Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening. The Planning Commission of 03/18/2026 will now come to order. Karen, if you would please, call the roll to establish quorum tonight.

Commissioner Hurst?

Here.

Commissioner Herrera?

Here.

Commissioner West?

Here.

Commissioner Lainey? Here. Commissioner Barcelona? Here. And commissioner Reynolds? Here. And commissioner Ross is absent.

Okay. Thank you very much. Please join me, by standing to do the Pledge of Allegiance. Okay. Thank you, everybody. For those of you who are here in the room, you'll notice that we have a new face at the dais here. This is Bettina Adams. Bettina is now in training by our very capable and absolutely talented Karen Sonabria. And Bettina, welcome aboard. We look forward to working with you.

She comes from formerly working for the Rockland School District. So welcome, Bettina.

Thank you very much.

All right. The next item would be citizen communication. Is there anybody here that would like to address the commission on anything that is not on our agenda tonight? This would be your opportunity to, speak to the commission on anything not on the agenda. Is there anybody here who would like to do that? Okay. Hearing and seeing none, we will close the citizen communication. And that brings us to the minutes. Commission members, we've got the minutes of 02/18/2026. Are there any comments, concerns, changes, anything?

No.

Okay. Is there any objection to a unanimous, roll call for those minutes?

No.

Okay. Hearing none, we will go ahead and, deem the minutes approved by a unanimous roll call, and we will move to the next item. Thank you, commissioners. The next item is, new business, item number one. Karen, would you

like to read that for us?

SUBPM25Dash002481831IronRoad, tentative parcel map, and determination that the project is exempt from CEQA under section one five three one five. Your project planner is Josh Kincaid.

Alright. Thank you very much. Hi, Josh. How are doing tonight?

Great. Chair Reynolds. Thank you. Just get our PowerPoint going. Good evening, commissioners.

Josh Kincaid with community development department. And the first item tonight is the 1831 Iron Point Road tentative parcel map. So the project site is located in the Broadstone Park Professional Center, which sits between Iron Point Road and Highway 50. The center, first approved in 2005, consists of several smaller parcels and some common space for driveways and parking. The applicant's looking to take Parcel 2, which we see here, and, which consists of, which has two buildings that are currently on it and divide it into two parcels for separate ownership, similar to what was done, here in Parcel 4 to the south.

So here we see a photo of the two buildings where the the parcel line would go. You see that they're they're single story office buildings. And here we see the, tentative parcel map, section. The resulting parcels will be between twelve and fourteen thousand square feet in size. The CC and Rs for the Broadstone Owners Association contain, easements through the maintenance areas for ingress, egress, and reciprocal access, for parking, utilities, sewage, and drainage purposes, and additional easements between Parcels 2A and 2B, will be dedicated on the final map, or by separate reciprocal agreements.

And staff verified that the resultant parcels meet all development standards under the zoning code as, modified by the planned development for the Broadstone Park Professional Center. And, we found that the project was exempt from an environmental review And we sent notices to property owners within 300 feet of the project site and placed the notice in the paper and received no public comments. So, with that, we do recommend approval of the tentative parcel map as conditioned. I'll note that there are some standard conditions, provided by SMUD and SAC Sewer and that they that they apply to all new development projects that may not end up applying specifically here since no development is actually proposed. They're just doing the parcel line.

Staff looks at these conditions when the final map is submitted and only enforces those, that are applicable to the specific project, if there are any concerns about those conditions. So with that, can take any questions from the Commission.

Okay. Thank you, Josh. Do any commissioners have any questions for our staff on this item? Okay. Hearing and seeing none, thank you very much, Josh. Is the applicant here to make a statement? There you are. Come on up. Please come on up to the microphone and introduce yourself.

Evening. My name is Eric Polson. I work for Kieran Wright. I am the representative for this project, I guess.

Can you just maybe move the mic up a little closer? Apologies. There you go.

So we're just looking forward to working on this project and moving it along and working with you guys.

Okay. Are there any questions for the applicant?

Okay.

I guess it looks pretty cut and dry. Thank you very much. Thank you for coming. Now we will open public comment. Is there anybody here who would like to address the commission on item number one? Okay. Hearing and seeing none, we will close public comment. Commissioners, that leaves it to us. What do you what's your pleasure?

Let's move it.

Commissioner Barcelona moves. Is there a second?

Second.

Commissioner Herrera seconds. Any discussion on the motion on the floor? Hearing none. Karen, please call the roll. He needs to read it. What's that?

He needs

to the motion.

We have

to read it.

I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I got excited. Okay. Go ahead. Please, read the motion, would you?

I will move to approve a tentative parcel map TPM to divide a 26,356 square foot 0.61 acre parcel located at 1831 Iron Point Road into two parcels as illustrated on attachment four based on the findings, findings a through l, and subject to the conditions of approval, conditions one through 13 attached to the staff report.

Is there a second to the motion?

Second.

Thank you, Commissioner Herrera. All right. This is why this proves to us why we have a clerk. So thank you, Karen. All right. Since I didn't hear any discussion on the motion, Karen, please call the roll.

Thank you.

Commissioner Hurst? Aye. Commissioner Herrera? Yes. Commissioner West? Yes. Commissioner Laney? Yes. Commissioner Barcelona? Yes. And Commissioner Reynolds?

Yes. Okay. Commissioners, that, measure passes unanimously. Congratulations. Item number two. Karen, would you please call that item? So

PDEV26-two, Independence At Folsom Ranch Apartments, Plan Development, Permit Extension, and Determination that the Project is exempt from CEQA under section one five one eight two c. Your project planner is Josh Kincaid.

