Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening, everybody. My name is Eileen Reynolds. I'm chair of the Folsom City Planning Commission. Please note that the materials that went out in the packet originally said that this was a special meeting. It was just a typo. Our last meeting was actually our special meeting, so this is a regular meeting in the Planning Commission. Bettina, will you please call the roll to establish a quorum?

Commissioner Ross? Present. Commissioner Laney? Here. Commissioner Barcelona?

Here.

Commissioner Hurst?

Here.

Commissioner Herrera? Absent. Commissioner West?

Here.

And Commissioner Reynolds?

Here. Will you all please rise and join me for the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you, everybody. Today is May 20th, and we have a couple of items. But first things first, every time on our agenda, we have a space for citizen communication. So that is the area on the agenda where anybody who has anything they'd like to address us on that's not on the agenda tonight can have the opportunity to come to the dais and address the commission. Is there anybody here who would like to address the commission under citizen communication? Okay, hearing and seeing none. Huh? No, no, he was waving to somebody. Hearing and seeing none, then we'll move on to the minutes. Commissioners, you have the minutes from April 29th, 2026, which was our special meeting. Is there any concerns or questions about the minutes? Seeing or hearing none, would somebody like to make a motion to approve the minutes?

I'll move the minutes.

Thank you, Commissioner Barcelona. I'll second. Thank you, Commissioner Laney. We have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion on the motion? Okay, hearing none, Bettina, please call the roll.

Commissioner Ross? Abstain. Commissioner Laney?

Yes.

Commissioner Barcelona?

Yes.

Commissioner Hurst? Yes. Commissioner Herrera? Absent. Commissioner West? Yes. And Commissioner Reynolds?

Yes. Okay. Thank you very much, everybody. So our first item of new business is item number one. Bettina, will you please read that item for us?

Yes. USPT 26-00053. All Dogs Unleashed Training and Boarding Facility Project and determination that the project is exempt from CEQA under the CEQA Guidelines Section 15301. Project Planner, Nathan Stroud. All right. Good evening, Nathan.

Good evening. So today I'm bringing a request. This is for a conditional use permit for a proposed dog and training and boarding facility, which is going to be located in a C2 zone located at 435 Blue Ravine Road. Um, the product side is located in an existing commercial building shared with Leslie's pool supplies, a retail commercial tenant, and the property is surrounded by open space and trails to the East and to the South blue road to the North and is adjacent to other commercial properties to the West. Um, the nearest residential used to this project site is located approximately 250 feet across blue ravine road to the North. All Dogs Unleashed is a dog and training boarding facility that provides obedience training, rooming services, and limited boarding services. The facility is fully indoors with no proposed outdoor areas. It includes 109 dog kennels and indoor training and grooming room and offices. The facility will operate primarily by appointment, with public hours ranging from between 8 o'clock in the morning to 6.30 at night. However, staff may work on this site beyond these hours for canine care. The facility's hours of operation are considered compatible with surrounding businesses, and the property has been determined to have a sufficient number of parking spaces for their parking requirement. Noise and sanitation are anticipated to be the most notable potential impacts from the facility, and staff did address this in the staff report. Regarding noise, generally the applicant has chosen a fairly isolated location for the facility in order to limit potential noise impacts, with open space surrounding much of the project site and a major road separating the facility from the nearest residential uses. Furthermore, the floor plan was designed so that all the kennels were placed furthest from the adjacent commercial tenant with offices in between acting as a bit of a buffer. The project would need to comply with the city's noise ordinance, which is provided in condition 15, and condition 16 has been provided, which requires additional noise attenuation measures. So these include ensuring all doors remain closed, except for entering and exiting, implementing administrative measures to curtail parking, and sealing all doors leading into the kennels with weather strips to limit the noise. Should there be a co-enforcement complaint, the facility is found in violation of the noise ordinance. Condition 16 also allows the city to require a noise study and can place further noise attenuation measures to be able to reduce it back down into compliance. With these conditions in place, staff does not anticipate the facility would have a detrimental noise impact to surrounding businesses. And regarding sanitation, the facility has designated indoor relief areas for dogs located on the eastern side of the building. This portion of the facility will include indoor runs and artificial turf with trench drains underneath and six kennels. Facility staff plan to regularly and frequently bring dogs to this area for relief and will bag and dispose of any bio-waste that's generated. This portion of the facility is also proposed to be cleaned and sanitized daily. Condition 12 has been placed for the project, requiring that BioWaste is indeed disposed of in sealed bags to limit any odor impacts, that the facility do have administrative measures in place for the regular and continued cleaning and sanitation of this facility, and also a requirement that they follow best management practices provided by Sacramento County to minimize impacts to the sewer system. With these conditions in place, staff do not anticipate any health or safety concerns. Overall, staff have determined that the proposed facility is compatible with surrounding uses and that the business is anticipated to have a minimal impact to surrounding uses as conditioned. Staff have mailed notices to property owners within 300 feet of the project site, have posted notice in the Filson Telegraph, and have not received any responses from the general public. With that in mind, staff is recommending approval of the conditional use permit. And I'll be able to answer any questions regarding the project. And the business owners, Melissa and Matthew, are also here to answer any questions.

Very good. Thank you very much, Nathan. Is there any questions for our staff on this item? No questions. All right. Thank you. And we'll bring up the applicant now. Please introduce yourself and let us know what you want to do with this business.

Hi, my name is Melissa Ippolito, and this is my husband, Matthew. Together, we are hoping to open All Dogs Unleashed Folsom. We want to provide indoor training and overnight boarding for this community, including additional jobs. Yes, excuse me, go ahead. We look forward, excuse me, we spent considerable time looking for a location that would be appropriate, knowing that the concerns with dogs are noise, based on the location of this property with the one public, the Leslie's Pools next to us, and then with the Greenbelt behind us and around us. We've also spent significant time planning to ensure that the dogs are removed furthest from the other side of the building such that any noise issues can be handled in that manner. In addition, with regular construction requirements to ensure that all noise remains inside, all doors would be sealed, there would be no doors open in any of the kennel rooms, and in fact, the kennel room in the back has only doors. There aren't any windows, so there wouldn't be any issue there.

Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. Anybody have any questions of the applicant? I actually do have a question. As far as the employee hours, I notice there's a gap when there are no employees there. Is that a normal thing for kennels? I'm not really familiar with them.

It is. We will have cameras that will be available for off-site to see into the kennel when people aren't there. But what happens is the first kennel tech arrives about 6 a.m. and starts rotating the dogs out to go to the restroom. And they do that rotation throughout the day. And then there's a second or third kennel tech, depending on the duration of the kennel tech's hours, that comes in and continues that rotation. And then the last kennel tech leaves late in the evening, about 10 o'clock. Once all the dogs have been rotated one last time and then put to bed, essentially, just as you would at home. You send your dog out to go to the bathroom, come in and put them to bed in their crate or on their bed or wherever they sleep. So it is actually standard practice to not have anybody remain overnight. And of course, no one would leave if there was a dog with an issue. These would be all healthy dogs. in very happy, good spirit dogs that would be remaining overnight to sleep. And then someone's back very early in the morning to start the rotation process again.

Okay, I get that. And then do you have other facilities like this?

We don't yet. This is our first. It is a franchise. They have about 16 locations. It started in Texas. And they are all in the Midwest. So we are the furthest over at this point is in Colorado. We are the first in California.

Okay, and are other facilities with these franchises, do they have outdoor areas for the dogs?

The ones in the Midwest do.

They do.

I would say about half do, half don't.

Is that right?

Yeah.

The formula doesn't require that you have outdoor space. It does increase the issues with noise and raises more problems with neighbors and such. So the formula of the franchise itself, the model, does not require that you have outdoor space.

Okay, thank you. Okay, Commissioner Laney has a question.

I think my question is around ventilation. You know, pets are messy, especially, you know, dogs don't always go to the bathroom where they're supposed to. And if there's overnight, you know, they may, you know, go to the bathroom in their kennel. So are there any things that you're addressing with the ventilation system, especially if you're keeping all the doors closed and everything to mitigate the noise?

Yes, we will be installing two HVAC systems, one for the front of the building, the showroom, the reception area, and then a large one that would support both of the kennel rooms, sufficient to a step for the space to ensure that there is proper ventilation, including air conditioning, given that we're in Folsom and it does get quite warm. And there is proper insulation, of course, in the building. It follows all required. It's all code compliant as well. So the ventilation does exist. It is the recycled air through an HVAC system.

Okay, thank you. Anything else? Commissioner Ross. Thank you, Chair.

I just wanted to ask, would the dogs ever leave the facility, like to go on a walk outside? Or is it just they're in the facility while they're there until they get picked up?

Yeah, there can be an option to take your dog outside for a walk. Um, which the green belt behind, we're actually there today, checking it out. Could be an option as well to probably be on a, on a waiver, um, type deal, but, you know, this is a training facility. So a lot of it is very disciplined, you know, keep them around their environment, um, and, and do a hundred percent of the training indoor. Um, but if the dog parents. Say I want my dog to go outside, you know, go for a walk at least a couple times while they're in there for two weeks. We can facilitate that.

And do you do that like one dog at a time? Yeah, one dog at a time.

Everything is one dog?

Everything is one dog at a time.

There's never a dog romp. There's never multiple dogs on a leash. The only time there would be maybe more than one dog together would be if you had dog siblings, if you will, that came in together and were used to being together and stayed in a larger kennel together. But, and the outdoor.

All the training needs to be one-on-one to make sure that we're 100%.

Great, thank you. Commissioner West, did you have something? No. Anybody else? All right, thank you both for coming. Thank you very much. We appreciate your time. Thank you. Okay, so commissioners, that leaves all dogs unleashed to us. Anybody want to make a motion or have anything they'd like to discuss about it before making a motion?

We approved one of these years and years ago over by Shannon Automotive. And it actually worked out really well. And it was much closer to a residential area, obviously. So it's a good project.

Anybody else? I mean, I actually like the location for it because of the centralized part of it. I'm sorry. Did you guys need something?

I was just going to recommend before making a motion opening the public hearing and seeing if there's any public comment.

Oh, thank you. I do that sometimes. Yes, thank you. All right. I'm sorry. Thank you, Alec. Thanks for keeping me honest. Okay, we do need to open a public hearing in case there's anybody here who would like to address this measure pro or con. Is there anybody here that would like to address item number one? Okay. Phew. All right. Thank you very much. We will close the public comment. And with that, we can discuss. So, Commissioner Barcelona, I heard you loud and clear. And I also think this is a pretty cool use for that location. The building, I notice, has been vacant for quite some time. And I even like the signage and things in the renderings. Commissioner Ross?

