Folsom City Council
May 10, 2022

05/10/2022 Item No.19.

Folcom Corporete Center Apartments
Transoortation lmoact Studv
Folsom,
Califomia
Table 15. EPAP 2026 US so
I
Level of Servlce
and levehof.serulce
Slrnran \,,i/vJ\ii': tr!r;ii la a{,r.,
lr550Se8nrmt Salmcnl
rlpe
tUlthout Prolect
AMlpu
(Denrlty | (o"*,,,
!os.l I r.os.l

1. US 50 westbound East Bidwell offramp Dlveree 25.9 C 17.8 B

2. US 50 westbound East Bidwell loop onramp MerRe 24.4 C 18.1 B

3. US 50 westbound East Bidwell sllp onramp MerPe 25.9 C 2L.2 C

4. US 50 westbound East Bidwell to Oak Ave Basic 26p0 2L.2 C 5 r.i5 -':0 w{isilo-ilij {'itk A\.,9',.e o:'iroiilal Diverge l'.li)t ,ril;)i,i:.Ij f' :(i
ir'! ii.l'.,.r {,
L: L:ri l]Li 7/l:t'a;Ui,i]al C;k irr;ltrr..rC: iOaij {-,i1r a:yl!.1 N" e rq(l / ' )\ l>tl: \^'e$;.:.tIiita: O;:i< ;rl:f rrr,e i.i ,.:5;;'rfii ili:aa::rfi ii; i)'at:i: iiil; ail Ctlr,lrrt! 'l\/eav€

8. US 50 westbound Pralrle CiW offrarnp Diverce 33.7 D 28.7 D 9, US 50 westbound Prairie City loop onramp Mene 25.5 C 23.4 C

10. US 50 westbound Prairie CiW diagonal onramp Merge 26.0 C 21.2 C

11. US 50 eastbound Prairie Citv offramo Diverse 30,5 D 33.3 D

12. US 50 eastbound Prairie Citv diagonal onramp Mene 19.5 B 24.1 C 13, US 50 eastbound Prairie Citv fly-over onramg Mene 27.t C 26.3 C 11,. US 50 cestbou:rd Pralltc Ciry i|y-over
or;'ar'ria tc Calr A';e ol'frarli-r
Weave
Noi lppli.-3ble ',o
ttii iae,r ai,r) 15. US 50 eastboL.irid Oak Averue lccc or:airi-r l\,lr rie i5 Ut 50 p.rslborind lJai. !,valLrs rliaqora'
orl .ar't1p ivlerge

17. US 50 eastbound Oak Ave to East Bidwell Basic 18.8 C 24.7 C

18. US 50 eastbound East Eidwell offramp DaverPe 11.8 B 17.6 B 19, US 50 eastbound East Eidwell loop onramD Merre 9.3 A 13.9 S

20. US 50 eastbound East Bidwell sllp onramp Merce 8.5 A L4.2 g s2

05/10/2022 Item No.19.

Folsom Corporate Center Apartments Folsom,
California Transportation lmoact Studv
5,3 EPAP 2026 with Project Condition
peak-hourtraffic associated with the Project was added to anticipated EPAP 2026turning volumes at each intersectibn. Delay and level-of-service were then determined at the study lntersections' Figure 18 summarizes the turning movements and lane configurations for the EPAP 2025 wlth project condition, Tablc 16 rnd Trble 17 present a silmmery nf the level-of-service results for the study intersections.

The results indicate that all study segments are anticipated to operate at an acceptable level-of' service; three study intersections exceed the General Plan level'of-service standard prior to the addition of Proiect traffic'
o prairie City Rd/American Aggregate Dr would operate at a deficient level-of-service during the AM peak if not for the Covid-19 related traffic reductions' r prairie City Rd/lron Point Rd would operate at a deficient level'of-service during the AM and PM peak if not for the Covid-19 related traffic reductions' r East Bidwell St/lron point Rd would operate at a deficient level'of-servlce during the AM and PM peak if not for the Covid-l9 related traffic reductions' These locations are shown in orange highlight in the tables below' Because the increase in delay is less than five seconds, these violations of the General Plan leveFof-service policy is not considered a Project impact, calculation sheets for intersection delay and level-of-service are provided in APPendlx B.
ln Addition to level-of-service, the g5th percentile left turn queues with and without the project were reviewed to identify any study intersections with Project queueing impacts' One location' the westbo,und teft turn movement at tntersectlon f,4 Prairie Citv Rd/lron Point Rd duri!]8'the AM oeak hii a queueingdefictencv that Broiect traffic is anticioateC to adC more than one vehicle lqt
"tLJhis
is conride,ed . ptoi".t rulrted d"fici"ndr. This deficiency Is ldenticalto the Project related deficiency previously identified under Existing 2o2l with Project conditions' An Abatement measure to address this deficiency ls provided in Sectlon 8r0. 10To avoid confusion, General Plan deficiencies are labeled as "deficiencies" ratherthan (CEQA) ,,impacts,,, and the related lmprovements are labeled as "abetment measures" rather than "mitiSation s1gg5gres,,. This ls done to emphasls that level-of-service and/or queueing concerns are not considered to be impacts under CECl,rA'
53 SlIKEAR wwYl ike':rtic,coin

05/10/2022 Item No.19.

Folsom Corporate Center Apartments
Transportation lmpact Study
Folsom,
California
1 o( 2 lnuft lron Point Road Apartments IURNING MC)Vl-MtllI5 & LANt GEOMEIBY 2026 EPAP wlth Project l
o
o
It
I t6ht)b! _//!
:'13\ -
rgjit4.:) \
i o *o*,' I
I
rt*trttr
1 f"-ji'ri
lrPF i
tf H- i
0r5t 4
9121-:
s(sl) \
351
ti59{/36)
2S{9)
ken Ponl ffd
LBtJ:ltil8)
ra ,]ei ldl
2 li r!i
Iton Poirn Rd
6- I
@
lt
g
6 @o
F
lt
;.-r ggo
FNo
lll \q
0 5t
\ 3{0)
2,41
(2241
(23s)
-l
4i:?l i4.id l
:1.r9i3.i01
ai4:'t a:i:i
6l l4i
' US 50 easlbound I -,,
.

I
o lr' d aao ':.,
xlllr
a6 aG
iFg?
E5
R
$
c
@:,; Il -.i. tl 't:i al
.Z \.r
I
g
c
L
/tiit\.J / lil '\
:iiIj
2:ti't i.
::120{:tr}B:
, r3tjttr0j
87C(i07lj =l
I r9r li19r --\
128(92)
831127) >/
945{1311i:
r67(58) \
! 134(1131
:984(1071)
=
1701441
/ * 32t291
lron Poinl Rd
TV
o
)\llr a6'a
@
\-- 2{lrlr(ri
=
ijl0r,g1l
,4 55(15t '^- E\tzl
111
::
--/>
'l
.!
^6
e9 ;6'
IVt\
6 o
)
111 (201)
o
&
:t
o
'a
IE
z3g$
FI
fiI
i
QON
18(l 2)
583(729)
266(t 771
r4t1 )
K
ao9--^
JU
I
\ri ,'
r='r.rj
ti i:1
2145)
376t1')9\
649(975)
o
o
t
CI
?i2lll5il)
km ttiit nd
5;
aJ
.rl z
/\I I
66'6 4 -YJ -_f
12(22t
46(74)
71 7(921)
130(1 01)
oa
I
e
a
fr
g
E
780{1153) ::

I t( 1BJ -\
{D^g
:o
NO
/ltt
--l
@F
:!
II\\J lt \\
1B(27)
r 75(362)
564(753)
62{5ti
\- z.4stg6r,
371(514)
597(9831
0(1) =
ll
\:
4 US
i?liri r i4tii
iraB(t l5J
re
)
5(14) _/
233(1741 r_/ \\lllr
FFF
Y=i;
lVr
eg
+F
28s(77r) --:
491{867} \
I o"trnt | !
I
Figure 18. EPAP 2026 with ProiectTurning Movements and lane Geometry t2l4t202r
51 fnEnn rv\ryw,rkearinc,com
54

05/10/2022 Item No.19.

Folsom Corporata Centcr Apartments Folsom,
Callfornia lmoact Studv
lfon POi nt Road Apaf tmentS tttr;'t i\l(, J!l!)\i[lvl!l'; 1 "" |'lti'lF r;t c)/'JL I llr 2026 EPAPwlth Proiect
@sa
=9oo
@@
)41
@
I
t$
@
a I
:

I
I
i
i
!
;
:
/'atl7
it ,;t
t
8120r -! 'ortrr ' 2ar3i
ob@ing6
A
.
s0(48)
-> 50(6) ' slrg)
63) I,
i\47i.:153j
!2(iil
il
$o
u{0!
,ii?)
v ](r )
,211)0!
0(l)
frt
t
v
5d sJo
")ri! i1;(rl .;ilr r iij llj It ji,'t: ) i rlli r!r'; r llj J{il5

AMIPIIII
trrirull
Ffure 18. EPAP 2026 with Proiect Turning Movemerfis and lane Geomctry (Continuedl 5l trEan www,tl(earrnc,com
55

05/10/2022 Item No.19.

Folsom CorFor|te Canter Aprrtmenir
Transgorlation lmgact studv
tolsom,
California
Teble 16. EPAP 2026 lnters.ctlon and Level-ot-Scrvlce, wlth rnd wlthout Level ofService
lwo way stop controlt Los ls deflfied bv delay for the worst movemenvshared movement, whlch k llsted with the Los reiults, 56 51 f XEnn wwwtkearrnc.conr
htcHactlon Cont?ol
Wlthout Prolcst rult"
lDrhy I lDtby (os.l I lot.l
lMih Prolcct
Ai,l
(Dolry
!os.l
PM
(D:hV
lo5.l

1. Prairie Cltv Rdr/US 50 eastbound ramos sirnal 15.2 I 10.5 I 15.3 B 10.6 B

2. Pralrle clw Rd/US 50 w$tbound rsm9s Slrnai 60.5 E 10,2 0 60.8 E 10.1 B

3. PEirle Clty Rd/Amerkan Arrerstes Rd Slrnal 0.3 ,F 30,8 C t10.6 F 30.t c

4. Pralrie CIW Rd/lron Point Rd Slrnal 23"rl F ?t.rl E n&2 F t/[l I

5. l.on Polnt Rd /Grover Rd Sirnal 52D 4!t.4 D 52.5 D 43.7 D

5. lron Polnt Rd/OakAvenue Pkwy Sirnal 36t D 110.4 D 37.1 D /t1.4 D

7. lron Polnt Rd AAlest Kalser access road TWSC'+ 12.11 B l{orthbound

13.7 B
Northbound

12.4 I
Northbound

13.8 B
Northbound

8. lron Polnt nd /Rowberrv Way Sirnal 14.4 B 1tt.3 B 158 14.6 0 ztD
WB lswU

17.3 C
llrB left/U
27,7 D
WB left/U 9, lron Point Rd /safe Credit Union rcceis TWSCT.

16.9 C
wB left/u

10. lron Point Rd /Broadrton€ Pkwv Sirnal 15.3 B 20.s c 16.4 B 20.6 C u, lron Point Rd /E6tt BldwellSt Slrnrl '.1 E l4$4 F 68E ilts r

12. East Eidwell SI/US 50 wertbound ramos Sirnal 46.9 D 53.5 D 47D 53.8 0

13. East gidwell SVU' 50 e.stbound remps Slrnal 12.9 B 25.4 C 12.9 B 25.5 C TWsC.r 9.1 A
Northbound

8.8 A
Northbound

9.2 A
Northbound

8.9 A
Northbound 14. APN 072-3120-023 "Lot6" acccss
TWSC.+

9.6 A
Southbound

9.8 A
Soulhbound

10.3 B
5outhbound

10.2 e
Southbound 15. APN 072-3120-023 "Lot 1* access

05/10/2022 Item No.19.
;olrcm Corportte Center APnilmrnlt Folsom,
California Transportation lmpact Studv
T.blr 1?. rnd nrhh end wlthout
us 505.trnmt S.tnanf
rlD.

Wltlrout Polcct
tiit ?M
looillty
urg.l
|o.luft
ld{l.l
UflftPrcliC
Al, lrm
lD.nily I lDrtttt 105.t I tor.l
1, US 50 westbound Ea$ BldwEll offramp Dluerre 25.9 C 17.8 B 26.0 C 17.9 B 2, US 50 wFrtbound Etst Bldwcll loop onramp M€r € 24.4 C 18.1 B 24.4 C 18.1 B t, US g) westbound Ea* Bidwell sllp on€mp Metre 25.9 C 27.2 C 2S.9 C 21.2 C

4. US C.it Bldwall to Ork Ave Brslc 26.9 D 2L.2 C 25,9 D 21.2 C ''' -.,:. 1 ll l'.rl; r', ' ' ;'l :,: ' :. :.'t:
- 1 : i_ ,.,:1:i::r, rri r-r'l! ri.,,:.Lrl i!r;: I ,t ;.r ; '' r,: .,i .J r.:r-\ , :,) il;ijr ii r_:
riirii'l;r t' l: i!,t , 1 i ,- r,: ,:i:'lrtl I
8, Us 50 rwstbound Praltlc CltY offr.mp Dlvene ..3lzp*

25.5 C

24.7 D 33,7 D 28.7 D
9, us 50 $catbound Pmlrle C.lw loop onramg Merce 21.1 C 25,S C 23.4 C

10. US 50 weslbound Pftkle clty dla8onal onramp Merre 25.0 C 23.2 C 26,1 C 23.7 C l1. US 50 eastbound Prairie Clty oftramp Dlverle :t0.5 D 33.3 D 30.s D !t3.:t D

12. P.airle ontamp MertE 19.6 I 24.1 C 19.6 B 24.7 C
rJ, u> tu cdttwu[u lllllcl Ullldrrlp 21.1 C 15.3 C 11 1? 25.3 C 'I . li .i' .., ,:.11:t, ::r' i ;;:r,r I | :.. ,
'tr ':.li .: ' ,.:'.' :jr'-i;rt :i rir:,;'.':l
,
1,a ..ali rjij,, :r I ll.tl: ,,:, .t :)t:,.:)tt 'j1:),.

17. t/S 50 eestbound Oak Aveto Eart Bidwell B6sic $ac 24.7 C 18.8 C 24.7 C

18. US 50 Dlvelf,e 11-8 B L7.6 g 11,8 B 17.6 B

19. us 50 ee3tbound Ertt Bldwell loop onramp Merre 9.3 A 13.9 B 9.4 A rrlo B 20, uS 50 crrtbound Eart Bidwcll sllp onramp Merre 8.5 A 14,2 I t.5 A 14.3 B . Level ofScrvlce
s7
fl i l',r,*it ...!,:; ,,:-,

05/10/2022 Item No.19.

Folsom Corporrtc Centcf Aprtmrntt
Transportation lmpact Study
Folsom,
Callfornla
(Thls page lntentionally le4t blank)
5l rrtran \/wwr,(ea,,rrc.cDm
58

05/10/2022 Item No.19.

Folsom Corporate Center Apartments Folsom,
California Transportation lmpact Study

6. CUMULATIVE 2026 CONDITION WITH AND WITHOUT PROJECT
This sectlon presents Cumulative Condition traffic'
6,1 Cumulative 2035 Growth lncrement
Thc eity of Foisom Generai Pian travrl dcmand moeiei was used to estimate growth through 2035. The travel demand model was calibrated to the immedlate project vicinity by using Base year (2015) and Cumulative year (2O35!trip tables, both assigned to the base year model network. The resulting 2015 and 2035 volumes were lnterpolated to 2021and compared wlth the counts to calibrate the model to conditions in the immediate project vicinity. The calibrated model was then applied using the cumulative 2035 trip tables and network to estimate Cumulative condition volumes, The NCHRP 255 adjustment methodology appliedll was used to refine forecast turning movements. Supporting material for traffic forecasting calculations are provided ln Appendlx C.

5.2 Cumulative 2035 Conditions
The Cumulative Conditions analysis accounts for several planned changes to Folsom's transportation system:
r Addition of a third northbound through lane at intersection fl4 (Prairie City Rd/lron Point Rd;
e Widening of lron Point Rd to slx lanes on all segments between Prairie City Rd and East Bidwell St (effecting intersections 6€);
. Construction of the Rowberry Way overcrossing of US 50; I Construction of the Empire Ranch Rd interchange;
. Construction ofthe Oak Avenue Pkwy interchan8e; and
r The extension of Alder Creek Pkwy through Oak Avenue Pkwy (along with other Folsom Ranch infrastructure).

Figure 19 summarizes the turning movements and lane configurations for the Cumulative 2035 Condftions scenario. Table 18 and Table 19 present a summary of level'of-service results for the study intersections under EPAP 2026 Conditions. All study intersections and segments are anticlpated to operate at an acceptable level-of service. Calculation sheets for intersection delay and level-of-serulce are provided in Appcndix B.
11 The NCHRP 255 approach is an iterative algorithm that uses anticipated traffic growth on each intersections, approach and departure legs, and observed traffic counts, to estimate future year turning movements.
5l f ffnn www,tkearrnc.corn
59

05/10/2022 Item No.19.

Folsom Corporate Center Apartments
Transoortation lmoact Studv
Folsom,
California
I ol _) pt(Je\ lron Point Road Apartments TURNING MOVEIVIENTS & t^Nh GEON4[TfiY f,035 Cumrnulative No Projeet
Q
I
lo e
o
o^
ii' N6- @
ll US 50 o$lbound
\ oag{oocr
/- 3(12t
\ 144(li0l
21 nolaSl
'= 200(48) ,'- g2l2gl
lron kiolFd
XI
\ 366(230) *! 2(2)
-
totltoz)
Artctlcur
-,^{legs&!&
ti
o
I
ll wesbqund
a
s'
.p
EE
-_/ s'
.;
f. :_
jli
'lt
t55(823) j.

OUtt -1
teeiizzi \
il
a
6 :E
E
q
llr
\ 607f498)
=
345(251)
4:2351116)
, - 6(141
kon Point Rd
,I 1
llr
6'a
a6 aa
0{44)
0(e)
1{119}
i\ lllr
{NOO YFi!5
{l.,11,,,
:o.9 i
;i i.i i ;:
/l;l\t
O--9
)i{ "
128(S2)
63(S9i
n99(97'5)

1.rs(42)
0oro
8=& 6'drii;
/lll\\
\ trotzss)
-
705(579)
404(7s8)
29(r')
lrfi Pdnl Rd
34,)
4s ialr'
2!ljiz1i;i
:JGliill
h\lll/
6'666
oo@
o
'd
d
lJ
-
1s(35)
5r2(621
1714,
5(1 2)
x'lr 6aed dgge
=:4
@N
oo
1B(27)
-, ags1oatt !
v
1 E
b
P
o
iltrililt'r..
-_
i rlrl;,;'f
),1.)r
, ,
lt-.,' /,\l\, .: '
--il, A\lli t a_: ai .:-
:,n- j
i- il70(1023)
r< 29(6)
21 (10)
\ gHz,.,r..,i,:
r.3;7i,t:'i\1
L,US 50 we6tbound ', lvr rF€ 5gs f, $$
o
t]2i,tt,,56t=:

I 5ri{84t -\
645{800) ::
9St59l \
/v
r_ 1.1t1'l
: )Eriflg{ l
-
'1t)\' )
(- la, tr
-"--,
i:,'6iiii,r!)
_ 1t;{iirird\
al54t7Alj
ati,
o
(1 60sl
E
I
H
6 I
F
t2t22J
59t74i:y
825(907):
4€o(5sl)
--
*t ,

3.;5cr'
" 9.a;:r
\\lll/
-6'A
5frF b-6
e
)/,
:
5{14)
2t'ttl74)
370(S04)
179(358)
-
t
I'o)ontRd
,-",,1j; =il[ E
@^
3 t
o 0N
ill
l(.

I
l_
AM(pM) a I
Figure 19. Cumulative 2035 Condition Turn Movements and Geometry .!J6t){.i)
fl f fgnn w\,vw,rkearrnc.com
60

05/10/2022 Item No.19.

Attachment No. 22
lnitial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, dated March, 2022 (electronic version available for viewing at
www.fol som.ca. us/govern me nt/com m u nitvm nt lanni -servrc current- ect-i

05/10/2022 Item No.19.

L
Folsom Corporote Center
Aportments
lnitiol Study/Mitigoted Negotive Declorotion
Prepored by:

Clty of Folsom
Comm unlly Development Deportmenl
50 Notomo Street
Folsom, CA 95630
Wth technicol support from:

HEIIX Envlronmenlol Plonnlng, lnc.

I I Notomo Street, Suite 155
Folsom, CA 95630
Morch2022

05/10/2022 Item No.19.

1.0 2.0

3.0 7.4

8.0 9.0
15 15
15 15

3.2 Project Setting and Surrounding Land Uses 8
Landscaping 13

3.4 General Plan Land Use Designation and 2onin9.......... ..................14 General Plan land Use Designation.,............. ....................14 Zoning Ordinance.... ............."..14

3.5 City Regulation of Urban Development .

Other City Regulation of Urban Development,
Comm u nity Development Department Standa rd Construction Conditions....

City of Folsom Municipal Code-....

4.0 PROIECT OBJECflVES ...,...........77

5.0 REQUIRED APPROVALS ..,.........t7

6.0 PREVIOUS RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL ANATYSIS 19

6.1 City of Folsom General Plan ............. ........................19

6.2 Tiering.......... ...................19

6.3 lncorporation of the Folsom GeneralPlan by Reference.... ......"'.20

6.4 Summary of Folsom General Plan E|R........ ........'.'..' 20 ENVI RON MENTAL FACTO RS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED 21
DETERMTNATTON (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE LEAD AGENCY).................. ................,22 ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST ....................23 r. AESTHETtCS......... 24
il. AGRTCULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES.................. ....,.,,........26 ill
III. AIR QUALITY 28

05/10/2022 Item No.19.

IV. BIOLOGICALRESOURCES 38
V.
vt,
vil.
vilt.
tx.

X.
xt.
xil.
xilt.
xtv.

XV.

10.0 11.0
t2.o
XVI. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC 102
XVII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES.. ........123
XVIII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS 128
XIX. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCT 130
MITIGATION MONITOR]NG AND REPORTING PRO6RAM L34
INITIAL STUDY PREPARERS .....134
tv

05/10/2022 Item No.19.

IIST OF TABTES
Table 1: Neighboring Land Uses 8
Table 2: Summary of Project Features......, .'...................". 10 Table 3: City of Folsom Municipal Code Regulating Construction and Development 16 Table 4: Sacramento Valley Air Basin Attainment Status 29 Table 5: Summary of Annual Air Quality Data for Folsom Area Air Quality Monitoring Stations..,..31 Table 6: Construction Criteria Pollutants and Precursor Emissions... 34 Table 7: Tree lnventory Details..,.... '........'......50 Table 8: Previously Documented Resources with the Study Area ..."......57 Table 9: Previous Studies Conducted within the Study Area... ...'...........50 Table 10: Global Warming Potential and Atmospheric Lifetimes ........".71 Table 11: City of Folsom Municiple Code Sections Regulating the Effects on Hydrology and Water Quality from Urban Development ....'..83
Table 12: Off-site Traffic Noise Levels. ...'.'....92
Table 13: Building Exterior Noise Levels 94
Table 14: US Highway 50 Study Segments
Table 15: Study lntersections and Control
Table 16: Level of Service Criteria for Signalized lntersections 106 Table 17: Level of Service Criteria for Unsignalized lntersections..'........... ...,..'.',....-7O7 Table 18: Level of Service Criteria - Basic Freeway Segments-.... ...."...109 Table 19: Level of Service Criteria - Freeway Ramp Merge/Diverge Areas....'...... "" 109 Table 20: Existing 2021 lntersection Delay and LOS ttL
Table 21: Existing 2021 US Highway 50 Segment Density and LOS 717 Table 22: Project Trip Generation............... .'...'........'..".. 112 Table 23: Existing 2021 lntersection Delay and LOS, with and without Project......'...'..'...".'.'......113 Table 24: Existing 2021 US Highway 50 Segment Density and LOS, with and without Project...... 113 Table 25: EPAP 2025 lntersection Delay and 1OS............'. ...............'...114 Table 26: EPAP 2026 US 50 Segment Density and LOS 115
Table 27: EPAP 2026lntersection Delay and LOS, with and without Project.....'..""....."".".".'.'..115 Table 28: EPAP 2025 US 50 Segment Density and LOS, with and without Project ".'.,....-.'..-...'.".' 115 Table 29: Cumulative 2035 lntersection Delay and 1OS..,.... ........'.......118 Table 30; Cumulative 2035 US 50 Segment Density and IOS 118 Table 31: Cumulative 2035 lntersection Delay and LOS with and without Project 119 Table 32: Cumulative US Highway 50 Segment Density and LOS with and without Project.......,.. 119 Table 33: IOS Summary Cumulative Plus Project Conditions '.. .....".....133 104
10s
v

05/10/2022 Item No.19.

Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Appendix E
Appendix F
Appendix G
Appendix H
Appendix I
Appendlx J

LIST OF APPENDICIES
Figures
Alr Quality Modeling Results and Health Risk Assessment Biological Resource Database and Records Search Results Cultural Resource Evaluatlon
Geotechnical lnvestigation Repon
Water Quality Report
Noise Technical Reports
Transportation I mpact Study
AB 52 Consultation Memo
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
vl

05/10/2022 Item No.19.

Folsom Corporate Center Apartments ISMND
I.O INTRODUCTION
This lnitial Study addresses the proposed Folsom Corporate Center Apartments (proposed project) and whether it may cause significant effects on the environment. These potential environmental effects are further evaluated to determine whether they were examined in the 2035 City of Folsom General Plan Environmental lmpact Report (ElR; City of Folsom 2018) as amended by Code (PRC) S21083.3. This lnitial Study focuses on any effects on the environment which are specific to the proposed project and were not analyzed as potentially significant effects in the 2035 City of Folsom General Plan EIR as amended by the EIR for the East Area Facilities Plan, or for which substantial new information shows that identified effects would be more significant than described in the previous ElRs. For additional information regarding the relationship between the proposed project and the previous ElRs, see Section 6.0 of this lnitialStudy.

The lnitial Study is also intended to assess whether any environmental effects of the proiect are susceptible to substantial reduction or avoidance by the choice of specific revisions in the project, by the imposition of conditions, or by other means [Section 15152(bX2)] of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. lf such revisions, conditions, or other means are identified, they will be identified as mitigation measures.

This lnitial Study relies on CEQA Guldelines Sections 15064 and L5O64.4 in its determination of the significance of environmental effects. According to Section 15064, the finding as to whether a project may have one or more significant effects shall be based on substantial evidence in the record, and that controversy alone, without substantial evidence of a significant effect, does not trigger the need for an EIR.

2.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND
The following project specific technical reports quantified analysis and or surveys were used in preparation of this lnitial Study and are incorporated by reference:

Air Quality, Greenhouse Gases Analysis, prepared by HELIX (2022t.

Health Risk Assessment, prepared by HELIX l202]-l
Biological Resources Memo, prepared by SCS Engineers (2O2t) Biological Resources lnventory, prepared by HELIX l20ztl Arborist Report, prepared by Arborwell (2021)
Noise Analysis, prepared by Bollard Acoustical, May 3, 2O2I- revised by HELIX (2021) Transportation lmpact Study, prepared by T. Kear Transportation Planning and Management, lnc. (2021).

Tribal Cultural Resource technical memo, prepared by ECORP (202L) Cultural Resources Assessment, prepared by HELIX (IOZL) Preliminary Water Quality Report, prepared by RSC Engineering (2021) Geotechnical lnvestigation, Folsom Senior Living Facility, Geocon Consultants (2077) Sewer Capacity Analysis, prepared by Water Works Engineers (2O2t) City of Folsom 7 March 2022

05/10/2022 Item No.19.

Folsom Corporate Center Apartments ISMND

3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

3.1 Projecl Locqlion
The project site consists of two parcels situated in south/central City of Folsom in northeastern Sacramento County, California (Figures 1-2 in Appendix A), The first parcel, referred to as Lot 1 (APN:
072-3120-026), is an estimated 7.Zl-acre parcel located south of Rowberry Drive at a point south of lron Point Road. The second parcel, referred to as Lot 6 (APN A72-3L20-023), is a 4,68-acre parcel located south of lron Point Road between Broadstone Parkway and Rowberry Drive, approximately 1,400-feet northeast of Lot 1. The street address is currently unnumbered. The project site is located within Section 7 ,8, !7 & 18, Township 9 North, Range 8 East (Mount Diablo Base and Meridian, United States Geological Survey 7.5 minute "Folsom Quadrangle").

