Folsom City Council Regular Meeting

[Technical difficulties] >> 100 people are working in the schools, in the community it is all -- (Inaudible) (Inaudible) Can give the world some (Inaudible) That makes me smile. >> helping out the old town. >> helping in the (Inaudible) (Inaudible) Good fun! Very, very mucky! [Music] >> if one person can help the person who is next door, then -- and that person helps the person next doo are to them, you know, pretty soon, everyone is taken care of and I think that is what it is about. >> to learn more and get involved to go folsomcommunityservice.Org. >> and that concludes my presentation. Thank you. >> I want to say christine and all of the city staff and all of the people that helped to get this event back to fruition again, especially the people willing to wear the pink shirt, because I chose the color, those are the people that were in the pink shirts are the organizing committee. And that organizing committee has been meeting for 10 months? And that was a couple of meetings a month a huge amount of effort went into getting everything organized and nerve the cityneeds to be proud of all of the work that was put out that day all of the projects ha were completed. It is a great, great event and I have been told, because we have been doing it for some years now and every year there are t-shirts that is something in the grocery store out and about somewhere, somebody that owns one of those t-shirts will probably walk up and say oh, what project did you work on. I think it has reverberating effect in the year. If you are owners of those t-shirts wear them and probably make a new friend. Looking forward to moving forward and doing it again next year, do we know the date yet? >> September 19, 2020. >> awesome. Thank you. [Applause] >> with that move to consent calendar. Do we have anybody that wants to pull things off con sent in. >> do I, please. I would like to pull c and d. >> do we have a motion? >> move to approve a, b, e and f. >> motion call the roll please. >> council member kozlowski. >> yes. >> aquino. >> yes. >> gaylord. >> yes. >> and how well. >> yes. >> you are up. >> a couple of questions mark on the always stop at arbuckle and casselman, a couple of questions. I did drive by there today after we emailed and I do see some no access to (Inaudible) No outlet that sounds like that is not doing the job in deterring the cars from going down there? >> correct. >> I'm curious as to why sergeant (Inaudible) Was no vote for stop sign. >> dy reach out to sergeant body and her back from him earlier today. He has indicated to me that he favored more of a phased approach of perhaps relocating that sign again and trying to measure some effectiveness there. He did not feel that stop signs at this intersection would deter this behavior, this cut-through behavior and so since the committee was voting to do everything all at once, with the stop signs and relocating the sign, instead of the phase aided approach he opted to vote no. >> I'm trying to balance idea that we are setting policy, we want to apply it fairly and consistently city-wid and clear in the staff report that it says that, you know, you don't think this will make a dent in terms of the traffic volume. Are you thinking that it will reduce the speed there? Because I guess I'm just thinking what about the next neighborhood that comes? I mean, I can not speak for my colleagues, not a week goes by that some resident does not email me and say I want stop sign stop light round-about or speed bump in my neighborhood, that is number one complaint at least for me is speeding. What I'm wondering if we say yeah we will go ahead and put stop sign even though we are not really sure it will do what they are hoping it will do, what does that mean when the next neighborhood comes, as long as they get signatures and everybody is on board we fought stop sign wherever anybody wants one that is what I'm struggling with. >> understood. Great question. Stop signs in residential areas we give a great deal of latitude, because we at this time, do not have a lot of other traffic calming solutions to offer to our residents. We do signing, obviously, and striping and in a lot of cases and if those don't work, we don't have a lot of, you know next tier kind of solutions. Stop signs traditionally are not very effective at speed control and we always counsel neighbors don't expect a lot from this, it might help a little, it will not be a c-change in behavior of the motorist and you will get some negative consequences in the form of breaking in acceleration noises at all hours of the day and potentially a bit of exhaust fumes where there were none before. So we counsel them that this is all we have other than the signs and the striping to offer you, don't expect a lot and if they do opt to do it, and submit a petition to the traffic safety committee it will receive consideration. >> does it ever happen where you take a stop sign out years after you put one in, people say this is not what we thought? >> very rarely. I can't think of a residential circumstances where that has been done a few major streets where we have overtime grown out of stop sign control and either opted to remove stop sign or replace with it a traffic signal. >> you know, I'm not going to fall on my sword f nobody else has any objections I'm willing to support this. I do think, you know, we need to do something to slow the traffic down city-wide, in my opinion. I don't know w at the answer is%-`to that, but I just -- %-`I'm -- I just want to be %-`cautious hat this is, you know,%-`a ybody who wants a stop sign is %-`g ing o get a stop s gn whether %-`it ill have the desired effect %-`or not. %-`unless anybody has foy%-`quest ons. %-`p>> do I have one other qu st on.%-`in conjunct on with he proposal%-`to put in the stop sign, are the%-`no access going to be -- %-`what is the oint there? %-`will they be removed or %-`relocated on the same post as %-`t e stop sign?%-`p>> move the ex sting sign j %-`prior to this inter section and%-`I think we are also going to put%-`one bac all the way out at %-`r ley street.%-`that was the original loc tion %-`that we had the sign was like %-`right when you turn off of %-`riley.%-`r sidents says I is too far%-`away peop e are ot %-`u dersta ding -- %-`p>> is there a pr blem with %-`put ing them in both locations? %-`p>> that is what we are going to %-`d .%-`p>> I would tend to agree, people %-`are not payi g, there are sign %-`all over the area where there is %-`tree work in progr ss and people %-`were doing 60 miles an our %-`peo le are not payi g attention%-`to something that coul be a%-`problem I front of them let%-`alone informational sign about%-`something th t ha pens two right%-`turns away.%-`p>> think roger had a question.%-`p>> I appreciate vice-mayor's%-`comments we need to slow down %-`t affic in folsom.%-`at what point are we ooking at %-`mitigations to oad tool box. %-`we spoke about spee bumps and %-`how the city May e testing%-`t ose for this area stop sign is %-`needed. %-`and so I would agree with the %-`vote that was given. %-`in yo r point when a e we %-`l oking t other -- %-`p>> it is this winter.%-`t ey found our recent %-`dis ussions about the current%-`city olicy on speed umps %-`we wi l visit again our traffic%-`c lming guidelines b lieve they %-`are 15 years all. %-`cer ainly good opportunity o%-`revisit those policies.%-`and to incorpor te new practice %-`features hat are being%-`I plemen ed in other agencies.