Folsom City Council
January 11, 2022

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

City of Folsom Historic
DRAFT Parking Impleme
District
ntation Plan Update
Folsom,
Ca lifornia
f. Restrict all on-street parking within the District to 2 hours and enforce parking restrictions by issuing parking tickets.
g. it"*ou" the 3-hour parking limit frorn all off-skeet parking lots, and institute parking charges based on the number of hours parked. Also, during the construction of the Trader Lane parking sh:ucture, the Cify should identiff 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. Identi$r permanent off-street valet parking spaces for existing and future restaurant uses throughout the District. h. Conduct a ditailed study to identify 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 rctail/restaurant 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 aud appropriately address the Light Rail Transit parking situation within the District.

Funding Strategies
The Cir| of Folsom currently provides free parking for users in the Historic District. The City currently pays for parking through u "o*Linution of bonds issued by the Redevelopment Agency, which paid for the construction of the new Rail Block parking g^rage, and from City Department budgets, which pays for maintenance of the garage. The maintenance budget is shared cqually among all of the City departments, although the funding is not allocated specifically for parking during the budgeting process.

The funding strategies discqssed in this report are available to the City should the current financing mechanisms no longer meet the City's needs, It is understood that user fees are not being considered for the Historic District parking. Ifthat policy decision continues, the City may want to consider charging for event parking in the existing parking itructure, perhaps on "Thursday Night Market" nights, as a way to raise at least somc revenue to be used for operations and maintenance.

Other Considerations
Special Events Assessment
The Historic 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 District, and should be used as the basis of this assessment.

Based on asscssrnent of existing conditions and consultation with the Merchant's Association representatives, two primary special event manigement strategies were developed: overall improved utilization of Historic Distiict parking facilities, and concentrated vendor access, parking, and circulation.

Assessment of City's S-Year Parking Management Plan
In January ZOO3, ihe City prepared a Historic District S-Year Parking Management Plan which addresses existing parking conditions, as well as the anticipated changes that will occur over the next four to six years.

The Pkiconcludes with seven recommendations for addressing the established objects. This reportprovides a discussion and evaluation ofthe Plan's conclusions.
7,IJl Kimley.Hom
\I/ \ srdAsoochteqltp.
lv Decernber 9, 2008

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

City of Folsom Historic Distri
DRAFT Parkino ImDlementation
ct
Plan Uodate
Folsom'
Callfornia
Historic District Streetscape Proiect
The City's concurrent Hisloric District Streetscape Project is intended to enhance the human scale of the District'by widening sidewalks, narrowing vehicle travet ways, and providing uniform aesthetic components to unif tire entire Dirt.i"t. The conceptual improvements to Sutter Street also include the addition of on- street jarking between Riley Street and Wool Street, the only segment of Sutter Street within the District that does not cunently have on-street parking. This block of Sutter Strect between Riley Street and Wool Slreet experiences the greatest parking supply deficit for both existing and build-out conditions. Considering its "rnt."l
location, this block serves as the core, attracting dense development and associated vehicle and pedestrian activity.

The additional parking supply proposed to be provided along this block of Sutter Sheet is anticipated to serve as premium p*king for ttre Uusinesses located along this segment, and should be designed, implemented, and enforced as such.
and 1rc,
December 9, 2008

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

City of Folsom Historic District
DRAFT Parkins Imolementation Plan Update
Folsom,
California

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Project Ovcrvicw

PARKING SUPPLY AND DEMAND
Definitions..

Data Collection.........................

Existing Parking Supply,,................

Existing Parking Demand................

Parking Model Development ..........

Future Parking Supply and Dcmand Analysis
Adequacy of City's Current P arking Strategy.....'. " "...' I
2 4
4 8
5 8
25 ASSESSMENT OF PARKING STRUCTURE SITES
ldentification of Potential Sites .....

Evaluation Criteria and Matrix...

Conclusions.

PARKING TMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES...,.......... "..

Objectives............

Historic District Users and Needs
Historic District Parking Principles.....

Parking Management and Implementation Strategies
Sumrnary of Recommended Strategies
26 26
27 29
29 29
29 30
3l
42 Parking Costs
Financing Strategies .....,,..

Conclusions

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
Special Events Assessment
Assessment of City's S-Year Parking Management Plan..'.................,.' Historic District Streetscape Project

APPENDICES
Offstreet Parking Occupancies - Weekday '....'
OffStreet Parking Occupancies - I(eekend
Calihration of Parking Model - lleekday
Calibrqtion oJ'Purking Model - Weekend
Di s tr ict-Wide Future P arkin g Supply As s es s nxent ....'.'.

Parking Structure Site Concepts
43 44
45 49
49 49
53 56
.Appendix A
.Appendix B
Appendix C
,... Appendix D
.....Appendix E
.....Appendix F
F-fl Kimlev.Hom
Lrf \ anolisocare+rnc.
vi December 9, 2008

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

City of Folsom Historic District
DRAFT Parklng Implementation Plan Update
Folsom,
California

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 - Summary of Existing On-street and Off-Street Parking Supply by Zone'......".

Table 2 - Summary of On-Street Parking Occupancies (Weekday).".

Table 3 - Summary of Off-Street Parking Occupancies (Weekday),', Table 4 - Summary of On-Street and Off'-Street Parking Occupancies (Weekday)-...'......

Table 5 - Summary of On-street Parking Occupancies (Weekend)...

Table 6 - Summary of OfGStreet Parking Occupancies (Weekend) Table 7 - Summary of On-Street and Off-Street 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"
Table I I - Comparison of Parking Model Calibration Results with Observed Parking Occupancy - Weekend
Table 12 - Summary of Fufure On-street and Off-Street Parking Supply by Zone.......

Table 13 - Future Land Use fypes and Square Footages
Table 14 - Permissible Futurc Development Based on Future Parking Supply Table l5 - Estimate of Future Parking Supply Based on Current Parking Ratio '.....'..',.....

Table 16 - Individual Parking Ratio by Land Use Types (Based on Need for 398 Spaces) Table l7 - Parking Structure Site Evaluation Matrix...'

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 - Folsom Historic District Parking, Parking Zones' Figure 2 - Folsom Historic District Parking, Otf-Street 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)..

Figure 6 - Total Parking (On-street and Off-Street) Accumuiation in Study Area (Weekday)...............

Figurc 7 - Study Area On-Street Parking Occupancy (Weekend) Figure 8 - Study Area Off-street Parking Occupancy (Weekend) Figure 9 - Total Parking (On-street and Oft--street) Accumulation in Study Area (Weekend)...'.'.'.....

Figure 10 - Future Off-Street Parking Supp1y.........

Figure I I - Trader Lane Parking Structure Details
Figure l2 - Parking Structure Evaluation Sites
Figure l3 - Minimum Required Parking Example
Figure 14 - Minimum Shared Parking Example.',,".

Figure l5 - Existing Thursday Night Market Traffic & Circulation Restrictions. 5 8
9 I
2 3
4 6
l8
2l
22 24
25 26
27 l6
t7
.3
.6
,7
.9
l0
l1
t2
l3
l4
20 23
28 30
3t
50 7,ffl Krnlev.Hom
b-rl/ \ andAkocbres, lrrc.
vll December 9, 2008

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

City of Folsom Historic District
DRAFT Parkinq ImDlementation Plan Update
Folsom,
California

INTRODUCTION
Proiect Overview
The City of Folsom's Historic District (the "District") is a vibrant cultural and economic center. The eight block District 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 District, there are varying degrees of parking demand. The westem portion of the District currently 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 Sheet, Lcidesdorff Street, Wool Street, and Sutter Street (the "700 Block") experienccs consistenl demand throughout both day and night peaks It is this high demand tbr parking within this core area of the District that is believed to contribute to over-flow parking into the iesidential areas located immediately south of Sutter Street. Further complicating the future parking supply and demand discussion is the fact that some areas that are currently used for public parking are anticipated to be redeveloped, which will lead to a decrease in parking supply accompanied by an increase in parking clemand. Fufthemore, special cvents add an additional layer of complexity to the District's parking environment, but also provide an opportunity to maximize the effioiency of the City's parking system' Routine events, primarily during the Spring-Fall months, result in changes in traffic pattems' the need for parking and access restrictions, and parking overflow into the adjacent residential areas.

The City of Folsom recognizes that parking is thc foundation for the Historic District's economic vitality and the quaiity of life enjoyed by the City's citizens. The total amount ofparking available, its location, and how it is- managed play important roles in promr.rting Historic District businesses, attracting visitors, and accommodatingcommuters and residents. With these important factors in mind, the City of Folsom desires to develop a thorough understanding of its Historic Districtparking dynamics, and how it will evolve overtime, while Jnsuring that the City anticipates, and keeps currcnt with, changing demands. The City took an initial step towards this undcrstanding in July 2A02, with the preparation of the Historic District Parking Improvement Implementation Plan(Gordon H. Chong & PartnersAValker Parking Consultants), This study's objective was to "determine the best way to add parking inventory and thus support the development of conrmercial activity in the Historic District." While the 20A2 Phn established recommendations for the future, the dynarnics in the Historic District havc ccfiainly changed over the past six years. Furthermore, the City's recent Parking Mandgement S-Year Planupdates parking conditions, although its scope is limited to relatively near-term (5-year) recommendations.

The purpose of this Implementation Plan Update is to retiesh the2002 Planto more accurately quantifu the effect oirecent 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 potcntial sites for additional parking structures, considers parking and funding strategies, as well as assesses special events and parking interaction with other concurrent Dishict studies, The following sections address each ofthese study components'
PARKING SUPPLY A\ID DEMAND
The primary objective of this effort is to pro.ject future parking demand and supply, and to determine whether there will bl a surplus or shortfall of parking. A second objective is to assess the cunent City requirement for new developtneni to provide 1 space per 350 square feet for all land use types within the Historic District.

This assessment is to determine if the current requirement adequately meets future needs, or whether the requirement shoulcl be modified. Modification to the requirement considers changing the single parking ratio globally for all uses or deriving separate parking requirements for each land use type. 7-fl Kimhv'Hom
\-I7 \ anoAssocnro3.tnc.

December 9, 2008

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

City of Folsom Historic Distri
DRAFT Parkino Implementation
ct
Plan Update
Folsom,
Ca lifornia
Definitions
Study Area
f6ility of folsorn's eight block Historic District spans from Folsom Boulevard to Scott Street, and from Lake Natoma to just souih of Sutter Street. For the purposes of this evaluation, the Historic District is divided into three zones (Zone I,ZoneII, and Zone III) which are illustrated in Figure I' The study area does not include the Light Rail Transit station parking lots'
ZoneI
Tilffiru bounded by Riley Street to the North and West, Figueroa Street to the South, and Scott Street and private land uses to the Easl.

Zonell
it **u bounded by Leidesdorff Street to the North, Wool Street to the West, Figueroa Street to the South, and Riley Street to tle East. This zone also includes the dirt embankment located north of Leidesdorff Street generally between Wool Street and Riley Street-
Zone III
Th*t* bounded by Leidesdorff Street to the North, Reading Street and Folsom Boulevard to the West, Figueroa Street to tire South, and Wool Street to the East. Zone I also includes Gold Lake Drive, from LJdesdorff Street to the street bend on the north end. This zone also includes the off-street public parking lot (Baker Lot) located on the northwcst corner of the intersection of Gold Lake Drive and Leidesdorff Street.

Parkins Demand
ffr. "rrtU"*fp*edvehicles
expected of a specific type and amountoflanduse duringthepeakperiod of a typical weekday or weekend, narking demand is estimated using "rates" indicating the number of parked u"6.t"* per injependent variable of land use such as thousands of square feet (similar to trip generation).

Parking demand is independent of parking supply.

Parkins Supply
Th" ""*b* "f
parking spaces provided on a development block, on-street, or in common facilities. Parking supply in new d"rretop*Lnt is governed by the parking standards in the City's Municipal Code' Parkinp Occuoancv
Tl*;ffib;rffiral vehicies parked during the peak period of a typical weekday or weekend. Parking occupancy is summarized in terms of the percentage ofparking spaces that are occupied at any given time of day. benerally, there is a single peak piriod on a fypical weekday or weekend that contains the highest number of accumulated parked vehicles.

Parkins Tumover
Th. "*t
g"
"-ber
of vehicles using a given parking space over a spccified period of time. The rate equals the total niumber of parked vehicles divided by the number of parking spaces. Turnover is a measure of parking duration andindicates whether a parking spaces is predominantly used by long-tenn parking (more than 4 hours) or short-term parkcrs (less than 4 hours)' Parkin g RatiodStandardq
prrking *tt"- ("r rtanOamg are the regulations that determine parking supply for eachindividual building and typ-e of land use. It is described as ihe number of required parking spaces per unit of development (e.g', per dwelling unit or per 1,000 square fect of commerciat building space)' The City's Municipal Code is the goiAing doclument for these standards, The current parking standard in the Folsom Historic District is I space per 350 square feet of building regardless of the type of land use' 2TI,fl Kimley.Hun
\ 17 \ ad Assocbtes' lnc.

December 9,2008

01/11/2022 Item No.15.
!t(!
ot
c
tt
,l
op
olr
,
filr
$
il
5 j
a
t
,1.:, ,
.';'\
Zone I
Zone ll
Zone lll
LEGEND
Kimley-Horn
and Associates, lnc,
Figure 1
Folsom Historic District Parking
Parking Zones

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

City of Folsom Historic District Folsom,
CallfornlaDRAFT ParKinq Imolernentation Plan UPdate
Shared Parkine
ttt" ""^c.pt "f
using a parking space to serve two or more land uses without conflict. Conventional regulations require that each development, or land use type, provide enough parking to servs its own peak dJmand, leaving unused parking spaces during the off-peak periods. Shared parking allows multiple complementary iand uses, whose peak parking demands do not coincide, to share the same pool of parking spaces, resulting in a more efficient use of those spaces.

Practical Capacity
The practical capacity for parking is defined at 85 percent to 90 percent utilization of parking spaces, Keeprng about 10 percent to 15 percent of the spaces vacant provides a cushion in excess of necessary parkingspaces to aiow for the dynamics of parking (i.e., peopie circulating in search of a space, and moving ln and oui ofparking space). When occupancy exceeds the practical capacity, drivers will experience delays and frustration while searching for a parking space, as well as contribute to area trafhc congestion while ciroling the block looking lbr parking'
Data Collection
Par.king data for most of the study area was provided by the City of Folsom for weekday and weekend periods-. Kimley-Hom and Associates, Inc. augmented the City-collected data with surveys at selected locations in Junc 2008. Parking data used in this study included the following:
r An inventory of on-street and off-street parking spaces by street and by individual parking lot (collected by the City in January 2008);
o Weekday parking occupancy survey data conducted every hour from 6:00 AM to 8:00 PM (collected during October and November 2007);
o Weekend parking occupancy survey data conducted every hour lrom 6:00 PM to 9:00 PM (collected during October and November 2007); and
r Parking tumover surveys (collected in January 2008).

It is important to note that weekday parking occupancy data for 7:00 AM was missing most of the off-street and on-street parking locations. Because this time period was determined to not be a critical time period within the District, it was not included in this analysis' Existing Patking Supply
On-Street Parking Supply
Most streets within the study area have on-street parking spaces. Along Leidesdorff Street' Wool Street, and Sutter Street, angled on-street parking is provided. Some of the on-street spaces are delineated with pavement markiugs, but most streets have no parking space delineation.

Table I suurmarizes the number of parking spaces along each street and the total parking spaces for each zone. The study area contains atotal of232 on-street parking spaces.

Off S tr e e t P a*in g Supp ly
Wittrin the study it"u th"r" are a total of six (6) oftstreet public parking lots. Off-street private parking lots which allow parking only for the patrons of private businesses and not for general public, were not included in the analysis. All of the public lots with the study area are paved and have marked spaces.

Table 1 summarizes the number of off-street parking spaces in each zone. There are a total of 675 off-street public parking spaces in the study area. Note the off-street parking supply includes the recently completed 330-space parking structure located within the Rail Block' 4filtl KmloY.Hom
LJI7 I anoAssocrate&tnc.

December 9. 2008

01/11/2022 Item No.15.
€ity of Folsom
DRAFT Parking
Historic District
Implementation Plan Update
Folsom,
California
Table I - sumrnary of Existing on-street and off-Street Parking supply by zone TrOne
Off-Street PubHc
Parking Supply On-Street Parking SupplY
Total
Existing
Suppty
I
Riley St. / Scott St.
(Powerhouse) Lot 82
Riley St. - Sutter St. to Figueroa St 7
Suuer St. * Riley St, - Scott St, 20
Scott St. - LeidesdorffSt. to Sutter St. 3
Scott St. - Sutter St, to Figueroa St. 12
Suhtolal 42 t24
II
Trader Lane Lot r25
Riley St. - Sutter St. to Figueroa St. 7
Wool St. - Leidesdorff to Sutter St. ll
Wool St. - Sutter St. to Figueroa St. 9
Leidesdorff St. - Wool St. to Riley St. ll
Sutter St. - Wool St. to Riley St. 0
Sabtotal 38 163
III
Baker Lot 28
Reading St. -North of Leidesdorff St. 10
Reading St, - LeidcsdorffSt. to Sutter St. 0
Reading St. -- Sutter St. to Figueroa St. r0
Parking Strucfure 330
Gold Lake Cirolo 24
Decahlr St. - Sutter St. to Figueroa St. l8
Wool St. - Leidesdorff St. to Sutter St ll
Wool St. - Sulter St. to Figueroa St. 8
Rail Block 110
Leidesdorff St. - Decatur St. to Wool St. 23
Sutter St. - Reading St. to Decatur St. 25
Suttcr St. - Decatur St. to Wool St 23
Sabtotal 468 Subtotsl 1s2 620
Totat Off-Street SPaces 675 Total On-Street Spaces 232 9{7 Total Off-Street Spaces
(Prior to Completlon of
Now Structure)
323 Total On-Street Spaces (Prior to
Completion of New Strueture 232 !55
Notes:

The 330 space structur e in Zone III was not open to the public at the time occupancy data was collectecl.
-Existing
off-street parking facilities equaled 323 spaces at the time of data collection.

Total Parking Supply
Table I suntmariies the total numbcr of parking spaces (on-street and off-street) by zone and in total. There are a total of9A7 on- and off-street parking spaces within the study area.

The number of off-street and on-streetparking locations, as well as the number of spaces available are shown in Figure 2 and Figure 3.
7I,n Kimlev'Hom
L, I7 \ and Assooaree, rnc,
December 9, 2008

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

D
125
spaces
c
110
spacesB
330
spaces
A - Baker Lot
B - Parking Structure
C - Rail Block Lot
D - Trader Lane Lot
E - Riley i Scott Lot
Zone lll
Zone ll
Zone I
LEGEND
ffi
Figure 2
Folsom Historic District Parking
Off-Street Parking Lots7tl,n nlmley-Hcrn
\IILI and Associates. lnc.

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

XX
Zone lll
On-Street
Parking
Spaces
Zone ll
Zone I
LEGEND
m
Figure 3
Folsom Historic District Parking
On-Street Parking Spaces7-fl f,rmrarr-Hr-irr,
\iIL-! and Associates. inc.

01/11/2022 Item No.15.
city of Folsom Historic District Folsom,
CaliforniaDRAFT Parking Imp lementation Plan Update
Existing Parking Demand
Existing parking demand was estimated using the parking occupancy data collected by the City of Folsorn in Octobei ind Novemb er,2007, and supplemented by occupancy surveys conducted by KHA in June 2008.

The demand analysis presented in the sections below represents data collection prior to the opening of the new 330-space parking structure in the Rail Block. Therefore, conclusions related to existing parking supply and demand are drawn based on pre-structure conditions' Weekday (Monday through Thursday)
On-Street Parkins Occupancy
Parking occupancy is summarizecl in terms of the percentage of parking spaces that are occupied at any given time of day. Generally, there is a single peak period on a typical weekday that contains the highest number of accumulated parked vehicles. Table 2 summarizes the_on-street parking occupancy between 6:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on a typicat weekday for the entire study area2 and Figure 4 shows the on-street parking occupancy by time-ot--day. As shown in Figure 4, between 75 percent and 83 percent of on-street parking spaces are occupied between 10:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m., after which occupancy dlops to approximately 60 percent betwben 2:00 p,m. and 4:00 p.m. Between 5:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. the occupancy is between 40 percent and 60 percent and dtopr dramatically to 27 percent at 8:00 p.m. The peak on-street parking demand (83 percent) occurs at about I 1:00 a.m. and again at 1:00 p.m.

Table 2 * Summary of On-Street Parking Occupancies (Weekday) Time Total Number of 0n-
Street Spaces Surveyed
Total Number of On-
Street Spaces Occupied 7o Occupancy
6:00 AM t62 I 6%
8:00 AM t62 94 58%
9:00 AM t62 96 59%
l0:00 AM t62 121 7s%
ll:00 AM 162 134 83%
12:00 PM 162 124 1al /tt/o
l:00 PM 162 t34 83%
2:00 PM 162 101 62%
3:00 PM r62 98 60%
4:00 PM 162 99 6lo/n
5:00 PM 162 67 4t%
6:00 PM t62 79 49%
7:00 PM 162 95 59%
8:00 PM 162 43 27%
Off-Street Parking Occuoancy
Off*t ""t p"blic parking lots within the study area have slightly lower occupancies than on-street parking when averaged over the entire study area. Table 3 summarizes the off-street parking occupancies between 6:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Figure 5 shows that off-street parking lots sustain an occupancy averaging 58 percent between I I :00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m,(with 7 I percent occupancy at 12::00 noon), then drops to 43 percent and 52 percent between 4:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. Between 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. the parking occupancy increases to ?0 pcrcent and 78 psrcent before dropping dramatically to 21 percent at 8:00 p.m. The increase in the early evening coincides with the peak dining period. The peak off-street parking demand occurs at 7:00 p.m' with 78 percent occupancy,
2 Weekday parking occupancy data for 7:00 a.m. was missing much of the ofl'-streot and on-street parking locations within the study area. Becauie this iime period was determined to not be a critical tirne periort within the District, it was not included in this analysis. 8Tffl Kknle'v.Hom
L-ff \ andrrssochtes,tlp.

December 9,2008

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Clty of Folsom Historic District
DRAFT Parklnq Implem entation Plan Update
Folsomt
California
lmf
90r
aor
70x
60x
50x
404
3#
20*
10t6
0*
Figure 4 - Study Area On-Street Parking Occupancy (Wcckday) Iltl
l* O(ru
I:
d
,I"TITTTT'TIdEBEscssE€388E;Elil:*ne-'ii6fid
Table 3 - Summary of Off-strcct Parking Occupancies (Weekday) Time Totat Number of Off-
Sheet Spaces Surveyed
Total Number of Off-
Strect Spaces Occupled 7o Occupancy
6:00 AM 323 25 8%
8:00 AM 323 116 36%
9:00 AM 323 138 43%
I0:00 AM 323 143 44%
11:00 AM 5Z) l9l s9%
l2:00 PM 323 230 7r%
l:00 PM 323 r53 47%
2:00 PM 323 183 57o/o
3:00 PM 323 184 s7%
4:00 PM 323 139 43%
5:00 PM 323 167 52%
6:00 PM 323 226 70%
7:00 PM 323 253 '18%
8:00 PM 323 69 2t%
3 Sincc thc on-street parking occupancy survey data does not clistinguish occupancies by specitic street segments, Qn-street parking occupancy data was not documentsd by zone'
At the district level, parking lots in individual zones have a wide range of occupancies betwoen 6:00 a.m, and 8:00 p.m. Average occupancy ranges from a low ofabout 27 percent (Zone l) to a high ofabout 58 percent (Zoni 1). RppenOix R contains detailed graphs and tables for individual zones showing the average number of'uehicies parked in each parking lot throughout the day3. 9Tafl Kimlev'Hom
\ ff \ andtssocares,rrrc.

December 9, 2008

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

City of Folsom l{istoric District Folsom,
CaliforniaDRAFT PArkino Imolementation Plan Uodate
Figure 5 - Study Area OfT-street Parking Occupancy (Weekday) 1@X
s
80*
10*
6ffi
5ffi
1tt*
30*
20x
lol(
or il
T
illtI=
ltaOa!u.
-il
Total Parkine Occupancy and Accumulation
Daily Parking Accumulation (On plus Off-Street) in Study Area:

Table 4 summarizes the on-street and ofGstreet peak parking demand within the study area. Figure 6 shows the daily accumulation ofparked vehicles (both on and off-street) within the study area. Parking spaces in the moming hours are oc"upied around 53 percent, climbing to a peak of about 73 percent at noon, gradually decreasing to 56 percent between 1:00 and 6:00 p.m., then climbingtoT2 percent at 7:00 p,m., before dropping io 23 peicent at 8:00 p.rn. This daily profile is indicative of both short-term retail and office uses which peak during the midday and restaurant land uses peak in the early evening.

Peak Occupancy in Study Area:

On weekdays, the stgdy area reaches its peak parking demand at noon as shown in Table 4 and in Figure 6.

The study area also peaks at 7:00 p.m., but the occupancy percentage drops significantly at 8:00 p.m. Overall, the parking supplyain Folsom Hiitoric District is almost 73 percent utilized during the weekday peak period. fariing demand-in many downtown's peak around noon to l:00 p.m. because this is the tirne that retaiVrestaurant uses peak during weekday and the time when many short-term visitors come to the downtown for lunch. Folsom Historic Disirict weekday peak is indicative of a predominantly retaiVrestaurant-based commercial mix,
Conclusions
B"*d "" th" data collection and analysis of existing supply and weekday peak demand, there is sufficient parking within the study area to accommodate curent typical weekday demands. While some zones ixperi"nce relatively high demands, overall, there is ample available parking within the entire study area. a Since the parking occupancy surveys wore not conducted at all on-street and of'f'-site parking locations, peak occupancy for weekday is compared to the actual number ofparking spaces surveyed (485 spaces)' :>tzE>-a<<rttttSstddjid
F
8fi
t
d;i
I
7-aN Ki'nBY'llom
L-I/ \ ardAstoc'alos, lrrc.
l0 December 9, 2008

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

City of Folsom Historic District
DRAFT Parkinq Imolementation Plan Uodate
Folsom,
California
Table 4 - Summary of On-Street and Off-Street Parking Occupancies (Weekday) Time
Total Number of
(On & Off-Street)
Soaces Survcyed
Total Number of
(On & Off-Street)
Soaces Occupled
o/o Occupancy
6:00 AM 485 34 10/
8:00 AM 485 210 43%
9:00 AM 485 234 48%
l0:00 AM 485 264 54%
l1:00 AM 48s 325 67%
l2:00 PM 485 354 73%
l:00 PM 485 287 59%
2:00 PM 485 284 s9%
3:00 PM 485 282 58%
4:00 PM 48s 238 49%
5:00 PM 485 234 48%
6;00 PM 485 305 63%
7:00 PM 485 348 72%
8:00 PM 485 112 23%
Figure 6 * Total Parking (On-street and Off-Street) Accumulation in Study Area (Weekday) I
i
i
I
I
j
;
l
I
i
I
I
t00tt
90x
mt
70x
mr
9ff
ao*
30r
20x
10x
0L ll>t
836id
ll
I>
iH
I
B
E
8 T
I
lI Oc<u.
: E
';
E
:.1
-.
d
I
TE
t
':i
parking occupancy analysis indicates that there is sufficient parking supply available to meet the existing parkin! demand within-the study area. However, recent field observations show spillover parking into adlaceit residential neighborhoods, particutarly in the vicinity of the intersection of Wool Street and Figueroa Street. This spiltover parking could be because customers/visitors are not fully utilizing the public parking lots available within the District and would like to park close to their destinations, Existing spillover parking is not discussed in detail in this study as occupancy survey data was not available for residential streets. 7-Jl Kirnhv.Hom
L.I|Z \ andAssocht€ehc.
ll Decembcr 9, 2008

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

City of Folsom Historic Dastrict
DRAFT Parkinq Implementation Pla n Update
Folsom,
California
Iileekend (Friday Evening)
On-Sneet Parking Occupancy
T.bl" 5 *.-.rii"r ttre average on-street parking occupancy between 6:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m.3n a typical weekend (Friday) for the entire study area, andFigure 7 shows the on-shect parking occupancies'. As shown in Figure i, b"W."n 65 percent and"73 percent of on-street parking spaces are occupied between 6:00 p'm. and 8':00 p.m. This p.r""ntug. drops to 54 percent at 9:00 p.m. The peak on-street parking demand (73 percent) o.",16 at about 6;00 p.m., although the on-street parking demand is aI7:00 p.m. (70 percent) is close to the peak.

