Folsom City Council Regular and Special Meeting - October 26, 2021
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Folsom City Council Regular and Special Meeting - October 26, 2021
The Folsom City Council met in a special session at 5:00 PM for closed session matters (labor negotiations, litigation, and real property negotiation) and then convened for a regular meeting at 6:30 PM. The regular meeting included a quarterly development report, changes to the by-district election mapping schedule, approval of a 115-lot subdivision, and a lengthy discussion on PG&E's planned tree removal along transmission line corridors. Council members expressed strong frustration with PG&E's lack of cooperation and lack of attendance.
Consent Calendar
- Minutes of October 12, 2021 approved.
- Item 3 (Appointment of At-large Utility Commissioner) was continued to November 9, 2021 after staff discovered a late application that had been trapped in a spam filter.
- All other consent items (4–14) were approved unanimously.
Scheduled Presentations
- Folsom Plan Area Quarterly Report: Staff presented development activity for Q3 2021 (July–September). Key statistics: 2,460 final map lots approved with 314 lots pending; building permits averaged 60 per month in Q3, down from 90; grading 75% complete in Russell Ranch Phase 2; model homes active from multiple builders. The report also covered new entitlements (Shops Commercial Center, map extensions, South Point Commercial preliminary project).
Public Comments & Testimony
- PG&E Vegetation Management (Item 16): 18 speakers (in-person and by phone) addressed the council. Residents overwhelmingly opposed the removal of protected oak trees, advocating for trimming to minimum vegetation clearance distance (MVCD) standards instead of removal. Specific points:
- Bruce Klein (30-year resident) argued PG&E has no legal authority to remove oaks on city property and urged the council to refuse entry for removal, allow only trimming to MVCD, and erect fencing around threatened trees.
- Robert Goss (former city employee) identified inconsistencies in PG&E's tree selection (e.g., short trees marked for removal while tall, fast-growing cottonwoods and eucalyptus were not). He called for a partnership approach and insisted PG&E demonstrate why removal is the only option.
- Julie Klein (former PG&E employee) requested the city obtain title reports to understand land rights and submitted a petition of nearly 200 signatures asking PG&E to stop oak removal.
- Multiple speakers (including a fifth-grade student) emphasized the environmental, shade, and aesthetic value of the trees and urged the council to stand firm.
Discussion Items
- Item 17: Update on Online Mapping Tools for By-District Elections (moved up from old business): City attorney Stephen Wong reported that the mapping tool vendor District R shut down due to overwhelming demand. An alternative, Dave's Redistricting App, will be available by the end of the week. Public hearings originally scheduled for November/December were rescheduled to January 11, 2022 (third), February 8, 2022 (fourth), and February 22, 2022 (fifth). The deadline for final adoption remains April 2022. A printable paper map kit will also be provided. Councilmember Howell requested street names be added to the online tool.
- Item 15: Mangini Ranch Phase 1C South (Public Hearing): Proposed 115 residential units on 15.6 acres at a density of about 8 units/acre. The project includes a small lot vesting tentative subdivision map, minor administrative modifications, planned development permit, and design review. Staff presented the boundary adjustments, a transfer of 3 units, development standard deviations (front yard, garage, side yard setbacks), noise mitigation (6–10 foot sound walls with berming), and STC ratings for windows. The council approved Resolution 10731 unanimously.
- Item 16: PG&E Overhead Transmission Lines Vegetation Management (Scheduled Presentation): Mayor Kozlowski explained that PG&E has federal and CPUC authority to work in rights-of-way and is not required to obtain city permits, but the city has been trying since August to get information. PG&E promised to attend but sent an email on October 26 stating they would not, and that work is scheduled to begin November 2. Councilmembers noted PG&E cited FAC-003-4 and CPUC General Order 95, but Vice Mayor Aquino argued those regulations do not mandate removal—only clearance. Fire Chief Cassano stated the oak corridors in the city do not pose a fire hazard. Council considered legal options and directed staff to take multiple actions.
Key Outcomes
- Mangini Ranch Phase 1C South (Item 15): Resolution 10731 approved unanimously (5-0).
