Folsom City Council
August 11, 2026

08/11/2026 Item No.6.

17.52.300 Amendment Concept Recommended by Bob Delp 7/13/2026 Black text is section 17.52.300 as amended by the Council’s October 2025 approval. The underline/strikethrough changes shown in red are recommended additions/deletions that would serve to restore design review for non-building structures and other provisions as explained in margin comments.

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. (Ord. 1353 § 3, 2025; Ord. 890 § 2 (part), 1998)

08/11/2026 Item No.6.

Bob Delp – July 14, 2026

City of Folsom City Council
50 Natoma Street
Folsom, CA 95630
via email to: [email protected] for distribution to City Council

SUBJECT: Comments to City Council re: July 14, 2026, Agenda Item No. 18 – Ord. No. 1353 Amending FMC Chapter 17.52 – Non-Compliance with CEQA and City Charter

To Folsom City Council:

I am the Petitioner in Superior Court of the State of California, County of Sacramento, Case No. 26WM000118 that, as discussed further in section 3 of this letter, pertains to the City Council’s October 28, 2025, approval of the Folsom Municipal Code Chapter 17.52 (“FMC 17.52”) amendments (“Project”) the readoption of which is the subject of this City Council agenda item.

However, I am providing these comments as a citizen of Folsom and a resident and property owner in the Historic District interested in the protection, preservation, and enhancement of the Historic District’s character and quality. I am opposed to the City’s readoption of Ord. No. 1353 and its amendments to FMC 17.52. Such a decision is a “project” under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and the Project does not qualify for one or any combination of CEQA exemptions.

The obvious catalyst for the Council’s consideration of readopting the FMC 17.52 amendments is that the City decided to attempt to bolster its arguments for why the Project is not subject to the CEQA. As explained further in this letter, even with that intended purpose, your staff report’s arguments to excuse the Project from CEQA review fail. Most obviously absent is any discussion the Project’s elimination of design review for all structures that do not meet the definition of building. Staff’s “Environmental Review” discussion (CC 7/14/26 pkt. pgs. 268- 271) fail to address this significant aspect of the Project. Staff’s discussion clings to the faulty notion that the Project is limited to procedures and administration and exempts from design review only “very small projects.” Yet, for the readoption to serve its purpose of proving a basis for exempting the Project from CEQA review, the City must demonstrate that it has considered the whole of the Project – including the fact that the Project changes to FMC section 17.52.300 eliminate a design review process for all non-building structures. As further explained in this letter, elimination of design review of privacy walls, fences, and all other non-building structures has the potential for significant adverse impacts to the character of the Historic District and its historic resources.

A responsible City Council interested in resolving CEQA litigation would candidly discuss the facts of eliminating design review for all non-building structures at tonight’s hearing. If the Council then determines that the elimination of design review for all non-building structures has no potential for significant impacts to the Historic District, the Council should then ensure that substantial evidence to that effect is documented in the record. I believe the City Council cannot make that finding, and in my July 13, 2026, letter to the Council I have urged the Council to consider minor text revisions to FMC 17.52.300 that would restore design review for non- building structures, including privacy walls and fences.

In the 1990s, the City undertook a substantial effort in considering ways to protect and preserve the Historic District that culminated in the adoption of a re-written Folsom Municipal Code Chapter 17.52 (“FMC 17.52”) and accompanying Historic District Design and Development Guidelines (“DDGs”). Many thoughtful people worked very hard to create a process defining objective standards and a design review process applicable to all structures in the Historic

08/11/2026 Item No.6.

Bob Delp – July 14, 2026

District. The process may not be perfect and in recent years has been confronted by state laws that, while attempting to achieve commendable aims, have limited the City’s ability to exercise design review to the extent envisioned in 1998. Nevertheless, the design review provisions of FMC 17.52 and the DDGs still serve a vital function in preservation and protection of the Historic District. Amending the processes they prescribe should not be taken lightly and the effects of any amendments should be fully understood before their approval.

The FMC 17.52 amendments effectively eliminate design review for all structures that do not meet the definition of building by establishing in FMC 17.52.300 that the HDC and CDD design reviews only apply to buildings. The distinction between these two terms and the resulting change in design review provisions resulting from the FMC 17.52 amendments focus on “buildings” are important for understanding the implications of the FMC 17.52 amendments.

These definitions may have been overlooked by staff, the HDC, and the City Council in adopting the amendments last year and certainly warrant further consideration now.1 The staff reports argue that only certain “very small” structures will be exempt from design review, however, the amendments establish no person and no commission to perform design review of any structures that are not buildings and therefore effectively eliminate all design review authority for all non- building structures. The City’s claim that design review is only limited to certain “very small” structures cannot be reconciled with the actual effect that the amendments have in eliminating design review authority for all non-building structures. If this is an unintended aspect of the amendments, then now is the time for correction by ensuring that 17.52.300 is revised to establish a design reviewer for non-building structures.

Although the City Council is considering simply readopting the amendments, I urge the Council to more thoroughly consider amendments that achieve the City’s efficiency goals while not eliminating important design review provisions that protect the Historic District’s character and quality. I suggest the amendments to FMC 17.52.300 presented in my July 13, 2026, letter would help achieve that.

The Project amendments go too far in relaxing and eliminating important provisions of FMC

17.52 that were carefully developed through a rigorous process in the 1990s leading the 1998 rewrite and adoption of FMC 17.52 and its companion DDGs. In addition to eliminating design review of non-building structures, the Project amendments wrest far too much of the remaining design review role from the HDC and reassign that role to the CDD Director. Although I have disagreed with certain decisions made by the HDC in recent years, design review performed by a commission through a public hearing provides for a more comprehensive perspective on design considerations, allows for a more formal and visible public noticing and public comment process, eliminates one-on-one influence, and improves design review decision-making. Often, the HDC considers staff recommendations, discusses design adjustments with staff and

1 The importance of not ignoring the FMC’s definitions of terms is highlighted in an October 31, 2025, Sacramento County Superior Court decision pertaining to the 603 Sutter Street Mixed-Use project (Case No. 23WM000125) where the Court ruled that at the City did not comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) in approving that project. For that project, the City had determined that the project’s parapet wall could be excluded when calculating the building height. To my knowledge, nowhere in the record had staff ever advised the HDC or City Council that the FMC definition of “building height” specifically establishes that building height is to include measurement to the highest point of any parapet wall. After two years of costly litigation, the Court concluded that “…the City’s interpretation is foreclosed by section 17.02.110, which specifically includes a building’s parapet wall in the definition of ‘Building height.’ While the City is permitted to reasonably interpret its own codes and ordinances where they are unclear or conflicting, it is not permitted to ignore directly applicable provisions of such codes.”

08/11/2026 Item No.6.

Bob Delp – July 14, 2026

applicants, and modifies staff’s recommendations to ensure design is more appropriate for the Historic District.

This is the very mechanism that, in 1998, City decision-makers decided was appropriate for the Historic District – with a commission performing design review not only for properties specifically identified on the City’s list of historic properties, but for all properties, buildings, and other structures throughout the Historic District – where all properties contribute to the historic character of the entire Historic District that FMC 17.52 and the DDGs are intended to protect.

1. FMC 17.52 and DDG Background
Several of the Project amendments to FMC 17.52 either omit or alter design review and demolition review responsibilities. The amendments create internal inconsistencies within FMC

17.52 with regard to the scope and responsibilities for design review and create inconsistencies between FMC 17.52 and the DDGs. The purpose and intent of FMC 17.52 and the DDGs are important for understanding the baseline conditions to which any amendments to FMC 17.52 must be compared to understand the effects of any amendments.

On July 14, 1998, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 890 which, among other things, rewrote FMC Chapter 17.52, established the HDC, and established Historic District primary and subarea boundaries in which specialized use and development standards apply. As stated in FMC

17.52.010,2 “Purpose and intent,” among the express purposes of FMC Chapter 17.52 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;

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; and

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

As adopted in 1998, FMC 17.52.120(G) establishes that the HDC is to “[r]eview the design and architecture of any new structure, or alteration to any existing structures within the historic district,” and FMC 17.52.330(B) anticipates that as part of the HDC’s design review the HDC would consider criteria including “conformance with any…historic District design and development guidelines adopted by the city council.” Three months later, on October 13, 1998, the City Council adopted the City of Folsom Historic District Design and Development Guidelines (Resolution No. 5757) (“DDGs”)3 to provide a comprehensive document to assist with the implementation of the regulations and standards contained in FMC 17.52.

2 The attachment to your staff report includes only excerpts of the amended sections of FMC 17.52, but I urge the Council to obtain and consider the full chapter since several unamended sections are also important for understanding the amendments. An online version, as amended, is here:
https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Folsom/#!/Folsom17/Folsom1752.html#17.52 3 The 1998 “Historic District Design and Development Guidelines” (“DDGs”) are incorporated by this reference in their entirety. At the time of preparation of this letter, the DDGs are available to the public on the City of Folsom website at:

Main Document: https://www.folsom.ca.us/home/showpublisheddocument/23554/639038904142800000 Appendix A, Historic Resources: https://www.folsom.ca.us/home/showpublisheddocument/23556/639038904870370000 Appendix B, Visual Resources: https://www.folsom.ca.us/home/showpublisheddocument/23558/639038904877770000 Appendix C, Environmental Resources: https://www.folsom.ca.us/home/showpublisheddocument/23560/639038904884700000

08/11/2026 Item No.6.

Bob Delp – July 14, 2026

The DDGs are not perfect, but they offer extensive and beneficial guidance for development in the Historic District.

Section 1.01, “Intent,” of the DDGs explains,
the City Council elected to adopt Historic District Design and Development Guidelines (hereafter the “Design and Development Guidelines”) in conjunction with amendments to Chapter 17.52 of the Folsom Municipal Code (hereafter “Chapter 17.52”). By adopting the Design and Development Guidelines, the City Council intends to provide a comprehensive policy manual to assist with the implementation of the regulations contained in Chapter 17.52 of the Folsom Municipal Code. The goals, policies, and programs which have guided the preparation of this document and which are to be used in implementing Chapter

17.52 are enumerated in detail in Section 2.01 of this document. In addition to providing design review standards, the City Council intends to set forth in this document criteria that will guide further development within the Historic District.

These Design and Development Guidelines provide policy direction concerning private and public development within the Historic District, as well as policy direction concerning public infrastructure and circulation improvements. (DDGs, p. 1-1.)
The DDGs further explain the City Council’s purpose and intent for FMC 17.52 and the DDGs to work in combination for protection of the historical character of the entirety of the Historic District and not solely focused on protection of certain individual properties deemed historically significant,
Historic Folsom is also a representative example of the development of many small towns across the American West, and this legacy is likewise worthy of preservation, interpretation, and re-creation. While modern developments consist of carefully integrated architecture, materials, and site plans, protected by Design and Development Guidelines and CC&R's against discordant future construction, traditional development was more varied and occurred on a lot-by-lot basis. In conjunction with the regulations imposed by Chapter 17.52 of the Folsom Municipal Code, the Design and Development Guidelines limit future construction in Historic Folsom to the architectural styles extant in California from 1850 to 1950, a limitation intended to encourage the diversity which is the charm of old Folsom while preventing construction of modern buildings which would be discordant. While there are only a few structures within Historic Folsom which are individual architectural stand-outs, the homes and buildings, when taken together, evoke the feeling of life in small-town America, an aspect often ignored by history books and preservation efforts. By the adoption of Chapter

17.52 and these Design and Development Guidelines, the City Council seeks to preserve that image.
(DDGs, Section 1.01, pg. 1-2.)

Appendix D, Design Criteria: https://www.folsom.ca.us/home/showpublisheddocument/23562/639038904905270000 Appendix E, Historic District Circulation Plan: https://www.folsom.ca.us/home/showpublisheddocument/23564/639038904914600000

08/11/2026 Item No.6.

Bob Delp – July 14, 2026

The DDGs include goals and policies pertaining to Historic District design review including, GOAL l: Community Identity: To preserve and enhance the historic, small-town atmosphere of the 98-block Historic District area.

Policy 1.4: Since the Historic District plays a central role in determining the character of the City of Folsom, every project within the Historic District, at every stage of approval and construction, should be marked by an attention to quality which will serve as a benchmark to the rest of the community.

GOAL 6: New Development: To ensure that new residential and commercial development is consistent with and enhances the historical character of the historic district.

Policy 6.1: New development shall conform to architectural and infrastructure standards of Chapter 17.52 of the Folsom Municipal Code and these Design and Development Guidelines.

Additionally, the DDGs assign demolition review for all existing structures in the Historic District to the HDC, stating,
Policy 6.3: Demolition of existing structures located in the Historic District shall require approval of the Historic District Commission, which shall consider 1) whether the public health, safety and/or welfare warrant the demolition; 2) what accommodation can be provided to the owner of the property to make it feasible to preserve the property or structure; 3) whether the owner of the property is willing to sell the property or structure to a buyer who wishes to preserve it; and 4) whether a public entity wishes to acquire the property or structure in order to preserve it.

The DDGs are not simply an afterthought of niceties, they were developed as an integral part of the vision established by the City Council in 1998 for the preservation and protection of the Historic District.

As described section 1.03, “CEQA Compliance,” of the DDG’s, 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.

Thus, the 1998 FMC 17.52 and DDGs were intended not simply as preferred land use regulations for the Historic District, but also incorporated provisions and mitigation identified through the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) process as necessary to protect the character and quality of the Historic District. The City has all but ignored the fact that a comprehensive CEQA process was conducted prior to the adoption of FMC 17.52 and the DDGs.

Through that process, the City not only included provisions in FMC 17.52 and the DDGs to avoid or minimize adverse effects of development in the Historic District, but also identified

08/11/2026 Item No.6.

Bob Delp – July 14, 2026

several mitigation measures, including the following pertaining to inadvertent discovery of cultural resources:

Should any cultural resources, such as structural features, unusual amounts of bone or shell, artifacts, human remains, or architectural remains be encountered during any development activities, work shall be suspended and the City of Folsom shall be notified. The City shall consult with a qualified archaeologist to determine if the encountered resources are ''important" cultural resources within the definition of CEQA Appendix K. The consulting archaeologist shall develop, if necessary, further mitigation measures consistent with CEQA Appendix K to reduce any cultural resource impact less than a significant level. (Folsom Historic District Specific Plan, Mitigation Monitoring Program, January 21, 1998. State Clearinghouse Number: 95032066, pg. 9.)
The City has consistently included inadvertent cultural resources discovery provisions as conditions of approval for design review projects that involve ground disturbance in the Historic District that have undergone review by the HDC. However, staff-level design reviews have omitted provisions for inadvertent discovery of cultural resources.4,5,6 Without provisions for inadvertent cultural resources discovery for all ground disturbance projects in the Historic District, the potential for inadvertent discovery and damage or destruction of significant cultural resources exists. The previously required HDC design review of all structures provided a mechanism for imposition of inadvertent discovery protocols through conditions of approval.

With the Project amendments shifting much of the design review role to staff and eliminating design review for non-building structures, the mechanism for requiring inadvertent discovery protocols and protection of currently unknown cultural resources is disrupted and eliminated.

The City provides no explanation of how projects involving ground disturbance in the Historic District that will now be exempt from design review will still somehow be required to implement inadvertent cultural resources discovery protocols or, if such projects will not be required to implement these protocols, how impacts to cultural resources that may be present within a development footprint will be avoided or otherwise mitigated.

2. The Project Eliminates Design Review for All Non-Building Structures Prior to the FMC 17.52 amendments approved by the City Council in October 2025, FMC

17.52.300 specified that the HDC was to perform design review of all proposed new or modified structures in the Historic District. Since there was no other design reviewer identified, it was very clear that any design review requirement discussed in any section of FMC 17.52 fell squarely on the HDC.

4 See letter Attachment 1, January 10, 2024, HDC design review conditions of approval pertaining to 403 Riley Street external staircase with condition of approval 5 requiring, “If any archaeological, cultural, or historical resources or artifacts, or other features are discovered during the course of construction anywhere on the project site, work shall be suspended in that location until a qualified professional archaeologist assesses the significance of the discovery and provides recommendations to the City. The City shall determine and require implementation of the appropriate mitigation as recommended by the consulting archaeologist. The City may also consult with individuals that meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards before implementation of any recommendation. If agreement cannot be reached between the project applicant and the City, the Historic District Commission shall determine the appropriate implementation method.” 5 See letter Attachment 2, September 11, 2018, staff design review approval for patio at 614 Sutter Street with no provisions for inadvertent discovery of cultural resources. 6 See letter Attachment 3, May 8, 2026, staff design review approval for a deck at 405 Sutter Street with no provisions for inadvertent discovery of cultural resources.

08/11/2026 Item No.6.

Bob Delp – July 14, 2026

However, under the amended FMC 17.52.300, design review function is divided between the HDC and the CDD Director with each of their design review roles prescribed for only various types of buildings, such that any structure that does not also fit the definition of building is no longer subject to design review by either the HDC or CDD Director. (See CC 7/14/26 Packet pages 284-286 where FMC 17.52.300(A) provides for HDC design review of certain projects in which all previous references to “structures” are stricken and replaced with the more limited term “buildings” and FMC 17.52.300(B) provides for CDD Director design review of all other renovations, additions, and accessory buildings without assigning design review authority for review of non-building structures.)
FMC Chapter 17.02 “Definitions,” defines these terms:

17.02.090 Building. “Building” means any structure having a roof supported by columns and/or by walls and intended for the housing or shelter of any person, animal or chattel.

17.02.400 Structure. “Structure” means anything constructed or erected upon the ground or attached to a structure having location on the ground.

The FMC definition of “structure” is very broad while the definition of “building” is much narrower. All buildings are structures, but many structures are not buildings.

The Project’s elimination of design review of non-building structures is a substantial reduction in the design review provisions of FMC 17.52. Staff describe that the amendments exempt only “certain very small projects from design review,” (see CC 7/14/26 pkt. pgs. 268, 269, 270) yet staff’s analysis fails to recognize that all non-building structures, regardless of size, is not subject to design review under the amended language. The amended FMC 17.52.300 establishes that certain new or modified buildings are subject to HDC review and that other new or modified buildings are subject to CDD review, but contains no provisions for any design review of non- building structures neither by the HDC nor the CDD Director.7 Moreover, the FMC 17.52.300 amendments conflict with other sections of FMC 17.52 not amended by the Project. For instance, FMC 17.52.120 specifies duties of the HDC which include, “G. Review the design and architecture of any new structure, or alteration to any existing structures within the historic district, as further defined in this chapter,” yet, with the FMC 17.52.300 amendment, neither the HDC nor the CDD Director has authority to review any new or altered non-building structure. Additionally, FMC 17.52.400 specifies that “design review is required for all new structures and alterations to existing structures,” yet, as amended, FMC 17.52.300 no longer provides any role for either the HDC or CDD to perform design review for non-building structures.

In considering readoption of the FMC 17.52 amendments, it is critical that the Council fully understand and disclose the implications of the elimination of design review for non-building structures. Staff’s incorrect premise that only “certain very small projects” would be exempt from design review cannot be reconciled with the actual language and effects of the amendments that eliminate design review authority for all non-building structures.

The City needs to either restore design review of non-building structures or the City’s analysis of the Project and its potential effects on the character of the Historic District and individual

7 The CDD website identifies that design review is required for certain types of non-building structures (e.g., landscape features depending on size/location, pools and spas depending on location), however, the amended FMC

17.52 provides no authority for any such design review since these features are not buildings and the CDD exceeds its authority if it exercises design review over non-building structures.

08/11/2026 Item No.6.

Bob Delp – July 14, 2026

historic properties must include consideration of the effects of eliminating design review for all non-building structures.

3. CEQA Compliance
On October 28, 2025, when the City Council adopted Ord. 1353 amending FMC 17.52, the Council determined the Project was exempt from CEQA review because the Project was “process related and administrative in nature” and therefore qualified for the CEQA Guidelines § 15061(B)(3) “commonsense” exemption.

Prior to the Council’s approval of the Project, I submitted comments opposing the Project and providing explanation and evidence that the Project would have the potential to result in significant impacts to the historic character of the Historic District and that the Project did not qualify for a CEQA exemption.8 Others, including those involved in developing FMC 17.52 and the DDGs in the 1990s, also expressed concerns and provided comments to staff, the HDC, and the City Council prior to approval of the Project.

After requesting in November 2025 that the Council rescind Ord. 1353 and after allowing nearly six months for the Council to do so, on April 23, 2026, I filed a petition for writ of mandate with the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Sacramento (Case No. 26WM000118), challenging the City’s approval of the Project with a CEQA exemption. That lawsuit is the obvious catalyst for the City’s current effort to re-approve the Project and assert additional grounds for exempting the Project from CEQA review. Yet, the CEQA arguments that the staff report now presents to the Council (CC 7/14/26 pkt, pgs. 268-261) misconstrue the Project and do not provide substantial evidence that the Project qualifies for one or some combination of CEQA exemptions.

The staff report also asserts that the Council might find that the Project is actually not a project at all under CEQA. But the Project is a project under CEQA as, among other things, the elimination of design review that would otherwise be performed for all non-building structures has the obvious potential to cause an indirect physical change in the environment as compared to circumstances in which all buildings and structures are subject to design review, as discussed further herein.

To argue that the Project is not a project under CEQA requires one to take the unfounded position that the design review process has no influence on the character or quality of non- building structures constructed, modified, and/or demolished in the Historic District. Instead of addressing that fact, the staff report claims the Project is not a project under CEQA “[b]ecause changing which body (HDC or City staff) will process the minor approvals covered under the proposed amendments does not have the potential to cause a physical change in the environment directly or indirectly.” Even were the staff report correct that changing the body performing design review has no potential to result in physical changes, this argument fails to address other aspects of the Project that modify and eliminate design review of all non-building structures.

Staff’s attempt to claim the Project is not a project under CEQA falls short of even attempting to address the whole of the Project and fails to account for the indirect physical changes to the

8 See Bob Delp October 14, 2025, letter subject Comments to City Council re: October 14, 2025, Agenda Item No. 6 – Ord. No. 1353 Amending FMC Chapter 17.52, and Bob Delp October 28, 2025, letter subject Comments to City Council re: October 28, 2025, Agenda Item No. 3 – Ord. No. 1353 Amending FMC Chapter 17.52 previously submitted and included in the City’s records of HDC and Planning Commission meetings for the proposed readoption of the subject amendments. These letters are incorporated in their entirety herein by this reference.

08/11/2026 Item No.6.

Bob Delp – July 14, 2026

environment that will occur as a result of the Project’s elimination of non-building structure design review.

In fact, the obvious physical effect of the design review process is demonstrated in a recent communication from City Planner Nathan Stroud.9 Stroud explains that a permit for a replacement of the roof at 512 Natoma Street in the Historic District was erroneously issued and that, had the reroof undergone design review (as it should have but did not) the CDD design review process “would not have allowed black comp shingles and would have required they stay with the red Spanish tiles, as is consistent with the Spanish eclectic style” of the building.

Obviously, the design review process influences and effects the ultimate physical appearance of buildings and formerly non-building structures, and changes to the design review process, requirements, and projects subject to design review as results from the Project amendments to FMC 17.52. Staff’s assertion that the Project amendments to FMC 17.52 “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” is without merit.

In contrast to staff’s new claim that the Project is not a project under CEQA, the staff report also argues that the Project is eligible for the CEQA Guidelines 15061(b)(3) “commonsense” exemption and also attempts to overlay or incorporate other CEQA exemptions in arguing that environmental review of the Project is not required. As discussed below, the Project does not qualify for the 15061(b)(3) exemption and the City’s attempt to bolster its rationale fails.

Moreover, with or without application of additional CEQA exemptions, the Project does not qualify for the 15061(b)(3) exemption. Additionally, the staff report’s attempt to assign a CEQA exemption to certain aspects of the Project as ministerial is misguided. The Project clearly involves discretionary decision-making and CEQA Guidelines expressly state, “[w]here a project involves an approval that contains elements of both a ministerial action and a discretionary action, the project will be deemed to be discretionary and will be subject to the requirements of CEQA.” Also, the staff report’s attempt to assign categorical exemptions to the Project or portions of the Project is also misguided. The Class 1 and Class 3 categorical exemptions asserted in the staff report might be applicable to certain discretionary approvals in the Historic District, but they are inapplicable to the City’s consideration and approval of the Project because the Project is a zoning ordinance amendment and is not a decision to approve modifications to existing facilities, small structures, or any other facilities or structures. Moreover, after introducing these two irrelevant categorical exemptions, the staff report attempts to discuss whether any exceptions to these exemptions apply. Yet, because the Project does not involve any specific development and the Class 1 and 3 exemptions cannot be applied to the Project, there is neither current relevance nor a basis to conclude that the exceptions to the exemptions would not apply to specific development subject to FMC 17.52.

3.1 The Project does Not Qualify for the Commonsense Exemption The CEQA Guidelines 15061(b)(3) exemption can be applied only, “[w]here it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.” In claiming this exemption, the City must provide substantial evidence for how the proposed FMC 17.52 amendments would have no possibility of a significant impact.

The City Council’s October 2025 approval of the Project rested on the assertion that “the proposed code amendment is process related and administrative in nature and therefore will not have a significant effect on the environment,” and does not consider the implications of

9 See letter Attachment 4, July 2, 2026, email from Nathan Stroud subject, Re: 512 Natoma St. Folsom Reroof Project.

08/11/2026 Item No.6.

Bob Delp – July 14, 2026

eliminating certain projects from design review and other changes in design and demolition review processes that would result from the Project amendments.

In attempting now to substantiate the Project’s qualification for the 15061(b)(3) exemption, the staff report asserts that, “[t]he ordinance amendments discussed in this report do not have the potential to cause a significant effect on the environment,” and that the Project’s exemption of “certain very small projects from design review” would not have potential to cause any significant impacts on the environment. The staff report also discusses that “several of the project types exempted from design review are required to be located in side or rear yards for the exemption to apply.” (CC 7/14/26 pkt. pgs. 268-269.)
The staff report’s arguments do not address substantial evidence indicating the potential for significant impacts and do not provide substantial evidence that the Project would have no possibility of a significant impact precluding the Project from the 15061(b)(3) exemption.

3.1.1 Elimination of Design Review for All Non-Building Structures As discussed above in Section 2 of this letter, prior to the Project amendments, FMC 17.52.300 specified that the HDC was to have final authority over all new office, industrial, commercial, and residential structures, and all exterior renovations, remodeling, modification or addition to existing structures. Under the amended FMC 17.52.300, design review function is divided between the HDC and the CDD Director with each of their design review roles prescribed only various types of buildings, such that any structure that does not also fit the definition of building is no longer subject to design review by either the HDC or CDD Director.

Without a designated body and process, design review of non-building structures is effectively eliminated from FMC 17.52. With the Project amendments, the list of exempt non-building structures in FMC 17.52.300(C) represents only a small subset of the types of non-building structures for which design review will not be performed as a result of the Project.

The staff report and staff’s assessment of potential impacts of the Project does not mention or assess the impacts of eliminating design review of all non-building structures and, thus, fails to provide evidence that the Project’s elimination of design review for all non-building structures would have no possibility of a significant impact.

The elimination of design review for all non-building structures eliminates design review of many types of new and modified structures (e.g., privacy walls, retaining walls, fences, decks, pools/spas, play equipment, courtyards, exterior street-to-sidewalk stairways and railings, amphitheaters, bridges, public restrooms, mechanical equipment, roads, bike paths, sidewalks… all of which meet the definition of “structures” under the FMC 17.02.400) and any of which would have the potential to be inconsistent with the Historic District character if developed without going through the FMC 17.52 design review process.

The elimination of design review of non-building structures would also eliminate any discretionary review of many such structures, and would provide no mechanism for the City to impose standard conditions of approval that are used mitigate impacts, including the standard condition pertaining to inadvertent cultural resources discovery discussed above in this letter.

3.1.2 Exempting Privacy Walls and Fences
Even if design review were restored for most structures, the exemption of privacy walls and fences would still have the potential for adverse effects on the Historic District character and quality and its individual historical and contributing resources.

08/11/2026 Item No.6.