3.2 Projecl Setting qnd Surrounding Lond Uses
The project site is located within the Folsom Corporate Center, a commercial business center containing a combination of commercial office buildings and open space areas. The area in which the project is located is characterized by suburban residential development, commercial business centers, transportation, and open space and undeveloped lots. Neighboring land uses are summarized in Table 1 Table 1. land Uses
Lot 1 is largely undeveloped, and is bordered by office buildings, oak woodland, and medical offices to the north, vacant land to the east, US Highway 50 and vacant land to the south, and commercial buildings, a memory care facility, an active-adult apartment community, and undeveloped land to the west. The parcel slopes from east to west with elevations ranging from 371 feet above mean sea level (amsl) in the eastern portion of the parcel to 317 feet amsl in the western portion of the parcel. The parcel is raised above the adjacent properties to the north and south. Several electrical transmission and telecommunications easements cross through the western portion of the parcel within an approximately 377.S-foot-wide restricted building and use area. Overhead transmission lines and utility poles occur on the parcel within the easements. A small area of the northwestern portion of the parcel is developed with parking, landscaping, and a walkway associated with the existing adjacent medical offices, located north and northeast of the parcel. A SO-foot landscape easement lines the southern parcel boundary. An existing US Highway 50 right-of-way fence is located along the southern parcel boundary. Additionally, one existing oak tree is located in the southeastern corner of the parcel, I

DIRECTION LAND USE
North
Lot 1: Office buildings, oak woodland, and medical offices Lot 6: lron Point Road, residential development north of lron Point Road East
Lot 1: vacant land
Lot 6: constructed ponds/wetland, office buildings
South
Lot 1: US Highway 50, vacant land
lot 5: office buildings, US Highway 50, undeveloped land containing scattered oaks
West Lot 1: commercial buildings, memory care facility, and undeveloped land Lot 6: office buildings, stand of oaks
City of Folsom March2022

05/10/2022 Item No.19.

Folsom Corporate Center Apartments ISMND
Lot 6 is largely undeveloped and is bordered by lron Point Road and residential development to the north, a constructed pond/wetland and office buildings to the east, office buildings and undeveloped land containing scattered oaks to the south, and office buildings to the west. An unnamed road borders the parcel along its eastern and southern boundaries. The parcel slopes from west to east, with elevation ranging from 370-feet amsl in the western portion of the site to 358-feet asml in the eastern portion of the site. The parcel is elevated above the surrounding properties. An existing sidewalk with a curb and gutter, and an existing retainingwall, are located in a 20-foot-wide public utility, landscape, and pedestrian easement that lines the northern parcel boundary along lron Point Road. The parcel frontage with the unnamed roadway is landscaped within an existing 20-foot-wide access easement.

Additional areas of the parcel are undeveloped and sparsely vegetated. A group of oak trees are located in the southwestern portion of the parcel. Seven oak trees are proposed to be removed, and two oak trees would remain and become incorporated into the landscape design.

3.3 Projecl Chorocleristics
The proposed project includes the construction of a new multi-family apartment community on two separate parcels (referred to as Lot 1 and Lot 6) within the Folsom Corporate Center. The apartment community in total would consist of 253 apartment units, two clubhouses, 491 parking spaces, and indoor and outdoor amenities unique to each parcel. On-site parking would include garage parking spaces, carport covered parking spaces, and uncovered parking spaces. The units would be available as one-, two-, or three-bedroom apartments, and would range from 690-square feet (sf) to 1,325-sf. The proposed project would require a General Plan Amendment, Rezone, Planned Development Permit, Design Review, and Tree Removal Permit.

Lot 1 is a 7.24-acre parcel and would develop seven, 3-story apartment buildings with a total of 153 units (Figure 3 in Appendix A). The site would have 304 parking spaces provided as carports and uncovered spaces throughout the parcel. The parcel would include an approximately 6,700-sf, 3-story clubhouse with a pool located in the southeastern portion of the parcel. Additional amenities would include a dog park in the southwest portion of the parcel, fire pit with seating and a picnic area located near the center of the parcel, and a landscaped seating area near the main entrance at the northeastern portion of the parcel. Bicycle parking would be in an enclosed structure adjacent to the clubhouse. The existing oak tree in the southeast corner of the parcel would remain.

Lot 6 is a 4.86-acre parcel and would develop five, 3-story apartment buildings with a total of 100 units (Figure 4 in Appendix A). The site would have 187 parking spaces provided as carports and uncovered spaces throughout the parcel. The parcel would include an approximately 3,200-sf, one story clubhouse with a pool and amenity area located in southwestern portion of the parcel, east of the main entrance driveway. Additional amenities would include proposed seating areas, picnic areas, a fire pit, and a dog park in the southwestern portion of the parcel. Bicycle parking would be located in a dedicated room in the clubhouse. A group of oak trees are located in the southwestern corner ofthe parcel. Seven ofthe trees on the parcel are proposed to be removed, while the remaining two would remain and be incorporated into the landscape design.

Additional proposed improvements include drive aisles, curbs, gutteis, sidewalks, internal walkways, underground utilities, retaining walls, site lighting, site landscaping, and monument signs. Building materials would consist of stucco, fiber cement siding and stone veneer. The height of each building would be approximately 38 feet with a parapet roof system to blend with the commercial buildings and City of Folsom 9 March 2022

05/10/2022 Item No.19.

Folsom Corporate Center Apartments ISMND
to screen the mechanical equipment (HVAC) on the roof. The project features are summarized in Table 2 and are described in detail in the following paragraphs.

Table 2. of Features
Source: BSB Design, Folsom Corporate Center Apartments Site Plan (2021).

Parking and Circulation
Parking proposed on both Lot 1 and Lot 6 currently meet the Zoning Ordinance requirement of 1.5 stalls per unit. Under the current multi-family guidelines, Lot 1 exceeds the Folsom Design guidelines by providing 304 parking spaces (1.99 ratio); inclusive of 74 garaged spaces and79 covered stalls. Lot 6 also meets the guidelines with 187 spaces (1.87 ratio); inclusive of 46 garaged spaces and 54 covered stalls.

The overall parking ration of Lots L and 6 together exceed the City's current multi-family guidelines with a parking ratio of 1.94.

Car Parkina and Circulation
Lot 7
Lot 1 would have one gated main access driveway with two gated emergency vehicle access driveways.

The main gated entrance would be located on the northern parcel boundary and would connect to Rowberry Drive. Additionally, a gated emergency vehicle access driveway entrance would be located approximately 540-feet west of the main entrance and would connect to the existing parking associated with the medical office north of the parcel. A secondary gated, emergency vehicle access driveway would connect to Rowberry Drive at a point 540-feet east of the main driveway. On-site circulation would consist of a circular driveway that would connect directly with the main public entrance driveway on the northern parcel boundary. Lot 1 includes sidewalk pedestrian connections to the Kaiser outer parking lot to the north of the parcel, and to the planned dialysis clinic to the east of the parcel. The two emergency vehicle access driveways would connect with the main on-site circulation driveway that would provide access to the proposed buildings and clubhouse located in the southeastern portion of the parcel.

PROJECT FEATURE
uNrTs/

PARKING SPACES

SITE COVERAGE
lsquare feetl
Lot 1
Total residential buildins units 153 units
Clubhouse 6,782
Total parking spaces/paved areas 304 spaces 98,849
Landscapingi/Shaded Area 34,945
Subtotal Lot 7
lot 6
Total residential buildine units 100 units
Clubhouse 3,098
Total parkine spaces/paved areas 187 spaces 67,868
Landscapine/Shaded Area 34.186
Subtotal Lot 6
Total project 253 units/491
parkinc spaces
City of Folsom 10 March 2022

05/10/2022 Item No.19.

Folsom Corporate Center Apartments ISMND
A 5-foot height metal pedestrian gate would be located next to each entrance, the main access driveway, and the two emergency access driveways. Pedestrian circulation would consist of sidewalks throughout the parcel, and crosswalks providing pedestrian access to the apartment units, clubhouse and pool, and the main and emergency entrances.

Lot 6
Lot 6 would be accessed by one main access driveway and one emergency vehicle access driveway. The gated main entrance would be located on the southern parcel boundary and would connect to the unnamed road that borders the parcel to the south and east. A gated emergency vehicle access driveway would be located 170-feet east of the main access driveway and would connect to the unnamed road that borders the parcel to the south and east. On-site circulation would consist of a circular driveway that provides access to the proposed buildings and clubhouse, the amenities, the emergency access driveway, and the main entrance/ exit driveway.

One 6-foot metal pedestrian gate would be located next to each entrance, the main entrance driveway, and the emergency access driveway. Pedestrian circulation would consist of sidewalks throughout the parcel, and crosswalks providing pedestrian access to the apartment units, clubhouse and pool, and the main and emergency entrances.

Bicycle Porking
The proposed project would provide bicycle parking spaces throughout Lot 1 and Lot 6 that would exceed City and Title 24 requirements. lot 1 bicycle parklng would be in an enclosed structure adiacent to the main clubhouse. Lot 6 would include bicycle parking within a dedicated room in the clubhouse. By exceeding the bicycle parking standards, the intent is to help offset the need for motorized vehicles. ln addition, the proposed project plans to provide some community-owned bicycles for use by residents between Lot 1 and Lot 5, or for easier access to nearby amenities such as the wetland and oak preserves, Folsom Gateway, or the shops at the Palladio. Of note, Lot 6 is located less than 0.25-mile from Folsom Gateway and 0.5-mile from Palladio, and Lot 1 is located approximately 0.5-mile from Folsom Gateway and 0.9-mile from Palladio.

Trash and Recycling Service Access
For Lot 1, the trash compactor would be serviced by entering through the emergency vehicle access and exiting the main access point. Recycling would enter and exit through the main access driveway. For Lot 5, trash and recycling would use the main access to enter and exit.

Grading and Drainage
Lot 7
Nearly the entire parcel of Lot L would be disturbed during site preparation and grading. Lot 1 would be terraced to the extent possible to a€count for significant existing elevation change from the eastern to western boundaries. Due to the topography of the parcel and surrounding areas, retaining walls would be installed along portions of the southern and eastern parcel boundaries, as well as along the northwestern parcel boundary. An existing oak tree in the southeastern portion of the parcel would remain.

City of Folsom 11 March2022

05/10/2022 Item No.19.

Folsom Corporate Center Apartments ISMND
Stormwater generated in Lot 1 would be collected by storm drain inlets throughout the parcel. The parcel would contain multiple drainage management areas that would manage the stormwater with bioretention facilities and/or Contech stormfilter units as necessary for compliance with the City of Folsom standards.

Lot 6
A majority of Lot 6 would be disturbed during site preparation and grading. An existing retaining wall along the northern boundary of the parcel would remain. Due to the topography of the parcel, a retaining wall would be installed along portions of the northern and eastern parcel boundaries, and a rockery wall would be installed along the western parcel boundary. The existing grade in the southwestern corner of the parcel would be maintained, to preserve the existing oak trees beyond the parcel boundary. Seven oak trees located within the parcel boundary would be removed, and two oak trees would remain and would be incorporated into landscaping.

Stormwater generated in Lot 6 would be collected by several storm drain inlets, gutter flowlines and sidewalk underdrains throughout the parcel. The parcel would contain multiple drainage management areas that would manage the stormwater through the use of disconnected roof drains, bioretention facilities and/or Contech stormfilter units as necessary for compliance with the City of Folsom standards.

Utilities
Lot 1
Both lots contain utility stubs for water and sewer, which would tie into existing water and sewer lines that were provided when the previous phase of the Folsom Corporate Center development project were completed. Multipleexistingstormdrainstubslocatedonthenorthernportionofthesitewill beused to connect the proposed storm drain system. Proposed water line stubs would connect to existing water service stubs located east of the parcel and on the eastern boundary line. Additionally, proposed sewer line stubs would connect to an existing sewer line with a new manhole provided by a parcel located just north. Stormwater planters and Contech Stormfilter Units are proposed on the project site to address the stormwater quality requirement of the City. Additionally, dry utilities (electric, gas, telephone, and cable TV) would be provided. An easement would be provided and centered over their facilities. An existing 12.S-foot public utility easement is located along lron Point Road. Proposed fire service lines as well as proposed fire hydrants are located throughout the parcel. Each junction of the utility stubs would be covered by an existing or proposed manhole.

Lot 6
Both lots contain utility stubs for water and sewer, which would tie into existing water and sewer lines that were provided when the previous phase of the Folsom Corporate Center development project were completed. An existing storm drain stub would connect to the proposed site storm drain system.

Proposed water lines would connect to an existing domestic water service stub located in the northeastern corner of the parcel. Additionally, proposed sewer line stubs would connect to existing sewer lines stubs located in the eastern portion of the parcel. Stormwater planters, Contech Stormfilter Units, and Disconnected Roof Drains are proposed on the project site to address the stormwater quality requirements of the City. Additionally, dry utilities (electric, gas, telephone, and cable W) would be provided. An easement would be provided and centered over their facilities. An existing 12.S-foot public City of Folsom t2 March 2022

05/10/2022 Item No.19.

Folsom Co Center Apartments ISM ND
utility easement is located along lron Point Road. Proposed fire service lines would connect to existing fire lane stubs and fire hydrants are proposed throughout the parcel. Each junction of the utility stubs would be covered by an existing or proposed manhole.

Lighting
Lighting on Lot 1 and Lot 5 would be comprised of 12 and 18-foot-tall light poles with a dark bronze finish in the parking lot that have photo-controlled shut-off, with auto-schedule and motion sensors along with down lighting at 8-feet under the car ports. There would also be building wall sconces at 8- feet above finished floor. All lighting would be designed to minimize light/glare impacts to the adjacent properties by ensuring that all exterior lighting and pole-mounted parking lot and driveway lighting be shielded and directed downward. Light-emitting diode luminaires would be used for allof the proposed outdoor lighting.
[andscaping
Lot 7
The project applicant proposed a landscaping plan for Lot l that included a variety of new and existing trees, shrubs, and groundcover. Seasonal accented trees and shrubs would be planted the main entrance to Lot 1, and the parking areas would be populated with a canopy of trees and an understory of low shrubs and groundcovers. The proposed project is requesting a deviation from the 50 percent shade requirement on Lot 1 due to the restrictions associated with the power line easements that prohibit full size shade trees. Small trees that meet the standards within the easements have been clustered within these planters to maximize shade patterns. Evergreen shrub clusters would be planted along the eastern and southern parcel boundaries to screen adjacent properties. Purple crape myrtle would line the parking lot in the western portion of Lot 1, Red oak trees would line the southern and eastern parcel boundaries, and several Chinese pistache trees would provide additional cover along walkways between the apartment complexes. An existing oak tree in the southeastern corner of the parcel would remain. Masonry walls would be constructed to provide privacy for the fire pit and picnic area, which are situated between two apartment buildings in the center of the parcel, and for the seating area, which is located adjacent to the main entrance in the northeast portion of the parcel.

Lot 6
The project applicant proposed a landscaping plan for Lot 6 that includes a variety of new and existing trees, shrubs, and groundcover. The main entrance to Lot 5 would be defined by seasonal accented trees and shrubs. Chinese pistache trees would provide a canopy of shade in conjunction with the parking area. Understory planting within the parking lot would consist of low shrubs and groundcover.

Lacebark elms would line the bioretention filter in the southeast corner of the parcel, and along the additional carports in the northwest corner of the parcel. Red oak trees would line the northern boundary of the Lot. The planting and irrigation would be designed to meet the Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance requirements by utilizing low water use plant material and a high efficiency irrigation system. Seven oak trees in the southwest corner of the project site would be removed, while two oak trees would be incorporated into the landscape design. Masonry walls would be constructed to provide privacy for the fire pit and picnic area, adjacent to the pool area in the southwestern corner, and for the seating area, adjacent to the main entrance in the southern portion of the parcel.

City of Folsom 13 March2022

05/10/2022 Item No.19.

Folsom Corporate Center Apartments ISMND
Fencing
A 5-foot height metal fence would be installed along the northeastern, eastern, southern, and western boundaries of Lot 1. A 6-foot height metal fence would be installed along the eastern, southern, and western boundary of Lot 6.

Signage
Project signage would be installed on masonry walls at the main entrance driveway of Lot 1 and Lot 6. ln addition, directional signage would be provided on each parcel.

3.4 Generol Plon lond Use Designollon ond Zoning
The City of Folsom updated their General Plan 2035 in August 2018. The General Plan is a long-term planning document that guides growth and land development in the City. lt provides the foundation for establishing community goals and supporting policies, and directs appropriate land uses for all land parcels within the City.

Generol Plon Lond Use Designolion
The General Plan is a long-term planning document that guides growth and land development in the City. lt provides the foundation for establishing community goals and supporting policies, and directs appropriate land uses for all land parcels withln the City, Under the current General Plan, both project parcels have a land use designation of lndustria/Office Park (lND). However, the proposed project would require a General Plan Amendment from IND to multi-family high density residential (MHD) for both Lot 1 and Lot 6. The MHD designation provides for multifamily residential units in apartment buildings. The proposed multi-family apartment complex and related amenities on Lot 1 and Lot 5 are identified as permitted uses under the MHD designation in the General Plan.

Zoning Ordlnqnce
Developed land uses in the City of Folsom are regulated specifically by the City's Zoning Code (Title 17 of the City's Municipal Code), in addition to the other adopted regulations and programs that apply to all proposed development within the City. ln more detailthan the General Plan, the Zoning Code regulates land uses on a parcel-by-parcel basis throughout the City. To achieve this regulation, the City assigns each parcel within the City to a zoning district, such as a district for single-family homes. Regulations for each district apply equally to all properties within the district.

Current zoning for Lot 1 is Limited Manufacturing, Planned Development District (M-L PD), and current zoning for Lot 5 is Business and Professional, Planned Development District (B-P PD). The proposed project would require a rezone at Lot 1 from M-L PD to R-4 PD, and a rezone at lot 6 from B-P PD to R-4 PD. The Planned Development combining zone would remain.

Chapter 17.17 of the Zoning Code outlines use standards for Multi-Family High Density (MHD). The purpose of the MHD zone is to designate areas where group dwellings and apartments are a logical and desirable use. This designation allows for multi-family residential units with 20 to 30 dwelling units per acre.

City of Folsom t4 March 2022

05/10/2022 Item No.19.

Folsom Corporate Center Apartments ISMND

3.5 Clty Regulolion of Urbon Development
Other City Regulqlion of Urbon Developmenl
The City of Folsom further regulates urban development through standard construction conditions and through mitigation, building, and construction requirements set forth in the Folsom Municipal Code.

Required of all projects constructed throughout the City, compliance with the requirements of the City's standard conditions and the provision of the Municipal Code avoids or reduces many potential environmental effects. City procedures to minimize negative environmental effects and disruptions include an analysis of existing features, responsible agency and public input to the design process, engineering and design standards, and construction controls, The activities that mitigate typical environmental impacts to be implemented by the City during the project review, design, and construction phases are described in greater detail below.

Community Developmenl Deportmenl Slondord Conslruclion Condilions The City's standard construction requirements are set forth in the City of Folsom, Community Development Standard Construction Specifications updated in May 2O2O. Asummary of these requirements is set forth below and incorporated by reference into the project description. Copies of these documents may be reviewed at the City of Folsom, Community Development Department, 50 East Natoma Street, Folsom, California 95630.

The Department's standard construction specifications are required to be adhered to by any contractor constructing a public or private project within the City.

Use of Pesticides - Requires contractors to store, use, and apply a wide range of chemicals consistent with all local, state, and federal rules and regulations.

Air Pollution Control- Requires compliance with all City of Folsom and County of Sacramento air pollution regulations.

Woter Pollution - Requires compliance with City water pollution regulations, including National Poll utant Discha rge Elimination System (NPDES) provisions.

Noise Control- Requires that all construction work comply with the Folsom Noise Ordinance (discussed further below), and that all construction vehicles be equipped with a muffler to control sound levels.

The Contractor shall comply with all local sound control and noise level rules, regulations and ordinances which apply to any work performed pursuant to the Contract Documents.

Noturally Occurring Asbestos - All work involved asbestos containing material must be performed in accordance with California Labor Code, sections 6501.5 through 6510, inclusive, and California Administrative Code, Title 8, Section 5208 and all other pertinent laws, rules, regulations, codes, ordinances, decrees and orders.

Weekend, Holidoy, ond Night Work - Prohibits construction work during evening hours, or on Sunday or holidays, to reduce noise and other construction nuisance effects.

City of Folsom 15 March 2022

05/10/2022 Item No.19.

Folsom Corporate Center Apartments ISMND
Public Convenience - Regulates traffic through the work area, operations of existing traffic signals, roadway cuts for pipelines and cable installation, effects to adjacent property owners, and notification of adjacent property owners and businesses.

Public Solety and Troffic Control- Regulates signage and other traffic safety devices through work zones Existing lJtilities - Regulates the relocation and protection of utilities.

Preservation of Property - Requires preservation of trees and shrubbery and prohibits adverse effects to adjacent property and fixtures.

Culturol Resources - Requires that contractors stop work upon the discovery of unknown cultural or historic resources, and that an archaeologist be retained to evaluate the significance ofthe resource and to establish mitigation requirements, if necessary
Protection of Existing Trees - Specifies measures necessary to protect both ornamental and native oak trees.

Clearing and Grubbing - Specifies protection standards for signs, mailboxes, underground structures, drainage facilities, sprinklers and lights, trees and shrubbery, and fencing. Also requires the preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to control erosion and siltation of receiving waters.

Reseeding - Specifies seed mixes and methods for reseeding of graded areas, Clty of Folsom MunicipolCode
The City regulates many aspects of construction and development through requirements and ordinances established in the Folsom Municipal Code. These requirements are summarized in Table 3, and hereby incorporated by reference into the Project Description as though fully set forth herein. Copies of these documents may be reviewed at the City of Folsom, Office of the City Clerk, 50 Natoma Street, Folsom, California 95630.

Table 3. of Folsom Mu Code Construction and
CODE
sEcnoN

EFFECT OF CODE
Establishes interior and exterior noise standards that may not be exceeded within structures, including residences; establishes time periods for construction operations.

Establishes conditions and requirements for the discharge of urban pollutants and sediments to the storm-drainage system; requires preparation and implementation of
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans.

Defines hazardous materials; requires filing of a Hazardous Material Disclosure Form by businesses that manufacture, use, or store such materials.

Establishes standards for the construction and monitoring

9.35 of facilities used for the und of hazardous

8.42 8.70

9.34 GODE NAME
Noise Control
Stormwater Management
and Discharge Control
Hazardous Materials
Disclosure
Underground Storage of
Hazardous Substances
City of Folsom 15
nd
March 2022

05/10/2022 Item No.19.

Folsom Corporate Center Apartments ISMND
Tree Preservation
Water Conservation
Energy Code
Green Building Standards
Code
Grading Code
Flood Damage Prevention

14.20 14.29
substances, and establishes a procedure for issuance of permits for the use of these facilities.

L2.L6
Regulates the cutting or modification of trees, including oaks and specified other trees; requires a Tree Permit prior to cutting or modification; establishes mitigation
requirements for cut or damaged trees.

13.26 Prohibits the wasteful use of water; establishes sustainable landscape requirements; defines water use restrictions.

L4.t9
Adopts the California Energy Code, 2010 Edition, published as Part 6, Title 24, C.C.R. to require energy efficiency standards for structures.

Adopts the California Green Building Standards Code
(CALGreen Code), 2010 Edition, excluding Appendix
Chapters 44 and A5, published as Part 11, Title 24, C.C,R. to promote and require the use of building concepts having a reduced negative impact or positive environmental impact and encouraging sustainable construction practices.

Requires a grading permit prior to the initiation of any grading, excavation, fill or dredging; establishes standards, conditions, and requirements for grading, erosion control, stormwater drainage, and revegetation.

L4.32
Restricts or prohibits uses that cause water or erosion hazards, or that result in damaging increases in erosion or in flood heights; requires that uses vulnerable to floods be protected against flood damage; controls the modification of floodways; regulates activities that may increase flood damage or that could divert floodwaters.

4.0 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The objective of the proposed project is to develop a high-quality planned residential development on two currently vacant infill sites in the City of Folsom. The objective of providing the residential development must be achieved while minimizing environmental impacts to the maximum extent practicable and while meeting the requirements of the General Plan, as amended,

5.0 REQUIRED APPROVATS
A listing and brief description of the regulatory permits and approvals required to implement the proposed project is provided below. This environmental document is intended to address the environmental impacts associated with all the following decision actions and approvals:

Planned Development Permit: Because the proposed project would be sited within a Planned Development overlay zoning designation, the project requires a Planned Development Permit.

This designation requires review by the Planning Commission from design review purposes. a
City of Folsom 17 March 2022

05/10/2022 Item No.19.

Folsom Corporate Center Apartments ISMND
a General Plan Amendment: Because the proposed project would include the construction of a multi-family unit apartment community, the project requires a General Plan Amendment to change the existing land use designation from lndustrial (lND) to Multi-family High Density (MHD),
a Rezone Permit: Currently, Lot 1 is zoned for Limited Manufacturing Planned Development (M-l PD) and Lot 5 is zoned for Business and Professional Planned Development (BP, PD). Because the proposed project would include the construction of a multi-family unit apartment community on both lots, a rezone is required to change both zones to General Apartment, Planned Development District (R-4 PD).

Design Review: The proposed project of Lot 1 and Lot 5 would bring new construction to these vacant parcels. Therefore, the proposed construction of Lot 1 and Lot 5 will be subject to design review.

Tree Removal Permit: The proposed project requests a tree permit to remove five trees of Lot 6.

Per the Amended Arborist Report by Arborwell, one additional tree is recommended for removal due to its poor condition.

The City has the following discretionary powers related to the proposed project:

Certification of the environmental document: The City Council will act as the lead agency as defined by the California Environmental Quality nct (CEQA) and will have authority to determine if the environmental document is adequate under CEQA.

Approval of project: The City Council will consider approval of the project and all entitlements as described above.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife consultation would be required if active nests are found for species protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, as applicable. a
a
a
a
City of Folsom 18 March 2022

05/10/2022 Item No.19.

Folsom Corporate Center Apartments ISMND

6.0 PREVIOUS RETEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL ANATYSIS

6.1 Clty of Folsom Generol Plon
The City of Folsom General Plan provides a framework for the long-range development of Folsom. This General Plan also covers what was previously described in the East Area Facilities Plan. The General Plan guides policy decision-making about land use, transportation improvements, public services, economic development housing, and other issues. The EIR for the 2035 City of Folsom General Plan updated and revised the environmental conclusions of the 1988 General Plan ElR, expanding analysis to include development in unincorporated areas around the City and five additional chapters on matters of local interest (City of Folsom 2018). The EIR for the 2035 General Plan provides the foundation environmental document for evaluating development throughout this part of the City.

6.2 Tieting
"Tiering" refers to the relationship between a program-level EIR (where long-range programmatic cumulative impacts are the focus of the environmental analysis) and subsequent environmental analyses such as the subject document, which focus primarily on issues unique to a smaller project within the larger program or plan. Through tiering a subsequent environmental analysis can incorporate, by reference, discussion that summarizes general environmental data found in the program EIR that establishes cumulative impacts and mitigation measures, the planning context, andlor the regulatory background. These broad-based issues need not be reevaluated subsequently, having been previously identified and evaluated at the program stage.

Tiering focuses the environmental review on the project-specific significant effects that were not examined in the prior environmental review, or that are susceptible to substantial reduction or avoidance by specific revisions in the project, by the imposition of conditions or by other means, Section 21093(b) of the Public Resources Code requires the tiering of environmental review whenever feasible, as determined by the Lead Agency.
ln the case of the proposed project, this lnitial Study tiers from the EIR for the City of Folsom General Plan as amended by approval of the East Area Facilities Plan. The Folsom General Plan, as amended, is a project that is related to the proposed project and, pursuant to 515152(a) ofthe CEQA Guidelines, tiering of environmental documents is appropriate. CEQA Guidelines 515152(e) specifically provides that:
"[wlhen tiering is used, the later ElRs or Negative Declarations shall refer to the prior EIR and state where a copy of the prior EIR may be examined. The later [environmental document] should state that the Lead Agency is using the tiering concept and that the [environmental document] is being tiered with the earlier ElR."
The above mentioned ElRs can be reviewed at the following location City of Folsom
Com munity Development Department
50 Natoma Street
Folsom, CA 95630
City of Folsom 19 March 2022

05/10/2022 Item No.19.

Folsom Corporate Center Apartments ISMND
Contact: Mr. Steve Banks, Principal Planner
(9]'6], 46L-62O7

6.3 lncorporotlon of lhe Folsom Generol Plon by Reference Due to various references to the Folsom General Plan EIR in this proposed project, and to its importance relative to understanding the environmental analysis that has occurred to date with respect to development in the Folsom area, the Folsom General Plan EIR is hereby incorporated by reference pursuant to CEQrA Guidelines Section 15150.

6.4 Summory of Folsom Generol Plon EIR
The Folsom General Plan EIR analyzed the environmental impacts associated with adoption of the City of Folsom General Plan allowing for development, open space preservation, and provision of services land in and adjacent to the City of Folsom.

