11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
3 Beginning in late 2021, City staff in conjunction with Opticos sought input from the community on the appropriate design, size, scale, massing and height for higher density multi -family development. City staff conducted a design survey, which received approximately 400 responses, and held two community workshops. The result of this work was a set of design recommendations included as part of the Targeted Mixed-Use an Multi-Family Housing Study that was presented to Planning Commission and then to the City Council on July 26, 2022. This was then followed by amendments to the General Plan and Folsom Plan Area Specific Plan to allow for greater density and floor-area-ratios in the targeted areas d iscussed earlier. These amendments along with an environmental impact report (EIR) were approved by the City Council in August 2024.
City staff and the Opticos team worked to develop a draft set of Objective Development and Design Standards (ODDS) over a period of 12 months. Opticos completed a Public Review Draft, which they provided to the City in September of 2024. City staff then embarked on an outreach effort in late fall 2024/early winter 2025. In general, feedback focused on the scope and detail of standards included in the Public Review Draft. Opticos submitted a second, more streamlined, Public Review Draft of the ODDS in July of 2025, which was taken to the Planning Commission for a workshop on September 17, 2025. Commissioners were complimentary of the ODDS and supportive of the proposed ministerial process for review. Some minor modifications and clarifications were requested by the Commission at the workshop, which were incorporated into the Final Draft ODDS document. The Final Draft ODDS were taken to the Planning Commission for consideration on October 15, 2025, and received a unanimous recommendation for approval by the City Council.
No public comment was received prior to the Planning Commission workshop or consideration dates. But a set of public comments were received by staff leading up to the City Council hearing date due to some erroneous information posted on social media sites indicating that a high-density residential project would be approved with the ODDS, which is not the case. Staff responded to the public commenters with correct information, and the comment letters received as of the writing of this report are included as Attachment 5 to this report.
POLICY / RULE
Under Section 2.12 of the City Charter, amendments to the Folsom Municipal Code (FMC) require review and approval by the City Council. Further, FMC Chapter 17.68 – Amendments governs the process for the City to amend FMC Title 17 – Zoning. The Planning Commission must hold public hearings on proposed amendments and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council then may consider the amendments at a public hearing.
ANALYSIS
Increasingly, State laws are aimed at reducing the extent of discretionary review of multi -family and mixed-use housing projects. Recently adopted Senate Bill 330 (2019) and Senate Bill 8 (2021) require that jurisdictions conduct design review for all res idential projects using only objective design standards. These housing laws define an “objective” standard as one that involves no personal or subjective judgement by a public official and that is uniformly verifiable by reference
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
4 to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant and the public official prior to submittal.
Since design is so critical to whether a project enhances an area or detracts from it, developing quality objective development and design standards is important to ensuring appropriate design of new projects. Thus, staff developed the ODDS to ensure that quality design remains central to new residential and mixed-use development within the Regulated Area. Applicants whose projects are within the Regulated Area but do not comply with the ODDS can choose to go through a discretionary review process to the Planning Commission, such as the Planned Development Permit. Projects requesting Density Bonus incentives or waivers per FMC Chapter 17.102 may also deviate from the ODDS.
Overview
The Objective Development and Design Standards (ODDS) would regulate the physical form and character of multi-unit residential and residential mixed-use development so that new development advances in a manner compatible with existing community character while enhancing walkability and human -scaled urban design. The ODDS address building form, the relationship between buildings and the public realm, the scale and mass of buildings in relation to one another, and — for larger sites —the scale and character of streets and blocks.
Applicability
The ODDS would only be applicable to sites within a designated “Regulated Area,” which corresponds to three General Plan Overlay Designations approved by the City Council in 2024:
the East Bidwell Corridor (EBC) Overlay, Folsom Boulevard Transit -Oriented D evelopment (TOD) Overlay, and the Folsom Plan Area Specific Plan Town Center (TC) Overlay Combining District. This is for two reasons. First, when adopting these overlay areas that permitted higher densities than elsewhere in the city, the City Council dir ected staff to follow up with design standards that would ensure quality design and integration of new projects into surrounding communities even with increased density. Second, these overlay areas are the most likely to see high-density residential development or redevelopment and so are most in need of a defensible set of design standards. Should these ODDS be successfully implemented in the Regulated Area, staff may request that the Planning Commission and City Council consider city -wide ODDS for residential and mixed-use development in the future.
Objective Development and Design Standards Organization The ODDS are divided into seven chapters as follows:
• Chapter 1 - Introduction. This chapter outlines the purpose and applicability of the ODDS, their relationship with existing regulatory documents, and procedures for review. • Chapter 2 - Development Standards. This chapter includes site development standards and general development standards for projects subject to the ODDS. • Chapter 3 – Massing and Articulation. This chapter provides additional standards for building massing and articulation that further refine the building design requirements of Chapter 2.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
5 • Chapter 4 – Large Site Standards. This chapter provides additional standards for large development sites to create a pattern of walkable development. • Chapter 5 – Exceptions to Standards. This chapter establishes criteria for allowing deviations from standards for specific situations without discretionary review. • Chapter 6 – Definitions. This chapter provides definitions for specialized terms and phrases used in the ODDS.
• Chapter 7 – Measurement Methods. This chapter describes the measurement methods that should be used for site and building elements to ensure compliance with the ODDS.
A more detailed overview of the ODDS was provided to support a workshop held with the City Planning Commission on September 17, 2025. Materials from that session can be found at this link:
https://www.folsom.ca.us/government/community-development/planning-services/planning- commission .
As a result of Councilmember feedback regarding parking reductions at the October 28th meeting, staff have amended Chapter 2 (Development Standards) of the ODDS to provide more detail on what type of alternative measures and the amount of those that qualify a project for a parking reduction from 1.5 spaces per unit to 1 space per unit for residential projects or from 1 space per 250 square feet to 1 space per 1,000 square feet for the commercial portion of mixed use project .
Section 2.04 (M)(3) has been modified as follows:
(a) Shared parking agreement with an adjacent property owner or with the owner of a property located within one block of the project site that provides parking for at least 0.5 spaces per unit in the project that are available after 5:00 pm;
(b) Provision of Sacramento Regional Transit passes for residents for the duration of the lease if project is located within ¼-mile of a transit station with at least 30-minute service; (c) Provision of 1.5 times the amount of bicycle parking spaces and facilities required under FMC Section 17.57.090 (Bicycle Parking Facilities); or
(d) Provision of a parking study demonstrating that one parking space per unit or one parking space per 1,000 square feet of commercial space is sufficient to meet anticipated parking demand.
Proposed FMC Title 17 Amendments
Staff propose adopting the ODDS as a stand -alone document, outside of the Folsom Municipal Code (FMC), both to allow it to include explanatory graphics and to allow for more streamlined amendments when advisable. Staff propose amending FMC Chapter 17.06 (Design Review) and adding an additional section, Section 17.06.045 (Objective Development and Design Standards), to reference the ODDS and provide guidance on the applicability of the ODDS and the process for project review. Of note, propos ed Section 17.06.045 specifies that multi -family and residential mixed-use project within the Regulated Area would be subject to a Director -level Ministerial Design Review. This is consistent with State policy direction to move residential project reviews
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
6 to ministerial or nondiscretionary processes to streamline review. An underline/strikeout version of the changes made to FMC Chapter 17.06 (Design Review) is include in Attachment 3.
Staff do not propose to modify Zoning Districts as part of this effort, instead utilizing the General Plan Land Use Overlay Designation approved by the City Council in 2024 to delineate the areas in which the ODDS are applicable.
Based on input from some Councilmembers at the October 28th meeting and as noted earlier in this report, staff has provided an alternative ordinance that amends Section 17.06 (Design Review) to continue to allow for discretionary review for multi-family and mixed-use projects so long as that review is not preempted by State law. That alternative ordinance is shown in Attachment 4.
Repeal City of Folsom Design Guidelines for Multifamily Developments Staff propose repealing the City of Folsom Design Guidelines for Multifamily Developments, adopted by the City Council on May 26, 1998 (Resolution No. 5734) and revised in April 2004 (Resolution No. 7275). The existing document includes subjective, general guidelines that leave room for interpretation and so can no longer be used to review residential development, given changes to state law aimed at addressing the housing crisis in California. The document also includes guidelines that contradict developmen t standards for multifamily development in FMC Title 17.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
Staff anticipate that adoption of the ODDS will lead to fewer residential projects in the Regulated Area going through discretionary entitlement process that requires review by the City’s Planning Commission. This will reduce staff processing time as well as review costs for development applicants. As part of a processing fee update package being brought forward later this year, a reduced fee will be proposed that will align with the cost for processing a ministerial design review at the Director level. Sho uld the proposed fee be adopted, adoption of the ODDS is expected to have a neutral financial impact on City funds and positive financial impact for development applicants.
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.
ATTACHMENTS
1. 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
• Exhibit A – Final Draft Objective Development and Design Standards, dated
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
7 October 8, 2025
• Exhibit B – City of Folsom Design Guidelines for Multifamily Developments, dated April 2004
2. 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)
3. Folsom Municipal Code Chapter 17.06 “Design Review” – Strikethrough
4. Alternative Or dinance Requir ing Discretion ary Review Unless Ministerial Revie w Is Required by State Law
5. Public Comments Received
Submitted,
________________________
PAM JOHNS
Community Development Director
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
Attachment 1
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
Resolution No. 11464
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
WHEREAS, recent changes in California State law require jurisdictions to consider only objective criteria for streamlined review of certain types of housing and mixed-use projects; and
WHEREAS, on August 27, 2024, the City Council adopted a set of General Plan land use amendments that, among other policy changes, established minimum densities and maximum floor area ratios in newly established overlay areas to assist with meeting the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) requirements; and
WHEREAS, adoption of Objective Development and Design Standards would benefit the City by providing clarity, consistency, and improved design for multifamily and residential mixed- use developments in certain designated areas of the City; and
WHEREAS, the current City of Folsom Design Guidelines for Multifamily Development, adopted by the City Council on May 26, 1998, is subjective in nature and contradicts Folsom Municipal Code Title 17 residential development standards; and
WHEREAS, notice has been given at the time and in the manner required by State Law and City Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the adoption of the proposed Objective Development and Design Standards and repealing of the City of Folsom Design Guidelines for Multifamily Developments are exempt from further environmental review under Section 15061(b)(3) “Review for Exemption” of the CEQA Guidelines.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the proposed Objective Development and Design Standards, as shown in Exhibit “A,” are hereby approved.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Folsom Design Guidelines for Multifamily Developments, as shown in Exhibit “B,” are hereby repealed.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 12th day of November 2025, by the following roll -call vote:
AYES: Councilmember(s):
NOES: Councilmember(s):
ABSENT: Councilmember(s):
ABSTAIN: Councilmember(s):
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
Resolution No. 11464
__________________________________
Sarah Aquino, MAYOR
ATTEST:
______________________________
Christa Freemantle, CITY CLERK
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
Resolution No. 11464
EXHIBIT ‘A’ – OBJECTIVE DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN STANDARDS
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
Objective Development and
Design Standards
Public Review Draft
Prepared for
Folsom, California
October 2025
For the East Bidwell Corridor Mixed-Use Overlay, Folsom Boulevard Transit- Oriented Development Overlay, and Folsom Town Center Overlay Areas
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
Table of Contents
Chapter 1 Introduction 5
1.01 Purpose and Applicability 5
1.02 Relationship to State Housing Law 6
1.03 Relationship to the 2035 General Plan 6
1.04 Relationship to Title 17 Zoning 6
1.05 Regulated Area 7
1.06 Quick Code Guide 8
1.07 Procedures for Review and Approval 10
1.08 Severability 10
Chapter 2 Development Standards 11
2.01 Purpose and Applicability 11
2.02 Development Standards Overview 11
2.03 Site Development Standards 12
2.04 General Development Standards 14
Chapter 3 Massing and Articulation 25
3.01 Purpose and Applicability 25
3.02 Top, Middle, and Base Façade Design 26
3.03 Massing Features 28
3.04 Façade Composition 34
3.05 Fenestration 36
3.06 Exterior Finishes and Materials 38
3.07 Balconies and Decks 40
3.08 Blank Wall Treatment 42
Chapter 4 Large Site Standards 45
4.01 Purpose and Applicability 45
4.02 Private Thoroughfares 45
4.03 New Blocks 46
4.04 Civic Open Spaces 47
4.05 Design Sites 48
Table of Contents
ii
Folsom Objective Development and Design Standards Public Review Draft – September 2025 Page 493 11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
Chapter 5 Exceptions to Standards 51
5.01 Purpose and Applicability 51
5.02 Procedures and Findings 52
5.03 Alternate Discretionary Design Review Process 52
Chapter 6 Definitions 57
6.01 Purpose 57
6.02 Definitions 57
Chapter 7 Measurement Methods 67
7.01 Purpose 67
7.02 Façade Buildout 67
7.03 Building Form 70
7.04 Façade Transparency 71
7.05 Average Slope 72
Table of Contents
iii
Folsom Objective Development and Design StandardsPublic Review Draft – September 2025Page 494 11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
Table of Contents
iv
Folsom Objective Development and Design Standards Public Review Draft – September 2025 This page intentionally left blank
Table of Contents
iv Folsom Objective Development and Design Standards Page 495 11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
1.01 Purpose and Applicability
A. Purpose. The Objective Development and Design Standards (ODDS) regulate the physical form and character of development so that new development develops in a manner compatible with existing community character while enhancing walkability and human-scaled urban design. The ODDS address building form, the relationship between buildings and the public realm, the scale and mass of buildings in relation to one another, and—for larger sites —the scale and character of streets and blocks. The creation of these ODDS has been guided by the following goals:
1. Increase predictability and transparency in the development process with consistent expectations for intended results.
2. Promote a livable city by supporting diverse housing types that engage the streetscape to create vibrant and walkable environments.
3. Respect the context of Folsom's existing built and natural environment through development that is sensitive to and complements adjacent land uses and development.
4. Convey intent through visual guidance to better communicate the standards with photographs, diagrams, and tables.
B. Applicability. The ODDS apply to all new multi-unit and mixed-use residential development for certain Overlay areas in the City of Folsom as identified in the 2035 General Plan. These areas are identified in Figure 1.05.1 (Regulated Area) and include the East Bidwell Corridor (EBC) Mixed-Use Overlay, the Folsom Boulevard Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay, and Folsom Plan Area Specific Plan (FPASP) Town Center Overlay areas.
Chapter 1 Introduction
Sections:
1.01 Purpose and Applicability
1.02 Relationship to State Housing Law
1.03 Relationship to the 2035 General Plan
1.04 Relationship to Title 17 Zoning
1.05 Regulated Area
1.06 Quick Code Guide
1.07 Procedures for Review and Approval
1.08 Severability
5 Folsom Objective Development and Design StandardsPublic Review Draft – September 2025Page 496 11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
1.02 Relationship to State Housing Law
Recent changes in California State law require jurisdictions to only consider objective criteria for streamlined review of certain types of housing and mixed-use projects. In response to these changes, these ODDS have been developed to meet the requirements of "objective standards" and to produce high quality residential multi-unit and mixed-use development in compliance with State law.
1.03 Relationship to the 2035 General Plan
The ODDS implement the following Guiding Principles of Folsom's 2035 General Plan:
A. Guiding Principle #3: Promote town centers as social gathering places . Promote mixed-use, walkable districts that serve as social gathering places for the community. Ensure that all residents have convenient access to town centers by establishing several throughout Folsom.
B. Guiding Principle #4: Promote the revitalization of aging commercial corridors . Encourage pedestrian-oriented infill and redevelopment of Folsom’s aging commercial corridors. Create mixed-use developments that take advantage of alternative transportation modes, where people can live, work, and shop.
C. Guiding Principle #9: Provide all residents with opportunities to live an active, healthy, and green lifestyle . Promote healthy lifestyles by enhancing opportunities for physical activity, healthy eating, and sustainable living.
D. Guiding Principle #10: Provide for a range of attractive and viable transportation options, such as bicycling, walking, rail, and transit . Support higher-density, mixed-use, transit-oriented development near light rail stations and in core areas where alternative transportation modes are planned. Support transportation improvements that allow and encourage more residents, workers, and visitors to walk, bike, or use transit.
E. Guiding Principle #11: Provide a range of housing choices for all generations . Provide for a range of housing choices to ensure Folsom is a community for all generations, where children can grow, raise families, and age in place.
F. Guiding Principle #14: Commit to high-quality design . Promote development that strengthens the physical form of the city, enhances livability, incorporates sustainable design practices, and fosters a unique sense of place through context-sensitive design and commitment to high-quality execution.
G. Guiding Principle #16: Integrate the “old” and the “new” areas of the city . Promote an integrated, cohesive city by connecting new development areas with the existing city fabric through pedestrian, bicycle, and transit linkages; harmonious design; and shared gathering places.
1.04 Relationship to Title 17 Zoning
The ODDS are adopted as an appendix to the Folsom Municipal Code (FMC) Title 17 (Zoning) and serve as the regulating document for development and design standards applicable to areas identified in Figure
1.05.1 (Regulated Area). Properties retain their base zoning, with requirements for site design and building form provided by the ODDS. Should the ODDS be silent on regulations, processes, or applications, Title 17 (Zoning)shall apply. Where conflict occurs between the regulations of the ODDS and those of Title 17 (Zoning), the more restrictive of any such regulations shall apply. Administrative exceptions are listed in Chapter 5 (Exceptions to Standards).
6 Folsom Objective Development and Design Standards Public Review Draft – September 2025
1.02: Relationship to State Housing Law
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
1.05 Regulated Area
Figure 1.05.1 (Regulated Area) identifies the parcels where these Development Standards apply. The Development Standards, which are provided in Chapter 2 (Development Standards), are intended to create walkable neighborhoods of medium-to-large building footprint, moderate-intensity mixed-use buildings and housing choices, supporting and within short walking distance of existing and new neighborhood-serving retail, food and service uses, in the Regulated Area.
Figure 1.05.1 Regulated Area
Project Boundary
Regulated Area
Key
Town Center District
7 Folsom Objective Development and Design StandardsPublic Review Draft – September 2025
1.05: Regulated Area
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
1.06 Quick Code Guide
The Quick Code Guide is intended as a guide only and shall not be construed to represent the actual development and design process.
Determine ODDS
Applicability
a. Confirm your parcel is in one of the following
Overlay Land Use Designations: EBC Mixed-
Use Overlay, Folsom Boulevard TOD Overlay,
FPASP Town Center Overlay
General Plan Land Use Diagram
b. Confirm your development site is within the
Regulated Area
Figure 1.05.1 (Regulated Area)
Determine Large Site
Standards Applicability
c. Confirm your development site is more than
three acres
Section 4.01 (Purpose and
Applicability)
Confirm Applicability1
Determine building
placement and form
a. Identify the buildable area of the site by
applying building setbacks, building setback
area, and parking setbacks
Section 2.03 (Site Development
Standards) Subsections A (Building
Placement) and B (Parking
Placement)
b. Apply building form standards for building
footprint, building height, and ground floor
occupiable space
Section 2.03 (Site Development
Standards) Subsection C (Building
Form)
Design your building
front façade
c. Apply façade transparency standards Section 2.03 (Site Development Standards) Subsection D (Façade
Design)
Apply required site
features
d. Apply general development standards, as
applicable
Section 2.04 (General Development
Standards)
Design Your Building3
Create new blocks a. Apply new thoroughfare and new block standards
Section 4.02 (Private Thoroughfares);
Section 4.03 (New Blocks)
Place civic open
space(s) and design
sites
b. Apply new civic open space standards Section 4.04 (Civic Open Spaces) c. Determine placement and orientation of
design sites for proposed primary building(s)
Section 4.05 (Design Sites)
Design Large Sites (if not applicable, go to Step 3)2
8 Folsom Objective Development and Design Standards Public Review Draft – September 2025
1.06: Quick Code Guide
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
Fully develop your
building design
a. Determine the applicable massing and
articulation standards
Table 3.01.A (Massing and
Articulation Standards Applicability)
b. Apply standards for top, middle, and base of
your building (where applicable)
Section 3.02 (Top, Middle, and Base
Façade Design)
c. Apply massing features to your building
(where applicable)
Section 3.03 (Massing Features)
d. Apply standards for façade composition Section 3.04 (Façade Composition) e. Apply standards for fenestration Section 3.05 (Fenestration) f. Apply standards for exterior materials and
finishes
Section 3.06 (Exterior Finishes and
Materials)
g. Apply standards for balconies and decks
(where applicable)
Section 3.07 (Balconies and Decks)
h. Apply standards for blank wall treatment
(where applicable)
Section 3.08 (Blank Wall Treatment)
Complete the Design of Your Building4
Identify applicable
administrative relief
Determine eligible adjustments to the standards
applicable to your project
Section 5.02 (Procedures and
Findings)
Proceed with review
and approval process
Submit application to the Community
Development Director for review and approval
FMC § 17.06 (Design Review)
Prepare Application for Approval5
9 Folsom Objective Development and Design StandardsPublic Review Draft – September 2025
1.06: Quick Code Guide
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
1.07 Procedures for Review and Approval
Applications for development are to be processed in compliance with the City’s common procedures for reviewing all applications and processing permits and approvals identified in FMC § 17.06 (Design Review), consistent with State law. By-right relief from certain standards for specific situations shall be granted in compliance with the required findings in Chapter 5 (Exceptions to Standards) of these ODDS.
1.08 Severability
The provisions of these ODDS are severable; if a court of competent jurisdiction holds a provision or part of a provision unconstitutional, that decision will not automatically invalidate the remainder of a provision or any other provisions or part thereof.
10 Folsom Objective Development and Design Standards Public Review Draft – September 2025
1.07: Procedures for Review and Approval
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
2.01 Purpose and Applicability
A. Purpose. This Chapter provides the development standards in coordination with Figure 1.05.1 (Regulated Area). The standards of this Chapter are intended to ensure that proposed development is compatible with future development on neighboring properties and produces an environment that generates and supports the variety and physical character of existing and new pedestrian-oriented, walkable environments. Walkable environments are those that have interconnected streets and blocks with sidewalks, a variety of housing choices, and proximity to services, shopping, and/or transit.
B. Applicability . The standards of this Chapter apply to all new multi-unit and mixed-use residential development and to modifications where 70 percent or more of the surface area of a street-facing façade is modified. Modifications include changes to the exterior of a building, including additions or demolition, except as applied to routine maintenance and in-kind replacement of materials, façade renovations, or exterior renovations.
The standards of this Chapter shall be considered in combination with the standards in Chapter 3 (Massing and Articulation), Chapter 4 (Large Site Standards), and applicable sections of Title 17 (Zoning) of the Folsom Municipal Code (FMC). Where conflict occurs between the regulations of this Chapter and those of other Chapters in the ODDS or Title 17 (Zoning), the more restrictive of any such regulations shall apply, unless specified otherwise. For standards regarding accessory dwelling units, see FMC §
17.105 (Accessory Dwelling Units).
2.02 Development Standards Overview
A. Section 2.03 (Site Development Standards) provide development standards for the following topics:
1. Building Placement: the requirements for building setbacks and required façade buildout;
2. Parking Placement : the required location for vehicle access and parking;
3. Building Form: the standards for building height, building footprint, and ground floor occupiable space; and
4. Façade Design: the required façade transparency and limitations on blank walls.
B. Section 2.04 (General Development Standards) provides general standards regarding building design, adjacency, façade transparency, open space, landscaping, hardscape surfaces, l ighting, privacy, rooftop decks, screening and walls, on-site parking, and parking techniques.
Chapter 2 Development Standards
Sections:
2.01 Purpose and Applicability
2.02 Development Standards Overview
2.03 Site Development Standards
2.04 General Development Standards
11 Folsom Objective Development and Design StandardsPublic Review Draft – September 2025Page 502 11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
A. Building Placement
Primary Building Setbacks
Front (Building Setback Area) 1
10' min.; 20' max.
Side Street (Building Setback Area) 5' min.; 10' max.
Side 5' min.
Rear 5' min.
Façade Buildout 2 Front Side St
Total length of façade required
within or abutting the Building
Setback Area
80% min. 60% min.
1 Properties abutting a six-lane thoroughfare require 15' min.; 25' max. front setback.
2 See Section 7.02 (Façade Buildout) for measurement
method.
C
D
Front
Side Street
max.
min.
min.
max.
min.
min.
Key
Design Site/Lot Line Buildable Area
Building Setback Line Building Setback Area
2.03 Site Development Standards
Front
Side Street
B. Parking Placement
Minimum Setback
Front Side St. Side1 Rear
Surface Parking 2 40' 10' 5' 5'
Structured Parking 30' 10' 5' 5'
Town Center Overlay 0' 0' 0'
Driveways
Where an alley is present, all vehicular access shall be provided via the alley. Front street access shall only be provided in compliance with Chapter 5 (Exceptions to
Standards).
