Folsom City Council
March 28, 2023

03/28/2023 Item No.13.

Vintace at Folsom Senior Apadmente lSMND
proposed zoning change. lf the land use designatlon/zoning change would not result in an increase in annual GHG emissions, the project would be consistent (Ctty z02lal. Howevet the project would not result in a land use designatlon/zoning change and therefore, there would be no change in GHG emissions"
A senior housing development would be an allowable use for the BP zoning district. Entitlement requests for this project include a Planned Development Permit (PD Permit) and a Conditional Use Permit. The purpose of the PD Permit is to allow for greater flexibility in the design of integrated developments than otherwise possible through strict application of land use regulations. With the PD Permlt, the project's site plan, elevationr, and overall proiect design would be evaluated, and specific development standards would be defined. Ihe project is consistent with applicable development standards for the BP zoning distrlct. As shown in Table 15 above, the proposed project is anticipated to result in approximately 539.6 MT COze per year.

Part 2: GHG Reduction Measures Consistency {only applicable measures shown}:

E-1 Building energy Sector: The project will exceed the requirements of the California Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24, Part 6) by 15 percent or more? Consistent. The project would exceed the requirement of the California Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24, Part 6), by 15 percent or more.

T-1 Project Location and Density: The project is a mixed-use building with two or more uses {i.e., residential, commerclal, office, etc.) or af the site is 5 acres or larger lhere are two or nore uses on the site connected by protected pedestrlan paths te.g., sidewalks, elevated walkways) excluding driveways?
Consistent. The project is less than 5 acres and is located within an existing empty lot. lmplementation of the proposed development would include a mix of uses lncluding residential unlts, community center, and leasing office, The project would include a concrete sidewalk that would extend around the southern parking area and connect to the exisiing Oak Parkway Trail section located south of the site boundary. Additional proposed concrete sidewalks would be located at the frontage of the project site and would connect to internal sidewalks proposed around the buildlng.

T-3 Bicycle Parking: Project provides 5 percent more bicycle parking spaces than required in the City's MunicipalCode?
Consistent with mitigation. With 135 residential units, the project requires 27 bicycle parking spaces. Bike racks would accammodate 28 bicycle parking spaces on the sastern side of the project site, exceeding the number of bicycle parking spaces requlred by flve percent. Mitigation Measure GHG-01 would require the installatlon of bicycle parking 5 percent or more hi,gher than the requirements of City Code section 17 '57.090'
T-6 Hlgh-Perforffance Oiesel (Construction only): Use high-performance diesel (also known as Diesel- HPR or Ree-9000/RHD) for construction equipment?
68

03/28/2023 Item No.13.

Vintage at Folsom Senior Apartments ISMND
Consistent with mitigation. Mitigation Measure GHG-02 would require the use of high- performa nce d iesel for all project construction activities.

T-8 Electric Vehicle Charging (Residential): For multifamily projects with 17 or more dwelling units, provide electic vehicle charging in 5 percent of total parking spaces? Consistent with mitigation. Mitigation Measure GH6-03 would require installation of 14 electrical vehicle charging stations based on the 136 total parking spaces proposed for the project.

SW-1. Enhanced Construction Waste Diversion: Project diverts to recycle or salvage at ieast 55 percent of nonhazardous construction and demolition waste generated at the project site in accordance with Appendix 44 (Residential) of CALGreen?
Consistent with mitigation. Mitigation Measure GHG-04 would require a minimum of 65 percent of nonhazardous construction and demolition waste to be diverted, recycled or salvaged.

W-l Water Efficiency: For new residential and non-residential projects, the project will comply with all applicable indoor and outdoor water efficienry and conservation measures required under CALGreen Tier 1?
Consistent with mitigation. Mitigation Measure GHG-05 would require implementation of all 2019 CALGreen Tier 1 applicable indoor and outdoor water efficiency and conseruation measures.

With implementation of Mitigation Measures GHG-OI through GHG-05, 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.

Matigation Measure GHG-01: Bicycle Parking
ln accordance with the City General Plan GHG Reduction Measure T-3, the project shall provide a minimum of 5 percent more bicycle parking than required in the City's Municipal Code Section

17.57.090.

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

Mitagation Measure GH6{13: Electric Vehicle Charging
ln accordance with the City General Plan GHG Reduction Measure T-8, the project shall provide 14 electric vehicle charging stations based on the 136 total parking spaces proposed for the project.
a
a
69

03/28/2023 Item No.13.

Vintage at Folsom Senior Apartments ISMND
Mitigation Measure GHG-04: Enhanced Construction Waste Diversion ln accordance with the City General Plan GHG Reduction Measure 5W-1, the project shall divert to recycle or salvage a minimum 65 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).

Mitigataon Measure GHG45: 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. b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less than Significant lmpact with Mitigation. 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 2006. The quantitative goal of AB 32 is to reduce GHG emissions to L990 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 18, 2019. 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 VMT. According to the Transportation lmpact Study prepared for the project, the project is anticipated to generate at least 15 percent less VMT per capita than the regional average (T. Kear Transportation Planning and Management, lnc. 2022). This VMT reduction meets the 15 percent reduction requlred by 58 743. ln addition to regionalVMT projections, SACOG utilizes local growth projections to develop the strategies and measures in the 202CI MTP/SCS. As discussld in question a), above, there would be no change in land use and zoning, and no change in GHG emissions would result.

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-0l through GHG-05, 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 a
70

03/28/2023 Item No.13.

Vintage at Folsom Senior Apartments ISMND
confllct with CARB's 2017 Scoping Plan, the SACOG's 2020 MTP/SCS, or the €ity's GHG Strategy, and the impact would be less than signtficant with mitigation.
7t

03/28/2023 Item No.13.

Vintage at Folsom Senior Apartments ISMND
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
PotanUrfly
Sl3nlicant
lmp.Ct
hssfftrn
3l3nlficam
wldr
Mltlrdon
lncorporetcd
tcrsThen
$gnnc.nt ltlo
lnp.ct |tnpsct
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
rlLI I
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?
tr tr t
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-
quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
tr n I LI
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 55962'5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
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 or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
tat.-l I I
f) lmpair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
tr n
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
D I
Envlronmentol Setllng
The project site is currently undeveloped has no past land uses associated with potentially hazardous sites. The schools nearest to the project site are St. John's Notre Dame School, approximately 0.2-miles east of the site, Theodore Judah Elementary School, approximately 0.5-miles southwest of the site, Blanche Sprentz Elementary School, approximately 0.7-miles southeast of the site and Folsom Middle School, approximately 1.S-miles southeast of the site.

The following databases were reviewed for the project site and surrounding area to identify potential hazardous contamination sites: the SWRCB Geotracker (SWRCB 2020); California Department of Toxic Substance Control's EnviroStor online tool (DTSC 2020); and the US EPA's Superfund National Priorities 72

03/28/2023 Item No.13.

Vintage at Folsom SeniorApartments ISMND
List (EPA 2019). Based on the results of the databases reviewed, no hazardous waste sites are located on the project site.

Federal and state laws include provisions for the safe handling of hazardous substances. The federal Occupationa| 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 l97AI.

Evoluqlion of Hozords qnd Hozordout i/lolerlols
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Less than significant impact. The site has no known history of past land uses associated with potentially hazardous sites. Construction of the proposed project 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 cleaners, paints, solvents, pesticides, pool chemicals, and automobile fluids would be expected to be used. The routine transport, uge, and disposal of hazardous materials are subject to local, state, and federal regulations to minimize risk and exposure.

Further, the City has set forth its hazardous materlals goals and policies in the Haeardous Materials Element of the General Plan. The preventative policies protect the health and welfare of residents of Folsorr through management and regufation of hazardous materials. Consequeatly, use of the listed materials above for their intended purpose would not pose a significant risk to the public or environment and would therefore cause a less than significant impact' b) Create a significant haaard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Less than significant impact. As discussed above, the proposed project site has no known history of past land uses associrtted with potentially hazardous sites and construction of the proposed project would follow all local, state, and federal regulations, These regulations protect the health and welfare of residents of Folsom through management and regulation of hazardous materials in a manner that focus' on preventing problems, With the implementation of these regulations, the potential for a foreseeable upset and accident conditlons involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment would be low, and therefore would cause a less than significant irnpact. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Less than significant impact. The nearest school is St. John's Notre Dame School, approximately 0.2- miles east of the site. During project construction, oil, gasoline, diesel fuel, paints, solvents, and other hazardous materials may be used, but they would be used accordingly to local, state, and federal regulations, With these regulations in place, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact.
73

03/28/2023 Item No.13.

Vintage at Folsom Senior Apartments ISMND
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?
No impact. The site is not included on any list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 55962,5. No hazardous materials sites are located at the project site based on review of the Enviro.gtor (DTSC 2O2Ol, Geotracker {SWRCB 2020), and EPA Superfund Priority list {EPA 2019), Therefore, project implementation would have no impact on hazards to the public or environment.
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 or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? No impact. The nearest public or public use airport ls Cameron Airpark, approximately 11-miles east of the project site. At this distance, the project is not within the airport land use plan area and the project would have no impact on safety hazards or excessive noise related to airports. f) lmpair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation Plan?
Less than significant impact. The City of Folsom maintains pre-deslgnated emergency evacuation routes as identified inthe Ctty of folsam Evacuotion Plon {CrW of Folsom 2A2Oa}. fbe proposod project is located in evacuation plan area #1O-Cimmaron Hill/ Rancho Diablo, which identifies East Natoma Street as a major evacuation route and Cimmaron Circle as a minor evacuation route. The proposed project woutd not modify any pre-designated emergency evacuation route or preclude their continued use as an emergency evacuation route. Emergency vehicle access would be maintalned throughout the project site to meet the Fire Department standards for fire truck maneuvering, location of fire truck to fight a fire, rescue acce$s to the units, and fire hose access to afl sides of the building. Therefore, graiect iftrpacts to the City's adopted evacuation plan and emergency plans would be less than significant.

S) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
Less than significant impact. The project site is located in an urbanized area in the City of Folsom and is provided u rlan levels of flre protection by the City. The site is designed for clear fire lanefire truck access and fire hose access to all parts of the buildings. The project would include fire hydran8, exterior Fire Department Connection assemblies, and fire riser rooms. Emergency vehicle access would b* maintained on the site to meet the Fire Department standards for fire truck maneuvering, location of fire truck to fight a fire, rescue access to the units, and fire hose access to all sides of the building. The fire lane would be 27-ft minimum, with an inner turning radius of 25-ft and an outer turning radius of 50-ft. All curbs adjacent to the fire lane would be painted red for emergency fire services. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss due to wildland fires, and impacts would be less than significant'
74

03/28/2023 Item No.13.

Vintage at Folsom Senior Apartments ISMND
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Potcntlally
$gnmc.nt
lmF.Ct
lrselhrn
Sltnncrnt
s'lth
Mldgrdon
Incorponted
brcfhan
Sltlllftc.nt l{o
lmprct lmp.ct
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
r-_l
L_t D a n
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?
tr I L]
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- site?
n T I I
ii, Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-
or off- site?
l_l t:
iii. Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwat€r drainage systems or provide substantial
additional resources of polluted runoff?
t,,l n
iv. lmpede or redirect flood flows? fl r LJ
d) ln flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? n
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water
quality control plan or sustainable groundwater
manaSement plan?
IJ n I n
A Preliminary Drainage and Stormwater Quality Report was prepared by TSD Engineering lnc. on August 19,2022, and is included as Appendix G.

Environmenlcl Setling
A Preliminary Drainage and Storm Water Quality Report was prepared for the proposed project by TSD Engineering and is included as Appendix G. This memo was used when analyzing potential impacts to hydrology and water quality resources. The project site is vacant and undeveloped with a fairly dense oaktree canopy and a drainage channel traversingthe site adjacent to East Natoma Street. The Oak Parkway Trail separated the project site from residential properties to the south. The Cimmaron Hill Sub-division is located east of the project site and the entrance to Folsom State Prison {Prison) and the Johnny Cash Trailare located on the northwest side of E. Natoma Street. The project is proposing 2.318 75

03/28/2023 Item No.13.

Vintage at Folsom Senior Apartments ISMND
acres of [andscape (pervious area), 0.05-acres of bioretention (pervious area), 1.3-acres of parking lots (impervious surface), O.4-acres of hardscape {impervious surface), and 0.9-acres of building (impervious surface).

The existing channel conveys runoff from a portion of the Cimmaron Hill Subdivision as well as runoff from a portion of the Prison open space. Runoff from the Prison property is conveyed to the existing channel through a 24-inch culvert that crosses E, Natoma Street. The channel conveys runoff to a 48-inch culvert that crosses and discharges on the northwest side of E. Natoma Street, ultimately discharging into the American River approximately 2,500-ft west of E. Natoma Street.

The existing 24-inch culvert that conveys runoff from the Prison site limits the contribution of runoff to the existing channel from the prison site. The 24-inch culvert has a maximum flow rate of 23.3-cubic feet per second (cfs) based on the size, slope and maximum headwater elevation. lt is assumed that once the ponding area upstream of the 24-inch culvert if full, runoffwill release overland, following the bike trail to trench drains located under the Prison Road bridge, ultimately reaching the American River through Robbers Ravine.

Precipitation is the source of surface water for the project site. Because the area 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. As the proposed project would create more than one acre of impervious area, the project is required to implement source control measures, low impact development measures, storm impact treatment and full trash captures measures in accordance with the Stormwater Quality Design Manual for the Sacramento Region, dated July 20L8 (swQ Manual).

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMAIflood insurance rate maps were reviewed for the project's proximity to a 100-year floodplain. The proposed project is on FEMA panel 06067C0117H, effective August L6,20L2. The project site is not located within a 100-year floodplain (FEMA 2012).

The site is not located in an area of important groundwater recharge. Domestic water in the City is provided solely by surface \A/ater sources. The City is the purveyor of water for the site.

Regulotory Fromework Reloling lo Hydrology qnd llYqter Quollty The City is a signatory to the Sacramento Countywide National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Program (NPDES) permit for the control of pollutants in urban storrnwater. Since 199O the City has been a 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 76

03/28/2023 Item No.13.

Vintage at Folsom Senior Apartments ISMND
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.

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 controlerosion and siltation of receiving waters.

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 16.

Table 16. City of Folsom Municipal Code Sections Regulating the Effects on Hydrology and Water Quality from Urban Development
a
a
a
Code
Section Code Name Effect of Code

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

L3.26 Water
Conservation
Prohibits the wasteful use of water; establishes sustainable landscape regu irements; defi nes water use restrictions.

L4.20
Green Building
Standards
Code
Adopts the California Green Building Standards Code (CalGreen Code), 2010 Edition, excluding Appendix Chapters A4 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.
t4.29 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, stormurater drainage, and revegetation L4.32 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.

Source: City of Folsom 2020b
77

03/28/2023 Item No.13.

Vintage at Folsom Senior Apartments ISMND
Evoluollon of Hydrology qnd Woler Quollty
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of imperuious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of sudace runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off- site?
iii. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional resources of polluted runoff? iv. lmpede or redirect flood flows?
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
less than rignificant impact. The proJect site consists of open space with a fairly dense oak tree canopy and a drainage channel traversing the site adjacent to E. Natoma Street. The Oak Parkway Trail separates the project site from residential properties to the south. The Cimmaron Hill Sub-division is located east of the project site and the entrance to Folsom State Prison is located northwest of East Natoma Street. The existing channel conveys runoff from a portion of the Cimmaron Hill Subdivision as well as runoff from a portion of the Prison open space. lmplementation of the proposed project would alter the existing drainage patterns on the project site. The site conditions would be replaced with impervious surfaces from the three-story building, associated parklng and drive aisfes, and landscaping.

The existing drainage channel will remain and will be required to maintain the existing drainage patterns, conveying the runoff generated onsite and oftsite, as is the case under existing conditions, 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 the proposed project has the potentialto 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. A 36-inch culvert is proposed to be installed under the southernmost driveway to allow runoff to continue to flow through the existing channel. The 35-inch culvert will restrict the developed flows, causing water to back up in the existing channel. The existing channel will function as a detention basin in high intensity storm events. The preliminary analysis considered the worst possible scenario under a lO-year, 24-hour storm event, and under a 100-year, 24-hour storm event.

Sacramento Method within SacCalc software was used to estimate runoff, employing the same methods used to determine the runoff under existing conditions, as outlined in the Preliminary Drainage and Stormwater Quality Report. Comparison of the runoff rates under existing and developed conditions during the lg-year, 24-hour storm event show equal flow rates under existing and developed conditions 78

03/28/2023 Item No.13.

Vintage at Folsom Senior Apartments ISMND
during the lO-year, 24-hour storm event. Therefore, the development of the site would maintain existing drainage paths and would not have a negative effect on the existing storm system.

Preliminary hydrologic and hydraulic analysis estimates a decrease of 5.84 cfs during 100-year, 24-hour $tonn event due to the development of the site as proposed. Table 17 shows the peak discharge rates under existing conditions and developed condltions, The hydrologic estimations neglect losses due to friction, travel time and proposed onsite storage and should be considered conservative.

Table 17. Peak Discharge Rates (Downstream from the Project Sitef Existirrg {cfs} Mitlgated Developed (cfs|
10-Year 7s.3 75.3
100-Year Ltz.3 106.46
The preliminary analysis determined the development site would not increase the flow rate through the existing channel durin6 the t0-year, 24-hour storm event, and flow rates through the existing channel are estimated to decrease during the 100-year,24-h*ur storm event. The existing channel has the capacity, upstream from the proposed 36-inch culvert, to detain flows exceeding the capacity of the culvert while maintain at least 1-foot of freeboard. The offsite areas draining through the existing channel and associated underground system will not be negatively affected by the development of this project. lmpacts would be less than significant.

Additionally, the proposed project would be requlred to comply with variaus State and local water quality standards which would ensure the proposed projed would not violate water quality standards or waste discharge permhs, or othenvise 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. The proposed project would also be subject to all of the City's standard Code requirements, including condltions for the discharge of urban pollutants and sediments to the storm drainage svstem, and restrictions on uses that cause water or erosion hazards.

As outlined previously, the preliminary analysis concluded flow rates with the development site would be equal to or decrease under the 10-Vear and 100-year storm events. Additionally, compliance with these reguirernents would ensure that water guality standards and discharge requirements are not vlolated, and water quality is protected. Therefore, mpacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be necessary for questions a), c), d), e), and f)' b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the proJect may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? Less than signlficant impact. lmplementation of the proposed proiect would not result in the use of groundrarater supplies because dornestic water in the City is provided solely from surface water sources from the Folsom Reservoir. Whlle development of the proposed project would increase the percentage of impervious surface on the site that could affect groundwater recharge, the site is not previously 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 79

03/28/2023 Item No.13.

Vintage at Folsom Senior Apartments ISMND
a lowering of the local groundwater table. Therefore, impacts to groundwater supplies and recharge would be less than significant.
d) ln flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? Iess than significant impact. The project site is not located within a 100-year floodplain and is not subject to flood hazard. The project site is also approximately 70-miles northeast of the nearest tsunami inundation area nea. Benicia, CA (California Emergency Management Agency 2009). The nearest body of water is the American River, which is approximately O.5-miles west, and Folsom Lake, which is approximately l-mlle north of the project site. Based on the site's location away frcm the 100-year floodplain, distance from tsunami inundation area, and dlstance to Folsom lake, the project site i$ not subject to release of pollutants due to inundation'
The City of Folsom is loeated approximately 95-miles from the Pacific Ocean, at elevations ranging from approximately 140- to 828-ft amsl. Because of this, there would be no possibility of inundation by tsunami. The City is located adjacent to Folsom Lakg a reservoir of lhe Arnerican River impounded by a main dam on the river channel and wing dikes. Areas of the Clty 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 nnassive landslide or earth movement into the lake. Although historic $eismic activity has been minor, the potentlalfor strong ground shaklng is present and the possibility exists of a strong earthguake occurrlng when lake levels are high. This could create a large enough wave to overtop or breoch the wing dikes although this is considered to be a remote possibility.

Mudslides and other forms of mass wastlng occur on steep slopes in areas having tusceptible solls or geology, typically as a resull of an earthquake or high rainfall event. Slopes associated wlth the edges of the building pads are located on the project site; however, Clty grading standards, including requirements to evaluate slope stability and implement slope stabllizlng $easures as necessary, would prevent this potential effect. ln surnmary there would be no potentially slgnificant effect f rom inundation by seiche, tsunarni, or mudflow and no mitigation would be nece$sary. 80

03/28/2023 Item No.13.

VintaBe at Folsom Senior Apartments ISMND
XI. LAND USE AND PTANNING
Pot tlblly
3l3nl0ont
lmplct
lrrr ltrrr
Sbnmc.nt
sldr
MUgrnoo
hcorporafd
LcscTh.n
s[nl0crm Io
lmplct hpta
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? il I D
b) Cause significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental
effect?
r-l
L_,1 n il
Environmenlol Setling
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 Zonang Code. The projed site is designated in the General Plan as Professional Office (PO) which provides low-intensity business and professionaloffices that are compatible with higher- intensity residential uses.

The zoning designation of the site is in the Business and Professional {BP} District. According to the Folsom City Municipal Code, the BP zoning distrid generally permits office building and related uses such as banks, doctor's offices, geheral business office, and general uses. The purpose ofa gP zoning district is to provide an area for business and professional office and compatible related uses. This zoning district is intended to promote a harmonious development of burlness and professional office areas with adjacent commercialor residential development. A senior cttirens residential cornplex is allowed in the BP zoning district with approval of a minor Conditional Use Permit.

Entitlement requests for this project include a Planned Development Permit (PD Permit) and a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The purpose of the PD Permit is to allow for greater flexibility in the design of integrated developments than otheru,ise possible through strict application of land use regulations. W,th the PD Permit, the projerl'r site plan, elevations, and overall project design would be evaluated, and specific development standards would be defined. The Conditional Use Permit is required to allow development of a senior citizens residential complex within the BP zoning district.

Evqluolion of lond Use ond Plonnlng
a) Physically divide an established community?
Less than significant impact. The proposed project would develop a vacant, undeveloped lot, surrounded by residential, commercial, and institutional land uses. The construction would not barricade or reduce access to East Natoma Street, Fargo Way, Cimmaron Circle, or Prison Road. The community would not be gated, and the main access driveway would be on East Natoma Street, across from Prison Road. Oak Parkway Trail surrounds the project site and would enter into the southwestern corner of the site boundary. Within the site boundary, the Oak Parkway Trail would be realigned and 81

03/28/2023 Item No.13.

VintaBe at Folsom senior Apartments ISMND
connected to a concrete sidewalk proposed for the project site. The concrete sidewalk would extend around the southern parking area and connect to the existing oak Parkway Trail section located south of the site boundary. The realignment would add a pedestrian connection to Oak Parkway Trail. Although the proposed project would realign the Oak Parkway Trail for a pedestrian connection, the existing trail surrounding the site would not be physically impacted. The proposed project would not divide an established community and therefore impacts would be less than significant. b) Cause significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? No ilhpact. The proposed project is consistent with both the General Plan land use and zoning designations for the site, as affordable senior housing is identified as a permitted land use with a minor conditional Use permit. A cUP is a required approval for the implementation of the proposed project' The density of the proposed project would be 0.32 FAR which is consistent with the maximum 0.5 FAR densities permitted under the BP zoning district and PO land use designation' The proposed projed would not conflict wlth any land use plan, policy, or regulation and, therefore, would have no impact. 82

03/28/2023 Item No.13.

Vintage at Folsom Senior Apartments ISMND
Xll. ttIINERALRESOURCES
Potfitblly
$gnlllcant
Inpcct
lrslrlun
SldfiC.nt
lvilt
MnfiFdon
lncorporrtcd
lossflun
Slgnl0ent l{o
lnplct lnp.cl
Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be ofvalue to the region and the
residents of the state?
n I
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?
n
Envlronmenlol Setting
The Folsom area regional geologic structure is defined by the predominantly northwest to southeast trending belt of metamorphic rocks and the strike-slip faults that bound them. The structuraltrend 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 (no*h and west of Folsom Lake) and where the metamorphic rocks are blanketed by younger sedimentary layers (west of Folsom Dam) (Geotechnical Consultants, lnc. 2013). The four primary rock divisions found in the area are: ultramafic intrusive, metamorphic, granodiorite intrusive, and volcanic mud flows.

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. Based on a review of the Mineral Lond Classification ol the Folsom 75' Quadrangle, Socromento, El Dorodo, Plocer, and Amodor Counties, Californio (Department of Conservation 1984), no known mineral resources are mapped in the project area.

Evoluolion of Minerql Resources
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
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? No impact. The proposed pro.iect is not located in a zone of known mineral or aggregate resources. 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 for questions a) and b).
83

03/28/2023 Item No.13.

Vintage at Folsom Senior Apartments ISMND
xill. NorsE
Potenthlh
Sltnncrnt
lmp.ct
lpsrThrn
Sbnncilt
wlrh
illtlfrdon
lncorpofltod
brsftrn
$tnncmt No
lnprct lmp.Cl
Would the project result in:
a) Generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the proiect in excess of standards established in the Folsom General
Plan or noise ordinance?
n t t]n
b) Generate excessive ground-borne vibration or ground
borne noise levels? I trtl
c) For a project located within 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 or private airstrip, expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive noise.

I rl
A Noise and Vibration Assessment was prepared by HELIX on May 5,2022, and is included as Appendix H. The components of the report are summarized below.

Nolse Melrics
All noise-level and sound-levelvalues presented herein are expressed in terms of decibels (dB), with A weighting, abbreviated 'dBA," to approximate the hearing sensitivity of humans. Time averaged noise levels of one hour are expressed by the symbol "Lre" unless a different time period is specified.

Maximum noise levels are expressed by the symbol "LMAX." Some of the data also may be presented as octave-band-filtered andlor A-octave band-filtered data, which are a series of sound spectra centered on each stated frequenry, with half of the bandwidth above and half of the bandwidth below, the stated frequency. These data are typically used for machinery noise analysis and barrier-effectiveness calculations. 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 a 24-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, SpL canrot 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 att Spr- 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 ofequal loudness together produce a sound level 5 dBA louderthan one source.
84

03/28/2023 Item No.13.
vintage at Folsom Senior Apartments ISMND
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-frequenry ("pure-tone") signals in the mid-frequency {1,000 Hertz [Hz]-8,000 Hz) range. ln typical noisy environments, changes in noise of L 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.

Vlbrolion Melrlcs
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, tralns, cQnstruction equipment). Vibration sources rnay be continuous (e.g., factory machinery) or transient {e.g., explosions). eeak particle velocity (PPV) is commonly used to quantify vibration amplitude. The PPV, with unlts of inches por second (in/sec), is defined as the rnaximum instantaneous positive or negative peak of the vlbration 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 in evaluating human reactions to vibrations.

Environmentql Setling
Existing Noise Environment
The project site is currently vacant and undeveloped. Surrounding land uses include Folsom State Prison to the north; single-family residences to the northeas! Pacific 6as & Electric {PG&E) powerlines and a bicycle trailto the south; single- and multi-family residences to the south; and office space and the City of Folsom Police Department to the west. Noise sources in the project vicinity are dominated by traffic noise from East Natoma Street. Additional noise sources in the area include typical suburban residential noise (e.g., landscape maintenance equipment; building heating, ventilation, and air conditioning {HVAC) systems; dogs} and occasional noise from operation of the Fotsom State prison, approximately 2,500-ft (O"S-mile) to the north.

