Agenda packet — Folsom City Council, October 10, 2023 (part 3 of 5)

10/10/2023 Item No.10.

Historic District Commission
603 Sutter Street Mixed-Use Building (PN 17-145)
September 6, 2023

Attachment 21

Public Comment Letters Regarding Original
Project and Subsequent Iterations

Page 296 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.

HERITAGE PRESERVATION LEAGUE OF FOLSOM

PROJECT APPLICATION REVIEW
June 24, 2020

HPL does not have regular meetings during the COVID-19 Pandemic. The HPL Board has discussed the proposed project by email and phone.

PROJECT: 603 Sutter Street Commercial Building in the Sutter Street Sub-Area of the Historic District (File: 17-145)

REQUEST: Design Review, Parking Variance, Height Variance and Encroachment Permit for a mixed-use commercial building with retail/restaurant use on the first floor and office space on the second and third floors.

PROJECT
HISTORY: Original application Circulated by City on May18, 2017 (feedback requested by June 2).

The current application including an Initial Study was circulated by the City on June 11, 2020.

BACKGROUND

HPL provided review comments regarding the original application (named Historic Sutter Mixed-Use Building) on June 14, 2017. In the current application package (dated March 19, 2019), the building design has been revised and a garage level is no longer included. However, the proposed size and height of the visible part of the building structure remains similar to the original proposal.

GENERAL STATEMENT

The applicant has described the project as follows: …the proposed building would appear similar to other commercial projects recently developed on the 600-block of Sutter Street and elsewhere within the Historic District. This statement appears to refer to the commercial building at 607 Sutter Street (former location of ‘Fire and Rain’). In 2016 a 3-story building with an area of 9,174 square feet and a front façade of 50 feet was approved at this address. The façade design also resembles the proposed design for Sutter Street Commercial Building. However, the proposed 14,822 square foot building in the current application will be substantially larger.

PROJECT REVIEW

SITE PLAN
The project site has an elevation difference of 18 feet (from the northwest corner along Sutter Street up to the southeast corner along Scott Street). The first floor is proposed to be built into the rear hillside and will therefore mainly be visible from Sutter Street. Based on the sloped lot configuration, a structure on this property could have a stepped foundation with a higher finished floor elevation close to Scott Street.

Page 297 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.

As proposed, the commercial building has a 95-foot wide frontage along Sutter Street and a 64-foot frontage along Scott Street. In addition, a recessed walkway and retaining wall (with a height up to 15 feet) extend 6-feet into the adjacent public right-of-way areas. As a result of this encroachment, the landscape area along Scott Street has been limited to 7 feet and the sidewalk along Sutter Street has been reduced from the standard 9 feet to 7 feet.

HPL Recommendations

• Consider a foundation design that steps up along Sutter Street with the existing grade.

• Eliminate the recessed walkway that encroaches into the Sutter Street and Scott Street public right-of-way areas.

BUILDING DESIGN
As a general impression, the building design for the first two floors appears to be compatible with the design theme for Sutter Street. However, HPL has not found any evidence that the large windows and heavy top cornice proposed along the third floor were used in Folsom (or the Sacramento Area) before year 1900. The building façade facing Sutter Street has the width of two Theodore Judah lots and is therefore also larger than most buildings in the Subarea. This is especially evident since the historic building to the west at 605 Sutter Street (Folsom’s first library) is only one story high.

Together with the project entitlements, a variance from the 35 foot height requirements along Sutter Street has been requested. The proposed building height along Sutter Street ranges from 54-46 feet and the height along Scott Street ranges from 46-35 feet. A 3.5 foot high raised parapet provides a barrier around the roof deck and an elevator lobby extends 9 feet above the top of the parapets. A 525 square foot canopy cover has also been proposed next to the elevator/staircase shaft. The structures on the roof deck have been set back from Sutter Street and Scott Street but could be visible from the higher elevations of the surrounding streets (southeast and northeast of the project site).

The 2,585 square-foot roof deck can be accessed from an elevator and two stair cases. Building tenants and potentially also the general public will have access to this area. It is possible that larger events could be planned on the roof deck in the future. Twenty feet of the deck area is open to the residential development to the south. Because noise is already a problem for homeowners in this area, a large roof deck does not appear to be appropriate.

The façade along Scott Street is less developed. An open staircase and a large trash enclosure suggest that this is the rear side of the building.

HPL Recommendations

• Reduce the building height to an average of 35-feet along both Sutter Street and Scott Street.

• Design the building façade along Sutter Street with two separate themes to resemble two buildings on standard Theodore Judah lots (as recommended in the Historic Commercial Design Criteria). Each façade segment could have a different height.

Page 298 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
• Eliminate the proposed public gathering area and canopy cover from the roof. As a part of this change the elevator shaft no longer needs to extend to the roof and the raised parapets can be lowered.

• Enclose the staircase along the east building façade.

PARKING VARIANCE
The Site Plan shows a parking pocket along Sutter Street with room for 4 parallel cars. The same area will need to be shared by delivery trucks. No street parking will be available along Scott Street. This suggests that the project will not only increase the need for parking in the vicinity but also remove some of the currently existing street parking.

The existing lack of parking in the Sutter Street Subarea has negatively impacted the surrounding residential areas. If the proposed 14,811 square foot building with a restaurant, retail spaces and offices is developed without additional parking this problem will be intensified. The building will also add a 665 square foot outdoor seating area next to the first floor restaurant and a 2,585 roof deck designated for public use.

Based on zoning code for the Historic District, parking only has to be provided for indoor spaces. The applicant is requesting a variance from the current requirement to provide 43 parking spaces (one parking space per 350 square feet). The limited amount of public parking located in the general vicinity of the project site will not be able to accommodate this demand.

HPL Recommendations

• Before a parking variance can be approved for the property at 603 Sutter Street, the applicant should work with the City to develop an additional public parking facility at the east end of the Sutter Street Subarea.

• The City may also want to consider if the current parking requirements for the Sutter Street Subarea should be modified.

CULTURAL RESOURCES
Based on the age of development along Sutter Street and Scott Street, it is likely that historic objects will be uncovered during the excavation of the building site. These items could provide information about the early history of Folsom.

HPL’s Recommendation:

• An archeologist or environmental consultant should be present at the project site during excavation down to bedrock.

Page 299 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.

HERITAGE PRESERVATION LEAGUE OF FOLSOM

INITIAL STUDY REVIEW
June 19, 2020

HPL does not have regular meetings during the COVID-19 Pandemic. The HPL Board has discussed the Initial Study by email and phone.

PROJECT: 603 Sutter Street Commercial Building in the Sutter Street Sub-Area of the Historic District (File: 17-145)

REQUEST: Design Review, Parking Variance and Height Variance for a mixed-use commercial building with retail/restaurant use on the first floor and office space on the second and third floors.

PROJECT
HISTORY: Original application Circulated by City on May18, 2017 (feedback requested by June 2).

Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration circulated by the City on June 11,2020 (Public Review Period: June 11–30, 2020)

BACKGROUND

INITIAL STUDY REVIEW COMMENTS

1. Aesthetics

Based on Appendix B of the Design and Development Guidelines, commercial buildings in the Sutter Street Subarea should: ‘maintain the existing scale and pattern of the Historic District’. In order to meet this intent, the Zoning Code limits the height of buildings and the Design Criteria specifies that larger commercial buildings should be designed as standard size buildings located next to each other (see B.11).

The Initial Study does not consider building design. However, ‘scenic vistas’ and ‘scenic resources’ have been evaluated. It is HPL’s opinion that the streets and buildings of the Historic District could be included with this category.

As a part of the aesthetic considerations, light and glare associated with the proposed building has also been evaluated. HPL has concluded that lighting on the 2,585 square feet open roof deck in close proximity to residential development presents a special problem that should be addressed individually.

Page 300 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.

Recommendations:

• Evaluate how the massing of the proposed building (including footprint area and height), will impact existing historic development next to the project site and in the overall Sutter Street Subarea.

• Discuss how any negative impact of lighting on the roof deck can be minimized.

5. Cultural Resources

Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-3 recommends that construction personnel should be provided with ‘Cultural Sensitivity Training’ that will help them identify cultural resources and human remains at the project site. HPL does not believe that this type of expertise can be absorbed in a training session. The training also does not appear to be mandatory.

Based on the age of development along Sutter Street and Scott Street, it is likely that cultural resources will be uncovered during the excavation of the building site.

Recommended Mitigation Measure:

• An archeologist or environmental consultant should be present at the project site during excavation down to bedrock.

7. Geology and Soil

Excavation along the south side of the building foot print will range between 13-17 feet and bedrock has been found at a depth of 8-feet. Substantial blasting (extending into the public right- of-ways) will therefore be required.

The Initial Study should discuss what effect blasting could have on surrounding structures and underground utilities. A mitigation measure may also need to be added.

Recommendation:

• Specify how surrounding structures and public utilities can be protected from the impact of blasting on the project site.

13. Noise

Before the building foundation and sub-walls can be installed, the applicant anticipates that blasting up to a depth of 18 feet below grade will be required. The Initial Study should discuss how noise associated with this excavation phase can be mitigated.

An elevator and two stair cases have direct access to a 2,585 square-foot roof deck. Building tenants and potentially also the general public will have access to this area. Along the south side of the building, screening has not been proposed along twenty feet of the deck area. Because noise is

Page 301 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
already a problem for homeowners in this area, the Initial Study could discuss what type of noise is appropriate on the deck area.

Recommendation:

• Discuss how noise from blasting can be minimized

Recommended Mitigation Measure:

• Amplified sounds are not permitted on the roof deck.

15. Public Services

The existing lack of parking in the Sutter Street Subarea of the Historic District has negatively impacted the surrounding residential areas. If the proposed 14,811 square foot building with a restaurant, retail spaces and offices is developed without additional parking this problem will be intensified.

The Initial Study should therefore analyze if a public parking structure needs to be added close to the proposed building.

Recommended Mitigation Measure:

• Before new commercial buildings are added at the east end of the Sutter Street Subarea, the City should develop a plan for how additional public parking spaces can be provided.

16. Transportation

The Site Plan shows a parking pocket along Sutter Street with room for 4 parallel cars. The same area will need to be shared by delivery trucks. No street parking will be available along Scott Street. This suggests that the project will not only increase the need for parking in the vicinity but also remove some of the currently existing street parking.

Recommendation:

• Analyze if the project will impact emergency access by increasing the existing congestion of parked cars and circulating vehicles in the vicinity.

Page 302 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.

Page 1 of 9 ends

June 29, 2019

Steven Banks
City of Folsom Planning Department
50 Natoma Street
Folsom, CA 95630
Via email to: [email protected]

Subject: 603 Sutter Street Commercial Building Mitigated Negative Declaration Comments

Dear Mr. Banks:

This letter provides comments on the May 10, 2020, Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) prepared for the proposed 603 Sutter Street development project. I have previously requested an extension of time to comment due to the City’s inability to provide a complete project application for review concurrent with review of the IS/MND. My comments here are not expressed with support or opposition to development of 603 Sutter Street, and are intended to solely focus on the adequacy of the IS/MND and the City’s compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

In summary:

1. The project description in the IS/MND is insufficient in defining important components of the project, including those that must be clearly defined for a proper CEQA analysis and full disclosure as required by CEQA;

2. The IS/MND is fundamentally flawed in its attempt to tier from the General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and the City must revise its approach for project CEQA compliance;

3. The IS/MND fails to fully evaluate and address potential visual and lighting impacts of the project, including effects on views of historic resources and views from historic properties;

4. The IS/MND cultural resources evaluation is based on a report that inaccurately reports the project site as 510 and 605 Sutter Street and full review of potential impacts on cultural resources is impossible until the report inaccuracies are addressed; and

5. The IS/MND fails to fully evaluate and disclose impacts associated with noise and vibration impacts, and mitigation measures for significant impacts are not evaluated sufficiently to provide evidence that they would reduce significant impacts to less than significant levels.

1. The project description in the IS/MND is insufficient in defining important components of the project, including those that must be clearly defined for a proper CEQA analysis.

Page 1 ends

with the policies and requirements of the City of Folsom General Plan (2035 General Plan) and Chapter 17.52 of the Folsom Municipal Code (FMC), both of which have been subject to the preparation and certification of Environmental Impact Reports (EIR) consistent with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements. … Section 21083.3 of the California Public Resources Code permits CEQA environmental documents prepared for proposed projects that are consistent with all relevant planning and zoning designations and policies to be focused on

Page 303 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.

Page 2 of 9 ends

the environmental effects that are peculiar to the project or to the parcel on which the project would be located, and that were not previously evaluated in an applicable General Plan EIR.

The project assessed in this Initial Study meets these statutory requirements for focused review.” Yet, the proposed project is NOT consistent with the General Plan and zoning and that is the reason why the applicant is requesting two variances from the City zoning code. The IS/MND must be revised to remove such inaccurate statements.

The project would exceed the 2.0 maximum floor area ratio (FAR) permitted by the zoning code.

Therefore, the project requires an additional variance for the FAR exceedance and the FAR exceedance must be recognized in the analysis as new information that affects the severity of impacts of development under the City of Folsom General Plan and as evaluated in the General Plan EIR. The IS/MND fails to specifically disclose that the FAR exceeds the 2.0 requirement.

Per information in IS/MND Table 2, both with and without the proposed roof deck, the calculated FAR is greater than 2.0. In fact, with the roof deck included, the FAR of the project exceeds 2.5. The City’s CEQA document must evaluate and disclose the change in impacts as compared to those in the GP EIR from which the IS/MND is tiering.

The IS/MND fails to disclose the total height of the proposed project structure. The IS/MND discusses that the building height would be a maximum of 50 feet, 6 inches, but also discusses that “building features” associated with the elevator and air conditioning equipment would be mounted on the roof in excess of this height – although no discussion of the actual height of these “features” is provided. The applicant’s drawings illustrate features well above the labeled 50’6” rooftop, but the drawings do not identify the height of these features (see Exhibit 1). The height of all project elements, not simply the height of the building rooftop, are critical for understanding the project’s visual, lighting, and noise impacts, and without this information, the IS/MND project description and analysis of the project are insufficient.

Page 304 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.

Page 3 of 9 ends

Exhibit 1. Excerpts of IS/MND Figure 5

2. The IS/MND is fundamentally flawed in its attempt to tier from the General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and the City must revise its approach for project CEQA compliance.

The IS/MND attempts to tier from the General Plan EIR, but the tiering approach attempted in the IS/MND is fundamentally flawed. First, when tiering from a previously certified EIR an EIR must be prepared for the “later project” (in this case, the proposed 603 Sutter Street project).1 The City has not prepared an EIR for the 603 Sutter Street project and instead has only prepared an IS/MND.

Second, tiering from a previously prepared EIR is suitable only when the later project “is consistent with the applicable…zoning.”2 The proposed project is not consistent with the

1 CEQA section 21068.5, Tiering or Tier: “Tiering“ or “tier” means the coverage of general matters and environmental effects in an environmental impact report prepared for a policy, plan, program or ordinance followed by narrower or site-specific environmental impact reports which incorporate by reference the discussion in any prior environmental impact report and which concentrate on the environmental effects which (a) are capable of being mitigated, or (b) were not analyzed as significant effects on the environment in the prior environmental impact report.

2 CEQA section 21094: “Later Projects; Tiered Environmental Impact Reports; Initial Study; Use of Prior Reports” (b) This section applies only to a later project that the lead agency determines is all of the following:
(1) Consistent with the program, plan, policy, or ordinance for which an environmental impact report has been prepared and certified.
(2) Consistent with applicable local land use plans and zoning of the city, county, or city and county in which the later project would be located.
(3) Not subject to Section 21166.

Page 305 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.

Page 4 of 9 ends

applicable zoning, which is the very reason why the project applicant is requesting variances for the project.

Finally, although the IS/MND discusses the General Plan EIR and summarizes impacts identified in the General Plan EIR, the IS/MND fails to evaluate whether the project variations from the land use and zoning assumptions in the General Plan EIR would result in new impacts or increase the severity of significant and unavoidable impacts identified in the General Plan EIR.

Part 4 of the IS/MND discusses the General Plan EIR and provides a summary of the General Plan EIR impacts. However, Part 5 of the IS/MND, including the discussion of approach at “Purpose and Legal Basis for the Initial Study” and the “Initial Study Environmental Checklist” sections (IS/MND pg. 22), discuss the methodology for the IS/MND analysis and completely ignore the tiering concept.

Because the proposed project is inconsistent with applicable zoning code requirements – including but not limited to height, FAR, setbacks – the project would create the potential to result in new impacts and increase the severity of significant impacts identified in the General Plan EIR. The key aspect of tiering from a previously prepared CEQA document is to evaluate whether impacts of the later project would have the potential to cause new impact or increase the severity of impacts identified in the prior EIR, yet, the IS/MND fails to do this comprehensively.

Although the IS/MND attempts to evaluate certain environmental effects of the project, no comparison of those project-specific impacts to impacts identified in the General Plan EIR is attempted and no discussion of the applicability and efficacy of General Plan EIR mitigation is provided. This failure is a fundamental flaw in the CEQA approach to the project and must be remedied in a revised CEQA document.

Significant impacts identified in the General Plan EIR that could be worsened as a result of the project elements that are inconsistent with zoning and are not sufficiently evaluated or disclosed in comparison to the General Plan EIR include the following:

Aesthetics and Visual Resources – General Plan significant and unavoidable impact:

Adverse effects on a scenic vista or substantial degradation of scenic character, damage to scenic resources within a scenic corridor, creation of a new source of light or glare.

The proposed project would exceed the height limitation of the applicable zoning and thus would result in a larger building with greater visibility than the 35-foot height- limited structures considered in the General Plan EIR. The additional height and mass of the building would increase the effects of the change in visual character of the area and would result in greater visibility and increases in offsite areas from which the structure would be visible. Furthermore, the increased height would result in lighting at higher elevations than lighting considered in the General Plan EIR. Although the IS/MND discusses visual and lighting impacts of the proposed project (see comments on the adequacy of the analysis later in this letter), the IS/MND provides no discussion of the degree to which the project would increase the severity of impacts identified in the General Plan EIR.

Cultural Resources - General Plan significant and unavoidable impact: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. The proposed project would exceed the height limitation of the applicable zoning and thus would result in a larger building with greater visibility than the 35-foot height-limited structures

(c) For purposes of compliance with this section, an initial study shall be prepared to assist the lead agency in making the determinations required by this section. The initial study shall analyze whether the later project may cause significant effects on the environment that were not examined in the prior environmental impact report.

Page 306 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.

Page 5 of 9 ends

considered in the General Plan EIR. The additional height and mass of the building would increase the effects of the change in visual character of the area and would result in greater visibility and increases in offsite areas, including the Historic District and historic properties, from which the structure would be visible and within the viewsheds of which the project would be visible. Although the IS/MND discusses cultural resources impacts of the proposed project (see comments on the adequacy of the analysis later in this letter), the IS/MND provides no discussion of the degree to which the project would increase the severity of impacts identified in the General Plan EIR. Furthermore, as discussed in the IS/MND, potential blasting associated with project construction would have the potential to adversely impact structures in the area, including historic structures, and the IS/MND does not discuss this potential impact or describe how this potential impact relates to impact identified in the General Plan EIR.

Noise - General Plan significant and unavoidable impact: Exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan, noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies; or a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels without the project.

The proposed project would exceed the height limitation of the applicable zoning and thus would result in a greater potential for noise impacts to surrounding areas since the line-of-sight from noise-generating activities (indoor and outdoor/rooftop uses) and equipment (including air conditioning and elevator operation) that would result in noise generation sources on the rooftop of the building at elevations higher than would have been considered in the General Plan EIR. Although the IS/MND discusses noise impacts of the proposed project (see comments on the adequacy of the analysis later in this letter), the IS/MND provides no discussion of the degree to which the project would increase the severity of impacts identified in the General Plan EIR.

Cumulative Impacts associated with Aesthetics and Visual Resources, Air Resources, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Noise and Vibration, and Transportation and Circulation. The proposed project would exceed the height limitation of the applicable zoning and thus would result in greater potential for cumulative impacts as compared to the General Plan EIR cumulative impacts analysis. The IS/MND provides no discussion of the potential for the proposed project to increase the severity of cumulative impacts as compared to those evaluated in the General Plan EIR.

3. The IS/MND fails to fully evaluate and address potential visual and lighting impacts of the project, including effects on views of historic resources and views from historic resources.

The project would have a significant impact on the visual quality of views within the Historic District and from areas within the Folsom Lake State Recreation Area (SRA), including historic properties, and these impacts are not properly evaluated or disclosed in the IS/MND. The IS/MND (pg. 25) discusses that “views from the project site include views of nearby residential and commercial uses, motorists on surrounding roadways, and, more distantly, Lake Natoma, the Folsom Lake State Recreation Area (FLSRA), and the Folsom Powerhouse State Historic Park.” As an initial matter, views from the project site are not at issue for the CEQA analysis, as it is views of the project site and of the proposed structure that are relevant to the impact analysis. Even if views from the project site were used to determine those offsite areas from which the project would be visible, this approach would be flawed in that it would not encompass areas that could be viewed from the 50-foot-plus height of the building and rooftop structures. The project building structure would be visible from important areas not disclosed in the IS/MND. These include historical resources, including Folsom’s historic Rainbow Bridge,

Page 307 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.

Page 6 of 9 ends

the American River Bike Trail in Folsom Lake SRA on the north side of Lake Natoma, the bluffs west of Negro Bar in Folsom Lake SRA overlooking Lake Natoma and Folsom’s Historic District. Each of these sensitive viewpoints would have a direct line of sight to the upper portions of the proposed building and rooftop structures, and the mass and visible exterior components of the project would have the potential to result in significant aesthetic/visual impacts that must be evaluated and disclosed.

By way of example and substantial evidence that the project could have a significant visual impact, Exhibit 2 illustrates the potential structure visibility from Folsom’s iconic and historic Rainbow Bridge. The proposed structure would be visible from the Rainbow Bridge (and from areas within the Folsom Lake SRA) as a structural feature in an otherwise predominantly vegetated/natural viewshed. The structure would extend above the tree canopy and above the horizon creating the potential for a significant adverse visual impact and that would occur from and include views of historical resources. Lighting on the structure, especially in consideration of the excessive height of the structure and the height at which lighting would be placed, would also have the potential to result in significant visual impacts associated with lighting. These impacts must be fully evaluated and disclosed in the City’s CEQA document. Because the IS/MND fails to account for visual impacts to these resources, the analysis must be revised to account for and fully evaluate and disclose these impacts.

Exhibit 2. Views from Historic Rainbow Bridge

Furthermore, the IS/MND (page 38) states, “For the closest residential neighbors, the building would represent an intrusion into the immediate-range viewshed. However, the building as proposed would be consistent with the commercial uses planned for the project site by the City’s Zoning Code (FMC Section 17.52.510).” This statement is inaccurate and fails to account for the fact that the project is, in fact, not consistent with the site zoning. Inaccurate and misleading statements in the analysis are both disappointing to see in a City document and result in a failure of the IS/MND to adequately disclose project impacts.

The IS/MND incorrectly concludes that CEQA Section 21099 exempts the project from visual impact analysis. Section 21099 discusses that aesthetic impacts of certain projects in a transit priority areas shall not be considered significant. However, Section 21099(d)(2)(B) states “for the purposes of this subdivision, aesthetic impacts do not include impacts on historical or cultural resources.” That statement in the CEQA statute means that when a project in a transit priority area would have visual/lighting impacts on historical/cultural resources, the project is not exempt from aesthetic impact evaluation or from a potential determination of significance. The project would be visible from several historical resources and is located within Folsom’s Historic

Page 308 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.

