Folsom City Council
January 25, 2022

01/25/2022 Item No.4.

B. Physical Setting
The 134.6-acre Project site is located west of east of Empire Ranch Road, north of White Rock Road in the FPASP. The site features hilly terrain with native grasses and trees.

The aerial below shows the Russell Ranch boundary shown in red and the Project boundary shown in red cross hatch.

FIGURE 2: AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH
t I rr r" r!
rl , " i ''ltt r l,'
i:--: , ,, 'ri ' ',
l-I "", I r,
dt
t-t,.,,. ..,,
EZA t...,:'t 'r
r l,: ,.
i,,: l"r,:1,
,t.

01/25/2022 Item No.4.

ATTACHMENT 2

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A. APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL
The Project site is 134.6 acres located in the Russell Ranch area on the east side of the FPASP. The Applicant's proposal is a request to remove 208 active adult designated lots that were previously approved with the maps and convert the units to conventional (non- age restricted) lots. The Russell Ranch Lots 24 through 32 entitlements, approved in 2018, designated active adult units in response to a lack of this housing product type in the FPASP at the time. However, the Toll Brothers at Folsom Ranch Phase 1 Small Lot Tentative Subdivision map has since been approved and includes 590 active-adult homesites. ln addition, the proposed Toll Brothers at Folsom Ranch Phase 2 tentative subdivision proposes another 329 active-adult homesites for a total of 919 active-adult units. The Toll Brothers gated community, private recreation amenities, and dog parks, presents market challenges for the Russell Ranch active-adult development that the Applicant feels, result in an over-saturated active-adult housing market. Therefore, the Project proposes to remove the active-adult restrictions and amend the entitlements to provide for traditional lots.

This proposal covers Villages 1, 2 and 4, of the previously approved Phase 2 Russell Ranch subdivision and includes 208 units out of the 389 units located within the subdivision. The entire land use summary for this phase is shown in Table 1 below (Villages 3 and 5 are shaded below and are not proposed for any changes).

TABLE 1: LAND USE SUMMARY
Village Zoning/ Land
Use
Gross
Acres
Net
Acres
Units Density
1 SFHD
Single-Family
Hiqh Density

6.8 6.5 33 5.1
2 SFHD 17.3 17.1 79 4.6
3 SFHD 15.8 11.8 63 5.3
4 SFHD 1 7 1 14.6 96 6.6
5 MLD
Multi-Family Low
Density

12.4 11.4 118 9.5
A SFHD
Private
Recreation

2.1 1.9

01/25/2022 Item No.4.

B Public/Quasi
Public
1 1
c Open Space
(Measure W)

12.9 11.7
D Open Space
(Measure W)

14.8 13.6
E Open Space
(Measure W)

9.1 8.4
F Open Space
(Measure W)

1.3 0.9
G Open Space
(Measure W)

3.2 3.0
H Open Space 2.0 1.7
Open Space 1.9 1.4
Private Park
(Lot 5a)
MLD 0.0 1.0
Landscape Varies 0.0 11.7
Riqht of Way Roads 17.8 17.8
Total 134.6 134.6 389
Active adult uses typically generate fewer persons per household as shown in Table 2 TABLE 2: COMPARISION OF POPUI-ATION
While there would be no change in proposed residential units or density, the anticipated population would increase by 191 persons.

Land Use Zoning Population
per
Household
Units Population
Single Family
High Density
Age Restricted

SP-SFHD
4-7 dulac

2.OO 208 416
Single Family
High Density
No Age
Restriction
SP.SFHD
4-7 dulac

2.92 208 607
Population
lncrease
+191

01/25/2022 Item No.4.

A. Large LotVesting Tentative Subdivision Map Amendment An amendment to the approved Large Lot Tentative Subdivision Map is requested to remove "active adult" from the map. The use would allow conventional residential (non- age restricted). A copy of the Large Lot Vesting Tentative Map can be found as Attachment 4.

B. Small LotVesting Tentative Subdivision Map
An amendment to the approved Small Lot Tentative Subdivision Map is requested to remove "active adult" from the map. The proposed use would allow conventional residential (non-age restricted) and would not change the overall unit count. A copy of the Small Lot Tentative Subdivision Map can be found as Attachment 5.

G. Russell Ranch Design Guideline Amendment
As shown in Attachment 6, the Applicant is proposing changes to the Design Guidelines to make it consistent with the elimination of active adult uses by eliminating reference to active adult uses. The proposed changes are shown in red-line, strike-out.

Originally Russell Ranch included two community centers; one for the entire community and one to serve the active adult portion. The active adult proposal included a gated community with a two-acre parcel with a proposed community center/recreation center.

However, now that the active adult uses are no longer proposed, the neighborhood would be conventional (no gates, no private community center and streets would be publicly maintained).

According to the Applicant, the location where the Active Adult community center would have been located (Lot A) will include passive recreation amenities open to the entire (Russell Ranch) community. A description of this is included as Attachment 12. The proposal includes covered shade picnic structure(s), bench seating, large open turf area for passive play like kite flying, picnics, and small group field games. lt would also include tables and barbecue for dining, a drinking fountain, and possible game tables.

D. Design Review
The Project includes the construction of 208 single family homes. Village 1 and 2 would have average lot sizes of 50'x 105'and Village 4 would have average lots sizes of 55'x 90'. The Project features nine floor plans, ranging from 1,991 to 3,312 square feet in size with a mix of two types of single-story homes and seven two-story homes as shown in Attachment 8.

01/25/2022 Item No.4.

The Applicant's submittal proposes six architectural styles which are described as follows Spanish Ectectic roof elements are primarily hip with some gable elements - primary wall materials are stucco with board and batten and brick veneer accents. Windows are primarily rectangular with some shutter accents and some arch accent windows. Additional detail may include tubular steel pot shelves.

Catifornia Prairie roof forms are all hip. Primary wall materials are stucco, horizontal siding and stone veneer accents. Windows may be grouped or individual and occasionally placed asymmetrically or at corners.

California Coftage - Roof forms are primarily steeper gable with some hip roof elements. Primary wall materials are stucco with board and batten and brick veneer accents. Front gables may include detail at the top of the gable. Windows are primarily rectangular with some shutter accents.

Roofs are a lower hip on hip design with flat concrete roof tiles.

Spanrsh Colonia Revivalroof forms are primarily gable with some hip roof elements and S-tile roofs. Primary wall material stucco. Front gables may include accents such as scallop details. Exposed rafter tails occur along front elevations. Windows are primarily rectangular with shutter accents and some signature primary windows. Additional details may include gable ends and tubular steel pot shelves.

California Wine roof forms are primarily gable. Primary wall materials are stucco with shingle siding and stone veneer accents. Windows are primarily rectangular individualor in groups. Additional detail may include standing seam metal roof at porch.

Transitional Bungalow roof forms are primarily gable. Primary wall materials are stucco with shingle siding and stone veneer accents.

Windows are primarily rectangular individual or in groups. Additional details include tapered columns at porch, board and batten in gable and braced shed roof elements.

Example illustrations of the architectural styles and floor plans are shown in Figures 4-21 below. The first set of elevations are for the Village 4 Lots 34-149 referred to by the Applicant as the Silver Knoll neighborhood which, based on the small lot size includes all two-story homes. The second set of elevations include both one and two-story homes in Villages 1 and 2 and include Lots 1-33 and 133-208 in an area the Applicant is referring to as the Sterling Hills neighborhood.

All floor plans include a bedroom on the first floor.
o
o
o
a
a
a

01/25/2022 Item No.4.

PLAN 1 I SPANISH ECLECTIC
PLAN 5 I CALIFORNIA PRAIRIE
'xHry\l
s c{rfoenAPEr,*t
FIGURE 3: SILVER KNOLL PLAN 1 ELEVATIONS
PLAN 3 I cALtFoRNtA PRA|R|E PLAN 4 I CALIFoRNIA CoTTAGE 'A'tFAarBH ecltcnc
'A'tP Mli(crfcrc ircrufotailAFturfig
PLAN 2 I SPANISH ECLECTIC
tlltfl'oR r-E+{S
flT
fr
0F*. .t{r*.,
€ c^utomr^coll^Gt
*ts*,r*-dirn LrE
'c'c^tro*nA colr^of
PrArl l l23O7 l
flOx: ELlVAllOalt

01/25/2022 Item No.4.
oFl. DECI
FIGURE 4: SILVER KNOLL PLAN 1 FLOOR PLANS
JECONOfIOOT Pta aFSl rtc|or PtAx
FrAN 1 123071 "A'
a lEOCOOtlr., EArH. OFI DECr
q*,
t1
t_l-"
O ()
ililtltlllllllll
a:

01/25/2022 Item No.4.

FIGURE 5: SILVER KNOLL PLAN 2 ELEVATIONS
'A t}alo{ [O.lCnC
PIAN 2 |'2.69 ,
tFor{l !LevalloNS
'A"r?Aillt{CClfClE't'Cr\Ltolf{ PXrlnE
rl
fr
ExlEftot r11Hr
wcruciH^con^ct
FFIFI*!1
1rc rFfir{^Pl^*.
-r--*trb-r'...ir.
c cArfcnr{A colr^cE

01/25/2022 Item No.4.

FIGURE 6: SILVER KNOLL PLAN 2 FLOOR PLANS
ofl. Decr
O
l4
8ffiffi
Sstrrn i'"r5\0=I &J
lECStDrt@rPL N ftRSt ft6R Pt N
Drc(
P LAH 2 (2.691 'A"
a tEotooM. I 5 tAtF tolt. oPl

01/25/2022 Item No.4.

FIGURE 7: SILVER KNOLL PLAN 3 ELEVATIONS
tn$roft lrBHlS
#l
-A:l'At{rtFECUCIE -r C^UlOntr }ilff.
fr
-c. clrtfc}.l^conAc€
€r,ts !**r
'A'trAi6H [Cttclc
PLAN 3 l27OtlfrO{l tl,tvAtlOtil
Ch r- .{4+ !
'trc llofra^ Pl.Alrll 'c. cllrottr^ cot l^ca
JT
,'I
J t_

01/25/2022 Item No.4.

FIGURE 8: SILVER KNOLL PLAN 3 FLOOR PLAN
,-d'!?e.
fJ ttcono tlooR PL N tlf,ll tLSf, Frrril
D€C(
PLAN 3 l2/0.1'A'. ltoRoorl. S 5l^'ri. totl. oPtoPl. oEcl o
,E
Y
&m'S
'&LJD

01/25/2022 Item No.4.

FIGURE 9: PLAN 4 SILVER KNOLL PLAN 4 ELEVATIONS
€rl* 1M.tut
"'tPAraFfclEclt
?cAlt*N 9Mnc 'cc^lrqiltAcdr^ft
PrAH r (280.1
ttoxl ElevAltoH3
Efltxn LEflll
#3
"lPlt{HECtECtE TCAufOln{Ali mE
fr
c cALFQrr{ACOrITEE
|'F..F.ll

01/25/2022 Item No.4.
oPr. oBcx
FIGURE 10: SILVER KNOLL PLAN 4 FLOOR PLAN
sEcotiofl.sl PtAH Hl5l RMT PIAN
PLAN r (28011 ',A"
3 0EOftOOr' .0Aln, Iofr oPt DEct
o
.)€+igS
e\u&

ELELCLCI
ffiiEtr]-l
tr
i
.&$&

01/25/2022 Item No.4.

FIGURE 11: PLAN 5 SILVER KNOLL ELEVATIONS
-'!i;-
'f,l'AtaHEctEclt
'f, tPArsH€cr[gm ? cAllFoRllA ll,iliE
f cAur€trncort^cl
-.@!-*-HF
'trc^lrorHocon^B8
}EFT:M
qfimr uBHll
fll
fr
t CxlRNilAPTAfiE
PrAN 3 (2ta8l
Fto^a? !tEvAilot t
l- l
l'|lll
iF

01/25/2022 Item No.4.

FIGURE 12: SILVER KNOLL PLAN 5 FLOOR PLAN
-Er-tL
Ln"I
FTl
:l
ttcoxo r root tLAt{ l*ilfr.oorPuN
FIAN 5 l2e6al'A'
4 !eolooll ! I tAlH, hfr(l Gel{ rotl oPl Dtc(
E-IF|L JIQ ! .ll4: i:!lt*ri. rr...ar.
*- ilfl
orr- t*cx FFF-
il
flmB

01/25/2022 Item No.4.

FIGURE 13: STIRLING HILLS CONCEPTUAL STREET SCENE
pt^t I I tpAxdHcOtOr{AlttvtvAl pLAt{i ICAtO{llt^wthf hr^-f llRA{yltOnAr&$lGArO"l IL H{llPAlillHc('tL)tllAtLtvrv^l FIGURE 14: STIRLING HILLS PLAN 1
htllfitd. tljH$r.rv ffi11i*Y
tfr
tPAl.lsts cOLoflt.L
It ttvAl t cALrotHlA sflt
c
c- mbr*r^r lLbrc^tofv
t- cAlrf ffMA nil{
,",,u,
mffi,
'a lPAM&ts COtCl\lrAr R€sg^l.

FLAN lil.99ll
-';r{ffi&ffi:
c nrr6rrrorr^{ 0uNoaow

01/25/2022 Item No.4.

FIGURE 15: STIRLING HILLS FLOOR PLAN 1

FLOOR PLAN
PLAN I {1991 "A")
3 BEDROOM, 2 5 BAlH. OFFICE
Itc
!
ru€
oof-r.frc
lj-
t-f
l-"t
o
ml
--m
f
b
t
AE

01/25/2022 Item No.4.

FIGURE 16: STIRLING HILLS PLAN 2
.A! SFA|{C{ Ccr'oaalr tEtllrtl
Flla$rcot$HntIEl/n,A
.T CAIFCFNIA WDIE
d
frfr
TfllbeLGH6
gllAl]lllq.^l llrcrtoYr
drF-
?CJrlfOlrAYilE
.A-tr

01/25/2022 Item No.4.

FIGURE 17: STIRLING HILLS FLOOR PLAN 2

FLOOR PLAN
PLAN 2 (2162 "A")
4 BEDROOM, 2.5 BATH
oO
OR)n
)frtol
t
otd
ND'
I
I
It t

01/25/2022 Item No.4.

FIGURE 18: STIRLING HILLS PLAN 3
Lltn0*LljltR
tfr
A tP^rst{ co{o+{l^L
ftLrtvAL
t taulo{rHt^ wl.l
il
€ rrlDotol{ l suHgAlorY
'A lPrABH COtOt{il rEvlvAt
-.!"{ffi;iS "'e$'4ffilrFs
r c^Unfnr/\ wtilE t' rg^r$nlf,nrAl guH6,llcil

01/25/2022 Item No.4.

FIGURE 19: STIRLING HILLS FLOOR PI-AN 3

OPI, DECK

SECOND FLOOR PLAN FIRSI FTOOR PIAN
DECK
PLAN 3 (3028 "A")
5 BEDROOM,3 BAIH, LOfI, OP'
s@
il q:+
1an€l'
O

01/25/2022 Item No.4.

FIGURE 20: STIRLING HILLS PLAN 4
"/{ SPAtEft CO(Ot{tA! CEVIVAt
SPANSh COr,o|lBtlf.vwAt-
't' c^iltc{Nl^ $,[{t
c' IrA{sllx)NAt brFiGAt Qtr
t'fr
il
€rEflcf tGhls
'c' rFAunoal.^L iutJc}{ow
I cAtroFNlA r{Nt
PrAN 4 (33r21
Feohl ELEVArlohj
i. ,-,1_ !
i
,iil
r --1
ii
*t
".6d$'rd Ut"fit6 fliaE
.dfl &

01/25/2022 Item No.4.
}T. DECK
FIGURE 21: STIRLING HILLS FLOOR PLAN 4
PLAN 4 {s3r2 "A"}
3 5 8ArH. LOFL SUIIE

SECOND FLOOR PLAN
4 BEDROOM

FIRST FLOOR PLAN

OPT DECK
r-"i &r=S
63b
ffi
LI
/-\\J
"L-l
f

01/25/2022 Item No.4.

The Applicant has added a note to the design set that indicates that options other than turf would be allowed in the front yard in order to reduce water use.

FIGURE 22: CONGEPTUAL FRONT YARD LANDSCAPING
d6E.reD@lGdtaEu6(t
ri: J
!lrt6 tt*f r

01/25/2022 Item No.4.

E. Development Agreement Amendment
A Development Agreement (DA) Amendment is proposed to include the recent entitlements including reference to the General Plan, specific plan, financing plan, intent of the Design Guidelines and reference to supplemental environmental review.

Nothing else would be changed or eliminated.

F. Street Names
When the project was proposed as an active adult community, it was proposed to be gated and the streets were proposed to be privately maintained. lt is now proposed that the gates would be eliminated, and the streets would be publicly maintained. The original subdivision approval included private street names including:
. Pleasant Hill Lane
. Via Rancho Lane
o Harvest Gate Lane
. Sky Garden Lane
r Silent Grove Lane
o Via Verona Drive
. Garden Terrace Lane
o Brooks Loop
Now that these roads would be public, "Lane" and "Loop" need to be revised to "Way" and "Drive" and "Circle" consistent with the city's street name nomenclature.

01/25/2022 Item No.4.

ATTACHMENT 3

ANALYSIS
The following sections provide an analysis of the Applicant's proposal. Staffs analysis addresses the following:

A. Large Lot Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map amendment B. Small Lot Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map amendment C. Design Guideline Amendment
D. Design Review
E. Development Agreement Amendment
F. Street Names Amendment
G. Traffic/Access/Circulation
H. Conformance with Relevant Folsom General Plan Folsom Plan Area Specific Plan Objectives and Policies
l. Environmental Review
A. Large Lot Vesting Tentative Map Subdivision Amendment The proposed change to the approved Large Lot Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map is minor and would remove the reference to "active adult". No boundary changes are proposed, and staff supports this minor change.

B. Small Lot Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map Amendment The proposed change to the approved Small Lot Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map is minor and would remove the reference to "active adult". No boundary changes are proposed, and the unit count would remain the same. As analyzed below, the change in type of unit, does slightly increase the projected population of the neighborhood, but does not result in a significant impact not previously analyzed in the Russell Ranch ElR. Staff supports this minor change.

G. Design Guideline Amendment
As shown in Attachment 7, the proposed changes to the Russell Ranch Design Guidelines include revisions to Chapter 4 in Section 4.5 starting on page77, to eliminate the reference to active adult uses, eliminates the description of a second community center and updates the chapter numbering. The elimination of the active adult use and community center from the guidelines does not change the overall vision of the Design Guidelines. In fact, the project area was originally approved without an active adult use.

Staff supports this change.

01/25/2022 Item No.4.

D. Design Review
Villages 1, 2 and 4 are zoned Single Family High Density (SP-SFHD). The proposed subdivision conforms to the development standards established by the FPASP for the SP-SFHD land use category including minimum lot size, maximum lot coverage, and setbacks, as shown in Table 4. No deviations from the standards are proposed.

Table 4: SP-SFHD Single-Family High-Density Development Standards Development Standard Reouirement Proposed Proiect
Minimum Lot Size 4,000 4.000
Front Porch Setback 12.5 Feet 12.5 Feet
Front Primary Structure Setback 15 Feet 15 Feet
Front Garaqe Setback 20 Feet 20 Feet
Side Yard Setbacks 5 FeeUS Feet 5 FeeUS Feet
Rear Yard Setback 10 Feet 10 Feet
Maximum Lot Coveraqe 50% 50o/o
Proposed Residential Desiqns
The Project is located within the eastern portion of the Folsom Plan Area;thus, it is subject to the Russell Ranch Design Guidelines. The Design Guidelines are a complementary document to the Folsom Plan Area Specific Plan and the Folsom Plan Area Specific Plan Community Guidelines.

The following are the general architectural principles intended to guide the design of the Russell Ranch, to ensure quality development:
. Embrace understated elegance.
. Create thresholds: destinations, and experience
. Celebrate California's rich heritage: fresh, unique, and local o Reflect the natural beauty of the site and its surroundings . Carful consider transition feathering of refine edges to natural open space . Deliver a lifestyle of health, wellness, fitness, activity and outdoor living in a fam ily-oriented environment.
. Celebrate hillside living through unparalleled views and carefully designed slopes creating meaningful open spaces.

01/25/2022 Item No.4.

The proposed subdivision maps and proposed residential designs are consistent with these goals.

The Design Guidelines require that specific homes within a subdivision that meet the definition of an "edge condition" lot are required to incorporate enhanced four-sided architectural details.

The Applicant has provided enhanced architectural features on the homes that are visible from street or open space views including additional windows and enhanced window details, siding details and materials (see Attachment 8, Residential Design Set).

Landscaping
Acknowledging the Planning Commission's concern regarding turf in front yard landscaping and a desire for draught tolerant landscaping to reduce water use, Condition No. 42 has been amended to prohibit front yard turf. Further, it indicates that the Russell Ranch Design Guidelines shall be modified to prohibit turf in front yards for Lots 24-32 subdivisions. Currently the Russell Ranch Design Guidelines do not prohibit turf, but they also do not expressly permit turf. This change would clarify the expectation that no turf may be installed in the front yards of residences in the remaining subdivisions requiring Design Review. However, it should be noted that Village 3 within the subdivision has already received Design Review approval that allowed turf, so Village 3 would not be subject to this condition.

In evaluating the proposed project, staff also took into consideration building and design elements that could be considered unique to the Folsom Plan Area. Staff has determined that the proposed architectural styles and master plans do include many unique building and design elements and are consistent with the Russell Ranch Design Guidelines.

Based on this analysis, statf forwards the following design recommendations to the Commission for consideration :

1. This approval is for one and two-story homes in six architectural styles with 12 color and material options. The Applicant shall submit building plans that comply with this approval and the attached building elevations dated November 16,2021.

2. The design, materials, and colors of the single-family residential units shall be consistent with the approved building elevations, materials samples, and color schemes to the satisfaction of the Community Development Department.

3. The Community Development Department shall approve the individual lot permits to assure no duplication or repetition of the same house, same roofline, same elevation style, side-by-side, or across the street from each other.

4. Decorative light fixtures, consistent with the Design Guidelines and unique to each architectural design theme, shall be added to the front elevation of each Master Plan to the satisfaction of the Community Development Department.

01/25/2022 Item No.4.

5. A minimum of one street tree shall be planted in the front yard of each residential lot within the subdivision. A minimum of two trees are required along the street- side of all corner lots. All front yard irrigation and landscaping shall be installed prior to a Building Permit Final.

These recommendations listed above are included in the conditions of approval presented for consideration by the Planning Commission (Condition No. 59).

E. Development Agreement Amendment
The proposed DA amendment is minor and does not make substantive changes to the agreement. lt simply acknowledges changes since the DA was adopted.

F. Street Names Amendment
The proposed street names were reviewed by emergency services personnel, and staff determined that the street names as well as the change from "Loop" and "Lane" to "Way, Drive and Circle" would not conflict. Therefore, it is recommended that the street names be approved for use in the Project:
. Pleasant HillWay
. Via Rancho Way
. Harvest Gate Way
. Sky Garden Way
. Silent Grove Drive
o Via Verona Drive
. Garden Terrace Drive
o Brooks Circle
G. Traffic/Access/Circulation
Primary access to the SLVSTM portion of the Project would be from Empire Ranch Road and White Rock Road.

Fehr and Peers prepared an Access Evaluation (November 16,2021, Attachment 9) to evaluate access and circulation-related impacts associated with the proposed Project.

The evaluation primarily looked at the change in trip generation of the Project converting the age restrict uses to conventional lots.

The proposed Project would result in an increase in population and therefore, result in 59 new a.m. peak trips and 79 p.m. peak trips. While this is an increase, the increase was determined to not result in a significant impact.

01/25/2022 Item No.4.

The analysis also looked at the cumulative condition. Traffic is expected to increase at the intersection of White Rock Road and Empire Ranch Road with or without the Project.

The analysis determined that the left turn pocket will need to extend from 250-feet to 400- feet in the future (Figure 23). This is a regional improvement that is needed and is not a specific obligation of this project. The Joint Powers Authority will extend the turn pocket when they construct the ultimate alignment of the Southeast Connector in the future. The Project will pay their fair share obligation through fees paid at the Building Permit stage.

The FPASP established a series of plans and policies for the circulation system within the entire Plan Area. The FPASP circulation system was designed with a sustainable community focus on the movement of people and provides mobility alternatives such as walking, cycling, carpooling, and viable forms of public transportation in addition to vehicular circulation. The circulation plan evaluated regional travel, both in terms of connectivity and capacity and local internal connections and access. The circulation plan also addressed the concerns of regional traffic, including parallel capacity to U.S.

Highway 50, and connectivity with surrounding jurisdictions while considering community- wide connectivity, alternative modes of travel, and the provision of complete streets.

FIGURE 23: FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS TO WHITE ROCK ROAD AND EMPIRE

RANCH ROAD INTERSECTION
I
,}
)
+
1 '.f
i
I'
t
i'
.r.t:.' : .
\\'.'n -i>----':
tI
I
-*-P-{....
,Ei
__1.""---
I :'::-,,'*'
The 2011 Folsom Plan Area Specific Plan Environmental lmpact Report/Environmental lmpact Statement included not only a detailed analysis of traffic-related impacts within the Plan Area, but also an evaluation of traffic-related impacts on the surrounding communities. There are fifty-four (54)traffic-related mitigation measures associated with development of the FPASP which are included as conditions of approval for the Russell #

01/25/2022 Item No.4.

Ranch Subdivision Project. Many of these mitigation measures are expected to reduce traffic impacts. Included among the mitigation measures are requirements to: fund and construct roadway improvements within the Plan Area, pay a fair-share contribution for construction of improvements north of U.S. Highway 50, participate in the City's Transportation System Management Fee Program, and Participate in the U.S. Highway 50 Corridor Transportation Management Association. The Russell Ranch Subdivision Project is subject to all traffic-related mitigation measures required by the 2011 FPASP EIRYEIS.

H. Gonformance with Relevant General Plan and Folsom Plan Area Specific Plan Objectives and Policies
The following is a summary analysis of the Project's consistency with the Folsom General Plan and key policies of the FPASP.

GP and SP OBJECTIVE H-1 (Housing)
To provide an adequate supply of suitable sites for the development of a range of housing types to meet the housing needs of all segments of the population.

GP and SP POLICY H-1.1
The City shall ensure that sufficient land is designated and zoned in a range of residential densities to accommodate the City's regional share of housing.

Analvsis: The City provides residential lands at a variety of residential densities as specified in the General Plan and in the Folsom Municipal Code. The FPASP includes specialized zoning (Specific Plan Designations) that are customized to the Plan Area as adopted in2011 and as amended overtime. The FPASP provides residential lands in a range of densities.

The Russell Ranch Lots 24-32 Subdivision Project SLVTSM is consistent with the density range for the SFHD (4 to 7 units per acre) designation.

SP POLICY 4.1
Create pedestrian-oriented neighborhoods using a grid system of streets where feasible, sidewalks, bike paths and trails. Residential neighborhoods shall be linked, where appropriate, to encourage pedestrian and bicycle travel.

Analysis: The Russell Ranch Lols 24-32 Subdivision Project proposes traditional single-family neighborhoods with a system of local streets provided with sidewalks.

Biking and walking will be accommodated within the Project and Class I trails, and on-street Class ll and Class lll bicycle lanes will connect nearby neighborhoods, parks, schools, with Class I bicycle trails.

SP POLICY 4.4
Provide a variety of housing opportunities for residents to participate in the home- ownership market.

01/25/2022 Item No.4.

Analysis: The FPASP provides home ownership opportunities within multiple single family and multiple-family land use designated areas. Residential development in the MLD (Multi-Family Low Density), MMD (Multi-Family Medium Density), MHD (Multi-Family High Density) and MU (Mixed-Use) land use categories may provide 'for rent' opportunities; however, home ownership may also be accommodated in 'for sale' condos, townhomes, etc. at the time of development.

The Russell Ranch Lots 24-32 Subdivision Project is consistent with this policy in that it will provide detached single family home ownership opportunities within the SFHD designation. The Project provides housing supply in the City of Folsom, proximate to schools, park, trails, commercial services and other amenities that serve residents.

SP POLtcY 4.6
As established by the FPASP, the total number of dwelling units for the Plan Area shall not exceed 11,461. The number of units within individual land use parcels may vary, so long as the number of units falls within the allowable density range for a particular land use designation.

Analvsis: There have been several Specific Plan Amendments approved by the City Council which have increased residentially zoned land and a decreased commercially zoned land in the FPASP. As a result, the number of residential units within the Plan Area increased from 10,210 to 11,461. The various Specific Plan Amendment ElRs and Addenda analyzed impacts from the conversion of the commercial lands to residential lands; impacts and associated mitigations measures can be found in the individual project-specific environmentaldocuments.

The increase in population was analyzed and can be accommodated in the excess capacity of the school sites provided in the Plan Area.

The proposed Project does not result in any change in total dwelling units in the FPASP. The Project proposes to change the units from age-restricted to conventional residential units among parcels within the Project boundary, but the overall unit allocation will remain the same. The change in unit type will not exceed the allowable density for the parcels.

The Proposed project would result in an increase in population that would result in an increase in water use of 83-acre feet per year. The environmental analysis determined that this increase is consistent with what was originally analyzed in the FPASP EIR/EIS and adequate water supply is available to serve the site. In addition, as a condition of the Project (Condition No. ) no front yard turf will be allowed, in order to reduce water usage.

01/25/2022 Item No.4.

SP POLICY 7.1
The roadway network in the Plan Area shall be organized in a grid-like pattern of streets and blocks, except where topography and natural features make it infeasible, for the majority of the Plan Area in orderto create neighborhoods that encourage walking, biking, public transit, and other alternative modes of transportation.

Analysis: Consistent with the requirements of the California Complete Streets Act, the FPASP identified and planned for hierarchy of connect "complete streets" to ensure that pedestrian, bike, bus, and automobile modes are travel are designed to have direct and continuous connections throughout the Plan Area. Every option, from regional connector roadways to arterial and local streets, has been carefully planned and designed. Recent California legislation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (AB 32 and SB 375) has resulted in an increased market demand for public transit and housing located closer to service needs and employment centers. ln response to these changes, the FPASP includes a regional transit corridorthat will provide public transportation links between the major commercial, public, and multi-family residential land uses in the Plan Area.

The Russell Ranch Lols 24-32 Project has been designed with multiple modes of transportation options (vehicles, bicycle, walking, access to transit and a Class I trail) and an internal street pattern consistent with the approved FPASP circulation plan.
sP POLICY 4.9 (PARKS)
Subdivisions of 200 dwellings units or more not immediately adjacent to a neighborhood or community park are encouraged to develop one or more local parks as needed to provide convenient resident access to children's plan areas, picnic areas and unprogrammed open turf area. lf provided, these local parks shall be maintained by a landscape and lighting district or homeowner's association and shall not receive or provide substitute park land dedication credit for parks required by the FPASP.

Analysis: The Project is consistent with this policy. Lot A will be developed with private park amenities which will provide passive park opportunities within the neighborhood. The proposed Project will not result in Quimby Act requirements to provide additional park land since the overall parks in the FPASP were determined as part of the total units approved by the Specific Plan. Parks and Recreation staff have reviewed and supports the proposed private park amenities.

01/25/2022 Item No.4.
l. Environmental Review
Ascent Environmental Consultants prepared an Addendum to the Folsom Plan Area Specific Plan EIR/EIS dated November 16,2021 and found in Attachment No. 8 The City certified the FPASP EIR/EIS on June 28,2011. Several addendums and subsequent environmental documents have been approved since 2011. The FPASP was updated in 2018 to include all the various approved plan amendments and mapping modifications made since the first approval in 2011. As amended, the FPASP provides for additional residential development, up to a total of 11,461 housing units.

Although the proposed Project would result in a population increase from what was approved in 2018, the population for the Russell Ranch development overall would remain less than what was originally approved when the FPASP was adopted.

Due to the additional discretionary review required for the requested entitlements; and the change in residential unit types and population from the previously approved development, the Project was evaluated for potential new or different impacts in compliance with Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(b), if changes to a project or its circumstances occur or new information becomes available after adoption of a negative declaration, the lead agency shall prepare a subsequent EIR if required due to new information, new significant effects, or substantially more adverse impacts. Otherwise, the lead agency shall determine whether to prepare a subsequent negative declaration, an addendum, or no further documentation. The population is consistent with the assumptions in the original ElR.

Although the project would not result in changes to the type of development or number of residential dwelling units, implementation of the project would convert planned age- restricted active adult units to traditional units, thereby increasing the projected population at the project site from 829 persons to 1,020 persons (+191). The increase in population would result in an increase in water demand at the site from the amount previously analyzed in the Russell Ranch EIR and the Russell Ranch Lots 24-32 Environmental Checklist and Addendum. The water supply agreement for the FPASP area provides an overall cap of 5,600 acre-feet per year. As of May 2021, total water demand for the entire FPASP is 5,485 acre-feet per year. As such, the 83 acre-feet per year increase in water demand would not exceed water supply for the FPASP, and thus, would not result in any new or substantially more sever impacts.

Based on the analysis, the impacts of the Project are determined to be adequately addressed by the FPASP EIR/EIS, the Russell Ranch ElR, and the Russell Ranch Lots 24-32 Environmental Checklist and Addendum. No new impacts as a result of the Project have been identified and Staff has determined that an Addendum is appropriate to document no additional impacts.

01/25/2022 Item No.4.

RECOMMENDATION/PLAN NI NG COMMISSION ACTION
Move to recommend that the City Council:
a Approve the CEQA Addendum documenting that the Project including a Large Lot Tentative Subdivision Map amendment, Small Lot Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map amendment, Design Review, Development Agreement Amendment and Street Name amendment to convert 208 age restricted units to conventional units does not result in any new impacts not already identified in the Environmental lmpact ReporUEnvironmental lmpact Statement for the Folsom South of U.S.

Highway 50 Specific Plan Project (FPASP EIR/EIS) (State Clearinghouse No. 2008092051) and the Russell Ranch Project Environmental lmpact Report (Russell Ranch EIR) (State Clearinghouse No. 2014062018).

These approvals are subject to the proposed findings below (Findings A-X) and the recommended Large Lot Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map (Conditions 1-14) and the Small Lot Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map conditions of approval (Conditions 1-66) attached to this report (Attachment 4).

GENERAL FINDINGS
A. NOTICE OF HEARING HAS BEEN GIVEN AT THE TIME AND IN THE MANNER REQUIRED BY STATE LAW AND CITY CODE.

B. THE PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN, AND THE FOLSOM PLAN AREA SPECIFIC PLAN.

CEQA FINDINGS
C. THE CITY, AS LEAD AGENCY, PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED AN ENVIRONMENTAL

IMPACT REPORT/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE FOLSOM souTH oF u.s. HtcHWAy 50 spEctFrc PLAN PRoJECT (FPASP ElRvElS) (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2008092051) AND THE RUSSELL RANCH PRoJECT ENVTRONMENTAL TMPACT REPORT (RUSSELL RANCH EIR) (STATE CLEARTNGHOUSE NO. 201406201 8).

D. THE CITY HAS DETERMINED THAT THE IMPACTS OF THE RUSSELL RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT LOTS 24-32 ARE ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED BY THE

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. HIGHWAY 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT (FPASP EIR/EIS) AND THE RUSSELL RANCH PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL

IMPACT REPORT (RUSSELL RANCH EIR) AND AN ADDENDUM TO THE FPASP

EIRYEIS AND RUSSELL RANCH EIR IS APPROPRIATE TO DOCUMENT NO NEW

SIGNFIICANT IMPACTS CONSISTENT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF CEQA PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 15164.

