Folsom City Council Meeting
Additional Information
Transmittal
Instructions to staff: Deliver original and 30 stapled/double-sided copies to the City Clerk’s Department; City Clerk’s Department will distribute via email and hardcopy to City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, and City Clerk.
Updated: Jan 2025
MEETING DATE:
12/9/2025
AGENDA SECTION:
Consent Calendar
STAFF REPORT TITLE Resolution No. 11508 – A Resolution Approving the Historic District Commission’s Recommendation for Approval of a
Design Review for a New Duplex Project Located at 307
Reading Street and Determination that the Project is Exempt from CEQA Under Section 15303 (New Construction or
Conversion of Small Structures) of the CEQA Guidelines
FROM: Community Development Department
Staff is providing the attached additional information for the above-referenced agenda item; these comments were provided after submission of the City Council Staff Report:
1. Robert Delp Comments Letter, 12/2/25
2. Robert Delp Comments Letter, 12/3/25
December 2, 2025
City of Folsom Historic District Commission
50 Natoma Street
Folsom, CA 95630
via email to: [email protected]; [email protected]; SUBJECT: Comments to HDC for December 3, 2025, Meeting Agenda Item 3 – 307 Reading Street Duplex
Dear Historic District Commissioners:
By way of this letter I am requesting that the Historic District Commission (HDC) decline to recommend that the City Council approve the 307 Reading Street Duplex Project (Project) as proposed and presented in your December 3, 2025, staff report (12/3/25 Staff Report).
At your November 5, 2025, meeting, HDC commissioners expressed concerns regarding the then- proposed building design compatibility with Historic District and Figuroa subarea residential design objectives and also expressed concerns regarding public health and safety. I suggest that the building design modification in your 12/3/25 Staff Report do not improve the building design either in reflecting Spanish Mission Revival-style architecture or in reducing the building’s incompatibility with the design objectives for Historic District residential areas. 1 The building does not comply with objective City standards pertaining to the maximum number of stories and conditions of approval imposed with entitlements granted in 2016 have not been fulfilled.
Moreover, I do not see any discussion or analysis in the 12/3/25 Staff Report addressing the public safety issues raised by commissioners during the 11/5/25 hearing.
For these reasons, I suggest that the HDC should reject this Project by declining to take action or make a recommendation to the City Council until the Project is redesigned to comply with the zoning code (e.g., reduced to a maximum of 2.5 stories), the design is improved to be consistent with Figuroa subarea design objectives, applicable existing conditions of approval are addressed, and public safety issues are assessed and mitigated.
If the City is truly prohibited from denying this Project, then a much closer look at elements of the Project that the City still retains authority over (e.g., fulfilling obligations of previously granted entitlements before receiving additional entitlements, granting or denying dedicated ADU parking, etc., as discussed below) and public health and safety concerns of the HDC should be more fully considered to minimize the impacts of this Project on the Historic District and surrounding residents.
1. The Project Building is 3 Stories, Exceeding the Applicable Maximum of 2.5 Stories An objective standard of the Folsom Municipal Code (FMC) limits the building to 2.5 stories. The proposed building is at least 3 stories tall when calculated consistent with the definition of “story” in the FMC. Both the 11/5/25 and 12/3/25 Staff Reports paraphrase and inaccurately describe the FMC definition of story resulting in staff’s erroneous determination that the first floor garage is not a story.
FMC 17.02.410 reads as follows:
17.02.410 Story. “Story” means that portion of a building included between the upper surface of any floor and the upper surface of the floor next above, except that the topmost story is that portion of a building included between the upper surface of
1 Note 12/3/25 Staff Report discussion that “parapets are an essential and common feature in Mission Revival style buildings” and the applicant has removed the parapet from the building design. Balcony railing – a feature presumably only needed if the rooftop is to be used as an outdoor activity area – has now been added with no assessment of whether such rooftop railing has any representation in Spanish Mission Revival-style architecture. If the City is not precluded from denying rooftop use, then rooftop access via a stairwell room that adds height to the building and the now-proposed railing could both be beneficially eliminated from the design and might also reduce potential noise and other community impacts associated with rooftop use.
