history. Leidesdorff had no family in California and left no will.
Joseph Libbey Folsom, a West Point graduate, was a captain in the Quartermaster Corps stationed in San Francisco in 1848. He began buying property himself in the city as land prices were beginning to rise after the discovery of gold in the Sierra foothills. After the Leidesdorff estate had been inventoried, Folsom decided to find Leidesdorff's heirs and buy the estate in early 1849. He traveled first to New York to arrange.financing and then on to St. Croix where Leidesdorff's family lived. Folsom agreed to pay $70,000 for the estate with $5,000.00 as a down payment and the remainder in 2 later installments. When the heirs learned of the value of the estate, they refused to accept further payments and would not give Folsom title to the property. A sensational trial in 1851 gave Folsom the property, but it took another 3 years before he could establish title to Rancho de los Americanos. While Folsom was securing legal title to the property, he began making plans for development of his holdings, which held an unknown amount of gold.
Sometime in 1849, gold was discovered at Negro Bar just below Folsom's historic district on the banks of the American River. The gravel bar extended about 9/10 of a mile west from the vicinity of present-day Rainbow Bridge and was first mined by Afro-Americans. Later court records indicate one of these miners was Samuel Smith. No other records can be found to tell us more about these early miners. By 1850 a hotel and store were constructed by James S, Meredith near present day Burnett and Forrest Streets, and census records for that year list about 700
06/23/2026 Item No.15.
9 LaBella Appraisal, Inc.
inhabitants of Negro Bar. The "Diary of H.B. Scharmann" gives us one of the few firsthand accounts of Negro Bar: "After I had gone twenty-five miles from Sacramento, I found a great bank, also called a bar, where three hundred men were busily washing gold. There was a prospect here for a diligent worker to earn five dollars a day. Illnesses were frequent and I witnessed many deaths. The heat, which sometimes reached one hundred and twenty degrees, was unbearable during the day, but the nights were cool and gave us a chance to get sleep. Here we lived, sheltered by the trees; many had no tents and built themselves huts made of leaves." Soon the easy gold deposits were gone. In August 1950, Scharmann describes the formation of a company of 260 people to dig a canal to harvest gold from a dried riverbed. The Virginia Mining Company was formed to split the expense of this effort. Shares were purchased in the form of labor or wages for labor. Scharmann's sons were laborers and he himself paid wages. A tremendous amount of physical exertion was necessary, and many became ill due to the oppressive summer heat and poor diet. On October 8th, the dam and canal were complete, but the dam broke the next morning. Mining ceased for winter, and many miners left to look elsewhere. Flooding followed the next spring and Scharmann soon left to explore for gold around Nevada City. In 1853 the remnants of the Virginia Mining Company were sold to Amos P.
Catlin for $900.00. Catlin brought a more reliable water source to the area, and mining by his company continued until 1855, when it is estimated a total of $2,000,000 in gold had been removed from the gravel of Negro Bar.
In 1855, Granite City was laid out by engineer Theodore Judah, under the direction of Joseph Libby Folsom. Granite City was mostly occupied by gold miners seeking their fortune in the Sierra Nevada foothills. Though few amassed a great deal of wealth, the city prospered due to Joseph Folsom's lobbying to get a railway to connect the town with Sacramento. Joseph died in 1855, and Granite City was later renamed Folsom in his honor. The railway was abandoned in the 1980s but opened as the terminus of the Gold Line of Sacramento Regional Transit District's light rail service in 2005. A few former gold-rush era towns are located in and around Folsom, including Prairie City, Salmon Falls, and Mormon Island.
Folsom included a significant Chinese American community when it was first incorporated, but arsonists burned Folsom's Chinatown in March 1886, driving Chinese Americans out of town.
06/23/2026 Item No.15.
10 LaBella Appraisal, Inc.
The establishment of Folsom Prison came in 1880, when the Livermore family made an agreement with the state to donate land for the prison in exchange for prison labor. They planned to build a hydro-electric dam from the American River for a sawmill. Though the sawmill did not work out, the Livermores soon realized that the natural force of running water could provide enough power to transmit to Sacramento, and the Folsom Powerhouse, now a National Historic Landmark, was opened. At the time it was opened, it had the longest overhead run of electricity (22 miles) in the country. The powerhouse operated until 1952.
Folsom Dam was built in 1956, providing flood control and water rights for the Sacramento Valley and created Folsom Lake. The dam is located on the southwest corner of the lake. The lake is an estimated 4.8 miles from Granite Bay to the most southern point of Folsom Lake.
Folsom is home to Folsom Lake College, Folsom High School, Vista del Lago High School and a historic downtown district. Folsom is also home to the largest private employer in the Sacramento area, Intel.
The Folsom Plan Area allows the construction of 11,000 homes resulting in 25,000 additional residents enlarging the city of Folsom by one-third. The planned community development area of 3,250 acres south of Highway 50 includes additional housing, schools and parks along with office and commercial buildings.
Geography
According to the United States Census Bureau, the city has a total area of 30.2 square miles, of which, 27.9 square miles of it is land and 2.3 square miles of it is water. Folsom is located in the foothills of the Sierra Nevada.
Carpenter Hill in Folsom has the highest elevation in Sacramento County, at 831 feet.
Climate
Folsom's climate is characterized by long, hot, dry summers and cool, rainy winters.
06/23/2026 Item No.15.
11 LaBella Appraisal, Inc.
Demographics/2020 Census
The 2020 United States census reported that Folsom had a population of 80,454. The population density was 2,885.6 inhabitants per square mile.
The census reported that 92.5% of the population lived in households, 0.3% lived in noninstitutionalized group quarters, and 7.2% were institutionalized.
There were 29,574 housing units at an average density of 1,060.7 units per square, of which 28,336 (95.8%) were occupied. Of these, 68.0% were owner-occupied, and 32.0% were occupied by renters.
Economy
According to the city's 2020 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, the top employers in the city are:
# Employer Employees Percentage of Total City
Employment
1 Intel Corporation 6,318 17.80%
2 California State Prison, Sacramento 1,469 4.14%
3 Folsom Cordova Unified School District 1,112 3.13%
4 Folsom State Prison 1,069 3.01%
5 Mercy Hospital of Folsom 755 2.13%
6 California ISO 638 1.80%
The total Folsom labor force is 35,500, approximately 59.6% of the total adult population asset of around 59,740.
Parks and recreation
Livermore Community Park is located in Folsom and offers sports facilities and a water park. Folsom also boasts over fifty miles of trails, including the Humbug-Willow Creek Trail, Folsom Parkway Rail Trail, Lake Natoma Trail, and Oak Parkway Trail. The 32-mile American River Bike Trail, which starts in Sacramento, runs through Folsom along Lake Natoma. Bridges located in Folsom include Lake Natoma Crossing, the Rainbow Bridge, the Historic Truss
06/23/2026 Item No.15.
12 LaBella Appraisal, Inc.
Bridge, and Folsom Lake Crossing. There is also a pedestrian bridge over East Bidwell Street that opened on November 6, 2010, as part of a new segment on the Humbug-Willow Creek Trail.
Another bridge was built over Folsom Lake Crossing in 2014 as part of the Johnny Cash Trail, a public art experience and bike trail honoring the singer Johnny Cash, which was opened on October 14, 2017.
Folsom also includes part of the Folsom Lake State Recreation Area, which is popular for hiking, boating, fishing, and biking, and a major attraction in the Sacramento region.
Government
In the California State Legislature, Folsom is in the 6th senatorial district, represented by Republican Roger Niello, and in the 7th Assembly district, represented by Republican Josh Hoover.
Located within California's 3rd congressional district, Folsom is represented in the U.S. House of Representatives by Republican Kevin Kiley.
06/23/2026 Item No.15.
13 LaBella Appraisal, Inc.
PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION
OWNER OF RECORD: Visione Investments.
LOCATION: The subject property is identified as 2.71± acres of mixeduse land located within the city of Folsom’s Historic District.
The subject property is bounded by Leidesdorff Street to the north, Sibley Street to the east, and Sutter Street to the south.
ASSESSOR’S DATA: Sacramento County (Tax Year 2025)
Parcel Number: 070-0046-024-0000
Assessed Value: $132,199
Taxes: $1,441.88
Parcel Number: 070-0046-026-0000
Assessed Value: $330,502
Taxes: $3,604.78
Parcel Number: 070-0042-002-0000
Assessed Value: $114,168
Taxes: $1,245.22
Parcel Number: 070-0042-003-0000
Assessed Value: $24,033
Taxes: $262.12
Note: California’s Proposition 13 states that a sale of a property triggers a reassessment at the market value (sale price), with taxes equal to 1.0% more or less, of the assessed value.
CENSUS TRACT/BLOCK: 070-0046-024-0000 = 008404/2004
070-0046-026-0000 = 008402/3023
070-0042-002-0000 = 008404/2004
070-0042-003-0000 = 008404/2004
06/23/2026 Item No.15.
14 LaBella Appraisal, Inc.
PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION (Continued)
FLOOD ZONE: Zone X is an area that is determined to be a minimal flood risk outside the 0.2% annual-chance floodplain (outside the 500-year flood zone) as shown on FEMA Map Number, 06067C0116J,
dated 02/24/2024
EARTHQUAKE ZONE: The property is not located on a “Fault Rupture Hazard Zone” per the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone Maps, State of
California.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: See Addenda.
SALES HISTORY: Sold 12/19/2025 for $2,000,000, Document Number 251219- 1021.
06/23/2026 Item No.15.
15 LaBella Appraisal, Inc.
SITE DESCRIPTION
ASSESSOR PARCEL
NO.:
070-0046-024/026-0000, 070-0042-002/003-0000
SIZE: 2.71± net acres of mixed-use land
SHAPE: Irregular (see plat map)
UTILITIES: All are available to the subject property.
EASEMENTS: The subject property revealed no apparent adverse easements or encroachments that would negatively impact value.
TOPOGRAPHY: The topography of the subject is generally level, although it slopes north toward various drainage canals which is then pumped back into the river.
SUBJECT
DESCRIPTION:
The subject area is comprised of four parcels, identified as Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 070-0046-024/026-0000, 070-0042- 002/003-0000 by Sacramento County. Theodore Judah lots refer to the original town layout including the blocks, streets, and parcel boundaries surveyed when the community was still called Granite city. These plotted lots established the physical framework of what is now the Folsom Historic District, and those boundaries have remained essentially unchanged. This
development would embrace “Theodore Judah’s” original town layout within the Historical District of Folsom. The subject property consists of 18 lots of which 14 would be considered “Theodore Judah” lots that are 50’x140’ each in size, totaling 7,000 sf. The remaining 4 lots are remnant lots left from street right of way. See Plat Map on page 11. These lots could be modified at a later date.
CURRENT USE: The subject property is currently vacant with native trees, grasses and ground cover.
06/23/2026 Item No.15.
16 LaBella Appraisal, Inc.
SITE DESCRIPTION (Continued)
ZONING/GENERAL PLAN:
Current Zoning Designation: H-D PD (Historic District Planned Development)
H-D, HISTORIC DISTRICT
Purpose and Intent
The city council intends to actively promote the purposes of this chapter by (1) creating incentives for residents, property owners and businesses, (2) encouraging cooperation in attaining the purposes set forth in this chapter, and (3) providing a simple, fair and effective system of enforcement of the regulations contained in this chapter.
The purposes of this chapter are:
1. To preserve and enhance the historic, small-town atmosphere of the historic district as it developed between the years 1850 and 1950;
2. To maintain, restore, and reconstruct historic structures and sites within the historic district;
3. To encourage an active business climate which promotes the development of a diverse range of businesses compatible with the historic district as it developed between the years 1850 and 1950;
4. To retain the residential areas within the historic district;
5. To ensure that new residential and commercial development is consistent with the historical character of the historic district as it developed between the years 1850 and 1950;
6. To increase the awareness, understanding, and appreciation of the history of the city; and
7. To preserve and enhance open space areas. (Ord. 890 § 2 (part), 1998)
06/23/2026 Item No.15.
17 LaBella Appraisal, Inc.
P.D., PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
The purposes of this chapter are to allow greater flexibility in the design of integrated developments than otherwise possible through strict application of land use regulations, to encourage the creative and efficient use of land, and to encourage the efficient allocation and maintenance of privately controlled open space through the redistribution of overall density where such redistribution is desirable and feasible. The Planned Development district is not intended to reduce the allowed density of development as specified in the general plan or to amend the allowed use of property as specified in the underlying zoning district. The Planned Development (“P.D.”) district is intended to be a combining district. P.D.
Permits shall be considered by the planning or historic district commission (referred to collectively as commission) as appropriate. (Ord. 968 § 2 (part), 2002: Ord. 589 § 1 (part), 1987) General Plan Designation:
The subject property’s General Plan designation is HF (Historic Folsom Mixed Use). This designation provides for a mixture of commercial and residential uses designed to preserve and enhance the historic character of Folsom’s old town center.
Theodore Judah’s “lots” in the Folsom Historic District refer to the original town layout — the blocks, streets, and parcel boundaries he surveyed when the community was still called Granite City. These plotted lots established the physical framework of what is now the Folsom Historic District, and those boundaries have remained essentially unchanged.
What the Theodore Judah Lots Represent
• Original town plat: Judah was hired in 1855 to survey and lay out the town. His mapped lots defined:
• Street grid
• Block shapes
• Individual property parcels
• Historic District boundaries: The modern Folsom Historic District still follows the same boundaries Judah established.
• Gold Rush–era planning: The lots were designed when Folsom (then Granite City) served as a major jumping‑off point for miners heading into the Sierra foothills.
06/23/2026 Item No.15.
18 LaBella Appraisal, Inc.
Why They Matter Today
• They form the legal and historical basis for the district’s preservation area. • They explain the distinctive street layout and parcel sizes still visible in Old Folsom. • They anchor the district’s identity as one of California’s earliest railroad‑linked communities, shaped by Judah’s engineering vision.
Lot Standards. The minimum lot area is 7,000 square feet, except when recreating the 50 feet by 120 feet River Street lots as shown on the 1855 Theodore Judah map, which may be 6,000 square feet. The minimum lot width is 50 feet. A minimum of 45 percent of the lot area must be maintained as pervious surface.
06/23/2026 Item No.15.
19 LaBella Appraisal, Inc.
PLAT MAP
06/23/2026 Item No.15.
20 LaBella Appraisal, Inc.
CITY OF FOLSOM ZONING MAP
HISTORIC FOLSOM MIXED USE
06/23/2026 Item No.15.
21 LaBella Appraisal, Inc.
OVERHEAD VIEW (070-0046-024-0000) OVERHEAD VIEW (070-0046-026-0000)
OVERHEAD VIEW (070-0042-002-0000) OVERHEAD VIEW (070-0042-003-0000)
06/23/2026 Item No.15.
22 LaBella Appraisal, Inc.
SUBJECT PROPERTY OVERHEAD VIEW (RED)
06/23/2026 Item No.15.
23 LaBella Appraisal, Inc.
OVERHEAD VIEW (NORTHERLY)
OVERHEAD VIEW (SOUTHERLY)
06/23/2026 Item No.15.
24 LaBella Appraisal, Inc.
06/23/2026 Item No.15.
25 LaBella Appraisal, Inc.
HIGHEST AND BEST USE
Legally Permissible — The subject property is zoned HD-PD (Historic District-Planned Development) by the City of Folsom Planning Department. Rezoning the property is not likely since the land is identified a Historic District. In addition, the property uses allowed by this zoning typically constitute the choices available for development.
Therefore, the legally permissible use of the site is a mixed-use property.
Physically Possible — The subject is large enough to support several types of mixeduses. An additional use may be for an environmentally sensitive area for mitigation as well as being of sufficient size to develop for recreational uses.
Financially Feasible — The demand for residential uses in this location are in demand due to the lack of available housing and the Historical location. The uses that are financially feasible are limited to those developments which would result in the highest net income to the land.
Maximum Profitability — The maximum profitability of the subject property is to continue to develop the land with a project which results in the highest net income to the land.
The highest and best use as vacant is to utilize the land for a residential-mixed-use development which benefits the Historical development of Old Town Folsom.
The highest and best use as improved is for the development of a residential- mixed use plan.
06/23/2026 Item No.15.
26 LaBella Appraisal, Inc.
VALUATION METHODS
The valuation process in this appraisal considers the three traditional methods to value real estate, the cost, income, and sales comparison approaches.
The cost approach estimates the replacement or reproduction cost new of all improvements. Depreciation from all causes is estimated and deducted from the cost new, arriving at a depreciated replacement or reproduction cost. The final step is to add the opinion of the land value (as if vacant) to the depreciated cost indication. This results in an opinion of value by the cost approach. This valuation method can be a reliable indication of value, particularly when the buildings are new and proper for the property.
The income approach analyzes the present worth of future benefits derived from ownership that are measured through the capitalization of the property’s projected net income. The appraisal investigation develops a reliable estimate of the net operating income a property can produce and capitalizes this net income, using rates developed from market transactions into an opinion of value.
The sales comparison approach is contingent upon the availability of similar properties that have recently sold on the open market. All transactions used in this method of valuation are analyzed and their attributes (factors of adjustment) compared with the subject property. Differences between each comparable and the subject are adjusted to arrive at an indicated value from each comparable transaction. These indicators of value are reconciled into a final opinion of value for the property.
06/23/2026 Item No.15.
27 LaBella Appraisal, Inc.
SALES COMPARISON APPROACH
Introduction
The method of valuation used in this appraisal is the sales comparison approach. The following steps are completed in the sales comparison approach valuation method to conclude an opinion of value:
• Sales of similar residential lot sales in the Greater Folsom area have been investigated. • The facts surrounding each sale are verified.
• This analysis extracts price per square feet from the comparable lots investigated. Price per square foot is the typical unit of comparison used by sellers, buyers, licensed real estate agents, and investors of residential lots. The method for extracting price per square foot from the residential lot sales and their application for determining an opinion of market value are easily understood and an accepted method of valuation used by the market.
The elements of comparison factors considered in this analysis are:
• Property Rights: Fee simple estate transferred.
• Financing terms: Cash discounts; market or non-market financing terms; excessive financing charges.
• Conditions of the sale: Motivations of the buyer and/or seller. • Market conditions: Appreciation or depreciation due to inflation or deflation; or have investors’ perceptions of the market changed since the time the comparable sales were
transacted; referred to as time adjustment.
• Location: Similar market and market appeal area.
• Physical characteristics: Size (square feet); topography, utilities, access, deeded restricted use easements; site influences; potential use. • Zoning: Referring to the regulatory framework established by local governments that designates specific land uses
for different areas. It controls whether a property can be used for residential, commercial, industrial,
agricultural, or mixed-use purposes, and it regulates
aspects such as building size, density, placement, and
design. The overarching goal of zoning is to protect
the health, safety, and welfare of the community by
ensuring that land is used in a manner that is
consistent with local planning objectives.
06/23/2026 Item No.15.
28 LaBella Appraisal, Inc.
Land Valuation
The following is a Residential Lot Sales Chart preceded by a Residential Lot Sales Map. This is followed by a description of the subject’s pertinent factors and characteristics, an adjustment grid comparing the sales to the subject parcel, and an analysis and conclusion of the subject land value by the Sales Comparison Approach.
Residential Lot Sales Chart
No. Location – Assessor Parcel Number
Recording Data – Seller & Buyer Date Sold Sale Price Site Size (sf) Price Per
(sf)
Zoning
1 315 Sutter St., Folsom
Sacramento County
APN: 070-0120-068-0000
12/2025 $395,000 7,052 $56 R-1-M
Recording Date: 12/08/2025
Seller: Robert and Joan Walter Family Trust
Document No.: 2025.1208739
Buyer: Paris Design Build
2 709 Persifer St., Folsom
Sacramento County
APN: 070-0203-015-0000
11/2025 $325,000 7,000 $46 R-1-M
Recording Date: 11/06/2025
Seller: Rawles
Document No.: 251106-1119
Buyer: Seth Robinson
3 312 Figueroa St., Folsom
Sacramento County
APN: 070-0120-065-0000
04/2025 $370,000 7,009 $53 R-2
Recording Date: 04/17/2025
Seller: Edwards
Document No.: 250417-642
Buyer: Sarah Flores and Micah Flores
4 Reading St., Folsom
Sacramento County
APN: 070-0101-031-0000
05/2023 $300,000 7,022 $43 R-2
Recording Date: 06/06/2023
Seller: Brian Martell
Document No.: 20230606.658
Buyer: David Maselli and Katherine Tang
S
1118, 1115 and 1108 Sutter St. &
Leidesdorff St., Folsom
Sacramento County
APN: 070-046-024/026, 070-0042-002/003
N/A N/A 118,294
2.17 acres
N/A HD-PD
06/23/2026 Item No.15.
29 LaBella Appraisal, Inc.
Residential Lot Sales Map
06/23/2026 Item No.15.
30 LaBella Appraisal, Inc. Page 389
06/23/2026 Item No.15.
31 LaBella Appraisal, Inc.
Subject Property’s Pertinent Factors and Characteristics • Property rights: Fee simple estate
• Financing terms: Appraisal considers financing to be cash or new financing at market rates and terms.
• Conditions of the sale: Normal market motivations and reasons. • Market conditions: Effective date of the appraisal is January 16, 2026. • Location: Subject is located at 1118, 1115 and 1108 Sutter Street and Leidesdorff Street in the City of Folsom, bordered
by Leidesdorff Street to the north, Sibley Street to the east, and Sutter Street to the south.
• Physical characteristics: Site Size: 2.71± net acres, or 118,294 square feet Topography: (14) 50’x140’, 7,000 sf “Theodore
Judah” lots and (1) 50’x120’, 6,000 sf River Street lot.
Availability of Utilities and Services: All utilities are available to the site.
Contributory Improvements: None
Site Influences: Historic Old Town Folsom
• Zoning: HD-PD (Historic District-Planned Development) • General Plan: HF (Historic Folsom Mixed Use)
• Proposes Use: Residential-Mixed Use
06/23/2026 Item No.15.
32 LaBella Appraisal, Inc.
Discussion of Sales data
The transactions analyzed are representative of market trends and similar use and situated properties. The elements of comparison are discussed below, • No adjustment for market condition (date sold) is suggested for the transacted comparable sales.
• Size difference adjustments between the comparables listed and the subject property are not supported. Converting sale prices to size-related unit prices usually eliminates the need to make adjustment for size differences.3
• The topography of the comparable sales is similar to the subject lots. • The subject and all four comparable sales have available utilities and are considered similar.
• All the comparables have access and frontage on public maintained roads and alleys similar to the subject property.
• Potential use of the comparables and subject property are developable properties. 3 Appraisal Institute, The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, 12th ed. (Chicago, Illinois; Appraisal Institute, 1993), 425
06/23/2026 Item No.15.
33 LaBella Appraisal, Inc.
Comparative Analysis Grid
Adjustment Factors Subject Property Sale 1 Sale 2 Sale 3 Sale 4 Sale Price n/a $395,000 $325,000 $370,000 $300,000
Price Per Sq. Ft. n/a $56 $46 $53 $43
n/a 12/2025 11/2025 04/2025 05/2023
Property Rights Fee simple Fee simple Fee simple Fee simple Fee simple Financing Terms n/a Unknown Cash Conventional
$240,000/1st Mtg.
