Okay, good evening everyone.

We are going to reconvene closed session at the conclusion of our regular session meeting.

So I am going to call to order the regular city council meeting for Folsom for Tuesday, October 28th, 2025.

Would the clerk please call the role?

Yeah, Council members Rachel.

Here.

Leary.

Here.

And Aquino.

Here.

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

Okay, that takes us to uh agenda updates.

Mr.

City Attorney, anything to report?

Good evening, Madam Mayor.

We do have an additional information trust middle for item three and a revised staff report for item 11 on tonight's agenda.

Both documents have been previously provided to you, and they are also available on the table in the back.

Thank you very much.

That takes us to business from the floor.

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

But please understand we cannot deliberate or take action on these items.

So any requests to speak.

You do have one request to speak this evening from Andrew Viscara.

Andrew, come on down.

Oh Andrew, we like when people bring us big checks.

We give you extra time.

Thank you so much.

I'm just speaking here.

Um, yeah, so uh me and Andrew Tweet here.

Um, we had several other classmates with us with us as well.

We had the awesome opportunity to organize a fundraiser, pickle for a purpose.

This was in 2024.

And uh with the help of all of our classmates, uh, choose Folsom with the help of all of the sponsors and all the community that came out to support, we were able to uh raise 10,600 and uh giving it towards uh Folsom uh City of Folsom Parks and Rec.

And so we're excited to be able to do that.

Was this part of the leadership class?

Yes, it was part of leadership leadership 2024.

Okay, it was awesome.

Very good.

Thank you so much.

I'm gonna ask well, I'm gonna come down and take a picture with that, but Andrew right there will take our photo and then.

Thank you so much.

Okay, next slide.

Okay, that we have no request to speak in our business from the floor.

That takes us to our scheduled presentation item this evening.

This is special recognition of departing Kikomon plant manager, Kyotaka Nagai.

Good evening.

Come on down.

Come on up.

Um, as you all know, uh, last month we celebrated the 25th anniversary of a sister city friendship with Pieva del Grappa Italy, but there is another international friendship that we value very greatly, and that is our friendship with Kiko Men Foods.

And we have been so fortunate the past seven years to have um Mr.

Nagai a very very active and engaged plant manager and unfortunately uh you have been called back to Japan where you will await your next um assignment.

So we didn't want to let uh the day go by without um recognizing your service so um I do have a letter here from me to Mr.

Nagai on behalf of the city of Folsom, please accept our sincere appreciation and congratulations for your distinguished leadership and the meaningful contributions you have made to Kikiman Foods and the Folsom community since assuming the role of plant manager in May 2018.

You have guided your team to achieve record production and shipping volumes, the highest in the facility's history.

Under your direction, the plant also advanced sustainability and operational excellence through wastewater improvements and new green energy sources secured through SMUD.

Under your leadership, Kiko Men's new coaching program enhanced communication, strengthened workplace culture, and helped develop leadership skills and strategic planning and time management.

We are honored to celebrate important milestones with you, including the plant's 20th and 25th anniversaries, and Kiko Man's induction into the Folsom Chamber of Commerce Business Hall of Fame in 2025.

Your contributions have enriched our community beyond the plant gates.

From your participation in events like the Folsom Christmas tree lighting and the Folsom Pro Rodeo, to your support of Kikoman scholarships at Folsom High School and contributions to the new Folsom Lake College Science Building.

Your leadership has reflected a deep commitment to the community.

As you and your wife, Mimi, return to Japan.

We hope you carry with you fond memories of your time in Folsom.

And please know that you and your family will always have a home here.

With sincere gratitude and best wishes for continued success.

And if you didn't know, chocolate and soy sauce go very well together.

So a little something for you from Snooks Chocolate.

Well let me say you you say a little something before.

Good evening, everybody.

And I'm glad to have these uh Howard, uh no, uh regulation uh very much.

Then I try to be uh as a member of the local community, then also Kikuma has a policy to be very member or the local.

Then we try to do like this continuity, then we start to business in the whole sum 27 years ago.

Then policy is a steel keeping do it.

Yeah, also already uh leta mentioned we start the coaching program.

It means that uh we communicate uh very, very well.

Then uh policy is a respect to the another people.

It means that we can uh thinking together and work together and success together.

This is very, very important policy as a Kikuma.

I'm glad to get this one.

Thank you.

Thanks so much.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Okay, that's that.

Okay, that will take you to your consent calendar.

Does anybody have an item they'd like to pull?

Item number six.

All right, we'll pull item number six.

Anything else?

I'll move uh approval of items two through ten, absent number six.

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

Council members Rafel.

Yes, Rorva, yes, Koslowski, yes, Larry, yes, and Aquino.

Yes, okay.

Pull to item number six is resolution number one one four eight five.

This is a resolution authorizing the city manager to execute amendment number one to the agreement with Dawkins Engineering for Environmental and Historic Monitoring and Reporting Services for open space in the Folsom plan area.

And this will be using CFD um eight number eighteen funds for a not to exceed amount of five hundred and eighty thousand dollars.

Good evening.

Good evening, madam mayor, council members, Derek Perez, landscape services manager, happy to answer any questions that you have.

Yeah, I uh I understand.

Thank you for providing the background um on this item and and where it came from.

Um, and I understand uh the monitoring of our open space areas, especially throughout the development.

Um, but really this is an ongoing in perpetuity eighty thousand dollars a year, likely raising with the cost of living and inflation going forward.

Um, and so really I just wanted to talk with you a little bit about or ask the question you know, are there other ways that we can get this environmental monitoring done?

Thinking partnerships with SAC State or UC Davis, because really it's it's biological and archaeological monitoring, and the way I understand it, it's really about our passive areas, our areas that we really shouldn't have public in for the most part.

Uh, and so just wanted to kind of say, or ask the question are there other areas maybe north of 50 where we have these monitoring requirements?

Do we do we put them together?

Um, because $80,000 in perpetuity just for a report um every year and some site surveys.

Uh, I just wish we could find uh maybe a more cost-effective way of doing it.

Yeah, no, that's that's a great question, Councilmember Rafel.

Um, yeah, as far as the the north of 50, I'm not aware of current monitoring that's going on right now.

I know for our division, MLS and parks.

Um, you know, you bring up a great question, is you know, looking at some partnerships down the road with Folsom Lake College or SAC State.

It's making sure that there are professional biologists that know how to produce these reports and go out there and monitor because it's not just like a one-day salary, they go out there.

This is over a course of the entire year, and there's three monitoring periods too as well.

Um, I do know talking with a consultant is that there's avenues that we can explore in the future is reaching out to these uh monitoring agencies, you know, Calvary Department of Fish and Wildlife and Um Army Corps of Engineers to see if there's a possibility to amend them where there might be something to reduce three monitoring reports to maybe like two reports potentially a year.

So I think just making sure that we do have that backup and that information and the monitoring and knowing what we're actually looking at, what we're preserving for the invasives and the non-natives and you know, our um, you know, our current uh wetlands and everything out there that we're monitoring everything that we're required for our open space management plan.

So it is a great, great question.

We can definitely look at that in the future.

And I'm comfortable giving you three years to investigate that.

You know, I think the contract extensions three years, but I just I just wanted to bring it up because I do think it's something that maybe there's part of it that we can do in-house or part of it that we can do if it's the same exact monitoring, and we have these annual reports that show it every year.

Um, maybe we can do it with an aspiring doctoral student.

Yeah, we can look at that and see what other agencies are doing too as well.

And this isn't the first time.

This is the conservation area in the open space, right?

We're not doing it just because it's open space.

No, yes, in the conservation area in the open space.

Which is about a third, I think, of that open space.

Yes, the third right now, and then as you know, the city takes over more open space, and um in the future, that open space, as you know, down there will be expanding west and stuff.

So we'll be adopting more and um more open space down there.

So you're telling me the 80 grand is gonna go is gonna go up also.

I mean, this is for the next four years too for this extension, so yeah, we'll cross over when we get there.

So these are the requirements from um the Army Corps of Engineer, correct?

Right that we're set in place.

Yeah, they're there.

They have an end date at some point.

Is that correct?

I know that sites on this side of 50 have had to meet those requirements for a certain number of years, and then and then the reports have not been provided, and I don't know the exact time frame there.

Yeah, from whatever in the open space management plan, um, this is in perpetuity.

So we have to provide these monitoring reports, you know, kind of forever, so and report those to the uh the agencies.

And maybe that's another avenue that my colleague brings up is if they're normally a 30-year agreement, then maybe we look at going to Army Corps of Engineers and and uh Department of Fish and Wildlife and saying, hey, this is can we do this for just the next 30 years?

I think part of the problem there is that a lot of these ones that were not monitored for any length of time have significantly deteriorated over time, and I'm sure that's you know that the requirements have potentially changed since this side of town was built.

Yeah.

With that, I'm happy to move item number six.

Okay.

That's a thank you.

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

Council members Rathel, yes, Rohrbach, yes, Kozlowski, yes, Leary, and Aquino.

Yes, next item, please.

All right, your first public hearing item this evening is item number 11.

This is ordinance number 1358, adding sections uh pertaining to wildfire prevention and amending other sections and certain chapters pertaining to adoption of various uniform codes.

This will be introduction and first reading of the ordinance.

Good evening, Alison.

Good evening.

Okay.

