Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening, everyone. Thank you very much for joining us on at the 08/20/2025 Planning Commission meeting. I, welcome you, and I'd like to have Stephanie please call the roll to establish a quorum tonight. Commissioner West?

Here.

Commissioner Lainey? Here. Commissioner Barcelona?

Here.

Commissioner Hurst?

Here.

Commissioner Herrera?

Here.

Commissioner Reynolds? Here. All right. Thank you, commissioners. If you all join me in the Pledge of Allegiance, please.

Thank you for that. Alright. Next up is citizen communication. Is there anybody here who would like to address the commission on anything that is not on our agenda tonight? It is the public's opportunity to address the commission on anything other than commission or other than agenda items. Anybody? Okay. Hearing and seeing none, we will close public comment. And that takes us to the minutes. Commissioners, any suggestions, changes, the motion on the July?

Okay. Anybody object to, going ahead and agreeing that we give it a unanimous roll call? Okay. Seeing no objection that it will so be deemed. Got a unanimous, vote on that. And then the next item, first item, new business. USPT2500146 Lana Moon Tattoo Tattoo Shop Project and determination that the project is exempt from CEQA under Section 15,301. And under that one we have Nathan Stroud to present that. Good evening, Nathan.

Ethan.

Pardon me, ma'am. For the record, the item number

is USPT25-one45.

Uh-oh. Thank you. That was my contacts. Guess I do have my glasses here I should use them. Thank you, Steph. All right. You're up, Nathan.

All righty. So today, this is a request by Lana Neavers. This is for a conditional use permit for a proposed tattoo establishment within a C2 zone. This is going to be located at 1325 Riley Street and is subject to Planning Commission review and approval for this conditional use permit. The project site is located within a standalone building within the Commonwealth Square Commercial Center.

This commercial center has a variety of different uses retail uses. And the project site is located near Limby Park, which is to the south of that project site across from Riley Street. The building is currently occupied by My Salon Suite. This is a property rental company that leases suite spaces to various health, wellness, and beauty proprietors. And the applicant is seeking to simply occupy one of these suites within the building.

Moon Tattoo is an appointment only tattoo establishment, proposed to operate out of an existing 160 square foot interior suite space in the building. The suite will be able to accommodate one tattoo workstation and the proposed layout is shown on the screen to the left. The applicant has also requested an option to potentially expand the business into another suite within the building and staff has provided condition 11 limiting the business to no more than two suites within the building itself. No modifications to the building or any exterior signage are proposed as part of this project. It is simply just occupying an existing suite within the building.

Line and Moon tattoo is proposed to operate no earlier than 10AM and no later than 8PM and will utilize existing on-site parking. Staff have also provided the standard conditions requiring that the tattoo establishment adhere to the safety, to the health and safety regulations of the Sacramento County Environmental Management Division. Overall, staff have determined that the proposed tattoo establishment is compatible with adjacent uses, and the business is anticipated to have minimal impacts on surrounding uses at that site. Staff have mailed notices to the property owners within 300 feet of the project site and posted a notice in the Folsom Telegraph and have not received any responses from the general public. With that in mind, staff is recommending approval of the conditional use permit as conditioned and I'll be able to answer any questions regarding the project.

Okay. Thank you, Nathan. Are there any questions of our staff tonight on this item? Oh, go ahead. It's Commissioner Hurst.

Hi, Nathan. Thank you. Really quick. I noticed that the operating hours for the rest of the building start at 9AM. Why the one hour stagger?

So that just so a lot of these suites within the existing building, they're leased out to a variety of different providers. And all of them do have different hours of operation. Some can be a little bit earlier. Some can be a little bit later. Most of them are going be a by appointment only, similar to this business. And the at least for the conditions of approval limiting the hours, it's really to reflect the hours that the applicant is requesting. So that's starting at ten, ending at 08:00.

Got it, thank you.

Okay, any other questions of Nathan? Okay, thanks very much Nathan. And now we'll hear from applicant would like to step forward and, make a presentation, if the applicant is here. Would you mind coming up and introducing yourself at least so we can know who wants to do business here? Come on up. We don't bite. Just introduce yourself and tell us a little bit about your business.

I'm Lana. I am looking to open my tattoo studio. I've been living in Folsom for the last handful of years pursuing tattooing. It is my, ideal career. I take great passion in what I do. The tattoo industry can be a little rowdy. And I have quite a refined style, so I'm looking to open my own studio to kind of narrow in my style more. So that's kind of my ultimate goal.

Thank you, Lana. Are there any questions for the applicant? All right. You can step down. Thank you very much. Okay. Right now then, we will open this up to the public. Are there any members of the public who would like to comment on this item number one? Okay. Seeing and hearing none, we will close public comment. Commissioners, it's now up to us. What's your pleasure?

Let's move it.

Go for it.

Well, don't know what to say, but yeah.

Yeah. It's not on the screen.

Okay. Yeah. It's not on the screen.

But it is on page 13.

Okay. I'll move to find the request categorically exempt. You start that right. We haven't been trained for this part. So, okay. Move to find the request categorically exempt under section 15,301 existing facilities of the California Environmental Quality Act guidelines and approve a conditional use permit for a tattoo establishment USPT 20 Five-one Hundred 45 based on the findings, findings A through F below, and subject to the attached conditions of approval, conditions one through 15. Thank

you, Commissioner Eleny. Do we have a second?

A second.

Oh, Commissioner Herrera, thank you very much. All right. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion of the motion? I think my only, point that I'd like to make is this is the ideal project that gives the example of how we can put this in the zoning code and have our staff take care of it nowadays. Point. Tattoo parlors are no longer seen as taboo. So, anyway, with that, we'll, vote on the motion. Stephanie, please call the roll.

Commissioner West? Yes. Commissioner Lainey? Yes. Commissioner Barcelona? Yes. Commissioner Hurst? Yes. Commissioner Herrera? Yes. Commissioner Reynolds?

Yes. Right. Lana, you have a unanimous vote. Congratulations, and thank you for choosing to put your business in Folsom. Have a good night. All right, next item, and I will use my glasses this time. All right. Thanks. Okay. Item number two, USPT 20 five-one 111 veterinary clinic operating hours, conditional use permit modification, and determination that the project is exempt from CEQA under Section 15,301 of existing facilities. And we have Jessica Brandt coming up on this one. Hi, Jessica.

Hi. Good evening. So, good evening, chair Reynolds and commissioners. Jessica Brandt with Community Development. I'll be presenting the veterinary clinic operating hours project to you tonight.

The proposed project is a request for approval of a conditional use permit modification to extend a veterinarian clinic's, operating hours in the BPPD, zoning district, which is business professional plan development. So the project is located 222210 East Bidwell Street, and this is within the Vintage At Folsom, Office Park. The veterinary clinic itself takes over a building of approximately 3,400 square feet. The office park includes 16 such buildings, each on its own parcel and surrounded by common open space and shared parking areas. Other businesses in the office park include title company offices, tax advisers, attorneys, and medical offices.

The project site is zoned oh, I already said this. Business professional plan development. So some, background on this request. The Planning Commission approved a conditional use permit, for veterinarian services at the site in 2019, operated by All Creatures Emergency Veterinary Clinic. This approval was pending approval by the city council of a zoning code amendment, to allow, veterinary clinics in the BP zone, which they had not allowed prior, and that change to the municipal code was approved by the city council, later in September.

The subject, conditional use permit included conditions that only permitted nighttime operating hours during the week, and then they were allowed to do twenty four hour a day service on the weekends, as the clinic was for emergency care only. And there were concerns about, that the use might, not, mesh well with the other uses in that, office park. Because of that, there were actually several other operational restrictions, that were placed on the, veterinary clinic. These included, restrictions on the size of the animals treated, restrictions on walking animals around the office park, and a specification that the all location of pet waste containers needed to be inside the building. The clinic has been in operation at the site since 2020.

So, the applicant, Doctor. Richard Turner, the owner of the clinic, is requesting this modification to the conditional use permit to extend the allowed hours of operation into the daytime during the week. They wish to provide regular veterinary care to small exotic pets. So Doctor. Turner states that currently there are no veterinary clinics or hospitals in the immediate area that offer regular veterinary care for small exotic pets.

