Good evening.

We will call to order the regular meeting of the Folsom City Council for Tuesday, August 26, 2025, which just happens to be our vice mayor's birthday.

So happy birthday, Mr.

Raisel.

Madam Clerk, if you would please call the role.

Birthday boy Raisel.

I'm here.

Please don't do that all night.

Also here.

Leary here.

And Aquino.

Here, if you'd all please rise and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Mr.

City Attorney, do we have any agenda updates?

Good evening, Madam Mayor.

Item number six on tonight's agenda has been continued off calendar at the request of the event organizer, otherwise no update.

Okay, thank you very much.

At this time, uh we have business from the floor.

This is the public's opportunity to address the council on items that are not on the agenda.

Um, if you want to speak to this item or any item tonight, please fill out a blue card, which is on the table in the back, hand it to um the officer over here, and we will call you up at the appropriate time.

As of right now, do we have any requests for business from the floor?

You have no request to speak under business from the floor.

Okay, seeing none, we will move on to schedule presentations.

Okay, your first scheduled presentation item this evening is item number one.

This will be a mid-cycle housing element and housing fund update.

Good evening, Stephanie.

Good evening.

Trying to pull this up here.

Okay, let me try over here.

I know that.

Okay.

Yeah.

I'm just trying to open it.

Yeah.

Sorry.

Thanks.

Yeah, there we go.

I'm always technically challenged.

Thanks.

All right.

So good evening, uh, Mayor Aquino and Council members.

Stephanie Henry with the community development department.

Um, I appreciate the opportunity this evening to share an update on the housing element implementation and discuss funding priorities as we prepare for the second half of the Folsom Folsom's eighth-year housing element planning cycle.

This presentation reviews our progress towards meeting our regional housing needs allocation, our arena targets, provides updates on housing programs and policies, and outlines key implementation efforts.

I'll also review housing funds currently available and share how they've been distributed to support previous affordable housing initiatives.

Um the Folsom Six Cycle Housing Element adopted in August of 2021, sets the policy framework for housing through 2029.

It identifies goals, addresses new and ongoing housing challenges, and outlines programs to promote development, affordability, and equity.

Under this framework, all cities and counties are required to plan for their fair share of housing through the arena or regional housing needs allocation.

The housing element must detail how local governments plan to meet the housing needs of residents across all income levels.

Updates are mandated every eight years and must be reviewed and approved by the state.

In addition, several key housing laws, such as density bonus, housing accountability act, and no net loss play a major role in how cities now accommodate growth and ensure housing opportunities.

To understand how these guiding principles are translating into measurable outcomes, we can take a look at Folsom's current housing performance.

This table outlines Folsom's progress towards meeting its arena through 2024.

We've seen strong results in both the moderate and above moderate income segments.

However, as you can see on this slide, we still have some movement in the lower arena allocations, but there's still a significant shortfall as far as trying to meet that target.

While progress is underway with two new affordable housing developments set to deliver an additional 187 units for lower income households, it remains clear that the very high lower income RENA targets pose a significant challenge.

Stephanie, just a little clarification that RENA allocation is for 2021 to 2029.

That's our entire allocation.

Exactly.

Yes.

This slide's just showing our progress through 2024, which was our last update to the state as far as providing progress report.

To put Folsom's progress in broader context, this next slide presents HCD data from annual progress reports comparing building permit activity across SACOG jurisdictions.

This helps illustrate how our efforts stack up regionally and where we're seeing strong performance.

As shown, Sacramento and Roseville lead in permit volume across all income levels.

Sacramento saw 67% of its housing growth meet the needs of lower and moderate income households, while Roseville achieved 49%.

Folsom achieved 28%, and Elk Grow was 25%.

In addition to the ongoing efforts to meet RENA obligations, we've made meaningful progress in implementing the goals, policies, and programs outlined in our adopted housing element.

Of the 34 total programs, 16 are ongoing by design, and 18 have defined timelines for completion.

At this midpoint in the cycle, five programs have fully been completed.

Eight are actively underway or partially completed.

And those are mostly tied to zoning code update, and five have not yet been initiated.

Program H2 stands out as a major achievement, expanding residential capacity of over 6,000 units through targeted general plan amendments that were adopted last year.

This effort created a strong buffer of available sites of available sites to avoid no non no net loss concerns and minimize the need for rezonings.

Other notable programs include program H4, which supports ADU development design through a workbook for both the historic district and citywide.

And through program H16, the city facilitated the construction of 10 for sale affordable housing units by selling surplus land to habitat for humanity for the Purse First Street project.

This next slide identifies several programs that are slated for completion this year, which include program H8, H9, and H11.

These programs aim to strengthen Folsom's housing strategy through design standards, fee valuation, and funding guidelines.

For the 2526, staff intends to prioritize the completion of ongoing projects and the implementation of measures that are associated with the zoning code update.

This slide here highlights several key actions that are still under consideration for next year.

These include exploring incentives for ADUs to increase ADU supply, reviewing development and permit fees to see if there's any way to reduce those for affordable projects, advancing affordable housing near the city owned Glenn Light Rail Station, studying land acquisition opportunities, and prioritizing infrastructure to support future affordable development.

So next, I'm gonna shift from reviewing the status of the programs of the housing element and provide an overview of funding sources local, state, and federal that support implementation of the housing element.

These funds, ranging from inclusionary housing fees to reclaimed redevelopment bond proceeds, have enabled the city to support affordable housing projects for low, very low, and extremely low households.

This slide before you summarizes the purposes and uses for each of these funds.

As of this school year in June 2025, the city's total housing fund for projects was approximately 23 million dollars.

During this past year, the city collected over 3.8 million in inclusionary housing fees as a result of single family development.

And approximately 171,000 in housing trust fund fees associated with commercial development.

In addition to providing funding for affordable housing loans for affordable housing projects, these funds are used for other housing related activities, such as updating the housing element or hiring a consultant to help us with reviewing affordable housing loans from affordable housing developers.

This slide provides you with an overview of how we've used these various funds throughout the last 15 years.

The city receives community development block grants and also home investment partnership program funds.

Currently 200,000 annually is used for our seniors helping seniors home repair program.

These grants typically require prevailing wage compliance and pose cost challenges for jurisdictions that are smaller in size, like Folsom.

Despite this, fulsom secured 2.5 million in home key funds in 2020 for 25 unit Bidwell Street Studio project.

In 2025, current and anticipated future allocations totaling up to $810,000 were committed to Habitat for Humanity to support the Percifer Street affordable housing project.

So beyond state-administered programs, there are also regional funding sources.

The Sacramento Area Council of Governments, SACOG provides targeted grants that encourage sustainable development and housing production through initiatives such as regional early action planning or reap and green means go.

As shown on this slide, the city has received several of these grants to um help support our housing efforts.

Council's input, this mid-cycle review will help guide priorities, ensure resources are effectively leveraged and reinforce the city city's commitment to meeting its housing obligations in a manner that reflects community values and needs.

So later this year we plan to return with additional housing uh implementation items, including an analysis, an update of the housing element, housing inclusionary ordinance as required under our current housing element.

And also we plan to hold a workshop on objective development standards for multifamily and mixed use developments.

And this concludes my presentations.

Thank you, Stephanie.

Any questions?

I got a few.

I think just questions at this point.

Just questions.

You listed all the projects that we have uh funding, and you mentioned I think it was 3.8 million that came back in this year.

Are we in repayment on a number of uh these projects uh that we've put out uh loans for so that 3.8 million was inclusionary housing fees that we've collected this past um the past fiscal year from development of single family homes?

So separate from people putting money back into the affordable housing projects as we've loaned money to at lower no interest.

Um those obviously if they have funds, they pay us back.

That's my understanding, correct?

Yeah.

So are a number of those in repayment now, or are we collecting money back from those projects?

I would say that most of them are probably not in repayment yet because we usually defer the payment for 10 to 15 years, but Stacy might have additional information.

We have just a couple that have paid some.

It depends, there's a calculation that they do based on residual income of the project, and then we will receive some funding there, but most of them are very long-term loans, and so that the majority of them are not paying significant amounts now.

So, where would be the time horizon where we would expect to have that money?

Like, I guess I'm just kind of thinking of like uh are this is this a 20-year commitment from us, or is this an indefinite commitment that we're never going to be able to loan to another project?

Like, what's the time horizon?

I would say we'll start receiving back in about 20 years from the majority of them when they have that consistent residual income up to the amount that is required in the agreement.

Thank you.

And I don't think I have any other questions.

I'll save my other comments for prioritization.

Questions?

I'll just piggyback on uh Justin's question.

Um, is that 10 to 20 year payback something that's negotiable?

It is, but the way these loans are typically structured, we provide the gap financing.

So they secure their funding through housing tax credits generally and some private investors possibly, and then there's a portion that isn't covered through that, and then that's where they come to the city and ask for that gap financing.

Generally, we've seen the gap financing loan be like 2.5 million up to 8 million or 6 million.

And the way that they're structured, they generally all are structured so that it's at least a 10-year period before they start paying back, and it's a small amount as a residual.

So if they have a surplus, a cash surplus after they've paid all their other expenses, then um, we get a portion of that, usually 50% of that residual cash flow, and that generally starts about year 10 to 15.

So I'm not sure I got an answer, but I got more information, which is great.

So is that like you said it usually starts at 1010?

So usually is the question is it is it something that the city is negotiating with the lendee or whatever the person that needs the loan, right?

Yeah.

Is it something that the I guess my question is in a line with, you know, if we negotiate an earlier payback over a long period of time starting earlier, then we'll have more funds to give out sooner than later.

So that's my question.

Is that negotiable?

It is negotiable, but I would have to defer to a developer who I don't have on hand, probably because it's a very complex financing situation.

Yeah.

And so I think across the board, when they come to cities or counties, you're seeing this type of um structure.

And then also we negotiate some of the some of the terms.

Like recently, we've been trying to require a 35-year loan payback.

At some point in time, we we allowed them for like 50 years.

So we are trying to negotiate some of those terms later on this evening.

I'll be spite speaking of affordable housing loan guidelines.

So we've been trying to tighten some of those things up, such as not allowing everything to be above that line when they start calling it surplus, because sometimes they try to try to throw in extra um payments to like partners or others that um we're trying not to allow.

We're trying to get, you know, we're trying to dial that in so that we're getting a better deal for the city.

Thank you.

Councilmember Leary, any questions?

Um, yeah, I have a couple.

And uh I I did read, you know, the the upcoming um item addressing uh the structuring of this, and it looks like you are attempting to address that.

Um and I just had one more question about these paybacks, and are those it's not necessarily they're all coming in in one lump sum, or they're being made incrementally, you know, somewhere between those time frames, or is it usually in one lump sum?

Stacey might know the better answer to that.

They have a like a debt service schedule for repayment, and then again, it'll be based on what's available, but it'd be over the 30-year period or 25 years or 50 years, whatever had been negotiated originally.

So we'll just be receiving those payments annually.

Okay.

Um, and then I have another couple of questions, and you mentioned you know, increasing the number of ADUs.

How many of the ADUs that we have considered to be affordable?

Is generally those are you know, additional housing units, but they're not necessarily from into the affordable category.

Yeah, so that's the challenging it's challenging to answer that question because we don't have the data on what the rents are oftentimes.

So we kind of project what we believe would be the affordable units.

Uh SACOG did a survey several years back, and um with that survey, they had made some it was a it was county or regional survey, so was had they they had a bigger pot to um use for their survey, and they I assigned percentages for like what would moderate what were low and what were very low income.

We kind of use that survey as a template, and if you look at the data, it's generally the smaller ADUs are the ones that are going to be considered very low.

So if it's like 350 square feet or 500 square feet, it might accommodate a very low household.

Um for you know, as they get larger, the rents go up.

So we we utilize that.

