Folsom City Council Meeting
Additional Information
Transmittal
Instructions to staff: Deliver original and 30 stapled/double-sided copies to the City Clerk’s Department; City Clerk’s Department will distribute via email and hardcopy to City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, and City Clerk.
Updated: Jan 2025
MEETING DATE:
10/14/2025
AGENDA SECTION:
Public Hearing
STAFF REPORT TITLE Ordinance No. 1353 - An Ordinance of the City of Folsom Amending Chapter 17.52 of the Folsom Municipal Code for the Historic District Relating to Design Review, Sign Permits, Demolitions, and Accessory Buildings (Introduction and First Reading) and Determination that the Project is Exempt from CEQA
FROM: Community Development Department
Staff is providing the attached additional information for the above-referenced agenda item.
1. Comment letter from Mr. Bob Delp.
October 14, 2025
City of Folsom City Council
50 Natoma Street
Folsom, CA 95630
via email to: [email protected] for distribution to City Council
SUBJECT: Comments to City Council re: October 14, 2025, Agenda Item No. 6 – Ord. No. 1353 Amending FMC Chapter 17.52
Dear City Councilmembers:
This letter is 1) to express my opposition to the proposed amendments to Folsom Municipal Code (“FMC”) Chapter 17.52 as presented in and attached to the staff report for Agenda Item No. 6 of your October 14, 2025, meeting materials (“10/14/25 Staff Report”), 2) to urge the Council to implement full cost recovery for application reviews, 3) to oppose the City’s use of staff’s recommended exemption from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), and, 4) notwithstanding the preceding, to provide specific suggestions for the Council’s consideration should the Council entertain revisions to FMC 17.52 similar to those proposed by staff.
I reside in Folsom’s Historic District and own property in the Historic District that is subject to provisions of FMC Chapter 17.52. While residents and property owners in the Historic District are subject to certain restrictions and limitations pursuant to FMC 17.52, we – along with Folsom residents outside the Historic District and the public in general – also benefit from provisions of FMC 17.52 that seek to preserve and promote the historical character and quality within both commercial and residential areas of the Historic District.
My comments here are provided with the intent to assist the City Council in rational decision making with regard to regulating and protecting the historical character of the Historic District in a manner that is both effective and efficient.
With staff’s proposed revisions, FMC Chapter 17.52 would become substantially more complex and subject to even more varied interpretation than the existing chapter. I suggest that one of the worst mistakes regulators can make when they want to modify regulations is failing to take a wholistic approach to ensure that the modified regulations do not result in increased complexity and unknown and/or unintended consequences. Without first looking at FMC Chapter 17.52 in its entirety and without considering the implications and relationship with other FMC provisions outside of Chapter 17.52, the proposed piecemeal revisions before you now should be rejected.
1. Historic District Commission Role
On August 5, 2025, I emailed the Council requesting the Council reconsider the role of the Historic District Commission (“HDC”). That email is included as Attachment 1 of this letter and I encourage the Council to consider and act on the recommendations therein as a priority over the currently proposed FMC 17.52 modifications. If a true goal of the Community Development Department’s efforts to modify FMC 17.52 is to reduce City costs, then I suggest that eliminating or modifying the role of the HDC would have substantial cost reductions without any necessary detriment to the quality of the Historic District.
October 14, 2025
Additionally, the Council should recognize that any revisions to FMC 17.52 that modify or expand the purported final authority of the HDC1 would exacerbate the existing FMC 17.52 conflict with City Charter section 4.07.
2. Full Cost Recovery of 2011 Resolution 8801
I continue to urge the City Council to direct the City Manager and Community Development Director to implement a full cost recovery program for processing development applications consistent with the process described in the March 2, 2011, staff report and adopted by the Folsom City Council in 2011 through Resolution 8801 (see Attachment 2 of this letter).
Through such a process, applicants within the Historic District would pay the actual cost for processing their individual applications – neither subsidizing nor being subsidized by other applicants and without being subsidized by the City’s General Fund. In 2011, the Community Development Department and City Council assessed and wisely decided that a full cost recovery system for planning fees “would protect [] General Fund monies from subsidizing private development applications.” Yet, the system requested by the Community Development Director and approved by the Council in 2011 still has not been implemented. Instead, the City has adopted fees purportedly based on average costs of processing certain types of applications. This system is inherently unfair due to variabilities in specific types of development and reviews, is obviously insufficient in fully recovering the costs of City project application reviews, and continues to subsidize private development applications which was the sound rationale that led to the Council’s adoption of Resolution 8801 in 2011 but which has never been implemented.
3. The California Environmental Quality Act
Adoption of modifications to FMC 17.52 is a discretionary action constituting a “project” and does not qualify for an exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”).
The 10/14/25 Staff Report (at pg. 10) asserts that “the proposed code amendment is process related and administrative in nature and therefore will not have a significant effect on the environment” and that the proposed code amendment is therefore exempt from CEQA under CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3).
CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) states that a project is exempt from CEQA if, The activity is covered by the common sense exemption that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA.
The proposed revisions to FMC 17.52 would effectively eliminate important existing design review provisions established to protect the historical character of the Historic District. Among the proposed revisions is a list of “minor modifications” that would be exempt from design review (see proposed new section 17.52.300(C)(1)). The exempt features would include, among other things,
d. patio covers, gazebos, pergolas and trellises under 200 square feet in size and located outside of the front, side, and street side yards,
1 E.g., proposed revisions to 17.52.360 and 17.52.370 addition of “as well as the expiration and extension of such permits” to the HDC’s final authority; acting as the appeal hearing body for proposed new design review authority of the Community Development Director.
October 14, 2025
e. privacy walls and fencing, excluding chain link, which is not allowed, f. aboveground spas and hot tubs located outside of he [sic] front and street side yards,
g. solar panels,
h. outdoor cooking facilities located outside of the front and street side yards.
An express design review exemption of these features would not only eliminate any City review or public comment opportunity, but also would eliminate any obligation for individuals undertaking such property modifications to design such features in a manner consistent with the express purposes of FMC 17.52 that would otherwise be required without the proposed design review exemption. Express purposes of FMC 17.52 include, “[t]o ensure that new residential and commercial development is consistent with the historical character of the historic district as it developed between the years 1850 and 1950.” (FMC 17.52.110(B)(5).) Exempting, for example, “privacy walls and fencing” from any design review requirements, would be reasonably expected to be detrimental to the historical character of the Historic District. Even attractively designed privacy walls or fencing could be substantially inconsistent with, and diminish the historical character of, the Historic District. The development of unregulated out-of-character walls and fences would have the potential to result – in individual instances and cumulatively over time - a significant adverse impact on the historical character of the Historic District.
