1 Agenda
City Council Regular Meeting
Folsom City Hall | City Council Chambers, First Floor
50 Natoma Street, Folsom, CA 95630
February 25, 2025, 6:30 PM
Welcome to Your City Council Meeting
We welcome your interest and involvement in the city’s legislative process. This agenda includes information about topics coming before the City Council and the action recommended by city staff. You can read about each topic in the staff reports, which are available on the city website and in the Office of the City Clerk. The City Clerk is also available to answer any questions you have about City Council meeting procedures.
Participation
If you would like to provide comments to the City Council, please:
Fill out a blue speaker request form, located at the back table. Submit the form to the City Clerk before the item begins. When it’s your turn, the City Clerk will call your name and invite you to the podium. Speakers generally have three minutes, unless the presiding officer (usually the mayor) changes that time.
Reasonable Accommodations
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you are a person with a disability and you need a disability-related modification or accommodation to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at (916) 461-6035, (916) 355-7328 (fax) or [email protected]. Requests must be made as early as possible and at least two full business days before the start of the meeting.
How to Watch
The City of Folsom provides three ways to watch a City Council meeting:
In Person Online On TV
City Council meetings take place at
City Hall, 50 Natoma Street
Watch the livestream and replay past
meetings on the city website,
www.folsom.ca.us
Watch live and replays of meetings on
Sac Metro Cable TV, Channel 14
More information about City Council meetings is available at the end of this agenda
2 City Council Regular Meeting
Folsom City Hall | City Council Chambers, First Floor
50 Natoma Street, Folsom, CA 95630
www.folsom.ca.us
Tuesday, February 25, 2025 6:30 PM
Sarah Aquino, Mayor
Mike Kozlowski, Councilmember Barbara Leary, Councilmember Justin Raithel, Vice Mayor Anna Rohrbough, Councilmember
AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL:
Councilmembers: Rohrbough, Kozlowski, Leary, Raithel, Aquino The City Council has adopted a policy that no new item will begin after 10:30 p.m. Therefore, if you are here for an item that has not been heard by 10:30 p.m., you may leave, as the item will be continued to a future Council meeting.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
AGENDA UPDATE
BUSINESS FROM THE FLOOR:
Members of the public are entitled to address the City Council concerning any item within the Folsom City Council's subject matter jurisdiction. Public comments are generally limited to no more than three minutes. Except for certain specific exceptions, the City Council is prohibited from discussing or taking action on any item not appearing on the posted agenda.
SCHEDULED PRESENTATIONS:
1. A Resolution of Commendation Honoring the Folsom Lake College Women's Soccer Team for Their Back-To-Back 3C2A Championships and Outstanding Achievements in 2023 and 2024
2. A Resolution of Commendation Honoring the Folsom Jr. Bulldogs for Earning the 2024 Excellence in Academics and Athletics Award
3. Presentation from SACOG Regarding the "2025 Blueprint Project" (formerly known as the Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy)
3 CONSENT CALENDAR:
Items appearing on the Consent Calendar are considered routine and may be approved by one motion.
Councilmembers may pull an item for discussion.
4. Approval of February 11, 2025 Special and Regular Meeting Minutes
5. Resolution No. 11328 - A Resolution Approving a City Council Travel Policy
6. Resolution No. 11330 – A Resolution Directing the Preparation of Engineer’s Report for the following Landscaping and Lighting Districts for Fiscal Year 2025-2026 American River Canyon North, American River Canyon North No. 2, American River Canyon North No. 3, Blue Ravine Oaks, Blue Ravine Oaks No. 2, Briggs Ranch, Broadstone, Broadstone No. 4, Broadstone Unit No. 3, Cobble Ridge, Cobble Hills Ridge II/Reflections II, Folsom Heights, Folsom Heights No. 2, Hannaford Cross, Lake Natoma Shores, Los Cerros, Natoma Station, Natoma Valley, Prairie Oaks Ranch, Prairie Oaks Ranch No. 2, Prospect Ridge, Sierra Estates, Silverbrook, Steeplechase, The Residences at American River Canyon, The Residences at American River Canyon II, Willow Creek Estates East, Willow Creek Estates East No. 2, Willow Creek Estates South, and Willow Springs
7. Resolution No. 11332 – A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Agreement with Mobile Modular Management Corporation for a Two-Year Lease of a Modular Trailer Occupied by the Public Works Street Maintenance Division PUBLIC HEARING:
8. Resolution No. 11329 – A Resolution of the City Council of the City Of Folsom Approving the Issuance of the California Municipal Finance Authority Exempt Facility Bonds in an Aggregate Principal Amount not to Exceed $25,000,000 for the Purpose of Financing or Refinancing the Acquisition, Construction, Improvement and Equipping of Harrington Grove Apartments and Certain Other Matters Relating Thereto
NEW BUSINESS:
9. Presentation of Findings from the Roundabout Feasibility Study and Direction to Staff i. Resolution No. 11331 - A Resolution Adopting New Planning and Design Standards Pertaining to the Use of Roundabouts as Traffic Control
CITY MANAGER REPORTS
COUNCIL COMMENTS
ADJOURNMENT
NOTICE: Members of the public are entitled to directly address the City Council concerning any item that is described in the notice of this meeting, before or during consideration of that item. If you wish to address Council on an issue, which is on this agenda, please complete a blue speaker request card, and deliver it to a staff member at the table on the left side of the Council Chambers prior to discussion of the item. When your name is called, stand to be recognized by the Mayor and then proceed to the podium. If you wish to address the City Council on any other item of interest to the public, when the Mayor asks if there is any “Business from the Floor,” follow the same procedure described above. Please limit your comments to three minutes or less.
NOTICE REGARDING CHALLENGES TO DECISIONS: Pursuant to all applicable laws and regulations, including without limitation, California Government Code Section 65009 and or California Public Resources Code Section 21177, if you wish to challenge in court any of the abov e decisions (regarding
4 planning, zoning and/or environmental decisions), you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing(s) described in this notice/agenda, or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing.
As presiding officer, the Mayor has the authority to preserve order at all City Council meetings, to remove or cause the removal of any person from any such meeting for disorderly conduct, or for making personal, impertinent, or slanderous remarks, using profanity, or becoming boisterous, threatening or personally abusive while addressing said Council, and to enforce the rules of the Council.
PERSONS INTERESTED IN PROPOSING AN ITEM FOR THE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA SHOULD CONTACT A MEMBER OF THE CITY COUNCIL.
This meeting of the City Council is recorded with closed captioning. The recording will be cablecast on Metro Cable Channel 14, the local government affairs channel on the Comcast and DirecTV U -Verse cable system, and will be shown in its entirety on the Friday and Saturday following the meeting, both at 9 a.m. The recording will also be video streamed at metro14live.saccounty.gov.The City does not control scheduling of this telecast and persons interested in watching the televised meeting should confirm this schedule with Metro Cable TV, Channel 14. The City of Folsom provides live and archived webcasts of regular City Council meetings. The webcasts can be found on the online services page of the City's website www.folsom.ca.us.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you are a person with a disability and you need a disability-related modification or accommodation to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at (916) 461-6035, (916) 355-7328 (fax) or [email protected]. Requests must be made as early as possible and at least two full business days before the start of the meeting.
Any documents produced by the City and distributed to the City Council regarding any item on this agenda will be made available at the City Clerk’s Counter at City Hall located at 50 Natoma Street, Folsom, California and at the Folsom Public Library located at 411 Stafford Street, Folsom, California during normal business hours.
City of Folsom
Resolution of Commendation
Honoring
Folsom Lake college womenos Soccer Team for
Back-to-Back 3C2A Championships and
Outstanding Achievements in 2023 and 2024
WHEREAS' the Folsom Lake College Women's Soccer Team has demonstrated excellence, determination, and sportsmanship, winning back-to-back California Community College Athletic Association (3C2A) State Championships in2023 and z114,marking an historic achievement as they became the first Northern California college to accomplish this feat since 1996; and
WHEREAS, the 2023 championship marked an historic milestone as the first-ever 3C2AState Championship for Folsom Lake College Women's Soccer; and WHEREAS, in 2024, the Falcons claimed the 3C2A Championship with a remarkable season record of 2l wins, 1 loss, and 2 draws, securing the title with a victory at American River College in Sacramento, California; and WHEREAS, in addition to their state championship, the Falcons dominated the 2OZ4 Big 8 Conference, winning the conference championship and solidifyittg their place as one of the top collegiate soccer programs in Califomia:
NOW' THEREFORE, I Sarah Aquino, Mayor of the City of Folsom, on behalf of the Folsom City Council and the Folsom community, do hereby extend commendations in the highest regard to the Folsom Lake College Women's Soccer Team, coaching staff, and their supporters for their exceptional achievements in 2023 and2024. The City looks forward to celebrating their continued success in the years to come.
COMMENDED this 25th day of February 2A25
Sarah Aquino, MAYOR
02/25/2025 Item No.1.
This poge is intentionallA left blCInk
to facilitste double- sided printing
qnd minimize PaPer trse-
CITY OF
DISTINCTIVE B.Y NATURE
FOLSONI
02/25/2025 Item No.1.
City of Folsom
Resolution of Commendation
Honoring
The Folsom Jr. Bulldogs For Earning the
2024 Excellence in Academics and Athletics Award
WHEREAS' the Folsom Jr. Bulldogs is an official youth football and cheer association in Folsom; and
WHEREAS, the Folsom Jr. Bulldogs organization is committed to both academic and athletic excellence; and
WHEREAS, members of the Folsom Jr. Bulldog football and cheer teams maintained a grade point average of 3.0 or better during the football and cheer season; and
WHEREAS, this level of academic achievement merits recognition from the Board of Directors of Folsom Youth Football and Cheer and the City of Folsom.
NOW' THEREFORE, I, Sarah Aquinoo Mayor of the City of Folsom, on behalf of the Folsom City Council and the Folsom community, do hereby extend commendations in the highest regard to the Members of the Folsom Jr. Bulldogs who eamed the Excellence in Academics and Athletics Award 2024 and encourage their continued scholastic excellence in the future.
COMMENDED this 25th day of February 2025.
Sarah Aquino, MAYOR
02/25/2025 Item No.2.
This poge is intentiono.lly left blank
to facilitste double- sided printtng
qnd minimize poPer Ltse.
F ()LSOI\{
CITY OF
DISTINCTIVE E.Y NATURE
02/25/2025 Item No.2.
Folsom City Council
Staff ort
RECOMMENDATION / CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Staff recommends that the City Council receive a presentation from SACOG regarding the2025 Blueprint Project. No formal action is requested.
BACKGROUND / ISSUE
Mr. James Corless from SACOG will provide a short presentation regarding the 2025 Blueprint which will outline the findings from the region-wide transportation and land use analysis. In addition, Mr. Corless will provide a summary of the various SACOG programs designed to assist public agencies in implementing the Blueprint locally.
ATTACHMENT
Summary sheet from SACOG
Submitted,
Christa Freemantle, CMC
City Clerk
I
MEETING DATE 2t2st202s
AGENDA SECTION: Scheduled Presentations
SUBJECT: Presentation from SACOG Regarding the "2025 Blueprint Project" (formerly known as the Metropolitan Transportation
Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy)
FROM: City Clerk's Department
02/25/2025 Item No.3.
ATTACHMENT 1
Summary Sheet from SACOG
02/25/2025 Item No.3.
th
SACOG
The Sacramento Area CounciI of Governments is where locaI government leaders across the region come together to advance the goats of economic prosperity, connected communities, and vibrant ptaces. SACOG works in cottaboration with the 6 counties and 22 cities in the region to sotve chattenges that are too big for any one jurisdiction to sotve on its own. SACOG pLays a centraI rote in transportation infrastructure ptanning and funding assistance for cities, counties, transit operators, and other entities responsibte for providing for the mobil.ity needs of the region's residents. One of SACOG's main rotes as the state and federal.ty recognized Metropol.itan PtanningOrganization for the region, is to maintain the region's [ong-range, fiscatty constrained, transportation ptan and accompanying Land use strategy. This ptan must be updated every four years in coordination with locaI government agencies and demonstrate how the region is working to advance locat, regionat, state, and federat pol,icy priorities. SACOG is currentty undergoing an update of this ptan, titted lhe2025 Btueprint, and anticipates adoption of the ptan in 2025.
2025 Blueprint
fhe2025 Btueprint is rooted in locaI ptanning. Both the [and use assumptions and transportation investments incl,uded in the ptan draw from and remain consistent with city and county generaland specific ptans as wetl transit agency ptanning documents. The 2025 Bl.ueprint differs from many locaI ptans in that it must be constrained bytime and funding. Not atl. ptanned transportation investments or [and use ptans wit[ come to fruition within the next 30 years. fhe2025 Btueprint in manyways outtines a phasing strategyto hetp guide pubtic poticy decisions throughout the region. This ptan wil,l. lay out a set of strategies for an integrated, muttimodattransportation system and a regionattand use devetopment pattern that can create a more thriving region that works for at[ residents. The ptan aims to connect housing to jobs, education, goods and services, and recreationaI opportunities white protecting and enhancing our region's naturaI and working [andscapes.
Aside from this plan being a federatand state requirement, SACOG witl use lhe2025 Btueprint update to help [oca[ agencies coordinate and prioritize efforts to attract greater investment in the region through grants, private investment, and economic growth white protecting our region's naturaI environment, existing economies, and improving quatity of Life for at[ residents.
At the Fotsom City CounciI meeting, James Cortess, from SACOG witt provide a short presentation and answer any questions on the 2025 Btueprint. The presentation wit[ outtine the findings from the region wide transportation and land use anatysis. Additionatl,y, the presentation wit[ provide a summary of the various programs SACOG has avaitabte or is devetoping to assist publ.ic agencies in imptementing the Btueprint tocatty.
SACOG
Sacramento Area
CounciI of
Governments
1415 L Street,
Suite 30o
Sacramento, CA
9s8q
916.321.9ooo
sacog.org
Auburn
Citrus Heights
Colfox
Dovis
El Dorodo County
Elk Grove
Fokom
GaLt
lsleton
Lincoln
Live Oah
Loomis
Marysville
Placer County
PlacerviLle
Roncho Cordova
Rochlin
Roseville
Sacrcmento
Sacrcmento County
Sutter County
West Sdcromento
lVheotlond
Winters
Woodlond
Yolo County
Yuba City
Yuba County Page 11
02/25/2025 Item No.3.
This page is intentionally left blank
to facilitate double- sided printing
ond minimize PoPer trse.
CITY OF
DISTINCTIVE B,Y NATURE
FOLSON{
02/25/2025 Item No.3.
File 034-21 25-001
Folsom City Council Minutes
February 11,2025
Gity Council Special Meeting
MINUTES
Tuesday, February 11,2025 5:00 PM
CALL TO ORDER
The special City Council meeting was called to order at 5:00 pm with Mayor Aquino presiding.
ROLL GALL:
Councilmembers Present Justin Raithel, Vice Mayor
Barbara Leary, Councilmember
Sarah Aquino, Mayor
Councilmembers Absent: Michael Kozlowski, Councilmember (arrived at 6:10 pm) Anna Rohrbough, Councilmember (arrived at 5:05 pm)
ED FOR THE FOLLOWING PURPOSES:ADJOURNM TO CLOS SESSI
1. Conference with Labor Negotiator - Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6. Agency Negotiator: Vance Piggott. Employee Organization: Folsom Police Officers'Association Motion by Mayor Aquino second by Vice Mayor Raithel to adjourn to closed session. Motion passed by the following roll-call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Raithel, Leary, Aquino
None
Kozlowski, Rohrbough
None
RECONVENE
City Attorney Steven Wang announced that no final action was taken during closed session Draft Not Official lJntil Approved by the City Council Page 1
02/25/2025 Item No.4.
File 034-21 25-001
Folsom City Council Minutes
February 11,2025
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the City Council, the meeting was adjourned at 6:30 pm.
SUBMITTED BY:
Christa Freemantle, City Clerk
ATTEST
Sarah Aquino, Mayor
Droft Not Official lJntil Approved by the City Council Poge 2
02/25/2025 Item No.4.
File 034-2125-001
Folsom City Council Minutes
February L1,2025
Gity Gouncil Regular Meeting
MINUTES
Tuesday, February 11,2025 6:30 PM
CALL TO ORDER
The regular City Council meeting was called to order at 6:30 pm with Mayor Sarah Aquino presiding ROLL CALL:
Councilmembers Present Justin Raithel, Vice Mayor
Anna Rohrbough, Councilmember
Michael Kozlowski, Councilmember
Barbara Leary, Councilmember
Sarah Aquino, Mayor
Councilmembers Absent: None
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The pledge of allegiance was recited.
AGENDA UPDATE
City Attorney Steven Wang advised that there were no agenda updates.
BUSINESS FROM THE FLOOR:
The following speakers addressed the City Council:
1. Ronald Carter
2. Monica Merrill
CONSENT LENDAR:
Items appearing on the Consent Calendar are considered routine and may be approved by one motion Councilmembers may pull an item for discussion.
1. Approval of January 14,2025 Special and Regular Meeting Minutes 2, Approval of January 23,2025 Special Meeting Minutes
Draft Not Official IJntil Approved by the City Council Page 1-
02/25/2025 Item No.4.