Unknown
Conditions of the Sale n/a None None None None
Days on Market n/a 92 61 10 Unknown
Location
1108 Sutter St.,
Folsom; Sacramento
County
315 Sutter St.,
Folsom,
Sacramento
County
709 Persifer St.,
Folsom,
Sacramento
County
312 Figueroa St.,
Folsom, Sacramento
County
Reading St.,
Folsom,
Sacramento
County
Assessor Parcel No.
070-0046-024/026
070-0042-002/003
*15-50’x140’, 7,000 sf lots
“Theodore Judah Lots”
**Remnant sq. ft.-14,659 sf
Note:APN:070-0046-024; lot 11
has been altered due to street
ROW. Use the remnant square
footage, make lot either a proper
size “Theodore Judah”/ River
Lot.
070-0120-068 070-0203-015 070-0120-065 070-0101-031
Land Size
(Sq. Ft.)
118,294 sf
2.71 net acres 7,052 sf 7,000 sf 7,009 sf 7,022 sf
Access Sutter St./Alley Sutter St./Alley Persifer St./Alley Figueroa St./Alley Reading St./Alley Utilities to Site Water/Sewer/
Power
Water/Sewer/
Power
Water/Sewer/
Power
Water/Sewer/
Power
Water/Sewer/
Power
Topography Bare Land Level at Street
Grade
Level at Street
Grade
Level at Street
Grade
Level at Street
Grade
Intended or Planned Use Residential Development New Residential Construction
New Residential
Construction
New Residential
Construction Unknown
Zoning HD-PD R-1-M R-1-M R-2 R-2
Overall Indication N/A Superior Slightly Inferior Slightly Superior Inferior
06/23/2026 Item No.15.
34 LaBella Appraisal, Inc.
Ranking Analysis
Using the Overall Indication conclusion from the Comparative Analysis Grid the comparable sales are ranked in a descending order displaying a ranking analysis of the sales, bracketing the value of the subject property.
Sale No. Price Per Lot Overall Comparability
1 $395,000 Superior
3 $370,000 Slightly Superior
Subject -
2 $325,000 Slightly Inferior
4 $300,000 Inferior
Analysis and Conclusion
The unadjusted unit value indication for the comparable properties ranges from $300,000 to $395,000 per lot. All four sales are residential lot properties. The Comparative Analysis Grid summarizes the relevant elements of comparison and property characteristic differences of the four residential lot sales as compared to the subject property. After bracketing the Subject through the ranking analysis shown above, it indicates a range of value from $325,000 to $370,000 per lot.
Based on the factors analyzed, the unit of comparison indication for the 14 “Theodore Judah” lots @ 50’ x 140’ (7,000 sf) and 1 River Street Lot @ 50’x 120’ (6,000 sf) 14 lots @ $350,000 per lot = $ 4,900,000
1 lot @ $325,000 per lot = $ 325,000
Total value of the 15 Theodore Judah original framework lots are: $ 5,225,000 My opinion of the market value of the subject property land as of January 16, 2026 is:
$5,225,000
06/23/2026 Item No.15.
35 LaBella Appraisal, Inc.
Addenda
06/23/2026 Item No.15.
36 LaBella Appraisal, Inc. Page 395
06/23/2026 Item No.15.
CERTIFICATION
I certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, except as otherwise noted in this appraisal report:
• The statements of fact contained in this report are true and correct. • The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions, and are my personal, unbiased professional analyses, opinions, and conclusions.
• I have no present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this report and have no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved. • The compensation received for this assignment is not contingent upon the reporting of a predetermined value or direction in value that favors the cause of the client, the value opinion amount, the attainment of a stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event.
• My analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP), adopted by the Appraisal Standards Board of The Appraisal Foundation and the requirements of the Code of Professional Ethics and Standards of Professional Practice of the Appraisal Institute.
• I have conducted a personal inspection of the property that is the subject of this report.
• State of California Certified General Real Estate Appraiser, OREA Appraiser Identification Number AG042672 license.
_______________________________ ______________________________ David LaBella Dated: February 26, 2026
Certified General Real Estate Appraiser
California Certificate Number AG042672
06/23/2026 Item No.15.
David LaBella
Certified General Real Estate Appraiser
California Certificate Number AG042672
1347 Bertas Court
Plumas Lake, CA 95961
(916) 422-7900
QUALIFICATIONS
I am the President and Owner of LaBella Appraisal, Inc. performing real estate appraisal analysis and valuation since 1983. I specialize in estate tax and planning appraisals.
Real Estate Appraised:
• Commercial and Industrial
• Residential (Urban and Rural)
• Land
• Agricultural Properties
• Special Use Properties
Employment History:
2007 – Present: President and Owner of LaBella Appraisal, Inc. 2012- 2017: Right of Way Appraiser for Bender Rosenthal, Inc. for the California High Speed Rail Authority. Madera to Fresno and Fresno to Bakersfield segments with concentration in commercial, office, and retail properties.
2006-2017: Represented buyers and sellers in real estate transactions as a Realtor for Camelot Realty.
1983-2006: Performed real estate appraisal analysis and valuation for Frank LaBella, Inc.
Appraised numerous wildfire property losses in the Valley, Tubbs, Carr, Woolsey and Camp fires in northern and southern California. Represented various insurance underwriters and claims companies.
06/23/2026 Item No.15.
Education:
California Lutheran University, 1983
Bachelor of Science Degree
Sacramento City College
Appraisal Principles
College Real Estate Principles
American River College:
Legal Aspects of Real Estate
Continuing Education (McKissock Learning)
5/31/2023 The Basics of Expert Witness for Commercial Appraisers 5/13/2023 Appraising Today’s Manufactured Homes
5/11/2023 The Cost Approach
5/10/2023 The Sale Comparison Approach
5/9/2023 Land and Site Valuation
5/8/2023 Laws and Regulations for California Appraisers 5/8/2023 California Elimination of Bias and Cultural Competency for Appraisers 5/7/2023 2022-2023 7-hour National USPAP Update Course
6/14/2021 Residential Property Inspection for Appraisers 5/31/2021 2020-2021 7-Hour National USPAP Update Course 5/26/2019 2018-2019 7-Hour National USPAP Update Course 5/15/2019 Laws and Regulations for California Appraisers 5/14/2019 The Dirty Dozen
5/14/2019 Managing Appraiser Liability
5/10/2019 Divorce and Estate Appraisals: Elements of Non-Lender Work 5/9/2019 Supporting Your Adjustments: Methods for Residential Appraisers 5/9/2019 That’s a Violation
5/8/2019 Complex Properties: The Odd Side of Appraisal
5/7/2019 Evaluating Today’s Residential Appraisal: Reliable Review 4/27/2019 Evaluations, Desktops, and Other Limited Scope Appraisals 6/6/2017 Advance Hotel Appraising – Full-Service Hotels 6/5/2017 Basic Hotel Appraising – Limited-Service Hotels 6/5/2017 Appraisal of Self-Storage Facilities
6/5/2017 Appraisal of Single Tenant Distribution Centers 6/1/2017 Appraisal of Fast-Food Facilities
5/31/2017 2016-2017 7-hour National USPAP Update Course 5/21/2017 Workfile Documentation for Appraisers
5/21/2017 Laws and Regulations for California Appraisers 6/5/2015 Expert Witness for Commercial Appraisers
6/4/2015 Appraisal of Owner-Occupied Commercial Properties 6/4/2015 Appraisal of Self-Storage Facilities
6/4/2015 Appraisal of Land Subject to Ground Leases
6/3/2015 Laws and Regulations for California Appraisers 6/3/2015 Appraisal of Industrial Incubators
6/2/2015 2014-2015 7-hour National USPAP Update Course
5/22/2013 2012-2013 7-hour National USPAP Update Course29
06/23/2026 Item No.15.
Continuing Education (McKissock Learning (Continued)
5/16/2011 Appraising and Analyzing Industrial and Flex Buildings for Mortgage Underwriting 5/13/2011 2010-2011 National USPAP Update Equivalent
5/9/2011 The Cost Approach
5/6/2011 Appraising and Analyzing Retail Shopping Centers for Mortgage Underwriting 5/6/2011 How to Analyze & Value Income Properties
5/5/2011 Land and Site Valuation
5/4/2011 The Nuts and Bolts of Green Building for Appraisers 5/3/2011 California Laws & Regs
1/21/2009 2008-2009 National USPAP Update Equivalent
Partial Client Listing:
• Bender Rosenthal, Inc.
• Buzz Oates Enterprises
• California Cattlemen’s Association
• City of Sacramento
• City of Stockton
• Deans & Homer Insurance
• Dick & Wagner Law Firm
• Downey Brand Law Firm
• Friends of the 1883 Clarksburg School House Project
• Fair Oaks Water District
• Granite Construction
• Koletsky, Mancini, Feldman & Morro
• Lloyds of London
• McCormick Barstow LLP
• Morton Friedman
• North Sacramento Land Company
• Pappas Investments
• Raley’s
• Sedgwick, Inc.
• Schriners Hospital for Children
• Unigard Insurance Group
• Van Vleck Ranching & Resources Inc.
• VeriClaim Inc.
• Wagner, Kirkman, Blaine, Klomparens & Youmans
• Washington Unified School District
• Willows Unified School District
And numerous other individuals, attorneys, and Corporations.
06/23/2026 Item No.15.
Geographical Areas:
Appraised in the following California Counties:
Alameda Amador Butte Calaveras
Colusa Contra Costa Del Norte El Dorado
Fresno Glenn Humboldt Kern
King Lake Marin Mendocino
Merced Modoc Monterey Napa
Nevada Placer Plumas Riverside
Sacramento San Bernardino San Francisco San Joaquin
San Mateo Santa Barbara Santa Clara Santa Cruz
Shasta Siskiyou Solano Sonoma
Stanislaus Sutter Tehama Tuolumne
Yolo Yuba
Nevada: Churchill, Douglas, and Washoe Counties.
Oregon: Curry, Douglas, and Lincoln Counties.
Court Testimony:
I have qualified as an expert witness in real estate valuation in the Superior Courts of Sacramento, Placer, San Joaquin, Yolo and Alameda Counties and the United States Bankruptcy Court. I have been involved in several mediation and arbitration hearings.
06/23/2026 Item No.15.
Folsom City Council Meeting
Additional Information
Transmittal
Instructions to staff: Deliver original and 30 stapled/double-sided copies to the City Clerk’s Department; City Clerk’s Department will distribute via email and hardcopy to City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, and City Clerk.
Updated: Jan 2026
MEETING DATE: 6/23/2026
AGENDA SECTION: New Business
STAFF REPORT TITLE
Resolution No 11659 – A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Purchase and Sale Agreement with
Brian Martell and Moe Hirani in the Amount of $1.55 Million for the Purchase of Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 070-0046-026 and 070-0042-002 and Appropriation of Funds (Folsom
Housing Fund 238)
FROM: Community Development Department
Staff is providing the attached additional information for the above-referenced agenda item. • Comment Letter from Deborah Grassl, Friends of Folsom Preservation
06/23/2026 Item No.15.
1 Karen Sanabria
From: Karen Sanabria
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2026 1:00 PM
To: Karen Sanabria
Subject: FW: Call to Action: Opposition to Resolution No. 11659 From: BARBARA LEARY
Sent: Monday, June 22, 2026 1:51 PM
To: Desmond Parrington <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: Call to Action: Opposition to Resolution No. 11659 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
---------- Original Message ----------
From: Friends of Folsom Preservation <[email protected]> To: undisclosed-recipients:;
Date: 06/21/2026 6:10 PM PDT
Subject: Call to Action: Opposition to Resolution No. 11659
Dear Residents and Friends,
The Folsom City Council will consider Resolution No. 11659 in just two days, on Tuesday, June 23, 2026, at 6:00 p.m. Please take a few moments to review the Call to Action below and consider attending the meeting or speaking during public comment.
The City Staff Report is attached for your review.
CALL TO ACTION
FROM: Deborah Grassl, President, Friends of Folsom Preservation (FFP) SUBJECT: Opposition to Resolution No. 11659 – City Purchase of Developers' Vacant Properties and Use of Folsom Housing Fund 238 Monies for Future High-Density Multi-Family Affordable Rental Housing Adjacent to The Preserve Park
ATTACHMENT: Folsom City Council Staff Report for June 23, 2026 DATE: June 21, 2026
Your support is needed at the next Folsom City Council meeting on Tuesday, June 23, 2026, at 6:00 p.m., at 50 Natoma Street to express opposition to Resolution No. 11659. This Resolution authorizes the
06/23/2026 Item No.15.
2 purchase of two vacant lots for the future development of high-density, multi-family affordable rental housing in our area. The properties will cost $1,550,000 using monies from Folsom Housing Fund 238.
The properties, formerly associated with the Young Wo Chinese community and the Leidesdorff Village project, are located between The Preserve neighborhood and the City's Corporation Yard, adjacent to The Preserve Park.
FFP opposes the proposed City purchase of these properties and is concerned about what this proposal could mean for The Preserve, Lake Natoma Shores, the Historic District, and the cultural and historic resources associated with these properties, which FFP believes were not adequately addressed in the appraisal. We urge you to attend the meeting and, if willing, speak during public comment.
There is also concern that the Staff Report and Appraisal rely upon recommendations and illustrations from the River District Vision Plan as though the Vision Plan represented an adopted Master Plan. It is inappropriate for conceptual elements of a Vision Plan to drive affordable housing policies and planning, the acquisition of land, or the allocation of dedicated funds from Folsom Housing Fund 238. A Master Plan, not a Vision Plan, establishes policies for municipal growth, manages land use, and guides investment in public infrastructure.
Please support our efforts by attending the City Council meeting on Tuesday evening. Whether or not you choose to speak, your presence matters.
Please RSVP by texting Deborah at 916-952-0916 if you plan to come.
By supporting our work, you support the health and preservation of Historic Folsom.
Thank you so much for your support!
Deborah Grassl
--
www.FFPreservation.org
06/23/2026 Item No.15.
Folsom City Council
Staff Report
1 MEETING DATE: 6/23/2026
AGENDA SECTION: New Business
SUBJECT: Resolution No. 11661 – A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Agreement with Schneider Electric Buildings Americas, Inc. for the Development of an Energy Savings Conservation Project and Performance Contract in the Amount of $180,000 and Appropriation of Funds
FROM: City Manager's Office
RECOMMENDATION / CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Staff recommends the City Council adopt Resolution No. 11661 - A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Agreement with Schneider Electric Buildings Americas, Inc. for the Development of an Energy Savings Conservation Project and Performance Contract in the Amount of $180,000 and Appropriation of Funds.
BACKGROUND / ISSUE
On August 28, 2018, City Council adopted the City’s 2035 General Plan which established:
• Sustainability goals and policies across land use, transportation, and facilities • Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Reduction Strategy appendix • Ongoing programs tied to energy efficiency and emissions reduction Since February 2026, Schneider Electric Buildings Americas, Inc. has worked collaboratively with the City Manager and staff from Utilities, Public Works (PW), and Parks and Recreation (P&R) to evaluate citywide opportunities to reduce energy consumption and improve operational efficiency. This effort has included assessing existing infrastructure conditions, identifying energy conservation measures (ECMs), and developing a path forward for a comprehensive energy conservation program.
Based on this evaluation, the City has selected Schneider Electric Buildings Americas, Inc. as its Energy Services Company (ESCO) partner, with the goal to deliver a holistic, turnkey approach to energy and infrastructure improvements. As the selected ESCO, Schneider Electric Buildings Americas, Inc. will, in phase one of the process, provide project development services, including engineering, and design services. Phase one of the process is what will be approved if Resolution
06/23/2026 Item No.16.
2 No.11661 is adopted. Following delivery of a Project Proposal, the Council will have the opportunity to evaluate Schneider Electric Buildings Americas, Inc.’s proposals for implementation, financing support, and ongoing measurement and verification of the identified ECMs. If Schneider is selected by the Council to perform construction and implementation of the ECMs, Schneider has agreed to include in its proposal a guarantee under which Schneider will assume performance and technical risk associated with the installed improvements.
Partnering with a qualified ESCO enables the City to modernize aging infrastructure, address operational inefficiencies, and implement cost-effective energy solutions that align with the City’s long-term sustainability, resiliency, and fiscal objectives.
POLICY / RULE
In accordance with Chapter 2.36 of the Folsom Municipal Code. supplies, equipment, services, and construction with a value of $77,426 or greater shall be awarded by City Council.
Schneider’s design and engineering work on phase one of this proposed project constitutes a professional service as defined by Folsom Municipal Code section 2.36.030. Pursuant to Folsom Municipal Code section 2.36.120, contracts for professional services may be awarded without the competitive procurement processes required for award of contracts for other, nonprofessional services.
This action is consistent with:
• City of Folsom Strategic Plan, Goal B - Environmental Sustainability • City of Folsom 2035 General Plan, Appendix A - Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Strategy
ANALYSIS
The City seeks to prioritize a comprehensive program focused on evaluating and implementing energy conservation measures (ECMs) that improve operational efficiency, reduce energy consumption, and address deferred infrastructure needs.
The initial phase of the Energy Service Contract will include a detailed evaluation of the City’s existing energy usage and infrastructure systems. This assessment will identify optimization opportunities such as:
• LED lighting retrofits
• Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system upgrades • Installation of variable frequency drives (VFDs)
• Implementation of building automation systems
• Installation of solar PV systems
The Design Phase is anticipated to include key City facilities such as City Hall, the Community Center, park facilities, and the Aquatic Center, as well as broader infrastructure assets such as streetlighting and park systems.
Schneider Electric Buildings Americas, Inc. will conduct a comprehensive Design Phase that includes:
06/23/2026 Item No.16.
3 • Scope of work and engineering analysis
• Project schedule and phasing
• Firm pricing
• Projected energy and operational savings
• Equipment and design specifications
• Identification of utility incentives, grants, and other funding opportunities This approach provides the City with a clear technical and financial basis for potential project implementation and ensures that any future project is grounded in measurable outcomes and cost-effectiveness.
Pursuant to California Government Code Sections 4217.10 through 4217.18, the City is authorized to enter into energy service contracts that allow for the acquisition and financing of energy efficiency improvements, provided that the anticipated energy cost savings meet or exceed project costs. After receiving the project proposal Schneider prepares as a part of phase one, which will include the scope of proposed work and the cost, staff will return to the Council to seek authority to proceed with phase two of the project. Phase two, if approved, will be construction of the ECMs recommended in the project proposal.
As a part of the action to approve phase two of this project, the Council will be asked to make findings in a specially noticed public hearing to the effect that the anticipated energy cost savings meet or exceed project costs. Schneider intends to include information to support these findings in the project proposal, which will be presented to the Council with any request to proceed with phase two of the project.
The California Government Code allows local governments to bypass traditional competitive bidding requirements for Energy Conservation Contracts if the findings referenced above are made in a specially noticed public hearing. The Legislature allowed this limited carve out from traditional competitive bidding requirements in order to further the policy described in Public Resources Code section 25008, which states in pertinent part, “It is further the policy of the state and the intent of the Legislature to promote all feasible means of energy and water conservation and all feasible uses of alternative energy and water supply sources.” The Legislature stated that the “criteria used in analysis of proposed actions shall include lifecycle cost evaluation, benefit to taxpayers, reduced fossil fuel or reduced water consumption depending on the application, and improved efficiency.” Information allowing the Council to evaluate these and other applicable criteria will be presented to the Council with the staff report for consideration of approving phase two of this project.
Through this process, Schneider Electric Buildings Americas, Inc. will perform an integrated energy assessment to identify both supply-side and demand-side energy conservation measures (ECMs) across City assets, including facilities, parks, and streetlighting. The results of the assessment will provide the engineering, financial, and operational basis for the City to determine whether to proceed with implementation. Upon City Council approval of a future Amendment (phase two of the project), the City may authorize a Construction Notice to Proceed, at which time Schneider Electric Buildings Americas, Inc. would deliver engineering,
06/23/2026 Item No.16.
4 procurement, construction, installation, maintenance, and training services associated with the approved energy conservation projects.
Staff recommends proceeding with phase one of the Energy Service Contract, which includes an evaluation of the City’s existing energy usage and infrastructure systems, an assessment to identify optimization opportunities, and design of proposed ECMs, as well as preparation of a project proposal, to fully evaluate opportunities, costs, and savings prior to any future commitment to construction.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
If approved, this Resolution authorizes the City Manager to execute an agreement with Schneider Electric Buildings Americas, Inc. for the phase one services described above, in an amount not to exceed $180,000.
The agreement will require City Council authorization to utilize $124,803 from the FY 2026/27 General Fund (Fund 010) contingency budget, and an appropriation of $49,367 in the Water Operating Fund (Fund 520) and $5,830 in the Wastewater Operating Fund (Fund 530). Sufficient funding is available within each fund to support the cost associated with the agreement.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed action authorizes the development and evaluation of potential energy conservation measures and does not constitute a commitment to a specific project. Any future construction or implementation activities will be subject to environmental review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). As a result, the proposed action is not a project for purposes of CEQA because CEQA only applies to activities that may cause either a direct physical change in the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. Because the proposed agreement does not have the potential to cause a physical change in the environment directly or indirectly, it is not a project subject to CEQA. (Public Resources Code §§ 21065; 21080(b)(1), (9); CEQA Guidelines §§ 15060(c), (2), (3); 15378(b)(2), (5).) If for any reason the proposed action is considered a project, it is exempt from CEQA review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment..
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution No. 11661 - A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Agreement with Schneider Electric Buildings Americas, Inc. for the Development of an Energy Savings Conservation Project and Performance Contract in the Amount of $180,000 and Appropriation of Funds.
Submitted,
Bryan Whitemyer
City Manager
06/23/2026 Item No.16.
Attachment 1
06/23/2026 Item No.16.
Resolution No. 11661
RESOLUTION NO. 11661
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC BUILDINGS AMERICAS, INC. FOR
THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN ENERGY SAVINGS CONSERVATION PROJECT AND PERFORMANCE CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT OF $180,000 AND
APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS
WHEREAS, the City of Folsom is committed to maintaining and improving its public facilities, infrastructure, and operational efficiency; and WHEREAS, the City seeks to reduce energy consumption, lower utility costs, address deferred maintenance needs, and achieve greenhouse gas emissions reductions consistent with the City’s General Plan and sustainability goals; and
WHEREAS, Energy Savings Performance Contracting (ESPC), pursuant to California Government Code Section 4217, enables the City to implement energy and operational improvements that are paid for through guaranteed savings; and WHEREAS, City staff has evaluated opportunities for Citywide energy conservation improvements and determined that a comprehensive program would provide significant long-term operational and financial benefits; and
WHEREAS, Schneider Electric Buildings Americas, Inc. is a qualified Energy Service Company (ESCO) with experience in delivering turnkey energy efficiency, infrastructure modernization, and performance-based contracting solutions for public agencies; and WHEREAS, the proposed agreement will authorize Schneider Electric Buildings Americas, Inc. to conduct detailed facility assessments, including a Design to identify energy conservation measures, and develop a comprehensive Energy Service Contract for City Council consideration; and
WHEREAS, the work to be performed by Schneider Electric Buildings Americas, Inc. in phase one of this project, including facility assessments, preparation of a design and project proposal to identify energy conservation measures and overall development of an Energy Savings Conservation Project, qualifies as a professional service under Folsom Municipal Code § 2.36.030; and
WHEREAS, this procurement is in conformity with Folsom Municipal Code § 2.36.120, Contracting for Designated Professional Services; and
WHEREAS, the agreement supports the City’s objectives to reduce energy use, improve system reliability, and implement cost-effective capital improvements through a performancebased delivery model; and WHEREAS, sufficient funds are available in the General Fund (Fund 010), Water
06/23/2026 Item No.16.