Contrary to staff’s recommended CEQA Guidelines 15061(b)(3) exemption, common sense does not lead to the conclusion that eliminating design review and design requirements for such features would have no possibility of having a significant effect on the environment. Yet, no possibility is required if the CEQA Guidelines 15061(B)(3) exemption is to apply. Here, it does not.
In fact, common sense leads to the opposite conclusion – exempting certain types of projects from any design review process and from any design requirements can be reasonably anticipated to result in significant impacts on the historical character of the Historic District where historical character of the locally important Historic District resource is a significant impact on the environment. Additionally, development of certain features that would be exempt from design review under the proposed exemptions within the viewshed of designated historic resources could result in significant adverse effects to those historic resources/properties.2 The CEQA Guidelines 15061(B)(3) exemption can be applied only, “[w]here it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.” Whether a particular activity qualifies for the common sense exemption presents an issue of fact and the agency invoking the exemption has the burden of demonstrating the exemption applies.3 Thus, the obligation is on the City to provide substantial evidence for how the proposed FMC 17.52 amendments – in particular, the list of proposed design review exemptions – would not have no possibility of a significant impact.
2 e.g., sites/properties listed on the City of Folsom Cultural Resources Inventory (see Attachment 3 of this letter), properties on the National Register of Historic Places such as the Cohn House at 305 Scott Street in the Historic District.
3 See Muzzy Ranch Co. v. Solano County Airport Land Use Com. (2007) 41 Cal.4th 372 citing Davidon Homes v.
City of San Jose 54 Cal.App.4th 106 at p. 114, et al.
October 14, 2025
Staff’s assertion that “the proposed code amendment is process related and administrative in nature and therefore will not have a significant effect on the environment” fails to consider the implications of exempting certain projects from design review and the City has provided no other analysis or evidence for how the proposed revisions would have no possibility of a significant environmental impact.
The Staff Report states that, “[o]utside of the very small projects proposed to be exempt from Design Review, all projects will continue to be subject to the same level of analysis against the same documents, standards, and guidelines as they currently are.” Yet, although some of the proposed FMC 17.52 design review exemptions include maximum sizes to qualify for the exemptions, many do not. The Staff Report seemingly acknowledges that certain size projects should not be exempt, yet, provides no basis for the recommended sizes or how or why those sizes might be acceptably exempt whereas larger projects of a similar type would not.
Additionally, certain categories of projects that would be exempt from design review are proposed with no size or design criteria at all (e.g., privacy walls and fencing4, solar panels, outdoor cooking facilities). Such carte blanche exemptions are in stark contrast to the FMC 17.52 purposes of maintaining historic quality of the Historic District, should not be adopted, and do not qualify for a CEQA exemption.
4. Specific Recommendations
Notwithstanding the comments above, should the Council proceed with amending FMC 17.52 in some manner similar to the current proposal, I offer the following recommendations. a. Section 17.52.020 re: Historic District Commission Composition FMC Section 17.52.020 is not addressed in the recommended revisions and is the 17.52 section that establishes composition of the HDC. In the absence of eliminating the HDC altogether, please consider revisions to this section to provide that each City councilmember appoints one HDC commissioner and to provide for the Council to appoint two additional members both of whom are on the Planning Commission. The existing methodology and categories (e.g., business owners, residents, etc. appointed by the Mayor) are unnecessary and preclude each councilmember from having an appointee.
My proposed changes would result in a methodology for establishing the HDC more inline with the methodology used for establishing the Planning Commission. b. References to “planning, inspections, and permitting director” In two instances, the proposed revisions change “planning, inspections, and permitting director” to “community development director.” Those changes make sense, but there are at least nine other references in 17.52 to “planning, inspections, and permitting
4 With the single exception that staff – apparently subsequent to HDC consideration and direction - now proposes to prohibit chain link fencing in the Historic District by including in proposed new section 17.52.300(C)(1)(e) the phrase “excluding chain link, which is not allowed.” The Staff Report explains, “Since [the HDC September 3, 2025] meeting, staff has also heard additional feedback to add in a provision that chain link fences not be allowed in the Historic District. Staff supports this request and found that it is consistent with the language of the existing Design and Development Guidelines. A such, staff added a reference to the code update to prohibit chain link fences.” The Staff Report offers no explanation for how this prohibition would affect existing chain link fencing within the Historic District, including that which provides a supporting base for ivy or other vegetation any may not even be readily visible (e.g., 614 Mormon Street). Although I agree that there may be many instances in which chain link fencing (as well as other types of fencing) – due to height, length, location, and other factors – should not be permitted in the Historic District, I object to the blanket prohibition on chain link fencing tucked into the new exemptions section of the proposed FMC 17.52 revisions.
October 14, 2025
director” that for consistency should also be revised.5 Additionally, throughout chapter 17.52, references to the "planning, inspections, and permitting department" should be changed to “community development department”.
Additionally, the proposed language in section 17.52.130 states, “The community development director, previously referred to as the planning, inspections and permitting director,…” Without changing all instances of “planning, inspections, and permitting director” to “community development director” the proposed language is inconsistent since “previously referred to” is inaccurate as in many cases the director is still referred to as the planning, inspections, and permitting director.” Please be comprehensive and update all occurrences.
c. 17.52.320 re: Notice and Posting for Design Review
Improved provisions for public noticing for City reviews and approvals in the Historic District are needed, and the proposed revisions are insufficient in particular with regard to director-level review/approvals for which a consistent process of public noticing and input opportunities are critical to ensuring opportunity for public involvement in the decision-making process. Additionally, any staff-level decisions should be supported by sufficient documentation of staff’s analysis and that documentation should be made available for public review and input before any staff-level decision is made. The proposed revisions do not accomplish this and community director assurances of a process that is not expressly established in the FMC are insufficient. d. 17.52.540 re: Historic residential primary area special use and design standards Section 17.52.540 is not addressed in staff's recommendations, but has provisions pertaining to garage setbacks that I urge the Council to reconsider and modify. FMC
17.52.540(F) specifies that "...Garages shall be set back a minimum of 20 feet from the public right-of-way." Alleys are public rights-of-way; however, staff, the HDC, and City Attorney have previously and incorrectly interpreted this code section to not apply to garages accessed from alleyways and instead have applied a 5-ft setback for alley- accessed garages.