- Online Mapping Tools (Item 17): Public hearing schedule revised as noted; tools and paper kits to be available by end of week.
- PG&E Vegetation Management (Item 16): The council directed staff to:
- Send a strongly worded letter to PG&E demanding they demonstrate authority to remove protected trees and requesting they meet with city arborist and fire chief.
- File a complaint with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) regarding PG&E's approach.
- Explore adoption of an emergency ordinance to tighten the utility exception in the city's tree protection ordinance (limiting removal to only when there is an imminent safety threat as determined by city arborist or fire chief).
- Erect fencing around protected oaks identified for removal to prevent inadvertent cutting.
- Refuse entry to city property for removal of protected trees; allow only trimming to MVCD standards.
- Council also encouraged residents to monitor the corridor and report any unauthorized tree removal.
- Storm Response: City Manager thanked staff and volunteers for handling 7.35 inches of rain over 72 hours (a 200-year storm); no major injuries.
- Upcoming Events: Veterans Day Parade (Nov 11); Trunk or Treat events Oct 30; Folsom Zoo Sanctuary Halloween event.
- Council Comments: Councilmember Chalamcherla requested creek debris removal for better water flow; Vice Mayor Aquino suggested the Folsom Plan Area quarterly reports could become twice-yearly given slowing development pace; Mayor Kozlowski noted a traffic signal timing issue at Prison Road to be investigated.
Meeting Transcript
The regular meeting of the Folsom City Council for October 26, 2021 at 637. Please call the roll. Council members Rodriguez here. A keynote? Here. Shalom Chairla. Yeah. Howell? Here. And Kozlowski. Here. If everybody will please stand and join me for the Pledge of Allegiance. Okay, Madam Clerk, do we have any agenda updates? You have a couple updates this evening. Item number three on your consent calendar is going to be continued until November 9th. And item number 17 is going to be moved up on the agenda to be taken directly after consent calendar before public hearing. Excellent. Okay, fantastic. All right, then we will start our meeting with business from the floor. This is an opportunity for anybody who would like to address the city council on topics that are not on the agenda to do so. Do we have any speaker cards for that? You have no request to speak under business from the floor. Okay. Is there anybody on the phone that wants to speak on a topic not on the agenda? Anyone in the room? All right, we'll move on then. Okay. Please call first item. All right, your first item this evening is scheduled presentation item number one. This is the Folsom Plan Area Quarterly Report. Good evening, Mayor, members of the city council. This item before you is our regular quarterly report of development activity in the Folsom plan area. So this is for third quarter of 2021, July July 1st through September 30th. We go over planning activity, infrastructure site engineering work, tentative maps and final maps that have come before you, building in activity, and then any information that we've been updating on the city's website. As a reminder, we have a new map showing the approved and final maps, subdivision maps within the specific plan area. So this is the land use map overlaid by the neighborhood planning and land maps. Over the last 90-day period, we received four new uh planning entitlements, the shops commercial center, which was a minor modification to the plan development that was previously approved, and then two map extensions for tentative subdivision maps, vesting tentative subdivision maps. That's the acronym VTSM, and then a preliminary project review for another commercial project within the project area. And so I'm gonna just show some of those exhibits again. There's no intent to go over any details just to make you aware of projects that are in the pipeline, either to be decided by uh the commission or uh the council as it is. So um the shops, this is uh an exhibit that shows the uh exhibits for um the shops commercial site on the southeast corner of East Bidwell and Alder Creek Parkway. We have the um extensions of the maps that were previously approved for Broadstone Estates and Folsom Heights, and we have the application for what's called South Point Commercial Project. This is preliminary, so it's not a formal entitlement. They're just asking for feedback from all the city's departments and agencies based on their preliminary plan. Over the last 90-day period, the city took final action on several projects within the plan area, um, both planning commission and city council. The White Rock Springs Ranch Village 9 design review, and those exhibits are showing what was approved, Mangeny Place, St. Anton's. This is the affordable uh housing or affordable apartment design review. Russell Ranch phase two map amendments and design review. The development agreement amendment uh involving UC Davis.
openpublica.com