Welcome back, Josh.

Me again.

Go for it.

Alright. Yes. So this is the Independence at Folsom Ranch apartments extension request. The project is located on the Northwest corner of Alder Creek Parkway and Westwood Drive in the Folsom Plan area. Here's a site plan showing the layout of the project.

It's a two thirty eight unit apartment project in one hundred and nineteen two story townhome style buildings, as well as a clubhouse building and related, site improvements on, 25.8 acres. It's a, planned development permit conditional use permit CUP and a minor administrative modification MAM, were approved by the Planning Commission in February 2023 and a development agreements, amendment associated with the project was approved by City Council the following meeting. Here we have some project renderings showing what the development would look like as approved for reference. So, some of what happened since that approval. The entitlement was set to expire two years after approval, which is, the standard standard time for PD.

However, AB2729, automatically granted the project an additional eighteen month extension based on when it was approved and when it would expire. And that put the new expiration date at August 2026. So, in approving that extension, staff found that the the MAM and the development agreement amendment were already finalized and valid and that the conditional use permit was actually not necessary for for this this project. So, the applicant at this time is only requesting a one year extension. Excuse me, one year extension of the PD permit alone.

The applicant has stated that they are requesting the extension due to some adverse market conditions and business decisions that are causing the construction date to be pushed back a bit. I'm sure they can speak further to that if you wish. However, they've shown that they're making, many good faith efforts to keep the project moving forward. So, with this extension, they are not proposing any project changes. However, when the extension was routed to, SAC Sewer, that agency did express some concern generally about some peak flow issues to their facilities from the City Of Folsom, that were not previously identified when the project first went through.

And we discussed that issue with SID utility staff and found that they were that we are working with SACS who are on this issue in general and that no unique measures would need to be added to this specific project at this time. Utilities did, have us add one additional condition in, regarding non potable, recycled water that the applicant has been made aware of. Other than that, the conditions remain the same as what was approved previously minus some references to the, the DA and the CUP as they're no longer relevant to, the extension. So we found that the project was exempt from additional environmental review and we sent notices again to property owners within 300 feet and placed the notice in the paper and did not receive any, public comments. So with that, we do recommend approval of the, PD permit extension as conditioned.

I can take any questions at this time.

Thank you, Josh. Are there any questions for our staff on this item? Okay. Seeing and hearing none on this extension, would the applicant like to come up, please? Please introduce yourself.

Good evening, Chair Reynolds, Commissioner, Staff. I'm Tim Kim with TK Consulting, and I'm representing the owners of this project, the Lewis Eagle Partnership. And I was just going to comment. Josh did a great job laying it out, but we've done quite a bit of work since the project was approved, and we're basically permit ready. And there have been some off-site improvements along the frontages as well. And so the ownership's excited to do it and to build the project. It's a great project. It's just the market's still a little soft. So hoping to do it maybe late this year or beginning of next. They're just kind of monitoring the market right now.

Okay. Thank you. Are there any questions for Mr. Kim? Okay. We're easy tonight. No. Thank you very much for your statement. All right. Is there anybody here under public comment who would like to speak to this item number two? This would be the time to do that. Hearing and seeing none, we will close the public comment on item number two. Commissioners, that leaves it to us. Anybody want to kick us off? Commissioner West.

I think I'll just make a motion, I think, with an amount of discussion. I move to approve a plan development permit extension PDEV-twentySix-two for a period of one year from expiration until 08/15/2027 for development of the independence at Folsom Ranch Apartments project MSTR twenty two-two '18 based on the findings findings A through K and subject conditions approval one through 47 attached the staff report.

Okay. I'll second. We have a motion. We have a second by Commissioner Laney. Is there any discussion on the motion on the floor? No. Hearing and seeing none, Karen, please call the roll.

Commissioner Hurst? Yes. Commissioner Herrera? Yes. Commissioner West? Yes. Commissioner Laney? Yes. Commissioner Barcelona? Yes. And Commissioner Reynolds?

Yes. All right. Congratulations. Thank you very much for doing your business in Folsom. Look forward to seeing that project underway. All right. That brings us to item number three. And you guys, we're making this look really easy for Bettina. For Bettina, she's going to say, what do they even do? Anyway, the item number three. Karen, if you'll go ahead and call it, and I know we have one announcement on this from the city attorney. Yeah.

So D E V A 26 Dash 00028, Community Park West site development agreement amendments. Your project planner is Jessica Brandt, with Desmond Perryton, presenting in her absence.

Okay. And I was asked to go ahead and call on the city attorney for a statement about what's going on with this one.

Thank you, Chair Reynolds. I just wanted to mention for the record, we have additional material that was not included in the original distribution of the packet. It is now posted on the city's website at pages 144 to 182 of the packet. It was simply an exhibit to each of the development agreement amendment approval ordinances. We didn't have the legal description or the map of the property at issue. So that has now been updated on the city's website, and it is available for public review. Thank you. Okay. Thank you.

And I also wanted to sorry. This is Desmond Perrington, Planning Manager in the Community Development Department. I'm Chair Reynolds, members of the Commission. I'll be presenting tonight. I just wanted to call your attention to a site clerical or planning staff error on page two zero four. No, we are not using child labor to review our staff reports. That was a there's no change to the agreement. That was highlighted for internal purposes. There's no actual change to the agreement there. So I just wanted to clarify that.

We will clean that up for city council. So my apologies about that. But, yeah, that was an inadvertent inclusion of a staff markup rather than the actual clean agreement. But there's no actual changes in there from the agreement. So you can disregard that wonderful highlighting that was colored outside the lines.