Alleys in the Historic District are becoming increasingly used as primary access for dwellings, including ADUs. Parallel parking on an alley-fronting driveway pad can provide an important addition to parking options for a property owner, but a 5-ft setback does not sufficiently provide for that. Additionally, as more and more garages and ADUs are developed along and with alley access, alleys are becoming increasingly congested and garbage collection and emergency vehicle access, as well as resident vehicle access, is becoming increasingly constrained.
If FMC 17.52.540(F) remains unaltered, the City should interpret its unambiguous language as requiring garages to be set back a minimum of 20 feet from all public rights- of-way, including alleys. However, I think it would be appropriate and recommend that FMC 17.52.540(F) consider amending FMC 17.52.540(F) to require a minimum 10-foot setback between garages and edge of alley. To accomplish this, I suggest that FMC
17.52.540(F) be revised to state something like, "...with the exception of alleys for which
5 See 17.52.130, 17.52.510(E)(6), 17.52.550, 17.52.670 [3 instances], 17.52.690, 17.52.700(A), and 17.52.700(B).
October 14, 2025
a minimum of 10 feet from the property line along the alley right-of-way shall be provided."
e. 17.52.660(A) - re: Exemptions for Post-1950 Demos.
Instead of flat-out "exempting" structures less than 50 years in age, such demolitions should still be required to obtain demolition approval but the code could include a statement that such approval shall not be withheld if substantial evidence is provided demonstrating 1) the structure was built less than 50 years from when the demolition permit is submitted and 2) that the structure does not otherwise have historical significance.
f. 17.52.660(B)(1)(b) re: Fees for Demo Approvals
Although I strongly support full cost recovery of application processing in most instances, I suggest that the Council consider eliminating fees associated with demolition review in the Historic District to minimize potential incentives for a property owner to avoid obtaining approvals for building demolitions.
g. 17.52.700 re: Appeals
Although not addressed in staff's recommendations, FMC 17.52.700 should be revised to be consistent with the appeal processes established in 17.06.110 for appeals outside of the Historic District, to provide that any person dissatisfied with any action of the director of the community development department or HDC can appeal directly to the City Council. An avenue for all residents of the City to their elected officials on the City Council should be provided, and the existing FMC 17.52.700 requirements for appellants could be read (and has been read by at least one sitting council member based on his June 13, 2023, vote to deny my standing to appeal an HDC demolition approval) to severely restrict rights to appeal. City representatives have argued that the HDC functions much like the Planning Commission, but the differing appeal provisions are one of several stark contrasts.
CONCLUSION
Thank you for considering my comments.
Sincerely,
Bob Delp
Historic District - Folsom, CA 95630 - [email protected] - 916-812-8122 Attachments:
Attachment 1. August 5, 2025, Bob Delp email to City Council Subject: Request for Reconsideration of the HDC's Role
Attachment 2. March 2, 2011, Staff Report and Resolution No. 8801 Directing Staff to Implement a Program for Full Cost Planning Service Fees Attachment 3. September 2, 2025, Desmond Parrington email to Glenn Fait including Cultural Resources Inventory
October 14, 2025
Attachment 1
August 5, 2025, Bob Delp email to City Council
Subject: Request for Reconsideration of the HDC's Role
From: Bob Delp <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 5, 2025 11:47 AM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>; Sarah Aquino <[email protected]>; Mike Kozlowski <[email protected]>; Justin Raithel <[email protected]>; Barbara Leary <[email protected]>; Anna Rohrbough <[email protected]>; Pam Johns <[email protected]>; Desmond Parrington <[email protected]>
Subject: Request for Reconsideration of the HDC's Role
Tomorrow night, the Historic District Commission (HDC) is scheduled to consider staff-proposed revisions to FMC chapter 17.52. This message is to urge the City Manager and Community Development Director to postpone this discussion and for the City Manager, Community Development Director, and City Council to first reassess the role and need for the HDC.
Revisions could then be made to chapter 17.52 reflecting Council direction on a potential change in the role, or elimination, of the HDC. I recall at least one current council member previously questioning the bifurcated roles of the HDC and Planning Commission, and I urge the City leadership that the time is right to reassess the functions of these two commissions.
Folsom’s Historic District is a truly important and unique part of the City that warrants special land use planning provisions and protection. Many FMC chapter 17.52 provisions reflect important processes and considerations for design review and land use in the Historic District, and I am not arguing that these provisions be eliminated. However, the HDC is not fundamental to oversight of land use within the Historic District and adds costs, complexity, and inefficiencies to the City’s land use administration.
The Community Development Department (CDD) and an informed Planning Commission could efficiently and effectively exercise appropriate design review and other land use authority within the Historic District functioning in much the same way they do for the rest of the City. The Planning Commission already meets regularly and has – or should/could have – a comprehensive understanding of planning matters throughout the City, including the Historic District. The currently bifurcated planning oversight provided by the Planning Commission for matters outside the Historic District and by the HDC for matters within the Historic District is inefficient and adds unnecessary complexity in planning processes and public participation. (For example, in recent years both the River District Master Plan process and the Home Occupation Ordinance amendment process required involvement of the Planning Commission and the HDC.)
Unlike the HDC, the Planning Commission is expressly established by the City Charter and is not restricted to being advisory only to the Council. The Planning Commission is the appropriate body to have oversight, review, and final approval authority (appealable to the City Council) for planning matters throughout the City, including the Historic District. Moreover, the Planning Commission is comprised of seven members, five of whom are each designated by an individual City Council member providing balanced representation of the City’s elected officials.
This contrasts with the unbalanced representation on the HDC whose composition is determined by the Mayor with confirmation needed by only two other councilmembers.
Elimination of the HDC would require some upfront effort with modifications to FMC chapter
17.52, but would offer long-term efficiencies and other benefits to the City while still affording protection of the Historic District as a treasured City feature.
Thank you for considering my input.