And when I say exotic pets, I mean birds, reptiles, rabbits, guinea pigs. And so expanding the clinic's hours would be a benefit to the community. The clinic would also provide care for injured wildlife, such as songbirds and squirrels as needed. Doctor. Turner states that one veterinarian would be providing services during these daytime business hours along with support staff with an average of one client every fifteen to twenty minutes, being served on the high end.

And, both Doctor. Turner and the veterinarian who is interested in running the daytime operations are here and, can answer additional questions after my presentation if you'd like. So this would be, the requested hours of operation. The emergency clinic would remain, overnight and weekends only, and then the exotic animal clinic would be permitted effectively the balance of the days during the week, so eight a. M. To six p. M. Monday through Friday only. There would be no emergency care for domestic pets provided during these hours. And then, again, any proposal to extend the hours of either clinic type would require another conditional use permit modification.

So staff reviewed the applicant's request to extend the clinic's operating hours into daytime business hours against the potential to impact businesses in the office park through additional parking demand, potential animal noise, and increased odors from the extended operations. Related to parking, staff found that the expected number of clients, which, again, is about one every fifteen to twenty minutes, is consistent with other office uses, and that the office park has more parking than is actually required, for an office park, with this amount of square footage. While the proposal will bring operations into daytime hours, the request is to provide services only to small exotic animals, which would not include dogs, which I think was, the real concern about noise during the initial conditional use permit request. Staff did, however, retain the operational conditions from the original conditional use permit, restricting, the services the small exotic animals and, that wasn't an original. Restricting that, pets can't be walked around the office park, and that moving a pet to and from a car to the the veterinary clinic must be done quickly, and, the doors shall be closed.

So, those are retained, to ensure that there aren't additional impacts. And then a final issue, that was discussed with the conditional use permit, was the potential for noxious odors. Again, we're retaining all of the conditions, that were, part of the original conditional use permit relating to pet waste. And I did check with our code enforcement manager. He did confirm that he hasn't received any code enforcement complaints about this operation, which, again, has been going about five years now, either for noise or odors.

Conditional use permits require that the Planning Commission find that as conditioned, the use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, and general welfare in the neighborhood and that any negative impacts have been mitigated. Based on the commercial nature of the project area, operational characteristics of the proposed business, and additional safeguards against potentially negative spillover staff has determined that the proposed use is compatible with surrounding land uses, would not produce any additional impacts, and therefore, staff is recommending approval of the conditional use permit modification. Staff has also determined that the project is categorically exempt from CEQA under section 15,301 of the guidelines which is existing facilities. And again, I'm happy to answer any questions. And, Doctor.

Turner and the veterinarian, who is looking to do the daytime hours are here for any questions as well. Thank you. Thanks, Jessica.

Are there questions for our staff? None? I have one. So it's your understanding that these exotic animals that are treated by day, essentially they'd be only by appointment if it's not going to be operated as an emergency veterinary clinic by day, right?

That's my understanding. I think probably it would be good to double check with the veterinarian.

Okay. And did you notice the people, the businesses around?

We did. Oh, yeah. So, the all of the, property owners, in the, in the office park were notified. The way we do our notification is to property owners. It's not to tenants. The hope is that then they communicated with their tenants but we did do the noticing, we did the noticing in the newspaper as required as well. Okay, and

as far as you know you haven't heard from anybody?

I have not heard from anyone.

That they've had any problems there? Correct. Okay, All right. If there are no further questions, we'll bring up the applicant. Thanks, Jessica. Good evening, Doctor. Turner. It's been a few years.

I know it has. Thank you so much for what you did back then. I don't really the impact you've done. Give me an example. We've done eight splenectomies in the last couple of months that all the corporates have told them 12,000 to $15,000 we did it for five I was just told a new technician is gonna be working where she's in the bear. She was told 25,000. They put the dogs safe. We would have done it for 5. So we're very affordable and fair. We'll be doing the same thing with the exotics. But, you know, hospitalization, we charge 700 They've been charging now $15 to $2,000 a night if we charge $700 We're not there corporate. We never will be. We'll never sell out to that. We're there to offer affordable care. I was just in form of a rabbit.

We're talking about rabbits. Through two days, they were charged $4,000 locally in the area. We would have had it. Doctor. Maske would have done it for $12.50 dollars for a week. So, we're very affordable and fair. And we're saving so many animals' lives because people can't all afford that. So, you know, if there is a big need for just exotic, like we said, reptiles, birds, pocket pets, rabbits, guinea pigs, but also, no matter what, for affordable medical care, we've got to get control of this situation. People can't afford $25,000 So that's what we're about. And because of the support of the city, our name is growing, people are happy.

And that's why I say we want to extend that to the exotics because there's no one in the immediate area that does exotics. And there are people coming in, but there's never gonna be anybody that will fall for affordable care for exotics and pocket pets as we do. I'm privately owned. My word, I will never sell to a corporation ever. I want to save as many animals as I have, God willing, as long as I can continue to be a veterinarian. So thank you for your time. And then I'll introduce now Doctor. Maske. She's the veterinarian that will be manning the daytime place.

All right. Hi, Doctor. Maske. Hi, I'm Doctor. Maske.

I own the Avian and Exotic Animal Health Services, and we're definitely looking to move into the area. We're actually two clinics right now, and we'd like to consolidate into one area in Folsom's kind of in between. Anyways and also I knew doctor Turner, and I worked for him, when All Creatures first started, and, we worked really well together. And he's got the passion for seeing exotic animals too. My practice is one of the only practices in the Sacramento area that only does exotic animals, and it's a very underserved area in the entire veterinary community because it's something that you're not taught in vet school.

You're taught dog, cat, horse, cow and maybe one lecture on a rabbit. Moving into this clinic with Doctor. Turner I think will help my patients to be able to have quality overnight care, and then will also help him and the community by having daytime just general practice care for the exotics.

Thank you very much. I have a quick question for you. So is it the way you understand it then, would you be by appointment only for these pets that would come in Absolutely. By Because I mean if it's not going to be an emergency clinic by day, I mean people don't just show up I guess.

No, no. It's by appointment only like even our emergencies if we have an emergency they call and get a spot so it's not just random people walking in.

And where are your current locations?

Diamond Springs and Carmichael.

Okay, very good. Alright. Commissioners, are there any questions for either of the doctors? Commissioner Barcelona? No? Okay, you looked like you were ready to do something. Anybody else? Any questions for the doctors? No? Okay, everybody's got answered questions? All right, thank you very much. Thank you for presentation. Appreciate you being here.

All

right. Okay, right now we will open the public comment period. Is there anybody here would like to, comment on this Item two about the veterinary clinic? Okay. Hearing and seeing none, we close public comment. Commissioners, it's up to us now about what to do here.

Well, I'm a lover of all, creatures great and small, so I will move to confirm staff's determination that the project is categorically exempt under Section 15.301, existing facilities of CEQA, and approve a conditional use permit modification for the veterinary clinic operating hours project, USPT 20 Five-one11, based on the findings A through E and subject to the conditions of approval one through 17 attached to this report.

Is there a second? Second. Commissioner Herz seconds. Thank you very much. Any discussion on the motion that's on the floor? Okay. Hearing and seeing none, Stephanie, please call the roll. Commissioner West?

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

Yes. All right. Doctors, you have a unanimous vote. Congratulations, and thank you for doing business in Folsom. Okay, very good. Are you also going to the zoo like I remember you talking about doing? Okay, very good.

All the wildlife we do for free.

Very good. All right. In case people who are listening to this didn't hear that, Doctor. Turner pointed out that they handle wildlife for free.

Any rigid birds, songbirds, any wildlife

Birds, songbirds, etcetera. If you find an injured animal, you can bring it in at night, I believe, now because of the restriction on the CUP. All right. Thank you very much. All right. Next up, item number three. All right. Item number three is DEVA24-three 10 Broadstone Crossing Phase II Development Agreement and determination that the project is exempt from CEQA under section 15,060 one(three). And we get the pleasure of seeing Desmond tonight. Hi, Desmond.

Chair Reynolds, members of the Commission. Desmond Perrington, Planning Manager in the Community Development Department. I'm here before you tonight to go over the proposal for a development agreement for required public improvements associated with the Broadstone Crossing two project. As some of you may recall, this project was approved last year in 11/20/2020. The project is located right here at the Northeast Corner of Bidwell And Iron Point, adjacent to Broadstone Villas and across the street from the Palladio.