Noise Sensitive land Uses
Noise-sensitive land uses (NSLUs) 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. The closest existing NSIUs to the prolect site are five slngle-family resldences adjacent to the project's northeast property line. Addilional single-family and multi-family residence are located approximately 120-ft south of the project slte. The closest schoof to the project slte is the Saint John's lrlotre Darne Schoolapproxirnately 320-ft to the southeast. The closest hospital to the project site is the Vibra Hospital of Sacramento, approximately 350-ft to the south.

Noise Survey
A site visitlnoise survey was on conducted on March 29,2022, which included two short-term {10 minute) ambient noise measurements. Measurement Ml was conducted on the northeast side of 85

03/28/2023 Item No.13.

Vintage at Folsom Senior Apartments ISMN D
the projecl site approximately 150-ft from the residences along Cimmaron Drive and approximately 300- ft from East Natoma Street. Measurement M2 was conducted the nofthwest side of the project site approximately 40-ft from East Natoma Str€et and approximately 300-ft northeast of the Folsom Prison Road intersection. Traffic counts were conducted during measurement M2. The noise measurement survey notes are included as Attachment A to this report. The noise rneasurement locations are shown on Figure 2 in Appendix H. The measured noise levels are shown on Table 18.

Table 18. Noise Measurement Results
Date March 2022
Time 7:57 .m,-2:07 m,
Location Northeast side of the project site, approximately 150 feet from residences on Cimmaron Orive
Noise Level 56.7 dBA Lea
Notes Noise primarily from vehicular traffic on East Natoma Street and residential maintenance
Date March 2022
Time 2:70 -2t2O
Location Northwest side of the project site, approximate 40 feet from East Natoma Street.

Noise Level 65.5 dBA Leq
Notes Noise primarily from traffic on East Natoma Street. Traffic count; 170 cars, 1 medium truck.

Regulolory Fromework
City of Folsom General Plan 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 SN-1from the General Plan provide noise compatibility standards for land uses. For multi- family housing, 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 reduced to or below 45 CNEL for interior use areas. For other land uses that may be affected by project-generated traffic noise, the exterior noise compatibility limit is: 60 CNEL for single-family residential uses and 70 CNEL for commercial uses {City z0ztbl.

Pollcy SN 6.1..8 requires construction projects and new development antlcipated to generate a significant amount of vibration to ensure acceptable interior vibration levels at nearby vibration- sensitive uses based on FederalTransit Admlnisftation criteria. Table SN-3 from the General Plan provides vibration impact criteria. For construction with infrequent vibration events {defined as fewer than 30 vibration events of the same source per day), impacts would be significant if nearby residences are subject to ground borne vibrations in excess of 80 VdB (City 2021b).

M1
M2
86

03/28/2023 Item No.13.

Vintage at Folsom Senior Apartments ISMND
City of Folsom Municipal Code
For stationary noise sources, the City has adopted a Noise Ordinance as Section 8.42 of the City Municipal Code (City 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 on the project site {other than noise from HVAC systems) for 30 or more minutes in any hour would be significant if they exceed 50 dBA L6q from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and 45 dBA L6qfrom 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m., measured at off-site residential property boundaries. Section 8.42.050 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. Noise from the project's HVAC would be significant if exterior noise levels exceed 50 dBA, per Section 8.42.07O of the City Municipal Code measured at off-site residential property boundaries.

Methodology ond Assumpllons
Noise Modeling Software
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.

Modeling of the exterior noise environment for this report was accomplished using the Computer Aided Noise Abatement (CadnaA) model version 2O2L. Traffic noise was evaluated within CadnaA using the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Traffic Noise Model (TNM) version 2.5 (USDOT 2004). The noise models used in this analysis were developed from the site plan provided by the project architect. lnput variables included building mechanical equipment reference noise levels, road alignment, lane configuration, projected traffic volumes, estimated truck composition percentages, and vehicle speeds
Off-Site Traffic Noise
The one-hour Lsq traffic noise level is calculated utilizing peak-hour traffic. The model-calculated one- hour Leo noise output is the equivalent to the CNEL (Caltrans 2009). The off-site traffic noise modeling includes does not account buildings, structures or terrain. The project Transportation lmpact Study (TlS) included an intersection analysis with data for calculation of peak hour traffic volumes on streets in the project vicinlty {T. Kear 2022). Existing traffic for East Natoma Street was estimated frotn intersection turning counts included in the TlS. The PM peak hour traffic volumes used in the analysis is shown in Table 19. The noise modeling input and output are included in Appendix H. Traffic waE asssrned to be comprised of a typical mix of vehicles for suburban streets in California: 96 percent cars and light trucks; 3 percent medium trucks and buses; and 1 percent heavy trucks.

Table 19. PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
+
East Natoma Street - Street to Folsom Prison Road
East Natoma Street - Folsom Prison Road to Cimmaron Circle Erlrdtul202l
1,060
943
Source: T, Kear2O22
a7
969

03/28/2023 Item No.13.

Vintage at Folsom Senior Apartm€nts ISMND
Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning
The project would use one residential-sized HVAC units for each apartment, with the air conditioning condenser located on the rooftop of the building. The condensers 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-A24-34 2-ton split system for, which has a sound rating of 76 dBA Swr (Carrier 2005). The manufacturer's noise data for the HVAC units is provided below in t"ott to*,"

20. HvAc condenser Noise Data (swt dBAl
Overall llolse lercl

75.0 Source: Carrier 2005
Swr = sound power level; Hz = Hertz; kHz = kilohertz
Stondords of Signiflconce
Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, implementation of the project would result in a significant adverse impact if it would:

L. Generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the City of Folsom General Plan or noise ordinance;

2. Generate excessive ground-borne vibration or ground borne noise levels; ot

3. For a project located within 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 or private airstrip, expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise.

Per the City General Plan, impacts related to the generation of noise on the project site would be significant if noise levels generated by the project site HVAC systems would be significant if it would exceed 50 dBA kq residential property boundaries. For traffic-related noise, impacts would be considered significant if the project would cause ambient noise levels at nearby NSLUs to exceed the noise compatibility limits defined in the City General Plan or would increase noise levels by 1.5 CNEL or more in areas with exiting ambient noise levels exceeding the noise compatibility limits. ln accordance with the City Municipal Code, any noise from project construction activity would be considered significant for construction occurring 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, ln accordance with the City General Plan, excessive ground-borne vibration would occur if construction- related ground-borne vibration exceeds 80 VdB at nearby residential properties. 5{10 Hr I kHr 2lHr 4 kHz I kHz|,25Hz 25O Hz

68.0 70.0 67.0 61.5 58.55s.5 62.s
88

03/28/2023 Item No.13.

Vintage at Folsom Senior Apartments ISMND
Evoluolion of Nolse
a) Generate o substontiol temporcry or permonent increase in ombient noise levels in the vicinity of the praject in excess of standards estsblished in the Folsam Generol Plon or noise ordinonce? Less than significant with mitigation.

Construction Noise
The nearest NSLUs to the project site area are single-family residences approximately adjacent to the project's northeast property line. Heavy earthmoving equipment would have the potentialto be as close as 15-ft from the residential property line, including rubber-tired dozers and graders. Over the course of one hour, it is anticipated that the average distance of heavy earthmoving equipment from residential property lines would be approximately 50-ft. Modeling shows that the combined one-hour noise from a dozer and grader would result in 82,7 dBA Leo 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 anticipated construction equipment is included in Attachment B, within Appendix H.

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). 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 potentially significant noise impact. Mitigation measure NOI-0l would prohibit construction activities outside the above daytime hours.

Operation Noise
Off-Site Traffic Noise
As described above, modeling of the exterior noise environment for this report was accomplished using CadnaA and the TNM. According to the TlS, the project is expected to generate approximately 504 daily trips and 41 trips during the PM peak hour (T. Kear 20221. Future traffic noise levels presented in this analysis are based on traffic volumes (as described above) for the existing (2022) and existing plus project scenarios. The modeling does not account for intervening terrain or structures (e.9,, sound walls, buildings).

The calculated off-site traffic noise levels are shown in Table 21, Off-1ite Troffic Noise Levels.ln typical outdoor environments, a 3 dBA increase in ambient noise level is considered just perceptible and a 5 dBA increase is considered distinctly perceptible. ln areas where existing or future ambient noise exceeds 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 areas along the analyzed road segments already exceed the residential land use noise compatibility standard listed in the City General Plan (50 CNEL for low density residentiali 65 CNEL for multi-family residential), this analysis uses a threshold of a 1.5 CNEL increase to determine significance of the impact.

As shown in Table 21, the maximum change in CNEL as a result of project-generated traffic would be

0.1 CNEL, a change in ambient noise level that is lower than the threshold and is not discernable, 89

03/28/2023 Item No.13.

Vintage at Folsom Senior Apartments ISMND
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 21. Off-Site Traffic Noise Levels
loaduayScgment Chante ln CNEL
East Natoma Street - Fargo Street to 0.1
Folsom Prison Road
East Natoma Street - Folsom Prison Road 0.1
to Cimmaron Circle
Source: TNM version 2.5
Heating, Ventilotion, and Air Conditioning Noise
The primary potential noise sources on the project site would be roof-top mounted HVAC systems, as desgibed in the Methodology and Assumptions section, above. HVAC systems were analyzed using the CadnaA software, assuming 140 condenser units {one per apartrnent plus additionalfor common areas) as shown on the project roof plan. Modeling assumed one hour of continuous operation of all equipment. Modeled noise levels were analyzed at receivers placed at the property line of nearby NSLUs {see Figure 2 for NSLU areas) at a height of 5-ft above the ground. The modeled 1-hour (LEq} noise level at the adjacent property lines is compared with the City standard in Table 22, Operational HVAC Noise.

As shown in Table 22, noise from the project's HVAC systems would not exceed the City's noise ordinance standard of 50 dBA Leq, and impacts from project HVAC noise would be less than significant' Table 22. Operational HVAC Noise
Becaptor
Excecd
Standrds?
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Source: CadnaA; City Noise Ordinance Sections 8.42'050
Off-site Troffic Noise
Modeling of the exterior noise environment on the project site was accomplished using the CadnaA model and the road segment traffic volumes, as described above.

No
R1
R2
R3
R4
R5
R6
R7
s1
H1
Cxlsdng 2m1
{cNEu
€xlstlng + Prol€ct
lcr{ELl

61.4 63.5

67.5 67,6
HVAC
Standad
ldBALml
Modeled
tlobe {dBAtnlDescrlptlon

28.5 50Single-family residence

29.7 50Single-family residence

29.7 50Single-family residence

28.5 50Single-familv residence

26.2 505ingle-family residence
28,8 50Multi-family residence
s028.6Sinele-family residence
5020.3School

24.5 50Hospital
90

03/28/2023 Item No.13.

Vintage at Folsom Senior Apartments ISMND
Exterior Noise
As discussed above, the City General Plan Safety and Noise Element has established an exterior noise standard of 65 CNEL for multifamily residential outdoor activity areas, defined as "[...j the patios or common areas where people generally congregate for multifamily development" (City 2021b). The patio/outdoor kitchen/bocce ball and seating areas on the west side of the project building would be the outdoor activlty areas for the project. The modeling shows ground level noise for the outdoor common areas would range from approximately 55.5 CNEL to 58.6 CNEL. This noise level would not exceed the City exterior noise standard of 65 CNEL and the impact would be less than significant. lnterior Noise
Standard building design and construction using current buildlng codes provides approximately 20 dBA of exterior to interior noise reduction with the windows and doors closed. The noise at the exterior facades for the project end units facing East Natoma Street was modeled for apartments on the first through third floors, and is shown in Table 23'
Table 23. Building Exterior Noise Levels
floor WGst Arm (q{Etl
First 62.7
Second 62.s
Third 62,0
Source: CadnaA version 2021
Buildings with exterior noise levels exceeding 65 dBA could result in interior noise levels in excess of the City General Plan Safety and Noise Element standard of 45 CNEL. Noise levels for the end unit apart.nents on the project building north arm would exceed 55 CNEt. Therefore, interior noise levels were calculated based on the architectural plans for the project. The calculation sheets are included in Attachment B. The calculations show, with construction meeting minimum code requirements, interior noise levels would not exceed the City standard of 45 CNE[ and the impact would be less than significant.
lmpact Conclusion
lf project construction activities were to occur outside the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday, construction noise generated by the project would not be exempt for the City's noise ordinance nighttime exterior standard of 45 dBA, and the impact would be potentially significant. lmplementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-01 would restrict construction hours.

The addition of permanent project-generated traffic vicinity on roadways would not result in a discernable increase in ambient noise levels. The pro.iect would not expose future project residents to noise levels that exceed compatibility guidelines in the General Plan.

NorthArn {Ct{Et}

55.3 66.0

65.7 91

03/28/2023 Item No.13.

Vintage at Folsom Senior Apartments ISMND
Long-term operatlon of project would not result in noise levels from on-site sources, including HVAC systems, exceeding the City noise ordinance standards, measured at the property line of the closest NSLUs to the project site.

Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-01. the project would not generate a substantialtemporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinlty of the project in excess of standards established in the Folsom General Plan or noise ordinance and the impact would be less than significant,
Mitigataon Measure NOI-01: Construction Hours/Scheduling The City shall specify on allgradin& and construction permits that construction activities for all phases of construction, including servleing of construction equipment shall only be permitted during the hours of 7:AA a,m. and 6:OA p.m. Monday through Friday and between 8;00 a.m' to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Construction shall be prohibited on Sundays and on all holidays.

Delivery of materials or equipment to the site and truck traffic coming to and from the site shall be restricted to the same construction hours specified above. b) Generotion of excesslve ground-borne vibratian or ground barne noise levels? Less than significant with mitiSation
An on-site source of vibration during project construction would be a vibratory roller. A vibratory roller would primarily be used to achieve soil compaction as part of the foundation and paving construction, and for aggregate and asphatt compaction as part of project driveway and parking lot construction).

Vibratory rollers could be used withln approximately 65-ft of the single-family residences to the northwest. A large vibratory roller creates approximately 0.21" in/sec PPV at a distance of 25-ft, or 94 VdB (Caltrans 2020l' At a distance of 65-ft, a vibratary roller would create a PPV of 0.073 infsec, or 85 VdB.l This would exceed the City General Plan resldential standard of 80 VdB, and the impact would be potentially significant. Once operational, the project would not be a source of groundborne vibrations. A large vibratory roller would result in approxlmately 80 VdB or greater at distances less than 120-ft.

Mitigation measure NOl.02 would require the contactor demonstrate that the rollers to be used on the project site would produce less than 80 VdB at nearby occupied residences, or use vibratory rollers in static rnode only (no vibrationsl when operated within 1.20-ft of occupied residences. Therefore, with implementation of Mitlgation Measure NOI-02, the project would not generate excessive ground-borne vibration levels and the impac{ would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measure NOI-02: Vibratory Roller
The applicant or designated contractor shall provide evidence to the City {via testing data or calculations from a qualified exllert), demonstrating that vibratory rollers to be used on the proje* site would produce less than 80 VdB at nearby occupied residences, or allvibratory rollers shall be used in static mode only {no vibrations) when operating wlthin L20-ft of an occupied residence. The City shall specify r,ibratory roller model, size, or operating mode restrictions on alldemolition, grading; and construction permits. 1 Equipment PPV = Reference PPV t {25/D}^(in/sec), where Reference PPV is PPV at 25 feet, D is distance from equipment to the receptor in feet, and n= 1.1 (the value related to the attenuation rate through the ground); formula from Caltrans 2020.

VdB = 20 * Log{PPVl4/10'6).
a
a
92

03/28/2023 Item No.13.

Vintage at Folsom Senior Apartments ISMND
c) For a project lacated wtthln the vicinity of d prlvate airstrip ar an alrpart land use plon, or where such o plon has nat been adopted, wlthin two miles of a public use slrport ff private oirstrlp, expose people residing or working in the proiect oreo ta excessive noise.

The closest airports to the project site are the Cameron Park Airport, approximately 9-miles to the east, and Mather Airport, approximately 10.7-miles to the southwest. The project site is not located within the influence area or noise contours for the Cameron Park Airport (El Dorado County 2012). The project site is located within the influence area and is identified as a review area in the Mather Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan {ALUCPI. The pro,lect site is beneath the approach paths for runways 22 Left and 22 BlghL however, the project site is not with the 60 dBA noise contour for the airport (Sacramento County Association of Governments 2020). Therefore, although the proiect slte is subject to overfllght by aircraft approaching and departlng Mather Airpo*, residents of the proposed project or people working in the projeci area would not be exposed to excessive levels of noise due to aircraft or airport operations, and the impact would be less than significant' 93

03/28/2023 Item No.13.

Vintage at Folsom Senior Apartments ISMND
XIV. POPUTATION AND HOUSING
?otmdally
f,Enltc.nf
lnp.ct
lcso firn
ll$rlfiont
$tlfi
!lldgadon
lnCoOorrtcd
l.a$fhtn
Sltnlficant llo
ftnprct |lnercl
Would the project:
a) lnduce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly {for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
n I n
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or
housing, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
t_l fl I
Envlronmenlol Setting
Folsom's estirnated population in 2019 was 81,328 people (U.S. Census Bureau 2019). The population is projected to increase to 97,485 by 2035 (City of Folsom 2018a). The proposed project would construct 136 affordable one- and two-bedroom senior apartment units within an estimated 109,508-sf building.

Evoluotion of Populolion qnd Housing
a) lnduce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly {for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
Less than significant impact. lmplementation of the proposed project would result in the construction of 135 affordable one- and two-bedroom units for seniors aged 50 and older. Existing backbone infrastructure and roads in the area would not need to be expanded or extended as a result of the project, A signal would need to be added to the existing stoplight at the intersection of East Natoma Street and Prison Road for the proposed main access driveway.

The proposed project would accommodate the demand for housing and would not induce substantial growth in the City of Folsom. Although it is anticipated that the majority of individuals relocating to the apartment community would be from the area, it is possible that the apartment units could draw in between 136 to 358 new residents {assuming 2.63 people per unit, based on projected household size in 2035 lCity of Folsom 20].8a1]. The projected household size is for single family homes, which is larger than the predicted unit size of a senior housing complex proposed for the project, The project would be restricted to residents 60 years and older and units would be one- or two- bedroom. The population generated by the project is within the projected increase in population from planned growth as projected in the Cltls Housing Element. Therefore, irnpacts from project implementation would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required,
94

03/28/2023 Item No.13.

Vintage at Folsom Senlor Apirtments ISMND
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or houslng, necessitatlng the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No lmpact. The prolect slte is currently vacant. Therefore, there would be no lmpact on displacement of €xisting people or housing.
95

03/28/2023 Item No.13.

Vintage at Folsom Senior Apartments ISMND
xv. PUBUc SERVICES
Potcntb[y
Sltnl0crnt
lmpact
lrscThan
Slttlncsnt
wldt
Mhlgatl,on
lmorporatcd
tesrThan
Sltnlicmt No
lmprct lmpact
Would the project result in tubstantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the ronstrtrctaon of urhich could cause significant environmenial impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service rarios, re$pon$e firnes or ather performance objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection? LI n I
b) Police protection? n I
c) Schools? LI n
d) Parks? n
e) Other public facilities? t--]
t-_-t t_l I L,l
Environmentol Setling
The proposed pro1ect is in an area currently served by urban levels of all utilities and service"s' Public services provided by the City of Folsom in the project area include fire, police, school, library, and park services. The site is served by all pubfic utilities including domestic water, wastewater treatment, and storm water utilities.

The City of Folsom Fire Department provides fire protection services. There are five fire stations providing fire/rescue and emergency medicalservices within the City of Folsom. Station 38 is nearest to the project site and is located at 1300 Blue Ravine Road, approximately 2.5-miles southeast of the project site. The Fire Department responds to over 6,000 requests for seruice annually with an average of 16.4 per day {City of Folsom 201"8b). The City of Folsom Police Department is located at 46 Natoma Street, approximately l-mile southwest of the project site.

The prolect site ls located within the Folsom Cordova Unified School District and is within the attendance area for St. John's Notre Dame School, Blanche Sprentz Llementary School, Folsom Middle School, and Folsom Lake High School. There are several parks near the project site. including the Folsom City Lions Park, Granite Mini Park, Castle Park, Elvie Perazzo Briggs Park, and Econome Family Park.

The Sacramento Municipal Utitities District (SMUDlwould supply electricity to the proiect site. Pacific Gas & Electric {PG&E} provides natural gas to the area and would provide naturalgas to the project site' fhe City of Folsorn has a program of maintaining and upgrading existing utility and public services within the City. Similarly, all private utilities maintain and upgrade their systems as necessary for public convenlenee and necet$ity, and as technology changes'
96

03/28/2023 Item No.13.

Vintage at Folsom Senior Apartments ISMND
Evqluqlion of Publlc Services
a) Fire protection?
Less than significant impact. On-site water for fire services would be privately owned and managed but would connect to the City of Folsom's water supply in Zone 3 Cimmaron Pressure Zone, The project would include fire hydrants, exterior Fire Department Connection assemblies, and fire riser rooms.

Emergency vehicle access would be maintained on the site to meet the Fire Department standards for fire truck maneuvering, location of fire truck to fight a fire, rescue access to the units, and fire hose access to all sides of the building. The fire lane would be 27-ft minimum, with an inner turning radius of 25-ft and an outer turning radius of 50-ft. All curbs adjacent to lhe fire lane would be painted red for emergency fire servicer, The proposed project would not significantly increase fire service demands or render the current service level to be inadequate, and impacts would be less than significant' b) Police Protection?
Less than significant impact. The project site is within an urbanized area of Folsom and would increase the residential population requiring police protection services. The project would be required to pay the City's Capital lmprovement New Construction Fee (Folsom Municipal Code Chapter 3, Title 3.80lto fund police services and facllities, The pmiect includes features that reduce opportunities for crime such as adequate lighting on East Natoma Street, the proposed building, and parking areas {referto 8.0 l.

Aesthetics for more detail on lighting). Additionally, there would be on-site management services, visibility of common areas from adjacent units, and no dead-end low-visibility areas, Potential impacts from implementation of the proposed project would therefore be less than significant. c) Schools?
Less than significant impact. The proposed project is age-restricted to residents aged 50 years and older and would not generate students in grades K-12 or create demand for schoolfacilities. Pursuant to Government Section 65995,1, the project would be required to pay development impact fees to the Folsom Cordova Unified School District. No new schoolfacilities would be necessary to serve the proposed project. Potential impacts from implementation of the proposed project would be less than significant.
d) Parks?
Less than significant impact. The 136-unit project would accommodate residents who would create additional demand for park and recreation facilities, The nearest park is Folsom City Lions Parlq 403 Stafford Street, approximately O.5-miles from the project site. Since the park is not adjacent to the proposed apartrnent cornrnunity, a substantial increase in usage ofthe park is not anticipated. The proposed profect would lnclude on-site indoor and outdoor recrea'tional amenhies to terve residents that would reduce the need far park demand. The project would be required to pay park fees ta mitigate the project's impact on existing park facilities and fund new park and recreation facilities. The potential impacts from the proposed prolect would be less than significant. e) Other Facilities?
Less than significant impact. The project site is within the urban area of Folsom served by adequate police, fire, and emergency services. The senior housing apartment complex would include on-site 97

03/28/2023 Item No.13.

Vlntage at Folsom Senior Apartments ISMND
recreational amenities to serye resldents. Construction and operation of the proposed project would not requlre the construction or expansion of parks and other public facilitles or result in the degradation of those facllities. Potential impacts would be less than significant, and mitigation would not be necessary. 98

03/28/2023 Item No.13.

Vintage at Folsom Senior Apartments ISMND
XVI. RECREATION
Poten{rlly
Sltnlfic.nt
lilp!ct
lcrsTlnn
SlSrdficrnt
rilldr
illttrdon
lncorpor.tad
tcrrllnn
S[nncmt llo
ltn9tct lnps(t
Would the project:
a) lncrease the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
tr tl I n
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
r LI
Envlronmentol Setllng
The Folsom Parks and Recreation Department provides and malntains a full range of recreational activities and park facilities for the community. There are several recreational amenities and parks near the project site, including the Johnny Cash RecreationalTrail and Oak Parkway Trail, Folsom City Lion's Park, Granite Mini Park, Castle Park, Elvie Perazzo Briggs Park, and Econome Family Park' Evqluqlion of Recreqlion
a) lncrease the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Less than significant impact. Some additional use of community parks and trails is anticipated, however, on-site recreational facilities at the apartment complex would reduce park and trail demand, lmplementation of the proposed project would enhance existing and planned recreation facilities in the project area. The project would be requlred to pay park fees to mhigate the proiect's impact on existing park facilities and fund new park and recreation facilities. Potential impacts to existing parks would be less than significant.
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Less than significant impact. The proposed project would result in a 2,500-sf community center on the ground floor of the proposed building. Additional arnenities on the project site would include outdpor seating and dining areas, perimeter walkways, a bocce ball court, bike rackl, picnic tables with umbrellas, outdoor barbeques/ kitchens, and 6-ft benches. On-site facilities and existing neighborhood parks are antlcipated to adequately serve the recreation demands of project residents. The amenities associated with the propos€d project are analyzed in this lS/MND. Potential impacts on recreational facilities would be less than significant'
L-l
99

03/28/2023 Item No.13.

Vintage at Folsom Senior Apartments ISMND
XVII. TRANSPONTATION
Fotcid.lly
S[nlficrm
lmprct
lcee fhrn
strnnam
wltlr
tllttrdon
lncorporrted
lerclltrn
Slt,llfom t{o
lmpact lnp.ct
Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
I fl
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? LI rtL-t
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
n I trn
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? T n I
The discussion below is based on a Transportation lmpact Study (TlS) prepared by T. Kear Transportation Planning & Management, lnc. {T. Kear 2O22l.The report is included in Appendix l.

Environmentol Setling
Study Scenarios
Four scenarios were identified for inclusion in this TIS through consultation with City staff. These study scenarios were used to evaluate Projecl impacts relevant to General Plan Policy M4.1.3 relative to level of service. This study determines the weekday AM peak-hour, PM peak-hour, and Sunday peak-hour leveFof-service at study intersections under the following scenarios:
r ExistinB 2022 without Project condition
. Existing 2022with Project condition
Analysis of the existing condition reflects the traffic volumes and roadway geometry at the time the study began. This scenario quantifies performance measures for the existing condition and serves as a known reference point for those familiar with the study area. These scenarios, with and without the Project, identify Project related impacts anticipated to occur if the Project opened in 2020.

Roodwoy Syslem
Brief descriptions of the key roadways serving the proiect site are provided below a Natoma St/East Natoma St is a two-lane minor arterial connecting from Folsom Blvd, past Folsom City Hall, and connecting through Green Valley Rd and onto Empire Ranch Rd. From Folsom Blvd to Fargo Way, just east of City Hall, there are sidewalks, curb, and gutter with striped class 2 bike lanes. From Fargo Way to the east, fronting the Project site and Folsom State Prison, there are dirt shoulders without sidewalks until Folsom Crossing Rd, where East Natoma 100

03/28/2023 Item No.13.

Vintage at Folsom Senior Apartments ISMND
Street becomes a four-lane arterial with sidewalk, curb, gutter, and striped class 2 bike lanes to Empire Ranch Rd. At Coloma Street, near City Hall, Natoma 5t caries about 11,000 vehicles per day. A volume which drops to about 10,000 vehicles per day near the Project Site. prison Rd is a two-lane north-south access road from East Natoma St to Folsom State Prison. lt has unpaved shoulders without bike lanes or sidewalks. Prison Road is signed to prohibit stopping or turning within the prison's property.

