CITY OF FOLSOM
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
January 8, 2014
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
6:30 P.M.
50 Natoma Street
Folsom, CA 95630
CALL TO ORDER PLANNING COMMISSION: Chair Greg Eldridge; Vice Chair Ross Jackson; Commissioners:
John Arnaz, Lance Klug, Jennifer Lane, Brian Martell, Thomas Scott
ABSENT:
MINUTES:
Ross Jackson, Brian Martell
CITIZEN COMMUNICATION: None
The minutes of December 18, 2013 were approved as submitted.
NEW BUSINESS:
1. Folsom Dog Resort, Training Center and Veterinary Hospital Commercial Design Review and
Conditional Use Permit, Located at 120 Blue Ravine Road
A Public Hearing to consider a request from Canine 88 Ventures, Inc. for approval of Design Review and
Conditional Use Permit for development of the Folsom Dog Resort, Training Center and Veterinary
Hospital at the existing 38,696-square-foot building located at 120 Blue Ravine Road. The zoning classification for the site is ML-PD (Limited Manufacturing, Planned Development District) and the
General Plan land-use designation is IND (Industrial/Office Park). A Revised Initial Study and Mitigated
Negative Declaration has been prepared for the project in accordance with the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA). The public review period began December 20, 2013 and ends January 8, 2014.
The PC will take final action on the project unless appealed to the City Council. (Project Planner,
Stephanie Henry)
Commissioner Eldridge introduced the New Business item: Folsom Dog Resort, Training Center and Veterinary
Hospital Commercial Design Review and Conditional Use Permit
Project Planner, Stephanie Henry, gave the staff report stating this was a request from Canine 88 Ventures, Inc. for approval of Design Review and Conditional Use Permit for development of the Folsom Dog Resort, Training
Center and Veterinary Hospital at the existing 38,696-square-foot building located at 120 Blue Ravine Road. The zoning classification for the site is ML-PD (Limited Manufacturing, Planned Development District) and the General
Plan land-use designation is IND (Industrial/Office Park). Until recently, MLPD zoning did not allow for a kennel or veterinary hospital, however, across the street The Lake Forrest Tech Center is zoned as M1-PD which would allow for a kennel or veterinary hospital. Recently, the City Council approved an ordinance which would allow
ML-PD zoning to allow dog kennels or veterinary hospitals with a Conditional Use Permit.
The following background information was presented to the Commission:

The Folsom Dog Resort currently operates at 525 Levy Road. This operation was approved by the
Planning Commission in 2007 with the Conditional Use Permit.

Current operation has a 3,000-square-foot warehouse type facility that is utilized for the indoor operations. They can accommodate up to 120 dogs on a daily basis.

Current operation has a 10,000-square-foot area that is turfed. This is used for 5 different dog training and play areas that is bound by chain-link fence.

The primary services at this facility include individual and group training, daily and/or overnight boarding.
Planning Commission Minutes
January 8, 2014
Page 1 of 11


Current operation has had no noise or odor complaints. There have been follow-up noise studies which show the facility is in compliance with the City’s noise ordinance.

