Agenda packet — Rancho Cordova City Council, July 17, 2023 (part 13 of 14)

Professional Profile
Frank B. Postma, P.G., LSP, LEP
lgus, Inc.; East Providence, Rhode Island; Project Manager—Project Manager for coordination and completion of installation of an engineered barrier at this regulated site. Conducted storm sewer, ground penetrating radar, geotechnical investigations in support of a comprehensive design and plan to stabilize gypsum landfill. Completed cost estimates for remediation, performed oversight during remediation, coordinated disposal of contaminated soils, and completed summary report. Conducted annual Environmental Land Use Inspections and prepared corrective action reports.

Project Date: 2012 — Present
Project Value — $66,000; Contract Type — Time and Materials; EA Project No. — 6250601; EA Project Manager — Frank Postma
Paragon Mills.; Providence, Rhode Island; Project Manager—Project Manager for design of the investigation of the site. Developed the remedial alternatives and prepared conceptual designs of the engineered cover systems that incorporated stormwater management best management practices. Prepared the Site Investigation Report that was ultimately approved by Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management.

Project Date: 2012 — Present
Project Value — $50,000; Contract Type — Time and Materials; EA Project No. — 1537701; EA Project Manager — Frank Postma
Lincoln Lace and Braid.; Providence, Rhode Island; Project Manager—Project Manager for completion of the investigation of the site. Developed the bidding specifications and prepared the design of the engineered cover systems that incorporated stormwater management best management practices, a recreational bike path and surface water remedial system, Prepared the Remediation Closure Report and Environmental Land Use Restriction that was ultimately approved by Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management.

Project Date: 2009-2012
Project Value — $118,000; Contract Type — Time and Materials; EA Project No. — 6189105; EA Project Manager — Frank Postma
Roger Williams Park.; Providence, Rhode Island; Project Manager—Project Manager for investigation of a release of diesel fuel and gasoline from an underground storage tank at the maintenance garage of Roger Williams Park. Designed the monitoring well network and sampling program to determine the efficacy of injections of oxygen releasing compounds. Prepared quarterly status reports that were submitted to Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management. Conducted groundwater modeling to determine the fate and transport of the contamination.

Project Date: 2008-2009
Project Value — $5,000; Contract Type — Time and Materials; EA Project No. — 6189107; EA Project Manager — Frank Postma
Petco Plaza Remediation; Peabody, Massachusetts; Scangas Brothers—A fuel oil release migrated beneath the slab of the existing building at this site. Produced a Phase | Site Investigation Report and Tier Classification for the Site, classifying as Tier Il. Contributed design of remedial approach and produced cost benefit analysis to determine most economically viable remedial approach. Produced Release Abatement Measure Plan to acquire Order of Conditions from City of Peabody Conservation Commission. Task Manager for field events, production of reports, and implementation of in situ chemical oxidation injections, which successfully destroyed the non-aqueous phase liquid and associated petroleum contamination. Completed a Release Abatement Outcome Statement indicating that the remediation efforts were successful at meeting all remediation standards.

Project Date: September 2009 — Present
Project Value — $362,795; Contract Type — CPM; EA Project No. — 147030X; EA Project Manager — Frank Postma
Massachusetts Contingency Plan Compliance; Manchester-by-the-Sea, Massachusetts; Seabreeze Variety— Senior Project Manager responsible for identifying the appropriate regulatory pathway, implementing the postremedial monitoring program, analyses of the collected data. and providing the detailed technical review of the regulatory documentation. The site is a current petroleum dispensing facility that had opted to replace two underground storage tanks. A release of gasoline product was identified during the removal of the underground storage tanks that impacted soils and groundwater. The impacted soils were excavated following the installation of

sheet piles. Soil groundwater and indoor air quality were assessed. The project will require a Massachusetts EA ’
Professional Profile
Frank B. Postma, P.G., LSP, LEP
lgus, Inc.; East Providence, Rhode Island; Project Manager—Project Manager for coordination and completion of installation of an engineered barrier at this regulated site. Conducted storm sewer, ground penetrating radar, geotechnical investigations in support of a comprehensive design and plan to stabilize gypsum landfill. Completed cost estimates for remediation, performed oversight during remediation, coordinated disposal of contaminated soils, and completed summary report. Conducted annual Environmental Land Use Inspections and prepared corrective action reports.

sheet piles. Soil groundwater and indoor air quality were assessed. The project will require a Massachusetts EA ’
Professional Profile
Frank B. Postma, P.G., LSP, LEP
6 Igus, Inc.; East Providence, Rhode Island; Project Manager—Project Manager for coordination and completion of installation of an engineered barrier at this regulated site. Conducted storm sewer, ground penetrating radar, geotechnical investigations in support of a comprehensive design and plan to stabilize gypsum landfill. Completed cost estimates for remediation, performed oversight during remediation, coordinated disposal of contaminated soils, and completed summary report. Conducted annual Environmental Land Use Inspections and prepared corrective action reports.

Project Date: 2012 – Present
Project Value – $66,000; Contract Type – Time and Materials; EA Project No. – 6250601; EA Project Manager – Frank Postma
Paragon Mills.; Providence, Rhode Island; Project Manager—Project Manager for design of the investigation of the site. Developed the remedial alternatives and prepared conceptual designs of the engineered cover systems that incorporated stormwater management best management practices. Prepared the Site Investigation Report that was ultimately approved by Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management.

Project Date: 2012 – Present
Project Value – $50,000; Contract Type – Time and Materials; EA Project No. – 1537701; EA Project Manager – Frank Postma
Lincoln Lace and Braid.; Providence, Rhode Island; Project Manager—Project Manager for completion of the investigation of the site. Developed the bidding specifications and prepared the design of the engineered cover systems that incorporated stormwater management best management practices, a recreational bike path and surface water remedial system, Prepared the Remediation Closure Report and Environmental Land Use Restriction that was ultimately approved by Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management.

Project Date: 2009–2012
Project Value – $118,000; Contract Type – Time and Materials; EA Project No. – 6189105; EA Project Manager – Frank Postma
Roger Williams Park.; Providence, Rhode Island; Project Manager—Project Manager for investigation of a release of diesel fuel and gasoline from an underground storage tank at the maintenance garage of Roger Williams Park. Designed the monitoring well network and sampling program to determine the efficacy of injections of oxygen releasing compounds. Prepared quarterly status reports that were submitted to Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management. Conducted groundwater modeling to determine the fate and transport of the contamination.

Project Date: 2008–2009
Project Value – $5,000; Contract Type – Time and Materials; EA Project No. – 6189107; EA Project Manager – Frank Postma
Petco Plaza Remediation; Peabody, Massachusetts; Scangas Brothers—A fuel oil release migrated beneath the slab of the existing building at this site. Produced a Phase I Site Investigation Report and Tier Classification for the Site, classifying as Tier II. Contributed design of remedial approach and produced cost benefit analysis to determine most economically viable remedial approach. Produced Release Abatement Measure Plan to acquire Order of Conditions from City of Peabody Conservation Commission. Task Manager for field events, production of reports, and implementation of in situ chemical oxidation injections, which successfully destroyed the non-aqueous phase liquid and associated petroleum contamination. Completed a Release Abatement Outcome Statement indicating that the remediation efforts were successful at meeting all remediation standards.

Project Date: September 2009 – Present
Project Value – $362,795; Contract Type – CPM; EA Project No. – 147030X; EA Project Manager – Frank Postma
Massachusetts Contingency Plan Compliance; Manchester-by-the-Sea, Massachusetts; Seabreeze Variety— Senior Project Manager responsible for identifying the appropriate regulatory pathway, implementing the postremedial monitoring program, analyses of the collected data. and providing the detailed technical review of the regulatory documentation. The site is a current petroleum dispensing facility that had opted to replace two underground storage tanks. A release of gasoline product was identified during the removal of the underground storage tanks that impacted soils and groundwater. The impacted soils were excavated following the installation of sheet piles. Soil groundwater and indoor air quality were assessed. The project will require a Massachusetts ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

Page 801 of 981 ends

Professional Profile

Frank B. Postma, P.G., LSP, LEP
Contingency Plan Phase | Environmental Assessment, Method 1 Risk Assessment and Response Action Outcome to close the site.

Project Date: 2009
Project Value — $34,700; Contract Type — CPM; EA Project No. — 1470001; EA Project Manager —Frank Postma Water Infiltration; Westerly, Rhode Island; Scott Gardiner—Project Manager for the investigation of water infiltration into a residential basement following the construction of an adjacent subdivision. Conducted area surveys, reviewed proposed subdivision plan and compared them against the survey data to determine the source of groundwater infiltration. Provided findings for litigation support Project Date: 2009
Project Value — $10,000; Contract Type — CPM; EA Project No. — 1470101; EA Project Manager — Frank Postma
Monitoring Well Abandonment; Ipswich, Massachusetts; Scangas Realty—Project Manager for the closure of monitoring wells following the completion of remedial activities associated with a release of gasoline constituents from a former service station. The monitoring well abandonment was conducted in accordance with the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection’s Standard Reference for Monitoring Well. The abandonment involved the pressure grouting of well casings, removal of the surface components, and completing the abandonment with a concrete pad brought to grade.

Project Date: 2009
Project Value — $8,430; Contract Type — CPM; EA Project No. — 1470301; EA Project Manager — Frank Postma Soil Sampling; New Bedford, Rhode Island; ESS Laboratory—Project Manager responsible for the field location of a sample collection grid to confirm the extent of an excavation aimed to remove polychlorinated biphenyl-laden soils at the Shawmut Landfill. Composite soil samples were collected at each sample node and submitted to a Massachusetts certified laboratory for polychlorinated biphenyl analyses via U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Method 8082. The data was analyzed and additional remedial efforts were connected to excavate all impacted soil to the regulatory threshold. The results of the remedial efforts were documented in a regulatory report.

Project Date: 2009
Project Value — $4,650; Contract Type — LS; EA Project No. — 6235901; EA Project Manager — Frank Postma Massachusetts Contingency Plan Compliance; Lexington, Massachusetts; J.P. Carroll—Senior Project Manager responsible for identifying the appropriate regulatory pathway and negotiating the fines/language of an Administrative Consent Order with Penalty for an automotive recycling facility. The project required the registration and closure of 5 Underground Injection Control points, installation of two public water lines to abate an Imminent Hazard Condition and the assessment of soil and groundwater impacts. The source area was initially treated with in situ chemical oxidation. The project will require a Massachusetts Contingency Plan Phase IV Remedy Implementation Plan, Method 3 Risk Assessment, Activity and Use Limitation and Response Action Outcome to close the site.

Project Date: 2016
Project Value — $184,700; Contract Type — CPM; EA Project No. — 147002; EA Project Manager —Frank Postma Technical Oversight; Various Insurance Claim Sites; Massachusetts and Connecticut—Provided third-party regulatory, technical, and cost evaluations for environmental insurance claims. Provided expert testimony on contaminant fate and transport for subrogation and countersuit claims. Negotiated settlement costs and developed pricing indices to standardize invoice reviews.

Project Date: 2009-Present
Project Value — 139,000; Contract Type — CPM; EA Project No.- 14736XX; EA Project Manager — Frank Postma
Site Investigation and Closure; Newport, Rhode Island; Forty 1 North—Senior Project Manager responsible for identifying the appropriate regulatory pathway and negotiating the closure strategy for a property being converted from industrial to residential. The project required the preparation of a Site Investigation Report, Public Notification, status report, and Remedial Action Closure Report.

Project Date - 2011
Project Value — $40,560; Contract Type — CPM; EA Project No. — 1444801; EA Project Manager —Frank Postma

EA ’
Professional Profile

Frank B. Postma, P.G., LSP, LEP
Contingency Plan Phase | Environmental Assessment, Method 1 Risk Assessment and Response Action Outcome to close the site.

Project Date - 2011
Project Value — $40,560; Contract Type — CPM; EA Project No. — 1444801; EA Project Manager —Frank Postma

EA ’
Professional Profile

Frank B. Postma, P.G., LSP, LEP
Contingency Plan Phase | Environmental Assessment, Method 1 Risk Assessment and Response Action Outcome to close the site.

Project Date - 2011
Project Value — $40,560; Contract Type — CPM; EA Project No. — 1444801; EA Project Manager —Frank Postma

EA ’
Professional Profile

Frank B. Postma, P.G., LSP, LEP
Contingency Plan Phase | Environmental Assessment, Method 1 Risk Assessment and Response Action Outcome to close the site.

Project Date - 2011
Project Value — $40,560; Contract Type — CPM; EA Project No. — 1444801; EA Project Manager —Frank Postma

EA ’
Professional Profile
Frank B. Postma, P.G., LSP, LEP
7 Contingency Plan Phase I Environmental Assessment, Method 1 Risk Assessment and Response Action Outcome to close the site.

Project Date: 2009
Project Value – $34,700; Contract Type – CPM; EA Project No. – 1470001; EA Project Manager –Frank Postma Water Infiltration; Westerly, Rhode Island; Scott Gardiner—Project Manager for the investigation of water infiltration into a residential basement following the construction of an adjacent subdivision. Conducted area surveys, reviewed proposed subdivision plan and compared them against the survey data to determine the source of groundwater infiltration. Provided findings for litigation support Project Date: 2009
Project Value – $10,000; Contract Type – CPM; EA Project No. – 1470101; EA Project Manager – Frank Postma
Monitoring Well Abandonment; Ipswich, Massachusetts; Scangas Realty—Project Manager for the closure of monitoring wells following the completion of remedial activities associated with a release of gasoline constituents from a former service station. The monitoring well abandonment was conducted in accordance with the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection’s Standard Reference for Monitoring Well. The abandonment involved the pressure grouting of well casings, removal of the surface components, and completing the abandonment with a concrete pad brought to grade.

Project Date: 2009
Project Value – $8,430; Contract Type – CPM; EA Project No. – 1470301; EA Project Manager – Frank Postma Soil Sampling; New Bedford, Rhode Island; ESS Laboratory—Project Manager responsible for the field location of a sample collection grid to confirm the extent of an excavation aimed to remove polychlorinated biphenyl-laden soils at the Shawmut Landfill. Composite soil samples were collected at each sample node and submitted to a Massachusetts certified laboratory for polychlorinated biphenyl analyses via U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Method 8082. The data was analyzed and additional remedial efforts were connected to excavate all impacted soil to the regulatory threshold. The results of the remedial efforts were documented in a regulatory report.

Project Date: 2009
Project Value – $4,650; Contract Type – LS; EA Project No. – 6235901; EA Project Manager – Frank Postma Massachusetts Contingency Plan Compliance; Lexington, Massachusetts; J.P. Carroll—Senior Project Manager responsible for identifying the appropriate regulatory pathway and negotiating the fines/language of an Administrative Consent Order with Penalty for an automotive recycling facility. The project required the registration and closure of 5 Underground Injection Control points, installation of two public water lines to abate an Imminent Hazard Condition and the assessment of soil and groundwater impacts. The source area was initially treated with in situ chemical oxidation. The project will require a Massachusetts Contingency Plan Phase IV Remedy Implementation Plan, Method 3 Risk Assessment, Activity and Use Limitation and Response Action Outcome to close the site.

Project Date: 2016
Project Value – $184,700; Contract Type – CPM; EA Project No. – 147002; EA Project Manager –Frank Postma Technical Oversight; Various Insurance Claim Sites; Massachusetts and Connecticut—Provided third-party regulatory, technical, and cost evaluations for environmental insurance claims. Provided expert testimony on contaminant fate and transport for subrogation and countersuit claims. Negotiated settlement costs and developed pricing indices to standardize invoice reviews.

Project Date: 2009-Present
Project Value – 139,000; Contract Type – CPM; EA Project No.- 14736XX; EA Project Manager – Frank Postma
Site Investigation and Closure; Newport, Rhode Island; Forty 1 North—Senior Project Manager responsible for identifying the appropriate regulatory pathway and negotiating the closure strategy for a property being converted from industrial to residential. The project required the preparation of a Site Investigation Report, Public Notification, status report, and Remedial Action Closure Report.

Project Date - 2011
Project Value – $40,560; Contract Type – CPM; EA Project No. – 1444801; EA Project Manager –Frank Postma ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

Page 802 of 981 ends

Professional Profile
Frank B. Postma, P.G., LSP, LEP
Site Investigation and Closure; Providence, Rhode Island; Steel Yard—Senior Project Manager responsible for implementation of a multi-dimensional capping system. The project required the preparation of Site Investigation Report, Public Notification, status report and Remedial Action Closure Report as well as grant reporting on two Brownfields properties. Provided support to resolve claims made against the property by an aggrieved neighbor.

