10-28-25 Folsom City Council Regular Meeting

captioning] Captioning]. >> good evening. We will reconvene closed session and I will call to order the regular city council meeting for folsom for tuesday OCTOBER 2 eighth, 2025. Will clerk call the roll. >> clozos can I. >> if you can rise in joining in the pledge of flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under GOD, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.. >> okay. That takes us to agenda updates. MR. City attorney, report? >> good evening MADAM Mayor both documents are previously provided to you and are available on the table in the back. >> thank you very much. Taking us to business from the floor. This is public's opportunity to address items from council not on the agenda. Understand we can't deliberate or take action on items. Any request to speak. >> one from andrew visccara. Come on down. >> I will give you extra time. >> yeah. Andrew here. We have several other classmates with us as well and the awesome opportunity to organize a fundraiser pickle for a purpose that was in 2024 and with the help of a classmate choose folsom with all sponsors and community that came out to support we were able to raise $10,600 and giving it towards city of folsom parks and rec. >> thank you so much. Part of the leadership class. >> leadership 2024. It was awesome. >> very good. Thanks so much. I will ask and come down and take a picture with that. Andrew there will take our photo and then. >> all right. >> fantastic. Thank you so much. We appreciate it. >> we have no more requests to speak and business from the floor taking us to scheduled presentation item this evening. This is special recognition of departing plant manager tikaka niguy. Come up. As you know last month we celebrated the 25th anniversary of sister city friendship. There is another international friendship we value very greatly that is the friendship with [Indiscernible] Foods. We have been fortunate in the past 7 years to have MR. Neguy a very active and engaged plant manager and you have been called back to japan away to your next assignment. We didn't want to let the day go by without recognizing your service. I have a letter here from me to MR. Niguy. Accept our sincere appreciation and congratulations for your leadership and contribution you made to kickamonday foods. You guided your team to achieve record production in shipping volumes and highest in the facility history and sustainability and operational excellence through wastewater improvements and [Indiscernible] Under your leadership new coaching program enhanced communication strengthening the workplace culture developing leadership skills strategic planning and time management and are honored to celebrate important milestones with you and induction into the folsom chamber of commerce business hall of fame 2025. To support of kickaman scholarships at folsom high school and contributions to the folsom college science building. You and your wife return to japan and hope you carry with you fond memories of your time in folsom and know you and your family will always have a home here. Best wishes for continued success. Chocolate and soy sauce go very well together if you didn't know and a little something for you from smith's chocolate. >> [Applause]. >> thank you so much. >> yeah. Good evening, everybody. I am glad to have this award. No. Recognition very much. I try to be as a member of the local community, also kickaman has a policy to be a member of [Indiscernible]. We try to do like this continuously and start business in folsom 27 years ago. Also already I mentioned we started a program that means we commuted very, very well. You. We cans think and work together and success together. This is a very important policy at kick aman. I'm glad to get this one. Thank so you much. >> [Applause]. >> thank you so much. Best of luck to you. Thank you. Okay. Next up. >> that takes you to the consent calendar. >> anybody have an item they would like to pull. >> no. 6. >> we will pull item no. 6. Anything else? >> I will move approval of items 2 through 10 absent no. 6. >> second. >> motion and second. Please call the roll. >> counsel members [Indiscernible]. >> koz loz can I. >> yes. >> item no. 6 is resolution 11485. This is the resolution authorizing the city manager to execute amendment no. 1 to agreement with docca engineering for reporting services in open space in folsom plan area using cfd8 no. 18 funds not to exceed $580,000. >> good evening. >> good evening MADAM Mayor and councilmembers and we are happy to answer questions you have. >> I understand. Thank you for providing the background and where it came from. I understand the monitoring of our open space areas. Especially throughout the development. This is an ongoing in perpetuity $80,000 a year likely raising with the cost of living and inflation and going forward. Really I wanted to talk with you a little bit about or ask the question, you know, are there other ways we can get this environmental monitoring done? Thinking partnerships with sacs or uc davis. It is biological and archaeological monitoring and way I understand it, it is about our passive areas and areas that shouldn't have public in for the most part. I wanted to just kind of say or ask the question are there other areas maybe north of 50 where we have monitoring requirements? Do we put them together? $80,000 in perpetuity for a report every year and site surveys, I wish we could find a more cost effective way of doing it. >> great question. As far as north of 50, I'm not aware of current monitoring that is going on right now and know that for our division, mls and parks, you bring up a great question. Is looking at partnerships down the road with folsom college or sac state and make sure professional biologists know how to produce these reports and go out and monitor not a one day saturday this is over course of entire year and three monitoring periods as well. I know talking with a consultant that there are items we can scomplo r in the future that are reaching out to monitoring agencies and california department of fish and wildlife and army core of engineers to see if there is a possibility to amend them where there is opportunity to reduce three monitoring reports and two reports potentially and making sure that we have backup and information and monitoring and knowing what we are actually looking at and preserving for invasives and non-natives or our current wetlands and everything out there that we are monitoring everything that we are required per our open space management plan. It is a great question that we will definitely look at that in the fut future. >> I'm comfortable getting you to investigate it and I want to bring tup and maybe there is something or part of it we can do in house or part of it. If there is the same monitoring and we have annual reports that show it every year, maybe we can do it with an aspiring doctoral student. >> we can look at that and see if agencies are as well. This is not the first time. >> conservation area in the open space not just doing it because it in open space. >> no. >> 1/3 of that open space. >> right now the city takes over more open space and in the future that open space as you know will be expanding west and so forth. We will be adopting more on there. >> tell meg >> telling me 80 grand will go up. >> this is for next 