The project included a tentative map that divided the site into three parcels. The largest is located here. And then there were two to the rear. Right here is Cabot Drive. This is Iron Point.

And down at the bottom here is East Bidwell Street. This street was formerly known as Kilrush. It's now been renamed as Wellspring Drive. The project that was approved included a total of 200,840 square feet. Of that, the largest building, which is currently planned to be the center Folsom Center for Health, is 106,500 square feet.

It's three stories. Another two story office building planned here that will be built later on and a three story office building planned here. Each of those are just below 50,000. So as I mentioned, this was approved on 11/20/2024. And in addition to creating the three parcels, there was also a planned development permit, design review, and a master sign program for the largest parcel, which was the Sutter Medical Office Building or the Folsom Center for Health.

As part of the project evaluation, there were two conditions that were added, conditions forty two and forty three, related to project related improvements. And this was due to the Transportation Impact Study, or TIS, that looked at the effect of the traffic associated with the project on the current situation along East and particularly at the intersection of East Bidwell and Iron Point, where we have existing significant delays, this project was going to worsen them. So these two, conditions were included. They covered public improvements recommended by the traffic consultant and reviewed and approved by the city engineer and public works staff. They included signal timing coordination, turn lane extensions, in some cases, additional lanes, and lane restriping.

And then the last piece of this was a pedestrian over crossing across East Bidwell to better connect the project to areas like the to the Palladio because the using the crosswalk actually throws off the signal timing and causes traffic to back up further onto on East Bidwell. So these two conditions were added. The first was related to access and circulation. So these were specific abatement, or also called improvement measures, that were included in the Transportation Impact Study, the TIS. And it was designed specifically to address what are called level of service policies level of service policy that's in the general plan.

So the general plan has a level of service policy that, looks at trying to maintain a level of service or D or better. Level of service is generally a measurement of the seconds of delay at an intersection caused by caused by traffic. So it indicated that the work could be done by the developer or could be done by the developer through a development agreement where the developer would pay the city to do the improvements, since these are public improvements and not necessarily in the wheelhouse of the developer. And then condition 43 related to the pedestrian overcrossing. Now, this was not the only project that contributed to the pedestrian flow.

We've already got pedestrians crossing the area and creating the signal delay. But this project was going to contribute an additional pedestrian load and worsen the disruptions there and the signal timing associated with the signals on East Bidwell. So they are required to contribute their fair share, which was calculated for an amount not to exceed $2,500,000 Now, this would help the city get the design and the engineering underway, as well as the environmental clearance for the project once it's designed. And since the applicant, which is Elliott Holmes, owned both sides of the street, over at the Palladio and over at the Rodstone Crossing II project, they were willing to contribute the land, which would be credited against the 2.5 because that land would be necessary for the footings for this over crossing or bridge across the way. So this kind of shows some of the key elements.

This is an approximate location of the pedestrian over crossing. You've got an additional turn lane right turn lane here on the Eastbound Iron Point to Southbound East Bidwell and a new additional northbound left turn lane on East Bidwell onto Westbound Iron Point. And then the developers themselves, Elliot, is actually taking on some of the improvements related to the westbound turnpockets to connect to the project driveway. And those outside of the scope of the development agreement. So when Elliott met with us after the approval of the project, they explained that, look, public roadway projects are not really, you know, what we do as a developer.

We see these as more capital improvement projects the city would undertake since there's multiple locations along East Bidwell involving signal timing and lane restriping and so forth. And so we, you know, we discussed this with the city engineer and our public works department. And there was general agreement that that these did fit, you know, better within the city's wheelhouse because we have to make sure that whoever does them, they're meeting the city's standard specifications. And that they're built consistent with other roadways in the city. So we agreed to enter into a development agreement so long as the developer was willing to fund the cost of those improvements.

So they were willing to do that. And so we've structured them to the key elements of the development agreement are set out. And I've explained here how they address each of the conditions of approval, are critical to the kind of the roadway improvements. So first, related to condition number 42, which is access and circulation, There would be an initial deposit of 1,445,000 This would be due at the first vertical building permit for the Sutter Medical Complex. They are anticipated to pull that in October.

And this would allow the city to get underway with bringing on an engineering design consultant that could do the design and engineering work, so that we could then get detailed estimates and get those environmentally cleared. Then after that, those funds are almost exhausted. There would be an additional deposit of 2,155,000.000 to pay for getting the construction underway. So based on early preliminary or conceptual estimates, it's estimated the project would cost about $3,600,000 So that's why it's broken up the way that it is. And Exhibit G, that's part of the development agreement, explains those the breakdown of the costs for those public improvements.

And again, the reason why it was critical that we get that second deposit prior to the exhaustion of the funds was to make sure there's no stops or breaks in the project because any time you have to remobilize consultants or contractors, that's additional delay and additional cost. And neither party wanted to see that. In the event that the actual costs exceed the $3,600,000 then the developer would pay within thirty days of receipt of an invoice from the city for those additional costs. The goal is to get and the city is committed to get this project done within these project improvements done within five years. And again, that's assuming that there's no major delays that are outside of the city's control, like potentially involving Caltrans or SMUD or PG and E or something along those lines.

So city has also agreed, because we do recognize that there are other projects going on in the general area that could potentially benefit from these improvements and may also be required to do improvements. So to the extent that an environmental document or a traffic study shows that they would be benefiting from these, the city is willing to look at using its best efforts to require those projects to also contribute to this because we do acknowledge that some of these improvements have the potential to benefit other projects in the area. There's some apartment sites north on I'm sorry, eastbound on Iron Point. There's also the Kaiser site further west on Iron Point and then a vacant site south of sorry, west of Fats Diner that's there as well. So there's a few sites that could potentially need these improvements and would benefit from them.

Oops. I'm sorry. That's a typo. That should say Condition 43. My apologies.

So with as I mentioned earlier, with regard to the pedestrian overcrossing, there is a the current agreement talks about a $2,500,000 contribution from the developer. So it's a not to exceed amount that would be due at certificate of occupancy for the Sutter Medical Center project. Again, that would allow the city to get going with design and construction work. But again, Sutter is not anticipated to get a certificate of occupancy until about mid to late twenty twenty seven. So they would also be credited for the value of the land and the appraisal for that land.

And that would be credited towards their $2,500,000 contribution. The time frame and I should say that the city engineer, Rebecca Neves, is also here as well. I can talk in more detail about this as part of our discussion. But the time frame for construction is really dependent on a couple of things. One, getting the project designed, engineered, and cleared environmentally.

And then two, securing appropriate grant funding to get the project actually built. Now, the good news in all of this is that there is grant funding available for what are called active transportation program projects that benefit pedestrians and cyclists and so forth. So we do feel that this is a good candidate. But again, it's all kind of contingent upon having this project be shovel ready so that we're in a position to go after those funds. In terms of the next steps, assuming that the Commission makes its recommendation tonight, then this would go on to the City Council on August 26.

We adopt as required under state law, we adopt all development agreements through an ordinance. So there's a first reading and then a second reading and adoption. So the August 26 meeting, and then it would be followed by the September 9 meeting. The city is anticipating to issue its RFP for the public improvement work since we will have the funding for that in October next in SeptemberOctober time frame. And then, as I mentioned, the Sutter Medical Office Building is anticipated to pull their permits for vertical construction in the October time frame.

So the issue of the RFP for the public improvements aligns well with the receipt of funds for the Sutter Medical Office Building. So this is the staff's recommendation. Be happy to take any any questions that you might have. Oh, and I've I've my apologies. I also forgot to mention that Price Walker, Vice President with Elliott Homes, is here, along with Chad Roberts, their legal counsel with Hefner Law.

Very good. Thank you, Desmond. Are there questions for Desmond? Commissioner Barcelona?

Just one quick one. Desmond, do you anticipate this is going to be a pedestrian over crossing similar to the one on East Bidwell that's just south of Blue Ravine?

Yes. It would be similar in in nature to that. Yes. Mhmm.

Okay. Thanks. Commissioner West.

