Folsom City Council
February 13, 2024

02/13/2024 Item No.8.

CITY OF FOTSOM
Folsom/Placerville Rail Trail Project
lnitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
On October !2,2023, UAIC requested a tribal consultation. UAIC provided consultation afterthe tribe conducted a background search using the UAIC's Tribal Historic lnformation System (THRIS) and did not find a known tribal resource within the project area in the system. See Section 4.18, Tri bal Cu ltu ral Re so u rce s.

Thus, the project site does not contain any known archaeological resources. Still, the proposed project has the potential to disturb unknown buried resources. The proposed project would result in ground disturbance and excavation to a depth of approximately 2-3 ft in depth. While the project site has been highly disturbed from past development and the potential for the project to uncover undisturbed soils and undisturbed archaeological resources is low, there is the potential for unknown archaeological resources to be inadvertently discovered. This could result in damage or destruction of the resource and is considered a potentially significant impact for which mitigation would be required,
Mitigation Measures MM CUL-1 through MM CUL-3 are standard measures applied by Lead Agencies for the purpose of reducing potential impacts from previously unknown archaeological resources and human remains. No further analysis of this issue is required.

Mitisation Measures
MM CUL-I: Prior to the start of ground disturbance, the project contractor shall retain a qualified archaeologist to conduct training for all construction personnel involved with earth-moving activities about the possibility of encountering buried cultural resources and inform them of the proper procedures should cultural resources be encountered. The training shall include the appearance of common artifacts and proper notification procedures should artifacts be discovered. This worker training shall be prepared and presented by a qualified archaeological professional. Proof of the contractor awareness training shall be submitted to the City in the form of a copy of training materials and the completed training attendance roster.

MM CUL-2: lf subsurface deposits believed to be cultural in origin are discovered during construction, all work must halt within a SO-foot radius of the discovery. A qualified professional archaeologist, meeting the Secretary of the lnterior's Professional Qualification Standards for pre-contact and historic archaeologist, shall be retained to evaluate the significance of the find, and shall have the authority to modify the no-work radius appropriate, using professional judgement. The following notifications shall apply, depending on the nature of the find.

1.. lf the professional archaeologist determines that the find does not represent a cultural resource, work may resume immediately, and no agency notifications are required.

2. lf the professional archaeologist determines that the find does not represent a cultural resource from any time period or cultural affiliation, he or she shall immediately notify the City to consult on a finding of eligibility and implement appropriate treatment measures, if the find is determined to be a Historical Resource under CEQ[, as defined in Section 15064.5(a) of the CEQA Guidelines or a historic property under Section 1-06 NHPA, if January 2024 Page 78

02/13/2024 Item No.8.

Folsom/Placerville Rail Trail Project
CITY OF FOTSOM lnitial study/Mitigated Negative Declaration c)
applicable. work may not resume within the no-work radius untilthe city, through consultation as appropriate, determines that the site either: L) is not an Historical Resource under CEQA, as defined in Section 15064.5(a) of the GEQA Guidelines; or 2) that the treatment measures have been completed to its satisfaction.

Disturb any human remeins, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? less Than Significant lmpact with Mitigation lncorporated. There are no known formal cemeteries within the project site, and neither the results of the records search nor the pedestrian survey indicates that human remains are present within the project site. However, there is always the possibility that ground-disturbing activities during construction may uncover previously unknown buried human remains; such disturbance would be a potentially significant impact. lmplementation of Mitigation Measure MM CUL-3 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.

MM CUt-3: lf subsurface deposits believed to be cultural or human in origin are discovered during construction, all work must halt within a S0-foot radius of the discovery. A qualified professional archaeologist, meeting the Secretary of the lnterior's professional qualification Standards for pre-contact and historic archaeologist, shall be retained to evaluate the significance ofthe find, and shall have the authority to modify the no-work radius as appropriate, using professional judgement, The following notifications shall apply, depending on the nature of the find:
o lf the find includes human remains, or remains that are potentially human, he or she shall ensure reasonable protection measures are taken to protect the discovery from disturbance (AB 264L). The archaeologist shall notify the Sacramento County Coroner (per Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code). The provisions of Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.98 of the California PRC, and Assembly Bill 2641 will be implemented. lf the Coroner determines the remains are Native American and not the result of a crime scene, the Coroner determines the remains are Native American and not the result of a crime scene, the Coroner will notify the NAHC, which then will be designated a Native American Most Likely Descendant (MLD) from the project Section 5097.93 of the PRC. The designated MLD will have 48 hours from the time access to the property is granted to make recommendations concerning treatment of the remains. lf the landowner does not agree with the recommendations of the MLD, the NAHC can mediate Section 5Og7.g4 of the PRC. lf no agreement is reached, the landowner must rebury the remains where they will not be further disturbed per Section 5097.98 of the PRC. This will also include either recording the site with the NAHC or the appropriate lnformation Center; using an. open space or conservation zoning designation or easement; or recording a reinternment document with the county in which the property is located (AB 26a1). lf the Coroner determines that the remains are human but not Native American, then the Coroner will direct subsequent steps to address the discovery. Work may not resume within the no-work radius until the City, through consultation as January 2024 Page 79

02/13/2024 Item No.8.

CITY OF FOLSOM
Folsom/Placerville Rail Trail Proiect
lnitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
appropriate, determines that the treatment measures have been completed to its satisfaction.
lf the discovery consists of human remains, the Sacramento County Coroner and Native American Heritage Commission must also be contacted. Work in the . area may only proceed after authorization is granted by the City of Folsom Engineering Division. Following a review of the new find and consultation with appropriate experts, if necessary, the authority to proceed may be accompanied by the addition of development requirements that provide protection of the site and/or additional mitigation measures necessary to address the unique or sensitive nature of the site.

Cumulative lmpacts
Cumulative impacts to cultural resources are site-specific and not generally subject to cumulative impacts unless multiple projects impact a common resource, or an affected resource extends off-site, such as a historic townsite or district. The cumulative analyses for these resources consider whether the proposed project, in combination with the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, could cumulatively affect any common cultural or paleontological resources. ln the case of the proposed project, specifically the site P-34-46t (CA-SAC-434H): Natomas Ditch, the proposed project would not make a substantial contribution to impacts to the overall District. ln addition, there are no other known projects that would result in impacts to this resource. As the project specific impacts would be less than significant, the cumulative impacts would be the same.

The proposed project could result in potential site-specific impacts to currently unknown archaeological, and cultural resources discovered during grading and construction. Other projects within the cumulative study area also have the potential to result in damage and/or loss to these resources. The combination of the proposed project as well as past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects in the City of Folsom would be required to comply with all applicable State, federal, and County and local regulations concerning preservation, salvage, or handling of cultural and paleontological resources, including compliance with required mitigation, Similar to the proposed project, these projects also would be required to implement and conform to mitigation measures, which would be likely to reduce impacts to less than significant. Although in the process of development, some known or unknown resources may be lost, it is not anticipated that these impacts would be cumulatively considerable. ln addition, implementation of Mitigation Measures MM CUL-1 through MM CUL-3 would reduce project-specific impacts to a less than significant level. Therefore, the project's contribution to cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

January 2024 Page 80

02/13/2024 Item No.8.
crw oF FotsoM
Folsom/Placerville Rail Trail Project
lnitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Would the project:

J
a) Result in potentially significant
environmental impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of
energy resources, during Project
construction or oPeration?
J
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local
plan for renewable energy or energy
efficiency?
Potentially
Significant
lmpact
Less Than
Significant
lmpact With
Mitigation
lncorporated
Less Than
Significant
lmpactENVIRONMENTAT IMPACTS
No
lmpact

4.5 Energy
Environmental Setting
California's electricity needs are satisfied by a variety of entities, including investor-owned utilities, publicly owned utilities, electric service providers and community choice aggregators. ln 2021, the California power mix totaled 277,764gigawatt hours (GWh). ln-state generation accounted for 59 percent of the state's power mix. The remaining electricity came from out-of-state imports (CEC 2023a). Toble 7:

Colifornia Electricity Sources provides a summary of California's electricity sources as of 2021.

Table 7: California Electricity Sources
Fuel Tvpe Peicent of Californla Power
Coal 3.0
Large Hvdro 9.2
Natural Gas 37.9
Nuclear 9.3
oil 0
Other (Petroleum Coke/Waste Heat) 0.2
Renewables 33.6
Natural gas provides the largest portion of the total in-state capacity and electricity generation in California, with nearly 45 percent of the natural gas burned in California used for electricity generation in a typical year. Much of the remainder is consumed in the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors for uses such as cooking, space heating, and as an alternative transportation fuel.

Transportation accounts for a major portion of California's energy budget. Automobiles and trucks consume gasoline and diesel fuel, which are nonrenewable energy products derived from crude oil.

Gasoline is the most used transportation fuel in California, with 97 percent of all gasoline being consumed January 2024 Page 81

02/13/2024 Item No.8.

CITY OF FOTSOM
Folsom/Placerville Rail Trail Proiect
lnitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
by light-duty cars, pickup trucks, and sport utility vehicles (SUVs), Diesel fuel is the second most consumed fuel in California, used by heavy-duty trucks, delivery vehicles, buses, trains, ships, boats, and farm and construction equipment.
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during proiect construction or operation? Less Than Significant lmpact. The proposed project involves trail improvements which would not increase roadway capacity or generate new vehicle trips (with the exception of short-term trips during construction) that would increase consumption of gasoline or other fuels. The proposed project also does not include any uses, such as residences, commercial, or industrial, thatwould directly increase energy consumption. The project includes a new use for bicyclists and pedestrians and would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources.

Construction
During construction, the project would use energy from the operation of construction equipment, delivery vehicles and haul trucks, and construction employee vehicles that would use diesel fuel and/or gasoline. The use of energy resources by these vehicles would fluctuate according to the phase of construction, would be temporary, and would not require expanded energy supplies or the construction of new infrastructure. Most construction equipment during grading would be gas- powered or diesel-powered, and the later construction phases would require electricity-powered equipment. ldling of in-use off-road heavy-duty diesel vehicles in California are limited to five consecutive minutes per Title 13, California Code of Regulations, Section 2449(dl(3). Project construction equipment would also be required to comply with the latest U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and CARB engine emissions standards. These engines use highly efficient combustion engines to minimize unnecessary fuel use. Thus, impacts related to transportation energy use and fuel consumption would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary, lmpacts are less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Operation
Typically, energy consumption is associated with fuel used for vehicle trips and electricity and natural gas use. However, the proposed project includes the proposed project involves construction of a multi-use paved trail along Marsh Creek East Bidwell Street. lmplementation of the proposed project would not significantly alter public roadways except to provide safer connections to the proposed trail. lt is anticipated that the project would not result in the addition of trips to the surrounding roadways, as the project is the extension of an existing trail.

Therefore, the project would not result in a significant increase in gasoline consumption. Operation of the proposed project would not require the consumption of natural gas. Therefore, energy use consumed by the proposed project would primarily be associated with minimal electricity consumption associated with lighting along the project segment. Therefore, implementation of the project would not result in a long-term substantial demand for electricity and natural gas nor would the project require new service connections or construction of new off-site service lines or substations to serve the project. The nature of proposed improvements would not require substantial amounts of energy for either construction or maintenance purposes. Therefore, the proposed project would January 2024 Page 82

02/13/2024 Item No.8.

CITY OF FOTSOM
Folsom/Placerville Rail Trail Project
lnitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
not use nonrenewable resources in a wasteful or inefficient manner. Therefore, operational energy impacts would be less than significant.
b) Conflict with ar obstruct a state or local plan far renewable energy or energy efficiency? Less Than Significant lmpact. The proposed project involves construction of a new trail to include safety improvements at roadways crossing for cyclists and pedestrians. The proposed project is consistent with City plans to provide for recreational and trail improvements and increase the usability for cyclists and pedestrians. The proposed project is consistent with regional strategies to reduce passenger vehicle miles traveled (VMT), which has the potential to reduce overall fuel consumption, The provision of the new trail segments and safety improvements at crosswalks, would promote alternative means of transportation which and is a key strategyto reducing regional VMT. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with regional goals to reduce trips and trip lengths and reduce energy consumption. The proposed project would not conflict with any stated goals and would help meet reduction targets. Potential impacts are considered lessthan significant, and no mitigation is required.

Cumulative lmpacts
Construction associated with implementation of the proposed project would result in the consumption of minor amounts of fuel and energy, but it would not do so in a wasteful or inefficient manner. Operation of the proposed project would increase recreational resources and availability of trails in the City.

Consumption of fuel and energy needed to construct the project would be minimal and would be incrementally small comparison to statewide electricity, natural gas, gasoline, and diesel demand. ln addition, the project is not considered an energy consuming use and operation of the project would not require new capacity and/or supplies of energy. Additionally, the proposed project would be subject to compliance with all Federal, State, and local requirements for energy efficiency to which it would comply.

Thus, the proposed project, in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would not result in a substantial contribution to the increased use of energy. The cumulative impacts from the proposed project would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary with regard to energy and cumulative impacts would be less than significant'
January 2024 Page 83

02/13/2024 Item No.8.

CITY OF FOLSOM
Folsom/Placerville Rail Trail Project
lnitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

4.7 Geology and Soils
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk
of loss, injury, or death involving:

Ji) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the a rea or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer
to Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
,lii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
Jiii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
Jiv) Landslides?
,/b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
Jc) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in
on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Jd) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial direct or indirect
risks to life or property?
,/e) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water?
Potentially
Significant
lmpact
Less Than
Significant
lmpact With
Mitigation
lncorporated
Less Than
Significant
lmpact

ENVIRONMENTAT IMPACTS
No
lmpact
January 2024 Page 84

02/13/2024 Item No.8.

Folsom/Placerville Rail Trail Proiect
CITY OF FOTSOM lnitialstudy/M itigated Negative Declaration Jf) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
Potentially
Significant
lmpact
Less Than
Significant
lmpact With
Mitigation
lncorporated
Less Than
Significant
lmpactENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
No
lmpact
Background
Ground shaking, motion that occurs as a result of energy released during faulting, could potentially result in the damage of collapse of buildings and other structures, depending on the magnitude of the earthquake, the location of the epicenter, and the character and duration of the ground motion. Other important factors to be considered are the characteristics of the underlying soil and rock, and where structures exist, the building materials used, and the workmanship of the structures. a) Directly or indirectly cause potentia! substant!a! adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Foult Zoning Map issued by the Stute Geologist for the area or based on other substdntidl evidence of a known fault? Refer to Divisian of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

Less Than Significant lmpact. The proposed project is not located within an earthquake fault zone as designated by the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Act as shown on the California Department of Conservation (DOC) Earthquake Zone of Required lnvestigation' The Alquist- priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (Act) was passed in 1972 to address the hazard of surface faulting to structures for human occupancy. The Act's main purpose is to prevent the construction of buildings used for human occupancy on the surface trace of active faults. The Act requires the State Geologist to establish regulatory zones, known as "Alquist-Priolo (AP) Earthquake Fault Zones" around the surface traces of active faults and to issue appropriate maps. The project consists of a Class I Bike Trail extension and would not result in the construction of any habitable structures. ln addition, per the City's General Plan, no major faults cross Folsom, and the risk of fault rapture is considered to be very low. lmpacts in this regard are less than significant and mitigation is not required' ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less Than Significant lmpact. The project site is not located in an area with a known fault that would result in strong seismic ground shaking. The nearest known fault is the West Branch of the Bear Mountain fault, within the Foothills fault system located approximately five miles east of the project site's eastern boundary. According to the Folsom Plan Area Specific Plan January 2024 Page 85

02/13/2024 Item No.8.

Folsom/Placerville Rail Trail Project
CITY OF FOTSOM lnitial study/Mitigated Negative Declaration ilt
tv.
(FPASP) Final EIR/EIS, fault activity does not appear to have occurred within the last 11,000 years, and the slip rate of the Foothills fault system is extremely low (0.05 millimeters per year), which is well below the planning thresholds for major earthquakes. With the exception of the Dunnigan Hills fault, located in the Woodland area, the Sacramento Valley has generally not been seismically active in the last 11,000 years (Holocene time). Faults with known or estimated activity during the Holocene are generally located in the San Francisco Bay Area to the west, or in the Lake Tahoe area to the east.

The proposed project includes construction of a new Class I Bike Trail and does not include any habitable structures. ln addition, the work needed to construct the trail would occur within the surficial layers, top 2-3 feet of the soil, and would not exacerbate the potentialfor strong seismic ground shaking to occur on the site or other location. Furthermore, conformance with standard engineering practices and design criteria would reduce the effects of seismic ground shaking to a less than significant. lmpacts would be less than significant, and mitigation is not required.

Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less Than Significant lmpact. Liquefaction is the loss of strength that generally occurs as a "quicksand" type of ground failure caused by strong ground shaking. Liquefaction generally occurs in cohesionless, saturated soils when the pore-water pressure induced in the soil by a seismic event becomes equal to or exceeds the overburden pressure. The primary factors influencing liquefaction potential include groundwater, soiltype, relative density of the sandy soils, confining pressure, and the intensity and duration of ground shaking. The DOC Earthquake Zone of Required lnvestigation does not show the site in an area subject to hazards from liquefaction. Thus, the potential for seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction, is low, and impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Landslides?
Less than Significant lmpact. Landslides are mass movements of the ground that include rock falls, relatively shallow slumping and sliding of soil, and deeper rotational or transitional movement of soil or rock. Seismically induced landslides are likely to occur along steep to intermediate hillside areas, as well as areas where previous land sliding or soil creeping has occurred, areas where non-engineered grading and uncontrolled drainage on slopes has occurred, or areas with deep colluvial deposits. Slope stability hazards could result in loose debris flows and landslides. According to the FPASP Final EIR/EIS steep slopes are present in the area, however, landslides have not been recorded in the project site and vicinity.

Additionally, the DOC Earthquake Zone of Required lnvestigation does not show the site in an area subject to hazards from landslides.

The proposed project includes the construction of a new Class I Bike Trail along an area that has been previously disturbed as part of construction of the railroad and is on generally flat ground. There is one portions of the trail that would be adjacent to an existing 1:1 manufactured slope between lron Point Road on the south to Via Felice on the north )anuary 2024 Page 86

02/13/2024 Item No.8.

CITY OF FOTSOM
Folsom/Placerville Rail Trail Project
lnitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
b)
(approximately 1,000 feet). The slope was created as part of past grading activities between Bidwell Street and Cavitt Drive. Thus, the bike trail is not located in an area subject to land sliding hazards, does not include habitable structures that would be affected by landslides, and would not exacerbate any existing landslide hazards or increase the potential of the area to be affected by landslides. Furthermore, conformance with standard engineering practices and design criteria would ensure effects remain less than significant. No mitigation would be required.

Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less Than Significant lmpact. Grading during the construction phase of the proposed project would displace soils and temporarily increase the potential for soils to be subject to wind and water erosion.

However, erosion and loss of topsoil would be controlled using standard erosion control practices during construction. Accordingly, the proposed project would be required to prepare a SWPPP under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Permit to implement BMPs such as silt fence, hay bales, mulching, blankets, seeding, etc., to minimize and control stormwater runoff during construction. Adherence to the SWPPP and implementation of BMp's compliance with would reduce possible impacts related to the erosion to less than significant' No mitigation required.

Be locoted on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site londslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, I i q u efa cti o n o r co I I o Pse?
c)
Less Than Significant lmpact. As discussed previously, the project site is relatively flat and is not located near any areas with steep topography, other than the existing L:1 as part of past grading between Bidwellstreet and Cavitt Drive. As discussed above, the project site is not located in an area that would be susceptible to landslides or liquefaction or exacerbate such hazards' Similarly, the project site would not be subject to lateral spreading, which is a movement of gently sloping, saturated soils cause by earthquake induced liquefaction, or collapse which is cause by underground caverns cause by uses such as mining or withdrawals from subsurface layers' Lastly, as discussed above, the proposed project includes use as a Class I Bike Trail, involved minimal ground disturbance that would have the potential to exacerbate geological hazards, and would not place people or structures in areas susceptible to geological hazards. Thus, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required'
d) Be located on expansive sdi!, as defined in Toble L8'1-8 of the tJniform Building Code (1994), creating substqntial direct ar indirect risks to life or property? Less Than Significant lmpact. The proposed project would be located in an area with Argonaut- Auburn complex (3 to 8 percent slopes). The soils are comprised of loam, clay and bedrock, and are well drained with a high runoff class Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). The project site is located within an area that was previously developed and are adjacent to the existing railroad' The potential for the existing soil types for the project to be affected by expansive soils is low' Lastly, as discussed above, the proposed project involvesthe construction of new Class I BikeTrail and does not January 2024 Page 87

02/13/2024 Item No.8.
f)

CITY OF FOTSOM
Folsom/Placerville Rail Trail Project
lnitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
e)
include habitable structures or other uses that would be at risk from expansive soils. lmpacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.

Have soils incopable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative woste w7ter disposal systems where sewers sre not available for the disposol of waste woter? No lmpact. No septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems are proposed as part of the project. Therefore, no impact would occur, and no mitigation is required.