Page 7 of 9 ends

District. Thus, the project is not exempt from aesthetic impact analysis, and the City must revise the CEQA document to fully disclose the aesthetic impacts of the project and determine whether the impact(s) would be significant.

The IS/MND cultural resources evaluation is flawed and insufficient. The information presented and analysis is based on the “Cultural Resources Study - 510 Sutter Street and 605 Sutter Street Properties” (LSA, 2017), neither of which properties is the project site (603 Sutter Street).

Exhibit 3 is an excerpt of the cultural resources study showing the properties considered to be the “project site” in that report. Yet, the IS/MND states that the cultural resources report was prepared for the project site. Several aspects of the cultural resources’ evaluation are therefore subject to inaccuracy, including site records that were based on areas within 200 feet “of the project site”. The cultural resources study and the City’s CEQA analyses must be corrected to properly reference and evaluate the actual project site. The project would substantially modify Folsom’s Historic District in a manner inconsistent with the site zoning and in a manner that would create the potential to adversely affect the Historic District and specific historical resources. The cultural resources study (LSA 2017) references several historic properties in the vicinity of the project site. This comment letter does not address specific potential impact issues associated with these properties as it would be premature to do so until such time as an accurate cultural resources study is prepared for the project and the CEQA document is updated to address this error.

Exhibit 3. “Project Site” as Evaluated in LSA 2017

The IS/MND (pg. 94) concludes that construction noise impacts would be significant.

Mitigation Measure NOI-1 contains several measures that would serve to reduce noise levels; however, no analysis is presented to show that Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would sufficiently reduce construction noise to less than significant. In the absence of such analysis and evidence

Page 309 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.

Page 8 of 9 ends

that the impact would be sufficiently reduced, the analysis must conclude that the impact would remain significant. A significant and unavoidable impact requires the preparation of an EIR.

The IS/MND (page 95) discusses offsite traffic noise as measured from Riley Street, and states “increases in traffic as a result of the project would be minor, and substantially less than a double of traffic volumes at any location.” This is a naked conclusion with no explanation of the relevance or areas that would be affected by project-related off-site traffic noise. The project would generate vehicle trips and would increase noise levels associated with vehicle trips; however, the analysis in the IS/MND is insufficient to conclude whether or not the increase in vehicle noise would be significant.

The IS/MND (page 95) states that “Operation of the proposed 603 Sutter Street Commercial Building project would result in several intermittent sources of noise one of which would be subject to the requirements of the City’s Noise Ordinance (FMC Chapter 8.42): noise from trash pickup; and noise created by activities on the rooftop deck.” The IS/MND (pg. 96) discusses that noise from trash collection is exempt from the City Noise Ordinance. An exemption from the City noise ordinance does not avoid, reduce, or mitigate the noise impact, it simply means the noise level would not be deemed a violation of City ordinance. Thus, the CEQA noise impact still must be disclosed and, in fact, must acknowledge that, notwithstanding the impact, the adjacent landowner may have no means to address the impact through the City noise ordinance.

Furthermore, although the IS/MND states that the project would result in “several intermittent sources of noise” (as cited above), the IS/MND only identifies two such sources. All intermittent noise sources must be identified and the potential impacts of each, and in combination with each other, must be evaluated.

Furthermore, the IS/MND (page 96) discusses that noise from use of the building rooftop would be screened by rooftop elements including air conditioning units and the elevator. Both of these “screening” elements are themselves noise-generating and would have the potential to result in significant noise impacts on adjacent land uses. The CEQA document must identify and evaluate all sources of exterior noise, predict noise levels at adjacent land uses, and identify whether those impacts would be significant and warrant mitigation.

The IS/MND (pg. 96) discusses that the project could result in groundborne vibration from blasting during construction and that such blasting vibration can cause damage to buildings. The analysis identifies that impacts associated with blasting are considered significant, but fails to provide any prediction of actual predicted vibration levels associated with blasting. No discussion of the distance from the site potential vibration impacts might be anticipated and no analysis of the susceptibility to damage from blasting vibration of area structures (many of which are historical) is provided. Mitigation Measure NOI-3 requires notifications and inspections of structures within the blasting “zone of influence,” yet no zone of influence is identified in the IS/MND, so the requirements of the mitigation measure are not sufficiently defined.

Furthermore, Mitigation Measure NOI-3 requires that “the applicant or successor in interest be responsible for reimbursing nearby property owners for damages due to blasting.” In the absence of identifying the potential zone of influence for structural damage, NOI-3 is insufficient in that it does not clearly establish where notifications and structural evaluations are required.

Furthermore, without an understanding of the potential zone of influence, it is impossible to understand how many and to what extent structures might be damaged by blasting. The feasibility of the applicant to reimburse for damages therefore cannot be, or at least has not been, established. Finally, the project is within an area with historic structures including the adjacent Cohn House and adjacent historic library building. Damage to historic structures cannot necessarily simply be repaired or remedied through reimbursement. The IS/MND must be

Page 310 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.

Page 9 of 9 ends

revised to provide a complete quantitative analysis of potential blasting impacts, identify actual structures that could be affected, and provide feasible mitigation to address such impacts.

Sincerely,

Bob Delp
612 Mormon Street
Folsom, CA 95630
[email protected]

Page 311 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.

Date: June 29, 2020
To: Historic District Commission Members and City Staﬀ:

We're writing in advance of your July 15th meeting, where we're told you'll be considering a proposal to develop the property located at 603 Sutter St. While others may object to the somewhat contemporary style of the building and/or other aspects of this development, we have chosen to keep our comments focused and narrow. As you contemplate how to proceed, please keep the following thoughts/concerns in mind:

1. The proposed building is HUGE in mass and scope, dwarﬁng adjacent residential properties to the south and the west, as well as the Cohn mansion to the east. Since this building is proposed to be built on the last open commercial lot on the south side of Sutter Street near Scott, it seems to us that it should be more appropriately sized to reﬂect a transitional bridge between commercial buildings and the residential neighborhood. Instead, the MASS of the building dominates rather than transitions. This domination is enhanced by the building's location on the up-slope side of Sutter as opposed to other large commercial buildings located on the down- slope side of the same Sutter Street hill -- those are sunk into the hillside, rather than perched atop it.

2. The developer has indicated a desire to construct a 3-story building so he can rent the ground ﬂoor space to food and/or service uses, not to house his own oﬃces.

Why? Well, we suspect he wants to collect more money from more people renting space from him. Nothing wrong with that, except when it causes a conﬂict with the City's code for height. We're pretty comfortable stating there would be NO height variance being sought if the proposed building was 2 stories rather than 3.

If we understand the City's Design and Development Guidelines correctly, the maximum height for a commercial building in the Historic District is 50 feet from ground level. As proposed, this building is just over 50 feet to the top of the parapet wall, so it's slightly more than the City allows already. In addition, rooftop screening walls that cover HVAC and other mechanical equipment will add even more height to the building, putting it much higher than the City code.

3. The developer is requesting a variance for parking -- he doesn't want to provide any at all. His rationale, from documents he submitted, is that someone at sometime in 2017 reportedly said they'd rather have him eliminate the underground parking his ﬁrst proposal contained in exchange for lowering the height of the building.

We've spoken with multiple people who attended the meeting where he says this remark was made, and none of them have any recollection of it.

Page 312 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.

As a matter of fact, during a meeting with the developer just last year, I (John Shaw) personally told him that such a comment was incomprehensible to me and to the people I know who are involved in Historic District events/activities. John noted that no one he knows of who lives in the Historic District would make such a suggestion, especially when the parking situation in the Historic District is on life support and desperately in need of new spaces.

In any event, if taking suggestions from anyone is the criteria this developer prefers to use for developing this parcel, then we've got a couple of additional suggestions for him. We're sure other people do as well.

As you know, the City's current parking code is 1 space for every 350 square feet of proposed development. Depending upon whatever number of square feet you use for this ﬁnished development, it should provide more than 50 parking spaces.

Our question is simple -- if he doesn't provide that parking, where will the building employees/customers park?
The City has already acknowledged there is a parking shortage in the Historic District today. As a matter of fact, it recently formed an Ad Hoc Committee to explore this very issue and provide the City with a list of recommendations on how to resolve it. We're pretty sure one of those recommendations wasn't to build a new project in the Historic District that requires 50+ spaces, but not provide them.

Therefore, we respectfully request that you deny the two variances (for height and for parking).

Instead, we encourage you to work with this developer to re-submit plans for a more- appropriately scaled down version of this project -- one that better transitions to the surrounding residential buildings, one that provides for on-site (or nearby) adequate parking, and one that stays within the City's height requirement.

Because individual members of the public cannot easily personally attend the HDC meeting on July 15th, because there is not a way to participate thru video conferencing, and because the only easily accessible way to participate directly in the meeting is via the telephone, we have secured the approval of more than 60 Historic District residents/property owners to co-sign this letter. Their names and addresses are below........

Thank you for taking the time to wade thru this lengthy e-mail.

Respectfully,
John Shaw, 216 Sutter Street
Becky Shaw, 216 Sutter Street

Page 313 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.

Co-Signers
Jeﬀ Voll, 502 Mormon Street; Rosa Vais, 414 Figueroa Street; Pat Binley, 1209 Sutter Street; Mitch Wright; 607 Mormon Street; Irv Dickson, 221 Dean Way; Dave Clarke, 506 Canal Street; Michael Poncin, 915 Sutter Street, #20; Kevin Thompson, 414 Mormon Street; Kale Elledge, 402 Sutter Street; Kelli Gianettoni, 508 Sutter Street; Brian Bennett, 310 Sutter Street; Ramey Hart, 411 Figueroa Street; Noelle Moss, 415 Figueroa Street; Jeﬀ Ferreira-Pro, 808 Figueroa Street; Allison Caruso, 307 Bridge Street; Tony Cox, 514 Mormon; Deino Trotta, 402 Figueroa Street; Mike Scarr, 516 Figueroa & 507 Figueroa & 902 Figueroa Street; Dean Handy, 1376 Young Wo Circle; Justin Gilhuly, 509 Mormon Street; Nancy Oldham, 1348 Young Wo Circle; Jim Gannon, 407 Scott Street; Mike Beltram, 501 Figueroa Street; Ben Fuentes, 306 Scott Street; Evelyn Bigelyaizen, 306 Coloma Street; Jennifer Sorenson, 1216 Forrest; Sylvia Clarke, 506 Canal Street; Robin Pharis, 713 Figueroa Street; Raymond Vassallo, 1110 Fong Ct.; Mike Reynolds, 413 Leidesdorﬀ Street; Charlie Green, 601 Figueroa; Adena Blair, 607 Figueroa Street; Marie E. Marsh, 306 Scott Street; Margaret Weaver, 301 Figueroa Street; Sabrina Flynn, 208 Bridge Street; Janice Brial, 1203 Sutter Street; Todd Dambly, 605 Mormon Street; Tom Picarella, 416 Sutter Street; Ryan Moss, 415 Figueroa Street; Glenna Cox, 514 Mormon Street; Elaine Ferreira-Pro, 808 Figueroa Street; Jobekah Trotta, 402 Figueroa Street; Stephanie Gilhuly, 509 Mormon Street; Meggie Elledge, 402 Sutter Street; Dayna Palmer, 414 Mormon Street; Phil Carey, 306 Coloma Street; Dori Keast, 808 Mormon Street; Mary Rigney, 1372 Young Wo Circle; Olivia Huber, 606 Figueroa Street; Christopher DelGrande, 307 Bridge Street; Cheryl Gonzales, 413 Leidesdorﬀ Street; Irene Green, 601 Figueroa Street; Rhonda Gannon, 407 Scott Street; JoAnn M.

Handy, 1376 Young Wo Circle; Michael Flynn, 208 Bridge Street; Bruce Magnani, 415 Leidesdorﬀ Street; Lisa Scarr, 516 Figueroa & 507 Figueroa & 902 Figueroa Street; Mike Huber, 606 Figueroa Street; Bonnie Darah, 607 Mormon Street; Frances Beltram, 501 Figueroa Street; Helen Bennett, 310 Sutter Street; Dan Winkelman, 1374 Young Wo Circle; Terry Sorenson, 1216 Forrest; Joyce Roderick, 1213 Sutter Street; Dave Ochoa, 513 Figueroa; Michelle Church, 609 Figueroa; Arlynne Alison, 610 Peddlers Lane.

Page 314 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.

Cindy Pharis
713 Figueroa St
Folsom, CA 95630

June 26, 2020

City of Folsom
Historic District Commission
50 Natoma Street
Folsom, CA 95630

RE: Notice of Public Hearing, Historic District Commission, PN-17-145, 603 Sutter Street Mixed Use Building

Dear Commissioners,
I am writing to you today in objection to the proposed project for development known as 603 Sutter Street, located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Sutter Street and Scott Street. The proposed project includes a request for approval of Design Review, a Parking Variance, and a Height Variance for development of a three-story, 18,965 square-foot mixed- use (retail and office) building on a .17 acre site.

The proposed mixed-use building will include retail/restaurant uses on the first floor and office uses on the second and third floor and a 2,585 square foot roof deck. The roof deck would be accessible to building tenants, although according to the Project Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration the general public potentially could attend private events in this area.

My objections/concerns regarding the project are as follows:

1. Parking Variance: No onsite parking would be provided for this project. The retail and restaurant space on the first floor will require employee and patron parking.

ZGlobal currently employs approximately 50 employees, these employees will occupy the office space on the second and third floors of this building and no onsite parking will be provided for their employees.

According to Folsom Municipal Code, “All uses must provide parking spaces at the following ratios; 1. Retail, offices, restaurants, museums, and similar uses; 1 parking space per 350 square feet of building space. “

Page 315 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
603 Sutter Street PN-17-145

2 According to a recent parking survey (Kimley Horn, October 2018) there will be a deficit of 522 parking spaces as the Historic District approaches build out. And, the Historic District Parking Solutions Ad Hoc Committee’s Recommendations Report (May 8, 2020), confirmed that businesses require parking for employees and patrons throughout the day and night. The limited availability of parking spaces near business locations (specifically in the 600-700 blocks) is putting greater demand on existing spaces and pushing business patron and employee parking out into residential areas. There is a definite lack of high-demand parking availability for historic district residents and visitors; therefore, approval of a Parking Variance for this project would be irresponsible and completely against Folsom Municipal Code.

2. Height Variance: According to Folsom Municipal Code, “Building heights shall not exceed 35 feet adjacent to the sidewalk area on Sutter or Leidesdorff Street and 50 feet in other sections of the subarea”. As proposed, the building height for this project would be a maximum of 50 feet 6 inches from the ground to the roof parapet. This building far exceeds the height limit specified in Folsom Municipal Code; therefore, approval of a height variance for this project should be denied.

 Building features associated with the elevator and air conditioning equipment would be mounted on the roof in excess of the height of 50’ 6”.

The Preliminary Utility Plan, A-211 Exterior Elevations clearly shows an additional roof structure above the 50’ 6’’ parapet. Please clarify the purpose of this additional roof structure which sits far above the parapet and indicate height elevation details for this roof structure.

3. Encroachment Permit: As proposed, the project includes developed uses associated with the building in the public right of way. These uses include outdoor seating and a second floor balcony on the Sutter Street frontage, and a concrete walkway, stairs and a trash enclosure access ramp on the Scott Street frontage. My concerns regarding this encroachment permit are as follows:

 The outdoor seating and second floor balcony (as well as roof top deck) will undoubtedly create additional noise and nuisance for residences living within close proximity of this project.

 Due to the close proximity of this project to residences, the trash enclosure and trash enclosure access ramp is not aesthetically pleasing for residents and visitors, especially for the neighboring property (APN: 070-0111-011).

Additionally, there will be added noise and smell from the trash receptacles.

4. Setbacks: According to Folsom Municipal Code, “Contiguous shops on Sutter Street frontage shall maintain continuity of facades along public sidewalk.” This project does not follow the “continuity of facades” with the neighboring building to the

Page 316 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
603 Sutter Street PN-17-145

3 West (A-19 Street View Renderings). The distance from the westerly building façade to the nearest structure, a small single story commercial building, would be approximately 9 feet. The proposed materials, features, size, scale and proportion do not match the existing historic neighboring building (APN: 070-0111-009).

I do not object to growth in the historic district; however, new construction projects that do not fit the size and scale of the existing historic buildings will forever change the landscape of the historic district. Buildings that do not enhance the historic district or provide adequate parking will take away from the historic charm and ambiance of this rare and cherished piece of Folsom’s history. Please don’t forget the purpose of the Historic District Commission “to ensure the protection of the historic and cultural character of the City’s Historic District”. I respectfully ask that you vote “no” on the requests for variances and the design review for this project.

Sincerely,

Cindy Pharis
Folsom Historic District Resident

Page 317 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
1 Christina Kelley
From: Bob Delp <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2020 8:03 AM
To: Steven Banks
Cc: Pam Johns
Subject: 603 Sutter Street - Request for Information
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Good morning, Steve.

I am reviewing the proposed Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) dated June 10, 2020 for the proposed development at 603 Sutter Street, and have a some questions/data needs I'm hoping you can provide feedback on to help my review. This information is relevant and necessary for review of the IS/MND, so I am asking that you please expedite your reply or extend the IS/MND review period. I am sending this as communication intended to be between me and the City, and request that you do not voluntarily provide this to the applicant. If the applicant submits a public records act request, or if you otherwise are required or compelled to provide this to the applicant, I would like to be made aware of that communication. My preference is that you either email or provide a link to the City's website for the documents requested below; however, if I need to schedule to come to the City offices this week to review or obtain copies, I will do that.

1. By way of this email, I am requesting that the City extend the period of time for review and comment on the IS/MND to provide time to
review relevant project information, including that requested in this message, that was not circulated with the IS/MND. Furthermore, I am also requesting that the City postpone the noticed July 15, 2020 hearing before the Historic District Commission on this matter. Even if the City does not extend the period of time to comment on the IS/MND, it is not reasonable to expect that staff can meaningfully review and address public comments on the proposed IS/MND, develop a staff report and recommendations to the HDC, and circulate that staff report for a reasonable amount of time for public review in advance of the HDC hearing, all within a 15‐day period that includes the 4th of July holiday.

2. Please either email me or send a link to the City website where I can obtain the full project application, including a completed Development Application form and Design Review form and any other application

materials for the currently proposed project. In particular, but not limited to, I am interested in seeing the applicant's explanation of the two requested variances as required by zoning ordinance code 17.62.020.

3. The IS/MND cites the following documents. Please email these to me or let me know where I can obtain
them.
 Arborwell, 2017. Tree Inventory Letter Report, 512 and 603 Sutter Street, Folsom, California. March 21, 2017.
 ECORP Consulting, Inc., 2019. Arborist Survey Report, Z Global – 603 Sutter Street, Folsom, CA. March 12, 2019
 Youngdahl Consulting Group, Inc., 2017. Geotechnical Engineering Study for Sutter Street (603), 603 Sutter Street, Folsom, California. March 2017.
 LSA Associates, Inc., 2017. Cultural Resources Study, 510 Sutter Street and 605 Sutter Street Properties, City of Folsom, Sacramento County, California. March 2017. (Understanding that confidential elements of site records/information may be redacted.)

Page 318 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
2  Historic District Access Study, Technical Memorandum #1, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., September 20, 2018.
 Technical Memorandum #1 – Implementation Plan Update, Historic District Parking Implementation Plan Update, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., October 18, 2018.

4. The IS/MND references zoning code 17.52.510, Sutter street subarea special use and design standards, item D which states, "D. Setbacks. Contiguous shops on Sutter Street frontage shall maintain continuity of facades along public sidewalk." It's not clear how the City interprets that in terms of applicability to the project. I do not see specific setbacks for the Sutter Street subarea (just item D which doesn’t seem applicable or at least isn't discussed with context in the IS/MND); however, there are two codes for the historic district in general, not specific to sub area, that appear to require a 3ft minimum setback from property lines for all eaves/overhangs. I don't see these discussed in the IS/MND and my understanding of the project is that it would construct buildings on (or actually across) the parcel boundary, which would require a variance from these code requirements. I would like to know if the City has advised the applicant of the need for these additional variances and/or what the City's intent is for addressing these requirements in your application review process?

17.52.410 Eaves. Roof overhangs may extend into a required setback area a maximum of 2 feet, but shall not be closer than 3 feet to a property line or closer than 6 feet to any portion of another structure. (Ord. 890 § 2 (part), 1998)

17.52.420 Architectural features. Fireplaces, bay windows, attached porches and decks and patios higher than
30 inches above grade, may extend into a required setback area a maximum of 2 feet, but shall not be closer than 3 feet to a property line or closer than 6 feet to any portion of another structure. The combined length of all such features shall not account for more than 25 percent of the length of the wall surface on which the features are located. (Ord. 890 § 2 (part), 1998)

5. I may have missed it, but the total height of the proposed structure and rooftop features is not clearly discussed in the IS/MND and is not indicated on the application drawings. Can you direct me to where in the IS/MND or application materials I can find specific discussion of the maximum height of the requested structure and any rooftop elements?

6. The full purpose of the Encroachment Permit for the project is unclear in the IS/MND. In most instances, the IS/MND appears to discuss that the Encroachment Permit is to allow for construction activities within City street rights‐of‐way. However, the IS/MND also discusses that an Encroachment Permit is needed for development and use of the structure within the public right of way. That suggests to me that at least two Encroachment Permits are needed ‐ a temporary permit for construction in public rights‐of‐way and a second permit for the permanent placement and use of structures. Also, would the City not require that the applicant obtain an Easement (or fee title) of City‐owned rights‐of‐way, and not just an Encroachment Permit, for the permanent placement and use of structures? Any clarification you can provide on this would be helpful ‐ perhaps the application materials will provide additional information, but I would also like to know City staff's position on this. Related to the setback requirements above, permanent building within public rights‐of‐way would indicate a negative setback (i.e., crossing the property line) that would seem to indicate a need for a variance (see note 4, above).

7. In reviewing the State Clearinghouse CEQAnet database, it looks like the City has not filed an NOC with SCH for the IS/MND. I assume that means the City has decided to distribute the MND directly to relevant state agencies for
review. Can you confirm that and, in particular, can you let me know when and to whom at State Parks you sent the MND to? I would also like to know if the City has solicited review and input from State

Page 319 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
3 Parks on this project, and how the City has addressed, or intends to address, the Folsom Lake SRA/Powerhouse SHP RMP goals/guidelines listed on page 33 of the IS/MND for visibility of the project from areas within State Parks jurisdiction. (The IS/MND doesn't appear to fully consider views of the project from the Powerhouse SHP, but I'm hopeful that the City understands the importance of coordinating with State Parks when approving development visible from the SHP.)

8. Has a tree removal permit been issued for the project property? It appears that several trees on the property have recently been cut (branches removed
as well as some completely felled) and I would like to
know when this was authorized and whether those trees were or were not accounted for the IS/MND tree inventory. (The tree inventory map in the IS/MND is a draft, and expect that a final version will be provided in the ECORP 2017 document requested above, but would like to know whether the City has authorized tree removal in advance of a decision on the development request.)

Thank you,

Bob Delp
916-812-8122
[email protected]

Page 320 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.

Dear Mr. Banks, 6/21/2020

Here are my comments on the proposed mixed-use building at 603 Sutter St. by developer Zglobal, set for review and public comment on July 15, 2020 at 5:00 P.M.

