1 Agenda
City Council Regular Meeting
Folsom City Hall | City Council Chambers, First Floor
50 Natoma Street, Folsom, CA 95630
October 28, 2025, 6:30 PM
Welcome to Your City Council Meeting
We welcome your interest and involvement in the city’s legislative process. This agenda includes information about topics coming before the City Council and the action recommended by city staff. You can read about each topic in the staff reports, which are available on the city website and in the Office of the City Clerk. The City Clerk is also available to answer any questions you have about City Council meeting procedures.
Participation
If you would like to provide comments to the City Council, please:
Fill out a blue speaker request form, located at the back table. Submit the form to the City Clerk before the item begins. When it’s your turn, the City Clerk will call your name and invite you to the podium. Speakers generally have three minutes, unless the presiding officer (usually the mayor) changes that time.
Reasonable Accommodations
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you are a person with a disability and you need a disability-related modification or accommodation to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at (916) 461-6035, (916) 355-7328 (fax) or [email protected]. Requests must be made as early as possible and at least two full business days before the start of the meeting.
How to Watch
The City of Folsom provides three ways to watch a City Council meeting:
In Person Online On TV
City Council meetings take place at
City Hall, 50 Natoma Street
Watch the livestream and replay past
meetings on the city website,
www.folsom.ca.us
Watch live and replays of meetings on
Sac Metro Cable TV, Channel 14
More information about City Council meetings is available at the end of this agenda
2 City Council Regular Meeting
Folsom City Hall | City Council Chambers, First Floor
50 Natoma Street, Folsom, CA 95630
www.folsom.ca.us
Tuesday, October 28, 2025 6:30 PM
Sarah Aquino, Mayor
Mike Kozlowski, Councilmember Barbara Leary, Councilmember Justin Raithel, Vice Mayor Anna Rohrbough, Councilmember
AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL:
Councilmembers: Raithel, Rohrbough, Kozlowski, Leary, Aquino The City Council has adopted a policy that no new item will begin after 10:30 p.m. Therefore, if you are here for an item that has not been heard by 10:30 p.m., you may leave, as the item will be continued to a future Council meeting.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
AGENDA UPDATE
BUSINESS FROM THE FLOOR:
Members of the public are entitled to address the City Council concerning any item within the Folsom City Council's subject matter jurisdiction. Public comments are generally limited to no more than three minutes. Except for certain specific exceptions, the City Council is prohibited from discussing or taking action on any item not appearing on the posted agenda.
SCHEDULED PRESENTATIONS:
1. Recognition of Departing Kikkoman Plant Manager Kiyotaka Nagai
3 CONSENT CALENDAR:
Items appearing on the Consent Calendar are considered routine and may be approved by one motion.
Councilmembers may pull an item for discussion.
2. Approval of the October 14, 2025 City Council Special and Regular Meeting Minutes
3. Ordinance No. 1353- An Ordinance of the City of Folsom Amending Chapter 17.52 of the Folsom Municipal Code for the Historic District Relating to Design Review, Sign Permits, Demolitions, and Accessory Buildings (Second Reading and Adoption)
4. Resolution No. 11483 - A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Amendment No. 1 to the Agreement (Contract No. 173-21 22-067) with Eagle Aerial Photography Inc. DBA Eagle Aerial Solutions for $226,500 for a Five-Year Period from the Water Operating Fund (Fund 520) to Meet the Requirements of Assembly Bill 1668 and Senate Bill 606 Regarding Landscape Irrigation for Residential Sites
5. Resolution No. 11484 – A Resolution Electing the Population and Inflation Factors and Establishing the Fiscal Year 2025-26 Gann Appropriations Limit
6. Resolution No. 11485 – A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Amendment No. 1 to the Agreement (Contract No. 173-21 21-056) with Dokken Engineering for Environmental and Historic Monitoring and Reporting Services for Open Space in the Folsom Plan Area and use of CFD 18 (Fund 288) for a Not-to-Exceed Amount of $580,000
7. Resolution No. 11486 - A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Construction Change Order No. 2 with B&M Civil LLC in the amount of $14,527 for the Glenn Drive and School Street Intersection Improvements Project, Project No. 2409, from the SB1 Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Fund (Fund 235) and the Community Development Block Grant Fund (Fund 201)
8. Resolution No. 11489 - A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Design and Engineering Consultant Services Agreement with Bennett Engineering Services, Inc. for the Central Business District Storm Drain Realignment Project Phase 1 in the amount of $142,924 from the SB1 Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Fund (Fund 235), and Appropriation of Funds
9. Resolution No. 11490 – A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Agreement with LEED Mechanical Inc. for the Replacement of the Existing 9 Roof-Top HVAC Units at the Folsom Public Library, 411 Stafford Street, for a Not-to-Exceed Amount of $305,703 from the Capital Facilities Fund (Fund 602)
10. Resolution No. 11491 – A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Agreement with Capra Environmental Services for Shaded Fuel Break Creation and Ladder Fuel Removal (Project # 8131) and use of Fund 010 (General Fund), Fund 204 (Los Cerros), Fund 215 (Prairie Oaks Ranch No. 2), Fund 210 (Broadstone 1 & 2), Fund 266 (Broadstone No. 3) and Fund 207 (Natoma Station) for a Not-to-Exceed Amount of $213,336.50
4 PUBLIC HEARING:
11. Ordinance No. 1358 – An Ordinance of the City of Folsom Adding Section 9.37.035 Pertaining to Wildfire Prevention and Amending Certain Sections in Chapter 8.36 and Certain Chapters in Title 14 of the Folsom Municipal Code Pertaining to Adoption of Various Uniform Codes (Introduction and First Reading)
12. Objective Development and Design Standards for Multi-Unit and Mixed-Use Residential Development for General Plan Mixed-Use and Residential Overlay Areas i. Resolution No. 11464 - A Resolution Determining that the Proposed Project is Exempt from CEQA, Adopting Proposed Objective Development and Design Standards for General Plan Mixed-Use and Residential Overlay Areas, and Repealing the City of Folsom Design Guidelines for Multifamily Developments
ii. 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 (Introduction and First Reading)
13. Resolution No. 11481 - A Resolution to Replace Resolution No. 11356 and No. 11365 and Adopt a New User Fee Schedule for Community Development Services NEW BUSINESS:
14. 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)
15. 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)
16. 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)
CITY MANAGER REPORTS
COUNCIL COMMENTS
ADJOURNMENT
** RE-SCHEDULE OF NEXT MEETING DUE TO HOLIDAY**
The City Council's next regular meeting lands on the Veteran's Day holiday, and therefore will be rescheduled to the next day, Wednesday, November 12.
5 NOTICE: Members of the public are entitled to directly address the City Council concerning any item that is described in the notice of this meeting, before or during consideration of that item. If you wish to address Council on an issue, which is on this agenda, please complete a blue speaker request card, and deliver it to a staff member at the table on the left side of the Council Chambers prior to discussion of the item. When your name is called, stand to be recognized by the Mayor and then proceed to the podium. If you wish to address the City Council on any other item o f interest to the public, when the Mayor asks if there is any “Business from the Floor,” follow the same procedure described above. Please limit your comments to three minutes or less.
NOTICE REGARDING CHALLENGES TO DECISIONS: Pursuant to all applicable laws and regulations, including without limitation, California Government Code Section 65009 and or California Public Resources Code Section 21177, if you wish to challenge in court any of the above decisions (regarding planning, zoning and/or environmental decisions), you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing(s) described in this notice/agenda, or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing.
As presiding officer, the Mayor has the authority to preserve order at all City Council meetings, to remove or cause the removal of any person from any such meeting for disorderly conduct, or for making personal, impertinent, or slanderous remarks , using profanity, or becoming boisterous, threatening or personally abusive while addressing said Council, and to enforce the rules of the Council.
PERSONS INTERESTED IN PROPOSING AN ITEM FOR THE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA SHOULD CONTACT A MEMBER OF THE CITY COUNCIL.
This meeting of the City Council is recorded with closed captioning. The recording will be cablecast on Metro Cable Channel 14, the local government affairs channel on the Comcast and DirecTV U -Verse cable system, and will be shown in its entirety on the Friday and Saturday following the meeting, both at 9 a.m. The recording will also be video streamed at metro14live.saccounty.gov.The City does not control scheduling of this telecast and persons interested in watching the televised meeting should confirm this schedule with Metro Cable TV, Channel 14. The City of Folsom provides live and archived webcasts of regular City Council meetings. The webcasts can be found on the online services page of the City's website www.folsom.ca.us.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you are a person with a disability and you need a disability-related modification or accommodation to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at (916) 461-6035, (916) 355-7328 (fax) or [email protected]. Requests must be made as early as possible and at least two full business days before the start of the meeting.
Any documents produced by the City and distributed to the City Council regarding any item on this agenda will be made availabl e at the City Clerk’s Counter at City Hall located at 50 Natoma Street, Folsom, California and at the Folsom Public Library located at 411 Stafford Street, Folsom, California during normal business hours.
6 This page is intentionally left blank
to facilitate double-sided printing
and minimize paper use.
Folsom City Council
Staff Report
1 MEETING DATE:
10/28/2025
AGENDA SECTION:
Scheduled Presentations
SUBJECT: Recognition of Departing Kikkoman Plant Manager Kiyotaka Nagai
FROM: City Clerk's Department
ACTION:
Mayor Sarah Aquino will formally recognize departing Kikkoman Plant Manager Kiyotaka Nagai.
Respectfully submitted,
Christa Freemantle, CMC
City Clerk
10/28/2025 Item No.1.
This page is intentionally left blank
to facilitate double-sided printing
and minimize paper use.
10/28/2025 Item No.1.
File 034-21 25-001
Folsom City Council Minutes
October 14, 2025
Draft- Not Official Until Approved by the City Council Page 1
City Council Special Meeting
MINUTES
Tuesday, October 14, 2025 5:30 PM
CALL TO ORDER
The special City Council meeting was called to order at 5:30 pm with Mayor Aquino presiding.
ROLL CALL:
Councilmembers Present:
Barbara Leary, Councilmember
Justin Raithel, Vice Mayor
Michael Kozlowski, Councilmember
Sarah Aquino, Mayor
Councilmembers Absent: Anna Rohrbough, Councilmember (arrived at 5:31 pm)
ADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION FOR THE FOLLOWING PURPOSES:
1. Conference with Labor Negotiator- Pursuant to Government Code section 54957.6. Agency Negotiator: Vance Piggott. Employee Organization: Various Bargaining Groups
Motion by Councilmember Kozlowski, second by Councilmember Leary to adjourn to closed session. Motion passed by the following roll-call vote:
AYES: Leary, Raithel, Kozlowski, Aquino
NOES: None
ABSENT: Rohrbough
ABSTAIN: None
RECONVENE
City Attorney Steven Wang announced that there was no final action to report.
10/28/2025 Item No.2.
File 034-21 25-001
Folsom City Council Minutes
October 14, 2025
Draft- Not Official Until Approved by the City Council Page 2
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the City Council, the meeting was adjourned at 6:30 pm.
SUBMITTED BY:
_______________________________
Christa Freemantle, City Clerk
ATTEST:
______________________________
Sarah Aquino, Mayor
10/28/2025 Item No.2.
File 034-21 25-001
Folsom City Council Minutes
October 14, 2025
Draft- Not Official Until Approved by the City Council Page 1
City Council Regular Meeting
MINUTES
Tuesday, October 14, 2025 6:30 PM
CALL TO ORDER
The regular City Council meeting was called to order at 6:31 pm with Mayor Aquino presiding.
ROLL CALL:
Councilmembers Present: Barbara Leary, Councilmember
Justin Raithel, Vice Mayor
Anna Rohrbough, Councilmember
Michael Kozlowski, Councilmember
Sarah Aquino, Mayor
Councilmembers Absent: None
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The pledge of allegiance was recited.
AGENDA UPDATE
City Attorney Steven Wang advised that there was additional information for Items No. 6 and 12, revised information for Item No. 14, and he confirmed that Item No. 10 is being continued off calendar.
BUSINESS FROM THE FLOOR:
The following speakers spoke under this item:
1. Cathy Dunbar
2. Anushka and Tanvi
3. Sushrut Mishra
SCHEDULED PRESENTATIONS:
1. City of Folsom Resolution of Commendation Honoring Folsom Lake Surf Soccer Club ECNL RL 2011 Boys Regional League National Champions
Mayor Sarah Aquino presented the Resolution of Commendation
2. Presentation of the 12th Annual Folsom Community Service Day Results.
10/28/2025 Item No.2.
File 034-21 25-001
Folsom City Council Minutes
October 14, 2025
Draft- Not Official Until Approved by the City Council Page 2
Parks and Recreation Services Manager Tom Hellmann and Chair of the Steering Committee Sandy Econome made a presentation. On behalf of Congressman Kevin Kiley, Peter Gemellaro presented a Congressional Certificate to the Steering Committee for their work.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
Items appearing on the Consent Calendar are considered routine and may be approved by one motion.
Councilmembers may pull an item for discussion.
3. Approval of the September 23, 2025 City Council Special and Regular Meeting Minutes
4. Resolution No. 11470 – A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Amendment No. 2 to the Agreement (Contract No. 173-21 24-006) with HydroScience Engineers, Inc. for $37,762 from the Water Operating Fund (Fund 520) for Additional Design and Engineering Services During Construction for the Tower Tank Rehabilitation Project (Project WA2402) and Appropriation of Funds
5. Resolution No. 11472- A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Construction Agreement with Imperial Construction & Engineering, Inc. in the amount of $233,000 Using Green Means Go Grant Funds in the Drainage Capital Improvement Fund (Fund 448) for the Bidwell Street Storm Drain Replacement Project, Project No. 2499
Motion by Vice Mayor Raithel, second by Councilmember Leary to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion passed by the following roll-call vote:
AYES: Leary, Raithel, Rohrbough, Kozlowski, Aquino
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
PUBLIC HEARING:
6. Ordinance No. 1353 - An Ordinance of the City of Folsom Amending Chapter 17.52 of the Folsom Municipal Code for the Historic District Relating to Design Review, Sign Permits, Demolitions, and Accessory Buildings (Introduction and First Reading) and Determination that the Project is Exempt from CEQA
Community Development Planning Manager Desmond Parrington made a presentation and responded to questions from the City Council.
Mayor Aquino opened the public hearing at 7:27 pm.
The following speaker addressed the City Council:
Loretta Hettinger
The public hearing was closed at 7:31 pm.
10/28/2025 Item No.2.
File 034-21 25-001
Folsom City Council Minutes
October 14, 2025
Draft- Not Official Until Approved by the City Council Page 3
Motion by Vice Mayor Raithel, second by Councilmember Rohrbough to introduce Ordinance No. 1353 [with modifications to section 17.52.320 with the addition of A and B]. Motion passed by the following roll-call vote:
AYES: Leary, Raithel, Rohrbough, Kozlowski, Aquino
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
NEW BUSINESS:
7. Water System Flow Control Facilities Rehabilitation Project (WA2302)
i. Resolution No. 11465 - A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Agreement with Abide Builders for $1,463,825 from the Water Operating Fund (Fund 520) for Construction of the Water System Flow Control Facilities Rehabilitation Project (WA2302)
ii. Resolution No. 11466 - A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Agreement with Inferrera Construction Management Group, Inc. for $409,268 from the Water Operating Fund (Fund 520) for Construction Management and Inspection Services for the Water System Flow Control Facilities Rehabilitation Project (WA2302) and Appropriation of Funds
Environmental and Water Resources Director Marcus Yasutake made a presentation.
Motion by Councilmember Kozlowski, second by Councilmember Leary to approve Resolution No. 11465. Motion passed by the following roll-call vote:
AYES: Leary, Raithel, Rohrbough, Kozlowski, Aquino
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Motion by Councilmember Kozlowski, second by Vice Mayor Raithel to approve Resolution No. 11466. Motion passed by the following roll-call vote:
AYES: Leary, Raithel, Rohrbough, Kozlowski, Aquino
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
8. Resolution No. 11467- A Resolution Approving Reimbursement of General Fund Subsidy Toward Affordable Housing by Transferring $615,000 from the Folsom Housing Fund (Fund 238) to the Capital Facilities Fund (Fund 602) Relating to the Discounted Sale of 300 Persifer Street Property to Habitat for Humanity of Greater Sacramento and Appropriation of Funds
10/28/2025 Item No.2.
File 034-21 25-001
Folsom City Council Minutes
October 14, 2025
Draft- Not Official Until Approved by the City Council Page 4
Community Development Director Pam Johns made a presentation and responded to questions from the City Council. City Manager Bryan Whitemyer provided further information.
Motion by Vice Mayor Raithel, second by Councilmember Kozlowski to approve Resolution No. 11467. Motion passed by the following roll-call vote:
AYES: Leary, Raithel, Rohrbough, Kozlowski, Aquino
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
9. Resolution No. 11471- A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Agreement with California Wood Recycling, Inc., DBA Agromin, for an Estimated $45 Million for up to 15 years from the Solid Waste Operating Fund (Fund 540) for Long-Term Organic Waste Diversion Services
Public Works General Services Manager Marie McKeeth made a presentation and responded to questions from the City Council.
Motion by Councilmember Leary, second by Councilmember Rohrbough to approve Resolution No. 11471. Motion passed by the following roll-call vote:
AYES: Leary, Raithel, Rohrbough, Kozlowski, Aquino
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
10. Request to Make Improvements to the Recently Purchased Building Located at 1 Natoma Street so that Folsom Police Department Staff and Environmental & Water Resources Department Staff Are Able to Occupy the Building
i. Resolution No. 11473– A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Agreement with SKI AIR for $130,680 from the Police Capital Improvement Fund (Fund 428) and the Folsom Plan Area Capital Improvement Fund (Fund 472) to Replace the HVAC System ii. Resolution No. 11474– A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Agreement with Garland Roofing for $10,450 from the Police Capital Improvement Fund (Fund 428) and the Folsom Plan Area Capital Improvement Fund (Fund 472) for Maintenance and Repair to the Existing Roof iii. Resolution No. 11475– A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Agreement with Flooring Buyer for $44,569.53 from the Police Capital Improvement Fund (Fund 428) and the Folsom Plan Area Capital Improvement Fund (Fund 472) to Replace Carpet iv. Resolution No. 11476– A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Agreement with Whitney & Sons for $44,880 from the Police Capital Improvement Fund (Fund 428) and the Folsom Plan Area Capital Improvement Fund (Fund 472) to Paint the Interior v. Resolution No. 11477– A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Agreement with Whitney & Sons for $93,720 from the Water Operating Fund (Fund 520) and the Sewer Operating Fund (Fund 530) for Construction of Walls and Doors and Appropriation of Funds
10/28/2025 Item No.2.
File 034-21 25-001
Folsom City Council Minutes
October 14, 2025
Draft- Not Official Until Approved by the City Council Page 5
vi. Resolution No. 11478– Resolution No.11478– A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Agreement with Jamesville Office Furniture for $57,803.64 from the Police Capital Improvement Fund (Fund 428) and the Folsom Plan Area Capital Improvement Fund (Fund 472) to Install and Furnish the Building with New and Existing Furniture
vii. Resolution No. 11479– A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Utilize $33,000 from the Water Operating Fund (Fund 520), the Sewer Operating Fund (Fund 530), the Police Capital Improvement Fund (Fund 428) and the Folsom Plan Area Capital Improvement Fund (Fund 472) for Various IT Infrastructure Needs and Appropriation of Funds
Pulled off calendar to be continued to a future City Council meeting.
11. Resolution No. 11480 – A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Agreement with Mid-Valley IT to provide IT Management Services at a Monthly Cost of $33,900 for a Six Month Period
City Manager Bryan Whitemyer made a presentation and responded to questions from the City Council.
Mid-Valley IT representative Tom Leach provided further information.
Motion by Councilmember Rohrbough, second by Vice Mayor Raithel to approve Resolution No. 11480. Motion passed by the following roll-call vote:
AYES: Leary, Raithel, Rohrbough, Kozlowski, Aquino
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
OLD BUSINESS:
12. Resolution No. 11468 – A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Terminate the Agreement with Western Truck Parts and Equipment Company, LLC (Contract No. 046-21 23-002) for $1,112,661.18 from the Solid Waste Operating Fund (Fund 540) for the Purchase of Two Electric Refuse Collection Vehicles
Public Works General Services Manager Marie McKeeth made a presentation and responded to questions from the City Council. Environmental and Water Resources Director Marcus Yasutake provided further information.
Motion by Councilmember Rohrbough, second by Councilmember Leary to approve Resolution No. 11468. Motion passed by the following roll-call vote:
AYES: Leary, Raithel, Rohrbough, Kozlowski, Aquino
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
13. Resolution No. 11469 – A Resolution Rescinding Resolution No.11389 and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Agreement for Design Consulting and Community-Build Construction Assistance Services with Leathers & Associates for the Kid's Play Park- Play Structure Replacement Project (Project PK2501) for $111, 569 in the Parks and Recreation Equipment/Capital Fund (Fund 609)
10/28/2025 Item No.2.
File 034-21 25-001
Folsom City Council Minutes
October 14, 2025
Draft- Not Official Until Approved by the City Council Page 6
Parks and Recreation Park Planner and Project Manager for Castle Park Hannah Perez made a presentation and responded to questions from the City Council.
Motion by Councilmember Rohrbough, second by Councilmember Kozlowski to approve Resolution No. 11469. Motion passed by the following roll-call vote:
AYES: Leary, Raithel, Rohrbough, Kozlowski, Aquino
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
14. Resolution No. 11482 - A Resolution Approving Phase Two General Fund Cost Saving Measures for Fiscal Year 2025-26 and Beyond
City Manager Bryan Whitemyer made a presentation. Community Development Director Pam Johns, Parks and Recreation Director Kelly Gonzalez, Public Works Director Rebecca Neves, and Environmental and Water Resources Director Marcus Yasutake presented further information and responded to questions from the City Council.
The following speakers spoke under this item:
1. Bruce Cline
2. Rich Francis
3. Dean Williams
4. Loretta Hettinger
5. Tania Thomas
Motion by Councilmember Leary, second by Councilmember Rohrbough to approve Resolution No. 11482. Motion passed by the following roll-call vote:
AYES: Leary, Raithel, Rohrbough, Kozlowski, Aquino
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
CITY MANAGER REPORTS
City Manager Bryan Whitemyer welcomed Interim Fire Chief Jason Solak and congratulated the retiring Fire Chief Ken Cusano for his dedicated service. He also spoke about Folsom Police Sergeant Michael Grueneberg who has been selected as the recipient of the Veterans of Foreign Wars Award and provided updates on several upcoming community events including the Folsom High School homecoming parade road closures, Trunk-or-Treat, and Halloween at the Zoo.
COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Kozlowski highlighted local businesses including the 10th anniversary of the Arthur Murray Dance Studio and their relocation and a new Ben & Jerry’s ice cream store location on Sutter Street.
10/28/2025 Item No.2.
File 034-21 25-001
Folsom City Council Minutes
October 14, 2025
Draft- Not Official Until Approved by the City Council Page 7
Vice Mayor Raithel reported on attending the livability summit and encouraged the public to review the latest livability poll. He thanked the Public Works Director Rebecca Neves for prioritizing Folsom’s infrastructure projects and Parks and Recreation Director Kelly Gonzalez for the bike park project.
Councilmember Rohrbough had no comments.
Councilmember Leary congratulated the organizers of the Pride event.
Mayor Aquino expressed appreciation for the city’s interim leadership over the past year, noting the strong contributions from the Interim City Manager Dan Haverty, Interim Police Chief Randy Ulibarri and now the Interim Fire Chief Jason Solak.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the City Council, Mayor Aquino adjourned the meeting at 9:29 pm in memory of Jessica Urrutia-Andrews, a Folsom resident and former Parks and Recreation Department Specialist, extending heartfelt condolences to her family.
SUBMITTED BY:
_______________________________
Christa Freemantle, City Clerk
ATTEST:
______________________________
Sarah Aquino, Mayor
10/28/2025 Item No.2.
This page is intentionally left blank
to facilitate double-sided printing
and minimize paper use.
10/28/2025 Item No.2.
Folsom City Council
Staff Report
1 MEETING DATE:
10/28/2025
AGENDA SECTION:
Consent Calendar
SUBJECT: Ordinance No. 1353 - An Ordinance of the City of Folsom Amending Chapter 17.52 of the Folsom Municipal Code for the Historic District Relating to Design Review, Sign Permits, Demolitions, and Accessory Buildings (Second Reading and Adoption)
FROM: Community Development Department
RECOMMENDATION / CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Move to conduct the second reading and adopt Ordinance No. 1353 – An Ordinance of the City of Folsom Amending Chapter 17.52 of the Folsom Municipal Code for the Historic District Relating to Design Review, Sign Permits, Demolitions, and Accessory Buildings.
BACKGROUND / ISSUE
On July 14, 1998, the City Council adopte d Ordinance No. 890 which, among other things, re - wrote Chapter 17.52 of the FMC and established the current historic district primary areas and subareas in which specialized use and development standards apply. That same year, on October 13, 1998, the City Council adopted the City of Folsom Historic District Design and Development Guidelines (Resolution No. 5757) in order to provide a comprehensive document to assist with the implementation of the regulations and standards contained in Chapter 17.52.
FMC Chapter 17.52 currently requires all new structures, exterior renovations, remodeling, or additions to existing structures to be subject to design rev iew from the Historic District Commission (the Commission /HDC). This chapter also requires that all sign permits and the demolition of any structure within the Historic District be subject to approval by the Commission.
Outside of the Historic District, design review of custom homes, two-family residences, residential additions, non -residential development less than 1,000 square feet, and minor exterior modifications to non -residential development is subject to design review by the Community Development Director and only go in front of the Planning Commission if the Director’s decision is appealed. Residential additions that do not require a building permit, as well as minor residential
10/28/2025 Item No.3.
2 modifications are exempt from design review outside of the Historic District. Sign permits are also subject to Director-level review outside of the Historic District. Demolitions outside of the Historic District do not require Planning Commission approval.
The current process which requires Historic District Commission review even for minor modifications has become expensive and time consuming, with the need for a detailed staff report, manager and City Attorney review of the report, publication and distribution of the report, posting of public notices, and holding the meeting itself with Commissioners, staff, and the Attorney’s Office present. Given current staff resources, this process typically takes two or more months, even for small projects. While this process is valuable for large projects, there have been many questions from staff, Commission members, project applicants, and members of the public, as to why this amount of staff time and public resources should be spent on small projects such as minor additions, modifications to non-historic buildings, demolitions of non-historic buildings, and signs.
To help better cover staff costs associated with project applications, City Council approved increases in user fees for all development applications in the Community Development Department, including both Director-level and Commission-level design review, Historic District sign permits, and Historic District demolitions, effective July 1, 2025.