File 034-21 25-001
Folsom City Council Minutes
February 1,1-,2025
3. Approval of January 28,2025 Special and Regular Meeting Minutes
4. Resolution No. 11326 - A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Contract Amendment with Ghirardelli Associates for the East Bidwell and lron Point / US50 Onramp lmprovement Project (Project No. PW2203) and Appropriation of Funds Motion by Gouncilmember Kozlowski, second by Councilmember Leary to approve items No. 1- 4 of the Consent Calendar. Motion passed by the following roll-call vote:
AYES: Raithel, Rohrbough, Kozlowski, Leary, Aquino
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
NEW BUSINESS:
5. Resolution No. 11327 - A Resolution Adopting the 2024 Local Road Safety Plan Public Works Department Senior Civil Engineer Zach Bosch made a presentation and responded to questions from the City Council. Kimley Horn consultant Zach Ramalingam also made a presentation Public Works Director Mark Rackovan provided additional information.
The following speakers spoke under this item
1. Monica Merrill
2. Ronald Carter
Motion by Vice Mayor Raithel, second by Gouncilmember Kozlowski to approve Resolution No. 11327. Motion passed by the following roll-call vote:
AYES: Raithel, Rohrbough, Kozlowski, Leary, Aquino
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
GITY MANAGER REPORTS
lnterim City Manager Dan Haverty spoke about the Communications unit and the Police and Fire staff members who are developing a community outreach program to raise awareness of wildfire risks that will be coordinated with the OES and CalFire outreach in May; he spoke about the 988 service for mental health crisis support2417, free self-serve sand and sandbag locations, Folsom non-profits can now apply to sell state approve fireworks, and the open house of the Fun Factory and Kindergarten readiness programs. He welcomed four new employees to the City of Folsom: Parks and Recreation Departments' Hanna Perez and Mathew Trefry, Solid Waste Department Brandon Wetklow, and Police Department police officer pre-service Drew Romo; he also spoke about the milestone anniversaries of Parks and Recreation Department Amy Van der Molen who obtained 30 years of service and Police Department Kimberly Lim-Watson, Parks and Recreation Department Cody Bateson, and Public Works Department Billy Hilton who obtain ed 20 years of service and thanked them all for their service. He also congratulated five Folsom firefighters on their new roles: Assistant Chief Mat Blake, Captain Stephen Anderson, Captain Matt McCarthy, Engineer Tyler Smith, and Engineer Scott Vasquez. Lastly, Draft Not Official lJntil Approved by the City Council Page 2
02/25/2025 Item No.4.
File 034-21 25-001
Folsom City Council Minutes
February 1L,2025
he congratulated Finance Department Liz Hanna, who was promoted to Finance Manager. He thanked all the individuals for their service and dedication to the community.
COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Kozlowski had no comments.
Vice Mayor Raithel spoke about the chickens that were mentioned tonight.
Councilmember Rohrbough spoke about a SacRT meeting and thanked Councilmember Kozlowskifor his service on that regional board. She also discussed responding to the residents who use SacRT and their feedback.
Councilmember Leary spoke about cleaning up trash with Mayor Aquino along the light rail, appreciated the information regarding the chickens, and wished everyone a great Valentine's Day.
Mayor Aquino had no comments.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the City Council, the meeting was adjourned at7.04 pm.
SUBMITTED BY:
Christa Freemantle, City Clerk
ATTEST:
Sarah Aquino, Mayor
Droft Not Officiol lJntil Approved by the City Council Page 3
02/25/2025 Item No.4.
This page is intentionally left blank
to facilitate double- side d printing
and minimize PoPer Ltse-
FOLSO1rI
CITY OF
DISTINCTIVE B.Y !{ATURE
02/25/2025 Item No.4.
! { } i.:j t.}l\'l
t:irir;{t rr.,rrti ii
Folsom City Council
Staff Re rt
RECO ATION / CITY COUN ACTION
Staff recommends that the City Council approve Resolution No. 1 1328 - A Resolution Approving a City Council Travel Policy.
BACKGROUND / ISSUE
Each year, the City Council approves an annual budget. During the FY 24125 budget discussions, the City Council approved an allocation of $6,600 for each Councilmembers' travel purposes for the fiscal year.
Currently, the City Council does not have a policy governing travel undertaken by Councilmembers on official City business. Thus, travel and related expenditures are evaluated on a case-by-case basis without established guidelines that would otherwise ensurs uniformity.
Upon reflection, staff believes that a structured policy guiding the use of travel funds could be beneficial in creating consistent standards. Implementing such a policy would provide clarity, promote the responsible use of taxpayer funds, and ensure that travel activities support the best interests of the City of Folsom and its residents.
Travel undertaken by Councilmembers serves several important pu{poses, including education, staying informed about current trends, and fostering collaboration. Participation in conferences, workshops, and meetings with other public agencies provides learning opportunities that are essential for effective governance. Such travel can lead to the introduction ofnew ideas, best practices, and innovative solutions gleaned from the shared experiences of other elected officials. 1 MEETING DATE: 212512025
AGENDA SECTION: Consent Calendar
SUBJECT: Resolution No. 1 1328 - A Resolution Approving a City Council Travel Policy
F'ROM: City Clerk's Department
02/25/2025 Item No.5.
These experiences can result in benefits for the City of Folsom by helping to identifii opportunities for cost savings, improved service delivery, and strategic growth.
POLICY / RULE
Folsom Municipal Code section2.06.070(C) provides that the City Council may adopt rules governing its meetings, proceedings, and business.
ANALYSIS
The proposed City Council Travel Policy provides a framework that guides official travel undertaken by City Councilmembers. This policy aims to standardize the practices associated with council-related travel, establishing clear guidelines that align with the City's commitment to accountability and transparency. By formalizing these practices, the City of Folsom seeks to ensure that City Council travel funded by taxpayer dollars is conducted with the utmost fiscal responsibility and serves the City's interests effectively. This policy is essential for reinforcing public trust and demonstrating the City's dedication to ethical governance.
A core intent of the policy is the promotion of responsible stewardship of public resources.
Travel expenditures, when managed properly, can yield significant benefits such as facilitating knowledge exchange, strengthening intergovernmental relationships, and fostering the professional development of councilmembers. These activities ultimately contribute to informed decision-making and strategic planning that benefit the residents of Folsom. By encouraging the prudent use of funds, the policy supports only those travel activities that deliver tangible value and align with the City's strategic goals.
The policy also underscores the importance of structure and continuity in the administration of public funds related to travel. Establishing uniform procedures helps prevent inconsistencies and reduces the risk of misunderstandings or misuse of resources. This structure provides councilmembers and staff with a clear understanding of what constitutes an acceptable use of public funds. By creating a transparent, well-defined process, the policy aligns with best practices in public administration and promotes fairness in the allocation of City resources.
Overall, the proposed policy is a step toward fortifying trust between the City and its residents by maintaining high standards of financial oversight. By prioritizing transparency, consistency, and accountability, the City Council Travel Policy will facilitate responsible governance and enhance the effectiveness of councilmembers in their official duties. The policy reflects a commitment to ensuring that public expenditures yield a positive return, ultimately reinforcing the City's mission to serve the community's best interests.
2 Page 20
02/25/2025 Item No.5.
At the January 14,2025 meeting, the City Council considered a draft travel policy. The City Council discussed how conferences are identified for attendance, clarified how funds are allocated annually, and discussed what expenses are covered within the travel budget, such as transportation, lodging, and per diem amount for meals and incidentals.
Following discussion, the City Council indicated conceptual support of the policy and proposed a modification to include per diem reimbursement in alignment with similar per diem reimbursement policy for City staff. Accordingly, the below language has been added to the proposed policy:
6. Meal and Incidental Expenses:
a. Travelers may request to be reimbursed for meal and incidental expenses (M&IE) for overnight travel at rates established by the U.S. General Services Administration (USGSA) This will be based upon the city/county where the lodging is located. If not listed as a key city, the current standard rate shall be used. When the USGSA per diem is claimed, a meal receipt is not required. In instances where meal expenses are in excess of the per diem rate, the City requires an original receipt along with specific details regarding the name(s) of the guest(s) entertained, cost date, place, business purpose, and the business relationship of the individuals entertained' b. Pro ration of the per diem rate: The USGSA website (https://www.gsa.gov/travel/plan- book/per-diem-rates) has a per diem tool that will calculate 75o/o for the first and last day of travel as well as the breakdown for meals and incidentals provided for the other days c. Meals included in conference registration fee: Applicable pro ration of the per diem amount for the specific meal included in the registration will be deducted from the daily per diem claimed.
d. Paid receipts are required for all expenditures not included in the daily per diem
FINANCIAL IMPACT
The adoption of the proposed City Council Travel Policy is not expected to have an immediate or direct financial impact. However, the financial impacts associated with councilmember travel will be considered as part of the City's annual budget process. Each fiscal yeat's budget discussions will include a review and allocation of funds for travel, ensuring that expenditures align with available funding and the City's financial priorities. This approach allows for transparency and fiscal oversight, ensuring that travel costs are planned and aligned with the City's strategic objectives.
a
J Page 21
02/25/2025 Item No.5.
ATTACHMENT
Resolution No. 11328 - A Resolution Approving a City Council Travel Policy Submitted,
Christa Freemantle, CMC
City Clerk
4 Page 22
02/25/2025 Item No.5.
ATTACHMENT 1
ResolutionNo. 11328 -AResolutionApprovittg u City Council Tiavel Policy
02/25/2025 Item No.5.
RESOLUTION NO. II328
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CITY COUNCIL TRAVEL POLICY
WHEREAS, travel undertaken by Councilmembers serves several important pu{poses, including education, staying informed about current trends, and fostering collaboration; and WHEREAS, participation in conferences, workshops, and meetings with other public agencies provides learning opportunities that are essential for effective governance and can lead to the introduction of new ideas, best practices, and innovative solutions gleaned from the shared experiences of other elected officials; and
WHEREAS, a City Council Travel Policy standardizes the practices associated with council- related travel, establishing clear guidelines that align with the City's commitment to accountability and transparency; and
WHEREAS, the City Council Travel Policy provides councilmembers and staff with aclear understanding of what constitutes an acceptable use of public funds; and WHEREAS, Folsom Municipal Code section2.06.070(C) provides that the City Council may adopt rules governing its meetings, proceedings, and business:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council approves the attached City Council Travel Policy which reflects a commitment to ensuring that public expenditures yield a positive return, ultimately reinforcing the City's mission to serve the community's best interests PASSED AND ADOPTED this 25th day of February,2025,by the following roll-call vote AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Councilmember(s):
Councilmember(s):
Councilmember(s):
Councilmember(s):
Sarah Aquino, MAYOR
ATTEST:
Christa Freemantle, CITY CLERK
Resolution No. 11328
02/25/2025 Item No.5.
Folsom City CounciI Travet Poticy
Purpose:
The purpose of this poticy is to estabtish guidetines for travel undertaken by Fol.som City Councitmembers on officiaI city business. The poLicy aims to ensure the responsibte stewardship of taxpayer funds, promote transparency, and ensure that atl. traveI expenditures resutt in benefits for the City of Fotsom and its residents.
1. AnnuaI Travet Budget
The annuattraveI budget for City Councitmembers shaL[ be estabtished each year as part of the city's budget process. This budget witt provide the financial framework for alt official. travel undertaken by Councitmembers during the fiscaI year.
2. Attocation of TraveI Funds for Outgoing Councitmembers Councitmembers whose terms are ending shatt be attocated onty hatf of the budgeted travel amount for that fiscal. year. This Limitation reftects the reduced time frame in which these members can effectivel,y util.ize travel funds in the city's best interest and ensures that newty etected Councitmembers (or re-etected Councitmembers) wil,t receive their fair share and benefit of travel funds for the remainder of the fiscal year.
3. Restrictions on TraveI for Outgoing Councilmembers
Councitmembers whose terms are ending are prohibited from traveting on city funds within the last two months of their term. This measure ensures that travetfunds are utitized for ongoing or long-term city benefits and avoids expenditures that may not provide sufficient return on investment for the community.
4. Compliance with Catifornia's AB 1234
ln accordance with AB 1234, Councitmembers must provide a report to the City Councit after returning from any city-funded travet. The report shatl inctude a summary of the activities undertaken, the retevance of the travel to the city's interests, and any tangibte benefits or knowtedge gained that can be app[ied to the City of Fotsom. This report ensures comptiance with State law as wet[ as accountabil,ity and transparency in the use of publ,ic funds.
5. Stewardship of Taxpayer Funds
At[ traveI by City Councitmembers must be conducted with the utmost care and consideration for the responsibte use of taxpayer funds. Councitmembers are expected to seek cost-effective travet options and avoid unnecessary expenditures. The purpose of Resolution No. 11328
02/25/2025 Item No.5.
travel shoutd al,ign with the city's strategic goats, and any expenditure shoutd be justifiabl.e in terms of the direct or indirect benefits to the City of Fotsom and its residents.
6. Meat and IncidentaI Expenses:
a. Traveters may request to be reimbursed for meal and incidental expenses (M&lE)for overnight traveI at rates estabtished by the U.S. General Services Administration (USGSA) This witt be based upon the city/county where the todging is tocated. lf not Listed as a key city, the current standard rate shatl be used. When the USGSA per diem is ctaimed, a mea[ receipt is not required. ln instances where meal expenses are in excess of the per diem rate, the City requires an original receipt atong with specific detaits regarding the name(s) of the guest(s) entertained, cost date, ptace, business purpose, and the business relationship of the individuats entertained. b. Pro ration of the per diem rate: The USGSAwebsite (https://www.gsa.gov/travet/ptan- book/per-diem-rates) has a per diem tool that wit[ catcutaleTSo/o for the first and Last day of travel as wetl as the breakdown for meats and incidentats provided for the other days c. Meats inctuded in conference registration fee: Appticabte pro ration of the per diem amount for the specific meal inctuded in the registration witt be deducted from the daiLy per diem ctaimed.
d. Paid receipts are required for at[ expenditures not incl.uded in the dail.y per diem
7. Demonstrable Benefits Requirement
At[ travet expenditures shoutd have benefit to the City of Fotsom. Whether through the acquisition of new knowtedge, the estabtishment of vatuabte connections, or the advancement of city projects, every trip shoul,d have ctear objectives that aLign with the city's priorities.
B. Conctusion
This travel pol.icy reftects the City of Folsom's commitment to prudent financiaI management and transparency. By adhering to these guidetines, City Councilmembers can ensure that their travel is conducted in the city's best interests and that taxpayer funds are used effectivety to promote the wett-being of the community.
This poticy shatt be reviewed and updated as necessary to reftect changes in state [aw, city priorities, or budgetary considerations.
###
Resolution No. 11328
02/25/2025 Item No.5.
Folsom City Council
Staff Re rt
ATION CIL
Staff recommends the City Council adopt Resolution No. 1 1330 - A Resolution Directing the Preparation of Engineer's Report for the following Landscaping and Lighting Districts for Fiscal Year 2025-2026 American River Canyon North, American River Canyon North No. 2, American River Canyon North No. 3, Blue Ravine Oaks, Blue Ravine Oaks No. 2, Briggs Ranch, Broadstone, Broadstone No. 4, Broadstone Unit No. 3, Cobble Ridge, Cobble Hills Ridge IllReflections II, Folsom Heights, Folsom Heights No. 2, Hannaford Cross, Lake Natoma Shores, Los Cerros, Natoma Station, NatomaValley, Prairie Oaks Ranch, Prairie Oaks Ranch No. 2, Prospect Ridge, Sierra Estates, Silverbrook, Steeplechase, The Residences at American River Canyon, The Residences at American River Canyon II, Willow Creek Estates East, Willow Creek Estates East No. 2, Willow Creek Estates South, and Willow Springs. 1 MEETING DATE: 212512025
AGENDA SECTION: Consent Calendar
SUBJECT: Resolution No. 11330 - A Resolution Directing the Preparation of Engineer's Report for the following Landscaping and
Lighting Districts for Fiscal Year 2025-2026 American River Canyon North, American River Canyon North No. 2, American River Canyon North No. 3, Blue Ravine Oaks, Blue Ravine Oaks No. 2, Briggs Ranch, Broadstone, Broadstone No. 4, Broadstone Unit No. 3, Cobble Ridge, Cobble Hills Ridge Il/Reflections II, Folsom Heights, Folsom Heights No. 2, Hannaford Cross, Lake Natoma Shores, Los Cerros, Natoma Station, Natoma Valley, Prairie Oaks Ranch, Prairie Oaks Ranch No. 2, Prospect Ridge, Sierra Estates, Silverbrook, Steeplechase, The Residences at American River Canyon, The Residences at American River Canyon II, Willow Creek Estates East, Willow Creek Estates East No. 2, Willow Creek Estates South, and Willow Springs
FROM: Parks and Recreation Department
02/25/2025 Item No.6.
BACKGROUND / ISSUE
The City of Folsom has thirty existing Landscaping and Lighting Districts. Each year, as part of the annual assessment process, an Engineer's Report must be prepared in accordance with the requirement of Article 4 of Chapter 1 of Part 2 of Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code andthe Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972.
The Engineer's Report for Fiscal Year 2025-2026 will address all thirty districts in one report and will be submitted for final approval to the City Council.
