Folsom City Council
October 28, 2025

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

3.03 Massing Features
A. Intent
To contribute to the aesthetic quality of the public realm by integrating massing features into the architecture of large buildings, along front or side streets, or buildings at corners.

General Note: Photos on this page are illustrative, not regulatory.

28 Folsom Objective Development and Design Standards Public Review Draft – September 2025

3.03: Massing Features

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

B. Massing Features Standards
Building Length
(along Front or Side Street) Features Required Allowable Features 1 ≤ 80 feet None • Projecting Volumes
• Architectural Recessions
• Upper Story Stepbacks
• Wings
• Bay Windows
• Corner and Tower Elements
80 feet - 120 feet 1
120 feet - 160 feet 2
> 160 feet 3
1 The same massing feature may be used more than once on the same façade.

Figure 3.03.1 Massing Features
Key
First Massing Feature:

Tower Element example
Second Massing Feature:

Architectural Recession
example
Third Massing Feature:

Upper Story Stepback
example

29 Folsom Objective Development and Design StandardsPublic Review Draft – September 2025

3.03: Massing Features

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

C. Standards for Projecting Volumes and Architectural Recessions Projecting
Volumes

1. A projecting volume shall project from the adjacent façade by at least two feet. Adjacent façade(s) shall not be counted as an architectural recession.

2. A projecting volume shall be between two and five bays wide. Bays are required to be between 4 and 30 feet wide.

3. A projecting volume shall extend vertically throughout the building or module's middle and may also extend through the top and/or base.

Architectural
Recessions

1. Where included, a wall inset shall recede from the adjacent façade by at least two feet. Adjacent façade(s) shall not be counted as a projecting volume.

2. A wall inset shall be between two and five bays wide. Bays are required to be between 4 and 30 feet wide.

3. A wall inset shall extend vertically throughout the building or module's middle and top and may also extend through the base.

4. Gable or hipped roof forms shall break at a wall inset and maintain the same eave height on all sides of the wall inset where eaves occur.

Projecting
Volume
Architectural
Recession
Figure 3.03.2 Projecting Volumes Figure 3.03.3 Architectural Recessions

30 Folsom Objective Development and Design Standards Public Review Draft – September 2025

3.03: Massing Features

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

Upper Story
Stepback Depth
Upper Story
Stepback Width
Figure 3.03.4 Upper Story Stepbacks and Wings
D. Standards for Upper Story Stepbacks
Upper Story
Stepbacks

1. Stepback depth: 10' min.

2. Stepback width: 30' min.; 80' max.

31 Folsom Objective Development and Design StandardsPublic Review Draft – September 2025

3.03: Massing Features

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

E. Standards for Bay Windows

1. Applicable to All
Bay windows shall not exceed the height of façade to which they are attached.

2. Specific to Round Bay Windows
(a) Depth: 1' min.; 3' max.
(b) Width: 6' min.; 10' max.
(c) Must be vertically proportioned.
(d) Ganged windows are not allowed.

3. Specific to Chamfered Bay Windows
(a) Depth: 1'min.; 3' max.
(b) Width: 6'min.; 10' max.
(c) Interior angle: 135° or 150°
(d) Number of faces: 3 to 5
(e) Ganged windows are allowed on faces that are parallel to the façade. (f) Ganged windows are not allowed on corner bay windows.

4. Specific to Square Bay Windows
(a) Depth: 1' min.; 3' max.
(b) Width: 6' min.; 9' max.
(c) All windows must be taller than they are wide.
(d) Widest face shall accommodate window grouping.

Figure 3.03.5 Bay Windows
Round Bay Window Chamfered Bay Window Square Bay Window

32 Folsom Objective Development and Design Standards Public Review Draft – September 2025

3.03: Massing Features

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

F. Standards for Tower Elements

1. General Standards
(a) The footprint of a tower element shall be between 10 by 10 feet and 30 by 30 feet. (b) Tower elements shall not include blank walls: the transparency requirements of Section 2.03 (Site Development Standards) Subsection D (Façade Design) shall apply.
(c) Where a tower element is identified, adjacent façade(s) shall not be counted as a projecting volume or architectural recession.
(d) Towers element may exceed the height of the top plate of the building by 10 feet, not including the height of the pitched roof.
(e) Tower elements shall project or recess from adjacent façade by three to four feet, not including eaves.

Extension Lines
Figure 3.03.6 Example of Tower Element at Corner
Key
Tower Element Footprint
Tower Element Projection
Additional Tower Height

33 Folsom Objective Development and Design StandardsPublic Review Draft – September 2025

3.03: Massing Features

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

A. Intent
To affect a building's perceived size and massing and
contribute to the visual appeal of the public realm through a system of symmetry and arrangement of façade elements.

3.04 Façade Composition
General Note: Photos on this page are illustrative, not regulatory.

34 Folsom Objective Development and Design Standards Public Review Draft – September 2025

3.04: Façade Composition

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

B. Façade Composition Standards

1. Each façade within a Building Setback Area is required to be arranged according to a pattern of bays that extend from top to bottom indicating the alignment of façade openings, such as windows and doors. See Section 2.03 (Site Development Standards) Subsection A (Building Placement) for Building Setback Area standards.

2. Bays are required to align throughout the base, middle, and top, but the number of bays may differ between the base, middle, and/or top.

3. Bays are required to be between 4 and 30 feet wide; bays are not required to be equal in width.

4. On façades that exceed 80 feet in length, bays are required be grouped into segments of 40 feet or less in width.

Key Bay Vertical Division Line Bay Grouping
Figure 3.04.1 Façade Composition
Bay Bay
Bay
Bay Bay
Bay
Bay
Bay
Bay

35 Folsom Objective Development and Design StandardsPublic Review Draft – September 2025

3.04: Façade Composition

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

A. Intent
The design of windows and openings promotes cohesion
with surrounding architectural context and reinforces the overall architectural character of the building.

3.05 Fenestration
General Note: Photos on this page are illustrative, not regulatory.

36 Folsom Objective Development and Design Standards Public Review Draft – September 2025

3.05: Fenestration

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

B. Fenestration Standards

1. Applicable to All
(a) When placed within punched openings, all windows or window groupings shall include a sill. (b) Permanent or retractable security gates, grill or bars are prohibited.

2. Specific to Window Openings
(a) At least 75 percent of individual windows on each façade shall be oriented vertically (height greater than width). Where used, horizontally oriented windows shall be ganged with vertically-oriented windows or doors to form a grouping. (b) Ganged windows shall be separated by visible mullions or jambs; continuous ("ribbon") windows are not allowed.

3. Specific to Ventilation Openings
(a) All ventilation openings (such as for a parking garage) shall be screened. (b) Screening material shall be consistent with other materials on façade in terms of color, texture, and/or material. (c) Ventilation openings shall be aligned with window openings on the same façade. (d) Ventilation openings shall be of consistent scale and proportion to window openings on the same façade. (e) Ventilation openings shall include a sill and lintel consistent with those for window openings on the same façade.

37 Folsom Objective Development and Design StandardsPublic Review Draft – September 2025

3.05: Fenestration

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

3.06 Exterior Finishes and Materials
A. Intent
To improve sustainability and durability of the building and respond to existing architectural context through
appropriate material selection and application.

General Note: Photos on this page are illustrative, not regulatory.

38 Folsom Objective Development and Design Standards Public Review Draft – September 2025

3.06: Exterior Finishes and Materials

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

B. Exterior Finishes and Materials Standards

1. Exterior Finishes and Materials
Element Allowed Materials
(a) Exterior Wall Cladding Wood, fiber cement, brick
(b) Base or Foundation (where applicable) Brick, cast stone, wood, fiber cement, treated concrete (c) Roofs
(1) Roofing, mansard Slate shingles or metal (natural or synthetic) (2) Roofing, sloped Asphalt, slate shingles (natural or synthetic), or standing seam metal (d) Windows, Bay Windows, and Entry Doors
(1) Trim or Surround Cast Iron, composite wood, wood, fiber cement (2) Entry Door Wood, fiberglass, composite wood, wood-clad aluminum (3) Window Frames Wood, fiberglass, vinyl, powdercoated aluminum (4) Window Sill Wood, composite wood, fiber cement, cast stone (5) Glazing Clear glass; shall not be tinted, mirrored, or colored (e) Balconies
(1) Guard/Railing Metal, glass
(2) Fascia Metal, wood, composite wood
(f) Porches and Galleries
(1) Columns Wood, composite wood, fiberglass, cast stone (2) Guard/Railing Metal, wood, composite wood, metal, glass (g) Storefronts
(1) Storefront Brick, wood, composite wood, metal
(2) Columns Wood, composite wood, fiberglass, metal
(3) Storefront Base/Bulkhead Wood panels, brick, stone, cast stone, tile, fiber cement, stucco

2. Change in Façade Color and/or Material
(a) Color and/or material change on a façade shall occur only at the following locations:
(1) At inside corners rather than outside corners.
(2) At a horizontal articulation (e.g., string course). (3) At the boundaries between bays/bay groupings (see Section 3.04).

Figure 3.06.1 Change in Façade Color and/or Material
Allowed: Color and/or material change on a façade at
inside corner
Not Allowed: Color and/or material change on a façade
at outside corner

39 Folsom Objective Development and Design StandardsPublic Review Draft – September 2025

3.06: Exterior Finishes and Materials

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

3.07 Balconies and Decks
A. Intent
Balconies provide an option for façade articulation and/or usable outdoor space.

General Note: Photos on this page are illustrative, not regulatory.

40 Folsom Objective Development and Design Standards Public Review Draft – September 2025

3.07: Balconies and Decks

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

B. Balcony and Deck Standards
Where balconies are included, their design shall comply with the following.

1. Specific to Juliet Balconies
(a) Shall be placed in front of inward-swinging door(s) with full glazing. (b) Shall include a base. Base shall project at least four inches from the wall finish surface and shall be a height at least three inches.
(c) Shall include a guard/railing in compliance with building code requirements. (d) At least two brackets are required if balcony projects at least six inches from the wall finish surface and is not part of a porch or gallery.

2. Specific to Occupiable Balconies
(a) Occupiable area shall be at least 4 feet deep and 48 square feet in area. (b) Occupiable area may be recessed into building façade. (c) Shall include a guard/railing in compliance with building code requirements. (d) At least two brackets are required if balcony projects at least six inches from the wall finish surface and is not part of a porch or gallery.

Juliet Balcony
Key
Guard/Railing
Base
Brackets
Inward-Swinging Doors
Occupiable Balcony
Key
Guard/Railing
Base
Brackets
Figure 3.07.1 Balconies

41 Folsom Objective Development and Design StandardsPublic Review Draft – September 2025

3.07: Balconies and Decks

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

3.08 Blank Wall Treatment
A. Intent
A blank wall is a ground-floor wall, or portion of ground floor wall, where no transparent materials or entrances are provided adjacent to the public realm for a continuous length of at least 8 feet and a height of at least 10 feet. Blank wall treatment standards apply to enhance the character and quality of public streetscapes along the ground level.

General Note: Photos on this page are illustrative, not regulatory.

42 Folsom Objective Development and Design Standards Public Review Draft – September 2025

3.08: Blank Wall Treatment

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

B. Blank Wall Treatment Standards

1. At least 50 percent of the area of the blank wall must be covered by one or more of the following:
(a) Mural and/or other art installation.
(b) Protruding/recessed brickwork and tile.
(c) Living plant material, including, but not limited to, green/living wall, and/or plants of sufficient height to screen the blank wall that are rooted in the ground or in planters.

2. The following treatments may be used in combination with any of the above treatments:
(a) Benches or other outdoor seating. Benches may be freestanding or integrated into the articulation of the façade. (b) Bicycle racks. May be freestanding or integrated into the articulation of the façade.

Figure 3.08.1 Blank Wall Treatment Area
Blank Wall Area
Taller than 10 feet
8 feet or more

43 Folsom Objective Development and Design StandardsPublic Review Draft – September 2025

3.08: Blank Wall Treatment

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

44 Folsom Objective Development and Design Standards Public Review Draft – September 2025 This page intentionally left blank Page 316
10/28/2025 Item No.12.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

4.01 Purpose and Applicability
A. Purpose. This Chapter sets forth standards for large development sites to create a pattern of walkable development.

B. Applicability . The standards of this Chapter apply to all new development sites over 10 acres. The development site may include one or more parcels.

4.02 Private Thoroughfares
A. New private thoroughfares shall be designed in compliance with city standards.

B. Existing and new thoroughfares, together with civic open spaces (Section 4.04), shall comprise a contiguous pedestrian network throughout the development site and adjacent public ROW.

C. Alleys and driveways are not considered thoroughfares or components of the public realm for the purpose of these standards and shall only be used along the rear or side of design sites (Section 4.05).

Where an alley or driveway intersects the public realm, the pavement of the public realm shall prevail.

D. The thoroughfare network within the development site may be privately owned but shall be accessible by the general public.

1. Private thoroughfares shall not be gated.

Chapter 4 Large Site Standards
Sections:

4.01 Purpose and Applicability

4.02 Private Thoroughfares

4.03 New Blocks

4.04 Civic Open Spaces

4.05 Design Sites
45 Folsom Objective Development and Design StandardsPublic Review Draft – September 2025Page 317 10/28/2025 Item No.12.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

4.03 New Blocks
A. New blocks, including half-blocks, shall be created using thoroughfares in compliance with city standards and Section 4.02 (Private Thoroughfares) or civic open space types in Section 4.04 (Civic Open Spaces).

1. New thoroughfares shall be designed in compliance with city standards and Section 4.02 (Private Thoroughfares). Passages shall not be more than 50 feet from the center of the block.

2. New civic open spaces shall be designed in compliance with Section 4.04 (Civic Open Spaces) B. Individual block lengths and the total block perimeter shall be in compliance with the standards in Table

4.03.A (Block Size Standards).

1. New thoroughfares, not including alleys or driveways, shall align with the centerline of existing thoroughfares adjacent to the development site.

2. Right-of-way stubs, where used, shall be identified and include a notation that all stubs are to connect with future thoroughfares on adjoining property and be designed to transition in compliance with city standards.

3. New dead-end streets and cul-de-sacs are not allowed unless used to divide half-blocks.

4. Where an alley is included, the maximum block perimeter is allowed to be exceeded by the width of the alley.

C. A half-block is allowed to adjoin an existing half-block in compliance with Table 4.03.A (Block Size Standards).

D. Blocks may be uniquely shaped in compliance with the standards in Table 4.03.A (Block Size Standards).

Figure 4.03.1 Maximum Block Size without Passage Figure 4.03.2 Maximum Block Size with Passage Table 4.03.A Block Size Standards
Block Length Block Perimeter Depth of Half-Block(s)
Passage not included 500' max. 1,800' max.
250' max.

Passage included 600' max. 2,000' max.

46 Folsom Objective Development and Design Standards Public Review Draft – September 2025

4.03: New Blocks

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

4.04 Civic Open Spaces
A. The total amount of civic open space required is a minimum of five percent of the development site's gross area (minus existing easements).

1. The civic open space(s) shall be located within the development site.

2. The civic open space(s) shall be designed and built in compliance with the allowed civic open space types in Table 4.04.A (Civic Open Space Types).

3. The civic open space(s) shall be privately owned and maintained.

B. Each civic open space shall abut and be accessible from existing or new thoroughfares for a minimum of 50 feet.

C. Fences and landscaping up to 42 inches tall are allowed to be installed along the perimeter of civic open spaces. Freestanding walls are not allowed.

D. Asphalt surfaces are prohibited unless stamped.

E. Building façades that abut or are across a street from a civic open space shall be designed as the front of the building in compliance with the standards of Chapter 2 (Development Standards).

Table 4.04.A Civic Open Space Types
Type Standards
Park. A landscaped open space for passive recreation or programmed use. (1) Minimum of 5,000 square feet in size.
(2) No side narrower than 50 feet.
(3) At least one side of the green or plaza space shall abut and be accessible from the street or sidewalk network.
(4) Minimum 60 percent landscaped.

Plaza. A hardscaped open space used primarily for civic purposes and commercial activities. (1) Minimum of 5,000 square feet in size.
(2) No side narrower than 50 feet.
(3) At least one side of the green or plaza space shall abut and be accessible from the street or sidewalk network.
(4) Minimum 60 percent hardscaped.

Passage. A private thoroughfare that provides access into or through a block. (1) Minimum total width of 20 feet, including walkway and parkway. (2) Minimum walkway width of 8 feet.
(3) Minimum parkway width of 6 feet each on both sides of the walkway. (4) Parkway shall be designed with non-continuous planting strips or tree wells located between walkway and building.

47 Folsom Objective Development and Design StandardsPublic Review Draft – September 2025

4.04: Civic Open Spaces

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

4.05 Design Sites
A. A design site is a portion of land within a parcel, delineated from other design sites or parcels, to accommodate no more than one primary building. The main purpose of a design site is to allow a parcel to contain multiple buildings while not requiring the legal subdivision of the parcel.

B. Development Standards. The following standards apply to all design sites. See Figure 4.05.1 (Examples of Multiple Design Sites) and Figure 4.05.2 (Example Application of Large Site Standards).

1. The front of all design sites shall abut the public realm along existing and new thoroughfares and civic open spaces. Alleys/driveways are not considered part of the public realm;

2. The side of all design sites shall abut the public realm along existing and new thoroughfares and civic open spaces, the side or rear of another design site, or an alley/driveway; and

3. The rear of all design sites shall abut the side or rear of another design site or an alley/driveway.

4. Design sites shall comply with FMC Chapter 8.36 (Folsom Fire Code).

5. Development standards apply to each individual design site, with the exception of the following, which are applied to the entire development site:
(a) Number of units per General Plan maximum density and FAR; and (b) Public improvements, including private thoroughfare(s) and civic open space(s).

6. Each design site shall have a maximum width of 200 feet and maximum depth of 250 feet, unless approved as an adjustment due to site conditions per Chapter 5 (Exceptions to Standards).

7. Parking, driveways, pedestrian pathways, trash enclosures, and stormwater detention areas may be shared with adjacent design sites within the same parcel.

8. Where new primary buildings are proposed within a development site and have no existing public realm to abut, the public realm shall be extended into the site in the form of a new thoroughfare(s) and/or civic open space(s).
(a) New thoroughfares within the development site shall be designed in compliance with Section

4.02 (Private Thoroughfares), connect to existing abutting public ROW and be contiguous. (b) New civic open space(s) shall be designed in compliance with Section 4.04 (Civic Open Spaces), be located adjacent to the existing street, or be connected to the existing street through new thoroughfares.

48 Folsom Objective Development and Design Standards Public Review Draft – September 2025

4.05: Design Sites

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

Key
Design Site Thoroughfare Building
Public Realm Civic Open Space Vehicle Access & Parking
Figure 4.05.1 Examples of Multiple Design Sites
Extend the public realm
into the site with a new
thoroughfare(s) and/or civic
open space(s).

Place buildings to face the
public realm. On-site parking
is located behind or under
the buildings. Vehicular
access is provided across
design sites
Identify the front and side
street of the design site(s).

Buildings are required to
face the public realm and
include building and/or unit
entries in these areas.

Orient design sites to front
onto the public realm.

Example A: Midblock Site Example B: Corner Site
Front Front
Side Street
Existing Parcel Existing Parcel

49 Folsom Objective Development and Design StandardsPublic Review Draft – September 2025

4.05: Design Sites

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

Existing Street
Existing Street
Existing Street
Figure 4.05.2 Example Application of Large Site Standards The following four steps summarize the process of applying the standards of this Chapter. In this example, new thoroughfares and civic open spaces create an interconnected network of new blocks within the development site. See also Section 4.05 (Design Sites).

Step 3: Place Civic Open Space(s) and Design Sites
Locate and design civic open space(s) in compliance with the standards in Section 4.03 (Civic Open Spaces). Place design sites (Section 4.05) to front the public realm along existing and new thoroughfares and civic open spaces.

Step 4: Place Buildings on Design Sites
Locate buildings and parking in compliance with standards in Chapter 2 (Development Standards).

Step 1: Identify the Development Site
The development site is the entire site within the scope of the project, which may include one or more parcels.

Step 2: Introduce New Private Thoroughfares to Create
New Blocks
Introduce new private thoroughfares (Section 4.02) to create new blocks (Section 4.03) and extend the public realm into the development site.

Existing Street
Existing Street
Existing Street
Development
Site
New Block
New Half
Block
New Thoroughfare Development Site Boundary
Civic Open SpaceDesign Site Passage Parking Area
New Block
New Half
Block
Alley
Façade Buildout

50 Folsom Objective Development and Design Standards Public Review Draft – September 2025

4.05: Design Sites

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

5.01 Purpose and Applicability
A. Purpose. This Chapter establishes criteria for allowing deviations from certain standards for specific situations without discretionary review because of the prescriptive nature of the standards, as allowed by State law.

B. Applicability . This Chapter applies to all developments proposed under these Objective Development and Design Standards (ODDS). The Review Authority is allowed to grant exceptions for only the standards identified in this Chapter. Adjustment of the identified standards in Tables 5.030.A and B shall be only to the extent necessary to achieve compliance with the ODDS.

1. Exceptions are applied separately for design sites with an average slope of 10 percent or less and an average slope over 10 percent. The average slope for a lot is based on existing topography and calculated using the methodology in Section 7.05 (Average Slope). (a) Lots with an average slope of 10 percent or less may request an exception in Table 5.03.A (Exceptions to Standards for Design Sites with 10% or Less Average Slope). (b) Lots with an average slope over 10 percent may request an exception in Table 5.03.B (Exceptions to Standards for Design Sites with Over 10% Average Slope).

Sections:

5.01 Purpose and Applicability

5.02 Procedures and Findings

5.03 Alternate Discretionary Design Review Process
Chapter 5 Exceptions to Standards
51 Folsom Objective Development and Design StandardsPublic Review Draft – September 2025Page 323 10/28/2025 Item No.12.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

5.02 Procedures and Findings
A. Review Procedure and Authority

1. Exception request(s) shall be submitted to the Planning Division of the Community Development Department and reviewed together with the project plans.

2. The Community Development Director shall be the Review Authority, except for standards that affect visibility at driveways and intersections, or standards in the right-of-way, which shall be reviewed by the Community Development Director.

B. Application Requirements. Exception requests shall be reviewed and processed as follows:

1. Exception requests shall be accompanied by a written request by the applicant explaining the need for the exception and identifying all existing site conditions or features that prevent compliance with the specific standard(s).

2. Granting an exception does not eliminate other standards not specified in Table 5.03.A (Exceptions to Standards for Design Sites with 10% or Less Average Slope) or Table 5.03.B (Exceptions to Standards for Design Sites with Over 10% Average Slope).

C. Findings. For the Review Authority to grant an exception, findings/criteria in Table 5.03.A (Exceptions to Standards for Design Sites with 10% or Less Average Slope) or Table 5.03.B (Exceptions to Standards for Design Sites with Over 10% Average Slope) are required for the exception.

D. Existing Site Condition. An existing site condition is a legally permitted building or structure constructed on the site with a final inspection or certificate of occupancy or a natural feature that exists as of the date of initial application submittal.

1. For purposes of this Chapter, existing site conditions that prevent compliance with a standard include, but are not limited to, the following:
(a) A protected tree or Landmark Tree per FMC § 12.16 (Tree Preservation). (b) Utility infrastructure that is not required to be removed, relocated, or installed underground. (c) A retaining wall necessary to retain or support soil. (d) A watercourse, including wetlands and vernal pools, identified by the City, or any other map as may be adopted or established by ordinance.
(e) Easements on record at the Sacramento County Recorder's Office.

2. The existing site condition used as a basis for requesting an exception shall not be removed or altered in their footprint.

5.03 Alternate Discretionary Design Review Process
A. Applicants wishing to deviate from these standards beyond the allowed exceptions outlined in this Chapter must apply for a Planned Development Permit which involves discretionary design review and Planning Commission action. For information on Planned Development Permit process please refer to FMC Chapter 17.38.

52 Folsom Objective Development and Design Standards Public Review Draft – September 2025

5.02: Procedures and Findings

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

Table 5.03.A Exceptions to Standards for Design Sites with 10 % or Less Average Slope Administrative
Relief Type Required Findings Allowed Administrative Relief & Conditions
Reference to
Standard

1. Building Placement Standards
(a) Primary Building Setbacks
Increase or decrease in
the minimum to maximum
required setback for a
primary building.
i. Existing site conditions
prevent compliance
with the setback
standard.

Front or Side Street Setback: Deviation
of up to 25 percent of the standard.

Side or Rear Setback: Standard
reduced to three feet minimum.

Section 2.03.A
(Building
Placement)
(b) Building Setback Area
Reduce the minimum length
of façade required within or
abutting the building setback
area.
i. Existing site conditions
prevent compliance
with the setback
standard.

Reduction by up to 10 percent of the
standard.

The horizontal unbuilt area
resulting from this exception shall
be landscaped in compliance with
the State's Model Water Efficient
Landscape Ordinance (MWELO).

2. Parking Placement Standards
(a) Front or Side Street
Minimum Setback
Reduce the minimum parking
setback.
i. Existing site conditions
prevent compliance
with the parking
minimum setback
standard.

Reduction by up to 25 percent of the
standard.

The setback reduction maintains
visibility at driveways and intersections
and does not affect standards for the
right-of-way.

Section 2.03.B
(Parking Placement)
(b) Front Vehicle Access
Allow vehicle access from
front on design sites/lots.
i. Existing site conditions
prevent compliance
with the driveways
standard; or
Vehicular access from the front.