So every year when we do our housing element annual progress report, we actually look at the square footages of all of the all of the units and kind of make an estimate based on that.

And so far, um HCD is allowed that these aren't units that are participating in any of the affordable housing programs, those are generally all the larger apartment complexes, yeah.

So they're not deed restricted.

Yeah.

Council member Leary, I would just add that for as Stephanie's describing at the outset of this eight-year housing cycle, SACOG said that methodology of counting the accessory dwelling units would be acceptable, but as a local agency, you could do more specific surveying to prove a higher rate of affordability that hasn't really been our experience, and so we're going with the method that is determined to be acceptable.

Okay, thank you.

Uh and I just have one other question on this.

How is the um you know we have I believe just the one home key program?

And is there any kind of outreach or um or way to um bring in some additional proposals for an another home keep type project?

Yeah, I haven't looked at um the home keep program recently.

I think there is a home key 3.0.

So we were in the first round.

Like I know there was at least three rounds.

I'm not sure if that they're still accepting applications or or what stage they're at, but it seems like the state is gonna try to continue to roll that program out.

You know, it does have a lot of challenges.

The biggest challenge that we've found by utilizing that program with the Bidwell Street Studios project was that it requires a housing first um priority, meaning that individuals who are homeless or get into these units before they have any type of wraparound services, or so we see we've seen quite a bit of turn turnover because individuals don't without those services kind of ahead of getting into housing, it seems like it's difficult just to get into housing and accept services.

So that's one of the major challenges.

Well, the reason I'm asking you is there are some programs out there that are providing housing and wraparound services, and um that would it sound like that would be they couldn't really utilize this home key program, that there would be a different mechanism for putting something.

They possibly could as long as it's a housing first um priority, meaning they don't have to have any, they don't even have to accept services to be in the in the housing.

So we continue to look at all the grant opportunities.

Stephanie does a great job tracking all of that, but it also requires a local partner that has the right kind of project for our community.

So when those things align, we bring those forward to city council for consideration.

So we'll continue that same process of looking at those funding opportunities and any you know partnership opportunities that that we're aware of or that come to our attention.

Great, thank you.

Stephanie, could you go back to slide five, please, where it shows the RENA numbers.

So obviously we've had a lot more units built above moderate than we were allocated.

Uh, and presumably we've had we had areas that we had kind of earmarked that we thought maybe would be very low or low that have now been built at market rate.

So if we didn't have that buffer already, we would have to go zone rezone land, correct?

In order to have land to then accommodate those numbers at the low, very low.

Yeah, that's correct.

Okay, but but through that program H2, we set ourselves up, you know, by adding additional capacity in areas that were already zoned, multifamily housing, or that were next to light rail stations, you know.

I think we rezoned two properties in two sites in the plan area that were formally like commercial or industrial to accommodate this additional housing, but right now, and hopefully for the future housing element, we have we have a buffer.

We've also had two projects, vintage at Folsom, the senior project across from the prison and Harrington Grove.

Oh, and Habitat for Humanity.

Those three projects are that were recently approved, um, were not one of the sites identified in our housing element.

So we added units through those three projects.

Got it.

Okay.

And then so something like you know, Powerhouse Ministries is working on a live-in long-term program for men like they do for women, right?

Let's just say 40 beds.

Can that be counted anywhere on here and like very low, low?

I mean that is their housing.

Granted, there is, you know, it's probably two years for most of them, but can it does that count toward any of these?

I would say that we would be able to utilize probably our inclusionary housing fund for programs such as that.

Our restriction currently for the inclusionary housing fund is that 50% has to be dedicated for building affordable long-term housing.

Okay.

So we could possibly use some of our funding to help them, but let's say it's a 40-bed facility that they're building.

Can we say that that's 40 um units toward our arena number?

No.

No.

Okay.

Not if it's like a not a it's more a transitional housing that doesn't count.

Got it.

Okay.

All right.

In terms of uh direction to staff for the future, Vice Mayor Retha, start with you.

You brought up the 50% uh has to be used for long-term housing.

Um is that part of an ordinance?

Is that directed by HCD?

Is that part of our lawsuit settlement?

Yeah, so that there's two parts.

Okay.

The inclusionary housing fees are for our includes related to our inclusionary housing ordinance, and the inclusionary housing ordinance is to develop is designed to develop low and very low income housing, permanent housing.

But I I believe the the indication was made that this had to be rental housing, but that's not anywhere in our inclusionary housing ordinance.

So do we the 50% doesn't have to be to rental housing, the 50% has to be just it doesn't.

Doesn't 100% of the housing trust fund doesn't have to be used for this there.

We have two funds.

We have the fulsome housing fund.

I know it's confusing.

Can we go to that slide real quick?

Just so I'm real clear on what I thought it did say.

So the top fund, that's the housing trust fund.

That fund um we do have some flexibility with that.

We can use it for administration, we can use it for any per our ordinance, we can use it to further our housing element goals.

Um for the housing fund 238, the one below that, that's from our inclusionary housing fees.

We do have a stipulation agreement from our previous um lawsuit that said if we were going to add an inclusionary housing fee option, that we would restrict 50% of those fees to go directly to affordable housing projects for low and very low-income households.

So you're telling me that 11.4 million of that I can use on other things.

I would defer to Stacey on that one, but that's the first time that's not in our ordinance anywhere.

So this is the first time.

I believe that's the way these fees are structured.

If she has any additional information, my interpretation it was it's it would still need to be used on affordable housing, just maybe not in the definition of low and very low.

Got it.

So we could use it on transportation supporting affordable housing, or we could use it.

We can come back to this too.

I I just I'm trying to get a little clarity on it.

I think what it means is we could use it like on administration of our affordable housing programs more than transportation.

I I think it's a question that uh we we should explore more fully.

Okay.

Sounds good.

I I two other questions.

And uh, this first one, and sorry if I sound like a broken record a little bit.

Where are we at with the habitat for humanity uh reimbursement uh to the general fund from the affordable housing trust fund?

Uh I will be bringing that back for council consideration in the next four to six weeks.

Thank you.

And then um we've talked uh in the past about ADU pre-approved plans.

Uh I know there was uh I don't remember what the bill was basically requiring all uh jurisdictions to have these.

I don't believe we have any yet.

I don't believe we can use Sacramento counties.

Um have we looked into pre-approved ADU plans?

If not, I can include that as part of my strategy, but I just kind of wanted to see where you guys are at because I I think we're already required to technically required to have them.

I desmond might want to speak to this.

I think he'll provide a better answer than I will.

So I um my understanding of the law is that if uh if an architect approaches us wanted to get their their um ADUs pre-approved, um, we can do that.

We haven't been approached by anybody uh at that point, and then the you know, the the city hasn't authorized the the funding to do such a program because we would need you know the the money to hire an architect to prepare a set of pre-approved plans, and then we'd have to administer those plans.

So a number of cities have done that.

Um, like you mentioned, Sacramento City, Sacramento County, they have done that.

That is something that the city could do.

Um we would just have to have the funding set aside, and then we would have to update those as the building code or Title 24 changes.

That's been one of the challenges with some of these pre-approved plans is that if the city owns them, then the city has to be responsible for updating them.

Um, but we uh uh we are open to if there's any architects out there that would like to get their plans pre-approved, um, then you know we can certainly uh do do that.

And then the you know, the um the the architect then has a responsibility of keeping those plans updated.

Thank you for that clarification.

All right.

So jumping over to to strategy.

Um for me from an affordable housing uh trust fund standpoint, affordable housing program, um, I think uh the ADU accelerator program uh or ADU uh incentive program, whatever you want to call it, I think is um is definitely a priority for me.

Um I did have a uh APAPA intern uh this summer.

Oh, uh and I want to kind of go on the record.

Uh I was gonna thank her in my council comments today anyway.

So this is perfect for the presentation.

Um Adya Krishna Murphy uh is is in her graduate studies at UC Davis, and she helped out looking at ADU accelerator programs and also home rehabilitation programs and what other municipalities in California are doing.

So I sent that over to staff for you guys' analysis and to look at kind of what um other jurisdictions are doing.

Uh so hopefully that's a good start on those.

Uh it was uh very nice for her to kind of put that research together for us uh over the summer.

Uh I do think those are also in line with my priorities.

The ADU accelerator, I think is a great uh cost effective way for affordable housing, and it also is likely dispersed uh throughout the city, which I think is a positive.

Um and then the home rehabilitation programs uh for me, if we can prevent somebody from losing their home, uh that is a uh a wise investment uh for us as a city.

Oh, and I'm open to whether we ask for a deed restriction.

Uh a number of those municipalities uh that are offering this have uh an option to deed restrict a rehabilitation uh house.

So I think that meets my goal of dispersing it throughout the city.

It also uh Sacramento County's working on the data to try to uh better target and prevent homelessness.

Uh so I think we could use that data as they kind of get these this stood up to where we can identify folks that may be at risk.

Uh if we can hop in and use some of our affordable housing funds to prevent somebody from losing their home, I think that would be very wise.

And then I think if we can get uh maybe some contractors uh that are interested in this uh type of program to where we use some of our older housing stock and convert kind of naturally more attainable housing over to affordable housing instead of building it brand new.

Uh I think it has uh significant advantages from the cost savings standpoint uh and making our dollars go further.

Uh for me, it's also prioritizing residents and prioritizing local workers.

Uh, this is something that we may talk about later in the affordable housing uh loan guidelines.

Uh but to me, we really need a preference uh for those folks that live here or they work here.

The goal is to cut down on vehicle miles traveled, or one of the goals is to cut down on vehicle miles traveled.

And so moving somebody here for an affordable housing program, but having them work in Sacramento or Elk Grove or Citrus Heights or wherever else doesn't further doesn't help with our traffic uh challenges and some of the impacts of development.

So I'd really like to see prioritizing residents and workers and whatever we do.

Uh my preference is home ownership.

I know there's a mixed bag on this.

Uh there's downsides to rentals, there's downsides to homeownerships.

My preference uh really lies in prioritizing homeownerships, down payment assistant programs, 0% loans or low interest loans directly to uh homeowners to make homes affordable would be my preference over uh subsidizing large rental apartment complexes.

Not that we don't have a need for some of those, um, but I think we need to spread it around and not just do one type of affordable housing.

Uh and then my last request uh would be uh to not forget about naturally affordable housing or if people are calling it now attainable housing, call it missing middle housing.

Um, if we come across things that we can make housing more attainable by lowering our regulations or finding a quicker way to process things or finding a way um to lower impact fees for for those sort of projects.

Um to me, the I just ask you not to forget about those things.

So just because something's maybe in the 80 to 120% range or in that moderate range, um, there are things that we can do.

Sounds like we might have 11.4 million that we could that we have uh to possibly go to that missing middle.

Um, and that to me is if we look at a project that is in that range and we subsidize it a little bit uh and put it in a family's hands that they can live in long term, um, then I think we've we've hopefully solved their affordable housing crisis for that family uh for a lifetime instead of just for a few years.

So that's those are my uh wishes for an affordable housing program.

Councilmember Kozlaski, anything you want to add?

I'm not sure I can add a lot to that.

I will suggest that if we're gonna if we want to try and encourage people to do ADUs in a more dispersed way throughout the city, that would be good because right now they're almost all in the historic district.

Um and I think um one of the barriers to entry, so to speak, with accessory dwelling units in the rest of the city is people's perception of the cost, um, the complexity of getting an ADU onto a home site that already exists in a place like say Lexington Hills, um, what their um obligations are to their uh deed restrictions.

Um so it might be interesting actually as an exercise to gather some uh volunteers from the community and do a charette and just kind of take a couple neighborhoods and um come up with not full plans for an ADU, but um all the sort of information that you need to consider starting an ADU project.

So, you know, what what what does your owners association say?

What are the you know what rules apply or don't apply in light of state law changes?