As previously mentioned, the City approved Ordinance 1186 on November 12, 2013, which allows canine kennels and veterinary hospitals in the ML zone with the Conditional Use Permit.
This facility will be able to accommodate 175-200 dogs in the indoor kennel areas. In addition to providing indoor boarding and training, this facility will provide outdoor socialization and exercise. The applicant has indicated this is a key factor to their business to allow these dogs to socialize and play. They provide classes for owners and facilities for grooming. The facility will be open 7-days a week. Operation hours 6:00am –
10:00pm, with pick-up/drop-off being 8:00am-10:00pm Monday-Saturday and 9:00am – 9:00pm on Sunday.
Another amenity of the resort is there is 24-hour surveillance so in the evening hours the animals can be monitored.
The project site currently has an 38,696-square-foot office building. The applicant proposes to use 21,000square-feet of the building for the Folsom Dog Resort and Training Center. In addition, 1,700-square-feet of the building are proposed to be utilized as a veterinary hospital. The remainder of the building will be leased out to other tenants. Due to the existing configuration of the interior, there will be little modifications necessary to convert it to the kennel. The applicant is proposing to create 5 outdoor training yards that will have a turf on them. These outdoor training areas are proposed to be constructed in an existing drive aisle to the east and south of the project site. By utilizing this area some parking will be eliminated but Staff does not have any concerns that this will affect their parking requirements. In addition, they will need to remove 2
Acacia trees on the eastern property boundary. The applicant is proposing to enclose these play areas with an 8-foot-tall solid wall on the eastern and western portions of the boundaries. Also, an 8-foot-tall chain link fence is proposed to be installed on the southern boundary. Applicant has met with the fire department regarding utilizing this drive aisle. The fire chief has verbally said that there will be no issues with the applicant blocking the drive aisle and fire lane as long as mitigation is followed.
The applicant is proposing to install and sanitary containment system for the run-off of the outdoor play yards.
At the front of the project site, applicant is proposing a 4-foot-tall iron fence. This fencing will be used primarily to allow people to enter/exit the facility without fear a dog will escape into the parking lot.
Staff does not support the chain link fence on the southern portion of the play areas. Condition 22-1 has been added that requires the applicant to install the 8-foot-tall solid wall around the entire perimeter of the outdoor play area. The fire department has added Condition 33 that states the wall must be constructed of a noncombustible material. The fire department, also, requires that access gates be installed on either end of the outdoor play area due to the fire hydrant that is located in the play area.
A new trash enclosure will be constructed at the eastern portion of the property at the front of the outdoor play area.
Due to the existing drainage at the site, the sanitary containment system is being proposed to be installed at the existing trash enclosure area.
Photos were shared with the Commission showing what the proposed site will look like. Pictures showed proposed signage. It was pointed out that staff has the standard condition that any lighting should shield down. Staff also has added Condition 22-4 which indicates the final design and color of the wall is subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Department.
With Staff’s review of the project, the two main concerns have been noise and odor. In going out to the current site, the applicant walked Staff through their waste protocol and Staff did not notice any outdoor odor.
The urine protocol is to hose it off immediately and sanitize it. Every evening a sanitizer is applied to the areas, which absorbs the odor. Staff has required that at the new facility the same protocol be followed with the addition that the areas are washed down 4 times daily. Staff is supporting the proposed containment
Planning Commission Minutes
January 8, 2014
Page 2 of 11

system where the run-off will be collected. Staff believes this is important for sanitation, as well as odor concerns.
A preliminary grading and draining plan was shared with the Commission. This shows how the drainage on the site will flow.
More photos are shared with the Commission.
A noise analysis was prepared for the project initially. After reviewing the noise analysis, the adjacent property owners had some concerns it did not fully address some of the outside noise. After discussion with the adjacent property owner, the applicant requested that another noise analysis be conducted specific to the outdoor area. Photos were shown were speakers were placed around the property. Based on the previous and current noise analysis, the consultant concluded that the project would definitely be within compliance of the noise ordinance.
In reviewing the proposal as indicated in the staff report, Staff looked at several factors with regards to odor, sanitation, noise, design of the facility, input by adjacent property owners and the previous conditions of approval. Based on those factors and additional mitigation, such as the 8-foot-high solid wall around the entire perimeter, moving the trash enclosure further away from the adjacent property owner, the containment system and washing the facility 4 times per day, Staff believes that this use will be compatible at this location.
Staff is recommending approval of the Folsom Dog Resort and Training Center.
Commissioner Arnaz asked Staff to clarify what they mean by “containment system”.
Associate Planner, Stephanie Henry, responded the original proposal by the applicant was that the run-off would perk into the ground. Staff did not support that based on the previous approvals there was a condition that required it get conveyed to a sanitary sewer system. It was later discovered this option was not feasible.
Staff then changed it to sanitary collection. But what Staff is wanting is some type of septic system where the run-off will get conveyed. The applicants have not submitted a finalized design at this time.
Commissioner Klug clarified the point that the current facility does not have this type of containment system.
Commissioner Eldridge feels the language of the Condition 28, first sentence, should be revised from
“sanitary sewer system” to “sanitary system”. The final sentence should include the word “designed” to state
“designed to the satisfaction of the Community Development Department”.
Planning Manager, Scott Johnson, pointed out the first sentence is related to indoor dog areas.
Commissioner Eldridge asked to please disregard what he said regarding the first sentence.
Planning Manager, Scott Johnson, pointed out that Staff left that condition somewhat general to provide the applicant some options.
Commissioner Lane asked if it’s contained in a vault or not, will it leach into the soil?
Planning Manager, Scott Johnson, answered that if it’s a containment vault it will be pumped out.
Commissioner Eldridge stated if it’s a septic system the waste water is treated and then, after treatment, it’s leached into the ground.
Commissioner Lane felt it was premature to have this containment system put in when the problem has not even occurred yet. Suggested the condition be more about if there is a smell.
Planning Manager, Scott Johnson, stated that was problematic once a business is already established to go back and ask for additional mitigation. In looking at the proposal, it was of paramount importance that the project, because it was not a permitted use, that conditions would sufficiently mitigate any potential impact that may arise with the increase in the number of dogs outdoors given the office park environment. Staff recommends that it be kept as proposed.
Planning Commission Minutes
January 8, 2014
Page 3 of 11