Sludy lnlerseclions
The traffic impact study analyzed the following three study intersections:
1) East Natoma St/ Prison Road: Signal
2l East Natoma Streetl Eastern Project Driveway: Side-Street-Stop-Control (SSSC) Level ol Service MethodologY
Level of service {LOS) is a quatitative indication of the level of delay and congestion experienced by motorists using an intersection. LOS are designated by the letters A through F, with A being the best conditions and F being the worst (high delay and congestion). Calculation methodologies, measures of performance, and thresholds for each letter grade differ for road segments, signalized intersections, and unsignalized intersections.

Based on guidance from City staff, the following procedures described below for intersection traffic operations analysis were utilized for this TIS'
I nte rse cti o n Troff ic A pe ratio ns Ano lysi s
Sienalized I ntersections,
The methodology from the Highway Capacity Manual {HCM) 6th Edition2, are used to analyze signalized intersections. LOS can be characterized forthe entire intersection, each approach, or by lane group.

Control delay alone (the weighted average delay for allvehicles entering the intersection) is used to characterize LOS for the entire intersection or an approach. Control delay and volume to capacity ratio are used to characterize level-of-service for lane groups. The average delay criteria used to determine the LOS at signalized intersections is presented in Table 24. The HCM 2010 methodology is used as the primary method. HCM 2000 methods are only utilized where the signal phasing is incompatible with HCM 2010 methods.

Table 24. Level-of{ervice Criteria for Signalized lntersections a
level -of'
Service Description
Averate Delayl
{Sec. /Vehicle.}
A Very Low Delay: This level-of-service occurs when progression is extremely S 10.0 favorable, and most vehicles arrive during a green phase. Most vehicles do not stop at all.
2 Transportation Research Board {2016) Highway Capacity Manual, Washington, D'C' 101

03/28/2023 Item No.13.

Vintage at Folsom Senior Apartments ISMND
s Minimal Delays: This level-of-service generally occurs with Sood proBression, short cycle lenSths, or both. More vehicles stop than at LOS A, causing higher

10.1-20.0
levels of del
C Acceptable Delay: Delay increases due to only fair progression, longer cycle 20.1-35.0 lengths, or both. lndividual cycle failures (to service all woiting vehicles) may begin to appear at this level of service, The number of vehicles stopping is ificant, though many still pass through the intersection without stopping.

D Approaching Unstablefiolerable Delays: The influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high v/c ratios' Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. lndividual 3s.1-s5.0
cycle failures are noticeable.

E Unstable Operation/Significant Delays: This is considered by many agencies 55.1-80.0 the upper limit of acceptable delays. These high delay values generally indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high v/c ratios. lndividual cycle failures are freq uent occurrences.

F Excessive Delays: This level. considered to be unacceptable to most drivers, > 80,0 or v/c >1.0often occurs with oversaturation (i.e., when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection). lt may also occur at high v/c ratios below 1.00 with many individual cycle failures, Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also contribute to such delay levels'
Note 1: Weighted sverage of delay on all approaches. This is the measure used by the Highway Capacity Manual to determine level-of-service. Any movement with a volume-to-capacity ratio (vlc) greater than 1.0 is considered to be level-of-service F.

Sourcel Transportation Research Board {2016) Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition, Washington D.C.

Unsiqna lized htersqEllglE
The methodology from HCM 6th Edition is used for the analysis of unsignalized intersections. At an unsignalized intersec-tion, most of the main street traffic is un-delayed and, by definition, have acceptable conditions. The maln street left-turn movements and the minor street movements are all susceptible to delay of varying degrees. Generally, the higher the rnain straet traffic volurnes, the higher the delay for the minor movements. Separate methods are utilired for Two-Way Stop-Controlted {TWSC} intersections and All-Way Stop-Controlled (AWSC) intersections. a
a
TWSC: The methodology for analysis of two-way stop-controlled intersections calculates an average total delay per vehicle for each minor street movement and for the major street left' turn movements, based on the availability of adequate gaps in the main street through traffic. A LOS designation is assigned to individual movements or combinations of movements (in the case of shared lanes) based upon delay, it is not defined for the intersection as a whole. Unsignalized intersection LOS is for each movement (or group of movements) based upon the respective average delay per vehicle presents the average delay criteria used to determine the LOS at TWSC and AWSC intersections.

AWSC: At all-way stop-controlled intersections, the IOS is determined by the weighted average delay for all vehicles entering the intersection. The methodologies for these types of intersections calculate a single weighted average delay and LOS for the intersection as a whole.

The average delay criteria used to determine the LOS at all-way stop intersections is the same as t02

03/28/2023 Item No.13.

Vintage at Folsom Senior Apaftments IsMND
that presented in Table 25. LOS for specific movements can also be determined based on the TWSC methodologY'
It is not unusual for some of the minor street movements at unsignalized intersections to have LOS D, E, or F conditions while the major street movements have LOS A, B, or C conditions. ln such a case, the minor street traffic experiences delays that can be substantialfor individual minor street vehicles, but the majority of vehicles using the intersection have very little delay. Usually in such cases, the minor street traffic volumes are relatively low. lf the minor street volume is large enough, improvements to reduce the minor street delay may be justified, such as channelization, widening, or signalization' Table 25. level-of-Service Criteria for Unsignalized lntersections Level of Description
Service
(ros)
n[s'
Average Delay
by Movement
{seconds I vehicle)
awgg'
lntersection Wide
Average Delay
/ vehlcle)
A Little or no delav <10 <10
B Short traffic delav >10and<15 >10and<15
c AveraEe traffic delays >15and<25 >15and<25
D Long traffic delays >25and<35 >25and<35
E very long traffic delays >35and<50 >35and<50
F Extreme delays potentially affecting other
traffic movements in the intersection
> 50 (or, v/c >1.0) >50
Note t: Two-Way Stop-Control {TWSC) level-of-service is calculated separately for each minor street movement (or shared movement) as well as major street left turns using these criteria. Any movement with a volume to capacity ratio {v/c) greater than 1.0 is considered to be level-of- service F.

Note 2: All-Way Stop-Control (AWSC) assessment of level-of-service at the approach and intersection levels is based solely on control delay.

Source: Transportation Research Board (20161 Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition, Washington D.C' Generol Plon Thlesholds
Level of Seruice
Consistency with General Plan LOS policies for the proposed project were determined based on the methods described above and identified as either "conforming" or "non-conforming". General Plan Policy M 4.1.3 addresses LOS:

Strive to achieve at least trcffic Level of Service "D" (or belter) for locol sgeets ond roodways throughout the city. tn designing transportotion improvements, the City will prioritize use of smort technologies and innovative solutions that moximize efficiencies ond safety while minimizing the physicalfootprint. During the course of Plon buildout, it mdy occur thot temporalty higher LOS result where roddwoy improvements have not been adequately phosed as development proceeds. However, this situotion willbe minimized bosed on onnusltraffic studies and monitoring programs. City Stoff will repott to the City Council ot regular intewols via the Capital lmprovement Progrom process for the Council to prioritize praiects integrol to achieving LOS D or better. 103

03/28/2023 Item No.13.

Vlntage at Folsom Senior Apartments ISMND
The General Plan EIR includes a criterion addressing potential impacts at locations that operate at IOS E or F under no-project conditions. Under this standard, a non-conforming situation would occur if the proposed project would:
lncrease the averoge deloy by five seconds or more at an intersection that currently operates (or is projected to operate) ot on unocceptable LAS under "no-proiect" conditions.

For the purposes of this analysis, LOS is considered potentially non-conforming if implementation of the project would result in any of the following:
r Cause.an intersection in Folsom that currently operates (or is projected to operate) at LOS D or better to degrade to LOS E or worse'
e lncrease the average delay by five seconds or more at an intersection in Folsom that currently operates (or is projected to operate) at an unacceptable Los E or F.

Bi cycl e/P edestria n/Tra n sit Fo ci I ities
An impact is considered signlficant if implementation of the project would:
r lnhibit the use of bicycle, pedestrian, or transit facilities, r Eliminate existing bicycle, pedestrian, or transit facilities. r Prevent the implementation of planned birycle, pedestrian, or transit facilities.

Vehicle Mller Troveled Slondords ol Slgnlflconce
Under State Law (SB 743), on July L,2O2O, vehicle miles traveled (VMT) will become the only metric for evaluating significant transportation impacts in environmental impact analyses required under the California Environmental Quallty Act (CEOAI. Without specific General Plan guidance for VMT thresholds, this analysis uses a qualitative screening against The Governors' Office of Planning and Research (OPR) guidance of a 15 percent per capita VMT reduction and utilizes OPR's suggested exemption for affordable housing projects.

Folsom General Ptan policy NCR 3.1.3 addresses VMT, as stated below:

Policy NCR 3.1.3 "Encourage efforts to reduce the amount of VMT. These efforts could include encouraging rnixed-use development promoting a johs/housing balance, and encouraging alternative transportation such as walking, cycling and publlc transit." OPR has published guidance recommending a CEQA threshold for transportation impacts of land use projects of a 15 percent VMT reduction per capita, relative to either city or regional averages based on 104

03/28/2023 Item No.13.

Vintage at Folsom senior Apartments ISMND
the California's Climate Scoping Plan3. Qualitative assessment of VMT reduction is acceptable to screen projectsa. Based on these criteria, a project will be considered to have a potentially significant impact if:
per capita VMT from residential projects is anticipated to be greater than 85 percent of the regional average per capita VMT'
The project is anticipated to inhibit implementation of planned pedestrian, bicycle, or transit improvements.

Anolysls Tools
LOS
Control delays and level-of-service for study intersections were calculated using the Synchro 115 analysis software (Version 11".1, build 1, revision 5). Synchro implements the methodologies of the 5th Edition of the Highway Capacity Manualto modeltraffic controls and vehicle delay' The software reguires data on road characteristics (geometric), traffic counts, and the signaltiming data for each analysis intersection. ln general, default parameters were used, except in locations where specific field data are available. Heavy vehicle percentages of 2 percent were assumed during the peak hour.

VMT
To support jurisdictions' 58743 implementation, The Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) staff developed thresholds and screening maps for residential and office projects, using outputs from the 2016 base year travel demand model run for the 2020 Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategies {MTP/SCS}, SACOG travel demand model is activityltour based and is,designed to estimate an individual's daily travel, accounting for land use, transportation and demographics that influence peoples' travel behaviors.

For residential projects, the threshold is defined as total household VMT per capita achieving 15 percent of reduction comparing to regional (or any appropriate sub-area) average. The SACOG screening map uses "hex" geography, with each hex being about 1,000-ft on edge, ResidentialVMT per capita per hex is calculated by tallying all household VMTs, including VMT traveling outside the region, Senerated by the residents living at the hex and divided by the total population in the hex. Hexes are then color coded with green and blue hexes depicting neighborhoods with at least a 15 percent reduction in residential VMT relative to the SACOG region. Yellow, orange, pink and red hexes have less than a 15 percent VMT reduction.

Exisllng 2022 Condillon
Table 25 presents a summary of level-of-servlce results for the study intersections under Existing Conditions, along with 95 percent queue lengths for left turns. All study intersections operate at LOS A x OPR {2018} Teehnical Advisory on €valuating lransportatlon lmpacts ln CEQA, http:llwulv,opr.ca.sov/qgcsl20198!2?-743 Technitaf &ivlsorv.pdf. 4 OPR's webinar qn 58 743 implernentation, 4h6/29?A,
' hltps :/Agyw,tm f f icwa r
105

03/28/2023 Item No.13.

Vintage at Folsom Senior Apartmentl ISMND
or better during the AM, PM, and Sunday peak hours. Left turn queues are adequately accommodated by the existing left turn storage pockets.

Table 25. Existing 2022 lntersection Delay and Level'of-Service lntellectlon Crntrol
llo Prolec (Delay and
Levelof-Servlcef
AMIPM
E Natoma St/Prison Rd Sienal 9.3 A 9.1 A
Eastern Project
Driveway sssc nla nla
lntcrsectlon Approach
t{o Prolect
95% Queues (Feetl
AM I pr,a
E Natoma St/Prison Rd
EB Left t73' 30'
WB Left n/a n/a
5B Left 22' 49'
NB Left nla
^/aEastern Project
Driveway N8 nla nla
SSSC = Side Street Stop Control
ProJecled Tdp Genetolion
Projected traffic generated by the proposed Project was calculated using trip generation factors from the ,nstitute of Transportation Engineers (lTE) Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition (2021), and is provided in Table 27,
Table27. Project Trip Generation
land Use
ITE
Crtctory Quondty Datt Dally AM Perk hour PM Peak hour
Total lnbound Outbound Tottl lnbornd Outbound
Senior Adult Housing
(Multifamily) 252
136
dwelling
units
Rate 3.24 0.29 45% 55% 0.3 54Yo 46%
Trips 44r 39 17 22 4L 27 19
Source: l'l1 (2O2Ll Trip Generation Manual, lnstitute of Transportation Engineers, Washington DC. (Higher value of either the average rate or the fitted equation-based rate for peak hour of generator).

Trip Distribution
Trip distribution was based on obseryed traffic counts and select zone analysis within the travel demand model. New Project trips were distributed as follows:
t 48 percent tofrom the west on East Natoma Street
o 48 percent tolfrom the east on East Natoma Street
r 4 percent to/from the north via Prison Road
106

03/28/2023 Item No.13.

VintaSe at Folsom Senior Apartments ISMND
SignalTiming Geometry
With the addition of a fourth leg to the East Natoma St/Prison Rd intersection, the signal timing and lane geometry was assumed to be configured as follows:

Eastbound: An eastbound right turn pocket was assumed with 150-ft of storage and a 60-foot taper; for a total of one left, one through, and one right turn lane.

Westbound: A westbound left turn tane with 100-foot pocket plus 50-foot taper for a total of one left and one shared through-right lane.

Southbound: The existing exclusive right-turn lane is assumed to be restriped as a through-right turn lane (for a total of one left and one shared through-right).

Northbound: The northbound approach is assumed to provide one left and one shared through- right lane. The northbound through-right lane is assumed to be in a 70-foot turn pocket plus 60- feet taper.

Timing: Eastbound and westbound protected left turn phasing, northbound and southbound split phasing. 150 second cycle length, with 34 second northbound southbound split phases and 20 second eastbound and westbound protected phases, and 62 second eastbound and westbound through phases. Crosswalks are assumed across all legs of the intersection with flashing don't walk phases set to 22 seconds to accommodate a 3-feet per seconding walking speed.

Exisling 2022 wllh Proiecl Condilions
Project peak-hour traffic was added to the Existing 2022 turning volumes at each intersection, Delay and LOS were determined at the study intersections. Table 28 presents a summary of LOS results for the study intersections under Existing Conditions. All study intersections operate at LOS B or better during the AM, PM, and Sunday peak hours. Left turn queues are adequately accommodated by the existing left turn storage pockets.

Table 28. Baseline 2022 lntersection Delay and Level-of-Service, with and without Proiect lnteFectlon Control
t{o Ptolect (Delay and
Level-of-Servlce)
AM I prrr
Whh Propa (Delayand
tevel-of-Servlce)
AMlpm
E Natoma St/Prison Rd Signal 9.3 A 9.1A 15.9 B 16.7 B
Eastern Project
Driveway sssc nla n/a

10.6 B
(NB} 12.3 B tNB)
lntersecdon Approach
No Proiect
9596 Queues (Feetl
AMlpm
Wlth Prdect
95X Queues (Feet)
AM I Prrr
E Natoma St/Prison Rd
EB Left t73' 30' 166' 37'.

WB Left nla nla 22', 23'
58 Left 22' 49' 23', 73
NB Left nla n/a 27' 2T
Eastern Project
Driveway NB nla n/a 0 0
a
a
a
a
LOl

03/28/2023 Item No.13.

Vintage at Folsom Senior Apartments ISMND
'S55C = Side Street Stop Control
Projecl VMI lmpocls ond GenerolPlon LOS Conlormity
Confonlancg with 6enelg! Plar*lOS Policv
Allstudy intersections are anticipated to operate at LOS B or better under all study scenarios, both with and without the addition of project traffic. The project is not anticipated to create new LOS deficiencies, or to or worsen any existing deficiencies, based on General Plan Policy M4.1.3.

Evqluollon of Tronsport<llion
a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
Less than significant impact. The project is anticipated to Senerate 441 daily vehicle trips including 39 AM peak-hour vehicle trips, and 41 PM peak-hour vehicle trips. Fewer than 50 peak-hour project trips are proJected to pass through any intersection. All study intersections are anticipated to operate dt LOS B or better under all study scenarios, both with and without the addition of project traffic. The project is not anticipated to create new LOS deficiencies, or to or worsen any existing deficiencies, based on General Plan Policy M4.1.3. All intersection LOS impacts are considered less than significant, The project does not inhiblt the use of bicycle or pedestrian facilities; eliminate existing bicycle, or pedestrian facilities; or prevent the implementation of planned bicycle, or pedestrian facilities. The projecl includes accessible pathways around the building to provide a walking path for residents. Path connections are planned to paths ;nternal to the project site, south to the Oak Parkway Trail, and west to the East Natoma St underpass to the Johnny Cash Trail. The project has a less than significant impact on pedestrians and bicycles. With relocation of the effected bus stop, transit impacts will be less than significant.

The City does not have an adopted parking standard for age-restricted (senior) multi-family housing.

With a planned Development Permit {PD}, parking supply is established through the PD permit process The project is proposing 136 spaces {1.00 parking spaces per unit). This exceeds that of many other recently approved age restricted multi-family projects in and around Folsom. The 136 spaces include eight accessible spaces (i.e., with the adjacent space striped out to provide vehicle access for wheelchairs andlor mobility scooters) and 14 spaces with electric vehicle charging.

The ITE parking Generation Manual6 lists an average peak parking demand of 0.59 vehicles per dwelling unit for Land Use 252 {Senior Adult Housing-Attached), with a standard deviation of 0,L2. The ITE sample size is small (three observations), yet the proposed parking ratio of 1.05 is greater than 3.5 standard deviations greater than the mean parking demand. Consequently, the proposed parking for the project is sufficient to meet the anticipated parking demand with a parking ratio of 1.00.

For comparison, Revel Senior Living a similar project approved by Folsom in 2018 had a parking ratio of

0.81 spaces per dwelling unit, The Revel project conducted a parking survey of six similar Sacramento 5 ITE (2010) parking Generation 4th Edition, lnstitute of Transportation Engineers, Washington DC' 108

03/28/2023 Item No.13.

Vlntage at Folsom Senior Apartments ISMND
area facilities. Allsix facilities were found to use less than 0,60 spaces per dwelling unit during peak parking demand hours (consistent with the ITE parking demand data referenced above.) A second parking review for the Revel Senior Living project surveyed localjurisdictions parking requirements for senior housing. Only two jurisdictions in the vicinity of Folsom were found to directly address the issue of the parking needs of senior independent living facilities. Both of those zoning code requirements from other 1urisdictions are lower than the proposed parking supply for the Vintage at Folsom Senior Apartments Project. Therefore, the proposed parking supply of L36 parking spaces is adequate for the 136 multi-family units proposed in the project.

The project would have a less than significant impact on program plans, ordinances, or policies addressing the circulation system.
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? Less than significant impact. 58743, passed in 2013, required OPR to develop new CEQA Guidelines that address traffic metrics under CEQA. As stated in the legislation (and Section 210991b1[2] of CEQA), upon adoption of the new CEQA guidelines, "automobile delay, as described solely by LOS or similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion shall not be considered a significant impact on the environment pursuant to this division, except in locations specifically identified in the CEQA guidelines, if any." The Office of Administrative Law approved the updated CEQA Guidelines on December 28,2OL8, and the changes are reflected in new CEQA Guidelines (Section 15064,3). State CEQA Guidelines Section 15054.3 was added December 28,2018, to address the determination of significance for transportation impacts. Pursuant to the new CEQA Guidelines VMT replaced congestion as the metric for determining tra nsportation irn pacts,
The Governors'Office of Planning and Research (OPR) has published guidance recommending a CEQA threshold for transportation impacts of land use projects of a 15 percent VMT reduction per capita, relative to either city or regional averages, based on the California's Climate Scoping Plan7. Qualitative assessment of VMT reduction is acceptable to screen projectss' Under State Law (SB 743), VMT became the only CEQA threshold of significance for transportation impacts on July L,2O2A. Without specific General Plan guidance for VMT thresholds, this analysis uses qualitative screening against OPR's guidance of a 15 percent per capita VMT reduction.

To support jurisdictions' 58743 implementation, SACOG developed thresholds and screening maps for resldential projectse, using outputs from the 2016 base year travel demand model run forthe 2020 MTP/SCS. SACOG's travel demand model is activity/tour based and is designed to estimate an individual's daily travel, accounting for land use, transportation and demographics that influence peoples'travel behaviors. For residential projects, the threshold is defined as total household VMT per capita achieving 15 percent of reduction compared to regional {or any appropriate sub-area) average VMT. The map uses HEX geography. ResidentialVMT per capita per HEX is calculated by tallying all household VMTs, including VMT traveling outside the region, generated by the residents living at the HEX and divided by the total population in the HEX. Green hexagons denote areas where residential ? OpR {2018} Technical Advisory on tvaluating Transportallon lrnpacts ln CrQA, http:/lwww.oar.La,eov/dqg.s120190122-743 Tecbeical Adv$ofv'ldf. s OPR'g webinar on 58 743 itrplementation,4116/202$.
e sAcoc (2021) ht&srllsb74l-sacos.ooendata.argqis.qqml
109

03/28/2023 Item No.13.

Vintage at Folsom Senior Apartments {SMND
VMT is 50 to 85 percent of the regional average and yellow hexagons denote areas where residential VMT is 85 to 100 percent of the regional average'
The project is located within one of the green hexagons with average residential VMT of 17 miles per capita (per day). The Project is anticipated to generate less than 82 percenl of the regional per capita residential daily VMT af 2A.82 miles. The project is therefore anticipated to have a less than significant impact on VMT.
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g,, sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Less than significant impact with mitigation. Access to the project site would be provided by two driveways on East Natoma Street. City standards requires a 60-ft right turn taper in conditions with ten or more peak-hour right turns into a driveway, and a 150-ft pocket plus 60-ft taper, with 50 or more peak-hour right turns. Neither project driveway is anticipated to have ten or more right turning vehicles into the project during the AM or PM peak-hours. The main driveway at the signalized East Natoma Street/Prison Rd intersection includes an eastbound right turn pocket and a westbound left turn pocket accessing the project, these are adequate to safely accommodate project traffic without hindering existing traffic.

The secondary (eastern) driveway is restricted to right-in-right-out movements and is anticipated to only have fewer than ten eastbound right-turns into the project during either the AM or PM peak hours. No turn pockets are necessary. ln order to limit the secondary (eastern) driveway to right-in-right-out access, the applicant would implement Mitigation Measure TRA-O1. With Mitigation Measure TRA-01 implemented, impacts relating to process access design would be less than significant.

For an 81-160-unit apartment complex, the standard for the Minimum Required Throat Depth (MRTD) is 50 feet10. This 50-ft length represents vehicle storage equivalents, which means the total required len4h may be achieved by summing the throat depths for several access points if more than one access point is to serve the site. The throat depths for the primary and second driveways exceed 50-ft and 25- ft, respectively. Therefore, MRTD of the project driveways meet the standard because the primary driveway throat depth meets the minimum standard of 50-ft, Potentialgeometric constraints and safety issues were evaluated, including driveway spacing, sight triangles, and Statewide lntegrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) collision data. Driveway spacing, throat depth, and corner sight distance are all adequate. ln the last five years, there have been three accidents proximate to the project site including:
o One eastbound rear-end collection at the existing traffic light, r Two drivin8 under the influence (DUl) accidents (one a sideswipe, and the other a single vehicle overturn.)
These are not accident varieties that would be anticipated to be worsened by the project, and the project does not require any project specific traffic safety treatments' 10 Folsom (2020) Design and Procedures Manual and lmprovement Standards, site access Table 12-1, httns:/lwww"f.olsorn.sa.rrslciv.icaxl{lleba0blblobdload.as.ox?t=6F183.89Q.81ob18"38340' 110

03/28/2023 Item No.13.

Vintage at Folsom Senior Apartments ISMND
lmplementation of Mitigation Measures TRA{I would reduce all potential impacts regarding hazards due to geometric design to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measure TM-01: limit Access to the Secondary (Eastern] Driveway During construction of the project, the applicant shall ensure the eastern driveway is channelized to restrict left turns from entering or exiting the project via the eastern driveway, Such channelization shall be accomplished during construction by either a triangular island located within the driveway, or by extending the raised median at the East Natoma St/Cimmaron Cir intersection west-word across the eastern project driveway. d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
No impact. The project proposes two access points connected by a fire lane which circles the back of the Proposed apartments. All internal radii have at least a 25-feet inner radius and SO-feet outer radius per City requirements. Emergency vehicle access is available to the site from East Natoma Street.

Emergency vehicle access is designed consistent with standards and is adequate. There would be no impact.
a
111

03/28/2023 Item No.13.

Vintage at Folsom Senior Apartments ISMND
XVIII. TRIBAI CUTTURAI RESOURCES
PotGntLlly
Sl3nlficrnt
ln!.Ct
lrsllun
sgdfant
wldl
Mld6rtlon
lncorporitsd
trrc llrrn
Sltnlficsnt No
lmFct lmplct
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 27074aseither a site, feature, place, cultural
landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in Public Resources
Code Section 5020.1(k), or
nn
ii, A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to
be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1, ln applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a California Native
American tribe.
ft n
The discussion below is based on a tribal cultural resources memorandum prepared by ECORP Consulting, lnc. {ECORP 2022), attached to this lnitial Study as Appendix J' Envlronmentol Setllng
CEeA, as amended in 2014 by Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52), requires that the City of Folsom (City) provide notice to any California Native American tribes that have requested notice of projects subject to CEQA review, and consult with tribes that responded to the notice within 30 days of receipt with a request for consultation. Section 21073 of the Public Resources Code {PRC} defines California Native American tribes as "a Native American tribe located in California that is on the contact list maintained by the NAHC for the purposes of Chapter 905 of the Statutes of 20O4." This includes both federally and non- federally recognized tribes. For the City, these include the following tribes that previously submitted general request letters, requesting such noticing:
. Wilton Rancheria {letter dated January t3,2O2Ol;
. lone Band of Miwok lndians (letter dated March 2,2OL6l; and, . United Auburn lndian Community (UAIC) of the Auburn Rancheria (letter dated November 23, 2015 and updated per UAIC via email on September 29,2O211, tI2

03/28/2023 Item No.13.

Vintage at Folsom Senior Apartments ISMND
The purpose of consultation is to identifu Tribal Cultural Resources (TCR) that may be significantly impacted by the proposed project, and to allow the City to avoid or mitigate significant impacts prior to project approval and implementation. Section 2IO74la) of the PRC defines TCRS for the purpose of CEQA asl
Sites, features, places, culturol londscapes (geogrophically defined in terms of the size and scope), sacred places, ond objects with culturolvolue to o Colifornia Native Americon tribe thot are either of the following:
o) included ar determined to be eligible for inclusion in the Colifornia Register of H isto rico I Reso urces ; o nd/ or,
b) included in s local register of historicol resources as defined in subdivision (k)of Section 5020.1; and/or,
c) d resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion ond supported by substontio! evidence, to be significant pursuont to criterio set forlh in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1. ln applying the criterio set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.7 for the purposes of this paragraph, the leod agency sholl consider the signiliconce of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Because the first two criteria also meet the definition of a Historical Resource under CEQA, a TCR may also require additional consideration as an Historical Resource. TCRs may or may not exhibit archaeological, cultural, or physical indicators and can only be identified by a culturally affiliated tribe, which has been determined under State law to be the subject matter expert for TCRs.