01/25/2022 Item No.4.

E. NONE OF THE EVENTS SPECIFIED IN SECTION 21166 OF THE PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE OR SECTION 15162 OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES HAVE OCCURRED.

F. THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS CONSIDERED THE ADDENDUM WITH THE

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. HIGHWAY 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT (FPASP EIR/EIS) AND THE RUSSELL RANCH PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL tMpAcT REPORT (RUSSELL RANCH ErR) PRIOR TO MAKING A DECTSTON ON THIS PROJECT.

AMENDED LARGE LOT VESTING TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FINDINGS G. THE PROPOSED LARGE-LOT VESTING TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP IS

CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY'S SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AND THE

SUBDIVISION MAP ACT IN THAT THE PROJECT IS SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS

OF APPROVAL THAT WILL ENSURE THAT THE PROJECT IS DEVELOPED IN COMPLIANCE WITH CITY STANDARDS.

AMENDED SMALL LOT VESTING TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FINDINGS H. THE PROPOSED SMALL.LOT VESTING TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP IS

CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY'S SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AND THE

SUBDIVISION MAP ACT IN THAT THE PROJECT IS SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS

OF APPROVAL THAT WILL ENSURE THAT THE PROJECT IS DEVELOPED IN COMPLIANCE WITH CITY STANDARDS.

THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION, TOGETHER WITH THE PROVISIONS FOR ITS

DESIGN AND IMPROVEMENT, IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN, THE

FOLSOM PLAN AREA SPECIFIC PLAN, AND ALL APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THE FOLSOM MUNICIPAL CODE.

J. THE SITE IS PHYSICALLY SUITABLE FOR THE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED.

K. THE SITE IS PHYSICALLY SUITABLE FOR THE PROPOSED DENSIry OF THE DEVELOPMENT.

L. AS CONDITIONED, THE DESIGN OF THE SMALL.LOT VESTING TENTATIVE SUBDIVIS]ON MAP AND THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ARE NOT LIKELY TO

CAUSE SUBSTANTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE OR SUBSTANTIALLY AND AVOIDABLY INJURE FISH OR WILDLIFE OR THEIR HABITAT.

M. AS CONDITIONED, THE DESIGN OF THE SMALL.LOT VESTING TENTATIVE

SUBDIVISION MAP AND THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ARE NOT LIKELY TO CAUSE SERIOUS PUBLIC HEALTH OR SAFETY PROBLEMS.

01/25/2022 Item No.4.

N. THE DESIGN OF THE SMALL.LOT VESTING TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP AND

THE TYPE OF IMPROVEMENTS WILL NOT CONFLICT WITH EASEMENTS FOR

ACCESS THROUGH OR USE OF PROPERTY WITHIN THE PROPOSED
SUBDIVISION.

DESIGN REVIEW FINDINGS
O. THE PROJECT IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE GENERAL PLAN,

THE FOLSOM PLAN AREA SPECIFIC PLAN, AND THE APPLICABLE ZONING ORDINANCES.

P. THE PROJECT IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE RUSSELL RANCH DESIGN

GUIDELINES, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE DESIGN GUIDELINE PROPOSED FOR AMENDMENT AS A PART OF THIS APPLICATION.

Q. THE BUILDING MATERIALS, TEXTURES, AND COLORS OF THE PROJECT WILL

BE COMPATIBLE WITH SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT AND CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL DESIGN THEME OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

AMENDED RUSSELL RANCH DESIGN GUIDELINES FINDINGS
R. THE PROPOSED RUSSELL RANCH DESIGN GUIDELINES MODIFICATION IS

CONSISTENT WITH AND DOES NOT SUBSTANTIALLY CHANGE THE OVERALL INTENT OF THE DESIGN GUIDEL]NES AND DOES NOT SIGNIFICANTLY ALTER THE QUALITY OF CHARACTER OF THE SUBDIVISION.

S. THE PROPOSED RUSSELL RANCH DESIGN GUIDELINES MODIFICATION DOES

NOT SIGNIFICANTLY ALTER THE QUALITY OR CHARACTER OF THE SUBDIVISION.

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT FINDINGS
T. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO THE FIRST AMENDED AND RESTATED TIER 1 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE

OBJECTIVES, POLICIES, GENERAL LAND USES AND PROGRAMS SPECIFIED

IN THE CITY GENERAL PLAN (AS AMENDED) AND THE FOLSOM PLAN AREA SPECIFIC PLAN (AS AMENDED).

U. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO THE FIRST AMENDED AND RESTATED TIER 1 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IS IN CONFORMITY WITH

PUBLIC CONVENIENCE, GENERAL WELFARE, AND GOOD LAND USE
PRACTICES.

V. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO THE FIRST AMENDED AND RESTATED TIER 1 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE DETRIMENTAL

01/25/2022 Item No.4.

TO THE HEALTH, SAFETY, AND GENERAL WELFARE OF PERSONS RESIDING

IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA, NOR BE DETRIMENTAL OR INJURIOUS TO

PROPERTY OR PERSONS IN THE GENERAL NEIGHBORHOOD OR TO THE GENERAL WELFARE OF THE RESIDENTS OF THE CITY AS A WHOLE.

W. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO THE FIRST AMENDED AND RESTATED TIER 1 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WILL NOT ADVERSELY

AFFECT THE ORDERLY DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY OR THE
PRESERVATION OF PROPERTY VALUES.

X. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO THE FIRST AMENDED AND

RESTATED TIER DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE PROVISIONS OF GOVERNMENT CODE SECTIONS 65864 THROUGH 65869.5.

01/25/2022 Item No.4.

Attachment 4
Large-Lot Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map, dated May 7 ,202t

01/25/2022 Item No.4.
2 3
t8i:t!
tl;l
II
tiii!6.IE
ii
!l
tiIrlr
i;!i
Iilli
ilri
itii
iii
iil
ii!
iiilitrltillll
1 I
z
c
-cz
I
I
; ii ilii !i! Iii! ltl lii ttiI i: :l lit
! rt !r
iraa;t
i
!
a
t
t
q
at{
ilrl!Eit
ill
t,
{
i
I
!
*'IEilllil
.'q: j
ir!
= I llll
el
,f;
:t
f,.s.
,gS.
i
+Ra
ftnr&rrcNs
#*
Y
rilt:l lir 3l!
iq,,-!h 'lt
Y
ln
.stg'dls
It
lr
xiR
#.
9;
[]e .'i.!ilt ,i,rS .- l
llE ,4,
i]iJtr't :
l
tf,&'
I
44#"
"r.#
$'
Ir+-i{T'
r{#,
t
r
4,S
+
V)
-l
2 Q>-)?
!:.i H
32 iE o
?Y ffrn - llF
Eh'|LEAgE;
SXuY
z
rroo
tJs
Ft
u)
N)
*=
\
\.l-r)
&
-'1
-zl
i
z
c
iiiirtl!lrlll
--9sFEE:
!s"
t-' .'
:: :B^;B
Iq6
Irt
fit
irirt
EH:
r!-*

01/25/2022 Item No.4.

Attach ment 5
Small-Lot Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map, dated October 26,2021,

01/25/2022 Item No.4.

Village 4Village I
SHTD
3l Lob - 55'x 105'(TW)
SFilD
96 Lori - 50'r 90'(Typ)
Village 3
+ VICNITY MAP

BFNCHMARK
NOTES
I lll-l .IL I
L+-!l4l-+-+r-I+ j
V rde-.ryld
'11; ,l:i..'f.l .:

I,ur,r,rrrI l+. tr+blL#"----#
.d:t*tt".-
,:
'"i.r 1.,r.
.dx--1!-!rrr-q.w
"'/*:') :::.' 1: _
^a-\
I4.61
SFHD
7e Lors - 55'x 105'(Typ).
l7.31Ac Crcrs
l?.1 I Ac Net
t! .F0r:1r:{i-ihEat
ir -'
Villagc 2
Villagc 5
MLD
i
,2
IL
TENTATIVE Mf INFOIMTION
t:,r-
.i:

SFHD
63 t.ols, 50'x 105'(1yp)
,A, *-,"",**^" AMENDED-SMALL LOT

VESTING TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP
Lots24 thru32
h
ti.:, ,:1
iri"
rk 11ry
sspqy-*,smm
-tlt : t-!L
l+t_i+-4
,., :.i
i" .. r.
h :...

SEE SHEET 4
FOR VILLAGE 5
i
i;ii:I
ri
-td-t i t-tr^
4*l+|+f*L

01/25/2022 Item No.4.

Attachment 5
Russel Ranch Design Guideline Amendments

01/25/2022 Item No.4.
ssN[Ts0[0$ N$[ss0 rNswdoTs^s0 0sNNVTd
HSNVU TTSSS0U Jw SSnVnSfl gN0nSCIV0UE 0NV
ffi3NVU TT$SSMU

01/25/2022 Item No.4.

RUSSEII RANCH
]EFFREY DEMURE + ASSOCIAIES
AND BR(DADST(DNE ESTATES AIi RUSSELL RANCH
PI.ANNED DEVEI.oPMEN]l DESIqN 0UIDEI.ffNES
ADOPTED 20]8
2021
REVISED APRIL 2g?9
A Traditlon of Quality since '1914
ENE,\T
HOME,

COMPANY
Elliott Homcs BrightViewI
Design Croup
\J

01/25/2022 Item No.4.

Local Street Walks .
[ntrq Street Walk
0pen Space lrails
[mergencq fi Sen'ice Vehicle Access
Rer'pite opportunilies .

3.3 PARKS AND OPTN SPACE

3.3.1 0pen Space .

3.3.2 Park 0bjectives

3.3.2.1 The lIeiqhborhood Park

3.3.2,2 Recreation Center

3.3.2.3 The Pocket Patk .

3.3.?..1 ResDites
CHAPIIER 4: ARCIffi[TE{UTURE."."...

4.I INIR{}DUCTION.

4.2 I)ESTqN PRTNCTPTES.

4.2.1 0iversitg ol Streetscape .

4.2.2 Four-Sided Architecture .

4.2.3 Reciprocal Use fasements .

4.2.4 $arages

4.3 I]IVETOPMTNT STANDARDS,

4.3.1 Ihe Court Hones

4.3.2 Sinqle Familq Hlqh Densitq (SFHD)

4.3,3 lownhomes {MLD) . . . . . .

4.3.4 Single Familq (Sn

4.3,5 0evelopment Standards Footnotes

4.4 ARCHIIEITURAL qUMTLNES .

THE CATIFORNIA WINE COUNTRY

THT MONIEREY
THE SPANISH EIIECIIC. . O3
IHE CALIFORNIA COTTAqE. .65
THE TMNSIII0NAL BUNqAL0W. .67
THT CALIFORNIA PMIRIE . OS
THE SPANISH CBLONIAT REVIVAL .7I
IHE CAIIFORNIA CMFTSMAN .73
THE CALIFORNIA VILLA. . 75
5 4.6 THE IOWNHOMTS ,77
6 4.+ THE RECREAIION CENTER . .77
7 4.8 THr SCHOOL .7S
CffiAPTER 5s BR{DADSII0NE ESTAIIES. "............

5.I INTRBNUCTI()N.

5.2 ARCHITECTURT

5.2.t INTR00l,[It0N

5.2.2 larages

5.3 DEVELOPMTNT STANOARDS.
00')( 105't0TS. . .
65')( 105'1015. . .
30 30
37 3r
3i
3S
3S
40 40
,10
4l
4t
43 .43
.43
.43
.44
.4]
.47
.49
.49
. 5l
.53
.55
.50
.57
.5S
.0l
APPENDICIESA,BqC
APPENIIIX A: RIPARIAN PTANT COMMUNITY .

APPENDIX B: OAK WO{)I}LAND PLANT COMMUNITY
APPENDIX [: {}AK SAVANNAH PLANT COMMUNITY
8[
,8l
.83
OJ
83 ,84
84 8$
8T
.8S
.s5
t0l

01/25/2022 Item No.4.
5 4.6
ffi
ive
ffi
rrErrh
THE TOWNH{)MES
The Townhomes provide on opportunity to creote on eclectic urbqn micro-neighborhood environment within Russell Ronch ond there ore certoin defining elements ihot the Townhomes must exhibit. When designing townhomes, which ore iypicolly distinguished os being norrow in noture, the quontity, scole, ond plocement of orchitecturol detoil musi be judicious to not overwhelm the scqle of the building.
o The orchitecturol style must be selected from the per- mitted orchitecturol styles described in this chopter.
o To ovoid dominont unbroken plones ond creote shqd-
ow lines, TheTownhomes must provide verticol orticu-
lotion of the front elevotion.
o Voried setbocks for different portions of the home,
such os goroges, second floors, bolconies, etc., ore
encouroged.
o Mossing of forms must be estoblished using the fun-
domentol chorocteristics of the selected orchitecturol
style.
o Contemporory interpretotions of the orchitecturol
styles permitted for The Townhomes ore encouroged
through ihe use of eclectic moteriols, such os metols
(must be onti-reflective) ond voriotions on troditionol siding, osymmetricol roof pitches, ond ployful mossing
ond use of color.
lbwnft omc Concep t lmagery
6 4.+ THE RECREATION CENTER
Russell Ronch will feoture t3t recreotion
which
centens:cne{gr
qtisnrrrters will provide on opportunity for residents of the neighborhood to gother ond enjoy o beoutiful indoor-outdoor environment. The Recreotion Centers will feoture orchitec- ture thot blends historic with contemporory to creote o truly iconic neighborhood building thot residents ond visitors olike will odmire. The design intent is to convey the impression of on historic structure with o contemporory oddition.

The following defining chorocteristics ore intended os q kit of ports ond set of rules to influence the design ofthe Recre- otion Centers. A combinotion of these elements should be used to inform the design of the building (oll of the elements ore not required).
o Cqsuol, osymmetricol form with o combinotion of go-
ble ond shed roof forms.

01/25/2022 Item No.4.
o Overgrouted stone os o significont woll moteriol,
utilized to present full mossing elements. For exomple, qn entire centrol moss of the structure moy feoture
stone, with wings of o complementory moteriol, such
os stucco. This design solution gives the oppeoronce
of on originol structure with wings odded on over time. o A clerestory roof form in the centrol portion of the
structure is oppropriote.
o Woll moteriqls moy be overgrouted stone or brick,
smooth or imperfect smooth stucco or ploster, ond
gloss.
o Accent moteriols include heovy beoms, rusted metol,
wrought iron, copper, ond precost concrete.
o The primory roof should be borrel or S-tile, which moy be boosted.
u The contemporory portion of the building moy feoture
o metql stonding seom roof.
o Roin choins should be used in ploce of troditionol
downspouts.
o Windows moy be recessed ond void of trim, or feoture
full window surrounds, which moy be precost concrete
or wood.
o Arched windows ore oppropriote os feoture or occent
windows.
o Exposed beoms ond structurol connections should be
celebroied os port of the design stotement.
o Site structures, such os restrooms, cobonos, pool
equipment rooms, ond trosh enclosures must comple-
ment the design of the primory structure.
o Mechonicol ond pool equipment must be screened
from sight ihrough integroted wolls, londscoping, or o
combinotion of both.

Pecrection Center Concept lmogary

01/25/2022 Item No.4.
7 4 8 THE SCHOOL
Although it is recognized thot school orchitecture is governed by functionolity ond o speciolized kii of ports ond set of rules, the elementory school locoted of Russell Ronch is encour- oged to complement the surrounding neighborhood in its
design. The following recommendotions ore encouroged for considerotion in design of the school,
o The school is encouroged to drow inspirotion from ihe opproved orchiiecturol styles found in ihese Guide-
lines.

A simplified interpretotion of ihe selected orchitectur- ol style is oppropriote.

Eorth tone colors ore encouroged in rich hues.
o
o
a Recommended woll moteriols include stucco, brick,
horizontol siding, ond boord ond botten siding.
o Stonding seqm metql is the recommended moteriol for
the roof in dork eorth tone colors.

ScAool Concept lmagery

01/25/2022 Item No.4.

Attachment 7
Russell Ranch Phase 2 Design Set dated November t6,202t, dated December 4,2O2O

01/25/2022 Item No.4.

RUSSELL

FOLSOM, CA
RANCH
/--\
%
Kevin L. Crook
Architect
lnc
o.
oN+LE l\l l\l1q.1a'
11t16t2021

01/25/2022 Item No.4.

Silver Knoll at Russell Ranch R U S S E L L RANCH 50 r 9C' 201 r 9Af ot50M, cA
A-l
A-2
A-3
A-4
A-5
A-6
A-7
A-8
A-9
A-10
A-l I
A-12
A-t3
A-14
A-15
A-16
A-17
A-18
A-19
A-20
A-21
A-22
A-23
A-24
A-25
A-26
A-27
A-28
A-29
A-30
A-31
A-32
A-33
Plon I
Plon I
Plon I
Plon I
Plon I
Plon I
Plon I
Plon I
Plon I
Plon I
A-34
A-35
A-36
A-37
A-38
A-39
A-40
A-41
*42
A-43
A-44
A-45
A-46
A-47
A-48
A-49
A-50
A-51
A-52
A-53
Cover poge
Typicol Plotting
Arliculotion Plon
Plon 4 - (2804) Front Elevotions
Plon 4 - (2804) Floor Plon
Plon 4 - (2804 "A") Sponish Eclectic Elevotion
Plan 4 - '2804 "A") Sponish Eclectic Opt. Deck Etevoiion Plon 4 - 12804 "B") Colifomio Proirie Elevotion
Plon 4 - 128O4 "B") Colifornio Proirie Opt. Deck Elevoiion Plon 4 - |12804 "C") Colifornio Cottoge Elevotion
Plon 4 - {28O4 "C") Colifornio Cottoge Opt. Deck Elevofion Plon 4 - (2804) Roof Plons
Plon 4 - (2804) Roof Plons Opt. Deck
Plon 5 - (2968) Front Elevotions
Plon 5 - (2968) Floor Plon
PIon 5 - {2968 "A"} Sponish Ecleciic Eievotion
Plon 5 - (2968 "A") Sponish Eclectic Opt. Deck Etevotion Plon 5 - [2968 "B") Colifornio Proirie Elevotion
Plon 5 - (2968 "8") Colifornio Proirie Opi. Deck Etevotion Plon 5 - (2968 "C") Colifornio Cotioge Elevoiion
Plon 5 - (2958 "C") Colifornio Cottoge Opt. Deck Elevotion Plon 5 - (2968) Roof Plons
Plon 5 - [2968) Roof Plons Opt. Deck
Written ColorSchemes
Color Boords - "A" Sponish Eclectic
Color Boords - "B" Colifornio Proirie
Color Boords - "C" Colifornio Cottoge
I-EI\I NAFI"
Developer
Lennar
1oz5 Creekside Ridge Drir.,e. Suiie 24o
Rosevi[Le, CA SSOZS
Contact RacheL Corona
Business 916.746,8539
racheI cororiaAlennar com
v/wv/.lennarcom
#20119
Kevin L. Crook
Architect
lnc
Architect:

Kevin L. Crook Architecl lnc.
1360 Reynoids Ave Suite 11o
lrvine. Ca 92614
Contaci Barry Pattison
Busrness (949) 660-15e7
bpailisonrSklcarch com
www klcarch conr
- (2307l, Front Elevotions
- (2307) Floor Plon
- (2307 " A"l Sponish Eclectic Elevotion
- (2307 "A"l Sponish Eclectic Opt. Deck Elevotion
- (2307 "B"l Colifornio Proirie Elevotion
- (2307 "B"l Colifornio Proirie Opt. Deck Elevotion
- (2307 "C") Colifornio Cottoge Elevotion
- (2307 "C"l Colifornio Cottoge Opt. Deck Elevotion
- (2307) Roof Plons
- (2307) Roof Plons Opt. Deck
Plc,n 2 - (24691 Front Elevotions
Plon 2 - (24691 Floor Plon
Plon2- (2469 "A") Sponish Eclectic Elevotion
Plon2- (2469 "A") Sponish Eclectic Opt. Deck Elevotion
Plon2- (2469 "B") Colifornio Proide Elevotion
Plan2- (2469 "B") Colifornio Proirie Opi. Deck Etevotion Plon 2 - (2469 "C") Colifornio Cottoge Elevotion
Plon 2 - (2469 "C") Colifornio CottogeOpt. Deck Elevotion Plc'n 2 - (2469) Roof Plons
Plon2- (24691 Roof Plons Opt. Deck
Plon 3 - (27041 Front Elevotions
Plon 3 - (27041 Floor Plon
Plc,n 3 - (2704 "A") Sponish Eclectic Elevotion
Plon 3 - (27O4 "A") Sponish Eclectic Opt. Deck Elevotion Plon3- (2704 "B") Colifornio Proirie Elevotion
Plon3 - (2704 "8") Colifornio Proirie Opt. Deck Elevotion Plon3 - (2704 "C") Colifornio Cottoge Elevoiion
Plon3 - (2704 "C") Colifornio Coitoge Opt. Deck Etevotion Plon3 - (27041 Roof Plons
Plon 3 - (2704) Roof Plons Opt. Deck
A-54
A-55
A-56
A-57

01/25/2022 Item No.4.

Sterling Hills at Russell Ra.nch R IJ S S E L L RANCH .55 ) i!.5 ?lt 191
A-58
A-59
A-50
A-61
A-62
A-63
A-64
A-65
A-56
A-67
A-58
A-69
A-70
A-71
A-72
Cover Poge
Typicol Plotiing
Articulotion Plon
Plon I - (1991) Front Elevotions
Plon I - (1991) Floor Plon
Plon I - (199] "A") Sponish Coloniol Revivol Elevotion
Plon 1 - (1991 "8") Colifornio Wine Elevotion
Plon 1 - (1991 "C") Tronsitionol Bungolow Elevotion
Plonl-RoofPlons
Plan 2 - (2162]l Front Elevotions
Plon 2 - (21621 Floor Plon
Plon2- (2162 "A") Sponish Coloniol Revivol Elevoiion
Plan2- (2162 "8") Colifornio Wine Elevotion
Plon2- (2162 "C") Tronsiiionol Bungolow Elevotion
?lon2- (21521 Roof Plons
Plon 3 - (3028) Front Elevotions
Plon 3 - (3028) Floor Plon
Plon 3 - (3028 "A") Sponish Coloniol Revivol Elevotion
Plon 3 - (3028 "A") Sponish Coloniol Revivol Opt. Deck Elevotion Plon 3 - (3028 "8") Colifornio Wine Elevotion
Plon 3 - [3028 "8") Colifornio Wine Opt. Deck Etevotion Plon 3 - (3028 "C") Tronsitionol Bungolow Elevotion
Plon 3 - (3028 "C"l Tronsitionol Bungolow Opt. Deck Elevotion Plon 3 - {3028) Roof Plons
Plon 3 - (3028) Roof Plons Opt. Deck
Plon 4 - (3312) Froni Elevoiions
Plon 4 - (3312) Floor Plon
Plon 4 - (3312 "A") Sponish Coloniol Revivot Elevotion
Plon 4 - (3312 "A") Sponish Coloniol Revivol Opt. Deck Elevotion Plon 4 - (3312 "B") Colifornio Wine Elevotion
Plon 4 - (3312 "B") Colifomio Wine Opi. Deck Etevotion
Plon 4 - (3312 "C") Tronsitionol Bungolow Elevotion
Plon 4 - [3312 "C") Tronsitionol Bungolow Opt. Deck Elevotion Plon 4 - (3312) Roof Plons
Plon 4 - (33]2) Roof Plons Opi. Deck
Writien ColorSchemes
Color Boords - "A" Sponish Coloniol Revivol
Color Boords - "B" Colifornio Wine
Color Boords - "C" Tronsitionol Bungolow
Ploniing Loyouts 50 x 90 Lois
Plonting Loyouis 50 x 90 Lois
Plonting Loyouts 55 x 105 Lots Villoges I &2
Plonting Loyouts 55x i05 Lots Villoges l&2
Plonting Noies
Typicol lnigoiion Schemotics
lnigotion Detoils
lnigotion Colcs
l_El\thtAFt"
Developer
Lennar
1025 Creeksrde Ridge Drive Sulte z4o
Roseville. CA 95078
Coniact Rachel Corona
Business 916 746-4539
rachel.coronaa.-t len na r co m
vtwvz.tennar com
#20119
Kevin L. Crook
Architect
lnc
Architect:

Kevin L CrookArchrtect, lnc
1360 Reynotcls Ave Suiie 1to
lrvine. Ca 9?614
Contact Barry Pattison
Business (949) 66o-15e7
bpattison g,kLcarch com
wwwklcarch corrr
A-83
A-84
A-85
A-86
A-87
A-88
A-89
A-90
A-91
A-92
A-93
A-94
A-95
A-96
Lt.t
Ll.2
Lt.3
Ll .4
Ll.5
L2.1
L2.2
L2.3
A-73
A-74
A-75
A-76
A-77
A-78
A-79
A-80
A-81
A-82

01/25/2022 Item No.4.

FOLSOM, CA
RANCH
Silver l(noll at
ItUSSELL
@@
50' x 90'
20r r 9A
LENNAFI"
1 1 /1612021
A-1
(evirr I Crook
Architect
Inc

01/25/2022 Item No.4.

E
E
!il*
\
I
50' MtN.

PLAN r (2307) PLAN 3 (2704) PLAN 4 (2804)

TYPICAL PLOTTING
PLAN 2 (2469) PLAN 5 (2968)
lrJ
t
1 ^ffi
I_Fff]
r#lL_"ffi
ts---r
1 lEffi1-1
!I
LENNAR' 50 Y t!'
:Cl l9A
t1/16/2021
A-2
',.iitt| (.t ()',
Architect
llr -
I
6RANCHSilverKnollat RUSSELL

01/25/2022 Item No.4.

9.0 5C ,0" 50 '0 504
*lr}1 - '
.=3i:-'
-affj.iu,-."
PLAN r I SPANISHECTECTTC PIAN 3 I CALTFORNTA PRAIRIE PLAN 4 | CALIFORNTA COfiAGE PLAN 2 I SPANISH ECLECTIC PLAN 5 I CALIFORNIA PRAIRIE LEGEND

I FIRSIFLOORMASSING

I SECONDFLOORMASSING
T COVERED FRONTPORCH {ONESTORY]
r=---.] DRIVEWAY / SIDEwAtK
Hr

ARTICULATION PLAN

01/25/2022 Item No.4.

Xdn L,CrcokAchil*t. tnc.

Refd Jo lon4c6F dm$ngr tor rcI. n*. ond shrub l6oib6
# J
"A'' SPANISH ECLECTIC ''B" CALIFORNIA PRAIRIE
..C" CALIFORNIA COTTAGE
ft
Rek to bdrcope d@ings fd woil, teq ond tub locoforo
aEn: .'!: ,: 4
"A" SPANISH ECLECTIC
PLAN 1 (2307)

FRONT ELEVATIONS

9.*. . ':4.3
o 2O2r Gvi^ L. q@! &hhecJ, rnc. o@l (evin L ftor archlei rnc. Reldio tondscope d@ings tdrcil, r€, ond sbb &dorc ''C'' CALIFORNIA CONAGE
..B'' CALIFORNIA PRAIRIE

EXTERIOR LIGHTS
(evirr I Cr,:ok
Architect
lnc 6
tt/t6/2021
A-4
f oLsoM. cA
RANCHSilverKnollatRUSSELLLENNAFT'
50' x 90'
201 t9A

01/25/2022 Item No.4.

T----
I
OPT. DECK
DECK
b
l9'{' 21',4'
i4-
T o C
l-dfuroprrr pu.

L_,,1*-
GREAT RM.

KtrCHEN
EWY
BATH
PORCH
PTAN ]

APFA TARIN ANON
coNunoNo SPACE
F6 tuOR &A 1_62 9. F,
sEcoND [mR Na 1,0$ s. f,.

DTe ilEUNG a&7 &. ff.

UNCONDMONED SPACE

SECOND FLOOR PLAN FIRST FLOOR PLAN
414 SQ. n.
52 m. *.
70 so. F.
55 S0. fi.
152 $. F.

OPT. DECK PLAN 1 (2307l, "A"
4 BEDROOM,3 BATH, OPT. DECK
-i.;:,/il i C.r i{)i
Architect
l )i.
| 116/2021
A-5RANCHSilver Knoll at RUSSELLLENNAR' 50 r90
2Ct I 9A

01/25/2022 Item No.4.
.*-
FRONT
IteB tu &fr& M Gu ot bh r@hry shorc€h.nt. * t!.

REAR
Ratd io b&oFdMSlord. n€. o.dtub lo@ fed {oh @d sl Gf or bt .auh@ enhftoffib. s cb.

IIAIERIALS I.EGEND
RIGHT
LEFT
Fiqr molr
GSrcED@R:
i@f:*@urENsl4S:

E^[G€:

GSE END:
'ERGNMSAKIOMLcdcRm tow PtsG s nEw@D coi84
SAWERS:
?oT 5flEU:

COLORSCHEME i n dsod@dftn€cud
PLAN rA (2307 "A"l

SPANISH ECLECTIC ELEVATION
lrFts€
-,-__ E
l"L[fi", lllll,il[, j]LU
lE[lmrllrilnLU- +
mmuu
llilr
li
iFrVilt L C.rr)a)i.i
Architect
ln.j 5
1t/t6/2021
A_6
f ot50M. cA
RANCHSilverKnollatRUSSELLLENNAR'
50' x 9fi
201 r 9A

01/25/2022 Item No.4.
n.6tu d&d NGcurd bnqd@ ctu.|rm!, n !r..
tf€trq,
RIGHT
u{
0 2 a E t2
Lm$M & Mec(d btrq\frgnbc.runt. h ii..

REAR PLAN 1A OPT. DECK (2307 "A"1

SPANISH ECLECTIC ELEVATION
trn
(:f:
mntrE
LEFT
50 Y ?0'
?Clt9A
1t/t6/2021
A-7
9 ?:
, i' /t) l. (,1.,()i
lr r,:

ArchitectRANCHSilverKnollatRUSSELLLENNAR'

01/25/2022 Item No.4.
.qr"
(e{n L, qd Achfiet. rc. bft $oM ffiruccud bS..ryXA mbrc.@nt,3e it€, rl€! !t{
o 2 4 I l2
FRONT
REAR

IAAIEIIAI,S TEGEND
aIONI rci: flSRMSWGMh MFASffiML@E CONdft F6r nUFACA dNR RIGHT
LEFT
fjr!:l:rBr_
COLOR SCHEME 4
PLAN lB (2307 "8"'t

CALIFORNIA PRAIRIE ELEVATION
mm
LENNAFT' 5C \9t
2Cr I 9A
l1/16/2021
A_8
:
-c
't: /r1 I (.t .r.
lr l
ArchitectRANCH
FOTSOM
SilverKnollatRUSSELL

01/25/2022 Item No.4.

J(lf,f,u}{
ll.ft tu @ tul Gcwot bb [email protected]!. rc Cb.
wq.!'!t
RIGHT
LEFT
tffi tu dM $ol €cur cl b! .4hry snhorcomonE 3r dL.

REAR PLAN r B OPT. DECK (2307 "B"l
CALIFORNIA PRAIRIE ELEVATION o 2 a E 12
mr
| /16/2021
A-9 6
ii':;i rlr I a.l a)'1.

Architect
!rtalf oisoM, cA
RANCHSilverKnollat RUSSELLLENNAFT' 50 Y 90'
201 t9A

01/25/2022 Item No.4.
'*-r-. - {i_4..
(evln L cr@k achld. k,
FRONT
lh! tun dlN $d €cq or rob oqhg .n&rc6onE s ,t6
REAR
SHUtrES:
!.m tu ddd ru 6cud bbrequary enencehst rc jb.
o 2 4 8 12
,$ATENN|S UGIND RIGHT
LFFT
FRoM @R: nSRGNGfaGEO@l: W{SOMLiooF coNdtr fuT r[F&A GMRSARGe A6WOOO GABEENO: W@OGHNFO&OUIL@GR

BOND AND SAEN
w&: srucco /8R€(
[? sDrre
BOARD AND BAfiEN
IEM,
POTSHS:
!rucco ovff ftqD
ERICK 6Efrwuu@ wooD
COLOR SCHEME 7 r.6 tuM @ I (curor bt'sehs $h6c.mst. sdre PLAN tC (2307 "C"l

CALIFORNIA COTTAGE ELEVATION
dffit ffil.ilIIiL illllltllrll[il]l llllllll"=fl!!u, illlllll l.:_
ilErrl[trlltillrtl|rrttil--t]Elt]rrllltxrlrrulrr!1
.}r
:-+r +
LENNAR' 50' x 90
2Cr I 9A
ievirr L Crlol..

Archit€ct
Inc
111t6/2021
A-r0 oRANCH
foL50M cA
Silver Knoll at RUSSELL

01/25/2022 Item No.4.

I.-
|En]t[f,ililErrilllrlt-EEITE-
xErrllrull
Egu
RIGHT
REAR PLAN rC OPT. DECK (2307 "C")

CALIFORNIA COTTAGE ELEVATION
LEFT
LENNAR
\1/16/2021
A-i l
lt l.-
<i-,/iji () t)i
RANCHSilverKnollat RUSSELL Architect
totsoM, cA
5C x 9rr'
2Ct rtA

01/25/2022 Item No.4.
..A" SPANISH ECLECTIC ,,B" CALIFORNIA PRAIRIE

ROOF PLANS
PLAN 1 (23071
"C'' CALIFORNIA COTTAGE
o 2 1 A t2
@
1 1 /16t2021
A-12
(evin L. Crook 6
Archit€ct
Ff otsoM, cA
RANCHSilver Knollat RUSSELLLENNAR' 50' x 90'
?ol19^,

01/25/2022 Item No.4.
..A" SPANISH ECLECTIC ..8" CALIFORNIA PRAIRIE

ROOF PLANS
PLAN r OPTTONAL DECK (2307l'
,'C" CALIFORNIA COTTAGE
o 2 1 I 12
t1n6/n2t
A-13
(evirr L. Crook
Architocl
F@ foLsoil- ca
RANCI{SilverKnollat RUSSELLLENNAR- 50'x 90'
201 l9A

01/25/2022 Item No.4.
.F-
"A" SPANISH ECLECTIC
PLAN 2 (2469)

FRONT ELEVATIONS

EXTERIOR LIGHTS
# 3
"A'' SPANISH ECLECTIC "B'' CALIFORNIA PRAIRIE
''C'' CALIFORNIA CONAGE
Reb lo londsoF ddns fd rcn, &, sd shrub tocofuG
:Er*
@ar reun Lmrrcnl*t tnc. Refd lo londscope d@iq rdwdl, E, ond sEb Edo6 ..C" CALIFORNIA COTTAGE
ft
@ ml Kdn L. Croo! Archn6i hc.
ilt7*
O a2l Gvi6 L. @ Mhned, hc.
..8" CALIFORNIA PRAIRIE
11/16/2021
A-,]4
1 6
{,jr'ilji (.1 ()i
Architect
t, t,._
CA
RANCH
FOLSQM
SilverKnollat RUSSELLLENNAR'
5C Y 9a'
2f.1 19A

01/25/2022 Item No.4.

Qn;lE
GroE

OPT, DECK
OPT. DECK
PLAN 2ARFATANN ANON
CONDrcNED SPAG
n6 R6R &A 1.192 SQ, F,
SE@ND l:itr B 1277 Sa. fr,
TOTA ruNG 2,6t $. f,.