1. Height variance. The current proposal sets the roof line at 47 feet with a visible three- foot parapet wall above that. On the roof there is a structure that is 10 feet above the roof line. From the sidewalk on Sutter Street the building will be 50 feet tall, viewing it from a distance it will be nearly 60 feet tall when the penthouse is in sight. With the current maximum height allowance set at 35 feet this building is way above compliance and nearly twice as tall as my house on the adjoining property. I fully object to the request for a height variance.

2. Parking variance. With no on-sight parking planned, this building will require a parking variance to satisfy its minimum parking requirements. If a variance is granted it will allow all of its parking to occur on the surrounding residential streets, compounding an already overcrowded condition that is at 100% capacity. Currently the neighboring residences have no way of allowing guests to come to private functions such as birthday parties or holiday gatherings without the inconvenience of parking long distances away from their destination. The addition of more on street parking by this project will compound an already impossible situation. I fully object to the request for a parking variance.

3. Insensitive location of the trash enclosure and access ramp. Current design for the east elevation calls for the trash enclosure and access ramp to be next to my driveway. This will expose my property to the smell of restaurant garbage and the industrial noise of trucks dumping the dumpsters. This design factor will immediately cause a devaluation of my property. In addition, the view of the building from across Scott street will present a fully unpleasant view of the garbage ramp and dumpster enclosure, something that should only be present in an alley not at a main intersection of the Historic District.

4. Fire escape stairs. An additional design element of the east elevation shows a fully exposed metal fire escape (stair way) that faces Scott street and my property. This element will contribute to a “back-alley” type view of the fire escapes metal steps and railing, giving this crucial intersection little consideration of how important the architectural viewshed is to the district. No consideration has been made to block this unsightly element with a curtain wall system.

5. Privacy intrusion. The south elevation has eight large windows and a balcony facing the bedrooms of my residence. A complete violation of privacy for my property. At the minimum, all glass on this side of the building should be obscure and the frames fixed and un-openable. A curtain wall should be installed to block the view on to my property from the balcony.

Page 321 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.

6. Architectural Design. The architectural style of the building is out of context with the surrounding residential neighborhood. The front elevation seems to be an attempt to compliment the building across the street while the other three elevations are completely absent of any enhancing features that blend into the residential neighborhood. This project has the opportunity to become something that will enhance the neighborhood, but this current design greatly misses the mark. A pertinent review of the design guidelines for the historic district would help to give the designer a better perspective on compatibility and an examination of newly built buildings in nearby communities could help the designer understand how new construction can blend into a historic community.

In conclusion I want to mention that the current design plans for 603 Sutter street was presented to a group of over thirty historic Folsom residents about a year ago by Doug Scalzi and was soundly rejected. The overwhelming comment was that the residents wanted this project to comply with the design guidelines and be allowed no variances.

As an experienced past member of the Historic Commission, I recognize when a project is incompatible with the district and I believe that this corner can and must be developed in a cohesive and responsible way. Crucial parking requirements must be met, and a reasonable building height proposed that will not give the appearance of a towering and out of place structure.

Thank you for this opportunity to comment,

Ben Fuentes
306 Scott St.

Page 322 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
1 Christina Kelley
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, June 19, 2020 8:13 AM
To: Steven Banks
Cc: [email protected]; Sarah Aquino; Mike Kozlowski; Kerri Howell; Ernie Sheldon; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: PN-17-145, 603 SUTTER ST / 070-0111-010
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Mr. Banks,
Next month the mixed use building known as 603 Sutter Street (Z Global) is going up in front of the Commission for review and approval. This request is for Design Review and parking and height variances.

In reviewing the plans I have noticed several areas of real concern for the Historic District Residences in the area.

First; the design does not meet the historic look and appeal of other historic downtown buildings. The Historic Design and Development guidelines set standards for look and design and it does not appear that these were met. Put differently, this design appears modern and does not fit within the design specifications of a historic district. Instead of looking at a historic building from the 1880's, residents will be looking at a modern building from the 2000's. The open staircase and trash area add's a visual and smell problems for the surrounding residents.

Second; The building is too tall. Instead of a nice view of Sutter Street, residents will look at a huge building that will dwarf other structures and residences surrounding it. The side and rear are very unattractive creating an unsightly view for the residents. There is absolutely no reason for a building that big. The Historic Design and Development Guidelines set standards for the height of buildings on Sutter Street, these should be followed.

Third; As you probably know, according to the 2018 parking study, it was concluded that the Sutter Steak House end of Sutter Street was already at 100% parking capacity. Customers and employees on our end of the street do not park in the parking garage and walk 3 blocks but instead opt for parking in front of the residences. Residences have complained about this for years. Without a second parking structure, there will be no other place for the employees and patrons of Z Global to park except the residential neighborhood. This is extremely unfair for the residences who purchased their homes only to see their street turned into a public parking lot. The Historic Residential Neighborhood has enough of a parking problem already. It is Z Global's sole responsibility to provide adequate parking for it's employees and patrons.

Finally; The location of a large building so close to Scott and Sutter Street will present a visual hazard for car's turning at the Scott / Sutter intersection. This will present unsafe driving conditions.

In conclusion, There is absolutely no reason Z Global cannot run a successful business by following the Design and Development guidelines. I respectfully request that the City deny ALL variances and request that the building be developed in accordance with the approved Design and Development Guidelines.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Mike Brenkwitz
603 Figueroa St

Page 323 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.

Page 324 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.

Page 325 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.

Page 326 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.

Page 327 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.

Page 328 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.

Page 329 ends

Re: 603 Sutter Street Mixed-Use Building Project (PN 17-145) Update CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Steve: Thank you for this update. I do have a few comments.

Per our separate correspondence over the past two weeks, it is clear that the City still does not have a complete application for this project and that staff should stop all processing of this project (including the consultant working
on the env doc) until you have a complete/adequate application for this new project proposed by a new applicant (Cedrus Holdings). The piecemeal submittal of application materials and proceeding with environmental review when an application is not yet complete is a disservice to this community and does not comply with the City's application processing requirements.

Furthermore, substantial evidence was submitted by community members and organizations in comments on
the 2020 initial study prepared for the prior version of this project that clearly showed the project would result in significant, unmitigated impacts. Although the current version of the project has been marginally reduced in scale, it is still too large for the setting and would substantially and negatively affect the visual and historic character of adjacent historic properties. Without mentioning several others here, this significant impact alone means that for the City to approve the project in compliance with CEQA, the project will need an environmental impact report, not simply a mitigated negative declaration. A staff determination that an MND will suffice before the initial study analysis has been completed is pre‐mature and inconsistent with evidence already available.

An EIR could be avoided. City staff could simply take the current proposal to the HDC with a recommendation for denial. The project's failure to address its parking demand and the resulting effects on the health, safety, and welfare of neighbors caused by overflow parking into the adjacent residential neighborhood would further exacerbate parking‐related health and safety risks that already exist in the 400‐600 blocks of Figuroa, Scott, Bridge, Sutter, Leidesdorff streets. Therefore, City decision makers will be unable to make Finding #3 required for a variance. Although he might not recognize it as such, staff would be doing the applicant a favor and would save him substantial cost and angst by simply taking the proposal to the HDC for a denial decision.

Page 330 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
2 However, assuming you intent to continue processing the project, please consider the following regarding documents recently posted to the City website:

1. The March 8, 2021 application form signed by Mr. Alaywan indicates that the property is owned by Cedrus Holdings; however, the title report (from 2017) shows a different owner. A current title report is required as part of a complete application and its obviously important that the title report and application are consistent with their representation of property ownership. Furthermore, and as I previously pointed out to you when that same title report accompanied the prior project application, the title report has the incorrect site address. Instead of 603 Sutter Street, the address is shown as 605 Sutter Street, which is the neighboring parcel where the small, historic library building is located. The City's application content requirements require a recent title report, and an old, outdated 2017 report with the wrong address and apparently the wrong current owner, is insufficient.

2. The 300 ft radius map for notification of nearby property owners is either the same as previously used or was reproduced with the same error as previously made. The City requirement is that the applicant is to identify properties within 300 feet of the project parcel boundary; not within 300 feet of a single point on the property. It's obvious by just looking at the map, that there are several properties within 300 ft of the project parcel that are nevertheless omitted from the list. For the application to be complete and to ensure notifications about the project are received by nearby property owners, the map and list of properties must be revised. (As an aside, it was brought to my attention last night that when a former version of this project went to the HDC in ~2017, at least one owner of a property within 300 feet had not received the required written notice. Apparently, staff acknowledged and apologized for the error at that time, yet 5 years later the same error persists.) Thank you for your consideration,
‐Bob

Bob Delp
916‐812‐8122
[email protected]

Page 331 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
3 <[email protected]>; HPLBoard <[email protected]> Subject: 603 Sutter Street Mixed‐Use Building Project (PN 17‐145) Update

Good morning all,

I wanted to take a moment to provide you with an update on the status of the 603 Sutter Mixed-Use Building project (PN 17-145). In response to extensive input provided by residents, the Historic Folsom Residents Association (HFRA), the Heritage Preservation League (HPL), and the Historic District Commission (HDC) over the course of the past year, the project applicant made the decision to revise the proposed project. The most notable changes to the proposed project include a reduction in the square footage of the building, a reduction in the height of the building, changes to minimize the mass and scale of the building, and architectural design modifications to the building to better reflect the historic character of Sutter Street. The following is a link to the City’s website where the updated plans are available for the public to review:

https://www.folsom.ca.us/community/planning/current_project_information.asp

Due to the extent of the aforementioned project modifications, the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration that was originally prepared for the project is in the process of being updated by Planning Partners, Inc. Once the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration are complete, the public and other responsible agencies will be given a minimum of 30 days to review and comment on the environmental document. In terms of timing, the proposed project will most likely be moving forward to the Historic District Commission in May or June. Please let me know if you have any comments or questions.

Best regards,

Steve

Steven Banks
Principal Planner
City of Folsom
(916) 461-6207
[email protected]

Page 332 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.

March 16, 2021

Steve Banks, Principal Planner
Community Development Department
City of Folsom
50 Natoma Street
Folsom, CA 95630
via email to:
[email protected]
cc via email to:

Scott Johnson, Planning Manager - [email protected] Pam Johns, Community Development Director - [email protected]

Subject: December 2020 Cedrus Holdings Proposed 603 Sutter Street Mixed-Use Building (PN 17-145)

Dear Mr. Banks:

The Historic Folsom Residents Association (HFRA) Board is submitting these comments on “PN 17- 145 - UPDATED PROJECT: 603 Sutter Street Mixed-Use Project - Parking Variance, Design Review and Encroachment Permit” documents on the City’s “Current Planning Projects Under Review” webpage as of March 8, 2021. Site plan drawings, a project narrative, and a variance statement are dated December 2020. The following comments provide our initial input on the currently proposed project and variance request:

1. A Complete Application Must be Submitted. This is a new applicant (Cedrus Holdings) and a revised project from the project(s) at 603 Sutter Street previously requested between 2017 and September 2020. Regardless of similarities, the City should treat this as a new application by a new applicant and staff should adhere to the Folsom Municipal Code (FMC) requirements for design review and variance applications. Staff should not process this project until the application is complete and all required application materials have been submitted by the current applicant.

2. A Mitigated Negative Declaration is Insufficient. City staff advised that an initial study and a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) are being prepared for the project. It is premature for city staff to predetermine the outcome of an initial study by suggesting that a mitigated negative declaration will be prepared. An MND is only available when a project’s impacts can and will be mitigated to a level of insignificance. For the 603 Sutter Street project proposed in the summer of 2020, the Heritage Preservation League and others presented substantial evidence of fair arguments that the project as then proposed would have significant impacts to historic properties. Sufficient

Page 333 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
2 similarities and parking deficiencies remain with the currently proposed project, and staff should anticipate that an environmental impact report will be required for this project.

3. The Project Does Not Qualify for a Parking Variance. To make the findings required for a variance, City decision-makers must conclude that, “That the granting of [the variance] will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, materially affect the health or safety of persons, residing or working in the neighborhood of the property of the applicant, and will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood.” (Folsom Municipal Code 17.62.020; Finding #3) Finding #3 must be made independent of other required findings; therefore, even if decision-makers were to determine that circumstances warranted making Findings #1 and #2 (we believe they do not), City decision-makers will be unable to make Finding #3. A development in the Historic District that does not provide parking sufficient to meet its parking demand, will result in increased parking and vehicle travel within the residential neighborhood of the Historic District exacerbating well-documented existing detrimental conditions. That reason alone is sufficient to conclude that the required findings for a parking variance cannot be met and the variance cannot be granted. (We note, and the applicant also notes at project narrative pg. 4, that at its October 21, 2020 meeting and discussion of potential development options at 603 Sutter Street, the Historic District Commission very clearly advised that a project at this location would not warrant findings required for a parking variance.)

4. Off-Street Parking Must be Identified and Evaluated. The applicant’s project narrative states that the applicant is willing to participate in a parking assessment district once established. Staff previously proposed a condition of approval with this requirement. Staff also previously proposed a requirement that parking be provided on a nearby but unspecified property. A speculative and uncertain future parking assessment district is insufficient for addressing the parking and related safety issues in the Historic District and would not mitigate or offset the currently proposed project’s lack of parking. Furthermore, a requirement for offsite parking in the absence of identifying and evaluating a specific location is unacceptable. Off-street parking must be identified for this development and the traffic, ingress/egress, noise, lighting, visual and other environmental impacts of such off-street parking must be evaluated prior to any approval of development at 603 Sutter Street. To avoid the need for a parking variance (which cannot be granted as discussed above), the project must include off-street parking sufficient to comply with the FMC parking requirements and sufficient to provide for the parking demand that will be generated by the project.

5. Request for Review of Draft Conditions of Approval. We request an opportunity to review and comment on drafts of any staff recommended conditions of approval for this project prior to their inclusion in a staff report to decision makers. The staff report(s) for previous iterations of this project included several recommended conditions, yet conditions were only available for public review just days prior to public hearings. For many of the conditions, staff provided no rationale for its recommendation or any explanation of the purpose of the condition. Some of the conditions also appeared to be unenforceable or otherwise ineffective. We therefore request the opportunity to review, ask questions, and comment in any draft staff-recommended conditions before they are finalized for a staff recommendation to decision makers.

Page 334 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
3 6. Enforceable Conditions. We also request that staff ensure that all proposed conditions are enforceable. Since the project as proposed does not request a conditional use permit, it is unclear how conditions requiring some future action by a property owner (which may be different than the current applicant) could be enforced. Please ensure a mechanism is established to enforce all proposed conditions of approval.

7. Staff Should Recommend Denial. For the reasons discussed above, we feel that the parking variance alone is sufficient cause for this project to be denied. Staff will have no basis for recommending approval of a parking variance, since variance Finding #3 cannot be made. We suggest that staff could save the applicant time and money by proceeding to the Historic District Commission (HDC) with a recommendation for denial of the current application. The HDC can deny the project without completing CEQA review resulting in further, unnecessary expenditure by the applicant. If staff instead decides to proceed with CEQA review, staff should advise the applicant that staff will have no choice but to recommend denial of the project and that City decision-makers will be unable to make the findings required for granting a parking variance.

The HFRA Board and individual HRFA members may provide further input to the City on this project as the City’s review proceeds. Thank you for considering these comments.

Historic Folsom Residents Association Board
Michael Reynolds, President
Paul Keast, Vice President, Government Liaison
Mike Brenkwitz, Vice President, Commerce
John Shaw, Secretary
Laura Fisher, Treasurer
Jennifer Lane, Membership Director
Cindy Pharis, Communications Director

Page 335 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
1 Christina Kelley
From: LJ Laurent <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2021 11:30 AM
To: Steven Banks
Subject: 603 sutter,. request U acknowledge receipt of my Filings CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi Steve,

Please acknowledge receipt of today's 603 sutter SCH File Report, and the two prior Reports which I sent you, before I was informed of OPR CEQA file of July 21, 2021.

I could have sworn I have several Requests for ALL public Notices on FILE with City Clerk Office. Of course, I suspect planning ignores the Laws requiring Clerk to keep all these land use files.

Still I have friendships with Clerks and have FILE Notice Requests on Record ---- where they BELONG legally -- with city clerk office.

Steve, it makes me wonder how often city attorney[s] review these critical land documents. How can so many omissions and errors occur when lawyers have licenses, and State and city laws are so extremely convoluted?

Also, we all wonder why old city residents on "h.d. parkin g committee" were never given
the direct support/information on Law enforcement, from city engineer Krahn, under your same manager, and never from Sr. traffic engineer Rackovan.

I do know city lawyers are privy to my "work products", but never once responded to me --- not even in front of a superior court judge. That was a hoot. I had five witnesses, but judge only admitted one into otherwise empty courtroom after Wang, Cline exited in a hurry.

He was afraid they'd suffer direct retaliation, as I have. But it was nothing unusual to me --- but the slap in the face he gave those 2 was worth the Price of Admission. I have written books about my adventures because even to me they are extraordinary.

Thanks in advance.

LSB, the 3 of us.

Page 336 ends

Mike Kozlowski; Sarah Aquino; Rosario Rodriguez; YK Chalamcherla; Lydia Konopka; Ken Cusano; Lauren Ono; Rick Hillman; SacMetro
Subject:

Re: 603 Sutter Street Mixed-Use Project Update
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi Steve,

One question, basically for City Attorney, City Engineer

Will the CEQA submission and all Comments received by Agencies, Utilities, Fire Districts, Waterboards, etc., be
reviewed by and Sealed/Signed by City Engineer?

Will ALL those submitting Public Comments get a Response indicating WHY is city permitting only certain Applicants to be totally exempted from Folsom Street Standards, Fire Code Standards, and Zone District Requirements set forth in FMC Chapter 17, and CA Govt Zoning Code 65800 et seq?

Will City Attorney sign-off with his License that Applicants have a legal Right to be exempted from city, state, federal laws? [including the "federal transportation funds" used to a "commuter parking facility at light rail station -- which is now officially proposed as accruing to benefit of Private owners?]

While I have raised these and other Objections in my own Public Comments, and discussed them with OPR manager and other city engineers, these two should cover "immediate concerns". These Residents of the most poorly-served part of this old part of town, deserve to know Justifications for constant streams of "exceptions" to prevailin g
laws.

As City Engineer and City Attorney both refuse to address these concerns with me and others in this old part of city, it is my view that these State License holding city

Page 337 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
2 official/staff ought to be held to Account for Failures for Conformity to Laws, and to address what might appear to be violations of their License Obligations, or failure to address specifically identified "issues."
It is also concerning that they fail to address the LOS traffic impact issues created by favoring or "excepting" this Application from Standards and Fire Codes. The LOS level of service dropping to the lowest/unsatisfactory level, is unacceptable, and unconstitutional. K&H predicted this occurring rapidly.

As for the Failure to address non-compliance, or non-enforcement of Folsom and Caltrans street standards, [plus again Fire Code] is equally concerning.

Possibly, our Licensed Professionals have a lot to explain --- to us, and to higher jurisdictions.

For the Record, my Public Comments were filed with CEQA Clearinghouse, OPR manager, and a number of cities, counties, and agencies -- all sent directly.

Hopefully our Licensed staff will have a Formal Response prepared PRIOR to this advancin
g to any new Public Hearings on this huge matter, deferred to a "design review" group with no Authority to Issue Rezones, nor Exceptions to Standards or Fire Codes. cc: City Clerk Office for File on this PN & CEQA NOI
cc: councilpersons

On Wednesday, September 1, 2021, 10:34:26 AM PDT, Steven Banks <[email protected]> wrote:

Good morning all,

I wanted to let you know that the 603 Sutter Street Mixed-Use Project (PN 17-145) remains continued off-calendar and no public hearing date has been established. The applicant has requested additional time be provided so that they can continue to evaluate potential parking options for the proposed project. Please let me know if you have any questions.

Best regards,

Steve

Steven Banks
Principal Planner

Page 338 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
1 Christina Kelley
From: LJ Laurent <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2021 2:11 PM
To: Steven Banks
Cc: Eileen Sobeck; Clerk of the Board; [email protected] Subject: Fw: 603 Sutter St. REZONE, etc. Public Comment for CEQA Filing Attachments: 603 Sutter 8 19 21 SENT.odt
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

To: Steve Banks, Prin. Planner, Comm. Dev.
cc: Sacramento County, SWRCB, OPR Clearinghouse Manager From: Laurie
August 19, 2021

RE: Folsom uses appearance group for REZONEs, Exceptions, Violations of STANDARDS, regularly sending inaccurate reports to county records

Steve,
Hope you are well in Folsom Community Development Dept.

Looks as if I might have omitted your address. Sorry.

I did contact some agencies directly, fearing they might be omitted. My circulation was to people State, County, area people with whom I have had interactions for decades.

FYI, Upon reviewing FMC law governing Zones, and also the State Govt Code 65800, I found there is probably NO BASIS for the city of Folsom to call this anything EXCEPT an actual REZONE.

Moreover, since General Plan 2035 Map is Not Readable, and there is no Le gal Definition
by Parcel Number of the Defined Zone District, I believe OPR will have to take a "hard look" at this submission, and addressing Issues raised in my Research Report.

Frankly, NOTHING circulated by Folsom for Land Use can be trusted because it is ONLY ONLINE. No print edition has existed for long time. Changes to FMC have NOT been advertised the hundreds of times city has sprung them on us as total surprises.

I am recommendin
g Sacramento County Recorder and Tax Assessor need to undertake a Full Investigation to the precise information supplied to them. For example, every time an Application is made, it seems the County expects to be notified of Application. Every time city submits a Parcel "ZONE" which reads "HD", it rankles me because "HD" is a mere, advisory, OVERLAY to existing Zone District and STANDARDS which require City Engineer Seal & Signature.

Page 339 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
2 I have sent Sac County a large number of documented complaints. It is ridiculous to continue a Parcel by Parcel Examination, when it is abundantly apparent in City FMC that HD is OVERLAY and voluntary in most cases. Still the city persists in pretending HD is a "ZONE District" with attached Standards, Bulk Regs, City Engineer approved ACCESS, roadways, and much more. Folsom has actually sent county some Subdivisions in oldest part of city, and NOT INCLUDED the City Engineer Sealed documents. In particular, I can cite a Subdivision on City Property, when Abutting OWNERS were and still are, totally uninformed of city's bogus Filings with County Records.

We in Lake Natoma Shores and oldest parts of city, are quite incensed. City Council is totally Deaf to us, has been for many years. We have had to file civil suits to force city to obey & enforce its own laws and land use Zone Districts. Folsom blanket use of "Planned Development" is a joke because we are never permitted to participate due to Lack of Public Information Circulation to ALL parts of city.

At some point it will become clear Folsom is noncompliant and has been for years. Sacramento Bee made city their First new Format article, and cited the fact that SWRCB Engineer Kathy Bare made a decision Folsom did NOT have sufficient demonstrable, stable and PROVABLE Water Supply for S50.

Naturally the state did not actively enforce against their monetary supporters. I believe Sacramento County has a different attitude about being deprived of INCOME for county by city inaccurate ZONE District actions. City calls something HD without full public process.

Purchaser buys an empty parcel at a LOW PRICE, then shortly thereafter they show at up at the Comm. Dev. Dept. with application for "mixed use" or planned development, or the most useful DECEPTION OF ALL, telling County ZONE is "HD". I am telling County that HD is NOT A DEFINED ZONE DISTRICT and COUNTY NEEDS to do their ENFORCEMENT on an OVERALL basis and stop this Parcel by Parcel nonsense.