CEQA requires that the City initiate consultation with tribes at the commencement of the CEQA process to identify TCRs. Furthermore, because a significant effect on a TCR is considered a significant impact on the environment under CEQA, consultation is required to develop appropriate avoidance, impact minimization, and mitigation measures. Therefore, in accordance with the requirements summarized above, the City carried out, or attempted to carry out, tr;bal consultation for the project.

Within 14 days of initiating CEQA r"ui"* for the project, on November L9,2O2L, the City sent project notification letters to the three California Native American tribes named above, which had previously submitted general consultation request letters pursuant to 21080,3.1(d) of the Public Resources Code (PRC). Each tribe was provided a brief description of the proiect and its location, the contact information for the City's authorized representative, and a notification that the tribe has 30 days to request consultation,
The lone Band of Miwok lndians did not respond to the City's notification letter, and therefore, the threshotd for carrying out tribal consultation with that tribe under PRC 21080.3.1(e) was not met, and no further consultation is warranted.

On Decembe r LO,2021, and within the 30-day response timeframe, the City received an email from Anna Starkey that acknowledged receipt of the City's notification letter and accepted consultation under AB 52 for the project. She indicated that the project area is potentially sensitive for unrecorded cultural and tribal cultural resources based on the presence of a known and recorded resource in the vicinity.

She inquired whether a cultural resources survey has been conducted and ifso, requested a copy.

On Decembe r L3,202!, the City formally initiated consultation with United Auburn lndian Community 113

03/28/2023 Item No.13.

Vintage at Folsom Senior Apartments ISMND
and acknowledged Ms, Starkey's inquiry of a cultural report. The City confirmed that a survey had been conducted and that preparation of a cultural resources report was undenrrray and welcomed the opportunity to further discuss the proiect. Accordingly, the City provided a copy of the report to Ms' Starkey for her review on March 8,2022. Ms. Starkey responded the same day indicating that the report aligns with their findings and inquired $rhether an arborist report had been prepared and if so, requested to review tt, Additionally, Ms. Starkey questioned if any heritage trees had been ldentified. On March 23, ZO2Z, the city transrnitted the arborlst report lo Ms. Starkey. As of the date of this memorandum, there has been no further correspondence received from Ms. Starkey or any other representative from UAIC. The City did not receive any specific information about TCRs that meet the definitions in PRC Sectio n 21O74 within the project area. Therefore, on June 3,2022, the City forrnally concluded consultation with UAIC pursuant to PRC Sections 2L080.3.2(b)(1) and 21082.3(dX1)' Wilton Rancheria did not respond to the City's notification letter, and therefore, the threshold for carrying out tribalconsultation with that tribe under PRC 21080.3.1(e) was not met' However, separately, as part of the cultural resources inventory, HELIX contacted the Native American Heritage Commission TNAHC) on January 27,2022 to request a search of the Sacred Lands File' On February 9, 2022, the NAHC contacted HELIX to report that no sacred lands are recorded inside the project area and provided a list of culturally affillated tribes and their contact infonnation. On February 10,2A22' HELIX contacted all of the named tribes, which included Wilton Rancheria, UAIG Tsi Akim Maidu, the Colfax- Todds Valley Consolidated Tribe, the lone Band of Miwok lndians, and the Euena Vista Rancheria of Me- Wuk lndians. While none of the othertribes responded, on March 3I,2022, an unnamed representative of the Cultural preservation Department from Wilton Rancheria replied by email and stated that the tribe had requested consultation on December 2 for this project, and that the tribe was requesting monitoring because of three sensitive sites in the vicinity. No specific information about TCRs was provided in the March 31 email'
After an exhaustive search of the consultation record, City staff emails, and physical mail, none of the City staff or hs consu ltants could locate any correspondence from Wilton on this project' Suspecting that the tribal representative might have been mlstaklng this as a different project, on April 8,2A22, HELTX replied to the tribe to report that the City is not in possession ol any correspondence regarding this project and requested a copy of the December 2 correspondence. Wilton Rancheria did not respond to ihe request for information, and as of the date of this memorandum, there has been no further communication received from the tribe. Therefore, because the City: 1) is not in possession of a written request for consultation on this project: and 2) did not receive any specific information ahout TCRs that meet the definitions in PRC Section 2L074 within the project a(ea; aftd, further, because Wilton Rancheria failed to engage in consultation pursuant to PRC 21802.3{dx2}, the City closed the matter and drew from other lines of evidence to make a determination of impacts to TCRs.

Evoluolion ol lribol Cullurol Resources
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the signifieance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 27O74 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with culturalvalue to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020'1{k)? 714

03/28/2023 Item No.13.

VintaBe at Folsom Senior Apartments ISMND
Less than significant impact with mitigation. As discussed in Section V., Cultural Resources, the results of this Cultural Resources Assessment indicate that there are no known or newly discovered cultural resources within the APE, prompting HELIX to recommend that the area is not likely to contain surface based archaeological deposits. Although the NCIC records search indicated that elements of district p-34-000335 (the Folsom Mining District) may potentially be located within the current APE, no traces of the district were found during HELIX's pedestrian survey of the project area. As a result, the current project is anticipated to have no impacts on district P-34-000335.

Based on the results of HELIX's cultural resource assessment the APE can be assumed to have a low sensitivity for surficialcultural resources and this project is anticipated to have no impacts to historical resources for the purposes of compliance with both Section 106 of the NHPA and CEQA. Consequently, HELIX recommends that there would be no effect on historic properties or historical resources, including archaeological and built-environment resources as a result of project implementation. No additional studies, archaeological work, or construction monitoring are recommended' However, in light of the presence of prehistoric resource$ within the study area (P-34-0000016 and P-34-000017) and the potential presence of elements of district P-34-000335 to tie within the study area, llELlX recommends that the Mltigation Measure CUL-01and CUL-02 outlined below be implemented in the unlikely event that cultural resources are encountered during construction lf historical or archaeological resources are discovered, implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-01 and Mitigation Measure CUL-02 {Section V) would reduce any potential impact to a less than significant level.
ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5O24.I.ln applying the criteria set forth in subdivision {c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe?
Less than significant impact with mitigation. lnformation about potential impacts to TCRs was drawn from information provided by consulting and culturally affiliated tribes, the ethnographic context, the results of a search of the Sacred Lands File by the NAHC, and the results of a cultural resources inventory prepared by HESX {Appendix E}. Based on the lnformatisn provided, the project would not have any impact on known TCRs. lmpacts to unanticipated tribal cultural tesources, if encountered during construction, would be potentially significant. Based on the consultation record summarized above and included in Appendix J, the City concludes that there would be a less than significant impact on TCR's with the incorporation of Mitigation Measure TCR-01 regarding unanticipated discoveries.

Mitigation Measure TCR-01: Unanticipated Discovery of Tribal Cultural Resources. o tf potentially significant Tribal Cultural Resources (TCR) are discovered during ground disturbing construction activities, all work shall cease within 50-ft of the find, or an agreed upon distance based on the nature of the find. A Native American Representative from traditionally and culturally affiliated Native American Tribes that requested consultation on the project shall be immediately contacted and invited to assess the significance of the find and make recommendations for further evaluation and treatment, as necessary. lf deemed necessary by the City, a qualified cultural resources specialist meeting the Secretary of lnterior/s Standards and eualifications for Archaeology, may also assess the significance of the find in joint t15

03/28/2023 Item No.13.

Vlntage at Folsom Senlor Aoartments ISMND
consultation with Native American Representatives to ensure that Trlbal values are considered.

Work at the discovery location cannot resume untilthe Cify, in consultation as appropriate and in good faith, determines thatthe discovery is either not a TCR, or has been subieeted to culturally appropriate treatnent, if avoidance and preservatlon cannot be accommodated' 115

03/28/2023 Item No.13.

Vintage at Folsom Senior Apartments iSMND
XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Potclldrlly
$mlftcrnt
lmprd
hssilrrn
3l&l0cilt
wl0t
Mltlgrdon
lnsorporrtgd
Lcselhrn
$snlflcrm l{o
lmp.ct lmp.ct
Would the project
al Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm
water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
t-lt_-t L:I t
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development
during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
n I n
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the proiect that it has adequate capacity to serve the proJect's proiected
demand in addition to the provider's existing
commitments?
t n
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess ofthe capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
t-.J u r
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? n n n Environmentol Setling
The project site is currently vacant and does not contain any existing utifitles. Existifig powerlines are located on East Natoma Street and south of the project boundary. The City of Folsom employs a design process that includes coordination with potentially affected utilities as pan of project development. ldentifying and accomrnodating existing utilities is part of the design process, and utllities are considered when finalizing Bublic project plans. The City of Folsom coordinates with the appropriate utility companies to plan and imptement any needed accornmodaticn of existing utilities, including water and sewer utility lines. Based on the results of an initial request for comments from the utility providers, all utility services are able to accommodate the proposed project.

Evcrluotion of Utillties ond Service Syslems
a) Require or result in the relocation or construclion of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? L17

03/28/2023 Item No.13.

Vintage at Folsom Senior Apartments ISMND
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the proJect and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adeguate capacity to serve the projecl's projected demand in addition to the provide/s existing commitments?
Less than significant impact. Discussion of the project's impact on water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, and telecommunications facilities follows:

Water SunpJy
The City's public water supply is from the Folsom Reservoir and Folsom South Canal. The City's Urban Water Management Plan calculated supply and demand at buildout of the 2035 General Plan and determined that that there was sufficient supply available for normal, single dry, and multFdry years scenarios {City of Folsom 2018a}. Folsom's Water Treatment Plant has a capacity of 50 million gallons per day. According to the Urban Water Management Plan and General Plan ElR, water demand is not anticipated to exceed the City's current water rights to 38,970 acre-feet annually (City of Folsom 2018a)' All on site water (fire, domestic, and irrigation) are to be privately owned, operated, maintained as a condition of approval. All public water within the site boundary shall be constructed in accordance with the City of Folsom water design standards and water construction details as a condition of approval. The on-site water supply would be connected to the Zone 3 Cimmaron pressure Zone located off-site. The proposed project would provide housing for less than 400 residents and would not result in a substantial increase in water demand. Because sufficient supplies are available for build out of land uses in the General Plan (including development at the proposed project site) no additionalfacilities would need to be constructed or expanded and impacts would be less than significant.

Wateq Conservation Ef$ortc
The City actively implements water conservation actions in response to the drought. Standards and regulations issued by the State Water Resources Control Board that came into effect June L,2OL5, require the City to reduce water consumption by 32 percent. ln response, the City developed a water reduction plan to reduce water consumption, and conserye water in the City.

City actions include reducing watering in parks by one third, removing turf and retrofitting irrigation in more than 30 medians citywide, turn off irrigation in ornamental streetscapes that do not have trees, prohibiting new homes and buildings from irrigating with potable water unless water-efficient drip systems are used, replacing and upgrading sprinklers and irrigation systems with water-efficient systems, suspending operation of water features throughout the City. The City also implemented water restrictions and rebate programs for residents of the City. Folsom residents successfully reduced water consumption by 21 percent in 2014. The City reduced water consumption in parks by 27 percent, and 31 percent in Landscape and Lighting Districts. This was among the highest conservation rates statewide (Brainerd 2015).

Wastewatgf {Sanitarv Sewgrl
The C1y of Folsom is responsible for managing and maintaining its wastewater collection system, including 275-miles of pipeline and nine pump stations. This system ultimately discharges into the Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District interceptor sewer system. Wastewater is treated at the Sacramento Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant, located in Elk Grove. 118

03/28/2023 Item No.13.

Vinta8e at Folsom Senior Apartments ISMND
ln compliance with the 2006 State Water Resources Control Eoard (SWRCBIGeneral Waste Discharge Requirements for Sanitary Sewer Systems, the City of Folsom adopted a Sewer Sy$tem Management plan on July 28, 2009 which was updated and adopted on August 26,2A24. fhe plan outlines how the municipality operates'and maintains the collection system, and the repo*ing of all Sanitary Sewer Overflows (5SO) to the SWftCB's online SSO database. ,4ll on site sewer utilities are to be privately owned, operated, maintained as a condition of approval, and would connect with an existing public sewer collection systern off-site. Because the City has sufficient capacity to acqommodate any additional demand that could result from implementation of the proposed proiect, and because the City is in compliance with statutes and regulations related to wastewater csllection and treatment, there would be no impact and mitigation would not be necessary.

Slgrmwater
Folsom's Public Works Department handles stormwater management for the City, from design and construction of the storm drain system to operation and maintenance, and urban runoff pollution prevention.

Under existing conditions, runoff from residential properties located east of the property flows onto the property site. This offsite runoff would be intercepted by proposed landscaped swales within the 15- foot landscape planters alOng the eastern boundary of the property. This runoffwould then redirect the flow towards East Natoma Street and enter the public storm drain system. Additionally, eight (8) bio- retention planters are proposed throughout the project site to manage stormwater runoff. The curb, gutter, and sidewalk are progosedto be extended to Cimmaron Circle, which requires storm drain improvements at the frontage of the proiect site. Storrnwater drains would be installed throughout the c.oncrete parking lot areas and would be designed to prevent flooding or ponding. The on-site storm drain would conform to City of Folsom standards. Environmental impacts from these stormwater features would be less than significant and no mitigation would be necessary' E!9.-tricltv. Glg. and Teleqhsne
primary and tecondary electric lines, gas lines, and telephone/cable lines are proposed within the project. These proposed utility lines would connect wlth existing utilities in the same vicinity of the project site, on East Natoma Street. Through the Cfty's coordination with utility providers including SMUD for electricity, PG&E for underground gas lines, AT&T for underground telephone lines, utilit| providers are able to accommodate the proposed project' Based on the details above, the project would have less than significant impact on water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities' No mitigation is needed for questions a), b), and cl.
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Less than significant impact. The City of Folsom provides solid waste, recycling, and hazardous materials collection seruices to its residential and business communities. ln order to meet the State mandated 50 percent landfill diversion requirements stipulated under AB 939, the City has instituted several 119

03/28/2023 Item No.13.

Vintage at Folsom Senior Apartments ISMND
community-based programs. The City offers a door-to-door collection program for household hazardous and electronic waste, in addition to six "drop off" recycling locations within the City' After processing, solid waste is taken to the Kiefer Landfill, the primary municipal solid waste disposal facility in Sacramento County. The landfillfacility sits on a site of 1,084-acres in the community of Sloughhouse. Currently 250-acres, the State permitted landfill is 560-acres in size, and is of sufficient capacity to accommodate the solid waste disposal needs of the City of Folsom. Because the landfill serving the project area is of sufficient capacity to accommodate solid waste needs, there is less than significant impact and no mitigation would be necessary for questions d) and e). \20

03/28/2023 Item No.13.

Vintage at Folsom Senior Apartments ISMND
xx. wr[DFIRE
Potontlrllv
SltdRc.nt
lmpact
kse ftrn
Sfiilfotn
wl0r
Mltltil|on
lncorporttcd
lrscThrn
sl$lfic.nt ilo
lnp.ct lmprct
lf located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? n I
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project
occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
TI I
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency
water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
u u I
d) Expose people or $tructures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a
result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
I
Environmenlol Setling
The project site is located in a Local Responsibility Area and it is not in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection 2AO7r.

Evoluolion of Wlldfite
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c) Require the installation or maintenance of assoclated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency Water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? d) Expose people or structures to significant rlsks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, po$t-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? t2r

03/28/2023 Item No.13.

Vlntace at Folsom Senlor Apartments ISMND
No impact. Questlons "a" through "d" are not applicable because the project sfte ls ln a Local Responsibility Area and the site ls not in a Very High Fire Hazard Severlty Zone {California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection 2W7t.
122

03/28/2023 Item No.13.

Vintage at Folsom Senior Apartments ISMND
XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Potrntltlly
Slgnlficam
lmpact
l8rsfhan
tlgnlfcrnt
wllh
Mltlga$on
lrromor.tGd
lcse firn
SltnlfiG.nt ltlo
lmplct lmp.ct
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
u tr
b) Does the project have impact$ that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? {"Cumulatively
eonsiderable" means that the incremenfal effects of a
project are significant when vlewed in connection wilh
the effects of past project$ the effecls ofother current projects, and the effects of past, present and probable future projects)?
tr : Ll
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectlY?
n D t r]
Evqluotion ol Mondotory flndings of Significonce
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of california history or prehistory? Less than significant impact. The preceding analysis indicates that the proposed project has the potential to adversely affect biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, noisq tranrportation, and tribal cultural resources. See Sections 8,IV, I'V, 8.Vll, B'Vlll, I'Xlll, g.xvll, and g.xvlll of this lnitial study for discussion of the proposed project's patential impacts on these environmental issue areas. With implementation of the mitigation measures identified in those Sections, and compliance with City programs and requirements identified in this report, impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. No signiflcant or potentially significant impacts would remain. b) Does the proiect have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? {,'Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a proiect are significant when 123

03/28/2023 Item No.13.

Vintage at Folsom Senior Aga.fanen$ ISMND
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of past, present and probable future projects)? Less Than Significant lmpact. While the Froiect would indirectly contribute to cumulative lmpacts associated with increased urban developrnent in the City and region, these impacts have previously been evaluated by the City and considered in development of the City's General Plan as set fo*h in this lnitial Study. Key areas of concern are discussed in detail below. €voluatian af cumulotive biol.qgical resog@imwgts; The trees and understory grassland areas within the proiect site provide suitable nesting habitat for white*ailed kite and other raptors as well as other native birds and large trees adjacent to the site provide nesting habitat for raptors. Pre-construction surveys rhould be conducted prior to project implernentation to d€termine if nesting blrds are present on or adjacent to the site. so that measures could be implernented if needed to avoid harming nesting blrds. lmplementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-01would reduce impacts to white-talled kite and other nesting birds to a less than significant level.

The 0,04-acre of aquatic features focated on the project site are potentially regulated by the USACE, CVRWQCB, and CDFW under the Clean Water Act, Porter-Cclogne Act, and Section 1600 of the Fish and Game Code. Therefore, removal or fill of the aquatic fea.tures would likely require a permit from these agencies, ln order to avoid impacts to jurisdictional wetland and waters, Mitigation Measure BIO-02 would be implemented, mitigating impacts to a less than significant Jevel.

Of the 111trees on the project site,77 trees are considered protected by Folsom City Code. lf protected trees will be removed by the proposed project mitigation will be required per Section 12.16.150. Of the 77 trees protected by Folsonr City Code, only 65 trees requlre mitigation based on having a health rating of 5, 4,3, or 2. Based on the DSH equivalency ratio, mitigation for a total of 935.Sinches is required if all protected trees subject to mitigation requirements are impacted. With implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-03, impacts to protected trees would be less than significant' With implemenlationof Mhigation Measures Bl0-01, BIO-02, and BIO-03 the impacts would be reduced to a less tharr significant level and the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to any significant cumulative impacts.

Eyal$tion of cunulollve gluttural resources imoactE: The results of the Cultural Resources Assessment lndicate that there are no known or newly discovered cultural resource$ within the APE, prompting HELIX to recommend that the area is not likely to contain surface based archaeologicaldeposits.

Although the NCIC records search indicated that elements of district P-34-000335 (the Folsom Mining District) may potentially be located within the current APE, no traces of the district were found during HELIX's pedestrian survey ofthe project area. As a result, the current project is anticipated to have no impacts on district P-34-000335. No additionalstudies, archaeologicalwork, or constructioh monitoring ar€ recommended. However, in light of the presence of prehistoric resources within the study area (P- 34-0000016 and P-34-000017) and the potential presence of elernents of district P-34-000335 to lie within the study area, HELIX recommends that the Mitlgation Measure CUL-01 and CUL-02 outlined below be implemented in the unlikely event that cultural resources are encountered during construction. lf historical or archaeological resources are discovered, implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-01 and Mitigation Measure CUL-02 would reduce any potential impact to a less than significant level.
124

03/28/2023 Item No.13.
vlntage at Folsom senior Apartments IsMND
No human remains are known to exist within the project area nor were there any indications of human remains found during the field survey. However, there is always the possibility that subsurface construction activities associated with the proposed project. However, if human remains are discovered, implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-02 and Mitigation Measure CUL-03 would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

With lmplementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-OI and CUL-02, and CUL-03, the impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level and the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to any significant cumulative impacts.

Evaluation of crymutqtive aealow ond soil|impocts: A Geotechnical Engineering Survey was written by Youngdahl Consulting Group, lnc. on Decernber 3'd. 2021. ln the survey, Youngdahl prepared recommendations for th€ foundation, conrtruction, and design of the proposed building in the proiect site (See Appendix F for more detailon site recornmendations). With the implernentation of Mitigation Measure GEO-01, outlined below, the impacts relating to unstable soils in the project area would be less than significant.

No previous surveys conducted in the project area have identified the project site as sensitive for paleontological tesources or other geologlcally sensitive resources, nor have testing or ground dirturbing activities performed to date uncovered any paleontological resources or geologically sensitive resources. Whife the likelihood enco1lntering paleontological resources and othergeologically sensitive resources is considered low, project-related ground disturbing activities could affect the integrity of a previously unknown paleontological or other &eologically sensitive resourcs, resulting in a substantlal change in the significance of the resource, Therefore, the proposed proiect could result in potentislly significant impacts to paleontological resources. lmplementation of Mitigation Measure GE0'02 would reduce potentially signifieant irnpacls to a less than significant level.

With implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-01 and GEO'02, the impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level and the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable con$ibution to any significant cumulative impacts.

Evatuatlan af cumulgtiveg$enho$;e aos emissionsJlnnacts: The project must complY with the City's Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy Consistency Checklist. The Checklist is part of the City's 2035 General Plan GHG Reduction Strategy which outlines the policies and programs that the City will undertake to achieve its proportional share of State GHG emissions reductions. Per the Checklist, the GHG reduction measures included in the Checklist that are applicable to a project are to be incorporated lnto the project's CEQA documents as mitigation rneasures. The GHG reduction measures applicable to the proposed project are therefore lncluded as Mitigation Measure 6HG-Ol through 6HG-05. With implementation of this mitigatlon mea$ure and compliance with SMAQMD's recommendations, the 2A1"7 ScapingPlan, andthe MTP/SCS, the project's lmpacts would be reduced to a less than significant leveland the proiect would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to any significant cumulative impacts.

Ev&ation of cumubttvupise.imnacts:.The project would be subject to noise from construction and operation conditions. lf project construction activities were to occur outside the hours of 7:00 a,m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9:00 a,m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday, construction noise generated by lhe project would not be exempt for the City's noise ordinance nighttime exterior standard of 45 L25

03/28/2023 Item No.13.

Vintage at Folsom Senior Apartments ISMND
dBA, and the impact would be potentially significant. lmplementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-01 would restrict construction hours and reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

An on-site source of vibration during project construction would be a vibratory roller' A vibratory roller would primarily be used to achieve soil cornpaction as part of the foundation and paving constnlction, and for aggregate and asphalt compaction as part of project driveway and parking lot construction).

Vibratory rollers could be used within approximately 65-ft of the single-farnily resldences to the northwest. A large vibratory rolter creates approximately A.2l inlsec PPV at a distance of 25-ft, or 94 VdB (Caltrans 2O2O). At a distance of 65-ft, a vibratory roller would create a PPV of 0'073 in/sec, or 85 VdB.ll This would exceed the City General Plan residentialstandard of 80 VdB, and the impact would be potentially significant. Once operational, the project would not be a source of groundborne vibrations. A large vibratory roller would result in appraximately 80 VdB or gr€ater at dlstances less than 120-ft' Mitigation measure NOI-02 would require the contactor demonstrate that the rollers to be used on the project site would produce less than 80 VdB at nearby occupied residences, or use vibratory rollers in static mode only {no vlbrations} when operated within 1.20-ft of occupied residences' With the implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-01and NOI-02, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to any significant cumulative impacts related to noise.

Eu.oluation af cqmulottyetronsgrtgtion imnryE: Access to the project site would be provided by two driveways on East Natoma Street, City standards requires a 60-ft right turn taper in conditions with ten or more peak-hour right turns into a driveway, and a 15Gft pocket plus 60-ft taper, with 50 or rnore peak-hour right turns. Neither project driveway is anticipated to have ten or more right turning vehicles into lhe project during the AM or PM peak-hours, Th,e main driveway at the signalized East Natoma Street/prison Rd intersection includes an eastbound right turn pocket and a westbound left turn pocket accessing the project, these are adequate to safely accommodate project traffic without hindering existing traffic. The secondary {eastern) drlveway is restricted to right-in-right-out movernents ilnd l5 anticipated to only have fewer than ten eastbound right-turns into the Proiect during either the AM or pM peak hours. ltlo turn pockets are necessary . ln order to limit the secondary {eastern) driveway to right-in-right-out access, the applicant would implement Mitigation Measure TRA-01. Thus, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to any significant cumulative impacts related to transportation.

Evaluatiqn af cumulative tribal cuftarsl resources imoactts: The City of Folsom sent project notification letters to three California Native American tribes. Although there is no evidence of TCRs occurring or having the potential to occur on the project site, the City recognizes that sensitive andlor proteded resources could be unintentionally discovered during project demolition and construction. With implementation of Mitigation Measures TCR-0L, the impacts would be reduced to a less than significant teveland potentially significant cumulative impacts would be avoided. Thus, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to any significant cumulative impacts related to tribal cultural resources.
11 Equipment ppV = Reference PPV * (25/D)"{inlsec), where Reference PPV ;s PPv at 25 feet, D is distance from equipment to the receptor in feet, and n= 1"1 (the value related to the attenuation rate through the ground); formula from Caltrans 2020.

VdB = 20 * toe{PPV/4/10'6).

L26

03/28/2023 Item No.13.

Vintage at Folsom Senlor Apartments ISMND
c) Does the project have environmentaleffecls which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less than significant impact. Because of site conditions, existing City regulations, and regulation of potential environmentalfmpacts by other agancies, the proposed proiect would not have the potential to cause substantial adverse effects on human btiings as demonstrated in the detailed evaluation contained in this lnitial Study.

9.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING

PROGRAM
A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared by the City per Section 15097 of the CEQA Guidelines and is presented in Appendix K. 1O.O INITIAL STUDY PREPARERS
Citv of Folsom
Steve Banks, Principal Planner
HEIIX Enyifonmental Plannine. lnc,
Robert Edgerton, AICP CEP, Project Manager
Julia Pano, Environmental Planner
Jason Runyan, Noise SPecialist
Stephen Stringer, Senior Biologist
Stephanie McLaughlin, Staff Biologist
Victor Ortiz, Air Quality Specialist
Kristin Garcia, Air Quality Technician
Clarus Backes, Cultural Resource Group Manager
Jentin Joe, Staff Archeologist
127

03/28/2023 Item No.13.

Vintage at Folsom Senior Apartments ISMND
1 I.O REFERENCES
Barrows, Wray, 1956. A History of Folsom, Caltfornio: 1850-7900, Folsom HistoricalSociety Museum, Folsom, California.

Beck, W. A. and Y. D. Hasse, 1974. Historical Atlas of California, University of Oklahoma Press, Norman' Beardsley, R. K. 1954. Temporal and Areal Relationships in Central California. University of California Archaeologica I Su rvey Reports 24-25. Berkeley P ress' 1948. Culture Sequences in Central California Archeolog'y, Americon Antiquity 14(1):1-28.

Bennyhoff, J. L977. The Ethnogeography of the Plains Mlwok. Center for Archaeological Research at Davis Publications 5. University of California Davis.
1954. Temporal and Areal Relationships in Central California Archaeology. University oJ California Archaeological Survey Reports 25. Berkeley.
1950. Californian Fish Spears and Harpoons. University of California Anthropological Records 9(a):295-338.