4 years extension. We will cross it when we get there. >> these meet requirements from army core of engineer set in place. >> right. >> they have an end date at some point. Is that correct? I know that sites on this side of 50 had to meet requirements for a certain number of year and reports haven't been provided and I don't know the exact timeframe there. >> open space management plan and this is in perpetuity and providing monitoring reports forever and report them to the agencies. >> yeah. >> maybe that is another avenue my colleague brings up. If normally a 30 year agreement maybe we look to going to arm corps of engineers and department of fish and wildlife and say can we do this for just the next 30 years. >> part of the problem is that lots of these ones not monitored for any length of time have significantly deteriorated over time. >> yeah. >> I'm sure that requirements have potentially changed since this side of town was built. >> yeah. >> with that I'm happy to move item no. 6. >> okay. >> I'll second. >> thank you. >> motion and second. Please call the roll. >> >> next item please. >> item no. 11 this is ordinance no. 1358. It is adding sections pertaining to wildfire prevention and amending other sections and certain chapters pertaining to adoption and unified code and first induction of the reading of the ordinance. >> good evening, alison. >> good evening. >> I will get this all set. Okay. Good evening councilmembers. I'm alison and I'm coming to you in collaboration with the fire department introduction and first reading of ordinance 1358. Ordinance 1358 pertains to adoption of 2025 -- code of regulations with loekle amendments. >> ordinance 1358 is ordinance of city of folsom adding section 9.3.75 pertaining to wildfire prevention and certain sections 8.36 and certain chapters in title iv taenof folsom municipal code going into adoption of various uniform codes and report transmittals sent to the council outlining handful of corrections. No detail can be found in the transmittal. >> so the first question is why are we here? Every three years the international code council publishes an updated international building code or iment about. C and latest being 2024I about. C. In JULY of the following year california publishes 2025 title ii 4 california code of regulations known as the california building code or cbc which is based on ibc with local amendments and with california amendments. The title ii 4 california code of regulations are state regulations local jurisdictions must enforce health and safety code section 183938 and adopting title ii 4 california code of regulation to make local amendments. They can't be less restrictive than the current state code. Important to understand title ii 4 california code of regulations encompasses about as doen codes including the fire code building code mechanical cold energy cold and others. Jurisdictions must adopt each of the codes separate separately. This is the year of introduction of the new code california tw wild-[No audio]. Moderate fire hazard severity zone in a local responsibility area. Therefore, we are proposing to add section 9.3705 previously located in the fire code. This section continues to allow the fire chief to identify and restrict access to natural spaces that is higher than normal wildfire risk. We are also proposing additional amendments to the folsom municipal code to align folsom in other jurisdictions similar to fire hazard zones and adopt appendix d of california fire code written to provide detailed requirements regarding roadways, dead ends, access roads and road locations relative to the building based on height. We are finally also proposing to align municipal code with current technologies and best practice. In conclusion, the community development department has been working with the fire department and recommending city crowns introduce and conduct the first reading of ordinance 1358 and second reading will occur on NOVEMBER 12th with the 2025 title ii 4 california code of regulations with local amendments going into fefkt JANUARY 1st of 2026 and I'm happy to answer any questions and deputy fire mar shap is here as well as chief mcgee. >> thank you, mishel. >> alison, questions back here. >> no question. Grumpy comment before it goes to a vote. >> would you like to make your grumpy comment now. >> yes. You know, I don't know if anyone has realized but housing has gotten really expensive and I'm tempted to vote against this to just say that this is crazy. We are making houses more and more expensive and at same time we are all talking about an affordability and housing crisis and I have absolutely no repercussion. I have to vote for this to get local ordinance and appreciate the work staff has done in making our code less restrictive and appreciate appendix g modifications staff has made to bring us more in line with other jurisdictions and that is not what my complaint is. It is that our state state legislature is talking about being in an affordability crisis and housing crisis and every three years we make it harder and harder to build housing in the state. Going out there saying if any control from local level of this I would vote to roll them back to the 90s so that when my house was built I sleep safely at night and don't have sprinklers. I have some but that is my choice and lots of these things are driving up cost of housing and would love to see things pause for a few years while we catch up. >> thank you. >> I don't have that choice. >> extension of the crumb pi comment and encourage colleagues to vote for this. We don't have a choice this is foolish theatre that the state forces us to do. I second what council member raisel has said and go a step further I about. C source for icc and source for all of the code changes is the referees have been captured by industry. There is not a fair evaluation of what the cost of any given change is to building codes nationally. In california, we don't put a break on it in same way we do on all other legislation that at least has to pass through the legislative budget office to make a determination whether or not it will add costs to the taxpayer. I would 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 code cycles or demand that, you know, make california the outliar saying our code cycle is not every three years but it is longer and anyway, with that said, I don't have any gripe with any particular change that has been proposed. It is just that the polishing of the diamond has gotten kind of crazy. >> okay. I will open the public hearing. MADAM Clerk requests to speak. >> no requests to speak on this item. >> closing public hearing thank you very much alison entertaining a motion. Introduction of first reading. I need somebody to say so moved. >> so moved under extreme duress so moved. >> second. >> thank you. Motion and second please call the roy. >> councilmembers ray thol. >> yes. >> roir bach. >> yes. >> koz loss can I. >> I say we work more closely with legislators at state level. >> yes or no. >> that's a yes. >> and akino. >> yes. Thank you very much. Sorry to shoot the messenger. We appreciate you. >> no problem. >> next item please. >> item 12 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, members of the city council and planning manager in community development department and with me tonight is cecilia kim and planning