1 Side setbacks for parking do not apply when parking is grouped across multiple design sites/lots.
2 Surface parking, covered or uncovered, is prohibited
between the primary building and front, side street, or civic open space, with the exception of a shared parking court in compliance with Subsection 7 (Shared Parking Court).
min.
min.
min.
min.
C
D
E
E
F
F
Key
Design Site/Lot Line Parking Area
12 Folsom Objective Development and Design Standards Public Review Draft – September 2025
2.03: Site Development Standards
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
D. Façade Design
Façade Transparency 1 Front Side St.
Ground Floor
Residential 15% min.15% min.
Nonresidential 50% percent min.50% percent min.
Upper Floor 15% min.15% min.
50% max.50% max.
Ground floor blank wall length See Section 3.08 (Blank
Wall Treatment)
1 See Section 7.04 (Façade Transparency) for measurement method.
C. Building Form
Primary Building Footprint Town Center
Overlay
Main Body Width 120' max. No max.
Main Body Depth 160' max. No max.
Primary Building Height Town Center
Overlay
Stories 4 max. 5 max.
To Highest Top Plate 1 45' max. 55' max.
Height above Top Plate to
Top of Roof Slope
10' max.
Ground Floor Occupiable Space 2
(along Façade Buildout)
Depth, Clear
Residential 20' min.
Nonresidential 30' min.
1 Tower elements may exceed the height of the top plate of the building by 10 feet, not including the height of the pitched roof of the tower. See Section 3.03 (Massing Features) Subsection F (Standards for Tower Elements).
2 Exceptions to the minimum required depth of ground floor occupiable space is allowed where necessary to comply
with California Building Code or California Fire Code.
L
Ground Floor
Façade
Upper Floor(s)
Façade
L
Key
Design Site/Lot Line Building Setback Line
Key
Façade Surface Area Glazing
13 Folsom Objective Development and Design StandardsPublic Review Draft – September 2025
2.03: Site Development Standards
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
2.04 General Development Standards
A. Building Design
1. The façade buildout standards in Section 2.03 (Site Development Standards) apply to new primary buildings and their additions along the front and side streets.
2. All building façades shall be designed in compliance with Chapter 3 (Massing & Articulation).
3. Space between the highest top plate and the top of a sloped roof is allowed to be occupied in compliance with the standards of Figure 2.04.1 (Pitched Roofs).
4. Where flat roofs are provided, a parapet is required to conceal all roof areas/equipment. The parapet shall match the materials and finish used on the building walls. See Subsection L (Screening and Walls).
5. Structures and rooftop equipment that do not provide additional floor space shall be allowed to exceed the overall height limit in accordance with FMC § 17.58.080 (Height Exceptions).
B. Adjacency Massing Requirements
1. Building façades within 50 feet of property zoned for single family residential development shall apply one of the following massing methods.
(a) The top plate of the highest allowed story is lowered by a minimum of 10 feet and the uppermost floor is stepped back a minimum of 10 feet;
(b) The top plate of the highest allowed story is lowered by a minimum of 10 feet and a pitched roof is designed in compliance with Table 2.04.A (Pitched Roof Standards). See also Figure 2.04.1 (Pitched Roofs); or
(c) One or more wings are allowed to be added to the main body of the building. (1) Each building wing shall be one story less than the main body and offset from the main body façade by a minimum of three feet.
(2) Building wing shall be in compliance with building setback standards in Section 2.03 (Site Development Standards).
(3) Where a wing is added, the adjacent façade from which the wing is offset may not be counted as a projecting volume. See Figure 2.04.2 (Building Wing). (4) Wings shall be separated from other wings by at least 15 feet.
Table 2.04.A Pitched Roof Standards
Height above Top Plate to Top of Roof Slope 10' max.
Eave 8" min. projection
Roof Pitch Between 9:12 and 12:12
Dormer Window(s) Length (Total Width) 50% max. of associated roof length Dormer Window Height 6' max.
Dormer Window Separation from Edge of Roof 2' min. E
14 Folsom Objective Development and Design Standards Public Review Draft – September 2025
2.04: General Development Standards
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
Figure 2.04.1 Pitched Roofs
Key
See Table 2.04.A
(Pitched Roof
Standards)
Figure 2.04.2 Building Wing
15 Folsom Objective Development and Design StandardsPublic Review Draft – September 2025
2.04: General Development Standards
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
C. Façade Transparency
1. The façade transparency standards in Section 2.03 (Site Development Standards) apply to all façades within the building setback area.
2. The following elements apply to the transparency requirement. (a) Nonresidential Ground Floor. Glazings with visibility of a minimum of four feet in depth (b) All Floors. Window frames, mullions, and clear, untinted glass D. Encroachments
1. Encroachments into setback areas are allowed in compliance with Table 2.04.B (Allowed Encroachments); encroachment types not listed shall not be allowed.
2. Encroachments into public ROW are not allowed unless approved by a separate encroachment permit in compliance with FMC § 12.20.040 (Encroachment Permit Required).
3. Encroachments across a design site/lot line are not allowed.
Table 2.04.B Allowed Encroachments
Encroachment Type Front Side St. Side Rear
Architectural Features 2' max. 2' max. -- 5' max.
Steps to Building Entrance 4' max. 4' max. 4' max. 5' max.
Fences & Walls
Balconies & Exterior Stairs 5' max. 5' max. 4' max. 4' max.
Awnings 4' max. 4' max. 4' max. 4' max.
Signage -- --
Ground-Mounted Equipment -- --
Satellite Antennas -- --
Key Allowed -- Not Allowed
E. On-Site Parking
1. FMC § 17.57 (Parking Requirements) shall be applied to calculate minimum parking requirements.
2. Parking spaces are not required to be located on design sites. Parking spaces may be grouped with those serving other design sites within the same block.
3. Fully subterranean parking may extend to property lines, subject to Community Development Department approval.
4. Semi-subterranean parking may be exposed up to four feet above the adjacent sidewalk grade.
Semi-subterranean parking setbacks shall be the same as the primary building setbacks.
5. Driveways may be shared among adjacent design sites on the same development site but shall not exceed the maximum allowed width in compliance with Section 2.03 (Site Development Standards) Subsection B (Parking Placement).
6. The parking area landscape shall be in compliance with Subsection G (Landscaping) and FMC §
17.57.070 (Development and Maintenance of Off-Street Parking Facilities). Where in conflict, the ODDS shall prevail.
7. Bicycle parking may be located anywhere on a design site/lot or common area. Bicycle parking facilities shall comply with FMC § 17.57.090 (Bicycle Parking Facilities).
16 Folsom Objective Development and Design Standards Public Review Draft – September 2025
2.04: General Development Standards
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
F. Open Space
1. Residential development is required to provide a minimum 50 square feet of open space per residential unit. The required open space may be provided as a single type or a combination of types in compliance with Table 2.04.C (Allowed Open Space Types).
Table 2.04.C Allowed Open Space Types
On-Site Private Open Space Standards (W x D)
Yard/Green 50 sf min.
Balcony 6' x 4' min.
Patio 15' x 10' min.
Porch 12' x 6' min.
Dooryard 10' x 5' min.
Rooftop Deck 10' x 15' min.; See Subsection K (Rooftop Decks) Shared Open Space Standards (W x D)
Common Yard/Green 20' x 30' min.
Forecourt/Court 15' x 15' min.
Common Terrace Building length x 8' min.
Common Rooftop Deck 20' x 30' min.; See Subsection K (Rooftop Decks) Civic Open Space Standards
Park 5,000 sf min.; See Section 4.04 (Civic Open Spaces) Plaza 5,000 sf min.; See Section 4.04 (Civic Open Spaces) Passage 20' min. width; See Section 4.04 (Civic Open Spaces) G. Landscaping
1. Intent. These standards for landscaping are intended to protect and enhance the environmental and visual quality of the community, enhance privacy, and control dust.
2. Required Landscape Area. Minimum 15% of the development site. (a) Required landscape areas shall be provided on the ground level and be open, unenclosed, and unobstructed by structures.
(b) Each development site shall provide landscaping from the public sidewalk to the edge of the building along the front and side street, except where used for exit, entry, and frontages. The landscape area(s) shall count toward the minimum required landscape area. (c) Any landscaping measuring less than two feet in any direction shall not count towards the minimum required landscape area.
(d) The minimum area of a development site to be landscaped may be combined with the minimum area of open space provided in compliance with Subsection F (Open Space). (e) On-site drainage basins count towards the minimum required landscape area if landscaped.
3. Landscape Design Standards
(a) Landscapes may consist of any combination of living groundcovers, shrubs, vines, and trees.
The use of indoor/outdoor carpeting, synthetic turf, or artificial shrubs, flowers, trees, or vines instead of living plants is prohibited.
17 Folsom Objective Development and Design StandardsPublic Review Draft – September 2025
2.04: General Development Standards
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
(1) Plant size and spacing shall be based on the species selected and shall be installed to achieve the intended coverage of the landscaped area within three years. (b) Trees protected by FMC § 12.16 (Tree Preservation) shall not be removed or adversely affected without a permit. Trees allowed to be removed with a permit must be replaced on-site at a minimum one-to-one basis.
(c) Landscapes may include benches and sculptures placed within the landscaped setting. (d) Landscape areas may include hardscape, which, if composed of pervious paver stones, gravel, sand, wood, and decomposed granite, can satisfy up to 50 percent of the required landscape area.
4. Landscape and Irrigation Plans. Landscape and irrigation plans must be prepared in compliance with the City’s Water Efficient Landscape Standards and submitted with each development application.
5. Storm Water Management. Landscape may be used for storm water Best Management Practices (BMPs) using biofiltration and retention and detention areas in compliance with FMC § 8.70 (Storm Water Management and Discharge Control).
H. Hardscaped Surfaces
1. Intent. These standards are to ensure that ground surfaces and paving contribute to the intended physical character as well as provide for pedestrian and vehicular access.
2. All hardscaped surfaces used for non-vehicular access and circulation, including but not limited to forecourts and pedestrian pathways, shall be articulated with pavers made of textured or scored concrete, brick, or decorative tile that are arranged in geometric patterns.
3. Allowed Materials. Brick, stone, concrete, terra-cotta tile, buff-colored permeable pavers, and/or stamped concrete.
4. Prohibited Materials. Asphalt.
I. Lighting
1. Intent. These standards are intended to promote high quality lighting, efficient use of energy, and reduce light pollution, glare, and light trespass.
2. All exterior lighting shall be designed, located, and lamped with downward light. (a) Exterior building light fixtures shall use refractors, louvers, patterned, or translucent glass to obscure view of the lamp.
(b) Uplighting of the building façade, internally illuminated fascia, wall, roof, awning or other building parts is prohibited.
(c) Spotlighting and broadcast lighting are prohibited. (d) All parking lot lights shall be full cutoff luminaires, as certified by the manufacturer, with the light source directed downward and away from adjacent residences. (e) Bollard lighting is allowed to light sidewalks and other landscape features if the light is cast downward.
3. All exterior lighting shall use lower color temperature light sources of no more than 3000 Kelvin to minimize blue light emissions.
18 Folsom Objective Development and Design Standards Public Review Draft – September 2025
2.04: General Development Standards
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
Privacy Standards Diagram
Interior Lot Line
Key
Design Site/Lot Line
Interior Setback Line (Side or Rear)
Privacy Standards Diagram
Area Within 15' of Design Site/Lot Line
Principal Window
42" min. Sill Height
No Limitation on Sill Heights
J. Privacy
1. Intent. These standards are designed to locate upper-story windows, balconies, and decks to minimize loss of privacy for existing neighboring properties.
2. Development of a residential or mixed-use building where any portion of the proposed construction is either 2 or more stories tall or 18 feet or more in height shall comply with these standards. These standards do not apply to buildings within the same development project.
3. Windows/Glazed Openings
(a) Residential structures adjoining an interior setback shall orient upper-story windows toward the front and rear of the building so that they do not directly align with windows on the adjoining property; or
(b) Upper story windows within 15 feet of, and oriented to face or overlook, an interior design site/ lot line shall have a minimum sill height of 42 inches unless the window is placed at an angle of at least 30 degrees, measured perpendicular to the adjacent interior property line. See Figure
2.04.2 (Privacy).
Figure 2.04.2 Privacy
4. Landings, Decks, and Balconies
(a) Upper-story unenclosed landings, decks, and balconies greater than 20 square feet that face or overlook the adjoining property shall be located a minimum of 15 feet from the interior design site/lot lines.
(b) Upper-story unenclosed landings, decks, and balconies that do not face or overlook the adjoining property due to orientation or topography may be located at the minimum interior setback line if an architectural screening element such as enclosing walls, trellises, awnings, or perimeter planters with a five-foot minimum height is incorporated into the unenclosed landing, deck, or balcony.
K. Rooftop Decks
1. Intent. These standards are designed to allow functional outdoor space on top of a building while minimizing visual, noise, and privacy impacts to surrounding properties and rights-of-way.
19 Folsom Objective Development and Design StandardsPublic Review Draft – September 2025
2.04: General Development Standards
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
Key
Building Roof Exterior Setback Pergola
Deck Footprint Interior Setback
Rooftop DeckRooftop Deck
Side street
2. Rooftop deck(s) shall be located on the roof of the primary building in compliance with the following:
(a) Exterior Setback: 15' min. from the building edge along any front, side street, or civic open space (b) Interior Setback: 10' min. from the building edge
(c) Deck Footprint: 25% max. of total roof area at the level of rooftop deck (d) Pergola Height: 12' max.
(e) Stair Penthouse Height: 10' max.
3. Rooftop deck(s) shall not be enclosed or covered, except by a trellis and/or pergola.
4. Materials for trellis, pergola, and lighting shall match those used for the primary building.
5. All rooftop decks shall be designed in compliance with Building Code and Fire Code standards.
6. Stair penthouse(s), including roof hatches, shall be designed in compliance with the standards of the Building Code and located within the allowed area for the rooftop deck .
7. Allowed Elements
(a) Furnishings (e.g., chairs, tables, stoves, barbecues, swimming pools, hot tubs) are allowed only within the delineated area for the rooftop deck.
(b) Pergola, trellis, permanent shade device, and/or swimming pool are allowed. (c) Temporary fabric awnings and shade devices are not allowed. (d) Windscreens are allowed only within or along the edges of the maximum allowed area for the rooftop deck. Windscreens shall be transparent or designed in the same style, materials, and finishes as the primary building.
Figure 2.04.3 Rooftop Deck
Front
Side street
20 Folsom Objective Development and Design Standards Public Review Draft – September 2025
2.04: General Development Standards
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
L. Screening and Walls
1. Intent. These standards are intended to support pedestrian-oriented development, protect property, enhance privacy, attenuate noise, and improve the visual environment.
2. Screening and Wall Height. Table 2.04.D (Screening and Wall Height Standards) sets forth the maximum height limits for fences, walls, and landscaping. Screening within any building setback area shall not exceed a height that blocks the line of sight between any point at the front entrance measured five feet above the finished floor and any point measured five feet above the sidewalk. (a) Walls of three-and-a-half feet shall have a half-foot footing underground with a three-foot wall above; walls of six feet shall have one-foot footing underground with five-foot wall above. (b) Surcharge not allowed behind a free standing wall/retaining wall. (c) Retaining walls, including any open fences on top of the retaining wall, shall be in compliance with the height limits in Table 2.04.D (Screening and Wall Height Standards) (d) Any retaining wall greater than three feet in height within a building setback area shall include a planter on the cut side that is at least two feet in depth, as measured perpendicular to the retaining wall.
(e) Multiple terraced retaining walls shall have a minimum horizontal distance between them that is at least equal to the average height of the vertical walls and landscaped.
Table 2.04.D Screening and Wall Height Standards
Screening Type Front Side Street Side Rear
Fence 3.5' max. 3.5' max. 6' max. 6' max.
Free Standing Wall1 3.5' max. 3.5' max. 6' max. 6' max.
Landscaping 2 3.5' max. 3.5' max. No max. No max.
1 Includes retaining walls
2 Excludes trees
3. Screen and Wall Materials
(a) Allowed Materials. Metal, wood fence, stucco wall with the same finish as the primary building wall, and sandstone.
(b) Prohibited Materials. Chain-link, vinyl, barbed wire, razor wire, unfinished concrete block, hollow tubular steel, plastic, faux materials, such as manufactured stone, and electric fences.
4. Screening of Mechanical Equipment. Screening shall be provided for all new or relocated ground- or roof-mounted equipment that is visible from the public realm. (a) Screening shall match materials used on the street facing façade(s), including matching paint, finish, and trim cap of the building.
(b) Buildings shall be designed to provide a parapet or other architectural element as tall as or taller than the highest point on any new roof-mounted equipment. (c) Screening of ground-mounted equipment shall be as high as the highest point of the equipment being screened.
(1) Ground-mounted equipment shall be located in compliance with Subsection 2.04.D (Encroachments).
21 Folsom Objective Development and Design StandardsPublic Review Draft – September 2025
2.04: General Development Standards
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
(d) Free-standing or roof-mounted solar energy systems and EV charging equipment are exempt from screening.
5. Temporary Fencing. Temporary fencing may be used to provide security for approved special events, construction sites, or vacant structures and land which cannot otherwise be secured.
M. Parking Techniques and Allowed Reductions
1. Intent. This section provides standards for functional parking techniques to enhance pedestrian- oriented development and minimize the visual impact of automobiles and parking structures.
2. The parking techniques included in this section may be applied individually or in combination in compliance with Subsection 2.03.B (Parking Placement).
3. The standards in this section supplement FMC § 17.57 (Parking Requirements), which provide the standards for the number of parking spaces required for each use, the dimensional standards for parking areas, and parking lot development and maintenance. The required number of spaces may be reduced pursuant to Table 2.04.E if one or more of the following is provided:
(a) Shared parking agreement with an adjacent property or a property within one block of the project site;
(b) Provision of a car-share vehicle (ZipCar, Turo, GIG, Getaround, etc.); (c) Provision of a shuttle service van for residents;
(d) Provision of Sacramento Regional Transit passes for residents for duration of lease if project located within ¼-mile of a transit station with at least 30-minute service; (e) Provision of additional bike parking space and facilities in compliance with FMC § 17.57.090 (Bicycle Parking Facilities); or
(f) Provision of dedicated parking space for deliveries and ride share vehicles.
Table 2.04.E Allowed Parking Reductions
Use Parking Required Reduced Parking Allowances
Residential 1.5 spaces per unit 1 space per unit
Commercial / Retail 1 space per 250 sf 1 space per 1,000 sf
4. Surface Parking. Surface parking, covered or uncovered, is prohibited between the primary building and front, side street, or civic open space, with the exception of a shared parking court in compliance with Subsection 7 (Shared Parking Court).
5. Garages, including Tuck-Under Parking. The opening to garages, including tuck-under parking, shall not be publicly visible along the front, side street, or civic open space.
6. Structured Parking
(a) Any portion of a parking facility exceeding eight feet in length that is within 15 feet of the building façade along the front, side street, or civic open space, including individual garages and carports, shall be designed with the allowed materials of the primary building in compliance with Chapter 3 (Massing and Articulation).
(b) Garage openings for ventilation shall be designed in compliance with Section 3.04 (Façade Composition).
22 Folsom Objective Development and Design Standards Public Review Draft – September 2025
2.04: General Development Standards
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
(c) Stacked and tandem parking is allowed in within a podium and subterranean parking structure.
7. Shared Parking Court
(a) Shared parking courts shall be allowed across design sites/lots between primary buildings and accessed from the front or side street.
Parking Court
Figure 2.04.4 Shared Parking Court
Parking Court
Design Site/Lot 1 Design Site/Lot 2
Key
Design Site/Lot Line
Setback Lines
Required Occupiable Ground Floor Space. See Subsection C (Building Form) Maximum Width of the Shared Parking Court, measured parallel to the adjacent street/ROW: 65' Minimum Shared Parking Court
Setback:
Small Parking Court
(6 or fewer spaces)
Large Shared Parking Court
(7 spaces or more)
10' min.
Behind line of required ground
floor occupiable space in
Subsection C (Building Form)
A landscape buffer shall be provided
in compliance with one of the
following methods along the front
property line for the length of the
shared parking court.
Location: Not closer than the required minimum building setback.
a. A landscaped buffer with a minimum inside width of five feet and a fence or hedge 42 inches in height, or
b. A landscaped buffer with a minimum inside width of eight feet.
Design Site/Lot 1 Design Site/Lot 2
Small Shared Parking Court Large Shared Parking Court
23 Folsom Objective Development and Design StandardsPublic Review Draft – September 2025
2.04: General Development Standards
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
24 Folsom Objective Development and Design Standards Public Review Draft – September 2025 This page intentionally left blank Page 515
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
3.01 Purpose and Applicability
A. Purpose. This Chapter provides design standards for building massing and articulation which shall be applied in combination with the standards in Chapter 2 (Development Standards) to refine further the building design and physical character of new development.
B. Applicability. The standards of this Chapter apply to all new development and to modifications where 70 percent or more of the surface area of a street-facing façade is modified. Modifications include changes to the exterior of a building, including additions or demolition, except as applied to routine maintenance and in-kind replacement of materials, façade renovations, or exterior renovations. See Table 3.01.A (Massing and Articulation Standards Applicability) for applicability of specific sections to specific conditions.
Table 3.01.A Massing and Articulation Standards Applicability Façade(s) in the Building Setback Are Adjacency
Massing1 Applicable Section of a building < 3
stories
of a building ≥ 3
stories
≥ 80 linear
feet
3.02 Top, Middle, and Base Façade
Design -- -- --
3.03 Massing Features -- -- --
3.04 Façade Composition
3.05 Fenestration
3.06 Exterior Finishes and Materials
3.07 Balconies and Decks Wherever occurs
3.08 Blank Wall Treatment Wherever occurs
Key: Standards apply -- Standards do not apply
1 See Subsection 2.04.B (Adjacency Massing Requirements) for additional standards.
Chapter 3 Massing and Articulation
Sections:
3.01 Purpose and Applicability
3.02 Top, Middle, and Base Façade Design
3.03 Massing Features
3.04 Façade Composition
3.05 Fenestration
3.06 Exterior Finishes and Materials
3.07 Balconies and Decks
3.08 Blank Wall Treatment
25 Folsom Objective Development and Design StandardsPublic Review Draft – September 2025Page 516 11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
3.02 Top, Middle, and Base Façade Design
A. Intent
To define the horizontal articulation of a building and affect its perceived height and massing and thus its visual impact on the public realm.
General Note: Photos on this page are illustrative, not regulatory.
26 Folsom Objective Development and Design Standards Public Review Draft – September 2025
3.02: Top, Middle, and Base Façade Design
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
Top
Middle
Base
Upper Story Stepped Back ≥10'
Top
B. Top, Middle, and Base Façade Design Standards
1. General Standards
(a) Building façades shall be designed to visually display three distinct sections: a base, a middle, and a top. (b) Boundaries between the base, middle, and top shall be articulated by a cornice, projecting profile/string course, or other horizontal element.
(c) Elements defining the base, middle, and top shall be consistent across the length of the module or building.
2. Standards for Top
(a) The top shall include at least one of the following:
(1) A parapet with a cap that projects at least two inches; (2) Pitched roof with projecting eave or rake; or
(3) Cornice (may be used in combination with a parapet or pitched roof). (b) The top may include the uppermost story, provided that a cornice or projecting profile/string course, and change of material or color are expressed on the façade at the floor level of the uppermost story. (c) The height of the top, not including the height of any pitched roof above the eave, shall not exceed the height of the base.
(d) Upper stories that are stepped back 10 feet or more from the primary façade do not constitute the top; the portion of the façade that is not stepped back shall include its own top in compliance with this section.
3. Standards for Middle
(a) The middle shall incorporate the building's primary wall color and finish, or material. (b) If the building is more than three stories, the middle shall comprise at least half of the building's stories, not counting any half story or basement.
4. Standards for Base
(a) The base shall comprise the lowest story/stories of the building or module and be defined by a horizontal expression line.
Figure 3.02.1 Base, Middle, and Top Design
27 Folsom Objective Development and Design StandardsPublic Review Draft – September 2025
3.02: Top, Middle, and Base Façade Design
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
3.03 Massing Features
A. Intent
To contribute to the aesthetic quality of the public realm by integrating massing features into the architecture of large buildings, along front or side streets, or buildings at corners.
General Note: Photos on this page are illustrative, not regulatory.
28 Folsom Objective Development and Design Standards Public Review Draft – September 2025
3.03: Massing Features
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
B. Massing Features Standards
Building Length
(along Front or Side Street) Features Required Allowable Features 1 ≤ 80 feet None • Projecting Volumes
• Architectural Recessions
• Upper Story Stepbacks
• Wings
• Bay Windows
• Corner and Tower Elements
80 feet - 120 feet 1
120 feet - 160 feet 2
> 160 feet 3
1 The same massing feature may be used more than once on the same façade.
Figure 3.03.1 Massing Features
Key
First Massing Feature:
Tower Element example
Second Massing Feature:
Architectural Recession
example
Third Massing Feature:
Upper Story Stepback
example
29 Folsom Objective Development and Design StandardsPublic Review Draft – September 2025
3.03: Massing Features
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
C. Standards for Projecting Volumes and Architectural Recessions Projecting
Volumes
1. A projecting volume shall project from the adjacent façade by at least two feet. Adjacent façade(s) shall not be counted as an architectural recession.