Table 5 - Summary of On-street Parking Occupancies (Weekend) Time Total Number of On-Street
Spacer Surveyed
Total Number of On-Street
Spaces Occupled 7e Occupancy
5:00 PM r62 n8 73%
7:00 PM t62 r 13 70%
8:00 PM 162 106 65%
9:00 PM 162 87 s4%
Figure 7 - Study Area On-Street Parking Occupancy (Weekend) 10ffi
90*
80*
70x
60ta
50*
ffi
30x
20ta
10tt
OK
:
fl
Et
6 F
d
Off-Street Parkinq Occupancv
@eshrdyareahaveslightiyhigheroccupanciesthanon.streetparkingwhen averaged &er the entire study area for the weekend peak period. Table 6 summarizes the off-street parking oc"rrp-ancies between 6:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. Figure 8 shows that off-street parking lots sustain an occupancy averagirrg 92 percentbetween 7:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m., then drop dramatically to about 36 percent around 9:00 f.ml The peak off-street part lng demand occurred at 7:00 p.m. and at B:00 p'm' with 92 percent occupancy.
s Historical parking data indicate that Friday evenings represent the highest period. o.f demand for weekends when compared to Saturday uftemoon. and cvcnings, and Suniays. This <Ietennination excludes special events such as Farmers Market. a XOccu.

TaJl Khlev'Hom
L-ff \ anoAssociares. lnc,
l2 December 9,2008

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

City of Folsom
DRAFT Parking
Historic District
Implementation Plan UPdate
Folsom,
California
Tlmc Total Number of Off-Street
Spaces $urveyed
Total Number of Off.Street
Spacee Occupied 7o Occupancy
6:00 PM 323 255 79%
7:00 PM 323 296 92%
8:00 PM 323 296 92%
9:00 PM 323 1t6 36%
Table 6 - Summary of Off-street Parking Occupancies (Weekend) Figure 8 - Study Area Off-street Parking Occupancy (Weekend) 100'l
90r
80x
10*
6ota
lot
4ota
3ff
20x
tol(
o*
aLOacu.

F
E
Ic T
E
T
E
The observations might indicate that most of the off-street parking spaces are being used by restaurant users which peak around dinner time within the study area.

At the district level, occupancy in the parking lots in all individual zones stay relatively high with an avercge occupancy of approximately 72 percent for Zone l, 78 percent for Zone 2, and 73 percent for Zone 3' nppendix n "onioin*
detailed graphs and tables for individual zones showing the average number of vehicles parked in each parking lot between 6:00 p.m. and 9:00 p'rn.

Total Parking Occupancv artd Accumulation
Daily Parking Accumulation (On plus Off-Street) in Study Area; Table 7 sumrirarizes the weekend on-street and off-street peak par*ing demand for the study area. Figure 9 shows the daily accumulation ofparked vehicles (both on and off-street) within the study area. Parking spaces at 6:00 p.*. ui" occupied al77 ptercerfi, climbing to a peak of 84 percent at 7:00 p.m. and 83 percent at 8:00 p.*., und significantiy decreasing to 47 pcrccnt at 9:00 p.m. This weekend evening profile is indicative of ihort-t"r- restaurant parking demand where the profile shows high occupancy during the evening dining period.
7-fl Klnkv.llom
L-I7 \ afldAssocht€s, lnc.
t3 Desember 9, 2008

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

City of Folsom Historic District
DRAFT Parkinq Implementation Plan Update
Folsom,
California
Tablc 7 - Summary of On-Street and Off-street Parking Occupancies (Weekend) TIme Total Number of (On & Off-
Street) Spaces Surveyed
Total Number of (On & O{f-
Street) Spacer OccuPled 7o Occupancy
6:00 PM 485 373 77%
7:00 PM 485 409 84%
8:00 PM 485 402 83%
9:00 PM 485 na 47%
Flgure 9 - Total Parking (On-Street and Off-street) Accurnulation in Study Area (Weekend) i loota
90i
8016
70*
50s
50*
40*
r0x
20x
10ta
0x
tfOcru.
6ioo PM 7j0oPM l:mPM 9l0OPM
Peak Occupancy in Study Area:

The study ur"u reaches its peak parking dsmand at 7:80 p.m, (84 percent), although the parking demand at 8:00 p.m. (83 perccnt) is very close to the peak parking dcmand indicating a long peak. The peak on-street and off-street occupancy in the study area is shown in taUte ? and in Figut" g. Oro"tun, the parking supply6 in Folsom Historic District is more than half utilized during the weekend peak period. Typical downtown areas peak around 7:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m, because this is the tirne that restaurant uses peak with many short-term uirito6 coming to ihe downtowrfor dinner on weekends. Folsom Ilistoric District weekcnd peak is indicative of a predominantly restaurant-based commercial mix.

Conclusions
B"r.d "" th" data collection and analysis of existing supply and weekend peak demand, there is sufficient parking within the study area to accommodate current weekend demands. While some zones experience ielativily high dernands, overall, there is available parking within the entire study area' However, based on data coliecteld prior to the completion of the new 330-space parking structure, the District's overall weekend occupancy is nearing "practical capacity" of 85 percent occupancy. This finding, although rnoot with the "omiletion
of the n& itructure, indicates the need for providing additional public parking. 6 Since the parking occupancy surveys were not conducted at all on-street and off-site parking locations, peak occupancy for week6ay is iompared to the actual number ofparking spaces surveyed (485 spaces). 7-fl Khlsv.Hm
L-f/ \ aru[ssochres.rnc.
14 Decembcr 9, 2008

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

City of Folsom Historic District Folsom,
CaliforniaDRAFT Parkinq ImDlementation Plan Uodate
Parking occupancy analysis indicates that there is sufficient parking supply available to moet the existing weekend peak parking demand within the study area. However, recent field observations show spillover parking into adjacent residential neighborhoods during weekend evening, particularly in the vicinity of the intersection of Wool Street and Figueroa Street. This spillover parking could be because customers/visitors are not fully utilizing the public parking lots available within the District and would like to park close to their destinations. Existing spillover parking is not discussed in detail in this study as ocoupancy survey data was not available for residential streets.

P atking Mo del Developrnent
The first step towards determining the fuhue parking demand is to dcvclop and validatc a parking model that accurately predicts/mimics existing conditions. The steps involved in developing and validating the existing parking model include:

L Identifu existing land uses which rely on publicly available parking within the study area. The model excludes existing land uses which provide privatc parking cxclusively fbr their patrons.

2. Use Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Parking Generation, 3rd Edition, 2004 and Urban Land Institute (ULl) Shared Parking,2ndEdition, parking generation rates to establishun-calibrated parking generation rates.

3. Adjust base parking generation rates to reflect specific conditions in Downtown Folsom (detailed text about adjustments is discussed later in this document).

4. Adjust time-of-day profiles to reflect local conditions.

5. Adjust rates to reflect amount of transit, bicycle, walk, and captive trips within the study area' Captive trips reflect people who park once within the study area and visit rnultiple land uses.

6. Use the model to predict existing peak parking demand using the adjusted rates and the existing land uses.
7 . Compare the moclel-predicted peak parking dernand and time-of-day hourly parking profile with the peak parking demand and time-of-day hourly profile observed in the occupancy surveys. Adjust (calibrate) parking generation rates, time-of-day profiles, and/or other factors as necessary, and repeat in an iterative manner.

The parking rnodel is validated if the difference in model-predicted peak parking demand and the observed peak parking demand is within +10 percent. Also, validation is achieved when the model-predicted time-of- day hourly protile closely matches observed proltles. Once validated for existing conditions, the parking model is used to project future parking demand.

Existing Land U.ses
The existing land use information for the study area was provided by the City of Folsom. Land use types were grouped by general category because of similarities (e.g., retail), Table 8 below shows the land use categories used to aggregale existing land uses along with the square footages by zone.

As mentioned earlier, existing private land uses which provide parking exclusively for their patrons are excluded from the parking model.
7-fl Ki'nbrHffn
L.,II \ andAssooatse rnc.
l5 December 9, 2008

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

City of Folsom Historic District
DRAFT Parking Implementatjon Plan Update
Folsom,
California
Table 8 - Existing Land use Types and Square Irootages
Land Use Type
Existing Square Footage
Zotel Zane2 Z,one3 AII Zones
Retail t 3,843 48,241 8,880 70,964
Restaurant 0 8,000 5 500 13,500
Office 6,922 7,525 24,117 38,564
Club/Bar/Tasting Rooms 4,690 3,750 0 8,440
Theater (Seats) 0 115 0 115
Muscum / Exhibit Spacc 0 0 15,703 t5,703
Total 25,455
67,516
115 Theater
Seats
54,200
l47,l7l
115 Theater
Seats
Parking Generation Demand Rales
Parking demand is estimated based on parking generation rates published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Parking Generution, 3rd Edition, 2004 and the Urban Land Institute's (ULI) Shared Parking, 2nfl Edition. Because the ITE and ULI rates are developed from isolated suburban land uses poorly selved by transit, they do not represent the true parking demand generated by uses located in walkable, rnixed-use districts such as downtown Folsorn. Thcrcforc, the rates have been adjustedto reflect 1) the unique parking generation characteristics of Folsom, 2) linked trips whereas people park once in a public parking space and walk to multiple locations, 3) internal non-auto trips whereas people who reside in or near downtown walk to commercial establishments, 4) a reasonable level of transit use, and 5) the interaction of uses at sites with rnultiple land use types {mixed use internal capfure).

The adjusted parking demand generation rates for a rypical weekday and weekend are summarized in Table 9 The rates summarized in Table 9 include additional adjustment factors including:
o Two (2) percent reduction for transit trips
r Two (2) percent redrtction for bicycle trips
r Three (3) percent reduction for walk trips,
. Fifteen (15) percent reduction for captive trips
Table 9 - Adjusted Parking Demand Generation Rates fbr Weekday and Weekend Land Use
Weekday
(12:00 to
1:00 n.m.)
Weekend
(7:00 to
8:00 p.m.)
Units
Retail 4.00 3.00 Spaces per 1,000 sq.ft. (Gr<lss Floor Area) Restaurant
F-inc Dining tt.50 15.00 Spaces per 1,000 sq.ft. (Gross Floor Area) Casual Dining 6.50 12.00 Spaces per 1,000 sq.ft. (Gross Floor Area) Offioe 3.15 0.04 Spaces per 1,000 sq,ft. (Gross Floor Area) Club/Bar/Tasting Rooms 0.43 r5.00 Spaces per 1,000 sq.ft. (Gross Floor Area) Theater 0.07 0.32 Spaces per seat
TlJl Kimlev-Hom
\I7 \ and/ssocrares.inc,
l6 December 9, 2008

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

City of Folsom Historic District
DRAFT Parking Implementation Plan Update
Folsom,
California
Parking Model Validation - Weekday
Following the calibration process described above, the parking model was used to predict existing weekday conditions. The results were compared to the observed weekday parking occupancy for existing land uses (Observed parking occupancy is summarized in Section II). The results of the cornparison are summarized in Table l0 below:

Table l0 - Comparison of Parking Model Calibration Results with Observed Parking Occupancy - Weekday
No. Item Model Prediction of
Demand Obsenred Ilemand Percent
Illlference
I Existing Peak Weekday
Parking Demand 420 spaces 354 spaces t9%
2 Existing Peak Hout l2:00 Noon 12:00 Noon N/A
J Existing Peak Demand
Periods
l1:00 a.m. to 2;00 p.m.
6:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m.

I l:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.rn.
6:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. N/A
As per the parking model, the weekday peak parking demand is 420 spaces and the peak parking demand observed using occupancy survey is 354 spaces, a difference of 66 spaces, ar a 19 percent difference.

However, the occupancy surveys performed by the City did not cover the entire study area, certain on-street segments and certain portions of the off-street parking lots were not included. Therefore, these parking spaces need to be included in the comparison. As shown in Table l, the total existing parking supply (excluding the parking garage in Zone 37; within the study area is 555 spaces. The parking occupancy surveys covered a total of485 spaces, a difference of70 spaces.

Using a conservative assumption that 50 percent of the spaces that were not surveyed during the parking occupancy surveys would be occupied during the weekday peak hour would add approximately 35 spaces (70 x 0.50) to the existing observed peak parking demand of 354 spaces, resulting in a combined total of 389 spaccs. With the inclusion of the un-surveyed parking spaces, the difference in the weekday peak parking demand estimate from parking model is within l0 percent of the observed weekday peak parking demand (420 vs.389). Hence the parking model is considered validated for existing weekday conditions. Detailed calculation sheets and graphs related to the calibration and validation of the parking model for weekday are shown in Appendix C.

Parking Model Yalidatian - Weekend
Utilizing the calibration process described above, the parking model was used to predict existing weekend conditions. The results were compared to the observed weekend parking occupancy for existing land uses.

The results of the comparison are sumrnarized in Table I I below. It is important to note that parking occupancy surveys were conducted only between 6:00 p,m, and 9:00 p.m. on a weekend (Friday Night).

The model predicted weekend peak parking demand is 422 spaces and thc observed peak parking demand is 409 spaces, a difference of 12 spaces, or 3 pcrccnt. Based on this finding, the parking model could be concluded as validated. However, as the occupancy surveys did not cover the entire study area, certain on- street segm€nts and certain portions of the off-street parking lots were not included. Therefore, these parking spaces need to be included in the comparison. As shown in Table [, the total existing parking supply (-xcluding the parking gara1e in Zone 37; within the study area is 555 spaces. The parking occupancy surveys covered on a total of485 spaces, a diffcrcncc of70 spaces. ? The parking garage was not open to public and was still under construction at the time of occupancy surveys. 7i-fl Kimbv.Hom
\rI7 \ amAtsocaps,rno,
t7 December 9. 2008

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

City of Folsom Historic District
DRAFT Parkino Implementation Pla n Uodate
Folsom,
California
Table 11 - Comparison of Parking Model Calibration Results with Observed Parking Occupancy - Weekend
No. Item Model Prediction of
Demand Observed Demand Percent
Dlfference
I
Existing Peak
Weekend Parking
Dcmand
422 spaccs 409 spaces 3%
2 Existing Peak Hour 8:00 p.m, 7:00 p.m. N/A
3 F.xisting Pcak l)emand
Periods
l:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.
7:00 p.ru. to 9:00 p.m. 7:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. N/A
Using a conservative assumption that 50 percent of the spaces that were not surveyed during the parking occupancy surveys would be occupied during the weekday peak hour would add approximately 35 spaces (70 x 0.50) to the existing observed peak parking demand of409 spaces giving us a combined total of 444 spaces.

Even with the inclusion of the un-surveyed parking spaces, the difference in the weekend peak parking demand estimate from parking model is within l0 percent of the observed weekday peak parking demand (422 vs. 444). Hence the parking model is considered validated for existing weekend conditions. Detailed calculation sheets and graphs related to the calibration of the parking model for weckcnd are shown in Appendix D.

Future Patking Supply and Demand Analysis
This section of the reporl discusses future planned development, and provides a f'unrre parking supply and demand analysis within the study area. As directed by the City, the future development scenario is constrained by the amount of future parking supply achievsd by the addition of one (l) new parking stnrcture.

This new structure is assumed to be constructed on the Trader Lane lot. Initial analysis efforts considered multiple shuctures and locations throughout the District. The full, District-wide futurc parking supply assessmcnt is provided in Appendix E.

The purpose of this analysis is to estimate the amount of future available parking supply, and the corresponding amount of future development, which can be accommodated by the addition of a single new parking struclure on the Trader Lane lot, Consistent with current Historic District design guideliness, this single structure would have a SO-foot height limitation. The amount of future available parking supply correlates into an amount of supported future development. The futureparking supply is apptoximated as the sum of excess existing parking supply after accounting fcrr parking demand generated by existing and planned/approved developrnent, and the parking supply that could be accommodated in a new Trader Lane structure,
The methodology utilized to estimate the amount of allowable future development for the Historic District is as follows:
l. Determine the total number of parking spaces that could be accommodated in a Trader Lane structure, consistent with the S0-tbot height limitation. Ground floor retail is assumed to be accommodated in this structure.

2. Using the parking demand rates calibrated for existing conditions, estimate the parking demand for planned/approved projects. Parking demand for thc parking structure's ground floor retail is included in this estimate.
" Historic District Design and Development Guidelines, City of Folsom, October I' 1998. 7,-Jl KimhrHom
L-'I/ \ anoAssocrales, rnc,
l8 Decernber 9, 2008

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

City of Folsom Historic District Folsom,
CaliforniaDRAFT Parking Implementati on Plan Update

3. Estimate total future parking demand by adding the parking demand for planned/approved projects, including the structure's ground floor retail, to existing parking demand.

4. Subtract the total future parking dernand from the total future parking supply within the District to obtain the total excess or (deficit) ofparking spaces. The future parking supply does not include the existing 125 surface parking spaces on the Trader Lane lot that would be lost with construction of the new parking structure,

5. Add the total excess or (deficit) parking spaces to the parking spaces estimated for the proposed Trader Lane structure (from Step l) to obtain total available parking spaces for future development.

6. The total available parking spaces are reduoed by 10 percent to account for practical capacity, resulting in net total available parking spaces for future development, 7, Estimate the amount of fulure development that can be accommodated by the net total available parking spaces (from Step 6).

It is irnportant to note that the "planned/approved projects" include only the Scalzi development located in the northwest comer of Sutter/Scott intersection, as well as the Historic Folsom Station (Rail Block)' Furthermore, because existing land uses (excluding the specialty uses such as Club/Bar/Tasting Rooms, Theater, Museum,/Exhibit Space) within the Historic District are classified primarily as retail, restaurants, or offices uses, future development was also similarly allocated across these three land use types.

Fttture Parking Supply
Funrre On-Street Parkine Supply
The future on-stroet parking supply remains similar to existing parking supply (Figure 3), except seven (7) additional on-street parking spac€s are added on Leidesdorff Street between Gold Lake Drive and Reading Street. Table l2 summarizes the future number of parking spaces along each street and tolal parking spaces for each zone. The study area contains atotal of239 future on-street parking spaces.

Future Off-Street Parking Suppl:r
The future off-street parking supply is comprised of existing off-street parking facilities, the new 330-space parking structure in the Rail Blook, and planned public spaces as part of known new development. Loss of parking spaces from new development includes I l0 spaces with development of the Rail Block, and 125 spaceswiththedevelopmentofaparkingstructureontheTraderlanelot. Anadditional 5lpublicspacesare added in Zone I with the development of the Scalzi site.

The number of future off-sffeet parking locations, as well as the number of spaces provided are shown in Figurel0. Table12summarizesthefuhrrenumberofoff-streetparkingspacesineachzone.Thereareatotal of491 future off-street public parking spaces in the study area' Total Future On- and Off-Street Parking Supply
Table 12 summarizes the total future number of parking spaces by zone and in total. There are 730 total future on-street and off-street parking spaces within the study area.

The funrre on- and off-street parking supply of 730 spaces is 175 spaces more than the existing parking supply prior to the completion of the new parking structure, and 177 spaces less than the existing parking supply after completion of the structure.

Tafl Kimlev.Hom
\I7 \ ffdAi$socsres,inc.
l9 December 9, 2008

01/11/2022 Item No.15.
c
a2
spaces
B
330
spaces
tt6ot
A - Baker Lot
B - Parking Structure
C - Riley/Scott Lot
D - Scalzi
E - Rail Block
(Eliminated w/ site development)
F - Trader Lane
(Eliminated w/ parking structure development)
LEGEND
re Zone I
Zone ll
Zone lll
Figure 10
Folsom Historic District Parking
Future Off-Street Parking SupPlY7,-fl \!r'ey-norn
\IIZ-! and Associates, inc.

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

City of Folsom Historic District
DRAFT Parkinq Implementation Plan UDdate
Folsom,
California
Table 12 - Summary of Future On-Street and OiT-Street Parking Supply by Zone Zone Ofl-Street Public
Parklng Supply On.Street Parking Supply
Total
Existlng
Supply
I
Riley St. / Scott St.
(Powerhouse) Lot 82
Riley St. - Sutter St. to Figueroa St. 7
Sutter St. - Riley St. - Scott St. 20
Scalzi 5l
Scott St. - LeidesdorffSt. to Sutter St. 3
Scott St. - Sutter St. to Figueroa St. t2
Suhtotal 133 Subtotal 42 175
II
fuley St. - Sutter St. to Figueroa St. 7
Wool St. - Leidesdorff to Suttor St. ll
Wool St. - Sutter St. to Figueroa St. 9
Leidesdorff St, - Wool St. to Riley St. 11
Suttcr St. - Wool St. to Riley St 0
Sabtotul 3E 38
UI
Baker Lot 28
Reading St. - North of LeidesdorffSt. 10
Reading St, - LeidesdorffSt. to Sutter St, 0
Reading St. - Sutter St. to Figueroa St. 10
Parking Structure 330
Gold Lake Circle 24
Decatur St. - Sutter St. to Figueroa St. l8
Wool St. - Leidesdorff St. to Sutter St. ll
Wool St. - Sutter St. to Figueroa St. 8
Leidesdorff St. - Decatur St. to Wool St. 23
Sutter St. - Reading St. to Decatur St. 25
Sutter St. - Decatur St. to Wool St. 23
Leidesdorff St. - Gold Lake Circle to
Readins St,
7 Subtotal 358 Subtotal 1s9 517
Total Off-Street Spaces 491 Total On-Street Spaces 239 730 Note: Excludes off-street parking supply gained in proposed Trader lane parking structure.

Existing plus Future Parking Demand
ln context of this study, future parking demand is defined as a demand fbr parking that cannot be accommodated by individual on-site, private supply. Therefbre, this demand must be accommodated by the municipal parking supply, either on-street or off-street. Because the data collection and analysis of existing supply and demand indicated a supply surplus, it can be assumed that, although frequently observed, the study area does not experience spillover parking into surrounding neighborhoods resulting from a parking supply deficit during rypical weekdays and weekends. Therefore, the future parking demand analysis focuses on the study area, and does not include the surrounding neighborhoods. fhe purpose ofthis analysis is to:

TfJl Kimlev-Hom
Lf/ \ ano/ssm,ates.r,E.
2l December 9,2008

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

City of Folsom Historic District Folsom,
californiaDRAFT Parkinq ImDlementation Plan Update

1. Estimate existing plus future parting dernand and determine whether the existing and planned public parking supply (including the proposcd Tradcr Lane parking shucture) is sufficient; and

2. If existing plus future demand exceeds supply, determine if there is the potential for spillover parking into adjacent residential neighborhoods.

For this study, the tlemand generated by future District residential uses is assumed to be accommodated on- site. Residential visitors, and employees and patrons of the commercial uses, are assumed to park off-site ancl rely on the public parking supply. Based on these assumptions, the future parking demand is estimated- Fulure Land Uses
As previously stated, the future developrnent scenario is constrained by the amount of future parking supply achieved by the addition of one (l) new parking structurs. This new structure is assumed to be constmcted on the Trader Lane lot, and incorporate ground floor retail. Based on a preliurinary sohematic and lbasibility evaluation (l'igure l1),442 spaces can be accommodated in this structure, The net available parking spaces within the Distriot, after accounting for existing and planned/approved parking demand and practical capacity, is up to 425 spaces. This level of parking supply (425 spaces) was determined to accommodate appioximately 55,000 square feet of retail, 27,A00 square feet of restaurant, and 20,000 square lbet of office usis itr addition to the planned/approved projects and ground 1'loor retail within the liader Lane parking strucfure.

The future retail and restaurant square footages were estimated using the existing proportion of retail and restaurant square footages within the District. The total future development that could be accommodated is l2l,850 square fbet, including 19,850 square feet of ground floor retail within the proposed parking structure.

Table 13 shows the land use categories and square footages representing future land uses.

Table 13 -- Future Land Use Types and Square Footages
Land Use Type
Future Square Footege or Dwelling Units
Planned /
Approved
Projects
Trader Lane
Structure
Ground
Floor Retail
Additlonal
Development
Accommodated
by 442 Space
Trader Lane
Structure
Total Future
Development
Retail 32,908 I 9,850 55,000 107,758
Restaurant 11,700 27,000 38,700
Office 3 1,301 20,000 51,301
Club/Bar/Tasting Rooms
Theater (Seats)
Museum / Exhibit Space
Residential
(Dwelline Units - D.U.) 60 60
Total 75,909
60 D.U.
t 9,850 102,000 197,759
60 D.U.
7-fl Kmlev.Hom
L r7 \ andAsocraree, rnc,
)) December 9,2008

01/11/2022 Item No.15.
til
S9,(
LTI
RE'I
/'+..
-"qu
.rc,
*.

S
,1
Lone
.T
i_.
r
Figure 11
Trader Lane Parking Structure Details7I,n--ff-LIIZ_ \ and Associates, rnc,

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

City of Folsom Historic District
DRAFT Parking Implementation Plan Update
Folsom,
California
Existine plus Future Parkine Supply and Dernand
Using the adjusted parking generation demand rates and the trip reduction percentages for transit, bike, walk, and captive trips, the parking model predicts existing plus luture weekday and weekend parking demand.

Table 14 presents the results of the determination of the amount of future development lvhich can be accommodated by the available District parking supply with the addition of a Trader Lane parking structlrre.

Table 14 - Permissible Future Development Based on Future Parking Supply Step # Steps Weekday Weckend
Estirnated Parking Spaces in Trader Lane structul'e 442 spaces 442 spaces , Parking Dernand for Planned/Approved Projects 256 spaces 215 spaces Existing Parking Demand 420 spaces 422 spaces
3 Total Parking Dernand 676 spaces 637 spaces
4 l;uture Parking Supply (excludes the existittg surface and proposed structure palking spaces in Trader Larle Lot)
I 730 spaces 730 spaces
Excess (Deficit) Parking Spaces 54 spaces 93 spaces
5 Available Parking Supply for F-uture Developtnent
(stepl+step4) 496 spaces 535 spaces
Parking Denrand fbr Wrap-Alound Retail 64 spaces 64 spaces Total Available Parking Supply for Future Developtnenl 432 spaces 471 spaces 6 Practical Capacity Reduction l0% t0%
Net Total Available Parking Supply fbr Futffe
(90% of stcp 5) 390 spaccs 425 spaces
f,'uture Land Uses Quantity
Peak
Weekday
Demend
Peak
Weekend
Demand
7 Retail 55,000 sF 176 spaces 132 spaoes
Rcstaurant 2?,000 sF 162 spaces 292 spaces
Office 20,000 sF' 50 spaces I space
'fotal 102,000 sF 388 spaces 425 spaces
The ftrture parking supply includes 239 on-street spaces and 491 off-street spaces for a total of730 spaces. The off- rtreet parkirrg spaces includes the fbllowtng:
- Powerhouse [,ot = 82 spaces
- Baker Lot - 28 spaces
- Rail Block Parking Structure = 330 spaces
- Scalzi = 5l snaces
As shown in Table 14, based on thc future parking supply limitations (390 wcekday and 425 wcckcnd), an assumed future development scenario of 55,000 square feet ofretail, 27 ,000 square feet of restaurant, and 20,000 square feet of office uses should be assumed and utilized in future planning efforts for the District. 7-fl Karnl4,'Hom
Xf/ I anoAssocstss,rnc.
24 December 9. 2008

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

City of Folsom Historic District Folsom,
CaliforniaDRAFT Parkinq Im Plan Uodate
Adequacy of City's Current Patking Strategy
Currently, the City of Folsom requires a flat parking ratio of 1 space per 350 square feet for all land use types within the Historic District. Assuming that all new development will provide parking in one form or another (i.c., cithcr build parking on-sitc or contribute to thc cost of public parking equivalent to their on-site requirement), Table l5 estimates the total future parking supply needed by new development using the City's existing parking ratio. As shown in Table 15, new development would result in 348 spaces.

Table 15 - Estirnate of Future Parking Supply Based on Curent Parking Ratio X'uture Land Use
(Square Footage)
City's Eristing
Parklng Ratio
Total Estimeted
Future Supply
{snaces) Nerded
Entire
District t2l,85o 1 space per 350 sq. ft. 348
Note:
'I'he estimates above do not inclucle requirements for residential visitor parking that mieht be located off-site.

This analysis indicates that using the City's current parking ratio ( I space per 350 square feet) would result in a number of spaces that would be less than the maxitnum deficit of 398 spaces (see below) calculated using the calibrated parking demand rates developed in this report. The City's current ratio would under-provide parking by 50 spaces.