Resolution No. 11661
Operating Fund (Fund 520) and Wastewater Operating Fund (Fund 530) for the appropriation; and WHEREAS, the contract will be in a form acceptable to the City Attorney:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Folsom hereby authorizes the City Manager to execute an agreement with Schneider Electric Buildings Americas, Inc. for the development of an Energy Savings Conservation Project and Performance Contract in the amount of $180,000.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Folsom hereby authorizes the use of $124,803 in the FY 2026-27 General Fund (Fund 010) contingency budget towards funding the agreement.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Finance Director is authorized to appropriate in the FY 2026-27 budget, $49,367 in the Water Operating Fund (Fund 520) and $5,830 in the Wastewater Operating Fund (Fund 530).
PASSED AND ADOPTED on this 23rd day of June 2026, by the following roll-call vote:
AYES: Councilmember(s):
NOES: Councilmember(s):
ABSENT: Councilmember(s):
ABSTAIN: Councilmember(s):
___________________________________
Justin Raithel, MAYOR
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Christa Freemantle, CITY CLERK
06/23/2026 Item No.16.
This page is intentionally left blank
to facilitate double-sided printing
and minimize paper use.
06/23/2026 Item No.16.
Folsom City Council
Staff Report
1 MEETING DATE: 6/23/2026
AGENDA SECTION: Public Hearing
ITEM TITLE: Consideration of Ordinances Amending the City Charter and/or the Folsom Municipal Code for Submission to the Voters at the 2026 General Municipal Election:
Ordinance No. 1371- An Ordinance of the People of the City of Folsom Amending Section 4.03, “City Attorney”, of the City Charter to have the City Council Appoint and Direct the City Attorney and to Make Related Operational Changes (Introduction and First Reading)
Ordinance No.1372 - An Ordinance of the People of the City of Folsom Amending Section 4.07, “Boards and Commissions”, of the City Charter to Confirm that the City Council May Grant Decision Making Authority to Boards, Commissions, and
Committees by Ordinance (Introduction and First Reading) Ordinance No. 1373- An Ordinance of the People of the City of Folsom Amending Section 2.48.030, “Campaign Contribution Limitation”, of the Folsom Municipal Code to Increase the Campaign Contribution Limit (Introduction and First Reading) FROM: City Manager's Office
RECOMMENDATION / CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Staff recommends that the City Council hold the public hearing and then introduce and conduct the first reading of the following ordinances, for submission to the voters at the 2026 General Municipal Election:
06/23/2026 Item No.17.
2 Ordinance No. 1371- An Ordinance of the People of the City of Folsom Amending Section 4.03, “City Attorney”, of the City Charter to have the City Council Appoint and Direct the City Attorney and to Make Related Operational Changes
Ordinance No. 1372- An Ordinance of the People of the City of Folsom Amending Section 4.07, “Boards and Commissions”, of the City Charter to Confirm that the City Council May Grant Decision Making Authority to Boards, Commissions, and Committees by Ordinance Ordinance No. 1373- An Ordinance of the People of the City of Folsom Amending Section
2.48.030, “Campaign Contribution Limitation”, of the Folsom Municipal Code to Increase the Campaign Contribution Limit
BACKGROUND / ISSUE
On December 9, 2025, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 11525, establishing the 2026 Ad Hoc Charter Review Committee. The Committee was tasked with reviewing the City Charter and recommending appropriate updates and changes to the City Council. Resolution No. 11525 directed the Committee to submit a report to the City Council containing its recommendations.
The Committee performed its work over five meetings, held from March 4, 2026 to May 4, 2026.
During these meetings, the Committee conducted a review of the City Charter and ultimately approved recommended language changes to seven sections of the Charter and one section of the Folsom Municipal Code that was an initiative measure passed by a vote of the people in 1994.
Resolution No. 11525 created the 2026 Ad Hoc Charter Review Committee as a Brown Act Committee, so the Committee’s meetings were open to the public. Members of the public attended the final three meetings and addressed the Committee on many of the items considered.
On May 12, 2026, the 2026 Ad Hoc Charter Review Committee’s Report was submitted to the City Council, and a public hearing was held on the eight amendments recommended by the Committee. Following the public hearing, the City Council deliberated and passed Resolution No. 11613, receiving the 2026 Ad Hoc Charter Review Committee Report to City Council with recommended amendments and dissolving the Committee.
The Council engaged in further deliberation and ultimately voted 4-0, with one absent, not to submit five of the eight Charter amendments proposed by the Charter Review Committee to the voters at the November 3, 2026 election.
The Council also directed staff to return on May 26, 2026, for further consideration of whether to submit to the voters at the November 3, 2026 election any of the three remaining amendments recommended by the Committee.
On May 26, 2026, staff presented to the Council conceptual language for the following Charter and Folsom Municipal Code amendments which, if approved by the Council at a future meeting, could be submitted to the voters at the November 3, 2026 election:
06/23/2026 Item No.17.
3 1. Section 4.03 - City Attorney: to change how the City Attorney is appointed, from the current system in which the City Manager appoints the City Attorney, to a system in which the City Council appoints the City Attorney, and related operational changes.
2. Section 4.07 – Boards and Commissions: strike language that all City Boards and Commissions are only advisory to the Council, allowing the Council to set the powers and duties of Boards, Commissions, and Committees by ordinance. Clarifying that Committee members must be residents and registered voters of the City.
3. Folsom Municipal Code § 2.48.030 – Campaign contribution limitation: increase the campaign contribution limit in support or opposition to any candidate from $150 to a higher limit to be determined.
Staff also presented information on the cost of putting these measures on the ballot.
The Council deliberated and subsequently voted 4-1 to move forward with the next steps necessary to submit all three measures to the voters in November, with a campaign contribution limit of $500.
POLICY / RULE
Charter Amendment
City Charter section 8.01 governs Charter amendments, which may be framed and proposed in several ways, including by an ordinance of the City Council containing the full text of the proposed amendment. Charter amendments must be approved by a majority of the voters of the City at a regular election.
Pursuant to City Charter section 2.12(A), no City ordinance shall contain more than one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title.
Amendment of Ordinance Passed as an Initiative Measure
As applicable here, Elections Code section 9217 requires that an ordinance proposed by initiative petition and adopted by the voters shall only be amended by a vote of the people. Elections Code section 9222 allows the City Council to submit to the voters, without a petition, a proposition for the amendment of any ordinance, to be voted upon at any succeeding regular or special election. If the proposition submitted receives a majority of the votes cast on it at the election, the ordinance shall be amended.
Campaign Contribution Limits
Campaign contribution limits have been held to infringe on the contributor’s ability to engage in free communication and association, thereby impinging on First Amendment freedoms. (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) 558 US 310.) Limits on campaign contributions made directly to candidates or their committees may be upheld if the regulations are “closely drawn” to achieve important governmental interests, including preventing corruption, the appearance of corruption, and the circumvention of otherwise valid campaign finance regulations. (Buckley v. Valeo (1976) 424 US 1, 26.) However, the goals of equalizing
06/23/2026 Item No.17.
4 political opportunities between candidates and reducing the influence of money in politics were rejected by the Supreme Court in Citizens United as sufficiently important governmental interests to support impinging on First Amendment freedoms. As a result, those concepts cannot be used as the basis for campaign contribution limits. (Citizens United, 558 US at p. 350.)
ANALYSIS
On May 26, 2026, the City Council voted to move forward with three amendments to existing City laws: two amendments to the City Charter and one amendment to the Folsom Municipal Code. All three amendments require voter approval.
Amendments to the City Charter proposed by the City Council must be made in the form of an ordinance containing the full text of the proposed amendment.
The City Council may submit to the voters a proposal to amend any ordinance, including an ordinance proposed by initiative petition and adopted by the voters.
Attached to this report are the three ordinances that, if approved by the Council at the July 14 meeting, will be submitted to the voters at the November 3, 2026 election. No changes were made to the language of the proposed amendments to City Charter § 4.03 (City Attorney) and City Charter § 4.07 (Boards and Commissions). The proposed language for those sections, included as Attachment 1 and Attachment 2 to the May 26, 2026 staff report, was carried over verbatim to Ordinance No. 1371 and Ordinance No. 1372, respectively. The language of the proposed amendment to Folsom Municipal Code § 2.48.030 (Campaign Contribution Limitation) was changed to reflect the Council’s desire for a new campaign contribution limit of $500. That modification was the only change to the proposed language included as Attachment 3 to the May 26, 2026 staff report that was included in Ordinance No. 1373.
Following the public hearing on this item, the City Council will be asked to vote to introduce and conduct the first reading of each of the three ordinances referenced above.
Next Steps
If the Council elects to proceed, on July 14, 2026 the Council will consider a resolution formally approving submission to the voters in November any proposed amendments to the City Charter and/or the Folsom Municipal Code referenced in this report.
If the Council passes that resolution, the proposed amendments will be submitted to the voters at the statewide general election and general municipal election on November 3, 2026. Each proposed amendment shall be approved if it receives a majority of the votes cast on it at the election.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
The Sacramento County Department of Voter Registration and Elections recently updated its election fee formula, resulting in a substantial increase over prior estimates. The 2024 election
06/23/2026 Item No.17.
5 that included Measure G and two City Council positions cost the City $61,145. However, based on new information from the County Registrar of Voters Office, the revised cost structure is as follows:
• First Ballot Measure: Approximately $83,000
• Subsequent Measures: Approximately $12,200 per additional item If the City Council decides to add three measures to the ballot, the anticipated City election costs for the three measures are estimated to be approximately $107,400. Staff has included sufficient funds to cover this cost in the FY 2026/2027 budget, which was approved by the Council on June 9, 2026.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed Charter and Folsom Municipal Code amendments are not a project for purposes of CEQA because CEQA only applies to activities that may cause either a direct physical change in the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.
Because the proposed amendments do not have the potential to cause a physical change in the environment directly or indirectly, they are not a project subject to CEQA. (Public Resources Code §§ 21065; 21080(a); CEQA Guidelines §§ 15060(c), (2), (3); 15378(b)(2).) If for any reason the proposed amendments are considered a project, they are exempt from CEQA review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Ordinance No. 1371- An Ordinance of the People of the City of Folsom Amending Section 4.03, “City Attorney”, of the City Charter to have the City Council Appoint and Direct the City Attorney and to Make Related Operational Changes
2. Ordinance No. 1372- An Ordinance of the People of the City of Folsom Amending Section 4.07, “Boards and Commissions”, of the City Charter to Confirm that the City Council May Grant Decision Making Authority to Boards, Commissions, and Committees by Ordinance
3. Ordinance No. 1373- An Ordinance of the People of the City of Folsom Amending Section 2.48.030, “Campaign Contribution Limitation”, of the Folsom Municipal Code to Increase the Campaign Contribution Limit
Submitted,
Bryan Whitemyer
City Manager
06/23/2026 Item No.17.
Attachment 1
06/23/2026 Item No.17.
Ordinance No. 1371
ORDINANCE NO. 1371
AN ORDINANCE OF THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF FOLSOM
AMENDING SECTION 4.03, “CITY ATTORNEY,” OF THE CITY CHARTER
TO HAVE THE CITY COUNCIL APPOINT AND DIRECT THE CITY
ATTORNEY AND TO MAKE RELATED OPERATIONAL CHANGES
The People of the City of Folsom hereby do ordain as follows:
SECTION 1 CHARTER AMENDMENT
Section 4.03, “City Attorney”, of Article IV, “Departments, Agencies and Employees”, of The Adopted Charter of the City of Folsom is hereby amended to read as follows:
4.03 City Attorney:
The office of City Attorney is hereby created. The City Attorney shall be the chief legal officer of the City, and, notwithstanding any other provision of this Charter:
A. Duties. Shall advise the City Council, individual Councilmembers, the City Manager and his/her assistants, and department heads regarding the law relating to City affairs.
B. Additional Duties. Shall represent the City in all legal proceedings, prepare all ordinances and other needed legal documents, select and retain specialist counsel where there is a need for such specialized legal services, and perform such other duties as may be prescribed by ordinance.
C. Department Head. May be a full time department head of the City appointed by the City Council, or may be contracted by the City Council as a department head.
D. Approval of Contracts. Shall review and approve all City contracts as to legal form.
E. Special Counsel. The City Council may retain special counsel in any matter where representation by the City Attorney would create an impermissible conflict, including the discipline or dismissal of the City Manager.
F. City Attorney Appointment. The City Council shall appoint a City Attorney for an indefinite term through the mechanism of an employment agreement the same as those afforded department heads under this Charter. The City Attorney:
1. Serve At Pleasure. Shall serve at the pleasure of the Council;
2. How Chosen. Shall be chosen solely on the basis of administrative qualifications and, at time of appointment need not be a resident of the State or City but shall be a member of the California State Bar;
06/23/2026 Item No.17.
Ordinance No. 1371
3. Salary. Shall be paid a salary fixed by the Council commensurate with the responsibilities of the position.
G. Dismissal Hearing. Shall have the right to a public hearing on any motion to remove or to suspend his/her employment, which public hearing shall be held only after provision of 10 days' published notice prior to the Council voting on the motion to remove or to suspend the City Attorney.
H. Restriction on Dismissal. During a period of 90 days immediately following the date of installation of any person newly elected to the Council at a regular or special City election, or of any person newly appointed to the Council, the Council shall take no action, whether immediate or prospective, to remove, suspend, request the resignation of, or to reduce the duties, salary or benefits of the City Attorney.
I. Appointment of Employees. The City Attorney shall appoint all other members of the City Attorney’s Office to positions authorized by the Council. These employees shall serve at the pleasure of the City Attorney but shall have permanent status subject to all rights and limitations in the City merit system.
SECTION 2 SCOPE
Except as set forth in this Ordinance, all other provisions of The Adopted Charter of the City of Folsom shall remain in full force and effect.
SECTION 3 SEVERABILITY
If any section, subsection, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The People of the City of Folsom hereby declare that they would have adopted this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, clauses, phrases or portions be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 4 EFFECTIVE DATE
If a majority of the registered voters of the City voting upon this proposed Charter amendment vote in favor of it, the amendment shall become effective thirty (30) days after the City Council certifies the election returns.
SECTION 5 PUBLICATION
The City Clerk shall file the results of the Charter amendment election with the Secretary of State within 45 days following the election.
06/23/2026 Item No.17.
Ordinance No. 1371
In addition, the City Clerk is directed to cause a copy of this Ordinance to be published in full or in summary in a newspaper of general circulation in the City within twenty (20) days after the City Council certifies the election returns indicating that a majority of the registered voters of the City voting upon the proposed Charter amendment voted in favor of it.
SECTION 6 ELECTION RESULTS
The foregoing Charter amendment was approved by the voters of the City of Folsom at a General Municipal Election held on November 3, 2026, by the following vote tally:
YES:
NOES:
OTHER:
APPROVED:
_______________________________________
Justin Raithel, MAYOR
ATTEST:
______________________________
Christa Freemantle, CITY CLERK
06/23/2026 Item No.17.
Attachment 2
06/23/2026 Item No.17.
Ordinance No. 1372
ORDINANCE NO. 1372
AN ORDINANCE OF THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF FOLSOM
AMENDING SECTION 4.07, “BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS,” OF THE CITY
CHARTER TO CONFIRM THAT THE CITY COUNCIL MAY GRANT
DECISION MAKING AUTHORITY TO BOARDS, COMMISSIONS, AND
COMMITTEES BY ORDINANCE
The People of the City of Folsom hereby do ordain as follows:
SECTION 1 CHARTER AMENDMENT
Section 4.07, “Boards and Commissions”, of Article IV, “Departments, Agencies and Employees”, of The Adopted Charter of the City of Folsom is hereby amended to read as follows:
Section 4.07 Boards, Commissions, and Committees:
The City Council may by ordinance create other Boards, Commissions, and Committees and prescribe their powers and duties, determine the number and qualifications of the members, their method of selection, term of office and removal, and fix their compensation, if any. Each member of any Board, Commission, or Committee shall be a resident and registered voter of the City.
SECTION 2 SCOPE
Except as set forth in this Ordinance, all other provisions of The Adopted Charter of the City of Folsom shall remain in full force and effect.
SECTION 3 SEVERABILITY
If any section, subsection, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The People of the City of Folsom hereby declare that they would have adopted this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, clauses, phrases or portions be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 4 EFFECTIVE DATE
If a majority of the registered voters of the City voting upon this proposed Charter amendment vote in favor of it, the amendment shall become effective thirty (30) days after the City Council certifies the election returns.
06/23/2026 Item No.17.
Ordinance No. 1372
SECTION 5 PUBLICATION
The City Clerk shall file the results of the Charter amendment election with the Secretary of State within 45 days following the election.
In addition, the City Clerk is directed to cause a copy of this Ordinance to be published in full or in summary in a newspaper of general circulation in the City within twenty (20) days after the City Council certifies the election returns indicating that a majority of the registered voters of the City voting upon the proposed Charter amendment voted in favor of it.
SECTION 6 ELECTION RESULTS
The foregoing Charter amendment was approved by the voters of the City of Folsom at a General Municipal Election held on November 3, 2026, by the following vote tally:
YES:
NOES:
OTHER:
APPROVED:
_______________________________________
Justin Raithel, MAYOR
ATTEST:
______________________________
Christa Freemantle, CITY CLERK
06/23/2026 Item No.17.
Attachment 3
06/23/2026 Item No.17.
Ordinance No. 1373
ORDINANCE NO. 1373
AN ORDINANCE OF THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF FOLSOM
AMENDING SECTION 2.48.030, “CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION
LIMITATION”, OF THE FOLSOM MUNICIPAL CODE TO INCREASE THE
CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION LIMIT
The People of the City of Folsom hereby do ordain as follows:
SECTION 1 ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
Section 2.48.03, “Campaign Contribution Limitation”, of the Folsom Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
2.48.030 Campaign contribution limitation.
A. No person other than a candidate shall make, and no campaign treasurer shall solicit or accept, any contribution which will cause the total amount contributed by such person with respect to a single election in support or opposition to such candidate, including contributions to all committees supporting or opposing such candidate, to exceed $500.
B. Extension of credit for a period of more than 90 days is prohibited. Extension of credit for more than $1,000 is prohibited; provided, however, a candidate may personally borrow any amount and such funds shall be considered as a contribution by the candidate personally; provided, further, that such transaction is fully disclosed and documented in accordance with applicable law.
C. The terms of this section are applicable to any contributions made to a candidate or committee hereunder, whether used by such candidate or committee to finance a current campaign, to pay deficits incurred in a prior campaign, or otherwise.
D. If any person is found guilty of violating the terms of this section, the amount of funds received constituting such violation shall be paid by the candidate or committee treasurer who received such funds to the city finance director for deposit in the general fund of the city.
E. As used in this section, “extension of credit” means any loan, gift, forbearance or forgiveness of debt without adequate compensation.
SECTION 2 SCOPE
Except as set forth in this Ordinance, all other provisions of the Folsom Municipal Code shall remain in full force and effect.
06/23/2026 Item No.17.
Ordinance No. 1373
SECTION 3 SEVERABILITY
If any section, subsection, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The People of the City of Folsom hereby declare that they would have adopted this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, clauses, phrases or portions be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 4 EFFECTIVE DATE
If a majority of the registered voters of the City voting upon this proposed Ordinance amendment vote in favor of it, the Ordinance amendment shall become effective thirty (30) days after the City Council certifies the election returns.
SECTION 5 PUBLICATION
The City Clerk is directed to cause a copy of this Ordinance to be published in full or in summary in a newspaper of general circulation in the City within twenty (20) days after the City Council certifies the election returns indicating that a majority of the registered voters of the City voting upon the proposed Ordinance amendment voted in favor of it.
SECTION 6 ELECTION RESULTS
The foregoing Ordinance amendment was approved by the voters of the City of Folsom at a General Municipal Election held on November 3, 2026, by the following vote tally:
YES:
NOES:
OTHER:
APPROVED:
_______________________________________
Justin Raithel, MAYOR
06/23/2026 Item No.17.
Ordinance No. 1373
ATTEST:
______________________________
Christa Freemantle, CITY CLERK
06/23/2026 Item No.17.
Folsom City Council Meeting
Additional Information
Transmittal
Instructions to staff: Deliver original and 30 stapled/double-sided copies to the City Clerk’s Department; City Clerk’s Department will distribute via email and hardcopy to City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, and City Clerk.
Updated: Jan 2026
MEETING DATE: 6/23/2026
AGENDA SECTION: Public Hearing
STAFF REPORT TITLE Consideration of Ordinances Amending the City Charter and/or the Folsom Municipal Code for Submission to the
Voters at the 2026 General Municipal Election:
i.Ordinance No. 1371- An Ordinance of the People of the City of Folsom Amending Section 4.03, “City Attorney”, of the City Charter to have the City Council Appoint and Direct the City Attorney and to Make Related Operational Changes
(Introduction and First Reading)
ii. Ordinance No.1372 - An Ordinance of the People of the City of Folsom Amending Section 4.07, “Boards and
Commissions”, of the City Charter to Confirm that the City Council May Grant Decision Making Authority to Boards,
Commissions, and Committees by Ordinance (Introduction
and First Reading)
iii. Ordinance No. 1373- An Ordinance of the People of the City of Folsom Amending Section 2.48.030, “Campaign
Contribution Limitation”, of the Folsom Municipal Code to Increase the Campaign Contribution Limit (Introduction and First Reading)
FROM: City Manager's Office
Staff is providing the attached additional information for the above-referenced agenda item.
06/23/2026 Item No.17.
From: Bob Delp
To: City Clerk Dept; Christa Freemantle
Cc: Sarah Aquino; Barbara Leary; Justin Raithel; Anna Rohrbough; Mike Kozlowski; Bryan Whitemyer; Sari Dierking Subject: Fw: Comments to Council re: Agenda Item 17 - City Charter Date: Monday, June 22, 2026 10:19:49 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Comments to the Folsom City Council for consideration of item No. 17 on the 6/23/2026 Regular Meeting agenda.
As the Council is aware, I am opposed to the amendment of City Charter section 4.07 for reasons including those explained in my previous comments to the Council.
Additionally, I am noting here that the amendment as currently proposed will disallow the City from assigning any non-residents of the City as members of any advisory committee established by the Council. This means that where the City presently may assign non-resident police and fire department representatives, City traffic engineers, planners, etc., to advisory committees (e.g., the Traffic Safety Committee), the proposed amendment to Chater section
4.07 would expressly prohibit the City from making such assignments in the future.
