Agenda packet — Folsom City Council, October 10, 2023 (part 4 of 5)

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
10 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 438 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
1 Desmond Parrington
From: Bob Delp <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, August 1, 2020 6:23 PM
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.

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]

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 439 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
2 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 440 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

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."

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 441 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
4 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 442 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
5 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 443 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
6 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?

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

Page 444 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
7 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?

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?

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?

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

Page 445 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
8 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,

Pam

Pam Johns
Community Development
Director

Page 446 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
9 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.

Sincerely,
-Bob Delp

Bob Delp
916-812-8122
[email protected]

Page 447 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
1 Desmond Parrington
From: Bob Delp <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, August 1, 2020 9:56 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.

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.)

Page 448 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
2 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 449 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
3 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?

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?

Page 450 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
4 Bob Delp
916-812-8122
[email protected]

Thank you, Bob.

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

Pam

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.

Page 451 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
5 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

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 452 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
6 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?

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?

Page 453 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
7 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?

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

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]

Hi Bob.

Page 454 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
8 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,

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

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.

Page 455 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
9 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.

Sincerely,
-Bob Delp

Bob Delp
916-812-8122
[email protected]

Page 456 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
1 Desmond Parrington
From: Catherine O'Mordha <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 3, 2020 12:23 AM
To: Steven Banks; Kelly Mullett
Subject: ZGLOBAL - Sutter Street, Folsom
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.

To whom it may concern,

It has come to my attention that the planners of our fair City of Folsom are considering a new large Sutter Street location for ZGlobal - again . The proposed building not only dwarfs the Historic Folsom Library Building at 605 Sutter, but there is no parking planned to accommodate all the people who will work there. That would present a problem for employees and customers as well as current neighborhood residents and businesses. In addition to that, the location for the proposed garbage bin is completely inconsiderate of those who live in the area. The smell and the bugs that will be inevitably drawn would be miserable to live next to. How would you like a garbage bin collection area set up next to your house? And 50-60+ people vying for parking spaces in your neighborhood? That’s just asking for trouble!

If a large building for ZGLOBAL is that important to Folsom, surely there is a more appropriate location for this comparative monstrosity elsewhere in the city.

Please be careful! We need to be considerate of Sutter Street's current residents and businesses as we move forward with careful growth.

Sincerely,

Catherine O'Mordha
A Folsom Resident, Concerned Citizen and Active Voter

Page 457 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
1 Desmond Parrington
From: Julie Reed <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, August 2, 2020 6:14 PM
To: Steven Banks
Subject: ZGlobal 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.

Hi Steven,
I've been a homeowner in Folsom for 5 years, and Sutter Street is one of my favorite things about this town. I've seen the artist's rendering of the proposed ZGlobal building being considered for the corner of Scott and Sutter streets, and I hope this doesn't become a reality. The building is enormous, and takes away from the special historic library building next door. Folsom is a town that values and celebrates its past, and Sutter Street is a huge part of that. Please don't let this happen! Thanks for your consideration,
--Julie Reed

Page 458 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
1 Desmond Parrington
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, July 31, 2020 10:43 AM
To: Scott Johnson; Steven Banks
Subject: Fwd: Historic District Commission- 603 Sutter St 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.

Pls forward to Commissioners, Thanks, Murray

To : Commissioners
From: Murray Weaver
Re: Proposed mixed uses building , 603 Sutter Street

As a long time business and property owner in the historic district I submit the following comments .

While I support the infill and build out of additional structures in the district I do not think this proposal in its current form is appropriate.Its excessive height is especially unreasonable given it is adjacent to residential neighbors whose privacy and views are negatively impacted. Such a structure will only exacerbate the issues between the residential and commercial entities that are now working together to find common ground in making the district better for all.

A building of this size must provide some reasonable attempt to provide for parking. This could include on site, other sites,

or an "in lieu" arrangement whereby a variance can be granted in return for a cash payment to be determined by a negotiated formula.

Murray Weaver 614 Sutter St, Folsom Ca

Page 459 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
1 Desmond Parrington
From: Bob Delp <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 31, 2020 6:20 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.

Page 460 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
2 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.")

Bob Delp
916-812-8122
[email protected]

Page 461 ends

Thank you, Bob.

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

Pam

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

Page 462 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
4 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 463 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
5 are very important. How can the community provide input for meaningful consideration before a decision is made?

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?

Page 464 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
6 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?

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]

Hi Bob.

Page 465 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
7 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

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.

Page 466 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
8 Sincerely,
-Bob Delp

Bob Delp
916-812-8122
[email protected]

Page 467 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
1 Desmond Parrington
From: Omar itani <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2020 9:20 PM
To: Kelly Mullett; City Clerk Dept; Steven Banks
Subject: 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 Omar Itani, I reside at 1005 Blue Ravine Road , Folsom and work in the Folsom's Historic District. My comment is to support more economic development on Sutter street such as the proposed 603 sutter street . I have read the conprehensive report published on Thursday July 30,2020 and I was impressed with the depth and breadth of the report, however, I see no encouragement or incentive by the city to bring jobs and economic development to the Historic District. The commercial buisnesses on Sutter street can certainly benefit from an increase in measured development and foot traffic. Much of the discussion is on Parking and Height and how the local residence feel about commercial development nearby. I believe the question should be how would a commercial development on a commercially zoned area be incentivized for the betterment of the entire city’s residents and not just the few. Jobs, taxes and economic development benefits the entire city residence.

Thank you

Omar Itani

Page 468 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
1 Desmond Parrington
From: Bob Delp <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2020 9:08 AM
To: Elaine Andersen; Pam Johns; Scott Johnson; Steven Banks; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Kelly Mullett
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.

Sincerely,
-Bob Delp

Bob Delp
916-812-8122
[email protected]

Page 469 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.

July 28, 2020
TO: Historic District Commission
FROM: Loretta Hettinger
RE: 603 Sutter Street
This letter draws on my experience as the City’s staﬀ planner who spent four years with a citizens committee studying what regulation is appropriate , without undue burden, to protect the area that is the heart of Folsom. The resulting regulations have stood the test of time, and the prosperity of the entire Historic District bears powerful witness to the rightness of the regulations.

In evaluating this project against the principles and regulations of the Historic District, I ﬁnd no basis for approval. Besides its modern design, the project overbuilds the site, exacerbates an existing parking problem, and fails in its obligation to lessen its impact on adjacent residential uses.

Former Mayor Glenn Fait and the Heritage Preservation League have each provided letters objecting to this project. I endorse those comments by reference and expand on them further in this letter.

Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Since an environmental assessment’s only purpose is to provide decision makers with information to take into account in considering a project, you are under no obligation to approve a project simply because an IS/MND says its environmental impacts are mitigable. In this case, while it may be technically correct in complying with state law, the IS/MND is marred by ﬂawed inputs, as described below. The non-CEQA impacts are very important in your consideration.

Planning Partners has done their usual thorough job of preparing an environmental assessment that complies with the California Environmental Quality Act. Any assessment’s conclusions, however, are only as good as the standard used to measure a particular impact. Regarding the conclusion that there is no signiﬁcant impact on the adjacent historic library building, the City’s standard used by the consultant is woefully inadequate. Of the 100+ sites identiﬁed in the City’s adopted Historic Preservation Master Plan, only a handful have made it onto the oﬃcial list by being thoroughly documented. The majority of that handful are on the list only because Heritage Preservation League volunteers have done the documentation. Although the library building has not been speciﬁcally documented, there is no doubt of its historic signiﬁcance based on its design, its historical use, and its association with the prominent historic Levy family, any one of which would justify its historic designation. Approving a modern-designed building this large next door would be a regrettable, if not embarrassing, mistake.

The IS/MND also ﬁnds there is no CEQA impact on scenic vistas cited in the General Plan.

This may well be an oversight in the General Plan. The General Plan calls out natural vistas that are signiﬁcant. In a City with Folsom’s rich and diverse history, historic vistas are also important. While this project may not have a CEQA impact, it certainly has a Folsom impact.

For many decades the view up Sutter Street has included a vista of the National Register-listed Cohn Mansion. To interpose a huge modern building on that vista would be another regrettable, if not embarrassing, mistake.

Page 470 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.

Design
The proposed design is modern, not historic, and is suﬃcient reason in itself for denial of the project. The eﬀect of the roof deck, windows, and trash enclosure on the adjacent Figueroa Subarea residential uses is also reason in itself to deny the project.

In connection with the previous submittal of virtually the same design, a Commissioner asked, what is the building’s historic style of architecture. The architect was unable to answer— because it isn’t historic. Perhaps Faux History is the right descriptor. Taking historic elements from multiple historic styles and combining them in new ways is a modern technique, popular in new construction around the region. The goal of Folsom’s Historic District, clearly stated in multiple ways, is to preserve history, not redesign it. New construction needs to be as authentic as today’s materials and needs will allow, not treated as an opportunity for new artistic expression.

The project fails in its requirement to be a good neighbor to residential uses. Both the commercial and the residential uses are supposed to make accommodations. In this case, the lion’s share of the accommodation falls on the residential uses, particularly the nearest home.

Mayor Fait’s and HPL’s letters call out this issue. As you will recall, in discussions of the recent Accessory Dwelling Unit ordinance privacy of adjacent homes was a particular issue. Although the state law re ADU’s forbids the City from considering design in approving ADU’s, the privacy design regulations of Folsom’s ordinance were allowed by the state. The windows and roof deck of a commercial project have a greater impact on privacy than one granny ﬂat. Despite project claims that noisy events will not occur on the roof deck, the design suggests otherwise.

This applicant will not be able to control the actions of future owners/tenants, and so the design itself should shield residents from noise.

Massing
The project overbuilds the site. Its size dwarfs not only the adjacent library building but even the Cohn Mansion. Even the zone’s allowable maximum height could be too much to successfully interface with adjacent historic buildings and residential zoning, depending on design. The City has no obligation to approve the maximum of any standard, much less to exceed it. The height variance should be denied.

Parking
Though not considered a CEQA impact, the parking shortage in this end of Sutter Street is a signiﬁcant impact on both the commercial and residential uses. Until the City adopts a mechanism to provide additional parking, no parking variances should be approved, especially in this block.

The best information on parking is found in the recent report of the citizens ad hoc committee on parking, not in the applicant’s Kimley-Horn report. Based on the City parking studies cited in the ad hoc committee’s report, the buildout shortfall of parking is about 500 spaces. The applicant’s report only describes existing conditions, assuming that the parking currently available at the other end of Sutter Street will continue to be available for this project’s parking needs. Besides the obvious diﬃculty of getting patrons to walk four blocks uphill, the parking available in the structure on Reading Street is largely spoken for, needed to address the parking needs of the existing and already-approved buildings in that end of Sutter Street.

Further, one of the parking lots counted in the applicant’s traﬃc study will be replaced by an already-approved building.

Page 471 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.

Conditions which allowed the granting of parking variances in the past no longer exist. In the past the City was able to assume the burden of providing parking for Sutter Street, intending to use its Redevelopment Agency funding to build several structures. The state abolished all redevelopment agencies in the recession, and the City has not yet identiﬁed any replacement funding. There is no question that the applicant is unable to provide parking on site suﬃcient for a massive building. There is also no question that permitting a new massive building before parking is available for it would be a blow to a District struggling to survive the pandemic’s economic eﬀects and a further blow to a residential area struggling with the current parking shortfall.

This project site also does not meet one of the other rationales used in granting previous parking variances. Due to its location adjacent to existing residences and a commercial building that was formerly a residence and designed as such, there is no reason for this building to be designed as an in-line historic commercial building that by its nature does not provide parking on site. A residential design, perhaps even a residential use, would be appropriate and preferred. It could conceivably then provide its own parking.

Recommendation
Deny the project with ﬁndings that it does not meet design requirements nor required variance ﬁndings.

I would hope that the applicant will return with a design more in keeping with the Historic District’s goals and regulations. The history community does not oppose development as long as it enhances rather than undermines the principles of the Historic District.

Page 472 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
1 Desmond Parrington
From: Jaya Badiga <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 14, 2020 2:32 PM
To: Steven Banks
Subject: re: Public Comment for 8/19 - 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.

Dear Mr. Banks:

I write to request that my comment be read into the record at the 8/19/2020 Historic District Commission meeting.

I oppose the current proposal for 603 Sutter Street for two reasons: 1) the design and proposed use of the building is clearly at odds with the mission of the historic district; 2) the proposal is in violation of city ordinances and requires variances that defeats the purpose of these ordinances.

1) Folsom's historic district offers residents and tourists a chance to connect with their past.

This past is directly tied into
the formation of the city and has many interesting and unique aspects to it. The Historic Preservation League is a non- profit whose mission is to identify, interpret and preserve Folsom's historic sites. The fact that we have an area of town named "historic district" and a commission to protect its viability and interest is measure enough of how seriously our residents approach this issue. The intent of the plan submitted for this building is on the face of it incongruous with that of the historic district. I ask the commission to vote against approving the current project.

2) The variances required for this project to be approved are variances that will set a precedent for future development in this region. There's a reason why there are special provisions in our code regarding the height of buildings in this area. Furthermore, a few blocks away, we have a site on the national registry of historic places, aka, Cohn mansion. Making an exception for this project will result in an exception for others. I request the commission oppose the project as per the current design and planning submissions.

Submitted by Jaya Badiga, Folsom resident

Page 473 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.

August 13, 2020

Page 1 of 2 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 – INSUFFICIENT PROJECT INFORMATION

Dear City of Folsom Staff and Historic District Commissioners:

On August 12, 2020, the City of Folsom distributed an agenda and staff report pertaining to 603 Sutter Street for the August 19, 2020, Historic District Commission (“HDC”) meeting. The staff report recommends approvals and recommends conditions of approval be adopted along with findings required for variances. The staff report also includes an applicant statement dated August 7, 2020, advising the City of changes to the project.

The staff report discusses that “in general, staff is supportive of the proposed modifications” and staff indicates the modifications can be incorporated as conditions of approval. This recommendation alone creates such uncertainty with regard to what the project is now or what the project will be when staff and the HDC are done modifying it through conditions, that it is not possible for the community to understand what is proposed or how to provide meaningful input to the HDC for consideration at the August 19, 2020 hearing.

The ability to understand the project is further complicated by the numerous conditions of approval that have already been recommended by staff, some of which are inconsistent or could conflict with the applicant’s proposed changes and many of which would defer several decisions regarding important design elements to some later time without HDC oversight. Staff’s it-could- be-this, or it-could-be-that, or it-could-be-that-but-then-maybe-modified-by-this approach at presenting the project in the staff report does not meaningfully inform the public’s understanding of the proposal and is insufficient for the HDC’s consideration of a project.

The applicant’s recent modifications are substantial (e.g., adding onsite parking), but the applicant has not submitted site plans, designs, or other essential project information for the modifications. Not only are such plans and information necessary to provide a basis for the HDC’s design review, they are required elements of a design review as specified in the Folsom Municipal Code (“FMC”). Among other things, FMC 17.52.310 requires that, “the applicant shall file the following information with the planning, inspections and permitting director for design review by the historic district commission:

E. Site plan;
F. Building design plans;
G. Material samples and color board; and
H. Other material and information as requested by the commission.”

Page 474 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.

August 13, 2020

Page 2 of 2 ends

In the absence of the above information sufficient to reflect the applicant’s August 7, 2020 requested changes, staff lacked essential information on which to base its recommendation and the HDC has no basis for conducting a public hearing or to otherwise consider design review approvals.

Furthermore, the applicant’s requested changes substantially modify the project as compared to the project described and evaluated in the June 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”). For instance, the changes include the addition of onsite parking, whereas the project evaluated in the IS/MND did not include onsite parking.1 Although no design information has been provided, onsite parking would presumably be in an at-grade or below-grade parking garage under the building that would be accessed from either Sutter Street or Scott Street or perhaps both streets. However, no details were provided, including basic information like where the entrance would be located, what it would look like from adjacent areas, or how the added parking component would affect the overall building design. No consideration of pedestrian, bicycle, or vehicle safety, sight distances, or other factors associated with the parking driveway has been presented either by the applicant or by staff.