I just appreciate that the owners obviously took a lot of time to find a good location for it, and I think it's going to be a great fit for the area. So I'm happy to approve it.

Okay. So then how about one of us make a motion, and it can be me.

Okay, I'll move to confirm staff's determination that All Dogs Unleashed project is exempt from CEQA under section 15301, existing facilities and approve of an application USPT 26-00053 for a conditional use permit for the operation of a 5,617 square foot, 109 kennel dog training facility and boarding facility at 435 Blue Ravine Road, based on the findings, findings A through E, and subject to the conditions of approval, conditions 1 through 16 attached to this report.

I second. Okay, we have a motion and a second by Commissioner Ross. Is there any discussion on the motion on the floor? Hearing and seeing none, Bettina, go ahead and call the roll.

Commissioner Ross? Aye. Commissioner Laney? Yes. Commissioner Barcelona?

Woof.

Commissioner Hurst?

Yes.

Commissioner Herrera is absent. Commissioner West?

Yes.

And Commissioner Reynolds.

Yes. All right. With one absent, you have a unanimous vote. So thank you to all dogs unleashed for doing business in Folsom. Go forth and prosper. Go have a good time. All right. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, everyone. That was a good one. And let's go to item number two. which is going to be a little bit more complex, I think. Bettina, you want to go ahead and read item number two?

You bet. MSTR25-00084, Toll Brothers at Alder Creek Small Lot Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map Plan Development Permit Inclusionary Housing Plan Minor Administrative Modification and Determination that No Further CEQA Review is Required. under CEQA guideline section 15162. Your principal planner is Jessica Brandt.