POLICY / RIILE
Section 22622of the Streets and Highways Code requires the City Council to adopt a resolution directing the preparation of the Engineer's Report as part of the annual assessment process for landscaping and lighting districts.
ANALYSIS
The Engineer's Report for the thirty Landscaping and Lighting Districts 2026 wlll be prepared by NBS Government Financing Group (NB for Fiscal Year 2025-
S). The Preliminary
Engineer's Report is expected to be submitted for City Council review and approval on June 10,2025, and the final Engineer's Report and public hearing is scheduled for July 22,2025.
Included within the report for each district will be the following:
A. Plans and specifications for the maintenance of the improvements (on file in the Parks and Recreation DePartment)
B. Estimate of the cost of maintaining the improvements C. Diagrams of the assessment districts
D. Assessment of the estimated costs for maintaining the improvements IMPACT
Each Landscaping and Lighting District levies
maintenance costs. The Fiscal Year 2025-2026
and collects funds to cover operating and
budget for the Landscaping and Lighting
Districts includes funding for the preparation of the Engineer's Report. There is no fiscal impact to the City of Folsom General Fund.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
N/A (This does not apply as there is no environmental review aspect to the engineer's report.)
2 Page 28
02/25/2025 Item No.6.
ATT
l. Resolution No. 1 1330 - A Resolution Directing the Preparation of Engineer's Report for the following Landscaping and Lighting Districts for Fiscal Year 2025-2026 American River Canyon North, American River Canyon North No. 2, American River Canyon North No. 3, Blue Ravine Oaks, Blue Ravine Oaks No. 2, Briggs Ranch, Broadstone, Broadstone No. 4, Broadstone Unit No. 3, Cobble Ridge, Cobble Hills Ridge Il/Reflections II, Folsom Heights, Folsom Heights No. 2, Hannaford Cross, Lake Natoma Shores, Los Cerros, Natoma Station, Natoma Valley, Prairie Oaks Ranch, Prairie Oaks Ranch No. 2, Prospect Ridge, Sierra Estates, Silverbrook, Steeplechase, The Residences at American River Canyon, The Residences at American River Canyon II, Willow Creek Estates East, Willow Creek Estates East No. 2, Willow Creek Estates South, and Willow Springs
Submitted,
Kelly Gonzalez, Parks & Recreation Director
J Page 29
02/25/2025 Item No.6.
RESOLUTION NO. 11330
A RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE PREPARATION OF ENGINEER'S RE,PORT FOR
THE FOLLOWING LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025.2026 AMERICAN RIVER CANYON NORTH, AMERICAN RIVER CANYON NORTH NO.2, AMERICAN RIVER CANYON NORTH NO.3, BLUE RAVINE OAKS, BLUE RAVINE OAKS NO. 2, BRIGGS RANCH, BROADSTONE, BROADSTONE NO. 4, BROADSTONE UNIT NO. 3, COBBLE RIDGE, COBBLE HILLS RIDGE IIIRE,FLECTIONS II, FOLSOM HEIGHTS, FOLSOM HEIGHTS NO.2,
HANNAFORD CROSS, LAKE NATOMA SHORES, LOS CERROS, NATOMA
STATION, NATOMA VALLEY, PRAIRIE OAKS RANCH, PRAIRIE OAKS RANCH NO. 2, PROSPECT RIDGE, SIERRA ESTATES, SILVERBROOK, STEEPLECHASE,
THE RESIDENCES AT AMERICAN RIVER CANYON, THE RESIDENCES AT
AMERICAN RIVER CANYON II, WILLOW CREEK ESTATES EAST, WILLOW CREEK ESTATES EAST NO.2, WILLOW CREEK ESTATES SOUTH, AND WILLOW
SPRINGS
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Folsom, has established thirty Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts described as follows:
American River Canyon North
American River Canyon North No.2
American River Canyon North No.3
Blue Ravine Oaks
Blue Ravine Oaks No. 2
Briggs Ranch
Broadstone
Broadstone No. 4
Broadstone Unit No.3
Cobble Ridge
Cobble Hills Ridge IllReflections II
Folsom Heights
Folsom Heights No. 2
Hannaford Cross
Lake Natoma Shores
Los Cerros
; and
Natoma Station
Natoma Valley
Prairie Oaks Ranch
Prairie Oaks Ranch No. 2
Prospect Ridge
Sierra Estates
Silverbrook
Steeplechase
The Residences at American River
Canyon
The Residences at American River
Canyon II
Willow Creek Estates East
Willow Creek Estates East No. 2
Willow Creek Estates South
Willow Springs
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972 ("Act"), Division 15, Part2 of the Streets and Highway Code, the assessment is for the maintenance of public areas including, but not limited to, landscaped areas, street corridors, project entryways, certain parks, parkways, medians, statuary, residential village entryways, sound walls, fences, project signage, streetscapes, landscape, lighting maintenance and lighting, water and utility bills; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Folsom has determined that said territories will be specifically benefited by the maintenance and servicing of said landscape and appurtenant Resolution No. 1 1330
02/25/2025 Item No.6.
improvements; and
WHEREAS, Sections 22620 through 22631 of the Act provide for annual assessments after the formation of said districts; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Folsom authorizes the City Manager to have the City's engineer prepare the Engineer's Report and file the same with the Clerk for submission to the City Council, and that NBS Government Financing Group is hereby designated as Engineer of Work for purposes of these proceedings and is hereby ordered to prepare an Engineer's Report in accordance with Article 4 of Chapter 1 of the Act and Article XIIID of the California Constitution. Upon completion, the Engineer shall file the Engineer's Report with the Clerk of the Council for submission to the Council; and pASSED AND ADOPTED this 25th day of February 2025,by the following roll-call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Councilmember(s):
Councilmember(s):
Councilmember(s):
Councilmember(s):
Sarah Aquino, MAYOR
ATTEST
Christa Freemantle, CITY CLERK
Resolution No. 11330
Page2 of2 Page 31
02/25/2025 Item No.6.
This poge is intentionsllA left blonk
to facilitate double- sided printing
ond minimize PoPer rrse.
CITY CF
DISTINCTIVE B.Y NATURE
FOLSOh[
02/25/2025 Item No.6.
rl
Folsom City Council
Staff Re ort
MEETING DATE: 212512025
AGENDA SECTION: Consent Calendar
SUBJECT: Resolution No. 11332 - A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Agreement with Mobile Modular
Management Corporation for a Two-Year Lease of a Modular Trailer Occupied by the Public Works Street Maintenance Division
FROM: Public Works Department
RECO / CITY COUN ACTION
The Public Works Department recommends that the City Council pass and adopt Resolution No. 11332 - A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Agreement with Mobile Modular Management Corporation for a Two-Year Lease of a Modular Trailer Occupied by the Public Works Street Maintenance Division.
BACKGROUND / ISSUE
The Street Maintenance Division of the Public Works Department is located in the City of Folsom Corporation Yard. Street Maintenance staff work out of a modular traller originally leased from Performance Modular rn20l5. A five-year lease extension was approved by City Council in20l9.
Performance Modular was sold to Vesta Modular in 2022. In 2023, Vesta Modular was sold to Mobile Modular Management Corporation (Mobile Modular), who currently owns the building.
Following the five-year period of the lease extension, which expired at the end of 2024, the agreement transitioned to a month-to-moth rental, which does not guarantee the monthly rate or continued use of the building.
Both parties are interested in entering into an agreement to maintain the current rental rate and secure the building for an additional two years. The short-term lease allows for an easier transition when the Street Maintenance Division is moved to the future location of the Corporation Yard. 1
02/25/2025 Item No.7.
This resolution with authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement with Mobile Modular for a two-year lease.
POLICY / RULE
In accordance with Section 2.36.080 ofthe Folsom Municipal Code, supplies, equipment, services, and construction with a value of $75,049 or greater shall be approved by City Council.
ANALYSIS
In consideration of the future transition to a new Corporation Yard, the Department recommends a two-year lease on the building the Street Maintenance Division has occupied since 2015. A lease fixes monthly costs and establishes the party responsible for building maintenance and repairs. If the current Corporation Yard were going to be used long-term, a longer-term office solution would be evaluated through a bid process; however, taking into consideration the cost and operational disruption of removing the current building and installing a new building, entering into a new lease to seamlessly continue operations is the most practical course of action.
The monthly rental rate is $2,378.60 per month, or $28,543 .20 per year ($57,086.40 for the term of the lease agreement). The city also remains responsible for the final return charges at the end of the lease, which have been estimated at $6,919.
FINAN IMPACT
The agreement is for two years of rent which equates to $57,086.40. The lease of the Street Maintenance Division trailer is included in the adopted Fiscal Year 2024-25 Operating Budget and funded through the Public Works Operating Fund (Fund 023). The remaining cost to the Public Works Operating Fund (Fund 023) in Fiscal Year 2024-25 to continue utilizing the building is $1,046.60, including taxes. Sufficient funds for the additional amount ate avallable in the current fiscal year Public Works Operating fund (Fund 023) andwill be made available through the budget process for the remainder of the period of the agreement.
ENVIRONMENTAL RE,VIEW
This action is exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
ATTACHMENT
Resolution No. 1 1332 - A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Agreement with Mobile Modular Management Corporation for a Two-Year Lease of a Modular Trailer Occupied by the Public Works Street Maintenance Division 2 Page 34
02/25/2025 Item No.7.
Submitted,
Mark Rackovan, Public Works Director
J Page 35
02/25/2025 Item No.7.
RE,SOLUTION NO. 11332
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN
AGREEMENT WITH MOBILE MODULAR MANAGEMENT CORPORATION FOR A
TWO-YEAR LEASE OF A MODULAR TRAILER OCCUPIED BY THE PUBLIC
WORKS STREET MAINTENANCE DIVISION
WHEREAS, the Street Maintenance Division of the Public Works Department currently utilizes a rented modular trailer located at the City of Folsom Corporation Yard; and WHEREAS, the cunent modular trailer is meeting the operational needs of the Street Maintenance Division; and
WHEREAS, the lease for the existing modular trailer has expired; and WHEREAS, the city and Mobile Modular Management Corporation have continued to operate under the terms of the lease; and
WHEREAS, staff has considered the limited term use of the current Corporation Yard in the recommendation to continue leasing the existing modular trailer rather than solicit bids for a replacement modular trailer; and
WHEREAS, a lease agreement secures the modular trailer for use by the Street Maintenance Division over the next two (2) years; and
WHEREAS, staff recommends the agreement with Mobile Modular Management Corporation to continue leasing the modular trailer for two additional years which equates to $57,086.40; and
WHEREAS, sufficient funds are budgeted and available in the Public Works Operating Fund (Fund023) in the current fiscal year and will be made available for the remainder of the agreement through the budget process; and
WHEREAS, the agreement will be in a form acceptable to the City Attorney NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Folsom authorizes the City Manager to execute an agreement with Mobile Modular Management Corporation for the lease of the modular trailer occupied by the Street Maintenance Division.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 25th day of February,2025, by the following roll-call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Councilmember(s):
Councilmember(s):
Councilmember(s):
Councilmember(s):
Resolution No. I 1332
02/25/2025 Item No.7.
Sarah Aquino, MAYOR
ATTEST
Christa Freemantle, CITY CLERK
Resolution No. 11332
Page2 of2 Page 37
02/25/2025 Item No.7.
This page is intentiono"lly left blonk
to focilitote double - sided printing
and minimize PaPer ttse.
CITY OF
DISTTNCTIVE B,Y NATURE
FOLSO}I
02/25/2025 Item No.7.
Folsom City Council
Staff Re rt
MEETING DATE: 212512025
AGENDA SECTION: Public Hearing
SUBJECT: Resolution No. 1 1329 - A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Folsom Approving the Issuance of the California Municipal Finance Authority Exempt Facility Bonds in an Aggregate Principal Amount not to Exceed $25,000,000 for the Purpose of Financing or Refinancing the Acquisition,
Construction, Improvement and Equipping Harrington $rove Apartments and Certain Other Matters Relating Thereto
FROM: Community Development Department
ATION CIL A
1. Conduct a public hearing under the Tax and Equity Fiscal Responsibility Act ("TEFRA") on February 25,2025 in connection with the proposed issuance of revenue bonds by the California Municipal Finance Authority (the "CMFA"), u joint exercise of powers authority and public entity of the State of California, in an amount not to exceed $25,000,000, (the "Bonds"), to finance or refinance the acquisition, construction, improvement and equipping of a multifamily rental housing project located at 791 Harrington Way (the "Project") within the City of Folsom, California (the "City").
2. Move to adopt Resolution No.l 1329 - A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Folsom Approving the Issuance of the California Municipal Finance Authority Exempt Facility Bonds in an Aggregate Principal Amount not to Exceed $25,000,000 for the Purpose of Financing or Refinancing the Acquisition, Improvement and Equipping Harrington Grove Apartments and Certain Other Matters Relating Thereto.
BACK / ISSUE
On November 20,2024, the Planning Commission approved a Design Review and Density Bonus application for the Harrington Grove Apartments Project (the "Project"). 1
02/25/2025 Item No.8.
The Harrington Grove Apartments multifamily project is a new construction, 100 percent affordable multifamily rental development. It will be constructed on a 1 .74-acte site located on the west side of Harrington Way, approximately 330 feet south of the intersection of Harrington Way and East Bidwell Street at the address 791Harcington Way. The approved projeciconsists of 52 one-, two- and three-bedroom units affordable to low-, very-low, and extiemely-low-income households. On July 23,2024, the City Council adopted Resolution No. II234, conditionally approving an affordable housing loan, in the amount up to $2,700,000, to construct the Harrington Grove Apartments project.
FIGURE 1: HARRINGTON GROVE PROJECT SITE AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH Folsom Pacific Associates II, LP, (the "Borrower") has requested that the California Municipal Finance Authority (CMFA) serve as the municipal issuer of the Bonds in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $25,000,000 (the "Bonds") of tax-exempt revenue bonds. The proceeds of the Bonds will be used to finance or refinance the acquisition, construction, improvement and equipping of a multifamily rental housing project located at 791 Harrington Way (the "Project") within the City.
2 Page 40
02/25/2025 Item No.8.
In order for the Bonds to qualiff as tax-exempt bonds, the City of Folsom must conduct a public hearing (the "TEFRA Hearing") providing for the members of the community an opportunity to speak in favor of or against the use of tax-exempt bonds for the financing of the Project. Prior to such TEFRA Hearing, reasonable notice must be provided to the members of the community. Following the close of the TEFRA Hearing, an "applicable elected representative" of the governmental unit hosting the Project must provide its approval of the issuance of the Bonds for the financing of the Project.
On December 1 I , 2024 the proj ect received an award of private activity bond allocation from the California Debt Limit Allocation Committee.
The City Council is being asked to adopt a resolution that would approve the issuance of tax- exempt Bonds by the CMFA.
POLICY / RULE
Section 147 (t) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the "Code") requires that prior to their issuance, the Bonds are required to be approved by the "applicable elected representative" of the governmental units on whose behalf such bonds are expected to be issued and by a governmental unit having jurisdiction over the entire area in which any facility financed by such bonds is to be located, after apublic hearing held following reasonable public notice.
ANALYSIS
In order for the Bonds to qualifu as tax-exempt bonds, the City of Folsom must conduct a public hearing (the "TEFRA Hearing") providing for the members of the community an opportunity to speak in favor of or against the use of tax-exempt bonds for the financing of the Project. Prior to such TEFRA Hearing, reasonable notice must be provided to the members of the community. Following the close of the TEFRA Hearing, an "applicable elected representative" of the governmental unit hosting the Project must provide its approval of the issuance of the Bonds for the financing of the Project.
A public notice was published in the Folsom Telegraph on February 14,2025.
The CMFA was created on January 1,2004 pursuant to a joint exercise of powers agreement to promote economic, cultural and community development, through the financing of economic development and charitable activities throughout California. To date, over 350 municipalities have become members of CMFA.
The CMFA was formed to assist local governments, non-profit organizations and businesses with the issuance of taxable and tax-exempt bonds aimed at improving the standard of living in California. The CMFA's representatives and its Board of Directors have considerable experience in bond financings.
J Page 41
02/25/2025 Item No.8.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact to the City. The Bonds to be issued by the CMFA for the Project will be the sole responsibility of the Borrower, and the City will have no financial, legal, moral obligation, liability or responsibility for the Project or the repayment of the Bonds for the financing of the Project. All financing documents with respect to the issuance of the Bonds will contain clear disclaimers that the Bonds are not obligations of the City or the State of California but are to be paid for solely from funds provided by the Borrower.
The Board of Directors of the California Foundation for Stronger Communities, a California non-profit public benefit corporation (the "Foundation"), acts as the Board of Directors for the CMFA. Through its conduit issuance activities, the CMFA shares a portion of the issuance fees it receives with its member communities and donates a portion of these issuance fees to the Foundation for the support of local charities. With respect to the City of Folsom, it is expected thataportion of the issuance fee attributable to the City will be granted by the CMFA to the general fund of the City. Such grant may be used for any lawful purpose of the City.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This action to approve the issuance of these bonds by the City Council is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15061(bX3) (Review for Exemption) of the California Environmental Quality Act. The Project which was deemed as consistent with applicable Community Plans arrd Zoning is exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by Section 15183 (Projects Consistent With a Community Plan or Zoning) of the CEQA Guidelines.
