Agenda packet, regular meeting — Folsom City Council, July 14, 2026 (part 2 of 3)

07/14/2026 Item No.12.

Riley Street Safety Improvement Project Page 5 of 20
Notice of Exemption – Additional Pages

avian breeding season (February 1 – August 31) could result in injury or mortality of eggs and chicks directly through destruction or indirectly through forced nest abandonment due to noise and other disturbance. Needless destruction of nests, eggs, and chicks would be a violation of the CFGC. However, standard construction best management practices (BMP), including pre-construction nesting bird surveys, would be implemented as Conditions of Approval to ensure the project would not result in significant adverse effects on migratory birds and raptors.

Pre-Construction Nesting Bird Survey
Active nests and nesting birds are protected by the California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503 and 3503.5, 3513, and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). Ground-disturbing and other construction activities, including vegetation clearing, tree removal/trim, and construction, could impact nesting birds if these activities occur during the nesting season (generally February 1 to August 31). To avoid impacts to nesting birds, all ground-disturbing activity shall be completed between September 1 and January 31, if feasible. If construction cannot occur outside of the nesting season, the following measures would be implemented during construction:
 If project construction, including ground-disturbing or vegetation clearing and grubbing activities, commence during the avian breeding season (February 1 – August 31), a qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction nesting bird survey no more than 14 days prior to initiation of project activities and again immediately prior to construction.

The survey area shall include suitable raptor nesting habitat within 500 feet of the project boundary (inaccessible areas outside of the Study Area can be surveyed from the site or from public roads using binoculars or spotting scopes). Pre-construction surveys are not required in areas where project activities have been continuous since prior to February 1, as determined by a qualified biologist. Areas that have been inactive for more than 14 days during the avian breeding season must be re-surveyed prior to resumption of project activities. If no active nests are identified, no further mitigation is required. If active nests are identified, the following measure is required:
o A suitable buffer (e.g., up to 500 feet for raptors; 100 feet for passerines) shall be established by a qualified biologist around active nests and no construction activities within the buffer shall be allowed until a qualified biologist has determined that the nest is no longer active (i.e., the nestlings have fledged and are no longer reliant on the nest, or the nest has failed). Encroachment into the buffer may occur at the discretion of a qualified biologist. Any encroachment into the buffer shall be monitored by a qualified biologist to determine whether nesting birds are being impacted. Buffer distances may need to be expanded if the biologist determines that the nest is being impacted by project activities.  If construction occurs outside of the nesting bird season (September 1 to January 31), a nesting bird survey will not be required.

Aquatic Resources and Sensitive Natural Communities
The project is located approximately 0.35-mile southeast of Lake Natoma in the Lower American hydrologic unit (HUC12: 180201110201). A reconnaissance-level evaluation of aquatic resources was conducted as part of the December 19, 2025, biological survey. The purpose of this evaluation was to identify the presence of potential wetlands, waters of the U.S., waters of the State, or riparian habitat

Page 164 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.12.

Riley Street Safety Improvement Project Page 6 of 20
Notice of Exemption – Additional Pages

within or adjacent to the project alignment. No formal wetland delineation or jurisdictional determination was conducted as part of this assessment.

Field observations identified a small, isolated area of riparian vegetation located north of the intersection of Riley Street and Natoma Street (Attachment A, Figure 4, of the Biological Evaluation).

This feature comprises approximately 0.04 acre and appears to be associated with a constructed stormwater drainage conveyance and is surrounded by urban development and paved surfaces. The feature is characterized by non-native and ornamental vegetation, limited surface water at the time of survey, cobble and compacted substrate, and hydrologic influence likely associated with localized stormwater runoff. The feature lacks clear connectivity to Lake Natoma or other natural stream systems in the area. The proposed project would avoid construction work within the riparian habitat.

No additional wetlands, streams, ponds, or other aquatic features were observed during the site visit.

Indicators of hydric soils and sustained wetland hydrology were not observed within the project alignment outside of the isolated riparian feature described above.

Arborist Inventory
A total of 73 trees are present on or overhanging the Study Area (Attachment A, Figure 3). The trees onsite include three almonds (Prunus dulcis), eight American sycamores (Platanus occidentalis), three black walnuts (Juglans nigra), one blue oak (Quercus douglasii), four Callery pears (Pyrus calleryana), three camphors (Cinnamomum camphora), one Chinese elm (Ulmus parvifolia), one coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens), one coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), five crape myrtles (Lagerstroemia indica), one English laurel (Prunus laurocerasus), one eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus), one foothill pine (Pinus sabiniana), one gingko (Gingko biloba), nine interior live oaks (Quercus wislizeni), one Japanese pagoda (Styphnolobium japonicum), one Japanese zelkova (Zelkova serrata), one liquidambar (Liquidambar styraciflua), one London plane (Platanus × acerifolia), one Mexican cypress (Hesperocyparis lusitanica), three Mexican fan palms (Washingtonia robusta), one mulberry (Morus alba), seven ornamental olives (Olea europaea), one ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa), two privets (Ligustrum lucidum), one silk tree (Albizia julibrissin), six tree of heavens (Ailanthus altissima), three valley oaks (Quercus lobata), and one dead tree that could not be identified. Trees #1 through #25 were not physically tagged due to inaccessibility.

Of the 73 trees inventoried in and along the project alignment, 29 trees are considered protected by the Folsom Municipal Code. If protected trees would be removed by the proposed project, mitigation will be required per Section 12.16.150 according to the diameter at standard height (DSH) removed as shown in Table 1. Protected trees rated three (3) or above will be mitigated at 1:1 ratio. Trees rated two (2) shall be replaced at a ratio of one-half-inch equivalent for every one inch removed. Protected trees rated zero (0) or one (1) require no replacement or any other mitigation. Mitigation for trees can be done through on-site replacement planting, payment of in-lieu fees of 250 dollars per trunk inch, or a combination thereof.

HELIXEnvironmental Planning

Page 165 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.12.

Riley Street Safety Improvement Project Page 7 of 20
Notice of Exemption – Additional Pages

Table 1: Tree Replacement Equivalency Table
Replacement Tree Size DSH Replacement
Equivalency
A sapling tree 0.5-inch DSH
Tree in container less than 15 gallons 0.5-inch DSH
15-gallon container tree 1-inch DSH
24-inch box tree 2-inch DSH
36-inch box tree 3-inch DSH
DSH = diameter at standard height
The 29 trees protected by the Folsom Municipal Code would require mitigation for their removal based on having a health rating of 5, 4, 3, or 2. None of the protected trees have a health rating of 1. Based on the DSH equivalency ratio, mitigation for a total of 392.3 inches is required if all protected trees subject to mitigation requirements are impacted by the project. Seven trees (Trees #15, 16, 17, 433, 434, 435, and 436) located within or overhanging the riparian corridor adjacent to the project alignment are potentially subject to CFGC Section 1602 and may require permitting through CDFW if they would be removed.

Historical Resources Reports
HELIX prepared a Historical Resources Evaluation Report (HRER) and an Archaeological Survey Report (ASR) for the proposed project in May 2026 (HELIX 2026b and HELIX 2026c). The purpose of the reports is to identify potential cultural and historical resources within the project’s Area of Potential Effect (APE), which is approximately 10.84 acres and includes the approximately 0.5-mile-long segment of Riley Street and up to 0.1 mile (520 feet) wide. Project activities may extend up to 15 feet below ground surface (bgs) in limited areas.

Archaeological Resources
During the archaeological field survey, no undocumented cultural resources were found within the project site. The only previously documented archaeological resource within the APE is the Folsom Mining District (P-34-000335; CA-SAC-000308H), a large archaeological district that covers the entire area of Folsom. As is the case in large portions of the City that have seen extensive historic-era and modern development, no archaeological evidence of the district is visible within the APE. No components of the Folsom Mining District and no undocumented archaeological resources were found during the survey. However, in the unlikely event that archaeological cultural resources, and/or human remains or funerary objects are discovered during project construction, the following standard construction BMPs would be implemented as Conditions of Approval.

Accidental Discovery of Cultural Materials
If previously unidentified cultural materials are unearthed during construction, work will be halted in that area until a qualified archaeologist can assess the significance of the find.

Additional archaeological surveys will be needed if project limits are extended beyond the present survey limits.

HELIXEnvironmental Planning

Page 166 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.12.

Riley Street Safety Improvement Project Page 8 of 20
Notice of Exemption – Additional Pages

Accidental Discovery of Human Remains
If human remains are encountered during construction, work in the immediate area shall be halted within 60 feet of the find and arrangements made to protect the remains in place until their disposition has been arranged according to this section. The treatment of human remains and associated and unassociated funerary objects discovered during any ground-disturbing activity shall comply with applicable federal and State laws. The remains are to be uncovered sufficiently to identify them as human by qualified personnel. If they are so identified, all provisions of California Health and Safety Code Sections 7054 and 7050.5 and Public Resources Code (PRC) Sections 5097.9 through 5097.99, as amended per Assembly Bill 2641, will be followed. The qualified archaeologist (should it be different than a Caltrans Archaeologist) will immediately communicate the find to the Caltrans Project Archaeologist, who will contact the Sacramento County Coroner.

In the event of the Coroner’s determination that the human remains are Native American, they will contact the NAHC within 24 hours, who will designate a Most Likely Descendant (MLD) (PRC Section 5097.98) to consult with and determine proposed treatment in the case of the discovery of human remains.

Historical Resources
The HRER determined that three resources within the APE (including two previously identified and one newly identified resources) are determined to be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), which includes Bridge No. 24C0269 (which carries Figueroa Street over the Riley Ravine Creek), the commercial building at 701 Sutter Street/302 Riley Street (P-34-000962), and the Quonset hut at 701 Bidwell Street. However, all three resources are located outside the Area of Direct Effect (ADE) and would not be impacted by project construction.

Bridge No. 24C0269
Project work would not occur on Bridge No. 24C0269; however, project improvements would occur within ROW in the vicinity of the bridge, including the Figueroa Street approach to Riley Street, and along Riley Street immediately to the northwest and southeast of Figueroa Street. Project work in the vicinity of Bridge No. 24C0269 would include roadway excavation and cold planning of the existing asphalt concrete (AC) surface up to three inches in depth, and overlay of three-inch hot-mix asphalt (HMA). Existing underground utilities would be relocated/reconfigured as needed. A new five-foot-wide pedestrian sidewalk consisting of six-inch-thick Portland cement concrete (PCC) over four-inch-thick aggregate base (AB) would be installed immediately to the northwest and southeast of Figueroa Street to connect to other sidewalks in the area. Work would be limited to areas outside of Bridge No. 24C0269 and would largely occur on previously disturbed areas including roadways and shoulders. Therefore, the proposed project improvements would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of Bridge No. 24C0269.

Resource P-34-000962
Resource P-34-000962 at 701 Sutter Street/302 Riley Street is located on APN 070-0105-012, which is outside of but immediately adjacent to the APE and ADE. Project work would not occur on this property; however, project improvements would occur along Riley Street in the vicinity of this resource. Project work would include cold planning of the existing AC surface up to three inches in depth and removal of a HELIXEnvironmental Planning

Page 167 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.12.

Riley Street Safety Improvement Project Page 9 of 20
Notice of Exemption – Additional Pages

portion of the existing sidewalk along the southwestern side of Riley Street. The sidewalk would be reconstructed with six-inch-thick PCC over four-inch-thick AB and would connect in the southwest with the new sidewalk near Figueroa Street, as described in the paragraph above. Existing underground utilities will be relocated/reconfigured as needed. Work would be limited to areas outside of this property. Therefore, the proposed project improvements would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of Resource P-34-000962.

Quonset Hut
The Quonset hut at 701 Bidwell Street is located on APN 071-0156-013, which is within the APE but outside of the ADE. Project work would not occur within this property; however, a temporary construction easement (TCE) would be required for the construction of frontage improvements and driveway conforms for the property’s driveway onto Bidwell Street. Project work in the vicinity of the property would include demolition of the existing concrete sidewalk and a portion of the existing sidewalk along the corner of Bidwell Street and Riley Street. The sidewalk would be reconstructed with six-inch-thick PCC over four-inch-thick AB and would be reconfigured to connect with the existing sidewalk. No permanent acquisition of this property would be required, and no project work would occur on this property. Therefore, the proposed project improvements would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of the Quonset hut.

Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment
HELIX prepared a Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment for the proposed project in June 2026 (HELIX 2026d). The purpose of the noise assessment was to evaluate potential noise and vibration impacts associated with project construction, as well as to identify existing noise sources in the project vicinity.

As the project would result in a substantial change to existing traffic volumes or flows on City streets during operation, operational traffic noise was not evaluated.

Construction Noise Generation
The closest existing noise-sensitive land uses (NSLUs) to the project site are single-family residences with buildings located as close as 20 feet from the nearest travel lane on Riley Street, or approximately 40 feet from the roadway centerline. Using methodology from the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA’s) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, Option A for a quantitative construction noise assessment, construction equipment is assumed to operate at the center of the project, and the two noisiest pieces of construction equipment are assumed to operate concurrently in close proximity to each other (FTA 2018). The two noisiest pieces of construction equipment that could be used concurrently would be a jack hammer and a concrete saw used during demolition. Using the Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM), the combined noise of a jackhammer and a concrete saw at 40 feet would be 87.2 dBA LEQ. This noise level would exceed the City exterior noise standards of 50 dBA daytime and 45 dBA nighttime. However, daytime construction noise (7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekdays and 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on weekends) is exempt from the City’s Noise Ordinance (Chapter

8.42 of the Folsom Municipal Code).

It is likely that the project would require temporary nighttime construction work for reasons including avoiding traffic congestion, maintaining emergency access, and worker safety. Therefore, to comply with the City’s Noise Ordinance, the City would be required to follow the variance process per Section

8.42.090 (including approval by the City Council) to allow nighttime construction work. Therefore, the HELIXEnvironmental Planning

Page 168 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.12.

Riley Street Safety Improvement Project Page 10 of 20
Notice of Exemption – Additional Pages

project would not result in the generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project exceeding standards established in the City General Plan or Noise Ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. Nighttime construction work is a common requirement for planned roadway projects due to traffic congestion and safety concerns. Therefore, nighttime construction is not an unusual circumstance per CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2(c) that would preclude the project from qualifying for a CEQA categorical exemption. Although project construction would not generate a temporary increase in ambient noise levels exceeding the City’s Noise Ordinance for the reasons discussed above, as Conditions of Approval, the project would implement standard construction noise reduction measures to minimize noise disturbances:

Construction Noise Reduction Measures

1. Noise Shielding and Muffling: Power construction equipment (including combustion engines and pneumatic equipment), fixed or mobile, shall be equipped with noise shielding and muffling devices consistent with manufacturers’ standards or the Best Available Control Technology. All equipment shall be properly maintained, and the construction contractor shall keep documentation on-site during any earthwork or construction activities demonstrating that the equipment has been maintained in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications.

2. Enclosure or Screening of Stationary Equipment: All outdoor stationary equipment (e.g., generators, compressors) shall be enclosed or visually screened. The equipment enclosure or screen shall be impermeable (i.e., solid material with minimum weight of 2 pounds per square feet) and break the line of sight between the equipment and any offsite noise- sensitive uses.

3. Location of Construction Staging Areas: Construction staging areas shall be located as far from noise-sensitive uses as reasonably possible and technically feasible in consideration of site boundaries, topography, intervening roads and uses, and operational constraints. The burden of proving what constitutes “as reasonably possible and technically feasible” shall be upon the construction contractor, in consideration of the above factors.

4. Temporary Walls: Noise barriers, such as temporary walls (minimum one half inch thick plywood) or sound blankets (minimum Sound Transmission Class [STC] 25 rating), that are a minimum of eight feet tall and have no gaps or holes (including between the barrier and the ground), shall be erected between construction activities and noise-sensitive uses as reasonably possible and technically feasible in consideration of site boundaries, topography, intervening roads and uses, and operational constraints. The burden of proving that compliance is technically infeasible shall be upon the construction contractor. Technical infeasibility shall mean that noise barriers cannot be located between construction activities and noise-sensitive uses due to site boundaries, topography, intervening roads and uses, and/or operational constraints.

5. Notification: The City or designated contractor shall provide written notification of nighttime work to all residences located within 300 feet of the proposed work. The notification shall:
a. Be delivered a minimum of 48 hours prior to commencement of nighttime work; b. Include the days and hours of upcoming nighttime work; and HELIXEnvironmental Planning

Page 169 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.12.

Riley Street Safety Improvement Project Page 11 of 20
Notice of Exemption – Additional Pages

c. Include noise complaint contact information, including phone numbers and email addresses to register noise complaints with both the construction contractor and the City.
d. The City and the construction contractor shall log all received noise complaints. The construction contractor shall submit to the City a daily log of all noise complaints received, including the date and time of the complaint and address of the complainant (if provided). The City shall work with the construction contractor to respond to noise complaints and limit nighttime work and locations of noise generating equipment to the extent feasible.

Construction Ground Vibration
Construction activities known to generate excessive ground-borne vibration, such as pile driving or blasting, would not be conducted during project construction. The piece of construction equipment with the highest typical vibration level that would be used during project construction activities would be a vibratory roller. A vibratory roller could be used within 20 feet of the closest off-site structure, a single- family residential building east of the project building site. For assessing potential building damage, a large vibratory roller would create approximately 0.210 inch per second peak particle velocity (PPV) at a distance of 25 feet (FTA 2018). A 0.210 inch per second PPV vibration level would equal 0.27 inch per second PPV at a distance of 20 feet.1 This level would be lower than the structural damage impact of 0.3 inches per second PPV for timber and masonry structures. Therefore, the project would not result in excessive ground-borne vibration levels. However, a vibration level of 0.27 inches per second PPV is equivalent to 96.5 VdB, which would exceed the City’s General Plan standard of 80 VdB for disturbance of vibration-sensitive land uses. As Conditions of Approval, the project would implement standard construction vibration reduction measures to minimize vibration disturbances:

Construction Vibration Reduction Measure
The designated contractor shall ensure that vibratory rollers are used in static mode only (no vibrations) when operating within 120 feet of an occupied residence.

Air Quality Conformity and Impact Assessment
HELIX prepared an Air Quality Conformity and Impact Assessment for the proposed project in June 2026 (HELIX 2026e). The purpose of the air quality assessment was to evaluate the federal air quality conformity and potential air quality impacts associated with project construction. As the project would not result in a substantial change to existing traffic volumes or flows on City streets during operation, project operational emissions were not calculated.

Criteria Pollutants and Air Quality Plans
The project site is located within the Sacramento County portion of the Sacramento Valley Air Basin (SVAB). Air quality in Sacramento County is regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) at the federal level, by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) at the State level, and by the

1 Equipment PPV = Reference PPV * (25/D)n (inches per second), where Reference PPV is PPV at 25 feet, D is distance from equipment to the receiver in feet, and n = 1.1 (the value related to the attenuation rate through the ground); formula from Caltrans 2020. VdB = 20 * Log(PPV/4/10-6)
HELIXEnvironmental Planning

Page 170 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.12.

Riley Street Safety Improvement Project Page 12 of 20
Notice of Exemption – Additional Pages

Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) at the regional level. Sacramento County is in non-attainment for ozone (ozone precursors reactive organic compounds [ROGs; also known as volatile organic compounds [VOCs]2), and oxides of nitrogen [NOX]) and particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter (PM2.5) and 10 microns or less in diameter (PM10) national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) and/or California ambient air quality standards (CAAQs). SMAQMD recommends lead agencies require implementation of the following Basic Construction Emission Control Practices (BCECPs; SMAQMD 2019), which would be implemented as Conditions of Approval for the project:

Basic Construction Emission Control Practices
 Water all exposed surfaces two times daily. Exposed surfaces include, but are not limited to, soil piles, graded areas, unpaved parking areas, staging areas, and access roads;  Cover or maintain at least two feet of free board space on haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material on the site. Any haul trucks that would be traveling along freeways or major roadways should be covered;
 Use wet power vacuum street sweepers to remove any visible trackout mud or dirt onto adjacent public roads at least once a day. Use of dry power sweeping is prohibited;  Limit vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour (mph);  All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, and parking lots to be paved should be completed as soon as possible. In addition, building pads should be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used;
 Minimize idling time by either shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing time of idling to 5 minutes. Provide clear signage that posts this requirement for workers at the entrances to the site; and
 Maintain all construction equipment in proper working condition according to manufacturer’s specifications. The equipment must be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition before it is operated.

The project’s construction emissions were estimated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), Version 2022.1.1.44. Modeling assumptions for the project includes implementation of the fugitive dust control measures included in the SMAQMD’s BCECPs. The modeling results indicate that construction emissions of criteria pollutants and precursors would not exceed the SMAQMD significance thresholds, as summarized in Table 2 below.

2 CARB defines and uses the term ROGs while the USEPA defines and uses the term VOCs. The compounds included in the lists of ROGs and VOCs and the methods of calculation are slightly different. However, for the purposes of estimating criteria pollutant precursor emissions, the two terms are often used interchangeably.

Page 171 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.12.

Riley Street Safety Improvement Project Page 13 of 20
Notice of Exemption – Additional Pages

Table 2: Maximum Daily Construction Emissions
Activity
ROG
(lbs./day)
NOX
(lbs./day)
CO
(lbs./day)
SOX
(lbs./day)
PM10
(lbs./day)
PM2.5
(lbs./day)
Grubbing, Land Clearing, &
Demolition 1.5 12.6 19.2 <0.1 1.8 0.6
Grading & Excavation 1.7 154 21.7 <0.1 1.7 0.7
Drainage, Utilities, & Sub-Grade 1.6 11.4 19.5 <0.1 0.7 0.4 Drainage, Utilities, & Sub-Grade plus
Sidewalks, Retaining Walls, & Paving 3.2 22.8 36.4 <0.1 1.7 1.0 Sidewalks, Retaining Walls, & Paving 1.6 10.8 17.4 <0.1 1.1 0.5 Installation of Signals 0.7 6.3 8.7 <0.1 0.3 0.2
Road Striping 4.4 4.2 6.3 <0.1 0.2 0.2
Maximum Daily Emissions 4.4 22.8 36.4 <0.1 1.8 1.0
SMAQMD Threshold None 85 None None 801 821
Exceed Threshold? No No No No No No
Source: CalEEMod; Thresholds: SMAQMD 2020a
1 SMAQMD PM thresholds are zero unless all feasible Best Available Control Practices/Best Management Practices are applied. lbs./day = pounds per day; ROG = reactive organic gas; NOX = nitrogen oxides; CO = carbon monoxide; SOX = sulfur oxides; PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter; PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter SMAQMD recommends a set of BCECPs, considered by the SMAQMD to be feasible for controlling fugitive dust from a construction site. The practices also serve as best management practices, allowing the use of the non-zero PM significance thresholds. The SMAQMD recommends lead agencies to enforce implementation emission control practices via mitigation, conditions of project approval, or project construction contract specifications. Therefore, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which Sacramento Region is non-attainment.

In accordance with SMAQMD’s CEQA Guide, construction-generated NOX, PM10, and PM2.5, and operational-generated ROG and NOX (ozone precursors) are used to determine consistency with the Regional Ozone Plan. The Guide states (SMAQMD 2020b, p. 4-6):

By exceeding the District’s mass emission thresholds for operational emissions of ROG, NOX, PM10, or PM2.5, the project would be considered to conflict with or obstruct implementation of the District’s air quality planning efforts.