The Draft Program Environmental lmpact Report for the Folsom General Plan identified 453 vacant parcels north of Highway 50 as an area of future development. The Folsom General Plan contemplates the full range of land uses that would constitute a balanced community, including residential uses at a variety of densities, as well as commercial, office, employment, and open space uses. Additionally, public or quasi-public uses are contemplated by the Folsom General Plan, including schools, parks, fire stations, government offices, and other uses.

City of Folsom 20 March2022

05/10/2022 Item No.19.

Folsom Corporate Center Apartments ISMND

7.0 ENVIRONMENTAT FACTORS POTENTIAI.TY

AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that may require mitigation to reduce the impact from "Potential lmpact" to "Less than Significant" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

An lnitial Study is conducted by a Lead Agency to determine if a project may have a potentially significant effect on the environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15063). An EIR must be prepared if an lnitial Study indicates that further analysis is needed to determine whether a significant impact will occur or if there is substantial evidence in the record that a project may have a significant effect on the environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(f)).
! Aesthetics n Agriculture/Forestry Resources I nir Quality I giological Resources I cultural Resources I Geology/Soils I Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
I HazardslHazardous Materials E Hydrology/Water
QualitY
! tand Use/Planning n Mineral Resources I Noise
n Population/Housing n public services E Recreation
I Transportation/Traffic I rribal Cultural Resources n utilities/Service Systems
n Mandatory Findings of
Significance
City of Folsom 2t March 2022

05/10/2022 Item No.19.

Folsom Corporate Center Apartments ISMND

8.0 DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluatlon:
i b /td.-- 3 t4lz7
D I find that the proposed prolect COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DEC|ARATION will be prepared.

I
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECI-ARATION will be orepared,
tr I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an environmental impact report ls required.
tr I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potential impact" or "potentlally significant unless mitigated" impact on the envlronment, but at least one effect l) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standardt and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACI REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the envlronment because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier ElR, lncluding revisions or mftigatlon measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothine further is required.

Signature
/-r\qtte A ? s,,-rY..tDate
Prlnted Name Title
Clty of Folsom 22 March2A22

05/10/2022 Item No.19.

Folsom Corporate Center Apartments ISMN D

9.0 ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY CHECKTIST
Responses to the following questions and related discussion indicate if the proposed project will have or will potentially have a significant adverse impact on the environment, either individually or cumulatively with other projects. All phases of project planning, implementation, and operation are considered.

Mandatory Findings of Significance are addressed in Section 9.19 below.

A. "Potentially Significant lmpact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant, lf there are one or more "Potentially Significant lmpact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.

B. "Less Than Significant With Mitigation" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant lmpact" to a "Less Than Significant lmpact." The lead agency must desribe the mitigation measures and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from earlier analyses may be crossreferenced).

C. "Less Than Significant lmpact" applies where the project creates no significant impacts, only less than significant impacts.

D. "No lmpact" applies where a project does not create an impact in that category. "No lmpact" answers do not require an explanation if they are adequately supported by the information sources cited by the lead agency which show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No lmpact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project would not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project specific screening analysis).

City of Folsom 23 March 2022

05/10/2022 Item No.19.

Folsom Corporate Center Apartments ISMND
I. AESTHETICS
AESTHETICS:

Would the proiect:

Potentlal
lmpact
Less Than
Slgnlllcant
whh
Mltltatlon
Less Then
Slgnlflcant
lmpact
l{o
lmpact
al Have a substantial adverse effept on a scenic vista? n tr I b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
n n I
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?
I
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? I tr
Envlronmenlol Setling
Lot 1 is currently undeveloped, and is bordered by oak woodlands and the Kaiser medical clinic to the north, planned dialysis clinic to the east, and US Highway 50 to the south, The site is constrained by high tension powerlines on its west side, and commercial buildings, a memory care facility, and a vacant lot containing oak woodland to the west. Lot t has one existing oak tree in the southeastern corner of the parcel.

Lot 6 is currently undeveloped and is bordered by lron Point Road to the north, a constructed pond/wetland and office buildings to the east, an office building and undeveloped land containing scattered oaks to the south, and an office building to the west. A strand of oak trees within a designated preserve separates Lot 5 from the existing office building to the west" Evoluotion of Aeslhelics
Question a: No lmpact. A scenic vista is defined as a viewpoint that provides expansive view of a highly valued landscape for the benefit of the public, Neither the project site nor the surrounding areas are considered to be scenic vistas due to the existing development and suburban environment typical of the area. Further, neither the project site, nor views to or from the project site, have been designated as an important scenic resource by the City of Folsom or any other public agency (Folsom 2018). Therefore, construction or operation of the proposed development would not interfere with or degrade a scenic vista. No impacts would occur, and no mitigation would be necessary.

Question b: No lmpact. There are no state or locally designated scenic highways in the vicinity of the proposed project (CalTrans 2021, Folsom 2018). lmplementation of the proposed project would not adversely affect scenic resources within a designated scenic highway. Although the project is bordered by US Highway 50 to the south, it is not considered a scenic highway. Therefore, no impact would occur, and no mitigation would be necessary.

Question c: Less than Significant lmpact. The existing visual character of the area surrounding the project site is characteristic of suburban development and is primarily defined by commercial, business City of Folsom 24 March2O22

05/10/2022 Item No.19.

Folsom Corporate Center Apartments ISMND
offices, residential, and transportation land uses. Development of an apartment complex on Lot 1 and Lot 6 would be consistent with the surrounding suburban land uses and development. The project site would be visible by motorists and pedestrians travelling along lron Point Road, and by motorists travelling along US Highway 50. lmplementation of the project would result in the development of highdensity residential structures on undeveloped land, surrounded by commercial, residential, and residential uses.

While the proposed project would inevitably result in a change in visual character on the vacant site, the proposed land uses are consistent with the overall suburban development in the vicinity, and the proposed developments are expected to integrate into the existing and planned development within the area. Therefore, a less than significant impact to visual character would occur and no mitigation is necessary.

Question d: Less than Slgnificant lmpact. Any new lighting associated with development of the project site would be subject to the City's standard practices regarding night lighting that would be made a condition of approval of the Planned Development Permit. Consistent with the City's practices, the lighting would be sited and designed to avoid light spillage and glare on adjacent properties, with photocontrolled shut-off, and auto-schedule and motion sensors. All lighting would be designed to minimize light/glare impacts to the adjacent properties by ensuring that all exterior lighting and pole-mounted parking lot and driveway lighting be shielded and directed downward. Light-emitting diode luminaires would be used for all of the proposed outdoor lighting. Because existing City practices would limit light spillover and intensity, this would be a less than significant impact, and no mitigation is necessary' City of Folsom 25 March 2022

05/10/2022 Item No.19.

Folsom Corporate Center Apartments ISMND
II. AGRICUTTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
AGRICUTTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES:

Would the project:

Potentl.l
lmpact
Less fhan
Sltnlflcant
wlth
Mltltatlon
Less Than
Sltnlflcant
lmpact lmpact
No
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide lmportance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
tr T
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
n tr
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section I 222o(gll, timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 5110alg))?
trI
d) Result ln the loss offorest land or conversion offorest land to non-forest use?
n
e) lnvolve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non- forest use?
tr n
Environmenlol Setllng
No agricultural activities or timber management occur on the project site or in adiacent areas and the site is not designated for agricultural or timberland uses. The California lmportant Farmlands Map prepared for Sacramento County by the California Department of Conservation classifies Lot 1 as grazing land surrounded by urban and built up and Lot 6 as other land (California Department of Conservation ICDCI 2018a). Urban and built-up land is land occupied by structures or infrastructure to accommodate a building density of at least one unit to one and one-half acres, or approximately six structures to lO-acres; grazingland is land on which vegetation is suited to the grazing of livestock; and other land is land not included in any other mapping category - typically vacant and nonagricultural lands (CDC 2018a).

Evqluotion of Agriculture ond Foreslry Resources
Question a, b: No lmpact. The project site is not considered Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide importance (Farmland), pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Department of Conservation (CDC 2018a). The project site is not zoned for City of Folsom 26 March 2022

05/10/2022 Item No.19.

Folsom Corporate Center Apartments ISMND
agracultural use or enacted into a Williamson Act contract. No impacts would occur, and no mitiSation would be necessary for questions a) and b),
Question c, d: No lmpact. Because no portion of the City or the project site are zoned for forest land, timberland, or zoned Timberland Production, no impact would occur, and no mitigation would be necessary for questions c) and d).

Question e: Less Than Significant lmpact. Lot t has been identified as grazing land surrounded by urban and built-up land, This area is considered to be highly disturbed with marginal grazing opportunities due to its proximity to a main road and surrounding urban developrnent. Because no important agricultural resources or activities exist on the project site, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be necessary.

City of Folsom 27 March 2022

05/10/2022 Item No.19.

Folsom Corporate Center Apartments ISMND
III. AIR QUATITY
AIR QUATITY:

Where available, the signilicance criterla established by the applicable air quality management or alr pollutlon control district may be relied upon to make the following
determinations. Would the project:

Potentlal
lmpact
lcss Than
Slgnlflcant
wlth
Mltlgatlon
Less fhan
Signlflcant
lmpact lmpact
No
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Itr
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? n tr tr c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursorsl?
n I
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations? tr tr
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? D
HELIX Environmental Planning, lnc, conducted air quality modeling (CalEEMod) for the proposed project based primarily on the preliminary site plan and the Transportation lmpact Study conducted by T. Kear Transportation Planning and Management, lnc. (2021). Additionally, due to the proposed project's proximity to US Highway 50 a Health Risk Assessment was performed. Air quality modeling output files and quantitative results are presented in Appendix B.

Environmentol Setting
Climate in the Folsom area is characterized by hot, dry summers and cool, rainy winters. During summer's longer daylight hours, plentiful sunshine provides the energy needed to fuel photochemical reactions between Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) and Reactive Organic Gasses (ROG), which result in Ozone (O3) formation. High concentrations of O: are reached in the Folsom area dueto intense heat, strong and low morning inversions, greatly restricted vertical mixing during the day, and daytime subsidence that strengthens the inversion layer. The greatest pollution problem in the Folsom area is from NOx.

The City of Folsom lies within the eastern edge of the Sacramento Valley Air Basin (SVAB). The Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) is responsible for implementing emissions standards and other requirements of federal and state laws in the project area. As required by the California Clean Air Act (CCAA), SMAQMD has published various air quality planning documents as discussed below to address requirements to bring the District into compliance with the federal and state ambient air quality standards. The Air Quality Attainment Plans are incorporated into the State lmplementation Plan (SlP), which is subsequently submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the federal agency that administrates the Federal Clean Air Act of 1970, as amended in 1990,
City of Folsom 28 March 2022

05/10/2022 Item No.19.

Folsom Corporate Center Apartments ISMND
Ambient air quality is described in terms of compliance with state and national standards, and the levels of air pollutant concentrations considered safe, to protect the public health and welfare. These standards are designed to protect people most sensitive to respiratory distress, such as people with asthma, the elderly, very younB children, people already weakened by other disease or illness, and persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise. The EPA has established national ambient air quality standards (NAAaS) for seven air pollution constituents. As permitted by the Clean Air Act, California has adopted more stringent air emissions standards (California Ambient Air Quality Standards, or CAAQS) and expanded the number of regulated air constituents.

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is required to designate areas of the state as attainment, nonattainment, or unclassified for any state standard. An "attainment" designation for an area signifies that pollutant concentrations do not violate the standard for that pollutant in that area. A "nonattainment" designation indicates that a pollutant concentration violated the standard at least once. The air quality attainment status of the SVAB, including the City of Folsom, is shown in Table 4.

Table 4. Sacramento Valley Air Basin Attalnment Status

POLIUTANT
Ozone 1-h No Federal Standard
Ozone 8-hour) Nonattainment
Coarse Particulate Matter PM Attainment
Fine Particulate Matter Nonattainment
Carbon Monoxide nclassified
N Dioxide nclassified
Lead nclassified
Sulfur Dioxide Unclassified
Sulfates No Federal Standard
Sulfide No Federal Standard
Visibi Red Particles No Federal Standard
Sources: SMAQMD 2O2Aa.

Sacramento County is designated as nonattainment for the state and federal ozone standards, the state PMro standards, and the federal PMz.s standards. Concentrations of all other pollutants meet state and federal standards.

Ozone is not emitted directly into the environment, but is generated from complex chemical reactions between ROG, or non-methane hydrocarbons, and NOx that occur in the presence of sunlight. ROG and NOx generators in Sacramento County include motor vehicles, recreational boats, other transportation soLlrces, and industrial processes. PMro and PMz.s arise from a variety of sources, including road dust, diesel exhaust, fuel combustion, tire and brake wear, construction operations and windblown dust.

Ioxic Air Conlominonls
Toxic air contaminants (TAC) are a diverse group of air pollutants that may cause or contribute to an increase in deaths or in serious illness or that may pose a present or potential hazard to human health.

TACs can cause long-term chronic health effects such as cancer, birth defects, neurological damage, asthma, bronchitis, or genetic damage, or short-term acute effects such as eye watering, respiratory irritation (a cough), runny nose, throat pain, and headaches. TACs are considered either carcinogenic or

STATE OF CATIFORNIA

ATTAINMENT STATUS

FEDERAT ATTAINMENT
STATUS
Nonattainment
Nonattainment
Nonattainment
Attainment
Attainment
Attainment Attainment/
Attainment
Attainment
Attainment
Unclassified
Unclassified
City of Folsom 29 March2O22

05/10/2022 Item No.19.

Folsom Corporate Center Apartments ISMND
noncarcinogenic based on the nature ofthe health effects associated with exposure to the pollutant. For carcinogenic TACs, there is no level of exposure that is considered safe and impacts are evaluated in terms of overall relative risk expressed as excess cancer cases per one million exposed individuals.

Noncarcinogenic TACs differ in that there is generally assumed to be a safe level of exposure below which no negative health impact is believed to occur. These levels are determined on a pollutant-bypollutant basis.

The Health and Safety Code (539655[a]) defines TAC as "an air pollutant which may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or in serious illness, or which may pose a present or potential hazard to human health." All substances that are listed as hazardous air pollutants pursuant to subsection (b) of Section 112 of the CAA (42 United States Code Sec. 7a12[b]) are designated as TACs. Under State law, the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), acting through CARB, is authorized to identify a substance as a TAC if it determines the substance is an air pollutant that may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious illness, or that may pose a present or potential hazard to human health.

Diesel engines emit a complex mixture of air pollutants, including both gaseous and solid material. The solid material in diesel exhaust is referred to as diesel particulate matter (DPM). Almost all DPM is 10 microns or less in diameter, and 90 percent of DPM is less than 2.5 microns in diameter {CARB 2021a).

Because of their extremely small size, these particles can be inhaled and eventually trapped in the bronchial and alveolar regions of the lung. ln 1998, CARB identified DPM as a TAC based on published evidence of a relationship between diesel exhaust exposure and lung cancer and other adverse health effects. DPM has a notable effect on California's population-it is estimated that about 70 percent of total known cancer risk related to air toxics in €alifornia is attributable to DPM (CARB 2021a).

Ah Quolity Moniloring
The SMAQMD operates a network of ambient air monitoring stations throughout the Sacramento region. The purpose of the monitoring stations is to measure ambient concentrations of criteria air pollutants and determine whether the ambient air quality meets state and federal standards, pursuant to the CAAQS and the NAAQS. The nearest ambient monitoring station to the project site is the East Natoma Street monitoring station located approximately 3-miles northwest of the project site. The closest monitoring station with data for PMro is the Sacramento - Branch Center Road 2 monitoring station, approximately 13.2-miles southwest of the project site. Air quality data collected at these monitoring stations for the years 2018 through 2O2O are shown in Table 5.

City of Folsom 30 March 2022

05/10/2022 Item No.19.

Folsom Corporate Center Apartments ISMND
2018 2019
Table 5. of AnnualAir Data for Folsom Area Air Stations POLIUTANT 2020
Ozone locotion: Folsom - Eost Natomo Strcet
Maximum concentration l-hour riod 0.038
Maximum concentration 8-hour riod 0.035
above 1-hour state standard 0
above 8-hour ral standard 070 0
Coarce Po niculote Motter locotion: Socromento - Erdnch Center Road 2 Maximum 24-hour concentration 201.0
Measured above 24-hr state standard 0 10
Measured above 24-hr federal standard 50 1
Annual ave 33.2
Exceed state annual standard Yes
Fine Porticulate Matter Iocotion: Folsom - Eost Notoma Strcet Maximum 24-hour concentration 19.6
Measured above 24-hour federal standard
Annual
Exceed state and federal annual standard rl
Dloxlde Iocotion: Folsom - East Natoma Street
Maximum 1-hour concentration *
above state 1-hour standard rlt
above federal 1-hour standard 100 !t
Annual *
Exceed annual federal standard tt
Exceed annual state standard 0.030 rt
Source: CARB 2021b.
ppb = parts per billion; ppm = parts per million; [g/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter, * = insufficient
data available.

As Shown in Table 5, the state l-hour ozone standard was exceeded on five days in 2018, the statefederal 8-hour ozone standard was exceeded on 19 days in 2018 and two days in 2019, and the state/federal PMro standards were exceeded on multiple day in 2018 through 2020 and the federal PMz.s standard was exceeded on nine days in 2018. There were no exceedances of NOz standards in 2018 through 2020.
{.

Air Qualitv Attainment Plannine
ln order to work towards attainment for ozone, PMro and PMz.s, the EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards requires that each state containing nonattainment areas develop a written plan for cleaning the air in those areas. The plans developed combine to make up the SlP. Through these plans, states outline efforts they will make to try to correct the levels of air pollution and bring their areas back into attainment. The status of air quality attainment planning for the Sacramento area is listed below (SMAQMD 2017):
r 8-Hour Or. The Sacramento region was classified by the EPA as a "serious" nonattainment area on June I5,2OO4 for the federal 8-hour ozone standard, with an attainment deadline of June 15, 2013, Emission reductions needed to achieve the air quality standard were identified using an

0.105 0.087

0.094 0:073
5 0
19 2
200.0 53.0
4 1
H/m3l L 0

26.5 18.4
Yes No
104.5 25.4
f Hl{,/rn 9 0
LO.2 {.

J No {r

0.029 0.015
0 0
0 0

0.003 *
No *
No *
City of Folsom 37 March 2022

05/10/2022 Item No.19.

Folsom Corporate Center Apartments ISMND
air quality modeling analysis. An evaluation of proposed control measures and associated ROG and NOx emission reductions concluded that no set of feasible controls were available to provide the needed emission reductions before the attainment deadline year. Given the magnitude of the shortfall in emission reductions, and the schedule for implementing new control measures, the earliest possible attainment demonstration year for the Sacramento region is determined to be the "severe" area deadline ol2OL9. Section 181{bX3) of the Clean Air Act permits a state to request that the EPA reclassify a nonattainment area to a higher classification and extend the time allowed for attainment, This process is appropriate for areas that must rely on longer-term strategies to achieve the emission reductions needed for attainment. The EPA approved this request on May 5, 2010. The Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan was developed by the air districts in the Sacramento region to bring the region into attainment for the ozone NAAQS and CAAQS.

The plan is a joint project between the SMAQMD, and four other air districts in the Sacramento region (SMAQMD 2017).
a l-Hour Or. On May 9, 2011, EPA proposed to determine that California is no longer required to implement or submit a CAA Section 185 fee program for 1-hour ozone as a revision to the SIP for the Sacramento Metro 1-hour ozone nonattainment area. EPA has also taken an "interim final" action to stop sanctions from applying to the Sacramento Metro Area. a PMro. ln March 2002, the EPA officially determined that Sacramento County had attained the PMro standards. ln November 2010, the SMAQMD formally requested that the EPA redesignate Sacramento County from nonattainment to attainment for PMro. The EPA approved this request effective October 28,2013, The SMAQMD additionally adopted a PMro Maintenance Plan. The first Maintenance Plan showed maintenance lrom20L2 through 2022. A Second Maintenance Plan will be prepared and submitted by The SMAQMD to demonstrate maintenance for ten additional years, through 2032.
a PMr,s. The Sacramento PMz.s nonattainment area designation met the PMz.s NAAQS by December 3t,1OLL. On May 9,2012, CARB submitted a request that EPA find the Sacramento region in attainment for the 2005 24-hour PMz.s NAAQS. EPA issued a proposed rule for Determination of Attainment for the Sacramento Nonattainment Area on October 26,2O12 and a final rule for Determination of Attainment on July 15, 2013. EPA used the updated 20tO-20L2 ambient air quality data for determination and the final rule became effective on August 14, 2013 (SMAQMD 2017) (EPA 2013). On May 70,2AL7, the EPA found the area attained the 2006 24-hour NMQS by the attainment date of December 31,20t5 based on monitoring data for 2013-2015. The 2013 Maintenance Plan and will be updated and submitted in the future based on the clean data finding made by the EPA.

CO. The region is currently designated attainment for 1-hour and 8-hour CO standards. The Maintenance Plan developed for CO in 1995 was revised in 2004 to extend the 1995 CO Maintenance Plan demonstration to 2018.

Evoluolion of Air Quollty
While the final determination of whether or not a project has a significant effect is within the purview of the lead agency pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(b), SMAQMD recommends that its air pollution thresholds be used to determine the significance of project emissions. The criteria pollutant a
City of Folsom 32 March2022

05/10/2022 Item No.19.

Folsom Corporate Center Apartments ISMND
thresholds and various assessment recommendations are contained in SMAQMD's Guide to Air Quolity Assessment in Sacromento County (CEQA Guide; 2O2O, revised), and are discussed under the checklist questions below.

Question a: Less than Significant lmpact. ln accordance with SMAQMD's CEQA Guide, constructiongenerated NOx, PMro, and PMz,s, and operational-generated ROG and NOx (all ozone precursors) are used to determine consistency with the Ozone Attainment Plan. The Guide states (SMAQMD 2020a p. 4- 5):

By exceeding the District's moss emission thresholds for operotional emissions of ROG, NOl" PMn, or PMt.s, the project would be considered to conflict with or obstruct implementotion of the District's air quolity plonning efforts.

As shown in the discussion for question b) below, the project's construction-generated emissions of NOx, PMro, and PMz.sand operation-generated emissions ROG and NOx would not exceed SMAQMD thresholds. The project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan and the lmpact would be less than significant.

Question b: Less than Significant lmpact. The Sacramento region is in non-attainment for ozone (ozone precursors NOxand ROG) and particulate matter (PMz.sand PMro). The project's emissions of these criteria pollutants and precursors during construction and operation are evaluated below.

Construction Emissions
The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2O2O.4.O was used to quantify proJectgenerated construction emissions. The model output sheets are included in Appendix B. Construction activities were assumed to commence as early as May 2022 and be completed in early 2024. The quantity, duration, and intensity of construction activity influence the amount of construction emissions and related pollutant concentrations that occur at any one time. As such, the emission forecasts provided herein reflect a specific set of conservative assumptions based on the expected construction scenario wherein a relatively large amount of construction activity is occurring in a relatively intensive manner. Because of this conservative assumption, actual emissions could be less than those forecasted. lf construction is delayed or occurs over a longer time period, emissions could be reduced because of; (1) a more modern and cleaner-burning construction equipment fleet mix than assumed in CalEEMod; andf or, (2) a less intensive buildout schedule (i.e., fewer daily emissions occurring over a longer time interval).

Construction emissions would be generated by vehicle engine exhaust from off-road construction equipment, on-road hauling trucks, vendor trips, and worker commuting trips. Grading cut/fill would be balanced on-site-no import or export of soil would be required. During paving approximately 289 truckloads (578 one-way truck trips) of aggregate/asphalt would be imported to the site. Model defaults were used for all construction activities with the following modifications:
o The project site is vacant, and no demolition would be required. r An additional activity for excavation/installation of underground utilities was added, assumed to require one month.
o The use of a water truck for four hours per workday was assumed for the site preparation, grading, and underground utilities activities.

City of Folsom 33 March 2022

05/10/2022 Item No.19.

Folsom Corporate Center Apartments ISMND
Architectural coating (e.g,, painting) was assumed to occur concurrently with the last three months of physical building construction.

The project's construction period emissions of ROG, NOx, PMro, and PMz.s are compared to the SMAQMD construction thresholds in Table 6. The SMAQMD does not have a recommended threshold for construction-generated ROG. However, quantification and disclosure of ROG emissions is recommended. The SMAQMD considers any emissions of PMro and PMz.s to be significant unless the Basic Construction Emissions Control Practices are implemented, also known as Best Management Practices (BMP). The project would implement all of the SMAQMD BMPs to control fugitive dust in accordance with SMAQMD Rule 403. The modeling accounts for emissions reductions resulting from watering exposed surfaces twice daily. As shown in Table 6, the proposed project construction period emissions of the ozone precursor NOx, PMro, and PMu.swould not exceed the SMAQMD thresholds, lmpacts related to construction-generated emissions of ROG, NOx, PMro, and PMzswould be less than significant.

Table 5. Construction Criteria Pollutant and Precursor Emissions

ACTIVITY
Site Preparation 6_1
Grading 3.3
Underground Utilities o.4
Paving o.7
Building Construction 7.4
Architectural Coatings o.2
Concurrent 2023 Building
Construction and Architectu ral
Coating

1.5 Maximum Daily Emissions
SMAQMDThreshold
Threshold exceeded?
Source of emissions estimatesi CalEEMod output {Appendix B).

Source of threshold: SMAQMD 2020a, I Maximum daily emissions of ROG would occur in summer, maximum daily emissions of all other analyzed pollutants would occur in winter or are not seasonally dependent. 2 Maximum daily emissions of ROG would be the combined emissions from Building Construction and Architectural Coating which would occur concurrently in 2023.

Operational Emissions
Regional Emissions
SMAQMD provides screening levels to identify when additional analysis is necessary to determine potential significance for operational ROG, NOx, PMro, or PMz.s emissions. The operational screening PMr.s
(pounds/dayl

6.1 82
No
NOx
(pounds/dayl
ROG
(pounds/daylr
PMro
(pounds/dayl

35.1 3.5 ro.7
40,9 4.O 5.0

10.2 1.1 0.5

15.5 1.8 L.2

19.5 2.8 3.1
t.4 5t.2 0.5

19.1 53.7 3.5

40.9 53.72 10.7
None 85 80
No No No
City of Folsom 34 March 2022

05/10/2022 Item No.19.

Folsom Corp orate center Apartments IsMND
levels represent the development size at which the operational emissions thresholds of significance would not be exceeded, According to the screening thresholds, if a proposed mid-rise apartment project is less than 740 dwelling units, then the project would not have the potential to exceed SMAQMD's recommended mass emission thresholds for NOx or ROG during operation' The PMro and PMz.s screening level is 1,485 dwelling units. The proposed project would develop 253 dwelling unit, less than the screening thresholds and project-specific modeling for operational emissions is not required.

Therefore, impacts related to project long-term operational emissions of ROG, NOx, PMro, and PMr.s, would be less than significant.
!mpact Conglusion
The project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment, and the impact would be less than significant.

Question c: Less than Significant lmpact. CARB and the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) have identified the following groups of individuals as the most likely to be affected by air pollution: the elderly over 65, children under 14, infants (including in utero in the third trimester of pregnancy), and persons with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases such as asthma, emphysema, and bronchitis (CARB 2005, OEHHA 2015). Some land uses are considered more sensitive to air pollution than others due to the types of population groups or activities involved and are referred to as sensitive receptor locations. Examples of these sensitive receptor locations are residences, schools, hospitals, and daycare centers.

The closest existing sensitive receptor sites to the project site are multi-family senior housing buildings approximately 70 feet west of Lot 1, and single-family residences approximately 150 feet nor (across lron Point Road) of Lot 6. The closest school to the project site is the Gold Ridge Elementary School approximately 1,700 feet (0.32 mile) north of the project site. There are no hospitals or daycare centers located within 0.5-mile of the project site.
lmplementation of the project would result in the use of heavy-duty construction equipment, haul trucks, and construction worker vehicles. These vehicles and equipment would generate the TAC DPM.

Generation of DPM from construction projects typically occurs in a localized area (e.g., at the project site) for a short period of time. Because construction activities and subsequent emissions vary depending on the construction activity (e.g., grading, building construction), the construction-related emissions to which nearby receptors are exposed to would also vary throughout the construction period. During some equipment-intensive activities such as grading and excavation, construction-related emissions would be higher than other less equipment-intensive activities such as building construction.

