August 20, 2021 Public Document

Applicant Statement Requesting Parking Variance for the Proposed

603 Sutter Street Building Applicant: Cedrus Holdings

2

Table of Contents

Applicant Statement ..................................................................................................................................... 3

I. Topography ....................................................................................................................................... 4

a. Steep Topography: ........................................................................................................................ 4

b. Subsurface Conditions: ................................................................................................................. 4

II. Options Considered to Provide Onsite Parking................................................................................. 7

a. Surface Parking: ............................................................................................................................ 7

b. Subsurface Parking: ....................................................................................................................... 7

III. Substantial Property Rights ........................................................................................................... 8

IV. Ensuring Minimal Impact on Neighbors ........................................................................................ 9

Appendix A – Geotechnical Report Pit Logs and Site Map ......................................................................... 11

Appendix B – Bob Eynck’s Letter on 603 Sutter Street Ground Conditions ............................................... 14

Appendix C – Large Excavator Examples ..................................................................................................... 15

3

Applicant Statement

Cedrus Holdings (“Applicant”), as the owner of parcel 070-0111-010, is requesting a variance from Municipal Code Chapter 17.57, Parking Requirements for the proposed 603 Sutter Street Building (the “Project”) in the Folsom Historic District. Applicant requests a variance from (1) the requirement to provide off-street parking spaces for the Project under Municipal Code § 17.57.040, or (2) the requirement for the Project’s off-street parking spaces to be located on the same property as the Project under Municipal Code § 17.57.080(B), in the event that Project can secure on a separate nearby parcel sufficient off-street parking spaces to meet the requirements of Municipal Code § 17.57.040.

Various circumstances and conditions weigh in favor of granting a parking variance for the Project. This statement outlines the specific exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions related to the Project and the Project site that show why granting the parking variance is appropriate and necessary.

The parking variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the substantial property rights of the Applicant in accordance with City of Folsom Zoning Code Section 17.62.020:

Application for a variance shall be made in writing on a form prescribed by the planning commission and shall be accompanied by a fee as established by resolution of the city council no part of which shall be returnable to the applicant, and by statement, plans and other evidence showing:

1. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying to the land, building or use referred to in the application, which circumstances or conditions do not apply generally to other land, buildings, and/or uses in the district.

2. That the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the petitioner.

3. That the granting of such application will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, materially affect the health or safety of persons, residing or working in the neighborhood of the property of the applicant, and will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood. (Ord. 466 Exh. A (part), 1981; Ord. 323 § 29, 1975; prior code § 3123.02)

The following is a detailed explanation of the “exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying to the land, building or use referred to in the application” related to the physical constraints of the Project site that result in the need for a parking variance. In addition, this statement explains how the granting of the variance would not, under the circumstances of this Project, materially affect the health or safety of any persons who reside or work in the neighborhood of the Project or be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood.

4

I. Unique Constraints from Topography and Geology

a. Steep Topography: The Project is located at the corner of Sutter Street and Scott Street, facing Sutter Street. There is a steep 20-foot elevation change between Sutter Street and Scott Street within the proposed Project site. The Project site slope, as well as the subsurface conditions detailed below, present major obstacles to ensuring a careful balance between the requirements of building within the Folsom Historic District and the ability of the Applicant to provide on-site parking while also enjoying its substantial property rights. With building height restrictions in the Historic District, onsite parking for the Project would require construction of an underground parking garage. To build underground parking, the steep topography of the site would require significant blasting of the underlying bedrock and special reinforcement with steel structures to ensure the two adjacent buildings and Sutter Street are not structurally impacted during excavations 22 feet below Sutter Street and 30 feet below Scott Street for an underground parking structure. The new Project design has in fact (1) substantially reduced the size of the building and (2) reduced the height of the building so a height variance is no longer needed, however, a parking variance is necessary in order to minimize impacts and ensure that the final design contributes to the historical nature of the district, while preserving the substantial property rights of the Applicant.

b. Subsurface Conditions: The Applicant retained the services of Youngdahl Consulting Group, Inc. to perform a Geotechnical Engineering study and RFE Engineering has been hired to provide survey and civil engineering services, in addition to Williams + Padden as the Project architect. The Geotech study’s objective was to perform a subsurface exploration and evaluate the surface and subsurface soil conditions at the Project site. The scope included:

1. A field study along with two subsurface soil sample “test pits” taken from the southeast and northwest corner of the Project site.

2. Conduct laboratory testing and engineering analysis on the two subsurface samples.

3. Develop a geotechnical design criterion for seismic conditions, shallow foundation to avoid the bedrock, retaining walls, slabs, and grade.