December 2, 2025
the top-most floor and the ceiling or roof thereof. If the finished floor level directly above the basement is more than six feet above grade at any point, such basement shall be considered a story.
The Project’s finished floor level above the “basement” (garage/office) is 8 feet above the finish grade on the north side of the building at the garage entrance (see Staff Reports Sheet A2.1, Site Section A). As such, the garage/office “basement” is a full story as defined by FMC 17.02.410 and is not a half story as staff suggests. With the garage/office first story properly included in the story count, the building is 3 stories tall (excluding the rooftop stairwell room which arguably adds a 4 th
story) and the building simply does not comply with the applicable and objective FMC standard of a maximum of 2.5 stories. The Project should be rejected for failure to comply with this objective standard of the FMC.
2. Additional Entitlements for this Property Should not be Granted Until Relevant Existing Conditions of Approval are Fulfilled
The City granted significant entitlements in 2016 when the HDC approved a parcel map to subdivide a 14,000 square foot (sf) parcel at 916 Figuroa Street zoned R-2 into two 7,000 sf parcels zoned R-2 creating what is now 307 Reading Street. The 2016 parcel split approval was expressly conditioned on the simultaneous design review approval of a single-family residential structure on 307 Reading Street and the applicant was obligated to perform several conditions of approval that have not yet been satisfied.
Although not included in the 11/5/25 Staff Report, the 12/3/25 Staff Report now adds several conditions of approval (note that the heading on the Conditions of Approval matrix in your 12/3/25 Staff Report retains a date of November 5, 2025, but contains modified and additional conditions of approval). Many of conditions of approval that staff have added to the 12/3/25 Staff Report are conditions that should have been completed prior to recordation of the Final Map in 2018 and, moreover, required actions on both halves of the original 14,000 sf lot (now 916 Figuroa Street and 307 Reading Street). Staff recommend that the HDC and City Council approve and expand the development entitlements for this property even though unfulfilled conditions of approval from the previously granted parcel split remain to be fulfilled. The City should require that these conditions be fulfilled before granting any additional entitlements for this property.
Moreover, implementation of at least some of the unfulfilled conditions of approval appear to place obligations on the residents of the neighboring property at 916 Figuroa Street, where these residents have expressed valid concerns regarding the current Project (see 12/3/25 Staff Report Attachment 9).
It is unclear whether the City is now deciding that the residents of 916 Figuroa Street are obligated to help fulfill these unfulfilled conditions of approval and what role and funding obligation might fall on the 916 Figuroa Street residents.
2 By way of example:
Condition 23 states, “The owner/applicant shall coordinate the planning, development and completion of this project with the residents at 916 Figueroa Street specifically regarding impacts to the utility connections for 916 Figueroa Street.” This condition appears to obligate the residents at 916 Figuroa Street to coordinate with the 307 Reading Street Project applicant for completion of conditions of approval that should have been satisfied years ago and before the Final Map was recorded.
Condition 24 states, “The owner/applicant shall be responsible for the undergrounding of existing overhead utility service running from the Sutter/Figueroa Street alleyway lines to the existing residence at 916 Figueroa Street. The owner/applicant shall also be responsible for undergrounding
2 Although staff’s conditions of approval reference “residents” presumably any obligations would apply to the property owners and the conditions should reflect that.
December 2, 2025
the new utility service from the same alleyway lines to the proposed residential units at 307 Reading Street.” Utility undergrounding was a condition of approval of the 2016 parcel split that should have been completed prior to recordation of the Final Map. Even if the 916 Figuroa residents would like to have the utilities undergrounded, it is unclear that the City has the authority to obligate the residents at 916 Figuroa Street to have their backyard trenched for installation of utilities. At a minimum, conditions of approval pertaining to obligations of multiple parties should identify the funding obligations of each party.
Condition 17 states, “The owner/applicant shall construct a drainage swale along the southerly boundary of 307 Reading Street to convey storm runoff from 916 Figueora Street to Reading Street.
