Folsom City Council
January 11, 2022

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

City staff has determined that the cumulative impacts exception does not apply because of the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place as the proposed project is not significant in this case, in that the project will not result in any adverse impacts with respect to building design, site design, parking, lighting, and noise or other environmental impacts potentially caused by the proposed use. With respect to building architecture and site design, the proposed project involves the remodel of an existing cornmercial building and the re-use of an existing outdoor patio area, both of which have been designed to comply with the Historic District Design and Development Guidelines. In terms of parking, thc proposcd projcct is not rcquircd to provide any on-site parking spaces per established City practice. In addition, the applicant has entered into a lease agreement to provide 15 parking spaces to further address any potential parking concems. In relation to noise and light, standard and project-specific conditions of approval have been placed on the proposed project to minimize any potential noise and light impacts. With respect to any other potential impacts caused by the proposed use, the conditions imposed on the project in the Conditional Use Permit are designed to minimize or eliminate any negative effects on the environment created by the proposed use
(c) Significant Effect. A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. This is commonly referred to as the obnusual circumstances exception."
The unusual circumstances exception to the use of a categorical exemption applies only when both unusual circumstances exist and there is a reasonable possibility that the project will have a significant effect on the environment due to those unusual circumstances. (Berketey Hillside Preservationv. City of Berkeley (2015) 60 Cal.Aft 1086, 1104.)
In making this decision, the decision-making body is required to consider whether the proposed project's circumstances differ significantly from the circumstances typical of the type of projects covered by the exemption, namely, other small structures in the Historic Districtthat are either converted from one use to another or newly constructed.

The exception applies only if the claimed unusual circumstance relates to the proposed action under consideration; it does not apply if the unusual circumstances are part of the existing conditions baseline. (Bottini v. City of San Diego 27 Cal.App5th 281; World Business Academy v. State Lands Commission (2015) 24 Cal.App.sth 476,498; North Coast Rivers Alliance v. Westlands Water District (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 832, 872.)
Another consideration is whether there is a reasonable possibility of a significant effect onthe environment due to the unusual circumstances. (Berkeley Hillside Preservation, t2 Page 496
01/11/2022 Item No.15.
60 Cal. ft at p. 1 1 1 5.) The decision-making body answers this question by determining if there is any substantial evidence before it that would support a fair argument that a significant impact on the environment may occur as a result of the proposed project. (Id.) Areasonable possibility of a significant impact may be found only if the proposed project will have an impact on the physical environment. If there is no change from existing baseline physical conditions, the exception does not apply. (North Coast Rivers Alliance v. Westlands Water District (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 832,872.7 The exception also does not apply if the project will have only a social impact and will not result in a potcntially significant changc to thc physical environment. (Santa h{onica Chamber of Commerce v. City of Santa Monica (2002) 101 Cal.App .4th 786,801; City of Pasadenav. State (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 810,826.)
The question is not whether the project will have an adverse impact on some persons, but whether it will adversely affect the environment of persons in general due to unusual circumstances. (San Lorenzo Valley Community Advocates for Responsible Educationv. San Lorenzo Valtey rJnffied School District (2006) 139 Cal.App. th 1356, 1392.

After analyzing the unusual circumstances exception in association with this project, City staff determined that no unusual circumstances exist to distinguish this project from others in the exempt class. While an argument could be made that the small parcel size and the location of the parcel within the public parking lot are unusual circumstances, both of those conditions exist at this time. The presence of bars and restaurants on Sutter Street is not uncofirmon, so any impacts associated with the proposed use itself are not unusual. In addition, parking impacts associated with new businesses on Sutter Street are not unusual.

City staff also determined that there is not a reasonable possibility of a significant effect on the environment due to any claimed unusual circumstances for this project. Any possibility of a significant impact on the physical environment allegedly caused by proposed project would not be the result of any claimed unusual circumstances. As mentioned above, the proposed use is not unusual, and the parking impacts associated with new businesses on Sutter Street are not unusual. Even so, as described in detail in other sections ofthis report, the project applicant has secured a lease for 15 parking spots at the nearby Eagle's Lodge in an attempt to address any potential parking-related impacts and the City has conditioned the project to require those parking spots to remain available for the life of the Conditional Use Permit. As a result, City staff has determined that any possible significant effects related to parking are not unusual and do not require application of the exception for this project. (f) Historical Resources. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. 13 Page 497
01/11/2022 Item No.15.

The subject property, which is located at 608 % Sutter Street (APN: 070-0061-011- 0000), is developed with an existing 4,377-square-foot commercial building which was built in 1958. The existing building is constructed of vertical wood slats with sliding wood doors and a comrgated metal roof. The existing building is not considered a historically significant structure and does not include building materials that would be considered historically significant. In addition, the existing building is not listed on the City's Cultural Resource Inventory List nor any other State or Federal historic or cultural resource inventory or list.

10. During the HDC's November 18,202I, meeting, comments by the Project applicant's team asserted specific direct and indirect economic benefits of the Project and referenced IMPLAN modeling that was apparently performed for the Project.

Documentation of that analysis was not provided for public review prior to the hearing, and it is unclear if any documentation was provided to the HDC. To the extent that economic factors may be considered by the City Council, documentation of any economic analysis used as the basis for the Council's consideration should be provided for public review prior to a Council hearing.

City Staff Response:

During the November 18, 2021 Historic District Commission, the applicant's team made a number of comments regarding potential economic benefits of the proposed project. Specifically, the applicant's team noted that the Barley Barn Tap House would be offering food and beverage provided by other local businesses which would be of a potential economic benefit to the community. In addition, a member of the public (Mr.

Joe Gagliardi) spoke and shared a document with the Commission that the proposed project had the potential for direct and indirect economic benefits to the community.

No other written documentation regarding potential economic impacts associated with the proposed project have been provided by the applicant. It is also important to note lhat a project's economic impacts are not part of the findings that Historic District Commission considered in approving the Conditional Use Permit and Design Review for the Barley Barn Tap House project.

B. APPEAL No. 2 - tr'olsom Railroad Block Developer,LLc On December 3,2021, Craig Sandberg on behalf of the Folsom Railroad Block Developer, LLC, submitted aNotice of Appeal and associated background letter (Attachment 2) appealing the Historic District Commission's decision to approve the Barley Barn Tap House project.

The appeal is considered timely due to an inadvertent staff error declining to accept this appeal during the 10-day appeal timeframe since an appeal had already been filed by Mr. Delp.

In the appeal letter Mr. Sandberg states that his primary concern is the parking analysis and conclusions made for the Barley Bam Tap House project. In the appeal letter Mr. Sandberg also provides an overview of the parking problems that have impacted the Historic District for t4 Page 498
01/11/2022 Item No.15.
many years and references a number of parking studies (Attachment 7) that have been prepared for the Historic District including the December 9, 2008 Historic District Parking Implementation Plan Update, the January 17,2014 Historic District Parking Implementation Plan Update, and the October 18, 2018 Historic District Parking Implementation Plan Update.

Mr. Sandberg indicates in the appeal letter that the aforementioned studies should have been provided to the Historic District Commission as part of Barley Bam Tap House project. Lastly, Mr. Sandberg comments that, based on historic trends, the Historic District has reached the saturation point in terms of parking supply and parking demand.

Citv Staff Response:

As stated previously within this report, Section 17 .52.510(F) of the Folsom Municipal Code requires that all retail, office, restaurant, museum, and similar uses provide one parking spaces per 350 square feet of building space. The Folsom Municipal Code does not differentiate specific parking requirements based on type of land use of the intensity of the land use. In other words, the fact that the use of the existing commercial building at 608 Yz Suttq Street is changing use from anartand crafts store (Artfully Rooted) to a craft beer establishment (Barley Barn Tap House) does not prompt the applicant to provide any additional parking. That being said, City staff recognized that the change in use will likely lead to an increased demand for parking and requested that the applicant provide additional parking to serve the Barley Barn Tap House project. In response, the applicant agreed to enter into a lease agreement with the Folsom Eagles Lodge to secure 15 parking spaces in a private (non-public) parking lot at2l5 Scott Street. Based on the fact that the proposed project includes 15 parking spaces at the Eagles Lodge location, has access to 195 public and private parking spaces with the 600-b1ock area of Sutter Street, has access to 624 public parking spaces in other portions of the Sutter Street Subarea, and is providing a shuttle service (Sutter Surfer) to employees and customers, staff determined that adequate parking is provided to serve the Barley Barn Tap House project.

As illuded to in Mr. Sandberg's appeal letter, the City has commissioned numerous parking studies and updates (Attachment 7) over the past 20 years in order to identiff parking solutions to address parking concerns within the Historic District. The most recent of these parking studies (October 18,2018 Study) provided an update to existing parking conditions (parking supply, occupancy, and development). In addition, the 2018 Study included project parking "shortages" for future supply and demand and an approximate time frame for the need for an additional parking supply. Of note, the 2018 Study indicated that there were 801 on-street and off-street parking spaces within the commercial portion of the Historic District, with a weekday peak hour combined (on-street and off-street) parking space occupancy that peaks at 60 percent and aweekend peak hour combined occupancy that peaks at 59 percent.

With respect to future parking supply and demand, the 2018 Study modeled that the commercial portion of the Historic District may reach a parking saturation point by September of 2023 unless new parking solutions (parking structure, parking permits, etc.) were identified and implemented. However, there were many assumptions made with respect to the parking 15 Page 499
01/11/2022 Item No.15.
saturation timeline in the 2018 Study that may no longer hold true including full development of the railroad block and increased commercial development in the Historic District. City staff has previously provided the Historic District Commission a copy of the 2018 Study as recently as August 19, 2020 as part of the 603 Sutter Street Mixed-Use project. However, City staff did not provide a copy of the 2018 Study to the Historic District Commission as part of the Barley Bam Tap House project given the limited nature of the project and the fact that the project is meeting their parking requirement.

C. APPEAL No. 3 - Hlstorlc Folsom Residents Association On December 3, 2021, Michael Reynolds on behalf of the Historic Folsom Residents Association (HFRA), submitted a Notice of Appeal and associated background letter (Attachment 3) appealing the Historic District Commission's decision to approve the Barley Barn Tap House project. The appeal is considered timely due to the same inadvertent staff error declining to accept this appeal during the 10-day appeal timeframe since an appeal had already been filed by Mr. Delp.

In the appeal letter Mr. Reynolds states that the Barley Bam Tap House project would detrimental or injurious to neighbors and nearby businesses based on the parking as proposed and that the Commission was prevented from fully evaluating if the proposed project would or would not be detrimental or injurious to others because they were not provided copies of the three Historic District parking studies (2008, 2014, and2018 Parking Studies), and the project applicant did not submit a parking impacts analysis. Lastly, Mr. Reynolds indicates in the appeal letter that City staff relied on past practices in evaluating the Conditional Use Permit and that specific examples of past practices were not provided to assist the Historic District Commission in evaluating the proposed project.

City Staff Response:

At the November 18,2021Historic District Commission meeting, the Commission discussed and debated a number of issues associated with the Barley Barn Tap House project at great length, including substantial discussions regarding parking. At the end of the meeting, the Commission made two motions, one to approve a Conditional Use Permit and the other to approve Design Review for the Barley Barn Tap House. Both motions were subject the findings (Findings A-I) and conditions of approval attached to the staff report. In particular, the Commission approved Finding G (Conditional Use Permit Finding) which states the following:
t6 Page 500
01/11/2022 Item No.15.

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDING
G. AS CONDITIONED, THE ESTABLISHMENT, MAINTENANCE AND

OPERATION OF THE USE APPLIED FOR WILL NOT, UNDER THE

CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS PARTICULAR CASE, BE DETRIMENTAL TO

THE HEALTH, SAFETY, PEACE, MORALS, COMFORT, AND GENERAL

WELFARE OF PERSONS RESIDING OR WORKING IN THE
NEIGHBORHOOD, OR BE DETRIMENTAL OR INruRIOUS TO PROPERTY

AND IMPROVDMDNTS IN TIIE NEIGIIBORHOOD OR TO THE GENERAL

WELFARE OF THE CITY, SINCE THE PROPOSED USE IS COMPATIBLE WITH SIMILAR COMMERCIAL USES IN THE SURROI.INDING
NEIGHBORHOOD.

As previously discussed within this report, City staff determined that the Barley Barn Tap House project provides adequate parking to serve the proposed use taking into consideration the project includes 15 parking spaces at the Eagles Lodge location, has access to 195 public and private parking spaces with the 600 block area of Sutter Street, has access to 624 public parking spaces in other portions of the Sutter Street Subarea, and is providing a shuttle service (Sutter Surfer) to employees and customers. City staff did not provide the Historic District Commission with copies of the 2008, 2014, or 2018 Historic District Parking Implementation Plan Updates based on the limited extent of the project and the fact that the project is meeting their parking requirement. That being said, City staff has attached the aforementioned parking studies (Attachment 7) to this staff report as they are referenced in the appeal letters.

In evaluating the Barley Barn Tap House project, City staff relied on past practices in determining the parking requirements. Specifically, the City's past practice regarding required parking within the Sutter Street Subarea of the Historic District is that all new development projects which increase density (increased square footage) are required to provide on-site parking spaces at the parking ratios described previously in this report. Howevet, City practice has also been those projects involving existing structures that do not result in an increase in density (increased building square footage) such as exterior tenant improvements and/or interior tenant improvements are not required to provide any additional on-site parking.

Consistent with past City practice, staff has determined that the proposed project, which includes interior and exterior tenant improvements (project results in reduction in building square footage from 4,377 square feet to 3,799 square feet) to an existing commercial building is not required to provide any additional on-site parking spaces. The project is providing 15 parking spaces as mentioned throughout this report. A specific example of City staff implementation of this practice regarding parking was the conversion of the commercial building located at 608 Sutter Street (Donnelly House) from an office use to a restaurant/bar use (Hampton's) in20l3. A more current example of this practice is the ongoing conversion of the commercial building at located at 81 1 Sutter Street (Sutter Street Grill) from a restaurant use to service use (Maribou Hair Salon). In both of these specific cases, no additional parking t7 Page 501
01/11/2022 Item No.15.
was required based on the change in use because they involve existing structures. In addition, City staff has not been able to document an instance where additional parking has been required within the Sutter Street Subarea simply for a change in use of a building.

Based on the foregoing, staff respectfully requests that the City Council DENY the appeals by Bob Delp, Folsom Railroad Block Developer, LLC, and the Historic Folsom Residents Association of the Decisions by the Historic District Commission Approving a Conditional Use Permit and Design Review for the Barley Barn Tap House project (PN 19-174) located at 608 % Sutter Street and Determination that the Project is Exempt from CEQA based on the following Findings;

CEOA FINDINGS
A. THE PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW I.INDER SECTION 15303, NEW CONSTRUCTION OR CONVERSION OF

SMALL STRUCTURES, OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) GUIDELINES.

B. THE CUMULATIVE IMPACT OF SUCCESSIVE PROJECTS OF THE SAME TYPE IN THE SAME PLACE, OVER TIME IS NOT SIGNIFICANT IN THIS CASE.

C. NO UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST TO DISTINGUISH THE PROPOSED PROJECT FROM OTHERS IN THE EXEMPT CLASS.

D. THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL NOT CAUSE A SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE CHANGE IN THE SIGNIFICANCE OF A HISTORICAL RESOURCE.

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT T'INDING
E. AS CONDITIONED, THE ESTABLISHMENT, MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION

OF THE USE APPLIED FOR WILL NOT, LINDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF

THIS PARTICULAR CASE, BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE HEALTH, SAFETY,

PEACE, MORALS, COMFORT, AND GENERAL WELFARE OF PERSONS

RESIDING OR WORKING IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, OR BE DETRIMENTAL OR INruzuOUS TO PROPERTY AND IMPROVEMENTS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD

OR TO THE GENERAL WELFARE OF THE CITY, SINCE THE PROPOSED USE IS

COMPATIBLE WITH SIMILAR COMMERCIAL USES IN THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD.

DESIGN REVIEW FINDINGS
F. THE BUILDING MATERIALS, TEXTURES AND COLORS USED IN THE

PROPOSED PROJECT ARE COMPATIBLE WITH SURROUNDING

DEVELOPMENT AND ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL DESIGN
THEME OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
18 Page 502
01/11/2022 Item No.15.

G. THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE HISTORIC

DISTRICT DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCIL.

CONCLUSION
The City Council concludes that the decisions of the Historic District Commission approving a Conditional Use Permit and Design Review and determining that the proposed Barley Barn Tap House project is exempt from CEQA are correct.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Letter of Appeal from Bob Delp, dated November 24,2021

2. Letter of Appeal from Folsom Railroad Block Developer, LLC, dated December 1,202I

3. Letter of Appeal from Historic Folsom Residents Association, dated December 3,2021

4. Historic District Commission Staff Report, dated November 18,2021

5. Historic District Commission Additional Information, dated November 18,202I

6. Off-Site Parking Lease Agreement, dated October 15,202I

7. Minutes from November 18,202I Historic District Commission Meeting

8. Historic District Parking Implementation Plan Updates, dated January 16,2009, January 17,2014, and October 18,2018

9. Remy-Moose-Manley CEQA Response Letter, dated December 23,2021

10. Applicant Response Letter, dated December 28,202I

11. Bob Delp Appeal Hearing Procedure Letter, dated December 30,2021

12. Additional Public Comment Letters

13. Barley Barn Tap House Economic Snapshot, received December 20,2021 Submitted,

PAM JOHNS
Community Development Director
l9 Page 503
01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Attachment I
Letter of Appeal from Bob Delp
Dated November 24,2021

01/11/2022 Item No.15.
-:L'-- 'r,-,11 :-1
HAME OFAPPELLAI{T:
iIAILING ADDRE$S:

IHTEREST IN MATTER:

DAYTIMETELEPHONE:

APiI/PROJECTREF. NO.

ACNON BEINGAPPEALED:
crw oF FoLsoM

NOTICE OF APPEAL
Bob Delp
r
Folsom, CA 95630
Rssldent and property ouvner
PN 19-174 (Barley Bam Tap House)
HDC Deslgn RevledCUP Approval& CEQA Exemption
DATE OF DECISION OR DATE PROJECT HEARD: November 1E.2021 REASON FOR APPEAL: lnformation aonsldered bythe Hlstoric Dlstrict Commlssion was insufficient for a fully informed declslon. lssues aseociabdwlth the ProJed, lncludlng zoning code intepmlation, wanant conslderetion by lhe City Council. The Project doss not qualifyfur a CEQA exemption. The pojoct wouH adversely affect publlc eafety and welfaro.

November 24,2021

DATE FILEO
ATAFF USE ONLY:
tt{Z,tth "l tt5lar Fespatd:$grt Res.10297Date/Tlme Recelwd; Admln. (stafr declslon) Appeal
Oryvner Occupied $233
Other (deposit) $468
Plannlng Gomm. Declrlon Appeal
Owner Occupled/Shgle Family Dwelling 9238
Developer/other $479
4aTlne Llmlt Walved:Tentatlve Hearlng Date:

Coplee b: Communlty Development Dlrector (2)
Clty Manager (2)
Clty Attorney (2t
Glty Clerk
Recelved by:

Updaied June 2O'19

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

November 24,2021
City of Folsom City Clerk's Office
Attn: Ms. Christa Freernantle, City Clerk
50 Natoma Street
Folsom, CA 95630
Hand Delivered
via email to [email protected]
SUBJECT: Barley Barn Tap House Project (PN 19-174) - Appeal of Historic District Commission Approval to City Council
Dear Ms. Freemantle:

I am appealing to the City Council the decision by the Historic District Commission ("HDC') approving the Barley Barn Tap House Project (PN 19-174) design review and conditional use permit ("Project"), and the HDC's determination that the Project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). The attached November lS,2AZl,letter was submitted to the HDC prior to its November 18,2021, hearing and is incorporated herein by this reference (Attachment 1). I reserve the right to bring additional information and arguments to the City Council on appeal.

I am appealing to the City Council for reasons including, but not limited to, those listed below.

1. Information and analysis provided in the staffreport to the HDC was insufficient for meaningful consideration of the Project's potential impacts and for the HDC to make a fully informed decision about the Project.

2. Issues associated with the Project, including interpretation of certain provisions of the Folsom Municipal Code ("FMC''), have broad policy implications for future projects in the Historic District and warrant consideration by the City Council.

3. The change in the type and intensity of use at the Project site should result in a requirement for the Project to provide parking in accordance with FMC Section

17.52.510(F) parking standards or for the Project applicant to obtain approval of a variance if such parking requirements are not met. FMC Section 17.52.510(F) states, "All zses must provide parking spaces at the following ratios:..." Although the applicable parking standard is based on building size, it is the change in use that results in the requirement to comply with the standard.

4. The actual parking demand that would be generated by the Project was not assessed or disclosed in the staff information presented to the HDC. An understanding the actual parking demand is essential for meaningful consideration of the Project impacts to Historic District businesses, visitors, and residents as a result of the increased parking burden. Without that assessment and information, the Council is not sufficiently informed for consideration of whether the Findings required for approval of a CUP can be made.

5. The number of parking spaces for persons with a disability that are required based on the Project' s actual parking demand and for compliance with FMC l7 .57 .050 has not been identified. The Project proposes to install an accessible lift to allow use of an existing handicapped parking space at an adjacent property separated by as much as 100 feet of travel between the parking space and Barley Barn. It is unclear that this concept would Page I

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

November 24,2021
provide parking and access to the Project for persons with a disability without also reducing the availability ofexisting handicapped parking spaces that already serve existing businesses.

6. The existing daily and peak-hour vehicle trip volumes and estimated Project daily and peak-hour hip volumes on streets within thc Project area (e.g., Scott, Bridge, Sutter, Figueroa, Mormon, Coloma, Leidesdorff and Riley streets) have not been assessed or disclosed in the City's evaluation. Yet, an understanding of existing and Project-related vehicle trips is essential for meaningful consideration of the Project's traffic-related impacts to Historic District businesses, visitors, and residents and to understand if there are any locations andlor time periods during which Project trips would exacerbate traffic conditions in a manner that would affect motorist, bicyclist, and/or pedestrian circulation or safety (including, but not limited to, increased traffrc volumes, changes in vehicle circulation patterns, and increased risk of vehicle/pedestrian collision). Without that assessment, the City Council would not be sufficiently informed for consideration of whether the Findings required for approval of a CUP can be made. 7 . Issues surrounding the proposed use of the Eagles Lodge parking lot for the Project have not been seriously vetted. Staffstatements at the HDC hearing suggested that staff acknowledges that there are at least three days each week that the lot is used by the Eagles. The frequency of special events and other circumstances that might also preclude use of the Eagles lot for Barley Barn parking on other days have simply not been addressed yet are important to understand in assessing whether the Eagles lot component of the Project has mcrit.

8. Although availability of the Eagles lot for use by the Project might be more limited than some have suggested, use of the Eagles lot by the Project would be an expansion of the existing use (e.g., more days and longer hours of use, increased simultaneous inbound/outbound vehicles, etc.) and requires meaningful evaluation in terms of required entitlements, design standards, circulation, and public safety. Issues warranting meaningful evaluation include:
a. The Eagles Lodge parking expansion of use should be considered in terms of FMC chapter 17.57 'oParking Requirements" associated with "change of occupancy or use" (17.57.030(C)) requirements and design standards. An assessment of required modifications to the Eagle's parking lot and the parking lot's interface with Canal Sheet for compliance with the FMC parking design standards is needed.
b. City-owned right-of-way (Canal Sneet) provides access to the Eagles Lodge parking lot and the expansion of use of the parking lot requires a design assessment to determine if and what modifications are required for the parking lot's ingress/egress to Canal Street and the Canal Street/Scott Street intersection. c. The Project's expansion of use at the Eagles Lodge parking lot would exacerbate existing vehicle/pedestrian collision risk associated with 1) pedestrian movement along Canal Sheet between Bridge Sheet and Scott Sheet, 2) pedestrian circulation along Scott Street crossing Canal Street, and 3) pedestrian circulation across Scott Street between the Project (Barley Barn) and the Eagles Lodge parking lot. A meaningful evaluation of these issues is needed.

Page2

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

November 24,2021

9. The Project does not qualiff for CEQA exemption. Assuming for the sake of argument that CEQA Guidelines section 15303, New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, were applicable to the design review approval, there is no basis for extending that exemption to approval of the CUP. Issuance of the CUP is a discretionary action and subject to CEQA. Simply put, a CIIP that allows for a substantial change in the ase of the property cannot be excused from CEQA review using a CEQA exemption applicable to the conversion of a small structure. Nor can the section 15303 exemption be extended to other components of the Project that ate unrclatcd to the conversion of thc structure (e.g., installation of a lift that is not a part of the structure and is located 50 feet or more from the structure to be converted; expansion ofuse at a parking lot at a separate property and located 200 feet or more from the structure to be converted). An environmental document in compliance with CEQA must be prepared to evaluate and disclose the Project's potential impacts.

10. During the HDC's November 18,2021, meeting, comments by the Project applicant's team asserted specific direct and indirect economic benefits of the Project and referenced IMPLAN modeling that was apparently performed for the Project. Documentation of that analysis was not provided for public review prior to the hearing, and it is unclear if any documentation was provided to the HDC. To the extent that economic factors may be considered by the City Council, documentation of any economic analysis used as the basis for the Council's consideration should be provided for public review prior to a Council hearing.

Thank you for processing this appeal.

Sincerely,
cA 95630
Attachments:

1. Bob Delp, November 18,zLzl,letter subject; Barley Barn Tap House Project (PN 19- 174) - Comments to Historic District Commission
Bob

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

November 24,2021
Attachment I
Bob Delp, November lS,202lr letter subJect:

Barley Barn Tap House ProJect (PN 19-174) - Comments to Historic District Commission

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

November 18,2021
City of Folsom Historic Dishict Commission
50 Natoma Street
Folsom, CA 95630
via email to: Kelly Mullett - [email protected]
SUBJECT: Barley Barn Tap House Project (PN 19-174) - Comments to Historic Distrlct Commission
Dear Historic District Commissioners:

I am requesting that at your November 18, 2021, public hearing for the Barley Barn Tap House project (PN 19-174) ('?roject"), the Historic District Commission (*HDC") decline to approvc the Project either by denying the Project or by declining to take an approval or denial action and instead direct staff to:
l. identifu all relevant and necessarily entitlements, necessary for the Project and require a complete application(s) for all such entitlements,

2. prepare a clear and complete description of all aspects of the Project,

3. perform pedestrian safety analysis for the Project and seek input from the Traffrc Safety Committee,

4. conduct environmental review of the Project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"),

5. conduct a public workshop to receive input on the proposed Project and draft CEQA document,

6. prepare a revised staff report incorporating the above and provide a draft of the staff report and staff-recommended conditions of approval for public review and input,

7. finalize the staff report in consideration of public review and input on the draft,

8. provide proper hearing noticing, including posting ofall parcels affected by the Project with public notices in compliance with the Folsom Municipal Code ("FMC"), and only then

9. retum to the HDC for a public hearing on the Project.

To date, insufficient information is available to have a complete understanding of the Project.

City staff have erroneously asserted that the Project does not require a Parking Variance. Staff have recommended use of an offsite parking lot that has dubious availability and capacity, and staff have not identified any entitlements or physical improvements that would be necessary for the use of the lot (but both would be necessary). Use of the lot would have the potential to create serious pedestrian safety issues associated with movement across Scott Street between the lot and Barley Barn. While there are many reasons to deny or decline to make a decision on the Project as cuffently presented, the use of the Eagles lot is in my opinion is at best poorly thought- out scheme and, wofse, would create the potential for very dangerous pedestrian circumstances that appear to have been given little or no consideration thus far in the process.

Page I of15

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

November 18,2021
I. RnQUIRED NOTTCING FOR THE NOVEMBAR 18,2021, HDC HEARTNG DID

NOT COMPLY WITH THE FMC
On August 10,2021, City staff made certain public noticing commitments on behalf of the Community Development Department. The FMC also has noticing requirements. The commitments and the FMC requirements were not fully complied with for the November 18, 2A2l,HDC hearing. As of November 17,2021,no signs were posted at the Project site notifuing of the November 18, 202|,HDC Public Hearing. The HDC should request City staffinput regarding public hearing noticing and address any deficiencies prior to holding a public hearing.

U. THE PROJECT DESCRIPTION IS UNCLEAR AND INCOMPLETE
The staff report provides incomplete and inconsistent information about the Project making it impossible to understand the entirety of the Project. If the HDC were to approve "the Project" at its November 18,2021, hearing, it would not be possible for the HDC to accurately understand the full extent of what you are approving.

The Applicant's project narrative (HDC packet pg. L26) states that the Project will include "an exterior accessible lift located within the Powerhouse Pub Patio area which will provide the accessible route from the accessible parking space to the proposed tap house. The size and configuration of this element will be determined at further development of the construction documents when the CASp (Califomia Access Specialist) is engaged." Yet, the staff report does not discuss the lift, where it would be located, what it would look like, how it would bc opcrated and maintained, how it would be powered, how much noise it would generate, how much lighting it would require, or what its hours of use would be. Furthermore, there is no Powerhouse Pub Patio area, and a previous stafflevel approval of a patio is no longer valid as no building permit for that patio was issued and the approval period has expired. (See Attachment A of this letter.) Identification of even the basic location, design, and operational elements of such a lift cannot be deferred and must be described and evaluated as a component of the Project prior to an HDC decision.

The staff report discusses that the Project would include the use of an existing offsite parking lot at the Eagles Lodge. However, no information is provided with regard to any cntitlements, zoning restrictions/permissions, and engineered design that would be necessary for the expansions of use of that lot. Although the existing use may be grandfathered in, the substantial increase in the intensity of that use is not. The Eagles Lodge properly owner should be required to obtain a Conditional Use Permit and the CUP process should require improvements such as paving, striping, lighting, pedestrian walkways, etc. Furthermore, the Eagles Lodge parking lot is accessed by City right-of-way, and would therefore require an encroachment permit and consideration of improvoments to the City right-of-way. No information has been provided as to what those improvements might need to consist of. Additionally, the capacity of the Eagles lot is overstated by sta{f, both in potential number of spaces and in the days/times it is currently used by the Eagles and therefore not available to Barley Barn.