The detailed Geotechnical Engineering report was made available to the City and is publicly available. This section summarizes the main findings. Also attached is the graphic subsurface findings from the two sample pile tests that were conducted (Appendix A).

1. Slope: The Project site slopes 7H:1V (Horizontal: Vertical) with a 3 to 4-foot vertical cut along the north side. The Project site has the deepest slope of any commercial parcel on Sutter Street, representing a unique characteristic to the Project site. The closest similar conditions are seen at 607 Sutter Street (PN11-117)1. The newly constructed 607 Sutter Street building obtained parking and height variances. The staff report for that building provided: “City Staff has recommended a parking variance (20 on-site parking spaces are required) because the City provides on-street parking spaces, surface parking

1 https://www.folsom.ca.us/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=16421

5

lots and parking garages within the historical district. There are also several physical constraints on the site (no alley access in the back, steep slope exists on the site. The site is close to the light rail station and bus stop.” Although the 607 Sutter site is slightly smaller than the Project site, the slope was limited to the rear and the rest of the site was flat due to a prior structure situated at the same location.

The 603 Sutter Street Project site is located 75 feet from the 607 Sutter site and is similarly situated in that both require a large number of on-site parking spaces under the Zoning Code, 31 and 20 spaces respectively, both have no alley access, and the City provides on-street parking spaces, surface parking lots and parking garages within the Historic District that can serve both buildings. Both sites are close to the light rail station and bus stop. However, the Project site (603 Sutter) slope is homogeneous throughout the entire site, making the slope more prevalent and burdensome than the slope that was found at 607 Sutter Street.

2. Project Site Subsurface Conditions: The Geotechnical Engineering study reveals that the subsurface soil conditions encountered is bedrock at both test locations. The bedrock was present at a depth of 8 to 8 ½ feet at each of the two test locations. It was determined that the subsurface below approximately 8 feet consists of bedrock. The Project civil engineer, Bob Eynck, concluded that the bedrock is present across the entire Project site and a 14-foot excavation through the bedrock would be needed to accommodate underground parking (refer to Appendix B for Mr. Eynck’s letter and Appendix A for the graphic presentation of the two test pit logs).

The two test pits were excavated using a Takeuchi TB 180 excavator equipped with a 24-inch-wide bucket. The Geotechnical Engineering study stated “the degree of difficulty encountered in excavating our test pits is an indication of the effort that will be required for excavations of large dozer equipment typically used for grading with shallow bedrock conditions, large excavators such as Komatsu PC 400 or CAT 345 (or equivalent see Appendix C) equipped with species rock excavations/trenching equipment may be more appropriate for excavations on single lot commercial developments. As such, contractors should be equipped with equipment of suitable size to perform the site excavation.” The report goes on to say, “Where hard rock cuts in fractured rock are proposed, the orientation and direction of the excavations/ripping will likely play a large role in the rippability of the material. Blasting cannot be ruled out in areas of resistant rock.”

3. Excavation: There are no commercial-zoned parcels on Sutter Street that have a 20-foot elevation change within only 7,500 square feet like the Project site. (0.17 Acres or 100 ft x 75 ft). Leveling the 603 Sutter lot, even before reaching the bedrock, would require the removal of approximately 3,055 cubic yards of dirt. This volume would cover an area of 330,000 square feet. which is 44 times the lot size at 3 inches deep. To put this into perspective, this much dirt would cover nearly 5 regulation size soccer fields (110 yards x 70 yards) 3 inches deep. Underground parking would add an additional 20 feet in depth and would result in the removal of a total of approximately 8,611 cubic yards that could cover an area of 930,000 square feet, which is 124 times the lot size. This is truly unique and there are no comparable parcels on Sutter Street, or any other commercial

6

lots, in the Folsom Historic District. The Applicant’s proposed design without parking would not require extensive leveling.

4. Safety and health: To provide two subsurface parking levels accommodating 31 parking spaces, blasting would be needed as indicated by our civil engineer (see Appendix B). The use of Ammonium Nitrate (ANFO) mixed with fuel oil is the most common product used for blasting. In lieu of blasting, “rock excavations shall be made by mechanical means”. Resorting to mechanical excavation using hydraulic breakers mounted in back hoes (hoe-rams) or the use of expanding chemical agents (Bristar) is possible but almost always increases the duration and cost of excavation work. Ironically, since hoe-ram excavation extends the duration of the work project, neighbors might be subjected to months of continuous hammering noise and other construction effects, versus feeling a few instances of blasting vibrations lasting only a few seconds but which could result in lasting structural damage and present a public safety concern.

In summary:

The two methods of excavation that could be used to construct underground parking each have impacts that make them undesirable.