Project won the John H. Chaffee Environmental Excellence Award.

Project Value — $27,200 Contract Type — CPM; EA Project No. — 1457401; EA Project Manager —Frank Postma Due Diligence; ARGO Brownfields Property; Dorchester, Massachusetts—Teamed with an 8(a) firm to compile site data from historical society and facility records for a Brownfields property, fire insurance mapping, municipal offices, state agencies, and federal databases to develop a comprehensive site model of sensitive receptors, recognized environmental conditions, and contaminants of concern. Reconnoitered site to locate additional areas of concern, conduct interviews with facility personnel, and identify locations. Analyzed the accumulated data, developed recommendations, and documented the findings in accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials standards.

Project Value — $43,225; Contract Type — CPM; EA Project No. — 1461404; EA Project Manager — Frank Postma
Construction Oversight and Remedial System Reinstallation; Warwick Intermodal Station; Warwick, Rhode Island—Provided technical oversight and field supervision for the relocation of the duel phase extraction system.

Coordinated subcontractors to and construction prime to allow for the continuous operation of the system during the construction of the train station and parking garage. Managed the contaminated soil and oversaw the reinstallation of system components.

Project Value — $143,345; Contract Type — Fixed; EA Project No. — 1461404; EA Project Manager — Frank Postma
Sub-Slab Depressurization System Operation and Reporting; Providence Public Schools; Providence, Rhode Island—Manage the operation of a multi-point subslab depressurization system installed to prevent the migration of chlorinated volatile organic compounds into a public high school. Represented the Providence School Department during Environmental Justice hearings. Documented the performance of the system and implemented system upgrades. Documented the effectiveness of the system and investigated fugitive contaminant detections. Project Date: 2009
Project Value — $137,000; Contract Type — CPM; EA Project No. — 1487701 Administrative Consent Order with Penalty Compliance and Immediate Response Action; Gasoline Release; Lexington, Massachusetts—Negotiated final language of Administrative Consent Order with Penalty for waste handling, recycling, underground injection control, and release violations at an operating auto recycling facility.

Registered five and closed four underground injection control points. Designed and implemented a non-aqueous phase liquid removal program and a chemical oxidation system to address source area impacts. Identified an Imminent Hazard and facilitated the connection of several private wells to the municipal water supply. Completed the Immediate Response Action Plans and status reports. Prepared the Phase | Environmental Site Assessment and Tier Classification.

Project Date: 2009
Project Value — $54,410; Contract Type — CPM; EA Project No. — 1470901 Civil Action Defense; Second Street Iron and Metals; Everett, Massachusetts—Developed and implemented a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan in accordance with the Multi-Sector General Permit. Developed and implemented three Best Management Practices that reduced the contaminant load in their stormwater discharge to the regulatory thresholds. Assisted in the negotiations with a citizen’s rights group to settle all claims arising from violations of the Clean Water Act.

Project Date: 2010
Project Value — $24,230; Contract Type — CPM; EA Project No. — 1478001 Brownfields Remedial Cap Design, Installation and Closure Documentation; City of Providence; Providence.

Rhode Island—~Provided final design and cost estimates for the installation of an engineered cap for a former mill EA ’
Professional Profile
Frank B. Postma, P.G., LSP, LEP
Site Investigation and Closure; Providence, Rhode Island; Steel Yard—Senior Project Manager responsible for implementation of a multi-dimensional capping system. The project required the preparation of Site Investigation Report, Public Notification, status report and Remedial Action Closure Report as well as grant reporting on two Brownfields properties. Provided support to resolve claims made against the property by an aggrieved neighbor.

Project won the John H. Chaffee Environmental Excellence Award.

Rhode Island—~Provided final design and cost estimates for the installation of an engineered cap for a former mill EA ’
Professional Profile
Frank B. Postma, P.G., LSP, LEP
8 Site Investigation and Closure; Providence, Rhode Island; Steel Yard—Senior Project Manager responsible for implementation of a multi-dimensional capping system. The project required the preparation of Site Investigation Report, Public Notification, status report and Remedial Action Closure Report as well as grant reporting on two Brownfields properties. Provided support to resolve claims made against the property by an aggrieved neighbor.

Project won the John H. Chaffee Environmental Excellence Award.

Project Value – $27,200 Contract Type – CPM; EA Project No. – 1457401; EA Project Manager –Frank Postma Due Diligence; ARGO Brownfields Property; Dorchester, Massachusetts—Teamed with an 8(a) firm to compile site data from historical society and facility records for a Brownfields property, fire insurance mapping, municipal offices, state agencies, and federal databases to develop a comprehensive site model of sensitive receptors, recognized environmental conditions, and contaminants of concern. Reconnoitered site to locate additional areas of concern, conduct interviews with facility personnel, and identify locations. Analyzed the accumulated data, developed recommendations, and documented the findings in accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials standards.

Project Value – $43,225; Contract Type – CPM; EA Project No. – 1461404; EA Project Manager – Frank Postma
Construction Oversight and Remedial System Reinstallation; Warwick Intermodal Station; Warwick, Rhode Island—Provided technical oversight and field supervision for the relocation of the duel phase extraction system.

Project Value – $143,345; Contract Type – Fixed; EA Project No. – 1461404; EA Project Manager – Frank Postma
Sub-Slab Depressurization System Operation and Reporting; Providence Public Schools; Providence, Rhode Island—Manage the operation of a multi-point subslab depressurization system installed to prevent the migration of chlorinated volatile organic compounds into a public high school. Represented the Providence School Department during Environmental Justice hearings. Documented the performance of the system and implemented system upgrades. Documented the effectiveness of the system and investigated fugitive contaminant detections. Project Date: 2009
Project Value – $137,000; Contract Type – CPM; EA Project No. – 1487701 Administrative Consent Order with Penalty Compliance and Immediate Response Action; Gasoline Release; Lexington, Massachusetts—Negotiated final language of Administrative Consent Order with Penalty for waste handling, recycling, underground injection control, and release violations at an operating auto recycling facility.

Registered five and closed four underground injection control points. Designed and implemented a non-aqueous phase liquid removal program and a chemical oxidation system to address source area impacts. Identified an Imminent Hazard and facilitated the connection of several private wells to the municipal water supply. Completed the Immediate Response Action Plans and status reports. Prepared the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and Tier Classification.

Project Date: 2009
Project Value – $54,410; Contract Type – CPM; EA Project No. – 1470901 Civil Action Defense; Second Street Iron and Metals; Everett, Massachusetts—Developed and implemented a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan in accordance with the Multi-Sector General Permit. Developed and implemented three Best Management Practices that reduced the contaminant load in their stormwater discharge to the regulatory thresholds. Assisted in the negotiations with a citizen’s rights group to settle all claims arising from violations of the Clean Water Act.

Project Date: 2010
Project Value – $24,230; Contract Type – CPM; EA Project No. – 1478001 Brownfields Remedial Cap Design, Installation and Closure Documentation; City of Providence; Providence.

Rhode Island—Provided final design and cost estimates for the installation of an engineered cap for a former mill ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

Page 803 of 981 ends

Professional Profile

Frank B. Postma, P.G., LSP, LEP
complex. Negotiated with the regulators to expedite the regulatory permitting and meet project specific deadlines.

Provided contract and construction oversight with prime contractor. Negotiated change orders on the City’s behalf.

Prepared all permit applications, public notifications and the Remedial Action Closure Report to complete the site remediation.

Project Date: 2009
Project Value — $114,400 Contract Type — Fixed; EA Project No. — 6189105 Military Firing Range Investigation and Background Evaluation; Rhode Island National Guard Camp Fogarty; East Greenwich, Rhode Island—Developed a Quality Assurance Performance Plan for a multi-media sampling program designed to delineate that extent and degree of impacts from an historic firing ranges. Cleared the site of unexploded ordinance and maintained strict safety protocols during the investigation. Oversaw the collection of soil and groundwater samples using discrete, composite and multi-incremental sampling protocols. Prepared Site Investigation Report documenting the findings. Designed and implemented a background study to determine the origin of arsenic impacts.

Project Date: 2010
Project Value — $121,000; Contract Type — Fixed; EA Project No. — 6245001 Immediate Response Action for Release of Perchloroethylene; Precious Metal Manufacturer; Attleboro, Massachusetts—Conducted an extensive investigation to delineate soil and groundwater impacts related to a release of perchloroethylene from a hot vapor degreaser. Installed indoor and outdoor monitoring wells, soil boring, and soil vapor points to define the extent and degree of impacts from the release.

Project Date: 2014
Project Value — $24,000; Contract Type — CPM; EA Project No. — 1517101 Other Project Experience
Emergency Response Actions; Oil Carrier Insurance; Various Sites; 2009—Emergency response actions were undertaken and completed at 26 private residences, roadways, and industrial facilities for a fuel oil insurance carrier.

Conducted assessment activities to delineate remaining impacts and identify sensitive receptors following initial containment. All sites achieved regulatory closure.

Bioremediation; Gasoline Service Station; Ipswich, Massachusetts; 2007—Negotiated the final language of the ACO and timelines to bring the site back into compliance. Designed the monitoring network to determine the extent and degree of impacts related to a failure of an underground storage tank system. Developed the comprehensive conceptual site model used to select the remedial alternative. Designed and implemented the remedial additive injection plan that reduced groundwater impacts to regulatory thresholds within 12 months. Prepared the Method 3 Risk Assessment.

Immediate Response Action; Fuel Oil Release; Charlton, Massachusetts; 2007—Conducted emergency response at a release from a 275-gal fuel oil tank next to a brook and associated bordering vegetative wetland as a result of a fire. Coordinated response efforts with local and state investigative authorities. Designed and implemented the assessment plan of the soil, groundwater, surface water, and sediment. Designed and implemented a groundwater recovery and treatment system that functioned continuously for nine months. Prepared all regulatory planning and closure documentation.

Immediate Response Action; MODF Release; South Hadley, Massachusetts; 2007—Conducted the emergency response to assess and remediate a release from a pad-mounted transformer. Investigated the extent of the release in soil, groundwater, and indoor air. Directed the installation of a product recovery well and implemented an enhanced fluid recovery event to remove non-aqueous phase liquid from the groundwater. Prepared the Response Action Outcome supported with a Method 3 Risk Assessment to close the site.

Bioremediation; Gasoline Service Station; Leominster, Massachusetts; 2005—Designed the monitoring network to determine the extent and degree of impacts related to a failure of an underground storage tank system. Developed the comprehensive conceptual site model used to select the remedial alternative. Designed and implemented the remedial additive injection plan that reduced groundwater impacts to regulatory thresholds within 14 months.

EA ’
Professional Profile

Frank B. Postma, P.G., LSP, LEP
complex. Negotiated with the regulators to expedite the regulatory permitting and meet project specific deadlines.

Provided contract and construction oversight with prime contractor. Negotiated change orders on the City’s behalf.

Prepared all permit applications, public notifications and the Remedial Action Closure Report to complete the site remediation.

Conducted assessment activities to delineate remaining impacts and identify sensitive receptors following initial containment. All sites achieved regulatory closure.

EA ’
Professional Profile

Frank B. Postma, P.G., LSP, LEP
complex. Negotiated with the regulators to expedite the regulatory permitting and meet project specific deadlines.

Provided contract and construction oversight with prime contractor. Negotiated change orders on the City’s behalf.

Prepared all permit applications, public notifications and the Remedial Action Closure Report to complete the site remediation.

Conducted assessment activities to delineate remaining impacts and identify sensitive receptors following initial containment. All sites achieved regulatory closure.

EA ’
Professional Profile

Frank B. Postma, P.G., LSP, LEP
complex. Negotiated with the regulators to expedite the regulatory permitting and meet project specific deadlines.

Provided contract and construction oversight with prime contractor. Negotiated change orders on the City’s behalf.

Prepared all permit applications, public notifications and the Remedial Action Closure Report to complete the site remediation.

Conducted assessment activities to delineate remaining impacts and identify sensitive receptors following initial containment. All sites achieved regulatory closure.

EA ’
Professional Profile
Frank B. Postma, P.G., LSP, LEP
9 complex. Negotiated with the regulators to expedite the regulatory permitting and meet project specific deadlines.

Provided contract and construction oversight with prime contractor. Negotiated change orders on the City’s behalf.

Prepared all permit applications, public notifications and the Remedial Action Closure Report to complete the site remediation.

Project Date: 2009
Project Value – $114,400 Contract Type – Fixed; EA Project No. – 6189105 Military Firing Range Investigation and Background Evaluation; Rhode Island National Guard Camp Fogarty; East Greenwich, Rhode Island—Developed a Quality Assurance Performance Plan for a multi-media sampling program designed to delineate that extent and degree of impacts from an historic firing ranges. Cleared the site of unexploded ordinance and maintained strict safety protocols during the investigation. Oversaw the collection of soil and groundwater samples using discrete, composite and multi-incremental sampling protocols. Prepared Site Investigation Report documenting the findings. Designed and implemented a background study to determine the origin of arsenic impacts.

Project Date: 2010
Project Value – $121,000; Contract Type – Fixed; EA Project No. – 6245001 Immediate Response Action for Release of Perchloroethylene; Precious Metal Manufacturer; Attleboro, Massachusetts—Conducted an extensive investigation to delineate soil and groundwater impacts related to a release of perchloroethylene from a hot vapor degreaser. Installed indoor and outdoor monitoring wells, soil boring, and soil vapor points to define the extent and degree of impacts from the release.

Project Date: 2014
Project Value – $24,000; Contract Type – CPM; EA Project No. – 1517101 Other Project Experience
Emergency Response Actions; Oil Carrier Insurance; Various Sites; 2009—Emergency response actions were undertaken and completed at 26 private residences, roadways, and industrial facilities for a fuel oil insurance carrier.

Conducted assessment activities to delineate remaining impacts and identify sensitive receptors following initial containment. All sites achieved regulatory closure.

ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

Page 804 of 981 ends

Professional Profile

Frank B. Postma, P.G., LSP, LEP
Designed, permitted, and implemented a cofferdam system to remove impacted sediment from the Nashua River.

The project was completed in 2005.

Immediate Response Action; Gasoline Tank Release; Melrose, Massachusetts; 2004—Conducted emergency response at a release from a 10,000-gal gasoline tank release next to a brook. Coordinated response efforts with local, state, and federal authorities. Designed and implemented the assessment plan of the soil, groundwater, surface water, and sediment. Developed the comprehensive conceptual site model used to select the remedial alternative.

Directed the excavation of the tank and impacted soils. Prepared all regulatory planning and closure documentation.

Immediate Response Action, Number 2 Fuel Oil Release; North Brookfield, Massachusetts; 2004—Conducted the emergency response to contain and containerize a ruptured fuel oil tank. Investigated the extent of the release in soil and groundwater. Directed the excavation of grossly impacted soils inside the residence. Designed and implemented non-aqueous phase liquid recovery, bio-vent, bio-injection, and chemical oxidation systems. Prepared the Response Action Outcome supported with a Method 3 Risk Assessment to close the site.

Soil and Aquifer Remediation; Former Gasoline Filling Station; Danvers, Massachusetts, 2004—Delineated the extent of petroleum-related impacts and developed a comprehensive conceptual site model. Conducted pilot tests of vapor and water phase extraction to determine the appropriate remedial alternative. Designed and implemented a high vacuum extraction system that maintained a 90 percent operation time over 12 months. Reduced soil and groundwater concentrations to site-specific standards.

Environmental Impact Report; Recycling Facility; Fitchburg, Massachusetts; 2003—Acquired the population, traffic, sensitive receptor, environmental, and need data. Developed conceptual facility design that included traffic flow patterns; process flow lines; material management protocols; load inspection and testing plans; and vector, odor, and dust control plans. Designed wastewater and stormwater collection systems. Prepared environmental justice analyses. Compiled and prepared individual plans into a comprehensive draft Environmental Impact Report.

Testified on behalf of the proponent and answered all public comments in the Final Environmental Impact Report.

Acquired the site assignment to permit the site for the proposed activities.

Soil Remediation; Oil Distribution Facility; North Brookfield, Massachusetts; 2003—Developed the investigation program to identify and delineate the area of historic impacts from an oil distribution facility located in a residential neighborhood. Developed the comprehensive conceptual site model used to select the remedial alternative.

Prepared detailed cost estimation for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Brownfields program for client financing. Directed the excavation of 1,450 cubic yards of contaminated soil and restoration of neighboring properties. Designed and implemented a soil vapor extraction system to remediate impacted soils abutting a residential foundation. Prepared regulatory planning and closure documentation.