The driveway is in compliance with the
Development Standards; and
The ground floor space remains
occupiable in compliance with the
Development Standards, as allowed to
be adjusted by this section; and
The existing lot is at least 50 feet wide;
and
The proposed driveway is not aligned
with any driveway on the opposite side
of the street.
ii. Alley does not
meet vehicle access
requirements.

53 Folsom Objective Development and Design StandardsPublic Review Draft – September 2025

5.03: Alternate Discretionary Design Review Process

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

Table 5.03.A Exceptions to Standards for Design Sites with 10 % or Less Average Slope Administrative
Relief Type Required Findings Allowed Administrative Relief & Conditions
Reference to
Standard

3. Building Form
(a) Building Footprint Depth or
Width
Increase in the maximum
allowed.
i. Existing site conditions
prevent compliance
with the standard.

Increase of up to 10 percent of the
standard.

Section 2.03.C
(Building Form)
(b) Ground Floor Occupiable
Space
Decrease in the minimum
depth required.
i. If existing parcel is less
than 100 feet in depth.
20 feet minimum. Section 2.03.C
(Building Form)

4. Open Space
(a) Private or Common Open
Space
Reduction in the required
minimum open space.
i. Existing site conditions
prevent compliance
with the open space
standard.

Up to 5' of the dimensional standard or
up to 10 percent of the required area.

Section 2.04.F
(Open Space)

5. Block Size Standards
(a) Block Length or Perimeter i. Preservation of existing building or buildings,
constructed prior to
the adoption of these
ODDS.

Maximum block length and perimeter
standards to be increased to encompass
the building(s) and all setbacks required
by the applicable zone(s).

Table 4.03.A (Block
Size Standards)

6. Design Site Dimensions
(a) Depth or Width
Increase in the maximum
allowed.
i. Existing site conditions
prevent compliance
with the standard.

Reduction by up to 10 percent of the
standard.

Section 4.05
(Design Sites)

54 Folsom Objective Development and Design Standards Public Review Draft – September 2025

5.02: Procedures and Findings

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

Table 5.03.B Exceptions to Standards for Design Sites with Over 10% Average Slope Administrative
Relief Type Required Findings Allowed Administrative Relief & Conditions
Reference to
Standard

1. Building Placement Standards
(a) Front or Side Building
Setback
Increase or decrease in
minimum to maximum
required setback for a
primary building.
i. Existing site conditions
prevent compliance
with the setback
standard.

Deviation of up to 50 percent of the
standard.

Section 2.03.A
(Building
Placement)

2. Parking Placement Standards
(a) Front or Side Street
Minimum Setback
Reduce the minimum
parking setback.
i. Existing site conditions
prevent compliance
with the parking
minimum setback
standard; or
Reduction by up to 10 percent of the
standard.

The setback reduction maintains visibility at
driveways and intersections and does not
affect standards for the right-of-way.

Section 2.03.B
(Parking Placement)
ii. The parcel exceeds an
average slope of 20
percent.

Required parking is allowed to be located
between the ROW and the building for a
max 50 percent of front lot width.

The driveway is in compliance with the
Development Standards; and
The ground floor space remains occupiable
in compliance with the Development
Standards, as allowed to be adjusted by this
section.
(b) Front Vehicle Access
Allow vehicle access
from front on design
sites/lots.
i. Existing site conditions
prevent compliance
with the driveways
standard.

Vehicular access from the front.

The driveway is in compliance with the
Development Standards; and
The ground floor space remains occupiable
in compliance with the Development
Standards, as allowed to be adjusted by this
section; and
The existing lot is at least 50 feet wide; and
The proposed driveway is not aligned with
any driveway on the opposite side of the
street; and
The design site/lot average slope along the
side street exceeds 15 percent.

55 Folsom Objective Development and Design StandardsPublic Review Draft – September 2025

5.03: Alternate Discretionary Design Review Process

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

Table 5.03.B Exceptions to Standards for Design Sites with Over 10% Average Slope

3. Building Form
(a) Building Footprint
Depth or Width
Increase in the maximum
allowed.
i. Existing site conditions
prevent compliance
with the standard.

Increase of up to 10 percent of the
standard.

Section 2.03.C
(Building Form)
(b) Ground Floor
Occupiable Space
Decrease in the
minimum depth
required.
i. Existing site conditions
prevent compliance
with the ground floor
occupiable space
standard.
15 feet minimum. Section 2.03.C
(Building Form)

4. Open Space
(a) Private or Common
Open Space
Reduction in the required
minimum open space.
i. Existing site conditions
prevent compliance
with the open space
standard.

Up to 5' of the dimensional standard or up to
10 percent of the required area.

Section 2.04.F
(Open Space)

5. Site Grading
(a) Retaining Wall (Height)
Increase in maximum
retaining wall height.
i. Existing slopes
average 20 percent
slope; and
Increase in retaining wall height up to 10
feet along interior design site/lot line(s);
Increase in retaining wall height up to 12
feet within the building footprint if primary
building height is in compliance with
Development Standards.

Section 2.04.L
(Screening and
Walls)
ii. The retaining wall(s)
is necessary to
accommodate the
building(s) and
required site access
and parking.

6. Design Site Dimensions
(a) Depth or Width
Increase in the maximum
allowed.
i. Existing site conditions
prevent compliance
with the standard.

Reduction by up to 10 percent of the
standard.

Section 4.05
(Design Sites)

56 Folsom Objective Development and Design Standards Public Review Draft – September 2025

5.02: Procedures and Findings

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

6.01 Purpose
This Chapter provides definitions for specialized terms and phrases used in the Objective Design and Development Standards (ODDS). All other applicable definitions in the Folsom Municipal Code (FMC) Section

17.02 (Definitions) apply. In the event of a conflict between the ODDS and FMC definitions, that the ODDS definitions shall apply to projects subject to these standards.

6.02 Definitions
A. Definitions
Abutting. Having a common boundary either directly sharing a border or separated by an alley. Lots/ design sites having no common boundary other than a common corner shall not be considered abutting.

Alley. A public or private way that is primarily used for vehicular access to the back or side of design sites.

Alleys are not considered thoroughfares.

Applicant. Any person, firm, partnership, association, joint venture, corporation, or any other entity or combination of entities, or state or local government agency applying for a permit.

Architectural Feature. An exterior building element that contributes to its overall appearance or functionality, including, but not limited to, eaves, rakes, cornices, bay windows, window and door surrounds, chimneys, light fixtures, and oriels.

Awning (syn. Canopy) . A covering that extends from the wall of a building typically used to shade or cover a window, door, or entry.

B. Definitions
Balcony. A projecting or recessed platform on a building, partially enclosed with a railing, wall, or balustrade.

Base (of Building). The lowest story or stories adjacent to the ground, occupying at least an entire floor.

See Section 3.02 (Top, Middle, and Base Façade Design).

Bay. A division of a building between vertical lines or planes that run entirely through solid components of the building, including the entire space between consecutive structural supports.

Bay Window. An architectural projection that is either attached to the ground or projects from the building façade, consisting of one or more stories in height and contains at least 60 percent glass area.

Block. An area of land separated from other areas by an adjacent thoroughfare(s) or civic open space(s).

For the purposes of these ODDS, a block is defined by design site/lot lines. See Section 4.03 (New Blocks).

Chapter 6 Definitions
Sections:

6.01 Purpose

6.02 Definitions
57 Folsom Objective Development and Design StandardsPublic Review Draft – September 2025Page 329 10/28/2025 Item No.12.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

Block Length. The horizontal distance from the design site/lot line on one end of the block to the design site/lot line on the other end along the same street. See Figures 4.03.2 (Maximum Block Size without Passage) and 4.03.1 (Maximum Block Size with Passage).

Block Perimeter. The aggregate of all sides of a block as defined by design site/lot lines.

Bracket. Structural and/or ornamental elements are designed to strengthen the connection between components of a structure that meet at an angle.

Buildable Area. The horizontal area in which a building is allowed to be constructed.

Building, Primary. The building that serves as the focal point for all activities related to the principal use of the parcel.

Building Elevation. See “Building Façade.”
Building Entrance. See "Entry."
Building Façade. The exterior walls of a building.

1. Building Façade, Front. The exterior wall of a building facing a front design site/lot line.

2. Building Façade, Side Street. The exterior wall of a building facing a side street design site/lot line.

3. Building Façade, Interior Side. The exterior wall of a building facing a side design site/lot line(s).

4. Building Façade, Rear. The exterior wall of a building opposite the front design site/lot line.

Building Form. The overall shape and dimensions of a building.

Building Setback. See "Setback."
Building Setback Area. The area between the minimum and maximum setback lines along the front of a design site/lot and along the side street of a corner design site/lot where the building façade is required to be placed. Chapter 2 (Development Standards) Subsection A (Building Placement) identify the minimum amount of façade to abut and/or be placed in the building setback area.

Bulkhead (syn. Shopfront Base). The area of the storefront between the sidewalk and the display window.

By-Right Relief. Allowed deviations from certain standards for specific situations without discretionary review because of the prescriptive nature of the standards, as allowed by State law . See Chapter 5 (Exceptions to Standards).

C. Definitions
Canopy. See "Awning."
Civic Open Space. An outdoor area dedicated for public gathering and civic activities. See Section 4.04 (Civic Open Spaces).

Column. A vertical shaft extending from the ground or from one part of the structure to another.

Commercial. Pertaining to any business, trade, industry, or other activity engaged in an exchange of goods, services, rights or interests in property, or any other valuable consideration.

Common Area. A portion of a development held in common and/or single ownership that is not reserved for the exclusive use or benefit of an individual tenant or owner and is available for use by all persons who reside or work in the building or on the design site/lot.

58 Folsom Objective Development and Design Standards Public Review Draft – September 2025

6.02: Definitions

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

Cornice. A horizontal projection traditionally used to join a roof to the wall below and protect the wall from rainwater. The cornice forms the uppermost part of an entablature and may appear secondarily in locations other than at the building's eave or parapet, such as the upper boundary of a base story.

Cul-de-sac. A street that connects to another public street only at one end and is not planned for future extension.

D. Definitions
Dedication. The transfer by a subdivider to a public entity of title to real property or an interest therein, or of an easement or right in real property, the transfer of facilities, the installation of improvements, or any combination of these. See FMC § 16.32.010 (Dedication of Street, Alleys, and Other Public Right-of- Way or Easements).

Design Site. A parcel or portion of land within a parcel, delineated from other design sites and/or parcels, to accommodate one primary building. Design sites are treated like parcels for the purpose of applying development standards but are not required to be legally subdivided. See Section 4.05 (Design Sites).

Design Site Depth. The horizontal distance between the front design site line and the rear design site line of a design site measured perpendicular to the front design site line.

Design Site Line. The perimeter and geometry of a design site demarcating one design site from another.

1. Design Site Line, Front. The design site line abutting a thoroughfare or civic open space where the building front will be placed.

2. Design Site Line, Side Street. The design site line that abuts a thoroughfare or civic open space and is not the front design site line.

3. Design Site Line, Side. The design site line not abutting a thoroughfare or civic open space and is not the rear design site line.

4. Design Site Line, Rear. The design site line opposite the front design site line.

Design Site Width. The horizontal distance between the design site lines perpendicular to the front design site line.

Development Site (syn. Project Site). A parcel, group of parcels, or portion(s) of parcels on which proposed structures and improvements are to be constructed.

Driveway (syn. Drive Aisle) . An accessway that provides vehicular access between a street or alley and the parking or loading facilities of an adjacent property.

E. Definitions
Eave. The junction of the lower edge of a sloped roof and the wall of a building, running parallel to grade.

Elevated Ground Floor. A ground floor that is situated above the grade plane of the adjacent sidewalk.

Encroachment. Any architectural feature, structure, or structural element that breaks the plane of a vertical or horizontal regulatory limit by extending into a setback, forecourt, or required open space.

Entry, Building. An opening, including, but not limited to, a door, gateway, or gate, that allows access to a building.

Expression Line. A horizontal molding, projection, or other boundary articulating one portion of a façade from the portion above.

59 Folsom Objective Development and Design StandardsPublic Review Draft – September 2025

6.02: Definitions

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

F. Definitions
Façade. See "Building Façade."
Façade Transparency. Related to the requirement for fenestration along the front of a building. See Chapter 2 (Development Standards) Subsection D (Façade Design).

Fence. A structure made of wood, metal, masonry, or other material typically used to screen or enclose, an open space.

Finish Level, Ground Floor. The height difference between the finished floor on the ground floor and the adjacent sidewalk.

Footprint, Building. The outline of the area of ground covered by the foundations of a building or structure.

G. Definitions
Gable. A vertical wall in the shape of a triangle formed between the cornice or eave and the ridge of the roof.

Ganged Windows (syn. Grouped Windows). Multiple windows separated by a mullion (structural divisions).

Garage. See "Parking, Covered."
Glazing. Openings in a building in which glass is installed.

Grade. The finished ground level at any point along the exterior walls of a structure. Where walls are parallel with and within five feet of a sidewalk, alley, or other public way, the level above ground shall be measured at the elevation of the sidewalk, alley, or public way. Also see "Grade, Finished." Grade, Finished (syn. Proposed Grade). The final ground surface elevation after the completion of grading or other site preparation related to a proposed development that conforms to an approved Grading Permit or Building Permit. See also "Grade."
Grading. Any excavating or filling or combination thereof.

Ground Floor. See "Story, First."
Ground Floor, Finish Level. The height of the finished level of the ground floor above the adjacent sidewalk. In the case of a terrace frontage type, the ground floor finish level is the height of the walk above the adjacent street. Regulations for ground floor finish level for residential uses do not apply to ground floor lobbies and common areas in buildings.

Grouped Windows. See "Ganged Windows."
H. Definitions
Hardscape. Paving, decks, patios, and other hard, non-porous surfaces.

Height

1. Height, Above Grade. The vertical distance from a point on the ground below a structure to a point directly above.

2. Height, Highest Top Plate. The vertical distance between the adjacent finished grade and the highest top plate of the building.

60 Folsom Objective Development and Design Standards Public Review Draft – September 2025

6.02: Definitions

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

3. Height, Number of Stories. The number of stories in a structure allowed above the adjacent finished grade. See "Stories."

4. Height, Overall. The vertical distance between the adjacent existing or finished grade, whichever is lower, and the highest part of the structure directly above.

I. Definitions
Impervious. A hard surface area which either prevents or retards the entry of water into soil, as would occur under natural conditions, or which causes water to run off the surface in greater quantities or at an increased rate of flow than would occur under natural conditions.

Infill. Refers to building within unused and underutilized lands within existing development patterns.

Infill development is critical to accommodating growth and redesigning cities to be environmentally- and socially sustainable.

J. Definitions
No specialized terms beginning with the letter J are defined at this time.

K. Definitions
No specialized terms beginning with the letter K are defined at this time.

L. Definitions
Landing. An unenclosed, unroofed platform attached to a building and serving as a required means of egress from the first floor of a building or a level area at the top or bottom of a staircase or between one flight of stairs and another.

Lintel. Horizontal support for a door or window below.

Lot (syn. Parcel). A parcel, tract, or area of land whose boundaries have been established by a legal instrument such as a deed or map recorded with the County of Sacramento and that is recognized as a separate legal entity for purposes of transfer of title, except public easements or rights-of-way. For the purposes of these ODDS, lot line, parcel line, and design site line shall be considered synonymous.

M. Definitions
Main Body. The primary massing of a primary building.

Massing. The overall shape or arrangement of the bulk or volume of a building and structures.

Median. A planted or paved area that separates two roadways or divides a portion of a road into two or more lanes.

Mixed-Use. The combination of residential and nonresidential uses within the same building or the same general area.

1. Mixed-Use Building. A single building that contains both nonresidential and residential uses.

2. Mixed-Use Development. A development site that contains both nonresidential and residential uses on the same design site/lot, whether or not they are located within the same structure.

Mullion. Vertical bar providing structural support between windows.

N. Definitions
No specialized terms beginning with the letter N are defined at this time.

61 Folsom Objective Development and Design StandardsPublic Review Draft – September 2025

6.02: Definitions

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

O. Definitions
Occupiable Space. The portion of the building between the street-facing façade and the rear interior wall of the ground-floor space available for permitted uses. This space is designed and intended for human occupancy and active use, such as residential units, offices, retail, lobbies, and amenity areas, as opposed to space used for storage, parking, utilities, or circulation only.

Open Space, Civic. An outdoor area dedicated for public gathering and civic activities.

Open Space, Private. The area required for each residential unit in some building types provided as outdoor yard areas, patios, decks, or balconies.

Open Space, Shared. An entry court, forecourt, courtyard, or other on-site open space shared by multiple residential units or non-residential units.

P. Definitions
Panels. Solid raised or recessed parts of a door, surrounded by stiles, rails, and mullions.

Parapet. A low wall along the edge of a roof or the portion of a wall that extends above the roof line.

Parcel. See "Lot."
Parking

1. Parking, Covered. An accessory building, such as a carport or garage, accessible to vehicles that completely covers the parking spaces.
a. Carport. A structure, or portion of a structure, accessible to vehicles, with a solid weatherproof roof that is permanently open on at least two sides, used as parking or storage of one or more motor vehicles.
b. Garage. An enclosed building or portion of a building accessible to vehicles, used as parking or storage of one or more motor vehicles.
c. Garage, Private. A building or portion of a building in which only motor vehicles used by the tenants of the building or buildings on the premises are stored or kept. d. Garage, Public. A structure or portion thereof offering parking to the public with or without a fee.
e. Parking, Tuck-Under. Parking spaces located in an at-grade garage or accessed by an open driveway under the rear or interior side of the building or under all of the building except for the required ground floor habitable space. Tuck-under parking has occupiable space above the garage level.

2. Parking, Shared Court. A small grouping of covered or uncovered parking spaces. See Subsection

2.04.M.7 (Shared Parking Court).

3. Parking, Structured. A structure, or portion of a structure, comprised of one or more levels or floors used predominately for parking motor vehicles, including underground parking and parking at grade within a building or structure.
a. Parking, Podium. Parking spaces located in an at-grade garage with shared ingress/egress and maneuvering areas located under the rear or interior side of the building or under all of the building except for the required ground floor occupiable space. The podium parking garage has occupiable space above the garage level.

62 Folsom Objective Development and Design Standards Public Review Draft – September 2025

6.02: Definitions

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.
b. Parking, Stacked. Parking spaces arranged in a system that provides two to three spaces in the horizontal area of one space. This type of system is within a podium and subterranean parking structure.
c. Parking, Subterranean. Parking spaces located below the finished grade of the building.

4. Parking, Surface. A ground level parking lot used exclusively for parking motor vehicles. Parking spaces may be uncovered or covered as a carport.

5. Parking, Tandem. A parking space deep enough to allow a maximum of two cars to park, one behind the other

6. Parking, Uncovered. Parking spaces that are completely or partially open to the sky.

Parking Driveway Width. The horizontal measurement of an access driveway to a parking area, measured perpendicular to the direction of travel.

Parkway. That portion of a public ROW, typically landscaped, located between the outermost edge of the sidewalk and the curb.

Parkway Tree. See "Street Tree."
Passage. A pedestrian pathway that extends from a sidewalk or civic open space to enhance bike and pedestrian connectivity and provide frontage opportunities.

Patio Cover. A one-story, roofed structure used only for recreational and/or outdoor living purposes that may be attached or detached as an accessory structure to the primary building.

Podium. A continuous projecting base or pedestal under a building often occupied by parking.

Porch. A covered shelter projecting in front of the entrance of a building.

Primary Building. See "Building, Primary."
Private Open Space. See "Open Space, Private."
Public Realm. The outdoor space (horizontally and vertically) accessible to the public, including the setbacks, sidewalks, landscaping, and street between buildings, consisting of new and existing thoroughfares and civic open spaces. For the purpose of the ODDS, the public realm may be privately owned.

Punched Opening. A window opening on an exterior wall where the glass is inset at least three inches from the primary plane of the façade.

Q. Definitions
No specialized terms beginning with the letter Q are defined at this time.

R. Definitions
Renovation (syn. Remodel)

1. A structural change to the foundation, roof, floor, or exterior of load-bearing walls of a facility or the extension of an existing facility to increase its floor area.

2. Alteration of an existing facility including, but not limited to, significantly changing its function, even if such renovation does not include any structural change to the facility.

3. Remodeling of the building's interior or exterior.

63 Folsom Objective Development and Design StandardsPublic Review Draft – September 2025

6.02: Definitions

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

Residential. Lands, buildings, or structures or portions thereof used, or designed for use, as a home or residence of one or more individuals.

Right-of-Way (ROW). A strip of land acquired by reservation, easement, dedication, forced dedication, prescription, or condemnation and intended to be occupied or occupied by a street, railroad, electric transmission lines, oil or gas pipeline, water line, sanitary storm sewer, or other similar use.

S. Definitions
Setback. The distance by which a structure, parking area, or other development feature is separated from a design site/lot line.

1. Setback, Front (syn. Building Setback Area, Front). An area extending across the full width of the design site/lot parallel to the front design site/lot line, extending between the side design site/lot lines.

2. Setback, Parking. The mandatory clear distance between a design site/lot line and parking area.

3. Setback, Rear. An area extending the full width of the design site/lot between a rear design site/lot line, parallel to the rear design site/lot line, extending between the side design site/lot lines.

4. Setback, Side. An area between a side design site/lot line, parallel to the side design site/lot line, extending between the front and rear design site/lot lines.

5. Setback, Side Street (syn. Building Setback Area, Side Street). Setback adjacent to side street design site/lot.

Shopfront Base. See "Bulkhead."
Sidewalk. A paved, surfaced, or leveled area, paralleling and usually separated from the street, used as a pedestrian walkway.

Sill. The horizontal bottom member of a window frame.

Stair Penthouse. An enclosed rooftop space for the housing of a stairway and containing no habitable or storage space.

Storefront. The majority portion of a shopfront frontage that consists of the display window and/or entrance and its components, including windows, doors, transoms, and sill pane.

Story. That portion of a building included between the surface of any floor and the surface of the floor next above it, except that the topmost story shall be that portion of a building included between the surface of the topmost floor and the surface of the roof above.

1. Story, First (syn. Ground Floor). The lowest story, or the ground story of any building, that is closest to the finished grade. The story above is the Second Floor or Second Story.

2. Story, Half (syn. Attic Story). A conditioned space that rests primarily underneath the slope of the roof, usually having dormer windows. The half-story is identified by the ".5" in the description of maximum height (e.g., 2.5). A half-story is considered a story when its top wall plates, on at least two opposite exterior walls, are four feet or more above the floor of such story.

Street. A public or private way constructed for the primary purpose of vehicular travel. The term “street” describes the entire legal ROW or easement (public or private), including, but not limited to, the traffic lanes, bike lanes, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, whether paved or unpaved, parkways, and any other grounds found within the legal ROW. The name given to the ROW (avenue, court, road, etc.) is not determinative of whether the ROW is a street.

64 Folsom Objective Development and Design Standards Public Review Draft – September 2025

6.02: Definitions

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

1. Street, Front. Street located along the front design site/lot line.

2. Street, Private. Any street, not a public street.

3. Street, Public. A street for which the ROW is owned by or offered for dedication to the public and accepted by the City. A public street will be shown on the official dedicated street map of the City of Folsom.

4. Street, Side. Street located along a lot line/design site/lot line that is not the front design site/lot line.

Street Tree (syn. Parkway Tree). A tree planted in public areas, tree wells, parkways, sidewalk areas, street easements, streets, and rights-of-way.

String Course. A continuous horizontal band on the exterior wall of a building providing visual definition between floors.

T. Definitions
Thoroughfare. A way for use by vehicular, pedestrian, and/or bicycle traffic that provides access to design sites and civic open spaces. Thoroughfares include both private and public streets, but not alleys or driveways.

Transom. Glazed lite or window set above a door that is the same width or no wider than the door frame, including sidelights if present.

Trim. A narrow strip of wood, molding, or other material as surface decoration and/or the covering for joints and seams between the building structure and window and door openings or at wall edges.

U. Definitions
Upper Floor. A floor in a building that is located above the first floor.

V. Definitions
No specialized terms beginning with the letter V are defined at this time.

W. Definitions
Walkway. A paved way used for pedestrian traffic. See also "Sidewalk." Window. An opening in an exterior wall, that allows light into the interior, but is not designed as an entry.

Window, Dormer. A vertical window opening with surrounding wall and roof construction projecting from a sloping roof.

Wing. A structure of at least five feet in depth physically attached to, and secondary to, the main body of a primary building.

X. Definitions
No specialized terms beginning with the letter X are defined at this time.

Y. Definitions
No specialized terms beginning with the letter Y are defined at this time.

Z. Definitions
Zoning Code. The Zoning Code of the City of Folsom specified in Title 17 (Zoning).

65 Folsom Objective Development and Design StandardsPublic Review Draft – September 2025

6.02: Definitions

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

66 Folsom Objective Development and Design Standards Public Review Draft – September 2025 This page intentionally left blank Page 338
10/28/2025 Item No.12.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

7.01 Purpose
This Chapter describes the measurement methods and calculations of site and building elements to ensure compliance with the Objective Development and Design Standards (ODDS).

7.02 Façade Buildout
A. The required amount of building façade in the building setback area is expressed in the Development Standards as a percentage, which is calculated as follows:

1. Identify the width and depth of the design site/lot and required setbacks for the primary building.

See Section 2.03.A (Building Placement).