I This mean, is kind of a process question, because condition 43 says they get to contribute up to $2,500,000 My interpretation of this is they're actually paying like $6,100,000 They got the 3,600,000.0 and then the 2,500,000.0 just trying understand Given how that And the conditions we put on them versus the money we're asking for now, just trying to understand how that all works.

Yeah, that's correct. We kept the projects separate for two reasons. One is that the transportation impact study identified that the public roadway improvements were needed as a result of this project. And then condition 43, the transportation impact study showed that this project contributed to the need for a pedestrian overcrossing but wasn't the sole contributor to that. There are other projects that are already causing disruptions there.

So therefore, there wasn't a nexus to require them to do the entire one. But you are right. Together, it's 3.6 plus the 2.5. So it's the 6.1, as you mentioned, yes. Yeah Sorry, that's a long answer. It's really short. No, no,

makes sense. So yeah, the 3.6% is under condition 42%. It's just I think my confusion came out. In the paragraph there, it says, and these are for the improvements in Section seven, which is the pedestrian bridge only. But there's

Section actually seven covers everything. Okay. We separated them because, one, the project is solely responsible for, and the other one, the project pays a fair share amount. We kept them separate because they're separate conditions. And we'll be tracking them separately because they will be separate projects.

Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Hurst.

Hi, Desmond. I have two potentially related questions with regards to the grant funding that you potentially identified. With the active transportation program in particular, one, do you happen to know if that is ultimately coming from federal funding relating to the infrastructure investment and jobs act? Because I believe some of that was held at the federal level. And then two, if that is the case and there's potential risk of that funding not materializing for the state and therefore can't be trickled down to cities, are there other grant programs that you think the city is well equipped to pursue?

Yeah, I'll defer to the city engineer on this. She's our local expert on that.

Good evening. Thank you for asking that question. It's a great question. So, if if it's coming from IGA, we're not 100% sure yet. You know, SACOG issues out a call for projects. But what the city has done is position this project already for success. We've already reached out to SACOG, and they have already included in the MTIP, the Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program. And so that allows us to get essentially our foot in the door for any type of state or federal funds. Furthermore, this project to say that they did the happy dance when we brought this to them is an understatement. They were very excited about this.

And so I'm very on behalf of Folsom, I'm very appreciative of the public and private partnership that's occurred between Folsom and Elliott. It was this moment of realizing and I'm going to pick on price here for a second. It was this moment of realizing where we were, how we'd gotten here, and what are the opportunities to fix it, not being able to turn back the clock. And when we had the thoughtful discussion, it was very clear to me that Elliott was invested emotionally in the health of Folsom, and they've been so for a long time now. With that, they said, well, what can we fairly do, and what can we be fairly equitable about imposing abatement measures on this project, given the fact that other projects have proceeded that should have possibly contributed to this, too not should have should have absolutely contributed to this project.

But what we did was we found a workable solution. We said, look, can't turn back the clock, and we recognize that this project takes a lot of effort. But if you could get us something that is essentially shelf ready, shovel ready to send out to bid without having to worry about the funds being federal or state, right, that's why we're asking for the CEQA and NEPA clearance environmentally, That puts the city in a really good position for those more competitive grants, especially active transportation program that you mentioned. So that program is they have their timely use of funds restrictions, which I believe is thirty six months. And in that thirty six month restriction, the best projects are the ones that are already shovel ready.

Getting it from concept to construction using solely that funding source, speaking from experience, is very, very tough. And you pretty much just stay very well caffeinated the entire process if you want to get it done. But with that being said, we don't know exactly the type of funding source. So what we've done is in the conditions both in the conditions and in the development agreement and in partnership with Elliott Homes we've set this project up for as much success as possible, allowing us to have flexibility in the direction.

Got it. Thank you.

You're welcome. And any other questions? I have one. And while you have the floor, Rebecca. So as you know, I actually reached out to staff earlier today about one concern, is the shovel readiness of the ability to do the over crossing, because I think that's pretty key. How long would it take if we were able to get money ahead of the certificate of occupancy? Mean, could we get up and running and issue an RFP and get going and start getting the design work and everything so that we could produce shovel ready sooner than certificate of occupancy?

Potentially. Would say one thing I've kind of noticed is that we really have to do a good job about setting expectations for state and federally delivered projects. The irony of this project is it's all locally funded until that shovel ready moment. But until you $1 federal funds federalizes the whole job. That's why we're setting it up like it's a federally funded project.

But with that being said, there's a nuance to the process and an opportunity, which we'll work out with our consultants, too, where we could move on it quite a bit faster than we would if it was, say, an interchange or some other type of state or federally funded project. To give you a specific time, I would say we could if everything went well, we could be shovel ready in two to three years. I was actually going through some scheduling with when we could do the RFP. We looked at working with our public works department. We're looking at potentially doing an RFP and releasing it at the end of next month.

They would be due then the following end of the month, so October. You go through you really and in my mind, you have to follow the local assistance procedures manual, which includes consultant selection, right? So that means you have to go through a negotiations period on scope and fee with your consultant. Given the, I would say, down payment on the financial commitment from Elliott, That $1,000,000 will then be in, for lack of a better description, joint checking. And then we're able to bring an item forward to city council to appropriate and award the contract to the consultant.

That kicks off the effort. So that part of it is actually quite a bit faster than had this been a federal process, truly. A true federal process requires us sending in the consultant contract into Caltrans, waiting a duration of time and going through that process. But what we would do is because I've gone through that enough to where think we can just lay it out from the local assistance procedures manuals to say, look, we followed this section, this section, this we even have a DBE firm on here, and we've set it up as a federal section. You can do DBE calculations in house.

And so when you do those DBE calculations and you set your number, you basically turn in the complete package and say, look, this contract's already awarded. We followed your process. We should be able to request the funds for construction. And we submit for our RFA, a request for authorization, and then get the E76 for construction. So the turnaround time is going be a lot faster. It's pretty rare that we get to have this level of flexibility on delivering a project like this. Thank you. Yeah.

It essentially give us a two year jump. Because if the certificate of occupancy is not happening until mid to late twenty twenty seven, we'd be able to get going and get ourselves in a much better position, as Rebecca explained. If we were able to get the RFP released next month and get, you know, a an engineering firm under contract to to do the design and and and get the environmental clearance. So it it would really help to kinda expedite things.

Okay. So, commissioners, what we're teeing up here is that you heard Rebecca say something about a million dollar down payment with some conversations that took place today between me and our staff and then between well, and with the applicant about maybe tweaking the language so that we don't have to wait until a certificate of occupancy to actually pull that trigger and get the thing going. So because that would be a two year wait. And because of the difficulty, it was difficult to approve this project originally because of the traffic concerns already in that area. And I would hate to say to the public, well, yeah, we're going to work on the pedestrian over crossing, but we're not even going start that process until at least two years from now.

So we do have some language, and I didn't know if this was the appropriate place to bring that up. Or should we hear from the applicant first? I mean, I don't know what's proper protocol there since we have a change that's being suggested. Do we want to open the public hearing?

Or do we just want to

Or can we just put it up to talk about it and then open the public hearing on the whole BOLOACS?

Yeah.

Should I share

those? Because

I can

Yeah, in general, I think that the applicant should speak, answer any questions. And in an ideal world, the commission could make a recommendation regarding the deal points, if you will. But we don't need to really get into wordsmithing the exact language as long as the commission agrees on

Right. I do have some draft

We actually have

some Yeah. I have some draft language prepared. So I could share that. So Section 2.6 of the agreement, subsection C, which deals with the pedestrian overcrossing and the timing of the receipt of the funds. We have, staff has amended the language to require an initial deposit, so that we could get going sooner.

And then similar to what we have for the public improvements in Section 2.5, that if that amount of funds gets drawn down to about $150,000 then they would make the remaining deposit at that point within notice of the city. In discussions with the applicant, they are and I'll I'll let Price speak to this but they they're okay with this language. They just would like to add a provision regarding that within thirty days of notice from the city that the million dollars, just so that on the off chance that we issue the RFP right after the the council meeting, they they don't, you know, they it takes them a little bit of time to, you know, get that kind of funding together to provide to the city. So we have no objection to adding that additional language.

Which is here, right?

Well, yeah. That's the one you're

talking about.