Staff has observed several instances of individuals and businesses not obtaining permits at all for accessory buildings, demolition s and signs within the Historic District. Throughout the years, applicants have stated that the time it takes to get these permits through the process versus the cost of the work itself discourages them from obtaining the proper Planning entitlements. In turn, when Planning entitlements are avoided, the corresponding building and demolition permits are also not obtained, leading to safety as well as aesthetic concerns in the district. Staff believes that the substantial increase in fees for smaller projects that are subject to Commission review, while necessary to cover staff time, may further disincentivize applicants, especially homeowners and small business owners, from going through the process. For example, since July 1 the fee for Design Review in the Historic District is $400 for existing residential structures and $800 for new ones. For commercial structures the cost is now $5,100 for new ones and $2,210 for existing ones.
These higher fees were established to cover the cost of the review process.
Statewide, several laws have been passed to address the housing crisis in California, including removing much of the discretion local jurisdictions once had, especially regarding multi -family housing projects and accessory dwelling units (ADUs). The State also requires that all housing projects over one unit only be subject to objective design and development standards. While the City has objective development standards in the Code, we do not currently have objective design standards that we can apply to the Historic District. Staff has often found that while some housing projects are still technically subject to Commission approval, State law has effectively not allowed for denial of such projects, barring some very narrow findings being met.
Furthermore, with the failure of Measure G in the City of Folsom, staff does not anticipate significant expansion of our limited resources to address both current planning projects within the Historic District and long -range planning goals of developing the code upda tes and objective design standards needed to be in line with State law while retaining the character of the Historic District. As a result, by bringing minor projects to the Director level, staff hopes to free up time
10/28/2025 Item No.3.
3 and resources to start work on longer range efforts in the Historic District such as the comprehensive update to Chapter 17.52 and the creation of objective design standards.
On October 14, 2025, the City Council reviewed staff’s proposed edits to FMC Chapter 17.52.
The City Council asked questions of staff and ultimately voted (5-0-0-0) to introduce and conduct first reading of Ordinance No. 1353 (An Ordinance of the City of Folsom Amending Chapter 17.52 of the Folsom Municipal Code for the Historic District Relating to Design Review, Sign Permits, Demolitions, and Accessory Buildings).
POLICY / RULE
Under Section 2.12 of the City Charter, amendments to the Folsom Municipal Code require review and approval by the City Council.
There are four policies from the City’s 2035 General Plan that relate directly to the Historic District. These policies are:
LU 1.1.9: Preserve Historic Resources: Recognize the importance of history in the City of Folsom, and preserve historic and cultur al resources throughout the city, to the extent feasible.
LU 6.1.2: Historic Folsom Residential Areas: Preserve and protect the residential character of Historic Folsom’s residential areas.
NCR 5.1.4: Applicable Laws and Regulations : Ensure compliance wi th City, State, and Federal historic preservation laws, regulations, and codes to protect and assist in the preservation of historic and archeological resources, as listed in the City of Folsom Historic Preservation Master Plan, including the use of the Ca lifornia Historical Building Code as applicable, including, but not limited to, Senate Bill 18, Assembly Bill 52, Appendix G to the CEQA Guidelines, and, where applicable, Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
NCR 5.1.6: Historic District Standards: Maintain and implement design and development standards for the Historic District
In addition, the Historic District chapter of the Zoning Code provides the intent behind the chapter:
17.52.010 Purpose and intent.
A. The city council intends to actively promote the purposes of this chapter by (1) creating incentives for residents, property owners and businesses, (2) encouraging cooperation in attaining the purposes set forth in this chapter, and (3) providing a simple, fair and effective system of enforcement of the regulations contained in this chapter.
B. The purposes of this chapter are:
1. To preserve and enhance the historic, small -town atmosphere of the historic district as it developed between the years 1850 and 1950;
10/28/2025 Item No.3.
4 2. To maintain, restore, and reconstruct historic structures and sites within the historic district;
3. To encourage an active business climate which promotes the development of a diverse range of businesses compatible with the historic district as it developed between the years 1850 and 1950;
4. To retain the residential areas within the historic district;
5. To ensure that new residential and commercial development is consistent with the historical character of the historic district as it developed between the years 1850 and 1950;
6. To increase the awareness, understanding, and appreciation of the history of the city; and
7. To preserve and enhance open space areas.
ANALYSIS
Staff is proposing modifications to Chapter 17.52 of the Zoning Code. The full text of these modifications is included within the Ordinance in Attachment 1 (which includes only the new text) and in Attachment 2 (in strikethrough/underline format). A summary of these proposed changes is provided below:
1. Director-level Design Review: Allowing Director-level approval of smaller design review applications for exterior renovations, remodeling , or modification to existing buildings, additions under 500 square feet or le ss than 25 percent of the building floor area, and accessory buildings. Note that under this proposed modification, buildings listed on the City’s Cultural Resources Inventory or located on an existing or potentially eligible historic resource, as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines section 15064.5 and the City of Folsom Historical Preservation Master Plan would be elevated to Commission-level review.
2. Exemptions: Exempting very small projects from design review entirely, includin g replacement of existing roof materials, replacement of existing windows and doors, changes to exterior building colors, patio covers and trellises, privacy fencing and walls, aboveground spas and hot tubs, and outdoor cooking facilities not visible from the street.
In the case of replacements, the materials would need to be aesthetically similar to the original in order to remain exempt.
3. Increased Noticing: Increasing the noticing requirement for both Commission -level and Director-level design reviews in the Historic District to include mailers to adjacent property owners and placement of the notices and submittal materials on the City’s website
4. Regular Commission Updates: Providing a regular summary to the Historic District Commission of Director-level design reviews.
5. Director-level Sign Permits: Allowing Director -level approval of sign permits and maintaining a list of recently approved sign permits in the Historic District on the City’s website.
10/28/2025 Item No.3.
5 6. Non-Historic Demolitions: Allowing Director-level approval of non-historic demolitions of buildings originally constructed less than 50 years prior to the application date and/or not found by staff to be a historic resource.
7. Accessory Building Standards: Further limiting the height, size, location, and setback requirements for accessory buildings.
8. Consistency Changes: Changing the language related to entitlement expirations and extensions within the Historic District to be consistent with the language used outside of the Historic District and not automatically tying all entitlements to building permits when none may be required.
Along with these code changes, staff also proposes reductions in fees for projects that are currently reviewed at a Commission level and would be moved down to a Director level since such projects would take less time to process. These propose d fee modifications will be presented to the City Council at the October 28, 2025 City Council meeting in tandem with the second reading of the proposed code amendment.
The intent of these modifications is to accomplish the following:
1. Reducing the amount of limited staff resources dedicated to smaller-scale projects to create more staff time to focus on larger -scale long-range projects in response to State laws and local need.
2. Incentivizes members of the public to obtain the proper permits for smaller pr ojects by reducing the amount of time and entitlement fees associated with these projects, thereby increasing the number of projects reviewed against design, zoning and building safety standards.
3. Ensures that Director -level projects within the Historic Di strict are subject to the same development standards and design guidelines as they currently are, while retaining an open dialogue with the Commission about these projects to develop a consistent approach to design review.
4. Provides increased public notici ng for adjacent property owners and those who have generally requested notification to ensure that they are aware of their chance for participation in the design review process, and
5. Reduces staff, applicant, and Commission confusion regarding entitlement expirations and extensions within the Historic District.
While staff recognizes that this is a change from current practice, these modifications are focused on minor projects. There are no changes proposed to the Commission’s responsibilities related to major projects such as new homes, shops or other new primary buildings. Projects that require other entitlements beyond design review as a part of the approval – maps, use permits, variances, planned development permits, etc. will still be exclusively revi ewed and approved by the
10/28/2025 Item No.3.
6 Commission. Based on staff’s review of past minor projects, there have been few, if any, instances where the Commission has voted against a staff recommendation on a minor project.
Design Review
Currently, any exterior modificatio n to any building within the Historic District requires review by the Commission. The proposed design review modifications would instead require Director - level review for smaller projects located on structures or properties that are not listed as historically significant and that do not have as much of an impact on the streetscape. Regardless of whether a project is reviewed at the Director level or Commission level, staff will be reviewing the project against the same development standards and findings lis ted in the code, and these projects will continue to be subject to the Historic District Design and Development Guidelines and CEQA.
Staff will continue to route design review applications to the relevant interest groups for the Historic District (Herita ge Preservation League, Historic Folsom Residents Association, and Folsom Historic District Association) as part of the Director -level design review process. Staff is also proposing to place design review notices, plans, and decision letters on the City’s website for increased transparency for the public.
Currently, only a physical public notice facing the front of the subject property is required for design review. With the abundance of alleys in the Historic District, there are often projects, especially two-story structures containing ADUs, that are proposed along the rear of the property.
Neighbors on the other side of the alleys, while potentially impacted by these structures, are often not aware of the public meeting to voice their concerns since the notice is only located on the street frontage opposite their property. As such, staff is proposing increased public noticing to property owners adjacent to the proposed project for design reviews to ensure that those most impacted by design review projects have a chance to take part in the public process. S taff is also proposing to email the location of the project notice on the website to all parties that have previously requested notification of entitlement projects.
Finally, staff propose to provide a summary of all Director -level design review approval s to the HDC. This summary will keep the commission informed about smaller projects not subject to their review and allow them to provide input to staff concerning the appropriateness of the approvals and help the Commission and staff ensure a consistent approach to design review moving forward.
Expirations and Extensions
The code is currently written in a way that ties all entitlement expirations and extensions to the application for a building permit. While this makes sense for design review projects, o ther entitlements such as conditional use permits and variances often do not require a building permit.
As such, staff is proposing to instead refer expirations and extensions for these entitlements to their respective sections in the Zoning Code at large. Staff believes that this provides both a more practical trigger for extensions and expirations and keeps the practice consistent throughout the entire city. Staff has also proposed changing the design review approval period from one year to two years to be consistent with design reviews throughout the rest of the city.
10/28/2025 Item No.3.
7 Sign Permits
Staff has found that sign permits are subject to relatively objective standards in the code and relevant sign criteria, and that many business owners in the Historic District have avoided the sign permit process altogether and placed their signs up without a permit. Staff believes that a combination of greater enforcement of illegal signs and moving sign permit review down to the Director level would lower the review time and costs for sign permits, which should incentivize applicants to obtain these permits. This would help ensure that signs are both consistent with design and development standards in the code and the Historic District Design and Development Guidelines (DDGs) as well as ensure that they are safely installed since they would also obtain building permits as part of the process. Furthermore, staff has proposed code language that would give the Director the right to elevate sign permit applications to the Commissi on where any ambiguity exists regarding whether the signage meets the design and development requirements.
The Commission would also retain its responsibility for reviewing and approving Uniform Sign Programs for multi-tenant buildings. Staff believes that this gives more challenging sign reviews a public forum for review and encourages applicants to modify questionable signage to clearly conform to the design and development requirements to avoid delays. Finally, staff proposes to maintain a list of all ap proved sign permits in the Historic District on the City’s website. This would help keep the HDC and the public informed of which new signs have gone through the process and helps better identify any known new signs that did not.
Accessory Buildings
The code section related to accessory buildings in the Historic District allows for such buildings to be up to the height and square footage of the primary building on the site. The code also does not explicitly state whether accessory buildings in the Historic District can be built in front of the primary residence. Staff is proposing that the height of accessory buildings (except accessory dwelling units) cannot exceed 15 feet in height, that the square footage of all accessory buildings on a lot not exceed 50 percent of the size of the primary building and 50 percent of the rear yard area, and that accessory buildings cannot be located beyond the front plane of the primary building.
These modifications would put development standards for accessory buildings in the Historic District in line with those elsewhere in the city. Furthermore, staff is also proposing to move accessory building review down to a Director level. However, these new development standards will limit the size of these buildings since they will no longer be subject to Commission review.
Staff acknowledges that modifying this code section would make existing accessory buildings that are over the proposed maximum height or square footage legal non -conforming structures. Per FMC Section 17.52.69 0, structures with legal nonconforming status may continue if the nonconformity is not increased (including intensifying the use of the structure). Furthermore, FMC Section 17.52.690(F) allows the Commission to grant conforming status to an otherwise nonconforming structure if it finds that “the structure or structural feature is of exceptional design value, contributes significantly to the goals and policies of the plan, is not detrimental to its neighborhood, and is appropriate to be a permanent feature o f historic Folsom.” As such, large accessory buildings that can meet these criteria have an avenue to avoid a nonconforming status, thereby helping preserve some of the more unique accessory structures in the Historic District.
10/28/2025 Item No.3.
8 Demolitions
The code curr ently requires all demolitions within the Historic District to be reviewed and approved by the Commission. Staff’s understanding was that the intent of this section was to have buildings constructed during the historic era (pre-1950) to go through this review, as the findings associated with the authorization of demolition are only related to buildings deemed historically significant. Staff is proposing a process that would first require staff to determine if a building was more than 50 years old. If it was clearly not, it would be exempt from further review. If it was, the applicant would be required to apply for a Historic District Demolition and pay the associated fee.
Staff would review the relevant databases and resources to see if the building is a pot entially eligible historic resource. If it is then the review and approval would be elevated to Commission - level review. If it is not, review and approval of the demolition would be at the Director level. Staff believes that this process accomplishes the i ntent of retaining historically significant buildings while making the process easier for applicants with buildings that are newer or are determined not to be historically significant. This also makes it easier for such applicants to obtain a Demolition Permit from the Building Division, thereby ensuring that proper safety measures are taken for demolition.
Comparative Analysis
Staff notes that the proposed code changes are not meant to change how projects are analyzed.
Outside of the very small projects p roposed to be exempt from Design Review, all projects will continue to be subject to the same level of analysis against the same documents, standards, and guidelines as they currently are. While staff is proposing that several project types be reviewed at a Director level, several enhancements to the existing process are also proposed to help increase transparency and limit the visibility of accessory buildings. The table on the following page demonstrates the differences in the existing process and the proposed process for design reviews:
10/28/2025 Item No.3.
9 Current
Process
Proposed Director-
Level Process
Proposed Commission-
Level Process
Time to Design
Review Meeting
2-4 months 1-4 weeks 2-4 months
Routing to
Interest Groups
Yes Yes Yes
Public Notice Posted on
project site and
meeting agenda
Posted on project site,
mailed to adjacent
neighbors, placed on
website, emailed to
interested parties
Posted on project site,
mailed to adjacent
neighbors, placed on
website and agenda, emailed
to interested parties
Commission
Involvement
Hearing body Quality control body for
staff. Hearing body if
elevated or appealed
Hearing body
Design and
Development
Standards and
Guidelines
17.52 and
DDGs
17.52 and DDGs 17.52 and DDGs
Accessory
Building
Standards
-No larger than
the primary
building in
square footage
or height
-Not located in front of
primary building
-15 feet tall max and no
taller than the primary
building.
-No more than 50% of
required rear yard and
primary building
-Not located in front of
primary building
-15 feet tall max and no
taller than the primary
building.
-No more than 50% of
required rear yard and
primary building
Note that determination of historic significance is not impacted by whether there is a Director - level Design Review and Demolition process. The dete rmination of a building’s historic significance was brought into this process to determine what projects need to be elevated to Commission review, but the methodology to determine historic significance will stay the same regardless of whether there are Director-level reviews and historic significance will remain one of the criteria to be considered in a request for approval of a demolition permit regardless of whether the proposed amendments move forward.
Finally, staff acknowledges that there is certainl y much room for improvement in both Chapter
17.52 and in enhancing the City’s Cultural Resources Inventory. However, the focus of staff’s request at this time is to allow for Director -level reviews while maintaining the same level and quality of staff revi ew against existing standards and guidelines and enhancing project noticing.
These proposed amendments will help encourage the public to go through the process and will also free up limited staff resources to concentrate on more effective ways to preserve and enhance the Historic District. In order to have the necessary resources, staff believes that allowing for Director-level review is a critical first step in this process.
10/28/2025 Item No.3.
10 General Plan and Folsom Municipal Code Consistency
Staff believes that these proposed modifications are consistent with the General Plan policies regarding the Historic District, as well as FMC Section 17.52.010(B) in that they maintain Commission review for projects on historically significant properties and maintain the same design standards and guidelines as are currently being used ( FMC Historic District Special Use and Design Standards and Historic District Design and Development Guidelines). Staff also found that the proposed modifications are consist ent with the purpose and intent of FMC Section
17.52.010(A) in that they create an incentive for applicants to obtain permits and comply with the standards of the code by lowering review times and costs for smaller projects. Finally, implementation of these proposed modifications will help free up additional staff resources to work on objective design standards for the Historic District, which staff believes is the most effective tool the City can have in preserving the character of the Historic District.
Historic District Commission Meetings
At the August 6, 2025 HDC meeting, staff presented the proposed code changes to the Commission, and the Commissioners heard comments from the public and presented staff with questions about the proposed changes. Ultimately, the Commission unanimously voted to continue the item to the September 3, 2025 HDC meeting in order to have more time to absorb the comments that came in late in the process and provide input to staff regarding some of the proposed changes.
All public comments have been provided in Attachment 3. Staff met with residents of the Historic District as well as interested parties and further analyzed the public comments that had been submitted. At the September 3 meeting, staff presented additional explanations about the proposed changes and some additional modifications based on feedback received, and t he Commission ultimately voted to recommend approval of the proposed code modifications to the City Council by a vote of 6-1. Since that meeting, staff has also heard additional feedback to add in a provision that chain link fences not be allowed in the Historic District. Staff supports this request and found that it is consistent with the language of the existing Design and Development Guidelines. A such, staff added a reference to the code update to prohibit chain link fences.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
Staff anticipates that the proposed code changes will lead to fewer staff resources being spent on preparing staff reports and meeting materials for HDC meeting s, freeing up limited existing staff resources for larger-scale projects. These changes would also result in fewer HDC meetings, which would reduce the amount of compensatory time used by staff attending those meetings. As such, staff anticipates that the proposed changes would have a positive financial impact on City funds.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Under Section 15061(b)(3) “Review for Exemption” of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the proposed code amendment is process related and administrative in nature and therefore will not have a significant effect on the environment . As a result, the project is exempt from environmental review under CEQA.
10/28/2025 Item No.3.
11 ATTACHMENTS
1. Ordinance No. 1353 – An Ordinance of the City of Folsom Amending Chapter 17.52 of the Folsom Municipal Code for the Historic District Relating to Design Review, Sign Permits, Demolitions, and Accessory Buildings
2. Modifications to FMC Chapter 17.52 (Strikethrough/Underline Version)
3. Public Comments Received
Submitted,
____________________________
PAM JOHNS
Community Development Director
10/28/2025 Item No.3.
Attachment 1
10/28/2025 Item No.3.
Ordinance No. 1353
ORDINANCE NO. 1353
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF FOLSOM AMENDING CHAPTER 17.52 OF THE
FOLSOM MUNICIPAL CODE FOR THE HISTORIC DISTRICT RELATING TO
DESIGN REVIEW, SIGN PERMITS, DEMOLITIONS, AND ACCESSORY BUILDINGS
The City Council of the City of Folsom does hereby ordain as follows:
SECTION 1 PURPOSE
The purpose of this ordinance is to amend certain sections of Chapter 17.52 in the Folsom Municipal Code to move design review of small projects to director-level approval, to exempt certain projects from design review, to move sign permit review to director-level approval, to move non-historic demolitions to director-level approval, to further limit the height, size, and setback requirements for accessory buildings, and to modify historic district entitlement expirations and extensions to be consistent with regulations outside of the historic district.
SECTION 2
Section 17.52.130 of the Folsom Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
17.52.130 Administrative Support
The community development director, previously referred to as the planning, inspections and permitting director, shall be responsible for the administration of this chapter and shall assist the historic district commission in performing its functions. The director shall carry out those additional duties delegated by the historic district commission.
SECTION 3
Sections 17.52.300 through 17.52.390 of the Folsom Municipal Code are hereby amended to read as follows:
17.52.300 Design review.
A. Except as otherwise provided in subsection (B), the design and architecture of the following projects shall be submitted to the historic district commission for review and approval under the provisions of this chapter:
1. All new office, industrial, commercial and residential buildings, excluding accessory buildings as defined in Section 17.02.020 and accessory dwelling units as regulated by Section 17.52.300(D);
2. All exterior renovation, remodeling, modification or addition to existing buildings located on properties listed in the City’s Cultural Resources Inventory or located on an existing or potentially eligible historic resource, as defined by the California
10/28/2025 Item No.3.
Ordinance No. 1353
Environmental Quality Act Guidelines section 15064.5 or the adopted City of Folsom Historic Preservation Master Plan;
3. All additions to existing buildings over twenty-five percent of the total square footage of the existing building or over 500 square feet, whichever is less, except additions to accessory buildings, as regulated by Section 17.52.300(B)(3) and additions to accessory dwelling units as regulated by Section 17.52.300(D)
4. Projects which are part of a planned development or a tentative map.
5. Proposed project design guidelines and standards and revisions to existing design guidelines and standards.
B. The design and architecture of the following projects shall be submitted to the community development director for review and approval under the provisions of this chapter:
1. All exterior renovation, remodeling, or modification to existing buildings, except those exempted under section 17.52.300(C), and those regulated under 17.52.300(A)(2);
2. All additions to existing buildings under twenty-five percent of the total square footage of the existing building or under 500 square feet, whichever is less, except additions to accessory buildings, as regulated by Section 17.52.300(B)(3) and additions to accessory dwelling units, as regulated by Section 17.52.300(D);
3. All new accessory buildings, including but not limited to garages and sheds, and any addition to such buildings, except those regulated under 17.52.300(A)(2) and
17.52.300(D)(1).
C. The following types of projects are exempt from the design review process under this chapter:
1. Minor modifications including:
a. replacement of existing building and roof materials with similar materials,
b. replacement of existing windows and doors with similar windows and doors,
c. changes to exterior colors on residential buildings,
d. patio covers, gazebos, pergolas and trellises under 200 square feet in size and located outside of the front, side, and street side yards,
e. privacy walls and fencing, excluding chain link, which is not allowed,
f. aboveground spas and hot tubs located outside of the front and street side yards,
g. solar panels,
10/28/2025 Item No.3.
Ordinance No. 1353
h. outdoor cooking facilities located outside of the front and street side yards, and
i. other projects that the director deems similar in material, design, and scope to those listed, except projects involving buildings or properties on the City’s Cultural Resources Inventory or located on an existing or potentially eligible historic resource, as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines section 15064.5 or the adopted City of Folsom Historic Preservation Master Plan, which are subject to historic district commission approval.
D. Final approval authority relating to the design and architecture of accessory dwelling units and additions to such buildings within the historic district boundaries shall be as follows:
1. The historic district commission shall have final approval authority relating to the design and architecture of proposed attached or detached accessory dwelling units not exempt from design review by California Government Code Section 66321 based on height, and any new garage or other attached conditioned or unconditioned space proposed along with such an accessory dwelling unit.
2. The historic district commission shall have final approval authority relating to the design and architecture of proposed additions to existing accessory dwelling units that result in the unit no longer being exempt from design review by California Government Code Section 66321 based on height.
3. The community development director shall have final approval authority relating to the design and architecture of proposed attached or detached accessory dwelling units not exempt from design review by California Government Code Section 66321 based on square footage, and any other attached space proposed along with such an accessory dwelling unit.
4. The community development director shall have final approval authority relating to the design and architecture of proposed additions to existing accessory dwelling units that result in the unit no longer being exempt from design review by California Government Code Section 66321 based on square footage.
17.52.310 Design review submittal requirements.
The applicant shall file the following information with the community development director for design review:
A. Completed and signed application form including name, address, email address, telephone number of the applicant, and agent authorization from the property owner if the applicant is not the property owner;
B. Application fee as established by resolution of the city council;
10/28/2025 Item No.3.
Ordinance No. 1353
C. A copy of all entitlements granted for the property by the city, including conditions of approval and the environmental documentation;
D. A copy of all required state and federal permits;
E. Site plan;
F. Building design plans/elevations;
G. Material samples and color board;
H. Project narrative describing the proposed project and how it is consistent with the requirements of Section 17.52 and any applicable design guidelines; I. Recent photographs of the project site taken within 30 days prior to the submittal which accurately depict the project location; and
J. Other material and information as requested by the commission or community development director.
17.52.320 Notice and posting of site for design review.
The provisions of Section 17.06.070 A and B shall apply within the historic district. In addition, a notice containing the project description and the time and place of the meeting for design review of a proposed project shall be posted on the City website and mailed to property owners directly adjacent to the project site at a time reasonably expected to give at least five days before the commission meeting or director level meeting. As used in this section, “directly adjacent to the project site” also includes properties located directly across an alley, street or public right-of-way from the project site.
17.52.330 Plan evaluation for design review.
In reviewing projects for design review, the historic district commission or community development director shall consider the following criteria:
A. Project compliance with the General Plan and any applicable zoning ordinances; B. Conformance with any city-wide design guidelines and historic district design and development guidelines adopted by the city council;
C. Conformance with any project-specific design standards approved through the planned development permit process or similar review process; and D. Compatibility of building materials, textures and colors with surrounding development and consistency with the general design theme of the neighborhood.
10/28/2025 Item No.3.
Ordinance No. 1353
17.52.340 Approval process for design review.
A. The community development director or the historic district commission, in exercising design review authority under this chapter, shall make the decision to approve, conditionally approve or deny the design review application with findings based on the criteria established in Section 17.52.330. A copy of the decision, findings and any applicable conditions shall be provided in writing to the applicant.
B. Projects that are subject to director-level review may be elevated to the historic district commission for review at the discretion of the community development director. The applicant may request to elevate a director-level design review to the historic district commission. The request shall be granted upon payment of the commission-level design review application fee established by resolution of the city council and any other applicable fees.
C. The community development department shall provide a summary to the historic district commission of all design review projects within the historic district approved at the director level. Such review will allow the commission to provide input to the department concerning the appropriateness of the approvals and help the commission and the department develop a consistent approach to design review. The historic district commission may not overturn the decision of the community development department unless an appeal has been filed pursuant to Section 17.52.700.
17.52.350 Design Review expiration and extension of approval.
A. A design review approval shall be null and void unless the applicant submits a complete application for a building permit within two years from the date of approval.
B. The community development director or the historic district commission, in exercising design review authority under this chapter, may extend an approval for an additional 1 year upon receipt of a written request accompanied by a fee, as may be established by resolution of the city council, and other information deemed necessary by the community development director.
Requests for approval extension must be received before the original approval expires.
17.52.360 Conditional use permit review.
A. The historic district commission shall have final authority relating to the issuance of conditional use permits for any of the uses or purposes for which such permits are required or permitted by the terms of this title, as well as the expiration and extension of such permits, within the boundaries of the historic district.