As discussed above, the project’s construction-generated emissions of NOX, PM10 and PM2.5, ROG and NOX would not exceed SMAQMD thresholds. Therefore, the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of SMAQMD’s Regional Ozone Plan.

Pollutant Concentrations
Project construction would use heavy-duty construction equipment, haul trucks, portable generators, and construction worker vehicles, which could generate toxic air contaminants (TAC), specifically diesel particulate matter (DPM). Generation of DPM from construction projects typically occurs in a localized area (e.g., at the project site) for a short period of time. Because construction activities and subsequent emissions vary depending on the construction activity, the construction-related emissions to which nearby receptors are exposed would also vary throughout the construction period. During some equipment-intensive phases such as demolition and grading, construction-related emissions would be higher than other less equipment-intensive phases such installation of signals. In addition, due to the HELIXEnvironmental Planning

Page 172 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.12.

Riley Street Safety Improvement Project Page 14 of 20
Notice of Exemption – Additional Pages

linear nature of the project, construction would not be concentrated near any single sensitive receptor location for extended periods.

The dose (of TAC) to which receptors are exposed is the primary factor used to determine health risk.

Dose is a function of the concentration of a substance in the environment and the extent of exposure a person has with the substance; a longer exposure period to a fixed quantity of emissions would result in higher health risks. Current models and methodologies for conducting cancer health risk assessments are associated with longer-term exposure periods (typically 30 years for individual residents based on guidance from Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment [OEHHA]) and are best suited for evaluation of long duration TAC emissions with predictable schedules and locations. These assessment models and methodologies do not correlate well with the temporary and highly variable nature of construction activities. Cancer potency factors are based on animal lifetime studies or worker studies where there is long-term exposure to the carcinogenic agent. There is considerable uncertainty in trying to evaluate the cancer risk from projects that will only last a small fraction of a lifetime (OEHHA 2015).

Considering this information, the short duration of construction activities and the linear nature of the project, construction of the project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, including DPM.

Other Emissions and Odors
Odors associated with diesel exhaust and ROG from application of asphalt and architectural coatings would be emitted during project construction. The odor of these emissions is objectionable to some; however, emissions would disperse rapidly from the project site and therefore should not be at a level that would affect a substantial number of people. Further, construction activities would be temporary.

According to SMAQMD, typical land uses which could generate significant odor impacts include wastewater treatment plants, sanitary landfills, composting/green waste facilities, recycling facilities, petroleum refineries, chemical manufacturing plants, painting/coating operations, rendering plants, and food packaging plants (SMAQMD 2016). The project would not include any of these land uses.

Therefore, the project would not result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people.

CLASS 1 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION DETERMINATION
Per Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines, a Class 1 Categorical Exemption consists of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use. Subsection (b) applies to existing facilities of both investor and publicly owned utilities used to provide electric power, natural gas, sewerage, or other public utility services. Subsection (c) applies to existing streets, sidewalks, gutters, bicycle and pedestrian trails, and similar facilities (this includes road grading for the purpose of public safety), and other alterations such as the addition of bicycle facilities, including but not limited to bicycle parking, bicycle-share facilities and bicycle lanes, transit improvements such as bus lanes, pedestrian crossings, street trees, and other similar alterations that do not create additional automobile lanes.

The proposed bicycle, pedestrian, and roadway improvements, as well as the utility relocation and improvements, would be eligible for a Class 1 Categorical Exemption under Sections 15301(b) and 15301(c) of the CEQA Guidelines. The proposed project would not involve a substantial expansion of use; rather, the project aims to provide safer designated spaces for cyclists and pedestrians who already HELIXEnvironmental Planning

Page 173 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.12.

Riley Street Safety Improvement Project Page 15 of 20
Notice of Exemption – Additional Pages

utilize Riley Street. As documented in this report, and substantiated by the technical studies prepared for the project, the proposed project would result in no significant impacts to the environment and would be exempt from CEQA review.

Exceptions to the Categorical Exemption
The applicability of all Categorical Exemptions is qualified by the exceptions listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2(a) through (f). In the discussion below, each exception is followed by an explanation of why the exception would not apply to the proposed project.

Exception 15300.2(a): Location.
(a) Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 are qualified by consideration of where the project is to be located – a project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the environment may in a particularly sensitive environment be significant. Therefore, these classes are considered to apply in all instances, except where the project may impact an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, State, or local agencies.

A Class 1 Categorical Exemption is not subject to this exception. Nevertheless, as documented in this report, the project would not result in impacts related to an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern. Therefore, this exception to a Categorical Exemption would not apply to the proposed project.

Exception 15300.2(b): Cumulative Impact.
(b) All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant.

The proposed project would not result in significant growth-inducing impacts that would be cumulatively considerable when viewed in conjunction with other cumulative projects in the City. The proposed project would not involve a substantial expansion of use; rather, the project aims to provide safer designated spaces for cyclists and pedestrians who already utilize Riley Street. Furthermore, the effects of the proposed project would generally be beneficial, as the proposed project would provide pedestrian, bicyclist, and roadway improvements. The project would close critical gaps in the pedestrian network, eliminate safety hazards caused by substandard infrastructure, and provide a safe, accessible route for students, residents, and visitors. Additionally, utility improvements are necessary to reduce localized flooding and improve system performance, as identified by the City in recent feasibility studies.

No other projects are anticipated to occur in the immediate area of the proposed project at the same time. Therefore, the project’s contributions to potential cumulative impacts would not be cumulatively considerable, and this exception to a Categorical Exemption would not apply to the proposed project.

Exception 15300.2(c): Significant Effect.
(c) A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances.

As explained in Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1086 (Berkeley Hillside), a two-part test applies to determine whether an unusual circumstance is present that excludes HELIXEnvironmental Planning

Page 174 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.12.

Riley Street Safety Improvement Project Page 16 of 20
Notice of Exemption – Additional Pages

use of a categorical exemption. This two-part test requires the lead agency to first consider whether there are unusual circumstances ("whether a particular project presents circumstances that are unusual for projects in an exempt class is an essentially factual inquiry, founded on the application of the fact- finding tribunal's experience with the mainsprings of human conduct.”) This inquiry is subject to the substantial evidence standard of review, which means that all evidentiary conflicts must be resolved in the agency's favor and all legitimate and reasonable inferences must be made to uphold the agency's finding. Second, if a lead agency finds an unusual circumstance exists, the lead agency next asks if there is a reasonable possibility of a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. If this second inquiry is necessary, the lead agency applies the "fair argument" standard of review to determine whether the project may have a significant impact on the environment. In establishing this bifurcated test, the Court emphasized that circumstances do not become unusual merely because a fair argument can be made that they might have a significant effect. For environmental impacts to constitute an unusual circumstance, the lead agency must determine based on substantial evidence that the project will have a significant environmental effect.

The proposed project would establish a Class II bike lane, rehabilitate or reconstruct pavement, and construct sidewalks and other pedestrian safety features along an approximately 0.5-mile-long segment of Riley Street to enhance transportation infrastructure and promote mobility for pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists. Riley Street along the project segment is currently a two-lane road, and would continue to operate as a two-lane road following construction of the project improvements. The project would not induce single-occupancy vehicle trips, would not create additional vehicle lanes, and would not include the addition of other infrastructure that would increase automobile capacity along the project alignment. In addition, the project would not introduce new types of facilities, unusual design features, unprecedented processes, or development in an environmentally sensitive or hazardous location.

Furthermore, to apply to a project, the unusual circumstance exception requires findings of both unusual circumstances and a potentially significant effect. As discussed under Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, nighttime construction work is a common requirement for planned roadway projects due to traffic congestion and safety concerns, and would not be considered an unusual circumstance. As no unusual circumstances are present, the City is not required to analyze the second inquiry further. Nevertheless, this analysis also demonstrates that the proposed project would not have the potential to result in any significant environmental impacts. For these reasons, the unusual circumstances exception is not applicable to the project.

Exception 15300.2(d): Scenic Highways:
(d) A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may result in damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. This does not apply to improvements which are required as mitigation by an adopted negative declaration or certified EIR.

There are no officially designated State Scenic Highways in the City or other important scenic resources in the vicinity of the project. The nearest officially designated State Scenic Highway to the project site is a segment of U.S. Highway (US) 50 located approximately 19 miles to the east in the City of Placerville (Caltrans 2026). Due to distance, the project site is not visible from US 50. Therefore, the proposed project would not damage scenic resources within a designated State Scenic Highway, and this exception to a Categorical Exemption would not apply to the project.

HELIXEnvironmental Planning

Page 175 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.12.

Riley Street Safety Improvement Project Page 17 of 20
Notice of Exemption – Additional Pages

Exception 15300.2(e): Hazardous Waste Sites.
(e) A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project located on a site which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code.

The following databases were reviewed for the project site and surrounding area to identify potential hazardous contamination sites: the SWRCB’s GeoTracker database (SWRCB 2026), California Department of Toxic Substance Control’s (DTSC’s) EnviroStor database (DTSC 2026); and the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA’s) Superfund National Priorities List (USEPA 2026). According to the GeoTracker database, a closed leaking underground storage tank (LUST) associated with a Folsom Cordova Unified School District (FCUSD) transportation facility is located on the northern side of E.

Bidwell Street; however, this case was closed in July 2010 and requires no further remedial action (DTSC 2026). Therefore, based on the results of the databases reviewed, the project is not located on an active hazardous materials site included on a list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code. This exception to a Categorical Exemption would not apply to the proposed project.

Exception 15300.2(f): Historical Resources.
(f) A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.

Structures, sites, buildings, districts, and objects over 50 years of age can be listed in the NRHP as significant historical resources. Resources eligible for the NRHP are automatically listed on the CRHR.

Historical resources are further defined as “a resource listed or eligible for listing on the California Register of Historic Resources” (PRC Section 5024.1; 14 CCR 15064.5).

As previously mentioned, the HRER identified three cultural resources within the APE and determined them to be eligible for inclusion in the NRHP, which includes Bridge No. 24C0269 (which carries Figueroa Street over the Riley Ravine Creek), the commercial building at 701 Sutter Street/302 Riley Street (P-34- 000962), and the Quonset hut at 701 Bidwell Street. However, all three resources are located outside of the project’s ADE. The proposed project improvements would not result in an adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, and this exception to a Categorical Exemption would not apply to the proposed project.

PRC SECTION 21080.25 STATUTORY EXEMPTION DETERMINATION
Senate Bill (SB) 288, signed in 2020, created PRC Section 21080.25, which establishes Statutory Exemptions for projects related to the institution or increase of public mass transit, including bus, bus rapid transit, light rail, and passenger rail, or commuter services, including pedestrian and bicycle facilities. This list of projects established in PRC Section 21080.25(b) have been determined not to have a significant effect on the environment and, as a result, are exempt from further review under CEQA.

Specifically, PRC Section 21080.25(b)(1) states that CEQA shall not apply to “pedestrian and bicycle facilities that improve safety, access, or mobility, including new facilities, within the public right-of-way.” Bicycle facilities include, but is not limited to, bicycle parking, bicycle sharing facilities, and bikeways, as defined in Section 890.4 of the Streets and Highways Code. Section 890.4 of the Streets and Highways Code defines these facilities as all facilities that provide primarily for, and promote bicycle travel (e.g., Class I bikeways [bike paths], Class II bikeways [bike lanes], Class III bikeways [bike routes], and Class IV bikeways [cycle tracks]).

HELIXEnvironmental Planning

Page 176 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.12.

Riley Street Safety Improvement Project Page 18 of 20
Notice of Exemption – Additional Pages

The proposed project would improve pedestrian safety, ADA accessibility, and connectivity along a key residential and commercial corridor that links the FHD, Central Business District, and Sutter Middle School. The proposed project would establish a Class II bike lane along the entire corridor, rehabilitate or reconstruct pavement along Riley Street, and construct sidewalks and other pedestrian safety features to enhance transportation infrastructure and promote mobility for pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists.

Due to its nature, the project qualifies for a Statutory Exemption under PRC Section 21080.25(b)(1) and, as a result, would not have a significant effect on the environment.

Statutory Exemption Criteria
In addition to meeting the definition of statutorily exempt projects established in PRC Section 21080.25, the project must meet specific criteria stipulated in PRC Sections 21080.25(c), (d), and (e), in order to meet a Statutory Exemption under PRC Section 21080.25(b)(1). However, the criteria listed in PRC Sections 21080.25(d) and (e) apply to projects that exceed one hundred million dollars ($100,000,000) and fifty million dollars ($50,000,000), respectively, based on the project engineer’s cost estimate at the time the local agency takes an action. As the cost of the proposed project would not exceed approximately twenty three million dollars ($23,000,000), these two criteria do not apply to the project and are not discussed further in this document. In the discussion below, each of the three criterion under PRC Section 21080.25(c) is followed by an explanation as to why the proposed project would meet it.

Criterion 21080.25(c)(1):
(A) A local agency is carrying out the project and is the lead agency for the project; and (B) The lead agency shall take an action to approve a project as follows:
(i) The lead agency’s governing board shall take an action at a public meeting. (ii) Notwithstanding clause (i), if a lead agency has an alternative project approval process for a project subject to subdivision (b), it may instead follow that alternative process.

Local agencies include a public transit operator, city, county, city and county, special district, joint powers authority, local or regional transportation agency, or congestion management agency. The City of Folsom is the local agency for the proposed project and is the CEQA lead agency. The City of Folsom City Council is the governing board that will take action to approve the proposed project at a regularly scheduled City Council meeting. Following project approval, the City will file a Notice of Exemption with the State Clearinghouse and Sacramento County Clerk’s office. Therefore, the proposed project would meet this criterion pursuant to PRC Section 21080.25(c)(1), subsections (A) and (B).

Criterion 21080.25(c)(2):
(2) The project does not induce single-occupancy vehicle trips, add additional highway lanes, widen highways, or add physical infrastructure or striping to highways except for minor modifications needed for the efficient and safe movement of transit vehicles, bicycles, or high-occupancy vehicles, such as extended merging lanes, shoulder improvements, or improvements to the roadway within the existing right of way. The project shall not include the addition of any auxiliary lanes.

HELIXEnvironmental Planning

Page 177 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.12.

Riley Street Safety Improvement Project Page 19 of 20
Notice of Exemption – Additional Pages

The proposed improvements and modifications to Riley Street would not induce single-occupancy vehicle trips, would not create additional vehicle lanes, and would not include the addition of other infrastructure that would increase automobile capacity along the project alignment. Therefore, the proposed project would meet this criterion pursuant to PRC Section 21080.25(c)(2).

Criterion 21080.25(c)(3):
(3) The construction of the project shall not require the demolition of affordable housing units.

The project would not require the demolition of affordable housing units or other structures within the project alignment. Therefore, the proposed project would meet this criterion pursuant to PRC Section 21080.25(c)(3).

CONCLUSION
Based on substantial evidence and the analysis above, none of the exceptions to a Categorical Exemption set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2(a) through (f) would apply to the proposed project. The proposed project would meet the criteria for a Statutory Exemption set forth in PRC Section 21080.25(c). Therefore, the proposed project is exempt from environmental review under CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 and PRC Section 21080.25.

REFERENCES
California Department of Conservation (DOC). 2026. EQ Zapp: California Earthquake Hazards Zone Application. Accessed May 11 at:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/eqzapp/.

California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2026. EnviroStor Map. Accessed May 11 at:
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/?myaddress=Riley+Street%2C+Folsom.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2026. California State Scenic Highway System Map.

Accessed May 11 at:
https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e805 7116f1aacaa.

California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2026. GeoTracker Map. Accessed May 11 at:
https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/?CMD=runreport&myaddress=Riley+Street+Folso m.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2026. National Flood Hazard Layer (NFHL) Layer.

Accessed May 11 at: https://hazards-
fema.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=8b0adb51996444d4879338b5529aa 9cd.

HELIXEnvironmental Planning

Page 178 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.12.

Riley Street Safety Improvement Project Page 20 of 20
Notice of Exemption – Additional Pages

Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual.

Available at: https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research- innovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no- 0123_0.pdf.

HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. (HELIX). 2026a. Arborist Inventory and Biological Resources Evaluation. March 17.
2026b. Historical Resources Evaluation Report. May.
2026c. Archaeological Survey Report. May.
2026d. Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. June 25.
2026e. Air Quality Conformity and Impact Assessment. June 25.

Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. February. Available at:
https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf.

Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD). 2020a. SMAQMD Thresholds of Significance Table. Revised April. Available at:
https://www.airquality.org/LandUseTransportation/Documents/CH2ThresholdsTable4- 2020.pdf.
2020b. Guide to Air Quality Assessment in Sacramento County Chapter 4, Operational Criteria Air Pollutant and Precursor Emissions. Available at:
https://www.airquality.org/LandUseTransportation/Documents/Ch4OperationalFinal10- 2020.pdf.
2019. Basic Construction Emissions Control Practices. Revised July. Available at:
http://www.airquality.org/LandUseTransportation/Documents/Ch3BasicEmissionControlPractic esBMPSFinal7-2019.pdf.
2016. Guide to Air Quality Assessment in Sacramento County Chapter 7, Odors. Available at:
https://www.airquality.org/LandUseTransportation/Documents/Ch7Odors%20FINAL6-2016.pdf.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2026. Superfund National Priorities List (NPL) Where You Live Map. Accessed May 11 at:
https://epa.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=33cebcdfdd1b4c3a8b51d4169 56c41f1.

HELIXEnvironmental Planning

Page 179 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.12.

This page is intentionally left blank
to facilitate double-sided printing
and minimize paper use.

Page 180 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.12.

Page 181 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.12.

Page 182 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.12.

Page 183 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.12.

Page 184 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.12.

Page 185 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.12.

Page 186 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.12.

Page 187 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.12.

Page 188 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.12.

Folsom City Council
Staff Report

1 MEETING DATE:

07/14/2026
AGENDA SECTION:

Election Related Items
SUBJECT: Resolution No. 11675 - A Resolution Calling and Giving Notice of the Holding of a General Municipal Election to be Held on Tuesday, November 3, 2026, Requesting the Board of
Supervisors of the County of Sacramento Consolidate the General Municipal Election with the Statewide General Election, and Establishing Policies for Candidates’ Statements

FROM: City Clerk's Department

RECOMMENDATION / CITY COUNCIL ACTION

Staff recommends that the Folsom City Council adopt Resolution No. 11675 - A Resolution Calling and Giving Notice of the Holding of a General Municipal Election to be Held on Tuesday, November 3, 2026, Requesting the Board of Supervisors of the County of Sacramento Consolidate the General Municipal Election with the Statewide General Election, and Establishing Policies for Candidates’ Statements.

BACKGROUND:

The term of office for three City Councilmembers who were elected in 2022 will expire in November 2026:

District 1 Mike Kozlowski
District 3 Sarah Aquino
District 5 Anna Rohroubh

The term of office for two City Councilmembers who were elected in 2024 will expire in November 2028:

District 2 Justin Raithel
District 4 Barbara Leary

Page 189 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.13.
2 Candidates for City Council seats may file a candidate statement which is included in the sample ballot mailed to voters. The candidate statement is a brief description of the candidate, and Elections Code establishes certain legal parameters for the statement’s form and content.

POLICY/RULE:

Pursuant to Folsom Municipal Code Section 2.40.010, the date of the General Municipal Election shall be the same date as the Statewide General Election in even numbered years.

Elections Code Section 10400 establishes that, whenever two elections are to be held on the same day, they may be consolidated. In addition, Elections Code Section 10403 sets forth the requirement that jurisdictions file a resolution requesting consolidation with the local county board of supervisors.

Folsom Charter Section 2.01 establishes that City Council members shall be elected to four- year, staggered terms.

Elections Code Section 13307 provides that the governing body of any local agency may adopt regulations pertaining to the materials prepared by any candidate, including costs of the candidate’s statement. The candidate’s statement fee, which is paid for by the candidates, is set by the Sacramento County Registrar of Voters prior to the election, and County elections staff have advised this fee will be set once the ballot printer provides printing costs.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

The Sacramento County Registrar of Voters has estimated the election cost for three Councilmembers at approximately $65,000. Funds have been included in the proposed FY 2026/27 budget to cover this cost. If ballot measures are also added to the election, the cost will be approximately $83,000 for the first measure, and $12,200 for each additional measure.

ATTACHMENT

Resolution No. 11675 - A Resolution Calling and Giving Notice of the Holding of a General Municipal Election to be Held on Tuesday, November 3, 2026, Requesting the Board of Supervisors of the County of Sacramento Consolidate the General Municipal Election with the Statewide General Election, and Establishing Policies for Candidates’ Statements

Submitted,

Christa Freemantle, City Clerk

Page 190 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.13.

Resolution No. 11675

Page 1 of 2 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 11675

A RESOLUTION CALLING AND GIVING NOTICE OF THE HOLDING OF A

GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION
TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 2026,

REQUESTING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

CONSOLIDATE THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION WITH THE

STATEWIDE GENERAL ELECTION, AND
ESTABLISHING POLICIES FOR CANDIDATES’ STATEMENTS

WHEREAS, a General Municipal Election will be held within the City of Folsom on November 3, 2026, for the purpose of electing three City Council members; and

WHEREAS, a Statewide General Election will be held within the County of Sacramento on the same day; and

WHEREAS, California Elections Code Section 10403 requires jurisdictions to file a resolution requesting consolidation with a statewide election with the County Board of Supervisors, with a copy to the Registrar of Voters; and

WHEREAS, California Elections Code Section 13307 provides that the governing body of any local agency may adopt regulations pertaining to materials prepared by any candidate for a municipal election, including the formatting, submission, and costs of the candidate’s statement; and

WHEREAS, the Sacramento County Voter Registration and Elections Department has established a new practice allowing candidates to elect to have their candidate statement printed in the official voter information guide or published exclusively online on the County's election website;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Folsom as follows:

SECTION 1. Election Called. Pursuant to the requirements of the laws of the State of California and Article VI, “Elections”, of the Adopted Charter of the City of Folsom, there shall be, and is hereby called and ordered held in the City of Folsom, on Tuesday, November 3, 2026, a General Municipal Election of the qualified electors of Electoral Districts 1, 3, and 5 of the City of Folsom for the purpose of electing one (1) City Council Member to represent each of the following Electoral Districts: Electoral Districts 1, 3, and 5, for the full term of four (4) years.

SECTION 2. Notice of Election. Notice of the time and place of holding the election referenced in Section 1 is hereby given and the City Clerk is hereby authorized and instructed to give such further or additional notice of said election in the time, form, and manner as required by law.

Page 191 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.13.

Resolution No. 11675

Page 2 of 2 ends

SECTION 3. Election Consolidation. The Folsom City Council hereby requests that the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors consolidate the November 3, 2026, General Municipal Election with the Statewide General Election to be held on that same date.