There would be an additional within thirty days, a written notice for the city. We would just take this sentence, copy it, and then

Oh, they want to notice the Yeah.

RSP. Shall advance within thirty written days of written notice from the city $1,000,000 to cover the cost. Okay. So we would just add that additional language right there.

Okay. So before we bring the applicant up, are there any questions about this specific issue for this our staff, Commissioner Hurst?

My assumption is that when the initial estimate was developed to determine this amount that should be fronted by the developer, cost inflators would have been built into it for the construction timeline. To the extent that we're gonna be shovel ready quicker because of this amendment, would that potentially reduce the anticipated construction costs by any significant margin?

Do you want me to take

Yeah, that yeah, yeah, go ahead.

Yes, we did include costs inflators, and we also took there's usually a higher range of phases in delivering the project. So environmental is typically 3% to 5% the cost of construction. Right of way acquisition is around the same. Designs anywhere from 12% to 18%. Construction management's anywhere from 18% to 20%.

So a familiarity with this type of project, we had a back of the napkin estimate of around $6,000,000 to deliver the bridge. And then you tack on what I would consider all those items I mentioned were soft costs, So these soft costs are what developed the shovel they developed the paper to go out to construction, but no equipment's used yet. So but when we did the cost estimate, it did fall right within the 2.5, we also, in that right of way, we if this was let's the component out that the people that we would be purchasing right away from is the applicant. If this was a public project on an equitable approach to doing this process, we would be approaching the property owner. We would have to follow the USPAP standards in terms of doing appraisals.

If the value is less than $10,000 you can do a valuation appraisal and it's a little bit more of a streamlined versus a full blown appraisal. I foresee this being potentially that avenue. But then you also have to pay not just for your acquisition services, but the capital for the actual right of way purchase. We would have to go through that anyway. That's why in a portion of this in the agreement we talk about deducting the value of the right of way, the actual acquisition of the physical property from that $2,500,000 So in a sense, let's say that we come back and the total value of right of way needed is $9,000 That means it'll be whatever we spend to get it shovel ready less $9,000 and that would be the remainder.

I don't anticipate this taking the full 2.5, I felt in the interest of the city's efforts in delivering this because, again, it's staff time and staff priority to deliver this So there's opportunity costs with that and we're essentially delivering an impact project or an abatement project that was the catalyst from a development. So you have to account for the staff time in that, too. That's all accounted for in that $2,500,000 as well.

So would it be fair to say then that ultimately those cost savings as resulting from being ready to go quicker would help the city ultimately as a beneficiary?

Yes. I mean, we always strive to meet projects on time and under budget. And so that's the goal. Just like it is with public money, in my mind, I've already transitioned this into public funds, right? It's not my money. We got to make good on it.

Got it.

Thank you. Good question. Any other questions of our staff? Just a quick question.

I like this proposal. Assuming that the applicant does front the money faster and we have less impact on an inflationary increase in the cost of the total project, is there any benefit to the to the applicant if we deliver this on budget and under time? You know?

Yeah. It's it's a not to exceed amount of 2.5. So if Okay.

If we come in under budget, then there's a potential that that they may some of those funds may go back to them.

Yeah, I think that's fair. Good.

So it could very well be a win win, Cool. All right. Thank you, Desmond. With that, we'll bring up the applicant. And thank you, Rebecca. Appreciate it.

Evening, Chair Reynolds. Price Walker with Elliott Homes. I just want to say this has been a long road to get here. It's a big load, as you can see from what you've heard tonight, what you've seen in your packet. I think all of you approved this. I think you are all, including Chair Bill, were you on it? Okay. But all of the abatements, all of the TIS, all of that was part of your approval. And I think it's a very unique situation we ended up with in a partnership to where basically you have a developer funding public improvements that are going to be constructed by the city. As we dug into it, it certainly made a lot more sense.

We're not going to be very good at closing down East Bidwell where the city would be much better at it. I think, quite honestly, everyone in City Hall has had their hands on this development agreement in some form between public works, city engineering, city manager, planning, city attorney. And I think we ended up with something quite unique, but something that I think is doable and workable. Commissioner West, your math is absolutely right on. It's not 2.5.

It's much closer to 6.5. And yes, it's emotional to us, but it's also financial. It's a lot to take on, and we want to thank staff for getting here. The new condition that was or the new revised language, we are in agreement on. We understand the idea of getting it kick started earlier. The sooner this thing gets done for us, the better. Your question, Commissioner Hurst, was a good one. If this gets done on time and under budget, some of it comes back to us. So I think it's a win win for all of us to get to get out of the ground as fast as we can. And, in fact, we're to the city council next Tuesday.

I don't think I've ever had anything go quite that fast between commission and council. So, here to answer any questions.

It's nice when it's a partnership,

Yes.

All right. Any questions for the applicant? Mine is not even related to this. You know on the turn lanes that are going to go from your project, from the Sutter project down to you're going to lengthen the turn lane, right? Yes. And that's one area where Desmond said, you guys are going do that.

The area on Iron Point, we're doing.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. And so how does that differ? I mean, is it just easier to do a lane extension like It just

made more sense with our guys, with Tigard out there now. We're going to do that early on, like literally as part of the project that's going on right now.

Right.

Just kind of made more sense. It was off Bidwell also. All the rest are on Bidwell.

Right. So does the city though have to work with you to

Of course. It still takes full public works and city engineering approval and plan checking and inspection.

I get it.

The only difference is we're constructing it.

Got it. And thank you for your willingness to look at this, enhancing it. So I appreciate that. Any other questions? Seeing none. All right. Thank you very much, Rice. All right. We will now open the public comment period. Is there anybody who would like to, comment on this, Item Number three?

Okay. Hearing and seeing none, we'll close public comment. And then, Commissioners, it's, up to us to go with that. And, I actually do have a question of staff, and I think it's probably for the city attorney, if you don't mind if I go first on this just because of this language. So as far as the recommendation we can make to the city council, Can we amend the development agreement with this language and then it goes to city council? I mean, if this is indeed the language in addition to the other thirty day notice doesn't mentioned. And then that way, it's not sloppy as far as we're trying to recommend something that it's not exact.

Yes. I think if that's the will of the commission, could recommend it and almost use this like a green sheet, if you will, how we've done in some other scenarios so that, it will go forward to the council and there isn't a delay.

So it's essentially recommend to council that they approve the development agreement with the amendment as follows and then go forward like that. Okay. All right. All right. Questions of are there any discussion, Commissioner? I'm sorry. We're in commissioner deliberations. Commissioner Hurst, you'll go first.

Another potential amendment. I caught, thanks to Desmond's reference in the beginning, that we did recently update the name, from Kilrush Drive to Wellspring Drive. And I've highlighted, at least in my packet, that there were at least six conditions as relating to that. Would we have to call out

You mean that mentioned Kilrush?

Yes. Oh. Would we have to call out all conditions, or could we just say with updating Kilrush references?

So so those those are conditions that have been previously approved.

And so that's why I didn't change the the name. Because

it was called

Kilrush at that time. Kilrush at that time. If you recall, there was a subsequent action where Price was here previously to get commission approval for the name change. And and then that was approved. But I I didn't I I wasn't going to alter previously approved conditions of approval. Yeah. That's why you see those references that you do. So still kill Roche.

So it wouldn't affect that. Yeah, not going to Okay, never mind.

Okay, but good catch. Mean, good question. Yeah. Okay, other question or any other things under deliberations?

I just wanted to kind of do an extension of your question. So because there's not a green sheet and it's on there, we can't just say as stated by staff. We have to actually read through it to get it into the record. Is that true on this Section 2.6?

Well, I hope not. Since it's on the slide, Desmond could potentially include it that way. I think the

What's the ideal way to deliver this as a nice package to city council so that we can get it approved? On.

Think

that's the bottom line.

Let me just I just want to get that language in there.

Yeah, well, that's the other challenge is to the extent there's going to be another tweak potentially forthcoming from the applicant side. I would also say the city attorney has not yet had the chance to weigh in on this language, so there's a potential for some minor changes from him as well. That wouldn't affect the commission's recommendation. But if we are going to be wordsmithing it, that's what I was getting at earlier in terms of the concept of how the commission wants it to work is another option.

Yeah. And just for clarification's sake, the action that goes to the city council gives the city manager and the city attorney authority to make those necessary adjustments to language, notwithstanding the council approval.