The drainage swale shall be shown on the plans submitted for permit review, and reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department prior to permit issuance. Requirements of the drainage swale shall be addressed in the prepared Drainage Memo.” A drainage swale on the northerly boundary of what is now 916 Figuroa Street was to have been installed as a condition of the 2016 parcel split, yet this swale was apparently not constructed before the Final Map was recorded. Now, staff recommend a condition of approval requiring that the swale be constructed on the 307 Reading Street property within an area shown on the plans that would be just 4 feet wide between the property line fence and the planned ADUs and it is unclear that there is sufficient spacing for a setback and a stormwater swale. The required drainage memo and swale design should be prepared and submitted for review prior to any granting of additional entitlements for this property.
Condition 29 states, “The owner/applicant shall locate and remediate all antiquated mine shafts, drifts, open cuts, tunnels and water conveyance or impoundment structures existing on the project site, with specific recommendations for the sealing, filling or removal of each that meet all applicable health, safety, and engineering standards. Recommendations shall be prepared by an appropriately licensed engineer or geologist. All remedial plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City.” Staff have added this condition as it was included with the 2016 approval and apparently remains unsatisfied. The potential presence and need to remediate any mine shafts, drifts, etc. underlying the property that warranted this condition of approval in 2016 implicates a public safety issue that warrants further consideration before development of four dwelling units is approved for this property.
3. The City Should Not Dedicate Parking Along Reading Street to 307 Reading Street Sheet A2.1 of the 12/3/25 Staff Report now identifies two areas within what appears to be City right- of-way on Reading Street labeled “ADU-1 Parking” and “ADU-2 Parking” (these areas were not labeled as such on the 11/5/25 Staff Report plans). I suggest that the City decline to dedicate City right-of-way for ADU parking for this Project. If the City is precluded from discretionary design review over this Project at least in part due to the Project’s proximity to the Historic District light-rail station, then there is no reason for the City to grant an allowance for dedicated use of City right-of- way to accommodate the convenient use of 307 Reading Street duplex or ADU residents. This segment of Reading Street should remain available for period public parking by other area residents, including residents of 916 Figuroa Street, and the general public.
Thank you for considering my comments.
Sincerely,
Bob Delp
Historic District Resident
Folsom, CA 95630
[email protected]
1 Nathan Stroud
From: Karen Sanabria
Sent: Wednesday, December 3, 2025 11:27 AM
Subject: FW: 307 Reading Street Info
Hello Commissioners –
Please see the additional comment letter below from Bob Delp. This is in addition to the one I sent this morning.
Thanks,
Karen Sanabria
From: Bob Delp <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 3, 2025 11:23 AM
To: Nathan Stroud <[email protected]>; Karen Sanabria <[email protected]> Cc: Sari Dierking <[email protected]>; Desmond Parrington <[email protected]>; Pam Johns <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: 307 Reading Street Info
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Nathan and Karen: Please consider this email and the string below as a comment to the Historic District Commission (HDC) for consideration of item 3 (307 Reading Street Duplex) on tonight's agenda and please distribute to the HDC prior to tonight's meeting.
Dear HDC Commissioners:
This email pertains to whether the proposed 307 Reading Street duplex "basement" is a "story" in determining the number of stories that the building contains and as to whether the building exceeds the FMC's object standard of a maximum of 2.5 stories.
Staff acknowledge that the FMC has definitions for "Basement" and "Story", however, each time staff describe these definitions in staff reports for this project and in staff's message below (at item 3, "Stories Measurement"), staff omit any reference to or discussion of the last sentence of the FMC 17.02 definitions both of which are identical and state: "If the finished floor level directly above a basement is more than six feet above grade at any point, such basement shall be considered a story."
As I explain in my December 2, 2025, letter with comments to the HDC on this project, the proposed duplex's finished floor level above the “basement” (garage/office) is 8 feet above the finished grade on the entire north side of the building at the garage entrance. As such, the garage/office “basement” is a full story as defined both by the FMC 17.02.070 definition of Basement and by the FMC 17.02.410 definition of Story. In accordance with these definitions, the proposed building contains 3 stories and does not comply with the applicable and objective FMC standard of a maximum of 2.5 stories.
