APPENDIX D FOLSOM HOLDING CAPACITY METHODOLOGY

Similar documents
Kitsap County 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update. Appendix A: Growth Estimates

APPENDIX I: Traffic Forecasting Model and Assumptions

King City URA 6D Concept Plan

TRAVEL DEMAND MODEL. Chapter 6

California Urban Infill Trip Generation Study. Jim Daisa, P.E.

MEMORANDUM. Trip Generation Analysis

Proposed Scope of Work Village of Farmingdale Downtown Farmingdale BOA Step 2 BOA Nomination Study / Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement

User Fee Study URBAN DESIGN STUDIO LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 Introduction 2.0 Data Review 3.0 Land Use Model Development 4.0 Allocation Results 5.0 Land Use Alternative

TREASURE COAST REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL M E M O R A N D U M. To: Council Members AGENDA ITEM 4B10

GIS in Community & Regional Planning

Public Transportation Infrastructure Study (PTIS) - 2 nd Technical Advisory Committee Meeting

Airport Employment Growth District

3D - Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. Lesli Ellis Comprehensive Planning Manager City of Boulder

PIBC Annual Conference, 2016

Albuquerque City-wide Zoning Remapping

A Method for Mapping Settlement Area Boundaries in the Greater Golden Horseshoe

1 Summary Monetary Component Public Purpose Land Provision Introduction Document Structure...

GROWTH MANAGEMENT REPORT Wiarton South Settlement Area

Economic Activity Economic A ctivity


APPENDIX C-3 Equitable Target Areas (ETA) Technical Analysis Methodology

Date: March 31, 2014 PATE; fyril 2.3,2 >H

City of Chino Hills General Plan Update 13GPA02 Scoping Meeting. June 4, 2013

Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council

Presented by: Bryan Bloch GIS Specialist DNREC Division of Watershed Stewardship

APPENDIX Q. Updated Storm Drain Demands

Land Use and Zoning Page 1 of 10 LAND USE AND ZONING

APPENDIX I - AREA PLANS

Los Alamos Planning Advisory Committee. Stephen Peterson March 19, 2007

TABLE OF CONTENTS ARTICLE I. POLK COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN VOLUME 1. Page CHAPTER 1. GENERAL... A-1

Planning for Sea Level Rise in the Matanzas Basin

KAISER SOUTH NORTHERN VIRGINIA HUB TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY, VIRGINIA TABLE OF CONTENTS. Section 2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 12

2267 N o r t h 1500 W C l i n t o n U T 84015

APPLICATION TO AMEND THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP (FLUM) SMALL SCALE

Date: June 19, 2013 Meeting Date: July 5, Consideration of the City of Vancouver s Regional Context Statement

City of Hermosa Beach Beach Access and Parking Study. Submitted by. 600 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1050 Los Angeles, CA

Case Special Exception request for Planned Unit Development (PUD) The Vineyards

COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE 2000 DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY REPORT

Transportation Statistical Data Development Report OKALOOSA-WALTON OUTLOOK 2035 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

Tourist-Accommodation (T-A) Zone

DOWNTOWN SUB-AREA. Final Parking Study. Prepared for: City of Bellingham. March Prepared by:

Analysis of Change in Land Use around Future Core Transit Corridors: Austin, TX, Eric Porter May 3, 2012

Summary Description Municipality of Anchorage. Anchorage Coastal Resource Atlas Project

Trip Generation Study: A 7-Eleven Gas Station with a Convenience Store Land Use Code: 945

Final City of Colusa STREETS & ROADWAYS MASTER PLAN. October J Street Suite 390 Sacramento, CA 95814

Volume Title: Empirical Models of Urban Land Use: Suggestions on Research Objectives and Organization. Volume URL:

Transect Code Manual

Employment Capacity in Transit Station Areas in Maryland

Port Cities Conference: How Regional Planning can Help Support a Competitive Port. Christina DeMarco Metro Vancouver

Facts and Findings. Exhibit A-1

STAFF REPORT. MEETING DATE: July 3, 2008 AGENDA ITEM: 7

The Attractive Side of Corpus Christi: A Study of the City s Downtown Economic Growth