Bob Delp – July 14, 2026

The staff report asserts that, “[s]everal 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 City’s consistent past practice and thus, would not result in any change from baseline conditions for those projects.” (CC 7/14/26 pkt. pg. 269.)
Regardless of how baseline conditions might be defined for future review of a particular proposed structure, such as a privacy wall or fence, the relevant CEQA baseline for consideration of the potential environmental effects of the Project is the specifications and design review requirements of FMC 17.52 as it existed prior to the Project amendments. Under that appropriate baseline condition, FMC 17.52 provided for HDC design review of fences and all other new and alterations to existing structures, stating in FMC 17.52.400, “Design standards,” (emphasis added),
A. The design standards specified in Sections 17.52.410 through 17.52.590 shall be applicable to all new structures and alterations to existing structures within the historic district. Design review is required for all new structures and alterations to existing structures, unless otherwise specified in this chapter.

FMC 17.52.430 – 17.52.480 provide objective standards for certain types of non-building structures10 and specify when certain sizes and/or locations of structures are not subject to design review. For instance, FMC 17.52.460 specifies objective standards for play equipment and exempts play equipment smaller than 120 square feet or below fence height from design review; whereas FMC 17.52.440, “Fences,” specifies objective design standards for fence height without providing an exemption from design review. By a plain read of the text it is undeniable that, prior to the Project amendments, FMC 17.52 required design review for all structures, including fences. The Project amendments to FMC 17.52 that include “privacy walls and fences” on a list of features exempt from design review must be compared to the existing condition baseline under which design review was required by FMC 17.52.

The staff report’s assertion that fences and other types of structures “were already not going through design review based on the City’s consistent past practice” might reveal some deficiency of the City to actively implement FMC 17.52’s design review provisions for fences, but does not establish the relevant baseline for consideration the Project’s potential effects. Even an unenforced design review provision still creates an incentive for compliance with the general intent of the design review and design character aims of the DDGs.

The City Police Department, from time to time and for various reasons, may not always actively enforce speed limits on City streets, but that does not negate the beneficial effect and value of maintaining posted speed limits on City streets, nor does it mean that speed limits could be abolished with no effect on driver behavior. Similarly, that any given time the CDD may not be actively performing/enforcing the required design review for certain types of projects does not negate the benefits of maintaining design review requirements in FMC 17.52.

Were individual property owners in the Historic District to build privacy walls or fences without first obtaining design review approval, those property owners would nevertheless be influenced by the risk of non-compliance and incentivized to design the structure consistent with Historic District character (akin to a driver heeding speed limits even in the absence of police enforcement). Moreover, the design review requirement for fences provides a mechanism

10 e.g., 17.52.430 Decks, 17.52.440 Fences, 17.52.450 Landscape features, 17.52.460 Play Equipment, 17.52.470 Swimming Pools and Spas, 17.52.480 Accessory Structures.

08/11/2026 Item No.6.

Bob Delp – July 14, 2026

through which the City could take enforcement action for a property owner’s failure to obtain a design review approval and remedy an inappropriate fence design. Without a design review requirement, the City has no mechanism or ability to enforce restrictions on inappropriate fence design.

Section C of Appendix D of the DDGs provides Historic Residential Design Criteria, and specifies the following design provisions for walls and fences:

Walls and fences. Materials of walls and fences shall reflect the style and character of the building and its site. Where large expanses of blank building wall, retaining wall or fencing are unavoidably exposed, they should be screened with upright shrubs or trellised vines. Trellises are to be constructed of substantial, durable materials, but may incorporate redwood lath lattice. Inappropriate materials such as chainlink, split rail, and other non-historic fencing materials are not permitted.
(DDGs, Appendix D, p. 55.)
Without establishing specific design requirements for fence design, the DDGs section above provides guidance for the City’s design review of walls and fences. Thus, the Project’s elimination of design review of walls and fences effectively eliminates all regulation and related incentives for individual property owners to achieve wall and fence design compatible with the Historic District character.

Exempting, “privacy walls and fencing” from any design review requirements would have the potential to be detrimental to the historical character of the Historic District. Even attractively designed privacy walls or fencing could be substantially inconsistent with, and diminish the historical character of, the Historic District. The development of unregulated out-of-character walls and fences would have the potential to result in – in individual instances and cumulatively over time - a significant adverse impact on the historical character of the Historic District.

The City-adopted DDGs explain as pertains to “Fences, Landscape Features, and Play Equipment,”
Besides safety, the City's purpose in regulating fences and landscape features is primarily to inform property owners of the impact such construction has on the historical and aesthetic character of a home or neighborhood and to seek voluntary support of the community goal of preserving and enhancing the character of the Historic District. Preference in any required review will be toward granting the property owner's request unless it is unsafe or the effect on the character of the Historic District would be notably deleterious. (DDGs section

4.04.)
Pertaining specifically to “Fences” the DDGs explain the City’s 1998 affirmation that, “[f]ences are a significant contributing factor to a home's or neighborhood's character.” (DDGs section

4.04.01.) Notwithstanding the documented importance of design review for walls and fences as expressed in the DDGs adopted by the City Council in 1998, during the Project review process, the City has yet to directly acknowledge the adverse effects that incompatible fence design could have on the historical quality and character of the Historic District.

When adopting the Project’s list of “minor modifications” to be exempt from design review, the City included, “e. privacy walls and fencing, excluding chain link, which is not allowed.”

08/11/2026 Item No.6.

Bob Delp – July 14, 2026

If the City’s position is that fence design does not have the potential to adversely affect the character of the Historic District, it is unclear why the City would attempt to mitigate the wall and fence exemption by including a prohibition of chain link fence. Moreover, the DDGs establish “appropriate” and “inappropriate” fence and wall/retaining wall types (DDGs, Appendix D, Attachment 2, “Building Materials Palette.”). These lists in the City’s adopted DDGs do not allow or prohibit particular fence or walls types and, instead, they provided guidance intended for consideration during the design review process. With elimination of design review for privacy walls and fences, the mechanism for the City’s regulation of appropriate wall and fence types is eliminated.

The CDD has attempted to list “appropriate” and “inappropriate” fence types for the Historic District on the City’s Historic District Resources website which identifies 12 types of fences as “Inappropriate” for the Historic District and lists 10 types of fence types as “Appropriate” with 3 of the “Appropriate” types noted as “Except for Historic Properties.” City of Folsom, Historic District Resources Website
List of Appropriate and Inappropriate Fence Types
Appropriate Fence Types Inappropriate Fence Types
Wood Picket Fences Chain Link
Vertical or Horizontal Board Fences
(Min. 30% opening, or Staggered Boards) Chicken Wire
Classic Wire Mesh (3” x 6”) Barbed Wire
Solid Wood (Rear Yard Only) Plywood
Brick and Mortar Masonite
Stone and Mortar Cedar Post and Rail
Treated Wood Grape Stake
Cinderblock Wall
(Except for Historic Properties) Split Rail
Railroad Tie Fencing
(Except for Historic Properties) Cyclone
Poured or Finished Concrete Wall
(Except for Historic Properties) Snow Fence
Bamboo or Matting
Plastic or Vinyl
Source: City of Folsom, Historic District Resources website, “Residential Fencing” dropdown at:
https://www.folsom.ca.us/government/community-development/planning-services/historic- district-resources/ . June 9, 2026.

Staff’s assessment of the Project does not address the DDGs Building Materials Palette lists for fences and walls/retaining walls or explain why, with a dozen specific fence types considered “inappropriate” for the Historic District and an additional 3 types inappropriate for historic properties, only chain link fence warrants a prohibition in FMC 17.52 while design review of all privacy walls and fences is eliminated. Yet, with a dozen identified by CDD as “Inappropriate Fence Types,” in adopting the Project amendments to FMC 17.52, staff and the City Council somehow determined that only chain link need to be prohibited.

Even were a prohibition on chain link fence sufficient to mitigate the impact of exempting privacy walls and fences from design review, such a mitigation would run afoul of CEQA case law establishing that,
[r]eliance upon mitigation measures (whether included in the application or later adopted) involves an evaluative process of assessing those mitigation measures and weighing them against potential environmental impacts, and that process must be conducted under established CEQA standards and procedures for EIRs or negative declarations.
(Salmon Protection and Watershed Network v. County of Marin (2004) 125 Cal.App.4th 1098)

08/11/2026 Item No.6.

Bob Delp – July 14, 2026

Thus, if the prohibition on chain link fence was necessary to mitigate the impacts of exempting fences from design review or if the City thinks the impact can mitigated by providing an advisory list of inappropriate fence types on its website, the Project is disqualified from any CEQA categorical exemption.

Given the Project’s elimination of design review for all non-building structures, including but not limited to the express exemption from design review of fences and other structures having the potential for deleterious effects on the quality and character of the Historic District, the Project does not qualify for the CEQA Guidelines 15061(b)(3) exemption and no combination of additional CEQA exemptions or mitigation measures can intervein to exempt the Project from CEQA review.

3.2 The Project does Not Qualify for a Ministerial Exemption The staff report quotes CEQA Guidelines § 15268(a) stating, “Ministerial projects are exempt from the requirements of CEQA” and the staff report then argues that “the solar panel exemption from design review is ministerial and exempt from the requirements of CEQA,” that “the design review exemption for certain ADUs [accessory dwelling units] is ministerial and exempt from the requirements of CEQA,” and that, “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.” (CC 7/14/26 pkt. pg. 269.) In making these arguments the staff report confuses potential future activities and actions with the current Project. The Project involves a discretionary action by the City which is the amendment of FMC Chapter 17.52. The Project is not approval of a solar facility, nor approval of an ADU, nor the issuance of a building permit for installation of a fence or other structure.

That future activities or projects may or may not be limited to ministerial decision-making at such time as each is proposed is irrelevant to assessing whether the Project qualifies for a ministerial project exemption.

Moreover, even if there were some element of ministerial decision-making involved in the Project, CEQA Guidelines § 15268, “Ministerial Projects,” at subd. (d) definitely establishes, (d) Where a project involves an approval that contains elements of both a ministerial action and a discretionary action, the project will be deemed to be discretionary and will be subject to the requirements of CEQA.

Although state law may limit or preclude the City from performing discretionary design review of certain future individual development projects or other activities, the Ministerial Projects exemption is unavailable to the Project.

3.3 The Project does Not Qualify for a Class 1 Categorical Exemption The staff report discusses the Class 1 Categorical Exemption of CEQA Guidelines 15301, describing that, “[u]nder 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,” and argues that, “ [t]his proposed ordinance’s exemption for very small projects falls under this Class 1 CEQA exemption.” (CC 7/14/26 pkt. pg. 269-270.) In making this argument the staff report confuses potential future approvals for some unidentified existing facility with the current Project. The Project is the amendment of

08/11/2026 Item No.6.

Bob Delp – July 14, 2026

FMC 17.52. The Project does not involve an approval associated with an existing facility and the Class 1, “Existing Facilities,” categorical exemption is inapplicable to the Project.

The City will undoubtedly consider future discretionary approvals for many types of existing facilities in the Historic District and will likely make valid determinations that some of those approvals are exempt from CEQA under the Class 1 exemption. However, whether such projects may or may not qualify for the Class 1 exemption is a matter to be determined when such a project is proposed and, at that time, will require assessment of the particular factors of the project. Moreover, as part of that assessment, the City needs to consider whether any of the CEQA Guidelines 15300.2 exceptions apply and preclude the use of a Class 1 exemption, and such an assessment cannot be performed until a potentially eligible Class 1 project is proposed (see Exceptions to the Exemptions section below for additional discussion).

Additionally, the staff report seemingly confuses the two separate factors of: 1) whether a proposed new or modified structure in the Historic District can be exempt from design review without resulting in or contributing to degradation of the Historic District character and quality and 2) whether that project might be exempt from CEQA. The vast majority of design reviews performed in the Historic District are for projects that the City determines are exempt from CEQA. But those projects are not – or at least in the past have not been – exempt from design review. Design review of all structures as required by FMC 17.52 prior to the Project amendments serves the purpose established by FMC

17.52 and detailed in the DDGs. In fact, performing design review for a particular new or modified structure in the Historic District is a key step that often enables City decision- makers to determine that the new or modified structure, as conditioned through the design review process, qualifies for a CEQA categorical exemption without triggering the Historical Resources exception to the exemption.

3.4 The Project does Not Qualify for a Class 3 Categorical Exemption The staff report discusses the Class 3 Categorical Exemption of CEQA Guidelines 15303, describing that, “[u]nder section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines, projects consisting of “construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures; installation of small new equipment and facilities in small structures…”, and argues that, “the ordinance amendment’s exemption of fences, hot tubs, outdoor kitchens, and patios qualify for the Class 3 Categorical Exemption.” (CC 7/14/26 pkt. pg. 270.) In making this argument the staff report confuses potential future approvals for some unidentified new construction or conversion of a small structure with the current Project.

The Project is the amendment of FMC 17.52. The Project does not involve an approval associated with a new or proposed conversion of a small structure, thus, the Class 3, “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures,” categorical exemption is inapplicable to the Project.

The City will undoubtedly consider future discretionary approvals for many types of small structures in the Historic District and will likely make valid determinations that some of those approvals are exempt from CEQA under the Class 3 exemption. However, whether such projects may or may not qualify for the Class 3 exemption is a matter to be determined when such a project is proposed and requires assessment of the particular factors of the project. Moreover, as part of that assessment, the City would need to consider whether any of the CEQA Guidelines 15300.2 exceptions apply and preclude the use of a Class 3 exemption, an assessment that cannot be performed until a potentially

08/11/2026 Item No.6.

Bob Delp – July 14, 2026

eligible Class 3 project is proposed (see Exceptions to the Exemptions section below for additional discussion).

Additionally, the staff report seemingly confuses the two separate factors of: 1) whether a proposed new or converted small structure in the Historic District can be exempt from design review without resulting in or contributing to degradation of the Historic District character and quality and 2) whether that project might be exempt from CEQA. The vast majority of design reviews performed in the Historic District are for projects that the City determines are exempt from CEQA. But those projects are not – or at least in the past have not been – exempt from design review. Design review of all structures as required by FMC 17.52 prior to the Project amendments serves the purpose established by FMC

17.52 and detailed in the DDGs. In fact, performance of design review for a particular new or modified structure in the Historic District is a key factor that then enables City decision-makers to determine that the new or modified structure, as conditioned through the design review process, qualifies for a CEQA categorical exemption without triggering the Historical Resources exception to the exemption.

3.5 The Question of Exceptions to Categorical Exemptions is Moot and Staff’s Conclusion is Not Supported by Substantial Evidence
The staff report asks the City Council, among other things, to find that none of the CEQA Guidelines 15300.2 exceptions to categorical exemptions apply. However, neither the Class 1 nor the Class 3 categorical exemptions identified in the staff report can be applied to the Project for reasons explained above, and the question of whether any exceptions to the exemptions is therefore moot. Nevertheless, additional discussion is provided here in response to the staff report.

3.5.1 Unusual Circumstances
CEQA Guidelines §15300.2(c) provides, “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.” CEQA does not define the term “unusual circumstances,” but case law has held that an unusual circumstance refers to “some feature of the project that distinguishes it” from others in the exempt class. (Fairbank v. City of Mill Valley, (1999) 75 Cal. App. 4th 1243, 1259.) The staff report states that “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.” (CC 7/14/26 pkt. pg. 270.) This discussion in the staff report further emphasizes the fact that the Project does not fit within either the Class 1 or Class 3 exemption.

The staff report’s statement that “creating different levels of design review within a municipality’s administrative processes is a common-place feature of municipal government” may be accurate but has nothing to do with a comparison of the Project to the circumstances of a typical Class 1 or Class 3 project. In fact, the Project’s circumstances are inherently unusual as judged relative to the typical circumstances of projects fitting either the Class 1 or Class 3 exemption, because the Project is an amendment to a zoning ordinance applicable to the entirety of Folsom Historic District.

If the unusual circumstances tail needs to be chased even further, then it is also worth noting that Project’s unusual circumstance as compared to Class 1 and Class 3 projects

08/11/2026 Item No.6.

Bob Delp – July 14, 2026

does create the potential for significant impacts that would not be typical of the types of impacts associated with a Class 1 or Class 3 project, because the Project involves amendment of a zoning code regulating development and demolitions in a Historic District whereas the typical Class 1 and Class 3 project does not create or amend a zoning ordinance pertaining to a historic district.

Thus, even if through some abstract theory the Project were to qualify for a Class 1 or Class 3 exemption, such an exemption would be precluded due to the unusual circumstances exception whereby the Project’s unusual circumstance do result in the Project having the potential to result in adverse effects on the character of the Historic District by relaxing or eliminating design review requirements creating the potential for adverse impacts as discussed in this letter.

3.5.2 Historical Resources and Cumulative Impacts
CEQA Guidelines §15300.2(f) provides, “Historical Resources. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.” Regarding the CEQA Guidelines § 15300.2(f) historical resources exception to the exemption, in Hillside the Supreme Court cited Valley Advocates v. City of Fresno (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 1039 affirming the holding that once a resource is recognized as historic, “the fair argument standard applies to the question of whether the proposed project ‘may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource’ and thereby have a significant effect on the environment.” (Hillside, supra, 60 Cal.4th at 1117.)
The staff report states that, “[t]he 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.” (CC 7/14/26 pkt. pg. 270, emphasis added.)
The staff report’s assertions fail to recognize the Project provisions that eliminate design review of non-building structures and eliminate design review of privacy walls and fences, both of which if unregulated pose the potential to result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of individual historic resources within the Historic District and the overall quality and character of the Historic District. Thus, even if the Project were to qualify for a Class 1 or Class 3 exemption, such an exemption would be precluded due to the historical resources exception.

CEQA Guidelines 15300.2(b) provides, “Cumulative Impact. 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.”
Although the staff report asserts that the project would not result in any significant cumulative environmental impact, such a notion fails to recognize the breadth of the Project and the staff report’s discussion does not provide any basis for cumulative circumstances that were considered in making its conclusion.

The Project amendments to FMC 17.52 alter and reduce the design review and other roles of the HDC, eliminate design review provisions for all non-building structures, and expressly exempt certain features from any design review. FMC 17.52 applies to the 98- block of Folsom’s Historic District that contains federal, state, and locally recognized

08/11/2026 Item No.6.

Bob Delp – July 14, 2026

historic resources and properties, commercial areas with high tourism, recreational and cultural resources access, and the Historic District is a locally important historical resource. Elimination of design review provisions for all types of non-building structures that might be developed throughout the Historic District has the potential to result in significant adverse cumulative impacts when the Project (amendments to FMC 17.52) is considered in combination with future development within the Historic District.

Moreover, as discussed throughout the staff report, there are several types of individual future projects that may be developed in the Historic District – such as solar facilities, ADUs, multi-family housing – that will be exempt from CEQA and may also be exempt from design review whether by state law or by the City’s own doing. Any consideration of cumulative effects of FMC 17.52 amendments must account for the potential for such developments to occur without design review and reflect the expanded importance of design review.

Thus, even if the Project were to qualify for a Class 1 or Class 3 exemption, such an exemption would be precluded due to the cumulative impacts exception and the City has provided no meaningful evidence or assessment of these potential cumulative impacts.

3.6 Public Resources Code section 21080.35 Exemption
The staff report states that, “[t]he 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.’” … “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.” (CC 7/14/26 pkt. pg. 271.) The Project does not involve development or approval of a solar energy system and this statutory exemption is inapplicable as an exemption for the Project.

4. Readopting Amendments to Chapter 17.52 will Restart a 90-Day Statute of Limitations for a Challenge of Provisions that Purport to Give Final Approval Decision to the HDC in Conflict with the City Charter
When the City Council adopted the FMC 17.52 amendments on October 28, 2025, a final ruling was pending in a separate matter, Delp v. City of Folsom, et al. (Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento, Case No. 23WM000125) involving two causes of action, the second of which involved Delp’s request for declaratory relief pertaining to Folsom City Charter Section

4.07’s limitation on the authority of the Historic District Commission as pertains to the 603 Sutter Street Mixed-Use project that was subject to that litigation. On October 31, 2025, the Court issued its final ruling. With regard to the HDC approval authority, as pertains to the 603 Sutter Street project design review, the Court found that the City’s interpretation of Charter Section 4.07 was “entirely unreasonable,” and that,
As the plain language of Section 4.07 provides, the City’s authority to prescribe the “powers and duties” of other boards and commissions, like the Historic District Commission, is limited by the provision that “All boards and commissions only shall be advisory to the Council.”
and that,

08/11/2026 Item No.6.

Bob Delp – July 14, 2026

the City exceeded the limitations of its Charter to the degree it authorized the Historic District Commission to exercise final approval authority over the Project.

The FMC purports to grant the Historic District Commission “final authority relating to the design and architecture” of “[a]ll new office, industrial, commercial and residential structures,” which includes the Project. (Pet. RJN Exh. C [RJN000060, FMC § 17.52.300.) The FMC also purports to authorize the Historic District Commission to carry out the City’s CEQA compliance with regard to the Project, directing that the Commission “shall not approve applications prior to considering the applicable environmental document and complying with the requirements of CEQA[.]” (Id. at RJN000062, FMC § 17.52.390.) Approvals by the Historic District Commission may be appealed to the City Council, as the Project was here, but the Council is not required to review them. (Id. at RJN000083-83, FMC §§ 17.52.700-720.) These provisions purport to vest the Historic District Commission with the power to act on behalf of the City, without oversight or ratification by the City Council. They therefore cannot be squared with the Charter’s limitation that the Commission’s power is “only advisory.” The City offers no authority or argument that the Historic District Commission acted in an “advisory” capacity when it approved the Project at issue here. Thus, the provisions of the FMC which purport to delegate final approval authority to the Historic District Commission, as applied to the Project, conflict with the City Charter.
(Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento, Case No. 23WM000125; Final Ruling on Submitted Matter, October 31, 2025. Emphasis added.) In my comments to the City Council on October 14, 2025, I urged the Council to recognize that, “any revisions to FMC 17.52 that modify or expand the purported final authority of the HDC would exacerbate the existing FMC 17.52 conflict with City Charter section 4.07,” noting the proposed amendments to 17.52.360 expanding the HDC’s final authority role to include “expiration and extension of [conditional use] permits,” FMC 17.52.370 expanding the HDC’s final authority role to include “expiration and extension of [variance] requests,” and expanding the HDC’s final authority role in acting as the appeal hearing body pursuant to FMC 17.52.700 for the proposed new design review authority of the CDD Director established by FMC

17.52.300(B).

Although a 90-day statute of limitations to challenge the expanded HDC final authority of the amendments adopted by the Council on October 28, 2025, has expired, and the ruling in Case #23WM000125 pertained to that particular project, any re-adoption of amendments to FMC

17.52 that involve a modification or expansion of HDC authority that cannot be squared with the Charter’s limitation that the HDC’s power is only advisory may be subject to legal challenge for a 90-day period pursuant to Gov. Code, § 65009, subd. (c)(1). I expect that the Project amendments could be rescinded to restore FMC 17.52 to its pre-2026 language without subjecting the code to potential challenge under Gov. Code, § 65009, subd. (c)(1).

Any amendments to FMC 17.52 should include changes to ensure that the roles allocated to the HDC are in accordance with the limitations imposed by Charter Section 4.07. Alternatively, the city should consider amending the FMC 17.52 appeal procedures in a manner to alleviate the issues associated with granting final authority to the HDC.

Given that the City Council is presently pursuing a ballot measure attempting to modify Charter Section 4.07, the outcome of which will be known in November of this year, it would seem prudent for the City to rescind Ord. 1353 and reinstall the pre-2026 FMC 17.52 until such time

08/11/2026 Item No.6.

Bob Delp – July 14, 2026

as the Council either abandons the ballot measure or until the election determines whether the Charter will be amended by the voters and what amendments to FMC 17.52 may or may not be then warranted.

5. Conclusion
I encourage the City Council rescind Ord. 1353, restore FMC 17.52 to its prior content. Short of that, I encourage the City Council to consider amending FMC 17.52.300 as suggested in my 7/13/2026 letter in an effort to resolve key CEQA concerns.

Thank you for considering my comments.

Sincerely,

Bob Delp
Historic District - Folsom, CA 95630 - [email protected] - 916-812-8122

Attachment 1: January 10, 2024, HDC Design Review Conditions of Approval for 403 Riley Street External Staircase
Attachment 2: September 11, 2018, Staff Design Review Approval for Patio at 614 Sutter Street Attachment 3: May 8, 2026, Staff Design Review Approval for Deck at 405 Sutter Street Attachment 4: July 2, 2026, email from Nathan Stroud Subject, Re: 512 Natoma St. Folsom Reroof Project

08/11/2026 Item No.6.

Bob Delp – July 14, 2026

Attachment 1
January 10, 2024, HDC Design Review Approval of 403 Riley Street External Staircase

08/11/2026 Item No.6.

Historic District Commission
403 Riley Street Staircase (DRCL23-00168)
January 10, 2024
C
ity of Folsom Page 11

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE
403 RILEY STREET STAIRCASE PROJECT
(DRCL23-00168)
Cond.

No.

Mitigation
Measure
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS When
Required
Responsible
Department

1. Issuance of a Building Permit is required. The applicant shall submit final site and building plans to the Community Development Department that substantially conform to the Proposed Site Plan, Floor Plan, and Elevations dated 11-8-23, included in Attachment 5. Implementation of this project shall be consistent with the above referenced items as modified by these conditions of approval.

B CD (B)

2. Compliance with all local, state and federal regulations pertaining to building construction and demolition is required.

OG CD (B)

3. This approval is for a new rear staircase on an existing residential structure located at 403 Riley Street. The applicant shall submit building plans that comply with this approval and the Proposed Site Plan, Floor Plan, and Elevations dated 11-8-23 included in Attachment 5.

B CD (P)

4. Include in the construction documents the design and details of the rated separation between the units or other means to mitigate the limited existing separation to the satisfaction of the Building Official. The construction proposed on the drawings shall be completed prior to the final inspection of the building.

O CD (B)

5. If any archaeological, cultural, or historical resources or artifacts, or other features are discovered during the course of construction anywhere on the project site, work shall be suspended in that location until a qualified professional archaeologist assesses the significance of the discovery and provides recommendations to the City. The City shall determine and require implementation of the appropriate mitigation as recommended by the consulting archaeologist. The City may also consult with individuals that meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards before implementation of any recommendation. If agreement cannot be reached between the project applicant and the City, the Historic District Commission shall determine the appropriate implementation method.

G, I, B CD (P)(E)(B)
176

08/11/2026 Item No.6.

Historic District Commission
403 Riley Street Staircase (DRCL23-00168)
January 10, 2024
C
ity of Folsom Page 12

6. In the event human remains are discovered, California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the county coroner has made the necessary findings as to the origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code 5097.98. If the coroner determines that no investigation of the cause of death is required and if the remains are of Native American Origin, the coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission, which in turn will inform a most likely decedent. The decedent will then recommend to the landowner or landowner’s representative appropriate disposition of the remains and any grave goods.

G, I, B CD (P)(E)(B)

7. The owner/applicant shall pay all applicable taxes, fees, and charges at the rate and amount in effect at the time such taxes, fees and charges become due and payable. B CD (P)(E)

8. The City, at its sole discretion, may utilize the services of outside legal counsel to assist in the implementation of this project, including, but not limited to, drafting, reviewing and/or revising agreements and/or other documentation for the project. If the City utilizes the services of such outside legal counsel, the applicant shall reimburse the City for all outside legal fees and costs incurred by the City for such services. The applicant may be required, at the sole discretion of the City Attorney, to submit a deposit to the City for these services prior to initiation of the services. The applicant shall be responsible for reimbursement to the City for the services regardless of whether a deposit is required.

B C

D (P)(E)

9. If the City utilizes the services of consultants to prepare special studies or provide specialized design review or inspection services for the project, the applicant shall reimburse the City for actual costs it incurs in utilizing these services, including administrative costs for City personnel.

A deposit for these services shall be provided prior to initiating review of the improvement plans or beginning inspection, whichever is applicable.