Commissioner Lane stated she did not agree with that.
Commissioner Scott asked for clarification on where exactly the waste receptacles were going to be placed.
Associate Planner, Stephanie Henry, showed on a photograph where it was going to be placed.
Commissioner Scott clarified that it would no longer be a vehicle access gate but only a human access gate.
Associate Planner, Stephanie Henry, stated that, yes, it will only be a human access and that the fire department has verbally stated that they are not requiring a vehicular access. Those fire lanes can be blocked off.
Commissioner Scott asked if any thought had been put into having only one point of pick-up versus several trash areas.
Associate Planner, Stephanie Henry, stated that the Solid Waste vehicle would have more difficulty getting to the current trash site. Solid Waste trucks went out to the site and they felt the best area was the new proposed trash site.
Commissioner Scott stated he was opposed to Condition 28. He felt whatever was being done at the current facility was working. He felt that if Condition 28 was an industry standard then it might be acceptable but nobody else was being held to this standard. He feels it is unfair to hold the applicant to a higher standard than is out in the industry.
Commissioner Klug feels the trash enclosure should be at the back of the building where it currently is as opposed to near the entrance. Does not feel it architecturally it makes sense. Would like to see a new location for the trash enclosure.
Commissioner Arnaz pointed out that the proposed trash location is adjacent to an empty lot which will not be empty for long. Feels the problem is being moved from one area to another but it’s not solving anything.
Commissioner Eldridge noticed in Condition 31 the word “should” was used but would like it replaced with
“shall”.
Associate Planner, Stephanie Henry, stated she took the bullet points directly from the noise analysis but pointed out the first sentence which stated “shall”.
Assistant City Attorney, Steven Wang, agreed that “should” needs to be replaced with “shall”.
Commissioner Eldridge is reserving judgment on Condition 28 but wanted the Commission to take into account that they were being asked to approve a Conditional Use Permit.
Jason Davis, co-owner of the Folsom Dog Resort, addressed the Commission. Business has been in the
Folsom area since August 2008. They have outgrown the current facility. Explained in detailed the mission of the facility.
Commissioner Lane commended the Folsom Dog Resort
Jake Romero, co-owner of the Folsom Dog Resort, wanted to clarify that the containment system was not proposed by the Folsom Dog Resort. It was something that Staff requested and it was agreed to so the project could move forward. At this time, they do not know the cost of putting in a containment system. They believe the best alternative is to remove the asphalt and put in the same system that is currently in place at the current facility. This would avoid and urine or run-off being concentrated into one area. The feedback that was received from the contractors and their engineer was that there was more of a potential for odor with the containment system than if the current methods were used. The difference is having it dispersed amongst a large area versus concentrated everything into a central area. This is essentially what is happening at the
Folsom Dog Park and there is no odor there.
Planning Commission Minutes
January 8, 2014
Page 4 of 11