%-`so we will recon ider not only%-`things ike sp ed bumps but %-`perhaps we can also stab ish a%-`more defined olicy for%-`residential stop signs.%-`p>> ok y. %-`so with that move adoption of %-`res lu ion 10346. %-`p>> econd. %-`p>> motion and second call the%-`roll please.%-`p>> ouncil member kozlowski. %-`p>> yes. %-`p>> aq ino. %-`p>> yes. g ylord. %-`p> yes.%-`p>> and howell.%-`p>> yes. %-`p> okay mark speed li its my %-`question is, if I'm%-`u de standing this c rrectly, %-`and based on wha you're %-`recom ending, if I'm traveling%-`d wn east bidwell and starting %-`at the middle school and he ding %-`toward highway 50, go through%-`3 -mile per hour zone, then %-`4 -m le per hour zone and%-`45-mile per hour zone you mu t%-`be more ptimistic than I am %-`about the attentiveness of %-`d ivers. %-`[ Te hnical difficulties ]%-`p>> the central business %-`d strict, so everything from.,, on east bids with well from riley to blue ravine came in at consistent 35 miles per hour [Technical fficulties] >> so that is what mark is talking about, travel speeds at certain sections along east bidwell same situation along natomas street, 35 miles an hour until you get up to prison road and then past there and then to 45. >> right so what we are trying to find is optimal uniform traffic flow on given stretch of road and certainly everything recognizes that travel flows through the east central business district than it does past the college. And so, you know, 35-mile per hour through central business distrit makes a lot of sense and supported by the data and so is 45-mile per hour that we are recommending that we maintain on the southern section. The only part is one in the middle that you're referring to, short stretch of 40-mile per hour from blue ravine to woodsmoke. Basically through from blue ravine creekside woodsmoke and then the road widens out at this point and clearly a higher speed stretch of road. 40-mile per hour, if you look at in it the other direction, when your coming from highway 50, we see that a good transition from 45, getting people down to 40 miles per hour, which see to be what they are driving based on the survey, and again getting them used to going slower, so that they better the central business district slower -- >> and I think other important thing to point out is has to do with frequency of driveways which means people are exiting roadway and entering roadway, probably a driveway every 150 feet from blue ravine to middle school, that is not the case if you are going south toward the freeway. >> right. Because you are going past that shopping center on the one side and then the senior care facility on the other and then hitting some undeveloped area on the railroad track. Looking back at the survey itself for that particular stretch, 85th percentile landed on 45 miles per hour. My recommendation based on the findings of the survey is you could eight justify going down to 40 miles per hour or leave it at 45. And both would be valid and enforceable. >> okay. >> do we have other questions or remarks? >> you said those are the two actions you could take from based upon the data? >> based upon the data I could make two recommendations. 85th is right on 45, leave it right there and recommend the adoption of 45-mile speed limit which is what is posted today. >> right now it is going from 35 to 45? >> right now you talking about the change, recommended change in speed limit? >> no, what is it as we, if I were driving down the street 35 miles an hour from middle school to blue ravine? >> well, yes -- >> and then it goes from 35 at the blue ravine 45 then from there to freeway? >> correct. I did note there is no sign 45-mile an hour speed limit sign posted in the southerly direction. You know, the highway 50 bound direction but there was one posted between woodsmoke and creekside in the northbound direction. >> given the volume of traffic close to my home, given the volume of traffic that I see between blue ravine and woodsmoke and given traffic in and out of creekside, that shopping center where pete's coffee is, I personally would prefer to see it as 40. >> that is why I asked you to say that agree that 40 would be a nice smooth buffer from 35 in to 40 and give it a gradual speed increase. But still keep it, you know, somewhat slower. Slow people down somewhere. The other thing on this, I just wanted to give you guys credit for the work you are doing. Last time we talked about these things with 85th percentile and mentioned signage and visibility of folks crossing in cross walks and all of the stuff you guys are taken into consideration in doing. i appreciate it. Seeing it everywhere. >> and I will ditto that, I just want everybody to understand this is nothing new. This is what public works and folks in our traffic engineering group do all the time. Every year. Just like they always have. >> what is knew about it is the color -- (Inaudible) Blue ravine next to economy and bright colors it is new and dynamic and visually appealing and see what is going on it is great. I would propose that we put it at 40. >> I think are you making a motion to support staff report? >> correct. >> second? >> recommendation for 40-mile per hour speed limit that is 8 a change from existing speed limit ones we are addressing with consent item are the maintaining of the speed limits of 35-mile per hour from columbo to blue ravine 45 from woodsmoke to highway 50 and address other two in public hearing. >> that gap is in 8 a? >> correct. >> okay. Motion and second call roll please. >> council member kozlowski. >> yes. >> aquino. >> yes. >> gaylord. >> yes. >> and howell why. >> yes. >> 8 a, ordinance 1295, an uncodified ordinance adopting prima facia speed limits on east bidwell street introduction and first reading. >> get me again very brief since we covered a great deal of the relevant information. So we are in midst of a city-wide speed limit update last time we did comprehensive update of speed limits was in 2009/2010, state law requires that we update speed limits periodically. And really 10 years is the maximum before the traffic courts won't consider survey valid anymore and will not allow radar enforcement speed limits here we are again. We started process back in March, recall that you approved maintaining speed limits on blue ravine road and on iron point road back on March 26th. This evening. We just went ahead and approved the speed limits on folsom boulevard and on those two sections of east bidwell treat. Item before street. >> this item now is one from riley to cologna, discovered we never adopted speed limit before and survey conducted and establishing 35-mile per hour zone on that short section of east bidwell. And then the other section from blue ravine to woodsmoke which we just discused we are recommending 40-mile per hour zone. >> mark, on from on east bidwell from riley to coloma, is there any portion of that that is posted or signed or signaled so that it is 25 miles opinion hour when children are present? >> off the top of my head, I don't know. I think it is. i think we have -- >> it should be in front of the school? >> absolutely. We used to have that mid-block crosswalk there. I'm fairly certain that we have a school zone, 25-mile an hour when children are present out there. >> could you look at that. That should go up maybe to the end of that or halfway up from where the bank is? >> I think we can do -- >> by