So to give you a little bit of background on this so the Folsom Plan Area specific plan has a variety of both neighborhood parks and community parks spread throughout the area to provide parks in close proximity to development in the area. Obviously, the neighborhood parks are focused on neighborhoods serving those immediate neighborhoods. Those tend to be smaller in the range of like five to 10 acres. And then you have the larger community park, which have more amenities, more facilities. And those tend to be 20 to 25 acres or more and serve the broader community in that area.

So there's as you can see on here, there is Community Park East here, which is expected to be developed in the next few years. And then you have Community Park West over in this area. In the western portion, because this is part of Aerojet's Area 40 area, there's some regulatory clearance that has to occur. Part of that has occurred, but there is more that needs to get to be done before this can be used for park purposes. And so there was a provision in the amended and restated development agreements.

So these are development agreements between the city and the different landowners in the area that have developed the specific plan area, that there were provisions in there. In the event that 1,200 units developed out in this area, and this was still not ready to be a park, then a backup or an alternate site would be developed for a park. And that park that alternate site was in this area. So because Toll we've received an application from Toll Brothers let me actually back up proposing to do development in this area and in this area as well. And this we've heard from the EPA that there's still a few more years before this is cleared and ready for development as a park.

We have we indicated to the landowners that we needed an alternative park site if this was going to be developed in the near term because of the uncertainty on the timing here. And so they proposed a couple different options. And ultimately, the one that satisfied our parks department was the one shown here. So this is Community Park West. It's been approved.

And then you can see right over here, which is in this area, was the alternate park site. Again, they're both about 48 acres. And so we needed to get an equivalent amount elsewhere if we were going to allow this area to be developed. So they have proposed this area here as well as this area. This is actually in excess of the 48 acres.

And so they have a note here that reserves approximately nine acres of this site that could be developed with office uses, since it's an excess of the amount, if this is needed. So this is primarily a paperwork and legal exercise. But this is important because in the event that this site isn't ready for development as a park, when they hit that 1,200 unit threshold in terms of development within that area, then we do need to have the ability to have a community park that would serve the western part of the specific plan area. So, again, equal acreage. The park use is permitted under the land use designation.

It would serve the western part of the plan area. There's no change to the overall open space. As you may recall, 30% of the plan area has to be retained as open space, and that does not include parkland. And then it has the site has to be able to accommodate the programming soccer fields, baseball, basketball courts, those types of activities and amenities that are typically included in our community parks. The site has to be able to accommodate those.

And so in reviewing this with the Parks Department, they needed at least a minimum of 20 acres at both locations. This satisfies that. And we worked closely with a landscape architect who used the city's park standards to map out everything that is typically required for a community park and was able to demonstrate that that can be satisfied in these two locations. The only difference here is it's two locations, one serving kind of the southern area, one serving the northern area, as opposed to one consolidated site. But again, parks felt that this that they could maintain and service these areas and provide the needed amenities.

And they were both with relatively easy access from the public, both from the plan area but also off of Highway 50 and off of White Rock Road. So staff is recommending that you go ahead and approve the requested amendments to the development agreement. Those are, exempt from environmental review, and the reason they're exempt is because this is primarily an administrative action. If we get to that 1,200 unit threshold and the current Community Park West, that site is not ready to become a park, then the landowner has acknowledged that they will need to do a specific plan amendment, and an environmental review will need to be conducted in order to make the alternate sites the actual Community Park West site. So we're asking you to recommend to the City Council approval of Ordinance thirteen sixty three, Ordinance thirteen sixty four, and Ordinance thirteen sixty five, which are uncodified ordinances approving amendments to these three development agreements, which would designate the new alternate park sites for Community Park West to be held unless and until such time that the existing Community Park West site receives the regulatory clearance, for the park uses in the Folsom specific plan area.

Or as I mentioned earlier, the applicant moves forward with a specific plan amendment and associated environmental review to develop those two new parcels as Community Park West. So again, based on the findings in A2K and attached to the staff report. So the reason, just to explain a little bit more about why there's three ordinances, is because over time, the land has been sold off to different development entities. And we needed to make sure that each of the amendments address the areas affected by not only the current Community Park West site, but also the two new sites. That's why there's three development agreements.

And I'm happy to answer any questions. I know this is somewhat kind of complex and esoteric, but I've been happy to go over that with you. The important message is, it was, if we're going to allow the area where the current alternate park site is to be developed, we needed to have a backup until such time as that the current site gets cleared for park development.

Okay. Thank you, Desmond. Are there questions for our staff on this one? Commissioner Barcelona, I

see Hey, Desmond. Just real quick. So the northern site is where the metal shop project was going to go?

That is correct.

Is

that where the Blue Oak Forest is?

Well, there's oak woodlands throughout there, and then there's oak woodlands here. Now, were oak woodlands in this area, and those were always anticipated to be removed as a result of development. And that was analyzed in the previous kind of EIR and environmental or the environmental impact report and environmental impact statement that was done for the development of the specific plan area.

I recall that. Okay. Yeah. And the parks commissioners have passed on this already?

So the because so because this is not being blessed as an official park, this is a backup and we didn't take the alternate site to the Parks Commission when we did. If this becomes a park, then that will go to the Parks Commission. Right now, like I said, this is kind of a paper exercise. If this moves forward as an actual park because the current site here is not ready, then we will this will have to go to the Parks Commission, have to go to you all, have to go to the City Council.