CITY OF VESTAVIA HILLS

Appendixx C Travel Demand Model Development and Forecasting Lubbock Outer Route Study June 2014

I. M. Schoeman North West University, South Africa. Abstract

Warner Real Estate Advisors, Inc. Minto West Non -Residential Intensity Analysis

StanCOG Transportation Model Program. General Summary

ANALYSIS OF URBAN PLANNING IN ISA TOWN USING GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS TECHNIQUES

Urban White Paper on Tokyo Metropolis 2002

ZONING DISTRICT REGULATIONS. Table 4-2 Permitted Uses by Zoning Districts Use Types AG RR R-1 R-2 R-3 MH LC CC DC GC LI GI P Addl Reg

Transport Planning in Large Scale Housing Developments. David Knight

Wasatch Front Region Small Area Socioeconomic Forecasts: Technical Report #49

Write a report (6-7 pages, double space) on some examples of Internet Applications. You can choose only ONE of the following application areas:

Geodatabase for Sustainable Urban Development. Presented By Rhonda Maronn Maurice Johns Daniel Ashney Jack Anliker

Wasatch Front Region Small Area Socioeconomic Forecasts: Technical Report #49

LARAMIE COUNTY PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

CITY OF CAMBRIDGE Growth & Intensification Study Secondary Plan Stakeholder Session June 26th, 2017

GIS for the Non-Expert

RECORD OF MEETING. Region Five Development Commission

CERTIFIED RESOLUTION. introduction: and dated May 29, 2017, as attached, as appropriate

Module - 3 GIS MAPPING, MIS AND GIS UNDER RAY

GIS BASED ANALYSIS OF EXPRESS VS LOCAL STATIONS ON SURROUNDING LAND USES IN NEW YORK CITY

GIS Geographical Information Systems. GIS Management

City of Cambridge. HEMSON C o n s u l t i n g L t d.

Exhibit IV-1: Initiation of Zoning Map Amendments Case Report HEARING DATE: MAY 3, 2012

Appendix 2. Extracts from Ministry for the Environment Active Fault Guidelines 2003

Local Economic Activity Around Rapid Transit Stations

5.0 POPULATION, HOUSEHOLD AND EMPLOYMENT FORECASTS

Traffic Impact Study

User Fee Study COMMUNITY PLANNING LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA

CITY OF HESPERIA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE

VIKING INSPECTION PROPERTY 4921 U.S. Hwy. 85, Williston, ND 58801

John Laznik 273 Delaplane Ave Newark, DE (302)

Dark Sky Initiative Draft Terms of Reference

British Standard 7666:2006 (parts 0, 1 and 2) its impact & use within local government

Forecasts for the Reston/Dulles Rail Corridor and Route 28 Corridor 2010 to 2050

OTTER POINT ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION. Notice of Meeting on Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 7 p.m.

Attachment 3. Updating UBC s Regional Context Statement. University of British Columbia CONSIDERATION MEMORANDUM OF CONSULTATION INPUT

3.0 ANALYSIS OF FUTURE TRANSPORTATION NEEDS

HIGHLANDS REGIONAL MASTER PLAN MONITORING PROGRAM FUTURE LAND USE TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING

Wesley Chapel Area Roadway Needs Study Build-Out Analysis (Beardsley Dr/Oldwoods Ave Need Study) Project Progress Meeting 1

Application #: TEXT

2040 MTP and CTP Socioeconomic Data

A Remote Sensing and GIS approach to trace the Densification in Residential Areas

Goodlette/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict. Exhibit IV.B Amendment Language. Revise the FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT

CVS Derwood. Local Area Transportation Review

THE POPULATION PROJECTION METHODOLOGY OF

Market Street PDP. Nassau County, Florida. Transportation Impact Analysis. VHB/Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. Nassau County Growth Management

1.0 PURPOSE AND FORMAT OF THE FINAL EIR

Transcription:

APPENDIX D FOLSOM HOLDING CAPACITY METHODOLOGY

This page intentionally left blank.