B C

D (P)(E)

10. This project shall be subject to all City-wide development impact fees, unless exempt by previous agreement. This project shall be subject to all City-wide development impact fees in effect at such time that a building permit is issued. These fees may include, but are not limited to, fees for fire protection, park facilities, park equipment, Quimby, Humbug-Willow Creek Parkway, Light Rail, TSM, capital facilities and traffic impacts. The 90-day protest period for all fees, dedications, reservations or other exactions imposed on this project has begun. The fees shall be calculated at the fee rate in effect at the time of building permit issuance.

B C

D (P)(E),
PW, PK
177

08/11/2026 Item No.6.

Historic District Commission
403 Riley Street Staircase (DRCL23-00168)
January 10, 2024
C
ity of Folsom Page 13

11. The owner/applicant agrees to pay to the Folsom-Cordova Unified School District the maximum fee authorized by law for the construction and/or reconstruction of school facilities. The applicable fee shall be the fee established by the School District that is in effect at the time of the issuance of a building permit. Specifically, the owner/applicant agrees to pay any and all fees and charges and comply with any and all dedications or other requirements authorized under Section 17620 of the Education Code; Chapter 4.7 (commencing with Section 65970) of the Government Code; and Sections 65995, 65995.5 and 65995.7 of the Government Code.

B CD (
P)

12. The project approval granted under this staff report shall remain in effect for one year from final date of approval (January 10, 2024). If a building permit is not issued within the identified time frame and/or the applicant has not demonstrated substantial progress towards completion of the project, this approval shall be considered null and void. The owner/applicant may file an application with the Community Development Department for an extension not less than 60 days prior to the expiration date of the approval, along with appropriate fees and necessary submittal materials pursuant to Section 17.52.350 of the Folsom Municipal Code. If after approval of this project, a lawsuit is filed which seeks to invalidate any approval, entitlement, demolition permit, or other construction permit required in connection with any of the activities or construction authorized by the project approvals, or to enjoin the project contemplated herein, or to challenge the issuance by any governmental agency of any environmental document or exemption determination, the one year period for submitting a complete permit application referenced in FMC section 17.52.350(A) shall be tolled during the time that any litigation is pending, including any appeals.

B CD (P)

RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT WHEN REQUIRED
CD
(P)
(E)
(B)
(F)
Community Development Department
Planning Division
Engineering Division
Building Division
Fire Division
I Prior to approval of Improvement Plans
M Prior to approval of Final Map
B Prior to issuance of first Building Permit
O Prior to approval of Occupancy Permit
G Prior to issuance of Grading Permit
PW Public Works Department DC During construction
PR Park and Recreation Department OG On-going requirement PD Police Department
178

08/11/2026 Item No.6.

Bob Delp – July 14, 2026

Attachment 2
September 11, 2018, Staff Design Review Approval for Patio at 614 Sutter Street

08/11/2026 Item No.6.

September 11, 2018 Murray Weaver 614 Sutter Street Folsom CA 95630 SUBJECT: Approval Letter: Site Design Review Approval for an excavated landscaped patio at 614 Sutter Street (PN18-219) Dear Mr. Weaver: The City of Folsom Community Development Department has reviewed your application (PN 18-219) for an excavated landscaped patio at 614 Sutter Street. The Planning Division has made the decision to conditionally approve the submittal. Listed below are the conditions of approval: 1. A Building Permit and/or Grading Permit will be required. 2. Plans submitted to Building/Engineering shall match those submitted for Site Design Review dated 8-25-18. 3. No alcohol sales or service shall be allowed in the proposed patio area. 4. No cross-lot drainage shall occur as a result of this project. 5. All ADA-accessible paths shall be maintained as part of this project. Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please do not hesitate to call me at (916) 461-6209 or email me at [email protected] Sincerely, Josh Kinkade Assistant Planner

08/11/2026 Item No.6.

08/11/2026 Item No.6.
01/8" = 1'-0"1684Landscape Design concept is diagrammatic.Actual site conditions take precedence overDesign concept. Measurements areapproximate and do not take the place of anengineer's survey.Capital Landscape is not responsible for anymodifications or adjustments of the Designconcept that may be necessary by thehomeowner or contractor to execute thisdesign.DISCLOSURES

08/11/2026 Item No.6.

Bob Delp – July 14, 2026

Attachment 3
May 8, 2026, Staff Design Review Approval for Deck at 405 Sutter Street

08/11/2026 Item No.6.

May 8, 2026

Approval Letter: Design Review of a 198 square-foot new deck and replacement of a window and door at 405 Sutter St. (DRDL26-00062)

The City of Folsom Community Development Department has reviewed an application for Design Review for project reference number: DRDL26-00062. The project involves Design Review of a 198 square-foot new deck and replacement of a window and door at 405 Sutter St.

The project is located in the Figueroa Subarea of the Historic District.

The Community Development Department has made the decision to conditionally approve the application based on the following findings:
• The project is compliant with the General Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, and all applicable Specific Plans, including but not limited to standards for the Figueroa Subarea of the Historic District specified in Folsom Municipal Code Chapter 17.52; • The project is in conformance with all applicable city -wide design guidelines , including but not limited to guidelines for the Figueroa Subarea of the Historic District specified in the Historic District Design and Development Guidelines; • The project is in conformance with all applicable project -specific design guidelines and standards approved through the Planned Development Permit process or similar review process;
• The project provides compatibility of building materials, textures, and colors with surrounding development and consistency with the general design theme of the neighborhood;
• The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) of the CEQA Guidelines.

The project is subject to the attached condition(s) of approval. The application is subject to a ten-day appeal period which commences on May 8, 2026, and ends on May 18, 2026. The submittal remains subject to review and approval by the following City departments: Building , Structural, Fire, Utilities, Arborist, and Engineering. Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please do not hesitate to contact the Planning Division at (916) 461 -6202 or [email protected].

Best regards,

Nathan Stroud
Planning Division
Community Development Department
City of Folsom
[email protected]
(916) 461-6202
Attachments:

1. Conditions of Approval

08/11/2026 Item No.6.

Conditions of Approval for DRDL26-00062
Cond.

No.

Mitigation
Measure Requirements When
Required
Responsible
Department
General Requirements

1. Development Plan
The applicant shall submit final site development plans to the Community Development Department that shall substantially conform to the exhibits submitted to and on file with the Community Development Department, as modified by these conditions of approval.

B CD (P)(B)(E)

2. Community Development Department Subsequent Review A Building Permit is required. Prior to issuance of a building permit, all proposed encroachment, grading and retaining walls shall be permitted and completed. Building plans, and all civil engineering, improvement, landscape, and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval to ensure conformance with this approval and with relevant codes, policies, standards and other requirements of the City of Folsom.

G, I, B CD (P)(B)(E)

3. Substantial Consistency Required
Substantial changes to the exterior of the project, including but not limited to changes in colors, materials, style, size, and/or layout of the project, as determined by the Community Development Department, may result in the termination of this approval.

Changes to the project are subject to review and approval by the Community Development Department.

OG CD (P)(B)(E)

4. Validity (Design Review, Historic District)
The project approval granted under this staff report shall remain in effect for two years from final date of approval ( Expires May 8, 2028). Failure to obtain the relevant building or other permits within this time period, without the subsequent extension of this approval, shall result in the termination of this approval. The owner/applicant may file an application with the Community Development Department for an extension not less than 60 days prior to the expiration date of the approval, along with appropriate fees and necessary submittal materials pursuant to Folsom Municipal Code Section

17.52.350.

B CD (P)

08/11/2026 Item No.6.

Conditions of Approval for DRDL26-00062
Cond.

No.

Mitigation
Measure Requirements When
Required
Responsible
Department

5. Applicable Taxes, Fees, and Charges
The owner/applicant shall pay all applicable taxes, fees and charges for the project at the rate and amount in effect at the time such taxes, fees and charges become due and payable.

I, B, M CD (P)(E)
Project-Specific Requirements

6. Trim Requirements
Trim shall be provided around the doors and windows, and shall substantially match the existing trim of the residence to the satisfaction of the Community Development Department.

O CD (P)
Legal Requirements

7. Indemnity for City
The owner/applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City and its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul any approval by the City or any of its agencies, departments, commissions, agents, officers, employees, or legislative body concerning the project which claim, action or proceeding is brought within the time period provided therefore in Government Code Section 66499.37 or other applicable statutes of limitation. The City will promptly notify the owner/applicant of any such claim, action or proceeding, and will cooperate fully in the defense. The City may, within its unlimited discretion, participate in the defense of any such claim, action or proceeding if both of the following occur:
• The City bears its own attorney’s fees and costs; and • The City defends the claim, action or proceeding in good faith

The owner/applicant shall not be required to pay or perform any settlement of such claim, action or proceeding unless the settlement is approved by the owner/applicant.

OG

CD (P)(E)(B)

PW, PR, FD,
PD

08/11/2026 Item No.6.

Conditions of Approval for DRDL26-00062
Cond.

No.

Mitigation
Measure Requirements When
Required
Responsible
Department

8. Tolling on Litigation
If after approval of this project, a lawsuit is filed which seeks to invalidate any approval, entitlement, demolition permit, sign permit or other construction permit required in connection with any of the activities or construction authorized by the project approvals, or to enjoin the project contemplated herein, or to challenge the issuance by any governmental agency of any environmental document or exemption determination, the period for submitting a complete permit application shall be tolled during the time that any litigation is pending, including any appeals.

Miscellaneous Requirements

9. Alleyway Parking Restrictions
If the property has access to an alleyway, parking for the property shall not impede public service access in the alleyway (e.g., waste collection, emergency vehicle access, etc.).

OG CD (P)

10. Noise Requirements (Construction and Operational) Compliance with Noise Control Ordinance and General Plan Noise Element shall be required. Hours of construction operation shall be limited from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekdays and 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays. No construction is permitted on Sundays or holidays. Construction equipment shall be muffled and shrouded to minimize noise levels.

DC CD (P)

Responsible Department When Required
CD Community Development Department B Prior to Issuance of first Building Permit (P) Planning Division G Prior to Issuance of Grading Permit (B) Building Division I Prior to Approval of Improvement Plans (E) Engineering Division M Prior to Approval of Final Map (A) Arborist Division O Prior to Approval of Occupancy Permit PW Public Works Department DC During Construction
PR Parks and Recreation Department OG On-Going Requirement PD Police Department
FD Fire Department

08/11/2026 Item No.6.

Bob Delp – July 14, 2026

Attachment 4
July 2, 2026, email from Nathan Stroud Subject, Re: 512 Natoma St. Folsom Reroof Project

08/11/2026 Item No.6.

From: Nathan Stroud <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, Jul 2, 2026 at 8:17 AM
Subject: RE: 512 Natoma St. Folsom Reroof Project
To: Robert Walter <[email protected]>
CC: Michael Reynolds <[email protected]>, Desmond Parrington <[email protected]>

Good morning Robert,

To provide some more background regarding this property, the guest house they are referring to (before and after pictures attached) was erroneously issued a permit for the reroof without review by the Planning Division. Had we reviewed the project, we would not have allowed black comp shingles and would have required they stay with the red Spanish tiles, as is consistent with the Spanish eclectic style.

They have now come in for another reroof for the main Miller Funeral Home building, which was routed correctly this time, and have been asked to undergo design review. They have provided the justification that the black shingles are intended to match the, now, two existing black comp shingled buildings on the lot. They have also claimed that underneath the existing roof, there appears to be a layer of comp shingles, likely the original roof before the building was remodeled to match the original Spanish eclectic guest house on the corner. There do appear to also be some examples of a Spanish eclectic houses in the district with comp shingles (two examples attached), although this is not typical with that style.

Staff’s position is that red Spanish tile or similar would need to be used on the building, however we have directed the applicant to get feedback or support from HFRA and HPL. If that is your position as well, that would help convince them to go this direction. If you disagree, this will help inform staff for this and future projects of a similar scope.

Regards,
Nathan

Nathan R. Stroud
Associate Planner
City of Folsom
50 Natoma Street, Folsom, CA 95630
[email protected]
o:916-461-6220
www.folsom.ca.us
ATTENTION: Starting October 20, 2025, all NEW permits will be reviewed through eTRAKiT and not through ProjectDox.

All permits submitted prior to October 20, 2025, will remain in ProjectDox until approved. Please visit the ePermit Center or see Forms B402, B403, and B404 for more information.

08/11/2026 Item No.6.

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

08/11/2026 Item No.6.

Folsom City Council
Staff Report

1 MEETING DATE:

8/11/2026
AGENDA SECTION:

Consent Calendar
SUBJECT: Resolution No. 11664 – A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Construction Change Order No. 2 with LEED Mechanical Inc. in the amount of $69,300 for the Folsom Public Library HVAC Replacement Project from the Facility
Rehabilitation Fund (Fund 602) and Appropriation of Funds

FROM: Parks and Recreation Department

RECOMMENDATION / CITY COUNCIL ACTION

The Facility Services Division recommends that City Council approve Resolution No. 11664 – A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Construction Change Order No. 2 with LEED Mechanical Inc. in the amount of $69,300 for the Folsom Public Library HVAC Replacement Project from the Facility Rehabilitation Fund (Fund 602) and Appropriation of Funds.

BACKGROUND / ISSUE

As part of the FY 25/26 budget process, the City Council approved the Library HVAC Replacement Project. On October 28, 2025, the City Council approved Resolution No. 11490, authorizing the City Manager to execute a construction agreement with LEED Mechanical Inc. for a not-to-exceed amount of $305,703 for the replacement of 9 roof-top HVAC units serving the Folsom Public Library at 411 Stafford Street.

As construction progressed and the HVAC units were installed, follow-up testing within the library revealed an existing controller unit that does not sync properly with the newly installed VAV (Variable Air Volume) units, which control the amount of air moving through the system.

Currently, the units are controlled by thermostats that are divided between separate zones within the library, which results in uneven cooling, which is not ideal for a building that is the “Cooling Center” for the city.

08/11/2026 Item No.7.
2 Staff requested a cost proposal from LEED Mechanical for the installation of an HVAC controller to manage the newly installed Rooftop Air Conditioning (HVAC) units serving the Folsom Public Library, and the contractor provided a cost of $69,300.

POLICY / RULE

In accordance with Chapter 2.36.120 of the Folsom Municipal Code, contracts for supplies, equipment, services, and construction with an estimated value of $77,426 or greater shall be awarded by the City Council.

ANALYSIS

Staff have reviewed the costs for the additional scope of work to install a new HVAC controller and found the price is appropriate and consistent with expected costs for this scope of work. The original estimated cost for the HVAC replacement work was $1,100,000, so while the addition of this change order work exceeds the original not-to-exceed amount, it is still a substantial cost savings from what was originally anticipated for the project.

Installing a new controller will allow the system to operate as designed. The controller is compatible with similar controllers at City Hall and the Community Center and will allow facilities staff to monitor the system remotely and make settings changes to better serve library activities.

The City Council's approval of Resolution No. 11490 authorized the execution of the original contract with LEED Mechanical, Inc., for $277,911, with the project budgeted at a total not to exceed amount of $305,703, which included a 10% contingency of $27,792 for potential change orders. One prior change order has been approved for the project in the amount of $12,947; therefore, the staff recommends that the remaining contingency balance of $14,845 be utilized for this effort. An additional appropriation of $54,455 is required for Change Order No. 2, bringing the new total not-to-exceed contract amount to $360,158.

FINANCIAL IMPACT

If approved, the construction change order with LEED Mechanical, Inc. for the purchase and installation of the new HVAC control system for the amount of $69,300 would be funded through the Facility Rehabilitation Fund (Fund 602). An appropriation in the amount of $54,455 will be required for the change order. Sufficient funds are available in the Facility Rehabilitation Fund (Fund 602) for this appropriation.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

This project is exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15301- Existing Facilities.

ATTACHMENT

08/11/2026 Item No.7.
3 Resolution No. 11664 – A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Construction Change Order No. 2 with LEED Mechanical Inc. in the amount of $69,300 for the Folsom Public Library HVAC Replacement Project from the Facility Rehabilitation Fund (Fund 602) and Appropriation of Funds.

Submitted,

Kelly Gonzalez
Parks & Recreation Director

08/11/2026 Item No.7.

Attachment 1

08/11/2026 Item No.7.

Resolution No. 11664

RESOLUTION NO. 11664

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE
CONSTRUCTION CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 WITH LEED MECHANICAL INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $69,300 FOR THE FOLSOM PUBLIC LIBRARY HVAC

REPLACEMENT PROJECT FROM THE FACILITY REHABILITATION FUND (FUND 602) AND APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS

WHEREAS, Resolution 11490 authorized the City Manager to execute a construction agreement with LEED Mechanical Inc. for $277,911 with the project budgeted for a total not to exceed amount of $305,703, which included a ten percent contingency for potential change orders, for the Folsom Public Library HVAC Replacement Project; and

WHEREAS, City staff identified the need for extra work following the initial HVAC installation to install a new controller that was outside the scope of the original contracted work; and

WHEREAS, LEED Mechanical, Inc. provided a cost for the proposed Construction Change Order No. 2 in the amount of $69,300; and

WHEREAS, funds in the amount of $14,845 from the original contingency authorization are available for use on this change order work; and

WHEREAS, sufficient funds are available in the Capital Facilities Fund (Fund 602) to cover the remaining cost of the proposed change order work; and

WHEREAS, the agreement will be in a form acceptable to the City Attorney:

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council authorizes the City Manager to execute Construction Change Order No. 2 with LEED Mechanical Inc. in the amount of $69,300 for the Folsom Public Library HVAC Replacement Project to install a new HVAC controller unit for a new total not-to exceed contract amount of $360,158.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chief Financial Officer is authorized to appropriate $54,455 in the Facility Rehabilitation Fund (Fund 602) to cover the cost of the change order.

PASSED AND ADOPTED 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

08/11/2026 Item No.7.

Resolution No. 11664

ATTEST:

____________________________________
Christa Freemantle, CITY CLERK

08/11/2026 Item No.7.

Folsom City Council
Staff Report

1 MEETING DATE:

8/11/2026
AGENDA SECTION:

Consent Calendar
SUBJECT: Resolution No. 11674 – A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Accept a Cannabis Tax Fund Grant Program offered by the California Highway Patrol in the Amount of $164,349.56, to Reduce and Mitigate the Impacts of Impaired Driving, Provide DUI Enforcement and Training, Purchase a Police Vehicle, and Appropriation of Funds in the General Grant Fund (Fund 012)

FROM: Police Department

RECOMMENDATION / CITY COUNCIL ACTION

Staff recommends that the City Counci l pass and adopt Resolution No.11674 – A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Accept a Cannabis Tax Fund Grant Program offered by the California Highway Patrol in the Amount of $164,349.56, to Reduce and Mitigate the Impacts of Impaired Driving, Provide DUI Enforcement and Training, Purchase a Police Vehicle, and Appropriation of Funds in the General Grant Fund (Fund 012).

BACKGROUND / ISSUE
Enhancing Road Safety Through Proactive Measures
From 2020 to 2024, Folsom experienced collisions involving impaired drivers, resulting in injuries and fatalities. However, in 2025, thanks to proactive saturation patrols and DUI checkpoints funded by grants, the city saw a 30% decrease in DUI-related traffic collisions (over 2024) with zero DUI related fatalities. Officers conducted 205 arrests for driving under the influence during patrol operations, four DUI checkpoints and 17 DUI saturation patrols. These efforts are part of a broader commitment to ensuring our streets are safe for everyone.

08/11/2026 Item No.8.
2 Securing Funding for Future Initiatives
To further these safety goals, the Folsom Police Department successfully applied for a State of California grant from the California Highway Patrol. In July 2026, the department was awarded $164,349.56. This funding is crucial and will be used for:
• DUI checkpoints and other enforcement activities.
• Educational presentations for school groups to promote safe driving. • The purchase of specialized equipment for checkpoints. • The acquisition of a new police vehicle (Ford Interceptor) for traffic and DUI enforcement.

This grant will allow the police department to continue its proactive approach to road safety, building on the progress already made and ensuring Folsom remains a safe community.

POLICY / RULE

City Council Resolution 8367 states that grant applications, including any requiring an ongoing commitment of resources or staff, shall be reviewed and approved by the City Council prior to submittal.

ANALYSIS

Law Enforcement grants provide financial assistance to allied agencies for the education, prevention, and the enforcement of laws related to driving under the influence of alcohol and other drugs, including cannabis and cannabis products. The intent of the se programs is to educate the public regarding the dangers of impaired driving, enforce impaired driving laws on the roadway, and improve the Organization/Agency’s effectiveness through training and development of new strategies. Each of these action items will help reduce the number of DUI collisions and hopefully lower the Blood Alcohol Concentration ( BAC) level found during arrests.

FINANCIAL IMPACT

The State of California through the Department of the California Highway Patrol awarded the City grant funding in the amount of $164,349.56 with no local matching funds requir ed. If accepted, the grant award would increase revenue estimates and appropriations by $164,349.56 in the General Grant Fund (Fund 012). Costs would be funded initially through the General Grant Fund (Fund 012 ) and reimbursed by the State of California, Department of California Highway Patrol.

08/11/2026 Item No.8.
3 ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution No. 11674 – A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Accept a Cannabis Tax Fund Grant Program offered by the California Highway Patrol in the Amount of $164,349.56, to Reduce and Mitigate the Impacts of Impaired Driving, Provide DUI Enforcement and Training, Purchase a Police Vehicle, and Appropriation of Funds in the General Grant Fund (Fund 012)

2. Department of California Highway Patrol conditional approval funding letter

Submitted,

Adam Green, Chief of Police

08/11/2026 Item No.8.

Attachment 1

08/11/2026 Item No.8.

Resolution No. 11674

RESOLUTION NO. 11674

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ACCEPT A CANNABIS

TAX FUND GRANT PROGRAM OFFERED BY THE CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL IN THE AMOUNT OF $164,349.56, TO REDUCE AND MITIGATE THE

IMPACTS OF IMPAIRED DRIVING, PROVIDE DUI ENFORCEMENT AND

TRAINING, PURCHASE A POLICE VEHICLE, AND APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS IN THE GENERAL GRANT FUND (FUND 012)
WHEREAS, the City of Folsom Police Department is requesting the City Council authorize the acceptance of a grant titled “FY26/27 CTFGP Law Enforcement – Folsom Police Department” for the period of July 1, 2026, through June 30, 2027, from the State of California, Department of California Highway Patrol, in the amount of $164,349.56; and, WHEREAS, selective enforcement of the primary causes of collisions are an effective way to deter motorists would speed, drive while under the influence of alcohol and other drugs, including cannabis and cannabis products, or otherwise drive unsafe, thereby reducing fatal and injury collisions; and,
WHEREAS, the grant monies will be used to reimburse personnel overtime costs associated with selective traffic enforcement and the training of officers in the detection, apprehension and prosecution of impaired drivers; and,
WHEREAS, the grant monies will be used to conduct community outreach programs through school presentations and “Know Your Limits” campaigns; and, WHEREAS, the grant monies will be used to purchase equipment used for DUI checkpoints, a police DUI enforcement vehicle including communication radio and associated emergency equipment.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Folsom herby authorizes the acceptance of a grant titled “FY26/27 CTFGP Law Enforcement – Folsom Police Department” for the period of July 1, 2026, through June 30, 2027, from the State of California, Department of California Highway Patrol, which will provide funding to conduct selective traffic enforcement geared at reducing the number of fatal and injury collisions in the City and provide funding for a traffic enforcement vehicle. The City Manager or his designee is hereby authorized and empowered to accept and execute in the name of the City of Folsom all necessary contracts, agreements, amendments, and payment requests hereto for the purposes of accepting and fulfilling the requirements of the grant titled “FY26/27 CTFGP Law Enforcement - Folsom Police Department.”; and,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Folsom authorizes the Finance Director to increase revenue estimates and expenditure appropriations by the grant amount of $164,349.56 in the General Grant Fund (Fund 012) to be reimbursed by the State of California, Department of the California Highway Patrol.

08/11/2026 Item No.8.

Resolution No. 11674

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 11th day of August 2026, by the following roll call vote:

AYES: Councilmembers:

NOES: Councilmembers:

ABSENT: Councilmembers:

ABSTAIN: Councilmembers:

__________________________
Justin Raithel, MAYOR
ATTEST:
_______________________
Christa Freemantle, CITY CLERK

08/11/2026 Item No.8.

Attachment 2

08/11/2026 Item No.8.

State of California-Transportation Agency GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor

DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL
Safety, Service, and Security An Internationally Accredited Agency

601 North 7th Street
Sacramento, CA 95811
(916) 843-4360
(800) 735-2929 (TT/TDD)
(800) 735-2922 (Voice)

June 30, 2026

File No.: 060.17344.19741

Officer Kyle Rader
Folsom Police Department
46 Natoma Street
Folsom, CA 95630

Dear Officer Rader:

On behalf of the California Highway Patrol (CHP), it is my pleasure to inform you, the Folsom Police Department, is conditionally approved for Cannabis Tax Fund Grant Program (CTFGP) funding in the amount of $164,349.56. The purpose of this grant funding is to help your agency reduce and mitigate the impacts of impaired driving in your community.

All grant awards, including any adjustments to requested funding, were made by the Department based on the merits of the Grant Application, scale of operation, and in accordance with the Request for Application (RFA) requirements and associated regulations.

The official Grant Agreement for signature is forthcoming. In order to execute your Grant Agreement, please provide documentation from a local governing body, authorizing your organization to receive this grant funding, to the Cannabis Grants Unit, by email at [email protected], as soon as possible.

Refer to California Code of Regulations Title 13, Division 2, Chapter 13, Section 1890.13(g) for additional information.

The CHP looks forward to partnering with you and your agency on this project in an effort to make California’s roadways a safer place to travel. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact the Cannabis Grants Unit at (916) 843-4360.

Sincerely,

For/

M. W. HEADRICK, Chief
Enforcement and Planning Division

08/11/2026 Item No.8.

Folsom City Council
Staff Report

1 MEETING DATE:

8/11/2026
AGENDA
SECTION:

Consent Calendar
SUBJECT: Resolution No. 11676 – A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Professional Services Agreement with Ascent for the Seventh Cycle Housing Element Update and Appropriation of Funds

FROM: Community Development Department

RECOMMENDATION / CITY COUNCIL ACTION

Staff recommends that the City Council pass and adopt Resolution No. 11676 - A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Professional Services Agreement with Ascent for the Seventh Cycle Housing Element Update and Appropriation of Funds.

BACKGROUND / ISSUE

The Housing Element is one of seven mandatory elements of the City of Folsom General Plan and plays a critical role in planning for a variety of housing opportunities including those for households with lower incomes . State requirements for Housing Elements are set forth in Government Code Sections 65580–65589 and include mandatory review and certification by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). Unlike other General Plan elements, the Housing Element must be updated every eight years.

The City’s current Housing Element was adopted in August 2021 and covers the 2021 –2029 planning period, which concludes on May 15, 2029. The upcoming Seventh Cycle Housing Element will cover the 2029–2037 time period and will require a reassessment of the City's housing goals, policies, and programs.

Even though the Seventh Cycle does not start until 2029, the process handled by the HCD and the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) to determine the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) has begun and SACOG has scheduled the first RHNA Cycle 7

08/11/2026 Item No.9.
2 Technical Advisory Council (TAC) meeting for August 18, 2026, marking the start of the regional coordination and methodology development process. SACOG’s RHNA implementation timeline for Cycle 7 is illustrated in the Figure 1 below.

Figure 1: SACOG RHNA Implementation Roadmap
The Seventh Cycle is expected to include a potentially higher RHNA allocation, increased HCD scrutiny of sites inventory methodology, expanded fair housing analysis requirements, and new standards for acutely and extremely low -income households. The City m ust also implement Senate Bill 79 ( SB 79 ), which went into effect on July 1, 2026, and requires allowance of higher-density transit-oriented development near light rail stations.

To prepare a compliant Housing Element, the City must update demographic and housing needs data, revise the sites inventory, evaluate governmental and non -governmental constraints, and develop programs supporting housing opportunities for all income levels. The update must also include a comprehensive Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) analysis, addressing access to opportunity, segregation patterns, contributing factors, and barriers to housing choice.