Whether the Traffic Safety Committee or any other permanent or ad hoc advisory committees the City Council may from time-to-time choose to create, I expect that there is value in allowing representation on such committees by non-residents of the City that may have specialized knowledge associated with the matters in which those committees are involved. It is unclear to me why the City would seek to formally eliminate this option, and I suggest the Council may not be fully aware of and considering the consequences of amending Charter section 4.07.
Moreover, if the City Council would simply read the court's ruling regarding the second cause of action in Sacramento County Superior Court case 23WM000125, I think the Council might recognize there may be much more simple, more certain, and less costly options that could likely avoid potential future challenges to the authority of the HDC or other board/commission established under Charter section 4.07. I expect the Council's current effort and intent in amending section 4.07 will fail, either by failing to convince voters to approve it or, if approved, by failing to have the intended benefits that some Council members think it will have and also by having unintended consequences the Council may not be fully considering.
Thank you for considering my comments.
Bob Delp
06/23/2026 Item No.17.
From: Bob Delp
Sent: Monday, May 25, 2026 10:53 AM
To: Christa Freemantle <[email protected]>; City Clerk Dept <[email protected]> Cc: Sari Dierking <[email protected]>; Bryan Whitemyer <[email protected]>; Barbara Leary <[email protected]>; <Justin Raithel <[email protected]>; Sarah Aquino <[email protected]>; Mike Kozlowski <[email protected]>; Anna Rohrbough <[email protected]>
Subject: Comments to Council re: Agenda Item 15 - City Charter Comments to the Folsom City Council for consideration of item No. 15 on the 5/26/2026 Regular Meeting Agenda
Dear City Council:
Regarding Agenda Item 15 of the Council's May 26, 2026, agenda, please reject the three items under consideration for placement on the November 2026 ballot.
Whereas your May 12 staff report for this matter provided an estimated cost of $9,000 to place a measure on the ballot, your May 26 staff report now presents a vastly increased cost estimate of $115,250. How staff mis-estimated the cost of a ballot initiative is unclear, and it is also unclear that the Charter Review Committee would have recommended that the Council pursue any amendments to the Charter had the Committee been aware of the substantial cost to the City.
The staff report suggests that the cost for the ballot measure is included in the City's 2026/2027 budget, but does not explain the public benefits that will be forgone by allocating $115,000 of public funds to what will likely be a failed ballot measure seeking unnecessary and detrimental amendments to the City Charter and seeking to increase City Council campaign contribution limits. There are many beneficial uses to which the City could put $115,000 and seeking to amend the Charter and/or increase campaign contribution limits does not warrant such an expenditure.
In addition to my May 12, 2026, comments (in email below), please consider the following in rejecting the three items up for further consideration:
1. Section 4.03 amendments would place the already challenging role of City Attorney directly under the thumb of the City Council. Amending the Charter to more directly cause the City Attorney to "serve at the pleasure of the City Council" would increase potential conflicts between the need for the City Attorney to provide sound legal advice and the need for the
06/23/2026 Item No.17.
City Attorney to satisfy the Council or be at risk of termination. As with other department heads, the City Attorney should be retained by the City Manager and not serve at the whim of a particular City Council. Moreover, the additional provisions are unnecessary and will create the potential for complicated processes. For instance, proposed additional item H, "Restriction on Dismissal" would, upon installation of a new City Councilmember, establish a 90-day freeze on removal or suspension of the City Attorney, but this provision fails to address the circumstance in which a dismissal action might already be in progress. If the Council thinks it is important to have the City Attorney serve at the pleasure of the Council, then a provision delaying dismissal due to an unrelated change in City Council composition makes no sense.
Please abandon further consideration of this amendment.
2. Section 4.07 of the existing City Charter allows the Council to create boards and commissions but wisely restricts those boards and commissions to an advisory role. Such a structure is appropriate and need not be tampered with. The Charter's existing language is not an inadvertent block of authority and instead serves as an important and intentional check on the Council's ability to delegate decision-making. Please abandon further consideration of this amendment.
3. In 1994, through an initiative measure, the citizens of Folsom voted to establish campaign contribution limits codified in FMC 2.48. In doing so, the following purpose and intent was established by the voters as described in FMC 2.48.010: "Inherent to the high cost of election campaigning is the problem of improper influence, real or potential, exercised by campaign contributions over elected officials. It is the purpose and intent of the people of the city in enacting the ordinance codified in this chapter to preserve an orderly political forum in which individuals may express themselves effectively; to place realistic and enforceable limits on the amounts of money that may be contributed to political campaigns in municipal elections; to limit contributions by organizations in order to develop a broader base of political efficacy within the community; to limit the use of loans and credit in the financing of municipal election campaigns; and to provide full and fair enforcement of all the provisions of this chapter. (Initiative measure passed by vote of the people 6/7/94)" Further consideration of amending the campaign contribution limit should be abandoned by the Council for reasons that include the following:
a. By placing on the ballot a measure that would amend FMC 2.48.030 Campaign Contribution Limits, the Council would be attempting to undermine the 1994 vote of the citizens of Folsom.
Should the citizens of Folsom choose to increase campaign contribution limits, the citizens may do say through the initiative process. The City Council should not expend City staff time or City funds toward amending the current campaign contribution limits. b. The campaign contribution limits recommended by the Charter Review Committee are excessive and unbalanced. In recommending changes to the City Council compensation
06/23/2026 Item No.17.
structure, the Charter Review Committee gave weight to the consumer price index. However, in recommending an increase in campaign contribution limits from $150 to $750, the Charter Review Committee recommends an increase above any CPI index for the period 1994 to 2026. Using the CA Dept of Industrial Relations CPI California Index for the period 1994 (when the $150 limit was established) to present 2026 dollars results in a CPI-commensurate increase of the $150 to approximately $350. An increase to $750 would result in a 5-fold increase above the existing limit and is more than twice a CPI-indexed amount. Such an increase is excessive and would undermine the important and clearly specified intent of the contribution limits established by the voters in 1994.
c. FMC 2.48.060, "Violation-Penalties" established through the same 1994 voter initiative specifies a fine amount of not less than $500 for violations of the provisions of FMC 2.48. Yet, although the Charter Review Committee recommended a 5-fold increase in campaign contribution limits, neither the Charter Review Committee's recommendation nor the amendment currently before the Council specifies any change in minimum fine amount. Any increase in the campaign contribution limit should be accompanied by a commensurate increase in the minimum fine amount. It would be irresponsible for the Council to seek increased campaign contribution limits while leaving the minimum fine at the amount established in 1994.
Thank you for considering my comments.
-Bob Delp
From: Bob Delp
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2026 2:47 PM
To: Christa Freemantle <[email protected]>; City Clerk Dept <[email protected]> Cc: Sari Dierking <[email protected]>; Bryan Whitemyer <[email protected]>; Barbara Leary <[email protected]>; <Justin Raithel <[email protected]>; Sarah Aquino <[email protected]>; Mike Kozlowski <[email protected]>; Anna Rohrbough <[email protected]>
Subject: Comments to Council re: Agenda Item 10 - City Charter Comments to the Folsom City Council for consideration of item No. 10 on the 5/12/2026 Regular Meeting Agenda
Dear City Council:
Regarding Agenda Item 10 of tonight's agenda, please reject the ad hoc committee's recommended amendments to the City Charter and dissolve the committee.
06/23/2026 Item No.17.
The City Council established a seven-member committee, five of which committee members were each appointed by a Councilmember and the other two of which committee members are City Councilmembers. This composition suggests an ad hoc committee directly representative of the current Council and fails to reflect a meaningful effort for independent and objective review of the City Charter. This lack of independency will be exacerbated if the two Councilmembers who served on the ad hoc committee also participate in the Council's decision of whether to place the Charter amendments on the ballot.
The recommended Charter revisions have no benefit to the City's residents and would diminish responsible decision-making and transparency... and, while doing so, would also give the Council a guaranteed annual salary adjustment.The recommended amendments should be rejected by the Council.
Section 2.01(E), City Council Term Limit, amendment is unnecessary. Worse, it is self-serving to existing Councilmembers as it could be interpreted to allow Councilmembers who have already been on the Council for multiple terms to continue for three additional terms after 2026 enabling certain Councilmembers to serve more than the existing 4-term limit.
Section 2.06 amendments would establish an automatic adjustment of Councilmember annual salaries every year. While a maximum increase limited by the CPI and a 3% cap might make sense, an automatic adjustment of up to 3% per year should be rejected by the Council. The current Charter allows the City Council to consider and increase Council salaries through a transparent public hearing process that allows consideration of all relevant factors. The notion that the Charter should be amended to build in an automatic adjustment should be rejected.
Section 2.07(D) amendments would eliminate the voter approval requirement for changes to City owner utility/enterprises. This change should be rejected and is mischaracterized in the ad hoc committee's recommendation which states that, "to ensure transparency and public trust, any change to the authority for contracted or franchise services must be presented as a standalone ballot question." In fact, the proposed amendment appears to eliminate any ballot questions by eliminating any voter approval requirement.
Section 4.03 amendments would place the already challenging role of City Attorney directly under the thumb of the City Council. Under current processes, the City Attorney may be under substantial pressure to give the Council advice that the City Attorney thinks the Council wants to hear creating potential conflicts with sound legal advice. As with other department heads, the City Attorney should be retained by the City Manager and not serve at the whim of a particular City Council.
Section 4.07 amendments appear to be an unnecessary knee-jerk reaction to the City's recent defeat in Sac Superior Civil Case 23WM000125 resulting from the City Council and City
06/23/2026 Item No.17.
Attorney's refusal to respect the plain language of this section of the Charter. In adopting the Charter, the citizens of Folsom allowed that the Council may create boards and commissions, but wisely restricted those boards and commissions to an advisory role. Such a structure is appropriate and need not be tampered with. The ad hoc committee's report discusses that "the adjustment would ensure the Charter does not inadvertently block the Council from empowering commissions and committees to take direct action on specialized matters." However, the Charter's existing language is not an inadvertent block of such power, it serves as an important intentional check on the Council's ability to delegate away decision-making that should fall squarely on the City Council. Additionally, textually the ad hoc committee recommendation adds "or Committee" in the last sentence, but as written (original and proposed) the section is limited to the creation and roles boards and commissions. Adding a single reference to Committee will create confusion and potential inconsistent interpretations.
FMC 2.48.030 - The Council established an ad hoc committee to explore the City Charter, yet, the committee's recommendations include an increase in the campaign contribution limit which is not part of the Charter. The committee says this is necessary to balance the influence of political action committees and special interests on local elections. I disagree. The current limits are appropriate and should not be increased. Moreover, a recommended change to contribution limits exceeds the role assigned to the Charter review committee and should be rejected.
For these and other reasons, please reject the ad hoc committee's recommended amendments to the City Charter and dissolve the committee.
Thank you,
- Bob Delp
06/23/2026 Item No.17.
Folsom City Council Meeting
Revised Staff Report Transmittal
MEETING DATE: 6/23/2026
AGENDA SECTION: Public Hearing
STAFF REPORT TITLE Consideration of Ordinances Amending the City Charter and/or the Folsom Municipal Code for Submission to the
Voters at the 2026 General Municipal Election:
Ordinance No. 1371- An Ordinance of the People of the City of Folsom Amending Section 4.03, “City Attorney”, of the City Charter to have the City Council Appoint and Direct the City Attorney and to Make Related Operational Changes
(Introduction and First Reading)
Ordinance No.1372 - An Ordinance of the People of the City of Folsom Amending Section 4.07, “Boards and
Commissions”, of the City Charter to Confirm that the City Council May Grant Decision Making Authority to Boards and Commissions by Ordinance (Introduction and First Reading) Ordinance No. 1373- An Ordinance of the People of the City of Folsom Amending Section 2.48.030, “Campaign
Contribution Limitation”, of the Folsom Municipal Code to Increase the Campaign Contribution Limit (Introduction and First Reading)
FROM: City Manager's Office
Staff has prepared the following revised staff report sections and Ordinance pertaining to the above-referenced agenda item.
The revisions are shown as follows:
language deletions: Strikeouts, bold and underlined,
language additions: Italics, bold and underlined.
06/23/2026 Item No.17.
2 In the Item Title section of the report, the title of Ordinance 1372 is modified to read as follows:
Ordinance No.1372 - An Ordinance of the People of the City of Folsom Amending Section 4.07, “Boards and Commissions”, of the City Charter to Confirm that the City Council May Grant Decision Making Authority to Boards, and Commissions, and Committees by Ordinance (Introduction and First Reading) In the Analysis section of the report, the fourth paragraph is modified to read as follows:
Attached to this report are the three ordinances that, if approved by the Council at the July 14 meeting, will be submitted to the voters at the November 3, 2026 election. No changes were made to the language of the proposed amendments to City Charter § 4.03 (City Attorney) and City Charter § 4.07 (Boards and Commissions). The proposed language for those that sections, included as Attachment 1 and Attachment 2 to the May 26, 2026 staff report, was carried over verbatim to Ordinance No. 1371 and Ordinance No. 1372, respectively. The language of the proposed amendment to City Charter § 4.07 (Boards and Commissions) was changed to eliminate the reference to committees. Committees are not referenced in the language of City Charter § 4.07 as it reads today. The inclusion of committees in City Charter § 4.07 is not necessary to achieve the desired objective of ensuring that committee members are residents and registered voters of the City because the Council may prescribe the powers and duties of committees by resolution or ordinance, as appropriate. The inclusion of committees in City Charter § 4.07 also has the potential to create unintended consequences for certain existing committees that include City staff, who are not required to be City residents, as members. For those reasons, all references to committees in the proposed amendment have been removed. The language of the proposed amendment to Folsom Municipal Code § 2.48.030 (Campaign Contribution Limitation) was changed to reflect the Council’s desire for a new campaign contribution limit of $500. That modification was the only change to the proposed language included as Attachment 3 to the May 26, 2026 staff report that was included in Ordinance No. 1373.
In the Attachments section of the report, the title of Ordinance 1372 is modified to read as follows:
Ordinance No. 1372- An Ordinance of the People of the City of Folsom Amending Section 4.07, “Boards and Commissions”, of the City Charter to Confirm that the City Council May Grant Decision Making Authority to Boards, and Commissions, and Committees by Ordinance
The language of Ordinance No. 1372 is modified to read as shown on Attachment 1. A clean copy of Ordinance No. 1372 as modified is included as Attachment 2.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Ordinance No. 1372, showing language deletions and additions
2. Ordinance No. 1372, clean copy as modified
06/23/2026 Item No.17.
3 Submitted,
Bryan Whitemyer
City Manager
06/23/2026 Item No.17.
Ordinance No. 1372
ORDINANCE NO. 1372
AN ORDINANCE OF THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF FOLSOM
AMENDING SECTION 4.07, “BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS,” OF THE CITY
CHARTER TO CONFIRM THAT THE CITY COUNCIL MAY GRANT
DECISION MAKING AUTHORITY TO BOARDS, AND COMMISSIONS, AND
COMMITTEES BY ORDINANCE
The People of the City of Folsom hereby do ordain as follows:
SECTION 1 CHARTER AMENDMENT
Section 4.07, “Boards and Commissions”, of Article IV, “Departments, Agencies and Employees”, of The Adopted Charter of the City of Folsom is hereby amended to read as follows:
Section 4.07 Boards, and Commissions, and Committees:
The City Council may by ordinance create other Boards, and Commissions, and Committees and prescribe their powers and duties, determine the number and qualification of the members, their method of selection, term of office and removal, and fix their compensation, if any. Each member of any Board, or Commission, or Committee shall be a resident and registered voter of the City.
SECTION 2 SCOPE
Except as set forth in this Ordinance, all other provisions of The Adopted Charter of the City of Folsom shall remain in full force and effect.
SECTION 3 SEVERABILITY
If any section, subsection, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The People of the City of Folsom hereby declare that they would have adopted this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, clauses, phrases or portions be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 4 EFFECTIVE DATE
If a majority of the registered voters of the City voting upon this proposed Charter amendment vote in favor of it, the amendment shall become effective thirty (30) days after the City Council certifies the election returns.
06/23/2026 Item No.17.
Ordinance No. 1372
SECTION 5 PUBLICATION
The City Clerk shall file the results of the Charter amendment election with the Secretary of State within 45 days following the election.
In addition, the City Clerk is directed to cause a copy of this Ordinance to be published in full or in summary in a newspaper of general circulation in the City within twenty (20) days after the City Council certifies the election returns indicating that a majority of the registered voters of the City voting upon the proposed Charter amendment voted in favor of it.
SECTION 6 ELECTION RESULTS
The foregoing Charter amendment was approved by the voters of the City of Folsom at a General Municipal Election held on November 3, 2026, by the following vote tally:
YES:
NOES:
OTHER:
APPROVED:
_______________________________________
Justin Raithel, MAYOR
ATTEST:
______________________________
Christa Freemantle, CITY CLERK
06/23/2026 Item No.17.
Ordinance No. 1372
ORDINANCE NO. 1372
AN ORDINANCE OF THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF FOLSOM
AMENDING SECTION 4.07, “BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS,” OF THE CITY
CHARTER TO CONFIRM THAT THE CITY COUNCIL MAY GRANT
DECISION MAKING AUTHORITY TO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS BY
ORDINANCE
The People of the City of Folsom hereby do ordain as follows:
SECTION 1 CHARTER AMENDMENT
Section 4.07, “Boards and Commissions”, of Article IV, “Departments, Agencies and Employees”, of The Adopted Charter of the City of Folsom is hereby amended to read as follows:
Section 4.07 Boards and Commissions:
The City Council may by ordinance create other Boards and Commissions and prescribe their powers and duties, determine the number and qualification of the members, their method of selection, term of office and removal, and fix their compensation, if any. Each member of any Board or Commission shall be a resident and registered voter of the City.
SECTION 2 SCOPE
Except as set forth in this Ordinance, all other provisions of The Adopted Charter of the City of Folsom shall remain in full force and effect.
SECTION 3 SEVERABILITY
If any section, subsection, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The People of the City of Folsom hereby declare that they would have adopted this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, clauses, phrases or portions be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 4 EFFECTIVE DATE
If a majority of the registered voters of the City voting upon this proposed Charter amendment vote in favor of it, the amendment shall become effective thirty (30) days after the City Council certifies the election returns.
06/23/2026 Item No.17.
Ordinance No. 1372
SECTION 5 PUBLICATION
The City Clerk shall file the results of the Charter amendment election with the Secretary of State within 45 days following the election.
In addition, the City Clerk is directed to cause a copy of this Ordinance to be published in full or in summary in a newspaper of general circulation in the City within twenty (20) days after the City Council certifies the election returns indicating that a majority of the registered voters of the City voting upon the proposed Charter amendment voted in favor of it.
SECTION 6 ELECTION RESULTS
The foregoing Charter amendment was approved by the voters of the City of Folsom at a General Municipal Election held on November 3, 2026, by the following vote tally:
YES:
NOES:
OTHER:
APPROVED:
_______________________________________
Justin Raithel, MAYOR
ATTEST:
______________________________
Christa Freemantle, CITY CLERK
06/23/2026 Item No.17.
Folsom City Council
Staff Report
MEETING DATE: 6/23/2026
AGENDA SECTION: Public Hearing
ITEM TITLE: Toll Brothers at Alder Creek - South of Alder Creek Parkway, east and west of Oak Avenue Parkway, north of Mangini Parkway, and east of Prairie City Road, in the Folsom Plan Area (MSTR25- 00084)
i. Resolution No. 11643 – A Resolution of the City Council Determining that the Toll Brothers at Alder Creek Project is Exempt from CEQA and Approving a Small-Lot Vesting
Tentative Subdivision Map, Planned Development Permit,
Inclusionary Housing Plan, and Minor Administrative
Modification
FROM: Community Development Department
RECOMMENDATION / CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Staff forwards the following recommendation to the City Council:
Approve Resolution No 11643 - A Resolution of the City Council Determining that the Toll Brothers at Alder Creek project is Exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15182 and Approving a Small-Lot Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map, Planned Development Permit, Inclusionary Housing Plan, and Minor Administrative Modification.
The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed project on May 20, 2026, and recommended approval by the City Council with the additional request that the Council consider requiring inclusion of a Class IV bike lane along Oak Avenue Parkway. More information on this request is included in the Analysis section of this report.
BACKGROUND / ISSUE
The proposed project involves several related actions associated with a proposed residential development:
06/23/2026 Item No.18.
2 • A Small Lot Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map to create 1,424 residential lots in 18 Villages over an area of approximately 464.2 acres. Additional parcels are also included for private recreation, park, landscaping, open space, roadway, fire station, and elementary school use. In total, 1,497 lots will be created.
• A Planned Development Permit to establish unique development standards for the project, and to review landscape theming and design and preliminary homesite design guidelines and architectural themes.
• An Inclusionary Housing Plan to pay in-lieu fees to meet the project’s affordable housing needs.
• A Minor Administrative Modification to adjust boundaries between Specific Plan land use designations to accommodate more efficient use of land within the project boundary and adopt an alternative roadway cross section for Alder Creek Parkway.
The proposed project is in the western area of the Folsom Plan Area Specific Plan (FPASP or Plan Area). The project area includes FPASP residential land use designations of Single Family (SF), Single Family High Density (SFHD), and Multi-Family Low Density (MLD), and non-residential land use designations of Park (P), Public/Quasi Public (PQP), and Open Space (OS).
The Project is primarily a residential development. However, it includes multiple parcels that are designated for open space, parkland, school, and fire services. Private mini-parks and a private community recreation facility are also proposed. The applicant has created an overall land plan that includes these additional land uses, which is shown in Figure 1 on the following page.
A full description of the project and requested entitlements can be found in the Planning Commission Staff Report (Attachment 2).
The project was continued from the June 9, 2026, City Council agenda to the June 23, 2026, agenda at the request of the applicant.
06/23/2026 Item No.18.
3 FIGURE 1: ILLUSTRATIVE MASTER PLAN EXHIBIT
POLICY / RULE
The Folsom Municipal Code (FMC) requires that applications for Tentative Subdivision Maps be forwarded to the City Council for final action. City Council actions regarding Tentative Subdivision Maps are covered under Section 16.16.080 of the FMC.
The project site is in a Planned Development (PD) Overlay District. Pursuant to FMC Chapter
17.38, the PD Overlay District requires development to request a PD Permit. The PD Overlay District allows greater flexibility in the design of integrated developments than possible through strict application of land use regulations and encourages the creative and efficient use of land.
06/23/2026 Item No.18.
4 In addition, the City of Folsom Charter Section 7.08(C) (Measure W) requires that the FPASP preserve thirty percent of the Plan Area in perpetual open space.
ANALYSIS
The following sections provide brief summaries of staff’s analysis of the project. More in-depth analysis can be found in the Planning Commission Staff Report (Attachment 2).
General Plan and Specific Plan Consistency
The city provides residential lands at a variety of residential densities as specified in the General Plan and in the Folsom Municipal Code. The Folsom Plan Area Specific Plan includes specialized zoning (Specific Plan Land Use Designations) that are customized to the Plan Area as adopted in 2011 and as amended over time. The FPASP provides residential lands at densities ranging from 1-4 dwelling unit per acre (SF), 4-7 dwelling units per acre (SFHD), 7-12 dwelling units per acre (MLD), 12-20 dwelling units per acre (MMD), 20-30 dwelling units per acre (MHD), and 9-30 dwelling units per acre (MU). The Toll Brothers at Alder Creek project is proposed to build out densities consistent with the applicable land use designations. The land uses and densities proposed are consistent with the General Plan and Specific Plan.