ATTACHMENT
1. Resolution No. 11329 - A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Folsom Approving the Issuance of the California Municipal Finance Authority Exempt Facility Bonds in an Aggregate Principal Amount not to Exceed $25,000,000 for the Purpose of Financing or Refinancing the Acquisition, Construction, Improvement and Equipping Harrington Grove Apartments and Certain Other Matters Relating Thereto Submitted,
Pam Johns, Community Development Director
4 Page 42
02/25/2025 Item No.8.
ATTACHMENT I
A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Folsom Approving the Issuance of the California Municipal Finance Authority Exempt Facility Bonds in an Aggregate Principal Amount not to Exceed $25,000,000 for the Purpose of Financing or Refinancing the Acquisition, Construction, Improvement and Equipping Harrington Grove Apartments and Certain Other Matters Relating Thereto
02/25/2025 Item No.8.
RESOLUTION NO. TI329
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FOLSOM APPROVING THE ISSUANCE OF THE CALIFORI\IA MUNICIPAL FINANCE AUTHORITY
EXEMPT FACILITY BONDS IN AN AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $25,000,000 FoR THE PURPOSE OF FINANCING OR REFINANCING THE
ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION, IMPROVEMENT AND EQUIPPING OF
HARRINGTON GROVE APARTMENTS AND CERTAIN OTHER MATTERS
RELATING THERETO
WHEREAS, Folsom Pacific Associates II, a California Limited Partnership (the "Borrower") a partnership of which Pacific West Communities, Inc. (the "Developer") or a related person to the Developer is the general partner, has requested that the California Municipal Finance Authority (the "Authority") adopt a plan of financing providing for the issuance of exempt facility bonds for a qualified residential rental project pursuant to Section Ia2@)(7) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the "Code") in one or more series issued from time to time, including bonds issued to refund such exempt facility bonds in one or more series from time to time, and at no time to exceed $25,000,000 in aggregate principal amount (the "Bonds"), to finance or refinance the acquisition, construction, improvement and equipping of a multifamily rental housing project located at79I Hanington Way, Folsom, California (the "Project"); and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 147(D of the Code, the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority must be approved by the City of Folsom (the "City") because the Project is located within the territorial limits of the City; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City (the "City Council") is the elected legislative body of the City and is one of the "applicable elected representatives" required to approve the issuance of the Bonds under Section 147(f) of the Code; and WHEREAS, the Authority has requested that the City Council approve the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority in order to satisff the public approval requirement of Section 147(f) of the Code and the requirements of Section 4 of the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement Relating to the California Municipal Finance Authority, dated as of January 1,2004 (the "Agreement"), among certain local agencies, including the City; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 147(f) of the Code, the City Council has, following notice duly given, held a public hearing regarding the issuance of the Bonds, and now desires to approve the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Folsom as follows:
Section 1. The foregoing resolutions are true and correct.
Section 2. The City Council hereby approves the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority.
It is the pu{pose and intent of the City Council that this resolution constitute approval of the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority, for the purposes of (a) Section I47(t) of the Code by the applicable elected representative of the governmental unit having jurisdiction over the atea in Resolution No. 11329
02/25/2025 Item No.8.
which the Project is located, in accordance with said SectionKT(f) and (b) Section4 of the Agreement.
Section 3. The issuance of the Bonds shall be subject to the approval of the Authority of all financing documents relating thereto to which the Authority is a party. The City shall have no responsibility or liability whatsoever with respect to the Bonds.
Section 4. The adoption of this Resolution shall not obligate the City or any department thereof to (i) provide any financing to acquire or construct the Project or any refinancing of the Project; (ii) approve any application or request for or take any other action in connection with any planning approval, permit or other action necessary for the acquisition, construction, rehabilitation, installation or operation of the Project; (iii) make any contribution or advance any funds whatsoever to the Authority; or (iv) take any further action with respect to the Authority or its membership therein.
Section 5. The officers ofthe City are hereby authorized and directed, jointly and severally, to do any and all things and to execute and deliver any and all documents which they deem necessary or advisable in order to carry out, give effect to and comply with the terms and intent of this resolution and the financing transaction approved hereby. pASSED AND ADOPTED this 25th day of February, 2025, by the following roll-call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Councilmember(s):
Councilmember(s):
Councilmember(s):
Councilmember(s):
Sarah Aquino, MAYOR
ATTEST:
Christa Freemantle, CITY CLERK
Resolution No. 11329
Page2 of2
02/25/2025 Item No.8.
This page is intentionally Ieft blank
to facilitqte double- sided printing
and minimize P oPer trse.
ctrY OF
DIgTINgTIVE E.Y NATURE
FOLS()l\[
02/25/2025 Item No.8.
t'{-4.[-$ {_}Fl
Folsom City Council
Staff Re rt
RECOMMENDATION / CITY COUNCIL ACTION
The Public Works Department recommends that the City Council pass and adopt Resolution No. 11331 - A,Resolution Adopting New Planning and Design Standards Pertaining to the Use of Roundabouts as Traffic Control.
BACKGROUND / ISSUE
During the December 13,2022, City Council meeting, Public Works staff made a presentation titled "Report on Traffic Roundabout Fact-Finding Mission and Direction to Staff Regarding Future Consideration of a Traffic Roundabout Policy." Information was presented regarding their experiences visiting Carmel and Whitestown, Indiana, and Stapleton, Golden, and Loveland, Colorado. Additionally, staff presented the benefits of vehicle and driver safety, traffic operations and capacity, right of way requirements, and maintenance needs versus traditional traffic signal control at intersections. After the presentation, City Council unanimously directed staff to develop a Roundabout First policy.
At the same meeting, City Council adopted Resolution No. 10961 - A Resolution Authorizing Staff to Submit Grant Applications to the Sacramento Area Council of Governments for the 2022-23 Funding Round. One of the projects submitted to receive funding through the non- competitive Community Design category was the Roundabout Policy and Feasibility Study Project. !n May 2023,the city was awarded a $400,000 SACOG grant to perform the study. 1 MEETING DATE: 2t2st2025
AGENDA SECTION: New Business
SUBJECT: Presentation of Findings from the Roundabout Feasibility Study and Direction to Staff
i. Resolution No. 11331 - A Resolution Adopting New Planning and Design Standards Pertaining to the Use of Roundabouts as Traffic Control
FROM: Public Works Department
02/25/2025 Item No.9.
Subsequentty, City Council adopted Resolution No. l ll7l - A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Design and Consulting Services Contract with Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. for the Roundabout Policy and Feasibility Study, ProjectNo. PW2403, Federal Project No. 5288(05a).
On August 27,2024, the City adopted an update to the General Plan, Folsom General Plan M
4.7.10, which included language explicitly supporting the ooRoundabout First" policy. This policy mandates that roundabouts be considered as the preferred traffic control method at intersections where feasible, aligning with the city's commitment to sustainable and efficient traffic management.
Design Standards
City Staff, with the assistance of Kimley-Horn, has developed new guidelines to make roundabouts a more common and effective part of the city's road network. These guidelines support the "Roundabout First" policy adopted in the August 27,2024, General Plan M 4.1.10 update and provide a clear approach to designing and building roundabouts across Folsom.
The Roundabout Planning and Design Standards set guidelines for how roundabouts should be designed to fit safely and efficiently within Folsom's streets. The city shall follow national best practices but adapt them to local needs. Whenever possible, roundabouts will be designed to minimize the need for extra land while ensuring smooth traffic movement. Specialized designs, such as peanut- or oval-shaped roundabouts, may be used if space is limited. Proper curbs and traffic islands will help slow vehicles down, making roundabouts safer for both drivers and pedestrians. When traffic is expected to increase, design guidelines will allow for future expansion.
Roundabouts will be prioritized for all new intersections and when existing intersections are being redesigned, particularly when they contribute to improved traffic flow and safety. Before approving a roundabout, the city and/or the developer will conduct a detailed study based on the proposed Planning and Design Standards to determine whether it is the most effective solution. This evaluation will include an analysis of traffic pattems and future growth projections to ensure the roundabout remains functional and efficient over time.
Bicyclists and pedestrians are important considerations in roundabout design. Multi-lane roundabout designs will include dedicated bike lanes and safe crossing points. Pedestrian crosswalks will be positioned to maximize visibility and safety, and additional safety measures like flashing beacons may be used where needed.
To ensure roundabouts are designed properly, each project will go through a three-step review process. This includes an initial concept review, a detailed engineering evaluation, and final construction plans. Developers and city staff will be required to follow a clear checklist to confirm all necessary steps are completed.
2 Page 48
02/25/2025 Item No.9.
These guidelines will create a consistent, efficient, and safe approach to roundabout development in Folsom. By prioritizing roundabouts where appropriate, the city will aim to improve traffic flow, reduce long-term maintenance costs, and enhance overall roadway safety.
The Public Works and Community Development Departments will collaborate to implement these standards in future projects, reinforcing Folsom's commitment to modern, sustainable traffrc management.
Feasibility Study
Utilizing the SACOG grant funding, city staff retained Kimley-Horn & Associates to assess twelve existing and one future intersection to determine if a roundabout would provide adequate traffic control, the general size and shape of each roundabout would be, and any potential impacts would need to be considered if the city decide to pursue a roundabout at one of the study locations. The following intersections were evaluated as part of this study:
. Riley Street at East Bidwell Street
o Riley Street at Walmart/Kohls
. Riley Street at Glenn Drive
o Glenn Drive at East Bidwell Street
o East Bidwell at Coloma Street
o Folsom Lake Crossing at East Natoma Street
o Folsom Lake Crossing at Folsom-Auburn Road
o Folsom-Auburn Road at Oak Avenue Parkway
o Folsom-Auburn Road at Greenback Lane
o Blue Ravine Road at Prairie City Road/Sibley Street
o Blue Ravine Road at Oak Avenue Parkway
o East Bidwell Street at Iron Point Road
o Prairie City Road at Alder Creek Parkway (planned intersection) Kimley-Horn's analysis concluded that eleven of the thirteen intersections are viable roundabout candidates, with only Folsom-Auburn Road/Greenback Lane and East Bidwell Street/Iron Point Road being deemed infeasible.
City staff and Kimley-Horn staff will present a summary of the study findings, including conceptual exhibits and preliminary costs -benefit analyses. Staff will seek Council guidance as to which study locations should be further considered for project development and grant funding.
POLICY / RULE
The adoption of new planning and design standards for roundabouts aligns with the city's commitment to improving roadway safety, traffrc efficiency, and sustainable infrastructure development. These standards are intended to supplement existing engineering guidelines and integrate with the City's General Plan transportation policy M 4.1.10.
J Page 49
02/25/2025 Item No.9.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
There are no direct financial obligations associated with the adoption of these planning and design standards. Future roundabout projects will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and funded through applicable capital improvement programs, grant opportunities, or developer contributions as appropriate.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The adoption of these planning and design standards is exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as it pertains to policy development rather than a specific construction project.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution No. 1 133 1 - A Resolution Adopting New Planning and Design Standards Pertaining to the Use of Roundabouts as Traffic Control
2. Kimley-Hom Draft of Folsom Roundabout Guidelines
3. Kimley-Hom Folsom Roundabout Drawings
Submitted,
Mark Rackovan, Public Works Director
4 Page 50
02/25/2025 Item No.9.
Attachment I
Resolution No. 11331
02/25/2025 Item No.9.
RESOLUTION NO. 11331
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING NEW PLANNING AND DESIGN STANDARDS
PERTAINING THE USE OF ROUNDABOUTS AS TRAFFIC CONTROL
WHEREAS, the City of Folsom is committed to improving roadway safety, traffic effi ciency, and sustainable infrastructure development; and WHEREAS, on August27,2024, the city adopted an update to the General Plan (Policy M 4.1.10), reinforcing the commitment to the Roundabout First policy; and WHEREAS, city staff, with assistance from Kimley-Horn, has developed comprehensive Roundabout Planning and Design Standards to guide the implementation of roundabouts in Folsom; and
WHEREAS, these standards provide a clear approach to designing roundabouts that optimize traffic flow, enhance safety, accommodate all road users, and minimize right-of-way impacts; and
WHEREAS' the standards establish a structured process for evaluating, designing, and implementing roundabouts, including multi-step review procedures and considerations for future traffic demand; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Folsom adopts the Roundabout Planning and Design Standards as the guiding document for implementing roundabouts in Folsom.
pASSED AND ADOPTED this 25th day of February, 2025, by the following roll-call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Councilmember(s):
Councilmember(s):
Councilmember(s):
Councilmember(s):
Sarah Aquino, MAYOR
ATTEST
Christa Freemantle, CITY CLERK
ResolutionNo. ll33l
Page I ofl
02/25/2025 Item No.9.
Attachment 2
Kimley-Horn Draft of Folsom Roundabout
Guidelines
02/25/2025 Item No.9.
ffirc&FT
Section XX:
ROUNDABOUTS
(Rev 02118l2slz
XX.1 GENERAL
This Section describes typical roundabout design practices for implementation within the City of Folsom. Contact the City of Folsom Engineering Division in the Community Development Department for unfamiliar defi nitions.
Roundabouts have been found to reduce vehicle emissions and fuel consumption by 30%or more. This is due to the reduction in idle time by vehicles waiting for the light to change.
Although they may not be appropriate in all circumstances, they should be considered as an alternative for all proposed new intersections, particularly those with major road volumes with less than 90 percent of the total entering volume. The safety benefits of crash reduction and crash severity reduction translate into lower life-cycle costs of roundabouts.
XX.2 Roundabout Policy
The City of Folsom has adopted a policy that prioritizes roundabouts as the primary form of intersection control. See Folsom GeneralPlan M .!.LO, amended August 27,2024.
An engineering study to determine the feasibility of a roundabout is required for the following:
A. New intersection planning and design
B. Retrofit of an existing intersection
C. Traffic calming
The engineering study shall be completed in which roundabout control is thoroughly evaluated to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and City Engineer' XX.3 OperationalAnalysis
Operational analysis considerations are documented in Section 13, Traffic lmpact Studies.
A. Recommended Roundabout Capacity Software
The City of Folsom will accept the following roundabout capacity software:
a. SIDRA INTERSECTION (or approved equal by the City of Folsom) i. Roundabout capacity analysis results shall be based on parameters published within the latest version of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) using the HCM CaPacitY Model.
ii. Roundabout capacity analysis resulting in three or more lanes must be evaluated using the Sidra Standard Capacity Model or approved equal. iii. standard environmental factor setting of 1..2 should be used. city may consider lower environmentalfactors if justification is provided. iv. v/c factors between 0.85 and 1.00 may be considered if juitification is
02/25/2025 Item No.9.
ffiffiAfT
b. VISSIM (or approved equal)
i. Complex intersections and intersection systems and/or channelization as determined by the City Engineer shall require the use of specialized roundabout software and capacity models.
ii. Performance settings such as follow-up headway, gap acceptance, etc. used to calibrate the VISSIM model (or approved equal) shall be provided to the City for review. Vehicle speeds navigating the roundabout shall be based on calculated in-lane operational speeds.
B. The operational analysis for a proposed roundabout shall include the following scenarios:
1) Existing and/or Construction Year (CY)/Opening
2l lnterim Year (CY+10)
3) Horizon Year (CY+20)
C. Peak hour turning movements shall be analyzed to determine the appropriate roundabout lane channelization for Section A. above.
D. Projected traffic calculations and assumptions:
1) Where feasible, a historic traffic growth shall be established along the corridor using average daily traffic (ADT) data.
2) lf feasible, a linear regression calculation shall be conducted to determine the anticipated rate of traffic growth for the subject intersection. 3) Determine if a RegionalTravel Demand Model is available and reasonable.
Additional coordination with the Regional Agency and/or the City of Folsom Traffic Department may be required.
4) A traffic study may be required using trip generation calculations similar to a traffic impact a nalysis process.
E. Based on Section A. through Section C. above, the proper lane channelization shall be determined according to a city-approved roundabout capacity model.
F. Expandable Design:
1) lf a varying lane configuration is determined from the lnterim vs. Horizon year capacity analysis, both an interim and ultimate roundabout layout shall be developed.
Zl Consideration shall be given to future widenings or expansions of adjacent corridors that may impact the proposed roundabout lane configuration.
XX.4 Geometric Design Considerations for All Roundabouts The City of Folsom has adopted the NCHRP Report 1-043, Guide for Roundabouts, as the City's roundabout design guide. However, design criteria in this guide and expressed preferences takes precedence over NCHRP Report 1043 guidance.
ROUNDABOUTS City of Folsom xx-2
02/25/2025 Item No.9.
ln addition to the geometric design diagrams provided in the following sections, the City expresses the following general design considerations for all roundabouts. a
a
a
a
Noncircular (oval, peanut, etc.) roundabouts should only be used when justified by right- of-way constraints and/or intersection skew angle. The reason for non-circular shape should be documented at the concept design stage.
Curb and/ or Curb and Gutter shall be provided on the outside of the circulatory roadway and on all approaches a minimum distance equalto the length of the splitter island to help approaching drivers recognize the need to reduce their speed, prevent corner- cutting, and to confine vehicles to the intended design path. Curb and/or curb and gutter shall be provided for a minimum distance of 50-ft. past the edge of the circulatory roadway on the exit leg.