the cross walk there? >> up to 500 to 600 feet away from edge of the campus. >> guessing that is about what that is. >> definitely look at it. >> okay. >> the surveys that you see in blue will be considered by the traffic safety committee later this week. And then whatever the recommendations from the committee at that time we will bring them forward you to, probably in I don't know if we make November meeting probably in December. And then there are several other minor arterial and collector streets like golf links drive, glen drive, that we will bring you to after holidays. And then the streets south of highway 50 which are currently in -- under construction, some of them are being widened. And green valley road currently under construction and widening, deferring those for the time being, once the work is done on those streets we will go out to do a survey and come back to you with recommended speed limits. >> I agree with that entirely. I don't want to see those surveys until the work is done. >> that is all I have for you. If you have any questions about the two sections of east bidwell street happy to answer them and I do have copies of the radar surveys if you would like to see any of the data. >> any questions? >> searate question outside of this with regards to the stop sign analytics or stop lights analytics you put in, in (Inaudible) Is that something that is a software deploy on all of the streets as well if they have the newer intersection set-up? >> yes. What we are -- we are in the process of updating all of our traffic signal controllers, city-wide and probably about 20 to 25% through the process. Those new controllers give us a lot more flexibility for manipulating the flow of traffic, while incorporating video detection which is what gives us the opportunity to detect the traffic at certain distance and adjust it to however we see fit to affect the traffic flow instead of putting the loops in the pavement and having to cut new loops at a different location, try to change the speed. What we are doing on empire ranch road is rest in red scenario, instead of defaulting back the green on mainline and allowing people to flow through, resting in red, unless you are approaching at or below speed limit in which days light turns green as you get there, going too fast before the light turns green and you have to pump your brakes. Very successful I think on empire ranch road data seems to indicate we have really curbed speeding out there. So we could certainly roll that out on different arterials. >> love to to see that. >> you have been work ig on that for a long time. I got a phone call last week from a woman who lives somewhere off east natoma and wanted to thank public works folks and police department for increased enforcement. She believed that her observation was that it had reduced speeds along the road. Do we have a motion. >> move ordinance -- >> public hearing item? >> no request to speak anybody that wants to talk to us about this? Seeing no one running down to podium -- >> move we approve ordinance number 1295 as presented. >> second. >> motion and second call roll. >> technically introducing. >> okay. Motion introduce council member kozlowski. >> yes. >> aquino. >> yes. >> gaylord. >> yes. >> and howell. >> yes. >> good evening mayor howell, council members my dame is daniel wolf engineer at community development ordinance amending the flood damage prevention ordinance in city of folsom municipal code. Give you background on this, city we had a community assistant visit with state department of water resources. To review our implementation of the current flood damage prevention ordinance. Also there on behalf of fema and purpose of the meeting was to verify that the city is meeting minimum requirements of the national flood insurance program so that we can continue to have flood insurance for our businesses and our residents. During the meeting we discussed past and current issues involving the special area known as 100 year floodplain. City builds out north of 50 find ourselves with development encroaching special and special to flood area so we take all requests seriously making sure that we are keeping business and residents above 100 year flood point. So during our meeting we -- sorry, other than the city being commended for our implementation of the current ordinance, department of water resources recommended that rerevise language associated with various types of notification on state and federal level. Not in response to any probably issue that we have, they wanted to make sure that our ordinance was consistent with the state model floodplain management ordinance. So the number of things we have to talked about or were updating ordinance are with letters of (Inaudible) Go to fema notify communities when they are impacted by analysis or development, near a floodway, and that is essentially it. Here to answer questions. >> any question is how often is fema updating floodplain maps? >> I think (Inaudible) Talk about that with more detail but currently a couple of programs moving forward to actually analyze specific portions of the floodway and get better data on them, we can revise base blood elevations in those areas, have a more accurate map on where the floodplain would be in 100 year storm event. >> yeah, so to answer your question, we have been undertaking revision for the flood maps since I believe 2015, within a long process in the home stretch right now, it is in for review to fema and fema's plan checkers. Going back and forth with some of their technical intricacies that they have with our modeling and that sort of thing. So we will probably be having the open houses releasing the draft maps in early spring. Our timeline right now and that is where -- >> is that information being updated in accordance with whatever the more recent storm data has been as many of us know that pay attention to such things, that 100 year storm is not -- is far more frequent than it used to be. >> intensities have definitely increasd. Not sure what the model is, that they are running, I know it is at least up to 2016. And we have had major events since then. But historically, those are outliers and you know, fema will probably say yes you are going through a series of these more intense storms but -- you know, we can only do what they tell us to do. >> I know -- it is kind of -- it is almost similar situation to operation of the dam. >> yes. >> when there is better technology available to have better analysis of the data, you know, don't wait 50 years before you start using the new data. >> on that very point some of the modeling was incorporating new and improved light r data and modeling techniques and they did not want to approve those they wanted to go back the way they did them and we had to unwind analysis and do that. >> something we should maybe talk about offline. Information that perhaps we talk to our federal representatives for that. That is one of the ways that we got the bureau to take a better look at what they were doing in terms of predicting weather, relative to lake levels. >> any other questions? >> follow-up question to your comment are you suggesting that we independently update what 100 year flood is? >> no what I'm talking about is that we have data. You know, and the question I was asking dave is how old is the data. The last time fema looked at it and if we know that we are getting higher rain intensities, more frequently, that