Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening. This is the Folsom, Planning Commission meeting of 04/15/2026. Bettina, will you please call the roll to establish a quorum? Sure. Commissioner Barcelona?

Here.

Commissioner Hurst?

Here.

Commissioner Herrera?

Here.

Commissioner West?

Here.

Commissioner Ross? Present. Commissioner Lainey? Present. And Commissioner Reynolds? Here.

You'll all join me by rising and, saying the Pledge of Allegiance, please. Okay. Thank you, everyone. This is the time on the agenda where we invite anybody who wants to address the commission under any other item that isn't on the agenda to come up under citizen communication. Is there anybody here who would like to address the commission on anything that's not on the agenda?

Hearing and seeing none, we'll close the citizen communication. Members, we have minutes from, March 2026, sorry. Is there any objection to, or any concerns or suggestions on the minutes? No. Any objection to going ahead and saying they were approved unanimously? Hearing and seeing none, the minutes will be deemed approved. Thank you, members. The first item is something we're going to read into the record, but there will be a surprise after that. Go ahead, Bettina. Will you please read item number one?

MSTR 2056 Emblem Empire Ranch Apartments planned development permit, parcel map waiver, and determination that the project is exempt from CEQA under Section 15,183. This item has been continued to the 04/29/2026 Special Commission meeting.

All right. Thank you very much. Chair

Reynolds? Yes. I would recommend that the Commission formally continue the item to the April 29 Special Meeting.

So you mean go ahead

To do a vote.

Make a vote?

To make a vote to continue. Because to continue an item, it has to be voted upon by the Okay.

Commissioner. Thank you very much, Petina. Do I have a second to continue this or a motion to continue this item?

You want to

take that? I will

take that. Commissioner Ross, thank you.

Is there a second?

Second. Commissioner Hurst, thank you very much. Any discussion on the motion on the floor? Okay, hearing and seeing none, Bettina, go ahead and call the roll, please.

Commissioner Barcelona?

Yes.

Commissioner Hurst? Yes. Commissioner Herrera?

Yes.

Commissioner West?

Yes.

Commissioner Ross? Yes. Commissioner Laney? Yes. Commissioner Reynolds?

Yes. Thank you very much. Item number two. Bettina, you can go ahead and read that one. DR

CL26-three, Folsom Heights Villages four-six, Modification and Villages seven-eight, design review and determination that no further CEQA review is required under CEQA guidelines, section 15162A. And your project planner is Josh Kincaid.

All righty. Thank you very much. Hi, Josh.

Hello, Chair Reynolds. Good evening, Commissioners. Josh Kincaid. All right. So tonight I will be presenting the Folsom Heights Villages four through six modifications and villages seven through eight design review request.

So the Folsom Heights subdivision is located along the eastern boundary of the Folsom plan area South Of 50. The Folsom Heights subdivision map and design guidelines were approved by City Council in 2017. Elliott Homes bought the property in 2021 and the design for Villages 1 Through 6 were approved by the Planning Commission a few months back, as you may recall. So the single family portion of Folsom Heights is broken up into eight villages. Tonight we're looking at the design review for the first time of Villages 7 And 8.

Here's 8 And 7. And, so Villages 7 Through 8 encompass 112 single family residential units on 45 by 105 foot lots with a single family high density specific plan designation. We're also looking at a proposed modification of Villages 4 Through 6 oh, we're back, okay which consists of 161 units on 55 by 105 foot lots also with a single family high density designation. And 4 through six, just for your knowledge, are here, there's four, there's five and six is just below five here. So we're really kind of looking at this whole area in here.

So looking at villages seven and eight first, the applicant is proposing five master plans with three California themed architectural styles that you see here, bungalow, Santa Barbara, and farmhouse styles that were called out in the Folsom Heights design guidelines as appropriate styles. They are proposing nine color and material options and a mix of single and two story homes and they each have attached two car garages. So for Villages 4 Through 6, they're proposing one new master plan and the use of the Villages 7 Through 8 master plans that we're going to at tonight to be incorporated into the plans that we already approved last time for a total of 10 master plans to choose from in those villages. Though the new master plan would utilize the same three architectural styles that were previously approved, as well as the same color and materials options and the village is also a mix of one and two story homes and two car garage. So first we'll look at the, village seven to eight lots.