For these and other reasons, it is reasonably foreseeable that the applicant’s recent project modifications would have the potential to result in new significant impacts and/or increase the severity of impacts identified in the IS/MND.

Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a stable and finite project description for evaluation of environmental effects. The project as presented in the August 12, 2020 staff report presents conflicting information about the project and does not provide a sufficient or consistent description of the project or the project changes recently requested by the applicant. Once the City understands what the project is, the City must revise the IS/MND to describe and evaluate the proposed project and recirculate the document for public and agency review, prior to making any approval decisions pertaining to the project.

Sincerely,

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

1 The City has also failed to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of offsite parking required by staff- recommended condition of approval 57 – as presented in the July 29, 2020 staff report for the August 5 HDC meeting, and as modified in the August 12, 2020 staff report for the August 19 HDC meeting. It is further noted that although the August 12 staff report states, “Outside of this discussion regarding the applicant's public outreach efforts since the July 15,2020 Historic District Commission meeting, the remainder of the staff report (analysis, recommendation, findings, and conditions of approval) is unchanged since the original staff report from August 5, 2020.” However, at least one condition was, in fact, changed. The City’s failure to evaluate the potential environmental effects of the project, including staff-recommended conditions of approval, and the City’s misleading statement regarding changes to conditions of approval, will be addressed in separate correspondence if the August 19 hearing proceeds.

Page 475 ends

Mr. Alaywan:

Thank you for hosting the virtual meeting last night and for listening to members of the community who had thoughts to share about 603 Sutter Street. As I said last night, I sincerely feel that 603 Sutter Street has the potential to be developed with a pr oject that could be a true gem of the community. I also feel, as others mentioned, that you could be the person to pull that off and play a key role in shaping City decisions to address parking challenges facing the Historic District.

As a cornerstone at the eastern end of the Sutter Street commercial district, a well-planned project at 603 Sutter Street could result in a building that transitions from the commercial district into the residential neighborhood of the 300-600 blocks. Context-sensitive design options would consider the heights and character of surrounding buildings – including the small adjacent historic library immediately to the west and the Cohn Mansion across Scott Street to the east. A lower building, set back from the corner of Sutter and Scott Streets, would lessen the current proposal’s effect on dwarfing the historic library and would provide better views of the Cohn Mansion.

Instead of 50-foot walls at the very edge of the northeast corner of the property, imagine a building with increased setback near Scott Street, even perhaps with a 45-degree angled wall at the corner of Sutter and Scott Streets, with a small café and outdoor seating on a corner patio. The patio would not need to be at street level along Sutter Street, and could be slightly elevated. The patio would offer views of the Cohn Mansion’s historic architecture and landscaped yard, and would have open views to the north down Scott Street. A balcony above such a patio could have even better views and add substantial value to the building. (Instead, the building’s current design would block views of the Cohn Mansion from Sutter Street, and even the proposed outdoor areas on the ground level and upper balconies would essentially only have views directly across Sutter Street to another large commercial building.)

Page 476 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
2 The business economy of our state, the Sacramento area, and right here in Folsom is in a significant transition. Large office buildings are losing their appeal (and economic value) as people become accustom to working from home and working and congregating outdoors. Indoor businesses, including but not just restaurants, are looking for opportunities to use outdoor spaces. Even without these recent trends, Historic Folsom is a magnet for outdoor gathering. If you base profit projections on generic commercial property lease rates for indoor space and pursue a massive cube of a building you will miss a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to do something so much more creative and valuable. It strikes me that you have not fully considered the true economic and social value of a smaller project that would have so much more appeal not just to the community, but to the tenants who would lease space there at top dollar.

A building on 603 Sutter Street will likely be there for generations. You said last night that you want to be a good neighbor, and that you care about the values of Historic Folsom. You also said you’re frustrated with the time it’s taken to have a decision made about your project. If the project in all its potential iterations as currently presented in staff report goes to the HDC on Aug 19, the Commissioners will not have sufficient information to consider the project -- the staff report presents too ma ny variations and not enough detail on any of them for any meaningful or rationale approval decision to be made. For example, one of the most fundamental elements of your request is for the HDC to grant a height variance. Yet last night your architect was unable to answer the very basic question of "how tall will the top structures be?" Even you and you're team aren't sure what it is you’re currently proposing. That’s not a criticism, just a fact that the design process is still ongoing and not ready for a decision.

Please take this opportunity to further consider your project design in a more context-sensitive manner before pushing forward asking for premature City hearings.

Thank you for considering my input.
-Bob Delp
Bob Delp
916-812-8122
[email protected]

Page 477 ends

Where: Zoom Meeting; https://zoom.us/j/91349900604?pwd=TFN4TmlLcGlnN2k2V3pLUk12cGYzZz09; Dial In +16699006833,,91349900604

The applicant for the 603 Sutter Street Mixed-Use Project (Ziad Alaywan of ZGlobal) is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting.

Topic: 603 Sutter Street Outreach Meeting #2

Objective: The project applicant has met with a number of residents and stakeholders regarding the proposed 603 Sutter Project; after these productive discussions, the applicant has proposed a number of changes to the project design to accommodate stakeholder requests and incorporate their suggestions. We feel that these changes are very positive and would like to present them and answer any clarifying questions in regard to the proposed changes.

Please note this is TWO of TWO meetings scheduled. If you cannot make it to Meeting #2, please feel free to attend Meeting #1.

Time: Aug 13, 2020 06:00 PM Pacific Time (US and Canada)

Join Zoom Meeting
https://zoom.us/j/91349900604?pwd=TFN4TmlLcGlnN2k2V3pLUk12cGYzZz09

Meeting ID: 913 4990 0604
Passcode: 910042
One tap mobile
+14086380968,,91349900604# US (San Jose)
+16699006833,,91349900604# US (San Jose)

Dial by your location
+1 408 638 0968 US (San Jose)
+1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose)
+1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma)
+1 346 248 7799 US (Houston)
+1 301 715 8592 US (Germantown)
+1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago)
+1 646 876 9923 US (New York)
Meeting ID: 913 4990 0604
Find your local number: https://zoom.us/u/abWWRXFBhY

Page 478 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
1 Desmond Parrington
From: Siddarth Biyani <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2020 9:16 PM
To: Steven Banks
Subject: Opposition to ZGlobal's Office proposal in Folsom 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.

To,
The Principal Planner,
City of Folsom.

Mr. Steven Banks,

I am a resident of 1550 Iron Point Road, Apt 1911, Folsom, CA. I am writing to you to voice my opposition to the proposed office building by ZGLOBAL, in the middle of Sutter Street.

I have gone over the design proposal, and it has appalled me for the following reasons:

1. This building will have a restaurant on the first (ground) floor, with a food dumpster backed up into a home , which I think is ridiculous.

2. The office will house 40-50 employees of the company, but the building design has no parking space, resulting in them encroaching the parking spaces on Sutter street, at the cost of the local public and local businesses.

3. It has a 3-storied metal fire escape facing Cohn Mansion, a National Historic Site, and the Gem of Old Town. It also has a party deck looking down into the homes on either side. This will be an eye sore and ruin the aesthetic of Folsom's historic district, if approved.

For these reasons, I strongly urge you to reject their proposal in favor of preservation of the history and quality of life in Folsom.

Thanks,
Siddarth Biyani

Page 479 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.

Applicant Public Comments – August 19th, 2020

1 We appreciate the various comments we have received on the 603 Sutter Project.

Most of the comments were very helpful , some favoring the project, others not so much and many having very good suggestions and ideas. My wife , Deborah, and I recently met with several of the neighbors including Mr. Ben Fuentes and Mr. Glenn Fait. My wife also had a productive conversation with Ms. Loretta Hettinger, the current Vice President of the Folsom Heritage Preservation League. The recent meetings and discussions were extremely productive, and in the case of my two next door neighbors, Mr. Fuente s and Mr. Fait, we spent more than two hours at my office discussing concerns and options.

Before I summarize the discussion, I would like to make a few comments and observations:

1. It appears that some comments still refer to the old design done in 2017. I want to reiterate that we reduce d the height by about 7 feet , reduced the building size from 23,486 sq. feet to 14,811 sq. feet and modified the design per the City and other stakeholders’ recommendations.

2. While we live in El Dorado Hills, my wife and I have had significant interaction with the City of Folsom since 1997. We own two houses and 2 lots on Sutter Street in addition to an active business located at 604 Sutter Street. It was my recommendation to the Governor’s office in October of 1996 to select Folsom as the home of the Electric Grid Operator (California ISO). In 1997 I moved to Folsom, hired 250 employees, and started this operation. In fact, Mr. Fait was the City Mayor at that time and was present at the ribbon cutting ceremony for the CAISO in 1998. This organization employs over 600 professionals and manages the electricity for 80% of California. In 2005 I started an engineering company and my engineering business is currently located at 604 Sutter Street. I mention all of this because, unlike some of the perceptions out there, we are not a large corporation or big developer. W e are part of the community and our wish is to be active participants and good citizens of Folsom while giving back to a community that has provided so much to us.

3. We have done our best to incorporate what has been asked of us regarding changes to the last proposal . We are sensitive to community concerns, especially for our neighbors, unfortunately, we will not make everyone happy.

The fact remains that t here are other buildings of the same size, mass, and height close to this site and we believe we are being consistent with the new projects that have been built. We are willing to incorporate some of the ideas the neighbors would like to see and to also take measure s regarding the

Page 480 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.

Applicant Public Comments – August 19th, 2020

2 design of the building that may reduce the illusion of a large mass project. We feel it is vitally important to listen to our neighbor’s suggestions and we are happy to work with them so that we may construct a building that is mutually beneficial to all.

We very much appreciate the suggestions of Mr. Fait , Mr. Fuentes and Ms.

Hettinger, in addition to public comments, and would like to ask the City to consider adopting the following suggestions regarding the conditional permit for the building:

1. The trash enclosure on the south side bordering Mr. Fuente’s house on Scott Street will be removed (if compliant with the City of Folsom Solid Waste) and relocated to the garage area.

2. We will work with Mr. Fuentes to provide options for privacy from the windows on the south side of the building bordering his property.

3. We will enclose the fire escape (brick or other material) making it internal to the building versus exposed as it is now along Scott Street.

4. We will eliminate the roof top deck all together to alleviate neighbor’s concerns regarding parties, noise, and privacy.

5. The third -floor office space will be reduced and pushed back from Sutter Street, providing a setback of at least 6 to 8 feet from Sutter Street, and a portion of Scott Street. This will also reduce the mass of the building and possibly the height.

6. The small rear balcony on the west elevation will be eliminated once the third floor is set back, as the 3 rd floor balcony will only go about a third of the way back. This will create further privacy for Mr. Fuentes to the south.

7. After speaking with Ms. Hettinger from the Folsom H eritage Preservation League and viewing public comments, it is evident that neighbors would like to see more architectural detail from the 1850 – 1900 time period associated with the building. This could easily be achieved through incorporating such elements such as adding foundational river rock to the building along the Sutter Street, adding brick to the sides of the building, adding eyebrow brick detail to windows and adding western elemental details to the roofline fascia.

We feel these small details would preserve the feel of historic Sutter Street , in addition to adding an architectural feel to the building that fits in with the !850 – 1900 time period.

Page 481 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.

Applicant Public Comments – August 19th, 2020

3 We would like to t hank our neighbors for their input in addition to City commissioners, committee members and staff and would like to request that conditional approval, that include these additional 7 items, be granted.

Ziad (Zak) Alaywan

Page 482 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
1 Desmond Parrington
From: Ziad Alaywan <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 10, 2020 9:55 AM
To: Steven Banks
Cc: Deb Alaywan ([email protected])
Subject: FW: [SPAM]RE: proposal changes
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.

Ziad Alaywan
President & CEO, MSc, P.E.

Northern California : 604 Sutter street, Suite 250, Folsom, CA 95630 Southern California : 750 W. Main Street, El Centro, CA 92243 Phone:(916) 985 9461|Cell:(916) 337-0558|
email:
[email protected] ; http://www.zglobal.biz
Mexico: Calz. Justo Sierra N Ext 377 Col Cuauhtemoc Sur CP 212000, Mexicali Baja California, Mexico.

ZG Profile Flipbook : http://online.fliphtml5.com/pevsq/jfpv/

From: Ben Fuentes <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 7, 2020 3:52 PM
To: Ziad Alaywan <[email protected]>
Subject: [SPAM]RE: proposal changes

Ziad,
This letter shows a real commitment by you and your wife to work with the neighborhood and to present a workable plan that will enhance our community. I’m glad you met with Loretta and heard her concerns. She and I worked diligently to put together a working structure of guidelines for the historic district and she has a wealth of knowledge that can be helpful when navigating through the approval process. I forwarded this to Glen and asked him to contact you with his comments. I personally believe that what you covered in this letter is the essence of what we discussed and shows clearly that you are willing to amend your project, be a good neighbor and enhance our community.

Thank you for sending this to me and please contact me any time.

Ben Fuentes

Page 483 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
2 From: Ziad Alaywan < [email protected] >
Sent: Friday, August 7, 2020 1:32 PM
To: Ben Fuentes < [email protected] >; [email protected] Cc: Deb Alaywan ( [email protected] ) < [email protected] > Subject: proposal changes

Glenn and Ben:

Deborah and I appreciate the time and the input you provided.

We are seriously considering adapting all of Ben’s suggestions and most of Glenn as well. Attached is a write up of the proposed changes. We like to ask the city to adopt these changes as a condition for approval on the 19 th . We ask both of
you to review and provide us with any comments you may have before we officially submit it to the city on Monday morning. We also ask that this document not to be circulated to anyone else.

Its important to us to get a conditional approval on the 19 th of August.

I hope you see that we are in fact willing to listen and making changes. We want to be a good neighbor to both of you. Z

Ziad Alaywan
President & CEO, MSc, P.E.

ZG Profile Flipbook : http://online.fliphtml5.com/pevsq/jfpv/

Page 484 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
1 Desmond Parrington
From: Aalhad Rajan Parulekar <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 10, 2020 9:01 AM
To: Steven Banks
Subject: Opposition to ZGlobal's Office proposal in Folsom.

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.

To,
The Principal Planner,
City of Folsom.

Mr. Steven Banks,

I am a resident of 345 Chan Ct, Folsom, CA. I am writing to you to voice my opposition to the proposed office building by ZGLOBAL, in the middle of Sutter Street.

I have gone over the design proposal, and it has appalled me for the following reasons:

1. This building will have a restaurant on the first (ground) floor, with a food dumpster backed up into a home , which I think is ridiculous.

For these reasons, I strongly urge you to reject their proposal in favor of preservation of the history and quality of life in Folsom.

Thank You,
Aalhad Parulekar

Page 485 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
1 Desmond Parrington
From: Laura Fisher <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 6, 2020 9:06 AM
To: Elaine Andersen; Pam Johns; Scott Johnson; Steven Banks; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Kelly Mullett
Subject: Requests for Revised 603 Sutter Street Staff Report 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.

Dear City Staff and Historic District Commissioners,

Last night, the Historic District Commission (HDC) voted to continue the hearing for the 603 Sutter Street project variances and design review to August 19th. Staff told the community the item was being continued to allow additional time for public review. This was not a truthful statement. At least part of the reason that the hearing was moved was because the applicant did not post the notice of the hearing on the proposed development site within f ive days of the hearing as required by Folsom's zoning code. Further, it was very disappointing to hear Commissioner Duewel's comments about whether the postponement was fair to the applicant. What about fairness to the community? We were provided with the staff report on Thursday, July 30th for an August 5th hearing and since the binders/packages for the 8/5 meeting had allegedly been delivered to the Commissioners on Wednesday, July 29th, there was no method for comments related directly to the staff report to be included for Commissioner review.

