Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Hey, good evening. So this is the Planning Commission meeting of June 17, 2026. We have some issues with our microphones tonight, as you can hear. We were hoping that they would work OK as long as we don't pull them down, commissioners. So we're going to see how we do. If not, we're going to be yelling. I'm sorry for that. realize that IT had some work to do here. And unbeknownst to us, we came in and found out that the work, I guess it was not completely wrapped up. So we're going to do the best we can, and the meeting will still be recorded. So we may just need to speak up when we speak. I also want to welcome anybody who's going to want to address the commission tonight. to fill out one of these cards, the yellow card that's on the table back there, so that we have the ability to track who's addressing the commission. And so with that, we will have a call to order. Karen, will you please call the roll to establish a quorum?

Commissioner Barcelona?

Here.

Commissioner Herrera?

Here.

Commissioner West? Here. And then Commissioner Ross and Laney outside. Okay.

Thank you, everybody. If you'll please rise and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. Pledge of 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. Okay, and you may have noticed we have a very lengthy agenda tonight compared to some of our meetings. So I would like to first welcome citizen communication. Is there anybody here who would like to address the commission on anything that is not on the agenda tonight?

Loretta Hedinger would like to.

Okay, we have one speaker under citizen communication. Come on up, Ms. Hedinger. This is something not on the agenda, correct? Thank you. And speak up as much as you can.

All right. Well, do the best you can. And we are going to have to make sure we stick to three minutes. And what we're doing now, HBO is leading The letter is addressed to the two committees that will be hearing the bill. The first one on June 24th and the second one on July. This bill is supported by the city Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Also, HBO members will have a signature gathering booth at Brook Plaza during the Farmer's Market on Saturday mornings, located on Sutter Street adjacent to Hot Seafood.

Okay, thank you very much. Appreciate you. AB 2415 is a very important bill for our historic district, and we appreciate Assemblyman Hoover for carrying it for us. And if anybody didn't hear that, there's a sheet in the back you can sign to support the bill in the legislative process in the state senate. All right, I am going to go now to, well, first of all, I want to, commissioners, as a prerogative of the chair, I've decided I'd like to move one of our items up ahead of, I'm going to move item number two to number one so that we can dispense with the smoke shop item. I think that'll be quicker. I think everything else on our agenda will not be quick. So I'm going to do that. But in the meantime, how did the minutes go? Anybody have any? Corrections, I actually have a couple of corrections in minutes, but they're just typos. There are two places on pages three where the word Commissioner so-and-so seconded, it just says second the motion, so those tenses need to be changed on page three and also on page four. In that case, the first one was Commissioner Laney seconded, And the second one was Commissioner Ross seconded. And then in the motion on item number one, the All Dogs Unleashed training, on the third line down, there's an extra letter A in the sentence, which ought to say approval of an application and not of a an application. So those are the couple of corrections that I found that were just strictly typos. Are there anything else for the minutes? Anybody would like to? change or suggest okay with that then if i could have a motion on the amended minutes i'd appreciate that i'll move the amended minutes thank you your changes thank you commissioner barcelona is there a second second thank you commissioner hurst um any discussion on the motion on the floor seeing and hearing none karen please call the roll uh okay commissioner barcelona yes um commissioner hurst yes commissioner herrera yes commissioner west yes and commissioner reynolds yes All right. Thank you very much, commissioners. The next item is our first item, which is now item really number two from the agenda. So, Karen, will you go ahead and call that item, please?

Three Brothers Smoke Shop Project and Determination that the project is exempt from CEQA. Your project planner is Nathan Stroud. All right. Welcome, Nathan. Thank you.

The continued operation of Three Brothers Smoke Shop has been operating at this location since 2023. The business is located at 1008 Riley Street in Studio 3 in the Walmart Central. A conditional use permit is typically required for smoke shop businesses. However, a conditional use permit has not yet been obtained for this business. As a little bit of background as to why we're here, the property location on Riley Street began operations as a smoke shop and lounge in 2021 when Smokeless Vapor Lounge relocated their business from elsewhere in the city to this location. Although a conditional use permit is required for this location, the business was not flagged In 2023, a new owner took over and began operations as Three Brothers Smoke Shop, operating as a smoke shop, but without the smoking lounge components. And in 2025, the applicant, the current business owner, took over. and meat products and tobacco. In addition, the store also sells apparel, lighters, drug tests, candles and incense, pocket knives, prepackaged food and drink, and CBD products. The store does not sell any marijuana or products containing marijuana, at least as it's defined by state law. Several conditions for approval have been provided to regulate the types of products sold at the business. This includes limiting the allowed products to tobacco and smoke-related products, CBD products, retail goods, and prepackaged food and drink. This is provided as Condition 15. Also, for Condition 20, it's reiterating federal requirements which state that tobacco and smoking products are prohibited to be sold to customers under the age of 21. Conditions 17, 18, and 19 have also been provided, providing explicit prohibitions on the sale of weapons, illegal drug paraphernalia, products designed to defeat drug tests, intoxicating substances. With these conditions in place, staff believe that this can be operated with respect to the public health, safety, and welfare of the surrounding community. The store was typically open between 9 a.m. and 11 p.m. for most of the week. Proctor's side is also located in a retail commercial center with single-family residential uses and a park located behind the business to the south. The smoke shop is actually physically separated from the nearby park and residential neighborhood by a masonry wall, meaning the store does not have any direct access or visibility to the resident product there. Staff do not anticipate any additional impacts beyond that of a typical retail commercial business in the shopping center and to the nearby park and neighborhood. Consider it and staff have mailed notices to property owners and tenants for their feet at the property site, have posted a notice in the Tulsa Telegraph, and have not received any responses from the general public. With that, staff is recommending approval of the conditional use permit, and I'll be able to answer any questions about the project.

All right. Thank you very much, Nathan. Anybody have any questions of our staff? Commissioner Barcelona?

Were the adjacent business owners notified? So the notice was mailed to all property owners and tenants

Any other questions for staff? OK. Thank you, Nathan. And we'll bring up the applicant now. Just please introduce yourself and address the commission. Thank you very much. Anybody have any questions of the applicant? All right, we're gonna let you off easy tonight. Thank you very much. Okay, with that, we will open the public comment. Is there anybody here who would like to comment on this item, number two, Smoke Brothers Shop, Three Brothers Smoke Shop? Okay, seeing and hearing none, we'll close the public comment. Commissioners, that leaves it to us. What's your pleasure? Hey, we're all excited. Yeah, let me do it. I'm going to move that to confirm staff's determination that the Three Brothers Smoke Shop project is exempt from CEQA under Section 15301, existing facilities, and approve of an application USPT-26. dash 00064 for a conditional use permit for the continued operation of a 1,500 square foot retail smoke shop located at 1008 Riley Street, Suite 3, based on the findings A through E and subject to the conditions of approval 1 through 23. I so move. There's a motion. Is there a second? Seconded by Commissioner Herrera. Is there any discussion on the motion on the floor? Okay, hearing and seeing none, Karen, please call the roll.

Commissioner Barcelona. Abstain. Commissioner Hurst. Yes. Commissioner Herrera. Yes. Commissioner West. Yes. And Commissioner Reynolds.

Yes. Okay. Congratulations. You now are legit. Thank you very much for doing business in Folsom. All right. We're going to go to item number one now, which is the Kaiser project. So Karen, if you're ready, go ahead and call that item.

Kaiser Folsom Comprehensive Care Center Plan Development Permit Modification and Adoption of an Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Broadstone II Master Plan. Your project planner is Jessica Brandt.