Good evening, commissioners. Hey, Jessica. Welcome. Thank you. Okay, are we ready for this one? I think so. All right. So as said, I'm Jessica Brandt with Community Development, and I'll be presenting the Toll Brothers at Alder Creek project tonight. The proposed project includes small lot vesting tentative subdivision map, plan development permit, inclusionary housing plan, and a minor administrative modification. And as stated, a determination that the project is exempt under CEQA. The project is a proposed 1,424-lot residential development over approximately 464 acres in the western area of the Folsom Plan Area Specific Plan. So this vicinity map is actually the land use plan for the specific plan. And it shows the proposed project area located in the western area of the plan in the crosshatching on the slide over in here. The project area is roughly bounded by Alder Creek Parkway to the north, which is this guy right here. open space on the east side. You can see this whole open space here. Mangini Parkway to the south here. And then Prairie City Road on the west. The project area includes residential land use designations of single family, single family high density, and multifamily low density, and non-residential land use designations of park, public cause a public and open space. The subject property is undeveloped. Surrounding properties are similarly undeveloped, though all property east of Prairie City Road is within the plan area and projected for a range of uses from open space to high density multifamily consistent with the plan. The final hearing body for this request will be the City Council. So the project consists of a small lot vesting tentative subdivision map, plan development permit, inclusionary housing plan, and minor administrative modification. The residential development would be a mix of traditional single-family homes, duet half-plex homes, and four-pack and six-pack cluster developments. A variety of other parcels are also included for land uses, such as private recreation, parks, landscaping, open space, roadways, a fire station, and an elementary school. In total, 1,497 lots will be created through this map. The overall land plan for the project is shown on the slide. And you can see the various areas of the project split into effectively villages. The light, light yellow is single family. So it's the lowest density. And then you get into a brighter yellow, which is that single family high density. And then the multifamily low density is over in these villages on the east side. And before I get into the map proper, I do want to discuss some of the larger land use areas of analysis. So just to kind of put all this on the table at the start, this application is not requesting a general plan or specific plan amendment, nor is one required. The uses proposed are consistent with the land use designations within the project area. and the proposed development densities are within the allowed ranges for all of these different land use designations. They are requesting a planned development permit, which I'll discuss in detail later, for deviations from land use standards, and they are requesting that minor administrative modification, which I'll refer to as AMAM, for some minor land use area adjustments as well. So back to the actual subdivision itself, the applicant anticipates developing the project in three main phases, which I show on these next few slides. So phase one is the map shown on the slide right now. It is the area roughly west of Oak Avenue Parkway, east of that power line corridor that was shown on the earlier slide. This phase would include 276 traditional single family lots within four villages. So you can see all of these lots here, and then they would surround a neighborhood park site and an elementary school site here. As part of this phase, Mangini Parkway, which is on the south side here, would be extended to serve this southern area of the project site. And then there would be an extension of Oak Avenue coming up to serve properties as they get built going to the north with a stub, which I'll talk about later up here. Oh, and as part of this phase, there is also this fire station up here. Apologies for that. That is a fire station site I'll talk about as well. And then finally, Haven Parkway would be stubbed out here as part of this. So that would be sort of this initial phase of development. I do wish to note that the applicant does not have control over timing of development for the public facilities shown in this map. other than granting the land to the city and to the school district, respectively. However, the Parks Department, the Fire Department, and the school district have all been engaged in this review process and plan to accept the sites. So this is the second phase of the map. This comprises the project area east of Oak Avenue Parkway and includes 428 traditional single-family lots, 104 duet lots, 101 single-family small lots in a four-pack configuration, and 124 single-family small lots in a six-pack configuration. And that is spread over nine villages. It also includes multiple private mini parks, a private recreation facility, and an open space lot. So you can see the various villages coming in here. Four-pack, six-pack are roughly in here. This is that private recreation facility that's proposed. There are mini parks scattered throughout. They're a little hard to see, but they They sort of buffer out along the edges for the most part. There is one right here as well. And then as you go north, the lots get a little bit larger. And then there's a large open space lot as well that's proposed. And then finally, the third general phase includes the project area west of the power line corridor, east of Prairie City Road. It includes 391 traditional single family lots in and around large open space areas. Improvements to Alder Creek Parkway, which you can kind of just barely see up here on the north, as well as Prairie City Road along the western boundary of the property, and then Oak Avenue, connecting to Alder Creek would all be part of this phase's ultimate build out. So analysis of the subdivision map. The project was reviewed against applicable mapping regulations. Title 16 of the Folsom Municipal Code is our code for implementing the state subdivision map act. And we did find that the small lot vesting tentative subdivision map meets these codes. It creates the necessary easements to allow for roads and utilities to facilitate the development. It creates parcels that provide shared access, landscaping, open space. that will be owned and maintained by one or more homeowners associations per our conditioning. There is a straightening list that is included as an exhibit with the application for consideration and adoption. There is a preliminary phasing plan that has also been included in your packet. that maps out the phasing for the final mapping. That is also part of the adoption package. And then the applicant is requesting that this project be a vesting tentative subdivision map. They have stated such conspicuously on the map face as per the requirement and have provided preliminary grading, drainage, and utility plans. to support that as well. And then again, as per our code, the tentative map will be forwarded to the city council for final action. So as I mentioned before, part of the request is a plan development permit. The applicant is requesting approval of this plan development permit for three items. The first is to confirm the project's compliance with the plan area development standards. That is a specific plan requirement. that they do so. They are also asking for consideration of some deviations to development standards from the specific plan, including smaller minimum lot sizes for the medium density single family residential and then some project specific standards for the small lot single family residential. And then finally, the plan development permit is requested to approve project level architectural and landscape design guidelines to serve as the framework for subsequent design review applications. And so I just wanted to walk through, you know, as I mentioned, overall, the applicant is actually proposing to develop in compliance with plan area development standards for the traditional single family and duet products. There is one request to reduce minimum lot sizes in the single-family high-density and multifamily low-density designations. The applicant states that the reduction in these lot sizes accommodates unique parcel shapes within the project area while maintaining consistency with the intent and net density designations established in the specific plan. As I also mentioned, the applicant is proposing two sets of project specific development standards for the small lot single family products. That's the four pack and six packs. The plan area actually does not include specific standards for these small lot development typologies. So this is not a new request. We've had some other projects that have come through with similar small lot private drive type of developments. And this is also something that the applicant has put into projects elsewhere that they state has been very successful. So in general, this four- and six-pack lotting centers around a shared private drive with smaller lot sizes and greater building coverages. Setbacks are also taken either from street frontage or the private drive, depending on the placement of the specific lot. And you can see on this slide, part of the request and the approval will include these diagrams that show how these different setbacks will be measured. And you can see they have these in the six-pack. Everything would come from this private drive. So all of the garages would come off of the private drive. The homes would face, you'd have a side yard, street yard here. These would be rear yards. These back ones would also be side and rear yard. And then there are some allowances for parking. It's not shown up here. Oh, yeah, it is. There's some zero lot line allowances as well in some areas, as long as there is an additional setback on the adjacent site. So the applicant can explain further on the design of this. It is unique for the development standards for the specific plan, but certainly not something we have not seen before. The plan area also requires that projects prepare design guidelines either concurrently or subsequently obtain a design review approval for residential projects. The applicant is providing a set of landscape and architectural design guidelines with this map with unit-specific designs to follow under subsequent design review requests, which we have allowed for large subdivision maps in the plan area in the past. The proposed architectural design guidelines are included with the report in attachment 10. They include architectural themes, design objectives, architectural styles, and home site examples. The applicant states that residential development will incorporate a mix of architectural styles to promote visual diversity and interest. And so the slide you see here shows just some of the architectural styles proposed, and they do vary quite a bit. So as mentioned, landscape design guidelines, they include the project's landscape design vision, streetscape master plans, a master plant list, and private amenity landscape designs, and plans for gated entry monumentation and site amenities. The landscape vision for the project is to work with the site's distinct natural topographic features and vegetation, historical ranch heritage, and rural character. Let's see here. So on the slide, you actually can see the proposed landscaping for that private recreational facility in the small lot area, which includes a plan actually for retaining some existing mature oak trees. And so this is, you know, again, kind of part of the theme of retaining what they can of the existing landscape topography. So staff have reviewed the proposed development standard deviations and the architectural landscape design guidelines and believe that they comply with the intent and purpose of the specific plan and meet the review criteria under the municipal code. So this slide provides some kind of question and answers on those criteria. In general, some of the specific ones that we looked at, is this a creative and efficient use of land? We believe it is. There's a wide variety of lot sizes and a variety of densities. The overall plan for residential design and landscaping for the project demonstrates coherence and quality. As conditioned, necessary public facilities, adequate sanitation, and emergency public safety services will be available to serve the project. And as conditioned, the project will not cause unacceptable vehicular traffic levels on surrounding streets. And there is adequate internal traffic circulation and ingress and egress. And I'll be talking about those coming up. And then finally, the minor administrative modification. I did want to touch on this one. The applicant is requesting this MAM in order to increase the number of specific plant parcels, which is actually kind of more of a vehicle for tracking units and the square footages that are allocated. in the various areas of the specific plan by dividing some of the larger parcels. You can see that on the slide. The applicant also requests some minor modifications to land use boundaries to reflect their refined land plan around the open space resources and the public park and school site. And then the final item under the MAM is a reduced roadway cross-section for Alder Creek Parkway. to reflect changes to expected transit services in the corridor. And this is the cross-section in the specific plan here. And then this is a rough cross-section of the proposed Alder Creek Parkway. And I'll come back to this at the end of my presentation to discuss it a little bit more. So staff have reviewed. Actually, I'm going to discuss it now. So staff have reviewed the proposed man against the approval criteria and concluded that the change meets all of the criteria that are applicable. First, the proposed changes to land use designations are compliant with Measure W in that they increase the open space designated areas by 5.9 acres. This maintains and even increases the area designated within the plan area as open space. Second, the requested modifications to land use designation boundaries are minor and do not modify the overall land use pattern of the plan area. And the requested modification to the Alder Creek Parkway roadway cross section does not substantially alter the backbone infrastructure network as it retains expected vehicle transit and pedestrian capacity. And it further provides better roadway alignment. And so specific to this requested modification, the reduction of the overall cross-section from 100 feet to 82 feet actually allows bus transit to go into mixed flow lanes rather than the bus rapid transit dedicated lane that was anticipated for this roadway. What we have found is that regional transit is not likely to pursue bus rapid transit in this corridor. And so we have looked to make this cross-section more efficient and take up kind of less pavement, if you will, while still allowing the bus service that we do anticipate to flow and be able to pull to the side as needed with additional side area added on the edges of the roadway to provide that and allow for the traffic flow. And if you have more questions on that, we're happy to talk about it further at the end of the presentation. Let's see here. And then just so I don't miss it, one of the criteria is that there's no increase in environmental impacts. And as I'll discuss, a streamlined conformity analysis was prepared for the project. to identify and assess compliance of the project with the specific plan environmental impact report. And it found that the proposed project implements and is consistent with the plan pursuant. Let's see here. And none of the factors set forth in the CEQA guidelines related to new and additional impacts are present or have been identified. So the following slides will be walking us through four major policy areas that were analyzed for this project. which are backbone infrastructure phasing, traffic access and circulation planning, open space and oak tree preservation, and public facility siting. So first, we're going to talk about backbone infrastructure. So the specific plan is a comprehensive plan that calls for the construction of a substantial network of public infrastructure, including roads, public transit facilities, water and wastewater facilities, and stormwater conveyance. The specific plan states physical features of the plan area naturally divided into three distinct districts, Central, Hillside, and Southwest, and that the infrastructure serving the plan area should be phased based on these districts to ensure a logical progression that will support all proposed uses in both an interim and a final build-out. To meet this requirement, the applicant and landowners have provided a conceptual backbone infrastructure phasing plan that covers effectively the Southwest District and the Central District. So this is the plan that's shown on the slide, and it is included in the hearing materials as attachment 15 to the staff report. And then I will walk through a few of the items that are in this plan as far as timing and responsibility. So the plan includes roadways. It includes potable water and storm drainage basins here. So the roadway segments are shown sort of throughout this western area and to the north. And they are effectively shown as being the responsibility of various either property owners or projects that are in process or expected to come through. As these projects move through their approval process, they will be conditioned to provide to include development of each of the areas that they are tasked with and What we end up doing is working with them to make sure that the timing and the costs are bearable as they work through their areas of responsibility. So the roadway segments are seen here. They also include who's going to do intersection improvements. There's a bridge that is discussed as far as who's going to take responsibility for that. And then the potable water, you have upgrades that are going to happen at the water treatment plant that are going to need to be required. There are new tanks that will need to be added over in the hillside area that will serve the new development over here. So they say Zone 4, Zone 3, but these are all tanks that will eventually be helping to serve this area. And then this station right here will also need to be put in. And as the project's that still are in the pipeline come through, if this gets approved with this project, this plan would also follow those projects through as well. And so the idea is that there's a coherent plan for the ultimate build out of this infrastructure. So city staff have reviewed the proposed conceptual phasing plan, and we have found that it provided the necessary information to determine relative timing and responsibility for completion of necessary backbone infrastructure for the southwest and central districts of the plan area. We do have our director of utilities, our public works director, both here and ready to talk about this further if you want more information. So the next section here is traffic access and circulation. So the slide shows a portion of the specific planned circulation exhibit. And just for some orientation, here's East Bidwell, Alder Creek Parkway, Oak Avenue, there's White Rock, and Prairie City Road. What you're seeing are, these are effectively cross sections that are part of the specific plan. These are roundabout, although on Prairie City Road we will not be doing roundabouts. These will likely be standard intersections here. But a lot of these intersections are shown as roundabouts in the specific plan. And then you can see some of the smaller roadways sort of set up here too. So the specific plan EIR included not only a detailed analysis of traffic-related impacts within the plan area, but also an evaluation of traffic-related impacts on the surrounding communities. And in total, there are 55 traffic-related mitigation measures associated with development of the specific plan. Included among the mitigation measures are requirements to fund and construct roadway improvements within the plan area, pay fair share contributions for construction of improvements north of Highway 50, and participate in the city's transportation system management fee program. This project will be subject to all traffic-related mitigation measures required by that EIR. For the project itself, Kimley Horn completed a traffic study and circulation study. The traffic study was used to identify required infrastructure and access improvements for the project specifically on Oak Avenue Parkway and Haven Parkway within the project boundaries. The analysis concluded that all intersection studies were expected to operate at level of service D, which is the city's, or better, which is the city's operational threshold for acceptance of an intersection for both the near-term and the build-out, with the intersections built consistent with the planned area roadway improvement requirements. No, no, can't go there yet. So staff from the Community Development Department, Public Works Department, and Fire Department also worked with the applicant team and property ownership over a number of months to review options for roadway improvements that would move the backbone system phasing plan forward in a logical and realistic manner as required beyond what was solely responsible for the project would be solely responsible for just within its own boundaries as i mentioned before that effort we were trying to be responsive to financing and timing constraints facing the applicant during project build out another effort that was happening and is still happening is the city coordinating with the county of sacramento to develop a coordinated interim cross-section for Prairie City Road that would meet the needs of the city, the county, quarry owners with rights to traverse the roadway, and future residents of both the project and future developments on the west side of Prairie City Road. The result of all of these efforts is a set of conditions of approval that we believe balance the needs of all parties that are supported by city staff and are accepted by the project applicant. These are condition numbers 33 through 39. Items of note, roadway development will generally follow the expected final map preliminary phasing plan to meet the needs of residents while minimizing upfront costs to the extent practicable. Three intersections along Oak Avenue Parkway will be required to be developed as roundabouts in compliance with our roundabout first policy These are the intersections of Oak Avenue and Mangini Parkway Oak Avenue and Haven Parkway and the intersection of Oak Avenue Parkway and Alder Creek Parkway At an early phase of project development the applicant will be required to install an emergency vehicle access road that connects the northern end of the Oak Avenue Parkway roadway segment with the project to Prairie City Road via access off of Alder Creek Parkway. This EVA, along with existing perimeter access points to White Rock Road to the south and East Bidwell to the east, provide the necessary ingress and egress for emergency vehicles. to the project and vicinity until the balance of the roadways in that area are complete. And then finally, the applicant will be required to develop or fund a segment of Prairie City Road roughly from Alder Creek Parkway to the north, about here, down to just past Haven, which is this one right here, and then tie back into Prairie City going south from there. That segment, the applicant has agreed to either build with the specific plan cross-section or with a cross-section that the city and county agree to and put together through a memorandum of understanding. And so that's a very long-winded way of saying that with the conditions and the adoption of the specific plan central and southwest districts conceptual backbone infrastructure phasing plan, which again is attachment 15, Staff believe that the project is consistent with the general plan and plan area policies related to traffic, access, and circulation. OK. Open space and oak tree preservation. So this is our third area of analysis. And in brief, as noted earlier, the project must ensure that 30% of the specific plan area remains as open space. Project does this, even adding 5.9 acres of additional open space. So check. Oak woodlands. So there are major areas of oak woodlands in and around the project. Loss of oak woodlands requires mitigation through either off-site conservation and perpetuity or on-site planting or a combination of the two. The developer has chosen off-site protection of similar oak woodland canopy in the Deer Creek Hills area of Sacramento County, and they can provide more information on that if you'd like. Another area of note is that this specific plan requires that 396.52 acres, which I'm just going to say 396, canopy must be maintained in the plan area, which I'll talk about shortly. Isolated oak trees is another area that they needed to maintain. do some mitigation for. Isolated oak trees are subject to tree removal permits and mitigation fees. And then, of course, protected oak trees and canopy during construction must be protected through fencing and monitoring. And conditions 61 through 65 address these requirements. So as I mentioned, the open space areas will be preserved as required. And then the mitigation objectives and policies regarding oak woodlands, isolated oak trees are also being addressed by the applicant. So the project includes, as I've mentioned before, minor modifications of the boundaries between planned area land use designations, including the boundaries of the open space designation. The applicant states and staff agrees that significant work went into design of the land plan for the development to create a lotting pattern and supporting infrastructure that is both efficient and sensitive to the open space areas that surround much of the project site. This work has resulted in an increase, again, of approximately 5.9 acres of open space to the overall open space total. This slide shows the expected oak woodland impacts from the project, which is different than open space. This figure from the arborist report is included just to provide that high-level view of the project's impact to isolated oaks and oak woodlands. The applicant does expect further refinement of impact areas and retention of isolated trees in the western area of the project site. I do want to note that. And conditions have been placed on the project that require the applicant to submit an oak tree mitigation plan for the areas of the oak woodland canopy that are affected and obtain tree removal permits for individual oak trees as required. This will keep the project in conformance with the required mitigation measures related to oaks. And just to walk through the slide really quick, all of the dots are shown as isolated oaks on the project site. The impacted oak woodlands are in orange, and they're shown both in the residential land use designated sites, and then also in the open space areas that will need to include large stormwater basins. And then the yellow is oak woodland that is within the project area, but is not anticipated to be affected. And again, I just want to state this is Per the applicant, it is an earlier version of an arborist report. And they have already shown in their mapping areas that they are going to retain some oak trees that are shown as being removed here. So before they move forward with the next phases of their projects, they will produce updated and revised arborist report. And so oak woodlands, the specific plan includes policy 10.13, which requires that development preserve and protect in perpetuity approximately 396.52 acres of existing oak woodlands. Oak woodland canopy calculations done in support of the specific plan estimated that approximately 450.88 acres of oak woodlands are located within the open space preserve areas. The project includes impacts to oak woodlands within these open space preserve areas due primarily to grading along the project perimeter and development of stormwater basins to support the ultimate build out. Because of this additional impact and the potential that the specific plan policy may not be met, staff requested that the applicant provide an analysis that demonstrated that the project would not reduce the amount of oak woodland canopy below that 396 acre threshold. Working with E-Corp and McKay and Samps, the applicant was able to demonstrate that their project would not reduce the oak woodland canopy below the threshold, asserting that there would be approximately 30 acres of oak woodland that would remain above that minimum threshold. The applicant provided an exhibit showing how they determined their potential impact to the canopy and the balance of canopy expected to remain after completion of the project, which is shown on the slide and included as attachment 23 to the report. So going through the slide just a little bit here. In this slide, the orange remains the expected impacted oak woodland canopy For the project, this reddish orange is previously impacted canopy. And then green is remaining. The purple is future backbone impact. And I want to be clear, this is impact that was analyzed through the specific plan backbone infrastructure master plan initial study mitigated negative declaration. And so it is considered Effectively, area that could move forward with improvements without additional public review. And so staff stated that that needed to be included as oak woodland canopy improvements. that should be considered already taken, if you will. The green, so the remaining oak woodland, it is shown as green in a number of these other properties that are expected to develop in the future. And then it is also shown in this area of the Oak Avenue interchange. So that is shown as remaining and I think that's just something critical to understand about how we got to the numbers that we got to. So these numbers, this analysis determined that there is approximately 426 acres of oak woodland canopy remaining after this project. that leaves approximately 30 acres of canopy that could be removed and still the project that is doing that work would still be considered compliant with the specific plan policy. Let's see here. So as I mentioned, other future development projects as well as future infrastructure projects may result in canopy loss that would exceed that threshold. If that were to happen, then either those projects would have to be scaled back to avoid that loss or an amendment to the specific plan, along with additional environmental review and council approval would be required before the Oak Woodland canopy reduction could occur. So I think this is an area staff wanted to highlight. I think we worked with the applicant to come up with this analysis, and we feel it's a reasonable analysis, but we wanted to make sure everyone understood all of the assumptions that go to coming up with these numbers. Okay, last final area here, final, final. public facilities. So the project is adjacent to multiple open space parcels that are expected to include class one bike ways and trails, as well as connection points for pedestrians and bicycle access of various locations. In addition, the project includes sites that will be transferred to the city for a neighborhood park and fire station, and the property adjacent to the neighborhood park site that would be transferred to Folsom Cordova Unified to develop as a future elementary school site. All of these expected uses are consistent with the plan area land use plan. The project includes sidewalks, trails, and bikeways throughout that will include internal and external links. Residential streets will all include either attached or detached sidewalks with bicycles sharing lanes. Collector streets will either have a dedicated on-street bike lane or a separate off-street Class 1 bicycle facility within the landscape corridor. And then these facilities will in turn connect to adjacent open space Class 1 facilities. Let's see here. The project's proposed pedestrian and bicycle facilities ensure that all proposed uses are located within approximately one half mile of a class one bike path or a class two bike lane. And then finally, the project will pay its fair share of impact fees that will then be used to develop the trail system in the open space areas. The public park site was reviewed by our parks department. They did deem it acceptable and they have requested that conditions be placed to ensure pedestrian access and that facility services are stubbed to the facility appropriately so that they can move forward with developing it when they are ready. And very similarly, Folsom Cordova is also accepting of the site that is proposed for them asking for a lot of similar pedestrian access and just ensuring that especially the Oak Avenue crossings are safe. And so we do have a condition saying that we are going to have ongoing coordination with them. And there is also conditioning about what's called a hawk crossing for students going back and forth on Oak Avenue, so making sure that they have a safe way to cross. And then finally, two fire stations are necessary in the plan area. One station, station 34, is located east of East Bidwell and is operational. There was a conceptual location for a second site in the project area. There we go. At the northeast corner of Oak and Haven. Yeah. The applicant team actually proposed to formalize a site as part of this map, but requested to shift it to the west side of Oak Avenue at the very northern edge of their project site here. And then the, as I mentioned before, the emergency vehicle access road would carry on up here and cut over to Prairie City there. This site would be 2.1 acres and would be dedicated on the final map with improvements complete and access points located to the satisfaction of the fire department. The fire department reviewed the new location and proposed emergency access improvements and confirmed they would adequately meet the needs of existing and future development. Briefly, the application includes an inclusionary housing plan. This is a requirement of the Folsom Municipal Code. The applicant has submitted a signed letter stating that their intent is to pay the in lieu fee for this project, which is an allowed option. We have reviewed the intent letter and believe it complies with the requirements of the Folsom Municipal Code. Finally, CEQA review. As I stated, conformity analysis was prepared for the project. It was supported by technical analyses, as you can see on the slide. And the analysis found that the project would not result in new significant impacts to the analysis areas with conditioning. And so the project, we believe, is exempt from further environmental review under CEQA guidelines 15182. There are some corrections to the conditions in your packet. You should all have a packet of green sheet corrections. These are some modifications to condition language, technical modifications for the most part to conditions 33, 34, 37, 52, and 95. And on the slide, you can see they relate to backbone infrastructure completion, some roadway clarifications, And sewer flow or flow metering, which is Marcus still here? Yep. Okay. So if you really want to know about sewer flow metering, we have your guy. So if you look through that, you have any questions, definitely let us know. And with that, staff recommends that the city council confirms our determination that the project is exempt from CEQA. And that none of the factors described in CEQA guidelines 15162 have occurred and recommend approval to the City Council of the requested small lot vesting tentative subdivision map, plan development permit, inclusionary housing plan, and minor administrative modification for development of the Toll Brothers Alder Creek project. And the full recommended action is on the slide. And I did neglect to mention we also have our public works director, Rebecca Neves. We have our utilities director, Marcus Yasutake. We have our arborist, Amy Nunez. And then we have our consulting city engineer, Vanessa Humphreys. Not Hutchins. Humphreys. Anyone I miss? Okay. So anyway, we have lots of technical expertise that is available should you have questions. The applicant team, as you can tell, has also brought technical experts, and they are happy to provide information as well. And with that, I end my presentation. Thank you.