Directly or indirectly destray a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Less than Significant lmpact with Mitigation lncorporated. As part of previous efforts to evaluate potential impacts from in the FPASP Final EIR/ElS a paleontological inventory was conducted for that project area which included the area in which the proposed project would be located. As part of this research, a paleontological records search and a review of regional geologic maps from the California Survey and existing literature on paleontological resources in and near the project area, and a reconnaissance level survey in2OO7. The paleontological assessment determined that there are no fossil vertebrate localities within the project area'
However, vertebrate mammal and plant fossils have been reported in the Mehrten Formation throughout the Sierra Nevada Foothills and the eastern margin of the Central Valley, and vertebrate mammal, plant, and invertebrate fossils have been reported from the lone Formation throughout the Central Valley. A large number of fossils have been recovered from both formations and are considered paleontological sensitive rock units. Both these units were noted as being within the westerly portions of the Backbone infrastructure project (a project consisting of updating the Folsom plan Area Specific Plan's storm drainage, water infrastructure, and sewer master plans for implementation) which extends west to Folsom Water Department approximately one mile to the west of the westerly terminus of the proposed project. The proposed project is considered to have a low likelihood of disturbance to these resources, they may be uncovered during construction activities resulting in damage or loss to a resource. Although impacts are anticipated to be less than significant, implementation of Mitigation Measures MM GEO-1 and MM GEO-2 would further reduce the potential for significant adverse environmental impacts on paleontological resources. Mitigation would provide for the salvage of fossil remains and associated specimen data and corresponding geologic and geographic site data that otherwise might be lost to earth-moving and to unauthorized fossil collecting, lmpacts would be less than significant with the implementation of MM GEO-1 and MM GEO-2.

Mitiqotion Measures
MM GEO-1: Prepare and lmplement a Worker Education Program for Those lnvolved with Earthwork.

A worker education program, prepared by a qualified professional paleontologist, shall review applicable local, state, and federal ordinances, laws, and regulations pertaining to paleontological resources; describe the types of fossils that can be encountered and their general appearance; discuss site avoidance requirements and notification procedures to be followed in the event that a sensitive January 2024 Page 88

02/13/2024 Item No.8.

Folsom/Placerville Rail Trail Project
CITY OF FOTSOM lnitial study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MM GEO.2
paleontological resource is found during construction; and describe disciplinary and other actions that can be taken against persons violating such laws lf Paleontological Resources Found Cease Work until Review Conducted by a Qualified Paleontologist and Recommendations I mplemented.

Should evidence of sensitive paleontological resources (e.g., fossils) be encountered during grading or excavation, work shall be suspended within L00 feet of the find, and the City of Roseville shall be immediately notified. At that time, the City shall coordinate all necessary investigation of the site with a qualified paleontologist to assess the resource and provide proper management recommendations. Possible management recommendations for sensitive resources could include resource avoidance or data recovery excavations. The contractor shall implement any measures deemed necessary by the paleontologist for the protection of sensitive paleontological resources.

Cumulative lmpacts
The incremental effects of the proposed project related to geology and soils, if any, are anticipated to be minimal, and any effects would be site-specific depending on a project's location. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in incremental effects to geology and soils that could be compounded or increased when considered together with similar effects from other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. ln addition, the proposed project includes grading to a depth of a few feet and does not have the potential to exacerbate any existing geologic hazard. The proposed project would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts to or from geology and soils with the implementation of MM GEO-1 and MM GEO-2.

January 2024 Page 89

02/13/2024 Item No.8.

CITY OF FOTSOM
Folsom/Placerville Rail Trail Project
lnitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Would the proiect:

J
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions,
either directly or indirectly, that may have
a significant impact on the environment?
J
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse
gases?
Potentially
Significant
lmpact
Less Than
5ignificant
lmpact With
Mitigation
lncorporated
Less Than
Significant
lmpactENVIRONMENTAT IMPACTS
No
lmpact

4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
A Greenhouse Gas Emissions analysis was prepared for the proposed project by Kimley-Horn and Associates. The Greenhouse Gas Emissions data is provided in Appendix A; the results and conclusions of the report are summarized herein.

Environmental Setting
Global climate change refers to changes in average climatic conditions on Earth including temperature, wind patterns, precipitation, and storms. Global temperatures are moderated by atmospheric gases.

These gases are commonly referred to as greenhouse gasses (GHG) because they function like a greenhouse by letting sunlight in but preventing heat from escaping, thus warming the Earth's atmosphere.

GHGs are emitted by natural processes and human (anthropogenic) activities. Anthropogenic GHG emissions are primarily associated with burning of fossil fuels during motorized transpor! electricity generation; natural gas consumption; industrial activity; manufacturing; and other activities such as deforestation, agricultural activity, and solid waste decomposition.

The GHGs defined under California's Assembly Bill (AB) 32 include carbon dioxide (COz), methane (CHa), nitrous oxide (NzO), hydrofluorocarbons (HFC), perfluorocarbons (PFC), and sulfur hexafluoride (SFo). Each GHG differs in its ability to absorb heat in the atmosphere based on the lifetime, or persistence, of the gas molecule in the atmosphere. Estimates of GHG emissions are commonly presented in carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e), which weigh each gas by its global warming potential (GWP). Expressing GHG emissions in COze takes the contribution of all GHG emissions to the greenhouse effect and converts them to a single unit equivalent to the effect that would occur if only COz were being emitted. GHG emissions quantities in this analysis are presented in metric tons (MT) of COze. For consistency with United Nations Standards, modeling, and reporting of GHGs in California and the U.S. use the GWPs defined in the January 2024 Page 90

02/13/2024 Item No.8.

CITY OF FOTSOM
Folsom/Placerville Rail Trail Project
lnitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
lntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC 2007): COz - 1; CH+ -25; NzO -298.

GHG Reduction Regulations and Plans
The primary GHG reduction regulatory legislation and plans (applicable to the project) at the State, regional, and local levels are described below. lmplementation of California's GHG reduction mandates is under the authority of CARB at the state leVel, SMAQMD and the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) at the regional level, and the City at the local level.

Executive Order 5-3-05; On June l-, 2005, Executive Order (EO) 5-3-05 proclaimed that California is vulnerable to climate change impacts. lt declared that increased temperatures could reduce snowpack in the Sierra Nevada, further exacerbate California's air quality problems, and potentially cause a rise in sea levels. To avoid or reduce climate change impacts, EO 5-3-05 calls for a reduction in GHG emissions to the year 2000 levels by 2010, to year 1990 levels by 2O2O, and to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

Executive Orders are not laws and can only provide the governor's direction to state agencies to act within their authority to reinforce existing laws.

Assembty Bitl 32 - Gtobat Worming Solution Act of 2006: The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, widely known as AB 32, requires that CARB develop and enforce regulations for the reportilg and verification of statewide GHG emissions. CARB is directed by AB 32 to set a GHG emission limit, based on 1990 levels, to be achieved by 2020. The bill requires CARB to adopt rules and regulations in an open public process to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective GHG emission reductions.

Executive Order 8-30-15: On April 29,2OL5, EO 8-30-15 established a California GHG emission reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. The EO aligns California's GHG emission reduction targets with those of leading international governments, including the 28 nation European Union. California achieved the target of reducing GHGs emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, as established in AB 32.

California's new emission reduction target of 40 percent below L990 levels by 2030 will make it possible to reach the goal established by EO 5-3-05 of reducing emissions 80 percent under 1990 levels by 2050.

Senate Bitl 32: Signed into law by Governor Brown on September 8,2O16, Senate Bill (SB) 32 (Amendments to the California Global Warming Solutions Action of 2005) extends California's GHG reduction programs beyond 2020. SB 32 amended the Health and Safety Code to include Section 38566, which contains language to authorize CARB to achieve a statewide GHG emission reduction of at least 40 percent below 1990 levels by no later than December 31, 2030. SB 32 codified the targets established by EO 8-30-15 for 2030, which set the next interim step in the State's continuing efforts to pursue the long-term target expressed in EO 8-30-1-5 of 80 percent below 1990 emissions levels by 2050.

California Air Resources Boord: On December tL,2OO8, the CARB adopted the Climate Change Scoping Plan (Scoping Plan) as directed by AB 32. The Scoping Plan proposes a set of actions designed to reduce overall GHG emissions in California to the levels required by AB 32. Measures applicable to development projects include those related to energy-efficiency building and appliance standards, the use of renewable sources for electricity generation, regional transportation targets, and green building strategy. Relative to January 2024 Page 91

02/13/2024 Item No.8.
ctw oF FoLsoM
Folsom/Placerville Rail Trail Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
transportation, the Scoping Plan includes nine measures or recommended actions related to reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and vehicle GHGs through fuel and efficiency measures. These measures would be implemented statewide rather than on a project-by-project basis (CARB 2008). ln response to EO 8-30-15 and SB 32, all state agencies with jurisdiction over sources of GHG emissions were directed to implement measures to achieve reductions of GHG emissions to meet the 2030 and 2050 targets. The mid-term target is critical to help frame the suite of policy measures, regulations, planning efforts, and investments in clean technologies and infrastructure needed to continue driving down emissions (CARB 2O14l.ln December 2017, CARB adopted lhe 2O17 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update, the Strategy for Achieving California's 2030 Greenhouse Gas Target, to reflect the 2030 target set by EO 8-30-L5 and codified by SB 32 (CARB 2017l,.

Socromento Areo Council of Governments: As required by the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 (SB 375), SACOG has developed the 2020 Metropolitan Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy. This plan seeks to reduce GHG and other mobile source emissions through coordinated transportation and land use planning to reduce VMT' City of Folsom: As part of the 2035 General Plan, the City prepared an integrated Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Strategy (Appendix A to the 2035 General Plan; adopted August 28, 2018). The purpose of the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Strategy (GHG Strategy) is to identify and reduce current and future community GHG emissions and those associated with the City's municipal operations.

The 6HG Strategy includes GHG reduction targets to reduce GHG emissions (with a 2005 baseline year) by L5 percentin2O2O,5l percent in 2035, and 80 percent in 2050. The GHG Strategy identifies policies within the City of Folsom General Plan that would decrease the City's emissions of greenhouse gases. The GHG Strategy also satisfies the requirements of CEQA to identify and mitigate GHG emissions associated with the General Plan Update as part of the environmental review process and serves as the City's "plan for the reduction of greenhouse gases", per section 15183'5 of the GEQA Guidelines, which provides the opportunity for tiering and streamlining of project-level emissions for certain types of discretionary projects subject to CEQA review that are consistent with the General Plan (City 2018).

Evaluation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The final determination of whether or not a project has a significant effect is within the purview of the lead agency pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 1-5064(b). The City's GHG Strategy, described above, is a qualified plan for the reduction of greenhouse gases pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 1-5183.5.

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

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

NCR 3.2.8 Streamlined GHG Analysis for Projects Consistent with the General Plan Projects subject to environmental review under CEQ4 may be eligible for tiering and streamlining the analysis of GHG emissions, provided they are consistent with the GHG reduction measures included in the January 2024 Page 92

02/13/2024 Item No.8.

Folsom/Placerville Rail Trail Project
crw oF ForsoM Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration General Plan and ElR. The City may review such projects to determine whether the following criteria are met:

Proposed project is consistent with the current general plan land use designation for the project site;
Proposed project incorporates all applicable GHG reduction measures (as documented in the Climate Change Technical Appendix to the General Plan EIR) as mitigation measures in the CEQA document prepared for the project; and,
Proposed project clearly demonstrates the method, timing and process for which the project will comply with applicable GHG reduction measures and/or conditions of approval, (e.g., using a CAP/GHG reduction measures consistency checklist, mitigation monitoring and reporting plan, or other mechanism for monitoring and enforcement as appropriate). o) Generate greenhouse gas emissians, either directly or indirectly, that may have o significant impact on the environment?
Less than Significant lmpact with Mitigation lncorporated.

Short-Term Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Construction GHG emissions were estimated using the CalEEModR€EM. CaIEEMOd contains a linear construction module that is suitable for linear proiects. CalEEMod calculates emissions from off-road equipment usage and on-road vehicle travel associated with haul, deliverv. and construction worker trios. GHG emissions d rine construction were forecasted based on t orooosed construction schedule and applving the mobile-source and fugitive dust emissions factors derived from CalEEMod.

ReEM is a data entry spreadsheet that utilizes varieus seurees te estimate eenstruetien emissiens; in€luding OFFROAD R€EM is reeemmended bY ealtrans as it is reheconstructionoftheproposedlineartrailhasmany
similarities as construction of a roadway. For the purpose of this environmental analysis, project construction is expected to occur over an approximately one-year period. Construction activities would include demolition, grading, paving, and architectural coating for striping and signage.

Construction of the project would result in direct emissions of COz, NzO, and CHq from the operation of construction equipment and the transport of materials and construction workers to and from the project site. Total GHG emissions generated during all phases of construction were combined and are presented in Table 8: Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The CalEEModR€EM outputs are contained within the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Models output data listed in Appendix A.
a
a
a
8e€5212025
*t7.4Amortized
i il; i ti t it;l,r,rlitrl. I r'
January 2024
Table 8: Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions

02/13/2024 Item No.8.

CITY OF FOTSOM
Folsom/Placerville Rail Trail Proiect
lnitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
MTCOze = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent'
L. Due to Rounding, Total MTCOze may be marginally different from CalEEMod R€EM output. source: calEEMod R€EM version 9€132922.1.1.211. Refer to Appendix A for model outputs.

As shown in Toble 8, project construction-related activities would generate approximately 89e 521 MTCOzel of GHG emissions over the course of construction. One-time, short-term construction GHG emissions are typically summed and amortized over the project's lifetime (assumed to be 30 years).

It is reasonable to look at a 3O-year time frame for roadway projects since this is a typical interval before new full depth reclamation is required. This is a conservative time frame and emissions would be below thresholds. The amortized project emissions would be approximately 3&!!! MTCOze Per year. Once construction is complete, the generation of construction related GHG emissions would cease,
The project is consistent with the City's NCR 3.2.8 Streamlined GHG Analysis for Projects Consistent with the General Plan. The proposed trail is consistent with the City's current General Plan for the project site, the project incorporates Mitigation Measures MM GHG-1and MM GHG-2, the applicable GHG reduction measures (as documented in the Climate Change Technical Appendix to the General plan EtR), and the project will comply with applicable GHG reduction measures through the implementation of the Mitigation Monitoring and Report Program (MMRP) that will be adopted with this lnitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration'
Long-Term Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Operational or long-term emissions occur over the life of the proposed project. Generally, GHG emissions would result from direct emissions such as project generated vehicular traffic, and operation of any landscaping equipment. The project would not include any structures which would provide energy, waste, water, or wastewater emissions. Additionally, no vehicle trips are associated with the project. Therefore, no GHG emissions are expected to be generated from operation of the proposed project and impacts are less than significant.

With implementation of Mitigation Measures MM GHG-1 and MM GHG-2, 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.

Mitiaation Measures
MM GHG-I: High-Performance Diesel. ln accordance with the City General Plan GHG Reduction Measure T-6, the project shall use high-performance diesel (also known as Diesel-HPR or Reg-9000/RHD)for all diesel-powered equipment utilized in construction ofthe Project'
MM GHG-2: Enhanced Construction Waste Diversion. ln accordance with the City General Plan GHG Reduction Measure T-6, 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'
January 2024 Page 94

02/13/2024 Item No.8.

CITY OF FOTSOM
Folsom/Placerville Rail Trail Proiect
lnitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
b) Conflict with on applicabte plan, policy ar reguldtion adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhause gases?
Less than Significant lmpact with Mitigation lncorporated.

The proposed project would comply with all State plans, policies, and regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions during construction and would not interfere with the State's goals of reducing GHG emission to 1990 levels by 2020 as stated in AB 32; a 40 percent reduction below 1990 levels by 2030 as noted in SB 32; and, an 80 percent reduction in GHG emissions below 1990 levels by 2050 as stated in EO 5-3-05. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on GHG emissions.

The Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (MTP/SCS) for Sacramento County is the 2020 MTP/SCS adopted by the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) on November t8,2OLg.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. No vehicle trips are associated with the project. Therefore, no GHG emissions are expected to be generated from operation of the proposed project and impacts are less than significant.

As discussed in question a), above, with implementation of Mitigation Measures MM GHG-0l through MM GHG-€5g2, the project would be consistent with the City's GHG Strategy, a qualified plan for the reduction of greenhouse gases pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5. Therefore, the project would not conflict with CARB's 2022 Scoping Plan, the SACOG's 2020 MTP/SCS, or the City's GHG strategy, and the impact would be less than significant with mitigation.

Cumulative lmpacts
It is generally the case that an individual project of the project's size and nature is of insufficient magnitude by itself to influence climate change or result in a substantial contribution to the global GHG inventory' GHG impacts are recognized as exclusively cumulative impacts; there are no non-cumulative GHG emission impacts from a climate change perspective. The additive effect of project-related GHG emissions would not result in a reasonably foreseeable cumulatively considerable contribution to global climate change. ln addition, the project as well as other cumulative related projects, would be subject to all applicable regulatory requirements, which would further reduce GHG emissions. Thus, the project would not conflict with any GHG reduction plan. Therefore, the project's cumulative contribution of GHG emissions would be less than significant and the project's cumulative GHG impacts would also be less than cumulatively considerable.
lanuary 2024 Page 95

02/13/2024 Item No.8.

CITY OF FOLSOM
Folsom/Placerville Rail Trail Project
lnitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Would the project:

J
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
J
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the relegse of hazardous materials
into the environment?
J
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile
of an existing or proposed school?
J
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?
J
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?
J
f) lmpair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
Potentially
Significant
lmpact
Less Than
Significant
lmpact With
Mitigation
lncorporated
Less Than
Significant
lmpactENVIRONMENTAT IMPACTS
No
lmpact
January 2024 Page 96

02/13/2024 Item No.8.

CITY OF FOTSOM
Folsom/Placerville Rail Trail Proiect
lnitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Jg) Expose people or structures, either directly
or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury
or death involving wildland fires?
Potentially
Significant
lmpact
Less Than
Significant
lmpact With
Mitigation
lncorporated
Less Than
Significant
lmpactENVIRONMENTAT IMPACTS
No
lmpact
A Phase I lnitial Site Assessment was prepared for the proposed project by Wreco (February 2019) and is provided as Appendix D, Draft tnitia! Site Assessment; the results of the report are summarized herein. a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the enviranment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hozardous materials?
Less than Significant lmpact. The bike trail improvements including construction would involve the transport and use of fuels and lubricating fluids in construction equipment, asphaltic emulsions associated with the asphalt-concrete paving operations, cement materials, base and subbase materials, joint and curing compounds, concrete curing compounds, paints, solvents, thinners, acids, mortar mix, landscaping materials (including topsoil, plants, herbicides, fertilizers, mulch and pesticides), and general site debris. The transport of hazardous materials is regulated via the Federal Hazardous Materials Transportation Act. lt is not anticipated that substantial volumes of materials will be required to be stored on-site, but all on-site storage of these materials, where applicable, would occur consistent with the California Fire Code. ln addition, the transport, use, and handling of these materials would be a temporary activity coinciding with project construction. Although such materials may be stored on the project site, any transport, use, and handling of these materials is expected to be limited to quantities and concentrations required to operate and maintain equipment' Removal and disposal of any hazardous materials from the project site during construction would be conducted by a permitted and licensed service provider.

Any handling, transport, use, or disposal would comply with all applicable federal, State, and local agencies and regulations, including the USEPA, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), Caltrans, the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and the Sacramento County Environmental Health Department.

During long-term use of the trail, hazardous and potentially hazardous materials would not be transported along the corridor. Therefore, long-term operational impacts associated with the transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials would be less than significant with no mitigation required.
b) Create a significant hazord ta the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and sccident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
Less than Significant lmpact with Mitigation Incorporated. As part of the lnitial Site Assessment (lSA) a field reconnaissance to evaluate existing conditions along and near the project area was performed' January 2024 Page 97

02/13/2024 Item No.8.

CITY OF FOTSOM
Folsom/Placerville Rail Trail Project
lnitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
ln addition, an Environmental Data Resources Report (EDR) was prepared in accordance with the ASTM Stand ard E L527-t3. The EDR report provides information related to the historic use of a project site and surrounding areasto a one-mile radius. EDR report provides information on these properties to evaluate whether a site may represent a recognized environmental condition (REC). A REC typically refers to a listing that indicates that a property or location has experienced or was likely to have experienced a hazardous substances release. An area also may be classified as an REC if it is downgradient of a listed site such that materials may flow to a site through the groundwater. Review of the EDR information showed that there are no recorded hazardous material sites within the project site.

The ISA evaluated public information provided by the State Water Quality Control Board (SWQCB) GeoTracker data, and the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) EnviroStor Database. The Envirostor Database did not identify and individual locations within 1,000 ft of the project area but did note a military evaluation site (AFP#70[AEROJET-GEN]). This site is identified as being 1-,500 ft west of the project area. The cleanup status for this site is listed as "no further action as of 1/3I/2O14." The Geotracker site identified two sites that were identified as closed permitted underground storage tanks (UST) within 1,000 feet. Both sites have minimal potential to impact the project site. This site, including the other sites all were found to have a low potential to impact the project site' After review of the listed databases, on September 20, 2018 a site reconnaissance was conducted to evaluate the existing conditions within the project site. The survey was conducted to identify potential sources or indications of chemical contamination such as underground storage tanks (USTs), aboveground storage tanks (ASTs), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), chemicals and hazardous waste materials, areas with surficial staining or distressed vegetation, and visual evidence of asbestos- containing materials (ACMs) and/or lead-based paint.

