Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening. It is 06:34, and this is the meeting of the Folsom City Planning Commission of 02/18/2026. You'll notice, somebody new to my left who's not really new to us. Karen Snabria is now our clerk. She is, Stephanie. Hanham was able to, move over to public works department with her very capable skills. So Karen is hugely capable because she is the one that trained Stephanie and among others. So, welcome back, Karen. For, right now, we'll go ahead and call the role to determine a quorum. Commissioner Herrera?

Here.

Commissioner West?

Here.

Commissioner Ross? Present. Commissioner Laney? Here. Commissioner Barcelona? Here. And Commissioner Reynolds? Here. And Commissioner Hurst is absent.

Okay. If you'll all join me for the Pledge of Allegiance, please. Thank you, everybody. Now is the time on the agenda that anybody who has anything they would like to address the commission on that isn't on our agenda tonight, anybody who's here for something not on the agenda, we have, the, citizen communication for that reason. Is there anybody here who would like to address the commission on something that's not on the agenda?

Okay. Hearing and seeing none, we will close the public comment for citizen communication. Commissioners, that takes us to the minutes of 01/21/2026. Anybody see any corrections or need for any changes to the minutes?

I will move the minutes.

Thank you, Commissioner Barcelona. Is there a second?

I will second.

Commissioner Ross, thank you very much. Any discussion on the motion and the second? Hearing none, Karen, please call the roll.

Commissioner Herrera? Yes. Commissioner West? Yes. Commissioner Ross? Yes. Commissioner Laney? Yes. Commissioner Barcelona?

Yes.

Commissioner Reynolds?

Yes. Okay. The first item on new business is item number one. Karen, if you'd like to go ahead and call that item.

ZCAM 26 dash zero zero zero seven zoning code update accessory dwelling unit ordinance and determination that the project is exempt from CEQA. This item has been continued to the 03/18/2026 commission meeting by staff.

Okay. So if anybody is here for that item number one, we will not be covering that fulsome zoning code update tonight. So, you heard when they will when we'll be doing it in March, so appreciate seeing you there. The next item is item number two. Go ahead, Karen. Okay.

MSTR25Dash00240, Dutch Bros Coffee South Point in determination that the project is exempt from CEQA under Section 15183. And your project planner is Josh Kincaid.

Hi, Josh.

How are

you doing tonight?

Great. Thank you, chair Reynolds. Good evening, commissioners. So, yes, first item tonight is the Dutch Bros Coffee South Point, project. This is a request for design review and a planned development permit modification.

So, the project is located in the South Point Shopping Center located on the corner of White Rock and East Bidwell, as you can almost see here outlined by yellow. The South Point Commercial Center was, originally approved in 2023. This is the previously approved site plan. It included a gas station, some quick serve restaurants with drive throughs, retail, and medical office buildings. One of the proposed medical office buildings here has since been changed to a daycare center.

Some of the Commission may remember from a previous meeting. Recently approved that, I want to say about a year ago. The project site is located on the parcel that was originally planned for a 3,000 square foot restaurant with a drive through. So this is the original site plan, and you can see the original drive through site access here and here. So the applicant is proposing a ten twenty five square foot Dutch Bros business in place of the the previously approved building.

As, part of the new business type, they are, proposing to add additional capacity to the drive thru and add a secondary drive thru access point here, as Dutch Pros does approximately 90% of their business via drive thru and, reorientation of the parking lot as well, as a reduction of the number of parking spaces, from 34 that were previously planned on-site to 27 spaces. They're also proposing a walk up window and a three thirty six square foot patio area. Based on the business activities occurring primarily outdoors, they are allowed by the general plan to go under the required floor area ratio as we analyzed in the staff report. And the reduction of parking spaces is also supported by staff given the low parking demand for this use given, the the small size of the building and the primarily drive through, nature of the business. A circulation analysis was also provided to show that the, secondary drive thru access and, the additional capacity that we show here you can see the, it's two full lanes now Can adequately serve the anticipated drive thru demand without spilling out into the other properties within the center.

That study used peak demands shown at a Dutch Bros in Roseville from 2022, And staff also added a condition that if queuing is observed to regularly spill over, additional operational measures could be required would be required to lessen that impact. Those conditions could include restricting the western access here oops, hello. Reducing the western access or restricting that western access there to ensure that additional queuing goes into the project site here rather than spilling out into the adjacent parcel. The site has the capacity to, handle several additional cars if if need be in a a big influx. Looking briefly at the landscaping plan, the applicant's proposing 58%, parking lot tree shading, which is in excess of the city's requirements.

They also propose a series of, water efficient shrubs and ground cover. Final approval of the landscaping plan will be subject to, review from the city's urban forester. Now moving on to the changes in the building design. Here we see the previously approved building elevations on the pad. It was anticipated to be a restaurant.

And here we see the, proposed elevations. So while the building is about a third of the, the square footage of what was previously approved, it's about four feet taller than that previous building. The the height is still allowed under the the the South Point commercial, plan development. The color palette materials do retain some of that earth tone stucco and and, stone, wainscouting on on the, the previously approved building, while adding, as you can see, the blue fiber cement board siding for the tower element. They're also looking to potentially increase the signage on the building.