Small Lot Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map
As shown in the Preliminary Final Map Phasing Plan (Attachment 14), the applicant plans to file multiple final maps on the tentative map and has included notice of this intent as part of the Project Narrative (Attachment 19). The proposed Small-Lot Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map creates the necessary easements to allow for roads and utilities to facilitate development of the individual parcels, as well as parcels providing shared access, landscaping, and open space that will be owned and maintained by one or more Homeowners Association (HOA). The applicant has provided a proposed street name list as required under FMC Section 16.16.050. The list has been reviewed by safety agencies and refined based on their input and is included as Attachment 17 to this staff report. Condition No. 23 requires that the street names be shown as approved on the final map(s).
Staff have determined that the proposed Small Lot Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map, if approved concurrently with the Planned Development Permit request, complies with all City requirements (Folsom Municipal Code [FMC], Title 16), as well as with the requirements of the State Subdivision Map Act (Government Code Sections 66410 et seq.).
Backbone Infrastructure
The construction of the backbone infrastructure was envisioned in both the General Plan and the FPASP to occur as part of and in tandem with new development. The applicant and landowners have provided a Conceptual Backbone Infrastructure Phasing Plan for both the Southwest District and the Central District west of East Bidwell Street (refer to Attachment 15). This document identifies all the backbone infrastructure, including roadways and utility infrastructure, to be built out as each of the different parcels develop in the FPASP. City staff reviewed the proposed Conceptual Phasing Plan and found that it provided the necessary information to determine relative timing and responsibility for completion of necessary backbone infrastructure for the Southwest and Central Districts of the Plan Area.
06/23/2026 Item No.18.
5 Traffic, Access, and Circulation
The 2011 Folsom Plan Area Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) included not only a detailed analysis of traffic-related impacts within the Plan Area, but also an evaluation of traffic-related impacts on the surrounding communities. In total, there are fifty-five (55) traffic-related mitigation measures associated with development of the FPASP. Condition No. 11 requires that the Project comply with all applicable mitigation measures including those related to traffic.
Staff from the Community Development Department, Public Works Department, and Fire Department then worked with the applicant team and property ownership over many months to review options for roadway improvements that would move the backbone system phasing plan forward in a logical and realistic manner but would be responsive to financing and timing constraints facing the applicant during Project buildout. A set of Conditions of Approval were developed that balance the needs of all parties, recommended by city staff, and accepted by the Project applicant. These are Condition Nos. 33 through 39 in Attachment 3. With these conditions and adoption of the FPASP Central and Southwest Districts Conceptual Backbone Infrastructure Phasing Plan (Attachment 15), staff believe that the Project is consistent with General Plan and Plan Area policies related to Traffic, Access, and Circulation.
During the May 20, 2026, Planning Commission meeting, the Commission recommended that the project include Class IV bike lanes along Oak Avenue Parkway, to encourage bicycling to the school and park sites in the central area of the project. A Class IV bike lane (also known as a separated bikeway or protected bike lane) is an on-street bike lane that uses a physical barrier to separate cyclists from moving car traffic as shown below in Figure 2. Based on the Commission’s recommendation, the applicant is considering including new Class IV bike lanes on both the east and west sides of Oak Avenue Parkway in lieu of the Class II bike lanes identified in the FPASP.
However, the applicant has requested additional time to evaluate this recommendation before they decide on whether to include this. As a result, staff added an advisory condition (Condition No. 106), that identifies the requirements for Class IV bike lanes if the applicant decides to add these in lieu of the Class II lanes. If the applicant chooses to make this change to the existing cross section for Oak Avenue Parkway as requested by the Commission, Condition No. 107 has been added to require future approval of a staff-level Minor Administrative Modification (MAM) prior to the start of site improvement work since this would be a minor change to the Oak Avenue Parkway cross section in the plan. A MAM is an administrative tool in the FPASP that allows for minor changes to the specific plan so long as they don’t impact the future Town Center, worsen access to parks and schools, or create an environmental issue.
FIGURE 2: EXAMPLE OF CLASS IV BIKE LANE
06/23/2026 Item No.18.
6 Open Space and Oak Woodland Preservation
Open Space
The Project includes modification of the boundaries between Plan Area land use designations, including the boundaries of the OS (Open Space) designation, requested through a Minor Administrative Modification (MAM). The applicant states that significant work went into design of the land plan for the development to create a lotting pattern and supporting infrastructure plan that is both efficient and sensitive to the OS areas that surround much of the Project site. This resulted in an increase of approximately 5.9 acres of open space to the overall OS total because of this Project. As a result, staff determined that the project remains consistent with the City of Folsom Charter Section 7.08(C) (Measure W) because it maintains and even adds to the 30% open space preservation requirement.
Oak Woodland Preservation
The FPASP EIR/EIS (Mitigation Measure 3A.3-5) requires the applicant to submit an Oak Tree Mitigation Plan consistent with the approved Oak Tree Mitigation and Monitoring Plan for the FPASP to mitigate for impacts to the oak woodland preserve areas and isolated oak trees located on the project site. Conditions have been placed on the Project that require the applicant to submit the Oak Tree Mitigation Plan for the areas of the oak woodland that are affected and obtain tree removal permits for individual oak trees as required. This will keep the project in conformance with the required mitigation measures.
The Specific Plan includes Policy 10.13 which requires that development “preserve and protect in perpetuity approximately 396.52-acres of existing oak woodlands.” Staff requested that the applicant provide an analysis that demonstrated whether their project would reduce the amount of oak woodland below the 396.52-acre threshold identified in the specific plan. The applicant was able to demonstrate that their project would not reduce the oak woodland below the threshold. In fact, there would be approximately 425.52 acres of oak woodland that would remain. However, staff note that these calculations do not include potential woodland impacts from future development. The applicant provided an exhibit showing how they determined their potential impact to oak woodland and the balance of woodland expected to remain after completion of their project (Attachment 23).
After the Toll project, since only 29.14 more acres of oak woodland can be removed by future development before hitting the minimum woodland area threshold, it is expected that future projects may either need to reduce their size to avoid additional oak woodland loss or prepare a specific plan amendment and associated environmental review and obtain Council approval. As a result, other residential and non-residential projects in the Plan Area are expected to deal with this major constraint.
Trails, Parks, Fire Station, and School Sites
The Project is adjacent to multiple Open Space parcels that are expected to include Class I bikeways and trails as well as connection points for pedestrian and bicycle access at various
06/23/2026 Item No.18.
7 locations. In addition, the Project includes sites that will be transferred to the City for a Neighborhood Park and a Fire Station. Finally, the Project includes a property adjacent to the Neighborhood Park site that will be transferred to the Folsom Cordova Unified School District (FCUSD) to develop as a future elementary school site referred to by the school district as Granite Springs Elementary School. All these expected uses are consistent with the Plan Area Land Use Plan. The project is conditioned to provide all required roadway and other development improvements and pay applicable impact fees to support them.
Planned Development Permit
The Project is requesting a Planned Development (PD) Permit in compliance with the existing PD Overlay Zoning, per FPASP Sections 13.2 (Approvals and Entitlements) and A.2.3 (Overlay Combining Zones). The PD Permit includes consideration of development standard deviations and project level architectural and landscape design guidelines. These include smaller lot sizes in the SFHD and MLD zones and new development standards to accommodate their 4-pack and 6-pack housing product types. Staff have reviewed the proposed development standard deviations and architectural and landscape design guidelines and believe that they comply with the intent and purpose of the FPASP and meet the review criteria under FMC Section 17.38.100.
Inclusionary Housing Plan
The FPASP and Section 17.104 of the FMC require all for-sale residential development projects consisting of 10 or more units satisfy the city’s inclusionary housing requirement. One option for satisfying the requirement is to pay a fee to the city in lieu of constructing the required number of inclusionary units for the development project. Consistent with the requirements of Section
17.104.060(F)(5) of the FMC, the applicant has submitted a signed letter stating that their intent is to pay the in-lieu fee for this project (Attachment 18). Additionally, Condition No. 32 requires payment of the applicable in-lieu fee, as required by FMC Section 17.104.060(F)(5). Staff have reviewed the intent letter and believe it, in combination with Condition No. 32, complies with the requirements of FMC Section 17.104 in that it confirms the applicant will satisfy the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance by paying fees.
Minor Administrative Modification
The applicant also proposed a Minor Administrative Modification (MAM) to increase the number of FPASP Parcels (utilized to track residential unit allocations within the Plan Area) by dividing some larger parcels and modify Specific Plan Land Use boundaries to reflect more detailed land planning around open space resources and the public park and school site. In addition, City staff and the applicant agreed to amend the roadway cross section for Alder Creek Parkway and include it as part of the MAM. Staff reviewed the proposed MAM against the criteria set forth in Section 13 of the FPASP and concluded that the proposed change meets all that are applicable. A more detailed analysis of the proposed MAM and the related evaluation criteria is included in the Planning Commission staff report in Attachment 2.
06/23/2026 Item No.18.
8 FINANCIAL IMPACT
No financial impact is anticipated with the approval of the Small-Lot Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map, Planned Development Permit, or Design Review as the project will not result in any changes to the total number of residential units within the FPASP.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15182(c), where a public agency has prepared an EIR on a specific plan after January 1, 1980, a residential project undertaken pursuant to and in conformity to that specific plan is exempt from CEQA if the project meets the requirements of this section.
Residential projects covered by this section include but are not limited to land subdivisions, zoning changes, and residential planned unit developments.
The City of Folsom as Lead Agency, had a Conformity Analysis prepared by ECORP Consulting, Inc. to identify and assess compliance of the Alder Creek Subdivision Tentative Map Project (Proposed Project) with the program-level Folsom Plan Area Specific Plan (FPASP) Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS, State Clearinghouse [SCH]# 2008092051). This Conformity Analysis also satisfied CEQA (Public Resources Code [PRC], Section 21000 et seq.) and state CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, California Code of Regulations [CCR] 15000 et seq.). The Conformity Analysis is included with this report along with supporting Appendices as Attachment 20.
The Conformity Analysis found that an Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) for the Folsom South of U.S. Highway 50 Specific Plan Project was prepared jointly by the City of Folsom and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to fulfill requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National Environmental Policy Act, respectively. A Notice of Determination (NOD) for the EIR was filed by the City of Folsom on June 15, 2011 (State Clearinghouse [SCH] #2008092051), and a Record of Decision for the EIR/EIS was filed by the USACE on August 12, 2011, (SPK-2007-02159). A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) was prepared and adopted with the FPASP and is a binding document applicable to the Alder Creek Property development (Appendix A, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program). The approved MMRP outlines mitigation measures required for all projects located within the FPASP. In addition, an Initial Study (IS) and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared for the FPASP Backbone Infrastructure (BB IS/MND), and an NOD was filed by the City of Folsom on February 25, 2015 (SCH# 2114122018). The BB IS/MND outlines mitigation measures specifically for Backbone Infrastructure development. The mitigation measures in the BB IS/MND mirror the original EIR/EIS with some modifications.
On June 8, 2026, the law firm of Lozeau Drury, LLP submitted a comment letter on the project on behalf of Laborers International Union of North America, Local Union 185 (LIUNA Letter). The LIUNA Letter argued that new information regarding special status species in the project area and new mitigation measures available related to greenhouse gas emissions and indoor air quality
06/23/2026 Item No.18.
9 protection required that the city prepare a Supplemental EIR for adequate CEQA review. The LIUNA Letter is included with this report as Attachment 25.
On June 15, 2026, the law firm of Buchalter, on behalf of the project applicant, submitted a response to the LIUNA Letter that included a memo from ECORP Consulting, Inc., who completed the project’s Consistency Analysis (Buchalter Letter). The Buchalter Letter refuted the assertions of the LIUNA Letter that new information or changed circumstances are in play in this circumstance and argued that the Conformity Analysis remains adequate and compete. The ECORP memo analyzed the special status species listed in the LIUNA Letter and found that none met the criteria for consideration after a review of species habitats, sightings, and listing status.
ECORP also stated that multiple recent surveys by their staff on the project site resulted in no sightings of the species listed. The ECORP memo also rejected the new mitigation measures put forth by the LIUNA Letter as lacking evidence of efficacy in reducing greenhouse gas emissions or improving indoor air quality. The Buchalter Letter is included with this report as Attachment
26. Staff has reviewed the LIUNA Letter and Buchalter Letter and remains confident that the proposed project implements and is consistent with the Folsom Plan Area Specific Plan and its supporting Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS), and none of the factors set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 (Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations) are present or have been identified, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15182 (Projects Pursuant to a Specific Plan). Therefore, the city finds that the project is exempt from further CEQA compliance. The city further finds that the project is also exempt pursuant to Government Code Section 65457 related to specific plans.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution No. 11643
a. Exhibit A – Small Lot Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map, dated May 29, 2026 b. Exhibit B – Conditions of Approval
2. Planning Commission Staff Report without Attachments, dated May 20, 2026,
3. Conditions of Approval (Refer to Exhibit B of Resolution No. 11643)
4. Vicinity Map
5. Small Lot Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map, dated May 29, 2026 (Refer to Exhibit A of Resolution No. 11643)
6. Preliminary Grading & Storm Drain Plan, dated May 13, 2026
7. Preliminary Sanitary Sewer, Recycled Water & Domestic Water Plan, dated May 13, 2026
8. Illustrative Master Plan Exhibit, dated March 4, 2026
06/23/2026 Item No.18.
10 9. Perimeter Wall and Fence Exhibit, dated November 6, 2025
10. Toll Brothers at Alder Creek Architectural Design Guidelines
11. Toll Brothers at Alder Creek Landscape Design Guidelines
12. Retaining Walls Exhibit, dated March 2026
13. Solid Waste Management Cart Location Exhibit, dated June 2025
14. Toll Brothers at Alder Creek Final Map Preliminary Phasing Exhibit, dated May 6, 2026
15. Folsom Plan Area Conceptual Backbone Infrastructure Phasing Plan, dated May 2026
16. Minor Administrative Modification Exhibits, dated April 7, 2025
17. Street Name List, Final, dated March 17, 2026
18. Inclusionary Housing Plan Letter, dated April 15, 2026
19. Project Narrative, dated April 2026
20. Alder Creek Conformity Analysis with Appendices, date November 19, 2025
21. Kimley Horne Traffic Report and Circulation Study, dated April 1, 2025
22. Arborist Report, dated April 2025
23. Folsom Plan Area Oak Woodlands Exhibit, dated June 12, 2026
24. Resident Comment Letter, dated April 21, 2026
25. Lozeau Drury Comment Letter, dated June 8, 2026
26. Buchalter/ECORP Comment Response Letter, dated June 15, 2026 Submitted,
_____________________
PAM JOHNS
Community Development Director
06/23/2026 Item No.18.
Attachment 1
Resolution No. 11643
06/23/2026 Item No.18.
Resolution No. 11643
RESOLUTION NO. 11643
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL DETERMINING THAT THE TOLL
BROTHERS AT ALDER CREEK PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM CEQA PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15182 AND APPROVING A SMALL-LOT
VESTING TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT,
INCLUSIONARY HOUSING PLAN, AND MINOR ADMINISTRATIVE
MODIFICATION
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission on May 20, 2026, held a public hearing on the proposed Small-Lot Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map, Inclusionary Housing Plan, and Minor Administrative Modification to the Folsom Plan Area Specific Plan, considered public comment and, based on the proposed configuration of the 1,424 single-family residential lots, determined the proposed subdivision complies with all City requirements, as well as with the requirements of the State Subdivision Map Act; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the proposed small lot vesting tentative subdivision map, planning development permit, inclusionary housing plan, and minor administrative modification for the Toll Brothers at Alder Creek; and WHEREAS, notice has been given at the time and in the manner required by State Law and City Code; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Toll Brothers at Alder Creek is exempt from further environmental review under Section 15182 (Projects Implementing Specific Plans) of the CEQA Guidelines.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Folsom City Council that the SmallLot Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map, Planned Development Permit, Inclusionary Housing Plan, and Minor Administrative Modification for the Toll Brothers at Alder Creek Project creating 1,424 single-family residential parcels, as shown in Exhibit “A”, are hereby approved.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that these approvals are subject to the conditions of approval attached as Exhibit “B” based on the following findings:
GENERAL FINDINGS
A. NOTICE OF HEARING HAS BEEN GIVEN AT THE TIME AND IN THE MANNER REQUIRED BY STATE LAW AND CITY CODE.
B. THE PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN AND THE FOLSOM
PLAN AREA SPECIFIC PLAN, WITH APPROVAL OF THE REQUESTED MINOR ADMINISTRATIVE MODIFICATION.
CEQA FINDINGS
06/23/2026 Item No.18.
Resolution No. 11643
C. THE CITY, AS LEAD AGENCY, PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED AN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE FOLSOM PLAN AREA SPECIFIC PLAN.
D. THE CITY HAS DETERMINED THAT THE TOLL BROTHERS AT ALDER CREEK
PROJECT IS UNDERTAKEN TO IMPLEMENT AND IS CONSISTENT WITH THE FOLSOM PLAN AREA SPECIFIC PLAN.
E. THE CITY HAS DETERMINED THAT THE IMPACTS OF THE TOLL BROTHERS
AT ALDER CREEK PROJECT ARE ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED BY THE FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE FOLSOM PLAN AREA SPECIFIC
PLAN AND ASSOCIATED MITIGATION MEASURES AND THAT THE TOLL
BROTHERS AT ALDER CREEK PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM THE
REQUIREMENTS OF CEQA PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65457 AND CEQA GUIDELINES 15182(C).
F. NONE OF THE EVENTS SPECIFIED IN SECTION 21166 OF THE PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE OR SECTION 15162 OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES HAVE OCCURRED.
G. THIS PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM CEQA IN ACCORDANCE WITH
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65457 AND SECTION 15182 OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES.
TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FINDINGS
H. THE PROPOSED SMALL-LOT VESTING TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY’S SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AND THE
SUBDIVISION MAP ACT IN THAT THE PROJECT IS SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS
OF APPROVAL THAT WILL ENSURE THAT THE PROJECT IS DEVELOPED IN COMPLIANCE WITH CITY STANDARDS.
I. THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION, TOGETHER WITH THE PROVISIONS FOR ITS
DESIGN AND IMPROVEMENT, IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN (AS
AMENDED), THE FOLSOM PLAN AREA SPECIFIC PLAN (AS AMENDED), AND ALL APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THE FOLSOM MUNICIPAL CODE.
J. THE SITE IS PHYSICALLY SUITABLE FOR THE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED.
K. THE SITE IS PHYSICALLY SUITABLE FOR THE PROPOSED DENSITY OF DEVELOPMENT.
L. AS CONDITIONED, THE DESIGN OF THE SMALL-LOT VESTING TENTATIVE
SUBDIVISION MAP AND THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ARE NOT LIKELY
06/23/2026 Item No.18.
Resolution No. 11643
TO CAUSE SUBSTANTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE OR SUBSTANTIALLY AND AVOIDABLY INJURY FISH OR WILDLIFE OR THEIR HABITAT.
M. AS CONDITIONED, THE DESIGN OF THE SMALL-LOT VESTING TENTATIVE
SUBDIVISION MAP AND THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ARE NOT LIKELY TO CAUSE SERIOUS PUBLIC HEALTH OR SAFETY PROBLEMS.
N. THE DESIGN OF THE SMALL-LOT TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP AND THE
TYPE OF IMPROVEMENTS WILL NOT CONFLICT WITH EASEMENTS FOR
ACCESS THROUGH OR USE OF PROPERTY WITHIN THE PROPOSED
SUBDIVISION.
O. SUBJECT TO SECTION 66474.4 OF THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT, THE LAND IS
NOT SUBJECT TO A CONTRACT ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO THE
CALIFORNIA LAND CONSERVATION ACT OF 1965 (COMMENCING WITH SECTION 51200 OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE).
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FINDINGS
P. THE PROPOSED PROJECT COMPLIES WITH THE INTENT AND PURPOSES OF CHAPTER 17.38 (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT) OF THE FOLSOM MUNICIPAL CODE AND OTHER APPLICABLE ORDINANCES OF THE CITY.
Q. THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE OBJECTIVES, POLICIES AND REQUIREMENTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OF THE CITY.
R. THE MINOR MODIFICATIONS TO EXISTING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
PROPOSED BY THIS PROJECT WILL RESULT IN A DEVELOPMENT THAT IS SUPERIOR TO THAT OBTAINED BY RIGID APPLICATION OF THE STANDARDS.
S. THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS DESIGNED TO PROVIDE OPEN SPACE,
CIRCULATION, OFF-STREET PARKING, AND OTHER CONDITIONS IN SUCH A
WAY AS TO FORM A HARMONIOUS, INTEGRATED PROJECT OF SUFFICIENT
QUALITY TO JUSTIFY EXCEPTIONS TO THE NORMAL REGULATIONS T. WITH RESPECT TO PROJECT DESIGN, THE PHYSICAL, FUNCTIONAL, AND
VISUAL COMPATIBILITY BETWEEN THE PROPOSED PROJECT AND EXISTING
AND FUTURE ADJACENT USES AND AREA CHARACTERISTICS IS
ACCEPTABLE.
U. THERE WILL BE AVAILABLE PUBLIC FACILITIES, INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO WATER, SEWER AND DRAINAGE TO ALLOW FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROJECT SITE IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH THE PROPOSAL AS CONDITIONED.
V. THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL NOT CAUSE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL
06/23/2026 Item No.18.
Resolution No. 11643
IMPACTS WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN MITIGATED TO AN ACCEPTABLE LEVEL.
W. THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL NOT CAUSE UNACCEPTABLE VEHICULAR
TRAFFIC LEVELS ON SURROUNDING ROADWAYS AND THE PROPOSED
PROJECT WILL PROVIDE ADEQUATE INTERNAL TRAFFIC CIRCULATION, INCLUDING INGRESS AND EGRESS.
X. THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL NOT BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE HEALTH,
SAFETY, AND GENERAL WELFARE OF THE PERSONS OR PROPERTY WITHIN
THE VICINITY OF THE PROJECT SITE AND THE CITY AS A WHOLE,
ADEQUATE PROVISION IS MADE FOR THE FURNISHING OF SANITATION SERVICE AND EMERGENCY PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICES TO THE PROJECT.
Y. THE PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE FOLSOM PLAN AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AND FOLSOM PLAN AREA EIR/EIS. ACCORDINGLY THE PROPOSED
PROJECT’S WATER DEMAND CAN BE ACCOMMODATED BY THE CITY’S EXISTING WATER SUPPLY ALLOCATED TO SERVE THE FOLSOM PLAN AREA.
INCLUSIONARY HOUSING PLAN FINDINGS
Z. THE APPLICANT HAS SATISFIED THE REQUIREMENTS OF FMC SECTION
17.104.060(F) RELATED TO THE PROVISION OF AN INCLUSIONARY HOUSING PLAN.