There are, five master plans, as I stated, proposed for these lots. This is a diagram showing how those five plans fit, on those lots and the applicant also provided a street scene exhibit showing, the five master plans in the proposed architectural styles. Consistent with the design guidelines, we do see visually distinct roof forms here. So just briefly looking at one of the three potential styles for each of the five master plans. This is master plan one in the bungalow style with horizontal siding accents.

Here's plan two, another single story with in the farmhouse style with the board and batten siding and the brick accents beneath. Plan three in Santa Barbara, this is our first two story one that we're going to look at. The plans do all include optional enhancements in the side elevations. In this case, you'll see the shutters and sills around some of the windows along the side that would be required on the higher visibility lots per the design guideline requirement. And here's plan four in the bungalow style.

Some of the plans including this one have a low wall porch in front to better activate the front of the property as, as, stated in the design guidelines, and to, to better de emphasize the garage as well. So we'll see that incorporated. You can see it a little better right here. You might notice it from last time when they did something similar in villages one through six. Here's, plan five in the farmhouse style.

Staff found that the proposed master plans met all the standards of the Folsom Heights design guidelines documents. And then just briefly looking at the colors and materials, each of the three architectural styles has three colors and material options to add some good variety, including different roofing material and color. You can see some bolder trim and accent color and a variety of accent materials. You can see the accent materials here for the stone. You can see three different types of stone proposed when stone is appropriate for that style and similarly, when there's a the same holds true for the when there's a brick accent.

So overall, staff did find that the proposed designs were consistent with the Folsom Heights design guidelines. We've also provided standard conditions to ensure that identical homes and identical roof forms are not repeated adjacent to each other and that comes from the Folsom Heights guidelines as well. So, and lastly for villages seven through eight, the applicant submitted conceptual landscape plans that feature street trees and accent trees on each lot as well as water efficient front yard landscaping. They are proposing artificial turf, as shown here in the green on the plans. On plans four and five, they're not proposing any on plans one through three.

This is mostly due to the narrowness of these lots. You can't fit a whole lot, on there. While staff does not generally prefer artificial turf, we don't have any specific prohibitions against it as long as it can meet all the water efficient standards And based on the city's urban foresters' review, these landscaping plans can meet those standards. Also note that Folsom Heights does have an HOA. So if, you know, know we've had some issues in the past with some front yards going into disrepair in the Folsom Plan area, when there's no HOA and the complaints come directly to the city and become kind of the city's burden, In this case, there is an HOA and they would be able to address those concerns before they got all the way back to the city.

Alright, now looking at the additional requests for Villages 4 Through 6, the applicant's looking to add an additional single story plan to the mix. Here's the that plan in Spanish eclectic style. And finally, they're looking to utilize the plans we looked at tonight for Villages 7 Through 8, throughout Villages 4 Through 6. Given that the lots in Villages 4 Through 6 are wider, they they they're at 55 foot lots instead of 45. They are able to accommodate the homes for Villages 7 Through 8 and the street scene here, shows a mix of the approved plans for Villages 4 Through 6 and the additional 7 Through 8 plans mixed in.

So staff did find that mixing the plans provided greater variety within these villages while remaining visually coherent. So with that, staff does recommend approval of the proposed design review as conditioned and we can the applicant group is here and we can take any questions from the Commission. Thank you.

Thank you, Josh. Are there any questions of our staff tonight from commissioners? Commissioner Ross. Thank you, Chair.

I had a question about the synthetic turf. As I'm sure everyone knows, I'm not a fan of us having synthetic turf approved in projects like this. So I was curious, you mentioned that the synthetic turf meets the low, I think, water efficient landscape ordinance standards. And it's actually not listed in that ordinance. Synthetic turf is not listed at all. It's not defined. It's not described. So I'm just curious how staff is calculating synthetic turf in that ordinance.