B. In acting upon applications for conditional use permits, the historic district commission shall adhere to the procedural requirements set forth in Chapter 17.60, except for matters of appeal, which shall be governed by this chapter.
10/28/2025 Item No.3.
Ordinance No. 1353
17.52.370 Variance review.
A. The historic district commission shall have final authority relating to application for variances from any of the provisions of this title, as well as the expiration and extension of such requests, within the boundaries of the historic district.
B. In acting upon applications for variances, the historic district commission shall adhere to the procedural requirements set forth in Chapter 17.62, except for matters of appeal, which shall be governed by this chapter.
17.52.380 Sign permit review.
A. The community development director shall have final approval authority relating to the issuance of sign permits for any signs for which such permits are required by this title, within the boundaries of the historic district.
B. The provisions of Chapter 17.59 are applicable in the historic district as modified by this chapter and any adopted design and development guidelines. In acting upon applications for sign permits, the community development director shall adhere to the procedural requirements set forth in Chapter 17.59, except for matters of appeal, which shall be governed by this chapter.
C. Any sign permit application may be elevated to the historic district commission for review at the director’s discretion. The applicant may also request to elevate a director-level sign permit review to the historic district commission upon payment of the commission-level sign permit review application fee established by resolution of the city council. Notice and posting shall be required for all sign permits elevated to the historic district commission, consistent with section
17.52.320.
D. Buildings with multiple tenants shall be required to submit a uniform signage program (USP) for historic district commission approval, as described in Sections 17.52.510 through 17.52.560.
Notice and posting shall be required, consistent with section 17.52.320.
17.52.390 Environmental review.
Review by the community development director and historic district commission of applications for conditional use permits, sign permits, variances, design review, and other entitlements is subject to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The historic district commission, in exercising its review authorities under this chapter, is authorized to hold public hearings on negative declarations, mitigated negative declarations, draft environmental impact reports and final environmental impact reports prepared on applications for the above permits or for design review. The community development director and historic district commission shall not approve applications prior to considering the applicable environmental document or exemption and complying with the requirements of CEQA and any city procedures for preparation and processing of environmental documents.
10/28/2025 Item No.3.
Ordinance No. 1353
SECTION 4
Section 17.52.480 of the Folsom Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
17.52.480 Accessory buildings.
A. Accessory buildings, as defined in Section 17.02.020, are subject to the following development standards within the historic district (with the exception of accessory dwelling units):
1. Height. Accessory buildings shall not exceed fifteen feet in height, as measured using the methodology in Section 17.02.110. An accessory building shall not be taller than the primary building on the lot as measured from finished grade of each building.
2. Setbacks. Accessory buildings shall be set back a minimum of twenty feet from the front yard lot line, five feet from the rear yard lot line, five feet from the interior side- yard lot line, ten feet from the street side-yard lot line and five feet from all other buildings on the property. In no instance shall any portion of an accessory building be located in front of the front plane of the primary building. In the case of a corner lot abutting upon two streets, no detached accessory building shall be erected, altered or moved so as to occupy any part of the front half of such lot.
3. Size. Detached accessory buildings (with the exception of accessory dwelling units) may occupy a maximum of fifty percent of the area of a required rear yard. The total square footage of all accessory buildings on a single parcel, excluding residential accessory dwelling units, shall not exceed 50 percent of the total square footage of the primary building on the same parcel.
10/28/2025 Item No.3.
Ordinance No. 1353
SECTION 5
Section 17.52.660 of the Folsom Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
17.52.660 Demolition review.
A. The demolition of a building originally constructed less than 50 years before submittal of a demolition permit application that is located in the historic district is exempt from review under this Chapter.
B. Review and approval of a Historic District Demolition application is required before the demolition of a building originally constructed 50 or more years prior to submittal of a demolition permit that is located in the historic district.
1. The applicant shall file the following information with the community development director:
a. Completed and signed application form including name, address, email address, and telephone number of the applicant;
b. An application fee as established by resolution of the city council; c. All available information related to the age of the structure. d. Other material and information as requested by the director.
2. Prior to a decision by the community development director to approve a Historic District Demolition application, notice and posting shall be required, consistent with section 17.52.320.
3. The historic district commission shall have final authority relating to the review and approval of Historic District Demolition applications involving existing or potentially eligible historic resources, as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines section 15064.5 or the adopted City of Folsom Historic Preservation Master Plan.
a. Upon determination by the community development director that the building proposed for demolition is an existing or potentially eligible historic resource, notice and posting shall be required, consistent with section 17.52.320. b. Before authorizing the demolition of a building determined by the community development director to be an existing or a potentially eligible historic resource, the historic district commission shall consider the following factors:
i. Whether the public health, safety and/or welfare warrant the demolition;
10/28/2025 Item No.3.
Ordinance No. 1353
ii. What accommodations can be provided to the owner of the property to make it feasible for the owner to preserve the property; iii. Whether the owner of the property is willing to sell the property to a buyer who wishes to preserve the property;
iv. Whether a public entity wishes to acquire the property through exercise of the power of eminent domain in order to preserve the property.
4. The community development director shall have final authority relating to the review and approval of all Historic District Demolition applications not involving an existing or potentially eligible historic resource, as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines section 15064.5 or the adopted City of Folsom Historic Preservation Master Plan.
5. Prior to approval of a Historic District Demolition application, the applicant shall provide documentation of the structure for the historical record. Documentation shall include photographs of all sides of the structure, details of unique or representative construction features, and any history of the structure known to, or reasonably obtainable by, the applicant.
6. If the community development director cannot determine whether the building proposed for demolition was originally constructed more than 50 years prior to application for a demolition permit based on permitting files or other provided information, the proposed demolition will be subject to the Historic District Demolition process described in Section 17.52.660(B).
SECTION 6 SCOPE
Except as set forth in this ordinance, all other provisions of the Folsom Municipal Code shall remain in full force and effect.
SECTION 7 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 8 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
10/28/2025 Item No.3.
Ordinance No. 1353
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 9 EFFECTIVE DATE
This ordinance shall become effective on January 1, 2026, provided it is published in full or in summary within twenty (20) days after its adoption in a newspaper of general circulation in the City.
This ordinance was introduced and the title thereof read at the regular meeting of the City Council on October 14, 2025 and the second reading occurred at the regular meeting of the City Council on October 28, 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 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.3.
Attachment 2
10/28/2025 Item No.3.
Modifications to FMC Chapter 17.52 (Strikethrough/Underline Version) Section 17.52.130 of the Folsom Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:
17.52.130 Administrative Support
The community development director, previously referred to as the planning, inspections and permitting director, shall be responsible for the administration of this chapter and shall assist the historic district commission in performing its functions. The director shall carry out those additional duties delegated by the historic district commission.
Sections 17.52.300 through 17.52.390 of the Folsom Municipal Code are amended to read as follows:
17.52.300 Design review.
A. Except as otherwise provided in subsection (B), the design and architecture of the following projects shall be submitted to the historic district commission for review and approval under the provisions of this chapter:
A1. All new office, industrial, commercial and residential structuresbuildings, excluding accessory buildings as defined in Section 17.02.020 and accessory dwelling units as regulated by Section 17.52.300(D);
and
B2. All exterior renovations, remodeling, modification or addition to existing structuresbuildings located on properties listed in the City’s Cultural Resources Inventory or located on an existing or potentially eligible historic resource, as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines section 15064.5 or the adopted City of Folsom Historic Preservation Master Plan;.
3. All additions to existing buildings over twenty-five percent of the total square footage of the existing building or over 500 square feet, whichever is less, except additions to accessory buildings, as regulated by Section 17.52.300(B)(3) and additions to accessory dwelling units as regulated by Section 17.52.300(D)
4. Projects which are part of a planned development or a tentative map.
5. Proposed project design guidelines and standards and revisions to existing design guidelines and standards.
B. The design and architecture of the following projects shall be submitted to the community development director for review and approval under the provisions of this chapter:
10/28/2025 Item No.3.
1. All exterior renovation, remodeling, or modification to existing buildings, except those exempted under section 17.52.300(C), and those regulated under
17.52.300(A)(2);
2. All additions to existing buildings under twenty-five percent of the total square footage of the existing building or under 500 square feet, whichever is less, except additions to accessory buildings, as regulated by Section 17.52.300(B)(3) and additions to accessory dwelling units, as regulated by Section 17.52.300(D);
3. All new accessory buildings, including but not limited to garages and sheds, and any addition to such buildings, except those regulated under 17.52.300(A)(2) and
17.52.300(D)(1).
C. The following types of projects are exempt from the design review process under this chapter:
1. Minor modifications including:
a. replacement of existing building and roof materials with similar materials, b. replacement of existing windows and doors with similar windows and doors,
c. changes to exterior colors on residential buildings, d. patio covers, gazebos, pergolas and trellises under 200 square feet in size and located outside of the front, side, and street side yards, e. privacy walls and fencing, excluding chain link, which is not allowed, f. aboveground spas and hot tubs located outside of he front and street side yards,
g. solar panels,
h. outdoor cooking facilities located outside of the front and street side yards, and
i. other projects that the director deems similar in material, design, and scope to those listed, except projects involving buildings or properties on the City’s Cultural Resources Inventory or located on an existing or potentially eligible historic resource, as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines section 15064.5 or the adopted City of Folsom Historic Preservation Master Plan, which are subject to historic district commission approval.
10/28/2025 Item No.3.
D. Final approval authority relating to the design and architecture of accessory dwelling units and additions to such buildings within the historic district boundaries shall be as follows:
1. The historic district commission shall have final approval authority relating to the design and architecture of proposed attached or detached accessory dwelling units not exempt from design review by California Government Code Section 66321 based on height, and any new garage or other attached conditioned or unconditioned space proposed along with such an accessory dwelling unit.
2. The historic district commission shall have final approval authority relating to the design and architecture of proposed additions to existing accessory dwelling units that result in the unit no longer being exempt from design review by California Government Code Section 66321 based on height.
3. The community development director shall have final approval authority relating to the design and architecture of proposed attached or detached accessory dwelling units not exempt from design review by California Government Code Section 66321 based on square footage, and any other attached space proposed along with such an accessory dwelling unit.
4. The community development director shall have final approval authority relating to the design and architecture of proposed additions to existing accessory dwelling units that result in the unit no longer being exempt from design review by California Government Code Section 66321 based on square footage.
17.52.310 Design review submittal requirements.
The applicant shall file the following information with the planning, inspections and permittingcommunity development director for design review:
A. Completed and signed application form including name, address, email address, and telephone number of the applicant, and agent authorization from the property owner if the applicant is not the property owner;
B. Application fee as established by resolution of the city council; C. A copy of all entitlements granted for the property by the city, including conditions of approval and the environmental documentation;
10/28/2025 Item No.3.
D. A copy of all required state and federal permits;
E. Site plan;
F. Building design plans/elevations;
G. Material samples and color board;
H. Project narrative describing the proposed project and how it is consistent with the requirements of Section 17.52 and any applicable design guidelines; I. Recent photographs of the project site taken within 30 days prior to the submittal which accurately depict the project location; and
HJ. Other material and information as requested by the commission or community development director.
17.52.320 Notice and Pposting of site for design review.
Upon application for design review of a project by the historic district commission, the project site shall be posted by the applicant 5 days prior to the commission heafiring, with a notice 11 inches by 17 inches in size, facing the street frontage, and indicating the project description and the place and time of the hearing. (Ord. 890 § 2 (part), 1998) The provisions of Section 17.06.070 A and B shall apply within the historic district. In addition, a notice containing the project description and the time and place of the meeting for design review of a proposed project shall be posted on the City website and mailed to property owners directly adjacent to the project site at a time reasonably expected to give at least five days before the commission meeting or director level meeting. As used in this section, “directly adjacent to the project site” also includes properties located directly across an alley, street or public right-of-way from the project site.
17.52.330 Plan evaluation for design review.
In reviewing projects for design review, the historic district commission or community development director shall consider the following criteria:
A. Project compliance with the General Plan and any applicable zoning ordinances; B. Conformance with any city-wide design guidelines and historic district design and development guidelines adopted by the city council;
10/28/2025 Item No.3.
C. Conformance with any project-specific design standards approved through the planned development permit process or similar review process; and D. Compatibility of building materials, textures and colors with surrounding development and consistency with the general design theme of the neighborhood.
17.52.340 Approval process for design review.
A. The community development director or the historic district commission, in exercising design review authority under this chapter, shall make its the decision to approve, conditionally approve or deny the design review application with findings based on the criteria established in Section 17.52.330 of this chapter. A copy of the decision, findings and any applicable conditions shall be provided in writing to the applicant.
B. Projects that are subject to director-level review may be elevated to the historic district commission for review at the discretion of the community development director. The applicant may request to elevate a director-level design review to the historic district commission upon payment of the commission-level design review application fee established by resolution of the city council and any other applicable fees.
C. The community development department shall provide a summary to the historic district commission of all design review projects within the historic district approved at the director level. Such review will allow the commission to provide input to the department concerning the appropriateness of the approvals and help the commission and the department develop a consistent approach to design review. The historic district commission may not overturn the decision of the community development department unless an appeal has been filed pursuant to Section 17.52.700.
17.52.350 Expiration Design Review expiration and extension of approval.
A. An design review approval by the historic district commission shall be null and void unless the applicant submits a complete application for a building permit within one two years from the date of approval.
B. The community development director or the historic district commission, in exercising design review authority under this chapter, may extend an approval for an additional 1 year upon receipt of a written request accompanied by a fee, as may be established by resolution of the city council, and other information deemed necessary by the community development director of the department of planning, inspections and permitting. Requests
10/28/2025 Item No.3.
for approval extension must be received before the original approval expires. 60 days prior to the expiration of the original approval.
17.52.360 Conditional use permit review.
A. The historic district commission shall have final authority relating to the issuance of conditional use permits for any of the uses or purposes for which such permits are required or permitted by the terms of this title, as well as the expiration and extension of such permits, within the boundaries of the historic district.
B. In acting upon applications for conditional use permits, the historic district commission shall adhere to the procedural requirements set forth in Chapter 17.60, except for matters of appeal, which shall be governed by this chapter.
17.52.370 Variance review.
A. The historic district commission shall have final authority relating to application for variances from any of the provisions of this title, as well as the expiration and extension of such requests, within the boundaries of the historic district.
B. In acting upon applications for variances, the historic district commission shall adhere to the procedural requirements set forth in Chapter 17.62, except for matters of appeal, which shall be governed by this chapter.
17.52.380 Sign permit review.
A. The historic district commissioncommunity development director shall have final approval authority relating to the issuance of sign permits for any signs for which such permits are required by this title, within the boundaries of the historic district.
B. The provisions of Chapter 17.59 are applicable in the historic district as modified in by this chapter and any adopted design and development guidelines. In acting upon applications for sign permits, the historic district commissioncommunity development director shall adhere to the procedural requirements set forth in Chapter 17.59, except for matters of appeal, which shall be governed by this chapter.
C. Any sign permit application may be elevated to the historic district commission for review at the director’s discretion. The applicant may also request to elevate a director- level sign permit review to the historic district commission. The request shall be granted
10/28/2025 Item No.3.
upon payment of the commission-level sign permit review application fee established by resolution of the city council. Notice and posting shall be required for all sign permits elevated to the historic district commission, consistent with section 17.52.320.
D. Buildings with multiple tenants shall be required to submit a uniform signage program (USP) for historic district commission approval, as described in Sections 17.52.510 through
17.52.560. Notice and posting shall be required, consistent with section 17.52.320.
17.52.390 Environmental review.
Review by the community development director and historic district commission of applications for conditional use permits, sign permits, variances, and design review, and other entitlements is subject to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The historic district commission, in exercising its review authorities under this chapter, is authorized to hold public hearings on negative declarations, mitigated negative declarations, draft environmental impact reports and final environmental impact reports prepared on applications for the above permits or for design review. The community development director and historic district commission shall not approve applications prior to considering the applicable environmental document or exemption and complying with the requirements of CEQA and any city procedures for preparation and processing of environmental documents.
Section 17.52.480 of the Folsom Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:
17.52.480 Accessory structuresbuildings.
For the purposes of this chapter, an accessory structure is any freestanding roofed structure located on a parcel on which another larger structure (main structure) has been constructed. Accessory structures shall be setback 20 feet from the front property line of the main structure, 5 feet from any other property line, and 6 feet from all other structures on the property. An accessory structure shall not be larger than the main structure in square footage or height. Design review is not required for accessory structures smaller than 60 square feet or which are below required fence height. (Ord. 890 § 2 (part), 1998) A. Accessory buildings, as defined in Section 17.02.020, are subject to the following development standards within the historic district (with the exception of accessory dwelling units):
10/28/2025 Item No.3.
1. Height. Accessory buildings shall not exceed fifteen feet in height, as measured using the methodology in Section 17.02.110. An accessory building shall not be taller than the primary building on the lot as measured from finished grade of each building.
2. Setbacks. Accessory buildings shall be set back a minimum of twenty feet from the front yard lot line, five feet from the rear yard lot line, five feet from the interior side-yard lot line, ten feet from the street side-yard lot line and five feet from all other buildings on the property. In no instance shall any portion of an accessory building be located in front of the front plane of the primary building. In the case of a corner lot abutting upon two streets, no detached accessory building shall be erected, altered or moved so as to occupy any part of the front half of such lot.
3. Size. Detached accessory buildings (with the exception of accessory dwelling units) may occupy a maximum of fifty percent of the area of a required rear yard. The total square footage of all accessory buildings on a single parcel, excluding residential accessory dwelling units, shall not exceed 50 percent of the total square footage of the primary building on the same parcel.
Section 17.52.660 of the Folsom Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:
17.52.660 Demolition review.
10/28/2025 Item No.3.
A. The demolition of a building originally constructed less than 50 years before submittal of a demolition permit application that is located in the historic district is exempt from review under this Chapter.
B. Review and approval of a Historic District Demolition application is required before tThe demolition of a structure building originally constructed 50 or more years prior to submittal of a demolition permit that is located in the historic district. is subject to the review and approval by the historic district commission
1. The applicant shall file the following information with the community development director:
a. Completed and signed application form including name, address, email address, and telephone number of the applicant;
b. An application fee as established by resolution of the city council; c. All available information related to the age of the structure. d. Other material and information as requested by the director.
2. Prior to a decision by the community development director to approve a Historic District Demolition application, notice and posting shall be required, consistent with section 17.52.320.
3. The historic district commission shall have final authority relating to the review and approval of Historic District Demolition applications involving existing or potentially eligible historic resources, as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines section 15064.5 or the adopted City of Folsom Historic Preservation Master Plan.
a. Upon determination by the community development director that the building proposed for demolition is an existing or potentially eligible historic resource, notice and posting shall be required, consistent with section
17.52.320.
b. Before Prior to authorizing the demolition of a structure building determined by the community development director considered to be an existing or historically significanta potentially eligible historic resource, the historic district commission shall consider the following factors:
A i. Whether the public health, safety and/or welfare warrant the demolition;
10/28/2025 Item No.3.
B ii. What accommodations can be provided to the owner of the property to make it feasible for the owner to preserve the property; C iii. Whether the owner of the property is willing to sell the property to a buyer who wishes to preserve the property;
D iv. Whether a public entity wishes to acquire the property through exercise of the power of eminent domain in order to preserve the property.
4. The community development director shall have final authority relating to the review and approval of all Historic District Demolition applications not involving an existing or potentially eligible historic resource, as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines section 15064.5 or the adopted City of Folsom Historic Preservation Master Plan.
5. Prior to approval of a Historic District Demolition applicationthe authorization of demolition, the applicant shall provide documentation of the structure for the historical record. Documentation shall include photographs of all sides of the structure, details of unique or representative construction features, and any history of the structure known to, or reasonably obtainable by, the applicant.
6. If the community development director cannot determine whether the building proposed for demolition was originally constructed more than 50 years prior to application for a demolition permit based on permitting files or other provided information, the proposed demolition will be subject to the Historic District Demolition process described in Section 17.52.660(B).
10/28/2025 Item No.3.
Attachment 3
10/28/2025 Item No.3.
1 Josh Kinkade
From: Loretta Hettinger <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 1, 2025 8:24 AM
To: Josh Kinkade
Subject: Re: Proposed Folsom Zoning Code Update (Chapter 17.52) 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.
Good morning , Josh, thanks for the email. I endorse the concept of simplifying the process for applicants and staff. My concern is that if the City ever finds itself in the position it was when you came on board, having no one qualified to evaluate a historic project, that we could end up with huge mistakes again. Like the building behind Snook's. I think it can be addressed by having a provision that reverts these decisions to the HDC until staff expertise once again is available. Objective design standar ds won't
be enough. There is no substitute for staff expertise in carrying out ANY regulation. If there were, there would be no need for senior staff in any Department! I appreciate this opportunity to include my concern in the record as I'm not sure I will be able to attend the meeting.
Loretta Hettinger
On Jul 31, 2025, at 2:41 PM, Josh Kinkade <[email protected]> wrote:
Hello,
This email is to inform you that the City of Folsom Community Development Department is proposing modifications to Chapter 17.52 of the Folsom Municipal Code to move smaller projects within the Historic District to director-level review (minor building modifications, sign permits, demolitions of non-historic buildings), to further limit the height, size, and setback requirements for accessory buildings within the Historic District, to increase the public noticing requirement for design reviews in the Historic District, and to modify entitlement expirations and extensions in the Historic District to make them consistent with regulations elsewhere in the city.
The primary intent of these proposed modifications is to reduce staff time related to smaller projects that currently go to the Historic District Commission for review and allow staff to focus on larger projects and creating objective design standards in the Historic District. These modifications are also intended to reduce the amount of time and fees associated with smaller entitlement projects while retaining public notification and participation in the process.
Staff is taking the proposed changes forward to the Historic District Commission for their recommendation at the August 6, 2025 meeting. The public is invited to attend that meeting and/or provide comments on the proposed modifications. The meeting agenda You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
10/28/2025 Item No.3.
2 and packet that includes the staff report associated with the proposed changes are located at the following link under the “2025 Meeting Dates, Agendas, and Webcasts” tab:
https://www.folsom.ca.us/government/community-development/planning- services/historic-district-commission . Staff will then take the Commission’s recommendations forward to City Council for a final vote. If approved, the revisions will go into effect 60 days after approval.
Please let me know if you have any questions about the proposed revisions or the process moving forward.
Thanks,
<image001.png>
<image002.png>
Josh Kinkade
Associate Planner
City of Folsom
50 Natoma Street, Folsom, CA
95630
jkinkade @folsom.ca.us
o:916-461-6209
www.folsom.ca.us
NOTICE: Planning fees were changed on July 1, 2025. For more information on the user fee updates for Planning, Engineering and Building services, please see the following link:
https://www.folsom.ca.us/government/community-development/fees-planning-permit- plan-check-impact
10/28/2025 Item No.3.
1 Josh Kinkade
From: Loretta Hettinger <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 5, 2025 12:20 PM
To: Josh Kinkade
Cc: Desmond Parrington; Pam Johns
Subject: Re: Proposed Folsom Zoning Code Update (Chapter 17.52) 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.
Due to family obligations I couldn't dig into the actual document until now, but I need to let you know immediately that there is a significant problem with Section 17.52.300.A.2. Besides being difficult and time-consuming for applicants to search out the CEQA Guidelines section and the Public Resources Code sections it further refers to, the basic premise of those sections is to protect resources with State significance. It doesn't address resources that are locally significant but may not rise to the level of state or national significance. Very few of our historic resources have been sufficiently researched to even know whether they meet State standards. Worse, citing this CEQA section as the determining factor means that any resource not evaluated for state significance is unprotected. I know that isn't your intent! The standard should include any resource already determined to have national, state or local significance, but it needs to require that any resource that appears to be significant needs either to be researched before approval of changes or treated as if it is significant in deciding whether a change is appropriate. Just because the City has failed to evaluate historic properties does not excuse the City from protecting them. Besides the GP sections you cite in the staff report, failing to protect undocumented but potentially historic resources violates GP Principles, #1, 2 and 17 in particular. I hope the rest of the ordinance isn't alarming.
Loretta Hettinger
On Aug 1, 2025, at 8:23 AM, Loretta Hettinger <[email protected]> wrote:
Good morning , Josh, thanks for the email. I endorse the concept of simplifying the process for applicants and staff. My concern is that if the City ever finds itself in the position it was when you came on board, having no one qualified to evaluate a historic project, that we could end up with huge mistakes again. Like the building behind Snook's. I think it can be addressed by having a provision that reverts these decisions to the HDC until staff expertise once again is available. Objective design standards won't be enough.
There is no substitute for staff expertise in carrying out ANY regulation. If there were, there would be no need for senior staff in any Department! I appreciate this opportunity to include my concern in the record as I'm not sure I will be able to attend the meeting.
Loretta Hettinger
On Jul 31, 2025, at 2:41 PM, Josh Kinkade <[email protected]> wrote:
10/28/2025 Item No.3.
2 Hello,
This email is to inform you that the City of Folsom Community Development Department is proposing modifications to Chapter 17.52 of the Folsom Municipal Code to move smaller projects within the Historic District to director-level review (minor building modifications, sign permits, demolitions of non-historic buildings), to further limit the height, size, and setback requirements for accessory buildings within the Historic District, to increase the public noticing requirement for design reviews in the Historic District, and to modify entitlement expirations and extensions in the Historic District to make them consistent with regulations elsewhere in the city.
The primary intent of these proposed modifications is to reduce staff time related to smaller projects that currently go to the Historic District Commission for review and allow staff to focus on larger projects and creating objective design standards in the Historic District. These modifications are also intended to reduce the amount of time and fees associated with smaller entitlement projects while retaining public notification and participation in the process.
Staff is taking the proposed changes forward to the Historic District Commission for their recommendation at the August 6, 2025 meeting. The public is invited to attend that meeting and/or provide comments on the proposed modifications. The meeting agenda and packet that includes the staff report associated with the proposed changes are located at the following link under the “2025 Meeting Dates, Agendas, and Webcasts” tab:
https://www.folsom.ca.us/government/community-development/planning- services/historic-district-commission . Staff will then take the Commission’s recommendations forward to City Council for a final vote. If approved, the revisions will go into effect 60 days after approval.
Please let me know if you have any questions about the proposed revisions or the process moving forward.
Thanks,
<image001.png>
<image002.png>
Josh Kinkade
Associate Planner
City of Folsom
50 Natoma Street, Folsom, CA
95630
jkinkade @folsom.ca.us
o:916-461-6209
www.folsom.ca.us
NOTICE: Planning fees were changed on July 1, 2025. For more information on the user fee updates for Planning, Engineering and Building services,
10/28/2025 Item No.3.