2 Staff's message below at item 3 references and quotes only part of the Basement definition, omitting and failing to address the directly relevant portion of the definition that very clearly results in defining this project's basement as a story. Staff's selective omission is a seemingly intentional effort by the Community Development Department to ignore and undermine the clear language and requirements of the FMC. CDD's approach here is truly disappointing, will be damaging to the Historic District, and should be called out and rejected by the HDC.
As the City is becoming increasingly limited to enforcement of only objective standards for housing development projects, it is critical that the City recognize and respect clear objective standards and definitions that exist in the FMC. The Community Development Department should be the first line of defense of the FMC standards that protect the Historic District, yet the approach here does just the opposite. This project's basement is a story and must be included in the building's story count, resulting in a building that contains 3 full stories and exceeds the applicable maximum of 2.5 stories.
Full Definitions of "Basement" and "Story" from Folsom Municipal Code Chapter 17.02
17.02.070 Basement. “Basement” means a space partly or wholly underground and having more than one-half its height, measured from its floor to its finished ceiling, below the average adjoining grade. If the finished floor level directly above a basement is more than six feet above grade at any point, such basement shall be considered a story.
17.02.410 Story. “Story” means that portion of a building included between the upper surface of any floor and the upper surface of the floor next above, except that the topmost story is that portion of a building included between the upper surface of the top-most floor and the ceiling or roof thereof. If the finished floor level directly above the basement is more than six feet above grade at any point, such basement shall be considered a story.
Thank you for your consideration,
-Bob
Bob Delp
916-812-8122
[email protected]
From: Nathan Stroud <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 3, 2025 8:54 AM
To: Bob Delp <[email protected]>
Cc: Pam Johns <[email protected]>; Sari Dierking <[email protected]>; Desmond Parrington <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: 307 Reading Street Info
Hello Robert,
Thank you for your feedback and questions. I wanted to follow up with some relevant information:
1. Environmental Information Form
3 1. Regarding #6 of the form, the “R-3” classification that is referenced is the Building Code Occupancy Classification for duplexes; this is not the proposed zoning. The zone is intended to remain the R-2 Zoning District and will not change
2. The Environmental Information Form is not typically required for projects that entail only design review, and is often used for more substantial development projects. Per the Government Code, staff have 30 days to request additional documents and/or corrections, and cannot require them after this deadline. Having said that, the applicant has been willing to work with staff to provide additional documentation, including this form. As shown on the form, the project is not anticipated to have a significant adverse environmental impact.
2. Height Measurements
1. As described in the staff report, the tower element is measured separately due to the callout in FMC 17.58.080 and FMC 17.52.540. Measuring the main structure, the project is below the 35 foot maximum. The tower elements are below the additional height allowance of 15 feet above the main structure.
3. Stories Measurement
1. Per FMC 17.02.070 (Basement), the garage is considered a basement and not a true story due to the basement being defined as “a space partly or wholly underground and having more than one- half its height, measured from its floor to its finished ceiling, below the average adjoining grade”.
Since the average adjoining grade does not expose the garage more than 6 feet (less than half of its height), it is not considered a story per the FMC and is not visually a story.
4. Previous Conditions of Approval
1. The Conditions of Approval for the previous Tentative Map have been reiterated and added to the Conditions of Approval for this project for clarity
2. The Condition regarding mine shafts/open cuts/tunnels/etc. is a standard condition in case such a circumstance is discovered during development. This does not mean that these circumstances are present on the lot, only the potential for one given that mining was done in the area historically and the requirement that they be remediated.
5. Public Safety
1. The concern regarding pedestrian safety is a preexisting condition due to the lack of sidewalks in the area and the use of the street for parking by existing residents. The project is not creating a new or unique public safety or health issue beyond what exists, and thus the project is not creating a public health/safety concern.
2. The Conditions of Approval for the Tentative Map require that they contribute to off-site improvements, including the creation of sidewalks, curbs, etc. which will resolve some of these concerns upon development of the project, reducing the issue from what is existing. These have been reiterated in the current projects conditions of approval
6. Discretionary Authority
1. As discussed in the staff report, the City does not have discretionary authority to deny the project to require changes to the project, and can only apply objective standards during a set timeframe.