UNCONDrcNO SPACE

SECOND FLOOR PLAN FIRST FLOOR PLAN
DECK
mrcH '8"
POrcH t-
Ofr, DECK
€9_n€$-fr,
47 9. fr.
& s.8,&s.fr,PLAN 2 (2469) "A"
4 BEDROOM.3.5 BATH, LOFT, OPT o 2 4 a 12
oC
PORCH
Q.m;S
GroE
b
b
9 F
t)/t6l2a2t
A-15
7 Architect
ll
RANCHSih'erKnollatRUSSELLLENNAR

01/25/2022 Item No.4.
'll, ,f,' 'll'
u&u t

FFI FFI
Ll r'
f.vh L qd lchild. hc, tr.ft M 6d tMn *csot bb rq*E 6nh6comanb. @ !i..

FRONT
REAR

IAAIETIATS TEGEND
RIGHT
LEFT
FRSI ml: FEGNG$AGE@R: MgAsgroM!R@F: CONCRm LOw PROfEA'ILE R@F U[ENS|S' w@D CORBEL

FACIA GMEI
UIGE: 4 W@D
G$LE END, W@ GRAN rcAM OUII@TIR
W{L SIUCCO / BREK
wNrcwsi VNtrw/GRSSHfr€RS: SfrULA?o w6O
PLAN 2A, (2469 "A")

SPANISH ECLECTIC ELEVATION
POTSHEf: wloUGHt IRON ACCEM
RM: 5IUCCOOV$RIGTO'OAM
tNl-r4:

COLOR SCHEME 2 rft tu 6bd !b{ ecddbrrqr€o.bncomsn F !r€ o 2 4 I 12
J
L
a
F
I lo
lil
u
t 1 /1 6/2021
A-',I6 650' x 90'
201 I tA
'(eyrrr i Crrok
Architect
IncRANCHSiiver Knoll at RUSSELLLENNAFT"
toLsoM, ca

01/25/2022 Item No.4.

FTE FF{
REAR
Irlsl w_
PLAN 2A OPT. DECK (2469 "A")

SPANISH ECLECTIC ELEVATION
RIGHT
LEFT
o ? 4 I 12
-
Iilil ttril
ruruu
1t/16/2021
A-17
'a i::trt | (t ,()l:

Architect
ln il
9 7:
f or50M. cA
RANCHSilverKnollat RUSSELLLENNAFI. 50 x 90'
2Ct I 9A

01/25/2022 Item No.4.
,w 'ln:.::
(evh L Cr@r {cilld. hc,
FRONT
lEil tu &$dsd €c6d rot q&9 enbncffit, ee il.

REAR
Rels lo b&or dosns ld wd[, te, d rhb Eono6
MAIEINIsEGEND
ROMD@R: FEF(;6GMGEmR: MFASE@NA!
ROd: COrcRft fUl nLE
FAC[: GmRw&: SUCCO / UP SDING / sroNE 6ffiWNrcWi VINYL
IM: SIUCCO OvERilqDFONWAINCOI: SIONEVENER
PLAN 2B (2469 "B")

CALIFORNIA PRAIRIE ELEVATION
Lfqtx-
COLOR SCHEME 5 0.studMtrroccuorbbMrcenhrcmsre$e
RIGHT
LEFI
o 2 4 I 12
T*
I
I
,.i:r'iri i C.rr)ok
Architect
lnc 6
11 /16/2021
A_ 18
f or50M. ca
RANCHSilverKnollatRUSSELLLENNAR' 50'x 90'
2Ct I tA

01/25/2022 Item No.4.
lleru tu &$od ru o@ d bb r.@Sre .d*ffi6nh, 3e ile
REAR
It.mt hm d.d 3bn *u oi bb rcquhB .nhdc.mnh, !c. $..
lasj!!s:
hsru tum @d ru €cu d bt rqse shscln.nb. rs ito.

PLAN 28 OPT. DECK (2469 "8")

CALIFORNIA PRAIRIE ELEVATION
RIGHT
o
mt
U
mt
U]
LEFT
50 x 90'
20r r 9A
11/t6/2021
A- 19
-1.r.:vitt L Ct roi.

Architect
I tl ':'
6RANCH

FOLSOM CA
SilverKnollatRUSSELLLENNAFI"

01/25/2022 Item No.4.
{ti"
tffi tu <& rdccurotbt @ufEffiffib, s itc.

FRONT
REAR
MAI€$AIS I.EGEND RIGHT
LEFT
GSE SO: W@4ANrcMOW@TtrTNDNDhM
RSlmRr ffiN
GARaGE @R: WA SgPNAtR@: CdCRfffUTruF&lA: GtmMreE: dw@
$m$:
waNc0r:rct sH&F:
sTrcCO / ffiErW COING
rcdD ND IABvrN[ w GRr6
wuuEw@nrcco ovR FrqD rcaxrc(64
SNUUEO W@O
COLOR SCHEME 8 tlhtuffi Mo4udbrqu.r€MEr.lr..

PLAN 2C (246e "C")

CALIFORNIA COTTAGE ELEVATION
t1116/2021
A_20
'l'rr'il)i ar ()i
Architect
Itl '
RANCHSilverKnollat RUSSELLLENNATiI' 50 Y9!
2C ' 19A

01/25/2022 Item No.4.

T*
l.:."......"""-""---.-"_
tLlrl [lr]lilllrll l[tl|--]mmilltlfl --
IlIruLII!ft
ll€m tun dM hl 6cu ol bh rqh! .nbrc.mfft, s. ato.
sEfts,
RIGHT
LEFI
_firgt{
o a 4 I 12
REAR
Aemtu @@cudbh..Aihg entumst, 16sib.

PLAN 2C OPT. DECK (2469 "C

CALIFORNIA COTTAGE ELEVATION
1t/16/2021
A-2150 x 90'
20r t9A
':,,:ttti (,r, Qi
Architect
I t),_j
RANCH

TOLSOM, CA
SilverKnollatRUSSELLLENNAR'

01/25/2022 Item No.4.
.,A'' SPANISH ECLECTIC "8" CALIFORNIA PRAIRIE

ROOF PLANS
PLAN 2 (2469)
.,C'' CALIFORNIA COTTAGE
o 2 4 0 12
LENNAFI" 50'x 90'
201 l9A
111t612021
A-22
Kevin L Crook
Architoct
lnc
3 =HtoLsoM. cA
R,ANC}ISilver Knoll at RUSSELL

01/25/2022 Item No.4.
"A" SPANISH ECLECTIC "8" CALIFORNIA PRAIRIE

ROOF PLANS
PLAN 2 OPTTONAL DECK (2469)
''C'' CALIFORNIA COTTAGE
@
11/1612021
A-23
(evin L. Crook 6
Architect :tnc tf orsoM, ca
N,ANCHSilverKnollat RUSSELLLENNAR' 50' x 90'
201 19A

01/25/2022 Item No.4.
**
OPI Kevin t. C.ook achiEt lnc.
''A'SPANISH ECLECTIC

EXTERIOR LIGHTS
d 3
"A,SPANISH ECLECTIC "B" CALIFORNIA PRAIRIE
"C" CALIFORNIA COTTAGE
@ mt <evn L ret tna*r. rnc. bfs ro lonGcope ddn$ fordl E, ond s&b &ob6 .,C'' CALIFORNIA COTTAGE
o 2 1 A 12
fr
'F-
O@l KdnLc@k&drecilnc. Reb lo londsope d@i@ fdwdl t€, ond rtub lco{6 "B'' CALIFORNIA PRAIRIE
PLAN 3 (2704)

FRONT ELEVATIONS
t1/t6/2021
A.-245C Yi!
2Cr r tA l| :.
-l l/rl i_.r rl'
RANCH
FOTSOM. Ci
SilverKnollatRUSSELLLENNAFT' Architect

01/25/2022 Item No.4.

OPI. DrcK
PLAN 3 (2704) "A"
4 BEDROOM,3.5 BATH, LOFT, OPT. DECK
PTAN 3

AREA TABUTATION
coNomoNo SPACE
nRs FL@R &A 1,6 SO. F,sEcdo [@R F4 1.419 SO, fr.
so.

UNCONDIIOND SPACE

SECOND FLOOR PLAN FIRST FLOOR PLAN
415 Sa, ft,& sQ- fr.s so, F.o sQ. f,,r& so. f,,
c
ol-l--L_l
BUNDRY
o
HALT
HTL
n
PORCH
Z
DINING
BATH 3
PWDR.

G
MLL
o

KITCHEN
o
E
I
G-;l
[i D
D
q
G
OPT. DECK
t1 116/2021
A.-25
-,1/r : (.r 1);
Archilect
I 1r:
:
6 CA
RANCHSilverKnollatRUSSELLLENNAR' 50 Y 9i'
2Cr )tA

01/25/2022 Item No.4.
_rs!{
m rovh L crd &dtet. hc, Retd to b&of dosq l.fr $dn dM tul ccd d bt r4utuo.Mscomna. s !to, FRONT
REAR
RAIMF:Gf^G€ mRi@r:R@r ursstN:

MIGE:

RIGHT
LEFT
IIIAIETIAIs TEGEND
GSL€ ENO.

SHllms:

POT sHffi
COLOR SCHEME 3
PLAN 3A (2704 "A")

SPANISH ECLECTIC ELEVATION
m[rr[f,f,[
m
aa
5i
B
I-
lilu
-:::::::=
[ltU
-(eyirr L f-r-,erfr
Architect
It t,:
:
a
11/16/2021
A-26RANCH

FOLSOM, CA
SilverKnollatRUSSELLLENNAFT' 50' Y 90'
2At )? A

01/25/2022 Item No.4.
,t[4[tE
lMt tun d.'M $dl€cw d bb qv5ry shscemsh. fr {e .

REAR
It.d tu 6$d $d dcd d bb qufhg otuncffib. F JL,
LE{_cq,!$_.
n.E$M 6ed 6r *cud [email protected]^t. e !r..

PLAN 3A OPT. DECK (2704 "A")

SPANISH ECLECTIC ELEVATION
i+L
RIGHT
LEFI
LENNAFT.
5C' r 9a'
2Cr t9A
t1116/2021
A_27 a)
'trlilr ( r c",
I r r,:i
ArchitectRAN CHSilverKnollatRUSSELL

01/25/2022 Item No.4.
%qf
ruHlr,
::T I
Jm
IU
llll
IU'l - :,-
muu
I
I
I
i:*
I a:aa
kevh L crd Mil<r hc.
._tre!1{
refl $dndotud H Gu d rob r<ffig enhorcsmani.$ode
FRONT
REAR
MAIERIAUi IEGEND
FRONT rcOR: F&RSS
GARAGE @R: MSAI WIONALi@Fr COTiEE FUT n[FACIA: GWR
W&: SCCO / LAPlOre /$oNE VENShNm6r VINYL
TRM: STCCOOVERRIQOfOaM
WAMCOT: tONEENffi
RIGHT
LEFI
COLOR SCHEME 6
PLAN 3B (2704 "B")

CALIFORNIA PRAIRIE ELFVATION
mm

LENNAR'
11 /16/202\
A-28
(.evin L. Crrok
Architect
lnc
9 o
toLsoM, ca
RANCHSilver Knoll at R,USSELL 50'x 90'
2Ct I 9A

01/25/2022 Item No.4.
t.6 $M S€d rF[ecuotbbr4h€.dft.mnb, rF lL.
6fsLLr.$_
nffi !M ffi rd oeqd [email protected]. !6 !rc.

PLAN 3B OPT. DECK (2704 "8")

CALIFORNIA PRAIRIE ELEVATION
RIGHT
mm

REAR LEFT
1t/1612021
A-29
-1,:,,rtt i Cr',cri
Archilect
I 1,-
FOLSOM, Ci
RANCHSilverKnollatRUSSELLLENNAFT 50'r 9ri'
2Ci I tA

01/25/2022 Item No.4.
:x.*
(evhL@&hnEt.hc-
FRONT
n.d tu r&tu| o.csdl bt qrjE dtr.ffit, ofr .

REAR
lLmtu @tu|€cud sradE sMcatMb s ita
IIAIETIAI.S IEGEND
nONT@n: nffiGNG&cEml: €4ffiM1rcSi CqffiFUTnEF&N C(mSAiGE: }' W@D GSLEEND: w@D ruNrcMo@@rcR
RIGHT
LEFT
$mF:

WAMCOT: m( vilffircTgtr: WUhIO w@D
t!ELrs_
COLOR SCHEME 9 [ffitu ddd€cqd btqrtE Md!. a fr.
rcNO ANO 8ABrcco / 4€(
UPSINGrc4D AND UB
VNYL ryGrusMUUm W@O
rcco ovR fldD
PLAN 3C (2704 "C")

CALIFORNIA COTTAGE ELEVATION
LENNAR' 5C x 9C'
2, r9A
-.;t/it)i i t ")1.

Architectrn,l
t1/16/2A21
A-30
1 RANCHSilverKnollatRUSSELL

01/25/2022 Item No.4.
,h tun &od tul €cs ot b! rqdC cdffi.runB G jtc.

Itmr kn lldd tu{ €cu d d3 r4ddE onbdmsE 6. !to,
PLAN 3C OPT. DECK (2704 "C")

CALIFORNIA COTTAGE ELEVATION
RIGHT
It ruSM6dtut-cqotbhrSroontuncMsnh,!*3ilo,
REAR
-
tlrl[|Itl[|tlttEn -
xull
LEFI
LENNAFI' 50'x 90'
2Atl9A
t 1 /1 6/2021
A_31
j.etnt I C,t.rt1,
Architect
lr rc
RANCHSilverKnollat RUSSELL

01/25/2022 Item No.4.
,,A" SPANISH ECLECTIC ''8" CALIFORNIA PRAIRIE

ROOF PLANS
PLAN 3 (2704)
,.C" CALIFORNIA COTTAGE
l:::::-E-#o 2 1 I 12

01/25/2022 Item No.4.
,'A" SPANISH ECLECTIC ,.8" CALIFORNIA PRAIRIE

ROOF PLANS
PLAN 3 OPTTONAL DECK (2704)
"C" CALIFORNIA COTTAGE
o 2 I a t2
1 1 1t612021
A-33
(evin L. Crook G
Architoct atnc !@ B,ANCII
fotsoM ca
Silver Knoll at RUSSELLLENNAR'
50' x 90'
201 l9A

01/25/2022 Item No.4.
ti€. . t:i;ts 1l

EXTERIOR LIGHTS
# J
Rets lo lon&oF drofrEr lor woo. fte. ond shrub l@otbns
ODI (ein t. tuk &chilsi rnc.
'A" SPANISH ECLECTIC "8" CALIFORNIA PRAIRIE
..C" CALIFORNIA COTTAGE
Rels to londscope @ngldtrn. @, odshtub bcotiont
..C" CALIFORNIA COTTAGE
o 2 I I t2
fr
@@1 rcvin !. CrcokArchiler,lnc.
''A'SPANISH ECLECTIC
PLAN 4 (2804l|

FRONT ELEVATIONS
O42l Hn L. cr@! &hiiccf, lnc.
''B'' CALIFORNIA PRAIRIE

LENNAR'
11 /16/2021
A-34 6lrra
<r:r'ln I a,ri,oi.
f orsoM, ca
RANCHSilverKnollat RUSSELL Architect50 x 90'
2Ct I 9A

01/25/2022 Item No.4.
40'{'

FIRST FLOOR PLAN
PTAN 4
ARhTABUhTION
CONOMONroSPACE
FK FLSR &A 1.225 9. f,,
sEcoNo tu* &a 1.578 Q. ff.

UNCONOITIONEDSPACE
2,4O1

SECOND FLOOR PLAN
o
PORCH '8'

PORCH 'C'
Of,. DECK
424 9, fr,65$.m
25 9. f,,
25 $. fr.
193 Sq f,.
193 9. ff.
lt
ll
OPT. DECK
PLAN 4 (2804) "A"
5 BEDROOM,4 BATH, LOFT, OPT. DECK o 2 4 8 t2
&^o-*^fl\
cL:D
PORCH
DINING
o
o
OPT. DECK
J&
EE
w.l.c.
!
8EDRM.2
--+
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.A8.A,\J\-/&/
I
I
I
L_____
t
LENNAFI"
t1/16/2021
A-35
-:.,':lrrl I Ct -r;l
Archilect
lr )ilRANCHSilverKnollat RUSSELL 50 t 9C'

2.1 I 9A

01/25/2022 Item No.4.
(.vh L. Crd &cn!*t. hc.
-Flg_ry
ltaru $d6 d@tuldcuol bt r4drc .i1]1ftffit, s $e.

FRONT
REAR
IAAIETIAIS I€GEND
TRSIWi: &IGNS
GmAGE @R: ffiA SEITONA!
R@F: CONCffi LOw PROFIET'IIE
R@t UtSSl4S: w@ CORBEL
FACIA GffiUiGE: & w@D
G$LE E!O: W(p GUN rcAM OUIL@<€T
wau sTUcco/RE(WNrcWs: VNYI W/ GRffsHffiRS: SuLAib wmo
RIGHT
LEFT
POT SHEU: WROUGHI IRON ACCEM
RM: SIUCCOOVAflGBFOd
COLOR SCHEME I noro tu 6Mtu Gsd bn'quh€ onbrcn..s. e dre PLAN 44. (2804 "A")

SPANISH ECLECTIC ELEVATION
irtfl]IIIITI
[tflEru
1t/16/2021
A-36
'ir.rlitr L (-r ,oir
ArchitectlnlFOLSOM, CA
RANCHSilverKnollatRUSSELLLENNAR' 50'x 90'
24119A

01/25/2022 Item No.4.

F4FlU
il.B Som @d Sdlo@ d bB [email protected], s.dl6
REAR
lltd tun do*.d $dr *cq ol bb roqdiry ..brc.h.nb, { dr., Eqrs,
[.fr tun &d tut occ6 ol bB rrynE.Sft.m6nR. s it6,
PLAN 4A OPT. DECK (2804 "A")

SPANISH ECLECTIC ELEVATION
RIGHT
llltrlIIII
i
L]
5 Iljul
=iml
.ilu
I-
tilt
ru
-llll
u
:

Iil
m
lolI ttrLl-
LEFI

LENNAFI,
i;:vrr l. (lr.,o.lr
Architect
inc
11/16/2421
A-37 6RANCH
fotsoM
SilverKnollat RUSSELL 50 1 9C'
20t t9A

01/25/2022 Item No.4.
#''
c)pl (c{nLadtudh.lrc. Rddbb&oFtuf€lbwd.h.odtubEoh
FRONT
_E!€rf4
i.m $M MM@dbn @tu.Mcms6. s gc.
rhd1M d@$d ecudbtrEqrl€shonon*!, si..

REAR
AIATEilAB IEGBID
rcSmR: ffiERNG&GEMR: MFASMUR@: CONCRmfUTIIE
a&h: GUftR
wAL: SrcCO / W SSNG / SIONE 6ffiWNmS: WYIM: SIUCCO OWRI@rcAMWAEOT: SIONE vENg COLOR SCHEME 4
PLAN 4B (2804 "B")

CALIFORNIA PRAIRIE ELEVATION
RIGHT
LEFT
:
5 1t/1612021
A-38
lr l,:.
-i,:?rr) i a.r -r()i
ArchitectRANCH

FOISOM, CA
Silver Knoll at RUSSELLLENNAR' 2lr r 9A

01/25/2022 Item No.4.
a\{L:^J'/
It.frhn@ $ol €cuol [email protected]. F!L.

L€R:!:rq[_
RIGHT
LEFI
,r[E_ff
o 2 4 E 12
ijl-
frffi tu @dtullccuolbb re+tE onhft.Mh, slt6.

REAR PLAN 48 OPT. DECK (2804 "8")

CALIFORNIA PRAIRIE ELEVATION
m
-----'J------
mmUU

LENNAFI'
11 /16/2021
A-39 aArchitect
i avilr I Cri,( )i(
RANCH
f orsoM. cA
Silver Knoll at RUSSELL
I r l,:l
50'v 90'
201 I 9A

01/25/2022 Item No.4.
'wr ,':-:.d
(aYh L. c.d achh€ct rc-
FRONT
It ft $M <fu td occur or bh qfiry e.66c.l6h, so. rilc
REAR
it ro rhoM d# M €cd of loh r€dtug sh6cofr.nb, n lte .

MATER TS EGEND RIGHT
LEFI
ROM @i: AERGNG{AGE|mR: MS{KIONALROOF- CONCffiFSITILEFACIA GMR URGEj & w@O
G€EEND' W@OGRAINrcMOJTI@RER
rcAIO AND BAftN
succo / 88rcx
SP $DING
rcATO AND 8AftN
$MUUIF W@O
srrcco ov€R R|GD rcd
samRs:

TRM:

WANsCOI: $rc(WNEAPOISts&F: SIMULA@ W@O
|!Eflr!E*
COLOR SCHEME 7 rm tu&tu tur €cuoiroh@dhc dbcah.dh. s d.

PLAN 4C (2804 "C")

CALIFORNIA COTTAGE ELEVATION
-Ft€sEc
l-
l[lrllllrlrIIITII| IIIIIitllrrllllEtiillltl lllr|
5b-
-
t[lrrllrrr]illllll lltE i
llrlrlnlttrtr----lErttlltrrrt_
Silver Knoll at RU S SE
"" @
11 /t6/2021
A-40
,ievin I Craiok
Architect
ln r:
6 fotsoM cA
RANCHLENNAR" 50'x 90'
20r r94

01/25/2022 Item No.4.
-IM,N
RIGHT
nfr llM & td Gs ot bb €anE 6bc.osh, !6c ate.

REAR
{!{9(!'!4_
'h tu ddd frdr €cq d bh @dEoturc.mnb e d.,
P LA N 4C O PT. D EC K (2804 "C")

CALIFORNIA COTTAGE ELEVATION
I-
tlrtrlLr[|l|lrrt lnltt----ilr-rrfjlrtllUlll[l[
E
LEFT
"'.\.lt\ I () :(ti
Architect
I I t,_:
t1/16/2021
A-41
3 ?:
totsoM, ca
RANCHSilverKnollat RUSSELLLENNAR 50 x90
2Cr t9A

01/25/2022 Item No.4.
''A" SPANISH ECLECTIC .,8'' CALIFORNIA PRAIRIE

ROOF PLANS
PLAN 4 (2BO4l
''C'' CALIFORNIA COTTAGE
o 2 4 A l2
LENNAR"
50' x 90'
20r l9A
(evin L. Crook
Architect
lnc
1vt6/202t
A-42 o
f oLsoM. cA
RANCHSilver Knoll at RUSSELL

01/25/2022 Item No.4.
:h
"A'' SPANISH ECLECTIC ,.B" CALIFORNIA PRAIRIE

ROOF PTANS
PLAN 4 OPTTONAL DECK (2804)
.'C'' CALIFORNIA COTTAGE
ffio 2 a I t2

01/25/2022 Item No.4.
.w-
@@r XryinL. crcok&hiEt rnc.

Rets to bndrcope dd$ lor rcll. te. ond $rub hdtorc
..A" SPANISH ECLECTIC
PLAN s (2968)

FRONT ELEVATIONS

EXTERIOR LIGHTS
# 3
Reler to lo&oF drcilng fd rcll E, ond $rub loc&ro
16r. '
(evn L q6k &hiid, lnc.
.A" SPANISH ECLECTIC ''B" CALIFORNIA PRAIRIE
"C" CALIFORNIA COTTAGE
''C" CALIFORNIA COTTAGE
fr
i.l&r*
O @r Kdn L. c@k &hild. rhc.
"B" CALIFORNIA PRAIRIE
1t/16/2421
A-44
9 o50 \ 9!'
:cr 1 9A I I r,:l
Architect
-:,rrr i (lr. ()?.
f otsoM. cA
RANCHSilverKnollatRUSSELLLENNAR'

01/25/2022 Item No.4.

F-7t'^d l
!1 \
--l
I
I
OPT. DECK

FIRST FLOOR PLAN
PLAN s (2968) "A"
4 BEDROOM,3.5 BATH, NEXT GEN, LOFT, OPT. DECK
CONDINONFDTP^"
NN
ffi ffi :@
n6 F&R mA 910 SQ. f. + at7 Sq fr. = 1,327 SO. F.
sE@No R@R &a 1,&r SO, fr, + 0 S0_ ff. - 1.&1 SO. F,
UNCONDrcNED SPACE
F
o

SECOND FLOOR PLAN
2Sl SO, ft, + 417 SO. ff, - 2.9s s0, tr,
ME S3 SO. ft.
rcRCH 't' J5 SO- fr.

ERCH E- 37 sO- ff.tuRcH t' 57 sd ff-
@FORNq rcoH 1€ 50, f,_of. oEcK
OPT. DECK
I
b
CAUrcRNIA RM.

ENTRY #i
C
o
NEXTGEN.

C
o
C
HALI-
PORCH
3mB
t1/t6l2o2t
A_45
lt,
ArchitectRANCHSilverKnollat RUSSELLLENNAFT 5C tir:
2t:.)'.)A

01/25/2022 Item No.4.
?lF-
-
: l:::-
,E' ,[ ,['
EU U
E
ilil
u
1 5
--t:-,
ilfl[lii lill+:
"U+ [1''
(a6 t, gd [chtd. ft. E tr b bndro*ddn4tqd, tF. d MEtu

MAIERIAIS TEGENDFRONT
REAR
*oMm8:G{AG' MR:rctr1RGXruN:
uReGSE ilD
FtrRGN€4SEOpMlCONffi LOW PMflLEs-NG
w@D coRaa
GWA&w@Dw@Gmrceo4@rtrgucco / tRtr(
sMuulo w@D

WROUGF IPON ACCW
sHm5:
rcTSHtr:

RIGHT
LEFI
luccoovER 0gDFoM
coloR SCHEME 2 rh!tudeM€cu orb!€qtf€onhftffir. eede.

PLAN sA (2968 "A"l

SPANISH ECLECTIC ELEVATION
mffi
mililFT-
t
tI
rJ '=IJ
If ='nlf,.-
LENNAR' 50'x 90'
201 I 9A
'\:vrt\ C.t)()i
Architect
Ir rr;
11/16/2021
A-46RANCHSilverKnollatRUSSELL

01/25/2022 Item No.4.

E E]E E
i
al
E.
lilli
Us*
,,-i:i'llll'r
i,ilU+;i
__l:::::-
,ii1r
,l*'E
_rrc€N
tEFf-ry,
RIGHT
LEFI'REAR PLAN 5A OPT. DECK (2968 "A")

SPANISH ECLECTIC ELEVATION
f, Eil_[[rl
alol
IJ
LENNAR
/arr'rf' i C.r a)!
Architect
I rt,-;
t1/16/2021
A,_47 5
CA
RANCHSilverKnollatRUSSELL 50 x 90'
2Cr r 9A

01/25/2022 Item No.4.

Orc2t revh L. o€karchfacr. hc. Rols b bn&@ dffi tqwot. tee, 6d tub &tu FRONT

TIIAIERIAIS TEGEND
_rg_rrE
lifttunddd$decud
AOS@Rl
GAUGE rcOR:

R@F:

F8rcU$

WAL SECNONA
CONCRtrfu'ILEGUE'gucco/ uPsroNc /sIsE vfl€R
VNYI
wccoov€i reDrcM$dEVENEI
RIGHT
coLoR SCHEME 5 r@ tu ddd d *c- d bb€+i*E eturcffiB. &.ro.

REAR PLAN 5B (2968 "B")

CALIFORNIA PRAIRIE ELEVATION
m
Dn
LEFT
LENNAR' 50'x 90'
2Cl I 9A
'.e,rirr I Clrrol:

Archiiect
lrlii
I 1 / t6/2021
A-48 o
FOTSOM. CA
RANCHSilverKnollat RUSSELL

01/25/2022 Item No.4.
t!strry-
lbro tun dd.dtur GU ot bb@aE dhftmb. s &
RIGHT
LEFT
,fN(-uI
o 2 4 a t2
REAR PLAN 5B OPT. DECK (2968 "B")

MODERN FARMHOUSE ELEVATION
tri i
m
EriTq4.

LENNAR'
11/16/2021
A_49
-:,:ttti (t ,:tl
Architect
I t,-j
6 FOLSOM. Ci
RANCHSilverKnollat RUSSELL 50'x 90
:cr r 94

01/25/2022 Item No.4.
{!Qr -
l-
-
|Ir| ilf,lt|EIll illlt------l[lrr-- t{f.--------
IrLlj1 ll[ll
-
.r'-1'lEl I
:r--l.lll I
,r"iltrIri-.JlEliiffil ffi
,rreE
t [email protected]. R.ls bM@ ffi!6bd. b. od tub 8ffi6
FRONT
REAR
,SAIETIATS I,EGEND
tloN@t: ruG&GD@R: ffiAffiWl@ coNmEulnEf&^ ffiURq: AW@
GA8U HD: WOOD eAN fOS Odt@tEt
RIGHT
LEFT
sHlJrm:
ru:

WAS@T:
rcr5tstr: suu@@o
coloR SCHEME g rMtu@rd€cqdbrq*rpofuollnr.str.

PLAN sC (2968 "C")
CALIFORNIA COTTAGE ELEVATION o 2 . 8 12
ffi iiffii
ffi
imnl ,='i,tE--'l ,i
lEIl, r ,.-.L,rIIl,r,:rllllr ' r.rEl]1 ':
lUlllr , ,r.rffiLr,=.
0n
11 116/2021 :
a
fl
Archilect',.,r L rt ().

RANC}I
FOtSOM, CA
SilverKnollat RUSSELLLENNAR' 50 r ?i'
:lt r 9A

01/25/2022 Item No.4.
,im, ffi, ,m
l- i.::::::-
il[r]t tlrlltltrt] | tlrltlr[l].- - 'il.--------xrrlll lt]_L T::]|rll I
|rr I
"tIrl-l-, llllt I
REAR
LIEIE
t.c$om ffi ffi cg ot bb r@nry mk.mnb, s Cb
PLAN 5C OPT. DECK (2968 "C")

PROGRESSIVE TRADITIONAL ELEVATION
RIGHT
LEFT
_&a!s
o 2 4 8 12
ffiffiffij
nffi
1 1 /1 6/2021
A-51
",/rjl
() t,i.

Architect
ll,_RANCH
fotsoM
SilverKnollat RUSSELLLENNAFI' 50 r 90'
2C1 i9A

01/25/2022 Item No.4.
"A'' SPANISH ECLECTIC "8" CALIFORNIA PRAIRIE

ROOF PLANS
PLAN 5 (29681
"C" CALIFORNIA COTTAGE
1vt6l202t
A-52 o
@
Kevin L. Crook
Architoct
lncrotsoM, ca
RANCI{Silver Knoll at ftu S S E L LLENNAR- 50'x 90'
20r l94

01/25/2022 Item No.4.
.'A'' SPANISH ECLECTIC "B'' CALIFORNIA PRAIRIE

ROOF PLANS
PLAN 5 OPTTONAL DECK (2968)
,.C" CALIFORNIA COTTAGE
o 2 1 I t2
LENNAR" 50'x 90'
20t 19A Architsc{
lnc
11116/2021
A-53 oN
Kevin L. Crook
f otsofl, ca
N,ANCI{Silver Knoll at RUSSELL

01/25/2022 Item No.4.
sws15
HOMESTEAD BROW]\
sw068
GRIZLE GilY
swaT

AURORA BROWN
PAM BODY sw28s
BROWN
/TRIM /
DOOR
sw6081

DOWN HOME
sw28s swo:()

QUARTERSAMOAK BRAINSTORMBRONZE
oooR /
LOW PROFILE 1VtCS64&r

CA MISSION BLEND
1VrCS5537

PUEBLO SIENNA BLD
lvtcs3233

EROWN ALEND
PAINT OI/ER wlIH PAINT O/ER WTH PAII{T OVER wlTH

GRAYGRAYGRAY
SATSOl

SILVER KNOLLAT RUSSELL RANCH

FOLSOM, CA
JOB# 20119A/50'x9O
CREATED 3f2TN21
*T'qlot u1,na21
SHERWN
w[ I taMsPAINT:

STONE/
BRtCtC

CULTUREO STONE/
ELDOilDO
ROOF: BORAL
GROUT: ORCOoTEoUI
PAVERS: CASA CASTILLO
LENNAF(*
Kevin L. Crook IArchitect I
U F6HING. Gll.@q OOWNSrcUre ft. IO E PAMS TO NTCH |MEM $SrcE AL FAIfr Src TO E CUT AI INSIDE 6MES - FOR PIOTOSHOPE R€NOERING PURPOSES ONIY F loi IS' IN IIE F ELO + MYSTS INTIUTION
IGSTPNUM6,@N,C&ONS.EIC.sru PINTDGPMIOUA4AU$ffiFICIEDEJUMO T# B RESINS DE PIMUM SE CORTM EN 6 SUIW I@OG
"SOLOPAfuFiNESOC PHOIOSHCP V RLPRESL:NJACIONLS. NO USAR EN I,LCAMPO

WRITTEN COLOR SCHEMES
sw0020
PAII{T BODY
DOOR
sw2820
DOWNING ffiTH
s\,wom
tRoN os
svfro47

PORPOISE
stotNG
DOOR
FhT SUTE

IRON MILLSIDEWALKCOTTONWOOD
sw28s

PAINT AODY
swmSTRIM

SIDING/
1FBCF1430FUTSre

GMYGRAYGRAY
LENNAR" 50' x 90
201 I 9A
ieviri I Cr, rol
Architcct
lnc
t1 /16/2021
A-54
9 f or50M. ca
RANCI{SilverKnollatRUSSELL

01/25/2022 Item No.4.

SPANISH ECLECTIC
SCHEME #1
6o
o
f oo
:q
us
OL
o
eRrck
LENNAS' SILVER KNOLL AT RUSSELL RANCH Mrbhxl

FOLSOM, CA

SPANISH ECLECTIC
SCHEME #2
do
o
) oo
:9
or*
?*
og
o
ARrcK
LENNaR sI LV ER n* O.tnl
lUSSELL
RA;\.gj:jr *ffiffi
I
COLOR BOARDS - "A'' SPANISH ECLECTIC
.COIORS MAY VARY DUE TO SCREEN AND PRINTER
CALIBRATION. REFER TO PAINT CHIPS AND MATERIAL
EOARDS FOR ACTUAL COIORS.

LENNAFT s I LV E R * * O. t jl, :^'SS
E LL RA)r?r
i *ft#|
oo
BRICK
o
o

SPANISH ECLECTIC
SCHEME #3
OL
o
:q
<9d;9a
LENNAFT' 50' r 90'
201 I 9^.

Kevirr L Crook
Architect
l1 / t 6/2021 9
for50M ca
RANCHSilver Knoll at RUSSELL

01/25/2022 Item No.4.

CALIFORNIA PRAIRIE
SCHEME #4
do
o
oo
to
39 ?*
4o oo
z
&
STONE
LENNAR SILVER KNOLL AT RUSSELL RANCHW'A,d,trfl*I
FoLsoM. cA -?i* , .-. -. ...- ..."-.

CALIFORNIA PRAIRIE
SCHEME #5
b
o
) oo
to
F6
s9
36 =6
I
o
8 z
I
STON€
LENNATT SILVER KNOLL AT RUSSELL RA:!?{*l*ffi|

FOLSOM, A

COLOR BOARDS - 'IBI' CALIFORNIA PRAIRIE
.COIORS MAY VARY DUE TO SCREEN AND PRINTER
CALIBRATION. REFER ]O PAIM CHIPS AND MATERIAL
BOARDS FOR ACTUAT COIORS.

LENNAF? s r LV E R ** O t
lnl:^rss
E LL *o5' *iffi.!
oo
z
I
zo
39 $5
o
l oot
STONE

CALIFORNIA PRAIRIE
SCHEME #6
1l/16/242t 1 ,,,,1 L {- r,r, ,l'.