If the City truly intends to allow additional time for public review, when will the revised staff report be available? If the same timing for the previous report is expected, we are going to be in the same cycle of the community not having sufficient time to review the staff report and missing the opportunity to provide feedback that would be included in the Commissioner's 8/19 meeting binders.

On August 4, 2020, Pam Johns, sent an email to seve ral members of the community, which I received as a HFRA member. Included in that email was a string of correspondence between Pam and a Historic District res ident, Bob Delp. Bob asked several questions raising issues that need to be addressed before the community can p rovide meaningful input. Please answer Bob's questions and give the communit y time to consider those answers before producing a revised staff report .

The City's assessment of the variances requested for the 603 Sutter Street project must actually consi der the effects of the project on my personal health, safety, and welfare. There are already parking problems in the neighborh ood near 603 Sutter Street. The requested variances would make these problems even worse. The staff report sugges ted conditions that are vague and unenforceable and wouldn't address the serious parking issues in our neighborhood a nd the Historic District. Even with the conditions proposed by staff, the req uested parking variance will materially affect my health, safety, and welfare, and will be detrimental to the neighborhood. Please make sure those fact s are stated in the revised staff report and please correct and revise staff's recommended variance findings to ref lect that the City cannot make the findings necessary to approve the parking variance .

Thank you,

Laura Fisher
612 Mormon Street
Folsom

Page 486 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.

August 6, 2020

Mr. Bob Delp
612 Mormon Street
Folsom, CA 95630

Good morning Mr. Delp.

Thank you for your questions and comment s regarding the proposed mixed-use project located at 603 Sutter Street in the Historic District. City staff has provided answers to each of your questions below. The original question you asked is shown in black, with the City response shown in red.

Best regards,

Steve

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

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.")

The Folsom Municipal Code (FMC, Section 17.52.130) provides the Community Development Department Director with the responsibility for scheduling and/or rescheduling projects for the Historic District Commission. In this specific instance, the project applicant requested that their project be continued in order to have more time to respon d to public comments and to provide residents with additional time to review and comment on the proposed project. The Community Development Director determined that the continuation of the project fro m the July 15 th to the August 5th Historic District Commission meeting would be beneficial to all parties involved.

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?

The City has facilitated numerous public outreach efforts regarding the proposed project over the past three years including presenting the project to the Historic District Commission as an information item (September 6, 2017), encouraging the applicant to hold neighborhood meetings (August 2, 2017 through September 6, 2017), requiring the applicant to post a project identification sign on the project site, sending public notices regarding the project to all property owners located within 300 feet of the project, publishing public notices regarding the project in Page 487 10/10/2023 Item No.10.
the Folsom Telegraph, providing project information on the City’s website, and providing project information to the Heritage Preservation League and the Historic Folsom Residents Association.

Discussion regarding the proposed building height is located throughout the staff report.

However, Page Nos. 10, 11, and 12 have a detailed discussion regarding the building height as it related to the Building Height Variance request. In addition, the proposed building elevations (Attachment 9) provide specific details regarding the building height.

The Folsom Municipal Code (FMC, Section 17.58.080 Height Ex ceptions) states that towers, spires, chimneys, machinery, penthouses, scenery lofts, cupolas, water tanks, television antennae, and similar architectural and utility structures and necessary mechanical appurtenances may be built and used to a height not more than 25 feet above the height limit established for the district. However, as you stated, the Folsom Municipal Code (FMC, Section 17.52.510 C) also states that towers, spires, or other similar architectural features may extend up to 15 feet above the building height. The City would implement the more restrictive requirement of 15 feet for this project. It is important to note that the propose d project does not have any architectural features that would extend more than 15 feet above the building height.

The applicant’s Variance Statement Letter (Attachment 18) discusses the request for a Building Height Variance to allow a maximum building height of 50 feet 6 inches. If the Historic District Commission approves the Building Height Variance, the maximum allowable building height will be established at 50 feet 6 inches. The Folsom Municipal Code (FMC, Section 17.52.510 C) permits architectural features to extend up to 15 feet above the building height. In this specific case, architectural features would be allowed to extend up to 15 feet above the 50 -foot 6-inch building 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 un its, etc.)? If there is no such allowance, can you point me to the applicant's request for a variance to allow those features?

Page 488 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.

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 th e 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?

Prior to submittal of the subject development application to the City on May 3, 2017, the City and the p roject applicant engaged in many discussions regarding the required entitlements for the proposed project including the request for approval of Design Review, a Building Height Variance, and a Parking Variance. During those discussions, the applicant verb ally provided City staff with details regarding the unique circumstances associated with the subject property that required obtaining approval of the two variances. On June 23, 2020, the applicant formalized the request for the two variances in a letter p rovided to the City. The applicant provided an updated letter (Attachment 18) regarding the variance requests on July 7, 2020.

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 statemen t? (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 statement provided thus far.)

On June 23, 2020, the applicant formalized the request for the Building Height Variance and Parking Variance in a letter provided to the City. The applicant provided an updated letter (Attachment 18) regarding the two variance requests on July 7, 2020. The Table of Contents within the staff report correctly identifies the date of the variance request letter as July 7, 2020.

Unfortunately, the cover sheet for the variance request letter was not updated and incorrectly lists June 23, 2019 as the date of the letter.

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 c ommunity provide input for meaningful consideration before a decision is made?

City staff has made the determination that there are unique circumstances specific to the project site including but not limited to topography. The public and residents will have the opportunity to voice their opinion regarding this determination to the Historic District Commission at the August 5th meeting.

Page 489 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.

The initial review period for public comment regarding the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration was fr om June 11, 2020 to June 30, 2020. When the City made the decision to continue the project from the July 15, 2020 Historic District Commission meeting to the August 5, 2020 Historic District Commission, a new public review period was provided which runs from July 17, 2020 to August 5, 2020. Separate public notices regarding each of the aforementioned comment periods were provided to all residents located within 300 feet of the subject property. Public notices were also published in the Folsom Telegraph f or each of the comment periods. In addition, public notices were provided to the Heritage Preservation League (HPL) and the Historic Folsom Residents Association (HFRA) for each comment period. The City will accept public input on the Initial Study and M itigated Negative Declaration up until 5:00 p.m. on August 5, 2020, which is the close of the business day for the City. In addition, public input can be provided at the Historic District Commission meeting which begins at 5:00 p.m. on August 5, 2020.

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.

The City solicited feedback from the State Department of Parks and Recreation (Jim Michaels) regarding the proposed project but did not receive any response. The Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration considered potential visual impacts that the project may have on adjacent and nearby properties including State Park lands and determined that there would be no significant impacts. Figure 10a and 10b on Page No. 28 of the IS/MND shows a view from the Folsom Lake SRA/Powerhouse property towards the subject property with and without the proposed mixed-use building. As you can see in the aforementioned figures, the proposed building is barely visible from the State property and would not pose any visual impacts. As discussed in the staff report, a traffic study was prepared for the proposed project that indicates there is sufficient parking in the Historic District to accommodate the parking demand created by the project. In addition, conditions of approval have been placed on the project (including providing 16 off-site parking spaces) to address parking impacts associated w ith the proposed project.

Page 490 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
a. 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?

b. 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?

The Folsom Municipal Code (FMC, Section 17.52.370 Variance Review) states that the Historic District Commission has the final authority relating to applications for variances from any of the provisions of the Folsom Municipal Code within the boundaries of the Historic District. The Folsom Municipal Code and General Plan do not have any requirements to provide electric vehicle parking spaces or charging stations.

c. 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 requiremen ts for bicycle parking, including General Plan Policy M 4.2.2?

The project is required to provide bicycle parking spaces as dictated by the Folsom Municipal Code (FMC Section 17.57.090 Bicycle Parking Facilities). In addition, there are two sets of existing bicycle parking spaces located within the public right -of-way along Sutter Street.

d. Does the HDC have the authority to approve a project (through issuance of a variance or other mechanism) that does not meet th e 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?

The project is not providing any on -site parking spaces , thus it is not required to provide any accessible parking spaces on the project site. The project is required to provide 16 off- site parking spaces and will be required to meet all accessibility requirements for that specific parking area.

e. 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?

The applicant submitted a signed Development Application Form and associated application fees for the Variances and Design Review to the City on May 3, 2017.

f. 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?

Page 491 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.

The City has determined that the applicant submitted all required information for the project including but not limited to a signed Development Application Form, agent authorization form, environmental information form, application fees, title report, radius map, mailing list, mailing envelopes, site plans, building elevation plans, grading and utility plans, landscape plans, color and materials board, project narrative, and variance statement

g. 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?

The project is not requesting nor is it required to obtain an easement. The project is required to obtain an encroachment permit from the City for construction work conducted in the public right-of-way and the project is also required to enter into an encroachment agreement for private improvements constructed in the public right-of-way.

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

i. 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?

j. 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?

The Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for the proposed project is 2.0, consistent with the requirements of the General Plan.

k. 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?

The Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project determined that, with mitigation measures, the proposed project would be considered consistent with the City of Folsom General Plan, including the GHG Strategy. In addition, the proposed project is a mixed-use infill project located near transit service that is consistent with all applicable

Page 492 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
provisions of the Ozone Attainment Plan, the 2035 Metropolitan Transportation Plan, and the Sacramento Region Preferred Blueprint Scenario adopted by SMAQMD and SACOG.

l. Does the City 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?

The City is not waiving any requirements with respect to building permit requirements. The project is subject to all building code requirements including the California Green Building Code requirements.

13. Condition of approval (COA) 1 states that the project must be developed to conform w ith 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?

This is a standard condition of approval. The purpose in referencing the July 30, 2019 Traffic Impact Study in Condition No. 1 is the fact that the Study included a number of recommendations that are included as conditions of approval for the project.

14. COA 1 also references that the project must b e 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 st aff 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 C ity 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?

This is a standard condition of approval. The purpose in referencing the Project Narrative in Condition No. 1 is that it provides insight into the intent of the proposed development from the applicant’s perspective which might not be apparent in reviewing the submitted development plans.

15. 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."

This is a standard condition of approval placed on all development projects in the City. The two variance requests are documented in the staff report, conditions of approval, and submitted plans.

Staff is satisfied with this condition as currently written.

16. 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 tak e 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 493 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.

This is a standard condition of approval. The Folsom Municipal Code (FMC, Section 17.52.350) states that the Historic District Commission may extend an approval for an additional one y ear upon receipt of a written request accompanied by a fee. The request for approval of an extension must be received by the City 60 days prior to the expiration of the original approval. The termination of the approval would take effect immediately if the applicant decided not to request an extension. In other words, the approval would be set to expire on August 5, 2022. The variances are specific to the proposed project, they could not be transferred to another project.

17. 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?

This is a standard condition of approval. The project applicant is responsible for all costs associated with defending the project. Staff is satisfied with this condition as currently written.

18. 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?

This is a standard condition of approval. A copy of Resolution No. 2634 is included as an attachment. The intent of the condition is that the applicant is responsible to comply with, implement, and fund all mitigation measures.

19. 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?

This is a standard condition of approval. Staff is satisfied with this condition as currently written.

20. 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?

These are standard conditions of approval. Staff is satisfied with this condition as currently written.

21. COA 10 states, "unless exempt by previous agreement." Is there a "previous agr eement" 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 m uch 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?

Page 494 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.

This is a standard condition of approval. Staff is satisfied with this condition as currently written.

The 90-day protest period begins the date that the project is approved by the Historic District Commission.

22. COA 12 references "the property." Since a portion of the project will be permanently constructed on Ci ty 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?

This is a standard condition of approval. Staff is satisfied with this condition as currently written.

23. 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.)

The “Current Planning Project Under Review” portion of the City’s website is intended to provide the public with information on significant development proposals that will be acted on by the Historic District Commission, Planning Commission, and City Council. The “Design Review Projects” portion of the City’s website is intended to show projects that are subject to Staff level review and approval such as residential remodels, residential additions, and new custom homes. The City makes every attempt to keep this information as up to date as possible.

24. In 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?

Page 495 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.

As you may be aware, the Historic District Parking Solutions Ad Hoc Committee engaged in a year-long process of evaluating parking concerns within the Historic District and providing recommended solutions to address those concerns regarding parking. Residents of the Historic District participated in many, if not all the Ad Hoc Committee meetings and provided valuable insight into parking concerns and potential solutions to parking issues within the Historic District. As written in the staff report, staff determined that with inclusion of the applicable recommendations of the Ad Hoc Committee and additional conditions of approval placed on the project by City staff relative to parking, that the proposed project would not materially affect people living and working in the neighborhood.

25. 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?

City staff has identified a number of potential off-site parking options located within 500 feet of the project site including another undeveloped property owned by the project applicant , an existing parking lot owned by the Eagles Lodge, and an existing parking lot owned by the Moose Lodge.

26. 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 1 1 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 hear ing 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?

The Folsom Municipal Code (FMC, Section 17.62.030 and FMC, Section 17.52.329) provides details on specific public noticing procedures for Variance requests and for Des ign Review requests. City policy over the past twenty years has been to require development projects to meet the more stringent public noticing requirements when multiple entitlements are requested.

In this case, the public noticing requirements for a Va riance are more stringent than the public noticing requirements for Design Review in that the noticing requirements for a Variance require mailing public notices to all property owners located within 300 feet of the subject site and publishing the public notice in a local newspaper. That being said, City staff will be noticing the proposed project for the August 19, 2020 Historic District Commission meeting in accordance with the noticing requirements for both the Variance request and the Design Review request.

27. 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 inf ormation straight out of the City's IS/MND (Table 2), the property is 7,400 sq ft., the total building area w/o the roof deck is

Page 496 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
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 ins tead 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.

The Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for the proposed project is 2.0, consistent with the requirements of the General Plan. The Floor Area Ratio was determined by dividing the floor area (14,811 square feet) of the proposed building by the area of the parcel (7,400 square feet), which resulted in a Floor Area Calculation 2.0 (2.0014 rounded down to 2.0).

28. Regarding COA 56 (parking -related measures), can you please confirm that the City will hav e the legal ability to enforce the parking-related conditions? It appears as those the staff report and the granting of a variance could inadvertently completely undermine the City's ability to enforce any of the parking conditions, most importantly includ ing the requirement for the owner to participate in a parking benefit district. As the overall entitlement process is currently structured, it seems that the developer could just go along with the conditions without making a legally enforceable commitment, receive his entitlements, and then when it eventually comes time to comply with conditions (like contributing funding for a parking garage), he'll be able to argue that the City's evaluation failed to identify a nexus between the project and the parking -related conditions of approval, and the City will be unable to enforce the conditions. First, the HDC is being asked to grant a parking variance - if that variance is granted, the City is effectively giving the developer the right to build the project without providing any parking (that's the whole point of the variance). Second, the staff report states a few times that the parking analysis concludes that there is sufficient existing parking to accommodate the project. That statement could completely undermine any future nexus argument the City might ultimately make when trying to enforce parking-related conditions. Without a development agreement or some other legally enforceable commitment, it's extremely unlikely the City will be able to require the developer to pay anything toward a parking garage in the future. Would staff's approval recommendation in the staff report provide a mechanism to ensure a legally enforceable commitment of the applicable/developer to pay what could amount to hundreds of th ousands of dollars toward a parking garage and does the HDC have the authority to approve that? Also, can you please amend the condition to clarify what is meant by "participate fully in the … mechanism"? If what staff means is "The applicant/owner shall pay forty-three (43) times the amount of any per-stall fee that may be established within the next 10 years through any City adopted parking fee program; including and agreeing that such payment could be in excess of $1,000,000.00 Page 497 10/10/2023 Item No.10.
(example: $25,000/stall x 43 stalls)" then the condition should specifically state that to make it very clear to the applicant what his funding contribution might consist of.