manager with design and were consultants helping us prepare this and put this together. Reason we were doing this is a number of changes in -- oops. >> I just sent it. >> thank you. >> number of changes in state law that now require that we only use objective design development standards when reviewing residential projects. In 2024, as you MAY recall, this city council approved changes in the land use both in the general plan and folsom plan area, specific plan to create overlay areas allowing for higher density and taller development and more intensive development consistent with requirements of housing element that included east corridor and areas around iron point and glenn rail stations and 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 higher intensity development occurs, that it is done in a way that is -- that complements and enhances those areas. It is well-designed better than to detract from them. We are proposing to no longer use because we can't use guidelines anymore. Also, our multi-family design guidelines actually conflict with some of the requirements in our zoning code. Number of general plan policies supportive of this overall effort. I won't get into detail on them. Can you see here commitment to high quality design. The goal of the effort was really to balance needed to comply with state laws ensuring quality site and architectural design. What the objective development and design standards do is regulate physical form and character of multi-family development or mixed use development. Developers have to comply with these if they are looking for a streamlined review process. The odds themselves do not include actual development proposals. Approval doesn't approve any kind of development. There was information on folsom chat and next door suggesting that these documents were approving large projects. They are not. Without these -- without the standards, we wouldn't have objective design standards we could use to evaluate these multi-family projects in this area. So the examples that are shown in the document are just that. They are showing how a site could transform and be built use theegz objective design standards. There is no actual development associated with them. So this was a long effort that really kicked off with a targeted mixed use and multi-family housing study we did with opti cos and 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 what was the appropriate massing and scale through all of that? We did a survey that surveyed 400 residents and developers and business owners in folsom and got great feedback and took that feedback and presented it to you all and got your feedback. We then started work on the objective design standards. So that was prepared back in SEPTEMBER of 2024. Then we had a workshop that was with the architectural community with developers to understand what we were doing and we could get their feedback. We also talked to a number of jurisdictions including cities in campbell and napa and marin counties using these or similar versions thieves and got their feedback. We made changes to make it a little bit easier to use. We released the draft in JULY of 2025 and we had a workshop with the planning commission to walk them through how these would work and had a hearing with them on OCTOBER 15th, where the union unanimously recommended approval of these. In terms of area that is covered it goes along the east bay corridor from sutter middle school down to highway 50 and around the glenn light rail station up here and in that general half mile radius area and over at the iron point station. In addition, we looked at the town center area in the folsom area. Folsom plan area. All these areas have overlay districts in the general plan allowing for greater height and for that higher density. So the document covers a number of elements of building design starting with the site in the development standards to massing articulation and we have large site standards really designed for those larger sites that might have big box retail on them and might want to be repurposed at some point in the future. We have exceptions to the standards and are things with -- as you might be aware with infill sites it is often a good reason why that infill site hasn't been developed. Might be easements or other types of constraints that the developer or property owner have to work arn ound that is why the exceptions are helpful if you have easements or top graphical methods and this gives you a sense how it works. There is a lot of good graphics and illustrations to communicate to the developer as well as to the public what is expected of them and objective measurements that are required and had these for massing articulation and site development we had them filet large site used for a big box retailer and don't get a gigantic massive building but get block scale development with smaller box and making it walkable. And kind of more human scale. You can see how it works. For tonight in addition to adopting the odds we are asking you consider making changes to the design of the ordinance itself. What we are proposing is review and approval of community development director and sending existing multi-family design guidelines and mentioned earlier multi-family design guidelines, we can't use guidelines much anymore unless developer is willing to go along with that. These are outdated and conflict also with standards in our zoning code. We have to rescind these for some time. Reason we are proposing that we bring this down to staff level at ministerial review is for a couple of reasons. First, it incentivizes the use and compliance with objective design standards and if the developer has to go through a discretionary process there is not a lottin krentive necessarily for them to use objective design and development standards. In fact, we read the ordinance so they can opt out. If they can't comply with these, they go through a discretionary process. The carrot is if they comply with these they go through streamline ministerial process. In addition to that, there is also some -- given our small staff we have, there is 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 were put in a really difficult position and part of the feedback we got last year with the prior council is please don't do this to us again. State law made it so even a project going through discretionary process, you can't reduce density or number of units and you can't deny the project unless you can make a specific and significant health and safety finding. As a result, we are basically in a position where the commission or council has to approve the project regardless what the objects are in the community or we run afowl as elk grove and other communities have done with state law and leave ourselves open to lawsuits. In addition to that you can see on the next two pages that the state has been taking very local discretion and leaving these things down to staff level making and requiring that they be ministerial. Many of these have things like labor requirements that require prevailing wages or scale to train workforce program that we typically don't see out here in folsom. Typically it is stick built. You are not running into prevailing wage issue with most projects. They don't qualify. Some of these, they do have that or they are specific to affordable housing not to market rate