Uh good evening, Mayor Aquino, council members, and city manager White Meyer.

I am Alison Konwinski, the chief building official, and I am bringing to you in collaboration with the fire department, the introduction and first reading of ordinance 1358.

Ordinance 1358 pertains to the adoption of the 2025 Title 24 California Code of Regulations with local amendments.

Ordinance 1358 is an ordinance of the city of Folsom, adding section 9.37.035 pertaining to wildfire prevention, and amending certain sections in chapter 8.36 and certain certain chapters in Title 14 of the Folsom Municipal Code pertaining to adoption of various uniform codes.

I would also like to note there was a revised staff report transmittal sent to the council that outlined a handful of corrections required prior to presenting the ordinance you see tonight.

More detail can be found in that transmittal.

So the first question is why exactly are we here?

We are here because every three years, the International Code Council publishes an updated International Building Code or IBC, the latest being the 2024 IBC.

In July of the following year, California publishes the 2025 Title 24 California Code of Regulations, also known as the California Building Code, or CBC, which is based on the IBC with local amendments or with California amendments.

The Title 24 California Code of Regulations are state regulations, local jurisdictions must enforce part of the Health and Safety Code Section 1893.

Local jurisdictions are required to adopt the Title 24 California Code of Regulations in order to make local amendments.

Amendments can only be based on climactic, geological and topographical findings and cannot be less restrictive than the current state code.

It is important to understand the Title 24 California Code of Regulations encompasses about a dozen codes.

It includes the fire code, the building code, the mechanical code, electrical code, energy code, green building code, and others.

Jurisdictions must adopt each of these codes separately.

This year is the introduction of a new code, the 2025 California Wildland Urban Interface Code, also known as the WUI Code.

The WUI Code is a compilation of excerpts previously located in other code books, such as the Fire Code, the Green Code, and the Building Code.

The WUI code currently does not apply to a fulsom as we are in a moderate fire hazard severity zone in our local responsibility area.

Therefore, we are proposing to add section 9.37.035, which was previously located in the fire code.

This section continues to allow the fire chief to identify and restrict access to natural spaces posing a higher than normal fire wildfire risk.

We are also proposing additional amendments to the Folsom Municipal Code to better align Folsom with other jurisdictions in similar fire hazard zones.

We are proposing to adopt appendix D of the California Fire Code, which was written to provide more detailed requirements regarding road widths, dead ends, access roads, and road locations relative to the building based on height.

Finally, we are also we are proposing to align the municipal code with current technologies and best practice.

In conclusion, the community development department has been working with the fire department, and we are recommending city council introduce and conduct the first reading of ordinance 1358.

The second reading will then occur on November 12th with the type with the 2025 Title 24 California Code of Regulations with local amendments going into effect on January 1st of 2026.

I'm happy to answer any questions, and Deputy Fire Marshal Michelle Toledo is here as well as Chief McGee.

Thank you very much, Michelle.

Um Alison, Michelle's back there.

Any questions over here?

I'll look this way, Vice Mayor Waithal.

No question.

I have a grumpy comment before it comes to a vote.

Would you like to make your grumpy comment?

Yes, I would like to make my grumpy comment.

You know, and I don't know if anyone's realized, but housing has gotten really, really expensive.

And so I'm tempted to vote against this just to say that, oh, this is crazy.

Like we're making houses more and more expensive.

And at the same time, we're all talking about an affordability crisis and a housing crisis.

Um I have absolutely no repercussion.

I have to vote for this in order to get our local amendments, and I appreciate the work that staff has done in making our code uh less restrictive, right?

So I appreciate the appendix G uh modifications that staff has made to bring us more in line uh with our other jurisdictions around us.

So that's that's not what my complaint is.

My complaint is is that we're our state legislature uh is talking about being in an affordable affordability crisis and a housing crisis, and yet every three years we make it harder and harder to build housing in this state.

Oh, and so I just have to go out there and say if there was any control from the local level at this, we would roll these back.

I would vote to roll these back to the 90s.

So then my house was built.

I sleep very safely at night.

I don't have sprinklers.

I do have solar, but that was my choice.

Uh there's a lot of things in these codes which are driving up the cost of housing.

And um, I would just love to see things pause for a few years while we catch up.

Thank you.

But I don't have that choice.

Council Member Kozlovski extension of the grumpy comment.

I would encourage my colleagues to vote for this because we don't really have a choice.

This is a bit of foolish theater that the state forces us to do.

Um, but I would second what Councilmember Raisel has said and go one step further and say that the IBC, who is the source for their ICC, which is the source for all of these code changes, is um the referees have been captured by industry, and there is not a fair evaluation of what the cost of any given change is to the building codes nationally.

And here in California, we don't put a we don't put a break on it in the same way that we do on all other legislation, which at least has to pass through the legislative budget office to make a determination of whether or not it will add costs to the taxpayer.

Um, so I would very, very much like for Folsom to be a leader in trying to get the state to at least do that minimal bit of additional work during these code cycles, or demand that you know make California the outlier and say, hey, our code cycle's not every three years, our code cycle is longer.

Um so anyway, with that said, I don't have any gripe with any particular change that has been proposed.

It's just that the the polishing of the diamond has gotten kind of crazy.

So, okay.

Uh I'm gonna open the public hearing.

Madam Clerk, do we have any requests to speak?

You have no request to speak under this item.

Okay, then we will close the public hearing.

Thank you very much, Alison.

And I will entertain a motion.

Introduction and first reading.

I just need somebody to say so moved.

Yes, so moved.

Under extreme duress.

So moved.

Second.

Thank you.

We have a motion and a second.

Please call the roll.

Council members Raithel.

Yes.

Roraba, yes, Kozlowski.

I'll be I'll be the no.

Leary.

I'm gonna suggest that we work more closely with our local legislators uh at the state level.

Is that a yes, and some others, but that's a yes, and a keynote.

Yes, thank you very much.

Sorry to shoot the messenger, Alison.

But um, we appreciate you, no problems.

All right, next item, please.

Okay, that takes you to item number 12.

This is objective development and design standards for multi-unit and mixed use residential development for general plan mixed use and residential overlay areas.

Good evening, Desmond.

Good evening, mayor, uh Keno members of the uh the city council on Desmond Perrington, planning manager in the community development department.

Uh, with me tonight is Cecilia Kim, who's uh the planning manager with Opticos uh Design.

Uh there were the consultants that uh helped us uh prepare this and put this together.

So the reason that why we are doing this is that because there's been a number of changes in that's okay.

I just sent it.

Okay, thank you.

There's been a number of changes in state law that now require that we only use objective design and development standards when reviewing um uh residential projects.

And in 2024, as you may recall, the the this the city council um approved changes in the land use uh both in the general plan and in the fulsome plan area specific plan to create overlay areas where we allowed for higher density and taller development, but essentially more intensive development consistent with the requirements of our housing element.

So this included the East Bidwell Corridor, the areas around the Iron Point and Glen Light rail stations, and then the Folsom Town Center in the Folsom Plan area.

So those were done with the understanding that we would be putting in place objective design and development standards to ensure that when that higher intensity development does occur, that it's done in a way that is that complements and enhances those areas, and it's well designed rather than detract from them.

So we are proposing to no longer use because we can't use guidelines anymore, and also our most multifamily design guidelines actually conflict with some of the requirements in our zoning code.

There's a number of general plan policies that are supportive of this overall effort.

I won't get into detail on all of them, but obviously you can see here there's a commitment to high quality design.

So the goal of this effort was really to balance the need to comply with state laws with ensuring quality site and architectural design.

So what the what the objective development and design standards do is they regulate the physical form and the character of multifamily development or mixed use development.

Developers have to comply with these if they're looking for a streamlined review process.

Um do not include actual development proposals.

Um the approval does not approve any kind of development.

There's been there were some information on Folsom Chat and on Next Door that suggested that these these documents were actually approving large projects.

Um without these standards, we would not have objective design standards that we could use to evaluate these multifamily projects in this area.

So the examples that are so shown in the document are just that.

They're showing how a site could transform and then be built using these objective design standards.

But there is no actual development associated with them.

So this was a this was a long effort that really kicked off with a targeted mixed use and multifamily housing study that we did with Opticos, looking at and getting input from residents here in Folsom and businesses as well about what type of housing and mixed use development was appropriate where, and then what was the appropriate kind of massing and scale for all of that.

So we did a survey that surveyed 400 residents and developers and business owners in Folsom, got a lot of great feedback.

We took that feedback, presented it to you all, got your feedback, and then we started work on the objective design standards.

So that was prepared uh back in September of 2024, and then we had a workshop with the architectural community and with developers so they could understand that what what we were doing and we could get their feedback.

We also talked to a number of jurisdictions, including the cities of Campbell, some cities in Napa and Moran counties who had been using these or similar versions of these, got their feedback, and then we made some changes to make the document a little bit easier to use.

Then we released that draft in July of 2025.

We had a workshop with our planning commission to kind of walk them through how these would work, and then we had a hearing with them on October 15th, where they unanimously recommended approval of these.

So, in terms of the area that's covered, again, it goes along the East Bidwell Corridor from Sutter Middle School all the way down to Highway 50, and then around the Glen Um Light Rail Station up here, and then kind of in that general uh general half mile radius area, and then over at the Iron Point station.

In addition, we looked at the the town center area in the fulsom area, fulsom plan area.