Revised Avcrage Flat Parkine Rate to Acconunodate Parking Deficit The peak weekday parking demand, with a factor to reflect practical capacity, is 1 , 128 spaces. The amount of funrre parking supply is 730 spaces, which is 398 spaces less than required.

For these 398 spaces to be provided through dcvclopment rcquircmcnts, thc City could revise the existing parking ratio of I space per 350 square feet to i space per 305 square feet (see calculations below). o Peak weekday parking demand for existing plus future conditions = 1,128 spaces (676 + 64 + 388 : 1,128 per Table 14)
r Future parking supply (existing plus proposed) : 730 spaces o The peak weekday parking demand for existing plus future conditions exceeds the future parking supply by a total of398 spaces (1,128 - 730: 398)
r City's revised parking ratio : 121,850 sq. ft. of new development at I space per 305 square feet will be equal to approximately 400 spaces.

Individual Parking Ratio bv Land Use Types
If the City chose to apply individual parking ratios by land usc types, then individual parking ratios for each futlre land use type is estimated using the future land use square footages, adjusted peak weekday parking demand, and the number of parking spaces required. The future land uses were divided into retail, restaurant (fine dining and casual dining), and office uses, Table l6 shows the calculations of individual parking rate by land use types, assuming 398 spaces (one parking structure) are required to meet the deficit, VJfN Kimley.Hom
LifT \ ardAseociales Inc,
25 December 9,2008

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

City of Folsom Historic District
DRAFT Parking Imp lementation Plan Update
Folsom,
California
Land Use
Future
Land
Use
Square
Footages
(^)
Adjusted
Weekday
Peak
Demand
Ratesl
(B)
Estimated
Demand
2 (C)-(A)x(B)
x80%
%
Percent
(D)
No. of
Pkg.

Spaces
Needed
(E)
Spaces
Required by
Land Use
Type
E)=0r)x(E)
Approximate
Individual Parking
Ratio
(G) = (A) /G")
Retail 74,850 4.00 240 s3% 398 2rl I Space per 350 sq. ft.

Restaurant
Fine
Dining
Casual
Dinine
13,500
13,500

8.50 6.50
92 70
2A%
t6%
398
398
80 64
1 Space per 170 sq. ft.

I Space per 2 I 0 sq. ft.

Office 20,000 3.15 50 tr% 398 43 1 Space per 460 sq. ft.

Total 121,850 452 1000/0 398 398 I Space per 305 sq. ft.

I Adjusted weekday peak demand rates fiom Table 9.
2 Estirnated rlelrand inoludes adjustnrent ibr tlansit, walk, bike, and captive trips (a total of20%) Table 16 - Individual Parking Ratio by Land Use Types (Bascd on Need for 398 Spaces) Conclusions
The overall conclusions of this analysis resnlt in the following The current ratio of I space per 350 square feet would result in about 348 spaces and would f'ail to accommodate the projected maximum def-rcit of 398.

A revised ratio of 1 space per 305 square feet would result in about 400 spaces and would adequately accornmodate the maximum deficit of 398 spaces.

Individual ratios by land use type ranging lrom 1 space pcr 1 70 square feet to I space per 460 square feet would result in about 398 spaces, which would accommodate the maximum deficit.

ASSESSMENT OF PARKTNG STRUCTURE SITES
Idcntilication of Potential Sites
As part of the Request for Proposals for this project, as well as a carry-over from the 2A02 Plan, the City identihed six (6) potential sites for the consfruction of additional Historic District parking supply. Through preliminary discussions with City stafl this initial list of six sites was subsequently reduced to five (5) with the elimination of one site determined to be generally infeasible, and the least desirable location of all potential sites. As such, th€ assessment of parking structure sites focused on thc following five iocations:

1. Folsom Hotel
This site is generally described as the vacant ravine behind the Folsom Hotel, adjacent to Riley Sheet. Access would likely be provided from Figueroa Street and/or the alley between Sutter Street and Figueroa Street.

2. Gold Lake Center
This site is generally described as the vacant, earthen embankment adjacent to the Gold Lake Center commercial development, along the north side Leidesdorff Street in the vicinity of Wool Street. Access to this site wouid likely be provided frorn Leidesdorff Street and fiom the existing surfacc parking lot within thc Gold Lake Center property' a
a
a
7-fl Kimlev.Hom
Lrf \ andAssocnpelnc,
26 Dccembcr 9,2008

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

City of Folsom Historic District Folsom,
CaliforniaDRAFT Parklng Implementation Plan Update

3. Moose/Eagles Lodges
This site is generally described as the parcels currently occupied by the Moose and Eagles Lodges located east of Scott Street, between fuley Street and Sutter Street. Access would likely be provided from Sutter Street and/or Scott Street.

4. Riley/Scott
This site would replace the existing surface parking lot located south of Riley Street between LeidesdorffStreet and Scott Street. Access would be provided from Scott Street.

5. Trader Lane
This site would replace the existing Trader Lane surface parking lot. Cround level access would be provided from Wool Street and/or Leidesdorff Street.

These five potential parking structure sites are depicted in Figure 12, Evaluation Criteda and Matdx
In order to evaluate and provide a meaningful relative comparison of the five potential parking structure sites, five evaluation criterion were identified:
a, Capacity: Does the site contribute toward lessening future parking deficit? b. Implementation: Does the site minimize implementation effects on existrng parking supply, businesses, and circulation?
c. Site Accessibility: Is the site located near District generators and localized parking deficits, and is visible?
d. Community Considerations: Does the site provide for mixed-use oppor.tunities and incorporate urban design characteristics?
e. Cost Considerations: Does the site incur reasonable construction costs? The evaluation matrix provided in Table 17 provides a summary of the evaluation of the five potential parking structure sites. More detailed concepts for each of the sites are providod in Appendix F.

Table 17 * Parking Structure Site Evaluation Matrix
Slte Albrnatlve A.res.mont Evaluallon Crltarlon
rcttrra Altemrl
Fobom
Hotol
Gold L.to
Cantrr
Mooeot
Eaolec
RlLyt
8ooft
T6dat
Lrne
a Contributes towaft lessening fuluro pafting deficit?
o o o o o
b Minimizes implementation eff€cts on existing supply, Dusinesses, and circulation? o o o o o
c ls locatad near Disttict generators and localized parking deficits, and is visible? o o o o o
d Provides for mixed-use oppoftunitles and lncoryorates uban design characterlstics? c o o o o
o lncurs reasonable construetion cost?
c o o a
ldonffiod es vlahle sia€ for polentlat par*lng sltucturc davatopment? o o o
Poorly Addresses Criterion Effwtively Addresses CriterionModeralely Addresses Criterion Addrcsses Critcrion TtAfl rumBV'HOm
Lff \ anoAssocntes,,nc.
27 December 9, 2008

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Figure 12
Paking Structure Evaluation Sites---rar-i
_--
L-E/ \ ano Assoctales, tnc.

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

City of Folsom Historic District
DRAFT Parkinq Implementation Plan Update
Folsom,
California
As demonstrated in Table 17, the Trader Lane and Moose/Eagles sites were detennined to rnost effectively address the site evaluation criterion. Conversely, tlte Folsom Hotel and Gold Lake Center sites were determined to most poorly address the criterion. As previously discussed, subsequent discussions with the City determined that the Trader Lane lot should be the preferred location considered for the development of a new parking structure. The evaluation conducted as part of this effort supports the direction offered by the City.

Conclusions
Based on the aforementioned evaluation of the five potential parking structure sites, the Trader Lane and Moose/Eagles sites were determined to best satist/ the established criterion for the addition of Historic District parking supply. Therefore, these two sites are recommended for design implementation according to the outcomes of this study. The City's subsequent direction to consider only a single structure on the Trader Lane lot is consistent with the outcome of this effort.

PARKING IMPLEMENTATION STRATBGIES
Because the City of Folsom's Historic District is anticipated to realize a parking deficit of approximately 400 spaces at build-out, it is necessary for the City to consider various strategies on how best to address this anticipated shortfall. This section provides a menu ofpotential general parking strategies, and presents a series of specific recomrnended near-term and long-term strategies for the Historic District.

Obiectives
According to the Historic District Design and Development Guidelinese,'nBeca,Jse historic downtown lot sizes and development patterns were established prior to the advent of the automobile, however, the opportunities for individual sites in the Sutter Street Subarea to provide on-site parking are severely constrained. In order to preserve the historic structures and ambiance of this area, the City has assumed a share ofthe responsibility for providing adequate palking for the entire Subarea." Furthermore , the Guidelines speciff that "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 the life ofthe use.

The typical means of providing required parking in this Subarea is properfy-owner and/or business-owner financial pafiicipation in cornmunity-planned-and-operated parking facilities, established under the aegis of the City of Folsom or its Redevelopment Agency and subject to the design review process." As such, the overall objective of parking strategies for the City of Folsom's Historic District revolve around the Guidelinet principles in which the City is a stakeholder in the development of adequate parking supply for the District. This adequate parking is acknowledged to be comprised of both structured and other off- street surface parking facilities.

Historic District Usets and Needs
Parking strategies, in general, need to accommodate the rnultiple users of the Historic District. The mixed-use nature of the District dictates that the users include residents, residential visitors, light-rail transit (LRT) users and commuters, customers (non-residential visitors, shoppers, diners), employees, delivery and public services (police, fire, refuse, etc.). special event visitors. and residents of the surrounding neighborhoods. n Th" City of F'olsom, Historic Distict Design and Development Gttidelines, City of Folsom, October l, 1998 71-fl Kmw-Hom
\If \ anoAbocetes,kp
29 December 9,2008

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

City of Folsom Historic District
DRAFT Parking Imolementation Plan Update
Folsom,
California
Each of these user groups have their own specific needs, most significantly distinguished by the duration of their parking demand.

The parking strategies described herein specify the particular users that are anticipated to benefit from the various parking strategies. The ultimately selected parking strategies, in cumulative, should address each of the multiple District users' needs.

Ffistoric District Parking Principles
A vibrant, economically viable and successful Historic District (i.e., "downtown") combines both public and private parking opportunities to create an environment in which visitors park once, and waik to multiple destinations. As specified in the District's Guidelines, private development is essentially expected to rely on the public parking supply to accommodate nonresidential parking demand. As aresult, where public parking supply is shared by uscs with varying and complementary peak periods of demand, the concept of "shared parking" is introduced. For example, office uses in the District generate their peak parking demand in the mid-moming and early aftemoon timeframes, whereas restaurants generate theirpeak demand midday and in the evenings. "fhese two land uses can effectively share a lower number of parking spaces than if each use was required to accommodate its own peak demand. This "sharing" ofparking supply is in conhast to typical suburban parking rcquircmcnts whcrc each building is required to provide parking on-site for its own users, but rarely fully utilizes its own supply. According to the Urban Land Institute's Shared Parking (Second Edition) ".. .shared parking has been a fundarnental principle of downtown planning from the earliest days of the automobile."
The following figures (Figure 13 and Figurc 14) illustratc thc conccpt of sharcd parking. Figurc 13 is an example of the amount of parking provided based on minimum parking requirements or standards. This approach is based on providing each land use a minimum number of parking spaces as if it were an isolated use. Figure 14 illustrates the actual utilization of the parking spaces for each land use by time of day. Since different land uses have peak parking demands at different times, the land use can effectively 'oshare" a conxnonpool of parking spaces, as long as the highest demand of the day can be accommodated. The result of shared parking is a lower total number of parking spaces than if each individual use is required to provide for its own peak period.

Figure 13 - Minimum Required Parking Example
Required Minimum Parking
tto
E
oE
ooIG
eo
cD
=Go-
frfifi
,8fi
lOffice
tr Residential
rRetall
lRestEurant
"*$$$$$$$$$$sTime of Day
7-fl Ki'tlby'Hfil
\ 17 \ ano Assocnres, rnc.
30 December 9, 2008

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

City of Folsom Historic District
DRAFT Parking Implementation Plan Update
Folsom,
Ca lifornia
Figure 14 - Minimum Shared Parking Example
Shared Parking Utilization
Eoof
oooFcrU'
c')c
JL
G
o-
1 1
1 1
600
400
200
000
800
600
400
200
0 lOffice
tr Residential
lRetail
I REstaurant
"*$$$$$$$$$$sTimeof Day
In addition to increasing the efficiency of a limited parking supply, the concept of shared parking reduces the overall cost of providing parking. In downtown areas where development intensity and floor area ratios are high, blocks and individual parcels are small, and iand uses are predominantly small businesses, it can bc prohibitively expensive to provide parking which satisfies typical zoning code requirements, particularly if structured or underground parking is required. Typical downtown areas have the advantage ofbeing able to combine resources to fund and maintain a colnmon pool of parking for all users. In addition to the principle of shared parking, there are several general principles that should guide decisions regarding parking in a downtown core. These principles include:
l. Provide adequate, but not excessive public parking supply.

2. Provide a simple, easily understood parking environment with adequate way-finding.

3. Maximize thc provision of on-street parking as a primary souroe of short-tenn customer parking, and cnforce time restrictions.

4. Strategically locate municipal lots to provide short-term and long-term parking, Identify at least one location for the eventual constmction of a parking strucnrre within the core when needed.

5. Gradually implement pricing as a parking managernent strategy to reduce long term parking in the downtown core, to balance the level of utilization between on- and off--street parking, and to recover the costs of operating and maintaining parking facilities.

6. Provide options for long-term parking including long-tem parking within the core controlled by pricing and free or low-cost long-term in the periphery of the core. 7 . Improve the walkability of the downtown to encourage employees to park farther from the downtown core.

8. Ensure high-quality pedestrian connections.

9. Protect neighborhoods from spillover parking.

The strategies identified below are consistent with the principles described above.

Parking Management and Implementation Strategies
The implementation ofparking rnanagement strategies is intended to ultimately result in more efficientuse of limitcd parking rcsourccs. A number of parking management strategies could be implemented within the Historic District to address the existing and the projected, future parking conditions. Potential parking management strategies inolude:
7 -fl
Krm$/.Hom
L. I/ \ arxi Akocnres,rnc,
3l Decernber 9, 2008

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

City of Folsom Historic District
DRAFT Parking Implementation Plan Update
Folsom,
California
l. Update Private Parking Requirements

2. Establish and Implement In-Lieu Parking Fees
3, Improve Management of Rail Block Parking Structure

4. Implement Rcsidcntial Pcrmit Parking or Alternative Neighborhood Protection

5. Establish Public Parking Phasing Threshold

6. Establish Loading and Delivery Strategies

7. Implement On-Street Parking Management Strategies

8. Implement Off'-Sheet Public Parking Management Strategies

9. Establish and Implement Valet Parking

10. Implement Additional On-Sfreet Parking
I 1. Establish Pricing Strategies

12. Establish Parking Demand Reduction Strategies

13. Address LRT Commuter Parking in the District
Thc following is a discussion of each ofthese strategies and associated near- and long-term implernentation recommendations:

1. Update Privale Parking Requirements
Currently, the City of Folsom requires a flat parking ratio of 1 space per 350 square feet for all land use types (retail, offices, rostaurants, museums, etc.) within the Historic District. The previously documented detailed parking analysis indicated that this requirement is not sufficient to address the future parking needs of the District. As per the parking analysis, the District proposes to add approximately 121,850 square feet (SF) of commercial use, in addition to existing land uses and known planned/approved projects. Utilizing the City's existing requirement of I space per 350 SF, the additional proposed development (121,850 SF) will require approximately 350 parking spaces.

The parking analysis also indicated that using the City's current parking ratio (1 space per 350 SF) for future parking demand would under-provide parking by approximately 50 spaces.

Recommendation #1: Update the private parking requirements in the Municipal Code to accommodate existing and future parking demand.

The parking analysis evaluated the adequacy of the existing flatparking ratio to meet future parking demand. As per the parking analysis, in order to meet the future weekday parking demand, the City should either increase its current parking ratio from I space per 350 SF, to I space per 305 SF, or adopt separate parking ratios for retail (1 space per 350 SF), restaurants (l space per 170 SF for flne dining, and 1 space per 2 l0 SF for casual dining), and office ( I space per 460 SF) uses. By adjusting the parking ratio, the District would be able to accommodate the future parking demand.

In the near-term, the City should consider increasing the flat parking rate from I space per 350 SF to I space per 305 SF to meet the fuhrre parking needs. In the long-term, the City should consider adopting separate parking ratios for retail (1 space per 350 SF), restaurants (1 spacc per 170 SF for fine dining, and 1 space per 210 SF for casual dining), and for offrce (1 space per 460 SF) uses.

Adopting separate ratios for different uses will allow the City to more accurately identily future parking needs.
2, Estsblish and Implement In-Lieu Parking Fees
Under this strategy, developers are allowed to pay a fee inJieu of providing on-site parking spaces traditionally required by the Municipal Code. The revenue collected by this fee is used to finance public parking spaces. This strategy gives developers an option to eitherprovide the parking required or pay a fee if it is inf'easible to construct parking on-site. Alternatively, a development may provide some parking on-site and provide the balance required through payment of the in-lieu fee. This TlItI Krnbv-Hom
L-rI/ \ amnssoqates, rnc,
32 December 9, 2008

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

City of Folsom Historic District
DRAFT Parking Implementation Plan Update
Folsom,
California
approach is highly applicable in downtown areas where development opportunity sites are small, and providing on-site parking is difficult and often expensive. Since the City uses Redevelopment Funds to finance public parking spaces in the District, the revenue collected could alternatively be used to pay for a Parking Enforcement Offrce position.

Recommendation #2: Establish and implement in-lieu parking fees to provide options for developers within the District.

A number of development opponunities exist within the District. However, the size of the development for most of these opportunity sites is small because of existing uses, and it would be difficult for developers to provide the on-site parking spaces required by the Municipal Code. An in- lieu parking fee provides the developer an option ofpaying a one-time fbe for each parking space not provided on-site, thus encouraging development within the District. Cities are often faced with a dilemma where they would like developers to invest in their City, but do notprovide developers with an option where they can rely on public parking facilities to meet their parking demand by paying an inJieu parking fee. Parking for development sites where providing on-site parking is difticult or expensive typically relies upon on-street parking. Increased on-street parking demand has the tendency to discourage customers from visiting.

As a long-term parking strategy, the City could establish and implement inJieu parking fees. The timing of the in-lieu parking fee sould coincide with the City's decision (if implemented) of adopting separate parking ratios for retail, restaurants, and office uses with the District.

3. Improve Management of Rail Block Parking Slracture
The recently constructed Rail Block public parking struchrre is currently used by Historic District employees, customers, and Light Rail Transit (LRT) commuters. Improved management of the different users will result in more effective utilization of public parking resources.

Generally speaking, it is recornmended that the City institute a simple, straight forward management strategy that is easily understood by all uscrs of thc parking structure. The most effective parking management strategy will simplify structure enforcement, and will meet the expectations of cunent and future Historic District users. With that said, it is also recommended that the City continue to preserve the ultimate intended use of the structure, with rninimal, strategic, short-term deviations to most effectively address cuffent economic, development, and user conditions.

This topic is discussed in detail, and implcmcntation recomrnendations are provided later in this document within the "Assessment of City's S-Year Parking Management Plan" portion of the "Other Considerations" section on Page 53.

4. Implement Residential Permit Parking or Alternative Neighborhood Protection This strategy has multiple objectives, primarily to protect residential neighborhoods surrounding the District from spillover parking. This strategy would allow residents of the District to obtain permits to park on streets in the surrounding neighborhoods, provided that there is sufftcient on-street parking capacity to accommodate the needs ofthe neighborhood. The revenue generated by this strategy may be used to administer, and enforce, the residential permit parking prograrn, or may be used to fund improvements specif,rc to the neighborhood in which the permit was sold (c.9., traffic calming, landscaping, streetscapes, etc.).

Recommendation #4: As deve lopment intensifies in the Dishict, it is recommended to periodically monitor parking conditions to determine if residents are parking on-street, or within surrounding neighborhoods. If so determined, develop and implement a program to administer and enforce a Residential Permit Parking Program (RPPP),
7,-Jl Krnlsv.H0n
L-,I/ \ arulGsoc?tss,rnc.

J' December 9,2008

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

City of Folsom Historic District Folsom,
CaliforniaDRAFT Parking Implementation Plan Update
Criteria for triggering the need to implement pennit parking also need to be established, There are two purposes for these criteria: a) for Historic District residents to park in public spaces within the District area, and b) to minimize impacts of spilloverparking in surrounding neighborhoods (District visitors parking in the adjacent neighborhoods).

Criteria for a) includes: More than l0 percent of the public parking spaces are being utilized by Historic District residents (e.g,, overnight parking) on a regular basis. Criteria for b) includes: A neighborhood association registered with the City's Planning Department circulates a petition, and obtains signatures for 60 percent or lnors of the households in the area. It is also critical that the City has conducted a parking study to demonstrate that spillover parking is occurring.

The City of Folsom has an ongoing neighborhood Permit Parking ordinance which will enable neighborhoods to establish permit parking zones. Also, recent field obseruations indicate spillover parking into adjacent neighborhoods, particularly in the vicinity of the intersection of Wool Street and F'igueroa Street. This spillover parking could be because customers/visitors are not fully utilizing the public parking lots available within the District, and would like to park closer to their destinations.

In the near-term, the City does not need to implement an RPPP for neighborhoods adjaccnt to the intersection of Wool Street and Figueroa Street. However, the City should continue to monitor this, and other neighborhoods for spillover parking as growth intensifiss within the District. A RPPP is an inconvenience for residents, and should be avoided as long as practical.

The long-term strategy is to establish an RPPP, if found to be needed. A RPPP should be irnplemented gradually, and applied only to neighborhoods that are experiencing spillover impacts. If implementation of RPPP in one neighborhood is determined to push the impact to an adjacent neighborhood, the RPPP should be expanded to that adjacent neighborhood. .5. Establish Public Parking Phasing Threshold
As per the parking anaiysis, the future parking supply (on-street and off-street) within the District is ?30 spaces. The estimated existing parking demand for a weekday is 420 spaces which is approximately 50 percent of the future parking supply. The parking demand for planned/approved projects within the Disrict is estimated to be 256 spaces. With the construction of all plarmed/approved projects, the parking demand of676 spaces (existing + planned/approved projecs) would be approximately 79 percent of the future parking supply within the District, The parking analysis indicated an additional 121,850 SF of commercial development is feasible within the District without exceeding the parking capacity of a future parking structure. A422 space parking structure is proposed at the existing Trader Lane Lot, which will in turn eliminate 125 off- street parking spaces. With the elimination of the Trader Lane Lot, the parking demand of 676 spaces (existing + planned/approved projects) would be approximately 93 percent of the future parking supply within the District. Typically, the construction of any new parking facility begins when the parking demand reaches 85 percent ofthe parking supply. This approach ensures that enough parking spaces are available during the period of construction. Accordingly, the construction of the proposed parking structure at the Trader Lane Lot should begin when the parking demand ofplanned/approved projects reaches 80 percent (205 spaces).

Recommendation #5: The City should start construction ofthe parking structure at the Trader Lane lot when the district-wide parking demand reaches approxitnately 85 percent ofthe available parking supply at the time, or when approximately 80 percent of the planned/approved projects' parking demand occurs within the District.
7-fl KinbY-Hom
L I7 \ and Atsochtes. rnc,
34 Deccmber 9, 2008

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Gity of Folsom Historic District
DRAFT Parking Implementation Plan Update
Folsom,
Californla
In the near-term, the implementation of planned/approved projects should be closely rnonitored to determine when 80 percent of the development's parking demand is reached. Any additional loss of parking spaces within the District should also be closely monitored.

In the long-term, the construction of a 422 spaoe parking structure should begin when the parking demand within the District reaches 85 percent of the available parking supply.

6. Estsblish Loading and Delivery Stutegies
Loading areas for the delivery of goods, merchandise, and supplies is essential for the eoonomic health of the District. Deliveries should be accommodated through a combination of on-site loading docks, on-street loading zones restricted to certain hours, and permanent on-stroet loading areas.

Larger development projects should provide on-site loading.

Smaller, or otherwise constrained sites may be served by on-street loading zones that are restricted to loading in the early morning hours and afterward revert to public parking. These loading aroas are project-specific, but should be selected to serve several properties, These restricted loading areas should be as convenient as possible to the service entrances of the buildings they serve, but if not feasible, loading zones should be on side streets or in the rear ofthe buildings.

The District should provide several permanent on-street loading zones distributed in all three zones to permit deliveries throughout the day. The City's Municipal Code requires commercial uses where large amounts ofgoods are received and shipped to provide adequate loading andunloading space to handle the volume and frequency of the truck traffic (Section 17.57.060). The City requires the loading zones be a minimum of l0-feet wide, 35-feet long, and 14-feet high.

Recommendation ff6a: For large developments, the City should reconrnend on-site loading and unloading zones.

Currently, the City's Municipal Code does not require large developments to provide on-site loading and unloading zones, which puts the burden upon on-street parking spaces to serve as ioading and unloading zones. For these large developments, additional on-street parking spaces are required (as per Municipal Code Section 17 .57 .060) which are likely to reduce the general availability of on-street parking spaces for customers/visitors within the District. Therefore, it is recommended that in the ncar-term the City add a provision within their Code which requires large developments to provide on-site loading and unloading zones.

Recommendation #6b: Based on the location of existing and anticipated commercial businesses, identiff and implement restrioted and permanent Ioading zones on curbs with parallel parking.

With the amount of development proposed within the District, sufficient on-street loading and unloading spaces should be provided to accommodate the needs of the future developments. The following locations are recommendcd for on-strcet loading and unloading zones (Note: the exact location of existing loading and unloading zones are not known and the recommendations are made based on anticipated future demand from proposed developments):
r Trader Lane between Wool Street and Riley Street
r Sutter Street between Reading Street and Decatur Street r Sutter Street between Decatur Street and Wool Street
r Sutter Street between Wool Street and Riley Street
o Sutter Street between Riley Street and Scott Street
r Leidesdorff Street between Gold Lake Drive and Wool Street o Scott Street between Riley Sheet and Sutter Street
7-fl Kknhv.Ho{n
L.f/ \ anoAssoqarcs,tnc,
35 December 9, 2008

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

City of Folsom Historic District
DRAFT Parking tmplementation Plan Update
Folsom,
California
The City should maintain flexibility to change the location of loading zones in response to changes in development. In the near-tenn, some on-street parking spaces along the recommended sections should be designated as loading and unloading zones during ths 6ff:peak hours.

In the long-term, some of these off-peak loading and unloading zones, which are heavily utilized, should be designated as permanent loading and unloading zones without time restrictions, This approach should only be done ifthe loss ofon-sfreet parking spaces does not significantly affect the parking supply, and additional on-street parking spaces exist within the sunoundings. The timing for permanent loading and unloading zones could also be coordinated with the construction of the Trader Lane parking structure , as the parking supply within the District will be increased and the loss of on- street parking spaces is compensated.

7. Implement On-Street Parking Management Strategies
Most streets within the District have on-street parking. Along Leidesdorff Street, Wool Street, and Sutter Street, angled on-street parking is provided. Some of the on-street spaces are delineated with pavement markings, but most streets have no parking space delineation. Under future conditions there are a total of 239 on-street parking spaces. Table 12 of this report details the on-street parking locations within the District.

On-street parking is used by ernployees, customers, and visitors of the District. To some extent, existing on-street parking is used by LRT commuters as parking enforcement is not strictly provided.

Proper on-street parking management will increase its efficiency by making sure that adequate parking is available within the District to accommodate short-term peak parking demand. Shoppers, diners, and commercial visitors will comprise the majority of peak period parking demands in future Folsom. This group of users has short-term parking needs (3 hours or less). Therefore, the time restriction and potential pricing strategies discussed below are intended to serve this group ofusers.

Time Restrictians
Time Restrictions are intended to maximize parking tumover of the most convenient and therefore, the most valuable, spaces in the District. The objective of this strategy is to reserve on-sheet parking spaces in proximity of retail land uses within the District for customers, while providing unrestricted parking in the periphery for empioyees or residents.

Existing on-street parking occupancy results indicate peak weekday demand of approximately 80 percent to 85 percent and the peak to be between 1l:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. During the weekend (Friday evening), the peak on-street parking demand is approximately 75 percent with the peak time between 6:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. Parking demand in many downtowns peaks around noon to l:00 p.m. as this is the time that retail/restaurant uses peak during weekdays. The District weekday peak is indicative of a predominantly retail/restaurant-based commercial mix. For the weekend, the observations suggest on-street parking spaces are being used by restaurant users, which peak around dinner time within the study area.