Commissioner Scott asked what is done when the enclosures on the inside are cleaned.
Jake Romero, co-owner of Folsom Dog Resort, responded that in the new facility there will be indoor potty areas that will drain to the sanitary sewer system. Accidents in the room are taken care immediately. Feels
60-70% of the elimination, solid or liquid, is going to occur inside the facility. Not all dogs participate in outside play.
Commissioner Scott asked Staff if there was a downside to taking Condition 28 out and holding the Folsom
Dog Resort to the same standard that they have now.
Planning Manager, Scott Johnson, stated that Staff remains concerned that there could be a potential odor problem. This is a different environment and an office park first. The goal is to ensure the conditions on the project are to minimize the impacts to the adjoining properties. He conceded that the current location has not had any complaints. But in this case there is an office park adjacent to the proposed facility, with the increase in dogs; Staff believes the mitigation that is being proposed provides better assurance that there won’t be a problem over time.
Commissioner Scott feels Folsom should be doing everything in its power to retain business and if you put conditions on a business that is going to cost a significant amount the City could lose the business.
Planning Manager, Scott Johnson, answered that it was a good point regarding facilitating growth and maintenance of the office parks. There is a large property owner, VSP, that has expressed interest in locating across the street and they have expressed concerns with the facility, as well as the adjacent neighbors. Staff feels they have a responsibility to those individuals to make sure the conditions address the issues.
Commissioner Scott brought up the issue of relocating the trash enclosure.
Jake Romero, co-owner of Folsom Dog Resort, stated there were two concerns with the trash enclosure located at the rear of the property. Solid Waste felt they would not be able to easily access the enclosure where it was. Because of the concerns next door, the applicant felt it was an easy solution to move the trash enclosure to the front of the building. Solid Waste tested the proposed area with a trash truck and they determined it would work just fine. Applicant is not sure if it’s an option for Solid Waste to get out of the truck and roll the dumpster toward the truck.
Commissioner Eldridge opens the public hearing.
Rick Liptack, co-owner of 110 Blue Ravine Road. He is not opposed to the dog resort but he is opposed to the urine going into the ground. The business park is on cobble which will allow the urine to go right into the lake. He expressed concern over the smell of the dumpster in the heat of summer.
Matt Griggs, co-owner of 110 Blue Ravine Road. He requests the PC to consider the perspective of the nearby commercial properties. He feels like it will be a challenge maintaining and soliciting new tenants at this location. Feels there will be a significant amount of money lost if tenants choose not to lease from them.
He also prefers there be no outdoor activity.
Paul Romero, co-owner of the Folsom Dog Resort, stated his credentials. He stated that dog parks were an industry standard. Dog park standards suggest the urine percolate naturally into the soil and refuse be picked up voluntarily by the pet owner. These standards seem to work. Another standard is to put down synthetic turf and let the urine percolate through to the ground.
Doug Scalzi, broker for Jake Romero and Jason Davis . He pointed out that the applicant’s also need to make sure that the business is run in such a way that their future tenants will be satisfied with the situation. This is very important to them. He feels that this location is a good location due to the mix-use of the location.
Commissioner Eldridge closes the public hearing.
Commissioner Eldridge asked Staff if there were any consultants involved in making the recommendation for having a septic facility.
Planning Commission Minutes
January 8, 2014
Page 5 of 11