All of these areas have overlay districts in the general plan that allow for that greater height and for that higher density.

So the document covers a number of of elements of building design, from starting with really the site and the development standards to massing and articulation.

We have large site standards that are really designed for kind of those larger sites that might have big box retail on them that might want to be repurposed at some point in the future.

And then we have exceptions to the standards, and those are things with, as you may be aware, with infill sites, it's often a good reason why that infill site hasn't been developed yet, because there may be easements or other types of constraints that the developer or the property owner have to work around.

So that's why those exceptions are helpful, particularly if you have you know things like easements or topographical challenges.

And then, of course, we have definitions and measurement methods.

So this gives you a sense of kind of how it works.

There's a lot of good graphics and illustrations to communicate to the developer as well as to the public what's kind of expected of them, and then the objective measurements that are required.

So we have these for massing and articulation for site development, we have them for the large sites about taking a large site where that might have been used for a big box retailer.

And so we don't get one gigantic massive building, we get more of block scale development with smaller blocks, makes it more walkable and kind of more human scale, and you can see how that that works.

Tonight in addition to adopting the uh the odds, we're also asking that you consider making some uh changes to the design review ordinance itself.

And what we are proposing is um ministerial approval or review and approval by the community development director, and then rescinding our existing multifamily design guidelines.

So, as I mentioned earlier, the multifamily design guidelines, we really can't use guidelines uh much anymore unless the developers kind of willing to go along with that.

These are outdated and they also conflict with the standards that are in our zoning code.

We've been meaning to rescind these for some time.

The reason why we are proposing that we uh bring this down to staff level for a ministerial review is for a couple reasons.

First, it incentivizes the use and compliance with the objective design standards.

So if the developer has to go through a discretionary process, there's not a lot of incentive necessarily for them to use the objective design and development standards.

And in fact, we've written the ordinance so that they could opt out.

If they can't comply with these, then they do go through a discretionary process.

But the the carrot is if they comply with these, then they go through the streamlined ministerial process.

In addition to that, it there's also some given our small staff that we have, there's definitely some savings in terms of staff time and resources on that.

The benefits of going through a discretionary process is it does make the public very aware of the project, but you are also put in a really difficult position.

And this is part of the feedback that we got last year with the with the prior council is that please don't do this to us again because state law has made it so that even a project that goes through a discretionary process, you cannot reduce the density, you cannot reduce the number of units, and you cannot deny the project unless you can make a very specific and significant health and safety finding.

So as a result, we're basically in a position where the commissioner of the council has to approve the project, regardless of what the objections are in the community, or we run afoul as Elk Grove and some other communities have done with state law and leave ourselves open to uh to uh lawsuits.

In addition to that, as you can see on on the next two pages, the state has increasingly been taking away local discretion and moving these things down to to staff uh level and making and requiring that they meet uh they be ministerial.

Now, many of these have things like labor requirements that require prevailing wages or a skilled and trained workforce program, which we typically don't see out here in Folsom.

Typically it's stick built, you're not running into the prevailing wage issue with most projects, and so they don't qualify.

And so you can see if some of these they do have that, or they're specific to affordable housing and not to market rate housing.

So, but you but with SB330, SB8, and SB 79, again, they're all using objective design standards.

These do not require ministerial approval.

However, um they if the project, you know, uh it has some level of affordability.

If the project um provides prevailing or pays prevailing wage or provides that skilled and trained workforce, then they meet the requirements of some of the other bills that do require ministerial approval.

So it's clear that the state is is really kind of increasingly pushing this to uh to staff level.

Uh and uh I just wanted to explain the the background of that because I know that this is a significant change to take these kinds of projects and bring them down to staff level.

So uh if this is uh if you move these items tonight, then this would be the first reading.

The second reading would then be on November 12th, and then the um uh it would be uh it would go into effect on January 1st, 2026.

During that period, between the 12th and uh of November and January 1st, we'd be doing outreach to architects to developers and providing uh checklists and so forth uh for them.

The so the the recommended actions before you tonight is through a resolution to go ahead and adopt the objective design and development or the objective development and design standards and then adopt uh the introduct do the introduction and first reading of the ordinance amending um our design review uh chapter in uh in our zoning code, which is Title 17.

The reason why we are doing the objective development and design standards as a resolution is it to make them easier to adopt or easier to amend.

So, for example, if we get feedback from residents or for the development community that some of these aren't working, that we need to tweak them, we can easily do that by coming back to you and uh getting approval on a resolution.

If we were to include these as part of the zoning code, then we have to do the first reading, the second reading, the obviously the presentation and staff reports, and then they wouldn't go into effect for 30 days after the second reading.

So we felt by keeping them as and adopting them as a resolution, it would we could be much more um uh flexible in terms of addressing any concerns or issues that come up, like I said, either from residents or from uh developers.

So with that, that concludes my presentation, and both myself and Cecilia are here to answer any questions that you might have.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Desmond.

Um any questions down this way?

Council Member Leary.

Um so, in effect, what I did get a lot of concerns from residents because um uh one of the sites that's been identified for this kind of development is in my neighborhood.

And I think it might be helpful to reassure people that these developments, unless they're um proposed on sites that are open sites or are sold by willing sellers, it doesn't open the door for the those things to take place.

Um and that was, you know, some that engaged um me in a lot of conversations with people to explain what these were because these sites were identified several years ago, as you already noted in your presentation, but I think that might help provide some clarity for people that are concerned anywhere in the blue zones.

That this doesn't mean that immediately somebody's going to knock something down or build something.

And I think you address that in all of the letters that you sent out in replies to the residents that thought that it was a blanket approval.

I do um believe that this and that adopting these in effect does um decrease staff costs, except when a developer um opts to uh do some kind of um discretionary changes to their building is that correct?

Yeah so if it's at the if if it's at staff level in other words ministerial review then there is no appeal there's no um there's no public hearing on that there's not a staff report or a presentation staff reviews it and just much like a building permit they either meet the requirements or they don't and if they re meet the requirements then the approval is uh then the approval is granted.

So it I guess it would be nice just to have sort of a cost estimate you know like what would that would say because there are you know have been concerns about how much it costs to to do development and and meeting various requirements.

Yeah I mean it's it would be a it's a significant reduction and and um you know the as uh as Josh will talk to you about in an item 13 our my our associate planner Josh Kincaid we we are proposing a a lower fee um if if you're to approve that we are approving a lower fee for ministerial um review so it's uh it's quite a big reduction so you look at a you know commercial project might be two thousand to five thousand dollars this would drop it you know um uh and and that would include multifamily that would drop it to around uh eight hundred dollars so it's a significant uh cost and time savings both for us and for the development community right so we can look look at those when uh in the next item yeah okay thank you.

Councilmember Warba any questions?

Vice Mayor Rafael I know you have some gosh called out on the Grumpy council member tonight.

Um it didn't help that you pick me up at 8 30 to go down the go down to Sacramento all day and sit in another public meeting but um I my first question really I think the design standards um are great.

I think they're a good protection uh specifically for projects that are streamlined ministerial review so I I'm fully supportive of putting them in place and um I think it's something that that definitely provides more protection for the city um on those streamlined and ministerial projects.

My only real concern uh with the standards is the allowed reductions and parking oh and in there it talks about if you provide one of these things that is in the list we're gonna go from one and a half spaces per unit down to one space per unit or commercial space it's gonna could reduce it by like one for every 250 for square feet to one in a thousand square feet which is pretty significant.

That's you know three quarters of a 75% reduction in parking for commercial spaces uh or two third one third of the parking in in residential uh which could be you know I'm looking at the central business district in particular a lot of single family um that's around there the sites are not necessarily very deep um and so the provisions just seem kind of um small to make that change in parking uh like one of them is a provision of a dedicated parking space for deliveries and ride share vehicles so I just don't see like we give you a half space for every unit if you give us one space for deliveries because that could be like and maybe I'm misunderstanding it but that could be like hey if it's a 200 unit complex we're gonna allow you to not build a hundred spaces uh and you're gonna give us one for a delivery truck.

Um so I'm just curious if those are you know if if there's a way to strengthen um these requirements that are there or maybe make them more objective.

Like, hey, you've got to give us because I'm just thinking maybe these are fine for like a really small complex, but I don't see how they apply for say somebody does a you know puts together a number of sites and ends up with a 200 unit complex.

Yeah, we we agree and kind of in looking back through those, I think that at the staff level we can provide kind of clear um standards as to what what those mean.

So for for example, like you were saying, it doesn't make sense if you're doing a 150 unit project and you have one car share space.

So I think what we can what we can do is um we can provide some uh kind of staff interpretation on what that means so long as it's clear and objective.

So for like every you know, every 10 or 15 units, we could require that you have to have like uh a you know a car share space or a guest space or something along those lines, or you know, I think where it's a little clearer is like with transit passes.

So if you're near a TOD, you know, near a light rail station, if you're providing transit passes to all your your residents, then we know that that at least a portion of them are gonna be using transit rather than driving for some of their either work or other activities.

Yeah, I'd completely agree with you.

I think the transit one is strong enough on its own, but the other ones seem to be not very robust.

Agreed.

So I think like on the shared parking, it needs to be a certain percentage of their overall parking that's satisfied by the share.

So I think we're gonna further refine that.

We want to talk to a few other jurisdictions on that to see what's worked for them and what ratios they've used.