Due Diligence; Multi-Use Converted Mill Facility; Pepperell, Massachusetts; 2002—Compiled site data from historical society and facility records, fire insurance mapping, municipal offices, state agencies, and federal databases to develop a comprehensive site model of sensitive receptors, recognized environmental conditions, and contaminants of concern. Reconnoitered site to locate additional areas of concern, conduct interviews with facility personnel, and identify locations. Analyzed the accumulated data, developed recommendations, and documented the findings in accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials standards.

Emergency Response, Fuel Oil Tanker Rollover; Dorchester, Massachusetts; 2001—Responded to and directed the initial emergency response activities that included multi-agency coordination of the Boston Fire Department, Boston Police Department, Massachusetts District Commission, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, and U.S. Coast Guard to contain the release. Developed and implemented the assessment program to delineate the extent and degree of impacts. Determined and oversaw the remedial program. Documented the results of the remedial program, and prepared the closure documentation for the site.

Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plans; Transportation Company; 2001—Conducted field audits and inventoried 23 transportation and leasing facilities for compliance with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulation 40 CFR 112. Developed fueling, spill response, and containment protocols to address the storage and transfer of petroleum products at the facilities. Documented the procedures and follow-up audits in a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan.

EA Y
Professional Profile

Frank B. Postma, P.G., LSP, LEP
Designed, permitted, and implemented a cofferdam system to remove impacted sediment from the Nashua River.

The project was completed in 2005.

Directed the excavation of the tank and impacted soils. Prepared all regulatory planning and closure documentation.

Testified on behalf of the proponent and answered all public comments in the Final Environmental Impact Report.

Acquired the site assignment to permit the site for the proposed activities.

EA Y
Professional Profile

Frank B. Postma, P.G., LSP, LEP
Designed, permitted, and implemented a cofferdam system to remove impacted sediment from the Nashua River.

The project was completed in 2005.

Directed the excavation of the tank and impacted soils. Prepared all regulatory planning and closure documentation.

Testified on behalf of the proponent and answered all public comments in the Final Environmental Impact Report.

Acquired the site assignment to permit the site for the proposed activities.

EA Y
Professional Profile

Frank B. Postma, P.G., LSP, LEP
Designed, permitted, and implemented a cofferdam system to remove impacted sediment from the Nashua River.

The project was completed in 2005.

Directed the excavation of the tank and impacted soils. Prepared all regulatory planning and closure documentation.

Testified on behalf of the proponent and answered all public comments in the Final Environmental Impact Report.

Acquired the site assignment to permit the site for the proposed activities.

EA Y
Professional Profile
Frank B. Postma, P.G., LSP, LEP
10 Designed, permitted, and implemented a cofferdam system to remove impacted sediment from the Nashua River.

The project was completed in 2005.

Directed the excavation of the tank and impacted soils. Prepared all regulatory planning and closure documentation.

Testified on behalf of the proponent and answered all public comments in the Final Environmental Impact Report.

Acquired the site assignment to permit the site for the proposed activities.

ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

Page 805 of 981 ends

Professional Profile

Frank B. Postma, P.G., LSP, LEP
Wetland Delineation and Permitting; Wilbraham, Massachusetts—Delineated the wetland and riverfront boundaries using vegetation, hydrology, and soils. Prepared the Notice of Intent for the construction of a bus depot for submittal to the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection and the Wilbraham Conservation Commission.

Immediate Response Action; Gasoline Release; Manchester, Massachusetts—Delineated the extent of petroleumrelated impacts and developed a comprehensive conceptual site model. Designed and implemented the assessment plan of the soil, groundwater, surface water, and sediment. Designed and implemented a groundwater recovery and treatment system that functioned continuously for 9 months. Prepared all regulatory planning and closure documentation.

Litigation Support; Subdivision Drainage Suit; Westerly, Rhode Island—Provided litigation support relative to stormwater drainage issues resulting from the development of an adjacent subdivision. Identified potential causes of groundwater infiltration into existing structure. Reviewed potential solutions to the root cause and provided recommendations to the settlement language.

Employment History
Employer—EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC (Warwick, Rhode Island) Dates of Employment—2009 — Present
Title—Client Manager
Employer—LFR, Inc.

Dates of Employment—2005-2009
Title—Senior Project Manager
Employer—Corporate Environmental Advisors, Inc.

Employment History
Employer—EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC (Warwick, Rhode Island) Dates of Employment—2009 — Present
Title—Client Manager
Employer—LFR, Inc.

Dates of Employment—2005-2009
Title—Senior Project Manager
Employer—Corporate Environmental Advisors, Inc.

Employment History
Employer—EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC (Warwick, Rhode Island) Dates of Employment—2009 — Present
Title—Client Manager
Employer—LFR, Inc.

Dates of Employment—2005-2009
Title—Senior Project Manager
Employer—Corporate Environmental Advisors, Inc.

Employment History
Employer—EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC (Warwick, Rhode Island) Dates of Employment—2009 — Present
Title—Client Manager
Employer—LFR, Inc.

Dates of Employment—2005-2009
Title—Senior Project Manager
Employer—Corporate Environmental Advisors, Inc.

Dates of Employment—1998-2005
Title—Project Manager
Employer—Loureiro Engineering Associates
Dates of Employment—1989-1999
Title—Field Operations Manager
List of Technical Skills and Specializations
Petroleum and hazardous material regulations — Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania Remedial design and implementation
Septic system design and installation
Site investigations and due diligence
Third party insurance reviewer
Wetland regulations and delineation
EA !
Professional Profile
Frank B. Postma, P.G., LSP, LEP
11 Wetland Delineation and Permitting; Wilbraham, Massachusetts—Delineated the wetland and riverfront boundaries using vegetation, hydrology, and soils. Prepared the Notice of Intent for the construction of a bus depot for submittal to the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection and the Wilbraham Conservation Commission.

Employment History
Employer—EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC (Warwick, Rhode Island) Dates of Employment—2009 – Present
Title—Client Manager
Employer—LFR, Inc.

Dates of Employment—2005-2009
Title—Senior Project Manager
Employer—Corporate Environmental Advisors, Inc.

Page 806 of 981 ends

Professional Profile

Fatima A. Burhan
Fatima A. Burhan Education
Geologi st B.S. Geology /2018 (California State
University Sacramento, Sacramento,
Ms. Burhan is a Geologist with 3 years of experience in environmental California) work, experience including 2 years of experience in due diligence and site characterization. Her technical experience includes environmental site assessments, groundwater monitoring reporting, preparation of groundwater models, drilling groundwater wells, subsurface Specialized Training
OSHA 40-Hour Hazardous Waste Operations
and Emergency Response Training; 2019
investigations, and sampling of environmental media. She has CPR and First Aid Training completed work for federal, commercial, and private clients. . Experience Years with EA: <1 Total Years: 3 Ms. Burhan has experience with all Phase | investigations, remedial investigations, remedial actions, and long-term environmental monitoring.

Professional Experience
Field Sampling and Investigations—Performed surface water, soil sediment, air, and groundwater sampling.

Sampling experience includes soil sampling via hand auger and drilling, indoor and ambient air sampling, soil gas, sub slab, and groundwater sampling by peristaltic pumps. Carried out monitoring well drilling (mud rotary and down-the-hole), installation, and development. Carried out preliminary site investigations, review of previously investigated locations for environmental conditions and long-term environmental media monitoring efforts.

Technical Writing—Experienced with writing technical memorandums; regulatory reports; and environmental, health, and safety audit reports. Wrote, edited, and compiled technical reports for groundwater monitoring submittals for the State of California CalEPA and Phase | and Il Environmental Site Assessments.

Project Management—Reporting, scheduling, resourcing, and technical review for several client portfolios for multiple sites for long term environmental monitoring efforts for CalEPA.

EA Project Experience
Messer Water Oil Extractor Removal, Richmond, California— Wrote up conclusion report for an oil water separator extractor. Complied information from online and in person sources. Gathered field reports and completed report within timeline.

Project Date: May 2021
Contract Type — Fixed Price; EA Project Manager — Chris VanWart Other Project Experience
Indoor Air and Vapor Intrusion Sampling, California; Field Personnel; May 2019—Provided field support for indoor air sampling using summa canisters and sub-slab sampling for a newly constructed residential complex as part of monthly monitoring activities at the site.

Subsurface Drilling and Investigation, Washington; Sound Transit, Field Personnel; August 2019- January 2020— Provided field support for mud rotary drilling across south Seattle as a part of a large sub-surface modeling and ground water well installation project at many sites. Assisted with lab communication and drop off soil samples.

Created well logs using drilling software and created stratigraphy columns using multiple software platforms.

Groundwater Sampling, Northern California; Field Personnel; January 2020—Provided field support as part of a team for groundwater sampling at a site where remediation was being carried out. Field activities included purging, low flow sampling via peristaltic pump, sample preservation via ascorbic acid, field documentation, and lab coordination.

EA !
Professional Profile

Professional Experience
Field Sampling and Investigations—Performed surface water, soil sediment, air, and groundwater sampling.

Project Management—Reporting, scheduling, resourcing, and technical review for several client portfolios for multiple sites for long term environmental monitoring efforts for CalEPA.

Created well logs using drilling software and created stratigraphy columns using multiple software platforms.

EA !
Professional Profile

Professional Experience
Field Sampling and Investigations—Performed surface water, soil sediment, air, and groundwater sampling.

Project Management—Reporting, scheduling, resourcing, and technical review for several client portfolios for multiple sites for long term environmental monitoring efforts for CalEPA.

Created well logs using drilling software and created stratigraphy columns using multiple software platforms.

EA !
Professional Profile

Professional Experience
Field Sampling and Investigations—Performed surface water, soil sediment, air, and groundwater sampling.

Project Management—Reporting, scheduling, resourcing, and technical review for several client portfolios for multiple sites for long term environmental monitoring efforts for CalEPA.

Created well logs using drilling software and created stratigraphy columns using multiple software platforms.

EA !
Professional Profile
Fatima A. Burhan
1 Fatima A. Burhan
Geologist
Ms. Burhan is a Geologist with 3 years of experience in environmental work, experience including 2 years of experience in due diligence and site characterization. Her technical experience includes environmental site assessments, groundwater monitoring reporting, preparation of groundwater models, drilling groundwater wells, subsurface investigations, and sampling of environmental media. She has completed work for federal, commercial, and private clients.

Ms. Burhan has experience with all Phase I investigations, remedial investigations, remedial actions, and long-term environmental monitoring.

Professional Experience
Field Sampling and Investigations—Performed surface water, soil sediment, air, and groundwater sampling.

Project Management—Reporting, scheduling, resourcing, and technical review for several client portfolios for multiple sites for long term environmental monitoring efforts for CalEPA.

Project Date: May 2021
Contract Type – Fixed Price; EA Project Manager – Chris VanWart Other Project Experience
Indoor Air and Vapor Intrusion Sampling, California; Field Personnel; May 2019—Provided field support for indoor air sampling using summa canisters and sub-slab sampling for a newly constructed residential complex as part of monthly monitoring activities at the site.

Created well logs using drilling software and created stratigraphy columns using multiple software platforms.

Education
B.S. Geology /2018 (California State
University Sacramento, Sacramento,
California)
Specialized Training
OSHA 40-Hour Hazardous Waste Operations
and Emergency Response Training; 2019
CPR and First Aid Training
Experience
Years with EA: < 1 Total Years: 3
ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

Page 807 of 981 ends

Professional Profile

Fatima A. Burhan
Quarterly, Annual, and Semiannual Groundwater and Air Quality Monitoring Reports, California; Office Support, April 2019 — May 2020—Authored and reviewed monitoring reports including monitoring reports, preparing groundwater elevation and iso-concentration maps, data tables and environmental data submission on the California Geotracker. This included project reporting, scheduling, cost tracking, resourcing, etc. for projects in Northern California. Created groundwater and iso-concentration models using Geographic Information Systems.

Coordinated between various teams throughout the company.

Employment History
Employer—EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC (Sacramento, California) Dates of Employment—May 2021 — Present
Title—Geologist 11
Employer—Golder Associates (Sunnyvale, California)
Dates of Employment—2019-2020
Title—Geologist |
Employer—Apex Systems (Cupertino, California)
Dates of Employment—2018-219
Title—GIS Technician
List of Technical Skills and Specializations
e Sampling of environmental media using the following technologies/methodologies: low-flow, three-volume purge, passive soil gas (summa), generic grab-sampling technologies, hallow stem auger drilling, mud rotary drilling.
e Site investigation and due diligence.
e Technical writing.

Professional Profile

Coordinated between various teams throughout the company.

Professional Profile

Coordinated between various teams throughout the company.

Professional Profile

Coordinated between various teams throughout the company.

Professional Profile
Fatima A. Burhan
2 Quarterly, Annual, and Semiannual Groundwater and Air Quality Monitoring Reports, California; Office Support, April 2019 – May 2020—Authored and reviewed monitoring reports including monitoring reports, preparing groundwater elevation and iso-concentration maps, data tables and environmental data submission on the California Geotracker. This included project reporting, scheduling, cost tracking, resourcing, etc. for projects in Northern California. Created groundwater and iso-concentration models using Geographic Information Systems.

Coordinated between various teams throughout the company.

Employment History
Employer—EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC (Sacramento, California) Dates of Employment—May 2021 – Present
Title—Geologist II
Employer—Golder Associates (Sunnyvale, California)
Dates of Employment—2019-2020
Title—Geologist I
Employer—Apex Systems (Cupertino, California)
Dates of Employment—2018-219
Title—GIS Technician
List of Technical Skills and Specializations
• Sampling of environmental media using the following technologies/methodologies: low-flow, three-volume purge, passive soil gas (summa), generic grab-sampling technologies, hallow stem auger drilling, mud rotary drilling.
• Site investigation and due diligence.
• Technical writing.

ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

Page 808 of 981 ends

Appendix F
Noise and Vibration Assessment Letter Report
ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

Page 809 of 981 ends

1630 SAN PABLO AVE STE 300
OAKLAND, CA 94612
949.450.2525
DUDEK.COM
May 9, 2023
Parker Hills
Vesper Energy
125 E. John Carpenter Fwy, Ste 525
Irving, Texas 75062
Subject: Juniper Creek Energy Storage Project, Rancho Cordova (Sacramento County), California Noise and Vibration Assessment Letter Report
Dear Mr. Hills:

Consistent with the approved scope of work, this concise draft letter report prepared for the Juniper Creek Energy Storage Systems Facility (Project) in Rancho Cordova (Sacramento County) includes as follows:
• Summarized measurement results from an outdoor ambient sound pressure level (SPL) survey in the vicinity of the Project.
• A presentation of predicted aggregate noise levels at nearby existing residential receptors attributed to operation of the proposed facility, as compared to ambient noise levels and applicable local noise regulations.
• A summary of modeled noise levels from construction of the Project, at the residential receptors in the immediate Project vicinity, as compared to ambient noise levels. • A summary of calculated vibration levels from construction at the Project, at the residential receptors in the immediate vicinity of the Project, as compared to applicable standards.

In summary, and based on Project design information to date, Dudek has determined that operational noise from the proposed facility would be in compliance with local regulations at the closest adjacent residences, given incorporation of a 12-foot-high noise barrier wall along the western property boundary, as illustrated on the Project site plan (Westwood, April 2022). In addition, construction of the Project would generate noise and vibration levels that would be less than significant.
1 Introduction

1.1 Project Setting
The Juniper Creek Electrical Storage System (ESS) is proposed to be located adjacent to the northerly side of the Rancho Cordova Electrical Substation, along the south side of Canyonlands Drive within the eastern mid-central portion of the City of Rancho Cordova, California. Figure 1 at the end of the report illustrates the Regional Setting of the Project site, while Figure 2 illustrates the local setting. With respect to the Project site configuration and proposed improvements, Figure 3 provides the Site Plan for the proposed facility. The Project site is currently vacant. Existing residences are located to the west and northwest of the Project site on the easterly side of Preserve Way and Pawtucket Way; a neighborhood park is located to the north of the Project site, with residences adjacent to the north side of the park property. The land to the east of the Project site is undeveloped and zoned as public open space.

ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

Page 810 of 981 ends

Vesper Energy
Juniper Creek Energy Storage Facility, Rancho Cordova, California Noise Letter Report
May 9, 2023

Page 2 ends

DUDEK.COM

1.2 Acoustical Fundamentals
Although the terms may be used interchangeably in the right context, “sound” is defined as any gas or fluid pressure variation detected by the human ear, and “noise” is unwanted sound. The preferred unit for measuring sound is the decibel (dB), which by way of expressing the ratio of sound pressures to a reference value logarithmically enables a wide range of audible sound to be evaluated and discussed conveniently. On the low end of this range, zero dB is not the absence of sound energy, but instead corresponds approximately to the threshold of average healthy human hearing; and, on the upper end, 120–140 dB corresponds to an average person’s threshold of pain.

The human ear is not equally responsive to all frequencies of the audible sound spectrum. An electronic filter is normally used when taking noise measurements that de-emphasizes certain frequencies in a manner that mimics the human ear’s response to sound; this method is referred to as A-weighting. Sound levels expressed under the Aweighted system are sometimes designated dBA. All sound levels discussed in this report are A-weighted.

The equivalent continuous sound level (Leq) is a single dB value which, if held constant during the specified time period, would represent the same total acoustical energy of a fluctuating noise level over that same time period; this is also known as the “average” sound level. Leq values are commonly expressed for periods of one hour, but longer or shorter time periods may be specified. Another descriptor is maximum sound level (Lmax), which is the greatest sound level measured during a designated time interval or event. The minimum sound level (Lmin) is the lowest measured level and often called the floor of a measurement period. Additional common acoustical descriptors and terms that may assist the reader in framing the evaluation and discussion of noise in this report are provided in Attachment 1

1.2.1 Exterior Noise Attenuation
Noise sources are classified in two forms: (1) point sources, such as stationary equipment or a group of construction vehicles and equipment working within a spatially limited area at a given time; and (2) line sources, such as a roadway with a large number of pass-by sources (motor vehicles). Sound generated by a point source typically diminishes (attenuates) at a rate of 6.0 dBA for each doubling of distance from the source to the receptor at acoustically “hard” sites and at a rate of 7.5 dBA for each doubling of distance from source to receptor at acoustically “soft” sites (Caltrans 2009). Sound generated by a line source (i.e., a roadway) typically attenuates at a rate of 3 dBA and 4.5 dBA per doubling distance, for hard and soft sites, respectively (Caltrans 2009). Sound levels can also be attenuated by human-made or natural barriers. For the purpose of a sound attenuation discussion, a hard or reflective site does not provide any excess ground-effect attenuation and is characteristic of asphalt or concrete ground surfaces, as well as very hard-packed soils. An acoustically soft or absorptive site is characteristic of unpaved loose soil or vegetated ground.

With respect to examples of this distance-attenuation relationship for exterior noise, a 60-dBA noise level measured at 50 feet from a transformer within a paved substation site would diminish to 54 dBA at 100 feet from the source, and to 48 dBA at 200 feet from the source. This scenario is addressed by the point source attenuation for a hard site (6 dBA with each doubling of the distance). For the scenario where soft-site conditions exist between the point source and receptor, represented by a corridor of vegetation or open ground along the substation perimeter, an attenuation rate of 7.5 dBA per doubling of distance would apply; the transformer noise measured as a 60 dBA at 50 feet would diminish to 52.5 dBA at 100 feet from the source and to 45 dBA at 200 feet from the source, where soft ground with or without vegetation exists between the sound source and the receptor location.

ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

Page 811 of 981 ends

Vesper Energy
Juniper Creek Energy Storage Facility, Rancho Cordova, California Noise Letter Report
May 9, 2023

Page 3 ends

DUDEK.COM

1.2.2 Vibration Characteristics
Per the Caltrans Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual (2020), vibration is the periodic oscillation of a medium or object. The rumbling sound caused by the vibration of room surfaces is called structure-borne noise.

Sources of ground-borne vibrations include natural phenomena (e.g., earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, sea waves, landslides) or human-made causes (e.g., explosions, machinery, traffic, trains, construction equipment).

Peak particle velocity (PPV) is defined as the maximum instantaneous peak of the vibration signal and is expressed in inches/second (in/sec). PPV is most frequently used to describe vibration impacts to buildings but can also be used to quantify vibration annoyance potential for humans. Caltrans has established a human annoyance vibration threshold of 0.24 in/sec PPV (distinctly perceptible level) for construction-related vibration levels (Caltrans 2020).

The Caltrans threshold for potential damage to residential structures is 0.5 in/sec PPV (Caltrans 2020).

1.3 Noise Regulation in Rancho Cordova
Chapter 6.68 of the Rancho Cordova Municipal Code (RCMC) addresses noise control. Section 6.68.070 (Exterior Noise Standards) establishes the maximum noise levels allowed within residential zones, and for stationary noise sources that could affect residential properties. The following noise limits are applicable to Project, as determined at the property boundary for each residential parcel in the vicinity of the Project site. (a) The following noise standards, unless otherwise specifically indicated in this chapter, shall apply to all properties within a designated noise area:

Noise Area City Zoning Districts Time Period Exterior Standard 1 RE-1, RD-1, RE-2, RD-2,
RE-3, RD-3, RD-4, R-1-A,
RD-5, R-2, RD-10, R-2A,
RD-20, R-3, RD-30,
RD‑40, RM-1, RM-2, A-1-
B, AR-1, A-2, AR-2, A‑5,
AR-5
7:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m. 55 dBA
10:00 p.m. – 7:00 a.m. 50 dBA
The exterior noise level in the above table is interpreted as an hourly average (Leq) metric. The residences to the west, northwest, and north of the Project site are zoned RD-5, as illustrated in Figure 4 at the end of this report. As such, the Project is restricted to noise levels no greater than 55 dBA Leq during the daytime and 50 dBA Leq during the nighttime, at the residential property boundary closest to the Project site for each adjacent residential parcel.

Because equipment will operate in the overnight period as well as in the daytime, noise control for facility operations must ensure that operational noise levels comply with the more stringent 50 dBA Leq limit.

RCMC Section 6.68.090 addresses exemptions to the above noise level limits. Operation of the facility would not qualify for an exemption, but noise from construction activities would fall under the following exemption if conducted within the allowable periods.

ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

Page 812 of 981 ends

Vesper Energy
Juniper Creek Energy Storage Facility, Rancho Cordova, California Noise Letter Report
May 9, 2023

Page 4 ends

DUDEK.COM
E. Noise sources associated with construction, repair, remodeling, demolition, paving or grading of any real property, provided said activities do not take place between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. on weekdays and Friday commencing at 8:00 p.m. through and including 7:00 a.m. on Saturday; Saturdays commencing at 8:00 p.m. through and including 7:00 a.m. on the next following Sunday and on each Sunday after the hour of 8:00 p.m.; provided, however, when an unforeseen or unavoidable condition occurs during a construction Project and the nature of the Project necessitates that work in process be continued until a specific phase is completed, the contractor or owner shall be allowed to continue work after 8:00 p.m. and to operate machinery and equipment necessary until completion of the specific work in progress can be brought to conclusion under conditions which will not jeopardize inspection acceptance or create undue financial hardships for the contractor or owner;
2 Baseline Sound Level Survey
During April 4-5, 2022, Dudek conducted continuous 24-hour sound level measurements in the Project vicinity to characterize the existing ambient noise environment. The measurement location is depicted in Figure 5 (at the end of this report). The measurement location (depicted as M on Figure 5) is between the ESS Project site/Cordova Substation and the closest residences to the west; the measurement point is just outside the fenced rear yard of the adjacent residence.

The measurement was conducted using a SoftdB brand Piccolo II Type 2 Sound Level Meter. Type 2 sound-level meters have precision accuracy that is suitable for all types of environmental noise evaluation. The sound-level meter was calibrated before and after use in the field for these measurements. The sound level meter was configured to record data for one-hour intervals. Sound level metrics including Leq. Lmax, Lmin, were recorded for each one-hour period. Measurement data was collected over a 24-hour period at the measurement locations Data logs for each of the three measurement locations are included in Attachment 2. Table 1 presents the results of the baseline sound level survey on an hourly Leq basis. Refer to Attachment 2 for the complete data logs from the sound level meter over the 24-hour measurement period.

Table 1: Measured Sound Levels in Project Vicinity
Site
Daytime Noise Level Range
dBA (Leq hour)
Nighttime Noise Level Range
dBA (Leq hour)
Measure Location M 38- 59 34 - 50
The higher measured noise levels (represented as the upper end of the range for one-hour average levels), are attributed to vehicle traffic along Canyonlands Drive and peak electrical consumption periods (resulting in higher sound generation at the Rancho Cordova substation). The measurement point was placed at the residence which would be closest to both the existing Rancho Cordova sub-station and the proposed Project. With peak electrical consumption activity and commuter traffic present on the adjacent roadways, daytime average noise levels ranged from 38 to 59 dBA Leq with only one hour when the measured noise level marginally exceeded the 55 dBA Leq daytime limit. Overnight average hourly noise levels ranged from 34 to 50 dBA Leq with no periods when the measured noise level exceeded the 55 dBA Leq nighttime limit.

ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

Page 813 of 981 ends

Vesper Energy
Juniper Creek Energy Storage Facility, Rancho Cordova, California Noise Letter Report
May 9, 2023

Page 5 ends

DUDEK.COM
3 Project Description
The energy storage facility would connect to existing adjacent Rancho Cordova electrical substation, allowing electricity to be drawn from the transmission lines feeding the substation during off-peak hours, stored in on-site battery systems, and fed back into the transmission lines during high demand (peak) periods. Major Project components include Tesla Megapacks (a complete energy storage solution including direct current [DC] batteries, bidirectional inverter, thermal management system, and a Tesla Site Controller), low-to-medium voltage transformers, and a step-up transformer within the on-site sub-station.

The facility would include eighty-six pairs of Megapacks (172 total megapacks). The outer dimensions of the Megapack containers are 23’5” width, 5’3” depth, and 8’3” height. A pad-mounted low-to-medium voltage transformer will generally be installed at the end of each two pairs of parallel Megapacks. The pad-mounted transformers adjacent to the Megapacks are assumed to comply with National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) standards for a medium voltage transformer, not to exceed a sound level generation of 72 dBA PWL. The high voltage main power step-up transformer will be 110 mega volt ampere (MVA) with a connection voltage of 220kV; the NEMA standards for this capacity transformer dictate a sound level generation not to exceed 97 dBA PWL.

Ultimately, the storage capacity of the facility could be augmented with 86 clusters each of six Augmentation Megapacks, one cluster placed adjacent to the end of each Megapack pair. Noise modeling was performed for this ultimate site configuration, with the inclusion of the 86 Augmentation Megapacks. Refer to Figure 3 for the detailed Site Plan Layout which indicates the configuration of major components described above.

The Project also entails improvements to the existing Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) Cordova Substation to interconnect and accommodate the Project. The improvements will be entirely located within the substation’s developed footprint and are expected to include completion of a bay within the Cordova Substation by adding an additional circuit breaker and disconnect switch. Specific upgrades will be finalized through the ongoing interconnection process with SMUD. The Project also entails modification of the existing SMUD Hedge-Cordova 230kV remedial action scheme (RAS) at the existing Hedge and Cordova substations. Modification of the RAS is limited to digital programming changes for grid protection and relaying. No ground disturbing activities are anticipated at the SMUD Hedge Substation. 4 Operational Noise Prediction

4.1 Methodology
Prediction of operation noise attributed to the Project involved creation of a sound propagation model using a Dudek proprietary Excel-based software tool. Dudek NoisePro is used for calculation, presentation, assessment, and prediction of environmental noise. Estimated sound emission from the Megapacks and Augmentation Megapacks (i.e., the top-mounted cooling fan units), medium-voltage transformers, and step-up transformer were entered into the Dudek NoisePro model. The outdoor noise propagation formulas in NoisePro follow the International Organization of Standardization (ISO) Standard 9613-2, “Attenuation of Sound During Propagation Outdoors, Part 2: General Method of Calculation” (ISO 1996).

For the Tesla Megapacks, the primary noise generation comes from the operation of the cooling fans. The cooling fans do not run continuously, but instead are activated only if needed to exhaust excess heat when outside air temperatures are elevated. For a proposed Megapack installation outside Houston Texas, Tesla conducted a careful ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

Page 814 of 981 ends

Vesper Energy
Juniper Creek Energy Storage Facility, Rancho Cordova, California Noise Letter Report
May 9, 2023

Page 6 ends

DUDEK.COM
evaluation of climatic conditions in January and July and correlated this to the operation of fans throughout a 24- hour representative day in January and July. Refer to Attachment 3 for a summary of the fan usage study. Because the 40% fan level is the most common throughout a day (with rare instances of higher fan use), the 40% fan level is used for the modeling.

A cluster of six (6) Augmentation Megapacks would provide storage capacity similar to one Megapack, and therefore each cluster of 6 Augmentation Megapacks is conservatively estimated to generate the equivalent sound level of one Megapack.

Project features are input as sound sources or sound barriers in the NoisePro model space and defined with the following assumptions and available Project design information (component locations indicated on Figure 3):
• Megapack cooling systems – The Tesla team provided one-third octave band center frequency (1/3- OBCF) sound power levels for each of six sound intensity measurement facings (originally based upon a 95% operating capacity). These sound power levels from each of the six facings for a single fan were logarithmically added together to calculate the total sound power for a single fan; then the results for eleven identical fans were logarithmically added together to yield A-weighted noise emission levels for a single Megapack. The sound generation level from the Megapack is actually dependent upon the operating speed of the cooling fan units; Tesla provided sound power level data for six discrete fan operating speeds including 95%, 90%, 80%, 70%, 60% and 40% (Refer to Attachment 4 for Tesla Megapack sound power level data documentation). Table 2 summarizes the sound power level data provided by Tesla, for use in the NoisePro model. The sound power level was depicted in the model as a horizontal area source no more than a few inches above the upper surface of a solid “building” block representing a Megapack container. Because of the use pattern data of the cooling fans from several megapack installation sites, 40% fan capacity was found to be the most common level and is used for the NoisePro modeling. The Megapack sound power data was also applied to each cluster of 6 Augmentation Megapacks.

Table 2: Modeled Source Sound Power Level (PWL, dBA) for Megapack According to Fan Operating Speed
Source:
11-Fan Megapack
Cooling Area
Fan Operating Speed by Percentage
90% 80% 70% 60% 40%
PWL dBA 97.7 94.6 92.6 89.8 84.1
• Medium-voltage transformers – Situated near each Megapack (or pair of such units) is a groundmounted transformer with A-weighted sound power levels appearing in Table 3, again correlated to each of the capacity operating levels of the Megapacks. The sound power for each transformer at 90% operation was based on a Tesla selection of 64 dBA (sound pressure level at one meter) from a NEMA TR-1 table. Octave-band center frequency (OBCF) detail for this transformer noise emission level was ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

Page 815 of 981 ends

Vesper Energy
Juniper Creek Energy Storage Facility, Rancho Cordova, California Noise Letter Report
May 9, 2023

Page 7 ends

DUDEK.COM
estimated with algorithms and dB adjustments appearing in the Electric Power Plant Environmental Noise Guide (Edison Electric Institute 1984). These transformer sound power levels were input as horizontal area sources (roughly consistent with the footprint of the equipment on the available site plan) at approximately 6 feet above grade.
• Sub-station transformer – The A-weighted sound power level of the sub-station (step-up) transformer was estimated with the same aforementioned guidance from the Edison Electric Institute, using 110 MVA as the anticipated load at full Project site capacity. The sound power for each transformer at 90% operation was based on a Tesla selection of 89 dBA (sound pressure level at one meter) from a NEMA TR-1 table. Octave-band center frequency (OBCF) detail for this transformer noise emission level was estimated with the same algorithms and dB adjustments appearing in the aforementioned Electric Power Plant Environmental Noise Guide. The GSU transformer sound power was input to the model space as a horizontal area source (roughly consistent with the footprint of the equipment on the available site plan) at approximately 6 feet above grade.

Table 3: Modeled Source Sound Power Levels (PWL, dBA) for Transformers Source Operating
Level
Octave Band Center Frequencies (A-weighted PWL OBCF, dB by Hertz [Hz]) Overall

31.5 63 125 250 500 1K 2K 4K 8K PWL
Mediumvoltage
Transformer
(4 MVA)
90% 30 49 61 63 69 66 62 57 48 72.4
Substation
Transformer
(110 MVA)
90% 55 74 86 88 94 91 87 82 73 97.4
• Sound Barrier (Noise Wall) – The site plan indicates a noise wall along the westerly side of the facility, between the facility and existing residences. Modeling confirmed that the sound barrier must be 12 feet in height to ensure facility operational noise at the closest residences would be in compliance with RCMC Section 6.68.070.