Staff have determined that the project complies with the applicable and enforceable objective standards, and the applicant has voluntarily been willing to work with staff to comply with the subjective standards of the DDGs and FMC. Unless there is a substantial and adverse public health and safety issue directly created by the project, the City is not able to deny the project per state law.
Regards,
Nathan
4 Nathan R. Stroud
Associate Planner
City of Folsom
50 Natoma Street, Folsom, CA 95630
[email protected]
o:916-461-6220
www.folsom.ca.us
ATTENTION: Starting October 20, 2025, all NEW permits will be reviewed through eTRAKiT and not through ProjectDox.
All permits submitted prior to October 20, 2025, will remain in ProjectDox until approved. Please visit the ePermit Center or see Forms B402, B403, and B404 for more information.
From: Bob Delp <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2025 11:10 AM
To: Desmond Parrington <[email protected]>
Cc: Nathan Stroud <[email protected]>; Pam Johns <[email protected]>; Sari Dierking <[email protected]> Subject: Re: 307 Reading Street Info
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Thanks for this feedback and the files, Desmond. I'm providing the following questions/input with the hope that you will be able to address these issues in any supplemental/revised staff report to the HDC before further action is taken on this project. I attended the 11/5/25 HDC hearing and it seemed pretty clear that several commissioners had concerns with this project design being substantially inconsistent and in conflict with the City's design objectives for the Figueroa subarea and also concerns regarding public, health, safety, and welfare. I urge CDD staff to help address these concerns as a priority over pushing this project through for approval.
Based on the Env Info Form dated 11/18/25 that you sent me yesterday, it appears that the applicant did not submit an Environmental Info Form until just last week. If the Env Info Form is a required component of the application, then shouldn't that start the 30-day period for the City to identify inconsistencies with the zoning code/DDGs?
5 Also, the 11/18/25 Env Info Form identifies that the existing zoning is "R-2 / Historic Residential" and that the proposed use of the site is "R-3 Residential". This suggests that either the application is for a change in the property zoning classification or that the use is incompatible with the current zoning. Can you revise/supplement the staff report to address this?
I think you told the HDC on 11/5/25 that the problem with the objective standards in the DDGs is that they are not actually standards and that they are only guidelines. However, FMC 17.52.330 specially states that that in reviewing projects, the HDC "shall consider" criteria that include "Conformance with any city-wide design guidelines and historic district design and development guidelines adopted by the city council". The DDGs were adopted by the City Council and they include objective standards (e.g., prohibition on parapets) that the HDC's review of the project needs to consider as directed by FMC 17.52.330. Can you revise your staff report and recommendation to the HDC to reflect these facts?
As the 11/5/25 staff report acknowledges, the applicable maximum building height is 35 feet. Using information from Slide 13 of staff's 11/5/25 presentation and the FMC 17.02.110 definition of building height, the "average level of the highest and lowest point of that portion covered by the building" is 209.5 ft ASL [(207.5 + 211.5) / 2] and the elevation of the "highest point of the roof, ridge or parapet wall" is 247.3 ft ASL (using Slide 13 - 207.5 ft ASL + 36.5 + 3.3 to top of clay roof on rooftop stairwell). Based on those measurements, the "highest point of the roof" as calculated per FMC 17.02.110 is 37.8 feet tall and exceeds the maximum allowable height of 35 feet. Can you revise your staff report and recommendation to the HDC to reflect this fact?
The 11/5/25 staff report acknowledges that the maximum number of stories is 2.5. The staff report discusses that under FMC 17.02.410, "basements are only considered a story if the finished floor above the basement is more than six feet exposed above grade" and asserts that since the garage level "does not have more than six feet exposed above grade, the lowest level (garage level) is considered only half a story." However, in relevant part, FMC 17.02.410 states, "“If the finished floor level directly above the basement is more than six feet above grade at any point, such basement shall be considered a story." Here, the finished floor level above the "basement" (garage/office) is more than 6 feet above grade at the north side of the structure directly above the garage entrance. The finished grade at this point is 8 feet above the finish grade of the garage entrance (see 11/5/25 staff report Sheet A2.1, Site Section A). Therefore, the "basement" is a story as defined by FMC 17.02.410 and with the basement properly included in the story count, the building is at least three stories tall (excluding the rooftop stairwell room which adds a fourth story) and the building does not comply with the FMC standard of a maximum of two and a half stories. Can you revise your staff report and recommendation to reflect this fact?