But by the time it would go to the Parks Commission, it would already be approved as an alternate, correct? Correct?

No, because they have to go through a specific plan amendment and environmental review to amend the specific plan. So we're not changing the actual land use designation associated here or down here. This remains an office and industrial designation. And the area down here remains a residential designation. We're not this is kind of what the landowners are doing.

They're saying, we are essentially saying that if there comes a time when we hit that 1,000, 200,000 unit that's the building permit's been issued here and we have still not received regulatory clearance here, then we will begin a specific plan, amendment process, do the environmental review, and then these land use designations would change from office and industrial and residential to the Community Park West designation. So it be Community Park West and Community Park

Yeah, I understand that. I'm trying to sort out in my own head who has reviewed this and who's selected the alternative site?

So I could just weigh in, if that's all right. So to answer your first question with respect to, would it be designated as an alternate site before it ever goes to Parks Commission? The answer is yes. That is what this action is to do, is just to designate it as an alternate, not as the park site, but as the backup. And the city council will review and approve next, assuming this if this commission approves it.

So in terms of who else worked on it, city staff has worked very, very closely with the parks department. The parks director, the park planners have been heavily involved in selecting the alternate sites, determining the viability. The city manager has been involved as well. So there has been quite a lot of city involvement in terms of vetting the sites. And at the end of the day, the city council will have the decision.

All right. Thank you.

Are there other questions of staff? Desmond, would you put up the other map?

Sure.

That one. And I'm looking at the map on the right. So the same parcel on the north that Commissioner Barcelona was asking you about. So if another use comes in that wants to be there and approaches the landowner and they say, oh, gee, we'd rather do that, they would have to come back here to do this similar paperwork exercise again to identify a different alternate location that would be satisfactory to city staff at Parks and Rec?

Yes. That that is correct. If we have not yet received regulatory clearance to to develop this as a park, then, yes, they'd have to come back, work with staff, come before you, come before the city council to amend the, the agreement to then identify a new location, somewhere in the specific plan that, again, meets the criteria that I laid out before you in the presentation and meets with the requirements that parks has for a community park site.

Okay.

And while that is possible it definitely is. It's happening now there is a protection, so it wouldn't just be a willy nilly scenario. Requirement here is an irrevocable offer of dedication. So it's similar to a deed restriction, which this commission hears about more frequently. So there is a legally binding requirement on these parcels, assuming this is approved. It's not as if the landowners could just say, oh, never mind. There there is a strict protection in place.

Yeah. Right.

But, they they could get

through this process again in order to

Yeah. In order to remove that that irrevocable offer of dedication and place that on another parcel, they would have to go through this process. And that would have to be acceptable to city staff, to you all, to the city council.

Okay. And remind us what the game plan is for Prairie City Road in the length of that. Because I know that there were some there has been discussion about doing dedicated truck lanes for the gravel operation plant or something. And what's the status of how Prairie City is going to be evolving?

Yeah. So Prairie City Road, as you can see right here, runs up to Highway 50. So this is part of what's considered the backbone infrastructure for the specific plant. So you've got roads like Alder Creek Parkway, Oak Avenue, Mangini Parkway, so forth. And so these are anticipated to be built out over time as development occurs.

So essentially, what's happening is as each development project happens, they're responsible for delivering some of that infrastructure. It was done a little bit differently on the eastern side because there weren't any development projects originally. And so the landowners formed improvement companies to put some of that stuff in to get development going. On this side, developers are going to be taking on different aspects of that backbone infrastructure. But

is Prairie City ultimately going to be a four lane road, I guess, what I should ask.

Yeah. So in the specific plan, it calls for Prairie City to be six lanes from Alder Creek Parkway up to Highway 50, and then four lanes from Alder Creek Parkway down to White Rock Road. However, this road is shared between the city and the county. The center line is our dividing line between the unincorporated county and the city. The county's general plan has six lanes all the way through.

And then there's also a quarry truck management plan because there are quarries down, in this area that are looking to use White Rock Road, also need to get to Highway 50 and all of that. So kind of the bottom line is that we are working with the county to kind of to address they recognize that six lanes south of Eldorado Creek Parkway is not needed right now, but could be needed in the future as more of the area develops out or as quarry activity south and to the west of here increases. So but we are we're working on a memorandum of understanding with the county to finalize an interim design, which would mirror what's in the specific plan, which is, again, six lanes here, four lanes here, but with the potential to increase to six lanes down here if that is warranted.

So no matter what, no matter which of these parks gets developed, they're going to be on a very busy street.

Yeah. Mean whoops, I'm sorry. Yes. I mean, Prairie City is expected to be busy. But I you know, honestly, the quarries there is quarry truck traffic, but I don't based on our discussions with the quarry, they are not anticipating to ramp up to the levels that were looked at under our worst case scenario in the environmental impact reports that were done for those quarries.

So we expect this to be more of a gradual increase. I think what you'll see more of is as the area over here, which is Glenborough, as that area develops, which is part of the Eastern Aerojet site, you'll see more just car traffic from this area and from the development here and from interest at the parks.

Okay. And then I guess I just have one more question. The alternative park site that we're letting go to the future development, any idea how many units will fit on that would fit in that space?

I believe it was about was it 400? Yeah. Yeah, was about four eighty units that were on that site.

Okay. So that would be quite a hardship if was if we denied the alternative site

Yeah. As far as

making that project

Yeah. I mean, because we've received an application from Toll Brothers for approximately 1,400 units or lots. And so that would be a big change to that project and could make it potentially financially infeasible.

Got it. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for Commissioner Lainey?