Calculation parameters that establish how the NoisePro model predicts combined noise level from these abovelisted Project sources include as follows:
• Sound propagation per International Organization of Standardization (ISO) 9613-2 (ISO 1996); • Default ground acoustical absorption coefficient = 0.5 (on a scale of 0 = reflective, 1 = absorptive); and.
• Zero order of reflection.

ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

Page 816 of 981 ends

Vesper Energy
Juniper Creek Energy Storage Facility, Rancho Cordova, California Noise Letter Report
May 9, 2023

Page 8 ends

DUDEK.COM

4.2 Results
Figure 5 indicates the facility boundary and also depicts the sound level measurement location for the ambient noise level survey (M), and a set of 5 modeled receptor locations (R1 – R5) in the NoisePro model space, with a receiver at regular intervals along the row of existing residences closest to the proposed facility. These modeled receptor positions are intended to represent Project operational sound levels at these existing residences, for comparison to RCMC Section 6.68.070 limits.

As described in the Megapack discussion (precedent to Table 2), NoisePro was run with reported sound power levels for fan operating speed of 40%, since this is the most frequent use level that has been shown to occur at several Tesla Megapacks. This model run yielded average sound levels (dBA Leq) at each of the five modeled receiver locations.

Figure 6 graphically represents the noise model results; it not only identifies the modeled sound level at the five selected residences, but also provides noise contours extending outward from the proposed ESS to illustrate the hourly noise level from operation of the Project (i.e., the most common 40% fan utilization from all the included Megapacks and transformers).

4.3 Conclusions – Operational Noise Levels
This noise study includes an analysis of noise emission from operation of the total suite of equipment at the facility at 40 percentage Megapack fan operational levels corresponding to usage histograms developed by Tesla. As described in Section 3.1, Dudek modelled operation noise levels at each studied receiver from an operational level of 40%. In addition, the NoisePro software enables a user to graphically present the predicted sound pressure levels over a defined horizontal plane, such as illustrated in Figure 6. The legend in the bottom right corner of Figure 6 defines a 5-dB range of comparable sound levels for each depicted color. The superposition of the aggregate Project predicted noise emission over the Project site and its surroundings provides the reader a visual understanding of how loud the Project may be at a geographic location (in addition to the selected 5 modeled receivers) from Project operations.

Of particular note on Figure 6 is that the existing adjacent residences are located within the 45-50 dBA Leq contour, indicating that exterior noise exposure from Project operations would be less than 50 dBA Leq (the most restrictive noise limit under RCMC Section 6.68.070) Table 4 summarizes these estimated Project-attributed operational hourly Leq values at these five offsite locations.

Table 4: Predicted Aggregate Operation Noise (dBA Leq) at Modeled Receptors Modeled Scenario R1 R2 R3 R4 R5
ESS Operational Noise Level 49 49 49 48 48
In each case, the predicted operational noise level would fall below the applicable maximum allowable nightime noise limit, thereby also complying with the less stringent daytime limit. As such, the noise from the ESS facility would comply with RCMC Section 6.68.070.

ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

Page 817 of 981 ends

Vesper Energy
Juniper Creek Energy Storage Facility, Rancho Cordova, California Noise Letter Report
May 9, 2023

Page 9 ends

DUDEK.COM
Substitution of Equipment
Integrated battery storage systems similar to the Tesla Megapack technology are available from other manufacturers today, with the possibility of further options from additional manufacturers in the future. Consequently, implementation of the Project could potentially move forward with the selection of an alternate battery storage system from a different manufacturer than Tesla. The reference sound level used for the Tesla Megapack in this report (at 40% fan capacity) is 76 dBA at 1 meter from the Megapack container. If a containerized battery storage system with integrated inverter would have a sound level equal to or less than 76 dBA at 1 meter from the container, and the same configuration of battery storage containers is used, the sound levels quantified in this report would remain accurate for the substitute equipment.

If the sound levels for a battery storage container would be greater than this level, the report conclusions would not be valid, and the new battery storage equipment and site layout configuration would need to be evaluated to determine the resultant composite noise levels at the existing residences.

4.4 Recommendations – Operational Noise Levels
Modeling of facility equipment operations noise levels on the basis of capacity characteristics represented by expected climatic conditions and corresponding Megapack fan utilization and transformer loadings, concludes that the facility noise levels would fall below the exterior noise exposure limits applicable to residential land use at the existing adjacent residential properties. However, these modeling results are based upon the incorporation of a 12- foot-high solid sound barrier (noise wall) in the location depicted on the site plan by Westwood (April 2022). It is therefore recommended that civil engineering design plans be augmented with specifications to comprehensively address the 12-foot-high solid sound barrier (noise wall), including foundation elements necessary for adequate support of the wall element.

The Project as proposed and acoustically studied herein would be expected to achieve compliance with the requirements of RCMC Section 6.68.070. Other than provision of details regarding the 12-foot-high noise wall in the engineering design plans, no additional noise control features or methods would be required or recommended. 5 Construction Noise
Construction of the proposed energy storage facility and Cordova Substation improvements would generate noise that could expose nearby receptors to elevated noise levels that may disrupt communication and routine activities.

The magnitude of the impact would depend on the type of construction activity, equipment, duration of the construction phase, distance between the noise source and receiver, and intervening structures. The range of maximum noise levels for various types of construction equipment is depicted in Table 5. Typical operating cycles may involve 2 minutes of full power, followed by 3 or 4 minutes at lower levels.

Table 5. Construction Equipment Noise Emission Levels
Equipment Typical Sound Level (dB) – 50 feet from Source Air Compressor 81
Backhoe 80
Compactor 82
Concrete mixer 85
Concrete pump 82
ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

Page 818 of 981 ends

Vesper Energy
Juniper Creek Energy Storage Facility, Rancho Cordova, California Noise Letter Report
May 9, 2023

Page 10 ends

DUDEK.COM
Table 5. Construction Equipment Noise Emission Levels
Equipment Typical Sound Level (dB) – 50 feet from Source Concrete vibrator 76
Crane, derrick 88
Crane, mobile 83
Dozer 85
Generator 81
Grader 85
Impact wrench 85
Jack hammer 88
Loader 85
Paver 89
Pneumatic tool 85
Pump 76
Roller 74
Saw 76
Scraper 89
Truck 88
Source: FHWA 2011a, 2011b. Notes: dB = decibel.

5.1 Construction Equipment Inventory
The California Air Resources Board CalEEMod (California Emissions Evaluation Model) was used to identify the construction equipment anticipated for development of a graded pad area and access roads of the proposed size, including the setting of modules or trailers by crane. The equipment list is based upon the Project description, with construction area of approximately 2 acres, CalEEMod (Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1) identified the following anticipated equipment for each phase of the Project construction.

Table 6. Construction Equipment Per Phase
Construction Activity Site Preparation
Equipment Needed Dozer Backhoe
Construction Activity Grading
Equipment Needed Grader Dozer
Backhoe Excavator
Construction Activity Building Construction/Cordova Substation Improvements Equipment Needed Forklift Crane
Backhoe Generator
Construction Activity Paving
Equipment Needed Paver Dump Truck
ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

Page 819 of 981 ends

Vesper Energy
Juniper Creek Energy Storage Facility, Rancho Cordova, California Noise Letter Report
May 9, 2023

Page 11 ends

DUDEK.COM
Roller
Construction Activity Architectural Coating
Equipment Needed Air Compressor

5.2 Construction Noise Assessment
With the noise sources identified above, a noise analysis was performed using a model developed under the auspices of the Federal Highway Administration called the Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM) (FHWA 2011b). Input variables for RCNM consist of the receiver / land use types, the equipment type (i.e., backhoe, crane, truck, etc.), the number of equipment pieces, the duty cycle for each piece of equipment (i.e., percentage of hours the equipment typically works per day), and the distance from the sensitive noise. Refer to Appendix E for the inputs used in the RCNM model, as well as results.

The various construction equipment types and quantities (as described above) were used for this analysis. The RCNM has default duty cycle values for the various pieces of equipment, which were derived from an extensive study of typical construction activity patterns. Those default duty cycle values were utilized for this analysis.

Noise-sensitive land uses in the vicinity of the Project include residences on properties to the west/northwest of the Project site. The closest off-site residence is located approximately 275 feet from the closest boundary of the proposed Project site. A playground area within Sunridge Park, to the north of the Project, is located approximately 410 feet from the closest boundary of the Project site. Therefore, the construction noise assessment is focused on noise levels that would occur at the distance of the closest off-site residences (i.e., at 275 feet and 410 feet), construction noise levels at greater distances from the site would be less.

Using the provided construction information and the distance identified for the closest receivers, the RCNM construction noise model was used to predict noise from on-site construction activities. The results are summarized in Table 7 (see Attachment D for complete results).

Table 7. Construction Noise Summary of Results (dBA Leq) Receiver
Location/
Description
Land Use
Construction Noise Level (dBA Leq) by Construction Phase Phase 1: Site
Preparation
Phase 2:

Grading
Phase 3: Building
Construction/Cordova
Substation
Improvements
Phase 4:

Paving
Phase 5:

Architectural
Coating
Nearest OffSite Receivers
West (275
feet)
Residential 66 70 70 63 59
Nearest OffSite Receivers Park 62 66 66 60 55
ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

Page 820 of 981 ends

Vesper Energy
Juniper Creek Energy Storage Facility, Rancho Cordova, California Noise Letter Report
May 9, 2023

Page 12 ends

DUDEK.COM
North (410
feet)
The Project would be required to comply with RCMC Section 6.68.090 by adhering to the following construction restrictions:
• Construction noise levels must comply with the nighttime residential limit of 50 dBA Leq for any work conducted in the period between 8:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. on weekdays and Friday commencing at 8:00 p.m. through and including 7:00 a.m. on Saturday; Saturdays commencing at 8:00 p.m. through and including 7:00 a.m. on the next following Sunday and on each Sunday after the hour of 8:00 p.m.

Construction conducted during the daytime (6 a.m. to 8 p.m. weekdays and 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. on Saturday) is not subject to a noise level limit. Due to the nature of the Project design (i.e., primarily the placement of containers and other equipment on small individual concrete pads, trenching for electrical cabling) it is not anticipated that construction would involve activities that need to extend into the overnight period. Therefore, the Project construction should be able to abide by the construction schedule limitations of RCMC Section 6.68.090.

With regard to construction noise levels in comparison to ambient noise levels, Caltrans Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol identifies a 12 dBA Leq increase significance threshold for assessment of temporary noise level increases (i.e., construction-related noise) (Caltrans 2013). If the Project-related construction noise levels generate a temporary noise level increase above the existing ambient noise levels of greater than 12 dBA Leq, then the Project construction noise level increases would be considered a potentially significant impact. Although the Caltrans recommendations were specifically developed to assess traffic noise impacts, the 12 dBA Leq substantial noise level increase threshold is often used in California to address noise level increases with the potential to exceed existing conditions.

In reviewing the results in Table 7, the average construction noise levels at the closest residence (west of the proposed Project site) would range from 59 to 70 dBA Leq. These noise levels are considered to be a peak exposure, applicable not more than 10-15% of the total construction period, only while the construction activity is taking place along the westerly construction site boundary (i.e., closest to the nearest off-site receiver). Average noise levels at the playground within Sunridge Park to the north would range from 55 to 66 dBA Leq (which also represent the peak levels while construction is occurring along the northern Project site boundary, anticipated to occur not more than 10-15% of the total construction period). With average construction noise levels during grading and other typical construction activities ranging up to 70 dBA Leq (hourly) at the closest residences, even the closest residences would experience a temporary construction noise increase not exceeding 11 dBA over ambient (refer to Table 1). Therefore, construction noise levels as compared to daytime ambient levels would result in a less than significant temporary noise impact.

5.3 Conclusions – Construction Noise Levels
Although the adjacent residences and park playground could be exposed to construction noise levels that are noticeable compared to ambient levels, and therefore could result in potential annoyance, the exposure would be short term, would occur during the less sensitive daytime period, and would cease upon proposed Project construction completion. In addition, the noise level increase would also remain below the 12 dBA threshold of ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

Page 821 of 981 ends

Vesper Energy
Juniper Creek Energy Storage Facility, Rancho Cordova, California Noise Letter Report
May 9, 2023

Page 13 ends

DUDEK.COM
significance for temporary construction noise. Therefore, construction noise would remain less than significant, and would not be anticipated to result in a nuisance or to lead to sleep interference.

6. Construction Vibration
Construction activity can result in varying degrees of ground vibration at local receptors, depending on the equipment and methods used, distance to the affected structures, and soil type. It is expected that ground-borne vibration from Project construction activities would cause only intermittent, localized intrusion. Ground-borne vibration levels resulting from typical construction activities occurring within the Project site were estimated by data and methods published by Caltrans (2020). Ground vibration levels associated with various types of construction equipment are summarized in Table 8.

Table 8: Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment Equipment
PPV (in/sec)
at 25 feet
Small bulldozer 0.003
Jackhammer 0.035
Loaded Trucks 0.076
Large bulldozer 0.089
Source: Caltrans 2020
Using the vibration source level of construction equipment provided in Table 8 and the construction vibration assessment methodology published by Caltrans (2020), it is possible to estimate the Project vibration impacts. To calculate vibration levels at a given distance associated with construction vibration Caltrans provides the following equation: PPVequip = PPVref x (25/D)1.5 The closest residential receivers are at a distance of approximately 275 feet from the construction boundary. At a distance of 275 feet, the vibration level from a large bulldozer would be reduced to approximately 0.002 in/sec PPV. Vibration levels from other equipment listed in Table 8 would be lower than this at 275 feet. The calculated vibration level of 0.002 in/sec PPV at the closest residences would be well below the human annoyance threshold of 0.2 in/sec PPV, and even further below the residential structure damage of 0.5 in/sec PPV. Moreover, the impacts at the site of the nearest sensitive receiver locations are unlikely to be sustained during the entire construction period but rather will occur only during the times that heavy construction equipment is operating adjacent to the westerly Project site perimeter. Therefore, the Project-related vibration impacts would remain less than significant during the construction activities at the Project site.

ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

Page 822 of 981 ends

Vesper Energy
Juniper Creek Energy Storage Facility, Rancho Cordova, California Noise Letter Report
May 9, 2023

Page 14 ends

DUDEK.COM
7 References
Caltrans. 2009. Technical Noise Supplement.

Caltrans.2013. Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol.

Caltrans. 2020. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual.

Edison Electric Institute. 1984. Electric Power Plant Environmental Noise Guide. 2nd edition. Volume I.

FHWA. 2011a. Construction Noise Handbook.

FHWA. 2011b. Roadway Construction Noise Model, Version 1.1 Howden Buffalo, Inc. 1999. Fan Engineering. Edited by Robert Jorgensen. Buffalo, NY.

International Organization of Standardization (ISO). 1996. 9613-2: “Attenuation of Sound During Propagation Outdoors, Part 2: General Method of Calculation”. December. Accessible at https://www.iso.org/standard/20649.html
Rancho Cordova Municipal Code
8 Closing
Dudek trusts that the results and findings presented in this letter report meet your needs for the Project at this time and represents appropriate completion of the approved scope of work.

Sincerely,
____________________________________
Jonathan V. Leech, INCE
Environmental Technical Group Manager
805-308-8527
[email protected]
ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

Page 823 of 981 ends

Vesper Energy
Juniper Creek Energy Storage Facility, Rancho Cordova, California Noise Letter Report
May 9, 2023
DUDEK.COM
ATTACHMENT 1

ACOUSTIC TERMINOLOGY
ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

Page 824 of 981 ends

Attachment 1
Acoustical Terminology and Definitions
Ambient Noise Level The composite of noise from all sources near and far. The normal or existing level of environmental noise at a given location.

A-Weighted Sound Level (dBA) The sound pressure level (SPL) in decibels as measured on a sound level meter (SLM) using the A-weighted filter network. The Aweighting filter de-emphasizes the very low and very high frequency components of the measured sound in a manner similar to the frequency response of the average healthy human ear, and thus correlates well with assessment of environmental noise in a community setting where noise-sensitive receptors may be present.

Decibel (dB) The unit for expressing SPL and is equal to 10 times the logarithm (to the base 10) of the ratio of the measured sound pressure squared to a reference pressure, which is 20 micropascals.

Equivalent Sound Level (Leq) The value corresponding to a steady-state sound level containing the same total energy as a time-varying signal over a given sample

Octave Band Center Frequency (OBCF) Commonly discussed octave frequency bands are: 31.5 Hz, 63 Hz, levels occurring over a time period.
period. Leq is designed to average all of the loud and quiet sound 125 Hz, 250 Hz, 500 Hz, 1 kHz, 2 kHz, 4 kHz, 8 kHz and 16 kHz.