Um, you know, what are the space considerations for the size of an ADU?

How would you put it in if you're trying to convert a garage?

How would you put it in if you're trying to go over top of a garage?

What you know what what accessibility rules do you have to try and meet, screening, landscaping, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

Um it would be interesting to just do a little, you know, find community members to do this, but there's lots of smart architects and engineers and people out there.

Um and I think that would be a uh an afternoon well spent on a Saturday, trying to take apart how you do an ADU in Lexington Hills or how you do it in Broadstone area.

And that would give people maybe the idea that they could do it.

And then uh probably a property management company so that they can you know collect the rent and just you know not have to uh clean it and take care of it so much.

So anyway, that's that's all.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilmember Warba, any stuff?

I just had to Google a new word, charette.

Hadn't heard that one before.

So I do appreciate that.

Um I do um, I don't know if this is I I guess my question is uh is this something that we can use to incentivize building condos?

Um have apartment builders build maybe add some condos in there that are you know getting those people that can't afford homeownership, um, a single family home, but maybe able to do a condo.

So that maybe like Justin said, that 80 to 100% incentive.

Um so I'd like I would like to see more condos available throughout the city.

Um so I would like to see a study on, you know, what have other cities done this?

Can we use some of these funds to incentivize the developers to do it?

Or is it supplementing in some way?

I mean, I'll leave all the you know the answers to all those questions and all the questions that need to be asked to you guys, but that is something that um is a high priority for me to find get throughout.

We had a brief discussion about it when we talked about zoning and south of 50 recently, and I think there was a pretty good consensus that we all would like to see more condos versus apartments.

Um so that that's that would be a priority for me.

Okay, thank you.

And uh oh, then I'm sorry.

And then also just making sure those time delays, streamlining permitting process, that's still a focus for the community development department.

But but I know that there is, and there's been effort going.

So Councilmember Leary?

So I appreciate all the thought that um Councilmember Rayfill has put into those various ideas.

I one of my biggest concerns I think is keeping these affordable.

And so the you know the idea of having people rehab a house that uh, you know, that they that they can stay in, um, it seems to me to keep that in the affordable range, you would have to deed restrict it.

And there's uh I mean there's clearly doesn't seem to be a good way to restrict the rent uh on the ADUs when people are are putting those in.

So I'm I guess my biggest concern is that we haven't been able to really put a dent in the low and very low, or as big of a dent in the low and very low income sector.

And if the city acted as a lender, we could insist on deed restrictions like that.

Yeah, and that's what that was my question.

So could so could we on an ADU put a deed restriction?

If we were a lender.

Well, correct.

So I just want to make sure there are mechanisms in place when we look into these things to keep these things affordable.

And in those lower ranges, we're we're struggling to, you know, get anywhere close to meeting the required numbers.

You know, we're doing fine in the in the middle income and the and the other uh categories.

So I'm interested in pursuing all those ideas as well.

Thank you.

Yeah, I just wanted to bring up one point with the deed restrictions.

We do have um about 75 deed restricted affordable condo units in the city already.

These took were deed restricted about 15 to 20 years ago.

Um the issue with the deed restriction for these four sale units is that uh the individuals don't develop equity.

So if they put any money into the home, I mean, because they buy it at a deed restricted price, and then when they go to sell it, there's a formula that they sell it at a deed restricted price.

So for instance, some of those condos are going for like 250,000, and their neighbor can sell the same condo for 400,000.

And I mean they put in granite countertops and you know, new carpeting, and they can't recoup that back.

So that's one of the reasons that some of the cities have been going away from these types of projects and looking at like the habitat type of um format where they the structure where they actually sell those homes like at a market rate, but do that silent second, because those individuals actually do get a lot of equity in those homes if they do decide to sell them down the road.

Um, so that's just one of the considerations when you're looking at trying to deed restrict single family housing or condos.

Um, and they're also the city has to be um monitoring those.

So you have to send out monitors, and that's it's hard to monitor individuals with their homes, whether or not they're just renting it out and they say they're still living there, etc.

So there are some challenges to that, even though I mean ideally we have 75 households that are living in affordable for sale units.

Thank you.

Go ahead.

They do share equity though, like to say that somebody's not getting equity when they live in the house is one of these condos, is they're selling it at what is now an affordable rate, which is much much higher than when they bought it at an affordable rate 15 years ago, right?

Possibly.

We've had actually individuals that haven't made that much equity.

And I think the thing is that it doesn't go with the market, it goes with um goes with uh income increases.

So right now, since incomes have increased so much, the house the housing prices have gone up, but then as interest rates go up, it forces the housing prices down because the affordability for the individual is less.

So these are existing units where the rent is limited by a deed restriction?

Because that was the comment.

It is a for sale home where if they sell it, they have to be.

If they sell it, they have to sell it at an affordable price.

Or if they rent it, they have to rent it at an affordable rental rate.

Gotcha.

Caveat them tour.

I think we need to move on, but I think there's kind of general consensus that we're looking for things other than just multi-family housing, correct?

Um, and that um uh I I think homeownership, that whole missing middle type thing, whenever possible to help people build generational wealth, right?

In addition to I think some of the things that you agree are offered with prioritizing fulsome residents, fulsome workers.

But thank you very much, Stephanie.

Good information.

Okay, next item that takes you to your consent calendar, and just as a reminder, item six has been pulled off calendar.

Okay, I pull item number four.

Four we thought maybe somebody was gonna pull number eight.

Do we need to pull number eight or no?

No, okay.

Okay, then we will entertain a motion.

I would like to pull number eight to get an update on where we are.

Okay, we gotta head up about that one.

Okay, so we will take uh a motion to approve all the items except for uh four and eight, understanding that six is no longer on the agenda.

I will move approval of two three five, seven, and nine from the consent calendar for approval.

Second, we have a motion and a second, please call the roll.

Council members Rayfill, yes, Roarbah, yes, Kozlowski, yes, Leary, yes, and Aquino.

Yes.

Okay, item number four is resolution number one one four three eight.

This is a resolution adopting an initial initial study and mitigated neg deck for the Willow Hill Dam valve replacement project and approval of project.

Mr.

Yasutaki.

I just have a quick question on this.

And I don't have any issue with the initial study and mitigated negative declaration.

My question really is do we need a fence?

Oh, and I'm not entirely sure exactly where not even sure if that's planned out yet where that fence would go.

Just because it is a natural area, it's nice fishing spot.

People run cross-country right there.

And so I just don't necessarily love a six-foot chain lake fence being put up there.

I'm just curious if there's a way to somehow do the project without adding in lockdown infrastructure.

Good evening, Mayor Kino, members of the council, Marcus Yasutaki, Environmental Water Resources Director.

We have looked at options that would remove the fence, but we are still recommending an enclosure.

One, because it has a stem that protrudes out of the operating valve.

So we don't want the potential for somebody to run into that, hit that.

But we but the enclosure in and of itself, we have been able to find something that's about four feet, four feet by four feet, which is smaller than the fence or the enclosed fence area that was previously considered.

We haven't uh sent the plans out for bid, so it's an easy change that we can make to incorporate this type of enclosure for the purposes of one keeping anybody from hitting or running into the stem that's sticking out, but two to prevent anybody from operating the valve that would let water out of uh the reservoir itself.

So we do have an alternative that we can easily incorporate into the plans so that it is not uh six to eight-foot chain link fence with privacy slats in there.

Perfect.

Thank you so much.

Would you like to move the item?

I'll move item number four.

Second item.

We have a motion and a second.

Please call the roll.

Council members Rathel.

Yes.

RORBA.

Yes.

Kozlowski.

Yes.

Leary?

Yes.

And Aquino.

Yes.

Thanks.

Okay.

Item number eight, which was also pulled is resolution number one one four-five two.

This is a resolution authorizing the city manager to execute a design and engineering consultant services agreement with REY from grant funds as identified and authorizing a partial notice to proceed and appropriation of funds as also identified.

All right, I'll introduce this real quick.

Uh Mayor Keeno, members of the council, interim public works director, but soon to pass the torch off to my left here.

Um but uh yeah, so first off, I apologize for not having all these details uh last week when we were discussing the items.

So uh just want you to know that we did have an opportunity to go back regroup as a team, answer in my opinion, a lot of the questions that were asked.

But uh Mr.

Ryan Neves is going to outline how we can ultimately deliver the full project uh design along this corridor, but also fully fund certain portions of the project utilizing the grant funds that are available to the city, and then how we are proceeding to meet the deadline requirements of the funding from Caltrans.

So I will turn it over to Mr.

Neves.

Thank you.

Uh good evening, Madam Mayor, members city council Ryan Eve, Senior Engineer Public Works Department.

Appreciate the opportunity to uh briefly provide some supplementary information on this agenda item to award the uh consultant uh engineering agreement with RUI for the Riley Street Safety Improvement Project.

Uh bit of background.

Uh the project kind of got kicked off.

There were there was a need identified in a pedestrian master plan many years ago.

Um the city contracted to conduct a sidewalk feasibility study in 2020, and following that we um sought grant funding to move forward with the project, submitted numerous grant applications and conducted public outreach efforts, including active transportation grants, state and regional cycles five and six, and um responding to a federal earmark call for projects.

And then thankfully, City of Folsom was awarded congressionally directed spending in the amount of four million dollars from Congressman Barrow's office, and we executed a program supplement agreement with Caltrans and accepted the grant funds in November 2023.

Uh, then we issued a request for proposals for moving forward with this preliminary design uh environmental clearance right-of-way and engineering design in May 2025.

Uh, we received lots of interest through public purchase, but ultimately only received one proposal from RUI engineers.

Uh we believe the main reason for that was the extensive work REY is already done on the project corridor.

They were the consultant that participated in the feasibility study, participated in grant applications, and past outreach efforts.

And they're very qualified firm that's done numerous projects in the city, including the Sutter Street Streetscape project.

So we feel very confident with them.

There's exhibits that show that were part of the part of the proposal presented by REI that show the full scope of the project that we do intend to deliver.

This I'll just briefly kind of talk through there's two pieces to it.

So this first piece, if we start on the very left, which would be the northern end of the project, there's Sutter Street, and we would tie into existing sidewalks and then construct new sidewalks up Riley Street.

There are anticipated retaining walls on both the east and west side of the road in this section as we continue up to Mormon Street.

There are proposed drainage improvements that extend from Mormon Street up to Notoma Street and tie into past projects that the public works department has constructed the Notoma Street drainage project phase one and phase two.

So this would be kind of a third piece of that and complete that drainage project.

And then continuing to the south up to Notoma Street.

So that's again our ultimate project that we do intend to deliver.

However, there are some constraints that we have that lead to the item that we have tonight for consideration.

Funding constraints, the the project that, as presented on the past two slides, has a preliminary construction estimate of $8.5 million.

We have identified the grant funding provided by the congressionally directed spending amount of $4 million with a local match requirement of just over 500,000.

So, and that does include obviously design and potentially ride-away as well.

So there's a there's a gap there.

But additionally, and and more critical to our current uh ask is our schedule constraints.

The construction funds that we um are the grant funds that we received have a construction obligation time uh requirement of September 30th, 2026.

And if we don't receive that construction obligation from FHWA, we uh will lose the grant funding that hasn't been obligated.

Um construction obligation means is that we have to present environmental clearance, right-away certification, and full signed and stamped uh plans and specifications, a bid package, and they have to review it, approve it, and then authorize the the funding to be obligated.

And in coordination with Caltrans, currently they're telling local agencies that that process can take two months.

So, although the date that we need to have the obligation is September 30th, we need to have our complete package submitted really by the end of July 2026.

So between that ultimate desired project and our constraints, we've developed the agenda item and proposed contract to award to RUI.

And so, what will we get with that if it's approved tonight?

We would get environmental clearance of the entire project limits as shown on the on the exhibits.