SECTION 4. Candidate Statements. Each candidate for elective office to be voted for at the General Municipal Election to be held in the City of Folsom on November 3, 2026, may prepare a candidate’s statement on an appropriate form provided by the City Clerk. • Content and Form: The statement may include the name, age, and occupation of the candidate and a brief description of not more than two hundred (200) words of the candidate’s qualifications, as expressed by the candidate. The statement shall not include the party affiliation of the candidate, nor membership or activity in partisan political organizations.
• Submission and Withdrawal: The statements shall be filed with the City Clerk at the time the candidate’s nomination papers are filed. The statements may be withdrawn, but not changed, during the period for filing nomination papers and until 5:00 P.M. on the next working day after the close of the nomination period.
• Publication Selection: In accordance with Sacramento County guidelines, candidates shall designate at the time of filing whether their statement shall be printed in the physical voter information guide or published exclusively online on the Sacramento County Voter Registration and Elections website.
• Fees and Payment: The Sacramento County Voter Registration and Elections Department will determine the cost of the candidate’s statement prior to the election based on the selected publication method. This fee shall be paid to the City of Folsom by the candidate at the time the nomination papers and candidate’s statement are filed.

SECTION 5. County Reimbursement. The City of Folsom agrees to reimburse the Sacramento County Registrar of Voters for costs accrued for the execution of the election, such costs to be calculated as set forth in the County’s current Schedule of Fees and Charges.

PASSED AND ADOPTED on this 14
th day of July 2026, by the following roll-call vote:

AYES: Councilmember(s):

NOES: Councilmember(s):

ABSENT: Councilmember(s):

ABSTAIN: Councilmember(s):

___________________________________
Justin Raithel, MAYOR

ATTEST:

______________________________________
Christa Freemantle, CITY CLERK

Page 192 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.13.

Page 193 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.13.

Page 194 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.13.

Page 195 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.13.

Folsom City Council
Staff Report

1 MEETING DATE:

07/14/2026
AGENDA SECTION:

Election Related Items
SUBJECT: 1. Resolution No. 11665 - A Resolution Authorizing Submission to the Qualified Voters of the City of Folsom at the General Municipal Election to be Held on Tuesday, November 3, 2026, a Ballot Measure Amending City
Charter Section 4.03 to Have the City Council Appoint
and Direct the City Attorney and to Make Related
Operational Changes; Directing Outside Legal Counsel to Prepare an Impartial Analysis of the Proposed Measure;
Authorizing the filing of Primary and Rebuttal
Arguments and Setting Rules for the Filing of Written
Arguments Regarding the Proposed Measure

2. Ordinance No. 1371 - An Ordinance of the People of the City of Folsom Amending Section 4.03, “City Attorney”,
of the City Charter to have the City Council Appoint and Direct the City Attorney and to Make Related
Operational Changes
(Second Reading and Approval of
Submission to Voters)

FROM: City Manager's Office

RECOMMENDATION / CITY COUNCIL ACTION

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 11665 - A Resolution Authorizing Submission to the Qualified Voters of the City of Folsom at the General Municipal Election to be Held on Tuesday, November 3, 2026, a Ballot Measure Amending City Charter Section 4.03 to Have the City Council Appoint and Direct the City Attorney and to Make Related Operational Changes; Directing Outside Legal Counsel to Prepare an Impartial Analysis of the Proposed Measure; Authorizing the filing of Primary and Rebuttal

Page 196 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.14.
2 Arguments and Setting Rules for the Filing of Written Arguments Regarding the Proposed Measure.

Staff further recommends that the City Council conduct the second reading and approve submission to the voters of Ordinance No. 1371 - An Ordinance of the People of the City of Folsom Amending Section 4.03, “City Attorney”, of the City Charter to have the City Council Appoint and Direct the City Attorney and to Make Related Operational Changes.

BACKGROUND:

On December 9, 2025, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 11525, establishing the 2026 Ad Hoc Charter Review Committee. The Committee was tasked with reviewing the City Charter and recommending appropriate updates and changes to the City Council. Resolution No. 11525 directed the Committee to submit a report to the City Council containing its recommendations.

Resolution No. 11525 created the 2026 Ad Hoc Charter Review Committee as a Brown Act Committee, so the Committee’s meetings were open to the public. Members of the public attended the final three meetings and addressed the Committee on many of the items considered.

On May 12, 2026, the 2026 Ad Hoc Charter Review Committee’s Report was submitted to the City Council, and a public hearing was held on the eight amendments recommended by the Committee. Following the public hearing, the City Council deliberated and passed Resolution No. 11613, receiving the 2026 Ad Hoc Charter Review Committee Report to City Council with recommended amendments and dissolving the Committee.

The Council engaged in further deliberation and ultimately voted 4-0, with one absent, not to submit five of the eight Charter amendments proposed by the Charter Review Committee to the voters at the November 3, 2026 election.

The Council also directed staff to return on May 26, 2026, for further consideration of whether to submit to the voters at the November 3, 2026 election any of the three remaining amendments recommended by the Committee.

On May 26, 2026, staff presented to the Council conceptual language for the following Charter and Folsom Municipal Code amendments which, if approved by the Council on July 14, 2026, will be submitted to the voters at the November 3, 2026 election:

Page 197 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.14.
3 1. Section 4.03 - City Attorney: to change how the City Attorney is appointed, from the current system in which the City Manager appoints the City Attorney, to a system in which the City Council appoints the City Attorney, and related operational changes.

2. Section 4.07 – Boards and Commissions: strike language that all City Boards and Commissions are only advisory to the Council, confirming that the Council may set the powers and duties of Boards and Commissions by ordinance.

3. Folsom Municipal Code § 2.48.030 – Campaign contribution limitation: increase the campaign contribution limit from $150 to $500 per donor per election on campaigns for Folsom City Council.

Staff also presented information on the cost of putting these measures on the ballot.

The Council deliberated and then voted 4-1 to move forward with the next steps necessary to submit all three measures to the voters in November.

POLICY/RULE:

Charter Amendment
City Charter section 8.01 governs Charter amendments, which may be framed and proposed in several ways, including by an ordinance of the City Council containing the full text of the proposed amendment. Charter amendments must be approved by a majority of the voters of the City at a regular election.

Pursuant to City Charter section 2.12(A), no City ordinance shall contain more than one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title.

Elections
Elections Code Section 9255 and Government Code Section 34458 provide that a proposal to amend a city charter proposed by the governing body of a city shall be submitted to the voters at an established Statewide General Election.

Pursuant to Folsom Municipal Code Section 2.40.010, the date of the General Municipal Election shall be the same date as the Statewide General Election in even numbered years.

Page 198 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.14.
4 eligible to vote on the measure or a bona fide association of citizens, or a combination of voters and associations. If more than one argument for or against a City measure is submitted, the City Clerk must give preference and priority to the argument submitted by the City Council or a member or members of the Council authorized by that body. Consistent with state law, the County establishes deadlines by which arguments concerning ballot measures, and rebuttals to those arguments must be submitted.

Elections Code Section 9280 provides that the City Attorney shall prepare an impartial analysis of any City ballot measure, except for a measure affecting the organization or salaries of the Office of the City Attorney. The City Council may direct the City Clerk or outside legal counsel to prepare the impartial analysis for any such ballot measure.

Additional regulations affecting preparation of the impartial analysis are contained in Elections Code section 9280.

Elections Code Section 9285 governs rebuttal arguments. The City Clerk must send a copy of the argument in favor of a City ballot measure to the authors of the argument against the measure and a copy of the argument against a City ballot measure to the authors of the argument in favor of the measure. The author(s) of the original argument relating to a City measure may submit a rebuttal argument or may authorize someone else to do so.

The full text of a City ballot measure may be but is not required to be printed in the voter information guide. Voters may publicly examine and/or obtain from the City Clerk a copy of the Ordinance and the Resolution authorizing submission of the ballot measure to the voters.

ANALYSIS

Approval of Resolution No. 11665, conducting the second reading of Ordinance No. 1371, and approving submission of the associated ballot measure to the voters are the final procedural steps necessary for the Council to submit the proposed amendment of City Charter Section 4.03 to the voters at the Statewide General Election on November 3, 2026.

The City Attorney serves as the chief legal officer for the City, providing legal advice, representing the City in civil, administrative, and quasi-criminal proceedings, and ensuring compliance with the law by City officials and departments. The City Attorney’s client is the City of Folsom, the municipal corporation as a whole.

According to the League of California Cities’ publication, Counsel and Council: A Guide to Building a Productive City Attorney-City Council Relationship (2022), city councils directly appoint the city attorney in 469 of California’s 482 incorporated cities. Voters directly elect their city attorney in certain charter cities. City managers appoint the city attorney in only two California cities: Folsom and Shafter.

The proposed amendment would bring City operations and reporting structure for the Folsom City Attorney in line with the majority of other cities in the state, without changing the functions or responsibilities of the role.

Page 199 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.14.
5 The operational changes proposed are consistent with the existing Charter provisions governing appointment, dismissal, and related matters applicable to the City Manager, who is the only City employee currently appointed directly by the Council.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

The Sacramento County Registrar of Voters has estimated the election cost for three Councilmembers at approximately $65,000. If ballot measures are also added to the election, the cost will be approximately $83,000 for the first measure, and $12,200 for each additional measure. Funds have been included in the FY 2026/27 budget to cover these costs.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

The proposed Charter amendment is not a project for purposes of CEQA because CEQA only applies to activities that may cause either a direct physical change in the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. Because the proposed Charter amendment relates to organizational or administrative activities of governments that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment, the proposed Charter amendment does not have the potential to cause a physical change in the environment directly or indirectly, and is not a project subject to CEQA. (Public Resources Code §§ 21065; 21080(a); CEQA Guidelines §§ 15060(c), (2), (3); 15378(b)(2).) If for any reason the proposed Charter amendment is considered a project, it is exempt from CEQA review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution No. 11665 - A Resolution Authorizing Submission to the Qualified Voters of the City of Folsom at the General Municipal Election to be Held on Tuesday, November 3, 2026, a Ballot Measure Amending City Charter Section 4.03 to Have the City Council Appoint and Direct the City Attorney and to Make Related Operational Changes; Directing Outside Legal Counsel to Prepare an Impartial Analysis of the Proposed Measure; Authorizing the filing of Primary and Rebuttal Arguments and Setting Rules for the Filing of Written Arguments Regarding the Proposed Measure

2. Ordinance No. 1371 - An Ordinance of the People of the City of Folsom Amending Section 4.03, “City Attorney”, of the City Charter to have the City Council Appoint and Direct the City Attorney and to Make Related Operational Changes

Submitted,

Bryan Whitemyer
City Manager

Page 200 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.14.

Attachment 1

Page 201 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.14.

Resolution No. 11665

Page 1 of 12 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 11665

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBMISSION TO THE QUALIFIED

VOTERS OF THE CITY OF FOLSOM AT THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL
ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 2026, A
BALLOT MEASURE AMENDING CITY CHARTER SECTION 4.03 TO

HAVE THE CITY COUNCIL APPOINT AND DIRECT THE CITY
ATTORNEY AND TO MAKE RELATED OPERATIONAL CHANGES;

DIRECTING OUTSIDE LEGAL COUNSEL TO PREPARE AN
IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS OF THE PROPOSED MEASURE;

AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF PRIMARY AND REBUTTAL

ARGUMENTS AND SETTING RULES FOR THE FILING OF WRITTEN

ARGUMENTS REGARDING THE PROPOSED MEASURE

WHEREAS, the Adopted Charter of the City of Folsom currently provides that the Folsom City Manager shall appoint, remove, and discipline all employees of the City, including the City Attorney, pursuant to the requirements set out in the Charter; and

WHEREAS, on December 9, 2025, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 11525, establishing the 2026 Ad Hoc Charter Review Committee; and

WHEREAS, the C ommittee was tasked with reviewing the City Charter and recommending appropriate updates and changes to the City Council, and was directed to submit a report to the City Council containing its recommendations; and

WHEREAS, the Committee performed its work over five public meetings, held from March 4, 2026 to May 4, 2026. During these meetings, the Committee conducted a review of the City Charter, heard from the public, and ultimately approved recommended amendments to several sections of the Charter and one section of the Folsom Municipal Code pertaining to campaign contribution limits that was an initiative measure passed in 1994; and

WHEREAS, on May 12, 2026, the Committee submitted its Report to the City Council, and a public hearing was held on all of the amendments recommended by the Committee; and

WHEREAS, this proposed Charter Amendment to have the City Council appoint and direct the City Attorney and to make related operational changes , was one of the Committee’s recommendations made in its Report; and

WHEREAS, on May 26, 2026, staff presented to the Council conceptual language for this Charter Amendment and the Council gave direction for staff to draft finalized Charter Amendment language and the required resolution(s) and ordinance(s) to submit this Charter Amendment to City of Folsom voters at the November 3, 2026 General Municipal Election; and

WHEREAS, the City Council desires to submit to the voters a ballot measure amending City Charter Section 4.0 3 to have the City Council appoint and direct the City Attorney and to make related operational changes (the “Measure”); and

Page 202 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.14.

Resolution No. 11665

Page 2 of 12 ends

WHEREAS, pursuant to City Charter Sections 6.01 and 8.01, applicable provisions of state law shall govern amendments to the City Charter and elections for that purpose , insofar as such provisions do not conflict with the City Charter or City of Folsom ordinance(s); and

WHEREAS, pursuant to City Charter Section 8.01(A)(1), California Elections Code Sections 1415 and 9255, and Government Code Section 34458, the City Council has authority to place measures to amend the City Charter on the ballot as an ordinance to be considered at (i) the City’s next regularly scheduled general municipal election or (ii) at a regular election as set by state law, occurring at least 88 days after the date of the order of election; and

WHEREAS, the City Council desires to place the Measure on the ballot to be considered by City of Folsom voters at the General Municipal Election which will coincide with the Statewide General Election to be held on Tuesday, November 3, 2026; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to California Government Code Section 34458(b), the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on May 12, 2026 and a second duly noticed public hearing on June 23, 2026 to hear public comment and testimony and to consider the proposed Charter Amendment, with the first and second public hearings being held at 6:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter could be heard, outside normal City business hours; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to California Government Code Section 34458(b), this resolution is being adopted at a City Council meeting which is at least twenty -one (21) calendar days after the second public hearing referenced above; and

WHEREAS, California Constitution, Article XI, Section 3, requires that , to be effective, any charter amendment must be approved by a majority of City voters voting at an election called for that purpose; and

WHEREAS, City Charter Section 8.01 requires that amendments to the Charter must be approved by a majority of the voters of the City to be effective; and

WHEREAS, the specific terms of the Measure are attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and by this reference made an operative part hereof, and in accordance with all applicable laws; and

WHEREAS, the City Council desires to consolidate the General Municipal Election for the Measure described herein with the Statewide General Election to be held on November 3, 2026; and
WHEREAS, the City Council further desires to set deadlines and rules for primary and rebuttal arguments for and against the Measure.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Folsom as follows:

SECTION 1. Recitals. The City Council of the City of Folsom hereby finds and determines that the foregoing recitals are true and correct, incorporate s the foregoing recitals

Page 203 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.14.

Resolution No. 11665

Page 3 of 12 ends

herein, and by this reference makes them an operative part hereof.

SECTION 2. Submission of Ballot Measure . The City Council of the City of Folsom, pursuant to its right and authority as contained in California Constitution, Art. XI, Section 3, the Adopted Charter of the City of Folsom Section 8.01(A)(1), California Government Code Sections 34450 et. seq ., California Elections Code Sections 1415 and 9255, and any other applicable requirements of the laws of the State of California relating to charter cities, by a majority vote, hereby calls and orders to be held a General Municipal Election in the City of Folsom to be consolidated with the Statewide General Election on Tuesday, November 3, 2026, for the purpose of submitting to a vote of the qualified electors of the City of Folsom the Measure, in the form attached to this Resolution as Exhibit “A” and incorporated by this reference as if fully set forth herein.

SECTION 3. Ballot Question. The City Council of the City of Folsom , pursuant to its right and authority, does hereby order that the ballot question for the M easure shall be presented and printed upon the ballot submitted to the qualified voters of the City in the manner and form set forth in this Section 3. On the ballot to be submitted to the qualified voters of the City at the General Municipal Election to be held on Tuesday, November 3, 2026, in addition to any other matters required by law, there shall be printed substantially the following:

Shall the measure amending the Adopted Charter of the City of Folsom to have the City Council appoint and direct the City Attorney and to make related operational changes
, be
adopted?
YES
NO

SECTION 4. Election Procedures.

A. Request for Consolidation. Pursuant to the requirements of Section 10403 of the California Elections Code, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Sacramento is hereby requested to consent and agree to the consolidation of a General Municipal Election with the Statewide General Election on Tuesday, November 3, 2026, for the purpose of submitting to the voters the Measure.

B. Necessary Steps. The Board of Supervisors is requested to issue instructions to the Sacramento County Registrar of Voters/Elections Official to take any and all steps necessary for the holding of the consolidated election.

C. Canvass of Returns. The Sacramento County Registrar of Voters/Elections Official is authorized to canvass the returns and perform all other proceedings incidental to and connected with the General Municipal Election for the Measure. The Election shall be held in all respects as if there were only one election, and only one form of ballot shall be used. Pursuant to California Elections Code Sections 10403 and 10418, the election will be held and conducted in accordance with the provisions of law regulating the Statewide General Election.

Page 204 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.14.

Resolution No. 11665

Page 4 of 12 ends

D. Costs. The City Council determines and declares that the City will pay to the County the reasonable and actual expenses incurred by the County by the consolidation of the General Municipal Election with the Statewide General E lection. The City shall reimburse the County for services performed when the work is completed and upon presentation to the City of a properly approved bill.

E. Form of Ballot. The ballots to be used at the election shall be in the form and content as required by law.

F. City Clerk Authorized to Coordinate with County. The City Clerk is authorized and instructed, in coordination with the Sacramento County Registrar of Voters/Elections Official, to procure and furnish any and all official ballots, notices, printed matter and all supplies, equipment and paraphernalia that may be necessary in order to properly and lawfully conduct the election.

G. Opening and Operation of Polls, Vote Centers, Etc. The polls, vote centers and/or vote-by-mail drop -off boxes shall be open and the procedures for submitting votes -by-mail or votes at polls and vote centers shall be in accordance with those times and procedures established by the County of Sacramento, except as otherwise provided in the Elections Code of the State of California.

H. Election to Follow Applicable Law. In all particulars not recited in this Resolution, the election shall be held and conducted as provided by law for holding municipal elections in the City.

I. Notice of Election. Notice of the time and place of holding the election is given and the City Clerk is authorized and instructed to give further or additional notice of the election, in the time, form, and manner as required by law.

J. Tallying of Ballots. All ballots shall be tallied at a central counting place and not at the precincts. Said central counting place shall be at a County center as designated by the Registrar of Voters.

K. Receipt of Election Results. The City Clerk of the City of Folsom shall receive the canvass as it pertains to the election on the Measure, and shall certify the results to the City Council, as required by law.

SECTION 5. Vote Requirement. Pursuant to Section 8.01 of the Adopted Charter of the City of Folsom, and consistent with California Constitution Article XI, Section 3, the Measure shall be approved by a simple majority vote (50% + 1) of the votes cast on the Measure.

SECTION 6. Direct Arguments and Impartial Analysis.

A. The City Council authorizes (i) the City Council or any member(s) of the City Council, (ii) any individual voter eligible to vote on the Measure, (iii) a bona fide association of

Page 205 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.14.

Resolution No. 11665

Page 5 of 12 ends

such citizens or (iv) any combination of voters and associations, to file a written argument in favor of or against the Measure, in accordance with Article 4, Chapter 3, Division 9 of the Elections Code of the State of California until and including Tuesday, July 28, 2026, after which no arguments for or against the Measure may be submitted to the City Clerk. Arguments may be changed or withdrawn by their proponents until and including Tuesday, July 28, 2026. An a rgument in favor of or against the Measure shall not exceed 300 words in length. Each argument shall be filed with the City Clerk, signed, and include the printed name(s) and signature(s) of the author(s) submitting it, or if submitted on behalf of an organization, the name of the organization, and the printed name and signature of at least one of its principal officers who is the author of the argument.

B. The City Clerk shall comply with all provisions of law establishing priority of arguments for printing and distribution to the voters, including specifically Elections Code Section 9287, and shall take all actions necessary to cause the selected arguments to be printed and distributed to the voters.

C. Pursuant to Section 9280 of the Elections Code, because the Measure affects the organization of the Office of the City Attorney, the City Council directs the City Clerk to transmit a copy of the Measure to outside legal counsel retained by the City (Best, Best & Krieger, LLP).

Outside legal counsel shall prepare an impartial analysis of the Measure, not to exceed 500 words in length, showing the effect of the Measure on the existing law and the operation of the Measure.

Outside legal counsel shall transmit such impartial analysis to the City Clerk, who shall cause the impartial analysis to be published in the voter information guide along with the Measure as provided by law. The Impartial Analysis shall include a statement indicating whether the Measure was placed on the ballot by a petition signed by the requisite number of voters or by the City Council. The Impartial Analysis shall be filed by Wednesday, August 12, 2026. In the event the entire text of the Measure is not printed on the ballot, nor in the voter information portion of the sample ballot, there shall be printed immediately below the Impartial Analysis, in no less than 10-point bold type, the following: “The above statement is an Impartial Analysis of Measure ____. If you desire a copy of the Measure, please call the election official’s office at (916) 461 -6035 or email [email protected] and a copy will be sent at no cost to you.”

D. The provisions of this Section 6 shall apply only to the election to be held on November 3, 2026, and shall then be repealed.

SECTION 7. Rebuttals.

A. Pursuant to Section 9285 of the Elections Code of the State of California, when the Clerk has selected the arguments for and against the Measure which will be printed and distributed to the voters, the Clerk shall send a copy of the argument in favor of the Measure to the authors of the argument against the Measure, and a copy of the argument against the Measure to the authors of the argument in favor of the Measure. The author (s) of an argument in favor of or against the Measure may prepare and submit a rebuttal argument not exceeding 250 words or may authorize in writing another person(s) to prepare, submit, or sign the rebuttal argument. The rebuttal arguments shall be filed with the City Clerk not later than Friday, August 7, 2026. Rebuttal arguments shall be printed in the same manner as the direct arguments. Each rebuttal argument shall immediately follow the direct argument which it seeks to rebut.

Page 206 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.14.

Resolution No. 11665

Page 6 of 12 ends

B. The provisions herein shall apply only to the election to be held on November 3, 2026.

SECTION 8. Notice of Election . Notice of the election is hereby given and the City Clerk is authorized and instructed to give further or additional notice of the election in the time, form, and manner as required by law.

SECTION 9. Full Text . The full text of the Measure shall be printed in the voter information guide and a statement shall be printed in the ballot pursuant to Elections Code Section 9223, advising voters that they may obtain a copy of this Resolution and the Measure, at no cost, upon request made to the City Clerk. The complete text of the Measure is attached to this Resolution as Exhibit “A”.

SECTION 10. Filing with County . The City Clerk shall, not later than the 88th day before the General Municipal Election to be held on Tuesday, November 3, 2026, file with the Board of Supervisors and the County Registrar of Voters of the County of Sacramento , State of California, a certified copy of this Resolution.

SECTION 11. Public Examination . Pursuant to Elections Code section 9295, this Resolution and the Measure will be available for public examination for at least ten (10) calendar days immediately following the filing deadline for submission of those materials, as referenced in Section 10. The City Clerk shall post notice in the Clerk’s office of the specific dates that the examination period will run.