3 please see the following link:
https://www.folsom.ca.us/government/community-development/fees- planning-permit-plan-check-impact
<image001.png>
<image002.png>
10/28/2025 Item No.3.
1 Josh Kinkade
From: Loretta Hettinger <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 5, 2025 10:38 PM
To: Josh Kinkade
Cc: Desmond Parrington; Pam Johns; Bryan Whitemyer
Subject: HDC Agenda Item #2, amending the Zoning Code
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organizaon. Do not click links or open a achments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
This ordinance is a significant departure from current procedure and deserves thorough discussion by the community.
Preserving a small historic town depends on the small projects as well as the large ones. I don’t believe there has been enough me for in-depth review of the ordinance’s actual wri en provisions by community members. I know I haven’t had enough me. As I commented Friday, I wholeheartedly support the concept as outlined in the staff report, but in my brief review I see problems in implementaon that deserve full consideraon by staff and the HDC as well as the community, before taking the City Council’s me. I hope you will agree. The following comments briefly idenfy some issues, the largest one being the proper standard for determining historic significance, as I sent you in an earlier email, Josh. My comments are intended to support the goal of simplifying the process for applicants and staff while also ensuring that the ordinance supports the goals for the Historic District in the General Plan and exisng regulaons.
I have already communicated the need for a provision that reverts design approval to the HDC if the City at some point does not have staff historic experse. Objecve standards do not substute for experse of the staff implemenng them, in any department or area of the City.
17.52.300.A.2, B.1, et al
Using the CEQA Guidelines (and the Public Resources Code cited therein) as the standard for determining historic significance does not implement the goals for the Historic District in the General Plan and exisng regulaons. The CEQA standard would require a property to be consistent with California Register standards, leaving no room for a determinaon of local significance. Very few of Folsom’s historic sites have actually been researched and documented to determine their significance to the State or the United States—or locally either, for that ma er. Protecng only those few that have been researched does not carry out the General Plan Guiding Principles, parcularly Principles 1, 2 and 17.
The appropriate standard would be to require a site’s historicity to be researched and documented before approval of changes—or, alternavely, to save me, to be treated as if it is historic. Just because the City has failed to evaluate the properes in the Historic District does not excuse the City from protecng them. This CEQA provision is an appropriate standard for the State to use, not Folsom.
17.52.300.C.1
As wri en, exempng these minor modificaons does not comply with the General Plan and exisng regulaons. Cing a few examples, there needs to be a provision that replacement materials need to be historic or consistent with the building’s exisng architectural design. Colors need to come from a historic pale e or be consistent with the building’s architectural design. Modern-designed structures of any sort need to be prohibited or hidden from public view. As wri en, this secon permits anything listed, regardless of size, locaon or materials. There is the same issue, as cited above, with the CEQA standard. This secon needs further careful review.
17.52.310
Applicaon materials should include a narrave that describes how the project meets historic standards. At first it might seem as if this would take extra me for the applicants and therefore not meet the stated goal of the ordinance to save them me.
In my experience the saved me that ma ers to applicants is the speed of an approval. That goal is served by
10/28/2025 Item No.3.
2 anything that makes an applicaon easily approvable. An easily approvable project is one that meets standards.
Requiring an applicant to cite how the project meets historic standards assures that they have considered more than setbacks, height, etc. and their own goals. I would hate to see any future applicant go through what the 603 Su er Street applicant went through, traceable to his and his architect’s lack of understanding of the importance of historic standards.
17.52.320
Design is paramount in determining whether a project is historic or not. Nocing should include the community non- profit history organizaons as well as adjacent properes, perhaps even the 300-foot radius.
17.52.330.B
The ordinance needs to make clear that the exisng DDG’s fit the category of “adopted”, a point previously at issue.
17.52.340
The ordinance implies a revision, 17.52.700, to the appeal process. There is no Secon 17.52.700.
17.52.360
This secon needs to make clear that design review is a part of the HDC’s acon on a Condional Use Permit.
17.52.380
I haven’t had me to make a close comparison of 17.59 with 17.52 and the DDG’s.
17.52.390
This secon implies but doesn’t say that the Director can only approve categorically exempt projects.
17.52.480
Good clarificaons. Does this only apply in residenal areas? Are such projects in commercial areas always subject to HDC review? They probably should be since they are usually very visible to the public.
17.52.660.A and B
How would these provisions apply to buildings originally built before 1950 but subsequently modified, perhaps improving their historicity? Also, any proposed demolion should definitely be more widely noced than 17.52.320 provides. Otherwise Secon 17.52.660.B.2.b is infeasible. Also, please clarify that if the Director doesn’t find resources that clearly determine the building’s newer age, the default should be to treat it as potenally built in or before 1950.
The discovery required isn’t enough.
There are gaps in permit files, and applicants aren’t especially movated to disclose informaon re a historic date of construcon. Mistakes like this are irreparable.
Sent from my iPad
10/28/2025 Item No.3.
10/28/2025 Item No.3.
10/28/2025 Item No.3.
1 Josh Kinkade
From: Desmond Parrington
Sent: Tuesday, August 5, 2025 11:54 AM
To: Josh Kinkade
Cc: Steven Wang; Pam Johns; Sari Dierking
Subject: FW: Request for Reconsideration of the HDC's Role Hi Josh:
Please include this with your staff report on the Chapter 17.52 changes.
-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
From: Bob Delp <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 5, 2025 11:48 AM
To: Bryan Whitemyer <[email protected]>; Sarah Aquino <[email protected]>; Mike Kozlowski <[email protected]>; Justin Raithel <[email protected]>; Barbara Leary <[email protected]>; Anna Rohrbough <[email protected]>; Pam Johns <[email protected]>; Desmond Parrington <[email protected]>
Subject: Request for Reconsideration of the HDC's Role
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.
Tomorrow night, the Historic District Commission (HDC) is scheduled to consider staff-proposed revisions to FMC chapter 17.52. This message is to urge the City Manager and Community Development Director to postpone this discussion and for the City Manager, Community Development Director, and City Council to first reassess the role and need for the HDC. Revisions could then be made to chapter 17.52 reflecting Council direction on a potential change in the role, or elimination, of the HDC. I recall at least one current council member previously questioning the bifurcated roles of the HDC and Planning Commission, and I urge the City leadership that the time is right to reassess the functions of these two commissions.
Folsom’s Historic District is a truly important and unique part of the City that warrants special land use planning provisions and protection. Many FMC chapter 17.52 provisions reflect important processes and considerations for design review and land use in the Historic District, and I am not arguing that these
10/28/2025 Item No.3.
2 provisions be eliminated. However, the HDC is not fundamental to oversight of land use within the Historic District and adds costs, complexity, and inefficiencies to the City’s land use administration.
The Community Development Department (CDD) and an informed Planning Commission could efficiently and effectively exercise appropriate design review and other land use authority within the Historic District functioning in much the same way they do for the rest of the City. The Planning Commission already meets regularly and has – or should/could have – a comprehensive understanding of planning matters throughout the City, including the Historic District. The currently bifurcated planning oversight provided by the Planning Commission for matters outside the Historic District and by the HDC for matters within the Historic District is inefficient and adds unnecessary complexity in planning processes and public participation. (For example, in recent years both the River District Master Plan process and the Home Occupation Ordinance amendment process required involvement of the Planning Commission and the HDC.)
Unlike the HDC, the Planning Commission is expressly established by the City Charter and is not restricted to being advisory only to the Council. The Planning Commission is the appropriate body to have oversight, review, and final approval authority (appealable to the City Council) for planning matters throughout the City, including the Historic District. Moreover, the Planning Commission is comprised of seven members, five of whom are each designated by an individual City Council member providing balanced representation of the City’s elected officials. This contrasts with the unbalanced representation on the HDC whose composition is determined by the Mayor with confirmation needed by only two other councilmembers.
Elimination of the HDC would require some upfront effort with modifications to FMC chapter 17.52, but would offer long-term efficiencies and other benefits to the City while still affording protection of the Historic District as a treasured City feature.
Thank you for considering my input.
Bob Delp
916-812-8122
[email protected]
10/28/2025 Item No.3.
1 Josh Kinkade
From: Karen Sanabria
Sent: Wednesday, August 6, 2025 10:32 AM
Subject: FW: Comments on 8-6-25 Agenda Item 2 - FMC 17.52 Revisions Please see the below comment letter we just received from Bob Delp.
Thanks
Karen
From: Bob Delp <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 6, 2025 10:29 AM
To: Karen Sanabria <[email protected]>
Cc: Pam Johns <[email protected]>; Desmond Parrington <[email protected]> Subject: Comments on 8-6-25 Agenda Item 2 - FMC 17.52 Revisions
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.
Karen: Please distribute this email to HDC commissioners for consideration of Item 2 on tonight's HDC meeting agenda. Thank you. -Bob Delp
HDC Commissioners:
I am providing the following comments/suggestions regarding staff's recommended FMC chapter 17.52 revisions contained in the August 6, 2025, staff report with a request that the HDC consider my comments in providing your input to staff at tonight's meeting.
1. Section 17.52.020 "Historic district commission" - This section is not addressed in staff's recommended revisions and is the 17.52 section that establishes composition of the HDC. Please consider revisions to this section to provide that each City councilmember appoints one HDC commissioner and to provide for the Council to appoint two additional members both of whom are on the Planning Commission. The existing methodology and categories (e.g., business owners, residents, etc. appointed by the Mayor) are unnecessary and preclude each councilmember from having an appointee. My proposed changes would result in a methodology for establishing the HDC more inline with the methodology used for establishing the Planning Commission.
2. In two instances, staff's revisions include revise "planning, inspections, and permitting director" to "community development director." Those changes make sense, but there are at least nine other references in 17.52 to "planning, inspections, and permitting director" that for consistency should also be revised. See 17.52.130, 17.52.510(E)(6), 17.52.550, 17.52.670 [3 instances], 17.52.690,
17.52.700(A), and 17.52.700(B). Additionally, throughout chapter 17.52, references to the "planning,
10/28/2025 Item No.3.
2 inspections, and permitting department" should be changed to "community development department".
3. 17.52.300(C) Exemptions for Certain Projects. Staff's proposed language seeks to deem certain types of projects exempt from the design review process under this chapter. Certain types of projects are listed but without any specifications related to their size, design, or location on a property. In particular, patio covers, gazebos, pergolas and trellises, privacy fencing and walls are listed without any provisions associated with size, location, or design. If these features - regardless of size, location, or design - are exempt, they could be constructed substantially inconsistent with design goals in the Historic District and should not be exempted outright. More consideration and better definition of the types of projects to be exempted from design review is needed and blanket exemptions should be avoided.
4. 17.52.320 re: Notice and Posting for Design Review. Improved provisions for public noticing for City reviews and approvals in the Historic District are needed, and staff's proposed revisions are insufficient in particularly with regard to staff-level review/approvals for which a consistent process of public noticing and input opportunities are critical to ensuring opportunity for public involvement in the decision-making process. Additionally, any staff-level decisions should be supported by sufficient documentation of staff's analysis and that documentation should be made available for public review and input before any staff-level decision is made. Staff's proposed revisions do not accomplish this.
5. 17.52.480(A)(1) re: Accessory Building Height. Staff's recommended phrase "an average of" should be deleted. The remaining language would be clear and "an average of" is subject to varied interpretation.
Also, the second sentence should be revised to require that the height of an accessory building "shall not be taller than , and the top of an accessory building shall not exceed the elevation of, the rooftop of the primary building". The top of an accessory building should always be below the horizontal plane of the top of the primary building.
6. 17.52.480(A)(2) re: Setbacks for Accessory Buildings. The setback distance should also specify distance from edge of alley.
7. 17.52.480(A)(3) - re: Size of Accessory Buildings. At item "a", unless the intent is that accessory structures can only be located in a rear yard, the reference to "rear yard" should be deleted. Also, item "b" should be deleted and any exception to the size limit should require processing of a variance with the applicant providing the necessary explanation/rationale for the variance and with approval of the variance only if the required findings can be made.
10/28/2025 Item No.3.
3 8. 17.52.540, "Historic residential primary area special use and design standards" is not addressed in staff's recommendations, but has provisions pertaining to garage setbacks that I recommend be reconsidered and modified. 17.52.540(F) specifies that "...Garages shall be set back a minimum of 20 feet from the public right-of-way." Alleys are public rights-of-way; however, staff, the HDC, and City Attorney have previously interpreted this code section to not apply to garages accessed from alleyways and instead have applied a 5-ft setback for alley-accessed garages. Alleys in the Historic District are becoming increasingly used as primary access for dwellings, including ADUs. Parallel parking on an alley-fronting driveway pad can provide an important addition to parking options for a property owner, but a 5-ft setback does not sufficiently provide for that. Additionally, as more and more garages and ADUs are developed along and with alley access, alleys are becoming increasingly congested and garbage collection and emergency vehicle access, as well as resident vehicle access, is becoming increasingly constrained. I recommend that a minimum 10-foot setback between garages and edge of alley be established. I would suggest then that 17.52.540(F) be revised to state something like, "...with the exception of alleys for which a minimum of 10 feet from the edge of alley shall be provided."
9. 17.52.660(A) - re: Exemptions for Post-1950 Demos. Instead of flat-out "exempting" post-1950 structures from 17.52, post-1950 structures should still be required to obtained demolition approval but the code could include a statement that such approval shall not be withheld if substantial evidence is provided demonstrating 1) the structure was built after 1950 and 2) that the structure does not otherwise have historical significance. Section 17.52.660(4) (as renumbered per staff's revisions) should apply to all demolitions in the Historic District.
10. 17.52.660(B)(1)(b) re: Fees for Demo Approvals. Consider eliminating fees associated with demolition review to minimize potential incentives for a property owner to avoid obtaining approvals for building demos in the Historic District.
11. 17.52.700 re: Appeals. Although not addressed in staff's recommendations, 17.52.700 should be revised, consistent with the appeal processes established in 17.06.110 for appeals outside of the Historic District, to provide that any person dissatisfied with any action of the director of the community development department or HDC can appeal directly to the City Council. An avenue for all residents of the City to their elected officials on the City Council should be provided, and the existing
17.52.700 requirements for appellants could be read to improperly restrict rights to appeal. City representatives have argued that the HDC functions much like the Planning Commission, but the differing appeal provisions are in stark contrast.
12. I object to any amendments to 17.52 that perpetuate and/or expand HDC final authority which is incompatible with City Charter section 4.07 (e.g., staff's proposed 17.52.300(D)(1) and (2) and
17.52.660(B)(2)). Additionally, I request that all existing secti ons of 17.52 that assert "final authority" to the HDC be revised to provide that the HDC shall instead make advisory recommendations to the City Council for the City Council's confirmation or that the HDC shall make advisory recommendations to
10/28/2025 Item No.3.
4 the Community Development Director who shall then make final decisions that are appealable to the City Council.
Thank you for considering my input.
Bob Delp
916-812-8122
[email protected]
10/28/2025 Item No.3.
1 Josh Kinkade
From: Michael Reynolds <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 5, 2025 11:23 AM
To: Josh Kinkade
Cc: Desmond Parrington; Carrie Lane; Bob Walter; Laura Fisher; Paul Keast Subject: Re: Proposed Folsom Zoning Code Update (Chapter 17.52) 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.
Josh, here is the feedback collected from the HFRA board. I believe the staff report address some of these, but wanted to share the complete list so you can understand our perspective. Overall the board supports improving efficiency, but want to make sure the processes around the change are sound (we tried to consider unintended consequences).
o What are the new guidelines / windows in terms of additional noticing and feedback and what process will the city use to ensure better awareness.
o What is the definition of "small projects"
o How will the city define and identify "historic structures"? Other municipalities have built a cultural resource list.
o Are commercial buildings included or is this just for residential projects? o What process will the city use to ensure adherence to the DDG for projects that get staff review? o What is the exceptions process / decision criteria to the zoning code (variances) at staff level? - will variances have to go the HDC for review?
o Is there a full list of what types of modifications can have director level approvals (minor building modifications, sign permits, demolitions of non-historic buildings), to further limit the height, size, and setback requirements) - is this list comprehensive?
o Kickout variables that would elevate to HDC? Is there any appeal process for a staff decision to get broader HDC review?
On Thu, Jul 31, 2025 at 2:42 PM Josh Kinkade <
[email protected] > wrote:
Hello,
This email is to inform you that the City of Folsom Community Development Department is proposing modifications to Chapter 17.52 of the Folsom Municipal Code to move smaller projects within the Historic District to director-level review (minor building modifications, sign permits, demolitions of non- historic buildings), to further limit the height, size, and setback requirements for accessory buildings within the Historic District, to increase the public noticing requirement for design reviews in the Historic District, and to modify entitlement expirations and extensions in the Historic District to make them consistent with regulations elsewhere in the city.
10/28/2025 Item No.3.
2 The primary intent of these proposed modifications is to reduce staff time related to smaller projects that currently go to the Historic District Commission for review and allow staff to focus on larger projects and creating objective design standards in the Historic District. These modifications are also intended to reduce the amount of time and fees associated with smaller entitlement projects while retaining public notification and participation in the process.
Staff is taking the proposed changes forward to the Historic District Commission for their recommendation at the August 6, 2025 meeting. The public is invited to attend that meeting and/or provide comments on the proposed modifications. The meeting agenda and packet that includes the staff report associated with the proposed changes are located at the following link under the “2025 Meeting Dates, Agendas, and Webcasts” tab: https://www.folsom.ca.us/government/community- development/planning-services/historic-district-commission . Staff will then take the Commission’s recommendations forward to City Council for a final vote. If approved, the revisions will go into effect 60 days after approval.
Please let me know if you have any questions about the proposed revisions or the process moving forward.
Thanks,
Josh Kinkade
Associate Planner
City of Folsom
50 Natoma Street, Folsom, CA 95630
jkinkade @folsom.ca.us
o:916-461-6209
www.folsom.ca.us
NOTICE: Planning fees were changed on July 1, 2025. For more information on the user fee updates for Planning, Engineering and Building services, please see the following link:
https://www.folsom.ca.us/government/community-development/fees-planning-permit-plan-check- impact
10/28/2025 Item No.3.
3
10/28/2025 Item No.3.
Josh Kinkade
From: Michael Reynolds <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 6, 2025 8:19 AM
To: Josh Kinkade
Cc: Desmond Parrington; Carrie Lane; Bob Walter; Laura Fisher; Paul Keast Subject: Re: Proposed Folsom Zoning Code Update (Chapter 17.52) 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.
Josh, in section 17.52.300.A2, the proposed wording is City Cultural Resource List OR CEQA. Lorretta noted that CEQA is only for State register and does not comprehend local historical significance. If the City's Cultural Resource inventory is not comprehensive, then this would leave a gap in the "Historic Significance" definition. This proposal may need more time for scrutiny so it may need to come back to HDC again before moving forward for final approval.
10/28/2025 Item No.3.
1 Josh Kinkade
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, August 3, 2025 12:54 PM
To: Josh Kinkade
Cc: Pam Johns; 'Kathy Cole'
Subject: RE: Proposed Folsom Zoning Code Update (Chapter 17.52) 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.
Josh, I totally agree that many items should not require commission review. My concern is that not all houses/structures that might be significant are listed by address on the cultural resources list. Many #mes the significance does not come to light un#l a design review is needed. I am assuming the revised sec#on 17.52.300 (A2) helps address my concern.
These revisions point out the importance of having up to date design guidelines and the importance for all staff to be familiar with the criteria of determining a “historically significant structure”. Understanding of the Historic Preserva#on Master Plan is essen#al.
I am excited that some of the much needed updates to the ordinance approved in 1998 are being addressed. Well done!
Candy Miller
From: Josh Kinkade <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2025 2:30 PM
To: Josh Kinkade <[email protected]>
Subject: Proposed Folsom Zoning Code Update (Chapter 17.52)
Hello,
This email is to inform you that the City of Folsom Community Development Department is proposing modifications to Chapter 17.52 of the Folsom Municipal Code to move smaller projects within the Historic District to director-level review (minor building modifications, sign permits, demolitions of non- historic buildings), to further limit the height, size, and setback requirements for accessory buildings within the Historic District, to increase the public noticing requirement for design reviews in the Historic District, and to modify entitlement expirations and extensions in the Historic District to make them consistent with regulations elsewhere in the city.
The primary intent of these proposed modifications is to reduce sta, time related to smaller projects that currently go to the Historic District Commission for review and allow sta, to focus on larger projects and creating objective design standards in the Historic District. These modifications are also intended to reduce the amount of time and fees associated with smaller entitlement projects while retaining public notification and participation in the process.
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
10/28/2025 Item No.3.
2 Sta, is taking the proposed changes forward to the Historic District Commission for their recommendation at the August 6, 2025 meeting. The public is invited to attend that meeting and/or provide comments on the proposed modifications. The meeting agenda and packet that includes the sta, report associated with the proposed changes are located at the following link under the “2025 Meeting Dates, Agendas, and Webcasts” tab: https://www.folsom.ca.us/government/community- development/planning-services/historic-district-commission . Sta, will then take the Commission’ s recommendations forward to City Council for a final vote. If approved, the revisions will go into e,ect 60 days after approval.
Please let me know if you have any questions about the proposed revisions or the process moving forward.
Thanks,
Josh Kinkade
Associate Planner
City of Folsom
50 Natoma Street, Folsom, CA 95630
jkinkade @folsom.ca.us
o:916-461-6209
www.folsom.ca.us
NOTICE: Planning fees were changed on July 1, 2025. For more information on the user fee updates for Planning, Engineering and Building services, please see the following link:
https://www.folsom.ca.us/government/community-development/fees-planning-permit-plan-check- impact
10/28/2025 Item No.3.
Josh Kinkade
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, August 5, 2025 6:16 PM
To: Josh Kinkade; Pam Johns; [email protected]
Subject: RE: Proposed Folsom Zoning Code Update (Chapter 17.52) 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.
Josh, A couple addi
onal things.
A
er further rereading, I think the City’s Historic Preserva on Master Plan should be the guiding document, not the
CEQA sec
on. There are probably several historical sites that have local significance but do not meet state or federal requirements.
Also, in 17.52.300 C1 (exempt from review), I strongly feel “that not visible from the street” must be added. We need to protect the integrity of our Historic District when people are just driving down our streets to look at our historic homes.
Candy Miller
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
10/28/2025 Item No.3.
ORDINANCE REVISION
17.52.300 Design review
The design and architecture of the following projects shall be submitted to the historic district commission for review and approval under the provisions of this chapter.
All new office, industrial, commercial and residential buildings, including accessory buildings as defined in Section 17.02.020.
The design and architecture of proposed attached or detached accessory dwelling units not exempted from design review by California Government Code Section 66321 and any new garage or other attached conditioned or unconditioned space proposed along with such an accessory dwelling unit.
The design and architecture of proposed projects that include additions to existing accessory dwelling units that result in the unit no longer being exempt from design review by California Government Code Section 66321
(Desmond/Josh, can references to FMC 17.105 be substituted for Government Code Section 66321 in the two above instances? FMC is more accessible to applicants.)
All exterior renovation, remodeling, modification or addition to existing structures.
Projects which include, or have potential to affect, resources listed or determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historical Resources, California State Historical Landmarks, or the City of Folsom Cultural Resources Inventory, or resources determined historic by private organizations such as the Daughters of the American Revolution, the Native Sons of the Golden West, or similar. Until a comprehensive, professional historic survey is completed and certified by the City Council, sites listed on the City of Folsom Preliminary Cultural Resources Inventory shall be protected as if listed on the City of Folsom Cultural Resources Inventory unless determined ineligible for listing in accordance with the provisions and procedures of the City of Folsom Historic Preservation Master Plan.
Projects which are part of a planned development or a tentative map
Proposed project design guidelines and standards and revisions to existing design guidelines and standards.
17.52.310 Project review submittal requirements
The applicant shall file the following information with the community development director for project review, including design review:
Completed and signed application form including name, address, email address, and telephone number of the applicant, and agent authorization from the property owner if the applicant is not the property owner; and
Application fee as established by resolution of the city council; and
10/28/2025 Item No.3.
A project narrative which describes how the project meets or does not meet the standards of FMC 17.52 and the historic district design and development guidelines. The narrative shall include all available discovery of the property’s history, describing sources consulted to ascertain property’s history and including whether the property has been identified as eligible for any historic listing as identified in section ___ above; and
A copy of all entitlements granted for the property by the city, including conditions of approval and the environmental documentation; and
Copies of all required state and federal permits; and
Site plan; and
Building design plans/elevations; and
Material samples and color board, using colors from a historic palette appropriate to the subarea; and
Recent photographs of the project site taken within 30 days prior to the submittal, which accurately depict the project site and location; and
Other material and information as requested by the commission or community development director.
17.52.320 Notice and posting of site
The purpose of broad notification in the historic district is to elicit all available information regarding the site’s history and the potential effects on properties in the vicinity and on the goals of the historic district. Noticing of projects before the historic district commission shall be given in accordance with the Folsom Municipal Code and any state law governing project noticing. In addition, for design review, moving or demolition of a structure, or other matters subject to historic district commission review, the project notice shall be posted on the project site and on the city’s website a minimum of ten days prior to any public hearing. If there is to be no public hearing, the notice shall be given in the same manner, with the addition of the proposed approval or denial language, a minimum of ten days prior to a potential effective date of an approval.
The site posting shall be with a notice, eleven inches by seventeen inches in size or larger, and visible to the public, indicating the time and place of the meeting or staff review and the means to access application materials and any proposed approval language. In addition to all information included on the site posting, the city website posting shall include all application materials and proposed approval or denial language. Besides the project site and website posting, the same notice shall be mailed to property owners directly adjacent to the project site, including those located directly across an alley, street or public right-of-way from the project site.
The same notice shall also be sent to all persons or organizations which have requested to receive notice of historic district commission meetings, in the same manner that such notice is customarily given. Community organizations with a particular focus on Folsom’s history and/or historic district which have requested notice of historic district projects or design review shall be given copies of application materials, or directed where to access them, as soon as practical after receipt of the application. Revisions and additions to application materials shall be provided as well, as soon as practicable.
10/28/2025 Item No.3.
17.52.330 Plan evaluation
In reviewing project plans, including design review, the historic district commission and staff shall apply the following criteria:
Project compliance with the general plan and any applicable zoning ordinances; and
Conformance with any city-wide design guidelines, specifically applicable to the historic district, and historic district design and development guidelines adopted by the city council in 1998 or as subsequently revised by the city council; and
Conformance with any project-specific design standards approved through the planned development permit process or similar review process; and
Appropriateness of building materials, textures, colors and size to the context of surrounding sites, such as civic or open space or the interface between differing land uses. (Desmond/Josh, except for examples like I cited here, I feel surrounding and neighborhood consistency is covered by previous requirements listed.)