2. Calculate the net buildable width of the design site/lot as follows:
(a) Front building setback area of an interior design site/lot: Subtract the horizontal length of each side setback from the total width of the design site/lot. (b) Front building setback area of a corner design site/lot: Subtract the horizontal length of the side and side street setback from the total width of the design site/lot. (c) Side street building setback area: Subtract the horizontal length of the front and rear setback from the total depth of the design site/lot.

3. Multiply the net buildable width of the design site/lot by the façade buildout requirement for front or side street. See Section 2.03.A (Building Placement).

4. The result is the minimum length of building façade required within or abutting the building setback area. See Figure 7.02.1 (Example Calculations of Required Façade Buildout) for an example of requirements calculations for the front building setback area of an interior design site/lot and the side street building setback area of a corner design site/lot. See also Figure 7.02.2 (Examples of Façade Buildout Compliance).

B. The building façade is allowed in any configuration (e.g., curved, rectilinear).

Chapter 7 Measurement Methods
Sections:

7.01 Purpose

7.02 Façade Buildout

7.03 Building Form

7.04 Façade Transparency

7.05 Average Slope
67 Folsom Objective Development and Design StandardsPublic Review Draft – September 2025Page 339 10/28/2025 Item No.12.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

Side Street
Front
Figure 7.02.1 Example Calculations of Required Façade Buildout Front Building Setback Area for Interior Design Site/Lot 50 ft Design Site/Lot Width
- 5 ft Side Setback
- 5 ft Side Setback
= 40 ft Net Buildable Width
X 70% Min. percentage of Façade Buildout for Front
= 28 ft Min. required length of façade required within or abutting Front building setback area
Side Street Building Setback Area for Corner Design Site/ Lot
50 ft Design Site/Lot Width
- 5 ft Side Setback
- 10 ft Side Street Setback
= 35 ft Net Buildable Width
X 60% Min. percentage of Façade Buildout for Side Street = 21 ft Min. required length of façade required within or abutting Side Street building setback area
Key
Building Setback Area Front Setback
Design Site/Lot Width Side Street Setback
Design Site/Lot Depth Side Setback

68 Folsom Objective Development and Design Standards Public Review Draft – September 2025

7.01: Purpose

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

Figure 7.02.2 Examples of Façade Buildout Compliance
Key
Building Setback Area Façade within or abutting Building Setback Area A. Abutting Building Setback Area Only B. Within Building Setback Area Only C. Abutting and Within Building Setback Area D. Abutting and Within Building Setback Area on Non-rectilinear Parcels

69 Folsom Objective Development and Design StandardsPublic Review Draft – September 2025

7.02: Façade Buildout

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

Highest
Top Plate
BUILDING TYPE: DUPLEX, STACKED
Key
Building Width Building Depth
Figure 7.03.3 Building Width and Depth
Figure 7.03.1 Height, Highest Top Plate Figure 7.03.2 Height, Above Top Plate to Top of Roof Slope Height above
Top Plate to Top
of Roof Slope
Height to
Highest
Top Plate

7.03 Building Form
A. Building Height. The height of a building is measured in the following ways. Where height varies on different sides of a building, the tallest height shall be the building’s height.

1. Height, Highest Top Plate. The vertical distance between the adjacent finished grade and the top of the highest top plate of the primary building. See Figure 7.03.1 (Height, Highest Top Plate).

2. Height, Above Top Plate to Top of Roof Slope. The vertical distance between the highest top plate and the top of the roof slope of the primary building. See Figure 7.03.2 (Height, Above Top Plate to Top of Roof Slope).

B. Building Width. The width shall be the widest length parallel to the front. See Figure 7.03.3 (Building Width and Depth).

C. Building Depth. The depth shall be the deepest length perpendicular to the front. See Figure 7.03.3 (Building Width and Depth).

70 Folsom Objective Development and Design Standards Public Review Draft – September 2025

7.03: Building Form

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

7.04 Façade Transparency
A. The required amount of transparency on a building façade is stated in the Development Standards as a percentage, which is calculated as follows:

1. Identify the applicable façade surface area and proposed transparency area. See Figure 7.04.1 (Measuring Façade Transparency).
(a) The ground floor façade surface area is from two feet above the ground floor finish level to the ceiling of the ground floor.
(b) The façade surface area of the upper stories is from the top of the floor plate above the ground floor to the ceiling of the top floor.
(c) For façades that include a pitched roof, the roof area shall be excluded from the façade surface area.

2. Divide the proposed transparency area by the applicable façade surface area and multiply by 100.

3. The result is the proposed façade transparency percentage. Check for compliance with the transparency requirement in Section 2.03.D (Façade Design).

Figure 7.04.1 Measuring Façade Transparency
Key
Façade Height Transparency Height Façade Surface Area
Façade Width Transparency Width Transparency Area
2' above ground floor finish level
Ceiling of ground floor
Top of floor plate above ground floor
Ceiling of top floor

71 Folsom Objective Development and Design StandardsPublic Review Draft – September 2025

7.04: Façade Transparency

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

7.05 Average Slope
A. The slope is measured by taking the vertical distance, or "rise," over the horizontal distance, or "run." The resulting fraction, or percentage, is the "average slope" of the land. For purposes of the ODDS, the average slope is based on existing topography and calculated as follows:

B. Design Sites/Lots with Even Slope. The average slope for design sites/lots with relatively even slope across the site is determined by the following formula: S = ((T - B) ÷ run) × 100.

1. S =  average slope

2. T =  elevation at the top of the slope

3. B =  elevation at the bottom of the slope

4. Run = horizontal distance between the top and bottom elevations C. Design Sites/Lots with Uneven Slope. The average slope of design sites/lots with an uneven slope across the site before grading is determined by the following formula: S = (1.0029 × I × L) ÷ A.

1. S =  average slope

2. I =  contour interval in feet

3. L =  summation of the length of the contour lines in scale feet

4. A = area of the design site/lot in acres
D. Sloping Design Site/Lot Height. Design sites/lots with slopes of more than 10 percent shall measure the maximum height of structures as set forth in the Development Standards and measured vertically from ground level at the front setback line or, if no setback is required, at the center of the design site/lot.

Figure 7.05.1 Average Slope
400
390
380
370
410
Key
Vertical Distance
Horizontal Distance
Design Site/Lot Line
Topography Line
Topography Analysis

72 Folsom Objective Development and Design Standards Public Review Draft – September 2025

7.05: Average Slope

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

Attachment 2

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

Ordinance No. 1357

ORDINANCE NO. 1357

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF FOLSOM AMENDING SECTION 17.06.030 AND ADDING SECTION 17.06.045 TO CHAPTER 17.06, “DESIGN REVIEW,” OF THE

FOLSOM MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING OBJECTIVE DEVELOPMENT AND

DESIGN STANDARDS AND ESTABLISHING A MINISTERIAL REVIEW PROCESS

The City Council of the City of Folsom does hereby ordain as follows:

SECTION 1 PURPOSE

The purpose of this ordinance is to amend Section 17.06.030 and add Section 17.06.045 to Chapter 17.06 of the Folsom Municipal Code to reference the Objective Development and Design Standards and to establish a ministerial review process for certain residential and mixed- use projects.

SECTION 2 AMENDMENT TO CODE

Section 17.06.030 of the Folsom Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

17.06.030 Application review – Planning commission

A. The design and architecture of the following projects must be submitted to the planning commission for review and approval under the provisions of this chapter:

1. Office, industrial, and commercial development of one thousand square feet or greater in size;

2. Significant exterior modifications to existing office, industrial, and commercial structures including but not limited to:
a. Design changes to building facades (cornices, parapets, trellises, etc.). b. Structural modifications to buildings.
c. Introduction of new building materials (veneer, wainscoting, brick, siding, etc.).
d. Alteration or relocation of building entryways.
e. Changes in roof design and materials;

3. Multifamily and residential mixed-use projects containing more than two units, except for projects located in the Regulated Area as described in Section 17.06.045;

4. Single-family residential projects which are a part of a planned development or a tentative subdivision map;

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

Ordinance No. 1357

5. Proposed project design guidelines and standards and revisions to existing design guidelines and standards.

B. The determination by the planning commission may be appealed to the city council pursuant to Section 17.06.110(B).

SECTION 3 ADDITION TO CODE

Section 17.06.045 is added to the Folsom Municipal Code to read as follows:

17.06.045 Objective Development and Design Standards

A. The City’s Objective Development and Design Standards (ODDS) shall apply to design and development of residential multi -unit (i.e., two or more units) and mixed -use residential development within the East Bidwell Corridor Overlay, the Folsom Boulevard Transit-Oriented Development Overlay, and the Folsom Plan Area Specific Plan Tow n Center Overlay areas, (collectively, the Regulated Areas), as delineated on the General Plan Land Use Diagram and shown in the Regulating Plan of the ODDS.

B. Where the ODDS are silent on a standard or process, applicable provisions in Title 17 shall apply. Where a conflict exists between the standards of the ODDS and those of Title 17, the standards of the ODDS shall apply.

C. Ministerial Design Review.

1. The design and architecture of projects governed by this Section shall be submitted to the Community Development Director for ministerial review and approval.

2. Applications and supporting materials shall be submitted pursuant to Section

17.06.060.

3. Ministerial design review shall be limited to review of the project ’s compliance with the ODDS and any other applicable objective standards adopted by the city.

4. Ministerial design review determinations are not subject to public notice, site posting, or appeal.

5. A ministerial design review approval shall be null and void unless the applicant submits a complete application for a building permit within two years of approval.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

Ordinance No. 1357

D. Projects within the Regulated Area that do not comply with the ODDS may proceed through a discretionary entitlement process that requires review by the Planning Commission, such as the Planned Development Permit.

E. Projects requesting Density Bonus incentives or waivers per FMC Chapter 17.102 may deviate from the ODDS to the extent permitted by State law.

SECTION 4 SCOPE

Except as set forth in this ordinance, all other provisions of the Folsom Municipal Code shall remain in full force and effect.

SECTION 5 SEVERABILITY

If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase in this Ordinance or any part thereof is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, invalid, or ineffective by any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity or effectiveness of the remaining portions of this Ordinance or any part thereof. The City Council declares that it would have passed each section irrespective of the fact that any one or more section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase be declared unconstitutional, invalid, or ineffective.

SECTION 6 NO MANDATORY DUTY

This Ordinance is not intended to and shall not be construed or given effect in a manner that imposes upon the City or any officer or employee thereof a mandatory duty of care towards persons and property within or without the City, so as to provide a basis of civil liability for damages, except as otherwise imposed by law.

SECTION 7 EFFECTIVE DATE

This ordinance shall become effective January 1, 2026.

This ordinance was introduced and the title thereof read at the regular meeting of the City Council on October 28, 2025 and the second reading occurred at the special meeting of the City Council on November 12, 2025.

On a motion by Councilmember seconded by Councilmember , the foregoing ordinance was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Folsom, State of California, this 12th Day of November 2025, by the following roll-call vote:

AYES: Councilmember(s):

NOES: Councilmember(s):

ABSENT: Councilmember(s):

ABSTAIN: Councilmember(s):

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

Ordinance No. 1357

__________________________________
Sarah Aquino, MAYOR

ATTEST:

______________________________
Christa Freemantle, CITY CLERK

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

Attachment 3

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

Modifications to FMC Chapter 17.06 “Design Review”
(Strikethrough/Underline Version)
Section 17.06.030 of the Folsom Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:

17.06.030 Application review – Planning commission
A. The design and architecture of the following projects must be submitted to the planning commission for review and approval under the provisions of this chapter:

1. Office, industrial, and commercial development of one thousand square feet or greater in size;

2. Significant exterior modifications to existing office, industrial, and commercial structures including but not limited to:
a. Design changes to building facades (cornices, parapets, trellises, etc.). b. Structural modifications to buildings.
c. Introduction of new building materials (veneer, wainscoting, brick, siding, etc.).
d. Alteration or relocation of building entryways.
e. Changes in roof design and materials;

3. Multifamily and residential mixed-use projects containing more than two units, except for projects located in the Regulated Area as described in Section

17.06.045;

4. Single-family residential projects which are a part of a planned development or a tentative subdivision map;

5. Proposed project design guidelines and standards and revisions to existing design guidelines and standards.

B. The determination by the planning commission may be appealed to the city council pursuant to Section 17.06.110(B).

Section 17.06.045 is added to the Folsom Municipal Code as follows:

17.06.045 Objective Development and Design Standards
A. The City’s Objective Development and Design Standards (ODDS) shall apply to design and development of residential multi-unit (i.e., two or more units) and mixed -use residential development within the East Bidwell Corridor Overlay, the Folsom Boulevard Transit-Oriented Development Overlay, and the Folsom Plan Area Specific Plan Town Center Overlay areas (collectively, the Regulated Areas), as delineated on the General Plan Land Use Diagram and shown in the Regulating Plan of the ODDS.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

B. Where the ODDS are silent on a standard or process, applicable provisions in Title 17 shall apply. Where a conflict occurs between the standards of the ODDS and those of Title 17, the standards of the ODDS shall apply.

C. Ministerial Design Review.

1. The design and architecture of projects governed by this Section shall be submitted to the Community Development Director for ministerial review and approval.

2. Applications and supporting materials shall be submitted pursuant to Section

17.06.060.

3. Ministerial design review shall be limited to review of the project’s compliance with the ODDS and any other applicable objective standards adopted by the city.

4. Ministerial design review determinations are not subject to public notice, site posting, or appeal.

5. A ministerial design review approval shall be null and void unless the applicant submits a complete application for a building permit within two years of approval.

D. Projects within the Regulated Area that do not comply with the ODDS may proceed through a discretionary entitlement process that requires review by the Planning Commission, such as the Planned Development Permit.

E. Projects requesting Density Bonus incentives or waivers per FMC Chapter 17.102 may deviate from the ODDS to the extent permitted by State law.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

Attachment 4

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.
1 Jessica Brandt
From:

Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2025 2:33 PM
To: Desmond Parrington
Cc: Jessica Brandt
Subject: Re: Apartment Building Proposed for Oak Ave
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 Desmond,
Thank you for clarifying the intent and current status of the Objective Development and Design Standards. I appreciate the additional context and understand that the example site at Oak Avenue and E. Bidwell Street is not tied to any active proposal at this time.

That said, I do want to express my concern about this intersection being used as a future example site for potential redevelopment. As a Folsom resident who lives on Thorndike Way, I experience firsthand how congested this area already is, particularly during peak hours and when events occur at nearby churches.

When I am traveling eastbound on E. Bidwell to turn left onto Oak Avenue, merging traffic often backs up due to the heavy flow of vehicles making right turns from E. Bidwell onto Oak. This congestion worsens when event parking from Lakeside Church exits onto Oak Avenue. In addition, the overflow from the Muslim Community church parking lot regularly spills onto South Lexington, extending through nearby residential streets such as Duxbury Way and up to Cannington Lane; during these times, the area becomes especially congested and unsafe, with many pedestrians at the same time walking throughout the neighborhood streets to get to/from their parked vehicles.

Additionally, traffic from surrounding neighborhoods, such as those traveling from Empire Ranch via Silberhorn or from El Dorado Hills through Green Valley and Blue Ravine, often funnels through this corridor, creating a sustained level of density that already strains the area.

Given these conditions, I strongly urge the City to carefully evaluate traffic impact, access points, and parking requirements for any future high-
density development in this vicinity. Solutions such as improved ingress and egress design, dedicated event traffic routes, or required structured parking for large facilities could help alleviate pressure on the surrounding neighborhoods.

I appreciate your time and transparency on this issue.

Thanks!
You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.
2 On Tue, Oct 21, 2025 at 12:07  PM Desmond Parrington < [email protected] > wrote:

Hi

The information posted on Folsom Chat on Facebook and on Next Door is not correct. There is no development proposal associated with the Objective Development and Design Standards. Under state law, the City can only use objective development and design standards to evaluate multi-family projects (i.e., apartments and condominiums). The examples shown in the document are just that. They are examples. At this time, there is no project located at the corner of E. Bidwell and Oak Avenue Parkway. That was just an example site in the document that showed how that site could be redeveloped in the future. We are adopting the ODDS so that we have something that we can use to evaluate multi-family projects and hopefully get better designed projects. If we don’t adopt these then developers do not have to follow any design rules.

Back in August 2024, the City Council approved amendments to the City’s General Plan and the Folsom Plan Area Specific Plan to increase heights and densities in certain areas of Folsom to meet the requirements of the City’s Housing Element, which is another State Mandate. Under that mandate, the City has to identify sites for approximately 3,500 units of housing affordable to lower-income households. The East Bidwell Corridor, the areas around the Iron Point and Glenn stations, and the Folsom Town Center area were the areas chosen to have the increased heights and higher densities so that existing established residential neighborhoods would not be rezoned or impacted. Staff has also worked with the landowners south of Highway 50 to restrict parcels down there to accommodate almost 900 units of affordable housing. While that has not yet been built those units will eventually be built there.

These issues are being driven by changes in State law that the City has to comply with or we risk losing State funding and failure to comply would expose Folsom to potential lawsuits from the State and others. If you would like to learn more about the proposed objectives design standards you can visit:
https://www.folsom.ca.us/government/community-development/planning-services/objective-development- and-design-standards

If you have any other questions or concerns and would still like to voice your opposition to this, please let me know and we can include your comments along with our staff report to the City Council.

-Desmond

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.
3 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

ATTENTION: Starting October 20, 2025, all NEW permits will be reviewed through eTRAKiT and not through ProjectDox.

From: >
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2025 11:57 AM
To: Desmond Parrington < [email protected] >; Jessica Brandt < [email protected] > Subject: Apartment Building Proposed for Oak Ave

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

Hello,

I grabbed both of your emails from a Facebook Folsom Chat post about the high-density apartment building initiative. I live on Thorndike Way with my husband and five-year-old daughter. I have some concerns with the idea of building an apartment complex on the corner of Oak and E. Bidwell. What is the best way for me to communicate my concerns for a project like this? I have anxiety issues, so unfortunately, I do not typically attend in-person commission meetings. Is there another preferred way other than in-person for me to send you feedback? Do you have a feedback form of some kind, a direct email for this, or is an email to both of you the best way to go?

Thanks,
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.
4 Page 376
10/28/2025 Item No.12.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.
1 Jessica Brandt
From: Desmond Parrington
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2025 2:58 PM
To: Jessica Brandt
Subject: FW: Proposed housing development

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

ATTENTION: Starting October 20, 2025, all NEW permits will be reviewed through eTRAKiT and not through ProjectDox.

From: Desmond Parrington
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2025 8:40 AM
To: 'Amy Dreher' <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Proposed housing development

Hi Mr. and Mrs. Dreher:

The information posted on Next Door is incorrect.

There is no development proposal associated with the Objective Development and Design Standards. Under state law, the City can only use objective development and design standards to evaluate multi-family projects (i.e., apartments and condominiums). The examples shown in the document are just that. They are examples. At this time, there is no project located at the corner of E. Bidwell and Oak Avenue Parkway. That was just an example site in the document that showed how that site could be redeveloped in the future. We are adopting the ODDS so that we have something that we can use to evaluate multi-family projects and hopefully get better designed projects. If we don’t adopt these then developers do not have to follow any design rules.

Back in August 2024, the City Council approved amendments to the City’s General Plan and the Folsom Plan Area Specific Plan to increase heights and densities in certain areas of Folsom to meet the requirements of the City’s Housing Element, which is another State Mandate. Under that mandate, the City has to identify sites for approximately 3,500 units of housing affordable to lower-income households. The East Bidwell Corridor, the areas around the Iron Point and Glenn stations, and the Folsom Town Center area were the areas chosen to have the increased heights and higher densities so that existing established residential neighborhoods would not be rezoned or impacted. Staff has also worked with the landowners south of Highway 50 to restrict parcels down there to accommodate almost 900 units of affordable housing. While that has not yet been built those units will eventually be built there.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.
2 These issues are being driven by changes in State law that the City has to comply with or we risk losing State funding and failure to comply would expose Folsom to potential lawsuits from the State and others. If you would like to learn more about the proposed objectives design standards you can visit:
https://www.folsom.ca.us/government/community-development/planning-services/objective- development-and-design-standards

If you have any other questions or concerns, please let me know.

-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

ATTENTION: Starting October 20, 2025, all NEW permits will be reviewed through eTRAKiT and not through ProjectDox.

From: Amy Dreher <
[email protected] >
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2025 8:27 AM
To: Desmond Parrington < [email protected] >
Subject: Proposed housing development

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

I am writing as an extremely concerned resident to formally object to the proposed housing development Site 4. East Bidwell and Oak Ave Pkwy (T4N.L) currently under review. This project raises significant concerns regarding infrastructure, congestion, and the overall quality of life for current and future residents.

Our city is already experiencing substantial strain on its existing infrastructure . Roads are increasingly congested, particularly during peak hours, and the proposed development would only intensify traffic without any clear plan for road widening, new access points, or improved public transportation. The area’s current roadways are simply not equipped to handle the additional volume that this development would generate.

Furthermore, our local schools are already operating at or near capacity. Folsom Middle School has almost 2,000 students and not enough staff members. It is complete and total chaos at that school.

Neighboring Oak Chan Elementary where my Son is a 5th grader has almost 30 kids in each class already! Adding hundreds of new residents without a comprehensive plan to expand educational You don't often get email from [email protected] . Learn why this is important

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.
3 facilities will only exacerbate overcrowding and diminish the quality of education for our children.

Essential public services such as emergency response, and recreational spaces are also stretched thin.

Responsible development should balance housing needs with the capacity of public systems to support new residents safely and effectively . I will be attending the town hall meeting to urge the Planning Commission to reject or postpone approval of this project! Thank you for listening to my concerns. I appreciate your attention to maintaining the livability, safety, and character of our city.

Sincerely,
Amy and Jeff Dreher

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.
1 Jessica Brandt
From: Stephanie Trumm <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2025 6:04 PM
To: Desmond Parrington
Cc: Jessica Brandt
Subject: Re: Proposed Building
[You don't o
en get email from nurssteff@yahoo.com. Learn why this is important at h
ps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIden%fica%on ]

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

Thank you for your informa%on!

> On Oct 20, 2025, at 5:39 PM, Desmond Parrington <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi Stephanie:
>
> The informa%on posted on Next Door is incorrect. There is no development proposal associated with the Objec%ve Development and Design Standards. Under state law, the City can only use objec%ve development and design standards to evaluate mul%-family projects (i.e., apartments and condominiums). The examples shown in the document are just that. They are examples. At this %me, there is no project located at the corner of E. Bidwell and Oak Avenue Parkway.

That was just an example site in the document that showed how that site could be redeveloped in the future. We are adop%ng the ODDS so that we have something that we can use to evaluate mul%- family projects and hopefully get be
er
designed projects. If we don’t adopt these then developers do not have to follow any design rules. >
> Back in August 2024, the City Council approved amendments to the City’s General Plan and the Folsom Plan Area Specific Plan to increase heights and densi%es in certain areas of Folsom to meet the requirements of the City’s Housing Element, which is another State Mandate. Under that mandate, the City has to iden%fy sites for approximately 3,500 units of housing affordable to lower-income households. The East Bidwell Corridor, the areas around the Iron Point and Glenn sta%ons, and the Folsom Town Center area were the areas chosen to have the increased heights and higher densi%es so that exis%ng established residen%al neighborhoods would not be rezoned or impacted. Staff has also worked with the landowners south of Highway 50 to restrict parcels down there to accommodate almost 900 units of affordable housing. While that has not yet been built those units will eventually be built there. >
> These issues are being driven by changes in State law that the City has to comply with or we risk losing State funding and failure to comply would expose Folsom to poten%al lawsuits from the State and others. >
> If you have any other ques%ons or concerns, please let me know. >
> -Desmond
>
> Desmond Parrington, AICP
> Planning Manager
> City of Folsom
> 50 Natoma Street, Folsom, CA 95630
> [email protected]

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.
2 > o:916-461-6233 c:916-216-2813
>
h
ps://gcc02.safelinks.protec%on.outlook.com/?url=h
p%3A%2F%2Fwww.folsom.ca.us%2F&data=05%7C02%7Cjbrandt
%40folsom.ca.us%7C8056175b296e4b41954d08de103dcc76%7C1cR4b4a254c47b48448af71335fd6c0%7C0%7C0%7C63 8966054773760849%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4 zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=cR76yaJ0zad0jW5%2FYDHM2DvvO3Tt0q1dz0u35Fh TsQw%3D&reserved=0
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ATTENTION: Star%ng October 20, 2025, all NEW permits will be reviewed through eTRAKiT and not through ProjectDox.