Planning Manager, Scott Johnson, responded by saying it was Staff’s determination, after thinking about the capacity the facility has, that the best alternative was to get the urine and odor underground. This would prevent odor issues down the road.
City Engineer, Steve Krahn, stated he agreed with Scott’s representation and did not have anything further to add.
Commissioner Eldridge clarified what was being proposed. Everything inside the building is routed to the sanitary sewer system. Outside the facility, what is being proposed, the surfaced will be hosed off 4 times a day, any pet solid waste will be picked up and disposed of, the pet urine would be mixed with the water and routed into a drainage system that would route to some sort of underground vault that would have some sort of biological treatment and then dispersed into the ground.
City Engineer, Steve Krahn, stated it depends on what type containment tank it was. Without a septic component, the tank would need to be pumped out on a periodic basis.
Commissioner Eldridge further clarified that this was not just a stormwater detention vault. The contents would be treated or pumped out.
City Engineer, Steve Krahn, responded that if the applicant is not able to put in a septic system, then a valve could be put in that allowed only the run-off from the daily washings to go into the vault. With the valve being closed, heavy rains would not affect the tank.
Commissioner Eldridge wanted to recap so everyone was on the same page – the condition of approval was assumed as part of the environmental assessment and it ended in a mitigated declaration. With the mitigation in place, there would be no significant environmental impact.
Planning Manager, Scott Johnson, stated that was correct.
Commissioner Scott reviewed several items. Feels the trash enclosure moving to the front will be fine. Feels the adjacent properties are over a football field away and that odor will not be a problem. He would prefer to reassess and reevaluate the situation if the urine odor becomes a problem.
Commissioner Klug would like to modify Condition 28, 3 rd sentence, “all outdoor dog areas shall be disinfected and deodorized daily and all run-off from cleaning the outdoor areas shall be contained within the site to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director”.
Commissioner Eldridge responded by saying that as that reads no infiltration will be allowed.
Commissioner Klug wants it left up to the applicant which way works best for how they currently mitigate the odors. If that doesn’t work then the issue can be revisited.
Commissioner Eldridge clarified Commissioner Klug’s statement saying, all run-off must be contained on-site.
Commissioner Klug said, no, all outdoor shall be disinfected and deodorized. Wants it left up to the applicant and if what they are using currently is working then it should be tried at the new facility as well.
Commissioner Lane suggested the condition read “all outdoor dog areas shall be disinfected and deodorized daily to the satisfaction of the Community Development Department”.
Commissioner requested to hear Staff’s opinion on modifying the condition, especially relative to the negative declaration that has been prepared for the project.
Assistant City Attorney, Steve Wang, address the negative declaration issue by saying that the Commission was the final approval authority over the environmental documentation. The mitigated negative declaration has particular mitigated measure addressing this particular condition or vice versa. This can be seen on page
7 of the revised initial study in the packet. It is a mitigation measure pertaining to water quality. It specifically states, “all water used to clean outdoor play/training areas shall be captured by a containment system”. That
Planning Commission Minutes
January 8, 2014
Page 6 of 11

is the 3 rd mitigation measure in the revised initial study. In order for the Commission to eliminate the need for a containment system, the Commission would have to make a finding out of CEQA that the other 2 mitigation measures, as proposed, without the 3 rd one, would still be adequate to reduce the identified impact to a level of less than significant. If the Commission is able to make this finding, based upon the records before them then it will not be an issue. If the Commission does not have the evidence before them, in light of a fair argument standard that a potential adverse impact on air quality and water quality could exist without the 3 rd mitigation measure then the Commission would not be able to eliminate the condition.
Commission Eldridge expressed concern that the Commission was not technically qualified to make that finding. The Commission relies on the council of its professional staff or testimony that’s given during the hearing, often times by consultants and technical experts. The Commission does not have the technical qualifications whether or not potential water quality impacts would be mitigated. No testimony was heard to the contrary that something else would be ok.
Commissioner Arnaz had a question for Steven Wang. On Levy Road was there a mitigated negative declaration?
Assistant City Attorney, Steven Wang, felt Scott Johnson could answer that better.
Commissioner Arnaz wanted to clarify that he felt the new facility does not need to be less smelly and less quiet than the current facility.
Commissioner Arnaz asked if the mitigated negative declaration required. Did they have it on the previous approval, when it was the same exact use?
Assistant City Attorney, Steven Wang, responded that it depends on if the current location is permitted by right. But this is a site specific environmental analysis, different location, different project, similar operation but expanding the square footage 7-fold. The applicant proposing to increase the clientele at least 2-fold. It a different situation and different location.
Planning Manager, Scott Johnson, stated there was mitigated negative declaration approved and there was a condition that require exterior and interior dog waste to be transmitted to the sewer system. Which we know now is not permitted by the Sacramento Regional Sanitation District. You cannot direct dog waste into the sewer system.
Commissioner Lane added that the letter from the United States Department of Interior Bureau of
Reclamation stated the y didn’t have an issue with it.
Assistant City Attorney, Steven Wang, advised the Commission that as the final approval authority on the environmental document, they have the discretion to consider substituting mitigation measures. If they wished to do so, the mitigation measure you wish substitute has, according to CEQA law, to be at least equal or better than the currently proposed mitigation measure. You will have to, on the record, make findings as required by law.
Commissioner Eldridge stated that he assumed a substitution would be some sort of infiltration gallery like the applicant has now. He asked Steven Wang if he felt that was equal to or better.
Assistant City Attorney, Steven Wang, stated he was not an expert in that field. But the findings that the
Commission would have to make would be that the substituted mitigation measure would have to equal to or more effective than the replaced measure in mitigating we are avoiding potential significant effect. And that the new measure will not cost any potentially significant affect itself on the environment.
Bob Eycke, engineer hired by Folsom Dog Resort. The initial proposal was to remove the existing asphalt, let the turf sit on top of the existing aggregate base and let the animal urine and washdown percolate straight into the ground. Folsom has type A soil, which has a very high percolation rate and is suitable for infiltration of this type of application. Odor was the issue of why a containment system was being proposed but all the runoff would be sitting in a contained area for a period of time, even with a septic system. If the issue is odor, he
Planning Commission Minutes
January 8, 2014
Page 7 of 11