Archit€ct
lrLroL50^r 1:A
RANCI:ISih'erKnollatRUSSELLLENNAFT 5rt t)i,'

01/25/2022 Item No.4.

CALIFORNIA COTTAGE
SCHEME #7
LENNAR SILVER KNOLL AT RUSSELL RA NCHK*igHl
lnclFOLSM, CA
E
&
f,
do
o
o
&
ARrcK
OHOLo)FT
o
;5zodoq3
i*
0 CATIFORNIA COTTAGE
SCHEME #8
LENNA|| S|LVER KNOLL AT RUSSELL RANCH *ml

FOLSOM, A
:
g
L<
oo
BRIC(
8E
o
zoao6t{
iE
Bo
8 f

CALIFORNIA COTTAGE
SCHEME #9
LENNA,' SILVER KNOLL AT RUSSELL *oH:ml

FOLSOM, CA
o
o
) oo
ERICKr \d
i zo\ 6d< alt
3 <3
0g
o

COLOR BOARDS - 'IC'' CALIFORNIA COTTAGE
.COLORS MAY VARY DUE TO SCREEN AND PRINTER
CAIIBRATION. REFER TO PAINT CHIPS AND MATERIAL
BOARDS FOR ACIUAL COLORS.

LENNATiI
l:itr' l L r,tr,'rf
Architect
lr'
511 ' ?4,'
:tL, I '),1
lt/16 2t)?_t
A57RANCH
tot50I\
Silver Knollat RUSSELL

01/25/2022 Item No.4.

FOLSOM, CA
RANCH
Sterling Hills at

RUSSELL
@
@@
55' x 105'
201 l9F

LENNAFI'
Kevin L. Crook
Architect
lnc
t 1 /t 6/2021
A-58 6

01/25/2022 Item No.4.
i
PLAN 1 (r99r)
55'0 s€'
PLAN 2 (2162) PLAN 3 (3028)

TYPICAL PLOTTING
$g
PLAN 4 (33r2)
I
il
!
-g
tr
TI
\
]-]
re
g
7 J
...g
!
t
.)Sterling Hills at RU S S E L L
t1/16/20?t
A-59
.r'Ylir i f.r ,L;1.

Architect
lrt':

CA

RANCHLENNAR'
55 t 105
]OI I ?F

01/25/2022 Item No.4.
$',o' $-o $'o
b
I
TEGEND
I RRSIFI.OORMASSING

I SECOND FLOOR MASSING
: COVERED FRONTPORCH IONESTORY}
-

DRIVEWAY / SIDEWALK
'ffio'
PTANI ISPANISHCOTONIALREVIVAL PLAN2ICALIFORNIAWINE PLAN3I]RANSITIONALBUNGALOW PLAN4ISPANISHCOTONIALREVIVAL

ARTICULATION PLAN
'ii:irirr I Clri,rrl
Architect
lnc
9 aSterling Hills at R,U S S E L L
1t/16/2021
A_60
f orsoM. ca

RANCHLENNAR'
55 t lC5
:0r r ?F

01/25/2022 Item No.4.
,4" SPANISH COLONIAL

REVIVAL

EXTERIOR LIGHTS
..8" CALIFORNIA WINE
.'C'' TRADITIONAL BUNGALOW
'A' SPANISH COLONIAL REVIVAL
PLAN r (1,991)

FRONT ELEVATIONS
.,e*r%ff
@A2l (6vin L. ftok &chil€ci rnc. R€rsr ro londcope drc*ng! lorwoll. Ee. ond 5hrub Locotioro @ U I K€eh L Crook Archhct lnc. Reta lo londscoF drcs.$ ror rctL h, ond shrub t€oib6 ''C'' TRANSITIONAL BUNGALOW"B" CALIFORNIA WINE
l+o ? I 8 12
il
9 6Sterling Hills at RU S S E L L
t1/16/2021
A-61
(evin I Crook
Architect
lncf oLsoM. cA

RANCHLENNAFT'
55 r lOs'
201 l9F

01/25/2022 Item No.4.
t
F
€
U
o
mI-"'l
o
MY
I...fro
Li*
XtrCHEN
l
PI-AN i

AREA TABLII ATION
!99!p4E_
F6 F@R M 1.991 Sq. ff.

TOTA MI|NC 1.991 Sa. ft,
6&E 419 S0. fr.PORCH'A' 39 SO. fi.
&RCH t' 39 SO. fi.
rcRCH t' 39 SO. t.PAIO 153 SQ. ff.

FLOOR PLAN
PLAN r (r 991 "A")
3 BEDROOM,2.5 BATH, OFFICE o 2 1 E 12
:
;)Sterling Hills at RUSSELL
)t/16/242t
A,62
-:.,\rif : flr ,Lr!.

I l,-l
ArchitectRANCHLENNAR -.ct Iti

01/25/2022 Item No.4.
t.vr L O@l Adtul. hc
FRONT
rmrh$rdokdd*.(olbb@qhosh@e'Mh s!it6
REAR
lcldlo @rdMFldwdl. fiF, od *db&tu lle6tuM d*dtullecd olbBr{uil& e.hffi€mil!, e ite o 2 1 8 t2
MATERIAI.S I.EGEND
FRONID@R: FTSERGUSS
G^RAGEOOOR: M8^LSECTDNAL
rcgF: CONCRftlOwPROflU'S nLE
ROOF EXTNSION W@D CORSEL A (NE' SRACE
FSqA' GUNER
SARGt }6WOOD
GABLE ENO: w@D GRAN rcA^l OUnOO(m
wau srucco/8Rtc(

BOAROANO BANEN
snm6.

TIN:

PORCH:
vNnw/ Gftos
STUCCO OVER RGD rcAM
WOOD POSI AND8ilM
DECOR^NVEWOOD CORtrL
W@O RAILING
POLYUR&ANECORECANTIWER:

RIGHT
tFFT
;!
L
COLOR SCHEME ]
PLAN r A (1991)

SPANISH COLONIAL REVIVAL ELEVATION
j:l
11/16/2021
A-63
(evin L. Crook
Architect -lnc ?Sterling Hills at R,U S S E LL
55 x los'
20r i ?F
f ot50M, ca
RANCHLENNAFI"

01/25/2022 Item No.4.
t'effiffiffi
(evin t. tukMtul. hc
FRONT
lea tl1ff @rcd fd *cu or bR @dhg ffhffiffiE K ri.

REAR
Rd*lodry ddqr rddl t{ od sob rtroi6
MAfERIAUi TEGEND
FRONTO@R: fl8ERGNS
GAgAGEOOOR: MEIAISECNONAT
iOOFr CONCRflET6TITG
FASOA: GWER
RIGHT
LEFT
wALl: STECO /uP SIUNG/SION€ VENEEF
WINDOWS: VINYL
TRM: StuCCOOvEPRdDFoil

CEMENNIOUS FEER TR&
ROOFffENION: w@DCORSEL &(Ntr EuCE
I
sl!i
i
I
COLOR SCHEME 4
PLAN lB (l99i)
CALIFORNIA WINE ELEVATION o 2 a a 12
\m
(evirr L CrooI
Architect
lt lc
*
aSterling Hills at RU S S E L L
11/16/2021
A-64
torsoM, cA
RANCHLENNAFI"
55 r lC5'
20t r 9F

01/25/2022 Item No.4.
']wi
m2l(.sn! cd&cnilsr. rrc
FRONT
[m M 6W M ccu or ba rq6T €l1MM66, s te.

REAR
R.ls ro bew ddQtlc wd, t*, d rbb Eob i.ro hs lsd d cccd ot bn r.q*hg hhffi.mh. s dle MATERIAI.S TEGEND
FRSI rcOR: n8ERGSS
GARAGEDOOR. MFALSrcNONAL
R@F: CONCRflE MJ nLE
FSdA: GUnR
WG€:i@F ffENSION:

GAIEEND:

IRM:

PORCH:

CANTIfVER:

WOOD CORSEL ND KNEE BRACE
WOOD CORBEI NO (N5E BRACE
rcARONDEAEN
flcco/ uPsruNc
vtNYt w GRtos
succo ovER RrGrD fos
RIGHT
LEFT
CruWOUs F8ERNil
rcu8E W@O POsT W BflCX

SCXF RNI
rcLYUPENANE CORBEL
MICK
COLOR SCHEME 7
PLAN lC (1991)
TRANSITIONAL BUNGALOW ELEVATION o 2 1 A t2
HF FE Ftilr ttrrl ]f il
tt/16/2021
A-55
9 a;
(eirin I CrloL
Architect
lncf orsoM. cA
RANC}ISterling Hills at RU S S E L LLENNAFT"
55 x lC5'
20r r 9F

01/25/2022 Item No.4.
"A" - SPANISH COLONIAL REVIVAL "8" - CALIFORNIA WINE

ROOF PLANS
PLAN r (r99r)

C'' - TRANSITIONAL BUNGALOW
o 2 4 I t2
LENNAR" Sterling Hills at R,U S S E L L
Kevin L. Crook
Architect
lnc
1 1 116/2021
A-66
f orsoM, ca
RANCH
55' r 105'
201 19F

01/25/2022 Item No.4.
(avn L C@k tchirecl hc-
,,*,o"ffiffi
fr
"A" SPANISH COLONIAL

REVIVAL

EXTERIOR LIGHTS
,.B" CALIFORNIA WINE
"C" TRADITIONAL BUNGALOW
.'tr
''l:ei.*t;, UffS
,,A" SPANISH COLONIAL REVIVAL
PLAN 2 (2162)

FRONT ELEVATIONS
t€. ond shrub kotions
Kovn L. Crook&hnecr, hc,
"""s'"'&-ffirff
Reier ro londrcoF dtrngr lor m[ n€, ond 5hrub locorions .,8" CALIFORNIA WINE ..C" TRANSITIONAL BUNGALOW
o 2 1 A 12
ll
(evir.i l Crook
Architect
lnc
6 6Sterling Hills at RU S S E L L
55 x los
?OI ]9F
1\/16/2021
A-67
ror50M, ca
RANCHLENNAR"

01/25/2022 Item No.4.
i
t
Lt]E
KtrCHS
Z\rpi\'\)AJ\Z/
oo
Aib*.

H
d
l
PUN 2

AREA TABUTATION
CONDtrIONEDSPACE
Fffi FmR RA 2.152 S. ff.
lota mNG 2.1@ sa, fr,

UNCONDMONO SPACE
rcRCH 'B' & t'FLOOR PLAN
PLAN 2 (2162 "A")
4 BEDROOM,2.5 BATH
417 Sa. fr,
59 $- ft,
143 I fr
o 2 I I 12
r.t'\lilj i (.r.,')l
Architect
It l,;Sterling Hills at RUS S E L L
:5 r lat'
;tc r I?F
tt/16/2421
A-68

TQLS()M, CA

RANCHLENNAR

01/25/2022 Item No.4.

Retdto Mry ddno td dl t& 6d tub&dtu rtrd s*ndofu lholecqd bn@dc$@effih e!r. ffio 2 I 6 12
FRONT
REAR
IIATERIAI.S TEGEND
RIGHT
LEFI
rRONr @i: FEERGAS
GARAG DOOR: WAI SSONAI
ROOF: CONCRS€LOWPRORLIS nf
ROOF EXTNsION: W@DCORiEL & $€E IRACE
FAC|A: OUnER
BARCe: a6wOOO
GABIEEND:
sHm6:
lltM:

PORCH:

CANNL&ER.

W@D GRAIN rcN OUAOO(8
succo/ 9rcK
rcNO ANOSANEN
vtNYt w Giros
SIMIhIED W@D
srcCO OV€R rcD rcAM
w@o Posr ND 8aM
rcORAIIVE WO@ CORBEL
w@o RAure

POLYORFHANE CORBA
COLOR SCHEME 2
PLAN 2A (2162],

SPANISH COLONIAL REVIVAL ELEVATION
I
bJ
ed
I
LENNAFT' Sterling Hills at RU S S E L L
t1/16/202r
A-69
'(evin L. CrooL
Architect ;tnc irorsoM, cA
n,ANCH
55 x 105'
201 I tF

01/25/2022 Item No.4.
",*ffiffi
'91 I2l K.vn l. cr@l e.hlEr, h. lelsb dr@d4qrld wd ns, d tubkd& FRONT
REAR

MAIERIALS TEGENO
FRONI@i: FISERGUSS
G^RAGEOOOF: MSALSECTIONAT
ROOF: CONCRftfStnEFASCIA: ffi€RWALI: slUCCO/ UP SIDING /SIONTVENE€R WNrcWSl VINYL
TRtrl: SUCCOOVEIRIGID rcsl

CEMENMJOUS FIEEP
'RIMROOFmNS,ON: WOOD CORBEL A XNEE EUCE
RIGHT
LEFT
COTOR SCHEME 5
PLAN 2B (2162)
CALIFORNIA WINE ELEVATION o 2 4 a 12
I
i
g?
ili
I
l
LENNAR' Sterling Hills at RU S S E L L
55 r 105
201 ItF
1t/16/2021
A,-70
(evin L- Crrok
Architect
lnc 6
fotsoM. cA
RANCH

01/25/2022 Item No.4.
ffi ffii[It tLIt- ]tr:l lill
!t) @t (.s L (k !ed. hc. l.lrlo be@d@ldkl ta, od tub kdd FRONT
REAR
,IIAIERIAIS IEGEND
FRONr@a: Frl€RGh$
GARAGEOOqI MFALSSONAL
@F: CONCRFE tul nU
FASOA: GWR
hRGE:

RO* EXTENSION:

GAEE€ND:
rcRCHi
CANIIIEVER:
a6 w@oW@OCdSELAD (NEEBRACE
W@DCORSAND KNE€BUCE

EOAM AND SANEN
ruco /uPstDNG
VINYLW GRIDs
trrcCOOVERRIGD rcM
Cfu€l\lmus FIBEI IRIM

TUEEWOOO POSTWBRTCK

FC(F RAIL
POIYURMAil€COR&I
tRtc(
RIGHT
LEFI
et
d:*!
COLOR SCHEME 8
PLAN 2C (2162l'
TRANSITIONAL BUNGALOW ELEVATION o 2 4 8 t2
11/16/2021
A-7t
(errin I Cror>L
Architect
lna 6
toLsoM. ca
R,ANCHSterling Hills at RU S S E L LLENNAFI"
55 ! 105'
?01 l9F

01/25/2022 Item No.4.
,,A" . SPANISH COLONIAL REVIVAL .'B'' . CALIFORNIA WINE

ROOF PLANS
PLAN 2 (21 62)
.C'' - TRANSITIONAL BUNGALOW
a 2 4 A 12
Kevin L. Crook
Architect
lnc oSterling Hills at RUSSELL
11/16/2021
A-72

FOTSOM, CA

RANCIILENNAR'
55' r 105'
20t t9F

01/25/2022 Item No.4.

EXTERIOR LIGHTS
w-
@ @1 bin L. O6k effid. rrc. ReA b bndEoF dM$ rs mil, @, od $tub l6ofo6 "A' SPANISH COLONIAL REVIVAL
'fr
..A" SPANISH COLONIAL

REVIVAL
''8" CALIFORNIA WINE
,'C" TRADITIONAL BUNGALOW
o 2 1 8 12
d
O@r rdin L. Crook tuchiEci trc.
:F'
"B" CALIFORNIA WINE
Rcfstolondryffirylorrcil.ree. ondi&bEotunt
.rF"
Rder to bndrcqe drdn$ for M[, @, ond $rub toconbs
..C" TRANSITIONAL BUNGALOW
PLAN 3 (3028)

FRONT ELEVATIONS
LENNAR' Sterling Hills at RUSSELL | /16/2021
A-73
".1 'lrl ) i (_.1 ,L )i
Architect
lr l,:
;lRANCH
55 , l(l1l'
-rD| )t

01/25/2022 Item No.4.
ns-/oo
:t
:f
6&
vg
5LELnl ".'nlcu '".5LE-EJ
KTCHEN
C o
l
l
OPT. DECK
PI.AN 3
ARFA TAilN ANON

CONDITIONE SPACE
1,t73 SQ. ff.r.s5 sQ, f,,
5,024 sQ, il.

SECOND FLOOR PLAN FIRST FLOOR PLAN
620 $. fr.
r53 $. fr.
r53 SQ. F.1$ Sq. [.
2!O S0. fr,
124 $. fr,oPt. oEcx

UNCONDMONED SPACE
o 2 1 A 12
PLAN 3 (3028 "A")
5 BEDROOM,3 BATH, LOFT, OPT. DECK
-lt:v tr I (lt,,r;L
Architect
ir tL:
:i,Sterling Hills at RU S S E L L
11/t6/2021
A-7 4
ci

RANCHLENNAFT'
55 ! lC5
201 rtF

01/25/2022 Item No.4.
!G.

FRONT
lMtu@tu|@otbnDqlip.l!ffima,sS.

REAR
ldff b Edq dElld d, h, d tu boh imilMdl'&Mcildbtoq*lt-hrcmt.s fr

IIAIEIIAIS TEGEND
RIGHT
LEFT
nNI](u: FArcN
qMILTR:

GAUGErcOR: WASffiOMtR@F: CNRft IOW rcflES nE
R@F ruON, WOODCOR'R t NEEBUCEF&h: GUffiBAEGE b WMD
GABE SD: w@D GIAN fOAM OUAOOffRwArL scco/8Rrc(
rcAROAilOSATTR
sHlms:TtulPdct:

VNYLWqDS
!ruuEw@DS@OOVF RIGDrcAM
w@P6rNO8ilrcs^rvE w@D coRffiwooo uruNcrcLYURfrANE COSET COLOR SCHEME 3
PLAN 3A (3028)
SPANISH COLONIAL REVIVAL ELEVATION o 2 4 A 12
--rtmiru
ITI iHilHl
u iulfj
Hffi
o n
1,ryir i C1,,.)l^
Architect
Itl';
9 ;)Sterling Hills at RU S S E L L
)1/16/242t
A_75
CA
RANCHLENNAFI :ct I ?l

01/25/2022 Item No.4.
--t
il
lflEI
m rmiI[ll |i1{IH1ffi w'
llm!6Mffi tuleddbtreiry.lMm6h, m 9..
[mtud(#S€csdbtqdttdG.1ls.s0..

REAR
RIGHT
LEFT
PLAN 3 (3028 "A" OPTTONAL DECK)
SPANISH COLONIAL REVIVAL ELEVATION o 2 4 6 t2
.:

LENNAR Sterling Hills at RU S S E L L
t1/16/2021
A-7 6
'rei/l.r L f:firif.

Architect
lna
:
o
CA
RANCH
55 r lOt
?cl I 9F

01/25/2022 Item No.4.
@F: 'i !, .: !?
@l(esr.crd!cM*r h.

FRONT
&Nlllm@tun 6csorbarede €'1lffisa,e{o,
REAR

8.1f, to bdcry @iV ic wd, ri. od tub 6tu
IAATERIAIS I.EGEND
fRONTcmt: HBatd*SCAPA&md: WT{ SrclbNAI
R@F; CONC8tr FUTIE
FACIA: GWER
WAL[: $UCCO/UPSIDING/JIONEVENE€R
WNrcWs: VNYI
TRIM: SrccOOv€R RGIO FON
ctustou! RSERnN
R@F mSlONr W@DCORSEI & kNEE8RACE
RIGHT
LEFT
COLOR SCHEME 6
PLAN 3B {3028)
CALIFORNIA WINE ELEVATION o 2 4 I 12
TIiI
LENNAR' Sterling Hills at RU S S E L L
1t/16/2021
A-77 6Architect
(evirr i Cri rok
FOl50M, CA
RANCH lnc

5.5 x los'
201 l9F

01/25/2022 Item No.4.
tilir
[6m6 ddMecudbnqn€ftMffin, h{e
RIGHT
LEFTREAR COLOR SCHEME 6
PLAN 3 (3028 "8" OPTTONAL DECK)
CALIFORNIA WINE ELEVATION o 2 1 A t2
!l
t.i
i
'(evin L Cr, rol
Arch itect
Itttt
9 ;iSterling Hills at RU S S E L L

5.5 r lC5'
?01 I ?F
11/16/2021
A_78
CA

RANCHLENNAFT'

01/25/2022 Item No.4.
.!s9
I
ilq!
t-
MlkS I (kecil*t tr. il@r tu6@s ftlccudbn r@fio shGmt,ada.

FRONT
REAR
FAqA: WERBArci a6 WOOO
ROOF EKENSION: WOOO CqBfl ND (NEE IRACE
GSLE ENO] WOOD CORBEL ANO INEE BRAC€
rcdD ANO SAftN
MAIERIAI.S IEGEND
FRONI O@R: FISEFGWS
GAIAGEOOOR. MAALSECIIONAL
ROOF: CONCRFE UTIIE
srcco/ uP $D|NG
VINYLW/GRIDs
tlccoov€R RGD rce

CEMENIMOUS HSERTRU
rc!ru w@o rcsTw/ EREK

PICKERAIL
POLYURflHAN€ COiEEL
BRIC(
RIGHT
LEFT
RU:

PORCH:

CANTIEVER:

COLOR SCHEME 9
PLAN 3C (3028)
TRANSITIONAL BUNGALOW ELEVATION o 2 1 A 12
Hm
D
l1/16/2021
A-79
9 Sterling Hills at RU S S E L L
(r:vin I Crrok
Architect
lncFOt50M, CA
RANCHLENNAR"
55 , 105
201 I ?F

01/25/2022 Item No.4.

REAR
hd 6M(j&dcs clbh oattE shGffenLs de
PLAN 3 (3028 "C" OPTTONAL DECK)

TRANSITIONAL BUNGALOW ELEVATION
RIGHT
LEFT
o 2 1 S 12
Sterling Hills at RU S S E L L
11/16/2021
A-80
'(r:vrtt I Ct, rrri.

Architect
lnc
9 a)RANCHLENNAR'
55 x loi
20t 1tF

01/25/2022 Item No.4.
,,A'- SPANISH COLONIAL REVIVAL ,,8" - CALIFORNIA WINE

ROOF PLANS
PLAN 3 (3028)
..C'' - TRANSITIONAL BUNGALOW
o 2 4 A 12
Sterling Hills at RUsSELL@
|116/2021
A-81
Kevin L. Crook
Architect -tnc Iforsoff, cA

RANCHLENNATT'
55' r 105'
20t r 9F

01/25/2022 Item No.4.
,'A'' . SPANISH COLONIAL REVIVAL ..8" . CALIFORNIA WINE

OPT- DECK ROOF PTANS
PLAN 3 (3028)
.,C" - TRANSITIONAL BUNGALOW
o 2 4 I 12
Sterling Hills at RU s S E L t @
1t /16/202t
A-82 6
Kevin L Crook
f oLsoM, ca
RANCHLENNAR" ArchitEct
lnc
55' x 105'
20i t9F

01/25/2022 Item No.4.
'3W --:.::r:t-.
"A'' SPANISH COLONIAL

REVIVAL

EXTERIOR LIGHTS
.,B" CALIFORNIA WINE
.'C" TRADITIONAL BUNGALOW
o 2 1 a 12
'#
@ 41 Kevin L. tuk Archil*i irc.
btd lo londsoF dEsnes lor woll. t€. ond tub l@oliont
''A' SPANISH COLONIAL REVIVAL
PLAN 4 ',3312)

FRONT ELEVATIONS
OU I (sin L q@k &chnsct hc. Ral€r ro londrcopo &sngs br woll, ts., and shrub bcotiorc .'C" TRANSITIONAL BUNGALOW
te6. dnd $rub konbn3
"!@F -:;::'i.
@dr Hnr.tuok&chn*t.hc.
,'B" CALIFORNIA WINE
ll
11/16/2021
A-83
I
A'
55' r lC5
201 I 9F
(i:vin I Cr, ,( )l
Architect
lncrotScJM, cA
RANCHSterling Hills at RU S S E L LLENNAR

01/25/2022 Item No.4.
o
SDRM.2
l-"1
o
b
I
o
caar:M-]
L__l
$t
fl
d sum
""i:I
fas-/
q/"ffi;"!j)
G-lD
BDRM- 4
7 r
lOPT. DECK
PLAN 4

AREA TABULATION
REh'NCF
nreT FLOOR ARA r,@1 +
SE@ND FDOR m& 1.702 +

UNCONOIIONED SPACE
627 $, f,.
22 S. fr.
1a sQ. fr.
177 50. F,
M ]@
0 - 1.702 SQ. tr,
o 2 1 8 12

SECOND FLOOR PLAN FIRST FLOOR PLAN
PLAN 4 (3312 "A")
4 BEDROOM,3.5 BATH, LOFT, SUITE, OPT. DECK
ie,ritr I (lr,,ol.

Architect
Inc
9 aSterling Hills at RU S S E L L
1t/16/202\
A-84
lots()M, cA

RANCHLENNAFT
t5 x I05'
?01 I 9F

01/25/2022 Item No.4.
ro ml k'n L o@k tchnod. k
FRONT
t---
ibdsM d6dsdr ecs oiloareMgsMrcfrfrr,!s$..

REAR
t.l* ro 6*c@ dd@r id wol. !{, ond M Eolbd
MAIERIATS I.EGEND
FRONT@R; FToERGUSS
GAIAGEOOOR: MSALSECTIONA!
ROOF: CONCIftIOWPROfIC'S rLE
ROOI ffNslONi WOOD CORSEL & KNEE BiACE
FASC|^: GUfi€R
GABLE RO: WOOD GRAIN FOAM OUn@ftR
wAui slucco / ERtcx
OOdDANOBATN

WNFWS VINYLWGRIOS
sflUnERs: SIMUhEO W@D
TRN: SruccOOvEF RIGD rc&PORCB: WOODPOSI ANDAEAM
DCOF^M WOOD CORBA

WOODR ILING
CANTIWS: POLYURSHANECORBEL
RIGHT
LEFT
l
ii
COLOR SCHEME i
PLAN 4A (33r2)
SPANISH COLONIAL REVIVAL ETEVATION o 2 4 I t2
11116/2021
A-85Sterling Hills at RU S SE LL
(evin L Crook
Architect
lncf oLsoM, cA
RANCHLENNAR"
55'x 105'
20t I 9r

01/25/2022 Item No.4.

It dtudddN*ddbh@h9docffih,sd.

PLAN 4 (3312 "A" OPTTONAL DECK)

SPANISH COLONIAL REVIVAL ELEVATION
RIGHT
lmiM@ ruccq 6 btrqftpdffffiL *sa.

REAR
o 2 4 A l2
'1.e1in L CrL,()l
Architect
lt til
:
bSterling Hills at RU S SE LL
tt/16/2021
A_85RANCHLENNAFI
55 x 105
201 r9F

01/25/2022 Item No.4.
mm,[IJ M
klh t. @ &.h[6r. k t lilo@Wddrylff {d,te,sd hbboh
FRONT
REAR
,YIATERIAIS IEGEND
FROMmR: flBftG4$
GARAGDOOR: ffi^LSglON^lROOF: CONCRftFUIILE
FSqA: WERwAL!: ffCO / l^Ps0NG/ SIONI VENEER
WNrcWS: VINIL
nM: IIKCOOVERftOO rcM
Cfu€MNOUS FISER TRN
SOOFEmilSPN: w@O Cdl€l& rN:E BR^CE
RIGHT
LEFT
COLOR SCHEME 4
PLAN 4B (3312)
CALIFORNIA WINE ELEVATION o 2 a I t2
I
l
I
11 I
Sterling Hills at RU S S E L L
11/t6/202t
A.-47
'i.evirr L. Cra)ok
Architect
inc
9 RANCHLENNAFI
55 r lC5
201 t9F

01/25/2022 Item No.4.
lledM ffidtul(cqdbh qegm&mt, nde
PLAN 4 (3312 "8" OPTTONAL DECK)

CALIFORNIA WINE ELEVATION
RIGHT
REAR
o 2 1 A l2
t1/16/2021
A-88
I
Sterling Hills at RU S S E L L
55 t lC5
?0r i9F
-l.vttrL er,,Lri.

Architect
lf 'l

RANCHLENNAR

01/25/2022 Item No.4.
nekio @ dode[ E wd, b, d M Edm ilmllrM @ddccuotblnq*l! tumf,t. s dt.

FRONT
REAR
MATERIAuII,EGEND
rRdlrcoR: flIERGN
GARAGDOORT MF{SglON lR@f: CONCRftUTIE
8rcE:

ROOF EmlONl
G^B!e END.

TRIM:

PORCH:

CAMEVA:

GUTR
&w@o
WOOO COREEI AND (Nff 6RACE

WOOOCORBELNO (NE' ERAC'
srucco / uP sluNc

UNYL W GRIS
$UCCOOVERRIGDrcM
RIGHT
LEFT
CEreMMOU! NB€R NNmuEEwoooffiwBRrc(

PIC(F RAL
rcLYUifr^NECORS&
SR|C(
COLOR SCHEME 7
PLAN 4C (33 r 2)

TRANSITIONAL BUNGALOW ELEVATION
ffio 2 I 8 12
a(:r'in I Clr ,ol.

Architect
lrla:
i:Sterling Hills at RU S S E L L
11/16/2021
A-89
CA

RANCHLENNAR'
55 \ 105'
20t l9F

01/25/2022 Item No.4.
il.dtu&M6.*dbb @ift 6hffiL nfr.

PLAN 4 (33r 2 "C" OPTTONAL DECK)

TRANSITIONAL BUNGALOW ELEVATION
RIGHT
REAR
ffio 2 1 E 12
'rirvitr I C]t ,irl
Architect
il l,l
9 c:Sterling Hills at RUSSELL
tt/16/2021
A-90
FOL:)OM, CA

RANCHLENNAFT'
:5 ' rci
-1Ll:l?F

01/25/2022 Item No.4.
,'A'' - SPANISH COLONIAL REVIVAL "8" _ CALIFORNIA WINE

ROOF PLANS
PLAN 4 (33121
"C" - TRANSITIONAL BUNGALOW
o 2 4 A 12
Sterling Hills at R,USsELL@
t1/1612021
A-91
Kevin L. Crook
Architect -tnc If orsoM. ca
RANC}ILENNAR'
55' r 105'
?01 l9F

01/25/2022 Item No.4.
''A" - SPANISH COLONIAL REVIVAL ''8" - CALIFORNIA WINE

OPT, DECK ROOF PLANS
PLAN 4 (3312)
''C" - TRANSITIONAL BUNGALOW
o 2 4 A \2
Sterling Hills at RUSSELL@
11116/2021
A-92 o
Kevin t Crook
f oLsoM, ca
RANCHLENNAr{ Architect
lnc
55'x 105'
201 l9F

01/25/2022 Item No.4.
sffi61sw6061swm6l
sw6192
8CHEIG 38ctCilEI 8Cr€tE2
'Ai E.EI'ATIOI8
tP ltSlt
:ct.ot{ul-REvl t
PAINT AODY sw530sM573

END DETAIL
FULL "S"TILE lHBCSW
STERLING HILLS AT RUSSELL RANCH JOB #

CREATED
201 19F / 55'x105'
3/2212021FOLSOM, CA
PANr: SHERWN

WILLIAMS

STONE/ CULTUREOSTONE/
BRld: ELDOMm
ROOF: BOML
GROT T: ORCO or EQUAL
PAVERS: CASACASTILLO

LENNAFI'
Kevin L. Crook
Architect
lnc
[L F6HING, GUNERS, DOWN$OUE frC IO* PAilIEOTOUTCH^MEffiSUSG AL PANT BRrc IO * CUIAT I6IDE @ilES TON 6 TPIUMS. MEffi, MON*. frC$N HilT@ P& IGlJl4 A 4 SUPERFEIE DE JUMO TOM 6 RESTAUN OE PIWilSE @M EN N 6OUIN INTROES
"sold P/irurNfsDF PNoJ;siloPY RlPrEs!!rAcroNEs No lsaRrN er c^Ji,a

WRITTEN COLOR SCHEMES
EilE\r^Tlq'l8
SW/5O4sw9084BODY
sMm6sw607a
DOOR
SW51M
BEIGE

FUT SUTE
1 FACS3280
DARK BRONZEZINC GEYPARCHMENTROOF:

FIELDLEDGE

GRAYGRAYGRAY
PddMnOn d av
sw&3sw6172sw6w5
sw7540sMos1swTs
gCHEF98crfilE0SCrrxEt
E: EIA'AIT('B
rR^IrSfnoilAL
iltn Low
sw540PAINT BODY
/ TRIM

COCONUTDOVERMITE
DOOR

FLAT SHAKE

MOUNTAIN LEDGEPANELS
11/16/2021
A-93
9 Sterling Hills at RU S S E L L
55'x lC5'
201 l9F
(evirr I Crook
Architsct
Incf oLsoil, ca

RANCHLENNAR'

01/25/2022 Item No.4.

SPANISH COLONIAL REVIVAL
SCHEME #1
o
o
3 o
I
io
Fd
-<9
36 ogoi
o
f
6oz
0 PAVERS
LENNAE STERLING HILLS AT RUSSELL RANCH *Hl

FOLS, CA

SPANISH COLON IAL REVIVAL
SCHEME #2
o
o
I q
ro
_o9
vcf6
OL
I
=
z
0 LENNAR STERL|NG HTLLS AT RUSSELL RANCH *ihffil
FoLsoM, cA -fls
..... .. . .-.- -

COLOR BOARDS - I'AI' SPANISH COLONIAL
.COIORS MAY VARY DUE TO SCREEN AND PRINTER
CAIIBRATION. REFER TO PAIM CHIPS AND MATERIAI
BOARDS FOR ACTUAL COLORS.

SPANISH COLONIAL REVIVAL
SCHEME #3

LENNAGI STERLING HILLS AT RUSSELL RANCH
FOLSOM. CA
z
xfroi
o
o
I o
3 ^*Hl
PAVEE:oEq
36 )tit(,/")())l i,',,, L,.r ' l
Architect
I
.:;
RANCFI
lQtlc,A\
Stelling llills at RUSSELLLENNAIII

01/25/2022 Item No.4.

CALIFORNIA WINE
SCHEME #4
6o
o
oo
zo

METAL ROOF
ro
36 FI
o
5lONE
LENNAR STERLING HILLS AT RUSSELL RANCH *"H3L3,Hl

FOLSOM, CA

CALIFORNIA WINE
SCHEME #5
o
o
f
oo
zo
FO
UA
lo
oi
o
STONE
LENNAR Sr E R L I N G *' t t
:"11 :^u
ts E L L R A N C H -,'
ii"8iS,$ |

CALIFORNIA WINE
SCHEME #6
6o
o
f
oo
o

METAL ROOF
=3:6
cs*
sd
s.-
o
STONE
LENNAR STERLII']G HILLS AT RUSSELL RANCH *"Hf,i#l

FOLSOM, CA
COLOR BOARDS . "B'' CALIFORNIA WINE
.COLORS MAY VARY DUE TO SCREEN AND PRINTER
CAtIERATION. REFER 10 PAINT CHIPS AND MATERIAT
BOARDS FOR ACTUAL COLORS.

LENNAT'' Sterling Hills at R,USSELL
Kevin L. Crook
Architect
lnc
1l /t 612021
A-95
totsoM, cA
RANCH
55'x I05'
20t t9F

01/25/2022 Item No.4.

TRANSITIONAL BUNGALOW
SCHEME #7
o
o
o
I
E
o
\o
a;-y:E
3;
z0
<6
o
ooo
zo
LENNAR STERLING HILLS AT RUSSELL RANCH *t^Xl

FOLSOM, CA

TRANSITIONAL BUNGALOW
SCHEME #8
o
o
oo
:
3 \9ez
6d
99q=
66 <6
6 o
oo
zo
SIONE
LENNAR'STERLING HILLS AT RUSSELL RANCH -*ffi#I
FoLsoM, cA -:fl5,
. ..".. .. -.... ..

