1 Agenda
City Council Regular Meeting
Folsom City Hall | City Council Chambers, First Floor
50 Natoma Street, Folsom, CA 95630
September 08, 2026, 6:30 PM
Welcome to Your City Council Meeting
We welcome your interest and involvement in the city’s legislative process. This agenda includes information about topics coming before the City Council and the action recommended by city staff. You can read about each topic in the staff reports, which are available on the city website and in the Office of the City Clerk. The City Clerk is also available to answer any questions you have about City Council meeting procedures.
Participation
If you would like to provide comments to the City Council, please:
Fill out a blue speaker request form, located at the back table. Submit the form to the City Clerk before the item begins. When it’s your turn, the City Clerk will call your name and invite you to the podium. Speakers generally have three minutes, unless the presiding officer (usually the mayor) changes that time.
Reasonable Accommodations
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you are a person with a disability and you need a disability-related modification or accommodation to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at (916) 461-6035, (916) 355-7328 (fax) or [email protected]. Requests must be made as early as possible and at least two full business days before the start of the meeting.
How to Watch
The City of Folsom provides three ways to watch a City Council meeting:
In Person Online On TV
City Council meetings take place at
City Hall, 50 Natoma Street
Watch the livestream and replay past
meetings on the city website,
www.folsom.ca.us
Watch live and replays of meetings on
Sac Metro Cable TV, Channel 14
More information about City Council meetings is available at the end of this agenda
2 City Council Regular Meeting
Folsom City Hall | City Council Chambers, First Floor
50 Natoma Street, Folsom, CA 95630
www.folsom.ca.us
Tuesday, September 08, 2026 6:30 PM
Justin Raithel, Mayor
Sarah Aquino, Councilmember Barbara Leary, Councilmember Mike Kozlowski, Councilmember Anna Rohrbough, Vice Mayor
AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL: Councilmembers: Kozlowski, Leary, Rohrbough, Aquino, Raithel The City Council has adopted a policy that no new item will begin after 10:30 p.m. Therefore, if you are here for an item that has not been heard by 10:30 p.m., you may leave, as the item w ill be continued to a future Council meeting.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
AGENDA UPDATE
BUSINESS FROM THE FLOOR:
Members of the public are entitled to address the City Council concerning any item within the Folsom City Council's subject matter jurisdiction. Public comments are generally limited to no more than three minutes. Except for certain specific exceptions, the City Council is prohibited from discussing or taking action on any item not appearing on the posted agenda.
SCHEDULED PRESENTATIONS:
1. Presentation of Spirit of Folsom Awards
2. Presentation of the 13th Annual Folsom Community Service Day
3 CONSENT CALENDAR:
Items appearing on the Consent Calendar are considered routine and may be approved by one motion.
Councilmembers may pull an item for discussion.
3. Approval of the August 25, 2026 City Council Special and Regular Meeting Minutes
4. Nomination of the Joint Representative for the Cities of Folsom, Isleton, and Galt to the Sacramento Environmental Commission for a Three Year Term Ending August 2029
5. Resolution No. 11691 - A Resolution Approving a Policy for Remote Participation in City Council Meetings in Compliance with Senate Bill 707
6. Resolution No. 11694 – A Resolution Approving the Historic District Commission’s Recommendation for Approval of a Design Review and Density Bonus Application for the Sutter Lofts Project Located at 807 and 809 Sutter Street and Determination that the Project is Exempt from CEQA
7. Resolution No. 11695 – A Resolution Approving the Historic District Commission’s Recommendation for Approval of a Design Review for a New Custom Home Project Located at 315 Sutter Street and Determination that the Project is Exempt from CEQA
8. Resolution No. 11696 - A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Amendment No. 2 to the Agreement (Contract No. 173-21 19-072) with Williams Scotsman, Inc. for $80,166.24 from the Solid Waste Operating Fund (Fund 540) for the Lease of a Modular building Occupied by the Waste and Recycling Division
9. Resolution No. 11698 - A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Professional Services Agreement with Pinnacle Project Management for Owner’s Representative Services for the Folsom Plan Area
10. Resolution No. 11702 - A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Agreement with Univar Solutions USA LLC for $410,000 from the Water Operating Fund (Fund 520) for the Supply of Sodium Hypochlorite for the Water Treatment Plant and $110,000 from the General Fund (Fund 010) for the Supply of Sodium Hypochlorite for the Steve Miklos Aquatic Center
11. Resolution No. 11703 - A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Reimbursement Agreement in an amount Not to Exceed $360,000 with Vintage at Folsom, LP, and Appropriation of Funds from Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Fund (Fund 235) in the amount of $360,000 for supplemental paving as part of the Vintage Senior Apartments Project
12. Resolution No. 11706 - A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Agreement with Affordable Quality Painting Inc. in the Amount of $200,000 for the City Hall Campus Exterior Painting Project and Add Alternates from the Facility Rehabilitation Fund (Fund 602)
13. Resolution No. 11707 – A Resolution Rescinding Resolution No. 8990 and Adopting a Revised Policy Governing the Receipt and Distribution of Tickets and/or Passes
14. Resolution No. 11708 - A Resolution Authorizing the Addition of One Permanent Full-Time Administrative Assistant to the City Attorney’s Office and Appropriation of Funds
4 PUBLIC HEARING:
15. Ordinance No. 1374 – An Ordinance of the City of Folsom for the Repeal and Re-Enactment of Chapter 17.102 (Density Bonus) of the Folsom Municipal Code (Introduction and First Reading), and Determination that the Action is Not Subject to Environmental Review Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
OLD BUSINESS:
16. Castle Park Playground Renovation Project
i. Resolution No. 11699 - A Resolution Ratifying the City Manager’s Authorization to Execute a Contract Amendment with Leathers & Associates for the Castle Park Playground Renovation Project (PK2501) in the Amount of $19,537.20, for a New Total Contract Amount Not-to-Exceed $131,106.20, Funded by the Parks & Recreation Equipment/Capital Fund 609 and Appropriation of Funds
ii. Resolution No. 11700 - A Resolution Ratifying the City Manager’s Authorization to Execute Construction Contract Change Orders 1-6 with KYA for the Castle Park Playground Renovation Project (PK2501) in the Amount of $56,300, and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Construction Contract Change Order No. 7 with KYA for the Castle Park Playground Renovation Project (PK2501) in the Amount of $36,960, for a New Total Contract Amount Not-to-Exceed $401,569.00, Funded by the Parks & Recreation Equipment/Capital Fund 609 and Appropriation of Funds
iii. Resolution No. 11701 - A Resolution Authorizing an Appropriation of $68,409 in Donation Revenue and an Additional Appropriation of $37,875.80 from the Parks & Recreation Equipment/Capital Fund (Fund 609), for a Total Appropriation of $106,284.80 for Project Support Costs for the Castle Park Playground Renovation Project (PK2501) NEW BUSINESS:
17. Receive and Consider a Proposal from the Rotary Club of Folsom for Placement of an American Flagpole in the Historic Folsom Station Plaza and Provide Direction to Staff and Determination that the Project is Exempt from CEQA
18. Presentation on AB 626 Micro-Enterprise Home Kitchen Operations and Direction to Staff
19. Resolution No. 11697- A Resolution Accepting the Notice of Completion for the Community Facilities District No. 18 Phase 2 Water Improvements Project (Phase 2A) with a Construction Total of $18,552,386, Authorizing an Appropriation of $44,778 from the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Fund (Fund 235), and Authorizing the Chief Financial Officer/Finance Director to Release All Remaining Retention for Said Project
20. Ordinance No. 1376 - An Ordinance of the City of Folsom Adding Chapter 10.44 of the Folsom Municipal Code Regarding E-bikes and E-Conveyances (Introduction and First Reading)
21. Ordinance No. 1377 - An Ordinance of the City of Folsom Amending Chapter 10.40 “Use of Electric Assist Mobility Devices on Class I Trails” of the Folsom Municipal Code to Prohibit Unsafe Riding on the Class I Bicycle Path Network (Introduction and First Reading)
CITY MANAGER REPORTS
COUNCIL COMMENTS
ADJOURNMENT
5 NOTICE: Members of the public are entitled to directly address the City Council concerning any item that is described in the notice of this meeting, before or during consideration of that item. If you wish to address Council on an issue, which is on this agenda, please complete a blue speaker request card, and deliver it to a staff member at the table on the left side of the Council Chambers prior to discussion of the item. When your name is called, stand to be recognized by the Mayor and then proceed to the podium. If you wish to address the City Council on any other item of interest to the public, when the Mayor asks if there is any “Business from the Floor,” follow the same procedure described above. Please limit your comments to three minutes or less.
NOTICE REGARDING CHALLENGES TO DECISIONS: Pursuant to all applicable laws and regulations, including without limitation, California Government Code Section 65009 and or California Public Resources Code Section 21177, if you wish to challenge in court any of the abov e decisions (regarding planning, zoning and/or environmental decisions), you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing(s) described in this notice/agenda, or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing.
As presiding officer, the Mayor has the authority to preserve order at all City Council meetings, to remove or cause the removal of any person from any such meeting for disorderly conduct, or for making personal, impertinent, or slanderous remarks, using profanity, or becoming boisterous, threatening or personally abusive while addressing said Council, and to enforce the rules of the Council.
PERSONS INTERESTED IN PROPOSING AN ITEM FOR THE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA SHOULD CONTACT A MEMBER OF THE CITY COUNCIL.
This meeting of the City Council is recorded with closed captioning. The recording will be cablecast on Metro Cable Channel 14, the local government affairs channel on the Comcast and DirecTV U -Verse cable system, and will be shown in its entirety on the Friday and Saturday following the meeting, both at 9 a.m. The recording will also be video streamed at metro14live.saccounty.gov.The City does not control scheduling of this telecast and persons interested in watching the televised meeting should confirm this schedule with Metro Cable TV, Channel 14. The City of Folsom provides live and archived webcasts of regular City Council meetings. The webcasts can be found on the online services page of the City's website www.folsom.ca.us.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you are a person with a disability and you need a disability-related modification or accommodation to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at (916) 461-6035, (916) 355-7328 (fax) or [email protected]. Requests must be made as early as possible and at least two full business days before the start of the meeting.
Any documents produced by the City and distributed to the City Council regarding any item on this agenda will be made available at the City Clerk’s Counter at City Hall located at 50 Natoma Street, Folsom, California and at the Folsom Public Library located at 411 Stafford Street, Folsom, California during normal business hours.
6 This page is intentionally left blank
to facilitate double-sided printing
and minimize paper use.
Folsom City Council
Staff Report
1 MEETING DATE:
9/8/2026
AGENDA SECTION:
Scheduled Presentations
SUBJECT: Presentation of Spirit of Folsom Awards
FROM: City Manager's Office
RECOMMENDATION / CITY COUNCIL ACTION
The Folsom City Council will recognize the 2026 Spirit of Folsom Award recipients.
BACKGROUND / ISSUE
The Folsom City Council regularly celebrates community members for their outstanding service, dedication, and commitment to making Folsom a better place for all.
On January 23, 2024, the Folsom City Council established an annual community service award and recognition program to formalize and expand efforts to spotlight those who have significantly contributed to the Folsom community. The City presented the inaugural Spirit of Folsom Award program in September 2024.
Planning for the third annual Spirit of Folsom Award began in July 2026, and a call for nominations was issued to the public. As part of this program, each City Councilmember nominates one recipient from their respective district, resulting in five honorees each year.
Applicants may nominate themselves or another individual. A City Councilmember may select their own nominee. Eligible nominees must be a resident, volunteer, employee of a Folsom business, or a student enrolled in a school within the City of Folsom. The City’s website provides details about the nomination, application, and selection process.
Award recipients will be honored with an award at the September 8 Folsom City Council meeting. Their achievements will be displayed at Folsom City Hall and highlighted on the City's website, newsletter, and social media platforms.
2026 Spirit of Folsom Award Winners:
• Brian Wallace, nominated by Mayor Justin Raithel
09/22/2026 Item No.1.
2 • Friends of Folsom Parkways, represented by Special Projects Director Glenn Hermanson, nominated by Vice Mayor Anna Rohrbough
• Jim Snook, nominated by Councilmember Mike Kozlowski
• Paul Romero, nominated by Councilmember Barbara Leary • Vijay Bhaskar Jonnalagadda, nominated by Councilmember Sarah Aquino
Submitted,
Christine Brainerd, Communications Director
09/22/2026 Item No.1.
Folsom City Council
Staff Report
1 MEETING DATE:
9/8/2026
AGENDA SECTION:
Scheduled Presentations
SUBJECT: Presentation of the 13th Annual Folsom Community Service Day
FROM: Parks and Recreation Department
BACKGROUND / ISSUE
The Community Service Day Steering Committee will provide a brief overview of the upcoming 13th Annual Folsom Community Service Day to be held on Saturday, September 19 beginning at Lakeside Church.
The presentation will be delivered by Sandy Econome, Chair of the Folsom Community Service Day Steering Committee, and Tom Hellmann, Recreation & Community Services Manager.
RECOMMENDATION / CITY COUNCIL ACTION
No action is requested of the City Council at this time.
Submitted,
Kelly Gonzalez, Parks & Recreation Director
09/22/2026 Item No.2.
This page is intentionally left blank
to facilitate double-sided printing
and minimize paper use.
09/22/2026 Item No.2.
File 034-21 26-001
Folsom City Council Minutes
August 25, 2026
Draft- Not Official Until Approved by the City Council Page 1
City Council Special Meeting
MINUTES
Tuesday, August 25, 2026 6:15 PM
CALL TO ORDER
The special City Council meeting was called to order at 6:16 pm with Mayor Raithel presiding.
ROLL CALL:
Councilmembers Present:
Barbara Leary, Councilmember
Anna Rohrbough, Vice Mayor
Sarah Aquino, Councilmember
Michael Kozlowski, Councilmember
Justin Raithel, Mayor
Councilmembers Absent: None
ADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION FOR THE FOLLOWING PURPOSES:
1. Conference with Legal Counsel – Anticipated Litigation – Significant Exposure to Litigation Pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(d)(2): One Potential Case
Motion by Councilmember Aquino, second by Councilmember Kozlowski to adjourn to closed session.
Motion passed by the following roll-call vote:
AYES: Leary, Rohrbough, Aquino, Kozlowski, Raithel
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
RECONVENE
Mayor Raithel announced that no final action was taken during closed session.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the City Council, the meeting was adjourned at 6:37 pm.
09/22/2026 Item No.3.
File 034-21 26-001
Folsom City Council Minutes
August 25, 2026
Draft- Not Official Until Approved by the City Council Page 2
SUBMITTED BY:
_______________________________
Jennifer Jimenez, Deputy City Clerk
ATTEST:
______________________________
Justin Raithel, Mayor
09/22/2026 Item No.3.
File 034-21 26-001
Folsom City Council Minutes
August 25, 2026
Draft- Not Official Until Approved by the City Council Page 1
City Council Regular Meeting
MINUTES
Tuesday August 25, 2026 6:30 PM
CALL TO ORDER
The regular City Council meeting was called to order at 6:38 pm with Mayor Raithel presiding.
ROLL CALL:
Councilmembers Present: Barbara Leary, Councilmember
Anna Rohrbough, Vice Mayor
Sarah Aquino, Councilmember
Michael Kozlowski, Councilmember
Justin Raithel, Mayor
Councilmembers Absent: None
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The pledge of allegiance was recited.
AGENDA UPDATE
City Attorney Sari Dierking advised that there were no agenda updates.
BUSINESS FROM THE FLOOR:
The following individuals addressed the council:
• Robert Dresser
• Terry Josh White
• William Thomas Bernal
SCHEDULED PRESENTATION:
1. City of Folsom Resolution of Commendation Honoring Folsom Lake Surf Soccer Club U15 Boys ECNL Regional League National Champions
Mayor Justin Raithel presented the Resolution of Commendation.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
09/22/2026 Item No.3.
File 034-21 26-001
Folsom City Council Minutes
August 25, 2026
Draft- Not Official Until Approved by the City Council Page 2
Items appearing on the Consent Calendar are considered routine and may be approved by one motion.
Councilmembers may pull an item for discussion.
2. Approval of the August 11, 2026 City Council Special and Regular Meeting Minutes
3. Resolution No. 11692– A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Sole Source Agreement with Core and Main for $151,379.62 from the Water Operating Fund (Fund 520) for the Kamstrup Acoustic Leak Detection Water Meter Pilot Project and Appropriation of Funds Motion by Councilmember Kozlowski second by Councilmember Leary to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion passed by the following roll-call vote:
AYES: Leary, Rohrbough, Aquino, Kozlowski, Raithel
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
OLD BUSINESS:
4. Resolution No. 11693 – A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Amendment No. 2 to the Agreement (Contract No. 173-21 24-039) with West Yost & Associates, Inc. for $402,886 from the Water Operating Fund (Fund 520) for Additional Construction Management and Inspection Services for the Tower Tank Rehabilitation Project (Project WA2402) and Appropriation of Funds
Utilities Director Marcus Yasutake made a presentation and responded to questions from the City Council.
The following individual addressed the council:
• William Thomas Bernal
Utilities Director Marcus Yasutake provided additional information.
Motion by Councilmember Kozlowski second by Vice Mayor Rohrbough to approve Resolution No. 11693. Motion passed by the following roll-call vote:
AYES: Leary, Rohrbough, Aquino, Kozlowski, Raithel
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
CITY MANAGER REPORTS
City Manager Bryan Whitemyer reminded residents of the closure and construction on Prairie City Road, expressing appreciation for the partnership with Sacramento County and the Public Works Department, thanking Rebecca Neves and staff for their work. He also spoke about the Livermore Community Park improvement project that is underway. Additionally, he recognized Police Detective Austin Alvarez, who was inducted into the Congressional Police Honor Roll and acknowledged by Congressman Kevin Kiley on the floor of the United States House of Representatives for his work with the Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force and his dedicated service. In closing, he expressed
09/22/2026 Item No.3.
File 034-21 26-001
Folsom City Council Minutes
August 25, 2026
Draft- Not Official Until Approved by the City Council Page 3
gratitude to the participants who assembled bags for the food drive in preparation for the upcoming Community Service Day.
COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Kozlowski spoke about the recent Ace Pickelball Club ribbon cutting, attended with Mayor Raithel and noted the final summer concert at the Zittel Farm Amphitheater.
Vice Mayor Rohrbough had no comments.
Councilmember Leary spoke about attending the opening events of the Jewish and Muslim Community Centers and noted the passage of Lunar Landing Day in California. She also expressed appreciation to staff for their work on the Prairie City Road project.
Councilmember Aquino wished Mayor Raithel an early Happy Birthday.
Mayor Raithel gave an update on the AB2415 Hoover bill and highlighted the need for more volunteers, as well as a project lead with painting skills, for the upcoming Community Service Day.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the City Council, the meeting was adjourned at 7:10 p.m.
SUBMITTED BY:
_______________________________
Jennifer Jimenez, Deputy City Clerk
ATTEST:
______________________________
Justin Raithel, Mayor
09/22/2026 Item No.3.
This page is intentionally left blank
to facilitate double-sided printing
and minimize paper use.
09/22/2026 Item No.3.
Folsom City Council
Staff Report
1 MEETING DATE:
09/08/2026
AGENDA SECTION:
Consent Calendar
SUBJECT: Nomination of the Joint Representative for the Cities of Folsom, Isleton, and Galt to the Sacramento Environmental Commission
FROM: City Clerk's Department
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Nominate Bob Wilson to serve as the shared representative for the Cities of Folsom, Isleton, and Galt on the Sacramento Environmental Commission for a three-year term ending August 2029; and
2. Authorize staff to forward this nomination to the Isleton and Galt City Councils for concurrence, and thereafter to the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors for appointment.
BACKGROUND / ISSUE
The Sacramento Environmental Commission (SEC) was established in 1988 to provide leadership, assistance, analysis, and advice on environmental matters throughout Sacramento County. The City of Elk Grove joined as a sponsoring agency in 2014, bringing the SEC's current membership to five sponsoring jurisdictions: Sacramento County and the cities of Elk Grove, Folsom, Galt, Isleton, and Sacramento.
In this role, the SEC works with its sponsoring city and county agencies to advance a shared vision of environmental quality, conservation, public health, environmental management, environmental justice, and sustainability. The SEC serves as the advisory body to the Sacramento County Environmental Management Department (EMD).
09/22/2026 Item No.4.
2 The powers and duties of the SEC include, in part:
Providing information and analysis to, and advising, the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors and the city councils of Sacramento County on the implementation of an effective, comprehensive environmental protection and management program for Sacramento County;
Assisting and advising the EMD in the formulation and implementation of its programs, including but not limited to air quality control, environmental quality control, and hazardous and toxic material issues;
Upon request, aiding, advising, and recommending to county and city departments within Sacramento County information, programs, and measures that promote air quality, environmental health, and hazardous materials control; and
Additional powers and duties of the Commission are set forth in the Sacramento County Code and Folsom Municipal Code Chapter 8.40.
Because Isleton and Galt do not each maintain a dedicated seat on the SEC, the three smaller sponsoring jurisdictions — Folsom, Isleton, and Galt — have historically coordinated to nominate a shared representative to fill this position, ensuring each city's interests are represented on the Commission.
POLICY/ RULE
Folsom Municipal Code Chapter 8.40 establishes that the cities of Folsom, Isleton, and Galt (FIG) shall jointly appoint one member for a three-year term.
ANALYSIS
The shared representative seat on the Sacramento Environmental Commission (SEC) allocated jointly to the Cities of Folsom, Isleton, and Galt has been vacant for an extended period. Despite outreach and recruitment efforts, no applications were received from eligible candidates within the three sponsoring jurisdictions, leaving the seat unfilled and the three cities without dedicated representation on the Commission during this time.
Galt resident Bob Wilson has come forward and expressed interest in serving as the shared representative for Folsom, Isleton, and Galt.
Given the extended vacancy and the absence of competing applicants, staff recommends that the City Council nominate Bob Wilson to fill the shared seat for a three-year term, consistent with the standard SEC term length. Because this is a shared appointment among three sponsoring cities, staff further recommends that this nomination be presented to the Isleton and Galt City Councils for concurrence, consistent with past practice for filling this position, so that all three jurisdictions formally support the appointment before it is forwarded to the SEC and the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors for confirmation.
09/22/2026 Item No.4.
3 Filling this vacancy will restore the three cities' voice on the Commission and ensure Folsom, Isleton, and Galt are represented in the SEC's ongoing work on environmental quality, conservation, public health, and sustainability issues affecting the region.
ATTACHMENT
1. Application from Bob Wilson (redacted)
Respectfully submitted,
Christa Freemantle, CMC
City Clerk
09/22/2026 Item No.4.
09/22/2026 Item No.4.
09/22/2026 Item No.4.
This page is intentionally left blank
to facilitate double-sided printing
and minimize paper use.
09/22/2026 Item No.4.
Folsom City Council
Staff Report
1 MEETING DATE:
9/8/2026
AGENDA SECTION:
Consent Calendar
ITEM TITLE: Resolution No. 11691 – A Resolution Approving a Policy for Remote Participation in City Council Meetings in Compliance with Senate Bill 707
FROM: City Clerk’s Department
City Attorney’s Office
RECOMMENDATION / CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Staff recommends that the City Council approve Resolution No. 11691 - A Resolution Approving a Policy for Remote Participation in City Council Meetings in Compliance with Senate Bill 707.
BACKGROUND / ISSUE
The Ralph M. Brown Act (Government Code Sections 54950–54963) is California's foundational open meetings law, guaranteeing the public's right to observe and participate in the deliberations of local legislative bodies. The Brown Act has long required that meetings of the City Council be held at a physical location open to the public, with public comment opportunities.
In October 2025, Governor Newsom signed Senate Bill 707 (SB 707) to address remote participation for "eligible legislative bodies" (which includes the Folsom City Council). Under the new law, cities are now required to provide a "hybrid" meeting format that allows the public to actively participate via two-way telephonic or audiovisual platforms in addition to traditional in-person participation.
POLICY / RULE
Government Code Section 54953.4, which was added by SB 707, provides the legal framework for the proposed policy. The statute requires a local agency's legislative body to allow members
09/22/2026 Item No.5.