actually changes what the definition of 100 year flood is. >> I understand completely. >> and they are not wanting to update the mechanisms which they get that data what I was talking about. >> critiquing their decision not suggesting did that we -- (Inaudible). >> I'm suggesting that we talk to federal representatives about getting fema to use the technology that is currently available. >> got you. Thank you. >> move to introduce ordinance 1296. >> second. >> open public hearing. Guess there is not a lost engineers who want to talk about (Inaudible) We need more geeks at council meetings. Introduction, second? >> second. >> call roll. >> council member kozlowski. >> yes. >> aquino. >> yes. >> gaylord. >> yes. >> and howell. >> yes gentleman and take that moves us to item 9 a in your business resolution 10350. Resolution of city council ratifying city manager authorization for emergency repair to landslide behind the folsom zoo sanctuary and award contracto westcon construction corporation determining that the project is expeople from ceqa and appropriation of funds for emergency repairs. >> good evening Madam Mayor and council member, brad nelson senior park planner for the city. what I have before you tonight is emergency repair to landslide behind the folsom zoo sanctuary. Just a way of orienting yourselves the city hall is down here on the bottom. Rodeo arena is here. Johnny cash trail is along here. And this is the robbers ravine bridge over here, recently finished zoo barnyard experience is here and location of landslide is right basically between just outside of the fence of the barnyard experience and the inbetween that and the robbers ravine bridge. In the winter of 2018/2019 severe landslide back here. And the parks and recreation staff meeting with the public works department and the environmental water resources department and we have determined that this is an emergency situation that needs to be taken care of prior to the upcoming rainy season. We did take aerial images out there to give you a better feel and some close-up pictures of where it is. This is the barn up here. This is the location of the landslide itself. And the sewer access road is along here and this curving road or walkway up here is path up to barnyard experience. Between 2016 and 2018 there was three fairly large construction projects which were all occurring in this area. First of which was in 2016, was the upgrade of the sewer line which is along this access road here. And that sewer line starts up at the restroom building at the entrance to the zoo and fisher's bistro snack shack there and feeds through zoo, animal exhibits and continues along the road here. Put in place prior to construction of the barn so that there would be no disruption with that. Barn sewer facilities also drain into that sewer line. Parks and recreation staff in conjunction with the public works department and the environmental water resources department, determined that this is an emergency situation. If it is not repaired prior to that upcoming rainy season, we could have a fairly catastrophic failure down there. One of them being the potential failure of the sewer line through there which would mean a sewer spill into the regulated wetlands below and/or losing part of assets of the roadways there. This is another aerial view. This is robbers ravine bridge here, this is the location of the sewer. So you can see how it is flatter over here and then gets fairly steep here. This is looking aerially down. Access road here. Permanent fence for the zoo is here. There is a vehicular gate there and then the permanent fence along here we had to go in and install a temporary fence so that nobody would access this area here. Environmental water resources placed the generator on the other side of there and you can see there is a live flat hose here should there be some sort of emergency situation until we get this repaired and this is the slide here. So again you can see how it is a bit flatter on both sides and fairly severe slope in here. This is from the ground looking up. This is pretty telling photo here. The road is up here and you can see daylight through where that fence is and where the road is so this is fairly pretty much a vertical drop-off there. We talked to multiple engineering firms, geo technical engineers, civil engineers, hawked to nb 5 geo technical engineers and talked to westcon construction. Westcon construction finished did johnny cash trail, they did robbers ravine bridge and recently finished the oak parkway undercrossing under the boulevard, we are familiar with all of these firms. (Inaudible) Form as team and they provided us a design bid why from youngdahl and Mckay and somps cost was 66,500 for survey, 309,000 for the, internal engineer estimates for construction, 28,500 for additional design work, engineering and testing that was not included in youngdahl's proposal makes for total project construction cost of 404,000. This approach is a little takes longer to do it because you have to prepare design and then out to bid and then have the construction so we -- that would put construction timeline in January, February of next year which to us is a bit too far out. The other proposal we received from westcon and h&k, nv-5 and they provided design build proposal. Design build approach is preferred when there is funding issues, timing and/or site constraints, all of which we have in this project. Westcon committed to 35 working day project completion period. They also gave us a guaranteed maximum price of 341,672. We are -- that is the total project cost. Due to the nature of this being an emergency project and potential unknowns we are including contingency of 85,000, that would be for city-directed additions, changes or modifications which are outside of westcon's scope. >> it gets us to a bit more than the previous number except it gets done faster. >> right below the previous number. It is less. >> if you include 85,000, wasn't it 404? >> so 404 plus 28,000. >> okay. >> or 23,750. >> so -- we are at -- >> basically same number. >> very, very close. Westcon number is slightly lower and timeframe is more to our liking. Funding sources for this. 0% or 241,672 from general fund, $100,000, 30% from waste water operating fund and that was based on what we felt was proportionate share for replacement of the sewer line should it need to be, if you had that as stand alone project then 85,000 contingency for work outside of the scope of westcon's project from the general fund. So this is all through the folsom municipal code which is the emergency procurement procedure which allows city manager to make emergency procurements when there is exist threat to public health which would be potential sewer line failure. Wellfare of the zoo animals eliminating or not having that access road if there was an emergency we would have a much longer time accessing animals in the zoo sanctuary and then basic safety to workers and to the public that are up on the roads and the trails around the zoo. So recommendation, parks and recreation department recommends that city council pass and adopt resolution number 10350 a resolution of city council ratifying city manager's authorization for emergency repair to landslide behind folm zoo sanctuary and award of contract to westcon construction corporation determining the project is exempt from ceqa and appropriation of funds for emergen repairs. >> I have a question