SECTION 12. CEQA. The City Council hereby finds and determines that the Measure relates to organizational or administrative activities of governments that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment, and therefore is not a project within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQ A”) and the State CEQA Guidelines . (Public Resources Code §§ 21065; 21080(a); CEQA Guidelines §§ 15060(c), (2), (3); 15378(b)(2), (b)(5).) If for any reason the proposed ballot measure is considered a project, it is exempt from CEQA review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.

SECTION 13. Severability. The provisions of this Resolution are severable and if any provision of this Resolution is held invalid, that provision shall be severed from the Resolution and the remainder of this Resolution shall continue in full force and effect, and not be affected by such invalidity.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of July, 2026, by the following roll-call vote:

AYES: Councilmember(s):

NOES: Councilmember(s):

ABSENT: Councilmember(s):

ABSTAIN: Councilmember(s):

Page 207 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.14.

Resolution No. 11665

Page 7 of 12 ends

__________________________________
Justin Raithel, MAYOR

ATTEST:

______________________________
Christa Freemantle, CITY CLERK

Page 208 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.14.

Resolution No. 11665

Page 8 of 12 ends

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO ) ss.

CITY OF FOLSOM )

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution No. 11665 was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Folsom at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 14th day of July, 2026, by the following vote of the Council:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

___________________________________
Christa Freemantle, City Clerk

Page 209 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.14.

Resolution No. 11665

Page 9 of 12 ends

EXHIBIT “A”

ORDINANCE NO. 1371 – AN ORDINANCE OF THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF FOLSOM AMENDING SECTION 4.03, “CITY ATTORNEY,” OF THE CITY

CHARTER TO HAVE THE CITY COUNCIL APPOINT AND DIRECT THE CITY

ATTORNEY AND TO MAKE RELATED OPERATIONAL CHANGES

[attached behind this page]

Page 210 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.14.

Resolution No. 11665

Page 10 of 12 ends

ORDINANCE NO. 1371

AN ORDINANCE OF THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF FOLSOM
AMENDING SECTION 4.03, “CITY ATTORNEY,” OF THE CITY CHARTER TO

HAVE THE CITY COUNCIL APPOINT AND DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY AND

TO MAKE RELATED OPERATIONAL CHANGES

The People of the City of Folsom hereby do ordain and amend the Adopted Charter of the City of Folsom as follows:

SECTION 1 CHARTER AMENDMENT
Section 4.03, “City Attorney”, of Article IV, “Departments, Agencies and Employees”, of The Adopted Charter of the City of Folsom is hereby amended to read as follows:

4.03 City Attorney:

The office of City Attorney is hereby created. The City Attorney shall be the chief legal officer of the City, and, notwithstanding any other provision of this Charter:

A. Duties. Shall advise the City Council, individual Councilmembers, the City Manager and his/her assistants, and department heads regarding the law relating to City affairs.

B. Additional Duties. Shall represent the City in all legal proceedings, prepare all ordinances and other needed legal documents, select and retain specialist counsel where there is a need for such specialized legal services, and perform such other duties as may be prescribed by ordinance.

C. Department Head. May be a full time department head of the City appointed by the City Council, or may be contracted by the City Council as a department head.

D. Approval of Contracts. Shall review and approve all City contracts as to legal form.

E. Special Counsel. The City Council may retain special counsel in any matter where representation by the City Attorney would create an impermissible conflict, including the discipline or dismissal of the City Manager.

F. City Attorney Appointment. The City Council shall appoint a City Attorney for an indefinite term through the mechanism of an employment agreement the same as those afforded department heads under this Charter. The City Attorney:

1. Serve At Pleasure. Shall serve at the pleasure of the Council;

2. How Chosen. Shall be chosen solely on the basis of administrative qualifications and, at time of appointment need not be a resident of the State or City but shall be a member of the California State Bar;

Page 211 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.14.

Resolution No. 11665

Page 11 of 12 ends

3. Salary. Shall be paid a salary fixed by the Council commensurate with the responsibilities of the position.

G. Dismissal Hearing. Shall have the right to a public hearing on any motion to remove or to suspend his/her employment, which public hearing shall be held only after provision of 10 days' published notice prior to the Council voting on the motion to remove or to suspend the City Attorney.

H. Restriction on Dismissal. During a period of 90 days immediately following the date of installation of any person newly elected to the Council at a regular or special City election, or of any person newly appointed to the Council, the Council shall take no action, whether immediate or prospective, to remove, suspend, request the resignation of, or to reduce the duties, salary or benefits of the City Attorney.

I. Appointment of Employees. The City Attorney shall appoint all other members of the City Attorney’s Office to positions authorized by the Council. These employees shall serve at the pleasure of the City Attorney but shall have permanent status subject to all rights and limitations in the City merit system.

SECTION 2 SCOPE
Except as set forth in this Ordinance, all other provisions of The Adopted Charter of the City of Folsom shall remain in full force and effect.

SECTION 3 SEVERABILITY
If any section, subsection, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The People of the City of Folsom hereby declare that they would have adopted this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, clauses, phrases or portions be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 4 EFFECTIVE DATE

If a majority of the registered voters of the City voting upon this proposed Charter amendment vote in favor of it, the amendment shall become effective thirty (30) days after the City Council certifies the election returns.

SECTION 5 PUBLICATION
The City Clerk shall file the results of the Charter amendment election with the Secretary of State within 45 days following the election.

In addition, the City Clerk is directed to cause a copy of this Ordinance to be published in full or in summary in a newspaper of general circulation in the City within twenty (20) days after the City Council certifies the election returns indicating that a majority of the registered voters of

Page 212 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.14.

Resolution No. 11665

Page 12 of 12 ends

the City voting upon the proposed Charter amendment voted in favor of it.

SECTION 6 ELECTION RESULTS

The foregoing Charter amendment was approved by the voters of the City of Folsom at a General Municipal Election held on November 3, 2026, by the following vote tally:

YES:

NOES:

OTHER:

APPROVED:

_______________________________________
Justin Raithel, MAYOR

ATTEST:

______________________________
Christa Freemantle, CITY CLERK

Page 213 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.14.

Attachment 2

Page 214 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.14.

Ordinance No. 1371

Page 1 of 3 ends

ORDINANCE NO. 1371

AN ORDINANCE OF THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF FOLSOM
AMENDING SECTION 4.03, “CITY ATTORNEY,” OF THE CITY CHARTER

TO HAVE THE CITY COUNCIL APPOINT AND DIRECT THE CITY

ATTORNEY AND TO MAKE RELATED OPERATIONAL CHANGES

The People of the City of Folsom hereby do ordain and amend the Adopted Charter of the City of Folsom as follows:

4.03 City Attorney:

The office of City Attorney is hereby created. The City Attorney shall be the chief legal officer of the City, and, notwithstanding any other provision of this Charter:

A. Duties. Shall advise the City Council, individual Councilmembers, the City Manager and his/her assistants, and department heads regarding the law relating to City affairs.

C. Department Head. May be a full time department head of the City appointed by the City Council, or may be contracted by the City Council as a department head.

D. Approval of Contracts. Shall review and approve all City contracts as to legal form.

1. Serve At Pleasure. Shall serve at the pleasure of the Council;

Page 215 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.14.

Ordinance No. 1371

Page 2 of 3 ends

3. Salary. Shall be paid a salary fixed by the Council commensurate with the responsibilities of the position.

SECTION 2 SCOPE
Except as set forth in this Ordinance, all other provisions of The Adopted Charter of the City of Folsom shall remain in full force and effect.

SECTION 4 EFFECTIVE DATE

SECTION 5 PUBLICATION
The City Clerk shall file the results of the Charter amendment election with the Secretary of State within 45 days following the election.

Page 216 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.14.

Ordinance No. 1371

Page 3 of 3 ends

In addition, t he City Clerk is directed to cause a copy of this Ordinance t o be published in full or in summary in a newspaper of general circulation in the City within twenty (20) days after the City Council certifies the election returns indicating that a majority of the registered voters of the City voting upon the proposed Charter amendment voted in favor of it.

SECTION 6 ELECTION RESULTS

The foregoing Charter amendment was approved by the voters of the City of Folsom at a General Municipal Election held on November 3, 2026, by the following vote tally:

YES:

NOES:

OTHER:

APPROVED:

_______________________________________
Justin Raithel, MAYOR

ATTEST:

______________________________
Christa Freemantle, CITY CLERK

Page 217 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.14.

Page 218 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.14.

Page 219 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.14.

Page 220 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.14.

Folsom City Council
Staff Report

1 MEETING DATE:

07/14/2026
AGENDA SECTION:

Election Related Items
SUBJECT: 1. Resolution No. 11666 - A Resolution Authorizing Submission to the Qualified Voters of the City of Folsom at the General Municipal Election to be Held on Tuesday, November 3, 2026, a Ballot Measure Amending City
Charter Section 4.07 to Confirm that the City Council
May Grant Decision Making Authority to Boards and
Commissions by Ordinance; Directing the City Attorney
to Prepare an Impartial Analysis of the Proposed
Measure; Authorizing the filing of Primary and Rebuttal Arguments and Setting Rules for the Filing of Written
Arguments Regarding the Proposed Measure

2. Ordinance No. 1372 - An Ordinance of the People of the City of Folsom Amending Section 4.07, “Boards and
Commissions,” of the City Charter to Confirm that the
City Council May Grant Decision Making Authority to
Boards and Commissions by Ordinance (Second
Reading and Approval of Submission to Voters)

FROM: City Manager's Office

RECOMMENDATION / CITY COUNCIL ACTION

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 11666 - A Resolution Authorizing Submission to the Qualified Voters of the City of Folsom at the General Municipal Election to be Held on Tuesday, November 3, 2026, a Ballot Measure Amending City Charter Section 4.07 to Confirm that the City Council May Grant Decision Making Authority to Boards and Commissions by Ordinance; Directing the City Attorney to Prepare an Impartial Analysis of the Proposed Measure; Authorizing the filing of Primary and

Page 221 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.15.
2 Rebuttal Arguments and Setting Rules for the Filing of Written Arguments Regarding the Proposed Measure.

Staff further recommends that the City Council conduct the second reading and approve submission to the voters of Ordinance 1372 - An Ordinance of the People of the City of Folsom Amending Section 4.07, “Boards and Commissions,” of the City Charter to Confirm that the City Council May Grant Decision Making Authority to Boards and Commissions by Ordinance.

BACKGROUND:

Page 222 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.15.
3 1. Section 4.03 - City Attorney: to change how the City Attorney is appointed, from the current system in which the City Manager appoints the City Attorney, to a system in which the City Council appoints the City Attorney, and related operational changes.

3. Folsom Municipal Code § 2.48.030 – Campaign contribution limitation: increase the campaign contribution limit from $150 to $500 per donor per election on campaigns for Folsom City Council.

Staff also presented information on the cost of putting these measures on the ballot.

The Council deliberated and then voted 4-1 to move forward with the next steps necessary to submit all three measures to the voters in November.

POLICY/RULE:

Pursuant to City Charter section 2.12(A), no City ordinance shall contain more than one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title.

Pursuant to Folsom Municipal Code Section 2.40.010, the date of the General Municipal Election shall be the same date as the Statewide General Election in even numbered years.

Page 223 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.15.
4 eligible to vote on the measure or a bona fide association of citizens, or a combination of voters and associations. If more than one argument for or against a City measure is submitted, the City Clerk must give preference and priority to the argument submitted by the City Council or a member or members of the Council authorized by that body. Consistent with state law, the County establishes deadlines by which arguments concerning ballot measures, and rebuttals to those arguments must be submitted.

Elections Code Section 9280 provides that the City Attorney shall prepare an impartial analysis of any City ballot measure, except for a measure affecting the organization or salaries of the Office of the City Attorney. The City Council may direct the City Clerk to prepare the impartial analysis for any such ballot measure. Additional regulations affecting preparation of the impartial analysis are contained in Elections Code section 9280.

Elections Code Section 9285 governs rebuttal arguments. The City Clerk must send a copy of the argument in favor of a City ballot measure to the authors of the argument against the measure and a copy of the argument against a City ballot measure to the authors of the argument in favor of the measure. The author(s) of the original argument relating to a City measure may prepare and submit a rebuttal argument or may authorize someone else to do so.

The full text of a City ballot measure may be but is not required to be printed in the voter information guide. Voters may publicly examine and/or obtain from the City Clerk a complete copy of the Ordinance and the Resolution authorizing submission of the ballot measure to the voters.

ANALYSIS

Approval of Resolution No. 11666, conducting the second reading of Ordinance No. 1372, and approving submission of the associated ballot measure to the voters are the final procedural steps necessary for the Council to submit the proposed amendment of City Charter Section 4.07 to the voters at the Statewide General Election on November 3, 2026.

Although the language of Section 4.07 states that the “City Council may by ordinance create other Boards and Commissions and prescribe their powers and duties, determine the number and qualification of the members, their method of selection, term of office and removal, and fix their compensation, if any” the same Section also states that “[a]ll boards and commissions only shall be advisory to the Council.” These two sentences are inconsistent, with the first one giving City Council authority to prescribe the powers and duties of Boards and Commissions by ordinance, and the second one restricting the City Council’s authority to do just that. If approved, the proposed amendment will remove the language stating that Boards and Commissions only shall be advisory to the Council. This will confirm that the Council may by ordinance prescribe the powers and duties of Boards and Commissions, as stated in the first sentence of Section 4.07. Without this amendment, the Council would have to amend the Charter through a vote of the people in order to grant decision making authority to a Board or Commission not specifically listed in the Charter.

Page 224 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.15.
5 If the ballot measure is approved, City Council will have the flexibility to determine which Boards and Commissions should have decision making authority, as opposed to the lesser authority of only advising the Council. Staff submits that granting decision making authority to Boards and Commissions will reduce costs, save time, and cut red tape for residents, companies, and others doing business with the City by streamlining necessary approvals.

Any decision made by a City Board or Commission will remain appealable to the City Council, providing accountability for the Boards and Commissions and an avenue for relief to those who feel aggrieved by such a decision. If the Council later determines that a Board or Commission should not have decision making authority, it can modify those powers and duties by ordinance.

The Historic District Commission in particular will likely be affected if the proposed amendment is approved by the voters. When it was established by the Council via ordinance in 1998, the Historic District Commission was intended to review and approve or deny the design of new buildings and the proposed alteration to existing buildings within the Historic District. It was also intended to review and approve or deny applications for other land use entitlements like conditional use permits, variances, and certain land divisions or mergers within the Historic District. Given the language in Section 4.07 that “[a]ll boards and commissions only shall be advisory to the Council”, the original intent for the Historic District Commission (HDC) has been frustrated and all decisions of the HDC must be reviewed and approved by the Council. This practice has resulted in increased costs, unnecessary delays, and extra bureaucracy for those attempting to develop property or even remodel their home in the Historic District. If the proposed Charter amendment is approved by the voters, the City Council will have authority to confirm that the HDC has final decision making authority, as anticipated at its inception and as described in Folsom Municipal Code Chapter 17.52.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

Page 225 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.15.
6 proposed Charter amendment is considered a project, it is exempt from CEQA review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution No. 11666 - A Resolution Authorizing Submission to the Qualified Voters of the City of Folsom at the General Municipal Election to be Held on Tuesday, November 3, 2026, a Ballot Measure Amending City Charter Section 4.07 to Confirm that the City Council May Grant Decision Making Authority to Boards and Commissions by Ordinance; Directing the City Attorney to Prepare an Impartial Analysis of the Proposed Measure; Authorizing the filing of Primary and Rebuttal Arguments and Setting Rules for the Filing of Written Arguments Regarding the Proposed Measure

2. Ordinance No. 1372 - An Ordinance of the People of the City of Folsom Amending Section 4.07, “Boards and Commissions,” of the City Charter to Confirm that the City Council May Grant Decision Making Authority to Boards and Commissions by Ordinance

Submitted,

Bryan Whitemyer
City Manager

Page 226 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.15.

Attachment 1

Page 227 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.15.

Resolution No. 11666

Page 1 of 11 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 11666

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBMISSION TO THE QUALIFIED

VOTERS OF THE CITY OF FOLSOM AT THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL
ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 2026, A
BALLOT MEASURE AMENDING CITY CHARTER SECTION 4.07 TO

CONFIRM THAT THE CITY COUNCIL MAY GRANT DECISION

MAKING AUTHORITY TO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS BY
ORDINANCE; DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN
IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS OF THE PROPOSED MEASURE;

AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF PRIMARY AND REBUTTAL

ARGUMENTS AND SETTING RULES FOR THE FILING OF WRITTEN

ARGUMENTS REGARDING THE PROPOSED MEASURE

WHEREAS, Section 4.07 of the Adopted Charter of the City of Folsom grants the City Council authority to create and regulate Boards and Commissions not already established in the Charter; and

WHEREAS, on December 9, 2025, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 11525, establishing the 2026 Ad Hoc Charter Review Committee; and

WHEREAS, on May 12, 2026, the Committee submitted its Report to the City Council, and a public hearing was held on all of the amendments recommended by the Committee; and

WHEREAS, this proposed Charter Amendment to confirm that the City Council may grant decision making authority to Boards and Commissions by ordinance, was one of the Committee’s recommendations made in its Report; and

WHEREAS, the City Council desires to submit to the voters a ballot measure amending City Charter Section 4.07 to confirm that the City Council may grant decision making authority to Boards and Commissions by ordinance and to remove language stating that all Boards and

Page 228 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.15.

Resolution No. 11666

Page 2 of 11 ends

Commissions only shall be advisory to the Council (the “Measure”); and

WHEREAS, City Charter Section 8.01 requires that amendments to the Charter must be approved by a majority of the voters of the City to be effective; and

WHEREAS, the specific terms of the Measure are attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and by this reference made an operative part hereof, and in accordance with all applicable laws; and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Folsom as follows:

Page 229 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.15.

Resolution No. 11666

Page 3 of 11 ends

SECTION 1. Recitals. The City Council of the City of Folsom hereby finds and determines that the foregoing recitals are true and correct, incorporate s the foregoing recitals herein, and by this reference makes them an operative part hereof.

Shall the measure amending the Adopted Charter of the City of Folsom to confirm the City Council may grant decision making authority to Boards and Commissions by ordinance, be adopted?
YES
NO

SECTION 4. Election Procedures.

Page 230 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.15.

Resolution No. 11666

Page 4 of 11 ends

Elections Code Sections 10403 and 10418, the election will be held and conducted in accordance with the provisions of law regulating the Statewide General Election.

E. Form of Ballot. The ballots to be used at the election shall be in the form and content as required by law.

H. Election to Follow Applicable Law. In all particulars not recited in this Resolution, the election shall be held and conducted as provided by law for holding municipal elections in the City.

Page 231 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.15.

Resolution No. 11666

Page 5 of 11 ends

SECTION 6. Direct Arguments and City Attorney’s Impartial Analysis.

A. The City Council authorizes (i) the City Council or any member(s) of the City Council, (ii) any individual voter eligible to vote on the Measure, (iii) a bona fide association of such citizens or (iv) any combination of voters and associations, to file a written argument in favor of or against the Measure, in accordance with Article 4, Chapter 3, Division 9 of the Elections Code of the State of California until and including Tuesday, July 28, 2026, after which no arguments for or against the Measure may be submitted to the City Clerk. Arguments may be changed or withdrawn by their proponents until and including Tuesday, July 28, 2026. An a rgument in favor of or against the Measure shall not exceed 300 words in length. Each argument shall be filed with the City Clerk, signed, and include the printed name(s) and signature(s) of the author(s) submitting it, or if submitted on behalf of an organization, the name of the organization, and the printed name and signature of at least one of its principal officers who is the author of the argument.

C. Pursuant to Section 9280 of the Elections Code, the City Council directs the City Clerk to transmit a copy of the Measure to the City Attorney. The City Attorney shall prepare an impartial analysis of the Measure, not to exceed 500 words in length, showing the effect of the Measure on the existing law and the operation of the Measure. The City Attorney shall transmit such impartial analysis to the City Clerk, who shall cause the analysis to be published in the voter information guide along with the Measure as provided by law. The Impartial Analysis shall include a statement indicating whether the Measure was placed on the ballot by a petition signed by the requisite number of voters or by the City Council. The Impartial Analysis shall be filed by Wednesday, August 12, 2026. In the event the entire text of the Measure is not printed on the ballot, nor in the voter information portion of the sample ballot, there shall be printed immediately below the Impartial Analysis, in no less than 10 -point bold type, the following: “The above statement is an Impartial Analysis of Measure ____. If you desire a copy of the M easure, please call the election official’s office at (916) 461-6035 or email [email protected] and a copy will be sent at no cost to you.”

D. The provisions of this Section 6 shall apply only to the election to be held on November 3, 2026, and shall then be repealed.

SECTION 7. Rebuttals.

Page 232 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.15.

Resolution No. 11666

Page 6 of 11 ends

shall be filed with the City Clerk not later than Friday, August 7, 2026. Rebuttal arguments shall be printed in the same manner as the direct arguments. Each rebuttal argument shall immediately follow the direct argument which it seeks to rebut.

B. The provisions of this Section 7 shall apply only to the election to be held on November 3, 2026, and then shall be repealed.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of July, 2026, by the following roll-call vote:

Page 233 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.15.

Resolution No. 11666

Page 7 of 11 ends

AYES: Councilmember(s):

NOES: Councilmember(s):

ABSENT: Councilmember(s):

ABSTAIN: Councilmember(s):

__________________________________
Justin Raithel, MAYOR

ATTEST:

______________________________
Christa Freemantle, CITY CLERK

Page 234 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.15.

Resolution No. 11666

Page 8 of 11 ends

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO ) ss.

CITY OF FOLSOM )

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution No. 11666 was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Folsom at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 14th day of July, 2026, by the following vote of the Council:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

___________________________________
Christa Freemantle, City Clerk

Page 235 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.15.

Resolution No. 11666

Page 9 of 11 ends

EXHIBIT “A”

ORDINANCE NO. 1372 – AN ORDINANCE OF THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF FOLSOM AMENDING SECTION 4.07, “BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS,” OF THE

CITY CHARTER TO CONFIRM THAT THE CITY COUNCIL MAY GRANT

DECISION MAKING AUTHORITY TO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS BY

ORDINANCE

[attached behind this page]

Page 236 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.15.

Resolution No. 11666

Page 10 of 11 ends

ORDINANCE NO. 1372

AN ORDINANCE OF THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF FOLSOM
AMENDING SECTION 4.07, “BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS,” OF THE CITY

CHARTER TO CONFIRM THAT THE CITY COUNCIL MAY GRANT DECISION

MAKING AUTHORITY TO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS BY ORDINANCE

The People of the City of Folsom hereby do ordain and amend the Adopted Charter of the City of Folsom as follows:

SECTION 1 CHARTER AMENDMENT
Section 4.07, “Boards and Commissions”, of Article IV, “Departments, Agencies and Employees”, of The Adopted Charter of the City of Folsom is hereby amended to read as follows:

4.07 Boards and Commissions:

The City Council may by ordinance create other Boards and Commissions and prescribe their powers and duties, determine the number and qualification of the members, their method of selection, term of office and removal, and fix their compensation, if any. All boards and commissions only shall be advisory to the Council. Each member of any Board or Commission shall be a resident and registered voter of the City.