Like, is it every 20 units?

Is that already 15 units that you require that that uh that shared vehicle or that shared space, those types of things.

I appreciate that.

Uh my second question, um, and uh I'm a supporter that we should have objective design standards to protect ourselves throughout the city.

Um, so my second question is really where do we go from here with making sure that we have design standards in place?

Because my understanding right now of state law is is that if somebody were to propose a giant pink castle with spires and draw bridges on one of our affordable sites with density bonus law, we couldn't say anything, right?

Because we don't have design standards in place.

So they would basically say, hey, I'm building the giant pink uh affordable housing unit uh withdraw bridges and spires, and that's what we get.

Uh yeah, so we are we are right now looking at these objective design standards and and looking how at least portions of them might be able to be repurposed um for uh other areas of of the city uh where we've got multifamily uh and you know multifamily high density or R3 or R4, basically multifamily zoning.

Um the reason we did these areas first was because we wanted to make sure that these were in place given the the significant changes we were we were doing in terms of height uh and density and intensity in these areas.

It was also an area where we were able to get grant funds from SACOG that helped to fund uh this work.

So it didn't come out of the general fund.

And then um, but we are looking citywide and also at the historic district about how we could put in place objective design standards uh in those areas.

So I think we will be able to repurpose some of this, but then we just have to look at you know the resources and the funding available to to do the rest of the of the city.

Yeah, and if I may suggest, maybe we start with going to the historic district commission and the planning commission and getting some input of like what would be different about these standards.

Because I think to your point, I think the historic district is probably a very different uh set of standards, but maybe some of the other ones aren't that different.

Cause I think, you know, the other sites, they're probably zoned multifamily high density with dense potential of density bonus.

They're probably in the same sort of uh density that these standards are already in.

So maybe these are more applicable to those other um sites that we would see streamlined development, because I think that's where it really offers the protection uh for us because we can always, as a body, um, if it goes through the discretionary process, we can you know give that feedback along the way, uh, whereas uh if it's streamlined, we might not even see it.

Especially without noticing neighbors and all of a sudden, starts going up, and that's when we start getting calls.

Yeah.

So thank you.

Councilmember Kozlaski?

Um happy to see this get to us uh good work all the way around.

Um I will just um say for the sake of grandstanding a little bit and extend my comments from earlier that this is another instance where at least a small part of this is responding to the state's requirements that we do it, um, where we have an opportunity to do the right thing ourselves.

We have been doing the right thing ourselves, but we our hands are forced.

Um, and I I'm the last person in the world to say, hey gee, I really miss Jerry Brown, but he did try and teach us a word called subsidiarity as a state one day, um, when he was talking about how to help fix the California budget back when we were in one of the previous budget crisis, and he said that you know, subsidiarity is a principle where you take decision making and you give it to the lowest the lowest, smallest, most local, responsible, competent authority, and our state legislature has completely lost the thread on that.

So there you go.

Thank you very much.

Thank you for all your hard work.

This is really excellent, and I'm not worried about the parking.

Thank you.

I am gonna go ahead and open the public hearing.

Uh, do we have any requests to speak?

You have no request to speak on this item.

Okay.

Then I'm going to close the public hearing.

Um go ahead.

I do have a comment before we move for a motion, if that's okay.

Yeah.

I do um as far as the ministerial review process goes, I am not supportive of moving market rate projects uh forward on ministerial review.

Um I think only even if we only have the option for life safety um objections or a determination of non-compliance with objective standards, uh, my preferences is not to streamline market rate projects.

Uh my preference is is to leave those um going through a traditional process.

Um I want to leave the door open to get sued if we want to get sued.

Okay, I'll just say it bluntly.

Um I think you know, at a certain point, um, with market rate projects, uh if it's not the right project, I still want to hear about it.

I'm willing to take the heat from the constituents if it's in my neighborhood or in my district.

Um I would rather have the opportunity.

I'm okay with hearings where we go through things like vintage and get told this is what we have to do.

Um, and if I don't feel like it's the right decision for my community, I'm okay with taking the heat um and standing up and saying I'd rather get sued.

So for what it's worth, um, I would be opposed to uh when ministerial review is required by state law, I'm absolutely fine with using ministerial review, but where it's not required by state law, I do not want to move to ministerial review.

Okay, so that's the regarding the ordinance number 1357, correct?

Correct.

Okay.

So let's start with the um a motion to adopt resolution number one one four six four.

Do you do you want to give some direction to staff as far as your parking?

I think they uh I think we're in agreement.

I think um we just you guys are gonna come back at the next hearing with those after you get some input from other jurisdictions.

Well, I think we were proposing to do it kind of at at the staff level.

So I think if you could provide that direction in your resolution, then that would give us the authority to go ahead and go ahead and develop those standards, uh, but at the end of the day, do we have to adopt those standards?

Because they have to be objective standards.

Like if you're gonna say, let's just, for example, we'll use the dedicated to parking space for deliveries and ride share vehicles.

If there was you know, an option that one percent of the spaces, does that need to go in the in the guidelines?

We could bring this, we could bring this back and with that, or you could give direction for staff to develop kind of staff interpretation, so long as it's objective.

So, like I was saying earlier, like on the shared parking space.

If if we develop kind of staff interpretation that those that this is how this this part of the of the odds work, yeah, then um uh then and as long as that's objective, we would be okay with state law.

So you guys can revise the objective design standards before you publish them.

No, we would be this would be a uh uh this would be a uh um it would be a kind of a a uh a a companion piece so for example like staff in areas of the zoning code we have kind of staff's interpretation and so when you when you get to that section that says okay you have to provide shared parking for this so we would we would say okay staff's requirement is that you have to provide one shared parking space for every 20 units.

And as long as that's that's clearly identified and that staff has published that information then we're okay in terms of not running a foul of object of the objective of state law if however you would prefer that we come back with those standards enumerated in the document we can do that.

If you needed to make a change later would you bring the document back to us to make changes to the doc because you mentioned like the one of the reasons we're making it a resolution is is because you'd want to bring it back to us to make changes quickly and easily you'd put those in the document you wouldn't do a companion that's correct.

Yeah I think that's the best way to do it because then it's it's clear because because if I'm if I'm a developer and I'm I'm reading it and I go, oh I can get you know a 33% reduction in my parking requirement by providing a single parking space for deliveries I'm gonna move forward with that right because I'm gonna go oh that's that's a heck of a lot more cost effective to me and then I'm gonna go oh wait there's a companion piece to it so I just think it's makes it a little clearer if we just put it all in the standards.

And I think if you can leave that interpret if you can leave that to staff to determine when something rises to the level of coming back versus just a simple next step interpretation of this document which is one of the reasons we asked for it not to be codified is that it's a a document that lives outside of the zoning code where you don't have clear exact language in in the code where if you're if you're if you're not breaking down a standard into subsets you would have to bring it back you know in front and do two readings but to Desmond's point in the beginning if it's simply getting into a refined detail on something that's required that doesn't change the requirement um then we would like to do that outside of you know of bringing it back to you.

So I think in this case we we hear you will bring it back but in in the future if there's an example of of how a supporting um document or detail can work in partnership with this guideline you know next level guideline then it would be nice to not come back to the council every time there's a refinement or a clarification.

I guess that's the challenge of making very black and white objective standards is the idea is is when somebody reads them it should be very clear.

We shouldn't have to give extra staff guidance on that.

But to your I'm I'm comfortable with that I think this was a case where this makes me uncomfortable right because of of the very big difference and what could be provided and what would be provided with with just a very small change.

So yeah I think in the parking standards it's that you know it's kind of the next version of uh transit manage or transportation management plans where you might have three or four different solutions to meet a parking you know requirement on a site and and it's a little nuanced so we'll come back to you with something that's more detailed but we don't want to get so detailed that it doesn't give us any flexibility in how we interpret these moving forward I'd love you guys to have discretion I'll just put it out there.

I'd love for us all to have discretion in this that's not the point right but we're being told we don't have discretion so we have to make things yeah really clear that is correct.

So if I could ask the the council consider as part of your motion to direct staff to to adopt the the the document tonight, but to direct staff to return with modifications to the parking section uh in the near future.

So you want to add that to the resolution?

Are we already going to hear this?

We're gonna have to bring back the ordinance for the second reading anyway, right?

Not this first.

That's oh, yeah, that's correct.

So you could you could defer the approval until the um the the next meeting on November 12th.

Yeah, we're already going to hear the other one.

So that's that'd be my preference.

You guys are okay with it.

So if you could continue this then to the November 12th, we need a motion to continue?

Okay.

Yeah, I'll move to continue resolution number one one four six four.

Until next meeting.

Second, I don't care.

We got a few sales.

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

Council members Rathel, yes, Robo, yes, Kozlowski, Larry, yes, and a keynote.

Yes.

Um and then I just think we need to have a discussion on the next one as far as whether we want ministerial review, do we want to deal with citizens filling this room being really upset with us that we can't deny a multifamily project?

Well, you mentioned the vintage apartment, so my question was gonna be to probably staff on this.

It was that considered market rate.

Um no, that was an affordable housing project.

So that would have come anyways.

Um, so what I think uh council member Rathel is getting at is that um a lot of the the ministerial requirements relate to affordable development.

Um we believe that it's a matter of time before um market rate also uh becomes ministerial as a result of the state action state's action, but if I call your attention to SB uh SB 330 and SB 8, which are kind of related to one another, those apply to all multi-unit projects.