This one's a little more out of curiosity. Let's pretend that the alternative sites become the eventual parks. In the current situation, if we were to develop a park, would develop that entire parcel. But now we're moving it to two different parcels that are a little further away from one another. Would the city develop both of them at the same time because we're looking at a certain amount of per capita use? Or would it I'm looking for does this mean that both of the parks are gonna be developed at the same time? Or the alternative? I'm just more curious.

Yeah. So there's certainly a cost benefit to the city to develop them simultaneously because you can retain the same contractor. Even though it's north and south, there are certainly economies of scale. But much of it, as you've seen with Community Park East, much of it is dependent on the impact fees that are collected that are used then for park development. So that really dictates the pace and the amount of park development.

And how does it impact amenity wise for the community to have two smaller parcels instead of one larger? Again, this is curiosity. I don't sit on

the approximation. Yeah, I so the situation, in the there's some trade offs involved. So you had a centralized park here, which means people in this area are traveling further to get to that park, and then the same thing here. So the benefit is these are still relatively large parks. Again, this is 26 acres.

This is about 22. So you've got sizable parks. And the nice thing about this is this is really close to the middle school and high school campus. These are slated to be multifamily development. So it puts those parks right in an area where there's a lot of users nearby.

Similarly, this has been this is now slated for a multifamily development, again, right across the way. And then you have office and commercial uses up here plus the development that's proposed in this area associated with the Toll project. So while this might be more centralized, this does put it closer to good access and to both multifamily units and single family homes located there as well as office. And in this area, again, like I said, near the schools and near multifamily development here. Yeah.

So there are I mean, we that is one of the kind of the trade offs involved. It's not as centralized the location, but it does put it put the the the two parks, which are, again, fairly large in terms of acreage, closer to some of the the the higher concentrations of residential development. Because, again, there's about 300 or 400 units in here and about 400 multifamily units in there. So you are putting it much closer to those. They won't have to rely on driving because it's a bit of a walk to get to that location.

And in terms of the amenities, just with what you were asking, the Parks Department did take a really hard look at it because that's part of their charge. They already have a loose plan in terms of the types of amenities that they wanted to include Community Park West. And so they needed to really look at whether the two sites could be programmed appropriately to meet the needs of the community as they were already determined by parks. And there were conversations along the way of you know, what alternatives would actually work at all or then work best to meet the city's needs. And I had various conversations, and the parks director told me that this was actually their preferred scenario.

Yeah. And Keith Wilson with WDSLA it's a landscape architecture firm that the landowners retained to work with our parks department to be able to demonstrate that the amenities could be provided on these locations. He's actually here tonight. If you'd like for him to speak to that issue, if that would be helpful.

I was just curious for splitting it up. I I like mean, that there's more it gives more options or more choices, but there's always going to be a trade off. And so is that trade off increased costs? Is that trade off in the bigger parcel? I mean, hopefully, Aerojet parcel goes forward. But in the event that it doesn't, what is the community trading up? Are they losing out on opportunities for amenities? It just more of my curiosity.

Yeah. Keith did a very good job demonstrating to us that all those and in particular to the Parks Department, that all the amenities could be satisfied with the two locations.

Okay. All right. Thank you.

Keith, did you want to add anything to yeah.

I would I would Keith, can you come up? I wouldn't mind asking you a question while we're doing the

Good evening, commissioners. Keith Wilson with Wilson Design City Landscape Architecture.

Okay. So did you have a specific question for him?

To

About about the programming, if you go two parks instead of one.

Programming wise, to be completely specific about it, we were required to show fit tests that proved that all the amenities that were programmed for the current site would fit on those two parcels. We're also required to make sure that both of those parcels were at least 20 acres in size because the parks department determined that they didn't want any community park that was smaller than 20. So we made we made sure we maintained that in both of the situations. I can tell you the fit test and the layout test that we did satisfied all of them. We focused ball fields in a in a pinwheel kind of if you're familiar with park and rec kind of planning.

We we focused ball fields on the Southern Southwestern sites in the fit test along with parking and all the other amenities. Amenities. Up at the Northwest corner, we focused on the soccer field amenities, the more kind of turf fields as opposed to ball fields. But there's room, to be honest. We could go back and forth with fit tests and prove it out 20 more ways.

If we needed to, we've got the space to do it. That's what they asked us to do. If in the future, this new alternate site gets triggered and and it goes through the process to get developed, there will probably be yeah. I'm involved in all the other parks going on right now. There will probably be 20 more versions of it before we actually get to a plan that then goes to the Parks and Recreation Commission. But Does that answer your question?

Yeah. I was just wondering what the trade offs

are. Yeah. I I don't think personally being involved in it, I don't personally think there's any trade off whatsoever. And to your question earlier about timing and and all that, typically, a community park at this scale gets gets built in phases anyways. So even if you were gonna develop the, you know, the current Community Park West site, most likely there would be a couple of phases of construction. So think of it in terms of they'd probably focus on one site versus another initially if all the funding wasn't there in one at one time, as Desmond mentioned, which would give you some, you know, some savings, you know, based on contracting and and costs. But they would basically be allowed to do one and then the other and phase it in in actually a better way than they would if they had one site.

Okay. Alright.

Yeah. Thank you. And then you answered my question too because it was gonna be, would you split, you know, baseball at both both locations and everything? Correct. Really, the the focus would be to put certain types of fields in one area and certain in the

Right. There's I would say that the the two biggest pieces of the the amenity requirements were a subset of soccer fields, two large kind of, like, pro level 96,000 square foot soccer fields, which should clearly be together from a from a park and rec programming standpoint. And then the other kind of larger amenities were a total of six baseball fields. There there were two that are adult baseball, two that are adult softball, and then two that are youth baseball. And it just makes sense.