APPENDIX D FOLSOM HOLDING CAPACITY METHODOLOGY 1. INTRODUCTION This document provides a description of the assumptions and methods used to determine housing, population, and employment capacity for the land uses illustrated in the Draft 2035 Folsom General Plan. The General Plan holding capacity analysis represents an estimate of the total dwelling units, population, and non-residential building square footage associated with the future buildout of the proposed 2035 General Plan Land Use Diagram. A key assumption in understanding this holding capacity analysis is that it reflects a theoretical buildout of the entire city, rather than what is likely to appear on the ground within the General Plan horizon year of 2035. The holding capacity analysis for the Draft 2035 Folsom General Plan was conducted at the parcel level using an inventory of vacant land as the basis for analysis. Three versions of the holding capacity were conducted. The first estimates the holding capacity of the Draft 2035 General Plan with a 2015 baseline. The second estimates the holding capacity of the Draft 2035 General Plan with an updated 2017 baseline. The third estimates the holding capacity under the currently adopted 1988 General Plan using the updated 2017 baseline. The analysis is further broken down by the land north of Highway 50 and the land within the Folsom Plan Area Specific Plan, located south of Highway 50. The holding capacity for the land within the Specific Plan Area was conducted as part of the Specific Plan preparation and updated to reflect subsequent land use amendments. So as not to duplicate efforts as well as to maintain consistency between the analyses conducted for both the Folsom Plan Area Specific Plan and the Folsom General Plan, the Folsom General Plan holding capacity uses the capacity analysis conducted for the Folsom Plan Area Specific Plan for the land south of Highway 50. 2. DEVELOPMENT ASSUMPTIONS FOR LAND NORTH OF HIGHWAY 50 The holding capacity model uses development assumptions such as target density for residential uses, target floor area ratio (FAR) for non-residential uses, and percentage distribution of uses within each land use designation. Table 1 below shows the assumptions used to calculate the holding capacity. The following terms are used in Table 1: Target Density and Target FAR. Historically, development has occurred somewhere between the minimum and maximum permitted densities and intensities. As a result, the assumptions used to calculate the holding capacity represent an average level of residential density (i.e., dwelling units per acre) and non-residential intensity (i.e., FAR floor area ratio) that will likely be achieved at buildout of each land use category. Assumed Distribution of Uses. Some land use designations, such as Single Family allow only one type of land use, whereas other designations, such as General Commercial, allow for a range of different uses. Table 1 shows the assumed percentage distribution of uses for each land use designation. 2035 General Plan Update Appendix D-1 City of Folsom

The assumptions shown in Table 1 were applied to all vacant parcels north of Highway 50, except for parcels with single-family land use designations in areas that have already been subdivided. These parcels were assumed to have one dwelling unit per parcel, regardless of parcel size. Table 1 Development Assumptions for Holding Capacity North of Highway 50 Land Use Designations Residential Single Family (SF) (2-4 du/ac) Single Family High Density (SFHD) (4-7 du/ac) Multifamily Low Density (MHD) (7-12 du/ac) Multifamily Medium Density (MMD) (12-20 du/ac) Multifamily High Density (MHD) (20-30 du/ac) Commercial General Commercial (GC) (FAR 0.2-0.5) Community Commercial (CC) (FAR 0.5-1.5) Regional Commercial Center (RCC) (FAR 0.5-2.0) Auto-Oriented Commercial (AOC) (FAR 0.1-0.3) Mixed Use Mixed Use (MU) (20-30 du/ac; FAR 0.5-1.5) East Bidwell Corridor (EBC) (23-30 du/ac; FAR 0.5-1.5) Historic Folsom Mixed Use (HF) (20-30 du/ac; FAR 0.5-2.0) Target Development Assumptions Assumed Distribution of Uses Den FAR SF MF Ret Ser Off Ind Oth Med Gov F/R Edu 3.0-100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 6.0-100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 10.0-50% 50% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 16.0-25% 75% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 24.0-0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% - 0.35 0% 0% 30% 15% 10% 0% 10% 10% 5% 20% 0% - 0.35 0% 0% 40% 30% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 30% 0% - 0.50 0% 0% 40% 40% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 20% 0% - 0.20 0% 0% 40% 40% 0% 0% 20% 0% 0% 0% 0% 25.0 1.0 0% 50% 20% 10% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% 10% 0% 25.5 1.0 0% 50% 20% 10% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% 10% 0% 25.0 1.0 10% 10% 30% 10% 20% 0% 0% 0% 0% 20% 0% 2035 General Plan Update Appendix D-2 City of Folsom