I have two First Responder families living very near me, and they are so incensed about all this "HD" nonsense and city's wrongful uses and wrongful Processes and outright Omissions, that they and others are organizing us all. Would the city retaliate? You bet this city would. If Folsom will allow architectural committee to make HUGE land Use Alterations like addin
g a crematory with NO FIRE HYDRANTS and only a 3" water service pipe [with a 2" restriction on it], then we are all in IMMEDIATE DANGER. Plus, there is no FIRE ACCESS except our Subdivision's curving 18 foot entry off Folsom/Oakdale/Light rail tracks/Natoma/Forrest.

Our at-large businesspeople councils have never cared.

Northern California is ON FIRE, and we in oldest "HD" area have tiny lanes, and we are in Highest WILDFIRE Danger area. We are listed in Federal WUI Directory/website. Wildfire - Urban Interface Cities face being burned alive. For us, there is NO DIRECT FIRE access to federal and state parks parcels surrounding us.

Page 340 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
3 Some might say I not correct, but I have made a considered judgment that USBR and BLM, both under DOI, have an obligation to make discrete formal complaints to the federal investigators. I have never been afraid to inform feds, and in fact did a major blow on the whistle, in service to our military, via Pentagon and FBI cooperation. Feds have been there for me in past, and I believe Reclamation, BLM, and DOI have a Duty to convey my Research.

When I spoke with CEQA Manager, she got full flavor of what I demonstrated in Report. She actually told me the Normal and Usual processes and definitions used by compliant entities who submit "Lead Agency" information.

I suspect Folsom city attorney office and at least one other top official demand to be informed of everything I submit. I believe that because every misdeed I noted, was changed except this nonsense of a committee on appearance being used as de-facto, free-standing Re-zoning entity, and illegal grantors of REZONING, Variances, Exceptions to real STANDARDS, and acceptin
g applications which belong with only 1 Hearing group,
called the Plan Commission. To suggest HDC is a Commission is disgusting to law- abiding folk. It is time to stop filling the bank accounts of those who buy a worthless parcel and seek the city to ABET and maybe actually DECEIVE Sacramento County. It worked all the time here in "HD" the imaginary zone district with NO real Standards.

I really have lost my fear of Folsom retaliation like that of the past. I am at MORE risk from crematory fire, LPG Explosion all the way to river & Sutter St., getting hit by a vehicle, or being burned alive because of all the IMPROPER Land Use nonsense here, and the total lack of consideration for us demonstrated by CA State Parks who "manage" federal land [extremely poorly I can prove.]

Anyone reading this might think I am "concerned." Wait until they see LNS Nei ghbors in
action. My new, younger neighbors, with babies and children are livid --- protesting & doing the usual STOP actions. They are a credit. Those poor "HD" residents have organized very effectively. https://www.thehfra.org/

We, who actually ABUT a proposed furnace up to 2500 degrees F, and explosive LPG tanks, are a different breed because we are in touching the Hazards. We would certainly perish in the first blasts.

Does city council care? Or are they dominated by someone? I know where bodies are buried and who paid for the shovels and bulldozers. These people are rightfully terrified and motivated to save their lives and property from outright GREEDY people.

I can prove how all this reached such a critical terrifying state of affairs.

Have a nice day, all of you, including my friend receiving bcc.

Laurie

Page 341 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
4

Page 342 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
5

Page 343 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
6

Page 344 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
7

Page 345 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
8

Page 346 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
9

Page 347 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
10

Page 348 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
11 There are many more, some by little children. What has City Engineer said in response to my emails? Nothing. Ditto Mayor, Vice Mayor, or Development layperson Manager.

FYI read in Today Folsom Telegraph an OPED by their employee Tom Rupp. Now even Telegraph gets it. 8 19 2021,
"having a say at city council." Now he knows how it feels -- but in a less life-threatenin g
way than we do.

Page 349 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
12 Laurie

Context, Sacramento County BOS Clerk, this needs circulation to entire BOS, because it demonstrates inaccurate Reports, and failure of City Engineer to exert Oversight.

Please share this equally with entire BOS, and investigators.

Thank you.

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: LJ Laurent <[email protected]>
To: Lydia Konopka <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> Cc: Sarah Aquino <[email protected]>; Mike Kozlowski <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Rosario Rodriguez <[email protected]>; The HFRA <[email protected]>; Pd <[email protected]>; Jennifer Lane <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2021, 09:03:48 AM PDT
Subject: 603 Sutter St. REZONE, etc. Public Comment for CEQA Filing

To: Folsom City Clerk Lydia K. for file 603 Sutter St. OPR cc: Steve Banks, council members
"hd" residents who deserve proper Enforcements
bcc
August 19, 2021
Re: Research Report. Objections filed with outside agencies

Attached please find Report on 603 Sutter St.

OPR Clearin
ghouse Manager was consulted, and is aware of CIRCULATION Requirements for this de facto REZONE of land usage.

Note: Public Comment includes my indication City Attorney needs to give us, residents of this hd Overlay to Zone Districts, and city council a signed written report on this application and Neg Dec approval. Not one city engineer has signed off with his/her Seal/signature.

Please send me an Acknowledge of Receipt. Thank you Lydia.

Page 350 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
1 Christina Kelley
From: LJ Laurent <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2021 11:15 AM
To: Steven Banks; Steven Wang
Cc: The HFRA; Jennifer Lane; Scott Rafferty; Debra; Alan Wade; Sarariverwatch Info; Ben Fuentes Subject: SCH2021 070492
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

To: Steve Banks Planner, Folsom City Attorney, Planning Engineer, Sr. Traffic Engineer From: Laurette Laurent
August 21, 2021

Re: Public Comments:

NEW Folsom Filing 7 21 21: SCH 2021070492

Note: City Attorney S. Wang, you have failed to include my Public Comments in a number of Formally Submitted/Required Land Use Law documents which city of Folsom filed with OPR over years. If you fail to include all of my Research Reports, or ENSURE inclusion to State Files, what alternative remains but filing a formal License Complaint? All my copies of these Records covering a consistent pattern of omitting my Formal Public Comments are available. Are the city of Folsom City Clerk's copies? Law does require City Clerk to assemble all Land Use and other Applications. It is their Duty to convey them to Council. [I have witnessed you in CA Superior Court and heard assessment by Judge of your Dollar value per day when you sought "damages". Judge was correct.] For your expeditious "city service" i.e. understanding relationship of over- riding State and Federal Laws, plain word explanations are included.

Context: whereas Folsom staff chose to make a Formal CEQA Clearin ghouse File for this
On-going, many changes "Project" which is self-described as "Design Review & Parking Variance"
on Parcel Zoned thusly --- copied from CEQA documents.

Present Land Use
HD (Historic District)
The proposed project includes a request for approval of Design Review and a Parking Variance for development of a three-story, 12,183-square-foot mixed-use building on a .17-acre site located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Sutter Street and Scott Street

Folsom submission is WRONG about "Present Land Use" and staff have an Obligation to know better. That is why CA Laws REQUIRE the seal/signature of Lic. Civil Engineer. Objection filed.

August 26, 2021 "historic district" architectural group with NO legal Authority to REZONE, Grant Variances, or ANY exception to Folsom Municipal Codes, is sitting to grant all. This includes approving with FINAL APPROVAL AUTHORITY, Variations from Folsom CA Standards for land development. It includes REZONEs of Historic/protected

Page 351 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
2 sites. To accomplish this, city of Folsom employed new "noise expert study" which I have fully reviewed.

Objection Filed.

Folsom Municipal Code is IN DIRECT CONFLICT with State Govt Code 65800 et seq as well as State B&P, and Subdivision Map Act.

However, "Planning" director is in violation of FMC Subsection "Historic district overlay" additional considerations to Title 17 Zoning Requirements.

If Folsom staff bothered to consult FMC Title 17, or demand City Attorney actually read & interpret city's own law, they would have learned the "Parking Committee" and residents were always deprived of Legally Mandated Reports and documents. To an expert, it is moot, because architectural review groups of an OVERLAY to Zone District laws, is irrelevant. To Folsom staffers, who [for some "reasons" favor business over Safety of First Responders and all humans, "anything goes" to satisfy the greed of applicant who paid peanuts for a vacant residential area Parcel, and wishes the city to enable a "windfall" at the expense of Fire, Police, Residents, visitors, parkers, visitors to downhill American River watershed forest and river.

Objection[s] filed.

There is no Obligation for me to supply my entire "Work Product" to city of Folsom. It is, in my expert opinion on Land Use Matters, the documents FILED with State of California are factually NOT supportive of application before this "architectural review" committee; That this Overlay group, the Plan Commission, and city council have NO Authority under State Laws to grant Exceptions to actual Standards as defined in State Law.

It is further objected that Folsom staff were directed to, or chose independently, to DEPRIVE this old areas Residents of Expertise of Civil Engineers -- law enforcers --- - whom they PAY directly from their taxes.

Objections filed.

Page 1 ends

APPENDIX E Historic District Parking Committee Recommendations and Traffic Impact Study

HISTORIC DISTRICT PARKING COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS, is two pages of text by NON ENGINEER persons, who had NO Civil Engineer advising them as an official Folsom city Review group.

Kimley & Horn Traffic Study July 2019 was Prepared for another Company. It OMITS any reference to Sutter St. Scott St. Intersection OR the critical IMPACTs upon both American River Bridges, which are directly impacted by this insufficient parking, insufficient and INadequate "street" width on these 19th century 18 foot wide lanes. There is NO discussion of harms to First Responders, or victims of fire, explosions, riots, shooting, or other such events. There is no mention the Entire ACCESS routes for First Responders can be blocked by a Single Vehicle.

Page 352 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
3 QUESTION: why was the subcontractor K&H traffic study of > two years ago for another consultant, appended to APPENDIX E?
APPENDIX E Historic District Parking Committee Recommendations and Traffic Impact Study COMMENT: These single family residents PAY FOR Civil Engineer Seal/Signed Reports, but city staff withheld this Expertise and LICENSE OBLIGATIONS from their "committee." Shame on Folsom licensed employees.

It appears after expert analysis the K&H study was done for another Submission, and not to July 26 2021 CEQA Clearinghouse Filed Documents.

OPR should find this interesting, in view of Folsom Licensed Civil Engineers Krahn is under Development Manager. Engineer Mark Rackovan is in PW Dept., and he's senior "Traffic Engineer" but Folsom staff seems to have chosen to "stack the deck" against the poor Single Family residents of this oldest, most-poorly served part of city.

A Formal Complaint is in order.

Old K&H "subcontracted" sealed traffic study" PROVES this CEQA submitted project will take all of Folsom Sutter St., Riley St., and other old 19th century lanes of 18 foot width only, to LOS level of service which is the Worst Possible Ranking. This was submitted/utilized without any Improvements to Substandard "streets" for Emergency Access and two Bridge Access "streets" being considered. K&H study OMITS the very Parcel intersection in question. Entire Sealed Report SHOULD HAVE BEEN examined by Folsom Engineers, like Krahn or Sr. Traffic Eng. Rackovan.

This was submitted without a Single Word from FPD or Fire Department, whom I care deeply about protecting.

I have already SUBMITTED to Steve Banks, Folsom Planner, two separate 603 Sutter St.

Reports. I consulted, and found NEW materials. Thus I did more Research and this is the resultant material.

Below is 603 Sutter St., SCH
2021070492
Research Report August 21, 2021 material.

Authorities: If there is a conflict between a state and local law, state laws override any county or local ordinances.

Oct 14, 2020
General Preem ption Law in California: Ordinances enacted pursuant to the police power are valid unless they conflict with state law. A conflict exists if the ordinance contradicts, duplicates, or enters an area occupied by general law, either expressly or by legislative imp lication.Ma y 10, 2021 Building "noise study" with signature if not License info.

Page 353 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
4 Folsom city staff commissioned this "noise study".

Incorrect descriptors are concerning prima facie "evidence."

Ben Fuentes Single family home was NEVER considered in "Noise study" paid for by Homeowners like his family.

Not once is there mention of the Fire, Escape, Odors, stray gases & emissions from this huge tall building with ALL Non-Residential Uses. It would loom over Ben's parcel, obstructing air, sun, freedom from odors & omissions, create more air pollution, traffic

Page 354 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
5 jams obstructing Fire & Police, and effectively making his property devalued as the single family home is has been. His zoning was established 1859 by Judah map.

City Attorney, why does Folsom always OMIT filing "application" submitted to Sacramento County Recorder and RE Assessor???
Is it because NO Folsom Civil Engineer ever reviews city LAND REZONES and Infrastructure, or Subdivision compliance?

Objection Filed Re Parcel 070 0111 010

Page 355 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
6

Page 356 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
7

Page 357 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
8

Page 358 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
9 cc: ten year Folsom PC member Lane; Counsel Folsom District Elections; Plaintiff, successful, Sutter St. Superior Ct Case;
PPres. Save American River Assn. concerned party.
bcc: Client; others

Page 359 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.

To: Governor's OPR CEQA Clearinghouse,
City of Folsom Community Development Dept, Folsom City Attorney Note: Sacramento County agencies which must receive NOTICE for Tri- County impacts Health safety welfare issues; Access.

RWQCB to do analysis of “inground temporary Raw Sewage vaults all around this area.” Folsom PW Director Lorenz supplied blueprints for one such vault which this Rezone would impact.

Tri county Fire agencies comments, Folsom is Federally registered WUI fire city.

Outside council, to explain “architectural review group ofsmall are Overlay Plan” does not have Authority to grant Exceptions to Zoning, nor any Exceptions at all which per Govt Code must go to Plan Commission.

Folsom GP Maps are NOT readable, but neighbors know this is a Residential Zone Parcel historically. Folsom reported 603 as “historic District” which IS NOT an Approved FMC 17 “ZONE.” Folsom fraudulently reports to Sacramento County RE Assessor HD is ZONE.

From: Laurette J. Laurent
August 19 2021
Summary RE: SCH Number 2021070492
Lead Agency City of Folsom
Document Title 603 Sutter Street Mixed-Use Project IS/MND (PN 17-145) Document Type MND - Mitigated Negative Declaration Received 7/26/2021 Present Land Use HD (Historic District) [which is “Overlay” not ZONE].

Document Description Initial Study and Mitigated Declaration for the 603 Sutter Street Mixed-Use Project. The proposed project includes a request for approval of Design Review and a Parking Variance for development of a three-story, 12,183- square-foot mixed-use building on a .17-acre site located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Sutter Street and Scott Street (603 Sutter Street). The proposed mixed-use building will include retail/restaurant uses on the first floor and office uses on the second and third floors.

APPENDIX A Title: “Remarks for the 603 Sutter Street Building Project Air Pollutant and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Modeling Calculations July 2019”

COMMENT: this is 84 Pages of irrelavent materials for Application.

Page 360 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.

All Air & greenhouse gas emissions are NOT involved in HD group “architectural Review.”

Page 361 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.

Apparent evidence Fraudulent operations by Folsom Community Development staff and/or other employees of city had clear knowledge of limitations on HD Committee. This is a part of Applicant's Proposal.

Perhaps Circulation should include Sacramento County RE Assessor, because the VALUATION of 603 Sutter depends upon Truthful city reports.

Above proves “HD” is NOT a ZONE and HD Committee is NOT EMPOWERED by city to Grant Exceptions, Variations to Actual Zone Standards, or any WAIVER of parking requirements in Commercial Land Usage Areas ---- or any Zone District of Folsom.

Image is from City/Applicants own MITIGATED NEGATIVE IMPACT DECLARATION, which is source.

APPENDIX C Historic Assessment Proposed Project Analysis

Page 362 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.

Memorandum

603 SUTTER STREET PROPOSED PROJECT ANALYSIS
MEMORANDUM FOLSOM, CA [21001]
PREPARED FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING PARTNERS, INC.

MARCH 24, 2021

Proposed Project Analysis Memorandum 603 Sutter Street Project Number 21001 Folsom, CA PAGE & TURNBULL 1 March 24, 2021 I. INTRODUCTION
This Proposed Project Analysis Memorandum has been prepared for Environmental Planning Partners, Inc. at the request of the City of Folsom for the proposed construction of a three-story mixed-use building on an undeveloped lot at 603 Sutter Street (APN 07001110100000).

The site is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Sutter Street and Scott Street in the Sutter Street Subarea of Folsom’s Historic District.

APPENDIX D Noise and Vibration Assessment
The project applicant plans to develop a three-story mixed-use building (retail/restaurant/office) totaling 12,183 square feet of useable area on an undeveloped site. An outdoor dining patio with a capacity of 20+ persons would be located on the proposed building’s first floor, adjacent to the Sutter Street/Scott Street intersection. The building would feature a deck on the northwest corner of floor 2 fronting on Sutter Street. A third floor balcony would be anchored to the northwest corner of the building.

Walkways from this balcony would wrap around the Sutter Street and a portion of the Scott Street elevations of the building. There would be no roof deck. The project location is shown on Figure 1. The project floor plans are presented in Figures 2 and 3.

The City of Folsom has requested a noise study to determine potential noise and vibration impacts associated with project construction and ongoing operations. In response to that request, Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (BAC) was retained to prepare this evaluation. Specifically, the purposes of this study are to quantify noise and vibration generated by the project, to compare those levels against applicable standards and, if necessary, to develop mitigation measures as appropriate.

Conclusions This analysis concludes that, with the recommended mitigation measures, noise and vibration generated from the proposed project would not result in any adverse noise or vibration impacts at the nearest sensitive receptors to the project site. This concludes BAC’s noise and vibration assessment for the proposed 603 Sutter Street Commercial Building. Please contact BAC at (916) 663-0500 or [email protected] with any questions regarding this report.

COMMENT: 33 PAGES OF “NOISE DURING CONSTRUCTION,

Page 363 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.

ONGOING OPERATIONS.” He includes noise of garbage pickup, but not “added traffic.”

APPENDIX E
Historic District Parking Committee Recommendations and Traffic Impact Study

Traffic Impact Study Historic Sutter Mixed-Use Building 603 Sutter Street, Folsom, California July 30, 2019

Significant findings of this study include:

The proposed Project is estimated to generate 418 total new weekday trips, with 35 new trips and 38 new trips occurring during the weekday AM and PM peak‐ hour periods, respectively.

The addition of the proposed Project does not result in any significant im pacts.

The proposed Project is estimated to generate demand for 43 to 76 parking spaces during a typical weekday. In addition, the proposed Project is estimated to generate dema nd for 18 to 51 parking spaces during a typical weekend day.

o
It is anticipated that the proposed Project parking demand will be satisfied by existing off‐ and on-
street parking supply documented to be available within the Historic District.

Excess parking demand should be diverted to existing off‐ and on‐ street parking supply within the Historic District to avoid parking in res idential areas adjacent to the Project site. This strategy may be accompli shed by the following actions:
o
Offer incentives to employees for parking in the parking garage along Re ading Street
o
Provide freely available maps of the Historic District parking facilities to customers by adding informa tion to the proposed Project website
o

Page 364 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.

Remind customers not to park in residential areas and offer incentives to customers w ho park in the parking garage along Reading Street
o
Direct customers and employees to the newly installed wayfinding signs for the parking gara ge
o
Establish or contribute to a privately operated or coordinated trolley service between Historic District parking and the proposed Project site.

APPENDIX E ABOVEAN ALYSIS OF “STATEMENTS OF FACT” &/OR
UNPROVED CONCLUSIONS: COMMENTS:

Pg 15 of 144:

Page 365 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.

Horn
PREDICTED, according to Folsom 2035General Plan TRAFFIC CONDITIONS: LOS

Page 366 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.

Image clearly indicates Riley St. and Scott St. are used for 3 county access to and First Responder Access to this proposed REZONE Site.

Context : Proof this proposal poses a direct DANGER to health safety and Welfare by LIMITING THROUGH Traffic utilizing a 3 county bridge, Rainbow Bridge, and thereby ALSO impacts the only other area bridge, on Folsom Blvd.

This must be approved by Sacramento County traffic, fire, safety agencies.

Page 367 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.

Time 2:00pm 8 13 2020 Eight minutes at this time. No Data for Rush Hours.

Page 368 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.

Above: CONTEXT:

Applicant's Traffic Study DOES NOT INDICATE VIABLE THREE COUNTY SIZE roadways would exist.

IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
Standards of Significance
Project impacts were determined by comparing conditions with the proposed Project to those without th e Project. Impacts for intersections are created when traffic from the proposed Project forces the LOS to fall below a specific threshold.

LOS will deteriorate.

As presented in the Historic District Parking Study3 , the District was observed to have 622 existing off ‐street (see Figure 9) and 179 existing on‐
street parking spaces (see Figure 10). In addition, the District’s parking occupancy was observed to pe ak at 60‐percent during weekday peak‐periods, and at 55‐percent during weekend peak‐ periods. As a result of the observed parking occupancy levels, it is reasonably anticipated that the Prop

Page 369 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
osed Project’s parking demand will be satisfied by existing off‐ and on‐ street supply documented to be available within the Historic District.

COMMENTs on remaining 124 pages of numerical charts, which do not resolve the deperate SHORTAGE OF COMMERCIAL, and ALL NON- RESIDENTIAL Uses in OLDEST part of city, served by 19th Century Arterials serving THREE COUNTIES.

COMMENT There is a HUGE SHORTAGE of PARKING SPACES EXISTS.

Kimley Horn did NOT do Actual Real-Time July 2021 TRAFFIC COUNT SURVEYS with Civil Engineer Seal & Signature.

LEVEL OF SERVICE LOS indicate from 2019 DATA that the ONE and ONLY Access to this Parcel which is LARGER/WIDER than Eighteen 18 feet, is Folsom Blvd.

ALL Folsom Streets serving this AREA, and this Parcel, PLUS THREE COUNTY THRU TRAFFIC using Rainbow Bridge, Lake Natoma Bridge, Sutter, Reading, Scott, Riley, Figueroa “Streets” that meet 19th Century STANDARDS.

ACCESS for First Responders is currently at F level or level Lower than A.

Using Folsom 2035 General Plan, Kimley Horn state the area can expect further deterioration of Access.

FOLSOM STREET STANDARDS: Look hard at Section 11.
https://www.folsom.ca.us/home/showpublisheddocument/384/63746658 5843430000 Standards must be Caltrans acceptable.

Direct Quote:

Section 11: ROADWAY AND STREET DESIGN

GENERAL Criteria not specifically addressed in these standards shall be consistent with California Department of Transportation design standards.

TYPICAL STREET CROSS SECTIONS
Typical cross sections of the various street types showing pavement widths, curb and gutter types and locations, and rights-of-way are shown on the Standard Details.

Page 370 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.

The street designations and right-of-ways are as follows:

Designations Right-of-Way Width (feet)
Alley 24
Residential/Cul-de-Sac 44
Minor Collector 50
Collector 64 Minor Arterial (Undivided)
Collector 78
Divided Major Arterial (4 Lanes) 82
Divided Major Arterial (6 Lanes) 106

COMMENTS on Project, Kimley Horn warnings, and comparison to Folsom Street STANDARDS for STREET WIDTH by Usages:

Kimley Horn admits this Parcel is mainly accessed by F LOS roadway.

Although not mentioned in this Project study, NONE OF THE AREA “Streets” meet Folsom Street Standards, nor Caltrans STANDARDS.

This is an appalling & disgraceful situation which is perpetuated by lumping together all sorts of Land Usages into a single entity called “Historic District”. HD is an OVERLAY of Extra requirements added onto those contained in Folsom Laws and Standards. Yet this group who decide “architectural” acceptably designs is being put forth to Residents and citizens as Final Arbitors and Grantors of “Parking exceptions”, Land Usage exceptions, REZONING which skips the legal PLAN COMMISSION hearings & recommendations to City Council to legislate REZONING.

COMMENT: read Folsom Standards for roadways definitions and further set-backs and requirements for ROW Right-of-Way.