So Section two of the ordinance specifically says the city attorney can change this language after we push it through as long as it's not something substantially different

than Exactly. Yeah.

So things like, Okay, they have to pay these amounts in a little bit staggered, but it's still the same amount of money as they're allowed to do that without us having to weigh in on it.

Yeah. Yeah. There can't be anything substantive, but minor revisions and tweaks for clarification and those types of things can be done.

If I'm hearing correctly, then what we should do is go ahead and approve the original motion, but also say with the recommendation that the city council consider moving up the timeline for issuance of an RFP and funding from the applicant for because, yeah, something general like that? Okay. Okay. Rather than the specific language. But you're

gonna Yeah.

That you're gonna walk with a specific language and say, let's do this. Yeah. Let's make it easy on you.

Yeah. We you know, and that would give me because, again, all all of this, you know, happened in short order. As Sari stated. We just haven't had the time to run this by the city We don't envision that there will be a problem here. But given the latitude that the ordinance already would give us, I think, to Sari's point, adopting this with a recommendation to advance funding for the pedestrian crossing earlier would be part of your recommendation

for the council.

And if the commission wants to even tie it to issuance of the RFP, you can put whatever

That's what was thinking. Theory you

feel is appropriate in the motion.

Okay. Well I can Alright then. Back to the I think I'm willing to give it a shot for the motion. Are you guys okay with that since I caused since I caused this disruption? My gosh.

Alright. So, there it is. I move to recommend city council adopt the uncodified ordinance number thirteen fifty four approving the development agreement between the city of Folsom and Broadstone Crossing phase two LLC and Elliot Homes Inc. For public improvements for the Broadstone Crossing Phase II project based on the findings A through J, and that the Commission recommends to the City Council that there be a first installment at the time of the issuance of the request for proposal that would cover the costs of making the project more shovel ready. Would that do it?

Yeah. All right.

With respect to the pedestrian overcrossing.

Oh, this is with respect to the pedestrian overcrossing, correct. All right, thank you. Thank you. And then that leaves it to the city council and you as staff to explain to them what the conversation was here and what we thought was a good move and that the applicant thought that was a good move too. Yeah, and then

provide the final recommended language.

All right, well I think that means we have a motion on the floor. Sorry, guys, but I feel good about that outcome.

I'll second it. Do we need to close the public hearing? Is that a requirement?

Oh, did I not say it? I thought You do need to close the public Okay, I'm sorry. I didn't realize I hadn't done that. We will now close the public hearing then or I mean, I'm sorry, the comment period. And thank you, Commissioner Barcelona. I got all excited about this. And then you've heard my motion, right? Or do I need to do it again? No. Okay. Very good. So there's a motion on the floor, and I think I heard a second from Commissioner Barcelona. All right. Any discussion on the motion on the floor? All right. Let's go for it. Stephanie, call the roll.

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

Yes. All right. Thank you, everybody. And thank you, Rebecca, Desmond, and also Elliot Holmes. Thank you very much for being so cooperative. And I mean, everybody talks about the beauty of public private partnerships. And this is one such example, which is really neat to see. Yep. Alright. The next item.

We are on to item number four, and it is item number 4, m STR25Dash00025, Veranda at Folsom Heights, small lot vesting tentative subdivision map, planned development permit, design review, and determination that the project is exempt from CEQA under Section 15,182, projects pursuant to a specific plan. And we have Jessica up again. Hi, Jessica.

Jessica up again. Okay. So good evening again. I'm presenting this project to you tonight, veranda at Fulsome Heights. So the proposed project is a request, as you say, for a small lot vesting tentative subdivision map, plan development permit, and design review, for a 14.9 acre site located in the Folsom Plan Area.

So this is the project is located in the Northeast area of the Folsom Plan Area Specific Plan, within the Folsom Heights community. The aerial on the slide is provided more for just general context. The project site is shown highlighted in yellow. So here's a more zoomed in, view of the project location on a Folsom Plan Area land use map. The project is located on the East Side of Empire Ranch Road and is surrounded by the Folsom Heights subdivision to the north, east, and south with the Russell Ranch subdivision to the west.

The project site is designated multifamily low density in the specific plan, with mixed use to the north, single family high density to the east and south, and open space with single family residential and multifamily low density, to the west beyond. So, some background, for this site. On 07/11/2017, the City Council approved a large lot vesting tentative subdivision map, small lot vesting tentative subdivision map, project design guidelines, and inclusionary housing plan for the development of a residential and commercial development called, Folsom Heights, which was a total of 189.7 acres, in size, again located in the Northeast corner of Folsom Plan Area. So as you can see, the Folsom Heights project included approval of, residential units at varying densities, which included an allocation of 123 units on two of the large lots. However, these lots were included in the small lot map request and are back before the Commission for this subsequent mapping and project review.

Improvements to the backbone infrastructure, like roadways, stormwater basins, and utilities, for the Folsom Heights project overall are in process, right now. The project site itself is actually part of an overall rough grading effort as well. So I'm going to apologize right now. Everything is flipped on its side, and that is just a function of the way that our presentation format is. So Empire Ranch Road for a lot of these exhibits is going to be on the top, but the right is north.

So north is right. So kind of do this. So the applicant is proposing a for sale detached townhome, is how they call it, project of a 125 small lots with detached single family residential units, common private drives, open spaces, guest parking areas on two large lots totaling approximately 14.9 acres. They're calling their project Veranda at Folsom Heights. The residential units will be in cluster formations fronting onto pedestrian paseos with alley loaded garages.

The design also includes a central promenade street lined with additional parking spaces, trees, and landscaping. And I've included, for reference the overall landscaping plan that they provided. So along with the subdivision map, they are requesting a planned development permit to comply with the site's plan development district overlay and to allow for some flexibility in their site design. They are also requesting, a design review, to approve the architecture and design for the proposed single family residential units. Staff is very appreciative of this.

We like to see the whole package, so I'm excited to bring the whole package to you tonight. Unfortunately, that means that I will be up here a little longer, but I think that's, much better than bringing it back later. So I I will review each of these requests in the presentation. I do want to note upfront that the request is for a 125 residential units, which is two more units, if you were listening carefully, than, what I had mentioned earlier as the allocation for these lots. The, applicant is making the request because they actually ended up dropping two lots from their Folsom Heights subdivision, that over over, kind of goes around this subdivision to provide for additional open space areas, and so they would like to reallocate those two units to this site.

The reallocation of units, from the Folsom Heights map to the Veranda map is considered consistent with the specific plan with the approval of a minor administrative modification, or MAM. And so we've included a condition requiring that the applicant submit for a MAM, before they, final their map. So this, again, tilting your head, is the small lot vesting tentative subdivision map. I the it would create 125 single family lots, two private park lots, two private street lots, and 20 landscape lots, that provide frontage landscaping along the public and private roadways. Access to the northern and southern halves of the site are from a traffic circle on Summit Street, with secondary access for both areas from Iron Horse Drive, which curves around the site's east, southeastern and eastern boundaries.

They are including, gates at all access points. Because this is a vesting map, the applicant has included a preliminary grading, drainage, and utility plan, all of which have been reviewed by our city engineer. And then speaking of utilities, another thing that I wanted to point out is that this property is a bit unique. The El Dorado Irrigation District or EID actually provides the water service for these, properties, and then sewer service is split between the city of Folsom and El Dorado Irrigation District, via a memorandum of understanding between the two agencies. El Dorado Irrigation District did review the project and their input has been incorporated into the conditions of approval.

The next item that they're requesting is the planned development permit. The PD overlay district, that they have on the site, does allow greater flexibility in the design of an integrated development. And they also, found that with their product type, they needed to have some flexibility from our development standards, in the specific plan. So the project is requesting a PD permit for both the overall site design and also to ask for those deviations. The applicant states that the PD permit request is supported by the project's uniform or, unique design, which provides housing choice in the Folsom Plan area by reducing open private open space such as backyards in favor of higher density for sale single family product with, common open space, which is in demand in the area.