Table 1 Development Assumptions for Holding Capacity North of Highway 50 Land Use Designations Employment/Industrial Industrial/Office Park (IND) (FAR 0.2-1.2) Professional Office (PO) (FAR 0.2-0.5) Public Public and Quasi-Public Facility (PQP) (FAR 0.2-1.0) Parks (P) (FAR 0.0-0.1) Open Space (OS) (FAR 0.0-0.1) Target Development Assumptions Assumed Distribution of Uses Den FAR SF MF Ret Ser Off Ind Oth Med Gov F/R Edu - 0.35 0% 0% 0% 0% 40% 30% 30% 0% 0% 0% 0% - 0.35 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% - 0.50 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 40% 0% 60% - 0.0 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% - 0.0 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Notes: Den = Density; FAR = Floor Area Ratio; SF = Single Family; MF = Multifamily; Ret = Retail; Ser = Service; Off = Office; Ind = Industrial; Oth = Other; Med = Medical; Gov = Government; F/R = Food/Restaurant; Edu = Education Source: Mintier Harnish, 2016 3. HOLDING CAPACITY 2015 BASELINE VACANT SITES NORTH OF HIGHWAY 50 For land north of Highway 50, City staff and the consultants identified all vacant sites. Using GIS, the sites were compiled in a map, and the inventory was checked against aerial images to confirm vacancy status. Once verified, the proposed General Plan Land Use designation was identified for each vacant site and the attributes of the vacant land GIS data were exported into an Excel spreadsheet, where the data were sorted by General Plan Land Use designation. Here, land use holding capacity was calculated through a series of formulas that fed parcel-level information through the development assumptions. VACANT SITES SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 50 The holding capacity for development south of Highway 50 was calculated by MacKay and Somps as part of the Specific Plan process and updated to reflect amendments to the Specific Plan. Table 2 shows the holding capacity assumptions for the analysis south of Highway 50, as prepared by MacKay and Somps. City of Folsom Appendix D-3 2035 General Plan Update

Table 2 Holding Capacity Assumptions for South of Highway 50 (Folsom Plan Area Specific Plan) Land Use Density Range Target Density FAR Single Family (SF) 1.0 4.0 3.1 - Single Family High Density (SFHD) 4.0 7.0 5.7 - Multi-Family Low Density (MLD) 7.0 12.0 9.1 - Multi-Family Medium Density (MMD) 12.0 20.0 17.9 - Multi-Family High Density (MHD) 20.0 30.0 24.5 - Mixed Use District (MU) 9.0 30.0 11.5 0.20 Industrial/Office Park (IND/OP) - - 0.30 Community Commercial (CC) - - 0.25 General Commercial (GC) - - 0.25 Regional Commercial (RC) - - 0.28 Source: MacKay and Somps, 2011. UNDERUTILIZED SITES WITHIN EAST BIDWELL CORRIDOR OVERLAY The Draft 2035 General Plan includes an East Bidwell Corridor (EBC) Overlay, which encourages mixed-use development along East Bidwell Street. The overlay designation does not change the underlying General Plan land use designation and does not require mixed-use development. Some parcels within the EBC Overlay were assumed to develop based on the underlying General Plan land use designation, while other parcels were assumed to develop as mixed use. The assumptions applied to parcels within the EBC Overlay largely depend on whether the parcel is vacant or considered underutilized. Underutilized parcels, characterized by aging commercial uses that would be more likely to redevelop within the timeframe of the General Plan, were identified through inspecting aerial images of the corridor. Mixed-use assumptions were applied to underutilized parcels, regardless of the underlying land use designation, with the exception of two vacant parcels designated with the Professional Office (PO) land use. The EBC Overlay is the only area that assumes redevelopment of underutilized parcels within the holding capacity analysis; all other parcels in the holding capacity study are vacant. Figure 1 shows the area covered by the East Bidwell Corridor Overlay. Figure 2 shows the parcels where Mixed-Use assumptions have been applied. 2035 General Plan Update Appendix D-4 City of Folsom