2. A projecting volume shall be between two and five bays wide. Bays are required to be between 4 and 30 feet wide.
3. A projecting volume shall extend vertically throughout the building or module's middle and may also extend through the top and/or base.
Architectural
Recessions
1. Where included, a wall inset shall recede from the adjacent façade by at least two feet. Adjacent façade(s) shall not be counted as a projecting volume.
2. A wall inset shall be between two and five bays wide. Bays are required to be between 4 and 30 feet wide.
3. A wall inset shall extend vertically throughout the building or module's middle and top and may also extend through the base.
4. Gable or hipped roof forms shall break at a wall inset and maintain the same eave height on all sides of the wall inset where eaves occur.
Projecting
Volume
Architectural
Recession
Figure 3.03.2 Projecting Volumes Figure 3.03.3 Architectural Recessions
30 Folsom Objective Development and Design Standards Public Review Draft – September 2025
3.03: Massing Features
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
Upper Story
Stepback Depth
Upper Story
Stepback Width
Figure 3.03.4 Upper Story Stepbacks and Wings
D. Standards for Upper Story Stepbacks
Upper Story
Stepbacks
1. Stepback depth: 10' min.
2. Stepback width: 30' min.; 80' max.
31 Folsom Objective Development and Design StandardsPublic Review Draft – September 2025
3.03: Massing Features
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
E. Standards for Bay Windows
1. Applicable to All
Bay windows shall not exceed the height of façade to which they are attached.
2. Specific to Round Bay Windows
(a) Depth: 1' min.; 3' max.
(b) Width: 6' min.; 10' max.
(c) Must be vertically proportioned.
(d) Ganged windows are not allowed.
3. Specific to Chamfered Bay Windows
(a) Depth: 1'min.; 3' max.
(b) Width: 6'min.; 10' max.
(c) Interior angle: 135° or 150°
(d) Number of faces: 3 to 5
(e) Ganged windows are allowed on faces that are parallel to the façade. (f) Ganged windows are not allowed on corner bay windows.
4. Specific to Square Bay Windows
(a) Depth: 1' min.; 3' max.
(b) Width: 6' min.; 9' max.
(c) All windows must be taller than they are wide.
(d) Widest face shall accommodate window grouping.
Figure 3.03.5 Bay Windows
Round Bay Window Chamfered Bay Window Square Bay Window
32 Folsom Objective Development and Design Standards Public Review Draft – September 2025
3.03: Massing Features
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
F. Standards for Tower Elements
1. General Standards
(a) The footprint of a tower element shall be between 10 by 10 feet and 30 by 30 feet. (b) Tower elements shall not include blank walls: the transparency requirements of Section 2.03 (Site Development Standards) Subsection D (Façade Design) shall apply.
(c) Where a tower element is identified, adjacent façade(s) shall not be counted as a projecting volume or architectural recession.
(d) Towers element may exceed the height of the top plate of the building by 10 feet, not including the height of the pitched roof.
(e) Tower elements shall project or recess from adjacent façade by three to four feet, not including eaves.
Extension Lines
Figure 3.03.6 Example of Tower Element at Corner
Key
Tower Element Footprint
Tower Element Projection
Additional Tower Height
33 Folsom Objective Development and Design StandardsPublic Review Draft – September 2025
3.03: Massing Features
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
A. Intent
To affect a building's perceived size and massing and
contribute to the visual appeal of the public realm through a system of symmetry and arrangement of façade elements.
3.04 Façade Composition
General Note: Photos on this page are illustrative, not regulatory.
34 Folsom Objective Development and Design Standards Public Review Draft – September 2025
3.04: Façade Composition
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
B. Façade Composition Standards
1. Each façade within a Building Setback Area is required to be arranged according to a pattern of bays that extend from top to bottom indicating the alignment of façade openings, such as windows and doors. See Section 2.03 (Site Development Standards) Subsection A (Building Placement) for Building Setback Area standards.
2. Bays are required to align throughout the base, middle, and top, but the number of bays may differ between the base, middle, and/or top.
3. Bays are required to be between 4 and 30 feet wide; bays are not required to be equal in width.
4. On façades that exceed 80 feet in length, bays are required be grouped into segments of 40 feet or less in width.
Key Bay Vertical Division Line Bay Grouping
Figure 3.04.1 Façade Composition
Bay Bay
Bay
Bay Bay
Bay
Bay
Bay
Bay
35 Folsom Objective Development and Design StandardsPublic Review Draft – September 2025
3.04: Façade Composition
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
A. Intent
The design of windows and openings promotes cohesion
with surrounding architectural context and reinforces the overall architectural character of the building.
3.05 Fenestration
General Note: Photos on this page are illustrative, not regulatory.
36 Folsom Objective Development and Design Standards Public Review Draft – September 2025
3.05: Fenestration
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
B. Fenestration Standards
1. Applicable to All
(a) When placed within punched openings, all windows or window groupings shall include a sill. (b) Permanent or retractable security gates, grill or bars are prohibited.
2. Specific to Window Openings
(a) At least 75 percent of individual windows on each façade shall be oriented vertically (height greater than width). Where used, horizontally oriented windows shall be ganged with vertically-oriented windows or doors to form a grouping. (b) Ganged windows shall be separated by visible mullions or jambs; continuous ("ribbon") windows are not allowed.
3. Specific to Ventilation Openings
(a) All ventilation openings (such as for a parking garage) shall be screened. (b) Screening material shall be consistent with other materials on façade in terms of color, texture, and/or material. (c) Ventilation openings shall be aligned with window openings on the same façade. (d) Ventilation openings shall be of consistent scale and proportion to window openings on the same façade. (e) Ventilation openings shall include a sill and lintel consistent with those for window openings on the same façade.
37 Folsom Objective Development and Design StandardsPublic Review Draft – September 2025
3.05: Fenestration
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
3.06 Exterior Finishes and Materials
A. Intent
To improve sustainability and durability of the building and respond to existing architectural context through
appropriate material selection and application.
General Note: Photos on this page are illustrative, not regulatory.
38 Folsom Objective Development and Design Standards Public Review Draft – September 2025
3.06: Exterior Finishes and Materials
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
B. Exterior Finishes and Materials Standards
1. Exterior Finishes and Materials
Element Allowed Materials
(a) Exterior Wall Cladding Wood, fiber cement, brick
(b) Base or Foundation (where applicable) Brick, cast stone, wood, fiber cement, treated concrete (c) Roofs
(1) Roofing, mansard Slate shingles or metal (natural or synthetic) (2) Roofing, sloped Asphalt, slate shingles (natural or synthetic), or standing seam metal (d) Windows, Bay Windows, and Entry Doors
(1) Trim or Surround Cast Iron, composite wood, wood, fiber cement (2) Entry Door Wood, fiberglass, composite wood, wood-clad aluminum (3) Window Frames Wood, fiberglass, vinyl, powdercoated aluminum (4) Window Sill Wood, composite wood, fiber cement, cast stone (5) Glazing Clear glass; shall not be tinted, mirrored, or colored (e) Balconies
(1) Guard/Railing Metal, glass
(2) Fascia Metal, wood, composite wood
(f) Porches and Galleries
(1) Columns Wood, composite wood, fiberglass, cast stone (2) Guard/Railing Metal, wood, composite wood, metal, glass (g) Storefronts
(1) Storefront Brick, wood, composite wood, metal
(2) Columns Wood, composite wood, fiberglass, metal
(3) Storefront Base/Bulkhead Wood panels, brick, stone, cast stone, tile, fiber cement, stucco
2. Change in Façade Color and/or Material
(a) Color and/or material change on a façade shall occur only at the following locations:
(1) At inside corners rather than outside corners.
(2) At a horizontal articulation (e.g., string course). (3) At the boundaries between bays/bay groupings (see Section 3.04).
Figure 3.06.1 Change in Façade Color and/or Material
Allowed: Color and/or material change on a façade at
inside corner
Not Allowed: Color and/or material change on a façade
at outside corner
39 Folsom Objective Development and Design StandardsPublic Review Draft – September 2025
3.06: Exterior Finishes and Materials
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
3.07 Balconies and Decks
A. Intent
Balconies provide an option for façade articulation and/or usable outdoor space.
General Note: Photos on this page are illustrative, not regulatory.
40 Folsom Objective Development and Design Standards Public Review Draft – September 2025
3.07: Balconies and Decks
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
B. Balcony and Deck Standards
Where balconies are included, their design shall comply with the following.
1. Specific to Juliet Balconies
(a) Shall be placed in front of inward-swinging door(s) with full glazing. (b) Shall include a base. Base shall project at least four inches from the wall finish surface and shall be a height at least three inches.
(c) Shall include a guard/railing in compliance with building code requirements. (d) At least two brackets are required if balcony projects at least six inches from the wall finish surface and is not part of a porch or gallery.
2. Specific to Occupiable Balconies
(a) Occupiable area shall be at least 4 feet deep and 48 square feet in area. (b) Occupiable area may be recessed into building façade. (c) Shall include a guard/railing in compliance with building code requirements. (d) At least two brackets are required if balcony projects at least six inches from the wall finish surface and is not part of a porch or gallery.
Juliet Balcony
Key
Guard/Railing
Base
Brackets
Inward-Swinging Doors
Occupiable Balcony
Key
Guard/Railing
Base
Brackets
Figure 3.07.1 Balconies
41 Folsom Objective Development and Design StandardsPublic Review Draft – September 2025
3.07: Balconies and Decks
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
3.08 Blank Wall Treatment
A. Intent
A blank wall is a ground-floor wall, or portion of ground floor wall, where no transparent materials or entrances are provided adjacent to the public realm for a continuous length of at least 8 feet and a height of at least 10 feet. Blank wall treatment standards apply to enhance the character and quality of public streetscapes along the ground level.
General Note: Photos on this page are illustrative, not regulatory.
42 Folsom Objective Development and Design Standards Public Review Draft – September 2025
3.08: Blank Wall Treatment
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
B. Blank Wall Treatment Standards
1. At least 50 percent of the area of the blank wall must be covered by one or more of the following:
(a) Mural and/or other art installation.
(b) Protruding/recessed brickwork and tile.
(c) Living plant material, including, but not limited to, green/living wall, and/or plants of sufficient height to screen the blank wall that are rooted in the ground or in planters.
2. The following treatments may be used in combination with any of the above treatments:
(a) Benches or other outdoor seating. Benches may be freestanding or integrated into the articulation of the façade. (b) Bicycle racks. May be freestanding or integrated into the articulation of the façade.
Figure 3.08.1 Blank Wall Treatment Area
Blank Wall Area
Taller than 10 feet
8 feet or more
43 Folsom Objective Development and Design StandardsPublic Review Draft – September 2025
3.08: Blank Wall Treatment
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
44 Folsom Objective Development and Design Standards Public Review Draft – September 2025 This page intentionally left blank Page 535
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
4.01 Purpose and Applicability
A. Purpose. This Chapter sets forth standards for large development sites to create a pattern of walkable development.
B. Applicability . The standards of this Chapter apply to all new development sites over 10 acres. The development site may include one or more parcels.
4.02 Private Thoroughfares
A. New private thoroughfares shall be designed in compliance with city standards.
B. Existing and new thoroughfares, together with civic open spaces (Section 4.04), shall comprise a contiguous pedestrian network throughout the development site and adjacent public ROW.
C. Alleys and driveways are not considered thoroughfares or components of the public realm for the purpose of these standards and shall only be used along the rear or side of design sites (Section 4.05).
Where an alley or driveway intersects the public realm, the pavement of the public realm shall prevail.
D. The thoroughfare network within the development site may be privately owned but shall be accessible by the general public.
1. Private thoroughfares shall not be gated.
Chapter 4 Large Site Standards
Sections:
4.01 Purpose and Applicability
4.02 Private Thoroughfares
4.03 New Blocks
4.04 Civic Open Spaces
4.05 Design Sites
45 Folsom Objective Development and Design StandardsPublic Review Draft – September 2025Page 536 11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
4.03 New Blocks
A. New blocks, including half-blocks, shall be created using thoroughfares in compliance with city standards and Section 4.02 (Private Thoroughfares) or civic open space types in Section 4.04 (Civic Open Spaces).
1. New thoroughfares shall be designed in compliance with city standards and Section 4.02 (Private Thoroughfares). Passages shall not be more than 50 feet from the center of the block.
2. New civic open spaces shall be designed in compliance with Section 4.04 (Civic Open Spaces) B. Individual block lengths and the total block perimeter shall be in compliance with the standards in Table
4.03.A (Block Size Standards).
1. New thoroughfares, not including alleys or driveways, shall align with the centerline of existing thoroughfares adjacent to the development site.
2. Right-of-way stubs, where used, shall be identified and include a notation that all stubs are to connect with future thoroughfares on adjoining property and be designed to transition in compliance with city standards.
3. New dead-end streets and cul-de-sacs are not allowed unless used to divide half-blocks.
4. Where an alley is included, the maximum block perimeter is allowed to be exceeded by the width of the alley.
C. A half-block is allowed to adjoin an existing half-block in compliance with Table 4.03.A (Block Size Standards).
D. Blocks may be uniquely shaped in compliance with the standards in Table 4.03.A (Block Size Standards).
Figure 4.03.1 Maximum Block Size without Passage Figure 4.03.2 Maximum Block Size with Passage Table 4.03.A Block Size Standards
Block Length Block Perimeter Depth of Half-Block(s)
Passage not included 500' max. 1,800' max.
250' max.
Passage included 600' max. 2,000' max.
46 Folsom Objective Development and Design Standards Public Review Draft – September 2025
4.03: New Blocks
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
4.04 Civic Open Spaces
A. The total amount of civic open space required is a minimum of five percent of the development site's gross area (minus existing easements).
1. The civic open space(s) shall be located within the development site.
2. The civic open space(s) shall be designed and built in compliance with the allowed civic open space types in Table 4.04.A (Civic Open Space Types).
3. The civic open space(s) shall be privately owned and maintained.
B. Each civic open space shall abut and be accessible from existing or new thoroughfares for a minimum of 50 feet.
C. Fences and landscaping up to 42 inches tall are allowed to be installed along the perimeter of civic open spaces. Freestanding walls are not allowed.
D. Asphalt surfaces are prohibited unless stamped.
E. Building façades that abut or are across a street from a civic open space shall be designed as the front of the building in compliance with the standards of Chapter 2 (Development Standards).
Table 4.04.A Civic Open Space Types
Type Standards
Park. A landscaped open space for passive recreation or programmed use. (1) Minimum of 5,000 square feet in size.
(2) No side narrower than 50 feet.
(3) At least one side of the green or plaza space shall abut and be accessible from the street or sidewalk network.
(4) Minimum 60 percent landscaped.
Plaza. A hardscaped open space used primarily for civic purposes and commercial activities. (1) Minimum of 5,000 square feet in size.
(2) No side narrower than 50 feet.
(3) At least one side of the green or plaza space shall abut and be accessible from the street or sidewalk network.
(4) Minimum 60 percent hardscaped.
Passage. A private thoroughfare that provides access into or through a block. (1) Minimum total width of 20 feet, including walkway and parkway. (2) Minimum walkway width of 8 feet.
(3) Minimum parkway width of 6 feet each on both sides of the walkway. (4) Parkway shall be designed with non-continuous planting strips or tree wells located between walkway and building.
47 Folsom Objective Development and Design StandardsPublic Review Draft – September 2025
4.04: Civic Open Spaces
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
4.05 Design Sites
A. A design site is a portion of land within a parcel, delineated from other design sites or parcels, to accommodate no more than one primary building. The main purpose of a design site is to allow a parcel to contain multiple buildings while not requiring the legal subdivision of the parcel.
B. Development Standards. The following standards apply to all design sites. See Figure 4.05.1 (Examples of Multiple Design Sites) and Figure 4.05.2 (Example Application of Large Site Standards).
1. The front of all design sites shall abut the public realm along existing and new thoroughfares and civic open spaces. Alleys/driveways are not considered part of the public realm;
2. The side of all design sites shall abut the public realm along existing and new thoroughfares and civic open spaces, the side or rear of another design site, or an alley/driveway; and
3. The rear of all design sites shall abut the side or rear of another design site or an alley/driveway.
4. Design sites shall comply with FMC Chapter 8.36 (Folsom Fire Code).
5. Development standards apply to each individual design site, with the exception of the following, which are applied to the entire development site:
(a) Number of units per General Plan maximum density and FAR; and (b) Public improvements, including private thoroughfare(s) and civic open space(s).
6. Each design site shall have a maximum width of 200 feet and maximum depth of 250 feet, unless approved as an adjustment due to site conditions per Chapter 5 (Exceptions to Standards).
7. Parking, driveways, pedestrian pathways, trash enclosures, and stormwater detention areas may be shared with adjacent design sites within the same parcel.
8. Where new primary buildings are proposed within a development site and have no existing public realm to abut, the public realm shall be extended into the site in the form of a new thoroughfare(s) and/or civic open space(s).
(a) New thoroughfares within the development site shall be designed in compliance with Section
4.02 (Private Thoroughfares), connect to existing abutting public ROW and be contiguous. (b) New civic open space(s) shall be designed in compliance with Section 4.04 (Civic Open Spaces), be located adjacent to the existing street, or be connected to the existing street through new thoroughfares.
48 Folsom Objective Development and Design Standards Public Review Draft – September 2025
4.05: Design Sites
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
Key
Design Site Thoroughfare Building
Public Realm Civic Open Space Vehicle Access & Parking
Figure 4.05.1 Examples of Multiple Design Sites
Extend the public realm
into the site with a new
thoroughfare(s) and/or civic
open space(s).
Place buildings to face the
public realm. On-site parking
is located behind or under
the buildings. Vehicular
access is provided across
design sites
Identify the front and side
street of the design site(s).
Buildings are required to
face the public realm and
include building and/or unit
entries in these areas.
Orient design sites to front
onto the public realm.
Example A: Midblock Site Example B: Corner Site
Front Front
Side Street
Existing Parcel Existing Parcel
49 Folsom Objective Development and Design StandardsPublic Review Draft – September 2025
4.05: Design Sites
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
Existing Street
Existing Street
Existing Street
Figure 4.05.2 Example Application of Large Site Standards The following four steps summarize the process of applying the standards of this Chapter. In this example, new thoroughfares and civic open spaces create an interconnected network of new blocks within the development site. See also Section 4.05 (Design Sites).
Step 3: Place Civic Open Space(s) and Design Sites
Locate and design civic open space(s) in compliance with the standards in Section 4.03 (Civic Open Spaces). Place design sites (Section 4.05) to front the public realm along existing and new thoroughfares and civic open spaces.
Step 4: Place Buildings on Design Sites
Locate buildings and parking in compliance with standards in Chapter 2 (Development Standards).
Step 1: Identify the Development Site
The development site is the entire site within the scope of the project, which may include one or more parcels.
Step 2: Introduce New Private Thoroughfares to Create
New Blocks
Introduce new private thoroughfares (Section 4.02) to create new blocks (Section 4.03) and extend the public realm into the development site.
Existing Street
Existing Street
Existing Street
Development
Site
New Block
New Half
Block
New Thoroughfare Development Site Boundary
Civic Open SpaceDesign Site Passage Parking Area
New Block
New Half
Block
Alley
Façade Buildout
50 Folsom Objective Development and Design Standards Public Review Draft – September 2025
4.05: Design Sites
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
5.01 Purpose and Applicability
A. Purpose. This Chapter establishes criteria for allowing deviations from certain standards for specific situations without discretionary review because of the prescriptive nature of the standards, as allowed by State law.
B. Applicability . This Chapter applies to all developments proposed under these Objective Development and Design Standards (ODDS). The Review Authority is allowed to grant exceptions for only the standards identified in this Chapter. Adjustment of the identified standards in Tables 5.030.A and B shall be only to the extent necessary to achieve compliance with the ODDS.
1. Exceptions are applied separately for design sites with an average slope of 10 percent or less and an average slope over 10 percent. The average slope for a lot is based on existing topography and calculated using the methodology in Section 7.05 (Average Slope). (a) Lots with an average slope of 10 percent or less may request an exception in Table 5.03.A (Exceptions to Standards for Design Sites with 10% or Less Average Slope). (b) Lots with an average slope over 10 percent may request an exception in Table 5.03.B (Exceptions to Standards for Design Sites with Over 10% Average Slope).
Sections:
5.01 Purpose and Applicability
5.02 Procedures and Findings
5.03 Alternate Discretionary Design Review Process
Chapter 5 Exceptions to Standards
51 Folsom Objective Development and Design StandardsPublic Review Draft – September 2025Page 542 11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
5.02 Procedures and Findings
A. Review Procedure and Authority
1. Exception request(s) shall be submitted to the Planning Division of the Community Development Department and reviewed together with the project plans.
2. The Community Development Director shall be the Review Authority, except for standards that affect visibility at driveways and intersections, or standards in the right-of-way, which shall be reviewed by the Community Development Director.
B. Application Requirements. Exception requests shall be reviewed and processed as follows:
1. Exception requests shall be accompanied by a written request by the applicant explaining the need for the exception and identifying all existing site conditions or features that prevent compliance with the specific standard(s).
2. Granting an exception does not eliminate other standards not specified in Table 5.03.A (Exceptions to Standards for Design Sites with 10% or Less Average Slope) or Table 5.03.B (Exceptions to Standards for Design Sites with Over 10% Average Slope).
C. Findings. For the Review Authority to grant an exception, findings/criteria in Table 5.03.A (Exceptions to Standards for Design Sites with 10% or Less Average Slope) or Table 5.03.B (Exceptions to Standards for Design Sites with Over 10% Average Slope) are required for the exception.
D. Existing Site Condition. An existing site condition is a legally permitted building or structure constructed on the site with a final inspection or certificate of occupancy or a natural feature that exists as of the date of initial application submittal.
1. For purposes of this Chapter, existing site conditions that prevent compliance with a standard include, but are not limited to, the following:
(a) A protected tree or Landmark Tree per FMC § 12.16 (Tree Preservation). (b) Utility infrastructure that is not required to be removed, relocated, or installed underground. (c) A retaining wall necessary to retain or support soil. (d) A watercourse, including wetlands and vernal pools, identified by the City, or any other map as may be adopted or established by ordinance.
(e) Easements on record at the Sacramento County Recorder's Office.
2. The existing site condition used as a basis for requesting an exception shall not be removed or altered in their footprint.
5.03 Alternate Discretionary Design Review Process
A. Applicants wishing to deviate from these standards beyond the allowed exceptions outlined in this Chapter must apply for a Planned Development Permit which involves discretionary design review and Planning Commission action. For information on Planned Development Permit process please refer to FMC Chapter 17.38.
52 Folsom Objective Development and Design Standards Public Review Draft – September 2025
5.02: Procedures and Findings
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
Table 5.03.A Exceptions to Standards for Design Sites with 10 % or Less Average Slope Administrative
Relief Type Required Findings Allowed Administrative Relief & Conditions
Reference to
Standard
1. Building Placement Standards
(a) Primary Building Setbacks
Increase or decrease in
the minimum to maximum
required setback for a
primary building.
i. Existing site conditions
prevent compliance
with the setback
standard.
Front or Side Street Setback: Deviation
of up to 25 percent of the standard.
Side or Rear Setback: Standard
reduced to three feet minimum.
Section 2.03.A
(Building
Placement)
(b) Building Setback Area
Reduce the minimum length
of façade required within or
abutting the building setback
area.
i. Existing site conditions
prevent compliance
with the setback
standard.
Reduction by up to 10 percent of the
standard.
The horizontal unbuilt area
resulting from this exception shall
be landscaped in compliance with
the State's Model Water Efficient
Landscape Ordinance (MWELO).
2. Parking Placement Standards
(a) Front or Side Street
Minimum Setback
Reduce the minimum parking
setback.
i. Existing site conditions
prevent compliance
with the parking
minimum setback
standard.
Reduction by up to 25 percent of the
standard.
The setback reduction maintains
visibility at driveways and intersections
and does not affect standards for the
right-of-way.
Section 2.03.B
(Parking Placement)
(b) Front Vehicle Access
Allow vehicle access from
front on design sites/lots.
i. Existing site conditions
prevent compliance
with the driveways
standard; or
Vehicular access from the front.
The driveway is in compliance with the
Development Standards; and
The ground floor space remains
occupiable in compliance with the
Development Standards, as allowed to
be adjusted by this section; and
The existing lot is at least 50 feet wide;
and
The proposed driveway is not aligned
with any driveway on the opposite side
of the street.
ii. Alley does not
meet vehicle access
requirements.