This update will build upon the City’s 2024 General Plan Update and its Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR), which fulfilled Program H2 of the current Housing Element by increasing residential densities and overall housing capacity. Robust community engagement will also be required to involve residents, stakeholders, and decision -makers in shaping the Housing Element’s goals and policies.

Consultant expertise and support is needed to complete the required technical analyses, drafting, outreach, policy development, and CEQA documentation tiered from the General Plan SEIR, as well as coordination with HCD throughout the review and certification process.

With assistance from City staff, the consultant will prepare the Seventh Cycle Housing

08/11/2026 Item No.9.
3 Element in compliance with Government Code Section 65583 . The work will include at a minimum the following tasks:

• Reviewing and updating goals, policies, and programs for consistency with the General Plan, the Zoning Code, and State Law
• Analyzing recent state housing legislation
• Updating housing needs and demographic projections
• Preparing a sites inventory
• Assessing housing conditions and special needs
• Updating the fair housing assessment to reflect current conditions • Evaluating governmental and non-governmental constraints • Recommending policy initiatives and programs to expand affordable housing opportunities
• Preparing CEQA documentation to demonstrate consistency with the General Plan SEIR

This resolution authorizes the City Manager to execute a Professional Services Agreement with Ascent for preparation of the Seventh Cycle Housing Element Update in the amount not to exceed $297,245 funded by the Folsom Housing Fund (Fund 238).

POLICY / RULE

In accordance with Chapter 2.36 of the Folsom Municipal Code , professional services contracts of $77,426 or greater shall be approved by the City Council.

ANALYSIS

As previously indicated, the Seventh Cycle Housing Element update presents several challenges for the City. The City of Folsom enters this cycle with a strong foundation: a certified Sixth Cycle Housing Element and a series of strategic amendments to the G eneral Plan and the Folsom Plan Area Specific Plan that increased residential capacity near light rail stations, along the East Bidwell corridor, and within the Town Center of the Folsom Plan Area.

The City also secured several deed restricted multifamily sites in the Folsom Plan Area Specific Plan and purchased a few properties for future housing development using Housing Funds.

The Seventh Cycle will introduce several new challenges, including a likely increase in the City’s RHNA allocation compared to the Sixth Cycle, intensified HCD scrutiny of sites-inventory methodologies, a more stringent AFFH standard, and new requirements addressing acutely and extremely low-income households. These additions reflect the State’s growing recognition that the housing needs of the lowest -income residents (including individuals experiencing or at risk of homelessness ) differ significantly from those of other income groups and require targeted analysis and policy solutions. The City must also comply with SB 79, which requires higher -density, transit-oriented development near Folsom’s light rail stations. Given these factors, it is essential for the City to partner with a consultant team

08/11/2026 Item No.9.
4 that has statewide housing expertise and a strong understanding of both the challenges and opportunities anticipated during this planning cycle.

A Request for Proposals (RFP) for the Seventh Cycle Housing Element Update was issued on May 20, 2026, and was published on the City’s website, posted on a third -party bid platform, and emailed to five local consulting firms experienced in housing element updates. Four complete proposals, plus one subconsultant proposal, were received by the June 22, 2026 deadline. The subconsultant proposal was reviewed; however, it was not considered because it did not meet the requirements outlined in the RFP.

A review panel of Community Development Department staff independently evaluated and scored the four complete proposals submitted by Ascent, 4Leaf, Mintier Harnish, and Precision Civil Engineering. Evaluations were based on criteria such as relevant experience, qualifications of the proposed team, understanding of the issues, proposed project scope, and public outreach approach. Proposal evaluation scores were assigned on a 100 -point scale and are summarized below in Table 1.

Table 1: Consultant Proposal Evaluation
Consultant CD1 CD2 CD3 Average
Ascent 98 98 93 96.3
4Leaf 50 58 34 47.3
Mintier Harnish 83 85 85 84.3
Precision Civil Engineering 65 54 65 61.3

After reviewing each of the four complete proposals for project understanding, qualifications, deliverables, and project team staffing, the proposals were reviewed for project costs. The fee schedules for the scope of work outlined in the request for proposals from each consultant are shown in Table 2.

Table 2: Consultant Project Costs
Consultant Contract amount Contingency Total
Ascent $267, 245 $30,000 $297,245
4Leaf $301,160 $21,830 $322,990
Miniter Harnish $242,165* $24,217 $266,382
Precision Civil
Engineering
$136,710 $19,550 $156,260
*Proposal did not include CEQA compliance cost in total estimated contract cost and identified as additional cost ($10,000 to $100,000) based on level of review.

Staff determined that Ascent offers the best overall value to the City based on the strength of their proposal, the qualifications of their project team, their extensive experience with similar projects, and the competitiveness of their fee. Their proposal demonstrated a deep understanding of the Housing Element Update and reflected substantial past work completed for the City.

08/11/2026 Item No.9.
5 A major factor that distinguished Ascent from the other firms was their identification of three key tasks that no other proposal addressed:

• Specialized analysis of SB 79 impacts on the Housing Element Update. • Recognition that tribal consultation will be required as part of the update process. • Commitment to ensuring all final documents are ADA compliant.

By proactively addressing these items, Ascent demonstrated a more complete and forward-looking understanding of the project requirements. This led to Ascent receiving higher evaluation scores than the other proposals.

The proposed consultant agreement totals $297,245. Ascent’s project manager brings exceptional experience, having prepared more than 70 housing elements throughout California, including the City’s 2009, 2013, and 2021 Housing Elements. Ascent also played a key role in preparing the City’s 2035 General Plan and in implementing Housing Element Program H-2, which increased densities in targeted areas. Their strong familiarity with the City’s long-range planning framework, such as mixed-use corridors, transit priority areas, and infrastructure and service capacity considerations, positions them well to guide the upcoming Housing Element Update.

Considering the complexity of this update, Ascent’s depth of experience, and the thoroughness of their fee proposal, Ascent is recommended as the most qualified and cost-effective firm for the project.

FINANCIAL IMPACT
If approved, the consultant agreement with Ascent for the Seventh Cycle Housing Element Update would be in the amount of $267,245, including a contingency of $30,000, for a total not-to-exceed amount of $297,245. An appropriation in the amount of $297,245 in the Folsom Housing Fund (Fund 238) is required for the agreement. Sufficient funds are available in the Folsom Housing Fund (Fund 238) to cover the cost of the agreement. The project does not impact the City’s General Fund.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

Execution of the consultant contract for the Housing Element Update is not considered a “project” under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it constitutes an administrative action that has no potential to result in a physical impact on the environment.

Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), there is no possibility that approving this contract will cause a direct or reasonably foreseeable physical change in the environment.

Therefore, the contract is exempt from environmental review.

The Housing Element Update itself will undergo the required CEQA analysis, and the appropriate environmental document will be prepared prior to its adoption. This environmental

08/11/2026 Item No.9.
6 review will be presented to the City Council when the updated Housing Element is brought forward for consideration.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution No. 11676 – A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Professional Services Agreement with Ascent for the Seventh Cycle Housing Element Update and Appropriation of Funds

2. Ascent Environmental Scope of Work and Cost Proposal

Submitted,

Pam Johns, Community Development Director

08/11/2026 Item No.9.

ATTACHMENT 1
A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Professional Services Agreement with Ascent for the Seventh Cycle Housing Element Update and Appropriation of Funds

08/11/2026 Item No.9.

Resolution No. 11676

RESOLUTION NO. 11676

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH ASCENT FOR THE SEVENTH

CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AND APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS

WHEREAS, the Housing Element is a mandatory component of the City of Folsom General Plan, must be updated every eight years, and is subject to review and certification by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD); and

WHEREAS, the City’s current Housing Element covers 2021 –2029, and the Seventh Cycle Housing Element (2029–2037) requires updated data, a revised sites inventory, analysis of constraints, an Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) assessment, and incorporation of new State requirements including S enate Bill 79 regarding higher -density transit -oriented development; and

WHEREAS, preparation of the update requires extensive technical work, community engagement, policy development, and CEQA documentation tiered from the City’s 2024 General Plan Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR); and

WHEREAS, the City issued a Request for Proposals on May 20, 2026, received four complete responses, and conducted a competitive evaluation based on experience, qualifications, project understanding, and cost; and

WHEREAS, Ascent submitted a competitive fee proposal in the amount of $267,245 plus a contingency of $30,000, for a total not-to-exceed amount of $297,245; and

WHEREAS, in accordance with Chapter 2.36 of the Folsom Municipal Code, contracts of $77,426 or greater shall be approved by the City Council.

WHEREAS, funding will be provided through the Folsom Housing Fund (Fund 238) and will not impact the City’s General Fund; and

WHEREAS, approval of the consultant agreement is exempt from CEQA under Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) as an administrative action with no potential environmental impact.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Folsom authorizes the City Manager to execute a Professional Services Agreement with Ascent for preparation of the Seventh Cycle Housing Element Update in the amount of $267,245, including a contingency of $30,000 for a total not-to-exceed amount of $297,245 funded in the Folsom Housing Fund (Fund 238).

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Finance Director is authorized to appropriate $297,245 for this agreement in the Folsom Housing Fund (Fund 238).

08/11/2026 Item No.9.

Resolution No. 11676

PASSED AND ADOPTED 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

08/11/2026 Item No.9.

ATTACHMENT 2
Ascent Environmental Scope of Work and Cost Proposal

08/11/2026 Item No.9.

TAB C // SCOPE OF WORK + SCHEDULE
CITY OF FOLSOM // 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE PAGE 11
C / SCOPE OF WORK + SCHEDULE
Project Understanding and Key Challenges
The City of Folsom is approaching its Seventh Cycle Housing Element update with a strong foundation to build from: a certified Sixth Cycle Housing Element and a series of strategic amendments to the General Plan and Folsom Plan Area Specific Plan that increased residential capacity near light rail stations, along the East Bidwell corridor, and in the Folsom Plan Area Specific Plan Town Center. At the same time, the seventh cycle will bring new pressures: a RHNA that is likely to be higher than the sixth cy cle, heightened HCD scrutiny of sites inventory methodology, a more demanding AFFH standard, and new requirements for acutely and extremely low-income households. The City will also need to navigate the requirements of SB 79, which mandates allowance of higher-density transit-oriented development near Folsom’s light rail stations.

Accommodating the Seventh Cycle RHNA
SACOG’s seventh cycle RHNA process will be kicking off in mid-2026, with anticipated release of the Regional Housing Needs Determination by HCD in September 2026 and adoption of the Final RHNA Plan by SACOG in November 2027. Based on determinations in other regions, it is highly likely that the SACOG region will be assigned a higher RHNA than in the sixth cycle. Given Folsom’s demographics relative to the region, the City can anticipate another substantial lower-income allocation. The Ascent team is acutely aware of the City’s challenges with the sites inventory.

Accommodating the lower-income RHNA and ensuring “no net loss” of capacity was a challenge for Folsom in the sixth cycle—one Ascent helped the City navigate through a General Plan Amendment, Folsom Plan Area Specific Plan (FPASP) amendment, and Subsequent EIR to increase densities near light rail stations, along the East Bidwell corridor, and in the FPASP Town Center. Whether that additional capacity will be sufficient for the seventh cycle is unknown, but the sites inventory will again require a thoughtful methodology, strong documentation, and a defensible approach to buildout assumptions that will withstand HCD scrutiny. Having led this work in the sixth cycle, Ascent understands both the analytical complexity and the stakes involved, and we know what it takes to get HCD approval.

A Higher Bar on AFFH Requirements
While the City’s Sixth Cycle Housing Element included a fair housing assessment and programs to affirmatively further fair housing in compliance with AB 686, it was prepared early in the sixth cycle before HCD had published its AFFH guidance document. HCD’s expectations increased significantly as the sixth cycle progressed, and what passed HCD approval early in the cycle was no longer sufficient by the end.

HCD now expects a more rigorous analysis, stronger contributing factors identification, and more targeted, measurable program commitments directly tied to the findings of the assessment. For Folsom, this means the seventh cycle fair housing assessment will need to go meaningfully beyond the sixth cycle document in both analytical depth and programmatic commitments.

Ascent prepared AFFH analyses throughout the sixth cycle and is actively working on seventh cycle assessments for other jurisdictions, giving our team a current understanding of what HCD is requiring

08/11/2026 Item No.9.

TAB C // SCOPE OF WORK + SCHEDULE
CITY OF FOLSOM // 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE PAGE 12
now. We also assisted HCD in preparing its AFFH Guidance Memo in 2021 and provided direct technical assistance to SACOG member jurisdictions on AB 686 compliance. This experience gives us a clear view of how HCD interprets its own guidance. SACOG will provide a regional AFFH analysis as part of its data package. Ascent will build the City’s local assessment on that foundation while ensuring it reflects Folsom- specific conditions and community-identified concerns.

New Requirements for Acutely Low-Income
The seventh cycle RHNA will include new categories for extremely low- and acutely low-income housing.

In the Sacramento region, acutely low income equates to $18,600 annually for a family of four in 2026.

These new RHNA categories reflect a growing recognition at the state level that the housing needs of the lowest-income residents, including people experiencing homelessness or at risk of homelessness, are different from those of other income groups and require dedicated analysis and policy responses.

For Folsom, this means the Seventh Cycle Housing Element will need to quantify the existing and projected housing needs of acutely and extremely low-income households, analyze the availability of appropriate housing types and supportive services, and develop programs specifically designed to address this population’s needs. Ascent is actively tracking HCD’s emerging guidance on acutely low- income requirements and incorporating this analysis into our current seventh cycle work. We will work closely with City staff and local service providers to ground the analysis in Folsom-specific data and identify programs that are both responsive to HCD’s expectations and achievable within the City’s policy and resource environment.

SB 79 Transit-Oriented Development Alternative Plan
For the seventh cycle, SB 79 has direct implications for how the City approaches the Housing Element update. SB 79
establishes new development standards for higher-density housing near qualifying transit stops that override local density limits. The law applies to light rail stations at Iron Point, Glenn, Hazel (outside city limits), and Historic Folsom. To allow flexibility in implementation, SB 79 allows local jurisdictions to adopt a “transit-oriented development alternative plan” (TOD Alternative Plan).

AB 2415, authored by Assemblymember Josh Hoover and
passed by the Assembly on May 26, 2026, is currently working its way through the Legislature. If AB 2415 is signed into law, the City would have the ability to reduce SB 79 capacity requirements in the Folsom Historic District beyond the 50 percent cap otherwise allowed, provided it adopts a
compliant TOD Alternative Plan and compensates for that reduced capacity in its other TOD zones.

Ascent’s recent work with the City to create a TOD Overlay zone and calculate development capacity near light rail stations gives the City a head start on addressing SB 79. Ascent will ensure the sites inventory accurately reflects HCD guidance related to capacity for the Housing Element sites that are eligible for SB 79 and advise City staff on options for how to structure the TOD Alternative Plan as part of the Housing Element.

08/11/2026 Item No.9.

TAB C // SCOPE OF WORK + SCHEDULE
CITY OF FOLSOM // 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE PAGE 13

SCOPE OF WORK
TASK 1 PROJECT INITIATION AND MANAGEMENT
Task 1.1 Review of Applicable State Housing Laws
Prior to the kickoff meeting, Ascent will document all applicable housing laws enacted since the sixth cycle in a memo to the City. Ascent will review each new law at the project kickoff meeting.

Task 1.2 Document Review and Data Collection
As an initial step in the process, Ascent will review and annotate the City’s Sixth Cycle Housing Element, delineating sections requiring updates and where more information from City staff will be needed. This annotated document will serve as a general roadmap for the update process, highlighting areas requiring revisions due to new state requirements, areas needing general updates, and sections that can be carried forward with minimal changes. This task also includes developing a data needs list to share with City staff ahead of beginning work on the components of the Housing Element and collaboratively working with City staff to gather necessary information from local sources. We will also establish a collaborative folder structure in SharePoint that will facilitate information exchange between City staff and Ascent throughout the update process.

Task 1.3 Project Kickoff Meeting/Working Session
Ascent will prepare for and conduct an in-person kickoff meeting/working session with City staff to initiate work on the Housing Element update. This approach will allow the team to set a strong foundation for the update process. At the meeting, we will provide a project overview and review of the scope of work to confirm roles and responsibilities, with a focus on new requirements and how to approach this update to meet HCD expectations. Ascent and City staff will conduct an initial review of the current sites inventory in relation to the seventh cycle RHNA and discuss the overall strategy for accommodating the RHNA. City staff will provide an overview of current housing initiatives and programs, outlining what has been accomplished and what is planned. Other tasks that will be covered during the meeting include reviewing the project schedule, reviewing new housing legislation, discussing objectives for community engagement and HCD’s expectation for inclusive community engagement, reviewing data needs, and establishing project management protocols.

Task 1.4 Project Management and Coordination
Ascent will provide project management throughout the course of the two-and-a-half-year project schedule.

This task includes scheduling and facilitating up to 32 coordination calls and six in-person meetings with City staff. Meeting frequency will be adjusted based on project needs (e.g., occurring monthly to start and when less coordination is needed, once every two weeks during active periods, and transitioning to email-only communication when appropriate and during HCD review periods). For each coordination meeting, Ascent will prepare an agenda in advance and document action items in a high-level summary following each Task 1.1 will not require many hours, as Ascent is already actively tracking housing legislation. Through our contract with SANDAG’s Housing Acceleration Program Technical Assistance Program, Ascent maintains a living legislative tracking matrix that is updated in real time as bills progress through the Legislature. We regularly host webinars for planners throughout the San Diego regio n to provide updates on emerging legislation. Chelsey Norton brings an additional layer of legislative awareness to this project in her role as Legislative Director on the Sacramento Valley Section American Planning Association Board, where she tracks and provides feedback on emerging legislation.

08/11/2026 Item No.9.

TAB C // SCOPE OF WORK + SCHEDULE
CITY OF FOLSOM // 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE PAGE 14
meeting. This task includes other aspects of project administration, including contract processing, project setup, and the preparation of monthly invoices and progress reports. The scope also includes budget for ongoing email communications and informal coordination with project team members, up to the allotted budget in this task.

Deliverables
 Thirty-eight (38) project coordination meeting agendas and high-level summaries with action items  Monthly invoices and progress reports
TASK 2 HOUSING ELEMENT COMPONENTS
Task 2.1 Introduction and Summary of Outreach Activities Ascent will prepare the introduction to the Housing Element, which will provide an overview of the purpose and requirements of housing elements under state law, describe the relationship between the Housing Element, General Plan, and other relevant plans and programs, and outline the organization of the document. Ascent will also prepare a summary of outreach activities to include in the introduction of the Folsom Housing Element. This summary will describe the outreach methods employed, summarize feedback received, and explain how that feedback was used to inform the Housing Element.

Task 2.2 Evaluation of Current Housing Element
Government Code Section 6588 requires that each local government assess the achievements of adopted housing programs and review the effectiveness of housing element goals, policies, and related actions in meeting its community’s needs.

Once the 2026 annual progress report (APR) is available, Ascent will review current and past APRs to determine the progress toward meeting the Sixth Cycle RHNA and the initial status, effectiveness, and appropriateness of the programs in the current Housing Element, providing direction on compliance with state housing laws, and helping to identify any omissions or deficiencies that will need to be addressed in the update. City staff will review Ascent’s draft evaluation, provide feedback and revisions, and document the effectiveness of each program, providing quantitative results where appropriate. Ascent will also prepare a summary of program effectiveness for special needs populations using information and input from the City.

Task 2.3 Housing Needs Assessment
Ascent will prepare a comprehensive demographic and housing needs assessment pursuant to Government Code Section 65583 using data provided by SACOG. The updated housing needs assessment will include information on the following topics:
 Population and demographics
 Household characteristics
 Income and employment
 Housing stock characteristics and condition, including age, tenure, and rehabilitation needs  Housing costs and affordability
 Special housing needs (i.e., seniors; persons with disabilities, including a development disability; acutely low- and extremely low-income households; large families; farmworkers; students; female- headed households; and individuals experiencing homelessness)  At-risk housing (i.e., an analysis of existing assisted affordable housing at risk of converting to market-rate housing during the next 10 years)

08/11/2026 Item No.9.

TAB C // SCOPE OF WORK + SCHEDULE
CITY OF FOLSOM // 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE PAGE 15
Ascent will supplement the SACOG-provided data with local data and insights from City staff and service providers, particularly related to housing conditions, homelessness, and special needs populations. We will summarize key trends and their implications for policy development.

Task 2.4 Sites Inventory Analysis
Ascent will prepare an updated sites inventory demonstrating the City’s capacity to accommodate the seventh cycle RHNA. We will review and update the existing sites inventory to remove sites that have been developed and add in new sites that have been rezoned or otherwise made available since the Sixth Cycle Housing Element. This task will include inventorying sites that were redesignated/rezoned with the recent General Plan and FPASP amendments that can be realistically developed within the Housing Element planning period, and reflecting HCD guidance related to capacity for sites eligible for SB 79.

Ascent will adjust buildout assumptions on vacant and underutilized sites based on updated realistic densities that can be demonstrated through analysis of recently built housing developments. We will also prepare a detailed analysis of non-vacant sites to justify inclusion in the sites inventory.

Pursuant to AB 1397, Ascent will identify whether or not the vacant lower-income sites have been included in the past two Housing Elements and if underutilized sites have been included in one previous Housing Element and, if needed, develop a program to amend the zoning on these sites to allow affordable housing by right in order to continue to count the parcels in the inventory of lower -income sites. City staff will confirm remaining capacity on parcels within specific plan areas and will provide an up- to-date list of entitled residential developments that are expected to be constructed during the Seventh Cycle Housing Element planning period, including unit counts by income level, status, remaining steps, and expected completion. Ascent will prepare GIS shapefiles and a series of GIS maps showing all available sites and pipeline projects included in the inventory. The sites inventory will be prepared using the required HCD Sites Inventory Form, although for efficiency’s sake, the final HCD form will not be completed until the inventory has been finalized in Task 7.

In addition to vacant and underutilized sites and pipeline projects, the sites inventory will include projections of ADUs and SB 9 duplex units, if applicable. Based on building permit data provided by City staff, Ascent will determine the appropriate assumptions for this next RHNA cycle and update the projections for ADUs and SB 9 units. This scope assumes SACOG will provide data on ADU affordability for the region.

Ascent will analyze the capacity of available sites in comparison to the City’s seventh cycle RHNA to determine whether the City has adequate capacity to meet the RHNA. If it is determined that the City does not have adequate capacity, we will work with the City to develop a rezoning strategy to address the identified shortfall. Because the seventh cycle RHNA is unknown, our proposal includes the rezoning strategy as an optional task that could be authorized by City staff if a shortfall is identified.

Task 2.5 Housing Constraints Analysis
Ascent will review and update the housing constraints analysis, which identifies and analyzes potential and actual governmental and nongovernmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels. This effort includes incorporating any recent changes in the analysis (e.g., new ordinances, fees, permit processes, infrastructure capacity) and complying with newer requirements related to governmental constraints for special needs housing (e.g., group homes, supportive housing, low barrier navigation centers, emergency shelters, ADUs). Ascent will also update information in the nongovernmental constraints analysis related to land costs, construction costs, and availability of financing. City staff will provide updated information on the length of time between project approval and request for a building permit and any requests the City has received for reduced density.

08/11/2026 Item No.9.

TAB C // SCOPE OF WORK + SCHEDULE
CITY OF FOLSOM // 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE PAGE 16
While Ascent will take the lead in preparing this analysis, this task assumes that City staff will provide the necessary inputs and interpretations of code to complete this update. We will give the City a detailed data needs list and instructions to provide additional direction. After completing the constraints analysis, Ascent will identify potential programs to remove or mitigate any identified constraints.

Task 2.6 Fair Housing Assessment
Ascent will update the existing fair housing assessment with new data and analysis. This task assumes that SACOG will provide a regional fair housing assessment covering the requirements of state law. Ascent will build off the regional assessment with a local assessment tailored to the City of Folsom.

The updated fair housing assessment will include:
 a summary of fair housing issues and an analysis of fair housing enforcement and outreach;  an analysis of local and regional patterns and trends related to integration and segregation;  identification and analysis of Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs) and Areas of Affluence;
 an assessment of disparities in access to opportunity, including for persons with disabilities, and consideration of how these disparities affect special needs populations; and  an analysis of disproportionate housing needs that affect protected classes (e.g., overpayment, overcrowding, housing conditions), including displacement risk.

Ascent will lead the technical update of the assessment, utilizing available data sources, including HCD's AFFH mapping tool and other relevant state and federal datasets, as well as local knowledge from City staff and local service providers to ensure the updated assessment accurately reflects on -the-ground conditions and community-identified concerns.

AB 686 also requires that a jurisdiction identify sites throughout its community in a manner consistent with AFFH and the findings of the fair housing assessment. Once the draft sites inventory outlined in Task 2.4 is complete, Ascent will examine the spatial relationship between the sites inventory and various AFFH factors (e.g., race and income, areas of opportunity, disproportionate housing needs, displacement risk) to analyze whether proposed housing sites improve or potentially exacerbate fair housing conditions.

Based on the updated fair housing assessment and analysis of sites, Ascent will identify and review with City staff the contributing factors to fair housing issues and propose changes to policies and implementation programs to help address these factors.

Task 2.7 Opportunities for Energy Conservation
Ascent will review and update the discussion of opportunities for energy conservation to reflect new City and regional programs and initiatives as well as changes to the state building code related to energy efficiency.

Task 2.8 Funding Resources
Ascent will review and update the discussion of financial and other resources available to support affordable housing development, including descriptions of federal, county, and state funding programs and any other local programs and resources that may be available (e.g., housing trust fund).

Task 2.9 Housing Goals, Policies, and Implementation Programs Ascent will prepare the updated housing goals, policies, and implementation programs based on the evaluation of the Sixth Cycle Housing Element, new requirements of state law, analysis of housing needs and constraints, updates to the fair housing assessment, input from the community outreach and engagement program, discussions with City staff, and best practices. Goals, policies, and programs will

08/11/2026 Item No.9.

TAB C // SCOPE OF WORK + SCHEDULE
CITY OF FOLSOM // 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE PAGE 17
address, at a minimum, housing supply and affordability for all income levels (including acutely low and extremely low income), preservation of existing neighborhoods and community character, remov al of governmental constraints, support for infill and mixed-use development, promotion of accessory dwelling units, and promotion of equitable access to housing opportunities. Ascent will work with City staff to ensure that each implementation program has a specific time frame, quantified objective, responsible department(s), and geographic target. We will also review each program through the lens of AFFH requirements to satisfy this state mandate.

Deliverables
 Deliverables related to this task are listed in Task 3 Optional Task 1: Rezone Strategy
If the City has a shortfall in meeting the RHNA, Ascent will work with City staff to develop a rezone strategy.

This includes working with the City to develop a list of candidate rezone sites that will be considered for rezoning in a subsequent rezone program. Ascent will provide guidance and criteria for appropriate rezone sites, and the City will develop the list of potential sites with Ascent’s support that will be addressed as part of the environmental review under Task 6. If the Housing Element is adopted and certified within 120 days of the seventh cycle deadline, the City will have three years to complete the rezone program. Subse quent rezone actions would be exempt under CEQA as provided under Public Resources Code Section 21080.085.

TASK 3 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT PREPARATION
Task 3.1 Administrative Draft Housing Element
Ascent will compile the components developed in Task 2 into a cohesive, formatted administrative draft Housing Element. Prior to submitting the administrative draft, Ascent will review the complete draft Housing Element and confirm full consistency with the 2024 General Plan Update, the ongoing Zoning Code Update, and the Folsom Plan Area Specific Plan. We will prepare a memo describing any inconsistencies and providing suggestions to City staff for rectifying the inconsistencies. The administrative draft will be submitted to City staff for review. This task assumes City staff will provide one set of consolidated comments on the administrative draft.

Task 3.2 Public Review Draft Housing Element
Ascent will review and revise the administrative draft Housing Element to address one round of consolidated City staff comments and will prepare the public review draft Housing Element for City staff to review/confirm. Alongside the delivery of a clean public review draft, Ascent will share a tracked- changes version of the document for City staff to more easily follow revisions and changes made to address comments.