I know the urban foresters is the one that kind of takes a look at the to determine how water efficient the plans are. I believe if it's not clearly defined MWELO, it doesn't necessarily preclude the use of it and that's kind of been our interpretation of that in the past.

So do we are we using it then as, are we considering it permeable surface under that or are we just not counting it?

It's considered pervious. I know it is a pervious material.

So I'm just curious if it's part of that calculation for that water bottle efficiency if it's not identified in it.

I believe that it is, but I yeah, the Urban Forester is really the one that makes that calculation and knows whether or not to count it. And she did review these plans as part the design review.

Okay. And then I had looked at our general plan and I saw some general plan policies that I thought synthetic turf maybe didn't quite follow. And so I was curious if staff had a chance to look at those and if you had any feedback on those policies and how synthetic turf may not. Because, I mean, at Folsom, we call ourselves distinctive by nature. We want to emulate our natural environment, and I'm not sure how plastic landscaping or plastic lawns do that for Yeah,

I mean, we do review the, the plans and the, project requests against the general plan policies. We did look at the, I believe the NCR, the Natural Cultural Resources, section of the code to look at some of the policies that may relate to that. We weren't able to really find anything that explicitly would state that synthetic turf would not be appropriate. We know that the general plan policies do they lead to zoning standards, specific plan standards. Those standards were deemed consistent with the general plan and this project is subject to those standards.

Those standards just did not address the synthetic turf specifically and we didn't feel that it was something that we could require of the project even if it was something that we, you know, may not prefer.

But if the Commission wanted to, could we make it a standard or a condition on the project?

Yes, yes, the Commission can, can make that a condition of approval. We can modify a landscaping condition to say, no turf or whatever is the will of the commission, have the ability to do that.

And would that be defensible then if we were to make that sort of condition on the project?

Defensible in?

Like following general plan? Like could the staff make a recommendation or argument that it would follow general plan policies and guidelines if we were to do that?

Yeah. So

I was looking over the general plan policy. Some of them are encouraging the development to plant native vegetation, low drought. The other one is like heat island reduction. I agree with Josh's conclusion that the artificial turf isn't inconsistent with the general plan. And if you wanted to condition it to have non synthetic turf, that would also be consistent with the general plan. My opinion is both are defensible to be consistent with the general plan. And like Josh said, you do have the discretion to condition the project on with that condition.

Okay, thank you so much for answering my rapid fire questions. I appreciate it. Sorry to put you on the hot seat. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you Commissioner Ross. Any other questions for our staff? Commissioner Barcelona.

What is the square footage of those areas that have the artificial turf or just the rough dimensions?

Yeah, we can sorry. The applicant might be able to answer that during the applicant Q and A. They've got the better details here.

Commissioner Herrera.

Thanks, Josh. Didn't we recently evaluate the synthetic turf and approve on a previous design review?

It was the design review for Villages 1 Through 6 of Folsom Heights when we started having this discussion, recently, yes.

And it was approved by the commission?

Correct.

Okay. Thank you.

Anybody else? Questions for our staff? Okay. Thank you, Josh. We'll go ahead and bring up the applicant, please.

Thank you, Josh. I appreciate that. Members of the Commission, it's good to see you again. Tom Gimet, Elliot Holmes. So I don't have a lot to really add to that, but I did bring our landscape designer, Keith Wilson with Wilson Design here. He can speak to any specific questions about permeability and things like that. Just generally, we wanted to have some consistency with this product with what was already approved previously. Our goal is not to have a predominant amount of synthetic turf. We just want to have some there that shows some consistency between all these products. And honestly, there's an HOA there.

And what we've found over time here recently is we will put in landscape and I would say 90% of the time applications will then come in to change it. A lot of that too of synthetic turf is happening in Empire Ranch and areas there with those areas. El Dorado Hills has come up a lot. And so here we're just trying to get ahead of that a little bit that we know some people are going to want it. That's why we came up with this design.