COLOR BOARDS - I'C'' TRANSITIONAL BUNGALOW

TRANSITIONAL BUNGALOW
SCHEME #9

LENNAI' STERLING HILLS AT RUSSELL RANCH
FOLSOM. CA
:
3 (
o
o
oo
A*hml
STONEoo
o
cz
O--
*a
z0
sa
o
o
I 1 l1 6l?O21
A_96
lle( ir L Llraal:

Architect
t,,,:
a,Sterling Hills at RUS SELL
i5 , trt't'
:.li i9F
fOiSOM CA

RANCHLENNAFR

01/25/2022 Item No.4.
o
I
u
o4
d
o
I
e
G
u6
tuuco
JE
^
\-\ "F /i
w
t
z
zl!
gzE
o
N=
utat-
SE
o-d
Io(r>
ii
d,
J
J
ul
oofe
1'= A'.{',
:r
U
E
-\.

STREEI
Optional - Ground Cover
to replace Turf area.

STREE]
Optional - Ground Cover
to replace Turf area.

P4^PM$Am(mJ.&DEX6ft* N IHEELiI
ffiDi
El : arl
JoEY&OFEreldnd$d@SruL
6E AT UE &.EXCF$HEIilrcNE roE B[ffi dLYlolE EWBTA5TIWACE mdACErc ru*WIL dld BE UNANO.

Ll.a
ffiI!@FF:

IE

PLATTIXG

LAYOUTS
50:90 LOrS
* iloTED
xxx L1.1

01/25/2022 Item No.4.

SEE SHEET LI.3 FOR
!
I
I
t
ii
*.

EI
11 a
N:
urIo-" f
fH ;rd i-6 3(r> c
z= ::
=Ui'a <u
373" 2:{
urE
JE
ffiw
1'. a'0'
E--04ttd
t:

IilPllmHruBMP.}Frc€ilwoREu(BRM)
Optional - Ground Cover
to replace Turf area.

STREET
d HEH@ NEIOH4w6D 6dreERFRffiD$NDm(m.)
9E OEIB flE9E Pls $g L1.!
flhffi{t1i#5d
PLAiTIXg

LAYOUTS
5Or90 LOIS
*" JL
I{OTED
xxx L1.2

01/25/2022 Item No.4.

SEE SHEET L1.5 FOR

PLANT PALETTE LISTS
*
3l
'T3tfl
ililiiI'r!
s-t
P
NJ-
u::6'- t(
1; ;o_d irb 3()> c
="tr i
ia:d(u37:"drX
Z*
mH
J!
^
lJl-lil
\\''Fil
w
Optional - Ground Cover

1.=8'{
=E04a'rd
replae Turf area.

I
SIREEf
Cover
STREET
Optional
i;
.t
E
=
I
oF
I
PLAiTITO

LAYOUTS
55ti05 LOTS
*" Jt
I{ OTE D
xxx Ll.3
to replace Turf area.

01/25/2022 Item No.4.

SEE SHEET Lt.5 FOR
I
IiIz
I
j
i
I
7I
I
#.u
'T
;
N=
urfu, '- :(
;; g
id ;rE 3()> 4
zi :
:a:i(u
3zE
Z*
UH
J!
ffiw
1'- a'{'
=:04'd1a
STREET
Optional - Ground Cover
to replace Turf area.
d
'i
i
c
I
+
4,
dreHo@N*BMlmBdGPERffiSND$(M.)AEDFXBfi&WWELISNM NAIUil rc ENd UY EE REuED E : t:-q
t

PLAXTIXG

LAYOUTS
t5x105 LOTS
YILLAGES I I 2
*'JL
* ilorED
xxx Lt.4

01/25/2022 Item No.4.
16 pe.v^L Nc uNn \ )oREcnd ^
z1-\A
R-]M..'"x-/.t,., 3/
sl4!l!G-:-!!A!-l!€l
p
@rr conoeo nuaeen m -
^n^cH
ro sr^G s / 2
OwmaEo loocPou
cLo$R TNA| 13' moy
OnEE - sft a^N .oR
ORooB^r - sEr mm s
R00B^!L 2' A30W FrNrsr
64' UER moo cH,P ulrd
6ilYi5"" "^," s. *"r
OsDEwrk. cuB, oR wu
OBrdntr rx-
s0l5o Mr o. Erc^Y rEo sdl
OsBGRAoE
@nEE PL^NrNc
PRE-P'R6LA1E EN AL PIE.

PFOF TO BrcX'[LiNG
.|Daow-RELTE cRrNUtr
NoESI

1. NT6 SHAI 3E trAR 6 Atr SNEfl ldT STNDTROS
AND C^IGOIES P€R LOAL MONANd

2. €NnACrcR rO WR|FY LOCAION S UNoERSONO
UTIUITS PRIS TO PUNNNC NEES. NES SNAI SE CLEAR
I. NURSRY STAXE S^[ EE R
TREE PLANTING *^". "."".

DESIGN REVIEW LAI,IDSCAPE l.lOTES:
tu bneF6lfrtu &lnd brTFIqt Fd Fd.drfiI.dnbh &ut-ild cffitrd hlr RqlerR.dPand&€bmodbstusrn.r(cenrdkn) ' FdsP&blsFdctun
i CnydFd@mzdncC*
tubtdl..c.Fm. tn.l [email protected] ifr$tor cotu6 d@ffifru h.revd bytury dFot.6do h Fu[ k{mffi Udc.ts hc@ Rqffitu ]b pbn. .o tor D.bn R.vhw p@&. 6t. uM*r{6.r
y ! hr k.dtur trkntu. .s{dd ku*r1!r d. &e{nn qstuGn#rradllllib *r'tu.ps ro0norBr & &,rybl,lr&$dbh,@dryorh.ndi
r awr@[email protected]{rd cryo,Fo,ledndd&:x- c
)qF urlrp &.{ r.bNadn6 | r miturh trF 'rcq.d 4d&B (?df krcd [il.r !i&t Rrcds s bhrdlld hdb.mrytur.*brh4hildr@ ddr r4,d6rn$ottu'r
dd.di ur-.fed R@d(s
7 rdpr-Mrd!fu.(idd.'d@)bd$deffodd.&f, -..rFrtuiub&r.r.!r@d'* *.n .'.6 rd .rf rdd w&q
tft.tuhMd{ndMrMtu G!fr.sdktukerqr'{ oudv Mhd46. h i: '6.ry6b.id(orec6dhr gqc!!J!414Atut
r.i turidrldb6.r@@
Fh!tuiia -&i66.qr*
&
rh{E ::iiH':1"ili:*^i;-.j:;i":x'.:'s:
f'S$
Fhitu.rdrrrr6..!wr*
M4r@)
oSHRUB - sEE Pr^N FoR srzE
@Rece - sT ToP tr
9r'-.' UER luLcH - No {uLcH
(4ls ERrNc 3^9N (4', {rN.)
9flNs @,G
50/50 rLr s Erc^vATao 9!
PRE-PMCdAE EST A[ PIE,
sc^RFY SLoaS
^rD 30nor
FRIOR IO B^qFLLNG
@
@srow-eare caerurra
MRNLEN PER INSNUCIfrS

SHRUB PLANTING
*
r*dkrnr|&ba.l&{'
,i}
rbdb'dl&b6.l&r-
GOOD NEIGHBOR FENCING/GATES rH* * - *,* ** * *io6ru Sfff*xt"AHJE!,#*. iF2sr^r-r*F/nriod@ #

0.6*.4a64

PL NTIXG
f,OTES,.ll{i
*" JL
ilOTED
xxx L1.5
E
o
c!
ul :!
ut-- *
f; io-: J
-b 3
cr> tzi :
:a:
il<EAr2'" hy
zc
lll E
J:
ffiil-l-lil\-\ *rf. i i
'w
Lillllililil] ilflililtilrl
llillllilllllllt illilllillilil
GROUNDCOVER **
SF \Cll.':'J',o'T STREET FACING FENCING/GATES

01/25/2022 Item No.4.

TYPICAL IRRIGATION SCHEMATIC

DETACHED SIDEWALK LOTS
PLAN 2632 SHOWN
A
, -tL
Inrnl
I ,2trt.,
I
,i'!n'*.
t'$H.
l:

TYPICAL
IRRIGATIOil
SCHEIATICS T 9 PS.I. AT &.
*" JL
* NorEDwaERtEilcE nrlED ER rlryEEffi PUN! (m)rmqM & ffi 4r HoulE. !@& DEICNO AT S PsJ. I M.

Nffi: DBGXFLdSmctr
STRE'T
1'= d-0'
=-E-o4a16
xxx L2.1

TYPICAL IRRIGATION SCHEMATIC

ATTACHED SIDEWALK LOTS
PLAt{ 2469 SHOWl{
S2or
€E
aD o-
H;
Tda.\.o
(roz
c
J
J
l!
at
at
f
d,
J!
ffilJl-Fl
\\ "F //
w
o
ut
tu
o4
d
o
u0o
c-
e
I
uco
a
2 z
ul
SANC WAR PG$US AT Xffi SNGD AT
I Plr. NOnfl4ScE&Hftd rr A D&@ildAS
IRRIOTd IreND
rtue$N@m) e(*crv^ivrtrw
&tuds ro N9!!{n r @N .M|6 Nro r*
[email protected]^reorisrilL Fsar€
16 d€rilr$ras{$s
F:F mF'4rtcMeu
&M tu(4rgsaune
sn rr6lPil?.reFrrer
ooa
o
E
E
SE
o
b
.l-
j
eE!$a!lB!@!&!-80I8$
rn**ra@!*6.dd.tuisft'l*. sbrrr*.soo{rd-rB*@-.hMb*Ftsd-Mbi|s 4b*@dnF . tubh#4lgrb6
DMNreE ilOES:
ffir4dMvxdrr&qEJvs

01/25/2022 Item No.4.
o6
ooo
@
PRECISION SPUY ON 4' POP.UP rcDY
DR,IF DETAILs
(2)ulRt' tcE rre
.nReE.@Bru
O"**
r D 6ar tum rAor Mo r'
PRESSURE COMPEN$TING EMINER NTO 1/4' ruBING-STtrE qE VSVE -
@mnnenoor oxmoor,
6) r-ncx uran ure
Om-sPBoN vaE
(i)wru e-ncx ur. eoe
f8l w monmr nssm
(i)w wmor nssm
@ nrrsr crugoe or rurcx
ook
O@EruSNE
@ft
om
@wa06tr*e€ft
@N@r$D
@M${{u0r4
OmuRft0aa
2711APRDK.LF REMOTE MNNOL DRIP VIW ?711APR RFMOF
"MROI
26NF KY

IRRIGATION

DETAILS
*'JL
NOTED
tuffirMd|h,risr4Fd*ffid(alslb ris,FheF*d.fu@.
@'tq'Mdd*gtuh,d!ddn|@e{ i4tur]@ffi s|@ddE&6,4.e[d4drbrykEd@Etud|ffiq xxx L2.2
o
€
N
at
uI
o
-4
I
oz
d,
JJ
lJt
o
at,
E
ffil-l-J-l\-\ *'tf, //
w
o
!t
f
U
oc
.io
o
9 d
6 I
u
G
0 a
z
z
ul
J
i&rE0redtus^

01/25/2022 Item No.4.
lTl!
I I'if,
I lr!
I
tiiii
I ltl
i
I
tne
agg
!3o=amz.1o->>
E;u
riiln
I Ii!{l
L rii
I
II'II
,l I i.
i
I
fiil$
L4N
t
I
iill
II
lE
it
3F
ili
l"rl:!la"l'
3Iii
BtII
i
a
I I s r'I l.E
t!'iti
lt8
at
T!
IE
at
BE
ll ;"
{l !r
ffi\ RUSSELL RANCH - PHASES 2 & 3
W* ="* N,N,as;;; ."":::::a
L F'R x a
ffi
l-i
8,.
ilili lLi,
i'iili
I lr:

I
3tr
a,
il
t
rl
_3
t1
fi-lr
ll
,
-ll
tl
I
rti
i
riiit
I !;lf,
| !r!
I
rr
ii:tiat
I ,rl
,ll
E!t
I llltl
il I ilr
l
ffi
eeo m=
r ii ; 9g rrmiOoC,=
dde,Z
s E9
E it
m.rE,@
d8x|.ffi.4.fln"'tt'$ft
xxxrN
GO
II I!
g
r
f
zoI
m
I
ii - o4>o
5r,6
a

01/25/2022 Item No.4.

Attach ment 8
Russell Ranch Phase 2 CEQA Addendum to the Folsom Plan Area Specific Plan EIR/EIS dated November 13,202t

01/25/2022 Item No.4.

Memo
455 Capitol Mall, Suite 300
Sacramento, CA 95814
916.444.7301
Date: November 15,2021
To: Rachael Corona, Project Manager, Lennar
From: Pat Angell and Kim Untermoser, Ascent Environmental, lnc.

Subject: Russell Ranch Phase 2 Tentative Map Modification (PN 21-118), Environmental lnformation Supporting Addendum to the Folsom Plan Area Specific Plan EIR/EIS At the request of the City of Folsom (City) and Lennar, Ascent has prepared this evaluation of the potential environmental impacts that may be associated with the Russell Ranch Phase 2 Tentative Map Modification (hereinafter referred to as the "project"). This evaluation assesses whether the potential impacts are within the scope of analysis of and adequately addressed by the Environmental lmpact Report/Environmental lmpact Statement for the Folsom South of U.S. Highway 50 Specific Plan Project (FPASP EIR/EIS) (State Clearinghouse No. 2008092051) and the Russell Ranch Project Environmental lmpact Report (Russell Ranch EIR) (State Clearinghouse No.2014062018).

This analysis determines whether new or different impacts associated with the project would occur because of changes in circumstances (i.e., the length of time since the prior ElRs'analysis), pursuantto Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. Based on the analysis contained in this memorandum, the City has determined that an addendum is the appropriate environmental document for the project consistent with section 15164 0f the GEQA Guidelines.

Project Location
The 134.6-acre project site is within the Folsom Plan Area Specific Plan (FPASP). The FPASP encompasses a total of 3,585 acres and is located within Folsom, south of U.S. Highway 50 and north of White Rock Road, between Prairie City Road and the El Dorado County line (see Figure 1). The project site, Phase 2 of the Russell Ranch development (Lots 24 - 32), is in the southeastern portion of the Russell Ranch development area, along Empire Ranch Road, just north of White Rock Road (see Figure 2).

Project Background
On June 28,2011, the Folsom City Council approved (Resolution No.8863)the Folsom Plan Area Specific Plan (FPASP) for development of up to 10,2'10 residential housing units in a range of housing types, styles, and densities along with commercial, industrial/office park, and mixed-use land uses, open space, public schools, parks and infrastructure projected to occur on the approximate 3,585-acre site (City of Folsom 2010; City of Folsom 2011). The FPASP EIR/EIS (June 2011) included an allocation of 1,119 residential units, 380,06'1 square feet of commercial, an elementary school, and approximately 105 acres of open space and parks to the Russell Ranch development.

The FPASP was updated in 2018 to include all the various approved plan amendments and mapping modifications made since the first approval in 2011. As amended, the FPASP provides for additional residential development, up to a total of 11,461 housing units.

01/25/2022 Item No.4.

Russell Ranch Phase 2 Memo
November 15,2021

Project Location
I":i
.tj
t,
tr
Fz
=oI
ul!
F
at,
-.-.4.r.

Bz
o
C)
oFz
UJ
E
uo
o
ztoo
t
l-ai
I
.r.r't't:l'
\
Source: Adapted by Ascent in 2021
Figure 1 Project Vicinity
!
t ft
,.
\^.-. - -. 1
@Page 298
01/25/2022 Item No.4.

Russell Ranch Phase 2 Memo
November 15,2021

Russr-.ll Rarrch Bourrclary
Project Site (Russell Ranch
Phase 2 Lots 24 12)
Folsorn South of U.S. 50
Slrecific Plan Area Boundary
City of Folsonr
Cor-rnty Bor.rnclary
ESRI lrilager y
(o)
202',]01 i 9r.)1 ci5 fi)l
Fee t
r:-:J
1 ,1 50 3,500
Source: Adapted by Ascent in 2021
Figure 2 Regional Location
wPage 299
01/25/2022 Item No.4.

Russell Ranch Phase 2 Memo
November 15,2021

ln May 2015, the City certified the Russell Ranch ElR. The Russell Ranch development consisted of a 429.7-acre planned development, including 879 mapped residential units, 164 acres of parks and open space, 14.3 acres of public/quasi-public uses (including a 9.7-acre elementary school site), and 34.5 acres of associated off-site backbone infrastructure and roadway improvements (City of Folsom 20'14). The Russell Ranch EIR included a project-level analysis, including aesthetics (emphasizing impacts to the view shed), air quality modeling, biological resources impact assessment, tree survey, cultural resources impact assessment, noise analysis, water usage and availability, and transportation impact analysis. For each topic area, the EIR reviewed the potential impacts associated with the Russell Ranch development and considered whether the existing mitigation that was adopted with the FPASP EIR/ElS needed to be updated. ln most cases, project-level mitigation was provided but, in some cases, the Russell Ranch EIR incorporated by reference the mitigation from the FPASP EIR/ElS. ln 2016, the amendments to the vesting large lot and small lot tentative subdivision maps increased the units for the approved entitlements to 903 units (through a density transfer of 24 units from a portion of the Carr Trust property that was acquired by Russell Ranch). This approval acknowledged the allocation of 51 units to Phase 4. ln 2018, an approval of a small-lot vesting tentative subdivision map for the prior Phase 4 and an amendment of a portion of the approved small-lot vesting tentative subdivision map for the prior Phase 3, collectively known as Phase 2 - Lots 24 through 32 of the Russell Ranch development, increased the unit count by 124 dwelling units within this area, removing 92 single family (SF) units and constructing an additional 98 single family high density (SFHD) units and 118 multifamily low density (MLD) units. This included the designation of 208 lots as "Single Family Density Active Adult." An Environmental Checklist and Addendum for Lots 24 through 32 of the Russell Ranch Project was prepared in January 2018 (hereinafter referred to as the 'RR Lots 24-32 Environmental Checklist and Addendum"). The RR Lots 24-32 Envionmental Checklist and Addendum concluded that changes to the project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts than previously evaluated (City of Folsom 20'18).

Project Description
The project would amend entitlements for Russell Ranch Lots 24 through 32 (hereinafter referred to as "RR Lots24 through 32) by removing the "active adult' designation from 208 lots previously mapped and designated as Single Family High Density (SFHD) Active Adult in 2018. The project would not result in any changes to the number of dwelling units proposed. However, the projectwould result in an increase in projected population. SFHD Active Adult population is estimated at 2 persons per household, whereas SFHD population for traditional lots is estimaled at2.92 persons per household. Therefore, the project would result in a population increase of 19'1 persons beyond that approved in 2018. No other changes from the previously approved development are proposed.

The Russell Ranch Lots 24 through 32 entitlements, approved in 2018, designated active adult units in response to a lack of this housing product type in the FPASP at the time. However, the Toll Brothers at Folsom Ranch Phase 1 tentative subdivision map has since been approved and includes 590 active-adult homesites. ln addition, the proposed Toll Brothers at Folsom Ranch Phase 2 tentative subdivision map is currently under review and identifies another 329 active-adult homesites. lf the Phase 2 tentative subdivision map is approved, a total of 919 active-adult units would be included in the Toll Brothers project. The Toll Brothers gated community, private recreation amenities, and dog parks, presents market challenges for the Russell Ranch active-adult development that result in an over- saturated active-adult housing market. As a result, the project proposes to remove the active-adult restrictions and amend the entitlements to provide for traditional lots.

The FPASP and Russell Ranch Project originally envisioned the project site as a residential subdivision and did not specify active-adult units at the site. The project would be consistent with the FPASP and the Folsom 2035 General Plan.

Grading activities for the project began in August 2021. Subdivision improvements are anticipated to begin in April 2022 and would progress intermittently through October 2022, conditional on market demands and weather.

Construction of the project site would occur between 7 a.m. and 6 p.m. Monday through Friday, and if necessary, ASCENT

01/25/2022 Item No.4.

Russell Ranch Phase 2 Memo
November 15,2021

between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m., Saturday through Sunday. Construction equipment would be consistent with the equipment used in for the approved Russell Ranch development.

Consideration of Changed Circumstances
The City certified the FPASP EIR/ElS on June 28, 2011. Several addendums and subsequent environmental documents have been approved since 2011. The FPASP was updated in 2018 to include all the various approved plan amendments and mapping modifications made since the first approval in 20'11. As amended, the FPASP provides for additional residential development, up to a total of '1'1,461 housing units.

Table 1 shows the number of units approved for the Russell Ranch development overall from when the FPASP was adopted, and when entitlements the Russell Ranch development were amended in 20'15, 2016, and 2018. The table also shows the number of units proposed by the project to provide an overview of what was approved previously in comparison to what is requested now. Table 2 shows the number of units previously approved and proposed for Russell Ranch Lots 24 through 32. Although the project would result in a population increase from what was approved in 2018, the population for the Russell Ranch development overall would remain less than what was originally approved when the FPASP was adopted.

Due to the additional discretionary review required for the requested entitlements; and the change in residential unit types and population from the previously approved development, the project was evaluated for potential new or different impacts in compliance with Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(b), if changes to a project or its circumstances occur or new information becomes available after adoption of a negative declaration, the lead agency shall prepare a subsequent EIR if required due to new information, new significant effects, or substantially more adverse impacts. Otherurise, the lead agency shall determine whether to prepare a subsequent negative declaration, an addendum, or no further documentation.

Based on the analysis presented below, the impacts of the project are determined to be adequately addressed bythe FPASP EIR/EIS, the Russell Ranch ElR, and the RR Lots 24-32EnvironmentalChecklist and Addendum, and an addendum is sufficient to document environmental impacts of the project. @Page 301
01/25/2022 Item No.4.

Table 1 Land Use Comparison for Russell Ranch Development (2011 to 2021) Land Use
Residential
Single Family
(SF)
Single Family
High Density
(sFHD)
Single Family
High Density
(sFHD)-
Private
Recreation
Single Family
High Density
(sFHD)-
Active Adult
MultFFamily
Low Density
(MLD)
Multi-Family
Medium
Density (MMD)
Subtotal
Residential
General
Commercial
(GC)
Park (P)- Public
Park (P)-
Private
Russell Ranch Phase 2 Memo
November 15,2021

fiom20t1to20Z
Hojecbd
FopJlation6
-1,022
-9
0 1,667
0 0
134
-788
U
0 Dn€llirg
t rtB
Area
Glw
(Acres)
Pqiecied
Poprrlaliorf
Drelling
UniB
Prcposed Pnojecl(202)s
Area
Grw
(Acr€s)
Rqedd
Fop.{aion6
D^ellrrE
Units
Amended January?0l8a.

Aea
Gic
(Ad€s)
Ptqieded
Population6
D^elftrE
Units
Anrerded June 20153
fu€a
Gil6
(As€s)
Prqtffid
Poflaton6UIfE
Ddlirp
Amended May2t152
Ar€a
Grw
(Ases)
Pqiecd
Poptiatiorf
Drdling
UniB
Mopted 20111
Aea
Gr6
(Acr€s)
350
571
0 0
69 -406
116
0 0
-126.9
122.9

2.2 0

6.3 -22.2
-17.7
-59.5
-1.3

7.1 654
1,667
0 0
450
0 2n1
0 0
0 224
571
0 0
232
n
1027
0 0
0 64.6
122.9

2.2 0

23.8 213.5
0 5.2

7.1 654
1060
0 416
450
2580
0 0
0 224
363
0 208
232
0 1027
0 0
0 64.6

81.7 2.2

41.7 23.8
0 214
0 5.2

7.1 923
138'l
0 0
221
0 2525
0 0
0 315
473
0 0
114
0 903
0 98.s
102.4
U
0 11.4
U
212.3
0 5.2

7.1 867
1367
0 0
268
0 2502
0 0
0 297
468
0 138
tJ
903
0 0
104.8

97.5 0

11.4 0
213.7
0 5.2

7.1 1,676
0 0
0 316
788
2780
0 0
0 574
0 0
163
406
1143
0 0
0 191.5
n
U
0 17.5

22.2 231.2

59.5 6.5
0 @Page 302
01/25/2022 Item No.4.
0 0
0 116
Dreillrg
irniB
0 Aea
Gr6
(Ades)

49.9 3.6
2 15.4
-0.5
Rqect€d
Populatiorf
n
0 0
0 2n1
Ddlitp
Unib
0 n
0 0
1027
Poposed Project (2020s
Area
Grw
(Ad€s)

49.9 106.8

13.8 40.8
437.1
ftojected
Popdaton6
0 0
0 0
2580
Dlvdling
UniB
U
0 0
0 1027
tunended January 201$
Arca
G6
(Ad€s)

49.9 i06.8

13.8 40.8
437.62525
Hojeded
Poprlatorf
0 Drdhrg
Uni6
0 0
0 903
0 ftrBntrJune20ld
&ea
G6
(Ases)

57.3 106.8

13.8 35.1
437.6
Hojedd
Foptiatono
0 0
0 0
2502
0 0
903
Dr'dlrE
unib
0 Area
Gc
(Arles)
112.8

13.1 35.8
437.6
Amerded May20152

49.9 Prqieded
Poprlatons
0 0
0 0
2780
Drdling
Unib
0 0
0 0
1143
Adopt€d 2ffi1
103.2

11.8 25.4
437.6
&ea
Grc
(As€s)
0 Land Use
Russell Ranch Phase 2 Memo
November 15,2021

fiom2011to2021
PQiecbd
Popr.rbton6
0pen 5pace
(0S)-Slope
0pen Space
(0S)-Measure
"w"
Public/Quasi-
Public (PQP)-
Lift Station
Major
Circulation
Total Russell
Ranch
BLA/iDR.
units.
plus 51 unmapped units Russell Ranch Phase 4.
aRussell Ranch Project Lots 24 through 32 Environmental Checklist and Addendum, certified in 2018. s 2021 Proposed Project gross area includes boundar change and reduced SFHD acreage associated with Minor Administrative Modification approved on August 5, 2021 (PN 21-175) 0 0
U
0 -9
@Page 303
01/25/2022 Item No.4.

Russell Ranch Phase 2 Memo
November 15,2021

ftont20l8b2@l
Table 2 Land Use Comparison for Russell Ranch Lots 24 through 32 (2011to 2O21) l.and t se
Residential
Single Family (Sfl
Single Family High
Density (SFHD)
Single Family High
Density (SFHD)-
Private Recreation
Single Family High
Density (SFHD) -
Active Adult
Multi-Family Low
(MLD)
Subtotal
Residential
Open Space (OS)-
Slope
Open Space (0S)-
Measure "W"
Public/Quasl-
Public (PQP)-Lift
Station
Major Circulation
Total Russell
Ranch
Prcjecbd
PoptJaton6
0 607.32
-416
+191
0 0
+191
BLA/TDR.
units.
plus 51 unmapped units Russell Ranch Phase 4.

Unib
Dwdling
0 208
0 -208
0 0
0 0
0 -0.5
fuBa
Gm
(Ases)
0 41.3
0 -41.8
0 -0.5
0 1020
@d
Poprlatiilo
0 191
0 0
229
1020
389
LhiE
Drelling
0 271
0 0
118
389
0 12.4

73.3 3.9

40.9 0.1

16.4 134.6
Propced Priect@Os
Ar€a
G6
(As€s)
0 58.7

2.2 416
229
829
829
ftojectd
Populatorf
0 184
U
208
118
389
389
DdlirB
Urits
0 63
0 ArE
Gros
(Ad€s)
0 17.4

2.2 41.8

12.4 73.8

3.9 40.9

0.'1

16.4 135.1
AnnrdedJaruayfiS
Plojefrd
Populaliorf
269
505
0 0
0 n4
n4
Drdling
Unib
92 173
0 26s
265

72.1 11.3

40.9 0.'1

10.7 135.'t
AnrendedJrne20ld
Ar€a
Gr6
(As€s)

33.9 38.2
0 0
0 n4
n4
Pai@d
Populaiotf
269
505
0 0
0 265
265
Dudlirg
thiB
92 173
U
0 23.4

25.5 0

48.9 16.4
41 0.1

28.7 135.1
Arnended M4y20152
Aea
Gr6
(Aoes)
0 0
788
788
Ptqiecbd
Populaliorf
788
0 270
270
Ddlirp
UrfB
270
0 0
00 0

91.9 32.6
U

10.7 135.2
AdoftdAfil
&ea
Glm
(Acr€s)

91.9 0
@Page 304
01/25/2022 Item No.4.

Russell Ranch Phase 2 Memo
November 15,2021

a Russell Ranch Project Lots 24 through 32 Environmental Checklist and Addendum, certified in 2018. s 2021 Proposed Project gross area includes boundary change and reduced SFHD acreage associated with Minor Administrative Modification approved on August 5, 2021 (PN 21-175) @Page 305
01/25/2022 Item No.4.

Russell Ranch Phase 2 Memo
November 15,2021

Envi ron mentaI Analysis
Using Appendix G, Environmental Checklist, of the State CEQA Guidelines as an analytical tool, the following discussion evaluates the potential environmental impacts of implementation of the project in the context of the FPASP EIR/EIS, the Russell Ranch ElR, and the RR Lots 24-32Environmental Checklist and Addendum to determine if those impacts are sufficiently covered, or if additional analysis is necessary. All mitigation measures referenced in this section are included in Attachment A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.

Aesthetics
lmplementation of the project would involve the development of a residential subdivision within the approved Russell Ranch development. The project would result in the same number of dwelling units, would affect the same area already analyzed and would not alter the development type, building height, or density at the site such that different or more severe aesthetic impacts would result. The following mitigation measures were referenced in the FPASP EIR/EIS analysis and incorporated by reference into the Russell Ranch EIR and would continue to remain applicable if the project were approved.
> Mitigation Measure 3A.1-4: Screen construction staging areas.

The following project-specific mitigation measures were included in the Russell Ranch EIR and would continue to remain applicable if the project were approved:
> Mitigation Measure 4.1-'1. Screening and locating staging and material storage to reduce visual impacts > Mitigation Measure 4.1-2. Lighting Plan
The potential environmental impacts related to aesthetics and associated with implementation of the project are adequatelyaddressed bythe FPASP EIR/ElS, the Russell Ranch ElR, and the RR Lots 24-32EnvironmentalChecklist and Addendum, and no additional CEQA documentation is required. Further, pursuant to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would othenvise necessitate subsequent/su pplemental environmental analysis.

Aqricuttura[ and Forestrv Resources
lmplementation of the project would involve the development of a residential subdivision within the approved Russell Ranch development. The project would affect the same area already analyzed and the site is not designated as or currently in agricultural production, is not designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide lmportance, and is not under Williamson Act contract. There were no mitigation measures included in the FPASP EIR/EIS or Russell Ranch EIR for this topic and no additional mitigation measures are required for the project for this issue.

The potential environmental impacts related to agricultural resources and associated with implementation of the project are adequately addressed by the FPASP EIR/EIS, the Russell Ranch ElR, and the RR Lots 24-32Environmental Checklist and Addendum, and no additional CEQA documentation is required. Further, pursuant to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would otherwise necessitate subsequent/supplemental environmental analysis.

Air Quatitv
The project would result in similar construction activity, development area, and same type of construction-generated emissions as previously evaluated in the FPASP EIR/EIS, the Russell Ranch ElR, and the RR Lots 24-32Environmental Checklist and Addendum. The project would result in the same number of dwelling units as the previously approved development and although the project would increase population from previously analyzed in the RR Lols 24-32 Environmental Checklist and Addendum, overall population would not exceed that analyzed in the FPASP EIR/EIS.

Operational emissions were modeled in both the Russell Ranch EIR and the FPASP EIR/EIS. As shown in Attachment B, the project would result in 92'l more vehicle trips than analyzed in the Russell Ranch EIR and 1,076 more vehicle trips @Page 306
01/25/2022 Item No.4.

Russell Ranch Phase 2 Memo
November 15,2021

than analyzed in the RR Lots 24-32 Environmental Checklist and Addendum. This increase in vehicle trips is due to the change from age-restricted active adult units to traditional units. However, the Toll Brothers at Folsom Ranch project, approved in 2020, included the conversion of traditional single family homes to age-restricted active-adult units and resulted in an estimated daily trip reduction of 3,433 trips for the entire FPASP area (City of Folsom 2020).

As such, total daily trip generation for the entire FPASP area would not exceed the amount previously evaluated in the FPASP EIR/EIS if the project is approved and no change in operational sources of criteria air pollutants would occur. The following mitigation measures were referenced in the FPASP EIR/ElS analysis and incorporated by reference into the Russell Ranch EIR and would continue to remain applicable if the project were approved. > Mitigation Measure 3A.2-1a: lmplement Measures to Control Air Pollutant Emissions Generated by Construction of On-Site Elements.
> Mitigation Measure 3A.2-1b: Pay Off-site Mitigation Fee to SMAQMD to Off-Set NOX Emissions Generated by Construction of On-Site Elements.
> Mitigation Measure 3A.2-1d: lmplement SMAQMD's Basic Construction Emission Control Practices during Construction of all Off- site Elements located in Sacramento County. > Mitigation Measure 3A.2-1f: lmplement SMAQMD's Enhanced Exhaust Control Practices during Construction of all Off-site Elements.
> Mitigation Measure 34.2-19: Pay Off-site Mitigation Fee to SMAQMD to Off-Set NOX Emissions Generated by Construction of Off-site Elements.
> Mitigation Measure 3A.2-1h: Analyze and Disclose Projected PM10 Emission Concentrations at Nearby Sensitive Receptors Resulting from Construction of Off-site Elements. > Mitigation Measure 3A.2-2: lmplement All Measures Prescribed by the Air Quality Mitigation Plan to Reduce Operational Air Pollutant Emissions.

The following project-specific mitigation measures were referenced in the Russell Ranch EIR and would continue to remain applicable if the project were approved:
> Mitigation Measure 4.2-3: Conduct a field survey of the project site to demonstrate that NOA does not exist on the project site to the satisfaction of SMAQMD. ln the case that NOA is found, all soil containing NOA, replace all contaminated areas with clean soils or materials.

Potential environmental impacts related to air quality and associated with implementation of the project are adequatelyaddressed bythe FPASP EIR/EIS,the RussellRanch ElR, and the RR Lots 24-32EnvironmentalChecklist and Addendum, and no additionalCEQA documentation is required. Further, pursuantto Section 15162of the State CEQA Guidelines, no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would otherwise necessitate subsequent/supplemental environmental analysis.

BiotoeicaI Resources
A project-level analysis was conducted for the RR Lots 24-32Environmental Checklist and Addendum and refinements to the mitigation program were approved to further reduce impacts to special-status plants (ECORP 2017a).lmplementation of the project would involve the development of a residential subdivision within the approved Russell Ranch development. The project would affect the same area already analyzed and would not substantially alter the development type or density at the site such that different or more severe biological impacts would result.

Like what was discussed in the Russell Ranch ElR, the project could have a significant impact on biological resources; however, the project would continue to be subject to the mitigation measures identified and/or refined in the Russell Ranch EIR and the ECORP analysis, which are presented below. As described in the Russell Ranch ElR, with implementation of these measures, biological impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. The ASCENT

01/25/2022 Item No.4.

Russell Ranch Phase 2 Memo
November 15,2021

conclusions of the Russell Ranch EIR remain valid, and approval of the project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts to biological resources.