Bob Delp
916-812-8122 / [email protected]
October 14, 2025
Attachment 2
March 2, 2011, Staff Report and Resolution No. 8801 Directing Staff to Implement a Program for Full Cost Planning Service Fees
PUBLIC HEARING
Agenda Item No.: 8a
CC Mtg.: 03/08/2011
DATE: March 2, 2011
TO: Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: David E. Miller, AICP, Community Development Director SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 8801 - A RESOLUTION MODIFYING RESOLUTION NO. 8301 TO CONVERT NOTED PLANNING FEES TO DEPOSITS AND
DIRECTING STAFF TO IMPLEMENT A PROGRAM FOR FULL COST
PLANNING SERVICE FEES
BACKGROUND /ISSUE
The Planning Department Service Fees were last updated in October 2008 . The fees generally reflect the average cost to provide development application processing services. However, the range of complexity in development applications can vary widely and some projects can remain "active" or "in process " for years because projects are substantially revised and resubmitted (sometimes with years passing in between) in an attempt by applicants to obtain City approval.
Staff sometimes must effectively begin processing all over with each resubmittal but is unable to request new project fees because the project is still technically active. It is these types of projects that staff seeks to target to ensure that staff costs are fully recovered . As the Council is well aware, in our current fiscal climate the General Fund is unable to cover any unnecessary development service related costs.
Another major issue associated with development application fees is the continuing reduction in General Fund revenues . Over the past three years, the City' s General Fund expenses have exceeded the General Fund revenue by approximately $ 13 million . The City's General Fund cannot subsidize development applications . Given significant increases in productivity and expediting development permits, the expense to process development permits has dropped in many cases . Nevertheless , the General Fund continues to significantly subsidize development permit activity.
Therefore, staff is proposing to implement a program where staff would track time spent on each planning application and begin charging applicants monthly if and when the application fees were exceeded. In addition, a fee would be implemented to cover planning staff time to review building permits. In this manner, the City would protect its General Fund monies from subsidizing private development applications.
POLICY / RULE
Folsom Municipal Code Section 3.50.020 directs the City Manager to recommend to the Council the adjustment of fees and charges to recover the percentage of costs reasonably borne in providing the regulation, products or services enumerated in Chapter 3.50. 1 000001
Folsom Municipal Code Section 3.50.030 provides direction on calculating "costs reasonably borne" to include the following elements: direct costs (wages, overtime, benefits, overhead, etc), indirect costs (building maintenance, computers, printing, etc.), fixed assets, general overhead, department overhead, and any debt service costs.
Folsom Municipal Code Section 3.50.040 requires fee adjustments be approved by the City Council. It also specifies the percentage of City service costs to be recovered through fees. The majority of Planning Service Fees are directed to be 100% cost recoverable through its fee structure. Building Permit fees are also directed to be 100% cost recovered.
ANALYSIS
Staff recommends that the City Council direct staff to implement a full cost recovery program modeled after one that's been used by the City of Roseville Planning and Redevelopment Department since 2003. The following is the proposed program outline:
Base Cost
The base cost for processing a full cost application represents the minimum amount of staff time invested by City staff. This base cost is determined by an analysis of actual costs and is non-refundable. Staff recommends that Folsom's existing fee structure adopted October 1, 2008 be used as this base cost so that no new costly analysis process is required.
Project Initiation
Concurrent with the start-up of a project, the applicant enters into an agreement for full cost billing. Per this agreement, the applicant would pay the base costs associated with the individual entitlements associated with the project.
Full Cost Billing
Following project initiation and payment of the base cost fee, staff will record time spent working on the project against the base cost. If staff time exceeds that covered under the base cost, the applicant shall be billed an hourly rate thereafter on a monthly basis.
The hourly billing rate charged to projects would be a factor of the staff salary to cover costs as enumerated in Folsom Municipal Code Section 3.50.030, including: direct costs (wages, overtime, benefits, overhead, etc), indirect costs (building maintenance, computers, printing, etc.), fixed assets, general overhead, department overhead, and any debt service costs. The Finance Department has completed a full analysis of overhead charges and has submitted rates for all Community Development staff.
These charges are based on the current staff costs per adopted City labor contracts, plus a factor for direct and indirect costs. Included in the monthly billing would be any costs incurred by other departments such as the City Attorney's Office, Public Works, Utilities, Housing and Redevelopment, Parks and Recreation, etc.
000002 2
Consultants
As may be required for project evaluation or environmental review, all consultant work shall be paid for by the project applicant and would be included in the payment agreement. The City would charge an administrative cost equal to 10% of the contract amount, which is a typical markup rate industry wide.
Non-Residential Plan Check Fee
Planning staff must review every building permit for compliance with conditions of any project approval (such as a Design Review or Planned Development Permit ) to ensure all the Planning Commission and City Council conditions have been complied with. In addition , permits must be reviewed for compliance with the Zoning Code and any other applicable ordinance . Staff recommends that an additional planning review fee equal to 15% of the permit fee (same as City of Roseville fee ) be charged to cover planning staff review time for non-residential projects because currently this cost is not being covered and is a drain on the General Fund.
Residential Landscape Review Fee
Due to recent state legislation (AB 1881) all landscape plans are required to be reviewed for water conservation standards. While commercial landscape plan review is covered by the existing fee structure, residential landscaping plans are not. Staff proposes to require a residential fee for each residential landscape plan review and inspection based on the hourly rate of the City Arborist.
As shown in the table below, the proposed fee deposits for typical entitlements are similar to other jurisdictions in the region.
Entitlement Folsom Roseville Sacramento Elk Grove Rancho Cordova
General Plan $3,651- $4,934- $20,000 $12,371 $15,000
Amendment $7,300 $13,074
Rezone $2,502- $5,154- $8,000- $10,176 $15,000$4,997 $13,338 $20,000 Specific Plan $5 892 $5,139- $10,000 $3,443 $5,000
Amendment , $13,075
Tentative Parcel $4,754 $1,698 $500 per lot $4,854 $10,000 Ma p
Tentative $5,721+$30 $3,338- $500 per lot $7,533 $10,000- Subdivision Map per lot $4,832 $20,000
Planned
Development $7,640+$38 $4,627 $6,200 $5,281 $10,000
Permit 2 per acre
Conditional Use $4 954 $4 085 $4,000- $5,223 $10,000
Permit , , $9,000
Variance $1,405 $2,430 $3,000 $3,228 $10,000
3 000003
Staff recommends the Planning Service Fees convert to this deposit/cost recovery system in accordance with those services specifically identified in Section 3.50.040 to be full cost recovery. Exceptions to full cost recovery identified in this section include appeals (identified costs to be 10% recovered) and tree removal permits/special events permits (by omission from the schedule of Development Services to recover costs reasonably borne).