No new REC's were identified during the site reconnaissance. The site reconnaissance, however, did note an unidentified irrigation or potable water pipeline producing ponding nearby in the vacant lot east of the southern portion of the project site near Broadstone Parkway. Another unidentified pipeline was discovered in the vacant lot east of the northern portion of the project site between Willow Creek and Oak Avenue Parkway. Several existing drainage culverts have associated headwalls' A gas pipeline marker and cistern head were observed near the intersection of East Bidwell Street and Oak Avenue Parkway.
ln addition to the above, the site reconnaissance identified the following potential REC's within the project area:
r East Bidwell Street has been documented as being used as a main thoroughfare prior to L937, according to historic aerial images reviewed. Since leaded fuels were not banned until 1978, there is a high likelihood of the presence of aerially deposited lead (ADL) in historically exposed shallow soils adjacent to roadways within the project area in concentrations above state regulatory screening criteria for the reuse and disposal of solid waste. e The Folsom/Placerville Railroad is within close proximity to and runs along the proposed project area. There is a high potential for hazardous materials in shallow soils, ballast material, and railroad ties along the project alignment. Typical contaminants present in soils and ballast material near the railroad tracks include oil, diesel, polycyclis aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), January 2024 Page 98

02/13/2024 Item No.8.
ctw oF FotsoM
Folsom/Placerville Rail Trail Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
volatile organic compounds (VOC), semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOC), heavy metals, and creosote
o According to the Natural Occurring Asbestos in Eastern Sacramento County Parcels" map developed by the SMAQMD, the project is located within areas both affected by and likely containing Naturally Occurring Asbestos (NOA)'
Based on recommendations from the lSA, the following mitigation will be implemented to ensure that potential impacts from soil disturbance within the project site would not result in the release of the aforementioned materials. lmplementation of the following Mitigation Measures MM HAZ-I includes additional testing requirements and MM HA2-2 relates to preparation of a Soil Management Plan, depending on the findings of the additionaltesting. lmplementation of these measures would reduce potential impacts associated with the release of hazardous materials to the public or environment to a less-than-significant level with the implementation of MM HAZ-I- and MM HAZ-2.

Mitiqotion Meosures
MM HAZ-I: Prior to any project related ground disturbance activities, a Soil Management Plan for the proposed project site shall be prepared by the contractor to evaluate the potential for upset or release of hazardous materials to the environment. The Soil Management Plan shall identify the nearby contaminated site(s), affected media, and corresponding contaminants of concern. Specific procedures shall be identified for handling the potentially impacted media during construction. The Soil Management Plan shall contain a contingency plan in the event that gross contamination is discovered during construction. The Soil Management Plan shall also outline health and safety concerns for workers that may come in contact with potentially contaminated media. The following scope of work shall be included to the efforts undertaken as part of the Soil Management Plan.

MM HAZ.2
. Up to 2 shallow soil boring between Willow Creek and Oak Avenue Parkway for the following constituents of concern:
o Railroad contaminants (heavy metals, polycyclis aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), volatile organic compounds (VOC), semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOC), creosote., diesel, and heavy petroleum). o Natural Occurring Asbestos (NOA)
. Up to 2 shallow soil borings between Oak Avenue Parkway and Scholar Way and up to 3 shallow soil borings between Broadstone Parkway and lron Point Road for the following constituents of concern:
o Railroad contaminants (heavy metals, PAH, VOC's, SVOCs, diesel, heavy petroleum)
o NOA
o Aerially Deposited Lead (ADL)
o 3 samples of ballast material along the length of the project area for (heavy metals, PAHs, VOCs, SVOCs, diesel, heavy petroleum)' Shallow soil samples shall be taken in areas of concentrated pollutant flow where it overlaps with proposed excavation (i.e., along banks of drainage ditches). The January 2024 Page 99

02/13/2024 Item No.8.

CITY OF FOTSOM
Folsom/Placerville Rail Trail Project
lnitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
removal of treated wood and recycled asphalt concrete shall be done in accordance with Caltrans Specification L4-L1-.09 Treated Wood Waste and/or Department of Toxic Substances Control Treated Wood Waste Alternative Management Standard (22 CCR Chapter 34). All removals shall be conducted to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or ocutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quorter mile of on existing ar proposed school? Less Than Significant lmpact. The proposed project is located approximately 0.2 miles of Folsom Lake College at 10 College Parkway to the northeast and approximately 0.5 miles to the northeast of Gold Ridge Elementary School at 735 Halidon Way, Folsom Middle School at 500 Oak Avenue Parkway, located approximately 0.5 mile east of the northwestern boundary of the project site; the Folsom Educational Academy School at 381 South Lexington Drive, located 0.2 mile east of the proposed pipeline along the Oak Avenue Parkway portion; and the Cadence Academy Pre-School at 76 Clarksville Road and Bach to Rock Folsom Music School at 82 Clarksville Road, both located approximately 0.1 mile west of East Bidwell Street.

The proposed project is a trail improvement and does not include any uses that are typically associated with or anticipated to generate hazardous emissions or hazardous materials that would typically represent a hazard to a school. The proposed project would include short-term construction activities using standard methodologies for earth removals and to pave the area with the new Class I bike lane. Construction would include the handling and use of materials such as fuels and lubricants needed to operate machinery but would not use any acutely hazardous materials in quantities that would constitute a substantial risk to human health and safety. Long term operation of the proposed project would be consistent with the operations of other trails and associated uses, and would not substantially impacted any schools or other nearby areas, Therefore, impacts are less than significant with no mitigation required.
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant ta Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it creote a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
Less Than Significant lmpact with Mitigation lncorporated. Government Code Section 55962.5 refers to the Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List, commonly known as the Cortese List, maintained by the DTSC. The project site is not included on a hazardous site list compiled pursuant to California Government Code Section 65962.5. As discussed in subsection however, according to the Phase I ISA prepared for the proposed project, there were locations identified in association with the project site that require additional investigation. However, as discussed in b) above, the projectsite is not located within or adjacent to a site listed pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 or other area listed as a REC impacts in this regard would be less than significant and mitigation is not required.

January 2024 Page 100

02/13/2024 Item No.8.

CITY OF FOISOM
Folsom/Placerville Rail Trail Proiect
lnitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plon has not been adopted, within two miles of a public oirport or public use oirport, would the proiect result in a sofety hazord ar excessive noise for people residing or working in the proiect area? No lmpact. The proposed project is not located within an airport land use plan, or the vicinity of a public airport or private airstrip. There are three airports in the regional vicinity of the project site, most notably Mather Airfield located approximately 10 miles to the southwest, and Sacramento lnternational Airport located approximately, and McClellan Airfield and the Sacramento lnternational Airport located to the west approximately 14 and 24 miles, respectively. ln addition, the proposed project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip and would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. No impacts would occur, and no mitigation is required.
f) lmpair implementation of ar physicolly interfere with an adopted emergency respanse plon or e m e rge n cy evacuati on Pl o n?
Less than Significant lmpact. The proposed project would not impair or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan. The proposed project would not interfere with access to any primary roadway that may be used for emergency response or in case of evacuation. ln addition, the proposed project does not contain any elements that would impede the flow of traffic once complete and therefore, would not impede the flow of any emergency response or evacuation plan, Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required' g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to o significant risk af loss, iniury or death involving wildlond fires?
Less than Significant tmpact. The proposed project would not expose people or structures to a risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. The project site is in a developed urban area, and it is not adjacent to any wildland areas. The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) has mapped areas of significant fire hazards based on fuels, terrain, weather, and other relevant factors. These zones, referred to as Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ) that represent the risks associated with wildland fires. Fire Hazard Severity Zones mapped by CAL FIRE for State and local responsibility areas are classified as either "Medium" "High", or "Very High" based on fire hazards' No Fire Hazard Severity Zones for State responsibility areas or for local responsibility areas area located within or adjacent to the project site. Therefore, impacts related to wildland fire would be less than significant and mitigation is not required.

Cumulative lmpacts
The proposed project would involve the storage, use, and transport of hazardous materials during construction phases of project activities. Hazardous materials are strictly regulated by local, state, and federal laws. Specifically, these laws are designed to ensure that hazardous materials do not result in spills or a gradual increase in toxins in the environment over. ln addition, the proposed project includes mitigation that would reduce impacts from removals and construction activity to less than significant and reduce the risks associated with exposure to hazardous materials. ln addition, the proposed project would be required to follow all applicable local, state, and federal laws and regulations during all phases of project development.

January 2024 Page L01

02/13/2024 Item No.8.

Folsom/Placerville Rail Trail Project
CITY OF FOTSOM lnitial Negative Declaration
Similar to the proposed project, reasonably foreseeable projects could result in construction impacts related to the routine transport, disposal, or handling of hazardous materials; intermittent use and transport of petroleum--based lubricants, solvents, and fuels; and transport of affected soil to and from sites. However, hazardous waste generated during construction of any project would be collected, properly characterized for disposal, and transported in compliance with regulations such as the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, U.S. Department of Transportation Hazardous Materials Regulations, and local Certified Unified Program Agency regulations. Thus, the proposed project would not make a substantial contribution factor to cumulative hazards and impacts would be less than significant.

January 2024 Page 102

02/13/2024 Item No.8.

CITY OF FOTSOM
Folsom/Placerville Rail Trail Proiect
lnitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

4.10 Hydrology and Water QualitY
Would the project:
,/
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or ground
water quality?
J
b) Substantially decrease groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the project
may impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?
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:

JResult in substantial erosion or siltation
on- or off-site?
J
Substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner
which would result in flooding on- or
offsite?
J
Create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems
or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff?
,/iv. lmpede or redirect flood flows?
J
d) ln flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones,
risk release of pollutants due to project
inundation?
Potentially
Significant
lmpact
Less Than
Significant
lmpact With
Mitigation
lncorporated
Less Than
Significant
lmpact
No
lmpactENVIRONMENTAT IMPACTS
January 2024 Page 103

02/13/2024 Item No.8.

CITY OF FOTSOM
Folsom/Placerville Rail Trail Proiect
lnitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
,/
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
a water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management Plan?
Potentially
Sign ificant
lmpact
Less Than
Significant
lmpact With
Mitigation
lncorporated
Less Than
Sign ificant
lmpactENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
No
lmpact
a) Violate any water quality standards or woste discharge requirements or atherwise substantially degrade surface ar graund water quolity?
less Than Significant lmpact. Surface water quality can be adversely affected by erosion during project construction. Construction activities disturbing one or more acres are required under the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) to comply with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) General Construction Activity Stormwater Discharge Permit' lmprovements to install the trail segments and new crossings would include removals and grading to prepare the area for new paving. Construction activities associated with the improvements could result in the accidental release of other pollutants to surface waters, including oil and grease, petroleum hydrocarbons, waste, concrete/asphalt, and wash water. Contaminated runoff, if allowed to flow outside the work area, could enter downstream receiving waters or adjacent wetlands' projects that disturb more than one or more acres (including phased construction of smaller areas which are part of a larger project) to obtain coverage under the SWRCB National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) stormwater permit for general construction activity. Disturbance associated with the proposed project would disturb more than one acre. The permit is required and would help ensure that measures are in place to control runoff from both construction and operational activities that could adversely affect water quality. Permit applicants are required to prepare and implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that describes the site, erosion and sediment controls, means of waste disposal, implementation of approved local plans, control of post-construction sediment and erosion control measures and maintenance responsibilities, non-stormwater management controls, and Best Management Practices (BMPs)' ln order to ensure that stormwater runoff from the project site does not adversely increase poilutrnt levels in adjacent surface waters and stormwater conveyance infrastructure, the BMPs would be used to reduce the potential for pollutants in stormwater runoff from leaving the site. BMPs could include, but are not limited to, tracking controls, perimeter sediment controls, drain inlet protection, wind erosion/dust controls, and waste management control. ln addition, the biological resources report recommended BMPs to minimize effects that included the following:
r No discharge of pollutants from vehicle and equipment cleaning would be allowed into storm drains or watercourses.
o Vehicle and equipment fueling, and maintenance operations would be at least 50 feet away from watercourses.

January 2024 Page 104

02/13/2024 Item No.8.

CITY OF FOTSOM
Folsom/Placerville Rail Trail Project
lnitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
o Dust control will include the use of water trucks and dust palliatives to control dust in excavation and fill areas.
o Stockpiles will be covered when weather conditions (rain or wind) could cause erosion of materials.
o Biodegradable coir rolls or straw wattles will be installed along, or at the base of slopes during work to capture sediment.
o Protect graded areas from erosion using a combination of silt fences, biodegradable fiber rolls, and/or biodegradable erosion control netting (such as jute or coir) as appropriate on slopes.

All project BMP's would be implemented in accordance with a site-specific SWPPP and would comply with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). lmplementation of these measures in compliance with applicable regulations would ensure impacts remain less than significant with no mitigation required.
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater rechorge such that the project may impede sustoinable groundwater management of the basin?
Less Than Significant lmpact. The proposed project is in the City of Folsom, which is located over the North American sub-basin of the Sacramento Valley Groundwater Basin. The North American sub- basin is located in the eastern central portion of the Sacramento Groundwater Basin, encompassing portions of Sutter, Placer, and Sacramento Counties. According to the City of Folsom 201.5 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), the basin was not adjudicated or in overdraft (Folsom, 2015). The proposed project would complete an approximate 2.0 miles trail segment with 1.25 miles of new trail.

The proposed project would be paved with hardscape and would not require a substantial volume of water. A minimal volume of water would be required during construction (e.g. washing of equipment, dust control, wetting of soils during recompaction, and mixing concrete). Any water needed for the above listed construction activities during construction would be supplied from exiting water rights and would not come from groundwater.

Based on the UWMP, groundwater is a miniscule component of the City's supply strategy as groundwater supplies are limited and would not be used for the project. The City does not pump groundwater for use in the City's water service area. The majority of the City's water supplies are derived from surface water rights and are largely taken from water in Folsom Dam. Thus, the proposed project would not directly deplete groundwater supplies in this regard.

Construction of the proposed project would occur within an area an undeveloped area adjacent to the existing rail line. The proposed trail would increase the amount of impervious surface through the placement of the new asphalt trail over a distance of approximately 1.25 miles. Considering the paved portion of the trail would be approximately 8 feet in width with 2 feet of decomposed granite on either side, the project would increase the amount of impervious surface by approximately 1.25 acre. ln addition, the proposed project may temporarily reduce the permeability of the two staging areas but neither of these sites would be paved or permanently affected. Each site also would be required to be revegetated which would facilitate infiltration post construction.

January 2024 Page 105

02/13/2024 Item No.8.
c)

CITY OF FOTSOM
Folsom/Placerville Rail Trail Project
lnitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Overall, the decrease in pervious surfaces is nominal compared to the overall size of the basin' Though the project would slightly decrease the area groundwater could infiltration, it would not substantially deplete the potential for recharge. ln addition, the adjacent areas would remain undeveloped and maintain their potential to facilitate infiltration. Therefore, impacts associated with recharge within the Basin from the project site would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Substantia!ly alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or tLtrough the addition of impervious surfaces, in o manner which would:
i. Result in substantial erosion ar siltation on- ar off-site? Less Than Significant lmpact. The proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage of the project site and would not alter the course of a stream or river through the addition of impervious surfaces. Runoff from the new paved trail would maintain the same overall directional water flow as currently exists and water would flow to the immediately adjacent areas including ditches and swales within the project site.

These areas would remain vegetated which inhibit uncontrolled overland flow and would reduce the potential effects of increased water flows and erosion during rain events. ln addition, while the proposed project would reduce the overall area of permeable surface, the new trail would be flat and not substantially increase the rate and speed of runoff such that substantial erosion would occur. The decomposed granite shoulders also would slow runoff from the trail through infiltration before runoff encounters off-site vegetated areas. Ultimately, the volume and rate of water flows would be nominally changed, and the proposed project would not result substantial erosion of any on-site area, off-site area, or result in substantial siltation on-site or off-site. lmpacts would be less than significant, and mitigation, beyond the installation of standard BMPs in accordance with the SWMMP, would not be required'
ii. Substantiolly increase the rate or amount ot' surface runoff in a manner which wauld result in flooding on- or offsite?
Less Than Significant lmpact. The surface water runoff that would result from project implementation would be minimal. As discussed in subsection i), above, water runoff from the new trail would flow to adjacent undeveloped and vegetated areas that would provide for infiltration. The volume of water and rate of water flows would be nominally changed and the proposed project would not substantially increase the rate or amount of surface water runoff. The proposed project would not result in flooding impacts and mitigation would not be required.
iii. Create or contribute runot'f wster which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
Less Than Significant lmpact. The proposed project includes construction of a new trail and creation of approximately 1.25 miles of new trail that would tie into 0.75 miles of January 2024 Page 106

02/13/2024 Item No.8.

CITY OF FOTSOM
Folsom/Placerville Rail Trail Proiect
lnitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
disconnected trail. As discussed in i) and ii), above, and iv) below, the proposed project would maintain a similar drainage pattern and control runoff within the project area such that flooding would occur. The project proposes installation of a new Class ltrail and does not include any uses that would substantially increase polluted runoff and water from the trail would flow into the adjacent undeveloped vegetated areas. The project site would not be open to motor vehicle traffic and constituents of potential pollutants common from roadways would not leave the site. Therefore, the proposed project would not provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff to any downstream receiving waters. lmpacts would be less than significant with no mitigation required. iv. lmpede or redirect fload flows?
Less Than Significant lmpact. The proposed project would minimally affect drainage and surface flows and it would not substantially affect the existing drainage pattern or impede or redirect flood flows. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood tnsurance Rate Maps (FIRM) Panel Number 06067C0117H, (effectiveOs/L6/2Ot2l, the majority of the proposed project would be located within FEMA Zone X, which is an area of minimal flood hazards and area outside the 100-year floodplain. Approximately, 100 feet of the proposed Class I trail, the westernmost portion of the project, would be within an Other Areas of Flood Hazard. This area has a O.2% annual chance flood hazard and is located adjacent to Willow Creek. The proposed project consists of the construction of a bike trail and it does not have the potentially to nor propose any changes to any flood flows. Thus, the risks associated with flood hazards are minimal and mitigation is not required.
d) tn ftood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pallutants due to project inundation? Less Than Significant lmpact. The proposed project is located inland, approximately 1-00 miles from the nearest coastline of the Pacific Ocean and is not subject to tsunamis. The nearest contains water body is Folsom Lake located approximately 2 miles to the north and the potential risk from a seiche is minimal. lmpacts would be less than significant mitigation is not required. e) Conflict with or obstruct implementatian af a woter quality control plan or sustainable g rou ndwate r ma nage ment Pla n?
LessThanSignificantlmpact'TheproposedprojectwouldcomplytheRWQCBboardrequirements for implementation of BMPs in accordance with a SWPPP. The proposed project implements BMPs such as use of siltfence, fiber rolls, mulch, reseeding, etc., (and those described sub a), above) which would be implemented during construction to minimize the potential for erosion and effects to downstream receiving waters. ln addition, as discussed in sub b), above the proposed project would not result in substantial effects to groundwater recharge and would not impact any groundwater management plan. The proposed project would replace a minimal area with a new trail and the amount of pervious surface that would be replaced by the proposed project would be negligible and it would not result in the obstruction of any water quality or sustainable ground water plan. As noted, the areas on the margins of the trail would remain unpaved and runoff from the project area would be retained by these areas and allowed to infiltrate or be used by existing vegetation.

January 2024 Page 107

02/13/2024 Item No.8.

CITY OF FOTSOM
Folsom/Placerville Rail Trail Project
lnitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
It should be noted the City collaboratively developed the Sacramento Groundwater Authority, which is an inclusive approach to sustainable groundwater management (Folsom, 2015). The proposed project would not impede implementation of this plan, would not result or require groundwater withdrawal, or substantially reduce the potential for groundwater recharge. Thus, the proposed project would not impede any implementing activities that preserve and enhance groundwater or result in overdraft of the basin. lmpacts would be less than significant, and mitigation is not required, Cumulative lmpacts
The proposed project includes construction of trail improvements. As discussed above, the proposed project would not make a significant contribution to hydrology and water quality impacts. Taken in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, the proposed project would not make a cumulative contribution. Other projects also would be required to comply with the NPDES permit and implement BMPs through a SWPPP. lt is anticipated projects such as these also would mitigate impacts to less than significant and would not make cumulatively significant contributions. Therefore, cumulative impacts would be less than significant, and mitigation is not required.

January 2024 Page 108

02/13/2024 Item No.8.

CITY OF FOTSOM
Folsom/Placerville Rail Trail Project
lnitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Would the project:

Ja) Physically divide an established
community?
J
b) Cause a 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?
Potentially
Significant
lmpact
Less Than
Significant
lmpact With
Mitigation
lncorporated
Less Than
Significant
lmpactENVIRONMENTAT IMPACTS
No
lmpact

4.11 Land Use and Planning
o) Pltysically divide an established community?
Less than Significant lmpact. Projects that have the potential to divide an established community include the construction of new freeways, highways, or roads, or other uses that physically separate existing or established neighborhoods. The land uses surrounding the project site consist of a mix of uses including, commercial, community commercial, schools, residential, trails, the Folsom/Placerville railroad, and major transportation corridors. Project improvements would occur within the existing intersection, roadways, and previously disturbed vegetated areas.