We would get preliminary design of kind of a 30% level for the entire project limits, which includes right-of-way determination and potential right-of-way impacts, uh, utility coordination, potential utility conflict relocation impacts, geotechnical drainage investigations, and additional public outreach.

At that time, once we have completed our environmental clearance, both uh CEQA and NEPA, we would then return to City Council to present those preliminary preliminary design and then construction phasing options that we believe we could deliver with in the funding requirement, uh, the grant funds, and that we could deliver and receive our obligation by that September 30th, 2026 date.

So that would be to initiate RUI with that preliminary project approval environmental document, that um initial piece, and then um we have identified a preliminary segment one, which is the section um most adjacent to Sutter Middle School down to Natoma Street as a as a phase one that's within the contract that we would um award, be able to give them a notice to proceed to complete um right of way and final design.

That's our preliminary um look at the phase one that we think has the least amount of potential delays associated with right-of-way or utility conflicts.

But it's something that as we get through environmental clearance and a little bit more um information detail through the preliminary design, we would be able to see if there's other pieces or other segments that make more sense to move forward at this time.

Um we can also, you know, at that time uh discuss options for coordinating with RUI on potentially a contract amendment to deliver final design of the entire project outside of the scope of the uh grant funding, if that was something that we were interested in.

Um but for tonight, based on that information, we're recommending that we city council adopt resolution 11452 to do all of the things on the screen here.

Uh execute the agreement with RUI for and uh issue a partial notice to proceed.

Thank you, Ryan.

Any questions?

Many questions.

Um go back two slides, please, to the summary right there.

I'm sorry.

Nope, right there.

Okay.

Um the the root of the reason that I wanted to pull this and why I had so many questions when we were reviewing the agenda on Friday is the 30% number that's on here.

Um if in fact this is an eight and a half million dollar project, right?

And we're only getting the design work professional services to 30% design for something approaching $700,000, not knowing what the balance of the cost will be for design is makes me uncomfortable.

So I would just assume you negotiate a full price with REY, who is absolutely the right choice for working on this project, so that we are going in completely eyes open on what the full design cost will be for the project, and we can evaluate that in comparison to what we think the project budget will be ultimately.

Um because you know, $700,000 against $8.5 million is a bargain, right?

Three million against eight and a half million is we're off the rails, right?

So knowing what the full, you know, what the full freight will be for getting this project to be shovel ready.

That's what I that's mostly what I'm interested in.

And um just as a side thing, I I first personally I have great affinity for REY engineers.

They are absolutely the right ones to do this.

Um, I just want to make sure that we have negotiated what our terms will be for the for the duration rather than going in with half of the information.

Sure.

Uh great question.

And Brian, can you talk a little bit about that?

Because I think we have a full proposal for the design for the entire segment.

And one of the reasons why they wanted to take this approach is uh so that we could not get too far down the line.

So that I guess I think it's fair to say that we have a ceiling.

Phasing the work is fine.

Right.

Not knowing what the full cost will be when we approve this part, and then we'll be committed.

Uh uh understood.

And I think we can answer that question.

So let's start there.

Uh yeah, so the proposal the RUI provided did include full final design for the entire project for and their fee was roughly 1.1 million dollars.

Okay.

Um so what staff decided to negotiate down what we thought was complete the environmental clearance and preliminary design for that portion that's um being authorized, would be authorized tonight, and it's um 281,000 of the nearly 700,000 that we would be authorizing.

And then we in discussions with RUI, again, knowing our schedule constraints, we preliminarily selected a segment that we felt could maximize the construction funds available and they could complete final design.

So the the delta between the um 659 and this 281 is their fee for final design for what would be that segment one piece.

Um to your point, yes, if we wanted to initiate a you know final design for anything outside of what we identify to be that phase one when we come back, you know, they could you answered my question by telling me 1.1 million dollars.

Okay.

I'm fine with that.

I just I'm gonna hold all of you to it.

Yeah, and I think that's fair.

I I mean I want to uh commend staff for kind of the thoughtful approach because when they saw the 1.1, knowing that it's an $8 million project and seeing that we only have $4 million for construction.

How do we get to a point where we can actually build the best segment?

And so by by moving forward only with the 30% design, is it you you're able to find out all the right-of-way constraints, utility constraints, and all the other factors, and then we can say come back and say we're gonna add to the contract to design the whole thing, or stop it at that point and only focus on a segment so that we can get the best bang for a buck and basically minimize uh the cost and and uh improve our chance of getting a maximized uh segment.

Thank you.

I'm fully satisfied with that.

And Marcus, thank you very much for pinch hitting the last few weeks.

I know I hit you with a bunch of questions on this one.

That is absolutely absolutely fine.

And and thank you to Ryan, Ryan Chance, Rebecca, and uh Brian for uh all their work as well.

Good work to everybody.

Thank you.

Any other questions on this item?

All right, I'll move approval of item number eight.

Resolution 11452.

We have a motion and a second, please call the role.

Okay, council members Rethel.

Yes.

Yes, Koslowski, yes, Larry, yes, and a keynote.

Yes.

Okay, that takes us to our first public hearing item of the evening.

This is item number 10.

This will be ordinance number 1354.

This is an ordinance approving a development agreement by and between the city of Folsom and Broadstone Crossing Phase Two and uh Elliott Homes relating to the development known as Broadstone Crossing Phase Two.

This will be introduction and first reading of the ordinance okay.

Okay.

No, but it's not even coming up.

There it comes.

Oh, why am I not seeing that?

Okay.

Um, uh bear with me here.

That's unusual.

Okay, now it's shown up.

All right.

Uh apologize for the technical difficulties there.

Um, Mary Aquino, members of the of the council and Desmond Parrington, planning manager in the community development department.

Um, before you tonight, um, regarding a development agreement for required improvements uh associated with the Broadstone Crossing 2 uh phase two uh project.

So that uh that project is located at the uh the at the northeast corner of Iron Point in East Bidwell.

Um it's approximately an 18.7 acre site.

Um it it was uh previously approved by the the planning commission back in uh November of uh uh 2024 for a um for three parcels, each with their own office building.

Uh the largest office building is the one right here.

This is the planned Sutter uh Sutter Folsom Center for Health.

Um, and then there are two additional uh office buildings here, a three-story one and a two-story one that uh each are approximately just under uh 50,000 square feet.

So they approved the parcel map, um, a plan development permit, design review, and a master sign program uh for the Sutter facility.

And what was noted in the uh the analysis was that the project, you know, even though it's going to provide significant economic benefit to the city in terms of having SUTER and other uh potential medical office space that was going to worsen the the traffic situation on on East Bidwell and particularly the intersections uh around East Bidwell and an iron point, which is already fairly congested.

So the city has a policy regarding level of service, that's the time delay at major intersections.

And uh this was uh significantly worsening um that.

So while that's not no longer considered an environmental issue uh that we look at under, you know, like an EIR, for example, it is something that we do need to address to ensure consistency with the general plan and our our uh uh kind of traffic management goals.

So based on the transportation impact study that was done, there were a number of improvements that were identified.

These included signal timing coordination, turn lane extensions, additional turn lanes, lane restriping, and then ultimately the need for a pedestrian bridge across Bidwell, because what was happening is when people use, you know, use the pedestrian signal there, it actually throws off the signal timing for the entire intersection, leading to major delays and backups of traffic.

This isn't the only project that is that's contributing to that, and I'll get into that into a little bit, but it was concluded that the best way to address this existing issue and then the additional projects that would happen was to do a uh a pedestrian bridge or overcrossing from from the near near the area to uh the Palladio.

So again, these improvements are designed to address the traffic from the project and address the level of service challenges at the intersections.

Okay.

So this highlights uh some of the improvements that we're we're talking about.

So this would be an additional northbound left turn lane on Iron Point, an additional um uh southbound or right turn lane that's southbound uh from Iron Point to southbound East Bidwell.

Um there are um uh extensions of the left turn pockets here, which the developer will actually be undertaking, and and then a pedestrian uh bridge uh generally in this in this location.

So the um the the two conditions that were identified and approved by the planning commission was conditions 42, which dealt with the kind of um the intersection and and access and circulation, and then 43, which dealt with the pedestrian bridge.

So uh Elliott Holmes, um, which was the is the developer and uh and and Price Walker, vice president of Elliott Holmes is here this evening along with uh their legal counsel Chad Roberts with Hefner Law.

They approached the city indicating that you know, look, we we are a developer of you know residential and commercial projects, we're not a developer that typically does major roadway uh improvement projects.

And and they uh reached out to the city to see if the city would undertake those improvements if they fully funded those.

And so we agreed that because regardless of whether they do it or whether we do it, we have to make sure that they comply with the city's standards when doing that type of improvement work.

So the city is involved regardless of whether they do it or we do it.

So we agreed that um that we would uh do that, and we've really um wrapped up the the terms of that in this development agreement.

So the developer has agreed to pay the full cost of the of those uh roadway improvements, and then they've agreed because they're not the only project that is contributing to that to pay a their fair share for an amount not to exceed 2.5 million towards the pedestrian bridge.

And and the this DA approval is required before the Sutter facility can go can go vertical.

So in terms of the key conditions related to the roadway improvements that I talked about, so there'd be an initial deposit of 1.445 million that's due at the building permit for Sutter Medical Center.

This would get us going on the cost of the design, engineering, and environmental clearance.

And then after that deposit is drawn down, then there'd be an additional um deposit of 2.155 million.

That's because the overall project, you know, as was preliminary estimated to be about 3.6 million dollars, all told.

And then to the extent that there's any cost that would uh be in excess of that, the developer would reimburse the city within 30 days of receipt of an invoice uh from the city.

The goal um as set forth in the development agreement is to complete these improvements within five years.

Um because again, it's not just the Sutter facility alone, it's the other other two additional office buildings, you know, all three of them in total that that contribute to the challenges uh here.

Um and then to the extent that other benefit other projects benefit from and actually need these improvements to address their traffic uh impacts to the area.

Um they um uh if an environmental document or a a traffic study demonstrated that, then the city would make it make efforts to ensure that they paid their fair share towards this.

So it's not just Sutter alone or uh Elliot alone that's that's uh shouldering the the burden of this.

With regard to the pedestrian overcrossing, um uh there's a separate payment of up to 2.5 million, and uh this is the the fair share to the extent that we don't need all of that, that would be refunded um to the developer.

In bringing this forward to the to the planning commission, um, which we did uh earlier this month, planning commission unanimously supported this, but their concern was that they wanted to make sure that we got the pedestrian overcrossing as shovel ready as as possible, so that it could we could quickly go after state or federal funding or funding regional funding from SACOG.

So they um they were um requested and the developer agreed that um one million dollars uh be provided uh so that we could get the design and the engineering and the environmental clearance done as quickly as possible.

So that $1 million would be done within 30 days of the city issuing a request for a proposal to get a uh an engineering consultant on board.

Uh and then the uh the remainder would be due uh once that that amount had been drawn down.

And again, the the purpose of this is that they were concerned that we originally had it so that the money would be collected at certificate of occupancy for the Sutter Medical Center, which is scheduled for mid to late 2027.

The concern was if we didn't get the money then, then it was going to be a couple of years before the project would even be shovel ready.

And they felt that there was a really a real need for that that bridge and that overcrossing now rather than than later.

So this actually puts us in a very good position to be able to get that work done and then and then get in a very good position for things like alternative transportation plan um planning grants from say COG or from the uh the state or the feds.

So our hope is that rather than getting this done within the 10 years that we could get this done within half that time or less.

So that's the that's the goal.

So uh with that, our recommendation is to conduct a public hearing to consider the request from Elliott Holmes to approve this development agreement, and upon conclusion, introduce and conduct the first reading of on codified ordinance 1354, approving the development agreement between the city of Folsom and Broadstone Crossing Phase 2 LLC Elliott Homes Incorporated for public improvements for the Broadcom Broadstone Crossing Phase 2 project.