>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephanie Trumm <nurssteff@yahoo.com>
> Sent: Monday, October 20, 2025 5:06 PM
> To: Desmond Parrington <[email protected]>
> Cc: Jessica Brandt <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: Proposed Building
>
> [You don't o
en get email from nurssteff@yahoo.com. Learn why this is important at h
ps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIden%fica%on ]
>
> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organiza%on. Do not click links or open a achments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
>
>
> Thank you for your response. I suggest that you consider building these apartments on the south side of Highway 50 so that we can have a fully integrated community.
>
> RespecYully,
> Stephanie
>
>> On Oct 20, 2025, at 4:43 PM, Desmond Parrington <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Thank you for leZng me know, Ms. Trumm. The reason staff is recommending adop%on of these is because under new State laws if the City of Folsom does not adopt objec%ve design standards when new mul%-family projects like apartments come in for rev
iew then the City will not be able to require design changes. Under State law, City staff can no longer use design guidelines or any other subjec%ve criteria to review these types of projects. >>
>> -Desmond
>>
>> Desmond Parrington, AICP
>> Planning Manager
>> City of Folsom
>> 50 Natoma Street, Folsom, CA 95630

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.
3 >> [email protected]
>> o:916-461-6233 c:916-216-2813
>>
h
ps://gcc02.safelinks.protec%on.outlook.com/?url=h
p%3A%2F%2Fwww.folsom.ca.us%2F&data=05%7C02%7Cjbrandt
%40folsom.ca.us%7C8056175b296e4b41954d08de103dcc76%7C1cR4b4a254c47b48448af71335fd6c0%7C0%7C0%7C63 8966054773780679%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4 zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Y2udI2xKQChiIyUYCrsPgSESf5X3JLquvGrSoPAKlxc%3 D&reserved=0
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ATTENTION: Star%ng October 20, 2025, all NEW permits will be reviewed through eTRAKiT and not through ProjectDox.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Stephanie Trumm <nurssteff@yahoo.com>
>> Sent: Monday, October 20, 2025 3:36 PM
>> To: Desmond Parrington <[email protected]>
>> Subject: Proposed Building
>>
>> [You don't o
en get email from nurssteff@yahoo.com. Learn why this is important at h
ps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIden%fica%on ]
>>
>> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organiza%on. Do not click links or open a achments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
>>
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> My name is Stephanie Trumm, and I live on Diamond Peak Drive here in Folsom. >>
>> I am opposed to adop%ng Objec%ve Development and Design building north of highway 50 here in Folsom. >>
>> RespecYully,
>>
>> Stephanie Trumm
>> 103 Diamond Peak Drive
>> Folsom, CA 95630
>

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.
1 Jessica Brandt
From: Romo, Celeste W <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2025 8:40 AM
To: Desmond Parrington
Cc: Jessica Brandt
Subject: RE: Strong Opposition to Proposed High-Density Development at Oak Avenue and East Bidwell
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.

Oh awesome thank you!

From: Desmond Parrington <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2025 8:38 AM
To: Romo, Celeste W <[email protected]>
Cc: Jessica Brandt <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Strong Opposition to Proposed High-Density Development at Oak Avenue and East Bidwell

That is correct. The City has not received any development plans for that site.

-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

ATTENTION: Starting October 20, 2025, all NEW permits will be reviewed through eTRAKiT and not through ProjectDox.

From: Romo, Celeste W <
[email protected] >
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2025 9:06 PM
To: Desmond Parrington < [email protected] >
Cc: Jessica Brandt < [email protected] >
Subject: Re: Strong Opposition to Proposed High-Density Development at Oak Avenue and East Bidwell

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

Thank you for your response.

You don't often get email from [email protected] . Learn why this is important

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.
2 So am I reading correctly that no development plans are currently being evaluated for that lot? Celeste

From: Desmond Parrington < [email protected] >
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2025 5:39:01 PM
To: Romo, Celeste W < [email protected] >
Cc: Jessica Brandt < [email protected] >
Subject: RE: Strong Opposition to Proposed High-Density Development at Oak Avenue and East Bidwell

Hi Celeste:

The information posted on Next Door is incorrect. There is no development proposal associated with the Objective Development and Design Standards. Under state law, the City can only use objective development and design standards to evaluate multi-family projects (i.e., apartments and condominiums). The examples shown in the document are just that. They are examples. At this time, there is no project located at the corner of E. Bidwell and Oak Avenue Parkway. That was just an example site in the document that showed how that site could be redeveloped in the future. We are adopting the ODDS so that we have something that we can use to evaluate multi-family projects and hopefully get better designed projects. If we don’t adopt these then developers do not have to follow any design rules.

Back in August 2024, the City Council approved amendments to the City’s General Plan and the Folsom Plan Area Specific Plan to increase heights and densities in certain areas of Folsom to meet the requirements of the City’s Housing Element, which is another State Mandate. Under that mandate, the City has to identify sites for approximately 3,500 units of housing affordable to lower-income households. The East Bidwell Corridor, the areas around the Iron Point and Glenn stations, and the Folsom Town Center area were the areas chosen to have the increased heights and higher densities so that existing established residential neighborhoods would not be rezoned or impacted. Staff has also worked with the landowners south of Highway 50 to restrict parcels down there to accommodate almost 900 units of affordable housing. While that has not yet been built those units will eventually be built there.

These issues are being driven by changes in State law that the City has to comply with or we risk losing State funding and failure to comply would expose Folsom to potential lawsuits from the State and others.

If you have any other questions or concerns, please let me know.

-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

ATTENTION: Starting October 20, 2025, all NEW permits will be reviewed through eTRAKiT and not through ProjectDox.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.
3 From: Romo, Celeste W < [email protected] >
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2025 5:00 PM
To: Desmond Parrington < [email protected] >; Jessica Brandt < [email protected] > Subject: Strong Opposition to Proposed High-Density Development at Oak Avenue and East Bidwell

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. Parrington, Ms. Brandt and Folsom City Council Members, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed high-density apartment project at Oak Avenue Parkway and East Bidwell Street. While I understand the need for growth, this particular development raises serious concerns about traffic congestion and school capacity that cannot be ignored.

Traffic along East Bidwell and Oak Avenue Pkwy is already at a breaking point during peak hours. Adding hundreds of residents and vehicles from a 248-unit complex will only worsen congestion and safety risks for nearby neighborhoods, pedestrians, and cyclists.

Equally pressing is the issue of school capacity. Our local schools are already full and this level of new housing will add even more strain without any clear plan to expand facilities or resources. It’s simply not sustainable to continue approving large developments without addressing this impact head-on.

I urge the Council to pause or reconsider this project until a comprehensive infrastructure and school capacity plan is in place. Folsom’s growth should be balanced and thoughtful — not at the expense of the quality of life for current residents.

Thank you for your attention to this important matter.

Sincerely,
Celeste Romo
Folsom Resident

Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected] . Learn why this is important

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.
1 Jessica Brandt
From: Desmond Parrington
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2025 9:40 AM
To: [email protected]
Cc: Jessica Brandt
Subject: RE: The City of Folsom is considering the adoption of Objective Development and Design Standards for areas north of Highway 50. — Nextdoor Hi Judy:

The information posted on Next Door is incorrect.

There is no development proposal associated with the Objective Development and Design Standards. Under state law, the City can only use objective development and design standards to evaluate multi-family projects (i.e., apartments and condominiums). The examples shown in the document are just that. They are examples. At this time, there is no project located at the corner of E. Bidwell and Oak Avenue Parkway. That was just an example site in the document that showed how that site could be redeveloped in the future. We are adopting the ODDS so that we have something that we can use to evaluate multi-family projects and hopefully get better designed projects. If we don’t adopt these then developers do not have to follow any design rules.

Back in August 2024, the City Council approved amendments to the City’s General Plan and the Folsom Plan Area Specific Plan to increase heights and densities in certain areas of Folsom to meet the requirements of the City’s Housing Element, which is another State Mandate. Under that mandate, the City has to identify sites for approximately 3,500 units of housing affordable to lower-income households.

The East Bidwell Corridor, the areas
around the Iron Point and Glenn stations, and the Folsom Town Center area were the areas chosen to have the increased heights and higher densities so that existing established residential neighborhoods would not be rezoned or impacted. Staff has also worked with the landowners south of Highway 50 to restrict parcels down there to accommodate almost 900 units of affordable housing. While that has not yet been built those units will eventually be built there.

These issues are being driven by changes in State law that the City has to comply with or we risk losing State funding and failure to comply would expose Folsom to potential lawsuits from the State and others.

If you have any other questions or concerns, please let me know.

-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

ATTENTION: Starting October 20, 2025, all NEW permits will be reviewed through eTRAKiT and not through ProjectDox.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.
2 From: Judy Otis <
[email protected] >
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2025 8:55 AM
To: Jessica Brandt < [email protected] >
Subject: Fwd: The City of Folsom is considering the adoption of Objective Development and Design Standards for areas north of Highway 50. — Nextdoor

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.

From: Judy Otis < [email protected] >
Date: October 20, 2025 at 8:53:42 AM PDT
To: [email protected]
Subject: The City of Folsom is considering the adoption of Objective Development and Design Standards for areas north of Highway 50. — Nextdoor

More housing stuffed into Folsom? You’ve got to be kidding. South of 50 has the space so build it there. Why doesn’t the City get the traffic situation resolved before even considering building more apartments/condos?

Check out this post on Nextdoor:
https://nextdoor.com/p/mczsB7-
mFN2L?utm_source=share&extras=MTYwNTcyNjQ%3D&ne_link_preview_links=&utm_ca mpaign=1760975326077

Sent from my iPad
You don't often get email from [email protected] . Learn why this is important

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.
1 Jessica Brandt
From: Crystal Gorton <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2025 3:17 PM
To: Desmond Parrington
Cc: Jessica Brandt; Bryan Whitemyer
Subject: Re: Urban Planning Updates
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.

Seriously?

"...successful
cities have congestion and dying ones do not."

Being in the thick of if it all, I'm not sure I agree with that statement, Desmond, but it did put smile on my face and raise an eyebrow. Congestion forces the taxpayer to buy from Amazon.

Still didn't get an answer to my question though. How many of the 900 units will be like Mercy House or Bidwell Studios?

From: Desmond Parrington <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2025 2:22:57 PM
To: Crystal Gorton <[email protected]>
Cc: Jessica Brandt <[email protected]>; Bryan Whitemyer <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Urban Planning Updates

Hi Crystal:

The 900 units south of highway 50 in the Folsom Plan Area would be deed-restricted affordable housing units affordable to household with incomes below 80% of area median income, which is currently about $100,000 for a family of four. These would be folks with jobs that work in the area but cannot afford the current market-rate rent levels. There is already one project like that in the Folsom Plan Area. It’s called Mangini Place Apartments and it has approximately 150 deed-restricted affordable units. There would be 900 additional units over the life of the plan south of Highway 50.

By law, we now have to put higher density housing near transit, which is why those locations were chosen. East Bidwell was selected because it has transit service, jobs and services nearby. Staff wanted to avoid a situation where we had to rezone land near existing single-family neighborhoods, which is what happened when the City lost a lawsuit filed by Legal Services of Northern California around 2000.

Staff is well aware of the traffic challenges on East Bidwell and our Public Works Department has been trying to secure funding from Caltrans so that we can complete the Empire Ranch Interchange and fund the Oak Avenue Overcrossing. Those along with the extension of Alder Creek Parkway to Prairie City Road should help improve the situation on East Bidwell especially near US 50 and Iron Point Road. Unfortunately, successful cities have congestion and dying ones do not. While staff would prefer that the fu nding for major infrastructure projects came

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.
2 first, typically development happens first and then larger infrastructure projects follow once funding is secured from development and state and federal sources.

-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

ATTENTION: Starting October 20, 2025, all NEW permits will be reviewed through eTRAKiT and not through ProjectDox.

From: Crystal Gorton <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2025 1:55 PM
To: Bryan Whitemyer <[email protected]>; Desmond Parrington <[email protected]> Cc: Jessica Brandt <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Urban Planning Updates

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.

This may not directly relate to the Objective Development and Design Standards (ODDS), but I do have a broader question: Of the 900 units being discussed, how many are what I would call subsidized housing—such as Section 8, Mercy Housing-style units, or Bidwell Studios-type developments? When I look at the South of 50 plan, I don’t see any of that type of housing planned there. Meanwhile, nearly all of it appears concentrated in the Central District. That kind of imbalance is a major reason the crime rate is higher in that area.

The frustration many residents feel—especially those who push back—comes from having lived with this for so long. It’s not just about affordable housing; it’s about how it’s been clustered in one part of the city. Over time, that concentration has had real, visible consequences. A big part of the problem seems to stem from former city staff who have since moved into the housing development industry and are now profiting from state-funded projects, with the help of Council friends and insider knowledge. That’s my opinion—but it’s based on what I see happening on the ground.

If you receive pushback from the community, it’s not aimed at you or city staff. It reflects long-standing frustration over bias toward certain groups who have had complete control over city government for decades and a lack of power by the community to influence decisions that impact real lives. Simply put: The community is frustrated. Plain and simple.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.
3 From: Crystal Gorton < [email protected] >
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2025 1:10 PM
To: Bryan Whitemyer < [email protected] >; Desmond Parrington < [email protected] > Cc: Jessica Brandt < [email protected] >
Subject: Re: Urban Planning Updates

Let me clarify something, Desmond—I’m not your enemy. I’m not a city planner, and I don’t claim to be.

But what I do know is that this city has, over time, taken advantage of certain areas in Folsom, and that authority has felt misused and abused.

I can’t say whether that responsibility falls on the City Council or staff, but the signs are clearly visible.

Just take a walk down East Bidwell—it speaks for itself. This pattern of neglect and questionable decision-making has been happening for over 15 years. Naturally, people are wary.

There’s a deep lack of trust in the city’s motives, and that trust doesn’t rebuild easily—especially when the head of the Planning Commission is a lobbyist for the Association of Realtors. When someone in that role appears to be using South of 50 as a revenue stream for her industry ties, it’s hard not to be skeptical.

Folsom is our home—not a business opportunity for every realtor looking to exploit the market.

From: Crystal Gorton < [email protected] >
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2025 12:35:21 PM
To: Bryan Whitemyer < [email protected] >; Desmond Parrington < [email protected] > Cc: Jessica Brandt < [email protected] >
Subject: Re: Urban Planning Updates

Then that means a developer can take that property and put a four-story apartment there if they choose to.

Choose another location for your proposal, Desmond. East Bidwell and Oak Avenue can't handle any more traffic, apartment buildings or Section 8. We're running out of land mass over here.

I meant what I said about your talent. I've seen your work. Which is why I'm struggling to understand your motives for turning north of 50, Lexington in particular, into the dumping ground for every Section 8, low-barrier housing project, or Mercy House-type building. It's exclusionary zoning and discriminatory, opening the City to disparate impact claims. South of 50 is wide open. Use it. Plenty of room over there.

From: Bryan Whitemyer < [email protected] >
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2025 11:53:45 AM

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.
4 To: Desmond Parrington < [email protected] >
Cc: Crystal Gorton < [email protected] >; Jessica Brandt < [email protected] > Subject: Re: Urban Planning Updates

Thanks for the info Desmond.

Bryan
Bryan Whitemyer
City Manager
City of Folsom
50 Natoma Street, Folsom, CA 95630
[email protected]
o: (916) 461-6010
www.folsom.ca.us

On Oct 20, 2025, at 11:46  AM, Desmond Parrington < [email protected] > wrote:

No. The General Plan mixed-use overlay designation gives property owners the option to do housing or mixed-use development there, but they can always do development under the base land use designation. In the case of the corner of Oak Avenue and E. Bidwell that base land use designation is Professional Office so an office building or similar commercial use is still allowed.

-Desmond

<image001.png>
<image002.png>
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
<image003.png>
<image004.png>
<image005.png>

ATTENTION: Starting October 20, 2025, all NEW permits will be reviewed through eTRAKiT and not through ProjectDox.

From: Crystal Gorton < [email protected] >
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2025 9:49 AM
To: Desmond Parrington < [email protected] >
Cc: Jessica Brandt < [email protected] >; Bryan Whitemyer < [email protected] > Subject: Re: Urban Planning Updates

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 sa fe.

If the City adopts this proposal, does that mean the land on the corner of East Bidwell and Oak would be zoned only for four-story apartments to be built at that location?

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.
5 From: Desmond Parrington < [email protected] > Sent: Monday, October 20, 2025 9:36:25 AM
To: Crystal Gorton < [email protected] >
Cc: Jessica Brandt < [email protected] >; Bryan Whitemyer < [email protected] > Subject: RE: Urban Planning Updates

Hi Crystal:

There is no development proposal associated with the Objective Development and Design Standards. Under state law, the City can only use objective development and design standards to evaluate multi-family projects (i.e., apartments and condominiums). The examples shown in the document are just that. They are examples. At this time, there is no project located at the corner of E. Bidwell and Oak Avenue Parkway. That was just an example site in the document that showed how that site could be redeveloped in the future. We are adopting the ODDS so that we have something that we can use to evaluate multi-family projects and hopefully get better designed projects. If we don’t adopt these then developers do not have to follow any design rules.

Back in August 2024, the City Council approved amendments to the City’s General Plan and the Folsom Plan Area Specific Plan to increase heights and densities in certain areas of Folsom to meet the requirements of the City’s Housing Element, which is another State Mandate. Under that mandate, the City has to identify sites for approximately 3,500 units of housing affordable to lower- income households. The East Bidwell Corridor, the areas around the Iron Point and Glenn stations, and the Folsom Town Center area were the areas chosen to have the increased heights and higher densities so that existing established residential neighborhoods would not be rezoned or impacted. Staff has also worked with the landowners south of Highway 50 to restricted parcels down there to accommodate almost 900 units of affordable housing. While that has not yet been built those units will eventually be built there.

These issues are being driven by changes in State law that the City has to comply with or we risk losing State funding and failure to comply would expose Folsom to potential lawsuits from the State and others.

-Desmond

<image001.png>
<image002.png>
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
<image003.png>
<image004.png>
<image005.png>

ATTENTION: Starting October 20, 2025, all NEW permits will be reviewed through eTRAKiT and not through ProjectDox.

From: Crystal Gorton < [email protected] >
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2025 6:11 AM
To: Desmond Parrington < [email protected] >

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.
6 Cc: Jessica Brandt < [email protected] >; Bryan Whitemyer < [email protected] > Subject: Re: Urban Planning Updates

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 sa fe.

Desmond, why is EVERYTHING north of 50? Why are you planning this city so badly? You have such talent. I'm struggling to understand why your planning of Folsom is so bad. North of 50 is so crowded. There's barely enough room to drive down the road. South of 50, on the other hand, is wide open.

Send me the name of the person or persons who will be building the project located at E.

Bidwell and Oak Avenue. I would rather not do a PRR when the information can be sent from you directly.

<image006.jpg>

From: Crystal Gorton < [email protected] >
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2025 9:08:49 PM
To: Desmond Parrington < [email protected] >
Cc: Jessica Brandt < [email protected] >
Subject: Re: Urban Planning Updates

I meant to say "north of 50," not "south of 50." I've yet to master autocorrect. It's a love/hate relationship.

From: Crystal Gorton < [email protected] >
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2025 6:52:04 PM
To: Desmond Parrington < [email protected] >
Cc: Jessica Brandt < [email protected] >
Subject: Re: Urban Planning Updates

If I'm reading this correctly, the urban planning seems to apply mostly to the density of housing, and that density is tied to SACOG money. If that's the case, why did you take the money in the first place? The City could have simply said "no thanks."

The planning updates also seem to apply to south of 50 or the Bidwell Corridor only. Why? More dense housing in an already-crowded area is going to be a traffic nightmare.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.
7 In my opinion, the majority of pushback and animosity city staff has experienced over the last decade is because of the "dumping" on south of 50. Perhaps a lobbyist for the Association of Realtors sitting at the head of the Planning Commission may not have been such a good idea after all.

You know you're going to get a lot of push back on this, right?

From: Crystal Gorton < [email protected] >
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2025 11:01:41 AM
To: Desmond Parrington < [email protected] >
Cc: Jessica Brandt < [email protected] >
Subject: Re: Urban Planning Updates

Thank you!

From: Desmond Parrington < [email protected] >
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2025 8:54:44 AM
To: Crystal Gorton < [email protected] >
Cc: Jessica Brandt < [email protected] >
Subject: RE: Urban Planning Updates

Hi Crystal:

Below is a link to the webpage for objective development and design standards where you can download the full document. They will be presented to the City Council for consideration on October 28 th .

https://www.folsom.ca.us/government/community-development/planning-services/objective- development-and-design-standards

-Desmond

<image001.png>
<image002.png>
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
<image003.png>
<image004.png>
<image005.png>

ATTENTION: Starting October 20, 2025, all NEW permits will be reviewed through eTRAKiT and not through ProjectDox.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.
8 From: Crystal Gorton < [email protected] >
Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2025 4:32 PM
To: Desmond Parrington < [email protected] >; Jessica Brandt < [email protected] > Subject: Re: Urban Planning Updates

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 sa fe.

Why would you not send this? I would have liked to known more about it.

The article stated to contact Desmond or Jessica "... anyone looking to probe further into how these standards will impact their slice of Folsom, there are knowledgeable individuals available. Planning Manager Desmond Parrington and Principal Planner Jessica Brandt are the go-to contacts. They can be reached at [email protected] or 916-461-6233, and [email protected] or 916-461-6207."

From: Crystal Gorton < [email protected] >
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2025 3:40:09 PM
To: Desmond Parrington < [email protected] >;
[email protected] <[email protected] >
Subject: Urban Planning Updates

Can you send me an easy-to-understand version of this and how it affects each area of Folsom...something that someone who knows nothing about City Planning can understand?

https://hoodline.com/2025/10/folsom-advances-modern-urban-planning-with-upcoming- review-of-new-development-standards/

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

This page is intentionally left blank
to facilitate double-sided printing
and minimize paper use.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

10/28/2025 Item No.12.

Folsom City Council
Staff Report

1 MEETING DATE:

10/28/2025
AGENDA SECTION:

Public Hearing
SUBJECT: Resolution No. 11481 – A Resolution to Replace Resolution No. 11356 and No. 11365 and Adopt a New User Fee Schedule for Community Development Services

FROM: Community Development Department

RECOMMENDATION / CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Staff recommend that the City Council conduct the public hearing and adopt Resolution No. 11481 to Replace Resolution No. 11356 and No. 11365 and Adopt a New User Fee Schedule for Community Development Services.

BACKGROUND / ISSUE
New fees for Building and Engineering services were adopted by City Council Resolution on May 28, 2024 and went into effect on August 1, 2024. New Planning user fees along with modifications to select Engineering user fees were adopted by City Council Resolution on April 22, 2025 and went into effect on August 1, 2025.

Planning Background/Issues
Changes to FMC Chapter 17.52
Staff has proposed c hanges to Folsom Municipal Code (FMC) Chapter 17.52- Historic District (Ordinance No. 1353) that would move some Planning entitlement projects that are heard by the Historic District Commission to a Director level review. Projects that do not require Commission level review take less time than projects that have to go to Commission. Therefore, fees for Planning entitlement projects moved down to Director level reviews have to be lowered to account for the smaller amount of staff time spent on these projects.

Fire Department Review of Entitlement Projects
Staff notes that all City departments review entitlement projects, and this review is generally captured by the Planning fee for these entitlements. The Fire Department has found that reviews for the more time -consuming reviews that they perform are not ca ptured by the standard

10/28/2025 Item No.13.
2 entitlement fee, and that they do not have a specific fee in place to capture costs associated with those larger reviews.

Ministerial Entitlement Review
Per recent State laws, several types of Planning entitlements for housing proje cts are subject to only ministerial review using objective design and development standards. CDD is presenting a code update and a resolution at tonight’s Council meeting to adopt objective development and design standards (ODDS) for multi-unit and mixed-use residential development for certain overlay areas within the City. However, no such fee for this ministerial review currently exists in the fee schedule, and the existing Commission level design review fee accounts for more staff time than what is anticipated for ministerial design reviews.

Entitlement Noticing
Staff currently requires applicants for Planning entitlements that necessitate mailed notices to property owners within 300 feet of the project site to produce stamped and addressed envelopes for such noticing. However, staff have found that it has been difficult for some applicants to obtain accurate address information , and that t he quality of the work done on those envelopes by the applicants has been quite variable as well. As a result, staff is proposing a new fee in order to standardize this process and have this be done by CDD staff.

Engineering Background/Issues
Staff has found that flat fees for Engineering and landscape plan checks and inspections on larger projects with valuations abov e $300,000 do not adequately reflect staff and consultant time for these services as these size projects are often quite complex and need more extensive review. Staff also realized that the fee described in the staff report and provided as an attachment fo r the April 22, 2025 fee modification action for miscellaneous landscape plan review s were inadvertently omitted from the fee schedule provided in the Resolution for that item.

Building Background/Issues
In its review of fees and the staff time involved in reviews, Building staff discovered that the fee for building permits for electric vehicle chargers were too high based on the current level of effort.

While originally these reviews took more time , as plan review and inspection for these facilities has become more streamlined with the wider availability of electric vehicle charger technology the amount of staff time has decreased, and a lower fee based on this reduced staff time is warranted.

Background/Issues on Appeals to City Manager
Staff notes that FMC Section 2.08.060 allows for the appeal of decisions by any City Official (including that of the Community Development Director ) to the City Manager that are not otherwise appealable to the C ity Council or a Commission , as well as decisions by the City Manager to the City Council . However, no fee is currently listed for such appeal s in the fee schedule. Appeals of Community Development Director decisions to the Planning Commission or the Historic District Commission have a fee of $1,500 to account for work preparing staff report, presentation, and public hearing. The proposed fee is based on the hourly rate and staff time for City staff, and was approved by City Council to cover only a portion of the costs associated with appeals.

10/28/2025 Item No.13.
3 POLICY / RULE
Article XIII C of the California Constitution states that , “the local government bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that a levy, charge, or other exaction is not a tax, that the amount is no more than necessary to cover the reasonable costs of the governmental activity, and that the manner in which those costs are allocated to a payor bear a fair or reasonable relationship to the payer’s burdens on, or benefits received f rom, the governmental activity. ” Additionally, Article XIII C identifies the following development processing fees as items that are not defined as taxes:

● A charge imposed for a specific benefit conferred or privilege granted directly to the payer that is not provided to those not charged, and which does not exceed the reasonable costs to the local government of conferring the benefit or granting the privilege [Art. XIII, C, 1(e)(1)].

