Folsom City Council
January 11, 2022

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Alsq the public nofice that is posted at the proposed Folsom Prison Brews location (l saw the notice yesterday, but no information has yet been provided of when it was posted) references that "the environmental review documents" are available for public review at the City. My understandin8 ls that staff ls asserting the project ls exempt from CEQA (l will document why the proJect is not etemptlrom CEQA in written comments to the HDC) and I do not see any environmental documents or studies referenced in the staff report. Can you let me know what environmental documents have been prepared and is it possible for you to post those on the City's Pending Development Applicationsl website so they can be revlewed online?
I am doing my best to understand the project and prepare meaningful input to the HDC; however, cannot do so without the requested information.

Thank you in advance for your help with this.
-Bob
Bob Delp
9t6-872-8122
[email protected]
From: Bob Delp <h{elp@liyeCetr>
S€nt: Saturday, July 31, 2021 10:53 AM
To: Steven Banks <lbadgP.fehgm,sA,gt>; Pam Johns <pjAhnf@Cllgtr gi.uf> Cc Mlchael Reynolds <mjtbfta.tQgmall.com>; Paul Keast <mrEdk@iqnsas!,-0eF; HPlBoard <hplbead.Glbplfqhetrgfg>; lgis$eprtscrv.com <letegb@rhsu$4len>; Kelly Mullett <lsulleE@fsbgtr sa,ilr> Sublect: Re:8'4-21 Historic District Commlssion Packet [Folsom Prison Brews Applicationl Pam and Steve:

The Folsom Prison Brews staff report states that "City policy has also been that development projects that do not result in an increase in denslty.,.are not required to provide any additional on-slte parking." Can you provide supporting document for when and by what mechanism that pollcy has been adopted by the City Councll or other City authority? Also, the staff report doesn't discuss so can you provide an explanation of how staff defines "density" in its application of this policy and how staff interprets "oddltionalon-slte parklng" in this context?
Since it's understood that the FMC lspace/3sOsf standard does not reflect actual parking demand generated by various commercial uses, has staff generated parking demand estimates for the existing use and for the proposed use to compare the actual anticipated change in parking demand that would result from the projec't? Parking spillover in the nearby neighborhood areas (and related traffic and pedestrlan safety effucts) adversely affects the health, safety, comfort, and general welfare of those of us who reside and work in the area. Therefore, changes in actual parking demand and lnduced spillover to residential neighborhoods is a key factor in determining whether the finding necessary for issuing a CUP can be made.

Thanks for in advance for any input you can provide
-Bob
Bob Delp
916.812-8122
bdeln@Jte,sen

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

From: Bob Delp <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, July 31, 2O219:24 AM
To: Steven Banks <[email protected]>
Ce M ichael Reynofds <gpjrhf ra @gma il.co.m>; Pa ul Keast <UUndl@CCOte$.treP; H PLBoa rd <hnlhgad@bdfgft9[Lgrp; lorettardshaunv^com <lqfS$e@$eU!A$B>; Pam Johns <pJ'gbIE@&hqLI4>; Kelly Mullett <Bmdlgll@f9890.$Jr>
Subfec* Re:8-4-21 Historic District Commission 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 Applications' webslte a copy of the complete application with all FMC-required application materials? l'm particularly interested ln the items required by FMC 17.52.310 "Design review submittal requirements" item C, "A copy of all entltlements grented for the property by the city, including conditions of approval and the envircnmental documentation" as related to the existing use at the project site and as related to the existing uses at other properties identifies for use by the project for offslte parking, including any exlsting entitlements and conditions (e.9., use permits, conditions of approval, parklng allocations, parklng restrlctions) assoclated wlth the Eagles Lodge propefi and use. I think the City has an application content checklist (for design review and for CUPs) so that checklist and all of the required content would be most helpful.

Thank you,
-Bob
Bob Delp
916-812-8122
bdelpl@liue,ssn
From : Steven Banks <Sben&[email protected]>
Sant Frlday, July 3O 2021 1:05 PM
To: HPLBoard <bplbSA$@,hplfglfgm,Cfp; Paul Keast <ggpdltrQggmga5l,lglZ Michael Reynolds <[email protected]>; bdelp@liye,Sn<!Cgln@.!iye,!98>; [email protected] <lOtg$eeshg!!y,@m> Subjest: 8-4-21 Historic District Commission Packet
Good aftemoon,
Attached you will find the Historic District Commission pac-ket for August 4th, Below is the Webex information for the meeting should you want or need to participate remotely.

Gall.ln: 1 -,{{ 5{55{t001
Meetlng Number: tE2 793 3916
Meeting Paseword:693 383 23
Thank you!
Kelly Mullett
Admin rstratrue Ass istant
Communlty Dcvelopment Dcparlmcnl
50 Natoma Str6st, Folsom, CA 95630
O:916.461.6231
F:916.355.7274

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Kelly Mullett
From:

Sent:

To:

Kelly Mullett
Tuesday, August 3,2021 5:01 PM
Kelly Mullett
RE: PUBLIC COMMENIS PN19-'t7,f, wrong address, omitted COMMENTSSubJect:

From: U laurent <[email protected]>
Scnt: Tuesday, August l,lOZL 10:15 AM
To: Sarah Aguino <$Sdgg@tgbe& t>
Cc: Steve Krahn.g&n$!.@E9l[rzul>; Steven Wang <$W!0t@fgbqm,!3.U!>; Steven Banks <5bgn!Eefg!$!0,SgJP; The HFRA <t[q]ffg1pgtrg$l49gp; Mike Srenkwitz <Ig!&ggl@Agl49g>; Adena Elair <[email protected]>; Lydia Konopka <[email protected] Shannon Brenkwitz <fhgdeg&l@!,gl>; John Shaw <loshawman@qmall.@; [aura Flsher <!le!flthel@g[!d9g>;Justin Gllhuly <lgl!hgly@gtrelL@!0>; Debra <g!!.@e$pg5S!t9!>; DeinoTrotta <[email protected]>; Cindy Pharls <g0bdg@!!J0rg!>; Ken Cusano <!Sg$te@!9$g$,!So.CP; lauren Ono <le!g@bl$!!04!.EZ Rick Hillman <&!l!meo@f9bg!t gg,U$; SupervisorSue Frost <@>; Ben Fuentes <[email protected]>
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENTS PNtg-174, wrong address, omltted COMMENTS CAUTION: Thls email origlnated from outslde of the organlzatlon. Do not cllck llnks or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content ls safe,
To: Sarah Aqulno Vlce Mayor
Folsom City Officials, Clerk, Lawyer, City Englneer,
Planner Steve Banks
cc: Asst. Clty Clerk for Clerk FILE PN19 174; FFD Chief, Fire Marshal Ono; FPD Chief From: Laurette Laurent
August 3,?AZL
Re: PN19-174 Official Public Comment re FMC t7.52,120 to Folsom City Attorney/Offlce, Clty Engineer -- IGNORED completely.

Sarah, there is no way to contact Hlstoric Preservatlon League, yet it appears to be a city official group. Please send thls dlrectly to Beth Kelly and all members of thls city group. Otherwlse it wlll appear there is some deslre to stifle Public Comments -- offlclally, by the clty stifled. Clearly thls city council is sornehow connected to the Control of Public Comments and Access to Publlc Comments rnade directly to Licensed city staffers who are pald to Certlfy & Sign that there is Legal Compllance with all laws.

Myself, I am dealing with a disabillty, and suspect this is part of the reason city staff believe they can ignore my Research Reports. However, I have remedies available right now, and will use them If my Comments contlnue to be Omitted as a pollcy. 5arah,
My Comments to Clty Englneer Krahn and Clty Attorneys Wang & assistant, were explicitly incorporated lnto this Applications STAFF REPORT without the Folsom Muni

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Code Laws I cited ln thelr Entirety. In other cases, FMC subsections were cited as lf they were Legally blnding desplte vlolatlng State Enabling Legislation Govt. Code 65000 et seq. and as if a "subsectlon" can revoke or Override a Definition, a General Law, or Standards. It's as lf Negation was dumped into 17.52 -- at will, ln the dark, at the discretion of unknown pensons actlng without Publlc knowledge.

Clearly thls case is riddled with lssues. Creatlng new subsectlons at wlll ls Just the tlp of the iceberg. Creating a second City Councilwhich can REZANE and grant EXCEPTIONS to Tltle 17 at wlll, ls offenslve, improper, and destructive to any democracy and Safety & Equal Treatment under Law.

This is a formal objection that again, my email comments were totally omitted. My ernall to Planner Steve Banks is OMITTED from Publlc Comments shown in Agenda Attachment, in re Legal Issues governing, among other issues: "Change of Use"; Legal Deflnition of hlstorlc distrlct group AKA "commission" or a 2nd "plan commission" with Separate set of Land Use Standards and INFMSTRUCTURE and FIRE STANDARDS, and ADA Compllance." My email did note that Formal Complaints were filed wlth proper overslght authorltles and persons.

To keep thls slmple, my formal email to City Lawyer/hls office and Clty Englneer were NOT given direct Responses. It's as lf those Licensed Clty Employees considered thelr License Obligatlons as lrrelevant and NOT bindlng to thelr Cllents -- of which I am one.

Thls ls a huge lssue, whlch will absolutely force residents opposed to such city actions outside State and Federal laws, to be Cause for Complaints. Why does our current Mayor refuse to demand our Llcensed Legal & Engineering Law experts provide him with Sealed, Signed Official Reports? Why have lawyers and englneers lf elected officials never use thelr LICENSE APPROVALS to ensure FULL legal compllance per thelr Llcense Requlrements.

If you fook carefully, actual screen shots of FMC t7.52.L2O are utllized in my Email, to ensure subseguent, secret alterations or Misquoting is prevented. The dutles of the h,d. group are clearly defined, and they DO NOT include Change of Land Use whlch to you is called "REZONE" of parcel. They do NOT include a State of California Enabled Right under State law, to grant Rezones, Exceptions, Enforcement of Standards to a second and totally separate Plan Commission.

State Law allows one Plan Commission which can [1J Hold Public Hearlngs t2] Address Questlons & Answers between Llcensed city staff and publlc, and [3] Make a formal Recommendation to city council for a Legislatlve actlon to alter Land Use, Bulk Stanclards, Access Standards, Street Standards, Infrastructure Standards and [4] Use this process to inform and RECOMMEND to City Council the Action/Legislation enacted by CITY COUNCIL. Councll must determine whether CEQA Compliance is Satisfied as "fulfllled to proper legal Standards and applicable local, county, state and federal laws.

1. Where is the Discusslon of California Fire Code Compliance? 2

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

2. Access for ALL FIRE ENGINES and Flre Water TRUCKS in the event hydrant pressure is < 41000 PSI durlng thls drought?

3. Where is hard Proof this former factory and lts entlre vehlcular and pedestrlan access points meet Americans with Dlsablllties Act regulrements?

4. Where does Callfornla Govt. Code 65000 et seq state a clty can HAVE & USE two dlfferent sets of Standards and Regulations for Land Uses? Where does it state an OVERLAY of extra aesthetic issues such as t7.52, can be convefted into grantlng another non-elected group the POWER to REZONE, to change Land Uses? To WAIVE City STANDARDS?
There are other Questions which ONLY an Elected Body can Decide, upon and with the signed Advlce of Legal Council, and Seal of Clty Englneer. [lJ The so-called lease do not prove signator for "Eagles" has any Legal Authority to enter into such a Lease.
[2] Street Address does not match the old Clouds Pottery factory. [3J Street FRONTAGE is less than 19 feet of pedestrlan only access. l4l Parklng wlll end up destroylng historic RESIDENCES. [5] Ignorlng Fire Code and ADA will result ln direct harms to persons/properties, not to mention Health Safety & Welfare.
[6] There is NO Findlng of Fact to prove new owner dld not create his own Hardships by over-reachlng and seeking exceptions to crltical Flre, Access, Bulk Standards, Parking Standards/Laws.

NO CITY CAN HAVE TwO SEPARATE SETS OF STANDARDS whlch permlt exceptlons to State, Federal, County Laws.

Staff with Licenses are PAID to protect resldents & others from Llfe-threatening Uses, Configurations, First Responder Access.
3

01/11/2022 Item No.15.
r i r4ri.i'J
c
$ !t.t nai
){ : gl Sic|1r''riri- x 0 6l7n3c3l , X , iEi r't!:-ersori x : 'i,i f,;rr''r'arcr x A tlil':lri3 {) I iol:Clt.Ca.tr5 1:r,'r: 'iiir,:",'i'.r'.il-:l'Sl-r1.11.l';.1:-11-;1,:rrl','rll;rl-il;1 i;'.':' "llij:l -l ji;''i
i'r-13c.:(ic F'.l.,r :i,r. C) :h:i T:i': 1l liltr',,. *a'd-qri nl.'Etli ! categoiicall'y axempi unde. Section 15303 (New Construction of Small Struictures) of I Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Project Planner: Josh Kinltade/Applicant: Pamele

PUBLIC HEARING
2- PN 'lg-174. Folso Prison Brews Conditional Use Permit. Desion Reviaw and Proiect is Exemot from CEQA
A Public Hearing to consider a request from Konet Architecture For approval oF a Conc Design Revlew for development and operation of a craft beer establishment (Folsom I existing 4,377-square-foot building located at 608 % Sutter Street, The zoning classifir (Historic DistricUsutter Street Subarea), while lhe General Plan land-use designation The project is categorically exempt under Section 1 5301 Existing Facilities, and 15301 Conversion of Small Structures, of the California Environmentai Qualiiy Act (CEQA) G Planner: Steve Banks/Applicant: Konet Architecture)

HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION / PRINCIPAL PLANNER REPORT The next Historic District Commission meeting is scheduled for August 18.2021. F items may be added to the agenda; any such additions will be posled on the bulletin t at least 72 hours prior to the meeting. Persons having questions on any of these ite Development Department durtng normal business hours (8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.) Natoma Street, Folsom, California, prior to the meeting. The phone number is (916) (916) 355-7274.
ln compliance with the Americans wilh Disabilities Act, if you are a disabled persol related modification or accommodation to participate in the meeting, please contact t 637630874:t03773299 2 t'tzl I 12s.qa + I E o
i:#: ryHd[,j1 {g€
4

01/11/2022 Item No.15.
=
637630874703T13299 73 1128 I 110% +lgJ o
fl.m. to &,m.

No expansion of business hours beyond what is stated above shull he permitted w approvul being obtained from thc Ftistoric District Commission through a disceti, Conditional
Folsom Prison Brews shallbe limitcd to the salc and consumption of becr, non-ult No lc or of shall be inc
Doors and windows to the outdoor patio area shall bc closed at all times rvhen mu No speakers, music, televi-sions, or screens shnll bc pcrmitted on the ouldoo or other crterior e
No duncing shall be permined mylhere in the premises including the p8l add there shall be no or raised dance floor or

73 t4
r5
,"1 .
r6.

City of Folsom
Historic District Commission
Folsom Prlson Brcw$ (PN 19-174)
August !,,4021

18. T,he qwnelapplicsnt shell elrur"e rlcase agreement for fte:l* prrkhg.sp-aco! !g$gp. propeny rcmtin in sffeot as loqg;,as. ttolsom Prisong Brcws.er an/_i srrtllgqu; q$lbliFhmcnt operating at this locatiorr pursuant to ihc Conditional Use Psrmit rc business.
{
5

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

J'ii i5 r"rnrearJ) - iliolrerrt,.i. x ' f9J Socr',;,rrrriis :r:i )rc:t x g 5176-r'.:s.7.1;iilrll99 x lEi J:ie:scr P;i:.<er ',/i:o € , C O I folson.co,ug. irrlr'tr, .;!i".1,t-ii. l.rti:li+rjilc,.r.rrlerrt,': r.li',;r!l/5:1t:il:t471.'r:r.::J:ii $ Setfrnor itg6,11*" F'urrr :irc. C) tt- .- T,t,a 'l lr-'',;l . D"-r!E'rt'Jlrl,'Jr:;: L.

City of Folsom Page 3:
75 7b / 128 'il0% +- 6376308747A3773299 trto
Historic Oistrict Commission
Folsom Prison Erews (PN 19-174)
August 4,2021
I
M
B to issuancs of
o Ilrior to snnrova
CD
(P)
(E)
(B)
(F) c
Comrnunity Developlnen t Departmen t
Planning Division
Engincering Division
Building IJivision
Fire Division
PW Public Works Departnrent DC Durinn const
PR oc
PD
Prior to
to
of Im Plans
Pcrmit
Final
to issuaft:e of Permit
Pnrk mrd irement
How very "expedient" there is NO MENTION of this 503c Organizations OFFICERS:
,l
::;o,.r1 adlc$a
t)

01/11/2022 Item No.15.
'l-. r.r,,, X i:'J !rc:r, X O 6:l .i. X G r:io X -'ilr!,, X fr bi-:, X f ;.r-';; " f) L/>\ \/
$ ::t:.'rr:
(J A :',:,'),[..,.ri,
1 :,:, ia,:l ! ,r'ti jtt.
fc l r rt r- r. r. .i I iir-r lr i.,. f o t.:,-; n'r
c) st,,.:crti ,,-'..

Folsom
Fraternal Order of Eagles
-'\.J
Home Oflicers Everrls Nervs llall Rentals Conl,act Us
Officers
Office Officer:

Proudly pr:weted by WotdPress
i: # r-ii.l Ht ql El 9' 3
Even the IRS has no record of Eagles Folsom Aerie 929
/

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Results for Tax Exempt Organizi
Search
'il,.5 x j 6.:J .-i.rt X I CI 6f' x lS A:. X -f, rl0 x i $" r::' x + C O I app: rr': t1o'/r.:: ij -: r- ".r:''":;"
$ ::i:rrr,.ri ,:n:'(,l:ijF!rr:rt. C) tt.IT.t=''-l: '. i':-'-r": rll);'-i! L Setect Database 6 Search gy €
Search Atl \r' Orgartizatiort Nante \/ Eagtes Folsom Aerie 929 State Country
folsonr \/ Unitecl States
Reset
r.]rjrliXi$:cl X $
Search terrn O
Sea rch Tip5
City
q",
. Your search did not return any results. Please try again.

Fifteen Spaces for a huge 4K sg foot building ls not exactly providing OFF-STREET PARKING to City Code Standards, is it?
Lease Agreement is shot full of omissions, exceptions, closures, N0 EVIDENCE of this 503c3 group's Status or Land Use Compliance either.

How much more "questionable" could Applications "facts" be? rl
i:;'i"'l Fl qt E o A

01/11/2022 Item No.15.
114 I 128 trl o110% + i
=
63763087470:1T13299
lolSOn' Prrtgn Erpws - Lerrcr
Ioliom Pr'lorr $rervr rvrll pay lo Entla3 56000 per Vear O) 9500 p(lr monlh lor rse oi the Eagler lol lrom lhe operalronil opcnan8 of Follom Priron 8n'1.vc un aerrul^.'itl$ inrnted lo a ndw ut€ by Eaglltr ol folrom Prlon llrewr cealts lo t gjrl rt tot$ofti Prr:on Brggs erFn* rill be F@lcd errtrlr11 'F-rgles Mamburr '

2.-r(s-, lJ€,:tl p,rr'rrngOI{LY: lll olheliw|ll be towed al slr,nets'orp€n5e'' 12 :4136n: Pi,;on Sresr rhall, al th" r€que9t 6t llle E!ttc5. prourde J plrklng lot al .--rd:r., ! Sarurdayr from 5pm- loprn lo enJurp parkinB condrtloot rfE cnfor(ed 1 ! a3'+i. r: ,htr dtsrre oo.r, may contlnue 1(' chargn rcr publrc parkirrg whenavcr ll Ta6, er. r; lnl:l' dircrettoo may clole lheir lol {or *pxirl faglcs cventt i :1.:i;t ?, '*r ln'at r.rll matnlan gcneral liabrlny inilrraoce covenrge for nol '- . '.' rt:'ltr- llrrf, a -hpld harrilles' add addnronellv inflted deslSnatlon fr" t 4 2-,te.. -lt:q,;t, V*,:6eto lhe €tglca o mlnrmum oI4 lrec admitlance per m ,! trlr,t.1,4 rr Fe+lr.'trou',9 [nltdalnm€nt
'
4 I
,i
I
,/
, t. tt, J( ,.tr ttlt :
60t! ?' \rttt "r')t F i)l\oni
ul I 2 D
fa8lPr tolrom CA fl
? I I Scotr 5r. tolrom
lt(./t' , {}/v,,,,r:

J^*L W'
(D
9

01/11/2022 Item No.15.
€ TransitFr Hotels Q AttractionsYl Restaurants
,\)l'
t\
r'!
-t
.ftI
Google shows 608.5 Sutter St. as a different structure.

WHICH IS RIGHT Folsom CIty ENgineer & Surveyor?
10

01/11/2022 Item No.15.
:l: rJ grlrq'.
€e
d iett,rrg;
x I kl 5acran' x I $ t:.r l;rr. x IBi -r:i;, a il igu"r'r x i h 6il$l1 x , ll rrctr O I agsessorpatcel',,iev,ier.sacc'lUtltY.net,'i ;5i7'','-'.,.riier:i\i.lrti'll inrpo'tec Frcm iile,.. C) FN1: Tiitr i: :ar\ .. l":,,.::''!' 'ni)r,-i;: 1,.. (l 7D 0,jri I "(,j 1 '
\nr;ruil,t ENt o
.--._-- coutJr\ Assessor Parcel Viewer
+
Parcel Oetails Layers Me,rsLrre 5ea r'ili Res,.rlts :.::ltr i P;tr'cels l,ecerrt S.rle: Lellenr:l A summary of the most recerlt
proper-ly tax hill is avail;ble or-r
the e-PropTax site.

Tax Rate Area Code
jurisdiction Usecl on
Most Recent Tax Roll
Last Roll Year

04.0r8

FOLSONI
:020
tioB.r.iz
Parcel 070-0(
6 ',5
q'
6oB
as ofjune 25,2021
Tax Roll Year
Larrd \/alue
lnrprovemerlt Value
Pergonal Property
Value
Fixtu re5
Homeowner'5
S:<enrptlon
102 1
_riai + I a
! 5r1.i,5 5 5
t0
blri
l,j9
5tl
-5C
I Cor-
Why doesn't City Engineer Krahn quote First Responder Chiefs INPUT to him, Folsom has a Fire Marshal who, in normal law-abiding cities, would have to issue a formal Report, wlth signatures.

Why didn't he Consult FMC-adopted universal FIRE CODE for MINIMUM ACCESS? Why was he totally SILENT on SAFETY?
This Parcel has less than 19 foot wide access but a Pedestrian Walkway, The closest Street Frontage is Sutter St., and it IS NOT even a LEGAL COMMERCIAL ZONE street FRONTAGE.
ll
:QlrlTI €11 H4

01/11/2022 Item No.15.
\nt:t\nl,r r-.Nt ()
-_ _,.'('ouNrY Assessor Parcel Viewer
Parccl Det.rils L:1i,ef r irle.i:,-,ri j;lrcl-, g1'-.r-ilt; 5elect Parr:elr Rec€:llt 531e5 Legattcl a5 JLtr'e 25, 2021
Tax Roll Year
Land Value
lmprr:vernent Value
Personal Property
Value
Fixtures
Homeowner'5
Exernption
Other Exemption
l',let Assessed Value
property t:x bill
infoflnation
? (.i.' 1
i l'f I 'l I f
5 1C. :,'-i i
ti)
+
'1 " = 4',
o\
rC.
-r ll
'L:-r
t)(,ii I ,:
i;:13. 1a _l
Lirrk to ePrirpTa l
Aclclrlio nal in fornr ari,-rn r egarclt rrg
Assesscr-'s ioil ri,rlue:. r-an lte
r-rbrainecl by coniacting tlre
As:essor''., Oiircp ai .l ri; li;; '' i'li
f-\l',:l : :. e -i )1-!t .l, :r,'i t i ( i r. I II ;, Ir ; 1 I I Zoning H'i - nJ5T'.--,flr(:

I 5f1C-
rit4
. t'
tn cttsc vou tloullt ltte,.Sirrlh. hc.r'c's l;ll(.' lext ;lrc.rcrletl vin Picturcs I'or rn1'(-'ontnrents to citl l:rrrpe rs. rnginccrs, stal'l'.

I 7,52, I 20 l)ul ics ol' lhc lr islolic tl ist rict rrrrn rrr issirrl.

I ht ltrrtrttrr clttlrtct cutlrrrrrsrrn slrlll hlr r tltr' lirlllrr rtx .ktrel ;rtrrl rusfrrtrtt'ilrlrer l2

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

A, OvcIK thc inplrmcnt0liDl ol'thc lllovlslonr oflhis chont€r; B. Dcvelop md rccommctd d0ilgn gui.rclincr to thq city cowcil for tio hidotlc dirrrilt:

C. PlcpNr. {rd nnlntllln |l run'cy ofthc hl$oric tiructsrBi within the hiroric dittnct:

D. Prcvldc crll3lf,orc lo ftrklltrlr. propfiy orvnctt ond burinetormcrr ir rclotaon to lhe provisionr olthlr cho6en olTcd&r8 ot rchtinS to the hidodc dicrict;
F. Recommcnd ro the cily councll rrncndmfiB to ldopted caty plant or cod6 in the interctt ollurthcring lhE porpo{cr ol'thir dhrptc.:

O. Revierv thc derlgr ond urchht*rue of cny new Srclur€, or ollaaliotr to nny cxattln! rtrcturu wirhin th? hltoric district. !s tLnh€r dcnrrd iD thir chogret; H. Dqerminc ths historical sijniticoncc of stdciurcs 0i funlpr dolinsd in thas choplcti l, Rciticlv oppticolioni for riBD pGflrilq conditionul urc Fmltr, vlrinnccr, lond divirionr rnd ncrgcn wirhir th€ historic distrlcr:
slruClurc|t; lnd
K. Catry oul tuch olhcr d0lica ElilinS lo Oc hliloric dbrict ar mqy bc gsigned by the clty council, (Ord. t90 $ 2 (po.r). 1908) Commenti in HPL attachment to Agenda:

NOTEI my Publlc Comments tacitly r€futed, but omltted verbatlm on FMC 17.52 ar lt p.rtslns to all thcse .pdlcatlons? COMMENT: Fdsom HPL should make Formal Demands to City Englneer and City Attorney for Certifled Signed Englneerlng Law and CA/Folsom FMC Law Compllance is CERTIFIED by our Licensed Professlonals. This was always part of Folsom Clty Charter "Dutles" of Llcensed staff. until FMC was put ONLINE ONLY. Suddenly the prlnt verslon was strlpped of Critical ltems of Charter and Duties.

QUESTIONS? Always welcome, as Folsom Resldents are tired of being unheard, lgnored, and having their Rights and Safety violated by elected officials and the Licensed Staff whom they could demand do their License Duties -- thelr Llcense ENFORCEMENT Dutles.
bcc's
--- Forwarded Message ---From: The HFRA <[email protected]> To: The HFRA <l[ghfra(DS6ei!.CAtq>
Sent: Monday, August 2,2021,08:lS:48 pM pDT
Subf ect: "Upcoming Historic DisUict Cornmission Meetin g.. t3

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Hello Members
lAle aru encouraging allmambers lo joln and provide feedback at lhe upcomlng HDC meetlng thlE V\bdnesday, August4th at 5 PM.