Figure 1 East Bidwell Corridor Overlay Shown in Cross-Hatched Area Figure 2 Mixed-Use Assumptions Applied to Shown Parcels City of Folsom Appendix D-5 2035 General Plan Update

APPROVED PROJECTS City staff provided a list of approved projects in late 2016. These projects are also counted toward the holding capacity since they have not yet received permits or begun construction but will contribute to the growth of the city within the planning period. SUMMARY OF THE 2015-BASELINE HOLDING CAPACITY The total holding capacity for Folsom is the sum of capacity on vacant land north of Highway 50, underutilized sites within the East Bidwell Corridor Overlay, vacant land south of Highway 50, and approved development projects. The 2015 holding capacity analysis was used for the traffic analysis because the traffic analysis uses traffic counts that were conducted in 2015 as part of the baseline data. Table 3 shows the 2015-Baseline Holding Capacity Summary Table. 4. HOLDING CAPACITY 2017 BASELINE The Notice of Preparation (NOP) to prepare an Environmental Impact Report for the Draft 2035 General Plan was published in 2017. For the purpose of studying coverage impacts of the Draft 2035 General Plan, the holding capacity was updated to account for development that took place between 2015 and 2017 using building permit data provided by City staff. Development assumptions (shown above in Table 1) remain the same, but they were applied to a new inventory of vacant parcels that account for development that took place between 2015 and 2017. Table 4 shows a summary table of the 2017-Baseline Holding Capacity. 5. ADOPTED GENERAL PLAN HOLDING CAPACITY The holding capacity analysis for the existing Adopted General Plan used the vacant parcels identified as part of the 2017-Baseline Holding Capacity as the starting point, but applied the land use designations from the existing Adopted General Plan. The differences between the holding capacity for the Draft 2035 General Plan and the Adopted General Plan are minor because the Draft 2035 General Plan proposes only a few land use changes. These changes are essentially updated land use designations to more accurately reflect existing uses. Table 5 shows the Adopted General Plan Folsom Holding Capacity Summary Table. 2035 General Plan Update Appendix D-6 City of Folsom