Splitter islands shall extend a minimum of 50-ft. from the edge of the inscribed circle. The desirable length of a splitter island is 100-ft. for urban design (30mph to 35mph) and 150- ft. to 200-ft. for rural or suburban conditions (> 5mph) The exit curb radii are usually larger than the entry radii in order to minimize the likelihood of congestion and crashes at the exits. This, however, is balanced by the need to maintain slow speeds through the pedestrian crossing on exit. The exit design is also influenced by the design environment (urban vs. rural), pedestrian demand, the design vehicle, and physical constraints. Roundabout exits in areas with pedestrian accommodations should be designed to provide adequate sight distance and control speeds.
For challenging topographic conditions when retrofitting an existing intersection, tipping circles may be considered. Typical cross-sections for grading conditions of single lane and multilane layouts involve tipping the plane of the circle. This can improve the 'fit'of the grading design and reduce drainage and/or right-of-way constraints, which reduces construction impacts and costs. Figure 1- illustrates the City's preferences for tipping circles on a plane. Mini roundabout can also have a tipped circle, but the central island is still fully traversable.
For constructability and grade control, setting up additional alignments and profiles of the edge of pavement produces optimal grade control for retrofit designs. Developing a grading surface that closely follows existing topography or the natural grade of the intersection often results in tipping the circle. Tipping the circle, as Figure 1 shows, requires gradual transition from sloping in on the high side to sloping out on the low side.
The preferred maximum cross-slope of the low side should be 2-percent to prevent truck roll-overs.
a
ROUNDABOUTS City of Folsom XX-3
02/25/2025 Item No.9.
Vrfus
2-
CmletofRou'$Nhul
TrudApM IruciAFort
Varies
Seildk
6 tl tlla)( Helghl
Atore Top ol Cu$
Conbhaftntu6
Asghdl Prveflioll
Curb, lhnlade, {'
Cu0.lkl(lnla*4'
oradod A{gregale
orded Asregalo Saso
CM & Sbnged Co{rc. Pavennnl.8'Sab Ttldms
C*red E Slamped Conc, ParenEnt, S'$ab ndnes!
C{t0, Sttai{t'l 18' Cub, St'dgil 18'
Figure L - Circulatory Roadway Typical Section (Tipped Circle) Additional considerations for the proper accommodation of oversize/overweight vehicles (OSOWs) may be needed for vertical clearance checks of lowboys and other vehicles that have a reduced vertical envelope. ln rare cases, the height of the center island truck apron and the circulatory grade may need to factor into the check vehicle vertical clearance. For additional guidance, see NCHRP Report L043 Chapter 1L. ln areas of new construction, consideration must be given to OSOW vehicles during construction activities in nearby areas, including entrances. Single lane and smaller roundabouts may restrict the size and movement of construction vehicles accessing construction sites. An evaluation and consideration of alternative and I or temporary construction access may be needed for phased implementation of roundabout construction.
External Truck Aprons may be used where it can be shown that entry or exit widths become excessive, e.g., greater than 18 feet for a single lane roundabout, to accommodate the City design vehicle (CA-Truck). When a raised outside truck apron is designed for roundabouts, it must not overlap the pedestrian crossing ramp. The crossing may be shifted outside the overlapping swept path or the alignment of entry and exit travel way may be reconfigured to increase the angle between legs.
Bicycle and pedestrian accommodations are required at all roundabouts with consideration of lane configurations. For bicyclists, safety and usability of roundabouts depends upon provision of crossing and approach or departure ramp design with the roundabout design (See Section 10.4, NCHRP 1043). Since typical on-road bicyclists travel is between L2 and 20 mph, roundabouts that are designed to constrain vehicle speeds to similar values will minimize the relative speeds between bicyclists and motorists, and thereby improve the safety and usability for bicyclists.
At multilane roundabouts, bike diversion and re-entry ramps are required per Section
10.4.5 Design for Bicyclists and Pedestrians Using Shared-Use Paths, NCHRP 1043. Bike Diversion and re-entry ramps are preferred at single lane roundabouts on an existing bike route. lf there is no existing bike route, bicyclists can be assumed to share the circulatory roadway with vehicles in single lane roundabouts.
Sldopall
&iler
a
a
a
a
a
ROUNDABOUTS City of Folsom XX-4
02/25/2025 Item No.9.
a
a
Exhibit LO.29, NCHRP 1043 illustrates staggered crosswalks at multilane roundabout exits.
The separation distance from the exit bullnose should be based on the type of crossing treatment and coordination with the City Engineer. A splitter island must be wide enough to contain the staggered refuge area with sufficient lateral clearance of 2ft. to curb face.
The City of Folsom follows the U.S. Access Board Public Right-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG), (September 2023)which permits the use of raised crosswalks, rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFB) in lieu of pedestrian hybrid beacons (PHB) at the discretion of the City Engineer. lf there are no existing pedestrian facilities at an intersection, the crosswalks should be built to allow for future connection as area sidewalks are added.
A. Categories of Roundabouts and Design Parameters
Categories of roundabouts include mini-roundabouts, single lane and multilane configurations.
The differences are mainly in circle size, with minis being the most compact while the largest circles, multilane designs, have at least two circulating lanes and multilane approaches or exits.
Mini roundabouts have traversable central islands while multilane roundabouts have large central island areas suitable for landscaping and place-making. This section presents each category of roundabout and the associated geometric design parameters. Refer to Section XX.6 for additional information on design parameters and design criteria. 1) MiniRoundabouts
Mini-Roundabouts, with traversable central islands are applicable in urban environments with speeds less than or equal to 30 mph. Placement of mini roundabouts in higher speed environments is feasible, but approach splitter islands must provide the compensating speed reduction that the circle size cannot afford. Longer raised splitter islands (>L00-ft.) with reverse curvature, curbs, and other features (e.g., advance signing, pavement markings, reflecting delineators, or illumination) are applicable in locations with approach speeds 35 mph and greater.
Mini-roundabouts have a raised fully traversable central island. A mini-roundabout can be a low-cost alternative to all-way stop control for improving intersection capacity and safety without the need for acquiring additional right of way. The suitability of a mini roundabout depends on:
1) Traffic Volumes < L5,000 ADT (summation of ADT for each roadway or total ADT entering the i ntersection)
2) Truck Volumes < 5%
Mini-roundabouts are typically defined by an inscribed circle diameter (lCD) of between 60 to L00 feet. The fully traversable central island and splitter islands allow larger vehicles to pass over the central island making left turns. Details of a mini-roundabout can be seen in PlateRB-01. This standard for mini-roundabouts is intended to be used where circulatory roadway paving is asphalt or concrete and approach speeds are 35 mph or less.
ROUNDABOUTS City of Folsom XX-5
02/25/2025 Item No.9.
I
Due to the smaller circle size, geometric entry path deflection at mini-roundabouts is more challenging, therefore, approach curvature typically governs entry speed, along with left offset of alignment for improved entry path deflection. This can be achieved through approach curuature (chicanes) and/or longer splitter islands. These features also contribute to recognition of the roundabout ahead so that drivers may decelerate in advance of the entry point. The majority of traffic should be able to pass through the mini-roundabout while staying within the circulatory roadway.
2l Single-Lane Roundabouts
Single-Lane Roundabouts have single-lane entry at all legs and one circulating lane. Single- lane roundabouts can include right-turn bypass lanes. Although they may be compact with a very small raised central island, they are distinguished from mini roundabouts by their non-traversable central island and larger inscribed circle diameter, typically within the range of 90 to L40 feet. The geometric design features include raised, curbed splitter islands with appropriate entry path deflection, a raised non-traversable central island, crosswalks, and a truck apron vertically separated from the circulatory roadway by a mountable curb. Figure XX illustrates the City's specifications and preferences regarding geometric design for a single-lane roundabout. Additionally, single lane roundabouts require traffic control devices that can be found on Figure RB-04.
The design of a single lane roundabout should have enough entry path deflection (geometric speed control) to create balanced speeds through the roundabout. The use of left offset of the approach alignment contributes to reduced speeds in advance of the entry line; this is especially important for compact roundabouts. lntersection capacity will be considered in the determination of a single or multi-lane roundabout. For additional information related to Multi-Lane Roundabouts, please reference the following section. For projects, an lntersection Control Evaluation (lCE) or roundabout feasibility analysis may be required as determined by the City Engineer.
Signs shall be mounted outside any areas traversable by vehicles. Figure XX displays signage for one approach of a typical single lane roundabout. Other approaches should be treated similarly.
3) Multi-LaneRoundabouts
Multi-Lane Roundabouts have at least one entry with two or more lanes and two or more corresponding circulating lanes. ln some cases, the roundabout may have a different number of lanes on one or more approaches (e.g., two-lane entries on the major street and one-lane entries on the minor street). Multilane roundabouts may have single lane approaches that flare from one to two or more lanes. Figure 2 illustrates alternative lane configurations for two-lane entries. The choice of lane configuration depends on the proportion of turning movements and their directions. The optimal two-lane configuration ROUNDABOUTS City of Folsom XX-6
02/25/2025 Item No.9.
will have the least number of conflict points between entering and circulating traffic.
Therefore, the lane configuration consisting of Left-Thru, Right-Only is optimal for safety while the other lane configuration versions may provide improved capacity but with measurable safety trade-off.
Left-Thru, Right-Only Left Only, Thru-Right
Left-Thru, Thru-Right Dual Lefts
Figure 2 - Lane Configuration Options for Two lane Entry lf a multilane roundabout design is warranted at build year plus ten (1-0) years, then a single lane roundabout or expandable roundabout may be used for the initial ten years.
Alternatively, although not recommended, it can be designed as a multi-lane roundabout, but striped and signed as a single-lane roundabout when initially opened to traffic. lnterim and ultimate lane configuration roundabout analysis may result in a preferred method of using future expandable design, The City's preference is for use of curbing, rather than striping the expandable design. lf a multi-lane roundabout is required for future build out, securing the right of way for the use of space is necessary for appropriate project planning.
Multilane roundabouts also accommodate passenger cars and buses traveling side by side.
The circulatory roadway lane widths are usually 12-ft. to 14-ft. wide to accommodate school and transit buses staying in lane. Large trucks do not need to travel in-lane in multilane roundabouts; moreover, when designs are enlarged for large trucks in lane, this has been for all users. The geometric design features are illustrated on
ROUNDABOUTS
shown to decrease safety
City of Folsom XX-7
02/25/2025 Item No.9.
Figure RB-07. When possible, restrict the use of full multilane designs by use of exclusive left-turn lanes and single lane exits. ln such cases, raised truck apron curbs are required for spiral designs. Additionally, multi-lane roundabouts require traffic control devices that can be found on Figure RB-08.
Signs shall be mounted outside any areas traversable by vehicles. Other approaches should be treated similarly.
XX.5 Roundabout Submittals and Approval
There are three distinct phases of roundabout geometric design that require appr:oval by the City of Folsom.
1) Concept Layouts with lntersection Capacity and/or potential interim conditions 2l Geometric Approval Drawings for all interim, if any, and ultimate conditions. 3) Final Design lmprovement Plans
The Roundabout Submittal Checklist at the end of this document (Section XX Roundabouts) shall be included with each submittal.
A. Conceptual Layouts
Roundabout conceptual layouts shall depict critical roundabout features and geometric design elements based on the initial roundabout operations and conformance requirements. Concept layouts may be prepared using readily available aerial imagery. The layouts shall include colored pavement markings consistent with the City of Folsom standard roundabout details. ln addition, the layouts shall identify landscape opportunities and potential sight line constraints based on estimated sight lines. Project constraints and right-of-way impacts shall be identified.
Conceptual layout submittals shall include the following elements:
A. Size and location of roundabout relative to right-of-way and geometric constraints.
B. Roadway realignments.
C. Approach and departure alignment.
D. Design speed, design vehicle, and sight line considerations. 1) Draft calculations are recommended to be conducted at this phase of concept refinement.
2) Final design check calculations shall be revised, as needed, with Geometric Approval Drawings and submitted with the request for geometric approval of the roundabout.
E. Local access impacts and circulation.
F. Travel paths for bicyclists and pedestrians.
G. Continuity for pedestrian travel and access to transit facilities.
H. Estimated functional area of intersection based on roundabout geometric features and roundabout design influence areas.
l. Number of approach, departure, and circulatory lanes.
ROUNDABOUTS City of Folsom XX.8
02/25/2025 Item No.9.
Channelization and striping strategies for circulating lanes and design vehicle accommodation.
Concepts shall demonstrate the engineer's consideration of roundabout placement and ability to achieve target safety performance measures required for geometric approval, pedestrian and vehicular site circulation, right-of-way, utilities, storm water treatment, environmental avoidance/mitigation areas, walls, monuments, topography, etc.
B. Geometric Approval
The Engineer shall prepare for approval Geometric Approval Drawings (GAD) and Performance Check calculations prior to establishing final roadway geometrics and right of way. Final design plans, specifications, right of way, etc. are considered at risk to change until GAD and accompanying Performance Checks are approved by the City. At a minimum, GAD plans shall extend to where improvements conform with existing street infrastructure or proposed street typical, whichever is less, but not be less than the functional area of the intersection based on roundabout geometric features and roundabout design influence areas defined by the Performance Checks.
Geometric approvaldrawing (GAD) submittals shall include the following elements:
A. Completed RoundaboutSubmittal Checklist
B. GAD Roll Plot
The format of the GAD deliverable shall be a single-sheet roll plot of the project area. All improvements shall be based on surveyed right of way boundary and topography. This roll plot shall include at a minimum the following:
1) Horizontal Layout
i. Horizontal control and project stationing with general, informational ca llouts and dimensions of the improvements' ii. ldentify the horizontal design limits of curb geometry, lane widths, channelization, lane transitions, pavement markings, sightlines, and right-of-way.
iii. Typical sections of each leg, the roundabout circulatory roadway, and central island.
iv. Linework for the existing utilities and preliminary drainage improvements
2) Vertical Layout
Coordination with the City may be necessary to determine the need for preliminary roadway profiles and grading of the roundabout based on existing site conditions and topography to geometric approval of the roundabout. lf vertical design information is deemed necessary, the following vertical elements are to be included:
ROUNDABOUTS City of Folsom XX-9
02/25/2025 Item No.9.
ffiffi&FT
t.
il.
iii.
Centerline and curb profiles.
Preliminary contour plan of the finished surface.
ldentify drainage patterns, right-of-way, sight line, and driver comfort issues.
C. Design Performance Checks
Design Performance checks specific to vehicles navigating roundabout intersections shall be calculated and documented in a technical memorandum. Roundabout curb geometry and lane markings shall be documented with supporting calculations, in a manner that demonstrates the roundabout achieves target design values for estimated speeds, vehicle paths of travel, and sight lines. lf site conditions or other constraints require a deviation from guidance described in NCHRP Report 1043 Chapter 9, NCHRP Report 1043 Appendix A, and Section XX.6 Design Criteria, the deviation shall be identified in the technical memorandum along with a description as to why the engineer is requesting a deviation. The following design checks shall be calculated and documented:
1) lnscribed Circle Diameter (lCD).
See Section XX.6 for design recommendations.
2l Design Vehicles.
a. The geometry of the roundabout shall be verified using AutoTURN, AutoTrack, or similar truck-turning template software that utilizes AASHTO 201-8 vehicle turn templates or approved equal.
b. Design designation of vehicles
i. Design
ii. Accommodate
c. Swept path and tire tracking for design vehicles.
d. Turning movements for each approach (left turn, through movement, and right turn) shall be presented as part ofthe conceptual and/or preliminary engineering design.
e. Speed of vehicle simulation. Specify if a set speed was used or identify the minimum speed and location if a simulation was used. t. U-turns may also be required by the City on a case-by-case basis.
Coordinate with the City Engineer for review and approval of the selected design vehicle and accommodation vehicle for each intersection.
g. lf oversized-overweight (OSOW) vehicles are anticipated, turning movement checks for OSOWs shall be included.
i. Consideration shall be given to OSOW for temporary
construction traffic of future development phases after construction of the roundabout.
ii. Assumptions for future construction traffic demand and alternative access for vehicles larger than the capacity of the roundabout shall be documented.
ROUNDABOUTS City of Folsom XX-10
02/25/2025 Item No.9.
ffiffi&FT
iii. Coordination with City staff is required.
3) Fastest path speed performance checks (R1 - R5).
a. The spline technique for path and arc measurements shall be according to the NCHRP Research Report 1.043, Appendix A.
b. The node placement of the spline creation shall be checked to avoid an improper spline path.
4l lntersection Sight Distance.
a. lntersection sight distance shall be drawn according to the NCHRP Research Report 1,043, Chapter 9.5.
i. Design headway, t. shall be assumed as 5.0 seconds.
b. NCHRP Research Report 1043, Appendix A.2 shall be referenced for supplemental guidance related to roundabout intersection sight distance.
5) Stopping Sight Distance.
a. Entry and Exit Path Overlap for multilane roundabouts. (Refer to Appendix A.3)
b. Wisconsin DOT Facilities Development Manual, Section 30.5.18 shall be referenced for guidance on checking for path overlap within multi-lane roundabouts.
c. Tangent checks shall be performed, which requires pavement markings. 6) Visibility-to-left (View Angle). (See Figure XX - Entering Vehicle Sight Angle) a. Angles greater than l05-degrees will not be accepted.
D. PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, AND ESTIMATE
ln addition to the plans content identified in Section L4.2.L, for roundabout intersections the additional plans content and sheets shall include but not be limited to the following:
o Main alignment and sub-alignments to place splitter islands and the central island o Grading design plans consisting of pavement elevations called-out along edge of pavement and toe of truck apron (central island) at 10ft. intervals or at grade breaks and transitions.
o The maximum rate of change between cross-slopes should not exceed 0.5% measured in any 25 ft interval
e Cross slopes between t.So/o and 2.5Yo are preferred
o Vertical profiles for each sub-alignment or splitter islands, outside edge of pavement and toe of truck apron (central island)
o Pedestrian crossing and bicycle path/facility plans details and grading detail in accordance with NCHRP L043
o Pavement marking layout, fully dimensioned for use in annual maintenance r Composite sight line exhibit with proposed landscape and hardscape features. o Mature Plant Heights
o Low lmpact Development (LlD)features
o Stormwater Treatment
ROUNDABOUTS City of Folsom XX-11
02/25/2025 Item No.9.
ffi}#q&ffiY
o Artwork
o Monument Signs
o Walls
o Fences
o Signs and Poles within lntersection Sight Lines
XX.5 Design Criteria
Roundabout design uses a performance-based decision-making approach. Clear definitions and intended project outcomes are determined prior to design to establish performance measures used to evaluate the designs. Roundabout design is an iterative process aimed at optimizing the geometry to be in accordance with performance targets. Performance targets consist of speed control, sight distance, path alignment, design vehicle consideration, and multimodal accommodations. Deviations from typical parameters in roundabout designs are anticipated such that the performance checks used to evaluate the design are met.
TABTE XX.1
Geometric Des n Criteria
Mini Roundabout 60ft. to 100ft.
Single lane roundabout 90ft. to 140ft
Multilane roundabout 150-220 ft
ICD Size
Design Vehicle: STAA, California Trucks
Check Vehicle: OSOW based on single trip permit records Travel Way Stay-in-Lane: BUS-45.
Design Vehicle
Single-lane: 16-20 ft
Two-lane: 28-32ft
Three-lane: 42-48ft
Circulatory Roadway
width
65ft. to 110ft. depending on truck space requirement and geometric speed controlEntry Radius
200 to 500ft. depending on design variables and project objectivesExit Radius Entry Width Based on design vehicles and geometric speed control requirements Based on design vehicles and geometric speed control requirementsExit Width Landscaped Buffer
width
2 ft minimum
5 ft preferred
Buffer not required adjacent to right-turn bypass lanes 8 ft minimum
10-12 ft preferredMulti-Use Path Widths
Center lsland
Treatment
3.5-6 ft mound.
Slope not to exceed 6:1 (H:V) Landscaped
Straddle Lanes: STAA, California Trucks, and OSOW.
Stay-in-Lane: BUS-45.
Refer to Design Vehicles section for more information
Side-by-Side Vehicle
Accommodations
Entry: 80 ft. minimum
Exit: 40-60 ft (see NCHRP 1043, Exhibit A.18)
Entry and Exit
Tangents (multilane
path overlap tangents)
(,,i :ir,l|rli iltil,',
ROUNDABOUTS City of Folsom XX-12
02/25/2025 Item No.9.
DRAFT
TABTE XX.2
Fastest Path rons
TABLE XX,3
Fastest Path Assum ns and Methodo
TABTE XX.4
si ht DistanceSto
Speed Estimation
Equation
Calculated using Equation 3-8 in AASHTO Greenbook. Superelevation assumed tobe2%/-2%. Side-friction factor interpolated from Table 3-7 in AASHTO Greenbook.
Deceleration Equation Vr = Entry Speed
V2 = Circulatory Speed
AI2 -- deceleration , -4.2ft/s2
d12 = dist. between V1 and V2
Vrpbo*
(L.47V)z * 2a12dpv, = *inf L
t-
It'+t
,, - **1"' Ivt = minl ,r
-I
l-.J''^l@ffi)
Vs = Exit Speed
Vz = Circulatory Speed
Aza = occeleration, 6.9ft/sz
dzs = dist. between Vz and Vg
Acceleration Equation
Maximum Fastest Path
Entry Speeds
Single-lane entry: 23 mph preferred, 25 mph max
Multi-lane entry: 28 mph preferred, 30 mph max
Bypass Lane (free right turn lane) 25 mph max/ 20 mph operating speed 10-15 mph between consecutive geometric elementsSpeed Consistency Fastest Path Offset
Distances
5 ft from a raised curb face
5 ft from roadway centerline of opposing lanes
3 ft from painted edge line
6s-80 ftLength of Radii to
Measure Best-Fit Curve
NCHRP 1043 Exhibits 9.7 and 9.8Fastest Path Spline
Construction Technique
d=SSD,ft
t = perception-reaction time, 2.5 s
V = design speed, mph
a = deceleration, LL.2tt/s2
Vz
d=1.47Vt+1.075-o
Stopping Sight Distance
Equation
ROUNDABOUTS City of Folsom
uations
XX-13
02/25/2025 Item No.9.
DRAFT
Stoppi
TABTE XX.s
Distance Assum ions and Methodol es
lntersection S
TABTE XX.G
ht Distance tsD uations
lntersection
Angle of Visibi
TABTE XX.7
Distance (lSD)Assum
TABTE XX.8
ons and
s and Methodol es
es
Driver-Eye and Object
Heights
Driver-eye height = 3.5 ft
Objectheight=2ft
Approach SSD V assumed to be based on posted speed limit or approach geometry Circulating SSD SSD for V4 speed
Exit SSD SSD for V5 speed
Vcirc = Va conflicting speed
te = critical headway, 5.0s bz = l,4TVsbstsCirculating Leg Length ISD at Yield Line Length of approach leg assumed to be 14.5 ft from yield line for br and bz distances
ISD in Advance of Yield
Line
Length of approach leg set at 50 feet maximum and length conflicting leg limited to 50 feet
View Angle (See Figure
XX - Entering Vehicle
Sieht Anele)
75-degrees minimum. The view angle of the entering vehicle is checked to ensure that a driver at the yield line, turning their head no more than L05 degrees, can see any oncoming entering or circulating vehicles.
Preferable for approaches to intersect at perpendicular or near- perpendicular intersection angles to improve entry speeds and design vehicle paths
lntersection Angle
View Angle between the trajectory of the vehicle and line of sight for a driver (14.5 ft behind the entrance line) to see an oncoming vehicle Design Check
Assumption
ROUNDABOUTS City of Folsom XX-14
02/25/2025 Item No.9.
DRAFT
TABLE XX.9
Pedestrian S ht Lines
Pedestrian Sight Line
Provide sight distance for a pedestrian to see a driver entering the roundabout, making a through movement and driving a fastest-path (or operating speed) alignment through the roundabout. Providing the minimum sight distance allows the pedestrian to cross at normal walking speeds with adequate time to clear the crosswalk before the advancing vehicle arrives.
ROUNDABOUTS City of Folsom xx-L5
02/25/2025 Item No.9.
Roundabout Submittal Checklist
City
Reviewer
Initials
Design Concepts will be prepared based on conformonce requirements with the existing roadwoys. Concept loyouts will be developed that depict vorious intersection traffic control options ond combinations to visuolize the impocts to existing occess, erotions, elements, ond to uontities to o level le construction costs.
A roved Date
Geometric Approval Drawings
Develop preliminory engineering drowings ond design check colculations to obtain geometric approval of the preferred concept. Preliminary engineering plons ore assumed to extend to the point where the improvements conform with existing street infrostructure or proposed street typicol section, whichever is less.
Horizontal & Check Calculations
Prelimina Vertical
A roved Date
Final Des
Date:Project Name:
Submittallntersection
Designer
lnitialsConcept Development and Refinement
Size and location of intersection relative to right-of-way and geometric constraints Roadway realignments
Approach and departure alignment
Design speed, design vehicle, and sight line considerations Local access impacts and circulation
Truck turning evaluation using AutoTURN
Travel paths for bicycllsts and pedestrians
Continuity for pedestrian travel and access to transit facilities Estimated functionalarea of intersection based on geometricfeatures and design influence areas ldentify the number of approach, departure, and circulatory lanes Channelization and striping strategies for circulating lanes and deslgn vehicle accommodation ldentify the horizontal design limits of curb geometry, lane widths, channelization, lane transitions, pavement markings, and siehtlines
Create typical sections of each leg, the roundabout circulatory roadway, and central island Calculate and document:
Fastest path estimation for R1 through R5
Swept path and tire tracking for design vehicles (Various deslgn vehicles) Intersection angle of visibility
lntersection Sight Distance (Assume tc=5.0 seconds)
Stoppins Sight Dista nce
estimation for multi-lane entries and dPath overla
Centerline and curb
res
les
Preliminarv contour plan of the finished surface
ldentify drainage patterns, right-of-way, sight line, and driver comfort issues Final Horizontal and Vertical Designs
Composite sight line exhibit with proposed landscape and hardscape features (mature plant heights, artwork, monument signs, walls, fences, signs and poles within intersection sight lines) lllumination map / Photometric plan
Final design check calculations
ROUNDABOUTS
proved
City of Folsom
Date:
XX-16
02/25/2025 Item No.9.
DRAFT
ROUNDABOUTS City of Folsom xx-t7
02/25/2025 Item No.9.
Attachment 3
Kimley-Horn Folsom Roundabout Drawings
02/25/2025 Item No.9.
CONC. SIDEWALK,
8'' THICK, TYP.
BUFFER COLORED AND
STAMPED CONCRETE A
TYPE 2 CURB AND GUTTER PER CITY
OF FOLSOM STANDARD PLANS RD-01 OPTIONAL
PARKING LANECIRCULATORY ROADWAY
CITY OF FOLSOM
MINI ROUNDABOUT:
P HYSI CAL CHARACTE RISTI CS
SCALE:
DATE: RB-01_
MOUNTABLE CENTRAL ISLAND
WITH TYPE RA CURB AND
GUTTER DETAIL PER RB-20 IOINTING PATTERN
RAISED SPLITTER ISLAND WITH
TYPE 5 CURB PER CITY OF
FOLSOM STANDARD PLAN RD-01
ADA COMPLIANT CURB RAMP
PER CITY OF FOLSOM
STANDARD PLAN RD-04
RAISED SPLITTER ISLAND WITH
TYPE 5 CURB PER CITY OF FOLSOM
STANDARD PLAN RD.O1
NOTES:
THIS DETAIL REPRESENTS THE BASE
OPTIONS AVAILABLE IN DESIGN AS
PROPOSED BYTHE ENGINEER ON
RECORD. THIS IS NOT MEANTTO BE
AN EXHAUSTIVE OR COMPREHENSIVE
LIST OF FEATURES, BUT RATHER A
BASE REQUIREMENT.
DRAFT
02/25/2025 Item No.9.
CITY OF FOLSOM
MlNl ROUNDABOUT: DETAILS
RB-02SCALE:
DATE:
tNscRtBED DTAMETER (45-90 FT)
SIDEWALK
AND BUFFER
VARIES 16'
Fuloo
-6
F3z.zul(Jo
e.
CENTRAL ISLAND CIRCULATORY
ROADWAY
10,' PLAIN PC CONCRETE
CL3 CONCRETE, STAMPED
AND COLORED
CONC. SIDEWALK,
8.,THICK
BUFFER
ROUN DABOUT TYPICAL SECTION
TYPE RA CURB AND GUTTER
DETAIL PER RB-20
N.T.S TYPE 2 CURB AND
GUTTER CITY OF FOLSOM
STANDARD PLAN RD-01
TYPE 5 CURB PER CITY OF FOLSOM
STANDARD PLAN RD-01
12' 12.s',
I ro.s' - I
CROSSWALK
6, MIN, TO PROVIDE
DETECTABLE WARNING
MINIMIJM
RAISED SPLITTER ISLAND
INSET ''A''
N.T.S.
SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
GUIDANCE AND PROVISIONS
OF THESE DISPLAYS, THE CITY
REQUIRES THE SUBMISSION
OF A SET OF DESIGN CHECKS
THAT INCLUDES:
1, DESIGN VEHICLE SWEPT PATHS
2. GEOMETRIC SPEED CHECKS
3. SIGHT DISTANCE CHECKS
AT CENTER OF
CENTRAL ISLAND
TYPE RA CURB AND GUTTER
DETAIL PER RB-20
ABC
T-
t
CENTRAL ISLAND
INSET ''B''
N.T.S.
1..
GENERAL NOTES
MINI-ROUNDABOUTS - DUE TO THE SMALLER CIRCLE
SIZE. GEOMETRIC ENTRY PATH DEFLECTION AT
MINI-ROUNDABOUTS IS MORE CHALLENGING,
THEREFORE, APPROACH CURVATU RE TYPICALLY
GOVERNS ENTRY SPEED, ALONG WITH LEFT OFFSET,
DEFLECTION CAN BE ACHIEVED THROUGH APPROACH
CURVATURE (CHICANES) AND/OR LONGER SPLITTER
ISLANDS. THESE FEATURES ALSO CONTRIBUTE TO
RECOGNITION OF THE ROUNDABOUT AHEAD SO THAT
DRIVERS MAY DECELERATE IN ADVANCE OF THE ENTRY
POINT.
USE THIS STANDARD FOR MINI ROUNDABOUTS WHERE
CIRCULATORY ROADWAY PAVING IS ASPHALT OR
CONCRETE AND APPROACH SPEEDS ARE <35 MPH.
SEE INSET ''A'' FOR SPLITTER ISLAND DIMENSIONS3.
$'
v
0s% _ 2%
t2
DR/[FT
02/25/2025 Item No.9.
@@ @ o@
w2-6
30" x 30"
R1-6 12" x 36"
FLUORESCENT
YELLOW-GREEN
Mlrml
LT_J
,dlll'L*
m
R4-7
24" x 30"
w11-2, W16-7p
30" x 30", 24" x 12"
R1-2
35"x36"x36"
*OPTIONAL
LOCATION
q
TYPE I 1O'-O'' ARROW
PER CALTRANS
STANDARD PLANS A24A
ON STREET PARKING
WHERE APPLICABLE
SHARED ROADWAY BICYCLT
MARKING PER CALTRANS
STANDARD PLAN A24C
DETAIL 27 PER CALTRANS
STANDARD PLANS A2OB
DETAIL 278 PER CALTRANS
STANDARD PLANS A2OB
PAVEMENT MARKING
HATCHING
CITY OF FOLSOM
M IN I ROU N DABOUT:
SIGNING AND MARKING
SCALE:
DATE: RB-03
75 MIN.
ENTRANCE LINE
DETAIL PER RB-19 DETAIL 278 PER CALTRANS
STANDARD PLANS 42OB
DETAIL 25 PER CALTRANS
STANDARD PLANS A2OB
CROSSWALK DETAIL
PER RB-19
NOTES:
THIS DETAIL IS INTENDED TO
PROVIDE SOME GUIDANCE ON
DESIGN AND CONFORM RELATED TO
STREET CROSS SECTIONS, BICYCLE
AND PEDESTRIAN INTERFACE,
ON-STREET PARKING, AND STRIPING.
IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE
DESIGN ENGINEER TO ADEQUATELY
DESIGN THOSE COMPONENTS TO
ADDRESS SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS.
DRAFT
02/25/2025 Item No.9.
CITY OF FOTSOM
SI NG LE-LAN E ROU N DABOUT:
P HYSI CAL CHARACTE RISTI CS
SCALE:
DATE: RB-04
DETECTABLE WARNING STRIP
BUFFER WITH ADA COMPLIANT
DETECTABILITY
LANDSCAPED CENTRAL ISLAND
MOUNDED AT 6:1
INSCRIBED CIRCLE DIAMETER
(rcD) 90'To 180'
TRUCK APRON 10'TO 14' FOC
DEPARTURE WIDTH 16, MIN.
(18' FOC) 12' rF CURBED ONE slDE
10'SHARED USE PATH
TYPE 5 CURB PER CITY OF FOLSOM
STANDARD PLANS RD.O].
LANDSCAPE BUFFER 2. (UNVEGETATED)
TYPE RA CURB AND GUTTER DETAIL
PER RB.2O
TRUCK BLISTER {4'' HEIGHT)
CIRCULATORY ROAD 18.TO 20' FOC
CROSSWALK 20'-25'
FROM YIELD LINE
PEDESTRIAN CROSSING MIN.
PEDESTRIAN REFUGE:6'
8:1 TAPER
EXIT BIKE RAMP
DETAIL PER RB-22
ENTRY BIKE RAMP
DETAIL PER RB-21
>50'TO CROSSWALK OR
<1OO'TO YIELD LINE
ENTRY RADIUS 40, - 90.
ryPE 2 CURB AND GUTTER PER CITY OF
FOLSOM STANDARD PLANS RD-01
LIGHTING IN COMPLIANCE WITH IES
RP.8-14, IES 19-08. POLES SHOULD BE
PLACED FOR VERTICAL LUMINANCE
AND POSITIVE CONTRAST. PUE FOR
STREETLIGHT PLACEM ENT BEHIND
SIDEWALK MAY BE REQUIRED.