The Eagles Lodge parking capacity is noted in the staffreport as 15 spaces, but is noted on the Applicant's drawings as at most 14 and even that is noted as "hypothetical" needing to be field verified. Furthermore, the proposed lease attached to the staff report allows the Eagles to not just continue using the lot but also to exclude Barley Barn use at the Eagles discretion. Staff is on record as having previously advised the HDC (at its August 4,2A27 mecting) that "The Eagles Lodge parking lot is infrequently used - there are events once a month or maybe once every two months whcn this parking lot is utilized to its full capacity." That is incorrect. The Eagles Lodge holds events or open hours multiple times each week during which their lot is often filled, likely beyond capacity (double parked vehicles in the City right-of-way, etc.).

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

November 18,2021
Eagles Lodge Parking Avaitability - August 2,2021
The Eagles lot parking scheme is dubious and, for reasons discussed below in this letter, potentially dangerous. At a minimum, this element of the Project should be eliminated unless and until it undergoes a meaningful evaluation and is subject to property approvals and conditions.

IIr. THE PROJECT DOES NOT QUALTTY FOR A CEQA CATEGORTCAL

EXEMPTION
Contrary to staff s recommendation in the staff report for the HDC's November 18,2021, meeting, the Project does not quality for an exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA").

FMC 17.52.390, "Environmental review", states, "Review by the historic district commission of applications for conditional use permits, sign permits, variances and design review is subject to the requirements of the Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The commission is authorized to hold public hearings on negative dcclarations, mitigated negative declarations, draft environmental impact reports and final environmental impact reports prepared on applications for the above permits or for design review. The commission shall not approve applications prior to considering the applicable environmental document and complying with the requirements of CEQA and any city procedures for preparation and processing of environmental documents."
The staff report for your November 78,2021, meeting, claims one (as opposed to the two claimed in the August 4,2021, staffreport for the formerly proposed Folsom Prison Brews) CEQA categorical exemption class as the basis for staffls recommendation that the Project is exempt'from CEQA- CEQA Guidelines section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures." The cited class is not applicable to the Project.

III.A The Project Does Not Qualify for a Class 3 CEQA Exemption

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

November 18,2021
The staff report for the November 18,2021, HDC selectively cites CEQA Guidelines Section 15303, but a more complete read of 15303 leads to a conclusion that the Project does not qualiff for a Class 3 CEQA exemption. The staffreport states as follows in attempting to apply the Class 3 exemption (staffreport p9.23; packet pg. 7l) (note that this is a quotation from the staff report, not CEQA):

The New Construction of Conversion of Smaller Structures Exemption (15303) consists of the construction or location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures; installation of small new equipment and facilities in small structures; and, as relevant to this project, the conversion of existing small structures from one use to another where only minor modifications are made in the exterior of the structure. Examples of this exemption include but are not limited to: A store, motel, restaurant, or similar structure not involving the use of significant amounts ofhazardous substances, and not exceeding 10,000 square feet (for up to four commercial buildings) in floor area on site zoned for such use.

As described in this staff report, the proposed project includes minor alterations and modifications to an existing4,377-square-foot commercial building located within an wbanized area, thus, the project qualifies for this exemption. ln fact, what CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 states is (emphasis added):

Class 3 consists of construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures; installation of small new equipment and facilities in small structures; and the conversion of existing small structures from one use to another where only minor modifications rre made in the exterior of the structure. ... Examples of this exemption include, but are not limited to:
... (c) A store, motel, office, rsstaurant or similar structure not involving the use ofsignificant amounts ofhazardous substances, and not exceeding 2500 square feet in floor area. In urbanized areas, the exemption also applies to up to four such commercial buildings not exceeding 10,000 square feet in floor area on sites zoned for such use if not involving the use of significant amounts of hazardous substances where all necessary public services and facilities are available and the surrounding area is not environmentally sensitive.

There are several factors that exclude the Project from the Class 3 exemption; let's explore some of them.

1. "...the conversion of a small structure...". As citedabove, the exemption considers a "small" structufe as "not exceeding 2500 square feet in floor axea." The staff report omits mention of the 2500 square feet criteria and instead attempts to apply the 10,000 square feet that is applicable only when there are multiple buildings under consideration.

The Project does not consist of multiple buildings. It is one building that is 4,377 square feet (as cited in staff report), and clearly exceeds the criteria of a small structure as defined by CEQA. For this reason, the Project does not qualiff for the Class 3 CEQA exemption.

2. 'o...where only minor modilications are made to the existing structure...'n. The Project proposes substantial modification to the existing structure. Additionally, the Project includes development of an outdoor courlyard, installation of fencing, installation of an accessible lift (details unknown as discussed in this letter), use of an off-site parking area that, although required improvements have not yet been identified, will undoubtedly require modification to be suitable for the proposed Project's use; and several public

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

November l8,2$2l
facility infrastructure modifications (see item 3, below). For this reason, the Project does not qualiff for the Class 3 CEQA exemption.

3. "...where all necessary public services and facilities are available...". The staff report provides no discussion of the public services and facilities requirements for the Project.

First, the staffreport does discuss that the Project site is unable to provide parking required for the Project - that is one facility that is not available. Second, the Project includes an accessible lift to accommodate public access, that is another public facility that is not currently available. Third, the Project requires a ne\il sewer line and sewer and water gonnection, as thqse facilities are not available (Attachment B), Fourth, the Project requires, or could require (this is not fully disclosed), an electrical ffansformer tie in and a l0 ft by 10 ft concrete pad with additional area to accommodate a new transformer (Attachment B). Fifth, the Project requires the replacement of a rotting and tilted electrical pole to provide for safety of Project patrons (Attachment B). Sixth, the Project may also include or result in the undergrounding of a segment of electrical utility line (Attachment B). Each of these public facility infrastructure modifications associated with the Project individually exclude the Project from being exempt CEQA. For this reason, the Project does not qualiff for the Class 3 CEQA categorical exemption.

III.B The Project's Potential to Result in Slgnificant Environmental Effects Disqualify the Project flrom any CEQA Categorical Exemption
As discussed above, the Project does not meet the criteria required for a CEQA categorical exemption. Furthermore, even if a categorical exemption class were applicable to the Project, the Project's potential to result in significant environmental effects and cumulative impacts makes the Project ineligible for any CEQA categorical exemption.

CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2 identifies "exceptions" to the exemptions which preclude application of an exemption under certain circumstances associated with a proposed project.

Section 15300.2 exceptions and their applicability to the Project include:
15300.2 Exceptions
(b) Cumulative lmpact. All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant.
c) Significant Effect. A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances.
(f) Historical Resources. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.

The staffreport (pg. 24,HDC packet p9.72) states:

City staff has determined that the cumulative impacts excepion does not apply because of the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place proposed project is not significant in this case, in that the project will not result in any adverse impacts with respect to building design, site design, parking, lighting, and noise or other environmental impacts potentially caused by the proposed use.

First, the City has not evaluated potential environmental impacts of the Project. Thus, staff report's assertion that "the project will not result in any adverse impacts" is not supported in the record, nor is it factual. In fact, as discussed below, in several instances the staff report

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

November 18,2021
acknowledged that impact will occur and simply downplays them and asserts that oonditions of approval will minimize them but with no meaningful evaluation. As discussed herein, the Project would have the potential to result in significant impacts, therefore, it would also have the potential to result in cumulative impacts meaning that even if the Project were eligible for a categorical exemption (which, as discussed above, it is not), the cumulative impact exception to any such exemption would preclude the exemption's applicability to the Project.

The staffreport (pg.24,HDC packet p9.72) states:

When analyzingthis exception with respect to the proposed project, the City considered projects of the "satne type" to be otlter prujuuts with sirnilar uses, such as those projects listed on the hours ofoperation chart that appears in another noise impacts section of this report. The City considered projects in the "same placen'to be projects on Sutter Street.

The referenccd "hours of operations" chart lists seven business within the 600 block of Sutter Street that each have bars that serve alcohol. The Project would be eighth, Although there are other businesses and other areas (notjust alcohol serving and notjust on the 600 block, but we can concede to the City's approach and focus on those for the purposes ofdiscussion here).

On August 4,z0zl,Assistant City Attorney Sari Dierking explained to the Historic District Commission during a hearing regarding the formerly proposed Folsom Prison Brews project (with the exception of building design, essentially the same as the currently proposed Project).

Ms. Dierking advised the HDC in layman's terms that considering cumulative impacts for a CEQA exemption the issue is to determine whether there are, "so rnany projects just like this one happening so that this one's sort of the straw that broke the camel's back; we can't keep doing this over and over again without making a huge inpact on the environmen ." The Project would be at least the eighth alcohol serving business on the 600 block of Sutter Street. Just how strong is the camel's back?
The Project would exacerbate existing parking deficiencies associated with the existing businesses in this area of the Historic District. The Project would increase vehicle travel to and through the area in the commercial district as well as adjacent neighborhoods that lack sidewalks and experience substantial aggressive drivers cutting through the neighborhoods, and the Project would therefore sxacerbate existing pedestrian safety issues. The Project would increase vehicle noise and increase outdoor noise, in an unquantified manner, that would contribute to and exacerbate existing noise that frequently already reaches adjacent neighborhoods into late hours of the night and early morning. The Project would substantially increase the use of the existing Eagles Lodge parking lot, increasing the noise, light, dust, vehicles crossing the pedestrian walkway as compared to the existing use, exacerbating these cumulative effects. For these reasons, the Project would result in cumulative impacts that must be evaluated under CEQA.

Furthermore, the staff report's approach of considering only existing bars and only those on the 600 block fails to consider other existing businesses within the 600 block, bars and other businesses within other areas of the Historic District Sutter Street Subarea, and other reasonably foreseeable projects such as the proposed 603 Sutter Street project which is a current active application with the City and would increase traffic, noise, light, etc., and would further exacerbate existing parking deficiencies and related impacts in the neighboring residential area including pedestrian safety risk.

The staff report (pg. 24,HDC packet pe.72) states:

The proposed project involves the remodel of an existing commercial building and the re-use of an existing outdoor patio area.

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

November 18,2021
This description fails to acknowledge that the building would be substantially modified, the "re- use of the courtyard" would involve installation of fencing, tables, and other modifications, and fails to mention and consider other components of the Project such as the accessible lift, new sewer lines, electrical transformer, and substantial increase in use of an offsite currently gravel surfaced parking lot that will undoubtedly require improvements for safety and security (the staff report provides no discussion of offsite parking Lot improvements,however, the existing lot does not meet City parking standards and will require improvements if it is to be used by the Project).

Thus, the Project would not be limited to the mere remodeling of a building and use of outdoor patio and impacts associated with the entire Project have not been fully considered by the City for their potential contribution to cumulative impacts.

The staff report (pe. 24,HDC packet p9.72) states:

In terms of parking, the proposed project is not required to provide any onsite parking spaces per established City practice. In addition, the applicant has entered into a lease agreement to provide 15 off-site parking spaces to fufiher address any potential parking concerns.

Established City practice of not requiring onsite parking is inconsistent with the Folsom Municipal Code. More relevant here, however, is that it is that very practice that has created and, if perpetuated, will continue to exacerbate the existing parking deficiencies and public safety issues associated with neighborhood parking in the Project area. Furthennore, evidence in the staffreport suggests that there are, at most, 14 hypothetical parking spaces at the proposed offsite location. Furthermore, the proposed offsite parking lot would only be available for Project use when it is not in use by its owner and that owner would rekin the right to exclude Project use of the lot any time for any reason. Thus, the offsite parking lot component of the Project has limited value in providing parking.

Additionally, the offsite parking lot, when it is available for use, would create a situation that attracts vehicles to an already often congested segment of Scott Street and would create the potential for substantially increasing pedestrian risk conditions along Scott Street. Additional vehicles on Scott Street and additional pedestrians attempting to cross Scott Street between the lot and the Project would exacerbate pedestrian risk resulting in a significant Project impact and a substantial contribution to the existing cumulative risk. Thus, the Project would result in significant cumulative effects associated with public safety.

The staff report (pg. 24,HDC packet p9.72) states:

In relation to noise and light, standard and project-specific conditions ofapproval have been placed on the proposed project to minimize any potential noise and light impacts.

The City has performed no meaningful impact analysis associated with potential noise and light impacts. Yet, the staffrsport acknowledges the need to apply conditions of approval to address such impacts, implicitly acknowledging that the Project would have the potential to result in noise and light impacts and" thus, proposes mitigationJike conditions attempting to address those impacts. Although the staffreport discusses that these mitigations/conditions would minimize any potential effects, there is no analysis of what the pre-mitigated impacts would be, no analysis of the actual ef{icacy of the proposed mitigation, and no analysis of what the residual impacts would be. Even if the staff report is conect that conditions of approval would "minimize" the cumulative impacts associated with these minimized impacts is still not evaluated. In fact, the Project will have the potential to result in significant noise and light impacts and would have the potential to result in cumulative noise and light impacts. Furthermore, the City has made no

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

November 18,2021
attempt to evaluate noise and lighting impacts associated with the proposed use of the offsite parking lot, which would also contribute to the Project's project-specific and cumulative impacts.

The staffreport (pg. 24,HDC packet p9.72') states;
With respect to any other potential impacts caused by the proposed use, the conditions imposed on the project in the Conditional Use Permit are designed to minimize or eliminate any negative effects on the environment created by the proposed use.

This barren attempt at blanket coverage of "any other potential impacts cause by the proposed use" is insufficient evidence of anything, except perhaps the City's acknowledgement that there are "other potential impacts fthat will be] caused by the proposed use." I agree.

The City's decisions to attempt a CEQA exemption for the Project has resulted in the City's failure to perform environmental impact evaluation of the Projcct. Therefore, the City has thus far failed to evaluate and disclose impacts that would be associated with the discretionary approval of a CUP and design review for the Project.

Potential impacts and substantial evidence of a fair argument that the Project may have one or more significant effects discussed below. Individually, each is sufficient to invalidate the use of a CEQA categorical exemption and sufficient to require that the City prepare a CEQA document for the Project. Furthcrmore, each of these Project impacts has the potential to substantially contribute to cumulative effects associated with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects (including the currently proposed 603 Sutter Street project its substantial increase in vehicle trips and parking demand) and require evaluation under CEQA.

Aesthetics. By developing a dominafing building exterior inconsistent with the architecture of existing structures, the Project would have the potential to result in a substantial adverse change in the visual character of the Historic District, including views from adjacent private properties/businesses, views from adjacent public roadways and bicyclelpedestrian trails and walkways, and views from adjacent historic properties.

Figure 2 on the following page illusffates views from offsite public areas that would have the potential to be adversely affected by the Project's modification of the existing structure. Other Project components having the potential to significantly alter the visual character of the Project area - including the development of an accessible lift, an outdoor patio that apparently would be somehow joined with a speculative outdoor patio at an adacent property, modifications and signage that would be needed to facilitate use of the Eagles Parking lot, have not been fully described. These components must be clearly described and evaluated in compliance with CEQA.

Air Quality. Vehicle emissions associated with vehicle trips generated by the Project and fugitive dust associated with unpaved parking lot use are among the Project elements that would create the potential for significant impacts and must be evaluated. The Project proposes to use offsite parking lots to meet a portion of its increased parking demand.

The Project's use would be in addition to use of the lots that already occurs due to existing uses. Use of the lots would increase in intensity and with more vehicles and greater frequency and density of use with the shared use proposod by the Project. One of the proposed lots is gravel/dirt surfaced and no improvements are proposed. Increased use of the lots by adding Project-related vehicles would increase fugitive dust emissions that will adversely affect adjacent properties. Air quality impacts of the Project must be evaluated in compliance with CEQA.

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

November 18,2021
Biological Resources. A recent CEQA document prepared by the City for a project approximately 200 feet from the Project site (603 Sutter Street Commercial Building Revised Initial Study/IVitigated Negative Declaration, Jvly 2021) identified that valley oak and ornamental trees on that project site could provide nesting habitat for bird species found in the vicinity of the project. The study also the State-threatened Swainson's hawk has occurred in the project vicinity and that there is a noted occrurence within 0.5 miles of that project site. The study notes that Swainson's hawks generally forage within l0 miles of their nest tree, and more commonly within 5 miles; and that existing trees within that project parcel may sen/e as nesting trees. ThE Project site is less than 200 feet from the 603 Sutter Street pruject location. The proxitnity of the proposed Project to the 603 Sutter Street site and the Project site's proximity to woodland areas to the north and along Lake Natoma (also as near as 200 ft) clearly indicate that Project construction activities would have the potential to adversely affect protected nesting bird species in the same or similar manner as those of the 603 Sutter Street project. The 603 Sutter Street project identifies mitigation measures attempting to address the impacts, but no such provisions are provided for construction activities associated with the Project. Potential impacts to biological resources must be evaluated for the proposed Project and mitigation measures identified to avoid impacts to protected bird species. This analysis and mitigation requirements to avoid significant impacts to special-status species must be evaluated and documented in a CEQA document.

Land Use/Planning. The proposed leasing of the Eagles Lodge parking lot for use by another party must be assessed in terms of applicable General Plan policies and zoning requirements.

Noise. The Project would increase the intensity of use of the Project site and extend the hours of use (discussed above). The staff report identifies staff s concems with potential noise impacts and recommends conditions of approval modi$ing the hours of operation and making other use restrictions. However, staff provides no evidence or evaluation to actually present the potential noise impacts associated with the Project or to assess and determine the efficacy of the recommended conditions of approval. Staffs identification of potential noise issues indicates that staffrecognizes the potential for noise impacts yet provides no analysis of noise impacts associated with the site use, offsite vehicle trips, or offsite parking use - all of whioh are potentially significant noise components of the Project. An actual noise analysis must be conducted by a qualified acoustician for compliance with CEQA.

On August 4,2021, during a presentation to the HDC regarding the then-proposed Folsom Prison Brews project, staffplanner Steve Banks stated to the HDC, "noise and noise-related issues were evaluated at great length by City staff." Subsequent to that HDC meeting, the Community Development Direct advised that the Department does not have in-house capabilities to perform noise evaluations. The staffreport for the November 18,2021, HDC hearing states that "staff evaluated potential noise impacts associated with the proposed project," yet staff does not have the capability to perform noise evaluations. The staffreport discusses hours of operation for the proposed tap house and discusses existing hours of operation for other businesses in the area, but the staff report neither cites a noise study nor presents any information resembling a noise impact evaluation.

Basic and fundamental information essential for a noise impact evaluation, such as existing and predicted with-project noise levels, is not provided in the staffreport nor any supporting documentation. There is no discussion in the staff report "Noise Impacts"

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

November 18,2021
section (packet pgs. 57-59) of the predicted noise levels associated with the proposed tap house, nor is there any discussion of noise impacts associated with the Project's use of the Eagle Lodge parking lot. There is no discussion of anticipated vehicle trips and associated haffic noise levels that would result from the prdect. The distances to nearest residences cited in the staff report fail to acknowledge residential uses at 605 and 607 Sutter Street (both of which are within less than 100 feet of the project site and within 200 feet of the proposed outdoor patio) or residential uses in proximity to the Eagles Lodge parking lot component of the project. The staff report fails to discuss other noise- sensitive land usesn such as the existing outdoor dining areas at nearby restaurants.

Also, even though the staff report seemingly attempts to base the "evaluation" on hours of operation, there is no discussion of the Cify General Plan daytime and nighttime exterior standards or time periods for which those standards are based, which then fails to disclose the fact that the project's proposed hours ofoperations on Thursday, Friday, and Saturday extend into the nighttime period during which the General Plan standards recognize increased noise sensitivity. Instead, the staffreport incorrectly suggests that the Project would not result in noise impacts because other bars and restaurants are also open late into the evening.

The Project would have the potential to result in significant noise impacts associated with construction activities, the proposed tap house use, the proposed use ofthe Eagles Lodge parking area, the proposed lift operation, and the increased vehicle trips and resulting traffic noise. A noise impact evaluation must be prepared and potential impacts and mitigation identified in compliance with CEQA.

Transportation/Public Safety. The Project would increase the intensity of the Project site use and of offsite parking lots use as compared to the existing business at the site.

The staffreport acknowledges the Project would increase parking demand, but provides no analysis of Project trip generation or impacts of vehicle circulation. CEQA no longer requires, or permits, a lead agency to identift traffic congestion as a Project impact; however, CEQA does require that a lead agency provide an analysis of impacts related to vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and public safety and hazards. Consideration of public safety impacts associated with vehicle circulation in the Historic District commercial and residential areas must be evaluated.

Discussed below as relates to findings necessary for issuing a Conditional Use Permit, the City must evaluate and acknowledge that exacerbation of the existing spillover parking of visitors and workers coming to the Historic District and parking in adjacent neighborhoods is already substantially adversely affecting the health, safety, and wellbeing of Historic District residents. Vehicles circulating in residential neighborhoods and vehicles parking on residential streets create risks, especially for bicyclists and pedestrians in Historic District neighborhoods. The Project's vehicle trip generation and parking demand must be evaluated and the increased/exacerbated risk to pedestrians and bicyclists resulting from increased vehicle movement and.increased spillover parking in residential neighborhoods must be meaningfully evaluated.

Furthermore, the proposed use of the Eagle Lodge parking lot and pedeshian movement between that lot and the Barley Bam site would require pedestrian crossing of the busiest segment of Scott Street, which is often congested and/or traveled at unsafe speeds. The discussion of pedestrian access in the staff report fails to even acknowledge this connection, and no evaluation of pedestrian access and safety associated with the Eagle Lodge lot component of the Project has been performed.

Page l0 ofl5

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

November 18,2021
For any one ofthe reasons discussed above, the Project does not qualif for a CEQA categorical exemption. Furthermore, even if it did, three exceptions to that exemption would preclude the use of a categorical exemption. Therefore, the City must prepare and circulate a CEQA environmental document for public review prior to procceding with a Project decision.

IV. THE PROJECT WOULD SUBSTANTIALLY ADVERSELY AFFECT THE

HAALTH, SAFETY, AND COMFORT OF'THE GNNERAL PUBLIC, AND THE I'TNDINGS REQUTRED FOR ISSUAI\ICE O['A CUP CANNOT BE MADE FMC 17.60.040 requires for CUPs that, "The findings of the planning commission [in this case, the HDC] shall be that the establishment, maintenance or operation of the use or building applied for will or will not, under the circumsiances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use, or be defrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood, or to the general welfare of the city." The staff report discusses pedestrian circulation, but is limited to merely describing how people would walk from adjacent parking areas to the proposed business (the discussion does not consider pedestrian movement between the Eagles lot and Barley Barn site) and provides no indication that staffconsidered public and pedesfian safety, health, or welfare.

Pedesffians and bicyclists on Historic District residential streets are subject to existing risk from drivers and are especially at risk compared to other areas of the City due to factors including but not limited to: 1) absence of sidewalks along many Historic District residential streets, 2) substantial use of neighborhood streets for vehicle travel through the Historic Dishict, 3) substantial use of neighborhood sheets for parking which forces pedestrians and bicyclists to share the same street sections as motor vehicles, 4) the relatively high proportion of businesses and visitation to the Historic District which results in increased neighborhood traffrc through extended periods of daytime, nighttime, and early morning hours as compared to other neighborhoods in the City, 5) a relatively high proportion of alcohol serving businesses in the Historic District commercial areas increasing the likelihood of driver intoxication and contributes the extended night and early moming trips in Historic District neighborhoods, 6) the continuing and worsening patterns of illegal, aggressive, distracted, inattentive, and otherwise dangerous driver behavior throughout the City, including the Historic District.

It is well known, but not addressed in the staff report, that workers and visitors to the Historic District commercial area often park on streets in the residential neighborhoods in the 400-600 blocks south and east of Sutter Street. These parked vehicles result in making the residential streets nanower and more dangerous for pedestrians. As the residential streets become loaded with vehicles, drivers and pedestrians have less ability to negotiate around each other creating increased risk to pedestrians. When drivers are focused on finding parking, they often drive more hurriedly/aggressively and less conscientious of pedestrians. There is limited street lighting in the neighborhoods making pedestrians more difficult to see. With the exception of a short segment on the east side of Scott St, south and east of the Sutter/Scott Street intersection there are no connected sidewalks in the residential neighborhoods, and pedestrians must walk in the street.

Furthermore, and as discussed above, the proposed use of the Eagle Lodge parking lot and pedestrian movement between that lot and the Barley Barn site would require pedestrian crossing of the busiest segment of Scott Street, which is often congested and/or traveled at unsafe speeds.

The direct path between the Barley Barn site and the Eagles lot is mid-block on Scott Street (between Sutter and Riley streets) and pedestrians would likely seek to cross there where no crosswalk is available. The discussion of pedestrian access in the staffreport fails to even Page ll of15

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

November 18,2021
acknowledge this connection, and no evaluation of pedestrian access and safety associated with the Eagle Lodge lot component of the Project has been performed. The City's Traffic Safety Committee has not been given an opportunity to meet and discuss the Project and made recommendations to City decision-makers.

Speeding, disfacted driving, right-of-way violations, and DUIs were recently cited in the Local Road Safety Plan adopted by the City Council as the leading causes of fatal and severe injury collisions in the City of Folsom. The Project would increase vehicle trips to and from the Historic Dishict and would substantially exacerbate the existing public safety risk associated with motor vehicle operation. The staff report provides no discussion of these issues and the related effects of the Project on the health, safety, and comfort of the general public.

For these and other reasons, the Project would substantially adversely affect the health, safety, and comfort of the general public and the findings required for issuing a CUP cannot be made. v. THE PROJECT REQUIRES A PARKTNG VARTANCE, AND HAS NOT APPLTED FOR AND DOES NOT QUALTFY FOR SUCH A VARIANCf,
The Project would increase the intensity of use and increase the parking demand associated with the Project site as compared to existing conditions. The staff report provides no information regarding the existing site use entitlement or allocation of existing parking. Yet, the staff report asserts "City policy" associated with parking, stating that " City policy has also been that development projects that do not result in an increase in density...are not required to provide any additional on-site parWng." Although requested, City staff has provided no documentation of when and how the City Council adopted such a policy - and there is no evidence that such a policy exists.

The staff report does not provide information regarding existing entitlements/use permits/conditions of approval associated with either of the two private lots at which the Project presumes could be used to meet the Project's parking demand. Evidence of such entitlements are required components to be included as a component of a project application (17.52.310(C)), yet they are not provided. For a meaningful analysis of the proposal, the proposed off-site parking areas and their existing entitlements, and parking allocations, must be identified in order to allow an assessment of whether their proposed use for parking from another project has any merit.

The Project narrative included in the staff report acknowledges the increased demand and additional parking required, yet the Project does not provide a feasible mechanism to actually provide additional parking that would be available during all days and times of Project operation.

The Project proposes use of the Eagles Lodge property to meet some of the Project's increased parking demand. Yet this proposed approach is fundamentally flawed in terms of providing ensured parking capaclty. According to a lease provided in the staff report, the Eagles Lodge would continue to utilize its parking area and, in fact, the lease presented includes language expressly allowing the Eagles Lodge to preclude use by the Project.

The Project's parking requirements must be determined and the Project should not be approved unless and until such approval includes an application for and approval of a parking variance through a public hearing process at which aCity decision making body is able to consider whether the Project meets the findings required for such variance.

VI. CONCLUSION
To date, insufficient information is available to have a complete understanding of the Project.

City staffhave erroneously asserted that the Project does not require a Parking Variance. Staff have recommended use of an offsite parking lot that has dubious availability and capacity, and

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Novembet 18,2021
staffhave not identified any entitlements or physical improvements that would be necessary for the use of the lot (but both would bc necessary). Use of the lot would have the potential to create serious pedestrian safety issues associated with movement across Scott Street between the lot and Barley Bam. While there are many reasons to deny or decline to make a decision on the Project as currently presented, the use of the Eagles lot is in my opinion is at best poorly thought- out scheme and, worse, would create the potential for very dangerous pedestrian circumstances that appear to have been given little or no consideration thus far in the process.

Please require that a more complete description of the Project be developed which comprehensively identiff all required entitlements, conduct the necessary safety and environmental analysis, and invite the community to engage in discussion of the Project's potential benefits and challenges before making an approval decision.

Sincerely,
Bob Delp
Historic Dishict Resident
Folsom, CA 95630
I
Aftachments:

A. Email Correspondence - Delp to Johns 9130/2021"Re: 614 Sutter Street Patio (PN l8-219) Approval isNull and Void
B. Email Correspondence - Banks and Konet et al,10/14/2020 "FW: Folsom Prison Brews Update and Questions 2020-10-08"

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

November 18,2021
Attrchment A
Email Correspondence - Delp to Johns 9l30l202l "Re: 614 Sutter Street Patio (PN 18-219) Approval is Null and Void

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Re: 514 Sutter Street Patio (PN 18-219) Approval ls Nulland Void Bob Delp <[email protected]>
Ihu 9/30/2021 7:16 AM
To: Pam Johns <[email protected]>
Cc: Sari Dierking <[email protected]>
Pam:

Per my message below, can you please confirm that the City's records have been adjusted to reflect the expiration of the 2018 staff-level approval for hardscape/landscape work at 614 Sutter Street and that any future similar proposal would be presented for review and approval by the HDC through a public hearing process?
Thank you,
-Bob Delp
Bob Delp
916-812-8122
bdelp@liwrsm
From: Bob Delp
Sent: Sunday, September t2,2O2t 9:20 AM
To: Pa m Johns <[email protected]>
Cc: Sari Dierking <sdierking@folsom,ca.us>
Subject: 614 Sutter Street Patio (PN 18-219) Approval ls Null and Void Ms. Johns:

At the August 4,2O2t, Historic District Commission (HDC) meeting during a presentation regarding the proposed Folsom Prison Brews project, Steve Banks advised the HDC that the Folsom Prison Brews applicant had received separate staff-level approval of hardscape and landscape improvements on the adjacent Powerhouse Pub property (614 Sutter Street). As discussed below, records indicate that this approval is null and void and I am requesting that the record be adjusted accordingly. ln materials I received as a result of a public records request for entitlernents associated with properties including 614 Sutter Street, I have reviewed a September Lt,2078, staff letter approving PN 18-219 Site Design Review of a proposed excavated landscaped patio at 514 Sutter Street. FMC 17.52.350 states that, "an approval by the historic district commission shall be null and void unless the applicant submits a complete application for a building permit within one year from the date of approval" and allows that the HDC may grant a 1-year extension of an approval if specific actions are taken by the applicant, including a written request for such extension at least 5O days prior to the initial expiration. Staff-level approvals (which are to be limited to design decisions only) are allowed by delegation of HDC's authority and are therefore subject to the same requirements and expiration terms of an approval granted by the HDC.