Staff found that the, the building modifications are compatible with the original approval, while providing brand identification as a standalone building with the, the the blue tower elements. Regarding the signage, they they are over what's allowed in the South Point sign program. What they're showing here is is over, due to the, amount and size of the the windmill signs that you see. So we're conditioning that they either reduce the amount of signage to meet the sign program or come back in for a planned development modification for signage to request the the additional signage. Staff did find that the proposed changes were consistent with what was previously analyzed under CEQA.

So with that, we do recommend approval of the proposed project as conditioned. We do have the applicant group here as well, including, a representative from Kimley Horn who performed the transportation analysis if you have any questions. So with that, I can take any questions from the commission.

Okay. Thank you, Josh. Commissioners, any questions for our staff tonight? Commissioner Ross. Thank you, chair.

I was curious. I saw that the original design I couldn't tell if stucco was allowed. And I didn't have time to go to the other South Point commercial development to see if the other buildings that have been developed on the other East Side had stucco.

Yeah. Look, they have

Yeah. I looked at the cutout that shows the types, and stucco wasn't listed. So I just wanted to make sure that that was originally part of the design element.

Yes. This was this was what was originally approved as part of the South Point Center. They they had elevations for each of the buildings. Initially, they they've done some modifications to to some of the buildings since then, but this was, what was originally approved for for this specific building. And

the buildings that have been approved so far, they're following this kind of design?

Generally, yes. They if they want to, use what was exactly approved here, then they wouldn't be going back to Planning Commission. But we have had a couple that have wanted to do, different designs. The day care center was one of them that changed its design pretty significantly versus what was previously there. And so we checked it against the Southpoint standards to ensure that it still met the intent of those design standards.

Okay. And did you or did any staff talk to Dutch bros about trying to modify their design to have more of these elements in what they were proposing, or was this just what they proposed?

This so this is we felt that the, you know, the incorporation let me just go back here. So you can see they have the a little hard to see here, but they have the stone element on the bottom, the kind of stucco panels with the earth tones. And we felt that those elements were really kind of incorporated into this building while, you know, it doesn't have the the wood siding or the wood wood appearing siding like that. We felt that because it was a stand alone building, it wasn't an in line tenant, that having some additional branding, some uniqueness like that would would be warranted for for stand alone.

Okay. Thank you.

Anybody else have any questions? Commissioner West, did no? I have one. The timing of the need for the modification to their planned development permit as a result of too much signage. So the option is either they reduce signage or they need to come back to us amending that program, right?

That's correct.

Okay. And that can't be done at the staff level? That's got to be a commission action?

Well, if if what they were looking to do goes beyond, what is allowed by both the, the signed program and the code, then we would have to go back to commission. If it's a matter of of trying to modify the signed program in a way that that, that would not go beyond what was allowed in the code, then, then we could do that at a staff level. But once we start going beyond what was allowed there because the signed program was initially, approved under a planned development, it allowed for additional signage on certain buildings Right. Then most changes, to that signed program would trigger commission approval.

Okay. And that does that have to be done the modification have to be done before they can be open for business?

It has to be done before they get a signed permit.

Signed permit?

Yes. So they could potentially open they could have a temporary banner up, that sort of thing. They could put up some signage to meet the the current code with the idea of wanting to come back later to provide additional signage. But they yes. They would, and anything beyond what's allowed in that signed program would require additional approvals. Doesn't necessarily mean they couldn't open. It's just that they couldn't have all

that signage. Right. And is the sign or the size of the sign the issue, the windmills part?

Yeah. It was it was, the number of of signs shown and the, I believe it was the heights, if not the square footage, of the, the the the windmill signs. Okay. Yeah.

Alright. Thank you. Commissioner Herrera.

Thank you, Josh. We already have a Dutch Bros in town. Is there what's the correlation of signage on this building versus the existing one?

I'm not sure.

Yeah. I I haven't I haven't compared the two. We could pull it up on Google Maps if we need to. But

Oh, yeah. I'm just curious. I don't know. We've already we've already we already have one, and I would think that their branding would be pretty similar to the existing one. And I'm not sure how big that one is compared to this one.

But Right. I I mean, the the the Dutch Bros representative might be able to speak to, you know, variation in in signage on on at different locations that they have. The one North Of 50 was subject to a different sign program than this one is, so we are dealing with the South Pointe sign program here. So that's really what we have to review it against.

Okay. Thank you.

Okay. Any other questions from commissioners? Okay. Thank you, Josh.

Thank you.

Alright. With that, we'll bring up the applicant. Which one of you, army of folks would like to come on up and introduce yourself?

Good evening. My name is Scott Pedersen. I'm with Morton and Pattalo. Here I'm representing the development team here. I wanna quickly introduce them. But, first, I wanted to say I appreciate being here this evening, and I wanna thank staff across the board. I've been working in Folsom for upwards of twenty years now, and it's always a pleasure working with the community development team here. So thank you for that. We have Victor and Rohit and Amber from the developer development group. We have Sarah with Dutch Brothers. We have Pedro with Kimley Horn and me representing the site civil component. So at that point in time, if you have any questions, we'd be happy to bring the appropriate representative up to speak on that. Thank you.