Blasting would cause ground vibration which may result in structural damage for nearby homeowners and businesses, increasing the Applicant’s risk of liability; create public fear and annoyance; and infringe upon public safety. Blasting creates cracks in the base of the surrounding rocks near the blast site and travels at different rates through soil, rocks, and water until the energy of the vibration is dissipated.

Impact Ripper Method and a hoe-ram to mechanically excavate the basalt would cause prolonged road closures, and excessive and prolonged noise. Homeowners and businesses could be disturbed by the continuous hammering noise. Some neighbors may even need to temporarily relocate to off-site accommodations. The basalt bedrock cannot easily be ripped, so the excavation, construction maintenance costs are expected to be extremely high and the use of chemicals to expedite the work may be prohibited because of the site’s location near residential areas.

Impact on the neighbors: The Geotechnical Engineering report shows that if a parking variance is not granted, there would be material impact on the neighbors on Scott Street and the alley off Scott Street since the installation of underground parking would require excavating at least 22 feet below the neighboring home on Scott Street and the historic library building adjacent to the Project site on Sutter Street. Both neighboring landowners are rightfully concerned about impacts on their properties. The excavation will require blasting 14 feet into bedrock that is not only present in one isolated portion of the Project site but across the entire site. My discussion with the neighbors ruled out this option as there is a great risk of potential structural damage to their properties. The proposed Project design would not require any blasting or excavation.

7

I. Options Considered to Provide Onsite Parking

The city code requires one parking space for every 350 square feet. The proposed building is approximately 12,300 square feet resulting in approximately 31 parking spaces needed.

a. On-Site Surface Parking: The 603 Sutter Street lot is approximately 7,500 square feet in size. Fitting 31 parking spaces onsite would require an approximately two-story structure where each story would accommodate 15 parking spaces. It would be impossible to have an above ground two-story parking structure and a 12,300 sq ft building without a substantial height variance. The expected height of such a building accommodating a 31-space parking structure and an 12,300 square foot multi-use building would encompass five stories and over 55 feet in height. This massive building would not only present other problems such as the need for a height variance, but it would be both un-historical and cost prohibitive. We also considered reducing the size of the building to provide surface parking and a multi-use building while not exceeding the height above the allowed 35 feet. This option would result in total 12,300 square foot building envelope with only 5,000 square feet of usable office space and the remaining 7,300 square feet used to accommodate 14 parking spaces, taking up an entire floor level. This option is not feasible as it is extremely cost prohibitive for a commercial lot on Sutter Street. Providing 31 parking spaces for 12,300 square feet of office and retail space would require a substantial height variance and be cost prohibitive. Providing 14 ground floor parking spaces, allowing the Project to avoid a height variance, would allow for only 5,000 square feet of office space and zero retail space facing Sutter Street, which is not economically viable. The economic hardship of developing a building that meets both height and parking restrictions infringes upon the enjoyment of substantial property rights of the owners of the commercial lot at this location.

b. Off-site Surface Parking: Applicant has investigated available options for surface parking near the Project site that could serve as dedicated off-site parking for 603 Sutter Street. There are few available parcels in proximity to the Project site, however, Applicant is currently in negotiations with the owner of 215 Scott Street, 902 Leidesdorff Stand or APN 070-0051-059 to lease or sublease the empty lot and develop it into over 32 parking spaces with Valet parking services. While this would provide sufficient spaces to comply with the requirements of § 17.57.040, providing parking off-site for the Project would not comply with § 17.57.080, to provide the required parking spaces on the same property. Providing over 31 parking spaces in proximity to the Project would, however, comply with the intent of Municipal Code Chapter 17.57, Parking Requirements, to provide parking spaces sufficient in number to accommodate all vehicles that could be congregated at a given location at a given point in time by drivers and passengers who are using or occupying 603 Sutter Street. (Municipal Code § 17.57.010.) Applicant believes that a variance to allow for off-site parking for the Project would be in the best interest of the city and the neighbors of the Project site that would likely experience adverse impacts if parking was constructing on-site.

8

c. Subsurface Parking: According to the civil engineer (Appendix B), a subsurface parking structure would require a 22-foot excavation below ground surface. Given the presence of bedrock at approximately 8 feet below the surface, 14 feet of bedrock would need to be excavated, causing substantial blasting of earth and rock:

“One of the options presented was to construct an underground parking garage that would enter the property from the low side of the site on Sutter Street. To provide accessibility from the main floor to the Sutter Street entrance, the garage floor subgrade elevation would need to be set at an elevation of approximately 228. This would require excavation below existing ground up to 22 feet deep at the southeast corner of the site. With the bedrock at approximately 8 feet below grade that would put the excavation up to 14 feet in bedrock. This would require substantial blasting for earth and rock removal. As the site is surrounded by existing structures, blasting to these depths would present an extreme challenge from vibration and ground movement. In addition, to excavate the site at this elevation would be cost prohibitive.”