I see no evidence in the records provided that a building permit application has been submitted for the patio improvements. Without such an application having been submitted prior to September tL,20L9, the 2018 approval is null and void. The record for PN L8-219 should be adjusted to reflect that expiration.

01/11/2022 Item No.15.
ln addition to acknowledging that the approval is null and void, I am requesting that any future proposal for a development in the Historic District that would consume 1 or more existing parking spaces andlor in any manner expand any commercial use (the patio would have done both) be publicly noticed and brought to the HDC for consideration and not be permitted by staff-level review. ln fact, since the matter of the patio was not merely a 'ldesign" issue and also involved grading, expansion of use, and elimination of existing parking, a staff-level approval was in conflict with FMC Section 17.52.395(8) which limits HDC delegation of its authority to staff to matters of design only (delegation is allowed only if "approval of the design of the project is the only matter within the jurisdiction of the historic district commission").

Nor in the record for PN 18-219 did I see any evidencc that staff prcscntcd thc approval to thc HDC as required by the FMC. Perhaps this occurred and was not included in the records I received, however, please be reminded that FMC Section 17,52.395(E) requires that "the planning, inspections and permitting department shall review the design of all approved projects with the historic district commission at its regular monthly meeting. Such review will allow the commission to provide input to the department concerning the appropriateness of the approvals and help the commission and the department develop a consistent approach to design review." Thank you,
-Bob
Bob Delp
916-812-8122
fulelp@live"calo

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

November l8,2AZl
Attachment B
Email Correspondence - Banks and Konet et alr l0ll4l2020 "FW: Folsom Prison Brews Update and Questions 2020-10-08"

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

From:

To:

Sublect:

D.ts:

Attachmenti:

Steven Banks
Reooie Konet
FW: Folsom Prison Brews Update and Questions-2020-10-08 Wednesday, october 14, 2020 2:00:00 PM
North of 50 Development Imoact and Permlt Fees for (2020.07.01).odf Imoact Fee EsHmate Data Sheet.odf
FYI
From: Daniel Wolfe <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, October L4,2020 2:00 PM
To: Steven Ba n ks <sban [email protected]. u>; Bryan Holm <bhol m @folsom.ca. us> Subject: RE: Folsom Prison Brews Update and Questions_2020-L0-08 From: Steven Ba n ks <[email protected]^cau.l>
Sent: Wednesday, October 74,2020 L:33 PM
To: Da n iel Wolfe <d$@[email protected].!s>; Brya n H ol m <b ho I m @ folsom. ca. us> Subject: FW: Folsom Prison Brews Update and Questions_2020-10-08 Hi guys,
Would you be able to help answer some of the utility questions below associated with the Folsom Prison Brews project?
Thanks,
Steve
From: Steven Banks
Sent: Thursday, October 8, 2020 t2:46 PM
To: Daniel Wolfe <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: Folsom Prison Brews Update and Questions_2020-10-08 Hi Dan,
The applicant for the Folsom Prison Brews project was forwarded me with a list of questions, some of which I may need your assistance with (see below No. l, No. 2, and No. 3).

Thanks,
Steve
From: Reggie Konet <konetar,chitectu re@ gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 8,2A2010:44 AM
To: Steven Banks <[email protected]>
Cc: Murray Weaver <[email protected]>

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

SubJect: Folsom Prison Brews Update and questions-2020-10-08 CAUTION: This emall originated from outslde of the organlzatlon, Do not click llnks or open attachments unless you recognlze the sender and know the content is safe.

RE: Folsom Prison Brews
PN18-174
Good morning Steve,
I hope this email finds you well.

Murray and I met with my MEP engineers yesterday at the site. The SMUD agent did not show up and never responded to my invites.

But we did have a productive meeting and I'd like to ask you the following questions. r.Foro,'@WemaytieintotheexistingconnectionattheWEST
side of the building, or we may tie into the waste line downhill from the building to the NORTH. If so, what is the sewer connection fee for a new connection? Each Parcel shall have it's own water and sewer connection. lf the parcel has an existing connection it may use it. lt may not tie into a service on a different parcel. Same goes for water. A fee schedule is attached. I can give you an estimate if you fill out the data sheet and send it back to me.

2. There is an existing
D will allow us to doone at
so?
area
That is between you and SMUD. The city does not get involved unless we are inspecting new service improvements for code compliance. :. CITY UTILITIES PLAN. Do you have access to the underground utility location map? Location, size of pipes, easements, etc.

We get you

4. Remind me again on the time schedule for the HDC review? How far are they backed up?
do not need to move it for this project.

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Also, it is the last
folks park in that lot and walk up the stairs
is visually detrimental. Is there something
part to perform this work?
PLEASE SEE MURMY'S LETTER attached.

Thank you so much, Steve, I realize how busy you are and I greatly appreciate your assista nce.

RNGGIE KONET, AIA
cA Lrc #33835
NY LIC #031827

KONET ARCHITECTURE
c916.835.4222
vnnru. houz-oomlpro/re g glekoriet/
255 American River Canyon Drive
Folsom, CA 95630

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Attachment2
Letter of Appeal from Folsom Railroad Block Developer,
LLC, Dated December 3, 2021

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

CITY OF FOLSOM

NOTICE OF APPEAL
R*t D gLaar-. ?69.NAME OFAPPELLANT:

MAILING ADDRESS:
friat-savt . Ce. lrego
INTEREST IN MATTER:

DAYTIME TELEPHONE:

APN/PROJECT REF. NO.

ACTION BEING APPEALED:

DATE OF DECISION OR DATE PROJECT HEARD: No
REASON FOR APPEAL;
PN lliTrf Baeu,sq V+at T*e No+a
Uvtc
La*toot^tNg- F
lo, ?Pzl

4.adsro6 R. lMh+s
Je lsna++eO
,,,, /z z
DATE
fr
$TAFF USE ONLY:

Date/Time Received:

Admin. (staff declslon) Appeal
Owner Occupied $239
Developer/other $479
Tentatlve Hearing Date:

Goples to: Communlty Development Dlrector
City Manager (2)
Glty Attorney (21
Clty Clerk
Fee Pald: Res. 9600
Plannlng Comm. Declslon Appeal
Owner Occupied $239
Developer/other $479
Time Limlt Walved:

Recelved by:

Updated 712015

01/11/2022 Item No.15.
1024 hon Poinr Road
Ste. 100 #1280
Folsom, CA95630
Law OrrrcES OF
CRAIG M. SANDBERG
Telr (916) 317-6698
E mail [email protected]
December 3,2021
City Clerk
City of Folsom
Attn: Ch'rista Freemantle
50 Natoma Street
Folsom, CA 95630
Via email: [email protected]
Rc: Barley Barn Tap House Appeal (PN 19-174)
Dear Ms. Freemantle:

This office represents Folsom Rnilroad Block Developers, LLC, appealing the approval of the above desuibed project by the Historic District Commission on November 18, 2021.

Although an appeal has akeady been tiled by other parties we have been advised that it would be appropriate for us to submit an appeal as well.

Our primary concern is the parking analysis and conclusions made for this project. It is no secret ttuat there is a parking problem in the Historic District, which has long been an area of concem. City staffdid a presentation to the City Council in February, 2008, describing the need for a strategy for accommodating the need for additional parking in the District. Later the same year, the City commissioned Kimley-Hom andAssociates to preparethe Historic Disffict Parking Implementatlon Plan Update, dated December 9, 2008. The Implementation Plan provided a comprehensive review of the on-strest and offistreet parking available in the Historic District together with the planned expansion of parking facilities. The conclusion was that in 2008 the parklng inventory was generally adequate to accommodate the then existing uses in the Historic District but in order to accommodate apptoved uses, such as the Railroad Block Master Plan and other growth in the Historic District, additional parking facilities would be needed.

Specifically, a new parking structure on Trader Lane, without which there will be no more parking capacity. Accordingly, the Implementation Plan suggested changos to the parking requirement ratios and financing strategies to construct new facilities. None ofthe suggested changes, nor financing strategies were implemented and accordingly, no new faoilities have been constructed, The Implementation Plan has since been updated in 2014 and again in 2018, which contirmed the concern raised in the 2008 study that with expected growth the available parking would become inadequate. Attached is a graphic taken fromthe 2018 update which depicts the supply ofparking in relation to the growth of the Historic District based on historic trends.

Although you probably do not need a graph to rcaliz,e the parking has become a problem in the Historic District, tho gxaph clearly shows that the saturation point has been reached. This reality is reflected in comments from other business owners expressing their ooncerns about the proposed expanded use, together with the appeal filed on behalf of the neighbors.

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

City Clerk
City of Folsom
December 3,2021

The City has spent considerable time and money studying the parking issue in the Historio District and yet, none ofthis information was presented to the HDC, These reftrenced studies should have been "Exhibit A" in the discussion, however they were not presented and it appeared based on comments at the hearing that members ofthe Commission were completely unaware ofthenr
The applicant is, of cornse, aware that parking would be an issue and offers to increase the parking supply through a lease of 15 parking spaces at the Eagles Lodge. Unfortunately, there is no guaranty that these spaces will be available at any given time as they will be shared with Lodge visitors. Even if this was a viable approach it would not provide enough parking to accommodate the proposed use. Utilizing the standard I space per 350 square feetfoi parking generation is not applicable here as the possible ocoupancy ofthe facility increases dramatically w-ith the proposed change ofuse. Hence the need for a special use permit, to weigh the impacti of a change in use regardless of whether the building is enlarged. The City Council has full discretion in considering the appeal of a use permit and we believe that for the preservation of the Historic District and the surrounding neighborhoods, the project should not go forward.

Very truly yours, n ,
Q.fi*2{^-4LTCraig M. Sandberg
cc: Client
Steve Banks, via email - [email protected]

01/11/2022 Item No.15.
fdm,
Collto.nh
Fqun 6.lllrttlnd tuErys|lcplr.rd Dcnrnd Tlnrlln! (NoTrader tn. Slrucn r0lr Cll, 6t tolm Hbklr Dhln
P.rltng lmpLmenr.doh llm lrpd.t
tr00
t0o0
600
w
Ill
t!t
{t
t6
?o
tI
FFFhFN;tF
$it$t{i1$ET$III!!II
tiit
E'dENNdNNFF
!tEtrti4{8lt
{FFRFRiRTI
rtt$rt$til
nil9e
rttb! f
ilonli I vflt
KimleyD|lsrn
l! Irabrt
otsrtatrll(ad d[ b rio t6 ot
{F,l (SaP ltl - hcGE tr flrllr{
dmnd lal rFil)
rmrbtrUll|J621
NR fiop aol . hc.& tn 0|iltlf
d.mnd (llsFGlllFrl lr$ t9, . hcc6hFllbl
d!@dF?r'l sl
-r.td
ddl| hnnd
-rdhnrltSptt
fiF! 0.r t|ll- hffie tn pn[iS
imtrdlm+.d)

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Attachment 3
Letter of Appeal from Historic Folsom Residents Association Dated December 3, 2021

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

CITY OF FOLSOM
:il'LiUh: (.;il t;r ii ;;if::"-:' a :: I
? ,}F_C '21 prr4:00

NOTICE OF APPEAL
sl3. d/' h.r t&w*t nNAME OF APPELLANT:

MAILING ADDRESS:

INTEREST IN MATTER:

DAYTIME TELEPHONE:

APN/PROJECT REF. NO.

ACTION BEING APPEALED:

I
s ,-bA bh"tr Aroc
?- eJ" ua{__
lt-bc G.*-*,q of C,) ,"*/ U+_ b^rl_
DATE OF DECISION OR DATE PROJECT HEAR 0,J I 2Dl
REASON FOR APPEAL Sep-"
-(-p
lz/s/zozl

ELLANT'S SIGNATURE DATE FILED
STAFF USE ONLY:

Date/Time Received: t alzl,tol^l Fee Paid:

Admin. (staff decision) Appeal
Owner Occupied $233
Other (deposit) $468
Res. 10297
Planning Comm. Decision Appeal
Owner Occupied/Single Family Dwelling $238
Developer/other $479
Time LimitWaived:
&
Tentative Hearing Date: r/ tt I LoL.t-
Copies to: Community Development Director (2)
City Manager (2)
City Attorney (2)
City Clerk
Received by:

Updated June 2019
\a \I\ f-A

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Per Folsom Municipal Code Section 17.52.510, the Historic Distrlct Commission, before issuing a conditional use permit, must find that the "establishment, maintenance, or operation of the use or building applied for will not, under the circumstances of the particular cass, be detrirnental or lnjurlous to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working ln the neighborhood of such proposed use, or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood, or to the general welfare of the city." Almost all of the public comments on thls project from both neighbors and nearby businesses identified parking as an issue that would be "detrlmental or lnJurious" to them if this conditional use permit were approved, yet this detrimental effect was not debated under the code section.

The Historic District Gommission was prevented from fully evaluating if the proposed prolect would or would not be detrlmental or injurious to others. The Barley Barn project would convert the business type from retail business to an entertalnment buslness which should trigger an analysis per city definition. The three parking studies sponsored by the city in 2008,2013 and 2018 already demonstrate there is a lack of parklng relative to the existing businesses but those studies were not submitted as a part of the staff report, nor did the appllcant submit a parking impacts analysis,
Clty staff relied on past practice regarding issuance of conditional use permits repeatedly throughout the report in discussing this project. Past practice can serye as a guide, but cannot be a response in and of itself. City staff did not augment the past practices claim with any speclfic examples of application of past practices. Providing the Historic District Commlssioners with speclflc examples would have allowed the Commissioners to put this partlcular project in context with those stated past practices in order to make an independent delermination as to whether or not this particular request for a conditlonal use permit aligned with those past practices.
ln addition to the above, we reserve the right to bring additional information and arguments forward in the de novo hearing before Folsom City Council. !lincerely,
$l\^,f
C,*h
Norr,^ &a/rr^)
Mike Reynolds
President
HFRA
c
Board Member
HFRA
Bonnie Darrah
Board Member
HFRA
Laura Fisher
Board Member
HFRA
Carrie Lane
Board Member
HFRA
t ^j,
Jennifer Lane
Board Member
HFRA

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Attachmertt 4
Historic District Commission Staff Report
Dated November 18,2021

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

W
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3
Type: Public Hearlng
Date: November 18,2021
4tlr ot
F'O[,S(}N'fl
ProJect:

File #:

Request:

Location:

Parcel(s):

Staff Contact:

Property Owner
Name: Weaver Trust
Address: 4800 Manzanillo Street
Fair Oaks, CA 95628
Historic District Gommission Staff Report
50 Natoma Street, CouncilChambers
Folsom, CA 95630
Barley Bam Tap House
PN 19-174
Conditional Use Perrnit and Design Review
608% Sutter Street
070-0061-011
Steve Banks, Principal Planner, 916-461-6207
[email protected]
Applicant
Name: Regina Konet
Address: 8931 River Palm Court
Fort Meyers, FL 33919
Recommendation: Conduct a public hearing and upon conclusion approve a Conditional Use Permit and Design Review for development and operation of a craft beer establishment (Barley Barn Tap House) within an existing 4,377-square-foot building located at 608 % Sutter Street subject to the findings (Findings A-l) and conditions of approval attached to this report (Conditions 1-30).

Project Summary: The proposed project includes a requestfor approvalof a Gonditional Use Permit to allow for the development and operation of a craft beer establishment (Barley Barn Tap House) within an existing 4,377-square-foot building located at 608 % Sutter Street. Barley Barn Tap House is proposing to serve craft beers and food, both of which will be provided by off-site vendors. Live entertainment is proposed on a limited basis within the interior of the building. The proposed project also includes a request for Design Review approval for exterior and interior remodeling of the existing building to create a historic rural barn design theme.

Table of Gontents:
1 - Description/Analysis
2 - Background
3 - Conditions of Approval
4 - Vicinity Map
5 - Site Plan, dated September 16,2021
6 - Off-Site Parking Plan, dated September 16,2021
City of Folsom Page 1

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

AGENDA ITEM NO. 3
Type: Public Hearing
Date: November 18,2421
+trr df

F'OLBOM
7 - Demolition Plans, dated September 16,2021
8 - Building Elevations, dated September 16,2021
9 - Building Renderings, dated received September 27,2021 10 - Color and Materials Exhibits
11 - Signage Details, dated September 16,2021
12 - Site Details
13 - Floor Plans, dated September 16,2021
14 - Project Narratives, dated received September 22,2021 15 - Off-Site Parking Lease Agreement, dated October 15,2021 16 - Public Comments Received Regarding Folsom Prison Brews Project 17 - Public Comments Received Regarding Barley Barn Tap House Project 18 - Site Photographs
Submitted
t) ' r
t l,'' /
/ ltwt'G ,r'-

PAM JOHNS
Community Development Director

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Historic District Commission
Barley Barn Tap House (PN 'lg-174)
November 18,2021
ATTACHMENT 1

DESCRIPTION/ANALYSIS

APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL
The applicant, Regina Konet (Konet Architecture), is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit and Design Review for development and operation of a craft beer establishment (Barley Barn Tap House) within an existing 4,377-square-foot building located at 608 % Sutter Street. The proposed interior layout of Barley Barn Tap House incf udes 2,433 square feet of floor area on the first level including a large central area with moveable tables and seating, a bar area, a cooler room, and restroom facilities. The second floor of the building, which will be reduced from 1 ,944 square feet to 1 ,366 square feet, will be utilized for storage purposes only. The resulting total square footage of the building will be 3,799 square feet. Barley Barn Tap House will also include a fenced outdoor patio (approximately 480 square feet in size) which is located on the west side of the building. ln terms of operational characteristics, Barley Barn Tap House has proposed serving craft beers and food, both of which will be provided by off-site local vendors. Live entertainment is proposed on a limited basis in the interior of the building. Proposed hours of operation are Sunday to Wednesday, 11:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., and Thursday to Saturday, 11:00 a.m. to 12:30 a.m.

The proposed project also includes a request for Design Review approval for exterior and interior modifications to the existing building in order to create a rural vernacular which is reminiscent of the historic barns throughout California. The proposed building materials include vertical reclaimed wood siding, aluminum clad wood-framed windows, aluminum clad wood-framed glass entry doors, a pair of steel egress doors, galvanized metal gooseneck light fixtures, vintage signage painted on wood, faux dutch doors to emulate horse stables, and corrugated metal roofing. The color scheme is predominantly rustic brown in nature due to the extensive use of the reclaimed wood siding. The roofing material will be a reddish-gray tint to emulate an aged metal roof with an appealing patina. The doors and windows will be a dark brown color.

Vehicle access to the pQect site is provided by existing roadways including Sutter Street, Scott Street, and Riley Street. Pedestrian access to the project site is provided by existing sidewalks and pedestrian walkways. Parking to serve the Badey Bam Tap House project is proposed to be provided by utilizing existing public and private parking options in the immediate project area including the Powerhouse Pub parking lot (21 spaces), the adjacent Historic District Parking Lot (72 spaces), and the Folsom Electric Building parking garage (51 spaces). ln addition, the applicant has entered into a lease agreement to utilize 15 parking spaces located within the nearby Eagles Lodge parking lot for exclusive use by Eagles Lodge members and customers and employees of Barley Barn Tap House. The proposed site plan is shown in Figure 1 on the following page:

City of Folsom Page 3

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Historic District Gommission
Barley Bam Tap House (PN 19-174)
November 18,2021
eot 5 gtrftE'Sr rEr
I
IttnltI
FIGURE 1: PROPOSED SITE PLAN
AltlY
t-
I
L---r
[". I 9UTt!t trr,ttT

POLICY/RULE
The Folsom Municioal Code (FMC Section 17.52.510(AX1Xc)) states that bars, taverns, and similar uses are required to obtain approval of a Conditional Use Permit from the Historic District Commission. The Folsom MunicipalCode (FMC Section 17.52.400) also requires that all new structures and alterations to existing structures located within the Historic District obtain Design Review approval from the Historic District Commission. 6d$
a
!
Gity of Folsom Page 4

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Historic District Gommission
Barley Barn Tap House (PN 19-174)
November 18,2021

ANALYSIS
General Plan and Zoning Consistencv
The General Plan land use designation forthe project site is HF (Historic Folsom)and the zoning designation for the project site is HD (Historic District, Sutter Street Subarea of the Commercial Primary Area). Pursuant to Section 17.52.510 of the Folsom Municipal Code, bars, taverns, and similar uses located within the Sutter Street Subarea of the Historic District are required obtain a Conditional Use Permit from the Historic District Commission. Staff has determined that the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan land use designation and the zoning designation upon approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the Historic District Commission. ln addition, staff has determined that the proposed project, which does not alter the building footprint or location of the existing structure, meets all applicable development standards (building height, building setbacks, etc.) established for the Sutter Street Subarea of the Historic District.

Land Use Compatibillty
The Barley Barn Tap House project site, which is comprised of a single 0.12-acre parcel, is located at 608 % Sufter Street. The project site is bounded by Sutter Street to the south with commercialdevelopment beyond, a Historic District parking lotto the north with Riley Street beyond, commercial development to the west with Riley Street beyond, and commercial development to the east with Scott Street beyond.

As described above, the project site is located within an area that is predominantly commercial in nature, with numerous restaurants, bars, and retail businesses located adjacent and in close proximity to the project site. ln particular, there are eight restaurants and bars located within the 600 block of Sutter Street including Citizen Vine, lnspired Living, J. Wild's Livery & Feed, Mystic Dining, Plank Craft Kitchen and Bar, Powerhouse Pub, Scarlet's Saloon, and Sutter Street Steakhouse. The closest residential land uses to the project site are single-family residences situated approximately 270 feet to the east on Scott Street and approximately 320 feet to the south on Figueroa Street. Based on this information, staff has determined that proposed project is compatible with the surrounding land uses. Detailed discussions regarding parking, pedestrian circulation, fencing, lighting, trash/recycling, signage, landscaping, and noise are contained within subsequent sections of this staff report.

Conditional Use Permit
As previously stated within this report, the Folsom Municioal Code. (Section 17.52.510) requires that bars, taverns, and similar uses obtain a Conditional Use Permit if the use is located within the Sutter Street Subarea of the Historic District. ln this particular case, the applicant is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit to operate Barley Barn Tap House within an existing commercial building located at 608 % Sutter Street. ln order to approve this request for a Conditional Use Permit, the Commission must find that the "establishment, maintenance, or operation of the use or building applied for will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, City of Folsom Page 5

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Historic District Commission
Barley Bam Tap House (PN 19-174)
November 18,2021
peace, morals, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use, or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood, or to the general welfare of the City". ln evaluating the Conditional Use Permit for Barley Barn Tap House, staff considered implications of the proposed project relative to parking, pedestrian circulation, fencing, lighting, trash/recycling, signage, landscaping, and noise.

Parklno
As shown on the submitted site plan (Attachment 5), the project site does not currently provide any on-site parking spaces nor are any on-site parking spaces proposed given the limitations of the subject parcel's relatively small parcel size and the existing commercial building footprint. As is the case with many businesses located within the Sutter Street Subarea, the project site has relied on adjacent and nearby public parking options to serve the various businesses that have occupied the existing 4,377-square- foot commercial building since it was constructed in 1958. Existing nearby parking options anticipated to serve the proposed project include 21 parking spaces located within the adjacent Powerhouse Pub parking lot (under same private ownership as subject proper$), T2parking spaces located in the adjacent public Historic District Parking Lot, and 51 parking spaces located within the Folsom Electric Building parking garage. In addition to the existing parking options in the project vicinig, the proposed project includes the provision of 15 shared off-site parking spaces at the Folsom Eagles Lodge site (Attachment 6), approximately 220 feet to the east of the subject parcel.

The Folsom Municipal Code (FMC. Section 17.52.510) requires that all retail, office, restaurant, museum, and similar uses provide one parking spaces per 350 square feet of building space. The City's past practice regarding required parking within the Sutter Street Subarea of the Historic District is that all new development projects which increase density (increased square footage) are required to provide on-site parking spaces at the parking ratios described above. However, City practice has also been that development projects that do not result in an increase in density (increased building square footage) such as exterior tenant improvements, interior tenant improvements, and similar projects are not required to provide any additional on-site parking. Consistent with past City practice, staff has determined that the proposed project, which includes interior and exterior tenant improvements (project results in reduction in building square footage from 4,377 square feet to 3,799 square feet) to an existing commercial building is not required to provide any on-site parking spaces. lt should be noted that if the proposed project were subject to the aforementioned parking requirements, 11 on-site parking spaces would have been required,
While the proposed project is not required to provide any on-site parking spaces per established City practice, City staff and the applicant recognize that the existing building's change in land use from a retail business to a craft beer establishment has the potential to result in a higher demand for parking. To address this concem, the applicant has entered into a lease agreement to utilize 15 parking spaces located within the nearby City of Folsom Page 6

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Historic District Gommission
Barley Bam Tap House (PN 19-174)
November 18,2021
Eagles Lodge parking lot (approximately 200 feet to the east of the subject property across Scott Street) for exclusive use by Eagles Lodge members as well as customers and employees of Barley Barn Tap House. ln addition to securing 15 off-site parking spaces to serve Barley Barn Tap House, the applicant has indicated that they will offer a complimentary shuttle service (Sutter Surfer) to transfer customers to and from the Historic District parking structure and other public parking lots within the district and the project site. To ensure that adequate parking is continuously provided for the proposed project, staff recommends that the lease agreement for the 15 parking spaces at the Eagle Lodge property remain in effect as long as Barley Barn Tap House or any subsequent establishment operating at this location pursuant to the Conditional Use Permit remains in business. Condition No. 28 is included to reflect this requirement.

Pedestrian Circulation
Access to the project site is provided by a combination of public sidewalks and private pedestrian pathways. Public sidewalks are located along the street frontages of Sutter Street, Scott Street, and Riley Street respectively. A privately-owned pedestrian pathway (approximately 15 feet in width) provides access to the project site directly from Sutter Street and directly from the Historic District public parking lot located north of the project site. The applicant is proposing to maintain the private pedestrian pathway and continue to allow public use of the pathway to access the project site and the adjacent Historic District public parking lot to the north.

Fencinq
As shown on the submifted site plan, the applicant is proposing to create a 480-square- foot enclosed outdoor patio area on the western side of the project site adjacent to the primary building entrance. The outdoor patio area is proposed to be enclosed with 42- inch-tall decorative metal fencing (black finish) with two access gates. Staff recommends that the final location, height, design, materials, and color of the proposed fencing and gates be subject to review and approval by the Community Development Department to ensure consistency with the Historic District Design and Development Guidelines.

Condition No. 29-8 is included to reflect this requirement.

Liqhtino
As shown on the submitted building elevations (Attachment 8) and color and materials exhibit (Attachment 10), the applicant is proposing to use pole-mounted lights and building-attached gooseneck arm-style lighting fixtures to illuminate the building, pedestrian pathways, and the outdoor patio area. The proposed lighting poles and light fixtures have been designed to complement the rural farm-style design theme of the building while also being consistent with the recommendations of the Design and Development Guidelines. ln addition, the lighting has been designed to minimize lighVglare impacts to the adjacent properties by ensuring that all exterior lighting is shielded and directed downward. Staff recommends that the final exterior building and site lighting plans be submitted for review and approval by Community Development Department for location, height, aesthetics, level of illumination, glare and trespass prior to the issuance of any building permits. In addition, staff recommends all lighting is City of Folsom Page 7

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Historic District Commission
Barley Barn Tap House (PN 19-174)
November 18,2021
designed to be shielded and directed downward onto the project site and away from adjacent propertie$ and public rights-of-way. Condition No. 16 is included to reflect these requirements.

Trash/Recyclino
There are currently multiple existing public trash and recycling enclosures located in the Historic District parking lot adjacent to the project site to the north. The applicant is proposing to utilize the existing trash and recycle enclosures to dispose of trash and recycling products generated by the proposed project. The City's Solid Waste Division has determined that the existing trash/recycling enclosures have sufficient capacity to accommodate the demand created by the proposed project.

Signaqe
The applicant is proposing to install a painted-on project identification sign on the west building elevation above the front entry doors. The proposed painted-on wall sign, which is approximately 33 square feet in size (18-inchtall letters with Playbill Font), includes two lines of copy that reads "Barley Barn Tap House". The two lines of copy (painted white) are proposed to be painted directly onto a wood siding backdrop (painted red) to mimic historic "ghost signage". Painted wall signs were historically called "ghost signs" because they faded with time if they were not regulady painted and became less visible.

The painted-on wall sign is proposed to be indirectly illuminated by two gooseneck-style light fixtures.

The Historic District Design and Development Guidelines (DDGs) provide sign allowances based on the frontage width of the business. In this particular case, the proposed project has a frontage width of approximately 80 feet, thus the project is permitted a maximum of 50 square feet of sign area. Staff has determined that the proposed sign area is consistent with the maximum allowable sign area established by the Design and Development Guidelines by providing 33 square feet of sign area whereas 50 square feet of sign area are allowed.

With respect to sign design, the Design and Development Guidelines state that sign materials may be wood, metal, or other historically appropriate combination of materials.

The Guidelines also state the sign styles and lettering should be compatible with the period in which the building was built, but that simple contemporary graphic styles may be appropriate as well. ln addition, the Guidelines indicate that sign illumination must be subdued and indirect and may not create excessive glare. Staff has determined that the proposed painted-on wall sign is consistent with the design, material, and illumination recommendations of the Design and Development Guidelines. Staff recommends that the owner/applicant obtain a sign permit prior to installation of the painted-on wall sign.

Condition No. 30 is included to reflect this requirement.