17.52.340 Approval process
The historic district commission shall make its decision to approve, conditionally approve or deny the application with findings based on the criteria established in Section 17.52.330 of this chapter. A copy of the decision, findings and any applicable conditions shall be provided in writing to the applicant.
Projects that are subject to director-level decision may be elevated to the historic district commission for action at the discretion of the community development director or upon request of the applicant.
The community development director shall provide a summary of all design review projects within the historic district which are approved at the director level and request direction from the commission to be applied in future staff approvals. (Desmond/j Josh, the provision here re not overturning staff decision is redundant, already stated in
17.52.395, but it could be moved here.)
17.52.350 Expiration and extension of approval
An approval by the historic district commission shall be null and void unless the applicant submits a complete application for a building permit within one year from the date of final approval.
The historic district commission may extend an approval for an additional one year upon receipt of a written request, accompanied by a fee as may be established by resolution of the city council, and other information deemed necessary by the community development director. A request for approval extension must be received before the original approval expires.
17.52.360 Conditional use permit review
10/28/2025 Item No.3.
(Desmond/Josh, no need to change this existing Code section. Expiration and extension is covered in 17.52.350. You don't want to inappropriately limit that section to design review and then tuck in this provision here and in proposed 17.52.370. To do it that way leaves other entitlement decisions hanging re expiration and extension if they aren’t design review, CUP, or variance.)
17.52.370 Variance review
(Desmond/Josh, same comment as on 17.52.360 above)
17.52.380 Sign permit review
(Desmond/Josh, pending input from FHDA, I don’t want to tackle sign regulation. I may get input from Lisbet, who is very knowledgeable about signs and their regulation, but her time is very constrained by grandparent and other duties. Preliminarily, I feel this Code section should remain as is, with any staff approval under the FMC 17.52.395 umbrella. For sure, uniform sign criteria ought to be reviewed by commission, not staff. I’m leery of using 17.59 for anything beyond what the Code says now! I’ll return to the sign topic as I write regarding the 395 delegation. I’m alarmed about modern electronic signs, such as one that excited some at FHDA, to support the ice rink. I do think that one has been headed off. Some of my other comments have applicability, such as giving applicant option to elevate to commission, covered under
17.52.340 above.)
17.52.390 Environmental review
(Desmond/Josh, no need to change this section since it will be covered under 395 delegation.)
17.52.395 Delegation of design review
The historic district commission may delegate its authority to review compliance with this chapter and any adopted design and development guidelines to the community development director under the following conditions:
The city council has adopted specific design and development guidelines for the historic district; and
Approval of the design of the project is the only matter within the jurisdiction of the historic district commission; and
Notice and posting are in accordance with requirements of FMC 17.52.320; and
The city attorney has advised that a categorical exemption is the appropriate determination of environmental significance; and
The community development director has prepared, and the historic district commission has approved, a comprehensive and detailed explanation of the types of decisions appropriate for director action.
The community development director may only approve a project where it believes that the project clearly conforms to standards set forth in this chapter and the design and development guidelines. If the community development director determines that the project does not clearly
10/28/2025 Item No.3.
conform to such regulations, approval of the design of the project shall be referred to the historic district commission.
The community development director shall review the design of all approved projects with the historic district commission at its regular monthly meeting. Such review will allow the commission to provide input to the director concerning the appropriateness of the approval and help the commission and the director develop a consistent approach to design review.
If the community development director approves the design of a project under such delegated authority, the historic district commission may not overturn the decision of the director unless an appeal is filed pursuant to Section 17.52.700.
17.52.400 Design standards
The design standards specified in Sections 17.52.410 through 17.52.590 shall be applicable to all new structures and alterations to existing structures within the historic district. Design review is required for all new structures and alterations to existing structures, unless otherwise specified in this chapter. Features exempted under these sections require design review if proposed design contains materials and colors otherwise prohibited in this chapter.
(Desmond/Josh, I think exemptions will be best handled in the delegation document.)
17.52.480 Accessory buildings
(Desmond/Josh, this section seems to be aimed at residential areas, but it doesn’t say so.
Therefore, I’ve added a little to apply to commercial areas as well. This needs more thought.)
Accessory buildings, as defined in Section 17.02.020 are subject to the following development standards within the historic district (with the exception of accessory dwelling units regulated differently in the historic district under Section 17.105):
Height. Detached accessory buildings shall not exceed fifteen feet in height, nor may they be higher than the roof of the main building.
(Desmond/Josh, this needs more consideration of how to measure on slopes and what parts of the building count in the measurement. This height issue is larger than accessory buildings and needs to be addressed for all buildings. Stretching the Code to allow buildings that already are significantly larger than adjacent structures shouldn’t be allowed, ex. 603 Sutter St. Also, if there is a need to specify “detached” in the Size section, it should also be specified in the other sections; I left it out.)
Setbacks. Detached accessory buildings shall be set back a minimum of twenty feet from the front yard lot line, five feet from the rear yard lot line, five feet from the interior side-yard lot line, ten feet from the street side-yard lot line and five feet from all other buildings on the property. In no instance shall any portion of an accessory building be located in front of the front plane of the primary building.
(Desmond/Josh, how does staff intend to determine the front plane of a building if it is not a straight line? The drawing illustrates a non-linear rear plane, but the language does not specify use of the same principle for a front plane nor does it specify how setbacks to the rear plane are measured. I don’t want to second-guess staff’s intention re numerical standards.)
10/28/2025 Item No.3.
Size. Detached accessory buildings may occupy a maximum of fifty percent of the area of a required rear yard. The total square footage of all accessory buildings on a single parcel shall not exceed fifty percent of the total square footage of the primary building on the same parcel or the total square footage of the primary building(s) on parcels developed as a unified project.
Exceptions.
This issue is already covered in 17.52.400.D and should be deleted here. The currently proposed language lacks criteria and would undermine all regulations.
17.52.660 Demolition
The demolition of a building located in the historic district is subject to the review and approval of the historic district commission.
Application for demolition shall include the same information required in FMC 17.52.310, excluding materials and color board
In determining whether to authorize demolition of a structure or not, the historic district commission shall consider the following factors:
Whether the public health, safety and/or welfare warrant the demolition;
Whether the building was constructed between 1850 and 1950;
Whether the building, regardless of age, contributes to the success of the goals and regulations of the historic district, including the City of Folsom Historic Preservation Master Plan;
If determined to be contributing, whether the owner of the building is willing to sell it or donate it to a buyer who wishes to preserve it, either by purchasing the property where it is located or by moving it to a location where it will be preserved, preferably within the historic district or elsewhere within Folsom; and
Whether a public entity wishes to acquire the property through exercise of the power of eminent domain or can provide other means to preserve the building.
Prior to authorized demolition, the applicant shall provide to the community development director documentation of the building for the historical record. Documentation shall include photographs of all exterior and interior sides of the building, details of unique or representative construction features, and any history of the structure beyond that considered above, including lore which may or may not be substantiated in the record.
17.52.700 Appeal
(Desmond/Josh, this section is the same as existing except that any person can appeal.)
Any person dissatisfied with any determination of the community development director may appeal to the historic district commission. Any person dissatisfied with any determination of the historic district commission may appeal to the city council. Any such appeal shall be in writing, shall state the specific reason for the appeal and grounds asserted for relief, and shall be filed
10/28/2025 Item No.3.
with the community development director not later than ten calendar days after the date of the action being appealed. The appeal must be accompanied by an appeal fee as established by resolution of the city council. If an appeal is not filed within the time or in the manner prescribed above, the right to review of the action against which the appeal is made shall be deemed to have been waived.
17.52.710 Appeal hearings
(Desmond/Josh, I think the community would want the same noticing as originally given for the project. This is sensitive.)
Appeal hearings shall be conducted no later than the next regularly scheduled meeting following 30 calendar days after the date of filing an appeal. Written notice of the time, date and place of the hearing shall be served on the appeal body, the applicant or permittee, and the appellant at least ten calendar days preceding the date of the hearing . Additionally a notice specifying the date, time and place of the hearing shall be posted on the subject property at least ten calendar days preceding the date of the hearing.
17.52.720 Actions on appeal
The appeal body shall review the entire proceeding relating to the act or decision being appealed, de novo, and may make any order it deems just and equitable, including granting of a permit. Any hearing may be continued from time to time. At the conclusion of the hearing, the appeal body shall prepare a written decision which either grants or denies the appeal, and contains findings of fact and conclusions. The decision shall be served on the applicant or permittee and the appellant. The decision shall become final upon the date of filing and service.
10/28/2025 Item No.3.
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION POLICY DELEGATING DESIGN APPROVAL AUTHORITY TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR, SEPTEMBER, 2025
(Desmond/Josh, until a historic survey is done, how can staff determine whether a building proposed for modification is contributing or non-contributing? Right now it seems you’re just using age. Per the DDGs, there should be an evaluation of a proposal to determine if it is continuing the building’s existing style or, if not, whether it moves the structure to greater conformity with historic style. Do you really want that latter responsibility? We’re all still grieving how the building behind Snook’s was ruined, and I would hate that to happen now, to staff who care. There is a bungalow on Persifer that looks as if it were built 100 years ago, but it was not built before 1950. Taking its age into consideration wouldn’t be enough. As noted above, the DDG’s allow continuing a building’s existing style, and they don’t worry about anything not in public view. To protect staff’s time, I’m willing to advocate that anything that continues a building’s existing style, materials, color, etc. or is not in public view can be approved at staff level. That means that moving an existing building (that isn’t already deemed historic) into a historic style would have to wait until the next remodel when staff has more resources unless the applicant is willing to take it to the HDC, a temporary sacrifice of the long-term goal, sadly, but allowable under the DDG’s. It puts us into basically a holding pattern. Staff would still need to make the determination on style, materials, colors, etc., a task that seems to me to qualify as objective. Once a historic survey is completed, this policy can be further revised!)
————————-
To ease the time burden for City staff and bring greater clarity for applicants, while maintaining the high standards of Folsom Municipal Code 17.52 and City Council-adopted Historic District Design and Development Guidelines, the following policy is adopted by the Historic District Commission, pursuant to the provisions of Folsom Municipal Code 17.52.395. The Historic District Commission’s intent in this policy is to delegate design approval authority for certain projects to the Community Development Director.
Applicants reading this policy, who may be familiar with historic preservation as practiced in other jurisdictions, need to be aware that Folsom’s intention is somewhat different. Most historic preservation efforts focus on conserving buildings and areas that provide outstanding architectural examples of a historic time period. Folsom’s outstanding contribution to historic preservation is preservation of an entire small town whose buildings and other structures reflect the design styles used in Folsom and similar Mother Lode towns between 1850 and 1950, whether actually constructed in this time period or constructed in later times in the styles of that period. Staff and applicants are charged with carrying out this intention.
Unless the City’s severe budget constraints ease sufficiently to allow more resources to be devoted to the Community Development Department, the long-term goal for all buildings in the Historic District to contribute to the goal of maintaining a historic small town may be delayed.
Today some buildings in the District do not match the styles extant between 1850 and 1950, but the City regulations permit existing styles to be continued. Design of installations not in public view is not regulated.
Nothing in this policy is to be construed to discourage an applicant from bringing to the Historic District Commission a project which brings a building into conformance with the architectural styles of the period designated for the site in Section 17.52 of the Folsom Municipal Code. On the contrary, projects that support the long-term goal are strongly encouraged.
10/28/2025 Item No.3.
Exemptions
After review of the design and materials for appropriateness as follows, the Director may declare the following types of projects as not requiring public notice and as exempt from further design review:
Proposed minor modifications to a building, such as roof replacement, window or door replacement or color changes, if the Director determines that the modifications continue the existing architectural style of the building, use materials appropriate to the architectural style, and use colors in the historic palette. Materials used need not be identical to those being replaced but must avoid modern appearance.
Proposed patio covers, gazebos, pergolas, trellises, fencing, walls, above ground spas and hot tubs, solar panels, outdoor cooking facilities and other installations the Director deems similar, if the project utilizes historic materials or historic reproductions or if it is concealed from public view by location or by appropriate screening such as landscaping.
In determining whether a proposed project is exempt from further review the Director may require from the applicant any of the application materials listed for projects to be reviewed by the Historic District Commission that the Director deems necessary.
Design Review
Design review submittal requirements
Application materials for Director review are the same as for Historic District Commission review. From time to time, the Director may find that information required in the application is already available in the City’s parcel-based GIS.
Notice and posting of site for design review
Notice and posting of the site for Director review are as specified in FMC 17.52.320.
(Desmond/Josh, the draft I sent gives no direction re process if objections to the Director’s approval are received. So here’s a proposal: If no objections to the Director’s proposed decision are received within ten days of posting, the decision shall become effective on the eleventh day. If objections are received within the ten-day period, the Director shall within an additional ten days determine whether to refer the action to the Historic District Commission, change some or all provisions of the approval, or retain the original approval provisions. After making this determination, the Director shall post the determination on the property and on the City’s website, with no further noticing unless referred to the Historic District Commission.
Persons or organizations receiving the original notice are advised to follow the project on the City website and/or site location for status information. If the Director makes changes to the approval, the effective date shall be on the eleventh day after posting the changed decision.
This whole noticing process for Director approval may not seem simple enough, but it is straightforward in answering objections that they never knew about the project. I’m not sure I or anyone else is comfortable with just the ten days to get the community’s input, but it seems like a compromise with staff. Requiring existing design to be the determining factor for a staff decision helps to prevent loss of a site’s potential historic contribution when a historic survey is prepared.)
10/28/2025 Item No.3.
Plan evaluation for design review
The Community Development Director is authorized to approve the following types of projects if the Director finds that the project continues the main building’s existing architectural style, materials, location and other physical characteristics, that the site is not potentially eligible for listing on the City’s Cultural Resource Inventory, and that the project is not in conflict with the regulations of the Folsom Municipal Code and the adopted Historic District Design and Development Guidelines. Findings shall be supported by evidence in the Director’s written approval that is transmitted to the Historic District Commission.
All new accessory buildings, including but not limited to garages and sheds, and any additions to such buildings, that 1) continue the main building’s materials, scope, colors and architectural style, 2) are not located in public view, or 3) are screened from public view by landscaping or other appropriate means. An addition to an existing accessory building that does not already continue the main building’s materials, scope, colors and architectural style may be allowed if the existing building is modified as well, to continue the main building’s materials, scope, colors and architectural style.
The design and architecture of proposed attached or detached accessory dwelling units not exempted from design review by California Government Code Section 66321 [FMC 17.105?] and any new garage or other attached conditioned or unconditioned space proposed along with such an accessory dwelling unit, provided that the unit continues the main building’s materials, scope, colors and architectural style; is not located in public view; or is screened by landscaping or other appropriate means.
The design and architecture of proposed projects that include additions to existing accessory dwelling units that result in the unit no longer being exempt from design review by California Government Code Section 66321 [FMC 17.105?], provided that the unit continues the main building’s materials, scope, colors and architectural style; is not located in public view; or is screened by landscaping or other appropriate means.
All exterior renovations, remodeling, or modifications to the rear or interior side of existing residential buildings, provided that the changes continue the building’s materials, scope, colors and architectural style and that privacy for adjacent residences is provided.
17.52.340 Approval process for design review
The Director’s final decision shall be transmitted to and discussed with the Historic District Commission as specified in FMC 17.52.340.
Sign permit review
(Desmond/Josh, I haven’t received any comments from FHDA or Lisbet.)
Environmental review
The Director may approve only projects which the City Attorney advises are eligible for categorical exemption. The City Attorney shall provide a written opinion for inclusion in the Director’s written approval, citing the categorical exemption(s) proposed to be used in the Director’s approval. From time to time use of a categorical exemption may be referred by the Director or City Attorney back to the Historic District Commission for determination.
10/28/2025 Item No.3.
Demolition review
Preservation and restoration of structures which were built in the Historic District’s designated time period is of highest priority.
(Desmond/Josh, I am coming to the opinion that demolition needs longer notification than Director approvals. Continuing a project’s existing design is likely to be correctable if a mistake is made. Demolition is not correctable. I’m too exhausted to continue working on any of this tonight, but I will continue to analyze all these issues when exhaustion abates.)
10/28/2025 Item No.3.
1 Desmond Parrington
From: Loretta Hettinger <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 5, 2025 10:38 PM
To: Josh Kinkade
Cc: Desmond Parrington; Pam Johns; Bryan Whitemyer
Subject: HDC Agenda Item #2, amending the Zoning Code
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organizaon. Do not click links or open a achments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
This ordinance is a significant departure from current procedure and deserves thorough discussion by the community.
Preserving a small historic town depends on the small projects as well as the large ones. I don’t believe there has been enough me for in-depth review of the ordinance’s actual wri en provisions by community members. I know I haven’t had enough me. As I commented Friday, I wholeheartedly support the concept as outlined in the staff report, but in my brief review I see problems in implementaon that deserve full consideraon by staff and the HDC as well as the community, before taking the City Council’s me. I hope you will agree. The following comments briefly idenfy some issues, the largest one being the proper standard for determining historic significance, as I sent you in an earlier email, Josh. My comments are intended to support the goal of simplifying the process for applicants and staff while also ensuring that the ordinance supports the goals for the Historic District in the General Plan and exisng regulaons.
I have already communicated the need for a provision that reverts design approval to the HDC if the City at some point does not have staff historic experse. Objecve standards do not substute for experse of the staff implemenng them, in any department or area of the City.
17.52.300.A.2, B.1, et al
Using the CEQA Guidelines (and the Public Resources Code cited therein) as the standard for determining historic significance does not implement the goals for the Historic District in the General Plan and exisng regulaons. The CEQA standard would require a property to be consistent with California Register standards, leaving no room for a determinaon of local significance. Very few of Folsom’s historic sites have actually been researched and documented to determine their significance to the State or the United States—or locally either, for that ma er. Protecng only those few that have been researched does not carry out the General Plan Guiding Principles, parcularly Principles 1, 2 and 17.
The appropriate standard would be to require a site’s historicity to be researched and documented before approval of changes—or, alternavely, to save me, to be treated as if it is historic. Just because the City has failed to evaluate the properes in the Historic District does not excuse the City from protecng them. This CEQA provision is an appropriate standard for the State to use, not Folsom.
17.52.300.C.1
As wri en, exempng these minor modificaons does not comply with the General Plan and exisng regulaons. Cing a few examples, there needs to be a provision that replacement materials need to be historic or consistent with the building’s exisng architectural design. Colors need to come from a historic pale e or be consistent with the building’s architectural design. Modern-designed structures of any sort need to be prohibited or hidden from public view. As wri en, this secon permits anything listed, regardless of size, locaon or materials. There is the same issue, as cited above, with the CEQA standard. This secon needs further careful review.
17.52.310
Applicaon materials should include a narrave that describes how the project meets historic standards. At first it might seem as if this would take extra me for the applicants and therefore not meet the stated goal of the ordinance to save them me.
In my experience the saved me that ma ers to applicants is the speed of an approval. That goal is served by
10/28/2025 Item No.3.
2 anything that makes an applicaon easily approvable. An easily approvable project is one that meets standards.
Requiring an applicant to cite how the project meets historic standards assures that they have considered more than setbacks, height, etc. and their own goals. I would hate to see any future applicant go through what the 603 Su er Street applicant went through, traceable to his and his architect’s lack of understanding of the importance of historic standards.
17.52.320
Design is paramount in determining whether a project is historic or not. Nocing should include the community non- profit history organizaons as well as adjacent properes, perhaps even the 300-foot radius.
17.52.330.B
The ordinance needs to make clear that the exisng DDG’s fit the category of “adopted”, a point previously at issue.
17.52.340
The ordinance implies a revision, 17.52.700, to the appeal process. There is no Secon 17.52.700.
17.52.360
This secon needs to make clear that design review is a part of the HDC’s acon on a Condional Use Permit.
17.52.380
I haven’t had me to make a close comparison of 17.59 with 17.52 and the DDG’s.
17.52.390
This secon implies but doesn’t say that the Director can only approve categorically exempt projects.
17.52.480
Good clarificaons. Does this only apply in residenal areas? Are such projects in commercial areas always subject to HDC review? They probably should be since they are usually very visible to the public.
17.52.660.A and B
How would these provisions apply to buildings originally built before 1950 but subsequently modified, perhaps improving their historicity? Also, any proposed demolion should definitely be more widely noced than 17.52.320 provides. Otherwise Secon 17.52.660.B.2.b is infeasible. Also, please clarify that if the Director doesn’t find resources that clearly determine the building’s newer age, the default should be to treat it as potenally built in or before 1950.
The discovery required isn’t enough.
There are gaps in permit files, and applicants aren’t especially movated to disclose informaon re a historic date of construcon. Mistakes like this are irreparable.
Sent from my iPad
10/28/2025 Item No.3.
1 Reflections on Historic District Law and
Preservation Efforts
Balancing Preservation and Property Rights
Introduction
Public oicials frequently encounter diicult decisions, particularly when these decisions challenge their core values. In reviewing the proposed amendments to the Historic District law, I am confronted by my strong belief in private property rights and my commitment to preserving local history. My comments seek to reconcile both perspectives.
Background
Fresh from college, I purchased a neglected house in Folsom. Around that time, the Folsom Historical Society (FHS) was founded by community members determined to save key historic sites, including the old city jail, the Wells Fargo building, and the Cohn Mansion.
While the jail and Wells Fargo building were ultimately lost, my ongoing restoration of the Cohn Mansion became my personal entry into Folsom's preservation eorts.
Historic Committee and Commission
To protect Sutter Street’s historic buildings, the City passed an ordinance and created the Historic Committee, which oversaw projects aecting the area’s historic character. The ordinance’s original aim was for structures to reflect the gold rush era, though few buildings dated from that period.
In 1966, I was appointed to the Historic Committee, and a year later was elected President of the Folsom Historical Society. Over the years concerns were raised about the district’s regulations. The City Council in the 1990s formed a committee to develop a Historic District Specific Plan, update ordinances, and create design guidelines. I served on this committee, meeting every other week, for four years. With valuable assistance from city sta, we drafted comprehensive ordinances and guidelines. These were presented to the City Council in 1998. By then I was on the Council, but I had to abstain from voting on the Specific Plan due to owning property in the district. With a split vote, the specific plan did not pass; however, updates to the historic district ordinance and the design guidelines
10/28/2025 Item No.3.
2 were adopted, and a new Historic District Commission was established to oversee a larger residential area.
Historic Preservation Master Plan
While the Specific Plan Committee focused on the historic district, some of us saw the importance of identifying historic assets throughout the city. The City Council established a separate committee for this purpose, and as Mayor, I appointed its members. The committee produced the Historic Preservation Master Plan, intended to create an inventory of buildings, places, and resources deserving of recognition. The plan outlined how resources would be added and provided examples of possible candidates, anticipating that owners would seek listing to access funding or application of the historic building codes.
However, to my knowledge, the Master Plan was never formally adopted or put into law. The committee’s report was presented to the Council, but no additional action followed—no list of resources was compiled, nor have there been applications for inclusion. Thus, while the committee made good recommendations, no progress has been made to carry them out
Purposes of Proposed Change
My perspective has evolved as both a property owner and caretaker of local history. I have witnessed the challenges that arise when preservation ideals intersect with practical concerns—namely, significant costs, diicult procedures, and the slow pace of regulatory review. These realities highlight the need to balance heritage protection with enabling owners to improve their buildings.
Recent discussions about revising the Historic District law have underscored the importance of streamlining city processes, making them supportive, not obstructive, of eorts to enhance Folsom’s architectural legacy. Simplifying approvals, clarifying requirements, and reducing bureaucracy can promote both preservation and revitalization, encouraging more people to care for historic assets.
Eective preservation requires more than regulation; it relies on open communication and collaboration among oicials, property owners, and the public. By fostering respect and flexibility, historic preservation can become a vibrant part of community life.
I support changes that are seeking to make simpler and more cost-eective decisions for the city. As a property owner, I appreciate steps that make project approval easier, faster, and at less expense. On several occasions, I abandoned plans for exterior upgrades due to
10/28/2025 Item No.3.
3 the diiculties of obtaining approval—not only from the Historic Commission, but also from director approvals, which require extensive plans and drawings. For small property owners, such requirements can seem to demand hiring architects and engineers, which should be reserved for new construction. We should encourage property improvements, not discourage them. I support the proposed changes, oering some recommendations for further improvement.
Reference to the Historic Preservation Master Plan
It is important to note that while proposed changes mention the "City’s Cultural Resources Inventory, " such an inventory does not exist. The Master Plan includes a list of possible resources but requires procedures to be followed before a resource is included. Although my house appears on the Master Plan report cover, it is not oicially listed, and no inventory has been created. The plan’s main goal was to identify resources outside the historic district. Only a few residential buildings within the district—the Muir House, the railroad superintendent’s house, and my home—were mentioned. Other notable homes were not included, and the inventory was not intended for district purposes. All commercial buildings along Sutter Street were listed as potential resources, but none is oicially designated. Thus, referencing this inventory is misleading; it identifies sites that might be included if applications were submitted, but no applications have been submitted, and no list has been compiled. Amendments should omit references to the report and establish alternative ways to clarify responsibilities between sta and the Historic Commission.
There is a suggestion that the Historic Commission should identify all resources for inclusion, but this would be a substantial undertaking requiring sta involvement and may not be feasible during a budget crisis.
When describing historic projects to be referred to the Commission, the recommended wording for Section 17.52.300B2 is: “ …except projects on the City’s Cultural Resources Inventory or located on an existing or potential eligible historic resource as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15064.5 or the Historic Preservation Master Plan, which are subject to Historic District Commission approval. ” I recommend substituting: “except projects that are eligible historic resources as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines or are on a City of Folsom inventory of historic resources or potentially eligible for that list under the procedures provided in the Historic Preservation Master Plan. ”
10/28/2025 Item No.3.
4 Much of the discussion about these proposed changes revolves around authority—whether the commission or sta should have the final say on small projects, signs, accessory structures, and demolition. The best way to avoid power struggles is to ensure complete transparency and allow all interested parties to have their voices heard.
I support expanding mailed notice to more neighboring properties, using physical mail. Although sta& have indicated that organizations in the Historic District will also be notified, the rule does not require this. Posting notices online does not guarantee transparency, as few people regularly check the city’s website. I propose that the department maintain a list of individuals and organizations who wish to be notified about proposed projects in the historic district. Notices sent to neighbors should also be emailed to everyone on this list, including all Historic Commission members.
I suggest amending the notice section as follows (proposed changes in bold italics):
The provisions of Section 17.06.070 shall apply within the historic district. In addition, a notice containing the project description and the time and place of the meeting for design review shall be posted on the City website and mailed to property owners directly adjacent to the project site at least five days before the commission or director meeting.
“Directly adjacent to the project site” includes properties across an alley, street, or public right-of-way.