So that uh concludes uh my presentation.

Happy to entertain any questions that you may have.

Okay, thank you.

Any questions for Desmond or the developer?

They're both here.

Councilmember Leary.

No, I just want to thank you for your work on this.

I I think we began a discussion about this over crossing years ago when I was on the planning commission.

And so I understand it's been very complex.

I appreciate all the work that our um planning commission chair, Eileen Reynolds in the audience did on this and Pricewalker.

Yeah, this has been a long with staff.

Yeah, this has been a good public project.

It's a very exciting project, and I think it'll do a lot to make that area entirely more livable.

Thank you.

Council Member Warba, any questions?

Any questions over here?

Just one quick one.

We're 100% sure that the footings, the land that we're having set aside is big enough for the footings.

Uh, just like the development agreement doesn't give us a whole lot of flexibility to extend past that.

So I just wanted to say, you know, just want to make sure you guys are 100% sure we have everything we need for those footings on both sides of East Pino.

So uh as the DA spells out, um I'm uh I think this is what you're you're asking.

So we the um the property owner uh Elliott Holmes has agreed to donate the land on either side necessary to support the the footings.

Obviously, we'll have to do all the design work to make sure that uh that there's sufficient space, but at least on our preliminary analysis, we believe that there is.

Okay.

Councilmember Kozlowski, any questions?

Uh back to the question.

If I may clarify diagrams, Councilmember Kozalski, allow me to clarify real quick.

I don't think uh please correct me if if I'm wrong, the developer is getting credit toward the two point.

They're not donating to the city.

That is correct.

The value of the footings are going to be counted toward the maximum 2.5 mil.

Correct.

Correct.

I guess my only concern when I read the agreement is that you will stay within this envelope, right?

Oh, that's there, right?

So they've given us a very clear envelope, which is totally fine because if we go outside of our envelope, we're impacting their project.

So I'm just looking at you guys saying, yes, we're 100% clear that we need to stay within that envelope and we'll be able to build, you know, whether we have to have switchbacks or whatever to get to get there.

You know, I don't know how we get there.

I haven't that's not my area of expertise, but that's what I'm really making sure is that we have enough room there.

Yeah, sorry, I misunderstood.

Yes, we we did we did go over that, and uh I think we're you know, both myself and the city engineer are are uh comfortable with our city engineerslash public works director are uh are comfortable um with that.

I think one of the things that we wanted to avoid is having it too close to uh to Iron Point because then the folks from you know from Sutter wouldn't be using it.

Uh and then but we also didn't want to get it, you know, too uh uh have have it go too far north to uh you know Broadstone Parkway because again that defeats the purpose of it.

So we believe that that's a reasonable kind of um uh area for the for it to go and and at least on our preliminary analysis, it looks like it could fit in there.

Vice Mayor Riethal, if I may chime in for just a second.

Um when we go through the environmental document clearance process, we'll actually identify alternative locations and that will help us assess what really fits those needs and um the design will can conform to the area and spaces that we have.

Okay, but no, because the railroads right there too, right?

So I'm just I'm just concerned, right?

It's like when we go down this road and all of a sudden we figure out we need you know uh to encroach more, uh, and our DA does not allow us to do that.

So just what you guys uh are very smart at these things, so I just want to make sure you've you've looked at and gone, yes, we're we're fitting within that envelope.

Yeah, and we've looked at a couple options that actually even help us to kind of clear span the railroad corridor overall and get onto the higher ground on the on the hillside, and then just basically um being construct a uh a switchback on the way down to connect to the trail.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Please go back to the diagram of this location that shows the potential location for the bridge over crossing.

So I think it's the document.

I think it's the page before this one or after.

Oh, the the are you referring one of them, one of them showed a potential location.

This is right, it's right right there.

Okay, so conceptually at least, I know it's not settled, but what is with the west side of the road?

What's the landing spot most likely to be closest to the Palladio parking structure?

Okay, that seems really close to the intersection right there.

So Palladio parking structure would be further north.

Yeah, I mean, this is an approximation in exactly.

If we're going from the the Sutter building, that's the corner, the MOB location of that development, that would be to indicate to me that you're coming right into Troy into the parking lot for uh Whole Foods.

No, so it's actually where the problem is right now is that the Via Felice um and Wellspring Drive.

So it used to be called Killrush, it's now Wellspring Drive.

That's where the problem is.

And so the the goal is to capture pedestrian traffic from not only from the Sutter Medical Office building, but also from Broadstone Villa, also from the neighborhoods um up over at Cavot.

Uh and so to capture all of that pedestrian traffic because as we're talking about the central intersection for Palladio that would where people are crossing from the east to the west and ending up at the at the pizza place at old Chicago pizza.

Yeah, Chicago.

Yeah, so that's the traffic you're talking about, the existing crosswalk that people are using most of the years.

Yeah, it's at Via Felice, yeah.

So Via Felice.

Okay.

Yeah.

All right.

Most people don't know the names of the streets.

So yeah, that that's that's the location.

And and the idea was to put it in a central location that benefited, you know, um, all the different projects that are affecting.

I was just trying to jibe that with what you were talking about.

Yeah, yeah.

So I know we've been talking about Sutter, but it's not at this location.

It's it's up, it's actually a little further north.

Further north.

Okay, gotcha.

Council.

Thank you.

I trust you guys to design this.

I just was curious based on the diagram.

It seems misplaced.

Great question.

Yeah, we've actually looked at a couple of different locations to land it within that corridor.

One um actually puts uh the western footing in the parking lot for like lazy dog area.

Um we've looked at through at that whole area trying to maximize where it would have the most benefit in terms of our traffic um uh queuing.

And so that would all be looked at as well as part of the environmental process.

Okay, what's the clearance above the tracks need to be?

I don't recall the exact number offhand.

Um I was thinking it was like 20, 25 feet, but I can get you the firm number later.

All right, thank you.

Yeah.

Okay.

Uh I'm going to open the public hearing.

Do we have any requests to speak?

We have no requests to speak on this.

We would like to have Mr.

Walker come on.

Real real quick.

Madam Mayor and Council members, uh, Price Walker with Elliot Helms.

Just there's nothing I really need to add.

There, there's a lot that has gone into this.

Um Desmond did a great job of explaining it in pretty simple terms, but it's there's a lot that's taken place.

Uh, we've had a lot of meetings.

I think everyone in City Hall has had their hands on this this DA some point in the last four or five months, including the city manager who was very instrumental and and kind of the big the big point of this really was we're really good at building things, but we're not really good at shutting down bidwell and build building, you know, improvements at eight inner intersections.

And so with that uh discussion, it was really clear that city would be better at doing that.

But of course, they needed it to be funded.

So that was really the uh the crux of the of the agreement.

The pedestrian crossing is something we've we've talked about internally at our offices and with others for a long time, and how that how that exactly gets placed.

You know, Councilman Kozolowski's asked some hard good questions, and that that general area gives us some leeway, but really it'll come down to the design, which we're funding it early on to see um exactly where it should go.

What's best for Palladio, what's best for Center project, and what's best for the the workings of East Bidwell.

Um, there's one design that literally takes it into the third story of the parking structure because there's a there's also a elevator right there.

So there's some things we're looking at to be creative.

Um city is too to save some money and get it done on time.

So I think a gondola would be cheaper.

A gondola.

I'll bring that up tonight tomorrow.

Um Mike wants a gondola, Harry.

Um, I just want to really thank everyone who's been involved in this from uh Desmond, Rebecca, Sari, um, everyone worked on it to get tonight.

And it's uh it really is a partnership, I think that that uh shows that we can get things done if we all work together.

So with that, I hope you would approve it, approve it tonight.

Thank you very much.

Any other requests to speak?

No, okay.

Then we're gonna close the public hearing and I'm going to entertain uh a motion for the introduction and first reading of ordinance number one three five four.

So moved.

Second.

Again, we have a motion and a second.

Please call the roll.

Council members Ray Thel.

Yes.

Yes.

Kozlowski.

Yes.

Leary.

Yes.

And Aquino.

Yes.

Thank you for your patience.

All right.

Okay, your second public hearing item this evening is ordinance number 1356.

This is an ordin an ordinary an uncodified ordinance adopting prima facie speed limits on East Bidwell Street, Westwood Drive, Alder Creek Parkway, Grand Prairie Road, and Mangeny Parkway.

And again, this will be first reading and introduction of the ordinance.

Good evening, Zach.

Good evening.

Madam Mayor, happy birthday, Vice Mayor Rethel.

Mine is in four hours.

So let's pretty close to the send this meeting as long as we can.

That will wish you happy.

Happy birthday Eve.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Appreciate it.

I'm here tonight to present to you first reading.

Um and introduce uh the prima facie speed limits for some of our newer roads in the Wholesome Plan area.

Uh as a background, uh the engineering and traffic surveys are required for us to post enforceable speed limits uh via radar radar from IRMR police department, uh, which is their preferred method of enforcement.

Uh I will provide a brief explanation on the principles behind speed limits.

So we're all understanding what it takes to uh devise them and what drivers can expect.

So this will ensure consistency, fairness, and safety for all motorists.

Uh the ordinance before us formally adopts the speed limits uh on the roadways segments listed in the staff report.

Uh and they're all based on the engineering and traffic surveys performed by our uh consultant uh Kimley Horn.

Uh so an engineering traffic survey is the basis for uh our posted speed limits.

They determine what the 85th percentile speed is.

Uh they are also required by the California Vehicle Vehicle Code to post enforceable speed limits, as I stated before.

Uh they encourage uniform driving behavior.

Uh, and all these are located within the Folsom plan area.

So some of these roadways have been under construction for a while now, uh, but now that they're newly opened and people are our driving behaviors behaviors have been established on these roadways.

We conducted an engineering and traffic survey to establish that 85th percentile speed.

Uh we also take into consideration uh traffic factors such as uh pedestrian crosswalks or crossing locations, uh school zones, traffic signals, uh collision histories, as well as other conditions that are not readily apparent to the motorists uh to devise the the recommended speed limit.

Uh there are regulations governing the speed limit uh just before you.

I won't list them all, but uh it the basis is in the California Vigo Code.

Uh it determines how uh how the speed limits are established.

Uh we then use the California manual uh for uniform traffic control devices to establish our methodology for collecting data.

Uh and finally it goes before the Folsom City Council for an adoption uh into by an ordinance.

Uh so the recommended speed limits on the roadway segments listed before you.

Uh East Bidwell will uh continue to be 45 miles an hour.

Uh it's currently posted at 45.

Uh Westwood Drive between Alder Creek Parkway and Manchini Parkway is not currently posted, but will be recommended at 30 miles an hour.

And after this, I'll have a map to show uh where these locations are.

Uh Alder Creek Parkway between Westwood Drive and Rustic Ridge Circle, which is near the top of the hill.

Uh currently posted at 30 miles an hour, but that that posting is only in one location, and it's at the top of the hill, traveling westbound.

So uh very obscure location, uh, but we are recommending a posted 35 miles an hour speed limit, uh, which is consistent with the rest of uh of Alder Creek Parkway around the loop and to to Grand Prairie, uh segment four, Grand Prairie Road, uh from that summit street uh to Alder Creek Parkway.

Uh and finally uh the two segments of Mangeny Parkway uh from Savannah to Empire Ranch Road, uh recommended at 35 miles an hour, as well as the segment from East Bidwell to the west all the way out to Oak Avenue, uh as 35 miles an hour.

This is uh the map of those segments uh color-coded for the speed limits that we're recommending.

So as you can see, East Bidwell continues um at 45 miles an hour.

Uh that's consistent with what's established north of Highway 50, so it continues down to White Rock Road there.

Uh Mangeny Parkway consistent through the whole entire segment uh at 35.