● A charge imposed for a specific government service or product provided directly to the payor that is not provided to those not charged, and which does not exceed the reasonable costs to the local government of providing the service or product [Art. XIII, C, 1(e)(2)].

● A charge imposed for the reasonable regulatory costs to a local government for issuing licenses and permits, performing investigations, inspections, and audits, enforcing agricultural marketing orders, and the administrative enforcement and adjudication thereof [Art. XIII, C, 1(e)(3)].

Section 66014(a) of the California Government Code includes the following, “ Notwithstanding any other provision of law, when a local agency charges fees for zoning variances; zoning changes; use permits; building inspections; building permits; ...the processing of maps under the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act...; or planning services...; those fees may not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service for which the fee is charged, unless a question regarding the amount of the fee charged in excess of the est imated reasonable cost of providing the services or materials is submitted to, and approved by, a popular vote of two -thirds of those electors voting on the issue”.

The proposed updated fees are int ended to comply with applicable federal, state, and local laws including providing confirmation that the proposed fees (“charges”) recommended are not taxes as defined in Article XIII C of the California Constitution and that the proposed fees are no more than necessary to the cover the reasonable costs of the C ity’s activities and services addressed in the fees. Additionally, the modified Planning, Engineering, and Building Fee Schedules (refer to Attachments 1 through 4) show that the manner in which the costs are allocated to a payor bear a fair and reasonable relationship to the payor’s burdens on, or benefits received from the activities and services provided by the City.

10/28/2025 Item No.13.
4 ANALYSIS
Proposed updated user fee schedules for Community Development services are provided in Resolution 11481 as Attachment 1. Note that while only some of the fees are proposed to change, the entire fee schedule is included in the resolution for ease of process ing the fee updates. Staff has also provided Attachments 2 through 4 , which detail how these fees were devised, including fully burdened staff hourly rates, staff time spent on each service, and proposed cost recovery.

Note that the proposed changes are shown in red text in Attachments 2 through 4.

PROPOSED PLANNING FEE CHANGES
Director Level Historic District Reviews
The Planning Division is proposing modifications to the fee schedule to reflect updated costs associated with the permit an d project reviews in the Historic District (assuming adoption of Ordinance No. 1353). These modifications include the following:

1. Separating fees for existing structures in the Historic District to differentiate between Director-level and Commission level reviews; and

2. Lowering the fee for Historic District demolitions since the vast majority of these will now be reviewed only by the Community Development Director and therefore involve less staff time.

Staff is proposing full cost recovery for the Director level design reviews and retaining partial cost recovery for Commission level reviews. Staff is proposing that fees for Director level Historic District reviews be primarily decreased to account for less staff time spent on these reviews .

However, t he existing single - and two -family dwelling Director -level reviews would remain essentially unchanged (going up by $32), as the existing fee did not collect 100 percent cost recovery since these projects previously had to go to Commission. The proposed fee achieves full cost recovery and reflects the fact that these projects no longer go to Commission. The table below demonstrates the difference in existing and proposed design review fees in the Historic District.

Table 1- Historic District Existing and Proposed Fees

Current Fee Proposed Fee
New Multi-Family/Commercial Structure (Commission) $5,100 $5,100 Existing Multi-Family/Commercial Structure
(Commission)
$2,210 $2,210
Existing Multi-Family/Commercial Structure (Director) $2,210 $864 Single- and Two-Family Dwelling, Non-Exempted ADU
(Commission)
$800 $800
Existing Single- and Two-Family Dwelling/New or
Existing Accessory Structure (Director)
$400 $432
Demolition $400 $216

10/28/2025 Item No.13.
5 Staff is also proposing a fee of $216 for demolitions in the Historic District (50 percent cost recovery), down from the existing fee of $400. Under the recently proposed update of Chapter

17.52 of the FMC (Historic District), many demolitions would no longer go to the Historic District Commission for review, and less staff time is therefore anticipated with these reviews. However, staff still must review all proposed demolitions in the Historic District against a number of databases and resources to determine pote ntial historic significance. As such, two hours of staff time was assumed for the average Historic District demolition review, which would result in a fee of $432 at full cost recovery. Staff believed that this was a prohibitive cost for most demolitions, particularly for the demolition of smaller accessory structures, and would discourage people from obtaining such a permit. During the Historic District Commission hearings regarding the code updates, staff heard from the Commission and the public that ther e was a community benefit in ensuring that structures proposed for demolition are properly reviewed for historic significance, as it would better lead to the retention of historical resources. As such, staff has proposed a lower fee for Historic District d emolition review to help encourage this practice. Overall, staff has tried to strike a balance between full cost recovery and encouraging homeowners and developers to follow City regulations.

Ministerial Design Review
Regarding the new ministerial design review process for multi-family/mixed-use projects subject to the ODDS, s taff is proposing full cost recovery for the fees associated with reviews of these projects ($864) based on the assumption that these reviews would take an average of four hours of staff time to complete. Staff anticipates that this amount of time is needed to review these projects against objective design and development standards and to route the projects for review from other City departments as necessary. This fee is significantly lower than the fee to take these projects to Commission ($2,210 for existing structures and $5,100 for new structures).

Fire Department Entitlement Review
Regarding Fire Department reviews of Planning entitlements, sta ff is proposing to add footnotes into the Planning fee schedule which states that plan reviews by the Fire Department in excess of 4 hours are charged an hourly Fire Plan Check fee as listed in the City Master Fee schedule . This note ensures that the City attains full cost recovery for projects with the more complex Fire Department reviews.

Public Notice Mailing Fee
Staff is also proposing a fee to account for the creation and distribution of mailed public notices for projects that require noticing within a 300-foot radius. Given that the notices come from the City, staff wanted to ensure quality consistency by taking on producing the notices, envelopes, and address labels. Furthermore, staff has an easy way to find the accurate mailing addresses for the correct property owners. As such, instead of requiring project applicants to produce the envelopes, staff is requesting that a flat $200 fee be applied to projects that require 300 -foot noticing so that staff may produce the envelopes. The fee would pay for average time and materials (including postage) of a typical 300 -foot noticing. Staff found that other local jurisdictions, including Elk Grove, Roseville, and Sacramento County have noticing fees between approximately $170 and $350. As such, the proposed $200 fee would fall in line with the regional average for this service.

10/28/2025 Item No.13.
6 PROPOSED ENGINEERING FEE CHANGES
Staff has found that Engineering and landscape plan check and inspection fees for projects with a valuation of $300,000 or more often result in a wide range of staff costs depending on the scale of the project, especially when assistance from consultants is needed for such reviews and inspections. As such, the existing fixed fee for projects of this scale does not fully account for staff and consultant review time. As such, staff has proposed a fee for these projects using an initial deposit plus time and materials. While staff does not currently have the resources to track time for all projects, tracking time on these large-scale landscaping reviews and inspections is necessary to better achieve full cost recovery.

Staff is also requesting an update to the miscellaneous landscape plan review fee for production homes/subdivisions. Updated fees for these reviews were previously approved by Council in April 2025. Staff had originally proposed that the landscape review fee for production homes be $2,300 for up to four landscaping schemes and $2,500 for 5 schemes plus an additional 10% of the fee for each additional landscaping scheme beyond five . While this change was described in the staff report and provided as an attachment, a clerical error resulted in it not being included in the fee schedule provided in the resolution. Staff has now updated the fee schedule to include this change.

PROPOSED BUILDING FEE CHANGES
Staff is proposing a fee of $138 for Electric Vehicle (EV) charger building permits. The previous fee accounted for two hours of work (including permit processing, review and inspection ).

However, based on an analysis of recent review times staff discovered that these permits now take approximately 45 minutes of staff time total. This is due to EV charger installation becoming more common and staff in part becoming more familiar with reviewing permits for them. Staff has also found that the cur rent fee of $377 is approximately double what nearby jurisdictions charge for these permits, and the current fee is an inordinate percentage of construction valuation (typically approximately $1,000). As such, staff is requesting a lower fee for EV charger building permits to both reflect up-to-date staff time associated with these permits as well as to encourage contractors to property pull permits. This lower fee would also put the City in alignment with the State’s push towards all-electric vehicles in the future.

PROPOSED APPEAL FEE CHANGES
The appeal of Community Development Director decisions to the Planning or Historic District Commission already has an established fee. Similarly, there is a fee for appeals of Commission decisions to the City Counci l. However, no fee exists under FMC 2.08.060 for an appeal of a decision by a City official to the City Manager , or a decision by the City Manager to the City Council, for matters that do not have an appeal mechanism in ordinance or resolution . Since the existing $1,500 fee for appeals of Director decisions assumes approximately 20 hours of work (including a Commission hearing), this fee is not appropriate for appeals to the City Manager. In most cases, an appeal of a staff decision to the City Manager involves the preparation of memo for the City Manager explaining the rationale behind the staff decision and at least one meeting with the City Manager. That typically takes at least 2 hours of staff time. While additional time is often needed for research and subsequent meetings, staff is proposing to only account for 2 hours of staff time both to account for smaller appeals and to not make the fee prohibitively expensive and

10/28/2025 Item No.13.
7 discourage those who do not have the resources from appealing. Based on this, staff is proposing a $432 fee for appeals to the City Manager.

For appeals of City Manager’s decisions to the City Council, approximately 20 hours of staff time are anticipated given the need to prepare a staff report and attend a Council meeting, consistent with the average amount of time assumed for appeals of CDD Director decisions to the Planning/Historic District Commission . Staff is proposing a $1,500 fee to appeal City Manager decisions to Council to match the current appeal fee for CDD decisions to the Commissions. This only accounts for 35 percent cost recovery on average, but given Council’s recent direction to keep appeal fees at a reasonable rate to the public, staff is proposing this lower appeal fee.

Conclusions
Staff confirmed that the forecasted revenue from the updated fees did not exceed the actual staff costs associated with this work and should therefore be in line with State law.

FINANCIAL IMPACT
Staff anticipates that the proposed Planning fee updates will more accurately account for staff time spent on projects that no longer require Commission -level review as well as reflect the time and materials it takes to produce project notice mailers. Furthermore, staff anticipates that the proposed changes to Engineering fees will accurately reflect staff time for landscaping plan reviews. Staff also expects that the proposed Building fee changes will better reflect current staff time associated with review of EV charger permits while incentivizing the public to obtain such permits. Finally, the inclusion of a new appeal fees will cover a portion of staff time associated with such appeals, but the proposed fees will provide a funding source so that this process is no longer being entirely subsidized by the General Fund.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution No. 11481 – A Resolution to Replace Resolution No. 11356 and No. 11365 and Adopt a New User Fee Schedule for Community Development Services a. Exhibit A – Amended Community Development User Fees

2. Existing and Proposed Planning Fees and Cost of Service

3. Existing and Proposed Engineering Fees and Cost of Service (excerpt)

4. Existing and Proposed Building Fees and Cost of Service (excerpt)

Submitted,

____________________________

PAM JOHNS
Community Development Director

10/28/2025 Item No.13.

Attachment 1

10/28/2025 Item No.13.

Resolution No. 11481

RESOLUTION NO. 11481

A RESOLUTION TO REPLACE RESOLUTION NO. 11356 AND NO. 11365 AND

ADOPT A NEW USER FEE SCHEDULE FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

SERVICES

WHEREAS , City of Folsom Municipal Code Section 3.50.020 st ates “The city manager is hereby directed 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 this chapter and on the schedule of rate review as hereinafter established in this chapter”; and

WHEREAS , the City Council on October 28, 2025, held a public hearing on the proposed fee updates for the Community Development Department and considered public comment; and

WHEREAS Resolution No. 11356, adopted by City Council on A pril 22, 2025, set the most recent User Fee schedule for the Community Dev elopment Department Planning and Engineering Services; and

WHEREAS Resolution No. 11365 adopted by City Council on May 28, 2025, set the most recent User Fee schedule for the Community Development Department Building Services; and

WHEREAS , the City performed a reasonableness test on the p roposed fees and this test confirmed that fees do not exceed the actual staff costs associated with this work and are consistent with State law; and

WHEREAS , the proposed fees are in line with those charged by other jurisdictions in the Sacramento region; and

WHEREAS notice has been given at the time and in the manne r required by State Law and City Code; and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Folsom hereby adopts Resolution No. 11481 including the am ended user fee schedule for Community Development Department services, as shown in Exhibit “A”.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that those fees identified in Exhibit “A” to Resolu tion No. 11481 shall be adjusted annually based on changes in the Consumer Price Index.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 28th day of October 2025, by the following roll-call vote:

AYES: Councilmember(s):

NOES: Councilmember(s):

ABSENT: Councilmember(s):

ABSTAIN: Councilmember(s):

10/28/2025 Item No.13.

Resolution No. 11481

__________________________________
Sarah Aquino, MAYOR

ATTEST:

____________________________________
Christa Freemantle, CITY CLERK

10/28/2025 Item No.13.

Resolution No. 11481

Exhibit A

Amended Community Development Department User Fees

10/28/2025 Item No.13.

City of Folsom

ENGINEERING AND ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FEES
# Description Fee Fee Structure Note
1 Assessment District/CFD Payment Processing $4,800 Fixed Fee [c] 2 Encroachment Permit [c]
a) Encroachment Contract for Parking/Staging
i. 0-6 calendar days $50 Fixed Fee
ii. 7-14 calendar days $100 Fixed Fee
iii. 14+days $200 Fixed Fee
b) Utility Work/Connections (Individual Permits)
i. Wet Utilities/Service Connections Fixed Fee
a. Base Fee $200
b. Plus per LF of Trench in ROW/City Easement $5.00
ii. Dry Utilities (per site/location) Fixed Fee
a. Base Fee $200
b. Plus per LF of Trench in ROW/City Easement $5.00
iii. Misc. per LF of Trench in ROW/City Easement $5.00 Fixed Fee iv. Inspections and Testing (when applicable) $400 Fixed Fee c) Driveways/Minor Frontage Improvements
i. Residential (per driveway) $400 Fixed Fee
ii. Commercial (per driveway) $400 Fixed Fee
d) Pools and Spas (in ground) $400 Fixed Fee
e) Traffic Control/Equipment Staging
i. Isolated Site $200 Fixed Fee
ii. Multiple Closures/Staging $1,000 Fixed Fee
f) Permit Extensions
i. Active Work Zone $50 Fixed Fee
ii. Inactive Work Zone (4+ months inactivity) $200 Fixed Fee g) Annual Permits
i. Wet Utilities $6,000 Fixed Fee
ii. Dry Utilities $20,800 Fixed Fee
iii. General Maintenance/Misc. (Not Wet or Dry Utilities) T&M T&M [a] iv. Vegetation Management (Utilities) $20,800 Fixed Fee v. Long Term/Revocable Encroachments (paid annually) $200 Fixed Fee h) Long Term/Revocable Encroachments (new permits only) $2,400 Fixed Fee [b] Resolution No. 11481

10/28/2025 Item No.13.

City of Folsom

ENGINEERING AND ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FEES
# Description Fee Fee Structure Note
3 Engineering and Landscape Plan Check and Inspection
(Fee Includes Up to 3 Cycle Reviews - Hourly Billing Applies for Reviews Required Beyond 3rd Cycle)

a) Project Value Up to $10,000 8.00% Fixed Fee
b) Project Value $10,001 - $100,000
i. Base Fee for First $10,000 $800 Fixed Fee
ii. Fee for Each Add'l $1 Up to $100,000 8.00% Fixed Fee c) $100,001 - $199,999
i. Base Fee for First $100,000 $8,000 Fixed Fee
ii. Fee for Each Add'l $1 Up to $200,000 6.40% Fixed Fee d) $200,001 - $299,999
i. Base Fee for First $200,000 $14,400 Fixed Fee
ii. Fee for Each Add'l $1 Up to $300,000 4.80% Fixed Fee e) $300,000 or more
i. Base Fee for First $300,000 $19,200 T & M with Initial Deposit

ii. Fee for Each Add'l $1 3.60% T & M with Initial
Deposit

f) Miscellaneous Landscape Plan Review
i. Non-Development Landscape Plan Review $200 Per Hour ii. New Custom Home $1,100 Fixed Fee
iii. Production Home/Subdivision (Typ. Tract Home)
a. 0-4 Planting Schemes/Master Plans $2,300 Fixed Fee
b. 5+ Planting Schemes/Master Plans $2,500 + 10% per
Scheme above 5
Schemes
Fixed Fee
4 Final Map and Parcel Map [c]
a) Parcel Map Check $8,050 Fixed Fee
b) Final Map Check
i. Base Fee/Final Map Amendment $11,500 Fixed Fee
ii. Plus, Per Lot Fee $144 Fixed Fee
c) Certificate of Correction/Certificate of Compliance (including Parcel Mergers)
$2,000 T & M with
Initial Deposit
d) Lot Line Adjustment Check $8,050 Fixed Fee
5 Right of Ways (ROW) and Easements [c]
a) Review of ROW/Easement Documents $3,450 Fixed Fee
b) ROW/Easement Abandonment $5,750 Fixed Fee
Resolution No. 11481

10/28/2025 Item No.13.

City of Folsom

ENGINEERING AND ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FEES
# Description Fee Fee Structure Note
6 Agreement Processing $5,750 Fixed Fee [c]
7 Transportation Permit (Per State Regulation)
a) Permit $16 Fixed Fee
b) Annual Permit $90 Fixed Fee
Resolution No. 11481

10/28/2025 Item No.13.

City of Folsom

ENGINEERING AND ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FEES
# Description Fee Fee Structure Note
8 Tree Removal/Work Permit [c]
a) Permitted Pruning/Cabling $40 Fixed Fee
b) Permitted Removal/Work
i. Existing Occupied Structure
a. 0-4 Trees $100 Fixed Fee
b. 5+ Trees $150 + 10% per
tree above 5
Fixed Fee
c. "In Decline" Tree
(Requires City Arborist Concurrence)
$100 Fixed Fee
ii. New Construction (e.g. Custom Home, Subdivision, Parcel Map, Multi-family, Commercial, etc.):

a. 0-4 Trees $1,200 Fixed Fee
b. 5+ Trees $1,400 + 10% per
tree above 5
Fixed Fee
iii. Misc. $200 Per Hour
c) w/o Permit (Does not include sanctions or mitigation) Double the Permit Rate
2x permit amount Fixed Fee
Other Fees for Service [c]
9 Research of Engineering Records $200 Per Hour
10 Miscellaneous Engineering Services $200 Per Hour
11 Excess Plan Review Fee (4th and subsequent) $200 Per Hour 12 Revisions $200 Per Hour
13 After Hours Inspection (per hour) (2-hour minimum) $240 Per Hour 14 Re-inspection Fee (2nd Time or More) (each) $200 Each 15 Missed Inspection Fee $200 Each
16 Expedited Services Fee 1.5x Regular Fee Fixed Fee
17 Residential Landscape Review Hourly Rate of
Arborist
Per Hour
18 Technical Assistance/Third Party Review or Inspection Actual Cost T & M [a] Use time and materials with initial deposit to be determined by City Engineer, based on anticipated scope of work. [b] Encroachment agreement required in addition to insurance (e.g., parklets). [c] Fee is subject to annual updates based on changes to the Consumer Price Index (CPI).

Resolution No. 11481

10/28/2025 Item No.13.

City of Folsom
BUILDING FEES, effective July 1, 2025

A. Fees for Commonly Requested Building Permit Types. Fees shown in this section (Section A.) include all applicable inspection, and plan review fees. Additional permit processing fees apply. Additional fees may apply for services provided by other City Departments (e.g. Planning Review), and Fees Collected on Behalf of Other Agencies (e.g. State of California).

Fee Description

Fee Charge Basis Note CPI

1 HVAC Change-Out - Residential $235 per permit Y
2 Water Heater Change-Out - Residential $188 per permit Y 3 Residential Re-Roof $377 per permit Y
4 Siding Replacement $330 per permit Y
5 Service Panel Upgrade - Residential $283 per permit Y 6 Battery Backup Storage $377 per permit Y
7 Electric Vehicle Charger $138 per permit Y
8 Generator $377 per permit Y
9 Residential Solar Photovoltaic System - Solar Permit

a) Plan Review

i) Base Fee for 15kW or Less

ii) Fee for Each Additional kW above 15kW

b) Permit

$200

$15

$250

per permit
per permit
per permit

[a],[b]
[a],[b]
[a],[b]

N
N
N
10 Commercial Solar Photovoltaic System - Solar Permit

a) Plan Review

i) Base Fee 50kW or Less

ii) Fee for Each Add'l kW above 50kW up to 250kW

ii) Fee for Each Add'l kW above 250kW

b) Permit

$444

$7

$5

$556

per permit
per permit
per permit
per permit

[a],[b]
[a],[b]
[a],[b]
[a],[b]

N
N
N
N
11 Pool Solar $188 per permit Y
12 Swimming Pool Replaster / Equipment Change-Out $470 per permit Y 13 Swimming Pool Remodel (e.g., Changing Pool Shape,
Adding Cabo Shelf, etc.)
$941 per permit Y
14 Retaining Wall
a) One Type of Retaining Wall Type/Configuration
b) Each Additional Wall Type/Configuration
$565
$282
per permit
per permit
Y
Y
15 Window / Sliding Glass Door - Retrofit / Repair
a) Up to 5
b) Per Window Over 5 Windows

$188
$37

per permit
per permit

Y
Y
16 Fences Requiring a Building Permit $376 per permit Y 17 Electrical and Irrigation Pedestals per pedestal $282 per permit Y 18 Detached and Attached ADUs $4,709 per permit Y
19 Junior ADUs $2,260 per permit Y
[a] Total fees shall not exceed amounts outlined in California Government Code 66015(a)(1). [b] The City will not collect additional permit processing fees. Amounts shown are total amount due for permit processing, plan review, and permit.

Resolution No. 11481

10/28/2025 Item No.13.

City of Folsom
BUILDING FEES, effective July 1, 2025

Determination of Valuation for Fee-Setting Purposes
● Project valuations shall be based on the total value of all construction work, including all finish work, roofing, electrical, plumbing, heating, air conditioning, elevators, fire-extinguishing systems and any other permanent equipment. If, in the opinion of the Building Official, the valuation is underestimated on the application, the permit shall be denied, unless the applicant can show detailed estimates to meet the approval of the Building Official. Final building permit valuation shall be set by the Building Official. For determining project valuations for new construction, the Building Official may use data published by the International Code Council (ICC) (building valuation data table, typically updated in February and August of each year). The final building permit valuation shall be set at an amount that allows the City to recover its costs of applicant plan check, permit and inspection activities.

Note: For construction projects with permit fees calculated using Section B, additional fees apply for permit issuance. Additional fees may apply for services provided by other City Departments (e.g. Planning Review), and Fees Collected on Behalf of Other Agencies (e.g. State of California). Additional fees apply for plan review, when applicable.

B. Permit Fee for New Buildings, Additions, Tenant Improvements, Residential Remodels, and Combined Mechanical, Electrical, and/or Plumbing Permits

Total Valuation Permit Fee CPI $1 to $2,000 $138.00

$2,001 to $25,000 $138.00 for the first $2,000 plus $10.00 for each add'l $1,000 or fraction thereof, N to and including $25,000

$25,001 to $50,000 $368.00 for the first $25,000 plus $11.04 for each add'l $1,000 or fraction thereof, N to and including $50,000

$50,001 to $100,000 $644.00 for the first $50,000 plus $9.20 for each add'l $1,000 or fraction thereof, N to and including $100,000

$100,001 to $500,000 $1,104.00 for the first $100,000 plus $7.36 for each add'l $1,000 or fraction thereof, N to and including $500,000

$500,001 to $1,000,000 $4,048.00 for the first $500,000 plus $6.62 for each add'l $1,000 or fraction thereof, N to and including $1,000,000

$1,000,001 to $5,000,000 $7,360.00 for the first $1,000,000 plus $5.52 for each add'l $1,000 or fraction thereof, N to and including $5,000,000

$5,000,001 and up $29,440.00 for the first $5,000,000 plus $4.11 for each additional $1,000 or fraction N thereof over $5,000,000
Resolution No. 11481

10/28/2025 Item No.13.

City of Folsom
BUILDING FEES, effective July 1, 2025

D. Building Plan Review Fees
Activity Description Fee Charge Basis Note CPI
1 Building Plan Check Fees - Building
a) Plan Review Fee, if applicable 80% [a] N
b) Expedited Plan Check - At Application Submittal (when applicable)

1.5x standard plan check fee N
c) Tract Home / Master Plan Construction (Production Units) 20% of standard plan check fee [b] N

d) Production Permit for Multi-family permit

$1,507

Y

e) Production Permit for Fire permits and other misc. permits

$471

Y

f) Alternate Materials and Methods Review (per hour)

$188

Y

g) Excess Plan Review Fee (4th and subsequent) (per hour)

$188

Y

h) Revisions to an Approved Permit (per hour)

$188

Y

i) Deferred Submittal (per hour)

$188

Y
When applicable, plan check fees shall be paid at the time of application for a building permit.

The plan checking fee is in addition to the building permit fee

[a] Includes up to three plan checks. The City will bill hourly for additional plan review required. [b] For identical buildings built by the same builder on the same lot or in the same tract and for which building permits are issued at the same time.

Resolution No. 11481

10/28/2025 Item No.13.