The community development director shall maintain a list of people and organizations who wish to be notified about proposed projects in the historic district. When notice is sent to neighbors, it will also be emailed to everyone on the list, including all Historic Commission members.
This change will enhance transparency with minimal cost or eort for sta.
The proposed amendments to the historic district ordinances only provide two ways for a matter to be elevated from the director level review to the Historic District Commission.
The Director can elevate the matter at his or her discretion. The applicant can also request
10/28/2025 Item No.3.
5 the matter be elevated, but only upon payment of the fee established by the Council. I would propose a third way to elevate the matter to the commission. It should be elevated if three members of the commission request that the matter be elevated. The members of the commission will receive notice of the director’s level review and if three of them believe that the matter should not be resolved at the director’s level, they can file a request to elevate. This scenario is not expected to occur frequently; however, it would serve to preserve a degree of authority within the commission. I suggest that the proposed Section
17.52.340(B) be amended to read:
Projects that are subject to director-level review may be elevated to the historic district commission for review at the discretion of the community development director or at the request of three members of the historic district commission. The applicant may request to elevate a director level design review to the historic district commission. The request shall be granted upon payment of the commission-level design review application fee established by resolution of the city council and any other applicable fees.
Similar amendments should be made to 17.52.380(C) relating to sign permits, 17.52. and the provisions relating to accessory structures and demolition.
I have attempted to suggest ways to improve the process and at the same time foster communication by all interested parties. I hope this might help. Glenn Fait
10/28/2025 Item No.3.
1 Josh Kinkade
From: Michael Reynolds <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 3, 2025 3:29 PM
To: Desmond Parrington; Pam Johns; Josh Kinkade
Cc: Carrie Lane; Bob Walter; mike sellitti; Karla Davis; [email protected] Subject: From HFRA Board: Sept 3rd HDC topic - zoning code update CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Desmond, for tonight's topic, the HFRA board submits the following comments:
HFRA board fully supports the comments submitted in Glen Fait's letter dated Sept 2 on Laws and Preservation.
Key issues
o Before implementing the streamlined process, the city needs to ensure a Culture Resource Inventory of all properties within the 98 blocks that encompass the HD has been completed.
o HFRA board supports Fail-safe of HDC 3-commissioners being able to move a staff approved item up to the HDC for review
o The following types of projects are subject to an over-the-counter approval by the community development director for the purpose of assuring applicants that their proposed design and materials are consistent with FMC 17.52 and the adopted historic design and development guidelines, as interpreted by the historic district commission - Having reviewed the DDG for residential, HFRA board believes the DDG are adequate guidance for projects eligible for over-the counter approval as long as the CDC enforces them as they are currently written. Variance requests by default would require a review by the HDC.
Mike Reynolds
HFRA President
10/28/2025 Item No.3.
10/28/2025 Item No.3.
10/28/2025 Item No.3.
5 the matter be elevated, but only upon payment of the fee established by the Council. I would propose a third way to elevate the matter to the commission. It should be elevated if three members of the commission request that the matter be elevated. The members of the commission will receive notice of the director’s level review and if three of them believe that the matter should not be resolved at the director’s level, they can file a request to elevate. This scenario is not expected to occur frequently; however, it would serve to preserve a degree of authority within the commission. I suggest that the proposed Section
17.52.340(B) be amended to read:
Projects that are subject to director-level review may be elevated to the historic district commission for review at the discretion of the community development director or at the request of three members of the historic district commission. The applicant may request to elevate a director level design review to the historic district commission. The request shall be granted upon payment of the commission-level design review application fee established by resolution of the city council and any other applicable fees.
Similar amendments should be made to 17.52.380(C) relating to sign permits, 17.52. and the provisions relating to accessory structures and demolition.
I have attempted to suggest ways to improve the process and at the same time foster communication by all interested parties. I hope this might help. Glenn Fait
10/28/2025 Item No.3.
1 Josh Kinkade
From: LJ Laurent <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 1, 2025 9:26 AM
To: Karen Sanabria; Josh Kinkade; Justin Raithel; Barbara Leary; Mike Kozlowski; Anna Rohrbough; Sarah Aquino; Bryan Whitemyer
Cc: [email protected]; Kevin D. Thielen; [email protected]; Warren Truitt; Mary Beth Metcalf; Betsy; Stephens Sara; [email protected] Subject: Re: SPECIFY Title 17 Alterations......Historic District Commission Meeting Agenda | 8-6-25 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organiza tion. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
To: all sent this 7 31 2025 email with regard to the insufficient Notice sent to my mailbox by "Commun ity Development".
From: Laurette Laurent
August 1, 2025
Re:
I received a reply from J. Kinkade which I found th is morning. Please ask him for a copy, as his email will not explain to you the relevant issues ignored by Commu nity Development. Below is a portion of his respo nse.
From:[email protected]
To:LJ Laurent
Thu, Jul 31 at 4:52 PM
Please try the following
link:
https://www.folsom.ca.us/home/showpublisheddocument/22157/638895548243314463
I was able to open the link I provided from my phone, so I don’t think there’s an issue with the link itself. HDC packet is also attached if the link is still not working for you.
COMMENTS on response which ignores the original pro blem:
1. Sent 7 31 25 link led to this city site:
Historic District Commission | Folsom, CA
Historic District Commission | Folsom, CA
Please NOTE: this link contained zero information about the Noticed CASE # NOT SPECIFIED:
Proof is repeating the Kinkade link to a generic description site for: HD Commission
https://www.folsom.ca.us/government/community-development/planning-services/historic-district- commission , which contains nothing about a Full/legal description of the Proposed Change to Folsom Muni Code.
To be certain I was correct about this possible IMPACTS on American River, I searched online and found the following quotes from "AI."
SEARCHED "are folsom city laws exempt from Californ ia or federal oversight of projects impacting federal American River"
SEARCH RESULTS are, verbatim :
10/28/2025 Item No.3.
2 Generally, Folsom city laws are not exempt from California oversight when impacting the American River, including federally protected portions.
Here's why :
• California's Broad Environmental Regulations: California has extensive environmental regulations, notably the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. • CEQA Mandates Environmental Review: CEQA requires state and local agencies, including cities like Folsom, to identify and mitigate the environmental impacts of their actions, including development projects, through the preparation of Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs) or Negative Declarations. Folsom acknowledges this responsibility, as evidenced by its use of CEQA for its River District Master Plan.
• Porter-Cologne Act and Water Boards: The Porter-Cologne Act gives the California State Water Resources Control Board and its Regional Water Boards broad authority to protect water quality in all surface and groundwaters within the state, regardless of federal jurisdiction.
• Federal Oversight and the Clean Water Act: The federal government also has oversight through the Clean Water Act (CWA) and other relevant regulations, particularly concerning navigable waters and federally protected areas like sections of the American River designated as Wild and Scenic. While recent Supreme Court decisions have narrowed the federal jurisdiction over wetlands under the CWA, California's state-level protections remain strong. • Overlap and Potential for State/Federal Action: Projects impacting the American River in Folsom may require approvals from both state and federal agencies depending on their scope and location within the river system and its adjacent areas. The City of Folsom, for example, is required to obtain coverage under the State Water Resources Control Board's General Construction Stormwater Permit for projects disturbing one acre or more. •
•
In summary, while Folsom has local authority to enact ordinances and plan for its River District, its actions affecting the American River are subject to a layered system of oversight from the state of California and the federal
10/28/2025 Item No.3.
3 government, ensuring environmental protections are considered and implemented.
FURTHER COMMENTS/CONCERNS:
How can a planner justify his actions, in view of the actual higher and Controlling Laws?
Specifically:
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), also known as the “general rule” exemption, CEQA exempts activities that can be seen with certainty to have no possibility for causing a significant effect on the environment.
QUESTIONS REMAIN:
1. I asked How can such a sweeping alteration to existing law governing DEVELOPMENT, DEMOLITION, so-called "accessory buildings" be altered WITHOUT SPECIFICITY which meets Legal Requirements for elevation land/Parcels high above the adjoining American River Federal Assets?
2. Perhaps some downstream or higher agency ought to review the PROTECTIONS to the American River.
3. How can Folsom make such vague "law revisions" WITHOUT consulting local USBR legal authorities?
4. On a finer point of federal law it was revealed that a group of which I am a long-time member has AUTHORITY and OVERSIGHT to protect all of the American River.
5. On the most critical issue of Folsom NOT returning to using LAR as an adjunct to greater densification, greater growth, and the DOWNSTREAM official finding that further Densification of Land Uses along the Folsom Blvd. SSS pipeline and
the silly addition of a 2nd small pipe AT THE HIGH POINTS near Glenn St. to Bidwell, it is my hope USBR, SARA Save the American River Assn. and its expert members, and other LAR Advocates will consider that perhaps this city is slipping back into its old way. What old way? Considering the American River below the oldest and worst-served portion of city is not a place where ANY CHANGES should be considered, any regulations or "Folsom Municipal Code" section --- could be or
should be altered without a FULL VETTING of all Plans, Engineer-Approved drawings, and with FULL cooperation with USBR Engineers. I'd also suggest this city council solicit a formal Contact with Save the American River Assn. SARA. Without SARA, I would have successfully sued Folsom on raw sewage spills, SSOs, into the LAR below, but SARA has always been the ultimate in Lower Amer ican River Protection and Advocacy.
Below is entire Kinkade text:
Josh Kinkade
From:[email protected]
To:Josh Kinkade
Thu, Jul 31 at 2:40 PM
Hello,
10/28/2025 Item No.3.
4 This email is to inform you that the City of Folsom Community Development Department is proposing modifications to Chapter 17.52 of the Folsom Municipal Code to move smaller projects within the Historic District to director-level review (minor building modifications, sign permits, demolitions of non-historic buildings), to further limit the height, size, and setback requirements for accessory buildings within the Historic District, to increase the public noticing requirement for design reviews in the Historic District, and to modify entitlement expirations and extensions in the Historic District to make them consistent with regulations elsewhere in the city.
The primary intent of these proposed modifications is to reduce staff time related to smaller projects that currently go to the Historic District Commission for review and allow staff to focus on larger projects and creating objective design standards in the Historic District. These modifications are also intended to reduce the amount of time and fees associated with smaller entitlement projects while retaining public notification and participation in the process.
Staff is taking the proposed changes forward to the Historic District Commission for their recommendation at the August 6, 2025 meeting. The public is invited to attend that meeting and/or provide comments on the proposed modifications. The meeting agenda and packet that includes the
staff report associated with the proposed changes are located at the following link under the “2025 Meeting Dates, Agendas, and Webcasts” tab: https://www.folsom.ca.us/government/community- development/planning-services/historic-district-commission . Staff will then take the Commission’s recommendations forward to City Council for a final vote. If approved, the revisions will go into effect 60 days after approval.
Please let me know if you have any questions about the proposed revisions or the process moving forward.
Thanks,
Finally, t
o explain this further, included are the research results, and I am copying this email to USBR for Review.
As a member of the USBR American River Group, and past private-enforcer of US Clean Water Act, actions by this city without a single Notice or consultation and alert to USBR, seems a huge mistake.
I am requesting USBR to view, share with ARG, and other protectors of the American River LAR, the final portion of this email, at bottom. It is a sum of USBR Responsibilities.
Whether I am right or wrong, I remain a voice protecting American River from this city.
The SSS pipe addition in Folsom Blvd. was placed at the HIGH POINT of the Folsom Blvd. SSS system/section, which includes "h.d.c." area.
I reside on a Folsom SSS RED LINE segment, which connects directly to the Folsom Blvd. never- enlarged SSS main/trunk lines. It remains a disgrace that Folsom added SSS pipe along the E side of Folsom Blvd, but ONLY at the High elevation point. Nothing was done to improve capacity OVER,
Adjacent, or directly impacting the LAR in "historic district."
It is my sincere hope our newer city council members including one with pipe engineering experience, will take a hard look at this issue of protecting the LAR from the city's cavalier manner of making huge LAR-impacting decisions without considering this essential American River Water.
Perhaps the city's "hd commission" requires an ad hoc member and oversight by a CA Licensed Civil Engineer familiar somewhat with Hydrology and Pipeline conveyances, and impacts of rainwater
10/28/2025 Item No.3.
5 runoffs polluted with not only dust, debris, but one other problem. It was I who sued city as a private enforcer of CWA -- for the unacceptable of SSO Sanitary Sewer Overspills which impacted American River. I moved to a Folsom subdivision Abutting the LAR land & waters. I remain committed to protecting this essential feature of national importance, and local survival.
Here's a breakdown of USBR's responsibilities related to the American River in Folsom:
• Operation of Folsom Dam and Reservoir: USBR operates Folsom Dam, which forms Folsom Reservoir. This multi-purpose project is crucial for flood control for the Sacramento area, having prevented significant damages in the past.
• Water Management: As part of the Central Valley Project, Folsom Dam and Reservoir are vital for water storage and delivery for various uses, including irrigation and municipal supply. The Central California Area Office based at Folsom Dam manages water resources in a large region. • Coordination and Stakeholder Engagement: USBR leads the American River Group (ARG), a team coordinating fishery and operational requirements for the lower American River. This group discusses various aspects of river management.
• Flood Risk Reduction Projects: USBR collaborates with other agencies on projects like the Folsom Dam Raise Project and the Folsom Dam Safety/Flood Damage Reduction Project to improve flood risk reduction and dam safety.
• Environmental Stewardship: USBR's activities include conserving fish and wildlife and improving water quality, with the ARG focusing on fishery requirements. • Recreation Management: USBR manages recreation areas and has agreements with California State Parks for Folsom Lake and Lake Natoma.
Finally, if this city considers itself separate/above the higher Federal Laws protecting this vital water, the lower American River, with NO consideration NOR involvement of a person familiar with Folsom SSO sanitary sewer Overspills, inadequate improvement of SSS conveyance pipes in this most critical, very old, and underserved section of the city, please be aware the "Folsom city Watchdog" is still concerned, aware, and UNconvinced Folsom has a truly INDEPENDENT City Engineer.
The final Folsom City Engineer Bob Blaser, was my major expert witness in a private enforcement lawsuit. A former mayor "sidelined" Bob and removed his total independence --- all in order to ensure this former mayor's new development buddy got the best deals, and ensure NO ONE but the Folsom Sewage Watchdog would fight to protect the lower American River.
Folsom actually BOLTED SHUT the Folsom SSS manholes where SSOs occurred, were likely to occur, and where the actual wet weather SSS pipe/manhole level within SSS manholes in this oldest part of city were unacceptable. In fact, there was a development along Folsom Blvd. South of the bridge whose CEQA finding even commented upon and Noted the locations in the wider city where the SSS Capacity was a factor which impacted more land use densification. I sent the actual findings to the city council and many e
ntities who needed to know where and How Many Folsom SSS segments were RED LINE pipes.
10/28/2025 Item No.3.
6 I reside in a subdivision where the very first Folsom SSS manhole cover BOLTED SHUT operation was done.
True, it's been drier and hotter with time, but who -- what Independent City Engineer -- can or will Certify, Seal and sign a document claiming the LAR is adequately protected from more Folsom SSOs.
Yes, there are real problems with pretending this city can have more than one set of Standards, especially when it comes to WATER vs. city raw sewage. [and 3 CA prisons raw sewage as well.] What is with the below pretense that a city in this state can have TWO distinct sets of Standards applied??
Clearly 17.52 purports to existence of TWO sets of rules/laws for development.
But NO ONE protects the American River Before densification continues apace.
"Chapter 17.52: Historic District of the Folsom Municipal Code relating to design review, sign permit review, demolition review, and the review of accessory buildings"
TAKE A LONG LOOK at this chapter 17.52.
LEGALLY, it is revolting this city continues to purport there are SEPARATE and distinct DEVELOPMENT and IMPROVEMENT RIGHTS with a single city of Folsom CA.
In Folsom's Historic District, the Design Review process, overseen by the Historic District Commission, ensures new construction and significant alterations to existing structures adhere to the district's historic character. This review process is part of the Folsom Municipal Code and is crucial for maintaining the historic and cultural integrity of the area.
Here's a more detailed breakdown:
• Commission Involvement:
The Historic District Commission is responsible for reviewing designs and architect ural plans within the Historic District.
• Scope of Review:
This includes new buildings, additions, renovations , and even significant changes to existing structures.
• Purpose:
The review aims to ensure that new development is c ompatible with the established historic character of the district, which generally encompas ses the period from 1850 to 1950. • Code Reference:
The process is governed by the Folsom Municipal Cod e, specifically sections related to the Historic District.
• Public Input:
10/28/2025 Item No.3.
7 The Historic District Commission also reviews appli cations for conditional use permits, variances, and land divisions within the district.
• Sign Regulations:
Any new or significantly modified signs in the Hist oric District, particularly in the Sutter Street Subarea , require Design Review approval.
• Appeals:
Decisions made by the Historic District Commission can be appealed to the City Council .
Beyond the Code:
• While the Folsom Municipal Code generally dictates design standards, the Historic District Commission can grant exceptions t o those standards when unique circumstances require it to comply with the overall purpose of preserving the historic character.
There's the rub. Pretend if the buildings LOOK old, maybe no one will notice the raw sewage conveyance pipes and all other ACCESS, emergency routes, city Standards --- can possibly be waived. A Sutter St. businessowner entered elected politics with sway over this oldest part of city. And still FMC does not still include the provisions which protected the Independence of Folsom City Engineer.
SEE FOR YOURSELF: envision the considerations in case of emergency, evacuation, uncontrollable &/or inaccessible fire in some really old wood structures.
After-thought, has Folsom ever seen a "project" which is admittedly supposed to be controlled by CEQA?
Is that because city no longer has a truly independent City Engineer ?? Don't long-term Contracts protect Lic. Civil Engineers acting as city engineer in charge? Folsom Old historic Sutter- 2 tiny escape routes
To help
protect your
privacy,
Micro so ft
Office
prevented
auto matic
download of
this picture from the
Internet.
Folsom Old historic Sutter- 2 tiny escape routes
On Thursday, July 31, 2025 at 01:59:24 PM PDT, LJ Laurent <[email protected]> wrote:
10/28/2025 Item No.3.
8 To: Folsom city council members
cc: higher elected officials since it may directly impact federal assets, rules, procedural processes From: Laurette Laurent
July 31, 2015
Re: Is this an Alteration to Folsom Municipal Code, Procedures, or higher laws which govern the method of altering existing laws?
Context:
do we all have a Right to Know what New vs Old laws, procedures, etc. may have on all of us, and higher entity assets?
Please respect this so-called 17.52 Historic District section of code includes HUGE PORTIONS of abutme nts to and Impacts on Federal Assets.
Specifically, this "historic district" as defined by city abuts ABOVE, and DRAINS into Federal America n River Waters.
Every aspect of alleged historic district changes MUST deal with the Abutment, and much higher elevati on, than the American River -- a federal asset of extreme importance.
What is the city justification for proposing
"Chapter 17.52: Historic District of the Folsom Municipal Code relating to design review, sign permit review, demolition review, and the review of accessory buildings"
ALL within the drainage area and impact areas which impact the American River down below WITHOUT even providing the LANGUAGE of the Law Chan ge?
I don't care what CEQA citation is made, because how does everyone know this is not in support of some Unknown project or city plan which has a Direct Impact on the American River below and abutting this "District ."
ISSUE:
The received Agenda does not contain any specific legal sections of Code, new proposed language, etc.
for consideration at this meeting.
IS this REALLY an ALTERATION to Chapter 17.52?
IF YES, how can it possibly be regarded as being governed by the "common sense" or "general rule" exemption.
If Yes, it appears to be an ALTERATION to Existing Law as promulgated & enforced.
Therefore, the legal question arises, what is the NOT SPECIFIED Exemption when citizens are NOT INFORMED of the New Language which it is alleged has "no possibility" of important impacts.
Specifically: Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), also known as the “general rule” exemption, CEQA exempts activities that can be seen with certainty to have no possibility for causing a significant effect on the environment.
CEQA pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) “Review for Exemption”
Specifically: Folsom HD Agenda Item DOES NOT STATE the wording of both Past and proposed, or just arb itrarily- imposed language as cited in this Folsom HD Agenda Item 2. Zoning Code alleged update -- which anoth er way of saying "altering existing law."
2. Zoning Code Update – Revisions to Chapter 17.52: Historic District and Determination that the Project is Exempt from CEQA
A request from the City of Folsom Community Development Department to amend Chapter 17.52: Historic District of the Folsom Municipal Code
10/28/2025 Item No.3.
9 relating to design review, sign permit review, demolition review, and the review of accessory buildings .
Staff requests that the Historic District Commission make a recommendation to the City Council on the proposed changes to
Chapter 17.52. Staff has determined that the proposed revisions are exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) “Review for Exemption” of the CEQA Guidelines.
(Project Planner: Josh Kinkade / Applicant: City of Folsom Community Development Department)
RELATED LEGAL ISSUE:
Folsom has already a PENDING NOTICE to HIRE a LEGAL ANALYST.
Included herein.
WHY is this insufficient LEGAL DEFINITION and Alteration to Existing City LAWS regarding CEQA -- LAND USE --- being considered PRIOR to hiring and informing residents, renters, potential buyers of Folsom-regulated land uses ---
the FULL OPPORTUNITY to have the benefit of this allegedly Incoming LEGAL ANALYST????
WHY would city council persons actually do such an UNEXPLAINED LAW CHANGE just Prior to bringing a highly paid "Legal Analyst" onto city staff?
Why is this happening when so many long-time employees are leaving city jobs? HOW many APPLICATIONS have been received for new Legal Analyst position?
EMPOWERMENT, or Right of any HD Group, owner, or city associated person to Interpret the exact INTENT of this bit of HD Legislation --- where is any local person allowed to decide HOW an NOT- STATED alteration to this below citation -- allowed to act when this city land abuts and DRAINS into a Federal asset, the American River.
IT IS IMPOSSIBLE to restrain all land use or city council Decisions IMPACTS from impacting the American River below.
Below is cited rights of HD group. It makes NO mention of granting this HD the Rights, Powers, and Full Authority of a legally-constituted "Plan Commission." This has been a sore point since Day 1 of this alleged sub-district.
Now it is clear, there is no legal citation supporting the Authority of this group, the Right of this "advisory" group, to make decisions of Legal Wording which are not within its Jurisdiction, Power, nor does it confer upon such a subgroup "HD" alleged "Commission" the legal authority to exercise authority over the American River via land uses, land use Consequences due to such issues as flooding, erosion from city activities, pollution, earthquake consequences from much high land above events.
Is this the result of no one policing properly --- what do "design guidelines" actually mean in view of such inadequate legislating wording, and a state Prohibition on having more than ONE single "plan commission."
Furthermore, this is the Critical Error of allowing "multiple" plan commissions or groups who LACK sufficient Legal Guidance and Legal Authority to alter anything right next to and below a critical Federal asset.
ISSUE:
10/28/2025 Item No.3.
10 Does anyone but me recognize that the actual city wording might not even prevent a "demolition" or "construction project" or "landscaping project" from allowing, permitting or IGNORING the detrimental impacts on the American River below.
Does anyone but me recognize this city is hiring a new, highly expensive "Legal Analyst" to our usually silent on such matters "city attorney" --- and worse than that look at the Muni code wording:
The planning, inspections and permitting director shall be responsible for the administration of this chapter and shall assist the historic district commission in performing its functions. The director shall carry out those additional duties delegated by the historic district commission. (Ord. 890 § 2 (part), 1998)
GET IT? If this alleged h.d.c. is permitted to make such decisions and take such actions, or IGNORE higher Laws, than the consequences are highly questionable legally, morally, and environmentally.
Staff requests that the Historic District Commission make a recommendation to the City Council on the proposed changes to Chapter 17.52.
ON GOING ISSUE: Now we have a second, highly questionable "plan commission" for a tiny, sensitive area above a federal river, trying to make decisions which are NOT SPECIFIED in the Legal Notice emailed to me.
Please do GOOGLE this term: can folsom ca make different land use Laws for its "historic district"
But read the city announcement: if this is NOT a Change to land use laws, then what is??? In fact it seeks changes to multiple laws without reviewing Conformity to higher laws -- such as state laws.
A request from the City of Folsom Community Development Department to amend Chapter
17.52 : Historic District of the Folsom Municipal Code relating to design review, sign permit review, demolition review, and the review of accessory buildings. Staff requests that the Historic District Commission make a recommendation to the City Council on the proposed changes to Chapter 17.52.
Very funny! google says "Distinction from Spot Zoning: It's important to differentiate this from illegal "spot zoning," which involves amending a zoning ordinance for a single parcel that has a different land use characterization than the surrounding district."
Does anyone recognize this precise wording ,
does put the alleged h.d.c. -- a "commission" on a footing/basis to make huge, huge, changes to land use[s] which impact a federal river below? Suddenly it is crystal clear the 17.52 is being used to make unknown, unregulated, not- examined, questionable changes to the land draining DIRECTLY onto the American River.
Worse yet, focus on the miserable word choices & omissions & higher Enabling Legislation --- to consider the folly of the alleged Duties of h.d. "commission." "STAFF REQUESTS" ----
Give me a break.
Isn't it time for whoever is added to the "city attorney" as a "legal analyst" come with some PROVEN EXPERTISE in Land Use Law???
10/28/2025 Item No.3.
11 How is the Real World to know when/if the h.d. "commission" which it is NOT legally, is making or allowing/ignoring changes which directly harm the American River???
The emailed ANNOUNCEMENT/AGENDA does NOT even specify what is being considered, enacted, revised legally, or applied wrongfully.
It appears this is a Proposal for h.d.c. to consider anything put before it in specific terms of
Design
Signs
Demolition
Accessory Buildings
"PROPOSED law Changes" which are NOT INCLUDED.
• Historic District Commission: Folsom also has a Historic District Commission specifically tasked with reviewing design and architecture within the Historic District to ensure it aligns with the area's historic and cultural character.
Directly Related issue : Has anyone lately realized the Parcel Numbers for every square inch of so- called h.d.c. "land" have never been defined/UPDATED, nor the ancient business district parcels rechecked for total compliance with purported "purposes" of the h.d.c.? It has been decades since a full review of "historic district" parcels, "streets", alleys, and fire access Compliance --- have been examined. What has brought about the realization a Legal Analyst is required?
What has current, long-sitting "city attorney" been doing? I had personal dealings with him long ago; things must have continued to deteriorate, n'est pa? Most reasonable jurisdictions have outside attorneys......
Of course, I've never had any reasonable responses from another city employee, Desmond Parrington, the purported "planning manager." In fact I recall only one single communicative response from him since 2001.
Wondered for decades what he has done, is doing....
Won't learn much now because of this:
guess we all need to do some "updating" and "securing" once in a while.
Wondered why so many of my close city contacts left lately.....