City of Folsom Page I

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

H istoric District Commission
Barley Barn Tap House (PN 19-174)
Novsmber 18,2021
Landscapinq
The project site includes a number of existing landscape planters located around the perimeter of the building and along the pedestrian walkway. The applicant is not proposing to install any new landscaped areas and is proposing to maintain the existing landscaping located in the planters throughout the project site. Staff recommends that the applicant be responsible for on-site landscape maintenance throughout the life of the project. Condition No. 15 is included to reflect this requirement.

Noise lmoacts
Based on the relatively close proximity of the project site to single family residences (approximately 270 feet and 320 feet to the east and south respectively), staff evaluated potential noise impacts associated with the proposed project. Potential new noise sources associated with the proposed project may include noise generated inside Barley Barn Tap House and noise generated in the patio area outside Barley Barn Tap House.

As described in the project narratives (Attachment 14), Barley Barn Tap House has proposed serving craft beers and food, all of which will be provided by off-site local vendors. Live entertainment is proposed on a limited basis in the interior of the building.

Proposed hours of operation are Sunday to Wednesday, 11:00 a,m. to 10:00 p.m., and Thursday to Saturday, 1 1:00 a.m. to 12:30 a.m. The following table shows the Barley Barn Tap House proposed closing times as compared to other restaurants and bars located within the 600 block of Sutter Street:

TABLE 1: CLOSING TIME COMPARISION TABLE
As described in the project narrative and shown in the Closing Time Comparison Table above, the applicant is proposing hours of operation in which the closing time for the business extends into the late evening Sunday thru Wednesday and early morning hours Thursday thru Saturday. Staff has determined that the proposed hours of operation are compatible with the hours of operation for other restauranVbar businesses cunently located within the 600 block of Sutter Street. ln addition, staff has determined that the proposed hours of operation are similar to the hours of operation for other bar-type establishments located along different blocks of Sutter Street to the west including but noted limited to Samuel Horne's Tavern (12:00 a.m.) and Fat Rabbit (1:00 a.m.). u TU w TH F s SU
Barley Barn Tap House 10 pm 10 pm 10 pm 12:3O
am
12:3O
am
12:30
am
10 pm
Powerhouse Pub 2am 2am 2am 2am 2am 2am 2am
Scarlett's Saloon 2am 2am 2am 2am 2am 2am 2am
Gltlzen Vlne 9pm 9pm 9pm 9pm 10 pm 10 pm 7pm
Plank Craft Kltchen and Bar Closed Closed 9pm 9pm 10 pm 10 pm 9pm Mvstic Dlnlno 9pm 9pm 9pm 9pm 11 pm 11 pm 9pm
Sutter Street Steakhouse Closed 9pm 9pm 9pm 9pm 9pm 9pm J. Wlds Llverv & Feed 9pm 9pm 9pm 9pm 10 pm 10 pm 9pm
City of Folsom Page 9

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Historic District Commission
Barley Barn Tap House (PN 19-174)
November 18,2021
The applicant is proposing to have live entertainment (solo, duet, or trio-type performers) on a limited basis within the interior of the building. The interior of the building will not have a stage or raised platform as the proposed entertainment is anticipated to be more subtle in nature according to the applicant. To ensure that the proposed project does not result in significant noise-related impacts associated with live entertainment and other aspects of the business, staff recommends that the following measures be implemented to the satisfaction of the Community Development Department (Condition Nos. 18-28).

Current occupancy loads shall be posted at all times, and the owner/applicant shall have an effective system to keep count of the number of occupants present at any given time. This information shall be provided to public safety personnel upon request.

A Conditional Use Permit Modification shall be required if the operation of the business deviates from the Historic District Commission's approval. No approvals are granted in this Conditional Use Permit except as provided. Any intensification or expansion of the use approved and conditioned herein will require a Conditional Use Permit Modification by the Historic District Commission. ln any case where the conditions to the granting of a Conditional Use Permit have not been, or are not, complied with, the Historic District Commission shall give notice to the permittee of intention to revoke such permit at least ten days prior to a hearing thereon. Following such hearing the Historic District Commission may revoke such permit.
a
a
a
o
The owner/applicant shall maintain full compliance with all applicable laws ABC laws, ordinances, and strate conditions. ln the event that a conflict arises between the requirements of this Conditional Use Permit and the ABC license, the more stringent regulation shall apply.

All entertainment (as defined in Chapter 5.90 of the Folsom Municipal Code) shall be subject to an Entertainment Permit. No entertainment shall occur on the proposed outdoor patio. Occasional outdoor events may be requested via the Special Event Permit process, subject to City approval. o Compliance with the City of Folsom's Noise Control Ordinance (Folsom Municioal Code Chapter 8.42) and General Plan Noise Element shall be required.

Hours of operation (including private parties) shall be limited as follows:
o Sunday-Wednesday:
o Thursday-Saturday:
11:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
11:00 a.m. to 12:30 a.m.

City of Folsom Page 10

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Historic District Commission
Barley Barn Tap House (PN 19-174)
November 18,2021
No expansion of business hours beyond what is stated above shall be permitted without prior approval being obtained from the Historic District Commission through a Conditional Use Permit Modification.
o Barley Barn Tap House shallbe limited to the sale and consumption of beer, non- alcoholic beverages, and food products. No sale or consumption of spirits shall be permitted.

Doors and windows to the outdoor patio area shall be closed at all times when music is being played.

No audio speakers, music, televisions, or screens shall be permitted on the outdoor patio, the building exterior walls, windows, or any other exterior architectu ral elements.

No dancing shall be permitted anywhere in the premises including the outdoor patio area. ln addition, there shall be no structurally designated or raised dance floor or bandstand.

Architecture/Desiqn
@rojectnarratives,theapplicantisrequestingDesignReviewapproval for exterior and interior modifications to an existing 4,377-square-foot commercial building located at 608 % Sutter Street. As stated by the applicant, the intent of the proiect is to create a rural design theme that is reminiscent of the historic barns found throughout California, Distinct architectural features include a clerestory with windows added to the upper portion of the existing structure to allow more natural light to enter the building, custom folding entry doors, faux stable dutch doors to emulate horse stables, vintage signage panels, gooseneck light fixtures, and a lean-to shed. ln support of the rural barn design theme, proposed building materials include vertical reclaimed wood siding, aluminum clad wood-framed windows, aluminum clad wood- framed glass entry doors, a pair of steel egress doors, faux dutch doors, galvanized metal gooseneck lightfixtures, vintage signage panels, and corrugated metral roofing. The color scheme is predominantly rustic brown due to the extensive use of the reclaimed wood siding. Additional colors include reddish gray for the roofing materials and dark brown for the doors and windows. Proposed building elevations and color renderings are shown in the Figures on the following pages.
a
a
a
City of Folsom Page 1 1

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Historic District Commlssion
Barley Bam Tap House (PN 19-174)
November 18,2021
FIGURE 2: BUILDING ELEVATIONS (WESTAND NORTH)
9aqltt
'l i'-
_r-tle
.rril|'o
.h.
--Ire
?
-qr-
-r/1*"
?
ffi
__enilo
---rro
o
*.1-'l
rn
T
i
I
I
i
I
I
I
? ?
j(
t,
--&t
!t-
- 7,2--- -.-----ile/ _-___-__*__ntJuo
-l/:#:.-.-.-,4aI -'-'-'t'-'-'--uegJ
L L
2 City of Folsom Page 12

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Historic District Commission
Badey Bam Tap House (PN 19-174)
November 18,2021
FIGURE 3: BUILDING ELEVATIONS (EAST AND SOUTH)
? I
I
i
It )
Y
i
I
i
.l------- BCm
------Fe
-rfiE{DB-i
.r- |
rll!!-!
.i r-,--'tlo
,l o
-r+--{JcL
ll!i
I ???
l
?
I
efrF6L F* *- 'Fite
l
I
!
I
I
I
i
li
t.
\J -E-
T
--Jl'ryo---'-tlle
-----lilo
J -----f,*oJ
City of Folsom Page 13

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Historic District Commission
Barley Barn Tap House (PN 19-174)
November 18,2021
FIGURE 4: BUILDING RENDERING (NORTHWEST)
City of Folsom Page 14

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Historic District Commission
Barley Bam Tap House (PN 19-174)
November 18,2021
FIGURE 5: BUILDING RENDERING (SOUTHWEST)
The Sutter Street Subarea encompasses Folsom's original central business district, the area first zoned for historic preservation. Retail shops and restaurants have predominated in recent history. The Subarea is intended to become a more "complete" downtown, serving convenience shopping, service, and community needs of Folsom residents and visitors. Overall, the Sutter Street Subarea represents a mixture of development that is representative of the 1850 to early 1900s timeframe. The Folsom MunicioalCode (FMC.

Chaoter 17.52. Historic District) seryes as regulatory document for development within the Historic District. ln addition, the Historic District Design and Development Guidelines (Design Guidelines), which were adopted on October 1, 1998, provide architectural guidance for development activity within the Sutter Street Subarea.

The purpose and intent of Chapter 17.52 (Historic District) of the Folsom Municioal Code is to preserve and enhance the historic, small-town atmosphere of the historic district as it developed between the years 1850 and 1950; maintain, restore, ahd reconstruc't historic structures and sites within the historic district; encourage an active business climate City of Folsom Page 15

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Historic District Commission
Barley Bam Tap House (PN 19-174)
November 18,2021
which promotes the development of a diverse range of businesses compatible with the historic district as it developed between the years 1850 and 1950; 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; and increase the awareness, understanding, and appreciation of the history of the city ln conjunction with the regulations imposed by Chapter 17.52 of the Folsom Municipal Code, the Historic District Design and Development Guidelines limit new construction in the Historic District to architectural styles extant in California from 1850 to 1950, a limitation intended to encourage the diversity which is the charm of old Folsom while preventing construction of modern buildings which would be discordant. The overall concept is to maintain a traditional small town at the heart of a modern, developing City.

The Historic District Design and Development Guidelines include a number of goals and policies intended to inform and guide development within the Historic District. The first Goal (Goal 1: Community ldentity) of the Design and Development Guidelines is to preserve and enhance the historic, small-town atmosphere of the 98-block Historic District area. Policy 1.1 associated with Goal 1 states that external design features, both public and private, shall be consistentwith design of the time period from 1850 to 1950. As noted in the project description and shown in the submitted plans, the proposed building is modeled after rural barns found throughout Califomia from the mid 1800's to the early 1900's. Shown below and on the following page are two examples of historic barns that represent the rural vernacular the applicant is hoping to achieve with the proposed prolect.

FIGURE 6: PHoTOGRAPH OF CAMARILLO RANCH HOUSE (1905)
City of Folsom Page 16

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Historic District Commission
Badey Bam Tap House (PN 19-174)
November 18,2021
FIGURE 7: PHOTOGRAPH OF COOPER MOLERA BARN (Est. 1850's) .**,'
The Design and Development Guidelines state that the goal of any remodeling project such as the proposed project is to maintain or improve a structure's value to the owner and the community by achieving good design and historic appropriateness, to the greatest enent feasible. ln evaluating a request to remodel a structure, the Design Guidelines indicate that the Historic District Commission shall consider the following factors:

1. The property owner's and community's benefit.

2. The structure's architectural and historical value.

3. Resources available for historic authenticity purposes, such as historical and architectu ral docu mentation, materials availabil ity, and fi nancin g. ln reviewing the proposed project, stiaff identified two potential benefits to the property owner and community. The first benefit would be the introduction of a unique business (craft beer estrablishment) that would allow local beer producers the opportunity exhibit and sell their products. ln addition, consumers would have the opportunity to try local products within a unique venue on Sutter Street. The second benefit would be to acknowledge and recognize the rural ranching history of Folsom with development of a City of Folsom Page 17

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Historic District Comm ission
Barley Barn Tap House (PN 19-174)
November 18,2021
rural barn-style structure on the site. One of the most notable ranch properties in Folsom was the Broder Family Ranch (1878), which included an ltalianate-style home, a bam, and several other buildings. While the proposed project is not designed to mimic the architecture of the bam that was located on the Broder Family Ranch property, is does include some similar design elements.

With regard to architectural and historical value, the existing 4,377-square-foot commercial building, which was built in 1958, is constructed of vertical wood slats with sliding wood doors and a corrugated metal roof. The existing building is not considered a historically significant structure and does not include building materials that would be considered historically significant, ln addition, the existing building is not listed on the City's Cultural Resource lnventory List.
ln reviewing the design of the proposed project, staff took into consideration the recommendations of the Design and Development Guidelines relative to architectural design and features, building materials, and building colors. With respect to architectural design and features, the proposed project is maintaining most of the existing building shapes and forms with exception of the new clerestory with windows added on top of the existing roof structure. Other distinct architectural features included with the project are custom folding entry doors, faux stable dutch doors to emulate horse stables, vintage signage panels, gooseneck light fixtures, and a lean-to shed.

With respect to building materials, the primary building material utilized will be vertical reclaimed wood siding. Additional proposed building materials include aluminum clad wood-framed windows, aluminum clad wood-framed glass entry doors, a pair of steel egress doors, faux dutch doors, galvanized metal gooseneck light fixtures, vintage wood signage panels, and corrugated metal roofing.

The Design Guidelines encourage the use of high quality, commercial-grade durable materials that are complementary to the historic context. Wood siding and wood-framed windows are high-quality building materials that are utilized on numerous buildings throughout the Sutter Street Subarea. The Design and Development Guidelines also state that roofs shall be constructed of traditional materials including fireproof wood shingles, wood shakes, corrugated metal, composition fiberglass shingles, clay tiles, and other materials supported by historic evidence. The proposed corrugated roofing material is consistent with the roof material recommendations of the Design Guidelines. Staff has determined that the other supplemental building materials utilized for the doors, windows, and lighting are appropriate materials for use in the Sutter Street Subarea.

The color scheme for the remodeled building is predominately rustic brown due to the extensive use of the reclaimed wood siding. Additional colors include reddish gray for the roofing materials and dark brown for the doors and windows. The Design Guidelines recommend that bland color schemes be avoided where the color values are all the same or very similar. Staff has determined that the proposed color scheme is consistent with the Design Guidelines in that the colors of the reclaimed wood siding and the corrugated City of Folsom Page 18

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

H istoric District Commission
Barley Barn Tap House (PN 19-174)
November 18,2021
metal roofing include a blending of colors that creates an appropriate level of visual interest.
ln summary, staff has determined that the proposed project has successfully met the architectural and design recommendations for remodeling of existing structures in the Historic District as suggested by the Historic District Design and Development Guidelines. ln addition, staff has determined that the proposed building design, building materials, and building colors are also consistent with the recommendations of the Design and Development Guidelines, Staff forwards the following design recommendations to the Commission for consideration :

1. This approval is for exterior and interior modifications associated with the Barley Barn Tap House project. The applicant shall submit building plans that comply with this approval, the attached site plan, demolition plans, building elevations, building rendering, color and materials exhibit, floor plans, and signage, lighting, and door exhibits dated September 16,2021 and September 27,2A21.

2. The design, materials, and colors of the proposed Barley Barn Tap House project shall be consistent with the submitted building elevations, building rendering, material samples, and color scheme to the satisfaction of the Community Development Department.
3, Roof-mounted mechanical equipment, including satellite dish antennas, shall not extend above the height of the parapet walls. Ground-mounted mechanical equipment shall be shielded by landscaping or trellis type features.

4. All Conditions of Approval as outlined herein shall be made as a note or separate sheet on the Construction Drawings.

5. The final location, design, height, materials, and colors of the fencing and gates associated with the outdoor patio area shall be subject to review and approval by the Community Development Department.

6. The design of the glass front entry door on the west building elevation be modified to reflect a more historic appearance by limiting glass to the upper half of the door with the bottom half of the door being a solid materialto the satisfaction of the Community Development Department.

7. The owner/applicant shall create an aged appearance by adding gray tint to the enclosed concrete patio area, coordinate the wrought iron fencing around the outdoor patio area by installing fencing panels between wood posts, and preserve to the greatest extent possible the decorative wall tile on the retaining wall located along the private walkway and incorporate these walls tiles at another location on the project site to the satisfaction of the Community Development Department.

City of Folsom Page 19

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Historic District Commission
Barley Bam Tap House (PN 19-174)
November 18,202"1
These recommendations are included in the conditions of approval presented for consideration by the Historic District Commission (Condition No. 29).

PUBLIC COMMENT
The Community Development Department received numerous comment letters (Aftachment 16) from residents as well as the Heritage Preservation League (HPL) and the Historic Folsom Residents Association (HFRA) expressing concerns regarding a number of issues associated with the previously proposed version of the project (Folsom Prison Brews) including the bar/brewery use, architecture, site design, parking, noise, and landscaping. Staff has included these comments as an attachment to the staff report as some of them as still applicable to the proposed project (Barley Barn Tap House).

The Community Development Department also received comment letters (Attachment 17) from residents as well as the Heritage Preservation League (HPL) and Historic Folsom Residents Association (HFRA) expressing concern and raising questions regarding a number of similar topics associated with the revised project (Barley Barn Tap House). ln addition, there were residents and businesses who submitted letters in support of the proposed project.
ln relation to the proposed craft brewery use, there were a number of comments expressing concern with the addition of another bar-type establishment within the 600 block of Sutter Street and the potential impacts it may have relative to parking, noise, and lighting. Along those same lines, there were comments noting concern about the increased concentration of bar-type businesses within the 600 block of Sutter Street and the Sutter Street Subarea as a whole. The City of Folsom does not currently have any rules or regulations in place governing the concentration of business that sell alcoholic beverages. ln addition, the State of California (Department of Alcohol and Beverage Control) is the agency responsible for issuance of a license for the sale of alcoholic beverages to bars and restaurants. A condition of approval (Condition No. 20) has been placed on the proposed project requiring the owner/applicant to maintain full compliance with all applicable laws ABC laws, ordinances, and state conditions.

With respect to architecture and design, the Heritage Preservation League (HPL) stated that while the proposed design is not typical for early barns that were construction in the region, similar barn designs were used at other locations throughout the United States during the 1850-1900 timeframe. The HPL concluded in their comment letter that the proposed barn design theme is appropriate for the Sutter Street Subarea. However, the HPL recommended that the applicant consider making a number of design modifications to ensure an authentic barn design including replacing the glass folding entry door with a wide barn door, replacing the small front entry door with a more historic entry door, and exposing the roof rafters.
ln response to the HPL's design-related comments, the applicant stated that the objective with the proposed bi-fold entry doors is to provide as much natural light and ventilation for the building as possible (which will assist the project in meeting its Title 24 Building City of Folsom Page 20

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Historic District Commission
Badey Bam Tap House (PN 19-1741
November 18,2021
Code requirements). The applicant also commented that the proposed bi-fold doors will provide the largest opening into the interior of the building possible, while not impeding the required access to the electrical panels or the utility services that are both located on the outside of the west building elevalion. The applicant indicted that barn-style doors would need uninterrupted wall space in order to be rolled out and that amount of space is not available to accommodate this on the project site. The applicant also stated that the barn-style doors would provide a thermally broken closure, meaning that they are not air-tight (like the proposed bi-fold doors) and would not meet California energy code requirements.

With respect to HPL's request that the small glass fiont entry door on the west building elevation be replaced with a more historic looking door, the applicant stated that they are open to modifying the design with the acknowledgement that the door is required to be fire-rated to meet National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) requirements as well as building code egress requirements. As a result, staff recommends that the design of the glass front entry door on the west building elevation be modified to reflect a more historic appearance by limiting glass to the upper half of the door, within the bottom half of the door being a solid material to the satisfaction of the Community Development Department. Condition No. 29-6 is included to reflect this requirement.

With regard to HPL's request to expose the roof rafters on the building by eliminating the fascia boards, the applicant commented that while this would enhance the barn-style appearance of the building, it is not feasible due to the fact that extending the rafters would not be compliant with current building code requirements due the existing building being located on the northern property boundary. The applicant noted that the rafters on the new clerestory feature could be exposed, but it would not enhance the overall appearance of the building if rafters were only exposed on a portion of the building. ln terms of site design, the HPL expressed concern that the large concrete patio might detract from the overall impression of historic development as historic districts typically use natural stones or decomposed granite to provide a level surface. ln additional, the HPL has suggestions regarding the perimeter fencing proposed around the outdoor patio area. The HPL recommended a few modifications to address their site design concerns including tinting the existing concrete patio area to create and aged appearance, adding wood post and wood panels to the perimeter wrought-iron patio fencing, and preserving the existing decorative tiles on the retaining walls adjacent to the pedestrian walkway.

In response to HPL's comments regarding the project's site design, the applicant stated that they are willing to make the suggested modifications relative to the color of the concrete patio, the enhancement of the outdoor patio fencing, and attempting to preserve the decorative tiles that cover the retaining wall along the private walkway. As a result, staff recommends that the applicant create an aged appearance by adding gray tintto the enclosed concrete patio area, coordinate the wrought iron fencing around the outdoor patio area by installing fencing panels between wood posts, and preserve to the greatest extent possible the decorative wall tiles on the retaining wall located along the private City of Folsom Page21

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Historic District Comm ission
Barley Bam Tap House (PN 19-174)
November 18,2021
walkway and incorporate these walls tiles at another location on the project site to the satisfaction of the Community Development Department. Condition No. 29-7 is included to reflect these requirements.

The HPL, HFRA, and residents expressed concerns regarding potential parking impacts associated with the proposed project. In particular, concerns were raised regarding lack of existing parking options within the 600 block of Sutter Street, the increased parking demand associated with the proposed project, and the effectiveness of the parking lease agreement (lease agreement with the Eagles Lodge) submifted by the applicant. A number of suggestions were made to address the potential parking impacts including requiring the project applicant to participate in a funding mechanism to provide an additional public parking facility, reevaluating the cunent parking requirements for the Sutter Street Subarea, and requiring the applicant to submit a business plan that describes all potential parking impacts. The City is actively involved in evaluating and implementing district-wide parking solutions that were recommended by the Historic District Ad Hoc Parking Committee. The parking section of this staff report provides detailed analysis of the parking requirements and impacts associated with the proposed project.

Potential noise impacts were commented on in a number of letters that were submitted to the City, particularly in relation to the live entertainment aspect of the proposed project and the proposed business hours. The Noise lmpacts section of this staff report contains a detailed discussion regarding the live entertainment component of the proposed business (including proposed business hours) and the extensive list of requirements and conditions that have been placed on the project to minimize potential noise impacts to surrounding businesses and residents.

The HPL made a number of comments regarding the proposed signage and lighting associated with the proposed project. With respect to signage, the HPL stated that the proposed sign type (block letters painted on wood) is appropriate for Sutter Street Subarea. However, the HPL recommends that the painted-on wall sign be relocated to the northern building elevation and that a blade sign be placed on the western building elevation. The HPL also states that the proposed painted-on wall sign exceeds the maximum allowable sign area for the western building elevation. Staff is supportive of the proposed size and location of the painted-on wall sign as this is the primary building entrance.

The HPL commented that the proposed gooseneck light fixtures are consistent with the design of light fixtures found in the 1850-1900 timeframe. However, the HPL is concerned that the level or intensity of illumination associated with the gooseneck light fixtures might be too great and not be consistent with the lower-level light intensi$ found on historic light fixtures, Staff has included a condition of approval on the project that requires final exterior building and site lighting plans shall be submitted for review and approval by Community Development Department for location, height, aesthetics, level of illumination, glare and trespass. ln addition, this condition requires that all lighting be City of Folsom Page22

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Historic District Commission
Badey Barn Tap House (PN 19-174)
November 18,2021
designed to be shielded and directed downward onto the project site and away from adjacent properties and public rights-of-way.

The HPL and a number of residents commented that the proposed project should not be exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act and that an lnitial Study and Negative Declaration/Mitigation Negative Declaration should be prepared for the proposed project. City staff reviewed these comments and confirmed that the proposed project does qualify for an exemption from CEQA. Specifically, staff determined that the proposed project is categorically exempt under Section 15303 New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. ln addition, staff determined that none of the exceptions in Section 15300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines apply to the use of the categorical exemption(s) in this case.

The New Construction of Conversion of Smaller Structures Exemption (15303) consists of the construction or location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures; installation of small new equipment and facilities in small structures; and, as relevant to this project, the conversion of existing small structures from one use to another where only minor modifications are made in the exterior of the structure. Examples of this exemption include but are not limited to: A store, motel, restaurant, or similar structure not involving the use of significant amounts of hazardous substances, and not exceeding 10,000 square feet (for up to four commercial buildings) in floor area on site zoned for such use. As described in this staff report, the proposed project includes minor alterations and modifications to an existing 4,377-square-foot commercial building located within an urbanized area, thus, the project qualifies for this exemption .

City staff has also determined that none of the exceptions in Section 1 5300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines apply to the use of the categorical exemption(s) in this case. Exceptions listed within Section 15300.2 include; (a) Location, (b)Cumulative lmpact, (c)Significant Effect (d) Scenic Highway (e) Hazardous Waste Sites, and (f) Historical Resources.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project is categorically exempt under 15303 New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. Based on staffs analysis of this project, none of the exceptions in Section 15300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines apply to the use of the categorical exemption(s) in this case.

As referenced previously within this report, the exceptions listed within Section 15300.2 include; (a) Location, (b) Cumulative lmpact, (c) Significant Effect (d) Scenic Highway (e) Hazardous Waste Sites, and (f) Historical Resources. A description of the most applicable of these exceptions is listed below with a brief response as to why each of these exceptions do not apply to the proposed project.

City of Folsom Page 23

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Historic District Comm ission
Barley Bam Tap House (PN 19-1741
November 18,2021
(b) Cumulative lmpact. All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant.
ln analyzing whether this exception applies, both the "same type" and the "same place" limitations should be considered. When analyzing this exception with respect to the proposed project, the City considered projects of the "same type" to be other projects with similar uses, such as those projects listed on the hours of operation chart that appears in another noise impacts section of this report. The City considered projects in the "same place" to be projects on Sutter Street.

City staff has determined that the cumulative impacts exception does not apply because of the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place proposed project is not significant in this case, in that the project will not result in any adverse impacts with respect to building design, site design, parking, lighting, and noise or other environmental impacts potentially caused by the proposed use. With respect to building architecture and site design, the proposed project involves the remodel of an existing commercial building and the re-use of an existing outdoor patio area, both of which have been designed to comply with the Historic District Design and Development Guidelines. ln terms of parking, the proposed project is not required to provide any on- site parking spaces per established City practice. ln addition, the applicant has entered into a lease agreement to provide 15 off-site parking spaces to further address any potential parking concerns. ln relation to noise and light, standard and project-specific conditions of approval have been placed on the proposed project to minimize any potential noise and light impacts. With respect to any other potential impacts caused by the proposed use, the conditions imposed on the project in the Conditional Use Permit are designed to minimize or eliminate any negative effects on the environment created by the proposed use.

Gity staff has determined that the cumulative impact of the proposed project is not significant in that the project will not result in any adverse impacts with respect building design, site design, parking, lighting, and noise. With respect to building architecture and site design, the proposed project involves the remodel of an existing commercial building and the re-use of an existing outdoor patio area, both of which have been designed to comply with the Historic District Design and Development Guidelines. ln terms of parking, the proposed project is not required to provide any on-site parking spaces per established City practice. ln addition, the applicant has entered into a lease agreement to provide 15 off-site parking spaces to further address any potential parking concerns. ln relation to noise and light, standard and project-specific conditions of approval have been placed on the proposed project to minimize any potential noise and light impacts.

City of Folsom Page24

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Histodc District Commission
Barley Barn Tap House (PN 19-174')
November 18,2021
(c) Signiflcant Effect. A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances.

CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2(c) states that a categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. This is commonly referred to as the "unusual circumstances exception."
The unusual circumstances exception to the use of a categorical exemption applies only when both unusual circumstances exist and there is a reasonable possibility that the project will have a significant effect on the environment due to those unusual circumstances. (Berkeley Hillside Preseruation v. City of Berkeley (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1086, 1104;)
Whether unusual circumstances exist to distinguish this project from others in the exempt class is a factual question. The answer to that factual question must be supported by substantial evidence.
ln making this decision, the Commission should consider whether the proposed project's circumstances differ significantly from the circumstiances typical of the type of projects covered by the exemption, namely, other small structures in the Historic District that are either converted ftom one use to another or newly constructed. The exception applies only if the claimed unusual circumstance relates to the proposed action under consideration; it does not apply if the unusual circumstances are part of the existing conditions baseline. (Bottini v. City of San Diego 27 Cal.App.Sth 281 ; World Eusrness Academy v. Stafe Lands Commission (2018) 24 Cal.App.Sth 476, 498; North Coasf Rrverc Alliance v. Westlands Water District {2014) 227 Cal.App. th 832,872.) Another consideration is whether there is a reasonable possibility of a significant effect on the environment due to the unusual circumstances. (Berkeley Hillside Preseruation, 60 Cal.4th at p. 11 15.) The Commission answers this question by determining if there is any substantial evidence before it that would support a fair argument that a significant impact on the environment may occur as a result of the proposed project. (ld.) A reasonable possibility of a significant impact may be found only if the proposed prolect will have an impact on the physical environment, lf there is no change from existing baseline physical conditions, the exception does not apply. (North Coasf Rivers Alliance v. Westlands Water Distrtct eYq 227 Cal.App,4th 832, 872.) The exception also does not apply if the project will have only a social impact and will not result in a potentially significant change to the physical environment. (Sanfa Monica Chamber of Commerce v. City of Santa Monica (2002) 1 01 Cal.App.4th 786, 801 ; City of Pasadena v. Sfafe (1 993) City of Folsom Page 25

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Historic District Commission
Barley Barn Tap House (PN 19-174)
November 18,2021
14 Cal.App.4th 810, 826.)
The question is not whether the project will have an adverse impact on some persons, but whether it will adversely affect the environment of persons in general due to unusual circumstances. (San Lorenzo Valley Community Advocates for Responsible Education v. San Lorenzo Valley Unified Schoo/ District (2006) 1 39 Cal.App.4ttt 1 356, 't392.