2 of the public to participate remotely using a two-way telephonic or audiovisual platform. The statute also requires eligible legislative bodies like the City of Folsom to take the following actions in open session, not on the consent calendar:
1. Adopt a written policy governing remote public participation, approved by the legislative body by a majority vote;
2. Include in the policy the means by which the public may remotely address the legislative body and the procedures for recessing and reconvening a meeting in the event of disruption of telephonic or internet service during a meeting of the legislative body and the efforts that must be taken to attempt to restore the service;
3. Post the policy on the agency's website;
4. Include in each meeting agenda: (1) the physical address of the meeting location; and (2) instructions and links for accessing the telephonic and/or audiovisual platform;
5. Provide access to the remote participation platform without requiring payment or subscription fees by members of the public;
6. Ensure that the platform allows two-way communication so that members of the public can provide public comment;
7. Apply public comment time limits equally to in-person and remote participants;
8. Make good-faith efforts to restore service if a technology failure prevents remote public access, including a one-hour recess before reconvening open session; and
9. Adopt specified findings by roll call vote before resuming open session if remote access cannot be restored after a technology failure.
ANALYSIS
Overview of the Proposed Policy
The proposed City of Folsom Policy for Remote Public Participation in City Council Meetings has been prepared by the City Clerk's Department in consultation with the City Attorney's Office.
The policy is structured to satisfy the requirements of Government Code Section 54953.4 and SB 707 and to establish clear procedures for the City Clerk's office to administer hybrid meetings.
The key provisions of the policy are summarized below.
Remote Access and Platform Requirements
The policy requires the City to provide a two-way telephonic and/or audiovisual platform that enables members of the public to address the Council during public comment periods. Consistent with SB 707, use of the platform will be free of charge to participants. Access instructions and links will be included on every meeting agenda and posted on the City's website, ensuring that members of the public can readily locate and use the remote access option.
Public Comment Procedures
The policy establishes equitable procedures for public comment by both in-person and remote participants:
09/22/2026 Item No.5.
3 1. Time limits for public comment (typically three minutes per speaker) apply equally to in- person and remote speakers, consistent with the requirements of Section 54953 and Section 54954.3.
2. Remote participants wishing to address the Council will use the 'raise hand' or equivalent feature of the platform. The City Clerk or designee will monitor the platform queue and recognize speakers in order received.
3. The presiding officer or City Clerk will alternate between in-person and remote speakers where feasible, ensuring equitable access regardless of the method of participation.
Disruption Management and Platform Controls
The policy establishes a progressive discipline protocol for disruptive conduct, applicable equally to in-person and remote participants. The protocol provides for:
1. A first warning identifying the disruptive behavior and requesting compliance;
2. A final warning advising that continued disruption will result in removal or disconnection; and
3. Removal (for in-person participants) or disconnection (for remote participants), with no permission to rejoin for the remainder of the meeting.
The policy also authorizes the presiding officer to bypass the warning process and proceed to immediate removal or disconnection in cases involving threats of violence, imminent threats to public safety, severe or pervasive disruption, or repeat offenders previously provided a second warning or removed.
The City Clerk or designee is authorized to mute remote participants not recognized to speak and to disable video for participants displaying inappropriate visual content. These controls must be applied uniformly and without regard to viewpoint, consistent with constitutional protections for public comment.
Technology Failure and Meeting Continuity
The policy addresses the statutory requirements of SB 707 regarding equipment and/or technology failures.
If a disruption of telephonic or internet service occurs during the meeting, the City Council shall recess the open session of the meeting and make a good faith attempt to restore the service. The City Council may meet in closed session during this period. The City Council shall not reconvene the open session of the meeting until at least one hour following the disruption, or until telephonic or internet service is restored, whichever is earlier.
Upon reconvening the open session, if telephonic or internet service has not been restored, the City Council shall – before continuing the meeting - adopt a finding by rollcall vote that good faith efforts to restore the telephonic or internet service have been made and that the public interest in continuing the meeting outweighs the public interest in remote public access. If such a finding is not made, the meeting must be adjourned.
09/22/2026 Item No.5.
4 Technical difficulties affecting only an individual participant's personal equipment will not require suspension of the meeting. An individual disconnected during their comment due to their own technical difficulties will be given an opportunity to reconnect and complete their allotted comment time.
Compatibility with In-Person Participation
The policy expressly preserves and protects the public's right to attend and participate in City Council meetings in person. Remote participation is offered as an additional option to expand access; it does not diminish or replace the opportunity for in-person attendance. The public comment and disruption management procedures apply equally to in-person and remote participation.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
There is no financial impact associated with the adoption of this policy. However, implementing the remote access requirements of SB 707 – particularly with an eye towards avoiding technical failures - requires an update to the Council Chambers’ audiovisual equipment. City staff has been working with Sacramento Metro Cable Commission staff to utilize PEG grant funds for the necessary upgrades to avoid impacts to the City’s General Fund.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution No. 11691 - A Resolution Approving a Policy for Remote Participation in City Council Meetings in Compliance with Senate Bill 707
2. City of Folsom Policy for Remote Participation in City Council Meetings
###
09/22/2026 Item No.5.
Attachment 1
09/22/2026 Item No.5.
Resolution No. 11691
RESOLUTION NO. 11691
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A POLICY FOR
REMOTE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS
IN COMPLIANCE WITH SENATE BILL 707
WHEREAS, the Ralph M. Brown Act (Government Code Sections 54950–54963) ensures the public's right to observe and participate in the deliberations of local legislative bodies; and
WHEREAS, in October 2025, Governor Newsom signed Senate Bill 707 (SB 707), mandating that eligible legislative bodies provide a hybrid meeting format for the public, allowing for both in-person and remote participation via two-way telephonic or audiovisual platforms; and
WHEREAS, the City of Folsom remains committed to transparency, accessibility, and expanding opportunities for public engagement while maintaining the orderly conduct of public meetings; and
WHEREAS, staff has developed a policy to satisfy the requirements of Government Code Section 54953.4, as added by SB 707; and
WHEREAS, this policy establishes equitable procedures for public comment, ensuring that remote and in-person participants are granted equal time limits and access to be heard by the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the policy includes a progressive discipline protocol to manage disruptive conduct by in -person or remote participants and specific "good-faith" restoration procedures that apply in the event of a technology failure, as required by state law; and
WHEREAS, the adoption of this policy does not diminish the public's right to attend meetings in person, but rather offers remote participation as an additional option to enhance accessibility for all members of the community.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Folsom that:
1. Adoption. The City Council hereby approves and adopts the "City of Folsom Policy for Remote Public Participation in City Council Meetings."
2. Effective Date. This policy shall take effect immediately.
3. Implementation. The City Clerk is authorized to implement the administrative procedures and technical controls necessary to conduct hybrid meetings in accordance with this policy and the Brown Act.
4. Public Notice. The City Clerk shall ensure that all meeting agendas and the City’s website provide clear instructions for remote public access in compliance with the provisions of this policy and the Brown Act.
09/22/2026 Item No.5.
Resolution No. 11691
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 8th day of September 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
09/22/2026 Item No.5.
Attachment 2
09/22/2026 Item No.5.
City of Folsom Policy for
Remote Public Participation in City Council Meetings
Effective Date: [date adopted]
Authority: California Government Code Section 54953.4
I. PURPOSE
This policy establishes procedures for remote public participation in City Council meetings in compliance with the requirements of SB 707 and to ensure transparency, accessibility, and the orderly conduct of meetings while providing expanded opportunities for public engagement.
II. GENERAL PROVISIONS
A. Remote Public Participation Authorized
Members of the public may participate remotely in City Council meetings through telephonic and/or audiovisual means as provided by this policy. Remote participation includes the ability to observe meetings and provide public comment without physically attending the meeting location.
B. In-Person Participation
Nothing in this policy shall be construed to limit or discourage in-person public participation.
Members of the public may attend and participate in meetings at the physical meeting location.
III. REMOTE ACCESS METHODS
A. Remote Access Platform
1. The City shall provide remote public access via a two-way telephonic and/or audiovisual platform that allows members of the public to hear the meeting and address the Council.
2. The platform shall be accessible without requiring payment or subscription fees.
3. Instructions for accessing the telephonic and/or audiovisual platform shall be included on each meeting agenda and posted on the City's website.
B. Agenda Posting Requirements
Each agenda shall include:
1. The physical address of the primary meeting location
2. Instructions and links for accessing the telephonic and/or audiovisual remote participation platform
09/22/2026 Item No.5.
IV . PUBLIC COMMENT PROCEDURES
A. General Public Comment Rules
1. Public comment time limits shall apply equally to in-person and remote participants (typically 3 minutes per participant, unless modified by the Mayor or Council).
2. Participants may be requested to identify themselves by name before providing comments.
3. Public comments shall be directed to the Council and shall relate to matters within the Council's jurisdiction.
4. Comments shall be courteous and respectful; profanity, personal attacks, and threatening language are prohibited whether the participant is participating in-person or via remote access.
B. Remote Public Comment Process
1. Remote Participants:
a. Participants wishing to provide public comment shall use the "raise hand" or similar feature on the platform
b. The City Clerk or designee shall monitor the platform and recognize participants in the order received
c. Participants will be muted after their comments are concluded.
C. Order of Public Comment
1. All participants wanting to speak on an agenda item shall have the opportunity to do so, consistent with the terms of this policy.
2. The presiding officer or City Clerk may alternate between in-person and remote participants when feasible to ensure equitable access.
3. If there are no participants from one format (in-person or remote), all participants from the available format will be recognized.
4. The presiding officer retains discretion to adjust the order of participants to accommodate timing or technical issues.
V . DISRUPTION MANAGEMENT
A. Prohibited Conduct
The following conduct is prohibited and constitutes disruption of the meeting:
09/22/2026 Item No.5.
1. Using profane, threatening, abusive, or obscene language
2. Making personal attacks against Council members, staff, or members of the public
3. Speaking out of turn or refusing to yield when time has expired
4. Engaging in excessive or prolonged outbursts, such as clapping, yelling, chanting, or booing
5. Displaying visual images, screen sharing, or gestures that are obscene, harassing, or disruptive
6. Using virtual backgrounds or profile images that contain offensive or discriminatory content, or content that violates the terms of this policy
7. Playing music, videos, or other audio that disrupts the meeting
8. Repeatedly interrupting participants or the Council's deliberations
9. Impersonating another person or using false identification
10. Engaging in intentional technological disruption
11. Refusing to comply with meeting rules and procedures after warning B. Progressive Discipline Protocol
The presiding officer shall use the following progressive approach when addressing disruptive behavior:
1. First Warning:
a. Identify the disruptive behavior and the participant or group engaging in the disruptive behavior
b. Request immediate compliance with meeting rules
c. Explain that continued disruption will result in removal/disconnection
2. Second Warning (Final Warning):
a. State that this is the final warning
b. Advise that the next disruption will result in immediate removal or disconnection of the participant or group engaging in the disruptive behavior for the remainder of the meeting.
c. Advise the participant that they may be immediately removed, without warning, if they have been warned, received a second warning, or removed at a previous meeting for similar conduct.
09/22/2026 Item No.5.
3. Removal/Disconnection:
a. Order the immediate removal (for in-person participants) or disconnection (for remote participants) of the individual or group from the meeting b. The individual shall not be permitted to rejoin or reconnect for the remainder of the meeting
C. Immediate Removal or Disconnection
The presiding officer may skip the warning process and immediately order removal or disconnection without prior warning when:
1. The disruption involves threats of violence or actual violence
2. The conduct poses an immediate threat to public safety or order
3. The disruption is severe, pervasive, or prevents the meeting from proceeding
4. The individual has been warned or removed at a previous meeting for similar conduct D. Muting and Video Controls
1. The City Clerk or designee may mute all participants except the person recognized to speak.
2. Participants who are not currently speaking may be required to keep their microphones muted.
3. The City Clerk or designee may disable video feed for participants displaying inappropriate visual content.
4. These controls shall be applied uniformly and not based on viewpoint.
VII. MEETING CONTINUITY
A. Technical Difficulties – City Equipment
1. If a disruption of telephonic or internet service occurs during the meeting, the City Council shall recess the open session of the meeting and make a good faith attempt to restore the service. The City Council may meet in closed session during this period. The City Council shall not reconvene the open session of the meeting until at least one hour following the disruption, or until a level of telephonic or internet service sufficient to allow remote participation via a two-way telephonic service or a two-way audiovisual platform is restored, whichever is earlier.
2. Upon reconvening the open session, if telephonic or internet service has not been restored, the City Council shall adopt a finding by rollcall vote that good faith efforts to restore the telephonic or internet service have been made and that the public interest in
09/22/2026 Item No.5.
continuing the meeting outweighs the public interest in remote public access. If the City Council does not adopt such a finding, the meeting shall be adjourned.
B. Technical Difficulties – Individual’s Equipment
1. If an individual is disconnected during their comment due to technical difficulties of their personal equipment, they will be given the opportunity to reconnect and complete their comment time.
2. Technical difficulties affecting solely individual participants shall not require the meeting to be continued or suspended.
VIII. IMPLEMENTATION AND REVIEW
A. Effective Date
This policy shall take effect upon approval by the City Council in Open Session.
B. Review / Amendments
This policy shall be reviewed and updated as necessary to ensure compliance with state law and best practices and may be amended by resolution of the City Council. ###
Adopted by the City Council on [Date] by Resolution No. 11691
09/22/2026 Item No.5.
This page is intentionally left blank
to facilitate double-sided printing
and minimize paper use.
09/22/2026 Item No.5.
Folsom City Council
Staff Report
1 MEETING DATE:
9/8/2026
AGENDA SECTION:
Consent Calendar
SUBJECT: Resolution No. 11694 – A Resolution Approving the Historic District Commission’s Recommendation for Approval of a Design Review and Density Bonus Application for the Sutter Lofts Project Located at 807 and 809 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 September 2, 2026.
During the meeting, the Commission recommended the addition of Condition 29 requiring that the property owner/applicant notify tenants of the Sutter Street 3 -hour parking restriction , 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. 116 94 – A Resolution Approving the Historic District Commission’s Recommendation for Approval of a Design Review and Density Bonus Application for the Sutter Lofts Project Located at 807 and 809 Sutter Street and Determination that the Project is Exempt from CEQA.
BACKGROUND / ISSUE
The applicant is requesting approval for design review application for a six (6) unit, 4,374 square-foot rear apartment building located at 807 and 809 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 bein g submitted to City Council for final approval.
Government Code Section 65589.5, known as the Housing Accountability Act (HAA), limits the City’s authority to deny or reduce the density of a proposed housing development project without
09/22/2026 Item No.6.
2 making specific findings. The City cannot deny a housing development project unless the project has been determined to have a specific, adverse impact on the public health or safety, and that there is no feasible method to mitigate or avoid this impact satisfactorily other than by disapproving the project or requiring a lower density. Furthermore, the HAA limits the City’s discretion to evaluating the project’s adherence to objective standards.
FMC Chapter 17.60 states that in the Sutter Street Subarea, a conditional use permit is required for residential projects involving three or more dwelling units. However, Government Code Section 65912.157(a) states that qualifying housing development projects within one -quarter mile of a major transit stop is an allowed use by right. Thus, the project is not subject to the conditional use permit requirement.
FMC 17.102.030(A) states that the City shall grant a density bonus to an applicant or developer of a housing development consisting of five or more dwelling units, who agrees to restrict a certain percentage of units for low-income households. Government Code Section 65915(f) states that in exchange for the maximum 50% density bonus, the project must restrict at least 24% of the base density units for low income households for a period of 55 years.
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. 11694 – A Resolution Approving the Historic District Commission’s Recommendation for Approval of a Design Review and Density Bonus Application for the Sutter Lofts Project Located at 807 and 809 Sutter Street and Determination that the Project is Exempt from CEQA.
2. Historic District Commission Staff Report and Attachments, dated September 2, 2026
3. Commission Revised Conditions of Approval, dated September 2, 2026
Submitted,
PAM JOHNS
Community Development Director
09/22/2026 Item No.6.
09/22/2026 Item No.6.
Resolution No. 11694
RESOLUTION NO. 11694
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION’S
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL OF A DESIGN REVIEW AND A DENSITY BONUS APPLICATION FOR THE SUTTER LOFTS PROJECT LOCATED AT 807 AND 809 SUTTER STREET AND DETERMINATION THAT THE PROJECT IS
EXEMPT FROM CEQA
WHEREAS, the Historic District Commission on September 2nd, 2026, held a public meeting on the proposed design review and density bonus application for the Sutter Lofts Project (MSTR26-00054), 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 and density bonus application for the Sutter Lofts 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.
09/22/2026 Item No.6.
Resolution No. 11694
DESIGN REVIEW FINDINGS
E. THE PROJECT IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE GENERAL PLAN, APPLICABLE
ZONING ORDINANCES, AND THE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL.
F. 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.
DENSITY BONUS FINDINGS
G. THE PROJECT QUALIFIES FOR A DENSITY BONUS IN THAT THE PROJECT IS
PROVIDING AT LEAST ONE UNIT FOR LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS FOR THE STATUTORILY REQUIRED TIME PERIOD.
H. THE PROPOSED PROJECT QUALIFIES FOR THE REQUESTED PROJECT DENSITY OF 46.2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE.
I. THE PROJECT AS CONDITIONED WILL NOT HAVE A SPECIFIC ADVERSE IMPACT
UPON THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY OF THE COMMUNITY OR THE PHYSICAL ENVIORNMENT.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 8th day of September, 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
09/22/2026 Item No.6.
09/22/2026 Item No.6.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 2
Type: Public Meeting
Date: September 2, 2026
Historic District Commission Staff Report
50 Natoma Street, Council Chambers
Folsom, CA 95630
PROJECT INFORMATION
Project Name: Sutter Lofts Project
File Number: MSTR26-00054
Request: Design Review, Density Bonus, and Determinatio n that the Project is Exempt from CEQA
Location: 807 & 809 Sutter Street, Folsom, CA 95630 (APN 070-0103-007-0000) General Plan Designation: Historic Folsom, Mixed-Use (HF) Zoning: Sutter Street Subarea (SUT) of the Historic District Zoning District (HD) Staff Contact : Nathan Stroud, Associate Planner , [email protected], (916) 461 - 6220
Property Owner: Visione Entrprs LLC; P.O. Box 6493, Folsom, CA 95630 Applicant: Anthony Mull; 108 Sombrero Way, Folsom, CA 95630 Project Summary: The proposed project involves Design Review and a Density Bonus for a six (6) unit, 4,374 square -foot rear apartment building, located at 807 & 809 Sutter Street. The project involves a Density Bonus bringing the total number of dwelling units allowed from four (4) to six (6) units total in exchange for restricting one (1) unit for low income households for a period of at least 55 years. Staff have determined that the project conforms to the objective development standards of the Folsom Municipal Code ( FMC), and generally aligns with the design guidelines of the Historic District Design and Development Guidelines (DDGs). This housing development project is only subject to objective standards in accordance the Housing Accountability Act (HAA).
The Historic District Commission will provide a recommendation, and the City Council will take final action.
Recommendation: Move to recommend confirming staff’s determination that the Sutter Lofts Project is exempt from CEQA under Section 15303 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) and 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption), and recommend approval of an application (MSTR26-00054) for Design Review and a Density Bonus for said project at 807 & 809 Sutter Street, based on the findings (Findings A -I), and subject to the conditions of approval (Conditions 1-28) attached to the staff report.
09/22/2026 Item No.6.
Historic District Commission
Sutter Lofts Project (MSTR26-00054)
Date: September 2, 2026
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Project Setting
The project site contains an existing single story, 2,370 square -foot commercial building built in 1895 on a 5,663 square -foot (0.13 acre) parcel, located in the Sutter Street Subarea of the Historic District. The property is sloped, with a higher elevation along the rear alleyway and a lower elevation along Sutter Street. Currently, four (4) on-site parking spaces are provided along the alley where the project is proposed to be located. The project site abuts two (2) properties listed on the City’s Cultural Resources Inventory located at 802 and 806 Figueroa Street. Both involve historic residences located nearest to the Figueroa Street side of their respective properties, greater than 100 feet away from the project site.
Figure 1 – Vicinity Map
Applicant’s Request
The applicant, Anthony Mull, is requesting approval for Design Review and a Density Bonus for a six (6) unit, 4,374 square-foot rear apartment building, located at 807 & 809 Sutter Street. Four (4) of the units are proposed to be 600 square -foot studio lofts, and two (2) 987 square-foot one (1) bedroom lofts, each with its own balcony facing Sutter Street. The project involves the use of the State’s Density Bonus Law to increase the allowed density by 50%, raising the maximum number of units allowed from four (4) units to six (6) units in exchange to designating at least one (1) unit for low income residents.
No changes to the existing commercial building are proposed as part of this project, and the proposed apartment building would be a standalone building located along the rear alleyway on the property. Due to its location on a downward sloping lot, the apartment building is proposed to be three (3) stories on the downslope facing Sutter Street, and two (2) stories on the upslope facing the rear alleyway.
09/22/2026 Item No.6.
Historic District Commission
Sutter Lofts Project (MSTR26-00054)
Date: September 2, 2026
Policy/Rule
Design Review
Folsom Municipal Code (FMC) Section 17.52.300 states that the Historic District Commission shall review projects involving new office, industrial, commercial, and residential buildings 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.
Additionally, as a result of the recent litigation, all entitlements in the Historic District are being submitted to City Council for final approval.
Housing Accountability Act (HAA)
Government Code Section 65589.5, known as the Housing Accountability Act (HAA), limits the City’s authority to deny or reduce the density of a proposed housing development project without making specific findings. Pursuant to Gov. Code section 65589.5(j)(1), to deny a qualifying housing development project or condition its approval to develop at a lower density, the local agency must determine that:
1. The project would have a specific, adverse impact on public health or safety; and
2. There is no feasible method to mitigate or avoid this impact satisfactorily, other than by disapproving the project or requiring a lower density.
A “specific adverse impact” is defined as a “significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards” (Gov. Code Section 6589.5(j)(1)(A)).
Furthermore, the HAA limits the City’s discretion to evaluating the project’s adherence to objective standards. Objective means “involving no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and … uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant … and the public official”.
Conditional Use Permit
FMC Chapter 17.60 states that in the Sutter Street Subarea, a conditional use permit is required for residential projects involving three or more dwelling units. However,
09/22/2026 Item No.6.
Historic District Commission
Sutter Lofts Project (MSTR26-00054)
Date: September 2, 2026
Government Code Section 65912.157(a), if a housing development project is located within one-quarter (0.25) mile of a Tier 2 transit stop (e.g., light rail station), it qualifies as a transit -oriented housing development project and is an allowed use . Additionally, to qualify, the housing development needs to include at least five (5) units, have a density greater than 30 dwelling units per acre, and meet the minimum density requirements. As this project is within one -quarter (0.25) mile of the Historic Folsom Light Rail Station, consists of six (6) units at a density of 46.2 dwelling units per acre, and exceeds the minimum density requirements, this transit-oriented housing development project is an allowed use by right and not subject to the conditional use permit requirement.
Density Bonus
FMC 17.102.030(A) states that the City shall grant a density bonus to an applicant or developer of a housing development consisting of five or more dwelling units, who agrees to provide the following:
a. At least ten percent of the total units of a housing development for low -income households; or
b. At least five percent of the total units of a housing development for very low-income households; or
c. A senior citizen housing development.
All density calculations resulting in fractional units shall be rounded up to the next whole number.
Government Code Section 65915 (f) provides the percentage density bonus allowed based on the number of units restricted for low or very low -income households. In exchange for the maximum 50% density bonus , the project proposes to restrict at least 24% of the base density units for low income households for a period of 55 years. The allowable base density permits a maximum of four (4) units; by requiring one (1) unit to be deed-restricted for low-income households in exchange for a two (2) unit (50%) density bonus, the project is able to develop for a maximum of six (6) units total.
ANALYSIS
General Plan Consistency
The General Plan land-use designation of the project site is Historic Folsom, Mixed-Use (HF). The following table shows applicable General Plan goals/policies:
09/22/2026 Item No.6.
Historic District Commission
Sutter Lofts Project (MSTR26-00054)
Date: September 2, 2026
General Plan Policies (2035)
Goals/Policies Description
LU 1.1.12
(Infill
Development)
Respect the local context. New development should improve the character and connectivity of the neighborhood in which it occurs.