So it doesn't matter whether it's affordable, you have to do objective design standards for for those, but they do not mandate um that they be um uh done at the staff level.

They're not they don't require ministerial approval.

It's only if they meet some of the other requirements like affordable housing or prevailing wage, then we do have to do them at uh uh at staff level.

So what I believe council member Rathel is pointing out is you do have some discretion about whether you want to hear those those types of market rate projects.

The the downside is even with market rate projects, you are not allowed to deny that project and let or reduce the density or reduce the number of units unless there is a specific and significant health and safety finding uh that can be made regarding the approval of that project.

In other words, if you approve that project, you're gonna it's gonna result in some major significant major health and safety problem.

If the project meets the other objective design standards, yes, if the project meets the other objective design standards and development standards.

Is that is that clear or do I just muddle things up more?

Would you like to make a motion uh with what you're wanting to see?

I have to pull up the ordinance, but my concern is you know, let's take the vintage apartments for an example.

You know, we did have a lot of public outcry on that, and while there was very clear things of how we could or couldn't um uh deny it, um some of those are a little subjective.

So you're taking away the uh the right of a city to say no to the state, and are we likely to do that very often?

No, but other cities have done it, and I feel like in that way we're losing even more local control.

Um so I do have concerns about this affordable and market rate housing.

Um I don't have a question.

I can I suggest that maybe the language since so many affordable projects are required to be ministerial.

I think council member Rathel's comments were really to target those projects that are not ministerial according with state law, so market rate essentially projects.

So if that's the recommendation, my suggestion would not be to amend altogether and say anything not required, but to to identify market rate projects not otherwise exempt will go through a discretionary design review process.

So instead of calling out anything that is state required by state law to be ministerial, you would go the other way.

Yeah, I'm fine with the ordinance saying if it's required by state law, it's ministerial.

If not, because you guys' point, state law is going to change, right?

So every single year.

So if all of a sudden, hey, we've seen the future, there's another housing bill introduced next year, which then turns around, turns into law and says, hey, we have to ministerially review market rate projects, okay.

Okay, but I don't want to be the poster boy of predicting what the state's going to do and and say we're gonna go one step further than that in order to get me out of a sticky political situation.

If that makes sense.

So I think to your I'd have to pull.

I sorry, I'm trying to find the ordinance on an electronic document.

So hey, thank you.

366.

I'm way off.

So if we were to change the the ordinance to um to do what you're recommending, which is to um state unless unless mandated by state state law to be ministerial, all projects would go through a discretionary process.

We're gonna need to do some work to the ordinance, so we would recommend that you continue the item to the November 12th date as well, and then we could go ahead and make those those changes.

Uh no, but I think the only the only sensitivity is we wanted to get these in place uh as soon as we can, given that we've we've already made the changes back in August uh to allow for this kind of development and we don't currently have objective design standards.

But we've lost discretion at the state's direction for most of these projects four years ago, right?

Like for an affordable project, this is a law from 2021, right?

That we haven't had design standards.

Yeah, but for example, like the Harrington Grove project, which was an affordable project, that did come before the planning commission.

Um now they couldn't deny the project, but it came because they weren't paying prevailing wage, they weren't didn't have a skilled and trained workforce, so they didn't meet the SP 35 requirements or the SB 423 requirements.

So, um so there are instances still of affordable projects you that would would go through the discretionary process.

But we have lost that ability in the most recent state law changes, right?

Well, if they meet the criteria, we've lost the ability.

Yes.

If they don't meet the criteria or they meet some of the criteria, but not all of it, then we we have just we have we can take them through a discretionary process.

The the problem, as I mentioned earlier, is that we can't deny the project, we can't reduce the density, we can't reduce the number of units.

Yeah, you can't have a discussion, and if the developer's willing to do something like change the design or change the style, then they can do it.

But the developer has to agree to that.

If they don't want to do it, our hands are tied.

And I'll look to my colleagues, like if I'm out of line here, that's fine.

But if if you guys are okay with it, I'd rather continue this till the next.

I just want to be sure.

Is there these um have already been implemented?

There's an implementation date in place for these that's in the past, or is this something that's coming up in the future?

The general plan and the specific plan, land use changes have already been implemented.

The there is not a set date for the objective design standards.

So the state has basically said, if a development project comes through and you don't have objective design standards and they don't want to comply with guidelines or anything else, then you're out of luck jurisdiction.

Um so you can you can deny it and then you're vulnerable to legal challenge.

Um, but there's not uh a deadline for getting objective design standards done.

And are there any projects in the pipeline or or you know on your radar that this would apply to?

Um you know that if by not uh implementing the uh ODD, we would you know end up not being able to uh I think this kind of review.

Our one-month delay is not going to be uh is not gonna be a major concern because we don't have any projects in the pipeline that would be directly you know affected by these.

I I would be concerned if we if we do not adopt any objective design standards, because then uh we would have very little ability to get higher quality designs out of it uh out of a developer.

All right.

Can I suggest one thing?

Uh we I mean the the spirit of this is to give the opportunity for ministerial approval.

Um couldn't we just say that we will approve this and as part of your ministerial evaluation when you see a prudent uh uh time or need to have a workshop discussion at the planning commission, do that.

At your discretion, at the staff's discretion, just bring it, you know, bring it to the planning commission so that there is a noticed hearing um to discuss the project in an open forum where people can come to this room and have it take pot shots at it or praise it and become fully educated about the reasons why it's being approved.

Sounds like this needs a little further discussion.

The problem I have with that is we're the voice of people, and if we're giving all the authority to the staff to bring it at the just at their discretion to planning or not, or to us or not, we're taking away the voice.

Well, most of those decisions are made for us already by state law.

So we're only talking about things that you know are ministerial and should be approved automatically, but there's something about them that deserves to have a visit to the planning commission just for an open discussion, not for a vote necessarily on the project.

I don't think I'm concerned about them being heard by the planning commission.

I'm more concerned about losing our ability to delay a project and get sued.

Uh uh, you know, some people would like to take a half step towards that here.

That's all I'm saying.

Some people would look at Elk Grove and say they lost um that battle.

Uh I would say that they won that battle to some on some level.

They they denied a project uh and it didn't get built on that site.

Yes.

They paid some money.

Oh, yes, they gave up other land, but do we want to give our ability to deny a project that doesn't fit away, even if we get sued over it?

I don't I don't think we want to, right?

Just from a standard of local control, I get it.

The state's shoving all this down our throat.

I don't want to sign up to lose my ability to further the people's interests uh and get sued.

Yeah, I'll make a motion to uh postpone this for further discussion to November 12th.

Is that right?

Motion to continue.

Do we have a second?

Second.

We have a motion and a second.

Please call the roll.

Council members Rathel?

Yes.

Rora, yes, Koselowski.

Yes.

Larry.

Yes.

And Aquino.

Yes.

Thank you, Desmond.

Okay.

Public hearing item number 13.

This is a resolution number 11481.

This will replace prior resolutions and adopt a new user fee schedule for community development services.

Good evening, Josh.

It's a tough crowd tonight.

Full day conferences.

We'll do that, I'm sure.

Good evening, Mayor Aquino.

Council members.

Uh Josh Kincaid with the community development department.

I'm just gonna pull my presentation up here.

All right, so tonight I am going to be presenting to you the proposed modifications to the community development department's uh fee schedule.

Excuse me, for a little bit of background as to why we believe these updates are warranted at this time.

Uh, first, so you may recall that we did a comprehensive update of the community development uh department fees uh both last year and this year.

Uh since then, we now have um the director level historic district design reviews approved tonight.

Um the uh ministerial reviews, of course, under the ODDS are up for consideration.

We do anticipate further required ministerial reviews under state laws.

And these types of projects were previously only subject to commission level review, which included publication of a staff report and several staff attending the hearing with the new staff level reviews.

We do anticipate there to be much less staff time associated with these projects now, since the report and formal hearing would not be required in front of a commission at least.

With that, we do legally need to have fees that reflect that lower amount of staff time.

So here's some of the fees that we are requesting to change under the new code amendments in the historic district, existing multifamily and commercial design reviews would go down by over half, as you can see here.

Director level director level single and two-family design reviews would remain about the same as you see here.

However, we were previously only collecting a fraction of actual staff time with that 400 fee there because they were going to commission.

Now we'd be achieving full cost recovery at the 432 staff level review as shown here.

Historic district demolitions would go down by about half, as you see here, since they would be mostly handled at a staff level.

We would absorb some costs with these demolition permits, though, since we still have a decent amount of research to do on them and some have to go to the HDC if we see some potential historical significance.

We do believe this is justified, though, due to the community benefit associated with the preservation of potentially historically significant structures.

Finally, the types of projects subject to ministerial design review.

We anticipate would they currently cost between $2,000 and $5,000 in planning fees to go to commission, as Desmond said previously.

We anticipate those to take about four hours at a staff level, if a ministerial review would be required.

So we are proposing that that fee go down accordingly while still achieving full cost recovery at $864.

We'd apply this fee to any other any large project that would be brought down to ministerial design review in the future, regardless of what gets passed or not passed with the objective and design and development standards.

If the state necessitates such a review to require or to uh to occur, excuse me.

So given that we need to uh we needed to go to council to uh establish these fees.