Okay. Any questions for the applicant? Hearing and seeing none. All right, then we will go ahead and open public comment. Is there anybody here who would like to comment on the Dutch Bros proposal item or item number two?

Hearing and seeing none. All right. We know Folsom is thirsty. Okay. We will close the public comment. And commissioners, that leaves it to us. Any what's your pleasure?

I just if you don't mind, Chair. So I reviewed this project. And I love Dutch Bros. My one concern was the reduction in parking and the doubling of the drive through, only because if Dutch Bros ever leaves, what other business would go in that space that would need a restaurant, maybe eat in area, and maybe would need more parking? So I wonder my only concern was, right, we're putting in a building that is specific to this type of use. And will it be able to continue to do that in the future if Dutch bros were to leave? Because we would be stuck with this building and this layout and this configuration.

No, interesting point. But in my opinion, it seems like all of that extra room for traffic was necessary, especially since we approved the daycare. I can only imagine what that's going to be like at eight or nine in the morning when all the parents drop their kids off and then go right to Dutch Brothers or Dutch Bros, I'm sorry. But so yeah, I mean, and to me, it was a little less offensive to remove the parking spaces because there were so few removed. If that was removing all their parking, I think that would be a problem. But anybody else have a comment on that perspective?

If another restaurant were to

go in there, wouldn't they need a different conditional use permit that might require more parking spaces of conversion of the parking lot?

We would judge the project, excuse me, based on the square footage of the the building and the amount of seats inside the restaurant. That that's typically how we how we judge the parking. So based on the 3,000 square foot building, we knew we had adequate parking there. I believe there's also a shared parking agreement for the rest of the South Point Center. If there's any lack, we can check it against the center as a whole.

And they don't have seating inside, right?

Not inside. There's a small patio area. I believe there's going to be couple

And seats is that counted for or is a patio area counted for the amount of parking spaces?

Typically, no. We haven't counted that. We're looking into that as part of our zoning code update when we have larger patios to potentially count that space when the patio is a big part of the business model. But in this case, we wouldn't.

Right. Okay. Anybody else want to bring something up before we or I would entertain a motion. Or I will make a motion. How about that?

I move to confirm staff's determination that the Dutch Bros Coffee South Point project is statutory exempt from CEQA under Public Resources Code section 21,083.3 and CEQA guidelines section 15,183 and that no further environmental review of the project is required and approve a design review and plan development permit modification application for said project located at 3580 East Bidwell Street, MSTR 20 Five-two 40, based on the findings included in the staff report a through d d and subject to the conditions of approval attached to the staff report conditions one through eight.

I will second.

Commissioner Barcelona seconds. Any discussion on the motion on the floor? Hearing and seeing none, go ahead and call the roll, Karen. K. Commissioner Herrera?

Yes. Commissioner West? Yes. Commissioner Ross? Yes. Commissioner Lainey? Yes. Commissioner Barcelona?

Yes. Commissioner Reynolds? Yes. Okay. Congratulations, Dutch Bros. Thank you. Just because you all turned out was because it it was made it so easy. So thank you.

Feel free to leave some stickers by the door. We're

at we're

at 2 Dutch Bros City now. We're coming up in

the world. All we ask for is Alright.

Good luck, and thank you for doing business in Folsom. Thank you. Bye bye. Alright. The next item. Karen, go ahead and call it.

KMMSTR25Dash0 0252 Levy Road Monopine Cellular Tower and determination that the project is exempt from CEQUA under section one five three three two. Your project planner is Josh Kincaid.

Alright. Yeah. Next up, Josh.

Alright. Meet again. Oops. There we go. All right. So, the Levy Road Monopine cellular cellular tower. This is, a request for conditional use permit for a new cellular facility. The project site is located on Levy Road at the Gold Country Self Storage business. The business is surrounded by, residential uses to the north and east. Another storage business, to the west and residences to the, to the south.

We do have, kind of a steep slope going down from Levy Road to reach, the residences in in the on Willow Willow Ridge Court. Excuse me. So the applicant would be utilizing, the two end units on the southwestern portion of of the storage facility site, as you can see here, for a cellular tower and equipment cabinets. The, nearest residential use to the cell site is located about 160 feet, approximately 50 yards to the south. This is the nearest residential use of these homes here.

Verizon provided evidence that their coverage was not reliable in the area. That evidence has been provided in the staff report and that this site made, service reliable at the tower height that they are proposing. So here's a site plan showing the proposed facility. It, consists of a 600 square foot area with equipment cabinets and a backup generator, as well as the cell tower itself. It has 16 antennas and four remote radio units.

Now looking at the elevations of the facility facing, levee on the left and internally on the right, you can see that the equipment cabinet would be housed within the space of two existing storage units, And two double door gates are proposed to be added where roll up doors currently exist to access the site. All new all of the new wall portions are proposed to match the existing wall of the storage facility, and we've conditioned that to be the case. The tower itself would be 70 feet in height to the top of the the antennas with the with the antennas located at the top of the tower. So you can see that the applicant has opted to stealth the facility as a monopine, as we've seen before. Here we see the west and north elevations.