53 Folsom Objective Development and Design StandardsPublic Review Draft – September 2025
5.03: Alternate Discretionary Design Review Process
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
Table 5.03.A Exceptions to Standards for Design Sites with 10 % or Less Average Slope Administrative
Relief Type Required Findings Allowed Administrative Relief & Conditions
Reference to
Standard
3. Building Form
(a) Building Footprint Depth or
Width
Increase in the maximum
allowed.
i. Existing site conditions
prevent compliance
with the standard.
Increase of up to 10 percent of the
standard.
Section 2.03.C
(Building Form)
(b) Ground Floor Occupiable
Space
Decrease in the minimum
depth required.
i. If existing parcel is less
than 100 feet in depth.
20 feet minimum. Section 2.03.C
(Building Form)
4. Open Space
(a) Private or Common Open
Space
Reduction in the required
minimum open space.
i. Existing site conditions
prevent compliance
with the open space
standard.
Up to 5' of the dimensional standard or
up to 10 percent of the required area.
Section 2.04.F
(Open Space)
5. Block Size Standards
(a) Block Length or Perimeter i. Preservation of existing building or buildings,
constructed prior to
the adoption of these
ODDS.
Maximum block length and perimeter
standards to be increased to encompass
the building(s) and all setbacks required
by the applicable zone(s).
Table 4.03.A (Block
Size Standards)
6. Design Site Dimensions
(a) Depth or Width
Increase in the maximum
allowed.
i. Existing site conditions
prevent compliance
with the standard.
Reduction by up to 10 percent of the
standard.
Section 4.05
(Design Sites)
54 Folsom Objective Development and Design Standards Public Review Draft – September 2025
5.02: Procedures and Findings
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
Table 5.03.B Exceptions to Standards for Design Sites with Over 10% Average Slope Administrative
Relief Type Required Findings Allowed Administrative Relief & Conditions
Reference to
Standard
1. Building Placement Standards
(a) Front or Side Building
Setback
Increase or decrease in
minimum to maximum
required setback for a
primary building.
i. Existing site conditions
prevent compliance
with the setback
standard.
Deviation of up to 50 percent of the
standard.
Section 2.03.A
(Building
Placement)
2. Parking Placement Standards
(a) Front or Side Street
Minimum Setback
Reduce the minimum
parking setback.
i. Existing site conditions
prevent compliance
with the parking
minimum setback
standard; or
Reduction by up to 10 percent of the
standard.
The setback reduction maintains visibility at
driveways and intersections and does not
affect standards for the right-of-way.
Section 2.03.B
(Parking Placement)
ii. The parcel exceeds an
average slope of 20
percent.
Required parking is allowed to be located
between the ROW and the building for a
max 50 percent of front lot width.
The driveway is in compliance with the
Development Standards; and
The ground floor space remains occupiable
in compliance with the Development
Standards, as allowed to be adjusted by this
section.
(b) Front Vehicle Access
Allow vehicle access
from front on design
sites/lots.
i. Existing site conditions
prevent compliance
with the driveways
standard.
Vehicular access from the front.
The driveway is in compliance with the
Development Standards; and
The ground floor space remains occupiable
in compliance with the Development
Standards, as allowed to be adjusted by this
section; and
The existing lot is at least 50 feet wide; and
The proposed driveway is not aligned with
any driveway on the opposite side of the
street; and
The design site/lot average slope along the
side street exceeds 15 percent.
55 Folsom Objective Development and Design StandardsPublic Review Draft – September 2025
5.03: Alternate Discretionary Design Review Process
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
Table 5.03.B Exceptions to Standards for Design Sites with Over 10% Average Slope
3. Building Form
(a) Building Footprint
Depth or Width
Increase in the maximum
allowed.
i. Existing site conditions
prevent compliance
with the standard.
Increase of up to 10 percent of the
standard.
Section 2.03.C
(Building Form)
(b) Ground Floor
Occupiable Space
Decrease in the
minimum depth
required.
i. Existing site conditions
prevent compliance
with the ground floor
occupiable space
standard.
15 feet minimum. Section 2.03.C
(Building Form)
4. Open Space
(a) Private or Common
Open Space
Reduction in the required
minimum open space.
i. Existing site conditions
prevent compliance
with the open space
standard.
Up to 5' of the dimensional standard or up to
10 percent of the required area.
Section 2.04.F
(Open Space)
5. Site Grading
(a) Retaining Wall (Height)
Increase in maximum
retaining wall height.
i. Existing slopes
average 20 percent
slope; and
Increase in retaining wall height up to 10
feet along interior design site/lot line(s);
Increase in retaining wall height up to 12
feet within the building footprint if primary
building height is in compliance with
Development Standards.
Section 2.04.L
(Screening and
Walls)
ii. The retaining wall(s)
is necessary to
accommodate the
building(s) and
required site access
and parking.
6. Design Site Dimensions
(a) Depth or Width
Increase in the maximum
allowed.
i. Existing site conditions
prevent compliance
with the standard.
Reduction by up to 10 percent of the
standard.
Section 4.05
(Design Sites)
56 Folsom Objective Development and Design Standards Public Review Draft – September 2025
5.02: Procedures and Findings
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
6.01 Purpose
This Chapter provides definitions for specialized terms and phrases used in the Objective Design and Development Standards (ODDS). All other applicable definitions in the Folsom Municipal Code (FMC) Section
17.02 (Definitions) apply. In the event of a conflict between the ODDS and FMC definitions, that the ODDS definitions shall apply to projects subject to these standards.
6.02 Definitions
A. Definitions
Abutting. Having a common boundary either directly sharing a border or separated by an alley. Lots/ design sites having no common boundary other than a common corner shall not be considered abutting.
Alley. A public or private way that is primarily used for vehicular access to the back or side of design sites.
Alleys are not considered thoroughfares.
Applicant. Any person, firm, partnership, association, joint venture, corporation, or any other entity or combination of entities, or state or local government agency applying for a permit.
Architectural Feature. An exterior building element that contributes to its overall appearance or functionality, including, but not limited to, eaves, rakes, cornices, bay windows, window and door surrounds, chimneys, light fixtures, and oriels.
Awning (syn. Canopy) . A covering that extends from the wall of a building typically used to shade or cover a window, door, or entry.
B. Definitions
Balcony. A projecting or recessed platform on a building, partially enclosed with a railing, wall, or balustrade.
Base (of Building). The lowest story or stories adjacent to the ground, occupying at least an entire floor.
See Section 3.02 (Top, Middle, and Base Façade Design).
Bay. A division of a building between vertical lines or planes that run entirely through solid components of the building, including the entire space between consecutive structural supports.
Bay Window. An architectural projection that is either attached to the ground or projects from the building façade, consisting of one or more stories in height and contains at least 60 percent glass area.
Block. An area of land separated from other areas by an adjacent thoroughfare(s) or civic open space(s).
For the purposes of these ODDS, a block is defined by design site/lot lines. See Section 4.03 (New Blocks).
Chapter 6 Definitions
Sections:
6.01 Purpose
6.02 Definitions
57 Folsom Objective Development and Design StandardsPublic Review Draft – September 2025Page 548 11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
Block Length. The horizontal distance from the design site/lot line on one end of the block to the design site/lot line on the other end along the same street. See Figures 4.03.2 (Maximum Block Size without Passage) and 4.03.1 (Maximum Block Size with Passage).
Block Perimeter. The aggregate of all sides of a block as defined by design site/lot lines.
Bracket. Structural and/or ornamental elements are designed to strengthen the connection between components of a structure that meet at an angle.
Buildable Area. The horizontal area in which a building is allowed to be constructed.
Building, Primary. The building that serves as the focal point for all activities related to the principal use of the parcel.
Building Elevation. See “Building Façade.”
Building Entrance. See "Entry."
Building Façade. The exterior walls of a building.
1. Building Façade, Front. The exterior wall of a building facing a front design site/lot line.
2. Building Façade, Side Street. The exterior wall of a building facing a side street design site/lot line.
3. Building Façade, Interior Side. The exterior wall of a building facing a side design site/lot line(s).
4. Building Façade, Rear. The exterior wall of a building opposite the front design site/lot line.
Building Form. The overall shape and dimensions of a building.
Building Setback. See "Setback."
Building Setback Area. The area between the minimum and maximum setback lines along the front of a design site/lot and along the side street of a corner design site/lot where the building façade is required to be placed. Chapter 2 (Development Standards) Subsection A (Building Placement) identify the minimum amount of façade to abut and/or be placed in the building setback area.
Bulkhead (syn. Shopfront Base). The area of the storefront between the sidewalk and the display window.
By-Right Relief. Allowed deviations from certain standards for specific situations without discretionary review because of the prescriptive nature of the standards, as allowed by State law . See Chapter 5 (Exceptions to Standards).
C. Definitions
Canopy. See "Awning."
Civic Open Space. An outdoor area dedicated for public gathering and civic activities. See Section 4.04 (Civic Open Spaces).
Column. A vertical shaft extending from the ground or from one part of the structure to another.
Commercial. Pertaining to any business, trade, industry, or other activity engaged in an exchange of goods, services, rights or interests in property, or any other valuable consideration.
Common Area. A portion of a development held in common and/or single ownership that is not reserved for the exclusive use or benefit of an individual tenant or owner and is available for use by all persons who reside or work in the building or on the design site/lot.
58 Folsom Objective Development and Design Standards Public Review Draft – September 2025
6.02: Definitions
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
Cornice. A horizontal projection traditionally used to join a roof to the wall below and protect the wall from rainwater. The cornice forms the uppermost part of an entablature and may appear secondarily in locations other than at the building's eave or parapet, such as the upper boundary of a base story.
Cul-de-sac. A street that connects to another public street only at one end and is not planned for future extension.
D. Definitions
Dedication. The transfer by a subdivider to a public entity of title to real property or an interest therein, or of an easement or right in real property, the transfer of facilities, the installation of improvements, or any combination of these. See FMC § 16.32.010 (Dedication of Street, Alleys, and Other Public Right-of- Way or Easements).
Design Site. A parcel or portion of land within a parcel, delineated from other design sites and/or parcels, to accommodate one primary building. Design sites are treated like parcels for the purpose of applying development standards but are not required to be legally subdivided. See Section 4.05 (Design Sites).
Design Site Depth. The horizontal distance between the front design site line and the rear design site line of a design site measured perpendicular to the front design site line.
Design Site Line. The perimeter and geometry of a design site demarcating one design site from another.
1. Design Site Line, Front. The design site line abutting a thoroughfare or civic open space where the building front will be placed.
2. Design Site Line, Side Street. The design site line that abuts a thoroughfare or civic open space and is not the front design site line.
3. Design Site Line, Side. The design site line not abutting a thoroughfare or civic open space and is not the rear design site line.
4. Design Site Line, Rear. The design site line opposite the front design site line.
Design Site Width. The horizontal distance between the design site lines perpendicular to the front design site line.
Development Site (syn. Project Site). A parcel, group of parcels, or portion(s) of parcels on which proposed structures and improvements are to be constructed.
Driveway (syn. Drive Aisle) . An accessway that provides vehicular access between a street or alley and the parking or loading facilities of an adjacent property.
E. Definitions
Eave. The junction of the lower edge of a sloped roof and the wall of a building, running parallel to grade.
Elevated Ground Floor. A ground floor that is situated above the grade plane of the adjacent sidewalk.
Encroachment. Any architectural feature, structure, or structural element that breaks the plane of a vertical or horizontal regulatory limit by extending into a setback, forecourt, or required open space.
Entry, Building. An opening, including, but not limited to, a door, gateway, or gate, that allows access to a building.
Expression Line. A horizontal molding, projection, or other boundary articulating one portion of a façade from the portion above.
59 Folsom Objective Development and Design StandardsPublic Review Draft – September 2025
6.02: Definitions
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
F. Definitions
Façade. See "Building Façade."
Façade Transparency. Related to the requirement for fenestration along the front of a building. See Chapter 2 (Development Standards) Subsection D (Façade Design).
Fence. A structure made of wood, metal, masonry, or other material typically used to screen or enclose, an open space.
Finish Level, Ground Floor. The height difference between the finished floor on the ground floor and the adjacent sidewalk.
Footprint, Building. The outline of the area of ground covered by the foundations of a building or structure.
G. Definitions
Gable. A vertical wall in the shape of a triangle formed between the cornice or eave and the ridge of the roof.
Ganged Windows (syn. Grouped Windows). Multiple windows separated by a mullion (structural divisions).
Garage. See "Parking, Covered."
Glazing. Openings in a building in which glass is installed.
Grade. The finished ground level at any point along the exterior walls of a structure. Where walls are parallel with and within five feet of a sidewalk, alley, or other public way, the level above ground shall be measured at the elevation of the sidewalk, alley, or public way. Also see "Grade, Finished." Grade, Finished (syn. Proposed Grade). The final ground surface elevation after the completion of grading or other site preparation related to a proposed development that conforms to an approved Grading Permit or Building Permit. See also "Grade."
Grading. Any excavating or filling or combination thereof.
Ground Floor. See "Story, First."
Ground Floor, Finish Level. The height of the finished level of the ground floor above the adjacent sidewalk. In the case of a terrace frontage type, the ground floor finish level is the height of the walk above the adjacent street. Regulations for ground floor finish level for residential uses do not apply to ground floor lobbies and common areas in buildings.
Grouped Windows. See "Ganged Windows."
H. Definitions
Hardscape. Paving, decks, patios, and other hard, non-porous surfaces.
Height
1. Height, Above Grade. The vertical distance from a point on the ground below a structure to a point directly above.
2. Height, Highest Top Plate. The vertical distance between the adjacent finished grade and the highest top plate of the building.
60 Folsom Objective Development and Design Standards Public Review Draft – September 2025
6.02: Definitions
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
3. Height, Number of Stories. The number of stories in a structure allowed above the adjacent finished grade. See "Stories."
4. Height, Overall. The vertical distance between the adjacent existing or finished grade, whichever is lower, and the highest part of the structure directly above.
I. Definitions
Impervious. A hard surface area which either prevents or retards the entry of water into soil, as would occur under natural conditions, or which causes water to run off the surface in greater quantities or at an increased rate of flow than would occur under natural conditions.
Infill. Refers to building within unused and underutilized lands within existing development patterns.
Infill development is critical to accommodating growth and redesigning cities to be environmentally- and socially sustainable.
J. Definitions
No specialized terms beginning with the letter J are defined at this time.
K. Definitions
No specialized terms beginning with the letter K are defined at this time.
L. Definitions
Landing. An unenclosed, unroofed platform attached to a building and serving as a required means of egress from the first floor of a building or a level area at the top or bottom of a staircase or between one flight of stairs and another.
Lintel. Horizontal support for a door or window below.
Lot (syn. Parcel). A parcel, tract, or area of land whose boundaries have been established by a legal instrument such as a deed or map recorded with the County of Sacramento and that is recognized as a separate legal entity for purposes of transfer of title, except public easements or rights-of-way. For the purposes of these ODDS, lot line, parcel line, and design site line shall be considered synonymous.
M. Definitions
Main Body. The primary massing of a primary building.
Massing. The overall shape or arrangement of the bulk or volume of a building and structures.
Median. A planted or paved area that separates two roadways or divides a portion of a road into two or more lanes.
Mixed-Use. The combination of residential and nonresidential uses within the same building or the same general area.
1. Mixed-Use Building. A single building that contains both nonresidential and residential uses.
2. Mixed-Use Development. A development site that contains both nonresidential and residential uses on the same design site/lot, whether or not they are located within the same structure.
Mullion. Vertical bar providing structural support between windows.
N. Definitions
No specialized terms beginning with the letter N are defined at this time.
61 Folsom Objective Development and Design StandardsPublic Review Draft – September 2025
6.02: Definitions
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
O. Definitions
Occupiable Space. The portion of the building between the street-facing façade and the rear interior wall of the ground-floor space available for permitted uses. This space is designed and intended for human occupancy and active use, such as residential units, offices, retail, lobbies, and amenity areas, as opposed to space used for storage, parking, utilities, or circulation only.
Open Space, Civic. An outdoor area dedicated for public gathering and civic activities.
Open Space, Private. The area required for each residential unit in some building types provided as outdoor yard areas, patios, decks, or balconies.
Open Space, Shared. An entry court, forecourt, courtyard, or other on-site open space shared by multiple residential units or non-residential units.
P. Definitions
Panels. Solid raised or recessed parts of a door, surrounded by stiles, rails, and mullions.
Parapet. A low wall along the edge of a roof or the portion of a wall that extends above the roof line.
Parcel. See "Lot."
Parking
1. Parking, Covered. An accessory building, such as a carport or garage, accessible to vehicles that completely covers the parking spaces.
a. Carport. A structure, or portion of a structure, accessible to vehicles, with a solid weatherproof roof that is permanently open on at least two sides, used as parking or storage of one or more motor vehicles.
b. Garage. An enclosed building or portion of a building accessible to vehicles, used as parking or storage of one or more motor vehicles.
c. Garage, Private. A building or portion of a building in which only motor vehicles used by the tenants of the building or buildings on the premises are stored or kept. d. Garage, Public. A structure or portion thereof offering parking to the public with or without a fee.
e. Parking, Tuck-Under. Parking spaces located in an at-grade garage or accessed by an open driveway under the rear or interior side of the building or under all of the building except for the required ground floor habitable space. Tuck-under parking has occupiable space above the garage level.
2. Parking, Shared Court. A small grouping of covered or uncovered parking spaces. See Subsection
2.04.M.7 (Shared Parking Court).
3. Parking, Structured. A structure, or portion of a structure, comprised of one or more levels or floors used predominately for parking motor vehicles, including underground parking and parking at grade within a building or structure.
a. Parking, Podium. Parking spaces located in an at-grade garage with shared ingress/egress and maneuvering areas located under the rear or interior side of the building or under all of the building except for the required ground floor occupiable space. The podium parking garage has occupiable space above the garage level.
62 Folsom Objective Development and Design Standards Public Review Draft – September 2025
6.02: Definitions
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
b. Parking, Stacked. Parking spaces arranged in a system that provides two to three spaces in the horizontal area of one space. This type of system is within a podium and subterranean parking structure.
c. Parking, Subterranean. Parking spaces located below the finished grade of the building.
4. Parking, Surface. A ground level parking lot used exclusively for parking motor vehicles. Parking spaces may be uncovered or covered as a carport.
5. Parking, Tandem. A parking space deep enough to allow a maximum of two cars to park, one behind the other
6. Parking, Uncovered. Parking spaces that are completely or partially open to the sky.
Parking Driveway Width. The horizontal measurement of an access driveway to a parking area, measured perpendicular to the direction of travel.
Parkway. That portion of a public ROW, typically landscaped, located between the outermost edge of the sidewalk and the curb.
Parkway Tree. See "Street Tree."
Passage. A pedestrian pathway that extends from a sidewalk or civic open space to enhance bike and pedestrian connectivity and provide frontage opportunities.
Patio Cover. A one-story, roofed structure used only for recreational and/or outdoor living purposes that may be attached or detached as an accessory structure to the primary building.
Podium. A continuous projecting base or pedestal under a building often occupied by parking.
Porch. A covered shelter projecting in front of the entrance of a building.
Primary Building. See "Building, Primary."
Private Open Space. See "Open Space, Private."
Public Realm. The outdoor space (horizontally and vertically) accessible to the public, including the setbacks, sidewalks, landscaping, and street between buildings, consisting of new and existing thoroughfares and civic open spaces. For the purpose of the ODDS, the public realm may be privately owned.
Punched Opening. A window opening on an exterior wall where the glass is inset at least three inches from the primary plane of the façade.
Q. Definitions
No specialized terms beginning with the letter Q are defined at this time.
R. Definitions
Renovation (syn. Remodel)
1. A structural change to the foundation, roof, floor, or exterior of load-bearing walls of a facility or the extension of an existing facility to increase its floor area.
2. Alteration of an existing facility including, but not limited to, significantly changing its function, even if such renovation does not include any structural change to the facility.
3. Remodeling of the building's interior or exterior.
63 Folsom Objective Development and Design StandardsPublic Review Draft – September 2025
6.02: Definitions
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
Residential. Lands, buildings, or structures or portions thereof used, or designed for use, as a home or residence of one or more individuals.
Right-of-Way (ROW). A strip of land acquired by reservation, easement, dedication, forced dedication, prescription, or condemnation and intended to be occupied or occupied by a street, railroad, electric transmission lines, oil or gas pipeline, water line, sanitary storm sewer, or other similar use.
S. Definitions
Setback. The distance by which a structure, parking area, or other development feature is separated from a design site/lot line.
1. Setback, Front (syn. Building Setback Area, Front). An area extending across the full width of the design site/lot parallel to the front design site/lot line, extending between the side design site/lot lines.
2. Setback, Parking. The mandatory clear distance between a design site/lot line and parking area.
3. Setback, Rear. An area extending the full width of the design site/lot between a rear design site/lot line, parallel to the rear design site/lot line, extending between the side design site/lot lines.
4. Setback, Side. An area between a side design site/lot line, parallel to the side design site/lot line, extending between the front and rear design site/lot lines.
5. Setback, Side Street (syn. Building Setback Area, Side Street). Setback adjacent to side street design site/lot.
Shopfront Base. See "Bulkhead."
Sidewalk. A paved, surfaced, or leveled area, paralleling and usually separated from the street, used as a pedestrian walkway.
Sill. The horizontal bottom member of a window frame.
Stair Penthouse. An enclosed rooftop space for the housing of a stairway and containing no habitable or storage space.
Storefront. The majority portion of a shopfront frontage that consists of the display window and/or entrance and its components, including windows, doors, transoms, and sill pane.
Story. That portion of a building included between the surface of any floor and the surface of the floor next above it, except that the topmost story shall be that portion of a building included between the surface of the topmost floor and the surface of the roof above.
1. Story, First (syn. Ground Floor). The lowest story, or the ground story of any building, that is closest to the finished grade. The story above is the Second Floor or Second Story.
2. Story, Half (syn. Attic Story). A conditioned space that rests primarily underneath the slope of the roof, usually having dormer windows. The half-story is identified by the ".5" in the description of maximum height (e.g., 2.5). A half-story is considered a story when its top wall plates, on at least two opposite exterior walls, are four feet or more above the floor of such story.
Street. A public or private way constructed for the primary purpose of vehicular travel. The term “street” describes the entire legal ROW or easement (public or private), including, but not limited to, the traffic lanes, bike lanes, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, whether paved or unpaved, parkways, and any other grounds found within the legal ROW. The name given to the ROW (avenue, court, road, etc.) is not determinative of whether the ROW is a street.
64 Folsom Objective Development and Design Standards Public Review Draft – September 2025
6.02: Definitions
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
1. Street, Front. Street located along the front design site/lot line.
2. Street, Private. Any street, not a public street.
3. Street, Public. A street for which the ROW is owned by or offered for dedication to the public and accepted by the City. A public street will be shown on the official dedicated street map of the City of Folsom.
4. Street, Side. Street located along a lot line/design site/lot line that is not the front design site/lot line.
Street Tree (syn. Parkway Tree). A tree planted in public areas, tree wells, parkways, sidewalk areas, street easements, streets, and rights-of-way.
String Course. A continuous horizontal band on the exterior wall of a building providing visual definition between floors.
T. Definitions
Thoroughfare. A way for use by vehicular, pedestrian, and/or bicycle traffic that provides access to design sites and civic open spaces. Thoroughfares include both private and public streets, but not alleys or driveways.
Transom. Glazed lite or window set above a door that is the same width or no wider than the door frame, including sidelights if present.
Trim. A narrow strip of wood, molding, or other material as surface decoration and/or the covering for joints and seams between the building structure and window and door openings or at wall edges.
U. Definitions
Upper Floor. A floor in a building that is located above the first floor.
V. Definitions
No specialized terms beginning with the letter V are defined at this time.
W. Definitions
Walkway. A paved way used for pedestrian traffic. See also "Sidewalk." Window. An opening in an exterior wall, that allows light into the interior, but is not designed as an entry.
Window, Dormer. A vertical window opening with surrounding wall and roof construction projecting from a sloping roof.
Wing. A structure of at least five feet in depth physically attached to, and secondary to, the main body of a primary building.
X. Definitions
No specialized terms beginning with the letter X are defined at this time.
Y. Definitions
No specialized terms beginning with the letter Y are defined at this time.
Z. Definitions
Zoning Code. The Zoning Code of the City of Folsom specified in Title 17 (Zoning).
65 Folsom Objective Development and Design StandardsPublic Review Draft – September 2025
6.02: Definitions
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
66 Folsom Objective Development and Design Standards Public Review Draft – September 2025 This page intentionally left blank Page 557
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
7.01 Purpose
This Chapter describes the measurement methods and calculations of site and building elements to ensure compliance with the Objective Development and Design Standards (ODDS).