housing. But you -- with sb330 and sb8 and sb79, they are using objective design standards. These don't require ministerial approval. However, they -- if the project has some level of affordability and if the project provides prevailing -- there is prevailing wage or provides skill to train workforce they meet requirements of some other bills that require ministerial approval. It is clear the state is really kind of increasingly pushing this to staff level. I just wanted to explain the background of that. I know this is a significant change to take these kinds of projects and bring them down to staff level. So if this is -- if you move these items tonight, this would be the first reading. The second reading would be NOVEMBER 12th. Then the -- it would be or go into effect JANUARY 1st, 2026. During the period between the 12th of NOVEMBER and JANUARY 1st, we will do outreach to architects and to developers and providing a checklist and so forth for them. The recommended actions before you tonight is through a resolution to go ahead and adopt objective development and design standards and adopt -- do introduction and first reading of the ordinance amending our design review chapter in our zoning code which is title 17. The reason that we are doing the objective development and design standards as a resolution is to make them easier to adopt -- easier to amend. Getting feedback from residents and the development community and some are not working and we need to tweak them, we can easily do that by coming back you to and getting approval on a resolution. If we were to include these as part of the zoning code, we have to do the first reading, the second reading, the -- this presentation and staff reports and they wouldn't go into effect for 30 days after the second reading. we thought by keeping them as -- adopting them as a resolution that we could be much more flexible in terms of addressing any concerns or issues that come up. Like I said, either from residents or developers and with that that concludes my presentation and myself and cicilia are here to answer questions you might have. Thank you. >> thank you, desmond. Questions down this way. Councilmember leery? >> in effect what -- I got lots of concerns from residents because of one of the siteds that has been identified for this kind of development is in my neighborhood. It might be helpful I think to reassure people that these developments unless proposed on sites that are open sites or are sold by rolling sellers and doesn't open the door for those things to take place. That was some -- that engaged a lot of conversations with people to explain what these were because these sites were identified several years ago as you noted already in your presentation. I think it might help provide some clarity for people that are concerned anywhere in the blue zones that this doesn't mean that immediately someone is going to knock something down or build something. I think you address that in all letters you sent out in replies to residents and thought it was a blanket approval. I do believe that adopting these in effect decreases costs. If a developer does discretionary changes to their building. Is that correct? >> yeah. If it is at the -- if it is at staff level or in other words ministerial review, there is no appeal. There is no public hearing on that. There is not a staff report or presentation. Staff reviews it and much like a building permit they meet the requirements or don't. If they meet requirements, the approval is granted. >> yes. It would be nice to have a cost estimate. That would say because there are -- they have concerns about how much it costs to do development and those requirements. >> yeah. It is a significant reduction. As josh will talk to you about in item 14 or our associate planner josh kincaid, we are proposing a lower fee if you were to approve that or approving a lower fee for ministerial review. It is quite a big reduction so we look at a commercial project that might be 2000 to $5,000 and this would drop it. That would include multi-family. That would drop it to around $800. It is significant cost and time savings both for us and for the development community. >> right. You can look at those in the next item. >> yeah. >> okay. Thank you. >> council member roor bach? I know you have some. >> gosh. Called out. I'm grumpy cat member tonight. Didn't help you picked me up at 8:30 in sacramento all day and sat in another public meeting. My question I think the design standards are great and are a good protection specifically for projects that are streamlined ministerial review. I'm fully supportive of putting them in place and think that it is something that definitely provides more protection for the city and streamlined ministerial projects and only real concern with the standards is lab reductions and parking. In there, it talks about if you provide one of these things in the list, we will go from 1.5 spaces per unit down to 1 space per unit or commercial space that will produce 1 to 2 square feet to 1 in a thousand square feet that is significant and 3/4 and 75% reduction for parking in commercial spaces and 1/3 of parking and residential. It could be I'm looking at central business district in particular and lots of single family is around there and sites are not necessarily very deep. And so the provisions seem kind of small to make that change in parking. One is a provision of a dedicated parking space for deliveries and rideshare vehicles. I don't see -- we give you a half space for every unit. If you give us one space for deliveries that could be like -- maybe I'm misunderstanding. Hey if it is a 200 unit complex we will allow you to not build 10 does he spaces. Will you give us one for a delivery truck. I am curious if those are -- you know, if there is a way to strengthen requirements. Make them more objective libelling hey you have to give us and none of these are fine for a really small complex and don't see how they apply for say somebody does a -- puts together a number of sites and ends up with a 200 unit complex. >> we agree and looking back through those I think at the staff level we can provide you know clear standards as to what those mean. For example, like you were saying, it doesn't make sense if you do 150 unit project and have one car share space. What we can do is provide some staff interpretation on what that means so long as it is clear and objective. For every -- you know, every 10 or fifteen units we can require that you have to have like, you know, a car share space or guest space or something along those lines. Where it is a little clear is transit passes and mirror tod or light rail station and providing transit passes to all residents and we know that at least a portion will use transit rather than driving for work or other activities. >> I agree with you. Transit one is strong enough on its over and others seem to be not very robust. >> I think on shared parking it needs to be a certain percentage of overall parking satisfied by it. I think we will fully refine that and we want to talk to a few other jurisdictions on that to see what worked for them and what ratios they use. Is it every 20 or 15 units you require that shared vehicle and types of space. >> that answered my question. >> my second question I'm supportory have objective standards and objectives to protect us throughout the