After analyzing the unusual circumstances exception in association with this project, the City determined that no unusual circumstances exist to distinguish this project from others in the exempt class. While an argument could be made that the small parcel size and the location of the parcel within the public parking lot are unusual circumstances, both of those conditions exist at this time. The presence of bars and restaurants on Sutter Street is not uncommon, so any impacts associated with the proposed use itself are not unusual. ln addition, parking impacts associated with new businesses on Sutter Street are not unusual.

The City also determined that there is not a reasonable possibilig of a significant effect on the environment due to any claimed unusual circumstances for this project. Any possibility of a significant impact on the physical environment allegedly caused by proposed project would not be the result of any claimed unusual circumstances. As mentioned above, the proposed use is not unusual, so any possible significant effects associated with that use are not sufficient to support the exception in this case. ln addition, as stated above, parking impacts associated with new businesses on Sutter Street are not unusual. Even so, as described in detail in other sections of this report, the project applicant has secured a lease for 15 shared parking spots at the nearby Eagle's Lodge in an attempt to address any potential parking-related impacts and the City has conditioned the project to require those parking spots to remain available for the life of the Conditional Use Permit. As a result, the City has determined that any possible significant effects related to parking are not unusual and do not require application of the exception for this project.
(f) Historical Resources. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.

The subject property, which is located at 608 % Sutter Street (APN: 070-0061-011-0000), is developed with an existing 4,377-square-foot commercial building which was built in 1958. The existing bullding is constructed of vertical wood slats with sliding wood doors and a corrugated metal roof. The existing building is not considered a historically significant structure and does not include building materials that would be considered historically significant. ln addition, the existing building is not listed on the City's Cultural Resource Inventory List nor any other State or Federal historic or cultural resource Gity of Folsom Page 26

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Historic District Comm ission
Barley Barn Tap House (PN 19-174)
November 18,2021
A.

B.
inventory or list.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the proposed project, subject to the conditions of approval included in this report.

HISTORIC DISTRIGT COMMISSION ACTION
Move to approve a Conditional Use Permit and Design Review (PN 19-174) for Barley Barn Tap House, which includes development and operation of a craft beer establishment within an existing 4,377-square-foot building located at 608 % Sutter Street subject to the findings (Findings A-l) and conditions of approval attached to this report (Conditions 1- 30).

GENERAL FINDINGS

NOTICE OF HEARING HAS BEEN GIVEN AT THE TIME AND IN THE MANNER REQUIRED BY STATE LAW AND CITY CODE.

THE PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN AND THE ZONING CODE OF THE CITY.

CEOA FINDINGS

THE PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEW UNDER SECTION 15303, NEW CONSTRUCTION OR CONVERSION

OF SMALL STRUCTURES, OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEOA) GUTDELTNES.

THE CUMULATIVE IMPACT OF SUCCESSIVE PROJECTS OF THE SAME TYPE IN THE SAME PLACE, OVER TIME IS NOT SIGNIFICANT IN THIS CASE.

NO UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST TO DISTINGUISH THE PROPOSED PROJECT FROM OTHERS IN THE EXEMPT CLASS.

THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL NOT CAUSE A SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE CHANGE IN THE SIGNIFICANCE OF A HISTORICAL RESOURCE.
c.

D
E
F
City of Folsom Page27

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Historic District Commission
Barley Barn Tap House (PN 19-174)
November 18,2021

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDING
G. AS CONDITIONED, THE ESTABLISHMENT, MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION

OF THE USE APPLIED FOR WILL NOT, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS

PARTICULAR CASE, BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE HEALTH, SAFETY, PEACE,

MORALS, COMFORT, AND GENERAL WELFARE OF PERSONS RESIDING OR

WORKING IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, OR BE DETRIMENTAL OR INJURIOUS TO

PROPERW AND IMPROVEMENTS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR TO THE

GENEML WELFARE OF THE CITY, SINCE THE PROPOSED USE IS

COMPATIBLE WITH SIMILAR COMMERCIAL USES IN THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD.

DESIGN REVIEW FINDINGS
H. THE BUILDING MATERIALS, TEXTURES AND COLORS USED IN THE

PROPOSED PROJECT ARE COMPATIBLE WITH SURROUNDING
DEVELOPMENT AND ARE CONSISTENT WITH TI{E GENERAL DESIGN THEME OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

I. THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE HISTORIC

DISTRICT DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES ADOPTED BY CITY

COUNCIL,
City of Folsom Page 28

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Historic District Commission
Badey Barn Tap House (PN 19-174)
November 18,2421
ATTACHMENT 2

BACKGROUND

BACKGROUND
The existing 4,377-square-foot commercial building, which was built in 1958, is constructed of vertical wood slats with sliding wood doors and a conugated metal roof.

The existing building is not considered a historically significant structure and does not include building materials that would be considered historically significant. ln addition, the existing building is not listed on the City's Cultural Resource lnventory List. The existing commercial building is currently occupied by an art and crafts store (Artfully Rooted) that provides an eclectic mix of artistic d6cor, furniture, fashion, vintage, antiques, and repurposed items. A photograph of the existing commercial building is shown in Figure 4 below:

FIGURE 4: COMMERCIAL BUILDING AT 608 % SUTTER STREET
I
City of Folsom Page 29

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Historic District Commission
Barley Bam Tap House (PN 1$.174)
November 18,2021

GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
ZONING

ADJACENT LAND USES/ZONING

SITE GHARACTERISTICS

APPLICABLE CODES
HF, Historic Folsom
HD, Sutter Street Subarea of the Commercial
Primary Area
North: Public Parking Lot (HD) with Riley
Street Beyond
South: Sutter Street with Commercial
Development (HD) Beyond
East: Commercial Development (HD) with
Scott Street Beyond
West Commercial Development (HD) with
Riley Street Beyond
The L-shaped project site, which is
approximately 0.12-acres in size, is
developed with a 4,377-square-foot building
(currently occupied by Artfully Rooted) and
associated site improvements including a
paved patio area, pedestrian walkways, and
landscaped planters.

FMC Chapter 15.52: HD, Historic District
FMC Section 17.52.300, Design Review
FMC Section 17.52.660, Demolition
FMC Chapter 17.57, Parking Requirements
FMC Chapter 17.60, Use Permits
Historic District Design and Development
Guidelines
City of Folsom Page 30

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Historic Distrist Commission
Badey Barn Tap House (PN f9-174)
November 18,2021
A*achment 3
Proposed Gonditions of Approval
City of Folsom Page 31

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Historic District Commission
Badey Bam Tap House (PN 19-174)
November 18,2021
Responsible
Department
cD (PXE)
cD (PXEXB)
When
Required
B
B

GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
l. Site Plarl dated September 16,202I

2. Off-Site Parking Plan, dated Septeinber 16,2021

3. Demolition Plans, dated Septernber 16,2021

4. Building Elevations, dated September 16,2021

5. Building Renderings, dated received September 27,2021

6. Color and Materials Exhibits

7. Signage Details, dated September 16,2021

8. Site Details

9. Floor Plans, dated September 16,202I

10. Project Narratives, dated received September 22, 2021

11. Off-Site Parking Lease Agreement, dat€d October l5,2D2l The project is approved for the develqrment of the 3,799-square-foot Barley Bam Tap House project. ImFlementation of the project shall be consistent with the above-referenced items as modified bv these conditions of aooroval.
plans to the Community Development
to the exhibits referenced below:

The applicant shall submit final site development
Department that shall substantially conform
civil engineering and landscape plans, shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval to enswe conformance with this approval and with relevant codes, policies, standards and other requirements of the City of Folsom.

Building plans, and all applicable
Mitigation
Measure
BARLEY BARN TAP HOUSB CONDMONAL USE PERIT{IT AI\D DESIGN REVIEW CONIIITTONS OT' APPROVAL F{)R
%SUTIERSTREET
No.

Cond.

I

2. City of Folsom Page 32

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Historic District Commission
Barley Barn Tap House (PN 19-174)
November 18,2021
cD (P)
cD (P)
CD
cD(PXEXB)

PW, P& FD,
PD
B
OG
OG
OG
The project approvals (Conditional Use Pennit and Design Review) granted under this staffreport shall rernain in effect for one year from final date ofapproval (November L8,2022). lfthe Conditional Use Pemit has not been exercised within the identified time frame prior to the expiration date and the applicant has not demonstated substantial progress towards the development ofthe project, respectively, these approvals shall be considered nuil and void without further action. The owner/applicant may file an application with the Community Development De,partnent for a permit extension not less than 30 days prior to the expiration date of the permig along with appropriate fees and necessary submittal materials pursuant to Chapter

17.60 of the Folsom Municinal Code.

If the Community Developmsnt Director finds evidence that conditions of approval for Barley Bam Tap House have not been fulfiUed or that the use has resulted in a substantial adverse effect on the health, and/or general welfare of users of adjacent or proximate property, or has a substantial adverse impact on public facilities or services, the Director will refer the use permit to the Historic District Commission for review. If, upon such review, the Historic District Cornmission finds thar any of the above-stated results have occurred the Commission may modifu or revoke the Conditional Use Permit.

This Conditional Use Permit shall be deemed revoked without firther action by the Historic Distict Commission if the operation of the facility in the manner described in the Conditional Use Permit ceases for any consecutive period of six (6) months.

The owner/applicant shall defen4 indemi$, and hold harmless the City and its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul any approval by the City or any ofits agencies, deparftrents, conunissions, agents, officers, employees, or legislative body concerning the project.

The City will promptly notify the owner/applicant of any sugfu sleim, action or proceeding, and will cooperate fully in the defense. The Crty may, within its rmlimited discretion, participate in the defense of any such claim, action orproceeding if both of the following occur:
r The City bears its own attorney's fees and costs; and o The City defends the claim, action or proceeding in good faith The owner/applicant shall not be required to pay or perform any seftlernent of such claim, action or proceeding unless the settlement is approved by the owner/applicant.

3. 4.
5 6.

City of Folsom Page 33

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Historic District Commission
Barley Bam Tap House (PN 19-174)
November 18,2021
cD (B)
cD (PXEXB)
cD (PXEXB)

DEVELOPMENT COSTS AND FEE REQUIREMENTS
cD (PXE)
cD (PXE)
OG
B
B
B
B
Compliance with all local, state and federal regulations pertaining to building conshuction and demolition is required.

Ifany archaeological, cultural, or historical resources or artifacts, or other features are discovered during the course ofconstruction anywhere on the project site, work shall be suspended in that location until a qualified professional archaeologist r$sesses the significance ofthe discovery and provides recommendations to the City. The City sball determine and require implementation of the appropriate mitigation as recommended by the cousulting archaeologist. The City rnay also consult with individuals that meet the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications Standards before implementation of any recommendation. If agreement cannot be reached between the project applicant and the City, the Historic Distict Cornmission shall detennine the appropriate implementatiou method.

In the event human remains are discovered, Califomia Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no fi:rther disturbance shall occru until the couoty coronfi has made the necessary findings as to the origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code 5097.98. If the coroner dete,r:nines that no investigation of ttre cause of death is required and if the remains are of Native American Origin, the coroner will notiff the Native Arnerican Heritage Commission, which in tum will infonn a most likely decedent. The decedent will then recommend to the landowner or landowner's representative appropriate disposition of the remains and any grave goods.

The owner/applicant shall pay all applicable taxes, fees and charges at the rate and amount in effect at the time such taxes, fees and charges become due and payable.

The City, at its sole discretion" may utilize the services of outside legal counsel to assist in the implementation of this project, including, but not limited to, drafting, reviewing and/or revising agreements and/or other documentation for the project. If the City utilizes the services of such outside legal counsel, the applicant shall reimburse the City for all outside legal fees and costs incurred by the City for such services. The applicant may be required, at the sole discretion of the City Attorney, to submit a deposit to the City for these services prior to initiation of tle services.

The applicant shall be responsible for reimbunement to the City for the services regardless of whether a deposit is required.
7 8,

9. 10.

11. City of Folsom Page 34

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Historic District Gommission
Barley Barn Tap House (PN 19-174)
November 18,2021
cD (PXE)
cD (P)
cD (PXE)
cD (PXE)
cD (PXE), PW,
PK
cD (P)B
OG
B
B
B
B
The ownerlapplicant agrees to pay to the Folsom-Cordova Unified School District the maximum fee authorized by law for the constnrction and./or reconstruction ofschool facilities. The applicable fee shall be the fee established by the School District that is in effect at the time of the issuance of a building pemrit. Specifically, the owner/applicant agrees to pay any and all fees and charges and comply with any and all dedications or other requirements authorized under Section 17620 of the Education Code; Chapter 4.7 (commencing with Section 65970) of the Govemment 65995-7 of the Government Code.and
The owner/applicant shall be responsible for on-site landscape maintenance throughout the life of to the satisfaction ofthethe
Final exterior building and site lighting plans shall be submitted for review and approval by Community Developm.ent Departuent for location, height, aesthetics, level of illumination, glare and trespass p,rior to the issuance of any building permits. In addition, all lighting shall be designed to be shielded and directed downward onto the project site and away from adacent and
Compliance with Noise Control Ordinance and General Plan Noise Element shall be requted.

Hours of construction operation shall be limited from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekdays and 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays. No construction is permitted on Srurdays or holidays. shall be muffled and sbrouded to minimizeConstruction
If the City utilizes the services of consultants to prepare special studies or provide specialized desip review or inspection senrices for the project, the applicant shall reimburse the City for actual costs it incurs in utilizing these services, including administative costs for City personnel.

A deposit for these services shall be provided prior to initiating review of the improvement whichever isor
plans
This project shall be subject to all City-wide development impact fees, unless exernpt by previous agreement This project shall be subject to all City-wide developmeirt impact fees in effect at zuch time that a building permit is issued. These fees may include, but are not limited to, fees for fire protection, park facilities, park equipment, Quimby, Humbug-Willow Creek Parkway, Light Rail, TSM, capital facilities and taffic impacts. The 90{ay protest period for all fees, dedications, reservations or other exactions imposed on this project has begun. The fees shall be $suance.calculated at the fee rate in effect at the time of t2.

13. 14.

LAI[DSCAPE
l5

LIGIITING

16. NOISE

17. City of Folsom Page 35

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Historic District Commission
Barley Barn Tap House (PN 19-174)
November 18,2021
FD
NS (B)
CD, PD
cD (P)
cD (P)
cD (P)
cD (P)
cD (P)
cD (P)
cD (P)
B, OG
OG
OG
OG
OG
OG
OG
OG
OG
LrlILE ITI.E l\
posted at all times, and the owner/applicant shall have an effective syst€m to keep count of tbe number of occupants present at any given time. This information shall be provided to public safety personng! upon request.

Cu:rent occupancy loads shall be
A Conditional Use Pemrit Modification shall be required if the operation of the business deviates from the Historic District Commission's approval. No approvals are granted in this Conditional Use Permit except as provided. Aay intensification or expansion of the use approved and conditioned herein will require a Conditional Use Perrnit Modification by the Historic District Commission. In any case where the conditions to the granting of a Conditional Use Permit have not been, or are not, complied with, the Historic District Commission shall give notice to the to revoke such permit at least ten days prior to a hearing thereon. Following the Historic District Cornmission mav revoke such perrnit. permittee of intention
such hearins
The ownerlapplicant shall maintain full compliance with all applicable laws ABC laws, ordinances, and state conditions. In the event that a conflict arises between the requirements of this Conditional Use Perrrit and the ABC license, the more stringent regulation shall apply All entertainment (as defined in Chapter 5.90 of the Folsom Municipal Code) shall be subject to an Entertainment Pennit. No enteftainmqrt shall occur on the proposed outdoor patio. Occasional outdoor events may be requested via the Special Event Permit process. subiect to Citv anoroval.

Compliance with the City of Folsom's Noise Control Ordinance (Folsom Municipal Code Chapter Plan Noise Element shall be required.and General
Hours of operation (including private parties) shall be limited as follows:
o Sunday-Wednesday: 1l:00 a.m. to 10:00p.m.
o Thursday-Sanrday: l1:00 a.m. to 12:30 a.m.

No expansion of business hor.rs beyond what is stated above shall be permitted without prior approval being obtained from the Historic District Commission through a discretionary Conditional Use Permit Modification.

Barn Tap House shall be limited to the sale and consumption of beer, non-alcoholic beverages, and food products. No sale or consumption ofspirits shall be permitted.

Barley
Doors and windows to the outdoor
nlaved.
patio area shall be closed at all times when music is being No audio speakers, music, televisions, or screens shall be permitted on the outdoor patio, the building exterior walls, windows, or any other exterior architectural elements.

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT

18. 19,

20. 2t

22. 23

24. 25

26. City of Folsom Page 36

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Historic District Commission
Barley Bam Tap House (PN 19-174)
November '18,2021
cD (P)
cD(P)
No dancing shall be p€mitt€d ln the pr€mrses including the outdoor patio area. In OG there shall be no raised dance or
The owner/applicant shall ensure that a lease agre€ment for the I5 parking spaces at the Eagle OG Lodge property remam m effect as Iong as Barley Barn Tap House or aEy subsequent establisbment operatng at this location pursuant to the Conditional Use P€ndt rellmlns IN business.
27 28.

City of Folsom Page 37

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Historic District Commission
Barley Bam Tap House (PN 19-174)
November 18,2021

ARCHITECTURE/SITE DESIGN
cD(P)I,B
The project shall comply with the following architecture and desip requirements:

This approval is for exterior and interior modifications associated with the Barley Bam Tap House project. The applicant shall submit building plans that comply with this approval, the attached site plan, dernolition plans, building elevafions, building rendering, color and materials exhibit, floor plans, and signage, lighting, and door exhibits dated sEptemb€r 16, 2O2l nd September 27, 202I.

2. The desip, materials, and colors of the proposed Barley Barn Tap House project shall be consistent with the submitted building elevations, fuilding r€Nrdering, material samples, and color scheme to the satisfaction of the Community Development Deparbnent.

3. Roof-mounted mechanical equipment, including satellite dish antennas, shall not extend above the height of fre parapet walls. Ground-mormted mechanical equipment shall be shielded by landscaping or trelHs type features.

4. All Conditions of Approval as outlined herein shall be made as a note or separate sheet on the Construction Drawings.

The final location, design, height materials, and colors of the fencing and gates associated with the outdoor patio area shall be subject to review and approval by the Commrmity Development Departnent

6. The design of the glass front entry door on the west buiiding elevation be modified to reflect a more historic appearance by limiting glass to the upper half of the door with the bottom half of the door being a solid material to the satisfaction of the Commr.rnity Development Department.

7. The owner/applicant shall create an aged appearance by adding gray tint to tl.e enclosed concrete patio area, coordinate the wrought iron fencing around the outdoor patio area by installing fencing panels between wood posts, and preserve to the greatest extent possible the decorative wall tile on the retaining wall located along the private walkway and incorporate these walls tiles at another location on the project site to the satisfaction of the Community Develooment Departurent.
1 5

29. City of Folsom Page 38

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

H istoric District Commission
Barley Barn Tap House (PN 19-174)
November 18,2021
cD(P)
cD (PXE)
B
B
The owner/applicant shall obtain a sign permit ofthe painted-on wall sign.prior to installation SIGN

30. 3i

WHEN REQIJIREI)
hiorto of Plans
Prior to of Final
Prior to issuance of first BuildinePennit
Priqrto approval of Occupancy Permit
Prior to issuance of Gradine Permit
During construction
lq:going requirement
I
M
B
o
G
DC
OG

RESPIONSIBLE I'EPARTMENT
Communit5r Development Departrrent
Planning Division
Engineering Division
Building Division
Fire Division
Public Works Departrnent
Park and Recreation Departrrent
Police Departrrent
CD
(P)
(E)
(B)
(F)
PW
PR
PD
Cig of Folsom Page 39

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Historic District Comm ission
Barley Barn Tap House (PN 19-174)
November 18,2021
Attachment 4
Vicinity Map

01/11/2022 Item No.15.
o+fa-
tn

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Hisbrlc Dlstrlct Commleelon
Badey Barn Tap Houre (PN f0-174)
November '18,2021
Attachmont 5
Site Plan, dated September 16,2021

01/11/2022 Item No.15.
glg-elalj-qlEa STIEET LEGEI{D
i iars.r@lR54@
-e€€
.ulrlir@s@ste
!,+5$7adi@ad
QI
ALLEY
oe(srrN6
;t
/ --o.b*a/ / ssF.rs-coGots€oa
,I O
iii 6OO;9 9LrnlR SIRllI .l
lo
o r
I, ::
tw4S
I
,I
!
I
I
I
-- .ih-:-- <- l'-'
:9:
t
lAiTi/ SARN YAP
uqJgrl48p
I
-) [email protected]€@s e
ii=llt:tt
FlI!tf
\i.
t-i
I
!
L_-i
aJ*----.
9UTTER STREET
1fr- sm nn - ARchrrEcruRALl?\, ,'or-a.ryorsRAJ€ FATToFTAN e ea"

ARCHITECTURE
K<ErcXff.Utr iu&w e@ 61oN OR
bl&cj*4
:
9t8t*Erdt6ll@&AtrlJ@(lId
NET
SITE PLAii -
ARCH'TECTLIL4I
: B,{RLFY BAR\ TAP HOUSE
' 60€ l/: SutR. Sftt
Folsom. C-{ 95630
,{PNrO70406l4[{CtO
7 -
.J)
7 z
l-':- ---, :Y!.lfi!=- -. -
-rA.ri,- .ry-E${-:.-: tul
I Al-O l
f,&i
I
I
it

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Hisbric District Commission
Badey Bam Tap House (PN 19-174)
November 18,2021
Attachment 6
Off-Site Parking Plan, dated September 18,2021

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

KONET

ARCH ITECTURE
lEEffi.Ma&&[email protected]*D
s6@@1@q&lfu@5
rBrBtui{wralsn
-.ffieff&'6*
Mumy Wevcr

BARLEY BARN TAP HOUSE
608 12 SrrG: saF
Folsh. CA g'5f0
APN: 07O006.!Oll400tt
PARKI}fC LOTSANDDATA
xl.0
z
3 az
L
!
z
REOUIRTID FARFING;
EBI''E8ffi[@&sre&'s€ffl@."E
EO,WRHoIJ T PARKNG LOT
o(s-nNG
@
@talew'i@E&tsa.+@eEdxtu5e&
rcE@EEa
r-,s*!ElgbE@bs86@At
e'€.rrrlaF96
s-*eff
l&6en'€8r5fi-ds,&@dffirx4d!r,,4
:)*@qeysffd$*
!G.R"rG'E'g
:4.*

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Hlsbrlc Disbiat Commlgelon
Badey Bam Tap Houee (PN 19-174)
Nowmber 14,2021
Attachment 7
Demolition Plans, dated September 16,2021

01/11/2022 Item No.15.
@ o
-'-4- - -
o @ fig o
o-ruQ4!9n_!stEz.
@ ""t'- i ' -tB4rq*ffi
/\\,/'.--..* \
/ l@sE< @t!-\ Eg*'\ 4!-gri/-
I
I
I
I
lf
{_,
di.rhe
>-----<:
s-*-J.,j
)gtsnrGira/Ztnryo !/*-"^*^*-r/
aiGE.<.--
-*rgs
-i---.__ -1. \-
;
I
,l
I
I
;
@t- --\
-tb--
@ -lr:, -!, =.
-..

E
e
@ I
I
I
:-"-, :.=;E
ar5nN6 EVtt oNe
,Ar *iQwer*6!rqeM
'{'K*si.r.qrnetr
iI,
t
f
I
dryzffiare.*ESG
a-\ tl I
I.
l!
!J -:-< t------r
!:l t t:al : il
q{lq6!od. -\
t \l
t
v'-- -
,I
I
!
I
1 l
:
@ il
wu ttccNo
E:::=t
c=l
:e
KONET
AB.CH ITECTU RE
B@@EA4 AVMT aE d\Ydl0trcl'ry.4ffi
tre-a:abld{-g!Jtjg=nt:.
tsrqq@.{an
t-..{*1!n {
z
.J
I
o2
g
z
BARI.SYAARNT.{P HOUSE
608 l2 Suncr Sm
Fokon, C,1, 9:>63O
AP!i:0rc&14u"Cmc
M@tW@
DE\IOIITION PLA\S
o

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Al'CEITECTUR.E
KbE.SEmllE4ffid'fqg-ox5
)rcl.-l-ai-l-q&b
zoF
L)
*-a,t
2 (J
I
i-
z
$-vr!..rn..*i.G
l::d-&h!rr_dtfrtu**rq
Atrs@€{U{W
DEIdOLmOllErvATlOl$
Mrcy
I
I @ o e
!.4 I
. $rl'lE-n!!a
'ta gt t
_,./w
.il€l'aft@t
dr':! , t)
@ o @
EC*C-&!aa
,11 F,tG'|AFCrre_ *- iH€' -+oj't?grc
. --J8f"t4
_ __ {EE+
l\
t,
' '!irFv
$r
l',
- -stFe-fn*rgf
' -{fi#'e
*;l! *"
"t$
A DfrpiirxNEAgra^wAnofl M\.- /i
o
\Er'
o o
i o @
TIT F:?*rt tr?r
*:ry,:gq
ro; s
ta
!
I

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Hlsbric D istrlct Commiseion
Barley Barn Tap House (PN 19-174)
November 18,2021
Attachment I
Building Elevations, dated $eptember 16,2A21

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

ARC IIITECT U R, E
l&g\1f,&ua@c^irma\[email protected]*S
9rlFaE@|rEd4q6lI*<uB
z
t)
i.(
z
O
I
z
MsGt Wcevs
B"{RLEY 8AR\ TAPHOLSF
608 l2 SrcrSE
Fds& Cr 956!0
Atlt 0?D0061 0u-00q)
@
€ @
-L
\'__- ----.-+
' -.{-- it ita
--i-*<
-<.t- a6ffiw
! - --ftF+
ieS
'ir
.i'i
. -"4*-its1;. $
&" ,#o
ffi;j.d;:uBsx.**/A\
// , \\___E $rllErff 9rt€fArr,
t*';s 'u/i
::t--* .trc:=l
0 + a
o @
orF4g.btFEF@@-aa6{6\.
*'2 -t a o
[^... -r- "r-ryr* fr Frl--ffi iry-._.+1'' t: I I : i : :r11 i ++
t-
l- T +++ +
---.,,- _-t-_ bt -a@l@rl
--P*€
F.
, \-
&
F::
\\
aR-.
.l';---:'
Jw$
I I
!-J
q-'i. _sr*i3+
-
.6*d /
* _- t!,tl#€
€€6EF
L
I
'i!
I
I
,t
I
l- tI
II

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

KONET
AT.CEITECTURE
renq.Mal9aq|mffiNn&4sqb
4EG@*q6|Ers5
z
>.,
)
i-
at
2 C)
II
z
-\- c rt_**r-l* Er.t,. \.t tta\.sb*+. .Mra.+d-pr..r'r&-.-d ld..,F.'S.b*.tva.tut4.wb&b@- -6aEgs(
o I o
4' f Ctr'j otr*\r
?ic
fi3tu
L!A
I
4 tgi+
W*3rtt!t
:'+----- -*i -
L
EIST
@ € Q
€, o o e
.FEGN*@@H 6...F@[email protected]&
'-- i. r;tr , rd:aa!-i .f, !S:r;6:i. fr-'A-trF=+
r-+++
i€F..l, F;.*.
+
ur+:rsrl;:$-5T'
\,
-r'1- 't'-1-
, G*er*it5tsrfi
.i=-
\&a
\ ^\.2+;L:;d)
-- -,/
-B;j"+
p."e#+
-'-"Hlfo
-- !Fte+6
FRtr€E)
&{N.LEY BARIi T.{P HOLEE
50e Ll Slrwstrer
Fd$l CA 95630
APNI07O.006l-0U{ot{r
PROFOSED SOUTH&!AST
ELFI'.{TIOI$
tt
II

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Hiebric District Commiaelon
Barley Bam Tap House (PN 19-174)
November 18,2021
Attachment I
Building Renderings
Dated Received, September 27,2021

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Hisbrlc Dlstdct Commission
Barby Bam Tap House (PN 19-174)
Nowmber 18,2021
Attachment 10
Color and Materials Exhibits

01/11/2022 Item No.15.
i
I
ci(ttl{u(iAlllll ntt lr{ t{( l()l [{(
rtt0LAlMEO WOOD Sloll'lc{
8Y PIONEER MILLWORKS

ALUM- CLADOING COLOR FOR

ENTRYOOORS BROWN
TAffiTT IABN TIP IIOII$E
608-1/2 SUTTER STREET, FOLSOM. CA 95630
OWNER: MURRAY WEAVER 916'662-13?7
ARCHITECI: NEGGIE KONET 916'835'4222

01/11/2022 Item No.15.
w
bavbe-( DAr&r'l -rA? A0Uqb
EFITIIY YOLVlt,lC' OOO?S
coLc,?" bPONl.J

PELLA'BIFOLD DOORS
Make an impressive statement.

Createor"rtdoorlivingatitsfinest Pellabi{oldpat.iodoorsfoldrreatlytornakeabeautiful operringtothe orrtside - arfo extend living spaces beyond the walls. Whether your project calls {or the frne, thoughtful det,rils of traditional design or the clean lines on contemporary products, /ou ctln create your desired look with the flexible desiqrr of Pella Architect Series bilold doors
Versatile style.
e nloy added desrgn flexrbility o{ an expar'srve cloor, or site ciown to create a t:ass-thrcrugh wrnrlo'* Tracks corr be straigl-.t or rnee: at a 90-degree corner
The perfect finishing touch.

Ciroose f rorn e broad ran.cJe,:f irardwate stylr,,s and iinishes to c.eate s sea,nless iook acros5 your Pr:lla
proji'jct. Concealccl mrrltigrornt lrrcks provide oasy
ope,ation and u",J:aralleled aesthelrc
't'
The best limited lifetime
warranty for wood patio doors.'
Built to last. Pella alurninurn cl.rd
'ryor:r':l patio dorrrs are l:iacke,J by
thr: Pr:ll.i I imitr'ld l-ilctirnez Warranty
Cn<'r;rr rrrllcrent hordvrarr
fir'rshr:s ior tili r:lilrir:'
nild rnleri,Jr 1o p.rrI.r tly
conrplenre,,t Tour lc,ri
lr
lA
w
. Sord il @Daltnq Hilts ldrlrd w.naftrcr ol lD{ho 6rd sood r{ndos oil, wd pruo do!a lrarda Sao Enlla sllm thhod UtmnUlor fillu.,'lrtu hCffidlilr.ndllhllltlon..r Fl.onfi.runt),, qrilidlr'I. Orffi.rSml€r rl8tt-a?3.5S2t,

01/11/2022 Item No.15.
1'
Create a sleek design.