Approximately 75 percent of the District's on-street parking should be restricted to short-term parking. Whilc time rcstrictions canvary depending on the nccds of thc adjaccnt land uscs, the basic time limit should encourage the desired tumover (typically I t/r lo 2 hours). Longer term parking shoutd be provided within the immediate periphery, or near outer ends of the District (e.g. Sutter Street east ofScott Street, Canal Street, Reading Street, and Bridge Street). These streets should be restricted to l0-hours, or left unrestricted in the near-term. The City may provide shorter time restrictions for street segments at the request of property owners. 7-fl Kiml€v.Hom
Lff \ anoA!$msps,inc,
36 December 9, 2008

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

City of Folsom Historic District
DRAFT Parking Implementation Plan Update
Folsom,
California
The fbllowing streets within the Distriot ourrently have time restrictions:
r Wool Street: Between Sutter Sheet and Figueroa Streel (2-hour limit) e Wool Street: Between Sutter Street and Leidesdorff Street (3-hour limit) o Sutter Strest; Between Wool Street and Reading Street (3-hour limit) r Gold Lake Drive (3-hour limit)
. Decatur Street: Between Sutter Street and Figueroa Street (3-hour limit) r Leidesdorff Street: Between Wool Street and Gold Lake Drive (3-hour limit) However, these time restrictions are not enforced, and do not cover all streets within the District.

Recent parking turnover surveys conducted in January 2008 show vehicles parked throughout the day at some of these on-street parking spaces,
Criteria/Guidelines for Time Restrictions
a
a
a
Maintain consistent time restrictions within the District. Avoid piecemeal time restrictions unless there are compelling reasons to change.

Time restriction serving the commercial core should be 2 hours (the average time parking in downtown's nationally is 90 minutes).

Properly owners may petition for time restrictions less than 2 hours on the sheets which their property is located, but the change should be applied to the entire street. The majority of properly owners fronting the street (at least 5l percent) must agree to the change in restriction. The Cify may require a parking hrrnover survey to support changes to the time restriction.
3O-minute time restrictions may be used for streets serving very high intensity retail activity where rapid turnover is required (e.g., post office, banks, ATMs, dry cleaners, etc.).

Long-term parking (no time restriction except standard 72hour limit) should not be signed.

Designation of unrestricted parking should be based on whether or not:
o The parking area is conducive to employee and resident parking outside of the District;
o There is adcquatc on-strect parking capacity (85 percent or less occupied); and o The current adjacent uses on either side ofthe sheet do not require high turnover parking.

Unrestricted long term parking should be provided adjacentto residential development (not mixed use) and in the periphery of the Historic District based on the above criteria. a
a
Recommendttion #7u Change the existing 3-hour parking restrictions to a 2-hour parking restriction within the District. Install revised parking restriction signs on these streets. Consistent enforcement of the time restriction is necessary to maintain adherence.

Recommendation #7b: Adopt the time-restriction recommendations described above. Identi$ 30- minute parking zones on streets serving high intensity retail or service activity. Also identify long- term parking within the imrnediate periphery or near outer ends of the District (e .g. Sutter Street east of Scott Street, Canal Street, Reading Sheet, and Bridge Sheet).

In the near term, no change to 3-hour parking restriction is needed. However, enforcement of time restriction is recommended to maintain adherence and to acclimate downtown parkers that enforcement is being consistently applied. Parking tickets, which only give a waming to vehicles parked longer than the time allowed, may be issued during the acclamation period.

FItl Kimlev-Hom
\I7 \ arrjAi$ooates,,nc
5t December 9, 2008

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

City of Folsom Historlc Dlstrict
DRAFT Parking Implementation Plan Update
Folsom,
California
In the long-term, as the development intensifies within the District, it is recommended that all on- street parking within the commercial core be limited to 2 hours and parking tickets (appropriate amount should be decided by the City) be issued to vehicles violating the time limits. Parking enforcement could also be coordinated with the construction of Trader Lane parking structure as more parking will be available for long-temr parkers,

8. Implement Off-Street Public Parking Management Stategies Within the District, off-street parking lots were observed to have occupancy averaging 58 percent between I l:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m.(with 7l percent occupancy at 12:00 noon), then a drop to 43 percent and 52 percent between 4:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. Between 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m., the parking occupancy increases to 70 percent and 78 percent before dropping dramatically to 2 I percent at 8:00 p.m. The increase in the early evening coincides with the peak dining period. The peak off- street parking demand occurs a'17:00 p.m. with 78 percent occupancy.

Nearly all existing off-street parking lots within the Dishict have a 3-hour time limit on parking.

However, these time limit parking restrictions are not enforced, and the recent parking tumover survcy conducted in January 2008 showed vehicles parked in off-street public parking lots throughout the day.

Recommendation #8a: Restripe existing otT-street parking lots to enhance the delineation of the parking spaces.

Recommendation #8b: Remove existing 3-hour time limit from all off-street parking lots and charge a parking fee based on number of hours par*ed.

Removing the existing 3'hour tirne limit and charging a parking fee based on the number of hours parked will provide options for employees, conlmuters, and visitors who need to park for a longer duration. The parking fee charged will provide revenue which can be used for the operation and maintenance of the off-street parking facilities.

In the near-term, the City does not need to make any changes and should continue with the 3-hour time limit for all oflstreet parking lots within the District. As the development within the District intensifies, the City should start parking enforcement by issuing waming tickets.

In the long-term, the City should remove the 3-hour parking limit from all off-street parking lots and institute parking charges based on the number of hours parked. Also, during the construction of the Trader Lane parking structure, the City should identify 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.

The City should encourage employees to utilize off-street parking during the construction of Trader Lane structure-
Recommendation #8c: Identify off-street parking lots within the vicinity of the District, and encourage employees to use these parking lots during the construction of the Traders Lane parking structure.

9. Estublish and Implement Valet Parking
A total of approximately 39,000 SF of future restaurant use is either planned or estimated within the District. Identiffing on-street and off-street valet parking locations within the District will provide much needed convenience for the restaurant patrons. Restaurants peak 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. 7,-Jl Krmlov.Hom
\I7 \ and&sooates,rnc.
38 Decembcr 9, 2008

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

City of Folsom Historic District
DRAFT Parking Implementation Plan Update
Folsom,
Californla
Recommcndation #9: Almost exclusively used for restaurants, this strategy increases parking capacity as well as convenience for restaurant patrons. The City should permit restaurants, or other commercial businesses, to institute valet parking through a conditional use pennit, including permission to reserve one to two parking spaces in front of the businesses to conductvalet operations.

Valet parking can utilize private parking facilities through agreements with the facilities' owners.

In the near and long term, the City rnay consider valet parking operations to be used by restaurants during the evening (6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.). This requires establishing conditional use permits, reserving portions ofoff-street public facilities for valet parking, and allowing reservation ofcurb space for valet operations.
10, Implement Additional On-Steet Parking
One approach to increasing the public parking supply is to implement angled parking spaces on appropriate existing streets. The minimum street width to accommodate angled parking on one side ofthe street and parallel parking on the other side is 53-feet for 60-degree angled parking, and 50-feet for 45-degree angled parking. These street widths allow for a wider lane adjacent to the angled parking so that vehicles backing out ofthe parking spaces do not encroach into the opposing travel lane. A minimum curb to curb width of SO-feet is needed for streets to have angled parking.

Currently, angled parking exists on Leidesdorff Street, west of Wool Street, and on Wool Street, north of Sutter Street. Streets with sufficient widths to accommodate angled parking should be identified within the District to increase on-street parking supply.

Recommendation #10a: Identify streets within the District with sufficient widths to accommodatc angled parking.

In the near-term, additional on-street parking spaces as suggested by the City's S-Year Parking Managernent Plan (Ianuary 2008) should be implemented. Additional on-street parking spaces which invoive the Trader Lane Lot should be coordinated with the construction of the Trader Lane Lot parking structure.

In thc long-tcrm, the City should conduct a detailcd study to identify streets within the District where angled parking could be implemented.

11. Establish Pricing Strategies
Currently within the Dishict, parking is provided free of charge. There is minimal parking enforcement and, therefore, no source of revenue forthe City. As per the City's S-Year Parking Management Plan (Ianuary 2008), the installation of parking meters within the District is not recommended, citing the installation and maintenance costs, as well as the potential of diverting funds away from other more beneficial improvements. It is also speculated that the implementation of parking meters could drive customers away to nearby shopping districts without parking fbes.

While the perception of detening patrons away from the District may be true fbr the near-term, it may play less of a role for ftiture conditions. The District can accommodate future commercial development of approximately 121,850 SF in addition to the already planned/approved projects. The future development of the District is likely to attract more customers, and lack of available on-street parking due to time limit violations, and no parking enfbrcement would also discourage them from visiting. Parking meters aretypicalLy found in most downtowns within California.

In the long-term, the City should install parking meters for on-street parking spaces on streets where the recommended two-hour parking restriction is implemented. As suggested in the City's S-Year Plan, the City should continue to explore the feasibility of creating either a full-time parking enforcement position, or using help from volunteer agencies to perfbnn parking enforcement, The revenue generated from the parking meters could be used to fund the parking enforcement officer, 7'-Jl Klr$rr-Hom
\I/ I adlssocraras.inc
39 December 9, 2008

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

City of Folsom Historic District
DRAFT Parkinq Implementation Plan Update
Folsom,
California
Recommendation #lla: In the long-term, the City should install parking meters for on-street parking on streets where the recommended two-hour parking restriction is implemented.

Recommendation #11b: Create a full-time parking enforcement officer position. Installation of parking meters should be gradual and should start with streets serving retail/restaurant uses which require short-term parking. Also, strict parking enforcement should be performed for effective utilization of on-strcct parking spaccs. As development intensifies within the Disnict, parking meters could be installed on additional streets.

Instead of parking meters, the City should consider installing newer parking machines which can accommodate various payment methods (coins, bills, credit and debit cards, and by cellular telephone or Intemet), charge only for time parked, incorporate multiple rates, and have the flexibility to vary rates by time of the day. One parking machine could be installed on each street for all on-street parking spaces on that street. The customer using the on-street parking space on that street buys a parking permit from the maohine tbr the time parked and displays this parking permit on the dashboard ofthe vehicle for verification by the parking enforcement officer. These newer parking machines also produce receipts and record data for auditing, thus preventing fraud, and also record parking utilization data for planning purposes.

Unhundled Cost of Parking
The cost of parking is typically included in the sales price, or rent of housing. While not a common practice today, the City should provide developers flexibility to separate the cost of parking from the cost or rent of the units, as long as the maximum parking requirements for the development, as a whole, are met. This approach provides a financial incentive for, and attracts, those households with Iow or zero auto ownership. The developer may be able to separate the cost of parking from all the units, a portion of the units, or offer additional spaces for rnonthly lease. It would be important that buyers and renters are made aware that they are not paying more for parking, but that the cost of parking is simply being separated out from the other costs of purchasing or renting a unit.

Recommendation #llc: Explore allowing developers to unbundle the cost ofparking from dwelling unit sales price or rent. Let developers decide whether there is a market for implementing this innovative parking technique.

12. Establish Parking Demund Reduction Strategies
This strategy is aimed at reducing the parking demand within the District. This approach could be accomplished by encouraging altemate modes of travel (transit, bicycle, and walk), by providing shuttle services which connects remote parking, and by guaranteeing rides home. The City's S-Year Parking Management Plan (January 2008) identified a number of parking demand reduction methods that could be accomplished within the District to reduce the dependence on parking. The methods discussed inthe Plan included:

Transit lncentives: "Encourage use of Light Rail and bus transit by subsidizing transit fares and allowing flexible work schedules."
Remote Parkine with Shuttle: "Introducing an off-site location for employee parking and providing a safe and convenient shuttle system can displace long-term parked vehicles out of the Dishict and open up more space for visitors. This can be done on a regular basis or during special events, but may require employee incentives to encourage its use." Pool Vehicles / Guaranteed Rides Home: "Employers can create incentives by guaranteeing the employee that they will have a ride to their car or home at any time necessary. Some districts will also purchase a small number of fuel efficient, low-cost vehicles that will be available to any employee that needs to use one to run an errand or for overnight use." 7'-fl Krmbv.Hom
L. I/ I andf6soqapsinc.
40 December 9,2008

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Gity of Folsorn Historic District
DRAFT Parking Implementation Plan Update
Folsom,
Ca lifornia
Valet/Pedicab Services: "The Chamber of Cornmerce created valet parking and volunteer pedicab prograns last year, which were successful methods of improving the use of less desirable parking spaces", The City should continue the successful implementation of the ValeVPedicab program last year and expand if possible.

Improving Walk and Bicycle Access: "A consistent nefwork of safe bicycle and pedestrian trials, coupled with storage and shower facilities can promote non-motorized transportation rrse, fieeing up additional parking for customers". The Plan identif,iedthe cunent Streetscape effort and bike storage facility in the Rail Block public parking structure as near-term parking shategies.

Recommendation #12: Impiement the parking demand reduction strategies suggested by the City's S-Year Parking Managenrent Plan (January 2008).

In the near-term, the City should encourage employers to subsidize transit fares, continue the ValetlPedicab program, and provide bike storage facilities within the District, In the longtenn, the City should identify remote parking areas outside the District and encourage ernployee parking within these parking areas with convenient shuttle service (financed through a Business Improvement District or service provided by RT).
13, Address LRT Commuter Parking in District
The prcscncc of Light Rail Transit (LRT) introduccs a layer of complexity in the evaluation and assessment of parking management strategies in the Historic District. A recent strategy to address the inevitable presence of LRT users within the new Rail Block parking structwe was developed in which 100 LRT parking permits would be provided, for a fee, with an established expiration date.

Furthermore, Dishict-wide, various time limit parking restrictions have been implemented to further combat the effect of these daily, long-term parking users.

Recommendation #13: It is recommended that the City institute simple, straight forward parking management strategies that are easily understood by all users of the District's parking supply, including the new Rail Block parking structure. The most effective parking management strategy will simpliff enforcement, and will meet the expectations of current and future Historic District rrsers. With that said, it is also recommended that the City continue to preserve the ultimate intended use of the Rail Block parking structure, with minimal, strategic, short-term deviations to most effectively address current economic, development, and user conditions.

As discussed later in this document, the near-term conditions of the Rail Block parking sttucture are recommended to be considered as follows:
o Level 4 (roof) is the least desirable parking, as it is uncovered and requires the most circuitous routc to acccss. This lcvel should be utilized by the longcst tcrm parkcrs including light rail and employees.
o Level I (ground level) is the most desirable parking, as it offers the most convenient access to light rail, adjacent existing commercial uses, and the future Rail Block development. This level should be utilized by the shortest term parkers including primarily Historic District visitors.
r Levels 2 and 3 are essentially overflow parking f<rr Level 4 (roof) and Level 1.

The City's contemplated 6-hour maximum time limit within the structure may be a viable temporary option, but it is viewed as a fatal flaw in the long-term management of the parking structure. Parking structures are typically intended for long-term parkers (6+ hours), especially employees, with the shorter-term parkers using on-street and other off-street parking supply. 7-fl Kmbv.Hofn
L.'I/ \ anoAssoqarss, inc.
41 December 9, 2008

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

City of Folsom Historic District
DRAFT Parking Implementation Plan Update
Folsom,
Ca lifornia
Light rail and employee passes could be considered as an alternative to the 6-hour maximum time limit, although it does not address long-tcrm custorners (customers who park longer than six hours are rare). As such, it may be advantageous to designate floors I and 2 with a 3-4 hour limit for customers (must be enfbrced), and a lloors 3 and 4 with light rail permits and employee permits (also must be enforced).

Also as discussed later in this document, in the long-tenn, the light rail parking issue needs to be addressed because, ideally, over-management ofthe garage parking is not recomrnended, as a simple enforcement system is ultimately desirable. Considering the increase in light rail ridership, the City and Regional Transit should address the long-term parking demands (i.e., remote parking, new RT structure, etc.).

Furthermore, it is acknowledged that the actual parking demand at the Historic Folsom light rail station may be limited more by the capacity of the Regional Transit Gold Line, as opposed to the supply of parking. This theory should be considered in the ultimate parking supply decisions that are made within the Historic District.

Summary of Recommended Strategies
Near-Term Strategies
The near-termparking strategies identified in the Parking Management and Implementation Stratcgics section above include the following:
a. Increase the current parking ratio from I space per 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 occurs within the District,
d. Add provision to the Ciry's Municipal Code requiring large developments to provide on-site loading and unloading zones.
e. Identifo 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 acclitnation period. g. Identify time restricted, on-street valet parking spaces to be used by restaurants during the mid-day (noon to 2:00 p.rn.) 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 continne operating the Valet/Pedicab program. Also, identi$r additional bike storage facilities within the District. j. Implcment City recommended parking rnanagement strategy within the Rail Block parking structure.

Long-Term Strategies
The long-term parking strategies identified in the Parking Management and Implementation Strategies section above include the following:
a. Adopt separate parking ratios for retail (l space per 350 SF), restaurants (l space per 170 SF for fine dining, and I space per 2 I 0 SF for casual dining), and for office (1 space per 460 SF) uses, b. Establish and implement in-lieu parking fees. The timing of the in-lieu parking fees could coincide with the City's decision (if implemented) 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.
ff?t KmlarHon
L.fZ \ smAssocnres,rrp.
42 Decernbsr 9,2008

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

City of Folsom Historic Dastrict
DRAFT Parking Implementation Plan Update
Folsom,
California
d. Start construction 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/approvedprojects'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 lots, and institute parking charges based on the number of hours parked. Also, during the construction of the Trader Lane parking structure, the City should identify 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. Identify permanent off-sheet valet parking spaces for existing and future restaurant uses throughout the District, h. Conduct a detailed study to identiSr 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 retail/restaurant 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 situation within the District.

FUNDING STRATEGIES
This section provides information about the different types of parking costs and different financing options and strategies, The information focuses on structured, free parking, as the City of Folsom plans to construct a new structured parking garage without implementing development funding mechanisms. Based upon the City's stated objectives and findings from other sections of this report, general information that applies to most oities is provided in this report, as well as specific ideas and recommendations for the City of Folsom.

The City of Folsom is not unique in its objectives to provide efficient parking without yet knowing how all of the costs will be paid. And like many cities, parking structures are seen as a catalyst to development and redevelopment activities. Most structured parking facilities are not self-supporting and, even when there are operating revenues, they are often insufficient to cover operating expenses and debt service. Because ofthis reality, it is often not possible fbr an owner to obtain 100 percent financing on their parking project without subsidies of some kind. Furthermore, lnany municipalities are in the process of eliminating parking fiom their budgets and intend to remain to be involved in managing the parking without being the sole provider of funding and financing for parking,
While there are many cities similar to Folsom that intend to become or remain responsible for the costs of parking, they should be aware that there are a number of strategies that have been successfully used to linance parking facility capital projects. Common financing methods include federal grants, tax-increment financing, taxes from business irnprovement districts or parking tax districts, and net revenues from other facilities.

These and other options are described in this report. To determine the most appropriate means of financing for Folsom, a market and financial analysis study may need to be completed. These financing decisions typically are approved by city councils. Market and financial studies are often completed by an economist with a parking prof'essional providing existing and forecast demand data. When user fees (paid parking revenues) are apart ofthe financing equation, the projected demand and revenues ofa proposed parking facility projcct arc quantified, and so is the extent to which the user fees will covor the operating expenses and debt service. Ifduring the course ofsuch a study it is determined that operating revenues are projected to 7'ffl KimlerrHom
\.I/ \ anoAisocntss, lru.
43 December 9,2008

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

City of Folsom Historic Distrlct
DRAFT Parking Implementatlon Plan Update
Folsom,
California
adequately cover operatitrg costs and debt service, then there is no need to identi$r additional funding sources.

However, for those projects that do not "pencil out", a subsidy is required. This subsidy may be defincd and quantified through this study process. Since parking is intended to remain free in the Historic District, the Cify would be seeking subsidy or total financing.

Parking Costs
Parking costs are divided into two categories - capital costs for construction of parking infrastructure, and operations and maintenance costs which are typically combined. Both kinds of cost need to be considered for funding, and each may require separatc funding sources because of the timing for when the financing is needed. Capital costs are infrequent, but may be large sums. Operations and maintenance costs are regular (typically budgeted for annually), smaller costs, Capital (or development) costs and operating/maintenance costs vary widely. Land acquisition costs, construction costs, soft costs, and operating expenses are types of costs that should be considered during the planning phase ofa parking project.

Estimating the cost of constructing a new parking structure is dependent upon several variables, including the number of spaces needed, the number of parking shucture levels, the size/dimensions of the site, the architectural features for the structure, and whether the garage will have ground floor uses. Other variables that affect parking structure costs include the type of flow system (one-way or two-way drivc aislcs), the number of access points, the amount of underground levels, and the size and shape of the site. Certain site dimensions and topography can make one site more efficient and less costly than other sites. In the event that the Cify chooses to build parking structures on multiple sites, the cost per space may vary depending on site characteristics and structure sizes. These factors need to be considered in the site selection process.

Land Acquisition Costs \
Although not a factor in the District's proposed use of the Trader Lane site, land costs are often not included during the preparation of a parking project's economic analysis. In many cases, the institution that is planning a parking facility, an airport, hospital, municipality, univcrsity, ctc., already owns the land that serves as the site for the proposed parking facility. However, in those cases where land costs do need to be recouped, land acquisition costs become a significant part of the equation. There is not rule of thumb for lypical land acquisition costs. These costs vary significantly from one location to another and depend upon a multitude of issues including access, density of development, surrounding land uses, income potential, etc. Land acquisition costs can often add from $15 to $100 or more per square foot ofland area to the overall project cost.

Construction Costs
The most significant variable impacting construction or "hard" costs is the type of parking improvement.

Surface parking lots can be constructed for as little as $ 1,000 per space or less fbr a basic paving and striping project, and as much as $3,000 or more per space for a grander projeot featuring an elaborate drainage systems, premium light fixtures, signage and graphics, and landscaping.

Structured parking costs represent comparatively higher costs per space than surface parking, and typically range anywhere from $8,000 to $30,000 or more per space, depending on the project particulars. The low end of this range will likely buy a simple concrete parking structure with limited aesthetical appeal. More unique architectural features can drive the cost upward significantly.

Soft Costs
To derive a total project cost, other costs must be added to the constructi<ln and land costs. These additional costs are referred to as "soft" costs, and may include items such as a construction contingency, architecturaVengineering fecs, soils and materials testing, debt service reserve funds, legal fbes, and financing oosts. Soft costs can vary significantly but typically fall within l5 to 35 percent of construction costs.

Tffl l0{nkHo{n
L. 17 \ ardlssocbrss, lnc,
44 Dcccmher 9, 2008

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

City of Folsom Historic Dlstrict
DRAFT Parklng Implementatlon Plan Update
Folsom,
California
Operating Expenses
Operating expenses of parking facilities also vary dramatically. Variations are due to geographical location, size of facility staffing patterns, method of operation, and local legal requirements. These expenses include enforcement, the cost of utilities, supplies, daily maintenance, lighting, cashiering, management and accounting services, on-site security, structural maintcnance, landscaping and insurance. Multi-story structures may require additional costs for fne control equipment and elevators, and underground parking may require mechanical ventilation. Public parking facilities typically do not pay taxes.

Annual O&M costs for a parking structure are dependent upon several variables, including whether or not the garage is free or for pay (which would require perconnel), whether or not there are rcstrooms, and how large the structure is or how many levels of parking it provides. Annual costs per space range from about $200 for basic maintenance, up to $800 for a facility with attendants.

Types of insurance coverage include comprehensive liability, the garage operator's legal liability, fire and extended coverage, workers' compensation, equipment coverage, money and security coverage (theft occurring on the premises), blanket honest coverage (employee theft), and rent and business intemrption coverage, (structural damage resulting from natural phenomena). Annual operating expenses for structured parking facilities typically range from $200 to more than $800 per space. These figures exclude parking, properfy, and sales taxes.

Financing Strategies
The financing mechanisms discussed in this section are typical strategies used by cities similar in size to Folsom. A menu of options is provided fbr the City to use to finance future parking costs. The decision- making process for the parking facility financing should begin with a general agreement regarding basic principles and end with a more detailed approach for resolving funding, management, and cost allocation issues. Kimley-Horn has identified a number of guiding principlcs that can guide future actions and decisions regarding the sources and use offunds for parking facilities. A consensus among key stakeholders on general principles will help guide and resolve financing-related issues as they arise throughout the implementation pfocess.

Guiding Principals
The City's financing strategy should be guided by the following prinoiples; r The improvement program that is ultimately adopted must be financially feasible, i.e., funding sources must be identified, and quantified that match programmed expenditures. In addition, maintcnancc, opcrations and depreciation must be considered prior to project development. Given the significant cost associated with consffuction ofparking facilities, it will be important to develop a strategic approach to project financing and prioritization of investments. As a general principal, the investment in new parking facilities should occur only after adequate funding sources have been identified and committed for both one-time and ongoing costs. Consequently, the actual project schedule and phasing will need to be adapted to funding rcalitics. In addition, since the construction ofparking facilities generally leads to Operations and Maintenance (O&M) costs, capital investment must be matched with increased operation revenues,
o Innovative ways ofcovering project costs should be pursued based on a concerted publio-private partnership and leveraging the diverse spectrum of potential sources available. The large cost of meeting the parking needs suggests that existing sources and standard techniques will need to be leveraged and expanded in a number ofways. Private funding through fees and assessments will also be required, and the support of local stakeholders and the Folsom community will be critical for success. Under some proposed financing scenarios, voter approved funding mechanisms may be necessary. In addition, funding mechanisms and programs should be established early on so as to build up reserve accounts that grow over time. In general, it is anticipated that the financing program will be based on a concerted public-private partnership. 7-fl Krnlov.tlo.n
\. I7 \ arnt&sooate
"'c.
45 December 9,2008

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

City of Folsom Historic District
DRAFT Parking Implementation Plan Update
Folsom,
California
a The costs associated with parking facilities should be allocated in a proportional and equitable manner and, to the extent possible, aoross a range of potential beneficiaries and user groups associated with the facilities. No single financing mechanism is expected to cover the full cost of construction and operating a parking structure. Rather, a combination of sources will be required in order to provide adequate funding and allocate costs among differcnt groups. The section below outlines several financing scenarios developed to illustrate the range offinancial responsibilities that could be assigned to various entities, and provides further detail on the nature and potential applicability of various funding mechanisms.

A lternalive Financing Strategies
The following is an overview of the most commonly used strategies for financing parking facilities, most of which fall short ofgenerating operating revenues that are sufticient to cover operating expenses and debt service:

Federal Grants
At least two potential funding sources are available at the federal level. Location, intended use ofthe facility, and availability of grant money are the variables that typically govem whether a prqject receives federal grant money. The U.S. Department of Transportation offers two types of grants thatmay be applicable to aparking project: Federal Transit Capital Investment Grants and Federal Transit Formula Grants. The capital grant can be applied to virtually any infrastructure improvement pertaining to the cstablishment or improvement of mass transit systems. Qualified applicants include: public agencies, states, municipalities, public corporations, boards and commissions, and private agencies tlrough contractual agreements with a public agency grantee. Qualifying parties must submit an application with detailed requirements and approval of the project by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).

Tax Increment Financinq
Implementation of a tax increment finance ("TIF") district is a common financing mechanism ernployedby municipalities. Tax increment financing is a way to usc tax rcvenue growth produced by an increase in the tax base of a specified area to fund improvemonts. A TIF is an increasingly viable solution to funding the development ofneeded infrastructure, including structured parking. Projects are taxed through an anticipated increase in the area's property tax revenues. TIF districts do not generate tax revenues by increasing tax rates.

Rather, the TIF district generates revenues by permitting the municipality to temporarily capture the tax revenues generated by the enhanced valuation ofproperties resulting from various redevelopment proj€cts.

Palking Tax Districts
A parking tax district typically addresses a narrow selection ofissues directly related to parking. In cases where the municipality is the sole provider of parking, the collection of parking taxes tends to be applied in a uniform manner on an assessed value basis or as a fee per space based on zoning parking standards or requirements, and fypically with a partial exemption for parking spaces provided above a threshold peraentage. Typically, no commercial properly is 100 percent exempt unless its owner provides 100 percent of the parking requirements mandated through the zoning ordinance within the district. Single-family residential property is usually exempt, but rnultlfamily aparlments usually are not exempt. Exarnples of some California cities with this strategy are provide below.