City staff has reviewed Condition of Approval No. 56 and is satisfied that the City has the legal authority to implement and enforce this condition as currently written.

Page 498 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.

August 5, 2020

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

THE FOLLOWING IS PROVIDED TO BE READ INTO THE RECORD DURING THE CITIZEN COMMUNICATION PORTION OF THE AUGUST 5, 2020, HISTORIC

DISTRICT COMMISSION MEETING

Historic District Commissioners:

My name is Bob Delp and I live at 612 Mormon Street in Folsom’s Historic District. During the past several weeks, I’ve asked City planning staff many questions about the City’s development application review processes and the applicability of various provisions in the Folsom Municipal Code. Answers to these questions are critical for me and others in the community to understand how staff conducts its review process and how staff arrives at its recommendations to City decisionmakers. Staff have been engaged and I appreciate their efforts, but my questions have not been answered.

Without a clear understanding of the process, and without staff’s consistent adherence to a standard process, it is impossible for me and others in the community to fully understand when and how we can provide input on important projects. If standard practices aren’t followed, and if full and complete information about a project isn’t available to the community, then we are denied the opportunity to provide meaningful input.

This is especially important for projects that require variances from the City’s zoning ordinance. The community should have confidence that staff will give very strong deference to the City’s zoning code requirements. Any property owner has the right to request variances, but the City’s granting of variances should be rare and must be limited to truly exceptional or extraordinary circumstances.

Furthermore, regardless of the circumstances, variances cannot be granted if their granting would materially affect the health, safety, or welfare of neighbors or neighboring properties. To assess such effects, the community must be engaged early and throughout a project review. If not, staff and your Commission will not have essential information on which to base your findings about the community’s welfare.

My comments tonight are to encourage you to do what you can as commissioners to ensure that projects are not brought before you for a decision until they are processed in full compliance with procedures consistent with City General Plan policies and the Folsom Municipal Code. Thank you.

Page 499 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.

August 4, 2020
TO: Historic District Commission
FROM: Tony Powers, 1002 Natoma Street, Folsom
RE: 603 Sutter Street

I have read the letters from former Mayor, Glenn Fait, and Loretta Hettinger objecting to this project. I agree with and endorse their comprehensive arguments against approval of this project. In this letter, I will expand on just two points: the off‐street parking requirement waiver and the maximum height waiver.

First, the parking. While I agree, in concept, that excessive off‐street parking requirements are detrimental to the character and even existence of walkable communities such as our historic district, that doesn’t mean that completely eliminating parking requirements for a single project within that district is a good idea. According to the staff report, this project creates demand of up to 76 spaces within Zone 1 of the historic district, as defined in the K‐H study, which currently has a total of 177 on‐ and off‐street spaces. The report then goes on to note that the total historic district peak demand for parking is only 55‐60% of the 801‐space capacity. Hence there are currently about 320 available spaces in the district. This project would take 24% of those available spaces. Note that these numbers do not include anticipated future demand, which the report says will exceed the current capacity. So, approval of this project would exacerbate an anticipated future shortage of parking in the district. But more importantly, what the staff report analysis ignores – and the parking studies never address – is the current and future demand for parking within Zone 1. The proposed project would create demand for 43% of the existing spaces in Zone 1. The parking study indicates current overall excess capacity of 40‐ 45% in the whole district, but most of that is in the parking garage at the very far opposite end of the district. So the excess capacity in Zone 1, if there is any, must be far less than the 43% demand that this project would put on it. And, as Mr. Fair indicated, it is rather fanciful to assume that the vast majority of people parking for this project would park at the extreme far end of the district.

The staff report goes on to propose a requirement for the project to provide 16 of the 76 spaces (or 43 required by the MC) off site through agreement with another property owner within one block (500 feet). One might wonder where the developer would find such property owner. The only conceivable properties with that kind of space are the FOE and Moose lodges. Don’t they have their own parking requirements?
Second, I would like to discuss the height variance. The developer argues that because the site is difficult to build upon, they should be allowed to exceed the maximum height allowed by over 40%. Not just a little bit, but a whole extra story of building, and then not provide any parking for the larger building. My question is: why is it our (the people of Folsom’s) responsibility to absorb the aesthetic and parking costs of propping up the economic value of a low‐value piece of property? It’s a very difficult site to build on.

Did they not notice that before purchasing it? Might they have learned something from the old library next store, which perches neatly on top of the hill?

Page 500 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.

I find it astounding that the staff report states, “Unfortunately, the addition of an underground garage would increase the building height by approximately five feet, which was initially opposed by residents in the vicinity of the project site and would increase the Height Variance request.” Just how far can the cart get in front of the horse? By this logic, if the City required, say, 32 spaces on site, then the variance would have to go up yet another 15 feet (to about 60 feet) to accommodate the parking? Did anyone consider the possibility that the building is just too big for the site? The process seems to be: 1) design the largest box you can set on the property (ignoring setbacks in the first proposal), 2) add one more story than the code allows, 3) eliminate all on‐site parking, and then claim hardship because the extra underground story will be expensive. The aforementioned quote also implies, that were it not for residents objecting to a building 40% taller than allowed, the height variance would be automatic, just because they asked.

Finally, with regards to the “continuous façade of shops along the street” and the determination “that infill projects are a critical means for preservation of the historic character and authenticity found on Sutter Street and that this also constitutes a special circumstance specific to the project site.” This all conveniently ignores the very local context of the proposed project. The fact is that there is not a continuous façade of shops on the south side of the 600 block, and there cannot be because of the historic library. This site is the very end of the commercial district, so this is the least valuable place in the entire district for a continuation of the façade of shops on the street. The continuous façade needs to end somewhere, and the proposed project provides no transition to the adjacent residential district.

Until 607 Sutter was built, there were no buildings taller than two stories on the south side of the block, and the old library provided a nice transition from the continuous façade to the residential district. The 607 building upset that by putting the tallest building on the highest lot, and the proposed project would do the same thing,
dramatically violating
any sense of order or
transition (as seen in the
adjacent rendering from
the staff report). We
should learn from the
building across the
street, which is also way
too big for the location,
but at least not on the
same side as adjacent
homes. The view from
the other end of the
block (not included in
the staff report) would
show this much more
dramatically.

More importantly, perhaps, the local context seems to be completely forgotten. I have copied a second rendering from the staff report below – in which the panoramic view distorts the relative sizes of the three buildings, making the historic library look larger than it is and the two adjacent buildings smaller –

Page 501 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
and even with the friendly distortion, it shows that the architecture and massing of the historic library are totally out of context of the two adjacent buildings. Please pardon the sarcasm, but, as noted in the staff report, General Plan Goal LU1.1.12‐1 (Infill Development) states: “Respect the local context: New development should improve the character and connectivity of the neighborhood in which it occurs.

Physical design should respond to the scale and features of the surrounding community. while improving critical elements such as transparency and permeability.”

The response to this in the staff report makes no mention of the most local of contexts, the historic library. Instead, it emphasizes all the other new buildings that got height (and parking) variances. Such as here:

The 600‐block of Sutter Street where the building is proposed includes a variety of one, two, and three‐story commercial buildings. Two of the three‐story buildings in the block near the proposed site were constructed in the last 15 years and exceed the 35 foot height limit: the Fire and Rain building (42 feet tall) and the Folsom Electric Building (42to57 feet tall). Further to the west along Sutter Street, the Historic Folsom Station project (not yet developed) was approved for buildings that range from 19 to 48 feet in height.

And here:

As described above, the project site is located within an area that is predominantly commercial in nature. The proposed project is also situated within the Sutter Street Subarea, an area in which the most intensive commercial development within the Historic District is located including restaurants, bars, retail shops, and offices. The proposed three‐story mixed‐use building is compatible with existing land uses, building massing and scale with other commercial and mixed use buildings long Sutter Street in the project vicinity.

Two full paragraphs describing how the proposed building fits in with the character and massing of other (mostly new or not even built) buildings throughout the district, but not one mention of the historic building immediately adjacent.

Clearly, this does not meet the intent of “fitting in” to the historic context of the district.

I urge you not to approve this project with the proposed variances.

Page 502 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.

August 17, 2020

Page 1 of 2 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]

SUBJECT: 603 SUTTER STREET – FAILURE TO POST REQUIRED HEARING NOTICES

Dear City of Folsom Staff and Historic District Commissioners:

A hearing notice in accordance with the Folsom Municipal Code (“FMC”) for the Historic District Commission (“HDC”) August 19, 2020 hearing regarding 603 Sutter Street has not been posted at the project site. Proceeding with a hearing on August 19 in the absence of required noticing would deny required opportunity for public knowledge of the hearing and deny opportunity for public input.

Furthermore, according to City staff, City “policy” regarding noticing has for apparently the past 20 years failed to provide required noticing for certain projects resulting in the likelihood that City hearings on previously approved project also failed to provide required opportunities for public input. These failures and baseless interpretation of the FMC when no such interpretation is warranted must be remedied.

Required Hearing Notice as not been Posted
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 looked at the parcel every day during the past three weeks including most recently as of 9:45 a.m. this morning (just 2 days prior to the August 19th hearing), and notice(s) that comply with FMC 17.52.320 have not been posted at any time during that period. Therefore, a hearing regarding the project may not be lawfully held on August 19 and must be postponed.

Staff Acknowledges Twenty Years of Insufficient Noticing When the required notice was not posted in advance of the previously scheduled August 5, 2020 HDC meeting, I advised staff of this failure. City staff replied with the following:

The Folsom Municipal Code (FMC, Section 17.62.030 and FMC, Section 17.52.329[sic]) provides details on specific public noticing procedures for Variance requests and for Design Review requests. City policy over the past twenty years has been to require development projects to meet the more stringent public noticing requirements when multiple entitlements are requested. In this case, the public noticing requirements for a Variance are more stringent than the public noticing requirements for Design Review in that the noticing requirements for a Variance require mailing public notices to all property owners located within 300 feet of the subject site and publishing the public notice in a local newspaper. That being said, City staff will be noticing the proposed project for the August 19, 2020 Historic District Commission meeting in accordance with the noticing requirements for both the Variance request and the Design Review request. (Steve Banks, August 6, 2020, pg. 10, resp. to item 26) (emphasis added) Staff’s statements above include at least two very concerning points. First, staff suggests that for 20 years, the City has been failing to ensure that hearing notices are posted on a project site as required by the FMC. This pattern of past practices is directly relevant to the matter of the 603 Sutter Street project,

Page 503 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.

August 17, 2020

Page 2 of 2 ends

since it implies that many of the previously approved projects that went through HDC design review and were granted height and/or parking variances also may have failed to posted hearing notices in compliance with the FMC.

Page 15 ends

projects in the Historic District that were approved with variances and design review within the past 20 years. Based on staff’s input quoted above, it is very likely that the City failed to ensure that hearing notices for these projects were properly posted in accordance with FMC 17.52.320. This is not simply a matter of water under the bridge. Staff presents this list of projects in the August 12 staff report apparently as support for staff’s (flawed) rationale in concluding a parking variance should be granted for the 603 Sutter Street project. The City’s process and staff’s insertion of discretion in enforcing or choosing to not enforce sections of the FMC when no such discretion is warranted is alarming.

Furthermore, staff’s baseless assertion that somehow City staff are able to determine which method of required hearing noticing is “more stringent” is ludicrous. To the extent that the FMC specifies differing hearing notice requirements for various types of approval, then when a combination of approvals/entitlements are sought during one hearing, that hearing must be noticed using the combination of all applicable notice requirements for each of the individual approvals/entitlements. Staff has no basis for determining that one method of notification is “more stringent” than another and not basis for waiving or ignoring other noticing requirements.

Before proceeding with scheduling any future hearings for 603 Sutter Street, the City must ensure that all opportunities for public awareness and input are properly implemented. I have previously commented that the required 300-foot notice mailing list appears to have excluded certain properties that are in fact within 300 feet of the site. A staff report for any hearing by the HDC should clearly document and provide evidence that ALL FMC noticing requirements have been complied with.

Also, any staff reliance on past variance/design review approvals for commercial projects in the Historic District must be considered in light of the apparent fact that hearings for such approvals may have not been properly noticed and that the community was therefore denied due process in those approval processes. Thus, any staff-asserted or staff-implied applicability of those previous approvals in recommending variance approvals for 603 Sutter Street must be rejected.

Sincerely,

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

Page 504 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.

August 16, 2020

Page 1 of 1 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]

SUBJECT: 603 SUTTER STREET – IMPROPER DEFERRAL OF HISTORIC RESOURCES IMPACT EVALUATION – SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

Dear City of Folsom Staff and Historic District Commissioners:

Please find attached for the record excerpts of two City of Folsom documents identifying historic resources relevant for consideration associated with evaluations that must be conducted for the proposed 603 Sutter Street project.

Pages 10-11 and 10-12 of the City of Folsom General Plan 2035 Draft Environmental Impact Report containing Table 10-1, “Significant Historic Built Environment Resources in the 2035 Plan Evaluation Area”

Page 11 ends

Street”1 containing Table 1, “Cultural Resources within 200 feet of Identified by Records Search” This information is provided to supplement information regarding insufficient consideration and evaluation of historic resource and properties as addressed in Delp August 15, 2020 comment letter “Improper Deferral of Historic Resources Impact Evaluation.” Sincerely,

Bob Delp
612 Mormon Street
Folsom, CA 95630
[email protected]
Enclosures
Pages 10-11 and 10-12 of the City of Folsom General Plan 2035 Draft Environmental Impact Report containing Table 10-1, “Significant Historic Built Environment Resources in the 2035 Plan Evaluation Area”

Page 11 ends

containing Table 1, “Cultural Resources within 200 feet of Identified by Records Search”

1 See Delp August 15, 2020, letter regarding Improper Deferral of Historic Resources Evaluation, for discussion of the incorrect property addresses.

Page 505 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.

Cultural Resources
City of Folsom 10-11 2035 General Plan Update March 2018 Draft PEIR Table 10-1 Significant Historic Built Environment Resources in the 2035 Plan Evaluation Area # Primary/Trinomial Resource Name Address Register 1 P-34-479/ CA-SAC-452-H Former Jacob Broder Ranch Complex Location Vicinity of Blue Ravine Road and Green Valley Road N/A 2 P-34-507/CA-SAC-480 Folsom Train Depot 200 Wool Street NRHP/HRI 3 P-34-461/ CA-SAC-434-H Natomas Ditch System, Blue Ravine Segment Off Blue Ravine Road NRHP 4 P-34-3898 Coloma Road-Nimbus Dam Along Nimbus Dam Road, north of Hwy 50 SHL 5 P-34-2339 Folsom Powerhouse West bank of American River, in Folsom Lake State Recreation Area NRHP/ SHL 6 P-34-3895 Folsom-Overland Pony Express Route Not Available SHL 7 Not Available Terminal of CA's First Passenger RR Not Available SHL 8 P-34-956 Cohn House 305 Scott Street NRHP 9 Not Available Railroad Section Gang Foreman’s Residence 815 Oakdale Street NRHP 10 P-34-439/ CA-SAC-412-H Ashland Freight Station 200 Wool Street NRHP 11 N/A Rainbow Bridge (Bridge #24C-67) Greenback Lane over the American River NRHP/ CA Bridge Inventory 12 P-34-2331 Chung Wah Cemetery Mormon Street vicinity, near Lake Natoma NRHP 13 N/A Orangevale Avenue Bridge 6615 Orangevale Avenue Eligible for CRHR 14 N/A Historic Railroad Alignment 7000 Baldwin Dam Road Eligible for CRHR 15 N/A Various Historic Residences 600, 700, and 800 blocks of Figueroa Street Eligible for CRHR 16 N/A Saint John the Baptist Church 100 Natoma Street Eligible for CRHR 17 N/A Odd Fellows and Mason Cemeteries Within Lakeside Memorial Lawn Cemetery Eligible for CRHR 18 N/A Eucalyptus and Olive Grove 13417 Folsom Boulevard Eligible for CRHR 19 N/A Chinese Diggings Not Available Eligible for NRHP 20 N/A Murer House 1121 Folsom Boulevard Eligible for NRHP 21 N/A Folsom Dam and Powerplant 7794 Folsom Dam Road Eligible for NRHP, Listed on CRHR 22 N/A Folsom Dam Power Substation 7794 Folsom Dam Road Eligible for NRHP, Listed on CRHR 23 N/A Murer Gas Station 701 Sutter Street Eligible for NRHP, Listed on CRHR 24 N/A Negro Bar Negro Bar Recreation Area CPHI SAC-017 25 N/A Young Wo Cemetery Natoma Street near Sutter Street Eligible for CRHR 26 P-34-009, 008/CA-SAC-308-H Folsom Mining District Not Available Eligible for NRHP

Page 506 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.