The proposed project would provide a new Class I Bike Trail that would link to existing pedestrian and bicycle improvements including the Humbug Trail that ends near the northwesterly project boundary.

The proposed project would connect a missing portion of trail from the Humbug Willow Creek Trail on the west to lron Point Road on the east. Completing the section of trail would increase multimodal access to local businesses, as well increase the recreational opportunities in the area by filling the gap between existing trails.

The majority of the proposed project would occur along the existing alignment of the Folsom/Placerville Railroad and East Bidwell Street. The westernmost portion would occur between two commercial centers that are currently separated by the railroad. The proposed project would improve the trail connections between existing neighborhoods as well as improve connectivity to the palladio Commercial Center and Broadstone Plaza. The proposed project would facilitate increased pedestrian and bicycle travel throughout the proposed corridor as well as to the other numerous trails within the City. The proposed project would not result in the construction of any physical barriers that would divide or disrupt any communities. The proposed project is considered an improvement compared to the existing conditions and functionality of the exiting trail system and would increase connectivity. Thus, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

January 2024 Page 109

02/13/2024 Item No.8.

CITY OF FOTSOM
Folsom/Placerville Rail Trail Project
lnitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
b) Cause o significant environmental impact due to a conflict with ony land use plan, policy, or regulotian odopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating on environmental effect? Less than Significant lmpact. The proposed project would improve bicycle and pedestrian safety by constructing approximately 1.25 miles of new Class I Trail. The proposed project was envisioned as part of the 2007 Folsom Bikeway Master Plan and is detailed as Project #10 Folsom/Placerville Rail Trail. As part of the planning for the proposed project, a public workshop was held to obtain public input. The results of the workshop, public surveys, and correspondence and field reviews from stakeholders highlighted public concerns and issues about the area in which the proposed project is located. Some of the issues, included concerns about fragmented bicycle routes, high speed autos on major arterial streets, gaps in the Humbug-Willow Creek Trail, and difficulty negotiating traffic on East Bidwell Road. These results also revealed that grade separated crossing area preferred at crossing of major streets. Based on the list feedback, the nature of Folsom, and the commitment to a city-wide bicycle trail consistently supported by its residents, the proposed project has been and is expected to be well received by the communitY'
The proposed project would be consistent with the City of Folsom General Plan, the City of Folsom Bikeway Master Plan, East Bidwell Street Complete Streets Corridor Plan, the Sacramento-Placerville Transportation Joint Powers Authority, and other City and County Plans, policies, and goals for the community. lmpacts would be less than significant and mitigation is not required.

Cumulative lmpacts
The proposed project does not conflict with any applicable land use regulations, land use policies, or land use planning documents. The project proposes improvements would complete planned for pedestrian and bicycle linkages between residential and commercial areas in accordance with existing City of Folsom planning documents. The linkage would increase connectivity between areas and would not include the construction of any new buildings or roadways that would restrict access or otherwise divide an established community. Therefore, taken with past, present and reasonably foreseeable projects impacts are not considered cumulatively considerable, and no mitigation is required, )anuary 2024 Page 110

02/13/2024 Item No.8.
ctw oF FoLsoM
Folsom/Placeruille Rail Trail Proiect
lnitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
J
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?
J
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?
Potentially
Significant
lmpact
Less Than
Significant
lmpact With
Mitigation
lncorporated
Less Than
Significant
lmpactENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
No
lmpact

4.12 Mineral Resources
a) Result in the loss of ovailability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
Less than Significant lmpact. The project site does not have history of large quarry operations, but the Folsom area has a history of gold mining from the 1800's and early L900's. The project alignment is along the existing, but unused (for commercial transportation) the Folsom/Placerville railroad and runs through several areas with remnants of mining landscapes, including reclaimed dredge tailing along the Humbug Willow Creek Trail, and Humbug Creek. The project improvements, however, are not located in in an area of with known significant mineral resources in the City's General Plans and is not designated for any such use. Additionally, the project's alignment is located adjacent to East Bidwell Street and due to the urbanized nature of the site and surrounding land uses, as well as size constraints, it would not be feasible to use the project site for mineral extraction. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of known mineral resources of regional or statewide importance impacts would be less than significant and mitigation is not required. b) Result in the lass af availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated an a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Less than Significant lmpact. See a), above. The proposed project site is not currently used (or planned for use) as a mineral resource recovery site and it is not feasible for such use. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and mitigation is not required' Cumulative lmpacts
The proposed project would not result in direct or indirect permanent or temporary impacts related to the loss of a mineral resources. There are no designated or known mineral resources within the project site and the proposed project would not impact the use of any surrounding area, which are predominantly urbanized, for mineral extraction. Thus, implementation of the proposed project would not result in the January 2024 Page 111

02/13/2024 Item No.8.

CITY OF FOTSOM
Folsom/Placerville Rail Trail Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
loss of an area that is designated for mineral resource extraction and would not result in the inability to use any other areas for such purpose. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in incremental effects to the loss of mineral resources that could be compounded or increased when considered together with similar effects from other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. lmpacts would be less than significant, and mitigation is not required.

January 2O24 Page 112

02/13/2024 Item No.8.

Folsom/Placerville Rail Trail Proiect
crw oF FotsoM lnitial study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Would the project result in:

J
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise levels
in the vicinity of the project in excess of
standards established in the local general
plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
Jb) Generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
J
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 airport or public
use airport, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
Potentially
Significant
lmpact
Less Than
Significant
lmpact With
Mitigation
lncorporated
Less Than
5ignificant
lmpactENVIRONMENTAT IMPACTS
No
lmpact

4.13 Noise
a) Generation of a substantia! temparary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standords established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Less Than Significant lmpact with Mitigation lncorporated.

Construction
Construction noise typically occurs intermittently and varies depending on the nature or phase of construction (e.g. land clearing, grading, excavation, paving). Noise generated by construction equipment, including earth movers, material handlers, and portable generators, can reach high levels.

While the majority of the project site located adjacent to the existing railroad and East Bidwell Street, during construction, exterior noise levels could affect the used surrounding the construction site predominantly in the northwesterly project area between the existing Humbug Trail to Oak Avenue parkway where project activities would be in the closest proximity to residential and commercial uses.

Construction activities in this area would through the approximately 1,750-foot length of this portion of the project alignment and would not be concentrated at a single point near these uses or any sensitive receptors.

January 2024 Page 113

02/13/2024 Item No.8.
ctry oF FoLsoM
Folsom/Placerville Rail Trail Project
lnitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
The majority of construction activities would include removal and grading of existing dirt and soil in the project alignment, some removal of pavement/hardscape within existing intersections and crossing locations, and installation of new pavement (e.g., asphalt and concrete). ln addition, some coatings may be applied to materials to enhance longevity and mark the bike lanes and roadways.

These activities would require short-term use of equipment such as graders, scrapers, tractors, pavers, rollers, mixers, air compressors during to apply coating materials, etc.

Typical operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve 1 or 2 minutes of full power operation followed by 3 to 4 minutes at lower power settings. Other primary sources of acoustical disturbance would be random incidents, which would last less than one minute (such as dropping large pieces of equipment or the hydraulic movement of machinery lifts). Noise generated by construction equipment, including earth movers, material handlers, and portable generators, can levels in excess of 80 dBA. Typical noise levels associated with individual construction equipment are listed in Toble 9: Typicol Construction Noise Levels.

Table 9: Typical Construction Noise Levels
As shown inTobte 9, exterior noise levels resulting from construction site equipment could impact existing sensitive receptors in the vicinity. Sensitive uses near the project include existing adjacent residential uses to the east and the commercial uses, which would be approximately 80-100 feet from Equipment
Typical Noise Level
(dBA) at
50 feet from Source
Typical Noise Level
(dBA) at
20 feet from Sourcel
Typical Noise Level
(dBA) at
50 feet from Sourcel
Air Compressor 80 88 78
Backhoe 80 88 78
Compactor 82 90 80
Concrete Mixer 85 93 83
Concrete Pump 82 90 80
Concrete Vibrator 76 84 74
Dozer 85 93 83
G enerator 82 90 80
Grader 85 93 83
lmpact Wrench 85 93 83
Jack Hammer 88 96 86
Loader 80 88 78
Paver 85 93 83
Pneumatic Tool 85 93 83
Pump 77 85 75
Roller 85 93 83
Saw 76 84 74
Scra per 85 93 83
Shovel 82 90 80
I TUCK 84 92 82
Note:

1. Calculated using the inverse square law formula for sound attenuation: dBA2 = dBAl+2OLoe(d1/d2) Where: dBA2 = estimated noise level at receptor; dBAl = reference noise level; dL = reference distance; d2 = receptor location distance
Source: FederalTransit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration lmpact Assessment Manual, [page 176, L771,2018.

January 2024 Page 114

02/13/2024 Item No.8.

Folsom/Placerville Rail Trail Proiect
CITY OF FOTSOM lnitial study/Mitigated Declaration
potential construction site noise sources between the existing Humbug Trail to Oak Avenue Parkway.

As noted above, the balance of construction activities would occur adjacent to East Bidwell Street and to the south and undeveloped land to the north. While there are commercial uses further south of East Bidwell Street, these uses are approximately 200 feet from the trail alignment and would not be su bsta ntia I ly affected.
ln addition, noise from construction would be temporary and would be limited to daytime hours' Additionally, construction noise from the residential and commercial buildings would be dispersed along the that initial alignment by existing trees and vegetation along the margins of both sides of the railroad right-of-way. Vegetation is largely continuous along both sides of the alignment and would help buffer the nearby uses from unwanted noise. ln addition, mitigation is proposed to further minimize impacts.
lmplementation of Mitigation Measure MM NOI-1, listed further below, would ensure that all construction equipment is equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers and other state required noise attenuation devices, helping to reduce noise at the source. The highest anticipated construction noise is expected to occur during the excavation and grading phases. This maximum noise level would occur when equipment is operating under full power conditions (i.e', the equipment engine at maximum speed). However, equipment used on construction sites typically operates under less than full power conditions, or part power. MM NOI-I would attenuate construction site noise levels. Construction noise impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Operations
Long-Term Mobile Noise lmPacts
The proposed project consists of completing trail segments between the existing Humbug Trail and lron point Road. The project would be used by cyclists and pedestrians and are not considered noise intensive or noise generating uses. Furthermore, the proposed project does not involve a trip generating land use. Thus, impacts would be less than significant in this regard and no mitigation is required.

Mitioation Meosure
MM NOI-I: Prior to the start of ground disturbing activities the contractor, shall demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director, or designee, that the project complies with the following:

Construction contracts specify that all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers and other state required noise attenuation devices. property owners and occupants located within 200 feet of the proposed project boundary shall be sent a notice, at least 15 days prior to commencement of construction of each phase, regarding the construction schedule of the proposed project. A sign, legible at 50 feet shall also be posted at the project construction site. All notices and signs shall be reviewed and approved by the of City Planning Department, prior to mailing or posting and shall indicate the dates and duration of construction activities, as well as provide a contact name and a telephone number where residents can inquire about the construction process and register complaints.

January 2024 Page 115

02/13/2024 Item No.8.

CITY OF FOTSOM
Folsom/Placerville Rail Trail Project
lnitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
b)
Prior to the start of ground disturbing activities, the contractor shall provide evidence that a construction staff member will be designated as a Noise Disturbance Coordinator and will be present on-site during construction activities. The Noise Disturbance Coordinator is responsible for responding to local complaints about construction noise. When a complaint is received, the Noise Disturbance Coordinator shall notify the City within 24-hours of the complaint, determine the cause (e.g. starting too early, bad muffler, etc.), and implement reasonable measures to resolve the complaint as deemed acceptable by the Public Works Department. All notices sent to residential units surrounding the construction site and all signs posted at the construction site shall include the contact name and the telephone number for the Noise Disturbance Coordinator.

Prior to the start of ground disturbing activities, the contractor shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director or designee that construction noise reduction methods shall be used where feasible. These reduction methods include shutting off idling equipment, installing temporary acoustic barriers around stationary construction noise sources, maximizing the distance between construction equipment staging areas and occupied residential areas, and electric air compressors and similar power tools.

Construction haul routes shall be designed to avoid noise sensitive uses (e.g. residences, convalescent homes, etc.) and comply with the City approved truck routes to the extent feasible.

During construction, stationary construction equipment shall be placed such that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive noise receivers,
Generation of excessive groundborne vibrotion or graundborne noise levels? Less Than Significant lmpact. Since the project would not generate any groundborne vibration or noise associated with operational activities, increases in groundborne vibration levels from the proposed project would be associated with short-term construction-related activities.

Construction
project construction has the potential to result in varying degrees of temporary groundborne vibration, depending on the equipment used and operations involved. The FTA has published standard vibration velocities for construction equipment operations. For demolition and construction, groundborne vibrations greater than 0.5 in/sec peak particle velocity (PPV) are considered potentially significant based on the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration lmpact Assessment Manuol (September 2018) construction vibration criterion for conventional structures. Human annoyance occurs when construction vibration rises significantly above the threshold of human perception for extended periods of time. Building damage can be cosmetic or structural. Ordinary buildings that are not particularly fragile would not experience cosmetic damage (e.g. plaster cracks) at distances beyond 30 feet. This distance can vary substantially depending on soil composition and underground geological layer between vibration source and receiver. ln addition, not all buildings respond similarly to vibration generated by construction equipment. For example, for a building that is constructed with reinforced concrete with no plaster, the FTA guidelines show that a vibration level of up to 0'50 in/sec is considered safe and would not result in any construction vibration damage.

Table 70: Typicat Construction Equipment Vibration Levels,lists vibration levels at 20 and 60 feet for typical construction equipment. Groundborne vibration generated by construction equipment January 2024 Page 116

02/13/2024 Item No.8.

CITY OF FOTSOM
Folsom/Placerville Rail Trail Project
lnitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
spreads through the ground and diminishes in magnitude with increases in distance. As indicated in Table L0, based on FTA data, vibration velocities from typical heavy construction equipment operations that would be used during project construction range from 0.004 to 0.294 in/sec PPV at 20 feet from the source of activity. The nearest sensitive receptors are the commercial uses and residences approximately 80-L00 feet from the trail alignment in the northwesterly portion of the project near the existing Humbug Trail.

Table 10: Typical Construction Equipment Vibration Levels As shown in Toble -10, the highest vibration levels are achieved during demolition and grading and paving. The vibratory rollers are expected to be used primarily during the paving phase. Construction equipment vibration velocities would not exceed the FTA's 0.50 PPV threshold for the nearest sensitive receptors located approximately 80-100 feet from the construction area. ln general, other construction activities would occur throughout the project site but would not be concentrated near residential or other commercial areas. Therefore, vibration impacts associated with the project would be less than significant.
c) For a prt:iect located witttin the vicinily oJ a prittate airsfrip ar an rsirport lund use plan ar, vrtttere such a plcn has not been adapted, within two n'tlles of a public airport or public use airporl, woultl the project expose pecsple restdit'tg ar ratarking tn the pta.iect area to exressive naise levels?
No lmpact. The nearest airports to the project site is Mather Air Force Base located approximately 10 miles west of the project site. The project is not within 2.0 miles of a public airport or within an airport influence zone. Additionally, there are no private airstrips located within the project vicinity.

Therefore, the project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive airport- or airstrip-related noise levels. The project would result in no impacts and no mitigation is required.

Cumulalive lmpacts
Noise by definition is a localized phenomenon, and drastically reduces as distance from the source increases. Cumulative noise impacts involve development of the proposed project in combination with ambient growth and other related development projects. As noise levels decrease as distance from the source increases, only projects in the nearby area could combine with the proposed project to potentially result in cumulative noise impacts.

Peak Particle
Velocity at 20 Feet
(inlsec)
Peak Particle
Velocity at 60 Feet
(inlseclr
Equlpment Peak Particle
Velocity at 25 Feet
{inlsecl
o n)ai 1)aLarge o 089
n n?nn n76 o 106Loaded
n nR? n n16n nqqRock Breaker
n nAq o ooqn o?5Jackhammer
o ona o oo1(mall Rr rlldnzpr/ Tractnrs o oo?
n nq7n )ln o )qa\/ihratnrv Rnller
of the equipment adjusted for the distance; PPVr"r =
I Transit Administration , Tronsit Noise ond Vibrotion
tverut
PPVsqu;p where: PPV"o,ip
vibration level i
clethe citypartpeakNotes: PPVretfollowthe formungd
n romf abT e of7-4the ncerefere in/secn/sec
Assessmen D disthe n fromce20t8;Monual,lmpoctera
urce: Federal Transit ministration, Tran and Vibration lmpact Assessment Manua 2018.

January 2O24 Page 117

02/13/2024 Item No.8.
ctw oF FotsoM
Folsom/Placerville Rail Trail Proiect
lnitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
The proposed project's construction activities, when properly mitigated, would not result in a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels. There would be periodic, temporary, noise impacts that would cease upon completion of construction activities. The proposed project would contribute to other proximate construction noise impacts if construction activities were conducted concurrently. However, based on the noise analysis above, the proposed project's construction-related noise impacts would be less than significant following compliance with local regulations and mitigation measures outlined in this study. Construction activities at other planned and approved projects would be required to take place during daytime hours, and the City and project applicants would be required to evaluate construction noise impacts and as feasible limit construction hours from 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Therefore, project construction would not contribute to cumulative impacts and impacts in this regard are not cumulatively considerable.

January 2Q24 Page 118

02/13/2024 Item No.8.

CITY OF FOTSOM
Folsom/Placerville Rail Trail Project
lnitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Would the project:

J
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
i nfrastructu re) ?
J
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
people or housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
Potentially
Significant
lmpacts
Less Than
Significant
lmpact With
Mitigation
lncorporated
Less Than
Significant
lmpactENVIRONMENTAT IMPACTS
No
lmpact

4.14 Population and Housing
a) lnduce substantial unplanned populatian growth in an areo, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extensian of roads or othe r i nfra stru ctu re )?
Less Than Significant lmpact. The proposed project does not include the development of housing or businesses, and therefore would not directly induce population growth. The proposed improvements would not displace or require relocation of any residential or business properties resulting in the need for replacement housing elsewhere. There are no existing structures within the existing project alignment that would require replacement. The proposed project includes trail improvements that would complete segments of Class I Trail within the Joint Powers Authority (JPA) right-of-way rail easement. Class I Trail currently exists between US 50 and lron Point Road, and between Broadstone Parkway and Scholar Way. The proposed project would complete segments of Class I Trail between lron Point Road to Broadstone Parkway (approximately 0.5 miles), and from Scholar way to the western project boundary to intersect with the Humbug-Willow Creek Trail (approximately 1.0 mile).

The proposed project may generate short-term construction-related jobs, but it is anticipated that these jobs would be filled by workers in the local labor pool from local companies. Thus, the proposed project would not indirectly induce substantial population. lmpacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

January 2024 Page 119

02/13/2024 Item No.8.

CITY OF FOTSOM
Folsom/Placerville Rail Trail Proiect
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or hausing, necessitating the construction of repl aceme nt housi ng elsew here?
No lmpact. The proposed project would complete trail segments as part of the City Bikeway Master plan and also fulfil the vision of the East Bidwell Street Complete Streets Corridor Plan and the vision of the JPA. The project would create a new recreational element and would enhance safety and accessibility for bicyclists and pedestrians. As discussed in subsection a), above, the project would not remove any existing residences or businesses and would not displace any people. Therefore, no impacts would occur and mitigation is not required'
Cumulative lmpacts
The proposed project would not result in direct or indirect permanent or temporary impacts related to population or housing. The proposed project would not result in any cumulative incremental effects to population and housing that could be compounded or increased when considered together with similar effects from other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. As a result, no cumulative impacts related to population and housing would occur'
January 2O24 Page 120

02/13/2024 Item No.8.

CITY OF FOTSOM
Folsom/Placerville Rail Trail Project
lnitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Would the project result in:
a) Would the project result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times or
other performance objectives for any of the
public services:

Ji) Fire protection?
Jii) Police protection?
Jiii) Schools?
Jiv) Parks?
Jv) Other public facilities?
Potentially
Significant
lmpacts
less Than
Significant
lmpact With
Mitigation
lncorporated
Less Than
Significant
lmpact

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
No
lmpact

4.15 Public Services
a) Would the proiect result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governrnental facilities, the canstruction of which cauld cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, respanse times or ather performance obiectives for ony of the public services:

Fire protection?
Less Than Significant lmpact. The proposed project includes improvements to the existing trail network within the City of Folsom that would increase recreational resources for pedestrians and bicyclists. The project would occur outside of main roadways, and temporary lane closures and construction-related traffic would not create substantial delays or obstruct the movement of emergency vehicles. Lastly, the proposed project does not include any uses that would directly result in the generation of any new residents January 2024 Page 121

02/13/2024 Item No.8.

Folsom/Placerville Rail Trail Project
CITY OF FOLSOM lnitial study/Mitigated Negative Declaration II
or increase the demand for fire protection services such that new facilities that could result in environmental impacts would be needed. Thus, impacts to fire protection services would be less than significant, and mitigation is not required.