Hey, Jessica. At least we know our slides are working, huh?

Something.

I shouldn't speak too soon, huh? Speak up.

of the site. It is located on the north side of Iron Point Road between Rostov Parkway and Palladio Parkway. It is generally vacant land surrounding an existing Kaiser Surgery Center. Uses in the vicinity include the Palladio Shopping Center on the east of the site across Palladio Parkway, regional retail centers to the northwest, So some background in 2004, and the phase development of a Kaiser Permanente And then ambulatory surgery and the new medical buildings that were spread out, kind of flanking the hospital building at the time. Onto the proposed project. So the modification would allow an approximately 27,000 square foot expansion of the existing military surgery center and a new 183,000 square foot medical office building and associated site improvements with the proposed modified site plan shown on the slide. And then they look like they are connected. They are not connected buildings. The parking will be expanded out for the medical office building, partially for the expansion of the building. I think I touched on it a little bit, but the expansion here, The parking would include when all bills Equal access to the ambulatory surgery center would continue to be primarily from the existing driveway on Claudia Parkway. The existing stubbed access point on Iron Point was across from the commercial to the southeast. Would then be bicycle lanes, street-attached sidewalks, street-attached sidewalks, and internal pedestrian walkways and connections. Another internal pedestrian layout here. Before we get there, building architecture and design. The proposed project features a modern architecture theme that includes a mixture of contemporary building materials highlighted with a mixture of . So the building design medical office building. The design here is more modern with primary exterior building materials consisting of glass and aluminum paneling with entries defined by metal panel canopies with wood slats and glass accents. So here are just some renderings of the building. So this one is a title view from Broadstone. So looking kind of northeast, I guess, from Broadstone. This is that central sort of front area of the building. This is the rear area of the building from Harvard Parkway. And then you have the view kind of plan and zoning consistency. and the a lot of words on the slide, but effectively working with The proportionate share provides additional funding so that these particular areas can be built out in a manner consistent with our general plan and ultimately reduce the congestion of those sites. So when we condition both the onsite So the PD permit modification, the project includes modifications to site layout, building stories, four-story metal office building on that is consistent with the guidelines. The other component is the architectural design of the building, and I wanted to touch on this a little bit more. So the guidelines do fall for a palette of warm earth tones with light colored neutrals and metallic accents. Building colors included natural stone, colored plaster, and metal panels. The ambulatory surgery center will maintain these materials Another thing that I need to touch on here is that the site is in the housing element as a potential site for low income housing. We are, as it says on the screen, required to demonstrate capacity to build housing for all income levels in compliance with our regional housing needs allocation . The city's housing element We also reviewed the remaining inventory sites and determined that the remaining sites and the remaining availability of this site provide adequate capacity under the city's cleanup. And so with that, staff is recommending that we adopt the addendum and approve the plan development permit modification for the Kaiser Permanente Pulsar Comprehensive Care Center. No more questions. We do have...

Thank you, Jessica. Are there any questions for our staff? Commissioner Hurst.

Thank you for going through that. I have a few questions in a couple of different areas, one of which is regarding the regional housing needs allocation, so I'll start with that one. With the identified 10 acres that would be potentially remaining, ultimately does improve it. Will this project result in infrastructure improvements that would then benefit those remaining 10 acres, should that become an affordable housing?

requesting that they do to kind of tee up that area for housing, right?

Would parking lot be accessible if there was overflow parking or something like that from? Oh, I don't know. And then my other questions have to do with the potential impacts to level of service for the level of service impacts for driving infrastructure. I understand the timing element of it and how roadway improvements will, you know, the development of the project and that the mitigation measures as proposed as part of the conditional use would alleviate a lot of the potential concerns for congestion. Could you give me a sense of the net impact by the time the roadway improvements are completed? Would there be an improvement over existing traffic flow relatively the same? And I assume my last question will also go to you, Rebecca, so thank you. My recollection is we previously had a project that had to do with providing their fair share contribution for roadway improvements on Iron Point and Bidwell, including the pedestrian walkway. It seems like there's also a fair share component from this project for the planned. So is there a risk to the city in losing that fair share contribution if this project

So while you have the floor, as far as timing as to when these buildings will be built versus when those improvements will be made, I mean, are we anticipating that the Sutter building will be full of people before that happens and then Kaiser will come along?

There's potential that it could.

And that's specific to the Iron Point East Bidwell? Okay, yeah, we're all very sensitive about that intersection. That's a...

Yes, okay.

I bet, I bet. Okay, and then also while you have the floor, do I understand correctly, because in the traffic analysis, that Caltrans policy now is to prefer over crossings and not interchanges? And they'd rather have off-ramps and not on-ramps. Is that right?

So what that does to us,

They support Empire Ranch? Is that what we're doing? Yeah. So we're kind of, in effect, grandfathered before the awful quarantine.

And we've been able to, you know, the burden of proof is always going to be on the agency that the project ultimately ends up aligning with the regional and state policies involved, right? being so long in the delay sequence.

All right, very helpful. We could talk about this for a while. No, no, I mean, it's something that's a hot button for all of us, so thank you for spending the time on that. Are there any other questions for our staff from commissioners?

I had a kind of a related question in that area, and I think I logicked it out for myself looking at it, but when I looked at the impact fees, I mean, the East Bidwell one's obvious, why they have to do that one. The other two seemed a little less obvious at first, but I'm assuming because you're trying to get them to go off of Prairie City and then soon to be Empire Ranch to go through those other two intersections you're making them help pay for.

That's the logic for that? Okay. Thank you. Anybody else questions? Commissioner Barcelona?

Anybody else, questions? Okay, seeing and hearing none. Thank you, Jessica. And we will move on to the applicant. Come on up. We understand you have a little presentation, so please join us at the podium. Introduce yourself. And just a quick reminder about our lack of audio. So do the best you can to.

Sounds good. We're super excited to be here tonight to discuss our long-anticipated expansion plans for our comprehensive care center here in Folsom. So thanks for the opportunity to present to you tonight. Kaiser Permanente is recognized as one of America's leading healthcare providers and not-for-profit health plans. We're mission-driven, and our mission is to provide high... There we go. Our mission is to provide... We have since earned a variety of accolades over the years and we're appreciative and proud of all of them. Some of those include U.S. News & World Report and Newsweek Magazine, of our maternity care, for meeting regular standards including low C-section rates, elective early deliveries, and for adherence to standards of safety to protect our new moms and their babies. guidelines for a World Plus Achievement Award. Ice Fermente has a long history of serving our community. We've provided care in the greater Sacramento area since 1965, and we're now the largest caregiver in the region. In our Roseville service area, facilities include that Roseville Medical Center, And we are also one of the largest private sector employers in greater Sacramento, employing nearly 19,000 employees. We're also the largest healthcare provider, with 370,000 members in our Roseville service area, which includes South Placid County, Folsom, and Citrus Heights. We're committed to providing the same high quality care and service that we have been recognized for, both locally and nationally, today and into the future. However, to do that, we must continue to grow our facilities to accommodate the growth of the city. Before we get into the specifics of our plans, we thought it would be helpful to discuss the entitlement history of this site.