Bolster, 8.C., editar. 1998. Terrestrial Mammalspecies of Special Concern in Caiifornia, Draft Final Report prepared by P.V. Brylski, P.W. Colllns, E.D. Pierson, W.E, Rainey and T"E. Kucera. Seport submltted to California Department of Fish and 6ame Wildllfe Management Division, Nongame Bird and Mammal Conservation Program for Contract No. FG3146WM' Brainerd, C.2AL5, May 5. News Release: City of Folsom Releases Water Reduction Plan. Accessed on December 6,202L at hltps://wr{p.follorn.cA.us/clv-icalp-ress/dilplAv.asdlavotlt: .

California Air Poltution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), 2021, User's Guide for CalEEMod Version 2A20.4.0. Available at: httn:/lwww'caleemod.corg/.

California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2022. Overview: Diesel Exhaust and Health. Available at:
https:l1w!v2.arb.ca.sov/resources/oyglview-diesel-exhaust-and-health. Accessed April2A22' 2017. The 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update. January. Available at:
https:#Eu'rw. arb. cadpvlcdscopinspla n/2030s o np f lna l. pdf ' 2014. First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan: Building on the Framework. Available at:
http:llwww.arb.ca.sov/cclscoplneplgnf2013 undate{j,rst Updatg climate chanae scgCIinq qlg n.pdf.
2008. Climate Change Scoping Plan - A Framework for Change. December. Available at:
httpsj/lUlwz.arb.ca.flpvlour-work/sroqrans/ab-32-clil&ate-chqnse-sconinq-slanl2008-scopin* plan-doglrments.
2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. Available at; httos:llwwirrr.alb.c.q8ovlch/ha nd bo gh, pdf .
728

03/28/2023 Item No.13.

Vlntage at Folsom Senior Apartments ISMND
California Emergency Management Agency. 2009. Tsunami lnundation Map for Emergency Planning, Benicia Quadrangle, July 31, 2009' Accessed on August 18,2022' at:
https:{wwwrconservation.ca.eovlcgs/gocrlrhgnts/Fuhlications/fsut?alEi- Maps/Tsunami lnundation Benicia Quad ContraCosta.rulJ
California Energy Commission (CEC), 2021a. 2020 Total System Electric Generation, Accessed June 29, 2022 at https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reportslenergy-almanaclcalifornia-electricity- datal2O19-tota l-system-electric-generation.

ZOZlb. Supply and Demand of NaturalGas in California. Accessed on June 29,2O22from:
https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/californias-natural-gas- market/su pply-a nd-dema nd-natu ral-gas-ca liforn ia
2O21;q California Gasollne Data, Facts, and Statistics. Accessed on June 29,2O22from https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reportslenergy-almanac/transportation- energy/california-gasoline-data-facts-and-statistics
2O21d. Diesel Fuel Data, Facts, and Statistics' Accessed on June 29,2O22from https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/transportation- energyldieseFf uel-data-facts-and-statistics
Calfornia Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 1994. Staff report regarding mitigation for impacts to Swainson's hawk {Buteo swainsoni) in the Central Valley of California. November 1. 2020. RareFind 5.0, California Natural Diversity Database. Sacramento, €alifornia, Accessed Octobe r \ 2A20. I nform atio n expi res 2 | 28 / Z,OZL.

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 2007. Fire Hazard Severity Zones in SRA. Accessed on December !,2O21at: https;l/osfm,fire.ca.sov/medialFTS6lfhszs maq3tndf California Department of Transportation. 2017. List of Eligible and Officially Designated State Scenic Highways. Accessed on Decem be r 8, 2O2l at: https ://dot.ca.sovlproqF ms/desisnllan:
landscape-architecture-lld-coJgnunitv-livqb!!itv/lap-liv-i-scenic,hishwavs California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2020. lnventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition, v8-03 0.39). Website http;//www.rareplants.cnps.org [Accessed 1 October 2O2Ol.

CALGreen. 2019 California Green Building Standards Code. California Code of Regulations Title 24, part L1. Available at: https:l/codqs.iqcsafe.ordqqntent/CAGBC2019lUL215/cove(.

City of Folsom. 1QZLa. Greenhouse Gas Reduction $trategy Consistency Checklist. Updated March 24.

Available at: lftps:/./www"folsom.ca'u
showpublisheddocument/1581.637 5??677?83570!00.
2A2Lb.2035 General Plan Safety and Noise Element. Available at:
&lcrllrryss1gbq$,.i;u{horels}ipwr:ubljlhrldsbcunrs.t}-r}}.Y}5/.93}6{!.32i15.:1{&!gg.

Amended August 24.

L29

03/28/2023 Item No.13.

Vlntage at Folsom Senior Apartments ISMND
2O2Oa. Evacuation Plan. Accessed December 6,2O2L and available at:
httos://www.folsom.ca.us/home/showoubllsheddocu$enV22291637478591337570000 2020b.Folsom Municipal Code. Available at htto://www.codeoublishinq.coln/CA/Folsom/.

Accessed Decem ber 2, 2O2l
2018a. Folsom General Plan 2035 Environmental lmpact Report. Amended May 2020. 2018b. City of Folsom Fire Department webpage. Accessed December 2,2O2L and available at:
htt ps : //www. folsglE.ca. us&overnm gnt/f I re
California Department of Conservation (CDC), Division of Mines and Geology. 1984. Mineral Land Classification of the Folsom 15-Minute Quadrangle Sacramento, El Dorado, Placer, and Amador Counties, California, Open-File Report 84-50SAC. Available at:
https:1/JCIaos.mnservation.ca.sov/cEg//informalionwarehgugelindex,html?map=mlg. Accessed December L,2O2L.
2016. Farmlands Map for Sacramento County. Available at:
httos://mans.conservation.ca.eov/DLRP/CIFF{. Accessed November 30, 2O2L Catifornia Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2020. Transportation and Construction Vibration Gu idance Ma nual. April. Ava ilable at: htt ps :1/Slot.ca.qovJ. y'media/dot - media/programs/environmental-analysig/dqcumentslenv/lcyem-apr2020-a11v.pdf. 2009. Technical Noise Supplement (TeNS). November.

Carrier. 2005. Product Data 38gRC (60 Hz) 12 SEER Air Conditioner. Available at:
httns:/lwww.sho-feddocs.com/!rvac/docs11009/FubliclO2/38SRQ:,!4PO'odf.

Chartkoff J.L. and K.K. Chartkoff L984. The Archaeology of California. Menlo Park. Stanford University Press.

Department of Toxic Substances Control. 2020. EnviroStor. Available at:
https://www.envirostgr.dGc'ca.eov/public/ Accessed December 6, 2a21..

Dickel, D.N., P. D. Schulz, and H.M. McHenry. 1984. "Central California: Prehistoric Subsistence Changes and Health." ln Paleopathology at the Origins of Agriculture, edited by Mark Nathan Cohen and George J. Armelagos, pp. 439462. Academic Press, lnc., Orlando, FL.

ECORP Consulting, lnc. (ECORP). 2022.Tribal Consultation Record for Compliance with Assembly Bill 52 and CEQA for the Vintage at Folsom Project, City of Folsom.

Eriksen, C. H. and D. Belk. 1999. Fairy shrimps of California's puddles, pools, and playas. Mad River Press, Eureka, California.

El Dorado, County of .2OL2. El Dorado County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan: Cameron Airpark Airporq Georgetown Airport; Placerville Airport. Available at: trttns:llwww.edctc.am/airport:
la n d - u se -co m pat a bi I itv-pla ns,a n d -fee :sc h ed ule.' 130

03/28/2023 Item No.13.

Vintage at Folsom Senior Apartments ISMND
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2012. FEMA Flood Map: Folsom, CA Map 06067C0117H. Available from:
https:l/msc.fema.eov/oortallsearch?AddressQuerv=Scholar%20Wav%20Folsom%2OCaSseaFht esultsanchor
Fredrickson, D.A, 1974. Cultural Diversity in Early Central California: A View from the North Coast Ranges. lournal of Colifornia Anthropology 1(1):41-53.
1973. Early Cultures of the North Coast Ranges, California. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Davis.

GeotechnicalConsultants, |nc.2003. EnvironmentalConditions Geology: Folsom Lake State Recreation Area. Available at lrttns:llwww.parfs.ca.eovlpaees/500/files/6eolo$v.pdf. Accessed on December 2,2021,
Gerow LgT4. "Comments on Fredrickson's Cultural Diversity." The Journal of California Anthropology L(21:239-245.
1954. The Problem of Cultural Sequences in Central California Archaeology. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences.

Gerow, 8.A., and R. Force. 1968. An Analysis of the University Village Complex with a Reappraisal of Central California Archaeology. Stanford University Press. Stanford, California' Gervais, J, A., Rosenberg, D. K., and Anthony, R. G. 2003, Space use and pesticide exposure risk of male Burrowing Owls in an agricultural landscape. J. Wildl. Mgmt. 67:15F165' Gilbert, F,T.,1879. History of San Joaquin County, California, Thompson and West, Oakland.

Grunsky, F. R., 1989. Pathfinders of the Sacramento Region, Elk Grove Library, California.

Gudde, Erwin G,, 1998. California Place Names: The Origin and Etymology of Current Geographical Names. University of California Press, Berkeley'
1975. Colifornia Gold Comps. University of California Press, Berkeley' Heizer, R. F., and A. J. Almquist, t971. The Other Californians: Prejudice and Discrimination Under Spain, Mexico and the United States to 1920, University of California Press, Berkeley.

HEgX Environmental Planning, lnc (HELIX). 2022a. Arborist lnventory Report for 102 Natoma Street, City of Folsom, CA.
2A22b. Cultural Resource Assessment for Vintage at Folsom Project' 2O22c.Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment for the Vintage at Folsom Project' 2020. Biological Resources and Wetland Evaluation Letter Report for 102 Natoma Street, City of Folsom, CA.
131

03/28/2023 Item No.13.

Vintage at Folsom Senior Apartments ISMND
Hoover, Mildred 8., Hero E, Rensch, and Ethel G. Rensch, 1990. Historic Spots in California' Third Edition by william N. Abeloe. stanford university Press, Stanford, california.

Hoover, Mildred 8., Hero E. Rensch, Ethel G. Rensch, and William N. Abeloe, 2002. Historic Spots in California, 5th edition, revised by Douglas E. Kyle, Stanford University Press, Stanford.

Hughes, R.E. (editor). 1994. Toward a New Taxonomic Framework for Central California Archaeology:

Essays by James A. Bennyhoff and David A. Fredrickson. Assembled and edited by Richard E.

Hughes. Contributions of the University of California No. 52, Archaeological Research Facility, Berkeley, CA.
tntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physlcal Science Basis. Summary for Policyrnakers. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the lntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. February. Available at:
httos:llwww.i pcc,chlreportla r4lyu&Lli.

Jennings, M.R. and M.p. Hayes. 1994. Amphibian and Reptile Species of Special Concern in California' Final Report submitted to the California Department of Fish and lWildlife], lnland Fisheries Division.

Johnson, J.J. tg76. Archaeological lnvestigations at the Blodgett Site (CA-SAC-267), Sloughhouse Locality, California. Report to the U.5. National Parks Service, Western Regional Office, Tucson, AZ' 19g2. Chapter 2: Summary of the Prehistory of the Lower Sacramento Valley and Adjacent Mountains. Ms. On file, North Central lnformation Center, California State University, Sacramento.

Kroeber, A. 1., 1925. Handbook of the lndians of California. Smithsonian lnstitution Bureau of American EthnologY, Bulletin No' 78.

Levy, Richard , tg78. Eastern Miwok. ln Handbook of North American lndians, California, Volume 8, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 398-413. William G. Sturtevant, general editor' Smithsonian lnstitute, Washington, D'C.

Lichvar, Robert W, and Shawn McColley. 2008. A Field Guide to the ldentification ol the Ordinary High-Water Mork (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United Stotes. Vicksburg, MS:

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Research and Development Center' Lillard, J.8., R.F. Heizer, and F. Fenenga. 1939. An lntroduction to the Archaeology of Central California.

Sacramento Junior College, Department of Anthropology, Bulletin 2' Sacramento' Lillard, J.B, and W.K. purves. 1936. "The Archaeology of the Deer Creek-Cosumnes Area, Sacramento Co., California." Sacramento. Sacramento Junior College, Department of Anthropology Bulletin 1' Maniery Mary L. and Keith A. Syda, 1991. Cultural Resources lnvestiBation for the Americna River Bridge Crossing project, City of Folsom, Sacramento County, California. Cultural Resources Report on file with the North Central lnformation Center at California State University, Sacramento.

L32

03/28/2023 Item No.13.

Vintage at Folsom Senior Apartments ISMND
Moratto, M.J. 1984. California Archaeology. San Diego' Academic Press.

McGruder, G. K. 1950. The Upper San Joaquin valley, 1772-t87O, Bakersfield.

Napton, Kyle 1., 1997. Archaeological and Historical Cultural Resources lnvestigations of the proposed Alpine Natural Gas Operating Cornpany, Calaveras County Natural Gas Oistribution Proiect A' 96- 08-015 (Phase l: La Contenta/Rancho Calaveras)'
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2015. California Central Valley Steelhead Distinct Population Segment: 5-year Review. California CentralValley Area Office.

National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2020. Soil Web Suwey' Available at:
https:l/webtoilsurvev.sc€frov.usda.ewlAon/Homggage,hlm. Accessed on Novembe r 30,2021 2015. 2016 National Hydric Soils List' December 2015.

Available on-line at: https://www,nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/soilsluse/hydric/.

NETROnline, 2022. Historic aerial photographs and USGS quadrangle maps: 1940-2018. Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC' Available from: NETROnline'com' Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. Available at:
httos://oehha.ca.gqvlair/crnrllgtice-adopt!g,n-air-toxics-hgt-5oots-plgElrym-quidance-manual- nreoa rat lon-health-risk-0.
powers, Stephen, 1975. Tribes of California. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Ragir, S.R. 1972. The Early Horizon in Central California Prehistory. Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility 15. Berkeley, CA' Reed,G.Waltet t923.Historyof SocramentaCounty,Colifornio.HistoricRecordCompany,LosAngeles.

Richmond, O.W., Chen, S.K., Risk, 8,8., Tecklin, J., and S. R. Beissinger. 20L0. California Black Rails Depend on lrrigation-fed Wetlands in the Sierra Nevada Foothills. California Agriculture: Volume 2, Number 2.

Rogers, D.C. 2001. Bevision of the North American Lepidurus {Notostraca: Crustacea) with a description of a new species previously confused with two other species. Journal of Crustacean Biology.

Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG). 2AL9.2O2O MTP/SCS. November 18. Available at:
httos:l/wqtyv,sacoFtors12020-$etrooolitan-trangportation-olansustainable-.comQuflitie5:

Strateav.

Sacramento County Association of Governments. 2020. Mather Airport - Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. September. Available at: hltps:/&wY;acqa.trelsilgtlrruin/,f!lqtltg':
at t ac h me n (i*i-ullle r d rir f I a lucp, pllf 11 50!5s 9*zZ5' 133

03/28/2023 Item No.13.

Vintage at Folsom Senior Apartments ISMND
Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD). 2020. Guide to Air Quality Assessment in Sacramento County. Revised April' Available at:
htto://www,atrqualitlgn/Resldg&ts/CEQA-Lan&Use-PlanninglCEqrq-Guidance-Toolg.

Shuford, W.D., and T. Gardali, editors. 2008. California Bird Species of Special Concern: A ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, California, and California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento.

State Water Resources Control Board. 2020. Avallable at: https:#geol.racker,waterboards.ca.sov/.

Accessed December 6' 2O2L'
Schenck, W.E., and E.J, Dawson, 1929. "Archaeology of the Northern San Joaquin Valley," American Archaeology EthnologY 25.

T. Kear Transportation Planniry and Management, lnc. 2022. Vintage at Folsom Transportation lmpact Study.

The Telegraph, L966.110 Anniversary Edition: 1855-1966. The Telegraph, Folsom, California.

Thompson and West, 188O. History of Socromento County, Colifornio. Thompson and West Company, Oakland, California.

Transportation Research 8oard. 2016. Highway Capacity Manual 5th Edition, Washington D.C.

TSD Enginee ring' 2o22. Preliminary Drainage and storm water Quality Report' Vintage at Folsom' August 16.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, Technical Report Y-87-1, U.5. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vickburg, MS. 2008. Regionalsupplement to the Corps of Enginearc Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Version 2.0). J.S. Wakeley, R.W. Lichvar, and C.V. Noble, eds., Technical Report prepared for the u.s. Army Engineer Research and Development center, vicksburg MS.

United States Census Bureau. 2018. QuickFacts, Folsom City, California, population estimates, July 1, 2019 (V2019). Available at: https://www.census.gov/qulckfqgts/fqlsomcitvcalifornia. Accessed December 2,2OZl.

United States Department of Transportation (USDOT). 2019. Superfund National Priority List Accessed on Decembe r 7,202! at https://www3.epa'eov/envirEl'
2008. Roadway Construction Noise Modelversion 1.1, Available at:
ht!!s://www.fhwa,glot.eqv/enYilonment/noiselconrtfuction-nqisglrcnnr/' 2004. Traffic Noise ModelVersion 2.5. Available at:
htJps://juww.fhwad-ot,ery/environmenVlnoise/traffic noisg model/tnm v25/.. 134

03/28/2023 Item No.13.

Vintage at Folsom Senior Apartments ISMND
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Seruice (USFWS). 2020. lnformation for Planning and Consultation (lPaC). List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project location andlor be affected by your proposed Project'
Youngdahl Consulting Group, lnc {Youngdahl). 2021. Geotechnical engineering Study for Vintage at Folsom.

Wilson, N., and A. Towne 1978. Nisenan. ln California, edited by R. F. Heizer, pp.387'397. Handbook of the North American lndians, vol, & W. C. Sturtevant,general editor. Smithsonian lnstitution, Washington, D.C.

Williarns, D.F. 1986. California MammalSpecies of Special Concern in California. Department of Biological Sclences California State University, Stanislaus and California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento.

Zeiner,D.C., W.F. Laudenslayer, Jr., K.E. Mayer, and M. White, eds. 1988. California's Wildlife. Vol' l-lll.

California Depart. of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California. 13s

03/28/2023 Item No.13.

Planning Commlssion
Vintrage Senior ApartmentE (PN 21 -1 59)
January 18,2023
Attachment 26
Comment Letters frorn Public Agencies

03/28/2023 Item No.13.

SACRAMENTO METROPOLITAN
AIR RMAN A6 E
:b

UALITYNT DISTRICT
November 30,2422
Steven Banks
City of Folsom Planning Department
50 Natoma Street
Folsom Cordova, CA 95630
Subject: Vintage at Folsom Senior Apartments MitlSated Negative Declaratlon (SAC202102633) Dear Steven Banks:

Thank you for the opportunity to review the Mitigated Negative Declaratlon (MND) for the vintage at Folsom Senior Apartments project. The project includes the constructlon of a 135-unit affordable senior rental apartments in a three-story building on 4.86 acres at 103 East Natoma Street. Sac Metro Air District commends the project for providing high density, affordable, senior housing with access to a trail network and within a half mile of a transit stop. We also commend the project for including cool roofing and solar arrays as sustainability features. The following comments are intended to further improve air quality and health and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

CEQAcomments
Although the MND determined the project is consistent with the city's Greenhouse Gas Reduction Sgategt, and therefore not significant for greenhouse gas emission impacts, Sac Metro Air District recommends the proponent consider building the project without natural gas infrastructure. Not only does removing naiural gas reduce the cost of infrastructure, operating buildings without burning natural gas provides substantial public health benefits. Homes in which gas stoves are used have nitrogen dioxide concentrations 50 to 400% higher than homes with electric stovesl. using a gas stove and oven for just an hour often leads to indoor air pollutant levels that exceed California's ambient air quality standards. This exposure to nitrogen dioxide can cause respiratory effects. lf the project is built with natural gas infrastructure, Sac Metro Air District recommends the proiect be pr"-*ir"i to al6w for the future conversion to atl-electric (space heating, water heating, cooking) to support the State's goal of carbon neutrality by 2M5'
Since greenhouse gas emissions from equipment during proiect construction do not exceed Sac Metro Air District,s recommended thresholds of significance, the emissions do not need to be amortized in the analysis.

The calEEMod report in Appendix A includes PG&E as the utility provider for electricity. The project is in SMUD territory, therefore SMUD electricity intensity factors should be included' 1 Rocky Mountain lnstltute, Basalt, Co. Heatth Elfects from Gas slove Potlution (2020) htlpsJnrli'ora/irlsiohrga6-$loves'pollulion:
health/
777 L2th Street, Ste. 300 ' Sacramento, CA 95814
-lel: 279-2O7 -7127' Toll Free: 800-880-9025
AlrQuality.org

03/28/2023 Item No.13.

Vintage at Folsom Senior Apartments MitiSated Ne8ative Declaration

Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy consistency
Mitigation Measure GHG-03 requires the project to comply with Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy Mea-sure T-g (page 69). Measure T-8 requires multi-family residential projects with 17 or more units to provide EV charging in 5% of total parking spaces. To comply with GHG Reduction Strategy Measure T-8, the project would neeu at least 7 EV charging stations (5% of the 136 stalls). sac Metro Air District recommends installing Level 2 EV charging stations'
Mitigation Measure GHG-03 indicates the project will provide 14 EV charging stations. For clarlty and convenience, we recommend updating GHG-03 to specify the actual number of EV charging stations that the project proponent must installto comply with Measure T-8. We recommend that GHG-03 specifo that at ieast Z EV charging stations are required to comply with Measure T-8' Finally, please note that the MND appears to reference CalGreen incorrectly' The MND indicates (page 4) the project will provide "12 standard electric vehicle charging station (EVCS) stalls, and two loading evCS siatts." And further states that "The electric vehicle charging spaces would be approximately 10.3 percent of the total parking spaces, which meets the electric vehicle charging station requirement outlined by calGreen (Titl;24, Part 11)." This text appears to reference the 2019 CalGreen code, which requires that 10% EV capable spaces be installed, but does not require that actual EV chargingstations be installed.

Design comments
To piomote the use of bicycles by residents, Sac Metro Air District recommends the proponent cover the bicycle parking areas for weather protection and install outdoor electricaloutlets to allow charging of E-bikes, which are becoming more common. Birycle parking areas should be sized to accommodate larger bicycle types that seniors may use, including tricycles, cargo bikes, and reclined bikes, consistent wiitr ttre City of Folsom's Active Transportation Plan Design Guide, Chapter Vl, and the APBP Bicycle Parking Guide2.

There is a statement on page 108 regarding that "relocation of the effected bus stop" would reduce transit impacts to less tharisignificant. No additional details are included in the MND. lf a bus stop will be relocated, Sac Metro Air District recommends adding a shelter to provide shade and weather protection to further encourage transit use'
Construction
The MND notes that Folsom's Community Development Department Standard Construction Conditions include air pollution control and naturally occurring asbestos provisions. Sac Metro Air District recommends all projects implement the attached Basic Construction Emission control Practices3' A listing of the most common air district rules that apply during constructiona is also attached' 3 (201e)
2019.pdf
4 Sac Metro Air District Rules Statement (2020)
https:llwww.airqualsy.qrelLanduseTraLrsp:ortation/{)qcul!ents/tlglesAtt?chnlentt0-20l0Firrnl'pdf

03/28/2023 Item No.13.
\nntage at Folsom Senior Apartments Mitigated Negatlve Declaratlon

please contact me at 279-207-1131 or khuse@airsu?litv.Or{ if you have any questlons regardinS these comments.

Sincerely,
K""r^ *d
Karen Huss
Associate Air Quality Planner/Analyst
cc: Paul Philley, AICP, Program Supervisor
Attachments

03/28/2023 Item No.13.

Basic C.onstruction Emission Control Practices (Best Manaqement Practices) Bnsrc CorusrRucnoN EMISSIoN CoNTRoL PRAcrIcEs
(Brsr MRnRceuENr PRAcTIcES)
The following Basic Construction Emissions Control Practices are considered feasible for controlling fugitive dust from a construction site. The practices also serve as best managerienipractices (BMPs), allowing the use of the non-zero particulate matter signifiiance thresholds.'Lead agencies should add these emission control practices as C6nditions of Approvat (COA) oi include in a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP).
. Control of fugitive dust is required by District Rule 403 and enforced by District staff. r Water all exposed surfaces two times daily. Exposed surfaces include, but are not limited to soil piles, graded areas, unpaved parking areas, staging areas, and access roads.
. Cover or maintain at least two feet of free board space on haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material on the site. Any haul trucks that would be traveling along freeways or major roadways should be covered.
. Use wet power vacuum street sweepers to remove any visible trackout mud or dirt onto adjaoent public roads at least onco a day. Use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. . Limit vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour (mph)' . All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, parking lots to be paved should be completed as soon as possible. ln aidition, building pads should be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.

The following practices describe exhaust cmission controlfrom diesel powered fleets, working at albnstruction site, California regulations_limit idling from both on-road and off- roaO J[sefpowered equipment. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) enforces idling limitations and compliance with diesel fleet regulations. . Minimize idling time either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the time of idting iil 5 minutes lialifornia Code of Regulations, Title 13, sections 2449(dxg) and 24851. Frovide clear signage that posts this requirement for workers at the entrances to the site.
. provide current certificate(s) of compliance fot CARB's ln-Use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets Regulation [California Code of Regulations, Title 13, sections 2449 and 2449.11- For more information contact CARB at 877-593-6677, [email protected], or wralrirl. a rb. ca.qovldoo rs/compliance cert 1 . html.

Although not required by local or state regulation, many construction companies have equiprient inspection and maintenance programs to ensure work and fuel efficiencies. r Maintain all construction equipment in proper working condition according to manufacturer's specifications. The equipment must be checked by a certified mechanic and determine to be running in proper condition before it is operated.

AIR OUALIIY
Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quatity Management District CEQA Guide December 2009, Revised September 2010, May 2017, July2019 Page I 1
H,

03/28/2023 Item No.13.

SACRAMENTO METROPOLITAN
AIR OUALITYveNnceu-ENT DlsrRlcr
Sac Metro Air District Rules & Regulations Statement (revised 10n02O) The fottowing statement is rccommended as standard condition of approval or construction iiuiirt t"lnjrage for ail devetopment projects within the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management Distrtd (Sac Metrc Air District):

All projects are subject to Sac Metro Air District rules in effect at the time of construction. A ro'ipf6i" listing of 6urrent rules is available at www.airqu?litY,oro or by calling 916-874-4800.

Speiinc rules i-hat may relate to construction activities or building design may include, but are not limited to:

Rule 20i: General Permit Reouirgme{rts. Any project thatincludes the use of equipment phere may require permit(s) from Sac Metro Air
ti"trjrt prior to equipment operation. The applicant, developer,.or operator of a project that includes an emergency generator, boiler, or heater should contact the Sac Metro Air District ""ify
to O"t"rminiit ab|rmit is required, and to begin the permit application process. Other G#,r"ltypes of ure" ihat require i permit include, but are not limited to, dry cleaners, gasoline Ititions,'siray booths, and operations that generate airborne particulate emissions. portable construction equipm'ent (e.g. geneiators, compressors, pile drivers, lighting equipment, "t".i*in
jn intemalcoi,rnustlon ingine over 50 horsepower is required to havg a Sec Metro Air oi"i1i.t p"trit or a Galifornia Air Reiources Board portable equipment registration (PERP) (see Other Regulations below).