C. Minor Collector – Residential streets serving fewer than 100 lots shall be classified as a minor collector street. Minor collector streets shall be permitted to have driveways serving single family residential and duplex units. Minor collector streets shall be constructed in accordance with Standard Detail RD-25.

D. Collector – Residential streets serving more than 100 lots shall be classified as a collector street. Driveways on Collector streets (Standard Detail RD-23 serving single family residential and duplex units shall not be permitted unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. Additional right-of-way and pavement at intersections shall be provided on collector streets for deceleration lanes and tapers, bus turnouts and turn

Page 371 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
lanes if specified by the City Engineer.

E. Minor Arterial (Undivided)/Minor Arterial (Divided) – Minor Arterial streets shall require a four lane roadway. Minor Arterial streets (undivided) (Standard Detail RD-27) shall provide a center two-way left-turn lane. Minor Arterial streets (divided) (Standard Detail RD-27) shall provide a raised median. Additional right-of-way and pavement at intersections shall be provided on minor arterial (undivided) and minor arterial (divided) streets for deceleration lanes and tapers, bus turnouts and turn lanes if specified by the City Engineer.

F. Major Arterial – Major Arterial streets shall require a six lane roadway (Standard Detail RD-27). Major arterial streets shall provide a raised median. Additional right-of- way and/or pavement may be required for bus turnouts and at intersections and driveways for acceleration lanes, deceleration lanes, right-turn lanes and multiple left- turn lanes if required by the City Engineer.

11.3 RIGHT-OF W AY WIDTH The right-of-way for residential/cul-de-sac, minor collector and collector streets shall be provided at the back of sidewalk regardless of whether or not the proposed streets have separated sidewalks. The right-of-way for minor and major arterial streets shall be provided at the back of curb. Building setbacks, landscape requirements, parking requirements, etc. shall be based on the ultimate right- of-way regardless of the location of the public street improvements.

A minimum 12.5-foot public utility easement (P.U.E.) shall be dedicated adjacent to all public and private streets and shall include traffic control appurtenances. Additional easements for sewer, water, storm drainage, landscaping, fencing, and all other public utilities shall be provided as required by the utility companies, these Design Standards, and as specified by the City Engineer

COMMENTS:

City staff have NO Right under Laws to make decisions about Parking, Right-of-Way Width exceptions, and REDUCTION of actual Standards for ALL CITY STREETS – including every single one of those in the oldest, most-poorly served portion of city.

COMMENT: Folsom City Engineer and Folsom City Attorney both have State Licenses, with Requirements. Yet neither have added Sealed/Signed Reports approving legal Compliance of Applicant's Proposal. There is something very wrong with this city's operations, and the NON publicized alterations to our Folsom Municipal Code.

Page 372 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.

Further, Kimley & Horn have failed to do 2021 Traffic Analysis with actual TRAFFIC COUNT SURVEYS. They have however, shown the Folsom 2035 General Plan Update will make city streets in this oldest area reach the Lowest, most dangerous and inaccessible Levels of Service..... including some F level added to existing F level 3- county Arterial over American River.

Document submitted anew by applicant:

REVISED INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION FOR THE 603 SUTTER STREET COMMERCIAL

BUILDING PROJECT

COMMENTs: Why is this a claimed “Commercial Building SITE” when it is surrounded by Residential [& historic protected residences?] What exactly is a “parking encroachment” when PARKING and STREET Width are actual STANDARDS enforced by City Engineer. See Traffic study above.

REVISED INITIAL STUDY AND ENVIRONMENTAL EV ALUATION
Project Title: 603 Sutter Street Commercial Building Entitlements Requested:

Design Review Parking Variance Encroachment Permit
Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Folsom Community Development Department 50 Natoma Street, Folsom, CA 95630 Contact Person and Phone Number: Steven Banks, Principal Planner City of Folsom Community Development Department Phone: (916) 461-6207 [email protected] General Plan Designation: Historic Folsom Mixed Use (HF) Zoning: Historic District (HD) Historic District Designation: Historic Commercial Primary Area - Sutter Street Subarea

PREFACE Since the City of Folsom published and circulated a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration together with a supporting Initial Study on June 11, 2020, the applicant for the 603 Sutter Street mixed-use commercial building has redesigned the project in response to public and agency comment. Additionally, the City of Folsom has determined that several environmental topics evaluated in the June 11, 2020 document, including the project’s potential to adversely affect historical resources and to generate noise effects, deserve additional evaluation. Based on changes to the project and other considerations, the City has determined that the June 11, 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration needs to be revised and recirculated pursuant to Section 15073.5 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines1,

This Section of the Guidelines requires that a lead agency, such as the City of Folsom, recirculate a Negative Declaration when the document must be substantially revised after public notice of its availability has previously been given, but prior to its adoption. Such is the case for the Negative Declaration assessing the 603 Sutter Street mixed-use project.

Modifications to the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration occur throughout the document;

Page 373 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
however, revisions to the Initial Study are found primarily in the following Chapters and Sections: 1. Project Description; 5.I, Aesthetics; 5.V , Cultural Resources; 5.XI, Land Use; and 5,XII, Noise.

New appendices added to the document include a Historic Resources Assessment (Appendix C) and a Noise Study (Appendix D).

An update on actions the City has taken regarding parking in the 1 California Code of Regulations; Title 14, Natural Resources; Division 6, Resources Agency; Chapter 3, Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, as amended.

COMMENT: WHAT IS Nat Resources Title 14, “guidelines for ….CEQA”???? Is this the SS referred to, by which city engineer would have NO alternative but to Deny Application? Appears City Engineer has a License duty with respect to Traffic study submitted, versus the woefully too-small 19th century “streets” serving this area and this Parcel.

Section 15042 - Authority to Disapprove Projects
A public agency may disapprove a project if necessary in order to avoid one or more significant effects on the environment that would occur if the project were approved as proposed. A lead agency has broader authority to disapprove a project than does a responsible agency. A responsible agency may refuse to approve a project in order to avoid direct or indirect environmental effects of that part of the project which the responsible agency would be called on to carry out or approve. For example, an air quality management district acting as a responsible agency would not have authority to disapprove a project for water pollution effects that were unrelated to the air quality aspects of the project regulated by the district.

COMMENT in re Mitigated Neg Declaration: Folsom has a bad habit of reporting Zone Districts for Parcels as HD – meaning “historic district.” It is not FMC defined ZONE DISTRICT . It does NOT have any legal right to a second Set of Folsom Standards. That is patently illegal and not Constitutional.

To demonstrate this, consider the Sacramento County Recorder and Real Estate Assessor Valuation of the Parcel on across the street from 603, and on 603 itself.
604 Sutter St. has a Land Value of over $1.2 Million.
603 Sutter St. has TOTAL VALUE of $130,192. If this Parcel 603 were given a more dense Land Use, and a Commercial Zone District designation FOLLOWING Plan Commission Hearings & Recommendation to

Page 374 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.

City Council to legislate REZONE, then 603 would have a huge increase in land value. But it would come at the expense of all Residents and others in this oldest, worst-served part of city.

SESSOR'S ROLL VALUES

as of June 25, 2021
Tax Roll Year 2021
Land Value $130,192

Parcel image shown below.

FINALLY , MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF IMPACT on Environment, including Traffic, First Responders Access TIME, Violation of CALTRANS Standards and Folsom Street Standards – which MUST BEAR THE APPROVAL of the City Engineer --- not this layperson in Planning who is the City Engineer's “supervisor.”

COMMENTS on CEQA, State Level Circulation of this document:

The CEQA Manager informed me this NOI must be circulated to a wide number of agencies, including State, other Counties, SMUD, Regional Water Quality Control Board, State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento County Recorder, Real Estate Assessor, County Planning Agency, Caltrans Office, Sacramento County Fire District, State Fire Marshal, and others.

It is my intention to inform all these entities of this detailed Research Report on the Applicant's “Findings of Fact” and the City Engineer's FAILURE to ENFORCE STREET Standards and Infrastructure Standards.

Other Counties who depend upon 19th century Sutter , Riley, Scott, Street and others, will be directly informed as well.

OPR CEQA Manager has given assurances that this is a PLAN COMMISSION item in normal places, and this Manager will ensure this Research Report will receive all the attention it deserves. Add Folsom's “Circulation List” will be monitored to ensure all information is circulated on all entities and people impacted by messing with a Substandard part of Folsom.

Page 375 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.

Ms. Johns Approval of Mitigated Neg Dec “finding”:

COMMENT: Kimley & Horn, neighbors, outside users of Major Arterial streets to access Bridges connecting THREE COUNTIES, indicate this signator has NO License, No legal Authority to make such Engineering and Street Standards Decisions. She has no right to consider a Major REZONE of Parcel surrounded by “protected” historic residences.

That Folsom City Attorney would permit such operations, and over- stepping of State Government Codes is appalling.

Page 376 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.

COMMENTS FOLSOM GENERAL PLAN MAP DESIGNATION of Parcel in “historic district.”

This is how Folsom determines “LAND USE DISTRICTS” in “HD” oldest area. Please, State, County, city, engineers and others, tell me this Parcel is NOT in a “color” which is Residential.

Page 377 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.

Page 378 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.

Tell us what any reasonable person or Licensed Engineer or Attorney would make of this as a Land Use Zone District Determination?
Look how the oldest area has the same delineation as the “city boundary” lines. Look at the three county bridges at this nexis of F Level of Service already.

Look how this city even dares to include the Historic Public Cemetery Parcel as within “historic district OVERLAY” area.

Cemetery is currently pursuing a crematory, abutting Federal and State owned Parcels which surround it 80%. Cemetery is reported as OPEN SPACE/OS CONSERVATION ZONE – but Folsom gave it
“exceptions” for 12 huge buildings.

Page 379 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
1 Christina Kelley
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, March 12, 2021 6:46 AM
To: Steven Banks
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: 603 Sutter Street, PW 17-145
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Mr Banks,
Yesterday, you received a letter from Mr. Delp stating concerns about the 603 Sutter Street project. I would like you to know that as a resident, I support everything Mr. Delp said in that letter. The applicant is still not addressing several critical issues. First, the building still does not meet the requirements as to size as stated within the Historic Design and Development Guidelines. Second, as I mentioned when they submitted this last time, they are not providing parking for their employees and customers. As there is no parking at that end of town, 100% of his parking will be in the residential areas. This will provide undue hardship and is extremely unfair to the residents living within close proximity to the building.

It is applicants responsibility to provide parking for their building. I wish it to be known for the record that I am strongly opposed to any variances being given to this project.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Mike Brenkwitz
603 Figueroa St.

Page 380 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
1 Desmond Parrington
From: impound guy <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2021 9:58 AM
To: Steven Banks
Subject: Re: 603 Sutter Street Mixed-Use Building Project (PN 17-145) Update CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organiza tion. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Thank you for the updated information regarding this project.

Although it is hard to imagine what it will look like without any architectural drawings I would hope if this project does need to go forward it will not compromise the Historic look we all love on Sutter in the Historic District. It is that look literally which sold me on moving to Folsom almost 5 years ago after moving here from SoCal.

We only get "one shot" at preserving Folsom's History and look....once that is lost, it is not retrievable again.

Thank you,
Steve Getz

On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 9:39 AM Steven Banks <
[email protected] > wrote:

Good morning all,

https://www.folsom.ca.us/community/planning/current_project_information.asp

Page 381 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.

Thank you to the applicant and consultants for their effort in improving their proposal, particularly in their improvement of the building's historic appearance. Unfortunately, HPL is still unable to recommend in favor of the project.

The biggest problem remains its size, "a five-gallon project poured onto a one-gallon site." In either option offered, the building's overall massing is only slightly softened, and only from the adjacent sidewalk view, by the partial indentation of the third story and the non-square comer. The mass is still massive:
• It dwarfs the genuinely historic building next door (the library/Candy Store art gallery) and puts it into a narrow canyon. HPL has also noted that the existing 3-story building at 607 Sutter Street (west of the former library) was approved with a height variance and should not be considered a model for development along Sutter Street.
• Its size dominates the Sutter/Scott comer, detracting from the proper dominance of the genuinely historic Cohn Mansion.
• It requires a height variance, with little justification. There is no inherent right to maximize a site. • It significantly exacerbates the parking shortfall at this end of Sutter Street. As a result of the proposed encroachment into Scott Street public right-of-way area (the new plans show a storage space in addition to a recessed walkway outside the east building fa~ade), some existing parking spaces have also been lost.

We have other issues and questions. The architect has identified the style as "Gold Rush", referring to buildings constructed in the Mother Lode during the Gold Rush. However, based on the Historic References (page A-002) submitted by the applicant, it is evident that the first floor of commercial buildings during the Gold Rush did not have uninterrupted glass facades but instead individual windows.

In addition, what is the historic design justification for not using divided lites on the ground floor? During the Gold Rush, buildings used divided lites, not sheets of plate glass, for the obvious reason of breakage during long-distance transport.

HPL has questions regarding the materials to be used for the facades visible from the streets. Of course brick is appropriate, but the other materials need historic design justification included in any future submittal.

Mr. Alaywan has sought to justify his proposal by saying it's not fair for him to be denied what other properties have received. The Commission has of course faced this question before, and the right answer is always that each proposal is considered on its own merits, no two situations ever being the same.

Further, HPL concurs with Glenn Fait's letter. A project or feature previously approved by the Historic District Commission is not justification for another similar approval. His letter eloquently explained that mistaken approvals have been granted in the past and should not be duplicated.

If the applicant returns with a smaller design, HPL recommends that the building not exceed the height limit, that the side adjacent to the library/art gallery building be two stories or less, that more information on historicity of materials be provided, and that no parking variance be required except to allow that new off-site parking for tenants be provided temporarily, until the City alleviates the parking issue in this area.

Page 382 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
1 Desmond Parrington
From: Elaine Ferreira-Pro <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2020 1:14 PM
To: Kelly Mullett
Subject: Letter to Historic District Commission re: 603 Sutter Street Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organiza tion. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hello Kelly,

Please share this letter with all members of the Folsom Historic District Commission

Re: 603 Sutter Street Mixed Use Building
Dear Commissioners:

I am requesting that you deny the height, parking and design variance applications for the 603 Sutter Street Mixed Use Building project. The current plan will detract in both style and size from the rich heritage of the historic district. It would dominate the neighboring homes and businesses and adversely affect quality of life for those neighbors. Residents and businesses farther away would be detrimentally impacted by the parking and noise issues caused by this plan.

Folsom is known for its history and for its quality of life, neither of which would be enhanced by this project as it is currently designed and both of which would be seriously impacted. Please deny these variances for the benefit of the community and the historical legacy of Folsom.

Sincerely,
Elaine Ferreira-Pro
808 Figueroa Street
Folsom, CA 95630

Page 383 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.

July 27, 2020

Page 1 of 3 ends

City of Folsom Staff and Historic District Commission
50 Natoma Street
Folsom, CA 95630
via email to:

Elaine Andersen - [email protected]
Pam Johns - [email protected]
Scott Johnson - [email protected]
Steven Banks - [email protected]
Daron Bracht - [email protected]
Daniel West - [email protected]

Mickey Ankhelyi - [email protected]
Rosario Rodriguez - [email protected]
Mary Asay - [email protected]
Kathleen Cole - [email protected]
Kevin Duewel - [email protected]
Kelly Mullett - [email protected]
SUBJECT: 603 SUTTER STREET – REQUEST RE: PENDING STAFF REPORT

Dear City of Folsom Staff and Historic District Commissioners:

As of this morning, City of Folsom planning staff have advised that the 603 Sutter Street development proposal will be discussed at the Historic District Commission (HDC) August 5, 2020, meeting. Staff also advised that the staff report will not be available until late Wednesday (July 29
th) afternoon. At this time, in the absence of a staff report, it is unclear if this will be brought to the HDC as an informational item or if staff will be asking the HDC to make decisions regarding this project. By way of this letter, I am requesting that staff and the HDC postpone a public meeting on this project until at least two weeks after a staff report is made available to the HDC and community members, and I am also requesting that the HDC’s authority pertaining to certain City requirements be addressed in the staff report.

I urge the HDC to avoid conducting a public hearing or otherwise attempting a decision regarding 603 Sutter Street until the community has had at least two weeks to review and comment on a staff report. Staff have previously granted an extension of this meeting based on a request by the project proponent who has had years to prepare and bring the project to the City.

Yet, members of the community who have much more collective vested interest in Folsom’s Historic District are apparently going to be given just four business days to consider staff’s review of the project and provide input to the HDC. This is extremely unfortunate and could be remedied simply by the HDC postponing the item to a future meeting once the staff report has been published, all required application materials have been provided, and the community is given an opportunity to review and provide input. Project documents available on the City website are currently limited to a set of March 2019 drawings and a draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND); and no variance request or explanations are posted on the City website.

A community member I recently spoke with let me know that one of the HDC commissioners recommended that public comments on the project should be submitted before the staff report is available. That commissioner apparently felt that once the staff report was available, the HDC would barely have time to review the staff report, let alone consider public comments before the meeting. I intend to provide comments to the HDC, but my comments will largely depend on information and recommendations contained in the staff report (or at least information that should be included in the staff report). Therefore, it would be impossible for me to prepare and submit comments to the HDC prior to release of the staff report. Of course, it would be very concerning if the HDC does not take reasonable and sufficient time to review the staff report and to consider public input prior to a hearing.

Page 384 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.

July 27, 2020

Page 2 of 3 ends

Commissioners acknowledged at the July 15 HDC meeting that substantial public interest is expected for this project and commissioners also expressed that staff should plan for that community interest and ensure sufficient time for the HDC’s consideration of the project.

Holding a hearing for a project with substantial community concern just four business days after a staff report is produced will deprive the public a meaningful opportunity to comment and will not allow the HDC sufficient opportunity to consider public input. (I have previously commented on the inadequacy of the application and variance request, and will not reiterate that here, except to say that those inadequacies create even more challenges for community understanding of the project and required approvals and input to the HDC.) Therefore, I am requesting that staff and the HDC postpone a public meeting on this project until at least two weeks after a staff report is made available to the HDC and community members. I also continue to encourage you to require that a full application(s) be submitted by the applicant, that the environmental review process then be completed (including recirculating a revised environmental document that addresses comments received on the draft), and only then prepare a staff report and take the project to the HDC.

I am also urging staff – working with the City attorney as necessary – to ensure the staff report addresses, among many other issues, the following in terms of the HDC’s authority to approve the project as proposed and wave provisions of the Folsom Municipal Code (FMC) and City of Folsom 2035 General Plan. For the community and the HDC to understand the approvals necessary for the proposed development, and to verify the HDC’s authority to make any such approvals, please ensure that each of these questions is addressed in the staff report.

1. Does the HDC have the authority to approve a project (through issuance of a variance or other mechanism) that does not comply with FMC requirements for motor vehicle parking spaces?

2. Does the HDC have the authority to approve a project (through issuance of a variance or other mechanism) that does not comply with the FMC and General Plan parking requirements for electric vehicles and charging stations?

3. Does the HDC have the authority to approve a project (through issuance of a variance or other mechanism) that does not meet the FMC and General Plan requirements for bicycle parking, including General Plan Policy M 4.2.2?

4. Does the HDC have the authority to approve a project (through issuance of a variance or other mechanism) that does not meet the City's disabled persons parking requirements? Would such an approval subject the City to potential litigation for failure to comply with the American’s with Disabilities Act (ADA) and, if so, is the project proponent required to indemnify the City against such potential legal action?

5. Does City staff and/or the HDC have the authority to wave the requirement that an applicant submit a signed application and fee for a variance as required by FMC

17.62.020 and 17.52.370?

6. Does the HDC have the authority to approve a project for which complete applications and submittals, including an attempted justification of any and all variances required for a project as required by the FMC, have not be submitted?

7. Does City staff and/or the HDC have the authority to wave the requirement that an applicant submit a signed application for an easement as required by FMC 12.20.090 and does waving such requirement subject the City to liability that might otherwise be addressed by having a complete set of current and executed application forms?

Page 385 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.

July 27, 2020

Page 3 of 3 ends

8. Does the HDC have the authority to grant a permanent easement for private development of privately owned permanent structures on City-owned property?1

9. Does the HDC or any other decision-making body of the City have the authority to grant a permanent easement for the development of privately owned permanent structures on City-owned property without requiring compensation for such easement? Would not such an easement without compensation be an illegal gift of public funds? Does the HDC have the authority to negotiate or wave City financial matters such as this?

10. Does the HDC have the authority to approve a private development project that exceeds the FMC maximum floor area ratio (FAR) development standards or is that authority limited to the City Council?

11. Does City staff and/or the HDC have the authority to wave the requirement of an applicant to submit a signed and completed Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy Consistency Checklist which is required for any applicant for any project that undergoes environmental review?
(https://www.folsom.ca.us/documents/Planning/Folsom_GHG_Reduction_Checklist_FINAL.pdf)

12. Does the HDC have the authority to wave the General Plan’s requirement that the California Green Building Code (Title 24, Part 11) be complied with for developments within the City?2
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.

Sincerely,

Bob Delp
612 Mormon Street
Folsom, CA 95630
[email protected]

1 Staff have previously advised me that the project would require a permanent encroachment permit for the portions of the permanent structure on City property, although I have requested all application materials for this project and I have not seen an application for an encroachment permit as required per FMC 12.20.090). I do not see any provisions in the FMC for the City to authorize a "permanent" encroachment permit; instead, the FMC contemplates that any physical feature on city property allowed through an encroachment permit be removed at order of the City, so it seems obvious that a permanent structure would not be permissible under that requirement. The FMC clearly intends that any such awnings or other features authorized under an easement be removable upon City direction. At issue with the 603 Sutter Street project is the proposed placement on City property of permanent portions of the proposed structure that would be difficult if not impossible to remove. 2 Current mandatory measures include those pertaining to bicycle parking, parking for fuel-efficient vehicles, electric vehicle charging – since the project includes none of these, it will not achieve CBC Title 24 standards as required by the General Plan.

Page 386 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
1 Desmond Parrington
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2020 8:32 AM
To: Kelly Mullett; City Clerk Dept; Steven Banks
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: 603 Sutter Street (THE FOLLOWING IS PROVIDED TO BE READ INTO THE RECORD DURING THE "PUBLIC COMMENTS" PORTION OF THE AUGUST 5TH, 2020 MEETING) CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organiza tion. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

THE FOLLOWING IS PROVIDED TO BE READ INTO THE RECORD DURING THE "PUBLIC COMMENTS" PORTION OF THE AUGUST 5TH, 2020 MEETING

Historic District Commission
City of Folsom
50 Natoma Street
Folsom, CA 95630
via email to:
[email protected]

Subject: 603 Sutter Street

Historic District Commissioners:

My name is Jamie Labban, I reside at 510 B Sutter Street in Folsom's Historic District. My comments are to urge you and the City council to approve the application for 603 Sutter Street. I am a long-time Folsom resident, I reside across the street from the proposed building. I was appreciative that the applicant re-designed the building based on public comments stated by myself and other folks with a preference of no garage.

The Applicant took the garage out and reduced the height of the building.

It's Un-Historic, in my opinion, to have a Historic looking building with two underground parking and steel reinforced concrete.

The proposed project does not exceed the 2.0 maximum floor area ratio (FAR) permitted by the zoning code. As I stated above, I live across the street and I am not concern with the noise as I believe it would be similar if not the same as the deck on 607 Sutter building.

I believe that the height and parking variance are acceptable giving the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applying to the land. These conditions did not apply to 607 and 604 but, both got a height variance.