Police protection?
Less Than Significant lmpact. The proposed project includes improvements to the existing trail network within the City of Folsom that would increase recreational resources for pedestrians and bicyclists. The proposed improvements also would enhance safety and accessibility for bicyclists and pedestrian at street crossing. The project would occur outside of main roadways, and temporary lane closures and construction-related traffic would not create substantial delays or obstruct the movement of emergency vehicles.

Lastly, the proposed project does not include any uses that would directly result in the generation of any new residents or increase the demand for law enforcement services such that new facilities that could result in environmental impacts would be needed.

Thus, impacts to police protection would be less than significant, and mitigation is not required.
iii. Schools?
Less Than Significant lmpact. The proposed project includes improvements to the existing trail network within the City of Folsom that would increase recreational resources for pedestrians and bicyclists. The proposed project does not include any uses that would directly result in the generation of any new residents or student or increase the demand for school services such that new school facilities that could result in environmental impacts would be needed. Thus, impacts to school services would be less than significant, and mitigation is not required.
iv. Parks?
Less Than Significant lmpact. The proposed project includes improvements to the existing trail network within the City of Folsom that would increase recreational resources for pedestrians and bicyclists. The proposed improvements also would enhance safety and accessibility for bicyclists and pedestrian at street crossings. The proposed project would connect to the existing trail network but would not result in the need for other facilities that could result in increased environmental impacts. Lastly, while the proposed project, a recreational resource project, would result in ground disturbance and impacts during construction, none of these impacts would be significant. All impacts were found to result in no impact, a less than significant impacts, or would be mitigated to less than significant. Thus, impacts from the provision of new recreational resources would be less than significant and require no mitigation.

January 2024 Page t22

02/13/2024 Item No.8.
ctw oF FotsoM
Folsom/Placerville Rail Trail Project
lnitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Oth e r p u bl ic fa ci I iti es?
Less Than Significant lmpact. The proposed project would include pedestrian and bicycle improvements and complete a trail segment from the existing terminus of the Humbug Trail to lron Point Road for approximately 2.0 miles (1.25 miles of new trail that would tie into 0.75 miles of disconnected trail). The proposed project does not include any residential or other uses that would induce population growth and increase the impact to other public facilities such as libraries and childcare facilities. Therefore, impacts to other facilities would be less than significant and mitigation is not required.

Cumulative lmpocts
The proposed project would not directly increase in population in the city resulting in increased demand for public services because it is a trail improvement project. The potential cumulative impacts to public services are evaluated based upon the consideration of the proposed project together with similar effects from other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. The project is consistent with the City's General Plan policies, development design guidelines and Bicycle Master Plan and would improve safety and recreational capacity within the City. The proposed project would not result in incremental effects to public services or facilities. All emergency services would be maintained and not substantially affected by project implantation or operation and no new facilities would be needed as a result of project implementation or operation. In addition, and in consideration of this being a new recreational resource, mitigation has been proposed that would reduce all impacts that would occur to less than significant. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts to public services or facilities and require no mitigation. v
January 2024 Page 123

02/13/2024 Item No.8.

CITY OF FOTSOM
Folsom/Placerville Rail Trail Project
lnatial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Would the project:

J
a) Would the project increase 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?
J
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?
Potentially
Significant
lmpact
Less Than
Significant
lmpact With
Mitigation
lncorporated
Less Than
Significant
lmpactENVIRONMENTAT IMPACTS
No
lmpact

4.15 Recreation
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks ar other recreational facitities such that substantiul physical deteriaration of the facility would occur or be sccelerated?
Less than Significant lmpact. The proposed project includes completion of a portion of the planned City of Folsom trail network. The proposed project would complete approximately 2.0 miles (1.25 miles of new trail that would tie into 0.75 miles of disconnected trail) from the existing terminus of the Humbug Trail to lron Point Road. The proposed project also includes roadway crossing safety improvements and does not propose any residential land use that would induce population growth and increase demand or physical deterioration of local, neighborhood, or regional recreational facilities.

The new train would increase connectivity and other trails that connect to the proposed project may see increased use. The use, however, would be consistent with the intent of the overall trail system, and the intent of the City of Folsom Bicycle Master Plan. The increased use also would not lead to a substantial deterioration of other trails or any other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration would occur or such that new facilities would be needed. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required' b) Does ttte project include recreatianal facilities or require the construction or expot'rsion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the enviranment? No lmpact. The proposed project includes a new Class I trail that would complete a total of approximately 2.0 miles (1.25 miles of new trail that would tie into 0.75 miles of disconnected trail).

The proposed project would be accessible from other trails within the City and would not require January 2024 Page 124

02/13/2024 Item No.8.

CITY OF FOTSOM
Folsom/Placerville Rail Trail Project
lnitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
construction or expansion of any other recreational resources to function as intended. The proposed project includes improvements to the existing trail network within the City of Folsom that would increase recreational resources for pedestrians and bicyclists. While the proposed project would result in ground disturbance and impacts during construction, all impacts were found to result in no impact, Therefore, there will be no impacts'
Cumulative lmpacts
The proposed project would not contribute to a cumulative impact in relation to the need or use of recreational facilities. The proposed project would complete segments of Class I Trail within the Joint Powers Authority (JPA) right-of-way rail easement. Class I Trail currently exists between US 50 and lron point Road, and between Broadstone Parkway and Scholar Way. The proposed project would complete segments of Class lTrail between lron Point Road to Broadstone Parkway (approximately 0'5 miles), and from Scholar way to the western project boundary to intersect with the Humbug-Willow Creek Trail (approximately 1.0 mile). As discussed above, the proposed project would itself increase recreational connectivity within the City. All impacts associated with the proposed project would have no impacts, would be less than significant, or less than significant with mitigation. Overall, the improved access to recreation opportunities from the proposed project are considered a beneficial use. Thus, the proposed project would not, in conjunction with other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable projects and result in cumulative impacts. lmpacts would be less than significant in this regard and mitigation is not required.

January 2024 Page 125

02/13/2024 Item No.8.
ctry oF FoLsoM
Folsom/Placerville Rail Trail Project
lnitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Would the project:

J
a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or
policy addressing the circulation system,
including transit, roadway, bicycle and
pedestrian faci lities?
J
b) Would the project conflict or be
inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section
15064.3, subdivision (b)?
J
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.9., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Jd) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Potentially
Significant
lmpact
Less Than
Significant
lmpact With
Mitigation
lncorporated
Less Than
Significant
lmpact

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
No
lmpact

4.17 Transportation
o) Conflict with a pragram plan, ordinance or palicy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
Less than Significant lmpact. The proposed project would complete segments of Class I Trail within the Joint Powers Authority (JPA) right-of-way rail easement. Class I Trail currently exists between US 50 and lron Point Road, and between Broadstone Parkway and Scholar Way. The proposed project would complete segments of Class I Trail between lron Point Road to Broadstone Parkway (approximately 0.5 miles), and from Scholar way to the western project boundary to intersect with the Humbug-Willow Creek Trail (approximately 1-.0 mile). The proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan policies, development design guidelines and Bicycle Master Plan, JPA agreement, and other applicable policy and planning documents. Thus, the proposed project would not conflict with any program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system or roadways of bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
b) Would the proiect conflict ar be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section $A64.3, subdivision {b)?
Less than Significant lmpact. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 states that "vehicle miles traveled" (VMT) is the preferred metric evaluating transportation impacts, rather than LOS. VMT measures the total miles traveled by vehicles generated by a project. While LOS focuses on motor vehicle traffic, January 2O24 Page t26

02/13/2024 Item No.8.
c)
crrY oF Fot-soM
Folsom/Placerville Rail Trail Proiect
lnitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
d)
VMT accounts for the total environmental impact of a project on transportation, including use of travel modes such as buses or bicycles. Section 15064.3(b) sets forth the criteria for analyzing transportation impacts using the preferred VMT metric.

The proposed project would not conflict with or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3(b). The project would encourage a reduction in VMT by completing trail segments that would link residential areas, commercial centers, and othel recreational areas within the City of Folsom. The proposed project does not include parking and is not a vehicle trips Senerating use. The project would generate fewer than 110 daily trips which is a screening criterion provided by the Governor's Office of planning and Research for implementing Section 1,5064.3(bX1). ln addition, consistent with Section 15064.3(bX1) the proposed project would reduce VMT in the project area by encouraging more residents to use the bicycle trail instead of driving vehicles to presently unlinked uses near other trail segments. This, the proposed project is presumed to have a less than significant transportation impact and mitigation is not required.

Substantially increase hazards due to a geametric design feature (e.9., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e'g., farm equipment)? Less than Significant lmpact. The proposed project would complete sections of a Class lTrail between the existing terminus of the Humbug Trail and lron Point Road. The proposed project does not include any changes to any roadways or their alignments that would result in dangerous sharp curves or intersections. The proposed project does include safety improvements at six existing intersections or driveway segments. These intersections include lron Point Road, Broadstone Parkway, Power Center Drive, Scholar Way, College Parkway, and Oak Avenue Parkway. All roadway and driveway crossings would include a combination of lntersection Safety Concepts to help ensure safe pedestrian, cyclists, and vehicle use. The lntersection Safety Concepts would include components such as, ramps flush with the existing rail, curves to reduce approach speeds, high visibility crosswalk treatments, wide sidewalks at intersections, signage and striping at rail crossings, ADA compliant curbs, ramps, and slopes, access to the trail from side street(s), and flat slopes to improve visibility. As such, no sharp curves, dangerous intersections, or incompatible uses would be introduced by the proposed project.

Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Result in inadequate emergency access?
Less than Significant lmpact. The proposed project does not include any work that would impede emergency access. The Class I Trail would be located adjacent to the existing railroad and East Bidwell Street. The proposed project would not block any roadways or require temporary closures of roadways. Some improvements at roadway and driveway crossings may require short term lane closures to install curb ramps, striping, and signage, but access for all emergency vehicles would be maintained. ln addition, work in these areas would be scheduled as feasible during non-commute times to minimize delays. Pr,oject plans also would be reviewed by the appropriate City departments to ensure conformance with all applicable fire safety code and ordinance requirements for emergency access. Standard management practices such as communication with the department, having flagmen, minimizing closures, and having unobstructed alternate routes (although not anticipated) would maintain the efficiency of emergency access. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and mitigation is not required.

January 2024 Page I27

02/13/2024 Item No.8.

CITY OF FOTSOM
Folsom/Placerville Rail Trail Project
lnitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Cumulotive lmpocts
Cumulative transportation impacts are typically considered over a wide area, sometimes regionally, but typically smaller projects, especially Trail improvements projects such as the proposed project are considered at the City level. The proposed project would complete a segment of trail consistent with City of Folsom planning documents and would encourage more pedestrian and bicyclists to use the new trail connecting residential uses to the two commercial centers at Palladio and Broadstone. The proposed project itself was found not to have impacts associated with VMT and, as discussed has elements that could serve to reduce VMT. Taken in sum with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, the proposed project would not make a cumulative contribution to number of vehicle miles travelled and mitigation is not required.

January 2024 Page 128

02/13/2024 Item No.8.
crw oF FotsoM
Folsom/Placerville Rail Trail Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a tribal cultural resource,
defined in Public Resources Code section
21A74 as either a site, feature, place, cultural
landscape that is geographically defined in
terms ofthe size and scope of the landscape,
sacred place, or object with cultural value to
a California Native American tribe, and that
is:

JListed 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)?
JA 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 5024'7.
ln applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code
Section 5024.'J,, the lead agency shall
consider the significance of the resource to
a California Native American tribe?
Potentially
Significant
lmpact
Less Than
Significant
lmpact With
Mitigation
lncorporated
Less Than
Significant
lmpactENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
No
lmpact

4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources
Tribal cultural resources are defined inthe Colifornio Environmentol Quality Acf (CEQA) as:

1. Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe that are either of the following:
a. lncluded in or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR).
b. lncluded in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of Section 5020.1.

January 2O24 Page 129

02/13/2024 Item No.8.

CITY OF FOTSOM
Folsom/Placeruille Rail Trail Proiect
lnitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

2. 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 PRC Section 5024.1" Assembly Bill (AB) 52 defines a California Native American Tribe as a Native American tribe located in California that is on the contact list maintained by the Native American Heritage Commission (PRC Section 21073). A cultural landscape that meets the criteria of subdivision (a) is a tribal cultural resource to the extent that the landscape is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape' Sacred places can include Native American sanctified cemeteries, places of worship, religious or ceremonial sites, and sacred shrines. Both unique and non-unique archaeological resources, as defined in PRC Section 2L083.2, can be tribal cultural resources if they meet the criteria for listing in the CRHR (PRC Section 52a.1(c)). The lead agency relies upon substantial evidence to make the determination that a resource qualifies as a tribal cultural resource when it is not already listed in the CRHR or a local register' On Juf y !7,2O!g, ECORP contacted the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) to request a search of the Sacred Lands File. On August 2,2OLg, the NAHC reported that a search of the Sacred Lands File failed to indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources. The NAHC provided a list of Native American contacts for the Project area.

Letters requesting information about cultural resources in the Project area were sent to the following Native American contacts on August 5,20L9:
o Sara Setchwaelo, lone Band of Miwok lndians
. Grayson Coney, Tsi Akim Maidu
o Pam Cubbler and clyde Prout, colfax-Todds Valley consolidated Tribe e Regina Cuellar, Shingle Springs Band of Miwok lndians . Raymond Hitchcock, Wilton Rancheria
o Rhonda Morningstar Pope, Buena Vista Rancheria of Me-wuk lndians o Cosme Valdez, Nashville Enterprise Miwok-Maidu Nishinam Tribe r Gene Whitehouse, United Auburn lndian Commuity of the Auburn Rancheria On August 26,2019, ECORP received a letter post marked August 23,2019 and dated August t9,2Ot9 from the United Auburn lndian Community of the Auburn Rancheria (UAIC), requesting copies of completed technical studies and environmental documents, and requested notification of any discoveries.

UAIC is a federally recognized Tribe comprised of both Miwok and Maidu (Nisenan) Tribal members who are traditionally and culturally affiliated within the project area. The UAIC tribe has deep spiritual cultural, and physical ties to their ancestral land and are contemporary stewards of their culture and landscapes' The tribal community represents a continuity and endurance of their ancestors by maintaining their connection to their history and culture. lt is the Tribe's goal to ensure the preservation and continuance of their cultural heritage for current and future generations' On August 30,2O!g, and again on July 24, 2020, ECORP contacted each recipient by telephone to solicit information. Messages were left for all except two, who spoke directly with ECORP: Pamela Cubbler stated that there were no concerns if the impact is only in the railroad, but wants to be informed of any additional parking lots or offsite staging areas; and Grayson Coney, who said that there are no concerns because there are no significant finds to date.

January 2O24 Page 130

02/13/2024 Item No.8.

Folsom/Placerville Rail Trail Project
CITY OF FOTSOM lnitial study/Mitigated Negative Declaration On October 'J.2, 2023, UAIC requested a tribal consultation under AB 52. UAIC has a Tribal Historic lnformation System (THRIS) database composed of UAIC's areas of oral history, ethnographic history, and places of cultural and religious significance, including UAIC Sacred Lands that are submitted to the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The THRIS resources shown in this region also include previously recorded indigenous resources identified through the California Historic Resources lnformation System Center (CHRIS) as well as historic resources and survey data. When UAIC conducted a background search using the UAIC's Tribal Historic lnformation System (THRIS), the tribe did not find a tribal resource within the project area. As a result of the consultation process, Mitigation Measure MM TCR-1 below was added to the project. On December 12,2023, the UAIC agreed to close the consultation process. a) Cause o substontial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 2L074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape thot is geographically defined in terms of the size ond scope of the landscape, sacred place, or obiect with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California:
i. Listed or eligible for tisting in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historicai resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5A20.1{k)? ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretian and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Cade Section 5A24.1. tn applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1-, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe?
less Than Significant lmpact With Mitigation lncorporated. Tribal cultural resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k) have not been previously identified within the project area and are considered unlikely to be present given the historical use of the site. As discussed above, correspondence in accordance with AB 52 were sent to individual and organizations requesting notification. The letters briefly described the location and nature of the project and requested the receiving party supply comment. ln response, a letter was sent from the UAIC to ECORP requesting copies of completed technical studies and environmental documents and requested notification of any discoveries. Additionally, ECORP contacted each recipient by telephone to solicit information while messages were left for all except two, who spoke directly with ECORP. Furthermore, UAIC requested tribal consultation on October L2, 2A23. The tribe submitted recommendations to the City that are included and implemented into the proposed project.

The project site is located in a developed urban area. The surrounding uses consist mostly of commercial and residential uses with the project site mainly dedicated to recreational uses. The proposed Class I Trail would require minimal grading forthe trail, overcrossing, and undercrossing, and some excavation for footings and support structures for the possible overcrossing and undercrossing. ln addition, the proposed project does not contain any existing structures or extant historical tribal cultural resources with the potential for inclusion on the California Register of Historical Resources or a local register. However, it is possible that unknown buried tribal cultural January 2024 Page 131

02/13/2024 Item No.8.

Folsom/Placerville Rail Trail Project
CITY OF FOTSOM lnitial Negative Declaration
resources could be present on the project site. Should buried or otherwise unknown tribal cultural resources be encountered and damaged during construction, a potentially significant impact would result. lmplementation of Mitigation Measure MM TCR-1 would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measure MM TCR-1 is the mitigation measure recommended through the AB 52 Tribal Consultation with UAIC for the purpose of reducing potential impacts from unanticipated discoveries. No further analysis of this issue is required.

Mitiaation Measure
MM TCR-I: lf any suspected tribal culture resource is discovered by any person on site during ground disturbing construction activities all work shall cease within 100 feet of the find. The project Proponent shall immediately notify a Tribal Representative from the consulting Tribe or a California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with a geographic area shall be immediately notified and shall determine if the find is a tribal culture resource (PRC 521074). The Tribal Representative will make recommendations for rurther;i'-H:[:""-*;:T:::iles
that the rind is not a tribar
cultural resource, work may resume immediately, and no agency notifications are required.
lf the Tribal Representative determines that the find is a tribal culture resource (PRC 521074), work may not resume within the no-work radius until the City, through consultation as appropriate, determines that the following treatment measures have been completed to its satisfaction: Tribal Monitoring, processing materials for reburial, minimizing handling of cultural objects, leaving objects in place within the landscape, or returning object to a location with the project area where they will not be subject to future impacts. Furthermore, permanent curation of TCRs and cultural belongings will not take place unless approved in writing by the consulting Tribe.

Preservation in place is the preferred option for mitigation of TCRs under CEQA and Tribal protocols, and every effort shall be made to preserve the resources in place, including through project redesign. lf adverse impacts to TCRs, unique archeology, or other cultural resources occurs, then consultation with Tribes regarding mitigation contained in the Public Resources Code $21084,3(a) and (b) and CEQA Guidelines 515370 should occur, in order to coordinate for compensation for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments.

Cumulative lmpacts
Based on the setting of the project site, and the lack of extant historical tribal cultural resources with the potential for inclusion on the California Register of Historical Resources or a local register, the proposed project is very unlikely to result in impacts to tribal cultural resources. The proposed project; however, January 2024 Page 132

02/13/2024 Item No.8.

CITY OF FOTSOM
Folsom/Placerville Rail Trail Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
could result in potential site-specific impacts to unknown archaeological, cultural, and tribal cultural resources. Other projects within the cumulative study area also have the potential to result in damage and/or loss to such resources. The combination of the proposed project as well as past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects in the City of Folsom and Sacramento County could result in impacts' potential impacts to such resources are typically mitigated on a project-by-project basis. Accordingly, all projects would be required to comply with all applicable State, federal, and County and local regulations concerning preservation, salvage, or handling of cultural and paleontological resources, including compliance with required mitigation. Similar to the proposed project, these projects also would be required to implement and conform to mitigation measures, which would be likely to reduce impacts to less than significant. ln addition, implementation of Mitigation Measure MM TCR-I would reduce project- specific impacts to a less than significant level. Therefore, the project's contribution to cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

January 2024 Page 133

02/13/2024 Item No.8.

CITY OF FOTSOM
Folsom/Placerville Rail Trail Project
lnitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Would the proiect:

Ja) 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?
Jb) Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project and reasonably foreseeable
future development during normal, dry and
multiple dry years?
Jc) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may
serve the project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project's projected
demand in addition to the provider's existing
commitments?
Jd) 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?
Je) Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
Potentially
Significant
lmpact
Less Than
Significant
lmpact With
Mitigation
lncorporated
Less Than
Significant
lmpactENVIRONMENTAT IMPACTS
No
lmpact

4.19 Utilities and Service Systems
o) Require or result in the relacation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric pawe; na.tural gssl or telecomnunications facilities, the construction ar relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Less Than Significant lmpact. The proposes project would not result in intensification of land use or require the addition of structures or any uses that would increase demand for water, wastewater, stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities. Minor electrical January 2024 Page 134

02/13/2024 Item No.8.
c)

CITY OF FOTSOM
Folsom/Placerville Rail Trail Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
b)
improvements may be needed to install new crosswalk indicator but all work would occur within existing paved intersections that are highly disturbed. The location of these potential improvement is included in the project footprint and hence considered evaluated as part of this lnitial Study. Finally, the project includes bike trail improvements sidewalk improvements, and it would not require the expansion or development of new utilities, the construction of which could result in impacts to the environment. lmpacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Have sufficient woter supplies availoble to serve the project and reasanably foreseeable f uture development during narma!, dry, and multiple dry yeors? No lmpact. The proposed project includes approximately 2.0 miles of Class I bicycle trail improvements from the existing Humbug Trail on the northwest to lron Point Road to the southeast.