did not feel concentrating it in to a specific location was the best solution. Each washdown will use approximately 150 gallons of water and spread out over 8,000-10,000-square-feet.
Commissioner Klug added we are dealing with an EIR condition that has to do with containing this run-off. He felt that a finding should be made that is a better option. If the applicant provided a soil report that stated that the run-off would percolate, is that a finding that would help in addressing that condition?
Bob Eycke, engineer hired by Folsom Dog Resort. Containment is a vague term. Does it mean within the site? Within the vault?
Assistant City Attorney, Steven Wang, responded that the to the extent of how much weight to assign to determine whether this particular proposal from the applicant to allow the affluent to percolate naturally into the ground is a mitigation measure by itself equal or better than the containment system proposed by Staff.
That is the Commission’s call to make that finding. All in attendance can provide testimony of options for the
Commission to consider. The Commission can condition the project as they determine is appropriate because it is a Conditional Use Permit application.
Commissioner Eldridge feels the condition is very strict and it would be hard to find an option that is equal to or better. If they are trying to mitigate against an odor condition, the way the applicant has it in place right is ok. If the Commission wants to move the project forward with a waste disposal system like the applicant has in place and the current facility, then does the environmental document need to be revised to reflect that and
Staff needs to determine if that’s suitable mitigation or not.
Assistant City Attorney, Steven Wang, responded that the answer depends on if the Commission is able to make a finding that if you take away the 3 rd mitigation measure, if the remaining 2 are still adequate to reduce the identified adverse impact of the environment to a level of less than significant.
Commissioner Eldridge wanted to clarify that if the 3 rd measure is taken out, “that all water used to clean outdoor dog play and training areas shall be capt ured by containment system”, if you just remove that then you will have a mitigated negative declaration that is silent on the liquid waste treatment that is being proposed.
Assistant City Attorney, Steven Wang, responded that goes with the analysis as to whether the remaining 2 mitigation measures are adequate to reduce or eliminate the identified potential adverse impact on the environment.
Commissioner Eldridge stated that the first measure had to do with flooding and the second has to do with,
“you’ll comply with the municipal code relative to grading and drainage”. Those 2 measures have nothing to do with how to remove liquid waste from the site.
Steven Wang responded that the revised initial study was prepared with the understanding, with the proposed agreed upon mitigation number 3 in place. That is how the document was analyzed.
Jake Romero, co-owner of Folsom Dog Resort, asked for clarification as to why it’s under the water quality section when it pertains to odor.
Planning Manager, Scott Johnson, responded that the mitigation measures should have been duplicated under air quality. It is appropriate under both sections. It addresses the odor issue and the disposal of waste water.
Commissioner Eldridge asked Staff how to revise the document to move the project forward. Should the environmental document be revised then it brought back to the Commission.
Assistant City Attorney, Steven Wang, responded that was one option. Situation 1: If the Commission believes that there is enough information and evidence before them to satisfy the question whether the remaining 2 mitigation measures as proposed, without #3, would still adequately mitigate the proposed adverse impact of the environment to a level of less than significant. Situation 2: If the Commission wished
Planning Commission Minutes
January 8, 2014
Page 8 of 11