Cultural Resources
2035 General Plan Update 10-12 City of Folsom Draft PEIR March 2018 Table 10-1 Significant Historic Built Environment Resources in the 2035 Plan Evaluation Area # Primary/Trinomial Resource Name Address Register 27 P-34-335/ CA-SAC/308-H Folsom Mining District Not Available Eligible for NRHP, CRHR 28 P-34-453/CA-SAC-426-H Townsite, Folsom Chinatown Not Available Eligible for NRHP, CRHR 29 P-34-455/CA-SAC-428-H Sacramento Valley Railroad Not Available Eligible for NRHP, CRHR 30 P-34-2262 Natoma Diggings Not Available Eligible for NRHP 31 P-34-2269 Natomas/Colorado-Pacific Dredge tailings Mississippi Bar Contributor to District eligible for the NRHP, Listed on the CRHP 32 P-34-2276/CA-SAC-308-H Natoma Ground Sluice Diggings Not Available Eligible for the NRHP/HRI 33 N/A Natoma Ground Sluice Diggings, water conveyance Eligible for NRHP 34 P-34-3873 Prairie City Townsite Not Available SHL 35 N/A Folsom Prison Historic District Folsom Prison Recommended eligible for NRHP, CRHR Note: SHL = State Historic Landmark Source: National Register of Historic Places, 2011; California Register of Historical Resources, 2011; City of Folsom Cultural Resources Inventory, 2007. KNOWN PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES IN THE 2035 PLAN EVALUATION AREA According to the records searches performed by the consulting team, there are no known paleontological resources in the 2035 Plan Evaluation Area (UCB 2018). A review of known paleontological resources sites in Sacramento County confirmed that the Modesto-Riverbank, Mehrten, and Ione formations located within the 2035 Plan Evaluation Area may be considered to be sensitive for the presence of paleontological resources. 10.1.2 REGULATORY SETTING The following regulations of federal, state, and local agencies govern various aspects of cultural and paleontological resources. These regulations are summarized below and discussed in detail in Appendix C. FEDERAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Section 106 The NHPA is a federal law created to require that federal agencies take into account the effects of their actions on historic properties before carrying out those actions. The NHPA includes regulations that apply specifically to federal land-holding agencies, but also includes regulations (Section 106) that pertain to all projects funded, permitted, or approved by any federal agency that have the potential to affect historical and cultural resources.

Page 507 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.

C ULTURAL RESOURCES S TUDY
M ARCH 2017
510 S UTTER S TREET AND 605 S UTTER S TREET PROPERTIES

S ACRAMENTO COUNTY , C ALIFORNIA
P:\SAC1701\Cultural Resources Study\SAC1701_Final_CRStudy.docx (03/27/17) 11 This study included a complete inventory of historic-period built environment resources associated with the Folsom Historic District as well as conducted a Phase II Investigation. The study identified the Folsom mining historic district and nine historic-period resources that lie within or partially within 200 feet of the project site, including the original location of the Folsom Library building located immediately adjacent the property on 605 Sutter Street (APN 070-0111-010-0000). Records of these resources are on file at the NCIC. Table 1 summarizes these resources.

Table 1: Cultural Resources within 200 feet Identified by Records Search Resource
Identifier Resource Type Resource Description
P-34-000335/
CA-S
AC-308H
Historic District Folsom Mining
P-34-000439/
CA-S
AC-412H
Historic Site Sacramento, Placer, and Nevada Railroad: Hinkle Creek Park Segment
P-34-000456/
CA-S
AC-429H
Historic Site Remnants associated with Folsom hydroelectric power system
P-34-005119 Historic Site Folsom State Prison Railroad
P-34-000936 1899 Historic Residence 505 Leidesdorff
P-34-000956 1895 Historic Residence Philip Cohn House
P-34-000957 1866 Historic Residence James Burnham Home
P-34-000958 1915 Historic Building Folsom Library
P-34-000959 1895 Historic Residence Donnelly Home
P-34-000960 1940 Historic Building Folsom Post Office

4. 1.2 Consultation and Outreach
Native American Heritage Commission. On March 1, 2017, LSA sent a letter describing the Project with maps depicting the properties to the NAHC in Sacramento asking the Commission to review their Sacred Lands File (SLF) for any Native American cultural resources that had the potential to be affected by the Project. Also requested were the names of Native Americans who might have information or concerns about the Project. On March 23, 2017, the NAHC responded in an emailed letter dated March 8, 2017, that review of the Sacred Lands File failed to indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources within the immediate project area. In their response, they also provided a list of Native American contacts (Appendix B).

Folsom Historical Society. On March 13, 2017, LSA sent an email to the Folsom Historical Society asking for any information or concerns regarding the two properties (Appendix C). No response has been received to date.

4.1.3 Field Survey
On March 4, 2017, LSA Archaeologist Mariko Falke conducted an intensive pedestrian survey of the project site. The survey consisted of transects spaced no more than 10 meters apart over the entire site.

Page 508 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.

August 16, 2020

Page 1 of 1 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]

SUBJECT: 603 SUTTER STREET – MODIFIED APPLICATION REQUIRED FOR ONSITE

PARKING

Dear City of Folsom Staff and Historic District Commissioners:

Please immediately notify the public that the August 19, 2020 hearing regarding 603 Sutter Street will not be held and that the hearing will be postponed, consistent with the information presented in the staff report for the August 19, 2020 hearing. The August 12, 2020 staff report for the August 19, 2020 hearing clearly identifies that the applicant recently modified the project to include on-site parking. The staff report also clearly, and appropriately, notes that for on-site parking to be considered as part of the project, the hearing must be postponed to allow for modifications to the application prior to any action/decision. Thus, a hearing cannot be held on August 19.

Page 4 ends

The following is a list of modifications proposed by the applicant for consideration by the Historic District Commission:

1. An approximately 15 space underground parking structure will be included as part of the project at the 603 Sutter Street location.

Page 23 ends

If the Commission prefers the on-site parking option, the project would need to be continued to allow for modifications to the application prior to any action/decision.

It is unclear why staff would publish a staff report and schedule a public hearing while, in that very same staff report, staff advises that a public hearing cannot be held until such time as the application is modified to incorporate changes that have, in fact, been made by the applicant. The City must require the applicant to submit a complete application to incorporate applicant changes prior to proceeding further with project review.

Please stop this nonsense, and put an end to the premature scheduling of hearings for this project.

Sincerely,

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

Page 509 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.

August 16, 2020

Page 1 of 2 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]

SUBJECT: 603 SUTTER STREET – DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION REVIEW

Dear City of Folsom Staff and Historic District Commissioners:

As a Trustee agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and as a neighboring land management agency in accordance with the City General Plan, the City must ensure that California State Department of Parks and Recreation (“State Parks”) is provided sufficient opportunity to consider and provide input to the City regarding any concerns or recommendations State Parks may have regarding the project as currently proposed. 1 This letter is to reiterate my previous request that records of City correspondence with State Parks regarding the City’s solicitation of State Parks input on the 603 Sutter Street project be provided for public review and for the HDC’s consideration prior to an approval decision regarding the project.

On June 23, 2020, I requested that City staff provide input regarding the City’s coordination with State Parks for State Parks’ review and input on the proposed 603 Sutter Street development project per City General Plan policies. In response, staff advised that “[t]he City solicited feedback from the State Department of Parks and Recreation (Jim Michaels) regarding the proposed project but did not receive any response.” (June 27, 2020 Banks email response to Delp June 23, 2020 email re: 603 Sutter Street – Request for Information.) Staff provided no information regarding when or how such solicitation was made.

On July 30, 2020 following the July 29, 2020 publication of a staff report for 603 Sutter Street for the then-scheduled August 5, 2020 HDC meeting, I asked and noted the following of staff, 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.
(Delp July 30, 2020, email to Banks et al)
Mr. Banks’ response, provided in a letter dated August 6, 2020, was to repeat his June 27 response that “The City solicited feedback from the State Department of Parks and Recreation (Jim Michaels) regarding the proposed project but did not receive any response.” Mr. Banks continued in his response to summarize certain information in the June 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”), although the information he summarized was irrelevant to my questions pertaining to State

1 City staff did not file the June 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”) with the State Clearinghouse (“SCH”). A role of the SCH is to receive and distribute environmental documents to relevant state agencies for review. Thus, had City staff simply filed the IS/MND with SCH, SCH would have provided the IS/MND to State Parks and State Parks would have had the opportunity to review and comment. City staff has provided no explanation for why the IS/MND was not filed with SCH.

Page 510 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.

August 16, 2020

Page 2 of 2 ends

Parks coordination and provided no further information regarding any actual coordination with State Parks.

State Parks oversees and manages important recreational and historic resources in the vicinity of 603 Sutter Street and from which the 603 Sutter Street property and buildings that may be constructed on the property would be visible. Development on 603 Sutter Street could adversely affect views from important recreation and historic resources managed by State Parks, could adversely affect the character and context of historical resources managed by State Parks, and could place additional parking demand pressures on and near parking areas that are important for public access to lands and historic resources managed by State Parks.

As a Trustee agency under CEQA and as a neighboring land management agency in accordance with the City General Plan, the City must ensure that State Parks has sufficient opportunity to consider and provide input to the City regarding any concerns or recommendations State Parks may have regarding the project as currently proposed.

Since staff have yet to provide any documentation regarding when or how any notification, opportunity comment, or any other coordination with State Parks was conducted. Thus, it is impossible to know whether State Parks has been given a meaningful opportunity to provide input on the currently proposed project. Furthermore, given the site address errors in certain project-related documents2, if a similar error was made in providing the correct address during whatever coordination with State Parks has occurred, then State Parks would not have had sufficient information on which to provide input to the City. It is important for the record that documentation of the City’s coordination with State Parks be presented to the public and to the HDC prior to an approval decision regarding this project.

It is entirely reasonable to expect the staff report to include records of correspondence with State Parks regarding the 603 Sutter Street project. The HDC must ensure that such records are provided and that commissioners have reviewed and confirmed that appropriate coordination with State Parks has been conducted prior to any decisions regarding the project.

Sincerely,

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

2 The LSA 2017 cultural resources report used as a reference document in the IS/MND and title reports submitted with the original 2017 applicant both identify incorrect addressees for the site. If a similar error and/or incorrect or insufficient information was otherwise provided to State Parks, then State Parks would not have had sufficient information on which to provide input to the City.

Page 511 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
1 Desmond Parrington
From: Marilu Craig <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2020 3:25 PM
To: Steven Banks
Subject: Massive building on 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.

Really?
8/15/2020
Saturday

Mr. Banks,
Would like his read into the public record.

If we don’t have enough problems on a regular business in the residential Historic Neighborhood, with the building of this monstrosity on the corner of Sutter and Scott Street.

This area borders as a defining point in a neighborhood with recognized treasured buildings. Now we are facing our neighbors: Ben Fuentes, with garbage pick up. Which mean days like today at over a hundred degrees will ripen and flavor the air with putrid garbage smell.

Across the street we take pride in seeing Glenn Fait’s home, well over a hundred years in the making and this proposed structure that does not fit the criteria as being historic in any sense of the word, puts a blight on the investment, ambiance and history of Sutter Street and especially for the historic residential district.

NO PARKING!
Really.

No parking included in the plan and that means that the burden of their parking will be incumbent to every street, home, and walkway in the historic district. Where is the parking going to be. Where is the plan to say that it doesn’t infringe on our peace,
privacy and the investment we have made on our properties that will definitely affect the amount of what it is we will be able to 8/15/2020recognize on the real estate market.

This will not be an unusual situation, we as residents have been fighting this, requesting, petitioning and gathering under the banner of fair play for all of us as residents, without any recognition. Now this! This building is an atrocity to us as neighbors, citizens, as investors in home and property and preservationists of the history of Folsom.

I am diametrically opposed 100% to this building ever seeing the light of day.

You are putting money, pressure and greed before the real fact of what we want as citizens of the historic residential district.

Jobekah Trotta
402 Figueroa Street
Folsom, Ca.

Sent from
Mail for Windows 10

Page 512 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.

August 15, 2020

Page 1 of 2 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]

SUBJECT: 603 SUTTER STREET – IMPROPER DEFERRAL OF HISTORIC RESOURCES

IMPACT EVALUATION

Dear City of Folsom Staff and Historic District Commissioners:

The June 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”) for the proposed 603 Sutter Street development fails to consider the potential for significant effects of the project on adjacent historic resources, and must be revised to include such evaluation prior to the HDC’s consideration of project approval. Furthermore, the August 12, 2020 staff report prepared for the August 19, 2020 Historic District Commission (“HDC”) hearing regarding 603 Sutter Street improperly defers evaluation of potential impacts to historic resources.

The LSA March 2017 “Cultural Resources Study” for “510 Sutter Street and 605 Sutter Street” (neither of which addresses is the project site address of 603 Sutter Street) is the sole supporting reference document for cultural/historical resource considerations in the IS/MND. The LSA 2017 mistaken address references, alone, should have been sufficient for the City to require that the report be corrected. 1 Yet, the City has not required that correction and instead has inconsistently used the report as a supporting document yet also elected to silently exclude relevant information from the report when preparing the IS/MND.2
LSA 2017 identifies several historic properties in the vicinity of 603 Sutter Street, including the Folsom Library (identified as Resource P-34-00958, 1915 Historic Building, Folsom Library in LSA Table 1) and the Philip Cohn House (identified as Resource P-34-000956, 1895 Historic Residence, Philip Cohn House in LSA Table 1), as well as eight other historic resources including Historic District, Historic Site, Historic Buildings, and Historic Residences within just 200 feet of 603 Sutter Street, yet the specific locations of those resources are not identified in the report. Furthermore, although LSA 2017 lists these ten resources, LSA 2017 “findings” regarding project impacts to these resources are made with absolutely no analysis or evidence. The report simply states, “The Folsom mining historic district and nine historic period resources are within 200 feet of the project site. Project implementation will not impact any of these cultural resources.” This is not simply a summary in the report – this is the ONLY information in

1 The incorrect addresses were also used in an outreach email from LSA to the Heritage Preservation League in 2017 requesting Heritage Preservation League input on the project but providing inaccurate information regarding the location of the project. The effect on meaningful input from the Heritage Preservation League is unknown, and nowhere is that substantive error addressed by the City. 2 Instead of listing the 10 historic resources identified in the 2017 LSA report, the IS/MND makes a vague reference to a 2014 City list of resources and says none are present near the project. In fact, the IS/MND makes NO reference to the LSA report’s list of 10 resources within 200 feet, blatantly obscuring relevant information. (The LSA 2017 report is referenced in the IS/MND was not published with the IS/MND under the auspice of confidential information. On request, the City provided a version of the report which redacted all records of historical properties.)