Nothing really new here. The false branches of the monopine are intended to help shield the antennas, and they're proposed to extend five feet above the tower to create a more natural tree shape for a total height of 75 feet. The tower is also proposed to be colocatable, meaning that it's set up for other providers to use the tower for their facilities if the need arises. And typically, colocations are reviewed at a staff level per federal law, unless they are, extending the, the facility, a certain degree beyond, where the current facility is in terms of width or height. So here are a couple of the project renderings.

The image on the left is looking at the project site from the east on Levy. And the image on the right is looking from the west on the same road. So while the monopine coming out of a storage facility is certainly a bit of an odd look directly in front of the building, We believe that it's a good option when viewed from down the street. It doesn't necessarily have that same effect when viewed, in the area. Here we see views of the proposed tower from residences from the north.

On the left image. That's the cell site here. And from residences on the east on the right image, and there it is right there. Again, the monopine better blends into the skyscape as than a standard cell tower would in our opinion. Here are some examples of what monopines look like.

Staff has condition that's similar to these facilities. The trunk is a shade of brown and the branches are a shade of green and that the final colors and materials are subject to planning review before receiving a building permit. So the applicant provided both an, electromagnetic exposure analysis as required by the FCC to show that the site is meeting federal exposure standards for, the surrounding uses, as well as an alternative sites analysis to show why the project site was chosen and is the the, least impactful option to to achieve their goals feasibly. So in the alternative sites analysis, the only other existing tower in the area was located Southwest of the project site. It's the project site here.

There's an existing tower located to the Southwest. And as you can see here on the right, it's already saturated with with antennas from other carriers, so they weren't able to co locate on that tower. Staff also notes that since the proposed tower is co locatable, the image the image on the right with with these co locations shows kind of the importance of of shielding because otherwise you could end up with, you know, something relatively bare like like like what we currently have here. So even though it may not look perfect, we do believe that it looks better than a a bare site like this. As such, we do support the the proposed project as conditioned.

The project is exempt from CEQA under the, infill exemption staff found. We did place a notice in the telegraph and sent mailers to surrounding property owners. We did receive one comment, expressing concern about the proximity of the site to residences. Staff reviewed this letter and determined that we cannot deny a project due to concerns about radiation if the project is meeting FCC standards, which this project is conditioned to do and they've shown, in their electromagnetic analysis how they are meeting those standards. Staff discussed, potentially moving the cell site back a bit to get it further from the nearest residents.

But the applicant explained that due to, additional visual impacts due to slope, additional disturbances due to, more utility access that's needed off the street if it's moved further back, and, fire suppression system compatibility that the proposed location at the front of the storage facility is still impactful location. They are here tonight to explain some of that reasoning to you, if you wish as well. And, staff also found that in these discussions that that there were two conditions that referenced incorrect attachments. Referenced an expiration date that was not in line with the code, and, the we saw that there was no reference to, to signage for, contact information for maintenance concerns on the tower. So, we did modify conditions one, six, and 25, as shown on the green sheet, to make those changes.

We also found that, certain conditions were included that don't apply to cell sites. They apply to typical development but not residential development or commercial development, but not really to cell sites. So we have asked that those conditions be removed in the green sheet as well. We have provided our updated recommended commission action on this screen, so if you do want to move forward with with staff's recommendations, this is the language to use. And, we do have the applicant group here as well. So, with that, we can take any questions. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you, Josh. Any questions for our staff on this item? Okay. Hearing and seeing none. All right. We will invite the applicant up then. Come on up and introduce yourself.

Good evening, Planning Commission chair. Chair. Thank you for having me here this evening. My name is Jared Kearsley on behalf of Verizon Wireless. Josh and staff did a very thorough, job on the presentation. I honestly don't have too much to add. If there's any questions from the commissioners, I'd be happy to field them, answer them to my best abilities. We do believe we are, filling the gap in coverage, that Verizon currently has in this area fulsome, in the least intrusive means possible with the exact location that we chose on the south southwest corner of the property. Anyhow, any questions I could help answer, I'm happy to do so.

Okay. Thank you, mister Cursley. Any questions for your applicant? Commissioner Laney.

I was wondering if you can explain a little more about the challenge from moving it maybe more to the center of the property versus being so close to homes 160 feet away from a residential area is a little concerning to me. So World Health Organization recommends 15 feet away from properties and there's more and more jurisdictions pushing to have that RF energy further away from schools and homes and so I understand the FCC part but if there's an opportunity to preserve the health and safety of the community, I think that that should be leaned into. So I was just wondering if you could walk me through what the challenges are and why that particular spot is better versus maybe the center of the storage facility.

Yeah. Good question. So the way that the north and east residential properties are set up next to the storage facility, the elevation is essentially the same as the storage facility. So when you move closer north and or west or east I'm sorry, east, the visual impacts will be greater to those properties than when the to the southern properties where they're 30 feet lower in grade with a, you know, 10 foot wall, c CME wall that separates their property from Levy Road. So the visual impacts is what we have to focus on.