Covina, Califurnia has a vehicle Parking District Tax. This tax is assessed only on the difference between the number of spaces provided and the number required by the zoning ordinance, There are no exceptions to this tax for owners who provide parking, Alhambra, Califurnia includes parking within a Business Assessment District Tax. This tax is assessed uniformly on all commercial property based on the gross receipts of the business. Because this tax supports functions other thanparking, such as beautification, cleaning signage, etc., there are no exceptions for parking provided.

Tffl Kinlev-Hom
L-1. 17 \ andAisochteernc,
46 December 9, 2008

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

City of Folsom Historic District Folsom,
CaliforniaDRAFT Parkinq Implementation Plan Update
Fullerton, California owns almost all of the ofGstreet parking within the city, and all businesses within the parking district were assessed a pruking district tax to retire bonds for the construction of parking. No exemptions were offered as almost no properties supplied their own parking needs.

Because the bond debt was retired several years ago, thc parking tax district was also retired.

General Oblieation Bonds
General obligation bonds obtain the lowest possible interest rate of cost of borowing for any given municipality. Because the full faith and credit of the municipality is pledged to such bonds, the rate of interest will reflect the best that the cornmunity has to offcr. The primary way for a rnunicipality to improve on its own full faith and credit pledge to a bond issue is to purchase municipal bond insurance.

The general obligation bonds of local governments are most commonly paid from ad valorem property taxes and other general revenues. These bonds are considered the most secure of all municipal debt and are lirnited in California by Proposition 13 to debt authorized by a vote of two thirds of voters in the case of local governlnents.

Revenue Bonds
When revenue bonds are issued to finance a parking project, the bond issuer pledges to the bond holders the revenue generated by the parking project. Rcvcnuc bonds are payable only from specifically identified sources ofrevenue, including pledged revenues derived from the operation ofthe financed parking facility, grants, and excise or other taxes. Parking revenue bonds secured solely by the revenues from a single, stand- alone, municipality-owned parking facility are acceptable at a reasonable tax-exempt rate only when irrefutable evidence is presented.

In-Lieu Fees
In-lieu fees are charged to development "in-lieu" of parking that developers would otherwise be required to construct on site. Such fees are generally optional, apply only to new developmcnt, and arc typically collected when building permits are issued. Because different land uses generate different levels of parking demand, cities typically establish a schedule of specifio in-lieu fees for retail, office/light industrial, and lodging uses that reflect variations in demand. This approach assumss that residential development typically constructs its own on-site parking.

Parkine District / Special Assessments
Special assessments are charges to real property based upon a benefit conferred by a public improvement, in this instance, parking. ln order to collect special assessments tiom Historic District property owncrs, the City would need to establish a Parking District. A special assessment would require the supporl of the owners of a majority of the proposed district. Alternatively, the City could generate similar revenues through an increase in the business license tax without voter approval. It is assumsd that in either case residential development would be excluded from this fee.

Business license taxes can be assessed based on the land use of the business. For example, an annual assessment of$0.62 per square foot ofretail restaurants, $0.42 per square foot ofoffice/light industrial, and $0.3 I per square foot of lodging could be charged to the businesses, These fees would be based on future land use projections and would be charged as the land develops. If parking facilities are built before all projected development occurs, the City may experience a funding gap period during which General Fund loans or altemative short-term funding mechanisms would be required to pay for capital costs and operations.

Certifi cates of Participation
A Certificate of Participation (COP) allows the public to purchase a share of the lease revenues paid by a municipal entity for the acquisition or construction of specific equipment, land, or facilities. COP proceeds are then used to fund the project or acquisition. The technique provides long-term financing that does not constitute indebtedness under the state constitutional debt limit and does not require voter approval. 7-Jl Kimlev-Hom
\I7 \ ardAbtocntss, inc.
47 December 9, 2008

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Clty of Folsom Historic Dlstrict
DRAFT Parklnq Implementation Plan Update
Folsom,
California
Repayment of COPs can come from a variety of sources, including general fund revenues or earmarked funds in the general fund such as special tax proceeds or fees. Potential revenues from tax increases and parking meter lbes are discussed below. These sources could also be used to cover operations and maintenance costs.

Conventional Debt Financing
Conventional loans at'e loans that are not insured or guaranteed by a government agency, This method of obtaining funds for a capital improvement project involves a lending process that is often rigorous, and may result in higher financing costs incurred by the bonower. Banks want to lend to parties that have a clear record ofprofitable operations, that generate a cash flow sufficient to repay the load, and that have enough collateral or assets to secure the load. Conventional financing requirements include a clean credit record and no bankruptcies or foreclosures.

Sales Tax Increase
A voter-approved, City-wide sales tax increase could provide a revenue stream to make lease payments on parking structure capital construction. If intended to provide dedicated funding for parking-related projects, this type of sales tax measure would requires a two-thirds majority vote of residents and would depend on significant public support. A general tax increase, in contrast, would require only a simple majority but would not be earmarked specifically for parking-related projects and might be subject to changing budget priorities.

Transient Occupancy Tax Increase
A transient occupancy tax (TOT) is similar to a sales tax increase as it requires two-thirds voter approval if it is to be dedicated to a spccific purpose, or simple majorify approval if it is to be a general tax. A TOT increase could provide a revenue stream to secure COP financing or other fonn ofdebt financing.

Meters. Fees. and Enforcement Fines
Many jurisdictions have been able to partially finance construction of parking skuctures using bonds funded through parking meter revenues and fines, And some jurisdictions utilize meters as a parking management tool to encourage tumover and control employee parking. Ultimately, the ability to generate net revenues from meters (after accounting for enforcement and capital costs) depends upon local parking demand and supply dynamics as well as public policy objectives. For exarnple, larger oities with high parking demand are generally capable of charging higher mster rates and spreading enforcement cost over a larger area, Meter revenues could also provide funding for a portion of ongoing 0&M costs.

Redevelooment Agencv
The Historic Dishict falls within the City's redevelopment area. As new redevelopment occurs in the District, tax increments will accrue to the Redevelopment Agency. While a substantial portion of Redeveloprnent funds are akeady committed io existing projects, some share of tax increment funding may be available for parking structure financing. In addition, RDA-owned land could be sold to generate revenues for parking strucfure construction and operations.

Private Fundinq
In rare cases, private developers may build parking facilities. This generally occurs in dense urban areas, where parking is at a premium and operators are able to charge extremely high parking fees. Given Folsom's size and relative low level ofparking demand, it is unlikely that privatc dcvclopcrs would pursue construction of a parking structure in the City entirely on their own.

Potentially, City-owned land could be provided to a developer with the requirement that development of the properry include a parking facility. However, this option could limit the City's control and flexibility.

Selling City-owned land and using the revenues to cover a portion of parking structure costs would produce similar results while allowing the City greater involvement in project implementation. 7-fl Kimhv.Hom
L. I/ \ andAsocates,,ng,
48 December 9, 2008

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

City of Folsom Historic District
DRAFT Parking Implementation Plan Update
Folsom,
California
Conclusions
There is no such thing as "free parking." Even ifparking is provided free of charge to users, someone pays for the land, construction, and maintenance ,of parking facilities and spaces. Folsom currently provides fiee parking for users in the Historic District. The City cunently pays for parking through a combination ofbonds issued by the Redevelopment Agency, which paid for the construction of the new Rail Block parking garage, and from City Department budgets, which pays for maintenance of the garage. The maintenance budget is shared equally among all of the City departments, although the funding is not allocated specifically for parking during the budgeting process.

The funding skategies discussed in this report are available to the City should the cunent financing mechanisms no longer meet the City's needs. Based on our discussions with the City, we understand that user fees are not being considered for the Historic District parking. If that policy decision continues, the City may want to consider charging for event parking in the City g rage, perhaps on 'oThursday Night Market" nights, as a way to raise additional funds during peak periods.

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
Special Events Assessment
The Historic District of the City of Folsom 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 altel' 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 District, and should be used as the basis of this assessment.

Existing Con.ditions
The Thursday Night Market is a special event that takes place every Thursday night from early June through late August. These approxirnately 12 weekly events require routine parking and access restrictions, as well as deviations from normal traffic pattems. To obtain firsthand knowledge ofthe current "special event" parking and trafftc management strategies, Kimley-Horn visited the August 7,2008, Folsom Historic District's Thursday Night Market. At this event, representatives f'rom the Folsom Merchant's Association were consulted to further complete the assessment of existing conditions.

Based on our site visit and discussions with the Merchant's Association representatives, the conditions resulting from the Thursday Night Market include the fbllowing, and are generally depicted in Figure 15:
r Restriction of all vchicular access to Sufter Street from Reading Street to Scott Street. To accomplish this level of access control, barricades are utilized along the Decatur Street, Wool Street (both north and south of Sutter Street), and Scott Street approaches. Sutter Sheet cross traffic is further restricted at Riley Street.
o Three ofthe seven banicaded street closures are staffed during the entire duration ofeach event.

These staff mernbers were observed to provide direction to patrons, allow vehicle admittance for vendors and residence, and to provide general guidance at these three key locations. o Pedestrian access is retained and permitted throughout the District. o Patrons were observed to utilize adjacent residential streets for parking to ascess the event, Two general areas were observed to receive amajonty of this "overflow" parking: Figueroa Street in the vicinity of Wool Street, and Sutter Street between Scott Street and Coloma Street. tnft| Kimhv.Hom
\f7 \ anO&sooatos,rnc.
49 December 9, 2008

01/11/2022 Item No.15.
ft
TE
ot
tr
.C!
a
Eottl
olt
I
LEGEND
E A-Frame Advance Sign
-
Barricade
Thursday Night Market
Vendor/Patron Area
Observed Vendor/Patron
Parking w/i Banicades
Observed Patron Parking
Vendor Entry (4-5 PM)
Staffed Vendor Entry
Off-Street Public
Parking Supply#
tffit
o
e
Staffed Banicade
Figure 15
Folsom Historic District Parking
Existing Thursday Night Market Traffic & Circulation Restrictions7LJ!l Nflilev'ilo'n flf Z_I ano Assocntes, rnc.

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Gity of Folsom Historic District
DRAFT Parking Implementation Plan Update
Folsom,
Californla
The recently completed parking structure was observed to be underutilized with ample parking available.

The majority ofthe vendor booths, patrons, and activity were observed to be located in the 700 block of Sutter Street, between Wool Street and Riley Street.

The starting time of the event (approximately 6:00 p.m,) coincides with the typical commute peak period experienced along Riley Street and Folsom Boulevard. Vendors arrive between 4:00 and 5:00 p.m, which further contributes to congested peak-hour traffic conditions.

Furthermore, the following issues were identified by the Merchant's Association representatives as being critical to the consideration of revised management strategies:
a P ar kin g S truc tur e Mana ge ment
Because entering vehicles receive no indication of the structure's occupancy status, during peak conditions, vehicles entering are required to circulatc to thc roof to make the reverse trip back down to exit. The representatives suggested that the addition of electronic technology or other means by which to convey oacupancy conditions would improve this condition.

Improved Supply and Demand Management
Because there is limited parking supply within the Distrist, special events routinely result in overflow patron parking into the adjacent residential neighborhoods, as well as the Lake Natoma Inn. The representatives suggested that improved public information directing patrons to the new parking structure, as well as other supply maximizing techniques could minimize the special event effect on adjacent areas.
a Vendor Access and Parking
Market vendors currently arrive belween 4:00 and 5:00 p.m. to unload at their respective booths in order to be in position for the opening of the event around 6:00 p,m. Due to the advance notification and enforcement of on-street parking restrictions associated with the event, vendors are typically required to enter the restricted area to unload and then must leave to find convenient, available adjacent parking. The process is reversed at the conclusion of the event when similar convenience is preferred during the loading process. The representatives suggested that designated vendor parking could improve the attractiveness of the event. Futhermore, they indicated that improved access fbr loading/un-loading could also contribute to a better event. a Slreetscape Project qnd Short-Term On-Street Purking
The representatives indicated that, as part of the on-going Historic District Streetscape Project, consideration should bc given to providing short tenn (10-15 minute) parking to promote patronage of the numerous District businesses.

Recommended Management Strategies
Based on our assessment of existing conditions (Figure 15) and consultation with the Merchant's Association representatives, the following special event management strategies are recommended:
lmproved District Parking Utilization and Minimized Overflow Overall improved utilization of Historic District parking facilities will contribute significantly toward minimizing the effect of District special events on the adjacent residential areas, as well as the Lake Natoma Inn.

Because special event conditions confirmed the general existing parking trends of underutilization of existing supply in the westernportions of the District, this management strategy is aimed at improving the occupancy and utilization of the new parking structure and othcr availablc off-strect public parking in this arca. As such, the following specific strategy components are recommended:
a
a
a
a
7-Jl Kimbv-Hom
:. 17 \ srdAssocates,rnc,
5t December 9, 2008

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

City of Folsom Historic District
DRAFT Parking Implementation Plan Update
Folsom,
California
a
a
a
a
a
Improved AdverJisement and Communication of Existing Parking Structure o Flyers could be distributed at the beginning of the year by placing on patron vehicles, handing to patrons, and through the media. The llyers would provide a simple Dishict rnap with clear indication of the magnitude of thc supply in thc parking structure and the close proximity to Sutter Street.
o Incentives (coupons) could be provided from Market vendors to encourage patrons to park in the structure.
o Additional vendors could be aligned to provide a cohesive connection to the structure from the other Sutter Street vendors.
o The use of Market staff to control/monitorthe structure occupancy and maximize operations could firther improve the utilization of the structure. An additional consideration is to modifu structure access to entrance only from Reading Street and exit only to Leidesdorff Street.

Improved Way-Finding to New Parking Structure
o Way-finding signage could be added to Riley Street and Natoma Street to direct Historic District traffic west toward the new parking structure. This strategy would apply to both northbound and southbound approaching traffi c.
o ln particular, enhanced signage could be provided to traffic entering the District from Folsom Boulevard due to their close proximity to the parking structure.

Standardized Appearance and Application of Devices
o A more consistent application of uniform restriction barriers could assist in better defining the District and restricted arcas. Thc nniformity and consistency with other Dishict signing could funher enhance the overall District way-finding effectiveness.

Residential Parking Pennits
o The development of Parking Districts would allow for the application of residential parking permits. Residential parking permits would likely be the most effective means by which to eliminate the District's overflow parking and dramatically irnprove the utilization of currently underutilized supply.

Rcmote Parking
o Promotion of off-site, remotc parking could conffibule to minimizing the District's overflow parking into adjacent residential areas. Effective remote parking should include ample public communication and frequent, reliable transportation between locations.

Vendor Access and Circulation
Bccause Thursday Night Market vendors arrive early, it is presumed that they, in-turn occupy the most convenient parking supply. This strategy includes concentrating vendor access, parking, and circulation in an effort to preserve the prime parking supply for Market patrons and create a predictable, uniform management environrnent.
a Weekly Vendor Passes/Display Cards
o Considering that vendors are required to resele their Market booth on a weekly basis, the opportunity exists to provide a vendor "pass" at that time to denote each week's participants.

Once the vendors are identificd, numcrous additional strategies become available including the use ofdedicated parking areas, exclusion from parking rcstrictions, etc. a Dedicated Parking Designation
o Vendor parking could be designated in a portion of the parking structure, the Baker lot, a portion of the Trader Lane lot, or within the public lot in the corner of Riley Street/Scott Street. Designation of these areas should not conflict with existing time of day restrictions.

This strategy would provide predictable, appropriate parking supply for the vendors.

7.-fl rumEv-nom
L.f/ \ ardAboqares,'rp.
52 December 9, 2008

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

City of Folsom Historic District Folsom,
CaliforniaDRAFT Parkinq Implementation Plan Update
Assessment of City's S-Year Parking Management Plan
In January 2008, the City prepared a Historic District S-Year Parking Management Plan which addresses existing parking conditions, as well as the anticipated changes that will occur over the next four to six years.

The primary objectives of the Plan are to:

Determine existing parking supply and utilization in the commercial portion of the Historic District under normal conditions
Recommend strategies to maximize use of existing and planned parking while minimizing impacts to the surrounding residential areas, until such time as additional parking facilities can be constructed Identify opporfuniti es for providing additional, c ost-effective par*ing The Plan concludes with seven recommendations for addressing the established objects. The following is a discussion and evaluation of the Plan's oonclusions.

Rail Block Parking Structure
'Ihis recommendation proposes to post the bottom three levels with 2-hour time limit parking, retaining the roof level as untimed parking, It was indicated that if excessive light rail parking use develops, the roof could be posted for no parking between midnight and 7:00 a.m.

It should be noted that the current management of the parking structure deviated slightly from the original recommendation above. At the time of this study, floors I through 3 were signed for 3Jrour tirne limit parking, Monday through Friday from 5:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. The roof level was untimed Monday through Friday from 7:00,a.m. to 3:00 a.m., with no parking from 3:00 a.m. to 7:00 a.m.

Assessment
Subsequent to the release of the Plan, a revised parking management strategy was proposed by the Historic District Merchant's for consideration by the City. The revised strategy consisted of the following components:
a. All Floors:6-hour time limit (visitors/customers allowed on all4 floors) b. Floors 2,3, and 4 : light rail and employee permits permitted c, Provide up to 100 light rail permits for a fee with an established expiration date d. Provide an unspecifiod number of employee permits without a fee Generally speaking, it is recommended that the City institute a simple, straight forward management shategy that is easily understood by all uscrs of the parking structure. The most effective parking management strategy will simpliff structure enforcement, and will meet thc cxpectations of current and fufure Historic District users. With that said, it is also recommended that the City continue to preserve the ultimate intcnded use of the structure, with minimal, strategic, short-term deviations to most effectively address cun€nt economic, development, and user conditions.

The addition of pcrmit parking, almost regardless of its complexity, will require City staff effort to develop, advertise, implement, and maintain the program. Such costs should be considered when evaluating the effectiveness of a new parking management strategy.

The near-term conditions of the new parking structure are recommended to be considered as follows:
a
a
a
7-fl Kimlsv.Hom
L-f/ \ andAtsoqans, tnc,
53 December 9, 2008

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

City of Folsom Historic District
DRAFT Parkino ImDlementati on Plan Uodate
Folsom,
Ca lifornia
Level 4 (roof) is the least desirable parking, as it is uncovered and requires the most circuitous route to access. This level should be utilized by the longest term parkers including light rail and employees.

Level I (ground level) is the most desirable parking, as it offers the most convenient access to light rail, adjacent existing commercial uses, and the future Rail Block development. This level should be utilized by the shortest term parkers including primarily Historic District visitors.

Levels 2 and 3 are cssentially ovcrflow parking for Level 4 (roof) and Level l.

The proposed 6-hour maximum time limit may be a viable temporary option, but it is viewed as a fatal flaw in the long-term management of the parking structure. Parking structures are typically intended for long-term parkers (6+ hours), especially employees, with the shorter-term parkers using on-street and other off-street parking supply.

The proposed light rail and employee passes could be considered as an alternative to the 6-hour maximum time lintit, although it does not address long-term customers (customers who park longer than six hours are rare). As such, it may be advantageous to designate floors I and 2 with a 3-4 hour limit tbl customers (must be enforced), and floors 3 and 4 with light rail permits and employee permits (also must be enforced).

In the long-term, the light rail parking issue needs to be addressed because, ideally, over-management of the garage parking is not recommended, as a simple enforcement systein is ultimately desirable. Considering the increase in light rail ridership, the City and Regional Transit should address the long-term parking demands (i.e., remote parking, new RT structure, etc.).

Furthermore, it is acknowledged that the actual parking demand at the Historic Folsom light rail station may be limited more by the capacity of the Regional Transit Gold Line, as opposed to the supply of parking. This theory should be considered in the ultimate parking supply decisions that are made within the Historic District.

Rail Block Sur/itce Parking
This recommendation proposes tc maintain the existing time-limited surface parking while fencing off the current construction staging area. It is also proposed to open the staging area parking only for special events only until construction of the Rail Block development begins.

Assessment
It is recomrnended that all viable surface parking be made available until a time at which Rail Block development construction necessitates the closure of these areas. Considering the cuffent overflow parking into adjacent residential areas, as well as the Lake Natoma Inn site, the near term benefit of additional off- street public parking will likely be significant. Applicable time-limits should be uniformly applied to these spaces as well.

Time Limit Parking
This recommendation proposes to convert additional Trader Lanc lot parking to timeJimit with subsequent tumover sludies to evaluate the time-limit durations. A residential permit program is also considered as part of the strategy.
a
a
a
Tffl Kimleil-Horn
\I7 \ ErdAssoqarcs.irr,
54 December 9, 2008

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

City of Folsom Historic District
DRAFT Parkinq Imolementation Plan Uodate
Folsom,
Callfornia
Assessment
Previously documented parking occupancy and turn-over studies oonfirmed the desirable nature ofthe Trader Lane parking lot. This lot is located within the previously defined Zone lI of the Distict which is documented to currcntly, and in the fuflrre, experience the greatest parking deficit in the District. The application of additional timeJimit reshictions to preserve this prernium parking supply is strongly supported.

Additional On-Street Parking
This recommendation proposes to maximize the efficiency of existing on-street pavement to provide additional on-street parking supply.

Assessrnent
A more efficient use of existing on-street pavement is supported as a moans by which to increase the parking supply within the District.

Alternative Modes
This recommendation proposes to continue the use of valet and pedicab services, as well as establishing consistent shuttle bus services for all special events to and from the adjacent Glenn Light Rail Transit station.

The feasibility of extending light rail transit hours to encourage employees to utilize light rail parking lots as remote evening/special event parking is also recornmended.

Assessment
The use ofremote parking lots with viable, predictable shuttle/transpoftation services is an effective approach to preserving the limited Historic District public parking supply for patrons and special event attendees.

Considering the close proximity of light rail and the adjacent Glenn station, use of this connection to the District should be considered as a primary strategy in remote parking managernent.

Parking Enforcemenl
This recommendation proposes to create a parking enforcement officer position and conduct consistent, regular parking enforcement City-wide.

Assessment
The effectiveness of timed parking restrictions is most significantly influenced by the public's perception of the enforcement of said restrictions. It is anticipated that the intended turnover ofthe various parking supply can be achieved by consistent, regular parking enforcement.

P ar kin g M an a gem ent/O utr e ach
This recommendation proposes to form an ad-hoc Parking Advisory Committee to meet qua*erly to review parking issues and consider other strategies. In addition, a parking website and printable parking maps for new visitors is recommended. Furthermore, way finding signs at major public parking lots, consistent with guide sign design standards, and noting the associated time limits is also recommended.

Assessment
The formation of a committee and improved public outreach are considered to be two highly effective rneans by which to maximize the operation ofthe District's limited parking supply, Additional consideration should be given to extending the signing concept to special events to further emphasize the uniformity ofthe Dishict. 7'ffl Kimlsv.Hom
L-I/ \ am6sooatss,tnc.
55 December 9, 2008

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

City of Folsom Historic District Folsom,
CaliforniaDRAFT Parkino Imolementatlon Plan U pdate
Historic Dietdct Srreetscape Project
The City's concurrent Historic District Streetscape Project is intended to enhance the human scale of the District by widening sidewalks, narrowing vehicle travel ways, and providing uniform aesthetic components tounifftheentireDistrict. AccordingtomaterialpresentedataMayl,2}}s,StreetscapeDesignCommittee Meeting, the conceptual improvements to Sutter Street also include the addition of on-street parking along Sutter Street, between Riley Street and Wool Street, the only segment of Sutter Street within the District that does not currently have on-street parking.

As previously documented, this block of Sutter Strcct between Riley Street and Wool Street, experiences the greatestparking supply defrcit for both existing and build-out conditions. Considering its central location, the block serves as the core, attracting dense development and the associated vehicle and pedestrian activity, The additional parking supply is proposed to be provided along this block of Sutter Street is anticipated to serve as premium parking for the businesses located along this segment. Considering the location and limited new supply of these spaces, the streetscape plan should, at a minimum, incorporate the following strategies:
r Diagonal on-streetparking is preferred due to the relative ease ofuse when compared to the parallel parking cunently proposed. Nonetheless, parallel parking stalls should be designed appropriatcly to promote high-tumover, ease of access and departure.
r A short-term time-restriction ( l0-20 minutes) fbr the proposed Sutter Street on-street parking spaces is recommended to encourage high turnover of this premium parking supply. r Strict enforcement of on-street time restrictions.
r On-going promotion (e,g. way finding and advertisement) of the District-wide parking supply to further maximize utilization of documented parking surplus elsewhere in the District. 7t-fl Kimhv.Hom
\,I7 \ aruAseocraps. rnc,
56 December 9,2008

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Attachment 9
Remy-Moose-Manley CEQA Response Letter
Dated December 23,2021

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

K.}tM

REMY I MOOSE I MANLEY
t.l. P
Sabrina V. Teller
stel [email protected]
December 23,2021
Honorable Mayor Kerri Howell
and Councilmembers
City of Folsom
50 Natoma Street
Folsom, CA 95630
Via email to: [email protected]
Applicant's Response to CEQA Issues Raised in Appeals for Barley Barn Tap House (PN 19-174)
Dear Mayor Howell and Councilmembers
On behalf of the Property Owner and Applicant for the Barley Barn Tap House Conditional Use Permit and Design Review, we provide the following responses to the points raised regarding the City's compliance with the Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in the appeal filed by Mr. Delp challenging the Historic District Commission's approval of the proposed project. Robert Holdemess is responding separately on behalf of the Applicant to the appeal claims regarding the adequacy of parking and other issues of compliance with City regulations and standards.

CEQA Compliaace
Mr. Delp asserts that ttre proposed proiect docs not qualify for the Class 3 categorical exemption (CEQA Guidelines, S 15303) from CEQA and that certain potential exceptions to the use of categorial exemptions (CEQA Guidelines, S 15300.2) are triggered here. He is incortect on all of these points. The project qualifies for multiple categorical exemptions-the Class 1 exemption for existing facilities, the Class 3 exemption for new construction or conversion of small structures, and the Class 32 exemption for infill development projects. Furthermore, none of the potential exceptions to the use of categorical exemptions are triggered here.

Substzatial euideace suppotw e detetmination that the prcject qualifies fotmultiple exemptions froa CEQA.

First, it is important to note that the administrative record for this project contains Re:
555 Capltol Mali, Suite 800 5acrarnento CA 95814 I Phone' (916) 443-2745 i Fdx: (916) 443-9017 | wr,vw.rmrnenvirolaw,corr

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

December 23,2021
Applicant's Response re: CEQA Appeal for Barley Barn Tap House (PN l9-174) substantial evidencer supporting City staffs determinations that the Class 3 exemption applies to the proposed project and ttrat the potential exceptions to the use of exemptions are not met. The HDC StaffReport explained at length the reasons that staffmade these determinations and the Applicant concurs with staffs reasoning and evidence. If the Council denies the appeals and there is a legal challenge, a reviewing court affords substantial deference to the City's determinations where those are supported by substantial evidence.2 The butden is on the project challenger to show *rat the determination is not supported by any substantial evidence in the record.3 That the challenger merely disagrees or would interpret the exemption differently if he were on ttre Council is not sufficient to overturn the City's determinations. rU(/hen an agency concludes that a project fits within one or more categorical exemptions, the agency must also consider whether the project is subject to one of the enumerated exceptions to the exemptionsn also set forth in the CEQA Guidelines.a If a project fits within a categorical exemption and is not subject to an enumerated exception, the agency's inquiry under CEQA ends; the proiect is exempt and no further review is required.s
As explained further below, the record for this project demonstrates ttrat it meets the 1 Substantial evidence is "enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from [ttrat] information that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might also be reached." Conversely, substantial evidence "is not argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, evidence that is clearly inaccurate or effoneous, or evidence of social or economic impacts that do not contribute to, or are not caused by, physical impacts on the environment." (CEQA Guidelines, $ 15384, subd. (a).)
2 lValters v. City ofRedondo Beach (2016) I Cal.App.5th 809, 817 (an agency's determination that a proiect qualifies for a categorical exemption must be supported by substantial evidence); see also San Lorenzo Valley CommunityAdvocates for Responsible Education v. San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1356,1386-1387; Berkeley Hillside Ptesenation v. City of Berkeley (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1086, 1097.
3 Protect Telegnph IIill v. City and County ofSan Francisco QALT l6 Cal.App.5th 261,266,270.
4 CEQA Guidelines, S 15300.2.
s CEQA Guidelines, SS 15300, L53O0.2,15061, subd. (b)(2) (CEQA does not apply where a categorical exemption applies and "the application of that categorical exernption is not barred by one of the exceptions set forth in Section 15300.2"); San Lorenzo, supra, 139 Cal.App.4th at pp- 1373,1380-1381, 1386 (it is a "fundamental concept" that "CEQA does not apply to exemption decisions").
2

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

December 23,2021
Applicant's Response re: CEQA Appeal for Barley Barn Tap House (PN l9-174) criteria for more than one categorical exemption from CEQA. The City Council may also exercise its discretion to determine that various components of the proposed proiect qualiff for different exemptions.6
Thc prciet quelifieo for the Class I categotical exemptioa from CEQA.