7.02 Façade Buildout
A. The required amount of building façade in the building setback area is expressed in the Development Standards as a percentage, which is calculated as follows:
1. Identify the width and depth of the design site/lot and required setbacks for the primary building.
See Section 2.03.A (Building Placement).
2. Calculate the net buildable width of the design site/lot as follows:
(a) Front building setback area of an interior design site/lot: Subtract the horizontal length of each side setback from the total width of the design site/lot. (b) Front building setback area of a corner design site/lot: Subtract the horizontal length of the side and side street setback from the total width of the design site/lot. (c) Side street building setback area: Subtract the horizontal length of the front and rear setback from the total depth of the design site/lot.
3. Multiply the net buildable width of the design site/lot by the façade buildout requirement for front or side street. See Section 2.03.A (Building Placement).
4. The result is the minimum length of building façade required within or abutting the building setback area. See Figure 7.02.1 (Example Calculations of Required Façade Buildout) for an example of requirements calculations for the front building setback area of an interior design site/lot and the side street building setback area of a corner design site/lot. See also Figure 7.02.2 (Examples of Façade Buildout Compliance).
B. The building façade is allowed in any configuration (e.g., curved, rectilinear).
Chapter 7 Measurement Methods
Sections:
7.01 Purpose
7.02 Façade Buildout
7.03 Building Form
7.04 Façade Transparency
7.05 Average Slope
67 Folsom Objective Development and Design StandardsPublic Review Draft – September 2025Page 558 11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
Side Street
Front
Figure 7.02.1 Example Calculations of Required Façade Buildout Front Building Setback Area for Interior Design Site/Lot 50 ft Design Site/Lot Width
- 5 ft Side Setback
- 5 ft Side Setback
= 40 ft Net Buildable Width
X 70% Min. percentage of Façade Buildout for Front
= 28 ft Min. required length of façade required within or abutting Front building setback area
Side Street Building Setback Area for Corner Design Site/ Lot
50 ft Design Site/Lot Width
- 5 ft Side Setback
- 10 ft Side Street Setback
= 35 ft Net Buildable Width
X 60% Min. percentage of Façade Buildout for Side Street = 21 ft Min. required length of façade required within or abutting Side Street building setback area
Key
Building Setback Area Front Setback
Design Site/Lot Width Side Street Setback
Design Site/Lot Depth Side Setback
68 Folsom Objective Development and Design Standards Public Review Draft – September 2025
7.01: Purpose
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
Figure 7.02.2 Examples of Façade Buildout Compliance
Key
Building Setback Area Façade within or abutting Building Setback Area A. Abutting Building Setback Area Only B. Within Building Setback Area Only C. Abutting and Within Building Setback Area D. Abutting and Within Building Setback Area on Non-rectilinear Parcels
69 Folsom Objective Development and Design StandardsPublic Review Draft – September 2025
7.02: Façade Buildout
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
Highest
Top Plate
BUILDING TYPE: DUPLEX, STACKED
Key
Building Width Building Depth
Figure 7.03.3 Building Width and Depth
Figure 7.03.1 Height, Highest Top Plate Figure 7.03.2 Height, Above Top Plate to Top of Roof Slope Height above
Top Plate to Top
of Roof Slope
Height to
Highest
Top Plate
7.03 Building Form
A. Building Height. The height of a building is measured in the following ways. Where height varies on different sides of a building, the tallest height shall be the building’s height.
1. Height, Highest Top Plate. The vertical distance between the adjacent finished grade and the top of the highest top plate of the primary building. See Figure 7.03.1 (Height, Highest Top Plate).
2. Height, Above Top Plate to Top of Roof Slope. The vertical distance between the highest top plate and the top of the roof slope of the primary building. See Figure 7.03.2 (Height, Above Top Plate to Top of Roof Slope).
B. Building Width. The width shall be the widest length parallel to the front. See Figure 7.03.3 (Building Width and Depth).
C. Building Depth. The depth shall be the deepest length perpendicular to the front. See Figure 7.03.3 (Building Width and Depth).
70 Folsom Objective Development and Design Standards Public Review Draft – September 2025
7.03: Building Form
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
7.04 Façade Transparency
A. The required amount of transparency on a building façade is stated in the Development Standards as a percentage, which is calculated as follows:
1. Identify the applicable façade surface area and proposed transparency area. See Figure 7.04.1 (Measuring Façade Transparency).
(a) The ground floor façade surface area is from two feet above the ground floor finish level to the ceiling of the ground floor.
(b) The façade surface area of the upper stories is from the top of the floor plate above the ground floor to the ceiling of the top floor.
(c) For façades that include a pitched roof, the roof area shall be excluded from the façade surface area.
2. Divide the proposed transparency area by the applicable façade surface area and multiply by 100.
3. The result is the proposed façade transparency percentage. Check for compliance with the transparency requirement in Section 2.03.D (Façade Design).
Figure 7.04.1 Measuring Façade Transparency
Key
Façade Height Transparency Height Façade Surface Area
Façade Width Transparency Width Transparency Area
2' above ground floor finish level
Ceiling of ground floor
Top of floor plate above ground floor
Ceiling of top floor
71 Folsom Objective Development and Design StandardsPublic Review Draft – September 2025
7.04: Façade Transparency
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
7.05 Average Slope
A. The slope is measured by taking the vertical distance, or "rise," over the horizontal distance, or "run." The resulting fraction, or percentage, is the "average slope" of the land. For purposes of the ODDS, the average slope is based on existing topography and calculated as follows:
B. Design Sites/Lots with Even Slope. The average slope for design sites/lots with relatively even slope across the site is determined by the following formula: S = ((T - B) ÷ run) × 100.
1. S = average slope
2. T = elevation at the top of the slope
3. B = elevation at the bottom of the slope
4. Run = horizontal distance between the top and bottom elevations C. Design Sites/Lots with Uneven Slope. The average slope of design sites/lots with an uneven slope across the site before grading is determined by the following formula: S = (1.0029 × I × L) ÷ A.
1. S = average slope
2. I = contour interval in feet
3. L = summation of the length of the contour lines in scale feet
4. A = area of the design site/lot in acres
D. Sloping Design Site/Lot Height. Design sites/lots with slopes of more than 10 percent shall measure the maximum height of structures as set forth in the Development Standards and measured vertically from ground level at the front setback line or, if no setback is required, at the center of the design site/lot.
Figure 7.05.1 Average Slope
400
390
380
370
410
Key
Vertical Distance
Horizontal Distance
Design Site/Lot Line
Topography Line
Topography Analysis
72 Folsom Objective Development and Design Standards Public Review Draft – September 2025
7.05: Average Slope
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
Resolution No. 11464
EXHIBIT ‘B’ - CITY OF FOLSOM DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENTS, DATED APRIL 2004
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
Attachment 2
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
Ordinance No. 1357
ORDINANCE NO. 1357
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF FOLSOM AMENDING SECTION 17.06.030 AND ADDING SECTION 17.06.045 TO CHAPTER 17.06, “DESIGN REVIEW,” OF THE
FOLSOM MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING OBJECTIVE DEVELOPMENT AND
DESIGN STANDARDS AND ESTABLISHING A MINISTERIAL REVIEW PROCESS
The City Council of the City of Folsom does hereby ordain as follows:
SECTION 1 PURPOSE
The purpose of this ordinance is to amend Section 17.06.030 and add Section 17.06.045 to Chapter 17.06 of the Folsom Municipal Code to reference the Objective Development and Design Standards and to establish a ministerial review process for certain residential and mixed- use projects.
SECTION 2 AMENDMENT TO CODE
Section 17.06.030 of the Folsom Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
17.06.030 Application review – Planning commission
A. The design and architecture of the following projects must be submitted to the planning commission for review and approval under the provisions of this chapter:
1. Office, industrial, and commercial development of one thousand square feet or greater in size;
2. Significant exterior modifications to existing office, industrial, and commercial structures including but not limited to:
a. Design changes to building facades (cornices, parapets, trellises, etc.). b. Structural modifications to buildings.
c. Introduction of new building materials (veneer, wainscoting, brick, siding, etc.).
d. Alteration or relocation of building entryways.
e. Changes in roof design and materials;
3. Multifamily and residential mixed-use projects containing more than two units, except for projects located in the Regulated Area as described in Section 17.06.045;
4. Single-family residential projects which are a part of a planned development or a tentative subdivision map;
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
Ordinance No. 1357
5. Proposed project design guidelines and standards and revisions to existing design guidelines and standards.
B. The determination by the planning commission may be appealed to the city council pursuant to Section 17.06.110(B).
SECTION 3 ADDITION TO CODE
Section 17.06.045 is added to the Folsom Municipal Code to read as follows:
17.06.045 Objective Development and Design Standards
A. The City’s Objective Development and Design Standards (ODDS) shall apply to design and development of residential multi -unit (i.e., two or more units) and mixed -use residential development within the East Bidwell Corridor Overlay, the Folsom Boulevard Transit-Oriented Development Overlay, and the Folsom Plan Area Specific Plan Town Center Overlay areas, (collectively, the Regulated Areas), as delineated on the General Plan Land Use Diagram and shown in the Regulating Plan of the ODDS.
B. Where the ODDS are silent on a standard or process, applicable provisions in Title 17 shall apply. Where a conflict exists between the standards of the ODDS and those of Title 17, the standards of the ODDS shall apply.
C. Ministerial Design Review.
1. The design and architecture of projects governed by this Section shall be submitted to the Community Development Director for ministerial review and approval.
2. Applications and supporting materials shall be submitted pursuant to Section
17.06.060.
3. Ministerial design review shall be limited to review of the project’s compliance with the ODDS and any other applicable objective standards adopted by the city.
4. Ministerial design review determinations are not subject to public notice, site posting, or appeal.
5. A ministerial design review approval shall be null and void unless the applicant submits a complete application for a building permit within two years of approval.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
Ordinance No. 1357
D. Projects within the Regulated Area that do not comply with the ODDS may proceed through a discretionary entitlement process that requires review by the Planning Commission, such as the Planned Development Permit.
E. Projects requesting Density Bonus incentives or waivers per FMC Chapter 17.102 may deviate from the ODDS to the extent permitted by State law.
SECTION 4 SCOPE
Except as set forth in this ordinance, all other provisions of the Folsom Municipal Code shall remain in full force and effect.
SECTION 5 SEVERABILITY
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase in this Ordinance or any part thereof is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, invalid, or ineffective by any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity or effectiveness of the remaining portions of this Ordinance or any part thereof. The City Council declares that it would have passed each section irrespective of the fact that any one or more section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase be declared unconstitutional, invalid, or ineffective.
SECTION 6 NO MANDATORY DUTY
This Ordinance is not intended to and shall not be construed or given effect in a manner that imposes upon the City or any officer or employee thereof a mandatory duty of care towards persons and property within or without the City, so as to provide a basis of civil liability for damages, except as otherwise imposed by law.
SECTION 7 EFFECTIVE DATE
This ordinance shall become effective January 8, 2026.
This ordinance was introduced and the title thereof read at the special meeting of the City Council on November 12, 2025 and the second reading occurred at the regular meeting of the City Council on December 9, 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 9th Day of December 2025, by the following roll-call vote:
AYES: Councilmember(s):
NOES: Councilmember(s):
ABSENT: Councilmember(s):
ABSTAIN: Councilmember(s):
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
Ordinance No. 1357
__________________________________
Sarah Aquino, MAYOR
ATTEST:
______________________________
Christa Freemantle, CITY CLERK
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
Attachment 3
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
Modifications to FMC Chapter 17.06 “Design Review”
(Strikethrough/Underline Version)
Section 17.06.030 of the Folsom Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:
17.06.030 Application review – Planning commission
A. The design and architecture of the following projects must be submitted to the planning commission for review and approval under the provisions of this chapter:
1. Office, industrial, and commercial development of one thousand square feet or greater in size;
2. Significant exterior modifications to existing office, industrial, and commercial structures including but not limited to:
a. Design changes to building facades (cornices, parapets, trellises, etc.). b. Structural modifications to buildings.
c. Introduction of new building materials (veneer, wainscoting, brick, siding, etc.).
d. Alteration or relocation of building entryways.
e. Changes in roof design and materials;
3. Multifamily and residential mixed-use projects containing more than two units, except for projects located in the Regulated Area as described in Section
17.06.045;
4. Single-family residential projects which are a part of a planned development or a tentative subdivision map;
5. Proposed project design guidelines and standards and revisions to existing design guidelines and standards.
B. The determination by the planning commission may be appealed to the city council pursuant to Section 17.06.110(B).
Section 17.06.045 is added to the Folsom Municipal Code as follows:
17.06.045 Objective Development and Design Standards
A. The City’s Objective Development and Design Standards (ODDS) shall apply to design and development of residential multi-unit (i.e., two or more units) and mixed -use residential development within the East Bidwell Corridor Overlay, the Folsom Boulevard Transit-Oriented Development Overlay, and the Folsom Plan Area Specific Plan Town Center Overlay areas (collectively, the Regulated Areas), as delineated on the General Plan Land Use Diagram and shown in the Regulating Plan of the ODDS.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
B. Where the ODDS are silent on a standard or process, applicable provisions in Title 17 shall apply. Where a conflict occurs between the standards of the ODDS and those of Title 17, the standards of the ODDS shall apply.
C. Ministerial Design Review.
1. The design and architecture of projects governed by this Section shall be submitted to the Community Development Director for ministerial review and approval.
2. Applications and supporting materials shall be submitted pursuant to Section
17.06.060.
3. Ministerial design review shall be limited to review of the project’s compliance with the ODDS and any other applicable objective standards adopted by the city.
4. Ministerial design review determinations are not subject to public notice, site posting, or appeal.
5. A ministerial design review approval shall be null and void unless the applicant submits a complete application for a building permit within two years of approval.
D. Projects within the Regulated Area that do not comply with the ODDS may proceed through a discretionary entitlement process that requires review by the Planning Commission, such as the Planned Development Permit.
E. Projects requesting Density Bonus incentives or waivers per FMC Chapter 17.102 may deviate from the ODDS to the extent permitted by State law.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
Attachment 4
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
Ordinance No. 1357
ORDINANCE NO. 1357
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF FOLSOM AMENDING SECTION 17.06.030 AND ADDING SECTION 17.06.045 TO CHAPTER 17.06, “DESIGN REVIEW,” OF THE
FOLSOM MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING OBJECTIVE DEVELOPMENT AND
DESIGN STANDARDS AND ESTABLISHING A MINISTERIAL REVIEW PROCESS
The City Council of the City of Folsom does hereby ordain as follows:
SECTION 1 PURPOSE
The purpose of this ordinance is to amend Section 17.06.030, 17.06.080, and add Section
17.06.045 to Chapter 17.06 of the Folsom Municipal Code to reference the Objective Development and Design Standards for certain residential and mixed-use projects located in the Regulated Area.
SECTION 2 AMENDMENT TO CODE
Section 17.06.030 of the Folsom Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
17.06.030 Application review – Planning commission
A. The design and architecture of the following projects must be submitted to the planning commission for review and approval under the provisions of this chapter:
1. Office, industrial, and commercial development of one thousand square feet or greater in size;
2. Significant exterior modifications to existing office, industrial, and commercial structures including but not limited to:
a. Design changes to building facades (cornices, parapets, trellises, etc.). b. Structural modifications to buildings.
c. Introduction of new building materials (veneer, wainscoting, brick, siding, etc.).
d. Alteration or relocation of building entryways.
e. Changes in roof design and materials;
3. Multifamily and residential mixed-use projects containing more than two units;
4. Single-family residential projects which are a part of a planned development or a tentative subdivision map;
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
Ordinance No. 1357
5. Proposed project design guidelines and standards and revisions to existing design guidelines and standards.
B. The determination by the planning commission may be appealed to the city council pursuant to Section 17.06.110(B).
SECTION 3 ADDITION TO CODE
Section 17.06.045 is added to the Folsom Municipal Code to read as follows:
17.06.045 Objective Development and Design Standards
A. The City’s Objective Development and Design Standards (ODDS) shall apply to design and development of residential multi -unit (i.e., two or more units) and mixed -use residential development within the East Bidwell Corridor Overlay, the Folsom Boulevard Transit-Oriented Development Overlay, and the Folsom Plan Area Specific Plan Town Center Overlay areas, (collectively, the Regulated Areas), as delineated on the General Plan Land Use Diagram and shown in the Regulating Plan of the ODDS.
B. Where the ODDS are silent on a standard or process, applicable provisions in Title 17 shall apply. Where a conflict exists between the standards of the ODDS and those of Title 17, the standards of the ODDS shall apply.
C. Ministerial Design Review.
1. If a residential multi -unit or residential mixed -use project meets the requirements of State law for ministerial review, t he design and architecture of projects governed by this Section shall be submitted to the Community Development Director for ministerial review and approval.
2. Applications and supporting materials shall be submitted pursuant to Section
17.06.060.
3. Ministerial design review shall be limited to review of the project’s compliance with the ODDS and any other applicable objective standards adopted by the city.
4. Ministerial design review determinations are not subject to public notice, site posting, or appeal.
5. A ministerial design review approval shall be null and void unless the applicant submits a complete application for a building permit within two years of approval.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
Ordinance No. 1357
D. All other residential multi-unit and residential mixed-use projects including those located within the Regulated Area must proceed through a discretionary entitlement process that requires review by the Planning Commission.
E. Projects requesting Density Bonus incentives or waivers per FMC Chapter 17.102 may deviate from the ODDS to the extent permitted by State law.
SECTION 4 AMENDMENT TO CODE
Section 17.06.080 of the Folsom Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:
17.06.080 Plan evaluation.
B. In approving, conditionally approving, or denying an application for design review under this chapter, the community development director or the planning commission shall make the following findings:
1. Project compliance with the general plan and any applicable specific plans and zoning ordinances;
2. For non-residential projects, conformance with any adopted city-wide design guidelines,
3. In the case of multifamily and residential mixed-use projects in the Regulated Area the adopted objective development and design standards;
4. Conformance with any project-specific design and development standards approved through the planned development permit process or similar review process;
5. For developments other than multifamily and residential mixed-use projects, compatibility of building materials, textures and colors with surrounding development and consistency with the general design theme of the neighborhood.
SECTION 4 SCOPE
Except as set forth in this ordinance, all other provisions of the Folsom Municipal Code shall remain in full force and effect.
SECTION 5 SEVERABILITY
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase in this Ordinance or any part thereof is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, invalid, or ineffective by any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity or effectiveness of the remaining portions of this Ordinance or any part thereof. The City Council declares that it would
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
Ordinance No. 1357
have passed each section irrespective of the fact that any one or more section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase be declared unconstitutional, invalid, or ineffective.
SECTION 6 NO MANDATORY DUTY
This Ordinance is not intended to and shall not be construed or given effect in a manner that imposes upon the City or any officer or employee thereof a mandatory duty of care towards persons and property within or without the City, so as to provide a basis of civil liability for damages, except as otherwise imposed by law.
SECTION 7 EFFECTIVE DATE
This ordinance shall become effective January 8, 2026.
This ordinance was introduced and the title thereof read at the special meeting of the City Council on November 12, 2025 and the second reading occurred at the regular meeting of the City Council on December 9, 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 9th Day of December 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
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
Attachment 5
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
1 Jessica Brandt
From: >
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2025 2:33 PM
To: Desmond Parrington
Cc: Jessica Brandt
Subject: Re: Apartment Building Proposed for Oak Ave
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organiza tion. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hi Desmond,
Thank you for clarifying the intent and current status of the Objective Development and Design Standards. I appreciate the additional context and understand that the example site at Oak Avenue and E. Bidwell Street is not tied to any active proposal at this time.
That said, I do want to express my concern about this intersection being used as a future example site for potential redevelopment. As a Folsom resident who lives on Thorndike Way, I experience firsthand how congested this area already is, particularly during peak hours and when events occur at nearby churches.
When I am traveling eastbound on E. Bidwell to turn left onto Oak Avenue, merging traffic often backs up due to the heavy flow of vehicles making right turns from E. Bidwell onto Oak. This congestion worsens when event parking from Lakeside Church exits onto Oak Avenue. In addition, the overflow from the Muslim Community church parking lot regularly spills onto South Lexington, extending through nearby residential streets such as Duxbury Way and up to Cannington Lane; during these times, the area becomes especially congested and unsafe, with many pedestrians at the same time walking throughout the neighborhood streets to get to/from their parked vehicles.
Additionally, traffic from surrounding neighborhoods, such as those traveling from Empire Ranch via Silberhorn or from El Dorado Hills through Green Valley and Blue Ravine, often funnels through this corridor, creating a sustained level of density that already strains the area.
Given these conditions, I strongly urge the City to carefully evaluate traffic impact, access points, and parking requirements for any future high-
density development in this vicinity. Solutions such as improved ingress and egress design, dedicated event traffic routes, or required structured parking for large facilities could help alleviate pressure on the surrounding neighborhoods.
I appreciate your time and transparency on this issue.
Thanks!
You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
2 On Tue, Oct 21, 2025 at 12:07 PM Desmond Parrington < [email protected] > wrote:
Hi :
The information posted on Folsom Chat on Facebook and on Next Door is not correct. There is no development proposal associated with the Objective Development and Design Standards. Under state law, the City can only use objective development and design standards to evaluate multi-family projects (i.e., apartments and condominiums). The examples shown in the document are just that. They are examples. At this time, there is no project located at the corner of E. Bidwell and Oak Avenue Parkway. That was just an example site in the document that showed how that site could be redeveloped in the future. We are adopting the ODDS so that we have something that we can use to evaluate multi-family projects and hopefully get better designed projects. If we don’t adopt these then developers do not have to follow any design rules.
Back in August 2024, the City Council approved amendments to the City’s General Plan and the Folsom Plan Area Specific Plan to increase heights and densities in certain areas of Folsom to meet the requirements of the City’s Housing Element, which is another State Mandate. Under that mandate, the City has to identify sites for approximately 3,500 units of housing affordable to lower-income households. The East Bidwell Corridor, the areas around the Iron Point and Glenn stations, and the Folsom Town Center area were the areas chosen to have the increased heights and higher densities so that existing established residential neighborhoods would not be rezoned or impacted. Staff has also worked with the landowners south of Highway 50 to restrict parcels down there to accommodate almost 900 units of affordable housing. While that has not yet been built those units will eventually be built there.
These issues are being driven by changes in State law that the City has to comply with or we risk losing State funding and failure to comply would expose Folsom to potential lawsuits from the State and others. If you would like to learn more about the proposed objectives design standards you can visit:
https://www.folsom.ca.us/government/community-development/planning-services/objective-development- and-design-standards
If you have any other questions or concerns and would still like to voice your opposition to this, please let me know and we can include your comments along with our staff report to the City Council.
-Desmond
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
3 Desmond Parrington, AICP
Planning Manager
City of Folsom
50 Natoma Street, Folsom, CA 95630
[email protected]
o:916-461-6233 c:916-216-2813
www.folsom.ca.us
ATTENTION: Starting October 20, 2025, all NEW permits will be reviewed through eTRAKiT and not through ProjectDox.
From: >
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2025 11:57 AM
To: Desmond Parrington < [email protected] >; Jessica Brandt < [email protected] > Subject: Apartment Building Proposed for Oak Ave
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organiza tion. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hello,
I grabbed both of your emails from a Facebook Folsom Chat post about the high-density apartment building initiative. I live on Thorndike Way with my husband and five-year-old daughter. I have some concerns with the idea of building an apartment complex on the corner of Oak and E. Bidwell. What is the best way for me to communicate my concerns for a project like this? I have anxiety issues, so unfortunately, I do not typically attend in-person commission meetings. Is there another preferred way other than in-person for me to send you feedback? Do you have a feedback form of some kind, a direct email for this, or is an email to both of you the best way to go?
Thanks,
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
4 Page 600
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
1 Jessica Brandt
From: Desmond Parrington
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2025 2:58 PM
To: Jessica Brandt
Subject: FW: Proposed housing development
Desmond Parrington, AICP
Planning Manager
City of Folsom
50 Natoma Street, Folsom, CA 95630
[email protected]
o:916-461-6233 c:916-216-2813
www.folsom.ca.us
ATTENTION: Starting October 20, 2025, all NEW permits will be reviewed through eTRAKiT and not through ProjectDox.
From: Desmond Parrington
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2025 8:40 AM
To: 'Amy Dreher' <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Proposed housing development
Hi Mr. and Mrs. Dreher:
The information posted on Next Door is incorrect.
There is no development proposal associated with the Objective Development and Design Standards. Under state law, the City can only use objective development and design standards to evaluate multi-family projects (i.e., apartments and condominiums). The examples shown in the document are just that. They are examples. At this time, there is no project located at the corner of E. Bidwell and Oak Avenue Parkway. That was just an example site in the document that showed how that site could be redeveloped in the future. We are adopting the ODDS so that we have something that we can use to evaluate multi-family projects and hopefully get better designed projects. If we don’t adopt these then developers do not have to follow any design rules.