Rule 402; Nulsance. The developer or coniractor is required to prevent dust.or any emissions ffimcausinginjury,nuisance,orannoyancetothepublic.

Rufe 403: Fuqitive Dust. The developer.or contractor is required to control dust emissions from ffirageoranyotherconstructionactivitytopreventairbornedustfrom leaving the project site'
Rule 414: Water Heaters, Bolleqs and Proceqs llgalerF Bate.d LFss, Thalr 1,09.0'000 FJU to i nstal l.water heaters (includi ng_ residence
ffineaters),boi|ersorprocessheatersthatcomplywiththeemissionlimitsspecifiedinthe rule.

Rule 411: Wood Burnlnq Appliaqc,es. This rule prohibits the installation of any new, ; , uncontrolled fireplaces in neur or existing
developments.

Bule 442: Architectural coati[qs. The developer or contractor is required to use coatings that pound content limits specifi;d in the rule'
Rute 453: Cutback and EmulsiliFJ Asphalt,Bavinq.Materlals. This rule prohibits the use of haft for paving, road construction or road
maintenance activities.
777 12th Street, Ste, 300 ' Sacramento, CA 95814
Te// 279-207-1.122 . Toll Free: 80G880'9025
AirQuality.org

03/28/2023 Item No.13.

Rule 460: Adhesives and Sealants, The developer or contractor is required to use adhesives and sealants tnat corfrFl|friifr'Tnffitatib organic compound content limits specified in the rule' Rule g02: Asbestos. The developer or contractor is required to notify the Sac Metro Air District @ationordemolitionactivity.Rule902co.ntainsspecificrequirementsfor surveying-, notification, removal, and disposal of asbestos containing material' Other Regulations (Galifornia Gode of Regulations (CCR)) Sac Metro Air District Rules & Regulations Statement

The
developer or contractor is required to notifY the Sac Metro Air District earth moving projects, greater than 1 acre in size in areas "Moderately LikelY to Contain Asbestos" within eastern Sacramento CountY. The develoPer or contractor is required to comply with sPecific requirements for surveying, notification, and handling soil that contains naturally occurring asbestos.
1g CCR. Division g. Chapter 9. Article 5. Fo4able.- Eo{iplqpnt Registratign eroqrqm: The all registration and operational reQuirements
of tn" iort.Ole equipment registration program such as recordkeeping and notification. 13 cCR. Division 3, chaeter s. Attlcle f,9. Q?449{Sl(2} and ling time either by shutting equipment off
when not in use or reducini the time oi iOting to 5 minutes. These apply to diesel powered off- road equipment and on-road vehicles, respectively.

03/28/2023 Item No.13.

N
,ffi
s
YANA GARctA
tNvrnoNMf{rAl rffolci:il1'\il
Glvrr Newsou
Water Boards
Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board
14 December 2022
Steven Banks
City of Folsom
50 Natoma Street
Folsom, CA 95630
[email protected]

COMMENTS TO REQUEST FOR REVIEW FOR THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DEC LARATION, VI NTAGE S E NIOR APARTMENTS P ROJECT, SC H#20221 10187,

SACRAMENTO GOUNTY
pursuant to the State Clearinghouse's 10 November 2022 request, the CentralValley RegionalWater Quality Control Board (CentralValley Water Board) has reviewed the Reiuesf for Review for the Mitigated Negatiu_e Declaration for the Vintage Senior Apartments Project, located in Sacramento County.

Our agency is delegated with the responsibility of protecting the quality of surface and grounlwatlrs of the state; therefore, our comments will address concerns surrounding those issues.
l. Regulatory Setting
Basin Plan
The CentraiValley Water Board is required to formulate and adopt Basin Plans for all areas within the Central Valley region under Section 1324A of the Porter-Cologne Water euality ControlAct. Each Basin Plan must contain water quali$ objectives to ensure the reasonable protection of beneficial uses, as well as a program of implementation for achieving water quality objectiv.es with the Basin Plans. Federal regulations require each state to adopt water quality standards to protect the public neinn or welfare, enhance the quality of water and serve the purposes of the Clean Water Act. ln California, the beneficial uses, water quali$ objectives, and the Antidegradation Policy are the State's water quality standards. Water quali$ standaids are also contained in the National Toxics Rule, 40 CFR Section 131'36, and the California Toxics Rule, 40 CFR Section 131'38'
The Basin plan is subject to modification as necessary, considering applicable laws, policies, technologies, water quality conditions and priorities. The original Basin 'plans were adoptEC in 1975, and have been updated and revised periodically as required, using'Basin Plan amendments. Once the Central Valley Water Board has aOipteO'a BaJin Plan amendment in noticed public hearings, it must be approved by tne btate Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board), Office of Mrnr BRloroBD' CHAIR I Pernrcr PuLuee, EsQ', execurtvE oFFlsER t1020 Sun center Drive #200, Rancho cordova, cA s5670 I www'wgterboards.ca.gov/c€ntralvalley

03/28/2023 Item No.13.

Vintage Senior Apartments Project - 2 - 14 December 2A22 Sacramento County
Administrative Law (OAL) and in some cases, the United States Environmental protection Agency (i;Sepn). Basin Plan amendments only become effective after they have UeLn approved by the OAL and in some cases, the USEPA. Every three (3) years, a review'of the Basin Plan is completed that assesses the appropriateness irf"ii.tinb standards and evaluates and prioritizes Basin Planning issues. For more information on the Water Quatity Contral Ptan for the Sacramenta and San Joaquin River gastns, please visit our website:
http:#www.waierboards. ca. gov/centlAlval leylwater issueslbasin plansl Antideqradation -Gonsideratigns
Allwastewater ciGEfrarges rnust comply with the Antidegradation Policy (State Water Board Resolution 68-16) and the Antidegradation lmplementation Policy contained in the Basin plan. The Aniidegradation lmplementation Policy is available on page 74 at:
hiins://www.waterboards.ca.qovlcentralvallevlwater issqes/basin plans/sacsjL2018

05.pdf
ln part it states:

Any discharge of wasfe to high quality waters mugt apply best practicable treatment or controt n6t only to prevent a condition of potlution or nuisance from occuning, but also to maintain ine iignest water quatity possib/e consisfent with the maximum benefit to the PeoPle of the Sfafe'
This information must be presented as an anatysis of the impacts and potential impacts of the discharge on water quality, as measured by background concentrations and applicable water qualtty obiectives' The antidegradation analysis is a mandatory element in the National Pollutant Discharge Elirnination Syitem and land discharge Waste Discharge Requirements Wpnrip"rmitting processes. The environmental review document should evaluate potential impacts to both surface and groundwater quali$' ll. Permitting Requirements
Conetructlon Storm Wate[ General Permit
@isturb one or more acres of soil or where projects
disturb less than oni aire but are part of a larger common plan of development that in total disturbs one or more acres, are required to obtain coverage under the General permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Construction General Permit), Construction General Perm it Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ. Construction activity subject to this permit includes clearing, grading, grubbing, disturbances to the ground, such as stockpiling, or excavalion, but-does not include regular maintenance activities performed to restore the original line, grade, or capaci$ of the facility, The Construction General Permit requir& the devilopment and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention plan (SWppP). For more information on the Construction General Permit, visit the State Water Resources Control Board website at:
http:l/wvrnar.watgrboards.ca.sovlwater issues/proqramslstormwaterlconstpermits'9ht ml

03/28/2023 Item No.13.

Vintage Senior Apartments Project
Sacramento CountY
-3- 14 December 2022
Glean Water Act Sectlon 404 Permit
chargeofdredgedorfillmaterialinnavigablewaters
or weilands, a permit pursuant to Section 4O4 of the Clean Water Act may be needed from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). lf a Section 404 permit is required by the USACE, the CentralValley Water Board will review the iermit application to ensure that discharge will not violate.water quality standards' lf ine pro;dit requires surface water drainage realignment, the applicant is advised to coni""i the Department of Fish and Game for information on Streambed Alteration permit requirements. lf you have any questions regarding the Clean Water Act Section 404 permits, please contact the Regulatory Division of the Sacramento District of USACE at (916) 557-5250.

Ctean tVater Act Section 401 Permll - Water Qualibl Ce$ification eportingNationwidePermit,NationwidePermit,
Letter of permission,'lndividual Permit, Regional General Permit, Programmatic General Permit), or any other federal permit (e.9., Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act or Section 9 from the United States Coast Guard), is required for this protect due to the disturbance of waters of the United States {such as streams and weilanOs;, then a Water Quality Certification must be obtained from the Central Valley Witer Board prior to initiation of project activities. There are no waivers for +0t Water euality Certifications. For more information on the Water Quality certification, visit the centralvalley water Board website at:
htips:/lwww.waterboards.ca.qovlcentralvalleylwater issues,lwater quality certflgalio nl
Waste DischarEe Requiroments -.Dl,sqlr4roeq to yUatefs of thq State ffilynon.jurisdictionalwatersoftheState(i.e.,,.non-
federal" waters of the State) aie present in the proposed project area, the.proposed project may require a Wast! Discharge Requiremerrt (WDR) permit to be issued by b"ntr"tVaitey Water Board. Under the California Porter-Cologne Waler Quality Control Act, discharges to all waters of the State, including all wetlands and other waters of the State including, but not limited to, isolated wetlands, are subject to State regutation. For more information on the Waste Discharges to Slrface Water NpDES program and WDR processes, visit the CentralValley Water Board website s{'htlpq:/lurriff.-rlrqterboards.ca.qgvlcentralvallev/water issues/waste to surface wat erl
projects involving excavation or fill activities impacting less than 0.2 acre or 400 linear feet of norijurisdictional waters of the state and projects involving dredging activities impacting less than b0 cubic yards of non-jurisdictional waters of the state miy Oe eliginn foicoverage under the State Water Resources Control Board Water Ouitity OrJer No. 2004-0004-DWQ (GeneralOrder 2004-0004)' For more information on the General Order 2004-AOO4 visit the State Water Resources Control Board website at:
htipi:/www.waterboards,ca.qovlboard decisions/qdopled orders/wAlgr guality/200 4lwqo/wqo2004-0004. Bdt

03/28/2023 Item No.13.

Vintage Senior Apartments Project
Sacramento County
-4- 14 December2022
Dewaterino Permit
@ctincludesconstructionorgroundwaterdewateringtobe
discharged to land, the proponent may apply for coverage under State Water Board GeneralWater Quality Order (Low Threat General Order) 2003-0003 or the Central Valley Water Board's Waiver of Report of Waste Discharge and Waste Discharge Requirements (Low Threat Waiver) R5-2018-0085. Small temporary_construction dewatering projects are projects that discharge groundwater to land from excavation activities or dewatering of underground utility vaults. Dischargers seeking coverage under the General Order or Waiver must file a Notice of lntent with the Central Valley Water Board prior to beginning discharge'
For more information regarding the Low Threat General Order and the application process, visit the CentralValley Water Board website at:
hup:l/www.waterboards.ca.gov/board decisions/adooted orders/waler quqlltv/20031 wqolwqo2003-0003"Pdf
For more information regarding the Low Threat Waiver and the application process, visit the CentralValley Water Board website at:
https:#www.waterboards.ca.govlcentr:alvalleylboard decisionsladopted of-d-er-slwaiv erslrS-2018-0085,pdf
Limlted Th!'eaf General NPDE$ Permlt
@inc|udesconstructiondewateringanditisnecessaryto
discharge ttre giounOwater to waters of the United States, the proposed project will require-coverage under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) peimit. Dewatering discharges are typically considere^d a low or limited threat to water quality and may be covered under the General Order lor Limited Threat Discharges-to Surtaie Water (Limited Threat General Order). A complete Notice of lntent m].rst be submitted to the CentralValley Water Board to obtain coverage under the Limited Threat General Order. For more information regarding the Limited Threat General Order and the application process, visit the CentralValley Water Board website at:
https:l/www.waterboards.ca.oov/centralvallevlboard decisionsladopted orders/oene ral orderslrS-20!6-0076-01 .odf
NPDES Permit
lf the proposed project discharges waste that could affect the quality of surface waters oi tne State, other than into a community sewer system, the proposed project will require coverage under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NpDES) permit. A complete Report of Waste Discharge must be submitted with the bentralValley Water Board to obtain a NPDES Permit. For more information regarding the NPDES Permit and the application process, visit the CentralValley Witer Board website at: ht$rs:/lwww.waterboards.ca.qov/centralvallevlhelp/permiU

03/28/2023 Item No.13.

Vintage Senior Apartments Project
Sacramento CountY
lf you have questions regarding these comments, please contact me at (916) 4644684 or Pete r. M inkel2@waterboards. ca. gov
Pn**7fut/4/
Peter Minkel
Engineering Geologist
cc: State Clearinghouse unit, Governor's Office of Planning and Research, Sacramento
-5- 14 December2022

03/28/2023 Item No.13.

Powering forward. Together.

OSMUD
SentVia E-Mail
December 14,2022
Steven Banks
City of Folsom Planning Department
50 Natoma Street
Folsom, CA 95630
[email protected]
subject: vintage senior Apartments t MND I 2022110187
Dear Mr. Banks:

The Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the Mitigated Negative_ Peclaration (MND) for the Vintage Senior hpartments (project, SCH 202211018-7). SMUD is the primary energy provider for Sacramento bou-nty and a portion of the proposed Project area. SMUD's vision is to empower our customers wlth solutions and options that increase energy efficiency, pro'tect the environment, reduce global warming, and lower the cost to serve our iegion, As a Responsibie Rgency, SMUD aims to ensure that the proposed Project iir"it. tn" potential for significint environmental effects on SMUD facilities, employees, and customers.

We have no comments to offer at this time but would appreciate if the Ci$ of Folsom would continue to keep SMUD facilities in mind as environmental review of the Prolect moves forward. Please reroute the Project analysis for SMUD's review if there are any changes to the scope of the Project.
lf you have any questions regarding this letter, please do not hesitate to contact me at gi A1 gz.l q66, or by email at Am m on. Rice(Osm ud. orq.

Sincerely,
Ammon Rice
Environmental Services Supervisor
Sacramento Municipal Utility District
6201 S Street
Sacramento, CA 95817
cc: Entitlements
5MUDH61 i6201 SStreet lp.o.Box15830 1Sacramento,CA95852-1830 11.888.742.7683 ismud'org

03/28/2023 Item No.13.

Subiect:

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organlzation. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe'
Classification: Public
Hello Steve,
This project is under review by pG&E's transmission engineering group for the associated grading and improvements (retaining wall) before an approval letter can be issued. ln the meantime, I wanted to provide the following comments:

Steven Banks
From:

Sent:

To:
o
a
Boyd, Alexa <[email protected]>
Friday, December 23,202212:15 PM
Steven Banks
Vintage Senior APartments
Retaining Wall: Walls, fences, and other structures must be installed at locations that do not affect the safe operation of pG&,s facilities. Heavy equipment access to our facilities must be maintained at alltimes' Metal fences are to be grounded to pG&E specifications. No wall, fence or other like structure is to be installed within 10 feet of tower footings. please provide distances from proposed retaining wall to tower footings.

Landscaping: on overhead electric transmission easements, trees and shrubs are limited to those varieties that do not exceed 10 feet in height at maturity. pG&E must have access to its facilities at alltimes, including access by heavy equipment. No planting is to occur within the footprint of the tower legs. Greenbelts are encouraged.

No buildings or other structures are permitted within transmission easement areas; this included signage. a
Respectfully,
il Alexa Boyd I LandAgent
Pacific Gas and Electric ComPanY
Land Management, Land Rights Services
2730 Gateway oaks Drive, Ste 220 | Sacramento, CA 95833 Phone: (916) 750-5738
Email ; dgIa'gardsA@pre4&
I

03/28/2023 Item No.13.

Plannlng Commission
Vintage Senlor APartments
January 18,2023
(PN 21-15e)
Attachment 27
Comrnent Lefters from Residents

03/28/2023 Item No.13.

Steven Banks
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:
[email protected]
Thursday, June 30, 2022 3:42 PM
Steven Banks
Vintage project at 103 E Natoma St
Dear Steve Banks,
I am a resident of the Cimmaron Hills neighborhood directly next to 103 E Natoma Street. We have attended two meetings w1h the ownei/developer that w:ants to put a three. story. 136 unit senior (55 and up) apartment building..on that prop"r[. This properly ir ion",l Bp and while thi proposed ussis allowed it needs an issuance of a minor conditional ie#it io have i tnr"e story building. l, as well as my heighbors, are requesting that this conditional use permit be denied.

A three story building at this locatation is unacceptable. There are no three story buildings in this area. This property borders residential nlitnoornoods that have single or two story homes, and one story office buildings. Ctranging this small plot of land tromhz io C+ nlgn density is dgregious- N.ot only will it be an eyesore, but it does not fit in with the "ojoining
neighborhoods. Those niignuorsalong itJbo,roer.lose.the privacy and peaceful enjoyment of their pr6pertyl. lm-agine thaoccupants of ihe third stoiy looking directly into your backyard and back windows. This is not one bt tho.5 neighb'orhoods that have homes close together ind lookdown into each other's back yards. We hgve larger lot sizes and the homes are built so that we have thai privacy. That is why people have chosen to live here' Please do not allow the third story, a one story would be more appropriate for this space' Another main concern is parking. The developer has indicated to us that there are not parking spages fol eyery unit, yikesll! Their r"rgjnse isitrat not every occupant will have a vehicle. Maybe sor-but the reali$ is that most units will have more than onJ oc.rp"nt and all ociupants in those units will have vehicles. Then if you factor in building staff, caregivers, and vistitors there is not ample parking sp€ces. This means that their cars will be lining the streets of the adjoi-ning neighborhoods, once again unacceptable. Please require that all units have parking spaces as well as additional parking for staff, caregivers, and visitors' It is also our understanding that there will be two entrance/exits. one is proposjld to be a right in, dght out.passage. I would ask that this be made accessible to service vehicles only. Police, EMT, Fire Dept. The traffic issue is going to be a nitnt*"r". Natoma has become a very busy street. The additional entrancelexits will put three entrance/exiis within a ve--ry short distance from each other. Once dgain that is a traffic.nightmare. Residents in our neighborhood have a hard .ndrgh time getting in and out as it is. Theriare already visibility problems as well as a pedestrian crosswalk. This will be a very dangerous situation.
\Mrat a shame to lose all the beautiful trees and wildlife on this lot, as well as, the minimal undeveloped green space left in Folsom. This project does not align with the Distinctive by Nature image in appearance or location. please take these issues into consideration and not issue this conditional permit.

You don't often get email from dreamasplace@aol,com. Leafn whv this ls inoortant cAUTloN: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Yours respectfully,
Dreama Pacheco
[email protected]
916-496-6536
1

03/28/2023 Item No.13.

Steven Banks
From:

Sent:

To:

Elaine Andersen
Friday, Jdy 8,2022 7:14 AM
Steven Banks
FW:Vintage project at 103 E Natoma StSubject:

From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, June 3A,2022 3:40 PM
To: Elaine Andersen <eandersen@folsom'ca.us>
Subject: Vintage project at 103 E Natoma St
You don't often get email from dreamasplace@ailgq-40. Learn whv thl9. ls important GAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organizatlon. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Elaine Andersen,
I am a resident of the Cimmaron Hills neighborhood directly next to 103 E Natoma Street. We have aftended two meetings with the ownerldeveloper that riants to put a three story. 136 unit senior (55 and up) apartment building..on that properil. This propery is toned BP and while th6 propogq{ use is allowed it needs an issuance of a minor conditional ierhit [o have i tnree story building. l, as well as my heighbors, are requesting that this conditional use permit be denied' A three story building at this locatation is unacceptable. There are no three story buildings in this area. This property borders residential neijtrbornoods that have sinjb or two story homes, and one story office buildings. Changing this small plot of land from-RZ to R4 high densig is egregious. N.ot only will it be an eyesore, but it does not fit in with the a_djoining neighborhoods. Those nlighborsalong its border.lose.the privacy and peaceful enjoyment of their pr6pertv]. lm-agine thaoccupants orihe third story looking directly into your backyard and back windows. This is not one 91 tiro.6 neighSorhoods that have homes close together and look down into each other's back yards. we hne larger lot sizes and the homes are built so that we have thal privacy. That is why people have chosen to live here. Please do not allow the third story, a one story would be more appropriate for this space.

Another main concern is parking. The developer has indicated to us that there are not parking spaces for every .
unit. yikesl!l Their 1"rponre is-that not every occupant will have a vehicle. Maybe so, but the reali$ is that most units will have more than o1d o..rp"nt and all oc&panti in those units will have vehicles. Then if you factor in buiHing staff, caregivers, and vistitors tner" is not ample parking spaces. This means that their cars will be lining the streets of the adjoi-ning neighborhoods, once again unacieptabie. Please require that all units have parking spaces as well as additionil paiXing for staff, caregivers, and visitors.

It is also our understanding that there will be two entrance/exits. One is prop_osjld to be a right in, right out pasgage' ! would ask that this be made accessible to service vehicles only. Police, EMT, Fire Dept. The kaffic issue is going to be a nightmare. Natoma hai become a very busy street. The additional entrancelexits will put three entrancelexits within a vdry short distance from each other. Once igain that is.a traffic.nightmare. Residents in our neighborhood have a hard enougn time getting in and out as it is. Therdare already visibility problems as well as a pedestrian crosswalk. This will be a very dangerous situation.
\Mat a shame to lose all the beautiful trees and wildlife on this lot, as well as, the minimal undeveloped green space left in Folsom. This project does not align with the Distinctive by Nature image in appearance or location" please take these issues into consideration and not issue this conditional permit.

I

03/28/2023 Item No.13.

Steven Banks
From:

Sent:

To:

Kandi Jones < [email protected] >
Thursday, July7,2O22 7:43 PM
Steven Banks
103 E. Natoma StreetSubiect:

You don't often get emall from [email protected]. lqafn Whv thlg i! important CAUT|ON: This email orlginated from outslde of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

I reside on Cimmaron Circle. I am vehemently opposed to the proposed project at the above referenced address for reasons too many to list here, but are well known to the builder/developers' I

03/28/2023 Item No.13.

Steven Banks
From:

Sent:

To:
eprkeeper5 < [email protected] >
Thursday, July7,2O22 8:00 PM
Steven Banks
103 E. Natoma StreetSubject:

You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn whv this is importanl CAUTION; This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

I reside on Cimmaron Circle and I am vehemently opposed to the proposed project at the above referenced address for too many reasons to list here. but which are well known to the owner/developers.

Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S22+ 5G, an AT&T 5G smartphone I

03/28/2023 Item No.13.

Steven Banks
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:
[email protected]
Thursday, July 1 4, 2022 2:11 PM
Steven Banks
Vintage Housing proposal question
originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the content is safe.

Good afternoon,
My name is Erin Sargent. We met at the first neighborhood meeting regarding the Vintage Housing senior living proposal. I was also in attendance for the second meeting, but did not see you there. I have also tried reaching out to you earlier, but we were not able to connect.
l, along with my neighbors on Cimmaron Circle, have some valid concerns with this development. obviously, anytime there is a new development, the loss of beautiful open space is mourned, and concerns about noise, traffic, & parking are all negatives compared to the open space that currently exists. And neighbors who have lived with that open space behind them for over 30 years are rightfully dismayed. One of the very reasons we purchased our home here six months ago was because of the amazing trail access and quiet, open feel. our home abuts the trail access from Cimmaron circle and therefore, overflow parking for those seeking access to the apartment complex from the oak Parkway trail is of considerable concern to me.

However, I understand that this is developable land per the zoning map, and that all the studies that need to be done regarding noise, traffic, tree removal, etc. have all been done or are in process. .

I have read the zoning code and also understand that there are significant developer incentives or bonuses involved when considering low income and senior living facilities.

My question is regarding a specific part of the code, namely section L7.LOL.O3O where density bonuses are concerned, as pasted below:

A. Density Bonus.
1, The city shall grant a density bonus to an applicant or developer of a housing development, consisting of five or more dwelling units, who agrees to provide the following:
a. At least ten percent of the total units of a housing development for low income households; or b. At least five percent of the total units of a housing development for very low income households; or
c. A senior citizen housing development.

All density calculations resulting in fractional units shall be rounded up to the next whole number, Z. ln determining the number of target units to be provided pursuant to this section, the maximum residential density shall be multiplied by 0,05 where very low income households are targeted' or by 0.'10 where low income households are targeted. The density bonus units shall not be included when determining the total number of target units in the housing development. when calculating the required number of target units, any fractions of units shall be rounded to the next larger number.

3. Amount of DensitY Bonus.

L

03/28/2023 Item No.13.
a. General Density Bonus, The density bonus shall be a density increase of at least twenty percent' unless a lesser perientage is elected by the applicantldeveloper over the othenarise maximum allowable residential density. The amount of density bonus to which the applicant/developer is entitled shall vary according to the amount by which the percentage of affordable units exceeds the percentage set f;fth in subsection (AX1) of this section. For each percent increase above ten percent in the percentage of units affordable to low income households, the density bonus shall be increased by one and one-half percent up to a maximum of thirty-five percent. For each one percent inciease above five percent in the percentage of units affordable to very low income households, the density bonus shall be increased by two and one-half percent up to a maximum of thirty-five percent. For senior citizen housing developments, the density bonus shall be a flat twenty percent.

I am curious as to how these density bonuses are calculated, and if Vintage housing is seeking a larger bonus due to the low income nature of their units? which is the overriding percentage? can Vintage claim larger density bonus based on the low income household status or is the flat 20 percent for senior citizen housing applicable? Exactly what numbers are the starting point here? on an intuitive level, it seems like a jump from our neighborhood with RI-ML zone to an R4 high density zone would be more than 20%. This is why I am seeking clarification on the matter.

I would be happy to discuss the matter over the phone or in person if that is easier for you' I can be reached at 915-849- 2134 alyour convenience, and am available to meet in person any time next week' Thank you so much,
Erin Sargent
2

03/28/2023 Item No.13.

Steven Banks
From:

Sent:

To:

Randy Bundock < [email protected]>
Monday, November 14,2Q2210:08 AM
Steven Banks
Vintage Senior APartmentsSubject:
[you don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important at https://a ka. ms/Lea rnAbo utSenderldentif ication l
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Steve,
It was inevitable someone would want to develop the land across from the prison entrance. My wife and I always joked if we won the lottery we would buy it and build another bike and dog park, but that hasn't happened yet. lt seems that there would be a lot of challenges with exffa traffic at a 4 way siop since the shift changes at the prison already make that intersection busy enough, Also how to preserve all the nice oak trees, the small creek that forms when it rains, and how close the power lines aie. A three'story building seems like it would be too tall for that area. The city has invested so much in the Jc Trail with bridges and tunnels it would be a shame to clog up the trail access with more cross traffic' Thank you for your time,
Randy Bundock
218 Spencer Street
Sent from my iPhone
1

03/28/2023 Item No.13.

Steven Banks
From:

Sent:

To:

Kandi Jones < kandis5T@yahoo'com>
Monday, November 14,20221:27 PM
Steven Banks
103 E NatomaSubject:

You don't often Eet email from [email protected], Learn whv-this is imoOrtant CAUT|ON: This email originated from outside Of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

I am contacting you to express my opposition to the proposed project by Vintage Properties at 103 E Natoma. I have several issues, however, my concern at this time is the 3 story proposal and overall design of the building which does not blend in with the existing neighboring structures, which includes single family homes, businesses, medicalfacilities, and other multi family apartments. Thank you ' KandiJones
I

03/28/2023 Item No.13.