The HFRA Board willaddmss the Commisslon wlth speclflc concerns on the new projEct; Folsom Prlcon BrawE regarding but not llmltad lo; proposed deslgn, propced bulldlng materials and parking.

Agenda Llnk:
htoe:/rwrr,lv.bleom.ca.us/homs/showoublieheddocumenUll46/6i17030874703?3299 Thank you and we hopa to see you lhere.

Sincarely,
The HFRA Board
t4

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

CARY RIC}IAIU)
Clil(l l l:ll:l I I'lt(r$,f l't
ItliAl. l:I liYl'l; $l'hClt\1.!.\ I
Public Comment Regarding Folsom Prison Brews Project
August 3,2021
Greetings Commissioners
I rise to speak today in support of the Folsom Prison Brews project al6O8 % Sutter St.

I am Gary Richard, a 30 year resident of Folsom, a Realtor that has sold a large number of commercial properties on Sutter St. And yes, the applicant is my client. I am also the ddver of the Sutter Surfer.

But it is not from that experience l'm coming from. lt is my experience as the Design Chair of the Folsom Historic District Association during the Sutter St.

Revitalization Proiect and serving on the City's Streetscape Revitalization Committee in that capacity. As msmber of the Main Street Prcject Committee, an economic revitalization exercise for Sutter St, And my insight as the Founder and Chairman of the Folsom Historical Society's 6th Annual Golf Tournament.

Many will or have spoken on the merits of this application and I agree with their commenb. Today, I am addressing the public comments submitted by the Heritage Preservation League of Folsom. This small group does not represent the larger views of the historical community, their comments are unfounded in fact and law This small group has conveniently ignored the hct that this projest is in the Entertainment District, has purposely misrepresented Folsom Gode and is attempting to usurp the authority of this Commision and has accused the city staff of ignoring the law.
l'll address the parking issue, the Heritage Preservation League comments complain about the parking but what have they done besides irnage non existent land and money for parking.

ReMax Gold Folsom, 2340E. Bidwell St., Folsom, CA 95630 516-2144221 direct 916-239-6534 fax 916-984-8778 office [email protected]
www.GarvRlchard.remaxosld.c
cA.DRE LlC.# 0'1502446

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

On the other hand, the applicant has taken a proactive approach by developing and funding a unique parking solution in the Sutter Surfer, a free shuttle designed to encourage increased use of the parking structure. Mr. Weaver has served on the City's Parking Advisory Committee, a 6 month pr,cess and has found an inventive solution br additlonal parking with the Fratemal Order of the Eagles.

As I mentioned earlier, not only is this group trying to usurp this Commission's authority but they now want to tell my loyal brothers and sisters of the Eagles what to do with their parking lot.

This applicant and his team have worked dosely with the City Staff and made several revisions upon receiving community input, including from members of this group.

He has followed the code and is acting in good faith.

Mr. Weaver has incorporated an iconic design that will further enhance the Sutter St Streetscape.
ln closing, I encourage the Commission to appro\re this project and reject all comments and input ffom the Hedtage Preservation League of Folsom.

Thank you for your time. I would be happy to answer any questions or provide additional insight.

Gary Richard, CPRES
ReMax Gold Folsom, 23/,0 E. Bidwell St., Folsom, CA 95630 916-2144221 direct 916-239-5534 fax 916-984-877E office Gary. R [email protected]
wlutGa ryRlcha rd. remaxgold.com
CA.DRE LlC.# 015024't6

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

THE POWELL LAW OFFICE
303 DEAN WAY
FO60M, CA 95630
{916} 712-146s
[email protected]
douglas. powel I @twin riversusd.ore
August 3,2021
H tsToRrc DlsTRtcT coMMtssroN

CITY OF FOLSOM
50 NATOMA STREET
FOLSOM, CA 95530
RE:W
fo Whom lt May Concern,
By way of introduction, I am a long-time Folsom resident (previou3ly living in the historic district, and currently a few blocks away from it). I have had a Northern California law practice for around 30 years, and am a local middle school English teacher. I am also a good friend of one of Folsom's brightest, and finest, business owners, Mr. Murray Weaver. I am writing you to voice my excitement and enthusiasm regarding his new business project, to be known as FO6OM PRISON BREWS, and to offer a counter- narrative to some inaccurate remarks made by some in the community.

Unfortunately, I have read some unfair, disparaging comments that are critical of his new prcject, and I think they need to be addressed in short order. Apparently, the Heritage Preservation League of Folsom (hereinafter, the "HPLOF") has seen frt to criticize the project, requesting, inter alia, ", , , that the CtU ol Folsom ploce o moratorlum on ond refroin from spproving any parking vorionces for new arfuture projeds (i,e. not currently opproved) in Folsom's Historic Distrid untll the newly formed Folsom Historic Dktrict Porking Solutions Ad Hoc Commlttee provides their recommendations ond the City tokes action on them.' HPLOF contlnues, stating that: "The reasonfutthls request is that we feel there hove been too many recent reguests for parking varionces, which clearly shows on urgent need to address inodeguate parking now, For example, the reent varionce request for the Folsom Prison Erews project reguested porking associoted with the Eagles Lodge. The project notice did not even odequotely exgloin how this porking ogreement would provlde odequote parking on o day-to- day bdsis or in the future, without conflicting with the Lodge's needs."
Finally, the HPLOF website also suggests that: '/n addition, at thls time, there is also a concern thot once Scott's Seafood occupies their building, porklng in the nearby porking structure will defacto become Scot(s restaurant porking, thus eliminating mony porking spaces for other businesses."

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Too many recent requests for parking variances? Says who? As quoted above, HPLOF states thal,"We feel there hove been too msny recent requests for parklng varionces, whtch clearly shows on urgent need to qddress inadequate parking now"? (emphasis addedl. The"feeling" of HPLOF is unfortunately irrelevant, to my mind, and not based on any empirical evidence. Based on that "feeling", they abruptly jump to the conclusion that it "c/eorJy shows an urgent need to address inodequote porking now." That kind of knee- jerk, baseless conclusion is what lfind troubling, and erroneous. For example, there is not even a variance being reguested at this time, ln short, all of HPLOF criticisms of the FOLSOM PRISON BREWS are meritless.

Fronr my personal objectivc perspcctlve, this HFI-OI parking space critique appears to be much ado about nothing. For example, CLOUD'5 POfiERY was in the FOLSOM PRISON BREWS building for years, managed by another close friend (Jeff Cloud) and to my knowledge, there was never a parking problem there.

Further, on the other end of the street, Scott's Seafood Restaurant is now up and running; and is already one of my favorite new establishments in tolsom. There is no parking shortage whatsoever, whenever I decide to drive, instead of walk, to downtown Folsom. ln short, the amount of parking from the top of Sutter Street to the bottom is more than ample, and I can attest to this from personal experience, as well from the experience of family and friends, Downtown Folsom is extremely user friendly, to say the least, and is a well-known go-to destination in Northern California. HPLOF's complaints are - in short - unfair.

Finally, on a personal note, Mr, Murray Weaver - the developer of FOLSOM PRISON BREWS - is a local treasure, and has been for over 20 years. His welFknown benevolence, selfless devotion to this city (and its business community in the Folsom Historic District), generosity, professional acumen, and kindness, is legendary. He is highly respected by this entire neighborhood, and I for one am quite confident that any business he manages will be run professionallv, smoothly, successfully, anci with a view towards benefitting our beautiful and unlque city. Parking has not been - and will not be - an issue, so please, take the above into consideration when you address the groundless, spurious complalnts of HPLOF, There many very good reasons why this project has overwhelming local support, despite the protestations from HPLOF, ln fact, if the above HPLOF comments were taken into serious consideration historically, NO projects would have been built the last decade - their uninformed, biased criteria are arbitrary, and unhelpful. lf you have any comments, or if I can answer any of your questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at your convenience at the above coordinates.

Sincerely
Douglas E, Powell, Esq.

ATTORNEYAT IAW

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

P rA iil(
CRAf f f lf cUEt{ + BAn
812/2o2L
To the Historic District Commission of the City of Folsom After reviewing the documented intent of Mr. Murry Weaver at 6A8 !7 Sutter Street/APN 070/0051- 011, I directly oppose this project.

Parking is currently very difficult for our patrons in the 600 block of Sutter Street and with this additional type of business and the nurnber of possible patrons in this hlgh occupancy location, it will be nearly impossible for our guests to find adequate parking close enough to want to visit us and other like businesses in the 500 block. Additionally, there is mention of adding a food truck irr the lower parking lot that will make it even more difficult,
The hours of operation and safety are a lso a big concern. I have heard many comments from tenants in the 600 block regarding late night safety problems and drunks vomiting and vandalizing their property due to an abundance of inebriated customers from the already existing Powerhouse location. ln my opinion this will only increese the safety lssues ln thls corner of the 600 block and concerns for vandalism on my restaurant will leave rne stressed every night.

I feel so strongly about these concerns that I would likely close my r€staurant operation when this br ewer y uperretl r alhel llrar r elrdur e a slow death to it due to tlre above stated collcerlrs.

Sincerely,
Michael Sanson
Owner
Plank Craft Kitchen + Bar
680 Sutter 5t. Folsom CA 95630
916-260-5333

01/11/2022 Item No.15.
citi zerr$vine
Poulln8 for th. Pcoplc
al2lzo2t
To whom it may concern:

I have reviewed the proposed project for 608 % Sutter Str€et (current Artfully Rooted building) in detail and have various concerns regarding the proposed business to enter into that space. Due to these conc€rns, I oppose this type of business for the 500 Block of Sutter 5t & the Historic District, The first area of concern is around parking. As we already know the parking situation on our end of Sutter St. (500 Block) is already an issue. On the weekends, parking is already forcing customers to park in local nelghborhoods. The building space at 608 % Sutter is well over 4,000 sqft, and this will carry a large occupancy, while offering no additional parking spaces near it's location. I saw the suggestion of providing leased parking spaces at the Elks Lodge across the street, however customers are going to pull into the lot that is closest to where they are going and it will be herd for customers to determine that they can park across the street, which willthen leave those Elks Lodge lease spaces marked with signs that wilt discourage others from parking there, compounding the parking lssues, The second area of concern to me that is even more critical, is the overall effect that this type of business will have on the 600 block. This concept ofa Taphouse right next door to the current Powerhouse/Scarlet's, ls basically a % block of daily, Night Club Party Vibe. With both locations offering spirits, the customers from qne location will flow to the other outside. This is proven by the suggestion of having a Food Truck in the lot that would basically be between the 2 locations. lnebriated customers will be hanging out in the parking lot, getting food, going from the Tap House (that also wants an outdoor dining area) to Powerhouse. With 2 businesses selling alcohol, that are promotlng this outdoor vibe, it will become a large, drunk block party on the weekends, Currently businesses on the 500 Block rely on our customers being able to park in the lower lot, The walkway that allows customers to reach these businesses, will now have late night intoxicated customers in this area. Our customers are not going to feel safe walking this area at night and neither will our staff, They will be less likely to patron our businesses if the area seems less safe at night.

I do feel like retail would be a better fit for this ipace or a restaurant that doesn't have hours till midnight & zam.

Co ncerned Busi ness Owner,
Lisa Gomez
Citizen Vine

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Item: PN L9-174, Folsom City Brews
My name is Paul Keast, a Folsom resident in the Historic District on Mormon Street. I am not opposed to another bar in the Historlc Dlstrict as a business,
I do oppose the development and design of Folsom Prison Erews on 2 grounds:
1, The lease ior parking is very weak and has little provision for future guaranteed parking spaces.

2. The building exterior design does not meet the intent of the Historlc District guldelines. a. I think it trivializes the people and environment of Folsom Prison.

1. The parking solution:

Notice the Development Condition states that 15 spaces are clearly mandated.

Notice the Lease states: "partial use,"
This seems to be a poorly structured lease to ensure lifetime access, as noted in the condition, to the noted spaces, The lease must guarantee the identified parking spaces at all times.

Also, the Conditions tie the parking spaces to the life of the FPB business. lf the parking spaces are permanently or !g!!!!glgl!!y no longer available, (as noted below in the conditions) then FPB must stop operations.

Parking in the Historic Business District and residential district is a critical concem for residents and all businesses as you must know.

Condition 28 ; The owner/applicant shall ensure that a lease a6reement for the 15 parkinn spaces at the Ea6le lodge properly remain in effect as long as Folsom Prison Brews or any subsequent establishment operating at this location pursuant to the Condltional Use Permit remalns in business.

Item 1 ofthe Lease:
".....G! S500 per month forthe partial use of the Eagles lot from the operational opening of Folsom Prlson Brews until the lot ls permanently changed to a new use by the Eagles.., "

2. The FPB planned exterlor is a likeness of Folsom Prison, complete with a replica guard tower. The design is not in line with the Historic District Guidelines of prcservlng historic city buildings. Rather, it is an obvious and insulting att€mpt to cash in on a theme that denigrates the people that work and are lncarcerated ln the prison.

Folsom Prison is a stark and dangerous place to work and be incarcerated. At least 93 inmates have been executed there. A significant number of guards have been kllled on duty at the prlson. As recently as November 25,2O2O, guards had to shoot and kill an inmate due to violence ln the prison.

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Does the clty of Folsom need to have a buslness deslgn in the Historic District that does not align to the Distrlct Oeslgn Guldellnes and mocks the life stories of people that work, died and are lncarcerated at Folsom Prlson?
I hope you believe lt to be gg.

Plersc do not allo$, the $erd tower dcslgn of thls prclect as lt ls not appmprlatc for thc Hlstorlc Dl3rlct.

Regards, Paul Keast

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

HERITAGE PRESERVATION LEAGUE OF' I'OLSOM

PROJECT APPLICATION REYMW
August l,2O2l (Project Review - Plans dated 03. t5.21)
PROJECT: The conversion of 4,377 square-foot two-story bam-like building to a 'beer house', the installation ofan outdoor patio and serving area and potential provision of a food truck at 608 % Sutter Street in the Sutter Street Commercial Subarea (PNt8-174).

REQUEST: Design Review, Parking Review and Conditional Use Permit

PROJACT
HISTORY: HPL provided review comments regarding the original application on May 30, 20t9.

The following review was originally based on the project updates that have been Posted on the City's website since February 18.

HPL has also addressed some of the new information that was first introduced in the latest SteffReport.

ATTACHMENTS: l. City regulation not Complied with by Folsom Prison Brews

2. Comments Regarding the StaffReport

3. Proposed Findings of Denial

BACKGROUND
During the late half of the 1800s, the Odd Fellows Hall and the Natomas Company's Fruit Drying House were located in the general vicinity of 608 % Sutter Sneet. Around the same time a small jail was located on the north side of LeidesdorffSheet at Woo[ Street (across from the railroad block). All these buildings later burned down or were removed. The 'pottery bam' building in the cunent application has been on the property since [958, per the assessor's office. The existing walkway from Sutter Sneet to the Scott Street parking lot is lined by ceramic tiles produced at the bam (by Cloud's Pottery).

Historic buildings have at times been recreated in the Central Business Distict of Historic Folsom. As an example, replicas of a blacksmith shop and a wagon shed have been built in Pioneer Viltage. The recently completed Roundhouse building is located on the same footprint as the previous repair shops for Sacramento Valley Railroad All these buildings have a historic connection to the property they are located on.

CONCEPT
It is the applicant's intent to create a version of the existing perimeter wall, gate and guard tower at Folsom State Prison, relying on Policy 2.6 of Chapter 2 of the Design and Development Guidelines, which oalls for the City'1o maintain, restore, and reconstruct sites which represent the history of the Folsom area". Folsom Prison is one of eleven resources cited in the policy. Folsom Prison is undeniably an icon of Folsom's history, but it does not need to be maintained, restored, or reconstructed.

It still exists, and it is under the stewardship of the state. The prison has no connection to the project site, and the prison is not located in the Historic District.

01/11/2022 Item No.15.
o
The project concept is in direct contradiction to the most basic premise of FMC I7.52 and the Council- adopted Design and Development Guidelines. The premise is first stated in FMC t7.52.010 Purpose and Intent. Out ofseven stated purposes, the first purpose is: "To preserve and enhance the historic, small-town atmosphere of the historic district as it developed between the years 1850 and 1950." The fifth purpose is "To ensure that new residential and commercial development is consistent with the historical character ofthe historic district as it developed between the years 1850 and 1950." The principle is repeated multiple times, with details of appropriateness added, throughout the Design and Development Guidelines. The premise is further refined to delinrit construction in the Sutter Street Subarea to the I 850- l 900 timeframe.

Since the Prison itself was under conslruction at that time, groundbreaking taking place in 1878, historians would concur that building a prison replication on Sutter Street would have been considered quite inappropriate between 1850 and 1900 (even between 1850 and 1950) in the City's central business district, especially considering the project's proximity to Folsom's Nob Hill. [t was an out-of-town industrial use. In fact, the tower and gate this project replicates were not completed until l9l0; a decade after the Sutter Street Subarea's timeframe.

Recommendation
Change the name ofthe business, and use an alternative design concept that is connected to the history of the project site and is appropriate to the Sutter Street Commercial District before year I 900.

ARCHITECTURE
The applicant is proposing to cover the walls of lhe former pottery barn with a gt:ay Turkish lime stone veneer (described as 'granite' in the project narrative), replace the comrgated fiberglass roof cover with comrgated metal roof panels and add a raised tower that resembles the guard towers of the existing Folsom State Prison. As a general impression, the inegular pattern of the stone walls does not reflect historic masonry techniques, and the reproduction of a Folsom Prison guard tower is out of context with the surrounding neighborhood. In addition, the unintemrpted stone facades lack interest and variety At the west enhance (facing the patio), the applicant is proposing to construct a fiberglass archway intended to resemble the stone archway in the perimeter wall of Folsom State Prison. Because this feature protrudes two feet from the fagade and covers virtually the entire width of the building, it creates the impression of a stand-alone gateway. The arch will be built around a standard entrance door and a wide folding door. Two rounded windows will filI the space above the door. The only additional windows are located in the raised tower. A row of skylights are proposed on each side of the ridgeline and the roof overhang is minimal. Allthese design details are not consistent with the pre-I900 design therne of the Sutter Street Commercial Subarea.

It is HPL's conclusion that the proposed building remodel will look 'staged', will detract from the 600 block's historicity and will not do honor to the City's prison heritage. As an alternative, the applicant may consider a remodel that resembles a meeting hall or a winery building. Should the applicant decide to develop a new design, HPL recommends: l) that the tower feature be removed or changed to no longer resembling a historic guard tower at Folsom State Prison; 2) that windows be incorporated along the facades, and; 3) that the entrance on the west frontage be in scale with the width of the building.

HPL has noted that the project no longer includes roof-mounted sky lights. 2

01/11/2022 Item No.15.
a
a
a
a
The applicant has reported that food service is required for the proposed use. However, in lieu of installing a permanent kitchen in the brew pub, the applicant has proposed to provide delivery services from nearby eateries and to potentially park a food tmck outside Powerhouse Pub during business hours.

If the applicant in the future decides that a food-truck should be a regular part of the project, a new application will need to be submitted to the City. Before a food truck is scheduled to service the brew pub the Historic District Commission should have the opportunity to consider the site requirements and design specifications of this addition. The Commission may also want to consider the impacts of potential customets from Sutter Street.

Recommendations
Revise the building desiga to resemble a pre-1900 meeting hall or winery building. (If a raised towerfeature is added it should not resemble the guard lowers at Folsom State Prison.) Incorporate windows with the building facades where possible, The north wall of the building fronts on a public right-of-way and is therefore not constrained from including windows and doors. Walls which may be consfrained because of lack of setback from the property line need other differentiation to avoid blank walls.
(Wnery buildings oflen had stonelacades and arched wirulows.) Use fagade materials that reflect the pre-1900 desip concept of the Sutter Subarea:
(Avoid irregular sized lime stonesfor the buildingfacades and reduce the glass area of the doots in the entrance.)
Before a portion of the parking area for Powerhouse Pub is reserved for a food truck a dotailed project proposal needs to be submitted to the City. All design issues and parking impacts need to be reviewed and considered by the Historic District Commission.

SIGNS
The front entrance to the brew pub is located along the west side. This side of the building is 30 feet wide and per Zoning Code the length of signs should be limited to75Yo of the building facade. Black sign letters with back lighting are proposed to be mounted along the front archway. The proposed sign area is 35 square feet (based on a letter height of 1.33 feet and a sign length of 26.5 feet), Individual letters offset from the fagade were not used pre-1900 and are not described in the sign codes for the Sutter Street Subarea. As specified in Chapter 5 of the DDG's the main building frontage is facing the alley right-of-way within the Scott Street parking lot. Based on the length of the building the sign allowance would be 50 square feet. The west side of the building does not meet the definition of a secondary building frontage (facing a street or public area) but based on the proposed location of the front entrance it could possibly quali& as eligible for half of the front sign area, or 25 square feet.

Recommendations
For better consistency with existing codes and guidelines for sigtage, consider installing a buitding sign along the north fagade (the main frontage) and a blade sign at the main entrance along the west fagade.
o
3

01/11/2022 Item No.15.
o
a
lf a sign is installed along the west fagade, the sign area shoutd not exceed 25 square feet and the length of the sign should not exceed 22.5 feet.
(The Design Guidelines does not allow for excluding spaces hetween words from the estimated sign area,)
tnstall the sign letters on a backgrourd and illuminate the sign with goose-neck lights ('l'he background of the sign should he considered a part of the stgn area.)

SITE DESIGN
As a part of the application in 2019 , a large outdoor seating area was proposed on the west side of the beer house. This fenced in area extended across the west property line and also cut off pedestrian trsvel between Sitter Street and the Scott Street parking lot. It is HPL's understanding that the appliczurt is now proposing to install two separate seating areas that will allow the existing access path to remain (see Figure 4, Building Rendering). As previously. the west portion of the seating area will be located within the Powerhouse Pub property.

According to the staff repoft, the encroaching part of the seating area has now already been approved under a separate application (see page 63). As a result, the cunent submittal no longer provides a complete picture of the project impacts. Because the proposed project will include improvements on the Powerhouse Pub property, and these site changes have not yet been installed, HPL recommends that the applicant should be required to provide an expanded Site Plan that includes both properties and provides information about the overall pedestrian circulation system (including walku'ays, retaining walls, ramps and patio areas). The Site Plan should also demonstrate if the new site improvements will eliminate some ofthe existing parking spaces at Powerhouse Pub.

A new Landscape Plan has not been included with the revised set of plans. When a Landscape Plan is prepared, the green area In front of the building (within the public alley) should be included.

Recommendations
Request the subminal of a detailed Site Plan that includes both properties that are impacted by the Brew Pub project (614 and 608 % Sutter St.) and clearly demonstrates how the future pedestrian circulation system will work and where the enclosed outdoor seating areas will be located. (The site plan should show how the Powerhouse Puh property will be connected to the project site.) Specifr if this project will use the patio area on both sides of the pedestrian walkway (benveen Sutter Sheet and the Scott Street parking lot) foroutdoor serving. . Request the submittal of a Landscape Plan that shows how the frontage area within the alley will be landscaped.

PARKING
The tack of public parking spaces in addition to the low parking requirements for the Sutter Street Subarea has negatively impacted the sunounding residential areas and businesses. In 2019, the City established the Historic District Parking Solutions Ad Hoc Committee to identifu potential solutions.

On June 23,2020 the Committee published its findings. A year later, there has been little action towards 4 a
o

01/11/2022 Item No.15.
implementing the identified short- or long-term priorities that could ease the existing parking problem.

Even if the Zoning Code does not require that new parking spaces are provided when existing stmctures are modified, the proposed brew pub will intensi$ the previously approved building use. A parking review of the availability and equitable distribution of parking is therefore appropriate (see Section

4.17.02 of the Design and Development Guidelines in Attachment l).

Per the ZoningCode, a newly constructed4,377 square-foot building would be required to provide [3 parking spaces for the indoor space (l space per 350 square-feet) and no parking space for outdoor seating. The applicant has suggested that these parking spaces will be available off-site, in public and private parking lots and at the Eagles Lodge on the east side of Scott Street. With the exception of the Eagles Lodge, the existing spaces are already heavily used.

The applicant has provided a lease agreement for the shared use of l5 parking spaces at the Eagles Lodge. However, the agreement does not speci$ how the parking spacos will be divided and what time of the day the parking area at Eagles Lodge wilt be available. It is also not clear how the patrons of the brew pub will be directed to the off-site parking lot. Reliance on such an agreement can therefore only be considered a temporary, stopgap measure until the City honors its commifinent to address the parking issues. HPL has concluded that the intensified use of the former 'Pottery Barn' will increase the already existing parking problems in the vicinity of the project site.

As noted above, the applicant does not intend to install a kitchen in the brew pub. Instead, take-out meals will be delivered to the pub and a food truck may be parked in front of the building. This solution requires a designated parking space and an adjacent area reserved for customers. Information about all potential impact to publiclprivate parking areas should be added to the application package.

Recommendations
Before any intensified use can be approved for the property at 508 l/2 Sutter Street, the applicant should commit to participate financially in any City provision of an additional public parking facitity at the east end ofthe Sutter Street Subarea.

As a part of the Zoning Code Update, the City needs to consider if the cunent parking requirements for the Sufter Sheet Subarea should be increased.

The applicant should provides a business plan that describes all potential impacts on parking (Including information about where delivery uackt,/bod trucks and occasional live perlbrmers can park,)

CONDITTONAL USE PERMIT
The applicant has requested to add a small stage for live entertairunent inside the brew pub. Tbree nights a week the pub is proposing to stay open until 2:00 a.m and two nights a week the pub would close at midnight. The folding entrance door in addition to the outdoor seating area mean that noise from the brew pub could become an issue for the residential neighborhoods south of the project site, Noise from the Powerhouse is already a problem for the residential neighborhood in the project vicinity.

Based on the location and requested use ofthe project site, you could describe it as an annex to the Powerhouse. Besides noise, light and glare from the outdoor seating area could also impact the existing o
a
a
5

01/11/2022 Item No.15.
a
neighboring development.

As noted above, permanent we of a food tnrck may need to be considered by the Historic District Commission. Besides the aesthetic and parking questions, HPL questions whether permitting an inexpensive food truck instead of a permanent kitchen means that the City is endorsing unfair competition with similar businesses.

While not shictly a part of this application, HPL is aware of ongoing concorns among residents snd business omers about increasing the concenfation of alcoholic beverage licenses. In licensing businesses to serve alcohol, the state does not consider whether the concentration is too great. fnstead this decision is defened to the local jurisdiction. The Historic District Comrnission may wish to request that the City Council should take up this issue.

Recornmendatrons
o To help the City and the Historic District Commission determine if the existing use of Sutter Street's 600-block should be intensificd in this manner, the project should be required to prepare a noise study.
(The sntdy shotild anticipate the potential noise levels if live performances are held simuhaneously at both the Powerhot$e and al Folsom Pri.gon Brews.)
A neighborhood meeting to discuss the impact of the project on the residential neighborhoods should also be organized prior to a hearing before the Historic District Commission" Feedback from this meeting should be incorporated with the futurs staffreport. o In view of resident and business concerns, HPL recommends that the Historic District Commission request the preparation ofan ordinance to address the desirable concentration ofalcoholic beverage licenses.