It makes at least it'll make sense that the softball and the adult baseball would be in the same location. You could argue when you get to it, if it happens, that the little league level stuff could be on another site and not with all the other baseball, but there's a lot of opportunity in the alternate site that we're proposing to do all of those things.

Since the site on the lower part of the map, the the Southwest site would be closer to the high school, is there ever any kind of coordination between the city and FCUSD to determine what would be the best to coordinate with that high school location? So if they're going to have a whole bunch of baseball fields, do we need to have a bunch of base again, this is more curiosity. Has nothing to do with vote.

I was

very curious.

There still is a joint use agreement that that's in effect right now. Typically, we don't design anything from a city park standpoint without FCUSD being involved. We're dealing with that at Benavento Park right now. That wouldn't be out of the question. That particular site, there's an open space component that separates this new site down in the Southwestern Quadrant from where the high school site is. So there's there's a little bit of a distance there, but it's couple 100 feet and it's through open space. So it would be a nice walk. Yeah. Yeah.

Are there any other questions, commissioner Hurst? Hi. I'm

a little bit more curious about that Northwestern Park.

Sure.

With the understanding that, you know, that nine acres or so of office space would be subject to further decision making if we were to go this route. Are there any unique opportunities or challenges that are presented with that site in particular as opposed to the current alternative community park site with respect to having to then subdivide that office space and determine the layout? Or it's just a standard exercise?

Sure. Without, without seeing what that I think it's nine is it 9.9 acres that would be held back? The only reason for that is because when you add the two acreages together, you're over 48.1. So I can tell you that the southern portion, the southern 75% of what is Parcel 1 in the upper, you know, left corner, the that portion of it is clear. It's flat.

I would say it's even flatter than the current Community Park West site is. As you go towards the north and you get closer to Highway 50, that's where the oak trees that Desmond mentioned that were already within Parcel 1 are located. We obviously would you know, park planning would do everything to stay away from those

and to

not take them down. That's but we don't we don't like killing trees. Slope does get a little bit steeper in that location, but, like, we're talking five to one max, probably flatter than that. Like, literally, if what if that doesn't mean anything to you, you could put lawn in it per city standards and mow it, and it would be no problem. It's very unencumbered from a grading standpoint. Obviously, you'd have to look at the site for ingress, egress. Typically, the parking is gonna be near the corner of that site, you have access, you know, from both sides of the property. But and, personally, I like the fact that it's close to open space as well. Mhmm. So you could link up with open open space connectivity.

That's that's one of the things that makes Parcel 1 a really good spot in my opinion for a park potentially, and that was part of our part of the the background research we did for selecting these sites.

Sure. Yeah. I mean, I think given the loss of the metal shop project, I think this is a nice alternative to preserve recreational usage in the same space.

Okay. Any other questions? Thanks for coming up. Appreciate Desmond, did you have anything else to add before we bring the applicant up?

Yeah. Just wanted to mention that the applicant is here. So Rob Aragon with, Westland Capital Partners, which is the landowner, And then, their representative, Chad Roberts with Hefner Law is is here as well, if you'd like to to

ask some Thank you. Evening.

Good evening. Rob Ergon with Westland Capital Partners. I really don't have anything to add other than thank you for the confidence with the staff and the efforts on our team and the collaboration we've gone through. It's really important for us. But I'm here to answer questions. We also have a representative from our builder partner, Toll. To the extent you have some questions from them, I think their application is gonna be here in the next, you know, few weeks. But, here to answer any questions. But I I think everything else that I've heard, I think navigates through the process. But if you need me, I'm certainly here.

Are there any questions for the applicant? Okay. Hearing and seeing none. No. Thank you very much. All right, with that, we will open the public comment. Is there anybody here in the audience who would like to address the Commission on this item number three? Come on up, sir. Introduce yourself, please.

Chairman of Reynolds Commissioners, my name is Martin Novinski. You represent

are part of the applicant. So you're

Okay to Sort of,

yeah.

You're Okay to So represent Toll Brothers. We're a property owner in the South Of 50 Plan And I'm here tonight to express our support for staff's recommendation for you to recommend amending the development agreements to allow the bifurcation of the existing community Parkside West in two parks. In addition to what, has been mentioned here tonight and and your city attorney has expressed the amount of work that went in with her group, the Parks Department. There's also been a lot of work on the ownership group too. And I'd like to thank not just the city staff for working through this, but also, Westman Capital Partners for really encumbering additional properties that they didn't need to.

You know, they they could have said no, but they they elected to encumber these two additional properties, which is pretty significant on their part. So I'd like to acknowledge them, city staff for everything doing that and express our support for, the city's recommendation to amend the development agreements to allow this alternative park sites to move forward. Thank you.

Thank you very much for coming up. And we will treat that as public comment, I think, because it's not but we will see you probably next month. But is there anybody else who would like to comment under the public comment period? Okay. Hearing none, we'll close the public comment. And commissioners, item number three is before us. Commissioner Laney.

I'm just going to disclose that I did meet with the applicant to go over what the plan was and what the reasons were.

And while we're doing that, I did too.

I did as well.

Okay. Commissioner Herrera, thank you. Thank you. Does anybody else have anything they'd want to add about this item? Commissioner Hurst?