As you mentioned, very excited to be here. I'm especially excited because I've lived in Folsom for 27 years and been at Kaiser Permanente for over 30 years. So I'm very excited to be here tonight and share our proposed state-of-the-art comprehensive care center project. As you can see, it is a gem. The total development will be over 256,000 square feet. It will include an expansion of the ambulatory surgery center, which I've had the pleasure of operating at for many years now, as well as building a four-story medical office building, as you've heard. Once completed, the all-electric medical office building, we hope, will achieve LEED gold certification. Aligned with the staff summary report that you saw and what you heard, the proposal complies with city policies and requirements and is fully The project will enable us to add specialty services, which is different from what's at the Iron Point facility right now, but it will also expand primary care there. But in addition to that, community oncology, including infusion chairs and having an infusion center on site, as well as orthopedics, lab, pharmacy, and a 24-hour urgent care. So not only urgent care, but should it be needed, the ability to stay overnight. Also on the imaging, I probably should say this is really about a significant amount of imaging. Additionally, you heard about the 1300 service parking streets and the fact that this is a biking community and having buffered bike lanes as well as the improvements to pedestrian use is important. Really, the big thing that we need to know is that I hope you see here is that this is about making sure that we have services near the members that need it. along the six zip codes along Highway 50, this is desperately needed by them so they don't have to travel to Roseville to get these services. You already saw this And we're here with my colleagues if you want to answer any additional questions.

All right. Thank you, Dr. Florio. And Erin, I didn't catch your last name?

Caldera.

Caldera. Okay. Thank you very much. Questions for the applicant?

Sure. Just a couple additional questions. Will your 24-hour virgin care have observation beds as well? Yes. And then anticipated patient volume compared to Iron Point?

It really shouldn't impact. This should really be because there are different services. These are things that are not available. You may have heard that we opened an urgent care at the Iron Point facility. That's really as a bridge to get to this. We moved some things around over there to get started because we know that the community needs this service. And the response has been huge. But ultimately, we want to move it to this and have a space that's actually built for it. So we don't see that there's a ton of overlap. The primary care that's going in this will be in addition.

Thank you.

Other questions for...

Hi, thank you both for your presentation tonight, as well as your investment in Folsom. Building off of Commissioner Barcelona's question, I know that there are a lot of existing kinds of patients in Folsom who go out of the region, whether that be Roseville or the greater Sacramento area. Do you have any sense of, I don't know if it would be in terms of numbers or level of demand for those patients who currently go out of town for those services that would

number if any of you do i will tell you that we know that 25 of our total about 370 000 are in folsom in these surrounding areas and currently for all of the specialty services they do travel to the roseville service area occasionally some will travel to morse avenue but none of those are are being served in this web everything that they all the services that

So with your surgery center and you're going to have urgent care, the overnight stays then if they need them will be actually within the urgent care facility? Yeah. So you'd have 24-7 staff anyway. And then if somebody is in the surgery center, say a late appointment, and ends up needing to stay overnight, they could also stay there or they'd have to go to the Roseville hospital?

Depending on what the diagnosis is and what the need is. Okay. But yes, they could.

Okay. Very good. Very good. Any other? Commissioner Herrera.

Thank you for presenting tonight. Just a quick question. The urgent care, is that open to everybody or just Kaiser members?

They are Kaiser members.

Thank you.

Anybody else? All right. Thank you both for your presentation. Appreciate that. All right. Now it's time for any public comment. Is there anybody here who would like to comment on this item number one, the Kaiser proposal? Okay. Hearing and seeing none, then we are to us, commissioners. What would you like to do with this tonight? Any comments? I actually have a comment. I like the location for its access. I think that the access is very important. well thought out from the get go and that's helpful and especially because people who are coming from perhaps you know the western part of Folsom or even outside of Folsom have the ability to take Prairie City and it's a little bit less egregious than some of the people are going to have to go to Sutter, frankly, as far as the East Midland interchange. So I'm encouraged by that. And I do know a lot of Kaiser members that are tired of going to Roseville, and I can see how it would improve the VMT. So anybody else, comments or motion? Yes, Commissioner Hurst?

Yeah, I have another comment. I'm just thinking about this site in particular. I remember back decades just always thinking it was odd existing facility on, but it was not taking advantage of the whole space. So actually getting to see what the proposed project would be tonight is, I feel like that is more or less what I imagined for that site.

I hate to bring you up here again, but one more question for the Kaiser team. As far as the remainder of the parcel after this project is done, are there contemplations that maybe someday it needs to be a hospital? Would you consider housing at that site? Anything that you have to offer about the future and your thoughts?

that wasn't actually true three years ago that that's the kind of things that are changing so it's changing the ideas of what a hospital actually is right now um and and we're all trying We don't know about the hospital same day and the scores for people's what people like about it they're in the 95 percent this is way better so i think that's what i would say about a hospital right now we are committed to this site but i don't can't tell you what hospitals even look like in the future for what size okay

Very good. I guess we just want to put the bug in your ear that maybe it would be a good site for housing for your employees. Anyway, thank you very much. Commissioners, anything else to discuss? Commissioner Hurst?

I would just like to disclose that before this planning commission, I didn't.

Oh, as did I. All right. Okay, with that... Jessica, I'm scrambling to find my motion here. I know I've got it.

I've got it up.

Do you have it up? Okay.

I'll just do it.

Okay, thank you.

I move to adopt an addendum to the Broadstone One Master Plan Environmental Impact Report, EIR, and approve the plan development permit modification application for the Kaiser Permanente Folsom Comprehensive Care Center project located at 285 Palladio Parkway, MSTR 22-00261, based on the findings, findings A through P, and subject to the conditions of approval, conditions 1 through 76, attached to the staff report.

All right, we have a motion. Is there a second? Second. Commissioner Herrera, second. Sorry. Is there any discussion on the motion on the floor? Okay, hearing and seeing none, Karen, please call the roll.

Commissioner Barcelona? Yes. Yes. And Commissioner Reynolds.

Yes. All right. Kaiser Permanente, you have a unanimous vote. Thank you very much for doing business in Folsom. We look forward to seeing that facility built. All right. On to the next item. Next item is item number three, quick quack car wash. Josh Kincaid is up. And Karen, I guess I'll let you read it technically.

MSTR25-0071, quick flat car wash project and determination that the project is exempt from CEQA. Your project planner is Josh Kincaid. Thank you. Hi, Josh.