Back in August 2024, the City Council approved amendments to the City’s General Plan and the Folsom Plan Area Specific Plan to increase heights and densities in certain areas of Folsom to meet the requirements of the City’s Housing Element, which is another State Mandate. Under that mandate, the City has to identify sites for approximately 3,500 units of housing affordable to lower-income households. The East Bidwell Corridor, the areas around the Iron Point and Glenn stations, and the Folsom Town Center area were the areas chosen to have the increased heights and higher densities so that existing established residential neighborhoods would not be rezoned or impacted. Staff has also worked with the landowners south of Highway 50 to restrict parcels down there to accommodate almost 900 units of affordable housing. While that has not yet been built those units will eventually be built there.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
2 These issues are being driven by changes in State law that the City has to comply with or we risk losing State funding and failure to comply would expose Folsom to potential lawsuits from the State and others. If you would like to learn more about the proposed objectives design standards you can visit:
https://www.folsom.ca.us/government/community-development/planning-services/objective- development-and-design-standards
If you have any other questions or concerns, please let me know.
-Desmond
Desmond Parrington, AICP
Planning Manager
City of Folsom
50 Natoma Street, Folsom, CA 95630
[email protected]
o:916-461-6233 c:916-216-2813
www.folsom.ca.us
ATTENTION: Starting October 20, 2025, all NEW permits will be reviewed through eTRAKiT and not through ProjectDox.
From: Amy Dreher <
[email protected] >
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2025 8:27 AM
To: Desmond Parrington < [email protected] >
Subject: Proposed housing development
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organiza tion. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
I am writing as an extremely concerned resident to formally object to the proposed housing development Site 4. East Bidwell and Oak Ave Pkwy (T4N.L) currently under review. This project raises significant concerns regarding infrastructure, congestion, and the overall quality of life for current and future residents.
Our city is already experiencing substantial strain on its existing infrastructure . Roads are increasingly congested, particularly during peak hours, and the proposed development would only intensify traffic without any clear plan for road widening, new access points, or improved public transportation. The area’s current roadways are simply not equipped to handle the additional volume that this development would generate.
Furthermore, our local schools are already operating at or near capacity. Folsom Middle School has almost 2,000 students and not enough staff members. It is complete and total chaos at that school.
Neighboring Oak Chan Elementary where my Son is a 5th grader has almost 30 kids in each class already! Adding hundreds of new residents without a comprehensive plan to expand educational You don't often get email from [email protected] . Learn why this is important
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
3 facilities will only exacerbate overcrowding and diminish the quality of education for our children.
Essential public services such as emergency response, and recreational spaces are also stretched thin.
Responsible development should balance housing needs with the capacity of public systems to support new residents safely and effectively . I will be attending the town hall meeting to urge the Planning Commission to reject or postpone approval of this project! Thank you for listening to my concerns. I appreciate your attention to maintaining the livability, safety, and character of our city.
Sincerely,
Amy and Jeff Dreher
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
1 Jessica Brandt
From: Stephanie Trumm <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2025 6:04 PM
To: Desmond Parrington
Cc: Jessica Brandt
Subject: Re: Proposed Building
[You don't o
en get email from nurssteff@yahoo.com. Learn why this is important at h
ps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIden%fica%on ]
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organiza%on. Do not click links or open a achments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Thank you for your informa%on!
> On Oct 20, 2025, at 5:39 PM, Desmond Parrington <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi Stephanie:
>
> The informa%on posted on Next Door is incorrect. There is no development proposal associated with the Objec%ve Development and Design Standards. Under state law, the City can only use objec%ve development and design standards to evaluate mul%-family projects (i.e., apartments and condominiums). The examples shown in the document are just that. They are examples. At this %me, there is no project located at the corner of E. Bidwell and Oak Avenue Parkway.
That was just an example site in the document that showed how that site could be redeveloped in the future. We are adop%ng the ODDS so that we have something that we can use to evaluate mul%- family projects and hopefully get be
er
designed projects. If we don’t adopt these then developers do not have to follow any design rules. >
> Back in August 2024, the City Council approved amendments to the City’s General Plan and the Folsom Plan Area Specific Plan to increase heights and densi%es in certain areas of Folsom to meet the requirements of the City’s Housing Element, which is another State Mandate. Under that mandate, the City has to iden%fy sites for approximately 3,500 units of housing affordable to lower-income households. The East Bidwell Corridor, the areas around the Iron Point and Glenn sta%ons, and the Folsom Town Center area were the areas chosen to have the increased heights and higher densi%es so that exis%ng established residen%al neighborhoods would not be rezoned or impacted. Staff has also worked with the landowners south of Highway 50 to restrict parcels down there to accommodate almost 900 units of affordable housing. While that has not yet been built those units will eventually be built there. >
> These issues are being driven by changes in State law that the City has to comply with or we risk losing State funding and failure to comply would expose Folsom to poten%al lawsuits from the State and others. >
> If you have any other ques%ons or concerns, please let me know. >
> -Desmond
>
> Desmond Parrington, AICP
> Planning Manager
> City of Folsom
> 50 Natoma Street, Folsom, CA 95630
> [email protected]
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
2 > o:916-461-6233 c:916-216-2813
>
h
ps://gcc02.safelinks.protec%on.outlook.com/?url=h
p%3A%2F%2Fwww.folsom.ca.us%2F&data=05%7C02%7Cjbrandt
%40folsom.ca.us%7C8056175b296e4b41954d08de103dcc76%7C1cR4b4a254c47b48448af71335fd6c0%7C0%7C0%7C63 8966054773760849%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4 zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=cR76yaJ0zad0jW5%2FYDHM2DvvO3Tt0q1dz0u35Fh TsQw%3D&reserved=0
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ATTENTION: Star%ng October 20, 2025, all NEW permits will be reviewed through eTRAKiT and not through ProjectDox.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephanie Trumm <nurssteff@yahoo.com>
> Sent: Monday, October 20, 2025 5:06 PM
> To: Desmond Parrington <[email protected]>
> Cc: Jessica Brandt <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: Proposed Building
>
> [You don't o
en get email from nurssteff@yahoo.com. Learn why this is important at h
ps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIden%fica%on ]
>
> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organiza%on. Do not click links or open a achments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
>
>
> Thank you for your response. I suggest that you consider building these apartments on the south side of Highway 50 so that we can have a fully integrated community.
>
> RespecYully,
> Stephanie
>
>> On Oct 20, 2025, at 4:43 PM, Desmond Parrington <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Thank you for leZng me know, Ms. Trumm. The reason staff is recommending adop%on of these is because under new State laws if the City of Folsom does not adopt objec%ve design standards when new mul%-family projects like apartments come in for rev
iew then the City will not be able to require design changes. Under State law, City staff can no longer use design guidelines or any other subjec%ve criteria to review these types of projects. >>
>> -Desmond
>>
>> Desmond Parrington, AICP
>> Planning Manager
>> City of Folsom
>> 50 Natoma Street, Folsom, CA 95630
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
3 >> [email protected]
>> o:916-461-6233 c:916-216-2813
>>
h
ps://gcc02.safelinks.protec%on.outlook.com/?url=h
p%3A%2F%2Fwww.folsom.ca.us%2F&data=05%7C02%7Cjbrandt
%40folsom.ca.us%7C8056175b296e4b41954d08de103dcc76%7C1cR4b4a254c47b48448af71335fd6c0%7C0%7C0%7C63 8966054773780679%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4 zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Y2udI2xKQChiIyUYCrsPgSESf5X3JLquvGrSoPAKlxc%3 D&reserved=0
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ATTENTION: Star%ng October 20, 2025, all NEW permits will be reviewed through eTRAKiT and not through ProjectDox.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Stephanie Trumm <nurssteff@yahoo.com>
>> Sent: Monday, October 20, 2025 3:36 PM
>> To: Desmond Parrington <[email protected]>
>> Subject: Proposed Building
>>
>> [You don't o
en get email from nurssteff@yahoo.com. Learn why this is important at h
ps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIden%fica%on ]
>>
>> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organiza%on. Do not click links or open a achments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
>>
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> My name is Stephanie Trumm, and I live on Diamond Peak Drive here in Folsom. >>
>> I am opposed to adop%ng Objec%ve Development and Design building north of highway 50 here in Folsom. >>
>> RespecYully,
>>
>> Stephanie Trumm
>> 103 Diamond Peak Drive
>> Folsom, CA 95630
>
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
1 Jessica Brandt
From: Romo, Celeste W <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2025 8:40 AM
To: Desmond Parrington
Cc: Jessica Brandt
Subject: RE: Strong Opposition to Proposed High-Density Development at Oak Avenue and East Bidwell
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organiza tion. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Oh awesome thank you!
From: Desmond Parrington <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2025 8:38 AM
To: Romo, Celeste W <[email protected]>
Cc: Jessica Brandt <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Strong Opposition to Proposed High-Density Development at Oak Avenue and East Bidwell
That is correct. The City has not received any development plans for that site.
-Desmond
Desmond Parrington, AICP
Planning Manager
City of Folsom
50 Natoma Street, Folsom, CA 95630
[email protected]
o:916-461-6233 c:916-216-2813
www.folsom.ca.us
ATTENTION: Starting October 20, 2025, all NEW permits will be reviewed through eTRAKiT and not through ProjectDox.
From: Romo, Celeste W <
[email protected] >
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2025 9:06 PM
To: Desmond Parrington < [email protected] >
Cc: Jessica Brandt < [email protected] >
Subject: Re: Strong Opposition to Proposed High-Density Development at Oak Avenue and East Bidwell
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organiza tion. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Thank you for your response.
You don't often get email from [email protected] . Learn why this is important
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
2 So am I reading correctly that no development plans are currently being evaluated for that lot? Celeste
From: Desmond Parrington < [email protected] >
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2025 5:39:01 PM
To: Romo, Celeste W < [email protected] >
Cc: Jessica Brandt < [email protected] >
Subject: RE: Strong Opposition to Proposed High-Density Development at Oak Avenue and East Bidwell
Hi Celeste:
The information posted on Next Door is incorrect. There is no development proposal associated with the Objective Development and Design Standards. Under state law, the City can only use objective development and design standards to evaluate multi-family projects (i.e., apartments and condominiums). The examples shown in the document are just that. They are examples. At this time, there is no project located at the corner of E. Bidwell and Oak Avenue Parkway. That was just an example site in the document that showed how that site could be redeveloped in the future. We are adopting the ODDS so that we have something that we can use to evaluate multi-family projects and hopefully get better designed projects. If we don’t adopt these then developers do not have to follow any design rules.
Back in August 2024, the City Council approved amendments to the City’s General Plan and the Folsom Plan Area Specific Plan to increase heights and densities in certain areas of Folsom to meet the requirements of the City’s Housing Element, which is another State Mandate. Under that mandate, the City has to identify sites for approximately 3,500 units of housing affordable to lower-income households. The East Bidwell Corridor, the areas around the Iron Point and Glenn stations, and the Folsom Town Center area were the areas chosen to have the increased heights and higher densities so that existing established residential neighborhoods would not be rezoned or impacted. Staff has also worked with the landowners south of Highway 50 to restrict parcels down there to accommodate almost 900 units of affordable housing. While that has not yet been built those units will eventually be built there.
These issues are being driven by changes in State law that the City has to comply with or we risk losing State funding and failure to comply would expose Folsom to potential lawsuits from the State and others.
If you have any other questions or concerns, please let me know.
-Desmond
Desmond Parrington, AICP
Planning Manager
City of Folsom
50 Natoma Street, Folsom, CA 95630
[email protected]
o:916-461-6233 c:916-216-2813
www.folsom.ca.us
ATTENTION: Starting October 20, 2025, all NEW permits will be reviewed through eTRAKiT and not through ProjectDox.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
3 From: Romo, Celeste W < [email protected] >
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2025 5:00 PM
To: Desmond Parrington < [email protected] >; Jessica Brandt < [email protected] > Subject: Strong Opposition to Proposed High-Density Development at Oak Avenue and East Bidwell
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organiza tion. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Mr. Parrington, Ms. Brandt and Folsom City Council Members, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed high-density apartment project at Oak Avenue Parkway and East Bidwell Street. While I understand the need for growth, this particular development raises serious concerns about traffic congestion and school capacity that cannot be ignored.
Traffic along East Bidwell and Oak Avenue Pkwy is already at a breaking point during peak hours. Adding hundreds of residents and vehicles from a 248-unit complex will only worsen congestion and safety risks for nearby neighborhoods, pedestrians, and cyclists.
Equally pressing is the issue of school capacity. Our local schools are already full and this level of new housing will add even more strain without any clear plan to expand facilities or resources. It’s simply not sustainable to continue approving large developments without addressing this impact head-on.
I urge the Council to pause or reconsider this project until a comprehensive infrastructure and school capacity plan is in place. Folsom’s growth should be balanced and thoughtful — not at the expense of the quality of life for current residents.
Thank you for your attention to this important matter.
Sincerely,
Celeste Romo
Folsom Resident
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected] . Learn why this is important
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
1 Jessica Brandt
From: Desmond Parrington
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2025 9:40 AM
To: [email protected]
Cc: Jessica Brandt
Subject: RE: The City of Folsom is considering the adoption of Objective Development and Design Standards for areas north of Highway 50. — Nextdoor Hi Judy:
The information posted on Next Door is incorrect.
There is no development proposal associated with the Objective Development and Design Standards. Under state law, the City can only use objective development and design standards to evaluate multi-family projects (i.e., apartments and condominiums). The examples shown in the document are just that. They are examples. At this time, there is no project located at the corner of E. Bidwell and Oak Avenue Parkway. That was just an example site in the document that showed how that site could be redeveloped in the future. We are adopting the ODDS so that we have something that we can use to evaluate multi-family projects and hopefully get better designed projects. If we don’t adopt these then developers do not have to follow any design rules.
Back in August 2024, the City Council approved amendments to the City’s General Plan and the Folsom Plan Area Specific Plan to increase heights and densities in certain areas of Folsom to meet the requirements of the City’s Housing Element, which is another State Mandate. Under that mandate, the City has to identify sites for approximately 3,500 units of housing affordable to lower-income households.
The East Bidwell Corridor, the areas
around the Iron Point and Glenn stations, and the Folsom Town Center area were the areas chosen to have the increased heights and higher densities so that existing established residential neighborhoods would not be rezoned or impacted. Staff has also worked with the landowners south of Highway 50 to restrict parcels down there to accommodate almost 900 units of affordable housing. While that has not yet been built those units will eventually be built there.
These issues are being driven by changes in State law that the City has to comply with or we risk losing State funding and failure to comply would expose Folsom to potential lawsuits from the State and others.
If you have any other questions or concerns, please let me know.
-Desmond
Desmond Parrington, AICP
Planning Manager
City of Folsom
50 Natoma Street, Folsom, CA 95630
[email protected]
o:916-461-6233 c:916-216-2813
www.folsom.ca.us
ATTENTION: Starting October 20, 2025, all NEW permits will be reviewed through eTRAKiT and not through ProjectDox.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
2 From: Judy Otis <
[email protected] >
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2025 8:55 AM
To: Jessica Brandt < [email protected] >
Subject: Fwd: The City of Folsom is considering the adoption of Objective Development and Design Standards for areas north of Highway 50. — Nextdoor
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organiza tion. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
From: Judy Otis < [email protected] >
Date: October 20, 2025 at 8:53:42 AM PDT
To: [email protected]
Subject: The City of Folsom is considering the adoption of Objective Development and Design Standards for areas north of Highway 50. — Nextdoor
More housing stuffed into Folsom? You’ve got to be kidding. South of 50 has the space so build it there. Why doesn’t the City get the traffic situation resolved before even considering building more apartments/condos?
Check out this post on Nextdoor:
https://nextdoor.com/p/mczsB7-
mFN2L?utm_source=share&extras=MTYwNTcyNjQ%3D&ne_link_preview_links=&utm_ca mpaign=1760975326077
Sent from my iPad
You don't often get email from [email protected] . Learn why this is important
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
1 Jessica Brandt
From: Crystal Gorton <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2025 3:17 PM
To: Desmond Parrington
Cc: Jessica Brandt; Bryan Whitemyer
Subject: Re: Urban Planning Updates
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organiza tion. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Seriously?
"...successful
cities have congestion and dying ones do not."
Being in the thick of if it all, I'm not sure I agree with that statement, Desmond, but it did put smile on my face and raise an eyebrow. Congestion forces the taxpayer to buy from Amazon.
Still didn't get an answer to my question though. How many of the 900 units will be like Mercy House or Bidwell Studios?
From: Desmond Parrington <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2025 2:22:57 PM
To: Crystal Gorton <[email protected]>
Cc: Jessica Brandt <[email protected]>; Bryan Whitemyer <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Urban Planning Updates
Hi Crystal:
The 900 units south of highway 50 in the Folsom Plan Area would be deed-restricted affordable housing units affordable to household with incomes below 80% of area median income, which is currently about $100,000 for a family of four. These would be folks with jobs that work in the area but cannot afford the current market-rate rent levels. There is already one project like that in the Folsom Plan Area. It’s called Mangini Place Apartments and it has approximately 150 deed-restricted affordable units. There would be 900 additional units over the life of the plan south of Highway 50.
By law, we now have to put higher density housing near transit, which is why those locations were chosen. East Bidwell was selected because it has transit service, jobs and services nearby. Staff wanted to avoid a situation where we had to rezone land near existing single-family neighborhoods, which is what happened when the City lost a lawsuit filed by Legal Services of Northern California around 2000.
Staff is well aware of the traffic challenges on East Bidwell and our Public Works Department has been trying to secure funding from Caltrans so that we can complete the Empire Ranch Interchange and fund the Oak Avenue Overcrossing. Those along with the extension of Alder Creek Parkway to Prairie City Road should help improve the situation on East Bidwell especially near US 50 and Iron Point Road. Unfortunately, successful cities have congestion and dying ones do not. While staff would prefer that the fu nding for major infrastructure projects came
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
2 first, typically development happens first and then larger infrastructure projects follow once funding is secured from development and state and federal sources.
-Desmond
Desmond Parrington, AICP
Planning Manager
City of Folsom
50 Natoma Street, Folsom, CA 95630
[email protected]
o:916-461-6233 c:916-216-2813
www.folsom.ca.us
ATTENTION: Starting October 20, 2025, all NEW permits will be reviewed through eTRAKiT and not through ProjectDox.
From: Crystal Gorton <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2025 1:55 PM
To: Bryan Whitemyer <[email protected]>; Desmond Parrington <[email protected]> Cc: Jessica Brandt <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Urban Planning Updates
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organiza tion. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
This may not directly relate to the Objective Development and Design Standards (ODDS), but I do have a broader question: Of the 900 units being discussed, how many are what I would call subsidized housing—such as Section 8, Mercy Housing-style units, or Bidwell Studios-type developments? When I look at the South of 50 plan, I don’t see any of that type of housing planned there. Meanwhile, nearly all of it appears concentrated in the Central District. That kind of imbalance is a major reason the crime rate is higher in that area.
The frustration many residents feel—especially those who push back—comes from having lived with this for so long. It’s not just about affordable housing; it’s about how it’s been clustered in one part of the city. Over time, that concentration has had real, visible consequences. A big part of the problem seems to stem from former city staff who have since moved into the housing development industry and are now profiting from state-funded projects, with the help of Council friends and insider knowledge. That’s my opinion—but it’s based on what I see happening on the ground.
If you receive pushback from the community, it’s not aimed at you or city staff. It reflects long-standing frustration over bias toward certain groups who have had complete control over city government for decades and a lack of power by the community to influence decisions that impact real lives. Simply put: The community is frustrated. Plain and simple.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
3 From: Crystal Gorton < [email protected] >
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2025 1:10 PM
To: Bryan Whitemyer < [email protected] >; Desmond Parrington < [email protected] > Cc: Jessica Brandt < [email protected] >
Subject: Re: Urban Planning Updates
Let me clarify something, Desmond—I’m not your enemy. I’m not a city planner, and I don’t claim to be.
But what I do know is that this city has, over time, taken advantage of certain areas in Folsom, and that authority has felt misused and abused.
I can’t say whether that responsibility falls on the City Council or staff, but the signs are clearly visible.
Just take a walk down East Bidwell—it speaks for itself. This pattern of neglect and questionable decision-making has been happening for over 15 years. Naturally, people are wary.
There’s a deep lack of trust in the city’s motives, and that trust doesn’t rebuild easily—especially when the head of the Planning Commission is a lobbyist for the Association of Realtors. When someone in that role appears to be using South of 50 as a revenue stream for her industry ties, it’s hard not to be skeptical.
Folsom is our home—not a business opportunity for every realtor looking to exploit the market.
From: Crystal Gorton < [email protected] >
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2025 12:35:21 PM
To: Bryan Whitemyer < [email protected] >; Desmond Parrington < [email protected] > Cc: Jessica Brandt < [email protected] >
Subject: Re: Urban Planning Updates
Then that means a developer can take that property and put a four-story apartment there if they choose to.
Choose another location for your proposal, Desmond. East Bidwell and Oak Avenue can't handle any more traffic, apartment buildings or Section 8. We're running out of land mass over here.
I meant what I said about your talent. I've seen your work. Which is why I'm struggling to understand your motives for turning north of 50, Lexington in particular, into the dumping ground for every Section 8, low-barrier housing project, or Mercy House-type building. It's exclusionary zoning and discriminatory, opening the City to disparate impact claims. South of 50 is wide open. Use it. Plenty of room over there.
From: Bryan Whitemyer < [email protected] >
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2025 11:53:45 AM
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
4 To: Desmond Parrington < [email protected] >
Cc: Crystal Gorton < [email protected] >; Jessica Brandt < [email protected] > Subject: Re: Urban Planning Updates
Thanks for the info Desmond.
Bryan
Bryan Whitemyer
City Manager
City of Folsom
50 Natoma Street, Folsom, CA 95630
[email protected]
o: (916) 461-6010
www.folsom.ca.us
On Oct 20, 2025, at 11:46 AM, Desmond Parrington < [email protected] > wrote:
No. The General Plan mixed-use overlay designation gives property owners the option to do housing or mixed-use development there, but they can always do development under the base land use designation. In the case of the corner of Oak Avenue and E. Bidwell that base land use designation is Professional Office so an office building or similar commercial use is still allowed.
-Desmond
<image001.png>
<image002.png>
Desmond Parrington, AICP
Planning Manager
City of Folsom
50 Natoma Street, Folsom, CA 95630
[email protected]
o:916-461-6233 c:916-216-2813
www.folsom.ca.us
<image003.png>
<image004.png>
<image005.png>
ATTENTION: Starting October 20, 2025, all NEW permits will be reviewed through eTRAKiT and not through ProjectDox.
From: Crystal Gorton < [email protected] >
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2025 9:49 AM
To: Desmond Parrington < [email protected] >
Cc: Jessica Brandt < [email protected] >; Bryan Whitemyer < [email protected] > Subject: Re: Urban Planning Updates
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organiza tion. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is sa fe.
If the City adopts this proposal, does that mean the land on the corner of East Bidwell and Oak would be zoned only for four-story apartments to be built at that location?
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
5 From: Desmond Parrington < [email protected] > Sent: Monday, October 20, 2025 9:36:25 AM
To: Crystal Gorton < [email protected] >
Cc: Jessica Brandt < [email protected] >; Bryan Whitemyer < [email protected] > Subject: RE: Urban Planning Updates
Hi Crystal:
There is no development proposal associated with the Objective Development and Design Standards. Under state law, the City can only use objective development and design standards to evaluate multi-family projects (i.e., apartments and condominiums). The examples shown in the document are just that. They are examples. At this time, there is no project located at the corner of E. Bidwell and Oak Avenue Parkway. That was just an example site in the document that showed how that site could be redeveloped in the future. We are adopting the ODDS so that we have something that we can use to evaluate multi-family projects and hopefully get better designed projects. If we don’t adopt these then developers do not have to follow any design rules.
Back in August 2024, the City Council approved amendments to the City’s General Plan and the Folsom Plan Area Specific Plan to increase heights and densities in certain areas of Folsom to meet the requirements of the City’s Housing Element, which is another State Mandate. Under that mandate, the City has to identify sites for approximately 3,500 units of housing affordable to lower- income households. The East Bidwell Corridor, the areas around the Iron Point and Glenn stations, and the Folsom Town Center area were the areas chosen to have the increased heights and higher densities so that existing established residential neighborhoods would not be rezoned or impacted. Staff has also worked with the landowners south of Highway 50 to restricted parcels down there to accommodate almost 900 units of affordable housing. While that has not yet been built those units will eventually be built there.
These issues are being driven by changes in State law that the City has to comply with or we risk losing State funding and failure to comply would expose Folsom to potential lawsuits from the State and others.
-Desmond
<image001.png>
<image002.png>
Desmond Parrington, AICP
Planning Manager
City of Folsom
50 Natoma Street, Folsom, CA 95630
[email protected]
o:916-461-6233 c:916-216-2813
www.folsom.ca.us
<image003.png>
<image004.png>
<image005.png>
ATTENTION: Starting October 20, 2025, all NEW permits will be reviewed through eTRAKiT and not through ProjectDox.