Elegant intcrior fi nishes.
( {rr'1[jl']rigo: I'i.rrttc,.il:r:,r \]Jith ,rl ,rl'lltessr'e t..rllrr'.ltrrrr '::( tr't,:d i{rlilii('I\ 'rr .lrrrl,'rrl'riir frl.rlr(:t.),ru', ,tn(.1 dti;fii!,-tt',,': [.)'.iuLrlas [ " lt,',.. !,' "- ' -jrl ,1,-,,1,r1;;lr,r,,i t :;.,,-'tl i-r,'trtir,-j (Ji l)rer trrrll,trl it,7:)ul ':1rlr.:::,tf l6 ;'.t,,t,tt pa,:.i,'-r>lOr::
tseautif ul, long-lastrng extenors.
(-r.itrtnl,zc titat ,,.\rr',r.rr ,,:.;!rr' r;t , l)()(j,: ' rt'li) r)i;i / 'tartt(1.,'Li ( t,lor! ';'i r.'l: i'ri.'"l :;l':r")rr ",'llr.'" ''- ' rl:rl,i"li Built-in peace o{ mind.
r\(j(l iltt.)rl'd:f!{j e'r:i1,,' ln:i.,ntlt ie !eCU rt!r5(lIl'rIrr ,)lr,:i ;,'7a 11:;11rg,.1i,y,11-.r; llrt: ,rl;,ltt,,/ '',r rrt,trti[Ctr rJr:ttr: i' :rll r rt,,allr ;it llt +: it,,rrilr:!,; l''tll.t lr,:,7rtrlr,io rtrrrhtla.lpo ' , ,l r.rLr,t.r,, ; : i;-.,';, allr rlr trfeirt rl r,rltr':t I Bilold panel rires range from 14{14" r 48'to,l2'r 1l t'316'' U:ing 10 door ptnels, the mErimum oP€ning ii 26'.
h$ctive
'l
I
I
Energy Ratings
l);r.il l.lnr vr tit /\rorl
'''r::,:.P.trr,t.ri',\r.l'rl
Performance Ratings2
-r ,r' .t,r! (l irll ' /l'r;r ilr; r't
!l anLirrrJ liill - lrr'5r, rLl
L. !rr,l:,. :),r r:lr,:,lr ',j'l::

SHGC
t2 - .53
11- lB
Up to 8' Up to 10'
PC25
ic
l.lC
50 37
U.
24 Factors
Tr.ditional
Sill Types Available
Contemporary
st'ndrrd Sill - Out-swing
t"
t,, Strndrrd Sill - ln'swhg
IJf t'l-lJh
;i
Flueh Sill Low.Profile Slll

01/11/2022 Item No.15.
bAPN vtowl YLvctmc cov?A$'.(
lb" 1ve oktotsRL
?15 - ceAvvAN lzep
6zz boabe\Ecv A?-+4
/
t
i
iil
nr- --
rfIts':j aa-
(
I$*
(
/)
.:{r-- J r)
fr1'
X
cl
X *n

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Based on designs from the early 20th century, The Original"" is an tconic, stylish, arrd dependable gooseneck light. This straightforward look features a tall neck that fans out into a sleek RLM warehouse shade. Affixed to arry clrre uf our traditional gooseneck arms, The Original'" offers the perfect dimensions and aesthetic for any space. Popular in classically styled homes, gooseneck lighting also complements ultra-modern urban lofts, trendy businesses, atrd more,
The Original"'is constructed the old-fashioned way: completely by hand, using commercial- grade materials Customizalion options for this gooseneck light include multrple finrsh options - powder coat, copper or brass, and our signature high-gloss porcelain - and rugged guards.
' lland built with an American-made RLM warehouse shade, this qualily industrial wall lighting is a lasting gooseneck option.
. Made-to-order, learn more about the process here.
. Learn more about Ihe Origrnal'' Warehouse Gooseneck Light over on orrr hi'og!l CSA Listed Wet Loc;ation
Number of Sockets 1

DIM'ENSIONS

MAX WATTAGE PER SOCKET

COPPER & BRASS

PORCELAIN ENAMEL
LEAD TIMES & RETURI.IS
FINISH CARE & MA]NTENANCE

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Sldh9 P.irDe.

F@rboh
G.llLt
OP.n.nd.lor:i'! dootwldt !n. hand witt! . con$hilrhCdbb<i, rran
FF*--
FWF-irk
Aiooibol:ronor snd.d on rll !lidirg pdrc doon.nd c!n hcld bl lierop.n .bout thr.. ln<h6 fq rldil.tlon.
6rilh. ![Elo..Flt.h.dbtN,hdorE.Fld. dor;ffiiorrndasdqt h!€loi 0 [ilr
mharAr raIkulh-a-*&{.s
GrlroEu@aroF^mr . teMlttaa ' P44 MAsotle . rrp&atr?0 I wtru OArtLvt bAPt-t 1A? HouSt
FrdEt2 t/.lpN6 z @Lov - bPOKJN
ffi

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Delivering unm.tdrcd rtrrngth, engineered for lartlng durtblllty.l teliaf Proprimry Fibrrghs rrAnderocn Fibrex ro I
t .h dJGa ftddr brndr, lldtr bnrb
100x 10x 20x
th! teniih n.lngrhmore .mpad-.slsnt
Produd tp.cltlc.llom
ddEoMl
6hr.OFdd.

Colcr & Flnlrhrr
Fr.d.

Ccls
lYladowHrrdwrrs
CdnartgAhlnt
{h *,.d *, x.gir u-wau u..ri*, ffi
d..dh.ihrrr
&d lhrdFrurttt &i'lr*l.biffitu?-.S tatlr
D!.Lcoioa{;!ns rloN your hondownar to ahsn r drfrlr.^t.olor tor rh. .*.rjar pirh . Whib tnlrrioi 524. shrc^ irth. highe!r
!.ldrE{tlffil
^/^/
*ibliir frd.r skhd.r hlbi4&Si.l$d rblai dit6 rlh4dng3ttAbft' klr Ortb& Tha p4.nFprndinS Erly.Silrlc CF6ror,s r .4olct on9ry wry to opcrd. :..tmrnt and rw^,igs^dof 5, mFJy rlide .:o ox _, r(hcut rhr 6tfon of :fa Fk ng.l{ith orshirr wning t*hnolcay, oo rinio* *rl cpon toin.!F1a:rticdOrloiodrhefcld..waysr(iI,!h.tloldrnrdlyi*rt,sgrln0h.wrndrtrfrth6 NeSa, so ltron nili i^t{6 s qj$ rcoo.rdG r,ndd rr!:Brn!,
i?ongs
SlltESrtC.fblblluieo{#s &
!r..d Ba rsc..d6rbi ftrnl&iba ffitFtftlnuh^r6{r ldl4{ hEkqc4 r blliub6 rrnrl.?... dfitb 60!.trsaL. tuiqbrab*a
Fnq.E .,u,G .b.@ tutr.@
T-
qrnffiv.rx
-
v@ SE S
01t{rt 2&r
II FF*_*
sb|tuok(6.ira) ?7,J?
2742
S&br-bbl^ 6'r@rh$
^-!*+4rr'drt.66en4. *!5Fdrs
Glars & Additlcnal Energy Efficioncy Upgrades
HaTi:* hli. hp.Mr prcourboffq.n.rgytfro€nr open. d'.terll nd dr8..d ENERGYsIAR gula.tn.. o.l50 lEE' *'ff
P!l'0'r..n-r{1oi ls orllr lha ilhar lgar4rl rhs }a!sa6.;F;.rg fy ! tighl'.a!l *_. t-
IrffiIru ad. rD xflqlbh- [d rbd 6'.r
FoaslnrulD'ct
oPdd.
z!-s
: r&ts 29.3t
t !8{ 55 25.?Z
0 re45l 2H9
! l9{ 59 24t3
6ld& I 27-33
0 rasrt
o4{45
oa!.:r I i !H 5a tr*
05{t0
0 tma.
or.{a9ioi6rl 2rn6
0&r9g-lct9
|l&G6
wsqso i caasq
0:rffiE'N5O
*lrt 5?- A' EtC
E5C
3r-1t2. !9, vz. i #{Ga
7t.1t2' ,rrr I w).ts I oZ:n.a I a.on o, .t.,t
,7:.n'47-1i2'
E0 ico71.1n'?IJE
'o.iE '. ,1,14' I @€q lg{:c
Brf i B!n. tr!M50 , o:!{.i
ry
n1R'
I r 'r,:. l:d ?- rrlrri' I !&rE^
,r1n
a7-1t t!.8
1r-1tl20
,1.1t2'
rlw 7"t6 | o:n' : n.ta'
a{.r, rr'6
o.tt I ', r:'
1!r/:' i rlnrr
'l{,? | 'l,F
gidhr * kr fb. hd
I ntn
I rlr/1 l
tldngW&{of,lol
OFJnial fcafian!u.i.a i.rms rnd.rji rrD 6v!rl!!ir ao;r(.s!r. ane.S' 3f,ki6t-

01/11/2022 Item No.15.
gArLLvY bA?t.t IA? AouSe
a trV cOAatgO ?orL SptNA
tl
'UilN'EFAAL
L{(
FTRE S1'IBLD
A SuperioF Class "A"
lntumescent Flame Retardant
Fire Kote 100* Heavy Dutywater and
resin based application. As a coating and
a penetration agent it automatically reacts
with fire and heat. lt changes the
chemicals in the wood and reverses the
fire process.

Universal Fire Shield's exclusive Trade
Secretformula is un-matched in
performance and safety. Nitrogen is
produced under high heat and fire
displacing o)rygen therefore reversing the
ignition process.

Fire Kote l0O" comes with a lUIh
money back guarantee for performance
and it protects like no other product.

Fire Kote 100* is the Nations number
one seller. lt out perfonns all other
products on the market world wide. A clear
coating that enhances and protects all
naturalwood surfaces. Can be a
sprafon, rolled or brushed on or dipped to
apply.

WHE:N ONLY Til€ BEST lS
GOODENOI.'GHI
JI

HEAUTDUTY - MN(MUM PROTECNON
cofvl MrRfi ,AL il ni DUSTR|AL,,All I LTTARY

AND RESIDENTIAL USE
FnanoJE rao
NATIONS #1 FLAME RETARDANT
RECOMMENDED FOR:

All unfinished wood and wood
material surfaces.

Plywood, OSB board, Man
made board, Lumber, Timbers,
l-Beams, Ship lap, Paneling,
Decks, Doors, Window framet
Fencing, Cabinets, Furniture,
Post, Sheds, also styrafoam
sheets can be treated.

FIRE KOTE IOO"
Renders mostwoods
non-combustible.

UNISHIELD INTERNATIONAL, LLC
3544 WATERFIELD PI(WY . LAKELAND, FL 33803
l -800{08-5699 - wvvw.fi rechemicals.com - info@universalfi reshield.com

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

UilIVERSAL
UNIVERSAL FIRE-KOTE I.OO.'.
s/IDA?ION.S #:li F E IINIE EETA&DAN'T
F'NE KOTE ilN
APPLICATIONS: COMMERCI.AL, INDUSTRIAL AT.ID MILITARY
An exclusive heavy duty formula flame inhibiting c-bemical un-matched by any other product on the market' A S{JPERIOR HEAVY DUTY GRADE. Fire Rated Class "A". Specifically formulated for maximum protection.

EXTERIOR AND tNTEzuOR Woods, Lmber, lxaves, Straw, Ropc, Fibcrbuard. Paperbouri. Cornrgared box board, l'abric materials such a$ canvas and other materials. Meets Military and NFPA 3O standards for packagrng. Fire-Kote l00rM formula has met tlrc tcst, Southwest Research and other testing agencies- Univcrsal Fire-Kote lOOrM mecls and exceeds the ASTM F-84, (UL 263 same tunnel test) UBC 42-l arl,d' NFPA 255 for surface burning characteristics for applied coatings, NFPA 703, ESTM E-108. Can be applied to most poroug surtaces. F'or other uses contact our home office. Recommended for professional applicators.

Most powerful fire retardnnt known. When only the best is good enuugh always dernattd Fire Kote 100w. On wood surfaces 5 yer exterior and 25 year interior.

IJNIVERSAL PROTECTIVE TECHNOLOCTES, UNWERSAL FIRE-SHIELD, L[.CT}I are leaders dedicated to setting standards lbr Fire Prevention Chemicals through our on going rescarch and development, It is orn resolve to educate and inform the ltrblic, Contractors. Industrial users. manulactwer and Architects, Envimnmentalty safe flame rctardant chemicals.

LINTVERSAL FIRE-KOTI3 l0OrM Trade Secret Formula - ZB MsD$Phosphoric Acid l8%, Formaldehyde 2Vo.T\is is an aqueous based resin liquid coating and penatrant. Total Solids -49.1Vo, weight per gallon 9.1 lbs., specific gmvity - L.33, PH factor =5.5, Fla.sh Point Non-flarnrnable, Color =Blue tint clear at 78 degrees F Sleight haze at 50 degrees F. and lower, Votatility= no petroleum or lead, Fungus= anti-fungus, Bacteria=mildly resistant, Linear shrinkage=None, Moisture absorption=None, Conosion=Mildly when in solution, Preservative=exccllent, Pest resistant= excellent- Thesc chcmicals comply with all United States Federal Regulations. MeeS or exceeds national, city, county and state fire codes.

APPLICATION PROCEDURE:

Can be applied by bmsh, roll coater, paint roller. hessure sprdy at 50-250 psi. is recommended for commercial applications. For best results apply Fire-Kote l0OrM two coats. Allow to dry slightly between coatings.

Ap'plication rate 2(X) sq. ft. to one gallon. Applicaror of chemical should wear protective clothing, eye ware, nCoprene gloves and an appropriate mask the same type as lbr paints or chcmicals for inclosed areas. Good ventilation is recommended. Altow to dry betwecn coatings. Clean up over spray as soon as possible, clean up equipment as soon as possible with water and detergent soap or bleach. Mildly toxic during application phase onty. KEnn OUT OF REACH OF CHILDREN.IX) NOT TAKE IN'IERNAIIY.If chemical gets into eyes wash out immediately flood with water. SAME PRECAUTIONS AS FOR PAINT AND STAIN.

Classified: FIRE RETARDANT COATING, SURFACE BIJRNING CHARACTERISTICS OF APPLIED COATING . FIRF-KOTE lOOrM Superior Heavy Duty Grade. Fire Rated Class "A" Yellow Pine, Redwoo4 Plywood, Cedar, Manufactured Board. Flame Spread =lO, Smoke developed =50, Number of coats = 2, Rate per coat (ft2lgal) 360, Flash point= 0, clcm liquid coating , no flash. Meets or exceeds ASTM E-84, (U.L. 723 same hrnnel test), NIFPA 255, NFPA 703, ASTM E-108, UBC 42-l - Univenrl Firc-shield Chcmicalsru meet or exceed existing and curr?nt federal, state, industri&|, nrtional and local ftre codes. rf,iFPT |W'O UNWERSALFIRE-SHIELD
Rev.0l/19/2016
o
{l*t I r/ k k q ^ I
P I R 8O5 r' I B L D SETEER
2qts2010

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Higtoric Dlstrlct Commbslon
Barley Bam Tap House (PN 19-174)
November 18,2021
Attachment 1{
Signage Details, dated September 16,2021

01/11/2022 Item No.15.
sr6NA6E ANp E]!i,EY-?COR ualfgr
!:.eft :b,6_: _-! €iv: b'644; h'{'4-.-t Ds;; -@--
-r:fF{h:s.4t5ril\
t'r:15c4&*;-d:
srssi{€
gq@@*
- -'3*+
KONET

ARCHI'TECTURE
Fa!{ottl.iL{l:J;v rirtlN ? ilxRc{\roN okggM ds%[
L__*__lw"Lomhilffi
Vunay lVorcr
r|-'b.dd16
aA A!.h L.!krt;iri
(:
(? a,
:
-iz
f

z
F.-3#re€
h
*:T:nt-!,t '':It il-jrlllh,; - *yi;;{e
+ *,li_s
rl
5AMPLf
BI.RLE'! BAIN TAP HOUSE
6C8 :r: Sucrcr SiRt
Folsoh. CA tX;rl
.{?\. 070.006t 0ll.cr)00
SIG)-ACE s !t3)R
EL:V,{TIO N* -t\D DFI AILS
--- ..,-,F -E
rr-DYJr€rqd6r
oooR Ei.ivATroN

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Hisbrlc Distrlct Commlssion
Barley Bam Tap House (PN 19-174)
NovembEr 18,2021
Attachment 12
Site Details

01/11/2022 Item No.15.
theVirtuoso
blending safety and functionality to
del iver exceptional accessibility
The LiftThat Started ItAll...

The Ascers'on V,rtucso vertia2l olatform lrt
is unmatched for sale aii'acti,/e. and quiet
rvheelchair acces.r
Keyfeaiu'es,nctucetJl, flgrd saie\, !lirting al
electro-hydcLlrc drrvet.arn, ard a:leek, low
cioile. The Vtrt!oso rs oerf€C for tcaattons
where inage counts sucl- as stages and
crchestra pits.

2.c6O
75Oibs
36'eJids r 5.4 lcno
jg" vJide:< 63 lcnq
5?" r:icle r 6! lonq
Ver'ircal Travel
Capacit),:

Platfcrn Srte:

Llft Size-
Reouirsd Space
ascensiqtlift .com (520) 881-3993

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

I
I
Ii"
t.

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Hirbfic Dlshict Gommisslon
Barley Bam Tap Houee (PN 19-174)
November 18,2021
Attachment 13
Floor Plans, dated September 16,2021

01/11/2022 Item No.15.
3 ,
I
z
I\
IFt'q5Eqd.I+lqq
w
dsE,EdIOFlsWN.@FluWI]!s!m
tENItrAIIqJXY
Nyld:ruruNrruqNY N:\fU Il.rNflSSIf]Y
'N\atd AISlvs iln f8g
m@II&I90eO10:$r!'
0{955 Yf, \E6Iog
lps Eqs !(.809
asnoH dvl.Nuvs"tfluv8
D^E/t\r(Eq{
0A,
l]@*HtsAtn*!:.w-Mit'vu)Fo!IEtl€rJflrtc-,\y
eooo
M@6're&Nr)*rc9.turw6{=/@
mr)d@r+ffiItq.ra
ore6r)@6&
(I
.., ":jiliit>ilt.
rt
o
(-j
oo
I rloooo
NVUlnO^YrAtutmrU \7
eg@@
o'*@
aaaoataoa
@
e=* lFq
e -g€ Fe6rrrDd4ffir#rsa&t
Esi@ilda@LwEgut'e*-fr!@[email protected].! i ErDtg :
ffiF-ErEaSE!*A@ffia!sffi .6lrFfr@-r*rtEs1F!!r tu F@
-ES-@*Cr_T'-@ad{w-F+E-F :---E?E-F.rElErr*
*@
ooooo
*>.€4ftr.*tha'w
atur&aaffiEqlw6*5ffi-na€E
FrqEraE*fr-
.rrlr4caFqr,,
5-Ae4-*4! a-6.*ts*E
-t-*€E
Er'.@E*F!r*i
Er--s€***-o*.#qq@rjra€eornl@d*JEB*EQEffi6a.:*E*ffffii
ts.6.r.6EG*oclr
ffi
ll:EE'.|i!E6F
@[email protected]@d*r.E€'rrE4!r &*rarrE
EIONTIIIKIISCffi

JIIINOX

01/11/2022 Item No.15.
z
-
hz
z
SARII-} BARN TAP HOUSE
508 la Slqq 5N
Foism. CA 05610
,1PN: 070-Gl6 I {li{til]o
mtotnttr.troat
PL\\
'rfvrlorlr l{oltS:

I vl.vyr€osin.-e..**rc4
--s!<a":q-4{.F-Fdh.-
trF;r*.grcEricaF r*.,.
e€ /l\y
? o
-
l-r
'3-- -6 t*
r-,_Y ,
t.

J
o
t..\
;>
:> ti :
t _l
t r --
-i\
o "-.d Gr

4..
-.aa
o o \r)€/\ I
FRTOFOSFD LRr'EL OIG
?e llcaro
=::J
s*disq
ll
.l
I
E
!
:

IGN
-+- --l
{,04L
V
KONET

AT,CHITECTURE
E@ffi.&ESil#trE*AGOtESM-A6X
s46..Dler,t@6q
Ca &l uft <rrs
ffi.locllaffi

01/11/2022 Item No.15.
t:
!:
i,__-- .- -- .... _.-.'lg ._

UTUTY R'U'
rESAe!t
r-sds-
slE?rc?ArlA
EgTG,E*-cEtsra
--_-- lr
.t;
Ijt
Ii:t
l:-:
a@
[-E1/EL TWO i0tE.S: KONET

AN,CHITECTURE
rcw,Mad4@(fiFn
l@!N4-rlbqd|:*ffi
,tuEfur.+<r&t
Vmat\ly'e$
PROPOSED!!VE.TWO
PLA\
z
*
'Jt
z
a
i
bz
oo a A
o
o
(,
/4\
\'
I
^-)
;,)
{*
@ BART.EY BAF.\ TAF HOUSE i
60t I2 Slnq Sffi
Fo:soa CA 95lO
AfN: 07F0061{Ll.@0CI
i
-t4.'-
@ Kooi \a' A -r@ wat EcanD
*_ $oB4@
-
-*@
Ia
:

I

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

KONET

ARCIIITTCTUI,E
rcM.M4&a&tm4WIEt&qs
-'o@rdse4&hs
o @ @€ os6@ o z
f
-az
U
b2
.4\
o
_J
WAJ- 1EGAO
-
-4ffi
BARI.EY EARN TAT XOUSE
608 lzsllcstrd
FoLqa, CA 9563O
Afi{I:0iOO06l4U,m
-
I
l
i
I
TIRFqOIYIEVELPII}I
e
It
I

01/11/2022 Item No.15.
z
Q
iaz
'*
z
|FftnA}!\r!fui|$A@nq
tsFrryA$r$aatN,s
@6'*atsf$.t(erdar

48.0 ooo@o@o@oo
ROOM AREA l{()T6:
,.-6cGE,
o a B-@6ar€
o @
fi\ LBr'ELT\r/oARrAcalantAloN
4iv ln uvrloNeARrAc^rorunoil A
w/ \7
9 € o€ o
-?-
€c o
fr
-@*--^-
ROOF PL^il NOIES'
' o€{@.$t@6
. e*teo@&etucAEFaF4|ffisse
.4.-"\?'
ri--s/
II
€
?#
e,A FoorFuN
\7
KONET

ARCIIITECTU RE
l#dW.gaava&ttE*[email protected]*&
[email protected]@ba6lb6s
BARLSY 8AR,I TAPHOUSE
6081/2SIESG!
tumCA953O
A!N: gl0{614U.(800
MufryWe€
?ROPOSED ROOFPI.IN
ttt
I

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Hisbric Distric't Gommleslon
Barley Barn Tap House (PN 19-174)
November 18,2021
Attachment 14
Project Narratives
Dated Received September 22,2A21

01/11/2022 Item No.15.
tsARtEY BAIlN TAP l'lOljSE-- prr-rjel,l r.r;.lrr';rtrvc PN
The project we are proposing, the Barley Barn Tap House, is reminiscent to the historic fruit warehouses and the historic rural barn vernacular.

The existing building footprint will remain as it is but there will be a clerestory mass added to the upper portion of the building. The clerestory will not increase the area of the building but will increase the volume of the building.

The clerestory will provide partial natural light from above. The clerestory windows will be located at a distance greater than 5 feet from any property line, and therefore, shall adhere to Table 705.8 of the 2A19 California Building Code.

The north fagade will retain the exit at the east end of the wall, but the doors will be replaced with code compliant egress doors. The window above these doors will be replaced with fixed, safety glass windows and a guard rail will be added.

On the lower portion of the north fagade there will be a row of barn lights that luminate faux stable dutch doors that were common in horse stables. These doors shall not be operable.

The roof overhang on the north side of the building will adhere to the 2019 California Building Code Table 705.2 Minimum Distance of Projection. For flre separation distance 0 to 2 feet, projections are not permitted. The building is approximalely 2 feet or less from the north property line per the survey obtained.

The existing pedestrian walkway which allows foot travel between the Historic Folsom lower parking lot to Sutter Street will continue to be utilized as such but with improvements to lighting.

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

One the west side of the building, there will be an outdoor seating area which will be enclosed with a 42" high powder coated aluminum fence which will be black to resemble wrought iron fencing. The outdoor patio will not impede the pedestrian walkway from Sutter Street to the north parking lot.

The west fagade of the building will have a lean-to shed of which will resemble a tack room cabinet but functionally it will house the electrical panels in a secure method,
There will be an exterior accessible lift located within the Powerhouse Pub Patio area which will provide the accessible route from the accessible parking space to the proposed tap house. The size and configuration of this element will be determined at further development of the construction documents when the CASp (California Access Specialist) is engaged.

The proposed Barley Barn fap House will offer parking to its patrons as follows:
- the Powerhouse Parking lot which contains 21 parking spaces" and is under the same ownership;
- the adjacent Folsom Historic Parking lot adjacent to the building which contains 69 standard parking spaces + 3 accessible parking spaces; - the Steakhouse covered parking lot which contains 23 standard parking spaces + 2 accessible parking spaces;
- the Eagles Lodge parking lot which contains 14 parking spaces (the Project Owner has entered an exclusive lease with the Eagles Lodge to use this lot).
"The Owner is proposing to convert (1) one standard parking space in the Powerhouse Parking lot into (1) one accessible van parking space.

This new accessible space will be dedicated for the Barley Barn Tap House patrons. There is currently (1)one existing accessible parking space in this lot . Thereficre, there will be a total of (2) two accessible parking spaces in the Powerhouse Parking lot.

01/11/2022 Item No.15.
ln addition to the mentioned upgrades, the Applicant currently provides a complimentary shuttle service, the "Sutter Surfer", which transfers Sutter Street patrons to and from the parking garage and the other various parking lots. This service reduces the neighborhood parking.

The business rnodel will focus on the popular craft beer industry by involving all beer producers and afficionados, both local and national, and by creatively exhibiting and offering their beverages. Food will be sold using the resources of the adjacent Wild's BBQ (formerly Chicago Fire) and other restaurants in the near vicinity.

The interior layout of the proposed Barley Barn Tap House will provide movable seating and tables throughout and seating at the bar. A small stage area will be identified for limited entertainment in accordance with the City of Folsom's Entertainment Permit.

Hours of operation will be as follows:

Sunday - Wednesday: 1 1am to 10 pm
Thursday - Saturday: 1 1am to 12:30am
The Barley Barn Tap House is an appropriate building type of which will be presented in a unique setting that offers food, beverage, and light entertainment.

Reggie Konet, AIA NCARB
Konet Architecture
CA Arch Lic#C33835
2A21-0s-22

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

BARLEY BARN TAP HOUSE - OWNER'S NARRATIVE
lNTRODUCTION
This proJect was recommended for approval by City staffwith condltions and presentad at the August HDC before being continued prlor to a vote. Since that time applicant has revised the project with the following changes,

THE CONDITIONS CONTAINED IN THE STAFF RECOMENDATION FOR APPROVAL WILL BE FULLY MET These include omitting the request for a full "hard " liquor license and instead employ the use of a beer only, ABC Type 40 license. This llcense, consistent with the Tap House theme, will allow minors on premises without the neco*slty of a full service on site kitchen, although the location of the Barley Barn will in effect be many r€staurants in one because applicant intends to have food service by the many restaurants less than a 3 minute walk away on Barley Barn premises , waterfell deck and patio areas .These include Wilds BBQ, Hacienda ,Pizzeria Classico GiUzen Vlne, Plank , Sutter Steakhouss and olhers.. Delivery seruicss by the venues, Door Dash, Grub Hub, and others wlll be used to facilitate lhis popular function, This will be a significant assistance to lhese restaurants creating an additional customer base for them without adding to the high concentretion of food service places already in the locale.

Hours of operatlon will be reduced from applicant's original r€quest to : Sunday to Wednesday 11 am to 10:00 pm Thureday to Salurday 11 am to '12:30 am
These hours of operation are the minimum necessary for financial viability since high prolit hard liquor and food sales are now omitted from the business model. They are also consistent wlth other similar venues on Sutter Street and recent HDC approvals.

ENTERTAINMENT
The historic dietrict is homs to a variety of public and private live muslc venuea and genres, These inc{ude the Sutter St Amphithealer and associated performances like the Thursday Music Series, weekend streel musicians, private vsnues like Powerhouse , Folsom Hotel, Hacienda , Gaslight, and others. Applicant wishes to slso provide limited entertainment not to be confused by a full band 'club" type stage performance i.e., PowerHouse or Folsom Hotel , but a solo, duet or trio type offering in keeping with a Tap House theme. No raised slage type area is contemplated for this more eubdued performance type.

It should be noled stricl sound ,security and safety requirements are mandated by all Sutter St entertainment venues in their Entertainment Permit .Applicant is practiced at responsible hospitality measures including security staffing, cameras ,neighborhood cleanup, well light exterior grounds ,well-marked ride sharing pick up localions, and continued op€ration of the Sutter Street Surfer Free Shuttle,

ARCHITECTURE
Applicant received a variety of negative comments ragarding the Folsom Prison Brews architectural theme and associalion with Folsom State Prison. Therefore a completely new theme was chosen for the Tap House in accordance with public comments snd all Folsom Codes including adherence to Section 17 .52.70 provide an historical observance the building will be themed in the iconic old western bam gpe structure that was so prevalently used in and around Folsom A typical raised loft and large entry doors will be constructed as if to accommodate wagons, livesiock or crcps common to the bam construction of lhe day. lMndows will be provided to copy lhose needed to provide light for the packing sheds like the Ead Fruit Co. or DiGiorgio Fruit Co . Actual reclaimed barnwood will be used for external siding depictlng a truly old authentic look for the buildlng A detailed Architectural report wlll be included in this narrative.