OVERALL PROJECT RECOMMEN DATION
City Staff has concluded that the proposed project "rneets all applicable development standards" established for the Sutter Street Subarea of the Historic District. However, even if the numerical standards regarding building height and setbacks have been satisfied, HPL has identified many deviations front the District's design standards (see Attachment l).

HPL urges the Historic District Commission to deny this project and to make a finding in support of the foundational principle of the Historic District; authenticity.

FINAL THOUGHTS
Beyond the particulars of this project's desigo, HPL sees a danger in this type of project to the Historic District's long-term success. Sutter Street's experiment with focusing on entertainment a few years ago Ied to serious business, residential, and policing impacts that resulted in the City's Entertainment Ordinance. While the ordinance has abated the worst of the impacts, rnoving in the direction of amusement-park concepts such as Folsom Prison Brews will likely renew the impacts and at the same time cause decline of the Historic District's lasting overall draw.

When the memory of Johnny Cash fades like Rudolph Valentino's, the history of California embodied in Folsom's preservation of a small, working historic town will continue to be a draw, if it is still 6

01/11/2022 Item No.15.
recognizable. "Artifacts," such as Historic Folsom, from the begiming of a culture are the rarest because people don't recognize their value until most are gone. Folsom began with California and has been ftom its earliest beginning a player on the Califomia stage and a microcosm of the trends and developments of the state. If anyone doubts, just visit the Folsom History Museum. As every year passes, and depending on how good a caretaker the City is, the cohesive development of Folsom's first 100 years will become rarer and rarer. The same forces that inspired this project are at work in every jurisdiction, and most will succumb to the ltre of increasing profits by a$racting attention. Preserving history isn't nearly as orciting a concept as building something newer and bigger. Remember, even though the hare drew more attention, the patience and persistence of the tortoise won the race. Folsom's past two decades of tortoise-reminiscent support for maintaining the authenticity of the Historic District has paid off in terms of maintaining housing stock and business vibrancy. It really paid offduring the pandemic. People came to buy something, anything, just to suppon Sutter Street. They love Historic Folsom. They may not know why they love it, but when "it" is gone, they'll be gone too. 7

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Attachment 1
City Regulation
(Not Complied with by Folsom Prison Brews)

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

FOLSOM PRISON BREWS
Following are sections of City regulations with which this project fails to comply, emphasis added.

Folsom Municipal Code 1752 H-D H ISTORIC DISTRICT

17.52.O1O Purpose and lntent.

8.1 To preserve and enhance the historic, small-town atmosphere of the historic district as it developed between the years 1850 and 1950

8.3 To encourage an active business climate which promotes the development of a diverse range of businesses compatible with the historic district as it developed n the vears 1850 and 1950.

8.5 To ensure that new residential and commercial development is consistent with the historical character of the historic district as it developed between the vears 1850 and 1 950.

The intent that the Historic District be preserued and enhanced as a small town of the era 1850-1950 is set forth first in this section, repeated twice within it and reiterated multiple times in the remainder of the Historic District regulations. A mock pison building is not consistent with development that would have occurred in that era. 17 .52.1 40 Historic district bou ndaries
This section provides a legal description of the boundaries of the Historic District The area descibed is the 98 blocks laid out by Theodore Judah in 1856.

Folsom Prison is located outside those boundaries.

17.52.330 Plan evaluation
D. Compatibility of building materials, textures and colors with surrounding development n theme of the neiohborhoodand consistencv with the qeneral 2

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

An amusement park concept is not consistent with any other development in the neighborhood, nor with any other development in the remainder of the Historic Distrid, 1 7.52.40A Design sta ndards
B. The design and development guidelines shall provide guidance to the historic district commission and the director of the planning, inspections and permitting as to the intent of the city council in carrying out the provisions of this chapter,...

D. Exceptions to the design standards stated herein or in any subsequently adopted design and development guidelines may be permitted by the historic district commission when unique individual circumstances require the exception in order to complv with the purposes of this chapter.....
17,52.510 Sutter Street subarea special use and design standards B. Design concept. The design concept for this subarea is to preserve existing pre-1900 buildings and require new or replace unless a
post-1900 building is unique and/or representative of 1850-1950 architectural styles, The Historic District Commission rnay approve new construction of post-l900 design on an exception basis if it finds that the architecture is an outstanding design which represents a structure or use which formerlv existed in historic Folsom or which represents a typical design and use extant in similar California towns between 1900 and 1950.

This section limits appropriate design in this subarea to a S0-year design period, 1850- 1900. Exceptions may be granted for outstanding design representative of the era. This project does not meet the above criteria to be granted as an exception.

Historic District Desiqn and Development Guidelines
Chapter 2 Goals and Policies
Goal 1 Community ldentity: To preserue and enhance the historic small-town atmosphere of the 98-block Historic District area
Policy 1,1 External design features, both public and privatg shall be consistent with design of the time period from 1850 to 1950.
3

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Policy 1.2 New construction, rehabilitation, and remodeling or other modification of structures shall be designed to be consistent with the architectural stvles used durinq the development of Historic Folsom between 1850 and 1950. Design criteria established for the various locations within historic Folsom shall reflect the orowth of the town from its earliest ore-1900 architectural stvles in and around Sutter and Fioueroa Streets to the later post-1900 styles used in the blocks near the eastern borders of the Historic District.

Policy 1.4 Since the Historic District plays a central role in determining the character of the City of Folsom, every project within the Historic District, at every stage of approval and construction, should be marked by an attention to qualitv, which will serve as a benchmark to the rest of the community.

Every element of this project from concept through materials, is "faux." Goal 2: Preservation of Historic Sites: To maintain, restore, and reconstruct sites which represent the history of the Folsom area.

Poliry 2.6: Projects that portray Folsom's historic importance are encouraged. Facets of Folsom's history which should be portrayed and interpreted within the Historic District include, but are not limited to: railroading, Maidu encampment, Chinese settlement, Negro Bar mining, dredging, mine tunnels, Pony Expresq water delivery powerhouse and related structures, Folsom Prison, Rainbow Bridge.

This project does not maintain restore or reconstruct the Prison because the Prison still exists. There are many other ways to poftray and interpret Folsom Pison's history other than creating an amusement-park version of it. For example, the Folsom History Museum has a sizable display on its history and the Museum gift shop carries books that tell its story. Through the yeas various businesses have included historic photos of the Prison as part of their decor These are respectful means of portraying and interpreting the Prison's contribution to Folsom's history.

Goal 3: Economic Development: To encourage an active business climate which promotes development of a diverse range of businesses compatible with the 1850-1950 timeframe of the Historic District
4

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Policy 3.1 Businesses which could have been present from 1850-1950 shall be encouraged, particularly if thev are desioned and manaqed in accordance with the stvles of that era.

Businesses which promote tourism are also encouraged, such as antique and gift shops, galleries, restaurants, and inns. Businesses which could not have been present in that era may be permitted if they are compati ble with and will not detract from the historical character of the Historic District.

This design is not in accordance with the styles that would have been present on the main business thoroughfare of Folsom or any other Mother Lode town between 7850 and 1900.

Goal 4: Circulation: To facilitate movement of vehicles, transit systems, pedestrians, and bicycles through the historic district in such a way as to provide adequate access for local and through traffic without excessive traffic impacts on the character of the Historic District area and to facilitate adequate parking.

Policy 4.6: Adequate public parking shall be providedjS prox!$E to commercial uses.

Policy 4.7: Transportation System Management measures shall be included in all developments with the Historic District.

Eecause the Sutter Street Subarea parking standard was based on its similarity to a shopping center having a balance of uset each with varying parking demand, technically this project does not require additional parkrng. lf it were located elsewhere within the City, it wottld be required to provide one space per three seats, a number whkh can be used to gauge the additional parking impact on an area already saturated with similar uses and no longer balanced out with uses having lower parking demand and different peak times of parking use. Based on square footaga it would require I I spaces; based on number of seats, it would require 24 spaces. The applicant recognizes the parking issue and has made an effoft to mitigate his project's demand by reaching an agreement with the Eagles lodge and providing a shuttle, although shuttle hours are not specified. At best since the applicant does not own the Eagles property, any such agreement can only be considered a temporary stopgap measure until the City honors its commitment to provide adequate parking for the Historic District. At present a number of the employees 5

01/11/2022 Item No.15.
and patrons of Sutter Street's 600 block park in the residential area, including the applicant's two other drinking establishments.

See also Goal 5 Section 3.03, Section 4.17.0e Section 5.02.01(d)(4), Section 6,01.01(b)(3) and Section 6.03,03 below.

Goal 5: Residential Quality of Life: To retain the diverse, historic small-town atmosphere of the residential areas within the Historic District.

Policy 5,3. The residential areas should be from the impact of the commercial areas to the extent feasible. Special events such as craft fairs may cause unavoidable temporary noise, parking, or similar impacts.

Overa[ commercial uses have greater impacts on residential uses than vice versa, While recognizing that residential areas should tolerate temporary impactq this goal calls out the need to protect residential quality of life. As noted above, the impact of commercial parking in the residential area has become permanenl and it will not become temporaty until sufficient proximate parking is prouided.

Chapter 3 Development Plan Concept
3,01 Land Use

3.01,02 Land Uses in the Historic District

3.01.02(a) Historic Commercial Primary Area

3.01.02(aXl) Sutter Street Subarea of the Historic Commercial Primary Area ....Retail shops and restaurants have predominated in recent history and it is hoped that a more "complete" downtown can be achieved, one which is attractive to specialty shoppers and tourists but which also fills needs for services such as banking, venues for performing arts, upstairs residential units, and other businesses that one might find in a small town center....Buildings recently constructed in the district have tended away from authentic historical design; the intent of these Design and Development Guidelines is to reverse that rtrend in favor of q historical accu raCV
6

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

This project threatens both the balance and historkalaccuracy called for in this section. 3,03 lnfrastructure

3.03.03. Parking
.... As part of the Railroad Block master planning process, the consultant team, citizens committee, and staff were tasked with the responsibility to assure that the preservation of the City's railroad heritage was not achieved at the expense of foreclosing the ability to provide adequate parking for the Subarea. Exhaustive study of potential sites and development scenarios resulted in rdentification of and preliminary strategies to achieve the number of spaces needed in a cost-effective manner, including three parking structures and two surface lots, evenlv distributed throuoh the commercial area. There ts the potential that one of the lots mav uire acouisition of additional land and/or construction of a structure. dependinq on actual buildout....

Pending completion of specialized study, the strategy is to construct structures on the Leidesdorff Street hotel site, the Railroad Block, and Trader's Lane, in that order, using the Redevelopment tax-increment stream to issue bonds to finance their construction.

Participation of orooertv owners mav also be necessarv Timing of construction is dependent on both financing and demand, butthe phasing intent is: 1)to build the hotel structure first, to address existing demand, 2) to build the Railroad Block structure in concern with development of the Block, avoiding conflict with the lid and bridge construction projecf 3) to build the surface lot at Reading Street in conjunction with the light rail project on the Railroad Block, as an interim park-and-ride lot until the line is extended toward the Broadstone area or across the river and the buildout rate of the Sutter Street Subarea requires, 4) to build the Trader's Lane structure at a time when there is sufficient economic stability and the proximate parking for the merchants to withstand a large construction project in the heart of the shopping district, and 5) to re-evaluate the demand and the potential for land acquisition and co nstruction of additional parkinq in the 500-600 blocks in lioht of actual development trends in the future.

The existing parking shortfall issues were called out above. This section describes the parking solutions envisioned when the Historic District regulations were adopted in 1998.

Five sites were identified. ln the interuening years multiple parking studies commissioned 7

01/11/2022 Item No.15.
by the City have rearhed largely the same conclusions: more parking is needed, distributed equitably throughout the Sutter Street Subarea.

Chapter 4. Property Development Policies District-Wide

4.11 Remodeling
....Thegoalofanyremodelingistomaintainorimproveastructure,s@ and the communitv bv achievino qood desion and historic aooronriateness, to the greatest extent feasible.. ln evaluating a remodeling request, the Historic District Commission shall consider:
1, The properly 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 architectural documentation, materials availability, and financing.

4.11.01 Guidance for remodeling

4.11.01(a) Preference
Returning a building to its original, pre-1950 appearance.

4.1 1.01 (b) Second preference
Good design of the "right' era for the Subarea, with exceptions only for continuing a building's original or existing style.

This section calls for good design and historic appropriateness, not a gimmick To remodel the barn is appropriate since it was built in 1954 after the 1850-1900 design era of Sutten tt took less than a half hour of research at the Folsom History Museum to find that the Prison features this remodel imitates likewise did not exist between 1850 and 1900. There is no benefit to the community of a remodel that simply exchanges one out-of-era building for another out-of-era building one that would never have been built during the actual era, The brewpub concept is not uniquely beneficial to the community as craft beers are available from at least two existing establishments on Sutter Street.

4.14 Construction

4.17 Density and Intensity of Use
8

01/11/2022 Item No.15.
417 .02 Commercial intensity
...1t should be understood that the qoal is not to maxim ize the development potential of the historic area but to oreserve the existino structures and the scale and tvoe of development tvpical of Folsom's past..,.Besides meeting the standards and intent of the individual Subarea, a orooosed oroiect must be co red in the context of available parkinq, takinq into account anv on-site parkinq and the avai itv and eouitable distribution of off-site parkinq and the availabilitv and eouitable distribution of otf-site parkinq.

This section states that the City's first responsibility is to make decisions based on maintaining the success of the Crty as a wholq not on maximizing the profit potential of an individual property, lt also requires that the project be considered in the contert of availability and equitable distribution af parking,
Chapter 5 Property Development Policies by Primary Area

5.02. Historic Commercial Primary Area

5.02.01. Sutter Street Subarea of the Historic Commercial Primary Area 5,02.01 (c) Design concept
The design concept for the Sutter Street Subarea is to... 2) require new or replacement structures to be of a ore-1900 desiqn,
This section rettentes the concept that flew or replacement structures are ta be of a pre- 1900 design.

5.02.01(d) Standards

5.02.01(dX4) Parking
All uses must provide parking spaces conforming to City standards as established by this document the Folsom Municipal Code and any other adopted City ordinances, policies and requirements.

The parking requirement may be met by providing spaces on-site (if found appropriate through the design review process) or on nearby property controlled for that purpose for tvpical rneans of providinq required pathe life of the use. The rkino in this Subarea is 9

01/11/2022 Item No.15.
orooertv-owner and/or bu s i ness -owne r fi na ncial narticioation in communitv-olanned-and- operated parkinq facilities, established under the aeois of the Citv of Folsom or its Redevelooment Adencv and su to the n revtew Drocess.desio Eesides parking issues discussed abovq this section requires financial participation of private owners in provision of City-provided parking. This applicant acknowledges his proposal's impact on the existing parking shortage but offers only temporary, stopgap measures to address it and makes no offer to participate in a permanent solution., this in spite of the considerable existing impacts of his two similar businesses.

Chapter 6. lmplementation of Folsom Municipal Code 17.52 and Design and Development Guidelines

6.03. lncentive Programs, Projects and lmplementation Measures

6.03.01 Programs and Projects

6.03.01 (b) lnfrastructure and other construction projects

6.01.01(bX3) Parking
Provision of public DA rkino is critical to the Sutter Street Subarea, and the Citv shares with affected properties and businesses the burden of providinq adeouate sarkino....

6.03.03 lmplementation Measures
.... The general goals of provision of parking in the Sutter Street Subarea and enabling the long-term maintenance of potential facilities to be installed throughout Historic Folsom were identified as essential to the lonq-term success of the preservati on of the Historic District and achievement of the ooals stated herein....

These sections 'put into writing" the City's assumption of responsibility for providing and maintaining adequate parking, in conceft with private propefties and businesse| terming parking facilities to be essential to long-term preseruation of the Hlstoric Distrrct. 10

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Appendix D
A.1.b. New construction
To retain and the attributes that make the Historic Distri ct unioue while providing a basis for change,...

A.1.d. Materials
To ensure that tor remodeling work, materials appropriate to the buildinq traditions of the era in which the building was built or remodeled are used The faux prison concept is in direct conflict with the goal of retarning and enhancing the District's already defined unigueness. Additionally, while inauthentic materials are often appropriate, they need to accurately reproduce the appearance of the historic materials they intend to replace. For example, the Turkish limestone reprodudrbn does not resemble the granite prison walls, particularly in its irregular pattern and lack of moftar joints.

8.2 Building Design

8.2.c. New construction design
Design context. ln any new construction, the context for design evaluation will be the buildinqs alonq the same street adiacent to the property beino developed or the predominant stvle for the Subarea.

Design principles. New construction details and materials should follow the patterns and the historic architectural desi
Articulation. Windows, doors, cornices and other architectural elements shall be designed with respect to the entire facade and shall relate to the adiacent buildings. The proportions of elements shall work together to relate the facade to a human scale' Since the proposal completely redesigns every visible feature of the existing building it is appropriate to cansider it in relation to the guidance for new construction, This proposal bears no design relation to buildings along the same street nor to the predominant style of the Subarea nor to the patterns and principles of the historic architectural desrgn.

Ll

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Attachment 2
Comments Regarding the Staff Report
for Folsom Prison Brews

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

HPL Comments Reoardino the Staff Report for Folsom Prison Brews P.47, paragraph 1
Staff concludes that the prclject "rneets all applicable developtnent standards (building height, building setbacks, etc.) established for the Sutter Street Subarea of the Historic District. The project mects thc numcricol standcrds of thc Suboreo but doec not meet all the criteria for the Subarea.

See Attachment 1.

P,49, paragraph 1
What are the hours of operation of the proposed shuttle? The proposed Condition 28 unfairly subjugates any future plans the Eagles Lodge may have to this location's use of their parking.

P. 49, paragraph 2
What will happen to the tiles made by Cloud's Pottery which now line the pedestrian pathway? lt would be unfortunate if this project should erase all traces of a business that anchored this block of Sutter Street for decades.

P. 50, paragraph 1
This paragraph does not address the existing odor problem of the trash facilities.

P,51-52, Table 1 and subsequent paragraphs
HPL agrees with staff that the proposed hours of operation are more indicative of a continuation of the applicant's existing adjacent businesses than of a craft beer pub. Staffs proposed hours of operation should actually be further shortened, to be more consistent with typical hours of brewpubs in the region. HPL disagrees with staff that the proposed craft beer operation fills a "unique niche." There are at least three businesses on Sutter Street that serve craft beer. HPL agrees with staff that sale of spirits will worsen noise, and other, impacts.

P. 52, third bullet point
What is the occupancy load?
2 P. 52, last bullet point

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Given the proposed folding doors, the prohibition on outdoor entertainment will be extremely difficult to enforce. Does opening the doors constitute outdoor entertainment? The proposed folding doors should be omitted, for this reason and because folding glass doors are not consistent with historic commercial development,
p.56, paragraph 1
The staff report quotes the intention that the Subarea is intended to become a more "complete" downtown, serving convenience shopping, service, and community needs of Folsom residents and visitors. lnstead of a providing a use which is missing, this proposal increases a type of use which is already well represented,
P. 57, paragraph 2 and final paragraph
There are respectful ways to portray and interpret Folsom's history, and other ways which are "modern" and "discordant". There is beauty in Folsom Prison's historic architecture, but it is "discordant" to make a party atmosphere out of it.

P. 59
ln regard to the three principles to be considered in a remodeling project: First, only the owner stands to benefit from this project. There is no benefit to the community from a project that is "faux" throughout, from conceptto materials. Second, neitherthe existing 1958 building northe proposed remodel has architectural and historical value. Third, the Folsom History Museum is replete with resources available for historic authenticity purposes, there are many more authentic materials available than are proposed in this project, and it is hard to imagine that financing a project in Folsorn is a significant barrier. To reiterate, the craft beer concept is not unique, and this proposal disrespects both the Prison and the people who work there and those who are incarcerated there.

P. 60, paragraph 1
Use of the City's Cultural Resource List to determine whether a building is historic does not take into account the fact that about 90% of the City's historic resources are not yet listed on it. The Preliminary Cultural Resource List is a much better indicator. p.60, paragraph 2
3

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

The proposed tower cannot be compared favorably with the tower at 302 Riley Street or with the clock tower on the parking structure or with the tower at the old fire station in the 700 block, Two are actually historic and the third is designed with attention to historic authenticity of design. p, 60, paragraph 3
HPL agrees with staff that the entry feature is too large. The architect has indicated that the size is necessary to provide light for the building, Light can be provided by windows on the facade adjacent to the public right-of-way or by fixed, flush skylights.

P.60, final paragraph
Staff concludes that "most" of the buildings materials are appropriate. HPL concludes that "most" are not appropriatg as previously discussed.
p. 51, paragraph 2
While the color scheme may create "visual interest", it further detracts from the proposal's authenticity, The stated model for the projec! the historic part of the Prison, has a neutral color scheme, and historic corrugated roofs were likewise neutral in color' P. 61, paragraph 3
HPL disagrees with staffs determination that the project "has successfully met the architectural and design recommendations" for remodeling.

P. 62, item 3
There are no parapet walls to conceal roof-mounted mechanical equipment. Where is the mechanical equipment located?
P. 62, final paragraph
Perhaps the architect was unaware that the building fronts on a public right-of-way. Has staff consulted with the City's building and fire inspection staff? lf for some reason windows are not to be permitted, the existing door would violate the same code and should be removed instead of replaced.

Pp.62-63
4

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

While HPL appreciates that the applicant has made changes in response to our comments, our overall objection remains: the concept and many of its materials are not historlcally approprlate to the Sutter Street Subarea.

Pp. 64-65
HPL recommends denial of this proJect. To assist the Historic District Commlssion we have created draft findings for denial (see Attachment 3) Of counie the City Attorneys should assist with rewording as they see fit.
5

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Attachment 3
Proposed Findings for Denial

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

HPL recommends denial of this proiect. To assist the Historic Disln-ct Commission we have draft findinos for denial
(The City Attorneys will need to assist with rewording as they see fit.)

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

B. THE PROJECT IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE GENEML PLAN AND THE CIW CODE IN THAT IT

IS NOT IN KEEPING WITH THE GOAL, STATED MULTIPLE TIMES AND IN MULTIPLE PLACES, OF MAINTAININC THE HISTORIC DISTRICT AS A SMALL-TOWN OF THE ERA 1850 TO 1950,

FURTHER SPECIFYING THAT THE ERA TO BE MAINTAINED FOR THE SUTTER STREET SUBAREA ts 1850 ro 1900.

CEQ,A FINDINGS
C. THE CUMULATIVE IMPACT OF SUCCESSIVE PROJECTS OF THE SAME TYPE IN THE SAME PLACE, OVER TIME IS SIGNIFICANT IN TH]S CASE IN THAT MULTIPLE PROJECTS OF THE SAME TYPE IN THE

SAME BLOCK EXIST AND HAVE ALREADY BEEN PERMITTED AND CONSTRUCTED TO THE POINT THAT THE LACK OF AVAIIABLE AND EQUITABLY DISTRIBUTED PARKING, PER SECNON 4.17.02 OF

THE CITY COUNCIL-ADOPTED DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES OF THE HISTORIC

DISTRICT DOES NOT PERMIT APPROVAL OF ANOTHER PROJECT OF THE SAME TYPE IN THE SAME BLOCK.

D. THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL CAUSE A SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE CHANGE IN THE

SIGNIFICANCE OF A HISTORICAL RESOURCE, SPECIFICALLY THE FOLSOM HISTORIC DISTRICT,

PARTICULARLY THE SUTTER STREET SUBAREA OF THE FOLSOM HISTORIC DISTRICT, IN THAT THE

PROPOSED PROJECT CONCEPT IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH MULTIPLE PROVISIONS OF THE

FOLSOM MUNICIPAL CODE AND THE ADOPTED DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES, INCLUDING ITS APPENDICES, FOR IHE FOLSOM HISTORIC DISTRICT. 2

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

CONDITIONAL USE PER.MIT FINDING
E. THE ESTABLISHMENT, MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION OF THE USE APPLIED FOR WILL, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS PARTICULAR CASE, BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE HEALTH, SAFEry,

PEACE, MORALS, COMFORT, AND GENEML WELFARE OF PERSONS RESIDING OR WORKING IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND BE DETRIMENTAL OR INJURIOUS TO PROPERry AND IMPROVEMENTS

IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND TO THE GENERAL WELFARE OF THE CITY, SINCE THE PROPOSED

USE IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH RESIDENTIAL USES IN THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD WITH

REGARD TO REASONABLE EXPECTATIONS OF RESIDENTIAL QUALITY OF LIFE, FURTHER, THE USE

IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH COMMERCIAL USES IN THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD IN THAT THE CONCEPI DES|GN, AND MATERTALS UNDERMINE THE BLOCK',S HISTORIC AUTHENTICITy ON WHICH THOSE USES HAVE DEPENDED FOR THEIR SUCCESS.

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

NOT COMPATIBLE WITH SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT AND ARE NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL DESIGN THEME OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

G. THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS NOT IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE HISTORIC DISTRICT DES1GN AND DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES ADOPTED BY CITV COUNCIL.
3

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Kelly Mullett
From:

Sent:

To;
Subfect
From: Casey Kempenaar <@>
Scn$ Friday, July 30, 20214:01PM
To: Steven Banks <5$g$lQfg[9943,19>
cc: ScottJohnson <@; Pam Johns <eigbgelglfgg gg.!tg>; Sarah Aquino <lqqghg@tgl5g4 SS.gP SubJect: Folsom Brews Proposal - Projea Number: PN 19-174 - 608 % Sutter Street Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]!. Learn why this ls important cAUTloN: Ihis emiril originated fiom outside of the organiration, Do not cllck llnks or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the ccintent ls safe.

Dear Hlstoric Distrlct Commisslon:

I have reviewed the proposed Folsom Brews proJect at the former Clouds Pottery Bulldlng. The proposal includes a fagade rnodiflcation as well as establishment of 3 Tap House, whlch will require revlew and approval from this ttoC, I believe the proposed use of a tap house would he a great addltion to the Historic District. Whlle I belleve the use is approprlate, I am concerned with the proposed architecture and overall appeatiance ofthe building. The current proposal mlmlcs architecture from Folsom Prison, including stone veneer and granite accents, Further, a large fiberglass tunet is proposed to mimic the features of the prison {and the more recent construction of the Johnny Cash Tnll Bridge.

I encourage you to reiect the proposed deslgn and direct the applicant to come back with somethlng more sultable to the hlstoric disfflct. I urge this fior two dlstinct reasons:

1. The proposal is inconsistent with the design intent and vision of the Hlstorlc District.

2. The connection to Folsom Prlson has been overplayed over recent years and not directly connected to the historic district
lnconslstent wlth Hlstodc Dlstrlct vlsion and Design Guldelines While the exlstlng bulldlng does not appear to be histork, it ls surrounded by historic buildings and very visible to visitors coming into the Historic District. While Folsom Prlson is a historlc feature of our broader Folsom community, the connectlon to the hlstorlc district is less dlstinct.

The proposed tower element eppears tacked on and ls proposed to be constructed of fiberglass, This is inconsistent with the Deslgn Guidellnes of the Historic District:

To racognize that trulitional high quulitl, tomrnercial g'ade nnlerials (such as brick and cercnic li{e) are appropriale to llw historic co,tlext. Thcse ntuterictls age grace.fully, are durable and lend a sense ot' permanence to lhe building,
Neu, conslruction must hc campuihle v,ith thc existing Subm'eu und responsive to lhe pet'iod emd preclomi nont b u i lel i ng .sl yl es.