Steven Banks
From:

Sent:

To:

Dreama Pacheco <[email protected]>
Wednesday, November 16, 2022 12:53 PM
Steven Banks
Vintage Properties 103 NatomaSubiect:
[you don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important at https://a ka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification l
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Steve Banks,
I am writing in regards to the Vintage Properties proposed for 103 Natoma St. Although I have many concerns what I would like to address here is the parking situation for this project.

This 136 unit apartment building does not have plans for enough parking spaces, There is not a parking space for each unit nor parking designated for,staff and visitors. The developers answer to this was that not every one living in the building will drive. That is a nonsense answer, as many of those units will have more than one driver. ln my research I found eight other propertaes owned by this company and of the many complaints the one common thread for all eight properties is those living there cannot find parking. Some complaining that they have to park in the supermarket parking lot down the road, and one resident complaining she has to park down the road and walk to the building in the dark. These are seniors, this is not acceptable.

Also having cars scattered all over the neighborhood from lack of parking is unacceptable. please require this project to have parking spaces for all units as well as additional parking for staff and visitors.

Thank you,
Dreama Pacheco
Sent from my iPhone
1

03/28/2023 Item No.13.

Steven Banks
From:

Sent:

To:

Farrah Wood <[email protected] >
Monday, November 28, 2A22 2:26 PM
Steven Banks
Vintage Properties at 103 E Natoma Folsom, CASubiect:
[you don't often get emailfrom [email protected]. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSe nderldentification l
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization, Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Mr Banks-
I am contacting you to express my opposition to the proposed project by Vintage Properties at 103 E. Natoma. I have several issues, however, my concern at this time is the 3 story proposal and overall design of the building which does not blend in with the existing structures which includes single family homes, businesses, medical facilities, and other multi family apartments. Also the protected oak trees. Thank you.

Farah Wood
Sent from iPhone
t

03/28/2023 Item No.13.

Steven Banks
From:

Sent:

To:

Bill Pacheco <[email protected]>
Tuesday, November 29,2022 5:21 PM
Steven Banks
Vintage Senior ApartmentsSubiect:
[you don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important at https:l/aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification l
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe'
Steve,
Our neighborhood has many concerns about the senior apartments planned to be built next to the homes on Cimmaron Circle.

Natomas is already extremely impacted by the current traffic conditions from all of the building over the past 15 years' It,s very dangerous as it is and with adding a three story building will increase the traffic and make more unsafe. There is a crosswalk for the bikelwalking trails that has had the signs hit by oncoming vehicles several times' The most recent time one of the signs has been hit , the driver through the siBn over my fence into my backyard. Most people driving on that road speed and eventually one of the walking path users are going to get hurt. This is already a major safety problem.

It,s also frustrating when you can't leave your neighborhood in a reasonable amount of time.

The road noise/pollution is very loud only going to get louder with more traffic.

There are few services near this location for seniors. This project would make more sense near shopping and grocery stores.

What is the City of Folsom planning to do about the safety issues, the road noise issues, timely accessibility and the lack of services for the seniors?
Please excuse any typos this message was sent from my iPhone Thanks,
Bill Pacheco

03/28/2023 Item No.13.

Steven Banks
To:

Cc:

Sent:

Subiect:

From: Josh Guthrie <[email protected]>
Thursday, December 15,2022 8:42 AM
Steven Banks
Rosario Rodriguez; Mike Kozlowski; YK Chalamcherla; Sarah Aquino;Anna Rohrbough Opposition to Vintage Senior Apartments across from Folsom Prison Entrance CAUTIOH: This email originated frOm outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe'
Hi Steve,
I couldn't attend last nights City Council Meeting, so I wanted to write this email. l,m adamantly opposed to putting a three story senior living center on APN:071"-0320-042, as it will adversely affect my quality of life, along with hundreds of other residents. 1) The Traffic is already an issue for the residents of Cimmaron Hills entering Natomas street. This will only add to it.
2l A three story complex doesn't conform to the 'feel' of the area' 3) This project will erode the property values of the adjacent homes by creating direct viewable access to residents living rooms. Unacceptable design.
4l l'm very concerned about the density and classification of these residences a. They can be too easily converted to 'Low-income' genialized dwellings in the future, and our area already carries its societal burden with the medium density dwellings of Montrose and Talisman, and the areas behind Circle K. The city will be effectively creating a 'ghetto' in the future and this is simply irresponsible plan ning.
5) l,m not allowed to buald a stair case within 10 feet of my oak tree, but we're comfortable wiping out an entire oak grove, all at the justification of high density tax revenues. Ridiculous hypocrisy being exhibited here' Again, unacceptable design.

I seriously hope this isn't approved.

Best regards,
Josh Guthrie
242 Spencer St.
1

03/28/2023 Item No.13.

Steven Banks
From:

Sent:

To:

Subiect:

Kat Gray <[email protected]>
Wednesday, December 21,2022 9:33 AM
Steven Banks
Mitigation Measures for Vintage Homes Apartments
You don't often get email from [email protected]. tga$-ruhvlhj:j:j$.P!r[3:0! CAUTION: This email originated frorn outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi Steve,
I am inquiring about the Vintage Homes apartment project at Natoma. I'm a concerned resident and homeowner living near the proposed Vintage Homes site. I know you are probably really busy but I am wondering if you can tell me where to find information for all the Mitigation Measures listed in the summary. I counted 15 different mitigation measures for the many impacts this project will have. Where can I find out more? Hoping you can point me in the right direction.

Kat Gray
1

03/28/2023 Item No.13.

Planning Commission
Vintage Senior Apartments (PN 21 -1 59)
January 18,2023
Attachment 28
CEQA Response Memorand um
Dated January 4,2023

03/28/2023 Item No.13.

Memorqndum
HELIX Enylronmontrl Phnnlng' lnc.
1180 lron Polnt Road, Sulte 130
Foleom, CA 95630
916,435.1205 tel
$uulelxeptlsr Env i r anm e ntal P I an n i ng
Date: January?,2O2?
To: Steve Banks, Principal Planner, CityofFolsom
From: Robert Edgerton, AICP CEP
Message: Vintage at Folsom Senior Apartments Comment Letters Memorandum Below is a summary of public agency letters and local resident comments received regarding the Vintage at Folsom Senior Apartments lnitialStudy Mitigated Negative Declaration (ISMND) prepared by HELIX Environmental Planning, lnc. (HELIX). The 30-day public review period forthe ISMND began on November t4,2022 and ended on December L4'2022'
Public Asencv Letters
r Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB) (December t4,20221 r Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) (December !4,2022, r Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) (November 3A,2A221 o Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) (November L7,2022t Allfour letters received from the CVRWQCB, SMUD, SMAQMD, and PG&E were standardized template letters. No response is required for the public agency letters received to date as no comments relevant to compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act {CEQA) were noted. The public agency letters may contain relevant information for the City to consider (primarily for conditions of approval purposes).

Local Resident Comments
Several comment letters were received from local residents expressing concern with project impacts related to aesthetics, biological resources, transportation and parking safety, and noise. No letter received from a public agency, or a local resident triSgers additional action required of the City per CEQA Guidelines. Allof the issues raised in the comment letters, regarding CEQA compliance, have been previously addressed in the ISMND. No formal written response from the City is required. r 103 E Natoma Letter (November !4,2022)
r 103 E. Natoma Street Letter (July 7,20221
r 103 E. Natoma Street Letter (July 7,20221
r FW Vintage project at 103 E Natoma Street Letter (July 8, 2022) . Opposition to Vintage Senior Apartments across from Folsom Prison Entrance {December 15, 2O2Zl
r Vintage Housing proposalquestion Letter (July L4,2022!.

HEL//X

03/28/2023 Item No.13.

Memorandum to Mr, Steve Banks
January 3,2023
?age2ot2
HEL'X
foriroonutltl Ptsminq
r Vintage proiect at 103 E Natoma Street Letter (July 30, 2022) r Vinta8e Properti€s 103 Natoma Letter (November L6,2A221 o Vintage Properties at 103 E Natome Folsom, CA (November28,2O22l o Vintage Senior Apartments Letter (November 29' 20221
r Vlntage SenlorApartments Letter (November 14,20221

03/28/2023 Item No.13.

Attachment 4
Minutes from January 18,2023
Planning Commission Meeting

03/28/2023 Item No.13.
i[t"'"() i1",uiDi\]lt
9rair{arr*:

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
JANUARY 18,2023

CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
6:30 P.M.
50 Natoma Street
Folsom, CA 95630

CALLTO ORDER PLANNING COMMISSION
The regular Planning Commission Meeting was callod to order at 6:30 p.m. with Chair Eileen Reynolds presiding.

ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present: Mathew Herrera, Commissioner
DanielWest, Vice Chair
Bill Mlklos, Commissioner
Ralph Pefia, Commissioner
James Orlega, Commissioner
Eileen Reynolds, Chalr
Commissioners Absent: Bill Romanelli, Commissioner

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANGE
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.

Oath of Office was Adminlstered to Mathew Herrera. James Orteoa. Elleen Revnolds. and Daniel West Electlon of Chair and Vice Chalr

COMMISSIONER WEST MOVED TO ELECT COMMISSIONER EILEEN REYNOLDS AS CHAIR OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

COMMISSIONER PENA SECONDED THE MOTION.

AYES: HERREM, WEST, MIKLOS, PENA, ORTEGA, REYNOLDS
NOES: NONE
RECUSED: NONE
ABSENT: ROMANELLI
COMMISSIONER REYNOLDS WAS ELECTED TO SERVE AS CHAIR FOR 2023

COMMISSIONER MIKLOS MOVED TO ELECT COMMISSIONER DANIEL WEST AS VICE CHAIR OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

Planning Commission Minutes
January I 8, 2023

03/28/2023 Item No.13.

COMMISSIONER HERRERA SECONDED THE MOTION.

AYES: HERREM, VVEST, MIKLOS, PEITA, ORTEGA, REV\OLDS
NOES: NONE
RECUSED: NONE
ABSENT: ROMANELLI
COMMISSIONER WEST WAS ELECTED TO SERVE AS VICE CHAIR FOR 2023.

Plannlnq Commisslon Recommendatlon of Two l$embers to Serue on the Hlstodc Dlstrlct Commleslon

COMMISSIONER MIKLOS MOVED TO SELECT COMMISSIONER DANIEL WEST AND COMMISSIONER RALPH PENA FoR RECOMMENDATION TO SERVE ON THE HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION.

COMMISSIONER HERREM SECONDED THE MOTION.

AYES: HERREM, WEST, MIKLOS, PENA, ORTEGA, REYNOLDS
NOES: NONE
RECUSED: NONE
ABSENT: ROMANELLI
coMMIssIoNER WEST AND COMMISSIONER PENA WERE SELECTED FOR RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO SERVE ON THE HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION FOR 2023.

CITIZEN GOMMUNICATION
NONE

MINUTES
The minutes of the November 16, 2022 Regular Meeting were approved as submitted.

NEWBUSINESS

1. PN22-026: AT&T Livermore Park Mononine Cellular Fite A Publlc Hearing to consider a request from New Cingular Wreless PCS, LLC for approval of a Conditional Use Permlt Applicafion for the instrallation and operation of a monopine cellular site located at 6004 Riley_Street. The zoning classification for the site is OSC, while the General Plan land-use designation is P. An lnitial Study and Mltbtted Negative Declaration have been prepared in accordance with the requirementsoJthe Califomia Environmental QualityAct. (Proiect Ptannen Josh KinkadelAppllcant New GlngularWireless PCS, LLC)

COMMTSSIONER MIKLOS MOVED TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE INSTALI.ATION AND OPERATION OF A MONOPINE CELLULAR SITE LOCATED AT 6004 RILEY STREET; AND MOVED TO APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE pERMtT AppLtCATtON (pN22-026) FOR THE INSTALLATION AND OPERATION OF A MONOPINE CELLULAR SITE LOCATED AT 6004 RILEY STREET AS ILLUSTRATED IN ATTACHMENT 5 FOR THE AT&T

LIVERMORE PARK CELLULAR SITE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PROJECT, BASED ON THE FINDINGS INCLUDED tN TH|S REPORT (F|NDINGS A-r) AND SUBJECT TO THE ATTACHED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (CONDITIONS 1 -24).

COMMISSIONER WEST SECONDED THE MOTION.

AYES: HERRERA, WEST, MIKLOS, PENA, ORTEGA REYNOLDS
NOES: NONE
Planning Commission Minutes
January 18,2023

03/28/2023 Item No.13.

A Public Hearing to consider a request from Vintrage at Folsom, LP for approval of a Conditional Use Permit, planned Develolment Permit, and Density Bonus for development of a 136-unit senior affordable apartment community on a 4.8&acre site located on the south side of East Natoma Street at the intersection of East Natoma Street ani Prison Road (103 East Natoma Street). The General Plan land use designation for the prcject slte is pO, while the Zoning disignation is BP PD. An lnitial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration, and Mitigation Monitoring and Repoiting Frogram have been prepared in accordance yitt-t[9_regykemenls of the Califomia EnvkonmEntat euaiity nit tCeOnl Guidelines. {Project Planner: Steve BankslApplicant Vlntage at Folsom' LP)
1, Kandi Jones presented a petition against the project to the Commissioners and opposed he project due to ooncems about the number of stories, overcrowding, and emergency evacuation safety.

2. Art Jones addressed the commission in opposition to the conditional use permit and had concems aboul noise.

3. Henry Sundermier spoke in opposition to the project due to conoems about the number of stories, impact on trafiic and emergencl, r€sponse, and parking.

4. John Sutherland opposiO the project due to concems about parking and landscape maintenance'

5. Giovanni Ottolini vbiced the importance of wage strandards for localworkers in the community.

6. Ravi Kahlin spoke in opposltioh to the project due to conoems about potential noise and light impact, and impact on nearby hom6 values. She also questioned whether the results of the traffic study may have been impacted by the COUD-i9 pandemic and reduced cars on the road.

Z. gO'p nnOeilon opposed the prcject due to concems about trafic safe$ for the neighborhood entry/exit.

B. Bob Maechler opposed the project due to concems about blcycle/pedestian safety and dralnage. g. Brlan Oleson ofposed ttre iroj-ed and requested ttrird party impact studles lo be done for comparlson wlth those by the develoPer.

10. Teresa-Golden-Oleion opposed the project due to concems about parklng, trees and visiblllty, lmpact on magpies, project design, and trafilc.

11. JillFerkini oiposed the project w1h concems about parking and traffc.

12. Carole Ganeti opposeO itre-project due to concems about ihe impact on recreation and wildlife in the area. f i. eili Facheco spiie ln oppoiiti6n to the projecf wlth concems about traffc safety and traffic impact on the neighborhood.

RECUSED: NONE
ABSENT: ROMAIIELLI

MOTION PASSED

2. pN 21-l5g: Vingoe Senlor Apartments Conditional Use Permlt. Planned Developmsnt Pemlt. and Densitv Bonu$
CHAIR REYNOLDS CLOSEDTHE PUBLIC HEARING.

COMMISSIONER WEST MOVED TO CONTINUE PROJECT PN 21-159 TO THE FEBRUARY 15TH, 2023

MEETING IN ORDER TO ENABLE STAFF TO PROVIDE COMMISSIONERS WITH MORE INFORMATION ON

THE LEGAL JUSTIFICATIONS FOR SPECIFIC ADVERSE IMPACTS ON PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFEW SO THAT THE COMMISSION CAN MAKE AN EDUCATED DECISION ON APPROVAL OR DENIAL.

COMMISSIONER MIKLOS SECONDED THE MOTION.

AYES: HERREFIA, WEST, MIKLOS, PENA, ORTEGA, REYI\OLDS
NOES: NONE
RECUSED: NONE
ABSENT: ROMANELLI
DARStrN
Planning Commission Minutcs
January lE,2O23

03/28/2023 Item No.13.

PLANNNG qOMMISSION
'
PI.ANNING MANAGER REPORT
The next Plannlng Gommission meeting is scheduled for February 15,2023.

ADJOURNMENT
There being no further buslness to come before the Folsom Planning Commission, Chair Eileen Reynolds adJoumed the meeting at 10:26 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
c
ChrisUna Kelley,
Planning Commission Minutcs
January 18,2023

03/28/2023 Item No.13.

Attachment 5
Minutes from February 15,2023
Planning Commission Meeting

03/28/2023 Item No.13.
]FO]LSCIN4t

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
FEBRUARY 15,2023

CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5:30 P.M.
50 Natoma Street
Folsom, CA 95630
CALL TO ORDER PLANNING COMMISSION:

The regular Planning Commission Meeting was called to order at 6:31 p.m. with Chair Eileen Reynolds presiding.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The Pledge of Allegiance was recited ROLL CALL:

Commissioners Present: DanielWest, Vice Chair
Bill Miklos, Commissioner
Ralph Pefia, Commissioner
Bill Romanelli, Commissioner
James Ortega, Commissioner
Mathew Herrera, Commissioner
Eileen Reynolds, Chair
Commissioners Absent: None
GITIZEN COMMUNIGATION: NONE
Oath of Office was Administered to Bill Romanelli
Gommendations Presented to Barbara Learv and Justin Raithel MINUTES: The minutes of the January 18,2023 Regular Meeting were approved as submitted

NEW BUSINESS

1. PN 21-159: Vintaqe Senior Apartments Gonditional Use Permit. Planned Development Permit. and Densitv Bonus
A Public Hearing to consider a request from Vintage at Folsom, LP for approval of a Conditional Use Permit, Planned Development Permit, and Density Bonus for development of a 136-unit senior affordable apartment community on a 4.86-acre site located on the south side of East Natoma Street at the intersection of East Natoma Street and Prison Road (1 03 East Natoma Street). The General Plan land use designation for the project site is PO, white the Zoning designation is BP PD. An lnitial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration, and Mitigation Planning Commission Minutes
February 15,2023
Page I of 6

03/28/2023 Item No.13.

Monitoring and Reporting Program have been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEaA) Guidelines. (Project Planner: Steve Banks/Applicant: Vintage at Folsom' LP)

1. Erin Sargent opposed the project and questioned whether studies were done based on the legalallowable number of residents, and had concerns about parking.

2. Katie Salcone opposed the project based on the potential parking overflow into the neighborhood.

3. Robert McNair opposed the project based on parking impact in the neighborhood and traffic/pedestrian safety.

4. Henry Sundermier opposed the project based on traffic safety.

5. Art Jones opposed the project based on parking impact to the neighborhood and emergency vehicle noise impact.

6. Bob Maechler opposed the project based on traffic/pedestrian safety and congestion at crossings.

7. Kat Gray opposed the project, requesting clarification on date of traffic study and discussed potential impact on the yellow-billed magpie.

8. Teresa Golden-Oleson opposed the project based on traffic safety and parking. g. Farrah Wood opposed the project based on pedestrian/traffic safety and parking impact.

10. Bill Pacheco opposed the project based on traffic safety at the pedestrian crossing.

COMMISSIONER MIKLOS MOVED TO ADOPT THE MITIGATED DECLARATION AND MITIGATION

MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM PREPARED FOR THE VINTAGE SENIOR APARTMENTS PROJECT (pN 21-159) PER ATTACHMENT 25 OF THE ORIGINAL STAFF REPORT lN ATTACHMENT 2; AND

APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT AND OPERATION OF A SENIOR AFFORDABLE APARTMENT COMMUNITY ON THE SUBJECT 4.86-ACRE PROPERTY; AND APPROVE A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE 136-UNIT VINTAGE SENIOR APARTMENTS PROJECT ON A4.86 ACRE SITE LOCATED AT 103 EAST NATOMA STREET; AND APPROVE

A DENSITY BONUS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE VINTAGE SENIOR APARTMENTS PROJECT AT A RESIDENTIAL DENSITY OF 28 UNITS PER ACRE AND TO ALLOW FOR THREE

INCENTIVES/CONCESSIONS INCLUDING ESTABLISHING A PARKING RATIO OF ONE PARKING SPACE PER UNIT, INCREASING THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT FROM 35 FEET TO 42-FEET 6-INCHES, AND INCREASING THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF BUILDING STORIES FROM 2-STORIES TO 3.STORIES. THESE AppRovALS ARE BASED ON THE F|NDTNGS (FTNDTNGS A-U) AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (CONDIIONS 1-76) ATTACHED TO THIS REPORT.

COMMISSIONER ROMANELLI SECONDED THE MOTION.

AYES: WEST, MIKLOS, ROMANELLI, ORTEGA
NOES: PENIA, HERRERA, REYNOLDS
RECUSED: NONE
ABSENT: NONE

MOTION PASSED

5. USPT22-00310. Kinetic tnk Conditionat Use Permit and Determination that the Proiect is Exempt from CEQA
A Public Hearing to consider a request from Faun O'Neel for a Conditional Use Permit to operate a tattoo parlor and piercing shop at 47A Natoma Street. The zoning classification for the site is C-2 while the General Plan land- use designation is CC. The project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act in accordance with Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines. (Project Planner: Josh Kinkade/Applicant: Faun O'Neel)

COMMISSIONER ROMANELLI MOVED TO APPROVE THE KINETIC INK CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (uspT22-00310), BASED ON THE FtND|NGS TNCLUDED lN THIS REPORT (FINDINGS A-G) AND SUBJECT TO THE ATTACHED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (CONDITIONS 1-14).

COMMISSIONER ORTEGA SECONDED THE MOTION
Planning Commission Minutes
February 15,2023

03/28/2023 Item No.13.

AYES:WEST, MIKLOS, PENA, ROMANELLI, ORTEGA, HERRERA, REYNOLDS NOES: NONE
RECUSED: NONE
ABSENT: NONE

MOTION PASSED

2. MSTR22-00218. Folsom Ranch Apartments Gonditional Use Permit. Planne4 Development Pe4!it' ffiendment. Minor Administrative Modification and Determination that the Proiect is Exemptfrom GEQA
A Public Hearing to consider a request from Lewis Management Corporation for the approval of a Development Agreement Amendment, Planned Development Permit, Conditional Use Permit, and Minor Administrative Modification for the development and operation of a 238-unit market rate apartment community on a 15.8-acre site located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Alder Creek Parkway and Westwood Drive within the Folsom plan Area. The General Plan land use designation is GC and the Specific Plan designation is SP-GC-PD.

The City, as lead agency, has determined that the Mangini Ranch Phase 1 project is entirely consistent with the Folsom-Plan nrea Specific Plan (FPASP) and therefore the project is exempt from the California Environmental euality Act as provided by Government Code section 65457 and CEQA Guidelines section 15182. (Project Planner: Steve Banks/Applicant: Lewis Management Corporation)

COMMISSIONER MIKLOS MOVED TO APPROVE THE CEQA EXEMPTION FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65457 AND CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15182(C), AND

APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT AND OPERATION OF A MARKET-RATE PAIRED, TOWNHOUSE-STYLE APARTMENT COMMUNITY ON THE SUBJECT 1s.8.ACRE PROPERTY, AND

APPROVE A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT WHICH CONTAINS DETAILED DEVELOPMENT AND ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS FOR THE PROPOSED 328-UNIT RESIDENTIAL APARTMENT COMMUNITY

AS DESCRIBED IN THIS REPORT AND THE ATTACHED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, AND APPROVE A MINOR ADMINISTRATIVE MODIFICATION TO TRANSFER 116 MMD ALLOCATED UNITS FROM PARCEL 61 TO THE SUBJECT PARCEL (PARCEL 85A), TO TRANSFER 221 MHD ALLOCATED UNITS FROM THE SUBJECT PARCEL (PARCEL 85A) TO PARCEL 61, AND TO TRANSFER 3.3 ACRES OF PARKLAND FROM THE SUBJECT PARCEL (PARCEL 85A) TO PARCEL 61 WITHIN THE FOLSOM PLAN AREA, AND TO

RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT TO THE FIRST AMENDED AND RESTATED TIER 1 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT TO DEED RESTRICT 64 AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS ON A PORTION OF THE REMAINDER WITHIN PARCEL 61 IN THE FOLSOM PLAN AREA. THESE APPROVALS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ARE BASED ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS BELOW (F|ND|NGS A-U) AND SUBJECT TO THE RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (coNDtTtoNS 1-46) ATTACHED TO TH|S REPORT, WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS TO coNDrTloNS NO.7, NO. 17, NO. 19, AND NO.30:

Modification to Condition of Approval No. i
The owner/applicant acknowledges that the State adopted amendments to Section 65850 of the California Government Code (specifically Section 65850(g)), effective January 1,2018, to allow for the implementation of inclusionary housing requirements in residential rental units, upon adoption of an ordinance by the City. ln the event that ine City amends its lnclusionary Housing Ordinance (lHO) with respect to inclusionary requirements for rental housing units prior to owner/applicant's submiftal of a complete application for a building permit for the Folsom Rancn Apartments Project, the owner/applicant (or successor in interest) agrees that the project shall be subject to said rental unit inclusionary requirements, as amended. agrees to create and record a deed restriction against a certain portion of Parcel 61 in theLandowner further Folsom Plan Area,
to
restrict use of such property to affordable housing purposes only ('Affordable Housing Parcel"). Said deed restriction shall be in a form reasonably approved by the City and shall be recorded against the Affordable Housing Parcel upon creation of the same and prior to issuance of a building permit for any portion of the Folsom Ranch Apartments Project. Said deed restriction
Planning Commission Minutes
February 15,2023

shall require the Affordable Housing Parcel to include 64

03/28/2023 Item No.13.
deed restricted multi-family housing units available for low-, very-low, and/or extremely-low income households (as those terms are defined in Sections 50079.5, 50093, 50150, and 50106 of the Health and Safety Code), which shall remain in place for at least 55 years from the date of recording.

The 64 units are anticioated to be located on a site of approximatelv 2.5 but no more than 3 acres with mcted to accommodate 25 to 35 units per acre. A larqe lot oarcel map will be fficreate the ultimate deed restricted Affordable Housinq Parcel. A site plan parcel map to verifu th?t the deed restricted Affordable Housinq.Parcel ffi 04 affordable units. Unless Citv amends its Inclusion?ly Housinq Ordinance asdescribred in Section 1.7 of Amendment No. 2 to the First Amended and Restated Development r a successor in interest) submittinq a comolete application for its fifst ental proiect on Parcel 61. Landowner's compliance with this Condition ffisfv Landowner's obliqations with respect to inclusionary ?nd/or affordable ffieral Plan Housinq Element. Specific Plan. Folsom Mglicipal Code. and ffil rental proiect on Parcel 61. In the event (i) Citv amends its lnclusionarY ffied in Section 1.7 of Amendment No. 2 to the First Amended and Restated Drevelo,p,ment Aqreement prior to Landowner (or a successor in interest) submittinq a- complete ffiildinq permit for a residential rental proiect on Parcel 6:l or (ii) Landowner,{or a r-sale residential oroiect on Parcel 6'1. the4 l-andowner's comqliance ffial shall instead offset Landowner's obligatio.rli Y,th rejPect to incluiio,narv ffinder the General Plan Housinq Element. Specific Plan. Folsom Municipal ffiel Gi and Landowner shall rqceive credits for a totalpf 64 deed-restricted ffi(,,Affordable Housino Gredits"). Gitv agrees that anv such Affordable Housilrq ffind used to satisfv and/or offset the inclusionarv and/or affordable housinq ffitial proiect on Parcel 5{. 27. 854-3 o,f 85A-a. @
,*ith respeet te in6lu
(APN-072-41J€40+
Modification to Gondition of Approval No. 17
The improvement plans for the required public and private improvements necessary to serve the project shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department prior to approval of a building permit for the project. ln addition. the reouired public and orivate improvements includinq landscape and irrioation improvenrents for the proiect shall be completed and-a€€epted-bY to the satisfaction of the Gommunitv ffito issuance of a certificate of occupancv for the+reieet each ohase of the development.