City of Folsom
BUILDING FEES, effective July 1, 2025

E. Other Fees
Fee
$79
Note CPI
Y
Activity Description
1 Permit Processing Fee

2 Strong Motion Instrumentation (SMI) Fee Calculation [a] a) Residential $0.50 or valuation x .00013 [a] N b) Commercial $0.50 or valuation x .00028 [a] N

3 Building Standards (SB 1473) Fee Calculation (Valuation) [a] a) $1 - $25,000 $1 [a] N b) $25,001 - $50,000 $2 [a] N c) $50,001 - $75,000 $3 [a] N d) $75,001 - $100,000 $4 [a] N e) Each Add'l $25,000 or fraction thereof Add $1 [a] N

4 Business License Fee $25 N

5 CASP Training Fund Fee $3.60 N

6 State Disability Access Fee $0.40 N

7 General Plan/Zoning Code Update Fee (percent of building permit fee) 5% [b] N

8 Temporary Certificate of Occupancy (Phasing Plan) Fee $942 Y

9 Permit Extension $0 Y
10 Permit Reactivation Fee
a) Reactivation Fee if All Inspections Have Been Performed and Approved Up to But Not Including Final Inspection
b) Reactivation Fee - All Other Scenarios

$184 Y i) Permit Expired Up to One Year 50% of Original Base Building Permit Fee N ii) Permit Expired More than One Year 100% of Original Base Building Permit Fee N

11 Permit Reissuance Fee $188 Y

12 Damaged Building Survey (Fire, Flood, Vehicle Damage, Etc.) (per hour)

$188
Y

13 Other Fees
Phased Inspection Fee (per inspection)

$188

Y

14 After Hours Inspection (per hour) (4-hour minimum)

$226

Y

15 Re-inspection Fee (2nd Time or More) (each)

$188

[c]

Y

16 Missed Inspection Fee

$188

Y

17 Duplicate Copy of Permit

$79

Y
Resolution No. 11481

10/28/2025 Item No.13.

City of Folsom
BUILDING FEES, effective July 1, 2025

E. Other Fees
Activity Description Fee Note CPI 18 Duplicate Copy of Certificate of Occupancy $79 Y

19 Fees for Services Not Listed in this Fee Schedule (per 1/2 hour) $94 Y Violation Fees

20 Investigation Fee For Work Done Without Permits
(In addition to applicable permit fees)

equal to N permit fee

[a] Amounts established by State of California. In the case of discrepancy between this schedule and amounts established by the State, State amounts shall supersede these amounts.
[b] Fee applies to new construction, additions, tenant improvements, and residential remodels requiring building permits. [c] Reinspection fee applies after the first re-inspection.

Resolution No. 11481

10/28/2025 Item No.13.

City of Folsom
BUILDING FEES, effective July 1, 2025

Building Valuation Data Table

Group (2021 International Building Code) IA IB IIA IIB IIIA IIIB IV VA VB A-1 Assembly, theaters, with stage 335.89 324.58 316.94 304.93 286.87 278.00 295.62 266.02 257.55 A-1 Assembly, theaters, without stage 307.39 296.08 288.44 276.42 258.37 249.50 267.12 237.51 229.05 A-2 Assembly, nightclubs 269.94 261.93 254.48 245.85 230.56 223.99 237.02 209.57 202.79 A-2 Assembly, restaurants, bars, banquet halls 268.94 260.93 252.48 244.85 228.56 222.99 236.02 207.57 201.79 A-3 Assembly, churches 311.88 300.57 292.93 280.91 263.30 254.43 271.60 242.45 233.98 A-3 Assembly, general, community halls, libraries, museums 266.07 254.76 246.12 235.10 216.33 208.46 225.80 195.47 188.01 A-4 Assembly, arenas 306.39 295.08 286.44 275.42 256.37 248.50 266.12 235.51 228.05 B Business 260.69 251.13 241.86 231.65 210.99 202.73 222.56 186.21 177.81 E Educational 273.46 263.96 255.62 245.04 228.69 217.00 236.61 200.36 193.94 F-1 Factory and industrial, moderate hazard 160.20 152.78 143.34 138.64 123.55 117.41 132.48 102.44 95.93 F-2 Factory and industrial, low hazard 159.20 151.78 143.34 137.64 123.55 116.41 131.48 102.44 94.93 H-1 High Hazard, explosives 149.46 142.04 133.60 127.90 114.12 106.97 121.74 93.00 0.00 H234 High Hazard 149.46 142.04 133.60 127.90 114.12 106.97 121.74 93.00 85.50 H-5 HPM 260.69 251.13 241.86 231.65 210.99 202.73 222.56 186.21 177.81 I-1 Institutional, supervised environment 262.22 252.95 244.31 235.67 215.42 209.47 235.71 193.82 187.73 I-2 Institutional, hospitals 434.15 424.59 415.32 405.12 383.35 0.00 396.02 358.57 0.00 I-2 Institutional, nursing homes 302.01 292.45 283.18 272.97 253.83 0.00 263.88 229.05 0.00 I-3 Institutional, restrained 295.86 286.31 277.03 266.83 247.95 238.69 257.74 223.17 212.77 I-4 Institutional, day care facilities 262.22 252.95 244.31 235.67 215.42 209.47 235.71 193.82 187.73 M Mercantile 201.37 193.36 184.91 177.28 161.72 156.15 168.45 140.73 134.95 R-1 Residential, hotels 264.67 255.41 246.77 238.13 218.35 212.40 238.17 196.75 190.67 R-2 Residential, multiple family 221.32 212.06 203.42 194.78 175.96 170.01 194.82 154.36 148.28 R-3 Residential, one- and two-family 209.61 203.74 198.94 195.12 188.41 181.45 191.77 175.86 165.67 R-4 Residential, care/assisted living facilities 262.22 252.95 244.31 235.67 215.42 209.47 235.71 193.82 187.73 S-1 Storage, moderate hazard 148.46 141.04 131.60 126.90 112.12 105.97 120.74 91.00 84.50 S-2 Storage, low hazard 147.46 140.04 131.60 125.90 112.12 104.97 119.74 91.00 83.50 U Utility, miscellaneous 114.09 107.37 99.89 95.60 85.13 79.54 90.99 67.39 64.19

Resolution No. 11481

10/28/2025 Item No.13.

City of Folsom

ENGINEERING AND ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FEES
# Description Fee Fee Structure Note
1 Assessment District/CFD Payment Processing $4,800 Fixed Fee [c] 2 Encroachment Permit [c]
a) Encroachment Contract for Parking/Staging
i. 0-6 calendar days $50 Fixed Fee
ii. 7-14 calendar days $100 Fixed Fee
iii. 14+days $200 Fixed Fee
b) Utility Work/Connections (Individual Permits)
i. Wet Utilities/Service Connections Fixed Fee
a. Base Fee $200
b. Plus per LF of Trench in ROW/City Easement $5.00
ii. Dry Utilities (per site/location) Fixed Fee
a. Base Fee $200
b. Plus per LF of Trench in ROW/City Easement $5.00
iii. Misc. per LF of Trench in ROW/City Easement $5.00 Fixed Fee iv. Inspections and Testing (when applicable) $400 Fixed Fee c) Driveways/Minor Frontage Improvements
i. Residential (per driveway) $400 Fixed Fee
ii. Commercial (per driveway) $400 Fixed Fee
d) Pools and Spas (in ground) $400 Fixed Fee
e) Traffic Control/Equipment Staging
i. Isolated Site $200 Fixed Fee
ii. Multiple Closures/Staging $1,000 Fixed Fee
f) Permit Extensions
i. Active Work Zone $50 Fixed Fee
ii. Inactive Work Zone (4+ months inactivity) $200 Fixed Fee g) Annual Permits
i. Wet Utilities $6,000 Fixed Fee
ii. Dry Utilities $20,800 Fixed Fee
iii. General Maintenance/Misc. (Not Wet or Dry Utilities) T&M T&M [a] iv. Vegetation Management (Utilities) $20,800 Fixed Fee v. Long Term/Revocable Encroachments (paid annually) $200 Fixed Fee h) Long Term/Revocable Encroachments (new permits only) $2,400 Fixed Fee [b] Resolution No. 11481

10/28/2025 Item No.13.

City of Folsom

ENGINEERING AND ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FEES
# Description Fee Fee Structure Note
3 Engineering and Landscape Plan Check and Inspection
(Fee Includes Up to 3 Cycle Reviews - Hourly Billing Applies for Reviews Required Beyond 3rd Cycle)

a) Project Value Up to $10,000 8.00% Fixed Fee
b) Project Value $10,001 - $100,000
i. Base Fee for First $10,000 $800 Fixed Fee
ii. Fee for Each Add'l $1 Up to $100,000 8.00% Fixed Fee c) $100,001 - $199,999
i. Base Fee for First $100,000 $8,000 Fixed Fee
ii. Fee for Each Add'l $1 Up to $200,000 6.40% Fixed Fee d) $200,001 - $299,999
i. Base Fee for First $200,000 $14,400 Fixed Fee
ii. Fee for Each Add'l $1 Up to $300,000 4.80% Fixed Fee e) $300,000 or more
i. Base Fee for First $300,000 $19,200 T & M with Initial Deposit

ii. Fee for Each Add'l $1 3.60% T & M with Initial
Deposit

f) Miscellaneous Landscape Plan Review
i. Non-Development Landscape Plan Review $200 Per Hour ii. New Custom Home $1,100 Fixed Fee
iii. Production Home/Subdivision (Typ. Tract Home)
a. 0-4 Planting Schemes/Master Plans $2,300 Fixed Fee
b. 5+ Planting Schemes/Master Plans $2,500 + 10% per
Scheme above 5
Schemes
Fixed Fee
4 Final Map and Parcel Map [c]
a) Parcel Map Check $8,050 Fixed Fee
b) Final Map Check
i. Base Fee/Final Map Amendment $11,500 Fixed Fee
ii. Plus, Per Lot Fee $144 Fixed Fee
c) Certificate of Correction/Certificate of Compliance (including Parcel Mergers)
$2,000 T & M with
Initial Deposit
d) Lot Line Adjustment Check $8,050 Fixed Fee
5 Right of Ways (ROW) and Easements [c]
a) Review of ROW/Easement Documents $3,450 Fixed Fee
b) ROW/Easement Abandonment $5,750 Fixed Fee
Resolution No. 11481

10/28/2025 Item No.13.

City of Folsom

ENGINEERING AND ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FEES
# Description Fee Fee Structure Note
6 Agreement Processing $5,750 Fixed Fee [c]
7 Transportation Permit (Per State Regulation)
a) Permit $16 Fixed Fee
b) Annual Permit $90 Fixed Fee
Resolution No. 11481

10/28/2025 Item No.13.

City of Folsom

ENGINEERING AND ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FEES
# Description Fee Fee Structure Note
8 Tree Removal/Work Permit [c]
a) Permitted Pruning/Cabling $40 Fixed Fee
b) Permitted Removal/Work
i. Existing Occupied Structure
a. 0-4 Trees $100 Fixed Fee
b. 5+ Trees $150 + 10% per
tree above 5
Fixed Fee
c. "In Decline" Tree
(Requires City Arborist Concurrence)
$100 Fixed Fee
ii. New Construction (e.g. Custom Home, Subdivision, Parcel Map, Multi-family, Commercial, etc.):

a. 0-4 Trees $1,200 Fixed Fee
b. 5+ Trees $1,400 + 10% per
tree above 5
Fixed Fee
iii. Misc. $200 Per Hour
c) w/o Permit (Does not include sanctions or mitigation) Double the Permit Rate
2x permit amount Fixed Fee
Other Fees for Service [c]
9 Research of Engineering Records $200 Per Hour
10 Miscellaneous Engineering Services $200 Per Hour
11 Excess Plan Review Fee (4th and subsequent) $200 Per Hour 12 Revisions $200 Per Hour
13 After Hours Inspection (per hour) (2-hour minimum) $240 Per Hour 14 Re-inspection Fee (2nd Time or More) (each) $200 Each 15 Missed Inspection Fee $200 Each
16 Expedited Services Fee 1.5x Regular Fee Fixed Fee
17 Residential Landscape Review Hourly Rate of
Arborist
Per Hour
18 Technical Assistance/Third Party Review or Inspection Actual Cost T & M [a] Use time and materials with initial deposit to be determined by City Engineer, based on anticipated scope of work. [b] Encroachment agreement required in addition to insurance (e.g., parklets). [c] Fee is subject to annual updates based on changes to the Consumer Price Index (CPI).

Resolution No. 11481

10/28/2025 Item No.13.

City of Folsom
BUILDING FEES, effective July 1, 2025

A. Fees for Commonly Requested Building Permit Types. Fees shown in this section (Section A.) include all applicable inspection, and plan review fees. Additional permit processing fees apply. Additional fees may apply for services provided by other City Departments (e.g. Planning Review), and Fees Collected on Behalf of Other Agencies (e.g. State of California).

Fee Description

Fee Charge Basis Note CPI

1 HVAC Change-Out - Residential $235 per permit Y
2 Water Heater Change-Out - Residential $188 per permit Y 3 Residential Re-Roof $377 per permit Y
4 Siding Replacement $330 per permit Y
5 Service Panel Upgrade - Residential $283 per permit Y 6 Battery Backup Storage $377 per permit Y
7 Electric Vehicle Charger $138 per permit Y
8 Generator $377 per permit Y
9 Residential Solar Photovoltaic System - Solar Permit

a) Plan Review

i) Base Fee for 15kW or Less

ii) Fee for Each Additional kW above 15kW

b) Permit

$200

$15

$250

per permit
per permit
per permit

[a],[b]
[a],[b]
[a],[b]

N
N
N
10 Commercial Solar Photovoltaic System - Solar Permit

a) Plan Review

i) Base Fee 50kW or Less

ii) Fee for Each Add'l kW above 50kW up to 250kW

ii) Fee for Each Add'l kW above 250kW

b) Permit

$444

$7

$5

$556

per permit
per permit
per permit
per permit

[a],[b]
[a],[b]
[a],[b]
[a],[b]

N
N
N
N
11 Pool Solar $188 per permit Y
12 Swimming Pool Replaster / Equipment Change-Out $470 per permit Y 13 Swimming Pool Remodel (e.g., Changing Pool Shape,
Adding Cabo Shelf, etc.)
$941 per permit Y
14 Retaining Wall
a) One Type of Retaining Wall Type/Configuration
b) Each Additional Wall Type/Configuration
$565
$282
per permit
per permit
Y
Y
15 Window / Sliding Glass Door - Retrofit / Repair
a) Up to 5
b) Per Window Over 5 Windows

$188
$37

per permit
per permit

Y
Y
16 Fences Requiring a Building Permit $376 per permit Y 17 Electrical and Irrigation Pedestals per pedestal $282 per permit Y 18 Detached and Attached ADUs $4,709 per permit Y
19 Junior ADUs $2,260 per permit Y
[a] Total fees shall not exceed amounts outlined in California Government Code 66015(a)(1). [b] The City will not collect additional permit processing fees. Amounts shown are total amount due for permit processing, plan review, and permit.

Resolution No. 11481

10/28/2025 Item No.13.

City of Folsom
BUILDING FEES, effective July 1, 2025

Determination of Valuation for Fee-Setting Purposes
● Project valuations shall be based on the total value of all construction work, including all finish work, roofing, electrical, plumbing, heating, air conditioning, elevators, fire-extinguishing systems and any other permanent equipment. If, in the opinion of the Building Official, the valuation is underestimated on the application, the permit shall be denied, unless the applicant can show detailed estimates to meet the approval of the Building Official. Final building permit valuation shall be set by the Building Official. For determining project valuations for new construction, the Building Official may use data published by the International Code Council (ICC) (building valuation data table, typically updated in February and August of each year). The final building permit valuation shall be set at an amount that allows the City to recover its costs of applicant plan check, permit and inspection activities.

Note: For construction projects with permit fees calculated using Section B, additional fees apply for permit issuance. Additional fees may apply for services provided by other City Departments (e.g. Planning Review), and Fees Collected on Behalf of Other Agencies (e.g. State of California). Additional fees apply for plan review, when applicable.

B. Permit Fee for New Buildings, Additions, Tenant Improvements, Residential Remodels, and Combined Mechanical, Electrical, and/or Plumbing Permits

Total Valuation Permit Fee CPI $1 to $2,000 $138.00

$2,001 to $25,000 $138.00 for the first $2,000 plus $10.00 for each add'l $1,000 or fraction thereof, N to and including $25,000

$25,001 to $50,000 $368.00 for the first $25,000 plus $11.04 for each add'l $1,000 or fraction thereof, N to and including $50,000

$50,001 to $100,000 $644.00 for the first $50,000 plus $9.20 for each add'l $1,000 or fraction thereof, N to and including $100,000

$100,001 to $500,000 $1,104.00 for the first $100,000 plus $7.36 for each add'l $1,000 or fraction thereof, N to and including $500,000

$500,001 to $1,000,000 $4,048.00 for the first $500,000 plus $6.62 for each add'l $1,000 or fraction thereof, N to and including $1,000,000

$1,000,001 to $5,000,000 $7,360.00 for the first $1,000,000 plus $5.52 for each add'l $1,000 or fraction thereof, N to and including $5,000,000

$5,000,001 and up $29,440.00 for the first $5,000,000 plus $4.11 for each additional $1,000 or fraction N thereof over $5,000,000
Resolution No. 11481

10/28/2025 Item No.13.

City of Folsom
BUILDING FEES, effective July 1, 2025

D. Building Plan Review Fees
Activity Description Fee Charge Basis Note CPI
1 Building Plan Check Fees - Building
a) Plan Review Fee, if applicable 80% [a] N
b) Expedited Plan Check - At Application Submittal (when applicable)

1.5x standard plan check fee N
c) Tract Home / Master Plan Construction (Production Units) 20% of standard plan check fee [b] N

d) Production Permit for Multi-family permit

$1,507

Y

e) Production Permit for Fire permits and other misc. permits

$471

Y

f) Alternate Materials and Methods Review (per hour)

$188

Y

g) Excess Plan Review Fee (4th and subsequent) (per hour)

$188

Y

h) Revisions to an Approved Permit (per hour)

$188

Y

i) Deferred Submittal (per hour)

$188

Y
When applicable, plan check fees shall be paid at the time of application for a building permit.

The plan checking fee is in addition to the building permit fee

[a] Includes up to three plan checks. The City will bill hourly for additional plan review required. [b] For identical buildings built by the same builder on the same lot or in the same tract and for which building permits are issued at the same time.

Resolution No. 11481

10/28/2025 Item No.13.

City of Folsom
BUILDING FEES, effective July 1, 2025

E. Other Fees
Fee
$79
Note CPI
Y
Activity Description
1 Permit Processing Fee

2 Strong Motion Instrumentation (SMI) Fee Calculation [a] a) Residential $0.50 or valuation x .00013 [a] N b) Commercial $0.50 or valuation x .00028 [a] N

3 Building Standards (SB 1473) Fee Calculation (Valuation) [a] a) $1 - $25,000 $1 [a] N b) $25,001 - $50,000 $2 [a] N c) $50,001 - $75,000 $3 [a] N d) $75,001 - $100,000 $4 [a] N e) Each Add'l $25,000 or fraction thereof Add $1 [a] N

4 Business License Fee $25 N

5 CASP Training Fund Fee $3.60 N

6 State Disability Access Fee $0.40 N

7 General Plan/Zoning Code Update Fee (percent of building permit fee) 5% [b] N

8 Temporary Certificate of Occupancy (Phasing Plan) Fee $942 Y

9 Permit Extension $0 Y
10 Permit Reactivation Fee
a) Reactivation Fee if All Inspections Have Been Performed and Approved Up to But Not Including Final Inspection
b) Reactivation Fee - All Other Scenarios

$184 Y i) Permit Expired Up to One Year 50% of Original Base Building Permit Fee N ii) Permit Expired More than One Year 100% of Original Base Building Permit Fee N

11 Permit Reissuance Fee $188 Y

12 Damaged Building Survey (Fire, Flood, Vehicle Damage, Etc.) (per hour)

$188
Y

13 Other Fees
Phased Inspection Fee (per inspection)

$188

Y

14 After Hours Inspection (per hour) (4-hour minimum)

$226

Y

15 Re-inspection Fee (2nd Time or More) (each)

$188

[c]

Y

16 Missed Inspection Fee

$188

Y

17 Duplicate Copy of Permit

$79

Y
Resolution No. 11481

10/28/2025 Item No.13.

City of Folsom
BUILDING FEES, effective July 1, 2025

E. Other Fees
Activity Description Fee Note CPI 18 Duplicate Copy of Certificate of Occupancy $79 Y

19 Fees for Services Not Listed in this Fee Schedule (per 1/2 hour) $94 Y Violation Fees

20 Investigation Fee For Work Done Without Permits
(In addition to applicable permit fees)

equal to N permit fee

[a] Amounts established by State of California. In the case of discrepancy between this schedule and amounts established by the State, State amounts shall supersede these amounts.
[b] Fee applies to new construction, additions, tenant improvements, and residential remodels requiring building permits. [c] Reinspection fee applies after the first re-inspection.

Resolution No. 11481

10/28/2025 Item No.13.

City of Folsom
BUILDING FEES, effective July 1, 2025

Building Valuation Data Table

Group (2021 International Building Code) IA IB IIA IIB IIIA IIIB IV VA VB A-1 Assembly, theaters, with stage 335.89 324.58 316.94 304.93 286.87 278.00 295.62 266.02 257.55 A-1 Assembly, theaters, without stage 307.39 296.08 288.44 276.42 258.37 249.50 267.12 237.51 229.05 A-2 Assembly, nightclubs 269.94 261.93 254.48 245.85 230.56 223.99 237.02 209.57 202.79 A-2 Assembly, restaurants, bars, banquet halls 268.94 260.93 252.48 244.85 228.56 222.99 236.02 207.57 201.79 A-3 Assembly, churches 311.88 300.57 292.93 280.91 263.30 254.43 271.60 242.45 233.98 A-3 Assembly, general, community halls, libraries, museums 266.07 254.76 246.12 235.10 216.33 208.46 225.80 195.47 188.01 A-4 Assembly, arenas 306.39 295.08 286.44 275.42 256.37 248.50 266.12 235.51 228.05 B Business 260.69 251.13 241.86 231.65 210.99 202.73 222.56 186.21 177.81 E Educational 273.46 263.96 255.62 245.04 228.69 217.00 236.61 200.36 193.94 F-1 Factory and industrial, moderate hazard 160.20 152.78 143.34 138.64 123.55 117.41 132.48 102.44 95.93 F-2 Factory and industrial, low hazard 159.20 151.78 143.34 137.64 123.55 116.41 131.48 102.44 94.93 H-1 High Hazard, explosives 149.46 142.04 133.60 127.90 114.12 106.97 121.74 93.00 0.00 H234 High Hazard 149.46 142.04 133.60 127.90 114.12 106.97 121.74 93.00 85.50 H-5 HPM 260.69 251.13 241.86 231.65 210.99 202.73 222.56 186.21 177.81 I-1 Institutional, supervised environment 262.22 252.95 244.31 235.67 215.42 209.47 235.71 193.82 187.73 I-2 Institutional, hospitals 434.15 424.59 415.32 405.12 383.35 0.00 396.02 358.57 0.00 I-2 Institutional, nursing homes 302.01 292.45 283.18 272.97 253.83 0.00 263.88 229.05 0.00 I-3 Institutional, restrained 295.86 286.31 277.03 266.83 247.95 238.69 257.74 223.17 212.77 I-4 Institutional, day care facilities 262.22 252.95 244.31 235.67 215.42 209.47 235.71 193.82 187.73 M Mercantile 201.37 193.36 184.91 177.28 161.72 156.15 168.45 140.73 134.95 R-1 Residential, hotels 264.67 255.41 246.77 238.13 218.35 212.40 238.17 196.75 190.67 R-2 Residential, multiple family 221.32 212.06 203.42 194.78 175.96 170.01 194.82 154.36 148.28 R-3 Residential, one- and two-family 209.61 203.74 198.94 195.12 188.41 181.45 191.77 175.86 165.67 R-4 Residential, care/assisted living facilities 262.22 252.95 244.31 235.67 215.42 209.47 235.71 193.82 187.73 S-1 Storage, moderate hazard 148.46 141.04 131.60 126.90 112.12 105.97 120.74 91.00 84.50 S-2 Storage, low hazard 147.46 140.04 131.60 125.90 112.12 104.97 119.74 91.00 83.50 U Utility, miscellaneous 114.09 107.37 99.89 95.60 85.13 79.54 90.99 67.39 64.19

Resolution No. 11481

10/28/2025 Item No.13.