to substitute the mitigation measure #3, then Staff needs to know what they would like it replaced with. It is possible that a finding could be made that the substituted measure is at least equal or better than the one that is being substituted out. And the new substituted measure, itself, would not cause or pose additional environmental impact. Those 2 findings are required under the law.
Commissioner Eldridge asked if from council’s perspective if what is being proposed be considered equal to or better.
Assistant City Attorney, Steven Wang, stated he is not qualified to answer that question.
Commissioner Scott stated that he feels there needs to be more of a foundation than is being presented.
Feels the applicant is being held to a standard that others are not.
Commissioner Arnaz stated that there is enough proof that has been presented that the current way the facility dealing with issue is adequate.
Commissioner Klug questioned whether the current system could be considered “contained”.
Commissioner Eldridge suggested changing the word “containment” to “disposal”.
Assistant City Attorney, Steven Wang, stated that would work very well with the proposed changes to
Condition 28.
Commissioner Eldridge clarified changing the word “containment” to “disposal” and then making the condition still “to the satisfaction of Community Development Department”.
Assistant City Attorney, Steven Wang, agreed.
Jake Romero, co-owner of Folsom Dog Resort, stated that the new facility will have less play yard space than the current facility. The building will be increasing, with added indoor play areas. The asphalt will be removed, 6 inches of aggregate, turf and then volcanic ash that absorbs urine.
Commissioner Eldridge wanted to clarify that the Commission wanted to modify the last sentence of Condition
28 to read “All outdoor dog areas shall be disinfected and deodorized daily and all run-off from cleaning the outdoor areas shall be disposed of to the satisfaction of the Community Development Departmen t”. And in the mitigated negative declaration, 3 rd bullet, “all water used to clean outdoor dog play and training areas shall be captured by containment system” changed to “all water used to clean outdoor dog play and training areas shall be captured by di sposal system”.
Planning Manager, Scott Johnson, stated that the wording was too vague. Commission needs to decide whether or not the proposed alternative of the infiltration tranches is an equally good solution. There needs to be some specificity of what the desire of the Commission is.
City Engineer, Steve Krahn, stated the current name infiltration trench.
Jake Romero, co-owner of the Folsom Dog Resort, stated that initially the plan was to put the turf directly over the asphalt. Now that the fire lane has been eliminated, the proposal is that the asphalt will be removed and the same system applied as the current facility.
Commissioner Eldridge clarified that the proposed system is better than what is being done at the current facility because of the addition of the 6 inches of aggregate.
Planning Manager, Scott Johnson, stated that if the words “infiltration trench” is added then Staff will have an understanding of what the Commission is looking for.
Commissioner Eldridge asked Steve Krahn if there would be an odor issue on top of cobbles.
City Engineer, Steve Krahn, stated that he was not an expert on odor.
Planning Commission Minutes
January 8, 2014
Page 9 of 11