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

Dose is a function of the concentration of a substance in the environment and the e)dent of exposure a person has with the substance; a longer exposure period to a fixed quantity of emissions would result in higher health risks, Current models and methodologies for conducting cancer health risk assessments are associated with longer-term exposure periods (typically 30 years for individual residents based on guidance from OEHHA) and are best suited for evaluation of long duration TAC emissions with predictable schedules and locations. These assessment models and methodologies do not correlate well with the temporary and highly variable nature of construction activities. Cancer potency factors are based on animal lifetime studies or worker studies where there is long-term exposure to the carcinogenic agent. There is considerable uncertainty in trying to evaluate the cancer risk from projects City of Folsom 35 March2O22

05/10/2022 Item No.19.

Folsom Corporate Center Apartments ISM ND
that will only last a small fraction of a lifetime (OEHHA 2015). ln addition, concentrations of mobile source DPM emissions disperse rapidly and are typically reduced by 70 percent at approximately 500- feet (CARB 2005). Considering this information, the highly dispersive nature of DPM, and the fact that construction activities would occur at various locations throughout the project site, it is not anticipated that construction ofthe project would expose sensitive receptors to substantial DPM concentrations.

According to the SMAQMD, land use development projects do not typically have the potential to result in localized concentrations of criteria air pollutants that expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. This is because criteria air pollutants are predominantly generated in the form of mobile-source exhaust from vehicle trips associated with the land use development project. These vehicle trips occur throughout a paved network of roads, and, therefore, associated exhaust emissions of criteria air pollutants are not generated in a single location where high concentrations could be formed (SMAQMD 2020a). Therefore, localized concentration of CO from exhaust emissions, or "CO hotspots," would only be a concern on high-volume roadways where vertical andlor horizontal mixing is substantially limited, such as tunnels or below grade highways. There are no high-volume roadways in the region with limited mixing that would be affected by project generated traffic. Once operational, the project would not be a significant source of TACs. Therefore, the project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, and the impact would be less than significant.

The project would site new sensitive receptors within 1,000-feet of US Highway 50. High volume roads (roads that carry 100,000 or more vehicles per days) are considered substantial sources ofTACs, including DPM and other TACs contained in vehicle exhaust Total Organic Gases (TOG) emissions, including benzene, ethylbenzene, and formaldehyde, The SMAQMD does not consider the health risk tQ sensitive receptors sited by a land use development project from high volume roadways to be a CEQA analysis requirement in accordance with the 2015 California Supreme Court decision in the case of California Building lndustry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD 2019).

The SMAQMD recommends that lead agencies us their Mobile Sources Air Toxics Protocol to evaluate the potential increased health risks to receptors near high-volume roadways (SMAQMD 2020b). The increased health risks to future project residents were evaluated using the guidance and tools in the Mobile Sources Air Toxics Protocol and were found to be potentially significant. To reduce health risk associated with concentrations of TACs along US Highway 50, it is recommended that the project be conditioned to require the installation of heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems equipped with filters having a minimum efficiency reporting value (MERV) of 13 or better, A letter summarizing the methodology, results, and risk reduction recommendations from the Mobile Sources Air Toxics Protocol analysis is included in Appendix B.

Question d: Less than Significant lmpact with Mltigation. The proiect is located in proximity to US Highway 50; Lot 1 located approximately 90-feet from the nearest travel lane and Lot 6 is located approximately 370-feet from the nearest travel lanes. The increase in health risks to future project residents resulting from proximity to US Highway 50 was estimated using the SMAQMD's Mobile Sources Air Toxics Protocol (MSAT Protocol).

Using the MSAT Protocol Mapping Tool, the project Lot 1 apartments are in an area with increased cancer risks ranging from 19 in 1 million to 32 in 1 million, and PMz.s concentrations ranging from 0.49 pg/m3 to 0.91 pg/m3. Lot 5 has cancer risk ranging from 30 in 1 million to 47 in 1 million and PMz.s concentrations ranging from 0.8 Fg/m3to t.3 Vglml. Note: Lot 6 has higher cancer risks even though it is further from US Highway 50. This result is likely due to the terrain-Lot 5 is close to the same elevation as the freeway and Lot 1 is elevated 30 to 40 feet above the freeway. The cancer risk increase would City of Folsom 35 March 2022

05/10/2022 Item No.19.

Folsom Corporate Center Apartments ISMND
exceed both the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's (BAAQMD) threshold of 10 in 1 million and the San Joaquin Air Pollution Control District's (SJCAPCD) threshold of 20 in 1 million' PM2.5 concentrations would exceed the BAAQMD's threshold of 08. pg/m3. Therefore, the increase health risk to future project residents would be potentially significant. Accordingly, the proposed project shall be conditioned with the following health risk reduction measure:

Mitigation Measure AIR-I: Mechanical Ventilation System o The building design shall include a mechanical ventilation system that meets the criteria of the lnternational Building Code (Chapte r t2,51^203.2 of the California Building Code) to ensure that windows would be able to remain closed while maintaining adequate ventilation and temperature control. The mechanical ventilation system shall be desiSned to accommodate, and equipped with, filters having a Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) rating of 13 or higher.
lmplementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-1 would reduce the potential impacts associated with elevated health risk due to the project's proximity to US Highway 50 to below a level of significance.

Question e: Less than Significant lmpact. Odors associated with diesel exhaust and ROG from application of asphalt and architectural coatings would be emitted during project construction. The odor of these emissions is objectionable to some; however, emissions would disperse rapidly from the project site and therefore should not be at a level that would affect a substantial number of people. Further, construction activities would be temporary. As a result, impacts associated with temporary odors during construction are not considered significant.

As a residential development, operation of the project would not result in odors affecting a substantial number of people. Solid waste generated by the project would be collected by a contraeted waste hauler, ensuring that any odors resulting from on-site waste would be managed and collected in a manner to prevent the proliferation of odors. The project would not result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people, and the impact would be less than significant.

City of Folsom 37 March 2022

05/10/2022 Item No.19.

Folsom Corporat€ Center Apartments ISMND
tv. BtotoctcAr REsouRcEs
BIOTOGICAI. RESOURCES:

Would the project;
Potentlal
lmpact
less Than
Sltnlflcant
whh
Mltlgatlon
Less Than
Slgnlflcant
lmpact lmprct
l{o
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly orthrough habitat modifications, on any species identified as a
candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S, Fish and Wildlife Service?
!
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
n I
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
fl nt
d) lnterfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
u
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
tr
fl Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
Biological resource evaluations prepared for the proposed project have been incorporated by reference and are presented in their entirety in Appendix C.

Envlronmentol Setting
The area in which the proJect is located is characterized by suburban residential development, commercial business centers, transportation, and small pockets of open space. US Highway 50 is immediately south of the project site. Lands in the City of Folsom surrounding the project site that lie north of US Highway 50 are largely developed with commercial and residential development, whi[e lands across US Highway 50 to the south of the project site remain largely in open space (primarily used for cattle grazing), although development is occurring in the City of Folsom south of U5 Highway 50 and to the east ofthe project site.

City of Folsom 38 March 2022

05/10/2022 Item No.19.

Folsom Corporate Center Apartments ISMND
Lot 1 shows no alteration in the use or condition of the property dating back to 1952 (NETR 2021). Lot 1 slopes downward from east to west with elevations ranging from 371 feet amsl in the east to 317 feet amsl in the west. Lot 1 is predominantly comprised of non-native annual grassland with a single oak tree in the southeast of the parcel. Lot 1 features a small parking lot in the northwest corner of the parcel, and a small sidewalk with minor landscaping elements connecting the parking lot to the rest of the parcel where the Kaiser Permanente Medical Offices are located. The rest of the site is vacant.

Lot 6 is dominated by ruderal/disturbed habitat, with a small stand of native oak trees (Quercus sp.) in the southwest corner of the parcel. The project site is not associated with any current land use; however, historic aerial imagery shows that Lot 5 was partially graded and used to store materials and debris in 2009 during the construction of the adjacent Folsom Corporate Center and much of that debris has remained on site. Lot 6 slopes down towards the east through a series of partially graded terraces, with elevations ranging from 370 feet amsl to the west and 358 feet amsl to the east.

Regulolory Fromework Reloled lo Biologlcol Resources
Federal Reeulations
Federal Endonoered Species Act
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) enforces the provisions stipulated within the Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (FESA; 16 UsC 1531 et seq.). Species identified as federally threatened or endangered (50 CFR 17.11, and L7.121 are protected from take, defined as direct or indirect harm, unless a Section 10 permit is granted to an entity other than a federal agency or a Biological Opinion with incidental take provisions is rendered to a federal lead agencyvia a Section 7 consultation.

Pursuant to the requirements of FESA, an agency reviewing a proposed project within its jurisdiction must determine whether any federally listed species may be present in the project site and determine whether the proposed project willjeopardize the continued existence of or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat of such species {15 USC 1535 (a)[3], [4]). Other federal agencies designate species of concern (species that have the potential to become listed), which are evaluated during environmental review under the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) or CEQA although they are not otherwise protected under FESA.

Miarotarv Bird Treatv Act
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918 established federal responsibilities for the protection of nearly all species of birds, their eggs, and nests. The Migratory Bird Treaty Reform Act of 2004 further defined species protected under the act and excluded all non-native species. Section 16 U.S.C. 703-7L2 of the Act states "unless and except as permitted by regulations, it shall be unlawful at any time, by any means or in any manner, to pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill, attempt to take, capture, or kill" a migratory bird. A migratory bird is any species or family of birds that live, reproduce or migrate within or across international borders at some point during their annual life cycle. Currently, there are 835 migratory birds protected nationwide by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, of which 58 are legal to hunt.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit (with jurisdiction over California) has ruled that the MBTA does not prohibit incidental take (952 F 2d 297 - Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 1991).

City of Folsom 39 March 2022

05/10/2022 Item No.19.

Folsom Corporate Center Apartments ISMND
State lulisdiction
Californio Endonaered Species Act
The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (California Fish and Game Code Sections 2050 to 2097) is similar to the FESA. The California Fish and Wildlife Commission is responsible for maintaining lists of threatened and endangered species under CESA. CESA prohibits the take of listed and candidate (petitioned to be listed) species. "Take" under California law means to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch capture, or kill (California Fish and Game Code, Section 86). The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) can authorize take of a state-listed species under Section 2081 of the California Fish and Game Code if the take is incidental to an otherwise lawful activity, the impacts are minimized and fully mitigated, funding is ensured to implement and monitor mitigation measures, and CDFW determines that issuance would not jeopardize the continued existence of the species. A CESA permit must be obtained if a project will result in the "take" of listed species, either during construction or over the life of the project. For species listed under both FESA and CESA requiring a Biological Opinion under Section 7 of the FES& CDFW may also authorize impacts to CESA species by issuing a Consistency Determination under Section 2080.1 of the Fish and Game Code.

Californio Code of RequlationsTitle 74 ond Cqlifornia Fish and Gome Code The official listing of endangered and threatened animals and plants is contained in the California Code of Regulations Title 14 5570.5. A state candidate species is one that the California Fish and Game Code has formally noticed as being under review by CDFW to include in the state list pursuant to Sections 2O74.2 and 2075.5 of the California Fish and Game Code.

Legal protection is also provided for wildlife species in California that are identified as "fully protected animals." These species are protected under Sections 3511 (birds),4700 (mammals), 5050 (reptiles and amphibians), and 5515 (fish) of the California Fish and Game Code. These statutes prohibit take or possession of fully protected species at any time. CDFW is unable to authorize incidental take of fully protected species unless any such take authorization is issued in conjunction with the approval of a Natural Community Conservation Plan that covers the fully protected species (California Fish and Game Code Section 2835).

California Environmentol Qualitv Act
Under the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA; Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.), lead agencies analyze whether projects would have a substantial adverse effect on a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species (Public Resources Code Section 21001(c)). These "special-status" species generally include those listed under FESA and CESA, and species that are not currently protected by statute or regulation, but would be considered rare, threatened, or endangered under the criteria included CEQA Guidelines Section 15380. Therefore, species that are considered rare are addressed under CEQA regardless of whether they are afforded protection through any other statute or regulation.

The California Native Plant Society (CNPS) inventories the native flora of California and ranks species accordingto rarity; plants ranked as 1A, 18,2A,28, and 3 aregenerally considered special-statusspecies under CEQA.

Although threatened and endangered species are protected by specific federal and state statutes, CEQA Guidelines Section 15380(d) provides that a species not listed on the federal or state list of protected species may be considered rare if it can be shown to meet certain specified criteria. These criteria have City of Folsom 40 March2022

05/10/2022 Item No.19.

Folsom Corporate Center Apartments ISMND
been modeled after the definition in FESA and the section of the California Fish and Game Code dealing with rare or endangered plants and animals. Section 15380(d) allows a public agency to undertake a review to determine if a significant effect on species that have not yet been listed by either the USFWS or CDFW {i.e., candidate species) would occur.

Notive Plont Protection Act
The California Native Plant Protection Act of L977 (California Fish and Game Code Sections 1900-1913) empowers the Fish and Game Commission to list native plant species, subspecies, or varieties as endangered or rare following a public hearing. To the extent that the location of such plants is khown, CDFW must notify property owners that a listed plant is known to occur on their property. Where a property owner has been so notified by CDFW, the owner must notify CDFW at least 10 days in advance of any change in land use (other than changing from one agricultural use to another), in order that CDFW may salvage listed plants that would otherwise be destroyed. Currently, 54 taxa of native plants have been listed as rare under the act.

Nestlno Birds
California Fish and Game Code Subsections 3503 and 3800 prohibit the possession, take, or needless destruction of birds, their nests, and eggs, and the salvage of dead nongame birds. California Fish and Game Code Subsection 3503.5 protects all birds in the orders of Falconiformes and Strigiformes (birds of prey). Fish and Game Code Subsection 3513 states that it is unlawful to take or possess any migratory nongame bird as designated in the Migratory Bird Treaty Act or any part of such migratory nongame bird except as provided by rules and regulations adopted by the Secretary ofthe lnterior under provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The Attorney General of California has released an opinion that the Fish and Game Code prohibits incidental take.
lurisdictional Waters
Federol Jurisdiction
Unless considered an exempt activity under Section a0a(f) of the Federal Clean Water Act, any person, firm, or agency planning to alter or work in "waters of the U.5.," including the discharge of dredged or fill material, must first obtain authorization from the USACE under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA; 33 USC 1344). Permits, licenses, variances, or similar authorization may also be required by other federal, state, and local statutes. Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act prohibits the obstruction or alteration of navigable waters of the U.S. without a permit from USACE (33 USC 403). Activities exempted under Section 404(f) are not exempted within navigable waters under Section 10. "Waters of the U.S." are defined as: "All waters that are currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters that are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide; all interstate waters including interstate wetlands; all other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sand flats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes or natural ponds, the use, degradation, or destruction of which could affect interstate commerce; impoundments of these waters; tributaries of these waters; the territorial sea; or wetlands adjacent to these waters (33 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Part 328)." Within non-tidal waters that meet the definition cited above and, in the absence of adjacent wetlands, the indicator used by the USACE to determine the lateral extent of its jurisdiction is the ordinary high City of Folsom 41, March2022

05/10/2022 Item No.19.

Folsom Corporate Center Apartments ISMND
water mark (OHWM) - the line on the shore established by fluctuations of water and indicated by a clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in soil character, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, andlor the presence of litter and debris.

Wetlands are defined under the CFR Part 328.3 as those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.

The USACE has determined that not all features which meet the wetland definition are, in fact, considered to be waters of the U.S. Normally, features not considered as waters of the U.S. include (a) non-tidal drainage and irrigation ditches excavated on dry land; (b) artificially irrigated areas which would revert to upland if the irrigation ceased; (c) artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating and/or diking dry land to collect and retain water and which are used exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, settling basins, or rice growing (d) artificial reflecting or swimming pools or other small ornamental bodies of water created by excavating and/or diking dry land to retain water for primarily aesthetic reasons, and (e) waterfilled depressions created in dry land incidental to construction activity and pits excavated in dry land for the purpose of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel unless and until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting body of water meets the definition of waters of the United States (see 33 CFR 328.3(a)). Otherfeatures may be excluded based on Supreme Court decisions (e,g., SWANCC and Rapanos) or by regulation.

Federal and state regulations pertaining to waters of the U.S., including wetlands, are discussed below Clean Water Act (33 USC 1251-1376). The CWA provides guidance for the restoration and maintenance of the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters.

Section 401 requires that an applicant for a federal license or permit that allows activities resulting in a discharge to waters of the U.S. must obtain a state certification that the discharge complies with other provisions of CWA. The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) administers the certification program in California and may require State Water Quality Certlfication before other permits are issued.

Section 402 establishes a permitting system for the discharge of any pollutant (except dredged or fill material) into waters of the U.S.

Section 404 establishes a permit program administered by USACE that regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S. (including wetlands). lmplementing regulations by USACE are found at 33 CFR Parts 320-332. The Section 404 (bX1) Guidelines were developed by the USEPA in conjunction with USACE (40 CFR Part 230), allowing the discharge of dredged or fill material for nonwater dependent uses into special aquatic sites only if there is no practicable alternative that would have less adverse impacts.

State Jurisdiction
Reqional Water Qudlftv Control Board
Any action requiring a CWA Section 404 permit, or a Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 permit, must also obtain a CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification. The State of California Water Quality Certification (WAC) Program was formally initiated by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) in 1990 under the requirements stipulated by Section 401 of the Federal CWA. Although the Clean Water Act is a City of Folsom 42 March2O22

05/10/2022 Item No.19.

Folsom Corporate center Apa rtments lsMN D
Federal law, Section 401 of the CWA recognizes that states have the primary authority and responsibility for setting water quality standards. ln California, under Section 401, the State and Regional Water Boards are the authorities that certify that issuance of a federal license or permit does not violate California's water quality standards (i.e., that they do not violate Porter-Cologne and the Water Code|.

The WQC Program currently issues the WQC for discharges requiring USACE's permits for fill and dredge discharges within Waters of the United States, and now also implements the State's wetland protection and hydromodification regulation program under the Porter Cologne Water Quality Control Act.

On April 2,2}]rg,the SWRCB adopted a State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Materialto Waters of the State (Procedures), for inclusion in the forthcoming Water Quality Control Plan for lnland Surface Waters and Enclosed Bays and Estuaries and Ocean Waters of California. The Procedures consist of four major elements: 1) a wetland definition; 2) a framework for determining if a feature that meets the wetland definition is a water of the state; 3) wetland delineation procedures; and 4) procedures for the submittal, review and approval of applications for Water Quality Certifications and Waste Discharge Requirements for dredge or fill activities. The Office of Administrative Law approved the Procedures on August 28,2019, and the Procedures became effective May 28, 2020.

Under the Procedures and the State Water Code (Water Code 513050(e)), "Waters of the State" are defined as "any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state." Unless excluded by the Procedures, any activity that could result in discharge of dredged or fill material to Waters of the State, which includes Waters of the U.S. and non-federal Waters of the State, requires filing of an application under the Procedures.

The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Poner-Cologne Act, Water Code Section 13000 et seq.) is California's statutory authority for the protection of water quality in conjunction with the federal CWA.

The Porter-Cologne Act requires the SWRCB and RWQCBs under the CWA to adopt and periodically update water quality control plans, or basin plans. Basin plans are plans in which beneficial uses, water quality objectives, and implementation programs are established for each of the nine regions in California. The Porter-Cologne Act also requires dischargers of pollutants or dredged or fill material to notify the RWQCBs of such activities by filing Reports of Waste Discharge and authorizes the SWRCB and RWQCBs to issue and enforce waste discharge requirements, National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits, Section 401 water quality certifications, or other approvals.

California Denortment of Fish and Wildlife
The CDFW is a trustee agency that has jurisdiction under Section 1600 et seq. of the California Fish and Game Code. Under Sections 1502 and 1603, a private party must notify CDFW if a proposed project will "substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow or substantially change the bed, channel, or bank of streambeds...except when the department has been notified pursuant to Section 1.601," Additionally, CDFW asserts jurisdiction over native riparian habitat adjacent to aquatic features, including native trees over four inches in diameter at breast height (DBH). lf an existing fish or wildlife resource may be substantially adversely affected by the activity, CDFW may propose reasonable measures that will allow protection of those resources. lf these measures are agreeable to the parties involved, they may enter into an agreement with CDFW identifying the approved activities and associated mitigation measures.

Generally, CDFW recommends submitting an application for a Streambed Alteration Agreement (SAA) for any work done within the lateral limit of water flow or the edge of riparian vegetation, whichever is greater.

City of Folsom 43 March2022

05/10/2022 Item No.19.

Folsom Corporate Center Apartments ISMND
Local Resulations
Citv of Folsom Tree Preservotlon Ordlnonce
Chapter 12.15 of the Folsom Municipal Code, the Tree Preservation Ordinance, regulates the cutting or modification of trees, including oaks and specified other trees; requires a Tree Permit prior to cutting or modification; and establishes mitigation requirements for cut or damaged trees. The Tree Preservation Ordinance establishes policies, regulations, and standards necessary to ensure that the City will continue to preserve and maintain its "urban forests". Anyone who wishes to perform "Regulated Activities" on "Protected Trees" must apply for a permit with the City. Regulated activities include:
o Removal of a Protected Tree;
o Pruning/trimming of a Protected Tree; andf or,
r Grading or trenching within the Protected zone.

Protected trees include:

Native oak trees with a diameter at standard height (DSH;4.5 feet above ground level) of 6 inches or larger for single trunk trees or 20 inches or larger combined diameter of native oak multi-trunk trees. Native oak species include:
o valley oak (Quercus lobata)
o blue oak (Quercus douglosiil
o interior live oak lQuercus wislizeniil
o coast live oak lQuercus ogrtfolial
Heritage oak trees - native oaks with a trunk DSH of 19 inches or greater and native oaks with a multi-trunk diameter of 38 inches or greater;
Landmark trees identified individually by the City Council through resolution as being a significant community benefit; andf or,
Street trees within the tree maintenance strip.

Melhods
lnformation used in preparation of this lnitial Study comes from the following sources:
' Desktop review of regionally occurring special-status species and habitats with potential to occur in the project site and/or be affected by the proposed project; r Biological reconnaissance survey performed by HELIX biologists in October 2021; r Biological Review for lron Point Road Apartments Development, prepared by SCS Engineers, dated February 25, 2O2I; and,
r Arborist Report - lron Point Road Apartments, Folsom CA, prepared by Arborwell Professional Tree Management, dated December 29,2O2O;
r Arborist inventory of remaining trees performed by HELIX biologist/arborist in November 2021 a
a
a
a
City of Folsom 44 March 2022

05/10/2022 Item No.19.

Folsom Center Apa rtments ISMND
For the purposes of this report, special-status species are those that fall into one or more of the following categories, including those:
listed as endangered or threatened under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA; including candidates and species proposed for listing);
listed as endangered or threatened under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA; including candidates and species proposed for listing); a
a
designated as rare, protected, or fully protected pursuant to California Fish and Game Code; designated a Species of Special Concern (SSC) by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (cDFW);
o
a
considered by CDFW to be a Watch List species with potential to become an SSC; defined as rare or endangered under Section 15380 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA);or,
Having a California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) of 1A, 18, 2A,28, or 3. ln order to evaluate special-status species and/or their habitats with the potentialto occur on the project site and/or be impacted by the proposed project, HELIX obtained lists of special-status species known to occur and/or having the potential to occur in the project site and vicinity from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS; USFWS 2021), the California Native Plant Society (CNPS; CNPS 2021), and the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB; CDFW 2021). The results of the biological database and records searches for the project site, as well as a list of species observed during the biological reconnaissance, are compiled in Appendix C.

Biological Reconnaissance Survev
A biological reconnaissance survey was conducted on October L3,2O2t, by HELIX biologists Stephen Stringer, M.S. lnternational Society of Arboriculture (lSA) Certified Arborist (WE-7129A) and Stephanie Mclaughlin, M.S., ISA Certified Arborist (WE-12922A) between 1230 and 1430 hours. The biological reconnaissance survey was accomplished by walking meandering transects through the project site in order to obtain 100 percent visual coverage of the site. Habitats present in the project site were classified based on the dominant plant species present and identifiable at the time of the survey. The project site was also reviewed for aquatic features exhibiting characteristics of waters of the U,S. or State, including the presence of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soil, wetland hydrology, bed and bank, or depressional topography. Following the field survey, the potential for each species identified in the database query to occur within the project site was determined based on the site survey, soils, habitats present within the project site, and species-specific information, as shown in Appendix C.

Arborist lnventorv
The Arborist Report prepared by Arborwell Professional Tree Management and dated December 29, 2020, inventoried a majority of the trees in the project site but did not include the trees located in the landscaped strip in the southeastern corner of Lot 5.
a
a
a
City of Folsom 45 March2O22

05/10/2022 Item No.19.

Folsom Corporate Center Apartments ISMND
HELIX Biologist and lnternational Society of Arboriculture certified arborist Stephanie McLaughlin (lSA f WE-12922A) surveyed the additional trees in the southeastern corner of Lot 6 on November 2,2O2L, The following data were collected for all native and non-native oak trees with a DSH of six inches or Ereater on the site: species, trunk diameter at 4.5-feet above the ground (DSH), dripline radius, estimated height, and overall health and structure of the tree. Overall condition was rated on a fivepoint scale of 0 (dead), 1 (severe decline), 2 (declining), 3 (fair), 4 (good), or 5 (excellent). Comments such as number of trunks, irregularities, scars or other growth characteristics or vigor indicators were recorded for each tree. Recommendations for preservation or removal were made based on each tree's condition. The location of each tree was recorded using an EOS Systems Arrow 100 Global Navigation Satellite System receiver with sub-meter accuracy. Trees on the site were identified in the field with preprinted numbered tags.

Ho bitot Types/Veg etolion Comm unities
Habitat types/vegetation communities on the project site include blue oak woodland, non-native annual grassland, ruderal/disturbed, and developed. Habitats and land covers are depicted on Figure 5 in Appendix A.

Non-Native Annual Grassland
Non-native annual grasslands are open grasslands composed primarily of annual species. Germination follows the onset of winter rains; however, growth is slow during cold weather and plants remain low in stature until spring. Grasses flower and set seed by early summer, and large amounts of standing dead thatch are present by mid-summer in the absence of grazing.

The non-native annual grassland in the project site is found on Lot L and is dominated by ripgut brome (Bromus diondrusl, soft brome (Bromus hordeoceusl, prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriolo), and yellow-star thistle lCentaurea solstitialisl. The majority of the species observed were non-native; however, native species on the site include doveweed (Croton setigerl and yellowflow'er taniveed lHolocorpho virgatal.

The non-native annual grassland habitat on Lot 1 is in a somewhat disturbed condition. The contours of the parcel show a history of grading and fill, with tire ruts and depressions scattered throughout the site, The project site includes 6.95-acres of non-native annual grassland, all of which is found on Lot 1.

Blue Oak Woodland
Blue oak woodland is composed of a pronounced hardwood tree layer, with a poorly developed shrub stratum, and a sparse, grassy herbaceous layer. The canopy is entirely dominated by blue oak (Quercus douglosiil. The herbaceous layer of this community consists of similar species to what was observed in the annual grassland habitat, such as ripgut brome, prickly lettuce, and yellow-starthistle. Blue oak woodland habitat comprises 0.52-acres of the project site, all of which is found in the southwest corner of Lot 6.

Ruderal/Disturbed
Ruderal/disturbed habitat occurs in areas that are heavily disturbed by past or ongoing human activities but retain a soil substrate. Ruderal/disturbed areas may be sparselyto denselyvegetated, but do not support a recognizable community or species assemblage. Vegetative cover is usually herbaceous and dominated by a wide variety of weedy non-native species or a few ruderal native species.

City of Folsom 45 March2O22

05/10/2022 Item No.19.

Folsom Corporate Center Apartments ISMND
Rudera/disturbed habitat, which totals 3.61-acres, comprises much of Lot 5. This habitat on the project site is dominated by a dense cover of non-native annual grasses, with small patches of native and nonnative grasses and forbs and is heavily disturbed. Ripgut brome, yellow-star thistle, yellowflower tarweed, and medusa head (Elymus coput-medusoe) make up the majority of the herbaceous cover on the project site in terms of percent cover. Nearly all herbaceous plant species observed during the biological reconnaissance are non-natives associated with disturbance; however, native plants observed include coyote brush (Soccharis pilularisl and deer grass lMuhlenbergia rigens). A smallsliver of landscaping borders the eastern edge of Lot 5, it consists of ornamental scrub species as well as several valley oaks lQuercus lobatol and cork oaks {Quercus suberl.

The contours of Lot 6 reflect a history of fill, grading, and other modifications resulting in tire ruts, graded areas, and depressions. There are several large debris piles consisting of rock and rebar in the center of Lot 6. Stormwater from the developed areas in the surrounding business park is discharged into a small, graded depression within the ruderal/disturbed habitat on the east end of Lot 6 through a culvert outfall that enters the site from under the parking lot to the south. The graded depression and culvert outfall appears to have been constructed as part of the stormwater management system for the Folsom Corporate Center. The graded depression contains some wetland plants typical of disturbed areas but is not considered a potential waters of the U.S. or State because it was constructed on a graded pad in uplands for the purposes of managing stormwater drainage.