All right. Good job, Jessica. Thank you. Okay. Questions for our staff? Commissioner Barcelona, do you look like you have a question?

Question about the bus lane.

About the bus lane. Okay. No, I'm not going to sit down. Oh, can we put that back up?

Okay. Oh, wait. Here we go. Oh, it might have been.

Okay. Yes, sir.

That was a very good presentation. Thank you. So I'm just trying to understand what's going on with the bus, planning for that. There's no park and ride in this entire map, correct?

Correct. I think Desmond is going to. Provide more info.

Yeah. So the history of this is part of the specific plan. This was originally identified to be a bus rapid transit with a wider median and the bus would eventually flow or travel in that median that would become a dedicated bus lane. But in subsequent discussions that we've had recently over the past year with regional transit, they had indicated that they felt that it was very unlikely that they would be able to do a bus rapid transit in this area, given the lower densities and just the whole situation with federal funding right now. They did say that they would be able to provide bus service along Alder Creek as it was envisioned to flow from the Hazel Light Rail Station through the Glenboro project, which is west of Prairie City Road along Eastern Valley Parkway and then along Alder Creek Parkway. in the specific plan area. And they are still anticipating to do that, but it would be in a mixed flow service, which that would still enable them to do anywhere from one hour service up to 15 minute service, but it would go across the corridor. And it would serve areas like the Folsom Town Center and where UC Davis is, where Mercy Hospital has their medical facilities, which do have large parking lots there. But there is not a specific park and ride lot identified in the specific plan area.

I remember Rob Aragon telling me that the town center had minimal parking.

That is correct. It will stop at the town center. There will be other larger parking areas such as at the UC Davis site and also at the Mercy site where there may be more opportunities for that kind of a use if that's needed. But there is not a designated area for a park and ride in the specific plan.

Okay.

Thank you. Commissioner Ross?

I had a couple of questions. I hope that's all right. So specifically for this, because there may not be regional transit to bus, we're not going to propose keeping it the way it is because of funding right now. Is that correct? Issues with funding right now? Or they're saying like 50 years from now, they're never going to put bus rapid transit here?

When you look at the Sacramento area, I think they haven't done bus rapid transit. And there are areas that are much more dense and much better candidates for bus rapid transit based on the federal requirements for funding. And Rebecca could probably speak more about the federal funding aspect of this. So what they've said is it's unlikely in the foreseeable future that they would be doing a dedicated lane with bus rapid transit on like a 10-minute headway type of thing. Public Works worked with RT to redesign Alder Creek Parkway to still allow bus transit there, and we have the wider cross-section there with the curb, gutter, sidewalk, and bike lane where they can pull out of the main flow of traffic and still stop, pick up, and drop off people, and then go enter back into the flow of traffic. That was regional transit's main concern was that they had sufficient space to pull out of the traffic so they don't back everyone up and then be able to pull back in.

Okay, thank you for that.

You wanted to add?

Yeah, I mean, I think you captured most of it. We included a buffer to the bike lane, and that allowed the additional width that made SACRT comfortable with having that space sufficient for being able to pull over to on-street bus stops.

And I'm trying to see, is that that like three-foot tiny little like, so the bus is going to pull into the bike lane to pull over? Yes. Is that correct?

Yes, and there'll be adequate striping that will identify some of those facilities in those areas when the bus stops come forward. SACRT made it clear that they did not have the capacity to put BRT lanes and a future project on their radar for this area, but they did not want to exclude the opportunity to provide those services.

Okay. And then that extra like separated three feet, will the bike lane striping be at the five foot line or the...

Typically right dead center on the five foot line and then you pick your four inch stripe or your six inch stripe.

Okay. So then that would mean that that extra three feet is used for the cars and that to travel lane.