City of Folsom

PLANNING FEES
# Description Fee Fee Structure Note
1 Annexation Processing $17,000 Deposit [a]
2 Appeal
a) Appeal of Director Decision to City Manager $432 Fixed Fee [c] b) Appeal of City Manager Decision to City Council $1,500 Fixed Fee [c] c) Appeal of Director Decision to Commission $1,500 Fixed Fee [c] d) Appeal of Commission Decision to City Council $1,500 Fixed Fee [c] 3 Code Amendment $8,500 Fixed Fee
4 Conditional Use Permit (CUP) [b]
a) CUP Review (Major) $5,100 Fixed Fee
b) CUP Review (Minor) $2,500 Fixed Fee
c) CUP Modification $2,500 Fixed Fee
5 Condominium Conversion Fee $17,000 Fixed Fee [f]
6 Design Review/Architectural Review [b]
a) New Multi-Family/Commercial Structure/Single-Family
Subdivision (Commission Level)
$5,100 Fixed Fee
b) Existing Multi-Family/Commercial Structure (Commission Level)
$2,210 Fixed Fee
c) New Single and Two Family Dwelling (Commission Level) $800 Fixed Fee d) Existing Single and Two Family Dwelling/Accessory
Structure/Non-Exempted ADU (Director Level)
$400 Fixed Fee
e) Historic District New Multi-Family/Commercial Structure (Commission Level)
$5,100 Fixed Fee
f) Historic District Existing Multi-Family/Commercial Structure (Commission Level)
$2,210 Fixed Fee
g) Historic District Existing Multi-Family/Commercial Structure (Director Level)
$864 Fixed Fee
h) Historic District Single- and Two-Family Dwelling, Non- Exempted ADU (Commission Level)
$800 Fixed Fee
i) Historic District Existing Single and Two Family Dwelling/New or Existing Accessory Structure (Director Level)
$432 Fixed Fee
j) Historic District Demolition $216 Fixed Fee
k) Ministerial Design Review (Director Level) $864 Fixed Fee 7 Development Agreement Processing $10,000 Deposit [a]
8 Entertainment Permit $200 Fixed Fee
9 Entitlement Noticing $200 Fixed Fee
Resolution No. 11481

10/28/2025 Item No.13.

City of Folsom

PLANNING FEES
# Description Fee Fee Structure Note
10 Environmental Review
a) Environmental Impact Review & Report $10,000 Deposit [a],[d] b) Environmental Mitigation Program Monitoring $7,000 Deposit [a],[d] c) Initial Environmental Study/Assessment $7,000 Deposit [a],[d] d) Notice of CEQA Determination $300 Fixed Fee
11 General Plan [b]
a) General Plan Amendment < 5 acres $10,000 Fixed Fee
b) General Plan Amendment 5 or more acres $13,000 Fixed Fee 12 Home Occupation Permit Fee $60 Fixed Fee
13 Indoor Marijuana Cultivation Permit $500 Fixed Fee
14 Landmark Tree Classification $350 Fixed Fee
15 Landmark Tree Declassification $1,800 Fixed Fee [e]
16 Large Family Day Care Home $100 Fixed Fee
17 Lot Line Adjustment/Parcel Merger - Planning $1,000 Fixed Fee [f] 18 Minor Administrative Modification $400 Fixed Fee
19 Non-Residential Plan Check Fee 10% of building permit fee Fixed Fee 20 Opinion on a Planning Matter $200 Fixed Fee
21 Preliminary Project Review $1,000 Fixed Fee
22 Planned Development [b]
a) Planned Development Review
i) Base Fee $10,000 Fixed Fee
ii) Plus, Per Acre Fee $500 Fixed Fee
b) Planned Development Extension Review $3,000 Fixed Fee c) Planned Development Modification Review $5,000 Fixed Fee 23 Rezoning Request
a) Rezoning Request Review – 5 acres or less $10,000 Fixed Fee b) Rezoning Request Review – 5+ acres $13,000 Fixed Fee 24 Sidewalk Vendor Permit $50 Fixed Fee [b]
Resolution No. 11481

10/28/2025 Item No.13.

City of Folsom

PLANNING FEES
# Description Fee Fee Structure Note
25 Signs
a) Sign Permit - Staff $150 Fixed Fee
b) Sign Permit Extension $100 Fixed Fee
c) Special Event Sign Permit $100 Fixed Fee
d) Historic District Sign Review (Staff Level) $150 Fixed Fee e) Historic District Sign Review (Commission Level) $800 Fixed Fee f) Planned Development Sign Permit $2,500 Fixed Fee
g) Temporary Sign Permit $40 Fixed Fee
h) On-Site Subdivision Signs $200 Fixed Fee
i) Off-Site Subdivision Signs
i) base fee $300 Fixed Fee
ii) refundable deposit - per sign $500 Deposit
j) Off-Site Weekend Directional Signs
i) base fee $300 Fixed Fee
ii) refundable deposit $200 Deposit
k) Uniform Sign Program $400 Fixed Fee
26 Site Design Review [b]
a) Site Design Review $400 Fixed Fee
b) Site Design Review – Planning Commission $5,100 Fixed Fee 27 Special Event Permit $63 Fixed Fee [g]
28 Specific Plan [b]
a) Specific Plan Review $15,500 Deposit
b) Specific Plan Amendment Review $10,300 Deposit
29 Street Name Review/Change $800 Fixed Fee
30 Temporary Outdoor Dining
a) Initial Permit (Additional Revocable Permit Fees Apply) $400 Fixed Fee b) Renewal $200 Fixed Fee
31 Temporary Use Permit $300 Fixed Fee [b]
Resolution No. 11481

10/28/2025 Item No.13.

City of Folsom

PLANNING FEES
# Description Fee Fee Structure Note
32 Tentative Map/Parcel/Subdivision Map [b],[f]
a) Tentative Parcel Map Review $7,700 Fixed Fee
b) Tentative Map Amendment Review $5,100 Fixed Fee
c) Tentative Map Extension Review $4,300 Fixed Fee
d) Tentative Subdivision Map Review
i) Base Fee $8,600 Fixed Fee
ii) Plus, Per Lot Fee $50 Fixed Fee
33 Unattended Donation Box
a) Initial Permit $300 Fixed Fee
b) Renewal $100 Fixed Fee
34 Variance [b]
a) Variance Review – Single Family Dwelling $2,500 Fixed Fee b) Variance Review - Other $5,100 Fixed Fee
35 Zoning Verification Review $400 Fixed Fee
36 For Services Requested of City Staff which have no fee listed in this Master Fee Schedule, the City Manager or the City Manager's designee shall determine the appropriate fee based on the following hourly rates for staff time involved in the service or activity (per hour)
$200 Per Hour
[g] Special events that require additional resources beyond those covered the scope of these fees will be charged on an hourly basis. [f] Additional fees apply for Engineering review. See Engineering fee schedule. * In addition to amounts shown above, applicant is responsible for all costs of outside agency review/services, including but not limited to, LAFCO, Board of Equalization Fees, Department of Fish and Wildlife Fees, etc. [a] The amount shown represents the initial deposit and minimum fee payable. The City reserves the right to collect additional amounts when costs exceed minimum fee/initial deposit. Any requests for additional amounts due will be supported by time & materials billings. [c] Depending on the subject of the appeal, specialized expertise may be solicited, at the expense of the applicant, for the purpose of providing input to the City Manager, Planning Commission, other Commission or Board, or City Council. [d] Applicant shall be responsible for additional costs of preparation of the required environment document. [e] For non-development related declassifications, the fee will be waived if the urban forester finds/agrees the tree is dead/dying with no reasonable expectation of recovery and poses a risk to persons/property. For development-related declassifications, fee is amount shown. [b] Entitlement plan reviews by the Fire Department in excess of 4 hours shall be charged an hourly Fire Plan Check fee as listed in the City Master Fee schedule
Resolution No. 11481

10/28/2025 Item No.13.

Attachment 2

10/28/2025 Item No.13.

City of Folsom
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Planning Fees
Calculation of Estimated Cost of Service
Fee Description
Est. Labor
Hours
Hourly
Rate
Est. Cost of
Svc Current Fee
Current
Cost
Recovery
Proposed
Fee
Proposed
Cost
Recovery
Fee
Structure Fee Change Note
1 Annexation Processing 80.0 x $216 = $17,280 $5,789 34% $17,000 100% Deposit $11,211 [a] 2 Appeal
a) Appeal of Director Decision to City Manager 2.0 x $216 = $432 $1,500 347% $432 100% Fixed Fee ($1,068) [c] b) Appeal of City Manager Decision to City Council 20.0 x $216 = $4,320 $258 6% $1,500 35% Fixed Fee $1,242 [c] c) Appeal of Director Decision to Commission 20.0 x $216 = $4,320 $258 6% $1,500 35% Fixed Fee $1,242 [c] d) Appeal of Commission Decision to City Council 28.0 x $216 = $6,048 $522 9% $1,500 25% Fixed Fee $978 [c] 3 Code Amendment 40.0 x $216 = $8,640 $2,297 27% $8,500 98% Fixed Fee $6,203 4 Conditional Use Permit (CUP) [b]
a) CUP Review (Major) 24.0 x $216 = $5,184 $5,950 115% $5,100 98% Fixed Fee ($850) b) CUP Review (Minor) 12.0 x $216 = $2,592 $2,821 109% $2,500 96% Fixed Fee ($321) c) CUP Modification 12.0 x $216 = $2,592 $1,647 64% $2,500 96% Fixed Fee $853 5 Condominium Conversion Fee 80.0 x $216 = $17,280 $11,709 68% $17,000 98% Fixed Fee $5,291 [f] 6 Design Review/Architectural Review [b]
a) New Multi-Family/Commercial Structure/Single-Family Subdivision (Commission Level) 24.0 x $216 = $5,184 $5,100 98% $5,100 98% Fixed Fee $0 b) Existing Multi-Family/Commercial Structure (Commission Level) 12.0 x $216 = $2,592 $2,210 85% $2,210 85% Fixed Fee $0 c) New Single and Two Family Dwelling (Commission Level) 6.0 x $216 = $1,296 $800 62% $800 62% Fixed Fee $0 d) Existing Single and Two Family Dwelling/Accessory Structure/Non-Exempted ADU (Director Level)

3.0 x $216 = $648 $400 62% $400 62% Fixed Fee $0
e) Historic District New Multi-Family/Commercial Structure (Commission Level) 24.0 x $216 = $5,184 $5,100 98% $5,100 98% Fixed Fee $0 f) Historic District Existing Multi-Family/Commercial Structure (Commission Level) 16.0 x $216 = $3,456 $2,210 64% $2,210 64% Fixed Fee $0 g) Historic District Existing Multi-Family/Commercial Structure (Director Level) 4.0x $216 = $864 $2,210 256% $864 100% Fixed Fee ($1,346) h) Historic District Single- and Two-Family Dwelling, Non-Exempted ADU (Commission Level)

16.0 x $216 = $3,456 $800 23% $800 23% Fixed Fee $0
i) Historic District Existing Single and Two Family Dwelling/New or Existing Accessory Structure (Director Level)

2.0 x $216 = $432 $400 93% $432 100% Fixed Fee $32
j) Historic District Demolition 2.0 x $216 = $432 $400 93% $216 50% Fixed Fee ($184) k) Ministerial Design Review (Director Level) 4.0 x $216 = $864 $0 0% $864 100% Fixed Fee $864 7 Development Agreement Processing 48.0 x $216 = $10,368 $5,405 52% $10,000 100% Deposit $4,595 [a] 8 Entertainment Permit 2.0 x $216 = $432 $46 11% $200 46% Fixed Fee $154 9 Entitlement Noticing 1.0 x $216 = $216 $0 0% $200 93% Fixed Fee $200

10/28/2025 Item No.13.

City of Folsom
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Planning Fees
Calculation of Estimated Cost of Service
Fee Description
Est. Labor
Hours
Hourly
Rate
Est. Cost of
Svc Current Fee
Current
Cost
Recovery
Proposed
Fee
Proposed
Cost
Recovery
Fee
Structure Fee Change Note
10 Environmental Review
a) Environmental Impact Review & Report 48.0 x $216 = $10,368 $8,748 84% $10,000 100% Deposit $1,252 [a],[d] b) Environmental Mitigation Program Monitoring 36.0 x $216 = $7,776 $6,449 83% $7,000 100% Deposit $551 [a],[d] c) Initial Environmental Study/Assessment 36.0 x $216 = $7,776 $6,512 84% $7,000 100% Deposit $488 [a],[d] d) Notice of CEQA Determination 1.5 x $216 = $324 $304 94% $300 93% Fixed Fee ($4) 11 General Plan [b]
a) General Plan Amendment < 5 acres 48.0 x $216 = $10,368 $4,384 42% $10,000 96% Fixed Fee $5,616 b) General Plan Amendment 5 or more acres 64.0 x $216 = $13,824 $8,768 63% $13,000 94% Fixed Fee $4,232 12 Home Occupation Permit Fee 0.3 x $216 = $65 $31 48% $60 93% Fixed Fee $29 13 Indoor Marijuana Cultivation Permit 2.5 x $216 = $540 $253 47% $500 93% Fixed Fee $247 14 Landmark Tree Classification 6.5 x $216 = $1,404 $295 21% $350 25% Fixed Fee $55 15 Landmark Tree Declassification 8.5 x $216 = $1,836 $295 16% $1,800 98% Fixed Fee $1,505 [e] 16 Large Family Day Care Home 0.5 x $216 = $108 $26 24% $100 93% Fixed Fee $74 17 Lot Line Adjustment/Parcel Merger - Planning 5.0 x $216 = $1,080 $1,015 94% $1,000 93% Fixed Fee ($15) [f] 18 Minor Administrative Modification 2.0 x $216 = $432 $0 0% $400 93% Fixed Fee $400 19 Non-Residential Plan Check Fee 10.0% 10.0% 10% of
building
permit fee
100% 10% of
building
permit fee
100% Fixed Fee 0%
20 Opinion on a Planning Matter 2.0 x $216 = $432 $258 60% $200 46% Fixed Fee ($58) 21 Preliminary Project Review 12.0 x $216 = $2,592 $656 25% $1,000 39% Fixed Fee $344 22 Planned Development [b]
a) Planned Development Review
i) Base Fee 48.0 x $216 = $10,368 $9,175 88% $10,000 96% Fixed Fee $825 ii) Plus, Per Acre Fee 2.5 x $216 = $540 $458 85% $500 93% Fixed Fee $42 b) Planned Development Extension Review 16.0 x $216 = $3,456 $3,217 93% $3,000 87% Fixed Fee ($217) c) Planned Development Modification Review 24.0 x $216 = $5,184 $9,162 177% $5,000 96% Fixed Fee ($4,162)

10/28/2025 Item No.13.

City of Folsom
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Planning Fees
Calculation of Estimated Cost of Service
Fee Description
Est. Labor
Hours
Hourly
Rate
Est. Cost of
Svc Current Fee
Current
Cost
Recovery
Proposed
Fee
Proposed
Cost
Recovery
Fee
Structure Fee Change Note
23 Rezoning Request
a) Rezoning Request Review – 5 acres or less 48.0 x $216 = $10,368 $3,005 29% $10,000 96% Fixed Fee $6,995 b) Rezoning Request Review – 5+ acres 64.0 x $216 = $13,824 $6,000 43% $13,000 94% Fixed Fee $7,000 24 Sidewalk Vendor Permit 2.0 x $216 = $432 $50 12% $50 12% Fixed Fee $0 [b] 25 Signs
a) Sign Permit - Staff 0.7 x $216 = $151 $129 85% $150 99% Fixed Fee $21 b) Sign Permit Extension 0.5 x $216 = $108 $60 56% $100 93% Fixed Fee $40 c) Special Event Sign Permit 0.5 x $216 = $108 $63 58% $100 93% Fixed Fee $37 d) Historic District Sign Review (Staff Level) 0.7 x $216 = $151 $63 42% $150 99% Fixed Fee $87 e) Historic District Sign Review (Commission Level) 4.0 x $216 = $864 $63 7% $800 93% Fixed Fee $737 f) Planned Development Sign Permit 12.0 x $216 = $2,592 $1,286 50% $2,500 96% Fixed Fee $1,214 g) Temporary Sign Permit 0.2 x $216 = $43 $10 23% $40 93% Fixed Fee $30 h) On-Site Subdivision Signs 1.0 x $216 = $216 $126 58% $200 93% Fixed Fee $74 i) Off-Site Subdivision Signs
i) base fee 1.5 x $216 = $324 $171 53% $300 93% Fixed Fee $129 ii) refundable deposit - per sign n/a x $216 = $500 $500 Deposit $0 j) Off-Site Weekend Directional Signs
i) base fee 1.5 x $216 = $324 $175 54% $300 93% Fixed Fee $125 ii) refundable deposit n/a x $216 = $200 $200 Deposit $0 k) Uniform Sign Program 2.0 x $216 = $432 $295 68% $400 93% Fixed Fee $105 26 Site Design Review [b]
a) Site Design Review 2.0 x $216 = $432 $302 70% $400 93% Fixed Fee $98 b) Site Design Review – Planning Commission 24.0 x $216 = $5,184 $4,794 92% $5,100 98% Fixed Fee $306 27 Special Event Permit 8.0 x $216 = $1,728 $63 4% $63 4% Fixed Fee $0 [g] 28 Specific Plan [b]
a) Specific Plan Review 72.0 x $216 = $15,552 $6,432 41% $15,500 100% Deposit $9,068 b) Specific Plan Amendment Review 48.0 x $216 = $10,368 $7,076 68% $10,300 99% Deposit $3,224 29 Street Name Review/Change 4.0 x $216 = $864 $1,256 145% $800 93% Fixed Fee ($456)

10/28/2025 Item No.13.

City of Folsom
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Planning Fees
Calculation of Estimated Cost of Service
Fee Description
Est. Labor
Hours
Hourly
Rate
Est. Cost of
Svc Current Fee
Current
Cost
Recovery
Proposed
Fee
Proposed
Cost
Recovery
Fee
Structure Fee Change Note
30 Temporary Outdoor Dining
a) Initial Permit (Additional Revocable Permit Fees Apply) 4.0 x $216 = $864 $302 35% $400 46% Fixed Fee $98 b) Renewal 2.0 x $216 = $432 $302 70% $200 46% Fixed Fee ($102) 31 Temporary Use Permit 2.0 x $216 = $432 $65 15% $300 69% Fixed Fee $235 [b] 32 Tentative Map/Parcel/Subdivision Map [b],[f]
a) Tentative Parcel Map Review 36.0 x $216 = $7,776 $5,710 73% $7,700 99% Fixed Fee $1,990 b) Tentative Map Amendment Review 24.0 x $216 = $5,184 $9,515 184% $5,100 98% Fixed Fee ($4,415) c) Tentative Map Extension Review 20.0 x $216 = $4,320 $4,087 95% $4,300 100% Fixed Fee $213 d) Tentative Subdivision Map Review
i) Base Fee 40.0 x $216 = $8,640 $6,718 78% $8,600 100% Fixed Fee $1,882 ii) Plus, Per Lot Fee 0.3 x $216 = $54 $34 63% $50 93% Fixed Fee $16 33 Unattended Donation Box
a) Initial Permit 1.5 x $216 = $324 $201 62% $300 93% Fixed Fee $99 b) Renewal 0.5 x $216 = $108 $49 45% $100 93% Fixed Fee $51 34 Variance [b]
a) Variance Review – Single Family Dwelling 24.0 x $216 = $5,184 $1,686 33% $2,500 48% Fixed Fee $814 b) Variance Review - Other 24.0 x $216 = $5,184 $1,686 33% $5,100 98% Fixed Fee $3,414 35 Zoning Verification Review 2.0 x $216 = $432 $310 72% $400 93% Fixed Fee $90 36 For Services Requested of City Staff which have no fee listed in this Master Fee Schedule, the City Manager or the City Manager's designee shall determine the appropriate fee based on the following hourly rates for staff time involved in the service or activity (per hour)

1.0 x $216 = $216 $101 47% $200 93% Per Hour $99
* In addition to amounts shown above, applicant is responsible for all costs of outside agency review/services, including but not limited to, LAFCO, Board of Equalization Fees, Department of Fish and Wildlife Fees, etc. [d] Applicant shall be responsible for additional costs of preparation of the required environment document. [f] Additional fees apply for Engineering review. See Engineering fee schedule. [g] Special events that require additional resources beyond those covered the scope of these fees will be charged on an hourly basis. [e] For non-development related declassifications, the fee will be waived if the urban forester finds/agrees the tree is dead/dying with no reasonable expectation of recovery and poses a risk to persons/property. For development-related declassifications, fee is amount shown.
[c] Depending on the subject of the appeal, specialized expertise may be solicited, at the expense of the applicant, for the purpose of providing input to the City Manager, Planning Commission, other Commission or Board, or City Council. [a] The amount shown represents the initial deposit and minimum fee payable. The City reserves the right to collect additional amounts when costs exceed minimum fee/initial deposit. Any requests for additional amounts due will be supported by time & materials billings.
[b] Entitlement plan reviews by the Fire Department in excess of 4 hours shall be charged an hourly Fire Plan Check fee as listed in the City Master Fee schedule

10/28/2025 Item No.13.

Attachment 3

10/28/2025 Item No.13.

City of Folsom
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Engineering Fees (excerpt)
Cost of Service Calculation - At Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate Fee Description
Est.

Labor
Hours
Hourly
Rate
Est. Cost
of Svc
Current
Fee
Current
Cost
Recovery
Proposed
Fee
Proposed
Cost
Recovery
Fee
Structure
Fee
Change
3 Engineering and Landscape Plan Check and Inspection
(Fee Includes Up to 3 Cycle Reviews - Hourly Billing
Applies for Reviews Required Beyond 3rd Cycle)
e) $300,000 or more
i. Base Fee for First $300,000 96.00 x $200 = $19,200 $19,200 100% $19,200 100% T & M with Initial
Deposit
$0
ii. Fee for Each Add'l $1 3.60% 3.60% 100% 3.60% 100% T & M with Initial
Deposit
f) Miscellaneous Landscape Plan Review
iii. Production Home/Subdivision (Typ. Tract Home)
a. 0-4 Planting Schemes/Master Plans 11.50 x $200 $2,300 $0 0% $2,300 100% Fixed Fee $2,300 b. 5+ Planting Schemes/Master Plans 12.50 x $200 $2,500 $0 0% $2,500 + 10% per
Scheme
above 5
Schemes
100% Fixed Fee Varies

10/28/2025 Item No.13.

Attachment 4

10/28/2025 Item No.13.

City of Folsom
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Building Fees (exerpt)
Cost of Service Calculation - At Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate Fee Description Total Hourly Rate Cost of Svc Current Fee Current Est.

Cost
Recovery
Proposed
Cost
Recovery
Proposed
Fee Note
7 Electric
Vehicle
Charger

0.75 x $184 = $138 varies varies 100% $138

10/28/2025 Item No.13.

Folsom City Council
Staff Report

1 MEETING DATE:

10/28/2025
AGENDA SECTION:

New Business
SUBJECT: Folsom Plan Area Neighborhood Park #1 Project (Project # PK2601)

i. Resolution No. 11487 – A Resolution Approving the Folsom Plan Area Neighborhood Park #1 (Located on the Northwest Corner of Mangini Parkway and Empire Ranch Road) Capital Improvement Project, and Appropriation of $706,614 in Funds in the Folsom Plan Area Specific Plan Capital Fund (Fund 472)

ii. Resolution No.11488 – A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Design Consulting Services Agreement with Wilson Design Studio for the Neighborhood Park #1
Project for a Not-to-Exceed Amount of $450,130 from Funds in the Folsom Plan Area Specific Plan Capital Fund (Fund 472)

FROM: Parks and Recreation Department

RECOMMENDATION / CITY COUNCIL ACTION
The Parks & Recreation Department recommends the City Council approve the following resolutions:
i. Resolution No. 11487 – A Resolution Approving the Folsom Plan Area Neighborhood Park #1 (Located on the Northwest Corner of Mangini Parkway and Empire Ranch Road) Capital Improvement Project, and Appropriation of $706,614 in Funds in the Folsom Plan Area Specific Plan Capital Fund (Fund 472)
ii. Resolution No.11488 – A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Design Consulting Services Agreement with Wilson Design Studio for the Neighborhood Park #1 Project for a Not-to-Exceed Amount of $450,130 from Funds in the Folsom Plan Area Specific Plan Capital Fund (Fund 472)

10/28/2025 Item No.14.
2 BACKGROUND / ISSUE
On May 13, 2025, the City Council authorized the City Manager to hire a limited-term Park Planner II to support park and trail planning and development within the Folsom Plan Area (FPA). The FPA continues to experience rapid residential growth, resulting in an increased demand for parks and trails to meet the community's recreational needs. The addition of a Park Planner II will help meet this demand through accelerated project delivery.

However, this staffing approval occurred after the internal deadline to include new projects in the Fiscal Year 2025–26 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). As a result, staff is now bringing forward the FPA Neighborhood Park #1 (NP1) project for consideration in the FY 2025–26 CIP budget.

The City of Folsom Parks and Recreation Master Plan identifies a future 12-acre site in the Folsom Plan Area, referred to as Neighborhood Park #1. This park site is located at the corner of Empire Ranch Road and Mangini Parkway.

The Park Planner II will manage all aspects of the NP1 project, including planning, design, consultant coordination, contractor oversight, community outreach, and compliance with city standards and policies.

The process for developing a new park starts with the Master Development Plan process with the resulting Draft Master Development Plan reviewed for compliance under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Upon approval, the Master Development Plan provides the design intent and guidance for the production of construction drawings and specifications which are then used for bidding and ultimately construction of the project.

The Parks and Recreation Department issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) for Park Planning services for Folsom Plan Area – Neighborhood Park #1 on July 17, 2025. The planning process for the park includes an updated Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) Cost Estimate, Master Development Plan, community outreach, preparation of construction documents and specifications, bidding assistance, and construction administration assistance.

The Parks and Recreation Master Plan identifies the following programmed elements for the park site as identified below.

Neighborhood Park #1
Soccer Field (lighted)
Youth Baseball Field (lighted)
Children’s Playground
Basketball Court (lighted)
Group Picnic Area
Restroom Building
Parking Lot

The park is adjacent to a future elementary school site and will serve as a key recreational amenity for surrounding neighborhoods.