Develooed
Developed areas on the project site includes parking lots and roadways surrounding both parcels. A paved arterial roadway runs along the eastern and southern borders of Lot 6. Developed land near Lot 1 consists of a paved roadway and a portion of a parking lot alongthe parcels northern border. Developed habitat in the project site is asphalt paved and completely devoid of vegetative cover. This habitat type comprises 0.86-acres of the project site.

Wildlife
ln general, wildlife use of the site is expected to be limited to common disturbance-tolerant species adapted to living in urban and suburban areas in close proximityto humans. Species observed usingthe habitats in the project site included mourning dove lZenoido mocrourol, acorn woodpecker (Melanerpes formicivorus), northern flicker lColoptes ourotal, black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicusl, and house finch (Co r pod ocus m exico n u sl.

Speclol-Stolus Species wlth Potenllol lo Occur
A total of 22 regionally occurring special-status plant species and 31 regionally occurring special-status wildlife species were identified during the database queries and desktop review and are evaluated in Appendix C,
Special-Status Plant Species
A total of 22 regionally occurring special-status plant species were identified during the database queries and desktop review. The majority of the special-status plant species are associated with aquatic habitats, including vernal pools. The remaining species are associated with grasslands, chapparal, City of Folsom 47 March 2022

05/10/2022 Item No.19.

Folsom Corporate Center Apartments ISMND
cismontane woodlands, coniferous forests, and alkaline habitat, or have specific requirements for lone, gabbroic, serpentinite, or volcanic soils that were not found in the project site.

There is currently no suitable habitat for special-status plant species in the project site and there have been no reported occurrences of special-status plant species on or adjacent to the project site in the CNDDB. Special-status plant species are not expected to occur in the project site or be impacted by the proposed project.

Special-Status Animal Species
A total of 31 regionally occurring special-status wildlife species were identified during the database searches and desktop review. The majority of the special-status wildlife species are associated with aquatic habitats of the adjacent Sacramento Valley such as rivers, sloughs, and freshwater wetlands, including vernal pools. The remaining species are associated with open areas, grasslands, coniferous forests, and cliff habitat, or have specific food species requirements that were not found on the project site.

No special-status wildlife species were observed in the project site during the biological reconnaissance survey and there are no reported occurrences in the CNDDB of special-status animal species in or adjacent to the project site. Based on the evaluation of regionally occurring special-status species documented in Appendix C, the project site provides marginal habitat for burrowingowl lAthene cuniculariol and white-tailed kite (Elonus leucurusl as well as habitat for other nesting raptors and migratory birds. These species are discussed briefly below, There is no suitable habitat in the project site for the remainder of the regionally occurring special-status species evaluated. Species determined to have no potential to occur in the project site or be impacted bythe proposed project are not discussed further in this report.

Burrowina Owl
Burrowing owls are year-round residents of most parts of California, though local seasonal movements are common and populations in northeastern California and high elevations may migrate to lower elevations during the winter. Burrowing owls inhabit underground burrows, especially those of California ground squirrels (Otospermophilus beecheyi), and artificial holes such as pipes, culverts, and crevices in debris piles. Suitable habitat is open and relatively flat, with short vegetation, low perches or mounds, and abundant rodent and insect prey. Common examples of suitable habitat include agricultural fields, pastures, grasslands, deserts, and disturbed places. The breeding season for burrowing owl is April through August (CDFW 201-2l.

No burrowing owls or sign were observed during the biological reconnaissance, which included a thorough search for this species. However, there are three reported occurrences of burrowing owl in the CNDDB within 2.5-miles of the project site. These occurrences are generally located to the southeast in annual grassland habitat across US Highway 50 (CDFW 2021).

The non-native annual grassland and ruderal/disturbed habitat in the project site provides marginally sultable habitat for burrowing owl. There are several debris piles and small mammal burrows that provide elements of suitable habitat. The project site is too small in size to support significant burrowing owl foraging and is surrounded by disturbed industrial and residential parcels. The high levels of human City of Folsom 48 March 2022

05/10/2022 Item No.19.

Folsom Corporate Center Apartments ISMND
presence and disturbance in the project site likely discourage occupation of the project site by burrowing ourls; however, there is a low potential for this species to occur in the project site. lf burrowing owls are residing in the project site or on adjacent properties, the project would have potential for adverse effects through injury or mortality, displacement, and loss of habitat. lnjury or mortality to individual adults and young, or mortality of eggs and chicks due to forced nest abandonment by adults, would be a violation of the Fish and Game Code and a significant impact. Loss of occupied habitat including nesting burrows, satellite burrows, foraging habitat, dispersal habitat, wintering habitat, and linkages is considered a potentially significant impact to the local and regional populations of burrowing owl {CDFW 201.2).

The recommended mitigation measures for nesting burrowing owl in the following section would reduce potential impacts to this species to less than significant.

White-toiled Kite
White-tailed kite is a year-round resident in coastal and valley lowlands, where it inhabits herbaceous and open stages of most habitat types. lndividuals forage in grasslands, farmlands, and wetlands, preying mostly on small diurnal mammals. Nests are built near the top of dense tree stands, usually near open foraging areas (Zeiner et al. 1988).

No white-tailed kites were observed during the biological reconnaissance survey conducted for the proposed project. The nearest documented occurrence of white-tailed kite is 2.2-miles south in the City of Folsom (CDFW IOZL\.

The blue oak woodland habitat on and adjacent to the project site provides potential nesting habitat and the small patches of undeveloped grassland habitat in the vicinity provide suitable foraging habitat.

This species is known to nest in tall trees in urban areas and forage in small habitat patches, No adverse effects to white-tailed kite foraging are anticipated as a result of the loss of ruderal/disturbed habitat that would occur due to development of the proposed project. Non-breeding adults could readily avoid contact with construction equipment or personnel by moving out of the construction area. Displacement of non-breeding adults would not be a significant impact. The project has potential for adverse effects to white-tailed kite through nest disturbance leading to destruction of eggs or nestlings if this species were to nest in or adjacent to the project site. Eggs and young still dependent on the nest would be susceptible to injury or mortality through physical contact or through nest abandonment caused by displacement of adults. Destruction of eggs or young would be a violation of the Fish and Game Code and a significant impact
The recommended mitigation measures for nesting migratory birds and raptors in the following section would reduce potential impacts to this species to less than significant.

Miarotory Birds ond Nestino Birds
As noted in the Regulatory Framework section, migratory and non-game birds are protected during the nesting season by California Fish and Game Code. The project site and immediate vicinity provides nesting and foraging habitat for a variety of native birds common to urbanized areas, such as mourning dove lZenoido mocroural, house finch lHoemorhous mexiconusl, and acorn woodpecker (Melanerpes City of Folsom 49 March 2022

05/10/2022 Item No.19.

Folsom Corporate Center Apartments ISMND
formicivorus). Nests were not observed during surveys; however, a variety of migratory birds have the potential to nest in and adjacent to the project site, in trees, shrubs and on the ground in vegetation.

Project activities such as clearing and grubbing during the avian breeding season (February 1 through August 31) could result in injury or mortality of eggs and chicks directly through destruction or indirectly through forced nest abandonment due to noise and other disturbance. Needless destruction of nests, eggs, and chicks would be a violation of the Fish and Game Code and a significant impact, The recommended mitigation measures for nesting migratory birds and raptors in the following section would reduce potential impacts to nesting migratory birds and raptors to less than significant.

Prolecled Trees
Data in this section is from an Arborist Report prepared by Arborwell Professional Tree Management in December 2020 and an arborist inventory conducted by HEL in November 2021, There are a total of 14 trees found on the project site; one tree (#702) is on Lot L and the remaining trees are on Lot 5. Nine of the trees are blue oaks, three are cork oaks, and two are valley oaks. The majority of trees are in excellent to fair condition and one tree (#705) is in critical/poor condition. Table 7 shows the details of all trees in the project site.

Table 7. Tree Detailsl
Condition Notes Tree
il Species
DSH
(inchesl
4 - Good
Good shape, 2 Limb failures on southern side of tree, good structure. Appears to have minimal deadwood in lower
part of canopy. May need to be raised up per plans for
clea ra nce.
702*
Blue Oak
Quercus
douglasii
4L.7
703*
Blue Oak
Quercus
doualosii

30.4 3 - Fair
Appears to have minimal deadwood and good attachment
at 6' high on trunk with 4 large limbs of attachment.

26.7 3 - Fair
Appears to have minimal deadwood, codominant at 5'
with signs of included bark and V shaped crotch. 704*
Blue Oak
Quercus
douqlosii
Tree has poor structure with limb failure and is in severe decline. 705*
Blue Oak
Quercus
doualosii
20 1-
Critical/Poor
L9.4,

15.7 3 - Fair
Appears to have minimal deadwood, two trees at base,
one to northwest is being overcrowd by one to southeast. 706* Blue Oak
Quercus
douqlasii
Appears to have minimal deadwood, co-dominant leader
at 6'with V shaped crotch. 7071
Blue Oak
Quercus
douolasii

23.t 3 - Fair
709*
Blue Oak
Quercus
doualosii

23.7 3 - Fair Appears to have minimal deadwood.

Appears to have minimal deadwood. Large limb near base
of trees has visual signs of included bark. 709'|
Blue Oak
Quercus
douolosii

20.7 3 - Fair

11.4,

13.3 3 - Fair
Appears to have minimal deadwood, poor structure with
co-dominant leaders at base. 710* Blue Oak
City of Folsom 50 March 2022

05/10/2022 Item No.19.

Folsom Corporate Center Apartments ISMND
Quercus
douqlasii
255r* Cork Oak
Quercus suber
Ll,.t 5- Excellent
329*t Cork Oak
Quercus suber 16 5-Excellent
330r* Cork Oak
Quercus suber

13.5 4 - Good Co-dominant leaders
331'* Valley Oak
Quercus loboto 8.4 4 - Good Minor lean
332** Valley Oak
Quercus lobota 9.6 5-Excellent Evidence of pruning
from Arborist Report - lron Point Road Apartmentt Folsom CA, prepared by Arborwell Professional Tree Management, dated December 29, 202Q.
" Data collected by HELIX November 2O21.
lBold font indicates that a tree is protected
Eleven ofthe 14 trees in the study area are protected under the City of Folsom Tree Protection Ordinance, as they are native oaks and have a DSH greaterthan six-inches. Tree # 705 was recommended for removal due to its poor condition, Tree # 702 is considered to be a Heritage tree per City of Folsom and would be preserved on-site as part of the proposed project design. Three of the 14 trees in the study area are not protected (Trees # 256,329, and 330) as they are not native oak species.

Jurlsdictionol Wolers
There are no potentially jurisdictional waters of the U.S. or waters of the State on the project site. There is a small, constructed depression located on Lot 5 that appears to occasionally hold water. The constructed depression appears to be part of a larger stormwater management system that was constructed to collect runoff from the surrounding buildings, parking areas, and landscaped areas within the Folsom Corporate Center. The constructed depression receives stormwater runoff through a culvert outfall under the parking area/driveway to the south. The graded depression'contains some wetland plants typical of disturbed areas but is not considered a potential waters of the U.S. or State because it was constructed on a graded pad in uplands for the purposes of managing stormwater drainage and is part of a currently functioning stormwater management system.

Wlldlile Conidors
The project site is primarily surrounded by development with narrow bands of open space separating it from US Highway 50, lron Point Road, Kaiser Permanente, and an office park. Lands north of lron Point Road are densely developed, as are lands east of Kaiser Permanente and west of the office park; US Highway 50 is a 6-lane freeway. The project slte represents an isolated island of open space with no connectivity to other suitable habitat and does not represent a significant wildlife movement corridor.

Use of the site as a wildlife corridor is limited to movement of local wildlife. No native wildlife nursery sites would be affected.

Question a: Less than Significant with Mitlgation lncorporated. No regionally occurring special-status plant species were identified as having the potential to occur in the project site, due to lack of suitable habitat. Therefore, impacts to special-status plant species are not anticipated as a result of the proposed project and no mitigation measures are necessary for special-status plants.

City of Folsom 51 March 2022

05/10/2022 Item No.19.

Folsom Corporate Center Apartments ISMND
The proJect site provides potential marginal habitat for burrowing owl white-tailed kite and other nesting migratory birds. These species are discussed briefly below. Specaes determined to have no potential to occur in the project site or be impacted by the proposed project are not discussed further in this report.

Burrowine Owl
ln the absence of proposed mitigation measures, potential adverse effects of the proposed project on burrowing owl could include harm to individual burrowing owls, nest disturbance/loss of occupied burrows, and loss of foraging habitat, Pre-construction surveys shall be conducted prior to project implementation to determine if burrowing owl are present on or adjacent to the project site, so that measures could be implemented if needed to avoid harming burrowing owl.

Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Avoid and Minimize lmpacts to Burrowing Owl Prior to the commencement of construction activities (which includes clearing, grubbing, or grading) a survey for burrowing owl shall be conducted by a qualified biologist. The survey shall occur within 30 days of the start of construction activities. Surveys shall be conducted in accordance with the following:

A survey for active burrows and burrowing owls shall be conducted by walking through suitable habitat over the entire project site and in areas within 150-meters ("500-feet) of the project impact zone where accessible.

Pedestrian survey transects shall be spaced to allow 100 percent visual coverage of the ground surface. The distance between transect center lines shall be no more than 30-meters (-100-feet) and shall be reduced to account for differences in terrain, vegetation density, and ground surface visibility. Surueyor(s) shall maintain a minimum distance of S0-meters ("1-50-feet) from any owls or occupied burrows. lt is important to minimize disturbance near occupied burrows during all seasons.
lf no occupied burrows or burrowing owls are found in the survey area, a letter report documenting survey methods and findings shall be prepared and no further mitigation is necessary.
lf occupied burrows or burrowing owls are found, then a complete burrowing owl survey is required. This consists of a minimum of four site visits conducted on four separate days, which must also be consistent with the Survey Method, Weather Conditions, and Time of Day sections of Appendix D of the California Fish and Wildlife "Staff Report on Buriowing Owl Mitigation" (March 2Ot2). A survey report shall be prepared that is consistent with the Survey Report section of Appendix D of the California Fish and Wildlife "Stolf Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation" (March 2012).
a lf occupied burrows or burrowing owls are found, the applicant shall contact the City and consult with CDFW prior to construction and will be required to submit a Burrowing Owl Mitigation Plan (subjecttothe approvalof the City and in consultation with California Fish and Wildlife). This plan must document all proposed measures, including avoidance, minimization, exclusion, relocation, or other measures, and include a plan to monitor mitigation success. The a
a
a
City of Folsom 52 March 2022

05/10/2022 Item No.19.

Folsom Corporate Center Apartments ISMND
CDFW "Staff Report on Eurrowing awl Mitigotion" (March 2012) shall be used in the development of the mitigation plan.

White-tailed Kite, Other Raotors, and Misratorv Birds
The project site provides suitable nesting habitat for native songbirds and large trees on and adjacent to the project site provide nesting habitat for white-tailed kite and other raptors. Removal of vegetation containing active nests would potentially result in destruction of eggs and/or chicks; noise, dust, and other anthropogenic stressors in the vicinity of an active nest could lead to forced nest abandonment and mortality of eggs andlor chicks. Needless destruction of eggs or chicks would be a violation of the Fish and Game Code and a significant impact. Pre-construction surveys shall be conducted prior to project implementation to determine if nesting birds are present on or adjacent to the project site, so that measures could be implemented if needed to avoid harming nesting birds.

The following mitigation measure shall be implemented to avoid and minimize adverse effects to nesting birds:

Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Avoid and Minimize lmpacts to Nesting Birds lf project (construction) ground-disturbing or vegetation clearing and grubbing activities commence during the avian breeding season (February 1 through August 31), a qualified biotogist shall conduct a pre-construction nesting bird survey no more than 14 days prior to initiation of project activities and again immediately prior to construction. The survey area shall include suitable raptor nesting habitat within 500-feet of the project boundary (inaccessible areas outside ofthe project site can be surveyed from the site or from public roads using binoculars or spotting scopes). Pre-construction surveys are not required in areas where project activities have been continuous since priorto February 1, as determined by a qualified biologist.

Areas that have been inactive for more than 14 days during the avian breeding season must be re-surveyed prior to resumption of project activities. lf no active nests are identified, no further mitigation is required. lf active nests are identified, the following measure is required:
o A suitable buffer (e.9., typically 300-500-feet for raptors; and 50-100-feet for passerines) shall be established by a qualified biologist around active nests and no construction activities within the buffer shall be allowed until a qualified biologist has determined that the nest is no longer active (i.e., the nestlings have fledged and are no longer reliant on the nest, or the nest has failed). Encroachment into the buffer may occur at the discretion of a qualified biologist. Any encroachment into the buffer shall be monitored by a qualified biologist to determine whether nesting birds are being impacted.

With implementation of the above mitigation measures, potential impacts to special-status species and nesting birds would be less than significant and no additional mitigation measures would be required.

Question b: No lmpact. There are no riparian habitats or other sensitive natural communities in the project site. Therefore, no impact would occur.

Question c: No lmpact. There are no potential wetlands or other waters of the U.S. or waters of the State in the project site. Therefore, no impact would occur.

City of Folsom 53 March2O22

05/10/2022 Item No.19.

Folsom Corporate Center Apartments ISMND
Question d: Less Than Significant Impact. The project would result in a less than significant impact to the movement of native resident wildlife or the use of native wildlife nursery sites, and no mitigation necessary.

Question e: Less than significant with Mitigation lncorporated. A total of 14 trees are found on the project site; one tree (#702) is on Lot 1 and the remaining trees are on Lot 6. Eleven of the 14 trees in the study area are protected underthe City of Folsom Tree Protection Ordinance, as they are native oaks and have a DSH greater than six-inches. Tree # 705 was recommended for removal due to its poor condition. Tree # 702 is considered to be a Heritage tree per City of Folsom and will be preserved on-site as part of the proposed project design. Three of the 14 trees in the study area are not protected (Trees # 256,329, and 330) as they are not native oak species.

Removal of protected trees requires a tree removal permit from the City of Folsom. Mitigation for tree removal includes on- or off-site replacement, payment of in-lieu fees, or credit for preservation of existing trees. Tree replacement shall be done at a ratio of one-inch DSH of tree replaced for each inch DSH of tree removed (1;1 ratio). The replacement value of planted trees is as follows:

I
a
Sapling tree = 0.5-inch DSH
Tree in container less than 15-gallon = O.5-inch DSH
A tree in a 15-gallon container = one-inch DSH,
a A tree in a 24-inch box = two-inch DSH.
o A tree in a 36-inch box or larger = three-inch DSH.

Preserved trees are eligible for a Tree Preservation Credit where a credit of O.S-inch would be given for every one inch preserved. Mitigation for Tree #705 should not be required, due to its poor condition.

Tree Preservation Credit should be given for the conservation of Tree #702, which has a DSH of 41.7' inches and results in a credit of 2O.S-inches. The mitigation required for impacts to the remaining trees totals to 181-inches.

The following mitigation measure would be implemented to avoid and minimize impacts to protected trees:

Mitigation Measure BIO-3: Tree Permit
A Tree Permit Application containing an application form, tree protection and mitigation plan, and arborist report shall be submitted to the City of Folsom by the owner/applicant for issuance of a Tree Work Permit and Tree Removal Permit prior to commencement of any grading or site improvement activities. The tree protection and mitigation plan shall be prepared in collaboration with a qualified arborist and shall be subject to review and approval by the City' ,The tree protection and mitigation plan shall contain the contact information of the project arborist and shall be included in all associated plan sets for the project. a Removal of any protected tree shall be mitigated by planting replacement trees and/or payment of "ln-Lieu" fees on a diameter inch basis in accordance with FMC 12.16.150. The proposed method of mitigation shall be subject to review and approval by the City' a
a
City of Folsom 54 March 2022

05/10/2022 Item No.19.

Folsom Corporate Center Apartments ISMND
o Prior to starting construction, oak trees to be preserved shall be fenced with high visibility fencing consistent with the city-approved tree protection and mitigation plan. Parking of vehicles, equipment, or storage of materials is prohibited within the Tree Protection Zone of Protected Trees at all times. Signs shall be posted on exclusion fencing stating that the enclosed trees are to be preserved. Signs shall state the penalty for damage to, or removal of, the protected tree.

The owner/applicant shall retain the services of a project arborist for the duration of the development project to monitor the health of oak trees to be preserved and carry out the Cityapproved tree protection plan. All regulated activity conducted within the Critical Root Zone of protected trees, as that term is defined in Folsom Municipal Code (FMC) 12.16.02O, shall be performed underthe direct supervision ofthe project arborist. A copy ofthe executed contract for these arboricultural services shall be submitted to the City prior to the issuance of any tree or grading permits
a
Certification letters by the project arborist attesting compliance with the tree protection and mitigation plan and tree permit conditions shall be submitted to the City at the following stages of the project:
o Following completion of grading, prior to issuance of any building permits o At the time of the final inspection, prior to the Certificate of Occupancy Question fr No lmpact. No Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan has been approved for the City of Folsom. Therefore, no impacts to an existing adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan would occur, and no mitigation is necessary.

City of Folsom 55 March 2022

05/10/2022 Item No.19.

Folsom Corporate Center Apartments IsMND
V. CUITURAL RESOURCES
CUITURAt RESOURCES:

Would the project:

Potentlal
lmpact
Less Than
Sltnlflcant
wlth
Mltlgetlon
Lesr Than
Slgnlflcant
lmpact lmpact
No
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance ofa historical resource as defined in 515064.5?
u n
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to 515064.5?
I
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? n
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
n ntr
Cultural resource evaluations prepared for the proposed project have been incorporated by reference and are presented in their entirety in Appendix D.

Environmenlol Setling
State and federal legislation requires the protection of historical and cultural resources. ln 197L, President's Executive Order No. 11593 required that all federal agencies initiate procedures to preserve and maintain cultural resources by nomination and inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. ln 1980, the Governor's Executive Order No. 8-54-80 required that state agencies inventory all "significant historic and cultural sites, structures, and objects under their jurisdiction which are over 50 years of age and which may qualify for listing on the National Register of Historic Places." Section 15064.5(b)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines specifies that projects that cause "...physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historic resource would be materially impaired" shall be found to have a significant impact on the environment. For the purposes of CEQA, an historical resource is a resource listed in, or determined eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources. When a project could impact a resource, it must be determined whether the resource is an historical resource, which is defined as a resource that:
(A) is historically or archaeologically significant, or is significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political or cultural annals of California; and,
(B) Meets any of the following criteria: 1) is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage; 2) is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; 3) embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or 4) has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. The City of Folsom Standard Construction Specifications were developed and approved by the City of Folsom in May 2004 and updated in December 2014. They include Article 11 - Cultural Resources, which provides direction on City of Folsom 56 March 2022

05/10/2022 Item No.19.

Folsom Corporate Center Apartments ISMND
actions to be taken in the event that materials are discovered that may ultimately be identified as a historical or archaeological resource, or human remains (City of Folsom 2014).

Record Seorches ond Pedeslrlon Survey Resulls
This section describes the existing cultural resource setting and potential effects from project implementation on the project site and its surrounding area. The results are based on a record search conducted at the North Central lnformation Center on September 23,2O2I and a pedestrian field survey conducted on November 3,2O2t. This section assesses potential impacts related to historic resources, archaeological resources, and human remains.

North Central lnformation Center Record Seorch
To determine the presence of cultural and historical resources within the project area and a 0.25-mile radius, a record search was conducted at the North Central lnformation Center (NCtC) on September 23, 2021. The record search included a review of National Register of Historic Places (NR), the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR), the California Historical Landmarks (CHL) list, the California Points of Historical lnterest list, the California State Historic Resources lnventory (HRl) listings for Sacramento County, and the Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility (ADOE). Historic maps were also examined to gain insights into past developments and changes within the project area and its surroundings.

The NCIC results indicate that 53 historic resources have been recorded within the 0.25-mile search radius; six resources were recorded as potentially occurring within the project area. The 53 historic resources are primarily scattered debris, ditches, and metal remnants from the Folsom Mining Distract and the Prairie Diggings Placer Mining District. The 53 historic Resources are outlined in Table 8.

Table 8. Previ Documented Resources within the Area
P-34-000335 Hlstorlc- the Folsom Mlnint District
P-3/t-001480 Historic- Segment of the Rhoads' Branch Ditch P-34-002195 Historic.1940s era
P.34.002292 Historic- Placer mining landscape
p-34-002306 Historic- thc Prairie Diggings Placer Mining District P-34-004518 Historic- mid-20th century lattice tower/ part of P-34-000461 Historic- Natomas Ditch- water conveyance system P-34-000648 Prehistoric- lithic scatter and bedrock milling feature P-34-000767 Historic- debris scatter, contributing element to district 34-000335
P-34-000768 Historic- mining camp contributing element to district 34-000335
P-34-000769 Historic- mining camp contributing element to district 34-000335
P"34-000770 Historic- mining camp contributing element to district 34-000335
Trinomial Year Authorlsl
cA-sAc.
000308H
1995 Flint, S.
cA-sAc.
000903H
2005 Jensen, Sean Michael
and Rob McCann
None 2008 Westwood, Lisa
None 1994 Doughtery, John and
David Davis
None 1994 Llndstrom, Susan,
Judy D. Tordoff, and
Darvl G. Noble
None 2012 Crawford, K. A.

CA-SAC- 1989 Shapiro, William A.
000434H
cA-sAc000524
1990 Derr, Eleanor H. and
lohn Dougherty
1990 Derr, Eleanor H. ahd
lohn Douehertv
cA-sAc000589H
cA-sAc000590H1990 Derr, Eleanor H. and
lohn Dougherty
CA.SAC.
000591H
1990 Derr, Eleanor H. and
Ken Mclvers
cA-sAc000592H1990 Derr, Eleanor H. and
Ken Mclvers
City of Folsom 57 March 2022

05/10/2022 Item No.19.

Folsom Corporate Center Apartments ISMND
P-34-OOO774
P-34-OO775
P 34-00776
P-34-00777
P-34-00780
P-34-00783
P-34-00784
P-34-00789
P-34-00790
P-34-00176s
P-34-001771
P-34-O4fi74
P-34-001775
P-34-OO7776
P-34-OOL777
P-34-001778
P-34-001782
P-34-00179s
P-34-001798
P-34-001799
P-34-001800
P-34-001801
P-34-001802
P-34-001803
P-34-001807
P-34-001820
P-34-001926
P-34-002087
P-34-002088
P-34-002089
P-34-002090
P-34-002091
P-34-002287
P-34-OO2288
P-34-OO229t
P-34-002293
P-34-002294
Trinomial Year Authorlsl
1990 Derr, Eleanor H. and
Ken Mclvers
cA-sAc000595H
CA-SAC.
000597H
1990 Derr, Eleanor H, and
Ken Mclvers
cA-sAc000598H
1990 Derr, Eleanor H. and
Ken Mclvers
cA-sAC000s99H
1990 Derr, Eleanor H. and
Ken Mclvers
CA-SAC000502H
1994 D., lW and ET
cA-sAc- 1990 Derr, Eleanor H.
000605H
cA-sAc000506H
1990 Derr, Eleanor H. and
Ken Mclvers
None 1990 Derr, Eleanor H.

None 20t2 Pappas, S., and D.

Quivev
None 2006 Windmiller. Ric
None 2006 Windmiller, Ric Historic- trash scatter. mines None 2006 Windmiller, Ric HistoricNone 2006 Windmiller, Ric None 2006 Windmiller, Ric
None 2006 Windmiller, Ric
None 2006 Windmiller, Ric
None 2006 Windmiller, Ric
None 2005 Windmiller, Ric
None 2006 Windmiller, Ric
None 2006 Windmiller. Ric
None 2006 Windmiller. Ric
cA-sAc001019H2006 Windmiller, Ric
None 2006 Windmiller, Ric
None 2006 Windmiller, Ric HistoricNone 2005 Windmiller, Ric cA-sAc001020H
2005 Windmiller, Ric
None 2006 Windmiller, Ric
None 2006 Windmiller, Ric
cA-sAC001085H2006 Windmiller, Ric
None 2006 Windmiller, Ric
None 2006 Windmiller, Ric
None 2006 Windmiller. Ric
None 1990 Derr, Eleanor H.