FINANCIAL IMPACT
The cost recovery program would allow the City to more accurately cover the actual costs for development permits from the applicants. Although the actual savings to the General Fund are cannot be quantified, this fee recovery program will result in a positive impact to the General Fund and provide direct costs charges to contribute to the General Fund to more accurately fund development processing costs.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This Resolution is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act under Public Resources Code §21080, sub. (b)(8) and CEQA Guidelines § 15273, establishment, modification, structuring or approval of rates, tolls fares, or other charges by public agencies which the public agency finds are for the purpose of meeting operating expenses. The modification of permit fees has not potential environmental impact upon the environment so does not constitute a project under CEQA.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution No. 8801 - A Resolution Modifying Resolution No. 8301 to Convert Noted Planning Fees to Deposits and Directing Staff to Implement a Program for Full Cost Planning Service Fees
2. City of Roseville Planning Fee Schedule - Effective July 1, 2010 (which includes procedures for Full Cost Fees)
3. City of Roseville Planning Department Sample Agreement for Full Cost Billing.
RECOMMENDATION /CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 8801 - A Resolution Modifying Resolution No. 8301 to Convert Noted Planning Fees to Deposits and Directing Staff to Implement a Program for Full Cost Planning Fees.
Submitted,
David E. Miller, AICP
Community Development Director
000004 4
Attachment #I
City Council Resolution
000005
RESOLUTION NO. 8801
A RESOLUTION MODIFYING RESOLUTION NO. 8301 AS SHOWN IN THE
ATTACHED FEE SCHEDULE AND DIRECTING STAFF TO IMPLEMENT A
PROGRAM FOR FULL COST PLANNING SERVICE FEES
WHEREAS, Folsom Municipal Code Section 3.50.020 directs the City Manager to recommend to the Council the adjustment of fees and charges to recover the percentage of costs reasonably borne in providing the regulation, products or services as enumerated in Chapter
3.50; and
WHEREAS, Folsom Municipal Code Section 3.50.030 provides direction on calculating costs reasonably borne to include the following elements: direct costs (wages, overtime, benefits, overhead, etc.), indirect costs (building maintenance, computers, printing, etc.), fixed assets, general overhead, department overhead, and any debt service costs; and WHEREAS , Folsom Municipal Code Section 3.50.040 requires fee adjustments be approved by the City Council; and
WHEREAS, Folsom Municipal Code Section 3.50.040 also directs that the majority of Planning Service Fees and Building Permit Fees shall be 100% cost recoverable through its fee structure; and
WHEREAS, the range of complexity in Planning Department development applications can vary widely; and
WHEREAS, in our current fiscal climate the General Fund is unable to cover any unnecessary development service related costs; and
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Folsom that Resolution No. 8301 be modified as shown in the attached fee schedule, effective 60 days from the date of adoption of this Resolution on May 8, 2011 and directs City staff to implement a program for full cost planning service fees as attached and described in the staff report.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 8th day of March 2011, by the following roll-call vote:
AYES: Council Member(s):
NOES : Council Member(s):
ABSENT: Council Member(s):
ABSTAIN: Council Member(s):
Andrew J. Morin, MAYOR
ATTEST:
Christa Freemantle, CITY CLERK
Resolution No. 8801
000006
# Department Service Base Fee
(Non-Refundable Deposit)
Plannin g
PE-1 Preliminary Project Review (deposit) $ 545
PE-2 Tentative Parcel Map Review (Deposit) $ 4,754
PE-3 Tentative Subdivision Map Review (deposit) $5,751 + $30/Lot PE-4 Tentative Map Amendment Review (deposit) $ 7,923
PE 5 Final Map Amend/Cert of Correction $ 2,599
PE 6 Tentative Map Extension Review (deposit) $ 3,404
PE-7 Site Design Review - Planning Comm. (deposit) $ 3,992 PE-8 Planned Development review (deposit) $7,640 + $382/acre PE-9 Planned Development Mod. Review (deposit) $ 7,628
PE-10 Planned Development Ext. Review (deposit) $ 2,678 PE-11 Specific Plan Review (deposit) $ 5,356
PE-12 Specific Plan Amend. Review (deposit) $ 5,892
PE-13 Initial Environmental Study/Assmnt (deposit) $ 5,423 PE-15 Environmental Impact Review & Report* $ 7,285
PE-16 Notice of CEQA determination $ 252
PE-18 Envtl Mitigation Prog. Monitoring* $ 5,369
PE-20 Historic Dist SFD Design Rvw (deposit) $ 54
PE-21 H.D. Mult Fam/Comm Design Rvw (deposit) $ 1,841
PE-22 Arch Review - SFD (deposit) $ 54
PE-23 Arch Review - Mult-Fam/Comm. (deposit) $ 1,841
PE-24 Historic Dist Sign Review (deposit) $ 54
PE-25 Sign Permit - Staff $ 107
PE-26 PD Permit Sign Only (deposit) $ 1,071
PE-27 Zoning Verification Review (deposit) $ 258
PE-28 Rezoning Request Review- < 5 acres (deposit) $ 2,502 PE-29 Rezoning Request Review- 5+ acres (deposit) $ 4,997 PE-20 Lot Line Adj./Parcel Merger (planning) (deposit) $ 844 PE-31 Annexation Processing (deposit)* $ 4,280
PE-32 Variance Review- SFD (deposit) $ 1,405
PE-33 Variance Review- Other (deposit) $ 1,405
PE-35 Appeal - Admin $ 214
PE-36 Appeal - by other (deposit) $ 429
PE-37 Code Amendment (deposit)* $ 1,912
PE-38 General Plan Amendment <5 acres (deposit) $ 3,651 PE-39 General Plan Amendment >5 acres (deposit) $ 7,300 PE-40 Temporary Use Permit Review $ 54
PE-41 Conditional Use Permit Review (deposit) $ 4,954
PE-43 Street Name Review/Change (deposit) $ 1,071
