Folsom council pauses adoption of objective design standards, asks staff to tighten parking and ministerial rules

FOLSOM — After more than an hour of discussion on Oct. 28, the City Council voted to continue consideration of the city’s proposed Objective Development and Design Standards (ODDS) for multifamily and mixed‑use residential development to the Nov. 12 meeting so staff can refine parking rules and clarify when projects must be processed ministerially.

Planning Manager Desmond Perrington presented the standards as a state‑law response that provides objective, measurable criteria for streamlined review in overlay areas such as Iron Point, Glen Light rail station zones and the Folsom Plan Area. Staff said adopting the standards as a resolution (rather than embedding them directly in the zoning code) preserves flexibility to amend them more quickly if needed and to provide staff interpretations for practical application.

Councilmembers raised two primary concerns. First, several members warned that state laws and related bills constrain local discretion: once a project meets the objective standards, the city generally cannot deny it, reduce density or cut unit counts unless a specific and significant health‑and‑safety finding is made. "We're losing local control," one councilmember said, urging caution before shifting market‑rate projects to ministerial review. Staff responded that ministerial review is required only for projects that meet certain state criteria (for example, prevailing wage or affordable‑housing triggers) and that council can choose to keep projects discretionary when not mandated by state law.

Second, councilmembers pressed staff to tighten proposed methods for granting parking reductions tied to measures such as shared parking spaces, delivery‑loading allocation or transit passes. The draft allows reductions when projects provide selected amenities; councilmembers worried the current language could permit excessive reductions for large developments. Perrington agreed to develop clarified, objective ratios (for example, a shared parking space per X units) and to report examples from other jurisdictions.

Council discussed process options for the next meeting: codify the standards with specific enumerated parking rules or adopt the resolution now and direct staff to return with clarified parking sections. After debate the council voted to continue the measure to Nov. 12 to allow staff time to prepare redlines and a clearer parking rubric.

Staff said a short delay will not threaten any immediate projects; there were no pending pipeline projects that would be directly affected by a one‑month continuation. Perrington said staff will provide specific draft language on parking reductions, examples of staff interpretations and options for when ministerial review should apply.