CEQA Guidelines section 15301 exempts the "operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use." It goes on to list non-exclusive examples of such projects, emphasizing that the 'okey consideration is whether the project involves negligible or no expansion of use.'n Relevant to this project, these examples include:
(a) Interior or exterior alterations involving such things as interior partitions, plumbing, and electrical conveyances;
(c) Existing highways and streets, sidewalks, gutters, bicycle and pedestrian trails and similarfacilities. . . .
(d) Restoration or rehabilitation of deteriorated or damaged structures, facilities, or mechanical equipment to meet current standards of public health and safety, . . .;
(e) Additions to existing structures provided that the addition will not result in an increase of more than: (l) 50 percent of the floor area of the structures before the addition, or 21500 square feet, whichever is less; or (2) 101000 square feet if (A) the proiect is in an area where all public services and facilities are available to allow for maximum development permissible in fhe General Plan and (B) the area in which the project is located is not environmentally sensitive. (Q Addition of safety or health protection devices for use during construction of or in conjunction with existing structures, facilities, or mechanical equipment, or topographical features including navigational devices.

The modifications to the existing stmcture on the proposed proiect site meet several of these examples. The Applicant plans to reduce the second-story floor area by 578 square feet to use it as storage. A former loading dock area of about 480 square feet located on the west side of the barn will be fenced in to make a patio. The footprint of the existing structure will not change. The entry doors will be modified to mimic those common to 6 Sur{riderFoundation v. Califonia Coastal Commission (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 151, 155*156 (an agency may rely on more than one categorical exemption to exempt an entire project from CEQA).
3

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

December 23,2021
Applicant's Response re: CEQA Appeal for Barley Barn Tap House (PN l9-174) bam construction to accommodate wagons and livestock. \Uilindows similar to those constructed for packing sheds will be included to provide natural light, and reclaimed barnwood will be added to create the appearance of an iconic old westem type bam.

Other minor modifications include the addition of architecturally appropriate exterior lighting and signage that will comply with the Historic District Design and Development Guidelines. The project also includes an ADA-compliant lift to assist patrons in accessing the tap house patio and sidewalk from the adjacent lower-level parking lot. Minor utility repairs and upgrades are necessary to meet cuffent code standards but the project site has existing water, sewer and electrical connections.

The stnrcture has had a variety of uses over its apptoximately 60-year-existence, including manufacturing, storage for commercial businesses, retail, and entertainment.

The currently proposed use as a beverage-serving, subdued-enteftainment venue is consistent with those previous commercial uses and surrounding businesses, and is allowed under the current zoning with the issuance of a CUP.

The proposed proiect and its minor modifications to the existing structure are consistent with the examples and overall purpose stated in the Class I exemption. Therefore, the City Council may properly exercise its discretion to determine that the project qualifies for the exemption.
71he prcject qualifies for the Class j categorical exemption from CEQA.

Guidelines section 15303 describes the Class 3 exemption for new construction or conversion of small structures, as follows:

Class 3 consists of construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures; installation of small new equipment and facilities in small structures; and the conversion of existing small structures from one use to another where only minor modifications afe made in the exterior of the structure. The numbers of structures described in this sectiofl are the maximum allowable on any legal parcel. Examples of this exemption include but are not limited to:
(c) A store, motel, office, restaurant or similar structure not involving the use of significant amounts of hazardous substances, and not exceeding 4

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

December 23,2O2l
Applicant's Response re: CEQA Appeal for Barley Barn Tap House (PN 19-174) 2500 square feet in floor area. In urbanized areasrT the exemption also applies to up to four such commercial buildings not exceeding 101000 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.
(d) Water main, sewage, electrical, gas, and other utility extensions, including street improvements, of reasonable length to serve such construction.
(e) Accessory (appurtenant) structures including garages, caq)orts, patios, swimming pools, and fences.

City staffreasonably concluded, based on substantial evidence set forth in the HDC Staff Report and elsewhere in the City's record, that the proposed project and minor modifications in the existing structure meet ttre criteria of the Class 3 exemption. Mr.

Delp asserts in his appeal that the existing 4,377-square-foot building does not qualifu as a "small structure" under this criteria, arguing that the alternate I0r00O-square-foot criterion for urbanized areas only applies where there are multiple buildings. Mr. Delp's interpretation is not consistent with the plain language of the example given in the exemption, which states it can apply " up fo four such commercial buildings." The term "up to' obviously encompasses a potential range, from one to four.

Mr. Delp further claims ttrat the modifications proposed for the structure are not "minorr" yet he cites no authority for his interpretation that the proposed modifications do not meet this criterion, only his own opinion ttrat the modifications are "substantial." Because the footprint of ttre building will not change and the modification$ are typical of those made to modernize an existing building to bring it up to cuffent standards and to suit a legal use for which it is zoned, the City may reasonably determine that these modifications afe "minor." Indeed, some of the proposed modifications that Mr. Delp complains of are exactly the tlpes of changes provided in the non-exclusive examples listed in the exemption (e.g., utility extensions, patios, fences). Moreover, since the stated scope of the exemption also includes the entirc conntnJction of a new structurerMt. 7 The CEQA Guidelines define "urbanized area" as "a central city or a group of contiguous cities with a population of 50,000 or more, together with adiacent densely populated areas having a population density of at least 11000 person$ per squsre mile." Folsom qualifies as an "urbanized area" according to the current U.S. Bureau of Census data, with a population of 81,238 people.
https ://www. census. govlquicKacts/fo lsomciwc.al ifornia 5

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

December 23,2O2l
Applicant's Response re: CEQA Appeal for Barley Barn Tap Flouse (PN 19-174) Delp's argument that it excludes the kinds of modifications proposed here to an existing structure is at odds with the plain language of the exemption. The Council should affirm stafPs and the HDC's determinations that ttre Class 3 exemption applies to the project.

The prcject gualifres for the Cless 32 cetegotical *emptioa from CBQA.

The Class 32 exemption applies to "in-fill developments" that: (a) are consistent with applicable general plan and zoning designations and policies; O) are within city limits on a site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses; (c) are located on a site that is not valuable habitat for special status species; (d) do not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality; and (e) can be adequately served by all requisite utilities and public services.s The Barley Bam Tap House proiect meets all of the criteria for the infill exemption.

As stated in the HDC StaffReport, the proposed project is consistent with the applicable General Plan and zoning designation with approval of a Conditional Use Permit. The stafffurther determined that the proposed proiect, which does not alter the building footprint or location of the existing structure, meets all applicable development standards (building height, setbacks, etc.) established for the Sutter Street Subarea of the Historic District. The project site is located within City limits on a 0.l2-acre parcel, bounded by commercial development on three sides and a parking lot. It sits in a highly urbanized environment and *re Applicant does not propose to remov€ the minimal existing landscaping on the site. Thus the project will not take away any valuable habitat for any special status species. As further documented in the HDC Staff Report and elsewhere in the record, the project will not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. It will comply with all standard conditions required by the City of similar businesses in the area. And it can be adequately served by all requisite utilities and public senrices.

The proposed proiect will not result in any significant traffic, noise, air or water quality impacts. Firstly, there is no grading or other earth-moving equipment needed for the modifications to the existing barn site, which is typically the largest source of air pollutant emissions for new construction. The equipment that will be used in the proposed modifications is of the qpe commonly used for home renovations and other small projects. Mr. Delp asserts that the use of the off-site parking lot at the Eagle Lodge will cause air quality impacts due to increased dust, but he provides no evidence to support 6 8 CEQA Guidelines, S 15332

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

December 23,2021
Applicant's Response re: CEQA Appeal for Barley Barn Tap Flouse (PN 19-174) this claim, only opinion. The HDC conditioned the proiect approval to require the Applicant to pave the Eagle Lodge lot, thereby avoiding new dust generation that Mr.

Delp is concemed about.

The barn site is already paved and no new impervious cover will be added, so there will be no increase in stormwater runoffto adversely affect water quality. Vhen the Eagle Lodge parking lot is paved all required, standard erosion control and water quality best management practices will be followed.

The HDC staffreport thoroughly discusses City staffs assessment of the proposed project's potential for noise impacts and how the conditions adopted by the HDC in approving the project will prevent any significant noise impacts from occurring. These conditions are common to the orher similar hospitality and entertainment businesses in the area and there are no unique features of the proposed project or operations that would warrant a different assessment or conclusion. Ttre subdued live entertainment (solo, duet, or trio-gpe performers) planned for the venue will occur inside the building only. Mr. Delp offers no evidence that the noise levels resulting from the operation of a largely-indoor bar with a few outdoor tables and indoor-only music will exceed any significance thresholds or result in greater or dissimilar noise than the other entefiainment and hospitality businesses in the immediate area.

Mr. Delp asserts at various places in his appeal that the project will cause traffrc impacts, primarily founded on his belief that parking is inadequate for the proiect and that the project will cause pedestrian safety impacts. The traffic metric currently allowed under CEQA is the amount of vehicle miles that a project will generate, not levels of service (congestion). An infill project of this small size is generally assumed not to result in a significant uaffic impact. The Governor's Office of Planning and Research's Technical Advisory for the implementation of SB 743 (the bill that eliminated LOS as a traffic metric) recommends that lead agencies find projects that generate I l0 trips or fewer per day or that are consistent with the local Sustainable Communities Suategy to have a less than significant impact. The capacity of the proposed proiect is approximately 160 people. Even conservatively assuming the tap house would be completely full every day, it is reasonable to also assume that a substantial petcentage of the patrons will share rides to their destination or will visit the project as part of a trip to other businesses in the Historic District. Thus, the proiect is not likely to result in a significant traffic impact under CEQA.

To the extent that Mr. Delp (and the other appellants) are arguing that the proiect's alleged pa*ing deficiencies result in an unstudied environmental impact under CEQA in 7

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

December 23,2021
Applicant's Response re: CEQA Appeal for Barley Barn Tap House (PN l9-174) their pages and pages of complaints about parking availability for the project, they are wrong. The coufts have repeatedly held that having to hunt for a parking space is not an impact under CEQA.e Moreover, in 2009, the Califomia Natural Resources Agency deleted "parking availability" from the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G checklist, and it has been absent from the list ever since. The Agency's rationale was that it agreed with the court's decision in the San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan case and knew of "no authority requiring an analysis of parking adequacy as part of a project's environmental review." Moreover, Mr. Delp provides no substantial evidence that the number of people who could hunt for a parking spot to patronize the proposed proiect would be so great as to result in any measurably significant secondary impact on air quality or other resources. He offers only his own opinion and speculation, which is not substantial evidence.

Lastly, Mr. Delp also asserts, in the context of his claims regarding potential traffic impacts, that the project will increase risks to pedestrians and bicyclists. Again, he offers no evidence that such a modest-sized proiect will cause so much traffic that it would result in a significant pedestrian or bicyclist safety impact. The project site is already served by a combination of public sidewalks and private pathways, one of which leads to the adiacent public parking lot. Public access will continue to be allowed on this pathway.

The Historic District has numerous sidewalks serving the existing local businesses and public parking areas, which regular patrons of the existing nearby businesses are accustomed to using. Mr. Delp points to no unique features of the project design or location or operation that could result in any substantially increased risk to pedestrian and bicycle safety.

The proposed project meets all of the criteria of the Class 32 exemption for infill projects, and the Council should exercise its discretion to determine that this exemption applies in addition to the Class 1 and Class 3 exemptions.

Noac of the potentiel exccptioas to categpdcsl exemptions applyhctc.

Once an agency determines that a project fits within one or more categorical exemptions, the agency must consider whether any of the exceptions to the exemption, described in e San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan v. City & County of San Francisco (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 656, 697 (the "social inconvenience of having to hunt for scarce parking spaces is not an environmental impact"); Save OurAccess-San Gabriel Mountains v. lYatershed Consewation Authority (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 8, 25 ("Parking deficits are always inconvenient for drivers, but they do not always cause a significant adverse physical impact on the environment.")
8

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

December 23,2021
Applicant's Response re: CEQA Appeal for Barley Barn Tap House (PN 19-174) Guidelines section l53OO.2 applies to the project. Here, the staffand the HDC found that the potential exceptions to the exemptions do not apply. That determination is supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Mr. Delp disputes the conclusion that the exceptions to the exemptions do not apply, claiming the cumulative impact, "unusual circumstancesr" and historical resources exceptions disqualiff the use of the Class 3 exemption for the proiect.

Regarding cumulative impacts, Mr. Delp focuses mainly on his claim that this project will exacerbate alleged parking shortages in the Historic District and somehow lead to a cascade of environmental catastrophes in the area. But again, even if the project were to generate substantial amounts of traffic (which it will not), congestion is no longer a cognizable CEQA impact, and neither is the hunt for a parking space. Mr. Delp offers no substantial evidence showing that the proiect will result in significant environmental impacts, only speculation and exaggerated opinion. The HDC StaffRepon adequately explains the reasons and evidence supporting stafPs conclusion that the project will not make a substantial contribution to any significant cumulative impacts.

The unusual circumstances exception, contained in Guidelines section 15300.2, subdivision (c), provides that "[aJ 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." The California Supreme Court addressed the "unusual circumstances" exception in Berkeley llillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley(2015) 60 Cal.4th 1086, 1097. There, the court explained that merely questioning the agency's conclusions of significance was not enough to disqualify a proiect from using a categorical exemption. Instead, the court provided two alternative options for proving the exception applies. Mr. Delp fails to meet his burden under either of them.

In the first altemative, a challenger must prove both unusual circumstances exist and a significant effect on the environment dllg tg those circumstances.to The first prong, whether there are any "unusual circumstancesr" is a factual question for the agency, to which a reviewing court is deferential to the agency's conclusion.ll Where there are no to fd. atp. 1105.

Lr fd. at p. 1114; Citizens for Environmental Responsibility w State ex rel. 14th Dist Ag, Association (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 555,574 (Citizens).) "[R]eviewing courts, after resolving all evidentiary conflicts in the agency's favor and indulging in all legitimate and reasonable inferences to uphold the agency's finding must affiirm that finding if there is any substantial euidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, to support it." (Betkeley 9

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

December 23,2021
Applicant's Response re: CEQA Appeal for Barley Barn Tap House (PN 19-174) unusual circumstances, the inquiry ends and the exception does not apply.12 Here, the City explicitly determined that "no unusual circumstances exist to distinguish this project from ottrers in the exempt class."r3 The City supported that determination with substantial evidence in the record, explaining why the project's setting, size, proposed use and other factors are not "unusual."
In the second approach articulated by the Court in Berkeley I{illsider "a party may establish an unusual circumstance with evidence that the proiect willhave a significant environmental effect."la Under this test, great deference is given to the public agency; a challenger must establish more than merely substantial evidence of a fair argument that the project will have a significant environmental effect.l5 The burden rests on the challenging party to produce evidence showing that the project willhave a significant effect.l6
A proiect opponent may try to establish ttrat the Project will have a significant environmental effect due to an unusual circumstance by showing it has some feature distinguishing it from others in the exempt class, such as the Project's size, scope, location, or inconsistency with surrounding zoning and land uses.l? But, "the presence of comparable facilities in the immediate area adequately supports [an] implied finding that there were no'unusual circumstances'precluding a categorical exemption."lE As noted in the HDC StaffReport, the proiect is consistent with the surrounding zoning and land uses, as there are other restaurants and bars in close proximity to the project site.

Mt. Delp has not shown that the project wllhave a significant effect, offering only his own opinions and interpretations of City standards and unsupported, hlryerbolic predictions of impacts that are wildly disproporrionate to a modest project such as this one. A challengefs burden under the test created by the Supreme Court under this exception is high, and he fails to meet that burden.

Hillside, supra,60 Cal.4th at p. I 114, emphasis added; Berkeley Hillside II, supra, 241 Cal.App.4th at pp. 954-955.
12 Citizens, supta,242 Cal.App.4th at p. 588, fn. 24.
13 HDC StaffReport, p. 26
ra Berkeley IIillside, supta,60 Cal.4th at p. 1105, emphasis added. ts Citizens, supta,242 Cal.App.4th at pp. 575-576.
16 Berkeley Ilillside, Eupra,60 Cal.4th at p. I 105l lYalters, supta,I Cal.App.5th 809 at p.823.
t7 Berkeleyl{illside, supra,60 Cal.4th atp. 1105.
ra lValters, supta, I Cal.App.5rh at p. 821.
10

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

December 23,2O2L
Applicant's Response re: CEQA Appeal for Barley Batn Tap llouse (PN 19-174) Mr. Delp does not further explain or support his claim that the historical resource exception to exemptions applies here, so the City should consider his argument waived.

In any event, the HDC StaffReport adequately explained why staffconcluded this exception is not met, and there is no evidence provided to the contrary.

The City's determination that the potential exceptions to the use of categorical exemptions do not apply to the project is supporred by substantial evidence in the record.

The City Council should find that the proposed proiect is categorically exempt from CEQA under the three exemptions described above and deny the appeals.

Very truly yours,
b*b^^"e.-
I
Sabrina V. Teller
cc City Clerk's Office
City Attomey's Oftice
Steve Banks, Principal Planner
Murray $(/eaver, for the Applicant
Roben Holderness, for the Applicant
ll

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Attachment 10
Applicant Response Letter, dated December 28,2A21

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

ROBERT C. HOLDERNESS

HOLDERNESS LAW FIRM
A]:TORNEY AT I,AW
122 aak Rock Circle
FOLSOM, CA 95630
Telephone {9 16) 98411410
Facsimile (916) 984-1413
[o.![gg4 cgs*irho ! d er n e ss I 4!q.gp gr
Mailing Address;
P. O. Box 975
Foisom, CA 95763-0975
December 28, 202I
Mayor Kerri Howell and
Clty Council Members
Clty of Folsom
50 Natoma Street
Folsom, CA 95630
RE: Opposition to Three Appeals from HDC Approval ofBarley Barn Tap House Project (pN 19-L74) Dear Mayor Howel_1
r. Introduction: This letter brief is written on behalfof Murray Weaver, who is the Applicant/Respondent in thematter of the three appeals against the approval of designreview and a conditional use permit ("CUp,,) for the BarleyBarn Tap House Project (PN L9-L74t. Said approval was granted by FoIsom/ s Historic District Commission (*HDC,,) on or about November 18, 2o2lt and pursuant to the Folsom
Munlcipal code (*FMC-). This letter brief addresses therelevant FMC provisions, and the public policy issuesraised by the three Appellants.

In addition to the submissi-on of this letter brief,attorney sabrina v. Tell-er, a princlpar in the sacramento l-aw firm of Remy Moose Manley, has submitted her l-etterbrlef on behalf of the Applicant/Respondent. Her l-etterbrief addresses the CEQA issues raised by the Appellantsherein, and Appe1lant Bob Delp in particular TI. The Case:

A.The Proiect: The Barl-ey Barn Tap House isproposed to sell beer, soft drinks, and snack items in theexisting red barn located at 608 % sut.ter street. No wineino hard liquor. ft is also proposed to have 1ow volume music inside the buildinq , and tabl-es outside on the west side of the building for those patrons who want to enjoythe out of doors while at the tap house drinking theirfavorite beverage. The barn was built in 1958 or 40 years

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Mayor Kerri

December 28,
HoweII, et al-.
2021,
before the city's adoption of the FMC provisions here inissue. rt sits on a parcel of about .r2 acres in area,incruding the barn and a wide walkway that connects thebarn directly to sutter Street. The walkway arso connectsto the pubJ-ic parking rot ]ocated at Riley & scott Streetsand which is to the rear of the barn.

B. The Rol-e & Powers of the HDC: Under the provisions of FMC section 17.52.300, the HDC "shal1 have final authorityrelatlng to the design and architecture of t.he followingstructures within the historic district boundaries. Allexterior renovati-ons, remodeling, modificatj-on or additionto exi-sting structures. (ord. 890 section 2 (part) , 1"ggg.,' Likewise, under FMC section r7 .52.360/ "A. The IHDCI shall-have final authority relating to the issuance of [cups] forany of the uses or purposes for which such permits arerequired or permitted by the terms of this titre within theboundaries of the IHDC] ..

C. The Rol-e & Powers of the Citv Council in this case
under the FMC: The procedural requirements of the appealand the powers of the city council- are set out in FMc Sections 17 .52.700, 77 .52.1I0, and Ii .52.120 (Ord. B9-section 2 (parl-) l_998 ) . In sum/ the procedure is . [i] f a person whose property rights may be affected isdissatisfied with any determination made by the IHDCI suchperson may appeal to the city council,,, provided she or he compries with the timeliness reguirements of the FMc in thefiling of a written appeal.

Thereafter, the Council_ '.shal_1, review the entireproceeding relatlng to the act or decision being appealed,de novo, and may make any order it d.eems just and equitab.l-eincluding granting of a permit..." but must do so by wrj-ttendecision and findings. Section 17,52.1I0, above. The Council's findings must be supported by substantialevldence presented for its consideratlon. Topansa Ass'nFor A Scenic Communi-tv v Countv of Los Angelesc. 3d 506.

Torrance
See a1so, BreakZone Billiards
(r914) \1
v. City of
(2000 ) 81 CA4th 1205 , which het-d that in a CUp
case, a court should resolve alr reasonable doubts in favorof the administrative findings and the decision.Similarly, the City Council, when exercising its powers

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Mayor Kerri Howell, et al.

December 28, 202I
under the FMC to review the findings and decislon of theHDc, shou]d resolve a1l reasonable doubts in favor of theHDC's decision and render it finar. FMc Li.s2.360A, above. fn this case, the City, s written staff report as
well- as the written submission of the Applicant, and theoral- presentations of staff, Applicant and others Iasevj-denced by the minutes of the HDCI , establ-ish substantiarevidence in support of the HDC's decislon approving designreview and granting the cuP as requested, but on conditionof the maintenance of the }ease of the Eagles/ parking lotduring the period of the cup, and the pavlng and stripingof that parking lot by Applicant before building permitsare issued.

D. HDC's Decision & The Appeals: On or about November
18, 2027, the HDC unanimously approved the design of theproject [with two recusa]sl and granted the cup by a voteof 4 to 1 fa1so with two recusals] . The Applicant, s replyto the three appeals follows in Section IfI., hereof.

E. The Conditional Use Permit Requirement: Cityhas determined that the underlying zoning for thisis C-2, which is set out at FMC Section 1,1 .22.030tr.29 [bar & tavern] . per FMC SectionlT .22.040Staff has concluded that a CUp j-s required in thisbecause the proposed project is within 500 closing tlme is beyond 11pm limit under the C-2
"bar & tavernar " the relevant provisions are set
residences and because the apprication requests permissionto stay open until,12:30a.m. the following morning on Thursdays, Fridays, and Saturdays. That is, the
Staff
property
A.2. and

6., City
instance
feet of
reguested
zoninq for
out, above .

IfI. Argument:

A. llants' Parki-n Issues: Either explicitlyor implicitly, each of the three appellants centers theirappeal on a t'parking" issue. But none of them has definedwhat exactly is the "parking" issue for them, and theydon't seem to agree among themselves. l-. Delp Positlon on Parking: fn the case of Mr. DeIp, he employs rough tactics on al-l issues, largely cEeA based,and his arguments are taken up in the letter

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Mayor Kerri

December 28,
Howel1, et al.
202r
brief submitted
Teller.
by the Applicant's CEQA counsel, Sabrina

2. The HFRA Position on Parkinq:
a. The parking issue for the Historic Fol-som
Residents' Association ("HFIU\") appears based on theirdesire to eliminate altogether the incidence of people parking their cars on the public streets in front of their members' homesf even though the city has not restrictedparking there, and furthermore, HFRA is not alleging thatthere are whole*sale viol-at j-ons of established parking restrictions in their neighborhood.
b. HFRA advances this goal by claiming that thisProject wilI "be detrimental or injurious to the health,safety, peace, morals, comfort, and general welfare ofpersons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use, or be detrimental or injurl_ous to property and improvements in the neighborhood, or to the qeneral welfare of the cLty." FMC Section 17.52.510.
c. However, aside from repet.itive ipse djxitargumentation, neither HFRA nor 1ts testifying members offered any probative evidence to HDC that this project was in any way detrimental or injurious. For example, they
complain that the parking studies of 2A08, 20L3 and 20L8 were not presented to HDC, but they fail to point out how or in what particular way those parking studies would
establish that this project woul_d be detrimental orlnjurious to the members of HFRA or anyone e1se. whire theyirnply that the three studies establish that there is ..a l-ack of parking rel-at j-ve to the existing businesses,, they do not establish a factual basis for that assertion.Moreover, and to the contrary, this writer spoke with thecity's traffic consultant and principal author of those traffic studies [Matt Weir], earlier this month, and he told me by telephone that in fact there is ,'adeguate
parking" for this project in the Sutter Street Commercial area. Mr. weir's opinions can be verlfied and establishedby City Staff calling upon him Ias their consultant] toopi-ne on that topic before the city council at the ,January 11tn hearing. In their appeal/ HFRA objects to City Staffrelying on t'past practice" in not requirlng compliance witha modern day lthat is, a 19981 parking ordinance provision.

The "past practice" they object to is a recognition that

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Mayor Kerri

December 28,
Howell, et al
2021
the 1998 parking requirements do not apply to a project inthat commercial- area when a building owner simpry changes the use or occupant of an existing building but does notrequest to expand the footprint of the building. rt is more than ironic for a group with the word "Hj-storic" in its name would attack modern day implementation of 19th centuryplanning principles in a historic area, in favor of more contemporary auto-centric requirements instead.The reason for Staf f 's "past practice', j_s readilyapparent when one l-ooks over the layout of the sutterstreet commercial area itserf and considers its development hlstory. This commercial area runs roughly along sutterstreet from scott street to Folsom Brvd. and encompasses r.eidesdorf f Street between scott st . and Folsom Bl-vd. as welr. The boundaries of the commercial area are partlybased on the 1856 Theodore Judah parcel map of "GraniteCi-t,y. " The original commercial_ development of that areawas done during the 19th century and was consistent with Lgth century standards. Tn those days, folks traveled by foot,by horseback, or by carriage fincluding coaches & wagons].

Automobiles did not exist.As is well known, cars weren't invented untir the rate1BB0s and didn't become popular in the u.s. until the earry2Oth century. By that time, the sutter street commercial area was pretty much fu11y developed as can be seen 1n thehistorical- record being preserved at Fol-som, s history museum and their photographlc archives.

No automobile parking was included j_n any of thecommercial properties of the time, for the reason stated.when automobil-es showed up and after zoning codes were invented, there was no way to retrofit automobj-le parkingspaces on those properties. Automotive parking needs were accommodated by diagonal parking on sutter street. The
other way of accommodating automobile parking on or nearSutter street was by l-and acquisition and replacement ofbuildings with parking lots. This has been done alongsutter street. E-or example, when what we cal-l the HaciendaBuilding was built in the 1970s over a location that had an 19th century building beforehand. about L2 or 13 parkingspaces were added to the front of the property. Likewise,at the site of the ord Fireman's Hall lwhich burned down nearly 100 years agol, in recent years, Developer JerryBernau has added about 25-30 automotive parkj-ng spaces.