Modification to Gondition of Approval No. 19
The on-site water and sewer systems shall be privately owned and maintained. The fire system shall be constructed to meet the Galifornia Fire Gode and State
Buifdinq Godes. The domestic water and irrigation system shall be metered per City of Folsom Standard Co n stru cti o n S p e c ifi cati o n s.

Modification to Gondition of Approval No.30

1. This project shall require two points of ry'1pgg3! connectiong to the City's Potable Water Distribution Main for each parcel. The water svstem shall be constructed in accordance with Citv of Folsom water standards.
b, Frem masenry wall te baek ef eurb will be used with nen petable water e: lrrigatien interier te the preieet shall be served by the demestie water d, Cenneetien 1 fer firet pareel (Pareel 854-3) shall inelude:
@ ine'
Planning Commission Minutes
February 15,2023

03/28/2023 Item No.13.
f, Cenneetien 1 fer seeend pareel (Pareel 85A.'l) shall inelude; @ii, n separate irrigatien serviee with meter eeming frem the nen petable water line' g, eenneetien 2 fer s
@ in€'

2. The applicant shall perform a hydraulic analysis/study to confirm the 2-story duplexes are capable of meeting domestic water demands and fire flow sprinkler demands since this location is at the top of PressureZone 3.

3. Hot-Taps to the existing potable distribution system and non-potable distribution system are not allowed. Cut- in Tees only.

4. There shall be a Sanitary Sewer Manhole Placed at the Property line boundary that differentiates private vs public sewer system for each Parcel (Two Parcels in total).

5. All on-site water shall be privately owned, operated, and maintained.

6. All on-site sewer shall be privately owned, operated, and maintained 7 tf there is going to be a clubhouse with a kitchen, it will require the applicant to install an 8.5"x1 1" placard affixed to the wall in the Clubhouse Kitchen that informs users about the Do's and Don'ts of FOG.

L All backflow devices shall be RPPA (Domestic) or RPDA (Fire) g. All meters shall include a meter bypass per the City's Water Construction Standards.

COMMISSIONER HERRERA SECONDED THE MOTION.

AYES: WEST, MIKLOS, PENA, ROMANELLI, ORTEGA, HERRERA' REYNOLDS NOES: NONE
RECUSED: NONE
ABSENT: NONE

MOTION PASSED

3. DRDL22-00304. Fire Station No. 34 Desiqn Review
A Public Meeting to consider a request from the City of Folsom for Design Review approval of a new fire station located at 3255 Westwood Drive. The specific plan designation for the site is SP-MLD-PD while the General Plan land-use designation is MLD. The project was previously determined to be exempt from the California Environmentat Quality Act (CEQA) in accordance with Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines. (Proiect Planner:

Brianna Gustafson/Applicant: Gity of Folsom)

COMMISSIONER REYNOLDS MOVED TO APPROVE A DESIGN REVIEWAPPLICATION FOR FIRE STATION NO. 34 AS ILLUSTRATED ON ATTACHMENT 5 (DRCL22-OO3O4) BASED ON THE FINDINGS (FINDINGS A.G) AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDTTTONS OF APPROVAL (CONDITIONS 1-28) ATTACHED TO THIS REPORT.

Planning Commission Minutes
February 15,2023

03/28/2023 Item No.13.

COMMISSIONER PENA SECONDED THE MOTION.

AYES: WEST, MIKLOS, PENIA, ROMANELLI, ORTEGA, HERRERA, REYNOLDS NOES: NONE
RECUSED: NONE
ABSENT: NONE

MOTION PASSED
+. DRGL22-00304. Russell Ranch Phase 2 Villaqes 1 & 2 Residential Desiqn Review Modifications A Public Meeting to consider a request from Lennar Homes of California for Design Review approval to modiff two master plans within the previously approved Russell Ranch Phase 2 Villages 1 and 2 project. The specific plan designation for the site is SP-SFHD while the General Plan land-use designation is SFHD. An Environmental lmpact Report was previously certified for the Russell Ranch Subdivision project on May 15, 2015 by the City Council in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines and no further environmental review is required as a part of this project. (Project Planner: Josh Kinkade/Applicant: Lennar Homes of Galifornia)

COMMISSIONER WEST MOVED TO APPROVE A RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION TO MODIFY TWO MASTER PLANS WITHIN THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED RUSSELL RANCH PHASE 2 VILLAGES 1 AND 2 PROJECT AS ILLUSTRATED ON ATTACHMENT 7 FOR THE RUSSEL RANCH PHASE 2 VILLAGES 1 AND 2 RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW MODIFICATIONS PROJECT (DRCL22-00319) BASED oN THE FtND|NGS (F|ND|NGS A-J) AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (CONDITIONS 1- 14) ATTACHED TO THIS REPORT.

COMMISSIONER ROMANELLI SECONDED THE MOTION
AYES:WEST, MIKLOS, PENA, ROMANELLI, ORTEGA, HERRERA, REYNOLDS NOES: NONE
RECUSED: NONE
ABSENT: NONE

MOTION PASSED

PLANNING COMMISSION / PLANNING MANAGER REPORT
The next Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for March 15,2023

ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Folsom Planning Commission, Chair Eileen Reynolds adjourned the meeting at 9:55 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SU BMITTED,
Christina Kelley, ADM lNl STRATIVE ASSISTANT
APPROVED:

Eileen Reynolds, CHAIR
Planning Commission Minutes
February 15,2023

03/28/2023 Item No.13.

Attachment 6
Applicant Response Letter, dated March 7 ,2023

03/28/2023 Item No.13.

ROBERT G. HOLDERNESS
March 7, 2023
Mr. Steven Banks
Principal Planner
Community Development Department
City of Folsom
50 Natoma Street
FoIsom, CA.95630
RE: opposition to Appeal from Planning Commission Project Approvalr orl February 15, 2023, of the Vintage Senior Apartments (100? Affordable Housj-ng Project; PN:21-159)
Dear Mr. Banks:

Per your requestr ily cl-ient, Vintage Housing, submits thj-s l-etter in opposition to the appeal of Katherine L. Gray. and Mark A. Gray from the Folsom Pl-anning Commission's February 15, 2023, approval of the above project as more particularly set forth below. This l-etter also provides background information rel-evant to the issues raised by appellants.

A. BACKGROTIND:

1. The Project c Its Localion: Vintaqe Senior Apartments ["Vintage Apts."] is a 136-unit senior affordable housing apartment community to be located on a 4.86-acre parcel which is located across the street from the main entrance to Fol-som State Prison, and specifically located on the south-westerly side of Natoma Street at its intersecti-on with Prison Road.

2. The Neiqhborhood:
a. Prison Road connects two male inmate state prisons
and one female detention center, as well as the residential area known as Represa to the City of Folsom and envj-rons.

The prison grounds are more than 11000 acres in area.

Fo1som Prison is over 130 years o1d. Prison Road is used by employees at the prison, vendors, suppliers to the
prison, and inmate family members. It is not a thru way, but only used for access to the grounds of the Folsom

HOLDERNESS LAW FIRM

ATTORNEYATLAW
122 Qak Rock Circle
FOLSOM, CA 95630
Telephone (916) 984-1410
Facsimile (916) 984-1413
1L . :1119s,s ' i','t'nqs, l '( ,:

Mailing Address:

P. O. Box 975
Folsom, CA 95763-0975

03/28/2023 Item No.13.

Letter to Steven Banks
March 7, 2023
Paqe 2
Prisons. Access to the prison grounds is the main source of roadway travel volume along this part of Natoma Street. b. The project site is within wal-king distance of the
Folsom Police Department, Folsomt s Senior Center, Folsom City Hall-, Folsom's Community Center, FoIsom's Zoo,
Folsom's main city park, Folsom's Catholic Church and
school, Folsom's Lutheran Church and school, St. Vincent DePaul's thrift shop, Folsom's Twin Lakes Food Bank,
doctors' offices, a long term care hospital (Vibra
Hospital), two restaurants' a gas station, a battery of small offices and some retail. It is also walking dj-stance from a gas station, a Circle K market, and a veterinarian cl-inic.
c. In addition, the project site backs up to four
individual houses which are part of the Cimarron Hills
Development. Cimarron Hills is a custom home development started in approximately 1'978. It has about 90 custom
homes, ranging in value Iaccording to Zil]-owl from $600'000 to $1r0001000. However, that development is not the only nearby residential neighborhood to the project site. There are about 20 homes in the Evelyn Terrace single family
detached homes development, the houses in that subdivision that are located on Ruth Court are closer to the project site than fully I/3 of the hornes in Cimarron Hills.

Moreover, on Montrose Street there are about ten 1960s era duplexes and two smal-l apartment houses that are probably sixty years old. Al1 of those residences on Montrose
Street are closer in distance to the project site than
fully two-thirds of the homes in the Cimarron HiIIs
development, yet no one residing on Ruth Court or Montrose Dri-ve came forward at the Commission's hearings to oppose this project in their "neighborhood." Anyone who ever
bought a house in the Cimarron Hills development knew that the aforesaid Montrose Drive residents were already part of the Cimarron Hil-ls "neighborhood" as were the prison' the Circle K, the schools, the hospital, city halI & the police station.

B. THE REQI'ESTED ENTIELEMENTS:

1. Conditional- Use Permit: The subject-4.86-acre parcel J-s Under the Folsom Municipalzoned BP (Business Professional)

03/28/2023 Item No.13.

Letter to Steven Banks
March 7, 2023

code (.'FMc,,) the subject project is allowed in the BP zoltel subject to Planning Commission approval of a Conditional Use Permit (*CUP-) . FMC Sections L7.22-030 (E)2L4) and
1-7.22.040(1). The appeal in this case is mainly focused on the claim that this project does not meet any of the requirements for a CUP. These claims are addressed below.

Densitv Bonus (FMC Section 1 7 .'J.02\ : The Applicant sought a sity bonus by increasing the density of the project Lo 28 1 den
units/acre, and ancillary bonuses,
(1) Parking fone to
apartments ratiol
(2) Three Stories o
as fol-Iows:
one parking space to
and
above the 35'
f apartments,
(3) 42t 6" in height lor over 7'
standard heiqht limitationl .

A fair reading of the appeal only challenges the
grantinq of these density bonuses by the Planning
Commission within the criteria of the CUP standards'
as hereinafter described. There is no claim that the
project is ineligible for these bonuses, nor that the
Density Bonus Iaw was misaPPlied.
c. Planned Development Permit: Per city staff, a
Planned Development Permit (*PDP") allows greater
flexibility in design of the development and is
employed by the City as a means of encouraqing
creative and efficient uses of land. In this case'
PDP is aimed at estabtishing development standards
building architecture and design for the project.

See, Attachment 3, Section C. of the Planning
the
and
Commission Staff Report dated ,January 18, 2023.

Although some people testified before the Planning
Commission that they had concerns re: the design and
architecture of the building, the appeal of the
Planning Commj-ssion's approval of this project
presents no issues specifically related to the
granting of the PDP.

4. Environmental Assessment 6r Resul-tinq Mitioated Neqati-ve Declaration: A mitigated negative declaration, including Letter to Steven Banks
March 7, 2023

03/28/2023 Item No.13.

Letter to Steven Banks
March 7, 2023

mitigation monitoring, and reporting program, was approved by the Planning Commission with the finding that the project, as mitigated, will not have a siqnificant effect on the environment and based thereon and as conditioned by the commission
Iincluding without limitatj-on, modified conditions No. 3, No. 38, No. 53, and No. 541, there 1s no substantial evidence to the contrary. See, Planning Commission Staff Report, February 15, 2023, pages 13, I7-2I.

C. CAI.IFORNIA'S AEFORDABLE HOUSIIIG I.AT[
l.rntroduction: As succinctly stated by city staff in its Feb 15, 2023, report to the Planning Commiss
Folsom Municipal Code continues to govern th
ion, " [w] hile the
e findings required
to grant a conditional use permit, state law has severely Iimited the City's ability to deny a conditional use permit and other discretionary approvals in the context of housing development projects." Planning commission staff Report. above, at page 4.

2. Overview of Ca]if ornia's Affordable Housing Laws
Appl-ication to this Proiect: The chief state housing statute on of this project is thegoverning the CitY's considerati Housing Accountability Act ("HAA"). Government Code Section 65589.5. This law, among other things, l-imits the city's discretionary power in its consideration of an application for approval of an affordable housing project until the year 2030.

The Legislature's stated intent is to address California's current housing crisis. The relevance of that law to this application is well and ably addressed in the Planning
Commission Staff Report, above, at pages 4-9. There is no need to repeat or belabor those points: suffice it to say, there is no objective basis for denying this project on any of the five statutory grounds set forth in the HAA, and no evidence of the record to the contrary. Those five statutory criteria are the only grounds upon which a denial of this project could lawfully be undertaken by the city of Folsom. In the same vein
Appellants have not presented any evidence, and not identified any such statutory basis for denial of the project in their appeal papers.

3. Penalties for Ignoring the Obiective Standards and
Requirements of HAA: Getting right to the pointr ahY denial of this project
the city to
in clear viofation of HAA standards would expose
the payment of penalties ranging from $10' 000/unit

03/28/2023 Item No.13.

Letter to Steven Banks
March 7, 2023

to $50,000/unit. That is, potential penalties 1n the aggregate ranging from $1.36 million to $4.4 million. It would be irresponsible for the Appellants to ask the city to ignore the risk of those penalties by granting this merj-tless appeal- D. The APPEI.I,A}ITS ,ISSI'ES E THEIR APPEAL:
l.Appellants' Wronqlv Contend that the Initlal Studv and rhe MND Are Inadeguate: In this case, Appellants "request an EIR" but fail t o poj-nt to any facts or testimonY adduced at the Planning Commission hearings of January 18th and February 15th that establ-ish a factuaf/evidentiary basis for the City to require an EIR. The applicable 1egal standard, under the Cal-ifornia Environmental Quality Act (*CEQA"), for requirinq a full Environmental Impact Report is that a project "may have a significant effect on the environment-" Public Resources Code (*PRC"), Sections 21L00 and 21'151". See also, 74 California Code of Regulations (" CCR"), Section 15063. To meet the statutory standard, substanti-al evidence is reguired. Applying that standard to this case, Applicant contends that there is no substantial evidence in the adminlstrative record from the Commission that this project may have a significant effect on the environment. specifically, no evidence thereof was
presented at the Planning Commission hearings on January 1-8' 2023, or FebruarY 15, 2023.

2. Appel-Iantst "Wait Times" Issue: Appellant's have written' "Transportation wait times are too long- " This allegation can only refer to the wait times for vehi-c]es exiting Cimarron Circle at the western-most intersection of Cimarron Circfe and Natoma Street, even though the Appellants don't actually say so.

Be that as it may, no probative evidence was presented at either session of the FoJsom Planning Commission that "wait times" at that intersection exceeded some City standard for "wait times." Indeed, the Appel-Iants did not establish before the Commission that the city has a "wait times" standard that would apply to that intersection. Moreover, the evidence in the record shows that the time regulating factor at that intersection is the existing signal a few yards down the hill at Natoma Street and Prison Road, not this Affotdable Housing Project for seniors.

No evldence was presented at the Planning Commission hearing that this senior, affordable housing project wiII upset the smooth functioning of that signal or that intersection, and the

03/28/2023 Item No.13.

Letter to Steven Banks
March 7, 2023
Paqe 6
Appellants present none
appeal.
in their statement of qrounds for the

3. Appeffants cite no facts j-n the Planning Commission record nor anv authoritv for their contention that thev are entitled to 'treserve the righ t to brinq additional- info on appeal": Counsel for the APPlicant
Folsom Municipal Code granting such
knows of no provision of the
a right or power of
reservation to the Appellants. To the contraly, FoIsom
Municipal- Code ("FMC") Section L'l .04.1-20 provides in relevant part, "...all pelsons interested may appeal and give such evidence or testimony or make such statements as are pertinent to the appeal..." (Emphasis Added). It couldn't be otherwiser for were i_t so, epplicants would not know what they were defending against. Consequently, the FMC requires Appellants to teII the Applicant and the Folsom city council the facts "as are pertinent to the appeal" in their appeal document and without reservation. Counsel for the Applicant submits this language from the FMC can only mean that the scope and nature of the appeal is determj-ned by a fair reading of the four corners of the appeal document submitted by the Appellants and without any "resefvation." In other words, Appellants get no second bite at expandinq or changing the scope of the appeal under this or other FMC provisions pertinent to this appeal, for to allow such a "reserve" woufd transgress the ten-day limitation set out in FMC Section l-7.04.110, and deprive the Applj-cant of its right to ttDue Process. tt

4. The "Prolect Not Feasibl-e" Claim: The feasibility issue is not raised under CEQA absent substantiaf evidence that the project will have a significant impact on the environment. See, PRC Sections 21-100 and 2l-151, above, and 14 CCR Section 15384; l,aurel Heights Improvement Association v. Reqents, (etc. ) (1988) 41 C.3d 376, 393. In the hearing before the Fol-som Planning Commission, Appellants did not meet that burden and their appeal document is likewise defici-ent. As such, the city counci] is within its powers to treat thj-s argument as forfeited.

California Farm Bureau Federation v. California Wildlife Conservation Board

5. Appeflants'
(2006) 143 Cal.App.At'I L73, L92-193.

Attack on Granting the CUP is Groundl-ess:

Appellants allege that practically a1t of the criteria for denial of a CUP are met. They say the CUP should not be granted because it "woufd have an adverse effects on public health,

03/28/2023 Item No.13.

Letter to Steven Banks
March '7, 2023
Page '1
safety, and welfare and would be detrimental and injurious to prop"tty and improvements in the neighborhood." Appeal Papers of Mr. and Mrs. Gray, at page one. In the Grays' appeal papers' there is no presentation of facts and argument demonstrating the commissions, alleged failure to fairly, Iawfully apply the cuP standards in light of the strict requirements of HAA. Nor is there any argument about how those standards should have been applied. Likewise, in this appeal, the Appellants fail to join issue with the '.Modified conditions of Approval." That is' Conditions No. 38, No. 53, and No. 54. Those three conditions, were modified in-order-to address concerns raised by some Cimarron Hi1ls resj-dents at the Commission hearings, as follows:
(1)Condition38providesmoreprotectiontothe
immediate neighbors by strengthening the land
scaping requirements to assure the success of
the landscaping plan, including j-ncreasing the
size of trees to be Planted.
(2) Condition 53 imposes new requirements to
strengthen the safety of the automotive
traveling public, pedestrians, and bicyclists'
i-nto and around the intersection of Natoma
Street and Cimarron Circle as wel-I as the
intersection of Natorna Street with the project
entrance and the Prison Road-
(3) Condition 54 places specific requirements
whereby 130 on-site parking permits are issued
to resj-dents and six designated parking spaces
are reserved for employees and visitors only'
The appeal is also sil-ent on those modified conditions. It makes no effort to explain how those modifications were unsatisfactorY or inadequate.

E. CONCI,USION
For all of the reasons above-sLated' the Grays' appeal
should be denied and the February 15, 2023, decision of the Fol-som Planning Commission granting entitlements to the Applicant, including without limitation, the conditional use Permit, the Density Bonus, the Planned Development Permit, the Mi-tigated negative Declarati-on, etc., and the Conditions of Approval adopted by the Planning commission on February 15, ////////

03/28/2023 Item No.13.

Letter to Steven Banks
March 7, 2023
Page B
2023. herein should be sustained in its entirety by the Folsom City Council.

Respectfully Submitted'
{S*44Ve/<r4t.r/
Counsel for Vintage Housing
RGH: bh
Cc Folsom City Council
Pam .Tohns, Community Development Director
Scott ,Iohnson, Planning Manager
Steven Banks, Senior Planner
Sari Dierking, Assistant City Attorney
Office of the Folsom City Clerk

03/28/2023 Item No.13.

Attachment 7
Additional Public Comment Letters

03/28/2023 Item No.13.

City CouncilMembers:

I had no intention of sending you further correspondence regarding the Vintage Project, however, it has recently come to my attention that Mr. Holderness of the Holderness law firm personally delivered a copy of an opposition letter he wrote to Steve Banks to a Cimarron Hills resident. I think the letter is worthy of a response.

First thing is the personal delivery of the letter. ls this common practice? Neither, myself or as far as I know has anyone who has written letters opposing this project to Steve Banks, the planning commission or the city council sent or personally delivered copies to Vintage Properties, Mr. Holderness, or the Holderness Law firm. I will not speculate on his intentions but it does come across as an intimidation tactic.

Second, this lefter was wriften to Steve Banks who is the Principal Planner for the city of Folsom and the first line reads, " Per your requesf'. ls it customary for the Principal Planner of the city to request letters of opposition from developers or their attorneys? This seems odd. lt brings other questions to mind. Such as what exactly is Mr. Banks relationship to the developer or its attorney? ls he working for them or for the ci$? Was there a previous meeting between the developer and Mr. Banks prior to purchasing the property or shortly after? Were promises made to the developer by Mr. Banks or the city? And if so what was the context of these conversations and promises? I think it also begs the question did the Vintage Properties give any donation or financial contributions to the city or promise to do so in the future? I think the citizens of Folsom deserve answers to these questions.

He addresses the proximig to services for this location. He is mistaken on several of his points. They are not in proximity to any grocery stores. Circle K is not a grocery store and it does not cany a large variety of products. Also their prices are marked higher than a grocery and probably not feasible for someone who is living in affordable housing, There is a very limited amount of retail, I mean sure if your looking to buy flowers. One of the restaurants located near by is closing and will not be available. There are no doctors offices within walking distance and Vibra Hospital is a private hospitalwith no emergency services.

Mr. Holderness is mistaken Ruth Court is not closer to the project than the Cimarron Hills neighborhood. Our neighborhood literally backs up to the project, lt is curios that he assumes neighbors in these adjoining neighborhoods are not opposed to the project. Many were at the initial meetings with Vintage as well as being in attendance at both planning commission meetings. Just because they did not speak during the meetings does not mean they were not there or opposed. The planning commission was given a petition signed by over 400 residents and I guarantee if you look up the addresses, they were from all over Folsom. As for the duplex's Mr. Holderness specifically mentions, these are with few exception rentals. Many of the owners may have not of even gotten word of this project, Most renters and many owners who never intend on living in these properties may not be motivated to participate in opposition.

As for Mr. Holderness claim that turning onto Natoma St. via Cimarron Circle and Fargo is not an issue, I think he is just being disingenuous. lf you have not attempted to turn onto Natoma St. especially during peak hours I encourage you to give it try.

Mr. Holderness also suggests that the neighbors appealing this are somehow irresponsible. I would counter that a fellow Folsom resident who is a former city council member and mayor who would champion a project that literally shoves a three-story apartment complex in between a neighborhood of single residential homes and one-story office buiEing is indeed the irresponsible party.

Mr. Holderness than proceeds into a bunch of legalities. As I do not have a law degree I will stay in my lane and let the attorneys hash that out. I will say that it sounds as if Mr. Holderness is trying to manipulate and convince you to decide in his favor. Not surprising as that is what he was hired to do. I would hope that you would consider your decision carefully and not make the threat of litigation your determining factor. Not everyone who threatens litigation follows through and if they do there is no guarantee of them winning. Once again please keep the interests of your constituents in mind.

Thank you,
Dreama Pacheco

03/28/2023 Item No.13.
1 This email pertains to the proposed building project "Vintiage Senior Apartments" located at Natoma and Prison Rd. At the two Planning Commission meetings there were many concerns raised regarding this "afiordable, s€nior, 136 units, 3 stories tall I 42'+6"1 buildino," Six of the planning commissioners (one absent) publicly stated at the first meeting they were against this project.

Below are some of the issues raised:

1. lfs a very unauitable location br a 'seniof complex as it lacks any of the support systems needed by seniors, such as nearby grocery store, drug store, restaurants, or general shopping. Plus there is NO public transportation available.

2. There were con@rns frcm the planning commission regarding the feasibility that fire engines, especially a hook and ladder, would NOT have adequate room to move about in the case of a fire.

To be clear, I'm not referring to response time.

3. lssues of "safeg' regarding the intersection itself. Presently Natoma is one lane in each direction with a lefi turn lane for Prison Rd. The developer's traflic expert stated that the intersection is/orwill be "tight". Keep in mind that Natoma is a major artery leading to Folsom Lake and many vehicles tow large boats that require adequate space for safe passage. Also the new "4-way" traffic light is going to create backlons on Natoma extending beyond Fargo, making it difficult & "unsafe" to tum "leff' onto Fargo or left from Fargo onto Natoma. This will especially be noticeable on school days & Sundays with the comings and goings from St John's. Also trying to exit from either end of Cimmaron and Randall (making left turns) will become much harder and dangerous. The Gity Council should demand additional and very detailed studies on this intersection to determine how the traffic patterns will effect the public's safety. Don't just accept their first study, The ci$ needs further detailed analysis.

4. The crosswalk across Natoma at Prison Rd is a crosswalk to "nowhere". Once on the "prison side" there are no sidewalks east or west. One has to walk either on the street or dirt before reaching a sidewalk or trail entrance. This is NOT AFE. lf this project goes through the developer should be required to add sidewalks on both sides of Natoma.

5. There is a ravine within this property that has merging creeks. During the rainy season water is present in these creek beds, lt appears some of this water comes from the hills of the prison land, goes under Natoma and spills into this plot of land. Their packet(s) noted a preliminary water analysis was preformed in 2022. We've been in a multi year drought, so how accurate can their cunent analysis be? The city council needs a new and updated comprehensive water and land report before any voting. Also this five acres will require extensive grading and tree removal.

6. The planned 136 parking spaces are not adequate. Of the 136 spaces: 6 will be for employees/guests, an additional 20 for disabled and another 14 for EV (which will not even be hooked up). Leaving a total of 96 spaces. As noted by their lawyer, excess cars will probably park on the public streets of Cimmaron Cir & Montrose Dr. Their plan to have written into the rental contract "one car per unif' will be impossible to enforce and multi cars per unit will create a shortage of on site parking. The excess cars, parking on the surrounding neighborhood streets will cause traffic and safety issues.

It is sad that we've entered an era where bulldog, profit hungry corporations and their pit bull lawyers, roar into towns, dictate "their projects" and threaten law suits if they don't get their way, They appear to have little regard for the community they're impacting.

Please DO NOT approve this project. lt is a square peg & they're attempting to jack hammer it into a round hole despite any safe$ @ncerns that have been expressed. lt does not fit this particular plot of land/location & comes with many public safety issues.

Sincerely, Jean Sundermier 339 Cimmaron Gir

03/28/2023 Item No.13.

Steven Banks
From:

Sent:

To:

Connie Clark <[email protected]>
Saturday, March 18,20237:52 AM
Steven Banks
Sr housingSubiect:
[You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important at https://aka. ms/Lea rnAboutSenderldentificatio n l
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not cllck links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Everyone knows this project is necessary. A senior housing project is not a threat to the community and should not be threatened, Unless those who oppose it have a better location, let it go through.

Sent from my iPhone
1

03/28/2023 Item No.13.

Steven Banks
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:
[You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/Lea rnAboutSenderldentification J
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Just wanted to make sure you know you have community support for this affordable housing project for Folsom. We are in dire need of more affordable housing and this is a beautiful spot for seniors where they can still be integrated into our community and enjoy the nature and quiet that Folsom has to offer. This will help create more housing that will allow for much needed diversity in Folsom. Thank you for developing this project.

Lindsey Soto Sent from my iPhone
Lindsey Soto <lsotol 71 [email protected]>
Friday, March 17,2023 2:48 PM
Steven Banks
Vintage at Folsom senior apartments support
1