The extra three feet, it just provides a little bit of a buffer between the bicycles traveling down Alder Creek Parkway and then just like that edge of travel lane too. So, I mean, yeah. It'll be striped. Yeah, it'll be striped. Yeah, they'll be, like, either it'll be, you know, have green paint or some kind of markings, or a chevron painting, which is just the hashed painting. Okay, so it will have some striping on it. Yes.

Yeah, it's not going to be, yeah, free-for-all. Great. Thank you for clarifying that. Okay, and then the actual width of the bike lane didn't change between the two. The numbers are so small, I can't tell. Okay, great. It's five and three. Thank you. I had a question on the canopy. Can we move to that one? Yeah.

Okay, let me think. Where is it?

I appreciate your presentation. It was very thorough and well done. Thank you so much. So when I look at this future backbone impact in purple, are those expected roads? What kind of infrastructure are we talking about here?

Some of it is roads. Some of it is actually overland drainage.

Okay. So when I look at the other roads, that width of impact is much wider than maybe that purple line is showing. And I'm concerned that when we get to the backbone portion of this for infrastructure, we're going to be over the canopy if we're only having, what, 30 acres left. So I'm curious about how, and I'm assuming we're going to need the infrastructure.

Yes.

I think to help clarify just a little bit, because it is a little confusing here. So most of the roadway, the major roadway infrastructure has already been impacted. So there's this area up here, which is the extension of Oak Avenue, up to the point where the interchange would start. So that's still fairly wide. And as you can see, when they went through and they and they graded for Alder Creek Parkway and graded for Oak Avenue, you can see the loss there. These other pieces in here are more kind of drain lines, not roadways. So I just wanted to clarify, this is not going to be a roadway in here.

Okay, just the ones that I see that have road lines would be where we would see roads.

Yes, that's correct.

So that Prairie City section is probably only going to be that wide. I mean, I think that we have been talking about changes to that roadway up there.

Yeah, but I believe, and Rebecca, correct me if I'm wrong here, but I think this goes more toward the west than going over to the east.

Correct. And then the width of that section for Prairie City Road, through our evolution of the section itself, has not changed. Okay. Thank you.

Yeah. Okay. And then can you explain what a hawk crossing is? You mentioned that in your presentation. I've never heard of that before.

Can you explain what that is? Yeah. I mean, it's basically a specialized pedestrian signal. We actually just installed our very first one as part of the Mangini Trails project. Oh, yes. Yeah. Okay. So we're all following.

So that would be in addition to the existing crossings for the intersections?

Correct. They're typically used at mid-block crossings.

And do they know where that would be?

Not yet determined. Okay. That gets into more like the final design capacity of the project when they bring in their plans.

Okay. And then I had a question on the green sheet corrections. The public works director was removed in some of these. Is there a reason for that? They don't want to do it?

No.

No, I think it's really just kind of a policy and workload shift that we're working through internally just with, you know, reorg in October and how to move forward in a good and efficient way for everybody. Great. Thank you.

Those are all my questions. Other questions? Commissioner Hurst.

Hi. I'll try to be quick with my two questions. Thank you for the long presentation. I don't know how you did it. I would be very winded. The first one with regards to the bike infrastructure, the pedestrian trails, as currently planned, I guess I'm curious with the depth of penetration into the open space, is there any potential concern that pedestrian traffic could have indirect impacts on some of the preserved oaks within the open space?

Do we?

So, yeah, so that is a concern, but that's where the arborist will be working with our trails folks to design a trail route, because the exact design and location of the trail through the open space areas hasn't been defined yet. In the specific plan, there's a general kind of pattern there, but the idea is to do it so that it minimizes any effect on what are called the conservation open space areas where those are supposed to be protected because they either have sensitive environmental features or sensitive cultural features. And then also so that they are not impacting the oaks as well. So again, they're going to work together to design those out. Those are in the open space. The applicant is contributing impact fees that will go to the design, the environmental clearance, and the construction of those trails.

And that's being accounted for in the canopy calculation?

Again, the...

It's not in the canopy calculations.

No, it is not in the canopy calculations. But again, the whole point of designing the trail and having the trails folks work with the city arborists is to minimize the impact to either sensitive biological or cultural resources or the oak woodland canopy.

Got it. And then the other question that I had was with regards to the intent to provide the in lieu fee. This is a large project, so I just wanted to briefly check in. Folsom is still anticipating that we're on track to meet our RENA allocation with that provision.

Yes. Desmond, do you want to elaborate at all?

Yeah. We still have a very large number for our lower income arena. It's about 3,500. We've built quite a few units. We have more than enough land to accommodate that that's zoned appropriately. So it's just that we haven't had, I don't foresee us getting the development activity to do 3,500 units. or 3,000 units all at once, but it is gradually happening over time. So we're not concerned about the development of this project paying in lieu fees that would somehow prohibit us from meeting ARENA.

Got it.

Thank you both. That's all for me.

Oh, Commissioner Ross.

Thank you. Sorry, I forgot one more question. So on Oak Avenue Parkway, that's the street that is between the villages and the elementary school, correct? Correct. That's the right one? Yes. I noticed that it's a Class 2 bike lane, I believe. Yes. Would it be possible for there to be a condition where they put in a class four along that road where it's a bike lane with a protected barrier? I'm just envisioning. I love to take my kids biking, walking to school. And this is a really cool, unique development in where kids could potentially be biking to the elementary school. And I'm concerned. I live by Folsom Auburn Road, which is basically a freeway. You've got four lanes of traffic. There is going to be median here, and I think that the roadway widths are pretty wide for the travel lanes. So I'm curious if there is a possibility where we could provide a safer bike path access, especially if we think about kids biking to school and crossing or going down. that roadway to get to the cross, and if that is possible. I couldn't find any mention of Class 4 bike lanes in the specific plan, but I did find it in the Folsom Active Transportation Plan. Is that still like a plan that we're working off of? Cool. So I was just curious about that. Thank you.

So right now, the way the project is set up, no, they're class two currently. I do think there has been some discussion of potentially class one. That's not part of the approval of this project. That might be something that comes later. Rebecca, do you have any sort of feedback on that?

Yeah, so Class 4 facilities are still within about a decade new in terms of design and implementation. You'll kind of notice we headed that direction with the cross-section for Alder Creek Parkway. That's technically a Class 4. Very good. Very exciting. Yeah. But the specific plan and specifically the trails circulation element in the specific plan does not have that because it does predate that design standard. But I mean, I will say that through the iteration and process of developing the conditions around the backbone infrastructure, we have taken... great care and thought and including additional class one facilities that otherwise were not necessarily identified on the cross sections and one example is the cross section that we're looking at for prairie city road originally it just had a bike lane and a sidewalk and we have looked at putting a class one facility on the eastern side which is the closest to the specific plan itself so we are looking at ways my personal opinion is there The class four facilities work great. If you can get a class one, that's the better solution.

Thank you. Yes, I agree with that. But I didn't see class one as an option on that roadway if it's being built now. I mean, I'm not sure it will ever get built. If it doesn't get included now, I always worry about that. So I wanted to bring it up now.

So there's a, hopefully, here's my large pointer figure here. You can see that there are opportunities to get to the school using a class one route. There will be a pathway, as we were just talking about, in terms of the trails. This is the approximate location, I believe, of where the hawk signal is planned. And then that would take you down to the elementary school. So there's a couple ways of accessing this through the internal streets to this location to get on to the class one, down over to the park and elementary school. And then from this area, they would be able to take it down to here and then over to the park and elementary school as well. It's in this area where there's a little bit more of the challenge, but there would just be the crossing of Oak Avenue Parkway as opposed to going on Oak Avenue Parkway, because you'd be able to take the narrower streets with less traffic to get over to the school there.

Yeah, so I guess if we look at the development project where we're looking at the streets, for example, I think it's Village 2A. There's this long roadway that could technically connect Village 4A down to another crossing. I guess they have one here, but I think that's a cul-de-sac. I guess I just am imagining there could be a kid that ends up biking on that road because they happen to live in an area where that's the way they get there. And I was just... imagining it would not be safe and mom and dad would end up driving them. And that was just where I was going with that.

Yeah, so I think there's a possibility, particularly, I think, as Jessica and I were looking in this area. So there is a class two on Mancini Parkway, but then on the other side in the total regency project, there is a class one, but it doesn't. Right. I think you're. If you're a cyclist, you're better off going on the local roads and then going across Alder Creek Parkway at the roundabout over to the school, I think that way.

Okay. Thank you.

And Commissioner Ross, I do think that the applicant will probably want to talk about this a little bit too. I think they do have ideas on how the trails connect in with their project and potential routes as well. Thank you.

I do have a couple questions now. On the 30 acres, so essentially what we're dealing with is kind of a no net loss of oak woodlands. And so we have only 30 acres that we can actually take out in future, with future projects. How many more acres, like for example, the Oak Avenue overcrossing, How many acres is that going to need? Roughly.

Roughly 20? Does that seem right? 15 to 20, I think.

And there's other lands that would be privately developed in that vicinity, too. And those likely have a lot more than 10 acres left, right? Right. So the hard decision for us, because I mean, and then it's a matter of what comes first, because I think we'd all like to see the infrastructure get completed. But then that could preclude future projects coming in on the rest of that private property, right? I mean, that's what we're talking about with just the 30 acres remaining.

I think they would need to request a specific plan amendment.

They'd have to come in for a special amendment to a specific plan to allow the removal of more oak trees than was initially anticipated.

Yeah, or avoid as much as they can.

And that's something we also disclosed to the landowners as well as the developer Toll Brothers with regard to that, that it may have subsequent downstream effects on future projects.

Which I guess the landowner cares. Toll Brothers might not, right? Because, I mean, they're going to get their project.

Yeah. Yeah. And I believe the landowner is here.

But the landowner would have to be telling the potential buyers what their situation is, I guess.

Yeah, and we disclose that to them, and they are aware of that and acknowledge that that is a potential situation down the line.

We're just pushing up against a limit, yeah. You mentioned some tanks in Zone 3 that would serve this. What are those? Is that something to do with sewer? No, that's potable water. Potable water, okay. So they're just water tanks that... Are up higher so that they can flow?

Yeah.

Okay. And those get filled and refilled or emptied and refilled? Is that how those types of tanks work? I'm sorry, I just had to get you up here, Marcus. They're time to shine. That's good. Any question about sewers? Yes.

Chair, do you want me to pull up that infrastructure plan? I just want to understand.

Or do you want to just talk? No, I get the gist of where it is. I just want to understand how that stuff works, if you don't mind.