Table 3 2015-Baseline Holding Capacity Summary Table Land Use Designations Residential Vacant/Underutilized Sites North of Hwy 50 Vacant Sites South of Hwy 50 Citywide Subtotal Approved Projects Total Acres DU SQFT Acres DU SQFT Acres DU SQFT Acres DU SQFT Acres DU SQFT Single Family (SF) 251.11 660 0 460.19 1,479 0 711.31 2,139 0 24.40 210 0 735.71 2,349 0 Single Family High Density (SFHD) 8.59 9 0 827.12 4,471 0 835.71 4,480 0 0.00 0 0 835.71 4,480 0 Multifamily Low Density (MHD) 3.06 22 0 252.47 2,271 0 255.53 2,293 0 60.00 498 0 315.53 2,791 0 Multifamily Medium Density (MMD) 1.71 26 0 31.86 576 0 33.56 602 0 0.00 0 0 33.56 602 0 Multifamily High Density (MHD) 34.35 822 0 48.52 1,225 0 82.87 2,047 0 29.05 665 0 111.92 2,712 0 Commercial General Commercial (GC) 1.30 0 19,926 84.69 388 671,390 85.99 388 691,316 0.00 0 0 85.99 388 691,316 Community Commercial (CC) 48.67 0 742,026 24.57 0 235,224 73.24 0 977,250 0.00 0 0 73.24 0 977,250 Regional Commercial Center (RCC) 64.21 0 1,398,529 103.21 549 758,119 167.42 549 2,156,648 27.30 0 116,636 194.72 549 2,273,284 Mixed Use Mixed Use (MU) 5.47 68 119,216 28.54 343 100,362 34.01 411 219,578 0.00 0 0 34.01 411 219,578 East Bidwell Corridor (EBC) 78.04 962 1,040,658 0.00 0 0 78.04 962 1,040,658 0.00 0 0 78.04 962 1,040,658 Historic Folsom Mixed Use (HF) 5.18 14 180,724 0.00 0 0 5.18 14 180,724 0.00 0 0 5.18 14 180,724 Employment/Industrial Industrial/Office Park (IND) 11.04 0 168,298 78.73 0 1,028,451 89.77 0 1,196,749 0.00 0 0 89.77 0 1,196,749 Professional Office (PO) 18.05 0 584,938 0.00 0 0 18.05 0 584,938 0.00 0 0 18.05 0 584,938 Public Public and Quasi-Public Facility (PQP) 0.00 0 0 139.53 0 0 139.53 0 0 0.00 0 0 139.53 0 0 Parks (P) 0.00 0 0 138.25 0 0 138.25 0 0 0.00 0 0 138.25 0 0 Open Space (OS) 0.00 0 0 1,118.02 0 0 1,118.02 0 0 0.00 0 0 1,118.02 0 0 Total 530.79 2,583 4,254,315 3,335.69 11,302 2,793,546 3,866.48 13,885 7,047,861 140.75 1,373 116,636 4,007.23 15,258 7,164,497 Notes: Acres = acres of identified land; DU = dwelling units; SQFT = non-residential square footage Source: Mintier Harnish, 2016 City of Folsom Appendix D-7 2035 General Plan Update

Table 4 2017-Baseline Holding Capacity Summary Table Land Use Designations Residential Vacant/Underutilized Sites North of Hwy 50 Vacant Sites South of Hwy 50 Citywide Subtotal Approved Projects Total Acres DU SQFT Acres DU SQFT Acres DU SQFT Acres DU SQFT Acres DU SQFT Single Family (SF) 246.55 652 0 460.19 1,479 0 706.75 2,131 0 24.40 210 0 731.15 2,341 0 Single Family High Density (SFHD) 8.59 9 0 827.12 4,471 0 835.71 4,480 0 0.00 0 0 835.71 4,480 0 Multifamily Low Density (MHD) 3.06 22 0 252.47 2,271 0 255.53 2,293 0 60.00 498 0 315.53 2,791 0 Multifamily Medium Density (MMD) 1.71 26 0 31.86 576 0 33.56 602 0 0.00 0 0 33.56 602 0 Multifamily High Density (MHD) 34.35 822 0 48.52 1,225 0 82.87 2,047 0 29.05 665 0 111.92 2,712 0 Commercial General Commercial (GC) 1.30 0 19,926 84.69 388 671,390 85.99 388 691,316 0.00 0 0 85.99 388 691,316 Community Commercial (CC) 42.54 0 648,559 24.57 0 235,224 67.11 0 883,783 0.00 0 0 67.11 0 883,783 Regional Commercial Center (RCC) 60.85 0 1,325,262 103.21 549 758,119 164.05 549 2,083,381 27.30 0 116,636 191.35 549 2,200,017 Mixed Use Mixed Use (MU) 5.47 68 119,216 28.54 343 100,362 34.01 411 219,578 0.00 0 0 34.01 411 219,578 East Bidwell Corridor (EBC) 78.04 962 1,040,658 0.00 0 0 78.04 962 1,040,658 0.00 0 0 78.04 962 1,040,658 Historic Folsom Mixed Use (HF) 5.18 14 180,724 0.00 0 0 5.18 14 180,724 0.00 0 0 5.18 14 180,724 Employment/Industrial Industrial/Office Park (IND) 11.04 0 168,298 78.73 0 1,028,451 89.77 0 1,196,749 0.00 0 0 89.77 0 1,196,749 Professional Office (PO) 18.05 0 584,938 0.00 0 0 18.05 0 584,938 0.00 0 0 18.05 0 584,938 Public Public and Quasi-Public Facility (PQP) 0.00 0 0 139.53 0 0 139.53 0 0 0.00 0 0 139.53 0 0 Parks (P) 0.00 0 0 138.25 0 0 138.25 0 0 0.00 0 0 138.25 0 0 Open Space (OS) 0.00 0 0 1,118.02 0 0 1,118.02 0 0 0.00 0 0 1,118.02 0 0 Total 516.74 2,575 4,087,581 3,335.69 11,302 2,793,546 3,852.43 13,877 6,881,127 140.75 1,373 116,636 3,993.18 15,250 6,997,763 Notes: Acres = acres of identified land; DU = dwelling units; SQFT = non-residential square footage Source: Mintier Harnish, 2017. 2035 General Plan Update Appendix D-8 City of Folsom