We also uh were using this opportunity to propose updates to some other fees that we've seen deficiencies in since the passage of the last fee update.

Uh one issue that we've uh that's come up is that we um we have our applicants for larger entitlements provide a uh um a radius map and a stamped addressed set of envelopes where we have um uh project noticing requirements for entitlements.

These often end up having inaccuracies and are poor work quality.

Um, we found so we're proposing instead to prepare that material ourselves and to charge uh a 216 dollar fee for the hour of staff labor that is approximated for that.

Uh we've also seen that our engineering and landscape plan check fees, um, plan check and inspection fees, I should say, for larger projects with an over $300,000 uh valuation.

They they typically don't capture the time staff spends on those reviews.

So we're proposing that the existing fee that we see here be a deposit and that time and materials charges are applied after that.

Uh it was also pointed out that our fee for production home landscape reviews, while shown up to council as part of the last fee update, was not included in the approved free fee schedule due to a spreadsheet error.

So we're putting that back in here and getting it in the spreadsheet.

Next, we found that our electric vehicle charger building permit fees are much higher than other surrounding jurisdictions, and we've definitely heard from the public about that.

And we've found that this fee no longer reflects the smaller amount of time that these permits now take to review.

We're proposing a hundred and thirty-eight dollar fee that reflects uh current staff review and inspection time and is more in alignment with other jurisdictions.

Uh next, the uh the fire department currently has no mechanism to collect additional fees for their reviews of community development department uh entitlements when one we have larger projects that take additional time to review.

Uh, we are proposing that they collect hourly plan check fees for reviews over four hours long.

And finally, we found that while the code allows for an appeal of a director level decision to the city manager and um of a city manager decision to council, there's no fee associated with those actions.

So we're proposing a 432 dollar fee for appeals to the city manager, uh, which accounts for about two hours of staff time.

Uh, we think this is the minimum amount of time that we spend on these, but uh consistent with previous council direction.

Um, on appeals, we didn't want to make the fees prohibitively high for appeals of city manager decisions to the council.

Um, we are proposing the same fee that council approved recently for community development department decisions of uh director decisions to commissions or um uh commission decisions to council, which is the $1,500.

Overall, we believe that the um impacts of these updates would be the lower fees for the public for uh director level projects and more accurate fees for our larger um engineering and landscape projects, EV chargers and fire department reviews, um, as well as some new cost recovery that we currently don't have for um appeals to the city manager and of the city manager uh to the council.

Um, this will lead to less of an impact on the general fund for these staff services.

So, if adopted, we would provide this new fee information to the public in December, and they would uh go into effect on January 1st along with the uh the code updates.

Uh, can take any questions now.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilmember Kozlowski, any questions?

Vice Mayor Rafel, Councilmember Warwell, Councilmember Leary.

Okay, then I'm gonna open the public hearing.

Do we have any requests this week?

Nope.

Uh, then I'm gonna close the public hearing.

Thank you very much, Josh, and I'll entertain a motion.

I will move approval of resolution.

Excuse me, I will move approval of resolution number one one four eight one.

Second.

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

Council members raithal.

Yes.

Yes, Koslowski, Larry, yes, and Aquino.

Yes, thank you.

Next item, please.

A new business item number 14.

This is Folsom Plan, the area neighborhood park number one project.

You've got two resolutions before you.

Good evening.

There we go.

All right, good evening, madam mayor and city council members.

My name is Kate Canon Noen, and I am a park planner too.

I'm here to present on neighborhood park number one in the Folsom Plan area.

So tonight we'll be recommending two resolutions.

The first one is to make this a capital improvement project and to appropriate funds for this fiscal year.

And the second resolution will be to award the design consulting services agreement for Wilson Design Studio.

So starting off with the capital improvement project and appropriation of funds to give you some background on this project.

In May of this year, City Council authorized city manager to hire a park planner to to support park planning and development in the Folsom Plan area.

I am that park planner.

Um, however, this decision was made after the internal deadline to add neighborhood park one to the capital improvement plan.

So that is why we're bringing this project to city council now.

Also in June of this year, the Parks and Rec Commission reviewed the priorities for developing parks in the Folsom Plan Area, and they determined that Neighborhood Park 1 was going to be the next recommended park for development, and they also recommended allocating funds for the 2025-26 fiscal year to initiate the park planning process.

And a little bit about neighborhood park one.

This is a map of the Folsom plan area showing the open space and park.

So we have Highway 50, East Bidwell, and then Neighborhood Park 1 is here on the east side, and then this is Prospector Park for reference.

And then going into detail a little bit more.

And it's next to a future elementary school site.

For the park right now, the programming is as is outlined in the Parks and Rack Master Plan 2015 update.

And so this is a list of the programming listed.

Lighted soccer field, lighted baseball field, playground, lighted basketball court, group picnic area, restrooming, and parking lot.

This is a 12-acre park site, and our estimated project cost based on this programming is $9.5 million.

So for this fiscal year to cover soft costs, which includes staff time and hiring the consultants to start the process.

This is a breakdown how we came to this number of $706,614.

So the Wilson Design Studio costs, that's based on the number in their proposal.

The other numbers are estimates since at the time of writing the staff report, we had not yet received proposals for these services.

So this is estimates based off other similarly sized projects that we are working on this year.

And that brings us in to discussing the design consultant.

This consultant with the Wilson Design Studio, it'll be an interdisciplinary team led by a landscape architecture firm, and they will have civil engineers, structural engineers, and electrical engineers also on the team, and they'll be assisting staff with the development and design with the project.

So in July of this year, RFP was issued for these services, and by the deadline of August 18th, we received eight qualified proposals.

A team of staff from Parks and Rack and Public Works then evaluated these proposals, and they are ranked on a point system with 100 being the most number of points.

After that initial evaluation, we selected the top three point earners to be shortlisted for an interview.

All the interviews were conducted on September 12th.

After the interview, there is an additional up to 35 points that were added to their original scores.

And it shows their original points from the valuation, their additional interview points, the total of those, and their ranking.

So you can see Wilson Design Studio had the most number of points, then RRM, then Westwood, and then below you can see the numbers from their cost proposal.

Wilson Design Studio is also the lowest cost.

And that is the end of my presentation.

Tonight, we are recommending resolution number 11487, a resolution approving the Folsom Plan Area Neighborhood Park 1, located on the northwest corner of Mangeny Parkway and Empire Ranch Road, capital Improvement project, an appropriation of $706,614 in funds from the Folsom Plan Area Specific Plan Capital Fund, Fund 472.

And the second resolution is resolution number 11488, a resolution authorizing the city manager to execute a design consulting services agreement with Wilson Design Studio for the Neighborhood Park 1 project for not to exceed amount of 450,130 from the funds in the Folsom plan area specific plan capital fund 472.

Thank you, Kate.

Councilmember Leary, any questions for Kate?

I just have one, and that was um, I'm guessing in the master plan for parks, there's a needs assessment for certain types of facilities.

And I'm wondering if if these are the kinds of facilities that there's um a demand for.

So in the master plan, the needs assessment was done after the master plan.

The master plan was done in 2015, and I believe the needs assessment was done in 2021.

So we also look at the needs assessment as well as the parks and recreation master plan.

That 2015 master plan is an update to an original master plan that was done in 1996.

So you would consider this to be a current assessment of the needs for that site.

I'm just asking that because I see over time how you know that.

Yes, I think that's a really good question.

Uh some of the things that we're currently looking at because of the increase in costs, we're we are looking at new design standards to lower that cost uh moving forward.

And that's something that we're working with our Parks and Recreation Commission, and we'll be bringing back uh to the commission here in December.

Thank you.

Councilmember Warbaugh.

Yeah, my concern, and I'm sure you've looked through it, so um, but the cost proposal, the um Wilson Design Studio was $250,000 less than this than the one right before it and almost twice as less than the other the third one.

So, what what was that cost disparity and are you concerned about maybe what did they leave something out?

So uh we usually don't see it quite that extreme.

Right, yeah, and it it is um uh noteworthy.

Um, when they provide their cost proposal, it is a breakdown of all the hours that they are planning to dedicate to the project by the staff, you know, by staff member and by task, and we didn't see anything that was out of line with what was in the RFP or with the other firms as far as um the cost difference.

I think it would be speculation on my part, but I will say that uh Wilson Design Studio, what they're proposing for this project is similar to the cost that they did for uh working on Prospector Park and Benevento Park.

Um, and they have provided great service with the funds they've asked for.

Um, so that's good enough for me.

Thank you.

Okay, great.

Councilmember Kozlowski.

Um the um the nine million dollar number was a little startling relative to the discussion about Benevento that we've had over many years.

Um is this likely to be a phased implementation in any way, or do we have developer fees to cover most of whatever the cost is?

I mean, I think this is uh uh a bigger question, and I've had uh comments from council members in the Benevento process is actually uh has created some healthy discussion in that.

Uh the uh looking at Benevento, for example, comments came up in the presentation that hey um in the past uh we've said hey we're gonna do a phased approach, but in our experience you only do phase one.

And so um what we're looking at in some ways I'm going to suggest that we uh go and look at what our projected uh income is from the Folsom Plan area, and then we actually set budgets for the park.

Like we don't start with the amenities, we start with, hey, this is the amount of money that we have with this park, and this is what we can build.

So I think what we've done is we've created these awesome, you know, plans.