JAMIE LABBAN
510 B Sutter street
Folsom, CA 95630
Email:[email protected]

Page 387 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
1 Christina Kelley
From: Shawna Barva <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2020 6:36 PM
To: Kelly Mullett; City Clerk Dept; Steven Banks
Subject: Proposed 603 Sutter Street
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Historic District Commissioners:

My name is Shawna Barva and I reside at 611 Wool Street in Folsom’s Historic District. I have been lucky enough to have seen Folsom’s Historic District grow and thrive‐ while incorporating new businesses along the way. Sutter Street and the surrounding neighborhood has benefitted from this growth, and I believe the proposed building at 603 Sutter Street is part of this story. The city has circulated the mitigated negative declaration, the results of which have shown the variances to be absent of any negative impacts to the neighborhood. As residents of this area, we know how Sutter Street’s development has positively impacted the neighborhood; bringing about increased property values as well as a mix of new restaurants and businesses to benefit from. The building adheres to the charm of Sutter Street that we would expect and is in short supply in the surrounding area.

Thank you.

Shawna Barva
611 Wool St.

Folsom, CA 95630
[email protected]

Especially in light of the times I believe this building serves as a buffer to provide further economic benefits to the neighborhood, attracting new investment and value to our small community.

Page 388 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.

July 17, 2020

Page 1 of 4 ends

City of Folsom Staff and Historic District Commission
50 Natoma Street
Folsom, CA 95630
via email to:

Elaine Andersen - [email protected]
Pam Johns - [email protected]
Scott Johnson - [email protected]
Steven Banks - [email protected]
Daron Bracht - [email protected]
Daniel West - [email protected]

Dear City of Folsom Staff and Historic District Commissioners:

At the City of Folsom Historic District Commission meeting on July 15, 2020, my comments were read into the record urging staff and the Commission to require a complete application prior to further processing of a development proposal for 603 Sutter Street. At that meeting, Mr.

Banks told the Commission that I “did not provide any specific details” as to why I “believe the application is complete.” Mr. Banks also advised the Commission that staff is intending to bring the project to the Commission for a hearing on August 5 th.1
I have expressed at least some of my concerns to Mr. Banks and other City staff in email correspondence over the past several weeks.2 It is evident that there is no application on file for the current project and, even if a previously submitted 2017 application for the same property is partially relevant, that 2017 application was then, and still is, incomplete. Neither the Commission, staff, nor community members should be forced to spend time engaging in a project that has not completed the basic requirements of the City’s application process.

By way of my request to the Commission on July 15 and this letter, I am asking staff and the Commission to avoid more wasteful time on a project for which a complete application has not been submitted.

On June 23, 2020, I requested that Mr. Banks send me “the full project application, including a completed Development Application form and Design Review form and any other application materials for the currently proposed project,” and I advised that I was particularly interested in

1 The City’s Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) advertised that the project would come before the Commission on July 15, 2020 and that the staff report would be made available on July 9, 2020. In my comments on the IS/MND, I requested an extension of time to comment until such time as the City had provided a complete application for the community to review. That request was denied by staff and I was told that the project hearing would proceed on July 15. Yet, after I submitted my comments on the IS/MND staff advised me that based on the applicant’s request the hearing was being postponed to August 5, 2020. It is extremely disappointing that staff intends to provide less than one week for the community to review and absorb a staff report and yet granted an extension request to an applicant who has had years to prepare and should have no reason to need to extend or delay the hearing.
2 I have requested that staff advise me of whether my correspondence with staff was being provided to the applicant and requested that, if it was, staff cc me on those communications simply so I can be aware of how my input has been transmitted to the applicant. Clearly, my input to staff has been conveyed to the applicant, yet I have not once been cc’d or forwarded those communications. I realize my comments are public record, but I have expected to receive the same communication courtesy as a project proponent, and that has not occurred.

Page 389 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.

July 17, 2020

Page 2 of 4 ends

seeing the applicant's explanation of the requested variances as required by Folsom Municipal Code (FMC) Chapter 17.62.020.

In response to my request, Mr. Banks provided a May 3, 2017, application form and certain attachments which he characterized as the “Development Application Form for the 603 Sutter Street Mixed-Use Building project.” That 2017 application was submitted by an applicant named as “Sacramento Commercial Properties,” with Doug Scalzi identified as the “Developer or Project Sponsor.” Yet, staff has advised that Sacramento Commercial Properties and Mr.

Scalzi are not involved with the current project.

With regard to my request for the applicant’s explanation of variance, Mr. Banks stated:
“the applicant did not submit a written Variance justification letter with the original Development Application Submittal. However, the applicant has discussed the different Variance requests and their justification numerous times with City staff over the past two plus years. In addition, on August 2, 2017, the proposed project was presented to the Historic District Commission as an information item, during which time the applicant, City staff, the Commission, and the public discussed the two variance requests of the applicant.” FMC Chapter 17.62.020 states:
“Application for a variance shall be made in writing on a form prescribed by the planning commission and shall be accompanied by a fee as established by resolution of the city council no part of which shall be returnable to the applicant, and by statement, plans and other evidence showing: 1. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying to the land, building or use referred to in the application, which circumstances or conditions do not apply generally to other land, buildings, and/or uses in the district; 2. That the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the petitioner; and 3. That the granting of such application will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, materially affect the health or safety of persons, residing or working in the neighborhood of the property of the applicant, and will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood. (Ord. 466 Exh. A (part), 1981; Ord. 323 § 29, 1975; prior code § 3123.02)”
For what would seem very obvious and important reasons, the FMC clearly does not provide that simply discussing a variance request constitutes an “application,” and it is unclear why staff would engage in discussing an applicant’s reasons for a variance when it is the applicant’s sole responsibility to attempt to justify any necessary variance.3

3 On June 27, 2020, Mr. Banks forwarded me an explanation of variance for height and parking associated with the current project. The document was dated June 23, 2020, was unsigned, and did not identify a preparer other than concluding with the sentence, “Applicants of 603 Sutter Street Building.” On July 7, 2020, Mr. Banks forwarded to me what he referred to as an “updated variance statement provided by the project applicant.” That document was also unsigned, but concluded with, “Prepared by the Applicant, Deborah Alaywan.” First, a “Debrah Alaywan” is not identified on any application-related documents that I have seen associated with 603 Sutter Street and is not named on the 2017 application that staff asserts remains relevant. Second, these documents were submitted to the City only after the City prepared and circulated an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project and were not submitted as part of an application. Third, it seems obvious that these documents were not prepared until I requested them, which is a significant flaw in a process that requires an applicant to explain the variance request

Page 390 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.

July 17, 2020

Page 3 of 4 ends

Furthermore, the currently proposed project (as presented in a March 2019 set of drawings, but not in a complete application) is different in design and in variance requirements as compared to project in the 2017 application. Therefore, any such discussion or explanation that might have been proffered for variances for the previous project, would not be relevant to the current project. (For example, the previous project included a parking garage, whereas the current project proposes to provide no parking. For anyone aware of the parking challenges in the Historic District, this fact alone is a substantial difference between the two distinct projects.) Regardless, as Mr. Banks acknowledged, no applications for any variances have been submitted for either the 2017 project or the current project. That fact alone is sufficient reason to stop this current process until the applicant provides the required application materials.

Furthermore, only two variances have been “discussed” and yet the current project as presented in the March 2019 drawings would require at least four variances from the FMC. No application(s) have been submitted for the two variances that have been “discussed” (building height and parking), nor have applications been submitted for the at least two other variances that would be required for the March 2019 project: 1) negative setbacks (i.e., constructing permanent structures across the property line and within City-owned right-of-way) and 2) exceedance of the FMC maximum floor area ratio (FAR) applicable to the property (requesting a FAR exceeding

2.0 for a property zoned for a maximum FAR of 2.0).

Reasons why the 2017 application is not representative of the current project and why the 2017 application is inadequate (even if it were still representative of the current project), include:

1. Sacramento Commercial Properties is identified on the 2017 Development Permit Application as the applicant. Doug Scalzi is named as the agent for the project and Mr.

Scalzi is named as the “developer or project sponsor.” Yet, staff have advised that Sacramento Commercial Properties / Doug Scalzi is not involved in the current project.

2. The 2017 application was for a project that included a parking garage; the current project does not.

3. The 2017 application was for a project that proposed 15,287 sq ft of retail/office; and no restaurant. The current project varies in area and proposed uses, including a restaurant.

4. The 2017 application states the project involves no use of explosives; but the current project involves blasting for construction.

5. The 2017 application states the project would not use/handle hazardous materials; but the current project involves use of blasting agents which are hazardous.

6. The 2017 application states that the project is not within 1,000 feet of a public or private school, but the current project is within 800 feet of Folsom Montessori School. (I do not know if there are any other schools that are also within 1,000 feet, but even failing to identify just one would seem to be a substantial error/omission in an application for a project that involves the use of explosives.)

as a part of the application, not as an after-the-fact response to a citizen request. Finally, it is impossible for staff and members of the public to track a project when project review begins prior to a completed application and when an applicant is allowed to submit multiple documents unsigned and incomplete. If these submittals are treated by staff as formal submittals associated with an application, engaged members of the community must spend time reviewing documents that might then simply be superseded and may or may not be considered relevant by the City.

Following FMC requirements that a complete application be submitted at the onset of a project would avoid this.

Page 391 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.

July 17, 2020

Page 4 of 4 ends

7. The 2017 application did not identify the need for variances and did not provide the required applicant explanation of variances, nor has a signed application or signed statement by the applicant been submitted for any of the variances needed by the currently proposed project.

8. The 2017 application form does not identify CDFW as an agency whose action will be required. However, the IS/MND identifies CDFW involvement in migratory bird mitigation, making CDFW a Trustee agency under CEQA. Therefore, an application for the current project should identify that state agency role. (Related, the City did not file IS/MND with State Clearinghouse as required when a state agency is a Trustee agency.

As a result, CDFW and other state agencies, including State Parks and the State Office of Historic Preservation, have thus far not been requested to review the CEQA document which addresses issues under their purview.)

9. The 2017 application included a title report for property address "605 Sutter Street". The subject property is 603 Sutter Street.

10. The 2017 application does not include a project narrative and it is not clear whether a narrative exists for the current project. There is no narrative on the City's website; only the March 2019 drawings.

11. The 2017 application included a list of property owners within a radius of 300 feet from a single point on the property, and failed to identify all properties within 300 feet of the subject property.

There are many problems with the status of the current process being pursued by the City for 603 Sutter Street, including the fact that an application for the current project does not exist or is, at best, outdated and incomplete. Yet for some reason staff is intending to engage the Commission in a hearing on the project. The absence of variance requests and other required information represent substantial deficiencies in the current process. Please put further processing on hold until such time as a complete application is submitted by the applicant for the current project.

Thank you for your consideration of these comments.

Sincerely,

Bob Delp
612 Mormon Street
Folsom, CA 95630
[email protected]

Page 392 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.

1 Glenn Fait
305 Scott Street
Folsom, CA 95630
(916) 217-1831
[email protected]

Historic District Commission
City of Folsom
50 Natoma Street
Folsom, CA 95630

Re: 603 Sutter Street Mixed Use Building

Dear Commissioners:

This letter is in opposition to the proposed 603 Sutter Street Mixed Use Building that will be the subject of your meeting on August 5, 2020.

Brief History of the Law that the Commission will be applying

Folsom was the second city in California to provide specific protect ions for its historic district. This happened in the mid-1960s. The first city to provide such protections was the City of Carmel.

I believe it was in 1994 that the Folsom City Council began work on a Specific Plan for the Historic District. An Advisory Committee was appointed to assist in the development of the plan. The Committee was made up of historic Folsom residents, business owners, commercial property owners, the Historical Society, Chamber of Commerce, Planning Commission, Redevelopment Advi sory Committee, Historical Committee (now called the Historic District Commission) and other interested parties. Below is a list of the members of that committee:

Ben Fuentes, Chairman Grant F. Cloud, Vice-Chairman
Historic Residents Association Sutter Street Merchants Assoc.

Page 393 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.

2 Jeff Ferreira-Pro, Secretary Ken Cemo
Citizens Redevelopment Comm. Sutter Street Merchants Assoc.

Glenn Fait June Hose
Historical Committee Historical Society

Patrick Maxfield Candy Miller
Planning Commission Historical Committee

Regina O=Brien Mary Otis
Historical Society Friends of the Power House

Geraldine Price-Radich John Mansell
Folsom Chamber of Commerce Folsom Chamber of Commerce

Michael Radich
Citizens Redevelopment Comm.

Lorreta McMasters (Hettinger) of the Planning Department provided the Committee with staff assistance.

Draft Plan included the following paragraph describing the process.

APreparation of the Historic District Specific Plan was authorized by Resolution N. 3435 of the City Council. It provided for City staff and the Historic Folsom Residents Association to convene a process which would incorporate the needs and desires of all people involved in the historic area into a program to preserve and enhance the rich heritage represented in the 98-block Judah map area. The result was a citizens committee which met twice a month for four years (emphasis added) to create the Plan itself and the datab ases of the information on all building within the Plan Area.

I include this history because many members of the current Historic District Commission may have been too young to remember this period in Folsom =s history.

The Historic Specific Plan was never formally adopted by the Ci ty Council.

Page 394 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.

3 However, to ensure that many of the provisions of the specific plan would be legally binding on future actions in the historic district the City Council adopted many of its provisions as ordinances. Those provisions are currently contained i n Chapter 17.52 of the Folsom City Code.

Those provisions are the law that you will be applying in relation of this application to construct the proposed building at 603 Sutter Street.

The applicant in this case is asking to be exempted from the three most significant provisions that control the construction of new commercial buildings in the Sutter Street Subarea; height, parking and design. The applicant asked the Commission to ignore the most important provisions of this law.

Height

Section 17.52.510 C provides specific height limitation for new construction. It provides ABuilding heights shall not exceed 35 feet adjacent to the sidewalk area on Sutter or Leidesdorff Street and 50 feet in other sections of the subarea. Towers, spires, or other similar architectural features may extend up to 15 feet above the building height.@

Applicant admits that its building is over 50.6 feet high, a full 15.6 feet in excess of that allowed by the law. Applicant makes some weird argument that you should take an average of the height of the building at its four corners. While such an average is not provided for in the law, nor does it make any sense, even if you accept this position, they admit that the building would still exceed legal limit by

5.85 feet. It is true that Sutter Street does change elevation from the NW corner of the building to the NE corner. The change in elevation is approximately 5 feet.

The appropriate way to measure the height for the purpose of this ordinance is to measure the building at the mid-point of its frontage on Sutter Street. That would be 48.2 feet, or 13.2 feet over the height allowed by the ordinance.

There also appears to be some sort of structure on the roof. The height of this structure is not provided. Section 17.52.510 C provides that Towers, spires, or other similar architectural features may extend up to an additional 15 feet above the building height. The structure pictured in the building elevations on top of the roof is not a tower, spire or other similar architectural feature. This provision was included in the law to allow for towers, and spires that might have been common in

Page 395 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.

4 both residential and commercial structures in pre-1900 buildings.

Therefore, the presence of this structure would only increase the violation of the height limitations. Adding the height of the roof top building to the overall height of the building would mean that the building would be in excess of 30 feet over the height provided in the law.

The building is just too high to meet the provisions of 17.52.510 C. That is why the City Planning Department told the applicant that it would have to justify why a variance from that law should be allowed.

Request for Variance from Height Requirements

Section 17.62.010 sets out the intent of variances. It states AWhere practical difficulties, unnecessary hardships or results inconsistent with the purposes and intent of this title may result from strict application of certain area, height, yard and space requirement thereof, variances in such requirement may be granted as provided in this chapter.@

Under the provisions of section 17.62.020 an applicant is required to attach to any application for a variance Aa statement, plans and other evidence showing @ that it meets all three requirements for approval of a variance. It appears that the applicant did not provide this information with his original application. Once informed of this requirement, applicant attempted to justify the requests for variances. Section 17.62.020 requires the applicant to establish that three requirements be met. I will discuss each of those requirements along with a response to the arguments of applicant.

1. The applicant must establish Athat there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying to the land, building or use referred to in the application, which circumstances or conditions do not apply generally to other land, buildings, and/or uses in the district.@ 17.62.020

Although applicant appears to argue the same position concerning both the height and parking variance, I will discuss them separa tely.

Applicant first argues that the steep topography of the property provides a justification for the height variance. Applicant does not state why the removal of dirt from the property justifies a height variance, other than to say that it mi ght

Page 396 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.

5 effect the property owners Asubstantial property right.@ Applicant does not explain why this justifies a higher building. Removal of the dirt will be necessary, whether the proposed building is two or three stories high.

The law also requires that the Acircumstances or conditions (claimed as justification for the variance) do not apply generally to other land, buildings or uses in the district.

The fact is that all of the buildings on Sutter Street have topographical challenges. Sutter Street is on a relatively steep hill. All of the buildings built on the East side of Sutter Street have required major earthmoving prior to construction. The planning department and the Advisory Committee knew the topography of Sutter Street and were familiar with all of the undeveloped lots. The City Council enacted the law with full knowledge of the topography.

The mere fact that a lot of dirt must be removed, in no way justifies a variance from the height requirement and is common to all lot s on the east side of Sutter Street. Therefore, applicant does not meet the first requirement for a variance.

2. To be entitled to a variance the applicant must establish that granting of the variance Ais necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the petitioner.@

In this case, applicant has not provided any information or evidence to support the fact that not allowing him to violate the law relating to height will deny him substantial property rights. He merely says it is so. Without specific financial information concerning this project and a similar project that would comply with the height requirement there is no way for people who object to the project or to counter the evidence. Providing such evidence at the time of the hearing would deny the rights of objectors to have the financial information reviewed and countered with other expert testimony.

Applicant has not provided any information or evidence to support the second requirement needed to justify a variance, and therefor e the variance should be denied.

Page 397 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.

6 3. The third requirement that the applicant must satisfy in order to qualify for a variance relates the possible effect of the project on residents and workers in the neighborhood. Section 17.62.020(3) states that the applicant must estab lish that

Athe granting of such application will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, materially affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the property of the applicant, and will not under the circumstances of the particular case be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvement in the neighborhood.

The project, as proposed, violates the legal height requirements and the additional height would significantly injure property owners and residents in a number of ways.

a. By exceeding the height limitations, the building will inappropriately block the view of surrounding property owners. The home directly adjacent to the project building will have its entire view blocked. Others, including homes on the other side of Scott Street and homes on Peddlers Lane will lose much of the view they currently have. If the building complied with the legally required height limitation, the views of the surrounding property would, to a great extent, remain.

b. The windows on the rear of the building on the third floor will look directly down to the second floor bedroom and backyard swimming pool of the house adjacent to the project. If the building complied with the legal h eight limitations, the second floor windows in the back would be at about the same level as the first floor of that house.

c. The project proposes a roof-top entertainment area. It is likely that this area will provide another opportunity (in addition to the rear windows) for groups of people to look down into the bedroom and yard of the adjacent house and into private areas of the Cohn Mansion. In addition it can be expected that music, talking, and the general noises made on the roof-top area will more directly affect the surrounding residents and other property owners because it is so much higher than the law allows and will cause the noise to spread further out into the neighborhood. This has been a problem in relation to bars, restaurant s and special events for years and has caused ongoing conflict. To put such a space 15 feet

Page 398 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.

7 higher than the law allows will surely escalate this conflict

While the applicant has promised that there will be little noise from the second and third floor because they will be used as offices does not satisfy resident’s concerns. They promise that the only entertainment will be occasional private annual parties for the employees of the applicant. While this is a nice promise, and I will not challenge its good faith, there is no way to enforce such an amorphous promise after the building is complete. Who will enforce it and how? If the applicant sells the building, it is unlikely that the new owner will even be aware of the promise. It is vary likely that the roof-top will become a favorite entertainment venue with its great views into the private areas of surrounding homes.

Parking

Applicant has requested a parking variance. Folsom Municiapal Code Section 17.52.510 F states: AParking. All uses must provide parking spaces at the following ratios: 1. Retail, offices, restaurants, museum, and similar usess: 1 parking space per 350 square feet of other building space:
....@
As far as I can tell the applicant=s only argument to support such a variance is topography. They seem to contend that it could not dig an underground garage because is would take a lot of digging.

This is inconsistent with the previous plans that were submitted that had some on-site parking. (Although not enough to meet the legal requirements) Now the applicant says it cannot provide even the parking it originally proposed.

It is important to note that the parking requirement in section 17.52.510F does not require on-site parking. It just says an applicant must provide 1 space for every 350 square feet. There are a number of ways this could be accomplished.

1. On-site parking.

2. Parking on other property that the applicant acquires or owns.

3. Parking impact fee. There is currently no fund dedicated to d eveloping future parking on Sutter Street, but the creation of such a fund was one of the

Page 399 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.

8 recommendations of the recently released Sutter Street Parking Ad hoc Committee Report. If the City creates such a fund, the applicant could then meet its parking requirement be paying into dedicated fund for building future parking.

Does the Historic District Commission Have the Authority to Grant a Parking Variance?

The law does not provide for variances from substantive requirements like the one to provide adequate parking for a proposed project.

Folsom Municipal Code Section 17.62.010 provides that AWhere practical difficulties, unnecessary hardships or results inconsistent with the purposes and intent of this title may result from the strict applicant of certain area, height, yard and space requirements (emphasis added) thereof, variances in such requirement may be granted as provided in the chapter.

The request for a parking variance is not an area, height, yard or space requirement. Therefore, the section allowing variances does not provide jurisdiction for a variance from this kind of specific and substantive building requirement of adequate parking.

Therefore, I would argue that the Historic District Commission lacks the authority under law to grant such a variance.

If the Historic District Commission does assert such authority, it must review the requests based upon the three factors that were dis cussed above in relation to height.

Is a Parking Variance Permissible under Section 17.62.020?

1. Are there Aexceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying to the land, building or use referred to in the application, which circumstances or conditions that do not apply generally to other land, buildings, and /or uses in the district@ that would justify a variance from the parking requirement?

Again, it appears that applicant cites only the topography and r equired earth moving to justify such a variance. But applicant=s prior plan did provide for

Page 400 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.

9 parking. Every property on the east side of Sutter Street has significant earth moving in order to build a building. I can assure you that the City Council in enacting the parking requirement did not mean to waive that requirement for everyone on one side of Sutter Street. And, as I have mentioned before, the parking requirement in the Code does not require on-site parking. It only requires that in some acceptable way it cover the cost of the additional parking that the project would generate.

Therefore. the request for a parking variance should be denied.

2. Is the parking variance Anecessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the petitioner. 17.62.020(2)?

As with the height variance the applicant provided no evidence that he would be denied substantial property rights. He did not provide financial information that would support such an assertion. He seems to be arguin g that if he has to pay for the parking that his building will require, his profit from the project will be decreased. A little less profit in order to share the burden of providing required parking cannot be a justification for finding that his substanti al property rights would be affected.

One other thing that the Historic District Commission should consider. If the applicant is required to comply with the height requirement the cost of construction would decrease as would the cost of providing neede d parking.

3. Will granting a parking variance Abe materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvement in the neighborhood @

17.62.020(3)?

Granting of a parking variance would be significantly injurious to the neighbors because the employees and customers of the building will have to find

somewhere else to park. This will likely result in one or all of the following impacts.

a. Those cars will be parking in the residential area surrounding Sutter Street, thereby denying the residents the ability to park in front of their houses. It

Page 401 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.

10 will also make it difficult for guests of residents to find parking near the resident =s house.