PE-44 Devl. Agreement Processing (deposit)* $ 4,607
PE-45 Non-residential Plan Check Fee 15% of building e it fee PE-46 Residential Landscape Review Fee Hourly rate of City Arborist Resolution No. 8801
000007
Attachment #2
City of Roseville Planning Fee Schedule
Effective July 1,2010
Appendix A
WbIl
ROSEYILLE
Fee Estimate Work Sheet
PLANNING and REDEVELOPMENT
311 VERNON STREET * ROSEVILLE, CA 95678
Planning Fee Schedule - Effective July 1, 2010
Adopted by Resolution No. 96-239 - Amended by Resolution No. 97-287 - Amended by Resolution No. 99-507 - Amended by Resolution No. 02-02 - Amended by Resolution No. 02-224 Amended by Resolution No. 04-485 - Amended by Resolution No. 05-176, Amended by resolution 09-124 ENTITLEMENT (APPLICATION TYPE): FEE Full Cost
Base Cost ENTITLEMENT (APPLICATION TYPE): FEE Full Cost Base Cost
APPEALS SIGNS
1. Planning Director's Decision $454 1. Standard Sign Permit $117
2. PC/DC Decision to City Council $425 2. Planned Sign Permit Program $512 ANNEXATIONS 3. Sign Permit/Program - Public Hearing Req. $1,010
1. Annex/PZ/Detach/SOI/(FULL COST/Deposit)' $11,786 4. Administrative Permit for Sign Exception2 $717 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS 5. PSP Minor Modification3 $58
1. Adoption of Specific Plan (FULL COST/Deposit)' $6,837 SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
2. Amendment of SPA (FULL COST/Deposit)' $6,837 1. SPA Adoption, Map/Text (FULL COST/Deposit)' $11,786
3. Associated with Affordable Housing $1,244 2. SPA 10 Acres or LESS, Map or Text $5,139
4. Associated with Single Topic Item $2,474 3. SPA 11+ Acres, Map/Text (FULL COST/Deposit)' $13,075 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW 4. SPA Text/Policy Deposit (FULL COST/Deposit)' $13,075
1. Exemption WITHOUT Initial Study $176 SUBDIVISIONS /CONDOMINIUMS''
2. Exemption WITH Initial Study $425 1. Grading Plan / Minor $1,201
3. Negative Declaration with NO Mitigation $630 2. Grading Plan / Major $2,489
4. Tiered Negative Declaration WITH Mitigation $1,288 3. Lot Line Adjustment $1,201
5. EIR Deposit (FULL COST/Deposit)' $11,786 4. Extension to a Tentative Map $1,201 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 5. Voluntary Merger $1,201
1. Entilement Fee - GPA 10 Acres of LESS, Map/Text $4,934 6. Reversion to Acreage $1,698
2. GPA 11+ Acres, Map/Text (FULL COST/Deposit)' $13,074 7. Minor Modification to a Tentative Map $1,201
3. GPA - Text Policy Amend (FULL COST/Deposit)' $13,074 8. Major Modification to a Tentative Map $2,796 PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT ABANDONMENT 9. Tentative Parcel Map with 4 or fewer Lots $1,698
1. Summary Vacation $1,259 10. Tentative Map, 5 through 99 Lots $3,338
2. General Vacation $1,772 11. Tentative Map, 100 through 499 Lots $4,832
12. Tentative Map, 500+ Lots (FULL COST/ Deposit )' $12,254 KEY: 'Full Cost/Base Cost to be collected at submittal. An estimate of processing cost will be provided at PEM . Applicant to pay 100% of Actual Cost to process requested Entitlement. *Condominium subdivision category has been added to assist in the processing and tracking of condominium units 2 Previously processed as Sign Variance
' Previously processed as ZCC
Fee Estimate Work SheetO Appendix A
ENTITLEMENT(APPLICATION TYPE:
ZONING ORDINANCE ENTITLEMENTS
1. Administrative Permit
2. Conditional Use Permit
3. CUP Extension or Modification
4. Design Review Permit
5. DRP/Minor Approved at Public Counter
6. DRP/Residential Subdivision w/other Permit
7. DRP Extension or Modification
8. CUP/DRP Process with another Permit
9. Flood Encroachment Permit
10. MPP Stage 1 or Stages 1 & 2 (FULL COST/Deposit)'
11. MPP Stage 2, Mod/Exten of Stage 1 &/or 2
12. MPP Administrative Modification
13. Planned Development Permit
14. TP Admin - Approved at Public Counter
15. TP - Req. Public Hear for SFD or 10 trees/Less
16. TP - Req. Public Hear for DRPITM or 11+ trees
17. Administrative Variance
18. Variance to Develop Standards Req. Public Hearing
19. Variance to Parking Standards
20. Zoning Clearance Approved Public Counter
21. Zoning Interpretation - Hearing Required
22. Zoning Interpretation - Non Hearing Item
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
1. Zoning Text Amend (Zoning, Subd, Sign) (FULL COST/Deposit)'
2. Zoning Map Change (RZ) 10 Acres or LESS
3. Zoning Map Change (RZ) 11+ Acres (FULL COST/Deposit)1 OTHER
1. New Non-Residential Plan Check 2
2. Commercial Plan Check - TI2
2. Planning Dept. Plot Plan Review (Bundles of 10)
3. Radius List Prep-Previously Developed Area
4. Preparation Undeveloped Area/Mailing
5. Farmer's Market Permit
FEE
$717
$4,085
$2,650
$4,627
$102
$2,870
$2,650
$2,225
$3,719
$2,650
$776
$4,627
$88
$1,772
$2,723
$600
$2,035
$2,430
$58
$1,537
$73
$5,154
15% of Building Plan Check Fee
$58
$58
$58
$146
$410
Full Cost
Base Cost
$14,846
$7,965
$13,338
PROCEDURES FOR FULL COST FEES
1. Base Cost
The base costs for processing a full cost application represents the minimum amount of staff time invested by the Planning and Redevelopment Department in processing a certain entitlement. This base fee has been generated based on a time-motion analysis that is available upon request from the Planning and Redevelopment Department. This base cost is non-refundable.
II. Project Initiation
Concurrent with the start-up of a Full Cost project, the applicant shall enter into an agreement for Full Cost billing. This agreement shall be provided to the applicant from the Planning and Redevelopment Department. Per the provisions of this agreement, the applicant shall pay the base costs associated with the individual entitlements associated with the project.