Each of these “center frequencies” represents an octave band defined by a lower band limit equal to 0.707 times the center frequency, and an upper band limit equal to 1.414 times the center frequency.

In addition to the above key terms, the following paragraphs provide a primer on relevant noise terminology and fundamental acoustical concepts that should help frame the discussion of measured outdoor ambient noise levels and corresponding metrics and statistical values used in this technical memorandum.

Sound, Noise, Acoustics
Sound is oscillation that travels through the air or another medium, entailing a process that consists of three components: the source, the path, and the receiver. All three components must be present for sound to exist and be perceived. Without a source to produce sound, there is no sound. Likewise, without a medium to transmit sound pressure waves, there is no sound. Finally, sound must be received; a hearing organ, sensor, or object must be present to perceive, register, or be affected by sound or noise. In most situations, there are many different sound sources, paths, and receptors rather than just one of each. Acoustics is the field of science that deals with the production, propagation, reception, effects, and control of sound. Noise is defined as sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or undesired.

Sound Pressure Levels and Decibels
The amplitude of a sound determines its loudness. Loudness of sound increases with increasing amplitude. Sound pressure amplitude is measured in units of micro-Newton per square meter, also called micro-Pascal. One micro13267 1-1 April 2022
ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

Page 825 of 981 ends

Attachment 1
Acoustical Terminology and Definitions
1-2

Pascal is approximately one-hundred billionths (0.00000000001) of normal atmospheric pressure. The pressure of a very loud sound may be 200 million micro-Pascals, or 10 million times the pressure of the weakest audible sound. Because expressing sound levels in terms of micro-Pascal would be very cumbersome, sound pressure level in logarithmic units is used instead to describe the ratio of actual sound pressures to a reference pressure squared.

These units are called Bels. To provide a finer resolution, a Bel is subdivided into 10 decibels, abbreviated dB.

Sound pressure level alone is not a reliable indicator of loudness. The frequency, or pitch, of a sound also has a substantial effect on how humans will respond. Although the intensity (energy per unit area) of the sound is a purely physical quantity, the loudness or human response is determined by the characteristics of the human ear.

Human hearing is limited not only in the range of audible frequencies but also in the way it perceives the sound in that range. In general, the healthy human ear is most sensitive to sounds between 1,000 Hertz (Hz) and 5,000 Hz, and it perceives a sound within that range as more intense than a sound of higher or lower frequency with the same magnitude. To approximate the frequency response of the human ear, a series of sound level adjustments is usually applied to the sound measured by a sound level meter. The adjustments (referred to as a weighting network) are frequency-dependent.

A-weighted Sound Level
The A-scale weighting network approximates the frequency response of the average healthy ear when listening to most ordinary sounds. When people make judgments of the relative loudness or annoyance of a sound, their judgments correlate well with the A-scale sound levels of those sounds. All sound levels discussed herein are Aweighted (dBA) unless otherwise noted.

Under controlled conditions in an acoustics laboratory, the trained, healthy human ear is able to discern changes in sound levels of 1 dB when exposed to steady, single-frequency signals in the mid-frequency range. Outside such controlled conditions, the trained ear can detect changes of 2 dB in normal environmental noise. It is widely accepted that the average healthy ear, however, can barely perceive noise level changes of 3 dB in outdoor environments. A change of 5 dB is readily perceptible, and a change of 10 dB is perceived as twice or half as loud.

As discussed above, a doubling of sound energy results in a 3 dB increase in sound, which means that a doubling of sound energy (e.g., doubling the volume of traffic on a road) would result in a barely perceptible change in sound level.

Noise Level Descriptors
Additional units of measure have also been developed to evaluate the long-term characteristics of sound. The equivalent sound level (Leq), is also referred to as the time-average sound level. It is the equivalent steady state sound level which in a stated period of time would contain the same acoustical energy as the time-varying sound level during the same time period. The 1-hour A-weighted equivalent sound level, Leq1h, is the energy average of the A-weighted sound levels occurring during a 1-hour period and is commonly the basis for community noise ordinance criteria.

People are generally more sensitive and annoyed by noise occurring during the evening and nighttime hours. Thus, another noise descriptor used in community noise assessments, the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL), was introduced. The CNEL scale represents a time-weighted 24-hour average noise level based on the A-weighted sound level. The CNEL accounts for the increased noise sensitivity during the evening hours (7:00 p.m. to 10:00 13267
April 2022
ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

Page 826 of 981 ends

Attachment 1
Acoustical Terminology and Definitions
1-3
p.m.) and nighttime hours (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) by adding 5 dB and 10 dB, respectively, to the average hourly sound levels during these periods.

Sound Propagation
Sound propagation (i.e., the passage of sound through a gaseous or fluid medium from a noise source to a receiver) is influenced by several factors. These factors include geometric spreading, ground absorption, and atmospheric effects, as well as shielding by natural and/or man-made features. Sound levels are attenuated at a rate of approximately 6 dB per doubling of distance from an outdoor point source due to the geometric spreading of the sound waves. Additional sound attenuation can result from man-made features such as intervening walls and buildings, as well as natural features such as hills and dense woods. Atmospheric conditions such as humidity, temperature, and wind gradients can temporarily either increase or decrease sound levels. In general, the greater the distance the receiver is from the source, the greater the potential for variation in sound levels due to atmospheric effects.

13267
April 2022
ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

Page 827 of 981 ends

Vesper Energy
Juniper Creek Energy Storage Facility, Rancho Cordova, California Noise Letter Report
May 9, 2023
DUDEK.COM
ATTACHMENT 2

AMBIENT NOISE MEASUREMENT DATA
ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

Page 828 of 981 ends

Sunridge Storage
Date: April 04, 2022 to April 05, 2022
Site: LT-01
Hour Leq Lmax L50 L90
15:00 47.3 60.0 43.9 39.2 Leq Lmax L50 L90
16:00 47.4 64.0 44.2 38.9 38.1 52.7 36.0 34.5
17:00 47.6 64.0 43.8 39.8 34.3 42.4 33.8 33.0
18:00 48.3 68.9 45.6 41.4
19:00 47.8 62.6 45.3 39.4
20:00 41.8 63.8 37.0 34.7
21:00 38.1 52.7 36.0 34.5 Leq Lmax L50 L90
22:00 38.4 64.2 36.2 34.4 50.4 64.4 44.4 40.4
23:00 38.2 58.8 36.0 33.9 42.5 54.6 37.0 34.8
0:00 36.7 52.9 35.5 33.3
1:00 35.2 42.7 34.6 33.1
2:00 34.3 53.2 33.8 33.0
3:00 35.2 42.4 34.2 33.3 Leq Lmax L50 L90
4:00 40.1 60.7 36.7 34.6 58.6 78.6 50.4 46.0
5:00 39.4 56.5 37.5 35.0 50.5 64.2 48.7 43.0
6:00 50.5 60.2 48.7 43.0
7:00 52.1 66.6 50.4 46.0
8:00 50.5 68.4 46.4 41.7
9:00 50.8 67.8 46.3 42.1 91%
10:00 58.6 78.6 46.1 41.8 9%
11:00 47.9 65.2 45.4 41.9
12:00 48.2 61.9 46.4 42.9
13:00 47.3 61.9 44.9 41.3
14:00 46.3 59.6 44.5 40.3
Average Level
Nighttime (10 p.m. - 7 a.m.)
Nighttime (10 p.m. - 7 a.m.)
Nighttime (10 p.m. - 7 a.m.)
Daytime
Daytime (7 a.m. - 7 p.m.)
Daytime (7 a.m. - 7 p.m.)
Nighttime
Energy Distribution
Uppermost-Level
Daytime (7 a.m. - 7 p.m.)
Calculated Ldn, dBA

51.3 Attachment 2
Long-Term 24 Hour Continuous Noise Monitoring
Project:

Lowermost Level
ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

Page 829 of 981 ends

Ldn= 51.3
Attachment 2
Sunridge Storage - LT-01
April 04, 2022 to April 05, 2022
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Evening
Nighttime
Lmax
Leq
L50
L90
1-min. Leq
ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

Page 830 of 981 ends

Vesper Energy
Juniper Creek Energy Storage Facility, Rancho Cordova, California Noise Letter Report
May 9, 2023
DUDEK.COM
ATTACHMENT 3

TESLA HISTOGRAM DATA

HOUSTON TEXAS SITE
ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

Page 831 of 981 ends

Cooling Fan Use Pattern (Histogram)
The use of the cooling fans for the megapacks is a function of climatic conditions. In warmer temperatures, the fans run in order to circulate air through the cabinet and remove excess heat from the inverters. The manufacturer of the megapacks performed a careful study of climate patterns for a proposed site outside Houston Texas to establish the fan usage (expressed in speed or percentage of fan capacity) throughout the day. The information below compares climatic conditions in Sacramento California with Houston Texas. Rancho Cordova is within 15 miles of Sacramento, and therefore climate conditions for Sacramento are applicable to the project site.

Climate Comparison
Houston, TX Sacramento, CA
Rainfall (inches) 53 20
Snowfall 0 0
Precipitation (days) 90 63
Sunny 204 269
Avg. July High 93 93
Avg. Jan. Low 43 39
Comfort Index (higher=better) 6.6 7.2
UV Index 6.1 5.2
Source: NOAA, National Center for Environmental Data, https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/ Number of days of sunshine are greater in Sacramento, compared to Houston. The average daily temperature in July is the same in Sacramento and Houston, which means the cooling fans would operate at the same levels in both locales during the hottest month. However, the comfort index is actually higher for Sacramento (which accounts for factors such as humidity; Houston has a higher humidity, which makes the cooling of equipment more difficult).

The January average temperatures in Sacramento are only 4 degrees less, and therefore very comparable to Houston. The megapacks are not equipped with heaters, as the inverters naturally generate heat during the electricity transfer process.

Consequently the provided representative daily use histograms for the cooling fan use in January and July at the Houston Texas site would be very reasonable as a reference for the Sacramento (Rancho Cordova) site operations. The use histograms from Houston are provided on the following pages.

From the histograms, it is clear that the 40 percent fan level (0.4) is the most common occurrence throughout the 24-hour period, in both January and July. There are virtually no fan levels higher than 40 percent, with a handful of occurrences with 20 percent fan level use. 40 percent is therefore representative of the most common, and most intensive, fan use that is anticipated for the Sacramento (Rancho Cordova) site.

ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

Page 832 of 981 ends

Total Daily Fan Duty - July
Total Daily Fan Duty - January
Fan Speed (Percent of Capacity)
ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

Page 833 of 981 ends

Vesper Energy
Juniper Creek Energy Storage Facility, Rancho Cordova, California Noise Letter Report
May 9, 2023
DUDEK.COM
ATTACHMENT 4

TESLA MEGAPACK SOUND LEVEL DATA
ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

Page 834 of 981 ends

Megapack Sound Power Level
Tesla Energy – March 2020
ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

Page 835 of 981 ends

© Copyright 2020 Tesla, Inc. All rights reserved. Proprietary and Confidential Business Information. • The sound power of the Megapack is estimated using the sound intensity method. • Imaginary surfaces encompassing the noise radiating surfaces of the Megapack were scanned using a pressure-particle velocity (pu) probe to capture the average sound intensity over each surface.
• The average intensity was multiplied by the surface area of each imaginary surface to calculate the sound power. • The sound power of each surface was added to calculate the total sound power of a Megapack during operation. • Measurements were made with either one fan or two fans in operation. These values were used to calculate the sound power level of multiple fans.
• Results at 100% fan duty cycle are not available at this time, but our expectations are that these will not be significantly different than 95% results Sound Power – Intensity Method
2 Sound Power Level
Original
Measurement Scaled Up from Original
Fan% Total - 2 Fans
2h Megapack
Total - 11 Fans
4h Megapack
Total - 8 Fans
4h Megapack (thermal
depopulation)
Total - 6 Fans
90% 90.3 97.7 96.4 95.1
80% 87.2 94.6 93.2 91.9
70% 85.2 92.6 91.2 90.0
60% 82.4 89.8 88.4 87.1
40% 76.7 84.1 82.7 81.5
Total - 1 Fan Total - 11 Fans Total - 8 Fans Total - 6 Fans 95% 87.7 98.1 96.7 95.5
ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

Page 836 of 981 ends

© Copyright 2020 Tesla, Inc. All rights reserved. Proprietary and Confidential Business Information. 4 30ft 0deg Q=2
Fan % Sound Pressure - 11 fans - dBA-SPL Sound Power - 11 fans - dBA-W 100 74.1 98.3
90 73.3 97.5
80 72.1 96.3
70 70.6 94.8
60 69.0 93.2
25ft 45deg
Fan % Sound Pressure - 11 fans - dBA-SPL Sound Power - 11 fans - dBA-W 100 76.4 99.0
50ft 45deg
Fan % Sound Pressure - 11 fans - dBA-SPL Sound Power - 11 fans - dBA-W 100 71.4 100.0
90 70.3 99.0
80 70.5 99.1
70 67.1 95.7
50ft 90deg
Fan % Sound Pressure - 11 fans - dBA-SPL Sound Power - 11 fans - dBA-W 100 66.4 95.0
90 66.4 95.1
80 65.1 93.7
70 64.6 93.2
• The Megapack with 11 fans operating was
measured at the Gigafactory in Reno.
• Sound pressure was measured at fixed distances
from the noisiest sides of the Megapack and the
formula below was used to estimate the sound
power.

Sound Pressure and Sound Power – 11 Fans
ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

Page 837 of 981 ends

© Copyright 2020 Tesla, Inc. All rights reserved. Proprietary and Confidential Business Information. 5 Command
Total - 2 Fans
[Measured sound
power – intensity
method]
Total - 11 Fans
[Estimated from 2-fan
intensity data]
Total 11 Fans [Estimated
from 11-fan sound
pressure data]
Total - 8
Fans
[Estimated]
Total - 6 Fans
[Estimated]
100% N/A N/A 100-95 N/A N/A
90% 90.3 97.7 99-95.1 96.4 95.1
80% 87.2 94.6 96.3-93.7 93.2 91.9
70% 85.2 92.6 99.1-93.2 91.2 90.0
60% 82.4 89.8 93.2 88.4 87.1
40% 76.7 84.1 N/A 82.7 81.5
Testing Validation – 11 Fans
 At 90% and 80% commanded fan speed, the estimated sound power of a Megapack with 11 fans using the intensity method was within the range of the sound power estimated by measuring the sound pressure of a Megapack with 11 fans operating.  However, at lower fan speeds, the intensity method estimated a lower level the sound pressure method.  This should be considered when extrapolating the sound power levels to lower fan speeds.

ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

Page 838 of 981 ends

Appendix
6 ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

Page 839 of 981 ends

© Copyright 2020 Tesla, Inc. All rights reserved. Proprietary and Confidential Business Information. 30 ft 0 degrees
Sound Pressure Measurement Location at Reno
ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

Page 840 of 981 ends

© Copyright 2020 Tesla, Inc. All rights reserved. Proprietary and Confidential Business Information. 50 ft 45 degrees
Sound Pressure Measurement Location at Reno
ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

Page 841 of 981 ends

© Copyright 2020 Tesla, Inc. All rights reserved. Proprietary and Confidential Business Information. 25 ft 45 degrees
Sound Pressure Measurement Location at Reno
ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

Page 842 of 981 ends

© Copyright 2020 Tesla, Inc. All rights reserved. Proprietary and Confidential Business Information. 50 ft 90 degrees
Sound Pressure Measurement Location at Reno
ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

Page 843 of 981 ends

© Copyright 2020 Tesla, Inc. All rights reserved. Proprietary and Confidential Business Information. 16 Sound Power – Intensity Method – 2 Fans 40% Duty Cycle
Top Right Rear Left Front Front Inlet Sum of Surfaces 20 3.8 -7.0 24.1 11.0 -22.3 -1.2 24.3 25 3.3 1.1 29.3 13.0 -6.0 6.6 29.4

31.5 4.8 0.2 32.2 12.8 1.4 11.4 32.3
40 10.4 7.0 34.2 11.0 11.3 18.5 34.4
50 11.7 6.5 35.9 20.8 15.1 22.8 36.3
63 11.4 17.9 38.4 27.1 20.1 25.7 39.1
80 20.0 24.9 35.1 29.1 26.0 29.2 37.6
100 31.6 29.5 37.3 35.4 28.3 33.8 41.5
125 37.8 37.9 39.3 40.3 35.6 39.5 46.4
160 43.2 42.7 45.2 47.4 43.9 47.1 53.1
200 59.9 57.6 63.2 64.0 58.8 60.8 69.1
250 53.4 52.7 56.1 57.0 53.7 52.9 62.4
315 54.5 54.2 56.1 58.2 53.7 53.2 63.1
400 60.3 61.1 62.8 63.6 58.7 59.7 69.1
500 58.7 58.3 60.6 61.7 56.4 57.2 67.0
630 61.1 60.3 62.2 62.8 58.8 58.0 68.7
800 58.9 59.0 61.4 61.5 58.1 54.5 67.2
1000 56.7 56.6 59.5 59.2 56.2 53.1 65.1
1250 55.2 55.4 57.8 57.1 53.9 50.9 63.4
1600 56.2 53.5 57.1 55.5 52.9 48.4 62.5
2000 52.1 51.0 54.3 51.1 49.8 41.4 59.0
2500 46.9 46.8 50.3 44.4 45.7 37.0 54.4
3150 43.3 43.5 46.6 36.3 42.9 38.8 50.8
4000 33.0 35.4 39.2 40.8 36.9 43.3 47.2
5000 36.5 33.8 39.3 39.6 33.1 41.4 46.1
6300 34.8 33.3 37.9 35.8 32.7 37.0 43.4
8000 31.7 30.1 33.6 31.9 29.2 31.3 39.3
10000 25.6 24.5 27.2 26.9 23.4 25.3 33.4
12500 19.8 17.0 19.3 18.2 15.6 20.1 26.4
16000 12.1 2.4 4.4 0.9 6.1 8.2 15.2
20000 7.7 6.4 5.9 8.6 4.3 6.3 14.5
Total 68.4 67.9 70.6 71.1 66.9 66.5 76.7
ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

Page 844 of 981 ends

Vesper Energy
Juniper Creek Energy Storage Facility, Rancho Cordova, California Noise Letter Report
May 9, 2023
DUDEK.COM
ATTACHMENT 5

NOISEPRO MODELING DATA
ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

Page 845 of 981 ends

NoisePro_Tech-Basis-Narr_mcs102721 prepared by M. Storm, INCE Bd. Cert. (Dudek) NoisePro OASPL_384x288 v. 092521 Technical Basis of Dudek’s “NoisePro” Excel-based Outdoor Sound Propagation Prediction Model In summary, the Microsoft Excel-based NoisePro outdoor sound propagation model developed by Dudek calculates the aggregate sound pressure level (SPL) received by each and every cell within a twodimensional (2D) array (a product of X columns of cells by Y rows of cells). The quantity of this received SPL, in A-weighted decibels (dBA), is the logarithmic sum of acoustical contribution from each of “n” userinput sound emitting point sources located on the same 2D array, which may be written as follows:

𝑆𝑃𝐿𝑋,𝑌 = 10 ∗ log∑100.1[𝐿𝑖−𝐴𝑖
]
𝑛
𝑖=1
where each individual source sound level (Li) is attenuated by an algebraic sum of three attenuation factors (Ai = Adiv + Aatm + Agr) that are each dependent on the distance between the sound source position on the X by Y array and the receiving SPLX,Y position on a different position in the same 2D array of worksheet cells, where each cell is defined by the user as representing the center of a square area having equal sides of user-defined length in feet. The above expression is based on Equation 5 from the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 9613-2 “Acoustics – Attenuation of sound during propagation outdoors – Part 2: General method of calculation”, and the individual attenuation factors used by NoisePro emulate those in Equation 4 and may be summarized as follows:
• Adiv = attenuation due to geometrical divergence (i.e., pure distance), equating to 20*LOG(d/dref); and where d is the horizontal distance between a source and a receiver position, while dref is the reference distance at which the sound source Li is defined.
• Aatm = attenuation due to atmospheric absorption, which for 1,000 Hz (1 kHz) = 4.16*d/3280 and is derived from Equation 5.7 in Noise & Vibration Control Engineering (Beranek and Ver, 1992). • Agr = attenuation due to ground effects, appearing as Equation 10 in ISO 9613-2 and can be expressed with the following Excel formula:

Agr = MAX(0,4.8-[hs+hr]/d*[17+984/d])
where hs and hr are the heights (in feet) of the sound source and receiver positions above grade, respectively. This means that for small distances, attenuation from ground effects will be small or essentially zero; and, even at great distances, the attenuation from ground effects is effectively capped at 4.8 dB.

The Excel workbook comprising NoisePro calculates SPLX,Y by using a coding loop to evaluate the acoustic contribution from each attenuated sound source (Li - Ai) in sequence, and logarithmically adding the new evaluation to the previous total in a cumulative manner. When all sources have been evaluated, the loop terminates and yields an aggregate or log-summed total SPLX,Y value that is thus unique to a position in the 2D array of cells represented by X and Y, and can thus be “mapped”. If the user has defined a particular cell in the X by Y array as a uniquely tagged Receiver, then the corresponding SPLX,Y value can be indexed and displayed accordingly.

The resulting output array of cells, each having an individually calculated SPLX,Y numerical value, is then filled with a color (from a user-defined palette) by application of a Conditional Formatting rules set (an Excel formatting feature) that compares the dB quantity with user-defined “high” and “low” dB ranges for each available color. Each colored cell can thus be likened to a “pixel” within a 2D array that forms a composite image representing—visually—the sound propagation from all modeled sound sources.

ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

Page 846 of 981 ends

GRID CALCULATION WORKSHEET
Example Portion of Concluded Calculations Loop
Source 216
grid size (ft) Source Tag S001
x 10.5 Source X-coordinate 693
y 10.5 Source Y-coordinate 756
rcvr plane height (ft) Source Z-coordinate 6
z 5 Source Reference SPL 89
Source Ref. Distance (ft.) 3.28
Grid Upper Left (C,R) Source height above grade (ft.) 6 1 1
Grid Lower Right (C,R)
120 90
Receiver Location
Column Row X-coord Y-coord Z-coord Cumulative SPL
1 1 10.5 10.5 5 44.5
1 2 10.5 21 5 44.7
1 3 10.5 31.5 5 44.7
1 4 10.5 42 5 44.8
1 5 10.5 52.5 5 44.8
1 6 10.5 63 5 44.9
1 7 10.5 73.5 5 45.0
1 8 10.5 84 5 45.0
1 9 10.5 94.5 5 45.1
1 10 10.5 105 5 45.2
1 11 10.5 115.5 5 45.2
1 12 10.5 126 5 45.3
1 13 10.5 136.5 5 45.4
1 14 10.5 147 5 45.6
1 15 10.5 157.5 5 45.7
1 16 10.5 168 5 45.6
1 17 10.5 178.5 5 45.6
1 18 10.5 189 5 45.6
1 19 10.5 199.5 5 45.7
1 20 10.5 210 5 45.9
1 21 10.5 220.5 5 46.0
1 22 10.5 231 5 46.1
1 23 10.5 241.5 5 46.2
1 24 10.5 252 5 46.3
1 25 10.5 262.5 5 46.3
1 26 10.5 273 5 46.3
1 27 10.5 283.5 5 46.5
1 28 10.5 294 5 46.6
1 29 10.5 304.5 5 46.7
ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

Page 847 of 981 ends

grid scale ft Noise Source Description Type SPL (dBA) Ref. Distance (ft) x 10.5 Tesla MegaPack MGP 79 3.28
y 10.5 MegaPack Augment (6 units) MPA 76 3.28 Source Inventory with Model Grid Coordinate Locations Sub-station Step-up Transformer SUB 89 3.28 and Sound Pressure Reference Levels Mid-voltage Transformer TRN 64 3.28
Source 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Source Tag I001 I002 I003 I004 I005 I006 I007 I008 I009 I010 I011 I012 I013 I014 I015 I016 I017 I018 I019 I020 Source X-coordinate (feet) 724.5 745.5 756 777 787.5 798 819 756 735 724.5 714 693 682.5 672 651 661.5 682.5 693 703.5 724.5 Source Y-coordinate (feet) 210 220.5 241.5 252 262.5 273 283.5 357 346.5 325.5 315 304.5 294 283.5 315 325.5 336 346.5 357 378 Source Type MPA MPA MPA MPA MPA MPA MPA MPA MPA MPA MPA MPA MPA MPA MPA MPA MPA MPA MPA MPA Source Refernce SPL 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 Source Reference Dist. (ft.) 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 Source Height Above Grade (ft.) 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 Source 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Source Tag I021 I022 I023 I024 I025 I026 I027 I028 I029 I030 I031 I032 I033 I034 I035 I036 I037 I038 I039 I040 Source X-coordinate (feet) 735 745.5 766.5 703.5 682.5 672 661.5 651 630 619.5 598.5 588 567 577.5 598.5 609 619.5 630 651 661.5 Source Y-coordinate (feet) 388.5 399 409.5 483 472.5 462 451.5 430.5 420 409.5 388.5 378 409.5 420 430.5 441 462 472.5 483 493.5 Source Type MPA MPA MPA MPA MPA MPA MPA MPA MPA MPA MPA MPA MPA MPA MPA MPA MPA MPA MPA MPA Source Refernce SPL 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 Source Reference Dist. (ft.) 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 Source Height Above Grade (ft.) 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 Source 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Source Tag I041 I042 I043 I044 I045 I046 I047 I048 I049 I050 I051 I052 I053 I054 I055 I056 I057 I058 I059 I060 Source X-coordinate (feet) 682.5 693 703.5 724.5 735 756 693 672 661.5 651 630 619.5 609 588 577.5 556.5 546 525 514.5 504 Source Y-coordinate (feet) 504 514.5 535.5 546 556.5 567 640.5 630 619.5 609 588 577.5 567 556.5 546 525 514.5 504 493.5 472.5 Source Type MPA MPA MPA MPA MPA MPA MPA MPA MPA MPA MPA MPA MPA MPA MPA MPA MPA MPA MPA MPA Source Refernce SPL 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 Source Reference Dist. (ft.) 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 Source Height Above Grade (ft.) 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 Source 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 Source Tag I061 I062 I063 I064 I065 I066 I067 I068 I069 I070 I071 I072 I073 I074 I075 I076 I077 I078 I079 I080 Source X-coordinate (feet) 493.5 504 514.5 535.5 546 567 577.5 588 609 619.5 630 651 661.5 598.5 588 577.5 556.5 546 525 514.5 Source Y-coordinate (feet) 514.5 525 546 556.5 567 577.5 588 598.5 619.5 630 640.5 651 672 745.5 735 714 703.5 693 672 661.5 Source Type MPA MPA MPA MPA MPA MPA MPA MPA MPA MPA MPA MPA MPA MPA MPA MPA MPA MPA MPA MPA Source Refernce SPL 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 Source Reference Dist. (ft.) 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 Source Height Above Grade (ft.) 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 NOISE-PRO MODEL INPUTS AND OUTPUTS APRIL 2022 SUNRIDGE BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE FACILITY ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

Page 848 of 981 ends

Source 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 Source Tag I081 I082 I083 I084 I085 I086 M001 M002 M003 M004 M005 M006 M007 M008 M009 M010 M011 M012 M013 M014 Source X-coordinate (feet) 504 493.5 472.5 462 441 430.5 714 724.5 735 756 766.5 777 798 766.5 756 735 724.5 703.5 693 682.5 Source Y-coordinate (feet) 651 640.5 630 609 598.5 588 231 241.5 252 262.5 283.5 294 304.5 336 325.5 304.5 294 294 273 262.5 Source Type MPA MPA MPA MPA MPA MPA MGP MGP MGP MGP MGP MGP MGP MGP MGP MGP MGP MGP MGP MGP Source Refernce SPL 76 76 76 76 76 76 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 Source Reference Dist. (ft.) 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 Source Height Above Grade (ft.) 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 Source 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 Source Tag M015 M016 M017 M018 M019 M020 M021 M022 M023 M024 M025 M026 M027 M028 M029 M030 M031 M032 M033 M034 Source X-coordinate (feet) 630 651 661.5 672 682.5 703.5 724.5 735 745.5 714 703.5 693 672 661.5 640.5 630 619.5 598.5 546 556.5 Source Y-coordinate (feet) 325.5 336 346.5 367.5 378 388.5 399 420 430.5 462 451.5 441 430.5 420 399 388.5 378 367.5 420 441 Source Type MGP MGP MGP MGP MGP MGP MGP MGP MGP MGP MGP MGP MGP MGP MGP MGP MGP MGP MGP MGP Source Refernce SPL 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 Source Reference Dist. (ft.) 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 Source Height Above Grade (ft.) 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 Source 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 Source Tag M035 M036 M037 M038 M039 M040 M041 M042 M043 M044 M045 M046 M047 M048 M049 M050 M051 M052 M053 M054 Source X-coordinate (feet) 577.5 588 598.5 619.5 630 651 672 682.5 693 703.5 714 735 703.5 693 672 661.5 651 630 619.5 598.5 Source Y-coordinate (feet) 451.5 462 472.5 493.5 504 514.5 525 535.5 556.5 567 577.5 588 630 619.5 598.5 588 577.5 567 556.5 535.5 Source Type 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
Source Refernce SPL MGP MGP MGP MGP MGP MGP MGP MGP MGP MGP MGP MGP MGP MGP MGP MGP MGP MGP MGP MGP Source Reference Dist. (ft.) 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 Source Height Above Grade (ft.) 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 Source 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 Source Tag M055 M056 M057 M058 M059 M060 M061 M062 M063 M064 M065 M066 M067 M068 M069 M070 M071 M072 M073 M074 Source X-coordinate (feet) 588 577.5 556.5 546 535.5 514.5 472.5 483 504 514.5 525 535.5 556.5 567 577.5 598.5 609 630 651 619.5 Source Y-coordinate (feet) 525 514.5 493.5 483 472.5 462 535.5 546 556.5 577.5 588 598.5 609 619.5 630 651 661.5 672 682.5 724.5 Source Type MGP MGP MGP MGP MGP MGP MGP MGP MGP MGP MGP MGP MGP MGP MGP MGP MGP MGP MGP MGP Source Refernce SPL 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 Source Reference Dist. (ft.) 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 Source Height Above Grade (ft.) 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 Source 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 Source Tag M075 M076 M077 M078 M079 M080 M081 M082 M083 M084 M085 M086 T001 T002 T003 T004 T005 T006 T007 T008 Source X-coordinate (feet) 609 588 577.5 556.5 546 525 514.5 504 483 472.5 451.5 441 693 714 724.5 745.5 756 766.5 787.5 619.5 Source Y-coordinate (feet) 714 703.5 693 672 661.5 651 640.5 619.5 609 598.5 588 567 241.5 252 273 283.5 294 304.5 325.5 346.5 Source Type MGP MGP MGP MGP MGP MGP MGP MGP MGP MGP MGP MGP TRN TRN TRN TRN TRN TRN TRN TRN Source Refernce SPL 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 Source Reference Dist. (ft.) 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 Source Height Above Grade (ft.) 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 NOISE-PRO MODEL INPUTS AND OUTPUTS APRIL 2022 SUNRIDGE BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE FACILITY ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