The project would construct approximately 1.25 miles of new trail that would tie into 0.75 miles of disconnected trail. The proposed project would not result in intensification of land use or require the addition of structures or any uses that would increase long term demand for water. Short-term water demand would increase for dust control and construction needs but would be nominally small and would be served by existing entitlements and resources. No new or expanded water entitlements would be required resulting in no impacts to water supplies.

Result in a determination by the wastewater treatffient provider which serves or may serve the project tltat it hos adequate capacity to serve the proiect's proiected demand in oddition to the provider's existing commitments?
Less Than Significant lmpact. As discussed above, the proposed project includes a trail extension and does not include uses that would generate wastewater. Short-term wastewater would be generated during construction (e.g. portable toilets) but would be nominally small and not exceed existing wastewater treatment capacity. lmpacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Generate solid waste in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
Less Than Significant lmpact. As previously stated, the proposed project would not result in an intensification of land use, or the addition of structures or uses that would result in an increased demand for waste services. The bike trail would not result in a long-term generation of substantial volumes of waste that would require disposal. Construction of the proposed project, however, would result the generation of minor volumes of solid waste from construction debris, but because it mainly consists of paving, and would not construct any new structures that require building materials, waste generation would be minimal. Waste that is generated during construction could be self-hauled, or contract services with City for disposal. Removed hardscape materials would be recycled to the extent feasible. The City of Folsom Waste and Recycling Division provides efficient, cost-effective trash, recycling, green waste, and hazardous materials collection services (City of Folsom, 20221. Waste would be recycled as possible and likely be disposed of at the Keifer Landfill (permitted through January 20641, which has a permitted throughput of 10,81"5 tons per day. Construction debris would result in an incrementally small contribution to the land fill and would not substantially reduce capacity of the landfill. lmpacts would be less than significant and mitigation is not required. d)
January 2024 Page 135

02/13/2024 Item No.8.

CITY OF FOISOM
Folsom/Placerville Rail Trail Project
lnitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
e) Comply with federal, state, and local mandgement and reduction statutes ond regulations related to solid woste?
Less Than Significant lmpact. As noted above, the proposed project would generate a nominal volume of construction waste during the construction phase. The proposed project would be required to comply with all State mandated waste reduction programs which the City has implemented and would apply to the proposed project when appropriate. Further, the proposed project would not compromise the City's compliance with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to management and reduction of solid waste. lmpacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Cumulative lmpacts
Utilities are generally provided or delivered on a local level but often originate from sources outside of the City as part of a regional distribution system. As noted above, the proposed project would not result in substantial increased demand for any utilities and would generate a nominal volume of solid waste.

The proposed project would not result in the need for any expanded or utilities that could result in an impact on the environment. Lastly, though not applicable to the proposed project, other planned projects are subject to connection and service fees to assist in facility expansion and service improvements triggered by an increase in demand. Thus, the proposed project would not result in incremental impacts to utilities or service systems that, taken in sum with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would not result in significant cumulative utility impacts and no mitigation would be required.

January 2024 Page 136

02/13/2024 Item No.8.
ctw oF FotsoM
Folsom/Placerville Rail Trail Project
lnitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
lf located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:

J
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
J
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?
J
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?
J
d) Expose people or structures to significant
risks, including downslope or downstream
flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff,
post-fire slope instability, or drainage
changes?
Potentially
Significant
lmpact
Less Than
Significant
lmpact With
Mitigation
lncorporated
Less Than
Significant
lmpactENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
No
lmpact

4.20 Wildfire
Discussion
The proposed project is not located in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) as identified by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). The project is located in a Local Responsibility Area (LRA), which identifies the project area as a Non-Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (Non-VHFHSZ). The nearest State Responsibility Area (SRA) is located to the south of Highway 50 and is designated as a Moderate FHSZ. The City General Plan states that portions of the City are in areas with moderate to high wildfire risk and include locations along the American River and near the Folsom-El Dorado Hills border. lt also notes that the regions hot, dry summers create an annual wildfire threat.

January 2O24 Page 137

02/13/2024 Item No.8.

Folsom/Placerville Rail Trail Project
CITY OF FOTSOM lnitial study/Mitigated Negative Declaration a) Substantialty impair on odopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No lmpact. The City has an Evacuation Plan, an Emergency Operations Plan (EOP), and a Community Wildfire Protection Plan. Part of the focus of these plans both, defining emergency responses as well as evacuation routes. The project site is not located within an existing evacuation route and would not require revisions to existing evacuation plans. The proposed project is a trail, and it is not located in an area that would obstruct the response plan to an emergency and is not located in an area that would impair an emergency evacuation plan. The proposed project would make minor improvements to existing intersections, but this work would not result in closures that would impact an emergency response or evacuation. Therefore, there will be no impacts that would impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
b) Due to slope, prevoiling winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutont concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
No lmpact. As identified by CAL Fire, the project site is located within an urban area and is identified as not being located in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. The project site is in a highly urbanized area, and while there is undeveloped land to the north adjacent to Folsom Lake College, this area consists of upland grassy vegetation that is not a wildfire hazard. ln addition, the proposed project includes a bike trail and does not include any uses that would be habitable and place people at risk. lmpacts would not occur and mitigation is not required. c) Require the installation or maintenance of ossociated infrastructure {such as raads, fue} breoks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exocerbate fire risk or thot may result in temporary or angoing impacts to the environment? Less Than Significant lmpact. The proposed project includes construction of a bike trail and would not require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, powerlines, or other utilities that could exacerbate fire risk resulting in impacts to the environment. The proposed project is in an urban environment, and would occur adjacent to existing railroad tracks and existing roadways. lmpacts in this regard would be less than significant and mitigation is not required
d) Expose people or structures to significont risks, including downslope or downstreom flooding ar landslides, os a result af runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? Less Than Significant lmpact. The proposed project is not located in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. The project site is flat and is not located near any areas with steep slopes that would be conducive to downslope or downstream flooding or landslides as a result of fires. The proposed project includes a bike trail and does not include any uses that would be habitable. While some of the undeveloped area to the north of the project site near Folsom Lake College is on very gently sloping ground, a fire would not result in the exposure of people to significant risk including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides as a result of post fire instability. lmpacts in this regard are less than significant and mitigation is not required.

January 2024 Page 138

02/13/2024 Item No.8.

CITY OF FOTSOM
Folsom/Placerville Rail Trail Project
lnitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Cumulative lmpacts
The incremental effects of the proposed project related to wildfire, would be minimal, and any effects would be site specific. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in incremental effects to wildfire that could be compounded or increased when considered together with similar effects from other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. The proposed project would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts to or from wildfires and mitigation is not required.

January 2024 Page 139

02/13/2024 Item No.8.

CITY OF FOTSOM
Folsom/Placerville Rail Trail Project
lnitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Does the project:

J
a) 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?
J
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects)?
J
c) Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directlY or
indirectly?
Potentially
Significant
lssues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
lncorporated
Less Than
Significant
lmpactIMPACTSENVIRONMENTAT
lssues
No
lmpact

4.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance
a) Have the potentiol ta substantiolly degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a t'ish ar wildlife population ta drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plont or animal comntunity, substarttially reduce the number ar restrict the range af a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the maior periads of California history or prehistory? Less Than Significant lmpact With Mitigation lncorporated. The analysis in this lnitial Study includes an evaluation of the project impacts associated with aesthetics, agricultural and forest resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, mineral resources, January 2024 Page 140

02/13/2024 Item No.8.
ctw oF FoLsoM
Folsom/Placerville Rail Trail Project
lnitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
CI)
noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation/traffic, tribal cultural resources, utilities and service systems, and wildfire. The analysis covers a broad spectrum of topics relative to the potential for the proposed project to have environmental impacts. This includes the potential for the proposed project 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, 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.

The proposed project would occur within a disturbed area within the existing JPA railroad right-of- way and other adjacent highly disturbed areas that do not contain resources nor would be commonly used by sensitive species or contain sensitive biological resources. As discussed in Section 4.4, Biological Resources, above, the proposed project would result in potentially significant impacts to biological resources, but these impacts would be reduced through the incorporation of mitigation. ln addition, due to past development efforts, the potential for cultural resources or tribal cultural resources to be present or located during construction activities is considered to be low (see Sections

4.5 and 4.18) and impacts would be less than significant. Thus, for the reasons presented throughout this document, the proposed project would not 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, 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.

Nonetheless, the proposed project would be approved with adoption of mitigation to reduce potential impacts to nesting birds and includes mitigation for inadvertent discovery of cultural resources. Thus, on the basis of the foregoing analysis, the proposed project has the potential to significantly impact biological resources including special-status plant and wildlife species. Measures have been proposed that would mitigate impacts to a less than significant level.

Does the project have impacts that sre individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? {"Cumulatively considerab!e" medns that the incremental effects of a proiect are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of ather current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? Less Than Significant tmpact With Mitigation lncorporated. The analysis in this lnitial Study includes an evaluation of the project impacts associated with aesthetics, agricultural and forest resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, mineral resources, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation/traffic, tribal cultural resources, utilities and service systems, and wildfire. The analysis covers a broad spectrum of topics relative to the potential for the proposed project to have environmental impacts. lt was found that the proposed project would have either no impact, a less than significant impact, or a less than significant impact with the implementation of mitigation measures. These mitigation measures would also function to reduce the project's contribution to cumulative impacts.

January 2O24 Page 141

02/13/2024 Item No.8.

CITY OF FOTSOM
Folsom/Placerville Rail Trail Proiect
lnitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
c)
The proposed project would not increase the population or the use of public services and systems and would not conflict with any applicable plans for the area. The proposed project would increase the capacity of the trail system and result in a new connection between adjacent residential, commercial, and recreational uses. The proposed project, however, would not facilitate or increase the potential for development in the area result in, or encouraging additional impacts to occur. ln addition, any future projects would be subject to environmental review under CEQA. There are no significant cumulative or cumulatively considerable effects that are identified associated with the proposed project after the implementation of all mitigation measures. Thus, with the implementation of all mitigation measures proposed in this lnitial Study, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact.

Daes the project have environmental effects which w'ill cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less Than Significant lmpact With Mitigation lncorporated. The project proposes to construct a new bike trail between the existing Humbug Trail and lron Point Road. Potential adverse project effects on human beings were discussed in Section 4.3, Air Quality; Section 4.7, Geology ond Soils (seismic hazards); Section 4.9, Hozards ond Hozordous Materiols; Section 4.7O, Hydrology ond Woter Quolity (flooding); Section 4.17, Transportotion (traffic hazards); and Section 4.20, Wildfire. No potential adverse effects on human beings were identified. Potential adverse effects that were identified would be reduced to levels considered less than significant through compliance with applicable laws, regulations, and City ordinances and standards, along with mitigation measures where necessary. As a result of this evaluation, there is no substantial evidence that there are adverse effects on human beings associated with the proposed project.

January 2024 Page 142

02/13/2024 Item No.8.

CITY OF FOTSOM
Folsom/Placerville Rail Trail Project
lnitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
References
California Air Resources Board (CARB) 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective' Available at: https://www'arb.ca.eov/ch/handbook. pdf' Caltrans, 2022 Scenic Highway System Lists Available
ns.ma .a html?id=465dfd
flaacaa Accessed: August 14,2023.

California Department of Conservation, State of California lmportant Farmland Map, 2016 Available at:
https://m a ps.conservation.ca. gov/DLRP/Cl FFl Accessed : Au gust 14, 2023.

WRECO, 201-9, Folsom/Placerville Rail Trail Project Biological Resource Study - City of Folsom, Sacramento County. Accessed: August t5,2023
City of Folsom, 2008, City of Folsom General Plan Map
https://www.folsom.ca.us/home/showdocument?id=230&t=638161246397454596 August 14,2023
City of Folsom, 2075, City of Folsom 2015 Urban Water Management Plan https://www.folsom.ca. us/home/showpu blisheddocu m e nt/7821637467522 101870000 August L4,2023.

Calrecyle, 2022, SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details,
https://www2.calrecvcle.ca.eov/SolidWaste/SiteActivitv/Details/2070?sitelD=2507 August L4,2023
Available:

Accessed:

Available:

Accessed:

Available
Accessed
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. Available at:
https://oe hha. ca.gov/airlcrn r/notice-adoption-a ir-toxics-hot-spots-proera m-Au idance-m a nual- preparation-health-risk-0 . Sou rces :

FRAP, 2007, Sacramento County Fire Hazard Severity Zone in State Responsibility Area. Available httos: //osfm.fi re.ca.eov/ ial 6756/fhszs mao34.odf Accessed: August 14,2023 FRAP, 2008 - Sacramento County Fire Hazard Severity Zone in Local Responsibility Area, Available https://osfm.fire.ca.sov/media/6758/fhszl map34.pdf Accessed: August L4,2023.

Federal Transit Administration, 2018, Transit Noise and Vibration lmpact Assessment Manual. Available:
file:///C:/Users/lackie.Avbar/Downloads/dot 37056 DSl.pdf Ipage 175-177] Accessed: August 14, 2023
January 2O24 Page 143

02/13/2024 Item No.8.

Folsom/Placerville Rail Trail Project
CITY OF FOISOM lnitial study/Mitigated Negative Declaration This page intentionally left blank
January 2024 Paget44

02/13/2024 Item No.8.

Folsom/Placerville Rail Trail Project
CITY OF FOTSOM lnitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Appendix A
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Modeling Data

02/13/2024 Item No.8.

CITY OF FOTSOM
Folsom/Placerville Rail Trail Project
lnitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Appendix B
Biological Resource Study

02/13/2024 Item No.8.
clw oF FotsoM
Folsom/Placerville Rail Trail Project
lnitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Appendix C
Archaeological Survey Report

02/13/2024 Item No.8.

CITY OF FOTSOM
Folsom/Placerville Rail Trail Project
lnitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Appendix D
Draft lnitial Site Assessment

02/13/2024 Item No.8.

This page is intentionallA left blank
to facilitate double-sided printing .

02/13/2024 Item No.8.

Folsom City Council
Staff Re rt
MEETING DATE: 211312024
AGENDA SECTION: Consent Calendar
SUBJECT: Resolution 11166 - A Resolution Authorizing Staff to Submit a Grant Application for Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) Carbon Reduction Program for the Folsom Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Overcrossing Project
FROM: Parks and Recreation Department

RECOMMENDATION / CITY COUNCIL ACTION
A resolution authorizing staff to submit a grarf application for Sacramento Area Council of Govemments (SACOG) Carbon Reduction Program for the Folsom Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Overcrossing proj ect.

BACKGROUND / ISSUE
In 2018, staff submitted an application as part of the Active Transportation Program (Cycle 4) grant funding opportunity for a Folsom Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Overcrossing. In20l9, staff was informed that the project did not receive funding. The comments received from the application reviewers focused on the lack of public outreach. Understanding the need for a more robust public outreach process to support the project in the next grant funding opportunity, staff worked to secure funding for a feasibility study.

On August 26,2022, the City of Folsom issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) for professional design services for the Folsom Boulevard Class I Overcrossing Feasibility Study. The RFP was distributed to qualified design consultants and advertised on ClPlist.com. The due date for the proposals was September 30, 2022, and three proposals were received. A full review of these proposals was performed by city staff from both the Public Works and Parks and Recreation departments. Dokken Engineering's proposal demonstrated the expertise, capacily, and ability to complete the scope of services which entails project management, public workshop facilitation, bridge design, and cost estimation.

Between March and October 2023,the Parks and Recreation Department along with its consultant team conducted extensive outreach on a range ofpossible overcrossing routes and designs across 1

02/13/2024 Item No.9.

Folsom Boulevard between the Glenn Station area Parkshore Drive. Based on public input, the range of routes and designs was narrowed down from four altematives to two. One alternative is north of the Glenn light rail station and the second is south of the station area as shown in Attachments I and 2. Based on community input and project team expertise, staff believe the North Alternative Alignment provides the most benefits to pedestrians and bicyclists.

On January 23,2024, City Council approved the North Alternative Alignment as the preferred alternative for the Folsom Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Overcrossing project.

POLICY / RULE
Th" *"it""-*trt review process and mitigated negative declaration preparation and filing is pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Article 6, Sections 15070 and 15071 of the California Administrative Code. The City of Folsom is the responsible agency, and the City Council is responsible for the final determination of the environmental analysis.

ANALYSIS
I" J""" 2022, Ihe City Council adopted the Active Transportation Plan (ATP). The Active Transportation Plan is the guiding document that will provide the planning, development and maintinance of existing and future bicycle and pedestrian facilities within the city. The ATP identified the Folsom Boulevard Overcrossing as a "high priority" project.

An overcrossing would provide safe, direct access for residents and businesses east of Folsom Boulevard to the American River Parkway Trail (ARPT), including the communities and neighborhoods that border the ARPT. The overcrossing will be a gateway to connect residents and visiiors to a larger network of trails in the region. The overcrossing provides a connection between the regional, l5-mile Humbug Willow Creek (HBWC) Trail east of Folsom Boulevard andthe32- mile American River Parkway Trail (ARPT), providing users access to over 80 miles of trails in the region and connecting users to downtown Sacramento.

As part of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IlJA)/Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) signed into law inNovember202l,the U.S. Department of Transportation established the Carbon Reduction Program (CRP). This program provides funding to states and Metropolitan Planning Organizatiotrr (VfOs; for projects designed to reduce transportation-related carbon emissions from on-road highway sources.

The CRP funding is distributed to the state, at which point funding is split into state programs and ,,local,' (i.e., MFO and non-MPO regional transportation planning agencies) programs sub- allocated by the state. SACOG must use a performance-based process to select projects consistent with the Carbon Reduction Strategy adopted by the SACOG board in June 2023.

FINANCIAL IMPACT
Th"t. ir "o dir""t financial impact associated with this action at this point. Should the City be awarded grant funding for the project the City would be required to provide local matching funds of 11.47% of the amount granted. Once the project is awarded grant funding staff will retum to Council to identifr the source of the match required and accept the grant if approved. 2

02/13/2024 Item No.9.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) only applies to projects that have the potential to cause a significant effect on the environment. The requested action is not considered a project under CEQA pursuant to Section 15061(bX3).

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution No. I 1166- A Resolution Authorizing Staff to Submit a Grant Application for Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) Carbon Reduction Program for the Folsom Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Overcrossing Project Submitted,
Kelly G onzalez, Director

PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT
J

02/13/2024 Item No.9.

RESOLUTION NO. 11166

A RE,SOLUTION AUTHORIZING STAFF TO SUBMIT A GRANT APPLICATION

F'OR SACRAMENTO AREA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS (SACOG)

CARBON REDUCTION PROGRAM FOR THE FOLSOM BOULEVARD

BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN OVERCROSSING PROJECT
WHEREAS, inNovember2023,the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) released a request for project applications for the Carbon Reduction Program (CRP) grant opportunity; and
WHEREAS, as part of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IlJA)/Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) signed into law in November 2021, the U.S. Department of Transportation established the Carbon Reduction Program (CRP).; and WHEREAS' the CRP program provides funding to states and Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) for projects designed to reduce transportation-related carbon emissions from on-road highway sources; and
WHEREAS' the City of Folsom proposes to apply for a CRP grant to fund environmental review compliance and design/engineering for the Folsom Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Overcrossing Proj ect; and
WHEREAS, once the project is awarded grant funding, staff will return to Council for approval of the source of the required match funding; and NOW' THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Folsom authorizes staff to submit a grant application to the Sacramento Area Council of Governments Carbon Reduction Program for the Folsom Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Overcrossing Project.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 13ft day of February 2024,by the following roll-call vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Councilmember(s):

Councilmember(s):

Councilmember(s):

Councilmember(s):

ATTEST:

Christa Freemantle, CITY CLERK
ResolutionNo. 11166
Page I of 1
Michael D. Kozlowski, MAYOR

02/13/2024 Item No.9.
&
Folsom City Council
Staff Re ort
MEETING DATE: 2n3t2024
AGENDA SECTION: Consent Calendar
SUBJECT Resolution No. 1 1167 - A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Agreement with HydroScience Engineers, Inc. for Design and Engineering Services During Construction for the Tower Tank Rehabilitation Project
FROM: Environmental and Water Resources Department

ATION A
The Environmental and Water Resources Department recommends the City Council pass and adopt Resolution No. 11167 - A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Agreement with HydroScience Engineers, Inc. for Design and Engineering Services During Construction for the Tower Tank Rehabilitation Project'

BACKGROUND / ISSUE
The Environmental and Water Resources (EWR) Department identifies water infrastructure rehabilitation and replacement projects through water master plans, ongoing water condition assessment programs, and regulatory changes. Through these efforts, portions of the water system have been identified as needing rehabilitation or replacement in order to improve the water distribution system reliability. Through these efforts, EWR staff identified the Tower Tank Rehabilitation Project as a priority project.