Physical design should respond to the scale and features of the surrounding community, while improving critical elements such as transparency and permeability.
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.
LU 6.1.3
(Efficiency
through Density)
Support an overall increase in average residential densities in identified urban centers and mixed-use districts. Encourage new housing types to shift from lower-density, large-lot developments to higher-density, small-lot and multifamily developments, as a means to increase energy efficiency, conserve water, reduce waste, as well as increase access to services and amenities (e.g., open space) through an emphasis of mixed uses in these higher- density developments.
NCR 5.1.6
(Historic District
Standards)
Maintain and implement design and development standards for the Historic District.
H-3.6
(Density Bonus)
The City shall continue to make density bonuses available to affordable and senior housing projects, consistent with State law and Title 17 of the Folsom Municipal Code.
The project involves the addition of a six (6) unit apartment building on an existing commercial property . The Historic Folsom Mixed -Use (HF) General Plan Designation specifies a Floor -Area-Ratio (FAR) between 0.5 and 2.0. As the project site involves a 4,374 square -foot proposed new apartment buildin g and a 2,370 square -foot existing commercial building on a 5,663 square-foot parcel, the FAR of the project as proposed is
1.19, wihtin the specified FAR. Furthemore, the HF General Plan designation allows for a density of between 20 and 30 dwelling units per acre (DU/Ac). The project’s density is ~46 DU/Ac, exceeding the requirements of the HF General Plan designation; however, the project is seeking a density bonus due to the inclusion of afforable housing units, as discussed further in the Density Bonus section of the analysis.
As discussed later in this report, the project complies with the objective development standards of the FMC 17.52.510, and generally meets the guidelines of the Historic District Design and Development Guidelines, consistent with General Plan Policy NCR
5.1.6. The project maintains the existing street fabric and pattern, in accordance with General Plan Policy LU 2.1.1 , due to its front façade design, which is compatible with
09/22/2026 Item No.6.
Historic District Commission
Sutter Lofts Project (MSTR26-00054)
Date: September 2, 2026
other developments on Sutter Street, and due to its substantial front setback, which minimizes visual impacts from Sutter Street. Additionally, the project’s scale and architectural design are compatible with the surrounding character and context of the Sutter Street Subarea in accordance with General Plan Policy LU 1.1.12. The project is also consistent with General Plan Policy LU 6.1.3 by proposing a small -lot, high density multifamily development within a mixed-use district, providing alternative housing options to traditional lower-density single-family residences for lower income workers .
Furthermore, the compact design also efficiently uses local infrastructure, roads, and services and the location in a mixed-use district provides greater access to services and amenities.
For these reasons, the project has been determined to comply with the goals and policies of the Folsom General Plan.
Zoning Consistency
The project site is within the Sutter Street Subarea (SUT) of the Historic District Zoning District (HD). Within this subarea of the zoning district, residential uses are permitted ; however, developments containing three or more dwelling units require a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), subject to Historic District Commission review. In accordance with the State’s Density Bonus Law (Gov. Code Section 65915), the applicant has requested a waiver of this CUP requirement, as discussed later in this report.
The following table shows how the project relates to applicable development standards:
Sutter Street Subarea Development Standards
(FMC 17.52.510)
Required Proposed
Setbacks No Setbacks Required
~0-Foot Side Setbacks;
~5-foot Rear Setback;
~75-foot Front Setback.
Height Maximum 35 Feet Avg. 34 Feet, 3 Inches.
Per FMC 17.02.110, Building height means the vertical distance measured from the average of the highest and lowest point of that portion of the lot covered by the building to the highest point of the roof, ridge, or parapet wall. Measuring the proposed project to the highest parapet, the project on average is approximately 34 feet, 3 inches tall. As such, the project is within the maximum 35-foot height limit.
Overall, the project has been determined to satisfy the objective use and development standards of the Sutter Street Subarea (SUT) of the Historic District Zoning District (HD) outlined in the Folsom Municipal Code.
09/22/2026 Item No.6.
Historic District Commission
Sutter Lofts Project (MSTR26-00054)
Date: September 2, 2026
Historic Context
Background
The existing commercial building at 807 & 809 Sutter Street was originally built in approximately 1895 according to Sacramento County records. The property is not a listed historic resource in the local, state, or national registers of historic places , and has not been previously evaluated for eligibility.
The project does not propose to modify the existing commercial building, and instead will construct a new apartment building in undeveloped space at the rear of the property, preserving the existing commercial building.
Design Review
Housing Accountability Act (HAA) (Government Code Section 65589.5) Under the provisions of the HAA, only objective design and development standards can be used when reviewing the design of a multi-family housing development project. In this context, “objective” means “involving no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and being uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official”. Furthermore, the City also cannot deny or reduce the density of the project, unless the project has been found to have a specific, adverse impact on public health or safety.
As a result, while staff have provided an analysis of the project’s consistency with the Historic District Design and Development Guidelines (DDGs) in this staff report below , failure to comply with the guidelines cannot constitute a basis for denial of the project or for modifications that would reduce the number of units or project density or render the project infeasible for the development of low-income units.
Architectural Design
The Sutter Street Subarea encompasses Folsom’s original commercial district, featuring a mix of architecture representative of the 1860s through the early 1900s. Since Folsom, like many towns of its era, was prone to fires, most surviving historic buildings were constructed of fire -resistant materials, such as brick, masonry, and stucco. The predominant building form was the Western False-Front style, characterized by the use of a raised parapet to give the appearance of a taller structure and often concealed a gabled roof to give a flat top appearance.
In recognition of this common form of construction, t he Historic Commercial Design Criteria of the DDGs generally encourage that new construction be compatible with the subarea it is in, using buildings on the same street and the predominant style of the subarea for comparison. The design criteria also state that the use of brick veneer is acceptable, and that the use of wood panels and moldings may be appropriate for some
09/22/2026 Item No.6.
Historic District Commission
Sutter Lofts Project (MSTR26-00054)
Date: September 2, 2026
buildings.
Figure 2 – Project Rendering (Front / Rear)
The proposed apartment building , as shown in Figure 2 above, is proposed to have a brick veneer façade facing Sutter Street, and have board and batten siding for the side and rear elevations. A rooftop parapet conceals the rooftop equipment, faux windows are proposed on the side elevations to add detailing, and each unit is proposed to have a balcony with black wrought iron railings, French double doors, and traditional detailing for the platform. The rear elevation includes vertically proportioned windows, gooseneck lighting, and a concealed integrated trash enclosure. The subsequent sections of this report analyze how each architectural element compares to the guidelines of the DDGs.
Generally, the project incorporates many of the same elements used by the Whiskey Row Lofts (905 Sutter Street) , including the use of faux windows on the side, a brick veneer front façade, and similar balcony design. The project also includes design elements to better match the existing commercial building at the property, including using the same window frame colors, the use of a brick front façade, and similarly styled windows and French double doors. A photo comparison of the projects design elements with existing buildings in the Sutter Street Subarea have been provided in Attachment 5.
Under the Housing Accountability Act (HAA), staff cannot require design revisions that are not codified as objective design standards; however, staff did provide preliminary recommendations to increase the project's historic compatibility. The applicant voluntarily incorporated several of these suggestions, including removing the original accent metal paneling, redesigning alley windows with vertical proportions and gridded panes to match the existing commercial building , replacing balcony sliding doors with French double doors, using a more decorated cornice for the front parapet, adjusting the color scheme, and matching frame colors to the existing commercial building. A comparison between the original and the revised renderings are provided in Figure 3 below. As proposed, the project is considered compatible with the Sutter Street Subarea.
09/22/2026 Item No.6.
Historic District Commission
Sutter Lofts Project (MSTR26-00054)
Date: September 2, 2026
Figure 4 – Project Rendering (Original and Revised)
Historic Commercial Design Criteria Guidelines (Appendix D, Section B) The property is located in the Sutter Street Subarea, and the Historic Commercial Design Criteria section of the DDGs apply. This section is intended more to provide guidelines for commercial design, however some guidelines applicable to residential projects are included. Generally, in section B.2 of the design criteria, new construction projects are encouraged to be designed with respect to historic architectural design, drawing influence from existing adjacent buildings on Sutter Street.
Regarding massing and form, Section B.11 of the design criteria states that the historic pattern of the district is that building widths imitate the typical 40-foot frontage of a typical Judah Lot, and break up the massing for sites with greater than 40 -foot frontages. Since this site has 40 foot of frontage, the full 40 -foot width of the building is considered compatible with the intent of the design criteria.
Regarding upper floor windows, Section B.5 of the design criteria generally encourages that windows be vertically proportioned to be consistent in design with a historical prototype of a double-hung window. Based on recommendations by staff, the project has been adjusted to ensure that the rear upper story windows are vertically proportioned and include a horizontal grid to give the appearance of a double hung window to increase consistency with this requirement.
Regarding entries for residential complexes, Section B.8 of the design criteria states that generally the main entry should be clearly identified and relate directly to the main street frontage. However, to avoid making modifications to the existing commer cial building, which was built in 1895, the project proposes to locate the apartment building along the rear of the property and have the main entry be from the alley. Staff recognizes the challenges of modifying the existing commercial building to comply with this guideline and supports the proposed rear main entry as it effectively preserves the existing commercial building.
09/22/2026 Item No.6.
Historic District Commission
Sutter Lofts Project (MSTR26-00054)
Date: September 2, 2026
Regarding roof forms, Section B.14 of the design criteria states that roof parapets should be used to screen roofing , rooftop elements, and rooftop mechanical equipment.
Furthermore, new buildings are generally encouraged to maintain the predominant building shape of the area. The project proposes using a parapet which will screen rooftop equipment and a dedicated solar panel area , and the building shape is generally compatible with other buildings in the Sutter Street Subarea in conformity with this section of the design criteria. Furthermore, the project provides a decorated cornice similar to other buildings on Sutter Street, as shown in Figure 4 below.
Figure 4 – Proposed Cornice on Parapet
Regarding trash enclosures, Section B.18 of the design criteria states that the preferred trash enclosure arrangement will be a structure that is connected to and integrated with the building through the use of compatible materials and detailing. The proje ct proposes to use an integrated trash enclosure along the rear of the property which, based on recommendations by staff, has been modified to use Hardie board panels for the sides painted to match the “Sage Green” color of the building siding. As proposed, the trash enclosure meets the intent of the design criteria.
Overall, the project appears to meet nearly all of the applicable guidelines for a new construction residential project, with the exception of the location of the main entry, as provided in the Historic Commercial Design Criteria of 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:
09/22/2026 Item No.6.
Historic District Commission
Sutter Lofts Project (MSTR26-00054)
Date: September 2, 2026
Building Materials Palette
(Appendix D of DDGs)
Building Element Proposed Materials Appropriate / Inappropriate Exterior Walls
Brick Veneer Siding
(Front Façade) Appropriate
Board and Batten Siding
(Side and Rear) Appropriate
Horizontal Lap Siding
(Interior Hallway) Appropriate
Porches and
Railings Black Wrought Iron Railings Appropriate
Window Frames Aluminum-clad wood frames Appropriate
Although the DDGs do not provide specific color recommendations for buildings in the Historic District, the project was compared with other buildings in the vicinity to determine compatibility. Staff’s findings are provided in the table below:
Color Scheme Compatibility
Building Element Proposed Colors Compatibility
Exterior Walls
Red Brick
(Front Façade)
Consistent with Existing Commercial
Building
“Sage Green” Siding with
Darker Accent Color for Trim
(Side and Rear)
Similar Color as used at
727 Sutter Street
Black Faux Window Shutters Similar Color as used on Whiskey Row Lofts (905 Sutter Street)
Window Frames Burgundy Colored Window
Frames
Consistent with Existing Commercial
Building
Balcony Railings Black Wrought Iron Railings Similar Color as used for railings on Whiskey Row Lofts (905 Sutter Street)
Overall, staff have determined that the proposed project’s colors and materials are consistent with the DDGs as well as compatible with both the existing commercial building as well as with surrounding buildings.
Visual Impact
Set back approximately 75 feet from Sutter Street and located behind an existing single- story commercial building, the proposed apartment project will have minimal visual impacts to the Sutter Street streetscape, as shown in Figure 5 below. Figure 6 shows how the building will look to pedestrians on Leidesdorff Street and also shows that the building's height is similar to adjacent buildings near the Sutter and Wool Street intersection. Additionally, the proposed brick front façade complements the existing streetscape, where brick exteriors are common. Overall, staff have determined that the project would not adversely impact the Sutter Street streetscape due to its limited visibility and complimentary brick exterior façade.
09/22/2026 Item No.6.
Historic District Commission
Sutter Lofts Project (MSTR26-00054)
Date: September 2, 2026
Figure 5 - Sight Line from Sutter Street
Figure 6 - Rendering of View from Leidesdorff Street
Parking Requirements
Pursuant to Government Code Section 65863.2 ( AB 2097), parking is not required for developments located within one-half (0.5) mile of a major public transit stop. Due to its location near the Historic Folsom Light Rail Station, the project is not subject to minimum parking requirements.
Two (2) dedicated parking spaces are proposed to be provided on -site, and other residents are anticipated to utilize alternative modes of transportation , such as the light rail station, and/or use existing public parking facilities in the vicinity. Condition 27 has been provided reiterating the prohibition on parking in the alleyway , in accordance with FMC 10.20.220.
Utilities
Overhead utility lines currently cross the project site from the alley to serve the existing commercial building on the property, and water and sewer lines are accessible from Sutter Street and one sewer line is accessible from the rear alley.
The project proposes to underground the overhead utility lines which will serve both the existing commercial building and the proposed apartment building. Sewer access is proposed to be from the alley, and water is proposed to be accessed from Sutter Street.
After review by the Utilities Departmen t, Conditions 18 and 19 have been provided to specify requirements for the utility connections . This includes , but is not limited to, restoration work to the Sutter Street sidewalk and curb if these improvements are impacted by the utility work, and that the connections be made in accordance with City standard construction specifications and design standards. Condition 20 has also been
09/22/2026 Item No.6.
Historic District Commission
Sutter Lofts Project (MSTR26-00054)
Date: September 2, 2026
provided requiring coordination with utility companies for development of the project.
Drainage
The project site topography is sloped towards Sutter Street, and surface flow currently drains into an existing drainage inlet on the property. The project proposes directing rooftop collection to drain into the alley while the remaining drainage would be directed to the existing drainage inlet on the property. The alley currently slopes towards Decatur Street, with a surface drain to collect rainwater. After review, st aff of the Utilities Department had no concerns with the drainage on the property.
Staff have included Condition 26, a standard requirement prohibiting drainage across property lines onto adjacent parcels, unless authorized by a dedicated drainage easement.
Signage
Signage within the Sutter Street Subarea is regulated by the general Sign Code in FMC
17.59, as modified by the specific subarea sign requirements in FMC 17.52.510(E). While FMC 17.52.510(E) primarily regulates commercial signs and generally prohibits neon and internal illumination, it lacks specific standards for residential signage. As such , staff applied the citywide base sign standards under FMC 17.59 for this project.
FMC 17.59.040(D) states that for multifamily residential uses, one externally illuminated or non-illuminated wall sign is allowed, not to exceed 40 square-feet, not to project more than 18 inches from the building wall, and not to exceed 75% of the width of the building frontage. Furthermore, the signs generally should match the architectural style of the complex.
The project proposes using two (2) wall signs, one (1) on each of the front and rear elevations, constructed of individual letters colored black. In terms of size (apprx. 9.5 sq ft each), width (apprx. 33% of frontage), and projection (<2 inches), the signs meet the standards of the Sign Code . However, the project would need to reduce the number of wall signs to one (1) wall sign. Staff have no concerns with the design, which is similar to the wall signage used for Sutter Court and the Whiskey Row Lofts at 905 Sutter Street.
Staff have provided Condition 28 requiring that the project submit for a sign permit and revise their proposed signage to comply with the requirements of FMC 17.52.510 and FMC 17.59.
Density Bonus
FMC 17.102 (Density Bonus and Other Developer Incentives) and Government Code Section 65915 (Density Bonus and Other Incentives) states that a density bonus shall be granted to an applicant or developer of a qualifying housing development project who agrees to restrict a portion of the total units of the housing development for low -income households. California Density Bonus Law requires that, in exchange for the maximum
09/22/2026 Item No.6.
Historic District Commission
Sutter Lofts Project (MSTR26-00054)
Date: September 2, 2026
50% density bonus, a 55 year restrictive covenant be placed on at least 24% of the base density units to restrict them for low-income households.
The project site has a maximum base density of 30 dwelling units per acre (DU/Ac), resulting in a maximum of four (4) units allowed. By requiring one (1) of the four (4) base density units (25%) to be deed-restricted for low-income households, the project would qualify for a 50% density bonus for two (2) additional units, resulting in a maximum of six (6) units total. The proposed density bonus plan is provided in Attachment 4 , and Condition 27 states that the project approval is contingent upon deed -restricting one (1) unit for low income households for a period of at least 55 years.
No concessions, incentives, or reductions have been requested as part of the density bonus, however the applicant has requested one waiver from the conditional use permit requirement to develop a three (3) or more unit residential development in the Sutter Street Subarea. After further review by staff, this waiver is not necessary since the project is considered an allowed use by right according to Government Code 65912.157(a) due to being within a one-quarter (0.25) mile of the light rail station, among other requirements.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed six (6) unit apartment building is categorically exempt from environmental review under Section 15303 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the CEQA Guidelines. This section exempts apartments designed for up to six (6) units in urbanized areas, and in this case the project falls within this exemption since it involves six (6) units. (Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 14, § 15303(b).)
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 exemptions in this case. These exceptions include:
• 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; • If there is damage to scenic resources within a Scenic Highway; • If the project is located on a Hazardous Waste Site;
• If there is a substantial adverse change in the significance of a Historical Resource.
Analysis: Significant Effect
The project is not anticipated to have an unusual or significant impact on the environment,
09/22/2026 Item No.6.
Historic District Commission
Sutter Lofts Project (MSTR26-00054)
Date: September 2, 2026
as this is an infill project located on a developed, urbanized site of a comparable scale to other adjacent developments . There is no possibility that the project would have a significant effect on the environment beyond that of other existing buildings in the vicinity.
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 historic resource; however, two properties immediately adjacent to the project site to the south are listed on the City’s Cultural Resources Inventory, as shown in Figure 7 below. This includes the Historic Higgins Residence at 802 Figueroa Street, and the Historic Gable Residence at 806 Figueroa Street. These properties were included on the City’s inventory due to the historic value of the main residences located along Figueroa Street. Along the alley , 802 Figueroa Street has a secondary house constructed in 2007, and 806 Figueroa Street has a detached garage constructed in the 1990s with an above-garage unit constructed in 2000. Neither of these accessory structures contribute to the value of either historic resource.
In assessing impacts, staff evaluated the potential visual impacts to these historic resources. Due to the screening provided by the ADU and the secondary home located on each of the historic properties, and due to the distance between the project site and the historic residences (>110 feet) , visual impacts to the historic residences are anticipated to be very limited. Furthermore, since the project is approximately the same height as existing adjacent commercial buildings, it has been determined that there would be a non-substantial change to the existing visual setting to adjacent historic properties.
Overall, s taff have determined that the project would not have a substantial adverse impact on the historic significance of adjacent locally listed historic resources.
09/22/2026 Item No.6.
Historic District Commission
Sutter Lofts Project (MSTR26-00054)
Date: September 2, 2026
Figure 7 – Locally Listed Historic Properties (Red) and Project Site (Yellow)
PUBLIC NOTICING AND OUTREACH
Public notification was achieved by posting the agenda, with this agenda item being listed, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting in print and electronically . Legal advertisement of the meeting was posted at the project site and mailing adjacent property owners at least five (5) days prior to the meeting that met the requirements of FMC Section 17.52.320.
Heritage Preservation League Comments
On August 16, 2026, the Heritage Preservation League (HPL) provided a letter providing comment on the project , which is included as Attachment 7. The letter expressed concerns with the building height being too tall , accessibility, and provided recommendations for the design.
As discussed earlier in this report , FMC 17.02.110 (Building Height) establishes how building height is measured on a sloped lot. Based on staff’s measurements of the project, the project’s average building height is 34 feet, 3 inches, which is within the 35 - foot maximum height limit. Furthermore, the project’s roofline is anticipated to be similar to existing commercial buildings adjacent to the east of the property . The DDGs do not mention any limitation of building heights to increases of one floor increments, and based on staff’s assessment, the project meets the objective development standards of the Folsom Municipal Code for building height.
Regarding accessibility, the Building Division was routed a preliminary review of the project and did not express any initial concerns with accessibility. The project is required to comply with the California Building Code, and will be evaluated in depth for compliance with accessibility requirements during the building permit review.
Regarding design recommendations, HPL recommended:
1. Adding a more prominent cornice to the parapet;
2. Modifying color palette;
3. Incorporating additional window grids;
4. Installing a wood gate for the trash enclosure; and
5. Using brick and stucco instead of board and batten siding.
As noted earlier in this report, under the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) , design recommendations or guidelines that are not objective and codified are voluntary and cannot be mandated by the City for a housing development project. Following discussions with staff, the applicant voluntarily revised the project to include:
1. A more decorated cornice and brickwork; and
2. Addition of an accent color to the color palette.
09/22/2026 Item No.6.
Historic District Commission
Sutter Lofts Project (MSTR26-00054)
Date: September 2, 2026
The following other recommendations were not incorporated, and staff have provided an explanation for each item below:
3. Staff support the proposed window grid design, given its consistency with the existing commercial structure, as shown in Attachment 5.
4. City specifications require that metal doors be used on trash enclosures. To limit the enclosure’s visual impact, the applicant proposes painting these doors to match the building’s exterior colors.
5. Board and batten , and wood siding generally, exists within the Sutter Street Subarea and the DDGs do not prohibit their use. The Fat Rabbit building at 825 Sutter Street uses board and batten siding, and the Folsom Hotel at 703 Sutter Street uses horizontal lap siding. Staff supports the proposed siding because the project utilizes brick along the primary front façade , which is the most visible side from the streetscape , and since the use of brick on only the front façade is consistent with established precedent in the Historic District as seen at Sutter Court and Whiskey Row Lofts, as shown in Attachment 5.
RECOMMENDED HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION ACTION
Move to recommend confirming staff’ s determination that the Sutter Lofts Project is exempt from CEQA under Section 15303 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) and 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) , and recommend approval of an application (MSTR26-00054) for Design Review and a Density Bonus for said project at 807 & 809 Sutter Street, based on the findings (Findings A -I), and subject to the conditions of approval (Conditions 1-28) attached to the staff report.
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 the 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 Exemption) 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 project is in compliance with the General Plan, applicable Zoning Ordinances, and the Historic District Design and Development Guidelines adopted by City
09/22/2026 Item No.6.
Historic District Commission
Sutter Lofts Project (MSTR26-00054)
Date: September 2, 2026
Council.
F. 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.
Density Bonus Findings
G. The project qualifies for a density bonus in that the project is providing at least one unit for low income households for the statutorily required time period.
H. The proposed project qualifies for the requested project density of 46.2 dwelling units per acre.
I. The project as conditioned will not have a specific adverse impact upon the public health and safety of the community or the physical environment.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Proposed Conditions of Approval
2. Project Narrative
3. Plan Set
4. Density Bonus Plan
5. Design Element Comparison
6. Site Photos
7. HPL Comment Letter
Submitted,
PAM JOHNS
Community Development Director
09/22/2026 Item No.6.
Historic District Commission
Sutter Lofts Project (MSTR26-00054)
Date: September 2, 2026
Attachment 1
Proposed Conditions of Approval
09/22/2026 Item No.6.
Historic District Commission
Sutter Lofts Project (MSTR26-00054)
Date: September 2, 2026
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR
SUTTER LOFTS PROJECT (MSTR26-00054)
807 & 809 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 3)
• Density Bonus Site Plan (Attachment 4)
This design review and density bonus approval is for the Sutter Lofts Project (MSTR26-00054) located at 807 & 809 Sutter Street, which includes design review for a six (6) unit, 4,374 square-foot rear apartment building. 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, 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.
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)
09/22/2026 Item No.6.