Good evening, Chair Reynolds, members of the commission. So yes, tonight, as I put the PowerPoint ready here, I will be presenting the Quick Quack Car Wash Conditional Use Permit and Designer View application. The project is located on two vacant parcels on Folsom Auburn Road. It's located within the C1 Community Commercial Zone. The parcel slopes uphill and has a dense tree canopy in the rear. As you can see, I'll use the mouse here. As you can see back here, The applicant is proposing a new quick quack car wash at this location. Car washes are allowed in the C1 district upon issuance of a conditional use permit, which is why we're here tonight. And also, the design of the building is subject to commission-level design review. So those are the two entitlements that are being sought. The project site is adjacent to the private Vance Lane to the north. You can see on this map that Vance Lane, which It also faces a residential land to the east, as I just stated, a self-serve car wash business directly to the south, and the Folsom Pavilion Shopping Center across the road to the west. Here we have the site plan, the applicants proposing a 3,588 square foot drive-through car wash building with three lanes, as you can see here, leading into the car wash tunnel, if you turn around here, and several vacuum stalls in the back of the building, which are accessible either out of the car wash tunnel or directly off of the access points. So speaking of the access point, the site is proposed to be accessed via an easement on the private Vance Lane to the north, where a customer would then turn directly into the car wash, so pointed out here, either to go into the line or further down Vance Lane to access the vacuum stalls. Customers then exit the site via the Vance Lane access to the east here. The drive-through portion of the business is designed to accommodate a queue of up to 18 cars. Looking at the site access and roadway improvements, Public Works staff works with the applicant to ensure that the project would not create any new hazardous traffic conditions. Initially, the site was accessible directly via Folsom Auburn, and a customer Staff was not supportive of that proposal based on the traffic conditions on Folsom-Auburn. As such, we asked that access to and from the site be right in and right out only, and be a vance lane. In order to ensure that people do not attempt to cross traffic lanes to access the site from the north, staff did require a median curve. north of the site. That curb was required to be mountable so that fire trucks could still access the site. They wouldn't be restricted in that turn that they needed to access the site if they're going from the north. In putting the new curb in, the... Excuse me. Yes, so in putting the new curve in, the existing left turn pocket on northbound Poulsen-Auburn, which you can see here, you can see the outline of the left turn sign there, was required to be extended, which is what they're showing here, an extended left turn pocket. And the applicants are now showing down their plans. Additional improvements include a curb gutter and sidewalk connecting to the sidewalk to the south that would extend to the gravel road that is advanced lane leading into the project access points. So currently we're looking at a gravel road and they would be asphalting this section of the road that would be used for access and egress for the business. So upon reviewing the traffic and circulation public works was ultimately able to support the proposal. The fire department also stated that they would be able to access the building in an emergency due to the proximity to Vance Lane and be able to pull a fire truck into Vance Lane based on hose lengths they would be able to access the building. Another study that was produced was a noise study. Given that there are noise producing elements of these types of uses generated The nearest residential building is located approximately 220 feet from the project operations. The study found that the noise levels from the car wash would comply with the city's exterior daytime standards as long as a specific type of blower was used and as long as operations did not extend to the hours of 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. And that is in line with typical hours. They typically go 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. And that's what they're proposing here. So we did provide conditions to ensure that a blower with the noise of the one that was called out in the report or less be used and that the hours be limited to outside of the city's nighttime hours. We also required that the blower be tested to ensure that it's meeting the noise levels assumed in the analysis. And that would be on the project site before it's in operation. Excuse me. and landscaping plan. The applicant's initial proposal had the site essentially sideways from what you're seeing now. And there were many impacts, the dense canopy of trees that you can see to be there are two heritage oaks. Staff did work with the applicant to push the site plan that kind of, well, the applicants switched kind of 90 degrees the site plan front of the parcels, so impacts to those heritage oaks would be avoided. There is one protected tree proposed to be removed from the project site, so that would need to be paid for, but the undisturbed area on the rear of the project site does provide a good natural buffer between the car wash activities and the nearest residential properties, we believe. Landscaping-wise, it includes a variety of trees, shrubs, ground cover, and turf. The proposed landscape plan meets the city's parking lot shade requirement as well. It provides 51.8% tree shade coverage. So now looking at the building itself. It's a single-story structure with some tower elements, as you can see here. Color-wise, it's primarily earth tones with yellow and green accents consistent with Quack branding on their other buildings. There are also green metal canopies both on the side of the building and over the vacuums. Here are the other two sides of the building. The business is subject to the city's sign code and all signage will be subject to staff review unless the applicant wishes to go above what is allowed by the code, in which case they would come back to commission. Staff found that the proposed building was complementary to the surrounding commercial developments while also providing bolder accent colors to establish their brand identity. And here's an image of the colors and materials proposed in the building. We've already seen them essentially on the elevations, but the image on the right shows the type of block proposed for the retaining wall. And we also asked that the applicant prepared some renderings to give a sense given the slope on the site. This image is particularly helpful to eliminate the proposed retaining walls. There is some significant slope, as I mentioned. So when the project was first proposed, retaining walls were going to be in excess of 20 feet in the rear of the site. As part of the redesign, they did split up the walls throughout the site and reduced the height of those walls significantly. There are now three retaining walls proposed, the most notable of which is this one that wraps around the front of the project site. Shown in this rendering, the retaining wall is up to eight feet in height at its highest point, which is at the southwest corner, which is kind of the corner highlighted here. And it tapers down as it goes north along the project site. So to help address the massing on the wall, the applicant is proposing to put robust landscaping in front of that high area, as well as cover it with vines, as you can see in this image. Staff initially requested an eight-foot portion of the wall be broken up to reduce the massing even more, which they don't see. when possible, but the landscape architect of the project explained that doing so would create a narrower area to landscape, especially between those walls, and even really in front of the walls, and therefore lead to less robust landscaping in front of the wall. So ultimately, we did find that what is being proposed here is the best-case scenario. All right, so here's another rendering. This one's from the north of the project. as well as the metal canopies for the vacuum stalls in the rear. There's also a solid waste enclosure in the back here that is set to match the colors and materials of the building. Solid waste did confirm that they were able to access the enclosure All right, here's one more rendering from straight on. As we look at this, I'll mention that the utilities department did find that there are a series of sewer laterals that traverse the site that are likely abandoned, but utilities provided a condition laterals going underneath the building. And one final note on project operations, the car wash will reuse water that is filtered through a 4,500 gallon filtering system that they are proposing on site, and about 25 to 30 gallons of water per vehicle will go back into the city's sewer system. And the applicants noted that also All right, we did receive one comment early in the process before the public notices went out that expressed some concerns about traffic, and that is included in the project packet. We do believe that the traffic study and the roadway measures that we required the applicants to put in their plans do adequately address traffic concerns. A public notice was also posted in the newspaper and mailed to property of the state and local laws. And staff has not received any additional public comments. Environmentally, we found that the project was exempt from CEQA under the new construction exemption, 1 by 303. So with that in mind, we do recommend the confirmation of our assumption determination and approval of the proposed conditional use permit and design review. We do have a representative from here to answer any questions from them. And of course, the city staff.

Thank you, Josh. Any questions for our staff? I have, oh, Commissioner Herrera.

What is the total topography from Oliver Poulsen to the back?

I believe it's about 20 feet to the back of the site itself. So we've got the back of the operations versus the back of the lot itself. And the grading plans do show that number.

While we have that one up, I do have a question. So talk to us a little bit about Vance Lane and who owns it.

Yeah. I'm going to pull this slide up because it's helpful to address that. The two parcels that the project site consists of are Kern And that parcel is the one that contains advanced land. And so we did require that the applicant get a roadway easement from the property owner of advanced land. In this case, it's currently the same property owner. And so they worked on getting that completed and reported. used to access these two residential parcels and there's also a there was a proposed development quite a few years ago to the east here i'm not sure if any of the commissioners were here for that one which would also be used to to access that proposed development um and right now um there's the parcel that's

that we're looking at now, the yellow, is that already been sold by the property owner above that, or is this approval conditioned upon that, or the sale conditioned upon that?

The applicant might be able to speak.

And do we have many circumstances like this where a dirt road is leading to residences off of a major thoroughfare like this? I don't believe there's too many.

Yeah, it's not a lot, but it does happen, especially in the northern part of Folsom.

Josh, will you pull up the one that had the site plan that includes the picture of the trees? That one's fine. So the pavement is only going to go to the business, not to the entire parcel. And why would that be? If they're going to own the whole thing, why not have a street that goes down. I'm also thinking about whether the fire department can turn around on Vance Lane if they need to. And what might happen if people who go to Quick Quack hang a right instead of a left and end up on the dirt road. It's like going up a driveway, essentially. Was there a discussion of paving it all the way to the end of the parcel?