Um, as I stated before, Alder Creek Parkway between Westwood and Savata Parkway, uh, a consistent 35 miles an hour, and then finally Westwood Drive at 30 miles an hour.

Uh we've previously completed speed surveys on the other roadways that are not listed in in tonight's agenda.

Uh so Savannah Parkway has already been completed as well as White Rock Road.

So those are already already been established with a valid radar survey.

So staff has reviewed and approved all the engineering and traffic surveys that were provided to us on the following roads: East Bidwell, Westwood, Alder Creek Parkway, Grand Prairie Road, and Manje Parkway.

Uh traffic safety committee reviewed and recommended adoption of these posted speed limits.

And staff also recommends that the council adopt these uh engineering and traffic surveys as uh as the basis for enforceable posted speed limits.

Uh so with that, I'm happy to answer any questions about the data that we collected or the process itself that we took to establish this.

Um that's it.

Okay, thank you.

Any questions for Zach on this end?

No.

Any questions for Zach on this end?

No, I'll just renew my comments from every other time we've looked at these.

It's fascinating how we set speed limits.

It's weird and fascinating.

So thank you for doing it.

Yeah.

Okay, then I'm going to open the public hearing.

Do we have any requests to speak?

You have no request to speak on this item.

Then I'm going to close the public hearing and entertain a motion for the introduction of first reading of ordinance number one three five six.

I'll move uh to approve ordinance number one three five six.

Second.

Perfect.

We have a motion and a second.

Please call the roll.

Council members Rethel.

Yes.

Rorba.

Yes.

Koslowski.

Yes.

Larry.

Yes.

And Aquino.

Yes, thank you very much.

Thank you.

Happy birthday tomorrow.

Okay, that closes out public hearings for the evening and takes us to new business.

Your first item and your new business this evening will be number 12, appointment of an at-large planning commissioner to serve the remainder of the term expiring in December 2026.

Okay.

Okay, and you just received a request to speak on this item.

Do you want to take that first?

We don't have a presentation or anything like that.

Just a brief explanation.

Okay.

Yeah.

You want to give the explanation first then?

Sure.

So as you may know, we have a vacancy on our seven member planning commission.

This is one of the at-large seats that became vacant when the one of the at-large members resigned before their term was expired.

So with the item before the council tonight is to make a gap appointment to fill the remainder of that term.

So it'll be for about a year and a half.

Okay.

Just a requirement or reminder that there is you don't have to get up and speak if you're uh put in an application, but you're welcome to do so if you'd like.

And we do have two requests to speak.

Okay, so our first speaker will be Marco Malikateen, who will then be followed by Amanda Ross.

You'll have the standard three minutes.

So once you start, I'll start your timer.

Good evening.

Good evening.

Um Madam Mayor and members of the city council.

My name is Mark Omlikateen, and I am interested in the position here in the planning commission.

I'm a longtime resident of this community.

I'm proud to live and work in a community that is uh considered one of the best places in the country to raise a family.

This is no accident.

It is because members of the city council and various boards and commissions all have an extraordinary record of public service that they have applied to this city.

I'm also particularly proud of my record of public service as well as civic service.

Um, some of you may know I've served on the planning commission and a redevelopment advisory committee in a number of state boards and commissions as well.

I'm also looking forward to applying my professional experience to this post.

I am a land use public affairs consultant by background, not limited to specifically that topic, but I worked on numerous complex land project use projects for housing, commercial, retail, mixed use, even manufactured housing.

I even have a client uh in the water business, so I'm familiar with water infrastructure as well.

And in my role as a public affairs, excuse me, public affairs consultant.

I'm responsible for working with community stakeholders and the public to educate them on the public before a deciding body, its benefits, um, it's uh the planning process, uh, the environmental review process, um, potential project impacts and proposed mitigations.

So I believe I have a record of community service.

I have a professional experience that I can apply to this uh job, and uh I will tell you this if selected, I will come to meetings prepared.

I will come there with a willingness to listen to differing points of view, and my desire is always to reach consensus to the benefit of our community.

So thank you for your consideration.

Thank you very much.

Okay, our next speaker will be Emiana Ross coming down, good evening.

Good evening, thank you, Madam Mayor, Council members.

My name is Amanda Ross.

Um, I prepared a brief statement I'd like to read to you.

Um I applied for the open planning commission seat.

I just wanted to take a moment to thank you for your consideration.

I know you have a lot of great qualified candidates that you're considering tonight, and I'm just so pleased to be part of such a civic-minded community.

I couldn't believe 23 people applied.

That's really exciting.

Um I grew up in neighboring El Dorado Hills, and I served as a planning commissioner of El Dorado County for two years.

Um, I resigned when my husband and I chose to move to Folsom to raise our family, and I'm so grateful that we did.

Um Folsom is a special city with a community that is invested in its success and cares about its future.

I know the planning commission is an important role, and I hope to bring my professional expertise, community-oriented perspective, and thoughtful judgment to serve my community.

Again, thank you for your consideration.

Thank you very much.

Okay, you have no other request to speak on this item.

Okay.

So right now I'm gonna be distributing ballots to each of the council members.

The ballot that the council members are completing looks largely like what you see projected on the screen here.

Um, and while you're completing your ballots, I will just mention that um staff really did try to reach the broadest or conduct the broadest possible outreach that we could so we could reach a diverse pool of applicants.

We use the city website, newsletter, social media platforms, old fashioned telegraph, and even our bulletin boards.

So we were very happy to get 23 applications and really to ensure that everybody had an opportunity to learn about this opening and apply.

Okay.

So no particular order.

Councilmember Kozlowski votes for Amanda Ross.

Councilmember Leary also votes for Amanda Ross.

Vice Mayor Rafel votes for Marco Malikateen.

Councilmember Rohrbach votes for Marco Malikateen.

And Mayor Aquino votes for Amanda Ross.

So on a three-two, Amanda Ross is appointed.

Thank you very much.

Congratulations, as always.

We have far more applicants than we have space available.

And so we do greatly appreciate your interest.

Keep in mind that appointments for at large commissions will come up again.

What December or so 2026?

In December, this December this year you'll have HDC seats available.

And then your big recruitment again will be in December of 2026.

Yes.

Okay.

Councilmember Robert, you want to say I was just gonna say that.

There was a lot of great applicants.

I think a hand more than a handful reached out to, I think most of us personally.

One more in the audience as well.

Um so uh there was uh just so many qualified, so I encourage everyone, especially that reached out and really um tried to engage with each council member.

Please apply again.

It's only a year and a half, and um, we love that there's so many people out there that want to serve in the city in in such a uh dynamic way.

So thank you to all of the applicants.

If I can add um 23 applicants is not a great thing, it's painful to kind of go through that list because I personally know like half a dozen of them, and lots of almost everybody's qualified.

And the fact that both you, Marco and Amanda showed up tonight um put me in a really awkward spot, and I apologize that I can't give it to both of you.

Um I have a stake in both of your success, and I really appreciate you applying.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much.

Next item.

Okay, your next new business item this evening is resolution number one one four-four nine.

This is a resolution declaring a portion of the APN identified as exempt surplus land and authorizing disposition of said land through a property exchange.

Good evening, Josh.

Good evening, Mayor Aquino.

Uh Council members.

Uh Josh Kincaid with the community development department.

I'll just pull up my PowerPoint presentation here.

Hang on, I'll help you.

Okay.

I'll help you out.

Is it hang on?

I'll read it.

Yeah.

Gotcha.

You got there you go.

And I need to full screen that so yes, tonight I am bringing in front of you a resolution to declare a portion of a city-owned uh um a portion of city-owned land exempt from the circle surplus land act and to authorize disposition of that land to a private developer via property exchange.

A little bit of background, the city has owned the parcel shown here in yellow, um, located between Riley Street and Comstock Drive since 1984.

The city placed this parcel on a regional housing needs allocation or arena uh in the uh housing element of the general plan for up to 17 units, including 16 lower income units.

The knife knife-shaped parcel in red and the parcel to the west of it here at 814 Comstock are owned by a private developer who has an application in for a residential parcel map.

Uh the developers proposed to exchange an approximately 5,000 square foot portion of the knife-shaped parcel.

Um to the city for an approximately 3,000 square foot portion of our parcel as shown in the exhibit.

The developers requested uh this exchange to make their parcel uh rectangular and therefore better suited for development as shown in the resultant parcel exhibit here.

The exchange would also have a similar impact on the city's parcel and making it easier to develop uh in reviewing the uh excuse me in receiving the uh developable um uh more developable land, excuse me, then uh what we are giving up.

We're also ensuring that uh we can retain the units under our RENA inventory.

And here we see photographs of the land that is proposed for exchange.

They are similarly sloped properties with similar development potential that have several trees on them.

Um, because the land this city would be taking on has more trees than the land we'd be giving up.

We are requiring that the developer pay the for the difference in tree mitigation as a condition of the exchange.

And they were agreeable to that proposal.

Uh, this helps ensure that the city would clearly not be taking on taking a loss through this land exchange.

So what we're asking for tonight is for council council to declare the city uh land proposed for exchange as being exempt from the surplus land act.

This needs to happen for city property to avoid the lengthy surplus land act process.

Uh we're recommending a waiver of valuation given the fact that the city would be receiving more square footage than what we would be giving up and receiving funds to make up for the difference in tree mitigation.

And finally, we're asking that the council authorize the disposition of the land via the proposed property exchange.

Um, if approved tonight, staff will submit the resolution to the uh California Department of Housing and Community Development for their final approval.

And we'll note that we did submit a draft of the resolution to them earlier to ensure that the proposed actions are exempt from the surplus land act under the code section we identified, and they did confirm that that we were correct.

So with that, I can take any questions.

Any questions over here?

Yeah, I'm a little confused on the diagram.

So can we go back to the second slide?

This one.

So this one here, this remainder portion that's here.

Oh that it looks like on this map that's not part of the land exchange.

It's not, that's correct.

So but this goes all the way out to the edge of what is the resultant parcel B, right?

Repeat that, please.

This is the edge of the parcel B.

Yes, that's the the city's parcel.

It's the edge of the city's parcel.

Okay, so now go to the next slide here.

Sure.

So now this is the end of parcel B, right?

Uh that's the remainder.

So in this diagram, it's cross-hatched.

As part of the exchange.

Right.

So in one, it's not part of it, and the other one it is part of it.

Got it.

You really want to complicate things, the aerial photo is just the house right there.

Yes.

Yes, there is a house um right at the edge of that remainder parcel, which is the reason why the city had um requested not to take on um that what it's shown as the remainder parcel in this exhibit here.

Um based on the proximity to that um that residence.

But the second to just go back here to slide number four for a second.

That is this right here, right?

That's correct.

So that's this is what we file with the county, right?

So this is what we're taking on right here.

Well, this is what's recorded with the county, the other one's what we're gonna file with the county, right?

Right.

So what we um what we would file with the county is the um the proposed parcel exchange, I believe.

I'll go ahead and time in yet.

Great job, Josh.

So uh so the remainder portion of the parcel there, as uh council member Kozlaski correctly pointed out.

That's actually somebody's front porch.

So we didn't want to take that on as private right-of-way.

So we've carved out that piece.

Um, there's still a technical review that will occur with these documents before they get recorded, and we'll get that cleaned up.

But the exhibit that's on the screen right now reflects the exchange of how it will be.

So and I that sounds good for us not to take it on.

The downside is is this person's this remainder that we're leaving out here is going to be owned by these folks over here, right?

It will be owned by the uh applicant, yes.

And the we rather than being the entity that inserts itself to broker the deal between the two, we've uh asked the applicant to reach out to that property owner and uh you know, see if there's a dedication or or or sale that goes on, but we're not a party to that um that private agreement.

Because it ends up discontiguous, is it gonna have to get its own parcel number ultimately and be recorded as an individual?