city and second question is really where do we go from here making sure we have design standards in place. My understanding is right now state law is if somebody proposed a giant pink castle with spires and draw bridges on affordable site with density bonus law we wouldn't say anything; right? We don't have design standards in place and they would say basically I'm building a giant pink affordable housing unit with draw bridges and spires and that is what we get. >> yes. We are now looking at objective design standards and looking how at least portions of them might be able to be repurposed on other areas of the city where we have had multi-family and multi-family high density or r3 or r4 and basically multi-family zoning and we did these areas first because we wanted to make sure they were in place given the significant changes that we were doing in terms of height and density and intensity in these areas and area we got grant funds to help fund this work so it didn't come out of the general fund. Looking citywide and put in place objective design standards in the areas. Repurpose some of this and we have to look at resources and funding available to do the rest of the city. >> suggesting maybe we start with going to the historic district commission and planning commission and getting input about what would be different about the standards and to that point historic district is a different set of stand yards and maybe some of the other ones are not that different. I think that you know the other sites are probably zone multi-family high density with potential density bonus that are in the same sort of density that these standards are already in. Maybe these are more applicable to those other sites that we would see streamline development. That is where it really offers a protection for us. We can always as a body if it goes through discretionary process we can give feedback along the way. Whereas, if it is streamlined we might not see it especially without noticing neighbors and all of a sudden it starts going up and that is where we start getting calls. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> council member koz loss can I? >> happy this got to us. Good work all the way around. I will say for sake of grandstanding a little bit and extend comments from earlier this is another instance where a small part thf is responding to state requirements that we do it and we have an opportunity to do the right thing ourselves and we have been doing the right thing ourselves and we are -- our hands are forced in. I'm the last person in the world to say I missed jerry brown. He tried to teach us a word called subsidiarity as a state one day when he talked about how to help fix the california budget when we were in one of the previous budget crisis. He said subsidiarity is a principle taking decision making and taking it to lowest and smallest and most local and responsible and competitive legislature authority. We have completely lost the thread on that and thank you very much for your hard work. This is really excellent. I'm not worried about the parking. >> thank you. I will go ahead and open the public hearing. Requests to speak. >> no requests to speak on this item. >> I will close the public hearing. Go ahead. >> comment before we move for a motion if that is okay. >> yeah. >> as far as ministerial review process goes I'm not supportive of moving market rate projects forward on ministerial review and think if we only have the option for life safety objections or a determination of non-compliance with objective standards my preference is not to streamline market rate projects but preference is to leave them going through a traditional process. I want to leave the door open to get sued if we want to get sued. >> okay. >> I will say it bluntly. I think at a certain point with market rate projects, if it is not the right project, I want to still hear about it and willing to take heat from constituents if in my neighborhood or district. 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. If I don't feel it is the right decision for my community I'm okay taking heat standing up and saying I would rather get sued. For what it is worth, I would be opposed to -- ministerial review is required by state law I'm fine using ministerial review. When not required by state law I don't want to month of to ministerial review. >> that is regarding ordinance 1357; correct? >> correct. >> okay. Starting with motion to adopt resolution 11 fo 64. Do you want to give direction to staff as far as parking? >> they -- we are in agreement. >> okay. >> we just -- you will come back at the next hearing with those after you get input from other jurisdictions. >> we were proposing to do it at the staff level. I think if you could provide that direction in your resolution, that would give us authority to go ahead and develop standards. >> but at the end of the day, do we have to adopt the standards? They have to be objective standards. If you will say for example use dedicated parking space for deliveries and wideshare vehicles. If there is an option at 1% of the spaces, does it need to go in the -- >> we could bring this back. With that, or can you give dr.Ection for staff to develop staff interpretation so long as it is objective. Like I said earlier on the shared parking space. If we develop kind of staff interpretation that those -- this is how this part of the odds work. >> yeah. >> then as long as that is objective, we would be okay with state law. >> you can revise objective design standards before you publish them? >> no. This would be a -- it would be a kind of a companion piece. For example, staff in the areas with the zoning code we have staff interpretation. When you get to section that says you have to provide shared parking for this. We would say, okay. Staff's requirement is that you have to provide one shared parking space for every 20 units. As long as that is currently identified and that staff has published that information, then we are okay in tefrps of not running afowl of -- of the objective of state law 679 however, if you prefer we come back with standards enumerated in the document, we can do that. >> if you need a change later would you bring the document back to us to make the change? You said we are making this a resolution to bring it backtous to make changes easily and you put them in the document and wouldn't bring a companion. >> yes. >> best way to do it. It is clear. If I'm a developer and reading it and oh, I can get, you know, 33% reduction in parking requirement by providing a single parking space for deliveries I will move forward with that. Right? Ly go that is more cost effective to me and I will go there is a companion piece to it and it makes it clear if we put it in the standards. >> okay. >> if you can leave that interpretation to staff to determine when something rises to level of coming back versus a simple next step interpretation of this document that is a reason that we ask for it not to be codified. It is a document that lives outside of the zoning code where you don't have clear exact language in the code. If you are not breaking down a standard into subsets, you would have to bring it back. You know, in front and do two readings. To desmond's point in the beginning, if it is simply getting into a refined detail on something that is required and doesn't change