None 1990 Derr, Eleanor H, and
Randy Bethard
None 1990 Dougherty, John and
David Davis
Dougherty, John and
David Davis
None 1990
None t994 Teixeria, Emanuel and
John
Prehistoric- lithic scatter and Historic- mining camp
and mines/quarries/tailings contributing element to
district 34-000335
Historic- remains of shed
Historic- The Russi Place -foundations, privies and
trash and
Historic- well/cistern
Historic- stone fence
Historic- stone fence
Historic- privy/d ump/trash scatter
Historic- of chi
Historic- metal drum
Historic- wall
HistoricHistoric- water
HistoricHistoricH
H
HistoricHistoricHistoricHistoric- foundations/structu re pads HistoricHistoric- water
Historic- foundations/structure pads
Historic- drains, dams, mines/qua ilings, and
Historic- m ines/qua rries/tailings, pa rt of H istoric landsca
H istoric- fou ndations/structu re pads
HistoricHistoric- concrete and metal debris
HistoricH istoric- mines/quarri es/tailings, contributing element to district 34-000335
Historic- pick head embedded in quartz, element of
district 34-000335
Historic- mines/quarries/tailinEs, element of district
34-000335
Historic- mines/quarries/tailings and water
element of district 34-000335
Historic- mines/quarries/tailings - mining landscape,
City of Folsom 58
of 34-000335
March2022

05/10/2022 Item No.19.

Folsom Corporate Center Apa rtments ISMND
Trlnomlal Year Authorls)
Dou:hertv
1994 Dougherty, John, Jay
Flaherty and David
Davis
None
None 2013 Westwood, Lisa
None 20t4 Pappas,5. and D.

Quivev
None 2013 Pappas, S. and D.

Quivev
P-34-002295 Historic- mines/qua rries/tai lings, element of district 34-000335
P-34-004667 Historic- Rhoades' Diggings Mining District, including foundation pads, privy/dumps/trash scatters, water
conveyance system, roads/trails/rail road
grades/dams, mines/quarries/tailings, subsumes 34-
oot744
P-34-OO4757 Historic- water conveyance system
P-34-004758 H istoric- mines/quarries/tail ings
The first resource identified, the Folsom Mining District (P-34-000335), was recorded as a variety of elements from the region's historic mining period, including mines, quarries, tailings, mining equipment, habitation sites, roads, railroad grades, water conveyances, and structural foundations. The results of HELIX's NCIC records search indicated that elements of this historic district could be present within both lots of the currently proposed Area of Potential lmpact (APE). Records indicate that the Folsom Mining District taken as a unified entity has been determined to be ineligible for listing on the NRHP and CRHR, but that individual elements within the district may be eligible for listing and that they should be evaluated as eligible or ineligible on a case-by-case basis. This resource was first recorded in 1995 by Sandy Flint.

The second resource identified on the project site is known as the Rhoads Branch Ditch (P-34-001480).

The results of HELIX's NCIC records search indicated that elements of this ditch system could be present within the current APE's Lot 6. The ditch was used for supplying water to most of the mined areas south of Alder Creek, east of Prairie City, and south of the Willow Hill diggings. Since its initial recordation this resource has been incorporated as an element of the American River Placer Mining District, now also known as the Folsom Mining District (P-34-000335). As of the time of ECORP Consulting lnc.'s 2013 survey, the resource is believed to be heavily disturbed from the construction of houses, roads and associated facilities, though portions of the ditch may stillbe in good condition. NRHP and CRHR eligibility have not been determined for this resource.

The third resource, first recorded in 2008 by Lisa Westwood, this resource is a 1940s-era transmission line that extends from Halsey to Newark. lt is composed of metal towers and situated directly east of, and parallel to, two higher capacity, modern transmission lines that bisect the current APE's Lot 1. Built in the early 1940s, the line is now named the Gold Hill-Bellota-Lockford 115kV line. According to maintenance logs on file with PG&E, the line was upgraded in conjunction with the construction of the Gold Hill Substation in 1953, and again in 1975 and 1983. This resource has been determined ineligible for listing on the NRHP and CRHR. Most recently revisited in2O77 by ECORP Consulting lnc. archaeologists, the resource is considered to be in good condition.

The fourth resource was first recorded in 1994 by John Doughtery and David Davis, this site consists of a placer mine located approximately lO-meters north of US Highway 50, along an ephemeral northwest flowing drainage. NCIC maps show the site as intersecting Lot 1's southeast border. This site is considered an element of the Folsom Mining District (P-34-000335), and it abuts several other resources which are also part of the District, including other mining-related ground disturbances, mining camps, City of Folsom 59 March2O22

05/10/2022 Item No.19.

Folsom Corporate Center Apartments ISMND
and historic debris piles associated with mining activities. P-34-OO2292's NRHP and CRHR eligibility has not been determined.

The fifth resource, first recorded in 1994 by Susan Lindstrom, Judy D. Tordoff, and Daryl G, Noble, this site represents the Prairie Diggings Placer Mining District which contains 35 loci of nineteenth century cultural resources pertaining to mining activities and mining camp occupations, These resources include examples of early shallow placer mines; evidence of ground sluicing, drift mining, low-pressure hydraulic mining, and dry land dredging activities; water conveyances; and artifacts and landscape features associated with mining camp operations including personal effects, mining equipment, hearths and roads. The district encompasses approximately 302-acres and represents one of the mining areas within Prairie City's sphere of influence in the 1850s and 60s. The district is situated north of Alder Creek and largely east of Prairie City Road, with Willow Hill Reservoir in its western arm, and it includes the current APE's Lot 1 within its boundaries. As the result of development in the area, the district has suffered significant losses to its site integrity and has been determined ineligible for inclusion on the NRHP and CRHR as of 2OL4.

The sixth resource, first recorded in 2O72 by K.A. Crawford, this site consists of a steel lattice transmission tower located in a large parking lot area in the City of Folsom, immediately adjacent to the current APE's Lot 1. The base of the tower was installed by the Pacific Gas and Electric Company prior to 1957 as part of their expansion of electrical services in the Folsom area. The tower was constructed with bolted steel L-shaped profiles, and as of its recording in 2012 was still in good condition. At the time the tower was also noted as retaining its structural and historic integrity because it had not been significantly altered since its original construction. This resource has been determined ineligible for listing on the NRHP.

A total of 23 reports have been prepared within the search radius, six of which included the project area. These previous reports are outlined in Table 9.

Table 9. Previous Studies Conducted within the Area
Afflllatlon
003925
004520 PAR Environmental
Services, lnc
011136 lnc
011161 Michael Brandman
Associates
011164 Michael Brandman
Associates
011632 Pierce Archaeological
003840 caltrans
004s21 State of California,
Department of
Transportation
District 3
Year Authorlsl Tltle
1990 Derr, EJeanor The Broadstone Master Plan Project: Final Report Historlc Survey Reporl and Historic Resource
Evaluation Report for Slxleen Sites, Highway 50
lnterchango Project Posl Mile lE.8 TO 23.1,
Sacramanto Countv. California
1992 Maniern Mary
20L2 Billat. Lorna Collocalion ("GO") Submission Packet FCC Form 621 Direct APE Historic Archltectural Assessment for TMobile llllast, LLC Candidate SC06934A (HyllY 50 - Scotl Road), 2155 lron Road, Folsom, Sacramento
Corrntv- Californie
20L2 Crawford,
Kathleen
2012 Wills, Carrle Cultural Resources Records Search and Site Visit Results for T-Moblle West, LLC Gandidate SC06934A
(Hrfly 50 - Scoft Road), 2{ 55 lron Point Road, Folsom, Sacramento Counfu- Callfornia
20L4 Pierce, Wendy Wlllow Hill Reservoir Trail ProJect, Cultural Resource lnvantory, Gity of Folsom, Sacrtmento
L994 Tordoff, Proposed lnterchange and Auxiliary Lanes Highway 50 Judv 1994 Novle, Daryl G, Histodo Properly Survey Report for a Proposed lnterchange and Auxiliery Lanes on Highway 50 in Eastern Sacramenlo County, California 0$SAC-50 P.M. 17.'t120.1
03101-394500
City of Folsom 60 March2O22

05/10/2022 Item No.19.

Folsom Corporate Center Apartments ISMN D
00452s
o07tzt
008736
009579
011001
011337
011408
oL7728
011894
012049
012053
012088
012419
012458
012520
Ycar Authorlsl nrb
1991 Maniery, Mary Archaeological Survey Report for the Highway 50 lnlerchange Project, Post Mile 15.8 to Post Mile 23.1 , Sacramento Countv. Calllomia
2004 Clark, Matthew The Status of Cultural Resources Research for the Kaiser Folsom Project Area in lhe City of Folsom, Sacramento
Countv. CA
Carpenter Ranch Cultural Resources lnventory, Folsom,
Sacramento County, California
2006 Windmiller, Ric
2008 Losee, Carolyn Submission Packet, FCC Form 621, for exisling Telecommunications Facility, Folsom AT&T
2072 Westwood, Lisa
and Stephen
Pappas
Folsom South of US Highway 50 Specific Plan Project
Preliminary Historic Properlles Synthesis Report
Sacramento County, California Project No. 2005.429.1
Knapp, Katherine,
and Lisa
Westwood
Cultural Resources Testing and Evaluation Report for the Mangini Ranch APE, Folsom South of U.S. Highway 50
Specilic Plan Project, Sacramento County, California
ECORP Proiect No. 2012-037.1
2013
2072 Westwood, Lisa,
Katherine Knapp,
Stephen Pappat
David Quivey, and
Roger Mason
Cultural Resources Testing and Evaluation Report for the Carpenter Ranch Permit Area, Folsom South of U.S.

Highway 50 Specific Plan Project; Cultural Resources
lnventory Report for the Carpenter Ranch APE within the Folsom South of Highway 50 Specilic Plan
Historic Property Treatment Plan fcr the Non-Backbone
Prahie City Road Business Park Permit Area, Folsom
South of U.S. Highway 50 Specific Plan Project
Sacramento Counfu . CaliJornia
2014 Westwood, Lisa
Westwood, Lisa
and Katherine
Knaoo
Finding of Effect Report for lhe Arcadian Heights APE
Folsom South of U.S. Highway 50 Specilic Plan Project
Sacramento County, California
2014
Light Datection and Ranging (LIDAR) data for the Folsom South of U.S. Highway 50 Specific Plan Projoct.
cenerated in compliance with Section 4.4 of the approved (August 2013) Historic Property Treatment Plan for the
Backbone lnfrastructure oermit aree (SPK-2007-02159).
2015 Westwood, Lisa
Data Recovery Report for Archaeological Sites in the
Backbone lnfrastructure Area of Potential Eftects, Folsom South of U.S. Highway 50 Specific Plan Project,
Sacramento County, California, ECORP Project No.2005-
479 6
2015 Westwood, Lisa
Historic Properly Treatment for the Non-Backbone Prairie City Road Business Park Permit Area, Folsom South of
U.S. Highway 50 Specific Plan Project, Sacramento
Countu- California {ECORP Proiect No. 2009-'168.8)
2015 Westwood, Lisa
and (atherine
Knapp
2013 (napp, Katherine
and Lisa
Westwood
Historic Property Treatment Plan for the Backbone
lnfraslructure Permit Area, Folsom South of U.S. Highway 50 Specific Plan Project, Sacramento County, California 201s Westwood, Lisa,
Jeremy Adams,
Stephen Pappas,
Susan Lindstrom,
and Roser Mason
Folsom South of U.S. Highway 50 Specific Plan Project,
Historic Properties Management Plan, Sacramento
County, California
2016 Westwood, Lisa Cultural Resources lnventory Updale for the 2.72-ase Broadstone Oaks Crossing APE Within the Broadstone
Master Plan Proiect Area, ECORP Proiect No. 2015-049
Afflllatlon
PAR Environmental
Services
None Listed
Consulting
Professional
ECORP Consulting,
lnc.

ECORP Consulting,
lnc.

ECORP Consulting,
lnc.

ECORP Consulting,
lnc.

ECoRP Consulting,
lnc.

ECORP Consulting,
lnc.

ECORP Consulting,
lnc.

ECORP Consulting,
lnc.

ECORP Consulting,
lnc.

ECORP Consulting,
lnc.
lnc.

City of Folsom 61 March2O22

05/10/2022 Item No.19.

Folsom Co Center rtments ISMND
Pedestrian Survey
On Novembet 3,2O2!, HELIX Senior Archaeologist Clarus Backes R.P.A, conducted a pedestrian survey to characterize any prehistoric or historic-era archaeological resources located on the surface of the Area of Potential Effects (APE). During the survey, the ground surface throughout both parcels of the APE were examined for the presence of historic-era artifacts (e.g, metal, glass, ceramics), prehistoric artifacts (e.g., flaked stone tools, tool-making debris), and other features that might represent human activity that took place more than 50 years ago. Further, a concerted effort was made to locate the six cultural resources identified during the NCIC records search as lying within or adjacent to the current APE.

Representative photographs taken during the survey are presented in Appendix D. The surveys of each individual lot (Lot 1 and Lot 5) are presented separately below.

Lot 7
Lot l's ground surface can be characterized as slightly undulating, with a gradual (5-10 percent) slope downhill to the southwest (Photos 1 and 2). There is also a short, steep downslope from Lot 1's northeastern boundary north towards the nearby medical center parking lot (Photo 3). The entire Lot was found to be covered with dense, nonnative grasses approximately 24-inches high, and as a result surface visibility for the pedestrian survey was very poor (less than five percent visibility). Ground soils that were visible, however, proved to be brownish-red sandy silt with large pebbles and small cobble inclusions that are angular and granitic. There were also loose, large quartz cobbles and small boulders scattered throughout the area.

Overall, the area showed signs of moderate ground disturbance, with recent tire tracks crossing the Lot from all directions. There were also several small borrow pits and push piles, as well as several small concentrations of broken asphalt and rounded river cobbles that appear to have been brought in from off-site (Photos 4 and 5). Further, at the time of survey, the entire Lot was covered with a thin scatter of modern roadside debris.

Five cultural resources identified during the NCIC records search were found lying within or adjacent to Lot 1. They are as follows: P-34-000335, P-34-O22195, P-34-002292, P-34-OO2306 and P-34-004518. The pedestrian survey revealed that no elements or cultural resources that could be associated with the historic Folsom Mining District (P-34-000335), the Prairie Diggings Placer Minlng District (P-34-002305), or the mining feature listed as an element of the Folsom Mining District lP-34-O02292). Cultural resource P-34-O22L95 is a 1940s era lattice metal tower. HELIX's pedestrian survey did not encounter any evidence of that mining feature within Lot t. P-34-004518 is a mid-twentieth century metal lattice transmlssion tower. HELIX's pedestrian survey of Lot 1 encountered this resource and noted that there had been no significant changes to its condition or character since its initial recordation by archaeologist K.A. Crawford in 2012.

Lot 6
Lot 6's ground surface gently rises from the northeast to the southwest through a series of low artificial terraces (Photo 7). The lot is covered with dense nonnative grasses, though they were shorter than those found on Lot 1, allowing for slightly better ground surface visibility (a little less than 10 percent).

There is also a small stand of oak trees in the lot's southwest corner (Photo 8). A few disturbed areas within the lot exposed bare soils which proved to be brown sandy silt with angular large pebbles and small cobbles, and include concentrations of gray and red slate. Overall, Lot 5 is considerably more disturbed than Lot 1, with tire tracks, small, graded areas, and push piles visible throughout the survey City of Folsom 62 March 2022

05/10/2022 Item No.19.

Folsom Corporate Center Apartments ISMN D
area. ln addition, along the lot's northeastern boundary there is a 69- meter long, 18-meter wide concentration of push piles and large granitic boulders (Photo 9). These piles also contained broken up fragments of reinforced concrete. lt is unclear whether these boulders originated from within the lot, or if they were irnported from off-site, but in either case it is clear they are not in their original placements.

Lot 5 also exhibited a thin scatter of industrial debris across the survey area including scrap metal, plastic fragments, and pipe fragments. None of this debris, however, appeared to be indicative of activities taking place on the site more than 45 years ago.

Near the center of the lot is a small, graded depression used as a stormwater control basin. This basin, which was seen holding standing water at the time of the survey, is fed by a small culvert that runs from the Folsom Corporate Center to the south. A ditch extends from this stormwater basin for approximately 40-meters. Together these elements appear to function as a modern water-control feature, rather than one of the historic ditches that have been documented by previous studies in the project vicinity. Two cultural resources identified during the NCIC records search were identified lying within or adjacent to Lot 6. These resources are P-34-000335 and P-34-001480. The pedestrian survey revealed that no elements or cultural resources that could be associated with this historic district (P-34- 000335) or historic ditch (P-34-001480) are located on the ground surface of Lot 6.

Evoluotion of Cullurol Resources
Question ar Less than Significant. Review of historic topographic maps (dating from 1911 to 1975) and historic aerial photographs (dating 1952 to 2018) indicate that Lots 1 and 6 have not undergone any formal development between 1952 and 2018. Characterized during these periods as undulating grassy fields with moderate to sparsely populated oak stands, only tree clearing and dirt road construction activities were made apparent within the APE during HELIX's historic maps and images review, with those activities spanning only between 2002 and 2018. Of the six previously recorded resources that are indicated by the NCIC as potentially lying within or adjacent to the current APE, only two were encountered during HELIX's survey. These include P-34-002195 and P-34-004518, two metal lattice towers constructed for use in electrical transmission lines during the mid-20ih century. The proposed project is not anticipated to have impacts on either of these two resources. Although NCIC records indicate that site P-34-OO2292 might lie within the currently proposed APE, the only traces of historic mining activity spotted during HELIX's pedestrian survey consisted of placer mining spoil piles which lie to the southwest of Lot 1 and outside of the project's APE. Consequently, the current project is not anticipated to impact this resource.
ln the event that cultural resources are exposed during any future ground-disturbing activities, construction activities should be halted in the immediate vicinity of the discovery, lf the site cannot be avoided during the remainder of the construction, an archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the lnterior's Professional Qualifications Standards should then be retained to evaluate the find's significance under CRHR criteria. lf the discovery proves to be significant, additional work, such as data recovery excavation, may be warranted and should be discussed in consultation with the County. With implementation of this guideline, and with consideration that no historic resources are anticipated to be impacted by the project, impacts would be less than significant.

Question b: Less than Significant with Mitigation. On November 2,2021, HELIX requested that the NAHC conduct a search of their SLF for the presence of Native American sacred sites or human remains in the vicinity of the proposed project area. HELIX received a response from NAHC on November 16, City of Folsom 63 March2022

05/10/2022 Item No.19.

Folsom Co Center rtments ISMND
2021, which reported that the SLF search results were negative. However, it is possible that subsurface excavation activities may encounter previously undocumented archaeological resources. The implementation of standard cultural resource construction mitigation (Mitigation Measure CUL-1) would ensure that this impact is less than significant.

Mitigation Measure CU[-l: Avoid and minimize impacts to previously unknown archaeological resources.

It is always possible that ground-disturbing activities during project development may uncover previously unknown archaeological resources. ln the event that archaeological resources are discovered during construction, construction operations shall stop within a 100-foot radius of the find and a qualified archaeologist shall be consulted to determine whether the resource requires further study. The City shall include a standard inadvertent discovery clause in every construction contract to inform contractors of this requirement. The archaeologist shall make recommendations concerning appropriate measures that will be implemented to protect the resources, including but not limited to, excavation and evaluation of the finds in accordance with Section 15054.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. Archaeological resources could consist of, but are not limited to, stone, bone, wood, or shell artifacts or features, including hearths. Any previously undiscovered resources found during construction within the project area should be recorded on appropriate Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 forms and evaluated for significance in terms of CEQA criteria.

Question C: No lmpact. The proposed project area is not located in an area that is considered likely to have paleontological resources present. Paleontological resources (fossils) are remains an/ortraces of prehistoric life. Fossils are typically preserved in layered sedimentary rocks, and the distribution of fossils is a result of the sedimentary historic of the geologic units within which they occur.

Question D: Less than Slgnificant with Mitigation. No human remains are known to exist within the project area, and there were no indications of human remains found during the field survey. However, there is always the possibility that subsurface construction activities associated with the proposed project, such as trenching and grading, could potentially damage or destroy previously undiscovered human remains. Accordingly, this implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-2 would reduce this potential impact to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measure CUL-2: Avoid and minimize impacts related to accidental dlscovery of human remains.
ln the event of the accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, CEQA Guidelines S 15064.5; Health and Safety Code 5 7050.5; Public Resources Code 5 5097.94 and $ 5097.98 must be followed. lf during the course of project development there is accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, the following steps shall be taken:

1. There shall be no further excavation or disturbance within a 100-foot radius of the potentially 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. lf the coroner determines the remains to be Native American, the coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours, and the NAHC shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the "most likely descendant" (MLD) of the deceased Native American. The MLD may make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation City of Folsom 64 March2O22

05/10/2022 Item No.19.

Folsom Corporate Center Apartments ISMND
work within 48 hours, 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.

2. Where the following conditions occur, the landowner or his 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 descendant or on the project site in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance:
o 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.

The descendant identified fails to make a recommendation. o The landowner or his authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the descendant, and mediation by the NAHC fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner.

City of Folsom 55 March2O22

05/10/2022 Item No.19.

Folsom Corporate Center Apartments ISMND
VI. GEOTOGY AND SOITS
GEOI.OGY AND SOIIS:

Would the project:

Potentlal
lmpact
Less lhan
Slgnlflcant
wlth
Mltlgatlon
less lhan
Slgnlflcant
lmpact lmpact
No
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning
Map issued by the State Geologist fot the area or
based on other substantial evidence ofa known fault?
n D
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? I n
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? n D iv. Landslides?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to 515054.5?
tr n
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
n n
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-8 of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?
n n Itr
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
tr n
The following discussion is based in part on the approach, methodology, results, and conclusions outlined in a geotechnical investigation report prepared by Geocon Consultants, lnc. (Geocon 2017). The geotechnical report was prepared for a project located adjacent to Lot 1, and its description ofthe environmental setting and geographic landscape of the area is used in the following analysis, and is included as Appendix E. A NRCS soil report was also prepared, specific to this project (NRCS 2021).

Environmentol Setling
Geologv
The project area is at the base of the western Sierra Nevada foothills and is underlain by metamorphic rocks. Site geology consists of existing fill within the northern portion of the site north of the pond and Jurassic-age Gopher Ridge Volcanics (Jgo) and Salt Springs Slate bedrock (Jss) (Geocon Consulting 2018).

The Foothill fault system is located along the western slope of the Sierra Nevada which is the nearest source of seismic activity to the project site. The Bear Mountain Fault, four miles east of Folsom, is a City of Folsom 55 March 2022

05/10/2022 Item No.19.

Folsom Co Center rtments ISMND
potentially active trace of the Foothills fault system (CDC 2018b). Although historic seismic activity has been minor along this fault, the potential for strong ground shaking is present. An earthquake on the Bear Mountain fault could cause bedrock accelerations up to 0.35 g (acceleration of gravity).

The State Division of Mines and Geology has published a map of maximum potential earthquake intensities for California. The project area is within seismic risk Zone 3 (State Division of Mines and Geology 2015). A maximum credible earthquake (Richter scale magnitude 6.5) on the Bear Mountain Fault could cause ground shaking of modified Mercalli scale intensity Vll or greater, and subsequently cause major damage to structures and injury to people (Folsom, USBR 1992).

The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Act was passed in t972 to mitigate the hazard of surface faulting to structures designed for human occupancy. The purpose of the Act is to prevent the construction of buildings used for human occupancy on the surface trace of active faults. No active or potentially active faults are located within the project site or in the project vicinity as mapped under the Act (CDC 2018b),
Soils
Soils on the project site are mapped as Whiterock loam (Lot 1 and Lot 5) and Argonaut-Auburn complex (Lot 1). Whiterock loam soil is somewhat excessively drained, and Argonaut-Auburn complex soil is welldrained (NRCS 2018).

Citv Reeulation of GeoloEv and So-ils
The City of Folsom regulates the effects of soils and geological constraints on urban development primarily through enforcement of the California Building Code, which requires the implementation of engineering solutions for constraints to urban development posed by slopes, soils, and geology. The City as additionally adopted a Grading Code (Folsom Municipal Code Section 14.29)that regulates grading citywide to control erosion, storm water drainage, revegetation, and ground movement.

Evoluotion of Geology ond Solls
Question a (i): No lmpact. There are no active or potentially active faults located within the project site, or in the project vicinity as mapped under the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Act (CDC 2018b).

Because no faults underlie the project site, no impact would result, and no mitigation would be necessary,
Question a (iif : Less than Significant lmpact. The project area is within seismic risk Zone 3, and a maximum credible earthquake on the Bear Mountain Fault could cause ground shaking of modified Mercalli scale intensity Vll or greater, and subsequently cause major damage to structures and injury to people within the project area. While earthquake-induced ground shaking could occur in the project vicinity, historically, seismic activity in the Folsom area has been limited. Further, the proposed project would be constructed in accordance with standards imposed by the City of Folsom through the Grading Code, and in compliance with California Building Code requirements. Potential impacts would be reduced to levels considered acceptable in the City and region. As a result, the project would not expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects of seismic events. This would be a less than significant impact and no mitigation would be required.

City of Folsom 67 March 2022

05/10/2022 Item No.19.

Folsom Corporate Center Apartments ISMND
Question a (iiif Less than Significant lmpact. Liquefaction is a process by which water-saturated materials, such as soil and sediment lose strength and fail during strong ground shaking. Liquefaction occurs when granular material is transformed from a solid state into a liquefied state as a consequence of increased water pressure. Liquefaction is most commonly induced by strong ground shaking associated with ea rthquakes.

Factors that contribute to liquefaction potential include soiltype, the level and duration of seismic ground motions, the type and consistency of soils, and the depth to groundwater. Liquefaction can occur where unconsolidated sediments and a high-water table coincide. Loose sands and peat deposits are susceptible to liquefaction, while clayey silts, silty clays, and clays deposited in freshwater environments are generally stable under the influence of seismic ground shaking. According to the soils mapping for the site, both the Argonaut-Auburn complex soils (present on Lot 1) and the Whiterock loam soils (present on Lot l and Lot 6) onsite have a depth tothe watertable greaterthan 80 inches (NRCS 2018).

The soils on both parcels do not contain the characteristics typical of solls most susceptible to liquefaction, and because the depths to groundwater are more than 80 inches below the ground surface, it is unlikely that the proposed project would be exposed to liquefaction hazards. Further, the proposed project would be constructed in accordance with standards imposed by the City through the Grading Code, and in compliance with California Building Code requirements. Compliance with these regulations would further reduce potential impacts related to liquefaction. lmpacts as a result of seismic-related ground failure or liquefaction hazard at the project site would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required.

Question a (iv): less than Significant lmpact. There is a potential that the proposed project could be exposed to the effects of earthquake-induced ground shaking; however, standards imposed by the City of Folsom through the Grading Code and compliance with California Building Code requirements would reduce this potential impact to levels considered acceptable in the City and region. Likewise, the moderate potential effects from weak soils and water erosion hazards would be minimized through implementation of these standards. There would be no potential for impacts associated with rupture of a known earthquake fault, and less than significant impacts associated with strong seismic ground shaking, seismic-related ground failure, landslides, soil erosion or loss of topsoil, unstable soils, and expansive soils. Overall impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.

Question b: Less than Significant lmpact. Soils on the project site are well drained; however, ArgonautAuburn soil has a high runoff potential, which would indicate a higher potential for water erosion.

Ground disturbing activities during construction of the project would further increase the potential for soil erosion.

The California Building Code and the City's Grading Code and standard conditions for approval contain requirements to minimize or avoid potential effects from water erosion hazards. As a condition of approval, prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit, the City would require the applicant to prepare a soils report, a detailed grading plan, and an erosion control plan by a qualified and licensed engineer. The soils report would identify soil hazards, including potential impacts from erosion. The City would be required to review and approve the erosion control plan based on the State of California Department of Conservation's "Erosion and Control Handbook." The erosion control plan would identifo protective measures to be implemented during excavation, temporary stockpiling, disposal, and revegetation activities.

City of Folsom 58 March2O22

05/10/2022 Item No.19.

Folsom Corporate Center Apartments ISMND

GREENHOUSE GAS

ATMOSPHERIC IIFETIME
(vears)
GtOEAt WARMING POTENTIAT
(100-year time horizonl
Carbon Dioxide (COz) 50.o-200.o t
Methane (CHr) 12.0 25
Nitrous Oxide (NzO) 174.O 298
HFC-134a L4 1,430
PFC: Tetrafluorometha ne (CF+) 50,000.0 7,390
PFC: Hexafluoroethane (CzFe) 10,000.0 72,200
Sulfur Hexafluoride (SFe) 3,200.0 22,800
Table 10. Global Potentials and lifetimes
HFC: hydrofluorocarbons; PFC: perfluorocarbons
Source: IPCC 2007.