Kelly Mullett
Monday, August 2,202111:07 AM
Kelly Mullett
FW; Folsom Erews Proposal - Project Numben PN l9'174 - 608 % Sutter Street

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Avoid contemporc,ty msterials not appropriate in re.sloration. Usa of material.y not ln exi:rtenca vhan a storeti'onl vas buill lt dl,tcouragecl ltt lts "resloruliot ." Fiberglass does not achleve these values required by the Guldelines or more recent construction in the Olstrlct (such as Scotts and Sutter Street Steakhouse Buildlng). Funher, the design is not responsive to the predominant building styles of the district (the prison ls about one mile away from lhe historic district the way thc crow flies).

Design princlples. New construction details and moterlals should follow the po?tens ond prlnciples of the historlc architecturol d*lgn.

While the design ls technlcally fiollowlng detalls of a hlstoric structure of Folsom Prlson, that historic structure ls not generally vislble to the public nor is lt a part of the hlstorlc district.

Connsction to Folsom Prison has been Orerplayed
Clearly Folsom Prlson has lts place ln Folsom History however, Folsom has so much more to offer. Huge marketlng efforts and recent projects continue to overplay the importance of the Prlson in the community. We have the Johnny Cash Trail (for his connection to the Prison), we have the Johnny Cash BridBe (made to look like the Prison Architecturel, the Prison Museum we have the Johnny Cash ArtTrail, to name a few.

Whlle these are all great amenltles and valuable efforts, shouldn't we focus more on what else is important to our communlty? The Historlc District, Schools, and Open Spaces are the top reasons follts move to Folsom - Not the Prlson.

This location is very vislble as you come lnto the district- ls the prison really the tone we went to set for vititors coming to shop and dine?
Conclusion
Thls locatlon has such great potential to be an amenity for the communlty. . The appllcant should go back to the drawing board and come up wlth a design more suited to the hlstoric dlstrlct. Follow the dlstrlct guldelines, incorporate design features integral to the arctitecture, lncorporate some outdoor seating and make this a bulldlng representatlve of the Hlstorlc Dlstrict- not the Prison.

Thank you for your consideratlon.

Sincerely,
Casey Kempenaar
z

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Kcllv Mullett
From:

Sent:

To;
Subjcct.
folsomcandy@sbcg lobal. net
Friday, July 3Q 2021 12A4 PM
Kelly Mullett
HDC Meeting agenda item 2 PN 19-174
CAUTON: Thlt emall orlglnatcd from outstse of the organlratlon. Do not cllck links or open attachments unless you recognlze the sender and lnow the content ls safe.

Kelly, Beloware my written commcnts on the above ltcm.

Others will be pointlng out the many ways this proJen does not comply wlth Sect. 17.52 and the DDG's for the Hlstoric District. ln my opinlon thls ls a structure that would not have been bullt in the Sutter Street area pre.1900 as the code requires. lftelthe declslon bolls down to lf you want to preserue and enhance an authentlc Hlstorlc Dlstrlct or lf you want to bulld a Dtsneyland Frontlerland ln Folsom.

Candy Mlller
1

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Kelly Mullett
From:

Sent:

To:

Kelly Mullett
Wednesday, August 4,2A21 4:44 PM
Kelly Mullett
FW: FW: HDC LettErSubject:

From: Rich <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 4,2A2L 3;33 PM
To: J udy Co I linsworth <iudv@ historicfolsom.ore>
Subject: HDC Letter
iL%
To Whom it may concern;
It%
After a detailed review of the proposed project al6O8l1,% Sutter Slreet, I am writing this letter in opposition of said project as it aurrently stands.

Let me first state that I am a staunch supporter of locally owned small business and free enterprise.Ii.% However, in no way do I see the current proposal being synergistic, or mulually beneficial to the Histodc District as a whole, and lor those forlunaie to still be on the 600 block, it will be a scourge to their operations in an already difficult climate. tz%
I fully endorse the DETAILED comments submitted from the HPL and FHDA, in rogards but nol limited to; concept, architecture, signage, site design, & condilional use, lhe arealitr%.s mo$t concerning to me are; ii%
Parking: or lack lhereof, 13 spaces allocated/zoned for a project of this size is far from adequate, I know because I live it and hear it everyday from our customers. As well as the ones who choose not to be our customers because they couldnil,%t find parking. The idea of using anTg%oltsit€liYzlocalion is the pure definition of a stopgap measure, ensuring thoss now displaced vehicles move into other unwelcome areas of the HD.

Saf€ty: Adding a business concept with a prirnary alcohol component injects the likelihood for continued issues with vandalism, public intoxication, lighting, noioe and general nuisance lo both private property owners, and businesses alike. ln a block already wrought wilh eaid issues agaln, I can speak from lirsthand knowledge, The open-ouldoor nalure ofthe proposal only encourages more ofthese issues with less oversight. No matter how many more company policies I implement in my business to keep my employees and customers safe, that burden should not be passed downstream. lz%
Food Truck: Having a food truck taking away valuable parking real estate, while simultaneously posltioning possibly inebriated customers in the direct vicinity of moving vohicles, sounds like liability. Compounded by the likely influx of more litter, trash and mess left behlnd.ll,%
As business we already must deal with ihe general public utilizing the parking garages, spaces, and dumpster areas aE their personal 'i1,|/zlrash can and bathroom facilities.ii,% On a separate but similar vein, the prospect of having an l4%outsideli/z (non HD) lood vendor seems to be a direct conflict of interest to those already with food operations on the block/street.ll,% As well as not being in lune with the overall spirit, vibrancy and pride that all of us have grown to nurture in tho Historic Dislricl'11,/211,% ie%
I would like to personally encourage, and warmly welcome anyone interested, to come for a site visit wilh me during the proposed hours of operations. To witnoss, in real time and have a discussion regarding lhe concerns all of us have on the 600 block.

Thank you for your tirne and consideration.
'JZY,
Rich Veale
Executive Chef / Owner
Sutter Street Steakhouse
604 Sutter St. Suite 150 | Folsom, Ca | 95630
Ph 916.351 .91001 Fax916.351.9300
[email protected]
'ii%

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Historic Dlshlot Commission
Barley Barn Tap House (PN 19-174)
November 18,2021
Attachment 17
Public Gomments Received Regarding
Barley Barn Tap House Project

01/11/2022 Item No.15.
'ffi
WEST OF GHICAGO RESTAURANTS, lNC.
604 Sufter Street, Sulte 2OO . Folsom, CA 95610 . Office 916 294-7496. Fax 916 358-9492 August 2,202L
Hlstorlc District Commission,
My name is Eric Schnetz, I arn founder and CEo of Chicago Fire (four area locations) and J wild's Livery and Feed. I have operated Chlcago Fire and now J Wild's at the site, 614 Sutter Street slnce 2003. please accept this letter as evidence of my enthusiastic support of the proposed Folsom Prison Brews buslness concept. I belleve I am in a unique position to comment on thls proposal as it lr in very close proximity to my existlng restaurant and because I am a long-tertn tenant of the project's owneq Murray Weaver.

I think the historic theme of th€ tap house wlll be a great addltion to the Historlc District just as J wild's has been. The more businesses that embrace and promote Folsom's history the more successful the street will be a whole, Given the number of new restaurants that have opened in the district it makes sense to add a casual drinking and entertainment space versus yet another restaurant. This wlll help support food sales in the restaurants withln the near viclnity of Folsom Prison Brewt. From my perspective as a tenant of Mr. Weave/s for over 18 years, I have the utmost confidence ln his experience and ability to run a successful and professional operation.

This is a very exciting opportunity to turn a tlred retail space into a strong local draw for the Folsom Historlc District, Wlth alt the new construction on the West end of Sutter StreeL it would be a nice balance to see some new high-quality improvements to the 6tD Block, Please do not hesitate to contact me for any further feedback or information' Regards,
,z
Eric Schnetz
C.E.O. West of Chlcago Restaurants lnc.

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Steven Banks
Frorn:

Sent:

To:

Subject:
powerhousepu [email protected]
Friday, Novernber 5,2O2110:30 AM
rholderness@ holdernesslaw.com; [email protected]; Steven Banks Fwd: BARIEY BARN TAP HOUSE SUMMARY
CAUTION: This email orlglnated from outslde of the organlzatlon. Do not click llnks or open attachments unless you recognlze the sender and know the content ls safe.

SUPPORT LETTER BARLEY BARN TAP HOUSE
*--Original Message---
From: Amber Felts <[email protected]>
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent Fri, Nov 5, 2021 9:01 am
Subject: Re: BARLEY BARN TAP HOUSE SUMMARY
Murray,
This looks greatl lt seems like you are working very hard at bking feedback and adjusting to public concems. I love the changes you have made and I look forward to seeing thls project come to life! Amber Shoop Felts
Shoop'a PhotognphylThe $tudlos on Suttcr
w: http://shoopsphotography, com
m; 916.804.8578 (text ok)
a: 805 Sutter Street, STE 220 &240, Folsom, CA 95630
On Oct 28,2021, al ll:24 AM, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:

Amber, So this is the new version of the Tap House we are working on at 608 112 Sutter St. lm reahing out to various folks to get their input and hopefully support. l'll be getting a package to FHDA but wanted to get your input individullly as well.

Renderings in separate email.

Thanks Munay
BARLEY BARN TAP HOUSE. OWNER'S NARRATIVE INTRODUCTION
This project was recommended for approval by City staffwith conditions and presented at the August HDC before being continued prior to a vote. Since that time applicant has revised the project with the following changes.

I

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Steven Banks
From:

Sent
To:

Subject:
powerhousepub @aol.com
Monday, November 1,202110:55 AM
[email protected]; Steven Banks
Fwd: Barley Barn Tap House, Rendering One, Final Exports CAUTIONT This email originated from outslde of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognlze the sender and know the content ls safe.
--Original Message.---
From: moe hirani <[email protected]>
To: powerhousepub@aol, com <powerhousepub@aol. com>
Sent: Sat, Oct 23, 2021 1O:29 am
Subject RE: Earley Bam Tap House, Rendering One, FinalExports Hello Munay,
Thanks br sharing the revised rendering of the Folsom Taproom. I have to say this was more along the line of what I had in mind when we first discussed
a design that would maintain the existing footprint and keeping the " Barn" look with all the buibing lines minimally altered.

I will certainly be open b more discussions to lhe taproom concept that you have proposed, which I believe will succeed and complimsnt othet businesses' in the Historic District.

Regards,
Moe.

Sent from Mail for Windows
From:@
Sent: Tuesday, Oc{ober 19,20219:56 AM
To: [email protected]
Sublect: Fwd: Barley Barn Tap House, Rendering One, FinalExports Mo, pls have a look at the revised vintage bam theme for the "beer only' Tap House. tVould appleciate your thoughts and support.

Thanks, Murray

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

HERITAGE PRESERVATION LEAGUE OX' F'OLSOM

PROJECT APPLICATION REVTAW
TI{E BARLEY BARN TAP HOUSE
October 14, 2021 (Proj ect Review - Plans issued 09. I 5.21 ) PROJECT: The conversion of 4,377 square-foot two-story barn-like building to a 'beer house', the installation of an outdoor patio and serving area and provision for food delivery at 608 % Sutter Street in thc Sutter Street Commcrcial Subarea (PNl8-174).

REQUEST: Design Review, Parking Review and Conditional Use Permit

PROJECT
HISTORY: The brew pub was originally named Folsom Prison Brews. HPL provided comments regarding this application on May 30,2019 and on August 1,2021 After the applicant changed the theme of the brew pub, new plans were submitted to the City on September 15,2021. This review is based on the revised design.

BACKGROUND
The earlier proposed building design resembled a downsized replica of the perimeter wall, gateway and guard tower at Folsom State Prison. This concept is not connected to the project site and as a result, it was not well received by the community. As an altemative, the applicant is now proposing to maintain the barn theme of the existing building.

GENERAL COMMENTS
The recently prepared set of plans is not complete, and the applicant has not yet submitted a Materials and Color Board. HPL recommends that actual samples of the proposed roof and wall rnaterials should be provided to the Historic District Commission for review at the time of the project hearing.

DESIGN CONCEPT
The proposed bam style is not typical for the early barns that were constructed in the Gold Country or in the Greater Sacramento Area. However, similar designs were used in the United States, during the 1850-1900 time-frame. HPL therefore considers the design theme appropriate for the Sutter Street Subarea.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIf,W
Duing the previous entitlement process, issues have been raised regarding the projects need for environmental review. It has been the consensus that based on the size of the building, the change of land use and the cumulative impaots on the sunounding neighborhood, the project would not qualifl for a categorical exemption. The City's Attorney's Office has therefore committed to subject the application to further CEQA analysis in order to determine if an Initial Study will be required.

Recommendation
e Before the project is presented to the Historic District Commission, the City should complete any environmental review that may be requirod under State Law.

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

SITE PLAN
Outside the west building fagade is a 480 square foot patio area designated for outdoor seating. This area is in close proximity to a larger patio with outdoor seating on the Powerhouse Pub properly Large concrete surfaces can detract fi'om the overall impression of historic development. Many historic dishicts therefore use natural stones or decomposed granite to provide a level surface.

As an alternative, HPL recommends that concrete used for the patio outside the brew pub could be tinted gray (similar to the concrete used for other infill projects along Sutter Street). In addition, HPL recommends that the iron fencing around the outdoor seating area could be installed between wood posts in order to be more compatible with the barn theme,
Because 'Cloud's Pottery Barno is a part of the more recent history of the 600-block, HPL recommends that as much as possible of the decorative tiles (manufactured at Cloud's) along the private walkway between Sutter Street and the Scott Street parking lot should be preserved.

Site Plan Recommendations
r Create an 'agedo look by adding a Erily tint to the concrele used for patio areas around the barn building.
r Coordinate the wrought iron fencing around the outdoor patio area with the bam building by installing the fenoe panels between wood posts.
r Preserve as much as possible of the decorative tiles that cover the retaining wall next to the private walkway from Sutter Street to the public parking area by Scott Street,

ARCHITECTURE
The proposed aged wood siding and metal roof should make the building resemble a barn, but material samples will be required before the Historic District Commission can make a final determination. ln order to stay consistent with the barn theme, HPL also recommends that the folding glass door along the west fagade should be reptaced by a sliding bam door. The man door along the same fagade should also not be dominated by glass. If more daylight is required inside the west end of the beer pub, windows can be added.

Historic barn buildings typically have open rafters. The proposed wide fascia boards therefore are in conflict with the barn theme.

Architectural Recommendations
o Replace the large folding glass door along the west elevation with a wide bam door that is hanging from an overhead rail.
r Select a more historic entrance door for the west fagade, with glass limited to the upper half of the door.
o Expose the roof rafters by eliminating the fascia boards.

SIGNS AND OUTDOOR LIGHTING
As specified in Chapter 5 of the Design and Development Guidelines (DDG's), the main frontage of a building is the side that is facing a public righfof-way. The north side of the Barley Barn is facing both the alley right-of-way and a public parking lot. Based on the length of the building, this faqade could have a sign area of 50 square-feet.

The west side of the proposed bam building can be considered the secondary building frontage (facing a 2

01/11/2022 Item No.15.
public area). Per the DDG's, the sign allowance for a secondary frontage is half the area of the main frontage. The brew pub could therefore install a 25 square-foot sign along the west building fagade.

A single sign with an area of 33 square-feet has been proposed above the west entrance doors This sign ex"eeds thJ sign allowance by I square feet. However, the proposed type of sign (block letters painted on wood) is appropriate for the bam building and the Sutter Street Subarea.

The proposed outdoor light fixtures are also consistent with the 1850-1900 time frame. However, one important aspect is the intensity of the light. Gas lights and early light fixtures had low intensity and a warm tone. As typical for commercial projects the applicant should provide a photometric study that specifies the level of light at the proposed project site after all building and site lights have been installed.

Siqn and Lighting Recommendations
o For better consistency with existing codes and guidelines for signage, consider installing a building sign along the north fagade (the main frontage) and a blade sign at the main entrance along the west fagade (the secondary frontage).
o If a sign is installed along the west fagade, the sign area should not exceed 25 square feet and the length of the sign should not exceed 22.5 feet.
(Tie Design Giideltnes does not allow for excluding the background area of the sign lettersfrom the estimated sign area.)
o The applicant shall submit a photometric study to demonstrate that the lamps used for site lighting and the outdoor building lights have a low intensity and a wann color range.

PARKING
The lack of public parking spaces in addition to the low parking requirements for the Sutter Street Subarea has negatively impacted the surounding residential areas and businesses. In 2019, the City established the Historic District Parking Solutions Ad Hoc Committee to identifr potential solutions.

On June 23,2A20 the Committee published its findings. More than a year later, there has been limited progress towards implementing the identified short- or long-term priorities that could ease the existing purtiing problem. Even if the ZoningCode does not require that new parking spaces are provided when ixisting structures are modified, the proposed brew pub will intensif, the previously approved building use. The staff report should analyze how the project will impact the conclusions of previous parking studies (see Section 4.17.02 of the Design and Development Guidelines in Attachmcnt l).

Per the ZoningCode, a newly constructed 3,799 square-foot building would be required to provide 1l parking spaces for the indoor space (l space per 350 square-feet) and no parking spaces for outdoor ieating. ihe applicant has suggested that these parking spaces will be available off-site, in public and private parking lots and at the Eagles Lodge on the east side of Scott Street. Regarding the private parkinglots, all existing spaces have already been dedicated to the on-site businesses, The Eagles Lodge has reduced activities, but meetings are still scheduled for members and the public at the Scott Streit facility. The public parking area next to Scott Street has not been able to alleviate the need for parking in the east end ofthe Sutter Street Subarea,
The applicant has provided a lease agreement for the shared use of 15 parking spaces at the Eagles Lodge- However, the agreement does not speciS how the parking spaces will be divided and what time of tlie day the parking area at Eagles Lodge witl be available. It is also not clear how the patrons of the brew pub will
-be
directed to the off-site parking lot. Reliance on such an agreement can therefore only 3

01/11/2022 Item No.15.
be considered a temporary, stopgap measure urtil the City honors its commiunent to address the parking issues. HPL has concluded that the intensified use of the former 'Pottery Barn' will increase the already existing parking problems in the vicinity of the project site.

The applicant does not intend to install a kitchen in the Barley Barn. Instead, take-out meals will be delivered to the pub. To accommodate this solution the applicant has proposed to convert two standard part<ing spaces in the public parking lot outside the brew pub, into one accessible van parking space.

This space would be reserved for the Barley Barn, resulting in an actual loss of public parking spaces.

The recently approved large patio area at the Powerhouse Pub property (including the access path between the two propertics) will also eliminate existing parking spaces while at the same time increase the demand for parking. Information about all anticipated impacts to publiclprivate parking areas, including new directional signage, should be added to the application package or analyzed in the staff report..

Recommendations
r Before any intensified use can be approved for the property at 608 1/2 Sutter Street, the applicant should commit to participate financially in any City provision of an additional public parking facility at the east end ofthe Sutter Street Subarea.
o As a part of the Zoning Code Update, the City needs to consider if the current parking requirements for the Sutter Street Subarea should be increased and if the change to a more intense use in the Sutter Street Subarea should require a parking variance.
o The applicant should provide a business plan that describes all potential impacts on parking (Including information about where delivery lrucks, and occasiorul live performers can park,)

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
The applicant is proposing to provide limited live entertainment with solo performers or small music groups. An Entertainment Permit will be required before this part ofthe business model is implemented.

Four nights a week the pub is proposing to stay open until l0:00 p.rn and three nights a week the pub would close at 12:30 a.m. The oversized door along the west elevation, in addition to the outdoor seating area mean that noise from the brew pub could become an issue for the residential neighborhoods south of the project site.

Noise from the Powerhouse is already a problem for the residential neighborhood in the project vicinity.

Based on the location and requested use ofthe project site, you could describe the brew pub as an annex to the Powerhouse. Besides noise, liglrt and glare from the outdoor seating area could also impact the existing neighboring development. A noise study and a photometric study could provide useful information.

While not strictly a part of this application, HPL is aware of ongoing concerns among residents and business owners about increasing the concentration of alcoholic beverage licenses. In licensing businesses to serve alcohol, the state does not consider whether the concentration is too great. Instead this decision is defened to each local jurisdiction. The Historic District Commission may wish to recommend that the City Council should take up this issue.

Recommendations
r To help the City and the I{istoric District Commission determine if the existing use of Sutter Street's 600-block should be intensified in the proposed manner, the project should be required to prepare a noise study.
4

01/11/2022 Item No.15.
o
a
(The study slnuld anticipate the potenlial noise levels when live performances are held simultaneously at both the Powerhouse and al the Barley Barn Tap House. If the noise study demonstrates that mitigation is required, it will be tlw applieant's responsibility tofollow all recommendations to limit future noise levels.)
A neighborhood meeting to discuss the impact of the project on the residential neighborhoods should be organized prior to a hearing before the Historic Dishict Commission. Feedback from this meeting should be incorporated with the future staffrepod.

In view of resident and business concems, HPL recommends that the Historie Disnict Commission rcquest the preparation of an ordinance to address the desirable concentration of alcoholic beverage licenses.
5

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Steven Banks
From:

Sent:

To:

Attechmentr:

Subiect:

Michael Reynolds < [email protected]>
Friday, October 15,20214:07 PM
Steven Banks
Fwd: Fw: Fwd: Request for Comments for ^-Barley^- ^-Barn^- Tap House (PN 19-174) Request for Comments Barley Barn Tap House (PN 19-174) 9-29-21 with Attachments.pdf
CAUTTON: This ernall orlglnated from outslde of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

RE: HFRA Board Comments for Barley Earn Tap House (PN 19-174) Steve, below are HFRA comments for Barley Barn Tap House. ln summary, HFRA is against granting the new use for the followlng reasons:

Parking Variance - The project requires a parking variance which is unacceptable to the residents. Until a permanent resident parking solution is in place, the addition of new entertainment options in the 600 block will continue to drive more visitor parking into the residential areas.

Parking lease with Eagles - the terms of the lease with the Eagles lodge are too open to be considered as part of a permanent solution. The Eagles have first come first serve priority for any event they hold and so the actual amount of parking available could fluctuate between 0-15 spaces. Most Eagles events occur at night time on the weekends which is the very peak period the proposed establishment will require those parking spaces.

Change in Parking Density - for >20yrs, the barn building has been a retail business with 10-6pm working hours so does not conflict with any of the nelghboring 5@blk establishments. The shift to an entertalnment venue serving alcohol will shift the primary usage to the 5-12am time window which will now overlap with the majority of adjacent businesses in the @Oblk. ln addition, the capaclty of the Brewery will shift the density from light retail to heaving entertainment with a proposed operatlng capacity of 166 patrons not includlng the proposed outdoor seating. Assuming an avg visitor arrives 3/vehlcle, that ls *SOcarc on at peak period. This creates significant overflow in the publlc parking behind the 500 blk and cannibalizes spaces for establlshments like the Steakhouse that are reservatlon based. An rough estimate of the 600blk parking density based on establishment capaclty numbers is roughly the following when outdoor seating is included. As you can see from the rough math, the 600 block is ill-equipped to support such an entertainment/alcohol based footprint so the addition of 1 more establishment only furthers an already bad situation with impact to already establlshed buslness. o Steakhouse - 150-200 patrons = 50-75 cars at full capacity o Planks - 75-100 patrons = 30-50 cars at full capacity o Citizen Vine - 45-60 patrons = 15-20 cars at full capacity o JWilds - 136 patrons = 5O-75 cars at fullcapacity
o Scarletts - 30-65 patrons = 10 - 30 cars at full capacity o Powerhouse - 150-200 patrons = 50 - 75 cars at full capacity Hours of operation: All other beer based establishments in the HD stated closures is 12am. 12:30am is unacceptable. The application should conform to the HD norms.

Subjectively: The Historic District buildout is at a state where the balance of the entire district needs to be considered when granting changes ln use conditions. The addition of another alcohol establishment in the 600blk that does not even serve food creates imbalance and adds no addltlonal value to the overall HD tenant mix.
a
a
a
1 Mike Reynolds

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Historic Folsom Residents Association President
Fonrvarded message
Fro m : lkatflthsr@slo @ <llg!fbEr@h!..som >
Date: Thu, oct 14, 2O2Lat6:09 PM
SubJect: Fw: Fwd: Request for Comments for ^-Barley^- n-Barn^- Tap House (PN 19-174) To: Mike Reynolds <[email protected]>
Below it says to send comments to Steve Banks and gives his email.

Please respond by October 15,zAZL,to our Principal Planner, Steve Banks, at 916-46t-67A7 or his email at [email protected]
--- Forwarded Message ---
From: "The HFRA" <[email protected]>
To:''CarrieLane''<Cprue@hotmai!.'com>,''JenniferLane',.@>,',LauraFisher,' <[email protected] >, "Mi ke Reyno lds" <[email protected]> Sent: Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 3:00 PM
Subject: Fwd: Request for Comments for ^-Barley^- n-Barn^- Tap House (PN 19-174) FYI
Forwarded message
From: Karen Sanabrla <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, Sep 29, 2OZL at 2:45 PM
Subject; Roquest for Comments for Earley Barn Tap House (PN 19-174) To:

Hello,
Please see attached Request for Comments for Barley Barn Tap House.

Please respond by 0ctober LS,202L,to our Principal Planner, Steve Banks, at 916-46L'6207 or his email at@
Thankyou,
Karen Sanabria
,9r' f )liit'r,, \r;ri:/uttf
Community llevelopment llepartment
50 Natoma Slreel. Folsom. C495630
O: 916.461 .6203
2

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Steven Banks
Sent:

From:

Subiect:

U Laurent < [email protected]>
Thursday, November 4,2021 10:48 AM
Pam Johns; Steve Krahn
daoffice@sacda,org; Scoft Zangrando; Lydia Konopka; Rick Hillman; Ken Cusano; Lauren Ono; Supervisor Sue Frosq Pete Piccardo; Osfm Fire Marshal Ca; The HFM; John Shaw; Cindy Pharis; Barbara Leary; [email protected]; Dale Kasler; Ben Van Der Meer; sactonewstips@ newsreview.com; Steve n Ban ks
Objections: PN19 174 608.5 Sutter St. Cond. Use permit
To:

Cc:

CAUT|ONT This email origlnated from outslde of the organlzation. Do not cllck links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

To: Folsom Plan Dir., Comm. Dev. Dept.

To: City Engineer S. Krahn
To: Asst City Clerk for DISTRIBUTION to HD members and
Folsom City Council
Scott Zagrande Building Dept Eng.

Pete Piccardo Code Enforcement
JJohnsohn Code Enf.
cc: Sac DA Office; FPD, FFD, FFD Fire Marshal; State Fire Marshall; Sac County Supervisor
Re: "special meeting" PN 19 t74 608 U2 Sutter APN 070 0061 011 As of November 4, 2A2t, Folsom is again quietly rushing to APPROVE ENTITLEMENTS and IAND USES which are NOT CONSISTENT with Folsom Municipal Code, Street Standards, Infrastructure Dedication Standards, and OFF STREET Parking Requirements The Eagles Lodge did NOT provide a LegaUBinding Contract to Provide Parking. If they did so, THEIR OWN parking would be Legally NON-Conforming because they are also holders of ABC Alcohol License. They too are located on 19th Century tiny lanes which ADD RESPONSE TIME and ACCESS for First Responders.