Good evening, Chair Reynolds, members of the commission. Marcus Yasutake, Utilities Director. So yes, the two tanks that were discussed earlier in Zone 3 are potable water tanks. There is one tank in Zone 4 as well. And we do zones by elevation. which serves then a certain number of units within a certain elevation range. And so zone four would also have one tank in the future. And those are the three remaining tanks in the plan area to be built to deliver potable water at full build out. And typically what we do is we operate the system, and it changes throughout the year. So in the wintertime, we try to keep a shorter band because there's less water use generally. And so you don't want to have as much in so you can get a better turnover of new water in, the older water out. And then in the summertime, we might increase the amount of water that's stored because you get a lot more turnover, especially when the irrigation season is over. Kind of at its peak, and you get more turnover that way. So we operate the tank similar to what we do throughout the rest of the city where we will modify the operations and we have the ability. Our treatment plan operators have the ability to make those modifications from the treatment plant to say, okay, we're getting out of spring and into the summer. So, instead of keeping the water level at 17 feet, we're going to keep it at 19 feet. And then vice versa, when the winter comes, instead of keeping it at 17 feet, they might drop it to 15 feet because they know that the amount of water that's going to be used by the community is going to be less in the wintertime or should be less in the wintertime.

Okay, but they're used constantly. They're not just there for some day. They're constantly used. Emptied and refilled? Correct.

I guess I've never had the opportunity to ask this, so it's kind of interesting. What we do is it's not like, say, a pitcher of water where you fill it up and then you empty the whole thing and then you wait until it's empty. Typically, there's a band in which we operate because there's a minimum amount that has to be kept in for fire protection purposes. So you might, if you looked at a design, you might always have to have at least five feet or six feet of water in a tank just to have the minimum fire flow requirements for the worst case condition that that tank would serve. But typically, we're going to be in a band that might be 12 feet to 17 feet in operation because you're always going to want to maintain at least that fire flow plus whatever your daily demand is and then any peaks that you might have in that particular season. Wow. But, yeah, so it's not emptied all the way to the bottom and then refilled. It's a constant range between, say, 6 to 7 feet up to 17 to 19 feet, depending on the time of the year.

Okay. And all controlled from our main plant, huh?

Yes.

That's interesting. Okay. Thank you very much, Marcus. I appreciate that. And then let's talk a little bit about Prairie City Road and the game plan there. Just to see, you know, kind of talk about where we're at with that and... how this all pan out. I know in their early traffic analysis, they had roundabouts on Prairie City and it sounds like that's not really feasible, right? Because of all the quarry traffic and everything.

That's part of it. And then also it had to do with, you know, that is really truly a shared facility between us and Sacramento County. Currently where it sits and where our proposed cross section is affected, we would only provide We only currently have 25% of the overall right-of-way width until New Prairie City Road gets reestablished and the centerline and annexation portion of that continues. With that 25%, one thing that was a comment in the request from Sacramento County is to not include roundabouts along that corridor. because of the volume of truck traffic. One thing that we also looked at was a reasonable hybrid solution between what our Folsom plan area specific plan cross section had to offer compared to what was a version of an adopted cross section or various cross sections for the county, which included a depressed truck route to accommodate the quarry trucks along the quarry truck route for Prairie City Road. And so we got to a place where we identified that there was no environmental nexus, the need for the depressed truck route. It actually hadn't gone through Sequa clearance. And then we, so we looked at the overall corridor itself. Their original cross section was 176 foot right of way. So it's quite wide. And it had two large berms on the side of the depressed truck route. And then we moved more towards our adopted cross section plan of 78 foot. And we found a good medium middle. We're now looking at around the 90 foot right of way range. And that's the current cross section that's on the table between Sacramento County and the city. It does allow for a future six lane facility for the entire length of Prairie City Road, which was also a request of the county. And that would put at ease some of the concerns that the quarries themselves who already have approved entitlements could be able to access and utilize that road sufficiently. We have looked at doing an interim. It's an ultimate for us, an interim for the county for Prairie City Road. And these discussions have been going on for the better part of a year or more. And we did have an opportunity on Monday afternoon to meet with not only Sacramento County staff, but also all vested stakeholders, including the developers and quarries, city staff, and attorneys. And we had arrived at a very positive place in that discussion. And I think we have a good game plan moving forward. There were a few minor tweaks along the way to the cross-section, but nothing earth-shattering. And so right now, the game plan is to move ahead with a memorandum of understanding of the cross-sections, and then that would bring forward some future modifications and specific plan amendments and things.

Okay, and over time, everybody pitches in to those improvements. Yes. And it would actually be straightened so it's not so funky.

Yes, there will be some vertical alignment and horizontal alignment corrections along the way, definitely to make the rideability of it better as well as safety. And one of the items I mentioned earlier was in the iterations of cross sections. Both cross sections originally identified sidewalks and bike lanes only, County staff and the city have both agreed that it's in best interest of just the overall experience of the corridor itself is to pull both bikes and pads off onto class one trails on either side of the roadway. And the quarries were in support of that. It still allows for 12 foot travel lanes and gets the bikes and pads completely out of the roadway prism itself. And then there's some funding mechanisms to contribute towards a heftier roadway section that will, in theory, overall reduce maintenance time or maintenance costs over time. So there's been a few factors at play. And then also looking at relocating the existing 69 KV line that is out there, which a portion of that will be relocated with this project with the conditioned improvements.

And when they relocate those lines, can they be put underground or they just remain underground?

Unfortunately, it's cost prohibitive to underground it. So relocation of overhead lines per SMUD is $700,000 per mile. To underground it is $8 to $9 million per mile. So it's quite a big difference.

Wow, that is great. Okay, thank you very much for that. You're welcome. That's helpful. And if an average citizen asked, when will Prairie City be fixed, what would be your best guess?

I would say probably turning dirt and construction in two and a half to three and a half years.

Oh, okay. Well, that's not as bad as I thought. Okay, good.

So the city is bringing forward a capital improvement project this coming budget fiscal year for a Prairie City Road project, and that's an element that we're looking at moving forward.

Wonderful. Okay, that concludes my questions. Anybody else have anything else for our staff? Okay, seeing and hearing none, we'll bring the applicant up. And as we often do, sometimes we admit if we've met with the applicant before tonight, and I am here by admitting that I have met with the applicant. I did as well.

I did as well.

I did as well.

I did as well. All right, very thorough.

introduce yourself and hello go away i mean don't go away take it away all right uh chair reynolds commissioners my name is martin novinski i'm the director of land entitlement for toll brothers and we're here tonight as uh to seek approval of our project the dusting tentative map plan development permit and the associated entitlements that jessica did an amazing job at uh Explaining, which I actually want to first just thank Jessica for that presentation. I think she did really well. I don't see anything that was different than anything we've ever talked about, so that was pretty impressive from my point of view. I don't have too much to go over with you, but I'd really just like to answer your questions first, and then if you have any questions, and then at the end, maybe I can do some further explanation. There's some more details to the story for a lot of facts and figures and a lot of numbers and a lot of A lot of technical things, but there's more to the story. There's more to developing property and creating community than the technical analysis. So if you have questions, maybe we can start with that. And before we start, I did bring some of our technical people with us. We have... Kim Lee Horn, who did all the traffic analysis. We have McCain Psalms with us that did all the civil engineering and design work. We have ECOR with us that prepared the arborist report and will be continuing to work with us. And all these people will continue to work with us throughout the project. So if it's really technical, I'm going to have to ask someone else to bring it up. But other than that, if you have questions. Very good.

Thank you very much, Mr. Nowinski. Questions for the applicant? Commissioner Ross.

Thank you, Chair. In your six set homes with the drive-thru, the homes closest to the roadway, will the front door be on the roadway or in the driveway?

On the 6 pack homes, the front doors will face the driveways on the 4 pack homes. The front doors face the main street. It looks makes it look more like a traditional neighborhood. We haven't built those particular style of land use homes here in Folsom, but we have. Throughout the country, we actually provided a bunch of pictures to staff when we're, it was being evaluated. It's a pretty successful project. It's a higher density project than you traditionally see here in Folsom, but there are some in Folsom, including in the Folsom plan area specific plan.

And, well, I know there's the same, the four and six pack, I think, are in the same general area. They are.

They're in the same general area.

And it's not clear exactly how you're going to work those out in the vesting. I can't tell exactly which ones are four and which ones, like, are you doing, like, all the fours in one area and all the sixes over here? Yes.

Or are you, like, you are? We are. We're putting the, let me see if I have, I don't have a copy of that map.

You guys, can you guys pull up here?

I can show it to you. It's kind of hard to see on such a large scale.

I feel like is it village like 18 or 1B maybe? That's the four and one C is the six. They're all in the village twos. They're all in twos.

Oh, I'm in the wrong spot. So I'll help. Jessica, again, help me with this. Thank you, Jessica.

Do you want this one or one?

Yeah, this is good. I'll zoom in on this. Projector on. Oh.

Thank you.

Let's see. Let's wait for this thing to zoom.

Ah, there we go.

OK, so this is the actual tentative map itself. I'll try to slide this over and then slide this down a little bit.

Too far.

And zoom in even further, which you can. I'm not sure how far to zoom in on this, but I do want to show in these areas. So we have the Village 1B here, which are the four-pack designs. I see. Thank you. And Village 1C, which are the six-pack designs. And it's hard to tell, but you can kind of see the outlines of these T-courts.

Thank you for sending it.

You can kind of see the outlines of those courts, the way they work. So all of the four-pack designs, which are all these in here, The homes in the, let me try to zoom in even more. Maybe I'll try to make this a little bit clearer. I don't know if I can do this, but we will see my computer skills here. So let's say, for instance, these four homes are served off of the same private driveway. So the two homes in the back, the front doors will face each other in the motor court. The homes in the front, they will face the main street. So it'll look like more like a traditional style neighborhood.

And you'll see just the garage door would be in the front too. Is that correct?

In the front, like a traditional home.

Oh, interesting. So you're going to have like a driveway and then a road access and then a driveway. Is that correct?

Can you say that one more time? I'm not sure I followed that.

It'll be like, if you're going down the street, you're going to see like a driveway, a roadway, and a driveway. And then another roadway, and a driveway, and a roadway.

I mean, I'm just curious how the sidewalk's going to work on that.

We have... That's a good question, how the sidewalk work. And I can bring up our experts, civil design engineers, McCain and Soms, to answer the sidewalk question. But I'll bring them up in a second, unless you have another question on that that I maybe could answer.