From: Crystal Gorton < [email protected] >
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2025 6:11 AM
To: Desmond Parrington < [email protected] >
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
6 Cc: Jessica Brandt < [email protected] >; Bryan Whitemyer < [email protected] > Subject: Re: Urban Planning Updates
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organiza tion. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is sa fe.
Desmond, why is EVERYTHING north of 50? Why are you planning this city so badly? You have such talent. I'm struggling to understand why your planning of Folsom is so bad. North of 50 is so crowded. There's barely enough room to drive down the road. South of 50, on the other hand, is wide open.
Send me the name of the person or persons who will be building the project located at E.
Bidwell and Oak Avenue. I would rather not do a PRR when the information can be sent from you directly.
<image006.jpg>
From: Crystal Gorton < [email protected] >
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2025 9:08:49 PM
To: Desmond Parrington < [email protected] >
Cc: Jessica Brandt < [email protected] >
Subject: Re: Urban Planning Updates
I meant to say "north of 50," not "south of 50." I've yet to master autocorrect. It's a love/hate relationship.
From: Crystal Gorton < [email protected] >
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2025 6:52:04 PM
To: Desmond Parrington < [email protected] >
Cc: Jessica Brandt < [email protected] >
Subject: Re: Urban Planning Updates
If I'm reading this correctly, the urban planning seems to apply mostly to the density of housing, and that density is tied to SACOG money. If that's the case, why did you take the money in the first place? The City could have simply said "no thanks."
The planning updates also seem to apply to south of 50 or the Bidwell Corridor only. Why? More dense housing in an already-crowded area is going to be a traffic nightmare.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
7 In my opinion, the majority of pushback and animosity city staff has experienced over the last decade is because of the "dumping" on south of 50. Perhaps a lobbyist for the Association of Realtors sitting at the head of the Planning Commission may not have been such a good idea after all.
You know you're going to get a lot of push back on this, right?
From: Crystal Gorton < [email protected] >
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2025 11:01:41 AM
To: Desmond Parrington < [email protected] >
Cc: Jessica Brandt < [email protected] >
Subject: Re: Urban Planning Updates
Thank you!
From: Desmond Parrington < [email protected] >
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2025 8:54:44 AM
To: Crystal Gorton < [email protected] >
Cc: Jessica Brandt < [email protected] >
Subject: RE: Urban Planning Updates
Hi Crystal:
Below is a link to the webpage for objective development and design standards where you can download the full document. They will be presented to the City Council for consideration on October 28 th .
https://www.folsom.ca.us/government/community-development/planning-services/objective- development-and-design-standards
-Desmond
<image001.png>
<image002.png>
Desmond Parrington, AICP
Planning Manager
City of Folsom
50 Natoma Street, Folsom, CA 95630
[email protected]
o:916-461-6233 c:916-216-2813
www.folsom.ca.us
<image003.png>
<image004.png>
<image005.png>
ATTENTION: Starting October 20, 2025, all NEW permits will be reviewed through eTRAKiT and not through ProjectDox.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
8 From: Crystal Gorton < [email protected] >
Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2025 4:32 PM
To: Desmond Parrington < [email protected] >; Jessica Brandt < [email protected] > Subject: Re: Urban Planning Updates
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organiza tion. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is sa fe.
Why would you not send this? I would have liked to known more about it.
The article stated to contact Desmond or Jessica "... anyone looking to probe further into how these standards will impact their slice of Folsom, there are knowledgeable individuals available. Planning Manager Desmond Parrington and Principal Planner Jessica Brandt are the go-to contacts. They can be reached at [email protected] or 916-461-6233, and [email protected] or 916-461-6207."
From: Crystal Gorton < [email protected] >
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2025 3:40:09 PM
To: Desmond Parrington < [email protected] >;
[email protected] <[email protected] >
Subject: Urban Planning Updates
Can you send me an easy-to-understand version of this and how it affects each area of Folsom...something that someone who knows nothing about City Planning can understand?
https://hoodline.com/2025/10/folsom-advances-modern-urban-planning-with-upcoming- review-of-new-development-standards/
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
This page is intentionally left blank
to facilitate double-sided printing
and minimize paper use.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
11/12/2025 Item No.14.
Folsom City Council
Staff Report
1 MEETING DATE:
11/12/2025
AGENDA SECTION:
Old Business
SUBJECT: Resolution No. 11500 - A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Amendment No. 4 in the Amount of
$64,168 to the Contract with Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. for Mangini Ranch Trails Project Design and Engineering (Contract No. 173-21 17-054) to Include Additional Trail Design for the Community Park East Site at Savannah Parkway, West of Grand Prairie Road, and Trail Improvements Along Mangini Parkway, Westwood Drive, and East Bidwell Street, in the Folsom Plan Area Capital Improvement Fund (Fund 472)
FROM: Parks and Recreation Department
RECOMMENDATION / CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Staff recommends the City Council approve Resolution No. 11500 - A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Amendment No. 4 in the Amount of $64,168 to the Contract with Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. for Mangini Ranch Trails Project Design and Engineering (Contract No. 173-21 17-054) to Include Additional Trail Design for the Community Park East Site at Savannah Parkway, West of Grand Prairie Road, and Trail Improvements Along Mangini Parkway, Westwood Drive, and East Bidwell Street, in the Folsom Plan Area Capital Improvement Fund (Fund 472).
BACKGROUND / ISSUE
The Mangini Ranch Trails Project is located within the Folsom Plan Area Specific Plan (FPASP), specifically in the Mangini Ranch area bounded by Alder Creek Parkway to the north, Old Placerville Road to the east, East Bidwell Street to the west, and White Rock Road to the south. The FPASP includes over 30 miles of planned trails. Currently, there are approximately ten miles of trails already constructed in the Folsom Plan Area (FPA). With the recent construction of two phases of the Mangini Ranch development and future phases underway, staff have commenced the process of designing and engineering additional trail segments within the Mangini Ranch development to connect to parks, schools, and other
11/12/2025 Item No.15.
2 FPA neighborhoods. The trail alignments through this new residential development were approved as part of the FPASP and the Mangini Ranch development project approvals.
In September 2021, the City Council awarded a contract to Kimley-Horn and Associates to prepare the design/engineering plans for the Folsom Plan Area Mangini Ranch Trails project.
The original contract was to procure specialized professional services to design and engineer the proposed trails. After completing the design of the trails, a separate process was initiated to solicit bids from licensed contractors to construct the Mangini Ranch Trails Project.
In July 2024, the City Council approved Contract Amendment No. 1, which added two additional Class I trail improvement areas to the Mangini Ranch Trails project that were outside of the original contract scope of services with Kimley-Horn and Associates. One of the areas will continue the Class I trail constructed by a developer north of the SMUD substation to connect to the existing Class I trail to the east, crossing the former Old Placerville Road and existing Sacramento Placerville Transportation Corridor (SPTC) Joint Powers Authority (JPA) railroad tracks. The other area will continue the Class I trail on the east side parallel to the railroad tracks from the existing Class I trail south of Grand Prairie to White Rock Road (approximately 2,400 feet in length).
In January 2025, the City Council approved Contract Amendment No. 2, which included conducting a feasibility analysis for a grade-separated pedestrian and bicycle crossing of East Bidwell Street between Savannah Parkway and Mangini Parkway to increase safety for Class I trail users. The Folsom Plan Area Specific Plan (FPASP) included an at-grade crossing bicycle/pedestrian-activated traffic signal on East Bidwell Street. Prior to advertising the project for construction, staff had internal discussions about switching from an at-grade East Bidwell Street crossing (traffic signal) for bicycles and pedestrians to a grade-separated crossing (overcrossing/undercrossing), between Savannah Parkway and Mangini Parkway.
These discussions included issues such as safety, visibility, and connectivity of an at-grade crossing versus a grade-separated crossing of East Bidwell Street. Ultimately, the grade separation did not prove feasible for both cost and constructability purposes and was not added to the project. The bicycle/pedestrian-activated mid-block crossing on East Bidwell Street was also removed due to safety concerns, given the high volumes and speeds of vehicular traffic; however, staff have continued to investigate other options for expanded connectivity and safe routes for bicyclists and pedestrians.
In July 2025, the City Council approved the construction contract with Consolidated Engineering, Inc., as well as Contract Amendment No. 3 with Kimley-Horn for construction engineering support services as part of the Mangini Ranch trails construction.
As noted above, based on the analysis and conclusions from the feasibility study completed with Amendment No. 2, staff rejected both the undercrossing and overcrossing East Bidwell Street crossing alternatives due to constructability, right-of-way impacts, utility conflicts, visual/aesthetic considerations, and estimated costs. With the at-grade and grade-separated East Bidwell Street crossing options rejected, staff from both Parks and Recreation and Public Works met onsite to investigate safer options for crossing East Bidwell.
11/12/2025 Item No.15.
3 Improvements to Westwood Drive and Mangini Parkway, consisting of safety features to the existing Class II bike lanes, were deemed the most feasible crossing option for trail users to access either side of East Bidwell Street (Attachment 2).
Additionally, the current trail construction project includes the southern Class I trail segment around Community Park East, including the pedestrian-activated Savannah Pkwy traffic light crossing; however, the 1,700-foot northern segment around Community Park East was originally planned to be only a 6’ sidewalk and was slated for construction as part of the Community Park East development in approximately 5-7 years. The community has advocated for the City to construct the sidewalk ahead of the Community Park East construction to improve pedestrian circulation around the adjacent neighborhoods and Alder Creek Elementary School (Attachment 2). Staff met internally and agreed that adding the northerly segment to this current Mangini Ranch Trails project and expanding it to a full 12’ Class 1 trail would be consistent with the rest of the Class I trail segments is appropriate and warranted.
POLICY / RULE
In accordance with Sections 2.36.090(A)(1) and 2.36.120 of the Folsom Municipal Code, professional services are not subject to competitive sealed bidding requirements, and those costing $75,049 or greater shall be awarded by the City Council.
ANALYSIS
The City Council approved Resolution No. 10681 at the September 14, 2021, City Council meeting, authorizing the City Manager to execute an agreement with Kimley-Horn and Associates for planning and design services for the Folsom Plan Area Mangini Ranch Trails Project (Project PK2201) in the amount of $180,239.50. The City Council approved Resolution No. 11229 at the July 9, 2024, City Council meeting, authorizing the City Manager to execute Contract Amendment No. 1 to include two additional Class I trail improvement areas to the project in the amount of $31,734. The City Council approved Resolution No. 11291 at the November 12, 2024, City Council meeting, authorizing the City Manager to execute Contract Amendment No. 2 to conduct feasibility analysis for a grade- separated pedestrian and bicycle crossing of East Bidwell Street in the amount of $143,944.50. The City Council approved Resolution No. 11433 at the July 8, 2025, City Council meeting, authorizing the City Manager to execute Contract Amendment No. 3 for construction design and engineering support services in the amount of $29,640.
Staff coordinated with Kimley-Horn and requested an updated scope and fee to add improvements to Westwood Drive and Mangini Parkway, as well as adding the northernly trail around Community Park East. Staff reviewed the scope and fee to provide the additional services and concurs with the level of effort required to add the design and plans sheets to the project.
Contract Amendment No. 4 would include design and engineering services for additional trail segments around the perimeter of the future Community Park East (Attachment 3), located on the south side of Savannah Parkway, east of Timberline Meadow Way, connecting
11/12/2025 Item No.15.
4 to the trails already under construction as part of the Mangini Ranch Trails project. The segment along Savannah Pkwy is approximately 1,700 feet, and the southern segment is approximately 3,000 feet. The City desires a separated, Class IV bicycle facility on Westwood Drive between Emerald Knoll Drive and Mangini Parkway (Attachment 4), and along Mangini Parkway from Westwood Drive to East Bidwell Street.
Staff estimate the construction cost of these additional improvements would be approximately $400,000. Staff recently moved a segment from the Mangini Ranch Trails construction project, referred to as the N6 line, to the Regency trail construction project at a saving cost of approximately $540,000 for the Mangini Ranch Trails construction contract.
The savings are more than enough to cover the cost of Contract Amendment No 4 and the estimated construction cost of the proposed improvements, adding value to the overall project. The current project budget is summarized as follows:
Design
Original Contract $ 180,239.50
Amendments 1-3 $ 205,318.50
Proposed Amendment 4 $ 64,168.00
Design Subtotal $ 449,726.00
Construction and CM
Construction Contract $ 2,774,608.00
Construction Contingency $ 277,461.00
Construction Management $ 99,000.00
Staff Time (Construction) $ 40,000.00
Environmental Monitoring $ 25,500.00
Geotechnical Testing $ 59,685.00
Construction Contract
Deduction (estimated) $ (540,000.00)
CCO from Proposed
Amendment 4 Work
(estimated) $ 400,000.00
Construction Subtotal $ 3,136,254.00
Project Total $ 3,585,980.00
Currently there are approximately 15 miles of Class I trails completed or under construction in the FPA. At complete buildout of the FPA, there will be approximately 30 miles of Class I trails. At completion of construction of the Mangini Ranch and Regency Class I trails, including Kimley-Horn Contract Amendment No 4, the City will have spent approximately $7,900,000 in Folsom Plan Area Specific Plan Impact Fees related to trails. The FPA (PFFP) Appendix M: Trails estimated FPA buildout would generate $13,257,000 in trail impact fees in 2013 dollars. Buildout of all 30 miles of FPA trails was estimated to cost $18,026,000 in
11/12/2025 Item No.15.
5 2013 dollars with a funding gap of approximately $4,769,000. The funding gap would be addressed through seeking grant funding for the remainder of the Class I trails to be built.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
The Parks & Recreation Department recommends that Contract Amendment No. 4, which provides design and engineering services, be executed with Kimley-Horn for $64,168 for a new contract total amount not to exceed $449,726. Construction funding for the Savannah Parkway trail segment and the Westwood Drive and Mangini Parkway improvements will be funded from the Folsom Plan Area Capital Improvement Fund (Fund 472)
The current approved project budget for the Mangini Ranch Trails project is $3,669,275.
With the recent movement of the “N6 line” segment from the Mangini Ranch Trails project at a cost savings of approximately $540,000, funding for this amendment is appropriated and available within the Folsom Plan Area Capital Improvement Fund (Fund 472)
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The city, as the lead agency, previously certified an EIR/EIS for the Folsom Plan Area Specific Plan (FPASP). Subsequently, the city determined that the Mangini Ranch Subdivision project, including the future Mangini Ranch Trails, was consistent with the FPASP. In reviewing this project, staff has determined that none of the events specified in Public Resources Code Section 21166 has occurred. Therefore, the proposed project is exempt from CEQA as previously determined per Government Code Section 65457 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15182.
ATTACHMENT
1. Resolution No. 11500 - A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Amendment No. 4 in the Amount of $64,168 to the Contract with Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. for Mangini Ranch Trails Project Design and Engineering (Contract No. 173-21 17-054) to Include Additional Trail Design for the Community Park East Site at Savannah Parkway, West of Grand Prairie Road, and Trail Improvements Along Mangini Parkway, Westwood Drive, and East Bidwell Street, in the Folsom Plan Area Capital Improvement Fund (Fund 472)
2. Location Maps for Trail Design
3. Savannah Pkwy / Community Park East Existing Conditions Photos
4. Westwood Drive and Mangini Pkwy Existing Conditions Photos
5. Previous Resolution-Resolution No. 10681
6. Previous Resolution-Resolution No. 11229
7. Previous Resolution-Resolution No. 11291
8. Previous Resolution-Resolution No. 11433
9. Proposed Contract Amendment No. 4
11/12/2025 Item No.15.
6 Submitted,
Kelly Gonzalez,
Parks & Recreation Director
11/12/2025 Item No.15.
Attachment 1
11/12/2025 Item No.15.
Resolution No. 11500
RESOLUTION NO. 11500
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AMENDMENT NO. 4 IN THE AMOUNT OF $64,168 TO THE CONTRACT WITH KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR MANGINI RANCH TRAILS PROJECT DESIGN AND ENGINEERING (CONTRACT NO. 173-21 17-054) TO INCLUDE ADDITIONAL TRAIL
DESIGN FOR THE COMMUNITY PARK EAST SITE AT SAVANNAH PARKWAY, WEST
OF GRAND PRAIRIE ROAD, TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS ALONG MANGINI PARKWAY,
WESTWOOD DRIVE, AND EAST BIDWELL STREET, IN THE FOLSOM PLAN AREA CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND (FUND 472)
WHEREAS, the City Council approved Resolution No. 10681 at the September 14, 2021, City Council meeting, authorizing the City Manager to execute an agreement with Kimley-Horn for design and engineering services for the Mangini Ranch Trails Project (Project PK2201); and
WHEREAS, in order to provide connectivity for safe routes of travel around the future Community Park East Site, trail design is necessary; and
WHEREAS, it was determined that a contract amendment is necessary for design and engineering services for a new Class I trail segment and improvements to Westwood Drive and Mangini Parkway for bicycle and pedestrian crossing of East Bidwell Street in the Folsom Plan Area; and
WHEREAS, there are sufficient funds budgeted and available in the Folsom Plan Area Mangini Ranch Trails Project (Project PK2201) in the Folsom Plan Area Capital Improvement Fund (Fund 472) for the additional amount of $64,168 for an updated contract amount not-to-exceed $449,726.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Folsom authorizes the City Manager to execute Contract Amendment No. 4 in the amount of $64,168 to the contract with Kimley-Horn and Associates for the new contract total amount not to exceed $ 449,726 for additional consultant services for the Folsom Plan Area Mangini Ranch Trails Project (Project PK2201).
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 12th day of November 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
11/12/2025 Item No.15.
Attachment 2
11/12/2025 Item No.15.
11/12/2025 Item No.15.
©
EAST BIDWELL STREETMANGINI PARKWAYLEGENDTRAILS CURRENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTIONPROPOSED CLASS IV BICYCLE FACILITIES NORTH
STONE RANCH DRIVEWESTWOOD DRIVE
EMERALD KNOLL DRIVE
11/12/2025 Item No.15.
©
SAVANNAH PARKWAY
ALDER CREEKELEMENTARYSCHOOL
GRAND PRAIRIE ROAD
GOPHER RIDGE DRIVELEGENDTRAILS CURRENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTIONPROPOSED TRAILS (AMENDMENT NO. 4)
CANTRELL DRIVE
NORTH
11/12/2025 Item No.15.
Attachment 3
11/12/2025 Item No.15.
Attachment 3: Savannah Pkwy &Community Park East Existing Conditions
Photo 1: Savannah Parkway / Community Park East looking east
Photo 2: Savannah Pkwy / Community Park East looking south toward Grand Prairie intersection
11/12/2025 Item No.15.
Attachment 4
11/12/2025 Item No.15.
Attachment 4: Westwood Drive & Mangini Parkway Existing Conditions
Photo 3: Westwood Drive looking south from future Class I trail street crossing
Photo 4: Westwood Drive looking north from Mangini Parkway intersection
11/12/2025 Item No.15.
Photo 5: Westwood Drive looking west toward East Bidwell Street intersection
Photo 6: Westwood Drive looking west toward East Bidwell Street intersection
11/12/2025 Item No.15.
Attachment 5
11/12/2025 Item No.15.
Folsom City Council
Staff ort
RECOMMENDATION / CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Staff recommends the City Council approve Resolution No. 10681 - A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Professional Services Agreement with Kimley- Horn and Associates for Design and Engineering of the Future Mangini Ranch Trails Project in the Folsom Plan Area.
BACKGROUND / ISSUE
The future Mangini Ranch Trails Project is located within the Folsom Plan Area Specific Plan (FPASP), specifically in the Mangini Ranch area bounded by Alder Creek Parkway to the north, Old Placerville Road to the east, East Bidwell Street to the west, and White Rock Road to the south. The FPASP includes over 30 miles of planned trails. Cunently, there are approximately 5 miles of trails already constructed in the FPA. With recent construction of two phases of the Mangini Ranch development, along with future phases underway, staff commenced with process to design and engineer additional trail segments within the Mangini Ranch development to connect to parks, schools, and other FPA neighborhoods. It is anticipated that approximately 3 miles of trails will be designed and engineered at this time.
The trail alignments through this new residential development were approved as part of the FPASP and the Mangini Ranch development project approvals.
This current step is to procure specialized professional services to design and engineer the proposed trails, and hence the selection process is governed by section in Section 236.120 (Contracting for Designated Professional Services) of the Folsom Municipal Code. After completing the design of the trails, a separate process will be initiated to solicit bids from licensed contractors to construct the Mangini Ranch Trails Project. 1 MEETING DATE: 9lt4l202t
AGENDA SECTION: Consent Calendar
SUBJECT: Resolution No. 10681 - A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Professional Services Agreement with Kimley-Horn and Associates for Design and Engineering of the Future Mangini Ranch Trails Project in the Folsom Plan Area FROM: Parks and Recreation Department
11/12/2025 Item No.15.
POLICY / RULE
In accordance with Sections 2.36.090(AX1) and 2.36.120 of the Folsom Municipal Code, professional services are not subject to competitive sealed bidding requirements, and those costing $62,657 or greater shall be awarded by the City Council.
ANALYSIS
On June I1,202I, the Parks and Recreation Department issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) for professional design services for a portion of future Mangini Ranch Trails in the Mangini Ranch development area. The RFP was distributed to qualified design consultants and advertised on ClPlist.com. The due date for the proposals was July 9,2021, and four proposals were received. A full review of these proposals was performed by city staff from both the Public Works and Parks and Recreation departments.
Four criteria were used to evaluate the proposals: (1) Understanding of Work; (2) Potential Project Issues; (3) Consultant Scope of Work, and (4) Cost. After reviewing the proposals, three of the firms demonstrated the professional abilities to perform the design services and were invited for an interview. In the end, the interview team deemed Kimley-Horn and Associates best qualified to provide design and engineering services for the proposed trail segments. Kimley-Horn and Associates demonstrated the expertise, capacity, and ability to complete the scope of services which entails completion of construction documents, preparation of technical specifications, preparation of construction cost estimates and quantity calculations, and design details for trail connections to streets, sidewalks, on-street bicycle facilities, schools, and parks.
The cost proposal from Kimley-Horn and Associates is $180,239.50, and this amount is with- in the approved FY 2021-22 Capital Improvement Plan budget.
F'INANCIAL IMPACT
The cost of the design and engineering work for the future Mangini Ranch Trails Project is included in the Fiscal Year202l-22 Capital Improvement Plan in the Folsom Plan Area Capital Fund (Fund 472) utilizing impact fees. The current project budget for this project is $920,000.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The City, as lead agency, previously certified an EIR/EIS for the Folsom Plan Area Specific Plan (FPASP). Subsequently, the City determined that the Mangini Ranch Subdivision project, including the future Mangini Ranch Trails, was entirely consistent with the FPASP.
In reviewing this project, staff has determined that none of the events specified in Public Resources Code section2ll66 has occurred. Therefore, the proposed project is exempt from CEQA as previously determined per Govemment Code section65457 and CEQA Guidelines section 15182.
2
11/12/2025 Item No.15.
ATTACHMENT
1. Resolution No. 10681 - A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Professional Services Agreement with Kimley-Horn and Associates for Design and Engineering of the Future Mangini Ranch Trails Project in the Folsom Plan Area Submitted,
Lorraine Poggione,
Parks and Recreation Department Director
J Page 641
11/12/2025 Item No.15.
RESOLUTION NO. 10681
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH KIMLEY.HORN AND
ASSOCIATES FOR DESIGN AND ENGINEERING OF'THE FUTURE MANGINI
RANCH TRAILS PROJECT IN THE FOLSOM PLAN AREA
WHEREAS, the Folsom Plan Area Specific Plan includes over 30 miles of planned trails, including the future Mangini Ranch Trails bounded by Alder Creek Parkway to the north, Old Placerville Road to the east, East Bidwell Street to the west, and White Rock Road to the south; and
WHEREAS, the future Mangini Ranch Trails will connect residents in the Mangini Ranch residential community to parks, schools, and other neighborhoods in the Folsom Plan Area; and WHEREAS, the City is in the process of initiating the design of approximately 3 miles of the future Mangini Ranch Trails Project; and
WHEREAS, the design of the future Mangini Ranch Trails Project requires specialized professional services ofan engineering and design consultant; and WHEREAS, staff issued a Request for Proposal to qualified consultants for design services for the future Mangini Ranch Trails Project, and received four proposals; and WHEREAS, Kimley-Horn and Associates is most qualified to provide specialized professional services for the design and engineering of the future Mangini Ranch Trails Project contemplated and planned for in the Folsom Plan Area Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, the cost of the design and engineering work for the future Mangini Ranch Trails Project is included in the Fiscal Year 2021-22 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Budget with a project budget of$920,000.