Beginning in April 2027, local governments with populations greater than 50,000 must ensure that web content, including planning documents like the Housing Element, meet federal accessibility standards under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Title II rule. Specifically, documents must comply with Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1 Level AA standards to ensure they are accessible to individuals using assistive technologies such as screen readers. Ascent will ensure the public review draft Housing Element is provided as an ADA-compliant, WCAG 2.1 Level AA format. This includes structuring the document with appropriate tags and reading order, providing alternative text for images, maps, and graphics, and ensuring sufficient color contrast and metadata.

08/11/2026 Item No.9.

TAB C // SCOPE OF WORK + SCHEDULE
CITY OF FOLSOM // 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE PAGE 18
This task assumes that only minimal changes would be needed after City staff’s review/confirmation of the Housing Element. If additional discussion or substantive changes are needed after City review, additional budget will be needed. Ascent will advise City staff on noticing procedures to comply with 30-day public review and other requirements of state law.

Optional Task 2: Revised Public Review Draft Housing Element Depending on the number of public comments, City staff may decide to revise the draft Housing Element prior to study sessions with the Planning Commission and the City Council. Ascent could assist with preparing this revised public review draft. Alternatively, if the number of public comments is not substantial, City staff may be able to address this as part of the recommendations in their staff reports to decision - makers and based on City Council direction, those revisions would be made during Task 5.1.

Deliverables
 Administrative draft Housing Element (electronic copies [Word and PDF])  Memo summarizing review for consistency with General Plan, Zoning Code, and Folsom Plan Area Sp
ecific Plan (electronic copies [Word and PDF])
 Public review draft Housing Element (electronic copies [Word and PDF])  Revised public review draft Housing Element (electronic copies [Word and PDF]) – optional TASK 4 COMMUNITY OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT
Task 4.1 Project Website and Publicity Materials
Ascent will coordinate with City staff to develop a dedicated webpage for the Housing Element update, hosted on the City's website and maintained by City staff throughout the planning process. We will prepare initial website content and graphic materials, such as a project schedule, frequently asked questions, and information on community engagement opportunities. Ascent will provide City staff with updated content as the project progresses. In addition to website content, we will prepare branded outreach materials to advertise engagement opportunities and activities to the broader community, including flyers for each community workshop and content for five social media posts.

Task 4.2 Community Workshops
Ascent will prepare for and facilitate two community workshops, which can be conducted in person or virtually. Both workshops will be designed to reach a broad cross-section of the community, including renters, lower-income residents, and other populations whose voices are not always heard in traditional planning processes, consistent with HCD’s expectations for inclusive engagement. The first workshop will be held early in the process to educate the community on the purpose of the housing element and the City’s obligation to accommodate the seventh cycle RHNA and to collect input on key housing issues facing residents. The second workshop will be held later in the process to gather feedback on the draft Housing Element, with a focus on the sites inventory and implementation programs. Ascent will prepare a summary of feedback received at each workshop for inclusion in the Housing Element.

As an option, in place of one of the community workshops, Ascent could conduct targeted outreach to engage hard-to-reach and historically underrepresented community members. Options might include coordinating directly with community-based organizations to attend an existing community event or hosting a pop-up event or tabling at locations where residents already gather.

08/11/2026 Item No.9.

TAB C // SCOPE OF WORK + SCHEDULE
CITY OF FOLSOM // 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE PAGE 19
Task 4.3 Focus Group Meetings and/or Stakeholder Interviews Ascent will prepare for and attend two focus group meetings, which can be conducted in person or virtually, on specific topics of interest, such as affordable housing, approaches to meeting the RHNA , fair housing, or housing for people experiencing homelessness. We will work with City staff to identify topic areas and develop a list of interested parties to invite, and Ascent will provide meeting summaries . As an option, these meetings could occur as a series of stakeholder interviews, such as with developers or housing advocacy groups, rather than group meetings, within the allotted budget.

Task 4.4 Online Survey
Ascent will prepare and help distribute a web-based survey to gather information from the community on housing needs and housing policy priorities. We will compile and summarize the survey results for inclusion in the Housing Element.

Task 4.5 Planning Commission and City Council Study Sessions Ascent will prepare for and attend a total of two study sessions with the Planning Commission and the City Council. These sessions can either occur early in the process to provide an overview of the process and get input into key policy considerations or occur later in the process to present and collect feedback on the public review draft Housing Element prior to submitting it to HCD. Ascent will prepare a PowerPoint presentation and review the draft staff report prepared by City staff, providing assistance in targeted areas as needed.

Note: Task 7.2 includes two additional public hearings on the final Housing Element.

Task 4.6 Tribal Consultation
ECORP Consulting, Inc., in coordination with Ascent, will assist the City in conducting tribal consultation consistent with the requirements of SB 18, which requires such consultation with a proposed amendment or adoption of a general plan. The results of this consultation process will be incorporated into the Housing Element Update.

Deliverables
 Engagement materials for varying events (e.g., website content, publicity materials, PowerPoint presentations, online survey)
 PowerPoint presentations for Planning Commission and City Council meetings TASK 5 HCD REVIEW OF HOUSING ELEMENT
Task 5.1 HCD Review Draft Housing Element Submittal
Based on direction from the Planning Commission and the City Council, Ascent will prepare the HCD review draft Housing Element, prepare a cover letter, and deliver the HCD review draft Housing Element (electronically and physically with one black-and-white copy) to HCD.

Task 5.2 Revisions to Address Preliminary HCD Comments
Ascent will serve as the City’s liaison throughout the HCD review process, managing all communications with HCD reviewers during the review process. Following submission of the HCD review draft Housing Element and halfway through the 90-day HCD review period, we will facilitate one meeting/phone call with HCD and City staff to seek preliminary HCD comments to reduce the length of HCD’s formal comment letter. Time permitting, Ascent will prepare a memo outlining responses to HCD comments along with an errata of the extracted changes made to the Housing Element to address preliminary comments from HCD. City staff will

08/11/2026 Item No.9.

TAB C // SCOPE OF WORK + SCHEDULE
CITY OF FOLSOM // 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE PAGE 20
then post the memo and errata on the project webpage and notify interested parties, with Ascent submitting the memo and errata to HCD after the seven-day noticing period, assuming minimal public comment received during the noticing period. (Note: If HCD is not able to provide comments in a timely manner, this task will take place after receiving the formal comment letter.) Task 5.3 Revisions to Address HCD Comment Letter
After receiving HCD’s formal comment letter, Ascent will assist with preparing a second round of revisions to the Housing Element. This task includes participating in one meeting/phone call with HCD and City staff to discuss remaining compliance issues and comments at some point during the 60 -day HCD review period. Ascent will then prepare a memo outlining responses to HCD comments along with an errata of the extracted changes made to the Housing Element to address preliminary comments from HCD. City staff will then post the memo and errata on the project webpage and notify interested parties, with Ascent submitting the document to HCD. This task assumes that revisions will result in a conditional approval letter for certification after the 60-day review period and before the Planning Commission and City Council adoption hearings.

Deliverables
 HCD review draft Housing Element (electronic copies [Word and PDF])  Cover letter to HCD (electronic copies [Word and PDF])  Revisions to address HCD comments (electronic copies [Word and PDF])  Two memos outlining responses to HCD comments and accompanying errata of changes (electronic copies [Word and PDF])
Optional Task 3: Third Round of HCD Review
If additional revisions are necessary and the City receives another comment letter from HCD, triggering a new 60-day review period, Ascent will conduct a final round of revisions during the 60 -day review period and facilitate one meeting/phone call with HCD and City staff to resolve any outstanding issues. Ascent will implement final revisions in a memo and accompanying errata. City staff will then post the memo and errata on the project webpage and notify interested parties, with Ascent submitting the document for review.

Ascent will work diligently with HCD staff during this time to secure a timely conditional approval letter before the Planning Commission and City Council adoption hearings.

TASK 6 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Task 6.1 Environmental Review/CEQA Documentation
Ascent will review the City of Folsom 2035 General Plan Amendments for Increasing Residential Capacity Project Subsequent EIR (to the General Plan EIR) as well as the Addendum for the City’s 2021–2029 Housing Element and will prepare an addendum or technical memorandum that will document all environmental topic areas, any changes in circumstances or project-related changes, and whether such changes were adequately covered in the previous environmental documents. We will utilize State CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c), focusing on whether the project would have any effects not examined in the previous environmental documents. The analysis will include substantial evidence and will assess the following for each environmental topic:
 Does the Seventh Cycle Housing Element involve new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts?
 Are there new circumstances involving new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts?  Is there any significant new information requiring new analysis or verification?

08/11/2026 Item No.9.

TAB C // SCOPE OF WORK + SCHEDULE
CITY OF FOLSOM // 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE PAGE 21
 Are only technical changes or additions needed to make the prior environmental documents sufficient for the proposed project?
 Do mitigation measures from the prior environmental documents resolve significant impacts? Ascent will provide a draft document for City review and comment. The final document will incorporate requested edits. This scope of work assumes that an addendum or technical memorandum (should the proposed Seventh Cycle Housing Element result in no substantial changes to the current Housing Element and City of Folsom 2035 General Plan Amendments for Increasing Residential Capacity Project involving environmental issues) will be prepared. If a different document is determined necessary for CEQA compliance, Ascent will coordinate with the City regarding changes to the scope and budget.

Deliverables
 Draft addendum or technical memorandum
 Final addendum or technical memorandum
TASK 7 FINAL DOCUMENTS AND ADOPTION
Task 7.1 Public Hearing Draft Housing Element
Ascent will prepare a public hearing draft Housing Element to be presented at adoption hearings that incorporates all the responses to HCD comments.

Task 7.2 Adoption Hearings
Ascent will attend two public hearings, one before the Planning Commission and one before the City Council, to help present the public hearing draft Housing Element and respond to questions. We will prepare a meeting presentation and assist City staff with the staff reports and the adoption resolution by providing examples and conducting a peer review.

Task 7.3 Final Housing Element and Submittal to HCD
Ascent will prepare the final Housing Element, incorporating any changes made by the City Council in adopting the Housing Element and preparing an ADA-compliant, WCAG 2.1 Level AA compliant version of the document. We will prepare a cover letter and will print and deliver one black-and-white copy of the Housing Element to HCD for the final 60-day review period. Following HCD certification, Ascent will provide all final digital files to the City, including the Housing Element in Microsoft Word and the sites inventory in GIS and Excel.

Task 7.4 HCD Electronic Housing Element Sites Inventory Form Ascent will prepare an electronic copy of the final sites inventory using HCD’s approved Excel spreadsheet, to be submitted to HCD with the final Housing Element. Time in this task also allows for one round of minimal revisions/questions with HCD’s sites inventory team.

Deliverables
 Public hearing draft Housing Element (electronic copies [Word and PDF])  Final Housing Element (one hard copy mailed to HCD, and electronic copies [Word and PDF])  Electronic Sites Inventory Form (electronic copy [Excel])  Original electronic files of final Housing Element, including sites inventory (Word, PDF, Excel, and ArcGIS)

08/11/2026 Item No.9.

08/11/2026 Item No.9.

Folsom City Council
Staff Report

1 MEETING DATE:

8/11/2026
AGENDA SECTION:

Consent Calendar
SUBJECT: Resolution No. 11677 – A Resolution Approving the Historic District Commission’s Recommendation for Approval of a Design Review Application for a Commercial Addition Project Located at 705 Sutter Street and Determination that the Project is Exempt from CEQA
FROM: Community Development Department

RECOMMENDATION / CITY COUNCIL ACTION
The Historic District Commission held a public meeting for the project on August 5, 2026. During the meeting, the Commission recommended revisions to Condition 10 to clarify that the rear porch utilizes a standing seam metal roof , which is reflected in Attachment 3 of this report. Staff recommends that the City Council take the following action confirming the Commission’s decision:

1. Approve Resolution No. 11677 – A Resolution Approving the Historic District Commission’s Recommendation for Approval of a Design Review Application for a Commercial Addition Project Located at 705 Sutter Street and Determination that the Project is Exempt from CEQA.

BACKGROUND / ISSUE
The applicant is requesting approval for design review application for a 2,280 square-foot rear commercial addition located at 705 Sutter Street, as discussed in the attached Staff Report.

POLICY / RULE
Folsom Municipal Code (FMC) Section 17.52.300 requires that all new office, industrial, commercial, and residential structures undergo design review by the Historic District Commission. However, as a result of the recent litigation, all entitlements in the Historic District are being submitted to City Council for final approval.

08/11/2026 Item No.10.
2 ANALYSIS
Staff have determined that the project complies with the standards of the Folsom Municipal Code and the Historic District Design and Development Guidelines, as discussed in the attached staff report.

FINANCIAL IMPACT
The project does not impact the General Fund.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project is categorically exempt from environmental review under Section 15303 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) and 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense) of the CEQA Guidelines. Based on staff’s analysis of this project, none of the exceptions in Section 15300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines apply to the use of the categorical exemptions in this case.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution No. 11677 – A Resolution Approving the Historic District Commission’s Recommendation for Approval of a Design Review Application for a Commercial Addition Project Located at 705 Sutter Street and Determination that the Project is Exempt from CEQA.

2. Historic District Commission Staff Report and Attachments, dated August 5, 2026

3. Commission Revised Conditions of Approval, dated August 5, 2026

Submitted,

____________________________

PAM JOHNS
Community Development Director

08/11/2026 Item No.10.

08/11/2026 Item No.10.

Resolution No. 11677

RESOLUTION NO. 11677

A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION’S

RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL OF A DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION FOR A COMMERCIAL ADDITION PROJECT LOCATED AT 705 SUTTER STREET

AND DETERMINATION THAT THE PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM CEQA

WHEREAS, the Historic District Commission on August 5th, 2026, held a public meeting on the proposed design review application for the Ruby’s Books Commercial Addition Project (DRCL26-00079), reviewed the staff report as well as the associated exhibits and attachments, considered public comment, and provided a recommendation to City Council; and

WHEREAS notice has been given at the time and in the manner required by State Law and City Code; and

WHEREAS the Historic District Commission determined that the proposed project would be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 and Section 15061(b)(3);

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Folsom hereby confirms the recommendation of the Historic District Commission and approves a design review application for the Ruby’s Books Commercial Addition Project.

This approval is subject to the commission revised conditions of approval presented to the City Council as Attachment 3 and this Resolution is based on the following findings:

GENERAL FINDINGS

A. NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING HAS BEEN GIVEN AT THE TIME AND IN THE MANNER REQUIRED BY STATE LAW AND CITY CODE.

B. THE PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING CODE OF THE CITY.

CEQA FINDINGS

C. THE PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW UNDER SECTION 15303 (NEW CONSTRUCTION OR CONVERSION OF SMALL STRUCTURES) AND UNDER SECTION 15061 (COMMON SENSE) OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES.

D. NONE OF THE EXCEPTIONS LISTED UNDER CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15300.2 ARE PRESENT.

08/11/2026 Item No.10.

Resolution No. 11677

DESIGN REVIEW FINDINGS

E. THE BUILDING MATERIALS, TEXTURES AND COLORS USED IN THE PROPOSED

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

F. THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL.

PASSED AND ADOPTED 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

08/11/2026 Item No.10.

08/11/2026 Item No.10.

AGENDA ITEM NO. 1
Type: Public Meeting
Date: August 5, 2026

City of Folsom Page 1
Historic District Commission Staff Report
50 Natoma Street, Council Chambers
Folsom, CA 95630
Project Name: Ruby’s Books Commercial Addition Project
File #: DRCL26-00079
Request: Design Review , and Determination that the Project is Exempt from CEQA
Location: 705 Sutter Street, Folsom, CA 95630
Parcel(s): APN 070-0105-010-0000
Staff Contact: Nathan Stroud, Associate Planner
[email protected], (916) 461-6220

Property Owner Applicant
705 Sutter LLC Edward Mojica
6330 Reservoir Drive 514 Oak Street
Granite Bay, CA 95746 Roseville, CA 95678

Recommendation
Move to recommend confirming staff’s determination that Ruby’s Books Commercial Addition Project is exempt from CEQA under Section s 15301 (Existing Facilities) and 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption); and recommend approval of an application (DRCL26-00079) for design review for a 2,280 square -foot rear commercial addition located at 705 Sutter Street , based on the findings (Findings A -F), and subject to the conditions of approval (Conditions 1-11) attached to this report.

Project Summary
The proposed project involves a 2,280 square -foot rear commercial addition located at 705 Sutter Street. The subject property is located within the Historic District (HD) Zoning District within the Sutter Street Subarea , with a General Plan Land Use Designation of Historic Folsom Mixed-Use (HF). The City Council will take final action.

Environmental Review
The proposed planned development permit modification is categorically exempt from environmental review under Section s 15301 (Existing Facilities) and 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense exemption) of the CEQA Guidelines since it involves the addition of 2,280 square-feet of space to an existing commercial build ing. Based on staff’s analysis of this

08/11/2026 Item No.10.

AGENDA ITEM NO. 1
Type: Public Meeting
Date: August 5, 2026

City of Folsom Page 2
project, none of the exceptions in Section 15300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines apply to the use of the categorical exemptions in this case.

Public Noticing and Outreach
A notice was posted on the project site and mailed to adjacent property owners at least five days prior to the meeting that met the requirements of FMC Section 17.52.320 As of the writing of this report, no public comments have been received.

Attachments
1 – Description/Analysis
2 – Project Site Information
3 – Conditions of Approval
4 – Vicinity Map
5 – Plan Set
6 – Statement of Intended Use

Submitted,

PAM JOHNS
Community Development Director

08/11/2026 Item No.10.

Historic District Commission
Ruby’s Books Commercial Addition Project (DRCL26-00079) Date: August 5, 2026

ATTACHMENT 1

DESCRIPTION/ANALYSIS

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant, Edward Mojica, is requesting approval of a design review for a 2,280 square-foot rear commercial addition located at 705 Sutter Street, as shown on the plans provided in Attachment 5. The proposed commercial addition is located on the second story at the rear of the existing building and is intended to provide more space for Ruby’s Books, a bookstore, for a reading room, children’s section, and space for minor activities such as craft nights, book signings with authors, and other related activities. The project intends to match the existing building in terms of materials and colors, and no changes to the front façade are proposed. Renderings of the project have been provided in Figure 1 below and in Attachment 5.

Figure 1 – 3D Renderings (Front / Rear Elevation)

ANALYSIS
General Plan and Zoning Consistency
The project site is within the Historic District (HD) Zoning District within the Sutter Street Subarea, and the General Plan Land Use Designation of the project site is Historic Folsom Mixed-Use (HF) . The General Plan Land Use Designation and Zoning District are consistent with each other and are not proposed to change as part of this project.

The following table shows applicable General Plan goals/policies:

General Plan Policies (2035)
Goals/Policies Description
LU 2.1.1
(Historic Folsom)
Maintain the existing street fabric and pattern and enhance the tourist-oriented, historic commercial uses in the Historic Folsom commercial areas to preserve the unique character of Folsom’s historic center and support local business.

NCR 5.1.6
(Historic District Standards)
Maintain and implement design and development standards for the Historic District.

08/11/2026 Item No.10.

Historic District Commission
Ruby’s Books Commercial Addition Project (DRCL26-00079) Date: August 5, 2026

The project involves the expansion of an existing commercial building with an addition that matches the building in terms of colors and materials. As discussed later in this report, the project meets the standards of the Historic District Design and Development Guidelines, in compliance with General Plan Policy NCR 5.1.6. The minimal impact to the Sutter Street streetscape also satisfies General Plan Policy LU 2.1.1 by preserving the character of Sutter Street. Furthermore, the Historic Folsom Mixed -Use (HF) General Plan Designation specifies a Floor-Area-Ratio (FAR) between 0.5 and 2.0. As the project involves a 6,405 square -foot building ( including the addition) on a 3,906 square -foot parcel, the FAR is 1.64, within the specified FAR. Overall, the project has been determined to comply with the goals and policies of the Folsom General Plan.

The following table shows how the project relates to applicable zoning requirements:

Sutter Street Subarea Development Standards
(FMC 17.52.510)
Required Proposed
Setbacks No Setbacks Required No change in setback proposed Height Maximum 35 Feet Appx. 32.5 Feet (+2.5 feet increase)

Regarding height, the addition would increase the height of the existing structure by approximately 2.5 feet due to the rear addition’s roof gable , however the building height is within zoning allowances, and the finished structure would be shorter than the Folsom Hotel located adjacent to the project site. Overall, the project has been determined to satisfy the development standards of the Historic District (HD) Zoning District within the Sutter Street Subarea, as outlined in the Folsom Municipal Code.

Policy/Rule
Folsom Municipal Code (FMC) Section 17.52.300 states that the Historic District Commission shall review projects involving additions to existing buildings over 25% of the total square-footage of the existing building or over five hundred square -feet, whichever is less, in the Historic District. FMC Section 17.52.330 states that, in reviewing projects, the Commission 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.

However, as a result of the recent litigation, all entitlements in the Historic District are being submitted to City Council for final approval.

08/11/2026 Item No.10.

Historic District Commission
Ruby’s Books Commercial Addition Project (DRCL26-00079) Date: August 5, 2026

Historic Context
Background
The building at 705 Sutter Street was originally built sometime between 1915 and 1930.

According to the Folsom History Museum, the original building was constructed with a typical wooden Western False Front style façade but was later purchased by Guiseppe Murer (also known as Joe Murer) and heavily modified to its current façade which exhibits similar characteristics with the Spanish Eclectic or Italian Renaissance styles with stucco exterior, arches, and a curved tile roofing on the top of the parapet. Joe Murer was a prominent figure in early 1900s Folsom, having owned, developed, and renovated various properties in the Historic District, notably using the Spanish Eclectic, Mission Revival, and Italian Renaissance architectural styles for the building’s he owned and developed.

Historic Resource Listing and Eligibility
According to the Built Environment Resources Directory (BERD), records show that the property at 705 Sutter Street was determined to be ineligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places in 1991, however the property has not yet been evaluated for listing on the California Register or City Cultural Resources Inventory.

Given the age and association with historically significant figures in Folsom’s History, particularly with regards to the building’s architectural style, the building may be eligible for listing on the City’s Cultural Resources Inventory . The property is currently not listed in the California Register, nor on the City’s Cultural Resources Inventory.

Impact on Architectural Significance
Although not listed as a Historic Resource, the building’s architectur al style and association with Joe Murer are important factors for its potential for future listing. Because the proposed project preserves the building’s front façade, where most of the architecturally significant elements are located, staff anticipate that the commercial addition for this project would not have a substantial adverse impact on its eligibility for local listing on the City’s Cultural Resources Inventory.

Design Review
Form and Design
The project’s second story rear addition will have a simple form of a two-story building with an open-gabled roof. The proposed gabled roof will have a slightly steeper roof pitch (5/12) than the existing gabled roof (3/12) at the front of the building, however this is considered compatible with the structure. Existing rooftop equipment is proposed to be replaced and relocated to a new mechanical well, located in the center of the rooftop. An elevator doghouse will also be located here for the proposed new elevator. Renderings

08/11/2026 Item No.10.

Historic District Commission
Ruby’s Books Commercial Addition Project (DRCL26-00079) Date: August 5, 2026

of the project seen from the ground-level have been provided on Sheet dd05 of the plan set (Attachment 5), as shown in Figure 2 below.

Figure 2 – 3D Renderings from Ground Level (Top / Front View) As was common for emerging settlements in the 1800s, several of the buildings on Sutter Street utilize the Western False Front architectural form wherein the front façade of the building contains a flat parapet, with a gabled roof hidden behind it. In recognition of this historic form of construction , the Historic District Design and Development Guidelines (DDGs) state that , generally in the Sutter Street Subarea , parapets should be used to screen roof and roof top elements. The project will not change the look of the public facing front elevation of the building, a nd the proposed addition and rooftop mechanical well would not be visible from public view on Sutter Street due to screening provided by the existing parapet and roof. The height of building with the proposed addition (appx. 32.5 feet) is anticipated to be lower than the peak height of the Folsom Hotel (703 Sutter Street), located adjacent to the project site to the east. Visual impacts will primarily be at the rear elevation of the building along the alley, where the project is proposed.

On the rear elevation, the project has the appearance of a two-story gabled structure. The rear addition has a similar form to th e rear elevations of other commercial buildings on Sutter Street, as shown in Figure 3 below , and staff have determined that the building form of the rear addition is compatible with other commercial buildings on Sutter Street.

Figure 3 – Rear Elevation Comparison (Project / 726 Sutter Street) The project proposes using vertically oriented, double-hung, gridded windows, compliant

08/11/2026 Item No.10.

Historic District Commission
Ruby’s Books Commercial Addition Project (DRCL26-00079) Date: August 5, 2026

with the window guidelines in the Historic Commercial Design Criteria of the DDGs. This includes using windows that are vertically oriented, with each window not exceeding 5 - foot width, and having a double-hung function.

Overall, the proposed form and design of the project has been determined to be compatible with surrounding historic commercial development in the Sutter Street Subarea, and consistent with the DDGs.

Colors and Materials
The Building Materials Palette of the DDGs provides a list of what is considered appropriate or inappropriate materials for certain building elements. The table below shows whether the proposed exterior materials are considered appropriate in this palette:

Building Materials Palette
(Appendix D of DDGs)
Building Element Proposed Materials Appropriate / Inappropriate Exterior Walls Stucco Cladding
(i.e., Cement Plaster) Appropriate
Roof Materials
(Main Roof) Composition Shingles Appropriate
Roof Materials
(Rear Porch) Corrugated Metal
Appropriate per Section B.14(b)
of the Historic Commercial
Design Criteria of DDGs
Windows Wood Frame with Clear Glass Appropriate
Although the DDGs do not provide specific color recommendations for buildings in the Historic District, with the exception for some building elements, staff have compared the project with the existing building and with nearby commercial buildings to determine the compatibility of the project. Staff’s findings are provided in the table below:

Color Scheme Compatibility
Building Element Proposed Colors Compatibility
Exterior Walls “Sunbleached” (SW 9585) Stucco Consistent with Existing Building Roof Colors
(Main Roof) Black Composition Shingles Compliant with DDGs Roof Colors
(Rear Porch) Dark Bronze Corrugated Metal Compatible with Other Metal Roof Colors on Sutter Street
Window Frames “Iron Ore” (SW 7069) Wood
Frames Consistent with Existing Building
Overall, staff have determined that the proposed project ’s colors and materials are both consistent with the DDGs as well as compatible with both the existing building as well as with surrounding commercial buildings.

08/11/2026 Item No.10.

Historic District Commission
Ruby’s Books Commercial Addition Project (DRCL26-00079) Date: August 5, 2026

Intended Use
As discussed in the Statement of Intended Use provided in Attachment 6, Ruby’s Books intends to use the property as a bookstore, and to use the proposed addition for a children’s section, reading room, and minor associated activities. Bookstores are allowed by right in the Sutter Street Subarea. Condition 11 has been provided stating that should the business propose to have entertainment activities in the future that are subject to FMC

5.90 (Entertainment Permit), that an Entertainment Permit shall be obtained prior to these entertainment activities.

Parking Requirements
Pursuant to Government Code Section 65863.2 ( AB 2097), parking is not required for developments located within 0.5 miles of a public transit stop. As such, the project is not subject to parking requirements. No dedicated parking spaces are currently provided on- site, and customers are anticipated to utilize existing public parking in the vicinity. As the business is relocating from another location in the Sutter Street Subarea, no new or additional parking impacts are anticipated.

Environmental Review
The project is categorically exempt under Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, which exempts additions to existing structures provided that the addition will not result in an increase of more than 10,000 square feet if the project is located in an area where all public services and facilities are available to allow for maximum development permissible in the General Plan, and if the area is not environmentally sensitive (Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 14, § 15301(e)(2).).

The previous use of the property was for an art gallery and studio (retail commercial) and the proposed use is a bookstore (retail commercial) . The project is located in an urban developed area. As the project site involves a 2,280 square -foot addition in an already developed part of the City with access to public services and facilities , such as water, sewer, electricity, and street access; is not located in an environmentally sensitive area ; and results in a negligible expansion of a retail commercial use, the project qualifies for this exemption.