I would recommend that the Historic District Commission review the draft report of the Historic District Parking Solutions Ad Hoc Committee on Historic District Parking. It provides greater detail concerning the impact on the residential neighborhood of failure to require new projects to pay for parking for their employees and customers.

b. Excusing the applicant from providing the legally required parking would likely cause employees and customers to attempt to park in nearby private parking lots. There are two such lots nearby that will be impacted.

c. If you grant the parking variance, you would be forcing customers and employees in the proposed building to use other public parking lots. As estimated by the Historic District Parking Solution Ad Hoc Committee, there is not enough currently available public parking to accommodate future development, including this proposed development. While it is nice for applicant to promise to pay his employees a bonus to park in the parking garage, such a promise is not enforceable and would be meaningless if there are no more public parking spaces.

Therefore, I believe applicant has failed to meet the third requirement of the provisions of the Code relating to variances. The variance should be denied.

What Reasonable Modifications Should Be Required of Applicant in Order to Improve Compatibility Between the Proposed Building and Adjacent Residences?

Applicant=s proposed building is on the boarder of commercial and residential uses. It has a residence immediately to the rear of building and has residences on the other side of Scott Street as well as nearby residents on Trader =s

Lane all of which may be negatively affected in a variety of ways by the proposed project.

Section 17.52.510(3)(b) provides AIn assessing compatibility between residential and commercial uses, a residential use located within the subarea (Sutter Street) will be expected to tolerate greater impacts from commercial uses

Page 402 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.

11 that if it were located in a primarily residential area. Commercial and residential uses may each be expected to make reasonable physical or operational modifications to improve compatibility between them (emphasis added).

Following are a number of modifications of the proposed project that are necessary to effectuate a smooth transition between the commercial and residential uses.

1. The height of the building should be reduced below the maximum legal height of 35 feet.

The height requirements provided in Section 17.52.510 are maximum heights, not necessarily appropriate heights. Where the building involved is on the boarder of the commercial and residential uses, the maximum height would not be appropriate. The 35 foot maximum was based upon allowing a two and one half story building. In this case one or, at the most, two stories would provide a smoother transition between the two uses.

2. Applicant should be required to remove the garbage bin enclosure.

Currently, the plans include a garbage bin enclosure immediately next to the driveway of the house behind the building. This location of the garbage bin will cause problems like odors, insects, rodents and unsightly views to many of the residents on Scott Street, Trader=s Lane and Figueroa Street. The location of the garbage bin enclosure would also create excessive noise when the garbage is picked up.

Any approval of this plan must include relocating the garbage bin enclosure to Sutter Street.

3. The roof-top entertainment area should be eliminated. Not only will such a roof-top area invade the privacy of surrounding homes, as mentioned above, it is will likely to result in the kind of additional noise that has been vexing residents for years. Removal of such a venue would be a reasonable physical and operational change that would provide a smooth transition between the residential and commercial uses.

Page 403 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.

12 Is the Design of Applicant=s Building Consistent with the Design Concept Provided in the Law?

Folsom Ordinance Section 17.52.510B sets out the Design Concept for the Sutter Street subarea. It states: The design concept for this subarea is to preserve existing pre1900 buildings, and require new or replacement structures to be of pre 1900 design,(emphasis added) unless a post-1900 building is unique and/or representative of 1850-1950 architectural styles. The historic district may appro ve a new construction of post-1900 design on an exception basis, if it finds that the architecture is an outstanding design which represents a structure or use which formerly existed in historic Folsom or which represent a typical design and use extant in similar California towns between 1900 and 1950.

I would be surprised if applicant=s architect was even aware of this law when preparing the plan for the proposed building.

Applicants proposed building does not in any way meet the design criteria as a pre 1900 design for commercial buildings. It does have a roof, floor, walls, doors, and windows, but that is probably the only thing it has in common with a 1900 design for commercial buildings.

The design does not meet the requirements of an exception t o the pre-1900 design. It is not of Aoutstanding design@ nor does is represent a typical design for commercial structure between 1900 and 1950.

In addition to not meeting the design standard, the large mass of the building would be inconsistent with the design requirements. This problem with huge mass was addressed well in a prior approval of a building on Sutter Street. The architect, while keeping the building integrated, provided two facades that diminished the perception of hugeness. Both facades were consistent with design concepts provided by the law.

I believe the design of this building is not consistent with the legal standards concerning design and should therefore be rejected. The applicant and its architect should return to the drawing board and bring back a design the meets those standards.

Page 404 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.

13 From past experience from serving on the Historic District Commission I believe it is inappropriate for the Commission to try to design the building during a meeting. It should not be difficult for the applicant =s architect to redesign the building to meet required standards. It is likely that such a redesign will be required in any case, if the Commission denies the two requested variances.

A Few Words About Precedent

One of the primary arguments asserted by applicant to support his request for height and parking variances and exemption for the design standards is that the Historic District Commission has granted such variances and allowed violations of the design standards to others in the past.

This argument is often powerful because government agencies and officials honestly want to be consistent in how they apply the law. There are a number of good reasons not to allow the past acts of the Historical District Commission to affect this application.

1. Commissions make mistakes. You should never use that as a rational for making other mistakes. I and my former wife Sharon have served on th e Historic District Commission a number of times in the past. We both have agreed that we made mistakes in approving certain buildings. Every time she or I walk by such a building we are reminded of our mistakes. The last thing in the world Sharon and I would want the Historic District Commission to do is use our mistakes to justify future mistakes.

2. As a general rule, decisions of administrative agencies m ay not be used as precedent in making future decisions, unless they have been design ated by the governing body as precedent. Rather than going into a long legal analysis of this point, I ask you to accept it on the basis of my service as Director of the Institute for Administrative Justice at Pacific McGeorge School of Law for over 40 ye ars.

I am not aware of a process by which the City or the Historic District Commission can designate precedent decisions.

3. There are a number of factors that may have contributed to the prior questionable decisions of the Historic District Commissi on that are not present in relation to this application.

Page 405 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.

14 a. Many of you were not on the Historic District Commission when the prior decisions were made. So, it was not your decision.

b. There may have been little or no opposition to the prior project.

c. There may have been violations of procedures that are designed to alert those whose interests are at stake and provide them an opportunity to present evidence and argument against the application. This could involve a failure to provide notice to surrounding properties.

This happened in this case during an earlier hearing when the applicant asked the Historic District Commission to workshop the proposal, which the city said was allowed, because a decision was not scheduled to be made at the hearin g.

The problem is that during such workshops, the applicant is able to adjust its plan in such a way that it is likely the Commissioners will approve the project in a future noticed hearing. In my opinion, such an approach would be a denial of due process to those entitled to special notice.

d. It may be that the Historic District Commission in the past was not aware of its responsibility to apply the law to the application. I am sorry to say, but many Commissions and even the City Council (and the President) have in the past forgotten about the concept of the Arule of law.@ Instead they think they have absolute discretion in the matter and let feelings, personal relationships, political factors, personal beliefs, and prejudices affect the decision, r ather than trying their best to make a decision consistent with the law.

4. Even when judges are bound by past decisions they will come to a different result in the case before them because they are able to distinguish the facts of the current case for the facts of the prior case.

In this case there are a number of factors that support distinguishing this case from past Commission decisions. Here are two:

a. Most of the surrounding buildings are different in Height and mass from the proposed building. While it is true that there is a three story building across Sutter street, there is historic one story library on one side a two story house on the other side and the historic Cohn Mansion on the other side.

Page 406 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.

15 b. Applicant=s building is on the boarder of the commercial and residential uses. That was not true of some of the prior buildings that the applicant wants to use as precedent.

These factors distinguish this application from prior applications.

Thank you for considering these comments.

Glenn Fait

Page 407 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.

Sharon C. Fait
1214 DarlingWuy
Folsom, CA 95630
916-217-6201
[email protected]
July 24,2020
Historic District Commrssron
City of Folsom
50 Natoma Street
Folsom, CA 95630
Re: 603 Sutter Street Mixed Use Building
Dear Commissioners:

This letter is in opposition to the proposed 603 Sutter Street Mixed Use Building that will be the subject of your August 5,2020 meeting, It is also indicative of my absolute support and agreement with Glenn Fait's letter ofJuly 2020.

If I could state the issues in any way more clearly than Glenn has done in his letter, I would. Howeveq I urge the commission to care{irlly consider Glenn's arguments and reasoning and uphold the law and deny the proposed development.

Sincerely yours,
Sharon G. Fait

Page 408 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
1 Christina Kelley
From: Bob Delp <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2020 6:54 AM
To: Steven Banks
Cc: Pam Johns; Scott Johnson
Subject: Re: 603 Sutter Street - Incomplete Application Letter CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Good morning, Steve. Can you let me know if you are still intending to include 603 Sutter Street on the HDC agenda for Aug 5th? If so, will it be an informational item, a request for an HDC recommendation to the City Council, or a request for HDC approvals of some or all of the requested entitlements? As of this this morning, I don't see any additional information/documents (e.g., variance request, revised IS/MND and/or responses to comments on MND, etc.) on the City's "Current Planning Projects under Review" page. I assume that's where a staff report would be posted?
Thank you,
-Bob
Bob Delp
916‐812‐8122
[email protected]

Received, thanks Bob.

Steve

Steven Banks
Principal Planner
City of Folsom
(916) 461-6207
[email protected]

From: Bob Delp <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 17, 2020 3:21 PM

Page 409 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
2 To: Elaine Andersen <[email protected]>; Pam Johns <[email protected]>; Scott Johnson <[email protected]>; Steven Banks <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Kelly Mullett <[email protected]> Subject: 603 Sutter Street ‐ Incomplete Application Letter

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

Please see attached letter regarding the status of the 603 Sutter Street property development proposal.

Thank you for your consideration.

Bob Delp
916‐812‐8122
[email protected]

Page 410 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
1 Desmond Parrington
From: Shawna Barva <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2020 6:36 PM
To: Kelly Mullett; City Clerk Dept; Steven Banks
Subject: Proposed 603 Sutter Street
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organiza tion. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Historic District Commissioners:

My name is Shawna Barva and I reside at 611 Wool Street in Folsom’s Historic District. I have been lucky enough to have seen Folsom’s Historic District grow and thrive- while incorporating new businesses along the way. Sutter Street and the surrounding neighborhood has benefitted from this growth, and I believe the proposed building at 603 Sutter Street is part of this story. The city has circulated the mitigated negative declaration, the results of which have shown the variances to be absent of any negative impacts to the neighborhood. As residents of this area, we know how Sutter Street’s development has positively impacted the neighborhood; bringing about increased property values as well as a mix of new restaurants and businesses to benefit from. The building adheres to the charm of Sutter Street that we would expect and is in short supply in the surrounding area.

Especially in light of the times I believe this building serves as a buffer to provide further economic benefits to the neighborhood, attracting new investment and value to our small community.

Thank you.

Shawna Barva
611 Wool St.

Folsom, CA 95630
[email protected]

THE FOLLOWING IS PROVIDED TO BE READ INTO THE RECORD DURING THE “PUBLIC COMMENTS” PORTION OF THE AUGUST 5TH, 2020 MEETING.

Page 411 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
1 Desmond Parrington
From: John Shaw <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2020 3:16 PM
To: Elaine Andersen; Pam Johns; Steven Banks; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: 603 Sutter Street
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organiza tion. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

All:

Please accept this small correction to our initial letter.

In the first letter, we said, "If we understand the City's Design and Development guidelines correctly, the maximum height for a commercial building in the Historic District is 50 feet from the ground level."

Turns out, we did not understand the guidelines correctly. Further research into the City's code reveals more precise and different language, and that's what I wanted to share with you. The Code actually reads, " Building heights shall not exceed 35 feet adjacent to the sidewalk area on Sutter or Leidesdorff Street and 50 feet in other sections of the subarea. Towers, spires or other similar architectural features may extend up to 15 feet above the building height."

Clearly this building exceeds the City's 35-foot height limitation "...in the sidewalk area on Sutter Street........."

Now, more than before, we urge the Historic District Commission to deny the applicant's request for a height variance.

Respectfully,

John & Becky Shaw (and 67 co-signers)

On Jun 29, 2020, at 1:55 PM, John Shaw <[email protected]> wrote:

All:

Please accept the attached letter as an expression of concern regarding the request for variances associated with the proposed development at Sutter & Scott Street.

John Shaw
661.333.0759

Page 412 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.

Dear Mr. Banks, 7/22/20

I want to add some additional comments to my letter of 6/21/20 after reading the submitted responses by the applicant, Deborah Alaywan on July 7, 2020.

Item 1a. thru 1e. Steep topography. All the points being made around the difficulty of building on the lot overlooks the fact that the height requirements were in place at the time the lot was purchased and it would seem that if the developers would have researched the design guidelines before purchasing the lot, they would have realized that due to these requirements the building would need lower floor elevations than in the proposed design to meet the requirements. By lowering floor heights, the current proposed floor space stays the same, thus meeting their Floor Area Ratio (FAR) request and the Sutter Street height requirements.

The gamble on obtaining a variance to fulfil their square footage goal at the proposed floor elevations is banking on the belief a decision by the Historic commission to give a variance in the past has set a precedent for future development. That is and should not be the case. The overwhelming request for a 15-foot increase in height at a sensitive intersection where residences intersect the commercial properties of the Historic District is too big a leap in height to convey a smooth and responsible transition in building heights. The 35-foot limit with additional three feet of parapet wall is more than enough to allow the same square footage of floor space if the distance between floors is reduced.

The buildings frontage is on Sutter St. and therefore the variance is for 15 feet above the allowed height on Sutter St. and the references to Scott St. have no bearing in this request other than to attempt to threaten my property with a 50 foot extension at the rear of the building, (As pointed out in section 1e.) if the Sutter St. variance is not granted.

Health and Safety. In the final paragraph of section 1e. the applicant states that the current design works hard to respect the impact on the building’s neighbors. I find that hard to believe with a dumpster enclosure located next to my property, the side where my bedrooms are located. The impact of rodents and cockroaches along with the overwhelming smell of restaurant garbage is without a doubt a threat to my household’s health and safety and would significantly reduce my property value.

Page 413 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
1 Desmond Parrington
From: Adena Blair <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2020 9:39 AM
To: Steven Banks
Cc: Jennifer Lane
Subject: Comments period
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organiza tion. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi Steve,
Please advise. What is the last day to submit comments regarding the project at 603 Sutter St? Thank you,
Adena Blair

Page 414 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
1 Christina Kelley
From: Lucy Bottallo <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 4, 2020 7:58 PM
To: Steven Banks
Subject: Stop the development at 603 Sutter St.

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

I am opposed to this company/building being built in Old Town Folsom. The people said they don't want it. Why are companies so relentless until you win, get your way. You were already turned town. Leave our Old Town Folsom alone. It is not the place for your company. Go build it by Costco or on the South side of Hwy. 50 or somewhere else. I am sick of companies like yours that disregard anything that the people of the City of Folsom have to say especially those that live in Old Town Folsom. You did not address the peoples concerns the first time. Leave our Old Town Folsom alone, you will ruin the beautiful look and feel of our little town. Just go away, the people of the City of Folsom said NO so go find somewhere else to build your company. We don't want you here. We will fight tooth and nail to keep you out of Old Town Folsom.

Page 415 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
1 Desmond Parrington
From: Kathryn Corbett <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 3, 2020 11:36 PM
To: Steven Banks
Subject: RE: 603 Sutter Street Mixed Use Building
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organiza tion. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Kathryn Corbett
Folsom, CA. 95630
916.353.0556

Greetings Steve,

While formerly involved and happy to engage with our great City of Folsom and Community on many fronts, these days I’ve slowed almost to a standstill on City involvement with current events and the dreaded COVID on the loose, like many other folks I find myself on self imposed lock-down . However, I have been inspired to speak out and come out of the wood work on this Building proposal for 603 Sutter St., like so many others I know.

Why would this issue galvanize so many and myself to action and prompt us to call, write or speak against this project and building proposal? I’m certain lots of folks will be present for this meeting and you will receive many letters and calls. For so many of us whether we live in the Historic District or not this area represents why we moved here, it stands for the quality of life we have come to find here. This proposed building location is part of a community area that is near and dear too many, an area often referred as the heart of our City. This HD Neighborhood and Sutter Street location has great historical and community significance to most all of us that live in Folsom (and beyond.) Many of us have over the years been inspired to contribute to the HD Sutter St area in a multitude of ways and Celebrate here for many big occasions.

For those of us who care about the Heart of Folsom and the quality of life in the Historic District Neighborhood we are concerned about this oversized proposed building which would be a blight to the area, it’s problematic as to Parking for both the HD Neighborhood and the Sutter St area.

Which we all know is a constant ongoing issue. The proposed design doesn’t mesh with the charming ambience and aesthetics we love in the HD Sutter St or Neighborhood and exceeds the Historic District height standard and more.

It is hard to fathom why the previous similar plans for this site 2 years ago with the same architect is being presented again with this very like design. It was denied largely for the very objectionable negative design features that are now still present and resubmitted!

I hope the developer will be able to work with the HD Community and Neighborhood and see what it is we all love about the heart of our City of Folsom and build something that is accordance with this.That would be a true success, Kathryn Corbett

Page 416 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
1 Desmond Parrington
From: impound guy <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 3, 2020 11:58 AM
To: Steven Banks
Cc: Kelly Mullett
Subject: Proposed site
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organizaon. Do not click links or open a achments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

I moved here to Folsom 4 years ago from L.A….I bought here because it was so very quaint and was totally sold on Historic Su er Street because it was not only “Historic” but for the most part sll looked that way as well….Then came the new Sco s Seafood resturant….which changed the look….now this new proposal will change it even more…..YOU are losing the term “Historic” Folsom and changing it’s look to “Commerical" Folsom…some things are be er le1 alone, for no other reason than to preserve “whatever" is le1 of History…..which with every new commercial site—you are slowly losing.

Thank you,
Steve Getz

Page 417 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
1 Desmond Parrington
From: Anne Bishop <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 3, 2020 10:45 AM
To: Kelly Mullett; City Clerk Dept; Steven Banks
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organiza tion. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

I am writing this e-mail
in support of the proposed building at 603 Sutter. I frequently go to Sutter street to shop and just to enjoy the ambiance it has to offer.

I have seen the plans for this building and the building was designed primarily with the thought that it would blend in with and enhance the existing architecture of "old folsom". With the perceived growth of Folsom it seems plausible to add buildings of this nature. I strongly support the addition of this building.

Thank You for your consideration.

Anne Bishop
1861 Ardfern Way
Folsom,ca,95630

Page 418 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
1 Desmond Parrington
From: Bob Delp <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, August 2, 2020 6:50 AM
To: Pam Johns; Scott Johnson; Steven Banks
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Elaine Andersen; Kelly Mullett Subject: Re: Request to Remove 603 Sutter Street Review from August 5 HDC Agenda CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organiza tion. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Minor correction in red below.

Bob Delp
916-812-8122
[email protected]

28. Please revise the staff report to identify that the project exceeds the maximum FAR or provide a full explanation and calculations to show that it does not. Absent that, the project does in fact exceed the maximum FAR and requires a variance for that in addition to the other two variances that have been identified. In my comments on the IS/MND I noted that with or without including the balcony area, the project exceeds the 2.0 max FAR. Using information straight out of the City's IS/MND (Table 2), t he property is 7,400 sq ft., the total building area w/o the roof deck is 14,811 sq ft., and the total building area with the roof deck is 18,965 sq ft. 14,811 divided by 7,400 results in a FAR of 2.001 and 18,965 divided by 7,400 results in a FAR of 2.56. Both of these FARs are in excess of the maximum FAR of 2.0, in fact any building area larger than 14, 800 sq ft exceeds the 2.0 FAR. The applicant would not expect the City to assert he has exceeded the FAR if he were one square foot under; and nor should the applicant expect that he should be allowed to exceed the FAR by one square foot more without needing a variance. As with the IS/MND, the staff report presents a hypothetical FAR calculation instead of simply presenting a calculation of the actual FAR based on the actual project size. The staff report also states, "City staffs interpretation of the methodology to be used in determining a FAR is to complete the calculation by dividing the leasable area of a proposed building by the area of the site as described in footnote 3." (Footnote 3 is that same hypothetical calculation.) I cannot find anywhere else in any of the documents provided where "leasable area" is mentioned. Even excluding the balconies, the 2.0 max FAR is exceeded. Furthermore, unless the City plans to restrict what portions of the building can be leased (and I see that discussed nowhere in 490+ pages of documentation), then we have

Page 419 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
2 every reason to also include the balcony area within the leasable space meaning the FAR is greater than 2.5. If that's the case, then shouldn't the estimated parking requirement also be calculated based on the leasable space - in which case, the City has underestimate the parking requirement and the staff report should be revised to reflect that.) Please clarify.

Bob Delp
916-812-8122
[email protected]

From: Bob Delp <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, August 1, 2020 6:22 PM
To: Pam Johns <[email protected]>; Scott Johnson <[email protected]>; Steven Banks <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Elaine Andersen <[email protected]>; Kelly Mullett <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Request to Remove 603 Sutter Street Review from August 5 HDC Agenda

Continued questions:

27. The hearing notice required by the FMC has not been posted at the site. FMC 17.52.320 states, " the project site shall be posted by the applicant 5 days prior to the commission hearing, with a notice 11 inches by 17 inches in size, facing the street frontage, and indicating the project description and the place and time of the hearing ." I have checked regularly since 5pm yesterday and, as of 5pm today (4 days prior to the Aug 5 hearing), the required notice has not been posted. The same sign that has been there for several months is still there but that sign does not "indicate the project description" (e.g., it says nothing about the building height or parking variances, critical and fundamental aspects of the project) and it does not identify the place or time of the scheduled hearing. If this means the hearing must be postponed, please let me know ASAP so I can stand down on my review of the staff report. If you still intend to proceed with the hearing even though sufficient public notice in compliance with the zoning code has clearly not taken place, can you please provide the rationale and justification for proceeding with the hearing and amend the staff report so that it advises the Commission of the failed noticing and provides staff's rationale for moving ahead with the hearing?

Bob Delp
916-812-8122
[email protected]

Page 420 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
3 <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Elaine Andersen <[email protected]>; Kelly Mullett <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Request to Remove 603 Sutter Street Review from August 5 HDC Agenda

Continuation of Questions:

24. The City has two webpages ostensibly with current project information, but one is not up to date and the other while entitled Design Review Projects, makes no mention of 603 Sutter St. Is there a way to immediately remedy this to avoid precluding the public from having info about the project? (More detail: The agenda was posted three days ago. The City has two webpages where project design reviews are listed. One is "Current Planning Project Under Review"
https://www.folsom.ca.us/community/planning/current_project_information.asp . This is accessed by clicking a button that reads "Current Project Information." That webpage is where the 2019 design drawings and the June 2020 IS/MND are available. Although a substantial amount of additional documents have been produced since June 2020, including the Aug 5 agenda and the staff report, the information on this page hasn't been updated and is not "current project information" as labeled on the button. Anyone looking here would see the June IS/MND which states that the HDC hearing will be on July 15. Does the City not have a procedure to keep that information up to date? I know one could argue that people need to track the HDC agenda page, but it really seems unfortunate that a webpage still lists the project with old and incomplete information. Even just adding a note there like "See HDC Aug 5 Agenda for more information" would be a simple step at providing basic current information to the public. The other webpage is accessed by clicking a button "Design Review
Projects"
https://www.folsom.ca.us/community/planning/design_review/default.asp . That page lists several projects but does not include 603 Sutter Street, even though 603 Sutter Street is undergoing design review. Although it's likely much too late to make changes to these webpages in a way that would meaningfully inform the public about a project decision process just days away, but I am interested in understanding the City's procedures for deciding what, where, and when to post information.)