Discriminating against First Responders is just about as OFFENSIVE as any city employee or Elected person can be.

California FIRE CODE is adopted in Totality and this mis-use of a bunch of novice 'DESIGN REVIEW ONLY" group -- to GMNT any Land Use Exceptlon is very wrong. It is Black letter law on all counts. This is wrong.

This special meeting DOCUMENT Packet has NEVER had the City Engineer Signature and Seal on it, which compounds the State Law violations. It certalnly gives the appearance our Folsom City Engineer is ln direct Violation of State Codes, previously enumerated at length. It is HIS DuTY/Obligation to Ensure Laws of ALL levels of Govt. are Obeyed and Enforced. If he refuses to do His Job, we need an Investigation to Prove WHY Folsom City Engineer considers himself and His License Above the Laws. 1

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Consequences of violating state, federal, county, local laws for this one single additional usage and an "exception" granted by an ADVISORY ONLY deslgn group are --- at the least --- LIABILITY for all consequences resulting.

This should include Liability/responsibility for Reducing First Responder Access and addlng to Response TIME on 19th century streets;
Accidents; damages due to this city "design advice" group assuming a Power of Law- making. They have personal Responsibility for any such Exception-Granting, and this City staff and city Council NEEDS TO INFORM these Novices IN WRITING of their Exposures. They need to know Truth Prior to this "special meeting" one-item agenda.

They need to know how they would be complicit in wrong-doing. They need to know city has NOT assumed responsibility for all the Laws they expect this group to Violate, and the harm which would be done.

I know for fact, that Appointed persons DO NOT HAVE a city-llnk email address. There is NO way for them to get this information so they can CONSULT THEIR OWN COUNSEL. This is so Folsom!
This truly requires a Full Investigation from the backed-up raw sewage SSS Conveyance Pipes/illegal temporary storage vaults in Sutter St. all the way down to the city employees having the Support and Endorcement of elected offlclals to contlnue pursuing Wrongful Operations.

NO ONE can legally offer an "exception" of any kind to a STANDARD. Standards in this case are those of city, County, State, Fire Marshal, and state/US Constitutions.

Ignore vital laws, then expect the Consequences. That is why CA Licensed Civil Engineers are Sworn & Llcensed Law Enforcers.

Why is oldest, worst-served part of city suddenly being pressed for increased NON- Standard land uses & occupancies which violate legal Standards? Why is NO PERSON with a LICENSE ever asked to Sign/Seal/Approve any of this acts -- and using "special meetings" to expedite a quiet result.

Below is Partial History of emails, but NOT of formal Complaints about Folsom "methods of Operation."
Sue,
Today another Folsom inappropriate Land Use Exception application came in newspaper, Sac Bee Legal Notice, imaged below.

Simply put, it led me to discover Folsom has a pattern of Failure to make Accurate/complete Legal reports to Sacramento County Records and RE Tax Assessor. These false and omitted reports have led to a pattern of cheating clty residents, county residents, and everyone whose Land Parcels and Land Usages are

01/11/2022 Item No.15.
impacted, regulated, and TAXES ARE ASSESSED based upon faulty information. This pattern has been observed since past mayor fired final independent City Engineer, and erased vital portions of Folsom Muni Code which was moved ONLINE ONLY.

Below is the tortured route I traveled in findlng hard Proof this city is still changing FMC constantly. Everyday I find something new, of private-gain value, and harmful to EVERYONE.

This is so egregious and obvious, that I am not going to share this all with Principal Planner Steve Banks in Comm. Development Dept. He sounded very, very discouraged today, and being involved in this must be painful to him.

After an attack Sept 5 2020 which left me with a damaging traumatic brain injury, it seemed I'd never recover sufficiently to speak with old friends, or indeed, anyone. I lost speech, Glasgow Coma rating of functionally mute. While speech & memory are not the same, I am able to speak well enough to speak with people like Steve Banks, again. Guess it's a good day for those with TBI, and serious cardiac issues.

Sacramento Bee is correct: this city is far beyond the pale.

This city is a threat. I can only thank Bee for proper, accurate, essential reporting.

Laurie
--- Forwarded Message ---
From: LJ Laurent <[email protected]>
To: net>
Ce: LJ Laurent <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 23,2021,01:11:42 PM PDT
Subiect: PN19 174 Prison Theme on 608 Sutter St, Cond. Use permit To:

From: Laurie
July 23, 2O2L
Re: PN 19 -L74 APN 070 0061 013 608 Sutter St.,
First CONTEXT, but the final contexts are frightening.:

PN19-174; conversation with Steve Banks this date.

Steve will receive most of these legal/Engineering COMMENTS, but it is known he will NOT be able to impact what "city leaders" and "Comm. Dev. employees do." Steve has promised to respond to my email with 2019 Applicant's documents, sent via email to me,
If he fails to notify Folsom Licensed Engineers, lawyers, and city council elected officials, of all this information, it is up to old area RESIDENTS to ensure city council is made aware of federal, state, county, CA Fire Marshal laws/regs. Again, this researcher has never yet had a critic discover even 1 single error in Research Reports. Good Luck.
3

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

PN 19-174 Cond. Use Permit for 4377 Sq Ft building 'CMFT BEER" usage indoors, outside, with modification of Front Structure appearance to "prison theme." Note spoke with Steve Banks this a.m. aboutthis old application, and expressed to Steve there are residents concerned about any claim the HDC can make a FINAL Cond.

Permit decision. Reminded Steve: FMC city law chapter t7.52 HD is legally an OVERIAY ZONE and NOT a ZONE DISTRICT. That means, the "archltectural review" laymen are not the panel to review Structure Changes, Inadequate PARKING, Failure to Prove ADA Compliance [see federal law link below].

From Public Notice, This is Meeting of HD group to consider exterior appearance, and "conditional Use Permit" which is NOT legally within the Jurisdiction of HDC Architectural Review laymen. Includes interior demolltlon for brewery as well as converting front facade to "prison" theme. Parking is extremely limited for 4,377 Sq Ft. Commercial Zone Usage.

Please NOTE Public Notice WORDS:
"Please refer to the PI-AN COMMISSION AGENDA for ways to participate remotely." USE PERMITS are PC Dut% by Law' to hold public hearings, accept information, answer questions and FINALLY, make only a Recommendatlon to City Council. This is how this state runs Oversight on cities, lesser jurisdictions. If you require State Law Citations, just ask. fssue
"Parking 21 spaces on site for USE of POWERHOUSE PUB, which is not listed Petitioner.
"Parking" 21 spaces on site, and private parking lot" Eagle Lodge. http://www.findglocal.com/US/Folsom/18709693165261471Fo|som-Fraternal-Order-of- Eagles-o/o23929
Folsom Fraternal Order of Eagles Offlcers I Folsom Fraternal Order of Eagles Note: CROSSING Scott St. to use a 'Private Parking' Lot of a charitable group "not for profit" with special TAX Exemptions, may be of concern.

The Fraternal Order of Eagles is an international non-profit organization uniting fraternally in the spirit of liber$, truth, justice, and equality, to make human life more desirable by lessening ils ills and promoting peace, prosperity, gladness and hope. The F.O.E. donates more than $10 million ayean to localcommunities, fundraisers, charities and more. As part of its philosophy, the F,O.E
Please Note Public Notice FAILS TO MENTION ON-SITE Americans with Disabilities Law: This is why a CITY ENGINEER MUST be involved to Seal & Sign Formal Plans for Proposal and an elected COUNCIL MUST MAKE such Critical Decisions about Federal Law Compliance. ADA:
https : //www.ada. gov/restrl oi no parkino/restri pi no 20 1 5. html 4

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

CONTEXT: there are many, many Plaintiffs willing to sue owner & city for dis-obeying ADA laws/rules,
UPLIFT
IIOTEIOF P(Ftrc HT
crrv oF Follot tiltilunrc DrnT
DAlf OF lillFtlCr Augwl 4,?s1l
nml OF lllltrlll0r 5O0 PM.

PllGf OF HlfRnOr Clty Cotmcll Chamberg,
Foborn, CA 95630
ilOnGt lt lllRllV OIUIX TllAt! A pub{
HMrlc Dstrict Cmrnbelon ol ho GiV ol Folson
bllodng:

FnO.f,CT llAf,l Fobom PrFm Brews Tap Ho
Plopor! **76ppillcant: Mr. Murray Weaver
Pnopcf LocaUonlml: 608 Sutbr SlreeUAPN
Plannirp tb.; PN-19-174
$all Conbc-l: Sto'/e Banlos, RhcFal Pla
sba rilts @ folsorn. ca.ut
Enillqnents: a- Cmdtbnd Uae Femlt
b. Dedgn Rwbw
Proloct Deacrbtlon: The pmposod proFd lncluc
Condldmal U* furnll and Dostgn Revilw lor de
crall beer eshbliolmerrt wihin an exlstlrg 437i
at 608 Srrfror SneL The proposod ptolod
d UE odstir6 4,377-s+prebot buiHing b cre
tor he bu[dm. Ibmollllon and lnterlor tenant lt
tsarnlorm the lnbrlor butUhrg area lnb a spaco
The foreed proiod abo lrplrdos ure ol an out
W clocoratlve l^tubr ateel lenclru. ln brml d
hbnds to ufflbe eridhg publlc parkhg facillties,
(Founftotm Publ adjacsnt b trs poled Cle, ar
(Eagl€ Lodg€}.

Envlronmontrl Rarlryv: Ths pr€i6d ls cabgorlcall
Exbling Facllltbs ol lh€ Callfomb ErMronmentall
Hcrrrlilrr to thc Hldpft Dlda Qeint
lc-nadhbrtr ln llihrnrilu rrrnolrU.

Allperaonr inbreded in hese mdlerg ars lnvih
mentr oralfy or ln *rlthg dwhg he publlc tpar
nrentr are arnllable tor rsvby, at ard further info
hg Cqnnunlty Dorcbornrtl .PqttlnFm ry !
CITY ENGINEER must rule & opine on Health & Safety laws, Fire/Emergency Access -- using his Seal/Signature to ensure an EXPERT OPINION -- that is WHAT WE PAY HIM/THEM to DO.
5 SPORTS ORIVENEWS OPINION coMtcS
fttz
a
+

01/11/2022 Item No.15.
${tounnao xlgsrcament, xlOsacrament xlEEFolsomFre ,lEAstsrsorF,'x ? 6085utt, e :.Q 0 lgoogle.com/maps/place/608+Sutter+5t,+Folsonr,+CA+95630/@38.6783806,'121,17568 $ Settings ! https:/1wwrv,youtub,., lnlported Frorn Fire.., lnrported From lE ft eOfO DOG 5280 T'.. O n,t *t* oo'
Qr',
)
w)
{,\
a-
$'//'
vI
I
Essex Mortgage ' roisonr p
I
9t ..,.rf1 .1,,. I r
?
I irilv.,l S t : SotrdWasle
9 608 Sut
FC
orff St l'
la
608 Sutter St o
' ,,1 r -,r. i I -,.. Ir I. rI I rr; I I
c-\
..s.- $+
I
Mystrrlr ti. l)tttrt rrl
I r '.' l:ttr'tl;l
6lass West
I Praner rr,fr?i;g[f
erLOZl Uniled States Tl
6 -J
;>.
,rii
I ,, r,, l:t , 'f.,.,
-t a.. t.- ,
iri I ilr
t 3A'
I tr'
':?&)/
,6
Q Layers

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Responslbllltles for a Volce of Residentsi
suggested ACTIONS to locals to take immediately:

Make a formal Public Record Act Request for Context issue:
"How many Calif ABC Alcohol Sales Licenses are currently IN USE on Sutter St.' or other "hlstoric area" location as of this date?
7

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Ask City Englneer to REVIEW formally the fire, explosion, Riot, shooting access for Exiting 18 foot wide Sutter in a catastrophe situation requiring IMMEDIATE access by First Responders,
Immediate ESCAPE by crowds, all Persons impacted/endangered.

Ask Folsom Fire Chief, and Folsom Fire Marshal Lauren Ono for a written Report on ACCESSIBILITY.

Ask city lawyer for PROVE of ADA Compliance in all respects -- including Emergency ACCESS/accessi bl I ity.

Ask city council to PROVIDE PROOF OF NEED for this "conditional use" for yet another location serving ALCOHOL.

Ask Police Chief & his staff for a Report and Comments on all of above. They bear Responsibility for EVERYON E's SAFETY.

Let's respect them and HONOR them.

Closlng: you have phone #, so ASK if you do not follow Engineering language, or details of very abstruse, messed up & complicated Laws.

MONEY: and proper REPORTING TO RE TAX MAN:

I

01/11/2022 Item No.15.
608 sutter' st, folson, c"r
LAND ]NFORMATION f
Parcel Details Layers Measure Search Results Select Parcels Recent Sales Legend Net Assessed Value
Propefty tax bill
informatlon
Thornas Brothers
Map
Assessor Land Use
Cocle
Assessor's Property
Oescraption
Approx. Parcel Area
59r)Cr,6li 6
Link to ePropTax
6o9e
+
Additional information regarding
Assessor's roll values can be
obt"lined by contacting the
Assessor's Office at 916-875
0700 or
.r s5e55Or(t)SatCo U nty.llet.
608 1/ r
627
6oB Pr
6r4
I'i i 2. ,1
----
./ coy
EABOOA
Lrs I 10 I '&W 28 FT
OF LT 1? BLK 23 FO..
s0n/t & SEL Y 10 FT OF
ALLEV A3ND PER
170:ot 10685
26060 sc1 ft / 0.6 acres
6 Zoning: Hf - H sTORIC
D STF.|t-T
1 CONTEXT: HD DISTRIGT ls NOT a deflned Zone District per FMC Chaptet L7 CONTEXT: Folsom Never published, nor held Public Hearings nor announced it had REMOVED ALL "Zone District" Designations and Definitions from Folsom Muni Code Chapter 17.

Since Folsom leadership has seen fit to REMOVE all Zone District Definitions, Whence does city counciUstaff derive a RIGHT to Exercise Land-Usage Police Control??? It
9 ZONING I
OWNER INFORMATION t

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

This is DIRECT VIOLATION OF State Law. to wit
IF Folsom is correct, and "historic district" ls a ZONE DISTRICT which Determines the proper USES, Infrastructure, roadway size, compatibility of Uses, then the ENTIRETY of all "historlc dlstrict" would have ONE ZONE DISTRICT ONLY by law with a formal "definitlon" of each/every single ZONE DISTRICT. This is NOT allowed under State Government Codes, Zonlng, and Intent of State to determine the Standards, Land Uses, Hazards, Safetn fnfrastructure Sizes, Oversight Godes' and SPEGIAT EXCEPTION Laws & Codes & Standards. Llcensed Civil Engineers are Essential to enforce Laws, Standards, adequate Infrastructure, adequate developer Financing of dedicated Improvements, Subdivisions, and appropriate Zone Districts for EACH PARCEL.

If Folsom correctly reported all of the oldest, most poorly-served area of city as ONE SINGLE ZONE by Definition, there WOULD BE SOLELY ONE SINGLE LAND USE applied -- - by Law -- to every single Parcel.

How long has city of Folsom violated Higher Jurisdiction Laws? What enforcement agency will conduct a full Investigation of such long-standing city practlces whlch are outside the State Enabling Laws as referenced as CA Government Code 65800 [Zoning]?
For verification, higher authorities need to consult Folsom Muni Code Chapter 17 Zoning, to see if they can locate a Definition Section for each Zone District, such as county's BAB00A Small retail..... which has a definition on screen as Multiple retail vendors, with small occupancy, in a bullding of considerably Dlfferent Size than Folsom reports it in Formal Public Notice.

Analysis & IMAGES of FMC which is ONLINE only, hence changed online at will. https : //www.codepu bl ish inq.com/CA/Folsom/# ! /Folsom 1 T tFolsom 1 7 I 0. htm I # 1 7. 10 10

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Folsorn Municipal Code
Chapter 17.10

DESIG NATION OF DISTRICTS
Sections:

17.10,010 Established,

17.10.020 Speclal dlstrlcts establlshed.

17.10.010 Established. o sHnRE
The several classes of general districts established and into which tl designated as follows:

R-1 -1, R-1 -ML, R-1 -M, single-family residence districts; R-2, two-family residence district;
R-3, neighborhood apartment district;
A
B
C
11

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Folsom Municipal Code
D
c. R-3, neighborhood apartment district;
R-4, general apartment district;
E. C-1, neighborhood business district;
F, C-2, central business district;
G. C-3, general commercial district;
H. CH, highway service commercial district;
l. CM, commercial-manufacturing district;
J. M-1, light industrial district;
M-2, general industrial district;
M-1, limited industrial district;
MF, industrial frontage districU
K.

L.

M
t2

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Folsom Municipal Code
PD, planned development district;
R-M, residential, multifamily dwelling district;
P. BP, business and professional office district. (Ord. gZ8 (Pat 5 31 02.01)

17.10.020 Special districts established. o sHRRE
tn addition to the foregoing classes of districts, certain combining d and are designated as follows:

A. A, special agricultural distric!
B. B, special building site district;
C. F, special highway frontage district;
D. P, special parking district;
N
o
13

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Folsorn Municipal Code
C. F, special highway frontage district;
D. P, special parking district;
E. H, special height limit district;
F. CD, special civic district. (Ord.378 (part), 1979: Ord.239 5 1 s 3102.02)
I nome ll
The Folsorn Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 1313, passe Disclaimer: The City Clerk's office has the officialversion of the Folsom Mu should conta{t the City Clerk's office for ordinances passed subsequent to CONCLUSION: This is Folsom's own designated Chapter t7, analyzed for "Definitions", and searched for Definition of Each ZONE DISTRICT, along with its STANDARDS, Permitted Land Uses, abutting Land Zone District Uses.

Folsom's Print Editions frorn past do include the standards, and Definitions for each "Zone Dlstrict" and included a Map within Chapter 17 FMC Zoning. t4

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

All this is gone with the wind. There is no "Historic Distrlct Zone", and there ls no Enforcement in Folsom of STANDARDS, Infrastructure Requirements, Streets wide enough for First Responders and Safe Ingress/Egress. Folsom has an "architectural review group" for thls old area, but they are the SECOND Review group and they are NOT a Plan Commission. Folsom has a Plan Commission whlch only holds hearlngs, provides expert testimony venue for questlons, and makes only Recommendations to city council for changes to existing legislation on Land Uses, Standards, Safety, Infrastructure. Folsom continues to act as if an "architectural review" group has Legal POWER to alter ISND USAGES, GRANT Exceptions to Law in FMC 17. This is very wrong and harmful.

Additionally, this system has resulted in substantial LOSS of Revenue by Sacramento County and those whom it serves. Folsom practices have caused huge Profits to a select few, and huge losses to others, especially to suffering old city Residents. All five council have been almost totally local Business owners, for decades. They have had support of various chambers, groups, and public tax beneficiaries, Old city residents feel powerless. That is because they are.

If Licensed civil City Engineer and licensed City Attorney FAIL to deliver signed/sealed Reports, this will continue as business as usual -- to the detriment of all.

Although not land use directly, conslder also FMC 13.30 a quietly passed law which states Folsom lacks water for it entitled new developments, but passes the Onus onto Sacramento County to bail out Folsom when the remaining surface water is all gone. As Sac Bee pointed out, this is only city which has ZERO groundwater, as lt is built upon a granite base.

PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65800 ET. SEQ,, THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA GRANTS TO A gITY THE POWER TO APPLY ZONING TO LANDS WITHIN ITS CITY LIMITS. THE PURPOSE OF ZONING IS TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND GENERAL WELFARE. THE CONSTITUTIONAL]TY OF ZONING HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE UN]TED STATES SUPREME COURT SINCE 1926, EUCLID V. AMBER REALTY COMPANY (272 US 365).
a
Context L7.O2.42O is VIOTATED repeatedly by FOIsom CA.
"streef'means a public or permanent private way thir$-six feet or more in width which affords a primary means of access to property, (Prior code $ 3104.67)
Context L7.02,28L: Public Notice in Sac Bee indicates this fits Folsom definition, since it is called microbrewery and IT SERVES alcohol as well.
e vrlid rlcohot prodoction tlccmc from lhc rtstc of Cllllbrnh, cnd may include an on-site restaurant aad/or ber that serves its loCnlly craftcd beer. (Ord. 1236 S 2,20f5)
Folsom Municipal Code lacks Definitions for Zone District impacting this Parcel - - or indeed ANY city Parcel.
t5

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

However Sacramento County RE Assessor & County Record DO HAVE Specified Land Uses whlch are PERMITTED upon this Parcel APN #, and which CONTOL the TAX CATEGORY the County Uses in Assessing a FAIR, Equitable TAX. BELOW IMAGE:

Sacramento County clearly defines USAGES and TAXES based UPON this Official Category BABOOA as small retail Land Usage
9 trou,' lEl sccra, f Q sacra, [,rs x Q ooes, lg,ronc l9 trou, I I Folsor lQ cnant ldi ee O t assessorparcelviewer,saccounty.neVJ5Vierver&ssessor.htntl# ll https://wv*,r.youtub.. lnrported F.om Fire. . lnrporled trom lE {A GOLO DOC 5390 T,.' O 4,{$ Settings Layers Measure Search Results Select Parcels Recent Sales Legend Assessor's Office at 91 6-875-
0700 or
[email protected] Lr nty. net.
6oB r/z
Thomas Brothers
fr'lap
Assessor Land Use
Code
Assessor's Property
Desffiption
26134
8AB00A
6r.4
6og
+
6oB
Gerreral Retatli Commerci.rl
LT59 10
oF LT t; Specific Srnoll Retatl
501.1&! Ocqr.rll.r,rcy f,/r.rlti-Terrarrt

ALLEY A,I
t70?01, Character'of Ltse N.lost probable use
Approx. Parcel Area 26080 sq ft / 0'6 screE
Zoning: HO - H sTORIC

D STRICT
CONTEXT: again, please note folsom has removed all Zone District Definitions -- secretly, with NO public knowledge nor participation. Yet in case of PARCEL in this t6
.(
6u-
6tjB 5LrttEr st fu-rlsc,nt :a
Assessor Parcel Viewer\rtt l1r,'rl l,\ 1,,
q
LAND INFORMATION ?
Parcel Details

ZONING I

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Prison theme microbrewery Change of Usage, the city has glven Sacramento County a false Zane District Deslgnatlon. There ls no "historic dlstrict" land Use Definition. Indeed all Zone Definitions are totally misslng/gone/caput.

NOTE also BUILDING SIZE is NOT what Folsom advertised. Why is this huge discrepancy in a Public Notice? PN states 4377 sq ft.

Gross Building Area 7898 sq ft
Net Rentable Area 7898 sq ft
Ground Floor Area 7898 sq ft
Built 1948 -- exactly how SAFE is this building for Changed Uses? Does it have sprinklers? Full Street size Access for First Responders? What is actual "condition" of this building with following Sacramento County Facts:

Assessor Land Use Code BAB00A
Use General: Retail Commercial
Specific: small retail
Occupancy: Multi Tenant
Character of Use: most probably use that is, SMALL RETAIL, Multi-tenant.

If city of Folsom had accurately reported this bulldlng and had submitted the CHANGE of USE and Condition Use PermitApplication dated 2019 as PN L9-t74 -- then Sacramento County Assessor WOULD HAVE the Intended Change of Land Use, Major Alterations to bulldlng, USAGE, OCCUPANCY, PARKING and Street Access requirements.

This is officially a matter of Concern for Sacramento County Assessor and County Recorder, as well as Residents of this old-infrastructure part of old city, and County residents deprived of Determinatlon of Fair Real Estate Assessments as reported by city of Folsom.
question:
at bottom, below, does "Quolity class D", does D mean it has been dangerous for some length of time??? Sac County Codes are not easlly found online, if indeed Assessor "codes" are explained formally anywhere for Public.
lnformation for Parcel:
070-0061-01c0000
Read Our Data Disclaimer
OR At'toN
Ass$sor Parc€l{
Address
07tm6101(m00
514 SUTTER ST
Postal Clty, Zlp FOISOM 95630
17

01/11/2022 Item No.15.
!urlrdlctlon
County Supsnlsor Dl5ffct
Ass€isot noll Strtui
Atie$o* Map
Clty of Fohom
stt FiQtt-Dlslrlct4
ACnVE
Atroiror'r l,lep. Sook q70.

P.rc 005
A summary of the most recent property tax bill is available on the e-PropTax site.

Tax Rate fuea Code
Jurl3dlctlon Used on Most
Recent Tar Roll
Lart Roll Yeat
044r8
FOLSOM
2020
ASSESSOR'S I]OLL VALUES
as ofJune 25,2OZI
Tar Roll Yrar
Land Vslue
lmprov€ment Velue
2021
s310,465
Ssgqzol
l0

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

County Re6orde/5 Oocument Sook 20110325, PNt€ 911
Number
Evont Drte Frl Mar 25 20U
PROPFRTY BUII DII{G INFOR TI
G.ors EulldluArer
Net Rent.bls Area
Ground Floor Arra
YeffSollt
Effec'tlve Yaar
Storler
Qudtty Clas
78t8 sq ft
78!18 sq ft
7898 rg ft
1948
1918
t
Av€rrlpD
t9

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

H ietodc D iatric{ Commlssion
Barley Bam Tap House {PN 19-174)
November 18,2021
Attachment 18
Site Photographs

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

01/11/2022 Item No.15.
\-QD

01/11/2022 Item No.15.
,
:

I
,I
II
l
I
,i
t
;
I
r
I
.a
!
I
-(?
I{
l

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Attachment 5
Historic District Commis sion Additional Information
Dated November 18,2021

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

I
il
:.

I
This document hos been
distributed to the Commissioners
and staff by email and hard copy.

To:

Historic District Commission
Staff Report
Additional Information
Transmittal Sheet
Date November 18,202I
Historic District Commission
Community Development
Item No. 3 - Barley Barn Tap House Project - Comments ReceivedSubject:

Attached please find additional public comment letters staff received regarding the Barley Barn Tap House project.

Respectfu lly Submitted,
From:

KellyMullett
Commission Clerk
Updated Jan202I

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

F"".",

4.0 Dental
1747 Creekside Drive
Folsom CA 95630
11107t2021
To Whom it may Concern:

As a Folsom resident and business owner, I fully support the proposed Barley Barn Tap House project, I have enioyed treating my staff to the hospitality venues in historic Folsom and as a beer aficionado; therefore I look forward to visiting a first class Tap House. My staff and friends are always welltaken care of when we visit the PowerHouse. I am especially appreciative of the fun and safe environment the guys at PowerHouse provides. Cheers to their new venture!
Sincerely,
Dr. Elizabeth Luong

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Murray,
This looks greatl lt seems like you are working very hard at taking feedback and adjusting to public concerns. I love the changes you have made and I look forward to seeing this project come to lifel
Amber Shoop Felfs
Shoop's Photographyffhe Studioe on Sutter
w:@

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Hello Murray,
Thanks for sharing the revised rendering of the Folsom Taproom. I have to say thls was more along the line of what I had ln mind when we first discussed a deslgn that would malntaln the exlstingfootprlnt and keeplngthe " Barn' look with allthe bulldlng llnes mlnimally altered.

I wlll certalnly be open to more dlscussions to the taproom concept that you have proposed, whlch I belleve will succeed and compllment other buslnesses' in the Historic District.