The Tower Tank Rehabilitation Project involves improvements and repairs to five of the City's water tanks due to aging infrastructure. The water tanks that will be rehabilitated include Tower Tank, Foothills Tanks No. 1 and No. 2, South Tank, and East Tank No. 2. As part of the City's Water Tank Inspection Program Project, the Tower Tank and East Tank No. 2 werc inspected in 2018 and the Foothills Tanks No. 1 and No. 2 and South Tank were inspected in20l9. The tanks were also inspected by the State Water Resources Control Board Division of Drinking Water (DDW) in April 2022.
1

02/13/2024 Item No.10.

Per the recommendations from the inspection reports and recommendations by EWR staff from the City's routine maintenance inspections, the improvements and repairs at the five tank locations will include:
o Interior tank recoating
o Structural repairs
. Blower and mixer installation
. Ladder upgrades for climbing the outside of the tank
o Cathodic protection system upgrades
o Electrical upgrades
o Interior and exterior overall upgrades
o Exterior spot recoating
This resolution will authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement with HydroScience Engineers, Inc. for design and engineering services during construction for the Tower Tank Rehabilitation Project for a not-to-exceed amount of $398,950.

POLICY / RULE
In accordance with Chapter 2.36 of the Folsom Municipal Code. supplies, equipment, services, and construction with a value of $73,209 or greater shall be awarded by City Council.

ANALYSIS
In October 2018, the EWR Department completed a pre-qualification process for consultants for design and construction administration services for water and wastewater projects. The consulting firms HydroScience Engineers, Inc., Bennett Engineering Services, HDR, Inc., and Peterson Brustad,Inc. (PBI) were among a group of firms selected to provide these services for this type of proj ect through this previously completed pre-qualification process.

On Decemb er 22,2023,the City requested proposals from the four pre-qualified consultants listed above to provide contract documents including plans, front end specifications, technical specifications, and other miscellaneous items to complete the project manual for public bid of the construction project, as well as engineering services during construction for the Tower Tank Rehabilitation Project. On January 18, 2024, EWR received proposals from HydroScience Engineers, Inc., Bennett Engineering Services, HDR, Inc., and Peterson Brustad, Inc.

The proposals were evaluated by three EWR staff members for technical evaluation prior to reviewing project costs. The proposals were reviewed and scored for project understanding, project team staffing, and recent relevant experience. The technical evaluations were scored as shown in Table 1 based on a maximum technical score of 75.

Table l: Consultant Technical Scores without Costs
Consultant EWR 1 EWR 2 EWR 3 Total Average
HydroScience Engineers, Inc. 70 70 64 204 68.0
Bennett Engineering Services 44 55 50 r49 49.7
2 Page 236
02/13/2024 Item No.10.

HDR,Inc. 64 69 64 197 65.7
Peterson Brustad, Inc. 66 63 53 182 60.7
After reviewing each proposal for project understanding, project team staffrng, and recent relevant project experience, the proposals were reviewed for project costs. The fee schedules for the scope of work outlined in the request for proposals from each consultant are shown in Table 2.

Table 2: Consultant Costs
HydroScience Engineers, Inc. was determined to provide the best value to the City based on the fee amount, pastproject experience involving work of similar scope and complexity including staff coordination and technical knowledge and expertise for these types of projects. HydroScience Engineers, Inc. included additional design detail and elaborated on the project understanding compared to the other three consultants for this project, including construction scheduling, tank shutdown scheduling, and coordination with SMUD. Table 3 shows the overall total scores including project costs based on a maximum score of 100.

Table 3: Consultant Overall Costs
This resolution will authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement with HydroScience Engineers, Inc. for design and engineering services during construction for the Tower Tank Rehabilitation Project for a not-to-exceed amount of $398,950.

F'INANCIA I,IMPACT
The Tower Tank Rehabilitation Project is included in the Fiscal Year 2023-2024 Capital Improvement Plan with a total project budget of $2,905,000. Sufficient funds are budgeted and u.t iiluble in the Water Operating Fund (Fund 520). The EWR Department recommends that the contract be awarded to HydroScience Engineers, Inc. for $398,950.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This project is replacement andlor improvement of existing infrastructure with negligible or no expansion of use and therefore is categorically exempt from environmental review under the J
X'ee AmountConsultant
$398,950HydroScience Engineers, Inc.
s5t1,472Bennett Engineering Services
$558,945HDR,Inc.
$398,519Peterson Brustad, Inc.

Total ScoreTechnical
Score (Avs.)
Cost ScoreConsultant

93.068.0 25.0HydroScience Engineers, Inc.

69.149.7 19.5Bennett Engineering Services

17.8 83.565.7HDR.Inc

25.0 85.760.7Peterson Brustad, Inc.

02/13/2024 Item No.10.

California Environmental Quality Act as noted in Title 14 - Califomia Code of Regulations, Chapter 3 - Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Article 19 - Categorical Exemptions, Sections 15301 (Existing Facilities), 15302 (Replacement or Reconstruction), and/or 15304 (Minor Alterations to Land).

ATTACHMENT
Resolution No. 1 1167 - A Resolution Authori zing the City Manager to Execute an Agreement with HydroScience Engineers, Inc. for Design and Engineering Services During Construction for the Tower Tank Rehabilitation Project
Submitted,
Marcus Yasutake, Director

ENVIRONMENTAL AND WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT
4 Page 238
02/13/2024 Item No.10.

RESOLUTION NO. 11167

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH HYDROSCIENCE ENGINEERS,INC. F'OR DESIGN AND

ENGINEERING SERVICES DURING CONSTRUCTION FOR THE TOWER TANK

REHABILITATION PROJECT
WHEREAS, the City has identified this project as a priority to maintain integrity and operation of the water distribution system; and
WHEREAS, the rehabilitation work identified to enhance the City's water distribution system and to continue to provide reliable water service to the City includes rehabilitating Tower Tank, Foothills Tanks No. 1 and No. 2, South Tank, and East Tank No. 2; and WHEREAS, HydroScience Engineers, Inc. by reason of their experience and abilities for performing these types of services, are qualified to perform the required consulting services for the project; and
WHEREAS, the Tower Tank Rehabilitation Project is included in the Fiscal Year 2023^ 24 Capital Improvement Plan with a total project budget of $2,905,000; and WHEREAS, sufficient funds are budgeted and available in the Water Operating Fund (Fund 520) inthe amount of $398,950; and
WHEREAS, the agreement will be in a form acceptable to the City Attorney NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Folsom authorizes the City Manager to execute an agreemsnt with HydroScience Engineers, Inc. for design and engineering services during construction for the Tower Tank Rehabilitation Project for a not- to-exceed amount of $398,950.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 13th day of February, 2024, by the following roll-call vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Councilmember(s):

Councilmember(s):

Councilmember(s):

Councilmember(s):

ATTEST:

Christa Freemantle, CITY CLERK
Resolution No. 11167
Page I of 1
Michael D. Kozlowski, MAYOR

02/13/2024 Item No.10.

This page is intentionally Ieft blank
to facilitate double- sided printing .

02/13/2024 Item No.10.

Folsom City Council
Staff ort

RECOMMENDATION / CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Staff requests that the Mayor appoint Mary Johnson (with approval from the City Council) to the Folsom Landscaping and Lighting District Advisory Committee to represent the Lake Natoma Shores District for the term ending in December 2026.

BACKGROUND / ISSUE
Folsom Municipal Code Chapter 16.56 establishes the Landscaping and Lighting District Advisory Committee (L&L Committee) and defines the Committee's purpose as helping to enhance-the line of communication between city staff and elected/appointed city bodies. The citizens, committee may also make recommendations to the Landscaping and Lighting District Manager, the Community Development Director and the Public Works Director concerning the maintenance and associa-ted costs to maintain and improve landscaping and lighting districts.

The Committee is comprised of one person from each landscaping and lighting district. The members shall be regisiered voters and residents or owners within their respective landscaping and lighting district and serve for a period offour years (unless they are appointed to serve the remainder of an unfilled term).

POLICY/ RULE
Folsom Municipal Code Section 16.56.030(8) states that the mayor shall appoint each of the members, subject to the approval of the City Council.
1 MEETING DATE: 211312024
AGENDA SECTION: Consent Calendar
SUBJECT: Appointment of At-Large Member to the F
and Lighting District Advisory Committee
olsom Landscaping
to Represent the Lake
Natoma Shores District
F'ROM: City Clerk's Department

02/13/2024 Item No.11.

ANALYSIS
The L&L Committee continues to have vacancies for certain districts, and staff maintains an open recruitment for these vacancies. One application has recently been received for the Lake Natoma Shores District vacant seat from Mary Johnson
Staff has confirmed that the applicant's address is within the Lake Natoma Shores District and that the applicant is a registered voter and they are therefore eligible to be appointed. The application has previously been provided to the City Council for advance consideration.

Re spectfully submitted,
Christa Freemantle, CMC
City Clerk
2 Page 242
02/13/2024 Item No.11.

B
Folsom City Council
Staff ort
MEETING DATE: 21t312024
AGENDA SECTION: Consent Calendar
SUBJECT: Receive and File the City of Folsom Annual Comprehensive Financial Report for the Year Ended June30,2023
FROM: Finance Department

RECOMMENDATION / CITY COUNCIL ACTION
It is recommended that the City Council receive and file the City of Folsom Fiscal Yeat 2022- 23 AnnualComprehensive Financial Report. A bound hard copy of the report will be provided the night of the council meeting.

BACKGROUND / ISSUE
Each year the City is audited by an independent certified public accountant that renders a written opinion as to the accuracy and completeness of the Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR). The City of Folsom received an unqualified opinion on the financial staiements from Badawi & Associates Certified Public Accountants for the year ended June 30,2023.

The City also submits the ACFRto the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) for consideration in their Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting Program. The City received this award for Fiscal Year 2021-22 and we expect the report to earn the award again this year.

Submitted,
Tamagni
1 Finance Director/CFO

02/13/2024 Item No.12.

This poge is intentionallA Ieft blank
to facilitate double- sided printing .

02/13/2024 Item No.12.

Folsom City Council
Staff Re ort

RECOMMENDATION / CITY COUNCIL ACTION
The Parks and Recreation Department respectfully requests that the City Council provide direction to staff on the future of the steam train operations at Folsom City Lions Park.

BACKGROUND / ISSUE
Folsom City Lions Park, located at 403 Stafford Street, has served as the site for the scale live- steam train railway since 1970. Terry and Geri Gold, dba Folsom Valley Railway, aka Golden Spike Entertainment, acquired the train concession from the previous owner in the early 1990s and have operated as the concessionaire since then. Golden Spike Entertainment owns and operates the complete railway, equipment, and structures apart from the boarding platform that is owned by the City.

In February 2008, staff conducted a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the Scale Live-Steam Train and Snack Bar Concessions (Attachment 1). Two bid packets were received and reviewed. Terry Gold, dba Golden Spike Entertainment, submitted a proposal for both the Scale Live-Steam Train and Snack Bar Concessions, while the City of Folsom Zoo Sanctuary submitted a proposal for the Snack Bar Concession operations only.

Subsequently, at the October 27,2009, City Council Meeting, Council passed Resolution No. 8572 (Attachment A), authorizingthe City Manager to Execute a Train Concession Agreement with Golden Spike Entertainment at Folsom City Lions Park. The Snack Bar Concessions were awarded to the City of Folsom Zoo Sanctuary. The current agreement with Golden Spike Entertainment for the train operations is set to continue through December 3l,2024 (Attachment 2).
1 MEETING DATE: 2n312024
AGENDA SECTION: New Business
SUBJECT: Direction on the Future of Steam Train Operations at Folsom City Lions Park
FROM: Parks and Recreation Department

02/13/2024 Item No.13.

Terry Gold, dba Golden Spike Entertainment, plans to relocate and sell the complete railway operation (scale live-steam train, diesel-electric engine, gondolas, tracks, and barn) in early 2024 A prospective buyer has expressed interest in transporting all assets and equipment to Utah.

Alternatively, Mr. Gold has extended an offer to sell the complete railway to the City of Folsom for $375,000.

As part of the proposal, Mr. Gold is providing the City with the flexibility to opt for a payment plan. Under this arrangement, an initial downpayment of $75,000 in2024, followed by six (6) annual payments of $50,000 each subsequent year until the total amount is settled in 2030. Mr.

Gold ensures that this payment plan will not incur any interest fees.

POLICY / RULE
All powers of the City shall be vested in the City Council except as otherwise provided by the City Charter. Section 2.02 of the City Charter.

ANALYSIS
Folsom Valley Railway has become a landmark amenity for Folsom City Lions Park and the City of Folsom. The concessionaire pays the City of Folsom a monthly land use rental fee of $1,800 per month. According to the concessionaire, the train operation is profitable, with roughly 40,000 riders per year, and generates rough net revenues between $100,000-$1 14,000 per year.

To provide a comparative overview of the revenue before and after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the concessionaire has shared gross and net income figures for 2019 and2022 (table 1). The operating expenses reported by the concessionaire are listed in2023 costs. Furthermore, it's important to note that pre-pandemic, the train operated six days per week (Tuesday-Sunday), and currently it operates four days per week (Thursday-Sunday).

Table 1
Gross income 2019 $168,000.00
2022 $130.000.00
Operatine Expenses (reflect 2023 costs)
a State inspections/year $7ss.00
a Insurance/year $3,000.00
a Fuel cost for diesel-electric (1.5-gallon red
die diesel/day) and steam engine (1.25-gallon
red die diesel/hr.) $1,330.00
a Chemicals for steam engine (4-5-year
supply) $220.00
a Oil for steam engine (600 weight super
cylinder oiI - 2-year supply) $9s.00
a Miscellaneous parts (currently well stocked) $0.00
a Water softener (price per year) $360.00
2 Page 246
02/13/2024 Item No.13.
a Security system (price per year) $240.00
a Rent to the CiE of Folsom (price per year) $23,603
Net income 2019 $114,800.00
Net income 2022 $100,400.00
The concessionaire owns the assets listed in Table 2. All assets are operational. The total and remaining economic life are approximated by the concessionaire.

Table2:

Total Life Remaining
Life
Maintenance and Repairs
Steam engine 50 years 45 years oil and lubricate as needed Diesel-electric engine 30 years 25 years once a year oil change Cattle car 100 years 75 years grease once every three months Gondolas 100 years 75 years grease once every three months Caboose 100 years 75 years grease once every three months Cool water misting system unknown unknown
Train barn 75 years 25 years paint every five years
Tools 100 years 100 years none
Water hoses air hoses 25 years 20 years none
Weed eater 20 years 15 years change the oil once a year Track switches new 75 years oil once every three months Gauge bars and rods 50* yss15 unknown
Ballast 100 years 100 years
Signage unknown unknown none
Retaining walls 100 years unknown none
Because staff are not subject matter experts on train specifications, operations, or maintenance, the Department solicited an independent assessment of Folsom Valley Railway by RMI Railworks (Attachment 3). In the assessment of the existing railway and equipment, RMI Railworks, values the present worth of the rail and equipment at$275,000. It is important to note that this assessment excludes an evaluation of business records, the business name, and gross ridership.

Additionally, in the assessment, RMI Railworks notes that the overall condition of the rolling stock (riding cars and caboose) is in acceptable condition, but the majority will require some wheel replacements moving forward. It was also noted that the track is in acceptable condition and is safe for present operational condition, but some areas will need repair in the future. There are approximately 50 wooden ties in need of replacement due to deteriorated condition, and several places where tree roots have grown under the tracks and are beginning to lift the rail sections.
aJ Page 247
02/13/2024 Item No.13.

The concessionaire has proposed selling the railway to the City of Folsom for $375,000. At this point, the price has not been further negotiated. In consulting with different vendors, preliminary estimates suggest that procuring a new railway and tracks for the area would likely range between $500,000-$575,000.

Staff are asking for direction from the City Council at the February 13,2024, meeting as to which of the below options they would like the Department to pursue. Department staff also welcome input from the City Council as to other possibilities that may not have been considered.

I Frrrflrpr orza'lrrqfp to ^rrt^hoso onrl nnarofe fha Folsom Volla.r P ailrrrqrr This option would allow the City to have direct control over ticket prices and generate additional revenue, with the potential for higher profitability. A percentage of the net revenue generated would be used to offset the deferred maintenance of the train and facilities and assets within the Department.

Additionally, in consulting with other zoos and parks with train operations, the majority have employees who are skilled engineers or trained operators running the train, and maintenance staff proficient in maintaining the engine and tracks (Attachment 4). To ensure efficient and safe train operations, the Parks and Recreation Department would adopt a similar model, requiring the development and allocation of two new full-time train engineer or train operator positions filled by individuals capable of running and maintaining the train and tracks.

There are nofunds allocatedfor the purchase of a scale live-steam train, or new train engineer/operator positions in the FY 2023-24 udopted Budget,

2. Further evaluate options to purchase Folsom Vallev Railway and solicit a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the train operations and maintenance. Similar to the first option, this approach maintains the City's oversight over the operation without necessitating the creation of new in-house positions. By partnering with an established entity, the City can hamess the expertise and resources of external professionals to ensure efficient and successful train operations. This approach mitigates the need for extensive training and recruitment efforts within the Department and streamlines the operational aspect.

There are no funds allocatedfor the purchuse of a scale live-steam train in the FY 2023-24 adopted B udget.

3. Decline the purchase and further evaluate options to solicit a Request for Proposal (RFP) for a new Scale and Railwav. This would allow the City to explore other potential entities interested in operating their own Scale Train. However, soliciting an RFP does not guarantee suitable responses, which could potentially lead to avacant site for an unknown duration, and potentially decreased attendance at the City of Folsom Zoo Sanctuary.

There is no guarantee of suitable responses to the RFP, which could potentially lead to a vacant sitefor an unknown duration.
4 Page 248
02/13/2024 Item No.13.

4. Decline the purchase and further evaluate options to convert to another use: A potential option includes converting the roughly 4,000 ft of tracks to a walking path. This option is low maintenance, but it does require an up-front cost and does not generate any additional revenue for the City. Additionally, it could potentially have a negative impact on attendance at the City of Folsom Zoo Sanctuary, and special events held at the City of Folsom Zoo Sanctuary and Folsom City Lions Park'
Altematively, the City could explore acquiring a different type of train that doesn't rely on tracks similar to the train in use at the Sacramento Zoo or the Roseville Fountains.

Although this choice involves an upfront cost (initial estimates for an electric, trackless train range between $30,000-$75,000) and regular maintenance and inspections, it eliminates the need for extensive operator training, special licensing, and ongoing track upkeep.

There are nofunds allocutedfor the conversion to a walking path or the purchase of a trackless train in the FY 2023-24 Budget
After the direction is received from the City Council, staff will provide further research and in- depth analysis to execute the direction accordingly and will report back to the City Council as necessary.

FINANCIA I,IMPACT
There is no financial impact associated with this action at this point. The City currently has no funding budgeted for the purchase, operation, and maintenance in the Fiscal Year 2023'24 Budget that acquiring the scale Live-Steam Engine operation would require. Depending on the direction provided by Council further analysis of the financial impact may be required.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The recommended action of the City Council is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and therefore does not require environmental review.

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1: Resolution No. 8572 and Staff Report dated October 27,2009 Attachment 2: Train Concession Agreement with Amendment No. 2 dated December 6,2019 Attachment 3: Folsom Valley Railroad Evaluation
Attachment 4: Scale Railroad Operations Comparison
Submitted,
5 Kelly Gonzalez, Parks and Recreation Director

02/13/2024 Item No.13.

Attachment L
Resolution No. 8572 and Staff Report dated October 27,2009

02/13/2024 Item No.13.

RESOLUTION NO,8572

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A TRAIN CONCESSION AGREEMENT WITH GOLI}EN SPIKE ENTERTAINMENT AT

FOLSOM CITY LIONS PARK
WHEREAS, Folsom ValleyRailway/Golden Spike Entertainment has been successfully operating the Train Concession at Folsom City Lions Park since the early 1990's; and WHEREAS, staff conducted aRequest forProposals (RFP) for the Scale Live-Steam Train and/or Snack Bar Conoessions; and
WHEREAS, Golden Spike Entertainment was the sole Train Concession proposal; and WHEREAS, the Parks and Recreation Commission recommended extending the Folsom Valley Railway/Golden Spike Entertainment Train Concession Agreement for a five-yearbase term with the city's sole discretion to renew for another five-years; and NOW THDREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Counoil of the City of Folsom hereby authorizes the City Manager to execute a Train Concession Agreement with Golden Spike Entertainment at Folsom CityLions Park.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 27m day of October}l}9,by the following roll-call vote:

AYES: , Council Member(s): Howeil, Morin, Sheldon' Starsky, Miklos NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Council Mwtbe(s): None
Corurcil Member(s): None
CouncilMember(s): None
ATTEST:

Christa Schmidt, CITY CLERK
Resolution No.8572
Pagc I ofl

02/13/2024 Item No.13.

CONSENT CALENDAR
AgendaItemNo.: (#)
City Council Meeting: 10127109
DATE: October 27,2009
TO: Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Parks and Recreation Department
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY

MANAGER TO EXECUTE A TRAIN CONCESSION AGREEMENT

WITH GOLDEN SPIKE ENTERTAINMENT AT X'OLSOM CITY LIONS
PARK

BACKGROUND / ISSUE
Folsom City Lions Park has served as the site for the Scale Live-Steam Train and Snack Bar Concessions for over 20 years. Terry and Geri Gold, dba Folsom Valley Railway, aka Golden Spike Entertainment, purchased the train concession from the previous o\Mner in the early 1990's and have since been the concessionaires. The live-steam train, rails, ballast, barn, and antique bell on the boarding platform are owned by Golden Spike Entertainment, The Snack Bar is a city-owned facility; however, all the food equipment is owned by the concessionaire.