Historic District Commission
Sutter Lofts Project (MSTR26-00054)
Date: September 2, 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 (design review and density bonus) shall remain in effect for two years from final date of approval (Expires September 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 Developmen t 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 proje ct 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)
09/22/2026 Item No.6.
Historic District Commission
Sutter Lofts Project (MSTR26-00054)
Date: September 2, 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 Study Reimbursement
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)
10. Development Impact Fees
This project shall be subject to all applicable City-wide development impact fees, unless exempt by previous agreement. This project shall be subject to all applicable 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, 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 will begin on the date of final approval (September 8, 2026). The fees shall be calculated at the fee rate in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
B CD (P), PW,
PK
11. School District Fees
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
B CD (P) (E)
09/22/2026 Item No.6.
Historic District Commission
Sutter Lofts Project (MSTR26-00054)
Date: September 2, 2026
Section 65970) of the Government Code; and Sections 65995, 65995.5 and 65995.7 of the Government Code.
SITE DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS
12. Geotechnical Report
Prior to the issuance of any grading, improvement permit, and/or building permit, the owner/applicant shall have a geotechnical report prepared by an appropriately licensed engineer that includes an analysis of site suitability, proposed foundation design for all proposed structures, and roadway and pavement design. The geotechnical report shall be inclusive of any proposed wall calculations. The report and calculations are subject to review and approval by the Community Development Department.
G, B CD (E)
13. Improvement Plan Review
The improvement plans for the required public and/or private improvements shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department prior to issuance of a building permit for the project.
I, B CD (E)
ARCHITECTURAL REQUIREMENTS
14. Architectural Requirements
The project shall comply with the following requirements:
a) This approval is for the Sutter Lofts Project (MSTR26-00054), which includes design review for a six (6) unit, 4,374 square -foot rear apartment building as shown in Attachment 3, located at 807 & 809 Sutter Street.
b) Any changes to the level of architectural detailing shown in Attachments 3, 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) Roof-mounted mechanical equipment, including satellite dish antennas, shall not extend above the height of the parapet walls. Ground-mounted mechanical equipment shall be shielded by landscaping or trellis type features.
d) 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
09/22/2026 Item No.6.
Historic District Commission
Sutter Lofts Project (MSTR26-00054)
Date: September 2, 2026
15. Site and Building Lighting
All lighting, including but not limited to landscape/walkway lights and building -attached lights shall be designed to be screened, shielded, and directed downward onto the project site and away from adjacent properties and public rights -of-way. The final d esign of the building - attached lights shall be subject to review and approval by the Community Development Department. Lighting shall be equipped with a timer or photo condenser.
I, B CD (P)
16. Addressing Plan
An addressing and building number plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the City consistent with the City’s addressing guidelines prior to or as part of the building permit package.
B CD (P), FD,
PD
DENSITY BONUS REQUIREMENTS
17. Affordable Unit Restriction
Project approval is contingent upon the owner/applicant recording a restrictive covenant requiring at least one (1) residential unit within the project to be restricted to low -income households, as defined by the California Department of Housing and Community Development, for a minimum period of 55 years.
B CD (P)
WASTEWATER REQUIREMENTS
18. Wastewater Requirements
The following requirements apply to the wastewater connection location as depicted on the plan set in Attachment 3 for a 4-inch sewer lateral size. Any subsequent changes or deviations must be submitted to the Utilities and Public Works Departments for review and approval, and shall comply with any requirements imposed for the revised configuration and/or size:
a) The sewer lateral from the ROW/property line to the sewer distribution main shall be gravity flow only.
b) A Lower Lateral cleanout shall be placed at the ROW/property line and the on -site force main shall connect upstream of the lower lateral cleanout on private property. c) The on -site lift station and force main shall be privately owned, operated and maintained by the owner/applicant
d) All sewer located within the public ROW per City Design Standard is required to be SDR-26 pipe with heavy wall SDR-26 sewer fittings.
e) The sewer lateral connection to the main shall be constructed in accordance with City of Folsom sewer construction standards and details.
I UT
09/22/2026 Item No.6.
Historic District Commission
Sutter Lofts Project (MSTR26-00054)
Date: September 2, 2026
WATER REQUIREMENTS
19. Water Requirements
The following requirements apply to the water connections as depicted on the plan set in Attachment 3. Any subsequent changes or deviations from these plans must be submitted to the Utilities and Public Works Departments for review and approval, and shall comply with any requirements imposed for the revised configuration and/or size:
a) All backflow devices shall be RPPA backflow devices paired with OS&Y shut-off valves designed to fit tight spaces to be consistent with all other RP devices located on Sutter Street.
b) All RPPA devices shall be USC approved.
c) All backflow devices will be required to be installed in a custom fabricated cover/box similar to all other devices located on Sutter Street.
d) Per the City’s Standard Construction Specifications section 4.12.2.B water service pipes, water meters and backflow devices shall all be the same size. Necking down of piping is not allowed.
e) Per City of Folsom Water Design Standards 16.4.O.1 – Residential Water Services saddles shall be a minimum of 12-inches from the end of the water main and 18 inches to 24 inches away from any other water service saddle or pipe joint. f) The water service and all appurtenances shall be designed and constructed in accordance with City of Folsom water construction standards and details. g) Any installation or connection to the Sutter Street waterline that impacts existing public right-of-way improvements shall require coordination with the Public Works and Community Development Departments. The owner/applicant is responsible for restoring all disturbed areas—including but not limited to paving, granite lip and gutter, and concrete—to City standards and within limits determined by staff.
I UT
DRY UTILITY REQUIREMENTS
20. Coordination with Utility Agencies
The owner/applicant shall coordinate the planning, development and completion of this project with the various utility agencies (i.e., SMUD, PG&E, etc.).
OG CD (P) (E),
PW
21. Dry Utility Connections
Future dry utility connection services (electrical, gas, telephone, etc.) for new buildings shall be placed underground at the project site.
B CD (E)
TRIBAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS
22. Accidental Discovery of Human Remains
Although considered highly unlikely, there is always the possibility that ground disturbing DC CD (P)(E)
09/22/2026 Item No.6.
Historic District Commission
Sutter Lofts Project (MSTR26-00054)
Date: September 2, 2026
activities during construction may uncover previously unknown human remains. In the event of an accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, Public Resource Code (PRC) Section 5097.98 must be followed. Once project-related earthmoving begins and if there is a discovery or recognition of human remains, the following steps shall be taken:
1. There shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the specific location, or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until the County Coroner is contacted to determine if the remains are Native American and if an investigation of the cause of death is required. If the coroner determines the remains are Native American, the coroner shall contact the NAHC within 24 hours, and the NAHC shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the “most likely descendant” of the deceased Native American. The most likely descendant may make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains, and any associated grave goods as provided in PRC Section 5097.98, or
2. Where the following conditions occur, the landowner or his/her authorized representative shall rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity either in accordance with the recommendations of the most likely descendent or on the project area in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance:
a. The NAHC is unable to identify a most likely descendent or the most likely descendent failed to make a recommendation within 48 hours after being notified by the commission;
b. The descendent identified fails to make a recommendation; or The landowner or their authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the descendent, and the mediation by the NAHC fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner.
23. Accidental Discovery of Cultural Resources
In the event that cultural resources are exposed during ground -disturbing activities, construction activities shall be halted within 100-feet of the discovery. Cultural resources could consist of but are not limited to stone, bone, wood, or shell artifacts , or features including
DC CD (P)(E)
09/22/2026 Item No.6.
Historic District Commission
Sutter Lofts Project (MSTR26-00054)
Date: September 2, 2026
hearths, structural remains, or historic dumpsites. If the resources cannot be avoided during the remainder of construction, an archaeologist, who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards, shall be retained to assess the resource and provide appropriate management recommendations. If the discovery proves to be CRHR - or NRHP- eligible, additional work, such as data recovery excavation, may be warranted and shall be discussed in consultation with the Lead Agency.
24. Management of Tribal Cultural Resources
Should any indications of possible tribal cultural resources (TCRs), such as cultural features, unusual amounts of bone or shell, or cultural belongings be encountered during any construction activities, work shall be suspended in the vicinity of the find and the appropriate oversight agency(ies) shall be notified immediately. The appropriate oversight agency(ies ) shall retain a tribal representative or Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO) who shall assess the significance of the find by evaluating the resource to determine if it is a TCR as defined in Section 21074 of the Public Resources Code. If the reso urce is a TCR as defined in state law, and it would be subject to disturbance or destruction, the City shall consult with the THPO or their designee to determine the appropriate treatment before resuming construction activities at the TCR.
DC CD (P)(E)
MISCELLANEOUS REQUIREMENT
25. 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)
26. Drainage Restrictions
No drainage, including surface water, groundwater, or roof runoff, shall be directed or allowed to cross over the property line onto adjacent properties, unless through an easement. City standard drainage swales are required along all property lines where drainage runoff may cross over the property line.
OG CD (P)(E)
27. Alleyway Parking Restrictions
If the property has access to an alleyway, parking for the property shall not impede public OG CD (P)
09/22/2026 Item No.6.
Historic District Commission
Sutter Lofts Project (MSTR26-00054)
Date: September 2, 2026
service access in the alleyway (e.g., waste collection, emergency vehicle access, etc.).
28. Sign Permit Required
A Sign Permit is required for proposed signage. The proposed signage shall be revised to comply with the requirements of FMC 17.59.070(D) (Sign Requirements for Multifamily Residential) and FMC 17.52.510(E) (Sutter Street Subarea Sign Requirements)
B 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
09/22/2026 Item No.6.
Historic District Commission
Sutter Lofts Project (MSTR26-00054)
Date: September 2, 2026
Attachment 2
Project Narrative
09/22/2026 Item No.6.
ANTHONY MULL ARCHITECTS INC. 108 SOMBRERO WAY, FOLSOM CA. 95630 ANTHONYMULLARCHITECTS.COM (916) 770-0740 CITY OF FOLSOM, BUILDING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENTS 14 JULY 2026 REVISED PROJECT NARRATIVE - SUTTER LOFTS DESIGN REVIEW: MSTR26-00054 New Construction, Infill 807/809 Sutter Street. Folsom, Ca. 95630 To whom it may concern, On behalf of the owner, the applicant proposes a small infill residential project consisting of six
rental
loft
units
on
an
existing
alley-accessed
parcel
located
to
the
rear
of
an
existing
commercial
building
fronting
Sutter
Street
in
the
Historic
district
of
Folsom.
The
project
is
designed
as
a
compact,
walkable
addition
to
the
Historic
District's
housing
stock,
with
no
on-site
parking
required
under
current
standards.
The building is 3 stories in total, with 2 stories fronting the alley and the lower level excavated, due
the
natural
slope
of
the
site.
The
max
building
height
is
34’,
less
than
the
max
allowed
height
of
35’.
The
total
square
footage
of
the
proposed
building
is
4,374
square
feet,
broken
up
into
six
units.
The
unit
mix
consists
of
four
600
square
feet
studio
lofts
and
two
987
square
feet
one
bedroom
lofts,
each
with
its
own
balcony.
The architecture is intended to be compatible with the Historic District, using a combination of board
and
batten
siding
facing
the
alley
and
brick
facing
Sutter
Street.
Because
of
the
slope
of
the
site,
the
proposed
design,
and
the
existing
building
facing
Sutter
Street,
the
new
proposal
will
mostly
not
be
visible
for
pedestrians
on
Sutter
Street
(see
diagram
on
design
review
plans).
Primary access and use of the proposal will be accessed from the Alley, enhancing activity and
passive
surveillance
while
maintaining
the
Historic
frontage
character
on
Sutter
Street.
The project is designed to comply with all building, fire, safety, and accessibility code requirements,
offering
two
accessible
units
off
the
main
level
of
the
alley.
Based on previous discussions with Stephanie Henry and Nathan Stroud at the City of Folsom Community
Development
Department
and
Planning
Department,
we
are
proposing
four
dwelling
units
by
right
with
a
density
bonus
increase
of
50%,
bringing
the
total
unit
count
to
six.
The
proposal
intends
to
achieve
this
by
following
the
State
Density
Bonus
Law
for
either
one
dwelling
unit
at
very
low
income
or
two
dwelling
units
reserved
for
low
income
residents.
At
this
time,
we
are
not
requesting
any
further
concessions,
waivers,
or
incentives.
Revisions to Project Narrative Conditional Use Permit (CUP): As part of the density bonus and for a project containing more than
three
units,
the
owner
requests
a
waiver
from
the
Conditional
Use
Permit
(CUP)
requirements.
09/22/2026 Item No.6.
Overhead Utility Lines (OHU): The project site has overhead lines serving the existing commercial building. The plan for the project is to relocate the OHU underground for both the new structure and the existing commercial structure. During the Construction Documents phase, the team will develop a detailed plan with our Electrical Engineer and Civil Engineer.
Drainage: The project site is sloped in the direction of the existing commercial building. The existing conditions handle the drainage of the slope with an existing drainage inlet at the low end of the site, near the back of the commercial building. With the new structure taking up most of the space of the existing slope, the team's intention is direct the roof drainage back to the alley while the existing drainage inlet continues to maintain any other drainage requirements.
Sewer and Water Studies: Per our conversations with the City of Folsom, we are proceeding without the studies at this time and acknowledge that these studies may be required in the future.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Anthony Mull, Architect
2
09/22/2026 Item No.6.
Historic District Commission
Sutter Lofts Project (MSTR26-00054)
Date: September 2, 2026
Attachment 3
Plan Set
09/22/2026 Item No.6.
09/22/2026 Item No.6.
09/22/2026 Item No.6.
09/22/2026 Item No.6.
09/22/2026 Item No.6.
09/22/2026 Item No.6.
09/22/2026 Item No.6.
09/22/2026 Item No.6.
09/22/2026 Item No.6.
09/22/2026 Item No.6.
09/22/2026 Item No.6.
09/22/2026 Item No.6.
09/22/2026 Item No.6.
09/22/2026 Item No.6.
09/22/2026 Item No.6.
09/22/2026 Item No.6.
09/22/2026 Item No.6.
09/22/2026 Item No.6.
09/22/2026 Item No.6.
09/22/2026 Item No.6.
09/22/2026 Item No.6.
09/22/2026 Item No.6.
09/22/2026 Item No.6.
09/22/2026 Item No.6.
09/22/2026 Item No.6.
Historic District Commission
Sutter Lofts Project (MSTR26-00054)
Date: September 2, 2026
Attachment 4
Density Bonus Plan
09/22/2026 Item No.6.
09/22/2026 Item No.6.
Historic District Commission
Sutter Lofts Project (MSTR26-00054)
Date: September 2, 2026
Attachment 5
Design Element Comparison
09/22/2026 Item No.6.
Design Element Comparison
Building
Element Project Building Other Buildings
Brick
Veneer
Front
Façade
Sutter Lofts
(807 & 809 Sutter Street)
Whiskey Row Lofts
(905 Sutter Street)
Balcony
Design
Sutter Lofts
(807 & 809 Sutter Street)
Whiskey Row Lofts
(905 Sutter Street)
Cantilever
Patio Cover
Sutter Lofts
(807 & 809 Sutter Street)
Roundhouse Building
(824 Sutter Street)
09/22/2026 Item No.6.
Window
Frame
Color
(Burgundy)
and
Window
Grid
Pattern
Sutter Lofts
(807 & 809 Sutter Street)
Existing Commercial Building
(807 & 809 Sutter Street)
Faux
Windows
Sutter Lofts
(807 & 809 Sutter Street)
Whiskey Row Lofts
(905 Sutter Street)
Cornice
Sutter Lofts
(807 & 809 Sutter Street)
Existing Commercial Building
(807 & 809 Sutter Street)
09/22/2026 Item No.6.
Historic District Commission
Sutter Lofts Project (MSTR26-00054)
Date: September 2, 2026
Attachment 6
Site Photos
09/22/2026 Item No.6.
09/22/2026 Item No.6.
09/22/2026 Item No.6.
09/22/2026 Item No.6.
09/22/2026 Item No.6.
Historic District Commission
Sutter Lofts Project (MSTR26-00054)
Date: September 2, 2026
Attachment 7
Heritage Preservation League
Comment Letter
09/22/2026 Item No.6.
HERITAGE PRESERVATION LEAGUE OF FOLSOM
PROJECT APPLICATION REVIEW
August 10, 2026
PROJECT: New Residential Building with six units named Sutter Lofts 807 Sutter Street in Sutter Street Subarea
PROJECT HISTORY: Application Circulated by the City on July 16, 2026 Feedback requested by July 31, 2026
The Heritage Preservation League has been in contact with the applicant regarding the visibility of the proposed building from surrounding public right-of- way areas. No conclusion has been reached.
PROJECT SITE
Sutter Street Subarea is Folsom’s historic business district. The Design Concept for this area is commercial designs used in Folsom before year 1900. Only exceptional building designs from a somewhat earlier time frame (1900-1950) may be considered.
A one-story retail building is currently located at 807 Sutter Street. The applicant is proposing to add a 4,374 square foot residential building with six units in the south half of the property. This building would be accessed from the alley.
BUILDING SIZE
It is the applicant’s conclusion that the proposed building will only be marginally visible from Sutter Street. No information is available regarding visibility from Wool Street or the rear alley. Because it is not possible to verify how much of the building can be seen from adjacent right-of-way areas, HPL has assumed that the architecture along all sides of the building will need to be addressed.
The overall height of the proposed building (when measured along the north façade) is 42 feet. This is 7 feet above the height requirement for buildings along Sutter Street. Because the north façade is set back 80 feet, it is not clear if the proposed building height should require the applicant to apply for a height variance.
HPL has noted that the proposed building is three stories high, while the existing buildings at 807 Sutter Street and 811 Sutter Street (west of the project site) are only one story high. This does not conform to the massing standards of the Design Guidelines for the Historic District. According to the Historic Commercial Design Criteria, building heights should only increase in one floor increments.
Recommendation:
• The applicant should provide more information regarding the visibility of the new building (from Sutter Street, Wool Street, and the rear alley), before staff makes a decision regarding building height requirements and the potential need for a variance.
09/22/2026 Item No.6.
ARCHITECTURE
The proposed architecture does not reflect the design criteria of the area or any specific architectural style. As a result, the building (and especially the front façade facing the alley) does stand out as a recent addition to the Sutter Street Subarea. The following details contribute to this impression:
a) The selection of board and batten siding for a building with a flat roof. b) The use of metal panels for the trash enclosure/control room. c) Glazing with large undivided windowpanes.
It is HPL’s opinion that relatively minor design changes could improve the overall impression of the proposed new building. The applicant is encouraged to consider some of the following design changes:
Recommendations:
• Replace the proposed façade materials with brick and stucco. (As an example, the two lower floors of the front and side elevations [including the trash enclosure] could be covered by brick, and the top floor could be covered by stucco.)
• Consider several minor changes along the visible part of the north façade. (Including adding a more prominent cornice at the top of the building, using balcony windows with divided windowpanes, and adding an arch at the top to the of the open stairwell (below the building sign).
• Select front windows (facing the alley) with a more historic look. (At a minimum divided windowpanes could be used.)
• Add a more prominent cornice at the top of the building. (Along all sides of the building.)
• Use a soft color palette that is compatible with the existing brick façade along the east side of 801 Sutter Street (facing Wool Street).
• Select a rustic wood gate for the trash enclosure.
BUILDING CODE
The following aspects of the proposed building design have raised HPL’s concerns:
a) The only windows in four of the proposed residential units are facing the rear balcony (and the narrow open space behind the building).
b) An elevator has not been included with the proposed three-story building.
09/22/2026 Item No.6.
If the adjacent commercial building at 811 Sutter Street (west of the project site) is enlarged in the future, the small rear courtyard behind the proposed residential building would become enclosed on all sides. As a result, four of the proposed residential units could only be accessed through the central staircase.
Recommendation:
• HPL recommends that the staff report/presentation should include an accessibility study prepared by the Building Department.
09/22/2026 Item No.6.
09/22/2026 Item No.6.
Historic District Commission
Sutter Lofts Project (MSTR26-00054)
Date: September 2, 2026
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR
SUTTER LOFTS PROJECT (MSTR26-00054)
807 & 809 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 3)
• Density Bonus Site Plan (Attachment 4)
This design review and density bonus approval is for the Sutter Lofts Project (MSTR26-00054) located at 807 & 809 Sutter Street, which includes design review for a six (6) unit, 4,374 square-foot rear apartment building. 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, 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.
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)
09/22/2026 Item No.6.
Historic District Commission
Sutter Lofts Project (MSTR26-00054)
Date: September 2, 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 (design review and density bonus) shall remain in effect for two years from final date of approval (Expires September 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 Developmen t 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 proje ct 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)
09/22/2026 Item No.6.
Historic District Commission
Sutter Lofts Project (MSTR26-00054)
Date: September 2, 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 Study Reimbursement
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)
10. Development Impact Fees
This project shall be subject to all applicable City-wide development impact fees, unless exempt by previous agreement. This project shall be subject to all applicable 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, 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 will begin on the date of final approval (September 8, 2026). The fees shall be calculated at the fee rate in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
B CD (P), PW,
PK
11. School District Fees
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
B CD (P) (E)
09/22/2026 Item No.6.
Historic District Commission
Sutter Lofts Project (MSTR26-00054)
Date: September 2, 2026
Section 65970) of the Government Code; and Sections 65995, 65995.5 and 65995.7 of the Government Code.
SITE DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS
12. Geotechnical Report
Prior to the issuance of any grading, improvement permit, and/or building permit, the owner/applicant shall have a geotechnical report prepared by an appropriately licensed engineer that includes an analysis of site suitability, proposed foundation design for all proposed structures, and roadway and pavement design. The geotechnical report shall be inclusive of any proposed wall calculations. The report and calculations are subject to review and approval by the Community Development Department.
G, B CD (E)
13. Improvement Plan Review
The improvement plans for the required public and/or private improvements shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department prior to issuance of a building permit for the project.
I, B CD (E)
ARCHITECTURAL REQUIREMENTS
14. Architectural Requirements
The project shall comply with the following requirements:
a) This approval is for the Sutter Lofts Project (MSTR26-00054), which includes design review for a six (6) unit, 4,374 square -foot rear apartment building as shown in Attachment 3, located at 807 & 809 Sutter Street.
b) Any changes to the level of architectural detailing shown in Attachments 3, 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) Roof-mounted mechanical equipment, including satellite dish antennas, shall not extend above the height of the parapet walls. Ground-mounted mechanical equipment shall be shielded by landscaping or trellis type features.
d) 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
09/22/2026 Item No.6.
Historic District Commission
Sutter Lofts Project (MSTR26-00054)
Date: September 2, 2026
15. Site and Building Lighting
All lighting, including but not limited to landscape/walkway lights and building -attached lights shall be designed to be screened, shielded, and directed downward onto the project site and away from adjacent properties and public rights -of-way. The final d esign of the building - attached lights shall be subject to review and approval by the Community Development Department. Lighting shall be equipped with a timer or photo condenser.
I, B CD (P)
16. Addressing Plan
An addressing and building number plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the City consistent with the City’s addressing guidelines prior to or as part of the building permit package.
B CD (P), FD,
PD
DENSITY BONUS REQUIREMENTS
17. Affordable Unit Restriction
Project approval is contingent upon the owner/applicant recording a restrictive covenant requiring at least one (1) residential unit within the project to be restricted to low -income households, as defined by the California Department of Housing and Community Development, for a minimum period of 55 years.
B CD (P)
WASTEWATER REQUIREMENTS
18. Wastewater Requirements
The following requirements apply to the wastewater connection location as depicted on the plan set in Attachment 3 for a 4-inch sewer lateral size. Any subsequent changes or deviations must be submitted to the Utilities and Public Works Departments for review and approval, and shall comply with any requirements imposed for the revised configuration and/or size:
a) The sewer lateral from the ROW/property line to the sewer distribution main shall be gravity flow only.
b) A Lower Lateral cleanout shall be placed at the ROW/property line and the on -site force main shall connect upstream of the lower lateral cleanout on private property. c) The on -site lift station and force main shall be privately owned, operated and maintained by the owner/applicant
d) All sewer located within the public ROW per City Design Standard is required to be SDR-26 pipe with heavy wall SDR-26 sewer fittings.
e) The sewer lateral connection to the main shall be constructed in accordance with City of Folsom sewer construction standards and details.