Regards,
Moe.

01/11/2022 Item No.15.
c
: ,. ': ,

AMB E R
December 22,2A2O
State of California
Alcohol and Eeverage Control
3927 Lennane Drive fl100
Sacramento, CA 95834
Re: Powerhouse Entertainment in Folsom California
To Whom lt May Concern;
ln Folsom, I have had the opportunity to work with Powerhouse Entertainment for many years, They have always been great community supporters and partners. The year 2020 has been a challenge for all of our businesses especially with all of the changing rules and regulations of how to operate their business - it has been was very difficult to say the least.

Regardless, they have worked hard to comply with all of the changing protocols while working closely with the community, nearby businesses and the City of Folsom Police Department.

We want to make that our licensed businesses are aware of any new rules or protocols that need to be followed during these times so they can return to the success they were experiencing prior to the pandemic,
lf we can assist with providing information or educating our ABC licensed businesses in Folsom, please let me know.

Thanks,
Joe Gogllordl
President/CEO
200 WoolStreel, Folsom, CA 95630
916-985.2698 Ext l3 Office | 9l 6.952.8198 Mobile
EATER
PARTNERSHIPvrfrl'C xOOt('COr.|{tC r
200 Wool Street . Folsom, CA 95630
9 15.985.2698 . folsomchamber.com

01/11/2022 Item No.15.
4t
Re: Barley Barn Tap House - 608k Sutter 5t.

To Whom lt May Concern,
I am writing this letter on behalf of the Barley Barn Tap House project.

As a resident of Sutter Street, and have owned several businesses and property on Sutter Street Along with serving on the HDC & ARC for many years, I felt I wanted to let you know that I support this project.

I am aware of the Biggest obstacle in opening or building a business in the Historic District is Parking. The thing about the Barley Earn is that they will be adding Additional parking spaces, by contracting with the Eagles Lodge. And Murry Weaver is the only business to offer a shuttle from the existing Parking Garage to different street locations.

I think this project will be a nice addition to the Street, and will offer a different feel and type of business. The fact it will serve beer only, and will be Family friendly will be a plus.

The ldea of using The existing Restaurants on Sutter Street for food is a Win Win for all.

Thank lolJ, 7 :
'- '"':'. ,'.. ; L'- t'f '-'
Sincerely, Mary [say

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Dear Frlends Nelghborc and Hlstorlc District Commlsslon, I am wrltlngto Xpress support on behalf of Munay Weaver and owner of the Barley Barn Tap House project.

The new Western barn theme wlll have a wonderful authentic look as you drive into old town off ttre rainbow brldge and complement the overall look in the dlstrlct.

Mr. Weaver has been a longtlme businessman (21years) here in fulsome and has served on numerous boards and commltt€es to help revitallze and lmprcve the hlstorlc dlstrict. Hls background and expertlse gives hlm lnslght to what thls proJect will bring to our business community. I belleve hls goals and commitment to the Barley barn tap House are in keeping wlth the high standards we allwant for Folsom.

Looklng foruvard to spending afternoons on the outdoor patlo.

Thank you for your consideration
Claudia Cummings

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Folsom Hlstoric Dlstrict Commisslon
Letter of Support for lhe Barley Bam Tap House
Dear Commissioners
I would llke to rrolce my support forthe proposed Barley Bam Tap House.

For thqse of you who may not know, I am a 20+ year resident of Folsom, served for 10 yearc on the Folsom Arts and Cultural Commisslon, was Chalrman of the clty's Ad Hoc Committee on Parking Solutions in the Hlstoric Dislrict, and have volunteered for counlless events ln the dlstrict.

As a Realtor who specializes in relocaffons, I proudly promote the Histotic District as the heart and soul of our Clg. I refer clients therc, and when giving housing tours, often drive through and choose one of the dlsflct restaurants as a lunch stop.

Preserving and protec{ing the character of lhe distlict is very lmportant to me, as ls seeing businesses lhrive lhere.

I think the Barley Bam Tap House is a perfect fit and the dght business to go ln the proposed locallon.

It will bring visitors, who bring revenue to the dty, and because they will not serue food, it will help support local restaurants. who can suraly use iL
I can see locals coming down for a new rsason to visit the district, again supporting local restraurants and other businesses.

Existing parklng, along wih the lease of the Eagle's lot, and the new permit system for the Historlc Dlstrict r66ldents ensures that lt will have minimal impact on the nelghborhood. ln short, the Barley Bam project is the rlght business at the right fme for the commertial area of the Historio Dlstric{, and lfully support it.

Thank you br your considenation
Stephen Heard
I
Folsom CA 95630

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

To Whom it May Concern:

I have owned the Planet Earth Rising Store at 625 Sutter St Folsom directly acro$s the street from PowerHouse Pub for many years. l've also served on the board of FHDA. tam excited forthe new proposed Barley Bam Tap house in the old Clouds Bam building. Mr Weaver has been a great neighbor and I believe the Tap House will bring a fun and increased customer base to our district.

Darrell Trimble- Oltrner

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Good Morningl I wanted to express my appreciation of this change in design. You have my full cooperation and support with the current design. Let me know if you need anything else.

Regards,
Doug
Doug Scalzi
Rcgionnl Dircctor. Kt( Corunrercill
Prcs irh.. rrt, S.rcrarucnl o Conrnrcrciul f,rolx.rliu l Llccrrsr'{01237807
l. ore -a:o-oeoo
V drxr g qgrslslt rtlp.c{rnr
9 ZZgS lrorr Polrrt R(|. ! t 60, [olsorrr 95630
Leasing I Sales I Investments ruil KEIICR\A/LLIA'"I5
lAg COVVtrlatA! ltsttr

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Wesr or Gnlc^A,Go ResrnuRANTS, lNc.
504 Sutter Street, Sulte 200 . Folsom, CA 95630 . Offlce 916 294"7496 t Fax 91 6 358-9492 Autust 2,2021
Hlstorlc Dlstrlct Commlsslon,
My name is Erlc Schnetz, I am founder and CEO of Chicato Flre (four area locatlonsl and J wlld's livery and Feed. I have opented Chlcago Flre and nowJ Wlld's at the slte, 614 Sutter Street since 2q)3.

Please accept tlrls lctter as evldence of my enthusiastlc support of the proposed Folsom Prison Brews buslness concept. I believe I am in a unlque posltion to comm€nt on thls proposalas lt is in very close proximity to my existing restaurant and because I am a long-term tenant of the proiect's owner, Murray Weaver.

I thlnk the historic theme of the tap house will be a great addltlon to the Hlstorlc Dlstrict just as J wild's has been. The more buslnesses that embrace and promote Folsom's history the more succesfulthe street will be a whole. Given the numberof nerv restaurants that have opened in the dbtlict it makes sens€ to add a casual drlntlng and entertainment space versus yet another restaurant' This will help support food sales in the restaurants withln the near vicinity of Folsom Prison Brews. From my perspectfue as a tenant of Mr. Weave/s fior over 18 years, I have the utmost confidence in hls experlence and ablllty to run a succes#uland professlonal operatlon.

This is a very excltlnt opportunlty to turn a tired retail space into a strong localdnw for the Folsom Historlc Dlstrlct. Wlth all the new construction on the West end of Sutter Street, it would be a nlce balance to see lome new high-quatlty impmvements to the 600 Block.

Ptease do not hesltate to contact me for any further fuedback or lnformatlon.

Regards,
,z
Erlc Schnetz
C.E.O. west of Chlcago Restaurants lnc.

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Steven Banks
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

CAUTION: Thls emall originated from outslde of the organization. Do not cllck links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content ls safe.
---Original Message---
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Sent Fri, Nov 12, 2421 2:20 pm
Subject Fwd: Planet Earth Rising BBTR SUPPORT LETTER
---Original Message----
From: Darrell Trimble <[email protected]>
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent Fri, Nov 12, 20211:01pm
Subject Re: Planet Earth Ris
To \Mrom it May Concern:

I have owned the Planet Earth Rising Store at 625 Sutter St Folsom directly across the street from PowerHouse Pub for many years. l've also served on the board of FHDA. I am excited for the new proposed Barley Barn Tap house in the old Clouds Barn building. Mr Weaver has been a great neighbor and I believe the Tap House will bring a fun and increased customer base to our district.

DarrellTrimble- Owner
[email protected]
Friday, November 12,2O2"12'23 PM
Steven Banks; rholderness@holdernesslawcom
Fwd: Planet Earth Rising BBTR SUPPORT LETTER
1

01/11/2022 Item No.15.
l{(lHELT0. Hol.DELilt$l
November 12r 202I
Ms. Sari Dierking
Assistant City Attorney
City of Folsom
50 Natoma Street
Folsom, CA 95630
Dear Sari:

This letter is written on behaLf of Murray lVeaver,
Applicant for the Barley Barn Tap House ProJect. This tap house is proposed for the sale of beer for on-slte
consumptj.on by the patrons thereof. This letter ig
intended to address the most prominent 1egal, guasi-1egal, and public pollcy issues arising in connection with thisappllcation and what opposition there is.

A. Cateqorical Exemption from CEQA (14 *CCR" Section
15301):

To begin with, California Public Resources Code Section 2LO84 reguires the Secretary for Resources to promulgate within the State CEQA Guidelines certain categorical
exemptions from CEQA based upon the Secretary's
determination that specific classes of projects "do not have a significant effect on the environment" such that they are '\declared t,o be categorically exempt f rom the requlrement for the preparation of environmental
documents." 14 Callfornia Code of Requlatlons ("CCB"),
Section 1.5300. Based upon that grant of authority, 14 CC4 Section 1530L of the State CEQA Guidelines was promulgated.

It provides for the "Class !" categorical exemption as
follows:
"Class f consists of the operation, repair, mainE,enance, permitting, leasing, 1J-censing r oy minor alteration of existing public or prlvate structures, facllities,
mechanical equipment or t.opographical features involving

HOLDERNESS LAW FIRM

ATTORNEYATIAW
L22 Oek Rock Circle
FOU'OM, CA 95630
Tolcphone 19161 964- l4lO
Facgimilc (9161 9E4-1413
rholdcrncrdroldcrneeslaw.con
MailingAddrc$:

P. O. Box 975
Folrom, CA 95763-09?5

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Ms. Sari Dierking

November 12, 202L
negligible or no expansion of exlstlng
key consideration is whether the
negligible or no expansion of use."
This cat
the courts.
or forner
proj ect
use. The
involves
egorical exemption has recently been tested in
That is, San Dieqans for n Gov't v. Citv of
San Dieso (201S) 31 CAsth 349, 242 CR3d 541. In the Sag Dieqans case, above, the Court of Appeal ruled, among other things, that the proJect's water park improvements
constituLed refurbishment of a pre-exist,ing facility not new structures and therefore that part of the project vtas categorically exempt per Section L5301., above.

Measured by a fair reading and application of Section
15301, above, and the holding in the San Dieqans case,
above, Folsom city staff has correctly concluded that this project is categorically exemPt. It is in sum a
refurbishing of a former retail business which formerJ-y included in addition to retail, the manufacture on slte of pottery, regular raku firing events for the general public to attend and observe, quarterly day or weekend long
sidewalk fairs for the general public, and an occasional dinner and live entertainment venue' including locating these latter activities in the existing the patio area.

AlL these uses were undertaken by the ohtners, who occupied and used the barn for over 20 years. As aforesaid the
Applicant is intending to use the barn only for on-site beer sales and consumption and activlties ancillary
thereto, As such, the Applicant is not expandlng uses from what was formerly done on that site but changing and
narrowing them into a differenc eommercial use from before.

It ie submitted that under the faets and circumstances of thls case, this use is categorically exempt from CEQA under the continued operation of existing faoilities and
etructures categorical exemption t14 CCR Section L530Ll.

In addition, il shoufd be noted that this project does not include an expansion of the footprint of the existing
structure on the site.

B. The Burden of Proof is on
the ApplLcant:
the Proiect Obbonents, Not

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Ms. Sari Dierking

November L2,202t
As can now be seen, the determination by Folsom city
staff that the categorJ.cal exemption of 14 ccR Section 15301 applies to this proJect is demonscrated by
substantial evidence and that determination includes an implled flnding by staff that none of the excePtions Lo the categorical exemption apply to this case. San Francigco Beautiful v, Citv & Countv of San Francisco (20L4\ 226
cA4rh L0t2, 1?2 CR3d 1.34.

Based thereon, the burden has now shifted to Lhe project opponents to establish that the project is not exempt from CEQA. l- for En ta1 t v. St
ex rel L4 Dist. Aoriculturla Ass'n. (20L5t 242 CA4th 555, 195 CR3d 168 [unusual circumstances exception did not aPP 1y to rodeo operationsJ. In Lhis case, the Opponents point to a "usual" circumstance, namely gome patrons of Sutter
Street businesses park on public streets in resldential areas near sutter street, 8s the basis for their call for "unusual circumstances" and thereby ignoring the
essentlally usual nature of their complaint. They have not and cannot meet thelr burden.
c. The Aoolicant's Lono Standincr Good Neicrhbor Policv:

The Applicant has a long history of unselfish public-
spirited contributions of time and money to FHDA and as a board member, Folsom Chamber of Comrnerce and as a board member, Folsom Llve, and Folsom Tourism. In the same
spirit, he has participated in Folsom's ad hoc committee on parking in the historic dlstrict, and for nearly three
yeara he has provided his own customers and patrons, free of charge, the SuLter Surer shuttle service. This service makes it posslble fox his patrons, and even those of other businesses on Sutter Street, to have more mobility options besides shank's mare. That is, the customers and patrons have a wider selection of on and off-street public parking options on or near Sutter Street, than would otherwise be available to them. A copy of the Applicant's poster on the shuttle service is attached hereEo as Exhibit rrl''/ and incorporated herein. This same noblllty policy aLso
underpins the lease of the Eagles parking lot. In a
similar vein, he supports the demonstration program for

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Ms. Sari Dierking

November 12, 2A2I
permit parking in the neighborhoods, as well as the
lOaition of sidewalks from Figueroa and Mormon Streets to Sutter Street via Scott, Riley, and WooJ Streets' Those sidewalks wtll make it easier for residents to walk to
sut,ter street businesses and reduee the need for parking in the historic district generally. Riqht now, if you live on Mormon street near scott street and you want to have dinner at Vlild's or Sutter Street Steakhouse, you are as likely to drive those two blocks from home to restaurant because
there are no complete sidewalks serving that area and scott street as it approaches sutter street is very steep [about 19t gradel and is difficult for many people to navigate' especially at night. The Applicant is also working to
aonfig,rr. his business model to take maximum advantage for his pitrons of the services provided by the likes of Uber' Lyft, Uber Eats, Grub Hubr DoorDash, and other passenger and food delivery services by, among other things'
proposing to permif food deliverles on the premises of the Barley Barn Tap House for its customers whllst they drink the beverages provided by the tap house'
D. The Parkinq Variance fssue:
what parking obligation the Applicant's tap house project requires is governed by the FMC. While an officer for HFRA raises the "parking variance" issue as a basis for
complaint in his writfen comments, he does not point to any provision of the Folsom Municipal Code ["FMC'] nor any
Londition of approval previously adopted by the City of Folsom which requires the Applicant to provide parking for what is assentially a remodel of an existing building
without expansion of the footprint. The HFRA officia] over Iooks these facts. Moreover, HFRA' s assertion that more residential areas will be impacted by parking on public streets because of this project does not square with the city's recent adoption of a demonstration project to employ a permit system to limit parking in nearby residential
areas. A program, by the way, that was advocated for by HFRA and fully supported at city council meeting by this counsel on behalf of the Applicant.

E. Parkinq Lot Lease on the Eaoles Lot:

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Ms. Sari

November
Dierking
12, 202L
The Lease on the Eagles Lot was acquired by the Applicant to give the patrons of his new tap house a close in
alternative to the public parking adjacent to the barn and the shuttle service he has been provlding for nearly three years. The Lease is a legally binding document for which the Applicant has been paying rent to the Eagles since
September 2021,. This lease was not acquired to meet some mythlcal city requirement but to expand parking
avallabllity and options for future patrons of the tap
house. This lease will. make a modest expansion to the
historic district's inventory of parking spaces for
commercial activity in and around Sutter Street. Any
incrementaL increase in parking options by the private
sector in the historic district ls worthy of laudations.

F. HPRA's "Parkinq Densitv" Issue:
fn his letter, HFRA' s official claims that the AppJ.icant is taking a lightly used business site and loading il up wilh a density of parking and thereby negatively impacting the parking resources of the historic District. First off' his description of prior uses of the barn is incorrect. As stated in section trA" above, for over 20 years the owner of the barn limnediately prior to the Appiicant] used the barn for many things beyond a garden variety retail store as HFRA would have it. Namely, it was a site for the
manufacture of pottery, including regular raku firing
events for the general public to attend, quarterly day or weekend long sidewalk fairs for the general public, and an occasi.onal dinner and Iive entertainment venue. Those
realities don't square wit,h HFRA's fictional version of past uses. Moreover, the Sutter St,reet area is vastly
different today from 1990 when those broad expansive uses were regularly undertaken by the previous owners.

Specifically, there utas no Lake Natoma Crossing Bridge, there rrras no light rail service to Sutter Street, there was no multi-story publie parking garage at the foot of Sutter Street, there was no public parking on the Lid behind the Iiqht rail statj"on, because there was no LId, there was no publlc parking across Leldesdorff Street from the Lid,
there was no public parking on the southerly side of
Leidesdorff SE,reeE, between Wool. Street and Riley Street,

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Ms. Sari Dierking

November 1.2
' 202I
and lastly, there was no uber and Lyft to deliver patrons and customers to the businesges on sutter street. In sum, there are manyr many different mobility paths to the
Applicant's property besides parking in front of someone's ntlse upon a public street where parking is not resgricted and then navigating a near L9t grade while walking to the venue. Indeed, it seems any or all of those are likely
preferred to parking in front of a house in HFRA's
residential neighborhood.

The point of this digression into recent hlstory is thls:

HFRA' s straight Iine projection on the assumption that the Applicants patrons and customers will travel by their own piivatety owned vehieLe to hiE establishment at the rale of three person per car and that the same standard holds true for the restaurants located near the proposed Barley Barn Tap House. Ae suggested above, this assumption is not
likely to be verified by empirical data, and it has not been. Likewise, the HFRA officlal has taken no account of the above-described mobility options as welI as the parking options available to patrons and customers of aII
businesses along Sutter StreeE.

Bottom llne, HFRA's analysis is not supported by the FMC, nor by persuasive evidence. For the HDC to follow HFRA's Ilne would be arbit,rary, capricious, and clearly lllegal' G. Hours of OperaEion:

HFRA contends that so called "HD norms" require that
the Applicant's hours of operation be lirnited to 12am on Friday and Saturday nights. However, the FMC does not so provide. To the contrary, for example, the City of Folsom has specifically authorized many other establishments to stay open to 2am. That is, to stay open past 12:30am on Friday and Saturday night lthat is' early Saturday and
Sunday morninqsl.

H. Response to HRA's ub-i ectivi tv" Claim:

HFRA adnits that its claim LhaL t.his project creates
"imbalances" to Sutter Street is subjective. It is also

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Ms. Sari Dierking

November 12, 2021,
incorrect. Frankly, only the narketplace will telf us of the inbalances alluded to by HFRA's official. For example' the Applicant has operated successfully on this same block of Sutter Street for over 20 years. Based thereon, he is confident that this proJect witl be responded to favorably in bhe marketplace. There are no tap houses in the 500
block of sutter street. Applicant's counsel beLieves the market,place not HFRA will decide Lhe balance.

I. Comments Issues Raised bv HPLts Memo:
a. Patio: HPL states that the Applicant is
installing an out,door patio- Actually' the
previous owner used an old, concrete loading dock
on the southerly side of the barn as a patio area
for a period of about 20 years. That is lhe
patio area that the Applicant intends to
refurbish.
b. Materials, etc: HPL requests a materials and
design board for the commissions' review-
have been submitted to the Cily for HDC's
consideration.
c. CEQA view : For t.he reasons stated above' the
exemption applies. 14CCR15301'categorial
d. Fascia Boards: The Applicant submits that it is
inappropriate for HPL to ask HDC to decide on
interior features of the barn in this case the
interior fascia boards.
e. G1+gs: Inexplicably, HPL opposes lettinq light
into the barn via glass doors and treatments.

Applicant submits this claim by HPI, is purely a
subjective matter of taste' not a guestion of HDC
standards, and should be rejected in favor of
letting more natural light into the interior of
the building.
f. Slqns & Outdoor Liqhting: The wesb side of Lhe
building is the main entrance and frontage to the
buitding. That is how it has been for 20+ years.

HPt does not have the authority to arbitrarily
change the Appltcant's designation of the main
entrance and main frontage to his building.

Likewise, the Guidelines cited by HPL do not
bestow that, arbitrary power on HDC. Moreover, inpoint of facl, the north side of the barn does They

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Ms. Sarl Dierklng
Page I
November L2, 202L
not, "face a public right of way." It faces a
parking lot. Those Guldelines do not equate
parking lots with publlc streets, nor do they
require Applicant'8 to orient the front of their
buildings to exi.sting parking lots. The front of
Applicant's barn i3 oriented to serving
pedestrians. It faces on a combined walk
way/drive way. How HPL can choose to ignore the
benefits i-mplicit in such an orientation is not
apparent.
garkina: This iesue is addressed in sectlon "D'
above.

Conditional Use Pernit: There will be no noise
tssues under the E?lC from thj"s use. Applicant is
aware of the city's noise ordlnance and will
comply with iL at all times. Nothing more needs
be said.

J, Replv to Bob lo's Comments:
a. Delpts CEQA issues are addressed, above-
b. DeIp's recital of the horrors of living ln Folsom
are not evidentiary, but rhetorical and
speculative, and not germane to this application.
c. Delp's recital of the hours of operation on
Sutter Street is incomplete and not consistent
with past uses' as set out in Section "F" above'
d. Delp's contentions re: transportation, parking
and the CUP are addressed above.
e. Delp's cl-aim for "financial assurances" is a
harassing sham and should be withdrawn by the
protesting party on his own reguest.

K. Aoolicant is an Established Business Owner tilith a 20+ Year Track Record of Accomplishment for the Cornmunitv of Folsom:

Every year Applicant pays over $100'000 to the city's
coffers by means of sales and real property taxes. As such these expenditures do, among other things' contribute to the maintenance of the high level of municipal services that HFRA members and all other residents of Folsom have s
h

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Ms. Sarl DlerkinE

November 12, 202L
come to expect. filIth HDC'g approval of thls project,
Applicant wil-L of necessity expand that contribution'
L. Conclugion:

Mr. Delp admlts there is a 'rbusiness opportunity for
tap room focused on craft beers sales at the Project
locatlon." In sum, the Appllcant believes this ls the
right proJect meeting even Mr- Delp's objectives'
VerY trulY Yours,
the
a
/sl
RGH: Le
cc:

Robert G. Holderness
Ms. Pam rTohns, Community Development Director
Mr. Steve Banks, Senior Planner
HDC Commleslonerg

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

City of Folsom
Hlstorlc Oistrlct Parking MaP
D
lMo4.Fr 5 r.q' lo5 ),il )
?4 nou.!nhod porlm0 lol lor
I ltftr the rfxl pdri0g lol
lMon,F/5rn' ht1oil,t
Patl ll llldr lol! lo, tohl ,nJ
dm lpoDh uio etor 5 D n I
No on.rterl pr*'rt
f,.how hns linrl rlro.l prftiE
{tiun.Fil 5 uill l0 I I rn I
24 hovr unlrnd 6lrool ooll,ng
2farr i@ rmil pilt,nu ht
(Mon.Fdtnn lo6grnl
Rordq[rl $lroal !ar$oo
(fiby b{ iuticd l) sosd,
oYorl F,th!,o$ublonll
L€o€ll0
n
m
II
Park in the ' ' li':r ri
"
- AlwaYs free
Better yet usc UBER, LIFT, OT DESIGNATED DRIVER
email - [email protected]
wehrsite - powerhotseptrb.conr
614 Sutter St Folsom Ca 95630

WETCOME SUTTER SURFER
Have you jumped aboard the Suttcr Surfer?
What the front door ls the Sutter Surfer?
You will knorv it trhcn you spot rt scooting arorud thc hisloric distnct helpirrg vrsrtors. shoppcn and employees get to and from our local lxrsinesst, dcsignrrtcrl parkirg cnragcs and parking lots.

A small but fr.ru assistancc for folk rvanlinll to rcdtrcc lhcir trtlkrrtg distance r-an luntp on, antl lhr' 6-scat shntllt will tlnrp ytu off fsr N0 CHARGF, to rrhe'rerrr ih(')"ru goint in tbc,listrirt.
'lhe vchiclc will bc arounrl on weekends;rnrl evtnt rlays ldding frrrr and ilarr to our dirlricl mchrng a positrvr rrnpacr on otrr paakinS tssil!s... $o, catch ir wavc otr llte Sutlcr Sur[rr ilnd get to whtrc vorr're going ;r bit quicker rnd easrrrl
While visiting Powerhouse
Please respect oru residential neighborhood and use the public lots for
Elnrr',tf 7--

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Fmm!
Subject:

Toi
Dater
Julie Rinaldi
Kelly Mulleft
Historic Diskict Commission Meeting November 18, 2021: 309 Figueroa Street and Barley Barn Tap House Wednesday, November 17, 2A2L 2:06:49 PM
I You don't often get email from [email protected] learn why thrs rs important This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you the sender and know the content is safe.

Ms. Mullett,
Please share my concerns with Historic District Commissioners regarding agenda items scheduled for the meeting on Thursday, November 18, 2O2L, as follows:

PN 21-239. 3O9 Figueroa Street Remodel and Determination that the Project is Exempt from CEQA
I was only recently made aware of the unpermitted and non-compliant remodeling activity at 309 Figueroa. I have lived just down the street in the 400 block of Figueroa for 22 years, but had no idea this was happening. I recently completed a lengthy, complicated, and expensive series of necessary repairs and upgrades to my historic 1865 residence, and was very careful to obtain all the permits required by the City, and to maintain and respect the history of my house and the Historic District neighborhood to the best of my ability. It really concerns me that the blatant disregard by the homeowner at 309, and lack of consequences that may be imposed by the City, will encourage others in the Historic District to be lax about conforming to preservation standards and respecting the heritage and character which make our community special. Please do not approve an exception to the FMC, which was put in place for good reason.

Pil 19-174, Barley Barn Tap House Conditional Use Permit' Design Review, and Determination that the Proiect is Exempt from CEQA I have owned my home at the corner of Figueroa and Bridge Streets for 22 years. In this time, I have become increasingly concerned about parking issues throughout the Historic District. Events and business activities in the 600 block of Sutter Street are especially impactful as our residential neighborhood frequently fills up with people from outside the area.

Visitors often block my driveway on the Bridge Street side, and leave no street parking available for residents within a multiple block radius. I can testify, without the need for studies or statistics, that this is already a serious issue, and that the approval of the Barley Barn Tap House project without adequate parking and relying on the Eagles Lodge lot for overflow will greatly exacerbate the problems. Please consider the consequences of allowing this proposal to go forward.