NOW, THEREFORE' BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Folsom that the City Manager is authorized to execute a design and engineering Professional Services Agreement with Kimley-Horn and Associates, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, for design and engineering services for the future Mangini Ranch Trails Project for a total not-to-exceed amount of $180,239.50.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 14ft day of September 2021, by the following roll-call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Resolution No. 10681
Page I of2
Councilmember(s):
Councilmember(s):
Councilmember(s):
11/12/2025 Item No.15.
ABSTAIN: Councilmember(s)
ATTEST:
Michael D. Kozlowski, MAYOR
Christa Freemantle, CITY CLERK
Resolution No. 10681
Page2 of2 Page 643
11/12/2025 Item No.15.
This page is intentionally left blank.
11/12/2025 Item No.15.
Attachment 6
11/12/2025 Item No.15.
; ,: i -;.i i 1".'i
Folsom City Council
Staff rt
RECOMMENDATION / CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Stuff r"ro*-ends the City Council approve Resolution No. 1 1229 - A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute AmendmentNo. 1 to the Contract with Kimley- Horn and Associates, Inc. for Mangini Ranch Trails Project Design and Engineering (Contract No. 173-21 17 -054).
BACKGROUND / ISSUE
Th" M""gtrt Ra""h Trails Project is located within the Folsom Plan Area Specific Plan (FPASP), specifically in the Mangini Ranch area bounded by Alder Creek Parkway to the north, Oid placerville Road to the east, East Bidwell Street to the west, and White Rock Road to the south. The FPASP includes over 30 miles of planned trails. Currently, there are approximately 5 miles of trails already constructed in the FPA. With the recent construction oii*o phases of the Mangini Ranch development and future phases underway, staff has commenced with process to design and engineer additional trail segments within the Mangini Ranch development to connect to parks, schools, and other FPA neighborhoods. It is anticipated that approximately 3 miles of trails will be designed and engineered at this time.
The trail alignments through this new residential development were approved as part of the FPASP and the Mangini Ranch development project approvals.
In Septemb er 202l,the City Council awarded a contract to Kimley-Horn and Associates to prepare the desigrVengineering plans for the Folsom Plan Area Mangini Ranch Trails project. ihe original contract was to procure specialized professional services to design and engineer the proposed trails. After completing the design of the trails, a separate process will be 1 MEETING DATE: 71912024
AGENDA SECTION: Consent Calendar
SUBJECT: Resolution No. 11229 - A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Amendment No. I to the Contract with Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. for Mangini Ranch Trails Project Design and Engineering (ContractNo. 173-21 17-054) FROM: Parks and Recreation Department
11/12/2025 Item No.15.
initiated to solicit bids from licensed contractors to construct the Mangini Ranch Trails Project.
Contract Amendment No. I would include two additional Class I trail improvement areas to the Mangini Ranch Trails project that were outside of the original contract scope of services with Kimley-Horn and Associates. One of the new areas will continue the Class I trail constructed by a developer north of the SMUD substation to connect to the existing Class I trail to the east, crossing the former Old Placerville Road and existing Sacramento Placerville Transportation Corridor (SPTC) Joint Powers Authority (JPA) railroad tracks. The other area will continue the Class I trail on the east side parallel to the railroad tracks from the existing Class I trail south of Grand Prairie to White Rock Road (approximately 2,400 feet in length).
POLICY / RIII,E
In accordance with Sections 2.36.090(A)(1) and 2.36.120 of the Folsom Municipal Code, professional services are not subject to competitive sealed bidding requirements, and those costing 573,209 or greater shall be awarded by the City Council.
ANALYSIS
A topographic survey is necessary to complete the design of the class I trail crossing of the railroad tracks, while the extension of the Class I trail south to White Rock Road will be completed using scaled aerial imagery. The developer provided horizontal and vertical as- built plans were incomplete when the project topographic survey was conducted in 2022, therefore, requiring additional topographic survey for the two Class I trail segment areas.
Due to changes in design direction and work completed by developers that was not fully known at the time of the original contract, the project did not require nor complete the structural and geotechnical scope of services in the original contract. This contract amendment is intended to document these scope reductions. The budget for these tasks in the original contract (Task 2.2 and Subtask 2.2.1, respectively) was agreed to be reallocated to other design tasks and has been expanded.
The original contract with Kimley-Horn and Associates was $180,240, and this amount is included within the FY 2024-25 Capital lmprovement Plan budget. The contract amendment for the two new Class I trail segments is $31,734, for an updated total contract amount not- to-exceed $211,974
FINANCIAL IMPACT
ftte City Council approved Resolution No. 10681 at the September 14,202I City Council meeting authorizing the City Manager to execute an agreement with Kimley-Horn and Associates for planning and design services for the Folsom Plan Area Mangini Ranch Trails Project (Project Pl<2201). The project is included in the Capital Improvement Plan with a Fiscal Year 2024-25 total project budget of $3,380,240.
The Parks and Recreation Department recommends that Contract Amendment No. 1, which provides project design and engineering services, be executed with Kimley-Horn for $31,734 2Page 647
11/12/2025 Item No.15.
for a new contract total amount not-to-exceed $211,974. Sufficient funds are budgeted and available in the Folsom Plan Area Mangini Ranch Trails Project (Project PK220l) budget for the cost of the amendment.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
ftt" City, as lead agency, previously certified an EIR/EIS for the Folsom Plan Area Specific Plan (FPASP). Subsequently, the City determined that the Mangini Ranch Subdivision project, including the future Mangini Ranch Trails, was entirely consistent with the FPASP.
In reviewing this project, staff has determined that none of the events specified in Public Resources Code section2ll66 has occurred. Therefore, the proposed project is exempt from CEQA as previously determined per Government Code section65457 and CEQA Guidelines section 15182.
ATTACHMENT
1. ResolutionNo. I1229 - A Resolution Authorizingthe City Manager to Execute Amendment No. I to the Contract with Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. for Mangini Ranch Trails Project Design and Engineering (ContractNo. 173-21 17'054) Submitted,
Kelly Gorualez,
Parks and Recreation Department Director
JPage 648
11/12/2025 Item No.15.
RESOLUTION NO. II229
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE CONTRACT WITH KIMLEY-HORN AND
ASSOCIATES,INC. FOR MANGINI RANCH TRAILS PROJECT DESIGN AND ENGTNEERTNG (CONTRACT NO. 173-2t r7-0s4)
WHERBAS, on September 14, 202I, Kimley-Horn and Associates was selected based on their qualifications and experience in engineering design services; and WHEREAS, it was determined that additional design and engineering services are necessary to complete additional Class I trail segment design/engineering for the Mangini Ranch Class I trails; and
WHEREAS, the Parks and Recreation Department recommends that Contract Amendment No. l, which provides project design and engineering services, be executed with Kimley-Hom for $31,734 for a new contract total amount not-to-exceed $211,974; and WHEREAS, suffrcient funds are budgeted and available in the Folsom Plan Area Mangini Ranch Trails Project (Project PK220l) budget for the cost of the amendment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Folsom authorizes the City Manager to execute Contract Amendment No. I in the amount of $31,734 to the contract with Kimley-Hom and Associates for additional consultant services for the Folsom Plan Area Mangini Ranch Trails Project (Project PI<2201).
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 9th day of July 2024,by the following roll-call vote AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Councilmember(s):
Councilmember(s):
Councilmember(s):
Councilmember(s):
Michael D. Kozlowski, MAYOR
ATTEST:
Christa Freemantle, CITY CLERK
ResolutionNo. 11229
Page I of 1 Page 649
11/12/2025 Item No.15.
Attachment 7
11/12/2025 Item No.15.
1..,i-*.i, la :t-.j, i\rl
Folsom City Council
Staff Re rt
TION / CITY COUN ACTION
Staff recommends the City Council approve Resolution No. 1 l29l - A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Amendment No. 2 to the Contract with Kimley- Horn and Associates,Inc. for Mangini Ranch Trails Project (Project PK220I) Design and Engineering (Contract No. I 73-2 I 17 -054).
BACKGROUND / ISSUE
The Mangini Ranch Trails Project is located within the Folsom Plan Area Specific Plan (FPASP), specifically in the Mangini Ranch area bounded by Alder Creek Parkway to the north, Old Placerville Road to the east, East Bidwell Street to the west, and White Rock Road to the south. The FPASP includes over 30 miles of planned trails. Currently, there are approximately 9 miles of trails already constructed in the FPA. With the recent construction of two phases of the Mangini Ranch development and future phases underway, staff has commenced the process of designing and engineering additional trail segments within the Mangini Ranch development to connect to parks, schools, and other FPA neighborhoods.
The trail alignments through this new residential development were approved as part of the FPASP and the Mangini Ranch development project approvals.
In September 2021, the City Council awarded a contract to Kimley-Horn and Associates to prepare the design/engineering plans for the Folsom Plan Area Mangini Ranch Trails project.
The original contract was to procure specialized professional services to design and engineer the proposed trails. After completing the design of the trails, a separate process will be 1 MEETING DATE: rr/1212024
AGENDA SECTION: Consent Calendar
SUBJECT Resolution No. 1 I29l- A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Amendment No. 2 to the Contract with Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. for Mangini Ranch Trails Project (Project PI<220I) Design and Engineering (ContractNo 173-2t t7-0s4)
FROM Parks and Recreation Department
11/12/2025 Item No.15.
initiated to solicit bids from licensed contractors to construct the Mangini Ranch Trails Project.
In July 2024,the City Council approved Contract Amendment No. I which added two additional Class I trail improvement areas to the Mangini Ranch Trails project that were outside of the original contract scope of services with Kimley-Horn and Associates. One of the areas will continue the Class I trail constructed by a developer north of the SMUD substation to connect to the existing Class I trail to the east, crossing the former Old Placerville Road and existing Sacramento Placerville Transportation Corridor (SPTC) Joint Powers Authority (JPA) railroad tracks. The other area will continue the Class I trail on the east side parallel to the railroad tracks from the existing Class I trail south of Grand Prairie to White Rock Road (approximately 2,400 feet in length).
Contract Amendment No. 2 would include conducting a feasibility analysis for a grade- separated pedestrian and bicycle crossing of East Bidwell Street between Savannah Parkway and Mangini Parkway to increase safety for Class I trail users. The Folsom Plan Area Specific Plan (FPASP) included an at-grade crossing bicycle/pedestrian-activated traffic signal of East Bidwell Street. Over the last couple of months, staff have had internal diicussions about switching from an at-grade East Bidwell Street crossing (traffic signal) for bicycles and pedestrians to a grade-separated crossing (overcrossing/undercrossing), between Savannah Parkway and Mangini Parkway. These discussions included issues such as safety, visibility, and connectivity of an at-grade crossing versus a grade-separated crossing of East Bidwell Street.
POLICY / RULE
In accordance with Sections 2.36.090(AX1) and 2.36.120 of the Folsom Municipal Code, professional services are not subject to competitive sealed bidding requirements, and those costing 573,209 or greater shall be awarded by the City Council.
ANALYSIS
The e*istitrg built environment around the proposed East Bidwell Street grade-separated crossing is complex and includes an existing drainage culvert, floodway, sound/privacy walls, retaining walls, underground utilities, and under-construction residential housing that will need to be considered with the construction of a grade-separated crossing.
The analysis will determine the feasibility of a grade-separated crossing and document the anticipated constructability challenges of an undercrossing and overcrossing. The feasibility analyiis will consider known surrounding improvements that will affect the geometry of the proposed grade-separated crossing options including, but not limited to, the following:
o The existing channel box culvert that flows under East Bidwell Street; o The high water elevation of the channel/existing FEMA floodplain mapping; o Any available geotechnical reports from previous work in the area; o Any available environmental documents, technical studies, etc.; 2Page 652
11/12/2025 Item No.15.
. As-built plans for East Bidwell Street and the detention basin located north of the channel and its inflow and outflow piping, including wet and dry utilities within the roadway; and
o Existing sound/privacy walls and retaining walls.
The original contract with Kimley-Hom and Associates was $180,240, and this amount is included in the FY 2024-25 Capital lmprovement Plan budget. Contract Amendment 1 for the two new Class I trail segments was $3I,734, for a total contract amount of $211,974.The proposed Contract Amendment 2 for the grade-separated crossing feasibility analysis is 5143,944.50, for an updated total contract amount not-to-exceed $355,918.50.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
tfr" City Council approved Resolution No. 10681 at the September 14,2021, City Council meeting authorizing the City Manager to execute an agreement with Kimley-Horn and Associates for planning and design services for the Folsom Plan Area Mangini Ranch Trails Project (Project PK220l). The City Council approved Resolution No. 1 1229 at the July 9, 2024,City Council meeting authorizing the City Manager to execute Contract Amendment No. 1 to include two additional Class I trail improvement areas to the project. The project is included in the Capital Improvement Plan with a Fiscal Year2024-25 total project budget of $3,380,240.
The Parks and Recreation Department recommends that Contract Amendment No. 2, which provides East Bidwell Street bicycle and pedestrian crossing grade-separated feasibility analysis, be executed with Kimley-Horn for $143,944.50 for a new contract total amount not- to-exceed $355,918.50. Sufficient funds are budgeted and available in the Folsom Plan Area Mangini Ranch Trails Project (Project PK220l) budget for the cost of the amendment.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The city, as the lead agency, previously certified an EIR/EIS for the Folsom Plan Area Specific Plan (FPASP). Subsequently, the City determined that the Mangini Ranch Subdivision project, including the future Mangini Ranch Trails, was entirely consistent with the FPASP. In reviewing this project, staff has determined that none of the events specified in Public Resources Code section21166 has occurred. Therefore, the proposed project is exempt from CEQA as previously determined per Government Code section65457 and CEQA Guidelines section 15182.
ATT
1. Resolution No. I l29l - A Resolution Authorizingthe City Manager to Execute Amendment No. 2 to the Contract with Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. for Mangini Ranch Trails Project (Project PK220l) Design and Engineering (Contract No. 173-21 17- 054)
J
Submitted,
11/12/2025 Item No.15.
Kelly Gonzalez,
Parks and Recreation Director
4Page 654
11/12/2025 Item No.15.
RESOLUTION NO. II29I
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE
AMENDMENT NO. 2TO THE CONTRACT WITH KIMLEY.HORN AND
ASSOCIATES,INC. FOR MANGINI RANCH TRAILS PROJECT (PROJECT PK22O1) DESIGN AND ENGTNEERTNG (CONTRACT NO. 173-2117-054)
WHEREAS, the City Council approved Resolution No. 10681 at the September 14,2021, City Council meeting authorizing the City Manager to execute an agreement with Kimley-Horn for design services for the Mangini Ranch Trails Project (Project PK220l); and WHEREAS, it was determined that additional funding is necessary to conduct additional analysis for the feasibility of a grade-separated bicycle and pedestrian crossing of East Bidwell Street in the Folsom Plan Area; and
WHEREAS, there are sufficient funds budgeted and available in the Folsom Plan Area Mangini Ranch Trails Project (Project PK220I) budget for the additional amount of $143,944.50 for an updated contract amount not-to-exceed $355,918.50.
NOW' THEREFORE' BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Folsom authorizes the City Manager to execute Contract Amendment No. 2 in the amount of $143,944.50 to the contract with Kimley-Horn and Associates for the new contract total amount not to exceed $355,918.50 for additional consultant services for the Folsom Plan Area Mangini Ranch Trails Project (Project PK220l).
PASSED AND ADOPTED this l2th day of November 2024, by the following roll-call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Councilmember(s):
Councilmember(s):
Councilmember(s):
Councilmember(s):
Michael D. Kozlowski, MAYOR
ATTEST:
Christa Freemantle, CITY CLERK
ResolutionNo. 11291
11/12/2025 Item No.15.
This poge is intentionally left blank
to focilitote double- sided printtng
and minimize paper trse.
CITY OF
DISTINCTIVE B.Y NATURE
FOLSOl\{
11/12/2025 Item No.15.
Attachment 8
11/12/2025 Item No.15.
Resolution No. 11433
RESOLUTION NO. 11433
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH KIMLEY-HORN AND
ASSOCIATES IN THE AMOUNT OF $29,640 FOR CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING SUPPORT SERVICES, TO BE FUNDED BY FUND 472 – FOLSOM PLAN AREA
CAPITAL FUND
WHEREAS, the Folsom Plan Area Specific Plan includes over 30 miles of planned trails, including the future Mangini Ranch Trails bounded by Alder Creek Parkway to the north, Savannah Parkway to the east, East Bidwell Street to the west, and White Rock Road to the south; and
WHEREAS, the future Mangini Ranch Trails will connect residents in the Mangini Ranch residential community to parks, schools, and other neighborhoods in the Folsom Plan Area; and
WHEREAS, Kimley-Horn and Associates is most qualified to provide specialized construction design services due to the engineering and design work completed for the Mangini Ranch Trails project; and
WHEREAS, sufficient funds are budgeted and available in the Folsom Plan Area Mangini Ranch Trails Project (PK2201) for the cost of the construction design services.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Folsom that the City Manager is authorized to execute a Professional Services Agreement with Kimley- Horn and Associates, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, for construction design services for the Folsom Plan Area Mangini Ranch Trails Project (PK2201) for a total not-to-exceed amount of $29,640.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 8th day of July 2025, by the following roll-call vote:
AYES: Councilmember(s):
NOES: Councilmember(s):
ABSENT: Councilmember(s):
ABSTAIN: Councilmember(s):
____________________________________
Sarah Aquino, MAYOR
ATTEST:
11/12/2025 Item No.15.
Resolution No. 11433
Christa Freemantle, CITY CLERK
11/12/2025 Item No.15.
Attachment 9
11/12/2025 Item No.15.
Kimley-Horn and Associates
Amendment No. 1
CITY OF FOLSOM
AMENDMENT NO. 4
TO
CONSULTANT AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
The Agreement for Consulting Services with Kimley-Horn and Associates, dated September 14, 2021, for reference, is amended as set forth on Exhibit A – Scope of Services. (Exhibit A is attached hereto and incorporated herein.)
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be duly executed.
Date:______________ City of Folsom,
a Municipal Corporation
_____________________________________
By: Bryan Whitemyer, City Manager
Date:______________ Kimley-Horn and Associates Inc.,
a North Carolina Corporation
_____________________________________
By: __________________________________
_____________________________________
By: __________________________________
Approved As To Content:
________________________________________________________________ Kelly Gonzalez, Parks and Recreation Director Date
Approved As To Form:
________________________________________________________________ Steven Wang, City Attorney Date
Attests: Funding Available:
______________________________ ________________________________ Christa Freemantle, City Clerk Stacey Tamagni, Finance Director Date
NOTICE: SIGNATURE(S) ON BEHALF OF CONSULTANT MUST BE NOTARIZED.
A certificate of acknowledgment in accordance with the provisions of civil code section 1189 must be attached for each person executing this agreement on behalf of consultant. California Civil Section provides, at part (b): "Any certificate of acknowledgment taken in another place shall be sufficient in this state if it is taken in accordance with the laws of the place where the acknowledgment is made."
11/12/2025 Item No.15.
kimley-horn.com 555 Capitol Mall, Suite 300, Sacramento, California 95814 916 858 5800 October 9, 2025
Mr. Brett Bollinger
Senior Trails Planner
City of Folsom Parks and Recreation Department
50 Natoma Street
Folsom, California 95630
Re: Mangini Ranch Trails – Amendment No. 4 – Additional Design Services Additional Trail Segments and On-Street Bicycle Facilities (Westwood Dr and Mangini Ranch Pkwy) Scope of Services and Fee Proposal
Dear Brett:
This letter proposal was prepared based on our discussions with the City of Folsom (City) on October 1, 2025 requesting Kimley-Horn provide design services for additional trail segments around the City’s future park parcel, as well as on-street separated bicycle facilities on Westwood Dr and Mangini Pkwy.
This letter constitutes a proposal setting forth our proposed amended Scope of Services and Fee. The City and Kimley-Horn entered into an agreement for design consulting services on September 10, 2021, the terms and conditions of which are incorporated herein by reference. Our Project Understanding, Scope of Services, Schedule, and Fee Proposal are as follows.
Project Understanding
Kimley-Horn understands the City intends to design additional trail segments around the perimeter of the City’s future park on the south side of Savannah Pkwy east of Timberline Meadow Wy, connecting to the trails already under construction with the Mangini Ranch Trails project. The segment along Savannah Pkwy is approximately 1,700 feet, and the southern segment is approximately 1,600 feet. Supplemental topographic survey will need to be collected for these new segments.
The City also desires a separated, Class IV bicycle facility on Westbrook Dr between Emerald Knoll and Mangini Pkwy, and along the north side of Mangini Pkwy from Westwood Dr to East Bidwell St. The City anticipates installation of raised islands along these segments to separate bicycles and vehicles.
Additionally, Kimley-Horn will evaluate other potential design solutions. Topographic survey is not required for the Class IV bicycle facility and is therefore not included in this proposal.
We understand that Kimley-Horn will develop a standalone plan set for the proposed trail work included in this proposal and that the City intends to issue a contract change order to its construction contractor responsible for constructing the original Mangini Ranch Trails project.
Scope of Services
Task 1: Project Management and Coordination
Kimley-Horn will provide additional project management and coordination services for the Project.
Kimley-Horn anticipates the duration of this task to be up to 3 months, and will consist of coordination with the City, invoicing, monitoring progress against budget and overall Quality Assurance (QA). We anticipate one (1) field meeting with City staff, with the remaining coordination on the Project to be via virtual meetings and email.
11/12/2025 Item No.15.
Brett Bollinger, October 9,2025
Mangini Ranch Trails – Amendment No. 4 – Additional Trail Segments and On-Street Bicycle Facilities
Task 2: Plans and Estimate
Kimley-Horn will team with MacKay & Somps (M&S) to provide supplemental topographic survey to support the design of the additional trail segments around the City’s park parcel.
We anticipate preparing one (1) concept-level exhibit for the on-street bicycle improvements on Westwood Dr and Mangini Pkwy prior to advancing to construction drawings. This exhibit is intended to confirm the design and proposed improvements for the separated Class IV bikeway. These improvements will be developed using the design linework provided by the City under the previous task. One (1) exhibit revision is included in this Scope of Services.
Based on discussions with the City, the Draft 90% plans and opinion of probable construction costs (OPCC) will be prepared and submitted to the City. The following plan sheets will be prepared:
Cover sheet 1 sheet
Horizontal Control 1 sheet
Layout (Class IV) 4 sheets
Plan and Profile/Layout (Trails) 4 sheets
Total 10 sheets
Assumptions:
· We do not anticipate drainage, ADA curb ramps, or traffic signal modifications improvements, therefore, these design elements are not included in the Scope of Services. · We anticipate the contractor will provide erosion control based on the Mangini Ranch Trails SWPPP; no erosion control plans are included in this Scope of Services. · Preparation of traffic control and pedestrian access routes during construction will be the responsibility of the contractor.
· Technical specifications for the Project are assumed to be covered by the City Standard Specifications or the specifications for the Mangini Ranch Trails Project currently under construction. Therefore, technical specifications are not included in this Scope of Services.
Upon receipt of one set of consolidated, non-conflicting City comments, Kimley-Horn will prepare the Final 100% plans signed by the Engineer in Responsible Charge along with an updated OPCC.
Task 3: Additional DSDC
For the additional trail connection areas and on-street Class IV bicycle facility, Kimley-Horn will provide support to the City during the construction phase by responding to bidder inquiries, requests for information (RFIs), and limited material submittals. Meeting attendance and field visits, if requested by the City, may be provided up to the total budget assumed for this task. We assume the total effort of this additional task to be ten (10) hours. If additional support is requested, this can be provided for additional scope and fee.
Kimley-Horn assumes record drawings will be provided by the contractor to the City upon completion of construction. Therefore, record drawings are not included in this scope of services.
11/12/2025 Item No.15.
Brett Bollinger, October 9,2025
Mangini Ranch Trails – Amendment No. 4 – Additional Trail Segments and On-Street Bicycle Facilities
Schedule
Kimley-Horn will provide our services as noted in the Scope of Services as expeditiously as practicable to meet the mutually agreed upon schedule.
Fee and Billing
Kimley-Horn will provide the above Scope of Services on a labor fee plus expense basis. The scope will be performed for the additional not to exceed amount of $64,168.00. Labor fee will be billed according to our then-current rates. Direct reimbursable expenses such as express delivery services, fees, and other direct expenses will be billed at 1.15 times cost. An allocation charge of 5.0 percent will be added to the labor fee to cover certain other expenses as to these tasks such as telecommunications, in-house reproduction, postage, supplies, project related computer time, and local mileage. Administrative time related to the project may be billed hourly. All permitting, application, and similar project fees will be paid directly by the City.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these services to you. Please contact Hunter at (916) 573-7285 if you have any questions or require additional information.
Sincerely,
KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Hunter Young, PE Daniel Carley, PE
Project Manager Project Engineer
PE No. C76228 PE No. C76304
11/12/2025 Item No.15.