for you. >>,. >> iave no problem with doing this design build, I like faster timeline I frankly wish we were under construction with this, is somebody from nv 5 going to stamp drawings? >> they are and also be on site daily or every other day to monitor drilling and all of the construction work. >> okay. I already talked to lorraine about this briefly. and I guess you guys have already told them that you don't want that to be a wooden retaining wall I agree entirely. You will be lucky to get 20 years out of it. The only request I would make is get nv 5 # to do soil testing a couple of samples so they can determine the nature of that soil with regard to corrosion and that May lead to the application of the coding on the backside of the steel lagging. >> they did if you see in that picture, so, this was -- this is actually a gentleman from (Inaudible) Nv 5 and they were doing preliminary investigations, dark soil here is the copper hills volcanic soil. >> right. >> that is what they are hoping or they feel fairly confident that that exists all along this slope. That is what they encountered digging up the aye buttments for the robbers ravine bridge. >> that is probably what contributed to the slide in the first place, but what I'm talking about is there is a suite of corrosion tests they should be doing, dictate what coating if any should be put on the soil side of the back of that wall. >> okay. >> two quick things in situations like this where time is determined to be of the essence, do we normally as a matter of course include liquidated damages in this type of contract and are there any in this one? >> if I May answer that question council member, Madam Mayor, we always do. >> thanks very much. And to city manager thank you for bringing this to us, even though you could have taken action. >> as I explained, thank you coucil member kozlowski had is under my authority in an emergency situation do the work, but given the scope and the cost of this one, we wanted to make sure we had all of our details nailed down and mke sure you are aware of the hit to the general fund it is significant. But important. >> okay. Any other questions? Motion? >> (Inaudible). >> pardon. >> do you have a (Inaudible). >> do I have what? >> a comment card? >> no I do not. >> oka I move to adopt resolution 10350. >> second. >> motion second call roll. >> council member kozlowski. >> yes. >> aquino. >> yes. >> gaylord. >> yes. >> and howell. >> yes. >> move to new business, update and that is for workshops related to tree preservation ordinance. >> good evening mayor, members of the council, amy, city arborist in folsom work in community development department. And I with like the thank you for allowing me this opportunity to present to you this informational workshop on where we stand with this effort in updating tree preservations ordinance. So as you might recall, pam johns the community development director gave an introductory presentation to you back in April laying out background of this effort. To reiterate our current ordinance for tree protection is 25 years old now. The intent and purpose behind that ordinance was adopted with fantastic intent. It is because of this ordinance that we can boast 13 years of designated tree city usa, something that we are very proud of here in folsom. In the last couple of decades there have been some gap an ambiguities and challenges that users and staff have come across with implementation and enforcement of the ordinance. Just to give you idea of our project's time line, as I mentioned pam johns gave that introductory kickoff presentation back in April. Shortly thereafter we conducted stakeholder interviews and hosted a community workshop to garner initial comments and feedbacks from user and community members as far as challenges that they have encountered with the current ordinance and changes that they would like to see. Taking their comments and then some comparative analysis that we have our consultants conduct, we have amassed that information and put it forward in a draft for public review, released last week. The public review period is going to be 30 days. And we are very much looking forward to receiving comments and feedback on this draft. We have poured a lot of man hours into coming through this ordinance. But as I'm sure that you all know, checking our own work can sometimes than dangerous. Don't expects we got it 100% right this first time and so at the end of the day, we want to make sure that we are receiving feedback that we are asking for from the communities because this is not my ordinance, this is not the community development department's ordinance. This is the city of folsom's tree ordinance and so we want to make sure that the document that we publish is representative of our community. After November 15th public review period closes we will take comments we have received, review those comments, make appropriate changes and hopefully have a document to present to you for action in December. So quick summary of the changes that we are proposing, the staff report packets that you received have a bit more detail than this, but these are the key changes that we feel are important to highlight tonight. Those changes involve some updated definitions, examining and clarifying regulated activity and introducing findings for tree permits. Introduction of tree protection and litigation plan when work needs to be do machine the tree protection zone of projected trees. Looking into some proposed modifications to mitigation tables and then also clarification and modifications of tree planting and replacement fund. So these are a couple of definitions that we are hoping to expand upon, first one being with a protected tree is, our current ordinance protects native oak trees and landmark trees and street trees. We are proposing to incorporate parking lot shading trees and trees required as condition of approval to be protected. But what we are finding is that trees that are required as part of the zoning code, aka parking lot shading trees that are planted to provide shade over certain timeframe are getting topped and removed and not replaced. By incorporating them as protected tree we can help better ensure that we are shading parking lots and help to (Inaudible) Urban high land effect touched upon in 2035 general plan update. Additionally we have amended the definition of tree protection zone to incorporate and consider diameter of a tree, in addition to strip line and better protect trees with a different shaped canopy versus a vase shaped canopy. One of the biggest changes we are proposing in ordinance update and change we are hoping to garner some feedback on is hour proposed expansion of the definition of the heritage tree. Existing ordinance defines heritagetree as native oak with diameter 19-inches or greater. There is no other mention of heritage tree in the ordinance. and because native oak tree is already protected at 6-inches, the definition of heritage tree as it currently stands holds no functionality. During our community outreach we did receive some voiced feedback for desire to protect native oak trees and also to protect those monument large trees in historic folsom. So our proposal taking those comments into consideration is to expand definition of heritage tree to incorporate all trees over 30 inches in die am meter with the excepti of some of these species. , these invasive species. Second key change is