Link: Planning Services | Folsom, CA
Planning Services | Folsom, CA
Fraud Alert
The City of Folsom has been made aware of a fraudulent email scheme targeting both current and former Planning customers. The scam involves sending fake invoices using the names of
10/28/2025 Item No.3.
12 City Officials and the official City of Folsom logo, instructing recipients to wire money. The current reports of this scam utilize an email address of "[email protected]."
Customers are urged to be cautious and not respond to these emails or send any payments.
Anyone who receives a suspicious email of this nature should forward it to
[email protected] for review.
.
LIAISON
Desmond Parrington
Planning Manager
916-461-6233
Email
Hint: Chapter 2.11 DEPARTMENTAL ORGANIZATION STRUCTURE
Chapter 2.11 DEPARTMENTAL ORGANIZATION
STRUCTURE
This h.d.c. was the invention of a past & perhaps ongoing set of vested interest parties.
Clearly someone decided Folsom required a "legal analyst." I suggest city council members review in great detail the gaps in the past city land use decision- making in this h.d.c. It is about time a FULL Legal Compliance expert with full credentials be placed where they can address some apparent "slips" by past legal advisement within cityhall.
SKIP DOWN to this experts duties at bottom.
17.52.120 Duties of the historic district commission.
The historic district commission shall have the following duties and responsibilities:
A. Oversee the implementation of the provisions of this chapter; B. Develop and recommend design guidelines to the city council for the historic district; C. Prepare and maintain a survey of the historic structures within the historic district; D. Provide assistance to residents, property owners and business owners in relation to the provisions of this chapter;
E. Provide advisory review, upon the request of another city commission, committee, any city department, or as directed by the city council , of projects or programs affecting or relating to the historic district;
10/28/2025 Item No.3.
13 F. Recommend to the city council amendments to adopted city plans or codes in the interest of furthering the purposes of this chapter ;
G. Review the design and architecture of any new structure, or alteration to any existing structures within the historic district, as further defined in this chapter; H. Determine the historical significance of structures as further defined in this chapter; I. Review applications for sign permits, conditional use permits, variances, land divisions and mergers within the historic district;
J. Make recommendations to the city council regarding programs and incentives to encourage and to support the preservation, maintenance, and rehabilitation of historic structures; and K. Carry out such other duties relating to the historic district as may be assigned by the city council. (Ord. 890 § 2 (part), 1998)
City of Folsom
Legal Analyst
SALARY
$5,416.67 - $7,740.70 Monthly
$65,000.00 - $92,888.40 Annually
LOCATION
Folsom, CA
JOB TYPE
Full Time Permanent
JOB NUMBER
25-00039
DEPARTMENT
City Attorney's Office
OPENING DATE
06/26/2025
CLOSING DATE
7/20/2025 11:59 PM Pacific
10/28/2025 Item No.3.
14 ___________________________
DUTIES OF THIS NEW LEGAL ANALYST:
• Provide legal analysis for the City Attorney and Assistant City Attorney. • Assist in the drafting, analysis, and review of routine legal documents, contracts, and agreements, letters, memos, reports, ordinances, resolutions, and court litigation documents under attorney supervision.
• Execute filings and e-filing in the state courts; ensure accurate and timely filing of legal documents.
• Assist attorneys in preparing for court and administrative hearings, depositions, court proceedings, and other legal meetings; coordinate and schedule meetings and appointments for attorneys.
• Prepare correspondence and legal memoranda for, or as directed by, the City Attorney or other attorneys.
• Review contracts for compliance with City and legal requirements. • Answer phone calls and emails for the City Attorney’s Office. • Manage budgetary and fiscal activities within the department. • Answer and respond to phone calls, emails, and in-person inquiries from the public, outside counsel, and City staff.
• Act as a liaison between the City Attorney, City staff, outside counsel, and/or the public as needed to gather information or respond to inquiries.
• Perform legal research of case law and statutory law. • Utilize computer research databases and Internet resources. • Perform substantive research and investigation to identify and analyze relevant information, locate potential witnesses, and provide paralegal support for litigation cases including but not limited to preparation and/or coordination of discovery responses. • Assist with the gathering of discovery documents.
• Maintain law library and electronic filing system.
• Oversee, monitor and prepare responses to Public Records Act requests. • Oversee and/or prepare responses to subpoenas for City records, as well as coordinating witness testimony in civil and criminal cases.
• May perform administrative and/or fiscal-related duties including but not limited to preparing and processing check requests, invoices, spreadsheets, budget documents, attorney dues, seminar and conference registrations; gathering and verifying receipts; processing credit card statements; completing travel and meeting expense forms and make related travel and hotel arrangements.
• Perform investigation and coordination on issues regarding claims against the City. • Perform related duties as assigned.
10/28/2025 Item No.3.
15 Job Bulletin
On Thursday, July 31, 2025 at 10:30:28 AM PDT, Kare n Sanabria <[email protected]> wrote:
Hello,
Please find attached the Agenda for the upcoming Historic District Commission meeting on August 6, 202 5.
Thank you,
Karen Sanabria
Karen Sanabria
Community Development
City of Folsom
50 Natoma Street, Folsom, CA 95630
[email protected]
916-461-6203
www.folsom.ca.us
10/28/2025 Item No.3.
16
10/28/2025 Item No.3.
1 Josh Kinkade
From: Karen Sanabria
Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2025 8:29 AM
Subject: FW: CHALLENGE to "HDC" claim of CEQA Exemptions and total Disregard of CA Sunshine Laws, Brown Act
Hello Commissioners,
Please see below the comment letter for Item #2 on the HDC Agenda.
Thank you,
Karen Sanabria
From: Lj Laurent <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2025 4:50 PM
To: Justin Raithel <[email protected]>; Barbara Leary <[email protected]> Cc: Karen Sanabria <[email protected]>; Bryan Whitemyer <[email protected]>; City Clerk Dept <[email protected]>; Ken Cusano <[email protected]> Subject: CHALLENGE to "HDC" claim of CEQA Exemptions and total Disregard of CA Sunshine Laws, Brown Act
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
To: Justin Raithel, Barbara Leary
cc's, City Manager, City Clerk
bcc's
From: Laurie Laurent
August 27, 2025
Re: Issue & concerns, raised due to insufficient Compliance: fodder for my investigations
Context: Public Information indicates there is a CONTINUED meeting or HEARING on Revisions to Chap.
17.52. Specific Law Sections and existing VS proposed language DO NOT APPEAR ONLINE.
While it refers to "continued discussion" of Change to 17.52, there is NO PLACE where this appear online, nor did I, nor any neighbor, receive a Public Notice, which includes the Impacted Parcel Numbers, the Scope of proposed change, Precise Wording of existing vs proposed language.
Public Record: there is, online, mention of the Prior HDC "meeting", but WHERE are the RECORDS of meeting?
NOTICE OF CEQA EXEMPTION: QUESTION, without PUBLISHING and POSTING PUBLIC NOTICES, how do residents know IF this was discussed, Where are MINUTES? Who proposed exactly WHAT, and how can city operate what actually and effectively is an improper "second plan commission" -- without FULL and open Records and operations, and Public Notices, as well as Proof of Publication?
CHALLENGES for you to consider right now,
10/28/2025 Item No.3.
2 based upon the LAST/Past meeting minutes NOT being conveyed to us/me, as requested via "standing Request". Suddenly, everything is different, in the DARK.
Where is PROOF of PUBLICATION for past FIRST MEETING?
Where is PROOF of NOTICE to those on record as being listed as "concerned" party wishing all HDC Notices, Publications, Minutes, Records, and PROOF of PUBLICATION is actually the FIRST PAGE of the "petitioners" Application for Change to existing LAW?
PROOF MY FORMAL Request to be on Circulation List was legally ignored, removed, or otherwise NOT HONORED.
My work should be more memorable than just dropping me off the Notice List..... One would think most historic people know my advocacy for Proper Procedure, and Legal Compliance on ALL COUNTS of higher laws, as well as city law.
"Agendas, Packets, Minutes, and Webcasts can be found on the city's website. If you would like to be added to the agenda distribution list, please e-mail the Commission Clerk, Karen Sanabria."
ITEM in question, at 2nd meeting of totally UNKNOWN nature, discussion, and Results......
Staff appears to think the entire Legal Process is exempt from CEQA, Brown Act, and other Sunshine Laws.
Do you realize this indicates someone -- maybe staff --- or maybe not --- has had this UNKNOWN REVISION to LAW, brought before the highly suspect "Folsom's Second Plan Commission."
Does anyone even know a City Engineer should Sign, Seal, and summarize Findings, and Comment on the Impacts, with hard Engineering Data on Infrastructure, water, drainage, SSS pipes, traffic and much more. Don't even dare to suggest this has to do with "affordable housing" brand new & questionable exemptions -- because THIS area has Direct impacts on Federal Waters/land. Whoever composed and has given you their Signature on it, please share it under this -- MY PRA Request to know who is responsible for this. It appears this employee's ruling is highly faulty and NOT in compliance with even latest CEQA updates. Is that why the Language proving their case -- is totally missing???
Do you believe calling it "ministerial" qualifies for an alleged CEQA exemption 2025 -- which is Highly Restrictive in itself. WHAT ARE CHANGES? Who decided on exemptions??
2. Zoning Code Update – Revisions to Chapter 17.52: Historic District and Determination that the Project is Exempt from CEQA A request from the City of Folsom Community Development Department to amend Chapter 17.52: Historic District of the Folsom Municipal Code relating to design review, sign permit review, demolition review, and the review of accessory buildings.
Staff requests that the Historic District Commission make a recommendation to the City Council on the proposed changes to Chapter 17.52. Staff has determined that the proposed revisions are exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) “Review for Exemption” of the CEQA Guidelines. (Project Planner: Josh Kinkade / Applicant: City of Folsom Community Development Department)
ONLINE INTERPRETATION after SCAN of all city Records is this:
10/28/2025 Item No.3.
3 Regarding the revisions to Chapter 17.52: Historic District, and the determination that the project is exempt from CEQA, continued from the August 6, 2025, meeting, here is an analysis based on California's zoning and environmental regulations.
CEQA exemption for historic district zoning changes
The project involves revising a zoning code, a legislative action, and has been deemed exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This is likely based on one or more of the following exemptions:
Ministerial projects: The CEQA statute exempts ministerial projects, where the public official does not exercise discretion in carrying out or approving the project. A change to the zoning code, however, is a legislative action and is generally not considered ministerial.
Common sense exemption: The "common sense" exemption applies when it can be seen with certainty that an activity will not have a significant effect on the environment. This is a plausible path for a zoning code revision, particularly if the changes are seen as minor or corrective.
Statutory exemptions: New state legislation has created additional exemptions related to zoning and housing. For example, recent laws allow for rezoning actions to be exempt from CEQA if they implement actions in an adopted housing element. If the historic district zoning revisions align with the city's housing element, this could be the applicable exemption.
Folsom Municipal Code, Chapter 17.52
The revisions relate to Chapter 17.52 of the Folsom Municipal Code, which governs the city's Historic District. The existing chapter defines the district's boundaries and sets standards for property development within its subareas, with the intent of preserving the city's historic "small-town atmosphere". Any revisions would likely be intended to update or clarify these standards while maintaining the historic character of the area.
Potential issues with the CEQA exemption
The decision to exempt the revisions from CEQA could be legally challenged, particularly if opponents argue that the changes could have a significant environmental effect. Grounds for challenge include:
Substantial adverse change to a historic resource: A categorical CEQA exemption cannot be used for a project that may cause a substantial adverse
10/28/2025 Item No.3.
4 change to a historical resource, such as a building or district. This is a key exception to the common CEQA exemptions.
Cumulative impacts: Opponents could also argue that the changes, when viewed in combination with other past or future projects in the historic district, could have a significant cumulative impact.
Unusual circumstances: If there are "unusual circumstances" that create the reasonable possibility of significant environmental effects, the exemption may not be valid.
Summary
The Historic District zoning revisions have been deemed exempt from CEQA, but the legality of this determination could be challenged.
Topic Analysis
Zoning Code
Update
The proposed revisions to Folsom Municipal Code Chapter 17.52, concerning the Historic District, will need to be approved and enacted by the Folsom City Council after a public hearing and deliberation.
Historic
District
The revisions are intended to refine the regulations for Folsom's Historic District, likely to resolve conflicts or inconsistencies while still preserving the district's character.
CEQA
Exemption
The determination that the project is exempt from CEQA may be based on a common sense exemption, or a statutory exemption related to housing and zoning.
Potential
Challenge
The CEQA exemption could be legally challenged, particularly if opponents can demonstrate that the zoning changes may result in a substantial adverse change to historic resources within the district.
The continued discussion from the August 6, 2025, meeting suggests that there may have been unresolved issues or public comments related to the revisions and the CEQA determination. Additional information would be needed to provide a more specific analysis of the particular issues at hand.
If only city still sent me the requested HDC minutes, agenda, related Proofs.......
Not a good "look" staff. Why isn't City Engineer mandated by council to REVIEW every single such alteration to law, and its Significance -- especially since the "HD section" of Folsom CA FMC is highly Suspect on the face of it. CA does not permit two "plan commissions"
10/28/2025 Item No.3.
5 except under extremely limited legal definitions and Circumstance. If Folsom intends to argue land draining directly into American River can have "different" Legal Standards, they need to be MORE RESTRICTIVE -- and not a "backdoor" for avoiding laws.
Remember EVERY alleged "city street" serving 19th century cow paths and lanes, is SUBSTANDARD.
Try finding Fire Insurance for those conditions. Or avoiding total Liability for ignoring this ancient, tinder dry area.
Consider again the Liability and utter Folly of one man getting a Light Rail Road Right of Way -- where clearly SAC RT trains constitute an OBSTACLE for Fire Fighting and other Emergency Responses.
Everything about the warrenlike mess in that old area, is NOT up to Standards.
VIDEOS -- nothing corrected. Liability exposure is huge.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDiJgYLyeco
TREE ORDINANCE Violations never punished. Law never enforced. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9g_g_sPYJZU
For your Attention immediately: the invasive ivy is choking the remaining section of a heritage Oak. City did NOT Fine him for illegal Mature ancient Oak removal.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIMGJnTGFMk a real mess in HD area -- with killer, no-exit potential.
Retaliation for activism in LNS Subdivision https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxnGqdlst4o Of course he's still a problem. He has FPD officer abutting his ancient, noise-ordinance violating equipment. How can babies sleep with such awful Ignored violations?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5dAkvqI4Pw city bought $3 million articulated engine just because SUTTER ST. is so dangerous and tinder-dry.
10/28/2025 Item No.3.
October 14, 2025
City of Folsom City Council
50 Natoma Street
Folsom, CA 95630
via email to: [email protected] for distribution to City Council
SUBJECT: Comments to City Council re: October 14, 2025, Agenda Item No. 6 – Ord. No. 1353 Amending FMC Chapter 17.52
Dear City Councilmembers:
This letter is 1) to express my opposition to the proposed amendments to Folsom Municipal Code (“FMC”) Chapter 17.52 as presented in and attached to the staff report for Agenda Item No. 6 of your October 14, 2025, meeting materials (“10/14/25 Staff Report”), 2) to urge the Council to implement full cost recovery for application reviews, 3) to oppose the City’s use of staff’s recommended exemption from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), and, 4) notwithstanding the preceding, to provide specific suggestions for the Council’s consideration should the Council entertain revisions to FMC 17.52 similar to those proposed by staff.
I reside in Folsom’s Historic District and own property in the Historic District that is subject to provisions of FMC Chapter 17.52. While residents and property owners in the Historic District are subject to certain restrictions and limitations pursuant to FMC 17.52, we – along with Folsom residents outside the Historic District and the public in general – also benefit from provisions of FMC 17.52 that seek to preserve and promote the historical character and quality within both commercial and residential areas of the Historic District.
My comments here are provided with the intent to assist the City Council in rational decision making with regard to regulating and protecting the historical character of the Historic District in a manner that is both effective and efficient.
With staff’s proposed revisions, FMC Chapter 17.52 would become substantially more complex and subject to even more varied interpretation than the existing chapter. I suggest that one of the worst mistakes regulators can make when they want to modify regulations is failing to take a wholistic approach to ensure that the modified regulations do not result in increased complexity and unknown and/or unintended consequences. Without first looking at FMC Chapter 17.52 in its entirety and without considering the implications and relationship with other FMC provisions outside of Chapter 17.52, the proposed piecemeal revisions before you now should be rejected.
1. Historic District Commission Role
On August 5, 2025, I emailed the Council requesting the Council reconsider the role of the Historic District Commission (“HDC”). That email is included as Attachment 1 of this letter and I encourage the Council to consider and act on the recommendations therein as a priority over the currently proposed FMC 17.52 modifications. If a true goal of the Community Development Department’s efforts to modify FMC 17.52 is to reduce City costs, then I suggest that eliminating or modifying the role of the HDC would have substantial cost reductions without any necessary detriment to the quality of the Historic District.
10/28/2025 Item No.3.
October 14, 2025
Additionally, the Council should recognize that any revisions to FMC 17.52 that modify or expand the purported final authority of the HDC1 would exacerbate the existing FMC 17.52 conflict with City Charter section 4.07.
2. Full Cost Recovery of 2011 Resolution 8801
I continue to urge the City Council to direct the City Manager and Community Development Director to implement a full cost recovery program for processing development applications consistent with the process described in the March 2, 2011, staff report and adopted by the Folsom City Council in 2011 through Resolution 8801 (see Attachment 2 of this letter).
Through such a process, applicants within the Historic District would pay the actual cost for processing their individual applications – neither subsidizing nor being subsidized by other applicants and without being subsidized by the City’s General Fund. In 2011, the Community Development Department and City Council assessed and wisely decided that a full cost recovery system for planning fees “would protect [] General Fund monies from subsidizing private development applications.” Yet, the system requested by the Community Development Director and approved by the Council in 2011 still has not been implemented. Instead, the City has adopted fees purportedly based on average costs of processing certain types of applications. This system is inherently unfair due to variabilities in specific types of development and reviews, is obviously insufficient in fully recovering the costs of City project application reviews, and continues to subsidize private development applications which was the sound rationale that led to the Council’s adoption of Resolution 8801 in 2011 but which has never been implemented.
3. The California Environmental Quality Act
Adoption of modifications to FMC 17.52 is a discretionary action constituting a “project” and does not qualify for an exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”).
The 10/14/25 Staff Report (at pg. 10) asserts that “the proposed code amendment is process related and administrative in nature and therefore will not have a significant effect on the environment” and that the proposed code amendment is therefore exempt from CEQA under CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3).
CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) states that a project is exempt from CEQA if, The activity is covered by the common sense exemption that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA.
The proposed revisions to FMC 17.52 would effectively eliminate important existing design review provisions established to protect the historical character of the Historic District. Among the proposed revisions is a list of “minor modifications” that would be exempt from design review (see proposed new section 17.52.300(C)(1)). The exempt features would include, among other things,
d. patio covers, gazebos, pergolas and trellises under 200 square feet in size and located outside of the front, side, and street side yards,
1 E.g., proposed revisions to 17.52.360 and 17.52.370 addition of “as well as the expiration and extension of such permits” to the HDC’s final authority; acting as the appeal hearing body for proposed new design review authority of the Community Development Director.
10/28/2025 Item No.3.
October 14, 2025
e. privacy walls and fencing, excluding chain link, which is not allowed, f. aboveground spas and hot tubs located outside of he [sic] front and street side yards,
g. solar panels,
h. outdoor cooking facilities located outside of the front and street side yards.
An express design review exemption of these features would not only eliminate any City review or public comment opportunity, but also would eliminate any obligation for individuals undertaking such property modifications to design such features in a manner consistent with the express purposes of FMC 17.52 that would otherwise be required without the proposed design review exemption. Express purposes of FMC 17.52 include, “[t]o ensure that new residential and commercial development is consistent with the historical character of the historic district as it developed between the years 1850 and 1950.” (FMC 17.52.110(B)(5).) Exempting, for example, “privacy walls and fencing” from any design review requirements, would be reasonably expected to be detrimental to the historical character of the Historic District. Even attractively designed privacy walls or fencing could be substantially inconsistent with, and diminish the historical character of, the Historic District. The development of unregulated out-of-character walls and fences would have the potential to result – in individual instances and cumulatively over time - a significant adverse impact on the historical character of the Historic District.
Contrary to staff’s recommended CEQA Guidelines 15061(b)(3) exemption, common sense does not lead to the conclusion that eliminating design review and design requirements for such features would have no possibility of having a significant effect on the environment. Yet, no possibility is required if the CEQA Guidelines 15061(B)(3) exemption is to apply. Here, it does not.
In fact, common sense leads to the opposite conclusion – exempting certain types of projects from any design review process and from any design requirements can be reasonably anticipated to result in significant impacts on the historical character of the Historic District where historical character of the locally important Historic District resource is a significant impact on the environment. Additionally, development of certain features that would be exempt from design review under the proposed exemptions within the viewshed of designated historic resources could result in significant adverse effects to those historic resources/properties.2 The CEQA Guidelines 15061(B)(3) exemption can be applied only, “[w]here it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.” Whether a particular activity qualifies for the common sense exemption presents an issue of fact and the agency invoking the exemption has the burden of demonstrating the exemption applies.3 Thus, the obligation is on the City to provide substantial evidence for how the proposed FMC 17.52 amendments – in particular, the list of proposed design review exemptions – would not have no possibility of a significant impact.
2 e.g., sites/properties listed on the City of Folsom Cultural Resources Inventory (see Attachment 3 of this letter), properties on the National Register of Historic Places such as the Cohn House at 305 Scott Street in the Historic District.
3 See Muzzy Ranch Co. v. Solano County Airport Land Use Com. (2007) 41 Cal.4th 372 citing Davidon Homes v.
City of San Jose 54 Cal.App.4th 106 at p. 114, et al.
10/28/2025 Item No.3.
October 14, 2025
Staff’s assertion that “the proposed code amendment is process related and administrative in nature and therefore will not have a significant effect on the environment” fails to consider the implications of exempting certain projects from design review and the City has provided no other analysis or evidence for how the proposed revisions would have no possibility of a significant environmental impact.
The Staff Report states that, “[o]utside of the very small projects proposed to be exempt from Design Review, all projects will continue to be subject to the same level of analysis against the same documents, standards, and guidelines as they currently are.” Yet, although some of the proposed FMC 17.52 design review exemptions include maximum sizes to qualify for the exemptions, many do not. The Staff Report seemingly acknowledges that certain size projects should not be exempt, yet, provides no basis for the recommended sizes or how or why those sizes might be acceptably exempt whereas larger projects of a similar type would not.
Additionally, certain categories of projects that would be exempt from design review are proposed with no size or design criteria at all (e.g., privacy walls and fencing4, solar panels, outdoor cooking facilities). Such carte blanche exemptions are in stark contrast to the FMC 17.52 purposes of maintaining historic quality of the Historic District, should not be adopted, and do not qualify for a CEQA exemption.
4. Specific Recommendations
Notwithstanding the comments above, should the Council proceed with amending FMC 17.52 in some manner similar to the current proposal, I offer the following recommendations. a. Section 17.52.020 re: Historic District Commission Composition FMC Section 17.52.020 is not addressed in the recommended revisions and is the 17.52 section that establishes composition of the HDC. In the absence of eliminating the HDC altogether, please consider revisions to this section to provide that each City councilmember appoints one HDC commissioner and to provide for the Council to appoint two additional members both of whom are on the Planning Commission. The existing methodology and categories (e.g., business owners, residents, etc. appointed by the Mayor) are unnecessary and preclude each councilmember from having an appointee.
My proposed changes would result in a methodology for establishing the HDC more inline with the methodology used for establishing the Planning Commission. b. References to “planning, inspections, and permitting director” In two instances, the proposed revisions change “planning, inspections, and permitting director” to “community development director.” Those changes make sense, but there are at least nine other references in 17.52 to “planning, inspections, and permitting
4 With the single exception that staff – apparently subsequent to HDC consideration and direction - now proposes to prohibit chain link fencing in the Historic District by including in proposed new section 17.52.300(C)(1)(e) the phrase “excluding chain link, which is not allowed.” The Staff Report explains, “Since [the HDC September 3, 2025] meeting, staff has also heard additional feedback to add in a provision that chain link fences not be allowed in the Historic District. Staff supports this request and found that it is consistent with the language of the existing Design and Development Guidelines. A such, staff added a reference to the code update to prohibit chain link fences.” The Staff Report offers no explanation for how this prohibition would affect existing chain link fencing within the Historic District, including that which provides a supporting base for ivy or other vegetation any may not even be readily visible (e.g., 614 Mormon Street). Although I agree that there may be many instances in which chain link fencing (as well as other types of fencing) – due to height, length, location, and other factors – should not be permitted in the Historic District, I object to the blanket prohibition on chain link fencing tucked into the new exemptions section of the proposed FMC 17.52 revisions.
10/28/2025 Item No.3.
October 14, 2025
director” that for consistency should also be revised.5 Additionally, throughout chapter 17.52, references to the "planning, inspections, and permitting department" should be changed to “community development department”.
Additionally, the proposed language in section 17.52.130 states, “The community development director, previously referred to as the planning, inspections and permitting director,…” Without changing all instances of “planning, inspections, and permitting director” to “community development director” the proposed language is inconsistent since “previously referred to” is inaccurate as in many cases the director is still referred to as the planning, inspections, and permitting director.” Please be comprehensive and update all occurrences.
c. 17.52.320 re: Notice and Posting for Design Review
Improved provisions for public noticing for City reviews and approvals in the Historic District are needed, and the proposed revisions are insufficient in particular with regard to director-level review/approvals for which a consistent process of public noticing and input opportunities are critical to ensuring opportunity for public involvement in the decision-making process. Additionally, any staff-level decisions should be supported by sufficient documentation of staff’s analysis and that documentation should be made available for public review and input before any staff-level decision is made. The proposed revisions do not accomplish this and community director assurances of a process that is not expressly established in the FMC are insufficient. d. 17.52.540 re: Historic residential primary area special use and design standards Section 17.52.540 is not addressed in staff's recommendations, but has provisions pertaining to garage setbacks that I urge the Council to reconsider and modify. FMC
17.52.540(F) specifies that "...Garages shall be set back a minimum of 20 feet from the public right-of-way." Alleys are public rights-of-way; however, staff, the HDC, and City Attorney have previously and incorrectly interpreted this code section to not apply to garages accessed from alleyways and instead have applied a 5-ft setback for alley- accessed garages.
Alleys in the Historic District are becoming increasingly used as primary access for dwellings, including ADUs. Parallel parking on an alley-fronting driveway pad can provide an important addition to parking options for a property owner, but a 5-ft setback does not sufficiently provide for that. Additionally, as more and more garages and ADUs are developed along and with alley access, alleys are becoming increasingly congested and garbage collection and emergency vehicle access, as well as resident vehicle access, is becoming increasingly constrained.