Reeulatorv Framework Relatins to Greenhouse Gas Emissions AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2005, recognizes that California is a source of substantial amounts of GHG emissions. The statute states thatr Global warming poses a serious threat to the economic wellbeing, public health, natural resources, and the environment of California. The potential adverse impacts of global warming include the exacerbation of air quality problems, a reduction in the quality and supply of water to the state from the Sierra snowpack, a rise in sea levels resulting in the displacement of thousands of coastal businesses and residences, damage to marine ecosystems and the natural environment, and an increase in the incidences of infectious diseases, asthma, and other human hea lth-related problems.
ln order to help avert these potential consequences, AB 32 established a State goal of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020, which.was a reduction of approximately 16 percent from forecasted emission levels, with further reductions to follow. ln addition, AB 32 required CARB develop a Scoping Plan to help the state achieve the targeted GHG reductions. ln 201.5, Executive Order (EO) B-30- 15 established California GHG emission reduction targets of 40 percent below 1990levels by 2030 and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. The EO aligns California's GHG emission reduction targets with those of leading international governments, including the 27 nation European Union. California met the target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 202O, as established in AB 32. As a followup to AB 32 and in response to EO-B-30-15, Senate Bill (SB) 32 was passed by the California legislature in 2015 to codify the EO's California GHG emission reduction target of 40 percent below 1.990 levels by 2030.
ln December 2008, CARB adopted its first version of its Climate Change Scoping Plan (Scoping Plan), which contained the main strategies California was to implement to achieve the mandate of AB 32 to reduce statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The Scoping Plan establishes an overall framework for the measures to be adopted to reduce California's GHG emissions. The Scoping Plan evaluates opportunities for sector-specific reductions, integrates all CARB and Climate Action Team early actions and additional GHG reduction measures by both entities, identifies additional measures to be pursued as regulations, and outlines the role of a cap-and-trade program City of Folsom 7t March 2022

05/10/2022 Item No.19.

Folsom Corporate Center Apartments ISMND
On December 14,2017, CARB adopted the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan (2017 Scoping Plan), which lays out the framework for achieving the mandate of SB 32 (2016)to reduce statewide GHG emissions to at least 40 percent below 1990 levels by the end of 2030 (CARB 2017).

The 2017 Scoping Plan includes guidance to local governments in Chapter 5, including plan-level GHG emissions reduction goals and methods to reduce communitywide GHG emissions. ln its guidance, CARB recommends that "local governments evaluate and adopt robust and quantitative locally-appropriate goals that align with the statewide per capita targets and the State's sustainable development objectives and develop plans to achieve the local goals." CARB further states that "it is appropriate for local jurisdictions to derive evidence-based local per capita goals [or some other metric] that the local jurisdiction deems appropriate, such as mass emissions or per service population, based on local emissions sectors and population projections that are consistent with the framework used to develop the statewide per capita targets" (CARB 2017).

As part of the 2035 General Plan, the City prepared an integrated Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Strategy (Appendix Ato the 2035 General Plan; adopted August 28, 2018). The purpose ofthe Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Strategy (GHG Strategy) is to identify and reduce current and future community GHG emissions and those associated with the City's municipal operations. The GHG Strategy includes GHG reduction targets to reduce GHG emissions (with a 2005 baseline year) by 15 percent in 2020, 51 percent in 2035, and 80 percent in 2050. The GHG Strategy identifies policies within the City of Folsom General Plan that would decrease the City's emissions of greenhouse gases. The GHG Strategy also satisfies the requirements of CEQA to identify and mitigate GHG emissions associated with the General Plan Update as part of the environmental review process and serves as the City's "plan for the reduction of greenhouse gases", per Section 15183.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, which provides the opportunity for tiering and streamlining of project-level emissions for certain types of discretionary projects subject to CEQA review that are consistent with the General Plan (City 2018).

Evoluolion of Greenhouse Gos Emissions
The final determination of whether or not a project has a significant effect is within the purview of the lead agency pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(b). The City's GHG Strategy, described above, is a qualified plan for the reduction of greenhouse gases pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5.

Consistency with the GHG Strategy may be used to determine the significance of the project's GHG emissions.

The City's 2035 General Plan Policy NCR 3.2.8 and GHG Strategy include criteria to determine whether the potential greenhouse gas emissions of a proposed project are significant {City 2018).

NCR 3.2.8 Streamlined GHG Analysis for Projects Consistent with the General Plan Projects subject to environmental review under CEQA may be eligible for tiering and streamlining the analysis of GHG emissions, provided they are consistent with the GHG reduction measures included in the General Plan and ElR. The City may review such projects to determine whether the following criteria are met:

Proposed project is consistent with the current general plan land use designation for the project site;
City of Folsom 72 March2O22

05/10/2022 Item No.19.

Folsom Corporate Center Apartments ISMND
Further, projects resulting in one or more acre of ground disturbance require a General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit and a National Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). Use of the permit requires the preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)for approval by the SWRCB. The plan would contain best management practices to reduce potential impacts to water quality during construction of the project.

Compliance with the City's regulations, the California Building Code requirements, and implementation of the SWPPP would reduce potential impacts related to soil erosion from water to less than significant and no mitigation would be required.

Question c: Less than Significant lmpact. Lot 1 is mapped as Argonaut-Auburn soil {91.9%), and Whiterock loam (8.1 percent), and Lot 5 is mapped as Whiterock loam. The NRCS does not have information regarding the stability of Argonaut-Auburn complex soils, nor Whiterock loam (NRCS 2018) However, the project area is not noted for unstable geologic formations susceptible to landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. Compliance with the City's regulations and the California Building Code would minimize potential impacts from weak or unstable soils. Therefore, impacts related to unstable soils would be less than significant, and no additional mitigation would be necessary.

Question d: Less than Significant lmpact. Expansive soils shrink and swell in response to changes in moisture levels. The changes in soil volumes can result in damage to structures including building foundations, and infrastructure, if the project design does not appropriately accommodate the changing soil conditions. The parcels are mapped as Argonaut-Auburn complex (Unit 107) and Whiterock loam (Unit 237), and NRCS does not have information regarding the shrink-swell of this soil type (NRCS 2018).

The geotechnical report noted that soils of the study area (Argonaut-Auburn complex) do not have a high potential for shrink and swell (Geocon 20771. The proposed project would be designed to meet seismic safety requirements specified in the California Building Code, including standards to minimize impacts from expansive soils. Therefore, impacts related to the potential hazards of construction on expansive soils would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.

Question e: No lmpact, The proposed project would tie into the City of Folsom's wastewater system and no on-site wastewater disposal would occur. No significant impacts from or to geophysical features or hazards would occur with implementation of the proposed project and no mitigation is required.

City of Folsom 69 March2022

05/10/2022 Item No.19.

Folsom Corporate Center Apartments ISMND
VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS:

Would the proiectr
Potentlal
lmpact
Less Than
Slgnlflcant
wlth
Mltlgatlon
Lesr Than
Slgnlflcant
lmpact lmpact
No
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
bl Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
n n
HELIX Environmental Planning, lnc. completed the City's Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy Consistency Checklist for the proposed project. This checklist is presented in Appendix B.

Environmentol Setting
Climate change refers to any significant change in measures of climate, such as average temperature, precipitation, or wind patterns over a period of time. Climate change may result from natural factors, natural processes, and human activities that change the composition of the atmosphere and alter the surface and features of the land. Significant changes in global climate patterns have recently been associated with global warming, which is an average increase in the temperature of the atmosphere near the Earth's surface; this is attributed to an accumulation of greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) in the atmosphere. GHGs trap heat in the atmosphere which, in turn, increases the Earth's surface temperature. Some GHGs occur naturally and are emitted to the atmosphere through natural processes, while others are created and emitted solely through human activities. The emission of GHGs through fossil fuel combustion in conjunction with other human activities appears to be closely associated with globalwarming.

GHGs, as defined under California's Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CHa), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFC), perfluorocarbons (PFC), and sulfur hexafluoride (SFe). General discussions on climate change often include water vapor, ozone, and aerosols in the GHG category. Water vapor and atmospheric ozone are not gases that are formed directly in the construction or operation of development projects, nor can they be controlled in these projects. Aerosols are not gases. While these elements have a role in climate change, they are not considered by either regulatory bodies, such as CARB, or climate change groups, such as the Climate Registry, as gases to be reported or analyzed for control. Therefore, no further discussion of water vapor, ozone, or aerosols is provided, GHGs vary widely in the power of their climatic effects; therefore, climate scientists have established a unit called globalwarming potential (GWP), The GWP of a gas is a measure of both potency and lifespan in the atmosphere as compared to COr. For example, since CHa and NzO are approximately 25 and 298 times more powerful than COz, respectively, in their ability to trap heat in the atmosphere, they have GWPs of 25 and 298, respectively (COz has a GWP of 1). Carbon dioxide equivalent (COze) is a quantity that enables all GHG emissions to be considered as a group despite their varying GWP. The GWP of each GHG is multiplied by the prevalence of that gas to produce COze. The atmospheric lifetime and GWP of selected GHGs are summarized in Table 10.

City of Folsom 70 March 2022

05/10/2022 Item No.19.

Folsom Corporate Center Apartments ISMND
Proposed project incorporates all applicable GHG reduction measures (as documented in the Climate Change Technical Appendix to the General Plan EIR) as mitigation measures in the CEQA document prepared forthe projecU and,
Proposed project clearly demonstrates the method, timing and process for which the project will comply with applicable GHG reduction measures and/or conditions of approval, (e.g., using a CAP/GHG reduction measures consistency checklist, mitigation monitoring and reporting plan, or other mechanism for monitoring and enforcement as appropriate).

Question a: Less than Significant lmpact with Mitigation. GHG emissions would be generated by the project during construction (vehicle engine exhaust from construction equipment, on-road hauling trucks, vendor trips, and worker commuting trips) and during long-term operation (electricity and natural gas use, electricity resulting from water consumption; solid waste disposal, and vehicle engine exhaust). To determine significance of the project's GHG emissions, the City's Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy Consistency Checklist was completed (City of Folsom 202La; included as Appendix B):

Part 1l Land Use Consistency
The proposed project is consistent with the City's 2035 General Plan land use and zoning designations?
Both project parcels are designated as lndustriaUOffice Park (lND) in the Folsom 2035 General Plan. The project proposes a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation for both parcels to multi-family high density residential (MHD). Current zoning for Lot 1 is Limited Manufacturing Planned Development (M-1, PD), and current zoning for Lot 5 is Business and Professional Planned Development (B-P, PD). The proposed project would require a rezone at Lot 1 from M-L to R-4, and a rezone at Lot 5 from B-P to R-4. The Planned Development combining zone would remain. ln accordance with the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy ConsistencyChecklist, if the projectwould require a change in land use designation or a rezone, consistency is determined by calculating the estimated the GHG emissions resulting from maximum buildout of the project site allowed using the current zoning and using the proposed zoning change. lf the land use designation/zoning change would not result in an increase in annual GHG emissions, the project would be consistent (City 2021a).

An office building would be an allowable use for both the M-L and B-P zones. The maximum allowable lot coverage for an office building is 60 percent and a maximum of two stories are allowed. The resulting maximum buildout of both project parcels under the existing zoning would be office buildings totaling 623,600-SF of floor space. Using CalEEMod and all model defaults, 623,600-SF of general office building would result in approximately 6,075-MT COze per year.

Under the proposed land use designation/zoning, one apartment per 1,700-SF of lot area would be allowed, resulting in a maximum buildout of 304 apartments. Using CalEEMod and model defaults, 304 low-rise apartments would result in approximately 2,43l-MT COze per year. This would be 60 percent lower than the GHG emissions for maximum buildout under the current land use designation/zoning, and the project would be consistent with GHG emissions a
a
City of Folsom 73 March2O22

05/10/2022 Item No.19.

Folsom Corporate Center Apartments ISMND
generated by buildout of the 2035 General Plan. The CalEEMod output files are included in Appendix B.

Part 2: GHG Reduction Measures Consistency (only applicable measures shown); E-1 Building energy Sector: The project will exceed the requirements of the 2015 California Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24, Part 5) by 15 percent or more? Consistent. The project would meet the requirement of the 2019 California Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24, Part 6), including the requirements for onsite photovoltaic electricity generations (solar panels). According to the California Energy Commission (CEC), once rooftop solar electricity generation is factored in, homes built under the 2019 standards will use about 53 percent less energy than those under the 2016 standards (CEC 2018).

T-1 Mix of Uses: The project is a mixed-use building with two or more uses (i.e., residential, commercial, office, etc.) or if the site is S-acres or larger there are two or more uses on the site connected by protected pedestrian paths (e.9., sidewalks, elevated walkways)excluding driveways? Consistent. The project is larger than s-acres and is located within the Folsom Corporate Center.

With implementation of the project, the Folsom Corporate Center would contain a mix of uses including residential, office, medical office, and light manufacturing/research and development.

Sidewalks andlor pedestrian paths would connect the project residences with adjacent land uses.

T-3 Birycle Parking: Project provides five percent more bicycle parking spaces than required in the City's Municipal Code?
Consistent with mitigation. Mitigation Measure GHG-l would require the installation of bicycle parking 5 percent or more higher than the requirements of City Code section 17.57.090 (for a total of 54 bicycle parking spaces).

T-5 High-Performance Diesel (Construction only): Use high-performance diesel (also known as Diesel-HPR or Reg-9000/RHD) for construction equipment? Consistent with mitigation. Mitigation Measure GHG-2 would require the use of highperformance diesel for all project construction activities.

T-8 Electric Vehicle Charging (Residential): For multifamily projects with 17 or more dwelling units, provide electric vehicle charging in five percent of total parking spaces? Consistent with mitigation. Mitigation Measure GHG-3 would require installation of electrical vehicle charging stations in a minimum of five percent of the total parking spaces on the project site.

SW-1 Enhanced Construction Waste Diversion: Project diverts to recycle or salvage at least 65 percent of nonhazardous construction and demolition waste generated at the project site in accordance with Appendix A4 (Residential) of CALGreen?
Consistent with mitigation. Mitigation Measure GHG-4 would require a minimum of 65 percent City of Folsom 74 March 2022

05/10/2022 Item No.19.

Folsom Corporate Center Apartments ISMND
of nonhazardous construction and demolition waste to be diverted, recycled or salvaged.

W-1 Water Efficiency: For new residential and non-residential projects, the project will comply with all applicable indoor and outdoor water efficiency and conseruation measures required under CALGreen Tier 1?
Consistent with mitigation. Mitigation Measure GHG-s would require implementation of all 2019 CALGreen Tier 1 applicable indoor and outdoor water efficiency and conservation measures.

With implementation of Mitigation Measures GHG-1 through -5, the project would be consistent with the City's GHG Strategy. Therefore, the project would not generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment, and the impact would be less than significant with mitigation.

Mititation Measure GHG-I: Bicycle Parking
ln accordance with the City General Plan GHG Reduction Measure T-3, the project shall provide a minimum of five percent more bicycle parking than required in the City's Municipal Code Section

77.57.O9O (for a total of 54 bicycle parking spaces).

Mitigation Measure GHG-2: High-Performance Diesel
ln accordance with the City General Plan GHG Reduction Measure T-5, the project shall use highperformance diesel (also known as Diesel-HPR or ReB-9000/RHD) for all diesel-powered equipment utilized in construction of the project.

Mitigation Measure GHG-3: Electric Vehicle Charging
ln accordance with the City General Plan GHG Reduction Measure T-8, the project shall provide electric vehicle charging stations in five percent of the total surface parking spaces on the project site (for a total of 16 EV charging stations).

Mitigation Measure GHG4: Enhanced Construction Waste Diversion In accordance with the City General Plan GHG Reduction Measure SW-1, the project shall divert to recycle or salvage a minimum 55 of nonhazardous construction and demolition waste generated at the project site in accordance with Appendix A4 (Residential) of the as outlined in the California Green Building Standards Code (2019 CALGreen).

Mitigation Measure GHG-5: Water Efficiency
ln accordance with the City General Plan GHG Reduction Measure W-1, the project shall comply with all applicable indoor and outdoor water efficiency and conservation measures required under 2019 CALGreen Tier 1, as outlined in the California Green Building Standards Code.

Question b: Less than Significant lmpact. There are numerous State plans, policies, and regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. The principal overall State plan and policy is AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2005. The quantitative goal of AB 32 is to reduce GHG City of Folsom 75 March 2022

05/10/2022 Item No.19.

Folsom Corporate Center Apartments ISMND
emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. SB 32 would require further reductions of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. The mandates of AB 32 and SB 32 are implanted at the state level by the CARB's Scoping Plan. Because the project's operational year is post-2020, the project aims to reach the quantitative goals set by SB 32. Statewide plans and regulations such as GHG emissions standards for vehicles (AB 1493), the LCFS, and regulations requiring an increasing fraction of electricity to be generated from renewable sources are being implemented at the statewide level; as such, compliance at the project level is not addressed. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with those plans and regulations.

The Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (MTP/SCS) for Sacramento County is the 2020 MTP/SCS adopted by the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) on November t8,20L9.The 2020 MTP/SCS lays out a transportation investment and land use strategy to support a prosperous region, with access to jobs and economic opportunity, transportation options, and affordable housing that works for all residents. The plan also lays out a path for improving our air quality, preserving open space and natural resources, and helping California achieve its goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (SACOG 2019). The transportation sector is the largest source of GHG emissions in the state, A project's GHG emissions from cars and light trucks are directly correlated to the project's vehicle miles traveled (VMT). According to the Transportation lmpact Study prepared for the project, the project is anticipated to generate 18 percent less VMT per capita than the regional residential average (T. Kear Transportation Planning and Management, lnc. 2021). This VMT reduction exceeds the 15 percent reduction required by SB 743. ln addition to regional VMT projections, SACOG utilizes local growth projections to develop the strategies and measures in the 2020 MTP/SCS, As discussed in question a), above, the change in land use and zoning would result in lower maximum potential GHG emissions compared to current General Plan land use/growth assumptions. Therefore, the regional VMT and population growth resulting from implementation of the project would be consistent with the assumptions used in the 2020 MTP/scs.

As discussed in question a), above, with implementation of Mitigation Measures GHG-01 through GHG05, the project would be consistent with the City's GHG Strategy, a qualified plan for the reduction of greenhouse gases pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5. Therefore, the project would not conflict with CARB's 2017 Scoping Plan, the SACOG's 2020 MTP/SCS, or the City's GHG Strategy, and the impact would be less than significant with mitigation.

City of Folsom 76 March 2022

05/10/2022 Item No.19.

Folsom Corporate Center Apartments ISMND
VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIAIS
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIATS:

Would the project:

Potentlal
lmpact
Less lhan
Slgnlficant
whh
Mltlgatlon
Less Than
Slgnlflcant
Impact
No
lmpact
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
n n
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
! n
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within onequarter mile of an existing or proposed school? L
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the environment?
n n n
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
tr
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
tr n I
g) lmpair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
tr n
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
tr
Environmenlol Setling
Lot 1 and Lot 5 are currently undeveloped and have no past land uses associated with potentially hazardous sites. The schools located nearest to the project site are: Folsom High School, located approximately 1-mile west of the project site; Sandra J. Gallardo Elementary School, located approximately 1.20-miles west of the project site; and, Gold Ridge Elementary School, located 0.3-mile north of the project site.

The following databases were reviewed for the project site and surrounding area to identify potential hazardous contamination sitesr the US EPA's EnviroStor website database (EPA 2021); and the US EPA s Superfund National Priorities List (EPA 2021). Based on the results of the databases reviewed, the project site is not listed as a hazardous waste site.

City of Folsom 77 March2022

05/10/2022 Item No.19.

Folsom Corporate Center Apartments ISMND
Federal and state laws include provisions for the safe handling of hazardous substances. The federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) administers requirements to ensure worker safety. Construction activity must also be in compliance with the California OSHA regulations (Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970).

Evoluolion of Hozords ond Hozordous Moteriols
euestion a, b, c: less than Significant lmpact. No existing hazardous materials have been identified on the project site, and the site has no history of past land uses associated with potentially hazardous sites.

Development of the project site from undeveloped to residential land uses would result in an increase in the generation, storage, and disposal of hazardous wastes. During project construction, oil, gasoline, diesel fuel, paints, solvents, and other hazardous materials may be used. lf spilled, these substances could pose a risk to the environment and to human health.

Following construction, household hazardous materials such as various cleansers, paints, solvents, pesticides, pool chemicals, and automobile fluids would be expected to be used. The routine transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials are subject to local, state, and federal regulations to minimize risk and exposure. The potential risk of exposure or impacts from transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials to schools and other nearby sensitive receptors would be minimized by implementation of regulations.

Further, the City has set forth its hazardous materials goals and policies in the Hazardous Materials Element of the General Plan. The policies protect the health and welfare of residents of Folsom through management and regulation of hazardous materials in a manner that focus on preventing problems.

Additionally, the routine transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials are subject to state and federal regulations to minimize risk and exposure. The potential for risks associated with the accidental release of hazardous materials during routine transport, use, or disposal would be less than significant for questions a) through c).

Question d: No lmpact. The project site is not included on the lists of hazardous materials sites compiled and available on EnviroStor (California Oepartment of Toxic Substances Control 2021) or the US EPA's Superfund National Priorities List{EPA 202L). Therefore, no significant hazard to the public or environment would result with project implementation. No impact would occur, and no mitigation is necessary.

Questlon e, f: No lmpact, The project site is not located in an Airport Land Use Plan area, and no public or private airfields are within 2-miles of the project site; therefore, the project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing orworking in the project area. No impactwould occur, and no mitigation is necessary for questions e) and f).

Question g: Less than Significant lmpact. The City of Folsom published an Evacuation Plan in 2020 (city of Folsom 2020). The project site is located in Evacuation Zone 31. lron Point Road, which is located north of Lot 1 and lot 6, is considered a minor evacuation route, No major evacuation routes occur within the vicinity of the project site. No aspect of the proposed project would modify traffic control points within Evacuation Zone 31 or preclude their continued use as an emergency evacuation route.

The proposed project would not result in an increased concentration of large numbers of persons in any at-risk location, and the proposed project would not have a significant impact on any emergency plans, Thus, no significant impact would occur, and no mitigation would be necessary' City of Folsom 78 March2O22

05/10/2022 Item No.19.

Folsom Corporate Center Apartments ISMND
Question h: Less than Significant lmpact. The project site is located in the City of Folsom, and it is provided by urban levels of fire protection by the City. Therefore, the proposed project would not increase the risk of wildland fires. No significant impact would occur, and no mitigation is necessary City of Folsom 79 March 2022

05/10/2022 Item No.19.

Folsom Corporate Center Apartments ISMND
IX. HYDROTOGY AND WAIER QUATIIY

HYDROTOGY AND WATER QUAUTYT
Would the project:

Potcntlal
lmpact
Less Than
Slgnlflcant
whh
Mhlgatlon
Less Than
Slgnlflcant
lmpact lmpact
llo
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
n I
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.9., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?
u n
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern ofthe site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
n
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern ofthe site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
n n
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage
systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
tr U
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? - n
C) Place housing within a I O0-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
lnsurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation
map?
n n n
h) Place within a I O0-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? n tr
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
n n
j) lnundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? n
A Preliminary Water Quality Report was prepared by RSC Engineering to develop sizing of stormwater management infrastructure for Lot 1 and Lot 5. Water Quality Reports are incorporated by reference and included as Appendix F.

City of Folsom 80 March 2022

05/10/2022 Item No.19.

Folsom Corporate Center Apartments ISMND
Envlronmenlol Setllng
There are no existing aguatic resources or constructed stormwater management facilities on the project site. North of Lot 1 is an existing collection of oak trees. To the northwest of Lot 1 is the Revel Senior Living Apartment Complex and Country House Memory Care Facility. The land west of Lot 1 is zoned as a General Commercial District (C-3) Planned Development and populated by an office park. Vacant, undeveloped land that is a proposed medical office building lies east of Lot 1, and Micron Technology office park is northeast of the site. These land uses also serve as the western border for Lot 6. A small man-made pond lies east of Lot 5, in an area zoned for Limited Manufacturing. The land north of Lot 5 includes existing residential development, and the land south of Lot 6 includes an existing SAFE Credit Union.

Precipitation is the only apparent source of surface water for the project site. No developed storm drainage features are constructed on the project site. Because the project site is currently undeveloped, implementation of the project would result in an increase of impervious surface area and channelization of storm water runoff, the rates and volumes of which would increase. However, this is a normal consequence associated with development, and as shown in the preliminary grading plans for the project, the drainage patterns would be designed to not impact adjoining properties. Stormwater management features for the proposed project include: bioretention basins, Contech stormwater filters, and disconnected roof drains.

The multiple drainage management areas in Lot 1 would encompass the apartment buildings, pavement areas, pool, and amenity areas. The drainage areas direct the runoff to the proposed stormwater quality facilities by an onsite storm drain system. The stormwater quality facilities used (bio retention or Contech storm filters as appropriate) will be in accordance with City of Folsom requirements.

Lot 6 would be separated into multiple drainage management areas that would encompass the carports, parking areas, apartment buildings, pool, and amenity areas. The drainage areas direct the runoff to the stormwater quality facilities by an onsite storm drain system. The stormwater quality facilities used (bio retention, disconnected roof drain or Contech storm filters as appropriate) will be in accordance with City of Folsom requirements.

The on-site stormwater control system would tie-in to an existing stormwater stub at each site. The project would incorporate standard best management practices (BMP) to maintain existing water quality in accordance with City regulations.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood insurance rate maps were reviewed for the project's proximity to a 100-year floodplain. The proposed project is on FEMA panel 05057C0119H, effective August 16,2OI2 (FEMA 2012). The project site is not located within a 100-year floodplain, Neither of the parcels are located in an area of important groundwater recharge. Domestic water in the City is provided solely by surface water sources. The City is the purveyor of water to the area in which the project is located.

Regulolory Fromework Reloling lo Hydrology ond Woler Quolity The City is a signatory to the Sacramento Countywide National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Program (NPDES) permit for the control of pollutants in urban stormwater. Since 1990, the City has been a City of Folsom 81 March 2022

05/10/2022 Item No.19.

Folsom Corporate Center Apartments ISMN D
partner in the Sacramento Stormwater Quality Partnership, along with the County of Sacramento and the Cities of Sacramento, Citrus Heights, Elk Grove, Galt, and Rancho Cordova. These agencies are implementing a comprehensive program involving public outreach, construction and industrial controls (i.e., BMPs), water quality monitoring, and other activities designed to protect area creeks and rivers.

This program would be unchanged by the proposed project, and the project would be required to implement all appropriate program requirements.
ln addition to these activities, the City maintains the following requirements and programs to reduce the potential impacts of urban development on stormwater quality and quantity, erosion and sediment control, flood protection, and water use. These regulations and requirements would be unchanged by the proposed project.

Standard construction conditions required by the City include Water Pollution - requires compliance with City water pollution regulations, including NPDES provisions.

Cleoring ond Grubbing - specifies protection standards for signs, mailboxes, underground structures, drainage facilities, sprinklers and lights, trees and shrubbery, and fencing. Also requires the preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to control erosion and siltation of receiving waters.
a Reseeding - specifies seed mixes and methods for reseeding of graded areas.

Additionally, the City enforces the following requirements of the Folsom Municipal Code as presented in Table 11.
a
a
City of Folsom 82 March 2022

05/10/2022 Item No.19.

Folsom Corporate Center Apartments ISMND
Table 11. City of Folsom Municipal Code Sections Regulating the Effects on Hydrology and Watei Qua from Urban
Source: Folsom Municipal Code July 2011
Evoluollon of Hydrology ond Woter Quollty
Questions a, c, d, e, f: Less than Significant lmpact. Ground disturbing activities associated with construction of the proposed project would include additional clearing and grading the project site, Modifications to the existing drainage patterns may result in localized flooding, and an increase in impervious surfaces may result in an increase in the total volume and peak discharges of stormwater runoff which may contribute to downstream erosion and flooding. Construction of the proposed project has the potentia! to degrade water quality associated with urban runoff. Ground disturbing activities would expose soil to erosion and may result in the transport of sediments which could adversely affect water quality

CODE NAME EFFECT OF CODE CODE

SECTION

8.70 Stormwater Management
and Discharge Control
Establishes conditions and requirements for the discharge of urban pollutants and sediments to the storm-drainage system; requires preparation and implementation of
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans.
t3.26 Water Conservation Prohibits the wasteful use of water; establishes sustainable landscape requirements; defines water use restrictions.

74.20 Green Building Standards
Code
Adopts the California Green Building Standards Code
(CALGreen Code), 2010 Edition, excluding Appendix
Chapters 44 and A5, published as Part 11, Title 24, C.C.R. to promote and require the use of building concepts
having a reduced negative impact or positive
environmental impact and encouraging sustainable
construction practices.

L4.29 Grading Code
Requires a grading permit prior to the initiation of any grading, excavation, fill or dredging; establishes standards, conditions, and requirements for grading, erosion control, stormwater drainage, and revegetation.
t4.32 Flood Damage Prevention
Restricts or prohibits uses that cause water or erosion hazards, or that result in damaging increases in erosion or in flood heights; requires that uses vulnerable to floods be protected against flood damage; controls the modification of floodways; regulates activities that may increase flood damage or that could divert floodwaters.