SECTION 2 SCOPE
Except as set forth in this Ordinance, all other provisions of The Adopted Charter of the City of Folsom shall remain in full force and effect.

SECTION 4 EFFECTIVE DATE

SECTION 5 PUBLICATION
The City Clerk shall file the results of the Charter amendment election with the Secretary of State within 45 days following the election.

Page 237 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.15.

Resolution No. 11666

Page 11 of 11 ends

SECTION 6 ELECTION RESULTS

The foregoing Charter amendment was approved by the voters of the City of Folsom at a General Municipal Election held on November 3, 2026, by the following vote tally:

YES:

NOES:

OTHER:

APPROVED:

_______________________________________
Justin Raithel, MAYOR

ATTEST:

______________________________
Christa Freemantle, CITY CLERK

Page 238 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.15.

Attachment 2

Page 239 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.15.

Ordinance No. 1372

Page 1 of 2 ends

ORDINANCE NO. 1372

AN ORDINANCE OF THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF FOLSOM
AMENDING SECTION 4.07, “BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS,” OF THE CITY

CHARTER TO CONFIRM THAT THE CITY COUNCIL MAY GRANT DECISION

MAKING AUTHORITY TO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS BY ORDINANCE

The People of the City of Folsom hereby do ordain and amend the Adopted Charter of the City of Folsom as follows:

4.07 Boards and Commissions:

SECTION 2 SCOPE
Except as set forth in this Ordinance, all other provisions of The Adopted Charter of the City of Folsom shall remain in full force and effect.

SECTION 4 EFFECTIVE DATE

SECTION 5 PUBLICATION
The City Clerk shall file the results of the Charter amendment election with the Secretary of State within 45 days following the election.

Page 240 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.15.

Ordinance No. 1372

Page 2 of 2 ends

SECTION 6 ELECTION RESULTS

The foregoing Charter amendment was approved by the voters of the City of Folsom at a General Municipal Election held on November 3, 2026, by the following vote tally:

YES:

NOES:

OTHER:

APPROVED:

_______________________________________
Justin Raithel, MAYOR

ATTEST:

______________________________
Christa Freemantle, CITY CLERK

Page 241 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.15.

This page is intentionally left blank
to facilitate double-sided printing
and minimize paper use.

Page 242 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.15.

Page 243 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.15.

Page 244 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.15.

Page 245 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.15.

Page 246 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.15.

Page 247 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.15.

Page 248 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.15.

Page 249 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.15.

Page 250 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.15.

Page 251 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.15.

Page 252 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.15.

Page 253 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.15.

Page 254 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.15.

Page 255 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.15.

Page 256 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.15.

Page 257 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.15.

Page 258 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.15.

Page 259 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.15.

Page 260 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.15.

Page 261 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.15.

Page 262 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.15.

Page 263 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.15.

Page 264 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.15.

Page 265 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.15.

Page 266 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.15.

Page 267 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.15.

Page 268 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.15.

Page 269 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.15.

Page 270 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.15.

Page 271 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.15.

Page 272 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.15.

Page 273 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.15.

Page 274 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.15.

Page 275 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.15.

Page 276 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.15.

Page 277 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.15.

Page 278 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.15.

Page 279 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.15.

Page 280 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.15.

Page 281 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.15.

Page 282 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.15.

Folsom City Council
Staff Report

1 MEETING DATE:

07/14/2026
AGENDA SECTION:

Election Related Items
SUBJECT: 1. Resolution No. 11667 - A Resolution Authorizing Submission to the Qualified Voters of the City of Folsom at the General Municipal Election to be Held on Tuesday, November 3, 2026, a Ballot Measure Amending Folsom
Municipal Code Section 2.48.030 to Increase the
Campaign Contribution Limit from $150 to $500 per
Donor per Election; Directing the City Attorney to
Prepare an Impartial Analysis of the Proposed Measure;
Authorizing the filing of Primary and Rebuttal
Arguments and Setting Rules for the Filing of Written
Arguments Regarding the Proposed Measure

2. Ordinance No. 1373 - An Ordinance of the People of the City of Folsom Amending Section 2.48.030, “Campaign
Contribution Limitation”, of the Folsom Municipal Code
to Increase the Campaign Contribution Limit (Second
Reading and Approval of Submission to Voters)

FROM: City Manager's Office

RECOMMENDATION / CITY COUNCIL ACTION

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 11667 - A Resolution Authorizing Submission to the Qualified Voters of the City of Folsom at the General Municipal Election to be Held on Tuesday, November 3, 2026, a Ballot Measure Amending Folsom Municipal Code Section 2.48.030 to Increase the Campaign Contribution Limit from $150 to $500 per Donor per Election; Directing the City Attorney to Prepare an Impartial Analysis of the Proposed Measure; Authorizing the filing of Primary and Rebuttal

Page 283 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.16.
2 Arguments and Setting Rules for the Filing of Written Arguments Regarding the Proposed Measure.

Staff further recommends that the City Council conduct the second reading and approve submission to the voters of Ordinance No. 1373 - An Ordinance of the People of the City of Folsom Amending Section 2.48.030, “Campaign Contribution Limitation”, of the Folsom Municipal Code to Increase the Campaign Contribution Limit.

BACKGROUND:

At the June 7, 1994 Special Municipal Election, Folsom voters approved a City initiative measure, which is commonly referred to as “Measure V ”. Measure V added Chapter 2.48 to the Folsom Municipal Code to establish local campaign contribution limits for candidates running for elective office in the City of Folsom . Folsom Municipal Code Section 2.48.030 sets a $150 per donor per election limit on the receipt of campaign contributions by a candidate, a candidate’s committee, or a candidate’s campaign treasurer. That $150 limit has not been changed since it was originally adopted by the voters in 1994.

The Committee performed its work over five meetings, held from March 4, 2026 to May 4, 2026. During these meetings, the Committee conducted a review of the City Charter and ultimately approved recommended language changes to seven sections of the Charter and one section of the Folsom Municipal Code that was an initiative measure passed by a vote of the people in 1994. Although a review of the Municipal Code was not part of the purview of the Committee, because this particular ordinance was adopted by the voters as an initiative and could only be modified through a vote of the people, it was determined that it was appropriate to consider an amendment to Folsom Municipal Code section 2.48.030 as a part of the Charter review process.

Page 284 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.16.
3 The Council engaged in further deliberation and ultimately voted 4-0, with one absent, not to submit five of the eight amendments proposed by the Charter Review Committee to the voters at the November 3, 2026 election.

1. Section 4.03 - City Attorney: to change how the City Attorney is appointed, from the current system in which the City Manager appoints the City Attorney, to a system in which the City Council appoints the City Attorney, and related operational changes.

3. Folsom Municipal Code § 2.48.030 – Campaign contribution limitation: increase the campaign contribution limit from $150 to $500 per donor per election on campaigns for Folsom City Council.

Staff also presented information on the cost of putting these measures on the ballot.

The Council deliberated and then voted 4-1 to move forward with the next steps necessary to submit all three measures to the voters in November.

POLICY/RULE:

Amending an Ordinance Passed by the Voters
Because Measure V was passed by the voters, pursuant to California Elections Code S ection 9217, any amendment must also be approved by a majority of Folsom voters voting on the amendment at a municipal election.

Pursuant to Elections Code Section 9222, if the ballot measure proposing to amend Folsom Municipal Code Section 2.48.030 receives a majority of the votes cast on it at the election, the ordinance shall be amended.

Page 285 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.16.
4 Pursuant to Folsom Municipal Code Section 2.40.010, the date of the General Municipal Election shall be the same date as the Statewide General Election in even numbered years.

The rules governing arguments in favor of and against City ballot measures are contained in Elections Code Sections 9281 through 9287. For measures placed on the ballot by the City Council, the City Council or a member or members of the Council authorized by the Council may file a written argument for or against any city measure, as may any individual voter eligible to vote on the measure or a bona fide association of citizens, or a combination of voters and associations. If more than one argument for or against a City measure is submitted, the City Clerk must give preference and priority to the argument submitted by the City Council or a member or members of the Council authorized by that body. Consistent with state law, the County establishes deadlines by which arguments concerning ballot measures, and rebuttals to those arguments, must be submitted.

Elections Code Section 9280 provides that the City Attorney shall prepare an impartial analysis of any City ballot measure, except for a measure affecting the organization or salaries of the Office of the City Attorney. The City Council may direct the City Clerk to prepare the impartial analysis for any such ballot measure. Additional regulations affecting preparation of the impartial analysis are contained in Elections Code section 9280.

Elections Code Section 9285 governs rebuttal arguments. The City Clerk must send a copy of the argument in favor of a City ballot measure to the authors of the argument against the measure and a copy of the argument against a City ballot measure to the authors of the argument in favor of the measure. The author(s) of the original argument relating to a City measure may prepare and submit a rebuttal argument or may authorize someone else to do so.

Campaign Contribution Limits
Campaign contribution limits have been held to infringe on the contributor’s ability to engage in free communication and association, thereby impinging on First Amendment freedoms. (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) 558 US 310.) Limits on campaign contributions made directly to candidates or their committees may be upheld if the regulations are “closely drawn” to achieve important governmental interests, including preventing corruption, the appearance of corruption, and the circumvention of otherwise valid campaign finance regulations. (Buckley v. Valeo (1976) 424 US 1, 26.) However, the

Page 286 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.16.
5 goals of equalizing political opportunities between candidates and reducing the influence of money in politics were rejected by the Supreme Court in Citizens United as sufficiently important governmental interests to support impinging on First Amendment freedoms. As a result, those concepts cannot be used as the basis for campaign contribution limits. (Citizens United, 558 US at p. 350.)

When analyzing specific campaign contribution limits adopted by the voters, courts look to whether the contribution limits are closely drawn to achieve the government's interest, because a contribution limit may still be "too low and too strict to survive First Amendment scrutiny." (Moving Oxnard Forward, Inc. v. Lopez (9
th Cir. 2026, en banc) 173 F.4th 1070,
1077, citing Randall v, Sorrell (2006, plurality opinion) 548 U.S. 230, 248.) Courts ordinarily "defer[] to the legislature's determination" of the contribution limit amount. (Ibid.) There is, however, a "lower bound" where "the constitutional risks to the democratic electoral process become too great" because the limits "harm the electoral process by preventing challengers from mounting effective campaigns against incumbent officeholders." (Moving Oxnard Forward, supra, at p. 1077, citing Randall, supra at pp. 248- 249.) In this narrow context, equalizing political opportunities may be considered as a sufficiently important governmental interest. (Moving Oxnard Forward, Inc., supra, at pp. 1080-1082.)

ANALYSIS

Approval of Resolution No. 11667, conducting the second reading of Ordinance No. 1373, and approving submission of the associated ballot measure to the voters are the final procedural steps necessary for the Council to submit the proposed amendment of Folsom Municipal Code Section 2.48.030 to increase the campaign contribution limit from $150 per donor per election to $500 per donor per election to the voters at the Statewide General Election on November 3, 2026.

The City of Folsom has a strong interest in preserving the integrity, fairness, and public confidence in its municipal elections. While that interest is as strong today as it was in 1994, given the passage of time since Measure V was adopted by the voters, the existing campaign contribution limit is considered low by today’s standards.

During meetings of the Committee and the City Council over the past several months, concerns were raised that the current $150 contribution limit may make it more difficult for qualified challengers to mount effective campaigns against incumbent officeholders. The City Council considered these concerns alongside the City's longstanding commitment to maintaining the integrity and fairness of its elections and concluded that increasing the contribution limit to $500 per donor per election would continue to provide meaningful safeguards against undue influence while better supporting competitive municipal elections.

The proposed limit remains substantially below the campaign contribution limits permitted under state law and reflects the City's judgment as to an appropriate balance for Folsom in 2026.

Page 287 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.16.
6 According to the FPPC’s website, the 2025-2026 campaign contribution limit for city and county candidates in cities and counties that have not enacted local campaign contribution limits is $5,900 per donor per election. A survey of campaign contribution limits in surrounding jurisdictions is as follows:

Jurisdiction Name Local Campaign Contribution
Limit
Other Information
Dixon $25,000 per donor per election
Elk Grove No local limit – default state limit of
$5,900 applies

Galt $100 per donor per election
Rancho Cordova No limit Resolution adopting “no limit”
Rocklin No local limit – default state limit of
$5,900 applies

Roseville $500 per donor per election
Sacramento $2,200 per person per election for
city council candidates
Higher limits for candidates
for mayor and for donations
from large political committees
Sacramento County $1,600 per person per election in
election years
Lower limits apply in non-
election years; higher limits
apply to donations from
organizations
El Dorado County No local limit – default state limit of $5,900 applies

Placer County No local limit – default state limit of
$5,900 applies

Campaign contribution limits of $500 per donor per election have been upheld against First Amendment challenges in other California cities. (Sotoodeh v. City of West Covina; Moving Oxnard Forward v. Lopez.)

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

Page 288 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.16.
7 amendment does not have the potential to cause a physical change in the environment directly or indirectly, and is not a project subject to CEQA. (Public Resources Code §§ 21065; 21080(a); CEQA Guidelines §§ 15060(c), (2), (3); 15378(b)(2).) If for any reason the proposed Charter amendment is considered a project, it is exempt from CEQA review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution No. 11667 - A Resolution Authorizing Submission to the Qualified Voters of the City of Folsom at the General Municipal Election to be Held on Tuesday, November 3, 2026, a Ballot Measure Amending Folsom Municipal Code Section

2.48.030 to Increase the Campaign Contribution Limit from $150 to $500 per Donor per Election; Directing the City Attorney to Prepare an Impartial Analysis of the Proposed Measure; Authorizing the filing of Primary and Rebuttal Arguments and Setting Rules for the Filing of Written Arguments Regarding the Proposed Measure

2. Ordinance No. 1373 - An Ordinance of the People of the City of Folsom Amending Section 2.48.030, “Campaign Contribution Limitation”, of the Folsom Municipal Code to Increase the Campaign Contribution Limit.

Submitted,

Bryan Whitemyer
City Manager

Page 289 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.16.

Attachment 1

Page 290 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.16.

Resolution No. 11667

Page 1 of 10 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 11667

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBMISSION TO THE QUALIFIED

VOTERS OF THE CITY OF FOLSOM AT THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL
ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 2026, A

BALLOT MEASURE AMENDING FOLSOM MUNICIPAL CODE
SECTION 2.48.030 TO INCREASE THE CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION
LIMIT FROM $150 TO $500 PER DONOR PER ELECTION; DIRECTING

THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS OF
THE PROPOSED MEASURE; AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF

PRIMARY AND REBUTTAL ARGUMENTS AND SETTING RULES FOR

THE FILING OF WRITTEN ARGUMENTS REGARDING THE

PROPOSED MEASURE

WHEREAS, at the June 7, 1994 Special Municipal Election, Folsom voters approved a City initiative measure, which is commonly referred to as “Measure V”; and

WHEREAS, Measure V added Chapter 2.48 to the Folsom Municipal Code to establish local campaign contribution limits for candidates running for elective office in the City of Folsom; and

WHEREAS, Folsom Municipal Code Section 2.48.030 currently sets a $150 per donor per election limit on the receipt of campaign contributions by a candidate, a candidate’s committee, or a candidate’s campaign treasurer; and

WHEREAS, because Measure V is a voter -approved measure, pursuant to California Elections Code Section 9217, any amendment to Measure V must also be approved by majority of Folsom voters voting on such amendment at a municipal election; and

WHEREAS, on December 9, 2025, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 11525, establishing the 2026 Ad Hoc Charter Review Committee; and

WHEREAS, on May 12, 2026, the Committee submitted its Report to the City Council, and a public hearing was held on all of the amendments recommended by the Committee; and

WHEREAS, a proposed amendment to Folsom Municipal Code Section 2.48.030 to

Page 291 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.16.

Resolution No. 11667

Page 2 of 10 ends

increase the campaign contribution limit per donor per election was one of the Committee’s recommendations made in its Report; and

WHEREAS, on May 26, 2026, staff presented to the Council conceptual language for this Ordinance amendment and the Council gave direction for staff to draft finalized Ordinance amendment language and the required resolution(s) and ordinance(s) to submit this Ordinance amendment to City of Folsom voters at the November 3, 2026 General Municipal Election; and

WHEREAS, the City Council desires to submit to the voters a ballot measure amending Folsom Municipal Code Section 2.48.030 to increase the campaign contribution limit from $150 per donor per election to $500 per donor per election on campaigns for Folsom City Council (“the Measure”); and

WHEREAS, the specific terms of the Measure are provided for in the Ordinance to be considered by the qualified voters, attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and by this reference made an operative part of this Resolution, and in accordance with all applicable laws; and

WHEREAS, California Elections Code Section 9222 authorizes the City Council to submit local measures to the voters and states that such a measure shall be approved if it receives a majority of the votes cast on it at the election; and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Folsom as follows:

SECTION 2. Submission of Ballot Measure . The City Council of the City of Folsom, pursuant to its right and authority as contained in California Elections Code Section 9222, and all other laws governing charter cities, by a majority vote, hereby calls and orders to be held a General Municipal Election in the City of Folsom to be consolidated with the Statewide General Election on Tuesday, November 3, 2026, for the purpose of submitting to a vote of the qualified electors of the City of Folsom the Measure, in the form attached to this Resolution as Exhibit “A” and incorporated by this reference as if fully set forth herein.

Page 292 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.16.

Resolution No. 11667

Page 3 of 10 ends

Shall the measure increasing the campaign contribution limit from $150 to $500 per donor per election on campaigns for Folsom City Council be adopted?
YES
NO

SECTION 4. Election Procedures.

E. Form of Ballot. The ballots to be used at the election shall be in the form and content as required by law.

Page 293 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.16.

Resolution No. 11667

Page 4 of 10 ends

election.

H. Election to Follow Applicable Law. In all particulars not recited in this Resolution, the election shall be held and conducted as provided by law for holding municipal elections in the City.

SECTION 5. Vote Requirement. Pursuant to Elections Code Section 9222, the Measure shall be approved by a simple majority vote (50% + 1) of the votes cast on the Measure.

SECTION 6. Direct Arguments and City Attorney’s Impartial Analysis.

A. The City Council authorizes (i) t he City Council or any member(s) of the City Council, (ii) any individual voter eligible to vote on the Measure, (iii) a bona fide association of such citizens or (iv) any combination of voters and associations, to file a written argument in favor of or against the Measure, in accordance with Article 4, Chapter 3, Division 9 of the Elections Code of the State of California until and including Tuesday, July 28, 2026, after which no arguments for or against the Measure may be submitted to the City Clerk. Arguments may be changed or withdrawn by their proponents until and including Tuesday, July 28, 2026. An a rgument in favor of or against the Measure shall not exceed 300 words in length. Each argument shall be filed with the City Clerk, signed, and include the printed name(s) and signature(s) of the author(s) submitting it, or if submitted on behalf of an organization, the name of the organization, and the printed name and signature of at least one of its principal officers who is the author of the argument.

Page 294 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.16.

Resolution No. 11667

Page 5 of 10 ends

D. The provisions of this Section 6 shall apply only to the election to be held on November 3, 2026, and shall then be repealed.

SECTION 7. Rebuttals.

B. The provisions of this Section 7 shall apply only to the election to be held on November 3, 2026, and then shall be repealed.

SECTION 10. Filing with County . The City Clerk shall, not later than the 88th day before the General Municipal Election to be held on Tuesday, November 3, 2026, file with the

Page 295 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.16.

Resolution No. 11667

Page 6 of 10 ends

Board of Supervisors and the County Registrar of Voters of the County of Sacramento , State of California, a certified copy of this Resolution.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of July, 2026, by the following roll-call vote:

AYES: Councilmember(s):

NOES: Councilmember(s):

ABSENT: Councilmember(s):

ABSTAIN: Councilmember(s):

__________________________________
Justin Raithel, MAYOR

ATTEST:

______________________________
Christa Freemantle, CITY CLERK

Page 296 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.16.

Resolution No. 11667

Page 7 of 10 ends

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO ) ss.

CITY OF FOLSOM )

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution No. 11667 was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Folsom at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 14th day of July, 2026, by the following vote of the Council:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

___________________________________
Christa Freemantle, City Clerk

Page 297 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.16.

Resolution No. 11667

Page 8 of 10 ends

EXHIBIT “A”

AN ORDINANCE OF THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF FOLSOM
AMENDING SECTION 2.48.030, “CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION LIMITATION”, OF

THE FOLSOM MUNICIPAL CODE TO INCREASE THE CAMPAIGN

CONTRIBUTION LIMIT

[attached behind this page]

Page 298 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.16.

Resolution No. 11667

Page 9 of 10 ends

ORDINANCE NO. 1373

AN ORDINANCE OF THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF FOLSOM
AMENDING SECTION 2.48.030, “CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION LIMITATION”, OF

THE FOLSOM MUNICIPAL CODE TO INCREASE THE CAMPAIGN

CONTRIBUTION LIMIT

The People of the City of Folsom hereby do ordain as follows:

SECTION 1 ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
Section 2.48.03, “Campaign Contribution Limitation”, of the Folsom Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

2.48.030 Campaign contribution limitation.

A. No person other than a candidate shall make, and no campaign treasurer shall solicit or accept, any contribution which will cause the total amount contributed by such person with respect to a single election in support or opposition to such candidate, including contributions to all committees supporting or opposing such candidate, to exceed $150 $500.

B. Extension of credit for a period of more than 90 days is prohibited. Extension of credit for more than $1,000 is prohibited; provided, however, a candidate may personally borrow any amount and such funds shall be considered as a contribution by the candidate personally; provided, further, that such transaction is fully disclosed and documented in accordance with applicable law.

C. The terms of this section are applicable to any contributions made to a candidate or committee hereunder, whether used by such candidate or committee to finance a current campaign, to pay deficits incurred in a prior campaign, or otherwise.

D. If any person is found guilty of violating the terms of this section, the amount of funds received constituting such violation shall be paid by the candidate or committee treasurer who received such funds to the city finance director for deposit in the general fund of the city.

E. As used in this section, “extension of credit” means any loan, gift, forbearance or forgiveness of debt without adequate compensation.

SECTION 2 SCOPE
Except as set forth in this Ordinance, all other provisions of the Folsom Municipal Code shall remain in full force and effect.

Page 299 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.16.

Resolution No. 11667

Page 10 of 10 ends

the City of Folsom hereby declare that they would have adopted this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, clauses, phrases or portions be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 4 EFFECTIVE DATE

If a majority of the registered voters of the City voting upon this proposed Ordinance amendment vote in favor of it, the Ordinance amendment shall become effective thirty (30) days after the City Council certifies the election returns.

SECTION 5 PUBLICATION
The City Clerk is directed to cause a copy of this Ordinance to be published in full or in summary in a newspaper of general circulation in the City within twenty (20) days after the City Council certifies the election returns indicating that a majority of the registered voters of the City voting upon the proposed Ordinance amendment voted in favor of it.

SECTION 6 ELECTION RESULTS

The foregoing Ordinance amendment was approved by the voters of the City of Folsom at a General Municipal Election held on November 3, 2026, by the following vote tally:

YES:

NOES:

OTHER:

APPROVED:

_______________________________________
Justin Raithel, MAYOR

ATTEST:

______________________________
Christa Freemantle, CITY CLERK

Page 300 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.16.

Attachment 2

Page 301 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.16.