Ill. Full Cost Billing
Following project initiation and payment of the base cost fee, Planning and Redevelopment staff will record time spent working on the project against the base cost. Once staff time exceeds that covered under the base cost, the applicant shall be billed on a monthly basis. These charges will be based on current staff costs per adopted City labor contracts, plus a factor for direct and indirect costs. The Planning and Redevelopment Department can be contacted for current rates.
Included in the monthly billing will be the costs incurred by the following City departments: City Attorney, Housing, Community Development, Parks and Recreation and Planning and Redevelopment. These costs are outsideof what is reflected in the Base Cost.
IV. Consultants
As may be required by the Planning Department for project evaluation or environmental review, all consultant work shall be paid for by the project applicant and shall be included in the payment agreement. The City shall charge 10% of the contract amount for City action. The cost for consultant fees will be paid as a one time cost.
V. Plan Check Fee
This fee shall be 15% of the building Plan Check Fee for New Non-Residential construction (Commercial and Multi-family). Fee to be collected with Building's Plan Check Fee.
REFUND POLICY
Application fees are not refundable except as follows:
1. Refund of 100% shall be made if a determination is made by the Planning Director that the permit and associated fee are not required by the City of Roseville Municipal Code or adopted City Resolution.
2. If an applicant requests withdrawal of a permit prior to the PEM, refund of 50% of the applicable fee shall also be refunded.
3. No refund of application fees shall be made after a Project Evaluation Meeting has been held, unless a fee waiver is approved by the Roseville City Council.
KEY
'Full Cost/ Deposit to be collected at submittal. Applicant to pay 100% of Actual Cost to process requested Entitlement. -See FULL COST Discussion
2Non-Residential - Per Building Code , this includes Commercial and Multi-family developments.
Plan Check Fees to be assessed as part of Building Department Plan Check Fee. 3Parking In Lieu Fee is an optional fee that non-residential uses in the Downtown Specific Plan Area can utilize instead of providing required parking on-site. Fees for the 151 stall will be $800 (10%),2 d stall $2,000 (25%), 3r° stall (50%), 4 th stall $6,000(75%) and 5 or more stalls $8,000 (100%) of the in lieu fee.
E:/budget/Fee Schedule Effective 07/ 01/2010
Attachment #3
City of Roseville Planning Department
Sample Agreement for Full Cost Billing
0000011
`!1
CITYOF ^^
ROSE VILLEC A L I F 0 R N I A
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
311 Vernon Street, Roseville, CA 95678 (916) 774-5276
Agreement for Full Cost Billing
I understand that charges for staff time spent processing this application will be based on the current staff costs per adopted City labor contracts plus a factor for direct and indirect costs. Please contact the Planning Division for a handout of current billing rates. understand that my initial fee is considered to be a base cost for processing. This initial fee will set up an account that shall be charged at the current rate for all staff processing time. I understand that should the final costs be more than the initial fee, I will be billed quarterly for the additional charges. I also understand that payments received after the due date will be assessed a late fee equal to ten percent (10%) of the amount past due.
I understand that staff processing time may include, but is not limited to: Planning and Other City Departments: City Attorney, Housing, Community Development, and Parks & Recreation. This also includes but is not limited to; Pre-application review of plans; reviewing plans / submittal packages; routing plans to, and communicating with inter-office departments and outside agencies; researching documents relative to site history; site visits; consulting with applicant and/or other interested parties either in person by phone; preparing environmental documents; drafting of staff reports and resolutions; preparing pertinent maps, graphs and exhibits; and attending meetings / public hearings before the Design Committee/Planning Commission/City Council.
I also understand that receipt of all discretionary approvals does not constitute an entitlement to begin work. Non-discretionary approvals may be required from City development departments and outside agencies. I understand additional fees will be assessed for these approvals. Please refer to the City's Residential or Commercial Fee Schedule for other fees to be assessed prior to the issuance of project permits. These fees may include, but are not limited to: Building Permit fees; Improvement plan fees; Traffic Impact fees; Drainage fees; Parkland Dedication fees; Park Construction fees; Utility fees; Filing fees; and Mapping fees.
As applicant, I assume full responsibility for all costs leading to discretionary approvals (as listed above. incurred by the City in processing this annlication(s).
PROJECT NAME:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
BILLING CONTACT INFORMATION: BILLING ADDRESS , IF DIFFERENT FROM CONTACT:
NAME: NAME:
COMPANY: COMPANY:
ADDRESS: ADDRESS:
CITY, STATE: ZIP: CITY, STATE: ZIP:
PHONE #: FAX #: PHONE #: FAX #:
CELL #: EMAIL: CELL #: EMAIL:
DOWNER q ARCHITECT DOWNER q ARCHITECT
q ENGINEER DOTHER: q ENGINEER q OTHER:
PROPERTY OWNER OR AGENT AUTHORIZATION:
NAME:
COMPANY:
ADDRESS:
CITY, STATE: ZIP:
PHONE #: FAX #:
EMAIL:
For Staff Use Only
PROJECT ADDRESS:
JOB NUMBER:
Total Deposit Fee: $
Receipt #:
Received Bv:
CHOOSE ONE:
q I am the property owner and hereby authorize the filling of this agreement.
q I am the applicant and am authorized by the owner to file this agreement.
SIGNATURE:
DATE:
(Date Stamp)
E:\forms \FULLCOSTBI LLINGAGR EEMENT.doc
ooffoun
October 14, 2025
Attachment 3
September 2, 2025, Desmond Parrington email to Glenn Fait including Cultural Resources Inventory
From: Desmond Parrington <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 2, 2025 4:38 PM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Cc: John Lane <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Pam Johns <[email protected]>; Bob Delp <[email protected]>; Loretta Hettinger <[email protected]>; Josh Kinkade <[email protected]>; Nathan Stroud <[email protected]>; Pam Johns <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Historic Commission meeting
Hi Glenn:
We wanted to clarify a few things that were in your letter. First, the Historic Preservation Master Plan was adopted by the City Council in Resolution No. 5831 on November 24, 1998. See attached resolution. The Historic District Master Plan included in Appendix D the List of Cultural Resources that you referenced. In addition, the City also has a list of oƯicially listed historic and cultural resources, which have each been approved for listing by the Historic District Commission. I have attached that list as well. That is why we listed both the Historic District Master Plan and the Cultural Resources Inventory in the draft ordinance.
We are going over the proposed changes that you listed and will be able to speak to those at tomorrow night’s meeting.