Uh, and they're just too much, uh, as far as amenities and we have to deal with the reality of this is how much we have.

Fantastic.

That's my only question.

Thank you.

Where's my wheel?

I think that was my same question.

This in 2015, this was a 3.9 million dollar park.

Now we're talking about a nine and a half million dollar park.

So I'm fine with uh both the capital fund allocation and using Wilson design uh to move forward with that.

But I do question the nine and a half million dollars and and just not getting us into the same situation that was before my time, but we're still living with north of 50 where we don't have enough money to finish all the parks, and so if you're lucky enough to be in one of the first communities, you get a park.

But if you're unlucky enough to buy one of the last homes in Folsom ranch, then you don't get a park for 20 or 30 years.

So I think that's what I'm really trying to prevent.

So I appreciate us if we could up to get those numbers updated.

Uh that would be excellent.

If we do come back and and tell Wilson, um, hey, sorry, we were off a little bit on our nine and a half million dollar number.

It's actually a seven million dollar park.

Will we have the ability um in the contract to adjust, or is the is it an hourly rate, or is it hey, here's a uh 450,000 dollar check and it's not to exceed.

That is a good question.

Yes, that's something that's it.

Is it a time of materials?

No, it's just a yeah, not to exceed.

Okay, but we can definitely change if if we're gonna say that that cost of the park is gonna be lower.

We're not right now, we're not allocating those funds.

So that's something that we're definitely taking a look at when we're looking at our design standards moving forward for neighborhood parks.

So will the final costs be um better able to will be able to better identify those final costs once this plan is done, or correct, and we'll be giving them some direction.

So, do we want to adjust that nine and a half million dollar number now, or do we want it?

Their bid was substantially lower, their soft costs are not out of line with what the 2015 number was.

It's really the the hard cost to me is is the difference um here.

Oh, so uh I'd be comfortable moving forward, but I'm open to your suggestion.

Yeah, um, would you like to?

Yeah, I would agree with that.

I mean, the the the numbers pretty firm as far as the design.

Uh we need to uh we've got direction to them.

Yeah, we we we will provide them direction that hey, here's what the the uh cost of the park, this is what you have, right?

I mean, and so I think what we've been doing is hey, design this park uh with all these things, and then surprise, and so uh as fun as that is.

Um I'd appreciate just like hey, here's what we have, and this is what we're gonna build with it.

And something just to add, if we did check with other jurisdictions and we looked at the cost per acre, and this cost per acre, we are within the market, so that's why we're looking at our design standards and saying, okay, what we include in a neighborhood park, is it appropriate to include a lighted ball fields in a neighborhood park?

Should we have restrooms in a neighborhood park?

So those are the things that we're currently evaluating and bringing those recommendations to our parks and recreation commission.

Yeah, and I I totally appreciate that.

I just think we need to spread it out throughout the the plan area, and we don't front we don't accidentally front load things before your time before my time, but that is what happened with our previous development, and it didn't work out so well.

So and I want to just add too, we did provide numbers uh to finance, um, and they are evaluating that as part of the whole system for um the folsom plan area parks.

And Kate, I just have one question.

I believe the school district um chose to make the third elementary school um South of 50 um in Folsom in another area in Folsom Ranch rather than Wrestle Ranch because of naturally occurring asbestos and the increased cost that's associated with that.

Do we already know if that's going to be an issue here?

Or that's gonna we're gonna find out once they do all this.

So we are currently in the process of um the RFP process for a geotechnical engineer, and their services will include the naturally occurring asbestos testing, um, and we are trying to bring them on earlier in the project so they can uh perform those services and give us a better idea of the naturally occurring asbestos, whether it's president on site or not, and to what levels okay, okay, thank you.

We don't have any requests to speak on this item, all right.

All right, then we do need two different motions, please.

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

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

Council members Raithel.

Yes.

Yes, Koslowski?

Yes.

Leary.

Yes.

And Aquino.

Yes.

And I'll move resolution number one one four eight eight.

Second.

Motion and a second.

Please call the roll.

Council members Rathel.

Yes.

Yes.

Koslowski.

Yes.

Leary.

Yes.

Aquino.

Yes.

And Madam Mayor, before we move on, can I just make make one suggestion?

It's completely possible that Geotech identifying naturally occurring asbestos may have happened for some other part of the developer's project in that vicinity.

So you may want to just quiz them about what's available geotech-wise.

Okay.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Thank you, Kate.

All right, next item, please.

Okay, your next item is item number 15.

This is a resolution authorizing the city manager to accept a step grant offered by the state, any amount of 173,500 to reduce and mitigate the impacts of impaired driving, distracted driving, seatbelt enforcement, purchase of a police motorcycle, and appropriation of funds in the general grants fund.

Good evening, Commander Lockhart.

Good evening, Madam Mayor, members of the council, Brian Lockhart, commander at the police department.

As we navigate through these difficult uh and challenging budget times, thanks for the opportunity to highlight one of the things we're doing at the police department to close that gap while we still provide that level of service that everyone is used to in the city.

So this is a step grant selective traffic enforcement grant put on by the uh Office of Traffic Safety in the amount of 173,000 dollars.

So first some background there.

There's some stats up there.

Um our collisions, traffic is one of our biggest problems in our city that we all get a lot of complaints on.

Here's some of the statistics up there.

Um we remain pretty flat in terms of uh our collisions.

This grant helps us to reduce those over the last five years.

Even before that, we have received this grant.

This is the biggest grant we've got.

For example, last year was 125,000, the year before 110, and the year before 63, this year is 173,000, which is um which is nice.

So the purpose of this grant is to be able to reduce fatalities and injuries as um in collisions, and they use a multifaceted approach to with education, directed enforcement, and also to um to provide us with equipment such as ticket printers, and we got a police motorcycle out of this grant.

As you'll see up there, we're gonna do some DUI checkpoints, saturation patrols, and some education things.

One of the things that we're gonna leverage some of this money to do is some directed enforcement on e-bikes, which I know is a hot topic for a lot of things in this city.

So there's a couple of stats there.

This is the thing that we're gonna try and do uh try and prevent some of those collisions on the e-bikes that have increased a little bit lately, and we're gonna try and do that through directed enforcement uh using some of these funds to do that.

So again, this is this is just a really quick thing to kind of highlight one of the things that we're doing.

Um we're requesting that you guys adopt this uh so we can um take these funds, and there's no local match required with this, and all this stuff is going to be reimbursed.

So when we talk about the resource commitments, this is just us being able to uh post for overtime and such, and then we uh put in for reimbursement.

All right, pretty straightforward.

Any questions for Commander Lockhart?

Nope.

Okay, the chief gave me two and a half minutes.

Any um no request for public comment.

Okay, then we will entertain a motion.

I'll move resolution one one four nine two.

Second.

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

Council members Raithel.

Yes, Koslowski, Leary.

Yes and Aquino.

Yes, thank you, Commander Lockhart.

Next item, please.

Okay.

Your last item this evening is item number 16.

This is resolution number one one four nine three, authorizing the city manager to execute construction change order number two with Mozingo construction in the amount of five hundred and fifty thousand dollars for the phase two water improvements project for additional paving work on Iron Point Road and an appropriation from the road maintenance and rehab fund.

All right, Rebecca, the chief gave you two minutes.

I mean, he does have the gun, so I should probably listen.

Good evening, Mayor and Council.

Great to see you.

Rebecca Nees, Public Works Director.

Thank you for the opportunity to present this item to you this evening.

You know, as we continue to be focused on our capital project delivery, it also means that we start getting really creative about how we can use our limited resources to deliver these efforts.

So this is a prime example of one such opportunity that presented itself.

And because of the great partnerships we have within the city and also within the community, we felt pretty confident that we could do this approach to project delivery.

So you may recall the phase two water line project was uh awarded by city council in October of last year.

Construction started in November.

First working day was uh in November, and it was an anticipated uh construction schedule of about 18 months.

However, thanks to our amazing utilities department and team, uh we were we are about six months ahead of schedule, which is lovely.

A huge shout out to Nathan Stitz, who's our project manager for the city, along with Marcus Yasutaki, our Utilities Department Director and our construction management consultant team, specifically our resident engineer Elias Travis.

So this project has now arrived at its final milestone, and that is the waterline crossing at Iron Point Road.

However, under a previous project, this crossing was attempted and it was unsuccessful due to subsurface groundwater conditions.

We had a situation where groundwater was infiltrating the trench, shoring became unstable, we started to lose the road base.

Uh, and we actually even had during that 10-day night closure, we actually had several shifts where the dewatering took up the entire extent of the shift, and they weren't able to lay a single stick of pipe.

Recognizing these challenges, but still also recognizing the need to complete the work.

We worked with our contractor, Mazingo Construction, and asked them what they needed in order to be able to do it.

They said once we get in there, we can't stop.

And we said, okay, well, let's talk about what the schedule looked like.

Their original schedule was identical to the previous effort where it was 10-day night closures.

And uh recognizing that if we can keep them going and get the and keep the dewatering under control, we would have an opportunity to get the crossing done.

So we arrived at a five-day 24-hour closure to install the pipe.

The original work was anticipated to actually start this week, but we pivoted to a few other items of work, including a critical tie-in at the water treatment plant, which concluded this morning, was overnight work, and huge thank you to our team at the water treatment plant.