Ordinance No. 1373

Page 1 of 3 ends

ORDINANCE NO. 1373

AN ORDINANCE OF THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF FOLSOM
AMENDING SECTION 2.48.030, “CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION
LIMITATION”, OF THE FOLSOM MUNICIPAL CODE TO INCREASE THE

CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION LIMIT

T he People of the City of Folsom hereby do ordain as follows:

SECTION 1 ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
Section 2.48.03, “Campaign Contribution Limitation”, of the Folsom Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

2.48.030 Campaign contribution limitation.

E. As used in this section, “extension of credit” means any loan, gift, forbearance or forgiveness of debt without adequate compensation.

SECTION 2 SCOPE
Except as set forth in this Ordinance, all other provisions of the Folsom Municipal Code shall remain in full force and effect.

Page 302 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.16.

Ordinance No. 1373

Page 2 of 3 ends

SECTION 4 EFFECTIVE DATE

SECTION 6 ELECTION RESULTS

The foregoing Ordinance amendment was approved by the voters of the City of Folsom at a General Municipal Election held on November 3, 2026, by the following vote tally:

YES:

NOES:

OTHER:

APPROVED:

_______________________________________
Justin Raithel, MAYOR

Page 303 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.16.

Ordinance No. 1373

Page 3 of 3 ends

ATTEST:

______________________________
Christa Freemantle, CITY CLERK

Page 304 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.16.

Folsom City Council
Staff Report

1 MEETING DATE:

7/14/2026
AGENDA SECTION:

Public Hearing
SUBJECT: Resolution No. 11662 - A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Folsom Approving and Confirming the Report of
Delinquent Utilities Charges and Requesting Sacramento County to Collect Such Charges on the Tax Roll

FROM: Finance Department

RECOMMENDATION / CITY COUNCIL ACTION

Staff recommends, that the City Council review the attached Report of utilities delinquencies, hold a public hearing on the Report and accept any oral or written public comment, and adopt Resolution No. 11662- A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Folsom Approving and Confirming the Report of Delinquent Utilities Charges and Requesting Sacramento County to Collect such Charges on the Tax Roll.

BACKGROUND / ISSUE

The City provides various utilities services to properties throughout the City, including sewer, water, and solid waste services, for which the City charges a fee for service. While most accounts within the City are current, there are some delinquent utilities accounts. A Delinquent Utilities Charge Report (“Report”) specifying the delinquency by parcel number and type of property is attached showing delinquencies totaling $377,571.

Following notice and a public hearing, the City Council may pass a resolution, by at least a two-thirds vote, requesting that the County Auditor/Tax Collector transfer the City’s delinquent utilities charges to the property tax roll for collection with property taxes. Staff recommends the City Council consider the attached Report, hold a public hearing, and accept public comments on this matter, and authorize transfer of any delinquent utilities’ charges to the County for collection on the property tax roll.

Page 305 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.17.
2 Despite some delinquencies, the City has had remarkable success in utility collections. Utility billing collections average $61,572,000 annually. These collections include water, city sewer, and solid waste services, for a current total of 28,000 open municipal utility accounts. The delinquent amount of $377,571 is less than 1% of our annual collections.

POLICY / RULE

Folsom Municipal Code and state law provide that, following notice and a public hearing, the City Council may adopt a resolution transferring delinquent utilities charges to the County tax roll for collection with property taxes. (Cal. Gov’t Code 25831, 38790.1; Cal. Health and Safety Code §§ 5470 et seq.; Folsom Municipal Code Chapters 3.20 (collection of municipal service charges generally) 13.12 (collection of sewer charges). The resolution authorizing the transfer must be passed by the City Council by a two-thirds vote. (Cal. Health & Safety Code § 5473).

ANALYSIS

The City provides sewer, water, and solid waste services to properties within the City, for which it charges the users. While the vast majority of accounts throughout the City are current, there are some accounts that are more than 60 days delinquent in payment and appropriate for transfer to the County tax roll for collection. The total amount of these eligible delinquent accounts is $377,571 as indicated on the attached Report. The Report captures accounts that were noticed with a delinquent amount of $150 or greater. The last time a request was made to transfer delinquent utilities to the tax roll was July of 2025.

State law authorizes the City Council, by resolution adopted by at least a two-thirds vote, to request that the County Auditor/Tax Collector transfer these delinquent amounts to the property tax roll for collection with general property taxes. Prior notice of the hearing is to be mailed to the property owners not less than ten days before the hearing. (Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 38790.1, 25831). Notice is also to be published in a newspaper of general circulation for two consecutive weeks prior to the hearing. (Cal. Health & Safety Code § 5473.1; Cal. Gov’t Code § 6066). City staff has satisfied these notice requirements by mailing notice to affected property owners on June 11, 2026. A public hearing notice was published in the Folsom Telegraph on June 26, 2026, and July 3, 2026.

Following a public hearing, the City Council has discretion to adopt the Report as presented, modify the Report, or decline to adopt the Report. However, if the City Council finds that valid protests are made by the owners of a majority of separate parcels of property described in the Report, the Council may not adopt the Report and may not transfer the delinquencies to the tax roll. (Cal. Health & Safety Code § 5473.2). Upon passage of the resolution confirming the Report of delinquencies, as presented, or modified, the Revenue Division will transmit the Report to the Auditor/Tax Collector for placement of the charges on the tax rolls

Page 306 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.17.
3 for collection with property taxes. County staff has advised City staff that in order to have the matters placed on the tax roll for this year, the Report must be transmitted to the County no later than August 3, 2026.

FINANCIAL IMPACT

The City currently has $377,571 in delinquent charges that are appropriate for transfer to the tax rolls. Approving this item and authorizing the transfer will help toward collection of these amounts. Should the County accept these amounts, the City will receive payment directly from the County for these amounts and the County will pursue collection through the tax rolls.

ATTACHMENT

1. Resolution No. 11662 - A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Folsom Approving and Confirming the Report of Delinquent Utilities Charges and Requesting Sacramento County to Collect such Charges on the Tax Roll

Submitted,

Stacey Tamagni, CPA
Director of Finance

Page 307 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.17.

Attachment 1

Page 308 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.17.

Resolution No. 11662

Page 1 of 9 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 11662

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FOLSOM

APPROVING AND CONFIRMING THE REPORT OF DELINQUENT UTILITIES

CHARGES AND REQUESTING SACRAMENTO COUNTY

TO COLLECT SUCH CHARGES ON THE TAX ROLL

WHEREAS, the City of Folsom (the “City”) provides certain solid waste, water, and sewer services to its residents and occupants; and

WHEREAS, Government Code sections 25831 and 38790.1, California Health and Safety Code sections 5473 et seq. and Chapters 3.20 and 13.12 of the Folsom Municipal Code authorize the City to have the delinquent charges for the above services (the “Charges”) collected on the tax roll by Sacramento County on the relevant parcels; and

WHEREAS, City staff has prepared a Delinquent Utilities Charges Report (the “Report”) identifying the delinquent charges by Assessor’s Parcel Number; and

WHEREAS, a hearing was held on July 14, 2026, at which the City Council reviewed and considered the Report and any protests related thereto, with prior notice of the hearing being provided as required by law;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Folsom:

1. Findings. In reviewing and considering the delinquent Charges and the Report, the City Council hereby makes the following findings:

a. Notice of the public hearing before the City Council was published in a newspaper of general circulation at least once a week for two consecutive weeks prior to the City Council public hearing, and notice was mailed at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing to each affected property owners at addresses as shown on the latest equalized assessment roll or as known to the City; and,

b. Notice of the public hearing before the City Council included the date, time, and place of the public hearing, the identity of the hearing body, and a general explanation of the matter to be considered; and,

c. Upon considering all objections and protests received at the time of the hearing on this matter, the City Council finds that protest by owners of a majority of the parcels of property described in the Report does not exist.

2. Confirming the Report. The City Council hereby approves, confirms, and adopts the Report, as directed and attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, and determines that the Charges are proper and correct. The City Council directs the Finance Director to make any amendments to the Report as were directed by the City Council and as necessary to remove

Page 309 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.17.

Resolution No. 11662

Page 2 of 9 ends

parcels from the Report for which payment has been made before transfer of the amounts to Sacramento County for collection on the tax roll, subject to the same penalties, procedure, and sale in case of delinquency as provided for those taxes.

3. Authorization. The City Council hereby authorizes and directs the Finance Director to deliver a certified copy of the finalized Report to the Sacramento County Department of Finance - Auditor Division and to submit a certified copy of this Resolution and Report to the County Recorder for recordation.

4. Services of Sacramento County. The Offices of the Sacramento County Department of Finance - Auditor Division is requested for the placement of the Charges on the Annual Secured property tax roll with the Ad Valorem taxes.

5. General Authorization. The City Manager, City Finance Director, City Clerk, City Attorney and the other officers and agents of the City are hereby authorized and directed, individually and collectively, to do any and all things and to execute, deliver, and perform any and all agreements and documents that they deem necessary or advisable in order to effectuate the purposes of this Resolution. All actions heretofore taken by the officers and agents of the City that are in conformity with the purposes and intent of this Resolution are hereby ratified, confirmed, and approved in all respects.

6. Effective Date. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 14
th day of July 2026, by the following roll call vote:

AYES: Councilmember(s):

NOES: Councilmember(s):

ABSENT: Councilmember(s):

ABSTAIN: Councilmember(s):

______________________________
Justin Raithel, MAYOR

ATTEST:

Christa Freemantle, CITY CLERK

Page 310 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.17.

Resolution No. 11662

Page 3 of 9 ends

City of Folsom Delinquent Utilities Charge Report
as of 7/7/2026

APN AMOUNT
071-0020-111-0000 $25,935.00
072-3070-003-0000 $14,963.00
070-0105-011-0000 $13,326.00
070-0166-009-0000 $6,851.00
070-0052-015-0000 $5,136.00
070-0061-010-0000 $3,000.00
069-0160-019-0000 $2,808.00
072-0940-019-0000 $2,767.00
071-0470-006-0000 $2,690.00
227-0520-007-0000 $2,688.00
072-0031-025-0000 $2,606.00
071-0350-040-0000 $2,579.00
072-3770-024-0000 $2,458.00
072-0890-031-0000 $2,429.00
072-1730-005-0000 $2,416.00
227-0230-003-0000 $2,368.00
072-0940-079-0000 $2,341.00
071-1460-017-0000 $2,323.00
072-1000-025-0000 $2,309.00
072-3570-006-0000 $2,295.00
072-3530-034-0000 $2,264.00
071-0350-074-0000 $2,251.00
071-0700-047-0000 $2,207.00
072-3780-025-0000 $2,189.00
071-0660-060-0000 $2,182.00
072-2490-011-0000 $2,174.00
071-1030-027-0000 $2,171.00
071-0020-103-0000 $2,156.00
071-0600-014-0000 $2,139.00
072-1130-059-0000 $2,117.00
072-3710-025-0000 $2,107.00
071-1200-033-0000 $2,105.00
071-2060-013-0000 $2,103.00
072-0780-044-0000 $2,097.00
071-1740-038-0000 $2,096.00
072-1620-052-0000 $2,093.00
070-0120-002-0000 $2,092.00
072-3580-023-0000 $2,090.00

Page 311 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.17.

Resolution No. 11662

Page 4 of 9 ends

072-1380-045-0000 $2,081.00
071-1520-062-0000 $2,080.00
071-2090-006-0000 $2,076.00
072-3870-070-0000 $2,055.00
072-1040-054-0000 $2,051.00
072-1880-013-0000 $2,047.00
071-0510-011-0000 $2,039.00
072-0700-007-0000 $2,039.00
072-3810-054-0000 $2,033.00
071-1300-046-0000 $2,032.00
071-0290-029-0000 $2,027.00
072-1290-007-0000 $2,026.00
071-1600-096-0000 $2,014.00
072-3850-005-0000 $2,009.00
072-2250-003-0000 $2,007.00
070-0154-014-0000 $2,005.00
072-0940-021-0000 $2,004.00
071-0800-034-0000 $1,971.00
072-2010-038-0000 $1,966.00
071-1110-032-0000 $1,963.00
072-3150-008-0000 $1,960.00
071-0101-005-0000 $1,952.00
070-0116-022-0000 $1,943.00
072-1160-082-0000 $1,943.00
070-0193-004-0000 $1,941.00
213-0283-027-0000 $1,937.00
071-1880-038-0000 $1,931.00
071-1440-069-0000 $1,924.00
071-0072-022-0000 $1,918.00
072-1740-024-0000 $1,918.00
072-1560-013-0000 $1,912.00
072-1390-050-0000 $1,911.00
071-0214-007-0000 $1,900.00
072-1450-048-0000 $1,895.00
072-2660-036-0000 $1,894.00
072-3170-019-0000 $1,883.00
072-0870-028-0000 $1,863.00
072-1250-089-0000 $1,851.00
072-1140-021-0000 $1,842.00
071-1950-060-0000 $1,841.00
071-0083-002-0000 $1,833.00
071-0590-022-0000 $1,814.00
213-0071-032-0000 $1,801.00

Page 312 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.17.

Resolution No. 11662

Page 5 of 9 ends

072-4020-039-0000 $1,792.00
071-0950-053-0000 $1,781.00
072-3790-009-0000 $1,781.00
071-1840-008-0009 $1,768.00
213-0580-013-0000 $1,767.00
072-3600-032-0000 $1,755.00
227-0230-035-0000 $1,736.00
227-0570-004-0000 $1,692.00
213-0830-014-0000 $1,683.00
071-0340-017-0000 $1,678.00
071-1980-024-0000 $1,674.00
213-0600-022-0000 $1,673.00
072-2030-035-0000 $1,657.00
072-1090-005-0000 $1,650.00
071-1840-007-0003 $1,632.00
227-0390-041-0000 $1,621.00
227-0600-021-0000 $1,621.00
227-0320-035-0000 $1,620.00
227-0580-022-0000 $1,619.00
072-3600-037-0000 $1,615.00
227-0480-026-0000 $1,602.00
071-1680-016-0000 $1,582.00
213-0820-023-0000 $1,537.00
072-3530-018-0000 $1,532.00
071-1290-047-0000 $1,531.00
227-0600-009-0000 $1,525.00
071-0720-016-0000 $1,483.00
227-0480-056-0000 $1,477.00
072-2710-028-0000 $1,462.00
071-0780-033-0000 $1,454.00
213-0960-007-0000 $1,447.00
227-0550-012-0000 $1,436.00
071-0091-008-0000 $1,435.00
227-0580-085-0000 $1,412.00
227-0300-028-0000 $1,358.00
071-0173-002-0000 $1,356.00
072-0940-046-0000 $1,345.00
072-3660-084-0000 $1,345.00
071-0233-018-0000 $1,337.00
223-0560-001-0000 $1,336.00
072-0760-022-0000 $1,334.00
072-3810-053-0000 $1,327.00
072-0720-041-0000 $1,316.00

Page 313 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.17.

Resolution No. 11662

Page 6 of 9 ends

227-0420-006-0000 $1,270.00
072-3700-050-0000 $1,268.00
072-3790-008-0000 $1,243.00
072-3760-071-0000 $1,237.00
072-1290-003-0000 $1,217.00
071-0650-061-0000 $1,215.00
072-3470-036-0000 $1,203.00
072-3350-022-0000 $1,130.00
072-1530-052-0000 $1,120.00
071-0031-006-0000 $1,114.00
072-2030-059-0000 $1,102.00
072-1100-031-0000 $1,077.00
071-1200-029-0000 $1,054.00
072-1500-010-0000 $1,044.00
213-0630-004-0000 $1,039.00
227-0370-042-0000 $1,036.00
227-0540-003-0000 $1,035.00
072-3860-090-0000 $1,021.00
071-0212-003-0000 $1,010.00
072-4130-081-0000 $1,004.00
071-1010-012-0000 $1,000.00
071-1840-007-0026 $983.00
071-1610-026-0000 $982.00
072-1210-047-0000 $981.00
072-0700-035-0000 $975.00
072-2440-021-0000 $969.00
213-0900-017-0000 $968.00
072-0940-098-0000 $967.00
227-0490-030-0000 $955.00
072-1980-047-0000 $950.00
071-1720-056-0000 $945.00
071-0750-039-0000 $938.00
072-2830-004-0023 $935.00
072-2410-037-0000 $920.00
072-4190-051-0000 $920.00
227-0330-026-0000 $916.00
072-3470-091-0000 $901.00
072-2300-010-0000 $880.00
072-1120-030-0000 $875.00
072-4250-004-0000 $853.00
072-2790-008-0005 $840.00
072-1150-077-0000 $825.00
071-0460-037-0000 $800.00

Page 314 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.17.

Resolution No. 11662

Page 7 of 9 ends

072-4130-083-0000 $783.00
072-2660-023-0000 $774.00
071-1740-063-0000 $761.00
071-1840-006-0009 $737.00
072-3270-034-0000 $733.00
071-1840-008-0057 $730.00
213-0590-016-0000 $728.00
071-1810-049-0037 $710.00
227-0610-004-0000 $703.00
072-2240-009-0000 $694.00
072-2030-058-0000 $693.00
072-3660-040-0000 $680.00
072-0940-002-0000 $678.00
072-4310-050-0000 $646.00
227-0280-019-0000 $646.00
072-1250-061-0000 $628.00
072-3470-082-0000 $626.00
071-0370-035-0000 $621.00
071-0840-008-0000 $615.00
071-0290-016-0000 $612.00
071-1800-021-0000 $597.00
072-3950-042-0000 $594.00
072-2170-029-0000 $583.00
072-3850-062-0000 $579.00
072-4010-004-0000 $574.00
070-0250-011-0000 $562.00
072-4280-042-0000 $557.00
072-4000-069-0000 $556.00
071-1050-042-0000 $546.00
072-1780-005-0000 $541.00
071-1170-106-0000 $515.00
072-4240-032-0000 $509.00
071-2080-034-0000 $508.00
072-4490-076-0000 $502.00
072-2660-034-0000 $499.00
071-0232-014-0000 $499.00
071-1500-041-0000 $494.00
072-2490-050-0000 $487.00
072-2830-007-0039 $482.00
070-0103-011-0000 $474.00
071-1810-006-0004 $473.00
071-0163-011-0000 $451.00
071-1650-039-0000 $451.00

Page 315 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.17.

Resolution No. 11662

Page 8 of 9 ends

072-0780-037-0000 $435.00
072-2250-057-0000 $432.00
071-0212-004-0000 $422.00
072-1160-035-0000 $410.00
213-0550-005-0000 $408.00
071-0470-010-0000 $406.00
071-1950-018-0000 $397.00
072-2030-037-0000 $397.00
071-1730-003-0000 $388.00
213-0760-032-0000 $388.00
227-0580-092-0000 $388.00
227-0320-039-0000 $388.00
213-0780-027-0000 $382.00
072-3470-042-0000 $364.00
072-4090-004-0000 $350.00
072-3850-065-0000 $350.00
072-3650-032-0000 $350.00
071-0930-036-0000 $336.00
071-0680-003-0000 $333.00
072-3750-010-0000 $329.00
071-0560-037-0000 $327.00
072-3860-059-0000 $326.00
072-4060-046-0000 $319.00
072-3860-115-0000 $284.00
072-1390-038-0000 $280.00
071-1450-061-0000 $276.00
072-1370-008-0000 $273.00
070-0210-027-0000 $270.00
072-0750-017-0000 $248.00
071-0350-083-0000 $239.00
072-2060-007-0000 $219.00
071-0960-034-0000 $216.00
072-1290-046-0000 $213.00
071-0300-024-0000 $210.00
072-3850-037-0000 $191.00
072-0750-082-0000 $190.00
213-0980-024-0000 $188.00
072-3820-014-0000 $170.00
072-4250-014-0000 $170.00
072-1540-026-0000 $168.00
071-0163-031-0000 $166.00
072-4250-023-0000 $166.00
071-0222-004-0000 $166.00

Page 316 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.17.

Resolution No. 11662

Page 9 of 9 ends

071-0510-044-0000 $159.00
072-1790-006-0000 $158.00
071-0113-002-0000 $157.00
071-0166-006-0000 $157.00
071-0470-044-0000 $152.00
071-0390-016-0000 $151.00
071-0780-018-0000 $109.00
227-0370-003-0000 $62.00
071-1400-033-0000 $56.00
071-0280-031-0000 $54.00
072-0710-001-0000 $43.00

Page 317 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.17.

This page is intentionally left blank
to facilitate double-sided printing
and minimize paper use.

Page 318 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.17.

Page 319 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.17.

Page 320 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.17.

Page 321 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.17.

Page 322 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.17.

Page 323 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.17.

Page 324 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.17.

Page 325 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.17.

Page 326 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.17.

Page 327 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.17.

Page 328 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.17.

Page 329 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.17.

Page 330 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.17.

Page 331 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.17.

Page 332 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.17.
071-0233-018-0000 $11337.00
0 72-07 60-022-0000 $11334.00
072-3810-053-0000 $11327.00
0 72-0 720-041-0000 $11316.00
22 7-0420-006-0000 $11270.00
0 72-3 700-050-0000 $11268.00
0 72-3 790-008-0000 $11243.00
0 72-3 760-0 71-0000 $11237.00
0 72-1290-003-0000 $11217.00
0 71-0650-06 I -0000 $11215.00
072-34 70-036-0000 $11203.00
0 72-1530-052-0000 $11120.00
071-0031-006-0000 $11114.00
072-2030-059-0000 $11102.00
0 72-1100-031-0000 $11077.00
fJ 71-1200-029-0000 $11054.00
072-1500-010-0000 $11044.00
213-0630-004-0000 $11039.00
22 7-03 70-042-0000 $11036.00
227-0540-003-0000 $11035.00
0 72-3860-090-0000 $11021.00
071-0212-003-0000 $11010.00
072-4130-081-0000 $11004.00
0 71-1010-012-0000 $lj000.00
071-1840-007-0026 $983.00
072-1210-047-0000 $981.00
072-0700-035-0000 $975.00
0 72-2440-021-0000 $969.00
213-0900-017-0000 $968.00
072-0940-098-0000 $967.00
22 7-0490-030-0000 $955.00
0 72-1980-04 7-0000 $950.00
071-1720-056-0000 $945.00
071-0750-039-0000 $938.00
0 72-2 83 0-004-0023 $935.00
072-2410-037-0000 $920.00
072-4190-051-0000 $920.00
072-3470-091-0000 $901.00
072-1120-030-0000 $875.00
0 72-4250-004-0000 $853.00
072-2 790-008-0005 $840.00
072-1150-077-0000 $825.00
0 71-04 60-03 7-0000 $800.00
Resolution No. 11662

Page 12 of 14 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.17.

Page 334 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.17.

Page 335 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.17.

Folsom City Council
Staff Report

1 MEETING DATE:

7/14/2026
AGENDA SECTION:

Public Hearing
SUBJECT: Ordinance No. 1375 - An Ordinance of the City of Folsom Re- Adopting Ordinance 1353 To Amend Chapter 17.52 of the Folsom Municipal Code for the Historic District Relating to Design Review, Sign Permits, Demolitions, and Accessory Buildings (Introduction and First Reading) and Determination that the Action is Not Subject to CEQA

FROM: Community Development Department

RECOMMENDATION / CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Conduct the first reading of Ordinance No. 1375 - An Ordinance of the City of Folsom Re - Adopting Ordinance 1353 to Amend Chapter 17.52 of the Folsom Municipal Code for the Historic District Relating to Design Review, Sign Permits, Demolitions, and Accessory Buildings.