It can be done a couple ways.

It can be done as a lot merger or a lot line adjustment where you essentially take the lot line out.

I'm saying just the exchange that we're making, will it result in that remainder having to become its own distinct piece of property?

Okay, gotcha.

Yeah, I guess my concern is as we leave a remainder parcel out there.

Is this fenced right now?

It is not currently fenced, no.

My concern is we leave a remainder parcel out there that's relatively small that's not owned by anybody who has an interest in it, right?

Correct.

And it unfortunately it borders our parcel.

And so then we are left with any maybe nuisance problems or any issues that come up on this parcel.

The nice part of way uh about how this is all come about is that's essentially somebody's like driveway and access to their home.

So it'd be no different than like your driveway or access off your off your street, too.

So that was kind of the thought behind us further not wanting to take it.

Originally it was proposed that we would take the whole thing, and then we said we're not we don't want to own right of way in front of somebody's porch.

So uh and has anybody contacted A22?

Like I I guess I took it from the staff report that that homeowner was not interested in that parcel, but maybe I misunderstood the staff report.

So that parcel was actually originally purchased from that homeowner.

The red knife shaped parcel.

Yeah, the knife shaped parcel was actually purchase from the applicant or purchased by the applicant from that property owner with the front porch.

Of course.

So that I guess that didn't answer the question.

Is this homeowner going to take care of this remainder parcel, or do we expect this a parcel to be it will either be under the ownership of the applicant or it will be under the ownership of the adjacent neighbor?

It will not be under the ownership of the city.

Yeah.

Can I pose a question?

Uh so the owner that's shows 822, uh sold the property.

Right.

So I mean, I guess uh would it be in our best interest for the city to take that?

Um, no, it wouldn't.

Um, only because now we would uh you know own right-of-way in that area that's basically the front face of somebody's home, and it's already being utilized by the private property owner.

Um, I mean, in hindsight being 2020, what would have been ideal is to essentially clean up that knife piece parcel first prior to the purchase uh between the two private parties.

The city was not a part of that.

We were approached with an application to create a more developable parcel and work with the applicant to come up with a solution for that.

I I can get on board.

I don't love it, but I could get on board.

So it's a it's a it's an unusual circumstance.

And it's relatively small.

I just I don't like remainder parcels being left out there.

So I'm sure you guys don't either.

So I'm preaching to the choir.

Uh all good.

Can I just make a suggestion in the future for those of us on this side of the dais who are not engineers and architects um looking at these type of plans?

For me, it would have been helpful to have an a slide that shows this aerial view with the red with the yellow that shows the after, right?

What it will look like.

Not the official plot map or whatever that's gonna go to the county, but you know what I mean?

Yes, I believe that's what the resultant parcels outside of the error that's that's shown in there.

That was the idea for it.

But I'm saying this with the shapes, but that other format.

You know what I mean, Pam?

I think that's a fair yeah, it's almost like when we do a rezoning and we show you the before and after.

Yes, like to see a side-by-side comparable before and after.

Yes, thank you.

Yeah, the only error here is the title of this slide.

It's not the resultant parcel, it's just the parcels.

The other one is the resultant.

I think the intention of it was for it to be the correct exhibit, but um we will work through the technical review process of it, yes.

Okay, so maybe a photo of the house is their maintenance of that particular remnant piece would be.

Without terrifying our residents, we're happy to take photos of their houses as appropriate.

Like to do drive-by's on them when I'm seeing issues like this come up just to get to get an eyes on the project.

So yeah, thanks.

Yeah, of course.

Any requests to speak on this item?

Okay, any other questions over here?

I'll move resolution resolution number one one uh four four nine.

Second.

We have a motion and a second.

Please call the role.

Council members Raethel, Florida, yes, Koslowski.

Yes, Larry, yes, and a keynote.

Yes, thank you.

All right, this takes you your final discussion item this evening.

This is new business item number 14.

This is resolution number 11427, a resolution approving the affordable housing loan program guidelines to establish a clear framework for providing financial assistance to affordable housing projects.

And this is funded by the Folsom Housing Fund and Housing Trust Fund.

Hello again.

You want to help me out with that?

It's new business.

Thank you.

Is it the mouse not working?

The problem is it's not showing up.

Yeah, I can't adjust that from here.

I'm sorry.

Yeah.

Um, all right, there we go.

All right.

Um, yeah, okay.

Good evening again, Marikino Council members, Stephanie Henry with the community development department.

Um, for this last item tonight, I'm going to provide an overview of proposed affordable housing loan guidelines.

This presentation outlines the background, the rationale, and key features of the proposed guidelines, and concludes with a request for your approval.

Um Folsom has a long recognize the importance of affordable housing.

The city funds most of these efforts primarily through in LU fees, which we discussed earlier, and a commercial uh development fees, which can then be used to offer gap financing through an affordable housing loan to an affordable housing developer.

These loans specifically target low, very low and extremely low income households, and in exchange for these long-term low-cost loans, developers agree to um ensure the affordability of these projects for a 55-year term.

Um the city's affordable housing loans are generally aligned with low-income housing tax credit programs as previously mentioned, and we offer gap financing.

So the delta between the the permanent financing and the project cost.

Um over the years, we've um through these affordable housing loans, we've um supported 11 affordable housing projects since 2005.

Uh, this has resulted in 1,095 units of developed or approved housing and totals over 36 million dollars in funding.

Um currently, this process of providing affordable housing loans is largely um a reactive manner with developers initiating the request based on their individual project timelines and funding cycles, often driven by uh tax credit deadlines.

The approach has resulted in inconsistent loan terms, which makes compliance monitoring and long-term oversight more complex.

Um, as each loan may involve different conditions, repayment structures, and reporting requirements.

The lack of consistency hinders staff's ability to effectively track project performance, enforce affordability commitments, and maintain accountability over time to support sound financial decision making.

While over time, staff has made um meaningful progress in standardizing some of these loan terms and strengthening our oversight.

The absence of a formal framework has made it difficult to evaluate projects consistently or align with the broader city goals.

Additionally, without clear terms established at the outset, developers face challenges in adjusting their financial assumptions later in the process, especially given the complex complexity of these affordable housing um transactions.

So there's basically two goals when we fund these types of projects.

First, we want to protect the financial health of our loan portfolio.

And secondly, we want to make sure that we put that we safeguard the actual investment in the developed project.

To advance these goals, um the program, the program and intended to create consistent transparent uh framework and evaluate funding affordable housing projects.

By clearly outlining this expectations up front, the guidelines will give developers a defined process early on.

So some of the key features of these guidelines include clear funding criteria and underwriting standards, defined compliance and monitoring requirements, uh residual cash flow repayment structure, reserve account requirements, and then the long-term affordability safeguards with city oversight.

And the slide also shows uh a summary of the key loan terms that are included in the affordable housing guidelines.

Um this is a strategic shift in the way that we've been um moving forward with affordable housing loans because it puts us kind of in the front seat and allows us the opportunity in the future to have these guidelines in place if we decide to offer uh like a notice of funding availability, or we set our priorities for a specific type of project, such as a senior project or a special needs project, or a project in the Folsom plan area.

So at this point that concludes my presentation, and staff is recommending that the city council adopt resolution one one four-two-seven, a resolution of the city council of the city of Folsom approving the affordable housing loan program guidelines.

Any questions for Stephanie?

I have one.

Okay.

I I apologize, this is kind of remedial.

What do you mean by three percent simple interest?

Three, did you want to take that?

Sorry to answer that.

Um, versus compounding.

So it'll just be three percent per year instead of three percent added on, and then you take three percent of that new total, and then three percent of that new total, that would be compounding interest.

So if you have you just take three percent on the initial balance, that's set aside as interest, three percent again, set aside as interest.

So you're not paying interest on interest on interest, as they're not paying.

So three percent on the remaining principal each year.

Correct.

Okay.

But most of the time the principal is staying the same because they're not making payments.

I gotcha.

Thank you.

Questions.

So I brought it up earlier.

Um, is this the appropriate uh place to put in where we would like a residency and local worker requirement?

So I did a little bit of research on that.

And I think I think we could add that in, but I think one of our first steps would be we would have to uh adopt an ordinance that spells out our policy.

So should we hold off on adopting these guidelines until we adopt that ordinance or vice versa?

Give me some policy.

My recommendation would be that you adopt these guidelines and then we come back to you once we complete that research and implement it.

There's gonna be plenty of other opportunities where we're bringing housing issues and considerations before you through the the rest of this calendar year.

So there'll be plenty of opportunity for us to come back with that.

So you're talking about a preference for people who would reside in these units, not necessarily or are you talking about that and also who works on the construction of them?

Not necessarily working on the construction.

So the way other some other municipalities do it is as they say, hey.

Um, if you already live in Folsom and you need an affordable housing place, so you meet the qualifications for affordable housing, you get one point.

Um if you were prioritizing for purposes of choosing renters.

Correct.

Thank you.

I understand.

Thank you.

Perfect.

All right, second question.

Uh we're gonna set, you know, typically these are driven by the developer.

So developer comes to us and they've already gotten some sort of state or federal or combination of state and federal funding.

Uh so we then kind of fit into their funding portfolio.

Uh and we're able to do that to make the project go forward, right?

Um, so instead look at it from another way.

Um now we're saying, hey, here's what you have to do, right?

Are state and federal programs and guidelines so consistent that we can also be super consistent.

Uh, like what I'm worried about is all of a sudden, hey, this is the way this has been done this year.

But guess what?

We have a new administration, uh, everything changes at the federal level or everything changes at the state level.

Um I'm just kind of curious.

Are are we does that kind of flexibleness and nimbleness to where we're sitting right now?

I get that it it takes more time and it's not ideal because we don't always get the best deal.

But does it allow us to kind of actually be the gap financer?

Uh, or are these kind of state and federal programs they've been the same for eight years, so it's fine for us to be consistent.

Am I making sense?

Is that a fair question?

Well, I can say that we've baked in some flexibility in these guidelines, saying that these are guidelines and at any point we can decide to adjust them.

It's our preference, it's our money.

Got it.

I think that that answers my question.

So if the the game changes at the state level for an affordable housing developer, then they come back and say, hey, this is what changed, and you guys bring it to us and we say ignore the guidelines or change the guidelines to match this new funding structure.

Right.

And so really the purpose of these is that after you guys typically approve the like the terms of the loan, there's a there's a bunch of little nuances that go into funding these.

And then at the stage where we're getting ready to close the loan and do our housing loan agreement, because we also have a housing loan agreement.

We get into some debates with some of the developers on some of the things that we've put in our housing loan agreement because this way we have kind of those terms already laid out and say this is you know, these are our guidelines.

Try to fit these guidelines when you bring your loan forward and when we sign those, you know, documents to follow.

Thank you.

And one more, sorry.

Uh when do we think we can come back for uh residency local worker?

What are we looking at time frame wise?

I would say um probably uh October, November, December.

Um, so we have the objective design and development standards that are coming back to you.

We have inclusionary housing ordinance coming back to you.

So it's just a matter of prioritizing.

I don't think the the timeliness of that will have a negative impact.

I think we want to get it done in accordance when we've got these these books open.

But we also need to spend a little time vetting the issue and making sure we're in compliance before we bring a solution back.

Totally understood.

Thank you.

Questions, councilmember Larry?

Um, yeah, I was just following up on uh council member Rafel's suggestion about um selection of future residents for these, and I'm yeah I sort of had the advantage of having the last um meeting to do a gender review and heard that suggestion uh had been made earlier, and I'm um a little bit um I guess confused about whether this belongs in this particular document, you know, kind of dictating to the people that are going to be getting the loans and subsequently managing um the applications and selecting residents, or does that belong in a in a different document?

Uh because it sounds like something it would be difficult to um to prove, you know, somebody's residency or long, you know, length of residency.