Yeah. For me, I just would like to say I'm a fan of getting two for the price of one. I particularly like that the southern alternative is still in close proximity to the school district. I think that gives us a lot of opportunities to really think long term about how these parks would develop. So if there's nobody else, I'm happy to make a motion.

Go ahead.

No, you can

make a motion. We can always discuss it. It.

Alright. I move to determine that the requested amendments to development agreements are exempt from the environmental review under CEQA guidelines section one five zero six one b three and to recommend the city council approve ordinance number one three six three, ordinance number one three six four, and ordinance number one three six five, uncodified ordinances approving amendments to three development agreements, which would designate new alternate alternate sites for Community Park West to be held unless and until such time as the existing Community Park West site receives a regulatory clearance for the park uses called for in the Folsom Plan area specific plan or the applicant moves forward with a specific plan amendment and associated environmental review to develop the parcels as Community Park West based on the findings, findings A through K attached to the staff report.

Thank you, Commissioner Herz. We have a motion. Is there a second?

Second.

Commissioner Barcelona seconds. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing and hearing none, Karen, please call the roll.

Commissioner Hearst? Yes. Commissioner Herrera? Yes. Commissioner West? Yes. Commissioner Lainey? Yes. Commissioner Barcelona?

Yes.

And Commissioner Reynolds? Yes. Okay. That item is approved. Congratulations, gentlemen. And thank you for all being here and for doing business in Folsom. Okay. Next item is item number four. Karen, if you'd go ahead and call that item for us.

K. ZCAM26Dash00007. Zoning code update, accessory dwelling unit ordinance, and determination that the project is from CEQA. And your project planner is Nathan Stroud.

Nathan, welcome.

Good evening, everyone.

Good to see you tonight. Thank you.

So today, I'm bringing a request. This is for the repeal and reenactment of the city's ADU ordinance and this is in order to provide necessary updates to the city's ADU requirements. These updates are being brought forth at the request of the California Department of Housing Community Development in order to ensure that the city's ordinance is in compliance with current state law. Since the city adopted its existing AD ordinance in 2020, the state legislature has enacted several new laws which significantly affect how local jurisdictions can regulate ADUs. As a result, the city's current ordinance is no longer fully consistent with state requirements.

And some of the case changes in state ADU law do include the prohibition of discretionary review or public hearing for ADU applications, modifying the total number of ADUs allowed on a single or multifamily property, updating the ADU application review and approval timelines, and requiring that if any portion of a local ADU ordinance is inconsistent with state law, the entire ordinance can be deemed null and void, leaving only the city or leaving only the state ADU standards enforceable. Because of this, it is necessary to update for the city to update its ADU ordinance to ensure that the local objective design standards, particularly those applicable to the historic district, remain enforceable. The proposed ordinance is intended to align the city's regulations with current state law to streamline existing requirements and to also provide additional standards to promote quality design. The following slides will highlight some of the, at least, key changes in proposed ordinance. So currently, state law does explicitly prohibit discretionary review or public hearings for ADUs, and the city's requirements must be objective to allow for a ministerial review at a staff level.

Furthermore, the state law does now require that the city make a determination if an AD application is complete within fifteen days of submission of an application, and also for the city to make a determination to either approve or deny an ADA application within sixty days. Should the city fail to make that determination by the six day timeline, state law does state that that that application would be an automatic approval. State law has also expanded the number of ADUs allowed for single family and multifamily properties. For single family properties, jurisdictions must allow for at least four types of ADUs. This is a junior accessory dwelling unit, an ADU that's created from converting existing space within the residence or an accessory structure, the construction of one newly constructed detached ADU not exceeding 800 square foot and one additional attached or detached ADU that complies with the city's objective design and development standards for ADUs.

For multifamily properties, existing multifamily developments may construct up to eight detached detached ADUs not to exceed the number of existing primary units on the site, and new multifamily developments are allowed to construct up to two detached ADUs. In addition to this, existing multifamily developments may also convert non livable space into ADUs not to exceed up to 25% of the number of existing primary units. These allowances have been included in the draft ordinance as well. Other changes required by state law provided in the draft ordinance include the prohibition of imposing design or development standards for state mandated ADUs beyond what is required in the government code, prohibiting owner occupancy for ADUs or JADUs that contain independent bathroom facilities, and also clarifying that the ADU size limits are based on the measurement of the interior livable space. Beyond these updates required by state law, the draft ordinance does propose to do a few additional tweaks.

One such modification does include the option of allowing applicants to deviate from the objective ADU design standards through a discretionary staff level design review. This option does provide applicants some flexibility in proposing a quality design that may not necessarily meet the city's objective ADU design standards. Projects requesting deviations would be evaluated against the standard design review findings. This does include neighborhood compatibility as well as with any applicable design guidelines. In the historic district, for example, this would be against the historic district design and development guidelines.

To comply with the sixty day state review timeline, the process would remain at a staff level for this optional discretionary process. The draft ordinance also does include some minor modifications to the ADU design requirements as they apply to attached ADUs. Whereas existing ordinance applies the same objective design standards for all ADUs, regardless of whether it's attached or detached, the proposed draft does make some modifications to encourage the attached ADUs better match the design of the main resident that it's attached to. In addition, the draft ordinance modifies the standards for staircases that are serving second story ADUs by requiring them to be enclosed with siding materials that match the existing building, and the intent for this is really to screen these access stairs, which are often located close to the property lines and may create some privacy concerns. Finally, the draft ordinance does establish objective design standards in place of existing provisions that are existing provisions that are currently subjective or unclear so as to provide greater clarity and also be consistent with the state's requirement to have objective standards.