So to support the proposed small lot cluster development, the applicant is requesting several deviations from applicable development standards, which you see on the table up here. Of note are requests for a reduction in the minimum lot sizes, building coverage, and setbacks. And I all of those, are, for example, the minimum lot size for an interior lot, the requirement is 3,000 square feet. They're requesting 2,700. A lot of the setbacks are going from around five to 15 to seven to four, so some significant, changes, but in line with the way that they have the overall cluster development planned out.

They are not requesting deviations from parking standards or law width. And then the final piece of this project, is their design review. So the project is subject to the Folsom Heights design guidelines that were approved with the overall, subdivision package in 2017. The design guidelines include master home requirements or home plan requirements that outline minimum numbers of floor plans and elevation, designs, massing, roof form variations, garage placement, and maximum repetition of architectural styles. The design guidelines also outline a preferred set of architectural collections, which are groups of architectural styles that residential development, within Folsom Heights must emulate.

The project includes four residential master plans with three different architectural styles or elevations. These are Spanish, California Cottage, and Early California. There are nine color schemes proposed, three for each architectural style, and examples of some of their, elevations are on the slide. So you see Spanish on the left, California Cottage, second to left, early California, third, and then another variation on the Spanish style, fourth on the right. All of the units would be two stories.

They would have three to five bedrooms and include two car garages. Floor plans would range from 14, 152 feet to 2,094 square feet of living space. They would also have, outdoor patios and covered porches. Shown on the slide is, kind of a mid range plan. This is plan two, and you can see they have the two car garage, The family living space is on the First Floor with the porch and a patio, and then, the bedrooms on the Second Floor.

So site design wise, the proposed project will install landscaping, bordering and interior to the project site. Proposed landscaping will feature California native and low water use trees, shrubs, and ground cover. The applicant proposes utility friendly, which is small, street trees at regular intervals across the two main private streets to provide parking area shading and create a boulevard environment along the attached sidewalk. Now, staff is okay, with these smaller trees, the utility friendly trees. The applicant has packed in quite a few trees, and they would not have been able to do that had we had to keep them out of the utility areas.

So, just wanted to touch on that as well. Each lot will include a small front yard tree facing the pedestrian paseo. You can see those, on the slide. And all non paved areas will be landscaped with complementary shrubs and ground cover. The applicant has also provided concepts for fencing and gates at the entry points, to the project and the residential back patio fencing as well, which you can see on the slide.

So staff's analysis, first for the tentative map. The, project site has a general plan land use designation of multifamily low density, which is seven to 12 dwelling units per acre. In addition, the project site has a specific plan designation of multifamily low density. The applicant proposes a small lot detached residential product of 8.4 units an acre, which is consistent with the site's land use designations. In addition, the project proposes community focal points and a lower cost option for homeownership than a standard single family residential development, which supports specific plan goals.

The proposed small lot tentative subdivision map creates the necessary easements to allow for roads and utilities, to facilitate development of the small lot parcels as well as parcels providing shared parking, access, landscaping, and open space which will all be owned and maintained by a homeowners association. With all of this, staff has determined the proposed small lot tentative subdivision map, if approved concurrently with the planned development permit and as conditioned will comply with all of city requirements as well as with the requirements of the state subdivision map act. Regarding the plan development permit, in reviewing the applicant's request for approval of a plan development permit, staff considered a variety of factors, including existing and proposed development standards, traffic access and circulation, parking, noise, walls and fences, lighting, trash and recycling pickup, grading and drainage, and architectural design. The requested deviations, in development standards are like those approved for other successfully developed small lot projects. I included a couple of examples in the staff report.

One is the courts at Russell Ranch, which, the design review for that was approved in 2018, and then veranda at Empire Ranch, is also by Elliot Homes. That project was approved in 2015. The request, for this as far as the, size of the lots and the setbacks are are very similar to those. The one thing about this, and I'll get into it in a minute, is that, with this project, there's actually more open space, common open space than in those other projects. And, staff worked with the applicant, to to get that common space in there, because this doesn't necessarily directly abut a park or open space.

The applicant also provided a circulation plan, which is attachment 12 in your staff report, and a refuse cart pickup plan, which is attachment 13, both of which were reviewed by city staff, and deemed to be, reasonable, for services and circulation on-site. And the staff believes they support the unique site design. And then finally, overall staff believes that the site design provides, what is required under the PD permit, which is a well designed community with its own within its own boundaries. It has adequate access, services, and open space to serve the residents and provide emergency public safety services. So as I mentioned, the project does include two, parklets, pocket parks, or, park lights or whatever you want to call them, but they're shared outdoor spaces, one on each of the lots.

They have designed these to be, thoroughly planted with trees, ground cover, seating areas, and, you know, other things to get people out of their homes and into a bit of a green space in their, you know, common backyard. And then finally, the design review. Staff have determined that the project is compliant with the Folsom Heights design guidelines, as demonstrated on the slide. The design guideline requirement for the master home plan is four or more floor plans, three or more elevations. The proposed project does provide both, four, floor plans and three elevations.

They have visually distinct roof forms, one out of every three homes. There is a site development plan, which is attachment 10 of the staff report that demonstrates that they have built in this variety, of homes. And then condition number 46 will ensure compliance with the requirement as well. Staff has to go through and look at the production homes as they come through. Porch depth is a minimum of six feet.

And then, again, with the floor plan and elevation repetition, their site development plan shows that they can meet the requirement to not repeat, either floor plans or elevations, within the confines of the requirement of the design guidelines. And then condition 46, we'll make sure staff double checks that. So CEQA analysis, certain residential, commercial, and mixed use projects that are consistent with the specific plan adopted pursuant to Title VII, Division I, Chapter III, Article VIII of the California government code are exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act provided they qualify under CEQA guidelines section 15,182. One of the project types described in that section is a residential project undertaken pursuant to and in conformity with a specific plan as described and then with some limitations outlined in the statute, and I will spare you that. So after review, the city has determined that the proposed project is consistent with the Folsom Plan Area Specific Plan, and that it would not result in any of the circumstances listed in CEQA guidelines section fifteen thousand one sixty two, which is some of those limitations I mentioned.

Because the proposed project is subject to a statutory exemption rather than a categorical exemption, the typical exceptions to CEQA exemptions do not apply. Therefore, staff have determined that the veranda at Folsom Heights project qualifies for the special special situation exemption of CEQA guidelines section one five one eight two projects pursuant to specific plan. And with all that, staff is recommending that the commission move to recommend to the city council that they confirm staff's determination that the veranda at Folsom Heights project is exempt from CEQA under CEQA guidelines section fifteen thousand one eighty two, projects pursuant to a specific plan, that you recommend, approval of the small lot vesting tentative subdivision map, the plan development permit, and design review based on the findings and conditions approval in the report. And that and staff's report. Price Walker is here and available for any questions you might have.

You. Okay.

And first let's see if there are any questions of our staff. Anything? Nothing?

Yeah, just one. Commissioner Barcelona, go ahead. So I know we like trees. I know we do. In some of the elevation drawings that you showed, it looks like the trees are kind of impinging on the structures. And we kind of live in a different world now where homeowners, carriers don't like mature trees that extend over roof lines, that sort of thing. So is that are we keeping that in mind as we approve or require landscape designs for these projects?

I that's a good question. It's come up a a couple of times now, with these small lot sites. I I do know that the for instance, the trees that are in the sort of front yard areas in the Paseo areas, The idea is that these are, the smaller trees, and so they wouldn't get to the height where they would be over the house. Instead they would be, in front of it. So, yeah, I think that's definitely something our arborist has been looking at.

The trees because the trees are not on they're not really like the owner's property. Right? It's the HOA?

It's the owner's property, but then it's HOA maintenance.

Right. And so my neighbor just spent $2,000 to have their trees trimmed away from their roof eaves. So I'm just thinking that's that could be a potentially large hit on an HOA ten years, twenty years down the road.

Yeah. Okay.

Desmond, did you have a thought?

I I think you covered it. Yeah, they are as Jessica noted, they're smaller trees. And then second, the city arborist is well aware of these kinds of issues that have become more prevalent recently with the problems we've had with wildfires. And it's something that she looks at. But the larger trees the ones that are along the street frontage to provide shading near the sidewalk and the street, whereas the smaller ones are the ones adjacent to the home. So you're less likely to have those ones that kind of have the branches that hang over the roofline there.