the requirement, we would like to do that outside of bringing it back you to. In this case, we hear you and will bring it back. In the future, if there is a example how a supporting document or detail can work in partnership with this -- this guideline, you know, next-level guideline, it would be nice to not come back to the council every time there is a refinement or clarification. >> that is the challenge of making black and white objective standards. Idea is when somebody reads it it should be very clear and we shouldn't have to give extra staff guidance on it. I'm comfortable with it. This is a case where this makes me uncomfortable; right? Because of the very big difference in what could be provided and what would be provided with a very small change so. >> in parking standards it is the next version of transportation management plans. You might have three or four solutions to meet a parking requirement on a site. And it is a little nuanced. So we will come back to you with something that is more detailed and don't want to get so detailed it doesn't give flexibility in how we interpret these moving forward. >> I love you to have discretion. Putting it out there I would love for us to have discretion here. That not the point. We are told we don't have discretion and have to make things. >> that is correct. If I can ask the council to consider part of your motion to direct staff and adopt document tonight and direct staff and return modifications to the parking section in the near future. >> want to add that to the resolution. >> are we going to hear this thing? We have to bring back ordinance for second reading anyway; right? >> that is correct. You can defer approval until the next meeting NOVEMBER 12th. >> we will hear the other one. >> okay. >> that is my preference if you are okay with it. >> if you can continue this to the NOVEMBER 12th. >> perfect. >> motion to continue. >> motion to continue resolution 1164. >> second. >> until next meeting. >> motion and second call the roll. >> councilmembers rose enthal? >> yes. >> akino? >> why he. >> we need a decision on the next one as far as whether we want ministerial review and dealing with citizens being really upset with us we can't deny a multi-family project. >> you mentioned apartment so question would be to probably staff on this was that considered market rate. >> that is affordable housing project. >> would have come anyways. >> so what I think council member ray that'll is getting at is that lots of the ministerial requirements relate to affordable development. We believe it is a matter of time before market rate also becomes ministerial as a result of the state's action. If I call your attention to sb330 and sb8 that are relate today one another, those apply to all multi-unit projects. It doesn't matter whether it is affordable. We have to do objective design standards for those. They don't mandate they be done at the staff level. They are not -- they don't require ministerial approval. It is only if they meet other requirements like affordable housing or prevailing wage. Then we have to do them at staff level. So what I believe that counsel member laythel is pointing out is you have some discretion about whether you want to hear those types of market rate projects. Downside is with market rate projects, you are not allowed to deny that project and let -- or reduce density or number of units unless there is a specific and significant health and safety finding that can be made regarding the approval of the project. In other words if you approve the project it will result in major health and safety problems. >> if project meets other objective design. >> if project meets other objective design and development standards. Is that clear? Did I muddle things up? >> you are fine. Would you like to make a motion with what you want to see? >> I have to pull up the ordinance. >> my concern is taking the apartments for example. We did have lots of public outcry on that. While there were very clear things how we could or couldn't deny it, some of them are a little subjective. Are you taking away right of a city to say no to the state. Are we likely to do it very often? No. Other cities have done it. >> uh-huh. >> I feel that in that way we are losing even more local control. I have concerns about this affordable and market rate housing. I don't have a question. >> can I suggest that maybe the language since so many affordable projects are required to be ministerial, council member raythel's comments were really to target projects that are not ministerial according to state law and market rate essentially project. If that is the recommendation, my suggestion is not to be to amend all together and say anything not required but to identify market rate projects not otherwise exempt that we will go through a discretionary design review process. >> so instead of calling out anything that is required by state law to be ministerial you would got other way. >> anything not specifically required to go through. >> saying if it is required by state law it is ministerial and if not to your point state law will change. All of a sudden, hey, we have seen the future. There is another housing bill introduces next year and turns around and ministerial review market rate projects, okay. Okay. I don't want to be the poster boy predicting what the state will do and say we will go a step further than that to get me out of a sticky political situation. >> if that makes sense. Trying to find ordinance on electronic document so. >> page 366. >> thank you. 366. I'm way off. >> if we were to change the ordinance to do what you are recommending which is to state unless mandated by state law to be ministerial, all projects go through a discretionary process. We need to do work to the ordinance and recommend you continue the item to the NOVEMBER 12th date as well. We can go ahead and make the changes. >> time sensitivity to this? >> go ahead. >> I think only sensitivity is we want to get them in place soon as we can given that we have already made changes back in AUGUST to allow for this kind of development that we don't currently have objective design standards. >> we have lost discretion at the state's direction for most of the projects four years ago; right? For affordable projects, this is -- from 2021, right? We have not had design standards. >> for example, harington growth project affordable project that came before the planning commission. They couldn't deny the project and came because they weren't preventing wage or skilled trained workforce and didn't meet sb25 cirments or sb23 requirements there are instances of affordable projects to go through the discretionary process. >> we lost that ability in the recent state law changes; right? >> meeting criteria, we have lost the ability. >> okay. >> yes. >> if they don't meet criteria or some of it but not all of it, we have -- we could take them through a discretionary process and problem I mentioned earlier is we can't deny project or reduce density or number of units. >> yeah. >> you can have a discussion with developers willing to do something like change design or style. >> sure. >> then they can do it and developer has to agree to that. if they don't want to do it, our hands are tied. >> looking to colleagues. This is fine. If you are okay with that I would rather continue it to the next. >> I want