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Mayor Kerri

December 28,
Howell, €t al.
2021,
d. As a corolLary to the l_9th century planning model,there is no private rand in the immediate vicinity of thisproject or any other along that part of sutter Street thatis available for more parking. IHence, Applicant, s turn tothe Eagles to increase utilization of their parking lotl.A decision by the councir to require the Applicant toprovide 13 or L4 more parking spaces either on-site ornear-by off-site, would be the death knefr for thisProjectr ds it rikely would be for any similar project on the whote of Sutter Street.
e. Cruelest cut of all-, HFRA, in 1ts eagerness tovanquish the Applicant does not even acknowledge:
(i) Applicant was the biggest supporter ofhaving the city establ_ish and fund an experimental- ..parking permit program', for thebenefit of the HFRA residents;(ii) fn October, ZA2I, this City Council_ approved going forward with such a parklng permitprogram and implementation is now underway;(iii) One salubrious result of such program would be to efiminate any chance for the Applicant, s
future customers to park their vehicles in therestrlcted area without penalty, but far be itfrom HFRA to acknowledge this benefit, for so faras HFRA is concerned, that parking permit program means nothing vis 'a vis the Appticant, s project,
when it meant everything a few weeks ago when
HFRA appeared before the city councif to ask forthe funding. rt is sad to see such double tarkfrom a neighborhood group. (iv) At the HDC hearing, Gary Richard toldthe commission that the shuttl-e carries between 20 and 50 customers on Friday and Saturdaynights. That is 20 to 50 peopte who aren'tparking in HFRA, s neighborhood, not that HFRA cares a l_ick.
f . fn the same vein, HFRA can't bring itsel-f toacknowledge that this Applicant is the only property and/orbusiness owner in the entire sutter street commercial areawho has spent his own money to provide shuttle servi_ces sohis customers will park in the city, s many public parkinglots at the west end of sutter street and not in the HFRA neighborhood. But apparently it is too much to get

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Mayor Kerri Howell, et aI.

December 28, 202L
them to acknowledge the benefit to themselves from thatprogram as weIl. g. FinaIIy, it should be obvious, HFRA's remedy
for their angst over parking is not to stop the Applicant'sProject, nor to shut down growth and development on sutterStreet, but to work with the City to establish a faj_r, equitable, and workable parking plan for theirneighborhood.

3. The Rail-road Block Devlopert s kinq fssue:
a. Counsel for the Appl_icant understands that counselfor Appellant, Folsom Railroad Block Developer, LLC, (which is managed by Folsom Developer .Ierry Bernau IhereinafLerthe LLC is sometimes referred to as ..Developer Bernau,,l ),was not at the HDC hearing, so his knowledge of events there is second hand. rn this instance, it is also faulty.counsel for this Appellant mis-states the positionpresented by city staff to the HDc at the hearing on thisProj ect .

Contrary to this AppelJ-ant, s contention [via counsel]city staff did not recommend that Applicant's lease of theEagles' parking lot be characterlzed as a condition of thecuP because it believed the FMc required it, or that therewas a shortage of parking in the sutter street commercial Area. In fact, at the HDC hearing, City Staff made itclear that it is not imposing a new parkj-ng obligation on the Applicant per FMC section 17.s2.510F(ord. B9o section 2 (part), 1998) t1 parking space per each 350 square feet ofthe buildingl, because it is the long tirne establishedpractice of the City not to impose the FMC parkingrequirements on a project when it consists of a buildingremodel or a change of use which does not include an si-on of the oot int of the as in thiecase. The underlying policy behind this practj-ce isillustrated in this case, and as described in the responseto the HFRA argument on parking. See, Headnote Iff., A.,t., above (on page 3) .

In additionr ES aforesaid, this barn was erected in1958 or about some 40 years before the parking requirement, of section 17.52.51-0F. was estabrished. Arso, it was buirt30 years before the parking lot adjacent to the back of thebarn was constructed. Given the barn, s 60 years in placewithout change to its footprint, were the City to require

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Mayor Kerrj-
Page I
December 28,
Howell, et al-.
2021
compliance with section L7.52.510F, above, each time thisor any other building owner chanqes the use of thepremisesr ds has been done with the red barn at least one time after 1998 and since Applj-cant acquired it from theClouds, then the older buildings on Sutter Street,including this one, would become uneconomic and unsustainable. This conclusion which is, in substance, thereconrmendation of cit,y staff and the finding of the HDc, was estabrished before the HDc through the testimony ofGrenn Fait, former Mayor of Fol-som and long-time owner ofat l-east two commercial buildings in the Bo0 brock ofSutter Street. fn the same vein, and to this writer's best knowledge
and recoll-ection, in the 34 years fbeginning in November, L9191 of practicing law in this city, before Folsomrs
commj-ssions and councj-L aliker ds well as I years on thecity councj-rr Do parking requirement has been adopted whichplaced on existing buildings on sutter street theobrigation to assume a new parking burden upon a change oftenants or a change of use, except when there was arso anj-ncrease in square footage of the building.In addition, f was a member of the city council when this parking requirement, FMc section Li.52.510F(ord. 890 section 2 (part), 1998) ii- parklng space per each 350
square feet of the buildingl was adopted. To my bestknowledge and recollectj_on, neither It nor any of my colleagues on the 1998'city council [that is, members Glenn Fait, Sara Myers, Tom Aceituno or Steve Miklosl, opined inpubric hearing that the purpose of this proviso was toimpose a parking reguirement on existing sutter streetbuildings, should they change occupants or uses in thefuture. To my knowledge and best recollection, there is no legislative history that supports the contention by counselfor Deveroper Bernau on this point of FMC j-nterpretation nor any other legislative history supporting hiscontention. b. Devel,oper Bernaut s "no parkinq available" elaim isnot established in the recorrl from the HDC and is actuall v incorrect: At the HDC hearing, Developer Bernau claimedthat the parking capacity of the sutter street subarea was exhausted last summer (202L) and there is no capacity leftfor the Applicant's project. His counser repeats thatcontention in this appeal. At the HDC,s hearing, the

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Mayor Kerrj-

December 28,
Howell, et al
202I
city's engineering staff was present. That staff member reviewed the chart produced by Deveroper Bernau before theHDc, and among other things, opined in substance thatBernau misconstrued the Kimberly-Horn chart when he made this argument, and that the study appeared to predict a possible parking saturation point beginning in August,2023, not the summer of 2o2r as craimed by this Appellant.The chart itself supports city staff, not the Appellant.specifically, the operative entries on the chart are thatthe Sutter Street commercial_ area is projected to be at 92* of capacity [not 100t] in September, 2022t that is 9 months from now. Also, the chart projects that 4r more parkingspaces may be needed in about 2l months from now, lf iteassumptions are correct.First off, it should be noted, the traffic studyprolectlons have not been adjusted by Kimberly-Horn toaccount for the impact on parking in the sutter streetcommercial area from ride sharing apps. such as uber andlyft. The Applicant's experience is that between 10t and202 of his patrons use ride share on any given night. Thisis a significant factor not yet accounted for in any of thecity's traffic studies. The effect of ride shaie apps.can only be to reduce the demand for parking spaces in thearea. This factor ought to be a part of base line forestimatj-ng the future parking space needs.

Moreover, close examination reveals that theprojections in the chart which hras introduced by Appellantto the HDc and now to the city council are demonstrablywrong. why? Because the chart wrongly assumes thatAppellant will have begun construction on another buildinglast september Ihe didn't] and complete that constructionby September 2022 lhe won't]. Were it sor 22 parkingspaces would already have been supplanted by constructionactivity, and 20 more spaces would be needed at thehypothetical completion of construction not yet begun.That erroneous projection alone demonstrates theunreliabirity of parking space projections. This erroralone creates a swing of 42 availabl-e parking spaces infavor of the approval of Applicantrs project nohr. Whatthat also means is that measuring the parking projectionson the chart with what Appellant is actually not doing onthe ground, estabrishes that there is parking avaitabre inthe commercial district for t,he Applicant, s future

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Mayor Kerri

December 28,
Howell, et al.
202L
customers. fn other words, the parking is adequate.
rn point of fact, the principal- author of the parkingstudies, Matt wei-r of Kimberly-Horn, as aforesaid, tordthis writer in a phone conversation in early December,202r, that there is "adequate parking" for this project inthe sutter street commercial district. city staff is in a position to confirm the veraci-ty of this opinion bydiscussing it directly with their parking consurtant, Mattweir' before the hearing on this appeal and ought to do soin order to present their best evidence to the city councilon this topic. c. Developer Bernaut s Claim of fnadesuate ParkinqIsNot Sustained, as Evidenced bv His Own Conduct as an FHDA Board Member and bv Public Parkinq Space EliminationsApproved bv FHDA d the Citv of Fo1som ftself:It is well known that Bernau is active in the civicaffairs of Folsom. Most prominently he serves on theFolsom Historic District Association Board of Di.rectors andon the Tourism Board of Directors as he has done fromlnception. His record of pubric service is commendable.However, that record of service to the businesses in thesutter street commerciar area stands in stark contrast tothe contentions asserted in his appearance before the HDc on this Project, and which he is now asserting before thecouncil. rn particular, Developer Bernau, as a member ofthe Board of Directors of the Forsom Historic DistrictAssociation ("FHDA') / has supported the city and FHDA inrecently eliminating parking spaces along sutter andLeidesdorff Streets for other uses. specifically, the FHDA board of directors (includingBernau) and city staff have approved the elimination ofabout 7 pubtic parking spaccr along sutter street at arltimes, from about Ju1y, 2o2l to the present and into theindetermi-nate future. They have also eliminated about 13pubric parking spaaes at the Hacienda Buirding from Fridaythrough sundays also since about July, 2a2l [incruding i ofthose a1l the timel. This total of about 20 parkiog ,p"o""is mainly eriminated when parking spaces are in hilhestdemand, that is, Friday night and weekends. rn addition, the FHDA board of directors fincludingBernaul, and city staff have closed off about go larlrtngtpac€s for use of the ice-skating rink operators from aboutOctober 15, of each year until about ,:anuary i-5 of the

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Mayor Kerri
Page l-l-
December 28,
Howell, et aI.
202r
following year. That is, during a three-month period ofthe calendar year when public parking spaces are at a premium in the hlstoric districtfs commercial area. Now, if you believe, as the Applicant does, that the Sutter
Street commercj-al area has sufficient parking resources to accommodate this reduction of about 50 spaces, then there is no problem in doing sor and no problem in the Council approving the grant of entitlements by HDC, so he can go forward with his Barl-ey Barn Tap House project.

On the other hand, how can anyone accept Developer
Bernau's claim that there is inadequate parking in theSutter Street commercial district to accommodate the Applicant, such t,hat his Project should be denied when hef s at the forefront of eliminating some 50 parking spaces atthe busiest times of the week and the year? Were he trulybelieving that, he would be working overtime to retainthose parking spaces, not eliminate them.

Likewise, City Staff's approval of the el-imination ofthose 50 parking spaces r €rs well as the fact the City has not taken steps to rent or lease the Baker Family, s parking lot at Leidesdorff & Gold Like Drive lwhich has about 20-25 parking spacesl, as has been done on occasion in t,he past, betokens a belj-ef , consj-stent with City Staf f , s
recommendatj-on of approval of this Application, that thecity has adequate parking in the sutter street commercj-al area. At the present, the Baker parkj-ng lot lies vacant and unused for public parking. ff scarcity of publicparking spaces in and around Sutter Street were a real,critical, and immediate problem, one would expect to see Developer Bernau appealing to the Cj_ty to recover the 50 closed off spaces and even extend it to a request to use the Baker property's parking spaces. Given the contentionsof Developer Bernau in this case, his inactj_on in those other venues constitutes some evidence that he knows thereis in fact adequate parking for the Applicant's projectr ds both the City's Staff and its consultants indicate. Inother words, when his claims and contentions against theApplicant/s Project are praced in the context of his effortto eriminate the use of parking spaces in the commercial area of sutter street, it is clear that his claims in thiscase are pretextual, not genuine. d. Develooer Bernau's Arqument That licant and
Others Are fmpinqinq on hi_ g "Right' to Park His Future

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Mayor Kerri Howell, et al.

Page L2
December 28, 2021,
Customers', Patrong'& Tenants'Cars in the Citv's Parkinq Garaoe Lacks Proof of Causation: While Bernau made thisclaim before the HDc he did not share the circumstance ofhis predicament. Namely, he was obligated by contract, withthe City to begin work on the Granite House in calendaryear 2008 by reason of the completion of the constructionof the City's parking garage in that year [which completionwas a precondition to his obligation to commence constructionl. To date, over l-3 years later, constructionon the Granite house is yet to begin. Iikewiser rro building by Bernau on the Fj-reman, s HalI site, nor at theformer Perkins BuiJ-ding site. rt is the fact that none ofthose t,hree buildings are underway, not Applicant, s litttetap house project that is the cause of Bernau'spredicament. e. Neither Developer Bernau nor his LLC have standinqto eal the HDC deci-sion. As set out in headnote t\8" above (page 2 hereof), an Appellant must be a person whose property rights are affected" by the granting of a CUp tothe Applicant. FMC, Section t7.52.?OOA., above. Neitherin his appearance before the HDC nor in his LLC's appeal tothe city council has Developer Bernau or his counsel alleged facts sufflcient to establish that he or his LLc j-s a person whose property rights are affected by the grantingof the CUP. Specifically, nej_ther Bernau nor his LLC "resides" within 500 feet of the Applicant's barn buiJ-ding.Likewise, and because of that fact, keeping the Applicant, s tap house open to 12:30am three nights a week has not been alleged as having any i-mpact on this Appellantr s, "propertyrights." Indeed, Bernaurs only existing fully commercial building in the sutter street commercj.al area is rday more than 500 feet from the Applicant,, s barn building and therestaurant therein routinely stays open past L2:3Oam on Fridays and saturdays. Likewise, his multi-use whiskey Row Lofts property is way more than 500 feet from the premises, but barely 100 feet away from Bernau's Roundhouse Building.rn sum, neither has alleged facts sufficient to meet the FMC requirement cited above.

4. The Non- Issues i-n the Delp Appeal: As stated
red on his CEQA
on behalf of the
a separate
above, the Delp appeal is mainly cente
arguments which have been ably answered
Applicant by Attorney Sabrina Teller under

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Mayor Kerri Howell, et al.

December 28, 202t
filing. There are a few other issues raj-sed by Mr. Delp to whlch this reply is made.
a. Easement fssue: DeIp argues that Applicant cannot
access the Eagles'parking lot because access is provided by an alley way. Delp claj-ms without documentary evidence that the City "owns" the al1ey way. That may or may not be the case here, but a majority of this Council will recallthat its review of permits for the Mosley House on BidweII Street established a conmon circumstance that 1ike1y here applies as welL, namelyr Ers in Mosley, the Eagles likely own the underlying fee to the middle of the alleyway, and the City has an easement upon it. Counsel for Applicant does not see any prohibition arising against the Eagles or their tenant from that circumstance, but in any case Delp, s easement issue is not proven by probative evj-dence.
b. The Road Crossing fssue: Delp claims, again withoutEvidence, that use of the Eagles, lot would be a grave danger to the parkj-ng public in that they wiLl not walk a few feet up hill- to cross the street at a four qay stop,nor walk down the hill a few feet to cross the same streetat a signalized intersection with a pedestrian feature as a part thereof. Againr DO competent evidence presented, such as accident or incident data, just Delp, s speculation.

5. Additional- fssues Arisinq From The HFRA Appeal: Before HDC, HFRA raised other issues pertaining to .'parking
variances" "parking densi-ty" "hours of operation, and so forth. Those were addressed in the wri_tten submissions before the HDC as well as the oral presentation to HDC, and are part of the administrative record in front of theCity Council. Those replies on behalf of the Appticantneed not be repeated here, but are by such reference,incorporated herein

6. The Eaqles, Lot Lease Issues & Related Issues: AlIrhree of the appeals attack Applicant, s lease of theEagles' 1ot. This headnote 1s intended to address them inunj-son. To begin with, one of the Kimberly-Horn studj-es observed that the Eagles' parking lot was under-utilizedand its use ought to be enhanced. This recommendation was the source of the Applicant's decision to lease thatparking lot for his Project. The fact that the parking lotsite close to his barn, where the tap house is to be

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Mayor Kerri Howe11, et aL.

Page t4
December 28, 2021,
located, made that parking lot's use very desirable.

The .Lease on the Eagles' lot was acquired by theApplicant to give the patrons of his proposed tap house a close-in alternative to the public parking adjacent to thebarn and the shuttle service he has been providing fornearly three years. The Leaee is a Iegally binding document for which the Applicant has been paying rent tothe Eagles since September 202L Attached to this writing are copies of 5 photographs
taken by the Applicant in one week in September, 2O2I toil-l-ustrate the normal condition of the Eagres, parking lot:empty! fn addition to those 5, the Applicant has takenanother 15 or so photographs on various days sinceSeptember to illustrate that point. The Eagles has admitted to the Applicant that they actualry use their own parking lot only a day or two every month, at the most,hence its availability to the Applicant, s customers forabout 340 days a year, or more. counsel for the Applicantrespectfully suggests that this lease will make a modest expansion to the City's inventory of parking spaces forcommercial activity in and around Sutter Street. Any incremental increase in parking options by the privatesector in the hj-storic district should be worthy oflaudations, not brj-ckbats.

Formerly there was no uber and Lyft to deliver patronsand customers to the businesses on sutter street as is thecase today. rn sum, there are many, many different nobilitypaths to the Applicant's property besides parking in frontof the home of HFRA members and the Applicant has done more than his fair share to see that through.

Finally' it appears that the opponents to this projectapproach its like1y parking needs in a static, straight-line method, as if every day the tap house wilt have thesame number of patrons needing about the same number ofparking spaces at the same time, etc. The reality witlbe quite different. For example, around noontime customersof the tap house will- be able to share the parking J-ot nextto wild' s wlth their customers, because the powerhouse pub and scarletts are not open for customers at that hour.Likewise, after the dinner hour, parking is readilyavailable in the sutter street commercial- area. The crunchti-me is the dinner hour when the Eagles, lot, plus the

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Mayor Kerri

December 28,
Howell, et a1
202L
sutter street surfer's shuttle service as well as the rideshare apps., the parking garage, the parking at peddler's Lane and on the lid and across from the lid wirl arleviateparking pressure by the barn. Likewj_se, the City's nei-ghborhood permit system, plus improved way-finding, willdirect automobiles away from the residentj-al neighborhoods and towards parking on the west side of the commercial
area. What causes parking issues anyway? Success. people want to go to Sutter Street and spend their money. Thistransrates into money for the city's coffers. The economic revitalization of sutter street that was begun more than 10 yea.rs ago is being successful. parking issues are a signof good timesr so the City simply needs to activelyparticipate in creating more parking solutions aa the need arises. So far, it,s doing pretty well.

7. The Applic antt s Lons Standinq Good Neiqhbor Policv:

The Applicant has a long history of public-spiritedcontributj.ons of time and money to FHDA as well as a formerboard member, as a member of the Folsom chamber of commerce and as a former board member. He also donated time and
treasure toward Folsom Live, and Folsom Tourism. In the same spirit, he has participated in Folsom's ad hoc
committee on parking in the historic district, and fornearly three years he has provided his own customers and others, free of charge, the sutter street surfer shuttleservice. This service makes it possible for people toconveniently have more mobility options besides walking orparking in the HFRA neighborhood. customers have a widerselection of on and off-street public parking options,public transportation, or rj-de sharing apps. than everbefore. A copy of the Applicant, s poster promoting theshuttle service is attached to the record before the HDC and is by such reference incorporated herein.

8. Apolicant is an Established Busines s Owner With a 20+ Year Track Record of Accompl_ ishment for the Communitv ofFolsom: Every year Applicant pays over $100,000 to thecity's coffers by means of sales and rear property taxes.As such these expenditures do, among other things,contribute to the maintenance of the high level_ of

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Mayor Kerri Howellr et al.

December 28, 2021,
municipal services that HFRA members and all other
residents of Folsom have and enjoy. With Council's denial of the Appeals and affirmation of HDC's approval of thisproJect, the Applicant will gladty expand that contribution to the commonweal by way of the operation of the Barley Barn Tap House.

9. Conclusion: The three appeals should be denied and
the decision of the HDC should be affirmed with such
findings and conclusions based on the evidence adduced at the hearing before the City Council and as the City
attorney deems appropriate to support that affirmation.

Very truly yours,
RGH:1s {,iw nll#*,''"e//
Ms.

Ms.

Mr.

Mr.

Ms.

Mr.

Ms,
The
Elaine Andersen; city manager
Pam Johns, Community Development Director
Steve Wang, City Attorney
Mark Rackovan, Public Works Director
Christa Freemantle, City Clerk
Steve Banks, Principal Planner
Sari Dierking, Assistant City Attorney
Three Appellants IBernau, Delp, & HFRA)

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Exhibit#I
(Five Photographs)
Description: Five photos of the Eagles
parklng lot taken by the Applicant on five
consecutive days in September, 2021, to
illustrate the most common condition of
that parking lot, namely EMPTY.

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

I o(5

01/11/2022 Item No.15.
g),oz

01/11/2022 Item No.15.
3 of 5

01/11/2022 Item No.15.
+ o{5

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

J
5 a+5

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Attachment 1l
Bob Delp Appeal Hearing Procedure Letter
Dated December 300 2021

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

December 30,2021
Elaine Andersen, City Manager
City of Folsom
50 Natoma Street
Folsom, CA 95630
via email to [email protected]
cc: Steven Wang, City Attorney ([email protected])
Christa Freemantle, City Clerk ([email protected]) Pam Johns, Community Development Director (pj ohns@folsom. ca.us) SUBJECT: Barley Barn Tap House Project (PN 19-174) - Appeal Hearing Procedures and Staff Objectivity
Dear Ms. Andersen:

On November 24,2021,I submitted an appeal to the City Council of the decision by the Historic Dishict Commission (*HDC") approving the Barley Barn Tap House Project (PN 19-174) ('?roject'). Community Development Department ("CDD") staffhave provided a hearing notice advising that a hearing is scheduled for January 11,2022, at which the City Council will consider the merits of my appeal and two other appeals filed by separate parties.

This letter is to express my concerns regarding a staff-created appeal hearing protocol that is inconsistent with hearing procedures established by City Council Resolution No. 9689 and to express my concems regarding potential lack of objectivity of staff involved in facilitating what should be a fair and impartial appeal hearing process, I am asking that you take all reasonable and necessary measures to ensure the City Council's formally adopted hearing procedures are followed and that a fair and impartial hearing is achieved and facilitated by objective City staff.

Hearing Procedure
On December 2"d and in response to a question I asked about the appeal hearing process, the City Clerk directed me to the appeal hearing procedures established by Resolution 9689 (included here as Attachment A). On December 20d', City planner, Mr. Steve Banks, sent me an "Appeal Hearing Protocol" document (included here as Attachment B) that outlines a hearing process inconsistent with the appeal hearing procedures established in Resolution 9689 Rule 6. On December 286, responding to a question I asked regarding the hearing protocol provided by Mr.

Banks, the City Clerk advised me that, "[t]he City Attomey has confirmed that the protocol provided to you by Mr. Banks will be the one used for the hearing." In addition to modiffing speaker time periods and adding a specific speaker category of "Project Applicant" where no such category is provided in Resolution 9689 Rule 6, the December 20ft protocol from Mr. Banks provides for the Applicant to make 15 minutes of closing tematks after the appellants make closing remarks (allocated at 5 minutes for each appellant). In particular, the designation and sequence of Applicant closing remarks after the appellant's closing remarks substantially diverges from the procedures established in Rule 6.

Resolution 9689 provides for certain limited adjustments to the appeal hearing procedure, with the discretion for such adjustments granted solely to the Presiding Officer of an individual Page I

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

December 30,2021
hearing; not staffand not necessarily the Mayor.t I recognize the need to provide due process to the Applicant and to ensure sufficient opportunity is provided for the Applicant to address the Council at the appeal hearing. Resolution 9689 is well-suited to accommodate that.

The Applicant can request, and there is evcry reason to expect that the Presiding Officer would grant, an extended period of time during the Statements from the Public portion of the hearing.

If staff is concerned that the Presiding Oflice might not understand the need to sufficiently accommodate Applicant input, then staff could include a recommendation in the staff report for the Presiding Officer to provide additional time for the Applicant to comment during the Statements from the Public portion of the hearing.2
Resolution 9689 expresses the City Council's intent "to adopt formal procedures for appeals and public hearings to encourage greater public participation and to process information to the public for the betterment of City operations" and "to establish rules to govern its meetings and declare its rules of procedures to the public." There is simply no objective need for staff to preemptively define a unique hearing protocol that substantially diverges from the procedures of Resolution 9689. Staff s aftempt to do so undermines Resolution 9689's intent to establish formal procedures and diminishes the resolution's important public involvement and due process objectives.3
Need for Staff Objectivity in Facilitating a Quasi-Judicial Hearing When the City Council is acting as a quasi-judicial body, as is apparently intended for hearing the appeals, the Councilmembers as well as staff aiding in facilitating the hearing must be objective and free of bias to ensure a fair and impartial hearing. I am not suggesting intended or conscious staff bias, however, even unintended staff bias in favor of the Applicant or Project would adversely affect my right to due process and a fair hearing of my appeal. Therefore, staff I Although the protocol provided by Mr. Banks references the "Mayor," as specified in Rule I of Resolution 9689, the Councilmember (Mayor, Vice Mayor, or other) who will serve as the Presiding Officer of a hearing depends on which Councilmembers axe present at the meeting and will participate in the hearing. Although the Mayor might be the Presiding Offrcer, that cannot be definitely detennined until the beginning of the hearing and it is confirmed that the Mayor will participate in the hearing.

Therefore, any adjustnents to the appeal hearing procedures cannot be made in advance ofthe hearing and must wait until the Presiding Officer for the hearing is established. 2 At the heart of my appeal is to seek a full de novo hearing during which the City Council considers the merits of the Project in light of information and analyses suflicient for meaningful consideration of whether the findings required for Project approval can be made. Sufficient information and analyses has not yet been prepared or, at least, has not yet becn introduced into the record, Even ifthe Council were to agree to each of my issues of appeal, the Council's decision at the January l1 hearing is unlikely, and perhaps legally cannot, result in the Council's flat denial ofthe Project. Instead, ifthe Council agrees with one or more of the issues in my appeal, the Council's decision at thc January I I hearing would l) reject HDC's approvals and 2) direct staff to assemble additional information and conduct additional analyses, prepare a CEQA document, and require the applicant to submit an application for a parking variance prior to bringing the project back to the Council for a de novo hearing. Such a de novo hearing would presumably follow the Resolution 9689 Rule 5 hearing procedures (not the Rule 6 appeal hearing procedures) and would put the Applicant front and center at that hearing, providing ample opporhrnity for the Applicant to present the merits of his Project to the Council. 3 If staffbelieves Resolution 9689 fails to provide a sufficient appeal hearing procedure, staff has the ability to bring an amendment to Resolution 9689 to the Council for consideration. That, of course, is outside the scope ofthe present appeal.

Page2

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Dccember 30,2021
objectivity and potential bias must be taken seriously and addressed to ensure an impartial hearing.

Staffs asserted appeal hearing protocol and deference to Applicant speaking opportunities that differ from the Resolution 9689 Rule 6 framework as discussed above indicate potential staff bias in favor of the Applicant. In fact, each instance in which staff s protocol diverges from the established Resolution 9689 Rule 6 framework appears suggests potential bias in favor of the Applicant and the Project and defracts from the public involvement and due process aims of Resolution 9689.

Furthermore, staff s intent to combine three appeals into one hearing will necessarily dilute the Council's focus on each individual appeal. Additionally, staffs proposed protocol combines three appeals, yet retains a total ofjust three minutes as the default speaking time for a member of the public to address the Council on all three appeals. Of course, members of the public could request that the Presiding Officer provide additional time and the Presiding Officer may choose to grant that additional time. However, staff-crafted protocol does not propose an increase in time for public commenters in proportion to the number of appeals, yet staff protocol does appear to establish the Applicant's speaking time in proportion to the number of appeals indicating a potential staff bias in favor of the Applicant over members of the public.

There are also other complicating factors inherent in the combined appeals hearing process that sugg€st potential bias against the appellants. For instance, to exercise my right to comment on the other appeals during the Statements from the Public portion of the hearing, I will need to divert attention - mine and the Council's - away from focusing on the issues of my appeal. Due process requires the City to provide me a fair opportunity to act as an appellant at a hearing of my appeal and also requires the City to provide me a fair opportunity to comment as a member of the public on other appeals.