If FMC 17.52.540(F) remains unaltered, the City should interpret its unambiguous language as requiring garages to be set back a minimum of 20 feet from all public rights- of-way, including alleys. However, I think it would be appropriate and recommend that FMC 17.52.540(F) consider amending FMC 17.52.540(F) to require a minimum 10-foot setback between garages and edge of alley. To accomplish this, I suggest that FMC
17.52.540(F) be revised to state something like, "...with the exception of alleys for which
5 See 17.52.130, 17.52.510(E)(6), 17.52.550, 17.52.670 [3 instances], 17.52.690, 17.52.700(A), and 17.52.700(B).
10/28/2025 Item No.3.
October 14, 2025
a minimum of 10 feet from the property line along the alley right-of-way shall be provided."
e. 17.52.660(A) - re: Exemptions for Post-1950 Demos.
Instead of flat-out "exempting" structures less than 50 years in age, such demolitions should still be required to obtain demolition approval but the code could include a statement that such approval shall not be withheld if substantial evidence is provided demonstrating 1) the structure was built less than 50 years from when the demolition permit is submitted and 2) that the structure does not otherwise have historical significance.
f. 17.52.660(B)(1)(b) re: Fees for Demo Approvals
Although I strongly support full cost recovery of application processing in most instances, I suggest that the Council consider eliminating fees associated with demolition review in the Historic District to minimize potential incentives for a property owner to avoid obtaining approvals for building demolitions.
g. 17.52.700 re: Appeals
Although not addressed in staff's recommendations, FMC 17.52.700 should be revised to be consistent with the appeal processes established in 17.06.110 for appeals outside of the Historic District, to provide that any person dissatisfied with any action of the director of the community development department or HDC can appeal directly to the City Council. An avenue for all residents of the City to their elected officials on the City Council should be provided, and the existing FMC 17.52.700 requirements for appellants could be read (and has been read by at least one sitting council member based on his June 13, 2023, vote to deny my standing to appeal an HDC demolition approval) to severely restrict rights to appeal. City representatives have argued that the HDC functions much like the Planning Commission, but the differing appeal provisions are one of several stark contrasts.
CONCLUSION
Thank you for considering my comments.
Sincerely,
Bob Delp
Historic District - Folsom, CA 95630 - [email protected] - 916-812-8122 Attachments:
Attachment 1. August 5, 2025, Bob Delp email to City Council Subject: Request for Reconsideration of the HDC's Role
Attachment 2. March 2, 2011, Staff Report and Resolution No. 8801 Directing Staff to Implement a Program for Full Cost Planning Service Fees Attachment 3. September 2, 2025, Desmond Parrington email to Glenn Fait including Cultural Resources Inventory
10/28/2025 Item No.3.
October 14, 2025
Attachment 1
August 5, 2025, Bob Delp email to City Council
Subject: Request for Reconsideration of the HDC's Role
10/28/2025 Item No.3.
From: Bob Delp <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 5, 2025 11:47 AM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>; Sarah Aquino <[email protected]>; Mike Kozlowski <[email protected]>; Justin Raithel <[email protected]>; Barbara Leary <[email protected]>; Anna Rohrbough <[email protected]>; Pam Johns <[email protected]>; Desmond Parrington <[email protected]>
Subject: Request for Reconsideration of the HDC's Role
Tomorrow night, the Historic District Commission (HDC) is scheduled to consider staff-proposed revisions to FMC chapter 17.52. This message is to urge the City Manager and Community Development Director to postpone this discussion and for the City Manager, Community Development Director, and City Council to first reassess the role and need for the HDC.
Revisions could then be made to chapter 17.52 reflecting Council direction on a potential change in the role, or elimination, of the HDC. I recall at least one current council member previously questioning the bifurcated roles of the HDC and Planning Commission, and I urge the City leadership that the time is right to reassess the functions of these two commissions.
Folsom’s Historic District is a truly important and unique part of the City that warrants special land use planning provisions and protection. Many FMC chapter 17.52 provisions reflect important processes and considerations for design review and land use in the Historic District, and I am not arguing that these provisions be eliminated. However, the HDC is not fundamental to oversight of land use within the Historic District and adds costs, complexity, and inefficiencies to the City’s land use administration.
The Community Development Department (CDD) and an informed Planning Commission could efficiently and effectively exercise appropriate design review and other land use authority within the Historic District functioning in much the same way they do for the rest of the City. The Planning Commission already meets regularly and has – or should/could have – a comprehensive understanding of planning matters throughout the City, including the Historic District. The currently bifurcated planning oversight provided by the Planning Commission for matters outside the Historic District and by the HDC for matters within the Historic District is inefficient and adds unnecessary complexity in planning processes and public participation. (For example, in recent years both the River District Master Plan process and the Home Occupation Ordinance amendment process required involvement of the Planning Commission and the HDC.)
Unlike the HDC, the Planning Commission is expressly established by the City Charter and is not restricted to being advisory only to the Council. The Planning Commission is the appropriate body to have oversight, review, and final approval authority (appealable to the City Council) for planning matters throughout the City, including the Historic District. Moreover, the Planning Commission is comprised of seven members, five of whom are each designated by an individual City Council member providing balanced representation of the City’s elected officials.
This contrasts with the unbalanced representation on the HDC whose composition is determined by the Mayor with confirmation needed by only two other councilmembers.
Elimination of the HDC would require some upfront effort with modifications to FMC chapter
17.52, but would offer long-term efficiencies and other benefits to the City while still affording protection of the Historic District as a treasured City feature.
Thank you for considering my input.
Bob Delp
916-812-8122 / [email protected]
10/28/2025 Item No.3.
October 14, 2025
Attachment 2
March 2, 2011, Staff Report and Resolution No. 8801 Directing Staff to Implement a Program for Full Cost Planning Service Fees
10/28/2025 Item No.3.
PUBLIC HEARING
Agenda Item No.: 8a
CC Mtg.: 03/08/2011
DATE: March 2, 2011
TO: Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: David E. Miller, AICP, Community Development Director SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 8801 - A RESOLUTION MODIFYING RESOLUTION NO. 8301 TO CONVERT NOTED PLANNING FEES TO DEPOSITS AND
DIRECTING STAFF TO IMPLEMENT A PROGRAM FOR FULL COST
PLANNING SERVICE FEES
BACKGROUND /ISSUE
The Planning Department Service Fees were last updated in October 2008 . The fees generally reflect the average cost to provide development application processing services. However, the range of complexity in development applications can vary widely and some projects can remain "active" or "in process " for years because projects are substantially revised and resubmitted (sometimes with years passing in between) in an attempt by applicants to obtain City approval.
Staff sometimes must effectively begin processing all over with each resubmittal but is unable to request new project fees because the project is still technically active. It is these types of projects that staff seeks to target to ensure that staff costs are fully recovered . As the Council is well aware, in our current fiscal climate the General Fund is unable to cover any unnecessary development service related costs.
Another major issue associated with development application fees is the continuing reduction in General Fund revenues . Over the past three years, the City' s General Fund expenses have exceeded the General Fund revenue by approximately $ 13 million . The City's General Fund cannot subsidize development applications . Given significant increases in productivity and expediting development permits, the expense to process development permits has dropped in many cases . Nevertheless , the General Fund continues to significantly subsidize development permit activity.
Therefore, staff is proposing to implement a program where staff would track time spent on each planning application and begin charging applicants monthly if and when the application fees were exceeded. In addition, a fee would be implemented to cover planning staff time to review building permits. In this manner, the City would protect its General Fund monies from subsidizing private development applications.
POLICY / RULE
Folsom Municipal Code Section 3.50.020 directs the City Manager to recommend to the Council the adjustment of fees and charges to recover the percentage of costs reasonably borne in providing the regulation, products or services enumerated in Chapter 3.50. 1 000001
10/28/2025 Item No.3.
Folsom Municipal Code Section 3.50.030 provides direction on calculating "costs reasonably borne" to include the following elements: direct costs (wages, overtime, benefits, overhead, etc), indirect costs (building maintenance, computers, printing, etc.), fixed assets, general overhead, department overhead, and any debt service costs.
Folsom Municipal Code Section 3.50.040 requires fee adjustments be approved by the City Council. It also specifies the percentage of City service costs to be recovered through fees. The majority of Planning Service Fees are directed to be 100% cost recoverable through its fee structure. Building Permit fees are also directed to be 100% cost recovered.
ANALYSIS
Staff recommends that the City Council direct staff to implement a full cost recovery program modeled after one that's been used by the City of Roseville Planning and Redevelopment Department since 2003. The following is the proposed program outline:
Base Cost
The base cost for processing a full cost application represents the minimum amount of staff time invested by City staff. This base cost is determined by an analysis of actual costs and is non-refundable. Staff recommends that Folsom's existing fee structure adopted October 1, 2008 be used as this base cost so that no new costly analysis process is required.
Project Initiation
Concurrent with the start-up of a project, the applicant enters into an agreement for full cost billing. Per this agreement, the applicant would pay the base costs associated with the individual entitlements associated with the project.
Full Cost Billing
Following project initiation and payment of the base cost fee, staff will record time spent working on the project against the base cost. If staff time exceeds that covered under the base cost, the applicant shall be billed an hourly rate thereafter on a monthly basis.
The hourly billing rate charged to projects would be a factor of the staff salary to cover costs as enumerated in Folsom Municipal Code Section 3.50.030, including: direct costs (wages, overtime, benefits, overhead, etc), indirect costs (building maintenance, computers, printing, etc.), fixed assets, general overhead, department overhead, and any debt service costs. The Finance Department has completed a full analysis of overhead charges and has submitted rates for all Community Development staff.
These charges are based on the current staff costs per adopted City labor contracts, plus a factor for direct and indirect costs. Included in the monthly billing would be any costs incurred by other departments such as the City Attorney's Office, Public Works, Utilities, Housing and Redevelopment, Parks and Recreation, etc.
000002 2
10/28/2025 Item No.3.
Consultants
As may be required for project evaluation or environmental review, all consultant work shall be paid for by the project applicant and would be included in the payment agreement. The City would charge an administrative cost equal to 10% of the contract amount, which is a typical markup rate industry wide.
Non-Residential Plan Check Fee
Planning staff must review every building permit for compliance with conditions of any project approval (such as a Design Review or Planned Development Permit ) to ensure all the Planning Commission and City Council conditions have been complied with. In addition , permits must be reviewed for compliance with the Zoning Code and any other applicable ordinance . Staff recommends that an additional planning review fee equal to 15% of the permit fee (same as City of Roseville fee ) be charged to cover planning staff review time for non-residential projects because currently this cost is not being covered and is a drain on the General Fund.
Residential Landscape Review Fee
Due to recent state legislation (AB 1881) all landscape plans are required to be reviewed for water conservation standards. While commercial landscape plan review is covered by the existing fee structure, residential landscaping plans are not. Staff proposes to require a residential fee for each residential landscape plan review and inspection based on the hourly rate of the City Arborist.
As shown in the table below, the proposed fee deposits for typical entitlements are similar to other jurisdictions in the region.
Entitlement Folsom Roseville Sacramento Elk Grove Rancho Cordova
General Plan $3,651- $4,934- $20,000 $12,371 $15,000
Amendment $7,300 $13,074
Rezone $2,502- $5,154- $8,000- $10,176 $15,000$4,997 $13,338 $20,000 Specific Plan $5 892 $5,139- $10,000 $3,443 $5,000
Amendment , $13,075
Tentative Parcel $4,754 $1,698 $500 per lot $4,854 $10,000 Ma p
Tentative $5,721+$30 $3,338- $500 per lot $7,533 $10,000- Subdivision Map per lot $4,832 $20,000
Planned
Development $7,640+$38 $4,627 $6,200 $5,281 $10,000
Permit 2 per acre
Conditional Use $4 954 $4 085 $4,000- $5,223 $10,000
Permit , , $9,000
Variance $1,405 $2,430 $3,000 $3,228 $10,000
3 000003
10/28/2025 Item No.3.
Staff recommends the Planning Service Fees convert to this deposit/cost recovery system in accordance with those services specifically identified in Section 3.50.040 to be full cost recovery. Exceptions to full cost recovery identified in this section include appeals (identified costs to be 10% recovered) and tree removal permits/special events permits (by omission from the schedule of Development Services to recover costs reasonably borne).
FINANCIAL IMPACT
The cost recovery program would allow the City to more accurately cover the actual costs for development permits from the applicants. Although the actual savings to the General Fund are cannot be quantified, this fee recovery program will result in a positive impact to the General Fund and provide direct costs charges to contribute to the General Fund to more accurately fund development processing costs.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This Resolution is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act under Public Resources Code §21080, sub. (b)(8) and CEQA Guidelines § 15273, establishment, modification, structuring or approval of rates, tolls fares, or other charges by public agencies which the public agency finds are for the purpose of meeting operating expenses. The modification of permit fees has not potential environmental impact upon the environment so does not constitute a project under CEQA.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution No. 8801 - A Resolution Modifying Resolution No. 8301 to Convert Noted Planning Fees to Deposits and Directing Staff to Implement a Program for Full Cost Planning Service Fees
2. City of Roseville Planning Fee Schedule - Effective July 1, 2010 (which includes procedures for Full Cost Fees)
3. City of Roseville Planning Department Sample Agreement for Full Cost Billing.
RECOMMENDATION /CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 8801 - A Resolution Modifying Resolution No. 8301 to Convert Noted Planning Fees to Deposits and Directing Staff to Implement a Program for Full Cost Planning Fees.
Submitted,
David E. Miller, AICP
Community Development Director
000004 4
10/28/2025 Item No.3.
Attachment #I
City Council Resolution
000005
10/28/2025 Item No.3.
RESOLUTION NO. 8801
A RESOLUTION MODIFYING RESOLUTION NO. 8301 AS SHOWN IN THE
ATTACHED FEE SCHEDULE AND DIRECTING STAFF TO IMPLEMENT A
PROGRAM FOR FULL COST PLANNING SERVICE FEES
WHEREAS, Folsom Municipal Code Section 3.50.020 directs the City Manager to recommend to the Council the adjustment of fees and charges to recover the percentage of costs reasonably borne in providing the regulation, products or services as enumerated in Chapter
3.50; and
WHEREAS, Folsom Municipal Code Section 3.50.030 provides direction on calculating costs reasonably borne to include the following elements: direct costs (wages, overtime, benefits, overhead, etc.), indirect costs (building maintenance, computers, printing, etc.), fixed assets, general overhead, department overhead, and any debt service costs; and WHEREAS , Folsom Municipal Code Section 3.50.040 requires fee adjustments be approved by the City Council; and
WHEREAS, Folsom Municipal Code Section 3.50.040 also directs that the majority of Planning Service Fees and Building Permit Fees shall be 100% cost recoverable through its fee structure; and
WHEREAS, the range of complexity in Planning Department development applications can vary widely; and
WHEREAS, in our current fiscal climate the General Fund is unable to cover any unnecessary development service related costs; and
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Folsom that Resolution No. 8301 be modified as shown in the attached fee schedule, effective 60 days from the date of adoption of this Resolution on May 8, 2011 and directs City staff to implement a program for full cost planning service fees as attached and described in the staff report.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 8th day of March 2011, by the following roll-call vote:
AYES: Council Member(s):
NOES : Council Member(s):
ABSENT: Council Member(s):
ABSTAIN: Council Member(s):
Andrew J. Morin, MAYOR
ATTEST:
Christa Freemantle, CITY CLERK
Resolution No. 8801
000006
10/28/2025 Item No.3.
# Department Service Base Fee
(Non-Refundable Deposit)
Plannin g
PE-1 Preliminary Project Review (deposit) $ 545
PE-2 Tentative Parcel Map Review (Deposit) $ 4,754
PE-3 Tentative Subdivision Map Review (deposit) $5,751 + $30/Lot PE-4 Tentative Map Amendment Review (deposit) $ 7,923
PE 5 Final Map Amend/Cert of Correction $ 2,599
PE 6 Tentative Map Extension Review (deposit) $ 3,404
PE-7 Site Design Review - Planning Comm. (deposit) $ 3,992 PE-8 Planned Development review (deposit) $7,640 + $382/acre PE-9 Planned Development Mod. Review (deposit) $ 7,628
PE-10 Planned Development Ext. Review (deposit) $ 2,678 PE-11 Specific Plan Review (deposit) $ 5,356
PE-12 Specific Plan Amend. Review (deposit) $ 5,892
PE-13 Initial Environmental Study/Assmnt (deposit) $ 5,423 PE-15 Environmental Impact Review & Report* $ 7,285
PE-16 Notice of CEQA determination $ 252
PE-18 Envtl Mitigation Prog. Monitoring* $ 5,369
PE-20 Historic Dist SFD Design Rvw (deposit) $ 54
PE-21 H.D. Mult Fam/Comm Design Rvw (deposit) $ 1,841
PE-22 Arch Review - SFD (deposit) $ 54
PE-23 Arch Review - Mult-Fam/Comm. (deposit) $ 1,841
PE-24 Historic Dist Sign Review (deposit) $ 54
PE-25 Sign Permit - Staff $ 107
PE-26 PD Permit Sign Only (deposit) $ 1,071
PE-27 Zoning Verification Review (deposit) $ 258
PE-28 Rezoning Request Review- < 5 acres (deposit) $ 2,502 PE-29 Rezoning Request Review- 5+ acres (deposit) $ 4,997 PE-20 Lot Line Adj./Parcel Merger (planning) (deposit) $ 844 PE-31 Annexation Processing (deposit)* $ 4,280
PE-32 Variance Review- SFD (deposit) $ 1,405
PE-33 Variance Review- Other (deposit) $ 1,405
PE-35 Appeal - Admin $ 214
PE-36 Appeal - by other (deposit) $ 429
PE-37 Code Amendment (deposit)* $ 1,912
PE-38 General Plan Amendment <5 acres (deposit) $ 3,651 PE-39 General Plan Amendment >5 acres (deposit) $ 7,300 PE-40 Temporary Use Permit Review $ 54
PE-41 Conditional Use Permit Review (deposit) $ 4,954
PE-43 Street Name Review/Change (deposit) $ 1,071
PE-44 Devl. Agreement Processing (deposit)* $ 4,607
PE-45 Non-residential Plan Check Fee 15% of building e it fee PE-46 Residential Landscape Review Fee Hourly rate of City Arborist Resolution No. 8801
000007
10/28/2025 Item No.3.
Attachment #2
City of Roseville Planning Fee Schedule
Effective July 1,2010
10/28/2025 Item No.3.
Appendix A
WbIl
ROSEYILLE
Fee Estimate Work Sheet
PLANNING and REDEVELOPMENT
311 VERNON STREET * ROSEVILLE, CA 95678
Planning Fee Schedule - Effective July 1, 2010
Adopted by Resolution No. 96-239 - Amended by Resolution No. 97-287 - Amended by Resolution No. 99-507 - Amended by Resolution No. 02-02 - Amended by Resolution No. 02-224 Amended by Resolution No. 04-485 - Amended by Resolution No. 05-176, Amended by resolution 09-124 ENTITLEMENT (APPLICATION TYPE): FEE Full Cost
Base Cost ENTITLEMENT (APPLICATION TYPE): FEE Full Cost Base Cost
APPEALS SIGNS
1. Planning Director's Decision $454 1. Standard Sign Permit $117
2. PC/DC Decision to City Council $425 2. Planned Sign Permit Program $512 ANNEXATIONS 3. Sign Permit/Program - Public Hearing Req. $1,010
1. Annex/PZ/Detach/SOI/(FULL COST/Deposit)' $11,786 4. Administrative Permit for Sign Exception2 $717 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS 5. PSP Minor Modification3 $58
1. Adoption of Specific Plan (FULL COST/Deposit)' $6,837 SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
2. Amendment of SPA (FULL COST/Deposit)' $6,837 1. SPA Adoption, Map/Text (FULL COST/Deposit)' $11,786
3. Associated with Affordable Housing $1,244 2. SPA 10 Acres or LESS, Map or Text $5,139
4. Associated with Single Topic Item $2,474 3. SPA 11+ Acres, Map/Text (FULL COST/Deposit)' $13,075 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW 4. SPA Text/Policy Deposit (FULL COST/Deposit)' $13,075
1. Exemption WITHOUT Initial Study $176 SUBDIVISIONS /CONDOMINIUMS''
2. Exemption WITH Initial Study $425 1. Grading Plan / Minor $1,201
3. Negative Declaration with NO Mitigation $630 2. Grading Plan / Major $2,489
4. Tiered Negative Declaration WITH Mitigation $1,288 3. Lot Line Adjustment $1,201
5. EIR Deposit (FULL COST/Deposit)' $11,786 4. Extension to a Tentative Map $1,201 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 5. Voluntary Merger $1,201
1. Entilement Fee - GPA 10 Acres of LESS, Map/Text $4,934 6. Reversion to Acreage $1,698
2. GPA 11+ Acres, Map/Text (FULL COST/Deposit)' $13,074 7. Minor Modification to a Tentative Map $1,201
3. GPA - Text Policy Amend (FULL COST/Deposit)' $13,074 8. Major Modification to a Tentative Map $2,796 PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT ABANDONMENT 9. Tentative Parcel Map with 4 or fewer Lots $1,698
1. Summary Vacation $1,259 10. Tentative Map, 5 through 99 Lots $3,338
2. General Vacation $1,772 11. Tentative Map, 100 through 499 Lots $4,832
12. Tentative Map, 500+ Lots (FULL COST/ Deposit )' $12,254 KEY: 'Full Cost/Base Cost to be collected at submittal. An estimate of processing cost will be provided at PEM . Applicant to pay 100% of Actual Cost to process requested Entitlement. *Condominium subdivision category has been added to assist in the processing and tracking of condominium units 2 Previously processed as Sign Variance
' Previously processed as ZCC
10/28/2025 Item No.3.
Fee Estimate Work SheetO Appendix A
ENTITLEMENT(APPLICATION TYPE:
ZONING ORDINANCE ENTITLEMENTS
1. Administrative Permit
2. Conditional Use Permit
3. CUP Extension or Modification
4. Design Review Permit
5. DRP/Minor Approved at Public Counter
6. DRP/Residential Subdivision w/other Permit
7. DRP Extension or Modification
8. CUP/DRP Process with another Permit
9. Flood Encroachment Permit
10. MPP Stage 1 or Stages 1 & 2 (FULL COST/Deposit)'
11. MPP Stage 2, Mod/Exten of Stage 1 &/or 2
12. MPP Administrative Modification
13. Planned Development Permit
14. TP Admin - Approved at Public Counter
15. TP - Req. Public Hear for SFD or 10 trees/Less
16. TP - Req. Public Hear for DRPITM or 11+ trees
17. Administrative Variance
18. Variance to Develop Standards Req. Public Hearing
19. Variance to Parking Standards
20. Zoning Clearance Approved Public Counter
21. Zoning Interpretation - Hearing Required
22. Zoning Interpretation - Non Hearing Item
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
1. Zoning Text Amend (Zoning, Subd, Sign) (FULL COST/Deposit)'
2. Zoning Map Change (RZ) 10 Acres or LESS
3. Zoning Map Change (RZ) 11+ Acres (FULL COST/Deposit)1 OTHER
1. New Non-Residential Plan Check 2
2. Commercial Plan Check - TI2
2. Planning Dept. Plot Plan Review (Bundles of 10)
3. Radius List Prep-Previously Developed Area
4. Preparation Undeveloped Area/Mailing
5. Farmer's Market Permit
FEE
$717
$4,085
$2,650
$4,627
$102
$2,870
$2,650
$2,225
$3,719
$2,650
$776
$4,627
$88
$1,772
$2,723
$600
$2,035
$2,430
$58
$1,537
$73
$5,154
15% of Building Plan Check Fee
$58
$58
$58
$146
$410
Full Cost
Base Cost
$14,846
$7,965
$13,338
PROCEDURES FOR FULL COST FEES
1. Base Cost
The base costs for processing a full cost application represents the minimum amount of staff time invested by the Planning and Redevelopment Department in processing a certain entitlement. This base fee has been generated based on a time-motion analysis that is available upon request from the Planning and Redevelopment Department. This base cost is non-refundable.
II. Project Initiation
Concurrent with the start-up of a Full Cost project, the applicant shall enter into an agreement for Full Cost billing. This agreement shall be provided to the applicant from the Planning and Redevelopment Department. Per the provisions of this agreement, the applicant shall pay the base costs associated with the individual entitlements associated with the project.
Ill. Full Cost Billing
Following project initiation and payment of the base cost fee, Planning and Redevelopment staff will record time spent working on the project against the base cost. Once staff time exceeds that covered under the base cost, the applicant shall be billed on a monthly basis. These charges will be based on current staff costs per adopted City labor contracts, plus a factor for direct and indirect costs. The Planning and Redevelopment Department can be contacted for current rates.
Included in the monthly billing will be the costs incurred by the following City departments: City Attorney, Housing, Community Development, Parks and Recreation and Planning and Redevelopment. These costs are outsideof what is reflected in the Base Cost.
IV. Consultants
As may be required by the Planning Department for project evaluation or environmental review, all consultant work shall be paid for by the project applicant and shall be included in the payment agreement. The City shall charge 10% of the contract amount for City action. The cost for consultant fees will be paid as a one time cost.
V. Plan Check Fee
This fee shall be 15% of the building Plan Check Fee for New Non-Residential construction (Commercial and Multi-family). Fee to be collected with Building's Plan Check Fee.
REFUND POLICY
Application fees are not refundable except as follows:
1. Refund of 100% shall be made if a determination is made by the Planning Director that the permit and associated fee are not required by the City of Roseville Municipal Code or adopted City Resolution.
2. If an applicant requests withdrawal of a permit prior to the PEM, refund of 50% of the applicable fee shall also be refunded.
3. No refund of application fees shall be made after a Project Evaluation Meeting has been held, unless a fee waiver is approved by the Roseville City Council.
KEY
'Full Cost/ Deposit to be collected at submittal. Applicant to pay 100% of Actual Cost to process requested Entitlement. -See FULL COST Discussion
2Non-Residential - Per Building Code , this includes Commercial and Multi-family developments.
Plan Check Fees to be assessed as part of Building Department Plan Check Fee. 3Parking In Lieu Fee is an optional fee that non-residential uses in the Downtown Specific Plan Area can utilize instead of providing required parking on-site. Fees for the 151 stall will be $800 (10%),2 d stall $2,000 (25%), 3r° stall (50%), 4 th stall $6,000(75%) and 5 or more stalls $8,000 (100%) of the in lieu fee.
E:/budget/Fee Schedule Effective 07/ 01/2010