Folsom City Council Regular Meeting - October 10, 2023
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Folsom City Council Regular Meeting - October 10, 2023
The Folsom City Council met on Tuesday, October 10, 2023, at 6:30 PM in the City Council Chambers. The meeting included scheduled presentations, a consent calendar, new business on surplus land, a public hearing on an appeal of a Historic District Commission decision, and a lengthy informational presentation on homelessness. The meeting ran past 11:00 PM, and the council voted to waive the 10:30 PM rule to complete the agenda.
Consent Calendar
- Approval of September 26, 2023 Regular Meeting Minutes (Item 4) – Approved unanimously.
- Resolution No. 11107 – Opioid Settlement Funding (Item 5) – Pulled by Councilmember Aquino for discussion. The resolution authorizes the Finance Director to use opioid settlement funds for a limited-term Community Service Officer, wellness programs, anti-opioid campaigns, and overdose detection. Approved unanimously.
- Resolution No. 11108 – Copier Contract Renewal (Item 6) – Approved unanimously.
- Resolution No. 11109 – Cybersecurity Services (Item 7) – Approved unanimously.
- Resolution No. 11110 – Annual Inflationary Adjustment for City User Fees (Item 8) – Approved unanimously.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Business from the Floor (Non-Agenda Items):
- Robert Dresser requested transparency on the cost of defending the by-district lawsuit and asked the city to consider settling. He also asked whether the city would return to at-large elections if it prevailed.
- Muriel Bronstein (Neighborhood Elections Now) asked when the city would pay the attorney fees for the by-district lawsuit and requested the total amount spent.
- Vivek Gunaskara (Celebrate India Executive Committee) invited the council to the annual Diwali Mela on October 28, 2023, from 2:00 PM to 8:00 PM at the Grounds Event Center in Roseville.
- Ian Cornell expressed support for the Jewish community in Folsom following the terror attacks on Israel, thanking the council for keeping the city safe.
- Public Comments on Homelessness Presentation: 29 speakers addressed the council. Several residents from the Historic District and Sutter Street area described increasing criminal activity, including theft, vandalism, public defecation, and aggressive behavior. Many called for more police officers and stricter enforcement of laws against illegal conduct. Others expressed support for nonprofits like Powerhouse Ministries, Jake’s Journey Home, and Heart of Folsom, and urged a balanced approach. Doug Skalsey, a reserve police officer and property manager at Bidwell Studios, gave extended remarks criticizing the “housing first” model and calling for 30 additional officers, a dedicated navigator, and a city attorney position for handling repeat offenders. He also advocated for a TOT tax on Airbnb to fund police.
- Public Comments on Appeal (Item 10):
- Adina Blair opposed the 603 Sutter Street project, citing inaccurate renderings, concerns about vibration damage to the adjacent library building, and lack of parking for the residential units.
- Loretta Hedinger argued that the project violates the city’s historic district standards, that the Page & Turnbull report found the project “compatible” but not “consistent” with the code, and that staff had stretched regulations. She also noted that the city’s code enforcement and tree preservation ordinances were not being properly applied.
Discussion Items
- Informational Presentation on Homelessness: The presentation covered legal constraints (Boise decision), police department data, code enforcement cleanups, and county and nonprofit services. Key statistics: 30,228 total calls for service in 2023 (through September 15), of which 2,100 involved homeless individuals; Folsom’s point-in-time count showed 20 homeless, but police estimate 50–75; countywide, homelessness increased 67% from 2019 to 9,278 individuals; code enforcement cleaned 40 locations in three months, with daily costs of $800–$1,000. The county is building “Safe Stay Communities” with non-congregate shelter. Nonprofits presented their programs: Jake’s Journey Home (all-volunteer mobile response, 212 field interactions in September), Heart of Folsom (winter shelter with 20 beds, transitional housing), Powerhouse Ministries (59 beds, 91% success rate for women and children), and Hope Cooperative (Bidwell Studios with 20 permanent supportive housing units). The council discussed the legal ability to cite individuals for camping when shelter beds are available, and the need for more police officers, with Chief Hillman citing staffing shortfalls.
- New Business Item 9 – Surplus Land Declaration: The council considered declaring four small parcels (APN 070-0092-007, -009, -010, and 070-0094-011) as exempt surplus land and authorizing their disposition. Staff explained the parcels were acquired for a capital project that is no longer needed (retaining wall for excursion rail). The parcels range from 500 to 5,500 square feet and are being returned to original owners. Councilmember Aquino expressed concern about the loss of potential for excursion rail from the Y to the historic district, but staff noted previous council decisions made that economically infeasible. The adopted resolution declares the parcels exempt surplus, with transfer subject to state verification.