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Thank you,
Julie
Folsom, CA 95630

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Froill
To:

Det6!
david hiooins
&[0fetE@e55lehlc0m; [email protected]; dBronbropacbell.net; [email protected]; kevln.dueurclOgmall.coml [email protected]; ankhelvi6c€mcist.net; Kelly Mullett Sublect: Earley Barn Tap Hous€.

Monday, Norrember 15, 2021 l:08:13 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

My Name Is Dave Higgins. I live in the Historic District. I am opposed to the proposed Barley Bam Tap House for several reasons. First, is the inadequate parking situation. Second, that corner of Sutter St. is already "Bar heavy". Third, it's only going to add to the late night nonsense, ie, fighting/assaults, vandalism/crime, littering, and altered driving within the Diskict.

Thank You for your Time.

Dave Higgins

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Steven Banks
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:
[email protected]
Wednesday, November'17, 2021
Steven Eanks
Fwd: Eagles lot
12:52 PM
CAUTION: Thls email originated from outslde of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
---Original Message---
From: Sarah Woods <[email protected]>
To: powerhousepub <[email protected]>
Sent: Tue, Nov 16,2021 6:09 pm
Subject Re: Eagles lot Folsom Eagles
Hey Murrayl
Just wanted to shoot ya a quick email. Sorry that the lot was kinda full this past weekend. That was a one time deal where we actually triple booked a hall rental, our social room was open AND we had the car show on Sutter Street and all the volunteers parked in our lot for that... AND it was Turkey drive hell weeUweekend (but we fed 10,000 hmilieslll Woo Hool!l) So it will hopefullly NEVER be that busy again! (Until next November of course LOL @) Let me know if you need anything else :) and sorry again for any inconvenience.

Sarah Y. Woods
Vice President
Friends Of Folsom
Cell: (916) 461-3160
www. FriendsOfFolsom. com
Like Us On Facebook:
https ://www.faeeboo k. com/FriendsOf Folsom
Follow Us On lnstagram:
httos ://www. i nstaqra m. com/friendsoff
rl ItPage 766
01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Steven Banks
Sent:

From: Robert Holderness <[email protected]> Thursday, November 18,2A21 12:30 PM
Steven Banks
Murray Weaver ([email protected]); Reggie; Pam Johns; Scott Johnson; Kelly Mullett; Sari Dierking; Daron Bracht; Kevin Duewel; Michael Reynolds; Bob Delp; Karen Holmes ([email protected])
Barley Barn Tap House (PN 19-174)SubJect:

CAUTTON: This email originated from outside of the organlration. Do not click llnks or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Steve: I have reviewed the staff report re: the above item on tonight's HDC agenda and submit the following comments:

L. ln the interests of time, in addition to my client, his architect, and city staff, I have copied Commissioners Bracht and Duewel with this email because l've located thelr email addresses. I do not have email addresses for the remaining five commissioners, but hereby request that your support staff forward this email on to them as soon as practicable. Also, I have copied Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Delp, and Ms. Holmes because I understand them to be the chief opponents to this proiect and I want them to be informed,

2. I address the principle issues raised by your staff report as follows:
a. Environmental Review: As staff reports, Applicant is reducing his second story floor area lwhich *as.dd.d t" th" brrn around t9931 by 578 square feet. He is also changing its use from the former ceramic production area to storage. The main floor area will be less than 2,500 square feet and the second floor used only for storage. ln addition he is fencing in a former loading dock area of about 480 square feet which is located on the south side of the barn in order to locate a patio there. Based on the nature and extent of the project, staff has determined that this project is categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to 14 CCR Section 15303 lNew Construction or Conversion of Small Structures], While counselfor the Applicant opined that the categorical exemption for refurbishment [14 CCR Section 15301] applies, the writer sees no conflict between the two categorical exemption designations in this case. To be clear, the Applicant supports and adopts the city's analysis on the categorical exemption provided by Section 15303, above.
b. Architectural Review (Condition 29): lt should be recalled that the barn was built at a time [19581 when Sutter Street was Highway 50. Our hlstory museum has pictures of the street with its diagonal parking on display lincluding a picture of a 1958 Ford Fairlane 5001 as it was in those days. lt is apparent, when the Andersons built the barn in 1958 lt was built as a store house or a warehouse, not an agricultural barn. lt was not located on a farm or a ranch but in the middle of what was then a semi-rural small town. That would not be where you would keep farm animals, hay, etc. Mrs, Anderson owned a retail ceramics store in Orangevale; she stored about 5,000 ceramic molds, and the like, on the ground floor of the barn. There was no second floor until the Clouds purchased the barn and remodeled it in the 1990s to construct a second floor for their ceramic production. They were not required to add parking on site nor to obtain a parking variance in conjunction with their remodel- Recall, there was no historic district commission, and no "historic district" in 1958. Those came along 40 years later. There was no CEQA either. ln fact Folsom's first general plan predated CEQA. lt wasn't published until 1955. Efforts to lmplement Folsom's architectural guidelines has to be tempered with the reality of what the barn has always been and in what era it was built. Wide doors, suitable for a critter barn don't fit the history of this barn. That is someone else's history, someone else's barn, and at some other location.
t
To:
€c:

01/11/2022 Item No.15.
c. The Eeqla's lot Lesse (Condltlon 281: While opponents contlnue to attack this lease, they lgnore It for what it ls, a voluntary albelt modest, provision of addltlonal parklng br the Applicant's customers on an as available basis just like all of the publlc parklng in Folsom's Historlc Dlstrict. By vlrtue of condition 28, the city will make it obligatory. The applicant accepts thls condition as written by citY staff.
d. The Shuttle Servlce : There ls a good reason why the opponents ignore the Applicant's shuttle servlce: lt works. Between 20 and 50 people ride that shuttle every day that it operates lusually Friday night and Saturdayl. That's 20 to 50 people who don't park ln the nelghborhood, don't park next to the barn, dont park in the Powerhouse Pub pa*ing lot, won't be parking in the Eagle's [ot, etc.
e. &tl[Og: The opponents have yet to identlry a provision of the FMC whlch lmposes a new parking requirement in the case of a change in use of an existing buildlng wlthin the commercial district.
f. The Delp Dlatrlhe of 11/16/21: lt is unfortunate that one opponent of the project resorts mainly to orgumentum ad homlnem [personal attacla on city staffl as his maln polnt. Rather than respond in klnd, it is better to ask, why? Thls wtiter thinks Delp's hyper emotional investment in attacking city staffand this project appeari based upon the weakness of hls underlying complalnt. Bottom llne ls, he complalns that outsiders drlve publlc streets ln hls neighborhood ln ways that vlolate the Vehlcle Code and that they use public parking spaces on those public streets to park in front of hls house and those of hls neighbors. He forgets to mentlon that thls has been going in one way or another slnce tlme lmmemorlal. The problem with these issues is not that they arc illegitimate but that he seek the wrong remedy. The Clty's adoption of parking control programs in Delp's neighborhood ls the solution. Not an attack on thls prolect or the city staff who is assigned to lt. Thls ls a solutlon, by the way, that has had a 5O+ year testation period. Delp needs to look there, not herc.
g. Delo's CEOA & Parkinq Variance Artgments: Apparently Delp believes that any remodel of an exlsting building not only requires a full blown environmental impact report but a parking variance, So in the case of this building, Delp would have HDC and staff believe that when the Clouds purchased the barn in the 1990s and remodeled the lnterlor of the barn, they would have had a new obligation to provide parking and when Mr. Weaver purchased it a few years ago and changed the use to retailonly he would have had a new obligation to provide parklng, and agaln now. Whlle Delp points to the
"parking variance" proviso of the FMC he does not point to a provlsion of the FMC that says In substance that thls klnd of small constructlon project on an existing site requires more parking. Moreover, hls clalm of "expanded use" is incorrect. The Clouds used the site br many dlfferent uses, the Appllcant contemplates but one. That ls not expanded uses. That is a changed use.

Very Truly Yours,
Robert G. Holderness
Holderness Law Firm
L22 Oak Rock Circle
Folsom, CA. 95630
(e15)e84-1410 {o)
(916) sffi-4113 {c} -
2 rl rlPage 768
01/11/2022 Item No.15.

November 18,2021
City of Folsom Historic District Commission
50 Natoma Sfeet
Folsom, CA 95630
via email to: Kelly Mullett - kmullett(@folsom.ca.us
SUBJECT: Barley Barn Tap House Project (PN 19-174) - Comments to Historic District Commission
Dear Historic District Commissioners:

I am requesting that at your November 18,2021, public hearing for the Barley Bam Tap House project (PN l9-174) ('?roject"), the Historic District Commission ("IIDC") decline to approve the Project either by denying the Project or by declining to take an approval or denial action and instead direct staff to:
l. identify 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 Traflic 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 staffreport 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 of all 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 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 staffhave not identified any entitlements orphysical 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 currently presented, the use of the Eagles lot is in my opinion is at best poor$ thoughh out scheme and, worse, would create the potential for very dangerous pedesffian 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. REQUIRED NOTICING FOR THE NOVEMBER 18, 2021, HDC I{EARTNG DID

NOT COMPLY WITH THE FMC
On August 10,202I, City staff made certain public noticing comrnitrnents 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, 2OZl , HDC hearing. As of Novemb er 17 ,2021, no signs were posted at the Project site notifuing of the November 18,202L, HDC Public Hearing. The HDC should request City staff input regarding public hearing noticing and address any deficiencies prior to holding a public hearing. il. THE PROJf,CT DESCRIPTION IS UNCLEAR AND INCOMPLETE
The staffreport 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. 126) 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 (California 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 be operated 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 staffJevel 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 defened 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 entitlements, 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 property 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 Cify right-of-way, and would therefore require an encroachment permit and consideration of improvements 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 staff both in potential number of spaces and in the days/times it is cunently used by the Eagles and therefore not available to Barley Barn.

The Eagles Lodge parking capacity is noted in the staff report 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 aftached 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 August4,202l meeting) that "The Eagles Lodge parking lot is infrequently used - there are events once a month or maybe once every two months when 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, erc.).

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

November 18,2021
Eagles Lodge Parking Availability - 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.
nr. THE PROJECT DOES NOT QUALITY FOR A CEQA CATEGORTCAL

EXEMPTION
Contrary to staff s recommendation in the staff report for the HDC's November 78,2021, meeting, the Project does not quality for an exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA").

FMC 17.52.390, "Environmental review'n, stateso o'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 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), The commission is authorized to hold public hearings on negative declarations, 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 CBQA and any city procedures for preparation and processing of environmental documents."
The staff report for your November 18,2O21, meeting, claims one (as opposed to the two claimed in the August 4,202I, staffreport for the formerly proposed Folsom Prison Brews) CEQA categorical exemption class as the basis for staffs recommendation that the Project is exempt from CEQA- CEQA Guidelines section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures.o' 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 18,2A21, HDC selectively cites CEQA Guidelines Section 15303, but a more complete read of 15303 leads to a conclusion that the Project does not qualify for a Class 3 CEQA exemption. The staff report states as follows in attempting to apply the Class 3 exemption (staff report p9.23; packet pE.7l) (note that this is a quotation from the staff report, not CEQA):

The New Construction of Conversion of Smaller Sfructures 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 strucfure 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 existing4,377-square-foot commercial building located within an urbanized area, thus, the project qualifies for this exemption.

In fact, what CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 states is (emphasis added):

Class 3 consists of consffuction 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 modification$ are made in the exterior of the structure. ... Examples of this exemption include, but are not limited to:
... (c) A store, motel, office, restaurant 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.

I . ". . .the conversion of a small structure. . .". As cited above, the exemption considers a 'osmall" structure as "not exceeding 2500 square feet in floor area." The staffreport 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 qualifu for the Class 3 CEQA exemption.

2. "...where only minor modilications are made to the existing structure...". The Project proposes substantial modification to the existing structure. Additionally, the Project includes development of an outdoor courtyard, 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 18,2021
facility infrastructure modifications (see item 3, below). For this reason, the Project does not qualify for ttre Class 3 CEQA exemption.

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

First, the staff report 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 new sewer line and sewer and water connection, as those facilities are not available (Attachment B), Fourth, the Project requires, or could require (this is not fully disclosed), an electrical transformer tie in and a l0 ft by 10 ft concrete pad with additional area to accommodat€ 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 faciliry 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 Significant Environmental Effects Disqualify the Project from any CEQA Categorical Exernption
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 Exceptlons
(b) Cumulative Impact. 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 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.

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

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

November 18,2021
acknowledged that impact will occur and simply downplays them and asserts that conditions 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 staff report (pg. 24,HDC packetpg. 72) states:

When analyzingthis exception with respect to the proposed project, the City considerod projeots of tho "ssme typo" to bo othor projocts with similor usoe, euoh 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 place" to be projects on Sutter Skeet.

The referenced "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 of discussion here).

On August 4,202l,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 many 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 impact on the environment.n' 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 exacerbate 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 Sheet 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 staffreport (pg. 24,HDC packet p8.72) states:

The proposed project involves the remodel of an existing commercial building and the re-use ofan 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 courlyard" 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 gtavel surfaced parking lot that will undoubtedly require improvements for safety and security (the staff report provides no discussion of offsite parking lot improvetnenls, 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 (pg. 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 further 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. Furthermore, evidence in the staffreport suggests that there are, at most, l4 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 retain 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 athacts 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 conhibution 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 p8.72) 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 staffreport 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 efficacy of the proposed mitigation, and no analysis of what the residual impacts would be. Even if the staff report is correct 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 PageTofl5

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

November l8,202l
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 [that 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 Project. 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 suffrcient to require that the City prepare a CEQA document for the Project. Furthermore, 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 Strect projcct its substantial increase in vehicle trips and parking demand) and require evaluation under CEQA.

Aesthetics. By developing a dominating 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 Disfrict, including views from adacent private properties/businesses, views from adjacent public roadways and bicycle/pedesfian trails and walkways, and views from adjacent historic properties.

Figure 2 on the following page illushates 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 dcvelopment of an accessible lift, an outdoor patio that apparently would be somehow joined with a speculative outdoor patio at an adjacent 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 Quatity. 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 gxeater frequency and density of use with the shared use proposed 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 aflect 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/Ivlitigated Negative Declaration, July 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 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 commonly within 5 miles; and that existing trees within that project parcel may sewe as nesting trees. The Project site is less than 200 feet from the 603 Sutter Sheet project location. The proximity 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 proposcd lcasing of the Eagles Lodgc 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 staffs concems with potential noise impacts and recommends conditions of approval modifying the hours of operation and making other uss restrictions. However, staffprovides 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 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 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, staff planner 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 18,202I, 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 ofoperation for other businesses in the area, but the staffreport neither cites a noise study nor presents any information resernbling 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 staff report 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 housen 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 haffrc noise levels that would result from the project. 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 uses, such as the existing outdoor dining areas at nearby restaurants.

Also, even though the staffreport seemingly attempts to base the "evaluation" on houts of operation, there is no discussion of the City General Plan daytime and nighttime exterior standards or time periods for which those standards are based, which then fails to disolose 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 of the 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.

TransportationlPublic 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 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 identiff traffrc congestion as a Project impact; however, CEQA does require that a lead agency provide an analysis of impacts related to vehiole 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 pedeshians 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 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 discussion of pedestrian access in the staffreport 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 l0ofl5

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

November 18,2021
For any one ofthe reasons discussed above, the Project does not qualifu 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 proceeding with a Project decision.

IV. THE PROJECT WOULD SUBSTANTIALLY ADVERSSLY AFF'ECT THE HEALTH' SAFETY, Af{D COMFORT OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC, AND THE

FTNDINGS REQUIRED FOR ISSUANCE OF A CUP CATINOT BE MADE FMC 17.60.040 requires for CUPs that, "The findings of the planning commission fin this case, the HDCI shall be that the establishment, maintenance or operation of the use or building applied for will or will not, under the circumstances 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 detrimental 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 staff considered public and pedestrian safety, health, or welfare.

Pedestrians 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 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 District which results in increased neighborhood traffic through extended periods of daytime, nighttime, and early morning hours as compared to other neighborhoods in the Cify, 5) a relatively high proportion of alcohol serving businesses in the Historic Dishict commercial areas increasing the likelihood of driver intoxication and conkibutes the extended night and early moming tnps 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 Dishict 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 n.urower and more dangerous for pedestrians. As the residential streets become loaded with vehicles, drivers and pedestrians have less ability to negotiate around each otler 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, souti 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 ofthe Eagle Lodge parking lot and pedestrian 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 direct path between the Barley Bam site and the Eagles lot is mid-block on Scott Street (between Sutter and Riley streets) and pedeshians would likely seek to cross there where no crosswalk is available. The discussion of pedestrian access in the staff report fails to even

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

November l8,202l
acknowledge this connection, and no evaluation of pedeshian 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, distracted 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 safety risk associated with motor vehicle operation. The staffreport 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 affcct the health, safety, and comfort of the general public and the findings required for issuing a CUP cannot be made. v. TIrE PROJECT REQUIRnS A PARKING VARTANCE, AND HAS NOT

APPLIED FOR AND DOES NOT QUALTF T FOR SUCH A VARTANCE
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 ta provide any additionat 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.

The staff report does not provide information regarding existing entitlementsluse permits/conditions of approval associated with either of the two private lots at which the Project pr€sumes 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 meot some of the Project's increased parking demand. Yet this proposed approach is fundamentally flawed in terms of providing ensured parking capacity. 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 a City 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 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

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

November 18,2021
staffhave 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 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 District Resident
Folsom, CA 95630
[email protected]
Attachments:

A. Email Correspondence - Delp to Johns 9130/2021"Re: 614 Sutter Street Patio (PN l8-219) Approval is Null andVoid
B. Email Correspondence - Banks and Konet etal,I0lL4/2020 "FW: Folsom Prison Brews Update and Qucstions_2020- I 0-08"

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

November 18,2021
Attachment A
Email Correspondence - Delp to Johns 913012021'6Re: 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 Null and 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
[email protected]
From: Bob Delp
Sent: Sundav September 12,20219:20 AM
To: Pa m Johns <[email protected], us>
Cc: Sari Dierking <[email protected]>
Subiect: 614 Sutter Street Patio (PN 18-219) Approval ls Null and Void Ms. Johns:

At the August 4,2O2L, 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 nulland void and lam requestingthat the record be adjusted accordingly.

In materials I received as a result of a public records request for entitlements associated with properties including 514 Sutter Street, I have reviewed a September 11, 2018, 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 l-year extension of an approval if specific actions are taken by the applicanf including a written request for such extension at least 50 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 lL,2OL9, the 2018 approval is null and void. The record for PN L8-2Lg 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 "design" 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(B) 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 L8-219 did I see any evidence that staff presented the approval to the 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
bdelp@liuecm

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

November 18,2021
Attachment B
Emnil Correspondence-Banks and Konet etil,l0ll4l2020'6tr'W: Folsom Prison Brews Update and QuestionsJ020-10-08'

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Fromi
To:

Subjecd:

D.tG:

Attachmcnts:

Steven Banks
Regole 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 Permit Fees fur (2020.07.011.odf Imoact Fee EsHmate Data Sheet^pdf
FYI
From: Daniel Wolfe <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, October L4,2020 2:00 PM
To: Steven Ba n ks <sban [email protected]. us>; Brya n Holm <[email protected], us> Subject: RE: Folsom Prison Brews Update and Questions_2020-10-08 From: Steven Banks <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, October !4,2020 L:33 PM
To: Da niel Wolfe <dwo lfe @folsorn.ca. u*; Brya n H ol m <bhojm@fols-om,ca.ut> 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 12:46 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 <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, October 8,2020 7O:44 AM
To: Steven Banks <[email protected]. us>
Cc: MurrayWeaver<@>

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Subfect Folsom Prison Brews Update and Questions-2020-1.0-08 : Thls email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links 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.

1. For ourmffimwe may tie into the existing connection at the WEST 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. z. Fo There is an existing
one at that SMUD will allow us to do
so?
reduce outdoor patio area
That is between you and SMUD. The city does not get involved unless we are inspecting new service improvements for code compliance.

3. CIW UTILITIES P[AN. Do you have access to the underground utility location map? Location, size of pipes, easements, etc.

We get you t

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.
it is the last
folks park in that lot and walk up the stairs
is visually detrimental. Is there
part to peform this work?

PLEASE SEE MURMY'S LETTER
something
attached
Thank you so much, Steve. I realize how busy you are and I greatly appreciate your assistance.

REGGIE KONET, AIA
cA Ltc #33835
NY LtC #031827
KONETARCHI]ECTURE
c916.835.4222
rin l,l,rr- houzz,com/pro/r€ggl€konet/
255 American River Canyon Drive
Folsom, CA 95630

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Attachment 6
Off-Site Parking Lease Agreement
Dated October 15,2021

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

EAGLES #929 PARKING LOT LEASE
Landlord : Eagles Lodge llt)29, Fnrternal Olclcr ol liaglcs 'l'cnaut: Munay Weaver
PreSQCy: Parking Lot located at 215 Scott Strect, Folsom, Calilornia A, Ijaglcs Lodgc l|1929 is lltc owncr of that ccrlain real property, wlrich is located at 215 Scott Strecl, liolsom. Cnlifornil. l'his rcal propcrty consists ola lodgc or clubhousr,'. lartdscaping, and approxinrately l5 parking spllccs. Thc parking lot is mainly gravelcd. not Paved.

B. Murray Weaver is tlre owner oi a building which is located at 608 % Sutter Street, Folsonr, California. Mr. Weaver dcsires to locate a busincss to be kn<lwn as the Barley Barn Tap l{ousc in tlrat building.

C. Thc rcal propeny il608 % Suttcr Strcet abuts a public parking lot which is currently accessible by the customers and patrons ofbusinesses located in the building on that propeny. Mr. Weavcr wants to provide additional parking for palrons of his 608 % Sutter Street establishment at tltc Eaglcs' parking lot, and the Eagles arc rvilling to lcasc thcir parking lol to Mr. Wcaver for that purpose upon the terms and conditions herein stated,
ln consideration of these facts and circumstances, Eagles Lodge fl929 and Murray Weaver agree t0 the following:

I . Tenant will pay the sum of $500, on the ilrst of each month' beginning Scptember l,2A2l, to Landlord, as rent for the use of the Parking Lot owned by l-andlord. This lease shall continue for a term of20 years, unless sooner terminated by the parties in accordance with the temrs of this leasc- As additional rent, Tenant will provide Landlord with a minimum of four (4) free admittances per month to any evellt hetd by Powerhouse Entertainment,

2. During the term of this lease, Landlord relains use of this parking lot tbr the convenience of its nrembers and guests, in a manner consistent rvith the Itnant's rights under this Leuse.

3. In the event ola request front I.,andlord, Tenmt shall provide a parking lot attendant on Friday and Saturday evenings fiom 5prn until lOpm. 'this obligation to provide an attsnda$t sh:rll conrmcnce upon the openirtg of *re Barley Barn'I'ap House at 608 /r Sutter Street. 'lennnt will post at'fcnant's sote risk and expcnsc a sign that statcs: "Parking Exclusivcly lbr Mcmbers of Eagles #929 and custonrers o[Barlcy []anr Tap I'louse. All otl-rcrs rvill be rowecl at Owner's expensc' CVC, Scction 22658(A)."

4. 'lcnant or his dcsignee will maintain gcneral liability insuratrce coverage tbr not less than onc million dollars with Eagles #929 nantecl as an additionnl

01/11/2022 Item No.15.
_{
,
:
:
:
insurecl. 'fenanl hereby agrecs to hold Landlord and its property harmlcss lrom and against nll claims, suits. ttr thri likc which may be brought against it by reason ol'Tenant's leaschold or its actions upon Landlord's subjcct property.

5. t.andlord nnd Tcnant agree tlnt thc pnrking lo( is bcing rented on Bn "0s is" basis ond that Landlord discluinrs zuty and all warranties, express or implied.

6. 'this lease rnay bc terminated by either party upon the giving of one year's *ritten noticc ol'tcrminstion to the other party. Landlord may terminatc this leasc, in thc evcnl ofnon-payment ofrent for a continuous period of45 days from and after the due datc, rrpon 30 days wn'tten notice of said non'payment of rent and clection to terminate by Landtord to Tenant.

7. This agreement constitules the entire sgreement of thc parties and superscdcs any prior or contemporaneous agreements or understandings befween the Landlord and thc Tenant.

8. Any and all notices and communications required under this agreement shall bc given to sach of the parties as follows:

Landlord: Tenant:

Snrah Woods
c/o Eagles Lodge #929
215 Scott Strcct
Folsom, CA. 95630
Dated; Octob
"r'! ,zOZt
Murray Weaver
608 % Sutter Street
Folsom, CA. 95630
H,,
M , Tenant
Barley Bam Tap House
608 '/r Sutter Street
Folsorn, CA, 95630
Sarah Woods, Landlord
Eagles Lodgc #929
2l 5 Ssott Strcct
Folsom. CA. 95630

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Attachmerrt 7
Minutes from November 18,2021
Historic District Commission Meeting

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

W
,F'( ) il-, in '( t ll il

SPECIAL MEETING

HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES
November 18,2421

CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5:00 p.m.
50 Natoma Str€et
Folsom, California 95630
CALL TO ORDER HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION: Kathleen Cole, Mickey Ankhelyi, Kevin Duewel, Mark Dascallos, John Felts, Daniel West, Daron Bracht
ABSENT: None

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
CITIZEN COMMUNICATION: 1. Bob Delp addressed the Historic District Commission concerned about public hearing noticing requirements.

MINUTES: The minutes of the November 3, 2021 meeting were approved as submitted.

NEW BUSINESS

1. PN 21-273. 811 Sutter Street Slon Permit and Determlnatlon that the Proiect ls Exempt from CEQA
A Public Meeting to consider a requesl from United Sign Systems for approval of a Sign Permit application for a wall sign and under-canopy sign for Maribou Salon localed at 81 1 Sutter Street. The zoning classification for the site is SUTIHD, while the General Plan land-use designation is HF, The project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") in accordance with Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines. (Project Planner: Josh Kinkade/Applicant: United Sign Systems)

1. Bob Delp addressed the Historic District Commission wlth comments regarding the size and posilion of the proposed sign.

2. Cindy Pharis addressed the Historic District Commission with comments regarding the proposed sign brackets and building color change.

COMMISSIONFR COLE MOVED TO CONTINUE ITEM NO. 1 TO THE NEXT HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MEETING ON DECEMBER 1ST.

COMMISSIONER BRACHT SECONDED THE MOTION WHICH CARRIED THE FOLLOWING VOTE AYES: COLE, ANKHELYI, DUEWEL, WEST BRACHT
NOES: FELTS
RECUSED: DASCALLOS
ABSENT: NONE
I Iistoric l)istrict ('onrrrrissiorr
Novcnrbul lll. 2{)l I
Itirgc- I ol'4

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

I

2. PN 2l-239. 309 Flouorca S$tet Rernodel and tletormlnatlon that tho Prolect lr Enmot from CEQA
A Public Meeting to conslder a r€quesl from Belwood lnveslments for approval of a Residential Design Revlew applicalion for a remodel of an existing slngle-family rasidence located at 309 Figueroa Street, The zoning classiltcatlon for the site is R-1-M/F|G, whlle lhe General Plan land-use deslgnatlon is SFHD.