The following project-level mitigation measures were referenced in the Russell Ranch EIR analysis and would continue to remain applicable if the project were approved. These mitigation measures include project-specific refinements to the plan-level mitigation program included in the FPASP EIR/ElS. This information is consistent with the activities recommended in the mitigation adopted for the FPASP.
> Mitigation Measure 4.3-1: Federally-listed vernal pool invertebrates. > Mitigation Measure 4.3-3(a) Conduct environmental awareness training for construction employees. > Mitigation Measure 4.3-3(b): Conduct Preconstruction Western Spadefoot Toad Survey. > Mitigation Measure 4.3-4 Northwestern Pond Turtle.
> Mitigation Measure 4.3-5(a): Conduct preconstruction Swainson's hawk and other raptor surveys. > Mitigation Measure 4.3-5(b): Prepare and implement Swainson's hawk mitigation plan. > Mitigation Measure 4.3-6(a & b):Conduct preconstruction burrowing owl survey. > Mitigation Measure 4.3-7: Conduct a preconstruction tricolored blackbird survey. > Mitigation Measure 4.3-8(a & b): Preconstruction nesting bird survey. > Mitigation Measure 4.3-'10: Conduct preconstruction American badger burrow survey. > Mitigation Measure 4.3-11(a) Clean Water Act Sections 401 and 404. > Mitigation Measure 4.3-11(b) Master Streambed Alteration Agreement. > Mitigation Measure 4.3-11(c) Valley Needlegrass.
ln addition, following project-specific analysis completed for the RR Lots 24-32 Environmental Checklist and Addendum, the below refinements to the mitigation program are applicable to the project (ECORP 2017a). > Mitigation Measure 4.3{: Special-status plant species. Prior to initiation of construction activities, a qualified biologist/botanist shall consult with the appropriate regulatory agencies (CDFW and USFWS) to determine if additional plant surveys are required. lf additional surveys are required, protocol-level preconstruction special- status plant surveys will be conducted for all potentially occurring species in areas that have not previously been surveyed. lf special-status plant populations are found, the Project Applicant shall consult with CDFW and USFWS, as appropriate, to determine appropriate mitigation measures. lf impacts are likely, a mitigation and monitoring plan shall be developed before approval of grading plans or ground-breaking activity within 250 feet of special-status plant populations.

Upon approval of final proposed development plans by the USACE, a qualified biologist/botanist will consult with CDFW and USFWS to determine if additional surveys are required.

The potential environmental impacts related to biological resources and associated with implementation of the project are adequately addressed by the FPASP EIR/ElS, the Russell Ranch ElR, and the RR Lots 24-32Environmental Checklist and Addendum, and no additional CEQA documentation is required. Further, pursuant to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would otherwise necessitate subsequent/supplemental environmental analysis.

Cuttural Resources
lmplementation of the project would involve development of a residential subdivision and would require construction and ground disturbance within the approved Russell Ranch development. A report was prepared summarizing the @

01/25/2022 Item No.4.

Russell Ranch Phase 2 Memo
November 15,2021

project-specific information related to historic and cultural resources forthe Russell Ranch development, including the project area (Lots 24 through 32) (ECORP 2017b). The FPASP applicants entered into a programmatic agreement with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and subsequent review of historic resources pertaining to the FPASP area was conducted. All pre-construction mitigation measures, as required by the applicable Historic Property Treatment Plans (HPTPs), have been completed to the satisfaction of the USACE, in consultation with SHPO, the City, and the other parties to the first amended programmatic agreement. The measures required to mitigate for significant impacts to historical resources are twofold. First, as part of the FPASP, the Russell Ranch development is subject to compliance with four mitigation measures in the FPASP EIR/EIS, from which the Russell Ranch EIR incorporates by reference.

Second, the project is also subject to compliance with the treatment measures to resolve adverse effect to historic properties, as specified in the respective HPTPs thatwere prepared underthe FAPA, which was required bythe FPASP EIR/EIS and Russell Ranch ElR. A reconciliation of these requirements and a list of amended mitigation measures for the project were provided in the RR Lots 24-32 Environmental Checklist and Addendum and are presented below. > Mitigation Measure 4.4-1: Comply with the First Amended Programmatic Agreement and Carry Out mitigation.

The FAPA provides a management framework for identifiTing historic properties and Historical Resources through inventories and evaluations, determining adverse effects, and resolving those adverse effects with appropriate mitigation. Proof of compliance with the applicable procedures in the FAPA and implementation of applicable HPTP (Westwood and Knapp 2013b and 20'13c, cited in ECORP 2017b) with regard to mitigation forthe Keefe- McDerby Mine Ditch and Brooks Hotel Site is to be provided to the City's Community Development Department prior to authorization of any ground-disturbing activities. Proof of compliance is defined as written approval from the USACE of all applicable mitigation documentation generated from implementation of an approved HPTP and includes the following mitigation actions:
. Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) Documentation of the Keefe-McDerby Mine Ditch (P-34-1475):
in consultation with the National Park Service, the USACE shall require the completion of Historic American Engineering Record program documentation.
r Data Recovery Excavations of the Brooks Hotel Site (P-34-2166): Data recovery shall follow the standards and guidelines in the HPTP. The results of excavation, laboratory analysis, artifact analysis, and archival research, shall be documented in a confidential data recovery technical report, which shall be submitted to the City's Community Development Department.
. Geoarchaeological Monitoring: Due to a potential for deeply buried archaeological resources down to a depth of 1.5m (approximately five feet) below soil formations known as the T-2 terrace, where colluvial deposits grade onto the T-2 terrace, and along the distal edge of tributary alluvial fans, all ground-disturbing activity in those areas shall be monitored by a qualified professional archaeologist with a specialization in geoarchaeology.

Monitoring is no longer needed once subsurface disturbance extends beyond 1.5m below surface. > Mitigation Measure 4.4-2(a): Conduct construction worker awareness training, on-site monitoring if required, stop work if cultural resources are discovered, asses the significance of the find, and perform treatment or avoidance as required.

To reduce potential impacts to previously undiscovered cultural resources, the Project applicant(s) shall retain a qualified archaeologist to conduct training for construction supervisors. Construction supervisors shall inform the workers about the possibility of encountering buried cultural resources and inform the workers of the proper procedures should cultural resources be encountered. Proof of the contractor awareness training shall be submitted to the City's Community Development Department in the form of a copy of training materials and the completed training attendance roster.

Should any cultural resources, such as structural features, bone or shell, artifacts, or architectural remains be encountered during any construction activities, work shall be suspended within 200 feet of the find and the City AsCENT

01/25/2022 Item No.4.

Russell Ranch Phase 2 Memo
November 15,2021

of Folsom and USACE shall be notified immediately. The City shall retain a qualified archaeologist who shall conduct a field investigation of the specific site and shall evaluate the significance of the find by evaluating the resource for eligibility for listing on the CRHR and the NRHP. lf the resource is eligible for listing on the CRHR or NRHP and would be subject to disturbance or destruction, the actions required by the FAPA and subsequent documentation shall be implemented. The City of Folsom Community Development Department and USACE shall be responsible for approval of recommended mitigation if it is determined to be feasible in light of the approved land uses, and shall implement the approved mitigation and seek written approval on mitigation documentation before resuming construction activities at the archaeological site. > Mitigation Measure 4.4-2(b): Suspend ground-disturbing activities if human remains are encountered and comply with California Health and Safety Code procedures. ln the event that human remains are discovered, construction activities within 150 feet of the discovery shall be halted or diverted and the requirements for managing unanticipated discoveries in Mitigation Measure 34.5-3 shall be implemented. ln addition, the provisions of 5 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, I 5097.98 of the California PRC, and Assembly Bill (AB) 2641 shall be implemented. When human remains are discovered, state law requires that the discovery be reported to the County Coroner (5 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code) and that reasonable protection measures be taken during construction to protect the discovery from disturbance (AB 2641). lf the Coroner determines the remains are Native American, the Coroner shall notifi the NAHC, which then designates a Native American Most Likely Descendant (MLD) for the Project (5 5097.98 of the PRC). The designated MLD then has 48 hours from the time access to the properly is granted to make recommendations concerning treatment of the remains (AB 2641).lf the landowner does not agree with the recommendations of the MLD, the NAHC can mediate (5 5097.94 of the PRC). lf no agreement is reached, the landowner must rebury the remains where they will not be further disturbed (5 5097.98 of the PRC). This will also include either recording the site with the NAHC or the appropriate information center; using an open space or conservation zoning designation or easement; or recording a deed restriction with the county in which the property is located ( B 2641).

The potential environmental impacts related to cultural resources and associated with implementation of the project are adequately addressed by the FPASP EIR/EIS, the Russell Ranch ElR, and the RR Lots 24-32Environmental Checklist and Addendum, and no additional CEQA documentation is required. Further, pursuant to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would otherwise necessitate subsequent/su pplemental environmental analysis.

Enerqv
Although energy was not previously identified as a specific environmental topic, the FPASP ElR, Russell Ranch ElR, and RR Lols 24-32 Environmental Checklist and Addendum all addressed energy use as part of the air quality, greenhouse gas, and utility impact discussions. The project would result in the conversion of previously planned age- restricted homes to traditional homes resulting in a higher population and a potential for higher energy use than previously anticipated. However, the project would not result in an increase in the number of planned dwelling units. ln addition, the conversion of age-restricted homes to traditional homes and resulting population increase is offset by the previously approved conversion of traditional homes to age-restricted homes included in the Toll Brothers at Folsom Ranch Master Planned Community. ln addition, the project would be subject to more stringent regulations related to Title 24 requirements, which were updated in 2019 and include renewable energy and energy efficiency requirements to reduce energy consumption in new residences by 53 percent. The project would comply with general plan policies related to renewable energy or energy efficiency and would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. The project would not alter the development type or density at the site such that different or more severe impacts to energy would result. No mitigation measures are required for the project for this issue.
@Page 310
01/25/2022 Item No.4.

Russell Ranch Phase 2 Memo
November 15,2021

Potential environmental impacts related to energy use and associated with implementation of the project are addressed bythe FPASP EIR/ElS, the Russell Ranch ElR, and the RR Lots 24-32EnvironmentalChecklistand Addendum, and no additional CEQA documentation is required. Further, pursuant to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would otherwise necessitate subsequent/su pplemental environmental analysis.

Geotoev and Soils
lmplementation of the project would involve development of a residential subdivision within the previously approved Russell Ranch development. The project would affect the same area analyzed for development in the FPASP EIR/EIS and proposed changes would not substantially alter the development type or density at the site. No changes related to seismic activity, ground shaking, ground failure, landslides have occurred. No changes in soils at the site have occurred and the project would not require septic systems. Because the development footprint of the project would be the same as the approved FPASP and Russell Ranch development, the impact conclusions pertaining to paleontological resources remain unchanged. The following mitigation measures were referenced in the FPASP EIR/ElS analysis and would continue to remain applicable if the project were approved. > Mitigation Measure 3A.7-1a: Prepare Site-Specific Geotechnical Report per CBC Requirements and lmplement Appropriate Recommendations
> Mitigation Measure 3A.7-1b: Monitor Earthwork during Earthmoving Activities > Mitigation Measure 34.7-3: Prepare and lmplement the Appropriate Grading and Erosion Control Plan > Mitigation Measure 34.7-5: Divert Seasonal Water Flows Away from Building Foundations > Mitigation Measure 3A.7-10: Conduct Construction Personnel Education, Stop Work if Archeological or Paleontological Resources Are Discovered, Assess the Significance of the Find, and Prepare and lmplement a Recovery Plan as Required
The potential environmental impacts related to geology and soils and associated with implementation of the project are adequately addressed by the FPASP EIR/EIS, the Russell Ranch ElR, and the RR Lots 24-32 Environmental Checklist and Addendum, and no additional CEQA documentation is required. Further, pursuant to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would otherwise necessitate subsequent/supplemental environmental analysis.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The types of emissions-generating construction activity would generally be similar under the project as evaluated in the FPASP EIR/EIS and the Russell Ranch ElR. Development would be similar in area, size, and intensity to what was approved under the FPASP and in the Russell Ranch development. For these reasons, the project would not result in any new circumstances involving new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts pertaining to construction-generated GHG emissions then were identified in the FPASP EIR/EIS and the Russell Ranch ElR.

The project would convert age-restricted active adult units to traditional units but would preserve the same number of dwelling units as previously approved and analyzed. The conversion of age-restricted active adult units would result in a population increase beyond that previously analyzed in the RR Lols 24-32 Environmental Checklist and Addendum. However, overall population in the Russell Ranch development would not exceed that analyzed in the FPASP EIR/EIS. Construction and operational emissions were modeled in both the Russell Ranch EIR and the FPASP EIR/EIS. As shown in Attachment B, the project would result in 921 more vehicle trips than analyzed in the Russell Ranch EIR and 1,076 more vehicle trips than analyzed in the RR Lots 24-32 Environmental Checklist and Addendum.

This increase in vehicle trips is due to the change from age-restricted active adult units to traditional units and would result in higher greenhouse gas emissions from the project than previously analyzed. However, the Toll Brothers at Folsom Ranch project, approved in 2020, included the conversion of traditional single family homes to age-restricted @Page 311
01/25/2022 Item No.4.

Russell Ranch Phase 2 Memo
November 15,2021

active-adult units and resulted in an estimated daily trip reduction of 3,433 trips for the entire FPASP area (City of Folsom 2020). As such, total daily trip generation for the entire FPASP area would not exceed the amount previously evaluated in the FPASP EIR/EIS if the project is approved.

The project would not result in substantial changes to the type and intensity of development and would comply with more stringent regulations related to GHG reductions than previously evaluated in the FPASP EIR/EIS. The following mitigation measures were referenced in the FPASP EIR/EIS analysis and would continue to remain applicable if the project were approved.
> Mitigation Measure 3A.4-1: lmplement Additional Measures to Control Construction-Generated GHG Emissions > Mitigation Measure 3A.4-2a: lmplement Additional Measures to Reduce Operational GHG Emissions. > Mitigation Measure 3A.4-2b: Participate in and lmplement an Urban and Community Forestry Program and/or Off-Site Tree Program to Off-Set Loss of On-Site Trees
Potential environmental impacts related to GHG emissions and associated with implementation of the project are adequatelyaddressed bythe FPASP EIR/EIS, the Russell Ranch ElR, and the RR Lots 24-32EnvionmentalChecklist and Addendum, and no additional CEQA documentation is required. Further, pursuant to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would otherwise necessitate subsequent/supplemental environmental analysis.

Hazards and Hazardous Materiats
The project would not change the overall pattern of development or the types of hazardous materials that would be used, handled, or transported to the site than previously evaluated in the FPASP EIR/EIS and the Russell Ranch ElR. No changes to the conditions of the site or the presence of hazardous materials has occurred since approval of the FPASP. The project site is located outside of Area 40 and the carve-out area and would not be located on Cortese- listed site. No new airports have been developed near the project site and implementation of the project would not conflict with any adopted emergency response or evacuation plans. No changes to the location of the project have occurred and no changes to the risks from wildfires has occurred since approval of the FPASP. The following mitigation measures were referenced in the FPASP EIR/EIS analysis and incorporated by reference into the Russell Ranch EIR and would continue to remain applicable if the project were approved. > Mitigation Measure 3A.7-4: Prepare a Seismic Refraction Survey and Obtain Appropriate Permits for all On-Site and Off-site Elements East of Old Placerville Road.
> Mitigation Measure 3A.8-7: Prepare and lmplement a Vector Control Plan in Consultation with the Sacramento- Yolo Mosquito and Vector Control District.

The potential environmental impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials and associated with implementation of the project are adequately addressed by the FPASP EIR/ElS, the Russell Ranch ElR, and the RR Lots 24-32 Environmental Checklist and Addendum, and no additional CEQA documentation is required. Further, pursuant to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would otherwise necessitate subsequent/supplemental environmental analysis.

Hvdrotoev and Water Qualitv
The project would require grading and construction and could result in significant impacts to water quality because of soil disturbance during construction and alteration of water flows over the site, consistent with the findings of the FPASP EIR/EIS. The project would include the same number of units and would not change the development footprint. The project would not result in substantial changes to the drainage patterns or flood flows beyond those anticipated in the FPASP. The following plan-level mitigation measures were referenced in the FPASP EIR/EIS analysis and incorporated by reference into the Russell Ranch EIR and would continue to remain applicable if the projectwere approved.

ASCENT

01/25/2022 Item No.4.

Russell Ranch Phase 2 Memo
November 15,2021

> Mitigation Measure 34.9-1: Acquire appropriate regulatory permits and prepare and implement SWPPP and BMPs.
> Mitigation Measure 3A.9-2: Prepare and submit final drainage plans and implement requirements contained in those plans.
> Mitigation Measure 34.9-3: Develop and implement a BMP and water quality maintenance plan. > Mitigation Measure 34.9-4: lnspect and evaluate existing dams within and upstream of the project site and make improvements if necessary.

The potential environmental impacts related to hydrology and water quality and associated with implementation of the projectare adequatelyaddressed bythe FPASP EIR/EIS, the Russell Ranch ElR, and the RR Lots 24-32 Environmental Checklist and Addendum, and no additional CEQA documentation is required. Further, pursuant to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would otherwise necessitate subsequent/supplemental environmental analysis.

Land Use and Ptanninq
lmplementation of the project would result in a residential subdivision consistent with the previously approved Russell Ranch development. The project would not result in the physical division of established communities, nor conflict with FPASP land use policies and regulations that protect the environment. There were no mitigation measures included in the FPASP EIR/ElS or the Russell Ranch EIR for this topic and no additional mitigation measures are required for the project for this issue.

The potentialenvironmental impacts related to land use and associated with implementation of the project are adequatelyaddressed bythe FPASP EIR/EIS, the RussellRanch ElR, and the RR Lots 24-32EnvironmentalChecklist and Addendum, and no additional CEQA documentation is required. Further, pursuant to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would otherwise necessitate subsequent/supplemental environmental analysis.

Mineral Resources
The project would be located within the Russell Ranch development and would not change the development footprint. As described in the Russell Ranch EIR and the RR Lots 24-32Environmental Checklist and Addendum, the project area is not identified as containing locally important mineral resources that would be considered to have local, regional, or statewide importance by either the City of Folsom or Sacramento County General Plans. The only source of minerals is around the Alder Creek drainage area which would not be developed as part of this project. The project would be located on the same area of land as that examined in the Russell Ranch EIR and would not impact the mineral resources. There were no mitigation measures included in the Russell Ranch EIR for this topic and no additional mitigation measures are required for the project for this issue.

The potentialenvironmentalimpacts related to mineral resources and associated with implementation of the project are consistent with the conclusions of the FPASP EIR/EIS, the Russell Ranch ElR, and the RR Lots 24-32Environmental Checklist and Addendum, and no additional CEQA documentation is required. Further, pursuant to Section 15162 ol the State CEQA Guidelines, no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would otherwise necessitate subsequent/supplemental environmental analysis.

Noise and Vibration
Construction of the project would result in short-term increases in noise related to construction vehicles and equipment. However, construction activities would require similar types and numbers of equipment operating at similar levels of intensity as previously evaluated in the FPASP EIR/ElS and the Russell Ranch ElR. @Page 313
01/25/2022 Item No.4.

Russell Ranch Phase 2 Memo
November 15,2021

ln compliance with FPASP EIR/ElS Mitigation Measure 3A.11-4, a site-specific environmental noise assessment was conducted byj.c. brennan & associates, inc., in October 2014,to evaluate noise impacts forthe Russell Ranch development. ln September 2017, a noise mitigation analysis memo was prepared to determine if further mitigation would be required for the RR Lots 24-32Environmental Checklist and Addendum. The noise analysis found that with refinements to the FPASP EIR/ElS mitigation measures, including the construction of noise barriers, potential impacts related to noise would be less than significant (j.c. brennan & associates, inc.2014).

The project would result in the same development footprint and number of dwelling units as previously analyzed.

However, the conversion of age-restricted active adult units to traditional units is projected to increase population and traffic volumes within the project site. As shown in Attachment B the project would generate 92'l more daily trips than that analyzed in the Russell Ranch ElR. These trips would be distributed throughout the project site. However, to conservatively estimate any potential increase in traffic noise, potential increases in noise were evaluated assuming all 921daily tripswould occuron each roadwaysegment. Generally, a doubling of trafficvolumes results in a 3 dBA increase in noise. The project would not result in a doubling of traffic volumes on roadways within the project site.

The largest potential increase in traffic volumes would be a 3.8 percent increase on Empire Ranch Road, where traffic volumes could increase from 24,200 trips under approved entitlements lo 25,121trips under the proposed project.

Traffic volumes on White Rock Road could increase from 30,600 trips to 31,52'l trips, representing a 3 percent increase. As such, the project would not substantially increase traffic noise levels and the mitigation measures (e.9., noise barriers) identified in the RR Lols24-32 Environmental Checklist and Addendum would be sufficient.

The project would result in the same land use, development types and intensity as previously evaluated and would not result in impacts related to long-term exposure of sensitive receptors to increased stationary-source noise levels from project operation beyond those identified in the FPASP EIR/EIS. The following plan-level mitigation measures were referenced in the FPASP EIR/EIS analysis and incorporated by reference into the Russell Ranch EIR and would continue to remain applicable if the project were approved. Where clarifying text was provided during the review by j.c. brennan & associates, inc., the full mitigation measure is included below. > Mitigation Measure 34.11-1: lmplement Noise-Reducing Construction Practices, Prepare and lmplement a Noise Control Plan, and Monitor and Record Construction Noise near Sensitive Receptors. > Mitigation Measure 3A.11-3: lmplement Measures to Prevent Exposure of Sensitive Receptors to Groundborne Noise or Vibration from Project Generated Construction Activities. . To the extent feasible, blasting activities shall not be conducted within 275 feet of existing or future sensitive receptors.
. To the extent feasible, bulldozing activities shall not be conducted within 50 feet of existing or future sensitive receptors.
. All blasting shall be performed by a blast contractor and blasting personnel licensed to operate in the State of California.
. A blasting plan, including estimates of vibration levels at the residence closest to the blast, shall be submitted to the enforcement agency for review and approval prior to the commencement of the first blast. . Each blast shall be monitored and documented for groundbourne noise and vibration levels at the nearest sensitive land use and associated recorded submitted to the enforcement agency. . To reduce the potential for annoyance because of blasting and blast-induced air overpressures, the peak value overpressures should not exceed 0.01 psi (equivalent to '110 dB Linear) at the nearest property line, which prevents damage or undue annoyance at neighboring properties. To the extent possible, blasting contractors will design blasts so that a worst-case blast would not exceed 0.01 psi. This generally is done through blast charge and interval delays.
@Page 314
01/25/2022 Item No.4.

Russell Ranch Phase 2 Memo
November 15,2021

Mitigation Measure 34.11-5: lmplement Measures to Reduce Noise from Project-Generated Stationary Sources.

The following project-specific mitigation measures were referenced in the Russell Ranch EIR and would continue to remain applicable if the project were approved. ln addition, the map related to Mitigation Measure 4.6-3(a) was updated to show where noise barriers are required for this project (see Figure 3):
> Mitigation Measure 4.6-3(a): Construct noise barriers along U.S. 50, White Rock Road, and Empire Ranch Road, and conduct site-specific acoustical analysis to confirm that the development would meet the adopted City noise standard. > Mitigation Measure 4.6-3(c): lmplement mechanical ventilation in all residential land uses to promote acoustical isolation.

The potential environmental impacts related to noise and vibration associated with implementation of the project are adequatelyaddressed bythe FPASP EIR/ElS, the Russell Ranch ElR, and the RR Lots 24-32EnvironmentalChecklist and Addendum, and no additionalCEQA documentation is required. Further, pursuantto Section 15162of the State CEQA Guidelines, no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would otherwise necessitate subsequent/supplemental environmental analysis.

Poputation and Housinq
lmplementation of the project would result in a residential subdivision consistent with the previously approved Russell Ranch development. The project would convert age-restricted active adult units to traditional units resulting in a population increase of 191. However, this change is offset by the introduction of age-restricted active adult units in the Toll Brothers at Folsom Ranch Master Planned Community. The total projected population for the total Russell Ranch development would not exceed that evaluated in the FPASP EIR/ElS. The project would not displace existing people or housing. No mitigation measures were needed for the certified FPASP EIR/ElS regarding population and housing. No additional mitigation measures are required for the project for this issue.

The potential environmental impacts related to population and housing and associated with implementation of the projectare adequatelyaddressed bythe FPASP EIR/EIS, the Russell Ranch ElR, and the RR Lots 24-32Environmental Checklist and Addendum, and no additional CEQA documentation is required. Further, pursuant to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would otherwise necessitate subsequent/supplemental environmental analysis.

Public Services
lmplementation of the project would increase the population within Lols 24-32 of the Russell Ranch development but the population of the entire Russell Ranch development and FPASP would not increase beyond that previously evaluated in the FPASP EIR/EIS. The project would not change the number of residential units, would be within the previously approved Russell Ranch development, and would not result in a larger service area than was previously evaluated. The project would continue to be required to pay its fair share for facilities and services. As such, the project would not increase demand for fire protection, police protection, schools, or other public services or facilities beyond that anticipated in the FPASP EIR/EIS and the Russell Ranch ElR. The following mitigation measures were referenced in the FPASP EIR/EIS analysis and would continue to remain applicable if the project was approved. > Mitigation Measure 3A.14-2: lncorporate California Fire Code; City of Folsom Fire Code Requirements; and EDHFD Requirements, if Necessary, into Project Design and Submit Project Design to the City of Folsom Fire Department for Review and Approval
> Mitigation Measure 3A.14-3: lncorporate Fire Flow Requirements into Project Designs @Page 315
01/25/2022 Item No.4.

Russell Ranch Phase 2 Memo
November 15,2021

Leaf
@
7-foot Barrier
l-ot I I
6-foot Barrier
FEET
190
nt*
4o*
{t)
$ttu"
44 t'J
62 61
50 59
58 5t
56 55
54 53
5'1
50 49
48 d3
12 o
,
oLi)oo-r3
o
/@-
31 rl
rd"----'tl* 32
-f " l'€F+:-
33 #t .ifi 3'r
'|ii- _-{i'
----{ -J- i.

L"f. l
6=i++ 36
.4&. .,*i,c# --ar' 37
t!l
*f **t Trail Dnre
.{@-
.& SL'ti" 4t 42
-r.u , av
13 14
1$I$ge\
ilt
'15
\tEEF.E_ Iol(r
%or,
16 2A
19 '21
)1
'23
24 25
26 27
29 .*F 30
o
,#
F?'{
20210179.01 GRX 001
q'LI
I
HEIffiW

95.ib\d"
Source: Prepared by J.C. Brennan & Associates in 2017 and MacKay & Somps in 2018 Figure 3 Barrier Locations
@Page 316
01/25/2022 Item No.4.

Russell Ranch Phase 2 Memo
November 15,2021

The potential environmental impacts related to public services and associated with implementation of the project are adequately addressed by the FPASP EIR/ElS, the Russell Ranch ElR, and the RR Lots 24-32Environmental Checklist and Addendum, and no additional CEQA documentation is required. Further, pursuant to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would otherwise necessitate subsequent/supplemental environmental analysis.

Recreation
lmplementation of the project would include development of a residential subdivision along with a 2-acre private recreation site and approximately 45-acres of open space. These open spaces could be used as recreation areas and were included in previous analyses in the Russell Ranch EIR and FPASP EIR/EIS. As discussed in the project description, Quimby park dedication requirements are satisfied by parks located throughout the entire FPASP area, with the Russell Ranch development contributing its fair share through dedication of 5 acres of neighborhood parkland and payment of an in-lieu fee pursuant to the Public Facilities Financing Plan (PFFP) for the FPASP area.

Overall parkland within the FPASP area would remain unchanged and the total FPASP area would continue to meet the City's parkland standard. The project would not result in any further changes to parks within the FPASP. The FPASP EIR/EIS concluded that the impact to existing parks and facilities would be less than significant, and no mitigation was required. The proposed project would not change this conclusion.

The potential environmental impacts related to recreational facilities and associated with implementation of the project are adequately addressed bythe FPASP EIR/EIS, the Russell Ranch ElR, and the RR Lots 24-32Environmental Checklist and Addendum, and no additional CEQA documentation is required. Further, pursuant to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would otherwise necessitate subsequent/supplemental environmental analysis.

Transportation
Senate Bll743, passed in 2013, required the Governor's Office of Planning and Research to develop new CEQA Guidelines that address traffic metrics under CEQA. As stated in the legislation (and Section 21099[b][2] of CEQA), upon adoption of the new CEQA guidelines, "automobile delay, as described solely by LOS or similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion shall not be considered a significant impact on the environment pursuant to this division, except in locations specifically identified in the CEQA guidelines, if any;' The Office of Administrative Law approved the updated CEQA Guidelines on December 28,2018, and the changes are reflected in new CEQA Guidelines (Section 15064.3). State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 was added December 28,2018, to address the determination of significance for transportation impacts. Pursuant to the new CEQA Guidelines, vehicle miles traveled (VMT) will replace congestion as the metric for determining transportation impacts.

The CEQA Guidelines state that "lead agencies may elect to be governed by these provisions of this section immediately. Beginning )uly 1, 2020, the provisions of this section shall apply statewide." As described above, the updated CEQA Guidelines were not adopted until December 28,2018, and as stated in the CEQA Guidelines Section 1506a.3(c), beginning on July 1,2020, the provisions of this section shall apply statewide.

Thus, local agencies had an opt-in period until July 1,2020, to implement the updated guidelines after they were formally adopted. Thus, the effective date of the changes to the CEQA Guidelines occurred subsequent to certification of the FPASP EIR/EIS in June 201'1, subsequent to the certification of the Russell Ranch EIR in May 2015, and subsequent to the certification of the RR Lots 24-32 Environmental Checklist and Addendum in March 20'18. Section 15007 of the CEQA Guidelines addresses amendments to the CEQA Guidelines and states: "lf a document meets the content requirements in effect when the document is sent out for public review, the document shall not need to be revised to conform to any new content requirements in Guideline amendments taking effect before the document is finally approved" (CEQA Guidelines Section 15007[c]). Stated another way, because the FPASP EIR/EIS and Russell Ranch EIR were circulated for public review (and completed) before this change in the CEQA Guidelines, the new provisions regarding VMT do not apply to this project. Therefore, the shift from automobile delay to VMT as the primary metric @Page 317
01/25/2022 Item No.4.

Russell Ranch Phase 2 Memo
November 15,2021

used to analyze transportation impacts under CEQA, as dictated by CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, does not constitute "new information" as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 and, even if it was "new information,' CEQA Guidelines Section 15007 directs that the document 'shall not need to be revised" to reflect this information.

The project would be in the same area, would not change circulation patterns, and would result in the same number of residential dwelling units as previously analyzed. However, implementation of the project would convert planned age-restricted active adult units to traditional units, thereby increasing the projected population at the project site and daily vehicle trips. As shown in Attachment B, the project would result in 92'l more trips per day than evaluated in the Russell Ranch EIR and1,076 more trips per daythan evaluated in the RR Lots 24-32Environmental Checklist and Addendum. However, the Toll Brothers at Folsom Ranch project, approved in 2020, included the conversion of traditional single family homes to age-restricted active-adult units and resulted in an estimated daily trip reduction of 3,433 trips for the entire FPASP area (City of Folsom 2020). This reduction of daily trips would offset trips generated by the project and total daily trip generation for the entire FPASP area would not exceed the amount previously evaluated in the FPASP EIR/EIS if the project is approved. Because the project is located within the same development footprint analyzed, would result in the same development types and intensities as previously analyzed, and would not result in an increase in total FPASP vehicle trips beyond that previously analyzed, no new or substantially more severe impacts related to VMT would occur.

The project-specific traffic evaluation, included in Attachment B, also found that under cumulative conditions the Empire Ranch RoadAilhite Rock Road intersection, located on the southern boundary of the project site, would require increased vehicle queuing storage than previously designed. The estimated vehicle queue for the westbound right-turn movements at the intersection would exceed the designed storage with or without the proposed project.

The traffic evaluation recommends that the 250-foot right-turn pocket on the westbound approach should be increased to a 400-foot right-turn pocket. This change is not considered as part of the project and would be required regardless of the project. The City would address this change as a design feature of a later project. ln addition, the change is consistent with the with the findings of the FPASP EIR/EIS and the Russell Ranch EIR and would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts.

The Russell Ranch EIR included an evaluation of cumulative traffic impacts under Year 2035 traffic conditions.

Cumulative impacts refer to the combined effect of project impacts with the impacts of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. This cumulative impact analysis does not rely on a list of specific pending, reasonably foreseeable development proposals in the vicinity of the project; rather, it relies on existing and future development accommodated under the City of Folsom General Plan, which is included in regional travel demand modeling. The SACOG regional traffic model was used to forecast cumulative year 2035 traffic volumes both within and outside of the FPASP area. The resulting cumulative scenario included buildout of the Russell Ranch development as well as the surrounding FPASP. The model also included land use growth in other portions of Folsom as well as the surrounding six-county region. The year 2035 traffic model assumed a substantial increase in land use development north of US 50 as anticipated by the Folsom General Plan. Since the Russell Ranch EIR had assumed a substantial amount of development under Year 2035, the proposed land use change would not result in any new significant traffic impacts under cumulative conditions.

No other changes to circulation patterns would occur. Thus, the project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe transportation impacts. The following mitigation measures were referenced in the Russell Ranch EIR analysis and would continue to remain applicable if the project were approved. > Mitigation Measure 4.8-1 Construction traffic and parking management plan. > Mitigation Measure 4.8-2(a) Fair share costs towards the modification to the westbound approach to the East Bidwell Street/lron Point Road intersection.
> Mitigation Measure 4.8-2(b) Fair share through the PFFP fee towards a westbound right-turn lane to the White Rock Road/Placerville Road intersection.
@

01/25/2022 Item No.4.

Russell Ranch Phase 2 Memo
November 15,2021

> Mitigation Measure 4.8-3 Pay CIP fee, towards the construction of auxiliary lanes on US 50 from Sunrise Boulevard to East Bidwell Street/Scott Road.
> Mitigation Measure 4.8-6 Far share fee towards the addition of right of way and add a channelized westbound right-turn lane to the Scott Road/Easton Valley Parkway intersection.

The potential environmental impacts related to transportation/traffic and associated with implementation of the project are consistent with the conclusions of the FPASP EIR/EIS, the Russell Ranch ElR, and the RR Lots 24-32 Environmental Checklist and Addendum, and no additional CEQA documentation is required. Further, pursuant to Section 15162of the State CEQA Guidelines, no new information of substantialimportance has been identified that would otherwise necessitate subsequent/supplemental environmental analysis.

Tribal Cuttural Resources
Assembly Bill (AB) 52, signed by the California governor in September of 2014, establishes a new class of resources under CEQA: "tribal cultural resources." lt requires that lead agencies undertaking CEQA review must, upon written request of a California Native American tribe, begin consultation after the lead agency determines that the application for the project is complete, before a notice of preparation (NOP) of an EIR or notice of intent to adopt a negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration is issued. AB 52 also requires revision to CEQA Appendix G, the environmental checklist. This revision has created a new category for tribal cultural resources (TCRs).

An addendum to a previously certified EIR was prepared for the Russell Ranch Lots 24 - 32 Project, in accordance with Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines. An addendum was determined to be the most appropriate document because none of the conditions described in Section 15'162, calling for preparation of a subsequent ElR, occurred. The addendum addresses minortechnical changes oradditions and confirmsthatthe project is consistentwith whatwas previously analyzed under the certified ElR. As such, the addendum did not result in an additional certification; therefore, the AB 52 procedures specified in PRC Sections 21080.3. 1(d) and 21080.3.2 did not apply and no tribal consultation under AB 52 was required. Further, because the project is adequately addressed by the FPASP EIR/EIS, the Russell Ranch ElR, and the RR Lots 24-32EnvironmentalChecklist and Addendum, this analysis is also not required to address TCRs. Mitigation measures discussed above under Cultural Resources that would reduce impacts to previously unknown cultural resources would also reduce potential impacts to TCRs should they be present.