It is important to note that the civil engineer for this project, Bob Eynck of RFE Engineering, was the civil and survey engineer on the nearby 607 Sutter Street project. Mr. Eynck noted potential blasting problems for this site in his letter to the City (Appendix B):

“RFE was the civil engineer and surveyor on the nearby 607 Sutter Street project. This project has similar topography as the subject development. We observed that there was some blasting on that property and that was a concern when that was constructed. Fortunately, that project did not have a lower level below the main floor. Thus, the blasting was minimized.”

II. Substantial Property Rights

Every new building on Sutter Street (604, 607, 815, and 905) has been granted a height and/or parking variance for a variety of reasons. The 604 Sutter Street building, which the Applicant is a current longtime tenant of, includes parking that was partially funded by the City in addition to the City granting a height variance to make the project economically viable. A parking variance was also awarded for the 607 Sutter Street2 building. These two new buildings adjacent to the proposed 603 Sutter Street building are comprised of three levels, similarly to what the Applicant has proposed for 603 Sutter Street. Except for 604 Sutter Street, where the City provided parking funding, none of the newer Sutter Street buildings provide public parking.

The Project is consistent with the 2035 General Plan Land Use section. The Project is in the “Historic Folsom Mixed Use (HF)” Land Use Designation. The “HF” Designation has the highest allowable density in the City with a floor-area ratio (FAR) range of 0.5-2.0. Our proposed FAR is 1.66 which fits well with the land use goals for sites in the Historic District. To allow a 2.0 F.A.R, yet stay under the maximum height permitted in the Historic District, the density goal implies the

2 8,313-square-foot, 3-story mixed-use building, https://www.folsom.ca.us/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=16130

9

use of underground parking to able to also address parking requirements, which we have shown is not feasible in our location.

The Mobility section of the General Plan (section M4.2.2) suggests an allowance for a reduction of minimum parking standards in mixed-use developments. With availability of light rail, a new parking structure and other alternative methods of transportation, our parking study shows that this allowance is justified here.

III. Ensuring Minimal Impact on Neighbors

The 603 Sutter Street property is surrounded by commercially zoned properties on all sides.

The Applicant has made every effort and significantly modified its design three times to accommodate requests from the neighbors. These modifications are summarized below:

a. Reduced building height to avoid a height variance.

b. Reduced the building mass from approximately 25,000 sq ft to 15,000 sq ft to the current proposal of 12,300 sq ft.

c. Reduced possible impacts to the neighborhood from noise by making the upper two floors office space, not retail space.

d. Eliminated the roof top deck area.

e. Relocated the trash area away from a residence to the south.

f. Provided special window coverings to ensure privacy for a neighboring residence.

g. The Applicant has also volunteered to ask that its employee occupants of the third level park in the parking structure near the train station. A $50 per month reimbursement will be paid to incentivize each employee to do so.

h. The Applicant agrees to raise the retaining wall facing the back of Sutter Street so that complete privacy is enjoyed by the neighbors to the south.

i. The Applicant would agree to pay its fair share in a parking fee program in lieu of onsite parking should the City implement such a program in the future.

In summary, a parking variance for the Project is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the Applicant, is consistent with variances recently granted to new buildings on the same street and does not affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the Project and will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood. The Applicant has shown that in accordance with Section 17.62.0403, there are indeed exceptional and extraordinary

3 Following the public hearing, the planning commission, or within the historic district, the historic district commission, may grant a variance, exclusive of a use variance, when it finds that there exist special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings whereby the strict application of the zoning code deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification. The commission may apply such conditions as it deems necessary to assure that the adjustment shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon

10

circumstances that exist for this parcel and the proposed building and proposed use, including unique topography and, substantial excavation and structural improvements that would be required for the Project without a parking variance, such that the strict application of the Zoning Code would deprive the owners of 603 Sutter Street privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity and under identical zoning classifications.

Prepared by the Applicant/Owner.

Cedrus Holdings

Ziad Alaywan P.E.

other properties in the vicinity and zone in which such property is situated. (Ord. 890 § 3(4), 1998: Ord. 476 Exh. A (part), 1982: prior code § 3123.04).

11

Appendix A – Geotechnical Report Pit Logs and Site Map

12

13

14

Appendix B – Bob Eynck’s Letter on 603 Sutter Street Ground Conditions

15

Appendix C – Large Excavator Examples