At item 4 in your response below you note that "some of the conditions of approval for the 2016 Tentative Parcel Map still apply and are required upon the application for permits." If the Final Map was recorded in 6 2018, then shouldn't all of the relevant conditions of approval have been satisfied at that time? There were conditions of approval requiring utility easement dedications, undergrounding of electrical lines, development of drainage swales, etc., some of which required grading and other effects on the now-adjacent parcel. If these requirements have not yet been satisfied, then shouldn't they be included as conditions of approval for the current project? Can you revise the staff report and recommendation to HDC to reflect this?
Regarding public safety, you note below that "[s]taff is not aware of any health/safety concerns that would preclude the development of this project." During the 11/5/25 HDC meeting commissioners expressed concerns regarding pedestrian safety on Reading Street associated with insufficient parking, parallel parking, and lack of sidewalks. Although the City cannot require/enforce minimum parking standards, that does not preclude the City from considering public/pedestrian safety issues associated with vehicle street parking, lack of sidewalks, heavy pedestrian use of Reading Street for access to Sutter Street, etc. Based on these conditions, and in light of concerns expressed by commissioners (including on 11/5/25 and as far back as the 2016 hearings for this property during which commissioners raised concerns about parking), it seems that an assessment of pedestrian safety issues is needed before a determination can be made about the project's effect on public safety.
Additionally, a 2016 condition of approval for development of this property required that "[t[he owner/applicant shall locate and remediate all antiquated mine shafts, drifts, open cuts, tunnels and water conveyance or impoundment structures existing on the project site, with specific recommendations for the sealing, filling or removal of each that meet all applicable health, safety, and engineering standards.
Recommendations shall be prepared by an appropriately licensed engineer or geologist. All remedial plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City." Does the City have evidence that this condition of approval has been satisfied? If not, the potential presence and need to remediate any mine shafts, drifts, etc. underlying the property that warranted this condition of approval in 2016 implicates a public safety issue that warrants further consideration before development of four dwelling units is approved for this property.
Regarding the CEQA 15303 exemption per your feedback at item 6 below, I understand that the project might fit the initial criteria for a 15303 exemption, however, it was obvious from the HDC's discussion on 11/5/25 that the project has the potential to adversely affect the historical character of the Historic District due to its conflict with objective development standards and the intent for residential development within the Historic District and Figueroa subarea. If the project requires a discretionary decision by the City that is subject to CEQA, then I suggest that the project does not qualify for the 15303 exemption being disqualified with exceptions to the exemption including adverse change to the Historic District, Figueroa subarea, and locally designated historic properties in the Figueroa subarea (see CEQA Guidelines 15300.2 "(f) Historical Resources.
A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.") If the project is not subject to CEQA because it is solely ministerial because the City lost the opportunity to advise the applicant that the project does not comply with applicable objective standards, then the staff report to the HDC should be revised to explain that the project is ministerial and not subject to any discretionary decisions by the City and is therefore not subject to CEQA. Alternatively, if the City does have discretionary decision making associated with the project, then the City needs to comply with CEQA and the project does not qualify for the 15303 exemption for reasons discussed above. 7 In summary, I think the HDC needs clear input from staff on the facts and circumstances of this project and its compliance (or lack thereof) with FMC and DDG objective standards. The HDC also needs to understand its role in design review of this project and whether the City (Council based on HDC recommendation) has any discretionary approval authority over this project. With what seems like a late-submitted component of the application (Env Info Form submitted just last week), the City should have the opportunity of a 30-day window to advise this applicant of the project's conflicts with the City's objective standards.
Thanks, Desmond.