MINOR ADMINISTRATIVE MODIFICATION FINDINGS
AA. THE APPLICANT HAS SATISFIED THE CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL OF A MINOR ADMINISTRATIVE MODIFICATION UNDER FPASP SECTION 13.3 (ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES):
1. THE PROPOSED MODIFICATION IS WITHIN THE PLAN AREA.
2. THE MODIFICATION DOES NOT REDUCE THE SIZE OF THE PROPOSED TOWN CENTER.
3. THE MODIFICATION RETAINS COMPLIANCE WITH CITY CHARTER ARTICLE 7.08, PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS MEASURE W.
4. THE GENERAL LAND USE PATTERN REMAINS CONSISTENT WITH THE
INTENT AND SPIRIT OF THE FPASP
5. THE PROPOSED CHANGES DO NOT SUBSTANTIALLY ALTER THE
BACKBONE INFRASTRUCTURE NETWORK.
6. THE PROPOSED MODIFICATION OFFERS EQUAL OR SUPERIOR
IMPROVEMENTS TO DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY OR STANDARDS.
7. THE PROPOSED MODIFICATION DOES NOT INCREASE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS BEYOND THOSE IDENTIFIED IN THE
EIR/EIS.
06/23/2026 Item No.18.
Resolution No. 11643
8. RELOCATED PARK OR SCHOOL PARCELS CONTINUE TO MEET THE STANDARDS FOR THE TYPE OF PARK OR SCHOOL PROPOSED.
9. RELOCATED PARK OR SCHOOL PARCELS REMAIN WITHIN WALKING DISTANCE OF THE RESIDENTS THEY SERVE.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 23rd day of June, 2026, by the following roll-call vote:
AYES: Councilmember(s):
NOES: Councilmember(s):
ABSENT: Councilmember(s):
ABSTAIN: Councilmember(s):
____________________________________
Justin Raithel, MAYOR
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Christa Freemantle, CITY CLERK
06/23/2026 Item No.18.
Exhibit A
Small Lot Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map,
dated May 13, 2026
06/23/2026 Item No.18.
EXISTING CONSERVATION
EASEMENT, TYP.
072-0060-098 OAK AVENUE HOLDINGS LLC
072-3190-038 CITY OF FOLSOM 072-0060-102
072-0060-098
PROPERTIES LLC
BULLDOG OFFICE
072-3190-006
072-0060-090 AEROJET ROCKETDYNE INC ALDER CREEK WEST IMPROVEMENT CO LLC 072-0231-049 EASTON PLACE 072-0231-145 AEROJET ROCKETDYNE INC 072-0231-140 ALDER CREEK WEST IMPROVEMENT CO LLC
ALDER CREEK WEST
IMPROVEMENT CO LLC
072-0060-102 ALDER CREEK WEST
IMPROVEMENT CO LLC
072-3190-033 EASTON VALLEY HOLDINGS LLC DEVELOPMENT CO. LLC Lot S Open
Space
0.8 ± AC
Lot R Open Space
51.4 ± AC
Lot J Mini Park
0.3 ± AC
Lot K Mini Park
0.4 ± AC
Lot Q
Open Space
34.2 ± AC Lot P Open Space
8.0 ± AC
Lot L Mini Park
0.4 ± AC
Lot O
Open Space
30.2 ± AC
Lot I Native Park
0.2 ± AC
OAK AVENUE PARKWAY PRAIRIE CITY ROAD Lot M Open Space
7.3 ± AC
Lot N
Open Space
0.7 ± AC
Lot A
Park
10.0 ± AC Lot B
Elementary School 10.0 ± AC
Lot C
Fire Station
2.1 ± AC
Lot D
Private
1.4 ± AC
Lot E Mini Park Lot F Mini Park
0.2 ± AC
Lot G
Mini Park
0.2 ± AC
Lot T Open Space
0.4 ± AC Lot H Mini Park
0.3 ± AC
0.6 ± AC
Park
MANGINI PARKWAY MANGINI PARKWAY
OAK
AVENUE
PARKWAY
HAVEN PARKWAY
ALDER CREEK PARKWAY
29.3 ± AC (gr.) 96 DU - 75' x 110' (TYP.) SF Village 8C
10.2 ± AC (gr.) 27 DU - 70' x 110' (TYP.) SF Village 8B Village 9A
SF 62 DU - 70' x 110' (TYP.) Village 9A
Village 8C
Village 9A
Village 8C
Village 9B
SF 102 DU - 60' x 105' (TYP.) Village 8A
SF Village 5
SF 38 DU - 65' x 105' (TYP.) Village 4A
SF 31 DU - 65' x 105' (TYP.) Village 6
SFHD
99 DU - 50' x 100' (TYP.)
Village 4B
SF 63 DU - 70' x 110' (TYP.) Village 2A
SFHD Village 2B
SFHD
71 DU - 47' x 75' (TYP.) 132 DU - 45' x 65' (TYP.) Village 3A SF Village 3B
Village 7A
SF 56 DU - 75' x 110' (TYP.)
75' x 110' (TYP.) 83 DU - 60' x 100' &
SFHD/SF Village 7B
124 DU - 6-PACK (TYP.) MLD Village 1B Village 1C
MLD
101 DU - 4-PACK (TYP.) Village 1A
MLD
9.1 ± AC (net) 28.8 ± AC (net)
16.9 ± AC (gr.) 16.7 ± AC (net)
19.0 ± AC
12.8 ± AC (gr.) 12.3 ± AC (net) 11.3 ± AC (net) 11.6 ± AC (gr.)
11.3 ± AC (net) 12.8 ± AC (gr.)
14.1 ± AC (net) 14.2 ± AC (gr.) 10.2 ± AC
16.6 ± AC
19.2 ± AC (gr.) 17.0 ± AC (net) 8.1 ± AC (net) 8.5 ± AC (gr.) 24.9 ± AC (gr.) 24.4 ± AC (net) 21.5 ± AC (gr.) 21.0 ± AC (net)
17.7 ± AC
104 DU - 42' x 65' DUETS (TYP.)
6.5 ± AC (gr.) 6.4 ± AC (net) 25 DU - 70' x 110' (TYP.) MLD Limits of Tentative Subdivision Map
Limits of Tentative Subdivision Map
9.9 ± AC
106 DU - 47' x 85' (TYP.) 15.2 ± AC (gr.) 15.0 ± AC (net) 104 DU - 65' x 105' (TYP.)
ROUNDABOUT (BOC) FINAL DESIGN TO
APPROX. LOCATION OF BE DETERMINED
ROUNDABOUT (BOC) FINAL DESIGN TO BE
LOCATION OF DETERMINED
APPROXIMATE
24' PUE A
82' RIGHT-OF-WAY
4 LANE COLLECTOR
n.t.s. ALDER CREEK PARKWAY
ROW ROW CL
49' 3' cg
11' travel lane
5' bike10' landscape10' CL I bike path10' min6' walk 3' cg 11' travel lane
5' bike
11' travel lane
16' PUE 3' 8' 3' 2' 2' median
8' median
type 5 curb
type 2 c&g
33' 82'
11' travel lane
PROPOSED
(SOUTH SIDE) FUTURE BY OTHERS(NORTH SIDE)
H
78' RIGHT-OF-WAY MINOR ARTERIAL
16' median
39' 3' cg
11' travel lane
5' bike
ROW
8' min.
ls 8' 30' landscape corridor LE, PAE & PUE
type 5 curb
8' 16' median
type 2 c&g OAK AVENUE PARKWAY
n.t.s.
12' travel lane
ROW
6' walk6' masonry wall at residential (typ) CL3' cg
11' travel lane
5' bike
8' min.
ls
12' travel lane
6' walk 6' masonry wall at residential (typ) 30' landscape corridor LE, PAE & PUE 39'
PROPOSED FUTURE BY OTHERS PROPOSED
78'
type 5 c>ype 5 c&g D
56' RIGHT-OF-WAY
2-LANE COLLECTOR
n.t.s. MANGINI PARKWAY
16' median
28' 3' cg
12' travel lane
5' bike
ROW ROW CL
8' min.
ls 6' walk 16' ls 8' type 5 curb
16' median3' cg5' bike
8' min.
ls 6' walk 16' ls 8' type 2 c&g NORTH SIDE
30' landscape corridor (LE) &
pedestrian access easement (PAE) 20.5' PUE 30' landscape corridor (LE) &pedestrian access easement (PAE) 20.5' PUE 56'
PROPOSED FUTURE BY OTHERS
FUTURE
SCHOOL SITE
12' travel lane
28'
U1 52' RIGHT-OF-WAY
12' median
26' 3' cg
12' travel lane
5' bike
ROW ROW CL
6' ls 6' walk 6' ls 6' masonry wall at residential (typ) 6' type 5 curb 26' 3' cg
12' travel lane
5' bike
6' 12' median &PL
type 2 c&g
30' landscape corridor LE, PAE & PUE 30' landscape corridor LE, PAE & PUE
FUTURE BY OTHERS
52' 2' 12' CL I bike path
2' 6' ls 6' masonry wall at residential (typ)
2-LANE COLLECTOR
n.t.s. HAVEN PARKWAY
TO R/W (BOW) R=47' R=65' TO
R/W (BOW) R=40' LIP OF GUTTER
4' WALK
3' CURB
44' CUL-DE-SAC
PUE
(WIDTH
VARIES)
R=50' TO
R/W (BOW) R=20' (BOW) 44' R/W
4' WALK
3' CURB R=30' TO
R/W (BOW)
PUE
(WIDTH VARIES) TO R/W (BOW) R=54' R=47' LIP OF GUTTER
4' WALK
3' CURB
44' R=65' TO
PUE R/W (BOW)
(WIDTH
VARIES)
78' RIGHT-OF-WAY
PRAIRIE CITY ROAD
n.t.s. SOUTH OF ALDER CREEK PARKWAY
3' cg
11' travel lane CL
type 5 curb
16' median
11' travel lane
type 2 c&g
30' Open Space
ROW
12' travel lane 12' travel lane
P/L 8' min. CNL 6' walk 31' 47' PC
8' 8' 5' bike
5' bike
3' cg
ROW
78'
PROPOSED FUTURE BY OTHERS
U
52' RIGHT-OF-WAY
COLLECTOR
n.t.s.
12' median
26' 3' cg
12' travel lane
5' bike
ROW ROW CL
6' ls 6' walk 6' ls 6' masonry wall at residential (typ) 6' type 5 curb 26' 3' cg
12' travel lane
5' bike
6' ls 6' walk 6' ls 6' 12' median &PL
type 2 c&g
30' landscape corridor LE, PAE & PUE 30' landscape corridor LE, PAE & PUE 52' 7.5' parking 3' cg
ROW37' RIGHT-OF-WAY
LOCAL ROAD - SEPARATED SIDEWALK
n.t.s. V
CL
5' walk ROW6' ls 18.5' (Parking Both Sides)
11' travel lane
7.5' parking
3' cg
18.5'
type 2 c&g
11' travel lane
5' walk 6' ls 18' PUE 37' Type 2 Vertical Curb at School, Park, and Open Space frontages. Project construction to back of curb only at School. Sidewalks may be attached at Parks, Open Spaces, and School. Type 1 Rolled Curb & 7' parking lane at residential frontages (36' ROW). 19.5' landscape corridor and PUE with 6' masonry wall adjacent to residential uses on Street EE 18' PUE
11' travel lane
3' cg
ROW W
CL
22' ROW
4' walk
type 1 c&g** 12.5'* PUE 44' RIGHT-OF-WAY
LOCAL ROAD - ATTACHED SIDEWALK
n.t.s. (Parking Both Sides)
7' parking
11' travel lane
3' cg
22' 4' walk 12.5'* PUE
7' parking
* 10' PUE adjacent to MLD. ** Type 2 Vertical Curb at School, Park, and Open Space frontages. 44' Project construction to back of curb only at School. a portion of the Folsom Plan Area Specific Plan Folsom, CA COVER SHEET
SMALL LOT VESTING TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP
TOLL BROTHERS at ALDER CREEK
Sheet 1 of 12 May 13, 2026
1,497 TOTAL LOTS Multi-Family Low Density (MLD) lots Single Family (SF) lots Multi-Family Low Density (MLD) 4-Pack lots
TENTATIVE MAP NOTES
0 100 200 400 SCALE: 1"=200' N
Multi-Family Low Density (MLD) 6-Pack lots Park (P) Lot Benchmark "80" Elevation = 324.565' NAVD88 Brass disk stamped “CITY OF FOLSOM BM 80” on the Northeast tower leg footing, tower ID Number 30-129. Location of site is approximately 3700 feet North of the intersection of Mangini Parkway and Oak Avenue Parkway and 120 feet West of Oak Avenue Parkway. Approximate Latitude: N38d 37’ 54.90” Longitude: W121d 08’ 26.77” The basis for elevations were run from County Benchmark U01B-009 stamped “K-856” in February 2014 by Mackay and Somps Civil Engineers, Inc. BENCHMARK
TENTATIVE MAP INFORMATION
OWNER: ENGINEER: SITE AREA: EXISTING ZONING: NUMBER OF LOTS/PARCELS:
SERVICE PROVIDERS:
464.2 ± AC. A portion of the Folsom Plan Area Specific Plan ALDER CREEK WEST IMPROVEMENT COMPANY, LLC 4370 Town Center Blvd, Suite 100
El Dorado Hills, CA 95762 MACKAY & SOMPS CIVIL ENGINEERS, INC. 1025 Creekside Ridge Drive, Suite 150 Roseville, CA 95678 916-773-1189
072-0060-007, 072-0060-093 & 072-3190-037 and portions of 072-0060-098 & 072-0060-102 Single Family High Density (SFHD) lots Multi-Family Low Density (MLD) Duet lots Mini Park (P) lots
ABBREVIATION KEY
Existing
Public Utility Easement EXPUE
LE Landscape Easement ESMT Easement
IOD Irrevocable Offer of Dedication CG Curb & Gutter SHEET INDEX
COVER SHEET EXISTING EASEMENTS PRELIMINARY GRADING & STORM
PRELIMINARY SANITARY SEWER, RECYCLED
1 2
6-8
10-12 WATER, AND DOMESTIC WATER PLAN DRAIN PLAN 5-28-2026 P:\27238\PLN\Applications\TM\TBAC_SLTM\SLTM-AC-SUB-05_20260513rev052826\01-TBAC_SLTM-S5-COVER.dwg [1] P:\27238\PLN\Applications\TM\TBAC_SLTM\P-ADJ-TBAC.dwg [2] P:\27238\PLN\Applications\TM\TBAC_SLTM\_P-CS-TBAC.dwg [3] P:\27238\PLN\Applications\TM\TBAC_SLTM\TBAC_SLTM_VICMAP.dwg [4] P:\27238\PLN\Applications\TM\TBAC_SLTM\ACW-BASE_ESMT.dwg [5] P:\27238\PLN\Applications\TM\TBAC_SLTM\TBAC-SECTIONS\TBAC-ST-SEC-SUB05.dwg [6] P:\27238\PLN\Applications\TM\TBAC_SLTM\TBAC-ConserveEsmt.dwg [7] P:\27238\PLN\Applications\TM\TBAC_SLTM\FPASP_Wetland_Composite_20121119.dwg [8] P:\27238\PLN\Applications\TM\TBAC_SLTM\TBAC_ROAD-ACP-PCR-REV.dwg [9] P:\27238\PLN\Applications\TM\TBAC_SLTM\LAFCO-Backbone_LIMITS.dwg 17:06:57 shaskell WHITE ROCK ROAD EAST BIDWELL ROAD PRAIRIE CITY ROAD U. P. R. R. SACRAMENTO COUNTY EL DORADO COUNTY
U.S. HIGHWAY 50
IRON POINT ROAD LATROBE ROAD EMPIRE ROAD ROAD SIBLEY STREET STREET OAK AVE. E. BIDWELL PARKWAYFOLSOM
OF CITY HILLS
EL DORADO
COUNTY
SACRAMENTO
COUNTY
EL DORADO SITE
PLACERVILLE ROAD VICINITY MAP
SPECIFIC PLAN
FOLSOM PLAN AREA
Private Park (MLD) Lot Elementary School (P/QP) lot Fire Station (P/QP) lot Landscape (LC) Lots Open Space/ Landscape Corridor (OS/LC) Lots Open Space (OS) lots ELECTRIC SERVICES: STORM DRAIN: DOMESTIC WATER: SANITARY SEWER: FIRE & EMERGENCY SERVICES: SCHOOL DISTRICTS: PARKS & RECREATION: City of Folsom City of Folsom
City of Folsom
City of Folsom
Folsom Cordova Unified School District LAW ENFORCEMENT: City of Folsom TELEPHONE: SMUD
NATURAL GAS: AT&T City of FolsomPG&E CABLE: Comcast
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS: 132: 611: 101: 124: 1:
352: 104: 7: 1: 1: 1: 25: 22: 14:
MSTR25-00084 27238.TOLL.ENT SUB5
D
U
A
U1
H
W
H
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
H
3-5 LOTTING PLAN
W
W
V W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
DE Drainage Easement AC Acres PAE Pedestrian Access Easement ROW Right of Way LS Landscape Strip
APPLICANT: TOLL WEST COAST, LLC
110 Woodmere Road, Suite 120
Folsom, CA 95630
V
OPEN SPACE SUMMARY
LAND USE SUMMARY
GR. Gross
V3
V
V W
9 OFFSITE INFRASTRUCTURE
STD. RESIDENTIAL CUL-DE-SAC (RD-27) n.t.s. CUL-DE-SAC
CUL-DE-SAC
STD. RESIDENTIAL CUL-DE-SAC (RD-27) n.t.s.
n.t.s. ELBOW
PC
PARK SUMMARY
W
V
EXISTING CITY LIMTS, TYP.
EXISTING CITY
LIMTS, TYP.
W
U
U
1: Native Park (P) lot
D
BOC Back of Curb
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: A portion of Parcels 4 & 5 as shown on 224 PM 14, Sacramento County Records & lots 6, 7, 8, 9, & 10 as shown on 432 BM 2, Sacramento County Records. 1. Lot dimensions and acreages are approximate and subject to change. 2. Typical lot size is measured from back of sidewalk. On irregular shaped lots, lot size is measured at setback(s). 3. Lot lines and lot areas may be adjusted at the time of the Final Map(s) provided no additional lots are created, subject to the approval of the City of Folsom. Flexibility in lot configuration as shown hereon is allowed provided the new configuration is in substantial compliance with the approved Specific Plan, subject to the approval of the City of Folsom. 4. The Final Mapping and subsequent development of lots may be phased. Phasing is to be consistent with the Development Agreement. 5. Lot numbering is for identification purposes only and does not indicate phasing order of development. Ultimate development phasing shall be orderly and will be determined at Final Map and/or improvement plan stage. 6. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66456.1, the subdivider may file multiple Final Maps based upon this Tentative Map. The filing of a Final Map on a portion of this Tentative Map shall not invalidate any part of this Tentative Map. 7. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 66499.20.2, the land shown hereon may be merged and resubdivided without reversion to acreage and may constitute abandonment of portions of the existing public streets and public easements, subject to the approval of the City of Folsom. a: All on-site public easements & IOD's to be abandoned, as described on the Existing Easements Exhibit, Sheet 2 of 11. 8. Street names shown hereon are for identification purposes only. A street name list will be approved with the Tentative Map; final streets names & locations will be determined at the time of Final Map and Improvement Plan preparation. 9. Additional easements to accommodate new public utility improvements, access required for lot development, or other similar mapping requirements needed to accomplish the final design may be added prior to each Final Map based on this Tentative Map. 10.A 12.5' public utility easement will be located adjacent to all rights-of-way except as shown hereon and approved by the City Engineer. 11.Landscape lots are also PUE, PAE & LE. 12.The entire property contained within this Tentative Subdivision Map is covered by an Avigation Easement to the benefit of the City of Folsom and County of Sacramento recorded August 28, 2014 in Book 20140828 at page 0578, Official Records of Sacramento County.
U1 W
1424: TOTAL REDISDENTIAL LOTS
REVISED: May 28, 2026
06/23/2026 Item No.18.
77.5' PG&E EASEMENT PER 4373 OR 8
75' PG& E EASEMENT PER 3373 OR 103
200' SMUD
EASEMENT PER 3050 OR 308 25' PG&E EASEMENT PER 442 OR 339 50' PG&E EASEMENT PER 3218 OR 599 100' IOD PER 20170329 OR 549 SSE & IOD (SEWER ACCESS) PER 20170329 OR 0547 & 0551
PG&E EASEMENT PER
3190 OR 150
100' IOD PER 219 PM 9
APN 072-0060-093 HILLSBOROUGH NORTH LLC
APN 072-0060-007
J&Z PROP LLC
75' PG& E EASEMENT PER 3459 OR 187 200' SMUD
EASEMENT PER 3383 OR 585
25' PG&E EASEMENT PER 435 DEEDS 298
10' SMUD POLELINE
EASEMENT PER
870206 OR 1617
APPROXIMATE CENTERLINE OF DIRT ROAD PER ACCESS
EASEMENT APPURTENANT
TO 3070 OR 628
40' DE 1 PER
20170329 OR 0548 40' DE 2 PER
20170329 OR 0548
40' DE 3 PER
20170329 OR 0548
40' DE 4 PER
20170329 OR 0548
40' DE 5 PER
20170329 OR 0548
50' DE 6 PER
20170329 OR 0548
20' DE 7 PER
20170329 OR 0548
20' DE 8 PER
20170329 OR 0548
78' IOD PER
20170329 OR 0524 50' PG&E EASEMENT PER 3190 OR 150
50' DE 1 PER
20170329 OR 0525
50' DE 2 PER
20170329 OR 0525
78' IOD PER 20170329 OR 0533
69' IOD PER
20170329 OR 0533
69' IOD PER 20170329 OR 0533
40' DE 2 PER
20170329 OR 0534 40' DE 1 PER
20170329 OR 0534
138' IOD PER 20170329 OR 0531
69' IOD PER 20170329 OR 0531
40' DE 2 PER
20170329 OR 0532 116' IOD PER 20170329 OR 533 58' IOD PER 20170329 OR 533 40' DE 1 PER
20170329 OR 0528
(OFF-SITE) 58' IOD /SSE PER 20170329 OR 527 & 20170329 OR 529 PUE/PAE/LE PER DN 202203251660 PUE/PAE/LE PER DN 202203251662
40' DE PER
20170329 OR 0538
100' IOD PER 20170329 OR 0537
PUE PER
20170329 OR 0552
40' DE 1 PER
20170329 OR 0532
DCR PER DN 202203251659
50' PG&E EASEMENT PER 100 OR 249
(OFF-SITE)
072-0060-098 ALDER CREEK WEST
IMPROVEMENT CO LLC
072-0060-102 ALDER CREEK WEST
IMPROVEMENT CO LLC
072-0060-113 TOLL WEST INC
072-0060-098 ALDER CREEK WEST
IMPROVEMENT CO LLC
072-0060-098 ALDER CREEK WEST
IMPROVEMENT CO LLC 072-0231-145 AEROJET ROCKETDYNE INC 072-0231-049 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 072-0231-140 ALDER CREEK WEST IMPROVEMENT CO LLC 072-3190-038 CITY OF FOLSOM
072-3190-006 BULLDOG OFFICE
PROPERTIES LLC
072-3190-033 EASTON VALLEY HOLDINGS LLC
072-0060-090 AEROJET ROCKETDYNE INC
18 17
10' TELEPHONE POLE EASEMENT PER
691128 OR 315
(OFF-SITE)
PG&E EASEMENT PER 360 OR 423
(OFF-SITE)
10' TELEPHONE POLE
EASEMENT PER
691128 OR 315
(OFF-SITE)
EXISTING PROPERTY
LINE, TYP. PER 223 PM 5
SSE PER DN
202109231536 SSE PER DN
202109231537 SSE PER DN
202109231536
50' DE PER DN
201706151369
20' DE PER DN
201706151369
20' DE PER DN
201706151369
30' SSE PER DN
201706151370 SMUD PER DN
201707110791
CREEK ALDER
PARKWAY
OAK AVENUE PARKWAY
MANGINI PARKWAY MANGINI PARKWAY
HAVEN PARKWAY PRAIRIE CITY ROAD
OAK
AVENUE
PARKWAY
a portion of the Folsom Plan Area Specific Plan
Folsom, CA EXISTING EASEMENTS
SMALL LOT VESTING TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP
TOLL BROTHERS at ALDER CREEK
Sheet 2 of 12 May 13, 2026
0 100 200 400 SCALE: 1"=200' N
9 5
4 7 2
1 29 3
8 1011
12 13
14 15
16 27
17 21
22 23 25 24
26 20
19 6
18 EXISTING EASEMENTS
28 5-13-2026 P:\27238\PLN\Applications\TM\TBAC_SLTM\SLTM-AC-SUB-05_20260513\02-TBAC_SLTM-S5-ESMTS-EX.dwg [1] P:\27238\PLN\Applications\TM\TBAC_SLTM\P-ADJ-TBAC.dwg [2] P:\27238\PLN\Applications\TM\TBAC_SLTM\_P-CS-TBAC.dwg [3] P:\27238\PLN\Applications\TM\TBAC_SLTM\ACW-BASE_ESMT.dwg [4] P:\27238\PLN\Applications\TM\TBAC_SLTM\LAFCO-Backbone_LIMITS.dwg 15:49:55 shaskell 27238.TOLL.ENT SUB3
31 30
30 EXISTING CITY LIMTS, TYP.
EXISTING CITY
LIMTS, TYP.