Overall, the draft ordinance remain intends to maintain the city's existing objective standards while incorporating necessary updates to ensure better compliance with state law. Following this hearing, the ordinance will proceed to city council for consideration. And if adopted, it will also be reviewed by the California Department of Housing and Community Development before taking legal effect. With that, staff does respectfully request that the commission recommend approval of the draft ordinance to city council. And also, I want to make another note that we did include a green sheet with this item.

It's intended to make a minor tweak to one of the design guidelines as applies to second story detached ADUs. As a very general overview, for second story detached ADUs, they're required to use one of four different options in order to address to break up the massing. Currently, we only require one of the four options, but the requested change would recommend that they use at least two of the four options. And again, it's kind of along the lines of trying to encourage quality design and to break up that massing a little bit further. With that, I'll be able to answer any questions regarding the draft ordinance.

Okay. I'll ask a quick one first. So as far as us as a planning commission ever seeing ADUs at all on our agenda, the only way that would occur is if there's an appeal of the staff decision on something. Is that right?

That is correct. That's for existing as well as the proposed ordinance.

Okay. And in the case of the historic district, that would be an appeal to the historic district commission, not to us, right?

So the way that the draft ordinance is worded, any appeals, even if it's in the Historic District, would actually be appealed to the planning commission. And it's because of the way that the government code is worded. It also is in light of a recent court decision making the historic district advisory, which would mean it need to come before the city council as well.

Okay. Yeah. Okay. So we oh, so for the first time, we will get jurisdiction in the Historic District. Woo woo. All right. Any questions for our staff? Commissioner Barcelona, did you have a question?

Just to I'm prepared to move it.

Okay. Well, let's not do that. We need to unless you have a question for staff, we need to call for public comment.

Questions.

Okay. All right. Any other questions for staff? Okay. Hearing and seeing none, we are the applicant, essentially. So I will open the public hearing. Is there anybody who would like to comment on this item? Don't all come running at once. Okay, thank you. There is no comment under public comment, so we will close the public comment period. And with that, commissioners, it's for us. So commissioner Barcelona, if you wanted to do something right now on that, you're welcome to.

I'll go ahead and move it. I just had a quick question for counsel. Do you want the green sheet read in after the motion language? You want all of the green sheet read into the record?

Not the whole.

Not the whole.

Yeah. Just the amended language. So it could say the moving the recommendation of city council approval of ordinance as amended by the green sheet, and then that will also be attached to the minutes of this meeting.

Okay.

So you can put at the end of that motion.

Okay. Alright. I will move to recommend city council approval of ordinance number thirteen sixty one, an ordinance of the city of Folsom for the repeal and reenactment of chapter 17.105 of the Folsom municipal code pertaining to accessory dwelling units provided in attachment one based on the following findings, findings a through c, with the green sheet modification regarding detached accessory dwelling units, which shall utilize at least two of the following factors, one through four.

Sounds good. Okay. We have a motion. Is there a second?

Second.

Second by Commissioner Hurst. Is there any discussion on the motion on the floor? Hearing and seeing none, Karen, go ahead and please call the roll.

Commissioner Hurst? Yes. Commissioner Herrera?

Yes.

Commissioner West?

Yes.

Commissioner Laney? Yes. Commissioner Barcelona? And Commissioner Reynolds?

Yes. Okay. That measure passes. Thank you, Nathan. Good job. All right. And with that, we go to the planning manager's report. Desmond?

Hi, Chair Reynolds and members of the commission. So since our last meeting, we had five staff level design reviews. One was on a commercial expansion into a patio area and then or to create a patio area. And then one was a new residential garage and then three residential additions. So that was just a total of five staff level reviews.

Our next meeting will be April 15. There will be several items for that meeting. And as you may have heard, there there could be really one very large one. So depending on how many items end up on that meeting, given the complexity of of one of them, we might ask for a special meeting. So Karen will and and and Bettina will coordinate with you all to see if if if we need a special meeting and and if that if you're available for that.

But I just wanted to give you the heads up because the one item could end up taking up most of the commission.

So am I to guess that that might be Kaiser addition to Toll Brothers?

No. Well, no. We we have Toll Brothers. I I Kaiser could happen, but I I don't we don't know. We've also got several other projects on the docket as well. So we'll keep you posted and give you as much advance notice as we can. But there are quite a few kind of big projects moving through the process right now. So we just wanted to be sensitive to your time. And so we're not here till ten or midnight or something like that.

So as far as we know right now, April 15 will be our

next meeting. Yeah. April 15. Will you bring

next There might be a special meeting sometime after that.

Correct.

And you guys will check with us about how that goes. Okay. Alrighty. That sounds good. And and if there's anybody who knows they can't be here on April 15, please let our staff know Yeah. As the meeting gets closer.

Yeah. And I this may have been announced last time, but you may have heard that Commissioner Ross will be out. We're hoping that she will be back in April. But I will keep you posted on that as well.

Okay. Thank you very much. Okay. Anything else under the good of the order?

Just a quick question on Prairie City Road to kind of follow-up on your comments earlier. So with the loss of the metal shop project, are we losing funding for the Prairie City Road development in that section from 50 to Alder Creek Parkway?

No. Because it's it's because the property will either be developed as a park, in which case the landowners will have to provide the access to that park. Or if it doesn't become a park and the community Park West becomes the park, then that will develop out with an office or industrial use, and in which case they will be required to contribute to and or build that section of Prairie City Road.

Good question, though. Very good. All right. Anything else? Okay. Hearing and seeing none, we are, adjourned at 07:40 p. M.