The FCC we are well under the thresholds of FCC's exposure limits at 13.6%, I believe it is, at ground level, which would be even further lower 31 feet in elevation for the residents to the South. So to the North, you'd have more exposure to those homes than we do currently to the South, if that makes sense because of the elevation drop to the South.

So I'm I'm sorry. Can you help me better understand that? So you started off with talking about the visual impact. So we're talking about visual impact or more of the exposure impact.

We we we are obligated to site cell towers to be least visually impactful to the area while we have to maintain under the FCC's threshold of the exposure limits, which we are well under the FCC threshold. So that can't be a concern for us because we are well with within the the guidelines of FCC. So where we have challenges with exposure limits is, like, rooftop sites where you could walk out on a roof deck with antennas, like, on a center of a parapet wall, if you will. Or that example that we showed you, the Crown Castle site, 590 feet away. If if we place our antennas lower than the dish antennas, then there'd be massive exceedances on at ground level.

But because the antennas are so so high and the energy goes straight out into the, horizon, minimal ground level, exposures is is there for these these monoplane towers that are, the antenna height is right around 71 feet above grade, which really is, about 100 feet above grade from the properties to the south because of the elevation drop.

Commissioner Ross. Thank you.

So I guess my question would be, if we were to ask you to try to move it to the center of the storage facility, would that is there any reason why we couldn't do that if the only reason to I'm hearing you say is it visually impactful? If we decide that that's not something we are concerned with and we'd rather have it be further away from residences where people are living, what is the issue with it moving to the center?

There's nothing that would prevent in a technical way to prevent it from moving. I do have the property owner here if he would have any insight on moving it to more center lot centered into the property. In the letter I re I provide to the staff, it would cause more disturbance through the property, through the, the row of, storage facility units, during construction, and maybe cause issues with these tenants. And then, the fire suppression line. Right now, the the line comes from the north to the south, and we're it's it so it terminates at the units that we are taking taking it up.

So it's gonna be very streamlined to terminate them on the adjacent storage facility. That way, we don't have to reroute any fire suppression system because it runs more or less straight down the middle of this of the storage facility units. So since we have

a a vertical pole

in the middle, we'd have to deviate around that as well, which just causes more challenges. I can't speak exactly of fire code, but it's just more challenges, more cost. But I think we're trading off that because then the properties to the north will be possibly more visually impacted to the structure because all their backyards will be aligning with a vision to the the monopine, which is why we pushed it towards the frontage of the road. Because, again, the downhill slope into those properties to the south is gonna, put maybe they might see the very tip of that that that tower, whereas the people behind, to the north and and east are gonna see more of the length of the the the tower. Sorry.

I'm not to be wishy washy.

No. Totally. I thank you for answering my questions. Can I ask the staff a question? Is that allowed now? Is that allowed?

Well, let's wait a minute. Do you want to have the Sorry. Do you want to have the property owner answer that? Because I'm kind of curious. Sure. You say the property owner's here?

Doug, do you wish you'd come up?

We don't buy it, I promise.

Okay. And, Okay, you want to ask, any other questions of the applicant? Let's put it that way before we ask a question of staff. Okay.

I'm more than happy to

come back up if needed, even after public comment.

Okay. Thank you very much. Go ahead. Commissioner Ross. Thank you.

So I know we have some statutory deadlines for how these get approved, I think, or we're kind of limited in the timeline. I can't quite remember. It's been a while since I've done a cell tower. If we wanted to ask the applicant to come back with visual representations of what it would look like in the center of the storage facility, would that be possible and then to hear it again at the next commission hearing?

Hi. It is possible. I believe we are on one hundred and fifty day timeline for this review. And that puts us into April. So we right, Josh?

I think today is day 90.

Yeah. We do have time.

Yeah.

And I would just add because it's, I think, pertinent to the discussion. I think the legal requirement, if you wanted to ask them to do it, is we must show that there are potentially available and technologically feasible alternative sites, which you guys have heard me say this before. For other cell towers, if we're asking them to move from their preferred location, the burden is on the city to establish that there are other available and technologically feasible alternative sites. So it sounds like we haven't heard that there are not any, but just putting that out there.

Okay. Thank you.

All right. Any other questions or anything of the applicant or anything else? No. Okay. Is there anybody here who would like to commit or comment under public comment? Anybody who would like to approach the commission? I said

I wouldn't, but I will.

Do I need to come to the floor?

Yes, please. And you need to please announce yourself and who you are.

This one or this one?

The one right at the diocese.

Simon Hughes, a resident locally. Thank you for inviting me. Thank you for having me. Thank you for that presentation. We found out through the mailing, so thank you very much. The process is working. You mentioned the adjacent cell facility, which is already full and is pretty much an eyesore. And you mentioned your new mast having spare capability. I guess if I live locally and I've got to have a mast, can we put all the old ones on your Oh,

sorry. Can you speak to the commission? Yeah.

We have to have another mast because the old one is full, can we put all the old ones on to the new mast to make it look nicer because the old mast is horrible? I don't know. Is there there an ability to actually merge the two together and have a singular mast rather than two separate masts close to each other?

I can see how that would be attractive, but I think it'd be hard to get the companies to all coordinate with one another. But what an idea. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you, sir. All right. Anybody else want to comment on their public comment? Okay. Hearing and seeing none, we'll close the public comment. Commissioners, that leaves it to us.