I'm not as part of this and not those beyond that. I'm not sure if there was a condition for that new residential subdivision, if that does get developed, to potentially do additional work on Vance Lane. I'd have to see the conditions for that one. But if that does develop, there may be something there to make that improvement all the way down. I'm not positive about that.

And then for the purposes of the residences that are currently back there, they're going up Vance Lane and then they're branching off right at the end of this parcel? Is that how their driveways work?

Yeah, it appears if you follow the mouse here that this 9911 is accessed here and there's additional road, additional Vance Lane that is accessed for 9910.

And do you think those buildings were there before the current ownership of Vance Lane? I mean, do they have like a prescriptive right to use that road?

There's an existing easement for those two property owners right now. The easement that is being recorded now would be to get quick back that access as well. But the other residents already have the rights to use it.

OK. And when people turn right out of Vance Lane, in order to go, and they want to go back toward, they want to go back toward the bridge, let's say. What's their best option? I mean, we're going to put a fork shop there so they can't cross, or in theory they can't. Is there any shortcut where they're going to do something?

making any kind of returns or any kind of residential vehicles. I don't really see this being a big draw for those kind of larger vehicles like semis or anything else making that return. Business in particular serves standard occupancy vehicles. But at that particular intersection, we do have sufficient turning rates.

And if people are impatient and don't want to drive all the way up

they could maybe use your That's a fair... Yeah, but we do...

if they do come out of Vance Lane, are they able to do an immediate turn across the way?

That's Oak Avenue also, right? Yeah, so that's the Yeah, we use signage and striping a lot to kind of convey that message. And so even at the exit point, I would see that it would be right in the right turn payment market and if only.

I understand the city of Fort. The drivers in this town, yeah, a lot of it's a suggestion. It's not always a bite and buy, but anything we can do to encourage that effort comes.

Come to the front and introduce yourself and what you have to do.

Open the setup for the applicants. Good evening, commissioners. Thank you for hearing our project tonight. I do have a video. I didn't think we could play it because of the sound thing, but apparently we can. So if you could indulge me in three minutes, we can talk a lot about who we are.

And as the applicant, you don't have a limit of three minutes. But while he's doing that, you can introduce yourself.

I'm sorry, I'm Vance Shannon, and I'm the Director of Entitlements for Kwik Kwik Car Wash.

Since 2004, QuickQuack Car Wash has been one of the largest and fastest growing car wash platforms in the United States. QuickQuack is a founder-led, 100% express exterior car wash model, disrupting the car wash industry with a vision to be fast, clean, and loved everywhere. Quick service. Our team members are not only friendly, but skilled at getting customers through quickly, with average transaction times under 30 seconds. From checking the customer in, evaluating their need for a membership, and completing the membership enrollment or transaction. We are fast. Fast lanes. With each location designed for both high quality and high volume, the lines move quickly. Three minute wash. When a customer enters our showroom, the car will be cleaned, shined, and dried in under three minutes. Clean. When your car shines on the outside, we smile on the inside. Clean car guarantee. If you're not 100% satisfied, we'll rewash your car on the spot. Inside and out. Free vacuums at most locations and dash wipes help give luster to your cars inside too. Tidy team members and locations. Not only are our locations a source of pride, ensuring a bright, clean, and comfortable environment, our team members present themselves in a clean and tidy way. Each customer is greeted with a smile, clean white shirt and tie, allowing everyone to feel welcomed. Clean and green. We take pride in being environmentally friendly by conserving and recycling the water we use to wash your car. Loved. You love your car. We love helping you look good and making our communities better. Customer love. Everyone loves our adorable mascot, Quackles. Our customers also love our unlimited car wash memberships and free vacuums. Team member love. We invest in the dreams of our team members and teach them life and leadership skills to help them learn and grow surrounded by a strong culture of smart, kind, and driven people and values. Community love. We partner with schools, community groups, and charitable organizations with creative sponsorships and fundraisers, including more than 330 special fundraisers over the past five years. Everywhere. Quick Quack is conveniently located with multiple locations serving our communities, adding even more value to our unlimited car wash memberships. and growing quickly with dedicated real estate development and construction teams comprised of internal and external experts and processes allowing us to move faster than the competition QuickQuack has vertically integrated into proprietary software solutions and digital offerings like license plate recognition as well as state-of-the-art car wash equipment manufacturing and R&D. We could not be more excited about our future and remain committed to our mission of changing lives for the better and ensuring our customers don't drive dirty.

Thank you for listening and watching. Again, my name is Vance Shannon and no relationship to the street, but I wanted to address a couple of the questions that were brought up already. This is a lease, so we're leasing the property from the landowner that owns the property. The video's a little old. I'm having a new one made. We have 350 stores. We're the fourth largest car wash in the nation. We have 1.5 million members. It's a convenience thing. People want to make it along their way in their daily routine. So I think people, it's going to be local customers. They're going to know where it's at, know the best ways to get to it and out of it. I'm really here for to answer questions if you have any. If they wanted to come, if they were coming south, they would have to do a U-turn at Greenback or wherever they might to come in. There's no left turn off of them.

It's right in, right out only. Okay, so you're leasing. So does that mean you're, are you leasing the land where the, oh. Yeah, the whole parcel, two parcels.

we have a center of excellence that's in rockland that's an amazing it's our r d and our manufacturing facility right now but our we're developing a 25 000 square foot research and development facility that's going to be considered our innovation center and that's in rockland and it will have three washes inside this commercial We're very serious about Washington.

It would appear so. And then as far as how you cite these, in relationship to other facilities you already have. Is there a certain amount of mileage you try to strive for? Or, I mean, because you've got a circumference around the property. I mean, I wonder why you feel that Folsom residents can't be served by the two that we have. And then I also know there's one in Orangevale as well. So, and why this location?

It's convenience. It's really all about convenience. About 80% of our customers... customers or members. And because of that, they're very local. And they want to go to the, instead of in the past going to the car wash as a destination, these folks are going by the car wash. And we can see where people are coming from to go to the washes that we have now. And so that's where we end up developing new stores. We glean 3,000 to 5,000 new members for every store. And that number is

I'm not living in that area. I recently drove it to see what the site was like, and I'm surprised to see there was already a coin-operated car washing store. That doesn't deter you or... We didn't get any comments from them, so they were noticed that this was going to happen. Have you had any discussions with a landowner?

No. It's such a very, very different product. I mean, it's not... They're not comparable. It's a wand wash, car wash, more for when you I believe they do too, but they're not competing businesses. They just have a very, very different audience.

I'm assuming you have a very long-term lease with the property owner if this goes through. Many, many years. You're not in a situation where all of a sudden we've got a car wash on our hands and they don't want to do a car wash anymore.

We have 350 now. So they're very smart about where they put them. They all do very, very well. And I think it is because they're owned and operated by the company and the people that are leaders in our company. They're run very, very well, as you can see. And that's why I like to show the videos. I can't tell you what that looks like in words.

And you were founded here in our region?

Their first store, the two owners, the two founders, there's five guys now, but the two founders actually bought one store. It actually had an apartment above it. One of them lived in it and operated the store. Then they got enough money together to buy a second one. They each operated one, and now they have quite a business.

Any other questions in the afternoon? Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Even if your name is not based on the road.

I think I get the revenue from this one. I'm not sure how that works. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Shannon. All right, is there anybody here? We'll open the public comment now. Is there anybody here from the public who would like to comment on this item, the quick black car wash? Okay, hearing and seeing none, we'll close the public comment. Commissioners, what do you think?