I UT
09/22/2026 Item No.6.
Historic District Commission
Sutter Lofts Project (MSTR26-00054)
Date: September 2, 2026
WATER REQUIREMENTS
19. Water Requirements
The following requirements apply to the water connections as depicted on the plan set in Attachment 3. Any subsequent changes or deviations from these plans must be submitted to the Utilities and Public Works Departments for review and approval, and shall comply with any requirements imposed for the revised configuration and/or size:
a) All backflow devices shall be RPPA backflow devices paired with OS&Y shut-off valves designed to fit tight spaces to be consistent with all other RP devices located on Sutter Street.
b) All RPPA devices shall be USC approved.
c) All backflow devices will be required to be installed in a custom fabricated cover/box similar to all other devices located on Sutter Street.
d) Per the City’s Standard Construction Specifications section 4.12.2.B water service pipes, water meters and backflow devices shall all be the same size. Necking down of piping is not allowed.
e) Per City of Folsom Water Design Standards 16.4.O.1 – Residential Water Services saddles shall be a minimum of 12-inches from the end of the water main and 18 inches to 24 inches away from any other water service saddle or pipe joint. f) The water service and all appurtenances shall be designed and constructed in accordance with City of Folsom water construction standards and details. g) Any installation or connection to the Sutter Street waterline that impacts existing public right-of-way improvements shall require coordination with the Public Works and Community Development Departments. The owner/applicant is responsible for restoring all disturbed areas—including but not limited to paving, granite lip and gutter, and concrete—to City standards and within limits determined by staff.
I UT
DRY UTILITY REQUIREMENTS
20. Coordination with Utility Agencies
The owner/applicant shall coordinate the planning, development and completion of this project with the various utility agencies (i.e., SMUD, PG&E, etc.).
OG CD (P) (E),
PW
21. Dry Utility Connections
Future dry utility connection services (electrical, gas, telephone, etc.) for new buildings shall be placed underground at the project site.
B CD (E)
TRIBAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS
22. Accidental Discovery of Human Remains
Although considered highly unlikely, there is always the possibility that ground disturbing DC CD (P)(E)
09/22/2026 Item No.6.
Historic District Commission
Sutter Lofts Project (MSTR26-00054)
Date: September 2, 2026
activities during construction may uncover previously unknown human remains. In the event of an accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, Public Resource Code (PRC) Section 5097.98 must be followed. Once project-related earthmoving begins and if there is a discovery or recognition of human remains, the following steps shall be taken:
1. There shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the specific location, or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until the County Coroner is contacted to determine if the remains are Native American and if an investigation of the cause of death is required. If the coroner determines the remains are Native American, the coroner shall contact the NAHC within 24 hours, and the NAHC shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the “most likely descendant” of the deceased Native American. The most likely descendant may make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains, and any associated grave goods as provided in PRC Section 5097.98, or
2. Where the following conditions occur, the landowner or his/her authorized representative shall rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity either in accordance with the recommendations of the most likely descendent or on the project area in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance:
a. The NAHC is unable to identify a most likely descendent or the most likely descendent failed to make a recommendation within 48 hours after being notified by the commission;
b. The descendent identified fails to make a recommendation; or The landowner or their authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the descendent, and the mediation by the NAHC fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner.
23. Accidental Discovery of Cultural Resources
In the event that cultural resources are exposed during ground -disturbing activities, construction activities shall be halted within 100-feet of the discovery. Cultural resources could consist of but are not limited to stone, bone, wood, or shell artifacts , or features including
DC CD (P)(E)
09/22/2026 Item No.6.
Historic District Commission
Sutter Lofts Project (MSTR26-00054)
Date: September 2, 2026
hearths, structural remains, or historic dumpsites. If the resources cannot be avoided during the remainder of construction, an archaeologist, who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards, shall be retained to assess the resource and provide appropriate management recommendations. If the discovery proves to be CRHR - or NRHP- eligible, additional work, such as data recovery excavation, may be warranted and shall be discussed in consultation with the Lead Agency.
24. Management of Tribal Cultural Resources
Should any indications of possible tribal cultural resources (TCRs), such as cultural features, unusual amounts of bone or shell, or cultural belongings be encountered during any construction activities, work shall be suspended in the vicinity of the find and the appropriate oversight agency(ies) shall be notified immediately. The appropriate oversight agency(ies ) shall retain a tribal representative or Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO) who shall assess the significance of the find by evaluating the resource to determine if it is a TCR as defined in Section 21074 of the Public Resources Code. If the reso urce is a TCR as defined in state law, and it would be subject to disturbance or destruction, the City shall consult with the THPO or their designee to determine the appropriate treatment before resuming construction activities at the TCR.
DC CD (P)(E)
MISCELLANEOUS REQUIREMENT
25. 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)
26. Drainage Restrictions
No drainage, including surface water, groundwater, or roof runoff, shall be directed or allowed to cross over the property line onto adjacent properties, unless through an easement. City standard drainage swales are required along all property lines where drainage runoff may cross over the property line.
OG CD (P)(E)
27. Alleyway Parking Restrictions
If the property has access to an alleyway, parking for the property shall not impede public OG CD (P)
09/22/2026 Item No.6.
Historic District Commission
Sutter Lofts Project (MSTR26-00054)
Date: September 2, 2026
service access in the alleyway (e.g., waste collection, emergency vehicle access, etc.).
28. Sign Permit Required
A Sign Permit is required for proposed signage. The proposed signage shall be revised to comply with the requirements of FMC 17.59.070(D) (Sign Requirements for Multifamily Residential) and FMC 17.52.510(E) (Sutter Street Subarea Sign Requirements)
B CD (P)
29. Sutter Street Parking Restrictions
Tenants shall be advised of the 3 -hour parking restriction on Sutter Street by the owner/applicant. (This condition was added at the 9/2/26 Historic District Commission meeting).
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
09/22/2026 Item No.6.
Folsom City Council
Staff Report
1 MEETING DATE:
9/8/2026
AGENDA SECTION:
Consent Calendar
SUBJECT: Resolution No. 11695 – A Resolution Approving the Historic District Commission’s Recommendation for Approval of a Design Review for a New Custom Home Project Located at 315 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 September 2, 2026.
Staff recommends that the City Council take the following action confirming the Commission’s decision:
1. Approve Resolution No. 116 95 – A Resolution Approving the Historic District Commission’s Recommendation for Approval of a Design Review for a New Custom Home Project Located at 315 Sutter Street and Determination that the Project is Exempt from CEQA.
BACKGROUND / ISSUE
The applicant is requesting approval for design review application for a 3,991 square-foot new custom home, an 884 square-foot detached garage. and a 850 square-foot above garage detached Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) located at 315 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 bein g submitted to City Council for final approval.
09/22/2026 Item No.7.
2 Folsom Municipal Code (FMC) Section 17.105.110 states that all accessory dwelling units (ADUs) which are not 66323 units in the Historic District shall be subject to a ministerial design review by the Community Development Director against objective design standards in FMC Sections 17.105.190 and 17.105.200. Furthermore, any proposed garage space that is a part of a detached ADU shall be reviewed concurrently through the ministerial review process.
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. 11695 – A Resolution Approving the Historic District Commission’s Recommendation for Approval of a Design Review for a New Custom Home Project Located at 315 Sutter Street and Determination that the Project is Exempt from CEQA.
2. Historic District Commission Staff Report and Attachments, dated September 2, 2026
Submitted,
PAM JOHNS
Community Development Director
09/22/2026 Item No.7.
09/22/2026 Item No.7.
Resolution No. 11695
RESOLUTION NO. 11695
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION’S
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL OF A DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION FOR A NEW CUSTOM HOME PROJECT LOCATED AT 315 SUTTER STREET AND
DETERMINATION THAT THE PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM CEQA
WHEREAS, the Historic District Commission on September 2nd, 2026, held a public meeting on the proposed design review application for the 315 Sutter St., New Custom Home Project (DRCL26-00101), 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 315 Sutter St., New Custom Home Project.
This approval is subject to the conditions of approval included in the staff report presented to the City Council 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.
09/22/2026 Item No.7.
Resolution No. 11695
DESIGN REVIEW FINDINGS
E. THE PROJECT IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE GENERAL PLAN, APPLICABLE
ZONING ORDINANCES, AND THE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL.
F. 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.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 8th day of September, 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
09/22/2026 Item No.7.
09/22/2026 Item No.7.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 1
Type: Public Meeting
Date: September 2, 2026
Historic District Commission Staff Report
50 Natoma Street, Council Chambers
Folsom, CA 95630
PROJECT INFORMATION
Project Name: 315 Sutter St., New Custom Home Project
File Number: DRCL26-00101
Request: Design Review and Determination that the Project is Exempt from CEQA Location: 315 Sutter Street, Folsom, CA 95630 (APN 070-0120-068-0000) General Plan Designation: Single-Family, High Density (SFHD) Zoning: Residential, Single Family, Small Lot District (R -1-M); Figueroa Subarea (FIG) of the Historic Residential Primary Area of the Historic District Staff Contact : Nathan Stroud, Associate Planner , [email protected], (916) 461- 6220
Property Owner: Paris Design + Build; 5464 2nd Street, Rocklin CA 95677 Applicant: Matthew Paris; 5464 2nd Street, Rocklin CA 95677 Project Summary: The proposed project involves Design Review for a 3,991 square- foot new custom home, a n 884 square-foot detached garage, and a n 850 square-foot above garage detached accessory dwelling unit (ADU), located at 315 Sutter Street.
The residence ha s elements of the National Folk (c. 1850 –1930) and Craftsman styles (c. 1905 –1930), and the ADU has chosen to comply with the objective design requirements of the ADU Craftsman style outlined in FMC 17.105.200. Staff have determined that the project conforms to the development standards of the Folsom Municipal Code (FMC), and generally conforms with the design guidelines of the Historic District Design and Development Guidelines (DDGs).
The Historic District Commission's discretionary review authority is limited to only to the new custom home . The ADU and garage is subject only to a ministerial review for adherence to objective standards. The Historic District Commission will provide a recommendation, and the City Council will take final action.
Recommendation: Move to recommend confirming staff’s determination that the 315 Sutter St., New Custom Home Project is exempt from CEQA under Section 15303 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) and 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption), and recommend approval of an application ( DRCL26-00101) for D esign Review for said project at 315 Sutter Street, base d on the findings (Findings A -F), and subject to the conditions of approval (Conditions 1-24) attached to the staff report.
09/22/2026 Item No.7.
Historic District Commission
315 Sutter St., New Custom Home Project (DRCL26-00101)
Date: September 2, 2026
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Project Setting
The project site is a vacant 7,012 square -foot (0.16 acre) parcel with no existing structures or trees, located in the Figueroa Subarea of the Historic District. The property is a relatively flat lot with front street and rear alley access. The project site is not adjacent to any listed historic resources.
Figure 1 – Vicinity Map
Applicant’s Request
The applicant, Matthew Paris, is requesting approval for Design for a 3,991 square-foot new custom home, an 884 square-foot detached garage, and an 850 square-foot above garage detached accessory dwelling unit (ADU), located at 315 Sutter Street . The residence is proposed to have elements of the National Folk (c. 1850 –1930) and Craftsman (c. 1905 – 1930) styles , and the ADU has chosen to comply with the objective design requirements of the ADU Craftsman style outlined in FMC 17.105.200.
The ADU is only subject to a ministerial review, and FMC 17.105.110(A)(1)(a) states that any garage attached to the ADU would be reviewed ministerially together with the ADU. As such, the design review for the ADU and garage is limited to adherence to objective standards in the FMC, and only the proposed main residence is subject to a discretionary design review. Staff have provided an analysis of the ADU and the detached garage ’s adherence to the objective standards of FMC 17.105 (Accessory Dwelling Units) and FMC 17.52.480 (Accessory Buildings) in later sections of this staff report.
Policy/Rule
Design Review – Main Residence
Folsom Municipal Code (FMC) Section 17.52.300 states that the Historic District Commission shall review projects involving new office, industrial, commercial, and
09/22/2026 Item No.7.
Historic District Commission
315 Sutter St., New Custom Home Project (DRCL26-00101)
Date: September 2, 2026
residential buildings 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.
Additionally, as a result of the recent litigation, all entitlements in the Historic District are being submitted to City Council for final approval.
Design Review – ADU and Garage
Folsom Municipal Code (FMC) Section 17.105.110 states that all accessory dwelling units (ADUs) which are not 66323 units in the Historic District shall be subject to objective design standards in FMC Sections 17.105.190 and 17.105.200. Furthermore, all ADUs are subject to a ministerial review by the Community Development Director, and proposed garage space that is a part of a detached ADU shall be reviewed concurrently through the ministerial review process.
ANALYSIS
General Plan Consistency
The General Plan land-use designation of the project site is Single-Family, High Density (SFHD). This designation allows for single-family residential development. The following table shows applicable General Plan goals/policies:
General Plan Policies (2035)
Goals/Policies Description
NCR 5.1.6
(Historic District
Standards)
Maintain and implement design and development standards for the Historic District.
As discussed later in this report, the project complies with the development standards of FMC Section 17.52.540, and generally meets the guidelines of the Historic District Design and Development Guidelines, consistent with General Plan Policy NCR 5.1.6 .
Overall, the project has been determined to comply with the goals and policies of the Folsom General Plan.
Zoning Consistency
The project site is within the Residential, Single Family, Small Lot Zoning District (R-1-
09/22/2026 Item No.7.
Historic District Commission
315 Sutter St., New Custom Home Project (DRCL26-00101)
Date: September 2, 2026
M) and is within the Figueroa Subarea (FIG) of the Historic Residential Primary Area of the Historic District . Within th e zoning district, single-family residential uses are permitted. The project is primarily regulated by the standards of the Historic Residential Primary Area ; h owever, in the absence of a specific standard, the provisions of the underlying R-1-M zoning district apply.
The following table shows how the proposed main residence relates to applicable development standards:
Historic Residential Primary Area Development Standards (FMC 17.52.540)
Standard Required Proposed
Front Setback 20 Feet 20 Feet
Side Setback 5 Feet ≥5 Feet
Rear Setback 20 Feet ~52 Feet
Minimum Pervious
Surface 45% ~50%
Parking Space
Location Located outside of front yard Located outside of front yard Applicable R-1-M Development Standards
(FMC 17.52.540)
Standard Required Proposed
Height Maximum 35 Feet 31 Feet, 8 Inches
Parking Requirement 2 Covered Parking Spaces 2 Covered Parking Spaces
The following table shows how the proposed detached ADU relates to applicable development standards:
Applicable Detached ADU Development Standards
(FMC 17.105.150)
Standard Required Proposed
Maximum Size
(One Bedroom ADU) 850 square-feet 850 square-feet
Front Setback Not located in front of main
residence
Not located in front of main
residence
Side Setback 4 Feet ≥5 Feet
Rear Setback 4 Feet 5 Feet
Building Separation 6 Feet >14 Feet
Height Maximum 25 Feet 25 Feet
The following table shows how the proposed detached garage relates to applicable development standards:
09/22/2026 Item No.7.
Historic District Commission
315 Sutter St., New Custom Home Project (DRCL26-00101)
Date: September 2, 2026
Applicable Accessory Building Development Standards
(FMC 17.52.480)
Standard Required Proposed
Front Setback 20 Feet; Not located in front of main
residence
102 Feet; Not located in
front of main residence
Side Setback 5 Feet ≥5 Feet
Rear Setback 5 Feet 5 Feet
Maximum Size 50% of the size of the main residence ~22% Maximum Rear
Yard Coverage 50% of required rear yard ~43%
Overall, the project has been determined to satisfy the use and development standards of the Residential, Single Family, Small Lot Zoning District (R-1-M), the Historic District, and the ADU Ordinance outlined in the Folsom Municipal Code.
Discretionary Design Review
Architectural Context
The DDGs state that the intent is to allow architectural styles present in California between 1850 and 1950, thereby encouraging "the diversity which is the charm of old Folsom." Section 5.04.03(a) of the DDGs provides guidance on the design theme for the Figueroa Subarea, encouraging new construction to reflect a pre -1910 style, including those historically found in Folsom.
The proposed residence has elements of both the National Folk style (c. 1850 –1930), particularly with the building’s form a nd simplistic decoration, and the Craftsman style (c. 1905 –1930) due to the inclusion of some elements common with Craftsman architecture. Both styles are considered compatible with the pre -1910s design period of the Figueroa Subarea.
National Fol k style (c. 1850 –1930), places function over form, having a minimalistic, casual appearance, and emerged out of the railroad-era’s easy access of manufactured building materials. Exterior walls often had little variety, commonly using manufactured materials such as wood lap siding or board-and-batten siding. For the gable -front-and- wing form of this style, partial width front porches were common with either simple or minimally decorated columns. Windows are typically trimmed in simple colonial -style, with a built -up head and sill trim. The National Folk style is most often associated with the typical traditional “farmhouse” style.
The Craftsman style (c. 1905 –1930) is influenced by the Arts and Crafts movement of the late 1880s through the early 1920s, emphasiz ing handcrafted stone and woodwork to imitate traditional carpenter workmanship i n contrast to the simpler, mass -produced look of typical National Folk homes of the preceding era. Common features of t he Craftsman style include exposed wooden beams, solid wood entry doors, custom detailing, and wide front porches supported by tapered or square columns. Exterior
09/22/2026 Item No.7.
Historic District Commission
315 Sutter St., New Custom Home Project (DRCL26-00101)
Date: September 2, 2026
walls often have great variety in materials and textures, and w indows typically feature a single pane on the lower sash with multiple panes on the upper sash.
Proposed Architectural Design
The proposed main residence , as shown in Figure 2 below, contains elements of both the National Folk and Craftsman style.
Figure 2 – Project Rendering (Front)
The massing and form of the residence includes a two-story side-gabled main roof with front gabled tower elements o n the front façade, and a rear extension for additional living space. Although the building seeks to imitate the appearance of a gable-front-and- wing form, common for the National Folk style , it is not a true gable -front-and-wing layout. However, this distinction does not impact its overall historic design compatibility, and the building form is similar to that of a National Folk styled residence. The project also utilizes board-and-batten and horizontal lap siding as the primary siding materials, composition shingles for the main roof, and standing seam metal for the porch roof.
Overall, the use of these materials with minimal ornamentation are features commonly associated with National Folk architecture.
However, the project also includes elements of the Craftsman style. This includes the use of a front porch with prominent wooden square columns, the use of unenclosed eave overhangs with exposed roof rafters, wood stained porch columns, the use of wooden roof brackets and gable trusses, gable roof vents, solid -wood craftsman-style front door, and window grid pattern with multiple small panes above one large pane.
Overall, the residence can be considered an example of eclectic mix of the National Folk and the Craftsman styles, both of which are compatible with the pre -1910s design period specified for the Figueroa Subarea.
Historic Residential Design Criteria Guidelines (Appendix D, Section C)
09/22/2026 Item No.7.
Historic District Commission
315 Sutter St., New Custom Home Project (DRCL26-00101)
Date: September 2, 2026
The property is located in the Figueroa Subarea, and the Historic Residential Design Criteria section of the DDGs apply.
Regarding windows, Section C.3 of the design criteria generally encourages that casement or double -hung windows be used, and that windows should generally be vertically proportioned depending on the chosen architectural style. As the vast majority of windows on the residence are vertically proportioned, single -hung windows, staff have determined the project meets this guideline.
Regarding doors, Section C.4 of the design criteria specifies that residentially scaled solid wood or glazed doors of various styles may be appropriate, whereas flush veneer, heavily carved "theme," and aluminum storefront doors are not. The proposed wood Craftsman-style front entry door and French double doors on the front elevation comply with these guidelines. While the project also proposes modern sliding glass doors on the side and rear elevations, the City has historically allowed flexibility for sliding glass doors not directly visible from the street. Because these sliding doors are located in an interior side courtyard and on the rear elevation, and is not visible from Sutter Street, staff have no concerns about their inclusion on the project.
Regarding porches, Section C.4 of the design criteria states that front porches oriented towards the street are encouraged in all new construction to maintain the residential character of the district. Porches are also generally encouraged to have a floor height of 1-2 feet above grade. The project utilizes a front porch oriented towards the street, with a raised floor level of 1 foot above grade, meeting this guideline.
Regarding roof forms, Section C.7 of the design criteria states that the design of roofs for new buildings shall be consistent with the small scale and residential materials that are prevalent in the neighborhood. The proposed residence uses a cross-gabled roof with black composition shingles. Other residences in the vicinity also commonly use a dark colored composition shingle roof, and some examples of a cross -gabled roof form exist.
Regarding parking, Section C.11 of the design criteria states that parking should generally be provided in the rear of the property along the alley, and that garages shall not be constructed to front onto a primary street. Furthermore, Section C. 4 states that two single-car garage doors are preferred over a double door. The project proposes to construct a detached garage along the rear alley and utilize two single -car garage doors, in alignment with this guideline.
Overall, the project appears to meet all of the applicable guidelines to a new construction residential project as provided in the Historic Residential Design Criteria of the DDGs.
09/22/2026 Item No.7.
Historic District Commission
315 Sutter St., New Custom Home Project (DRCL26-00101)
Date: September 2, 2026
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:
Building Materials Palette
(Appendix D of DDGs)
Building Element Proposed Materials Appropriate / Inappropriate Exterior Walls
Board and Batten Siding Appropriate
Horizontal Lap Siding
(Interior Hallway) Appropriate
Roof Composition Shingles Appropriate
Porch Roof Standing Seam Metal Appropriate per Resolution HDC23-001
Porches and Railings Wood Railings and Columns Appropriate Exterior Steps Finished Concrete Appropriate
Exterior Doors (Front) Wood Doors with Glass Inserts Appropriate Windows Vinyl and Aluminum Frames Appropriate
Although the DDGs do not provide specific color recommendations for buildings in the Historic District, with the exception for some building elements, the project was compared with other buildings in the vicinity to determine the compatibility of the project.
Staff’s findings are provided in the table below:
Color Scheme Compatibility
Building Element Proposed Colors Comparison
Exterior Walls
Creamy Tan (SW 7541)
(Main Siding) Similar colors to many residences in
Figueroa Subarea nearby Antique White (SW 6119)
(Trim, Fascia)
Window Frames
and French Door Naval (SW 6244) Some adjacent residences use white and black window frames
Porch Column/
Railing Stained Wood*
Most porch columns in District are painted,
however wood stained / unpainted
balconies, decks, and railings do exist
Main Roof Charcoal Color Common Color for most roofs in district Porch Roof Dark Bronze Appropriate per Resolution HDC23-001 Staff have provided Condition 12e to clarify that stained wood is to be used to correct inaccurate color and materials board.
Regarding the color and materials board provided as the last sheet of the plans in Attachment 2, the renderings do contain some inaccuracies. This includes inaccurately stating that the porch columns were to be painted “Rockwood Brown”, however the applicant confirmed that the porch columns and railings are to be stained wood. Due to this inaccuracy, Condition 12e has been provided clarifying that stained wood columns and railing are to be provided. Staff have also determined the stained wood columns are
09/22/2026 Item No.7.
Historic District Commission
315 Sutter St., New Custom Home Project (DRCL26-00101)
Date: September 2, 2026
compatible with the Figueroa Subarea since it is a feature used for some Craftsman (C 1905-1930) styled homes.
Regarding the window frames, the project proposes to paint them “Naval” (SW 6244) color, which is a dark blue. Most window frames in the area are white, with some examples of black or dark colored window frames. While the use of a dark blue for the window frames is not common for most homes , historic examples of colored window frames exist, as shown in Figure 3 below. and staff have no concerns with the dark blue color proposed. Due to the renderings not showing the color accurately, staff have placed Condition 12 g requiring that the “Naval” color, if used, be limited to the window frames and French doors.
Figure 3 – Carson Mansion with Colored Window Frames (Eureka, CA) Overall, staff have determined that the proposed project’s colors and materials are both consistent with the DDGs as well as compatible with surrounding residences.