I have one comment about your question, Commissioner Ross. I used to store at that location. And one thing I think it would be I mean, even though we weren't able to hear from the property owner, the narrowness of the driveways that go to the storage areas would be pretty tough, I think, to do all the construction and also keep your clients happy. I mean, not that we aren't completely able to inconvenience them, but that strikes me as if this was the location that seemed to meet our city standards the best as far as who has to look at it. And I've driven over there, the applicant was correct that the neighborhood down below is quite a bit below.

So if cell towers indeed just shoot out like that I mean, know it's kind of weird looking coming out of a building like that right on the road. But anyway, I just the other couple of thoughts, having been inside that storage facility, it's pretty tight in there. It'd be pretty hard to probably open up a few in the internal section there. So anyway, Commissioner West, do you have something?

I'm actually familiar with that facility as well. My son's Boy Scout troop stores in there. I'm in there quite a bit when I run campouts to pull things out, and they are kind of narrow. But I guess more my thought is, even if we made them do this analysis and come back, generically could say it's going to be more impactful both visually and radiation wise, even though it'll be under FCC levels if we put it in the middle to residents in the back. So I don't see that as an improvement that could be demonstrated. If they're going to show it that it's back there and yes, more visual impact, more radiation impact, even though it's legal still, I don't see the benefit of making them go do that analysis.

Appreciate the concern about it impacting users of this

Grass, storage facility during the short amount of time construction occurs, we do have people that live here full time in homes, right? And if you have kids, you may be concerned about exposure. Wonder if I understand that the other location, Crown Castle, is overloaded. What are the options to replace that with a monopine and put all of those repeaters on a monopine at that location.

I do believe that the applicant could speak to that because they did look at that as a potential option.

Is that okay to bring the applicant up now? Okay. Come on up.

Jared Kearsley again here on behalf of Verizon. It would take, it's nearly impossible for something like that to happen because you would need three carriers to agree to re, move off the tower temporarily, and then you would need to the the tower owner who is Crown Council to agree agree to as well. It was it's called a drop and swap. They do happen sometimes. But when the foundation is already at the capacity, then changing out the pull isn't necessarily gonna solve the problem either.

But to get all entities to agree to make that happen is is darn near impossible because it's gonna cost all them money and time and time off air and such, they can't handle the off off off air for that long time. So to gentleman behind me's point, we have no control over, like, those carriers, and we can't force them on our tower either. But but, yeah, it it's not something we could we could force anyone to do. It's just that that tower itself is overcapacity.

And you couldn't you don't think they would maybe set up,

like, temporary while the monopine is

being put in. They couldn't set up, like,

a temporary repeater in the

area area to solve the problem of losing service during the monopine being put in.

That area is pretty full already. That's why we couldn't really find additional ground space even if the tower was usable. That those are called sell on wheels cows. And sell on so all three carriers would require a separate cow, and, and the space is just

You're talking about the ground space around it? Is Yeah. There isn't enough space for you

guys to add some repeaters and whatever equipment would be required as part of it to this spot?

That that's correct. Yeah. Because it drops down in elevation as you go, west. The whole east and and south areas is it's just full of their business operations.

Okay.

Can I just add that, this is, closer to residential?

It is very much. Yeah. And that tower is gonna be providing a lot more radiation at to these homes than than ours will be, to be honest. Still legal, but that's that's the truth.

Do you know when so there's a potential for this mono tower to continue to have more service providers be added on to it and this may I'm not sure if this is a question for staff or not but is that something that we look at each for each provider that goes on there is there a point at which we realize that hey we're beyond the amount of radiation we really should have on a tower that close to people's homes because once we say yes to something you know the reality is that it's really hard to revoke these conditional use permits. The reality is you know the burden of proof is to say that these are harmful and that's very difficult so it feels like it's a very one way street once we say yes we're there. How do we assess whether or not something's maxed out or now we're getting into a position where we are jeopardizing the safety of our residents?

So every every time a carrier looks to co locate on a an existing tower or build a new tower they are required by law to provide a EME report to the local jurisdiction, completed by a third party engineer. And that's not only for required by a local jurisdiction, but also required by the federal government. They submit two different reports simultaneously, one to local and one to federal. In terms of capacity, in terms of the structural capacity, it has to be Cal California Building Code. If it can't meet California Building Code, it can't be built.

So that's that's the the two avenues that will dictate whether a tower can be added on to in in this case or or because the other option would be to extend that. Well, that it's already capacity. You can't extend something that's over capacity or near capacity.

I think I'm thinking more along the capacity for the radiation. At some point, the more radiation you're putting out into the environment, the residents are going to be absorbing that.

That that's that's governed by the federal law not local jurisdiction

no I understand but I guess my question maybe this is more just more curiosity from a staff perspective of yes there is a report that comes out but is there an approval process or is it just hey there's a new carrier they're adding on here's a report and they add on I'm just more curious on what the process is at this point right

yeah so staff oh

go ahead

Josh okay staff would review a building permit application for for any colocation like that. Typically, we we're we're bound by some federal laws as to what we can elevate to the commission for for for these colocations. We don't review the, the radiation itself because we don't have the the expertise to do that, and it's governed by the FCC. So we ensure that they have that report, But it's not something that we can approve as city staff. Sarah, anything to add to that?