-Desmond
Desmond Parrington, AICP
Planning Manager
City of Folsom
50 Natoma Street, Folsom, CA 95630
[email protected]
o:916-461-6233 c:916-216-2813
www.folsom.ca.us
CITY OF FOLSOM
CULTURAL RESOURCES INVENTORY
ETHNOGRAPHIC FEATURES - NATIVE AMERICAN
PN05-004; Four Bedrocks with Fifteen Mortars
511 Golf Links Drive (in Nisenan Park)
Sites 441 and 450 in California Register of Historical Resources Included with the Preliminary Cultural Resources Inventory on November 5, 1998 Listed by the Historic District Commission on June 7, 2006
PN07-436; Three Bedrocks with Twenty Mortars and Two Cupules 7000 Baldwin Dam Road (Hinkle Creek Natur e Area)
Listed by the Historic District Commission on January 2, 2008
HISTORICAL BUILDINGS/STRUCTURES/FEATURES - TRANSPORTATION RELATED
PN04-539; The Orangevale Avenue Bridge (the historic Lincoln Highway) 6615 Orangevale Avenue
Deemed eligible for State Listing on April 14, 2005
Listed by the Historic District Commission on June 15, 2005
PN04-654; The Southern Pacific Railroad Company’s Section Superintendent’s House 815 Oakdale Street
Included with the Preliminary Cultural Resources Inventory on November 24, 1998 Listed by the Historic District Commission on March 2, 2005
PN07-436; Historic Railroad Alignment (between Folsom and Wildwood) 7000 Baldwin Dam Road (Hinkle Creek Natur e Area)
Included with the Preliminary Cultural Resources Inventory on November 5, 1998 Listed by the Historic District Commission on January 2, 2008
HISTORIC DISTRICT CULTURAL/ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES
PN04-336; The Bradley House (currently the Bradley House Bed and Breakfast Inn) 606 Figueroa Street
Listed by the Historic District Commission on November 16, 2005
PN06-394; Emma’s Place (originally in the River Way area) 214 Natoma Street
Included with the Preliminary Cultural Resources Inventory on November 24, 1998 Eligibility confirmed by the Historic District Commission on August 16, 2006 Listed by the Historic District Commission on February 7, 2007
PN06-436; The Burnham House (historic residence)
602 Figueroa Street
Listed by the Historic District Commission on February 7, 2007
PN06-437; The Hyman House (historic residence)
603 Figueroa Street
Listed by the Historic District Commission on February 7, 2007
PN06-438; The Historic Miller Residence
607 Figueroa Street
Listed by the Historic District Commission on February 21, 2007
PN06-439; The Historic Klumpp Residence
610 Figueroa Street
Listed by the Historic District Commission on February 21, 2007
PN06-440; Historic Residence
612 Figueroa Street
Listed by the Historic District Commission on February 21, 2007
PN06-460; The Historic Ronchi Residence
708 Figueroa Street
Listed by the Historic District Commission on April 4, 2007
PN06-461; The Historic Hansen Residence
709 Figueroa Street
Listed by the Historic District Commission on April 4, 2007
PN06-462; The Historic Reed Residence
712 Figueroa Street
Listed by the Historic District Commission on April 4, 2007
PN06-463; The Historic McFarland Residence
713 Figueroa Street
Listed by the Historic District Commission on April 4, 2007
PN06-464; The Historic Rumsey Residence
714 Figueroa Street
Listed by the Historic District Commission on April 18, 2007
PN06-510; The Historic Higgins Residence
802 Figueroa Street
Listed by the Historic District Commission on June 20, 2007
PN06-511; The Historic Gable Residence
806 Figueroa Street
Listed by the Historic District Commission on June 20, 2007
PN06-512; The Historic Bartin Residence
807 Figueroa Street
Listed by the Historic District Commission on June 20, 2007
PN06-513; The Wild House
808 Figueroa Street
Listed by the Historic District Commission on May 16, 2007 PN06-514; The Historic Ecklon Residence
812 Figueroa Street
Listed by the Historic District Commission on June 20, 2007
PN06-516; The Bailey Residence
813 Figueroa Street
Listed by the Historic District Commission on June 20, 2007
PN06-517; The Historic Cox Residence
815 Figueroa Street
Listed by the Historic District Commission on June 20, 2007
PN06-518; The Historic Perazzo Residence
816 Figueroa Street
Listed by the Historic District Commission on June 20, 2007
PN12-035; The Historic Chan Residence
917 Sutter Street
Listed by the Historic District Commission on Marc h 7, 2012
HISTORICAL CEMETERIES AND CHURCHES
PN05-048; Saint John the Baptist Catholic Church and Cemetery 1100 Natoma Street
Included with the Preliminary Cultural Resources Inventory on November 24, 1998 Listed by the Historic District Commission on August 3, 2005
PN06-054; Odd Fellows and Mason’s Cemeteries
1201 Forrest Street within Lakeside Memorial Lawn Cemetery Included with the Preliminary Cultural Resources Inventory on November 24, 1998 Listed by the Historic District Commission on November 15, 2006
PN06-195; Landmark Baptist Church (the historic Folsom Methodist-Episcopal Church) 609 Figueroa Street
Included with the Preliminary Cultural Resources Inventory on November 24, 1998 Listed by the Historic District Commission on December 6, 2006
HISTORIC FEATURES, MINING RELATED RESOURCES
PN05-005; Eucalyptus and Olive Grove
13417 Folsom Boulevard (within Folsom Lake/Lake Natoma State Recreation Area) Included with the Preliminary Cultural Resources Inventory on November 24, 1998 Listed by the Historic District Commission on June 7, 2006
PN07-436; Mining Site and Water Conveyance System
7000 Baldwin Dam Road (Hinkle Creek Natur e Area)
Listed by the Historic District Commission on January 2, 2008
HISTORIC STRUCTURES AND SITES, AGRICULTURAL/RANCHING RELATED
PN07-436; Water Storage and Distribution System (supporting cattle operations and orchards) 7000 Baldwin Dam Road (Hinkle Creek Nature Area)
Listed by the Historic District Commission on January 2, 2008
HISTORICAL BUILDINGS/STRUCTURES/FEATURES
PN21-042; Folsom State Prison
300 Prison Road, Represa, CA 95671
Listed by the Historic District Commission on July 20, 2022