Murray Weaver Owner
2021-09-22

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Hlsbric District Gommission
Barley Barn Tap Houae (PN 19-174)
November 18,2021
Attachment 15
Off-Site Parking Lease Agreement
Dated October I 5,2A21

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

DAGLES #929 PAIIKING LOT LIIASE
tnntllo_rd: Englcs l.odgc /lt)29, Fratcntal Ordcr ol'l.ingles !ttUUU: tulurrny Wcavcr
l'rspe1ry: Parking [.ot krcalctl tt 215 Scott $trcct, [:irlsonr. Calilbrnia n. I iaglcs L,odgc #929 ir llrc orvncr ol'thRt ccrlain rcal propcrly, rvh ieh ir locnted ut 215 Scott Strcct, l"olsonr, ('alifornia, 'l'lris rcal propcrty ct:nsisls oIa lodge or clublrousc. landscaping. artd uppnrxirnutcly l5 plrkinB $prrcr.)s. 'l'hc purkirrg lot is mainly gravelcd. not paved.
l]. Murray Weavcr is tlre orvner ot-a building wlticlr is located al 608 % Suttcr S(rcct. l:olsom, Culiltrnriu. Mr. Weuvcr dcsircs lo locatc a busirtcss to be knorvrt rc the Barlcy Barn 1'ap Ilousc in that building.

C. Thc rral propcrty rl 608 % Sutter Streel nbuls a public parkirrg lot which is cunently accessible by thc custonrcrs and palrons ofbusincsscs located in lhe building on that property. Mr, Wr-'avcr wanls lo provide additional parking fur palrons of his 608 % Sutter Slrucl cstotrlishment at the f:lagles' parking lot, and the Eaglcs trc lvilling to lcnsc lhcir porking lot to lvlr. Wcnvcr for thot purposc upon the terms and conditions hsrcin stated.

In consideration of thqse lacts and circuntstunccs, Eagles Lodge #929 and Mumry Weaver agree (o the following;
Tenant will pay thc surn of $500, on lhc first of each month. beginning September I , 2021 , to Landlord, as rcnt for thc usc o[ ths Pirrking Lot owned by l-andlord. I'his lease shall conlinue lbr a term of20 ycars, turlcss sooncr tsrminatcd by thc partics in accordance with thc tcmrs oltlris lcasc. As additional rent, Tcnanl will provide Landlord rvith a minimunt of four (4) free admittances per month to any cvcnt hcld by Porverhouse Entertainnrent.

2. During the term of this leflse, Landlord relains usc of this parking lot lor the conveni€nce of ils tnembers und guesls, in s manner consistent with thc Tenant's rights under this Letrse,

3. In the cvcnt of a request {'rom [,andlord, 'ltnanl shall provide a parking lot altendant on Friday and Sattrdny evenings front 5pm until l0pm.'l'his obligalion to providc an attcndanl shall conrmcncs tlpon lhc opening of the Barley Banr 1'ap House al 60tJ t/z Sutter Strccl. 'Icnnnt will pr)st, tlt l'enurt's solc risk ancl cxpcnsc l sign that slstcs: "Parking lilclusivcly l'or lvtcmbers ot' Eagles 11929 and cuslomcrs ol'l3nrlcy llanr'l'ap llotrse , r\ll others rvill be to',ved at Owner's expcnso. CVC, Scction 226.58(A)."

4. 'l'cnant or ltis dcsignce will naintuin gcncrnl liability insurancc covcragc tirr not lrrss thnn onc nrillion dollnrs witlt Euglcs llt)29 nuntctl its an ndditional

01/11/2022 Item No.15.
insurcd, T'cnunt hcrcby agrccs to hold Lnndlorrl rrnel its property hamrlcss fronr zurd ngaiust ull clnirns, suits, dr thc'liko which may bc brought against it by rcason of'lenunt's leaschold or its actions upon l.sndlord's subject property.

5. l.andlord nnd Tcusnt ugrce thnt the porking lot is being rcnted on on "0s is" basis snd that l.nndlord disslsims any and all waranties, exprcss or implicd. 6, t'his leasc rnay bc lenninoted by either party upon the giving ofone year's written noticc ol'tcrmination to the other party. Landlord may tcrminatc lhis lease, in the cvent of non-paymcnt of renl for a conlinuous period of 45 days lrom and nftsr the due date, upon 30 days wrillen notiue olsaid non-paym€nl of renl aud election to temrinate by l,andlord to 'I'enant.

7. This agrsement constitrr(es the entire agreemenl of thc parties and supcrsedcs uny prior or contemporaneous ngreements or undersl,andings betwecn tltc Landlord and ths Tenant.

8. Any and all notices and communicutions required under this agreement shall bc given lo cach of Orc parries as tbllows:

Landlord; Tenant:

Ssrah Woods
c/o Eugles Lodge H929
2l.5 Scotl Strcct
Folsom, CA. 95630
Dated; .ctoberti,2A2l
Murray Weaver
608 % Sutter Street
Folsom, CA, 95630
2,,
M , Tenant
Barley Barn Tap House
608 % Sutter Strcet
I;olsom, CA. 95610
Saruh Woods, Lrndlord
Eagles Lodge #929
2l 5 Scott Street
b'olsom, CA, 95630

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Historic Distric-t Commission
Badey Bam Tap House (PN 19-174)
November 18,2021
Attachment 16
Public Comments Received Regarding
Folsom Prison Brews Project

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

HERITAGE PRESERVATION LEAGUE OF' FOLSOM

PROJDCT APPLICATION REVIEW
May 30,2O19
PROJECT: The conversion of a2,433 square-foot barn-like building to a 'beer house', the installation of an 840 square-foot outdoor patio and serving area at 608 % Sutter Street in the Sutter Street Commercial Subarea (PN l8- 174).

REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit, Design Review and Parking Variance (for 20 off-site parking spaces).

PROJECT
HISTORY: Application Circulated by Cig on May 23,2019 and feedback requested by June 7.

PROJECT REVIEW:

Backsround
Before comments were prepared regarding the current application, HPL considered the history of the project site and previous reconstructions in the Sutter Street Commercial Subarea.

During the late half of the 1800s, thE Odd Fellows Hall and the Natoma Company's Fruit Drying House were located in the general vicinity of 608 % Sutter Street. Around the same time a small jail was located on the north side of Leidesdorff Street (across from the railroad block). All these buildings later burned down. The 'pottery bam' building in the cunent application has been on the property since the late 1990s.

Historic buildings have at times been recreated in the Central Business Dishict of Historic Folsom. As an example, a replica of blacksmith shop and a wagon shed have been built in Pioneer Village. The recently completed Roundhouse building is located on the same footprint as the previous repair shops for Sacramento Valley Railroad.
fuchitecture
The applicant is proposing to cover the walls of the former pottery bam with a stone veneer, replace the comrgated fiberglass roof cover with standing seam sheet metal and add a raised tower that resembles the guard towers of the original Folsom State Prison, Only the raised tower would include windows. As a general impression, the unintemrpted 'prison walls' lacks interest and variety, and the reproduction of a Folsom Prison guard tower appears out of context with the surrounding neighborhood.

At the west entrance (facing the patio), the applicant is proposing to install a detached archway with concealed lighting that will 'wash' over the rock fagade. A row of skylights are proposed on eash side of the ridgeline and the roof overhang is minimal. ThesE details are not consistent with the pre-1900 design theme of the Sutter Street Commercial Subarea
It is HPL's conclusion that the proposed buitding remodel will look'staged' and could make the 600- block appear less historic. As an altemative, the applicant may consider a remodel that resembles a meeting hall or a winery building. Should the applicant decide to continue the'prison theme', HPL recommends that the tower feature is changed (to no longer resemble a historic guard tower at Folsom

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

State Prison), windows are incorporated along the facades, the archway at the west entrance is incorporated with the wall and all floodlights are eliminated. In addition, the selected sky lights should have a low profile and non-reflective glass.

Site Desien
An outdoor seating area is proposed to be installed on the west side of the beer house- This area will be fenced off to allow for outdoor serving of alcohol. As a result, the existing private walkway that connects Sutter Street with the parking area at Scott Street appears to be cut off. The outdoor seating area also encroaches &cross the west property boundary and impacts the parking area of Powerhouse Pub.

The submitted Landscape Plan does not clearly demonstrate how the future pedestrian circulation system will work or where all the retaining walls and fences will be located. A new pedestrian path to the Scott Street parking area has been proposed along the west side ofthe fenced seating area, but the plan does not indicate if this path will be open to the public. The Landscape Plan also seems to provide the opportunity to connect the existing walkway from Sutter Sueet could to the Powerhouse Pub property.

HPL recommends thet the applicant should be encouraged to continue a pedestrian connection from Sutter Street to the lower parking area. More information about the proposed site changes on the Powerhouse Pub property also seems necessary (to answer the question if existing parking spaces will be lost and if a dumpster enqlosure will bE added). The board has assumed that an encroashment permit will be processed before the outdoor seating area can extend across the shared boundary.

ParkinB
Per the city's Municipal Code, the beer house is required to provide 7 parking spaces for the indoor space (1 space per 350 square-feet) and no parking space for outdoor seating. Because the earlier anticipated parking structures have not been constructed in the Sutter Street Commercial District, the low parking requirements in this area has caused parking congestion in the surrounding residential areas.

The City has started aparking study for the Historic Diskict and established a Committee to identifo solutions for the existing parking shortage. HPL thsrefor€ recommends that before this project moves forward, the applicant should provide the City with an actual number of indoor and outdoor seats that has been planned for the beer house.

Regarding the proposed parking agreement with Eagles Lodge, HPL recommends that the applicant should identiff the parking area assigned to Prison Brews in addition to the location and design of signs that will direct patrons to the off-site parking spaces.

Landscape Plan
Because the project site is facing a public alley, HPL has assumed that the applicant will be required to maintain the existing landscape strip in the buildings 'frontage area'. The planter that separates the property from the parking lot driveway should therefore be included with the landscape plans.

Siens
The name of the beer house is shown on the archway to the west entrance, but the application does not provide any design details about this sign. A sign permit needs to be processed for all on- and off-site signs.

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

SUMMARY OT' RECOMMENDATIONS:

L Revise the building design to resemble a pre-1900 me€ting hall, winery building or city jail, HPL recommends that the new design is based on the following standards:
a) If a raised tower feature is added it should not resemble the guard towers at Folsom State Prison. b) Windows should be incorporated with the building facades. c) Avoid non-historic details such as a detached archway with concealed flood lights. d) Use skylights with a low-profile and non-reflective glass.

2. Submit a Site Plan that demonstrates where all new retaining walls, fences and walkway connections will be located, in addition to all proposed site changes at Powerhouse Pub.

3. IdentiS the parking area assigned to Prison Brews on the Eagle Lodge property and dsscribe how this area will be marked.

4. Provide the City with an actual number of indoor and outdoor seats that has been planned for the beer house

5. Submit a set of planting and inigation plans that include the building frontage area within the alley (norl*r of the building).

6. Submit a sign permit application for all building and site signs within and outside the property.

In addition, HPL recommends that the applicant is encouraged to keep a public walkway connection between Sutter Street and the public parking lot.

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Steven Banks
From:

Scnt:

To:

Cc:

SubJect:

Adena Blair <[email protected]>
Monday, june 10, 2019 7:34 AM
Steven Eanks
John Shaw; [email protected]; Paul Keast;Dori Keast;Mike and Shannon Berenkwitz; Becky Shaw; Laura Fisher; justin Gilhuly; Deino Trotta; Cindy Pharis; Mike Reynolds; Deborah Grassh Dean Handy; Terry Sorensen
Comments regarding the Folsom Prison Srews Project
I reside at 607 Figueroa St.

I am opposed to this project for the following reasons
Historically, to my knowledge, there was never any structure resembling a prison on Sutter St. This building will go against the historic guidelines and change the environment of Sutter St from one of fairly well preserved history to something more akin to a theme park.

The number of individuals visiting such an establishment will severely impact the neighborhoods nearby, because we already have a parking issue. Allowing 20 spaces from the Folsom Eagles DOES NOT INCREASE the number of available spaces in the historic district. Where are the Eagles going to park?
We need the city to disallow any further parking variances for Historic District businesses untilwe have the recommendation and actions of the Ad Hoc Parking Committee in place. The city has acknowledged we have a parking issue by establishing the Ad Hoc Committee, therefore they should be agreeable to putting a hold on any further parking variances for the tirne being.

Lastly, I understand that this place would be serving alcohol. I feelthat this becoming another issue in the historic district business area. What is the limit of numbers of alcohol permits in this area? I feel that any such establishments must also serve meals, and not just alcohol. There needs to be a limited number of permits per businesses in any specific area of Folsom. I do not want to see Folsom to gain a reputation as a party town, and it seems to be on it's way to becoming another Chico.

I am not opposed to development, however I believe it needs to be thoughtful, balanced, and include family oriented businesses, to retain our reputration as a great town to raise a family, including in the historic district.

Respectfully,
Adena Blair
1

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Steven Banks
Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

From: [email protected]
Friday, June 7,2019 7:38 AM
Steven Banks
shanjean I @aol.com; [email protected]; j [email protected]; [email protected] [email protected]; jgilhu ly@gmai l.com Folsom Prison Brews
Good Morning Mr. Banks,
I am resident of the Historic Folsom Neighborhood. I have recently been informed on the proposed Folsom Prison Brews project {PN 1g-174}, I would like to respectfully request that this project be denied on the tullowing grounds; 1) As you know, Sutter Street's commercial district is 4 blocks long with approximately 90 commercial businesses, ln lhat distance there are '16 food establishments serving alcohol and 10 wine and spirits establishments. This averages to 1 alcohol serving establishment to every 4 commercial businesses, Our lovely historic downtown is being turned into liquor and party central. As you know, the residents near the Sutter Street corridor have baen having serious problems with noise, public drunkenness, trash and human waste in our yards and this will not help the problem. 2) The City Counsel has recently estahlished an AD-HOC committee to find a solution for the serious Sutter Street parking problem. Another high parking use liquor establishment will only add to the problem, Although I respect the submitte/s proposal to lease parking space at the Eagles lodge, this is only a temporary fix and will not be a permanent solution to a huge problem. A lease can be revoked anytime and the customers will have to use the existing parking. Also, the existing parking lols behind the Sutter Steak house and Traders Lane are the best areas for new parking structures. 3) The Folsom Prison Brews project will require more variances to be issues from the City in violation of the Historic District Guidelines.

Again, I respectfully ask the City to deny this projectl Thank you.

Sincerely,
Mlke BrenkwiE
60Q Figueroa St.

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

KelU Mullett
Frtmr
Scnt:

To;
SubJrct:

Kelly Mullett
Wednesday, August d 2021 1r54 PM
Kelly Mullett
FU/: Folsom Prison Brew Lelter
I strongly oppose the proposed Brew Pub concept for the former art barn locatlon ln hlstorlc Folsom. Thls would llterally be adding gas to an already exlsting flre.

Parklng ls challenglng already.

Thls area ls already dense with establlshments that offer alcohol. I wltness drunk, disorderly and distraught behavior and lndlviduah regularly in the 600 hlock already as a result of the exlsting offerlng.

Emergency calls have Increased ln recent years to thls area as have assaults- A strong NO from me and my buslness.

TerryCommons
Owner- Mptique Dlnhg
511 Sutter St.
916-757-3705
Mvsnour DrNrNc
r uqs.rtil(mrut nrct
tfvfi:*
-rrl!{Lgffitior0n'|r(,5.adrhhO

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

August 4,2021
City of Folsom Historic District Commission
50 Natoma Street
Folsom, CA 95630
via email to: Kclly Mulleft - knrullctt(fi)folsom.cn.us SUBJECT: Folsom Prison Brews Project (PN 19-174) - Comments to Historic District Commission
Dear Historic District Commissioners:

I am opposed to the proposed Folsom Prison Brews project (PN l 9- t 74) ("Project") and request that the Historic District Commission ("HDC") deny the Pruject. Additionally, for reason outlined in the attached email correspondence, this Project does not hrve a complete application on file with the City, staff have provided incomplete and inconsistent information to me and other members of the public making it irnpossible to actually understand the entirety of the Project, and the hearing was not properly noticed. The process has denied, and continues to deny, meaningftl public participation, and the HDC should refuse to conduct a hearing until the proper process is followed.

The Project proposes to install an ADA lift, or ramp, or maybe neither or maybe both of those things beween tlre Project site and the Powerhouse Pub parking lotl and the Project proposes to create s faux representation ofFolsom Prison and increase the intensity ofuse ofat least three properties in Folsom's Historic District. The proposed exterior design of the building conflicts with the City of Folsom Municipal Code (*FMC") which specifically states the City's intent to "preserve and enhanee the hisloric, small-town atmosphere of the historic district as il developed between the years 1850 and 1950." (FMC section l7 52.010) Furthermore, the proposed use would intensifo the use of the Project site and adjacent public and private parking lots and the Project would generate substantially more vehicle trips, during substantially longer hours of operation, and a substantial increase in the demand for parking as compared to the existing use of the site. This will not just exacerbate existing parking and traffic circulation-related conflicts, but it will also substantially worsen existing public health and safety issues associated with motor vehicle operation and parking in the Sutter Street commercial area and on streets in the adjacent residential neighborhood.

Staffopines that the Project design is intended to, "create a design theme that honors the local history associated with the Foisom State Prison," yet staff provides no discussion or evidence to support the notion that a faux replica of the prison has any historic relevance to the Historic District. For better or worse, the City has already invested substantial resources in paying homage to Johnny Cash's song "Folsom Prison Blues" and Cash's performance at the prison in 1968. The Johnny Cash nail, the planned trail art coillmemorating Cash's song and live performance, and the trail's bridge over Folsom Lake Crossing (which is designed to resemble elements of the prison architecture) are appropriately located outside of the Historic District.

Simply put, a building with a prison design has no place in the Historic District and would create a theme park-like sore in this most important area of the City of Folsom. It is unclear why staff would bring a project like this to the HDC with a recommendation fbr approval; however, I expect individual Commissioners will have no problem denying this project in short order. t See attached email correspondence regarding multiple vcrsitx of parking plnn drtwings.

Page I of 13

01/11/2022 Item No.15.
r\ugusi 4,24?i
There may very well be a business oppornrnity for a tap room focused on craft beer sales at the Project location. With proper planning, building design, parking provisions, public safety protocol (including fbcused and permanent motor vehicle law enforcenrent in the Historic Distict), and meaningful public involvement, a tap room project could have rnerit and could be acceptable to this commuuity, The current Project does not accomplish this and the Project cannot simply be "conditioned" with a few random tweaks into a project that does.

The renniuder olthis letter provides additional input regarding why the Project shouid, arrd legally must, be denied; but, in short, please deny the Project.

1. TIID IROJECT DOIS NOT QUALITY FOR AN EXEMPTION FROM THE

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AND AN ENVIRONMONTAL DOCUMENT MUST BE PREPARED PRIOR TO CONSI}ERING PROJECT

APPROVAL
Contrary to staff s recommendation in the staff report for the HDC's Arrgust 4,2021, meeting, the Project does not quality for an exemption frorn the California Environmental Quality Act c'cEQA").

FMC 17.52.390" "Environmental review", states, "Review by the hisloric district commis.sion of applicationsfor conditional use permits, sign permirs, variances and design review is subjecl kr the requircmenls of the Callfornia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 'l'he commissfan is autharized to hold public hearings on ncgative declaralions, mitigaled negutive declarations, draft environmental impact reports and fnol environmenlol impact repolts prepared on applications.fbr the above permits or lbr design review. The commission shall not approve applicutions prior to considering the opplicuble ent ifltnmeatal documenl and complying witlt the requiremenls of CEQA and any cily procedure.s for preparation and proces,ring ol' environ me ntal documenls,"
The staffreport for your August 4,2021, meeting, claims two CEQA caFgorical exemption classes as the basis for stafFs recommendation that the Project is exempt from CEQA- CEQA Guidelines section 15301, "Existing Facilities," and CEQA Guidelines section 15303, 'T.{ew Constnrction or Conversion of Small Structtues," Neither of the cited classes is applicable to the Project.
t.A The Project Does Not Qualify for a Class 1 CEQA Exemption In relevant part, CEQA Guidelines section 15301 states, "C/ass I consisls of the operation, repair, maintenance, permilting, lea,sing, licensing, or minor alteralion of existing public or private .rlructures, Jacililies, mechanical equipmenl, or topogmphical fealures', involving negliglble or no expflnsion of *isting orfomrcr usc, ... T'he key consideration is whether the prajecl involves negllglble ot no expsnsion ofuse."
The Project would substantially expand the use of the Project site, The staff report includes scant information on the existing use of the project site and building: however, the staff report doEs aclnowledge that the Project would result in increased use and parking and discusses, "City staff and the applicant recognize that the existing building's chrnge in land use from a retail business to a craft beer estsblishment is likely to result in a higher demnnd for parking," Staff propose.s several schemes for providing additional parking to meet this higher denrand, clearly indicating that there is, in fact, an anticipated expansion of rne in terms of customer visitation ancl parking demand,
One rnethod of examining the Project's expansion of use is to consider the Project hours of operation as compared to the existing site use. The Project's proposed hours of operatiou are

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

August 4,2021
substantially longer each day than the existing small, local retail use of the property. As shown in Table l, below, as proposed and as conditioned by staff s recommendation, the Project would result in more than a four-fold increase in the number of hours of operation each week - from just 20 hours a week under existing conditions to 9l or 83 hours as proposed and as conditioned, respectively. This expansion of use is not negligible, instead it is substantial in terms of the potential to result in parking, public safety, environmental and other impacts.

Table l. Existing and Proposed lfours of Operation
Day of
Week
Hours of 0neration
Existiog Buslness
(Artfully Rootcd) Project rs Proposed
Profcct as Condltloned
hy Staff
Recommendation
Montlay 0 hrs
Clo.qed
tl lus
llam- l0onr
ll hrs
I larl - lOom
'[uesday 0 hrs
Closed
t3lrs
I lom - midnisht
llhrs
I lnm - l(h:m
Wedne.sday 0 hrs
Closed
13 hrs
I lanr - midnicht
lllrs
I lnnr - lOprn
Thursday 5 trs
Noon - Sunr
l5 hls
I lam - 2am
Il hs
I larn - midnisht
Irriday 5bn
Noon -5nm
l5 lxs
I lanl - 2arn
13 hrs
I lam - midnisht
Snhrrday 6 hrs
l lam - Som
l5 hrs
I lam - 2nm
ll hrs
I lam - midnie.ht
Sunday 4 hrs
I larn - 4om
t hrs
I lam - l0om
ll hrs
I larn - lOnm
Total lfours
ner Week
20 hours 9l hours 83 hours
The staffreport acknowledges the Project's potential to ceuse noise, lighting, parking and other impacts. In fact, staffproposes conditions of approval in an attempt to reduce these impacts. As discussed further below, the staffreport provides no actual analysis of impacts and sta{f s attempts at reducing impacts through conditions of approval are largely ineffective in terms of addressing impacts (staff does not evaluate their efficacy); nevertheless, the mere fact that staff proposes mitigation-like conditions of approval for Project impacts is a clear indication that the Project's expansion of use is not merety negligible. For reasons including those presented here, the Project does not qualit/ for a CEQA Class I exemption. t.B The Project lloes Not Qurlify for a Class I CEQA Exemption In relevant pad, CEQA Guidelines section 15303 states, "Class 3 consists of constuction and localion of limiled numbers ol'new, smallfacilities or structltres; installation of smoll new equipntent and faeilities in small .slructures: ond lhe convercion o{ exisling small struclures.from one use lo another where only minor modiftcations sre wade in the exterior ol'lhe sfiuclure." The Project would substantially modiry the exterior of the existing structure. As shown on Figure l, "Existing and Proposed Exterior Structure Design Modifications," the appearance of the structure u/ould be changed from that of a rod barn with wood-appearance siding, sliding large bam door entry, and a white metel root, to the proposed Project design of a faux granite walled structure with an arched train-station style entrance, topped with a large dominant turret looking rooftop feature. In short, the building's exterior structure would be converted from a pastural barn appearance to an institutional prison appearance. ln fact, the substantial

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Artgust 4,2a1t,
modification of the exterior of the stnrcture is directty intended and necessary to achieve the proposed Project's gimmicky theme. Given the Project's substantial modifications to the structure exterior, the Project does not qualifu for a Class 3 exemption. f igure l. Existing and Proposed Exterior Structure Design Modifications Existing
t7'
I
i
I
I
I.

I
I
I
o
Mfl618ih
Proposed Project
,t
. f.:
f .C The Project's Potential to Result in Significant Environmental Effects Disqualify the Project from any CEQA Categorical Exemption
The Project fails to meet the criteria rquired for a CEQA exemption under each of the categorical exemption classes identified by staffand is therefore not exempt from CEQA.

Furthermore, even if one of these or another categorical exernption class were applicable to the Project, the Project's potential to result in significant environmental effects make the Project ineligible for any CEQA categorical exemption.

CEQA Guidelines section 1fi01.2 identifies "exceptions" to the exemptions which preclude application of an exemption under certain circumstances associated with a proposed project.

Section 15300.2 eKceptions and their applicability to the Project include:
15300.2 Exceplions
(b) Cumulative Impact. AII exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of :succe,ssive projects of the same type in the same place, over time ir significant.

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

August 4,2021
c) Signficant Efibct. A categ<trical exemption shall not be usedfor an activity where there is a reasonqble possibi.lity that the activity will have a significant ffict on the environmenl due lo unu,sual circumstunces.

Q Historical Resources, A categorical exemption shall not be usedfor a proiect which may cause a subslanliul aclverce change in the signy'icance oJ'a hisatrical resource.

The City has performed no environnental impact evaluation of the Project and, therefore, has failed to evaluate and disclose impacts that would be associated with the discretionary approval of a CUP and design review for the Project. Potential impacts and substantial evidence that a fair argument exists that the Project may have one or more significant effects that must be evaluated under CEQA are discussed below. Individually, each is sufficient to invalidate the use of a CEQA categorical exemption and sufficient to require that the City prepare a CEQA document for the proposed Project. Furthermore, each of these Project impacts has the potential to substantially contribute to cumulative effects associated with past, present, and reasonably fbreseeable projects (including the currently proposed 603 Sutter Street project its substar$ial increase in vehicle trips and parking demand) and require evaluation urder CEQA.

Aesthetics. By developing a dominating building exterior inconsistent with the architechue of existing sb'uctures, the Project would have the potential to result in a substantial adverse change in the visual character of the Historic Disrict, including views from adjacent private properties/businesses, views from adjacent public roadways and bicycle/pedastrian trails and walkways, and views from adjacent historic properties.

Figure 2 on the following page illustrates views from offsite public areas that would have the potential to be adversely affected by the Project.

Air Quality. Vehicle emissions associated with vehicle fiips generated by the Project and fugitive dust associated with unpaved parking lot use are among the Project elements that would creste the potential for significant impacts and must be evaluated. The Project proposes to use oflsite parking lots to meet a portion of its increased parking demand, The Project's use would be in addition to use of the lots that already occurs due to existing uses. Use of the lots would increase in intensity and with more vehicles and greater frequency and density of use with the shared use proposed by the Project. One of the proposed lots is graveUdirt surfaced and no improvements are proposed. Increased use of the lots by adding Project-related vehicles would increase frrgitive dust emissions that will adversely affect adjacent properties.

Biological Resources. A recent CEQA documerrt prepared by the City for a project approximately 200 feet from the Project site (603 Sutter Street Commercial Building Revised Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, Iuly 2O2l) identified that valley oak and ornamental trees on that project site could provide nesting habitat for bird species found in the vicinity of the project. The study also the State-threatened Swainson's hawk has occurred in the projsct vicinity and that there is a noted occurrence within 0.5 miles of that project site. The study notes that Swainson's hawks generally forage within l0 miles of their nest tree, and more commoniy within 5 miles; and that existing trees within

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

August 4,2021
Figurc 2. Views Toward Project from Riley Street
Source: Google Street View, 2021 .

Notes: Red circle indicales exislinr structure that would be oonverted lo hux prison apDestsnce) that project parcel may serye as nesting trees. The Project site is less than 200 feet from the 603 Sutter Street project location. The proximity of the proposed Project to the 603 Sutter Street site and the Froject site's proximity to woodland areas to the north and along Lake Natoma (also as near as 200 ft) clearly indicate that Project construction activities would have the potential to adversely affect protected nesting bird species in the same or similar manner as those of the 603 Sutter Steet project. The 603 Sutter Street project identifies mitigation measures attempting to address the impacts, but no such provisions are provided for construction activities associated with the Folsom Prison Brew project's demolition, remodel, landscaping components. Potential impacts to biological resources must be evaluated for the proposed Project and mitigation measures identified to avoid impacts to protected bird species. This analysis and mitigation proposals must be evaluated and documented in a CEQA document.

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

August 4,2021
Cultural/Historic Resources. The Project is located in tho Folsom Historic District, a historic area of local imponant, and in proximity to other individual properties of state/federal and/or local historical siguificance as listed in the City of Folsom Cultural Resources Inventory (1998), including:
o Folsom Hydroelectric National Historic Lan&nark, CA-Sac-429H r Powerhouse I , NRHP Property, CHL, est. 1895
r Powerhouse 2, NRHP Property, CHL
r Twin Mines/ Gray Eagle Mine
r Livermore sawmill foundation remnants and mill pond
o 701 Sutter Street, Murer Gas Station, circa 1920
o 707, 709,7 I 1,7 13 Sutter Street, Commercial buildings, circa 1860 t 6A? Sutter Street, original library, circa l9l5
r Rainbow Bridge, NRHP eligible, factual 19t7
r Steel Truss Bridge, factual 1983-1930
The Project's cultural modification of creating a faux-prison design of inconsistent character with the historic architecture and goals of the Historic Disrict would have the potential to result in significant adverse impacts to the Historic District, generally, as well as one or more individual historic resources within and adjacent to the Historic District.