- Public Hearing Item 10 – Appeal of 603 Sutter Street Mixed-Use Development: The appellant, Bob Delp, raised 14 objections, including that the Historic District Commission lacks final approval authority under the city charter, that project renderings were inaccurate, that the building height exceeds the 35-foot limit (parapet wall), that grading would cause vibration damage to the adjacent library building, and that the project does not qualify for a CEQA exemption. Staff recommended denial of the appeal. The applicant, Ziyad Aliwan, stated he would move his office to the second floor and live on the third floor, and that no variances were needed. Council discussed the parapet issue: under current code, architectural features (including parapets) can extend up to 15 feet above the 35-foot limit, a practice the city has followed for 20 years. The council voted to deny the appeal and approve the project as approved by the HDC, with a friendly amendment to condition 43 requiring the ADA parking space to be designed to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department.
Key Outcomes
- Consent Calendar: Approved items 4, 6, 7, 8 (unanimous). Item 5 approved unanimously after discussion.
- Resolution No. 11111 – Surplus Land Declaration: Approved unanimously (4-0-1? All five yes).
- Appeal of 603 Sutter Street: Denied. The council upheld the Historic District Commission’s approval, with a condition to modify the ADA parking space. Vote: 5-0.
- Homelessness Informational Session: No action taken, but the council directed the city manager to explore a county health outpost at the Y property (per Councilmember Aquino) and to bring back proposals for increasing police staffing and a possible sales tax measure (discussed in relation to the next meeting).
- Council Requests: Future agenda items will include a discussion on establishing a formal citizen recognition program and clarification on standing requirements for appeals.
- City Manager Reports: Upcoming events: Bike/pedestrian bridge workshop (Oct 19, 5–7 PM), Fire Department open house (Oct 14, 9–11 AM), and bike park renovations. The council extended thoughts and prayers for the people of Israel.
Meeting Transcript
All right, we'll now call to order the city council regular meeting for Tuesday, October 10th. Will the clerk please call the roll? Council members Kozelowski. Here. Rorba. Here. Aquino. Here, Chalum Chairla. Here. And Rodriguez. Here. Let us stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. Pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. Justice Crawl. Are there any agenda updates? Good evening, Madam Mayor. There is an additional information transmittal for item nine and also item 10. A copyhouse being previously provided to you, and they are also available on the table in the back. Thank you. Will the clerk please call the next item? Your next item this evening will be business from the floor. All right, business from the floor is a public's opportunity to address the city council concerning any item within the city council's jurisdiction that is not on the agenda. Please keep in mind that the city council is generally prohibited from discussing or taking action on any item that is not on the agenda. Public comments are limited to no more than three minutes. There is a speaker timer on the podium in front of you that will display the time you have left of your three minutes. We ask that everyone respect the three-minute time limit to ensure that all speakers have equal opportunity to address the city council. Are there any requests to speak? Yeah, you have three requests to speak this evening under business from the floor. I'll call all the names so you can be ready when you hear a name coming next. First this evening will be Robert Dresser. Robert will be followed by Muriel Bronstein, who in turn will be followed by Vivek Gunaskara. Can I have it? Good evening, Robert. Good evening to you. Thanks for the opportunity to hear you and appear before you. Can you speak into the mic? That's right in front of you. Right there. Let me try to do that. Thank you, Mayor. Better. So I think a transparency is very important for the conduct of city business. And this is, I think my fourth appearance uh respectfully requesting the amounts of money that have been spent by the city in defending the bi-district lawsuit. And as you know, after the by-district lawsuit was filed, the city council agreed to have a by-district elections. And I think it's important for the sake of transparency and so the public can know how much money the city is spending, especially in tight budget times, which I understand now exist. And again, my fourth appearance, I would really really appreciate Mayor, if there's a date by which you might be able to provide information and whether or not the city is legally required. It just seems to me personally, as a member of resident of Fulsom, a good idea that the city would share the cost of public funds spent in the past and anticipated in the future on defending the lawsuit. We have by district elections. The other thing I'm interested in is if the city were to reveal on the before the Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals, uh, were they going to then possibly go back to at large elections? I really like an answer on that too when I step down, if that's being contemplated.
openpublica.com