I will say that I have quite a bit of experience with this model. My wife's a member. I'm not. But she goes, because we live off East Midwell, or we get to our house, we get to East Midwell. She's probably there three times a week. As she goes to Costco to fill up her car, she runs through. She doesn't even drive. She just goes through. Doesn't necessarily vacuum it every time. But yeah, about three times a week. So we are, she is a member.

and what the near-do-wells would be doing at that site just because it's very busy over there. But I guess I feel more confident that I know that our public works department is comfortable with it. It makes me a little nervous as well, to be frank.

In a few more years, you're probably going to have one on your site.

Oh, we will.

All right, commissioners, what's your pleasure?

for the project located at 6701 and 6711 Folsom Auburn Road, MSTR 25-0007. Based on the findings included in this report, including findings A through J and subject to the attention.

All right, we have a motion. Is there a second? I'll second it. We have a motion and a second on the floor. Is there any discussion on the motion?

Okay, hearing and seeing none, Karen, please call the roll. Hey, Commissioner Barcelona. Aye. Hurst.

Yes.

Herrera. Yes. West. Yes. And Reynolds. Yes. Okay.

Congratulations, Mr. Shannon. Please extend our thanks to the owners for doing business in Folsom. Thank you.

We thank you, and that was the best first motion ever.

We strive to be a little different around here.

Thank you very much.

All right. Thank you, Commissioners. Next, we were going to go to item number four. Karen, go ahead and call that item for us.

CCAM 26-0007, zoning code update, revisions to chapter 17.52, historic district and determination that the project is a sequelae. Your project planner is Josh Kincaid, but it looks like Sarah Durkee is going to present. We've got special treatment tonight.

Good evening, Chair Powell, members of to city council that they readopt amendments to chapter 1752, which were previously adopted and approved by the city council last fall. The amendments went to the historic district commission back then for a recommendation. They were recommended to move forward and then the council approved them. They went into effect and they have remained in effect since that time. in the manner in which we proceeded to adopt those amendments. And so after taking a fresh look at it, the determination was made that we should request a readoption of the same amendments with a more robust CEQA analysis. And so that is what we are here to talk about tonight. There is nothing in the amendments that were related to the pending case and just trying to shore up some of our positions in that case not changing anything related to the merits of what was done last fall so i am here if anyone has questions about the litigation or the sequa if anyone has questions about the underlying amendments 1752 how originally. And so with that, I will turn it over if anyone has questions.

The questions were set.

Commissioner West. Okay. So I'll first disclose I met with Loretta Hettinger yesterday to talk about the HPL's position on things. And as a member of HTC, I approved this in the first place, right? To go to, I was a yes vote on sending it to the City Council. In reading some of the concerns raised by members of public and HPL, I had some questions about whether, you know, are there a couple tweaks that we could make as part of our recommendation to say that You know, this could help in against any kind of sequel violation as well by saying things like building versus structure. Or, you know, do we get to look at fences because we have all these things saying what you can and can't do with the fence, but the new regulation makes them exempt from getting design reviewed at all, which seems kind of strange. Things that I think we missed, and so that's partially my fault, because I missed it going through. This is probably something we should have challenged in the first place. But I'm curious, is there any ability for us to include in our recommendation that they should consider a couple tweaks to what we sent them in the first place?

And I want to be really cautious. Melissa is here to advise the commission. I am here in a different capacity tonight. And ethically, I want to be clear that I am not advising the commission because my name is on the pleadings in the litigation. And so I have to be very careful with that. Even though I advised you for years, I just want to be clear. I'm not going to answer that with respect to what Melissa would be here to do. I think one of the, from the litigation perspective, what I would say is there are differing definitions between building and structure. And I believe those were pointed out partially in HPL's letter. The commission also received a letter from Mr. Delp, who's a member of the community. to regulate that members of the public come to the historic district commission to receive design review approval on entitlements such as a fence. Some fences don't even require a building permit. So that is one of the policy decisions that was contemplated by the council is is sort of I think one of the things that we don't see eye to eye on with the other side in the case and potentially some of the commenters that submitted material here tonight for consideration so structure is defined in the regular zoning code that as you know applies across the board the historic district in general has regulations as you know that don't apply as broadly or apply that definition of structure is so broad it says something along the lines of pretty much anything at all that's constructed that is in the ground so i believe that one of the points behind the amendment was to streamline and frankly reduce the number of as we expect it would be, whereas structure is quite a bit broader, and it would, in fact, increase fences for example. So that's becoming one of the issues that is central in this discussion. Now, whether that particular concept of forcing residents to come to the commission to get approval to build, for instance, a four-foot fence in their front yard, that would not require a building permit. And I believe we will argue in court that that is not a CEQA violation because if it doesn't even require a building permit, it's not even a project. But that is something that the court will have to decide. I think what the commission could consider is whether you

Okay. Yeah, I mean, I don't know if it goes more, and I don't know who to direct things to. Which lawyer do I talk to? You know, if we were going to make a recommendation to say, go back to what the original definition was of structure instead of building, it would just be a recommendation to the City Council to say, you know, hey, because, I mean... You know, there could be something that now just looks like a shed in somebody's backyard that's a historic building, or that has some kind of historic significance, and that wouldn't even get looked at, as I read the current 1752, which I think is concerning. We've had projects come up before where it's this ugly log cabin shed in the back, and all of a sudden, you don't think about it if nobody looks at it as a historic structure at all. It's just like, well, it's a shed, so it doesn't matter, we don't look at it. I think that's based on my seven years being on HTC, As I thought about it and I heard the concerns, I was a little concerned we might have gone too far by taking it all the way just to buildings. Well, I mean, I guess it's both. I mean, it's kind of all through there where we struck out buildings and put, or excuse me, we struck out structure and put building in a bunch of different places, right? And yeah, demolition is definitely probably the most important one, right? Because if we say you've got a shed in your backyard, it's 150 years old, but it's a shed so you can do whatever you want to it. I think that's concerning, right? with what the goals of 1752 originally were. So that one, I mean, the fence one, I mean, that's harder to decide exactly how we would want to do it, because to me, to ignore fences altogether, I mean, we've got this whole, you know, there's this whole list of what you are and aren't allowed to do. in terms of the materials for the fence, right? And we've only excluded one of them, Chang Link, in our new ordinance, and not all of the other ones that we exclude on our website. But we don't have any mechanism to do design review to even enforce that they don't use any of those materials at that point the way we've done it.

Yeah, they're listed as appropriate and not appropriate. It's not so much a thou shalt not. It's mostly a way to guide the public in something that there's no going from.

Right, but then we're just trusting them to listen to us. There's no design review to prevent them from building a fence we don't want there that's not appropriate for the neighborhood. They could build a 12-foot bamboo fence and we can't say anything about it.

No, there are limitations of fence height. Okay.

question on the demolitions of the log cabin, I think might be the one that you were referring to. So I do actually think that that one would not be exempt because I'll just read the definition of building in the municipal code. It's at 17.02.090. Building means any structure having a roof supported by columns and or by walls and intended for the housing or shelter of any person, animal, or chattel. I mean, that was a cabin. Plus, it was older than 50 years, I believe.

It was older than 50 years.

So I think that one in particular would have been in any real, anything that is a building.

But if the original intent of the building was to hold tools and not people or animals, but it's some... What's that? Yeah, that's LTHL. Try to think of some other examples I mean we've had we had one that was like a well I think at one point and we like weren't sure what it was and somebody had to go research what it was we actually ended up finding out that it didn't have significance and they were able to demo it but that's the kind of thing we're just like don't you probably think about that when they find some cool-looking well in the backyard whether it's Has any meaning or not?