At its June 3, 2025, meeting, the Parks & Recreation Commission reviewed park development priorities and recommended Neighborhood Park #1 as the next park to be developed in the FPA.

10/28/2025 Item No.14.
3 The Commission also recommended allocating funding in the FY 2025–26 CIP budget to initiate the park’s design.

POLICY / RULE
In accordance with Folsom Municipal Code §3.02.030(H), the City Council may authorize supplemental appropriations during the fiscal year if the City Manager certifies that sufficient funds are available. Such appropriations must be adopted by resolution and are limited to the amount certified by the City Manager as available.

In accordance with Chapter 2.36 of the Folsom Municipal Code, Public Works projects or purchases costing $75,049 or greater shall be awarded by the City Council.

In accordance with Folsom Municipal Code, Title 2, Chapter 2.36 the process for selecting professional services consultants is to prepare an RFP, evaluate the proposals, and then the most qualified firm can be selected in accordance to FMC 2.36.120. A Consultant Services Agreement will then be negotiated and executed in accordance with FMC 2.36.120, which states, “Professional services, as defined in Section 2.36.030, costing fifty-three thousand dollars or greater shall be contracted for by the city council. (Ord. 1214 § 3 (part), 2014: Ord. 951 § 2 (part), 2002: Ord. 723 § 3 (part), 1991.”

ANALYSIS
The RFP was publicly advertised with the due date of August 18, 2025. A total of eight proposals were received by August 18. A full review of the eight proposals was conducted by staff from the Parks & Recreation and Public Works Departments with three firms short-listed for an interview.

The proposals were evaluated based on a weighted response to the following requested proposal criteria:

Criteria Potential Points

1. Vision/Understanding 20

2. Project Issues Identification & Resolution Strategies 20

3. Discussion of Scope of Work 20

4. Qualifications / Experience / References 20

5. Work Schedule 10

6. Staff Resumes (assigned to the project) 10
Total Potential Points 100

The proposal scores of the top three firms are listed below. The top-ranked firm for the proposal was Wilson Design Studio.

The three firms were then invited for interviews with Parks & Recreation and Public Works Departments staff. There were seven interview questions worth five points each for a total of 35 points.

10/28/2025 Item No.14.
4 Wilson Design Studio was identified as the top ranked firm based on their ability to complete project deliverables expeditiously, flexibility to modify project scope if needed, approach to community outreach, and comprehension of the City of Folsom demographics and community.

The top three firms received the following rankings for their proposals and interviews:

Firm Wilson Design
Studio RRM Westwood
Proposal Points 93 88 82
Interview Points 28 31 22
Total Points 121 119 104
Ranking 1 2 3

Cost Proposal $450,130 $848,072 $704,341

FINANCIAL IMPACT
The current construction cost estimate for NP1 is $9,500,000. For Fiscal Year 2025-26, staff is requesting $706,614 to cover anticipated soft costs for the initial planning and design work.

These costs include expenses for design and engineering consultants (landscape architects and civil, electrical, and structural engineers), geotechnical studies, utility coordination, permit fees, and staff time. This funding will allow staff to initiate the park planning and design process.

Additional budget requests will be submitted in future years to cover the remaining soft costs and eventual construction expenses.

The anticipated soft costs for NP1 for the Fiscal Year 2025-26 have been estimated based on consultant proposals received for services for NP1 and other recent consultant service proposals for similarly sized parks in the City of Folsom.

The estimated soft costs for NP1 for the Fiscal Year 2025-26 are:

Services Estimated Costs
Wilson Design Studio (Actual Cost) $450,130
Topographic Survey $16,484
Geotechnical Engineering, Naturally Occurring Asbestos, & Other Engineering Costs
$120,000
City Staff Time for Project Management and Administration $120,000 Total $706,614

10/28/2025 Item No.14.
5 FPA Neighborhood Park #1 (Project # PK2601)
Funding request: $706,614
Source: Fund 472 – Folsom Plan Area Specific Plan Capital Fund Sufficient funds are available in the Folsom Plan Area Specific Plan Capital Fund (Fund 472) in the amount of $706,614.

For Neighborhood Park #1, the budget for design services was designated to come from impact fees (Fund 472). The cost proposal from Wilson Design Studio is $450,130.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Neighborhood Park #1 was evaluated as part of and included in the Folsom Plan Area Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution No. 11487 – A Resolution Approving the Folsom Plan Area Neighborhood Park #1 (Located on the Northwest Corner of Mangini Parkway and Empire Ranch Road) Capital Improvement Project, and Appropriation of $706,614 in Funds in the Folsom Plan Area Specific Plan Capital Fund (Fund 472)

2. Resolution No.11488 – A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Design Consulting Services Agreement with Wilson Design Studio for the Neighborhood Park #1 Project for a Not-to-Exceed Amount of $450,130 from Funds in the Folsom Plan Area Specific Plan Capital Fund (Fund 472)

3. Neighborhood Park #1 Vicinity Map

4. Neighborhood Park #1 Location Map

Submitted,

Kelly Gonzalez,
Parks and Recreation Department Director

10/28/2025 Item No.14.

Attachment 1

10/28/2025 Item No.14.

Resolution No. 11487

RESOLUTION NO. 11487

A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FOLSOM PLAN AREA NEIGHBORHOOD PARK #1 (LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF MANGINI PARKWAY AND EMPIRE

RANCH ROAD) CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, AND APPROPRIATION OF $706,614 IN FUNDS IN THE FOLSOM PLAN AREA SPECIFIC PLAN CAPITAL FUND (FUND 472)

WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Folsom authorized the hiring of a limited -term Park Planner II on May 13, 2025, to support park and trail planning and development in the Folsom Plan Area; and

WHEREAS, the Folsom Plan Area is experiencing rapid resident ial growth, which increases the demand for the planning, design, and development of parks and trails to meet the community’s recreational needs; and

WHEREAS, the proposed project, Neighborhood Park #1, is identified in the 2015 Parks & Recreation Master Plan; and

WHEREAS, the Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed park development priorities on June 3, 2025, and recommended Neighborhood Park #1 as the next park to be developed; and

WHEREAS, Folsom Municipal Code Section 3.02.030(H) authorizes the City Council to approve supplemental appropriations during the fiscal year if the City Manager certifies that sufficient funds are available; and

WHEREAS, sufficient funds are available in the Folsom Plan Area Specific Plan Capital Fund (Fund 472) in the amount of $706,614.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Folsom hereby approves the Folsom Plan Area Neighborhood Park #1 (Project # PK2601) capital improvement project and authorizes the Chief Financial Officer to ap propriate $706,614 in the Folsom Plan Area Specific Plan Capital Fund (Fund 472) for the project.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 28th day of October, 2025, by the following roll-call vote:

AYES: Councilmember(s):

NOES: Councilmember(s):

ABSENT: Councilmember(s):

ABSTAIN: Councilmember(s):

__________________________________
Sarah Aquino, MAYOR
ATTEST:

______________________________
Christa Freemantle, CITY CLERK

10/28/2025 Item No.14.

Attachment 2

10/28/2025 Item No.14.

Resolution No. 11488

RESOLUTION NO. 11488

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A DESIGN

CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH WILSON DESIGN STUDIO FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD PARK #1 PROJECT FOR A NOT-TO-EXCEED AMOUNT OF $450,130 FROM FUNDS IN THE FOLSOM PLAN AREA SPECIFIC PLAN CAPITAL FUND (FUND 472)

WHEREAS, on June 3, 2025, the Parks & Recreation Commission recommended Neighborhood Park #1 to be the next park developed in the Folsom Plan Area; and

WHEREAS, on July 17, 2025, staff issue d a Request for Proposal for park planning services for Neighborhood Park #1 pursuant to Section 2.36.110 of the Folsom Municipal Code ; and

WHEREAS, by August 18, 2025, staff received eight qualified proposals; and

WHEREAS, following evaluation and ranking of the proposals , and subsequent interviews, Wilson Design Studio was selected based on their project vision and understanding, qualifications, understanding of the scope of work, and extensive experience in park design; and

WHEREAS, the Design and Consulting Services Agreement will be in a form acceptable to the City Attorney.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Manager is authorized to execute a Design and Consulting Services Agreement with Wilson Design Studio for design services for the Folsom Plan Area Neighborhood Park #1 project (Project # PK2601), for a total not-to-exceed amount of $450,130.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 28th day of October, 2025, by the following roll-call vote:

AYES: Councilmember(s):

NOES: Councilmember(s):

ABSENT: Councilmember(s):

ABSTAIN: Councilmember(s):

___________________________________
Sarah Aquino, MAYOR

ATTEST:

____________________________________
Christa Freemantle, CITY CLERK

10/28/2025 Item No.14.

Attachment 3

10/28/2025 Item No.14.

10/28/2025 Item No.14.

Attachment 4

10/28/2025 Item No.14.

10/28/2025 Item No.14.

This page is intentionally left blank
to facilitate double-sided printing
and minimize paper use.

10/28/2025 Item No.14.

Folsom City Council
Staff Report

1 MEETING DATE:

10/28/2025
AGENDA SECTION:

New Business
SUBJECT: Resolution No. 11492- A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Accept a Selective Traffic Enforcement Program (STEP) Grant offered by the State of California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) in the Amount of $173,500 to Reduce and Mitigate the Impacts of Impaired Driving, Di stracted Driving, Seat Belt Enforcement, Purchase a Police Motorcycle and Appropriation of Funds in the General Grants Fund (Fund 012)

FROM: Police Department

RECOMMENDATION / CITY COUNCIL ACTION

Staff recommends that the City Council pass and adopt Resolution No.11492- A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Accept a Selective Traffic Enforcement Program (STEP) Grant Program offered by the State of California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) in the Amount of $173,500 to Reduce and Mitigate the Impacts of Impaired Driving, Distracted Driving, Seat Belt Enforcement, Purchase a Police Motorcycle and Appropriation of Funds in the General Grants Fund (Fund 012).

BACKGROUND / ISSUE
Enhancing Road Safety Through Proactive Measures
From 2019 to 2023, Folsom experienced collisions involving impaired drivers, resulting in injuries and fatalities. However, in 2024, thanks to proactive saturation patrols and DUI checkpoints, the city saw a 19% decrease in DUI-related traffic collisions. Officers conducted 204 arrests for driving under the influence during patrol operations and dedicated enforcement efforts.

In 2024, Folsom experienced 1,416 vehicle collisions, resulting in 563 investigations, 299 people injured and 6 fatalities. In addition to DUI related collisions, unsafe speed continues

10/28/2025 Item No.15.
2 to represent the highest primary collision factor in these cases, and in 2024, 1,760 citations were issued for speed. Furthermore, distracted driving continued to present safety concerns in Folsom, and in 2024, 207 citations were issued for distracted driving. These efforts are part of a broader commitment to ensuring our streets are safe for everyone.

Securing Funding for Future Initiatives
To further these safety goals, the Folsom Police Department successfully applied for a State of California grant from the Office of Traffic Safety (OTS). In October 2025, the department was awarded $173,500. This funding is crucial and will be used for:
 DUI checkpoints and other enforcement activities
 Pedestrian and bicycle enforcement
 Motorcycle safety enforcement
 Traffic safety educational presentations to promote safe driving  The purchase of specialized equipment including ticket printers  The acquisition of a new police motorcycle
This grant will allow the police department to continue its proactive approach to road safety, building on the progress already made and ensuring Folsom remains a safe community.

POLICY / RULE

City Council Resolution 8367 states that grant applications, including any requiring an ongoing commitment of resources or staff, shall be reviewed and approved by the City Council prior to submittal.

ANALYSIS

Law Enforcement grants provide financial assistance to allied agencies for the education, prevention, and the enforcement of laws related to dangerous driving, including speeding, distracted driving and driving under the influence of alcohol and other drug s. The intent of these programs is to educate the public and enforcement of driving laws on the roadway, to improve the Organization/Agency’s effectiveness through training and development of new strategies. Each of these action items will help reduce the number of vehicle collisions.

FINANCIAL IMPACT

The State of California through the Department of the Office of Traffic Safety awarded the City grant funding in the amount of $173,500 with no local matching funds requir ed. If accepted, the grant award would increase revenue estimates and appropriations by $173,500

10/28/2025 Item No.15.
3 in the General Grants Fund (Fund 012). Costs would be funded initially through the General Grants Fund (Fund 012) and reimbursed by the State of California, Office of Traffic Safety.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution No. 11492- A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Accept a Selective Traffic Enforcement Program (STEP) Grant Program offered by the Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) in the Amount of $173,500 to Reduce and Mitigate the Impacts of Impaired Driving, Distracted Driving, Seat Belt Enforcement, Purchase a Police Motorcycle and Appropriation of Funds in the General Grants Fund (Fund 012)

2. Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) conditional approval funding letter

Submitted,

Randy Ulibarri, Interim Chief of Police

10/28/2025 Item No.15.

Attachment 1

10/28/2025 Item No.15.

Resolution No. 11492

RESOLUTION NO. 11492

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ACCEPT A SELECTIVE

TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM (STEP) GRANT OFFERED BY THE STATE

OF CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF TRAFFIC SAFETY (OTS) IN THE AMOUNT OF $173,500 TO REDUCE AND MITIGATE THE IMPACTS OF IMPAIRED DRIVING,

DISTRACTED DRIVING, SEAT BELT ENFORCEMENT, PURCHASE A POLICE

MOTORCYCLE AND APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS IN THE GENERAL GRANTS FUND (FUND 012)

WHEREAS, the City of Folsom Police Department is requesting the City Council authorize the acceptance of a grant titled “Selective Traffic Enforcement Program (STEP)” for the Period of October 1, 2025, through September 30, 2026, from the State of California, Office of Traffic Safety, in the amount of $173,500; and,
WHEREAS, selective enforcement of the primary causes of collisions are an effective way to deter motorists would speed, drive while under the influence of alcohol and other drugs, drive while distracted, or otherwise drive unsafe, thereby reducing fatal and injury collisions; and,
WHEREAS, the grant monies will be used to reimburse personnel overtime costs associated with selective traffic enforcement and the training of officers in the detection, apprehension and prosecution of impaired drivers; and,
WHEREAS, the grant monies will be used to conduct community outreach programs through educational presentations and campaigns; and,
WHEREAS, the grant monies will be used to purchase a BMW police motorcycle, including communication radios and associated emergency equipment.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Folsom herby authorizes the acceptance of a grant titled “Selective Traffic Enforcement Program (STEP)” from the State of California, Office of Traffic Safety (OTS), in the amount of $173,500, which will provide funding to conduct selective traffic enforcement geared at reducing the number of fatal and injury collisions in the City and provide funding one traffic enforcement vehicle. The City Manager or his designee is hereby authorized and empowered to accept and execute in the name of the City of Folsom all necessary contracts, agreements, amendments, and payment requests hereto for the purposes of accepting and fulfilling the requirements of the grant titled “Selective Traffic Enforcement Program (STEP)”, from the State of California, Office of Traffic Safety (OTS), in the amount of $173,500.”
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Folsom authorizes the Finance Director to increase revenue estimates and expenditure appropriations by the grant amount of $173,500 in the General Grants Fund (Fund 012) to be reimbursed by the State of California, Office of Traffic Safety.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 28th day of October 2025, by the following roll call vote:

10/28/2025 Item No.15.

Resolution No. 11492

AYES: Councilmembers:

NOES: Councilmembers:

ABSENT: Councilmembers:

ABSTAIN: Councilmembers:

__________________________
Sarah Aquino, MAYOR
ATTEST:
_______________________
Christa Freemantle, CITY CLERK

10/28/2025 Item No.15.

Attachment 2

10/28/2025 Item No.15.
1 Knowles, Mikaela@OTS
From: OTS Email <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 4, 2025 2:41 PM
To: [email protected]; Knowles, Mikaela@OTS
Subject: OTS Tentatively Approved Your Application 26-006451 CAUTION: External Email. Use caution when opening links or attachments.

Congratulations! Through a competitive process, the Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) has tentatively approved your application 26-006451 in the amount of $173,500 with the proposal titled "Selective Traffic Enforcement Program (STEP)." This tentative award is contingent on approval from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Please do not publicly announce this tentative award until the grant agreement is fully negotiated and signed by the OTS.

Your OTS Coordinator will contact you to discuss your proposal and explain the grant development process. It is our goal to have grants start the first of October. Costs incurred and accrued prior to the grant start date are not reimbursable. Please notify your coordinator if approval from a City Council or the Board of Supervisors is required. You should begin that process now to avoid a delay in executing your grant. If you have questions, please contact Mikaela Knowles, Grant Coordinator at [email protected].

Thank you for your commitment to traffic safety so that everyone traveling on California roadways can go safely.

Sincerely,
Stephanie Dougherty
Director

10/28/2025 Item No.15.

Folsom City Council
Staff Report

1 MEETING DATE:

10/28/2025
AGENDA SECTION:

New Business
SUBJECT: Resolution No. 11493 - A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Construction Change Order No. 2 with Mozingo Construction in the Amount of $550,000 for the Phase 2 Water Improvements Project (Phase 2A) for Additional Paving Work on Iron Point Road and Appropriation of $450,000 from the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Fund (Fund 235)

FROM: Public Works Department

RECOMMENDATION / CITY COUNCIL ACTION

The Public Works Department recommends that the City Council pass and adopt Resolution No. 11493 - A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Construction Change Order No. 2 with Mozingo Construction in the Amount of $ 450,000 for the Phase 2 Water Improvements Project (Phase 2A) for Additional Paving Work on Iron Point Road and Appropriation of $450,000 from the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Fund (Fund 235).

BACKGROUND / ISSUE

On October 8, 2024 , the City Council approved Resolution No. 11270, authorizing the City Manager to execute an agreement with the Mozingo Construction for the Phase 2 Water Improvements project. The water project constructs a new 24” diameter water transmission pipeline that extends from the City’s Water Treatment Plant (WTP), through portions of the Oak Parkway Trail, into Oak Avenu e Parkway and then continues parallel to East Bidwell Street by ways of the rail and trail shoulder , ultimately connecting to a stub at Iron Point Road for water distribution service in the Folsom Plan Area.

Construction started shortly after contract awa rd and is well underway with work nearing completion. The work zone has now shifted to pipe placement adjacent to East Bidwell Street, including a critical crossing at Iron Point Road that ties into the main waterline feed for the Folsom Plan Area. Due to subsurface conditions related to possible significant ground water intrusion at

10/28/2025 Item No.16.
2 the trench and challenges associated with maintaining trench shoring, safety and roadway integrity, the project team felt the work would be most safely and efficiently delivered under full closure of Iron Point Road from East Bidwell Street to Cavitt Drive . At the initial time of bidding, it was estimated to be 7 to 10 working days of closures. However, due to complications with groundwater and potential delay to each night of work associated with dewatering, the team ultimately arrived at supporting a 24-hour closure for a total of 5 days. This would allow the contractor to work with back-to-back crews to stay ahead of trench infiltration, while compressing and reducing the closure impact to the public in fewer days

Challenges being gateways to opportunities, the Utilities Department engaged with the Public Works Department on the closures. In support of the work, Public Works agreed with the closure plan and saw an opportunity to address the pavement conditions simultaneously under the proposed full closure. Working with the Utilities Department, funds were identified both within a portion of the project contingency and through other special revenue funds through the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Fund (Fund 235) to fund the additional paving work.

The paving work will include a 2 -inch grind and overlay and will also include the installation of video detection cameras at the signalized intersection of Ca vitt Drive and Iron Point Road. The reason for the inclusion of the video detection cameras is because the in -pavement signal loops will be removed as part of the pavement grind work and the City is in transition from loop detection systems to video detection systems.

Additionally, the Sutter Health Medical Office Building project currently under construction at 1565 Cavitt Drive includes work within the right of way in the same vicinity as the road closure.

The development project will be constructing fro ntage improvements including concrete driveway, curb, gutter, and sidewalk on Iron Point Road and extension of the existing turn pocket and median curb with striping and some paving. All items of work are conditioned and qualifying traffic abatement measures of the project. In the spirit of partnership, the City reached out to Sutter and Elliott Homes as the project advocates and invited them to complete the work during the closure to further reduce future impacts to the public with additional closures. Sutter and Elliott were supportive and appreciative of the offer and have adjusted their schedule to complete the development’s work within Iron Point Road under the City’s full closure as part of a collaborative effort between Su tter’s contractor (Teichert Construction) and the City’s contractor (Mozingo Construction). This will also allow final paving to occur at the same time for both projects, reducing the presence of pavement cold joints, resulting in a better overall product with greater longevity.

The closure is anticipated to take place on November 3 through November 7, prior to the City’s holiday roadway moratorium. The City has already begun public outreach to all the neighboring residents and businesses. Attachment 2 to the staff report shows the Work Zone Exhibit and notification map regarding the closure. The Utilities Department has already been in contact with the Communications Department and social media posts and in person notifications are already underway. The pr oject team is also reaching out to the Folsom Unified School District, Folsom Police Department, Folsom Fire Department, and SacRT for transit-related services and notification of potential impact . Attachment 2 also shows the designated detour route on Cav itt

10/28/2025 Item No.16.
3 Drive that will be in place during the closure, which is also slated for pavement improvements in 2026/2027 Fiscal Year as part of the City’s Pavement Management Program.

POLICY / RULE

Sections 2.36.080.C and 2.36.120 of the Folsom Municipal Code states, in part, that contracts and change orders above the authorized amount or where additional funds are appropriated for supplies, equipment, services, and construction with an estimated value of $75,049 or greater shall be approved prior to the start of work by the City Council.

ANALYSIS

The costs for the additional items of work identified in Construction Change Order No. 2 are in line with the existing project unit prices and commonly expected costs for the various items of work being performed. Utilizing the existing contract provides an economy of scale savings to the proposed paving work related to items such as traffic control, mobilization, and materials. Staff has reviewed all project changes and recommends approval of this construction change order in a not-to-exceed amount of $ 550,000. This change order will be funded in part by the available contingency amount, with the remainder funded through the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Fund (Fund 235) appropriated to this project as part of this action.

FINANCIAL IMPACT

The City Council's approval of Resolution No. 11270 authorized the execution of the original contract with Mozingo Construction for $18,485,246, with the project budgeted for a total not-to- exceed amount of $20,333,771 which included a 10% contingency in the amount of $1,848,525 for potential change orders. Funding for the additional items of work identified in Construction Change Order No. 2 proposes to use $100,000 of the contingency and $ 450,000 of Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Funds (Fund 235) for a new contract amount of $19,035,246.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

This project is Categorically E xempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution No. 11493 - A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Construction Change Order No. 2 with Mozingo Construction in the Amount of $550,000 for the Phase 2 Water Improvements Project (Phase 2A) for Additional Paving Work on Iron Point Road and Appropriation of $450,000 from the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Fund (Fund 235)

2. Work Zone Exhibit

Submitted,

10/28/2025 Item No.16.
4 Rebecca Neves, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR

10/28/2025 Item No.16.

Attachment 1

10/28/2025 Item No.16.

Resolution No. 11493

RESOLUTION NO. 11493

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE
CONSTRUCTION CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 WITH MOZINGO CONSTRUCTION IN THE AMOUNT OF $550,000 FOR THE PHASE 2 WATER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (PHASE 2A) FOR ADDITIONAL PAVING WORK ON IRON POINT ROAD AND
APPROPRIATION OF $450,000 FROM THE ROAD MAINTENANCE AND REHABILITATION FUND (FUND 235)

WHEREAS, Resolution 11270 authorized the City Manager to execut e a construction agreement with Mozingo Construction for $18,485,246 with the project budgeted for a total not to exceed amount of $20,333,771 which included a ten percent contingency for potential change orders, for the Phase 2 Water Improvement Project (Phase 2A); and

WHEREAS, City staff identified the need for extra paving work during construction within the project area but outside the scope of the original contracted work; and

WHEREAS, Mozingo Construction submitted extra work proposals and other ongoing contract negotiations resulting in a total cost of $550,000 for the proposed Construction Change Order No. 2; and

WHEREAS, funds in the amount of $100,000 are available in the budgeted contingency for construction contract change orders; and

WHEREAS, funds in the amount of $450,000 are available and will require an appropriation to the project in the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Fund (Fund 235); and

WHEREAS, the contract will be in a form acceptable to the City Attorney:

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that City Council authorizes the City Manager to execute Construction Change Order No. 2 with Mozingo Construction in the amount of $550,000 for the Phase 2 Water Improvements Project (Phase 2A), for a new contract amount of $19,035,246.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Finance Director is authorized to appropriate $450,000 to the Phase 2 Water Improvements Project (Phase 2A) in the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Fund (Fund 235).

PASSED AND ADOPTED on this 28th day of October 2025, by the following roll -call vote:

AYES: Councilmember(s):

NOES: Councilmember(s):

ABSENT: Councilmember(s):

ABSTAIN: Councilmember(s):
___________________________________
Sarah Aquino, MAYOR
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Christa Freemantle, CITY CLERK

10/28/2025 Item No.16.

Attachment 2

10/28/2025 Item No.16.

ATTACHMENT 2 WORK ZONE EXHIBIT

PHASE 2 WATER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT LIMITS AND VICINITY MAP

IRON POINT ROAD DETOUR EXHIBIT

10/28/2025 Item No.16.

IRON POINT ROAD DETOUR NOTIFICATION MAP

10/28/2025 Item No.16.

This page is intentionally left blank
to facilitate double-sided printing
and minimize paper use.

10/28/2025 Item No.16.