EXIT WIDTH 16' MIN.
(18' FACE oF CURB (FOC))
R = 3'TYP.
SPLITTER ISLAND
MtN.4' FOC
TYPE 5 CURB PER CITY
OF FOLSOM STANDARD
PLANS RD-o1
SHARED ROADWAY BICYCLE
MARKING PER CALTRANS
STANDARD PLAN A24C (OPTIONAL)
ENTRY WrDTH 16' MrN> (18'FOC)
R = 1'TYP
APPROACH WTDTH 16'MlN. (18'FOC) 12'lF
CURBED ONE SIDE WITH PAVED SHOULDER
NOTES:
THIS DETAIL REPRESENTS THE BASE
OPTIONS AVAILABLE IN DESIGN AS
PROPOSED BYTHE ENGINEER ON
RECORD. THIS IS NOT MEANT TO BE
AN EXHAUSTIVE OR
COMPREHENSIVE LIST OF FEATURES,
BUT RATHER A BASE REQUIREMENT.
DRAFT
02/25/2025 Item No.9.
CITY OF FOTSOM
SI NGLE-LAN E ROUN DABOUT:
DETAILS
RB-05SCALE:
DATE:
CENTRAL ISLAND TRUCK APRON
VARIES
6;1 (TYP r% (TYP.)
t%ro2%
rN. 14
2%FYP.\
12' - 76'VARIES
1% (rYP.)
7%TO2%
6:1 (TYP.)
CENTER OF ROUNDABOUT
CENTRAL ISLAND
18" x %" DlA. DEFORMED
TrE BARS 18" C. TO C.
GRADED AGGREGATE BASE
TYPE RA CURB AND
GUTTER DETAIL PER RB-20
COLORED AND STAMPED CONCRETE
PAVEMENT, 10" TYP. SLAB THICKNESS
CIRCULATORY ROADWAY TYPICAL BORDER AREA
ASPHALT PAVEMENT SIDEWALKS 5'. 10'
BUFFER, 6' PREFERRED, 2'
MIN. SOD OR CONCRETE,
OMAHATAN
TYPE 2 CURB AND GUTTER
PER CITY OF FOLSOM
STANDARD PLANS RD-01
PRINCIPLES:
SINGLE LANE AND COMPACT
ROUNDABOUTS . THE DESIGN
OF A SINGLE LANE
ROUNDABOUT SHOULD HAVE
ENOUGH ENTRY PATH
DEFLECTION TO CREATE
BALANCED SPEEDS THROUGH
THE ROUNDABOUT. THE USE
OF LEFT OFFSET HELPS IN
REDUCING SPEEDS IN
ADVANCE OF THE ENTRY
LINE; THlS lS ESPECIALLY
IMPORTANT FOR COMPACT
ROUNDABOUTS,
18" x %" DlA.
DEFORMED TIE
BARS 18" C. TO C.
TYPE 5 CURB PER CITY
OF FOLSOM STANDARD
PLANS RD-01
6'MAX HEIGHT
ABOVE TOP OF CURB
GEOMETRY DEFINITIONS:
1. INSCRIBED CIRCLE DIAMETER: MEASURE OF THE
SIZE OF A ROUNDABOUT. GOVERNED BY NUMBER
OF ENTRY AND EXIT LANES, SIZE OF DESIGN
VEHICLE, AND PROPERTY CONSTRAINTS,
2. CIRCULATORY ROAD: THE MINIMUM WIDTH lS
GENERALLY EQUAL TO THE WIDEST ENTRY.
3. LANDSCAPED CENTRAL ISLAND: A CENTRAL NON-- oVTnNUru AREA. SIGHTLINES SHALL BE MAINTAINED AROUND THE OUTSIDE, BUT BLOCKEq THROUG_H THE
MIDDLE USING MOUNDING AND LANDSCAPING.
4. TRUCK APRON: A TRAVERSABLE AREA FOR TRUCKS
NECESSARY FOR SINGLE-LANE ROUNDABOUTS TO
AVOID A VERY WIDE CIRCULATORY ROAD OR SMALL
CENTRAL ISLAND. COLOR SHOULD BE SUNSET ROSE.
5. ENTRY RADIU: THE SMALLEST CURB RADIUS BEFORE
OR AT THE YIELD LINE. NOT THE SAME AS ENTRY
PATH RADIU OR DEFLECTION.
6. ENTRY WIDTH: WIDTH AT THE ROUNDABOUT
ENTRANCE. MEASURED TO CURB FACE. MUST
BE SIZED TO ACCOMODATE DESIGN VEHICLE,
YET NOT BE OVERLY WIDE AT SINGLE-LANE
ROUNDABOUTS. THE DISTANCE OVER WHICH
THE APPROACH WIDENS TO THE ENTRY IS THE
FLARE LENGTH.
7- EXIT WIDTH: WIDTH AT THE ROUNDABOUT EXIT,
MEASURED TO CURB FACE, EXIT WIDTH SHOULD
BE AS WIDE AS THE CIRCULATORY ROADWAY
THEN TAPERED DOWNSTREAM.
8. SPLITTER ISLAND: DIRECTS DRIVERS TO
CI RCU LATE COU NTER-CLOCKWISE, AND
PROVIDES REFUGE AREA FOR PEDESTRIANS.
9. PEDESTRIAN CRoSSING: TWO-STAGE CROSSING
LOCATED ONE TO TWO CAR LENGTHS
Q5'-4O'ON EXITS lF STAGGERED) BEHIND THE
VrElo r-lrtE.
lO.DETECTABLE WARNING STRIP: PLACED
PERPENDICULAR TO THE TRAVEL WAY.
11.TRUCK BLISTER: MAY BE NECESSARY AT OUTSIDE
CURB RADIITO ACCOMODATE LARGER DESIGN
VEHICLES. STEPPED CURB HEIGHT SHALL BE 4".
CONCRETE SURFACE TO BE THE SAME AS THE
TRUCK APRON IN DEPTH AND COLOR.
TRUCK BLISTER SHOULD NOT PASS
THORUGH CROSSWALKS.
SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
GUIDANCE AND PROVISIONS
OF THESE DISPLAYS, THE CITY
REQUIRES THE SUBMISSION
OF A SET OF DESIGN CHECKS
THAT INCLUDES:
1. DESIGN VEHICLE SWEPT PATHS
2, GEOMETRIC SPEED CHECKS
3. SIGHT DISTANCE CHECKS
DRAFT
02/25/2025 Item No.9.
R6-1R
@
ENTRANCE LINE
DETAIL PER RB-19
*APPROACH DIRECTIONAL SIGNAGE
WITH STREET NAMES IS REQUIRED,
SUBJECTTO REVIEWAND
APPROVAL BY THE CITY OF FOLSOM
R6-1R MOUNTED 4'ABOVE
PAVEMENT SURFACE TO
THE BOTTOM OF THE SIGN
TRUCK BLISTER . ENGINEERING
JUDGEMENT IS TYPICALLY USED
FOR R1-2 PLACEMENT
CROSSWALK DETAIL
PER R8.19
- SIGN NO WIDER THAN 48',
- D1-1e MAY BE USED FOR ROADS
THAT SHARE A ROUTE NUMBER
. M.SERIES SIGNS MAY BE USED
FOR STATE ROUTES
- D1-1 DETAIL 278 PER CALTRANS
STANDARD PLANS A2OB@
R1-2
- RIGHT.SIDE ASSEMBLY ORIENTED
PERPENDICULAR TO CURB LINE
. OPTIONAL LEFT-SIDE ASSEMBLY
ORIENTED BASED ON UPSTREAM
STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE VISIBILIW
. PLACE AS APPROPRIATE FOR
cRosstNG
- SIGN COLOR SHOULD BE
FLUORESCENT YELLOW-GREEN
- R1-5 SERIES SIGN SHOULD NOT
BE USED AS A REPLACEMENT
w11-2
w16-7P v
DETAIL 39A PER CALTRANS
STANDARD PLANS A2OD
T,,1
o_
PLACE ONLY WHERE BIKE
LANE IS DESIGNATED
R3-17
R3-17bP
R3-17
E
Iflcll
24'' YELLOW TRANS LINE
PLACE 10'FROML
SPLTTTER TSLAND NOSE
I
R4-7
oM1-3-18
m - ASSEMBLY USED WHEN
APPROACH SPEED IS 40 MPH OR
GREATER OR THE YIELD SIGN IS
NOT READILY VISIBLE
- PLACE ACCORDING TO TABLE
2C-4 IN MUTCD USING O MPH FOR
CONDITION B
. ADD A SECOND W2-6 2OO' MIN.
BEFORE THE D1.5 IF A
HORIZONTAL OR VERTICAL CURVE
RESTRICTS SIGHT DISTANCE
. W13-1P CAN RANGE FROM
15 - 25 MPH
a
DETAIL 25 PER CALTRANS
STANDARD PLANS A2OB
m
w2-6
w13-1P
- R2-1 CAN BE OMrrrED wHEN--l
SPEED LrMrrs ARE CONSISTENT l-
oN ALLAPPROACHES _-l
R2-1
lm_ffi-l
lllj
DETAIL 278 PER CALTRANS
STANDARD PLANS A2OB
NOTES:
THIS DETAIL IS INTENDED TO
PROVIDE SOME GUIDANCE ON
DESIGN AND CONFORM RELATED TO
STREET CROSS SECTIONS, BICYCLE
AND PEDESTRIAN INTERFACE,
ON-STREET PARKING, AND STRIPING,
IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE
ENGINEER TO ADEQUATELY DESIGN
THOSE COMPONENTS TO ADDRESS
SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS.
CITY OF FOTSOM
SI NGLE-LAN E ROU N DABOUT:
SIGNING AND MARKING
SCALE:
DATE: RB-06DRAFT
tttu t\$t
fii. !
t>r;;
tllt\
02/25/2025 Item No.9.
INSCRIBED CIRCLE DIAMETER
(rcD) 1s0'ro 200'
LANDSCAPED CENTRAL ISLAND
MOUNDED AT 6:1
DETECTABLE WARNING STRIP
TRUCK APRON 10'TO 14, FOC
BUFFER WITH ADA
COMPLIANT DETECTABILITY
EXIT BIKE RAMP
DETAIL PER RB-22
TYPE RA CURB AND
GUTTER DETAIL PER RB-20
10'SHARED USE PATH
SPLITTER ISLAND
MrN.4' FOC
LANDSCAPE BUFFER
2.(UNVEGETATED)
CIRCULATORY ROAD 11'
TO 12' STRI PE-TO-STRIPE
cRosswALK 20'-25'
FROM YIELD LINE
CITY OF FOTSOM
M U LTI-LAN E ROUN DABOUT:
PHYSI CAL CHARACTERISTI CS
RB-07SCALE:
DATE:
8:1 TAPER
ENTRY BIKE RAMP
DETAIL PER RB-21
PEDESTRIAN CROSSING
MIN. PEDESTRIAN
REFUGE:6'
5'WIDE
BUFFER
ENTRY RADIUS 1OO' CIRCULATING EXIT BUFFER
STRIPING DETAIL PER R8.19
LIGHTING IN COMPLIANCE WITH IES
RP-8-14, IES 19-08, POLES SHOULD BE
PLACED FOR VERTICAL LUMINANCE
AND POSITIVE CONTRAST, PUE FOR
STREETLIGHT PLACEMENT BEHIND
SIDEWALK MAY BE REQUIRED.
TYPE 2 CURB AND GUTTER PER CITY
OF FOLSOM STANDARD PLANS RD-01
lOO.RADIUS
ENTRY WTDTH 28' MlN. (30' FOC)
EXIT WIDTH 28' MIN.
(30' FACE oF CURB (FoC)) R = l.'TYP
R = 3'TYP.
80' BUFFER LENGTH
4.WIDE BUFFER, 1'O,C.
DEPARTURE WIDTH
22'MrN. (24'FOC) 20' BUFFER TRANSITION LENGTH
APPROACH WTDTH 28' MlN. (30' FOC) 24' lF
CURBED ONE SIDE WITH PAVED SHOULDER
NOTES:
THIS DETAIL REPRESENTS THE
BASE OPTIONS AVAILABLE IN
DESIGN AS PROPOSED BY THE
ENGINEER ON RECORD. THIS IS
NOT MEANT TO BE AN
EXHAUSTIVE OR COMPREHENSIVE
LIST OF FEATURES, BUT RATHER A
BASE REQUIREMENT.
DRAFT
I
1 b
:uf'
/ \
a
I
a
_,i-
I
,'
tI
\
t -,r''"
,i I
02/25/2025 Item No.9.
- SIGNS SHOULD BE NO WIDER
THAN 48"
- Dl-1E MAY BE USED FOR ROADS
THAT SHARE A ROUTE NUMBER
D1-1
@ MOUNTED 4'ABOVE
PAVEMENT SURFACE TO
THE BOTTOM OF THE SIGN
R6-1R
E@t
ENTRANCE LINE DETAIL PER RB-19
- RIGHT-SIDE ASSEMBLY ORIENTED
PERPENDICULAR TO CURB LINE
- LEFT.SIDE SIGN POSITION BASED O
STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE
REPEAT R3-8 SERIES SIGN (OPTIONAL)
MUTCD SIGNAGE SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND
APPROVAL BY THE CITY ENGINEER
NOTES:
THIS DETAIL IS INTENDED TO PROVIDE SOME
GUIDANCE ON DESIGN AND CONFORM RELATED TO
STREET CROSS SECTIONS, BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN
INTERFACE, ON-STREET PARKING, AND STRIPING. IT
15 THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE DESIGN ENGINEER
TO ADEQUATELY DESIGN THOSE COMPONENTS TO
ADDRESS SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS.
'f Peonia St
E 6th Ave *
D1-3d
v
(tlo
R1-2
DETAIL PER RB-19
ENTRY BUFFER STRIPING
PLACE SIGN ON ENTRYTO
PREVENT TRUCK.CAR CONFLICT
R3-17
R3-17bP
- R3-8 SICN SHOULD NOT BE
PLACED NEAR THE FIRST
PAVEMENT MARKI NG ARROWS
- SIGNS MAY BE REPEATED
R3-8
SERIES
- 1OO.MIN.,2OO' MAX, SET BACK
FROM YIELD POINT
- D1-2d CAN BE USED FOR
ROUNDABOUTS WITH 3 LEGS
(USE ONLY ON COLLECTOR
AND ARTERIAL ROADS)
CITY OF FOTSOM
MULTI-LANE ROUNDABOUT
SIGNING AND MARKING
RB-08SCALE:
DATE:
CROSSWALK DETAIL
PER R8.19
DETAIL 40 PER CALTRANS
STANDARD PLANS A2OD
stG N NO W
D1 1e MAY
THAT SHAR E
. PLACE AS APPROPRIATE FOR
cRossrNG
- SIGN COLOR SHOULD BE
FLUORESCENT YELLOW-GREEN
- R1-5 SERIES SIGN SHOULD NOT
BE USED AS A REPLACEMENT
w11-2
w16-7P
R3-17
EEllt ffl
DETAIL 25 PER CALTRANS
STANDARD PLANS A2OB
DETAIL 9 PER CALTRANS
5TANDARD PLANS A2OA
- R2-1cAN BE oMtrrED WHENI E
SPEED LIMITS ARE CONSISTENT l- R2-1
oN ALL APPROACHES
__l
DETAIL 278 PER CALTRANS
STANDARD PLANS A2OB
PLACE 10'FROML
sPLTTTER TSLAND NoSE_l
R4-7
oM1-3-18
mt
- ASSEMBLY USED WHEN
APPROACH SPEED IS 40 MPH OR
GREATER OR THE YIELD SIGN IS
NOT READILY VISIBLE
. PLACE ACCORDING TO TABLE
2C-4 IN MUTCD USING O MPH FOR
CONDITION B
- ADD A SECOND W2-5 2OO' MIN.
BEFORE THE D1-5 IF A
HORIZONTAL OR VERTICAL CURVE
RESTRICTS SIGHT DISTANCE
. W13-1P CAN RANGE FROM
15 - 25 MPH
w2-6
w13-1P
DRAFT
02/25/2025 Item No.9.
CITY OF FOTSOM
M U LTI-LANE ROUN DABOUT:
ENTRY DESIGN
RB-09SCALE:
DATE:
METHOD FOR CHECKING PATH OVERLAY
A-T
B.T
c-T
ANGENT TO ENTRY CURVE
ANGENT TO PAINT LINE
ANGENT TO EXIT CURVE
/ \
\
I
I
I
I
A I
/TYPICALLY 5.
\ c
OPTIMAL TANGENT
POINT NEAR YIELD LINE B
\
\-
--TANGENT SHOULD
EXTEND TO ENTRY
LANE LINE
TANGENT SHOULD
EXTEND TO ENTRY
ENTRY DESIGN TO MINIMIZE PATH OVERLAP
/^
\
\
\
\
/
I \
I
I
I
/\
LARGE RADIUS
SMALL RADIUS
I \-
--/
\
TO BE UPDATED BASED ON
MULTI-LANE BUFFER DESIGN
DRAFT
rt=
lrt=
NATURAL PATHS OF
VEHICLES DIRECTED
INTO PROPER
CIRCULATORY LANES
AT YIELD LINE
02/25/2025 Item No.9.