Right, and there are provisions in here that talk about not exempting anything that would – well, is it not exempting it? It is anything that's on a property that is listed on our – and originally had the ordinance drafted to say something along the lines of any project on a property that is historically significant will be going through the full level of all review. And then they broadened it too, because we don't necessarily have every property that might be listed. And I'm sure Ms. Fincher will confirm that there are many properties in the historic district that could be listed, but just for a variety of reasons, they have not been officially would cover the concern that you're

Yeah, the eligible to be listing, I think, is kind of, I think the concern is it's kind of vague, right? And it's hard for somebody to determine. If we're doing it just based on age, I know there's some objections to like the 50-year thing. I actually don't have any problem with that. Something that was built in 1985, I don't think we need to send somebody off to research its historical value, right? But if it's 150 years old, somebody should be looking at it. I don't know, I guess the way, and maybe I can look at it again and let some other people have some opportunity to talk, but the way it was worded, I didn't necessarily think that that was protected on things that old. Yeah, but if we didn't know that it was historically significant, how do we make sure somebody actually looks at it?

Yeah, I mean, if an application

I'm going to reserve any further comments until later.

Give other people a chance to talk. On the issue of potential to be designated or listed, couldn't that be everything in your historic district, or no?

I mean, the way we have it written is that the Historic District Commission shall have final authority relating to demolition applications.

are for everything. That's for demolitions.

But also, I believe for design review, they're similar. Oh, of course, yes. Yeah, you're right, yes. eligible, and so staff would be doing that based

requires a building permit, it's more apt to be detected than it needs to be researched, right? Because if it doesn't require a building permit, I mean, that's simple things, I guess, like fences. Right, fences don't require building permits. Okay, but if somebody did erect a 20-foot fence and it's against the rules, code enforcement could go out and tell them to tear it down. Yes. Yeah, on the fence thing.

If it was a 10-foot bamboo fence, though, do we do anything about it, or are they allowed to?

Okay.

But if it was just the material and not that height restriction, they could build it with any material they wanted without... Yeah, we provide guidelines. When you say that was the one pain point, is that the one thing that got complained about by a lot of people, or you see a lot of it?

It was the one type of pain.

I mean, given that we, in our guidelines, at least we prohibit like eight other things. You know, I mean, possible recommendation to add that into that little provision to say, you know, you can't use, not only can't you use Chainlink, you can't use any of the other seven that we say in our recommendations you shouldn't.

I guess I have one more question. When this came to the City Council before, Was there any discussion by council members about disbanding the historic district commission?

I don't recall.

I don't think necessarily in association with this particular item.

Yeah, I know it's come up. All right, anything else? Hearing none, I guess the city is the applicant in effect, so we don't have an applicant, so we will open public comment.

And we have one.

Go ahead.

Loretta Hedinger.

Come on up, Ms. Hedinger.

that sequence more often. anything but small in California history. I have HPL's letters to you. I won't ask you to enter into a discussion. I want to. I would ask you that you recognize the concerns. And then recognize them. But we want to emphasize that we fully support the goal of these individuals. I don't know how important that is. But we do want to have some better care of these people. We don't normally take the time to ask questions.

I think on the fencing one, including the other 11 disallowed materials would be something I'd like to add to the recommendation.

City Council and they can decide they don't want to or not but I mean the fact that you know there's we took the time to put 12 things you can't build a fence out of on the website but with this new change we have no ability to enforce that at all I think it's not great so would that be to because that's a document that exists but it's just a recommendation at this point so it's not right that's that's all we're able to do It's actually something I probably should have asked before, which is it's strange that this is even coming here at all to me. It's like why it's in the planning commission and not just back to HTC is where it's actually doing it to both as much as like hearing the same project three times. That's strange to me.

I can just address that. There's a couple of different things going on. One is after this original. There was a court ruling that found that the city was out of compliance with its charter, and the HDC did not have final decision-making authority. And so even though this is a recommendation, part of the reason that it's coming to you is wrapped up with that, just to dot all the I's and cross all of the T's. The other reason is there were some amendments to the government code that make it

Fairly new. Fairly new. So the thing that, and this might be a question for Josh, the list that you're talking about, this is new to us. We don't deal with historic districts. there's a list of things you can and can't do on the website for people in the historic district, right? Not quite. Oh, okay. They're guidelines. It almost sounds like Commissioner West is advocating codifying the guidelines in this or something, and I just try to understand that.

Right, so the historic district has a set of design and development guidelines. to swap their fence out, they don't typically come to us at all. They get a fence contractor, they learn they don't need a building permit, and that's it. So we provided this resource as well as some additional resources about roofing types and certain additional resources along those lines. to figure out what would and would not be appropriate. Now that list was created in 1998, and so using the, it was the desire of the commission to recommend all these different types of fences. You could find the types on page 11 of Bob Delp's letter. That's where they're listed here. And so in looking at those, we just want to be careful if we were to add anything besides chain link that

So the guidelines have no force and effect on law. It's just property owners, here you are. This is what we recommend.

They're used when there's an entitlement.

and a lot of materials and things have changed. Would there be an interest, do you think, by the Historic District Commission to revisit the guidelines to kind of update them? It's a long time.

Yes. I think that's, you know, it's all kind of part of the overall zoning code update. We're looking at, you know, what we can do because we make that interpretation a lot at commission when it says,

That's why when you take the design review away, those guidelines don't really have any teeth to them at all anymore, right? So over the years, like I was saying, there's been changes to state law that have made us basically not allowed to use those guidelines anymore. They have to be objective design standards. And there's been some things where there have been changes because we were forced to by state law to say, OK, it has to be that there is no, it's completely objective. Anybody looking at this could know whether it passes or not. If there's anything that's like, well, this is kind of our suggestion, and then we'll have a design review and look at it and see. They're like, yeah, you can't do that anymore. Any reasonable person has to be able to look at it and know one way or the other. So it varies depending on what the structure is. Is it an ADU? Is it a new house? There's all kinds of wonderful different myriad state laws now, depending on what the structure is and where it is and all that kind of fun stuff now.

That was wonderful. and the production of everything or what we've seen at the commission a lot of the time is commission, but there is more robust noticing instead of just noticing the ground or design. So that was one of the trade-offs that we felt was fair. And really just, you know, free up some additional staff time. So as part of the zoning code update, so we can actually address the zoning code update and so we can help develop some of these

Yeah, because I mean, it's very hard to do from the very complicated things you can see from all the wonderful letters that we've gotten. There's a lot more of them in the original packet. I don't know if you guys looked through them all. So there's a lot of concerns that have been raised about it that I think would be good to have public discussion about. And maybe we'll do that at the HCC meeting when we have to talk about this again.

yeah i'm kind of getting lost in the discussion here i just i want to be clear the idea here that we would recommend that guidelines no i i think just updated um so that but i i mean i i don't know i i know i know enough to be dangerous about what goes on in the start yeah yeah please i just want to this is what i do for my We agree with that.

Thank you. That is ultimately... And that also includes significant amendments to chapter 17.52 as a whole. We recognize that that will be a heavy lift. The zoning code amendment in and of itself will be a heavy lift. And of that, 17.52 will probably be the heaviest. Following that, there is a potential that we might look at the DDGs. And Desmond isn't here. I hope I'm not speaking out of turn. This is my understanding of what the long range is. there is the potential to look at the DDGs after 17.5.2 is amended to try to, of course, reconcile the two. But that would be more in the longer term rather than something that we could commit to in the shorter term. Of course, it's up to the commission what they want to recommend to the council, but just from a staff perspective, I don't know.