14.33 Hillside Development
Regulates urban development on hillsides and ridges to
protect property against losses from erosion, ground
movement and flooding; to protect significant natural
features; and to provide for functional and visually pleasing development of the city's hillsides by establishing
procedures and standards for the siting and design of
physical improvements and site grading.

City of Folsom 83 March 2022

05/10/2022 Item No.19.

Folsom Corporate Center Apartments ISMND
Modifications to the onsite drainage resulting in on-or off-site erosion, pollutants, flooding, andlor othenlrrise substantially degrade water quality would be a potentially significant impact. The proposed project would be required to comply with various State and local water quality standards which would ensure the proposed project would not violate water quality standards or waste discharge permits, or otheruise substantially degrade water quality. As the project is greater than one acre, the proposed project would be subject to NPDES permit conditions which include the preparation of a SWPPP for implementation during construction. As described above, the proposed project would also be subiect to all of the City's standard Code requirements, including conditions for the discharge of urban pollutants and sediments to the storm drainage system, and restrictions on uses that cause water or erosion hazards.

Further, prior to the issuance of grading and building permits, the applicant would be required to submit to the City a drainage plan that shows how project BMPs capture storm water runoff during project operations. Compliance with these requirements would ensure that water quality standards and discharge requirements are not violated, and water quality is protected. lmpacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be necessary for questions a), c), d), e), and f).

Question b: less than Significant lmpact. lmplementation of the proposed project would not result in the use of groundwater, because domestic water in the City is provided solely from surface water sources from the Folsom Reservoir. While the proposed project would result in additional impervious surfaces on the site that could affect groundwater recharge, the site is not known to be important to groundwater recharge. Further, because the proposed project would not rely on groundwater for domestic water and irrigation purposes, and because the site is not an important area of groundwater recharge, the proposed project would not deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge that would result in a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table. Therefore, no significant impacts would occur, and no mitigation would be necessary.
question g and h: No lmpact. Because the project site is located outside of a 100-year floodplain, development of the proposed project would not place persons or structures at risk from flood hazards, nor would it interfere with existing floodway capacity. Thus, no impacts would occur, and no mitigation would be necessary for questions g) and h).

Question i: Less than Significant lmpact, The proposed project would not expose new development to inundation in the event of the failure of a dam. Should either of the City's two main dams (Folsom Lake and Mormon lsland) fail, failure would most likely occur with adequate warning to evacuate residents.

The project is required to adhere to City established evacuation plans as outlined in the City of Folsom Evacuation Plan (City of Folsom 2020) reviewed by the Reclamation District that establish protocol in the event of the dam failure. With implementation of the evacuation plan in the event of the failure of a dam, the impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be necessary.

Question j: less than Significant lmpact. The City of Folsom is located approximately 95-miles from the Pacific Ocean, at elevations ranging from approximately 140- to 828-feet amsl. Due to the distance and higher elevation, inundation by tsunami would not occur. The City is located adjacent to Folsom Lake, a reservoir of the American River impounded by a main dam on the river channel and wing dikes. Areas of the City adjacent to the wing dikes could be adversely affected by a seiche as a result of an earthquake, either through sloshing within a full reservoir or by a massive landslide or earth movement into the lake.

Although historic seismic activity has been minor, the potential for strong ground shaking is present and City of Folsom 84 March 2022

05/10/2022 Item No.19.

Folsom Corporate Center Apartments ISMND
the possibility exists of a strong earthquake occurring when lake levels are high. This could create a large enough wave to overtop or breach the wing dikes although this is considered to be a remote possibility.

Mudslides and other forms of mass wasting occur on steep slopes in areas having susceptible soils or geology, typically as a result of an earthquake or high rainfall event. Slopes associated with the edges of the building pads are located on the project site; however, City grading standards, including requirements to evaluate slope stability and implement slope stabilizing measures as necessary would prevent this potential effect. ln summary, there would be no potentially significant effect from inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow and no mitigation would be necessary.

City of Folsom 85 March 2022

05/10/2022 Item No.19.

Folsom Corporate Center Apartments ISMND
X. IAND USE AND PTANNING
LAND USE AND PLANNING:

Would the project:

Potentlal
lmpact
LessThan
Slgnlficant
wlth
Mltlgatlon
LercThan
Slgnlflcant
lmpact lmpact
No
a) Physically divide an established community? tr n
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? n n t !
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? f1 r
Envlronmentol Setllng
Land use in the project area is regulated by the City of Folsom through the various plans and ordinances adopted by the City. These include the City of Folsom General Plan and the City of Folsom Municipal Code, including the Zoning Code. The General Plan currently identifies Lot 1 as lndustriaUoffice Park (lND), and zoned for Limited Manufacturing, Planned Development District (M-L PD). The General Plan currently identifies Lot 6 as lND, and zoned for Business Park, Planned Development District (B-P PD).

The proposed project includes a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation in Lot 1 and Lot 5 from lndustrial (lND) to Multi-Family, High Density (MHD); as well as a rezone from M-L PD to General Apartment, Planned Development District (R-4 PD) at Lot 1 and, and a rezone from B-P to M-4 at Lot 5. The Planned Development combining zone would remain.

A Planned Development Permit would be required because the proposed project is sited within a planned development overlay zoning designation. The Planned Development Permit would allow the City to review the site plan and associated project site details to ensure the project meets the standards and requirements beneficial to the City and its residents as defined in Section 17,38.100 of the Zoning Code.

Evoluollon ol lond Use ond Plonning
euestion a: No lmpact. Lot 1 is largely undeveloped, and is bordered by office buildlngs, oak woodland, and medical offices to the north, vacant land to the east, US Highway 50 and vacant land to the south, and commercial buildings, a memory care facility and undeveloped land to the west. Lot 5 is largely undeveloped and is bordered by lron Point Road and residential development to the north, a constructed pond/wetland and office buildings to the east, office buildings and undeveloped land containing scattered oaks to the south, and office buildings to the west. Development of the project site would not physically divide an established community as various office space, vacant land, commercial land surrounds Lot 1 and Lot 6. The residential development located north of Lot 1 and Lot 6 would not be altered. Therefore, there would be no impact and no mitigation is required, City of Folsom 85 March2022

05/10/2022 Item No.19.

Folsom Corporate Center Apartments ISMND
Question b: Less than Sitnificant. The development standard for Planned Development (PD) is that the proposed project must be designed to provide open space, circulation, off-street parking, and other conditions in such a way as to form a harmonious, integrated project of sufficient quality to iustify exceptions to the normal regulations of this title.

The project would require a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from IND in Lot 1 and Lot 5 to MHD in Lot 1 and Lot 6. A Rezone would be required for Lot 1 from M-L PD to R-4 PD, and for Lot 5 from B-P PD to R-4 PD. The General Plan Amendment and Rezone would be reviewed and approved by the City, and the project would be reviewed by the City for consistency with the proposed land use and zoning designations prior to the City issuing permits. The project would comply with these standards and not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project; therefore, project-related impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be necessary.

Question c: No lmpact. No Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan has been approved for the project area. lmplementation of the proposed project would not conflict with any conseruation plan. No impact would occur, and no mitigation is necessary.

City of Folsom 87 March2O22

05/10/2022 Item No.19.

Folsom Corporate center Apartments IsMND
XI. MINERAI RESOURCES
MINERAL RESOURCES:

Would the project:

Potcntlal
lmpact
Le3sfhan
Sl3nlflcant
ulhh
Mltlgatlon
letrThan
9gnlficant
lmpact !mpact
Ilo
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be ofvalue to the region and the
residents ofthe state?
I fI
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
Envlronmentol Settlng
The Folsom area regional geologic structure is defined by the predominantly northwest- to southeasttrending belt of metamorphic rocks and the strike-slip faults that bound them. The structural trend influences the orientation of the feeder canyons into the main canyons of the North and South Forks of the American River. This trend is interrupted where the granodiorite plutons outcrop (north and west of Folsom Lake) and where the metamorphic rocks are blanketed by younger sedimentary layers (west of Folsom Dam) (6eotechnical Consultants, lnc 2003).

The presence of mineral resources within the City has led to a long history of gold extraction, primarily placer gold. No areas of the City are currently designated for mineral resource extraction.

Evoluqlion of Minerol Resources
Questions a, b: No lmpact. The proposed project is not located in a zone of known mineral or aggregate resources (CDC 2021). No active mining operations are present on or near the site. lmplementation of the project would not interfere with the extraction of any known mineral resources. Thus, no impacts would result, and no mitigation would be necessary.

City of Folsom 88 March2O22

05/10/2022 Item No.19.

Folsom Corporate Center Apartments ISMND
xil. NotsE
NOISE:

Would the projech
Potentlal
lmpact
Lcss Than
Slgnlflcant
wlth
Mltltatlon
Less Than
sltnlflcrnt
lmpact
l{o
lmpact
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent
increase in the ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local General Plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
tr
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
n n
c) For a project located in the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels ?
n tn
Envlronmentol Settlng
The existing noise environment in the vicinity of the project site is dominated by vehicular traffic, primarily on US Highway 50, approximately 100-feet south of the project Lot 1, and lron Point Road, approximately 20-feet north of the project Lot 5. Other noise sources include ambient urban noise sources (e.g., parking lots; heating, ventilation and air conditioning [HVAC] systems] associated with the commercial/industrial developments within the Folsom Corporate Center, including: the Kaiser Permanente medical offices on the north side of the project lot 1; Micron Technology between the project Lot 1 and Lot 6; and the SAFE Credit Union corporate office south ofthe project Lot 6.

Noise-sensitive land uses are land uses that may be subject to stress and/or interference from excessive noise, including residences, hospitals, schools, hotels, resorts, libraries, sensitive wildlife habitat, or similar facilities where quiet is an important attribute of the environment. Noise receptors (receivers) are individual locations that may be affected by noise. Noise-sensitive land uses in the project vicinity include mutti-family residences across lron Point Road, approximately 850-feet north of the project Lot 1 and approximately 160-feet north of the project Lot 5; and senior living apartments approximately 380 feet west of the project Lot 1.

An ambient noise survey for Lot 1 was conducted by Bollard Acoustical Consultants on February 4,202!.

A 24-hour measurement was taken with the microphone place between the proposed Lot 1 pool and building 1, approximately 210-feet from the centerline of US Highway 50. The result of the measurement was 55 dBA LDN. The measurement was taken approximately S-feet above existing ground level and does not account for project grading which would change ground level noise from US HiShway 50 (Bollard 2021). The letter summarizing the noise survey is included as Appendlx G.

Noise Melrics
All noiselevel and sound-level values presented herein are expressed in terms of decibels (dB), with A weighting, abbreviated "dBA," to approximate the hearing sensitivity of humans. Time averaged noise City of Folsom 89 March2O22

05/10/2022 Item No.19.

Folsom Corporate Center Apartments ISMND
levels of one hour are expressed by the symbol "Lrq" unless a different time period is specified. The Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is a 24-hour average, where noise levels during the evening hours of 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. have an added 5 dBA weighting, and sound levels during the nighttime hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. have an added 10 dBA weighting. This is similar to the Day Night sound level (Loru), which is a24-hour average with an added 10 dBA weighting on the same nighttime hours but no added weighting on the evening hours.

Because decibels are logarithmic units, noise levels cannot be added or subtracted through standard arithmetic. Under the decibel scale, a doubling of sound energy corresponds to a 3 dBA increase. ln other words, when two identical sources are each producing sound of the same loudness, the resulting sound level at a given distance would be 3 dBA higher than from one source under the same conditions For example, if one automobile produces a sound pressure level (SpL) of 70 dBA when it passes an observer, two cars passing simultaneously would not produce 140 dBA-rather, they would combine to produce 73 dBA. Under the decibel scale, three sources of equal loudness together produce a sound level 5 dBA louder than one source.

Under controlled conditions in an acoustical laboratory, the trained, healthy human ear is able to discern 1 dBA changes in sound levels, when exposed to steady, single-frequency ("pure-tone") signals in the mid-frequency (1,000 Hertz [Hz]-8,000 Hz) range. ln typical noisy environments, changes in noise of 1 to 2 dBA are generally not perceptible. lt is widely accepted, however, that people begin to detect sound level increases of 3 dB in typical noisy environments. Further, a 5 dBA increase is generally perceived as a distinctly noticeable increase, and a 10 dBA increase is generally perceived as a doubling of loudness.

Vlbrotion Mehlcs
Groundborne vibration consists of rapidly fluctuating motions or waves transmitted through the ground with an average motion of zero. Sources of groundborne vibrations include natural phenomena and anthropogenic causes (e.g., explosions, machinery, traffic, trains, construction equipment). Vibration sources may be continuous (e.g., factory machinery) or transient {e.g., explosions). Peak particle velocity (PPV) is commonly used to quantify vibration amplitude. The PPV, with units of inches per second (in/sec), is defined as the maximum instantaneous positive or negative peak of the vibration wave.

Decibels are also used compress the range of numbers required to describe vibration. Vibration velocity level (Lv) with units of VdB are commonly used to describe vibrations from transit sources.

Regulolory Fromework
Noise Element
The Safety and Noise Element of the City of Folsom General Plan regulates noise emissions from public roadway traffic on new development of residential or other noise sensitive land uses. Policy SN 6.1.2 and Table 5N-1 provide noise compatibility standards for land uses. For multi-family residential uses, noise due to traffic on public roadways, railroad line operations, and aircraft shall be reduced to or below 65 CNEL for outdoor activity areas and 45 CNEL for interior use areas (City 2021).

Policy SN 5.1.8 requires construction projects and new development anticipated to generate a significant amount of vibration to ensure acceptable interior vibration levels at nearby noise-sensitive uses based on Federal Transit Administration criteria. Table SN-3 provides vibration impact criteria. For City of Folsom 90 March 2022

05/10/2022 Item No.19.

Folsom Corporate Center Apartments ISMND
construction with infrequent vibration events, impacts would be significant if residences are subject to ground borne vibrations in excess of 80 VdB (City 2021).

Noise Ordinance
For stationary noise sources, the City has adopted a Noise Ordinance as Section 8,42 of the City Municipal Code (City of Folsom 1993). The Noise Ordinance establishes hourly noise level performance standards that are most commonly quantified in terms of the one-hour average noise level (Lrq), Using the limits specified in Section 8.42.040 of the Noise Ordinance, noise levels generated by the project would be significant if they exceed 50 dBA Lrqfrom 7:00 a.m. to L0:00 p.m. and 45 dBA Lrqfrom 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m, at off-site residential property boundaries. Noise from the project's air conditioning systems would be significant if exterior noise levels exceed 50 dBA, per Section 8.42.O7O of the City Municipal Code. Section 8.42.060 exempts construction noise from these standards provided that construction does not occur before 7:00 a.m. or after 6:00 p.m. on weekdays, or before 8:00 a.m. or after 5:00 p.m. on Saturday or Sunday (City 1993).

Question a: Less than Significant with Mitigation
Construction Noise
Project construction noise was analyzed using the U,S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) Roadway Construction Noise Model ([RCNM]; USDOT 2008), which utilizes estimates of sound levels from standard construction equipment.

The nearest NSLUs to the project site area, single-family homes approximately 160 feet north of the project Lot 5. Heavy earthmoving equipment would have the potential to be used along the project's periphery, closest to NSLUs, including rubber-tired dozers, backhoes, excavators, graders, and scrapers.

The noisiest construction equipment anticipated to be used near NSLUs would be a grader used during grading. Modeling shows that the noise from a grader would result in 70.9 dBA Lrq at the closest residential property. Because construction equipment would be mobile as it moves across the project site, the noise level experienced by the neighboring uses would vary throughout the day. The modeling output for the grader and other anticipated construction equipment is included as Appendix G.

According to the City Code Section 8.42.060, noise sources associated with construction of the project which are conducted between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday and Saturday, and between 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Sunday, are exempt from the City noise standard (City 1993). Furthermore, the calculated short-term construction noise would be approximately 2 dBA higher than the calculated ambient traffic noise (see the off-site traffic noise discussions, below). A 2 dBA increase in ambient noise levels is generally not perceptible in typical outdoor environments and daytime construction noise increases would be less than significant.

Nighttime construction noise is not anticipated for the project. However, nighttime construction is not exempt from the City Noise Ordinance and would exceed the nighttime standard of 45 dBA if it were to occur, resulting in a temporarily significant noise impact.

Ofl-Site traffic Noise
Modeling of the exterior noise environment for this report was accomplished using the Traffic Noise Model (TNM) version 2.5. TNM Version 2.5 was released in February 2004 by the U.S. Depanment of Transportation (USDOT) and calculates the daytime average hourly Lrq from three-dimensional model City of Folsom 91 March2022

05/10/2022 Item No.19.

Folsom Corporate Center Apartments ISMND
inputs and traffic data (USDOT 2004). The model-calculated one-hour Lrc noise output is approximately equal to the CNEL (Caltrans 2009). The noise modeling input and output is included in Appendix G.

According to the Transportation lmpact Study (TlS), the project is expected to generate approximately 1,376 daily trips and 104 trips during the PM peak hour (T. Kear 2021). Future traffic noise levels presented in this analysis are based on traffic volumes for five segments of lron Point Road derived from intersection turning counts included in the TIS for four scenarios: existing (lOZL); existing plus project; cumulative (2035); and cumulative plus project. The traffic volumes for the five analyzed segments of lron Point Road are included in Appendix G. Changes in traffic noise levels were calculated based on an average distance of 80 feet from the road centerline and adjacent residential land uses. The modeling does not account for intervening terrain or structures (e.g., sound walls, buildings).

The calculated off-site traffic noise levels are shown in Table 12. ln typical outdoor environments, a 3 dBA increase in ambient noise level is considered just perceptible and a 5 dBA increase (a doubling of noise) is considered distinctly perceptible. ln areas where existing or future ambient noise exceed the land use compatibility standards, an individual project's contribution to increases in ambient noise level could be considered significant if it exceeds 1.5 dBA. Because most of the areas alongthe analyzed road segments already exceed the land use noise compatibility standard listed in the city General Plan (60 dBA CNEL for low density residential; 65 dBA CNEL for multi-family residential and hotels, and 70 dBA for commercial), this analysis uses a threshold of a 1.5 dBA CNEL increase to be significant.

The maximum change in CNEL as a result of project-generated traffic would be 0.2 dBA CNEL, a change in ambient noise level that is lower than the threshold and is not discernable. Therefore, impacts related to the project generating a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of General Plan standards from project-generated traffic would be less than significant.

Table 12: off-Site Traffic Noise Levels
Roadway Segment
Change h
CNEt
lron Point Road.

Grover Road to Oak Avenue
Oak Avenue Parkway to West
Kaiser Access Road

0.1 West Kaiser Access Road to 0.1

0.1 Rowberry Way to SAFE Credit
Union Access
SAFE Credit Union Access to
Broadstone
Source: TNM version 2.5

0.0 0.0
2llils+
Prot€ct
lcNErl
Exlrthg
{cNEq
ErlrtllS +
Frolacf
lcNEtl
Ghante ln
CNEI
1035
(cNErl

59.5 69.6 0.1 69.7 69.8

68.8 69.0 o.2 77.t 71.2

68.8 58.8 0.0 7L.t 77.2

58.7 58.8 0.0 77.5 7t.s

58.8 58.9 0.1 71.5 71.5
City of Folsom 92 March 2022

05/10/2022 Item No.19.

Folsom Corporate Center Apartments ISMND
Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVACI
The project includes the outdoor installation of HVAC units on the roof of the proposed project buildings. The units would be located behind a parapet wall of equal or greater height to the HVAC unit, which would provide substantial noise attenuation. Specific details on planned HVAC units were not available at the time of this analysis. A typical system for apartments in multi-story buildings would be a Carrier model 38BRC-O24-34 2-ton system for each apartment which has a sound rating of 73.4 dBA Swr.

The closest NSLUs to project buildings systems would be the single-family homes across lron Point Road from Lot 5. The minimum distance from potential HVAC systems and off-site residential property line would be approximately 150 feet. At 160-feet, an HVAC system producing 73.4 dBA Swr would result in 35 dBA L5q without considering reductions from the parapet walls. This noise level would not exceed the City Noise Ordinance daytime (50 dBA Lrd or nighttime (45 dBA Lrq) maximum acceptable noise levels; and the impacts would be less than significant.

On-site Traffic Noise
Modeling of the exterior noise environment on the project site was accomplished using the Computer Aided Noise Abatement (CadnaA) modelversion2O2L. The noise models used in this analysis were developed from Computer Aided Design (CAD) plans provided by the project architect. lnput variables included, road alignment, elevation, area topography, projected traffic volumes, estimated truck composition percentages, and vehicle speeds. The one-hour Leqtraffic noise level is calculated utilizing peak-hour traffic. The model-calculated one-hour Lsq nois€ output is the equivalent to the CNEL (Caltrans 2009). The modeling includes the project buildings but does not account for terrain or off-site buildings and structures.

Traffic volumes on lron Point Road were derived from the p.m. peak hour intersection turning counts reported in the TIS (T.Kear 2021). The truck composition for lron Point Road was assumed to be typical for suburban streets: 3 percent medium trucks/busses and 1 percent heavytrucks. Trafficvolumes and truck composition (2.7 percent medium trucks and 3.7 percent heavy trucks) for US-50 were modeled using data from the Caltrans traffic and truck counts for 2019 (Caltrans 2022).

Exterior Noise
As discussed above, the City General Plan Safety and Noise Element has established an exterior noise standard of 65 dBA CNEL for multi-famif residential outdoor activity areas, defined as "[...] the patios or common areas where people generally congregate for multifamily development" (City 2021). The pool areas and patios surrounding the club houses would be the outdoor activity areas for the project The modeling shows ground level noise for the clubhouse/pool area would be approximately 65 dBA CNEL in lot 1 and 63 dBA CNEL in Lot 5. This noise level would not exceed the City exterior noise standard and the impact would be less than significant.
lnterior Noise
Standard building design and construction using current building codes provides approximately 15 to 20 dBA of exterior to interior noise reduction with the windows and doors closed. The noise at the exterior facades for the project buildings was modeled for receptors on first, second, and third floors of all project residential buildings and is shown in Table 13.

City of Folsom 93 March 2022

05/10/2022 Item No.19.

Folsom Center Apartments ISMND
Table 13: Exterior Noise Levels
ld Floot
Source: CadnaA version 2021
Buildings with exterior noise levels exceeding 55 dBA could result in interior noise levels in excess of the City General Plan Safety and Noise Element standard of 45 dBA CNEL. Lot 1 (buildings 1 and 2) and Lot 6 (building 3) would have exterior noise levels exceeding 70 dBA CNEL. Lot 1 building 7 and Lot 6 (building 5) would have exterior noise levels exceeding 65 dBA CNEL. lnterior noise impacts would be potentially significant.

Exterior to interior noise reductions are dependent on the building exterior wall area, window area, door area, and room depth, which was not available at the time of this analysis. Calculations were made to estimate the minimum exterior wall and window sound transmissions class (STC) rating required for the project apartments to meet the City's interior noise standards. The calculations were based on an assumed typical 20-feet by lO-feet apartment room with two exterior walls, two windows measuring 3- feet by s-feet and one sliding glass door measuring S-feet by 7-feet. The calculation sheets are included in Appendix G. Lot 1 buildings 7 and 2 and, Lot 6 (building 3) would require exterior walls with line of sight to US Highway 50 or lron Point Road to have a minimum STC 46 rating and widowslsliding glass doors to have a minimum STC 35 rating. Lot 1 building 7 and Lot 6 (building 5) would require windows/sliding glass doors to have a minimum STC 28 rating. lmpact Conclusion
Construction noise generated by the project would result in short-term substantial noise increases compared to baseline existing conditions. The implementation of Mitigation Measure NOl-1 would restrict construction to daytime and minimize noise levels to surrounding residential uses.

The addition of permanent project-generated traffic vicinity roadways would not result in a discernable increase in ambient noise levels. The project would expose residential land uses to noise levels that exceed compatibility guidelines in the General Plan and impacts would be potentially significant. The implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-02 would ensure that noise reduction measures are included in building material specifications.

Long-term operation of project building HVAC systems would not result in noise levels exceeding the City noise ordinance standards, measured at the outdoor spaces of the closest NSLUs to the project site Lot Buildi
Lot
Lot
Lot
Lot
Lot
Lot
Lot
5 7
1 2
3 4
5 Lot
Lot
Lot
Lot
1 76.O

73.4 57.7

68.2 68.5

62.9 60.8

59.4 2
3 4
5 63.3

50.5 61.5

70.7 lti Floor
{CNELI
znd Floor
lcr{Erl

73.0 73.9

72.5 7L.8

54.7 59.8

55.8 58.1

49.9 50.6

52.7 54.7
60,1 55.6

62.6 62.9

55.5 57.8

77.O 7L.O

59.6 58.9

65.0 68.2
City of Folsom 94 March2022

05/10/2022 Item No.19.

Folsom Corpo rate Center Apartments ISMND
Mitagation Measure NOI-I: Construction Nolse Reduction Measures Construction activities shall be required to comply with the following and be noted accordingly on construction contracts:

1. Construction hours/Scheduling: The following are required to limit construction activities to the portion of the day when occupancy of the adjacent sensitive receptors are at the lowest:
a. Construction activities for all phases of construction, including servicing of construction equipment shall only be permitted during the hours of 7:0O a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and between 9:00 a.m. to 5;00 p.m. on Saturdays, Construction is prohibited on Sundays and on all holidays.
b. Delivery of materials or equipment to the site and truck traffic coming to and from the site is restricted to the same construction hours specified above.

2. Construction Equipment Mufflers and Maintenance: All construction equipment powered by internal combustion engines shall be properly muffled and maintained.

3. ldling Prohibitions: All equipment and vehicles shall be turned off when not in use.

Unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines is prohibited'

4. Equipment Location and Shielding: All stationary noise-generating construction equipment, such as air compressors, shall be located as far as practical from the adjacent homes.

Acoustically shield such equipment when it must be located near adjacent residences.

5. Quiet Equipment Selection: Select quiet equipment, particularly air compressors, whenever possible. Motorized equipment shall be outfitted with proper mufflers in good working order.

5. Staging and Equipment Storage: The equipment storage location shall be sited as far as possible from nearby sensitive receptors.

Mitigation Measure NOI-2: On-site Interior Noise Level Reduction For the project's habitable areas (both living rooms and bedrooms) with a direct line-of-sight to US Highway 50 for Lot 1 and lron Point Road for Lot 2, the following measures shall be incorporated in the design of the project to reduce interior noise levels to 45 CNEL or less:
r Lotl (Buildings 1 and 2) and Lot 6 (Building 2) - minimum exterior wall requirement of STC

46. Lotl (Buildings 1 and 2) and Lot 5 (Building 2)- minimum window and glass sliding door requirement of STC 35.

Lot 1 (Building 7) and Lot 6 (Building 5) - minimum window and glass sliding door requirement of STC 28.

The building design shall include a mechanical ventilation system that meets the criteria of the lnternational Building Code (Chapter 12, 51203.3 of the 2013 California Building Code) to ensure that windows would be able to remain permanently closed.

Question b: less than Significant lmpact. An on-site source of vibration during project construction would be a vibratory roller (primarily used to achieve soil compaction as part of the foundation and a
City of Folsom 95 March 2022

05/10/2022 Item No.19.

Folsom Corporate Center Apartments ISMND
paving construction), which could be used within approximately 160-feet of the single-family residences across lron Point Road to the north. A large vibratory roller creates approximately 0.21 in/sec PPV at a distance of 25-feet, or 94.4 VdB. At a distance of 160-feet, a vibratory roller would create a PPV of 0.027 in/sec, or 77 VdB.l This would not exceed the City General Plan residential standard of 80 VdB for infrequent events. Once operational, the project would not be a source of groundborne vibrations. lmpacts associated with construction-generated vibration would be less than significant. Therefore, the project would not result in the generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels, and the impact would be less than significant.

Question c: less than Significant lmpact. The closest airports to the project site are the Cameron Park Airport, approximately 7.5-miles to the northeast, and Mather Airport, approximately 9.5-miles to the southwest. The project site is located within the review area identified in the Mather Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). The project site is beneath the approach paths for runways 22 Left and 22 Right, however, the project site is not with the 60 dBA noise contour for the airport (Sacramento County Association of Governments 2020). Therefore, although the project site is subject to overflight by aircraft approaching and departing Mather Airport, the residents of the proposed project or people working in the project area would not be exposed to excessive levels of noise due to aircraft or airport operations, and the impact would be less than significant. t Equipment PPV : Reference PPV * (25D)"(in/sec), where Reference PPV is PPV at 25 feel,D is distance from equipment to the receptor in feet, and n= L I (the value related to the attenuation rate through tbe ground); formula from Caluans 2020. VdB :20 * Log(PPVi4l10-6).

City of Folsom 96 March 2022