So the proposed full closure will start on the evening of November 2nd at 9 p.m.

That's this Sunday, and we'll continue through November 7th.

The road will be reopened on November 7th, however, due to contractor and subcontractor scheduling, we do have some minor items that will be done under localized traffic control on November 8th.

Staff evaluated uh Iron Point Road as part of this closure and found it to be in need of resurfacing through a grind and overlay.

Additionally, the paving work would remove the detection loops that are at uh the cabot and iron point road intersection.

So staff was able to secure the equipment with a trusted vendor and install, we're able to install the video detection at that intersection, which is a standard we're moving uh citywide for our signalized intersections.

Um that work will also be included on this proposed change order as an extension of quantities to bid items in the original contract.

We also recognized that the Sutter Medical Office building had some frontage improvements and work to do and the median moving forward, not wanting to do more closures than necessary.

We worked with uh Tikert Construction and Sutter and Elliott to see about advancing their work and doing a little reorganization of their um uh order of work, and they are now also taking advantage of the full closure.

So, one thing I want to be really clear about the work that's taking place on Iron Point Road is that this closure was needed, even if staff didn't have this change order before you tonight.

When staff is doing, when staff is uh what staff is doing is making the best out of a tough situation, being the 24-hour closures.

Uh, so in order to um uh we were able to capture uh the additional paving and the frontage work for Sutter, but that otherwise those two other efforts would have been two more closures on Iron Point Road.

So, this is an effort to reduce current and future impacts to the public.

And through great collaboration and partnership, we've uh arrived at a good place uh with all three of the teams, and the contractors are working incredibly well together.

Huge thank you to Sutter and Tiker and our uh contractor Mazingo and L8 Homes.

Uh so you can see the waterline crossing led to an opportunity in the same vicinity.

And uh one thing I do want to kind of daylight is this uh need to pivot on the project came about roughly eight days ago, and so um, you know, I'll have to extend my sincerest apologies to the community.

Uh we've been trying to get the noticing and messaging out, and once we got everybody on board, contractors and subcontractors scheduled.

Uh once we finally got times in place, we worked with uh our communications team and we pushed out the message as soon as possible.

I've listed uh at a minimum the folks that we've been able to reach uh either by in-person communication or through uh just general coordination as project updates have gone along.

Um all of the businesses listed here.

We actually did go and personally uh interface with about this closure, and so we appreciate their uh grace and their patience, and then we also reached out to our uh police fire and also local municipalities and partners such as the school district and uh SAC RT for transit interruptions because this closure did come on so suddenly, um, our strategy right now is tell the public multiple times and then tell them 10 times more.

So we are pushing out that message pretty uh heavy, and I just really want to extend uh a gratitude to Chris Shepard and Christine Brainerd in our communications department.

Uh they have been our uh angels in this whole process, so I really appreciate them.

Um I will also say if there are any businesses or anyone not listed on that, we are receiving feedback.

We would like to talk to them and make sure that they know about it.

Thank you for going to see them personally.

We I talked to a Costco employee today who is very, very grateful for that.

Thank you.

Um, so uh the item before you tonight is to approve the change order addressing additional paving on Iron Point Road under the full closure that is already scheduled to take place for the waterline project.

And a portion of that paving work is directly related to the waterline crossing itself, approximately a hundred thousand dollars worth.

So for that reason, the city is contributing 450,000 in road maintenance and rehabilitation funds for the balance difference for the total change order, which is estimated at 550,000 dollars.

That concludes my report.

I'm happy to answer any questions you have.

Thank you so much.

Any questions for Rebecca?

No, I just appreciate all the work you did on the coordinating this.

Um, I know it'll be challenging.

I tend to avoid that area anyway, just trying to round down.

Um, but I I have been seeing the advertising, and one question I do have is I'm guessing that you have those mobile uh lighted signs.

Yes, changeable message signs.

Yeah, the changeable message signs up along several points uh on iron point needed to do well.

Yeah, they went out today.

We were a little uh we had a heart to heart with the contractor um at a construction meeting today and and really emphasize that they need to be out now.

We actually finalized the schedule just this morning in terms of times and closures, updated the messaging, and they uh deployed the CMS boards, changeable message sign boards.

Uh we started at six and uh six of them, and because of just wanting to make sure that we kind of broadcasted even a little further, we identified a couple additional locations.

Uh, and so at the start of the closure, we actually relocate a uh one of our CMS boards uh on the north side to kind of get a little bit more advanced notice as they approach that intersection to allow people more time to get over from the number three lane over to the number one lane to make that left onto Broadstone Crossing, and I'll kind of pull up the detour here for a second just to kind of talk through them.

Okay, and I'm guessing one uh is by you've got them by the freeway exits on to East Beadwell.

Yes, ma'am.

Yeah, right, right just outside of uh in and out was uh we placed a board.

Okay, yeah.

Thank you.

Of course.

No questions, but I just want to say, unfortunately, you'll probably still get complaints about the road closure.

Um, but we know and those that regularly watch know that you prevented it from happening two or three more times.

Also, thank you for working with the entities surrounding to have them to incorporate their projects at the same time.

I think that's very creative, and um I appreciate all the effort.

Thank you.

I appreciate that.

Thank you, Vice Mayor Rafe, Councilmember Kozowski.

Great work.

I think you're gonna inadvertently train a bunch of people to use Cabot permanently.

Any requests to speak on this item?

Okay, then we'll entertain a motion, please.

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

Second.

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

Council members Rathel, yes, Robah, yes, Koslowski, yes, Mary.

Yes and a keynote yes, thank you.

Just a reminder to my colleagues, thank you, Rebecca, that after the city manager report and council comments, we are going to resume our closed session.

So council uh city manager report.

Uh thank you, Mayor members of council.

Just a few items.

Um, uh tomorrow a press release will uh be sent out reminding the public of our uh fire apparatus reassignment plan, and then uh you've heard a little bit about our uh road closure at Iron Point, uh Castle Park.

Uh we're having a meeting October 29th at 6 p.m.

Uh unveiling um for the design of the of Castle Park will take place at 16 6 15.

Uh that will be at the multi-purpose room at Oak Chan Elementary School, located at 101 Pruitt Drive.

And um uh gear up for good, sponsor the uh Cummings Bike Park Revamp.

Folsom's only public bike skills park is gearing up for a transformation.

The renovation will welcome riders of all ages and skill levels with progressive features that promote safe riding.

Some of the elements being considered include a pump track, progressive skill zones, rollers and burns, balanced features and jump lines.

Uh thanks to a generous gift from Claudia Cummings and a $10,000 matching grant.

The renovation project is ready to begin this fall.

Uh corporate sponsors and local businesses are invited to double their impact by supporting the renovation through tiered sponsorships that include signage, social media recognition, and participation in the grand reopening anticipated for summer of 2026.

Uh the revitalized park will require maintenance and will be uh stewarded by uh FAT uh Fat Track Volunteers in partnership with the City of Folsom Parks and Recreation Department.

And that concludes my report.

Thank you very much.

Council comments, Councilmember Kozlowski.

Just two things.

The most recent SACOG meeting, we had a presentation from a gentleman named Charles Morone, who's part of strongtowns.org.

Um very interesting speaker, very thoughtful kind of look at how to increase or more uniformly create value in cities property value.

Um so I'd encourage anybody who might be interested in that topic to go back and look at the video presentation of that that's on the SACOG website.

And I just wanted to thank the uh Rotary Club for hosting a really really entertaining Oktoberfest on Sunday at the community center.

It was great fun.

Thank you.

Vice Mayor Rathel.

Uh no further comments.

Prost.

Thank you.

Councilmember Warbah.

Councilmember Larry.

I just have one little announcement.

Uh there are a couple of fundraising efforts going on uh for the Folsom Zoo Sanctuary.

And um, they partnered uh actually Brian Wallace, one of our um parks and rec commissioners uh did some designs for um some special beers that are being produced and um those are on sale.

Uh you can find out how to buy these.

Uh they're being produced by Redbus.

And um they've sold 83 cases of beer to date, and um there are I think 17 cases left.

There's uh each case holds six of the four packs.

You can either buy four packs or case, um, and this provide about 10,000 in funding for the Friends of Folsom Zoo.

Um, and uh so if you don't like beer but you like to decorate Christmas trees, there's also uh going to be a Christmas tree event at the zoo uh in December, and they're currently um having people purchase the right to decorate a tree for 150 dollars.

You will be assigned a tree and have an opportunity to either advertise your business or uh I could challenge the other council members to buy a tree.

I'm planning on buying one myself.

Um, and you can find these opportunities on the Friends of uh Fulsom Zoo Sanctuary website.

How to uh participate.

So they appreciate all your support.

Thank you.

Redbusbrew.com.

And I will just report out very briefly.

Um today, the county of Sacramento um hosted uh a joint county-wide meeting.

All five members of the County Board of Supervisors, all is it, I don't know, nine or ten members of the Sacramento City Council, and then mayors or council members from the other cities in the county with the exception of Ileton.

Thank you to my colleagues, Cindy Manager and Stephanie Henry for joining me today.

It was about homelessness, behavioral health.

I wouldn't say we solved anything, but I think we learned about some of the resources that are available in the county, and also maybe learned some best practices and agreed to collaborate going forward.

So with that, it's 8:23.

We will adjourn the regular meeting and the council will resume our special meeting and closed session.

Thank you all