06/23/2026 Item No.18.
072-0060-098 OAK AVENUE HOLDINGS LLC
072-0060-098 ALDER CREEK WEST
IMPROVEMENT CO LLC
Lot S Open
0.8 ± AC
Space
OS-2
OS-1
Lot H Mini Park
0.3 ± AC
Lot E Mini Park
0.6 ± AC
Lot T Open Space
0.4 ± AC
RKWAY
25' MPE & PAE LC-1 LC-3 LC-2
LC-4
LC-5
OSLC-11
OSLC-10A
OSLC-9
OSLC-6
OSLC-7
OSLC-8
OSLC-4
OSLC-1
OSLC-3
OSLC-5
OSLC-2
Lot A
Park
10.0 ± AC
Lot B
Elementary School 10.0 ± AC
Lot C
Fire Station
2.1 ± AC
168 167
40 39
38 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23 24
25 26 27
28 30 29 31 32 33
34 35
36 37
49 50
51 52 53
54 55
56 57
91 90 89
88 87
86 85
8483
82 81 80
78 79
77 76
75 74
73 72
71 70
69 68
67 66 65
64 63
62 61 60
59 139
138
137
136 135
134
133
132
131 130
129
128
127
126
125124
123
122
121
120 119
118 117
116
115
114113
112111
110
109 108 107
106
105
104 103
102
101
100 99
98 97
96 95
94 93 92
175
176 177
178 179 180 181 182 183
184 185
186
238 237
236
235
234
233 232
231
230
229 228
227
226 225
224
223
222
221 220
219
218
217 216
215
214 213
212 211
210
209
208
207
206
205
204 203
202
201
200
199 198
197
196
195
194
193 192
191 190 189 188 187
166 165 164 163
162 161
160
159
158
157
156
155
154
153 152
151 150
149 148
147
146 145
144
143 142
141
252
251
250
249
248 247
246
245
244
243
242 241
240
239
261260
259258
257
256 267
266
265
264
263 262
276
275
274 273
272 271
270
269 268
254 253 255
169
171 170 172
173
174
140
41 42
43 44
45 46
47 48 STREET A
STREET A
STREET H
STREET M
STREET I
STREET J
STREET L
STREET N
STREET N STREET N
STREET O
STREET O
STREET P
STREET P
STREET P
STREET Q
STREET R
COURT 1
COURT 2
58 STREET H
OSLC-10B
MANGINI PARKWAY
PARKWAY
HAVEN
OAK AVENUE PARKWAY
CONNECTION TRAIL
V W W
W
W
W W
W
W
W W
U
H
W
W
H
D
W W
W
W
W
U
U
Village 5
SF 38 DU
65' x 105' (TYP.) Village 4A
Village 6
SFHD
16.6 ± AC
Village 7A
SF 56 DU - 75' x 110' (TYP.) 16.9 ± AC (gr.)
75' x 110' (TYP.) 83 DU - 60' x 100' &
SFHD/SF Village 7B
19.0 ± AC
9.9 ± AC
16.7 ± AC (net)
Village 2A
Village
1B Village
1A
Village 4B
Village 8A
Limits of Tentative Subdivision Map
Limits of Tentative Subdivision Map
R=3000' R=100 '
R=
200' R=1500'
R=1000' R=200'
R=1700' R=2000' R=300 ' R=810'
R=320 '
R=2000' R=600' R=1000' R=1000' R=1000' R=700' R=300'
R=500' R=597'
CL CL CL CL
CL
LC
CL CL CL CL
LC
CL
CL CL
LC CL C
CL
L
CL
CL
CL
C R=250' L
R=250' R=250'
R=
1000' R=
250' R=250'
R=
250' R=
250'
R=250'
R=250' CL
CL
CL CL CL
CL CL CL
52' 52' 52' 52' 52' 53' 53' 100' 49'53' 100' 49' 100'
89' 103
121' '
75' 71' 114' 111' 73' 83' R=20' 31' 50' 50' 50' 50' 50' 103' 73' 87' 51' 50' 50'50' 50'50' 50'50' 50'50' 51' 50' 51'51' 51' 105' 103' 51' 50' 50' 50' 50' 103' 103' 103' 103' 103'
127' 73' 80' 75' 80' 75'80' 75' 80' 75' 74' 125'
90' 80' 80' 80' 80' 80'
66' 65' 70' 108' 116' 23' 163' 118' 50' R=20
25' '
152' 43' 67' 90' 74' 88'
80' 65' 65' 65' 104' 3 ' 80' 111' 63' 65' 65' 65' 67' 110' 75' 86' 110' 75' 75' 75' 75' 75' 115' 58' 198' 136' 3 ' R=50' 40' 102' 68' 215' 50' 52' R=30' 50' 50' 45' 106' 106' 106' 80' 106' 150' 56' R R =30' =50' 57' 156'
40' 79' 332' 27' 120' 156' 142' 102' 69' 65' 105' 90' 65' 65' 65' 65' R=20' 31' 47' 105' 126' 68' 127'
103'
101' 50' 53' 54' 77' 14' 39' 119' 34' R=50' 30' 54'
122' 53' 95' 111' 51' 122' 69' 107' 132' 71' 58' 56' 106' 106' 60' 60' 60' 109' 60' 64' 66' 66' 112'
112' 73' 73' 87' R=20' 96' 21'
86' 89' 32' 111' 112' 75' 86' 114'
52' 50' 50' 50' 50' 50' 51' 51' 51' 50' 50' 100' 100'
100' 100' 100' 100' 100'
103' 50' 51' 51' 51' 50'51' 110' R=30' 100'
60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 65' 102' 67' 67' 67' 67' 67' 67' 67' 67' 100' 102'
102' 102' 102' 102' 102' 102'
103' 65' 60' 64' 77' 46'
102'
123'
76' 77' 79' 79' 66' 123'
106' 101' 88' 75' 88' 76' 76' 76' 77' 76' 79' 76' 79' 76' 131' 81' 123' 123' 123'
60' 63' 6' 64' 125' 38 R=50
'
' 35' 105'
78' 83' 61' R=20' 33'
100' 4' R=20' 29'
83' R=20' 30' 53' 102' 87' R=31' 48'
86' 64' 60' 60' 60' R=20' 33'
113' 75' 68' 100' 78'
83' R=31' 48' R=20' 30' 139' 60' 60' 90' 60' 132' 68' 100' 55' 60' 60' 60' 100' 107' 62' 75' 65' 65' 70' 65' 102' 64' 110'
87' 100' 75' 60' 75' 60' 65' 60' 85' 73' 110'
80' 75' 75' 65' 60'
117' 64' 60' 119'
83' 83' 78' 94' 125' 130'
88' 90' 110' R=20' 33' 4' 110' 89' 91' R=20' 31'
4' R=20' 31'114'
118' 66' 60' 114' R=20' 33'
50' R=30' 103'
95' 17' 110' R=50' 44' 101'
50' 50' 50' 50' 50' 51' 50' 50' 50' 50' 50' 50' 102'
102' 102' 102' 102' 123'
91' 75' 75' 75' 75' 75' 75' 87' 122'
127' 125'
118' R=20 29' '
128'
20' 87' 97' R=20' 27' 50' 50' 45' 128' 108'
48' 65' 97' 123' 55'
124' 106' R=20' 30'
R=20' 35' 92' 105'
79' 112' 62' 11'92' R=20' 28' 79'
67' R=20' 33' 50' 60' 119' 149' R=65' 66' R=20 33' '
120' 45' 45' R=54' 56' 84'
112' 59' 50' 60' 44' R=65' 117' R=30'
103' 59' 59' 62' R=20' 32' 4' 80' R=20' 31' 100'
100' 7
90' 6' 82' 4' R=20' 30' 78' 76' 100' 107' 64' 61' R=20' 31' 4' 81' 81' R=20' 31' 55' 65' 65' 101' 101' 101' 101' 100'143' 61' 121' 61' 80' 86' 91' 102' R=20' 32' 85' 110' 128' R=30' R=50' 54' 112'
116' 116' 75' 75' 76' 76' 76' 76' 76' 104' 116' 116' 116' 116' 116' 114' R=30' 115' 86' R=20' 96' 25' 145' 80' 68' 35' 115' R=47' 51' 194' 49'
55' 65' 65' 68' R=20' 31'
101' 85' 100' 105'
103' 126'
110' 64' 61' 61' 61' 61' 57' 110' 110' 110' R=20' 30'
4' R=20' 29'
R=31' 48' 128' 75' 130' 93'
123'
130' 110' 110'
82' 75' 73' R=31' 49'
R=20' 31'
R=20' 31'
100'
60'30' 60' 103' 112'
58' 58' 112'
90' 99' R=31 48' '
75' 75' 115'
59' 55' 33' 21' 96' R=20' 63' 70' 112' R=31' 48'
60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 59' 60' 60' 60' 60' 63' 105' 105' 105' 105' 105' 91' R=20' 110' 36' 68' 75' 25' R=31' 48'
80' 101' 50' 50' 50' 50' 50' 50' 50' 50' 50' 102' 50' 50' 54' 102' 102' 51' 51' 51' 51' 51' 41' 102' 102' R=31'
102'
101'
102'
103' R=30' 102'
113' R=20' 33' 96' 111'
119' R=50' 45' R=30'
R=29' R=31'
96' 71' 91' 63' 110' 71'
83' 110' 522' R=29' R=29' 108' 66' 64' 60' 110' R=30'
5' 89' R=20' 31'
189' 96' 77' 91' 113' R=50' 41' 38' 62' R=30' 106' 67' 63' 108' R=20' 31' 5' 90' 71' 49' 50' 50' 101' 57' 53' 101' 102' 51' 50' 103' 49' R=20' 32' 81' 6' R=24' 39' R=30'
R=24' 37'
112' 112'
61' 58' 58' 104' 68' R=30' 57' 104' 69' 69' 104' 104'
145' 90' 74' 125' R=20' 31' 70' R=65' 61'
96' R=20' 38'
435' R=20' 27' 47' 552' R=20' 34' 69'
257' 741'
726'
51' 50' 50' 100'
100' 104' 101'
42' 50' 50' 101' 49' 50' 96' 53' 100' 56' 51' 53' 103' 72' 73' 52' 52' 51' 51' 51' 51' 69' 102' 101' 53' 100'
100' 50' 58' 101' 49' 53' 49' 101'
100' 53' 49' 49' 100'
105' 113' R=20' 27' 4'
90' R=20' 27' R=20' 35' 81'
50' 51' 50' 50' 50' 50' 50' 50' 50' 50' 100'
100' 101'
101'
101'
102' 102' 102' 102' 102' 55' 55' 55' 55' 54' 101' 81' 6' R=20' 32' 101' 101' 101' 101'
105' R=30' R=50
34' '
581' 169' 80' 66' 66' 66' 66' 66' 66' 211' 8' 31' 31' 62' 78' 54' 54' 55' 62' 102' 743' 75' 75' 75' 91' 104' 70' 49' 162' 153' 48' 105' 66' 66' 66' 66' 66' 105'
111' R=30' 48' 42' 112'
125' 75' 117'
105'
49' 117'
71' 116'
R=30' 105'
49' 47' 113'
71' 122'
99'
217'
118'
150'
R=30' 105'
R=30' 126'
180'
105'
R=24' 38' 70'
105'
R=24' 37'
350' 4'R=30' 18' R=50' 95' 110'
47'
R=30'
30'
R=29' 65'
135' 50'
107' 24'
100' 137'
79'
113'
91'
127'
68' 131' 50' 52' 49' 53' 53' 53' 53' 53' 87' 51' 51'
128' 138' 43' 68' 24' 71'
99' 61' 71'
60'
61' 61' 85'
93'
80' 66'
52' 51' 54'
50' 50'
7'
9'
80'
75' 75'
80'
60' 60'
60' 60'
EXISTING CONSERVATION
EASEMENT, TYP.
99 DU - 50' x 100' (TYP.)
ROUNDABOUT (BOC) FINAL DESIGN TO
APPROX. LOCATION OF BE DETERMINED
ROUNDABOUT (BOC) FINAL DESIGN TO
APPROX. LOCATION OF BE DETERMINED
N67°33'47"E 138.00'
N22°26'13"W 167.27'
N09°56'00"E 3726.46'
N53°08'15"E 190.66' N89°06'06"E 198.97' N64°37'23"E 480.63' R=800.00' Δ=21°57'07" L=306.51' Δ L=16 Δ=24 28 " L=213.61' R=500.00' ° '42
Δ=15°57'18" L=155.94' N75°05'22"E 742.38' R=560.00' =11 29'08" 0.37' R ° =800.00'
a portion of the Folsom Plan Area Specific Plan
Folsom, CA LOTTING PLAN
SMALL LOT VESTING TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION M
ALDER CREEK
Sheet 3 of 12 May 13, 2026
0 50 100 200 SCALE: 1"=100' N TOLL BROTHERS at 5-28-2026 P:\27238\PLN\Applications\TM\TBAC_SLTM\SLTM-AC-SUB-05_20260513rev052826\03-TBAC_SLTM-S5-CENT-LOT.dwg [1] P:\27238\PLN\Applications\TM\TBAC_SLTM\P-ADJ-TBAC.dwg [2] P:\27238\PLN\Applications\TM\TBAC_SLTM\ANNO-BNDY-100.dwg [3] P:\27238\PLN\Applications\TM\TBAC_SLTM\_P-CS-TBAC.dwg [4] P:\27238\PLN\Applications\TM\TBAC_SLTM\_P-CS-TBAC.dwg [5] P:\27238\PLN\Applications\TM\TBAC_SLTM\ANNO-LOTS-CENT-80.dwg [6] P:\27238\PLN\Applications\TM\TBAC_SLTM\ACW-BASE_ESMT.dwg [7] P:\27238\PLN\Applications\TM\TBAC_SLTM\TBAC-ConserveEsmt.dwg 14:03:49 shaskell 27238.TOLL.ENT SUB4
LANDSCAPE SUMMARY
SEE SHEET 5
SEE SHEET 4
06/23/2026 Item No.18.
PARKWAY
HAVEN 072-0060-102
072-0060-098 ALDER CREEK WEST IMPROVEMENT CO LLC
ALDER CREEK WEST
IMPROVEMENT CO LLC
072-0060-102 ALDER CREEK WEST
IMPROVEMENT CO LLC
DE
DE LC-15 LC-16
LC-14 LC-11 LC-12 LC-13 LC-17 LC-10 LC-9
LC-8
LC-6
OSLC-12
OSLC-13
OSLC-15
OSLC-14 OSLC-16 OSLC-17
OS-4
LC-7
OS-5 OS-6
OS-2
OS-1
Lot H Mini Park
0.3 ± AC
OS-3
Lot M Open Space
7.3 ± AC Lot E Mini Park
0.6 ± AC Lot F Mini Park
0.2 ± AC
Lot N
Open Space
0.7 ± AC
Lot D
Private Park
1.4± AC
Lot G
Mini Park
0.2 ± AC
Lot T Open Space
0.4 ± AC
291
290 289
288
287
286285
284
283
282 281
280
279 278
277
307
306 305
304
303
302 301
300
299
298 297 296
295
294
293
292
308 309
310
311
312
313
314
315 370 346 347
348 349
350 351
352
353
354
355 356
357
358 359
360 361
362 363 364
365
366
367
368
369 316
317318
319
320
321
322
323 324 325 326 327
328 329
330
331
332 333
334 335
336
337 338
339
340
341 342 693
692
691
690
689 688 687
686 685
446 448
449
450
451 452
453
454
455
456
535 536
537 538
539
540
541
542
543
544 545
546
522 547
523
524
525 526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
511 510 509
508 507
506
505
504 503
502
501 500
499
498
497 496
495
494
493
492 491
490
489
488
487 512
513
514
515
516 517
518 519
520
477 521
478
479
480 481
482
483
484
485
486
650 651
705 706
707
708 709
710
711
712
713
714
715
717 716
718
719
720
721
722
723 724
725 726
727
729 728
730
731
732
733
734
735
737 736 738
739
740
741 742
743
744
750 745
749 748 747 746
751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758
762 761 760 759 766 765 764 763 771 772 773
770 769
768
767
808 807
806
805
804
803
785
802
801 800
799
798 797
796
795794
793
792
791
790
789
788
787
786
784 783
782
781 780
779
778
777
776
775
774
909
907 908
905 906
903 904
901 902
899 900
897 898
895 896
894 893 892
891
890 889
888 887
886 885
884 883
882 881
880 879
878 877
876 875
874
873
871 872
869 870
867 868
865 866
863 864
861 862
859 860
858
857
856 855
854 853 852 851
850 849848 847
846 845
844 843
842
841
839 840
837 838
835 836
833 834
831 832
829 830
828 827
826 825 824
823 822
821 820
819 818
817
816
815 814
813 812
811 810
809
1033
1032
1031 1030
1029 1028 1027
1026
1025 1024
1023
1022 1021
1020
1019 1018
1017 1016 1015
1014
1013 1012
1011
1010 1009 1008
1007 1006
1005
1004 1003 1002
976 977
975
974
978
979
981 980
982
984 983 985
987 986
988
990 989
991
993 992
994
996 995 997
999 998
1000
1001
950
951
952 953
954
955 956
957
958 959
960
961 962 963
964 965
966
967 968
969
970 971
972
973
949 948
947
946
945
944
943
941 942
940
939
937 938
936
935
933 934 932
930 931
929
927 928
926
924 925
923
922
921 920
919 918
917
916 915
914
913 912 911
910
345 344 343 AA
STREET B
STREET C
STREET G STREET K STREET B
STREET S STREET T STREET USTREET VSTREET W
STREET X
STREET Y
STREET Z STREET W
STREET W
COURT 3
COURT 4
COURT 5 COURT 6 COURT 7
COURT 8 COURT 9 COURT 10
STREET T STREET CC
STREET
STREET BB
STREET CC
STREET DD STREET EE STREET FF
STREET BB STREET EE
STREET GG
STREET HH
STREET II STREET JJ
STREET KK
STREET JJ STREET JJ STREET KK
STREET BB
STREET B STREET B
LC-24 437
445
444
443 442
441
440
439
438
447
LC-25
MANGINI PARKWAY
OAK AVENUE PARKWAY
20' EVA
698 697 696 695
694
684
683
682 681
700 701 702 703 704 680 699 416417
418 419
420421
422
423
424
425 426
427 428
429
430
431
432
457 458
459
460 461
462
463
464 465
466
467
468
469
470 471
472
473
474
475
476
372
373
374
375 376
377
378
379
380 381
382
383 384
385
386
387
388
415
389 390
391
392
393
394 395
396
397 398 399 400 401
402 403 404
405
406
407 408
409
410
411
412
413414
548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 561 560 559 564 563 562 573 572 571 570 569 568 567 566 565 575 574 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 598 597 596 595 594 593 608 607 606 605 604 603 602 601 600 599 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 679
678
677
676 675
674 673
672 671
670
669
663 664 665 666 667 668 662
661 660
659
658 657
656
655
654
653
652
639 637 638 636
635
634
633
632
631
630
629
628
627 649
648
647 646
645
644 643
642
641
640
371
433
434
435
436
W
W
V
W W
W
W
W
W
W W
W W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W W
W
W W
W
V V W
W
V
U
W W
W W
W
W W
Village 4A
SF 31 DU - 65' x 105' (TYP.) 8.5 ± AC (gr.) Village 4B
SF 63 DU - 70' x 110' (TYP.) 19.2 ± AC (gr.)
Village 2A
SFHD
106 DU - 47' x 85' (TYP.) 15.2 ± AC (gr.)
Village 2B
SFHD
71 DU - 47' x 75' (TYP.) 10.2 ± AC
132 DU
45' x 65' (TYP.) SF Village 3A
11.6 ± AC (gr.) 124 DU - 6-PACK (TYP.) MLD Village 1B Village 1C MLD
101 DU - 4-PACK (TYP.) 12.8 ± AC (gr.)
Village 1A
MLD
104 DU
42' x 65' Duets (TYP.)
14.2 ± AC (gr.)