BACKGROUND / ISSUE
On October 28, 2025, the Folsom City Council approved modifications to Folsom Municipal Code Chapter 17.52 to move design review of smaller projects to Director -level review, to exempt certain projects from design review (except when a building or site is considered a historic resource), to move sign permit review to Director-level review, to move non-historic demolitions to Director-level review, to further limit the height, size, and setback requirements for accessory buildings, and to modify historic district entitlement expirations and extensions to be consistent with regulations outside of the Historic District. As part of that action, City C ouncil determined that the code amendments were exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) ( “Review for Exemption”), which is the “common sense exemption” that states that CEQA only applies to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment.

While the code changes went into effect and are applicable to projects in the Historic District now, the CEQA determination was legally challenged in April of 2026. At their June 17, 2026 meeting, the Planning Commission voted unanimously (5-0-2) to recommend that City Council re-adopt the

Page 336 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.18.
2 amendments with the expanded CEQA discussion and findings. As part of that recommendation, the Planning Commission also recommended that City Council consider instructing staff to re - consider as part of the readoption process excluding all fencing types except chain link (which is not allowed) from Design Review in the Historic District and instead include the list of inappropriate fencing styles listed in the Historic District Design and Development Guidelines (DDGs) as prohibited fence styles in the ordinance instead.. In addition, the Planning Commission, as part of their recommendation to the City Council , also recommended that the Council instruct staff to modify FMC Chapter 17.52 as a whole as part of the overall zoning code update process rather than doing that as part of a second phase.

The Historic District Commission (HDC) at their June 24, 2026 meeting also voted (4- 1-2) to recommend that City Council re -adopt the amendments with modified CEQA discussion and findings. However, as part of that recommendation, the Historic District Commission recommended that additional changes not be recommended as part of the re-adoption, and instead, the HDC recommended that the City Council instruct staff to prepare objective design standards for the Historic District.

Please note that this item was presented to the Planning Commission as well as the Historic District Commission even though it only relates to the Historic District. This is because of language in the State Government Code Section 65854 that states the Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing on any change to a zoning ordinance.

POLICY / RULE
Under Section 2.12 of the City Charter, amendments to the Folsom Municipal Code require review and approval by the City Council.

There are four policies from the City’s 2035 General Plan that relate directly to the Historic District. These policies are:
• LU 1.1.9: Preserve Historic Resources: Recognize the importance of history in the City of Folsom, and preserve historic and cultural resources throughout the city, to the extent feasible.

• LU 6.1.2: Historic Folsom Residential Areas: Preserve and protect the residential character of Historic Folsom’s residential areas.

• NCR 5.1.4: Applicable Laws and Regulations : Ensure compliance with City, State, and Federal historic preservation laws, regulations, and codes to protect and assist in the preservation of historic and archeological resources, as listed in the City of Folsom Historic Preservation Master Plan, including the use of the California Historical Building Code as applicable, including, but not limited to, Senate Bill 18, Assembly Bill 52, Appendix G to the CEQA Guidelines, and, where applicable, Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.

• NCR 5.1.6: Historic District Standards: Maintain and implement design and development

Page 337 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.18.
3 standards for the Historic District

In addition, the Historic District chapter of the Zoning Code provides the intent behind the chapter:

• 17.52.010 Purpose and intent.

A. The city council intends to actively promote the purposes of this chapter by (1) creating incentives for residents, property owners and businesses, (2) encouraging cooperation in attaining the purposes set forth in this chapter, and (3) providing a simple, fair and effective system of enforcement of the regulations contained in this chapter.

B. The purposes of this chapter are:

1. To preserve and enhance the historic, small -town atmosphere of the historic district as it developed between the years 1850 and 1950;

2. To maintain, restore, and reconstruct historic structures and sites within the historic district;

3. To encourage an active business climate which promotes the development of a diverse range of businesses compatible with the historic district as it developed between the years 1850 and 1950;

4. To retain the residential areas within the historic district;

5. To ensure that new residential and commercial development is consistent with the historical character of the historic district as it developed between the years 1850 and 1950;

6. To increase the awareness, understanding, and appreciation of the history of the city; and

7. To preserve and enhance open space areas.

ANALYSIS
No changes are proposed to the Zoning Code beyond what was previously approved by City Council on October 28, 2025. A copy of the staff report associated with those changes is provided in Attachment 1. As shown in the General Plan and Folsom Municipal Code Consistency section of Attachment 1, the Zoning Code update is consistent with the policies of the City’s 2035 General Plan as well as the Intent sections of Chapter 17.52 of the Folsom Municipal Code. In conducting subsequent review, staff found that the Environmental Review section provided in the original staff report lacked detail to sufficiently explain why the amendments are not subject to CEQA. In the updated Environmental Review section of this report, staff provides more comprehensive analysis in support of CEQA Guidelines Section15061(b)(3) that determined that the ordinance is not subject to CEQA, as well as analysis in support of additional CEQA exemptions applicable to this action. This additional analysis provides a more comprehensive Environmental Review section as part of the public record and in support of staff’s recommendation that the modifications to FMC Chapter 17.52 are not subject to CEQA and that the City Council re-adopt the previously enacted modifications to Folsom Municipal Code Chapter 17.52.

FINANCIAL IMPACT
Staff anticipates that re-adoption of the code changes will continue to lead to fewer staff resources being spent on preparing staff reports and meeting materials for HDC meetings, freeing up limited

Page 338 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.18.
4 existing staff resources for larger -scale efforts such as completing the Zoning Code update and preparing objective design standards . Re-adoption would also result in fewer (or shorter) HDC meetings, which reduces the amount of compensatory time used by staff attending those meetings.

As such, staff anticipates that the proposed re-adoption would have a positive financial impact on City funds.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The amendments to the Folsom Municipal Code discussed in this report are not a project for purposes of CEQA because CEQA only applies to activities that may cause either a direct physical change in the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. Because changing which body (HDC or City staff) will process the minor approvals covered by these amendments does not have the potential to cause a physical change in the environment directly or indirectly, the amendments are not a project subject to CEQA. (Public Resources Code §§ 21065; 21080(b)(1), (9); CEQA Guidelines §§ 15060(c), (2), (3); 15378(b)(2), (5).) If for any reason the se amendments are considered a project, they are exempt from CEQA review. (See Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, div. 6, ch. 3.) Specifically, the amendments are exempt under the Common Sense exemption (Section 15061(b)(3)), the Ministerial exemption (Section 15268), the Existing Facilities exemption (Section 15301), the Small Structures exemption (Section 15303), and the Installation of Solar Energy System Exemption (Public Resources Code section 21080.35). None of the exceptions to exemptions contained in Section 15300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines are present. Finally, the code amendments are exempt under Public Resources Code section 21080.1. ( See also Cal. Farm Bureau Federation v. Cal. Wildlife Conservation Bd. (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 173, 191 [permitting application of several exemptions from CEQA for a single project].) Each of the exemptions are discussed below.

Common Sense Exemption – As explained in section 15061 of the CEQA Guidelines, the Common Sense exemption acknowledges that “CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment” and thus exempts activities “[w]here it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in q uestion may have a significant effect on the environment.” (14 CCR § 15061(b)(3).) The ordinance amendments discussed in this report do not have the potential to cause a significant effect on the environment.

As described in greater detail above, the modifications largely change the administrative process for design review in the Folsom Historic District. They do not affect allowed uses for affected properties. The admi nistrative changes that merely modify applicable reviewing bodies will not result in any significant impact to the environment. The applications for design review will be held to the same existing standards, but under these amendments, may be subject to review or approval by a different reviewing body. Thus, the applications will be subject to the existing design standards, which will not result in any significant environmental impacts.

Nor will the ordinance amendment’s exemption of certain very small projects from design review have potential to cause any significant impacts on the environment. These exemptions include replacement of existing roof materials, replacement of existing wind ows and doors, changes to exterior building colors, certain patio covers and trellises, certain privacy fencing and walls, aboveground spas and hot tubs, and outdoor cooking facilities not visible from the street. In the

Page 339 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.18.
5 case of replacements, the materials would need to be aesthetically similar to the original to remain exempt. These types of modifications, all to existing developed properties, will not cause significant effects on the environment. The modifications will be minimal and aesthetically similar to existing conditions, and several of the project types exempted from design review are required to be located in side or rear yards for the exemption to apply. Several of the very small projects, including like-for-like structural replacements, residential re -painting, privacy walls/fences, and solar panels were already not going through design review based on the C ity’s consistent past practice and thus, would not result in any change from baseline conditions for those projects. A majority of those projects do not require a building permit or other entitlement from the City .

When a permit is required, it is ministerial. As a result, formally exempting these projects from design review simply conforms the FMC to existing practice with no change to operations.

Additionally, the ordinance amendments specifically exclude from the design review exemption any project involving buildings or properties in the City’s Cultural Resources Inventory or located on an existing or potentially eligible historical resource. This will further ensure that there are no significant impacts to the environment, including historical resources. Given each of these considerations, the ordinance amendments could not have a significant effect on the environment.

Accordingly, the Common Sense exemption applies to the ordinance amendments.

Ministerial Exemption – “Ministerial projects are exempt from the requirements of CEQA.” ( (14 CCR § 15268.) Ministerial projects are those “governmental decision[s] involving little or no personal judgment by the public official as to the wisdom or manner of carrying out the project.

The public official merely applies the law to the facts as presented but uses no special discretion or judgment in reaching a decision.” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15369.)

The ordinance amendment’s inclusion of solar panel installation in the design review exemption is ministerial. Under state law, the City’s review of solar panel permits is limited to health and safety considerations. (Gov. Code, § 65850.5); therefore, the City has no discretion to impose design review restrictions. As such, the solar panel exemption from design review is ministerial and exempt from the requirements of CEQA. Similarly, Government Code section 66321 restricts the City from imposing design review on certain Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU). The City does not have discretion to impose design review, and thus, the design review exemption for certain ADUs is ministerial and exempt from the requirements of CEQA. In addition, to the extent that a building permit is required for installation of a fence or any of the other minor modifications exempt from design review under FMC Section 17.52.300(C)(1), such approvals are ministerial in nature and as such are exempt from the requirements of CEQA.

Class 1 Categorical Exemption – Under Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines, the Class 1 exemption “consists of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use.” ( 14 CCR § 15301.) Categorical exemptions are those “classes of projects which have been determined not to have a significant effect on the environment and which shall, therefore, be exempt from the provisions of CEQA.” ((14 CCR § 15300.) This ordinance amendment’s exemption for very small

Page 340 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.18.
6 projects falls under this Class 1 CEQA exemption. The very small projects under this ordinance would allow for “repairs,” “maintenance,” and “minor alterations” to existing developed structures, such as the ordinance amendment’s exemption from design review for roof replacements, doors and windows replacements, and other minor alterations to existing structures allowed under the proposed ordinance. The projects exempt from design review under the new ordinance would not allow for any expansion of existing uses. As such, in addition to falling under the Common Sense exemption, several amendment components would also qualify for the Class 1 Categorical Exemption under CEQA.

Class 3 Categorical Exemption – The Class 3 Categorical Exemption for New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures also applies to the ordinance amendments. Under section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines, projects consisting of “construction and location of limited numbers of new, s mall facilities or structures; installation of small new equipment and facilities in small structures…” (14 CCR § 15303.) This includes, “accessory (appurtenant) structures including garages, carports, patios, swimming pools, and fences.” (14 CCR § 15300(e).) Accordingly, the ordinance amendment’s exemption of fences, hot tubs, outdoor kitchens, and patios qualify for the Class 3 Categorical Exemption under CEQA, in addition to the Common Sense exemption.

Exceptions to Categorical Exemptions – Section 15300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines sets forth exceptions to the categorical exemptions. None of these exceptions apply. The ordinance amendments would not result in any significant cumulative environmental impact, because there is no substantial evidence in the City’s record demonstrating that the amendments would result in any significant increase in impacts in the Historic District by virtue of just changing the design review process, which still protects listed and potentially eligible historic resources. It is important to note that the Historic District as a whole is not listed as a historic resource on the federal, state, or local registry. Rather, individual properties within the Historic District are listed on one or more registries. Other properties within the Historic District may be eligible for lis ting as a historic resource, as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 or the adopted City of Folsom historic preservation master plan. Staff recognizes the potential for development projects within the Historic District to impact historic resources. To address that possibility, staff specifically included within the ordinance amendments a provision that projects involving buildings or properties on the City’s cultural resources inventory as well as properties located on an existing or potentially eligible historic resource are subject to design review and Historic District Commission approval. (See FMC section 17.52.300(C)(1)(i).)

Additionally, the ordinance amendments do not involve any unusual circumstances, because creating different levels of design review within a municipality’s administrative processes is a common-place feature of municipal government, and as explained above, these changes will not have any significant effects on the environment. And lastly, there is no reasonable possibility that the ordinance amendments will cause any significant impacts on scenic highways, hazardous waste sites, or historical resources.

Page 341 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.18.
7 As explained, certain of the ordinance amendments are statutorily exempt from CEQA review under CEQA Guidelines Section 15282(h), which includes “the adoption of an ordinance regarding second units in a single-family or multifamily residential zone by a city to implement provisions of Sections 65852.1 and 65852.2 of the Government Code, as set forth in 21080.17 of the Public Resources Code.” Under California Public Resources Code Section 21080.17, CEQA “does not apply to the adoption of an ordinance by a city or county to implement Section 65852.1 of, or Article 2 (commencing with Sectio n 66314) or Article 3 (commencing with Section 66333) of Chapter 13 of Division 1 of Title 7 of, the Government Code,” which is California's ADU and JADU law. Therefore, the adoption of the proposed ordinance is statutorily exempt from CEQA in that it implements State ADU and JADU law.

Public Resources Code section 21080.35 – The ordinance amendments are statutorily exempt from CEQA review under Public Resources Code section 21080.35, which states in pertinent part that CEQA “...does not apply to the installation of a solar energy system on the roof of an existing building or at an existing parking lot.” The statute defines “solar energy system” to include all associated equipment. Associated equipment necessary to connect the energy generated to the electrical grid may be located immediately adjacent to the parcel of the building or immediately adjacent to the parcel of the building and separated by an improved right-of-way. To the extent the ordinance amendments apply to solar panels on the roof of an existing building or at an existing parking lot, they are exempt from CEQA under this statute. Staff has not seen and does not anticipate receiving applications for the installation of solar panels on property within the Historic District that include a proposal to install solar panels anywhere other than the roof of an existing building or at an existing parking lot.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Ordinance No. 1375 – An Ordinance of the City of Folsom Re -Adopting Ordinance 1353 To Amend Chapter 17.52 of the Folsom Municipal Code for the Historic District Relating to Design Review, Sign Permits, Demolitions, and Accessory Buildings

2. Previously Approved Modifications to FMC Chapter 17.52 (Strikethrough/Underline Version)

3. Public Comments Received

Submitted,

____________________________

PAM JOHNS
Community Development Director

Page 342 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.18.

Attachment 1

Page 343 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.18.

Ordinance No. 1375

Page 1 of 10 ends

ORDINANCE NO. 1375

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF FOLSOM RE-ADOPTING ORDINANCE 1353 TO AMEND CHAPTER 17.52 OF THE FOLSOM MUNICIPAL CODE FOR THE

HISTORIC DISTRICT RELATING TO DESIGN REVIEW, SIGN PERMITS,

DEMOLITIONS, AND ACCESSORY BUILDINGS

The City Council of the City of Folsom does hereby ordain as follows:

SECTION 1 PURPOSE

The purpose of this ordinance is to re-adopt amendments to certain sections of Chapter 17.52 in the Folsom Municipal Code to move design review of small projects to director-level approval, to exempt certain projects from design review, to move sign permit review to director-level approval, to move non-historic demolitions to director-level approval, to further limit the height, size, and setback requirements for accessory buildings, and to modify historic district entitlement expirations and extensions to be consistent with regulations outside of the historic district.

SECTION 2

Section 17.52.130 of the Folsom Municipal Code is hereby re-adopted to read as follows:

17.52.130 Administrative Support
The community development director, previously referred to as the planning, inspections and permitting director, shall be responsible for the administration of this chapter and shall assist the historic district commission in performing its functions. The director shall carry out those additional duties delegated by the historic district commission.

SECTION 3

Sections 17.52.300 through 17.52.390 of the Folsom Municipal Code are hereby re- adopted to read as follows:

17.52.300 Design review.

A. Except as otherwise provided in subsection (B), the design and architecture of the following projects shall be submitted to the historic district commission for review and approval under the provisions of this chapter:

1. All new office, industrial, commercial and residential buildings, excluding accessory buildings as defined in Section 17.02.020 and accessory dwelling units as regulated by Section 17.52.300(D);

2. All exterior renovation, remodeling, modification or addition to existing buildings located on properties listed in the City’s Cultural Resources Inventory or located on an existing or potentially eligible historic resource, as defined by the California

Page 344 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.18.

Ordinance No. 1375

Page 2 of 10 ends

Environmental Quality Act Guidelines section 15064.5 or the adopted City of Folsom Historic Preservation Master Plan;

3. All additions to existing buildings over twenty-five percent of the total square footage of the existing building or over 500 square feet, whichever is less, except additions to accessory buildings, as regulated by Section 17.52.300(B)(3) and additions to accessory dwelling units as regulated by Section 17.52.300(D)

4. Projects which are part of a planned development or a tentative map.

5. Proposed project design guidelines and standards and revisions to existing design guidelines and standards.

B. The design and architecture of the following projects shall be submitted to the community development director for review and approval under the provisions of this chapter:

1. All exterior renovation, remodeling, or modification to existing buildings, except those exempted under section 17.52.300(C), and those regulated under 17.52.300(A)(2);

2. All additions to existing buildings under twenty-five percent of the total square footage of the existing building or under 500 square feet, whichever is less, except additions to accessory buildings, as regulated by Section 17.52.300(B)(3) and additions to accessory dwelling units, as regulated by Section 17.52.300(D);

3. All new accessory buildings, including but not limited to garages and sheds, and any addition to such buildings, except those regulated under 17.52.300(A)(2) and

17.52.300(D)(1).

C. The following types of projects are exempt from the design review process under this chapter:

1. Minor modifications including:
a. replacement of existing building and roof materials with similar materials,

b. replacement of existing windows and doors with similar windows and doors,

c. changes to exterior colors on residential buildings,

d. patio covers, gazebos, pergolas and trellises under 200 square feet in size and located outside of the front, side, and street side yards,

e. privacy walls and fencing, excluding chain link, which is not allowed,

f. aboveground spas and hot tubs located outside of the front and street side yards,

g. solar panels,

Page 345 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.18.

Ordinance No. 1375

Page 3 of 10 ends

h. outdoor cooking facilities located outside of the front and street side yards, and

i. other projects that the director deems similar in material, design, and scope to those listed, except projects involving buildings or properties on the City’s Cultural Resources Inventory or located on an existing or potentially eligible historic resource, as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines section 15064.5 or the adopted City of Folsom Historic Preservation Master Plan, which are subject to historic district commission approval.

D. Final approval authority relating to the design and architecture of accessory dwelling units and additions to such buildings within the historic district boundaries shall be as follows:

1. The historic district commission shall have final approval authority relating to the design and architecture of proposed attached or detached accessory dwelling units not exempt from design review by California Government Code Section 66321 based on height, and any new garage or other attached conditioned or unconditioned space proposed along with such an accessory dwelling unit.

2. The historic district commission shall have final approval authority relating to the design and architecture of proposed additions to existing accessory dwelling units that result in the unit no longer being exempt from design review by California Government Code Section 66321 based on height.

3. The community development director shall have final approval authority relating to the design and architecture of proposed attached or detached accessory dwelling units not exempt from design review by California Government Code Section 66321 based on square footage, and any other attached space proposed along with such an accessory dwelling unit.

4. The community development director shall have final approval authority relating to the design and architecture of proposed additions to existing accessory dwelling units that result in the unit no longer being exempt from design review by California Government Code Section 66321 based on square footage.

17.52.310 Design review submittal requirements.

The applicant shall file the following information with the community development director for design review:

A. Completed and signed application form including name, address, email address, telephone number of the applicant, and agent authorization from the property owner if the applicant is not the property owner;
B. Application fee as established by resolution of the city council;

Page 346 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.18.

Ordinance No. 1375

Page 4 of 10 ends

C. A copy of all entitlements granted for the property by the city, including conditions of approval and the environmental documentation;
D. A copy of all required state and federal permits;
E. Site plan;
F. Building design plans/elevations;
G. Material samples and color board;
H. Project narrative describing the proposed project and how it is consistent with the requirements of Section 17.52 and any applicable design guidelines; I. Recent photographs of the project site taken within 30 days prior to the submittal which accurately depict the project location; and
J. Other material and information as requested by the commission or community development director.

17.52.320 Notice and posting of site for design review.

The provisions of Section 17.06.070 A and B shall apply within the historic district. In addition, a notice containing the project description and the time and place of the meeting for design review of a proposed project shall be posted on the City website and mailed to property owners directly adjacent to the project site at a time reasonably expected to give at least five days before the commission meeting or director level meeting. As used in this section, “directly adjacent to the project site” also includes properties located directly across an alley, street or public right-of-way from the project site.

17.52.330 Plan evaluation for design review.

In reviewing projects for design review, the historic district commission or community development director shall consider the following criteria:

A. Project compliance with the General Plan and any applicable zoning ordinances; B. Conformance with any city-wide design guidelines and historic district design and development guidelines adopted by the city council;
C. Conformance with any project-specific design standards approved through the planned development permit process or similar review process; and D. Compatibility of building materials, textures and colors with surrounding development and consistency with the general design theme of the neighborhood.

Page 347 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.18.

Ordinance No. 1375

Page 5 of 10 ends

17.52.340 Approval process for design review.

A. The community development director or the historic district commission, in exercising design review authority under this chapter, shall make the decision to approve, conditionally approve or deny the design review application with findings based on the criteria established in Section 17.52.330. A copy of the decision, findings and any applicable conditions shall be provided in writing to the applicant.

B. Projects that are subject to director-level review may be elevated to the historic district commission for review at the discretion of the community development director. The applicant may request to elevate a director-level design review to the historic district commission. The request shall be granted upon payment of the commission-level design review application fee established by resolution of the city council and any other applicable fees.

C. The community development department shall provide a summary to the historic district commission of all design review projects within the historic district approved at the director level. Such review will allow the commission to provide input to the department concerning the appropriateness of the approvals and help the commission and the department develop a consistent approach to design review. The historic district commission may not overturn the decision of the community development department unless an appeal has been filed pursuant to Section 17.52.700.

17.52.350 Design Review expiration and extension of approval.

A. A design review approval shall be null and void unless the applicant submits a complete application for a building permit within two years from the date of approval.

B. The community development director or the historic district commission, in exercising design review authority under this chapter, may extend an approval for an additional 1 year upon receipt of a written request accompanied by a fee, as may be established by resolution of the city council, and other information deemed necessary by the community development director.

Requests for approval extension must be received before the original approval expires.