The CEQA statute advises that a resource need not be listed on a state or federal register to be deemed a significant resource.

Land Use/Planning. The Project's design as a faux prison would conflict whh the FMC Purpose and Intent to "presewe and enhance the historic, small-town aunosphere of the historic distict as it developed betrveen the years 1850 and 1950" and to "ensure that new...commercial development is consistent with the historical character of the historic district" (FMC 17.52.010[2] and [5]). The Project's incompatibility with the character of the Historic District and the Project's conflict with the FMC is grounds for project denial.

At a minimum, to consider approval, the Project's conflicts must be evaluated and disclosed in a CEQA document.

Noise. The Project would increase the intensity of use of the Project site and extend the hours of use (discussed above). The staffreport identifies staffs concerns with potential noise impacts and recommends conditions of approval modifying the hours of operation and making other use restrictions. However, staffprovides no evidence or evaluation to actually present the potential noise impacts associated with the Project or to assess and detemrine the efficacy of the recommended conditions of approval. For instance, staff recommends that dancing be prohibit, yet provides no evidence of noise levels associated with dancing (unless staffis concemed about taditional hish or tap dancing, I'm not sure dancing in and of itself is a particular noisy activity). Furthermore, staff recommends reducing the hours of operation from proposed2amto midnight on certain nights:
however, staff provides no rationale for how noise levels at midnight are somehow more acceptable than those atzamand staffmakes no mention of the City General Plan day/night distinguish time of lOpm which would be a more rational criteria for hours of operation. Regardless, staffs identification ofpotential noise issues indicates that staff recognizes the potential for noise impacts yet provides no analysis of noise impacts associated with the site use, offsite vehicle trips, or offsite parking use - all of which are potentially significant noise components of the Project. An actualnoise analysis must be conductedby a qualified acoustician for compliance with CEQA.

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Atrgusl 4,2Q21
Transportation/Public Safety. The Project would increase the intensity of the Project site use and of offsite parking lots use as compared to the existing business at the site.

The staff report acknowledges the hoject would increase parking demand, but provides no analysis of Project trip generation or impacts of vehicle circulation. CEQA no longer reqrrires, or permits, a lead agency to identifii trafftc conge.stiat as a Project impact; however, CEQA does require that a lead agency provide an analysis of impacts related to vehicle rniles traveled (VMT) and public safety and hazards. Consideration of public safety impacts associated with vehicle circulation in the Historic District conrmercial atrd residential areas must be evaluated.

Discussed belttw as relates to findings necessary for issuing a Conditional Usc Pcrmit (CUP), the City must evaluate and acknowledge that exacerbation of the existing spillover parking of visiton and workers coming to the Historic Diskict and parking in adjacent neighborhoods is already substantially adversely affecting the health, safety, and wellbeing of Historic District residents. Vehicles circulating in residential neighborhoods and vehicles parking on residential streets create risks, especially for bicyclists and pedestrians in Historic Disnict neighborhoods. The Project's vehicle trip generation and parking demand must be evaluated and the increased/exacerbated risk to pedestrians and bicyclists resulting from increased vehicle movement and increased spillover parking in res idential nei ghborhoods must be meanin gfir.l ly evaluated.

For the reasons discussed above, the Project does not qualifiT for a CEQA exemption.

Prior to conducting a public hearing at which approval of the Project can be considered, the City must prepare and circulated for public review.

2. TIIE PROJECT WOI]LD STJBSTANTIALLY ADVERSELY MFECT TIIE HEALTH, SAf'ETY, AI{D COMT'ORT OI'THS GENERAL PUBLIC, AI\{D THE FINDINGS REQUIR"ED FOR ISSUANCE OF A CUP CANNOT BE MADE FMC 17.60.040 requires for CUPs that,"TheJindings of theplanning commis.si<tn [in this case, the HD(IJ shall he that thc estahlishment, mainlenance or oryrqtion of the use or building applied Jbr will or will not, under the circumstances of the particulur case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or wrking in the neighborhood ol'.ruch proposed use, or be detrimental or iniurious to property and improvements in the neighborhaod, or to the general welfare of the city." The staffreport discusses pedestrian circulation, but is limited to merely describing how people would walk from adjacent parking areas to the proposed business and provides no indication that staff even considered public and pedestrian safety, health, or welfare.

Pedestrians and bicyclists on Historic District residential strcets are subject to existing risk from drivers and are especially at risk compared to other areas of the City due to factors including but not limited to: l) absence of sidewalks along many Historic District residential streets, 2) substantial use of neighborhood streets for vehicle travel through the Historic District, 3) substantial use of neighborhood streets for parking which forces pedestrians and bicyclists to share the same street sections as motor vehicles, 4) the relatively high proportion of businesses and visitation to the Historic Dishict which results in increased neighborhood traffic through extended periods of daytime, nighttime, and early moming hours as compared to other neighborhoods in the City, 5) a relatively high proportion of alcohol serving businesses in the Historic District commercial areas increasing the likelihood of driver intoxication and contributes the extended night and early moming trips in Historic District neighborhoods, 5) the continuing aud worsening paftems of illegal. aggressive, distracted, inattentive, and otherwise dangerous tlriver behavior throughout the City, including the Historic District.

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

August 4,2021
It is well known, but not addressed in the staff report, that workers and visitors to the Historic Disffict commercial area often park on streets rn the residential neighborhoods in the 400-600 blocks south and east of Sutter Street. These parked vehicles result in making the residential streets nalrower and more dangerous for pedestrians. As the residential streets become loaded with vehicles, drivers and pedestrians have less ability to n€gotiate around each other creating increased risk to pedesrrians. When drivers are focused on finding parking, they often drive more hurriedly/aggressively and less conscicntious of pedestrians. There is limited street lighting in the neighborhoods making pedestrians more diffrcult to see. With the exception of a short segment on the east side of Scott St, south and east of the Sutterlscott Street intersection there are no connected sidewalks in the residential neighborhoods, and pedesrians must walk in the street.

Speeding, dishacted driving, right-of-way violations, and DUIs were recently cited in the Local Road Safety Plan adopted by the City Council as the leading causes of fatal and severe injury collisions in the City of Folsom. The Project would increase vehicle trips to and from the Historic District and would substantially exacerbate the existing public salbty risk associated with motor vehicle operation. The staff report provides no discussion of these issues and the related effects of the Project on the health, safety, and comfbrt of the general public.

For these and other reasons, the Project would substantially adversely afTect the health, safety, and comfort of the general public and the findings required for issuing a CUP cannot be made.

3. THE PROJECT R-EQUIRES A PARKING VARTANCE, AND HAS NOT AppLtED FOR AND DOES NOT QUALIFY FOR SUCH A VARIANCn
The Prqect would increase the intensity of use and increase the parking demand associated with the Project site as compared to existing conditions. The staff report provides no information regarding the existing site use entitlement or allocation of existing parking. Ye! the staffteport asserts "Cify policy" associated with parking, stating that "Cily policy has also been that development pxtjects that do not result in an increase in densily...are nol required lo prtvide any addilional on-.site parking." Although requested, City staff has provided no documentation of when and how the City Council adopted such a policy - and there is no evidence that such a policy exists.

Although requested (see attachments). the City has provided no information regarding existing entitlements/use permitslconditions of approval associatod with either of the two private lots at which the Project and staffpresumes could bo used to rneet the Project's parking demand.

Evidence of such entitlements are required components to be included as a component of a project application (17.52.310(C)), yet they have not. For any meaningful analysis of the proposal, the proposed off-site parking areas and their existing entitlements, and parking allocations, must be identified in order to allow an assessment of whether their proposed use for parking from another project has any merit. (See attached email correspondence regarding the lack of a complete application, lack of information necessary to understand and evaluated the full project, and failure ofrequired public hearing noticing.) The Project narrative included in the staff report acknowledges the increased demand and additional parking required, yet the Project does not provide a feasible mechanism to actually provide additional parking. The Project proposes use of the Eagles Lodge properfy to meet some of the Project's increased parking demand. Yet this proposed approach is fundamentally flawed in terms of providing any actual ensured added parking capacity. According to a lease provided in the staffreport, the Eagles Lodge would continue to utilize its parking area and, in fact, the lease presented includes language expressly allowing the Eagles Lodge to preclude use by Folsom Prison Brews. The proposal has no rnerit.

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Augusi 1,2021
The Project's parking requiremenls must be determined and the Project cannot be approved unless and until such approval includes an application for and approval ofa parking variance through a public hearing process. It is unlikely that the Project would not meet the findings required for such variance; which hopefully is not the reason the need for a parking variance has been ignored by stafll
Neither the applicant nor staff has provided any basis to indicate that existing lots curently used by others can in any way offset the increased demand for parking that would be generated by Folsom Prisorr Brews. The Eagles Lodge lease retains the right for the Eagles Lodge to continue use and allows the Eagles Lodge to deny use for Folsom Prison Bt€ws, therefore, it is rneaningless iu lcrnrs uf uructirrg any ul [hc Friluttt Prison Brews parking detnand.

A proper analysis would identifr whether any parking spaces are dedicated to the existing use at the hoject site and would identis not just the parking space requirement associated with the FMC lspace/3S0sqft requirement, but would also discuss the actual parking demand and times of use of the existing business at the property. This has not been done and the HDC has no basis on which to make a meaningful decision regarding the Project's parking impacts.

Because there rs no evidence to substantiate any existing parking allocation for the existing use, the Project cannot rely on the proposed parking scheme. Because the Project would not provide the additional parking necessary to meet the increased parking demand it would generate, the Project would not comply with the FMC parking rec;uirements and requires an application for and HDC consideration of a parking variance.

4. I['APPROVTD,'T'HE CITY MUST OBTAIN FINANCIAL ASSURANCE F'OR

SIIBSEQUENT REMOVAL OF THE BUILDING TO AVOID THE LONG-TERM PR.ESENCE OF TIIE INCOMPATIBLE BUILDTNG DESIGN
Since the Proiect proposes a structure that is inconsistent and in conflict with the FMC design requirements and the Historic District design ob.jectives, if the building is somehow approved and developed, the City should ensure funding is available to provide for its removal once the CUP is revoked or the business otherwise ceases to operate, The project would create a building design that is very specific to the proposed use and schtick ofthe proposed name and type of business. The building will be an eyesore and should be removed immediately upon revocation or abandonment of the CLiP. With buildings designed consistent with the Historic District character, it is reasonable to expect that the buildings can serve a variety of future commercial sses. Howwer, since it is unlikely that a subsequent business would be inclined to occupy a prison-themed building (Folsom Prison Shoes, maybe?), it would be in the City's best interest to include a condition of approval that l) requires the permittee to remodel the building to a design consistent with the Historic District (to be approved by the HDC) and 2) requires the permittee to obtain and maintain a financial assurance mechanism (bond, lener of credit, etc.) naming the City as the beneficiary and in an amount sufficient to provide funds for the City to remodel (or simply demolish) the building in the event the permittee is unable or unwilling to do so upon termination of the CUP.
s. coNDITroNs oF AppRovAL ARE INEI'FECTM AND REQUIRE ADDITIONAL

CONSIDERATION WITH MEANINGF'UL PUBLIC INPUT
In April 2021,1requested that the City's ongoing (then and now) zoning code update provide for public review of staff s draft proposed conditions of approval prior to staff finalizing their recommended conditions of approval. I also suggested that process could be implernented immediately and not wait for the zoning code update process to be completed. Staff declined my request, so that process has not occurred. Iustead, staffproduced an 87-page staffreport a tnere Pagc t0 of l3

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

August 4,2lnl
6 days prior to the HDC's August 4th hearing and included 30 conditions of approval, Many of the conditions of approval would be ine{fective, at best. in their apparently intended outcome, I urge the HDC to NOT attempt to substnntially rework conditiona of approval during its August 4m hearing. lf the IIDC is inclined to pursue Project npprovrl, plense providl for a process to allow additional discussion and public input on the IIDCts proposed changen before making a final npprovnl decision.

Sincerely,
Bob Delp
Historic District Resident
Folsom, CA 95630
bdelo(@live.corn
Attachments:
l. Email Conespondence with Sari Dierking, Assistant City Attomey, regarding Project Application Materials

2. Email Correspondence with Steve Banks, City Planner, regarding Project Hearing Notices Page ll of13

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Arrgrrsi'i,2$2i
Attachment I
Email Correspondence with Snri Dierking Assistant City Attorneyo regnrding Project Application 1\{aterials

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Re: 8-4-21 Historic District Commission Packet lFolsom Prison Brews Application] Bob Delp < [email protected]>
Wed 8/4/2021 11:42 AM
To: Sari Dierking <[email protected]>; Elaine Andersen <eandersen@folsom,ca.us>; [email protected] <[email protected]>
Cc: Steven Banks <[email protected]>; Pam Johns <[email protected]>; Mike Reynolds <[email protected]>; HPLBoard <[email protected]>; Paul Keast <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; kcolepolicy@gmail,com <[email protected]>; Stwen Wang <[email protected],us>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Kelly Mullett <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>
Ms. Dierking: Yesterday, you directed rne to Project application materials on the City's Pending Development Applications webpage. I downloaded the site plans and reviewed them and noticed that ShECt Xl.O NOTCS I'ADJACENT OR NEAR TO THIS NEW PARKING SPACE WILL BE THE ADA IIFT WHICH WlttALLOW AN ACCCSSIBTE ROUTE TO THE FOLSOM PRISON BREWS ENTRANCE." Untilthen, I had no idea an ADA lift was part of the project, and it is not discussed in the staff report. Then, in then preparing my comments regarding that lift, I see that sheet XL.O in the staff report is different than the version on the PDA webpage that you directed me to. The staff report version is difficult to read and at first glance seems to be the same as the Sheet Xl.O on the PDA webpage, but instead of referencing an ADA lift and it references an accessible aisle. Neither a lift nor an aisle between these two properties appears to be addressed in the staff report. Adding to the confusion, the version on the PDA webpage is marked "HDC Review Set" (dated July 22,2021) whereas the version in the staff report is not marked HDC review version and the date is illegible. I don't know, just hours before a schedule hearing to approve the proposed monstrosity, whether a ramp, a lift, or nothing is proposed between the two properties, I'm guessing that very few people know, including the HDC. "Frustrating" would be an understatement. ln my busy schedule, I am trying to provide meanlngful review and input on this proposal and am constantly roadblocked by the incomplete, unclear, inconsistent project documents that staff is circulating and directing me to. lt is simply unconscionable that City staff put well-meaning citizens through such a maze - and the thought of this mess of a project record being presented at a hearing has disaster written all over it. I am asking again that someone with the authority to do so put the brakes on this project and postpone the hearing until some semblance of organization is provided.

Thank you.

Bob Delp
916-812-8122
Ulelp@hercn
From: Bob Delp <bdelp@live,com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 4,2O2L 5:19 AM
To: Sari Dierking <sdierking@folsom,ca,us>
Cc Steven Banks <sbanks@folsom,ca.us>; Pam Johns <[email protected]>i Mike Reynolds <[email protected]>; HPLBoard <[email protected]>; Paul Keast <[email protected]>; loretta@shaunv,com <loretta@shaunv,com>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <kcolepolicy@gmail,com>; Steven Wang <[email protected]>.; danwestmit@yahoo,com <[email protected]>; Kelly Mullett <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Elaine Andersen <[email protected]*;

01/11/2022 Item No.15.
daronbr@pacbell. net <daronbr@pacbell,net>
Subjeck Re: 8-4-21 Historic District Commission Packet [Folsom Prison Brews Application] Ms, Dierking:

The plan set on the City's Pending Development Applications website to which you referred me for the project application not only does not represent a complete application {as outlined in my email below), but the plan set itself is incomplete based on the Sheet lndex of the plan set itself (see below for list of the sheets identified on the Title Sheet but not included in the plan set), The missing sheets would provide important information about the project and are omitted from the publicly available plan set, and it's unclear if the CitV has these sheets but omitted them from the posted version or if the City simply does not have the sheets. A project approval that includes approval of the plan set could inadvertently {or perhaps intentionally by staff} approve these missing site plan sheets and notes that they might include. That is unacceptable as the HDC would be approving elements and details that have not been made available to them let alone made available to the public Furthermore, the plan set includes a sheet (X1,0) entitled "Parking Lots and Data" and present information and proposed modifications at two other properties "Powerhouse Parking Lot - Existing" and Eagles Lodge Parking Lot - Existing". Neither a location map nor the APNs or addresses of these two properties are identified, however, the drawings and notes clearly indicate proposed modifications/use of these properties as part of the Folsom Prison Brews proposal. Thus, the City must treat these as part of the project.

A landscape plan is required, but has not been provided, Howeven sheet 41,0 of the plan set includes two notes regarding landscaping plans, noting,u4. FAR LANDSCAPE INFORMAT,O,V AIVD DRAWING, SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN BY FIVE STAR UND'CAPE, MICHAEL SHUIAR LA, 976.989-3372 OR |[email protected]" and noting (on the adjacent property but apparently a component of the proposed project), 'POWERHOUSE PUB PATIO - NEW: SEE {r/'NDSC;/.PE PIAN FOR INFORMATI0N AND DETAILS," No landscape plan for the project site or for the adjacent property for which landscaping is apparently also proposed (based on the sheet note above and based on a rendering in the staff reportl.

The landscape plan must be provided for public review, but also should have been provided to the City before staff proceeding with processing this project,
The Tltle Sheet (T1.01 includes an index listing the following sheets all of which are NOT included in the plan set on the City's Pending Development Applications webpage and have not otherwise been made available to the public:

62.0 CA STATE AND REGIONAL REGUISTIONS
A4.O FOUNDATION PLAN - ARCHITECTURAL
A7.O PROPOSED ROOF PLAN
A1O.O BUlLDING SECTIONS
A11.0 WALL SECTIONS & ARCH DETAILS
A12.0 ENTARGED FLOOR PLANS
A13,0 INTERIOR ELEVATIONS
S1.O GENERAL NOTES

52.O FOUNDATION PLAN

52.1ROOF FRAMING PLAN

52.2 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS

53.O FOUNDATION DETAILS

53.T ROOF DETAILS

53.2 SHEAR WALL & TYPICAL WOOD DETAILS

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

S3.3 SIMPSON STRONG WALL DETAILS
E1,O ELECTRICAL PLAN & ELECTRICAL LEGEND
Bob Delp
916-812-8122
[email protected]
From: Bob Delp <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 3,28217:.t7 ?M
To: Sari Dierking <[email protected],us>
Cc: Steven Bank <sban ks@folsom, ca. us>; Pa m John s <pjoh ns @folsom.ca. us> Subject: Re: 8-4-21 Historic District Comrnission Packet {Folsom Prison Brews Applicationl Ms. Dierking: Thank you for you feedback. ln your response you state that existing records responsive to my request to see the complete application are available on the Pending Development Applications website. I have reviewed that information severaltimes, most recently five minutes ago, and if the information posted on the website is the entirety of the appllcation, then the City does not have a complete application for this project and must stop processing (and never should have started) until the application is complete. The webpage includes only the project plan set and a one-page project narrative, both of which are unslgned.

The following are required for design review, and are not provided and no checkllst of required content is provided on the referenced webpage.
1, A completed and signed application form including name, address and telephone number of the applicant (no application form whatsoever is provided, slgned or unslgned). A completed and signed application must be submitted for the requested CUP and for Design review - neither has been submitted.

2. Fees - Yes, I am requesting to see record of the fees required and date(s) the fees were paid.

3. Agent Authorization

4. Radius Map

5. Radius List

6. Vicinity Map - On plan set, but does not identify either of the project's proposed private parklng lot use locations.

7. Project Narrative - a signed/dated project narrative is not provided. As noted above, there are now two prorect narratives floating around - one on the Pending Development Applications webpage and one in the staff repo( and there is no lndicatlon of which is part of the application.

8. Environmental lnformation Form

9. Landscaping Plans - landscaping/courtyard is shown on project renderings, and apparently would require grading and stairway construction, but no landscape plan or other information on grading is provided

10. Design Guidelines/Development Standards - Some design info is on plan set, but info on compliance with HD Design Guidelines/FMC standards
Regarding existing entitlements: I must be misunderstanding you. Are you saying that the City does not have any record of entitlements for the three properties in questlon (the project site, and the two proposed parking locations, both of which as I understand currently have uses that serve alcohol and therefore are required to have CUPs)? Understanding existing entitlements is crucial for understanding how those existing entitlements relate to changes due to the proposed project. lt would have been

01/11/2022 Item No.15.
impossible for staff to conduct a meaningful evaluation of the project if staff does not have anv information about existing entitlements, Please clarify.

Thank you for your assistance.

Bob Delp
916-812-8122
bdelp@llarsm
From: Sari Dierking <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 3,}OZL 4:59 PM
To: [email protected] <bdelp@ live.corn>
Cc: Steven Banks <sban [email protected]>; Pam Johns <pjohns@folsom,ca.us> Subject: FW: 8-4-21. Historic District Commission Packet [Folsom Prison Brews Applicationl Dear Mr. Delp,
The City of Folsom is in receipt of your Public Records Act request for the following records regarding the proposed Folsom Prison Brews project:

1.The complete appllcation with all FMC-required applicatlon materials. z. Fi'iC L7,523iA "Desigir i€view submittal requirements" item C, "A copy of all entltl€ments granted for the property by the city, includlng conditaons of approval and the environmental documentation" as related to:
a. the existing use at the project site; and
a, the existing uses at other properties identified for use by the project for offsite parking, including any existing entitlements and conditions (e.9., use permits, conditions of approval, parking allocations, parking restrictions) associated with the Eagles Lodge property and use, e.The City's application content checklist (for design review and for CUPs) and all of the required content.

Existing records responsive to items 1 and 3 have been posted to the City's website under Pending Development Applications, with the following exceptions:
. Site photographs are included with the staff report.
. Records reflecting payment of the application fee are not on the website.

Please confirm whether you are requesting these specific records. . The material samples and color board is available for public inspection at the Community Development Department counter during regular business hours.

It will also be available for public inspection at the Historic District Commission meeting tomorrow night at 5 pm.

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

After a diligent search and a reasonable lnquiry no records responsive to ltems 2(a) or 2(b) were found.

Sincercly,
Sarl Dierklng
Sari Myers Dierking
,A.ssrston f Cifgr Attor neg
City Atiorney'a Offfcc
50 Natoma Slreet, Fohom, CA S5630
O:916.461.6025
F:916.351.0536
i i[i" it ) 1., s3 i( ) I\'lt
OO@l *ww.rorsom.ca.r"
Thie email conlains material that ls confidontial and/or privleged under [re work product doctrine, the ettorney-client privilege. and/or the olllcial informatlon prlvllege. The information ls intended for the sole use of the reclplant(s) to lvhom il ia addressed. Any mllance on or review of this emall by anyone other than the inlended rsdpiont, or any dislribution or foniverding of thi8 omail wlthoul the express wrltten permission of lhe City Attorney is striclly prohiblled. lf you are not lho lnlended recipient, please contact the sendor by reply email and deslroy all copies of the original m€ssag6. Thank you.

From: Bob Delp <[email protected]>
Sene Saturday, luly 31,2021.9:24 AM
To: Steven Bank <tbank@&lSgm.g&g$
Cc: Michael Reynolds <[email protected]>; Paul Keast <mmdk@j0n$$4S!>; HplBoard <[email protected]>; b{[email protected] <lgfg$t@rbeugy,ggm>; pam lohns <[email protected]$0.sa.sp; Kelly Mullett <lmcl!e$@fsl$O,Se,$>
Subfect Rel 8-4-21 Hlstoric District Commlssion Packet [Folsom Prison Brews Applicationl Thank you, Steve. Regarding the Folsom Prison Brews item, can you please provide or post to the City's Pending Development Appllcations' website a copy of the complete appllcatlon with all FMC-required applicatlon materlals? I'm particularly interested in the items required by FMC 17.52.310 "Design review submlttal requirements" ltem C, "A copy of all entltlements tranted ior the prop€rry by the city, includlng conditions of approval and the environmental documentation" as related to the existing use at the proiect site and as related to the existing uses at other properties identifies for use bythe project for offsite parking, including any existing entitlements and conditions (e.g., use permits, conditions of approval, parking allocations, parking restrictions) assoclated with the Eagles Lodge property and use. I think the City has an appllcation content checklist (for design review and for CUPsf so that checklist and allof the required content would be most helpful.

Thank you,
-Bob
Bob Delp
916.812€122
bdelp@[ye.can
lh

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Frun: Steven Banks <$e0k@-bftC!0,l3.g$>
Sentr Friday July 30, 2021 1:05 PM
To: HP[Board <hdhcard.@hpl&lsAslsrp; Paul Keast <ludk@soncasl,treP; Michael Reynolds <Oj1hfp@gmrll,rcm>; bd{p@Jyerem <Elelp.@ll1gcOm>; [email protected] <lSr!$n@EhEIOagn> SubJect: 8-4-21 Hlstoric Dlstrlct Commission Packet
Good aftemoon,
Attached you will find the Historic District Commission packet fur August 4th.

Below is the Webex information for the meeting should you want or need to parlicipate remotely.

Call-ln: l{l 5-655.0001
Meoting Number: 182 793 3916
Meetlng Password:693 383 23
Thank youl
KellyMullott
Admi n i s tr a t iue .4 ss u ta n t
gommun lty Dcvclopment Dcprrtment
50 Natoma Slreet, Folsom, CA 95630
O: 916.461.6231
F:916.355.7274
ih
[i,,.(,9 .ll- l-l ii ].Ml
I l. r ,' rl' lr .,sa
O O Gji ***.fotro'."r.r"

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

August 4,2021
Attachment I
Email Correspondence with Steve Banks, City Plnnner, regarding Project Hearing Notices

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Re: 8-4-21 Historic District Commission Packet [Folsom Prison Brews Application] Bob Delp <[email protected]>
TueS/3/2021 7:51 PM
Tor Steven Banks <[email protected]>
ccr Pam Johns <[email protected]>; Sarl Dierking <[email protected]>; ScottJohnson <[email protected]> Steve:

Thank you for you feedback, however, I think it is reasonable for me to request and obtaln evidence, not simply a staff statement, that the hearing noticing requirements have been complied with, As you know notices for a CUP hearing must be provided a minimum of 10 days prior to the hearing, and evidence of that noticing is important to me and others in this community as well as for the project record. Based on the notification methods referenced in your reply below, can you please provide the following which I'm sure must be readlly available to you:

1.. date of notice posting at 608 t/2 and by who (City staff or applicant)

2. date that notice was published in the Sacramento Bee (publications typically provide proof of publication that should be easy for you to forward to me)

3. date on which public notices were mailed to property owners within 300 feet

4. map used for determining the 300-ft distribution

5. list of persons/property addr€sses (or APNs) to whom the notice was mailed Also, if you have any basis for staffs determination that noficing is not required the Eagles Lodge parking component of the project, I would very much like to know what that basis is. The Eagles Lodge parking lot is clearly a part of the project - both the applicant proposes its use and staff's recommended conditions of approval for the CUP require its use, so it seems obvlous that residents and businesses near that location who stand to be directly affected by the increased activity (noise, dust, etc.) deserve the same hearing notifications as required for any project site.

Thank you,
-Bob
Bob Delp
916-812-8122
bttslp@litecsn
From: Steven Banks <sbanks@folsom,ca.us>
Sent Tuesday, August 3,202L 4;18 PM
To: Bob Delp <[email protected]>
Cc: Pam Johns <pjohns@folsom,ca.us>; Sari Dlerking <[email protected]>; Scott.lohnson <sjohnson @folsom.ca. us>
Subject: RE: 8-4-21 Historic District Commission Packet [Folsom Prison Brews Application] Good afternoon Bob,
Thank you for your questions regarding the public noticing process and requirements for the Folsom Prison Brews project (PN l9-174). City staff reviewed the public noticing conducted for the proposed project, which included posting of public notice on the project site at 608 % Sutter Street, printing of the public notice in the Sacramento Bee, and mailing of the public notice to all property ownErs located

01/11/2022 Item No.15.
within 300 feet of the subject property, and detcrmined that the proposed project has been noticed properly in accordance with the requirements of the Folsom Municipal Code and State Law, In addition, City staffalso dctermined that posting of a public notice at the Eagles Lodge properry is not required.

Best regards,
Steve
Steven Eanks
Principal Planner
City of Folsom
(et6) 46t-6207
[email protected]
From: Bob Delp <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 2,?QZI1l:34 AM
To: Steven Banks <[email protected]>; Pam Johns <[email protected]> Cc: Michael Reynolds <[email protected]>; Paul Keast <[email protected]>; HPLBoard <hplboard@hplfolsom,org>; [email protected]; Kelly Mullett <[email protected]>; Elaine Andersen <[email protected],us>; Steven Wang <swang@folsom,ca,us>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Kelly Mullett <kmulleft@folsom,ca.us>; da nwestm it@ya h oo, com ; kevi n. d uewe I @ gm a i l. com Subiect: Re: 8-4-21 Historic District Commission Packet IFolsom Prison Brews Application] CAUTION: Thls email originated from outslde of the organlzation. Do not clack links or open attachrnents unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Pam and Steve:

With the very limlted amount of time the public has been given to review and comment on the Folsom Prlson Brews project and staff's recommendation in an 86-page staff report, the need for your timely feedback with the project application materials and other information requested in my emails below is criticalto allowing meanintful opportunity for public input in advance of and at the HDC public hearing.

Furthermore, as of yesterday there was no public notice posted at the Eagles Lodge property, Since the project as proposed (and as conditioned per staff's recommended conditions of approval) would use the Eagles Lodge for parking, the hearing notice must be posted at the Eagles Lodge property and must be mailed to property owners within 300 feet of that property. The staff report provides no evidence that the required noticing has been provided. ln the absence of that notification, property owners near a property that is a component of the project and at which the project would create the potential for increased noise, dust, and traffic circulation/safety issues associated with the increased use of parking at the Eagles Lodge property have not had sufficient opportunity to meaningfully participate in the project review process.

Unlesr you are able to provide documentation verllying that all requlred publlc notlces have been timely made, please remove the Folsom Prlson Brews profect from the August 4 HDC meeting agenda.