clarification of regulated activity and introduction of required findings in order to get tree permit. Our current ordinance does not offer a lot of guidance when it comes to what qualifies the tree for removal and this has caused some confusion amongst users and staff alike. Updated ordinance proposes the incorporation of findings that applicant would have to meet to get their tree permit. Additionally ordinance update would outline regulated activity whereas the current ordinance is a little nebulous on that matter. Standards when it comes to work around trees and implementation or requirement for tree protection and mitigation plan. That plan is not a new concept current ordinance calls for tree preservation plan however current ordinance basically says to stay out of tree protection zone and offers little guidance when developnt has to encroach into tree protection zone protected trees and that is often a scenario that we teal with. Tree protection and mitigation plan would incorporate best management practices in accordance with industry standards and also require involvement of project arborist to monitor trees during development to ensure that those trees survive and remain healthy throughout the duration of that project and in longevity. One of the larger changes that we are also proposing in this update is to amend how we tabulate our mitigation fees. Our current ordinance has a somewhat unique categorical system when it comes to tabulating mitigation fees and during our comparative analysis we discovered that our required replacement planting numbers are actually substantially higher compared to our neighbors in the region. Additionally our current ordinance has language that allows for somewhat of a loophole if a builder wants to place their or their building over existing trees. Right now our ordinance allows for mitigation of $100 per tree or a single 15-gallon replacement tree if you place your building over a mature protected tree. Regardless of the size of that tree. So in our updated ordinance, we are proposing to align ourselves more with our neighbors in the region and base mitigation rates directly with the size and the number of trees being removed on the site. to be more fair, for example, with our current categorical system, someone who wants to remove 10-6-inch trees has the same mitigation requirement as someone who wants to remove 10-10-inch trees even though there is a 40-inch difference in removals. Going to inch replacement for inch removed ratio would be a more fair mitigation requirement. Additionally rather than the $100 or single tree replacement for trees removed that fall within the building footprints we are proposing instead mitigation reduction 60% for residential properties and also the introduction of a tree preservation credit system. So this tree credit approach is a new concept at city staff still fleshing out. This is another item that we are hoping to receive some feedback on. From the community. So this shows two scenarios. For someone wanting to build house on a lot. Idea behind the tree preservation credits is to encourage strategic designs to allow for tree preservation. And in scenario a we are trying to debate whether only trees within the buildable envelope should qualify for those preservation credits or in a situation like scenario b if all trees on site being developed should count towards those credits. In scenario a applicant will have a much more robust tree protection and mitigation plan just because of the nature of building near trees. in scenario b that applicant would not have nearly as many requirements for preserving those trees. And talking about project arborist, probably monitoring, making sure that root severance is happening in accordance with industry standards and other robust practices to reduce those construction impacts. For key change number 5 I'm going to let pam johns my director chime in. >> just briefly I want to remind city council in 1995, when the tree preservation ordinance was adopted it was done in advance of any mitigation fee resolution and so the tree preservation ordinance includes language in ordinance about that fund and subsequent resolution that was anticipated. It was also clarified in 2006 with an amendment and what we are proposing to do in this current update is to once again clarify how those funds would be spent and when we come back to you, in hopefully December we would also be bringing foord recommendation that you consider amendment to the fee. While amy talked moments ago about the change to way we are calculating the fee know that cost per inch of replacement that we charge now which is 94 does not cover mitigation cost which we know regionally to be closer to $325. Bring information back to you at subsequent state to give you more information about that and provide a recommendation about whether that is something that we should be increasing. In the meantime, I want to point out that the minor changes that we made are in response to things like a general plan that clarifies that we will be preparing an urban forestry plan and so that fund now anticipates the preparation and implementation of an urban forestry plan. It identifies that the commuity development department is responsible for the management of that fund and more transparent for the range of things that could be used for, so rather an construction of bike trail it would be for planting of trees along bike trail. And it is that simple. Turn it back over to amy. >> now I just wanted to point out a few common scenarios that acted as inspiration for a lot of these proposed updates. So scenario is unfortunately something that I get to deal with on a somewhat common basis a tree on a development lot as you can see tree protection fencing is down and tree pro section zone itself is woefully small. Soil come exact shun happened from vehicular access and this tree we anticipate is in order going to thrive in the next decade. Current ordinance has very limited guidance on how to reconcile the need for construction in accordance with allowances of the zoning code, with trees on-site. The proposed update acknowledges the reality and incorporates those standards I spoke of earlier. With the implementation of the tree protection and mitigation plan that would have been project arborist on the site and certificates of compliance that would need to have been submitted to the city at various points throughout the project from that arborist attesting that the tree protection plan was being executed. Scenario two, touches more on that tree protection and mitigation plan. Another function of this proposed tree protection and mitigation plan would be during entitlement process for development applications. Right now the city arborist and tree considerations often come later in to development process east, long after lot lines have been agreed upon and approved. In the proposed updates a tree protection and mitigation plan would be a required part of the entitlement application trees would be mapped out and dead designated for preservation or removal for development. We had a subdivision for this concept in del lago they took existing trees into consideration when lang out lot lines. As a result the tree plan was put together, trees designated to be preserved in perpetuity and others chosen strategically for removal based on their condition and the need for development. What this did was promote more thoughtful site design