to be sure. Is there -- these have already been implemented and there is an implementation date in place for these that is in the past or something that is coming up in the future? >> general plan and specific plan and these changes have been implemented already. There is not a set date for the objective design standards. So the state has basically said if a development project comes through and don't have objective design standards and they don't want to comply with guidelines or anything else, you are out of luck, jurisdiction. You can deny it. Are you vulnerable to legal challenge. But there is not a deadline for getting objective design standards done. >> are there any projects in the pipeline or on your radar that this would apply to? >>um. >> you know I'm not -- >> yeah. >> the odd, we would end up not being able to have this kind of review. >> I think that this delay is not going to be a major concern. We don't have any projects in the pipeline that would be directly, you know, effected by these and would be concerned if we don't adopt any objective design standards. We would then have very little ability to get higher quality design out of a developer. >> all right. >> can I suggest one thing? In spirit of this, it is to give opportunity for ministerial approval. Couldn't we just say that we will approve this and as part of your ministerial evaluation when you see a prudent time or need to have a workshop discussion at the planning commission, do that. Your discretion. At the staff's discretion bring it to the planning committee meeting so we can discuss the project in an open forum and people can have it take pog shots at it or praise it and become fully educated about the reasons why it is being approved. >> sounds like this needs a little further discussion. >> problem I have with that is we are the voice of the people. If giving all authority to staff to bring it at their discretion to planning or not or to us or not we are taking away the voice. >> most decisions are made for us already by state law. Wi are only talking about things that are ministerial and should be approved automatically but there is something about them that deserves to have a visit to the planning commission for a discussion not a vote for the project. >> being heard by the planning commission. I'm more concerned about losing ability to delay a project and get sued. You know, some people would love. >> I'm taking a half step towards that here. That's all I'm saying. >> elk grove and they lost that battle some would say. I would say they won that battle on some level. They denied a project and it wasn't built on that site. Yes. They paid some money and gave up other land but do we want to give ability to deny a project that doesn't fit an away even if we are sued for t I don't want to. Standard of local control I get it. I don't want to sign up to lose my ability to further peoples interest and get sued. >> yeah. >> I will make a motion to postpone this for further discussion to NOVEMBER 12th. >> motion to continue to NOVEMBER second. >> yes. >> koz loss can I. >> yes. >> mary? >> yes. >> akino. >> yes. >> resolution 11481 replacing prior resolutions and adopting new user fee schedule for community development services. >> good evening, josh. Tough crowd tonight. >> conferences. >> yeah. >> I can do that too I'm sure. Councilmembers and josh kincaid from community development department. I will pull my presentation up. >> all right. Tonight I will present you to proposed modifications to the community development departments fee schedule. A little background that is why we believe updates are warranted at this time. You might recall a comprehensive update of community development department fees and that is both last year and this year. We now have the director level of historic district design reviews that are approved tonight and ministerial reviews odds up for consideration and they anticipate further required ministerial reviews under state laws. And these types of projects previously are subject to commission level review including publication of staff report and several staff attending the hearing with the new staff level reviews and anticipate there to be much less staff time associated with projects now. Since the report informal hearing would not be required in front of a commission at least. With that we need to have fees that reflect that amount of staff time. Based on fees that we are requesting to change under the new code amendments and historic district and existing multifamily and commission design reviews going down by over half as you can see here. Director level single and two family design reviews remaining about the same as you see here. However, we are previously only collection of fraction of actual staff time and fee there and they were going to the commission and achieving forecost recovery of $132 staff level review as shown here. >> historic demolitions about half here and handled at staff level and absorb some costs with demolition permits we have a decent amount of research to do on them and some to htcc and if we see potential historical significance and we believe this is justified to community benefit association [Indiscernible] For significant structures and finally the projects subject to ministerial design review anticipate ing it currently costs between 2000 and 5 thousand dollars and planning fees to go to commission and dozens said previously and anticipate them to take four hours at a staff level or if a ministerial review would be required and we are proposing that fee go down. [Indiscernible] For cost recovery at 864 dollars and apply this fee to any other large project that would be brought down to ministerial design review in the future what is passed or not with objective design and development standards and if the state takes such review to require or to occur. Excuse me. Given we need to go to council to establish these fees we also use this opportunity to propose updates to other fees we have seen deficiencies since passage of last fee update and issue that has come up is that we -- applicants for larger entitlements provide a map and stamped addressed set of envelopes and we have project noticing requirements for entitlements and they often end up having inaccuracy and poor work quality and we are said to prepare that material ourselves and charge $216 fee for staff level [Indiscernible] That is probably [Indiscernible]. We have seen also that engineering and landscape plant check and inspection fees I should say for larger projects over $300,000 valuation and typically don't capture time staff spends on the reviews. Person with existing fee we see here could be a deposit and those materials are applied after that. It was pointed out also that a fee for production of landscape reviews showing up this council is part of last update and not included in fee schedule and I'm putting it back in here and getting it in the spreadsheet and [Indiscernible] And building permit fees are higher than other surrounding jurisdictions and heard from the public about that definitely. We found that this fee no longer reflects the smaller amount of time that permits now take to review with proposing $138 fee reflecting current staff review and inspection time and is in more alignment with other jurisdictions. Fire department has no mechanism to clek additional fees for