Well...

This being such a needy discussion. And my understanding being that currently, since court decisions, this does not exist in our ordinance in city code. What projects potentially could be affected in the interim if this were to be continued their significant workload that would persist without being delegated to staff level if this were to be passed by the city council?

Let me make sure I understand. So the amendments that we're asking this commission to recommend that city council readopt were already adopted last fall, last November. So they are in effect right now. So this, if staff's recommendation is followed and the city council were to readopt, there would be no change the city council would then have to direct staff to prepare those changes so those would come back as a separate item it would come back to this commission it would come back to the historic district commission then it would come back to the city council for first reading and introduction and then the second reading and adoption so that would kind of be the workflow so in essence tonight you were asking us to expedite this process for purposes of keeping up this department

while still fully intending to revisit this later. And if we were to modify it tonight, then that would potentially be done later anyways.

That would be my argument. And in terms of saying revisit it later, just to be totally, totally clear, staff absolutely has the intention to amend the zoning code in its entirety, including 17.5.2. say with a straight face when we would bring that back i cannot and so if this commission wanted to make a recommendation that the council or staff take a fresh look at any of this stuff i i think to be totally transparent if that's the goal it should probably be included in the motion because it will be looked at afresh but i can't say when

Okay, so like if we made that part of our recommendation, the City Council could accept our CEQA recommendation and then say, yeah, we'll get to that other part of your recommendation someday. Like they don't have to take our recommendation all or nothing anyway.

Correct. And I think I may not have mentioned,

And are you, with the lawsuit pending, is there any time constraint on getting all this wrapped up?

We made a request of the judge at the last status conference at the case management conference to press pause on the briefing schedule to allow this process to play out so that the court, in case the counsel did determine to re-adopt the amendments with the beefed-up sequence, could simply focus on the most current materials so we have 60 days of basically a pause to let this process play out and then at the end of that time the case will pick back up as it was before and we will start preparing the administrative record and do you have an updated motion that the

Yes, so if it is the desire of the commission to go with staff's action, including what's on the green sheet, then... You can just reference the green sheet. Then, yeah, but what is up on the screen? Now, not there. But, well, anyway, from this slide... The language on this slide would accomplish that. It would capture everything on the green sheet. So this is what I recommend. We need to do that.

This is the entire motion that's on the screen right now?

Yeah. That's, the entire motion including, what's on the sheet?

Okay, I'll move it to be in the discussion. So move to recommend to city council, one. find that if the proposed amendments are considered a project, they are exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 1501, 1 cents, 15268, ministerial, 15301, prior existing use, structures, 15282, sub H, appropriate public resources, 1080, And three, approve re-adoption of the specified amendments to chapter 17. Historic district of Olson. Based on the following findings. Findings A and B in the staff report, finding C through L as shown. L? Yeah, sorry, that was meant to be uppercase, but it's the lowercase. I'll strike that. And finding C through L as shown in the green sheet provided.

We have a motion. Is there a second? I'll second it. The motion is second on the floor. Is there anybody who wants to have any conversation further on the motion?

So I don't know the language to do it now. I'm still uncomfortable with the fact that we don't want to codify everything in the design guidelines for fences, but they have absolutely no teeth now at all. I'm worried about that and how that can make the neighborhood look. I mean, okay, plastic fences might look fine someday, but chickenware and barbed wire never will. So if we don't want to put specific things in there, you know, the suggested friendly amendment for consideration to me would be to recommend the City Council reconsider 1752300C1E, which is the thing that excludes all fences from any design review at all. Can you tell me again the section number? 17-52-300-C1E. Any of my other recommendations, I'll get to talk about in a few weeks at HTC.

So in effect, we're telling the city council we'd like to have them reopen it, but maybe not.

Yeah, they get to consider whether it's appropriate that we let people build whatever fence they want.

and that wouldn't be necessarily waiting until the zoning code happens, it would be now, right?

Yeah, I'd like them to think about it now. If they could choose to do whatever they want, obviously, it's just a recommendation. It doesn't tie their hands.

Does the staff feel they have a confident motion for that? I think, yeah, okay. All right, we have a motion and a second. Amended motion in a second. You mean in conjunction with the zoning bill?

Yeah, I mean, I know there is, you know, obviously from some sections of the public, the desire to have the whole thing get looked at and revisited. And I think, yeah, something that broad probably will wait until the zoning code. I was trying to figure out some specific things. I don't oppose that being added to the amendment since they can do whatever they want with it. It's just a recommendation. for my staff members. I'll direct this to you since I don't know who at this table I should direct. How much staff work would that force you to do for the City Council just by us recommending that?

Well, I mean, per Sarah's point, I think they would have to then instruct us to do that. And then so we would be coming back. We would have both the readoption

That's if the City Council told you they wanted to revisit the whole thing right now. You don't have to do that until the City Council tells you, we agree with that recommendation, go do it. Is that right?

Well, I think the most straightforward approach would be either to say,

include a time frame or just to say in association with the zoning code update or something along those lines to give direction for what is actually the recommendation of the commission.

If part of the zoning code update is, you know, it's going to just get bumped in.

It's already happening anyway, really.

I know we're getting lost here on the dial.

As the second, I'm inclined to do that too.

Okay, so we have a motion on the floor that includes this that we see up here, that which includes the green sheets. The issue that Commissioner West raised about revisiting, will you explain what that is again?

Yeah, I read off the code that specifically excludes fencing and walls from design review.

Okay, and to consider doing something with that. Yeah, to consider removing that section. Also to the fact that we want this whole section revisited in conjunction with the zoning code. Correct. All right.

Whew.

Okay, I think we have a motion and a second on the floor.

Is there any further discussion on the motion?

All right, Karen, please call the roll.

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

Yes, okay. Thank you, everybody. That was a little bit rough, but that was legislation being made, right? All right, now we have the planning manager's report. What principal planners report? If we only have one item for July, is it feasible or is that really not feasible to do?

I don't know if it's feasible.

The proper staff work that needs to be done for it? But I wholeheartedly support doing that because I think, especially that whole discussion we had last week about, or last time, about 30% oak canopy versus 30 acres left of oak canopy. I would really love to have a lay of the land about what we're still up against over South and 50 with the master plan. And I think that includes infrastructure, that includes trees, that includes how many lots are left, you know, that type of thing. How many lots are commercial versus residential, that type of thing. So I would love to see us do this. I think if we can do it as soon as possible, as soon as practicable, how about that? So if August works, great. Yeah, I think that's a great idea. Anybody else, or did you have anything else, Jessica? All right.

Thank you.

Is there anything else out of the good of the order?

Just one point on the workshop that we have the city arborist involved. That's a good idea. Yeah.

And then one thing I did neglect was to introduce our newest face here. Siri, did you want to introduce Melissa? Sure. Should I have her introduce herself?

Well, I will start it. is filling in for the at least foreseeable future while we figure out staffing in all of the city attorney's department and how that is going to play out but melissa has taken over for alec who we were sad to say left and found a new job at a different law firm so melissa has been filling that same role with the historic district commission and she

Welcome very much, Melissa. Welcome to our fine group. You had a great meeting to cut your teeth on. All right, thank you. All right, anything else? Okay, hearing and seeing none, we adjourn at 9.11 p.m.