Yeah. There are certain thresholds when these applications come in. And if it is a substantial increase over the size or design or capacity for the poll, then staff has authority to go back and potentially bring it to the commission. But if it comes in, there are certain thresholds that are set by federal law in terms of what they can ministerial level. And as long as they are within that, then we really have no authority.

And if anyone does have a concern specifically related to the radiation, we can always ask that any of the co locators carriers, Crown Castle, whoever it is, have the use permit with the main carrier. So for this one that's on the screen, the poll there, it would be with Crown Castle. For this one under consideration, it would be with this applicant. But we can always ask them to provide an updated report of the radiation to confirm that they are in fact within the FCC limits. As long as they do that, then we really our hands are tied by federal law.

The things we can consider and that we can condition for these types of projects are the height, the location in terms of setbacks, the bulk or size, kind of the aesthetics of how it might look, and then screening. So we have very limited authority in this area. And it's really just kind of a policy decision that's been made at the federal level that they really want to encourage the deployment of these types of facilities. And so they tie the local jurisdictions hands.

Everybody wants a cell phone, but they don't want the towers. And so they anticipated that. Yeah.

Quick question. At its max build out, what would you in your experience, what would you see out a tower like this? How many carriers would be on it?

Good question. It depends on how old the tower is. When towers are being built in the nineties, early two thousands, even mid two thousands, they weren't building them structurally to handle this many carriers. This this tower, I could tell, has already been modified. I could I could tell because there's bands going down this the pole that add rigidity to it.

So it's already been modified once. But now when we design towers today, we design them for three to four carriers max load. And having the vertical elevation really helps with how many carriers you could have down the pole. And the higher the antennas are, the less radiation towards the ground.

So roughly three to four max, but typically more like probably two, three maybe? Yeah.

Usually, we design them for three. And, like, Dish came in. Dish was a very small carrier, so they were the fourth. And they could usually add on there. Because if you go back to that photo, Dish only has one antenna per sector. Three antennas total. One, one point in three different directions. Whereas in, AT and T has 12 total for each sector. T Mobile has six total. Verizon is doing 16 total. They're doing four sectors. They want four more three sixty degree coverage.

Okay. Thank you. I also have a question for staff. At what point does the city so we're we're looking at alternate locations. At what point does the city or does it at all become liable for dollar impacts or cost impacts to the applicant for construction? Because I'm looking at

The bottom line is we can't make it cost more. I think for under most circumstances, the applicants on these types of projects want to be good neighbors. They want to be in our community. They want to help our residents. So we've seen some other projects South Of 50 where there was a big outpouring of community interest, and the applicant in that particular case went a long way to demonstrate the safety, etcetera, of their project.

And I'm sure this I'm not putting words in their mouth, and moving it. And I'm sure this applicant would do the same if there was a big interest because they want to be good neighbors and they want to show that it's the right thing in the right place at the right time. But in general, we really do not have the authority to force them to do it. Federal law really does kind of favor this type of application. And so really, can ask them. And oftentimes, like I said, they agree. But if push came to shove, we do not have a strong standing to force them to do it. And if it costs more, especially if it costs significantly more, we don't have the authority require it.

Okay. I was just curious because looking from a construction standpoint, moving it to the center of that facility would definitely be a a decent sized cost impact. So thank you.

Commissioner Barcelona, did you have something?

Well, the notion of the radiation exposure there was an email that was sent to us for review that stated that the American Academy of Pediatrics had a standard, a distance standard. I've worked with the American Academy of Pediatrics for twenty five years. Develop standards in my professional capacity every year. The AAP does not have such a standard. That is a misstatement. I did some research on it and provided all the documentation to Desmond before the meeting. It is not clearly a concern.

Thank you. I guess I have one more question. So with the tower that was up a minute ago, they have certain time certain type leases when they're on a tower. So I guess it's even possible that your tower will have more better coverage because it's at a higher elevation. And eventually some of those carriers might want to come over anyway.

It's quite possible, yeah. Yeah, it is possible.

And do we know how long that cell tower's been there, the other one that's been no? Okay, interesting. It's been there a while. Yeah. Well before any residential moved in. That's for sure. Yeah. Okay. Are there any more questions or discussion items from the commission? Commissioner Ross.

I'm just wondering if the applicant would be willing to entertain moving it to the center of the storage facility.

Yeah. We we honestly would prefer to keep it where it is. We do believe it's least intrusive visually to the community given the drop in elevation to the South. And moving it north, I think, would would impede more on the folks to the North's view. And we are under FCC thresholds, so we don't want to move it based on fears that the public may have when we are well below the FCC thresholds.

That would be our stance. But we we all always do try to be good neighbors. But here, I think more intrusive visually is what we strive to accomplish while maintaining the thresholds of FCC limits.

Okay. So the answer was no. Correct?

Yes. Okay. Thank you.