And then I guess my other question was, in the six-pack, is there a reason the first home isn't facing the street?

Yeah, they don't fit properly by facing the street. Because if you can tell on these four-packs, if you look at the lot... Oh, I see. You just switched the lot. They kind of have to fit sideways. Got it. The lots don't fit diagonally. They're more horizontal. Where in the four-packs, we can fit them more diagonally instead of horizontally.

So I'm just wondering what the side of those houses are going to look like. Is it going to be just a flat...

No, no, no, no, no. We don't build anything. That's a flat. I can tell you about, and I'm not sure if you're familiar with Toll Brothers architecture at all. This is great. Oh, this is going to be scary because my finger is going to look like Desmond's.

Because I see you guys have photos for the four-pack, but I couldn't find anything for the six-pack is why I'm asking. Because the four-pack, if you look at the side of the building, it's just a flat. Okay. Windows.

Yeah. We're going to show you, these are actual photographs of these homes, and that's kind of blurry.

Oh, look at that pretty sidewalk. It just goes nice. Is it going to be like that? Because that's great.

So these are homes that we built in a Southern California community two years ago. We just finished building them out this year. This is actually what we're going to build. So you can see, I'm going to use a pen. So these are the private driveways here, and the four-packs would have... The house is facing forward. The six-packs would, oh boy, it's hard to tell in this.

This picture's not as clear.

The picture's not as clear as I'd like it to be, but this is an actual design of how the sidewalks would work.

And I think it's flat, right? Like the driveway is angled and then the sidewalk is flat through the whole thing. It's not like you're doing this.

No, it's not. No, no, no, not at all. No, it looks more traditional.

Um, so, yeah, I guess my question was that the side of the building I'm imagining driving down the street and just seeing sides of buildings and it's flat and windows and wondering what that's gonna look like.

It's gonna be similar to this on the precise home architecture tool takes a tremendous amount of pride on our architecture. We do think it stands out differently than. Well, frankly, all other builders, but, um. We wouldn't just leave a blank side house with windows, with no treatments. You can see just the one, this one on the left, we put a nice stone facade on there and pop outs.

Oh, no, the house in the front looks great. I'm not knocking that at all. It'll be very nice. I was just wondering about the side. Excuse me. If you guys just make sure in the design, that would be great.

Yeah, one of the things that we're doing with the design is that we have purposely not... designed all of the homes to the nth degree at this point we've got guidelines which jessica went over with you and one of the reasons for that is the longevity that it's going to take to develop this community toll brothers we do all of our own in-house architecture we have other people draw the plans but we have all of our own architects and we think designing all the homes at this point all the way down to the light fixtures on the outside it's just it's premature so all of our architecture will be coming back through a full design review for that so we don't have the specifics we have concepts at this point? I don't know if that answers your question, but that's truly where we are.

And I do want to say, you know, I think this is a really well thought out plan for development in this area, and I commend your company for that. I was wanting to ask you about my request on Oak Avenue Parkway and the Class 4 bike lane, if we were to ask for something like that in the design of that roadway, if that's anything you would be willing to entertain.

There's a couple of answers to that. It's a good question. I want to turn this off.

Hey, before you leave the six-pack thing, there's not going to be a driveway to the main road from the six-pack then, right?

There is a driveway. I mean, there's one that accesses all six units. There's one that accesses all six units. And where are they parking their cars with those six units? We are requiring them to park their cars in the garage. There's also designated parking areas. We went through a whole, and I don't think that... we touched on, or Jessica touched on this, working with waste management of where the waste carts will go. No parking on certain days of the week on certain sections of the road, whether it's a whole waste cart as part of our tentative map application. So there will be on-street parking that is allowed, because we can't prohibit it, but our CC&Rs, our Homeowners Association documents, will require them to park their cars in the garage If visitors come over, there's not going to be enough room. Some people tend to fill up their garages with stuff. We've all seen it. Some of our neighbors may, maybe some of us do. So they will be allowed to park on the street, but not during trash collection, refuse collection.

But with the six packs, where are the garages? Are they facing each other? I mean, they're facing...

They are facing each other.

Yeah, okay. And on the frontage street, there's no garage like there is on the four-pack, right?

I'm not showing what is on the screen, sorry. I thought I was doing this here. Okay. So on the six-packs, boy, this mouse is a lot more sensitive than the one I'm used to. The six-packs, I'll zoom in again. Thanks for bringing that up, Jessica. On the six-pack plots, the garages will face each other. They will face each other. And we do have an exhibit. Wasn't there the exhibits that we prepared in our landscape design guidelines? That was part of the packet because it's a pretty clear picture of how it lies out.

Our clerk is very good. She just handed me.

Is that the landscape design?

I guess so.

Yes.

Okay, back to the overhead. Okay, yeah.

Sorry.

Zoom into it. I still have your pen, Amy.

Whose is this? Thank you.

Okay, that's a little bit. This is the layout of our six-pack design. So you'll see the, I'll try to, I hope you can hear me. The private drive goes up and down. The garages will face each other. And these are kind of uniquely shaped homes in the back that have to fit on the smaller parcels. They will also have pulling garages. So this would be the garage here on these types. And the others would be the garages. You can see the driveway entrances right here. Those are the six-pack designs.

Okay, great. While we were on that topic, I just wanted to make sure to ask that.

No, it's a great question. It's a great question. We put a lot of thought into it, so I appreciate the question.

So, Commissioner Ross, I'm sorry, you had more. No, that's okay. I think the next question was on the Class 4 bike path on Oakland Avenue.

Well, yay. I did it. Get this back up here. I have a couple... It doesn't like my fingers. Okay. A couple of considerations there. First, to be completely transparent, I've never heard of Class 4 bike trail. Apparently they're new. Thank you, Rebecca, for explaining what they are. We've never made a consideration for that on Oak Avenue. We have requirements on Oak Avenue for certain widths, landscape corridor widths, and the sidewalks that go between them. I don't know, and it's very possible, I don't know and I don't think any of us know which route a child might ride their bike to school. As a parent of children myself, and I'm I would discourage my kids from riding their bikes on the main streets and tell them to go through the neighborhoods, you know, drive through the neighborhoods and go at the intersections through the hawk signals, through the roundabouts. That way, I'm not sure this would be a main travel. And then the second component, again, is the width. We have a landscape corridor that's designated already in the specific plan. It shows what that looks like, and that's how we designed our project.

Right, yeah. But I saw that Oak Avenue has 12-foot travel lanes, and the other one has 11-foot. So I'm just wondering if you could reduce that to 11 feet on Oak Avenue also.

We can't reduce the travel lanes due to the fire requirements. Is that correct? Rebecca can answer that because we're very specific.

Yeah, it's 20 foot clear is what's necessary for EVA. But that doesn't mean that we can't work within that allocated space to fit it in there. Yeah, I was picking up what you were throwing down. Thank you.

I guess what I could say is we're happy to evaluate it, but I can't stand here today and commit to that because I just don't know. I really don't. No one's evaluated that. Okay. But I can commit to looking at it and evaluating and see what we can do.

Thank you. I appreciate that. You're welcome. I don't think I had any other questions. Hold on. Let me check my notes. No, that was all. Thank you for your time. And this is a great project, really. I appreciate that. Oh, sorry, I did have one more question. Sorry, the oak canopy. I'm a little worried about that. Like, we're left with 30 acres. It's not a lot of wiggle room. You know, I saw in the mapping, so you have... Village 4B, that part of your development is a lot of oak woodland. It's connected to all the other oak woodland that is next to the project. If you were to not develop that, is the project still viable? Could this stay as oak woodland as part of the whole project?

I don't think we'd want to consider this. This has always been planned in the specific plan that was adopted in 2011 to develop this area. These little pop outs that you see these little weird lines go out there. That's a developable property. Yeah. And we specifically did not elect to develop that property due to some trees. We've also got some very, very, very tall walls in here to make sure we don't encroach into the. open space, which contains oak woodland in that area. So I would have to say we wouldn't consider eliminating Village 4B from our plan.

And was there any other thought on how to reconfigure this so you weren't taking so much oak canopy in this development?

This is This is a reconfiguration. If we were to stay strictly with the specific plan land use boundaries, it would take more. We have reduced it. You can kind of see in here in Village 4B where we have reduced it. And we also have some extremely tall walls in here to make sure that when the ground is different levels, you either have to put a slope out so it holds itself up or put in some really tall walls. And we elected to put in some very tall walls, which are expensive, but that's not your concern. We don't want to consider eliminating Village 4B.

Okay. And then can you just speak quickly about the duets? Sure. Where are those going?

The duets are going in Village 3A, I believe. No, Village 1A, excuse me. I'll try to do that. They're right here. And these duets, it was a really successful product for us at our Regency project, which is just actually on this map. This is part of our Regency project here in the larger map that goes on. We built a lot of the, we call them duets, and it's a shared common wall that covers basically two lots with one structure. And it was Turns out, hindsight, one of our more popular products at Regency, we have run out of all those lots at Regency. We don't have any more that's approved on the map. So we thought here would be a good opportunity to provide a lower price point.

And what is the price point for those?

That's a good question. I had a feeling that would come up. I don't know what the prices are. We don't know what the prices are yet. We have some ideas. But pricing is figured out at the very end. Development costs, impact fees, all of that contributes. Water tanks, booster pumps, things of that nature. It all contributes to the price of the home. It all gets spread apart. So I don't have pricing for you today, unfortunately.

Regency was, is that a 55 and over? It is.

It's an age-targeted, active adult community. We do not have a Regency project here. This is not age-targeted, and it's not active adult.

So you don't have a price point for any of the models that we're looking at today?

We do not.

Okay.

Thank you. It's a good question, though.

Well, we're on the duets then. Just real quick. Yeah. So they have a common wall, essentially. They do have a common wall. So does that mean, does the homeowners association have some role in what the common wall, what happens with that?

I don't think it's the association because association covers common area, not private area. And the structure itself, including the front yard and the backyard area, Would be private, the association would monitor the private land for the landscaping of the front yard to make sure that it stays. Looking nice and up to our standards and told brother standards, but the structure itself is a private property. So it's covered through. Typical homeowners insurance if there was a problem with that, just like any type of structure would like any, any home. Okay. But that's a good question as well. Okay.

Anybody else have questions for the applicant? Okay. Thank you, Mr. Nowinski. I appreciate you being here tonight. Thank you, team. Thank you.