by requiring trees to be considered earlier on in the process. Additionally, a bonus feature to this product is residents who purchase these lots have certainty on what trees they can remove for their development and what needs to be preserved and this would help to expedite tree permit process when they are ready to build. This is another scenario that happens more often than we would like. This is an actual submittal from an applicant who wanted to build house on lot with trees. His initial proposal showed the house critically impacting six trees. The initial mitigation for this proposal was either 122 replacement trees or $9,000. But with that loophole that I spoke of earlier, the 100-dollar mitigation fee for trees that fall within footprint of this house applicant resubmitted plans and rather than moving the house back to save the trees moved the house forward and this does not show very well, these were the as-builts. But this person moved the house forward to be able to remove the trees for cheaper cost rather than spend more money to move the house back and work work around trees. With this proposed update and the incorporation of needing to meet findings, city staff would have support to tell applicant that they needed to move the house back to preserve tree goes additionally rather than paying $100 in mitigation for trees being removed. 50%, 50% reduction but they would also get tree preservation credits to help further encourage moving that house back and preserving those trees. And rather than what ended up happening, which was a house on lot devoid of trees, in this scenario we could potentially end up with a house on lot with mature trees, trees planted on the lot and situation where tree preservation is encouraged over tree removal. Scenario 4, another item that we are proposing to implement if the update is a concept reasonable alternative measures which would act reich pinier deviation take could be removed at staff level. If the sen ferio applicant wants to build a pool and proposal critically impacts a tree. If the current ordnance this resident would have to choose between the pool or preserving the tree. With this concept of reasonable alternative measures which would align with the zoning code update once we get to that point, the city May allow some minor deviations and setbacks of the property to allow that pool to encroach slightly and possibly save that tree. So scenario applicant would get their pool and their tree. And then final scenario, scenario 5 touching back on the parking lot shading tree issue that I touched on earlier. Picture taken in folsom on commercial property and tree has been topped. And this is definitely not something we like to see. It is a very poor arboral practice and reduces life expectancy of trees and increases likelihood of branch failure later on in the tree life. Current ordinance is silent on parking lot shading trees unless it is ordered to ensure trees reach full potential and pry shade have to be devived from other indirect language in other parts of the code. In this updated ordinance proposing to include parking lot shading trees as projected trees, subject to provisions of other protected trees removals and pruning ensure that res are replaced when they are removed and have shaded parking lots, battling that urban heat island affect and being conducive to the character of the city of folsom. As I mentioned before, we are in the public review draft period. Closes November 15th, the community can send their comments in writing via email and after that period is closed, we will take those comments in to consideration and do our home work make revisions and again have hopefully a document to present before you in December. And that concludes my presentation. >> do you have any questions of from staff? Sarah? >> thank you. Amy very thorough presentation. Honestly this will take me a while to digest. I guess what I'm trying to figure out is striking balance between preserving trees which I think everybody wants to do and respecting private property rights. And I think kind of my general philosophy as far as government is the same as parenting, have as few rules as possible and enforce them absolutely. I read through a lost stuff, talking about protected trees within 121/2 feet of a street. So that is a residential tree, right in a lost cases. I mean, I read through this stuff I think how would somebody know if you pruned it without a tree permit? How would they know if you replaced your walkway and you impeded on the whatever that sir couple ferrens thing is you are talking about. How do you know? How would somebody -- how do you now? How do you enforce it? It seems -- >> well to your first point about striking balance constant conversation having internally. As I mentioned first draft is our attempt at reconciling comments that we have received and coming up with a solution to those concerns. This public review process is everyone's opportunity to weigh in and if we need to scale back we will certainly do so. To your second point as far as how someone knows, that is something we can do a better job of President We do have information on our website and we are hopefully going to be able to elicit resources of sacramento tree foundation to create materials for education and outreach to communities as far as value of trees and putting trees in to under canopy neighborhoods and that would be another opportunity to relay those regulations. But as far as street tree comments that you made, that is a carryover from the original ordinance. >> yes, I realize that. But I guess in terms of I'm talking about how will people know, talking about your department. You have got a list of prohibited activities. And how do you know that somebody has done something that prohibited in ordinance and how do you enforce it? >> there is a whole code enforcement division, often times complaints come in and those instances it is often complaint based. Usually we become aware of certain situations when someone is applying for a building permit of some sort and we are able to capture it that way and educate the applicants ahead of time to head off any damage that could happen to trees and make sure that they are aware of any sort of provisions that they need to abide by in order to protect their tree. >> okay. >> I think my experience because tree ordinance I think was passed I think it went to the planning commission when I was on the planning commission before I came to council. You would be surprised at how often people will turn in their neighbors. If you live in a neighborhood that was constructed with street trees, everybody has one. And if somebody goes in and takes their street tree out without putting something else in, one of those neighbors is going to be upset about that. And chances are they will call in. And so that is one of the things that happens and frankly that May be happening more often now than it used to because of all of the people trying to reduce the amount of irrigation they have to use for landscaping, particularly in the front of their house. I know three houses on flower that have done that in my neighborhood. Those are some of the things that happen. And I think that to carry that further, because of changes in state law about how landscaping has to be done, in order conserve water there is a lot of pressure not to install or plant traditional street trees that most of the subdivisions have and when you