Landscaping Requirements
After review by the City’s Arborist Division, two standard landscaping requirements have been provided. Condition 17 requires that the project plant one (1) street tree in the front yard of a 15-gallon container size or greater from a species listed in the Folsom Master Tree List. Additionally, Condition 1 8 has been provided reiterating the requirements of the State’s Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO ), which provides efficiency standards and water use limits for landscaping. Furthermore, staff have placed Condition 16 requiring that the project landscape at least 60% of the front 20 feet of the property and 50% of the remaining area of the property to comply with the landscaping minimums for the Historic Residential Primary Area of the Historic District in FMC 17.52.540(G).
09/22/2026 Item No.7.
Historic District Commission
315 Sutter St., New Custom Home Project (DRCL26-00101)
Date: September 2, 2026
Ministerial Design Review
Detached ADU and Garage – Objective Design Standards
Since the detached ADU and garage is located in the Historic District, this building is required to comply with the objective design standards for a specific historic style option outlined in FMC 17.105.200. In accordance with FMC 17.105.110, the ADU and garage structure is not subject to discretionary review by the Historic District Commission; both parts of the building are subject to objective development standards and shall be reviewed ministerially.
The following information about the ADU and garage has been provided solely to show how the ADU and garage meets the objective standards. In this instance, the applicant has chosen to comply with the objective design standards for the Craftsman Style. The table below shows how the project meets these standards:
Craftsman Style Objective Design Standards for ADUs
(FMC 17.105.200(C)(2))
Standard Required Proposed
Roof Style Front-gabled, side-gabled, or
cross gabled Side-gabled
Roof Pitch Between 3/12 and 8/12 8/12
Roof Detailing
Unenclosed eave overhangs
with exposed roof rafters
and/or braces
Unenclosed eave overhangs
with exposed roof rafters*
Windows
(Front Elevation) Single- or double-hung Single-hung
Window Detailing
(Front Elevation)
Window grids with multiple
panes above one large pane
(at least three small panes
above one large pane)
Window grids with three
small panes above one
large pane
Exterior Siding
Horizontal lap siding
(between 2.5 inches and 6
inches wide); and/or board
and batten siding; and/or
stone or brick and mortar.
Board and batten siding,
and horizontal lap siding†
Applicant has stated this was the chosen option. Staff have provided Condition 12c requiring that this be reflected and noted on the plans submitted for permits. † Staff have placed Condition 12c requiring that the plans submitted for permits place a note stating the siding width, and requires it be between 2.5 inches and 6 inches.
Regarding the garage door style, staff have provided Condition 12d requiring that the garage door style comply with the requirements outlined in Resolution HDC23 -001.
Overall, the detached ADU and garage as conditioned wi ll comply with the objective standards required for the Craftsman style for an ADU in the Historic District.
09/22/2026 Item No.7.
Historic District Commission
315 Sutter St., New Custom Home Project (DRCL26-00101)
Date: September 2, 2026
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed new custom home is categorically exempt from environmental review under Section 15303 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the CEQA Guidelines. This section exempts up to three single -family residences in urbanized areas, and exempts accessory (appurtenant) structures including garages, carports, patios, and fences . In this case the project falls within this exemption since it involves the construction of one single -family residence and a detached garage and ADU.
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 exemptions in this case. These exceptions include:
• 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; • If there is damage to scenic resources within a Scenic Highway; • If the project is located on a Hazardous Waste Site;
• If there is a substantial adverse change in the significance of a Historical Resource.
Analysis: Significant Effect
The project is not anticipated to have an unusual or significant impact on the environment, as this is an infill project located on a developed, urbanized site of a comparable scale to othe r adjacent developments . There is no possibility that the project would have a significant effect on the environment beyond that of other existing buildings in the vicinity.
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 historic resource nor is the project site adjacent to
09/22/2026 Item No.7.
Historic District Commission
315 Sutter St., New Custom Home Project (DRCL26-00101)
Date: September 2, 2026
any listed historic resources. The project will not have a substantial adverse impact on the significance of any historic resources.
PUBLIC NOTICING AND OUTREACH
Public notification was achieved by posting the agenda, with this agenda item being listed, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting in print and electronically . Legal advertisement of the meeting was posted at the project site and mailing adjacent property owners at least five (5) days prior to the meeting that met the requirements of FMC Section 17.52.320.
After the initial review of the application materials, city staff provided a list of design recommendations for the project, and recommended that the applicant meet with the Heritage Preservation League (HPL) and the Historic Folsom Residents Association (HFRA) to gather additional feedback. During the applicant’s meeting with HPL and HFRA, the two organizations expressed concerns with the original proposed design (Modern Farmhouse) due to its contemporary appearance and provided initial recommendations. These initial recommendations are provided as Attachment 4.
Based on that meeting and staff’s initial recommendations, the project has been revised to increase consistency with historic architecture. This includes, but is not limited to:
1. Modifying the high contrast paint colors to a more historically compatible palette;
2. Modifying the window shapes, types, and grid pattern to be consistent with traditional single- and double-hung window forms;
3. Raising the porch floor height , adding porch railings, and using more decorated porch columns;
4. Removing the visor roof elements;
5. Using a solid wood, craftsman style front entrance;
6. Adding more features associated with the Craftsman style, including roof brackets and roof gable vents; and
7. Adding trim to the building edges and windows.
A side-by-side comparison of these changes are shown in Figure 4 below. After incorporating these modifications, HPL did not provide any further comment on the project as of the writing of this report.
09/22/2026 Item No.7.
Historic District Commission
315 Sutter St., New Custom Home Project (DRCL26-00101)
Date: September 2, 2026
Figure 4 – Project Rendering (Original and Revised)
HFRA Comment Letter, August 19, 2026
Following the revisions to the project shown in Figure 4 above and in Attachment 2, HFRA provided a subsequent comment letter (Attachment 5) on August 19, 2026 to provide additional feedback. In the letter, the organization still had concerns about its appearance being similar to a modern farmhouse, citing the following features:
1. Steep pitched roof;
2. The use of vertical board and batten; and
3. The use of mixed roofing materials (e.g., comp shingle for main roof, standing seam for porch roof).
Additionally, HFRA recommended that the project extend their front porch across the front entrance as shown in the alternative rendering provided in Figure 5 below. This rendering was shown and discussed alongside other alternatives during the project applicant’s meeting with HFRA and HPL.
Figure 5 – Alterative Project Rendering
09/22/2026 Item No.7.
Historic District Commission
315 Sutter St., New Custom Home Project (DRCL26-00101)
Date: September 2, 2026
The project’s use of board and batten siding, a steep roof (8/12), and a mix of a comp shingle and standing seam roof are features that can be found on some National Folk (c. 1850 –1930) styled residences . National Folk is considered the original traditional "farmhouse" style and is compatible with the Figueroa Subarea’s pre -1910s design period. In contrast, the later "Modern Farmhouse" is a reinterpretation of this original “farmhouse” style that is incompatible with the subarea . While the project originally proposed a Modern Farmhouse style, as shown in Figure 4 above, the project has since been redesigned to the more compatible National Folk style, with some Craftsman elements.
Regarding the front porch extension, the Historic Residential Design Criteria of the DDGs state that front porches are encouraged in all new constructions, but do not provide specific guidance on whether th e porch should extend uninterrupted over the front entrance or if the current configuration is acceptable . Given the great variety of historic porch configurations, staff consider both options appropriate for the project
RECOMMENDED HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION ACTION
Move to recommend confirming staff’s determination that the 315 Sutter St., New Custom Home Project is exempt from CEQA under Section 15303 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) and 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption), and recommend approval of an application ( DRCL26-00101) for Design Review for said project at 315 Sutter Street, based on t he findings (Findings A -F), and subject to the conditions of approval (Conditions 1-24) attached to the staff report.
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 the 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 Exemption) 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 project is in compliance with the General Plan, applicable Zoning Ordinances, and the Historic District Design and Development Guidelines adopted by City Council.
F. The building materials, textures and colors used in the proposed project are
09/22/2026 Item No.7.
Historic District Commission
315 Sutter St., New Custom Home Project (DRCL26-00101)
Date: September 2, 2026
compatible with surrounding development and are consistent with the general design theme of the neighborhood.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Proposed Conditions of Approval
2. Plan Set
3. Site Photos
4. HFRA and HPL Initial Comments on Original Proposal
5. HFRA Subsequent Comments, dated August 19, 2026
Submitted,
PAM JOHNS
Community Development Director
09/22/2026 Item No.7.
Historic District Commission
315 Sutter St., New Custom Home Project (DRCL26-00101)
Date: September 2, 2026
Attachment 1
Proposed Conditions of Approval
09/22/2026 Item No.7.
Historic District Commission
315 Sutter St., New Custom Home Project (DRCL26-00101)
Date: September 2, 2026
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR
315 SUTTER ST., NEW CUSTOM HOME PROJECT (DRCL26-00101)
315 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 2)
This design review and density bonus approval is for the 315 Sutter St., New Custom Home Project ( DRCL26-00101) located at 315 Sutter Street, which includes design review for a 3,991 square -foot new custom home, an 884 square -foot detached garage, and an 850 square-foot above garage detached accessory dwelling unit (ADU) . 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, 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.
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)
09/22/2026 Item No.7.
Historic District Commission
315 Sutter St., New Custom Home Project (DRCL26-00101)
Date: September 2, 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 (design review) shall remain in effect for two years from final date of approval ( Expires September 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 Developmen t 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 proje ct 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)
09/22/2026 Item No.7.
Historic District Commission
315 Sutter St., New Custom Home Project (DRCL26-00101)
Date: September 2, 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 Study Reimbursement
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)
10. Development Impact Fees
This project shall be subject to all applicable City-wide development impact fees, unless exempt by previous agreement. This project shall be subject to all applicable 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, 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 will begin on the date of final approval (September 8, 2026). The fees shall be calculated at the fee rate in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
B CD (P), PW,
PK
11. School District Fees
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
B CD (P) (E)
09/22/2026 Item No.7.
Historic District Commission
315 Sutter St., New Custom Home Project (DRCL26-00101)
Date: September 2, 2026
Section 65970) of the Government Code; and Sections 65995, 65995.5 and 65995.7 of the Government Code.
ARCHITECTURAL REQUIREMENTS
12. Architectural Requirements
The project shall comply with the following requirements:
a) This approval is for the 315 Sutter St., New Custom Home Project (DRCL26-00101), which includes design review for a 3,991 square -foot new custom home, an 884 square-foot detached garage, and an 850 square -foot above garage detached accessory dwelling unit (ADU), as shown in Attachment 2.
b) Any changes to the level of architectural detailing shown in Attachments 3, 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) In order to comply with the objective design standards of FMC 17.105.200, the plans submitted for building permits for the detached accessory dwelling unit and garage shall update building elevations and include a note on the following requirements:
i) Horizontal Lap siding shall be between 2.5 and 6 inches wide. ii) Unenclosed eaves with exposed roof rafters shall be used. iii) All windows on the alley -facing elevation shall include window grids with at least three (3) or more small panes above one (1) large pane.
d) The Garage Doors shall comply with the design requirements of Resolution HDC23 - 001, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Department.
e) The porch columns and railings shall be wood stained a light brown color instead of being painted Rockwood Brown (SW 2806) , to the satisfaction of the Community Development Department.
f) The main residence shall include unenclosed eave overhangs with exposed roof rafters, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Department. The plans submitted for building permits shall include updated building elevations showing unenclosed eave overhangs with exposed roof rafters and include a note stating they will be used.
OG CD (P)(E);
PW
09/22/2026 Item No.7.
Historic District Commission
315 Sutter St., New Custom Home Project (DRCL26-00101)
Date: September 2, 2026
g) The “Naval” (SW 6244) accent color proposed shall be limited to the window frames and French Doors of the main residence, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Department.
h) 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.
13. Residential Fencing Requirements
Fencing shall not exceed 3.5 feet in height in the front of the residence and shall not exceed 6 feet in height in the side and rear of the residence.
OG CD (P)
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT REQUIREMENTS
14. Accessory Dwelling Unit – Rental Limitations
Per Government Code Subsection 66323(e), all ADUs approved under this chapter may be rented separate from the primary residence; however, the rental must be for a term longer than thirty days.
OG CD (P)
15. Accessory Dwelling Unit – Impact Fees Required
Impact Fees shall be required for ADUs greater than 750 square-feet
B, G CD (E)
TREE AND LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS
16. Minimum Landscaping Requirement
In accordance with FMC 17.52.540(G), landscaping shall be provided on at least 60% of the front 20-feet of the property and on at least 50% of the remaining area of the property. The proposed landscaping shall be reflected on the plans submitted for building permits as a separate sheet.
B CD (P) (A)
17. Street Tree Required
Pursuant to Folsom Municipal Code (FMC) 12.16.190(A), applicants for building permits for construction on residential properties without existing street trees shall be responsible for the planting of street trees. The owner/applicant shall show the new street tree(s) in a landscape plan which shall be included with the building plan set, subject to review and approval by the Community Development Department. The owner/applicant shall plant a minimum of one (1) street tree in the front yard within 12.5' from the back of the sidewalk prior to the final
O CD (A)
09/22/2026 Item No.7.
Historic District Commission
315 Sutter St., New Custom Home Project (DRCL26-00101)
Date: September 2, 2026
building inspection for the project. The tree(s) shall be from a 15-gallon container size or greater and shall be a species listed on the Folsom Master Tree List.
18. MWELO Requirements
Pursuant to the states Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO), all new construction projects with an aggregate front yard landscape area equal to or greater than 500 square feet shall submit a landscape documentation package and landscape permit application to the CDD for review and approval. Landscape plans must be submitted with the building permit plan set. The landscape permit shall be applied and paid for prior to approval of the building permit plans.
a) Projects with an aggregate front yard landscape area of 500 to 2,500 square feet may comply with either the Performance Approach requirements or the Prescriptive Approach requirements of the MWELO.
b) Projects with an aggregate front yard landscape area of more than 2,500 square feet shall comply with the Performance Approach Requirements of the MWELO. c) The City-approved landscape plan shall be installed at the time of the final inspection for the building permit, prior to Certificate of Occupancy. Any significant modification to the City-approved landscaping shall comply with the States Model Water Efficient N/A Landscape Ordinance.
d) For purposes of this condition of approval, landscape area means all the irrigated planting areas, irrigated turf areas, and water features in a landscape design plan or preliminary landscape plan. The landscape area does not include footprints of buildings or structures, sidewalks, driveways, parking lots, decks, patios, gravel or stone walks, other pervious or nonpervious hardscapes, and other non- irrigated areas designated for non-development (e.g., open spaces and existing native vegetation).
B CD (A)
TRIBAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS
19. Accidental Discovery of Human Remains
Although considered highly unlikely, there is always the possibility that ground disturbing activities during construction may uncover previously unknown human remains. In the event of an accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, Public Resource Code (PRC) Section 5097.98 must be followed. Once project-related earthmoving begins and if there is a discovery or recognition of human remains, the following steps shall be taken:
DC CD (P)(E)
09/22/2026 Item No.7.
Historic District Commission
315 Sutter St., New Custom Home Project (DRCL26-00101)
Date: September 2, 2026
1. There shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the specific location, or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until the County Coroner is contacted to determine if the remains are Native American and if an investigation of the cause of death is required. If the coroner determines the remains are Native American, the coroner shall contact the NAHC within 24 hours, and the NAHC shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the “most likely descendant” of the deceased Native American. The most likely descendant may make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains, and any associated grave goods as provided in PRC Section 5097.98, or
2. Where the following conditions occur, the landowner or his/her authorized representative shall rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity either in accordance with the recommendations of the most likely descendent or on the project area in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance:
a. The NAHC is unable to identify a most likely descendent or the most likely descendent failed to make a recommendation within 48 hours after being notified by the commission;
b. The descendent identified fails to make a recommendation; or The landowner or their authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the descendent, and the mediation by the NAHC fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner.
20. Accidental Discovery of Cultural Resources
In the event that cultural resources are exposed during ground -disturbing activities, construction activities shall be halted within 100-feet of the discovery. Cultural resources could consist of but are not limited to stone, bone, wood, or shell artifacts , or features including hearths, structural remains, or historic dumpsites. If the resources cannot be avoided during the remainder of construction, an archaeologist, who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards, shall be retained to assess the resource and provide appropriate management recommendations. If the discovery proves to be CRHR - or NRHP-
DC CD (P)(E)
09/22/2026 Item No.7.
Historic District Commission
315 Sutter St., New Custom Home Project (DRCL26-00101)
Date: September 2, 2026
eligible, additional work, such as data recovery excavation, may be warranted and shall be discussed in consultation with the Lead Agency.
21. Management of Tribal Cultural Resources
Should any indications of possible tribal cultural resources (TCRs), such as cultural features, unusual amounts of bone or shell, or cultural belongings be encountered during any construction activities, work shall be suspended in the vicinity of the find and the appropriate oversight agency(ies) shall be notified immediately. The appropriate oversight agency(ies ) shall retain a tribal representative or Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO) who shall assess the significance of the find by evaluating the resource to determine if it is a TCR as defined in Section 21074 of the Public Resources Code. If the reso urce is a TCR as defined in state law, and it would be subject to disturbance or destruction, the City shall consult with the THPO or their designee to determine the appropriate treatment before resuming construction activities at the TCR.
DC CD (P)(E)
MISCELLANEOUS REQUIREMENT
22. 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)
23. Drainage Restrictions
No drainage, including surface water, groundwater, or roof runoff, shall be directed or allowed to cross over the property line onto adjacent properties, unless through an easement. City standard drainage swales are required along all property lines where drainage runoff may cross over the property line.
OG CD (P)(E)
24. 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)
09/22/2026 Item No.7.
Historic District Commission
315 Sutter St., New Custom Home Project (DRCL26-00101)
Date: September 2, 2026
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
09/22/2026 Item No.7.
Historic District Commission
315 Sutter St., New Custom Home Project (DRCL26-00101)
Date: September 2, 2026
Attachment 2
Plan Set
09/22/2026 Item No.7.
09/22/2026 Item No.7.
09/22/2026 Item No.7.
09/22/2026 Item No.7.
09/22/2026 Item No.7.
09/22/2026 Item No.7.
09/22/2026 Item No.7.
09/22/2026 Item No.7.
09/22/2026 Item No.7.
09/22/2026 Item No.7.
Historic District Commission
315 Sutter St., New Custom Home Project (DRCL26-00101)
Date: September 2, 2026
Attachment 3
Site Photos
09/22/2026 Item No.7.
09/22/2026 Item No.7.
09/22/2026 Item No.7.
09/22/2026 Item No.7.
Historic District Commission
315 Sutter St., New Custom Home Project (DRCL26-00101)
Date: September 2, 2026
Attachment 4
HFRA and HPL Initial Comments on
Original Proposal
09/22/2026 Item No.7.
1 Nathan Stroud
From: The HFRA <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 10, 2026 12:00 PM
To: Nathan Stroud
Cc: Mike Reynolds; Carrie Lane; Kale Elledge; Bob Walter; Laura Fisher Subject: Re: Request for Comments – DRCL26-000101: 315 Sutter St., New Custom Home and ADU Project
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.
Hi Nathan,
HFRA appreciates being given the opportunity to provide initial feedback on the residential new construction project proposed for 315 Sutter Street.
While the design of the house is beautiful, the modern farmhouse style does not fit the 1850-1950 design criteria for the Historic District as the modern farmhouse style originated in 2010.
The design of this project looks very modern when compared to surrounding homes both on the street and in the neighborhood. When describing General Design Intent, The Historic District Design and Development Guidelines state one of the objectives is to "To ensure that new construction reflects the residential scale and character of neighborhoods." HFRA does not feel that the current design of this project meets either of those objectives and encourages staff to work with the applicant to modify the project to fit one of the styles noted in the DDG Style section that could be found between 1850-1950: Craftsman, Queen Anne, Delta, Contemporary, 50s Ranch Style, Spanish Eclectic or Italianate.
Thank you for your consideration,
Mike Reynolds, HFRA President
Laura Fisher, HFRA Treasurer
Carrie Lane, HFRA Merchant Association Liaison
Kale Elledge, HFRA Communications
On Thu, Jul 2, 2026 at 1:53 PM Nathan Stroud <[email protected]> wrote:
Hello all,
Please find the attached request for comments and submittal materials for the DRCL26-000101: 315 Sutter St., New Custom Home and ADU Project. Please let me know if you have any comments or proposed conditions by July 15, 2026.
Please let me know if you have any questions regarding the project.
09/22/2026 Item No.7.
HERITAGE PRESERVATION LEAGUE OF FOLSOM
PROJECT APPLICATION REVIEW
July 14, 2026
PROJECT: New Custom Home with a detached ADU
315 Sutter Street in the Central Subarea
PROJECT HISTORY: Application Circulated by the City on July 2, 2026 Feedback requested by July 15, 2026
PROJECT SITE
The project site is a standard Theodore Judah lot located at the east end of Sutter Street. In the Municipal Code and the Design and Development Guidelines for the Historic District the Central Subarea is characterized as ‘average homes’ from 1850-1950 with reduced visibility of cars.
ARCHITECTURE
Residence
The proposed architecture does not reflect the design criteria of the area or any specific architectural style. As a result, the building has a contemporary feel and does not appear to belong in the Historic District. HPL recommends that the applicant should work with staff to modify the following aspects of the design:
1. Rework the front entrance area.
a) The squared off entryway may be eliminated so the front porch can be extended. b) The steep pitch of the front facing gables can be lowered to match the overall roof areas.
2. Select a uniform window style.
a) Replace the tall undivided windows along the front façade (facing north and west) with hung windows.
b) Select doors with divided windowpanes for the front façade.
3. Create a more uniform look by modifying the façade materials. a) Limit the use of board and batten to the upper gable areas. b) Select a uniform roof material (standing seam or composition shingles).
4. Use black as an accent color (for trim) and avoid using black as a wall color.
Garage
The large garage doors emphasize the presence of cars. HPL is suggesting that the applicant could be encouraged to work with staff to reduce the visual impact:
1. Select garage doors that resemble carriage house doors.
2. Recess one garage bay by a few feet.
09/22/2026 Item No.7.
Historic District Commission
315 Sutter St., New Custom Home Project (DRCL26-00101)
Date: September 2, 2026
Attachment 5
HFRA Subsequent Comments, dated
August 19, 2026
09/22/2026 Item No.7.
1 Nathan Stroud
From: The HFRA <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2026 7:45 AM
To: Nathan Stroud
Cc: Mike Reynolds; Carrie Lane; Kale Elledge; Laura Fisher; Bob Walter Subject: Re: REVISED: Request for Comments – DRCL26-000101: 315 Sutter St., New Custom Home and ADU Project
Attachments: IMG_3446.jpeg
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.
Good morning, Nathan,
While HFRA appreciates the revisions to the design based on our meeting with the applicants and HPL, we still think the house looks more like a modern farmhouse than a craftsman and do not think it is consistent with a design style found between 1850-1910. Three elements of concern are the steep pitched roof, the vertical board and batten siding surrounding the front entrance and the mixed roofing materials. At a minimum we would like the suggestion we discussed for extending the porch roof to cover the front door (see attached rendering) incorporated.
We encourage staff and the HDC to protect the character of the Historic District by ensuring that the all of the HD design guidelines are applied to this project.
Thank you,
Mike Reynolds, HFRA President
Laura Fisher, HFRA Treasurer
Carrie Lane, HFRA Merchant Association Liaison
On Tue, Aug 11, 2026 at 4:43 PM Nathan Stroud <[email protected]> wrote:
Hello all,
Please find the attached request for comments and revised submittal materials for the DRCL26-000101: 315 Sutter St., New Custom Home and ADU Project. Please let me know if you have any comments or proposed conditions by August 19, 2026.
”■
IIIIIIIIIII
e—c
-
■
Mil
■I
-
09/22/2026 Item No.7.
Folsom City Council
Staff Report
1 MEETING DATE:
9/8/2026
AGENDA SECTION:
Consent Calendar
ITEM TITLE: Resolution No. 11696 - A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Amendment No. 2 to the Agreement (Contract No. 173- 21 19-072) with Williams Scotsman, Inc. for $80,166.24 from the Solid Waste Operating Fund (Fund 540) for the Lease of a Modular Building Occupied by the Waste and Recycling Division
FROM: Utilities Department
RECOMMENDATION / CITY COUNCIL ACTION
The Utilities Department recommends that the City Council pass and adopt Resolution No. 11696 - A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Amendment No. 2 to the Agreement (Contract No. 173-21 19-072) with Williams Scotsman, Inc. for $80,166.24 from the Solid Waste Operating Fund (Fund 540) for the Lease of a Modular B uilding Occupied by the Waste and Recycling Division.