For these same reasons, the project is also exempt from CEQA under Section 15061(b)(3) ( Common Sense Exemption), which provides that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment.

Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. (Cal.

Code Regs. Tit. 14, § 15061(b)(3).)
Based on staff’s analysis of this project, none of the exceptions in Section 15300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines apply to the use of the categorical exemption in this case. These

08/11/2026 Item No.10.

Historic District Commission
Ruby’s Books Commercial Addition Project (DRCL26-00079) Date: August 5, 2026

exceptions include:
a. If the project is located in a Sensitive Environment where there is an impact to an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern; b. If there is a Cumulative Impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place over time is significant;
c. If there are activities where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a Significant Effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances d. If there is damage to scenic resources within a Scenic Highway; e. If the project is located on a Hazardous Waste Site; f. If there is a substantial adverse change in the significance of a Historical Resource.

Analysis: Sensitive Environments
The project is not located in any known sensitive environment and is not anticipated to have an impact on an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern.

Analysis: Cumulative Impact
The project is not anticipated to have a significant cumulative impact in the area over time since the project is limited to the addition of commercial space within what is allowed under the Floor -Area-Ratio ( FAR) specified by the Historic Folsom Mixed-Use (HF) General Plan Designation. Any further expansion would need to be reviewed and approved through design review.

Analysis: Significant Effect
The project is not anticipated to have an unusual or significant impact on the environment, as the project is seeking to expand an existing commercial building with an addition that matches the design and architecture of the building with a height similar to adjacent commercial buildings. Accordingly, there is no possibility that the project would have a significant effect on the environment beyond that of the existing commercial building.

Analysis: Scenic Highway
The project site is not located near a scenic highway nor would the project result in damage to scenic resources within a scenic highway.

Analysis: Hazardous Waste Sites
The project site is not listed on the Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List.

Analysis: Historical Resources
The project site does not contain a listed historic resource, and has been determined ineligible for listing on the National Register. However, the property has associations with a significant local historical figure (Joe Murer ), including a unique architectural style associated with this figure, and may potentially be eligible for listing on the City’s Cultural

08/11/2026 Item No.10.

Historic District Commission
Ruby’s Books Commercial Addition Project (DRCL26-00079) Date: August 5, 2026

Resources Inventory. As the project does not propose to modify the front façade of the building, preserving the architectural significance of the structure, the project is not anticipated to have a substantial adverse effect on the significance of this pot entially eligible historic resource.

Furthermore, a locally listed historic resource exists on an adjacent parcel (The Historic Ronchi Residence at 708 Figueroa Street) across the alley to the south , as shown in Figure 4 below . As the project proposes to match the design and architecture of the existing commercial structure , is approximately the same height as other buildings on Sutter Street, and is located approximately 133 feet away from The Historic Ronchi Residence, visual impacts are anticipated to be limited. Staff have determined that the project would not have an adve rse impact on the historic significance of The Historic Ronchi Residence at 708 Figueroa Street.

Figure 4 – Rochi Residence (Red) and Project Site (Yellow) Public Comments
As of the writing of this report, no public comments have been received.

Conclusion
Staff has determined that the overall design, colors, materials, and layout of the proposed commercial addition can be successfully incorporated into quality commercial design and are compatible with the existing commercial character in the project vicinity and is generally consistent with the Design and Development Guidelines for the Sutter Street Subarea of the Historic Commercial Primary Area. Staff has concluded that the applicant has met the design standards identified in the Folsom Municipal Code and the design guidelines in the Historic District Design and Development Guidelines. Staff recommend approval of the proposed project, subject to the attached conditions of approval. ~133 Feet

08/11/2026 Item No.10.

Historic District Commission
Ruby’s Books Commercial Addition Project (DRCL26-00079) Date: August 5, 2026

Recommendation / Planning Commission Action
Move to recommend confirming staff’s determination that Ruby’s Books Commercial Addition Project is exempt from CEQA under Sections 15301 (Existing Facilities) and 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption); and recommend approval of an application (DRCL26-00079) for design review for a 2,280 square -foot rear commercial addition located at 705 Sutter Street, based on the findings (Findings A -F), and subject to the conditions of approval (Conditions 1-11) attached to this report.

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

B. THE PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN AND THE ZONING CODE OF THE CITY.

CEQA FINDINGS
C. THE PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW UNDER SECTION 15301 (EXISTING FACILITIES) AND UNDER SECTION 15061 (COMMON SENSE) OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) GUIDELINES.

D. NONE OF THE EXCEPTIONS LISTED UNDER CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15300.2 ARE PRESENT.

DESIGN REVIEW FINDINGS
E. THE BUILDING MATERIALS, TEXTURES AND COLORS USED IN THE

PROPOSED PROJECT ARE COMPATIBLE WITH SURROUNDING

DEVELOPMENT AND ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL DESIGN THEME OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

F. THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE HISTORIC

DISTRICT DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL.

08/11/2026 Item No.10.

Historic District Commission
Ruby’s Books Commercial Addition Project (DRCL26-00079) Date: August 5, 2026

ATTACHMENT 2

PROJECT SITE INFORMATION

General Plan Designation Historic Folsom, Mixed-Use (HF) Zoning Sutter Street Subarea (SUT) of the Historic District Zoning District (HD)
Adjacent Uses / Zoning North: Commercial / Sutter Street Subarea (SUT) of the Historic District Zoning District (HD)
South: Residential / Two-Family Zoning District (R-2)
within the Figueroa Subarea (FIG) of the Historic District East: Commercial / Sutter Street Subarea (SUT) of the
Historic District Zoning District (HD)
West: Commercial / Sutter Street Subarea (SUT) of the
Historic District Zoning District (HD)
Site Characteristics The project site contains an existing two-story 4,125 square-foot retail commercial building on a 3,906-square- foot (0.09-acre) parcel.

Applicable Policies and
Rules

FMC Chapter 17.52, HD, Historic District
FMC Section 17.52.300, Design Review
FMC Chapter 17.5 2.510, Sutter Street Subarea Special
Use and Design Standards
Historic District Design and Development Guidelines
(DDG’s)
Government Code Section 6 5863.2, Adoption of
Regulations (Parking Requirements)

08/11/2026 Item No.10.

Historic District Commission
Ruby’s Books Commercial Addition Project (DRCL26-00079) Date: August 5, 2026

Attachment 3
Conditions of Approval

08/11/2026 Item No.10.

Historic District Commission
Ruby’s Books Commercial Addition Project (DRCL26-00079) Date: August 5, 2026

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR
RUBY’S BOOKS COMMERCIAL ADDITION PROJECT (DRCL26-00079) 705 SUTTER STREET, DESIGN REVIEW
Cond.

No.

Mitigation
Measure Condition of Approval When
Required
Responsible
Department

GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

1. Final Development Plans
The applicant shall submit final site development plans to the Community Development Department that shall substantially conform to the exhibits referenced below, as modified by these conditions of approval:
• Plan Set (Attachment 5)

This project approval is for the Ruby’s Books Commercial Addition Project (DRCL26-00079) located at 705 Sutter Street , which includes design review for a 2,280 square -foot rear commercial addition as shown in Attachment 5. Implementation of the project shall be consistent with the above-referenced items as modified by these conditions of approval.

B CD (P)(E)

2. Community Development Department Subsequent Review Building plans shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval to ensure conformance with this approval and with relevant codes, policies, standards and other requirements of the City of Folsom.

B CD (P)(E)(B)

1. 90-Day Protest Period
The conditions of project approval set forth herein include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d), these conditions constitute written notice of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations and other exactions.

The applicant is hereby notified that the 90-day protest period, commencing from the date of approval of the project, has begun. If the applicant fails to file a protest regarding any of the fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements or other exaction contained in this notice, complying with all the requirements of Government Code Section 66020, the applicant will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions.

OG

CD (E)(P)

08/11/2026 Item No.10.

Historic District Commission
Ruby’s Books Commercial Addition Project (DRCL26-00079) Date: August 5, 2026

3. Indemnity for City
The owner/applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City and its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul any approval by the City or any of its agencies, departments, commissions, agents, officers, employees, or legislative body concerning the project. The City will promptly notify the owner/applicant of any such claim, action or proceeding, and will cooperate fully in the defense. The City may, within its unlimited discretion, participate in the defense of any such claim, action or proceeding if both of the following occur:
• The City bears its own attorney’s fees and costs; and • The City defends the claim, action or proceeding in good faith.

The owner/applicant shall not be required to pay or perform any settlement of such claim, action or proceeding unless the settlement is approved by the owner/applicant.

OG

CD (P)(E)(B)

PW, PR, FD,
PD

4. Validity
The project approval granted under this staff report shall remain in effect for two years from final date of approval ( Expires August 11, 2028). Failure to obtain the relevant building or other permits within this time period, without the subsequent extension of this approval, shall result in the termination of this approval. The owner/applicant may file an application with the Community Development Department for an extension not less than 60 days prior to the expiration date of the approval, along with appropriate fees and necessary submittal materials pursuant to Folsom Municipal Code Section 17.52.350. If after approval of this project, a lawsuit is filed which seeks to invalidate any approval, entitlement, demolition permit, sign permit or other construction permit required in connection with any of the activities or construction authorized by the project approvals, or to enjoin the project contemplated herein, or to challenge the issuance by any governmental agency of any environmental document or exemption determination, the project approval shall be tolled during the time that any litigation is pending, including any appeals.

OG CD (P)

DEVELOPMENT COSTS AND FEE REQUIREMENTS

5. Applicable Taxes, Fees, and Charges
The owner/applicant shall pay all applicable taxes, fees and charges at the rate and amount in effect at the time such taxes, fees and charges become due and payable.

B CD(P)(E)

08/11/2026 Item No.10.

Historic District Commission
Ruby’s Books Commercial Addition Project (DRCL26-00079) Date: August 5, 2026

6. Existing Assessments
If applicable, the owner/applicant shall pay off any existing assessments against the property, or file necessary segregation request and pay applicable fees.

B CD(E)

7. Use of Outside Legal Counsel and Consultants
The City, at its sole discretion, may utilize the services of outside legal counsel to assist in the implementation of this project, including, but not limited to, drafting, reviewing and/or revising agreements and/or other documentation for the project. If the City utilizes the services of such outside legal counsel, the applicant shall reimburse the City for all outside legal fees and costs incurred by the City for such services. The applicant may be required, at the sole discretion of the City Attorney, to submit a deposit to the City for these services prior to initiation of the services. The applicant shall be responsible for reimbursement to the City for the services regardless of whether a deposit is required.

OG CD(P)(E)

8. Special Studies
If the City utilizes the services of consultants to prepare special studies or provide specialized design review or inspection services for the project, the applicant shall reimburse the City for actual costs it incurs in utilizing these services, includin g administrative costs for City personnel. A deposit for these services shall be provided prior to initiating review of the improvement plans, or beginning inspection, whichever is applicable.

B CD(P)(E)

ARCHITECTURAL REQUIREMENTS

9. Architectural Requirements
The project shall comply with the following requirements:

a) This approval is for the Ruby’s Books Commercial Addition Project (DRCL26-00079), which includes design review for a 2,280 square -foot rear commercial addition as shown in Attachment 5, located at 705 Sutter Street.

b) Any changes to the level of architectural detailing shown in Attachments 5, if not determined to be substantially consistent with the approved plans by the Community Development Department, shall be subject to a subsequent design review.

c) A Building Permit shall be required.

All Conditions of Approval as outlined herein shall be made as a note or separate sheet on the Construction Drawings.

OG CD (P)(E);
PW

08/11/2026 Item No.10.

Historic District Commission
Ruby’s Books Commercial Addition Project (DRCL26-00079) Date: August 5, 2026

NOISE REQUIREMENT

10. Noise Ordinance
Compliance with the City of Folsom Noise Control Ordinance (FMC 8.42), General Plan Safety & Noise Element and Standard Construction Specifications and Details Section 7.23 is required. Hours of construction operation shall be limited from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekdays and 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays. No construction is permitted on Sundays or holidays. Request to work during days and times not permitted under these regulations may only occur with written permission from the City of Folsom Community Development Director or duly authorized deputy.

I, B CD (P)(E)

11. Entertainment Permit
The Ruby’s Books shall obtain an Entertainment Permit should the business propose to have entertainment activities subject to this permit in accordance with FMC 5.90.

RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT WHEN REQUIRED
CD
(P)
(E)
(B)
(A)
Community Development Department
Planning Division
Engineering Division
Building Division
Arborist Division
I Prior to approval of Improvement Plans
M Prior to approval of Final Map
B Prior to issuance of first Building Permit
O Prior to approval of Occupancy Permit
G Prior to issuance of Grading Permit
PW Public Works Department DC During construction
PR Park and Recreation Department OG On-going requirement PD Police Department
FD Fire Department
UT Utilities

08/11/2026 Item No.10.

Historic District Commission
Ruby’s Books Commercial Addition Project (DRCL26-00079) Date: August 5, 2026

Attachment 4
Vicinity Map

08/11/2026 Item No.10.

08/11/2026 Item No.10.

Historic District Commission
Ruby’s Books Commercial Addition Project (DRCL26-00079) Date: August 5, 2026

Attachment 5
Plan Set

08/11/2026 Item No.10.

PRINTED ON:

MAS | MOJICA ARCHITECTURE STUDIO 514 OAK STREET ROSEVILLE | CALIFORNIA | 95678 916.783.6277 6/16/2026 3:55:46 PM
06/12/26 RUBY'S BOOKS Ruby's Books 705 Sutter Street Folsom, CA 95630 Cover Sheet
dd00 APN: 070 -0105 -010 | COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
PROJECT DATA Ruby's Books returns 705 Sutter Street to active retail use through the adaptive reuse of the existing one-story building and the addition of a new second story for a children's section, event space, and reading room. The addition is conceived as contemporary detailing on a traditional form: a pitched gable roof, stucco cladding, and accent materials at the gable ends — drawn directly from the vocabulary of the 700 block. The new ridge sits higher than the existing roof at a steeper 6:12 pitch to accommodate the second-floor program while maintaining the low-rise, pitched-roof rhythm of the surrounding Historic District. Mechanical equipment is concealed within a recessed roof well at the rear of the building. The project preserves the existing footprint, sidewalk relationship, and address presence on Sutter Street, and complies with the California Historical Building Code.

PROJECT TEAM OWNER Stacy Gould
Ruby's Books
705 Sutter Street
Folsom, CA 95630
530-574-3617
[email protected]
ARCHITECT Edward Mojica SARA / NCARB
514 Oak Street
Roseville, CA 95678
916-765-2956
[email protected]
STRUCTURAL ENGINEER Tim McPartland
ATM Engineering
2525 East Bidwell Street
Folsom, CA 95630
916-859-7300 office
916-844-6828 cell
[email protected]
CONTRACTOR Rod Thayer - President & CEO
OMNI Structures & Management, Inc
102 Center Street
Roseville, CA 95678
Phone: 916-787-1121
[email protected]
VICINITY MAP - 705 SUTTER STREET
Parcel Information APN: 070-0105-010
Address: 705 SUTTER STREET - HISTORIC FOLSOM City: FOLSOM Zip Code: 95630
City Zoning Zone: HD-HISTORIC Parcel Area: 3906 SF / 0.09 AC Gross Building Area (EXISTING / PROPOSED): 3125 sq ft (1st floor) / 3125 sq ft (1st floor) 1000 sq ft (2nd floor) / 3280 sq ft (2nd floor)
4125 sq ft (total) / 6405 sq ft (total) Proposed Second Floor Addition: 2280 sq ft. Year Built: 1915 Stories: 2

08/11/2026 Item No.10.

UP
DN
DN
4' 8' 16' 0 2" 01/8" = 1'-0"
N
HW 105A
KITCHEN 110
STORAGE 105
OFFICE 107
OFFICE 108
OFFICE 109
STORAGE 111
UNDER STAIR STORAGE 100A
JANITOR 106
EXHIBIT SPACE 102 BAR 112
RESTROOM 104
EXHIBIT SPACE 101
STORAGE 103
MAIN EXHIBIT SPACE 100
3dd00.1
3dd00.1
4' 8' 16' 02" 01/8" = 1'-0"
N
OFFICE 201 OFFICE 203
FOYER 200
OFFICE 208
MECHANICAL 211 JANITOR 210
OFFICE 209
HALLWAY 202 STORAGE 206
RESTROOM 207
BREAKROOM 204
STORAGE 205
1/4" / 1'-0" 1/2" / 1'-0"
L1 0' -0"
L2 12' -6"
T.O. PLATE (E) 21' -6"
MAX HEIGHT 29' -0"
(E) SECOND STORY 37' - 0" HOTEL BEYOND
(E) STEPPED PARAPET FOR 705 SUTTER
(E) SLOPED SINGLE PLY ROOFING
(E) MECHANICAL UNITS

APPROXIMATE OUTLINE OF NEW SECOND STORY ADDITION
PRINTED ON:

MAS | MOJICA ARCHITECTURE STUDIO 514 OAK STREET ROSEVILLE | CALIFORNIA | 95678 916.783.6277 6/16/2026 3:55:47 PM
06/12/26 RUBY'S BOOKS Ruby's Books 705 Sutter Street Folsom, CA 95630 Existing Architectural Plans
dd00.1 APN: 070 -0105 -010 | COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
1/8" = 1'-0" dd00.1 1First Floor Existing Architectural Plan 1/8" = 1'-0" dd00.1 2Second Floor Existing Architectural Plan 1/8" = 1'-0" dd00.1 3Existing Building Section

08/11/2026 Item No.10.
1 1
2 H
G
F
E
DC
BA
I
5" / 1'-0" 5" / 1'-0"
3" / 1'-0" 3" / 1'-0" (E) SECOND FLOOR ROOF
(N) MECHANICAL

WELL / ELEVATOR
(N) SECOND FLOOR ROOF
(E) SECOND STORY 36' - 0" NEW CONSTRUCTION 19' - 10" NEW CONSTRUCTION 61' - 6"

29.1'
140'
140'

29.1'
REAR SETBACK 15' - 0" (E) DRIVEWAY
(N) COVERED REAR PORCH
Add03
Bdd03 B1 dd03
J
117' - 7" 7' - 0"
7' - 8 1/2" 8' - 4" 7' - 10 3/4" 0"
105 SF
STORAGE 102
66 SF
ELEVATOR 103
60 SF
ALL GENDER 104 143 SF
STORAGE 106
77 SF
STAFF 107
29 SF
IT 108
83 SF
HALLWAY 105
73 SF
LAUNDRY / JANITOR 110
2062 SF
MAIN FLOOR 100
Retail Space Storage Storage / Staff Vertical Circulation STORAGE 109
ELEVATOR EQ. 103A
1 1
2 H
G
F
E
DC
BA
I
12' - 0"
16' - 2"
Add03 Add03
Bdd03
Bdd03
4' - 0" 5' - 0"
13' - 0"
1' - 0"
B1 dd03
B1 dd03
J
8' - 0"
66 SF
ELEVATOR 203
1779 SF
SECOND FLOOR 200
59 SF
ALL GENDER 204
114 SF
STORAGE 202
72 SF
STAIR 209
Retail Space Storage / Staff Vertical Circulation
27' - 2"
1 1 2
2 H
G
F
E
DC
BA
6"
16' - 10" 16' - 0" 16' - 0" 16' - 0"
I
16' - 0"
Add03
Bdd03 B1 dd03
(E) SECOND FLOOR
(N) SECOND FLOOR
99 SF
OFFICE 213
204 SF
CONFERENCE 217
99 SF
OFFICE 215
212 SF
COMMON AREA 212
108 SF
FOYER 211
RESTROOM 214
J
28' - 0"
1/8" = 1'-0" dd01 2First Floor Architectural Plan 1/8" = 1'-0" dd01 3Second Floor Architectural Plan PRINTED ON:

MAS | MOJICA ARCHITECTURE STUDIO 514 OAK STREET ROSEVILLE | CALIFORNIA | 95678 916.783.6277 6/16/2026 3:55:51 PM
06/12/26 RUBY'S BOOKS Ruby's Books 705 Sutter Street Folsom, CA 95630 Architectural Plans -Proposed
dd01 APN: 070 -0105 -010 | COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
1/8" = 1'-0" dd01 1Site Plan / Roof Plan
N4' 8' 16' 02" 01/8" = 1'-0"
N4' 8' 16' 02" 01/8" = 1'-0"
N4' 8' 16' 02" 01/8" = 1'-0"
705 SUTTER STREET
APN: 070-0105-010
Parcel Area: 3906 SF / 0.09 AC Gross Building Area (EXISTING / PROPOSED): 3125 sq ft (1st floor) / 3125 sq ft (1st floor) 1000 sq ft (2nd floor) / 3280 sq ft (2nd floor)
4125 sq ft (total) / 6405 sq ft (total) Proposed Second Floor Addition: 2280 sq ft. Year Built: 1915 Stories: 2

08/11/2026 Item No.10.
12 PT1 PT2
AC EL
Bdd03 B1 dd03
FRONT ELEVATION - WINDOWS TO REMAIN AS-IS, REPAIR AND REPAINT ONLY. FRONT DOORS TO OPEN OUT IN DIRECTION OF EGRESS. EXTERIOR PAINT TO MATCH COLOR LISTED. 1 2
PT1 PT2
AC EL
RF2
29' - 1"
LT1
Bdd03 B1 dd03
L1 0' -0"
L2 12' -6"
T.O. PLATE 22' -6"
L0 -7' -0"
T.O. PLATE (E) 21' -6"

H G F E DC B AI
MAX HEIGHT 29' -0" P1
EXISTING TWO STORY PORTION 37' - 0"

EL ELEVATOR DOGHOUSE
AC MECH. UNITS PT2 RF1
PT1
PT2 RF2
SECOND STORY ADDITION 80' - 10"
Add03 J
L1 0' -0"
L2 12' -6"
T.O. PLATE 22' -6" T.O. PLATE (E) 21' -6"

HGFEDCBA I
MAX HEIGHT 29' -0"
Add03
J
PRINTED ON:

MAS | MOJICA ARCHITECTURE STUDIO 514 OAK STREET ROSEVILLE | CALIFORNIA | 95678 916.783.6277 6/16/2026 3:55:58 PM
06/12/26 RUBY'S BOOKS Ruby's Books 705 Sutter Street Folsom, CA 95630 Architectural Elevations
dd02 APN: 070 -0105 -010 | COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
3/16" = 1'-0" dd02 NNorth Architectural Building Elevation 3/16" = 1'-0" dd02 SSouth Architectural Building Elevation 3/16" = 1'-0" dd02 EEast Architectural Building Elevation 3/16" = 1'-0" dd02 WWest Architectural Building Elevation PT1 MAIN BODY PAINT PT2 ACCENT PAINT RF2 METAL ROOF OVERHANG RF1 ROOF SHINGLE LT1 WALL SCONCE WWINDOW -SIERRA PACIFIC PREMIUM DOUBLE HUNG TO MATCH FRONT ELEVATION

08/11/2026 Item No.10.

L1 0' -0"
L2 12' -6"
T.O. PLATE 22' -6" T.O. PLATE (E) 21' -6"
1 2
MAX HEIGHT 29' -0"
Bdd03 B1 dd03
L1 0' -0"
L2 12' -6"
T.O. PLATE (E) 21' -6"

HGFEDCBA I
MAX HEIGHT 29' -0"
Add03 (E) BUILDING - SECOND FLOOR (N) CONSTRUCTION @ SECOND FLOOR 36' - 0" MECHANICAL WELL 20' - 7" J
L1 0' -0"
L2 12' -6"
T.O. PLATE 22' -6"

HGFEDCBA I
MAX HEIGHT 29' -0"
Add03
J
PRINTED ON:

MAS | MOJICA ARCHITECTURE STUDIO 514 OAK STREET ROSEVILLE | CALIFORNIA | 95678 916.783.6277 6/16/2026 3:56:01 PM
06/12/26 RUBY'S BOOKS Ruby's Books 705 Sutter Street Folsom, CA 95630 Architectural Sections
dd03 APN: 070 -0105 -010 | COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
3/16" = 1'-0" dd03 ASection A 3/16" = 1'-0" dd03 BSection B 3/16" = 1'-0" dd03 B1 Section B1

08/11/2026 Item No.10.
1 1
2 H
G
F
E
DC
BA
I
B
4 3
2 9
7 568
A
J
PRINTED ON:

MAS | MOJICA ARCHITECTURE STUDIO 514 OAK STREET ROSEVILLE | CALIFORNIA | 95678 916.783.6277 6/16/2026 3:56:03 PM
06/12/26 RUBY'S BOOKS Ruby's Books 705 Sutter Street Folsom, CA 95630 Photographs
dd04 APN: 070 -0105 -010 | COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
1" = 10'-0" dd04 1Site Plan / Roof Plan
view A
view 2 view 3 view 4 view 5
view 6 view 7 view 8 view 9
view B

08/11/2026 Item No.10.

PRINTED ON:

MAS | MOJICA ARCHITECTURE STUDIO 514 OAK STREET ROSEVILLE | CALIFORNIA | 95678 916.783.6277 6/16/2026 3:56:08 PM
06/12/26 RUBY'S BOOKS Ruby's Books 705 Sutter Street Folsom, CA 95630 3d Images
dd05 APN: 070 -0105 -010 | COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
dd05 13D View 1 dd05 23D - EXISTING
dd05 33D - PROPOSED
dd05 43D View 12

08/11/2026 Item No.10.

Historic District Commission
Ruby’s Books Commercial Addition Project (DRCL26-00079) Date: August 5, 2026

Attachment 6
Statement of Intended Use

08/11/2026 Item No.10.
1 Nathan Stroud
From: [email protected]
Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2026 12:09 PM
To: Nathan Stroud
Subject: Re: DRCL26-00079: Addition and renovation of 705 Sutter Street Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

From Stacy:

Hi Nathan,

Thanks for reaching out — happy to clarify how we plan to use the space.

Ruby's Books has been part of the Folsom Historic District for nearly six years, and at 705 Sutter we'll simply continue hosting the same kinds of events we've always held in our store: conversations and signings with authors, craft nights, and such.

Please let me know if there's anything else you need ahead of the hearing.

Best,
Stacy

Thanks!

Ed

Edward Mojica, Registered Architect [ca / co / nv] | SARA | NCARB | NOMA C28430 | ARC.00409021 | NV6775
President | CEO

514 Oak Street, Roseville, CA 95678
E [email protected]

T 916.783.6277
C 916.765.2956

From: Nathan Stroud <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2026 4:29 PM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: DRCL26-00079: Addition and renovation of 705 Sutter Street

08/11/2026 Item No.10.

08/11/2026 Item No.10.

Historic District Commission
Ruby’s Books Commercial Addition Project (DRCL26-00079) Date: August 5, 2026

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR
RUBY’S BOOKS COMMERCIAL ADDITION PROJECT (DRCL26-00079) 705 SUTTER STREET, DESIGN REVIEW
Cond.

No.

Mitigation
Measure Condition of Approval When
Required
Responsible
Department

GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

1. Final Development Plans
The applicant shall submit final site development plans to the Community Development Department that shall substantially conform to the exhibits referenced below, as modified by these conditions of approval:
• Plan Set (Attachment 5)

This project approval is for the Ruby’s Books Commercial Addition Project (DRCL26-00079) located at 705 Sutter Street , which includes design review for a 2,280 square -foot rear commercial addition as shown in Attachment 5. Implementation of the project shall be consistent with the above-referenced items as modified by these conditions of approval.

B CD (P)(E)

2. Community Development Department Subsequent Review Building plans shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval to ensure conformance with this approval and with relevant codes, policies, standards and other requirements of the City of Folsom.

B CD (P)(E)(B)

3. 90-Day Protest Period
The conditions of project approval set forth herein include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d), these conditions constitute written notice of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations and other exactions.

The applicant is hereby notified that the 90-day protest period, commencing from the date of approval of the project, has begun. If the applicant fails to file a protest regarding any of the fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements or other exaction contained in this notice, complying with all the requirements of Government Code Section 66020, the applicant will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions.