Page 513 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.

August 15, 2020

Page 2 of 2 ends

the report pertaining to potential impacts on the 10 historic resources. The LSA 2017 conclusion is entirely barren of any attempt at evaluating and disclosing impacts of the project on these resources.3 The scale and size of the proposed project, in any of its variations currently proposed, would substantially alter the character of the area, would diminish the value, and would have the potential to significantly adversely affect the character of adjacent historic structures and properties and the Historic District.

Page 11 ends

hearing packet) notes that the Heritage Preservation League provided comments to the City on June 19, 2020, of which comments as summarized by the City requested that, “the IS/MND evaluate how changes in visual quality could adversely affect nearby historic buildings.”4 The City’s response to this issue states, “the question of adverse effects of the project on the historic quality of the Historic District will be considered by the Historic District Commission in its review of the project design.” (Response to Comments, pg. 11; HDC packet pg. 480)
The City’s response fails to provide any evaluation of potential impacts to historic resources in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and improperly defers consideration of such effect to an HDC hearing. The IS/MND must be revised to provide a meaningful evaluation of the project’s potential to result in an adverse change in the character of the Historic District and the potential for the project to adversely affect the historic properties and buildings in proximity to the project site.

Substantial evidence exists in the administrative record indicating community and expert input presenting fair arguments that the project could result in the potential to adversely affect the historic character and historic resources within the project area.5 To comply with CEQA, the City must conduct a meaningful evaluation of such potential effects and present that evaluation and conclusions in a CEQA document prior to any project approval decisions. Such evaluation must be produced and circulated for review and comment, and cannot be deferred to mere consideration at an HDC hearing as suggested by staff.

Sincerely,

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

3 As noted in separate comments, Bob Delp August 13, 2020, letter re: “603 Sutter Street – Insufficient Project Information,” the actual project design is unclear due to substantial design variations presented in the August 12, 2020 staff report. Nevertheless, all variations currently under consideration include a building over 50 feet in height and consuming a large portion of the 603 property.
4 The Heritage Preservation League’s June 19, 2020 comments appear to have been omitted from the August 19, 2020 HDC hearing packet. The comments must be included in the body of information made available to the public prior to an HDC hearing and must also be included for consideration by the HDC. This omission substantially obscures relevant information for the HDC’s consideration of the project. Nevertheless, the City’s summary of the Heritage Preservation League’s comment is sufficient for consideration of the issues presented in this letter. 5 Delp, June 23, 2020; Heritage Preservation League, June, 24, 2020; Heritage Preservation League, June 19, 2020; Pharis, June 26, 2020; Delp, June 29, 2020; Shaw, et al (60-plus), June 29, 2020; Hettinger, July 28, 2020; Ferreira- Pro, July 27, 2020; Historic Folsom Residents Association, July 30, 2020; Reed, August 2, 2020; Miller, August 2, 2020; O’Mordha, August 3, 2020; Long, August 3, 2020; Getz, August 3, 2020; Corbett, August 3, 2020; Pruden, August 4, 2020; Bottallo, August 4, 2020; Powers, August 4, 2020; Parulekar, August 10, 2020.

Page 514 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
1 Desmond Parrington
From: Kevin Thompson <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2020 2:13 PM
To: Kelly Mullett
Subject: 603 Sutter St.

Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
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.

Kelly,
I am a local resident at 414 Mormon St. I have a two fold concern about this development at 603 Su er St. The ﬁrst concern has to do with variances that are being considered for thIs project. Speciﬁcally, height and parking variances.

The mere fact that these are being considered is troubling to me.

I ﬁnished two signiﬁcant permi ed projects at my home approximately a year ago. I had to make unfavorable and inconvenient changes to my project based on parking requirements and height restricons. Parking space in front of my house and in the driveway, enough for four cars, was not considered acceptable parking and I was required to provide parking access from the alley into my backyard while the main home project was underway. A3er the ﬁrst project for my home was completed, the second project in the rear was an ADU that was limited in height. Two addional feet would have made a huge diﬀerence in living space with nine foot ceilings and increased water ﬂow from the roof due to increased pitch. Neither of these rule changes were allowed to be considered. Rules are rules so I didn’t whine about it at the me but the fact that these are among the variances being considered at 603 Su er St. is troubling. The apparent double standard does not sit well with me. That is my ﬁrst concern.

The second concern is the most obvious and egregious and it has to do with parking. Not requiring on-site parking to sustain the proposed building makes no sense. The lack of dedicated parking will directly aﬀect other businesses, local residents and cizens looking for parking to enjoy the old town area.

These variances being given consideraon sends a bad message suggesng that residents play by a stricter set of rules than commercial occupancies and favorism is at play in the City of Folsom.

Please carry forward my concerns also shared by so many other Folsom residents.

Respec:ully,
Kevin Thompson
414 Mormon St.

Folsom

Sent from Kevin’s phone

Page 515 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.

To: Folsom City Clerk, manager, lawyer, city council persons From: LJ Laurent
August 18, 2020

Re: 603 Sutter St. Improper process, creation of two Zoning laws, two zoning bodies, two Variance laws, two Variance bodies. Willful exclusion of due process, Circulations, and incorrect information sent to Sacramento County Assessor's Office

One legal issue is primary to me: In goring &/or negating all State Govt Code rules and claiming Folsom can have TWO separate Zoning Laws, and TWO separate VARIANCE Laws – each with its own “enforcers” Folsom has erred. By city creating a tiny subsection of Title 17 FMC, it has in fact created a SECOND Planning & Zoning body -- which is Illegal. It has also created a SECOND Variance Board which hardly anyone knows about -- and which is not legal as well.

One city gets ONLY one Zoning & Planning Title, or Law Chapter. This has created a number of bad problems. Worst of these is the "separate city" called HD has been run by its own rules, resulting in conditions dangerous and wrong. Such conditions include LACK of Fire and Emergency access, proper FMC Commercial Sized Streets, and a warren of tiny un-serviceable tiny roadways.

This has an intended consequence of ignoring FMC Street Standards and Commercial Zoning District Section of FMC Title 17 Zoning.

It also has apparent intended consequence of enabling city to convince its elected council that City Engineer Certifications are NOT required in this separate "city" with no sense or safety.

It also resulted in Folsom failing to have its own resident City Engineer Inspect & Approve all Parcel changes, such as Zoning.

It is for this exact reason the Sacramento County Assessor shows the 603 Sutter St. Parcel as "Historic District." But HD is NOT a legal ZONE -- it refers to Additional requirements which an HD commission is NOT legally empowered to legislate [CA Govt Code].

No city can have two Zoning Boards or two separate Zoning Maps or a General Plan which shows an illegal Overlay as if it were a binding "zoning designation."

All "Commercial Zone" parcels in Folsom are controlled, regulated, and must abide by Title 17 Requirements for sense, fairness, value, separation of incompatible land usages. This principal of separation of uses is the Foundation of Zoning law in this country.

Page 516 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.

Previously yesterday I submitted to you evidence from Sacramento County Assessor that this PARCEL is NOT involved in any Planning Process, and this PARCEL is Zoned "Historic District." HD is NOT A ZONE apart from city FMC Zoning Map. The General Plan was never altered for this PARCEL to make it COMMERCIAL.

MAJOR LEGAL PROBLEM: If this property was legally Rezoned as a Legal Parcel in the last decade, Assessor would NOT TAX this parcel as residential -- but as COMMERCIAL, with a commercial evaluation. Once a legitimate Zoning is made to a denser usage with higher dollar value, it must be taxed as Commercial.

If 603 was subject to Planning Dept Application in 2017 as shown currently in documents, then Assessor would have Listed it as in "planning process." Assessor would have relied upon a city to "self-police" itself by providing a City Engineer's Certification & Seal.

If real property owners can NOT depend upon Folsom and City Engineer to obey all laws contained in California Govt Code and Folsom Municipal Code, and Charter, then something is deliberately done wrong.

For all County residents, showing two separate Zoning and Variance Laws and bodies -- it means they are deprived of traveling pavement consistent with Folsom Commercial and Arterial Street Laws and Engineered Standards. All county residents are deprived of a right to RELY upon Folsom obeying all Street, property, Fire Codes, and Commercial Code restrictions. This leads to chaos and diminution of everyone's property values. Moreover, it causes all County residents and all adjoining county residents to endure the same 1850 sized 18 Eighteen foot wide city "roads", when they are acting as many-county Arterial streets. To deprive anyone of the Protection of Law and Safety in this manner is wrong and to some, criminal in nature.

There are methods to force Folsom CA elected officials and employees to cease operating TWO separate Zoning laws [Titles] and TWO separate, totally UNEQUAL Variance law sections.

City council and their top staff were put on notice formally yesterday. The sole response received was from Mayor.

If everyone thinks this will just continue as it has, be advised once again, it is a bad idea to cheat tax collector or value Assessor. It is wrong to make the entire multi-county area tolerate unsafe three county access "streets" and 19 century tiny bridge as a major tri-county connector approached by tiny old two lane Riley Street. It is wrong to close down sole 9 foot wide two lanes for private gain, when buildings are old & dry.

No one benefits when a renegade city leader decides to create a Second and quite illegal Zoning Title with its own separate Second Variance hearing

Page 517 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
board. Overlays ADD more protection. Overlays are NOT a legal vehicle to CANCEL the FMC Title 17 entirely -- especially by very quietly creating a Commercial or Multi-use zone on property now Assessed and shown as "something else." That something else is a second Zoning Title -- which is NOT legal.

This is all about gaining dollar value from property which is NOT properly treated by FMC Commercial Zone. All HD actions of this ilk have made some people quite rich, but made the entire Sacramento area and County RE Tax Payers suffer and lose Protection of Law, and properly sized "streets."

For anyone doubting this was/is purposefully done, just consult the online version of FMC Zoning Title 17, with the Print Edition which I have guarded for this purpose. Please note Title 17 NO LONGER has Title description, Purpose, and now omits Title 17.00; begins with subsection 17.02 "Definitions."

https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Folsom/#!/Folsom17/Folsom1702.html#17. 02 PROBLEM: Did anyone ever bother to read Title 17 carefully? In Title 17 17.02 the first section Definitions
https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Folsom/#!/Folsom17/Folsom1702.html#17.

02.010
There IS NO DEFINITION of any such Zoning Designation as Mixed Usage. Who cares if it is buried elsewhere in the non-binding 17.52 HD language? It does NOT exist in Title 17 Definitions.

When Bob Blaser was City Engineer/Public Works Director, Every single legal item was spelled out in detail and with the authority of his Engineer's License. Now it's all muck, and there are actually two conflicting zoning and variance laws in Folsom CA. That's what happens when a mayor sidelines the City Engineer & PW Director to ensure things go "differently." All of Bob's Depositions, Reports, and Weekly Engineers Notes to city council exist in paper form.

Commercial Zone FMC 17.22.010

17.22.010 Purpose.

The commercial land use zones established in this chapter are designed to promote and protect the public health, safety, and general welfare.

Page 518 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.

C. To accommodate a variety of transportation modes which may access the commercial sites in a manner to achieve business and community goals, including congestion management and parking.

Folsom HD is an OVERLAY, NOT a SECOND city ZONE Authority separate from the FMC Zoning Chapter with Different Administration and in Direct VIOLATION of FMC Commercial Zoning Laws.

Overlay zoning is a regulatory tool whereby a special zoning district is created and placed over an existing base zone(s). The overlay zone identifies special provisions in addition to (or instead of) those in the underlying base zone.

Folsom Municipal Code 17.52.370
THIS title is Chapter 17, NOT the OVERLAY which imposes ADDITIONAL/extra requirements on top of ZONING Law Title 17.

For doubters, consult the California Enabling Legislation on Zoning. Please note TITLE SEVEN = the entire Chapter of CODE. In case of Folsom the governing Title is Title 17, NOT a tiny subsection which imposes Additional requirements.

GOVERNMENT CODE - GOV
TITLE 7. PLANNING AND LAND USE [65000 - 66499.58]

Folsom Chapter 17 is Title 17. ** see below for proof.

Folsom Municipal Code TItle 17 is the ENTIRE ZONING & PLANNING TITLE. Adding section to make Historic District overlay is NOT contemplated to create a Separate and Different set of Zoning Designations by PARCEL Number. Nor is any HD small subsection given the power to REVERSE and Overwrite Title 17

17.52.370 Variance review.

A. The historic district commission shall have final authority relating to application for variances from any of the provisions of this title, within the boundaries of the historic district.

B. In acting upon applications for variances, the historic district commission shall adhere to the procedural requirements set forth in Chapter 17.62, except for matters of appeal, which shall be governed by this chapter. (Ord. 890 § 2 (part), 1998)

Page 519 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.

STANDARDS FOR GRANTING OF VARIANCE REVIEW. FMC 17.62.020

17.62.020 Application and fee.

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;

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) According to Sacramento County RE Property Assessor, this property is Zoned "Historic District".

It IS NOT Zoned Commercial in city of Folsom. Folsom city law Super-cedes any Historic District overlay of MORE stringent standards.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?law Code=GOV&sectionNum=65900.

GOVERNMENT CODE - GOV
TITLE 7. PLANNING AND LAND USE [65000 - 66499.58]
( Heading of Title 7 amended by Stats. 1974, Ch. 1536. )

Page 520 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.

DIVISION 1. PLANNING AND ZONING [65000 - 66301]
( Heading of Division 1 added by Stats. 1974, Ch. 1536. )

CHAPTER 4. Zoning Regulations [65800 - 65912]
( Chapter 4 repealed and added by Stats. 1965, Ch. 1880. )

ARTICLE 3. Administration [65900 - 65909.5]
( Article 3 added by Stats. 1965, Ch. 1880. )

65900.

The legislative body of a city or county may, by ordinance, create and establish either a board of zoning adjustment, or the office of zoning administrator or both.

No city ever has the Right to Create TWO Zoning Authorities within one city. No city has the Right to create TWO different Variance bodies either.

https://www.folsom.ca.us/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=59704.14&BlobID=3 9277
Staff report contains an alleged Environmental Document which is full of STRIKE OUTS, and fails to address Comments and concerns of Abutting owners.

This glowing picture presentation makes NO mention of tiny roadways, lack of access, Raw sewage issues, and has NO City Engineer Approval.

It is NOT consistent with Folsom Street Standards, CA Fire Code, et al.

Detailed information regarding the project's General Plan land use designation, zoning, adjacent land uses, site characteristics, and applicable codes is described below.

GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION HF (Historic Folsom Mixed-Use) No Title 17 Definition, it doesn't exist.

ZONING SUT/HD (Sutter Street Subarea of the Commercial Primary Area) No such Commercial Rezone is known to Assessor, nor defined in Title 17 Definitions..

ADJACENT LAND USES/ZONING Sutter Street with Commercial Development (SUT/HD) Beyond Single-Family Residential Development (SUT/HD) with Peddlers Lane Beyond Scott Street with Single Family Residential Development (SUT/HD) Beyond Commercial Development (SUT/H D) with Riley Street Beyond North South East: West:

Page 521 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.

SITE CHARACTERISTICS The undeveloped 0.17-acre project site, which slopes steeply downward from south to north, is vegetated with bamboo, vinca, non-native grasses, and22 trees including 17 native oak trees. The Sutter Street frontage includes a short retaining wall, curb, gutter, sidewalk, landscape planter, streetlights, and three onstreet parking spaces. The Scott Street frontage includes curb, gutter, and a landscape planter.

SEVENTEEN Native Oaks, protected allegedly by city law, Since 2017, NO applications nor hearings were held to protect these precious heritage Oak Trees – as city intends.

APPLICABLE CODES

FMC Section 17.52 HD, Title 17 has a Commercial Zone which MUST APPLY.... AND be reported to Sacramento County Assessor with Planning Notification.