25. In the several pages of the staff report regarding parking variance, I don't see any discussion of input from the community regarding our opinions on the effects of the parking variance on health and welfare, except perhaps discussion of the 2017 meeting where people did in fact express concerns. My understanding is that the ad hoc parking committee effort and its recommendations was largely driven by neighborhood concerns about parking impacts on their health and welfare. The staff report concludes that the parking variance wouldn't materially affect people living and working in the neighborhood. Can you point me to any evidence in the staff report or anywhere else of City outreach to the community that resulted in community input that would lead to that conclusion?

26. Offsite parking is mentioned as potential measure to partially address the project's parking demand. Has staff investigated the feasibility of offsite parking options and is there any evidence that one or more feasible locations for the applicant to pursue such parking exists?

Thank you,
-Bob

Bob Delp
916-812-8122
[email protected]

Page 421 ends

Thank you, Pam. Steve did not call me yesterday, but hopefully he'll have a chance today. While I will be glad to speak with him, ultimately, it will be important to have written feedback from the City on these issues for the administrative record to show how they have been addressed and resolved. Most importantly, as I have asked previously, has the City determined that all requested entitlements that would be granted as presented in the staff report are within the authority of the HDC? Some of the conditions of approval seem to defer certain discretionary decisions, including condition 59 which relates to the permanent development of structures in public right of way. I've asked before, and will ask again now still hoping for a direct answer to this question: Does the HDC have the authority to approve private development of permanent structures on City-owned property?

I'm continuing to review the staff report as quickly as possible, but fear that time is running short so your or Steve's feedback on these issues ASAP would be very much appreciated. There is a substantial amount of new information in the staff report (including a project narrative that, to my knowledge, has not previously been circulated - another seemingly very backwards approach to a normal development application process). Please consider the following in addition to my previous questions:

14. Condition of approval (COA) 1 states that the project must be developed to conform with the July 30, 2019 traffic impact study. Obviously, the City is not intending to require that the project result in the traffic impacts identified in that study. Can you please clarify the intent of requiring the project to conform to the traffic impact study?

15. COA 1 also references that the project must be developed consistent with the "Project Narrative." The condition does not provide a date or other citation for the project narrative, whereas every other item referenced in COA 1 is specifically cited with a date. There is a project narrative in the staff report - it is unsigned and undated and has never been part of the project documents I have seen circulated thus far. Is there a reason a narrative was included in the staff report that doesn't have a name, date, signature and on what basis does the City consider that to be part of the application? A project narrative is a basic and fundamental component required for development applications. Can the staff report be amended to identify who prepared the narrative and when it was prepared and submitted to the City?

16. COA 2 requires that building plans be submitted "to ensure conformance with City codes and standards." Can you clarify how you expect the project to comply with this condition when the project requires variances from City codes? Should that condition be revised to state something like, "...with the exception of the several zoning code variances granted for this project."

Page 422 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
5 formal action at that point to terminate? Can you also clarify whether such termination would void the variance approvals such that a future applicant would need to reapply for variances even if proposing the same or similar building? (Also, there is a word missing between "two" and "from". I think you mean "years.")

18. COA 4 places a requirement on the City to bear attorneys costs and fees in defense of the project and specifies no requirement on the owner/applicant to fund a defense. Does this mean that the City is committing to pay the cost of defending a private project approval? Can you please clarify and work with the City attorney to amend the condition to provide more protection for the City?

19. Regarding 5, can you provide a copy of Reso 2434 and clarify in the condition what the owner/applicant's obligation for "participating in mitigation monitoring" is? Furthermore, please consider language stating that "the owner/applicant shall be required to comply with, implement, and fully fund all mitigation measures adopted and incorporated as conditions of approval."
Also, there is a check mark for this COA but I don't think the COA is an actual mitigation measure. Can you clarify that?

20. COA 7 references "the property." Since a portion of the project will be permanently constructed on City property, can you clarify any payoff or applicable fees that would be associated with development on the City- owned property to be developed by this private project?

21. COAs 8 and 9 require the owner/applicant to fund the cost of outside legal and consulting services that may be used by the City. Should that condition not also require that the owner/applicant fund in-house City and staff costs? If the owner/applicant doesn't pay for those in-house City costs, who does pay for that?

22. COA 10 states, "unless exempt by previous agreement." Is there a "previous agreement" for this property, project, owner/applicant? If so, the condition should be revised to reflect that. If there isn't an agreement, should that phrase be stricken from the condition to avoid confusion? This condition and the staff
report would be much more easily understood if the specific actual development fees were identified. Also, can you clarify the relationship of the fees per this condition with separate parking-related fees/funding conditions? The condition states that the "90-day protest period...has begun." When did it begin? Since the fees are identified yet, what would be the current basis for a challenge to those fees?

23. COA 12 references "the property." Since a portion of the project will be permanently constructed on City property, can you clarify if there are any applicable payoff or segregation/fees that would be associated with development on the City-owned property to be developed by this private project and, if so, who would be responsible for funding that?

Bob Delp
916-812-8122
[email protected]

Page 423 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
6 <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Request to Remove 603 Sutter Street Review from August 5 HDC Agenda

Thank you, Bob.

Steve, please call Bob directly to address/discuss these initial questions. Thank you

Pam

From: Bob Delp <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2020 12:56 PM
To: Pam Johns <[email protected]>; Elaine Andersen <[email protected]>; Scott Johnson <[email protected]>; Steven Banks <[email protected]>; Kelly Mullett <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: Request to Remove 603 Sutter Street Review from August 5 HDC Agenda

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organiza tion. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Thank you very much for your quick reply, Pam. While I'm still hopefully the City will reconsider and postpone the meeting, I will continue my review and try to get my full input to you and the Commission as early as possible so you have a chance to consider before a decision is made. I appreciate your offer of Steve as a resource for answering questions. I know I will have more, but to give him a chance to get started, here are some at my initial look through the staff report. Some of these I've asked before, but haven't been able to find them addressed in the staff report, so my apologies for repetition. If some of these questions are already addressed in the staff report, Steve can just direct me to the page number and I'll look for the information. Feedback ASAP will help with my review of the entire package.

Thanks!
-Bob

1. Does the City have a policy for granting applicant requests for hearing scheduling and can you direct me to where I can find that? (You might recall that my request to extent the IS/MND review period and hearing originally scheduled for July 15 was rejected, but then after I submitted comments, I was advised that " the 603 Sutter Street Mixed-Use Building Project has been continued to the August 5 th Historic District Commission meeting at the request of the applicant .")

Page 424 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
7 2. The staff report references apparent applicant-solicited feedback from the community as the mechanism by which the CITY has complied with GP Policy LU 1.1..12-2 (packet pg. 83). However, that GP policy pertains to outreach that is to be conducted by the CITY not an applicant. Can you advise of the outreach the City has done with the community on the current project (i.e., the project that proposes no parking) in compliance with this GP Policy?

3. The staff report repeatedly discuss the proposed height of the building as 50ft, 6in., but I don't see anywhere where the actual total height of proposed structures is discussed. Can you direct me to where I could find that in the materials?

4. The staff report states that towers/spires are allowed u p to 25 feet above a building (packet pg. 84). However, FMC 17.52.510 C states, "Towers, spires, or other similar architectural features may extend up to 15 feet above the building height." Can you clarify the 25ft reference?

5. Can you direct me to where I can find in the zoning code (or where is it identified as part of a variance request for this project) that the 15 feet tower/spire allowance applies to a building that would be constructed with a rooftop already in excess of the zoning code? If not, can you point me to the applicant's request for variance for features that would be above 50ft, 6in in height?

6. Aside from spires/towers, can you point me to the section of the zoning code that allows other building features to exceed height limits in the zoning code (e.g., elevator, AC units, etc.)? If there is no such allowance, can you point me to the applicant's request for a variance to allow those features?

7. Staff report says, "consistent with the Sept 2017 HDC meeting, the applicant provided a variance..." (packet pg. 84). An applicant is required to provide a variance request application per the FMC (the requirement isn't dependent on the HDC requesting it). Notwithstanding, although the staff report references the 2017 meeting, a variance request wasn't submitted until June 2020 and that wasn't until community members asked for it. Is there a reason why the staff report doesn't directly and accurately speak to the process of why and when a variance request was submitted by the applicant?

8. Related to above, staff report Attachment 18 is entitled "Applicant's Variance Statement Letter Dated June 23, 2019 " when in fact, the variance statement included in that attachment is dated July 7, 2020, and the only variance request previously provided that I'm aware of is dated June 23, 2020, not 2019. The variances required for this project are of primary interest to this community. Is it too late for staff to revise the staff report to provide a clear and accurate discussion of the variance request history? Related, is it too late for the City to require the applicant to actually submit a signed variance statement? (Neither the July 7, 2020 version in the staff report nor the June 23, 2020 version that the City previously provided to me are signed. As the record current appears, I still do not see any variance statement submitted by the applicant, let alone signed. This continues to be simply bizarre and it remains unclear why the applicant has not been required to take ownership of ANY variance sta tement provided thus far.)

9. City staff asserts that the site has "unique topography." Is it too late for you to reconsider that? The parcel has a moderate slope, and slopes are very common in this area and are in no way "unique". If there's anything "unique" about this particular site, it's that it is the parcel with the highest elevation in the Sutter Street commercial area, which fact suggests a rationale for a lower building, not a taller building. There are other factors like this in staff's interpretation of the variance rationale, and it strikes me that there simply hasn't been any real opportunity for the community to provide input on this until now that it's rolled out in a staff report for a meeting just days away. The variance rationale are very important. How can the community provide input for meaningful consideration before a decision is made?

Page 425 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
8 for the bare minimum CEQA required circulation period of 20 days, and that responses to comments were only provided when the staff report was released on July 29, five business days before the scheduled hearing? It is important for the record to accurately reflect public input opportunities. If instead, the City does intend to continue the IS/MND review period through August 5, 2020 (no time is given and email comments are allowed, so presumably that means midnight on Aug 5), how can you hold a public hearing at 5pm on Aug 5th?

11. Can you please amend the staff report to include documentation of the City's request for review and input from State Parks on the currently proposed project ? The City General Plan requires such coordination and I have not seen evidence that State Parks was made aware of the proposed development, its absence of parking, and the potential demand for overflow parking to affect nearby State Parks parking areas, among other concerns State Parks might have.

12. I asked the following questions in a letter to the City on July 27, 2020, with the intent to give the City time to address these questions in the staff report. I do not see these questions answered in the staff report. Can you either answer them now or point me to where in the staff report they area addressed?

1. Does the HDC have the authority to approve a project (through issuance of a variance or other mechanism) that does not comply with FMC requirements for motor vehicle parking spaces?

5. Does City staff and/or the HDC have the authority to wave the requirement that an applicant submit a signed application and fee for a variance as required by FMC 17.62.020 and

17.52.370?

8. Does the HDC have the authority to grant a permanent easement for private development of privately owned permanent structures on City-owned property?

9. Does the HDC or any other decision-making body of the City have the authority to grant a permanent easement for the development of privately owned permanent structures on City- owned property without requiring compensation for such easement? Would not such an easement without compensation be an illegal gift of public funds? Does the HDC have the authority to negotiate or wave City financial matters such as this?

Page 426 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
9 10. Does the HDC have the authority to approve a private development project that exceeds the FMC maximum floor area ratio (FAR) development standards or is that authority limited to the City Council?

11. Does City staff and/or the HDC have the authority to wave the requirement of an applicant to submit a signed and completed Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy Consistency Checklist which is required for any applicant for any project that undergoes environmental review? (https://www.folsom.ca.us/documents/Planning/Folsom_GHG_Reduction_Checklist_F INAL.pdf )

12. Does the HDC have the authority to wave the General Plan’s requirement that the California Green Building Code (Title 24, Part 11) be complied with for developments within the City?

Again, thank you very much for helping facilitate my review of the staff report.

-Bob

Bob Delp
916-812-8122
[email protected]

From: Pam Johns < [email protected] >
Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2020 10:46 AM
To: Bob Delp < [email protected] >; Elaine Andersen < [email protected] >; Scott Johnson <[email protected] >; Steven Banks < [email protected] >; [email protected] <[email protected] >; [email protected] <[email protected] >; [email protected] <[email protected] >; [email protected] <[email protected] >; [email protected] <[email protected] >; [email protected] <[email protected] >; [email protected] <[email protected] >; Kelly Mullett < [email protected] > Subject: RE: Request to Remove 603 Sutter Street Review from August 5 HDC Agenda

Hi Bob.

Thank you for your email. While I appreciate your request to postpone the consideration of the project, the vast majority of the information in the packet (environmental review and project plans in their current form) has been available for public review for nearly two months. The staff report and conditions are new and represent approximately 65 pages of the report. This timeline and volume of information is not uncommon for our decision makers and exceeds the minimum legal requirements. As you are likely aware, this project was submitted over three years ago and has been revised several times in response to issues and concerns through both formal and informal public meetings.

The public hearing on August 5
th provides an opportunity for consideration of the project in keeping with due process (along with two others projects on the agenda). An advantage to this particular meeting is that there is no scheduled Planning Commission meeting after, which allows for the Historic District Commission meeting to proceed without typical time constraints. The Historic District Commission has the authority to consider the project, hear public comments, and take action OR continue the project to a subsequent meeting. During public comments on August 5 th , you are certainly welcome to request that the Commission continue the item, but that decision to act or continue rests with the Commission.

If you have any specific questions as you are reviewing the staff report and conditions, please feel free to reach out to Steve Banks, Principal Planner at 916-461-6207 or
[email protected] .

Respectfully,

Page 427 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
10 Pam

Pam Johns
Community Development
Director

Community Development Department

50 Natoma Street, Folsom, CA 95630
O: 916.461.6205 | C: 916.764.0106

www.folsom.ca.us

From: Bob Delp <
[email protected] >
Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2020 9:08 AM
To: Elaine Andersen < [email protected] >; Pam Johns < [email protected] >; Scott Johnson <[email protected] >; Steven Banks < [email protected] >; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; Kelly Mullett < [email protected] > Subject: Request to Remove 603 Sutter Street Review from August 5 HDC Agenda

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organiza tion. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

My name is Bob Delp and I live at 612 Mormon Street in Folsom's Historic District. As a resident of the Historic District I am directly affected by development within this community, and I would be adversely affected by the currently proposed development at 603 Sutter Street. At approximately 3:30 p.m. yesterday, July 29th, the materials for the Historic District Commission (HDC) August 5 th meeting were posted on the City's website. The staff report and related materials for 603 Sutter Street are 490 pages long. It is unreasonable for the City to expect me and other members of the community to be able to review and provide meaningful input on that project in a period of less than five business days; and even if we do provide input during that time, it will be impossible for staff or the HDC to fully consider public input. Therefore, by way of this email and to allow meaningful public input, I am requesting that you remove the 603 Sutter Street item from the August 5 agenda and reschedule the item to be heard by the HDC at its August 19 or later meeting.

Lastly, I understand that this development was originally on the July 15 th agenda and was removed at the applicant’s request to allow more time to consider and address comments submitted by concerned residents. It is reasonable to expect that a similar extension should be provided to the community.

Sincerely,
-Bob Delp

Bob Delp
916-812-8122
[email protected]

Page 428 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
1 Desmond Parrington
From: Bob Delp <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, August 2, 2020 6:42 AM
To: Pam Johns; Scott Johnson; Steven Banks
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Elaine Andersen; Kelly Mullett Subject: Re: Request to Remove 603 Sutter Street Review from August 5 HDC Agenda CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organiza tion. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

28. Please revise the staff report to identify that the project exceeds the maximum FAR or provide a full explanation and calculations to show that it does not. Absent that, the project does in fact exceed the maximum FAR and requires a variance for that in addition to the other two variances that have been identified. In my comments on the IS/MND I noted that with or without including the balcony area, the project exceeds the 2.0 max FAR. Using information straight out of the City's IS/MND (Table 2), t he property is 7,400 sq ft., the total building area w/o the roof deck is 14,811 sq ft., and the total building area with the roof deck is 18,965 sq ft. 14,811 divided by 7,400 results in a FAR of 2.001 and 18,965 divided by 7,400 results in a FAR of 2.56. Both of these FARs are in excess of the maximum FAR of 2.0, in fact any building area larger than 14,000 sq ft exceeds the 2.0 FAR. The applicant would not expect the City to assert he has exceeded the FAR if he were one square foot under; and nor should the applicant expect that he should be allowed to exceed the FAR by one square foot more without needing a variance. As with the IS/MND, the staff report presents a hypothetical FAR calculation instead of simply presenting a calculation of the actual FAR based on the actual project size. The staff report also states, "City staffs interpretation of the methodology to be used in determining a FAR is to complete the calculation by dividing the leasable area of a proposed building by the area of the site as described in footnote 3." (Footnote 3 is that same hypothetical calculation.) I cannot find anywhere else in any of the documents provided where "leasable area" is mentioned. Even excluding the balconies, the 2.0 max FAR is exceeded. Furthermore, unless the City plans to restrict what portions of the building can be leased (and I see that discussed nowhere in 490+ pages of documentation), then we have every reason to also include the balcony area within the leasable space meaning the FAR is greater than 2.5. If that's the case, then shouldn't the estimated parking requirement also be calculated based on the leasable space - in which case, the City has underestimate the parking requirement and the staff report should be revised to reflect that.) Please clarify.

Bob Delp
916-812-8122
[email protected]

Page 429 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
2 <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Elaine Andersen <[email protected]>; Kelly Mullett <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Request to Remove 603 Sutter Street Review from August 5 HDC Agenda

Continued questions:

Bob Delp
916-812-8122
[email protected]

From: Bob Delp <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, August 1, 2020 9:55 AM
To: Pam Johns <[email protected]>; Scott Johnson <[email protected]>; Steven Banks <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Elaine Andersen <[email protected]>; Kelly Mullett <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Request to Remove 603 Sutter Street Review from August 5 HDC Agenda

Continuation of Questions:

Page 430 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
3 the June IS/MND which states that the HDC hearing will be on July 15. Does the City not have a procedure to keep that information up to date? I know one could argue that people need to track the HDC agenda page, but it really seems unfortunate that a webpage still lists the project with old and incomplete information. Even just adding a note there like "See HDC Aug 5 Agenda for more information" would be a simple step at providing basic current information to the public. The other webpage is accessed by clicking a button "Design Review
Projects"
https://www.folsom.ca.us/community/planning/design_review/default.asp . That page lists several projects but does not include 603 Sutter Street, even though 603 Sutter Street is undergoing design review. Although it's likely much too late to make changes to these webpages in a way that would meaningfully inform the public about a project decision process just days away, but I am interested in understanding the City's procedures for deciding what, where, and when to post information.)

Thank you,
-Bob

Bob Delp
916-812-8122
[email protected]

Page 431 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
4 structures in public right of way. I've asked before, and will ask again now still hoping for a direct answer to this question: Does the HDC have the authority to approve private development of permanent structures on City-owned property?

17. COA 3 discusses the potential for "...subsequent extension of this approval..." Can you please clarify the mechanism for such extension and who would have the authority to authorize it? Can you also clarify whether
the approval termination would be effective immediately on the date cited or if the City would need to take formal action at that point to terminate? Can you also clarify whether such termination would void the variance approvals such that a future applicant would need to reapply for variances even if proposing the same or similar building? (Also, there is a word missing between "two" and "from". I think you mean "years.")

Page 432 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
5 20. COA 7 references "the property." Since a portion of the project will be permanently constructed on City property, can you clarify any payoff or applicable fees that would be associated with development on the City- owned property to be developed by this private project?

Bob Delp
916-812-8122
[email protected]

Thank you, Bob.

Steve, please call Bob directly to address/discuss these initial questions. Thank you

Pam

Page 433 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
6 From: Bob Delp <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2020 12:56 PM
To: Pam Johns <[email protected]>; Elaine Andersen <[email protected]>; Scott Johnson <[email protected]>; Steven Banks <[email protected]>; Kelly Mullett <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: Request to Remove 603 Sutter Street Review from August 5 HDC Agenda

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organiza tion. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Thanks!
-Bob

2. The staff report references apparent applicant-solicited feedback from the community as the mechanism by which the CITY has complied with GP Policy LU 1.1..12-2 (packet pg. 83). However, that GP policy pertains to outreach that is to be conducted by the CITY not an applicant. Can you advise of the outreach the City has done with the community on the current project (i.e., the project that proposes no parking) in compliance with this GP Policy?

Page 434 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
7 6. Aside from spires/towers, can you point me to the section of the zoning code that allows other building features to exceed height limits in the zoning code (e.g., elevator, AC units, etc.)? If there is no such allowance, can you point me to the applicant's request for a variance to allow those features?

10. The staff report reference an IS/MND "public review period July 17, 2020 to August 5, 2020)"? The IS/MND was circulated for 20 days of public review and comment in June 2020. I am aware of not notice or other information regarding the City's extension of the review period. If that was not noticed, can you please amend the staff report to make it clear that the IS/MND was circulated in June for the bare minimum CEQA required circulation period of 20 days, and that responses to comments were only provided when the staff report was released on July 29, five business days before the scheduled hearing? It is important for the record to accurately reflect public input opportunities. If instead, the City does intend to continue the IS/MND review period through August 5, 2020 (no time is given and email comments are allowed, so presumably that means midnight on Aug 5), how can you hold a public hearing at 5pm on Aug 5th?

Page 435 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
8 1. Does the HDC have the authority to approve a project (through issuance of a variance or other mechanism) that does not comply with FMC requirements for motor vehicle parking spaces?

5. Does City staff and/or the HDC have the authority to wave the requirement that an applicant submit a signed application and fee for a variance as required by FMC 17.62.020 and

17.52.370?

8. Does the HDC have the authority to grant a permanent easement for private development of privately owned permanent structures on City-owned property?

9. Does the HDC or any other decision-making body of the City have the authority to grant a permanent easement for the development of privately owned permanent structures on City- owned property without requiring compensation for such easement? Would not such an easement without compensation be an illegal gift of public funds? Does the HDC have the authority to negotiate or wave City financial matters such as this?

11. Does City staff and/or the HDC have the authority to wave the requirement of an applicant to submit a signed and completed Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy Consistency Checklist which is required for any applicant for any project that undergoes environmental review? (https://www.folsom.ca.us/documents/Planning/Folsom_GHG_Reduction_Checklist_F INAL.pdf )

12. Does the HDC have the authority to wave the General Plan’s requirement that the California Green Building Code (Title 24, Part 11) be complied with for developments within the City?

Again, thank you very much for helping facilitate my review of the staff report.

-Bob

Bob Delp
916-812-8122
[email protected]

Page 436 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
9 From: Pam Johns < [email protected] >
Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2020 10:46 AM
To: Bob Delp < [email protected] >; Elaine Andersen < [email protected] >; Scott Johnson <[email protected] >; Steven Banks < [email protected] >; [email protected] <[email protected] >; [email protected] <[email protected] >; [email protected] <[email protected] >; [email protected] <[email protected] >; [email protected] <[email protected] >; [email protected] <[email protected] >; [email protected] <[email protected] >; Kelly Mullett < [email protected] > Subject: RE: Request to Remove 603 Sutter Street Review from August 5 HDC Agenda

Hi Bob.

If you have any specific questions as you are reviewing the staff report and conditions, please feel free to reach out to Steve Banks, Principal Planner at 916-461-6207 or
[email protected] .

Respectfully,

Pam

Pam Johns
Community Development
Director

Community Development Department

50 Natoma Street, Folsom, CA 95630
O: 916.461.6205 | C: 916.764.0106

www.folsom.ca.us

Page 437 ends

Folsom City CouncilOctober 10, 2023

Folsom City Council
October 10, 2023