5 R1
GENERAL NOTE: DESIGN
SHOWN IS TYPICAL FOR
ILLUSTRATION ONLY.
APPROXIMATELY 165.
FROM THE ICD
LEFT OFFSET
R4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
5 s' (sEE
rNSET A)
5'
CITY OF FOTSOM
SINGLE-LAN E ROUN DABOUT:
FAST PATHS
RB-10SCALE:
DATE:
I
I
I
65,
8O
3' TO PAINTED CENTER-LINE
WHEN THERE IS NO SPLITTER
ISLAND AT 165'
R3
R5 \
I
THROUGH
R2
RIGHT-TURN
LEFT-TURN 5
NOTE: OFFSET DIMENSIONS ARE
FROM FACE OF CURB
NOTES:
1.. R1, R2, R3 PATH TO FOLLOW NATURALSPLINE.
2. GEOMETRIC ENTRY SPEED USUALLY
GOVERNED BY R1 RADIUS, BUT MAY BE
GOVERNED BY R5 RADIUS.
3. ON DESIGNS THAT CANNOT ACHIEVE
DEFLECTION USING CENTRAL ISLAND AND
APPROACH ALIGNMENT OFFSET TO THE
LEFT OF CENTER-LINE, ADD REVERSE
CURVES ON THE APPROACH SPLITTER
ISLAND. SEPARATED BY A SHORT
TANGENT SOFT TO IOOFT. APPROACH
CURVE RADII TO BE SIZED USING AASHTO
TABLE 3-13, LOW SPEED URBAN DESIGN
TO AVOID NEEDING SUPERELEVATION.
DRAFT
02/25/2025 Item No.9.
CITY OF FOTSOM
SI NGLE-LAN E ROU N DABOUT:
FAST PATH DETAILS
SCALE:
DATE: RB-11
l
LI
5'OFFSET
2.OFFSET
SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GUIDANCE AND
PROVISIONS OF THESE DISPLAYS, THE CITY
REQUIRES THE SUEMISSION OF A SET OF DESIGN
CHECKS THAT INCLUDES:
1 2
3 DESIGN VEHICLE SWEPT PATH
GEOMETRIC SPEED CHECKS
SIGHT DISTANCE CHECKS
S
5, OFFSET AT VERTICAL CURB
N.T.S
5'OFFSET
2,OFFSET
5' OFFSET AT MOUNTABLE CURB
N.T.S
* WHERE PEDESTRIAN USE OF AN EXIT CROSSWALK IS FREQUENT ( 25 PEDESTRIANS PER HOUR), ADJUST EXIT RADIITO REDUCE THE ** EXIT SPEED SHOULD NOT BE TOO SLOW.
GREATER THAN
R3 TO <200FT.
GEOMETRIC ENTRY PATH DEFLECTION IS BEST
REPRESENTED BY A CONTINUOUS SPLINE (A
CURVE WITH CONSTANTLY CHANGING RADII)
BECAUSE THIS MOST CLOSELY APPROXIMATES
HOW A VEHICLE TRACES ITS FASTEST PATH
THROUGH A ROUNDABOUT. A SPLINE ALSO
ALLOWS ANALYSTS TO DRAW THE
SMOOTHEST, MOST NATURAL VEHICULAR
PATH. IT IS DRAWN FROM A STARTING POINT
APPROXIMATELY 165 FT IN ADVANCE OF THE
ENTRY LINE, WITH AN OFFSET OF 5 FT FROM
CURBS, 5 FT FROM A CENTERLINE, AND 3 FT
FROM OTHER PAVEMENT MARKINGS (SUCH AS
A PAINTED MEDIAN OR TWO.WAY LEFT.TURN
LANE). THE CRITICAL ENTRY PATH RADIUS,
REFERRED TO AS R1, OCCURS OVER THE
SPLINE FOR 55 FT TO 80 FT, NEAR THE YIELD
POINT, WHERE THE TIGHTEST RADIUS EXISTS.
IN MOST CASES, SPEED CONTROL ON ENTRY IS
THE MOST IMPORTANT FASTEST PATH
CRITERIA FOR ALL ROUNDABOUT
CONFIGURATIONS. IN ADDITION, IF A
LOCATION HAS A SIGNIFICANT PEDESTRIAN
COUNT {GREATER THAN 25 PEDESTRIANS PER
HOUR), STEPS SHOULD BE TAKEN TO
raclrTAt LowER vEHtcLE SPEEDS AT ALL
PEDESTRIAN CONFLICT AREAS (INCLUDING
EXIT SPEEDS FROM THE ROUNDABOUT),
WHEN CHECKING EXIT SPEEDS, BOTH THE
PREDICTIVE METHOD (BASED ON THE R3 EXIT
PATH RADIUS) AND NCHRP 1043 EQUATION
9.7 IWHIcH ACCOUNTS FOR ACCELERATION
FROM R2 TO R3} SHOULD BE CHECKED,
E
,ln
-t
SPLINED
FAST-PATH
RADIUS
RECOMMENDED
RADIUS FOR
SINGLE-LANE
ROUNDABOUT (FT)
RECOMMENDED
RADIUS FOR
MINI-ROUNDABOUT
(FT)
RECOMMENDED
SPEED (FT}
R1 ENTRY 12OFT TO 165FT 1OOFT TO 165FT 22MPH TO 24MPH
R2 CIRCULATING TOFT TO 12OFT TOFT TO 1OOFT WITHIN lOMPH TO 15MPH
DIFFERENTIAL BETWEEN
SUCCESSIVE CURVES**
R3 EXIT 120FT TO 300FT* gOFT TO 15OFT
R4 LEFT-TURN TRUCK APRON R, + 5FT CENTRAL ISLAND R. + 5FT R5 RIGHT-TURN TOFT TO 1OOFT 5OFT TO 9OFT
DRAFT
02/25/2025 Item No.9.
RB-12
CITY OF FOTSOM
M U LTI-LAN E ROU N DABOUT:
FAST PATHS
SCALE:
DATE:
1 (3
t
DRAFT
\
\
j J
4-
r r\
\
I
/
I
.A
<.-
I
Tls'
I
R3
u a)
a
\
5 -$ t
)r
J-
R5
65,- 80,
THROUGH
RIGHT-TURN
LEFT-TURN
NOTE: OFFSET DIMENSIONS ARE
FROM FACE OF CURB
NOTES:
T. R1, R2, R3 PATH TO FOLLOW NATURALSPLINE.
2. GEOMETRIC ENTRY SPEED USUALLY
GOVERNED BY R1 RADIUS, BUT MAY BE
GOVERNED BY R5 RADIUS.
3. ONDESIGNSTHATCANNOTACHIEVE
DEFLECTION USING CENTRAL ISLAND AND
APPROACH ALIGNMENT OFFSET TO THE
LEFT OF CENTER-LINE, ADD REVERSE
CURVES ON THE APPROACH SPLITTER
ISLAND, SEPARATED BY A SHORT
TANGENT sOFTTO 1OOFT, APPROACH
CURVE RADII TO BE SIZED USING AASHTO
TABLE 3-1.3, LOW SPEED URBAN DESIGN
TO AVOID NEEDING SUPERELEVATION. R1
APPROXIMATELY
165' FROM THE ICD
02/25/2025 Item No.9.
CITY OF FOTSOM
M U LTI-LAN E ROU N DABOUT:
FAST PATH DETAILS
SCALE:
DATE: RB-13
SPLINED
FAST-PATH
RADIUS
RECOMMENDED
RADIUS FOR
MULTI.LANE
ROUNDABOUT (FT)
RECOMMENDED
SPEED (MPH)
R]. ENTRY 175FT TO 24OFT 22MPH TO 24MPH
R2 CIRCULATING TOFT TO 17OFT WITHIN lOMPH
TO 15MPH
DIFFERENTIAL BETWEEN
SUCCESSIVE CURVES**
R3 EXIT 120FT TO 300FT*
R4 LEFT-TURN TRUCKAPRON R. + sFT
R5 RIGHT-TURN TOFT TO 17OFT
* WHERE PEDESTRIAN USE OF AN EXIT CROSSWALK IS FREQUENT (GREATER THAN 25 PEDESTRIANS PER HOUR), ADJUST EXIT RADII TO REDUCE THE R3 TO <2OOFT. ** EXIT SPEED SHOULD NOT BE TOO SLOW.
SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GUIDANCE AND PROVISIONS OF THESE
DISPLAYS, THE CITY REQUIRES THE SUBMISSION OF A SET OF DESIGN CHECKS THAT INCLUDES:
1. DESIGN VEHICLE SWEPT PATHS
2. GEOMETRIC SPEED CHECKS
3. SIGHT DISTANCE CHECKS
GEOMETRIC ENTRY PATH DEFLECTION IS BEST
REPRESENTED BY A CONTINUOUS SPLINE (A
CURVE WITH CONSTANTLY CHANGING RADII)
BECAUSE THIS MOST CLOSELY APPROXIMATES
HOW A VEHICLE TRACES ITS FASTEST PATH
THROUGH A ROUNDABOUT. A SPLINE ALSO
ALLOWS ANALYSTS TO DRAW THE
SMOOTHEST. MOST NATURAL VEHICULARpArH. rr rs oRawn FRoM A STARTING PotNT APPROXIMATELY 165 FT IN ADVANCE OF THE
ENTRY LINE, WITH AN OFFSET OF 5 FT FROM
CURBS, 5 FT FROM A CENTERLINE, AND 3 FT
FROM OTHER PAVEMENT MARKINGs (SUCH AS
A PAINTED MEDIAN OR TWO-WAY LEFT-TURN
LANE), THE CRITICAL ENTRY PATH RADIUS,
REFERRED TO AS R1, OCCURS OVER THE
SPLINE FOR 65 FT TO 80 FT, NEAR THE YIELD
POINT, WHERE THE TIGHTEST RADIUS EXISTS,
IN MOST CASES, SPEED CONTROL ON ENTRY IS
THE MOST IMPORTANT FASTEST PATH
CRITERIA FOR ALL ROUNDABOUT
CONFIGURATIONS. IN ADDITION, IF A
LOCATION HAS A SIGNIFICANT PEDESTRIAN
COUNT (GREATER THAN 25 PEDESTRIANS PER
HOUR), STEPS SHOULD BE TAKEN TO
FACLITATE LOWER VEHICLE SPEEDS AT ALL
PEDESTRIAN CONFLICT AREAS (INCLUDING
EXIT SPEEDS FROM THE ROUNDABOUT).
WHEN CHECKING EXIT SPEEDS, BOTH THE
PREDICTIVE METHOD (BAsED ON THE R3 EXIT
PATH RADIUS) AND NCHRP 1043 EQUATION
9.7 {WHICH ACCOUNTS FOR ACCELERATION
rnov Rz To R3) SHoULD BE CHECKED.
DRAFT
02/25/2025 Item No.9.
CITY OF FOTSOM
SIG HT DISTANCE GU I DANCE:
APPROACH AND STOPPING
SCALE:
DATE: RB-14
APPROACH STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE
dssD sroPPlNG sIGHT DISTANCE RELATED
TO APPROACHING DESIGN SPEED
CENTER OF ENTRY AT
YIELD LINE
CENTER OF FAR RIGHT
LANE OR 6' MAX FROM
RIGHT EDGE OF LANE
(TO YIELD POI NT)
d tto
d sso $o *SSD VALUES BASED ON APPROACH POSTED SPEED
AND AASHTO CHAPTER 3.2 SIGHT DISTANCE
STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE TO
TH E DOWNSTREAM CROSSWALK
tI
a q
{b
FAST PATH (R5)
)) )
a))
I FGEND
d ssD cRosswALK ssD FoR Rs
DR/AFT
LEGEND
Itr-r".El SIGHT ENVELOPE
LIMITED PLANTING HEIGHT AREA
02/25/2025 Item No.9.
CITY OF FOTSOM
SIGHT DISTANCE GUI DANCE:
CIRCU LATING AN D INTERSECTION
SCALE:
DATE: RB-15
CIRCULATING STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE
lll d = CIRCULATORY STOPPING
SSO 516P1 DISTANCE BASED ON
CIRCULATING PATH RADIUS/SPEED
INNER LANDSCAPING
AREA CIRCULATING VEHICLE
1 a
arl
it
CONFLICTING
CIRCULATING VEHICLE ENTERING AND CIRCULATING INTERSECTION
SIGHT DISTANCE
CONFLICTING
APPROACH VEHICLE
D2 = CIRCULATING STREAM
DISTANCE, BASED ON s-SECOND
CRITICAL GAP
SSD VALUES BASED ON APPROACH
POSTED SPEED AND AASHTO
CHAPTER 3.2 SIGHT DISTANCE CONFLICTING
CIRCULATING VEHICLE
a
ttIt
a
I
a
APPROACH
VEH ICLE
I
DRAFT
LEGEND
ffi.-q.._ffi SIGHT ENVELOPE
LIMITED PLANTING HEIGHT AREA
02/25/2025 Item No.9.
CITY OF FOTSOM
SIGHT DISTANCE GUIDANCE:
VERTICAL AN D PEDESTRIAN
SCALE:
DATE: RB-16
VERTICAL SIGHT DISTANCE
EDGE OF CIRCULATORY
ROADWAY
MAX.5% PROFILE GRADE
AT CROSSWALK
I
2'
T
MlN. CREST Vc FOR POSTED
SPEED OF APPROACH AVOIDING POOR STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE
3.5 PEDESTRIAN SIGHT DISTANCE
HEIGHT OF EYE = 3.5'
HEIGHT OF CAR = 3.5'
l)
att'
a
ittit
t
NOTE:
- PEDESTRIAN SIGHT DISTANCE TO BE
CALCULATED USING THE EQUATION BELOW
AND MEASURED ALONG THE THRUS FAST PATH
- VERTICAL CHECKS ARE TO USE AN EYE HEIGHT
OF 3.5'AND A CAR HEIGHT OF 3.5'.
,ttt'
li
THRU FASTEST PATH
PedsD =1.47sGl+ t")
Where:
PedSD = Pedestrian Crossing Sight Distance (ft)
S = Design Speed (mph)
L = Crossing Distance (ft)
Sp= Average Pedestrian Walking Speed (ft/s), default = 3'5 ft/s ts = Pedestrian Start-Up and End Clearance Time (s), default = 3.0s LEGEND
II
SIGHT ENVELOPE
LIMITED PLANTING HEIGHT AREA
PedSD
DRAFT
02/25/2025 Item No.9.
g>
ENTERING VEHICLE SIGHT ANGLE
\
h\r
ll
\
it
ll
-2"
a l
CITY OF FOLSOM
SIGHT TO THE LEFT GUIDANCE
SCALE:
DATE: RB-17
. t
:4'
I
\ tl
I
LEGENN A
DRAFT
SIGHT LINE IS
GREATER THAN 90'
o
VEHICLE AT YIELD
SIGHT LINE IS LESS THAN 75'
SIGHT LINE IS BETWEEN 90'AND 75"
NOTE: VIEW ANGLE SHOWN FROM OUTSIDE LANE,
AS IT HAS THE MOST RESTRICTED LINE OF SIGHT.
02/25/2025 Item No.9.
CITY OF FOTSOM
SIGHT TO THE LEFT GUIDANCE:
BYPASS LAN E
SCALE:
DATE: RB-18
ttr
ltt
tII
I
I
T,
-\
ttaa a
ll
I EGENN
DRAFT
SIGHT LINE IS
GREATER THAN 90"
VEHICLE AT YIELD
SIGHT LINE IS LESS THAN 75'
SIGHT LINE IS BETWEEN 90" AND 75'
NOTE: VIEW ANGLE SHOWN FROM OUTSIDE LANE,
AS IT HAS THE MOST RESTRICTED LINE OF SIGHT.
02/25/2025 Item No.9.
CITY OF FOTSOM
STRIPING DETAILS
RB-19SCALE:
DATE:
WHITE PAVEMENT
MARKING
2 2
o REFLECTORS AN D/OR TH ERMOPLASTIC
,2'
tt
=F
r-I I
\
I
WHITE PAVEMENT MARKING
CROSSWALK DETAIL ENTRANCE LINE DETAIL
N.T.S. N.T.S,
0 CENTER OF 2' DASH
rN-LrNE wrrH Q
-
-
CIRCULATING EXIT BUFFER STRIPING DETAIL
N.T.S,
P
o
=.o?
F-
--t
E
DRAFT
S"SOLtD
WHITE tINE
ENTRY BUFFER STRIPING DETAIL
N.T"S.
02/25/2025 Item No.9.
CITY OF FOTSOM
ENTRY BIKE RAMP DETAILS
RB-21SCALE:
DATE:
20"-25"
STANDARD ENTRY BIKE RAMP
'-
50' 18:1
BIKE LANE
BYPASS ENTRY BIKE RAMP
50'MINIMUM 25.MINIMUM
DRAFT
02/25/2025 Item No.9.
CITY OF FOTSOM
EXIT BIKE RAMP DETAILS
SCALE:
DATE: RB-22
STANDARD EXIT BIKE RAMP
-
VARIES
BYPASS EXIT BIKE RAMP
DRAFT
20"-25'
02/25/2025 Item No.9.