Okay. So we've already done public comments. So, thank you very much for answering all our questions, even out of order like that. Commissioners, what's your pleasure? Commissioner Barcelona, look like you're reaching for your mic.

It's my turn?

You look like you're reaching for your mic. Are you not?

Oh, no. I wasn't. No. Okay.

I'm just repositioning.

Alright. So is there any further discussion, or is there a motion that we

can put on the floor?

I'll make a motion. I move to find the Levy Road monopine solar tower project USPT25Dash00252, categorically exempt under sections one five three three two, infill development projects of CEQUA, and approve a conditional use permit for said project based on the findings findings a through f and subject to the conditions of approval, conditions one to 50 attached to the staff report with modified conditions one, six, and 25, and removal of conditions fourteen thirty three through thirty six and thirty eight as provided in the green sheet.

Okay we have a motion is there a second?

Second.

Commissioner West thank you. Any discussion on the motion on the floor?

I just want to reiterate my concern about its location against residential homes, and I will not be approving that or voting yes on this project.

Thank you

very much for that disclosure. That's perfectly fine. All right. Anything else? Okay. Karen, please call the roll. Commissioner Herrera?

Yes.

Commissioner West? Yes. Commissioner Ross? No. Commissioner Laney? No. Commissioner Barcelona?

Yes.

And commissioner Reynolds?

Yes. Alright. That motion passes, and, congratulations, Verizon. Thank you for your testimony tonight, and thank you for the public comment, sir. Alright. I aired, with not allowing Sari to introduce the gentleman to her right earlier. So and we had just talked about it, I came up here and ran this meeting, and I didn't do it. So, Sari, would you please introduce the gentleman to your right?

Thank you, Chair Reynolds. Members of the commission, as you may have heard, our city attorney Steve Wong has retired. I will be filling in for him at least on a temporary basis until the recruitment is complete for that position. And so during that time, my seat here will be filled by Alec Kocher. He is an attorney with the law firm of Kronik Moskowitz, Tietemen, Girard. And he has vast experience in land use and planning. And so we are very happy to have him here and helping out with us. I anticipate at the next meeting that our seats will be swapped. Alex will be doing the meeting. I will be here in an assisting kind of a role.

And I will, of course, always be available if anyone wants to reach out to me. But Alex will be filling in, at least in the short term. We are so thankful for him to be here. Do you want to say anything?

Just happy to be here. I have experience with planning commissions in other jurisdictions and it's been fun to watch you all tonight. Not sarcastic, I do enjoy this. And so I'm excited to work with all of you going forward.

All right, Alec. Welcome. We are happy to have a martyr among us. Thank you. All right. Let's go to the principal planner's report. Jessica.

Okay. Good evening. So principal planner report, I did want to mention, that, one of the projects that are is scheduled, to come to you in March, our March 18 meeting. They will be having a virtual community outreach meeting. This is the Emblem at Empire Ranch, apartment project.

It is a 180 unit, apartment complex that's at the Southeast Corner Of Iron Point and Empire Ranch Road. So, this is, something that the city does not require, but this applicant has, decided to to do the outreach. So it is a virtual meeting. If anyone is interested in listening in, they did send me the flyer to it, and I'm happy to share it. Or it looks like that commissioner Herrera got it. Oh, fantastic. Yeah. Oh, well, y'all know about it then. Okay. So, yeah, feel free to listen in if you would like. I no. No. Sarah's giving me the look. Never mind. Yeah.

He's fine. Less than a quorum, please.

Oh. That's true.

And this is provided by the applicant, not by the residents around it?

Correct.

Oh, interesting. Thank you.

Yeah. So so maybe The

clarification is we need less than four of us to show up if we

show up at Yes. So if anybody is interested in attending, everybody who's interested may oops, oops maybe can send your interest to Jessica, and then we can do a lottery or something to see who will be able to go. I

won't be there.

Let's all fight over that right now.

I volunteer not to attend.

I don't want to.

It sounds like we're not going to have to worry about the quorum. All right. Did you have more for us, Jessica? I did.

Just really quick. So the next Planning Commission meeting does look like it's going to be a pretty hefty agenda. So we do have the Emblem Empire Ranch scheduled. We have a planned development permit extension for the Independence Folsom Ranch apartment complex coming. We have a P a P permit the accessory dwelling unit ordinance update is likely going to come.

There may be a development agreement amendment for the alternative park site that is down in the Folsom Plan area related to the Toll Brothers At Alder Creek project and some changes to where a potential alternative community park West site could be.

Else Zoning for code?

So that's the accessory dwelling unit ordinance. The zoning code update itself would not be coming in March.

1831 Iron Points parcel map might

also go.

That's then small. Potentially, the Kaiser expansion project.

Wow. No. Okay.

So it's I I can't promise all of it will be on there, but we wanted to lay out the whole thing. So I it's it's another bring some coffee.

Okay. Commissioners, get your rest before that meeting and let our staff know if anybody can't be here. And that could be a long meeting. Yeah. Right?

You're gonna earn your keep that night. Alright. Anything else? That's it. Thank you. Alright. Thank you very much. Is there anything else under the good of order, commissioners? Okay. Hearing and seeing none,

we will

adjourn the meeting at 07:36PM.