There's a lot a whole lot of details that would go into that um resident selection.

Right.

So I think we're suggesting we do it separately as an ordinance.

And not and not move it into this document.

Yeah, and I think we just need time to figure that out.

So it's hard to answer the question this evening, but if in fact it does make sense for it to be part of the guideline consideration, then we would just bring an amendment back.

But we don't we don't know, we haven't had enough time to to look into that yet.

Yeah, I just wanted to be clear on how that was gonna be accomplished.

It sounded like it was a suggestion for adding to this document.

So thanks for the clarification.

Councilmember Warbaugh, you have a question?

No, I just have a comment on this other conversation.

Um I mean, as you're researching it, you know, I really would like to know the pros and cons of this.

I'm not sure I'm on favor, I'm not against it or for it at the moment.

So I think that's part of what you're saying is we need to vet this out a little bit.

So you're here.

Did we seek any feedback from affordable housing developers on these guidelines?

Were there anything that they thought was problematic?

We have, I mean these guidelines really mostly mimic the our loan agreements that we've brokered in the last couple years.

Um and kind of just more like memorialized them so we're not having that back and forth.

But they did know that they were coming.

We've let them know that we were we thought these were coming in about a month ago.

So we had let them know that we would be bringing these forward.

Okay.

And then I just have a comment, and uh I don't know if I should have brought this up earlier with the first presentation or now, but um, you know, we had this conversation uh when AKT came to us with their healthy aging idea.

Um, you know, we build housing for people of different um income levels, people of um different ages with 55 plus communities.

What we don't do in this city is have housing for people of different abilities.

And I feel very strongly that that's something that we we need to work on, especially with the high um special ed population that Folsom Cordova has.

I mean, um, you know, kids who have autism, let's say, they grow up to be adults with autism and they want to do all the things that that um that other uh adults do, fully abled adults.

And so um Stephanie and I met um several months ago now with Alter Regional, which is the local nonprofit who is solely funded by the state to provide services for people with with different abilities.

And um their preference is that, and they do provide some gap funding.

Uh they have their own access to um loans, but their preference is that um, for example, in a multifamily complex, um that like 20% of their uh the units would be set aside for their clients.

And I would really like to see us embrace something like that.

And I think it could even work with kind of um the for sale condominiums or town homes that we were talking about earlier, because you know, in some instances, you know, maybe their parents want to buy those and pay for them while the parents are alive, knowing that these special needs children are going to outlive them, and they want to make sure that that that housing is taken care of.

So I don't know if that um could be part of a um a call for funding or whatever that this is this is the type of component we're looking for.

And I would even think your thing about that we want to prioritize um people who live here or work here, that could be part of the notice of funding, couldn't it?

Yeah, when you offer a notice of funding, you can there's a whole array of you know requirements, and you can score them, you know, senior one point, you know.

Like I said, you can also do regions, like if we wanted to prioritize our next funding round for a fulsom plan area project, we could have sky have a score higher for that area.

Okay, okay.

Any other questions or comments for Stephanie?

I don't think we have any members of the public wishing to speak.

Nope.

Okay, then we will entertain a motion.

I'll move resolution number one one four two seven.

Second.

We have a motion and a second, please call the roll.

Council members Ray though.

Yes, Rorpa.

Yes, Kozlowski, yes, Leary, yes, and Aquino.

Yes, thank you.

That takes us to city manager report.

Great, thank you.

Uh, mayor, members of the council.

Uh just a couple of things to um provide information on.

First, I want to congratulate uh Rebecca Neves uh in her appointment to serve as the new public works director for the city of Folsom.

Uh we had a very, very competitive process.

Uh we had uh uh uh a good response to our uh recruitment and uh it uh we we really put all the candidates through a pretty intense uh interview and selection process.

Appreciate you know, uh Vice Mayor Raethal and Councilmember Kozlowski for their efforts uh in that panel.

Um I'm really excited for uh Rebecca in uh for her energy and her leadership and her experience that she'll be able to bring from uh community development now to public works.

So congratulations.

Uh also uh the Oak Parkway Trail has officially reopened following a series of renovations that enhance safety and promote environmental sustainability.

Trail user users will notice improved surfaces for better traction, new trail markings and erosion control measures.

Additional enhancements are planned for next year, including the installation of native landscaping and habitat restoration.

The Folsom Parks and Recreation Department is inviting the community to help name neighborhood park one, a brand new uh park coming to 3294 Empire Ranch Road in the Folsom Plan area.

The chosen name should reflect the spirit of the community, such as Folsom's natural surroundings, wildlife, urge history and culture.

The deadline for submittals is September 12th.

Um our fire department was busy over the weekend.

We had uh multiple structure fires.

We had one that affected a garage.

I appreciate the efforts of our um our firefighters as well as uh our surrounding agencies for their help in that regard.

Uh and then the following night there were two homes uh that were heavily damaged.

Um yeah, so uh units arrived on scene at a large exterior fire that had extended into two adjacent homes with heavy fire showing from both residential structures, prompting both offensive and defensive operations.

Uh mutual aid was provided by Sacramento Metro Fire, El Dorado Hills Fire, and South Placer Fire Department.

Uh, we appreciate the drop boundaries and the our ability to respond.

Us going out to help them and those agencies coming to help us, and I think that's just an exhibit of uh the success of that uh response.

Um Sunday, August 24th, officers responded to calls for service at the Nike outlet and Calvin Klein outlet about a group of four individuals stealing merchandise.

Officers recovered over 3,000 worth of stolen uh merchandise from multiple stores within the outlets.

All four suspects were booked into Sacramento County uh Main Jail.

I appreciate the diligence of our offers uh officers in that regard.

Um officers Sena Robertson, Chernovoski, and Vail recently received life-saving awards from the Sacramento Police Department.

They were recognized for their heroic actions during a 2023 medical emergency where their decisive response helps save a life.

Uh the Folsom Police Department is warning residents, especially seniors about scam calls and texts from criminals posing as companies, agencies, or family members.

Uh, tips don't share personal info.

Let unknown calls go to voicemail, never click suspicious links and check with a trusted person before acting.

And then report fraud to the police department by calling 916-461-6400, and then select option one.

And then uh this is important to note there's a DUI checkpoint coming up.

Um Folsom Police will conduct the DUI checkpoint on Thursday, August 28th during evening hours at an undisclosed location.

Uh funding is provided by the California Office of Traffic Safety through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

And so everyone, you've been warned.

Um that concludes my report.

Thank you very much.

Councilmember Larry.

Oh, thank you.

Thanks for all of the updates there.

Um I just wanted to give a shout out to Jake's Journey Home, who had a fundraiser this past weekend.

Um Jean, uh, who runs this organization, does a tremendous service for our community here in um doing a lot of hands-on outreach in the community to people who are unhoused and providing a lot of information about how to get help, but actually um taking measures to ensure that people who are willing to get help get into the situations that they need to get into to make their lives more productive.

Um the um the event uh this past Friday night was uh packed, and uh, we heard some great stories from people who had uh received help from her and are experiencing a huge change in their lives uh and ability to enjoy them.

Um one thing I did want to bring up also is um I really appreciate the fact that the um fireworks, uh the additional fireworks uh event that was proposed for October uh has been um uh put on hold.

Um I think uh I'd like to thank uh Mayor Aquino for her part in um in having that come to pass.

Uh and something that comes up every uh 4th of July, and I heard more of it this year since I've been elected, was getting a lot of letters um in the email and comments from people that are concerned about the increased risks of fire with fireworks uh in our region.

And and people are talking about you know the legal ones as well, and but particularly about the illegal fireworks that occur.

And uh it isn't just um, you know, the fires that are a risk, which I think are huge throughout the year now, not just during fire season.

Um, but you know, we have vets who live in town with PTSD who are negatively affected by um all of the activity, particularly the loud sounds.

Uh the animals at the zoo require sedation and monitoring, and a lot of residents are having to take their pets to vets to get prescriptions to keep them calm during the fireworks.

So I'd like to have some future discussion about how we might get a better handle on it, at least some of these issues.

Uh it's a complicated problem, and um I like and I enjoy fireworks myself, but I also um concerned about some of the negative consequences that we're seeing.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um, just a comment about Castle Park celebration last Friday.

It was a fantastic turnout, uh, maybe five, six hundred people.

And it was just it went the entire time.

Uh Joanne Braush did a great job.

Um, and so just everyone that turned out.

It's just such a great example of what a community park can be and why um why we're investing in this park.

So um thank you for everyone that came out and once again to Joanne for all her work.

And parks and rec department, I shouldn't.

Oh, they're all gone.

Um, but thank you for all the work that they've been doing on this whole project.

So thank you.

Councilmember Kozowski.

Um, just two things, congratulations to both of our high school football teams for uh starting the season off with wins, and uh the cross country teams from both schools will be in action here within this week.

Um, so lots of sports news coming up soon that way.

Um, and I had the random pleasure of going to a fundraiser for Sack State basketball, um, which, if you guys have watched the news at all, has hired Mike Bibby as their head coach, which is kind of crazy to think about.

And Shaquille O'Neal is their $1 a year general manager.

Um, so he's got the uh least uh he's got the smallest contract you can have to have a contract, and his son is on the team.

So anyway, but uh in the yeah, the whole reason for me telling you this story is in the auction of sports memorabilia at this fundraiser was a picture of Jackie Robinson on his first day in the major leagues, which happened to be on April 15th, which is my birthday and my dad's birthday.

Um in 19, I was not born in 1947, but his first game was in 1947, and oddly enough, it's a picture of four guys on the steps of the Brooklyn Dodger dugout, and the one Jackie Robinson's on the right in the photo.

The guy on the left in the photo was Spider Jorgensen, who is the very first major league baseball player to graduate from Fulsom High School.

So I bought the picture.

So I now I'm the proud owner of that and made a donation to Sack State basketball because very cool.

Nice coincidence.

That's all.

Thank you.

Vice Mayor Wethel.

I only had a few minutes to stop by the Castle Park fundraiser.

We had very important tickets to see bad guys too at the Palladio that night.

Uh yeah, we'll leave that a lot alone, but it was a great turnout.

Um, and I just want to add uh if you haven't bought your uh fence post or your brick or your t-shirt uh or your artwork, uh, please hop online um and do that and support that park.

Uh uh did want to give a quick report out on the Sacramento Transportation Authority.

I think the the only topic that had a little bit of discussion at the last meeting uh was the i Street Bridge funding project, uh replacement project uh with a large price tag between Sacramento and West Sacramento.

Um if you've ever driven across the i Street Bridge, um it's it's uh an interesting bridge.

You've taken your life in your own hands.

Uh it's it's a little dangerous.

So it's definitely a needed project.

Uh but the STA is looking at being uh the funder basically to help the city of Sacramento complete that project uh in a more timely fashion.

So uh the can the staff was recommending that it was a very, very low-risk uh approach uh for the STA funds in order to uh basically be the backstop on that.

Um but there's still more discussion to come uh between those organizations and the municipalities.

Uh and we'll see further updates at future meetings.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um, as you know, we had the uh air district event the other day.

We had it out here in the courtyard behind City Hall, which is a great place for an event.

Um, but the air district staff was very, very complimentary of our city staff um for all the work that went um into that event.

So I know communications helped them leading up to the event.

Uh Parks and Rec helped them the day of with the setup, but anyway, they're very, very complimentary.

So, Brian, if you would pass on uh my thanks to them.

Um, congratulations to Rebecca on her new position.

And I also want to thank Marcus.

This is the second time Marcus has been our interim public works director.

And I think a couple weeks ago, Brian, when you were on vacation, Marcus was the environmental water resources director, the interim public works director, and the acting city manager.

He couldn't have worn any more hats uh that day than he did.

So anyway, um happy birthday to Justin, and it's 8 54.

We are adjourned.

Thank you.