The project ls exempt ftom the Galifornia Envlronmental Quallty Act fCEQA) ln accordance with Section 15301 of the CEOA Guidellnes. (Project Planner: Josh Klnkade/Appllcant Bdwood lnvestments)

1. Bob Delp addressed the Historic Disfict Commission wlth comments regarding histodcal evaluatlon of the property and the garags conversion.
2, Laura Fisher addressed the Historic Dislrict Commission with comments regardlng wood windows, easements, and why work had been started without a perrnlt.

3. Loretta Hettinger addressed thE Historic Distdct Gommission wlth comments regardlng updating tho cultural resource inventory lisl.

4. Margaret Weaver addressed the Hbtoric District Commission wlth comments regarding the driveway and making a cooperative agreement with neighbors ln the alley.

COMMISSIONER BRACHT MOVED TO CONTINUE ITEM NO. 2 OFF CALENDAR TO ADDRESS coMMlssloN coNcERNs.

COMMISSIONER FELTS SECONDED THE MOTION VVI-IICH CARRIED THE FOLLOWING VOTE:

AYES: ANKHELYI, DASCALLOS, FELTS, WEST, BRACHT
NOES: NONE
REGUSED: COLE, DUEWEL
ABSENT: NONE

PUBLIC HEARING

3. Plrl19.174. Barlev Bam Tao House Golldltlonal Uae Pemlt. D6lan Revlew. and Dotemlnatlon lhat ths Prcleot ls Exsmot ftom CEGIA
A Public Hearlng to consider a request from Regina Konet for approval of a Conditional Use Permit and Deslgn Review for development and operation of a craft beer eetablishment (Badey Bam Tap House) withln an exlsling 4,377-square-foot building located a|608 % Sutler Street. The General Plan land use designatlon for the projec{ site is HF and the zonlng designation for the project slte is HD. The proJect ls categodcally sxempt under Section 15303 New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures of the Califomla Environmenlal Quality Act (CEaA) Guidelines. (ProJect Planner: Steve BankslAppllcant:

Regina Konet|

1. Clndy Pharls addressed the Hlstorlc Dlstrlct Commission with comments regardlng a parklng variance atd use of the proporty.

2. Joe Gagllardi addressed the Historic District Commission wilh comments regarding economic impacts.

3. Carrie Lane address€d the Historic Dlstrlct Commlssion with comments rogarding the business district's balance and parklng.

4. John Lane addressed the Hlstoric Dlstrict Commisslon wlth comments regardlng parklng,

5. Bonnie Darran addressed the Historic District Commission wilh comments regarding a pa*ing variance.

6. Glenn Fait addressed the Historic District Commission with comrnents regardlng public noticing and support of tha proiect.

7. Beth Kelly addressed lhe Historic District Commlsslon wlth comments regardlng CEQA exemPtions and Posslble lmPacts.

8. Loretta Hettinger addressed the Historic District commission with comments regarding conditional use permit issues and parking.
g. Ben Fuenles addreesed lhe Historlc Dlstrlct Commission with comments regarding trafflc and parking.

10. John Shaw addressed the Historic District Commission with comments regardlng the parking lease wilh the Eagles and noise.

H istoric District Commission
Novernbcr I 8, 202 I

01/11/2022 Item No.15.
7 11. Jery Bemau addressed the Historic District Commission with commenls regarding parking studies.

12. KarEn Holmes addressed the Hlstorlc Distrlct Commlsslon with comments regarding parklng and changes that are needed to the district.

13. Gary Richard addressed the Hlstoric Dlstrict Commlsslon with comments regarding parking.

14. Mike Reynolds addreseed the Historlc Dlstrict Commigslon with comments regardlng Parking.

COMMISSIONER DUEWE! MOVED TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DESIGN REVTEW (pN 19-174' FOR BARLEY BARN TAP HOUSE, WHICH TNCLUDES DEVELOPMENT AND OPERATION OF A CRAFT BEER ESTABLISHMENT WTHIN AN EXISTING 4,377.SOUARE.FOOT BUILDING LOCATED AT OO8 % SUTTER STREET SUBJECT TO THE FINDINGS (FINDINGS A-I) AND coNDlTloNs oF APPROVAL AfiACHED TO THIS REPORT (CONDITIONS 1-30). coMMlsS]oNERBRAcHTMADEAFRlENDLYAMENDMENTToWFRoM
THE ORIGINAL MOTION.

COMMISSIONER DUEIA/EL ACC EPTED THE FRI EN DLY AMENOMENT.

COMMISSIONER ANKHELYI SECONDED THE MOTION.

COMMISSIONER BMCHT MADE A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO ADD I.ANGUAGE THAT "thE applicant shall make a good faith eflort to improve the Eagles Lodge parking lot lncluding paving and striping lo the satiefac{ion of the Communlg Development Department with the voluntary agreement of the Eaglea Lodge'.

COMMISSIONER DUEI/\'EL ACCEPTED THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.

COMMISSIONER ANKHELYI SECONDED THE MOTION \IVI.IICH CARRIED THE FOLLOWNG VOTE:

AYES: ANKHELYI, DUEVVEL, TIVEST, BRACHT
NOES: COLE

RECUSEDT DASCALLOS, FELTS
ABSENT: NONE
THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE PROJECT WAS APPROVED.

COMMISSIONER COLE MOVED TO APPROVE THE DESIGN REVIEW (PN 19-174) FOR BARLEY BARN TAP HOUSE, TA'}IICH INCLUDES DEVELOPMENT AND OPEMTION OF A CMFT BEER ESTABLISHMENT WITHIN AN EXISTING 4,377-SQUARE.FOOT BUILDING LOCATED AT 6W1l SUTTER STREET SUBJECT To THE FINDINGS (FINDINGS AFD ANO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ATTACHED TO THIS REPORT (CONDITIONS 1-30).

COMMISSIONER ANKHELYI SECONDED THE MOTION TA'I-IICH CARRIED THE FOLLOWNG VOTE:

AYES: COLE, ANKHELYI, DUEIA,EL, I/VEST, BRACHT
NOES: NONE
RECUSED: DASCALLOS, FELTS
ABSENT: NONE
THE DESIGN REVIEW FOR THE PROJECT WAS APPROVED.

Historic District Commission
Novembcr 18, 202 I
Pagc 3 of4

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

PRINCIPAL PLANITIER REFORT
The nexl Historic Distrlct Commission meetlng is tentatlvely scheduled for Desember 1!t.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Kelly Mullett, ADMINISTRATIVE
APPROVED;
Bracht,
/-\
llistorio District Conrmission
November 18.2021
Pngc C ol'4

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Attachment 8
Historic District Parking Implementation Plan Updates
Dated December 9, 2008, January t7,20I4, and
October 18, 2018

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Historic District
Parking lmplementation Plan Update
January 16,2009
Prepared for:

City of Folsom, California
Prepared by:
7-fl NmoY.nom
\I/ \ anoAipociales, hc.
1430 Blue Oaks Borrlevard, Suite 120
Roseville, CaJifonlia 957 47
Phons (916) 797-3811
Fax: (916) 797-3804

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

City of Folsom Historic District
Parklnq Imolementation Plan Update
Folsom,
California

EXECUTTVE SUMMARY
The City of Folsom desires to develop a thorough understanding of the dynamics of development and parking in its Historic District, and how it will evolve over time, while ensuring that the City anticipates, and keeps cunent with, changing demands. The City took an initial step towards this understanding in July 2002, with the preparation of the Historic Districl Parking Improvement Implementation Plan (Gordon H. Chong & PartnersAMalkerParkingConsultants). Thisstudy'sobjectivewasto"determinethebestwaytoaddparking inventory and thus support the development ofcommercial activity in the Historic District." While the 2002 Plsr established recommendations for the future, the dynamics in the Historic District have certainly changed over the past six years. In addition, the City recently preparedthe ParHng Management S-Year Plan which updates parking conditions and near-term parking management strategies.

The purpose of this Implementation Plan Update is to refresh the 2002 Plan to more accurately quantifr the effect of recent District development and a better defined future build-out scenario on parking supply and demand. More specifically, this report documents both existing and future parking supply and demand, evaluates potential sites for additional parking structures, considers parking and funding shategies, and assesses special events and parking interaction with other concurrent District studies.

Existing Parking Supply and Demsnd
Bascd on the data collection and analysis of existing supply and peak demand, there is sufficient parking within the study area to accommodate curent typical weekday and weekend peak demands, particularly since the Rail Block parking s&ucture was completed. While some zones experience relatively high demands, overall, there is ample available parking within the entire District. However, recent field observations show spillover parking into adjacent residential neighborhoods, particularly in the vicinity of the intersection of Wool Street and Figueroa Street.

Future Parking Supply and Demsnd
A single future development scenario was developed which is constrained by the amount of future parking supply that can be achieved by the addition ofone new parking structure. This new structure is assumed to be constructed on t}te Trader Lane lot, and incorporates ground floor retail. Based on a prcliminary schematic and feasibility evaluation, 442 spaces can be accommodated in this structure. The net available parking spaces within the District, after accounting for existing and planned/approved parking demand and practical capacityr, is up to 425 spaces. This level of parking supply (425 spaces) was determined to accommodate approximately 55,000 square feet of retail, 27,N0 square feet of restaurant, and 20,000 square feet of office uses in addition to the planned/approved projects, as well as the proposed retail on the ground floor ofTrader Lane parking stn"lcture. The future retail and restaurant square footages were estimated using the existing proportion ofretail and restaurant square footages within the District. The total future development that could be accommodated is 121,850 square feet, including 19,850 square feet of ground floor retail within the proposed parking structure.

Accounting for assumed construction timelines and logical, sequential implementation of District development, the anticipated parking supply and demand were plotted to graphically depict parking conditions in the District over time. This information is provided in Figure ES-l.

As demonstated in Figure ES-I, the City should begin construction of a TraderLane parking structure in July 2011, atwhich point the District-wide parking occupancy is anticipated to be approximately 80 percent. An assumed l2-month constnrction timeline will allow the parking structure to be completed, and operational ahead of the completion of the final phase of the Historic Folsom Station project in July 2012.

I The practical capacity for parking is defined at E5-90 percent utilization ofparking spaces' 7-Jl Krnlsv.Hom
L. I/ \ aruAsooaes,'nc.

January 16,2009

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Fol$m,
Callfornia
Ctty of Foliom Hirtorlc Dirtrid
Parklng lmplementation Plan Update
14OO

7.26 1,000
ou
S 8oo
taE
J
G4
o
3Ee
Ea2
400
200
ooooooooidNNddNdQmqqQ6$9s9996Q69nq9QqO99tsNtsFFts€O6O@OE + q q q e n + + n + +,r i i.r tt f f i * - i i i d d dd i: i t. * d d d d i i t d E s E i F E 6 ! $ ! *" i t g i = *" E t E $ t s i 6 E g i s ! E $ I i *" 3 i s g = s" ! E I g i *" i t g g i s i 6 $ I i *" ! Moilh & Year
95% Occupancv
Linear increase for future der€lopment mr 8 yeas (@ 4
spaces every month starting Jan 2011 to Dec 201t)
Irrr€ls. in p.rlitsdqnrnd lal spacas)for the wrap -
,rcund tttal wlthh T6drr Lane Fa]ffng firlne
Scalzi - lncreas in g$ld,CauDply
by 51 spa.es
-Totzl
Parklng Demand
-Total
Pa*int suPplY
f.okoro Strdod Phscc l(MBt t0) -
Irsc.se tn Dartlll3 demand 120 sprc6l
----------l
Folsom station Full Euild4ut (Jul 12)- lncreGe ln
Frldr8 defitard lfzo r9acs,
I
S.abi lAnS 09) - lnocrsc lo p$ling
demad(u65peG)
-l
II
loss of
lncrease ln parkingsupply {442 spacs) due tothe
construction ofTrads Lane parking structurc (Jul 12)
Decrease in paal&U qlpdy (110 spaces) due to
the loss of Rail Slodr suthce parking (@
Phss.
and Demand TimelineES-r

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

City of
Parking
Folsom Historic District Folsom,
CaliforniaImplementation Plan Update
Adequacy otCity's Cunent Histortc District Parking Supply Strategt Currently, the City ofFolsom requires a flat parking ratio of I space per 350 square feet for all land use types (retail, offices, restaurants, museums, etc.) within the Historic District. The detailed parking analysis in this study indicates that this requirement is not sufficient to address the future parking needs of the District. The District proposes to add approximately 121,850 square feet (SF) of commercial use, in addition to existing land uses and planned/approved projects. Utilizing the City's existing requirement of I space per 350 SF, the additional proposed development (121,850 SF) would require approximately 350 parking spaces, yet the parking demand analysis identifies a need far 425 spaces. In order to meet the existing and future parking demand, the City should either increase its cunent parking ratio from I space per 350 SF, to I space per 305 SF, or adopt separate parking ratios for retail (l space per 350 SF), restaurants (l space per 170 SF for finc dining, and I space per 210 SF for casual dining), and office (1 space per 460 SF) uses. Revising the City's parking ratio is applicable for private development that would provide some, or all, of its required parking on- site. It would also be applicable should the City select to permit new development to meet its parking requirements in municipal parking structures by paying an in-lieu fcc (scc funding shategies).

Assessment of Potenlial Parking Structare Sites
Six potential sites were initially identified by the City for the construction of additional Historic District parking supply. Through preliminary discussions with City staff, this initial list of six sites was subsequently ieduced tofive with the elimination of one site determined to be generally infeasible, and the least desirable location of all potential sites. Two sites were determined to best meet site evaluation criterion. Subsequent discussions wiitr the City determined that one ofthese sites, the Trader Lane lot, should be the single location considered for the development of a new parking structure.

Parking I mplementstion Strategies
The implementation ofparking management strategies is intended to ultimately result in more efficient use of limited parking tesources. Thirteen parking management strategies, including both near- and long-term components, are identified which could be implemented within the Historic District to address the existing and the projeoted future parking conditions. These strategies are summarized as follows:

Near-Term Strategies
a. Increase the cunent parking ratio from I space pcr 350 SF to I space per 305 SF. b. Monitor neighborhoods, especially the neighborhood adjacent to the intersection ofWool Street and Figueroa Street, for spillover parking as development intensifies within the District. c. Monitor the implementation of planned/approved projects to determine when 80 percent of the parking demand occws within the District.
d. Add provision to the City's Municipal Code requiring large developments to provide on-site loading and unloading zones.
c. Identifu existing on-street parking spaces which could be used for loading and unloading during off- peak hours.
f. Enforce parking restrictions by issuing warning parking tickets during an acclimation period. g. Identiff time restricted, on-street valet parking spaces to be used by restaurants during the mid-day (noon to 2:00 p.m.) for lunch, and during the evening (6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.) for dinner. h. Add on-street parking spaces as suggested by City's S-Year Parking Management Plan (January 2008).
i. Encourage subsidized transit fares and continue operating the ValetlPedicab program. Also, identify additional bike storage facilities within the District. j. Implement City recommended parking management strategywithin the Rail Blockparking structure, Long-Term Strategies
a. Adopt separate parking ratios for retail (1 space per 350 SF), restaurants (1 space per I 70 SF for fine dining, and I space per 210 SF for casual dining), and for office (1 space per 460 SF) uses. 7,-fl Kr{nls!/.ll0ln
L-I7 \ art*bsmrc,inc.
lv Ianuary 16,2009

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

GIty of Folsom Historic District Folsom,
CaliforniaParklno ImDlementation Plan Uodate
b. Establish and implement in-lieu parking fees. The timing of the in-lieu parking fees could coincide with the City's decision (if implernented) of adopting separate parking ratios for retail, restaurants, and office uses with the District.
c. Gradually implement a Residential Permit Parking Program (RPPP) in neighborhoods experiencing spillover parking impacts.
d. Start
"onitmction
of a 422 space parking structure on the Trader Lane Lot when the district-wide parking demand reaches approximately 85 percent of the available parking supply at the time, or when approximately 80 percent of the planned/approved projects' parking demand occurs within the District.
e. Identiff heavily utilized off-peak loading and unloading zones and designate them as permanent loading and unloading zones without time restrictions,
f. Restrict all on-street parking within the District to 2 hours and enforce parking restrictions by issuing parking tickets.
g. Remove the 3-hour parking limit from all off-street parking tots, and institute parking charges based on the number of hours parked. Also, during the construction of the Trader Lane parking structure, the City should identi$ off-street parking lots within the vicinity of the District to be used as over- flow in case the parking spaces within the District are fully utilized. Identiff permanent off-street valet parking spaces for existing and future restaurant uses throughout the District. h. Conduct a detailed study to identiS streets within the District where angled, on-street parking could be implemented.
i. Gradually implement parking meters for on-street parking spaces on streets serving retaillrestaurant uses.
j. Continue to explore the feasibility of a full-time parking enforcement position, or volunteer help. k. Encourage Pool Vehicles/Guaranteed Rides Home program. l. Work with Regional Transit to fully and appropriately address the Light Rail Transit parking sihration within the District.

Funding Strategies
The City of Folsom currently provides free parking for users in the Historic Dishict. The City cunently pays for parking through a combination of bonds issued by the Redevelopment Agency, which paid for the constnrction of thc new Rail Block parking garage, and from City Departrnent budgets, which pays for maintenance of the garage. The maintenance budget is shared equally among all of the Cify departments, although the funding is not allocated specifically for parking during the budgeting process.

The funding strategies discussed in this report are available to the City should the cunent financing mechanisms no longer meet the City's needs. It is understood that user fees are not bcing considered for the Historic District parking. If that polioy decision continues, the City may want to consider charging for event parking in the existing parking structure, perhaps on "Thursday Night Markef'nights, as a way to raise at least some r€venue to be used for operations and maintenance.

Olher Considerartons
Special Events Assessment
The Uistori" District has several routine "special" events which result in parking and circulation restrictions different from normal conditions. These "special events" all incorporate closure ofa portion(s) of Sutter Street, and alter vehicular access and circulation. Through consultation with the City, it was determined that the Thursday Night Market is the most representative of the conditions experienced during abnormal events within the Distict, and should be used as the basis of this assessment.

Based on assessment of existing conditions and consultation with the Merchant's Association rcprcsentativcs, two primary special event management strategies were developed: overall improved utilization of Historic District parking facilities, and concentrated vendor access, parking, and circulation' 7-fl Kimlev-llom
L. I/ \ ano6smatoo,tnc.

January 16,2009

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

CIry
Parki
of Folcom Historic District Folsom,
Californiang Implementation Plan Update
Assessment of City's S-Year ParWng Management Plan
In January 2008, the City prepared a Historic District S-Year Parking Management Plan which addresses existing parking conditions, as w€ll as the anticipated changes that will occur over the next four to six years.

The PIan concludes with scven recommendations for addressing the established objects. This report provides a discussion and evaluation of the Plan's conclusions.

Historic District Streetscape Proiect
The City's concurrent Historic Dis8ict Streetscape Froject is intended to enhance the human scale of the District by widening sidewalks, narrowing vehicle travel ways, and providing uniform aesthetic components to unifi the entire District. The conceptual improvements to Sufter Street also include the addition of on- street parking between Riley Street and Wool Street, the only segment of Sutter Sheet within the District that does not cunently have on-street parking. This block of Sutter Street between Riley Street and Wool Street experiences the greatest parking supply deficit for both existing and build-out conditions. Considering its central location, this block seryes as the core, attracting dense development and associated vehicle and pedestrian activity,
The additional parking supply proposed to be provided along this block ofSutter Street is anticipated to serve as premium parking for the businesses located along this segment, and should be desiped, implemented, and enforced as such.
7llfl Kimlsv+lom
L.rI7 \ anolssmats,im.
vl Ianuary 16,2009

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Gity of Folsom Historic District Folsom,
CaliforniaParkino Imolementation Plan Uodate

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTrON............

Project Overview.....

Existing Parking SuppIy.........

Existing Parking Demand.......
1 4
8 Parking Model Development l5
l8
27 ASSESSMENT OF PARKTNG STRUCTURE SITES 28
Identification of Potential Sites............. .........28 Evaluation Criteria and Matrix 29
Conclusions. ..."..'.31
Future Parking Supply and Demand Analysis
Adequacy of City's Current Parking Strategy
Aff-Street Parking Occupancies - Weekend.......

Calibration of Parking Model- Weekday
Cslibration of Parking Model - lfl?ekend
D istrict-Wide Future Parking Supply Assessment.........

District-Wide Parcel-by-Parcel Land Use Assumptions
Parking Structure Site Concepts
PARKING IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES........ ..........31
Historic District Users and Needs ....'.'........'..31
Historic District Parking Principles..... ....-.-...'32 Parking Management and Implementation Strategies..... ....."..............'...33 Summary of Recommended Strategies 44
oTHER CONSIDERATIONS.......... ..................51
Special Events Asscssmcnt .'.....51
Assessment of City's S-Year Parking Management Plan.'.....'....'. ".,..,..,.55 Historic District Streetscape Project......... ...'............."'.......58

APPENDICES
OffStreet Parking Occupancies - l{eekday .Appendix A
.Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
.Appendix E
.Appendix F
Appendix G
7-Jl Kmlsy+lom
\I7 \ andAssmatc,rrr.
vl1 January I 6, 2009

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

City of Folsom Historic Dirtrict Folsom,
CallfornlaParkinq Implementat ion Plan Uodate

LIST OF TABLES
Table I - Summary of Existing On-Street and O{f-Street Parking Supply by Zone ...'................'"..............5 Table 2 - Summary of On-Street Parking Occupancies (Weekday)... .........'...'..8 Table 3 - Summary of Off-Street Parking Occupancies (Weekday).. ................9 Table 4 - Summary of On-street and Off-street Parking Oocupancies (Weekday)..' ....-.....' 1l Table 5 - Summary of On-Street Parking Occupancies (Weekend).' Table 6 - Summary of Off-Street Parking Occupancies (Weekend).

Table 7 - Summary of On-street and Off-Steet Parking Occupancies (Weekend)...

Table 8 - Existing Land use Types and Square Footages......

Table 9 - Adjusted Parking Demand Generation Rates for Weekday and Weekend Table 10 - Comparison of Parking Model Calibration Results with Observed Parking Occupancy - Weekday...... ..'............-..-..'.. 17 Table l1 - Comparison of Parking Model Calibration Results with Observed Parking Occupancy - Weekend...... ..,'...-........'....... 18 Table 12 - Summary of Future On-street and Off-Street Parking Supply by Zone...'... '...'..22 Table 13 - Future Land Use Types and Square Footages...... .,..'.............'........23 Table 14 - Permissible Fuhre Development Based on Future Parking Supply......... .......'...25 Table l5 - Estimate of Future Parking Supply Based on Current Parking Ratio,...............'.............-........27 Table 16 - Individual Parking Ratio by Land Use Types (Based on Need for 398 Spaces) 28 Table 17 - Parking Structure Site Evaluation Matrix..... .......'.....29

LIST OF FIGURES
t2
l3
l4
l6
r6
Figure I - Folsom Historic District Parking, Parking 2ones....,......

Figure 2 - Folsom Historic District Parking, OflSheet Parking Lots .............

Figure 3 - Folsom Historic District Parking, On-Street Parking Spaces Figure 4 - Study Area On-Street Parking Occupancy (Weekday) Figure 5 - Study Area Off-Street Parking Occupancy (Weekday)'.. '.'....'........10 Figure 6 - Total Parking (On-Street and Off-Sheet) Accumulation in Study Area (Weekday)................. 1l Figure 7 - Study Area On-street Parking Occupancy (Weekend) Figure 8 - Study Area Off-Street Parking Occupancy (Weekend) Figure 9 - Total Parking (On-Street and Off-Steet) Accumulation in Study Area (Weekend).................

Figure l0 - Future On-Street Parking Supply
Figure I I - Future OflStreet Parking Supp1y.....,.,..

Figure 12 -Trader Lane Parking Structure Details
Figure 13 - Parking Supply and Demand Timeline
Figure l4 - Parking Structure Evaluation Sites.............

Figure l5 - Minimum Required Parking Example......

Figure 16 - Minimum Shared Parking Example.......

Figure 17 - Existing Thursday Night Market Traffic & Circulation Restrictions.. 3 6,I
9 t2
l3
t4
20 2T
24 26
30 32
33 52
7l-Jl Kmbv.Hdn
\-rI7 \ arol$ooates,tnc,
vllr January 16,2009

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Gity of Folsom Historic District Folsomt
CaliforniaParkinq Imolementation Plan Uodate

INTRODUCTION
Proiect Oveniew
The City of Folsom's Historic Distict (the "Districf') is a vibrant cultural and economic center. The eight block Dishict spans from Folsom Boulevard to Scott Street, and from Lake Natoma to just south of Sutter Street. As a result of the varying uses within the Dishict, there are varying degrees ofparking demand. The western portion of the District cunently serves primarily park-and-ride commuters using light rail during weekdays, with those same parking facilities experiencing under-utilization during the evening peak periods.

Conversely, the area generally bounded by Riley Street, Leidesdorff Street, Wool Street, and Sutter Street (the "700 Block") experiences consistent demand throughout both day and night peaks It is this high demand for parking within this core ar€a of the District that is believed to contribute to over-flow parking into the residential areas located immediately south of Sutter Street. Further complicating the future parking supply and demand discussion is the fact that some areas that are curently used for public parking are anticipated to be redeveloped, which will lead to a decrease in parking supply accompanied by an increase in parking demand. Furthermore, special evsnts add an additional byer of complexity to the District's parking environment, but also provide an opportunity to ma,ximize the efficiency of the City's parking system.

Routine events, primarily during the Spring-Fall months, result in changes in traffic patterns, thc nced for parking and access restrictions, and parking overflow into the adjacent residential areas.

The Cify of Folsom recognizes that parking is the foundation for the Historic District's economic vitality and the quality of life enjoyed by the City's citizens. The total amount ofparking available, its location, and how it is managed play important roles in promoting Historic District businesses, attracting visitors, and accommodating commuters and residents, With these important factors in mind, the City ofFolsom desires to develop a thorough understanding of its Historic District parking dynamics, and how it will evolve over time, while ensuring that the City anticipates, and keeps current with, changing demands. Thc City took an initial step towards this understanding in JuIy 2002, with the preparation of the Historic District ParWng Improvenent Implementation PIan (Gordon H. Chong & PartnersAMalker Parking Consultants). This study's objective was to "determine the best way io add parking inventory and thus support the development of commercial activity in the Historic District." While thc 2002 Plan established recommendations for the fuhrre, the dynamics in the Historic District have certainly changed over the past six years. Furthermore, the City's recent Parking Mansgement S-Year Plan updates parking conditions, although its scope is limited to relatively near-term (S-year) recommendations.

The purpose of this Implementation Plan Update is to refresh the}O02 Planto more accurately quanti$ the effect of recent District development and a better defined future full build-out scenario on parking supply and demand. More specifically, this report documents both existing and future parking supply and demand, evaluates potential sites for additional parking structures, considers parking and funding shategies, as well as assesses special events and parking interaction with other concurrent District studies. The following sections address each ofthese study components.

PARKING SUPPLY AI{D DEMAND
Thc primary objective of this sffort is to project future parking demand and supply, and to determine whether there will be a surplus or shortfall ofparking. A sccond objective is to assess the current City requirement for new development to provide I space per 350 square feet for all land use types within the Historic District.

This assessment is to determine if the cunent requirement adequately meets future needs, or whether the requirement should be modified. Modification to the requirement considers changing the single parking ratio globally for all uses or dcriving separate parking requirements for each land use type.

Tlfl Kimhv.t{ofn
L-rI7 \ amAsocnres,rnc.

January 16,2009