17.52.360 Conditional use permit review.

A. The historic district commission shall have final authority relating to the issuance of conditional use permits for any of the uses or purposes for which such permits are required or permitted by the terms of this title, as well as the expiration and extension of such permits, within the boundaries of the historic district.

B. In acting upon applications for conditional use permits, the historic district commission shall adhere to the procedural requirements set forth in Chapter 17.60, except for matters of appeal, which shall be governed by this chapter.

Page 348 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.18.

Ordinance No. 1375

Page 6 of 10 ends

17.52.370 Variance review.

A. The historic district commission shall have final authority relating to application for variances from any of the provisions of this title, as well as the expiration and extension of such requests, within the boundaries of the historic district.

B. In acting upon applications for variances, the historic district commission shall adhere to the procedural requirements set forth in Chapter 17.62, except for matters of appeal, which shall be governed by this chapter.

17.52.380 Sign permit review.

A. The community development director shall have final approval authority relating to the issuance of sign permits for any signs for which such permits are required by this title, within the boundaries of the historic district.

B. The provisions of Chapter 17.59 are applicable in the historic district as modified by this chapter and any adopted design and development guidelines. In acting upon applications for sign permits, the community development director shall adhere to the procedural requirements set forth in Chapter 17.59, except for matters of appeal, which shall be governed by this chapter.

C. Any sign permit application may be elevated to the historic district commission for review at the director’s discretion. The applicant may also request to elevate a director-level sign permit review to the historic district commission upon payment of the commission-level sign permit review application fee established by resolution of the city council. Notice and posting shall be required for all sign permits elevated to the historic district commission, consistent with section

17.52.320.

D. Buildings with multiple tenants shall be required to submit a uniform signage program (USP) for historic district commission approval, as described in Sections 17.52.510 through 17.52.560.

Notice and posting shall be required, consistent with section 17.52.320.

17.52.390 Environmental review.

Review by the community development director and historic district commission of applications for conditional use permits, sign permits, variances, design review, and other entitlements is subject to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The historic district commission, in exercising its review authorities under this chapter, is authorized to hold public hearings on negative declarations, mitigated negative declarations, draft environmental impact reports and final environmental impact reports prepared on applications for the above permits or for design review. The community development director and historic district commission shall not approve applications prior to considering the applicable environmental document or exemption and complying with the requirements of CEQA and any city procedures for preparation and processing of environmental documents.

Page 349 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.18.

Ordinance No. 1375

Page 7 of 10 ends

SECTION 4

Section 17.52.480 of the Folsom Municipal Code is hereby re-adopted to read as follows:

17.52.480 Accessory buildings.

A. Accessory buildings, as defined in Section 17.02.020, are subject to the following development standards within the historic district (with the exception of accessory dwelling units):

1. Height. Accessory buildings shall not exceed fifteen feet in height, as measured using the methodology in Section 17.02.110. An accessory building shall not be taller than the primary building on the lot as measured from finished grade of each building.

2. Setbacks. Accessory buildings shall be set back a minimum of twenty feet from the front yard lot line, five feet from the rear yard lot line, five feet from the interior side- yard lot line, ten feet from the street side-yard lot line and five feet from all other buildings on the property. In no instance shall any portion of an accessory building be located in front of the front plane of the primary building. In the case of a corner lot abutting upon two streets, no detached accessory building shall be erected, altered or moved so as to occupy any part of the front half of such lot.

3. Size. Detached accessory buildings (with the exception of accessory dwelling units) may occupy a maximum of fifty percent of the area of a required rear yard. The total square footage of all accessory buildings on a single parcel, excluding residential accessory dwelling units, shall not exceed 50 percent of the total square footage of the primary building on the same parcel.

Page 350 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.18.

Ordinance No. 1375

Page 8 of 10 ends

SECTION 5

Section 17.52.660 of the Folsom Municipal Code is hereby re-adopted to read as follows:

17.52.660 Demolition review.

A. The demolition of a building originally constructed less than 50 years before submittal of a demolition permit application that is located in the historic district is exempt from review under this Chapter.

B. Review and approval of a Historic District Demolition application is required before the demolition of a building originally constructed 50 or more years prior to submittal of a demolition permit that is located in the historic district.

1. The applicant shall file the following information with the community development director:
a. Completed and signed application form including name, address, email address, and telephone number of the applicant;
b. An application fee as established by resolution of the city council; c. All available information related to the age of the structure. d. Other material and information as requested by the director.

2. Prior to a decision by the community development director to approve a Historic District Demolition application, notice and posting shall be required, consistent with section 17.52.320.

3. The historic district commission shall have final authority relating to the review and approval of Historic District Demolition applications involving existing or potentially eligible historic resources, as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines section 15064.5 or the adopted City of Folsom Historic Preservation Master Plan.
a. Upon determination by the community development director that the building proposed for demolition is an existing or potentially eligible historic resource, notice and posting shall be required, consistent with section 17.52.320. b. Before authorizing the demolition of a building determined by the community development director to be an existing or a potentially eligible historic resource, the historic district commission shall consider the following factors:
i. Whether the public health, safety and/or welfare warrant the demolition;

Page 351 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.18.

Ordinance No. 1375

Page 9 of 10 ends

ii. What accommodations can be provided to the owner of the property to make it feasible for the owner to preserve the property; iii. Whether the owner of the property is willing to sell the property to a buyer who wishes to preserve the property;
iv. Whether a public entity wishes to acquire the property through exercise of the power of eminent domain in order to preserve the property.

4. The community development director shall have final authority relating to the review and approval of all Historic District Demolition applications not involving an existing or potentially eligible historic resource, as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines section 15064.5 or the adopted City of Folsom Historic Preservation Master Plan.

5. Prior to approval of a Historic District Demolition application, the applicant shall provide documentation of the structure for the historical record. Documentation shall include photographs of all sides of the structure, details of unique or representative construction features, and any history of the structure known to, or reasonably obtainable by, the applicant.

6. If the community development director cannot determine whether the building proposed for demolition was originally constructed more than 50 years prior to application for a demolition permit based on permitting files or other provided information, the proposed demolition will be subject to the Historic District Demolition process described in Section 17.52.660(B).

SECTION 6 SCOPE

Except as set forth in this ordinance, all other provisions of the Folsom Municipal Code shall remain in full force and effect.

SECTION 7 SEVERABILITY

If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase in this Ordinance or any part thereof is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, invalid, or ineffective by any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity or effectiveness of the remaining portions of this Ordinance or any part thereof. The City Council declares that it would have passed each section irrespective of the fact that any one or more section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase be declared unconstitutional, invalid, or ineffective.

SECTION 8 NO MANDATORY DUTY

This Ordinance is not intended to and shall not be construed or given effect in a manner that imposes upon the City or any officer or employee thereof a mandatory duty of care towards

Page 352 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.18.

Ordinance No. 1375

Page 10 of 10 ends

persons and property within or without the City, so as to provide a basis of civil liability for damages, except as otherwise imposed by law.

SECTION 9 EFFECTIVE DATE

This ordinance shall become effective on September 11, 2026, provided it is published in full or in summary within twenty (20) days after its adoption in a newspaper of general circulation in the City.

This ordinance was introduced and the title thereof read at the regular meeting of the City Council on July 14, 2026 and the second reading occurred at the regular meeting of the City Council on August 11, 2026.

On a motion by Councilmember seconded by Councilmember , the foregoing ordinance was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Folsom, State of California, this 11th day of August, 2026, by the following roll-call vote:

AYES: Councilmember(s):

NOES: Councilmember(s):

ABSENT: Councilmember(s):

ABSTAIN: Councilmember(s):

__________________________________
Justin Raithel, MAYOR

ATTEST:

______________________________
Christa Freemantle, CITY CLERK

Page 353 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.18.

Attachment 2

Page 354 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.18.

Modifications to FMC Chapter 17.52 (Strikethrough/Underline Version) Section 17.52.130 of the Folsom Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:

Sections 17.52.300 through 17.52.390 of the Folsom Municipal Code are amended to read as follows:

17.52.300 Design review.

A1. All new office, industrial, commercial and residential structuresbuildings, excluding accessory buildings as defined in Section 17.02.020 and accessory dwelling units as regulated by Section 17.52.300(D);
and
B2. All exterior renovations, remodeling, modification or addition to existing structuresbuildings located on properties listed in the City’s Cultural Resources Inventory or located on an existing or potentially eligible historic resource, as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines section 15064.5 or the adopted City of Folsom Historic Preservation Master Plan;.

4. Projects which are part of a planned development or a tentative map.

5. Proposed project design guidelines and standards and revisions to existing design guidelines and standards.

B. The design and architecture of the following projects shall be submitted to the community development director for review and approval under the provisions of this chapter:

Page 355 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.18.

1. All exterior renovation, remodeling, or modification to existing buildings, except those exempted under section 17.52.300(C), and those regulated under

17.52.300(A)(2);

3. All new accessory buildings, including but not limited to garages and sheds, and any addition to such buildings, except those regulated under 17.52.300(A)(2) and

17.52.300(D)(1).

C. The following types of projects are exempt from the design review process under this chapter:

1. Minor modifications including:
a. replacement of existing building and roof materials with similar materials, b. replacement of existing windows and doors with similar windows and doors,
c. changes to exterior colors on residential buildings, d. patio covers, gazebos, pergolas and trellises under 200 square feet in size and located outside of the front, side, and street side yards, e. privacy walls and fencing, excluding chain link, which is not allowed, f. aboveground spas and hot tubs located outside of the front and street side yards,
g. solar panels,
h. outdoor cooking facilities located outside of the front and street side yards, and
i. other projects that the director deems similar in material, design, and scope to those listed, except projects involving buildings or properties on the City’s Cultural Resources Inventory or located on an existing or potentially eligible historic resource, as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines section 15064.5 or the adopted City of Folsom Historic Preservation Master Plan, which are subject to historic district commission approval.

Page 356 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.18.

D. Final approval authority relating to the design and architecture of accessory dwelling units and additions to such buildings within the historic district boundaries shall be as follows:

17.52.310 Design review submittal requirements.

The applicant shall file the following information with the planning, inspections and permittingcommunity development director for design review:

A. Completed and signed application form including name, address, email address, and telephone number of the applicant, and agent authorization from the property owner if the applicant is not the property owner;
B. Application fee as established by resolution of the city council; C. A copy of all entitlements granted for the property by the city, including conditions of approval and the environmental documentation;

Page 357 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.18.

D. A copy of all required state and federal permits;
E. Site plan;
F. Building design plans/elevations;
G. Material samples and color board;
H. Project narrative describing the proposed project and how it is consistent with the requirements of Section 17.52 and any applicable design guidelines; I. Recent photographs of the project site taken within 30 days prior to the submittal which accurately depict the project location; and
HJ. Other material and information as requested by the commission or community development director.

17.52.320 Notice and Pposting of site for design review.

Upon application for design review of a project by the historic district commission, the project site shall be posted by the applicant 5 days prior to the commission heafiring, with a notice 11 inches by 17 inches in size, facing the street frontage, and indicating the project description and the place and time of the hearing. (Ord. 890 § 2 (part), 1998) The provisions of Section 17.06.070 A and B shall apply within the historic district. In addition, a notice containing the project description and the time and place of the meeting for design review of a proposed project shall be posted on the City website and mailed to property owners directly adjacent to the project site at a time reasonably expected to give at least five days before the commission meeting or director level meeting. As used in this section, “directly adjacent to the project site” also includes properties located directly across an alley, street or public right-of-way from the project site.

17.52.330 Plan evaluation for design review.

In reviewing projects for design review, the historic district commission or community development director shall consider the following criteria:

Page 358 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.18.

C. Conformance with any project-specific design standards approved through the planned development permit process or similar review process; and D. Compatibility of building materials, textures and colors with surrounding development and consistency with the general design theme of the neighborhood.

17.52.340 Approval process for design review.

A. The community development director or the historic district commission, in exercising design review authority under this chapter, shall make its the decision to approve, conditionally approve or deny the design review application with findings based on the criteria established in Section 17.52.330 of this chapter. A copy of the decision, findings and any applicable conditions shall be provided in writing to the applicant.

B. Projects that are subject to director-level review may be elevated to the historic district commission for review at the discretion of the community development director. The applicant may request to elevate a director-level design review to the historic district commission upon payment of the commission-level design review application fee established by resolution of the city council and any other applicable fees.

17.52.350 Expiration Design Review expiration and extension of approval.

A. An design review approval by the historic district commission shall be null and void unless the applicant submits a complete application for a building permit within one two years from the date of approval.

Page 359 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.18.
for approval extension must be received before the original approval expires. 60 days prior to the expiration of the original approval.

17.52.360 Conditional use permit review.

17.52.370 Variance review.

17.52.380 Sign permit review.

A. The historic district commissioncommunity development director shall have final approval authority relating to the issuance of sign permits for any signs for which such permits are required by this title, within the boundaries of the historic district.

B. The provisions of Chapter 17.59 are applicable in the historic district as modified in by this chapter and any adopted design and development guidelines. In acting upon applications for sign permits, the historic district commissioncommunity development director shall adhere to the procedural requirements set forth in Chapter 17.59, except for matters of appeal, which shall be governed by this chapter.

Page 360 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.18.
upon payment of the commission-level sign permit review application fee established by resolution of the city council. Notice and posting shall be required for all sign permits elevated to the historic district commission, consistent with section 17.52.320.

D. Buildings with multiple tenants shall be required to submit a uniform signage program (USP) for historic district commission approval, as described in Sections 17.52.510 through

17.52.560. Notice and posting shall be required, consistent with section 17.52.320.

17.52.390 Environmental review.

Review by the community development director and historic district commission of applications for conditional use permits, sign permits, variances, and design review, and other entitlements is subject to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The historic district commission, in exercising its review authorities under this chapter, is authorized to hold public hearings on negative declarations, mitigated negative declarations, draft environmental impact reports and final environmental impact reports prepared on applications for the above permits or for design review. The community development director and historic district commission shall not approve applications prior to considering the applicable environmental document or exemption and complying with the requirements of CEQA and any city procedures for preparation and processing of environmental documents.

Section 17.52.480 of the Folsom Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:

17.52.480 Accessory structuresbuildings.

For the purposes of this chapter, an accessory structure is any freestanding roofed structure located on a parcel on which another larger structure (main structure) has been constructed. Accessory structures shall be setback 20 feet from the front property line of the main structure, 5 feet from any other property line, and 6 feet from all other structures on the property. An accessory structure shall not be larger than the main structure in square footage or height. Design review is not required for accessory structures smaller than 60 square feet or which are below required fence height. (Ord. 890 § 2 (part), 1998) A. Accessory buildings, as defined in Section 17.02.020, are subject to the following development standards within the historic district (with the exception of accessory dwelling units):

Page 361 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.18.

2. Setbacks. Accessory buildings shall be set back a minimum of twenty feet from the front yard lot line, five feet from the rear yard lot line, five feet from the interior side-yard lot line, ten feet from the street side-yard lot line and five feet from all other buildings on the property. In no instance shall any portion of an accessory building be located in front of the front plane of the primary building. In the case of a corner lot abutting upon two streets, no detached accessory building shall be erected, altered or moved so as to occupy any part of the front half of such lot.

Section 17.52.660 of the Folsom Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:

17.52.660 Demolition review.

Page 362 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.18.

B. Review and approval of a Historic District Demolition application is required before tThe demolition of a structure building originally constructed 50 or more years prior to submittal of a demolition permit that is located in the historic district. is subject to the review and approval by the historic district commission

2. Prior to a decision by the community development director to approve a Historic District Demolition application, notice and posting shall be required, consistent with section 17.52.320.

17.52.320.
b. Before Prior to authorizing the demolition of a structure building determined by the community development director considered to be an existing or historically significanta potentially eligible historic resource, the historic district commission shall consider the following factors:

A i. Whether the public health, safety and/or welfare warrant the demolition;

Page 363 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.18.

B ii. What accommodations can be provided to the owner of the property to make it feasible for the owner to preserve the property; C iii. Whether the owner of the property is willing to sell the property to a buyer who wishes to preserve the property;
D iv. Whether a public entity wishes to acquire the property through exercise of the power of eminent domain in order to preserve the property.

5. Prior to approval of a Historic District Demolition applicationthe authorization of demolition, the applicant shall provide documentation of the structure for the historical record. Documentation shall include photographs of all sides of the structure, details of unique or representative construction features, and any history of the structure known to, or reasonably obtainable by, the applicant.

Page 364 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.18.

Attachment 3

Page 365 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.18.

The Heritage Preservation League of Folsom
P.O. Box 353, Folsom, CA 95763-0353
www.FolsomPreservation.org

June 8, 2026

Folsom City Council
50 Natoma Street
Folsom, CA 95630
Via e-mail to [email protected]

Re: Folsom Municipal Code Chapter 17.52

On June 9, 2026, the City Council’s closed session agenda includes conference with legal counsel regarding existing litigation in Delp vs. City of Folsom in relation to the amendments made to FMC 17.52 by Ordinance 1353. The Heritage Preservation League (HPL) views this as an opportunity to express our hope that this lawsuit will bring about reconsideration of provisions of Ordinance 1353. HPL concurs with the lawsuit’s contention that the CEQA exemption used in the ordinance adoption is not appropriate, based on our opinion that the ordinance goes beyond a simple switch of approval responsibilities from the Historic District Commission to staff. HPL sees consequences of applying the ordinance that will result in negative impacts to the City’s goal of preserving a historic small town and negative impacts to the historical significance of the Historic District.

We do believe it would be possible to amend FMC 17.52 in a way that retains protection of Folsom’s Historic District while also accomplishing the City’s goal of more efficiency for staff.

Many of the substantial concerns expressed by our vice president, Loretta Hettinger, during the adoption process for Ordinance 1353 remain. Other concerns have arisen since adoption of the ordinance, most notably the fact that the ordinance delegates authority to the Community Development Department without requiring any expertise to perform such review. It is our opinion that Ordinance 1353 substantially reduces protection of the Historic District and needs to be reconsidered to avoid significant and substantial impacts to the Historic District aesthetic and historic quality.

None of the current Council members participated in the initial adoption of FMC 17.52 and Design and Development Guidelines (DDG’s) in 1998, and so a brief review of circumstances at that time is appropriate. The 1988 General Plan directed that a Specific Plan be prepared to include the entire Theodore Judah mapped area in an expanded Historic District. Under the

auspices of the historic residents association a citizens committee, staffed by HPL’s Loretta Hettinger (Folsom planner at that time) and with consultant support, a four-year, grass-roots process resulted in a draft Specific Plan. As described in Section 1.03, “CEQA Compliance,” of the DDG’s adopted by the City,

Page 366 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.18.

The Heritage Preservation League of Folsom
P.O. Box 353, Folsom, CA 95763-0353
www.FolsomPreservation.org

The City conducted environmental review of a proposed Historic District Specific Plan.

Due to the nature and complexity of the Plan and the projects which will follow under it, a Master Environmental Impact Report (MEIR) was prepared. The City Council ultimately elected to implement zoning changes to Chapter 17.52 of the Folsom Municipal Code and design standards through the adoption of these Design and Development Guidelines. Many of the provisions of the proposed Historic District Specific Plan and the amendments to Chapter 17.52 are contained within these guidelines. Accordingly, the City Council relied upon the MEIR for evaluation and consideration of environmental impacts.

It is not clear that the MEIR played a part in the preparation and adoption of Ordinance 1353.

Review of its provisions might have had a beneficial effect on the process, as it underscores the overall importance of FMC 17.52’s and the DDG’s provisions in order to carry out the City’s goal of preserving this historic small town. In addition, when considering relaxing the Historic District protections of FMC 17.52 design review provisions, the City should be aware of and consider the effects of state laws restricting or prohibiting discretionary review for certain types of projects in the Historic District. Any relaxation of design review protections made by the City would combine cumulatively with state laws restricting design review, to the detriment of the Historic District character.

It is important that the Council consider the potential impacts of amendments to FMC 17.52.

HPL is providing an explanation of our concerns, and we would welcome an opportunity for additional input and collaboration with the City on considering a modified set of FMC 17.52 amendments as an alternative to the amendments of Ordinance 1353.

HPL’s mission from its formation in 2003 has always been to advocate for preservation and protection of Folsom’s remarkable history. Our intention has always been to be part of the solution of how best to preserve and protect, not simply object. In keeping with that goal and in recognition that a closed session is not the forum to discuss specific recommendations, we will conclude with a brief summary of some of the potential revisions we would propose.

PROBLEMS

Structures are not protected.

As modified by Ordinance 1353, FMC 17.52 now provides for design review of new or modified buildings (defined in FMC 17.02.090), eliminating design review of all other new structures (defined in FMC 17.02.400) and modifications to existing non-building structures. This change eliminates design review of many types of new structures and existing structures.

There is no requirement for staff expertise in historic architecture and historic preservation.

Page 367 ends

07/14/2026 Item No.18.

The Heritage Preservation League of Folsom
P.O. Box 353, Folsom, CA 95763-0353
www.FolsomPreservation.org

The Community Development Director is tasked with deciding whether an application is heard by staff or the Historic District Commission. Per the ordinance, the decision relies on whether a building is already listed or is potentially listed as a historic resource. The CEQA Guidelines section referenced in the ordinance and the City’s Historic Preservation Master Plan (HPMP) both describe proper methodology for placing a site on a list, a process that HPL has experience with, a process that requires more time than staff can devote without negating the time-saving goal of the ordinance. Thus, in effect, unless a building has already been evaluated for a list or potential listing, it is not appropriate for a staff decision unless City staff has the expertise and time to follow the methodologies of CEQA and/or the HPMP. The great majority of buildings and structures in the Historic District have not been evaluated beyond the fact of their location within the 98 blocks of the Judah map.

Qualified staff could decide whether an application must be reviewed by the HDC or is appropriate for staff decision if a different standard is adopted. Historic preservation and architecture is not a typical part of a planning degree, nor is it a requirement for being a Community Development Director. The ordinance puts a responsibility on the Director without assuring decisions are based on expertise.

A standard that protects only buildings at least 50 years old is inadequate.

Regarding demolition, the ordinance inserts a provision that buildings at least 50 years old have protection. This is a flawed standard. Of course buildings that are at least 50 years old deserve special review. However age should not be the only determinant if Folsom’s goals are to be met.

It’s important to take a moment here to compare Folsom’s goals with the usual means of protecting a city’s heritage. Most historic protections are geared toward preserving a specific structure that is valuable due either to its architecture or to its association with persons or events that are historically significant. Likewise, groupings of structures that are valuable for the same reasons are protected.

In contrast, Folsom’s goal is to protect an entire historic small town, not parts of it, for a similar but different reason. It’s not because of amazing architecture (we don’t have much), or because of a “George Washington slept here” thought process or simply because it’s old (we do have a very significant overall history). Instead Folsom’s goal is to preserve something that is fast disappearing across the nation: a small town as it existed between 1850 and 1950, before the postwar construction boom changed the basic structure of town design. Today it seems that every small town has its Walmart, McDonalds, Starbucks, Target, etc. Many times they’re located on Main Street, making the old buildings ready candidates for demolition because they look so “old” in comparison and there’s nothing special about them. Preserving those ordinary buildings has created a Folsom Historic District that is greater than the sum of its parts.

Page 368 ends

Folsom City CouncilJuly 14, 2026

Folsom City Council
July 14, 2026