Any other questions for staff? Mine was also about the trees. You called them utility friendly. Is that what you called them? Yes. So that just struck me because it piqued my interest. Is it utility friendly because because we don't have overhead utilities. Is it utility friendly because the root systems?

Yes. Smaller trees don't go as far down. They don't tend to impede as much.

Very good.

Do you

have work? Oh, and a city engineer answer

Yeah, on this so if you'll notice, I'll use Palladio as the example. We have some large palm trees there. Well, large palm trees are essentially a large grass. The reason why there's large palm trees at those corner places is because there is a ton of dry utilities all along the perimeter of Palladio. And so in this case, when you do these high density projects, it's the development equivalent of fitting 10 pounds of potatoes in a five pound sack.

And so you have to get pretty creative about where you place your utilities and how you landscape around them. We have had some issues South Of 50 where there's been some trees that the root system and even the box size actually conflicted with dry utilities. So we had to get creative at the eleventh hour as opposed to being proactive right now.

Right. That's a thought. Very interesting. All right. Any other questions of staff? Hearing and seeing none. Thank you, Jessica. We'll hear from the applicant now.

Madam Chair, Price Walker with Elliott Homes. I also have Dave Sagan from REY Engineers. I don't have a lot to add. That was really, really well done and really, really thorough. We have We have constructed now six of the veranda projects in the region. We keep using the same name. We're not super creative here. In Roseville, Folsom, the one on Golf Links and Empire Ranch Road or Potomac, that's been there now, I think, eight years. And it's a great one to look at. It still looks, I think, really, really good.

And we've had a lot of success with the design. I use the term missing middle and we hear that planners talk about it a lot and actually politicians do too. And it really is that area between low density and apartments. This fits to me right right definition of the missing middle. A house, for sale house that, you know, is attainable.

I am not going to use the other a word, attainable. And, you know, for for frankly a teacher or a firefighter, you know, etcetera, they can get into a house and hopefully get some equity and and move into a bigger house, you know, on the next one. Something we've had a lot of success on elsewhere and we're really looking forward to doing it here. I'm am in rec I agree with all the recommendations of the conditions and happy to answer any questions.

Okay. Good project. Doctor. Yeah. Any insight as to what you think the price points would be at

this point?

I know. I don't know. Because I mean, when we're looking about this missing middle, I'm

thinking I about

first time when we're talking buyer's and whether it

high fives, low to mid 6 hundred's.

I guess that that's probably what I would have guesstimate. Yeah. Is kinda what it is today here. Okay. Thank you. Which is amazing. Any other questions? Commissioner Hurst.

Thank you for undertaking this project. As someone who would like to be a homeowner

Yes.

Totally the type of thing I'd be looking for. I guess one of my questions will just be based on your experience since you've done this sort of project before, typically, do you see a lot of people who move in, buy these houses, and they rent them out as a proportion of new first time homeowners? Or is it a mix?

We're very, very stringent. Chair Reynolds is shaking her head. She knows who I work for. We work very hard to keep that from happening. Ultimately, we don't control it. You know, we are the I'm on four HOA boards still, so we stay very involved with these projects. So we do our best to keep that from happening.

Got it.

And I want to talk about the trees real quick. It reminded me of looking at Commissioner Barcelona. He is absolutely correct. We want to keep these trees smaller. We also do root barriers to try to keep them out of the utilities. But we've found on a lot of these projects where we just have HOAs that we go in and take trees out. We clip trees. So we really need to kind of relook at how we we landscape today. I mean, it's much different than it was twenty years ago where we just filled every space with a tree. And so we're we're all, I think, smarter at that, including the city.

And it's my understanding, this project will have its own separate HOA from the rest of Folsom Heights. That is correct. Okay. Okay. Very good. All right. Anything else? Right. You very much, Mr. Walker. All right. Oh, and now it's time to open the public comment. Is there anybody here in the audience who would like to address the Commission on this item number four? Hearing and seeing none, we will close the public comment. And, commissioners, that leaves it to us. What's your pleasure?

If I may, I would just like to briefly disclose that I do live very close to this project. So I did have to discuss with city staff beforehand to just make outside of the 500 foot radius, and I am, but was cognizant of that going into this discussion.

Yeah. And we appreciate that being cautious about things like that. Thank you, commissioner Hurst. Anybody else have anything to say before we go to a motion? Anybody want to make a motion?

I haven't gotten to do one today, so I'll jump in.

Okay. Thank you, Commissioner West. Let's go for it.

I will move to recommend that the City Council confirm staff's determination that the Verandet Folsom Heights project is exempt from CEQA under CEQA guideline Section fifteen thousand one eighty two, projects pursuant to a specific plan and approve a small lot vesting tentative subdivision map, plan development permit, and design review for the Verand At Folsom Heights project based on the findings, findings A through AA, and subject to the conditions of approval, conditions one through 64 attached to the staff report.

Okay, we have a motion. Do we have a second? I'll second. Second by Commissioner Laney. Any discussion on the motion that's on the floor? Okay. Hearing none, staff, please call the roll.

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

Yes.

Commissioner Reynolds?

Yes. All right. Motion passes. So thank you very much, Elliot Holmes, for doing business in Folsom and for being so user friendly with us. So we do appreciate that. Have a great night. Congratulations. All right. Next on the agenda. We are getting near the end, gang. It's the principal planner's report. Jessica, you're up. And our next meeting is September 17.

Oh, you took my first item.

Can't believe we're actually going into September before too long.

That's right. So we have, one item expected for the September hearing, which is a workshop on our draft objective development and design standards. So the long promised odds will be coming your way for a workshop. The idea is that we will bring it to you for that workshop first, get some feedback, and then bring it back through later in the fall, for an actual recommendation vote, to then bring to the, city council.

Before you go on on that, so is that as it relates to ADUs or a It's great deal more

a great deal more. So the objective development and design standards, they are effectively doing good on a promise that staff made to the city council when, the increase in densities were approved, for the areas along East Spidwell, down, on oh, my goodness. Desmond, where else?

Yeah. So it was it was East Bidwell, the areas around the Iron Point and Light Rail and Light Rail Light Rail stations, then in the Folsom Town Center.

That's right.

Yeah. Okay. And so, with these increased density allowances, the request was to bring design standards and we are limited in what we can do. They have to be objective, measurable, etc. So we've been working with a consulting firm, Opticos, to put together the set of design and development standards. We think we're nearly there so we want to bring it to you guys for the workshop.

Okay, thank you.

Anyone expecting to be absent for the September 17 that you know yet? Okay, super. I do want to mention you probably know the City Council is considering applicants for the open at large Planning Commission seat they are considering applicants at next Tuesday's meeting so depending on how quickly things move if someone gets chosen next Tuesday we may have our seventh Commissioner back in September so knock on wood that would be great. I do want to say we did have 23 applicants. Our Wow.

Yeah. Our clerk's office and, our communications office, really got the word out there. So, yeah, we had a lot of applicants and a lot of good applicants. Wow. So it's it's very great.

That's wonderful. Wonderful. It's a nice problem to have. And I hope you all feel good about what you're doing here because it obviously is a very coveted, position at this point. Good.

And then last thing, in the last month, staff approved four design reviews, one custom home, two residential additions, and, one residential accessory structure. And that is the, principal planner report.

Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Jessica. Any questions for Jessica?

What do you think we'll face in mid October?

He must be going on vacation. Yeah. Maybe

of the Toll Brothers subdivision map.

Maybe. And we may also have an inclusionary ordinance update as well. We'll keep you posted on that. So staff is currently working to update our inclusionary ordinance, and not anticipating a a dramatic change in the fee, but looking at kind of the the way that it's it's determined right now, it's it's very staff intensive. And just with the small staff that we have, there's kind of better examples out there of of how the fee is is determined and then assessed against against projects.

So that's what we're we're looking at and and evaluating. Because right now, it's it's there's a lot of additional staff work that's not done in other jurisdictions in terms of how they do the fee. So that's one of the things that we're going to be bringing forward to you and to the city council is an update to that.

Okay. Very good. Did that answer your question to your satisfaction? Okay. Anybody else have questions for staff at this point? Anything else under the good of the order? Okay. Hearing none, commissioners, thank you for your time tonight. Staff, thank you very much for your expertise. We are hereby adjourned at 08:13PM.