Bob Delp
916-812-8122
[email protected]
From: Desmond Parrington <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 24, 2025 5:00 PM
To: Bob Delp <[email protected]>
Cc: Nathan Stroud <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: 307 Reading Street Info
Hi Bob:
Please see the attached documents and staff’s answers below:
1. The 11/5/25 HDC Powerpoint Presentation is attached
2. Staff correspondence with the applicant attached. In accordance with State Law, the project’s 30-day period began on 8/25/25, which is when staff can require revisions to address noncompliance with objective standards. Although the applicant is not required to comply with standards identified after the 30 day period per State Law, the applicant has been willing to work with staff to address subsequent issues and concerns. Attached is a formal comments letter from staff during the formal review process.
3. The current version of the plans can be found here with the HDC packet, and a slide showing the previous version of the project can be found in the PPT. If you wanted to see the previous versions of the plans, you will need to come to see them in person. Due to copyright issues, staff is not able to distribute a copy of plans with an architecture’s stamp that was not included as part of the public record.
4. As this is a different and new duplex project, the previous design review conditions for PN14-395 do not apply; however, some of the conditions of approval for the Tentative Parcel Map still apply and are required 8 upon the application for permits. In other words, adherence to these conditions are checked after the design review has been approved prior to construction.
5. Please see the project staff report included in the HDC Packet for 11/5/25. FMC 17.52.300 state that all new structures require HDC review
6. Please see the project staff report included in the HDC Packet for 11/5/25. Duplexes are explicitly exempt under Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines
7. Staff is not aware of any health/safety concerns that would preclude the development of this project. The applicant has completed the attached environmental information form.
8. Project charged the $800 application fee for a new two-unit structure, per the current Fee Schedule.
Receipt attached
Regards,
Nathan
Nathan R. Stroud
Associate Planner
City of Folsom
50 Natoma Street, Folsom, CA 95630
[email protected]
o:916-461-6220
www.folsom.ca.us
ATTENTION: Starting October 20, 2025, all NEW permits will be reviewed through eTRAKiT and not through ProjectDox.
All permits submitted prior to October 20, 2025, will remain in ProjectDox until approved. Please visit the ePermit Center or see Forms B402, B403, and B404 for more information.
From: Bob Delp <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2025 9:45 AM
To: Desmond Parrington <[email protected]>; Nathan Stroud <[email protected]> Cc: Pam Johns <[email protected]>; Sari Dierking <[email protected]> Subject: 307 Reading Street Info
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
9 Desmond and Nathan:
If necessary I can submit a public records request pertaining to the 307 Reading Street Duplex project, but I'd like to be efficient with your time and could avoid that for now if you're able to provide the following:
1. The slide deck you used to present the project to the HDC on 11/6/25.
2. The dates of the 30-day period(s) during which staff apparently needed to have advised the applicant of any inconsistencies with applicable objective standards and any correspondence with the applicant related to that process.
3. The original and any revised versions of the complete application.
4. Any documentation staff might have prepared assessing the project against the entitlements and conditions of approval/encumbrances associated with the HDC's 2016 conditional approval of "PN 14- 395, 916 Figueroa Street - Tentative Parcel Map and Residential Design Review" project and the status of compliance with those conditions of approval.
5. Any documentation staff might have prepared assessing whether the project is ministerial and not subject to CEQA and staff's apparent decision that the project needed discretionary review by the HDC.
6. Any documentation staff might have prepared assessing the project for a CEQA exemption, including any assessment of the project against the CEQA 15300.2 exceptions to the exemption that support the staff report's discussion that "[b]ased on staff's analysis of this project, none of the exceptions...apply."
7. Any documentation staff might have prepared assessing the project for potential adverse effects on health, safety, and/or welfare.
8. Any documentation pertaining to design review fees paid by the applicant for the initial design review and any additional fees paid for staff input and review of design modifications before bringing the project to the HDC.
I don't want to take up unnecessary time with this request, so please let me know if you'd like to discuss how to make this most efficient for you.
Thank you,
-Bob
Bob Delp
916-812-8122
[email protected]
Folsom City Council Meeting
Additional Information
Transmittal
Instructions to staff: Deliver original and 30 stapled/double-sided copies to the City Clerk’s Department; City Clerk’s Department will distribute via email and hardcopy to City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, and City Clerk.