Table 5 Adopted General Plan Holding Capacity Summary Table Land Use Designations Residential Vacant/Underutilized Sites North of Hwy 50 Vacant Sites South of Hwy 50 Citywide Subtotal Approved Projects Total Acres DU SQFT Acres DU SQFT Acres DU SQFT Acres DU SQFT Acres DU SQFT Single Family (SF) 246.55 652 0 460.19 1,479 0 706.75 2,131 0 24.40 210 0 731.15 2,341 0 Single Family High Density (SFHD) 8.59 9 0 827.12 4,471 0 835.71 4,480 0 0.00 0 0 835.71 4,480 0 Multifamily Low Density (MHD) 3.06 22 0 252.47 2,271 0 255.53 2,293 0 60.00 498 0 315.53 2,791 0 Multifamily Medium Density (MMD) 1.71 26 0 31.86 576 0 33.56 602 0 0.00 0 0 33.56 602 0 Multifamily High Density (MHD) 34.35 822 0 48.52 1,225 0 82.87 2,047 0 29.05 665 0 111.92 2,712 0 Commercial General Commercial (GC) 1.30 0 19,926 84.69 388 671,390 85.99 388 691,316 0.00 0 0 85.99 388 691,316 Community Commercial (CC) 42.54 0 648,559 24.57 0 235,224 67.11 0 883,783 0.00 0 0 67.11 0 883,783 Regional Commercial Center (RCC) Mixed Use 60.85 0 1,325,262 103.21 549 758,119 164.05 549 2,083,381 27.30 0 116,636 191.35 549 2,200,017 Mixed Use (MU) 5.47 68 119,216 28.54 343 100,362 34.01 411 219,578 0.00 0 0 34.01 411 219,578 Historic Folsom Mixed Use (HF) 5.18 14 180,724 0.00 0 0 5.18 14 180,724 0.00 0 0 5.18 14 180,724 Employment/Industrial Industrial/Office Park (IND) 11.04 0 168,298 78.73 0 1,028,451 89.77 0 1,196,749 0.00 0 0 89.77 0 1,196,749 Professional Office (PO) 27.30 0 584,938 0.00 0 0 27.30 0 584,938 0.00 0 0 27.30 0 584,938 Public Public and Quasi-Public Facility (PQP) 0.00 0 0 139.53 0 0 139.53 0 0 0.00 0 0 139.53 0 0 Parks (P) 0.00 0 0 138.25 0 0 138.25 0 0 0.00 0 0 138.25 0 0 Open Space (OS) 0.00 0 0 1,118.02 0 0 1,118.02 0 0 0.00 0 0 1,118.02 0 0 Total 447.94 1,613 3,046,923 3,335.69 11,302 2,793,546 3,783.63 12,915 5,840,469 140.75 1,373 116,636 3,924.38 14,288 5,957,105 Notes: Acres = acres of identified land; DU = dwelling units; SQFT = non-residential square footage Source: Mintier Harnish, 2017. City of Folsom Appendix D-9 2035 General Plan Update

This page intentionally left blank. 2035 General Plan Update Appendix D-10 City of Folsom