reviews of community development department entitlements and when we have larger projects taking additional [Indiscernible] And we are proposing they collect plan check fees for reviews over-4 hours long and found that while code allows for appeal for director level decision to the city manager and city manager's decision to council. There is no fee associated with actions and with proposing $432 fee that is [Indiscernible] For city manager accounting for about two hours of staff time and minimal amount of time we spend on them and consistent with previous council direction on appeals and decided no the to make fees prohibitively high and to council we are approving same fee council approved recently and director level decisions to commissions and commission decisions to council which is $1,500 and however I believe that the impacts of the updates would be lower fees for public and for director level projects and accurate fees for larger engineering and landscape projects and new cost recovery we currently don't have for appeals to the city manager and city manager to the council and will lead to a less impact for general fund for staff services. If adopted we provide new fee information to the public in DECEMBER and they would go into effect JANUARY 1st around with the current updates. I can take questions now. Thank you. >> thank you council member koslowsky questions? [Indiscernible] I will open the public hearing. Requests to speak. >> no I will close the public hearing. Thanks josh. Entertaining a motion. >> I will move approval of resolution 11481. >> second. Motion and second call the roll. >> [Taking roll]. >> yes. Thank you. Next item please. >> new business item 14 folsom neighborhood area project no. 1 and you have two resolutions before you. >> good evening. >> good evening. >> there we go. >> I'm a park planner too and here to present on neighborhood park no. 1 in folsom plan area. Tonight we will recommend two resolutions, first one is to make this a capital improvement project and to appropriate funds for the fiscal year. Second resolution to award design consulting services agreement for folsom design studio. Starting off with capital improvement project and funds and background on project and MAY of this year city council authorizeded city planner park 2 development in folsom plan area and I'm that park planner. However, this decision was made after the internal deadline to add neighborhood park 1 to capital improvement plan and bringing this to city council this year and JUNE of this year parks and rec commission reviewed parties and determined neighborhood park 1 would be the next recommended park for development and they also recommended allocating funds for 2025/26 fiscal year to initiate park planning process. A little of neighborhood park 1, this is a map of folsom plan area showing open space in park. We have [Indiscernible] And neighborhood park 1 east side that is prospector park for reference. Going into detail a little more, park site is here at corner of mangeni parkway and [Indiscernible] Road and next to school future elementary school site. Park now programming is as outlined in the parks and rec master plan 2015 update. This is a list of programming listed on lighted soccer field and baseball field and basketball cashing and parking area and restroom and parking lot and this is a 12 acre park site and estimated project cost based on programming that is 9.5 million dollars. So for this fiscal year to cover soft costs that includes staff time and hiring the consultants to start the process, this is a breakdown how we came to this number of 7 hundred 6 06,614 dlrdz. This design studio cost is based on number in proposal and other numbers are estimates. At time of writing staff report we hadn't received proposals for services and estimates based off other similar sized projects we were working on this year. That brings us to discussing the design consultant . This consultant with wilson design studio interdisciplinary team led by landscape architecture firm and civil and electrical engineers are on the team and will assist the staff with the development and design with the project. In JULY of this year, rfp has issued for services and by deadline of AUGUST 18th, we received eight qualified proposals and team of staff from public recs and public works and evaluated proposals ranked on a point system with 100 being one with most number of points and after that initial evaluation we selected top 3 point earners to be short listed to interview and interviews are conducted SEPTEMBER 12th and after interview there is an initial up to 35 points added to original scores. Here you can see this is top 3 consultants. And this shows the original points from the valuation and additional interview points and total of those in ranking. You can see will son design studio with most number of points and are. Rm and westwood and below you see numbers from cost proposal and wilson design studio is also lowest cost. That is the end of the presentation. Tonight we are recommending resolution 11487 resolution approving folsom planning park no. 1 and that on empire ranch road capital improvement project and apropriation of 7 hundred thousand -- specific plan capital fund fund for 72 and second resolution is resolution 11488 a resolution authorizing the city manager to execute a design consulting services agreement with wilson design studio for neighborhood 1 park project not to exceed amount of 450,130 dollars from funds in folsom plan area specific capital fund 4472. >> any questions for kate? >> I have one. That is I'm guessing in master plan for park need assessment for certain type of facility and wondering if thee are facilities there is a demand for. >> we look at needs assessment as well as parks and recreation master plan and 2015 master plan that is an update to original master plan done in 1996. >> this is a current assessment for needs to that site? I'm just asking that. >> great question and things we are looking at because of increase in costs we are looking at new design standards to lower costs moving forward and is something we are working with parks & recreation committee and bringing back to commission in DECEMBER. >> thank you. >> my concern and I'm sure you looked through it. Cost proposal and wilson design studio was $250,000 less than this and one before it and twice as less as the third one. What is that cost disparity? Are you concerned about did they leave something out? >> we usually don't see it quite that extreme. >> it is noteworthy. >> providing cost proposal it is a breakdown of all hours they are planning to ded ka et to the project by staff and by staff member and by task. We didn't see anything out of line with what is in the rfp or firms as far as cost difference and would be speculation on my part. Wilson design studio and what they are proposing for this project is similar to the cost they did for working on prospector park and [Indiscernible] Park and provided great service with funds they asked for. >> that is good enough for me. Thank you. >> great. Council member kozlowsky. >> 9 million dollar number was startling with the discussion we had over many years. Is this likely to be a phased implementation in any way? Do we have developer fees to cover most of whatever the cost is? >> this is a bigger question and had comments from councilmemb