Historic District FMC Section 17.52.300. Design Review This is SOLE domain of HD group, to recommend Additional legal protections to Title Commercial Protections..

FMC Section 17.52.510, Sutter Street Subarea Special Use and Design Standards FMC Section 17.52.370, Variance Review No city is given legal Right to create a SECOND VARIANCE Hearing group,
__________________________________________

from staff report
Variance Findings (Parking) **applying to the land, building or use referred to in the application, which circumstances or conditions do not apply generally to other land, buildings, andlor uses in the district; That the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant; 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.

Comment:** the “special circumstances” are to make money even if this gem with 17 heritage Oak trees is demolished.

Note ** Title = chapter just to show “this title” is still called “Chapter 17.” THE ADOPTED CHARTER OF THE CITY OF FOLSOM. +. Title 1 GENERAL PROVISIONS ... Title 5 BUSINESS LICENSES AND REGULATIONS. – ... Title 17 ZONING. – DISPOSITION ... City Website:
https://www.folsom.ca.us. City Telephone: ...

https://planning-org-uploaded-media.s3.amazonaws.com/document/PLD-Land- Use-Law-Cases-2019.pdf

Page 522 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.

Folsom "HD" report -- try making sense of 549 pages which are obfuscating the lack of Legal Enablement to have TWO Zoning Laws and TWO separate Variance laws.
https://www.folsom.ca.us/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=59704.14&BlobID=3 9277

_____________________________________________________________ FIRST NOTIFICATION to City of Folsom was sent to city officials yesterday, entire email text appears, but Assessor's Page and 603 Sutter COMMER BUILDING Neg Dec would not transfer

To: Folsom city manager, lawyer,
distribute to planning dept. staff and city council members From: LJ Laurent
August 17, 2020

Re: Misrepresentation of Parcel Designation, applicable laws & due process

City Manager, it is now clear to me why your city contract specifies your will be protected for all allegations, investigations, etc., whether civil or criminal in nature. To wit: Folsom is proceeding with an improper Land Rezone and Variations of the most offense nature to adjoining, abutting, facing, and neighboring homes and properties.

Property 603 Sutter St.

Issues: Folsom city has online documents for a COMMERCIAL building requiring REZONING, VARIATIONS without cause for ZERO on site parking, Height above legal limit, No Public Hearings, for MAJOR REZONE or UN- ALLOWED Variances from Folsom Municipal Code law governing/controlling Granting of Variances Standards. This is NOT Commercial Parcel, nor is there a hardship -- as Sacramento County Assessor's Records prove beyond a shadow of doubt.

Governing California State law cited prohibits, NOT allows such action without FULL Municipal Code Process for Re-Zoning from Residential to Dense Commercial [or "mixed uses] and Code laws governing When HARDSHIPs are found to exist.

NEVER did city of Folsom conduct proper public hearings for EACH and EVERY single Parcel Number by APN, for the ENTIRETY of the CURRENT ZONING Designation.

Page 523 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.

As clearly indicated by Sacramento County Records, this property has NO planning actions pending, it has a very low residential Evaluation, and Folsom had the gaul to give it the Zoning Designation on this particular parcel of Historic District.

HD is an OVERLAY plan which was NEVER VETTED for specific uses. It may have been added to FMC as if it were a Zoning Law and Variance Law, but the HD Plan is NOT a legal Zoning nor a Variance-granting tool. It is a suggested Overlay.

Previously you were sent my Research Report dealing with California State Laws governing Real Property Usages, as restricted by CA Government Code.

Zoning on this Parcel is still "Historic District" and that is NOT LEGALLY binding according to Folsom and State laws.

By terms of city's own "overlay plan" Individual Parcels WERE NOT subject to Initial Study, EIR EIS, Public Notices; nor were any HD overlay Parcels REZONED. Nor can a city have two separate Zoning and Variance Laws, pursuant to State Law
prohibition. https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Folsom/html/Folsom17/F olsom1752.html#17.52.150

FYI: Overlay Zones. An overlay zone is a defined geographic area shown on the zoning map where special additional requirements apply in addition to the underlying base zoning district requirements.

Instead of protecting HD residents and occupants, you have harmed them by erasing the UNDERLYING Purpose of Zoning EACH PARCEL Legally.

This shall be reported immediately to Sacramento County Assessor's Office, as they are a co-regulating body for all ZONING CHANGES, Plans, impacts. Cheating the taxman is not a good idea. See Govt Code below.

MAPS: Folsom General Plan Map and Folsom Zoning Map are NOT AVAILABLE ONLINE. Please remedy this, and improper use of Zoning OVERLAY Plans as if they were actual LAWs approved by residents, agencies, and general public. 603 Sutter is NOT ZONED for extremely dense, too tall, NO parking giant Commercial or actually OFFICE building.

If you wish this NOT to proceed further to California law

Page 524 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
enforcement agencies, remove this bogus Land Development Proposal from city agenda for August 19, 2020.

If city council does not require city staff to abide by local, state, and federal laws, this will go far further to a final resolution.

RESPONSE REQUESTED, Madam Manager, Prior to another bogus hearing on a REZONING & VARIANCE actions which are NOT done according to law.

ONLINE at Sacramento County Assessor's Page: shows Zoning Designated “historic district” which does not exist.

Initial Study and Negative Declaration glossy document for COMMERCIAL Zoning with Commercial Building in Description,

PARCEL is how ZONING is accomplished – with Engineer's Seal and Notices to all parties, and Newspaper ads, letters to neighbors, and critically it informs the County TAX
ASSESSOR'S Office.

PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE - PRC
DIVISION 13. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY [21000 - 21189.57]
( Division 13 added by Stats. 1970, Ch. 1433. )

CHAPTER 2.6. General [21080 - 21098]
( Chapter 2.6 added by Stats. 1972, Ch. 1154. )
21083.3.
(a) If a parcel has been zoned to accommodate a particular density of development or has been designated in a community plan to accommodate a particular density of development and an environmental impact report was certified for that zoning or planning action, the application of this division to the approval of any subdivision map or other project that is consistent with the zoning or community plan shall be limited to effects upon the environment which are peculiar to the parcel or

Page 525 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
to the project and which were not addressed as significant effects in the prior environmental impact report, or which substantial new information shows will be more significant than described in the prior environmental impact report.
"Certified" under California Subdivision Map Act means a Lic. CA Engineer has affixed his seal/signature to proposed Land Use Changes.

Page 526 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.

August 18, 2020
TO: Historic District Commission
FROM: Heritage Preservation League (HPL)
RE: 603 Sutter Street project
In 17 years of advocating for history, HPL has not seen such widespread opposition to a project since the project that caused HPL’s formation in 2003, a “Tuscan Village” of 240 apartments proposed on the site of the ﬁrst railroad in the west. Thankfully it was defeated.

Members of HPL attended the two community meetings hosted by the applicant last week and have studied their letter oﬀering modiﬁcations. We appreciate their eﬀort in meeting with the community, but the changes they oﬀer are not enough. HPL’s objections regarding parking, height and design remain.

Parking
The project still signiﬁcantly exacerbates the existing shortage of parking in this end of Sutter Street, with no solution(s) yet committed to by the City. Because others have received parking variances in the past is not a justiﬁcation for causing hardship for existing businesses and residents with no solution on the horizon, especially in the uncertain business climate caused by the coronavirus and the sea change in people’s shopping, working, and dining habits.

Height
Height and design are intimately connected. The applicant oﬀers to reduce the height impact by setting back the top story and reducing its size somewhat. The view of height from the sidewalks would be somewhat lessened, but the height and mass when viewed from other points in the vicinity remains too large for the site.

Design
It is asking too much of the Historic District Commission, the staﬀ, and the community to expect good analysis of changes without actual drawings. Words are too easily interpreted diﬀerently by diﬀerent people. Even if drawings are provided at the meeting, the Historic District Commission should not be pressured to make a decision without time for studying them. The architect has still not identiﬁed what historic style he is designing, and HPL has not found any examples of historic buildings that resemble it. To reiterate, using historic materials does not equal historic design. Among the many questions that only drawings can answer is the big question of how the addition of parking access will aﬀect the design.

Recommendations
Understandably, the applicant needs to decide whether to put any more money into a project opposed by so many. At the second community meeting last week, Mr. Alaywan said that his wife recommends walking away from the project. Before agreeing with her, he wants to hear what the Historic District Commission will say. If you agree with the community, it would be a kindness to them to deny it now and express your objections.

Because Folsom doesn’t like to tell people no, you might consider HPL’s recommendation to the applicant that he use story poles or helium balloons to outline the contours of the building, to illustrate its ﬁnished height and mass visually, for all to see, before asking him to put any more money into the design. HPL is conﬁdent that being able to actually visualize the height and mass in this way would clarify what changes need to be made to better ﬁt the site. If the architect is then able to historically justify the building design as a historic style, perhaps HPL’s objections to height and design could be resolved.

Page 527 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.

The parking issue remains, however. HPL asks that the Commission send an urgent request to the City Council to identify a site and ﬁnancing mechanisms for a parking structure in this end of Sutter Street so that future applicants will not go through what this applicant has.

Thank you for your consideration of these concerns.

Page 528 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.

Former Mayor Glenn Fait and the Heritage Preservation League have each provided letters objecting to this project. I endorse those comments by reference and expand on them further in this letter.

The IS/MND also ﬁnds there is no CEQA impact on scenic vistas cited in the General Plan.

Page 529 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.

This applicant will not be able to control the actions of future owners/tenants, and so the design itself should shield residents from noise.

Further, one of the parking lots counted in the applicant’s traﬃc study will be replaced by an already-approved building.

Page 530 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.

Recommendation
Deny the project with ﬁndings that it does not meet design requirements nor required variance ﬁndings.

Page 531 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
1 Desmond Parrington
From: Pam Johns
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2020 8:11 PM
To: Steven Wang; Scott Johnson; Steven Banks
Subject: FW: 603 Zoom Discussions
FYI

From: Bob Delp <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2020 7:11 PM
To: Pam Johns <[email protected]>
Subject: 603 Zoom Discussions

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.

Pam:

I’m listening to a few community members have a discussion about the Aug 12 and 13 Zoom calls with the 603 applicant.

Several folks are frustrated and confused since they weren’t invited, others are confused about whether you participated and, if not, why your name was on the screen both days but you didn’t speak or respond to questions. What I “think“ is that you gave the applicant your Zoom account and let him invite whomever he wanted. It was obviously not a city-sponsored meeting and the city didn’t notice it as a public meeting; and only a select group of people were invited and at the applicant’s discretion. One of my questions is, why would you or anyone else at the city provide resources for a private developer’s community engagement? Does the city have a mechanism that makes that appropriate?

I also note that Steve’s staff report says it’s “important to note” that the applicant was going to hold those meetings. If i t
was important for the HDC to note that, then does staff also intend to advise the HDC of what the applicant said during those calls? A few of my takeaways:

a. when asked what his evidence was for concluding the community's health, safety and welfare wouldn't be adversely affected, the applicant offered no evidence and just said "well, what about me?" b. the applicant freely admitted that he moved his family to EDH to get away from the annoyances of Sutter St. commercial
c. the applicant and his architects don't know what the building will look like or what size it will be - they working on several concepts but none are formulated to any meaningful concept d. when asked to erect story poles or balloons to demonstrate the height of the building, the applicant said he didn't want to do that because it would look so tall/large e. the applicant advised that the only remotely feasible potential offsite parking area on which maybe up to 16 spots could be created is at
512 Sutter Street
f. the applicant acknowledged that the site could be feasibly developed with a ~5000sq ft building and 16 spots - but that he just doesn't want to.

Do you or Steve plan to make those points to the HDC? Many other concerns and questions were raised by community participants that were also not addressed and the applicant.

Page 532 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
2 -Bob
916-812-8122
[email protected]

Page 533 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
1 Desmond Parrington
From: LJ Laurent <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2020 1:12 PM
To: Elaine Andersen; Steven Wang
Cc: Ernie Sheldon; Sarah Aquino; Kerri Howell; Mike Kozlowski; Andy Morin Subject: Flagrant Land Usage Zoning LAWS "mistakes" by cityhall et al 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.

To: Folsom city manager, lawyer,
distribute to planning dept. staff and city council members From: LJ Laurent
August 17, 2020

Re: Misrepresentation of Parcel Designation, applicable laws & due process

Property 603 Sutter St.

Issues: Folsom city has online documents for a COMMERCIAL building requiring REZONING, VARIATIONS without cause for ZERO on site parking, Height above legal limit, No Public Hearings, for MAJOR REZONE or UN-ALLOWED Variances from Folsom Municipal Code law governing/controlling Granting of Variances Standards. This is NOT Commercial Parcel, nor is there a hardship -- as Sacramento County Assessor's Records prove beyond a shadow of doubt.

NEVER did city of Folsom conduct proper public hearings for EACH and EVERY single Parcel Number by APN, for the ENTIRETY of the CURRENT ZONING Designation.

Page 534 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
2 Previously you were sent my Research Report dealing with California State Laws governing Real Property Usages, as restricted by CA Government Code.

Zoning on this Parcel is still "Historic District" and that is NOT LEGALLY binding according to Folsom and State laws.

By terms of city's own "overlay plan" Individual Parcels WERE NOT subject to Initial Study, EIR EIS, Public Notices; nor were any HD overlay Parcels REZONED. Nor can a city have two separate Zoning and Variance Laws, pursuant to State Law prohibition.
https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Folsom/html/Folsom17/Folsom1752.ht ml#17.52.150

FYI:

Overlay Zones. An overlay zone is a defined geograp hic area shown on the zoning map where special additional requirements apply in addition to the underlying base zoning district requirement s.

Instead of protecting HD residents and occupants, you have harmed them by erasing the UNDERLYING Purpose of Zoning EACH PARCEL Legally.

MAPS: Folsom General Plan Map and Folsom Zoning Map are NOT AVAILABLE ONLINE.

Please remedy this, and improper use of Zoning OVERLAY Plans as if they were actual LAWs approved by residents, agencies, and general public. 603 Sutter is NOT ZONED for extremely dense, too tall, NO parking giant Commercial or actually OFFICE building.

If you wish this NOT to proceed further to California law enforcement agencies, remove this bogus Land Development Proposal from city agenda for August 19, 2020.

If city council does not require city staff to abide by local, state, and federal laws, this will go far further to a final resolution.

RESPONSE REQUESTED, Madam Manager, Prior to another bogus hearing on a REZONING & VARIANCE actions which are NOT done according to law.

Page 535 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
3

Page 536 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
4 PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE - PRC
DIVISION 13. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY [21000 - 21189.57]
( Division 13 added by Stats. 1970, Ch. 1433. )

CHAPTER 2.6. General [21080 - 21098]
( Chapter 2.6 added by Stats. 1972, Ch. 1154. )
21083.3.

Page 537 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
5 (a) If a parcel has been zoned to accommodate a particular density of development or has been designated in a community plan to accommodate a particular density of development and an environmental impact report was certified for that zoning or planning action, the application of this division to the approval of any subdivision map or other project that is consistent with the zoning or community plan shall be limited to effects upon the environment which are peculiar to the parcel or to the project and which were not addressed as significant effects in the prior environmental impact report, or which substantial new information shows will be more significant than described in the prior environmental impact report. "Certified" under California Subdivision Map Act means a Lic. CA Engineer has affixed his seal/signature to proposed Land Use Changes.

Page 538 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
1 Desmond Parrington
From: Kathryn Corbett <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 21, 2020 11:00 AM
To: Steven Banks
Subject: FR: Kathryn Corbett Sent Draft on 18th Here is more intended for 603 Sutter St Mixed - Building Proposal for: Steve Banks - Head Planner
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.