have somebody, that was an egregious example of moving custom built house further to make sure they eliminate all of the trees, but if we can get to a point where people are paying a bit more attention I don't think, tore situation that happened in, at (Inaudible) They went in and topped all of the trees that will kill all of the trees and property owner's comment was our tenant signs were not visible enough. I don't know do people make emergency last minute spur of the minute trips to sprout? I would not think so that is a bad excuse for why they thought it was okay to top those trees. I for one would like to ensure that landowners can not do that and if they do, you know, that treetopping was called in by someone that is a personal friend of both you and I, probably within hours of when it happened. But I would like to see that landowner because of change in ordinance be held responsible you can't do that and if you do it, you will be replacing those trees. We approved project with that landscape plan. Supposed to be 30, 35 trees, whatever the number is in that parking lot, they go in and top them all, the trees die and then there is none. >> as I mentioned, we did deal with that using indirect language from other parts of the code so being able to point to the tree preservatin ordinance and have the trees protected, would it have given staff a bit more support in order make action happen more quickly when that happens. >> yes. So, you know, again, I think that I'm convinced that there are a number of other tweaks that need to be made. I would like to be as up front and vocal as we possibly can to get the people that are interested in this sort of thing aware that they have got until November 15 toth comment. And that we pay very close attention to those comments and look at the unintended consequences of incorp rating them or not incorporating them. Do you have more technical questions? Any questions down there? >> I shared a couple of comments with the staff for benefit of the council. Section 12, 16-150 I think we can recognize that there are limited situations where the other design professionals that are working on construction project could prepare a tree protection plan, if there is work contemplated in a tree protection zone and I suggested that and then in section 12.16.18 with regard to landmark designations the numbering system that gave the options for how a tree becomes landmark, was a little bit and probably not accurate enough. I made those suggestions. Otherwise great work. >> thank you. Like I said proofreading your own work is dangerous. And we appreciate you bringing those up to us. >> thanks very much and see you back later in the year. >> thank you. >> and with that we will move onto city manager reports. >> good evening everyone. If you are a utility rate payer in city of folsom. >> apologize. I did have two people that wnted to speak kevin and then (Inaudible). >> so thank you mayor how well and council members for opportunity to speak on this item. Like to raise that not all tree species are made alike general plan reflects that. Natural and cultural resources policy 1.1.4 encourages the use of native vegetation in new developments. And along those lines a couple of points for your consideration. The first would be to keep heritage trees limited to native oaks or at least to native trees. Rather than expanding them to include any trees. Or any trees on the city's tree master list. On that point a bit of -- I had a bit of confusion in the staff report I read the proposed ordinance I saw that the definition of heritage tree was going to be changed or was proposed to be changed to be a tree on the city's tree master list over 30-inches. Where I believe the presentation said it would be any tree. And that would be in excess of 30-inches. Remind council that existing code defines heritage tree as native oak tree over 19-inches in diameter. My recommendation to limit the definition of heritage trees to native oak trees or if not that, to other trees native to sacramento valley. Scenario where a tree not consistent with our cultural or natural heritage being protected in the same way that a heritage oak would be protected would create some silly situations -- >> I think if you talk to staff there are some examples of trees that should be protected that are not oak trees. >> consideration into that. Certainly avoiding the situation as broad as any tree I think there could be some narrowing down there. The other point on tree master list not substantive but instead just refocusing, to encourage use of heritage trees on tree maps. Currently, many of the trees th are native to the sacramento valley are included on that list, within the list, but because the list is sorted, by scientific names, it does not provide any direction or does not encourage them. Redesigning the list say to have those native trees towards the top of the list, you know, pick aid part, in order to encourage I think could be one way for us to continue to showcase natural heritage. >> thank you protected trees on their property. We need to let them know if they're dead or dying or an imminent threat, there's a way to deal with them quickly. Definitely support encouraging retention of existing trees over the fees, allowing flexibility on the individual parcel is definite a a step in the right direction. I think preserve as many existing trees as possible3 is definitely the preferred method. And also we've definitely see the instances the shade trees in parking lots haven't been taken care of. I think adding them is a great step forward as part so the other thing, the reduced mitigation in the billable footprint of residential lots, I didn't see where it would apply to commercial properties. I'd think we'd apply similar standards to residential and cmercial properties. Probably ought to include that. Anything else being built in the city. >> I think the difference in a that one is the commercial stuff typicaly will go to the planning commission, and on residenti stuff -- on custom stuff you won't see it at all. In subdivision stuff, you may not be looking at detail. Is basically dealt with in the, in fact, it goes to the planning commission. >> and that's ty. I think I'd clarify and have it consistent in our ordnance. So it's very clear. Other thing that came up for me is appeals for a tree work permit just not utine are not allowed at all. Appeals for removal come to th commission. I think everything should be able to be appealed. If somebody disagrees with a% decision by a staff member or the city arborist, they should have the ability to come appeal for the tree work permit and the last thing is seemed like a little thing missed, I maybe in the mitigation section, removal of street trees on residential properties under a half acre but not about removal of street trees on anything over a half acre. I'm okay with that. But for most people, it probably should just say you know, removal of street trees on residential properties or somehow handle the others out there. >> I suspect the issue on is that there's probably very few subdivisions that were built on greater than half-acrlots and the whole street tree thing typically comes in when building a subdivision. >> I say that because I'm on a house right now. It's great I can take out my street tree but the other folks May be a little dsappointed. >> you know you have a ridiculously large lot. That's a very unusual circumstance. >>