BACKGROUND / ISSUE
The Waste and Recycling Division (Division) of the Utilities Department is located in the City of Folsom Corporation Yard at 1300 Leidesdorff Street in Folsom. The Division administrative staff work from a modular building originally leased in 2007. The location of the Division administrative office within the Corporation Yard and photos identifying the specific building are included as Attachment No. 3.
The original building owner, ModSpace, has since been sold to Williams Scotsman, Inc. (WillScot), who currently owns the building. In October 2019, the city executed a lease with WillScot to secure the building and rental rate for five years. Following the five-year period, the agreement transitioned to a month-to-month rental. In 2024, the Division amended the original agreement for two additional years to secure use of the building and the pricing.
09/22/2026 Item No.8.
2 The current agreement expires October 31, 2026, and the Division is interested in continuing to occupy the building. This resolution will authorize the City Manager to execute an extension to the lease agreement with WillScot for four (4) additional years. The short-term lease allows for an easier transition when the Division move s to the future site of the new corporation yard south of Highway 50.
POLICY / RULE
In accordance with Section 2.36.080 of the Folsom Municipal Code, supplies, equipment, services, and construction with a value of $77,426 or greater shall be approved by City Council.
ANALYSIS
In consideration of the future transition to a new Corporation Yard, the Department recommends a short-term extension of the lease on the administrative building it has occupied for nine teen years. A lease fixes monthly costs and establishes what building maintenance and repairs are the city’s responsibility and what is covered by WillScot. For example, the city must do minor maintenance such as air filters and light bulbs, but a water leak is WillScot’s responsibility. If the current Corporation Yard were going to be used long- term, a different office solution would be evaluated; however, taking into consideration the cost and operational disruption of removing the current building and replacing it with a new building, amending the existing lease is most practical course of action.
Due to growth of the Division since first occupying this building, extending this lease is only part of the short-term solution to ensuring capacity of all staff until a permanent location is built. The Division is currently exploring additional measures to expand capacity, which may include minor building modifications or supplemental office space. Any modifications to the current building must be scheduled through the building owner and an estimate is currently pending to split the conference room into two offices. If the city approves the proposed building modifications , there would be no impact on rent, only one-time construction cost.
The agreement insulates the city from rate increases so the monthly rental rate will continue at the same rate it has been since the inception of the agreement, $1,550 per month for a total monthly cost of $1,670.13 after tax. This would add $80,166.24 over the next four years to the existing contract. The current agreement also obligat es the city to final removal charges at WillScot’s prevailing rate at the time the equipment is returned. This was estimated at $15,530.20 at the start of the agreement in 2019.
Another option available to the Division is to purchase the building at a cost of $396,000; however, in consideration of the low rent and temporary nature of the city’s need for this equipment, the Division has determined continuing to rent is the most beneficial option.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
If approved, the agreement with Williams Scotsman, Inc. , for the amendment to extend the term of the lease on the Waste and Recycling administrative building would be funded through the Solid
09/22/2026 Item No.8.
3 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 lease. The department is requesting that the contract be authorized for an additional $80,166.24 to extend the term of the lease for four years.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This action is exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. (CEQA).
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution No. 11696 - A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Amendment No. 2 to the Agreement (Contract No. 173- 21 19- 072) with Williams Scotsman, Inc. for $80,166.24 from the Solid Waste Operating Fund (Fund 540) for the Lease of a Modular Building Occupied by the Waste and Recycling Division
2. Agreement for the lease of a modular building located in the city corporation yard.
3. Photos of leased modular building and aerial view showing the location within the Corporation Yard at 1300 Leidesdorff Street.
Submitted,
Marcus Yasutake, Director
UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
09/22/2026 Item No.8.
Attachment 1
09/22/2026 Item No.8.
Resolution No. 11696
RESOLUTION NO. 11696
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE
AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE AGREEMENT (CONTRACT NO. 173-21 19-072) WITH WILLIAMS SCOTSMAN, INC. FOR $80,166.24 FROM THE SOLID WASTE OPERATING FUND (FUND 540) FOR THE LEASE OF A MODULAR BUILDING
OCCUPIED BY THE WASTE AND RECYCLING DIVISION
WHEREAS, the administrative operations of the Waste and Recycling Division of the Utilities Department currently utilize a rented modular building located at the City of Folsom Corporation Yard; and
WHEREAS, the lease will expire October 31, 2026; and
WHEREAS, staff have considered the limited term use of the current Corporation Yard in the recommendation to continue leasing the existing building rather than solicit bids for a replacement building; and
WHEREAS, staff have considered the cost of purchasing the existing building relative to continuing to pay rent; and
WHEREAS, an amendment to the lease agreement secures the building for use by the Waste and Recycling Division for the next four (4) years; and
WHEREAS, staff recommend amending the agreement with Williams Scotsman, Inc. to continue leasing the modular building for four additional years at a cost of $80,166.24; and
WHEREAS, sufficient funds are budgeted and available in the Solid Waste Operating Fund (Fund 540) in F iscal Year 2026-27 and will be made available for the remainder of the agreement through the budget process; and
WHEREAS, the agreement will be in a form acceptable to the City Attorney:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Folsom authorizes the City Manager to execute Amendment No. 2 to the Agreement (Contract No. 173- 21 19-072) with Williams Scotsman, Inc. for $80,166.24 from the Solid Waste Operating Fund (Fund 540) for the Lease of a Modular Building Occupied by the Waste and Recycling Division.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 8
th day of September, 2026, by the following roll -call
vote:
AYES: Councilmember(s):
NOES: Councilmember(s):
ABSENT: Councilmember(s):
ABSTAIN: Councilmember(s):
__________________________________
Justin Raithel, MAYOR
09/22/2026 Item No.8.
Resolution No. 11696
ATTEST:
______________________________
Christa Freemantle, CITY CLERK
09/22/2026 Item No.8.
Attachment 2
09/22/2026 Item No.8.
09/22/2026 Item No.8.
09/22/2026 Item No.8.
09/22/2026 Item No.8.
09/22/2026 Item No.8.
09/22/2026 Item No.8.
09/22/2026 Item No.8.
09/22/2026 Item No.8.
09/22/2026 Item No.8.
09/22/2026 Item No.8.
09/22/2026 Item No.8.
09/22/2026 Item No.8.
09/22/2026 Item No.8.
09/22/2026 Item No.8.
09/22/2026 Item No.8.
09/22/2026 Item No.8.
Attachment 3
09/22/2026 Item No.8.
Waste and Recycling Division
Administrative Office
City of Folsom Corporation Yard
1300 Leidesdorff Street, Folsom, California 95630
Waste and Recycling Division
Administrative Office
09/22/2026 Item No.8.
Waste and Recycling Division
Administrative Office – Building Exterior
09/22/2026 Item No.8.
Waste and Recycling Division
Administrative Office – Building
09/22/2026 Item No.8.
09/22/2026 Item No.8.
This page is intentionally left blank
to facilitate double-sided printing
and minimize paper use.
09/22/2026 Item No.8.
Folsom City Council
Staff Report
1 MEETING DATE:
9/8/2026
AGENDA SECTION:
Consent Calendar
ITEM TITLE: Resolution No 11698 – A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Professional Services Agreement with Pinnacle Project Management for Owner’s Representative
Services for the Folsom Plan Area
FROM: Community Development Department
RECOMMENDATION / CITY COUNCIL ACTION
The Community Development Department recommends that the City Council pass and adopt Resolution No 11698 – A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Professional Services Agreement with Pinnacle Project Management for Owner’s Representative Services for the Folsom Plan Area.
BACKGROUND / ISSUE
The development of the Folsom Plan Area (FPA) continues to require significant City resources for engineering plan review, construction management, and construction inspection associated with public infrastructure and subdivision improvements.
In 2015, the City Council recognized the substantial volume of development-related engineering services anticipated in the FPA and determined that these costs should not be subsidized by the City’s General Fund. The City subsequently implemented a full-cost-recovery program under which development-related engineering costs are recovered through applicable fees and developer deposits.
As development activity increased, the City determined that additional professional resources were needed to provide construction management and inspection oversight for the extensive backbone infrastructure and subdivision improvements being constructed throughout the FPA.
09/22/2026 Item No.9.
2 On July 12, 2016, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 9797 authorizing an agreement with Unico Engineering, Inc. for Owner’s Representative Services for the FPA. The agreement was subsequently transferred, with the City’s consent, to Pinnacle Project Management.
Pinnacle Project Management has provided Owner’s Representative, construction management, and construction inspection services for the FPA for the last ten years. These services have provided the City with additional professional resources to coordinate construction activities, monitor compliance with City-approved plans and specifications, communicate with developers and contractors, and assist City staff with the delivery and acceptance of public improvements.
All such services are full cost recovery paid by the developer at no impact to the City’s General Fund.
FPA development and construction activity continues to require these services. Using an Owner’s Representative allows the City to obtain specialized professional services as needed without adding permanent City positions for development-related work that may vary over time.
The contract with Pinnacle Project Management has expired and staff propose to enter into a new Professional Services Agreement with Pinnacle Project Management to continue providing Owner’s Representative services for the FPA over the next five-year period.
POLICY / RULE
Folsom Municipal Code Section 2.36.080 establishes the City’s requirements for the award of contracts. The proposed agreement is being presented to the City Council for approval in accordance with the City’s current contracting requirements.
ANALYSIS
Community Development Department staff recommends entering into a new Professional Services Agreement with Pinnacle Project Management based on the firm’s experience providing construction management and inspection services for the FPA and its familiarity with the area’s infrastructure, development program, and construction requirements.
Under the proposed agreement, Pinnacle Project Management will provide Owner’s Representative services, including construction management and construction inspection, as authorized by the City. Services may include:
• Construction management and coordination for FPA public infrastructure and subdivision improvements;
• Construction inspection and field observation;
• Monitoring construction for compliance with City-approved plans, specifications, conditions of approval, and applicable City standards;
• Coordination with developers, contractors, engineers, consultants, utility providers, and City staff;
• Monitoring construction schedules and project progress; • Assistance with construction meetings and resolution of field issues; • Documentation of construction activities and deficiencies;
09/22/2026 Item No.9.
3 • Assistance with project closeout, punch-list activities, and acceptance of public improvements; and
• Other related Owner’s Representative services authorized by the City.
The proposed agreement will allow the City to continue using specialized professional resources and adjust services based on actual development and construction activity.
Pinnacle Project Management’s familiarity with the FPA also provides continuity and reduces the time required for a new consultant to become familiar with the area’s infrastructure, development sequencing, construction standards, and coordination requirements.
The proposed agreement is limited to the scope and funding approved by the City Council with each fiscal year budget, including budget amendments as needed with City Council authorization given full cost recovery through developer deposits, invoicing, and reconciliation at various stages through mapping, capital and site improvements and acceptance, plan review, permit issuance and occupancies, as well as work covered under warranties.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
The proposed Professional Services Agreement with Pinnacle Project Management will be funded within the Community Development Department’s adopted contract budget for engineering services. The agreement will be limited to the existing budget amount of $690,000.
Each subsequent year of the five-year contract term will have budget appropriation by the City Council through the adoption of the City’s budget, along with any amendments approved by City Council.
Consistent with the City’s full-cost-recovery program, costs associated with private development activity will be recovered from applicable developer fees and deposits to the extent permitted by the applicable fee program and agreements.
The Community Development Department will monitor revenues and expenditure throughout the term of the agreement and manage services within the approved contract amount and available funding.
Any amendment to increase funding will be reviewed and decided by the City Council. Funding for subsequent years of the five-year term will be included in future budget requests and appropriations.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed Professional Services Agreement is administrative in nature and does not approve a physical development project or authorize construction. Therefore, the proposed action is not a project subject to environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
09/22/2026 Item No.9.
4 Any future project-specific activities requiring environmental review will be evaluated separately as required by law.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution No. 11698 – A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Professional Services Agreement with Pinnacle Project Management for Owner’s Representative Services for the Folsom Plan Area
2. Scope of Services and Fee Schedule with Pinnacle Project Management for Owner's Representative Services for the Folsom Plan Area
Submitted,
Pam Johns, Community Development Director
09/22/2026 Item No.9.
ATTACHMENT 1
A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Professional Services Agreement with Pinnacle Project Management for Owner’s Representative Services for the Folsom Plan Area
09/22/2026 Item No.9.
Resolution No. 11698
RESOLUTION NO. 11698
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH PINNACLE PROJECT
MANAGEMENT FOR OWNER’S REPRESENTATIVE SERVICES FOR
THE FOLSOM PLAN AREA
WHEREAS, development of the Folsom Plan Area (“FPA”) continues to require substantial engineering, construction management, construction inspection, and related professional services associated with public infrastructure and subdivision improvements; and
WHEREAS, in 2015, the City Council recognized the substantial volume of development-related engineering services anticipated in the FPA and determined that such costs should not be subsidized by the City’s General Fund; and
WHEREAS, the City subsequently implemented a full-cost-recovery program under which development-related engineering and related professional service costs are recovered through applicable fees and developer deposits; and
WHEREAS, as development activity in the FPA increased, the City determined that additional professional resources were necessary to provide construction management, construction inspection, and Owner’s Representative oversight for backbone infrastructure and subdivision improvements; and
WHEREAS, on July 12, 2016, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 9797 authorizing an agreement with Unico Engineering, Inc. for Owner’s Representative Services for the FPA; and
WHEREAS, the agreement with Unico Engineering, Inc. was subsequently transferred, with the City’s consent, to Pinnacle Project Management; and
WHEREAS, Pinnacle Project Management has provided Owner’s Representative, construction management, and construction inspection services for the FPA for approximately ten years and has developed substantial familiarity with the FPA’s infrastructure, development program, construction requirements, and coordination needs; and
WHEREAS, the existing agreement with Pinnacle Project Management has expired, and the Community Development Department recommends entering into a new Professional Services Agreement with Pinnacle Project Management to continue providing Owner’s Representative services for the FPA; and
WHEREAS, the proposed services will provide the City with specialized professional resources to coordinate construction activities, monitor compliance with City-approved plans and specifications, coordinate with developers and contractors, assist City staff with field issues and construction meetings, and support the delivery, closeout, and acceptance of public improvements; and
09/22/2026 Item No.9.
Resolution No. 11698
WHEREAS, the proposed Professional Services Agreement will have an initial term of five years, subject to the availability and appropriation of funds by the City Council, with a not- to-exceed amount of $690,000 for the initial term including the current fiscal year budget, as amended if necessary through City Council authorization; and
WHEREAS, services provided under the proposed agreement will be performed on an as-needed basis and within the scope and funding authorized by the City; and
WHEREAS, costs associated with private development activity will be recovered from applicable developer fees and deposits to the extent permitted by applicable fee programs and agreements, and no General Fund impact is anticipated; and
WHEREAS, Folsom Municipal Code Section 2.36.080 establishes the City’s requirements for the award of contracts, and the proposed Professional Services Agreement is being presented to the City Council for approval in accordance with the City’s contracting requirements; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Professional Services Agreement is administrative in nature, does not approve a physical development project or authorize construction, and therefore does not constitute a project subject to environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”); and
WHEREAS, City Council has appropriated $690,000 for Engineering Division contract services as part of the FY 2026-27 annual budget and an additional appropriation may be requested of City Council as service demands; and
WHEREAS, any additional appropriation request will be offset by a corresponding increase in revenue received; 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 Professional Services Agreement with Pinnacle Project Management for Owner’s Representative Services for the Folsom Plan Area.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 8th day of September, 2026, by the following roll -call vote:
AYES: Councilmember(s):
NOES: Councilmember(s):
ABSENT: Councilmember(s):
ABSTAIN: Councilmember(s):
__________________________________
09/22/2026 Item No.9.
Resolution No. 11698
Justin Raithel, MAYOR
ATTEST:
______________________________
Christa Freemantle, CITY CLERK
09/22/2026 Item No.9.
ATTACHMENT 2
Scope of Services and Fee Schedule with Pinnacle Project Management for Owner's Representative Services for the
Folsom Plan Area
09/22/2026 Item No.9.
City Representative Services
Project Scope and Fee
Exhibit A August 27, 2026
Scope Purpose
This scope is in response to the request from a series of meetings and clarifying emails with Pam John s and Rebecca Neves to renew the contract for our current services that we have provided to the City for the past 10 years. The scope of this proposal adheres to the verbal and written understandings garnered between the City and Pinnacle through the aforementioned correspondence, that includes the scope of services that Pinnacle is currently providing, as described in the following:
Tasks
Task 1 – Project Facilitation (Owner’s Representative) Services • Attendance at all weekly construction and project coordination meetings • Review of bid documents
• Coordination with City Staff and legal counsel as required • Verification of bid advertisements for both duration and location • Attendance at any required pre-bid meetings
• Attendance at all public bid openings
• Review of bids
• SPIFF and CFD support for eligibility and reconciliation • Coordination meetings with individual City Departments and outside agencies involved in the facilitation of the project
• Plan constructability review
• City standards and policy updates
• Oversight of all site inspection and materials testing, which includes:
o Project scheduling through all the contractors for their daily activities to maximize efficiency and coverage of inspections
o Review of daily field reports
o Inspector weekly work schedule review and approval
o Response and routing of all field questions and concerns o Traffic control plan review and routing for approval
o Review of payment and invoicing for inspection companies • Project submittal s review and routing for approval to the Engineer of Record and to the appropriate oversight department(s) at the City. In the case of private development this includes approval from the landowner of their representative
• Project RFI review and routing to follow suit with the submittal process • Maintaining all site construction documentation related to the projects through a cloud -based service that provides up to date transparency to the project team and city staff • Design consultant coordination
• Dry utility construction coordination
• Caltrans permitting assistance and coordination as needed • Conflict resolution (i.e. Developer vs City, Contractor vs City, Intercity conflict related to the project, etc)
09/22/2026 Item No.9.
City Representative Services
Project Scope and Fee
Exhibit A August 27, 2026
• Project accountability for the application and enforcement of plans, specifications, and standards in their appropriate application
• Random site visits to ensure the process is being held to the city’s standard • Project tours as needed
• Project accountability focused on cost and time implications • Project closeout and acceptance
Task 2 – Utility GPS Location Services
• GPS location of all utilities within the city ROW or within city easements • The GPS database is maintained in a state plane, comma delimited format, which is organized by utility type (water, sewer, storm, streetlighting, etc) with descriptions that include object type, size, material type, etc
Task 3 – Inspection Services for Backbone and Subdivision Projects • Review project plans and specifications
• Document pre-construction conditions
• Monitor all construction activities for compliance with the contract plans and specifications • Document all observations in a daily inspection report complete with pertinent photographs • Inspection reports will be completed daily and uploaded to a secure cloud service that the City is provided with access to
• Collect and log all material tags into the project files • Traffic Control Monitoring
• Assess and provide material quantities and costs as requested by the City • Annotate final as-built drawings with any pertinent field changes • Attend standing and weekly construction meetings, as needed • Participate in final walk-through and prepare final field punch list
Billings
Client will be billed monthly on a time and material basis per the attached project fee schedule.
09/22/2026 Item No.9.
City Representative Services
Project Scope and Fee
Exhibit A August 27, 2026
Rate and Fee Schedule
Name Position Company Hourly Rate
Kelley Butcher Project Facilitator/Owner’s Rep Pinnacle $170 Isaak Butcher Document Control Manager Pinnacle $70
UNICO Inspector UNICO $165
UNICO GPS UNICO $125
Boswell Inspector Boswell & Assoc $150
• No team members listed by name will be substituted without written authorization from the City. • Overtime will be billed at 1.5 times the hourly rate for non-exempt employees. • Per prevailing wage, a shift differential of 12.5% applies to any covered work shift beginning after 2PM.
• All expenses including mileage are included in the above rates. • Any purchases made at the specific direction of the City will be billed on a cost + 10% basis. • All listed rates will have a 5% yearly escalator that shall commence on 01/01/27.
09/22/2026 Item No.9.
Folsom City Council
Staff Report
1 MEETING DATE:
9/8/2026
AGENDA SECTION:
Consent Calendar
SUBJECT: Resolution No. 11702 - A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Agreement with Univar Solutions USA LLC for $410,000 from the Water Operating Fund (Fund 520) for the Supply of Sodium Hypochlorite for the Water Treatment Plant and $110,000 from the General Fund (Fund 010) for the Supply of Sodium Hypochlorite for the Steve Miklos Aquatic Center
FROM:
Utilities Department and Parks and Recreation Department
RECOMMENDATION / CITY COUNCIL ACTION
The Utilities Department and Parks and Recreation Department recommend that the City Council pass and adopt Resolution No. 11702 - A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Agreement with Univar Solutions USA LLC for $410,000 from the Water Operating Fund (Fund 520) for the Supply of Sodium Hypochlorite for the Water Treatment Plant and $110,000 from the General Fund (Fund 010) for the Supply of Sodium Hypochlorite for the Steve Miklos Aquatic Center.
BACKGROUND / ISSUE
The City of Folsom receives 100% of its water supply from Folsom Lake. The City’s Water Treatment Plant treats up to 50 million gallons per day of this supply to provide potable water to its customers. To meet the California Department of Public Health’s drinking water standards, the water treatment process uses a combination of flocculation/sedimentation pretreatment, conventional gravity media filters, and disinfection. An essential chemical for this process is sodium hypochlorite. Water Treatment Plant staff estimates a need for 170,000 gallons of sodium hypochlorite for use during Fiscal Year 2026-27.
Sodium Hypochlorite is used at the Steve Miklos Aquatic Center as a sanitizer to keep the swimming pools free from disease-causing microorganisms. It is therefore an important part of aquatic center operations for maintaining a safe facility for community recreation.
09/22/2026 Item No.10.
2 In January 2026, after completion of a competitive bid process, the city executed an agreement (Contract No. 046-21 26-002) with Pur Water LLC for the supply of sodium hypochlorite for use at the City of Folsom Water Treatment Plant and the Steve Miklos Aquatic Center . On July 9, 2026, Pur Water LLC issued a thirty (30) day written notice of termination of the Agreement.
Univar Solutions USA LLC , who also participated in the competitive bid process, has agreed to honor prices they quoted in the bid for the remainder of this fiscal year. This resolution will authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement with Univar Solutions USA LLC for the supply of sodium hypochlorite for the Water Treatment Plant and the Steve Miklos Aquatic Center.
POLICY / RULE
In accordance with Chapter 2.36 of the Folsom Municipal Code, contracts for supplies costing $77,426 or greater shall be awarded by the City Council.
ANALYSIS
On November 28, 2025, the city publicly advertised a request for bids for supply and delivery of sodium hypochlorite in the Sacramento Bee with bid documents made available starting December 1, 2025 on virtual-bid.com and publicpurchase.com. Bids were opened on December 18, 2025 and Pur Water LLC was the lowest responsive and responsible bidder for the supply of sodium hypochlorite to the City of Folsom.
The following bids were received by the city on December 18, 2025 for the supply and delivery of sodium hypochlorite for the City of Folsom for two years:
Pur Water LLC Poolcorp Univar Solutions LLC
Item Est. Qty
(Gal) $/Gal Total Price $/Gal Total Price $/Gal Total Price WTP – 2026 165,000 $2.90 $478,500.00 $3.22 $531,300.00 $3.25 $536,250.00 WTP – 2027 170,000 $2.90 $493,000.00 $3.22 $547,400.00 $3.35 $569,500.00 Aquatic Ctr – 2026 26,400 $2.90 $76,560.00 $3.22 $85,008.00 $3.85 $101,640.00 Aquatic Ctr - 2027 26,400 $2.90 $76,560.00 $3.22 $85,008.00 $3.95 $104,280.00 Total Bid Price $1,124,620.00 $1,248,716.00 $1,311,670.00
Previous bids conducted by the City’s Utilities Department included utilizing a bid proposal from the Bay Area Chemical Consortium (BACC). In 2022, the bid received through the BACC included a per gallon price of $2.89, which was an increase from the BACC bid in 2020 that yielded a per gallon price of $0.85. In 2023 the City issued its own bid separate from the BACC bid and the bid results included a $2.29 per gallon price in 2024 and a $2.29 per gallon price in 2025. The BACC bid for 2024 was $3.25 per gallon and $3.35 per gallon for 2025. Given the City’s previous bid achieved a lower per gallon price than the BACC bid, City staff issued a separate bid from the BACC for this bid proposal. The City’s 2026 bid proposal yielded a lower cost per gallon than the BACC proposal.