For Steve Banks Head Planner on this project:

Greetings Steve again, Upon just reading my communication on 603 Sutter St. realized I had sent you the draft by mistake! Which frankly I was doing the writing process whittling things down and figuring best where to use the word Drawings, which I felt important. I had walked out of the room went back and somehow sent the draft copy. If you can’t do anything about this I will understand and you may have already passed along, I just altered it as I could not find the original final (I’m on my old computer which I actually like the old program better, though it’s not always so responsive) In short here is the better version as recollected, Thank you for anything on this and again if you can’t change fine the changes aren’t too big I made but to me counted.

I hope you have a nice weekend. Wanted to add again , If it is in a forum it can be read into the record too would appreciate, if not just a copy to the commissioners will be fine and again if it’s a done deal already that I understand, Thanks! Kathryn Corbett

TO: Historic District Commissioners
FROM: Kathryn Corbett
RE: 603 Sutter ST. Mixed-Use Building

I ask that you please don’t pass the 603 Mixed-use Building proposal till you have had time to review this more with drawings of the proposed alterations to this project.

Visuals allow better interpretation of course and important particularly to this prop osal. I
know all of us concerned about this would feel better too see the drawings before you rendered a decision on this property and hope we might have the opportunity to respond, particularly as it is such a significant area on our Historic Sutter St. and to our Historic District Neighborhood and Community.

As far as Height Variance, Design and Parking, of which many voiced concerns have been expressed, the drawing visuals to the alternate offering would be helpful in understanding better how that would impact our HD Commercial Area and HD Neighborhood, the juxtaposition to the surrounding area is crucial for me and others to respond to this proposal in an informed manner to you and to the Applicant, which I hope we might get the opportunity.

We all know this is a very precious site. The outcome will be paramount to the quality of life for both the Neighborhood and the Commercial Area of our Historic District. While I

Page 539 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
2 know the Applicant just recently put 2 zoom meetings together this last week on short notice, offering some adjustments to the original proposal, some of these offered changes proposed I went on a hunt for the drawings and hoped to find some with the alternate plans and found none, so conclude there is none. As far as experience in looking over plans, which I have some and when you have changes like this offered you really need some visuals to make it come to life. I hope this Proposal remains with HDC till those of us concerned can have an opportunity to respond with more clarity that having the drawings will offer.

The HD Neighborhood, Sutter St Area is in truth what prompted many of us to move here, including me, rightly called “Heart of our City”
I honor our Community Collective voice and the wisdom of HDC in this matter. As I understand part of the purpose and mission statement of the Historic District Commission: Is to ensure the protection of the historic and cultural character of the City’s Historic District and I feel everything any applicant can put out to render you and those of us better capable of envisioning this Proposal will hopefully be on the table .

I and so many others have been a part of a huge Community effort over the years that have contributed to secure the Historic District as the unique gem and destination it is to live in or visit today, like so many others I’ve been involved in a multitude of ways, which has included a great deal of focus on our history and the HD Neighborhood including the commercial area, for so many of us whether we live in the Historic District or not this area represents why we moved here.

I can honestly say of the great multitude of meetings I’ve attended over the years none has been more of the singular topic as a point of contention as “Parking Problems” have in the HD
be it the HD Neighborhood or HD Commercial Area . So I know we all hope parking gets extra special attention.

In Closing I love our Amazing City of Folsom and Community and the small town feel that brings us together, I hope we continue to strive to keep that on the front burner. I hope like so many something will come of this property that will compliment this significant area and truly merge with it in an esthetic way we can all apprciate.

Kathryn Corbett

.
.

Page 540 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.

Public Record Comments: in re pn 20t7-_ 603 S
Laurette J. Laurent
August 19, 2020
-13srk€s
-rL*J J;, 102{t
ffs..tp &uttiDlruc
ONE This *HD Commission" as described in FMC Title L7 as a Sub-section to said Title has NO AUTHORITY to REZONE any PARCEL of land, nor any section of Iand, which puts it at Variance from Title L7
ZONING Zones, and Folsom ZONING MAP found at
https : / /www. folsom. ca. us/civicax/fileba n k/blobdload, aspx?blobid =342 B4
in an unamed blobdload.aspx. Which is difficult to find as named.

TWO HD Committee INOT A LEGAL Commission] has defined
duties and responsibilities. They include Plan and Design Review for ADDITIONAL Requirements beyond those of Title L7 for each designated zone: such as Extra requirements for Commercial Zone when located in OVERLAY of HD. HD Overlay is a TOOL, NOT empowerment to IGNORE Title 17 Zoning Laws, nor ignore 17.62 the Title 17 VARIANCE STANDARDS and Findings of Fact - acceptable to a Court of Law.

THREE If HD committee believes it has the Right under California Enabling Legislation - the CA Government Code - to act as a Second and apart Variance-granting body - which can overrule L7.62 Law, they are incorrect. Not directing more than a Recommendation to City Council or Plan Commission which then recommends to City Council, you are ill-advised and violating state law. California does NOT provide for more than one single Zoning advisory council or Variance-granting group - which can IGNORE Title 17 laws.

FOUR In case of 603 Sutter St. IT IS NOT ZONED COMMERCIAL, for Commercial structures which are regulated in various other city laws to have Street Sizes, Access, Off-street Parking, Fire Access/ First Responded access, etc.

Page 541 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.

FIVE In legal point of law: The Sacramento County RE Tax Assessor is correct in showing this PARCEL is NOT in any Planning process. It is still the historic RESIDENTIAL ZONE. If it were rezoned to Commercial, Assessor records would show this and the TAX Rate and Tax amount would be FAR HIGHER than just over $100K. Unless citizens wish to cheat the Assessor by withholding information which a City Engineer [with CA Engineer License] MUST provide to Assessor for EACH REZONE by PARCEL NUMBER, and bearing his seal & signature, you need to recognize the current Assessor designation, which for this PARCEL is "Historic District." SIX Of course there is no such ZONING Designation as Historic District - because it is an OVER LAY of MORE added design restrictions - NOT A Land Usage Zoning Designation with SPECIFIC Standards, Laws, and Processes. Again HD committee can ONLY recommend to Plan Commission, which then recommends officially to City Council.

SEVEN All California Government Codes stating who Regulates and ENFORCES all ZONING - via Legislation - have been supplied twice to Folsom City Clerk for this case. They are complete and accurate.

EIGHT If members of this advisory/recommendation group take Folsom Zoning Title 17 the Enforcement Obligations into their own hands, they are operating outside confines of law and can expect to be reported.

NINE Folsom has an obligation to change all Title 17 subsection which appear to claim an Advisory citizens group can be charged with the Legal Authority to make BINDING Land Use exceptions, Namely the inference a Second citizen group can legally GRANT Variances is totally illegal. Folsom city council has an obligation to review this faulty and not-permitted use of two separate exception to law granting bodies with respect to Variances.

TEN It is suggested city council investigate having a Zoning Board of Appeals created, with most members having a LAW LICENSE to Protect as they interpret these faulty Laws.

Page 542 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.

ELEVEN Clearly this city requires OUTSIDE Independent
Counsel, not in-house lawyer who has proved his inability to ensure Legal Obedience upon this city,
TWELVE Only a CA Licensed Attorney with Experience should be Chair of the Plan Commission, to ensure proper Compliance and Scrutiny. Make such egregious errors repeatedly in the future and those disregard California Enforcement Laws will be reported.

THIRTEEN Read and memorize your legal duties and
LIMITATIONS. Do not believe all you are told. Get a Licensed California Engineer back into this legal process. California Sub Division Map Act mandates Engineer Seal & Signature to ensure Land Usage and Subdivision COMPLIANCE. Some of us have overseen thousand of Subdivisions of land PARCELS and know the laws. https://www. codepublishing. com/CAlFols oml#l lF olsom 1 7/Folsom 1 75 2 .html#l7 .52 .020

17.52.120 Duties of the historic district commission.

The historic district commission shall have the following duties and responsibilities:

A. Oversee the implementation of the provisions of this chapter; B. Develop and recommend design guidelines to the city council for the historic district;
C. Prepare and maintain a survey of the historic structures within the historic districU
D. Provide assistance to residents, property owners and business owners in relation to the provisions of this chapter;
E. Provide advisory review upon the request of another city commission, committee, any city department, or as directed by the city council, of projects or programs affecting or relating to the historic districU SHRRE

Page 543 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.

F. Recommend to the city council amendments to adopted city plans or codes in the interest of furthering the purposes of this chapter; G. Review the design and architecture of any new structure, or alteration to any existing structures within the historic district, as further defined in this chapter;
H. Determine the historical significance of structures as further defined in this chapter;
l. Review applications for sign permits, conditional use permits, variances, land divisions and mergers within the historic district; J, Make recommendations to the city council regarding programs and incentives to encourage and to support the preservation, maintenance, and rehabilitation of historic structures; and
K. Carry out such other duties relating to the historic district as may be assigned by the city council. (Rd. 890 S 2 (part), 1998) 17 .52.300 Design review.

The historic district commission shall have final authority relating to the design and architecture of the following structures within the historic district boundaries:

A. All new office, industrial, commercial and residential structures; and B. All exterior renovations, remodeling, modification or addition to existing structures. (Rd. 890S2(part), 1998)
17 .52.310 Design review submitter requirements.

The applicant shall file the following information with the planning, inspections and permitting director for design review by the historic district commission:

A. Completed and signed application form including name, address and telephone number of the applicant;
B. Application fee as established by resolution of the city council; C. A copy of all entitlements granted for the property by the city, including conditions of a pprova I a nd the envi ronmenta I docu mentatio n;
D. A copy of all required state and federal permits;
E. Site plan;
F. Building design plans;
G. Material samples and color board; and
!l sxnnr

Page 544 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.

H. Other material and information as requested by the commission. (Ord. 890 5 2 E-q!ABI*-l (part), 1998)
| 17.52.320 Posting of site.

Upon application for design review of a project by the historic district commission, 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. (Ord. 890 5 2 (part), 1998) I n.sz.33o Plan evaluation.
ln reviewing projects, the historic district commission shall consider the following criteria:

A. Project compliance with the General Plan and any applicable zoning ordinances; B. Conformance with any city-wide design guidelines and historic district design and development guidelines adopted by the city council;
C. Conformance with any project-s.pecific design standards approved through the planned development permit process or similar review process; and D. Compatibility of building materials, textures and colors with surrounding development and consistency with the general design theme of the neighborhood. (Ord. 890 5 2 (part), 1998) 17 .52.340 Approva I process.

The historic district commission shall make its decision to approve, conditionally approve or deny the application with findings based on the criteria established in Section 17.52.330 of this chapter. A copy of the decision, findings and any applicable conditions shall be provided in writing to the applicant. (Ord. 890 5 2 (part), 1998)
I n.52.350 Expiration and extension of approval.

A. An approval bythe historic district commission shall be null and void unless the applicant submits a complete application for a building permit within one year from the date of approval.

B. The historic district commission may extend an approvalfor an additional 1 year upon receipt of a written request accompanied by a fee, as may be established by resolution of the city council, and other information deemed necessary by the director of the department of planning, inspections and permitting. Requests for approval extension must be received 60 days prior to the expiration of the original approval. (Ord. 890 5 2 (part), 1 998) I n.s2.360 Conditional use permit review.

A. The historic district commission shall have final authority relating to the issuance of conditional use permits for any of the uses or purposes for which such permits are required or permitted by the terms of this title, within the boundaries of the historic district.

B. ln acting upon applications for conditional use permits, the historic district commission shall adhere to the procedural requirements set forth in Chapter 17.60, except for matters of appeal, which shall be governed by this chapter. (Ord. 890 5 2 (part), 1998)

Page 545 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.
17 .52.370 Varia nce review.

A. The historic district commission shall have final authority relating to application for variances from any of the provisions of this title, within the boundaries of the historic district B. ln acting upon applications for variances, the historic district commission shall adhere to the procedural requirements set forth in Chapter 17 .62, except for matters of appeal, which shall be governed by this chapter. (Ord. 890 5 2 (part), 1998) | 17.52.380 Sign permit review.

A. The historic district commission shall have final authority relating to.the issuance of sign permits for any signs for which such permits are required by this title, within the boundaries of the historic district.

B. The provisions of Chapter 17.59 are applicable in the historic district as modified in this chapter and any adopted design and development guidelines. ln acting upon applications for sign permits, the historic district commission shall adhere to the procedural requirements set forth in Chapter 17 .59, except for matters of appeal, which shall be governed by this chapter. (Ord. 890 5 2 (part), 1998)
17 .52.990 Envi ronmenta I review.

Review by the historic district commission of applications for conditional use permits, sign permits, variances and design review is subject to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The commission is authorized to hold public hearings on negative declarations, mitigated negative declarations, draft environmental impact reports and final environmental impact reports prepared on applications for the above permits or for design review. The commission shall not approve applications prior to considering the applicable environmental document and complying with the requirements of CEQA and any city procedures for preparation and processing of environmental documents. (Ord. 890 5 2 (part), 1 998)
| 17.52,393 Review of land divisions and mergers.

Review of land divisions and mergers shall be subject to the requirements of the California Subdivision Map Act (Government Code section 66410 et seq.) and Title 'l 6 of the Folsom MunicipalCode. (Ord.890 S 2 (part), 1998)
I ll.sz.395 Delegation of design review.

The historic district commission may delegate its authority to review compliance with this chapter and any adopted design and development guidelines to the planning, inspections and permitting department under the following conditions:

A. The city council has adopted specific design and development guidelines for the historic districU and
B. Approval of the design of the project is the only matter within the jurisdiction of the historic district commission; and

Page 546 ends

10/10/2023 Item No.10.

C. The posting of notice required in Section 17.52.320 will consist of notice of the project, where a person can review documents concerning the project and the right to request a public hearing concerning the project by a date certain, which date will not be less than five days from the date the notice is posted. lf a person requests a public hearing within the time allotted, the matter will be referred to the historic district commission for review; and D. The planning, inspections and permitting department may only approve a project where it believes that the project clearly conforms to standards set forth in this chapter and the design and development guidelines. lf the planning, inspections and permitting department determines that the project does not clearly conform to such regulations, approval of the design of the project shall be referred to the historic district commission; and E. The planning, inspections and permitting department shall review the design of all approved projects with the historic district commission at its regular monthly meeting. Such review will allow the commission to provide input to the department concerning the appropriateness of the approvals and help the commission and the department develop a consistent approach to design review; and
F. lf the planning, inspections and permitting department approves the design of a project under such delegated authority, the historic district commission may not overturn the decision of the planning, inspections and permitting department unless an appeal has been filed pursuantto Section 17.52.700. (Ord.890 5 2 (part), 1998) I lz.sz.4oo Design standards.

A. The design standards specified in Sections 17.52.410 through 17.52.590 shall be applicable to all new structures and alterations to existing structures within the historic district. Design review is required for all new structures and alterations to existing structures, unless otherwise specified in this chapter.

B. The city council may also enact design and development guidelines applicable to properties within the H-D zone. The design and development guidelines shall provide guidance to the historic district commission and the director of the planning, inspections and permitting as to the intent of the city council in carrying out the provisions of this chapter. The city council shall adopt the design and development guidelines by resolution, and may amend the design and development guidelines by resolution. The director of planning, inspections and permitting and the city clerk shall maintain a copy of the design and development Guidelines for the public's review. ln the event of a conflict between the design and development guidelines and the provisions of this chapter, the provisions of this chapter shall govern.

C. ln the event of a conflict between the design standards in this chapter and any other standards in this title, the provisions of this chapter shall govern.

D. Exceptions to the design standards stated herein or in any subsequently adopted design and development guidelines may be permitted by the historic district commission when unique individual circumstances require the exception in order to comply with the purposes of this chapter or when necessary to allow for historical reconstruction of a previously existing structure or feature. (Ord. 890 5 2 (part), 1998)
SHSRS

Page 547 ends

Folsom City CouncilOctober 10, 2023

Folsom City Council
October 10, 2023