The potential environmental impacts related to TCRs and associated with implementation of the project are consistent with the conclusions of the FPASP EIR/EIS, the Russell Ranch ElR, and the RR Lots 24-32Environmental Checklist and Addendum, and no additional CEQA documentation is required. Further, pursuant to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would otherwise necessitate subsequent/supplemental environmental analysis.

Utilities and Service Svstems
Domestic water, sanitary sewer, and storm drainage services would be provided by the City of Folsom. Electricity would be provided by the Sacramento Municipal Utility District, gas would be provided by Pacific Gas & Electric, telephone would be provided by AT&T, and cable would be provided by Comcast.

Although the project would not result in changes to the type of development or number of residential dwelling units, implementation of the project would convert planned age-restricted active adult units to traditional units, thereby increasing the projected population at the project site from 829 persons to 1,020 persons. As shown in Table 3 the increase in population would result in an increase in water demand at the site from the amount previously analyzed in the Russell Ranch EIR and the RR Lots 24-32 Environmental Checklist and Addendum. The water supply agreement for the FPASP area provides an overall cap of 5,600 acre-feet per year. As of May 2021,lotal water demand for the entire FPASP is 5,485 acre-feet per year. As such, the 83 acre-feet per year increase in water demand would not exceed water supply for the FPASP, and thus, would not result in any new or substantially more sever impacts.

ASCENI

01/25/2022 Item No.4.
2015 RusellRandr EIR
2018 RtssellRarrh Lm
2zt-32Addedum
135.1 13s.1
265 389
185185
191 191
Russell Ranch Phase 2 Memo
November 15,2021

Table 3 Russell Ranch Phase 2 (Lots 24-32) Water Demand ProjectAppowl Prcposed Project
Acres 135.1
Dwdling Units 389
Total Normal Demand (ac-ft/yr) 268
Total Dry-Year Demand (ac-ftlyr) 276
Notes: ac-ft/yr = acre feet per year
Source: McKay & Somps 2021a, McKay & Somps 2018a.

Similarly, increase in population at the project site would result in an increase in wastewater generation and sewer flow. Table 4 shows that wastewater generation from the project is estimated a|0.1425 million gallons per day (mgd), a 0.026 mgd increase from the amount analyzed in the RR Lots 24-32 Environmental Checklist and Addendum and a

0.0365 mgd increase from the amount analyzed in the Russell Ranch ElR. Wastewater collection and conveyance services are provided by the City of Folsom and wastewater treatment is provided by Regional San at the Sacramento Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant. The treatment plant has a permitted capacity of 181 mgd, with a remaining capacity of approximately 40 mgd. A sewer master plan was prepared for the entire FPASP area which assumed 1,119 units would be developed in the Russell Ranch area (as shown in Table 1). The analysis conducted as part of the sewer master plan showed that the total flow of sewer and wastewater into the Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District (Regional San) system would be 6.23 mgd in average day flow conditions and 11.1 mgd in peak wet weather flow (PWWF) conditions. The Regional San lnterceptor Master Plan prepared in 2000 provided for a flow excess of this demand. All the pipelines conveying the flow from the site to the regional Folsom South Lift Station have been planned and constructed to date at a capacity (maximum depth of flow to diameter of pipe) of not to exceed 70 percent full. The Regional San lnterceptor Master Plan analyzed all the pipelines within the FPASP area and determined that flow in all pipelines would be substantially less than 70 percent full. Thus, the minor increase can be accommodated from the project site to the connection with Regional San. The increase in sewer flow caused by this project, if approved, would be accommodated without need to change the wastewater and sewer transmission facilities.

Table 4 Russell Ranch Phase 2 (Lots 24 - 32) Wastewater Treatment Demand ProjectApgoval Proposed Project
Acres 13s.0
Equivalent Single Family Dwelling 393
Average Daily Sewer Flow (mgd) 0.1425
Notes: mgd = million gallons per day
Source: McKay & Somps 2021b, McKay & Somps 2018b.

The project would not change the development footprint or the intensity of development. Therefore, stormwater drainage patterns would not be changed by the project. ln addition, demand for electricity, gas, telephone, and cable services would not exceed the amount previously analyzed.

The project would include the same type of development and would not exceed the number of units or population evaluated in the FPASP EIR/EIS. The FPASP EIR/EIS determined that the Sacramento County Kiefer Landfill, which serves the FPASP area, has adequate capacity, and no substantial changes to landfill capacity or landfill closures have occurred. The appropriate landfills have enough capacity to serve the project during construction and operation. 2015 Russell Ranch EIR
2018 Russell Ranch Lots
24-32Adderdum
13s.1 135.1
265 393

0.1060 0.116s
@

01/25/2022 Item No.4.

Russell Ranch Phase 2 Memo
November 15,2021

The following mitigation measures were referenced in the FPASP EIR/EIS analysis and incorporated by reference into the Russell Ranch EIR and would continue to remain applicable if the project were approved. > Mitigation Measure 3A.16-1: Submit Proof of Adequate On- and Off-Site Wastewater Conveyance Facilities and lmplement On- and Off-Site lnfrastructure Service Systems or Ensure That Adequate Financing ls Secured. > Mitigation Measure 3A.16-3: Demonstrate Adequate SRWTP Wastewater Treatment Capacity. > Mitigation Measure 34.18-1: Submit Proof of Surface Water Supply Availability. > Mitigation Measure 3A.18-2a: Submit Proof of Adequate Off-Site Water Conveyance Facilities and lmplement Off-Site lnfrastructure Service System or Ensure That Adequate Financing ls Secured. > Mitigation Measure 3A.3-1a: Design stormwater drainage plans and erosion and sediment control plans to avoid and minimize erosion and runoff to all wetlands and other waters that are to remain on the SPA and use low impact development featu res.

The potential environmental impacts related to utilities and service systems and associated with implementation of the project are adequately addressed by the FPASP EIR/ElS, the Russell Ranch ElR, and the RR Lots 24-32 Environmental Checklist and Addendum, and no additional CEQA documentation is required. Further, pursuant to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would otherwise necessitate subsequent/supplemental environmental analysis.

Witdfire
lmplementation of the project would involve the development of a residential subdivision within the approved Russell Ranch development. The project would affect the same area already analyzed and would not substantially alter the development type or density at the site. The site is identified as a moderate fire hazard severity zone and is not near an area of high or very high fire hazard severity, as identified by CAL FIRE. The project would comply with Wildland- Urban lnterface building code regulations, California Fire Code, Folsom 2035 General Plan Polices and FPASP Polices.

The project would not result in an increase in slope or prevailing wind that may exacerbate wildfire risks. There were no mitigation measures included in the FPASP EIR/EIS or the Russell Ranch EIR for this topic and no additional mitigation measures are required for the project for this issue.

The potential environmental impacts related to wildfire and associated with implementation of the project are adequatelyaddressed bythe FPASP EIR/EIS, the Russell Ranch ElR, and the RR Lots 24-32EnvironmentalChecklist and Addendum (see "Public Services" discussion above), and no additional CEQA documentation is required. Further, pursuant to Section '15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would otherwise necessitate subsequent/supplemental environmental analysis.

Cumulative lmoacts
The project would result in the development of a residential subdivision within the approved Russell Ranch development. The project would not result in a change in the number of units or population beyond that previously analyzed in the FPASP EIR/EIS. Mitigation measures identified in the FPASP EIR/EIS, the Russell Ranch ElR, and the RR Lots 24-32 Environmental Checklist and Addendum would remain applicable to the project. Therefore, the project would not result in cumulative impacts beyond those previously analyzed.

Conctusion
Based on the analysis presented above, implementation of the project is adequately addressed by the FPASP EIR/EIS, the Russell Ranch ElR, and the RR Lots 24-32EnvironmentalChecklistand Addendum, and no neworsubstantially more adverse impacts would occur through implementation of the project. As a result, no new environmental document is required, consistent with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(b). @

01/25/2022 Item No.4.

Russell Ranch Phase 2 Memo
November 15,2021

REFERENCES
Abbas Metzker, AICP, Sherri. 2018 (January 16). Consultant Planner. E-mail correspondence with Bonnie Chiu of The New Home Company regarding persons per age-restricted household.

City of Folsom. 2010 (June). Draft Environmentol lmpact Report/Draft Environmental lmpoct Stotement Folsom South of U.S. 50 Spectftc PIon Project. SCH #2008092051. Sacramento County, CA. Prepared by AECOM and RMC Water and Environment.
2011 (May). Final Environmental lmpact Report/Draft Environmental Impoct Stqtement Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific PIan Project. SCH #2008092051. Sacramento County, CA. Prepared by AECOM and RMC Water and Environment.
2014 (Decembe|. Russe// Ronch Project Draft Environmental lmpoct Report. Folsom, CA. Prepared by Raney Planning and Management, lnc.
2018 (January). Russe// Ronch Development (Lots 24 through 32) Environmentol Checklist and Addendum.

Prepared by Ascent Environmental.
2020 (February). Toll Brothers ot Folsom Ranch Master Plonned Community Environmentol Checklist ond Addendum. Prepared by Ascent Environmental.

ECORP. See ECORP Consulting, lnc.

ECORP Consulting, lnc.2017a (September 20). Biologicol Resources Assessment to Support an Amendment to the Folsom Plan Area Specific Plon for the Russell Ranch Phase 2 Project. Prepared for City of Folsom Community Development Department.
2019b (July 30). Culturol Resources Assessment to Support on Amendment to the Folsom Plon Areo Specific Plan for the Russell Ranch Phose Project. Prepared for City of Folsom Community Development Department. j.c. brennan & associates. 2014 (October 29). Environmentol Noise Assessment Russell Ranch. Prepared for Raney Planning & Management, lnc.

MacKay & Somps. 2018a (Janua ry 17). Potable Water Demand Chort. Prepared for Bonnie Chiu of The New Home Compony.
2018b (January 17). Sanitory Sewer Demond Comparison. Prepored for Bonnie Chiu of The New Home Company. 2021a (April9). Folsom Plan Areo Russell Ranch Speciftc Plan Amendment Potable Water Demand Comparison. 2021b (July 7). Folsom Plan Area Russell Ronch Specific Plan Amendment Sanitory Sewer Demand Comporison.

Westwood, L. and Katherine Knapp. 2013. Historic Property Treatment PIan for the Bockbone lnfrostructure Permit Areo, Folsom South of U.S. Highway 50 Speciftc Plon Project Sacromento County, California. ECORP Consulting, lnc., Rocklin.
@

01/25/2022 Item No.4.

Attachment A
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program

01/25/2022 Item No.4.

Attachment B
Traffic Memo

01/25/2022 Item No.4.

Attachment 9
Access and Circulation Analysis dated November 12,202I

01/25/2022 Item No.4.

FEHR,f PEERS
Memorandum
Date:

To:

From:

Subject:

November 12,2021
Rachel Corona, Lennar Homes
David B. Robinson, Fehr & Peers
Russell Ranch Phase 2 (Villages 1,2, and 4) Evaluation
RS21 -4421
Fehr & Peers has completed a trip generation evaluation of the proposed modifications to Russell Ranch Phase 2 (Villages 1,2, and 4). The purpose of the evaluation is to document how this shift in units would affect the transportation analysis findings of the Russell Ranch Project EIR (May 2015) and the Russell Ranch Development (Lots 24 through 32) Environmental Checklist and Addendum (January 201 8).

Land Use Modifications
As proposed, modifications to Russell Ranch Phase 2 (Villages 1,2, and 4) include converting 208 age-restricted dwelling units to single family dwelling units while maintaining the overall unit count of single family and multi-family residential land use. Table 1 compares the residential land use changes being proposed to the number of dwelling units analyzed in the DEIR and Addendum.

Table 1: Summary of Residential Land Use Changes
Single Family 789 587
Age-Restricted 0 208
Multi-Family 114 232
Total 903 1,027
Source: lMacKay & Somps, Russell Ranch Phase 2 Villages 1,2, and 4 (March 2019). 1,O27
795
0 232
DEIR
(May 2015)
Addendum
(January 2018) ProposedlResidential Land Use
'i001 K Street l3rd Floor lSacrarnento, CA 958'14l(916) 329 7l>32 lFax(916)773-2015 www.f eh ra rrdpeers.cor-n

01/25/2022 Item No.4.
ii,l, i:,,1 L rli)rl,), i i,ilil,rr l l' )|tr'r,
iti1,';,,1,i1r'r l.', ,)t),,: i
i'.tr;r, .) i li I' n
Trip Generation
We estimated trip generation for the land use scenarios documented in Table 1 based on trip rates and methodologies published in the lnstitute of Transportation Engineers' (lTE) Trip Generation Manual, 1Oth Edition (2017).

Table 2 summarizes the residential trip generation rates used to estimate the trip generation for the proposed land use changes.

Table 2: Trip Generation Rates by ResidentialType
Residential
Land Use
ITE
Land Use Code
Trip Ratel
Peak Hour
Single-Family Residential 210 9.M 0.74
Age-Restricted Residential 251 4.27 0.24
Multi-Family Residential 220 7.32 0.46
Notes: llnstitute of Transportation Engineers'(lTE) Trip Generation Manual, 1Oth Edition (2017).

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2021

0.99 0.30

0.55 Table 3 compares gross trip generation for the proposed changes to Russell Ranch Phase 2 (Villages 1,2, and 4) to the trip generation based on the land use analyzed in the DEIR and Addendum. Attachment A includes the detailed trip generation categories and rates used to estimate the trip generation.

As shown, compared to the DEIR the proposed changes to Russell Ranch Phase 2 (Villages 1, 2, and 4) would generate '1,076 more trips per day, 59 trips during the AM peak hour, 72 trips during PM peak hour.

01/25/2022 Item No.4.
il.rL ltr,l l. { )r r.}it,i i i,jr{t,lr I :, )1}r.' ,
trlrrvt,rrli,t'1 i.l .){),,' i
i) t,tl lll 1 n
Table 3: Trip Generation Comparison
Daily
Single Family
Age-Restricted
Multi-Family
7,448 5,541
888
1,698
8,127
-1 55
Change from Addendum
434
50 107
s91
-45
Change from Addendum
581
62 130
773
-72
Change from Addendum
AM Peak Hour
Single Family
Age-Restricted
Multi-Family
PM Peak Hour
Single Fami!
Age-Restricted
Multi-Family
834
8,282
Change from DEIR
52 636
Change from DEIR
u
845
Change from DEIR
Total
Total
584
7,505
1,698
9,203
921
1,076
588
107
69s
59 104
130
917
72 144
787781
Total
Source: Fehr & Peers,2021
Vehide Queuing
As shown in Table 3, compared to the DERI the changes proposed to Russell Ranch Phase 2 (Villages 1,2, and 4) would generate 59 more trips during the AM peak hour and72 more trips during PM peak hour. Since the proposed changes would increase in peak hour trip generation, we analyzed the sensitivity of the DEIR intersection analysis (i.e., under cumulative conditions) to determine if the proposed changes would result in increased vehicle queueing.

DEIR
(December 2014)
Addendum
(January 2018)
Proposed
(Russell Ranch Phase 2 -
Vilfages 1,2, and 4)
Residential Land Use

01/25/2022 Item No.4.

Rachel Corona, Lennar Honres
November 12,2021

The DEIR study area is shown on the image below. Under cumulative conditions, the DEIR include the analysis of 32 study intersections, including 6 on-site intersections (lntersections 22,26,27,28, 31, and 32) and 26 off-site intersections in the area bounded by Broadstone Parkway to the north, Oak Avenue Parkway to the west, El Dorado Hills Boulevard/Latrobe Road to the east, and White Rock Road to the south, including several on-site intersections.

Given the area covered by the study area, the affect of the increased trip generation will diminish as the trips are distributed through the study area. Therefore, we applied the following steps to identify intersections for more detailed vehicle queuing analysis.

Step 1 ffrip Distribution) - We reviewed the Cumulative Plus Project scenario intersection turning movement forecasts at lntersections 28 and 29, to determine the share of traffic distributed to the north and south on Empire Ranch Road. Based on this review, about 60% of traffic is distributed to the north and 40% is distributed to the south.

Step 2 (New Trip Assignment) - Using the distribution identified in Step 1, we assigned the project trips through the study intersections, based on the inbound/outbound peak hour trip generation and the Cumulative Plus Project scenario intersection turning movement forecasts.

Step 3 (lntersection Screening) - Reviewing the project trip distribution from Step 2, we reviewed the peak hour assignment and selected intersections where the increase in peak hour trips to an individual movement was 10 or more. lntersections 18, 19, 23,28,31, and 32 satisfied the criteria and were selected for more detailed vehicle queuing analysis. n

01/25/2022 Item No.4.
ii,.rr irt,l t ()roit,], Li'll,rr Illrrlr::
l]rtrrctrrri;r,r I r. ,l{)., 1
1','tt1c ! rrr ,'
For the intersection selected in Step 3 above, we added the increased project traffic to the Cumulative Plus Project forecast from the DEIR to develop the traffic volume forecasts for the detailed vehicle queuing analysis.

We analyzed the selected study intersections using the procedures described in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 6th Edition (Transportation Research Board, 2016), using the Synchro software program. The intersection operations analysis was conducted using the updated Cumulative Plus Project intersection turning movement forecasts (outlined above), traffic control, and lane configurations from the DEIR. Table 4 identifies the increase in turn movement vehicle queues due to the addition of trips from the proposed modifications to Russell Ranch Phase 2 (Villages 1,2, and 4).

Table 4: Study lntersection Vehicle Queues - Cumulative With Proposed Russell Ranch Phase 2 - Villages 1,2, and 4
lS.EmpireRanchRoad/US50WBRamps 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
l9.EmpireRanchRoad/US5OEBRamps 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

23.EmpireRanchRoad/lnternalRoadwayl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2S.EmpireRanchRoad/RoughHorseWay 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
31, Empire Ranch Road/Mangini Parkway 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 0

32. Empire Ranch RoadAilhite Rock Road 0 0 Q 25 O 25 25 25 Note: lQueued vehicles are assumed to occupy 25 feet of space. Therefore, in increase in one queued vehicle would result in an increasedqueuelengthof 25feet. ThemaximumoftheAMandPMpeakhourqueueincreaseisreported.

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2021
As shown in Table 4, most vehicles queues would not increase with the addition of trips from the proposed modifications to Russell Ranch Phase 2 (Villages 1,2, and 4), except for lntersections 31 and lntersection 32.

At lntersection 31 (Empire Ranch Road/Mangini Parkway), the turn movements that would experience an increase in vehicle queue length (i.e., the northbound right-turn, southbound right- turn, and eastbound right-turn) are shared movements; therefore, the addition of trips from the proposed modifications to Russell Ranch Phase 2 (Villages 1,2, and 4) would not change the turn pocket storage requirements.
n
lncrease in Vehicle Queue by Turn lane (feet)1
lntersection
Right LeftLeft Right Left Right Left Right
Eastbound
(EB)
Westbound
(WB)
Northbound
(NB)
Southbound
(sB)

01/25/2022 Item No.4.

Ihrhel Lorolr.r, L.enrrar Honre.;
Nr.rrrt-'r l;er- 1,:, ) 0 21
Paqe 6' oi /
At lntersection 32 (Empire Ranch RoadAffhite Rock Road), four turn movements would experience a vehicle queue increase (i.e., the southbound right-turn, eastbound right turn, westbound left- turn, and westbound right-turn). The northbound right-turn and southbound right-turn are shared movements and the vehicle queue for the left-turn would not exceed the assumed pocket length of 250 feeq therefore, the addition of trips from the proposed modifications to Russell Ranch Phase 2 (Villages 1,2, and 4) would not change the turn pocket storage requirements.

The analysis conducted for the DEIR assumed a 250-foot right-turn pocket on the westbound approach. The estimated vehicle queue for this turn movement would exceed the assumed storage with or without the proposed modifications to Russell Ranch Phase 2 (Villages 1,2, and 4).

A 400-foot right-turn pocket should be provided for this movement to accommodate the forecasted vehicle queue. This estimated vehicle queue is based on analysis of the Cumulative Plus Project scenario, which includes regional planned population and employment growth and programmed roadway improvements like the US 50/Empire Ranch Road interchange and the White Rock Road widening. Exhibit A (attached) shows the Empire Ranch RoadArVhite Rock Road intersection and the westbound right-turn lane.

The findings of the focused vehicle queuing analysis should be considered for the future design the planned improvements at lntersection 32. However, the results of the analysis would not change the findings of the DEIR.

Cumulative Impact Discussion
The Russell Ranch DEIR was completed in 2015. The transportation/circulation chapter of the DEIR evaluated cumulative traffic impacts under Year 2035 traffic conditions. Cumulative impacts refer to the combined effect of project impacts with the impacts of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. This cumulative impact analysis does not rely on a list of specific pending, reasonably foreseeable development proposals near the project; rather, it relies on existing and future development accommodated under the City's General Plan, which is included in regionaltravel demand modeling.

The SACOG regional traffic model was used to forecast cumulative year 2035 traffic volumes both within and outside of the Specific Plan area. The resulting cumulative scenario included buildout of the Russell Ranch project as well as the surrounding Folsom Plan Area Specific Plan. The model also included land use growth in the other portions of Folsom as well as the surrounding six- county region.

The year 2035 traffic model assumed a substantial increase in land use development north of US 50 as anticipated by the Folsom General Plan. Table 5 shows the increase in households, retail employees, and non-retail employees that was assumed in the traffic model used to develop the cumulative traffic vol u me forecasts.
n

01/25/2022 Item No.4.

Rachel Corona, Lennar Hornes
November 12,2A21

Table 5: Cumulative Scenario Land Use Growth
n
Land Use Base Year Cumulative Year Growth
Households
Retail Employees
Non-Retail Employees
20,900
9,801
15,545
23,540
14,712
20,208
2,640 (13%)
4,911(50Yo)
4,663 (30o/o)

01/25/2022 Item No.4.

I
"t-
[.T.$t
-(E +r.
:i
Ei
I'
Io
tr
tFWnE
r--Fffil
Lqq )
LEGEND
ffi ,r,*n"r**r,
f I##ffi^* #
u....!jl
Ixhiblt A
White Rock Rd/Empire Rach Rd Intersection

01/25/2022 Item No.4.

Attachment l-0
Applicant's lnclusionary Housing Letter dated November 4,202L

01/25/2022 Item No.4.

LENNAIiI"
Re:

November 4,2O2t
Kathy Pease
Contract Planner
City of Folsom
lnclusionary Housing Agreement
Russell Ranch Lot 24-32 {PN21-118)
Dear Kathy,
Attached is a copy of the recorded inclusionary housing agreement for Russell Ranch dated June 30, 2015. This agreement encompasses our Russell Ranch Phase 2 project. Lennar homes will conform requirements of the Russell Ranch lnclusionary Housing Agreement. lf you have any questions please feel free to contact me at 916-886-0255.

Tha YOU,
lCorona
Lennar Homes of California
L025 Creekside Ridge Drive, Suite 240, Roseville, CA 95578 LENNAR.COM

01/25/2022 Item No.4.

Attachment L1
Amenity Narrative for Lot A

01/25/2022 Item No.4.

Russell Ranch Phase 2 Neiehborhood Amenitv Area - Lot A This 2.08 acre parcel located in Russell Ranch Phase 2, Private Recreation Area (Lot A), is nestled between three single family residential villages to the north, east and northwest, with an open space and trail to the west. Lot A fronts on Silent Grove Lane feeding the three villages with a stretch of easy vehicular and pedestrian access. lts current condition of open gently rolling hillside grasses is currently planned to be developed into a private recreation area for active adult use.

With the proposed removal of the active adult designation in Phase 2, the Lot A amenity area will be focused to accommodate a wider range of passive recreational uses and be designed to provide a safe, pedestrian accessible gathering and play area for residents of all ages.

This amenity area will be owned and maintained by the Russell Ranch homeowners association who currently operates the Russell House which is a community clubhouse accessible to all Russell Ranch residents. The Russell House amenities include a pool and spa and indoor / outdoor lounge areas for comfortable gathering as well as a sports room for children.

The amenities for Lot A would include covered shade picnic structure(s), bench seating, bike rack(s), large open turf area for passive play like kite flying, picnics, and small group field games. The addition of large shade trees, and support facilities of tables and barbecue for dining, drinking fountain, and possible game tables.

Landscape will need to meet State requirements for water conservation with the incorporation of state of the art irrigation systems, and drought tolerant plant material.

Private
---.- Recreation
Area
\
\
\
\

SACRAMENTO
COUNTY
AS

F FALSOM
']fl'Lfl -1fl'Lt\

01/25/2022 Item No.4.

Attach ment L2
Development Agreement Amendment No. 3

01/25/2022 Item No.4.

FORTHE BENEFIT OF THE CITY OF FOLSOM
PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE $6103

RECORDING REQUESTED BY CITY CLERK
WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:

City Clerk
City of Folsom
50 Natoma Street
Folsom, CA 95630

ABOVE THIS LINE RESERVED FOR RECORDER'S USE)
AMENDMENT NO.3 TO F'IRST AMENDED AND RESTATED TIER 1 DEVELOPMENT

AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN
THE CITY OF FOLSOM AND AG ESSENTIAL HOUSING CA 4, L.p.

This Amendment No. 3 to First Amended and Restated Tier I Development Agreement ("A*"ndment No. 3") is entered into this day of _, 202l,by and between the City of Folsom ("City') and AG Essential Housing CA 4, LP., a Delaware limited partnership ("Landowner"), pursuant to the authority of Sections 65864 through 65869.5 of the Government Code of Califomia.

RECITALS
A. ARDA. City and TNHC Russell Ranch LLC, a California limited liability company ("TNHC") entered into that certain First Amended and Restated Tier I Development Agreement Relative to the Folsom South Specific Plan recorded on July 15, 2014, in the Official Records of the County Recorder of Sacramento County in Book 20140715 on Page 0405 (the "ARDA").

B. Amendment No. 1 to ARDA. City and TNHC entered into that certain Amendment No. 1 to the ARDA recorded on July 10, 2015, in the Official Records of the County Recorder of Sacramento County in Book 20150710 on Page 0642 ("Amendment No. l").

C. Amendment No. 2 to ARDA. City and TNHC entered into that certain Amendment No. 2 to the ARDA recorded on July 6,2018, in the Official Records of the County Recorder of Sacramento County in Book 20180706 on Page 0265 ("Amendment No. 2," and hereinafter referred to collectively with the ARDA and Amendment No. 1 as the "Development Agreement").

D. Assignment to and Assumption by Landowner. TNHC assigned its interest in the Development Agreement to Landowner pursuant to that certain Assignment and Assumption Agreement recorded on December 21,2020 in the Official Records of the County Recorder of Sacramento County as Document No. 202012212182.

E. Property. This Amendment No. 3 affects certain of the Property (as defined in the ARDA), which portions of the Property are described in Exhibit "A" to this Amendment No. 3 ("Amendment No. 3 Property").

F. Pumose of Amendment No. 3. The purpose of this Amendment No. 3 is to include certain additional entitlements within the scope and definition of Entitlements (as defined in the ARDA).

G. Hearings. On December l, 2021, the City Planning Commission, designated as the planning agency for purposes of development agreement review pursuant to Government Code Section 65867, in a duly

01/25/2022 Item No.4.
noticed and conducted public hearing, considered this Amendment No. 3 and recommended that the City Council approve the same.

H. Consistency with General Plan and Specific Plan. Having duly examined and considered this Amendment No. 3, the City finds and declares that this Amendment No. 3 is consistent with the General Plan and the Specific Plan, as amended.

NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto, in consideration of the mutual covenants, promises, and agreements herein contained, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged and agreed, the parties hereto do hereby agree to amend the Development Agreement as follows:

1. AMENDMENT OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. The term Entitlements (as defined in the ARDA) is hereby revised to add the following:

The Design Guidelines Modification approved by the Planning Commission on October 6, 202r;
The Design Review as approved by the Planning Commission on October 6,2021 The large lot tentative map as amended by City Council Resolution No. [numberl; The small lot tentative map as amended by City Council Resolution No. [numberl; Amendments to the Design Guidelines as approved by City Council Resolution No. [number];
The Design Review as approved by City Council Resolution No. [numberl; and This Amendment No. 3 as approved by Ordinance No. [numberl

2. Effect of Amendment. This Amendment No. 3 amends, but does not replace or supersede, the Development Agreement. Except as modified hereby, all other terms and provisions of the Development Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

3. Form of Amendment: Execution in Counterparts. This Amendment No. 3 is executed in duplicate originals, each of which is deemed to be an original, and may be executed in counterparts. [Remainder of Page lntentionally Left Blank; Signatures Follow on Next Page] a,
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
ob.

01/25/2022 Item No.4.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of Folsom has authorized the execution of this Amendment No. 3 in duplicate by its Mayor and attested to by the City Clerk under the authority of Ordinance No. [numberl adopted by the City Council on [detel.

CITY LANDOWNER:

CITY OF FOLSOM
a municipal corporation
By
Mike Kozlowski
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT;
By:

Elaine Anderson
City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM;
By:

Steven Wang
City Attorney
ATTEST:

By
Christa Freemantle
City Clerk
AG ESSENTIAL HOUSING CA4,L.P.,
a Delaware limited partnership
By: AGWIP Asset Management,LLC,
an Arizona limited liability company,
its Authorized Agent
By:

Steven S. Benson, its Manager

01/25/2022 Item No.4.

EXHIBIT A
Legal Description of Amendment No.3 Property
Real propcrry in dre City of Folsom , County of Sacramento, Statc of Cslifornia" described as follows:

PARCEL lr
LOTS 1, 3, 5 TI.IROUGH 15, INCLUSTIE, EMPIRE RANCH PLACE, FOLSOM T{EIGHTS DRIVE, TRUMPET

VINE DRIVE, SILENT GROVE LANE AND WHITE ROCK ROAD, AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN MAP ENTITLED 'RUSSELL RANCH PII.ASE 2 LARGE LOT", FILED FOR RECORD OCTOBER 30,zOIE IN BOOK 407 OF MAFS, AT PAGE I, FILED TN T}M OFFICE OF TFIE COI,INTY RECORDER" COT]NTY OF SACRAMENTO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA.

EXCEPTINC THEREFROM ALL THAT PORTION OF ABOVE DESCzuBED PARCEL LYING WTHIN T}IE NORTT{EAST ONE.QUARTER OF THE OUTHEAST ONE-QUARTER OF SECTION 15, TOIVNSHIP 9 NORTH, RANCE 8 EAST, M,D,B. & M,, ALL THE GOLD OR SILVER BENEA,TFI SURFACE OF TI{E LAND AND TI{E RIGHT TO WORK SAID OOLD AND $II,VER MINES IN ANY MANNER WITHOUT DISTURBINO SArD SURFACE AS RESERVED INDEED DATED SEPTEMBER 24, 1891, RECORDED FEBRUARY 2I, 1899, IN BOOK t66 OF DEEDS, PAGE I 15 EXECUTED BV C.T.H. PALMER, ETC. TO

WILLIAMCARPENTER

ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM, ALL OIL, GAS AND OTHER HYDROCARBON SUBSTANCES, INERT CASES, MINERALS, AND METALS, LYINO BELOW A DEPTH OF 5OO FEET FROM THE SURFACE OF SAID LAND AND REAL PROPERTY, WHETHER NO1V KNOWN TO EXIST OR T{BREAFTER

DISCOVERED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE RIGHTS TO E)OLORE FO& DEVELOP' AND REMOYE SUCH OIL, GAS, AND OT}TERHYDROCARSON SI.JBSTANCES. INERT GASES, MINERALS, AND METALS WITHOUT, HOWEVER, AI.IY RIOHT TO USE TFIE SIJRFACE OF SUCH LAND AND REAL PR.OPERTY CIR AI.TY OTTTTNPONTION THEREOT ABOVE A DEPTH OF 5OO FEET FROM T}TE SI]RFACE

OF SUCH LAND AND REAL PROPERTY FOR ANY PURPOSE WHATSOEVER TO THE BENEFIT OF RUSSELL.PROMONTORY, L.L.C. AS DESCRIBED IN THATCERTAIN GRANT DEED REOORDED ON !Vf.{Y 23, 20I3 IN BOOK 20I30523, .{T PACE I1I9, OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SACRAMENTO COUNTY' PARCEL 2:

ALL THAT REAL PROPERTY SITUATED IN THE CTTI'OF FOLSOIVI, COI-NTY OF SACRAMENTO' STATE OF CALTFORMA, LOCATED WITHIN SECTTON 15, TOWNSHIP 9 NORTH, RANOE 8 EAST' I,{OLNT DIABLO TVIERIDIAN AND BEING A PORTION OF LOT 2 AND LOT 4 OF FINAL MAP (PN I?'288} RUS$ELL RANCH PFI,ASE 2 LARGE LOT FTLED FOR RECORD ON OCTOBER 30, 20 I 8 TN BOOK 40? OF MAPS AT PAOE I, SACRAh.{ENTO COUNTY RECORDS, FURT}IER DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS; R^ESULTANTLOT2A
LOT 2, EXCEFT FROM SAID LOT 2 THE FOLLOWTNO PESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY:

BECTNNING ATA 518- REBAR WITH PLASTIC CAP STAMPED'L$ 5760" MARKTNC THE NORT}IEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 2l THENCE ALONC THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 2, SOUTH 01"44'15' EAST A DIETANCE OF 66.2E FEETI THENCE LEAVINC SAID EAST LINE, NORTII 29"33'26" WEST A DTSTANCE OF 75,01 FEET TO THE NORTH LII.I€ oF SAID t-OT 2; TIIENCE ATONG SAID NORTH LINE' NORTII 18"22'04' EAST A DISTANCE OF 35.00 FEETTO THE POINT OF BEOINNING.

RESULTANT LOT 4A
LOT 4, EXCEPT FROM SAID LOT 4 THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTYI

01/25/2022 Item No.4.

BEGINNINO AT A 1.I/2' IRON PIPE wlTH A CAP STAMPED T.E 53' AT THE NORTFIEAST COKNER OF SAID LoT 4; TI#NCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID LoT 4; SOUTH 01"44'35" EAST A DISTANCE OF 5S5.00 FEET TO THE SOUTI{EAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 4; TffiNCE ALONG TIIE SOUTH LINE OF SATD LOT 4, SOUTH 88O22'O4O WEST A DISTANCE OF 35.00 FEET; TTIENCE ALONA A LINE 35 FEET WESTERLY AND PARALLEL TO SAID EAST LTNE OF LOT 4, NORTH OI O44'35' WEST A DISTANCE OIj jsj.00 FEET TO THENORTIi LINE OF SAID LOT 4; TIIENCE NORTH 88o22'04' EAST A DISTANCE OF

35.00 FEET TO TI{E POINT OF BEOINNING.

TTIIS LEOAL DESCR.IPTION IS MADE PURSUANT TO THAT CERTAIN CERTIFICATE APPROVING EXHTBIT ''C" IN A CERTTT'ICATE OF COMPLIANCE . LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT, RECORDED JUNE IO, ?O19 AS BOOK 20I906IO, PACE 0.186 OF OFFICIAI" RECORDS.