In addition to potential bias indicated by staffs hearing protocol, another example of apparent potential bias involves the public notice for the appeal hearing. The hearing notice states, oThe project is categorically exempt from CEQA," However, a fundamental component of my appeal is that the Project is not exempt from CEQA. A statement in the hearing notice that conhadicts a key factor of my appeal indicates a potential bias of the notice preparer and could also serve to foster bias against that aspect of my appeal by anyone reading the notice, including Councilmembers.a
Lastly, it appears that Mr. Banks is managing preparation for the January 1lft hearing on behalf of the CDD. Mr. Banks is also the planner who coordinated extensively with the Applicant in preparing for HDC hearings, led the preparation of staff reports to the HDC, and presented the Project to the HDC during hearings recommending the HDC's approval of the Project. A basis of my appeal is that, "fi]nformation and analysis provided in the staff report to the HDC was insufficient for meaningful consideration of the Project's potential impacts and for the HDC to make a fully informed decision about the Project." Since my appeal is in opposition to the information and recommendations Mr. Banks provided to the HDC, it is reasonable to assume that Mr. Banks disagrees with the factors of my appeal. The potential for even unintended, unconscious bias of Mr. Banks against factors of my appeal is sufficiently high to wartant the a The hearing notice also discusses that the appeals include appeal of the HDC's determination that the Project is exempt from CEQA. That portion of the hearing notice is accurate and appropriate for the notice. It is the subsequent statement in the notice that "[t]he project is categorically exempt..." that contradicts my appeal and lacks objectivity.

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

December 30,2021
City Manager's designation of alternative planning staff to facilitate an objective quasi-judicial appeal hearing process.

Conclusion
Thank you for considering my concems regarding stafPs proposed hearing protocol and interest in a fair and impartial appeal hearing. I hope that you will take appropriate measures to ensure the City Council's formally adopted hearing procedures are followed and that a fair and impartial appeal hearing is accomplished.

As a final point, I would like to note that if the Project was being taken to the City Council for a de novo hearing (see footnote 2),my due process concerns expressed here would be substantially alleviated.

Sincerely,
Bob Delp
612 Mormon Street
Folsom, CA 95630
[email protected]
916-812-8122
Attachments:

A. Resolution No. 9689 - A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Folsom Relating to City Council Meetings, Proceedings; and Business (December 8, 2015) B. "Updated Protocol for the Barley Barn Tap House Appeal" email and attachment from Steve Banks @ecernber 20,2021)
Page4

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Deccrnber 30,2021
Attachment A
Rerolutlon No. 9689 - A Rerolutlon of the City Councll of the City of X'olcom Relafing to City Council Meetingr, Proceedings; and Burinecc @ecember 8,2015)

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

RESOLUTION NO. 96S9

A RESOLUTION OT'TTIE CITY COUNCIL OF'THE CITY OX'F'OLSOM

RELATING TO CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS, PROCEEDINGS' AND BUSINESS WHER[,AS,'the City Council conduot$ its meetings in public, consistent with state law and according to o lons esta.blished agenda process;
WIIEREAS; the Council desires to formalize the agenda process and meeting protocol by Resolution and to adopf fo,rmal procedures for appeals and public hearings to enoourage greatgr publia larti.crpation aqd to proc€sl information to the public for the betterment of City qperatiqns; snd
WHERAAq the eounci! desites to estriblish nrles to govern its meetings and declaro its rules ofprocedure to the pUblio.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT I'ESOLVED thatthe City Councll of the City of Folsom does heieby establish the following rules for the conduct of its meetings, proceedings, and business'
Rule 1. Presidinglpfficpr. Thg Mayor, or in the absencb of the Mayor, the Vice Mayor shafi take the.shalr at fie how set for the meeting and shall call the Council to ordcf, In the: pbsence of tho Mayor and Vice Mgyor, the Council may designato a senior mcmberof"the Couneil to serve as lemporary Presiding Officerto facilitate the conducl of the meeting; Upon the alfiv4l ofthe Mayor or the Vice,May.er, tho temporary Presidiqg Officer Shall relinquish the chair at.the ciouolusion of the business item then before the Couniilij
Rule 2. Quorurn. A majorlty of the Counoil qonstitutes a quorum for the tranSactioii of busitiesS, but a leSser.nirmber nid/ adjoum from time to time, and may qontinue any hs.arhg soheduled fqr the approximate time and place of any meeting adjourned for lapk. of a quorum. If all Councilmembers are absent from arry rggg[ag me.eting; ttrp Qity Clefk shall declare the meeting adjourned to a stated day, hour and place,
Rule 3. Business Matterg. The business of the Council, at its meetings, may include the following major aategories and shall be organized into ail aggnda to facililate the conolusion of business within a rcasoriable period of time tbllowing public inq11i1i9s and comments on said iterns,
The agenda may consist of the following sectioris and be presented in this ordog how.ever, tlre P.residing Offlcer may in his or her discretion, rearrdnge the brder:

A. Pledee'.qfAllgsiance to the Flaq
B. RqLl CaU. The roll call shall be made by the City Clerk.

Resolution No. 9689
Page I of5

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

C. Soheduled Plssenhtions. This category shall include such items as ceremoniql presqnfatigns, proclamatibns, introductions, and informational presentations:

D. Business from the Floor. This iicm relates to mattcrs within the jurisdiction of the City Council and for hatters not 0n the regular agenda. No aotion is taken on husiness from the flbor and,lirnited discussion of these items shall occur.
l. The pe.rson wishing to addreps the Council shall stand to be reoognized by the Piesiding Officer and then proceed to the podium, The person addresslng the Council shall be reqtlested to complete a "blue cardt' and state his/her n$ime and addtess for the record,
2, Thq speaket shall b.p rsquesbd to addross the Council for $st more than tiuee minrfies, utrless the Presiding Officer rules oth$wis,e. 3, Any such ntatter heard. under this category also may be rpf.enqd tro the City, Manager tbr investigation.and either of disposition or report, No trcticin or di$oussion pccurg on a Business ftom t[e Flogr itcm, however, roquests to $aff to follow up on an item may be provided by the Cily Council.

E. Cons:e,,nt Calendar. This agenda category shall include items that are considered tO be routine and ministerial business matlers only. Suoh items may include, but aro nottiniited to; approval of minutes,awrixdi sf bids, bWard qf cont.racts, approval of resolutions, sqcond rsading of ordinausps, and othor gonerally non,ccinEove?sial matterc.

1. O,tre mofi'oni duly seconded, will bo considered ardpption of:all matkrs listed under the sonsent oalendar, unless d member of the Coirncil or the public'specifically requests a specific item be removed fiom the sonsslil calendar vote.

Z. Foilowjng the vot€'on thsconsent calendqr, the business maitqr(g) removed ftsm the consent chlehdar shhll be considbred and disposed of by motion and vote of thq Coungil.

F. Public Flearings. This category shal.l include advertised publio heaiings, whlch shall be cornmgnced at the time specifiod for each said heating, or ap soon thereaftgr'as is reasenably possible"
O, 9ld F-qsiness. This category maf include, but is not limited to such items as status leports, continued business matterc, and other matters previously addressEd by the City Counuil.

H. Ne-!'Business, This category may includb, but is not limited to such items as written communicationq ftom the public or specific written rcquest made of the Council, ordinances, and resohitions.

Resolution No, 9689

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

I, City Mausspr Report$. This agenda category shall contain reports frqm the City.Manager,
J, Council Comrnents. This agenda catogo.ry is set aside as a specific opportunily for each of the.Councilmembers to address itcrns of infonnation for all, or.requesting,mattem to be addressed by the City Manager ot City staff membes rpgarding ite.ms of public interest ot of significance to the Councilthemberi City Councilmembers will also address any travel at thg public, expense as required by la.w,
K. Adjgpmment. This item may inolude adjoutnment of a meeting, adjouniment to e Closed Sgssion regarding personnel, litigation, Iabsr r.elations, or iiistiuctionS to negotiators, or.rldjouninq€nt to a specific futue. datc and titrie.

Rule.4. Soeakcrs Time and Spokespeison for p Croup, Generally, a speaker on an tem is afforded threg (3) minuJeq for his/her presentation. 'lhe Presiding Ojicer msy adjust a speaker's timo inliisArer disCretion based on the itern presented, nunrber of speakers.and.other faclots consistent with an orderly end efficient meeting. Whenever any group of perSons wishes to address the Cbuncil on the same subject matter, the Presiding Officer fiay rgquest tliat a spokespergqn be ohosen by the group to addressthe Council, iurd in case additional data or arguirient is to be presented at the time by any pthgr ntember of,said groupr to limif the number of persous sq addressing ths Cpuncil and the scope:of their,rpmarks so as to avoid iriureoessary repetitions before the Council.

Speafters {nay nat t$nsfar any time rornairiing to.another speaker.

Rule 5. Public Hearings. The following.,ig trhe pJoppdurg fo. r q Publiq Hparirrg. oe-fore the Cit-y eouircii; however, the Presiding Officer may dlter the ofiler or procedue depending o.n tho uature of the publip h.garing;
a, Openthe public hearihg;
b, Staff Report;
Q; APPlicant'$ statementi
d. Statements from the public;
e. Close'thepublichearing;
t, If deterniinEd by the Predidrng Officer to be nedessary, invite the applicant to address qirestio.ns qnd/or issues raisod during public hoaring; g.: City Cotulcil discussion;
h, Qity Council action on the mattbr or continue the matter to another datb or time certaln or indefrnitely,
Rule 6. Appeals. Wherc the City Council is the hearing body on an appeal, the follorvihg procedure shall apply.

The sbquence of the hearing on rnatters appealed to the City Council shall be as follows:
a. Open the Public Hearing;
Resolution No.9689

01/11/2022 Item No.15.
b. Staff Report;
c. Appetrlant's PresenJation. Time limit * 10 nrinutes; d. Statements fr.om the public. Time limit- 3 minutes per speaker; e. Appellant make closing remarks to the City Council, Time limit- 5 minuleq; f. Appellanf and City staff may respbnd to questions ftom the City Council; g. Close public hearing;
h. City Cpuncil disr:ussion;
i, City Council action on the matter or continue tlie matter to anolher date or tinie certditr.

The sequence of' and speaker's time during the hearing on matters appealed to the City Counoil may be adjusted by the Presiding Officer in order to preserve an orderly and efficient hearing on the matter.

Rulc 7. Documents and Material Presented to the Cit:/ Counoil.

Documentary F,vidsnoe. Any dopqm.ents, writings, pictures, exhibits or other forms of tangiblp expression qhould be submitted to fhe Qtty Council,at the earliest opportunity, Once subnitted to the City Council, submitted materials ehall bbcomb the property of tlie City and part of the.publio rccord.

Persons dbsiring to submit documertts or other information to the City Council shall submit the infqr-natiOn to the Ci(y Clerk for the rscord and disseminatioh. Any person desidng to Blpsent in&rmation oleptronically by PowerPbirit or oJlier electronic heans must present tlig infonnation to the departmbnt responsible for: the City Council ilem in the proper eleetronic fo?mat forCity equipment bt ieast 24 hours iq aclvaltcn qf,tho Ci.ty Coureil mee;ting so the City shall' assure that it san safely. be processed,tfuough the Clty?s conputer system and relates to the subject of the,matter. The City mpy Celormins that Some elechonic infonnation is not safe f6r the City's system and.therefore, not'poffiit accbss. The person reqriesting subrnittal may then present the inforrnatiOn in paper copy.

Rulo 8. Doconrm. The Presiding Offioer $hall preserve decorum before tho City eouncil.

A. By Council, lfliLe the Council is in se ssion, the.rnernbers shall preserve order and decolrim consiritent with its adopted Ethics Policy.

B. By Other Persons. ifhe Presiding Offioer may take appropriate action to prevent actibns:t'hat pose a safety hazard to attendeps, including limiting items thqt may be brouglrt into the City Cowrcil Chambers.

C. Disoderl:/ Conduct. The Presiding Officer shall have the authority to preserve ordpr at all rneetings of ihe City Council, to request the City Manager to direct apptropdate staf,f remove or cause the removal of ony person from any meeting oftho C0uncil f,or conduct as hereinabove, to enforce the rules of the Counoil, and to rcstore order at the City Council meeting.

Resolution No.9689
Pa'ge 4 of 5

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Rulo 9, Council Voting. All votes taken by the City Corrncil shall be taken as set out herein.

A. Gene,ral. A roll call vote shall be taken on the adoption of all items before the City Council, the iesrilts of which shall be entered in the minbtes of the proceedlngs of the Council.

B. Name Rotation. The Counsil may direct the City Clerk to rotate the ofder of Ciiwtcil names each meeting so that the position of each member of the Council, other than the Mayor, shall vary each meeing. The Mayor shall vote, last in all votes'
C, Tlg Vo.te. In caseof a tis vote on ahy motion, the motion shall bs eonsidered lbst.

RUle 10, RuleS-olQrder. As provide.d in Folsom Municipal Cqde Section

2.06.070(C) the Council shall be governed by the curient edition of "Robert's Rules of Order'1.

Rule 11. Conflicts with Other Statutes or Ordipancgs. In the event of a conflict with state statutes goveming the City ofFolsom ol ordinances adopted by the City Counpii, such statutes and ordinances shall be controlling over the Rules in this Resolution.

Any prior Resolutions relbting to procedures ritid protocols governing meetings of the City Council are hetebyrepealed and aJl other Resolut'ionB,inconsistent herewith are hereby superseded,
PASSED AND ADOPTED on this 8e day of December 2015. by the following roll-ca1l vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENTT
ABSTAIN:

Counpil Merpber(s.)r Starsky, I{owell, Miklos, Sheldon, Morin Corincil:Membtx(s)l None
Council Member(b): None
CouncilMember(s): None
Zz /L
ArfdrefJ. Morin, MAFOR
ATTES]T:
(t hrt..ofr- fivr -' nets-zr
Ctrista Saundersl CITY CLERK
Resolution No. 9689

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

December30,202l
Attachment B
'(Updated Protocol for the Barley Bern Tap House Appeal" email and attachment from Steve Banks @ecember 2012021)

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Updated Protocol for the Barley Barn Tap House Appeal
Steven Banks <[email protected]>
Mon 12/20/202'1 9;53 AM
To: Bob Delp <[email protected]>
0 1 attachments (74 KB)
Appeal Hearing Protocol (Updated 1 22021 ).doc;
Good morning Mr. Delp,
Please find the attached document outlining the updated protocol for the Barley Barn Tap House project.

Steve
Steven Banks
Principal Planner
City of Folsom
(eL6) 461-6207
sbsgkc@fslletr !&us

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

IL"(() ]L, S O) N\4t

APPEAL HEARING PROTOCOL

1. MAYOR to OPEN Hearing on Appeal

2. CITY STAFF makes presentation to City Council

3. APPELLANT 1 makes presentation to City Council
a. Time limit- 10 minutes
b. Appellant 1 may divide speaking time between various speakers, but cumulative total speaking time is 10 minutes

4. APPELLANT 2 makes presentation to City Council
a. Tlme limit- 10 minutes
b. Appellanl2may divide speaking time between various speakers, but cumulative total speaking time is 10 minutes

5. APPELLANT 3 makes presentation to City Council
a. Time limit- 10 minutes
b. Appellant 3 may divide speaking time between various speakers, but cumulative total speaking time is 10 minutes
6 PROJECT APPLICANT makes presentation to Gity Gouncil
a. Time limit - 30 minutes.
b. Project Applicant may divide speaking time between various speakers, but cumulative total speaking time is 30 minutes

7. Members of the public may address the City Council:
a. Time limit - 3 minutes per member of the public

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

8. APPELLANTS may make closing remarks to City Council
a. Time limit - 5 minutes for each Appellant

9. PROJECT APPLICANT may make closing remarks to City Council a. Time limit- 15 minutes

10. CITY STAFF respond to questions from the City Council

11. MAYOR to CLOSE Appeal Hearing

12. City Council to deliberate and make decision on the appeal

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Attachment 12
Additional Public Comment Letters

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Steven Banks
From:

Sent:

To:

SubJect:

I CAUfrOrrrt This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the I sender and know the content is safe,
---Original Message---
From: [email protected]
To: powerhousepub@aol,com
Sent: Wed, Dec 8, 2021 1:22 pm
Subject: Fwd: Barley Barn Tap House Support letter #11 Spiegelman/ Historic district resident To vthom it may concern
My name is Scott Spiegelman and I am a long time resident of Historic Folsom and own and live at 610 Sibley Street. I also have my corporation located in the historic district fur the last 12 years.

It was brought to my attention the proposed development in the barn next to Powerhouse Pub. I wanted to express my support for a project like this. I love entertaining friends and family in the Historic District. A local tap house would be a great fit and I am sure it will be a great addition to our community. I am 60 years old and enjoy supporting local business owners that support the community and I am sure this will be a fun casual place to enjoy.

I am confident that the owner will only add value to our district and will be a responsible owner / operator.

Please contact me with any questions, comments, or concerns at 916-798-0946 Sent from my iPad
Scott Spiegelman
916-868-6960 Office
916-798-0946 Cell
powerhousepu [email protected]
Monday, January 3,202212:15 PM
Steven Banks
Fwd: Barley Barn Tap House Support letter #11 Spiegelman/ Historic district resident 1

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Steven Banks
From:

Sent:

To:

SubJect:
powerhousepu b@ aol.com
Monday, January 3,2022 12:20 PM
Steven Banks
Fwd: Barley Barn Support letter 13 Sutter Street bussiness/ Fire and Rain CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and knowthe content is safe.
-*-Original Message---
From ; [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Sent Fri, Dec 10, 2021 1O:57 am
Subject Barley Barn Support letter 13 Sutter Street bussiness/ Fire and Rain ---Original Message---
From: Judy Smith <judy@fi reandra ingalleries. com>
To: [email protected]
Sent Wed, Dec 8, 20213:07 pm
Subject Barley Bam Tap House
To Whom lt May Concern,
After reviewing all of the requirements and limitations associated with the Barley Barn Tap House, I am in favor of approval of this establishment.

Sutter Street needs additional venues that provide reasons br the public to remain on the sheet, ESPECIALLY DURING DAYTIME HOURS. This helps retail shops on Sufter Street and provides additional options in addition to the restaurants already established on the street.
"Feet on the Street' has always been the main goal for Sutter Street shops over the many years Fire and Rain has been here. lt can only help!!
Judy Smith
Fire and Rain Gallery

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Steven Banks
From:

Sent:

To:

Subiect:
powerhousepu [email protected]
Monday, January 3, 2022 12;19 PM
Steven Banks
Fwd: Barley Barn Tap House, Support letter #12 Felts/ Historic district resident CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organizatlon. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognlze the sender and know the content is safe.
---Original Message---
From: [email protected]
To: powerhousepub@aol,com
Senf Wed, Dec 8, 2021 1:30 pm
Subject Fwd: Barley Barn Tap House, Support lefter#12 FeltV Historic district resident Hi Munay,
As a resident of Historic Folsom, I support the Barley Barn Tap House with the changes you have made. Parking will always be an issue here. But I don't see your new business as a place that will bring in a bunch of NEW people to the area. I see it as adding an additional place for those of us already here, especially when wait times to get a table at nearby restaurants are long.
l'll let John speak for himself but I think as a HDC commissioner, he is not able to comment on the project.

Thank You,
Amber SDoop Felfs
Shoop'e Photography/The Studios on Sufter
w: http://shoopsphotog raphy. com
m: 916.804.8578 (text ok)
a: 805 Sutter Street, STE 220 &240, Folsom, CA 95630

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Steven Banks
From:

Sent:

To:

SubJect:

CAUTION: Thls email origlnated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content ls safe.

To allconcerned,
We have owned and operated Pizzeria Classico on Sutter St. since 1985. We think the proposed Barley Barn would be a nice addition to the area. lt would be an additional draw to the area that has become a destination area for food and beverage, The design and patio is definately an upgrade for the community. Murray and his staff has been a strong supporter of the Historic District and we would like to support him in his endeavors. Please give me a call if you have any questions for me 916-224- 0651. Thank you,
Cheers!
Scott Litteral
Pizzeria Classico
Historic Folsom
www. pizzeriaclassico.com
ll Forno Classico
Gold River
www. ilfornoclassico. com
ilforno@sbcg lobal. net
On Friday, December 10,2021, 11:29:29 AM PST, <[email protected]> wrote:
---Original Message---
From: powerhousepu [email protected]
To: ilforno@sbcglobal. net <ilforno@sbcglobal. net>
Sent Mon, Dec 6, 202'13:21 gm
Subject Fwd: Barley Barn Tap House, Murray
HiScott,
So pls have a look at our proposed TAP house, lt will be Beer only and serve no food so it should assist nearby restaurants. The patio(s) will be a fun draw to the district as well. lf you like the project which has been approved by HDC but being appealed by some of the eternal hard line residents. lt would be much appreciated if you could send a letter of support addressing:
powerhousepub@ao l.com
Monday, January 3,202212:21 PM
Steven Banks
Fwd: Barley Barn Support Pizzeria Classico #14
1 It would benefit the historic district

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

As a long long time business owner on Sutbr St and close neighbor you are not alarmed with concems of parking because this protect is already surrounded by public and my private pad(ing at PowerHouse including my new lease of the Eagles lot and small size of the space .(2500 Sq Feet) Thanks br your support, Munay
2

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

The FireHouse Gift and Clothlng Boutique has been on Sutter St. for ovcr 30 years. We have seen many chan3es and belteve the addltlon of the Barley garn Tap House wlll be a great addiflon to the hlstoric dlstrict. We are especlally appreclatlve of the addltlonal parklng thls proJect will provide for its customers.
-J}-**.g. -.

Owner- FlreHouse 710 SutterSt. Folsom Ca, 95630
tJ4,ar.- ()

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Steven Banks
From:

Sent:

To:

Subiect:
powerhousepu [email protected]
Monday, January 3,202212:22 PM
Steven Banks
Fwd: Barley Barn support letter #15/ Sutter St biz-Rainbow Bridge Jewlers CAUTION; This emall originated from outslde of the organization. Do not cllck links or open attachments unless you recognlze the sender and know the content is safe.
---Original Message---
From: powerhousepu [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Sent: Mon, Dec 13, 2021 1:34 pm
Subject Re: Barley Barn support letter #15/ Sutter St biz-Rainbow Bridge Jewler To whom it may concern:

We are wdting in support of the proposal for the development of the site adjacent to the Powerhouse Pub on Sutter St.

We have seen the rendering of the proposed building and surrounding grounds and are in favor of the improvements. The site has high visibility at the eastern entrance to the Historic District and would provide a more welcoming view than the existing one.

Aside from the upgrade of the building itself, the idea of family-focused indoor and outdoor seating areas during the day seems to be a real asset to the Historic District. Wth the additional parking provided by the lease of a nearby parking lot, the residential neighborhood should not be impacted by overflow parking.

We are longtime business owners and residents in the Historic District and have found the owner, Murray Weaver, to be a good neighbor and a very generous supporter of Folsom's historic district.

Dorothy Cormack
Jim Kelly
Rainbow Bridge Jewelers
721 Sutter Street
Folsom, CA 95630
915.985.7618
ra i n bowbrldg eJewelers.com
I

01/11/2022 Item No.15.
trtplo4 t
r. y'nr1n\r,\uiteo
I
lr,r 1-1
'
t-, a, *
To Whom it May Concern:

After looking over the proposal for the Barley Barn, I am excited about this project. The patio will be such an asset to the historic District and the fact there is no food will help all the restaurants in old town. lt was also great that they had a great solution for parking and I have always appreciated the golf cart that the Powerhouse uses to get people to park in the parking garage. I always see people utilizing it. Overall, this Barley Barn Tap house can only improve our downtown area and benefit all other businesses and patrons. Not to mention another wonderful asset to offer to my guests at hotel.

Feel free to call me at 915-716-5555.

Thank youl
Enid Baldock
Hampton lnn & Suites
155 Placerville Rd
Folsom, CA 95530

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Steven Banks
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:
powerhousepu [email protected]
Monday, January 3,202212:28 PM
Steven Banks
Fwd: Barley Barn Support letter #18 Plank Restaurant, Historic District €AUTION: This emall orlglnated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

HiMurry
Great conversation this week. Thank you for sharing your revised vision for your space. Although I generally have concerns about parking, those concerns are generalized and are reflective of any given situation in the historic district. \Mth that said, I believe your revised, beer only, taphouse will be a welcome addition to the district.

Sincerely,
MichaelSanson
Owner- Plank Craft Kitchen + Bar
608 Sutter Street
Folsom CA 95630
Owner- Rock-N-Fire Restaurant
1010 Riley Street#4
Folsom CA 95630
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 22,2021 11:36 AM
To: Michael Sanson <[email protected]>
Gc: [email protected]
Subject Fwd: Barley Bam Tap House, Murray
Mike,
Enjoyed our visit and look forward to a mutually beneficial relationship. Let me know if you have any questions or concerns as a next door neighbor.

Thanks a bunch for any word of support for the Tap House project.

Happy Holidays, Murray 916 6621327
1

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Attachment 13
Barley Barn Tap House Economic Snapshot
Received December 20, 2021

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

Folsom Barley Barn - Economic lm cts Snapshot
Taxable Salesl Project Assessed Value Annual Payrolla
oto
I -.41
-t/lt
I

1. lncludes direct sales plus appro<imately $35).000 in sales lrom partnering local food service estabtishments.

2. City sales tax rate is 1%.

3. The City of Folsotn receives approxirrately 21 percent of the 1 percent ad valorem property tax.

4. Reflecb increase of 9 full time eguivalent pcitiorrs 6 compared b existing establishment.

5. Total income reflects a multiplier of an additional 0.51 of krcome within Sacramenb County on top of annual payroll.

Eslimated Annqal Taxable Sales
Existing Proposed Difference
$0.1M $1.2M $1.0M
Estimated Propertv Assessed Value
Existi ng
s788,400
Proposed
$1.588,400
7o lncrease
Difference
$800.000
101%
Estimated Ann ual Pavrol I
Existing
$24,000
Proposed
$400,000
l/o ltrcrease
D ifference
$376,000
1567'/,
Sales Taxes (City)2 Property Taxes (City)3 Total lncomes aoI
Estimated Annual Sales Tax to Citv
Existing Proposed Difference
I 10,300$1,200
Estimated Annual Propertv Tax to Citr{
Existing Proposed Difference
$1,700 s3.400 51 700
100'L9'. lncrease
Estimated Total lncome
Existing
$36,000
P roposed
s607 000
o/o lncrease
D if f erence
s571 000
1586"2b
Sources: Barley Bam proponent, City of Folsom, Sacrarnento County, lMpLAN and EpS.

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

DRAFT
Table 2
Folsom Barley Barn
Economic lmpact Analysis
Delailed Annual Economic lmpacts of the Ongoing Proiect Opentions (Rounded 2021$) Activity/lmpact Gategories Source Direct
Key Input
Ongoing Project FullTime Equivalent (FTE) Emptoyees
Annual Ongoing Operating lmpacts
Sacramento Gounty lncome ['ll
lncome [21
Total Sacramento Gounty lncome
TableA-3 I
$400,000
$4oo,ooo
lmpact Type
lndircct lnduced
$97,000
197,000
Total
furnual lncome
lmpacts
s6{r7,000
$607,000
$110,000
$110,000
Sacramento Gounty Employment
911fi
Source: IMPLAN, 2019 Dataset; Barley Barn; EpS. sannav2 [1] Analpis based on Sacramento County data. Output is the amount of business expenditures on goods and services retained wjthin thelocal economy. [2] lncludes employee compensation, proprietors income, and other income (proftts, rents, and royalties]. [3] Reflecb stabilized operational employment Project. Employment includes both full-time and part-time workers. @byEPst2m/m21

01/11/2022 Item No.15.

DRAFT
Table I
Folsom Barley Bam
Economic lmpac,l Aralysis
Summary of One-Time and Ongoing lmpacts (Rounded 2021fl Activityllmpact Categories Amount
One-Time Gonstuction Jobs (Job Years) [2]
lncrease
lncrease in Annual Ongoing Operational Jobs (AnnualAverage) [41 11 lncrease in Total Annual Public Sector Tax Revenue [5] $12,000 Source: lMPl-AN,2019 Dataset; Barley Barn; EPS.
[1] lncludes direct and indirect impacb.
[2] Employment includes both full-time and part-time workers. Job years refer to the number of jobs in each year summed over the entire consfuction period of the Project. [3] Includes direct, indirec't, and induced impacts of the anticipated land uses in the Prolect- [4] Reflects Strabilized Operational employment for the Project. Refer to Table A-1 for details.

Employment includes both full-time and part-time workers. .0M
7 all
One-Time Ecorromic lmpacts
Increased Arrrrual Ongoirrg Econonric !mpacts
Municipal Tax Revenueslncreased Annual Ongoing Ci
tuepared by EPS 122U2O21

01/11/2022 Item No.15.