12.8 ± AC (gr.) 11.3 ± AC (net)
14.1 ± AC (net)
25 DU
70' x 110' (TYP.) SF Village 3B
6.5 ± AC (gr.) 6.4 ± AC (net)
12.3 ± AC (net) 11.3 ± AC (net)
17.0 ± AC (net) 8.1 ± AC (net)
Village 5
Village 6
Village 7B
Village 7A
H
H
Lot A
Park
10.0 ± AC
Lot B
Elementary School 10.0 ± AC
Limits of Tentative Subdivision Map
Limits of Tentative Subdivision Map
N00°47'35"W 5.29' N89°03'17"E 989.34' N66°08'14"W 252.90' N37°46'37"W 102.49' N80°09'21"E 95.06' N77°24'27"W 140.55' N31°54'34"E 64.65' N66°15'28"E 62.00' S80°02'03"W 76.09' N43°29'41"E 74.21' N57°17'09"E 76.23' N45°08'19"E 83.13' N32°59'29"E 82.70' N22°09'37"E 153.23' N06°06'11"E 67.91' N05°33'43"E 43.87' R=328.00' Δ=22°39'50" N56°46'22"E L=129.74' 88.90'
R=2039.00' Δ=21°38'52" L=7 0.38' N55°39'42"W 222.81' R=961' Δ=16°58'16" L=284.65' 3'47"E138.00' N89°06'06"E 583.74' N89°06'06"E 919.30' N00°53'54"W 58.00' N25°55'43"E 30.74' N49°50'52"E 141.30' R=85.00' Δ=77°16'09" L=114.63' N27°25'17"W
22.86' N29°12'44"W
50.84' N33°22'57"W
73.05' R=100.00' Δ=29°05'02" L=50.76' N04°17'56"W 33.62' N15°07'27"W 75.46' N18°02'05"W 75.16' R=105.00' Δ=65°07'22" L=119.34' N83°09'27"W 37.33' N87°16'26"W 41.39' N82°14'06"W 43.72' N70°33'37"W 28.29' R=70.00' Δ=119°44'45" L=146.30' N49°11'08"E 41.51' N55°42'50"E 52.42' N42°30'41"E 32.05' N05°11'40"E 61.62' R=180.00' Δ=42°59'30" L=135.06' R=600.00' Δ=8°15'28" L=86.47' N29°32'22"W 74.68' N05°52'30"W 58.27' N89°00'53"E 332.04' N00°46'24"W 1320.12' 85' 35' 30' 80' 115' 100' 107'
85' 85' 85' 85' 85' 85' 85' 85' 85' 85' 85'
43' 98' 91' 85' 85' 85'
70' 140'
52' 47' 46' 158' 71' 66' 154' 145' 105'
42' 45' R=47' 41' 63' 111' 140' 78' 76' 83' 75' 109'
72' 69' R=47' 142' 51' 16 ' 81' 86' 119' 122' 95' 84' 110' R=47' 64' 78' 59' 72' 10 ' R=20' 32' 89' 110'
63' 67' 67' 63' 110' 89' R=20' 32'
110' 138'
6 73' 4' 64' 64' 64' 64' 64' 64' 64' 65' 79' 111'
6 ' 67' 67' 67' 67' 67' 67' 67' 68' 54' 42'
111' 111'
111'
65' 65' 78' 111'
111'
111' 111' 111' 111'
65' 65' 58' 111' 111'
51' 51' 51' 76' 46' 75' 46' 75' 46' 75'
46' 46' 80' 50' 79' 50' 45' 77' 52' 52' 52' 53' 50' 52' 52' 52' 46' 80' 84' 52'45' 53' 86' 86' 47' 47' 47' 42' 82' 47' 51' 81' 47' 78'
46' 81' 54' 51' 51' 74' 79' 70' 70' 70' 70'
53' 53' 53' 49' 82' 83' 85' 82'53' 56' 77'
'
R=50' 103' 90' 63' 113' R=30' 144' R=65' 71' R=20' 32'
132' R=65' R=20' 32' 90' R=47' 109' 122' 47' 33'
70' R=25'
30'
140' R=30' 91' R=20' 31'
R=31'
679' R=25'
R=54' 58' 117' 72' 77' 111' 46' 46' 46' 46' 46' 79' 76' 80' 80' 81' 44' 55' 55' 55' 55' 51' 50' 50' 50' 50' 50' 50' 44' 75' 55' 75'
75' 46' 75'
49' 75'
50' 75'
49' 75'
49' 75'
49' 75' 48' 49' 75' 46' 75' 46' 75'
R=20 32' ' 55' 75' 46' 49' 54' 56' 63' R=20' 32' R=20' 32' 42' 54' 76' 61' 53' R=20' 33' 69'
72' 68' 113' 128' 63' R=65' 123'143' 109' 70' 20' R=54' 53' 122' 115' 98' 70' 70' 41' 70' 103' 30' R=65'
46' R=54' 46' 30' 119' 111' 112' 97' 40' R=65' 70' 70' 152' 112' 111' 38' R=65' 112' 140' 77' 70' 70' 70' 111' 111' 111' 83' 75' 75' 84' 75' 111' 111' 80' 50' 50' 55' 56' 75' 75' 75' 75' 75' 50' 47' 47' 48' 76' 70' 64' 47' 47' 47' 47' 76' 76' 124' R=20'
84' 70' 70' 135' R=65' 50' 47' 46'
76' 76' 70' 47' 47' 76' 76' 50' 47' 47' 44' 47' 47' 46' 76' 76' 76' 91' 91' 93' 93' 93' 93' 93' 93' 93' 93' 93' 10 ' 100'
110' 66' 110'
110' 66' 110'
66' 110'
110'
66' 110'110'
66' 110'
110'
66' 110'
122'
66' 110' 66' 110' 66' 63' 68' 68' 68' 68' 68' 68' 68' 68' 68' 68' 68' 68' 68' 68' 68' 68' 113' 113'
113' 113'
113'
113'
113'
113' 113'
113'
113'
113'
140' 102' R=20' 30' 113'
113'
113'
68' 63' 120' 112' R=20' 30' 102'
44' 51' 46' 46' 46' 46' 46' 46' 46' 46' 86' 65' R=20' 29' 87' 87'
86'
87'
87' 87' 87' 87' 87'
56' 53' R=20' 31' R=20' 32' 50'
46' 42' 87'
119' 90' 92' 72' R=20' 31'
R
131' =20' 31' 180' R=30' 42' 193' R=20' 31'
56' 55' R=20' 31' R=20' 31' 56' 55' R=20' 31' R=20' 31' 91' 81' R=20' 31' 69' 89' R=65' 65' 140' 120' R=20' 31' 61' 69' 69' 69' 69' 69' 69' 61' 119' 129' 118' R=20' 31' 138' 97' R=20' 30'
161' 160' 51' 79' 144'
97' 91'72' R=20' 31' 116' R=20' 30' 84'
89' R=20' 31'
49' 48' 52' 145' R=20' 31' 72' 151' 149' 140' 139' 121' R=50' 59' 59' R=20' 31'
70'
153'
84' 142' 143'
96' 96' 65' 106'
113'
107'
106' 107' 107' 106' 66'
34' 53' 142'
51'
57' 46' 46' 50' 49' 51' 51' 51' 51' 58'
62' 51' 50' 46' 46' 47' 50' 52' 52' 52' 45' 45' 83'
70' 74'
63'
64' 65'
70' 70'
30'
30'
30' 70'
34' 175' 165'
74' 86' 135' 61' 32' 39'
R=50' 49' 14' 69' 5 '
R=50' 31' 90' 45' 45' 92' R=30' 40' 69' 45'
R=30 '
R=100 '
R=2800'
R=1250' R=20 ' R=200'
R=410'
R=600' R=800' R=1000' R=1216' R=425'
R=40 '
R=250'
R=1204' R=1000'
R=400' R=300'
R=600' R=10 '
R=400'
R=250' R=250'
R=600' R=800'
R=100 '
R=1000'
CL CL
CL
LC
CL CL CL
CL
LC
LC
LC
LC
LC
LC
CL CL
CL CL
CL
LC
CL
CL
LC
LC
CL
LC
R=410' CL
LC
CL
R=350' R=350' LC
R=20' 35' 25' 44' R=30'
R=20' 71' 57' 57' 71' R=20'
58' 66' 60' 60' 66' 60' 60' 66' 60' 60' 66' 60' 57'
61' 64' 63' 63' 66' 63' 63' 66' 63' 63' 66' 63' 72' 57' 57' 72' R=20' 70' 71' 57' 57' R=20'
84' 60' 60' 57' 60' 60' 57' 60' 60' 57' 63' 60' 57' 72' 57' 57' 72' 57' 57' 63' 57' 57' 63' 57' 57' 63' 57' 57' 63' 84' 57' 50' 39' 39' 39' 39' 50' 76' 76' 76' 76' 76' 76' 76' 76' 50' 39' 39' 39' 39' 50' 76' 76' 76' 76' 76' 76' 76' 76'
88' 76' 76' 76' 76' 76' 76' 76' 76' 76' 50' 39' 41' 76' 76' 76' 76' 76' 76' 76' 76' 76' 88' 50' 39' 41' 58' 72' 60' 60' 74' 77' 64' 67' 69' 66' 35' 63' 60' 63' 64' 72' 48' 71' 10' 42' 76' 98'
88' 76' 76' 76' 76' 76' 76' 76' 76' 76' 45' 50' 85' 44' 80' 40' 40' 50' 80' 169' 40' 40' 30' 131' 30' 32' 73' 76' 76' 76' 76' 76' 76' 76' 76' 76' 45'
6' 36' 60' 40' 80' R=20' 31'
10' 40' R=30' R=50' 45' 110' R=20' 26' 39' 49' 21' R=20' 110' 60' 57' 57' 63' 63' 57' 57' 61' 21' 32' 44' 71'50' 39' 41' 50' 39' 41' 50' 39' 41' 50' 39' 41' 50' 39' 41' 50' 39' 41' 50' 39' 41' 50' 39' 41' 76' 76' 76' 76' 76' 76' 76' 76' 50' 39' 39' 39' 39' 50' 76' 76' 76' 76' 76' 76' 76' 76' 50' 39' 39' 39' 39' 50' 50' 39' 39' 39' 39' 50' 76' 76' 76' 76' 76' 76' 76' 76' 76' 76' 76' 76' 76' 76' 76' 76' 76' 76' 76' 76' 76' 76' 76' 76' 50' 39' 39' 39' 39' 50' 50' 39' 39' 39' 39' 50' 50' 39' 39' 39' 39' 50' 50' 39' 39' 39' 39' 50' R=20' R=20' 73' 76' 60' 60' 60' 60' 57' 60' 60' 95' 92' 72'
71' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 73' 72' 59'
R=20'
R=20'
R=20'
R=20'50' 39' 39' 39' 39' 50' 50' 39' 39' 39' 39' 50' 76' 76' 76' 76' 76' 76' 53' 39' 39' 39' 39' 50' 52' 76' 76' 76' 100' 76' 76' 76' 76' 49' 76' 76' 76' 76' 76' 76' 76' 76' 76' 76' 76' 76' 76' 76' 76' 76' 50' 39' 39' 39' 39' 50' 76' 76' 76' 76' 76' 76' 76' 76' 86' 83' 39' 39' 39' 39' 50' R=30' 39' 39' 39' 50' 39' 39' 39' 50' 76' 76' 76' 76' 76' 76' 76' 76' 50' 39' 39' 39' 39' 50' 61' 63' 63' 63' 63' 63' 63' 63' 72' 72' 57' 57' 72' 72' 72' 72' 72' 57' 57' 72' 62' 66' 63' 63' 63' 60' 60' 63' 63' 63' 63' 60' 57' 63' 63' 63' 63' 63' 63' 73' 63' 72' 57' 72' 57' 72' 72' 20' 72' 27' 63' 53' 76' 24' 72' 72' 59' 72' 59' 59' 72' 59' 59' 49' 59' R=20' R=20' 71' 57' 57' 71' 57' 72' 57' 57' 72' 57' 72' 57' 57' 72' 57' 52' R=20' 36' 63' 71' 60' 61' 64' 60' 63' 74' 60' 64' 74' 62' 72' 57'
61' 64' 63' 57'
60' 63' 67' 72' 76' 64' 78' 72' 72' 57' 57' 72' 57' 61' 78' 77' 80' 60' 63' 60' 60' 63' 60' 60' 63' 60' 60' 63' 60' 72' 43' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 72' 72'
R=20' 59' 72' 57' 57' 57' 57' 72'
60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 72' 72' 72'
R=20' 31' 57' 57' 57' 57' 131' 90' 115' 47'
76' 60' 63' 63' 63' 63' 63' 63' 63'
59' 66' 66' 66' 64' 66' 66' 66' 60' 60' 60' 60'
60' 60' 72' 63' 57' 29'
57' 63' 63' 57' 57' 221' 65' 45' 57' 124' 99' 41' 42' 42' 37' 65' 65' R=20' 31' 48' 66' 68' R=20' 29'
45' 47' 47' 47' 47' 47' 47' 47' 47' R=20' 32' 70' 57' 48' 89' 88' 47' 47' 47' 47' 47' 47' 51' 88' 88' 88' 88' 88' 88' 51' 99' 50' 30' 47' 48' 48' 48' 48' 48' 49' 52' 52' 51' 42' 81' 16' R=65' 120' 47' 47' 47' 47' 47' 47' 105' 110' 115' 118' 121'
47' 47' 47' 91' 94' 88'
99'
281' R=31'
R=31'
251' R=20' 32'
185' R=20' 32'
40' 42' 42' 42' 42' 42' 42' 37' 65' 65'
58' 42' 42' 42' 42' 42' 42' 57' 65' 65' 57' 42' 42' 42' 42' 42' 42' 63' 65' 43' 42' 42' 42' 42' 42' 42' 37' 65' 65' 32' 41' 42' 43' 43' 41'64' 41' 90' 47' 42' 16' 44'
65' 48' 42' 42' 42' 42' 42' 42' 42' 42' 42' 42' 37' 65' 65' 57' 42' 42' 42' 42' 42' 42' 42' 42' 42' 42' 68' 41' 182' 38' 46' 46' 46' 46' 46' 46' 76' 42' 42' 46' 40' 42' 66' 72' 45' 45' 45' 45' 34' 73' 45' 42' 42' 42' 42' 42' 25' 49' 47' 47' 68' R=20 34' ' 45' 48' 42' 36' 83' 42' 43'
72' R=30 47'
' 67'
71' 72' 73'
66' 65' 45' 39' 79' 23' 26' R=20' 29' 58' 41' 64' 70' 28' 44' 70' 23' 67'48' R=20' 30' 42' 50' 31'
50' 42' 67' R=20' 31'
77' 64' 73' 73' 51' 42' R=20' 29' 37' 42' 43' 65' 109' R=20' 29' 66'
44' R=20' 32' 65' 65'
91' 49' 72' 42' 50' 34' R=20' 30' 43' 47' 47' 42' 41' R=20' 32' 44' 42' 75' 52' 75' 76' R=20' 32' 42' 46' 42' 86' 42' 42' 42' 82' 75' 76' 42' 46' 42'48' 75' 76' 79' 77' 65' 65' 65' 65' R=20' 31' 45' 45'
45' 45' R=20' 31' 65' 65' 65' 65' 65' 65' 65' 43' 42' 42' 42' 42' 42' 42' 37' R=20' 31' R=20' 31'
65' 65' 65' 65' R=20' 31' 45' 45'
65' 65' 48' 42' 42' 42' 42' 42' 42' 42' 42' 42' 42' 37' 65' R=20' 31' 65'
65' 65' 65' 65'
65' 65' 65' 65' R=20' 31' 45' 65' 45' 65' 65' 65' 65' 65' 65' 74'
74' 65' 38' 42' 42' 42' 42' 42' 42' 37' R=20'
R
31'
=20' 31' 45'
65' 65' 45' 45' R=20' 31' R=20' 31'
65' 51'
42' 42' 76' 72'
86' 86' 93' 42'
223' 44'
47'
42' 42' 65' 65'
0 R=300 ' CL R=31'
R=3 R
1' =31'
R=
250' CL
R=30 ' LC
R=250' CL R=
250' CL 73' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 46' 46' 46' 46' 43' 65' 84'52' 71' 65' 65' 39' 129' 45' 71' 65' 111' 71' 45' 33' 45' 69' 67' 65' 114' R=54' 55' R=65' 67' 46' 46' 46' 46' 46' 46' 46' 46' 46' 46' 46' 46' 46' 46' 46' 57' 65' 65' 59' 46' 46' 46' 46' 46' 46' 46' 46' 46' 46' 46' 46' 46' 46' 46' 65' 65' 65' 65' 65' 65' 65' 65' 65' 65' 65' 65' 65' 65' 65' 65' 65' 65' 65' 65' 65' 65' 65' 65' 65' 65' 65' 65' 65' 65' 70' 70' 59' 110' 110' 110' 70' 70' 60' 110' 80' 110' R=65' 107' 70' 125' 71'
48' 40' R=20' 36' 40' 47' 47' 46' 48' 50' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 65' 65' 60' 47' 47' 46' 48' 65' 65' 65' 65' 65' 65' 65' 40' 47' 47' 46' 44' 43' 66' 40' 46' 46' 46' 46' 46' 46' 46' 46' 46' 46' 46' 46' 46' 46' 46' 37' R=20' 29' 35' 46' 46' 46' 46' 46' 46' 46' 46' 46' 46' 46' 46' 46' 46' 46' 37' 65' 65' 55' 46' 46' 46' 46' 46' 46' 46' 46' 46' 46' 46' 46' 46' 46' 46' 57' 65' 65' 65' 65' 65' 65' 65' 65' 65' 65' 65' 65' 65' 65' 65' 65' 45' 45' R=20' 31' 65' 65' 65' 65' 65' 65' 65' 65' 65' 65' 65' 65' 65' 65' 40' R=20' 38' 90' R=20' 31' 90' 83' R=20' 31'
81' 45' 45' 45' 77' 45' 45' 45' 49' 48' 45' 46' R=20' 31' 36' R=20' 30' 45' 44' R=20' 31'
35' 46' 46' 46' 46' 46' 46' 46' 46' 46' 46' 46' 46' 46' 46' 46' 36' R=20' 31' R=20' 31'
45' 45' R=20' 31' R=20' 31' 60' 65' 40' 48' 45' 45' 50' R=20' 31' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 68' 68' 72' 45' 69' 50' 73' 65' 57' R=20' 33' 47' 43' 43' 45' 45' 45' 45' 39' 80'
49' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 80' 80' 12' 64' R=30'
79' 80' 80' 75' 79' 84' 111'
79' 50' 89' 65' 42' 50' R=20' 31'
67' 71' 45' 89' 57' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 70' 70' 70' 70' 71' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 71' 109' 46' 47' 70' 70' 70' 111'
71'
111'
71'
111'
71'
111'
46' 73' 83'
67' R=50' 29' 31' 43' R=30' 71'
100'
45' 45' 96' 10' 45' 45' 45' 71' 71' 71' 105' 71' 65' R=30' 157' 78' R=50' 48' 58' 25'
62' 71' 111'
45' 78' 46' 48' 45' 45' 45'
70' 70' 78' 70' 70' 70' 70' 70'
46' 46' 46'
35' 13' 76'
85' 37' 47' 47' 52' 85' 57' 47' 56' 85'
51' 53' R=30' R=50' 39' 41' 85' 46' 50'46' 49'47' 49' 77' 98' 99' 94' 53' 49' 64' R=20' 33' 49' 47' 47' 85' 50'86' 50' 47' 87' R=30' 22' 42'94' 51' 40' 50' 85' 50' 86' 86' 46' 50' 85'
66' 78' 78' R=20' 30' 51' 51' 46' 99' 103' 37' 50' 50' 50' 50' 50' 50' 50' R=20' 29' 47' 50' 47' 32' 46' 45' 45' 102' 102' 102' 102' 104' 106' 103' 54' 59' 55' 47' 50' 51' 99'
R=47' 48' 98' 116' R=65' 16' 98' 115'
48' 47' 47' 47' 47' 47' 106' 106' 106' 106' 112' 55' 49' 93' 93' R=20' R=20' 31' 65' R=65' 46' 39' 37' R=47' 37' 48' 79' 47' 47' 47' 47' 47' 47' 47' 47' 45' 85' 86' 86' 89' 86' 45' 47' 47' 52' 52' 86' 59'73' 47' 30'30' 47' 47' 47' 47' 47' 86' 86' 86' 96' 74' 107' 44' 48' R=20' 30' 85' 49' 48' 86' 47' 47' 90' 50' 46' 46' 50' 86' 88' 90' 68' 64' R=20' 33' 49' 47' 47' 48' 86' 86' 69' 47' 47' 46' 86' 86' 86' 86' 50' 47' 47' 47' 64' 59' 50' 50' 50' 50' 50' 46' 65' 49' 42' 118' 88' 101' 16' 47' 107' 54' 39' 82' 48' 54' 84' 105' R=20' 66' 65' 31' R=20' 31' R=20' 32' 50' 49' 45' 47' 85' 97' R=20' 32'80' 92' 92' 46' 106' 109' 60' 47' 85' 49'66' 98' 102' 49' 19' 86' 47' R=20' 27' 85' 107' 20'
91'86' R=20' 30'
R=65' 65' R=20' 31' 56' 50' 85' 127' 101' 49' 119'
46' 48' 108' 16' 54' 98' 110' 68' 20'
49' 92' 47' 114' 46'
45' 47' 50' 50' 50' 50'
47' 47'
EXISTING CONSERVATION
EASEMENT, TYP.
15.0 ± AC (net)
ROUNDABOUT (BOC) FINAL DESIGN TO
APPROX. LOCATION OF BE DETERMINED
ROUNDABOUT (BOC) FINAL DESIGN TO
APPROX. LOCATION OF BE DETERMINED
SIDEWALK STREET 10.0' MPE STREET SIDEWALK LANDSCAPE
57' 63' 57' 72' 57' 72' 60' 60' 57' 63' 60' 60' LANDSCAPE 20' PVT. DRIVEWAY
SIDEWALK
22' PVT. DRIVEWAY 10' MPE STREET STREET 76' 76' 76' 76' 76' 76' 76' 76' 50.50' 39.25' 39.25' 39.25' 39.25' 50.50' SIDEWALK LANDSCAPE LANDSCAPE 50.50' a portion of the Folsom Plan Area Specific Plan
Folsom, CA LOTTING PLAN
SMALL LOT VESTING TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION M
ALDER CREEK
Sheet 4 of 12 May 13, 2026
0 50 100 200 SCALE: 1"=100' N TOLL BROTHERS at 5-13-2026 P:\27238\PLN\Applications\TM\TBAC_SLTM\SLTM-AC-SUB-05_20260513\04-TBAC_SLTM-S5-EAST-LOT.dwg [1] P:\27238\PLN\Applications\TM\TBAC_SLTM\P-ADJ-TBAC.dwg [2] P:\27238\PLN\Applications\TM\TBAC_SLTM\_P-CS-TBAC.dwg [3] P:\27238\PLN\Applications\TM\TBAC_SLTM\ANNO-BNDY-100.dwg [4] P:\27238\PLN\Applications\TM\TBAC_SLTM\_P-CS-TBAC.dwg [5] P:\27238\PLN\Applications\TM\TBAC_SLTM\ANNO-LOTS-EAST-80.dwg [6] P:\27238\PLN\Applications\TM\TBAC_SLTM\4pack-6pack-STBK-EXH.dwg [7] P:\27238\PLN\Applications\TM\TBAC_SLTM\TBAC-ConserveEsmt.dwg 15:56:27 shaskell 27238.TOLL.ENT SUB4 TYPICAL LOT DIAGRAM
4-PACK 6-PACK
TYPICAL LOT DIAGRAM
1"=30' 1"=30' NOTE: Building footprints are conceptual and subject to revision. NOTE: Building footprints are conceptual and subject to revision.
SEE SHEET 3