OG

CD (E)(P)

08/11/2026 Item No.10.

Historic District Commission
Ruby’s Books Commercial Addition Project (DRCL26-00079) Date: August 5, 2026

4. Indemnity for City
The owner/applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City and its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul any approval by the City or any of its agencies, departments, commissions, agents, officers, employees, or legislative body concerning the project. The City will promptly notify the owner/applicant of any such claim, action or proceeding, and will cooperate fully in the defense. The City may, within its unlimited discretion, participate in the defense of any such claim, action or proceeding if both of the following occur:
• The City bears its own attorney’s fees and costs; and • The City defends the claim, action or proceeding in good faith.

The owner/applicant shall not be required to pay or perform any settlement of such claim, action or proceeding unless the settlement is approved by the owner/applicant.

OG

CD (P)(E)(B)

PW, PR, FD,
PD

5. Validity
The project approval granted under this staff report shall remain in effect for two years from final date of approval ( Expires August 11, 2028). Failure to obtain the relevant building or other permits within this time period, without the subsequent extension of this approval, shall result in the termination of this approval. The owner/applicant may file an application with the Community Development Department for an extension not less than 60 days prior to the expiration date of the approval, along with appropriate fees and necessary submittal materials pursuant to Folsom Municipal Code Section 17.52.350. If after approval of this project, a lawsuit is filed which seeks to invalidate any approval, entitlement, demolition permit, sign permit or other construction permit required in connection with any of the activities or construction authorized by the project approvals, or to enjoin the project contemplated herein, or to challenge the issuance by any governmental agency of any environmental document or exemption determination, the project approval shall be tolled during the time that any litigation is pending, including any appeals.

OG CD (P)

DEVELOPMENT COSTS AND FEE REQUIREMENTS

6. Applicable Taxes, Fees, and Charges
The owner/applicant shall pay all applicable taxes, fees and charges at the rate and amount in effect at the time such taxes, fees and charges become due and payable.

B CD(P)(E)

08/11/2026 Item No.10.

Historic District Commission
Ruby’s Books Commercial Addition Project (DRCL26-00079) Date: August 5, 2026

7. Existing Assessments
If applicable, the owner/applicant shall pay off any existing assessments against the property, or file necessary segregation request and pay applicable fees.

B CD(E)

8. Use of Outside Legal Counsel and Consultants
The City, at its sole discretion, may utilize the services of outside legal counsel to assist in the implementation of this project, including, but not limited to, drafting, reviewing and/or revising agreements and/or other documentation for the project. If the City utilizes the services of such outside legal counsel, the applicant shall reimburse the City for all outside legal fees and costs incurred by the City for such services. The applicant may be required, at the sole discretion of the City Attorney, to submit a deposit to the City for these services prior to initiation of the services. The applicant shall be responsible for reimbursement to the City for the services regardless of whether a deposit is required.

OG CD(P)(E)

9. Special Studies
If the City utilizes the services of consultants to prepare special studies or provide specialized design review or inspection services for the project, the applicant shall reimburse the City for actual costs it incurs in utilizing these services, includin g administrative costs for City personnel. A deposit for these services shall be provided prior to initiating review of the improvement plans, or beginning inspection, whichever is applicable.

B CD(P)(E)

ARCHITECTURAL REQUIREMENTS

10. Architectural Requirements
The project shall comply with the following requirements:

a) This approval is for the Ruby’s Books Commercial Addition Project (DRCL26-00079), which includes design review for a 2,280 square -foot rear commercial addition as shown in Attachment 5, located at 705 Sutter Street.

b) Any changes to the level of architectural detailing shown in Attachments 5, if not determined to be substantially consistent wit h the approved plans by the Community Development Department, shall be subject to a subsequent design review.

c) A Building Permit shall be required.

d) The rear porch shall utilize a standing seam metal roof, as shown in the elevations and renderings provided in Attachment 5. (This condition was added at the 8/5/26 Historic District Commission meeting)
OG CD (P)(E);
PW

08/11/2026 Item No.10.

Historic District Commission
Ruby’s Books Commercial Addition Project (DRCL26-00079) Date: August 5, 2026

All Conditions of Approval as outlined herein shall be made as a note or separate sheet on the Construction Drawings.

NOISE REQUIREMENT

11. Noise Ordinance
Compliance with the City of Folsom Noise Control Ordinance (FMC 8.42), General Plan Safety & Noise Element and Standard Construction Specifications and Details Section 7.23 is required. Hours of construction operation shall be limited from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekdays and 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays. No construction is permitted on Sundays or holidays. Request to work during days and times not permitted under these regulations may only occur with written permission from the City of Folsom Community Development Director or duly authorized deputy.

I, B CD (P)(E)

12. Entertainment Permit
The Ruby’s Books shall obtain an Entertainment Permit should the business propose to have entertainment activities subject to this permit in accordance with FMC 5.90.

OG CD (P)

RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT WHEN REQUIRED
CD
(P)
(E)
(B)
(A)
Community Development Department
Planning Division
Engineering Division
Building Division
Arborist Division
I Prior to approval of Improvement Plans
M Prior to approval of Final Map
B Prior to issuance of first Building Permit
O Prior to approval of Occupancy Permit
G Prior to issuance of Grading Permit
PW Public Works Department DC During construction
PR Park and Recreation Department OG On-going requirement PD Police Department
FD Fire Department
UT Utilities

08/11/2026 Item No.10.

Folsom City Council
Staff Report

1 MEETING DATE:

8/11/2026
AGENDA SECTION:

Consent Calendar
SUBJECT: Resolution No. 11678 – A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Purchase Agreement with Motorola
Solutions to Procure Replacement Portable Radios and Ancillary Equipment for a Total Not to Exceed Amount of $144,160 from the Fire Vehicle/Equipment Fund (Fund 608)

FROM: Fire Department

RECOMMENDATION / CITY COUNCIL ACTION

The Fire Department recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 11678 – a resolution authorizing the City Manager to e xecute a purchase agreement with Motorola Solutions for the procurement of twenty (20) replacement portable radios and related accessory equipment in an amount not to exceed $144,160 from the Fire Vehicle/Equipment Fund (Fund 608).

BACKGROUND / ISSUE

The Fire Department relies on Motorola portable radios as its primary means of fireground and emergency service communications. Reliable radio communications are a core life- safety requirement for incident command and coordination, including emergency traf fic, mayday notifications, evacuation and withdrawal communications, unit accountability, and safe, effective operations during rapidly evolving incidents.

In 2019, Motorola advised customers that the Department's current radio model was entering end-of-support due to the release of newer technologies and system enhancements that are not compatible with the existing platform. As a result, Motorola no longer provides the programming support (including current code plug support) or the hardware and parts needed to maintain and repair these units. Over the past several years, the Fire Department has exhausted available aftermarket repair options and is now experiencing an increasing number of radio failures that cannot be repaired or returned to service.

08/11/2026 Item No.11.
2 POLICY / RULE

Section 2.36.080, Award of Contracts of the Folsom Municipal Code states, in part, that contracts for supplies, equipment, services, and construction with an estimated value of $77,426 or greater shall be awarded by City Council.

Section 2.36.140, Sole Source P rocurement of the Folsom Municipal Code states p rior to submitting a purchase request, the requesting department shall conduct a survey of available sources to determine whether there is only one (1) source for the required supply, equipment, service or construction item. Upon review and approval by the Purchasing Agent, the Finance Director and City Manager, a contract may be awarded without competition. The purchasing agent, or his/her designee, shall conduct negotiations, as appropriate, as to price, delivery and terms. The requesting department shall prepare a waiver of bid and submit it to the purchasing agent for filing with the city clerk. (Ord. 723 § 3 (part), 1991)

Because Motorola portable radios and their programming are proprietary and must be compatible with the City's existing radio infrastructure, this purchase is recommended as a sole-source procurement consistent with the sole -source provisions of the City's purchasing policy.

ANALYSIS

As radios fail and are removed from service, the Department's available inventory is reduced, limiting its ability to provide dependable communications to personnel assigned to first -out emergency response units and command staff. Continued attrition will further reduce the Department's ability to maintain adequate radio coverage on emergency incidents and during multi-unit operations, increasing risk to personnel and negatively affecting incident coordination.

The Department has pursued grant funding for a full replacement of the radio platform in recent years; however, those applications were not successful. To immediately address this escalating risk and maintain operational continuity, staff is requesting approval to purchase twenty (20) portable radios. This purchase represents a minimum, targeted replacement to restore reliable communications capability for daily operations. These radios will be assigned to all first -out emergency response uni ts, including Chief Officers, ensuring dependable fireground communications and restoring an appropriate level of operational readiness.

Approval of this request will reduce risk to personnel, support effective incident command, and maintain the Department's ability to deliver safe and reliable emergency services to the community.

08/11/2026 Item No.11.
3 FINANCIAL IMPACT

If approved, the purchase agreement with Motorola Solutions for twenty (20) portable radios, including associated accessories, programming, and applicable taxes and fees in the amount of $144,160 will be funded through the Fire Vehicle/Equipment Fund (Fund 608) . Sufficient funds are budgeted and available in the Fire Vehicle/Equipment Fund (Fund 608) for the cost of the agreement.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

This action is not considered a project under Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, and as such is exempt from environmental review.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution No. 11678 – A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Purchase Agreement with Motorola Solutions to Procure Replacement Portable Radios and Ancillary Equipment for a Total Not to Exceed Amount of $144,160 from the Fire Vehicle/Equipment Fund (Fund 608)

2. Motorola Solutions Quote-3545876

Submitted,

Jason Solak, Fire Chief

08/11/2026 Item No.11.

Attachment 1

Resolution No. 11678 – A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Purchase Agreement with Motorola Solutions to Procure Replacement Portable Radios and Ancillary Equipment for a Total Not to Exceed Amount of $144,160 from the Fire Vehicle/Equipment Fund (Fund 608)

08/11/2026 Item No.11.

Resolution No. 11678

RESOLUTION NO. 11678

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A

PURCHASE AGREEMENT WITH MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS TO PROCURE

REPLACEMENT PORTABLE RADIOS AND ANCILLARY EQUIPMENT FOR A TOTAL NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT OF $144,160 FROM THE FIRE
VEHICLE/EQUIPMENT FUND (FUND 608)

WHEREAS, the Fire Department relies on Motorola portable radios as its primary means of fireground and emergency service communications; and

WHEREAS, as radios fail and are removed from service, the Department's available inventory is reduced, limiting its ability to provide dependable communications to personnel assigned to first-out emergency response units and command staff; and

WHEREAS, these replacement radios will be assigned to all first-out emergency response units, including Chief Officers, ensuring dependable fireground communications and restoring an appropriate level of operational readiness; and

WHEREAS, the 20 replacement portable radios and ancillary equipment purchase agreement total does not exceed the amount of $144,160; and

WHEREAS, sufficient funds are budgeted and available in the Fire Vehicle/Equipment Fund (Fund 608); and

WHEREAS, the agreement will be in a form acceptable to the City Attorney;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Folsom authorizes the City Manager to execute a purchase agreement with Motorola Solutions to procure replacement portable radios and ancillary equipment for a total not to exceed amount of $144,160 from the Fire Vehicle/Equipment Fund (Fund 608).

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 11
th 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

08/11/2026 Item No.11.

Attachment 2

Motorola Solutions Quote-3545876

08/11/2026 Item No.11.

Billing Address:

FOLSOM FIRE DEPARTMENT

FOLSOM FIRE DEPT
535 GLENN DR
FOLSOM, CA 95630
US

Shipping Address:

FIRE DEPARTMENT
535 GLENN DR
FOLSOM, CA 95630
US

Quote Date:03/13/2026
Expiration Date:07/26/2026
Quote Created By:

JAMES WYLIE
JAMES.WYLIE@
motorolasolutions.com
972-837-0008
End Customer:

FOLSOM FIRE DEPARTMENT
Daniel Rotheram
[email protected]
916.996.9185

Contract:  22575 - SACRAMENTO, CA
Payment Terms:30 NET

Summary:

Any sales transaction resulting from Motorola's quote is based on and subject to the applicable Motorola Standard Terms and Conditions, notwithstanding terms and conditions on purchase orders or other Customer ordering documents.

Motorola Standard Terms and Conditions are found at www.motorolasolutions.com/product-terms.

Line #

Item Number

Description

Qty

List Price

Disc %

Sale Price

Ext. Sale Price

APX™ 6000 Series

APX6000 XE

1 H98UCF9PW6BN

PORTABLE RADIO APX6000
700/800 MODEL 2.5

20 $3,924.00

25.0%

$2,943.00

$58,860.00

1a

G996AU

ADD: PROGRAMMING OVER
P25 (OTAP)

20 $118.00

25.0%

$88.50

$1,770.00

1b

Q667BB

ADD: ADP ONLY (NON-P25

CAP COMPLIANT) (US
ONLY)

20 $0.00

0.0%

$0.00

$0.00

1c

Q361AR

ADD: P25 9600 BAUD

TRUNKING

20 $353.00

25.0%

$264.75

$5,295.00

1d

QA02006AA

PORTABLE RADIO ENH:

APX6000XE RUGGED RADIO

20 $942.00

25.0%

$706.50

$14,130.00

1e

Q58AL

ADD: 3Y ESSENTIAL

SERVICE

20 $184.00

0.0%

$184.00

$3,680.00

1f

QA07576AB

ALT: TIA4950 BATT IMPRES
2 LIION 4600MAH
(PMNN4573A)

20 $204.48

25.0%

$153.36

$3,067.20

1g

H38BT

ADD: SMARTZONE

OPERATION

20 $1,412.00

25.0%

$1,059.00

$21,180.00

QUOTE-3545876
APX6000 XE (20)

Any sales transaction following Motorola's quote is based on and subject to the terms and conditions of the valid and executed written contract between Customer and Motorola (the ""Underlying Agreement"") that authorizes Customer to purchase equipment and/or services or license software (collectively ""Products""). If no Underlying Agreement exists between Motorola and Customer, then Motorola's Standard Terms of Use and Motorola's Standard Terms and Conditions of Sales and Supply shall govern the purchase of the Products.

Motorola Solutions, Inc.: 500 West Monroe, United States - 60661 ~ #: 36-1115800

08/11/2026 Item No.11.

Line #

Item Number

Description

Qty

List Price

Disc %

Sale Price

Ext. Sale Price

1h

QA09113AB

ADD: BASELINE RELEASE
SW

20 $0.00

0.0%

$0.00

$0.00

1i

QA01427AB

ALT: IMPACT GREEN

HOUSING

20 $30.00

25.0%

$22.50

$450.00

1j

Q806BM

ADD: ASTRO DIGITAL CAI

OPERATION

20 $607.00

25.0%

$455.25

$9,105.00

1k

QA01768AA

SOFTWARE LICENSE ENH:

ENHANCED ZONE BANK

20 $89.00

25.0%

$66.75

$1,335.00

2 PMMN4152B

XVE500 DIV 1 REMOTE

SPEAKER MIC, HIGH

IMPACT GREEN WITHOUT

KNOB, UL

20 $756.00

26.0%

$559.44

$11,188.80

3 PMNN4573A

PORTABLE RADIO BATTERY
IMPRES 2 LI-ION TIA4950 R
IP68 4600T

20 $252.00

26.0%

$186.48

$3,729.60

Subtotal

$133,790.60

Estimated Tax

$10,368.77

Grand Total
$144,159.37(USD)

Notes:

QUOTE-3545876
APX6000 XE (20)

Any sales transaction following Motorola's quote is based on and subject to the terms and conditions of the valid and executed written contract between Customer and Motorola (the ""Underlying Agreement"") that authorizes Customer to purchase equipment and/or services or license software (collectively ""Products""). If no Underlying Agreement exists between Motorola and Customer, then Motorola's Standard Terms of Use and Motorola's Standard Terms and Conditions of Sales and Supply shall govern the purchase of the Products.

Motorola Solutions, Inc.: 500 West Monroe, United States - 60661 ~ #: 36-1115800

08/11/2026 Item No.11.

Folsom City Council
Staff Report

1 MEETING DATE:

8/11/2026
AGENDA SECTION:

Consent Calendar
ITEM TITLE: Resolution No. 11681 - A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Agreement with Stertil-Koni USA, Inc. for $99,511.75 from the Solid Waste Operating Fund (Fund 540) for the Purchase of Mobile Column Lifts for Heavy Duty Vehicle Repairs

FROM: Utilities Department

RECOMMENDATION / CITY COUNCIL ACTION

The Utilities Department recommends that the City Council pass and adopt Resolution No. 11681 - A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Exec ute an Agreement with Stertil-Koni USA, Inc. for $99,511.75 from the Solid Waste Operating Fund (Fund 540) for the Purchase of Mobile Column Lifts for Heavy Duty Vehicle Repairs.

BACKGROUND / ISSUE

The Utilities Department maintains a fleet of vehic les and equipment to provide efficient and reliable service throughout the city. A safe and reliable lift system is required to perform inspections, maintenance, and repairs of the heavy-duty fleet. The Fleet Division relies on two sets of six mobile column lifts to support this operation. Currently one of the sets is over 20 years old, has become obsolete and replacement parts are no lo nger available. The Division replaced the other set of similar condition last fiscal year; ho wever, that set had to be retained to use as spare parts for the old set that is still in operation. The extra set of lifts is stored in a service bay making that space unavailable for repairs. This purchase will improve productivity and safety by providing staff with modern and reliable tools and free up sh op space by allowing for the disposal of two complete sets of lifts.

The greatest need for the mobile column lifts syste m comes from the Waste and Recycling Division (Solid Waste). The Solid Waste fleet utilizes over 96% of the labor hours that require the mobile column lift system. To continue supporting t he Solid Waste fleet, the department is requesting authorization to purchase a new mobile c olumn lift system capable of raising these

08/11/2026 Item No.12.
2 vehicles off the ground to a height sufficient that repairs to the underside are feasible in a safe manner.

POLICY / RULE

In accordance with Chapter 2.36 of the Folsom Munic ipal Code, supplies, equipment, services, and construction with a value of $77,426 or greater shall be awarded by City Council. The City will dispose of surplus property in accordance with Section 2.36.220 of the Folsom Municipal Code.

Section 2.36.170 of the Folsom Municipal Code permi ts cooperative purchasing agreements for the procurement of any supplies, equipment, service , or construction with one or more public procurement units in accordance with an agreement entered into or between the participants.

ANALYSIS

Sourcewell is a national cooperative purchasing ent ity of which the City of Folsom is a member.

The city has purchased numerous items through Sourc ewell. Steril-Koni USA, Inc. has a current contract with Sourcewell for mobile column lifts at a price that has been assessed to be fair, reasonable, and competitive. Municipal Maintenance Equipment is the local representative and distributor for Steril-Koni USA, Inc. Sourcewell contract number #121223-SKI will be utilized for the purchase of Steril-Koni USA, Inc. mobile column lifts.

FINANCIAL IMPACT

If approved the agreement with Steril-Koni USA for the purchase of mobile column lifts for heavy duty vehicle repairs would be funded through the So lid Waste Operating Fund (Fund 540).

Sufficient funds are budgeted and available in the Fiscal Year 2026-27 Solid Waste Operating Fund (Fund 540) for the purchase. The department is requesting that the contract be authorized for a not to exceed amount of $99,511.75. This price includes taxes and delivery.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

This action is exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. (CEQA).

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution No. 11681 – A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Agreement with Steril-Koni USA, Inc. for $99,511.75 from the Solid Waste Operating Fund (Fund 540) for the Purchase of Mobile Column Lifts for Heavy Duty Vehicle Repairs

2. Quote and specifications from Stertil-Koni USA, Inc. for a set of six column lifts.

Submitted,

08/11/2026 Item No.12.
3 Marcus Yasutake, Utilities Director

08/11/2026 Item No.12.

Attachment 1

08/11/2026 Item No.12.

Resolution No. 11681

RESOLUTION NO. 11681

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH STERTIL-KONI USA, INC. FOR $99,511.75 FROM THE SOLID WASTE OPERATING FUND (FUND 540) FOR THE PURCHASE OF MOBILE

COLUMN LIFTS FOR HEAVY DUTY VEHICLE REPAIRS

WHEREAS, the Utilities Department requires a lift system ca pable of lifting heavy-duty vehicles to inspect, maintain, and repair the city’s heavy-duty fleet; and

WHEREAS, the current mobile column lift system is obsolete; and

WHEREAS, most of the demand for the mobile column lift syste m supports the Waste and Recycling Division operations; and

WHEREAS, sufficient funds are budgeted and available in the Fiscal Year 2026-27 Solid Waste Operating Fund (Fund 540); and

WHEREAS, staff recommends the execution of a contract with Steril-Koni USA, Inc. for the purchase of new mobile column lifts; and

WHEREAS , the agreement will be in a form acceptable to the City Attorney:

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Folsom authorizes the City Manager to execute an Agreement with Stertil-Koni USA, Inc. for $99,511.75 from the Solid Waste Operating Fund (Fund 540) for the Purchase of Mobile Column Lifts for Heavy Duty Vehicle Repairs

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 11
th 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

08/11/2026 Item No.12.

Attachment 2

08/11/2026 Item No.12.

QUOTE
Stertil-Koni USA, Inc.
200 Log Canoe Circle
Stevensville, MD 21666
(410) 643-9001
Quote #: SK-170
Date: 24 Jul 2026
Expires: 23 Aug 2026
RSM: Ron Reazer
Billing Address
City of Folsom, CA
Marie McKeeth
50 Natoma Street, Folsom, CA, USA
[email protected]
+19164390650
Shipping Address
City of Folsom, CA
Marie McKeeth
50 Natoma Street, Folsom, CA, USA
[email protected]
+19164390650
Contract: Sourcewell Contract # 121223-SKI
Subcontract: Contract #
Part Description Qty Price Discount Line Total
ST-1085-3FWA ST1085 MODELS, WIRELESS

EBRIGHT CONTROLS WITH

SYNTHETIC FIXED FRONT
WHEELS Set of 6 - 111,000lbs
capacity, 24 volts DC, control
box on every column. Adj forks
1 $124,194.31 29% $88,177.96
Subtotal $88,177.96
Tax (7.75%) $6,833.79
Shipping $4,500
Grand Total $99,511.75
Comments
Sourcewell Member Account # 90124
Local Distributor
Distributor Account: VME
Distributor Contact: Bryce Newell

08/11/2026 Item No.12.

Email: [email protected]
Phone: 19163960880
Standard Terms and Conditions

1. Purchase Orders MUST be issued to Stertil- Koni USA, Inc., not the Local Distributor. Please submit Purchase Orders to [email protected].

2. Purchase Orders must be issued on a company letterhead and must contain contact information, billing address, shipping address, phone number, and email.

3. Purchase Orders must reference the quote number, item numbers, pricing, quantities, and applicable contract information shown on this quote.

4. Product availability and proposed delivery date will be confirmed after receipt of order.

5. Stertil-Koni is responsible for collecting sales tax in the following states: CA, FL, HI, MD, NY , and WA.

Customers outside of these states are responsible for any applicable sales or use tax.

08/11/2026 Item No.12.

STERTIL

SUPERIOR SOLUTIONS
Superior flexible
solutions with an

8.5 ton or 10.0 ton
lifting capacity

MOBILE COLUMN LIFT
ST 1085 - ST 1100

08/11/2026 Item No.12.

Wireless…
Our wireless mobile column lifts provide the ebright control solution for situations where the lifts need to be moved regularly. Using the innovative ID key, you can control up to 32 columns, each with a lifting capacity of 8.5 tons (ST 1085) or 10 tons (ST 1100) in a single setup.

In most cases, the special deep cycle batteries only need to be recharged every two weeks. No time is wasted
connecting up cables and the mechanic has maximum
access to the vehicle, without any tripping hazard.

The Stertil Group provides customised
and technically advanced solutions
for heavy-duty lifting requirements
and loading bay equipment for
customers worldwide, including
the best possible service from
skilled local partners. These superior
solutions are conceived, developed
and implemented by a team of
professional specialists with unique
expertise. Thanks to its quality
people, its entirely in-house
expertise and its international
organisation, Stertil-Koni is the
worldwide leader in the field
of heavy-duty lifts.
… or cabled, it’s up to you
If you predominantly work in a fixed location the cabled mobile column lifts could be the best solution for you.

This setup offers the possibility to connect up to
32 columns into a single configuration. The cabled
versions also has a lifting capacity of 8.5 tons or 10 tons per column. Extra strong drive-over cables are optionally available for these cabled column lifts. All interconnection cables are equipped with heavy-duty plugs at both ends.

Superior
Solutions

08/11/2026 Item No.12.

Both the wireless and the cabled column lifts are equipped with a control panel on each individual column. Columns can be operated individually, in pairs or simultaneously as a complete set with the touch of a button. Each column
can therefore be used at any given location.

Full-colour touch screen control
The revolutionary ebright Smart Control System
combines intuitive ease of use with maximum visual
information about the lifting process. The main advantages:
• Touch screen control, works even when wearing gloves • User-configured options, such as choice of language, safety warnings, scheduled maintenance
• Full-colour 7” screen, graphically highly attractive • All relevant information available at a glance
• Customizable ID-Key to prevent unauthorized operation • Wireless Mesh network for optimal connectivity
TOUCH
SCREEN

WIRELESS
Wireless mobile
column lifts
with ebright Smart
Control System

08/11/2026 Item No.12.

Simple recharging
The wireless columns are easy to charge by means of
a 230 V wall socket. Cabled mobile columns operate from a standard 400 V supply with other voltages available.

Fast lifting and lowering
The ST 1085 and ST 1100 reach their maximum lifting
height of 1,850 mm in just 94 seconds, making them
one of the fastest mobile column lifts in the world.

Reliable hydraulic technology
• Long usable life of the column with minimal repair
and maintenance due to reduced friction
• Stringent testing before leaving factory
• Manual lowering in case of a power outage
• Maximum protection of the cylinder and
seal against damage
Adjustable pick-up forks
ST 1085 mobile column lifts have a fork length of 350 mm and are therefore perfect for picking up a variety of vehicles even vehicles with super single tyres in a safe and secure manner. The fork length for the ST 1100 mobile column lift is 300 mm.

Retractable wheels
Both the wireless and the cabled mobile column lifts are available with retractable wheels. This unique Stertil-Koni design is the best available on the market. This prevents high point loading on the floor and reduces the floor surface pressure by a factor of 10. The system is fast, efficient, very stable and extremely reliable.

Adjustable lowering speed
Do you want to lower the vehicle more slowly, so that
you have more control when lowering onto axle stands?
This is easily done at the high resolution touch screen.

08/11/2026 Item No.12.

Well thought out
in all aspects
Unique synchronisation
The synchronisation system is activated at a height
difference of just 15 mm. This ensures a safe and smooth- running lifting and lowering cycle, even in cases where the distribution of the vehicle load is extremely uneven.

Lifetime guarantee
The innovative synthetic runner wheels within the column come with a lifetime parts guarantee.

Easy to move
Stertil-Koni mobile column lifts really are ‘mobile’.

Thanks to the synthetic wheels and hydraulic pallet truck mechanism with patented overload protection, the column is easy to move.

Safe working space
As an extra safety feature, we have also designed ample working space between the column and the vehicle.

Even if there is a problem with the air suspension,
the vehicle should not come into contact with the column.

MAX 32 LINKED

COLUMNS

ADJUSTABLE

LOWERING SPEED
UNIQUE

SYNCHRONISATION
SYSTEM
MAX
32 OVERLOAD

PROTECTION

08/11/2026 Item No.12.

High resolution
7" touch screen
Intuitive controls
• Tracking of specific operations and
information codes
• Intuitive controls with actual data about the lift:
- Indication for Single, All or Pair operation mode
- Information about how many columns are
in the set (up to 32 columns)
- Actual lifting height displayed
- Lowering speed can be manually adjusted
on the touch screen
- Battery status information
- Customizable ID-Key to prevent unauthorized
operation
• Wireless Mesh network with continous active
channel search offering optimal connectivity
• High resolution 7” touch screen
• Owner/User configurable system with user ID key
- Individual user settings for setting language
and units
- Protection against unauthorized use due to
personalised ID key
• Maintenance notifications
• Visual display of maximum
programmable lifting height if set
• Warning & failure information
• Operation manual on-screen available if required
Features

08/11/2026 Item No.12.