Keith can speak to the specifics again, but I think having something consistent across all the product lines and not having just residents come up with their own to start with, we thought was a good place to start. But if we have any specific questions, Commissioner Ross, we'd be happy to answer them. And Keith is here. He can go through that a little bit if you'd like.

I actually do have a question. So there will be only certain lots that the synthetic turf

would And be

would that be based then on the person who chose what home they choose? Or it has to be what home they choose that fits on a certain lot?

Yeah, so when we actually plot out a phase, we'll have our sales agents, they plot out the phase so that the residents don't get to pick and choose. We'll plot out a phase to make sure it's consistent with the adjacent home plans and make sure it all works for the conditions. So they won't necessarily get to choose. They'll just be options on plan four and five to have it in this case and that's all.

Any other questions? Commissioner Ross.

So if they chose that let's say if they were on Plan four and they didn't want synthetic turf, is that an option or is it going to be put in for a Plan four home?

It would be put in for a Plan

Okay, and then if I recall the other, this one has a couple of options that don't show it, but did the other suite of pictures have an option that didn't have it? Because I'm pretty sure there was maybe one in that entire. Can we move to another slide that show or do you not have it up?

Are you referring to villages one through six? Because this is the entirety of villages seven and eight. One through six, I believe, of them did have

So page 71 is are that we not maybe I'm misunderstanding. I think if we turn to page 74, if I'm reading this correctly, the spaces that are outlined look like they may be where there's

Village excuse me, page 71 refers to, the villages one through six, the previously approved We're

already approved

to Grette.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Well, I'm glad to see that you guys gave us some options that didn't have it. I'm very happy with that. Thank you. I appreciate that you took and listened to me and looked to do that. I still don't want to see it in there, to be perfectly frank. I don't think

we should have it. I think

we should either have real turf

or let the homeowner How about if you save that for deliberations?

Okay, I apologize.

Rather than telling the applicant.

You're right. Okay. Thank you.

Are there any other questions for the applicant? Okay, hearing and seeing none. Now we will open it up to public comment. Is there anybody here who would like to comment on this item number two? Okay, hearing and seeing none, we'll close the public comment. Okay, Commissioners, that leaves it to us. Commissioner Walsh, you want to kick us off?

Thank you, Chair. Thank you for the correction. I apologize to the applicant. Obviously, I'm very passionate about this item. Thank you all for listening.

I know everyone wants to probably go home. But I just have concerns about the city approving synthetic turf. I think if a homeowner privately wants to put it in themselves, more power to them. But I don't think it should be listed as an option in a development because it sounds like we're saying we approve synthetic lawns. And I'm not sure it meets with the spirit of Folsom and what we stand for and how we want to honor and show our love of our natural environment, especially when we talk about projects like this on the hillside where it's visible.

And I have driven through these projects. And I know they talked about having an HOA, and the HOA can manage if it starts to fall apart. But I have seen the synthetic turf not looking great. And I think natural landscaping is a much better option, personally. And I think we should really consider trying to have these projects really show what we want to see in our community and our city and what we want to identify in our city. I worry also about this affecting water quality. Part of the general plan talks about protecting our waterways, protecting water runoff. I mean, is plastic just running into the water when it's put in like this. So thank you so much for listening, and I'll get off my soapbox now.

No, I think that's fair. And I remember a previous commissioner who all that person cared about was that we not have natural turf because it was water sucking. So it's kind of caught between a rock and a hard place. And the community I live in, I live South Of 50, and there were some natural type grasses planted. And they look terrible most of the year.

And so most people have ripped them out. And I'm still trying to keep mine going. But summertime, it just dies like a field, like a wild field. So people are not fond of them. But we didn't want to have full on grass like we're used to. But then people are putting that in, too, right? So it's kind of a quandary. So a lot of the lawns that have gone in my neighborhood are the synthetic turf. And I actually think some of them are pretty nice looking. Do agree that, I mean, I've heard and understand that there's a lot of issues about someday when you need to replace them, let alone the runoff.