Bob Eycke, engineer hired by the Folsom Dog Resort, stated that the infiltration rate that is being used is conservative at 1 inch per hour.
Commissioner Eldridge asked is the standard they are being asked to apply, is that in terms of mitigating odor?
Assistant City Attorney, Steven Wang, answered, yes, it was odor and water quality.
Commissioner Eldridge asked what water quality issues were they concerned about with this issue?
Assistant City Attorney, Steven Wang, stated he could not answer to that.
Planning Manager, Scott Johnson, restated that it should have been duplicated under air quality. It addresses both issues.
Commissioner Scott expressed moving forward with the applicant doing what the currently do.
Assistant City Attorney, Steven Wang, stated that was ok with the appropriate findings. CEQA finding D1 -
The substituted new mitigation measure is equivalent to, or more effective than, the replaced measure in mitigating or avoiding potential significant effects. Finding D2 – The substituted new mitigation measure will not cause any potentially significant effects on the environment.
Planning Manager, Scott Johnson, suggested Condition 28 be modified to state “Outdoor drainage shall be allowed to percolate directly into the ground”.
Jake Romero, co-owner of the Folsom Dog Resort, restated that the product mentioned was called Zeolite.
Infill that provides a negative charge which traps ammonia like a magnet, which prevents off-gassing. It holds up to 55% liquid weight without swelling. It has a 5-year warranty. It is suggested it is replaced every 5 years. This will be put on top of the turf. You install the turf over the aggregate and then lay the turf and then the infill product is put on top of the turf. It is granular.
Commissioner Eldridge clarified that there was a compacted sub-base, lift of aggregate, turf and then infill.
No paving in the entire play area. Asked Staff is they had a recommendation on revising the language of
Condition 28 and mitigation #3.
Planning Manager, Scott Johnson, responded that he had language prepared for Condition 28. “All outdoor dog areas shall be disinfected and deodorized daily and run-off from cleaning outdoor areas shall be allowed to percolate directly into the soil. This synthetic turf shall include a volcanic ash additive to the satisfaction of the Community Development Department”.
Commissioner Eldridge suggested modifying the l anguage to include the design of the facility. “All outdoor dog areas shall be disinfected and deodorized daily and run-off from the cleaning outdoors areas shall be disposed of to the Community Development Department”.
Planning Manager, Scott Johnson, requested the language to be more specific.
Commissioner Eldridge added “an infiltration shall be designed to satisfaction of the Community Development
Department”.
City Engineer, Steve Krahn, prefers to see language related to the infiltration system being approved by Staff.
Commissioner Scott had questions regarding the curb.
Jake Romero, co-owner of the Folsom Dog Resort, stated the curb would be even with the top layer of the play yard.
Assistant City Attorney, Steven Wang, asked if it’s the Commissions intent to substitute out the 3 rd mitigation measure with the revised Condition 28. Asked when the Commissioner makes the motion to also include the revised substitution in the motion.
Commissioner Eldridge added that Condition 31 Staff finds acceptable and applicant finds acceptable revising
“should” to say “shall”.
Planning Commission Minutes
January 8, 2014
Page 10 of 11

COMMISSIONER ELDRIDGE MOVED TO ADOPT THE REVISED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
WITH MITIGATION MEASURE 3 AND SECTION 6 SUBSTITUTED WITH, TO BE REVISED, CONDITION 28.
THE MITIGATION REPORTING AND MONITORING PROGRAM PREPARED FOR THE FOLSOM DOG
RESORT AND TRAINING CENTER PN 13-296 AND MOVE TO APPROVE A COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW
FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE FOLSOM DOG RESORT TRAINING CENTER AND VETERINARY
HOSPITAL, WHICH INCLUDES INTERIOR TENANT IMPROVEMENTS TO THE EXISTING 38,696-SQUARE-
FOOT INDUSTRIAL OFFICE BUILDING AND MODIFICATIONS TO SITE IMPROVEMENTS AS ILLUSTRATED
ON ATTACHMENTS 2 THROUGH 3 AND MOVE TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW
THE FOLSOM DOG RESORT TRAINING CENTER AND VETERNANRY HOSPITAL TO OPERATE AT THE
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 120 BLUE RAVINE ROAD WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS:
GENERAL FINDINGS A & B, CEQA FINDING C, WITH MODIFIED MITIGATION MEASURE # 3 TO SECTION 6
AS REFERENCED. CEQA FINDING D WITH ADDITIONAL SUBSECTIONS D1 AND D2 AS PROPOSED BY
STAFF. CEQA FINDING E THROUGH H, DESIGN REVIEW FINDINGS I THROUGH L, CONDITIONAL USE
PERMITS FINDINGS M & N AND CONDITIONS 1 THROUGH 36, WITH CONDITION 28 AS REVISED BY
CHAIR ELDRIGE AND CONDITION 31 AS PROPOSED REVISED BY CHAIR ELDRIDGE.
COMMISSIONER KLUG SECONDED THE MOTION WHICH CARRIED THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
SCOTT, ELDRIDGE, LANE, KLUG, ARNAZ
NONE
NONE
JACKSON, MARTELL ABSENT:
REPORTS:
Planning Commission/Planning Manager Report:
Scott Johnson thanked the commission for coming out for the specially scheduled meeting and announced the
1/15/14 meeting will be cancelled.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:47 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Omega Deppe, Administrative Assistant
APPROVED:
CHAIR GREG ELDRIDGE
Planning Commission Minutes
January 8, 2014
Page 11 of 11