It's been a very long time, and I just want to express my appreciation to the city staff that we've been working with pretty tirelessly over the last few years and meeting every single Tuesday for months and months and months and months and months to try to bring a really nice project to the city and just want to express my appreciation to everybody here. And Marcus in the back, even though he's not up in the front. So thank you.

Now we know by the delays that we witnessed because this had been on our agenda for several times. And I apologize for those delays. No, no, we can tell that there was a lot that went into it. There's a lot that went into this, yes. A lot of negotiation ahead of getting here. So we appreciate all the work everybody did. Thank you. City staff and the team for Toll Brothers. Okay, thank you very much. With that, we will open the public hearing. Is there anybody here who would like to address the commission on this item number two? Okay, seeing none, we'll close the public hearing. Commissioners, here's Toll Brothers at Alder Creek. How are you feeling? Commissioner Ross, go for it.

Just curious if there's any appetite from my fellow commissioners to request that they consider a Class 4 bike lane on Oak Avenue Parkway. I'm not sure what that would entail, but I think it would be really helpful for allowing alternate transportation modes in this area, right? We have lots of traffic issues in Folsom. Everyone's in their car. If we make it safer, I bet people are going to bike.

Thank you for that. Any thoughts on that, commissioners? It's kind of new to me, the class four thing. So it's where they have, it's like what they've done in downtown Sacramento where they have a designated lane where you can't drive in it at all.

Well, it's, yes, or they have some sort of like barrier. So they kind of have it on... What is that? Blue Ravine. Where it's the bollards running down the side. So just a little bit of something, right? You can still cross it because it's bollards and they fall over. And we still would need something like that because the fire trucks would need to cross over it. But the idea is that... As a cyclist, you feel like it's just not you in a car, right? And like I say, I live by Folsom-Auburn. That road's like a freeway, and I'm concerned. I know this has a median, but you get two lanes of traffic in a median, and people are just going to whiz down that road. And it's right by where the school would be. So that would be my thoughts on that.

Thank you.

I get it.

And your request is whether we would When I ask them to consider it, well, I don't I don't know.

Like, I'm not sure what the mechanism would be. Maybe they have to come back or they have to work with staff before they present it to the city council. City council sees what that might look like. And that is an option or they come back to us with a redesign on that road. So we can see it and say, yeah, that's what we want to see. I'm not sure what that mechanism would be. I don't necessarily want to be a barrier here, but also like. this is the time where we get those things that we want to see in the community and help people get to things like school. And maybe the school district could weigh in as well on this option.

Just a couple of options. If that was, depending on how the commission feels about that, you could, if you choose to recommend the project, you could recommend it and request that the applicant and the council consider the addition of a Class 4 bikeway along Oak Avenue Parkway. um it's not necessarily something that that we would would have to continue the meeting for but it could be something that could be continued could be suggested that the council and the applicant consider it okay can i ask a question on that option so if we if we do that that's been where they ask them to consider it does that mean that they could talk about it and say well the developer says well i don't want to do that so then we get city council and they don't talk about it at all or what how does that work Well, the City Council would understand that as part of your recommendation, because we report out on your recommendation and your comments, and so we would report out that you recommended the project, but asked that the applicant consider a Class 4 bikeway along Oak Avenue, along Oak Avenue Parkway, you know, for whatever reasons you state, whether it's the schools or... you know, just better transportation options. The one thing I just wanted to point out is this is a kind of above and beyond what is in the specific plan. So we have class two in the specific plan. This would be something to consider in addition to that. And as Rebecca has kind of indicated, there does appear to be room for a class four facility.

And it is in our bicycle active transportation plan as well, right? Like it's codified in that document. So staff could turn to that for active transportation plan.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. So it is a tool in our toolbox. And, you know, we're not opposed to it. Some several projects that we have moving forward related to pavement maintenance, we are looking at opportunities. to incorporate class fours they do have a better more safer appeal to travel ways the other option too is to reconsider going back to a narrower travel lane that's a very effective traffic calming mechanism it's one that is supported by federal highways often and i'm not opposed to that so that there's just a couple options on the table where we have availability and some flexibility

So I just want to summarize what you said, an option to do class four and maybe even reduce the roadway width there also.

Yeah, I mean, you essentially would do a trade-off because you have to get at least two feet minimum for that buffer. Okay. And then you have to account for minimum five foot of the bike lane, but it can include a portion of the curb and gutter if you needed it to. But there does appear to be sufficient space.

Thank you so much for that.

You're welcome.

Okay.

Hmm. Any other thoughts on that topic? Commissioners?

Yeah, I mean, I think to the extent that it doesn't, it sounds like there's an option here to not hold up the project, but also recommend it. I think that's totally reasonable to request.

Commissioner Laney? I just want to see if I'm following. So we're not asking the builder to necessarily do anything more or less with widening or, you know, this is almost like a where do you put the stripe situation. Okay. So, you know, so I think that especially given I see what happens over in South of 50 with how many people are just out in the area trying to ride their bikes. Now we have e-scooters and e-bikes and all of the comments that we will see from the public. So I think that if we are encouraging alternative ways of getting around town to make sure that those areas are safe, I just want to make sure that we're also not increasing the burden you know, on the developer given, you know, just the volume of things that they're already doing.

Well, if, Rebecca, I guess this is for you, if indeed it is just deciding on where to put the stripe,

Who does that, the city or the builder? When the road gets built by whoever builds it, that's when it would be put in place. I do want to highlight that that buffer would require a flexible post. For inflexible physical barriers, you would have to go for a wider width. But similar to how it's shown on Blue Ravine, which is just... west of the intersection of Natoma where Green Valley becomes Blue Ravine. We do have flexible delineators there. So that's a good example, but you would have to have minimum two feet.

Okay. All right. Well, I don't disagree with you guys. So let's see if we can figure out how to write that. as part of our motion, I guess. But I think as a long-term option, it does seem viable as something to look at. So I don't know who among you would like to try to figure out how to write something that would be an addendum to our motion. But Jessica, you also might want to put the motion back up on the screen. Is there anything else? Anything else like that that anybody else would like to raise that would be a tweak to this, you know, the recommended staff motion? I'm not seeing anything else. So the motion would have to be the motion as stated plus the green sheet plus the amendment to somehow consider the I'll ask for a bike lane on Oak Avenue.

Give us just a moment. We're drafting. Yeah, yeah, that's fine. That's fine.

OK, and I see your motion does include the green sheet stuff. So what they're working on would be the only addition to what we're talking about if we go this route.

Does this work for you? Yep.

So for those listening, please be patient. We are actually trying to develop some language on this class 4 bike trail idea. OK.

So it would be as seen on screen, as amended by the supplemental information handout, i.e. green sheet, with a recommendation that the city council consider the addition of a class four bike lane on Oak Avenue Parkway.

That seems pretty simple. Commissioner Ross, would that satisfy your concern?

Yes.

Okay. Would you like to make that motion? Sure.

Okay, recommend that the City Council confirms staff's determination that the Toll, I'm sorry, I make a motion. First, and what I said, that the Toll Brothers at Alder Creek project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15182 and the government code section 654. and none of the factors described in CEQA guidelines section 15162 occur and recommend approval of the requested small lot vesting tentative subdivision map plan development permit inclusionary housing plan and minor administrative modification for development of the Toll Brothers at Alder Creek project MSTR 2025-00084 Based on the findings, findings A through BB, and subject to the conditions of approval attached to the staff report, conditions 1 through 105, as amended by the supplemental information handout, i.e. green sheet, with a recommendation that city council consider the addition of a class 4 bike lane on Oak Avenue Parkway.

Do we have a motion?

Second.

We have a second by Commissioner Hurst. Thank you. Is there any discussion on the motion on the floor? Okay. Hearing and seeing none, Bettina, please call the roll.

Commissioner Ross? Aye. Commissioner Laney? Yes. Commissioner Barcelona?

Yes.

Commissioner Hurst? Yes. Commissioner Herrera? Absent. Commissioner West? Yes. And Commissioner Reynolds? Yes.

Okay. That motion passes. Congratulations, Toll Brothers. Keep moving along. Appreciate everybody being here tonight and everybody's hard work. All right, the next item is the principal planners report. Jessica, you're up again.

I'm up again. You get to hear me again. Okay, it'll be quick. So principal planner report, our next planning commission meeting is scheduled for June 17th. We have actually four items tentatively scheduled, and I know we are getting into summer and summer break and summer plans. So are there any known absences for June 17th? I will not be able to be here.

I will not be there.

Okay. So we've got two. So we will check with Commissioner Herrera. We still would have a quorum, but just. So, okay, that's good to know. Thank you very much. Please let us know if anything else comes up. The items that are tentatively scheduled are the Kaiser Folsom Comprehensive Care Center, Quick Quack Car Wash on Folsom Auburn, and the re-adoption of... FMC Section 17.52, which is the Historic District Code updates. The Council had approved it last fall. We're now going back through review of all of the Historic District Commission, Planning Commission, City Council updates. Desmond can provide more information on that if you'd like, but that is on the agenda for you guys in June, as well as a use permit for Three Brothers Smoke Shop. And then the Historic District Commission, the regularly scheduled meeting for July 3rd, we are actually requesting to move that to June 24th, July 1st. Oh, I'm sorry. July 1st is the regularly scheduled meeting that is being moved to June 24th. Yeah. Okay, good. And I believe Bettina, do you have a quorum for that yet? Yes, we do. Okay. And I think there's a couple of folks on this commission that also serve on that commission. So just you. Okay.

I will not be able to be there for that, but they have a quorum without me, it sounds like.

Excellent. Okay. So, yes, I just wanted to kind of put that on the radar. And then since April 15th, staff have approved three design reviews, one residential addition, one custom home modification, and one residential minor modification. And that ends the principal planner report.

So I do have a question. That thing you were talking about with the historic district that we have to approve, what does that mean?

Yeah, I can elaborate on that. It's because of the way the government code is written regarding any kind of zoning changes. It means that it has to technically go back to the Planning Commission, and since our only Planning Commission is this Planning Commission, we're running it through. So normally you don't see historic district things. This is a little bit unusual, but it's because of the fact that this involves changes to properties within the historic district. It requires a 20-day notice, and it also requires that it be heard by the Planning Commission. So that's the reason why we're doing this.

Okay, very good. Thank you. Anything else from commissioners about anything else tonight? All right, anything more from staff? Then I think we're good to be adjourned at 8.41 p.m. Thank you, everybody.