Updated: Jan 2025
MEETING DATE:
12/9/2025
AGENDA SECTION:
Consent Calendar
STAFF REPORT TITLE Resolution No. 11508 – A Resolution Approving the Historic District Commission’s Recommendation for Approval of a
Design Review for a New Duplex Project Located at 307
Reading Street and Determination that the Project is Exempt from CEQA Under Section 15303 (New Construction or
Conversion of Small Structures) of the CEQA Guidelines
FROM: Community Development Department
Staff is providing the attached additional information for the above-referenced agenda item; these comments were provided after submission of the City Council Staff Report:
1. Robert Delp Comments Email, 12/9/25
Attachment 1
Robert Delp Comments Email #1, 12/9/25
1 Nathan Stroud
From: Nathan Stroud
Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2025 11:51 AM
To: Nathan Stroud
Subject: FW: Sidewalks for Residential Projects in the Historic District (12-9-25 Meeting Agenda Items 5 and 7)
From: Bob Delp <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2025 9:12 AM
To: Christa Freemantle <[email protected]>; City Clerk Dept <[email protected]> Cc: Sarah Aquino <[email protected]>; Mike Kozlowski <[email protected]>; Barbara Leary <[email protected]>; Anna Rohrbough <[email protected]>; Justin Raithel <[email protected]> Subject: Sidewalks for Residential Projects in the Historic District (12-9-25 Meeting Agenda Items 5 and 7)
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
For City Council consideration:
In speaking to HDC concerns about pedestrian safety during the 12/3/25 HDC hearing, staff assured the HDC that the 307 Reading Street project (Council 12/9/25 Agenda Item 5) would be required through a standard condition of approval to construct a sidewalk along the property's Reading Street frontage. Condition of approval 19 (Council packet pg. 104) generally references public and private improvements such as roadways, sidewalks, bike lanes, etc., but not specific requirements whether those improvements are required or any detail on what they must entail. No drawings showing sidewalk location or design were presented to the HDC, nor do I find any representation of sidewalk design in the Council's packet requesting approval of the 307 Reading Street project. In fact, site plan and landscaping drawings show parking, trees, shrubs, fencing and other landscaping through the frontage area along which a sidewalk would presumably need to be placed.
Condition 19 appears to simply be a blanket condition included as window dressing at the last minute without serious consideration by staff or the HDC. If a sidewalk is truly going to be required for the 307 Reading Street project, and if such a sidewalk is intended to address pedestrian safety concerns raised by the HDC, then I suggest the Council gain at least some understanding of its design, feasibility, and certainty prior to making a decision of whether to approve the project.
Additionally, although staff suggest that sidewalks are a standard condition of approval, staff pointed to no instances in the Historic District where sidewalks have been a condition of approval or constructed as part of any recent new residential construction in the Historic District. In fact, installation of sidewalks has not been required for several recent new residential projects and I am not aware of any instances where they have been installed within at least the last 15 years. (When the house in which I now live was under construction in 2012, I urged the builder to retain the sidewalk that existed along the property's frontage of Mormon Street, but the builder told me the sidewalk could not be retained because the landscape plan that the City had approved required that the existing sidewalk be removed but not replaced. Similarly, the 307 Reading Street project landscaping and design plans do not identify a sidewalk, and it is very unlikely that a sidewalk will be installed unless the Council makes the requirement much more specific before any final approval of this project.)
2 I also note that the Council's 12/9/25 agenda includes another Historic District residential project (294 Leidesdorff Street, Agenda Item 7) that does not include a sidewalk in its design nor do conditions of approval for that project require (or even mention) sidewalks. If requiring sidewalks for new residential construction in the Historic District is a standard condition, then a sidewalk should also be required for 294 Leidesdorff or some explanation of the City's rationale for omitting that standard condition should be provided. (Additionally, although the 307 Reading Street project includes what staff describe as "several standard conditions of approval" as conditions 27-36 (pk. pg. 90). While staff references these as "standard conditions" they are not included as conditions for the 294 Leidesdorff project. As a new residential construction project, it's unclear why the standard conditions imposed for 307 Reading Street are not also imposed for 294 Leidesdorff.)
Thank you for considering my comments.
Bob Delp
916-812-8122
[email protected]