09/22/2026 Item No.10.
3 Based on the results of the competitive bid process and recommendation of t he Utilities Department and Parks and Recreation Department, at the January 13, 2026 City Council meeting, through Resolution No. 11532, the City Council authorize d the City Manager to execute an agreement with Pur Water LLC for the purchase of sodium hypochlorite for use at the Water Treatment Plant and at the Steve Miklos Aquatic Center. The agreement (Contract No. 046-21 26- 002) with Pur Water LLC was executed on January 27, 2026.
In May, 2026, Pur Water LLC contacted city staff providing notice of a sodium hypochlorite supply disruption which affected their ability to obtain product for future deliveries. Due to the critical need for Sodium Hypochlorite at both the Water Treatment Plant and the Aquatic Ce nter, an Emergency Procurement Waiver of Bid was signed to authorize the purchase of sodium hypochlorite from any of four known vendors, namely Lincoln Aquatics (owned by PoolCorp), Univar Solutions, LLC, HASA Inc. and PurWater LLC . Through this waiver, the Aquatic Center secured delivery from Lincoln Aquatics (owned by PoolCorp) until October 31, 2026, and t he Water Treatment Plant secured delivery from Univar Solutions, LLC. The price of product procured through the Emergency Waiver is subject to market fluctuation.
On July 9, 2026 city staff received email communication from Pur Water LLC, providing thirty (30) day written notice of termination of the Agreement (Contract No. 046-21 26-002) to supply sodium hypochlorite for use at the City of Folsom Water Treatment Plant and the Steve Miklos Aquatic Center.,
Based on consultation with the City Attorney’s office regarding appropriate procedure, City staff contacted other companies who had responded to the November 28, 2025, request for bids. Lincoln Aquatics (owned by PoolCorp) re plied that they were unable to honor the bid as they could no longer supply sodium hypochlorite to the Water Treatment Plant. Univar Solutions, LLC, confirmed they would honor the 2026 prices quoted for supply to both locations until June 30, 2027, as shown in the table below.
ITEM
NO. ITEM DELIVERIES
TO START UNIT
UNIT PRICE
THROUGH
6.30.2027
1 Sodium Hypochlorite WTP
(orders of >3,100 gal)
ASAP GAL in bulk $3.25/gal
2 Sodium Hypochlorite Aquatic
Center (orders of <3,000 gal)
Nov 1, 2026 GAL in bulk $3.85/gal
The Utilities Department and Parks and Recreation Department recommend that the City Council authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement with Univar Solutions, LLC for the Supply of Sodium Hypochlorite for the Water Treatment Plant and the Steve Miklos Aquatic Center
FINANCIAL IMPACT
If approved, the agreement with Univar Solutions, LLC would be in the amount of $520,000.
Funding for this agreement is included in the Fiscal Year 2026-27 Operating Budget at $410,000 under the Water Operating Fund (Fund 520) and $110,000 under the General Fund (Fund 010).
09/22/2026 Item No.10.
4 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This action is exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as it is related to Section 15301, Existing Facilities.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution No. 11702 - A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Agreement with Univar Solutions USA LLC for $410,000 from the Water Operating Fund (Fund 520) for the Supply of Sodium Hypochlorite for the Water Treatment Plant and $110,000 from the General Fund (Fund 010) for the Supply of Sodium Hypochlorite for the Steve Miklos Aquatic Center
2. Emergency Procurement Waiver of Bid – Sodium Hypochlorite
3. Pur Water LLC – 30 day Notice of Termination
Submitted,
Kelly Gonzalez, Director
PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT
Marcus Yasutake, Director
UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
09/22/2026 Item No.10.
Attachment 1
09/22/2026 Item No.10.
Resolution No. 11702
RESOLUTION NO. 11702
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH UNIVAR SOLUTIONS USA LLC FOR $410,000 FROM THE WATER OPERATING FUND (FUND 520) FOR THE SUPPLY OF SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE FOR THE WATER TREATMENT PLANT AND $110,000 FROM THE GENERAL FUND (FUND 010) FOR THE SUPPLY OF SODIUM
HYPOCHLORITE FOR THE STEVE MIKLOS AQUATIC CENTER
WHEREAS, sodium hypochlorite is an essential chemical to each phase of the City’s water treatment plant operation; and
WHEREAS, the aquatic center uses sodium hypochlorite for sanitizing pool water; and
WHEREAS, on December 18, 2025, the city received bids for sodium hypochlorite; and
WHEREAS, the City’s bid proposal was lower on a per gallon price than the bid proposal offered by the Bay Area Chemical Consortium; and
WHEREAS, through Resolution No. 11532, the City Council authorized execution of an agreement with the lowest responsible, responsive bidder, Pur Water LLC; and
WHEREAS, on January 27, 2026, the City executed an agreement with Pur Water LLC for the supply of sodium hypochlorite; and
WHEREAS, on July 9, 2026, Pur Water LLC provided a thirty day written notice of termination of the agreement; and
WHEREAS, Univar Solutions USA LLC, who also participated in the competitive bid process, agreed to honor prices quoted for the remainder of Fiscal Year 2026-27; and
WHEREAS, staff recommend executing an agreement with Univar Solutions USA LLC. for a total not-to-exceed amount of $520,000 for the supply of sodium hypochlorite to the Water Treatment Plant and the Aquatic Center for the remainder of Fiscal Year 2026-27; and
WHEREAS, sufficient funds are budgeted and available in the FY 2026- 27 Water Operating Fund (Fund 520); and
WHEREAS, sufficient funds are budgeted and available in the FY 2026-27 General Fund (Fund 010); 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 Univar Solutions USA LLC for $520,000 with $410,000 funded from the Water Operating Fund (Fund 520) for the Supply of Sodium Hypochlorite for the Water Treatment Plant and $110,000 funded from the General Fund
09/22/2026 Item No.10.
Resolution No. 11702
(Fund 010) for the Supply of Sodium Hypochlorite for the Steve Miklos Aquatic Center.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 8th day of September 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
09/22/2026 Item No.10.
Attachment 2
09/22/2026 Item No.10.
09/22/2026 Item No.10.
09/22/2026 Item No.10.
09/22/2026 Item No.10.
09/22/2026 Item No.10.
09/22/2026 Item No.10.
09/22/2026 Item No.10.
Attachment 3
09/22/2026 Item No.10.
1 Emma Atkinson
From: Jesse Kerr <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 9, 2026 6:05 PM
To: Emma Atkinson; Marcus Yasutake
Cc: Bryson Pearson; Todd Morine
Subject: 30-Day Notice of Termination – Purchase Agreement 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.
All,
Pursuant to Section 17 of the Purchase Agreement between the City of Folsom and Pur Water LLC, this email serves as Pur Water LLC's thirty (30) day written notice of termination of the Agreement.
Accordingly, the Agreement will terminate thirty (30) days from the date of this notice, in accordance with its terms.
This decision was not made lightly. Since the Agreement was awarded, market conditions and our cost to procure and deliver sodium hypochlorite have changed significantly. Despite our efforts to continue supporting the City, we are no longer able to provide the product under the current contract terms in an economically sustainable manner.
During the thirty (30) day notice period, Pur Water LLC will continue to fulfill its obligations under the Agreement and work with the City to facilitate an orderly transition.
We sincerely appreciate the opportunity to have served the City of Folsom and thank you for your professionalism throughout our working relationship.
Please let me know if you would like to discuss a transition plan. --
To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Pur Water
Jesse Kerr
C: 530-949-8224
O: 707-430-0121
www.purwaterllc.com
09/22/2026 Item No.10.
Folsom City Council
Staff Report
1 MEETING DATE:
9/8/2026
AGENDA SECTION:
Consent Calendar
ITEM TITLE: Resolution No. 11703 - A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Reimbursement Agreement in an amount Not to Exceed $360,000 with Vintage at Folsom, LP, and
Appropriation of Funds from Road Maintenance and
Rehabilitation Fund (Fund 235) in the amount of $360,000 for supplemental paving as part of the Vintage Senior Apartments Project
FROM: Public Works Department
RECOMMENDATION / CITY COUNCIL ACTION
The Public Works Department recommends that the City Council pass and adopt Resolution No. 11703 - A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Reimbursement Agreement in an amount Not to Exceed $360,000 with Vintage at Folsom, LP, and Appropriation of Funds from Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Fund (Fund 235) in the amount of $3 60,000 for supplemental paving as part of the Vintage Senior Apartments Project.
BACKGROUND / ISSUE
On January 18, 2023, the Planning Commission considered a request for approval of a Conditional Use Permit, Planned Development Permit, and Density Bonus for the development of a 136 -unit senior (55+) affordable apartment community (Vintage Senior Apartmen ts) on a 4.86 -acre site located at 103 East Natoma Street (PN 21-159). The project was appealed and then later approved by the City Council on March 28, 2023, with minor modifications to the Conditions of Approval.
As part of the Approved Conditions of Approval, Condition 24 states the following : “Any reimbursement for public improvements constructed by the applicant shall be in accordance with a formal reimbursement agreement entered into between the City and the owner/applicant prior to approval of the improvement plans .” Construction for the project began in 2025 and included site grading, frontage improvements, and connection to the City’s waterline. The City Standards
09/22/2026 Item No.11.
2 require pavement restoration in accordance with Section 2.5 Restoration of Surfaces, which includes a grind and overlay of the affected travel lanes up to the centerline of the road. Upon a site walk with the City’s Construction Management team, it was discovered that there is significant public benefit to including additional paving on Natoma Street from the bridge to the western connection of Cimmaron Circle, including the intersection of Prison Road and Natoma Street. For this reason, staff requested a quote to expand the paving limits to include the remaining balance of the road, thus resulting in repaving both directions of travel and intersection improvements. Since this request is beyond the standard requirements, the additional paving cost is to be included in a reimbursement agreement per Condition 24 of the project.
POLICY / RULE
City policy requires all agreements affecting real property be approved by the City Council, inclusive of reimbursement agreements.
ANALYSIS
Staff has been working with the project owner, ACG Builds, and has agreed to the limits of project paving and limits of additional city paving, as shown in Attachment B to this report. The estimated cost for this work is $330,000. Staff has identified available funds in the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Fund ( Fund 235) and is requesting an appropriation in the amount of $360,000 , which represents the estimated cost plus approximately 10% contingency for unforeseen subgrade items (repairs and dig outs) that may need to be addressed as the work commences. Because this project is an affordable housing project under strict state requirements and the owner of the project is also the contractor, this project has already met the requirements under publi c contract code, including prevailing wage, and it is considered self -performing work, allowing the use of public funds on the project.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
If approved, the reimbursement agreement with Vantage at Folsom LP would be in the amount of $330,000 and include a contingency amount of $30,000 funded from the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Fund (Fund 235) for a total not -to-exceed amount of $360,000. An appropriation in the amount of $360,000 in the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Fund (Fund 235) is required for the agreement. Suff icient funds are available in the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Fund (Fund 235) to cover the cost of the agreement.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project has completed environmental review as part of the entitlement process (PN 21 -159), and this additional work is within the approved scope.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution No. 11703 – A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Reimbursement Agreement in an amount Not to Exceed $360,000 with Vintage at Folsom,
09/22/2026 Item No.11.
3 LP, and Appropriation of Funds from Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Fund ( Fund 235) in the amount of $3 60,000 for supplemental paving as part of the Vintage Senior Apartments Project
2. Paving Scope Exhibit
Respectfully Submitted,
Rebecca Neves, P.E.
Public Works Director/City Engineer
09/22/2026 Item No.11.
ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution No. 11703 - A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Reimbursement Agreement in an amount Not to Exceed $360,000 with Vintage at Folsom, LP, and Appropriation of Funds from Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Fund (Fund 235) in the amount of $360,000 for supplemental paving as part of the Vintage Senior Apartments Project
09/22/2026 Item No.11.
Resolution No. 11703
RESOLUTION NO. 11703
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A
REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $360,000
WITH VINTAGE AT FOLSOM, LP, AND APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS FROM THE ROAD MAINTENANCE AND REHABILITATION ACT FUND (FUND 235) IN THE AMOUNT OF $360,000 FOR SUPPLEMENTAL PAVING AS PART OF THE VINTAGE
SENIOR APARTMENTS PROJECT
WHEREAS, on January 18, 2023, the Planning Commission considered a request for approval of a Conditional Use Permit, Planned Development Permit, and Density Bonus for the development of a 136 -unit senior (55+) affordable apartment community (Vintage Senior Apartments) on a 4.86-acre site located at 103 East Natoma Street (PN 21-159); and
WHEREAS, the project was appealed and then later approved by the City Council on March 28, 2023, with minor modifications to the Conditions of Approval; and
WHEREAS, per Approved Condition 24 for the project allows the City to enter into a reimbursement agreement when additional public improvements are requested beyond project conditions and requirements of the City Standards; and
WHEREAS, the agreement with Vintage at Folsom, LP would be in the amount of $330,000 and include a contingency amount of $30,000 funded from the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Fund (Fund 235) for a total not-to-exceed amount of $360,000; and WHEREAS, an appropriation of funds in the amount of $360,000 is required for the agreement in the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Fund (Fund 235); and
WHEREAS, sufficient funds are available in the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Fund (Fund 235) for the appropriation; 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 Reimbursement Agreement with Vintage at Folsom, LP, in the amount of $330,000, including a cont ingency amount of $30,000 for a total not -to-exceed amount of $360,000 funded in the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Fund (Fund 235).
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Finance Director is authorized to appropriate $360,000 for this agreement in the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Fund (Fund 235).
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 8th day of September, 2026, by the following roll -call vote:
AYES: Councilmember(s):
NOES: Councilmember(s):
09/22/2026 Item No.11.
Resolution No. 11703
ABSENT: Councilmember(s):
ABSTAIN: Councilmember(s):
__________________________________
Justin Raithel, MAYOR
ATTEST:
______________________________
Christa Freemantle, CITY CLERK
09/22/2026 Item No.11.
ATTACHMENT 2
Paving Scope Exhibit
09/22/2026 Item No.11.
BIKELANE
BIKELANE
STOPLANEBIKE
NOPARKING
DO NOT ENTERNO EXITNOPARKINGTURN AROUND
NOPARKING
STOPSIGNALAHEADSTOPSTOP
Know what'sbelow.before you dig.Call
CITY OF FOLSOM CAexpect more.TSD ENGINEERING, INC.785 Orchard Drive, Suite #110Folsom, CA 95630Phone: (916) 608-0707Fax: (916) 608-0701 59VINTAGE AT FOLSOM103 EAST NATOMA STREETAT FOLSOM PRISON ROADSITE IMPROVEMENT PLANS 1/17/2025
E NATOME & CIMMARONPAVING PLAN
C14.0__ PROJECT ENGINEERDATERCE # PROJECT ENGINEER
RECORD DRAWINGS
PRISON RD.
NSEW
scale: 1"=20'
MATCH LINE STA. 23+50(SEE BELOW)
JOHNNY CASH TRAIL
MATCH LINE STA. 23+50(SEE ABOVE)
LEGEND
JOHNNY CASH TRAIL
CIMMARON CIRCLE
GENERAL NOTES:
09/22/2026 Item No.11.
Folsom City Council
Staff Report
1 MEETING DATE:
9/8/2026
AGENDA SECTION:
Consent Calendar
SUBJECT: Resolution No. 11706 – A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Agreement with Affordable Quality Painting Inc. in the Amount of $200,000 for the City Hall Campus Exterior Painting Project and Add Alternates from the Facility Rehabilitation Fund (Fund 602)
FROM: Parks and Recreation Department
RECOMMENDATION / CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Staff recommends that the City Council approve Resolution No. 11706 – A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Agreement with Affordable Quality Painting Inc. in the Amount of $200,000 for the City Hall Campus Exterior Painting Project and Add Alternates from the Facility Rehabilitation Fund (Fund 602).
BACKGROUND / ISSUE
The City of Folsom maintains numerous municipal facilities to support public operations and community services. Routine exterior painting and surface sealing are essential maintenance practices that protect municipal structures from weather exposure, UV degradation, and moisture intrusion, thereby preventing costly substrate repairs.
Over time, weather and UV exposure have caused significant fading, peeling, and surface wear across the City Hall campus buildings. Most of these facilities date to 1992 and retain their original exterior paint, which has far exceeded its useful life. Comprehensive preparation, repair, and repainting are now required. The only exception is the Senior Center at 48 Natoma Street, which was repainted in 2023. Additionally, Fire Stations 35 and 37 and the Parks Maintenance Shop require exterior repainting.
On June 25, 2026, the Parks & Recreation Department solicited qualifications and proposals on PublicPurchase.com. Following bid reviews, staff identified a discrepancy in the solicitation documents prior to award. Consequently, City Council approved a resolution on August 11 to
09/22/2026 Item No.12.
2 reject all bids and re-advertise the project. Staff re-solicited bids on August 12 and held a bid opening on August 28, which yielded a similar turnout and slightly lower overall pricing.
The colors selected for the City Hall Campus by an internal selection committee consist of Dover White for the body and Baked Cookie for the trim.
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
On August 12, 2026, staff released a formal Notice Inviting Bids for exterior painting across the following four designated facilities:
• City Hall
• Community Center
• Police Department Headquarters
• Public Library
Additionally, the bid package identified the following facilities as Bid Alternates, to be awarded based upon available funding:
• Fire Station 35
• Fire Station 37
• Parks Maintenance Shop
09/22/2026 Item No.12.
3 On August 28, 2026, eight bids were submitted to the City Clerk. Parks and Recreation Department staff publicly opened and read the proposals in compliance with the Public Contract Code. All eight submissions were determined to be responsive bids from responsible contractors:
Firm Base Bid Price Add Alternates Total Bid Price
Affordable Quality Painting Inc. $167,200 $32,800 $200,000 Primal Paint Inc. $222,000 $60,734 $282,734
Anchor Singh Painting Inc. $225,000 $108,000 $333,000
Diamond Painting Co. $232,000 $31,000 $263,000
Color New Corp $238,000 $52,000 $290,000
Perfection Painting Corp $248,000 $155,000 $403,000
Satellite Painting Inc. $296,000 $70,000 $366,000
CMA Painting Inc. $385,000 $115,000 $500,000
The scope of work includes:
• Surface preparation and substrate repair
• Caulking and sealing joints
• Full primer application and two coats of commercial exterior paint • Scheduling and phased access coordination to prevent disruption to public services, library patrons, community events, and 24/7 police operations
Affordable Painting provided a price of an additional $32,000 to complete the three add alternates, for a total project bid of $200,000 inclusive of the base bid and all bid alternates. Staff recommends proceeding with contract award to Affordable Painting for the base bid and add alternates 1, 2 and
3. Should City Council approve this contract, s taff will use the City’s standard Construction Agreement in a form acceptable to the City Attorney.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
The contract with Affordable Painting would be authorized for $200,000, with a 10% contingency amount of $20,000 for a total not-to-exceed amount of $220,000 funded through the Facility Rehabilitation Fund (Fund 602) using American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) grant proceeds.
Sufficient funds are budgeted and available in the Facility Rehabilitation Fund (Fund 602) to cover the cost of the agreement.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This project is categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15301- Existing Facilities. None of the exceptions to use of the categorical exemption apply in this case.
ATTACHMENT
1. Resolution No. 11706 – A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Agreement with Affordable Painting in the Amount of $200,000 for the City Hall Campus Exterior Painting Project and Add Alternates from the Facility Rehabilitation Fund (Fund 602)
09/22/2026 Item No.12.
4 Submitted,
Kelly Gonzalez
Parks & Recreation Director
09/22/2026 Item No.12.
Attachment 1
09/22/2026 Item No.12.
Resolution No. 11706
RESOLUTION NO. 11706
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH AFFORDABLE QUALITY PAINTING INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $200,000 FOR THE CITY HALL CAMPUS EXTERIOR PAINTING PROJECT AND ADD ALTERNATES FROM THE FACILITY REHABILITATION FUND (FUND 602)
WHEREAS, the City of Folsom maintains municipal facilities including City Hall, the Public Library, the Police Department Station, and the Community Center, and routine exterior painting is necessary to protect these public assets from weather exposure, ultraviole t degradation, and moisture intrusion; and
WHEREAS, the existing exterior paint on these facilities is original to the buildings, most of which were constructed in 1992, and have deteriorated due to normal aging and weathering; and
WHEREAS, on August 12, 2026 the City issued a construction advertisement and formal solicitation of bids and on August 28, 2026 received eight (8) responsive bids for the project; and
WHEREAS, Affordable Quality Painting Inc. is a responsible bidder that submitted the lowest responsive bid in the amount of $200,000 for the base bid plus all bid alternates; and
WHEREAS, the contract with Affordable Quality Painting Inc. would be authorized for $200,000 with a 10% contingency amount of $20,000 for a total not -to-exceed amount of $220,000 funded through the Facility Rehabilitation Fund (Fund 602) using American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) grant proceeds ; and
WHEREAS, sufficient funds are budgeted and available in the Facility Rehabilitation Fund (Fund 602) to cover the cost of the agreement; 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 an agreement with Affordable Painting in the amount of $200,000, with the project budgeted to include a 10% contingency in the amount of $20,000 for potential change orders, for a total not-to-exceed amount of $220,000 for the City Hall Campus Exterior Painting Project and Add Alternates.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 8
th day of September 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
09/22/2026 Item No.12.
Folsom City Council
Staff Report
1 MEETING DATE:
9/8/2026
AGENDA SECTION:
Consent Calendar
ITEM TITLE: Resolution No.11707– A Resolution Rescinding Resolution No. 8990 and Adopting a Revised Policy Governing the Receipt and Distribution of Tickets and/or Passes
FROM: City Attorney's Office
RECOMMENDATION / CITY COUNCIL ACTION
City staff recommend that the Council adopt Resolution No. 11707– A Resolution Rescinding Resolution No. 8990 and Adopting a Revised Policy Governing the Receipt and Distribution of Tickets and/or Passes.
BACKGROUND / ISSUE
Regulations promulgated by the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) govern the receipt and distribution of tickets or passes to events that are provided to public officials. Consistent with these regulations, the City has a policy describing the process for distributing such tickets and defining the public purposes for which the tickets may be distributed. The applicable FPPC regulation has been amended several times in recent years and as a result the City’s Policy Governing Receipt and Distribution of Tickets and/or Passes is due for an update.
POLICY / RULE
FPPC Regulation 18944.1 (2 California Code of Regulations section 18944.1) exempts agency provided tickets or passes from the Political Reform Act’s rules on gifts when specified criteria are met. One of the criteria is adoption of a policy governing the distribution of such tickets or passes by the public agency’s legislative body. The policy must set forth the public purposes for which tickets may be distributed and used and must prohibit the disproportionate use of tickets or passes by individual public officials, in addition to other requirements.
The policy must be maintained as a public record and must be posted on the City website. The City must notify the FPPC of this amendment within 30 days of adoption and must provide a link to the policy to be posted on the FPPC’s website.
09/22/2026 Item No.13.
2 ANALYSIS
Based on amendments to the governing FPPC regulation, updates to the City of Folsom’s Policy Governing the Receipt and Distribution of Tickets and/or Passes are needed. The proposed revisions do not change the fundamentals of the policy but include updates based on technical amendments to the applicable FPPC regulation.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
The proposed policy amendment will have no impact on the City budget.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed policy amendment is not a project for purposes of CEQA. If for any reason the proposed policy amendment is considered a project for purposes of CEQA, it is not subject to environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the proposed policy amendment may have a significant effect on the environment.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution No. 11707- A Resolution Rescinding Resolution No. 8990 and Adopting a Revised Policy Governing the Receipt and Distribution of Tickets and/or Passes
2. Resolution No. 8990
3. Redline showing proposed revisions to the Policy Governing the Receipt and Distribution of Tickets and/or Passes
Respectfully Submitted,
Sari Myers Dierking
City Attorney