Everything
under
control
Overview of ST 1085 – ST 1100
models
ebright
wireless
ST 1085-FWA
ST 1100-FWA
ebright
wireless
ST 1085-RWA
ST 1100-RWA
ebright
cabled
ST 1085-FSA
ST 1100-FSA
ebright
cabled
ST 1085-RSA
ST 1100-RSA
ebright Smart Control System with a control box
on each individual mobile column • • • •
Touch screen with important information about
the system e.g. lifting height, operation mode • • • •
Wireless Mesh network with continuous active
channel search offering optimal connectivity
• •
These columns utilise a power outlet in the
workshop and communicate with each other via
interconnecting cables
• •
Adjustable lowering speed for slow or
normal lowering
• • • •
Hydraulic pallet truck mechanism with patented
overload protection
• • • •
350 mm adjustable fork, suitable for
super single tyres
ST 1085 ST 1085 ST 1085 ST 1085
300 mm adjustable fork ST 1100 ST 1100 ST 1100 ST 1100
Fixed synthetic wheels that reduce the floor
surface pressure
• •
Retractable synthetic wheels integrated into the
base frame, for 10x less surface pressure
• •

08/11/2026 Item No.12.
270
845
1180
350*
1120
240-560
880
1240
350*
1120
240-560
100
3650
2465
1850
150
270
100
3650
2465
1850150
a member of the Stertil Group
95003102 ST 1085 - ST 1100 GB 02-2017. Stertil is a registered trademark of Stertil B.V.. We reserve the right to make changes in specifications without notice and without making changes retroactive.

Technical specifications
Lifting capacity: 8,500 kg or 10,000 kg
Lift system: hydraulic lifting system with micro-
processor-controlled synchronisation
Lifting height: maximum 1,850 mm, automatic stop
at the highest position
Lifting time: 94 seconds
Motor rating: 2.2 / 3.0 kW per column
(Cabled / Wireless)
Weight: 615 kg per column (Wireless)
Column lift height: 2,465 mm

Highest safety requirements
• ANSI/ALI-ALCTV certified (USA), CSA certified
(Canada), CE certified (Europe).
• Independent mechanical locking system engages at
125 mm above floor level. Locking pawl engaged by
gravity. The locking system is always active, even when the column is turned off.
• Locking profile with locking increments of just 35 mm. • Synchronisation between the mobile lifting columns
starts at a height difference of 15 mm.
• Automatic overload protection.
• Low voltage control panel.
• Each column is equipped with an emergency stop.
• Each individual mobile lifting column is tested prior to leaving the factory.
• Splash-proof electrical system (IP 65).

Accessories & options
Stertil-Koni offers an extensive package of accessories & options tailored to fit your specific needs. More information? For more information about the ST 1085, ST 1100,
or any of Stertil-Koni's other top products, please
do not hesitate to contact us. We will be pleased
to assist you.

Fixed front wheels Adjustable forks
Adjustable forksRetractable front wheels
* For the ST 1100:
300 mm
Stertil B.V.

P .O.Box 23
9288 ZG Kootstertille
The Netherlands
Tel. +31 (0)512 334444
www.stertilkoni.com
[email protected]
Stertil-Koni
@StertilPage 246
08/11/2026 Item No.12.

Folsom City Council
Staff Report

1 MEETING DATE:

8/11/2026
AGENDA SECTION:

Consent Calendar
ITEM TITLE: Resolution No. 11682 - A Resolution Ratifying the Execution of an Emergency Repair Contract with West Coast Frame and
Collision Repair, Inc. in an amount Not to Exceed $107,954, and Appropriation of Funds from the Solid Waste Fund (Fund 540) in the amount of $107,954 for the Emergency Replacement of the Cab on a Refuse Collection Truck

FROM: Utilities Department

RECOMMENDATION / CITY COUNCIL ACTION

The Utilities Department (Department) recommends that the City Council pass and adopt Resolution No. 11682- A Resolution Ratifying the Execution of an Emergency Repair Contract with West Coast Frame and Collision Repair , Inc. in an amount Not to Exceed $107,954, and Appropriation of Funds from the Solid Waste Fund (Fund 540) in the amount of $107,954 for the Emergency Replacement of the Cab on a Refuse Collection Truck

BACKGROUND / ISSUE

On April 29, 2026, a city refuse truck was hit by a driver who ran a red light. The truck was towed to West Coast Frame and Collision Repair, Inc. (West Coast) to evaluate the damage. The impact, which was directly on the driver’s side door on the right side of the cab, bent the frame resulting in a need to replace the entire cab. Below are photos from the accident scene showing the damage to the refuse truck.

08/11/2026 Item No.13.
2

08/11/2026 Item No.13.
3 Due to the extent of the damage, it took several weeks to prepare the quote. Upon receiving the quote, the Department learned that the cost of the repair exceeds the insurance limit of the at-fault driver therefore the insurance company cannot authorize the work directly with West Coast and the city must authorize the expense prior to any work beginning. Since the preliminary estimate is $89,961.22, under normal procurement circumstances City Council approval would be required; however, due to the urgent nature of the repairs and to prevent further delay , the repairs were authorized to begin utilizing an Emergency Procurement authorization per Folsom Municipal Code section 2.36.150. Staff are now requesting ratification of this contract and appropriation of funding.

Since the truck had not been disassembled when the quote was created , the contract amount includes a 20% contingency to account for potential damage discovered later in the repair process.

POLICY / RULE

In accordance with Chapter 2.36 of the Folsom Municipal Code, supplies, equipment, services, and construction with a value of $77,426 or greater shall be awarded by City Council.

In accordance with Chapter 2.36.150 of the Folsom Municipal Code (FMC), the City Manager shall make or authorize others to make emergency procurement of supplies, equipment, services, or construction items when there exists a threat to public health, welfare, or safety.

ANALYSIS

The Waste and Recycling Division ( Division) relies on a fleet of refuse truck s to collect waste from Folsom residents to protect public health and welfare. The vehicle that was damaged is one of Division’s newer Fleet vehicles and was used for residential collection nearly every day prior to the collision. While the city has not experienced service interruptions because of the long-term absence of this resource, losing a primary vehicle from the fleet creates an operational vulnerability.

In the interest of both time and cost, the Fleet Division opted to seek authorization to proceed with the emergency repairs at West Coast rather than obtain additional quotes. The truck is currently inoperable due to extensive damage and has already incurred a towing cost of $1,870. Obtaining additional estimates would require towing the vehicle to each shop and potentially incurring storage fees. Furthermore, as is common with collision damage, repair facilities will not provide a firm quote until the vehicle has been taken apart since some damage may not be visible upon initial inspection.

FINANCIAL IMPACT

Due to the urgent nature of the repairs, the City Manager authorized the execution of an emergency repair agreement with West Coast Frame and Collison Repair, Inc. for $89,961.22, including a 20% contingency in the amount of $17,992.78, for a total repair cost amount of $107,954, prior to City Council consideration. Ratification of the agreement will authorize expenditures for an amount not-to-exceed $107,954.

08/11/2026 Item No.13.
4 A budget appropriation is required in the Solid Waste Fund (Fund 540) in the amount of $107,954 to fund the emergency repair agreement . Sufficient funds are available in the Solid Waste Fund (Fund 540) to support the required appropriation.

City Council ratification of the agreement will not result in any additional fiscal impact beyond the emergency repair costs already authorized and incurred. Ratification confirms the administrative actions previously taken by the City Manager.

The final financial impact is currently unknown pending completion of the City’s cost recovery efforts following the repair. After payment of the repair invoice, the City will submit a demand to the at-fault driver’s insurance carrier. It is anticipated that the insurance carrier will offer the maximum amount available under the policy, which is expected to be less than the total cost of the repairs. Once the settlement offer is received, the City will evaluate whether accepting the offer or pursuing additional cost recovery measures is in the City’s best financial interest.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

This action is exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. (CEQA).

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution No. 11682 – A Resolution Ratifying the Execution of an Emergency Repair Contract with West Coast Frame and Collision Repair , Inc. in an amount Not to Exceed $107,954, and Appropriation of Funds from the Solid Waste Fund (Fund 540) in the amount of $107,954 for the Emergency Replacement of the Cab on a Refuse Collection Truck

2. Emergency Procurement Waiver of Bid - West Coast Frame and Collision Repair

3. Estimate from West Coast for the Cab Replacement on a Refuse Collection Truck

Submitted,

Marcus Yasutake, Utilities Director

08/11/2026 Item No.13.

Attachment 1

08/11/2026 Item No.13.

Resolution No. 11682

RESOLUTION NO. 11682

A RESOLUTION RATIFYING THE EXECUTION OF AN EMERGENCY
REPAIR CONTRACT WITH WEST COAST FRAME AND COLLISION REPAIR, INC.

IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $107,954, AND APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS FROM THE SOLID WASTE FUND (FUND 540) IN THE AMOUNT OF $107,954 FOR

THE EMERGENCY REPLACEMENT OF THE CAB ON A REFUSE COLLECTION TRUCK

WHEREAS, the Utilities Department (Department) requires a reliable fleet to provide waste collection services; and

WHEREAS, an essential refuse collection truck was rendered inoperable due to a collision; and

WHEREAS, the driver responsible for the collision was underinsured for the amount of damage caused; and

WHEREAS, the City Manager approved an Emergency Procurement under Folsom Municipal Code section 2.36.150 to expedite the repair; and

WHEREAS, sufficient funds are available in the Solid Waste Operating Fund (Fund 540); and

WHEREAS, the agreement will be in a form acceptable to the City Attorney:

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Folsom does hereby ratify the execution of an Emergency Repair Contract with West Coast Frame and Collision Repair, Inc. for $89,961.22, with a 20% contingency in the amount of $17,992.78 for a total repair cost amount not-to-exceed $107,954.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Finance Director is authorized to appropriate $107,954 in the Solid Waste Operating Fund (Fund 540) for the Emergency Replacement of the Cab on a Refuse Collection Truck.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 11
th 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

08/11/2026 Item No.13.

Attachment 2

08/11/2026 Item No.13.

08/11/2026 Item No.13.

08/11/2026 Item No.13.

08/11/2026 Item No.13.

Attachment 3

08/11/2026 Item No.13.

08/11/2026 Item No.13.

08/11/2026 Item No.13.

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

08/11/2026 Item No.13.

Folsom City Council
Staff Report

1 MEETING DATE:

8/11/2026
AGENDA SECTION:

Consent Calendar
ITEM TITLE: Resolution No. 11683 - A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Agreement with Folsom Lake Ford for the Purchase of a Ford F350 Truck with Utility Bed in the Amount of $84,095.10 from the Water Operating Fund (Fund 520)

FROM: Utilities Department

RECOMMENDATION / CITY COUNCIL ACTION

The Utilities Department recommends that the City Council pass and adopt Resolution No. 11683 - A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Agreement with Folsom Lake Ford for the Purchase of a Ford F350 Truck with Utility Bed in the A mount of $84,095.10 from the Water Operating Fund (Fund 520).

BACKGROUND / ISSUE

The Utilities Department recognizes the need to maintain a fleet of vehicles that will be able to provide reliable, efficient, and responsive service to support work associated with maintenance of the water distribution infrastructure, thereby safeguarding the health and safety of the Folsom community.

The Water Quality Division has an open recruitment which, when filled, will increase the size of its crew, and therefore requires an additional vehicle. This resolution authorizes the City Manager to execute an agreement with Folsom Lake Ford for the purchase of one 2027 Ford F350 truck with utility bed for a total not-to-exceed $84,095.10.

POLICY / RULE

In accordance with Chapter 2.36 of the Folsom Municipal Code, supplies, equipment, services, and construction with a value of $77,426 or greater shall be awarded by City Council.

08/11/2026 Item No.14.
2 Section 2.36.170 of the Folsom Municipal Code permits cooperative purchasing agreements for the procurement of any supplies, equipment, service, or construction with one or more public procurement units in accordance with an agreement entered into or between the participants.

ANALYSIS

The Fiscal Year 2024 budget approved the addition of a Water Distribution Operator III in the Water Quality division. An internal promotion filled the new position, resulting in a n ongoing vacancy within the division. Recruitment for this position was put on hold pending approval of the new staffing model for the water and wastewater divisions. In June 2026, through Resolution No. 11651, the new staffing model was approved and so the division is now preparing for recruitment of an additional Water Distribution Operator, which will increase the size of its crew.

Water Distribution Operator s perform duties in the construction and maintenance of water infrastructure including the testing, overhauling, and repairing fire hydrants, blow -off valves, or air release valves. To allow for tasks to be performed independently, and for operational efficiency, each crew member is assigned a separate vehicle. This vehicle needs to have the capabilities of transporting all required equipment for any task the operator may need to complete.

The Utilities Department, in coordination with the City Fleet Division, solicited quotations from Sourcewell and Folsom Lake Ford for the purchase of a Ford F350 truck with a utility bed.

Although FMC Section 2.36.170 allows for the purchase of this vehicle directly through the Sourcewell contract number without having to solicit multiple quotes, City staff also solicited a quote from Folsom Lake Ford to compare pricing and to offer an opportunity for a local dealership to bid on the purchase. Folsom Lake Ford submitted the lowest responsive quotation that met the City’s vehicle specifications and operational requirements.

FINANCIAL IMPACT

If approved the agreement with Folsom Lake Ford for the purchase of a Ford F350 truck with utility bed for $84,095.10 would be funded through the Water Operating Fund (Fund 520).

Sufficient funds are budgeted and available in the Fiscal Year 202 6-27 Water Operating Fund (Fund 520) for the purchase. The Department is requesting that the contract be authorized for a not to exceed amount of $84,095.10.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

This action is exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution No. 11683 - A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Agreement with Folsom Lake Ford for the Purchase of a Ford F350 Truck with Utility Bed in the Amount of $84,095.10 from the Water Operating Fund (Fund 520)

2. Folsom Lake Ford Quote - F350 Truck: Cab and Chassis

08/11/2026 Item No.14.
3 3. Folsom Lake Ford Quote - F350 Knapheide Utility Bed

Submitted,

Marcus Yasutake, Director

UTILITIES DEPARTMENT

08/11/2026 Item No.14.

Attachment 1

08/11/2026 Item No.14.

Resolution No. 11683

RESOLUTION NO. 11683

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH FOLSOM LAKE FORD FOR THE PURCHASE OF A FORD F350 TRUCK WITH UTILITY BED IN THE AMOUNT OF $84,095.10 FROM THE WATER OPERATING FUND (FUND 520)

WHEREAS, the Utilities Department Water Quality Division has validated its need to purchase a Ford F350 Truck with Utility Bed; and

WHEREAS, per Folsom Municipal Code Section 2.36.170 the City can use cooperative purchasing agreements for this vehicle and obtained a quote from Sourcewell without having to solicit for multiple bids; and

WHEREAS, City staff also solicited a quote from Folsom Lake Ford to compare pricing and to offer an opportunity for a local vendor to bid on the sale of the vehicle; and

WHEREAS, Folsom Lake Ford submitted the lowest response quotation that met the City’s vehicle specifications and operational requirements; and

WHEREAS, sufficient funds are budgeted and available in the Wa ter Operating Fund (Fund 520); and

WHEREAS, staff recommends the execution of a contract with Folsom Lake Ford for the purchase of a Ford F350 Truck with Utility Bed; and

WHEREAS, the agreement will be in a form acceptable to the City Attorney:

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Folsom hereby authorizes the City Manager to execute an agreement with Folsom Lake Ford in the amount of $84,095.10 from the Water Operating Fund (Fund 520) for the purchase of a Ford F350 Truck with Utility Bed.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 11
th 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

08/11/2026 Item No.14.

Attachment 2

08/11/2026 Item No.14.

08/11/2026 Item No.14.

Attachment 3

08/11/2026 Item No.14.

Seller: Knapheide Truck Equipment Center Sacramento
3550 BOZZANO RD
STOCKTON, CA 95215-9100
1 (209) 855-8400
www.knapheide.com
QUOTE: QU-67-
1089322-1
Quote Expiration:
06/05/2026
Contact(s): Melvin Jackson (Outside Sales)
[email protected]
Erin Hanson (Inside Sales)
[email protected]
2098558415
Customer: City Of Folsom
ID: 263304
Address: 1300 LEIDESDORFF ST
FOLSOM, CA 95630-2449
Phone: 9164616765
Contact: GREG .BAKKEN
Terms: NET 30 DAYS
Bid Spec:

Is Quote Tax Exempt: No
Tax Exemption:

Description: service body
Quote Information:

Customer Request Date:

Quote Completed Date: 05/06/2026
Date: 05/08/2026 16:05 PM CDT
# of Units: 1
Delivery Information:

Total Price Includes F.O.B.:

Ship Via:

Ship To: City Of Folsom
9164616765
1300 LEIDESDORFF ST
FOLSOM, CA 95630-2449
Vehicle Information:

Make: Ford Model: F-350 Year: 2026
Chassis Type: Pickup Cab Type: SuperCab Cab to Axle: 56 Rear Axle Type: SRW Drivetrain: 4x4 Engine Size: 6.7
Fuel Type: Diesel Transmission Type: Auto Wheelbase: 164.1 GVWR: 11300
Seq. Description Item Quantity Total
1 696F40-2-M Service Body with Flip Top Compartments Painted White Stop/Turn/Tail Lights Installed
Master Locks Installed
Overall Dimension: 97.25" Overall Long x 78" Wide
Cargo Area: 49" Wide x 25.25" High
Side Compartment: 41.25" High x 14.5" Deep
Street Side Compartmentation:

Front Vertical: 31.25" Long x 41.25" High
Horizontal: 44.75" Long x 19.75" High
Rear Vertical: 21.25" Long x 41.25" High
Curbside Compartmentation:

Front Vertical: 31.25" Long x 41.25" High
Horizontal: 44.75" Long x 19.75" High
Rear Vertical: 21.25" Long x 41.25" High
Standard Shelving Includes:
(2) Adjustable Divider Shelves Each Front Vertical Compartment (1) Bolt-In Divider Shelf Curbside Horizontal Compartment (1) Adjustable Divider Shelf Each Rear Vertical Compartment (28) Shelf Dividers and (20) Flip-Top Tray Divider
Warranty: Standard Knapheide Limited Warranty
Weight: 1204lbs
696F40-2-M 1.00
2 Upfitter Switch Power Harness
for Use to Power Rear Strobes or Compartment Lights on Chassis with Factory Upfitter Switch
12256319 1.00
3 78" Wide Galva-Grip Step Bumper with KnapLiner
for Service Body
2017 or Newer Ford 56" CA
2007 or Newer Ram 60" CA

77.62" Wide x 10.88" Deep
Weight: 70lbs
34860174 1.00
Quote 1089322-1 Page 1/4

08/11/2026 Item No.14.
4 Quick Mount Kit for Service Body with 6" Understructure for 2017 and Newer Ford with 56" CA
20095520 1.00
5 Ford 2023 & Newer 40"/56" Pickup Box Removal Harness Adapter (Plug & Play, BCM Reprograming Required)
35760018 1.00
6 Modular Cab Guard Center Section
Powder Coated White
49" Cargo Width
for Standard Height or F40 Service Bodies
26266379 1.00
7 CTech 4 Drawer Unit
(3) 3" High Drawers
(1) 5" High Drawer
Shelf Liner
250lb Capacity Per Drawer
Telescoping Top Shelf
24" Wide x 15.82" High x 12" Deep
Bottom Space: .508"
Fire Engine Red
Weight: 47lbs
Mounting Hardware Kit Includes The Following:
(1) 12212478 - CTech Drawer Unit
(1) 12212353 - (Pair) Riser 13.25" High x 6.5" Deep
(1) 20192464 - Bracket Assembly Mounting CTech Drawer Unit 20192639 1.00
8 1- RX2FFFF Justice DUO WecanX Lightbar, 50” (included) 1- MKAJ94 Adjustable Lightbar Straps – F350 (included)
1- CCP9 Core-C Control System (included)
1- CEM8 WCX Remove Expansion Module, 8 output (included) 4- TLI2F ION T-Series DUO LED Lighthead, Amber/White (included)
• Two Grill lights, Two Rear bumper lights
35081005 1.00
9 10ft e-track 35081005 2.00
10 Outsource Spray Liner, Price per Dollar 34996369 1.00 11 6" Mechanics Vise, Wilton 746 Tradesman 21500
5,500lb Clamping Force
Base Type: Swivel
Powder Coated Paint
Jaw Material: Steel
Jaw Opening: 5-3/4"
Jaw Type: Serrated
Jaw Width: 6"
Material: Ductile Iron
Mounting Type: Bolted-Down
Number of Mounting Points: 4
Pipe Capacity: 1/4" to 3-1/2"
Rotation Angle: 360 Degree
Throat Depth: 4-1/8"

17.7" Long x 11" Wide x 10.8" High
Weight: 69lbs
30098920 1.00
12 Ridgid Model BC-410A - 4" Top Screw Chain Pipe Vise 35081005 1.00 13 Knapheide Power Lock System, 600 Series 80" 82" 96" & 108" Service Bodies with Current Rotary Latch
26272377 1.00
14 Buyers 5621928 18" LED Strip Light
Adhesive backing for surface mount
Clear and cool light (6000k)
360 Lumens
IP67 Certified
Wattage: 4.92 W
Width: .5"
Depth: 18"
Height: .5"
Lead Length: 4"
35081005 18.00
15 Pollak 7-way flat trailer plug
Fixture Type: Connectors
Fixture Shape: 12 Volts
34996691 1.00
Quote 1089322-1 Page 2/4

08/11/2026 Item No.14.

Package Type: P Pack
Voltage: 12 Volts
Amps: 30 Amp

6.2" x 5.2" x 3.7"
Weight: .2 Lbs
16 LED Square Flood Light, Buyers 1492119
Amp Draw At 12 Volts: 2.25 A
Beam Pattern: Flood
Bracket (Y/N): Yes
Certification: IP67 and 20G
Color: Clear
Color Temperature: 6000 °K
Hard Wired Or Plug: Hard Wired
Height: 6.70"
Housing Material: Aluminum
Lens Material: Polycarbonate
Lens Shape: Square
Mount Type: Surface
Number Of Wires: 2
Type Of Plug: Blunt Cut
Wattage: 27 W
Base / Mount Type: Surface
Overall Width: 5.30"
Plug Included: No
Voltage: 12–24 VDC
Operating Temperature: -40 to 122 °F
Lead Length: 36"
Built-In Switch: No
Connector: Blunt Cut
Lumens: 1500
Shipping Weight: 2.050
35081005 2.00
17 Installation Labor. 34995222 39.00
18 Paint Labor 34996438 4.00
19 Universal Fuel Fill Cup Kit
21-42 Mounting Angle
Ford F250-F550
GM 2500-6500
Ram 2500-5500
34360468 1.00
Total does not include any applicable taxes or transportation charges unless specifically noted herein: Subtotal: $26,969.06 Tax: $1,406.94
Total: $28,376.00

Customer PO Total Price Additional Notes: Furnish and install a 8ft knapheide service body with flip top compartments, fuel spout, all legal lights, rear bumper, drawer unit in the front curb side compartment, led amber light bar with a traffic adviser, four corner strobe system, one row of e-track on each side mounted in the cargo area, spray in bed liner, pipe vise mounted on the right rear corner on the bumper, 6" Mechanics Vise mounted on the left rear corner on the rear bumper, window guard with two work light mounted on each side, power door locks, led compartment light wired up a upfitter switch, 7 way rv socket, install factory back up camera if equipped, to be white in color and touch up paint if necessary. *Credit Card Policy: Knapheide accepts MasterCard, American Express, Visa and Discover cards for payment. Invoices greater than or equal to $10,000 will include a 3% handling fee when paid by credit card beginning May 4, 2026.

Liability for product on Knapheide property with terms Customer Pickup: Product must be picked up within (14) days of notification of product available for customer pickup. Customer shall assume all responsibility for the Product, including but not limited to damage due to Acts of God or vandalism following 14 days of notification of product available for Customer pickup. Knapheide reserves the right to assess a storage fee of $25/day for each day goods remain on Knapheide property beyond (14) days of notification of product available for Customer pickup.

Cancellation Policy: All cancellation requests must be made in writing. Upon any request for cancellation, any costs incurred by Knapheide during the fulfillment of Orders placed pursuant to this Quote shall be paid at 100%. Payments for cancellation are due in full at time of cancellation and/or upon Quote 1089322-1 Page 3/4

08/11/2026 Item No.14.
cancellation of installation. Quoted prices are only guaranteed for orders placed as of the date specified on the Quote unless otherwise stated herein.

Payment Policy: Payment Terms are due upon receipt of signed quote unless prior credit agreement has been established at the time of order. Payment terms for customers with an established credit account will be Net 30 from date of invoice. Seller has right to assess late charges at 1.5% per month on all invoices that are 60 days or more past due.

Pricing Policy: All prices reflect the latest price in U.S. Dollars. Any order placed pursuant to this Quote shall be subject to these Terms and Conditions contained herein. These Conditions shall serve to exclude all other terms or conditions of purchase or other conflicting terms or conditions which may be issued, provided or referred to by Customer, all of which are hereby disclaimed or rejected, except insofar as any terms are expressly accepted in writing with an Authorized Knapheide Representative’s written signature. Pricing quoted applies to chassis make/model originally provided and quantity quoted.

Any deviation therefrom may result in price change. In addition, additional costs may be incurred in the process of fulfilling orders placed pursuant to this Quote and Knapheide reserves the right to adjust costs accordingly, including but not limited to, reprogramming fees, etc. Orders are subject to all applicable state, local and federal excise taxes. Applicable taxes will be applied on final billing to customer upon completion of order. Seller must be in possession of the vehicle for this order within 90 days of quote acceptance or the order can be subject to price adjustments due to cost increases for materials, labor, and shop supplies.

Return Policy: All sales are final. Purchased parts or products are non-returnable.

By signing and accepting this quotation, Customer agrees to accept Knapheide Truck Equipment Center Sacramento terms and conditions as stated above.

Customer Signature Print Name Title Date

Dealer Code Dealership Location

If the chassis is customer supplied, Knapheide
may require a chassis spec sheet
VIN
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
Quote 1089322-1 Page 4/4

08/11/2026 Item No.14.

Folsom City Council
Staff Report

1 MEETING DATE:

8/11/2026
AGENDA SECTION:

Consent Calendar
ITEM TITLE: Resolution No. 11684– A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Amendment No. 1 to the Agreement (Contract No. 173- 21 24-015) with HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. for $136,000 from the Water Operating Fund (Fund 520) for Additi onal Environmental Support Services for the Water System
Rehabilitation Project No. 1 (Project WA1603) and A ppropriation of Funds

FROM: Utilities Department

RECOMMENDATION / CITY COUNCIL ACTION

The Utilities Department recommends that the City Council pass and adopt Resolution No. 11684– A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execut e Amendment No. 1 to the Agreement (Contract No. 173-21 24-015) with HELIX Environment al Planning. Inc. for $136,000 from the Water Operating Fund (Fund 520) for Additional Envi ronmental Support Services for the Water System Rehabilitation Project No. 1 (Project WA1603) and Appropriation of Funds.

BACKGROUND / ISSUE

The Utilities Department has developed a water infr astructure rehabilitation and replacement (R & R) program through water master plans and ongo ing condition assessment programs.

Through these efforts, portions of the water system in the City have been identified as needing rehabilitation or replacement. A comprehensive pla n has been developed for the R & R of these aging systems, and much of this work has been completed in recent years. The projects identified and included within the Water System Rehabilitation Project No. 1 (WA1603) include replacement of the waterline serving Black Miner’s Bar State Pa rk, rehabilitating the waterline on Rainbow Bridge, and replacing the valves on the Willow Hill Dam, known as the Willow Hill Dam Valve Replacement Project. All projects, with the exception of the Willow Hill Dam Valve Replacement Project, have been completed.