EXCEPTINO THEREFROM ALL THAT PORTION OF ABOVE DESCRIBED PARCEL L$NG WITHIN TT{E NORTHEAST OI{E-QUARTER oF THE SOT.JTHEAST ONE-QUARTER OF SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 9 NORTH, A"ANCIE 8 EAST, M,D.B, & M., ALL T}IE GOLD OR. $ILVER BENEATH SURFACE OF THE LAND AND T}M RICHT TO WORK SATD GOLD AND SILVER MINES IN AI-iV MANNER WITHOUT DISTUMTNG SAID SURFACE AS RESER,VED TN DEED DATED SEPTEMBER 2d, 1891, RECORDED FEBRUARY 21, 18}9, IN BOOK 166 OF DEEDS, PAGE I 15 EXECUTEDBY C.T.H. PATMER" ETC. TO

WILLIAM CARPENTER
ALSO EXCEPTINC TT{EREFROM, ALL OTI,, GA$ AND OTF{ER FTYDROCARBON SUBSTANCSS,INERT 6ASES, MINERALS, AND }VIETALS, LYING BELOW A DEPTH OF 5OO FEET FROM TI{E SURFACE OF SAID LAND AND REAL PROPERTY. WItrTTIER NOW KNOWN TO EXIST OR TMREAFTER DTSCOVERED, INCI,UDtrNC, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE RTcTITS TO EXPLORE FOR, DEVELOP' AND

REMOYE SUCFI OIL, GAS, AND OTHER HYDROCARBON SUBSTANCES, INER,T CASES, MINERALS' ANP METALS WIT}IOUT, }IOWEVER, ANY R.ICHT TO USE TI{E STJRFACE CJF SUCH LAND AND REAL PROPERTY OR ANY OTTNN PORTION THEREOF ABOVE A DEPTfI OF 5OO FEET FROM T}IE SUR'FACE OF SUCH LAND AND R.EAL PROPERTY FOR AI-{Y PURPOSE WHATSOEVER TO T}IE BENEFIT OF RUSSELL.PROMONTORY, L.L.C. AS DESCRIBED IN TTIATCERTAIN CRANT DEED RECORDED ON MAY 23,2013 TN BOOK 20130523, AT PAOE I I 19, OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SACRAMENTO COIJNTY, PARCEL 3:

LOT]S g TI{ROUOH I l, INCLUSTVE, t4, t5, 17, 20 TI{ROUGH 23, INCLU$M, PURPLE SA6E DR.IVE'

ALDER CREEK PARKWAY, SCENIC VISTA COURT, RUSSELL RANCH ROAD, WHITE ROCK ROAD' EMPTRERANCH ROAD, CRIMSON LEAF STR.SET, SILENTGROVE DRIVE, MANOINI PAR.KWAY' ROSE TRELLIS LANE, OF FrNAL MAp (pN 16-122i R{JSSELL RANCH LARGE LOT RECORDED SEPTEMBER 21 , 2OI7 IN BOOK 39$ OF MAPS AT PACE I, OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SACRAMENTO COUNTY' AMENDED PURSUANT TO T}I,AT CERTAIN CERTIFICATE OF CORRECTION RECORDED OSTOBER 15, 2OI8 AS BOOK 2O18IOI5, P,{GE 0286 OF OFFICIAL R'ECORDS.

EXCEPTING FROM.q PORTION OF LOT 9:

ALL OIL, OIL RIGHTS, MINERALS, MINERAL RICHTS, NATIJRAL OAS,NATURAL CAS RIG}ITS AND OTHER HYDROCARBONS, BET-OW A DEPTH OF 5OO FEE'T, WITHOUT THE RIGHT OF SURFACE ENTRY, AS RESERVED TN A DEED RECORDED OCXOBER 12, 1984, TN BOOK 84ICII2, PAGE 983' OFFICIAL RECORDS.

ALSO EXCEF'TINC TI{EREFROM, ALL OIL, CAS AND OTHER HYDROCARBON SI.JBSTANCES,INERT OASES, MINEF,ALS, A,ND METAI-S, LYINC BELOW A DEPTTT OF 5OO FEET FR.OM THE SI.JRFACE OF

SAID LAND AND FSAL PROPERTY, WHETFIER NOW KNOWN TO EXIST OR HER'EAFTER DISCUVERED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LTMITED TO. TTdE R]GHTS TO EXPI.ORE FOR" DEVELOP' AND REMovE sucil otl, oAs, AND orHER FryDRocARBoN suBsrANcES, INER'f GASES, MINERALS' AND METALS WITHOUT, HOWEVER, A}'IY RICHT TO USE THE SURFACE OF SUCH LAND AND REAL PROPERTY OR ANY OTTMR PORTION THEREOF ABOVE A DEPTH OF 5OO FEET FROM THE ST.JRFACE OF SUCH LAND AND REAL PROPERTY FOR A}'IY PURPO$E WHATSOEVE& AS RESERVED BY

01/25/2022 Item No.4.

RUSSELI.fPROMONTORY, L.L.C., ANILLINOIS LIMTEDLTABILITY COMPANY IN TITATCERTAIN GRANTDEEDRECORDEDONMAY 23,2OI3IN BOOK2OI3O523, AT PACE Il19,OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SACRAMEFTTO COTJMTY.

ApNr 0T?-35 t0.001.0000 (Lot l), 0?2-3t lM03-0000 {tol3}, 0?2'3510-00540{10 (Lot 5) and 072'3510- 0064000 (Lot 6)- all of Pncel 1;
0?2-3j t0-00?-0000 thrsugh 072-3510-0t 5-0000 (Lo{r ? drc{tgh l5}, dl of Parccl l, New APN'g, not yst assessed;
0?2.3430-00s.0000 rhmugh 0?2-3430-0114000 (Lots s thnough I I of Partcl 3); 0?2-343G014-0000, 0T2-3430415400 and 0?2.343S,01?.0000 (l,ots 14, l5 and l7 of Pgrocl 3); 072'343G02s'0000 through 0?2'3430423'0000 (Irts 20 through 13 of Parael 3) 072-3510419-0000 (Rcsultant Lot 2A) snd 072-351tr020-0000 (R8eultrnt Lot 4A), all of Parael 2

01/25/2022 Item No.4.
jt.{-tl"#{j j{:[.

Folsom City Council
Staff Report
MEETING DATE: U2512022
AGENDA SECTION: Old Business
SUBJECT: Appointment of At-Large Historic Preservation Member to the Folsom Historic District Commission
F'ROM: City Clerk's Department

RECOMMENDATION / CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Staff requests that the Mayor, with approval from the City Council, appoint an at-large historic preservation member to the Folsom Historic District Commission for a two-year term ending in December 2023.

BACKGROUND / ISSUE
Folsom Municipal Code Chapter 17.52 establishes the Folsom Historic District Commission and defines the Committee's purpose of the Historic District Commission, in part, as to preserve and enhance the historic, small-town atmosphere ofthe Historic District; to encourage an active business climate which promotes the development of a diverse range of businesses compatible with the Historic District; to retain the residential areas within the Historic District; to ensure that new residential and commercial development is consistent with the historical character of the Historic District; and to increase the awareness, understanding, and appreciation of the history of the city.

The Commission is comprised of seven members consisting of one representative who is actively involved with historic preservation, one representative who is a resident of the Historic District, one representative who owns a business within the Sutter Street Subarea, two Planning Commissioners, one representative from a Historic District business outside the Sutter Street Subarea, and one architect, landscape architect, or other designprofessional with expertise in historic preservation.

I

01/25/2022 Item No.5.

Two members of the Planning Commission are designated by ordinance to serve on the Historic District Commission. Historically the Planning Commission has voted to recommend members of the Planning Commission to serve on the Historic District Commission.

At-Large Members
The current vacantposition is for an applicant representing the Historical Society / Historic Preservation. The vacancy was created due to the expiration of a two-year terms that ended in December 2021.

A Notice of Vacancy was published in the City's newsletter, posted on the city's website, and on the bulletin boards located at City Hall and the Library. Correspondence was sent to current Historic District Commission members whose term expired in December 202I inviting them to submit an application for reappointment.

POLICY / RULE
Folsom Municipal Code Section 2.35.030 states that at-large appointments to the Historic District Commission shall expire as follows:

December of even numbered years:
o Planning Commission Members (2 appointees)
o Representative from a Historic District Business outside the Sutter Street subarea . Architect, Landscape architect, or other design profession December of odd-numbered years:
o HistoricPreservation
o .Resident of the Historic District
o Business Owner within the Sutter Street subarea
Folsom Municipal Code Section 17.52.020 states that the mayor shall appoint each of the members, subject to the approval of the city council.

ANALYSIS
There is currently one vacancy for a representative of the Folsom Historic District Committee consisting of an applicant representing the Historical Society / Historic Preservation. The two-year term will end in December 2023. 2 Page 346
01/25/2022 Item No.5.

The City has received four applications for the at-large seat:

1. Bob Delp*

2. John Lane

3. Jennifer Lane

4. Daron Bracht
*Applicant is currently serving on the Traffic Safety Committee and would have to step down from that committee if appointed due to the one-seat limitation (FMC $2.35.030).

ATTACHMENTS
Applications received from the following individuals:

1. Bob Delp

2. John Lane

3. Jennifer Lane

4. Daron Bracht
Respectfully Submitted,
Christa Freemantle, CMC
City Clerk
J Page 347
01/25/2022 Item No.5.

ATTACHMENT 1

01/25/2022 Item No.5.

F0LS0ivltlTtl Cl fff{S DEFT
30 NCIU t21PPt:I?
atr el
&'OLB4lIlS
I
Folsom Commission and Committee

APPLICATION
thank you for your interest in serving on a Folsom commission or committee.

BeforeYouBegin:
. Please read this form and instmctions carefully.
. Complete all pages and sign the application.
. Applications remain active for six months after submittal, Return completed applicationc to:

City Oerk's Department, Folsom City Hall, 5o Natoma Street, Folsom, C'A 9563o Applicant Informadon: (All information is required)
Name:

ResidenceAddress:

Email:

Phone:

Employer and Occupation:

Bob Delp
[email protected]
Benchmark Resources / Envlronmental and Land Use Plannlng Consultant Currently Serving on a Commission/Committee? If yes, please specifr:

Yes; Traffic Safety Committee,
Folsom Residenay I RegisteredVoterVerificationr Commission and Committee members mustbe residents and registered voters of Folsom,
Registered to vote? Indicate Yes / No Yes
Financial Disclosure / Ethics Training:

Indicate Yes / No;
YesI understandthat commission and committee members must file statements disclosing financial information.

I understand that commission and committee members must complete ethics and harassment training.

Indicate Yes / No:

Yes
Truth and Acsurac,y: I certiff that the information contained on this form is true and accurate:

Signature: Date: November 30,202'l
Important Public Records Information: Ttre city may receive requests from the public to review clocuments such as this forsr and the city is obligated to release these public records, including all information contained on the form.

Updated May zozr

01/25/2022 Item No.5.

FOTSOM COMMISSION A}ID COMMITTEE APPLICATION
ApplicantName: Bob Delp
Choice of Comrnission or Committee:
(Ifyou are interested in multiple commissions, please rank them numerically assqlding to your preference) Arts and Culture Commission
2 Historic District Commission*
Pleass identif which seatyou qualif, for:
x representativewho is a resident of the Historic District reoresentativewho owns a business within the Sutter Street Subarea representative from a Historic Districtbusiness outside the Sutter Street Subarea architect, landscape architect, or otler design professional with o<pertise in historicpreservation Landscaping and Lighting District Advisory Committee*
Please advise which L&L Districtyou live in:

District of Residence:

Libran'Commission
Parks and Recreation Commission
1 Planning Commission
Traf fi c Safety Committee*
Please identify which seat you qualif for:
representative representing a wide cross section of interests reprcsentativewho has demonstrated an interest in or a concern for pedestrian and bicyde safep UtilityCommission
Other:
*Application Supplement Required:

Supplemental information is required for the Historic District Commission, Landscape and Lighting District Advisory Committee, and the Traffic Safety Committee. llhese boards have special qualification requirements for certain seats.

Continueto nextpage
Page? of 4

01/25/2022 Item No.5.

FOLSOM COMMISSION AI{D COMMITTEE APPLICATION
ApplicantName: Bob Delp
Infonnational Questions: (you must answer all four questions, for all commissions or committeesyou are applying for):
r. Why do you want to serve on this commission or committee:

My wife and I have lived in Folsom's Historic District since 2012. We own two properties here and have a vested interest in helping this important area of Folsom continue to thrive. But our lives in Folsom extend beyond the Historic District. The company I work for, the bike trails I ride, the gym I go to, the grocery stores I shop at, and the local entertainment I enjoy are spread throughout the City. All of these amenities and opportunities are important to my life here in Folsom.

I am interested in knowing that the issues and projects that come before the Planning Commission and the Historic District Commission are thoughtfully considered, and I would welcome the opportunity to provide my perspectives and opinions as a part of the Planning Commission and/or the Historic District Commission deliberation and decision making processes. e. What do you think is(are) the top issue(s) facing this commission or committee:

Top issues facing the Planning Commission are:
- ongoing City-wide zoning code update
- review and approvals of projects in the Folsom Plan Area and other growth areas - accomplishing afiordable housing allocations
- reinvigoration of older business areas (e.9., northern East Bidwell Street corridor) Top issues facing the Historic District Commission are:
- ongoing zoning code update as relates to the Historic District - reviews of individual residential and commercial development proposals for Historic District and zoning code compliance and compatibly
- plannihg for future developmenUuse of the Corporation Yard - parking and traffic management addressing concerns of residents while ensuring access to businesses
- fire prevention, emergency response, and public safety Continueto nextpage

01/25/2022 Item No.5.

FOISOM COMMISSION AND COMMIITEE APPLICATION
ApplicantName: Bob Delp
g. Briefly describe how your experiences qualiff you to serve on the commission or committee:

I have been a land use/environmental consultant for over 25 years, and I understand land use planning, zoning, environmental review processes. I have been engaged at the local level in Folsom providing my perspectives on projects in the Historic District and other areas of the City, Through that involvement I have become familiar with the City zoning code and the City's project review process. I have been and am currently involved in historic preservation efforts both as an involved citizen in Folsom's Historic District (e.9., questioning the suitability of a faux prison in the Sufter Street commercial district, urging for evaluation of potentially historic residential structures prior to approving modifications) and in my career as an environmental professional (e.9., curently working with the State Department of Parks and Recreation as a consultant assisting in review of a water quali$ project while protecting historic resources at a State Historic Park).

My credentials include:
- 8.A., Economics with emphasis on Energy and Environmentat lssues, Galifomia Stiate Universi$, Chico, 1992
- Certificate in Land Use and Environmental Planning, Universi$ of California, Davis, 2010

4. Which commission or committee meetings have you attended? Virtual or in-person attendance or participation in most Historic District Commission meetings in2020 and 2021.

END OFAPPLICATIONFORM
Return completed applications to:

City Oerk's Department, Folsom City Hall, 5o Natoma Street, Folsom, CA 9563o

01/25/2022 Item No.5.

ATTACHM ENT 2

01/25/2022 Item No.5.

F0LSflM IITV CL='rll('S DEPT
;"9 'InN'!!;1;-'1f;:14
ffi
Folsom Commission and Committee

APPLICATION
thanlpu foryou intered io uerviog on rFolsm conmission or csmnittee.

I '{ ) i .:j.t rr l_\il
BeforoYouBcgln:
. Pleasercadthbfor.mandlnstnqdonscar€frt[y.
. @rnpleteall pagc enil sigpthe applicadon.
. Applications remain active for air months after snbmtttal.

Rltum coulilctcd qplleedoc tol
Ctty ClerlCe De,pnrment, fobotn Gty Hall, 5o Natoma Strpet, Folsom, CA 9563o drplioent Iaf,ornrdonr (AIl infrrurtiou ir requireil)
Name:

RcrldenceAdihess:
nntnill
Phone:

Ernplqrcr and Occupadon :

John LanE
.com
Teichert Matgrials, Environmental lt/anager
Curr€Etly S€rving on a Comnirsion/Conmi$ee? Ifyes, pleasc speci&:

No
Folqon ncci&ruy / nqirterca Voter Vcrlf,aadon: Comrrission and Comrnittec meubers mugt be r€statents and registmd voters of Fobom.

Registeredto vote? IndicateYee / No Yes
Flnaneid Dbdosure / Ethicc lHning;
IndicateYer /Not
YesI uutlerstanit tlat cosrmission and committee rnenbers must file statements diedosing fnandd lnformation.

I unilerstand that commission and committee members must complete ethics and harasmeuttralnlng.
ludlcabYec / No:

Yes
thth anilAccuracyr I ccrtify that the information sontaiued on thir furm is true and accurato:

Signature: Dater 1t1712022
Inpo11ant11rbligRcpordalfororation: ltedtymayreceiverequestsfromtlepublictorerviewdocumelrtseuc,has thiiform enfl the city is obligated to release these public recorils, iucluding dl infomation contained on the form.

Updttdlsiltsry 2022

01/25/2022 Item No.5.

FOI.SOM COMMISSION AI.iD COMMITIEE APPLIC'ATION
ApplicantName: John Lane
Choice of Conmission or Committee:
(If you are interested in multiple commissions, please rank them numerically according to your preference) Arts and Culture Commission
x Historic District Commission*
Please identi$ whioh seat you qualify for:
x representative who is actively involveil with historic preservation representativewho is a resident of the Historic District representative who owns a business within the Sutter Street Subarea Planning Commissioners
representative from a Historic District business outside the Sutter Street Suba:ea arthitect, landscape architect, or other desigr professional with orpertise in historic preservation Landscaping and Lighting District Advisory Committee*
Please advise wbic.h LSrL Districtyou lirre in:

District of Residence:

LibraryCommission
Parle and Recreation Commission
Planning Commission
Traff c Safety Committee*
Please identify whidr seat you qualify for:
representative representing a wide cross section of interests representativewho has demonsEated an interest in or a concern for pedestrian and bicycle safety Utility Commission
Other:
*Application Supplement Required:

Supplemental information is required for the Historic District Commission, I i -ndscape and Lighting District Advisory Comnrittee, and the TtafFc Safety Committee. these boards have special qualification requirements for certain seats.

Continueto nextpage
Page2 of4

01/25/2022 Item No.5.

FOLSOM COMMISSION Ar\fD COMMITTEE APPLICAI]ON
ApplicantName: John Lane
Infomational Questions: (you must answer all four questions, for all commissions or committees you are applying for):
r. Why do you want to serve on thic commission or committee:

My long-held belief is to engage and contribute to my community wherever possible. To this end, I have served my country and volunteered for veteran's support, youth mentorshlp and on non-proflt boards and community organizations since I was a young person. I would like to continue now by serulng my immedlate community in the City of Folsom as the active historic preservation member of the Historic District Commission (HDC). ln short, I want to serve on the HDC because I believe in glvlng back and feel that I have something substantive to offer in this specific role. z. What do you think is(are) the top issue(s) facing this commission or committee:

1. Achieving continued growth and vibrancy of the historic distrlct while continuing to address real and perceived parking availability issues.

2. Achieving continued preservation of the historic character of the Historic District while also recognizing and balancing continued new projects in both the residentialand commercialareas.

3. Providing for continued support for continued opportunity and vibrancy for commerclal business wlthin the Historic District while maintaining support of interests of the residential stakeholders within the District.

Condnueto nextpage
Page3 of 4

01/25/2022 Item No.5.

FOISOM COMMISSION AND COMMITTEE APPIJCATION
ApplicantName: John Lane

3. Briefly describe how your orperiences qualify you to serve on the commission or committee:

Foremos! I brlng the experlence of 20+ years of architectural renovatlon and preseruation of homes ln the Sacramento area and, more recently, historical design and build of our home within the Hlstoric District. I have worked closely with archltects and engineers to understand and lncorporate historical integrity in both deslgn and constructlon. I am a current member of the Folsom Historlcal Society and the Murer House Foundation.

Secondly, I bring a strong working knowledge of CEQA and the land use entitlement process. I continue to develop my knowledge of local Folsom policy and ordinances related to the Historic District. I have worked primarily over the last 25 years on the applicant side CEQA/NEPA land use entitlements as a project manager, and more recently as the Environmental Manager, for a large local constructlon company. I also have experience working on the lead agency side of the entltlement process for SMUD as a CEQA,/NEPA ProJect Manager.

Lastly, I have experience working wlth communities, non-proflts, buslness organizations and people. ln this capacity, I contlnue to work constructively and falrly wlth dlfferent groups of stakeholders wlth varylng degrees of lnterest and needs, Among my experlences, I have been fortunate enough to be matched wlth flve young men as a mentor through the Blg Brothers/Blg Sisters (BB/BS) program {beglnnlng when I was 18 years old). I later served on the Sacramento region BB/BS Board of Dlrectors. I currently serve on the Board of Dlrectors for the Sacramento iree Foundatiori. Finally, I serve as current Chair of the Cleaner Air Partnership which is a 30+ year old collaborative organization that includes regional leaders from business, industry health groups, envlronmental groups and leadership and stafffrom the five regional Air Pollution Control Districts.

4. Which commission or committee meetings have you attended? ln Folsom:
- Historic District Commlsslon
- Ad-hoc Parking Commisslon
ln Sacramento City and County:
- Plannlrtg Commissions
- Community Planning Advisory Councils

END OFAPPLICATIONFORM
Return completed applicationa to!
City Clerk's Department, Folsom City Hall, 5o Natoma Street, Folsom, CA 9563o Page4

01/25/2022 Item No.5.

ATTACHMENT 3

01/25/2022 Item No.5.
ffi
Folsom Commission and Committee

APPLICATION
Thank you for your interest in serving on a Folsom commission or committee, 511ii;1r'fzi CiT'l rl;Liilii'L' ['i:: -
Lfi ,-Ti:;N r2il,;'i.L? : it i
BeforeYouBegin:
. Pleaseread this form and instrtctions carefully.
' Complete all pages and sign the application.
. Applications remain active forsix months after submittal' Return completed applications to: --
city cle,rlcs o'6partrrent, robom city Hall, 5o Natoma street, Folsom, cA 95630 Applicant Informatlon: (All
Lo^*,Name:

ResidenceAddress:

Bmail:

Phone:

Employer and Occupation:
.-.''g--+ -LA
a a
\
Currently Serving on a Courmission/Comnittee? If yes, please specify:
n0
Folsom Residency / RegisteredVoter Verificatlon: Commission and Committee members must be residents and registered voters of Folsom.

YesRegisteredto vote? IndicateYes / No
Flnancial Dlsclosure / Ethic Tbaining:

I uuderstand that commission anil committee members must file statements disclosing financial information'
I understand that commission and committee members must complete ethics and harassmenttraining.

Truth a,'d Accuracy: I certify that the information contained on this form is true and accurate:

Signature: Date:

IndicateYes / No:
uLs
J
IndicateYes / No:

VI.S
Important public Records rnforrnadon: The city may receive requestr-fioT the plblic to review documents such as this form antl the city isiuiigafid to-rer"ase tt ese public records, including all information containeil on the form.

Updated laanary 2022

01/25/2022 Item No.5.

FOLSOM COMMISSION
ApplicantName:
n
fiUj::S,n*s!:1"*":,if,:ffiff;",,pleaserankthemnumericalrvaccordingtovourprererence) Arts and Culture Commission
I Historic District Commission*
Please identi! which seat you quallff for:
,/ representative who is actively involved with historic preservation """;;iil;;;il;i;aresidentoftheHistoricDistrict' ffiffi;;*to ot*"r " business wittrin the Sutter Street Subarea
--- repr€
--
reprt
architect, landscape ar.hitd;fi;;;Gil;t"f.ssional with expertise in historic preservation Landscaping and Lighting District Advisory Committee*
Please advise which L&L District you live in:
-tf3i"'r:'J,:1,:igfffi:t*&"tH?li,l, Historic District commission, Landscape and Lishtins DistrictAdvisory committec, and rhe Traffic safeiy commiu"". i"rrJ.. f,";;;;;; rp."i"iqi,riin."tion requirements for certain seats' District of Residence:

LibraryCommission
Parks and Recreation Commission
Planning Commission
Traffi c SafetY Committee*
Please identiff which seat you qualiff for:
representative representing a wide cross section of interests representativewhohasa",oon,t,utuaaninterestino'u*n..'"rorpedestrianandbicyelesafety UtilitYCommission
Other:

Continueto next Page
Page2 of 4

01/25/2022 Item No.5.

ApplicantName:

Informational Questions: (youmustanswerallfourquestions,forallcommissionsorcommitteesyouareapplying for):
r.Whydoyou want to serrre on tlis commission or committee:
z. WhatdoPu think is(are) the top issue(s) frcing this comsission or committee:
judgment
Continueto nextpage

01/25/2022 Item No.5.
f \-rl^)\-r!r vvatr^'r^ev
ApplicantName:

3.Brieflydescribehowyourexperiencesqualifyyoutoserveonthecommissionorcommittee:

My qualifications to be serving ol thil HDC commission ale factrat- I have served on the ipi for Z years prior to this ipplication gd I have s€rvsd on the Planning Commission for over I yean. i *tt n *"*bo ofthe IIDC when the city was looking at the ;ievitatizationl, of Sutter St. We loaded a bus and took a fieldtip 1o 4 locations to look foi gooa ideas for o*lirtoti" disrict, mainly Su1te1 SJ, y-" loggpd our ideas, took fi"t'rr"* and conversefit t*y **ti-ngt to;'get it rigbt- I aru proud t9 sa-y that.I was the onty commissioner "rttt"J"o'to
kecp dr9 zoo utoct with the trees. In hind sitg it would harre worked g[It great for this period of time. I'm sure that my other answers tell the rt"w rf .V "*p"i"ntottrathavetake,n
me onthis journey to serve ontheIIDC'

4. which commission or committee meetings haveyou attended? IhaveafiendedagreatmanyGollrmissignmetings.ThuryincludethePlanning Commission, tnu IDC *a ibe Parks a Rscreatioi Commission as well as many City Council Meetings. I have also been
" tu*bu' of theMeasgre G Oversight Committee for
3 years. Although thfitt*tr* has little to do with preservation' it does have to do wirh accountability. ;t6..kttt up, I was able to save the largest tree in the front parking lot.
--"ts
Thank you for your time and consideration! With Gratitude, Jennifer Lane
END OF A.PPLICATION FORM
Return co mPleted aPPllcations to ;
City Clerk s Departmenti;"1ffi-Cit iAI idltatoma Street, Iolsom, CA e563o

01/25/2022 Item No.5.

ATTACHM ENT 4

01/25/2022 Item No.5.
h
Folsom Commission and Committee

APPLICATION
lbalkyou forlour intenest in sur'fu on a Folsom commlssion or committec :). .
"*-Yoofc#n:. pteose nailthie form andinrrtnrctious carefuIy' . Complete aI pagps eril si8! tLe application'
. &;tild;ns ;;ain a€d'tt" for six months after submittal' Idrlr:n comPletcd rPPllcrdms to:
qdA.tkaSa"tt*it, foitt ctty call, 5o Natoms' str€et' Folsour' cA 95630 Alryllcant Infornetton: (All inforrnation is required)
Name:

ResidenceAddrees:

Erneil:

Phone:

Employer and OcorPation:

Daron Bracht
Cunently Scnving on a Commisslon/Committee? If yes' please speciff:

Yes, Hlstorlc Dlstrict Commlsslon
Folcon Rectilen ry/ Regbt€r€dvotcrverifieation: Commission and Committeemenbers mustbe residcnts and registared votcrs of Folrom'
Registeredtovote? IndicateYes / No Yes
da net
Self EmploYed / lnformatlon TechnologY
Ftnencial Dtsclorure / Ethlcs Tralnlng:

I unilentanil that commisslon and cornnrittee membere mugt file gtatements discloslry fnancial inbrmation.

Irrnderstanilthatcommissionandcommitteemembersmustcompleteethicsand harassmenttraining.

IndlcateYe! / No:

Yes
InilicateYes / No:

Yes
Imfnrtent ft$llc Recordl Infornrrrlon: Ttre dty mny re-cerye Isq}€sts ftom the public to revlelv documentg such as thts form and tu"
"rty
is oliifrta-6-;ffi" tiiuti i*fi.Gords, including all infor:aration contained on the torm' Truth and Acsnmc.yr I certifr that the information contained on tlis form is tme and accurate; Sipatre: Date: 1t1812022
Updrteil October 20$

01/25/2022 Item No.5.

FOI^SOM COMMISSION AT.ID COMMITTEE APPLIC'ATION
Daron Bracht
Gholcc of Oonntgloa or Commlttcet
0f ].";;iri*.rt"d nr.fiipf" **oi,"tons, plea$ rankthen numerically accordlngtoyor Preftrence) Arts ard Cultual Conmission
Hlstoric Disilrict Commigsionf
landscaping aud Ligbting District Advisory Committee+
UbraryComnission
Parls and RBcreation Commission
Planldng Comstissiotr
TtafiEc SafttY Committee+
UdlityConntsdon
otlrer:

Continue to nc*t lreEe
AppHcantNeme:
x
IAppllcrdon suplilanont ncqd4r
ffittffi H*xffil,ffi ilffi lffitrfrtffi ffiHs
EtOris Dltdct Comnrlrdonr
Please iilentif whlch seat 1ou qualify for;
rtprs€trtadve who ic advely brohad wlth hlstorlc Prccervadon; rrpresentatfuewho ig aredrlent ofthc Higtorlc Dlstrict
rrpreocntative who orplg a business within tbe sutter street subaree Planning Conmissioners
rcprerenrtaUve from a Historic Districtbusin€ss outsitle tle Sutter flbeetSubarea arcbiteq landscape are,hitect, orottrer designprofessionalrvith expentise inhistoric presenntion frnaccapnqs Ed Lfgbdng Dbtkt Advlcory Comltteer
Plerre adfrreivtich I.8rL Diotrictyou live tn:
n ffir€s€nutives rtprese[tlng a wltle cross eec{tos of htercttg Disbistofresidence: -
TrrfficstfttyConmlttea:
neas€ idsntifr which seat you Eralifr for:

Page2 ol4

01/25/2022 Item No.5.

FOUIOM COMMISSION AIiID COMMITTEE APPIJC,AIION
ApplicantNane: Daron Bracht
rtrmrdonl eueldonr: (pu nust answer all four questions, for all commissione or committees you are applying br):
r. W\y do pu wantto s€,rc on this commission or commit@:

Ourfamlly le dedlcated to the enhan@ment ae well as the pr€servatlon of the Hlstorlc Dlstrlct and the wslfarc of our community as a whole.

The purpoee of thE Historlc Dlshict Commlsslon ls to ensurc the protectlon of the hlstorlc and cultural character of the City's Historic Disflc{ and therebre I bel that the r€prosenbtive for the District should have passlon brtne nature of the posltion, they should understand their ncle as a Gommissioner and who they are in service to.

The Commissioner should be well versed with the political aspect of the positlon as well as the legal requirements. I have the abillty to be a conduit between the Clty, the residents the mlrchaits and the communlty. I have erperience worklng with people, buslnes8, hlstorical preservaton as well ae grcunh. I underatand trat the porlffsn comee wlth the responslblllty of inafng declslons that ars ln the best lnteregt of he Hletorlc Dletrlct.

I belleve the rcpresentatlve should have experlence ln some or all of the areas that I am quallfled so they can best eerve the community and lb complextty.

I want to serve on the Historic District Commission because I believe in the lmportance of the positlon and understand the nature of the role.
z. Wbat do 1ou tbink ie(are) the top i$ue(s) facing this commlssion or committee:

I feel our duty as a Commlssioner ls to be the oyes, sars and_voice of the community lt s€rves.

I have baen involved with tlre Hlstorlc Dietrlct and the City of Folsom as a r€sldent, Commlssloner, Gommlttee Member, Board Member, volunteeran{pa@nlorover 12 years and I keep ln close contact wlth our resldenb, merchantE, CIV Gouncll, Clty Sffiand communlty msrirbers to keep a pulse on the cument lseues that afiact our comrnunity.

Our most recent top issues that face the Hlstoric Dlstrlct Commisslon are the Zoning Code Updates forthe 2035 General Plan and parking-conoerns.. . .

Ahn mms are sensitivE to the resldents of the Dlstrict and I have done my due'diligence to hear and conslder the concemo so we as a Gommisslon can understand the afiec.t they have on our communlty.

Continuotonc[tPegG

01/25/2022 Item No.5.

FOI^SOM COMMITI$ON AI{D COMMIITEE ASPUC.ATION
AppliaantNarne Daron BraCht
a. Briedy deocibe how lonr operiences qual8 pu to senrc on tle commissiou or committee:

Aroas wherc I ftel my oxporlenc€ or experilse arc a posltive contrlbuflon:. I have lhrcd in the Clty of Folsom for 31 years, since 19gg. Resident of Hlstorlc Dletrict for 15 y€ars, since 2004 ' For-over 14 pars I have been active in the Hlsbrlc Dlstrlct and eervod on mulflple Commlsslonsand Gommlftees ln Hlstorlc Folsom lncludlng the Hlstorlc Dlstrict CommnJlon, Mil.' HoueeFoundatlon, Fdsom Hlstroricalts.l"ty, Folsom Heritage Preservailon r-eague, iFM, FolsomHisbry Mugsum, Chan House Rastorution ProJect, ptiDA, Amerlcan pr"nihg AssocialonPlanning Commlesioner Tralnlng Workshop, CA Preservatlon Foundaffon, fo]so; HomstownParade and Historic Dlstrict Tree Lighting Event ' lhave restored one of the Historic Distlct's originalMctorian homes, built in 1gg0, to lts naturalbeauty '.1 have over 20 years' experience worklng with Federal, State and Locat Govemment and withthe preservaton of govemment historlcal documents ' I own a thrMng business in Folsom that has been successfiJl for over 20 years 1l lgve a degree ln Publlc Adminlstration and am experienced with Roberfs iules ot OrOer andParliamentery Procedure Ourfamlly 19 highly involved ln our community and support our 1gpr€sentatives and thelrassoclated functlons.

We are commlttpd to our Clty, resldents, merchanb and the pahons of our communlty. +. nthietr comnicsion or committee meetings have pu attrnded? I have been a Commissioner and Chair of the Historic Dlstrlct Commlssion of which I have hadthe pleasure of worklng.with fr? Crty on many residentlal and commerclal projJcts as we1 as gre Sutter Sheet Revltallzation Pr,oject.
-
I am cunentlya board memberof the Murer House Foundation and have served asa Boerd Member of the Folsom Historical Society, crnunty a Member. f am aleo a nnember of theFojsol Herihge Presenraton League and HFM. !r!V Wru, Jamie gnecht rnO i c1.r"entfyvolunteerforthe Folsom HistorlcalMuseum, Ghan Hluse itestonilon prop4anO inOA. Mywlfcla a Commlttee Member for the Folsom Hometown Parade br the drt tvyo'tea*'efncs lnc*idi-ofwhich two I served as-a Judge. My wife has also served on the commlttee foi nl rir*oric Dleflc.t'eTree Llghtlng Event of whlch lwas a volunteer. lam a membarof the CA Preservatlon Foundatlon and have attended lheAmerlcan plannlng Assoclaffon Plannlng Csrnmlssloner Tnalnlng Workehop.

I havs_attendlrg numerous City Councll, Plairnlng Conimlsslon, Trafic Safoty Commlttee,AD-Hoc parking committee and parks and Resfration commjssron rneetrnir. - " ' Myattendance and experlence with the City of Folsom's associated Commiesions andCommlttees span over lE years.

EIID OF APPITC,ATION FORM
Rcfiurr comFt€bd appllcailonr to:cityclerHs Deparhelrt, Folsom c{ty Hdl, fii'Natoma str,eet, Folsom, c,A gs6go

01/25/2022 Item No.5.

This page is intentionally left blank.

01/25/2022 Item No.5.