At the February 5, 2008 Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) meeting, the subcommittee recommended and the Commission directed staff to conduct a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the Scale Live-Steam Train and Snack Bar Concessions. The Notice to Concessionaires was advertised in the Folsom Telegraph on December 3, 2008, and the January/February 2009 issue of the Live Steam and Outdoor Railroading magazine. This magazine is published in Michigan and readership/distribution in nation-wide.

POLICY / RUL.E
S"cti"" 2.36.080 of tne Folsom Municinal Code, requires that contract in excess of $41,750 be awarded by the City Council.

ANALYSIS
Staff received two out-of-state and six in-state inquiries. RFP's were sent to all who inquired.

The City received and opened two bid packets on March 2,2009. Terry Gold, dba Golden Spike Entertainment, submitted a proposal for both the Scale Live-Steam Train and the Snack Bar Concessions. The Folsom City Zoo Sanctuary Division submitted a proposal for the Snack Bar Concession operations only.

Recommendations for the Proposals for the Train and Snack Bar Concessions went to the PRC as an Action ltem at the May 5,2009 meeting. The Commission recommended proceeding with the Folsom City Zoo Sanctuary Proposal for the Snack Bar Concession; and to offeriextend the Folsom Valley Railway/Golden Spike Entertainment Train Concession Agreement for a five- year base term and at the sole discretion of the City, a one-time five-year option to renew'

02/13/2024 Item No.13.

The current Concession Agreement shall continue through December 31,2009. The new Train Concession Agreement (Attachment 2) will be effective beginning January 1,2010 through December 31,2074, Two items were added to the Train Concession Agreement not included in prior contracts: (1) Use of rodenticide is prohibited on all City property; and (2) Concessionaire shall provide staffing to monitor the tracks during Special Events including, but not limited to, Concert in the Park Series. The other sontract deal points will remain the same.

FINANCIAL IMPACT
@htsandprivilegesgrantedfortheoperationofthetrainconcessionis based on a formula. The components of the formula include the last fiscal year Annual Zoo Attendance, the Train Ride Ticket Price (currently $2.00) and the ratio of historical Zoo attendance to reported Train Patronage (currently 55%). The monthly payment for January 2010 - June 2010 is $98S.41. Over the life of the agreement, the payment will be recalculated every July. The amount will fluctuate minimally depending on any change in any of the components.

Anticipated revenue is already included in the FY 09/10 budget.

The financial impact of awarding the Snack Concession to the Zoo Sanctuary Division was favorable. The financial details of the Snack Concession are discussed in a separate staff report, and in summary, result in an estimated $15,000 increase in revenue to the City.

ATTACHMENTS
f . nesotutio" No. - A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to execute a Train Concession Agreement with Golden Spike Entertainment at Folsom City Lions Park

2. Train Concession Agreement
RECOMMENDATTON / CIrY COUNCIL ACTIOII
Council pass and adopt Resolution No.
-
A Resolution
Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Train Concession Agreement with Golden Spike Entertainment at Folsom City Lions Park'
Respectfully Submitted,
Robert Goss, Parks and Recreation Director

02/13/2024 Item No.13.

Attachment 2
Train Concession Agreement with Amendment No. 2 dated December 6,2019

02/13/2024 Item No.13.

CITY OF FOLSOM
AMENDMENT NO. 2
TO

TRAIN CONCESSION AGREEMENT
The Train Concession Agreement ("Agreement") dated as of January 1,201O, between the CITY OF FOLSOM, a municipalcorporation, ("City") and TERRY and GERI GOLD, individuals, dba Golden Spike Entertainment ("Concessionaire") and as amended on September 30,2011 is further amended as set forth on Exhibit 1, Amendment to Agreement; and Exhibit 2, Amendment to Exhibit C. (Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2 are attached hereto and incorporated herein.)
lN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be duly executed.

Date: I of Folsom,
unicipal
a 6 q Concessionaire: TERRY and GERI GOLD,
individuals, dba Golden Spike Entertainment
By: &
rq"r ,e"al
By: &^l Gol&
Approved As To Content:
/-7-P
Lorraine Poggione, Parks and Recreation Date
City
AM
Approved As To Form:

L/
, City Attorney
.' ' --'',-.-
Jttests:
lfpoz-o
Date
F ing Available
t(11
Tamagn i, Finance Director Date
of consultant. Ca
another olace shall be
the acknowledqment is
Folsorn File No. 172-21 09-063
10356 11/1 2/2019 Amend 2 I 29396
70 s
sufficient
made-t'
must be
ection
in this
Freemantle, City C
with
ls
place
Res
illllllllllllllll lllillllllllllllll
/ ,f\..
'5
,-t

02/13/2024 Item No.13.

CALIFORNIA ALL.PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
A Notary public or other offrcer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, aud not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.

State of California
County of Sacramento )
On Veonl,E- g,ZAI1 before me, T.D. Frev- Notarv
personally appeared
who proved to,me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in hislher/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by hisftrer/their signature(s) on the insffument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.

I certifr under PENALTY OF PERruRY under the laws of State of California that the foregoing paragraph is tnre and correct.

WITNESS my hand and ofFrcial seal.

SrcNa

PLACENOTARY SEAL ABOVE
I02l
gomlnlirlon,
Cpmm,
Though the information below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent removal and reattachment of this form to another document' Description of attached document
Title ortype ofdocument: fuvatdmnotl-
^\r-il'k'Tta.tn
[email protected] &,'!o-"*
Document Date of Pages:_-.-
Signer(s) Other than Named

02/13/2024 Item No.13.

EXHIBIT 1
AMENDMENT NO. 2

TRAIN CONCESSION AGREEMENT
The Agreement is amended as follows:

A. Section 2. TERM OF AGREEMENT is deleted and the following is inserted in its place:

This Agreement shall continue through December 31 ,2024, unless otherwise terminated or extended as set forth in the Agreement'
B. Section b. HOURS AND DAYS OF OPERATIONS is deleted and the following is inserted in its place:

A. Normal Hours and DaYs
(1) Concessionaire shall operate the miniature railroad Tuesday through Sunday, and on national holidays from March 1 through November 30. The hours of operation will be posted at http:/lfolsomvallevrailwav.com/ and updated by Concessionaire as needed. Concessionaire will post signage of closure for the California State Fair and Sacramento County Fair if Concessionaire intends to suspend Folsom operations during this time.

Concessionaire may take a two-month break during the off-season of train concession operations (normally January and February) for making necessary repairs and maintenance. Concessionaire must request and receive written approval of Director seven days prior to any break exceeding seven (7) days not within January-February time frame. The Concessionaire will post the hours of operation with the notation "weather permitting".
(2) Concessionaire shall operate the miniature railroad on specified dates and times from December 1 through December 30 for the Wild Nights and Holiday Lights Event ("Holiday Lights Evenf') as per written notification by Gity on or before September 1 of each year.

B. Special Events
Goncessionaire may operate the miniature railroad during Special Events with the following conditions:
(1) Holiday Lights Event: The Concessionaire will provide staffing for taking train ride tickets as needed. The Concessionaire is responsible for notiffing (face-to-face or personal phone conversation) the City every Holiday Lights Event operating day, one-hour prior to opening, as to whether the train will or will not be operating due to weather conditions or unforeseen emergencies. Failure to notiff the Ci$ about Concessionaire's decision to NOT operate one-hour prior to opening, (a "no-show") will result in a $100

02/13/2024 Item No.13.
per night assessment as liquidated damages, to be deducted from the final payment to the Concessionaire. The parties here to recognize and acknowledge that the actual damage due to Concessionaire's no-show is difficult to calculate and likely to exceed the amount of liquidated damage assessed herein, and hereby agree that the amount of liquidated damage represents fair and reasonable remedy for Concessionaire's no-show.

City may authorize Concessionaire to operate during additional new Special Events on a case by case basis. The City reserves the right to modiff, add, or cancel Special Events in Folsom City Lions Park.

C. Section 6. FEES is deleted and the following is inserted in its place:

A. Goncessionaire's fee for a train ride shall be $3.00 upon execution of this Amendment No. 2 to Agreement. All proposed fee increases by Concessionaire shall be communicated to the City in advance and in writing.

B. Concessionaire recently provided 2,000 complimentary train tickets to the Parks and Recreation Department at no cost to the City for its discretionary use related to other children's recreation programs, camps, and activities. These tickets shall not expire until December 31 ,2024. Concessionaire agrees to provide an additional2,000 complimentary train ride tickets to the Parks and Recreation Department by January 1 ,2025 if the five-year option to renew is exercised and these tickets would not expire until December 31 ,2029.

C. The fee for the train ride ticket for the Holiday Lights Event will be set by the City by September 1 each year of the Event. By January 31 of the following year, the City will make payment to the Concessionaire for the Holiday Lights Event based on the following:
1) The standard train ride fare (currently $3.00) per train rider during the Holiday Lights Event. Ridership will be determined from the Recreation Registration Software, RecTrac.
2) A fee reduction of $100.00 per night for each "no show" during the Holiday Lights Event.

D. Section 10. PAYMENT is deleted and the following is inserted in its place:

A. Miniature Railroad
(1) Concessionaire agrees to pay the City for the rights and privileges granted herein the monthly concession fee of $1,800.00.
(2) The fee shall be increased each year by an amount equal to three (3%) of the License Fee in effect for the previous year of the Term, as shown in Exhibit C.

02/13/2024 Item No.13.

B. Special Events
(1) Concessionaire agrees to pay the City a flat rent of $20Olnight for any special events Concessionaire operates'
(2) Concessionaire is not required to pay a special event fee for the Holiday Lights Event, except in the case of a "no-show", as noted above.

C. Total Payment
The combined amount shallbe paid monthly by Concessionaire on or before the 1Oth day of each month. A late fee of $50.00 shall be assessed for each day payment is delinquent after the 1Oth of the month in which payment is due.

E. Section 21. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS is amended as follows:

A. lndependent Contraotor is amended by adding the following paragraph:
ln the event Concessionaire or any employee, agent, or subcontractor of Concessionaire providing services under this Agreement is determined by a court of competent jurisdiction orthe California Employees Retirement System (PERS) to be eligible for enrollment in PERS as an employee of the City, Concessionaire shall further indemniff, protect, defend, and hold harmless the City for the payment of any employee and/or employer contributions for PERS benefits on behalf of Concessionaire or its employees, agents, or subcontractors, as well as for the payment of any penalties and interest on such contributions, which would otherwise be the responsibilitY of CitY'
B. Records and Audits is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:

Concessionaire shall, with respect to business done by it pursuant to this Agreement, keep such true and accurate accounts, records, books and data which will show allsales and gross receipts. Concessionaire shall maintain all records for inspection or audit throughout the Term of this Agreement and for a period of five (5) years after expiration or termination of this Agreement. This section shall survive expiration or termination of this Agreement.

G. and H. are deleted in their entlrety and replaced with the following:

G. Venue. This Agreement shall be deemed to be made in, and the rights and liabilities of ne parties, ind the interpretation and construction of the Agreement governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Any legal action arising out of this Agreement shall be filed in and adjudicated by a state court in the County of Sacramento, State of California'
H. Enforigabllltv, lf any term or provision of this Agreement is found to be void, voidable, irwatlO or une.nforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction under the laws of the State of California, any and all of the remaining terms and provisions of this Agreement shallremain binding.

02/13/2024 Item No.13.

The followinq additional orovisions are added to Section 21:

L Time. All times stated herein or in any other contract documents are of the essence. .1. ginOlno. This Agreement shall bind and inure to the heirs, devisees, assignee_s. and successors in interest of Concessionaire and to the successors in interest of City in the same manner as if such parties had been expressly named herein.

K. Survivorshio. Any responslbility of Concessionaire for warranties, 'insurance, indernnityJecord keeping or compliance with laws with respect to this Agreement shall noi be invalidated due to the expiration, termination or cancellation of this Agreement.

L. Wliver. ln the event that either City or Concessionaire shall at any time or times waive -acfr
of this Agreement by the other, such waiver shall not constitute a waiver of
-any
other or succeeding breach of this Agreement, whether of the same or any other covenant, condition or obligation. Waiver shall not be deemed effective until and unless signed by the waiving party.

Vt. Agleement in Writing. This Agreement, with exhibits, contains and embraces the @eenthepartiesheretoandneitheritnoranypartofitmaybe
changed, altered, modified, limited, or extended orally or by any agreement between the parties unless such agreement be expressed in writing, signed, and acknowledged by City and Concessionaire, or their successors in interest.

N. Other- Provisions. The City may, but shall not be obligated, to promote the Concessionaireb train operation through the Parks and Recreation Department newsletter and other media channels when there is opportunity to do so' Concessionaire will not use the Zoo Sanctuary phone or City facilities for business or personal purposes.

O. Authoritv to Execute. The person or persons executing this Agreement on behalf of the pilties]tereto warrants and represents that he/shelthey has/have the authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of their entlty and has/have the authority to bind their party to the performance of its obligations hereunder' p. Counterparts. This agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each.of which shail be deemed an original, and will become effective and biding upon the parties at such time as all of the signatories hereto have signed a counterpart of this Agreement. All counterparts so executed shall constitute one Agreement binding on all of the parties hereto, notwithstanding that all of the parties are not signatory to the same counterPart.

Except as amended herein, all other provisions of the Agreement and any previously approved amendments thereto remain in fullforce and effect.

02/13/2024 Item No.13.

EXHIBIT 2
AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO EXHIBIT C

TRAIN CONCESSION AGREEMENT
Exhibit C is added to the Agreement as follows:

Exhibit C
Year
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Monthly Fee
$1,800.00
$1,854.00
$1,909.62
$1,966.91
$2,A25.92
$2,086.69
$2,149.29
$2,213.77
$2,280.19
$2,348.59
Total
$21,600.00
$22,248.A0
$22,915.44
$23,602.90
$24,310.99
$25,040.32
$25,791.53
$26,565.28
$27,362.23
$28,131.10

02/13/2024 Item No.13.

Attachment 3
Folsom Valley Railroad Evaluation

02/13/2024 Item No.13.

RHI &ottMotDnts
174 LnUBERT Sr, Oxt*ARD, gA 93036 -TEL 5
Folsom Vallev lroad evaluation
Location: 50 Natoma St. Folsom
Behind Folsom Library/ Zoo Park area
Purpose: RMI made a site visit to the Folsom Valley Railroad on October 6,2023 for the purpose of evaluating the installation of the railroad and its equipment, as requested bythe Folsom Park and Recreation District.

Contact: Elizabeth Vaage
Presently operating is a 12" gauge railroad supplying paid rides to local residents as operating on a noted schedule. Cost of rides is approximately Se.OO per person' Equipment
L Atlantic type 4-4-2 steam engine: 12" gauge, condition recently refurbished, running gear, bushings were tight, wheel wear minimal, equipment operated correctly. Boiler was represented as re-tubed, however unable to be determined present condition, as no current boiler inspection/pressure report was available on site. At the time of inspection the boiler appeared completely functional, operated correctly, injectors and relief values operated correctly upon maximum steam pressure. Running operation of locomotive appeared to be completely functional and operating in a normal fashion.

Overall condition: Very acceptable, safe for present operational condition,

02/13/2024 Item No.13.

2. Rolling stock 12" gauge,4 riding cars and 1 Caboose. Riding cars (1) recently refurbished with new wheel sets and bushing/bearings, and paint. Remaining cars and Caboose were serviceable, however showed extensive wheel wear in need of replacement going fonarard.

Overall condition: Acceptable, safe for present operational condition, excluding future needed repairs as noted.

3. F series Diesel locomotive: 12" gauge unable to view at time of inspection. Locomotive within the past few months had a new diesel engine and operational controls were installed from photos supplied by Terry Gold, engine appears in good condition. Unable to determine condition of the running gear from the photos presented.

Overall condition: Appears acceptable, safe for present operational condition as represented. c''

4. Track: 12" Gauge. Track length is approximately 4200 running feet consisting of 12 lb rail using wooden tie material with 3 mainline switches in place. Presently the overall condition of the track is in acceptablecondition,howeverdoesrequiremaintenanceinseveral areas. Theentirelengthoftrack was walked, required repairs are: up to approximately 50 wooden ties need replacement due to deteriorated condition.

02/13/2024 Item No.13.

Railroad Crossing forZoo Access was damaged by a vehicle, rail/ties and cement crossing needs replacing and is not serviceable to operate on. Noted in several places, tree roots have grown under the track and are beginning to lift the rail sections that causes a wave like condition in the track and will require root removal going forward.

Root 1
Overall.condition: Acceptable, safe for present operational condition, noted repairs needed in the near future.

The installed railroad is very unique and specialized for the location. 72" railroad products are not common in the marketplace and equipment is very limited. Repair parts and services in general are commonly available and are not unique to the gauge of the equipment. Present cost evaluation as to the value of the equipment is difficult for the comparison process due to the gauge.

Estimated value of used equipment based on comparable 15" gauge equipment, adjusted for L2" size:, Steam locomotive: S100,000
Riding Stock: Sts,ooo
Diesel locomotive S 60,000
lnstalled Track S100,000
Total estimated present value of equipment and installed rail in place: 5275,000

02/13/2024 Item No.13.

Consideration factors
The exiting railroad is presently an installed and operating venue and is widely known to the area as well as outside area residents and appears to have a large following, The cost per ride charged for ride is

53.00, this is substandard to normal rates in this type of venue. Normally SS to Sz dollars per rides are very common place.
lf the City operates this venue it is strongly recommended not to operate the steam engine on a regular basis,asthecostofoperationandsafetyconcernsshouldbeastrictconsideration. Operationofthe steam engine requires an experienced operator familiar with steam, and maintenance of the equipment, whereas the diesel should be considered the main operational locomotive on the railroad. Steam operators are available from the area, such as qualified members from the Sacramento Live Steamers, who run steam on a regular basis.

Respectfully,
William Dundas
RMI Railworks

02/13/2024 Item No.13.

Attachment 4
Scale Railroad Operations Comparison

02/13/2024 Item No.13.

Attachment 3: Scale Railroad Operations Comparison
Type ofTrain Own railway/
Concessionaire Train Operations Engine and Track Maintenance lrvine Regional
Park
Propane
24" gauge track
Owned by lrvine
Regional Park
lrvine Regional Park
employees - trained
engineers and
conductors
The train engineers and conductors
perform light maintenance on the train
and tracks. The park has additional
matinenance crew who help with larger
scale maintenance and repairs.

Griffith Park
Train Rides
5 locomotives, all
propane powered
L8.5" gauge & 16"
gauge track
Concessionaire
(partners with the City
of Los Angeles Parks
and Recreation)
Concessionaire runs
the train.

Concessionaire performs all maintenance
and most repairs.

Oakland Zoo Gasoline
24" gauge track
owned by the Oakland
Zoo
Zoo employees Zoo maintenance crews perform train
maintenance, and a mechanic is on site at
all times the train is running.

Sacramento
Valley live
Steamers

7.5" scale train Non-profit business
owns railway and
some of the trains;
individual club
members own some
trai ns.

Volunteers/club
members
Volunteers/club
Sari Francisco
Zoo
Steam (retrofitted to
run on natural gas)
22" gauge track
Owned by the San
Francisco Zoo
Zoo employees -
trained engineers
who are part of a
union shop
Zoo maintenance crews perform basic
train maintenance. Sometimes the engine
has to be sent off-site for repairs (no
backup available).

Santa Ana Zoo 48 volt electric DC
motor
L4" gauge track
Owned by the Friends
of the Santa Ana Zoo
(non-profit)
Zoo employees Zoo employees
Santa Barbara
Zoo
Diesel engine Owned by the Santa
Barbara Zoo
Zoo employees Zoo employees

02/13/2024 Item No.13.

Folsom City Council
Staff ort

RECOMMENDATION / CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Receive presentation regarding departmental priorities for the upcoming FY2024-25 Budget, a review of the City's financial challenges and projected structural deficit, and the City's adopted current and historical pie charts indicating allocation of the Budget by departments, and provide direction to staff.

BACKGROUND / ISSUE
Staff wishes to continue its commitment to commirnicating early and often with the City Council about the Budget process, particularly in the context of declining sales tax revenue growth and structural deficit that the City faces. Department heads will present their top priority Budget requests that they intend to put forward to the City Manager as part of the Budget development process. The City Manager will again review the City's financial challenges and projected structural deficit with the City Council as well as seek direction from the City Council as to the desired department allocation pie chart for the FY2024-25 Budget' Submitted,
1 MEETING DATE: 211312024
AGENDA SECTION: New Business
SUBJECT: FY 2024-25 Preliminary Budget Workshop with Presentation of Departmental Budget Priorities, Review of the City's Financial Challenges and Projected Structural Deficit, and the City's Budget Allocations by Department and Direction to Staff
FROM: City Manager's Office
Elaine Andersen, City Manager

02/13/2024 Item No.14.

This page is intentionally left blank
to focilitste double- sided printing .

02/13/2024 Item No.14.