But, I think for the purpose of our feelings on this, it's a good idea to have a neighborhood start off looking pretty uniform and pretty nice. And to me, pieces of synthetic turf aren't really going to be such a downside. So I mean, I appreciate your strength and your feelings about it, Commissioner Ross, but I really feel the same way. Is there anybody else who wants to comment on synthetic turf or do I have a motion? Commissioner Herrera.

I just want to say for the record, I find it unique that the city of Folsom actually offers a that we have a program that offers $1 per square foot of turf grass removed and replaced with water efficient landscape up to $2,000 and they're basically saying, let's replace natural turf with synthetic, and it's citywide.

Sorry, I thought was that natural landscaping or replace it with synthetic turf? Did I misunderstand?

No, the city actually pays you to replace your sod with artificial turf. They paid me to do it.

Oh, wow. I had no idea. Okay. Well, something new. Thank you for that.

Thank you.

Something new for me too. Didn't know that either. All right, anybody else? Well, with that then, how about if I make a motion? I'm assuming this is the same motion that's in our packet.

Yes. Move to confirm staff's determination that no further CEQA review is required for the Folsom Heights villages four through six modifications and villages seven through eight design review project and approve the application for design review for said project DRCL260003 based on the findings, A through J and subject to the conditions of approval conditions one through 19 that are attached to the staff report. Commissioners, we have a motion. Is there a second?

Second.

Commissioner Barcelona seconds. Is there any discussion on the motion on the floor? Okay, hearing and seeing none, Bettina, go ahead and call the roll.

Commissioner Barcelona?

Yes.

Commissioner Hurst? Yes. Commissioner Herrera?

Yes.

Commissioner West?

Yes.

Commissioner Ross? No. Commissioner Laney? Yes. Commissioner Reynolds?

Yes. Okay, that item passes. Congratulations, Elliot Holmes. Appreciate you. Thanks for doing business in Folsom. All right, Planning Manager's Report. Jessica, you're up. A special meeting, April 29. Yes. And we know we're going to have a little bit bigger agenda than we once

We are.

Okay. So first off, I want to thank you all for accommodating this extra meeting this month. We appreciate it. We have these large projects coming through that have been everyone has been running, I think, is what's been happening. And so we do end up having more items on this agenda than we had originally thought.

This meeting was set up to accommodate the Toll Brothers at Alder Creek subdivision. That is a rather large project. But as often happens, things happen. And, we ended up needing to move, Emblem Empire Ranch apartments to that meeting, due to, noticing, snafu. And then we also have a digital billboard conditional use permit that may go on there.

That is a project that has already there was a specific plan amendment that was approved for the Folsom Plan Area specific plan that allowed digital billboard on one lot with a conditional use permit. And so this conditional use permit is the follow on to that project. And so that will likely come on the twenty ninth as well. And, yeah, so I will, definitely let folks know if things change on this agenda. Going forward, we should have it pretty we're going to have to have it dialed in next week, so, that'll come out pretty soon.

And then, of course, we'll have our next regular, Planning Commission meeting on May 20. And it did sound like everyone would be here for the twenty ninth. I'm getting head nods. Great. So again, really appreciate the flexibility on this.

These are high priority projects, so we're looking to try to get these folks through. And then, the only thing else I have on my report, is the usual, report back on design reviews. It's it's slowed down a little bit. Since March 18, we've had two residential additions, two custom homes, and one nonresidential minor modification, which was a fence around a, I think it was a fence around a storage area, for a new, industrial, user. So that's the exciting stuff happening behind the scenes. And, that ends, the principal planner report. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any questions for our principal planner? Is there anything else under the good of the order, commissioners? Okay. Hearing and seeing none. Bettina, thank you for your expert job tonight. As you notice, Karen is training her and she did a fabulous job. So thank you very much. And we are now adjourned at 07:00.