Page 849 of 981 ends

Source 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 Source Tag T009 T010 T011 T012 T013 T014 T015 T016 T017 T018 T019 T020 T021 T022 T023 T024 T025 T026 T027 T028 Source X-coordinate (feet) 630 651 661.5 672 693 703.5 714 735 535.5 546 567 577.5 588 609 619.5 640.5 651 661.5 682.5 693 Source Y-coordinate (feet) 357 367.5 378 399 409.5 420 430.5 451.5 441 451.5 462 483 493.5 504 514.5 535.5 546 556.5 567 577.5 Source Type TRN TRN TRN TRN TRN TRN TRN TRN TRN TRN TRN TRN TRN TRN TRN TRN TRN TRN TRN TRN Source Refernce SPL 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 Source Reference Dist. (ft.) 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 Source Height Above Grade (ft.) 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Source 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 Source Tag T029 T030 T031 T032 T033 T034 T035 T036 T037 T038 T039 T040 T041 T042 T043 S001 Source X-coordinate (feet) 703.5 724.5 462 472.5 483 504 514.5 535.5 546 556.5 577.5 588 598.5 619.5 630 693 Source Y-coordinate (feet) 588 609 546 556.5 577.5 588 598.5 609 630 640.5 651 661.5 682.5 693 703.5 756 Source Type TRN TRN TRN TRN TRN TRN TRN TRN TRN TRN TRN TRN TRN TRN TRN SUB Source Refernce SPL 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 89 Source Reference Dist. (ft.) 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 Source Height Above Grade (ft.) 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Receiver Inventory with Model Grid Coordinate Locations Sound Barrier (Noise Wall) Grid Coordinate Locations and Height and Predicted Operational Sound Level Exposure
Receiver Wall Segment
Receiver Tag R001 R002 R003 R004 R005 Wall Tag W021 W022 W023 W024 W025 W026 W027 W028 W029 Receiver X-coordinate (feet) 399 304.5 189 63 21 Wall X-coordinate (feet) 661.5 661.5 661.5 661.5 661.5 661.5 661.5 651 651 Receiver Y-coordinate (feet) 136.5 241.5 367.5 504 556.5 Wall X-coordinate (feet) 168 178.5 189 199.5 210 220.5 231 241.5 252 Receiver Ht Above Ground (ft) 5 5 5 5 5 Wall Height (feet) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 SPL Predicted at Receiver 49.3 49.3 48.8 48.2 48.1
Wall Segment
Wall Tag W030 W031 W032 W033 W034 W035 W036 W037 W038 W039 W040 W041 W042 W043 W044 W045 W046 W047 W048 W049 Wall X-coordinate (feet) 640.5 640.5 630 630 619.5 609 609 598.5 588 577.5 567 556.5 546 535.5 525 514.5 504 493.5 483 483 Wall X-coordinate (feet) 262.5 273 283.5 294 304.5 315 325.5 336 346.5 357 367.5 378 388.5 399 409.5 420 430.5 441 451.5 462 Wall Height (feet) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Wall Segment
Wall Tag W050 W051 W052 W053 W054 W055 W056 W057 W058 W059 W060 W061 W062 W063 W064 W065 W066 W067 W068 W069 Wall X-coordinate (feet) 472.5 462 451.5 451.5 441 441 430.5 430.5 430.5 430.5 420 409.5 399 388.5 378 378 378 378 409.5 441 Wall X-coordinate (feet) 472.5 483 493.5 504 514.5 525 535.5 546 556.5 567 567 577.5 577.5 577.5 588 598.5 609 577.5 567 504 Wall Height (feet) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Wall Segment
Wall Tag W070 W071 W072 W073 W074 W075 W076 W077 W078 W079 W080 W081 W082 W083 W084 W085 W086 W087 W088 W089 Wall X-coordinate (feet) 451.5 462 472.5 483 493.5 504 514.5 525 535.5 546 556.5 567 577.5 588 598.5 609 619.5 630 640.5 651 Wall X-coordinate (feet) 483 472.5 462 441 430.5 420 409.5 399 388.5 378 367.5 357 346.5 336 325.5 304.5 294 273 252 231 Wall Height (feet) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 NOISE-PRO MODEL INPUTS AND OUTPUTS APRIL 2022 SUNRIDGE BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE FACILITY ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

Page 850 of 981 ends

Vesper Energy
Juniper Creek Energy Storage Facility, Rancho Cordova, California Noise Letter Report
May 9, 2023
DUDEK.COM
ATTACHMENT 6

CONSTRUCTION NOISE MODELING DATA
ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

Page 851 of 981 ends

Baselines (dBA)
Land Use Daytime Evening Night
Residential 55 50 45
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
No 40 81.7 270 0
No 40 77.6 270 0
No 40 77.6 270 0
Results Calculated (dBA)
*Lmax Leq
67 63

62.9 58.9

62.9 58.9
Total 67 65.5
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
---- Receptor #2 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Land Use Daytime Evening Night
Residential 55 50 45
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
No 40 81.7 410 0
No 40 77.6 410 0
No 40 77.6 410 0
Results Calculated (dBA)
*Lmax Leq

63.4 59.4

59.3 55.3

59.3 55.3
Total 63.4 61.9
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.

Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
4/1/2022
Site Preparation
---- Receptor #1 ----
Report date:

Case Description:

Description
Closest Residence West
(275 ft)
Description
Dozer
Backhoe
Backhoe
Equipment
Dozer
Backhoe
Backhoe
Description
Park Playground North
(410 ft)
Description
Dozer
Backhoe
Backhoe
Equipment
Dozer
Backhoe
Backhoe
ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

Page 852 of 981 ends

Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
Report date:

Case Description:
---- Receptor #1 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Land Use Daytime Evening Night
Residential 55 50 45
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
No 40 81.7 270 0
No 40 77.6 270 0
No 40 77.6 270 0
No 40 85 270 0
No 40 80.7 270 0
Results
Calculated (dBA)
*Lmax Leq
67 63

62.9 58.9

70.4 66.4

66.1 62.1
Total 70.4 69.8
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
---- Receptor #2 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Land Use Daytime Evening Night
Residential 55 50 45
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
No 40 81.7 410 0
No 40 77.6 410 0
No 40 77.6 410 0
No 40 85 410 0
No 40 80.7 410 0
4/1/2022
Grading
Description
Closest Residence West
(275 ft)
Description
Dozer
Backhoe
Backhoe
Grader
Excavator
Equipment
Dozer
Backhoe
Backhoe
Grader
Excavator
Description
Park Playground North
(410 ft)
Description
Dozer
Backhoe
Backhoe
Grader
Excavator
ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

Page 853 of 981 ends

Results
Calculated (dBA)
Equipment *Lmax Leq
Dozer 63.4 59.4
Backhoe 59.3 55.3
Backhoe 59.3 55.3
Grader 66.7 62.7
Excavator 62.4 58.5
Total 66.7 66.2
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.

ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

Page 854 of 981 ends

Baselines (dBA)
Land Use Daytime Evening Night
Residential 55 50 45
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
No 16 80.6 270 0
No 50 80.6 270 0
No 40 83.4 270 0
No 40 83.4 270 0
No 40 77.6 270 0
No 40 77.6 270 0
Results Calculated (dBA)
*Lmax Leq

65.9 57.9
66 63

68.8 64.8

62.9 58.9

62.9 58.9
Total 68.8 70.1
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
---- Receptor #2 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Land Use Daytime Evening Night
Residential 55 50 45
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
No 16 80.6 410 0
No 50 80.6 410 0
No 40 83.4 410 0
No 40 83.4 410 0
No 40 77.6 410 0
No 40 77.6 410 0
Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
4/1/2022
Building Construction
---- Receptor #1 ----
Report date:

Case Description:

Description
Closest Residence South
(275 ft)
Description
Crane
Generator
Gradall
Gradall
Backhoe
Backhoe
Equipment
Crane
Generator
Gradall
Gradall
Backhoe
Backhoe
Description
Park Playground North
(410 ft)
Description
Crane
Generator
Gradall
Gradall
Backhoe
Backhoe
ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

Page 855 of 981 ends

Results
Calculated (dBA)
Equipment *Lmax Leq
Crane 62.3 54.3
Generator 62.4 59.3
Gradall 65.1 61.1
Gradall 65.1 61.1
Backhoe 59.3 55.3
Backhoe 59.3 55.3
Total 65.1 66.4
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.

ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

Page 856 of 981 ends

Baselines (dBA)
Land Use Daytime Evening Night
Residential 55 50 45
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
No 50 77.2 270 0
No 20 80 270 0
No 40 76.5 270 0
Results Calculated (dBA)
*Lmax Leq

62.6 59.6

65.4 58.4

61.8 57.8
Total 65.4 63.4
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
---- Receptor #2 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Land Use Daytime Evening Night
Residential 55 50 45
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
No 50 77.2 410 0
No 20 80 410 0
No 40 76.5 410 0
Results Calculated (dBA)
*Lmax Leq

58.9 55.9

61.7 54.7

58.2 54.2
Total 61.7 59.8
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.

Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
4/1/2022
Paving
---- Receptor #1 ----
Report date:

Case Description:

Description
Closest Residence South
(275 ft)
Description
Paver
Roller
Dump Truck
Equipment
Paver
Roller
Dump Truck
Description
Park Playground North
(410 ft)
Description
Paver
Roller
Dump Truck
Equipment
Paver
Roller
Dump Truck
ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

Page 857 of 981 ends

Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
Report date:

Case Description:
---- Receptor #1 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Land Use Daytime Evening Night
Residential 55 50 45
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
No 40 77.7 270 0
Results
Calculated (dBA)
*Lmax Leq
63 59
Total 63 59
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
---- Receptor #2 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Land Use Daytime Evening Night
Residential 55 50 45
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
No 40 77.7 410 0
Results
Calculated (dBA)
*Lmax Leq

59.4 55.4
Total 59.4 55.4
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
4/1/2022
arch coating
Description
Closest Residence South
(275 ft)
Description
Compressor (air)
Equipment
Compressor (air)
Description
Park Playground North
(410 ft)
Description
Compressor (air)
Equipment
Compressor (air)
ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

Page 858 of 981 ends

Responses to Comments
Juniper Creek Energy Storage Project 13267.05
May 2023 RTC-1
Table 1
Comment Letters and Commenters
Comment Letter Commenter Date Received
Agency
A1 Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District (Fire District) February 23, 2023 A2 Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) February 24, 2023
A3 Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) March 3, 2023 A4 Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (Central Valley RWQCB)
March 7, 2023
Individuals
I1 Deborah Green February 7, 2023
I2 William Buckans February 8, 2023
I3 Nai Chien (Wayne) Wang February 19, 2023
I4 Jennifer Stewart March 3, 2023
ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 2

Page 859 of 981 ends

Responses to Comments
Juniper Creek Energy Storage Project 13267.05
May 2023 RTC-2
Response to Comment Letter A1
Agency
Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District (Fire District)
February 23, 2023
This comment letter states that the Project’s site plan requires updates to address Fire District requirements related to fire access. The Project’s site plan will be updated to address all Fire District requirements and submitted to the City of Rancho Cordova Planning Division as part of the project’s conditional use permit application. The comment letter also discusses requirements that will need to be met for the Project to obtain building, fire, and final occupancy permits once the Project’s conditional use permit and zone text amendment are approved. The comment letter does not raise any specific issues related to the adequacy of the IS/MND; therefore, no further response is required.

ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 2

Page 860 of 981 ends

Responses to Comments
Juniper Creek Energy Storage Project 13267.05
May 2023 RTC-3
Response to Comment Letter A2
Agency
Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E)
February 24, 2023
The comment letter states that PG&E has preliminarily reviewed the proposed plans for the Project and indicated the proposed improvements do not appear to directly interfere with existing PG&E facilities or easement rights. The comment letter also mentions PG&E may have additional reviews and that resubmittal of the Project’s plans be completed if there are subsequent modifications to the Project design. The comment letter concludes with a reminder to contact Underground Service Alert (dial 811) prior to the commencement of ground disturbing activities.

The comment letter does not raise any specific issues related to the adequacy of the IS/MND; therefore, no further response is required.

ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 2

Page 861 of 981 ends

Responses to Comments
Juniper Creek Energy Storage Project 13267.05
May 2023 RTC-4
Response to Comment Letter A3
Agency
Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD)
March 3, 2023
The comment letter states that the infrastructure modifications that will be required within SMUD’s existing Cordova Substation to interconnect and accommodate Project need to be addressed and evaluated in the IS/MND. As such, the IS/MND and relevant technical appendices have been updated to discuss and evaluate the modifications pursuant to CEQA. The modifications will be entirely located within the substation’s developed footprint and are expected to include completion of a bay within the Cordova Substation by adding the third breaker and a disconnect switch. The Project also entails modification of the existing SMUD Hedge-Cordova 230kV remedial action scheme (RAS) at the existing Hedge and Cordova substations. Modification of the RAS is limited to digital programming changes for grid protection and relaying. No ground disturbing activities are anticipated at the SMUD Hedge Substation. The modifications are described in Section 2.3 of the IS/MND and are evaluated throughout the CEQA topics of the IS Checklist in Section 3 of the IS/MND.

ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 2

Page 862 of 981 ends

Responses to Comments
Juniper Creek Energy Storage Project 13267.05
May 2023 RTC-5
Response to Comment Letter A4
Agency
Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (Central Valley RWQCB) March 7, 2023
The comment letter introduces the Project’s regulatory setting as it relates to surface and groundwater quality and requests that the IS/MND evaluate potential impacts to both surface and groundwater quality. The commenter is referred to Section 3.4, Biological Resources, and Section 3.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the IS/MND which evaluate surface and groundwater quality. As discussed in the Project’s Biological Resources Assessment (Appendix B), potentially jurisdictional aquatic features are located within the Project site along the outer limits of the site (0.066-acres of vernal pool habitat and 0.039-acres / 569.3 feet of stormwater control ditches) however, the Project is being designed to avoid impacts to potentially jurisdictional aquatic features. Should the Project impact potentially jurisdictional aquatic features, the Project will obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies.

The Project incorporates a 50-foot setback from the eastern boundary of the Project site which will avoid the vernal pools onsite.

The comment letter concludes by stating that projects that disturb one or more acre of soil are required to obtain coverage under the General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Construction General Permit), Construction General Permit Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ and prepare and implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The Project will disturb more than one acre of soil during construction, therefore, the Project will be required to obtain coverage under the (Construction General Permit) and prepare and implement a SWPPP.

ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 2

Page 863 of 981 ends

Responses to Comments
Juniper Creek Energy Storage Project 13267.05
May 2023 RTC-6
Response to Comment Letter I1
Individual
Deborah Green
February 7, 2023
The commenter letter expresses concerns regarding a nearby recreational facility and agricultural lands. Regarding the nearby recreational facility, potential impacts to recreational facilities are evaluated under CEQA by assessing whether a project would increase the use of parks or other recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreation facilities. The Project does not include a residential development and therefore would not induce population growth or increase the demand for or use of recreational facilities. The commenter is referred to Section 3.6, Recreation, of the IS/MND for further information. Regarding agricultural lands, the Project is not designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance and therefore, would not results in a significant agricultural conversion impact. The Project site is also not zoned for agricultural use or under a Williamson Act contract. The commenter is referred to Section 3.2, Agricultural and Forestry Resources, of the IS/MND for further information.

The comment letter also expresses safety concerns regarding the proposed Project. The commenter is referred to Section 3.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the IS/MND for a discussion of hazard and safety impacts. In addition, the following information has been provided by the Project developer regarding the safety and benefits of a BESS:

Battery energy storage systems (BESS) fundamentally improve the way we generate, deliver, and consume electricity. BESS can, among other functions:
• Help provide back-up power during emergencies like blackouts from storms, equipment failures, or accidents. BESS strengthen grid resilience and can even reduce power outages. • Lower costs for consumers by storing energy when the price of electricity is low and discharging that energy back onto the grid during peak demand.
• Balance power supply and demand instantaneously, which makes the electrical grid more resilient, efficient, and cleaner than ever before.

Energy storage facilities use established safety equipment and strategies to ensure that risks associated with the installation and operation of the battery systems are avoided and if required, appropriately mitigated. Energy storage is becoming an integral part of our electrical infrastructure. The ability to store energy and release it when needed is vital to delivering a secure, reliable electrical grid. More than 400 battery storage systems are deployed throughout the country to ensure a more stable grid, including 100 operational in California alone, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration in January 2023.

Well-designed BESS are safe and reliable and incidents of thermal events associated with stationary energy storage are rare. Numerous nationally and internationally recognized standards and codes have been developed to inform safe manufacturing, construction, installation, and operation of energy storage systems. The Project will meet or exceed all related safety, health, and environmental standards to minimize potential risks. In addition, the Project will be subject to liability laws and regulations like any other business or energy facility.

ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 2

Page 864 of 981 ends

Responses to Comments
Juniper Creek Energy Storage Project 13267.05
May 2023 RTC-7
To reduce the risk of fire and ensure the safety of the system, the Project will be equipped with automatic fire suppression equipment, and air conditioning or cooling systems to ensure it operates within an ideal temperature range. In addition, Vesper Energy will work with local fire departments and emergency responders to ensure they have adequate training to respond in the rare event of a fire or other safety issues.

We appreciate your questions about safety in your neighborhood and the community park. As mentioned above, BESS are operating safely across the country, including California. Many of these BESS use lithium-ion (Li-ion) batteries, a technology already commonly used in a wide range of consumer devices such as laptop computers, cellphones, toys, handheld power tools and electric vehicles. Used lithium-ion batteries are not considered hazardous waste by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). They are considered “universal waste,” and their responsible disposal and recycling process is addressed by the U.S. EPA’s universal waste regulations.

The Juniper Creek Energy Storage project will operate under established safety guidelines and regulations plus it will provide the community and surrounding electrical grid with several benefits.

ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 2

Page 865 of 981 ends

Responses to Comments
Juniper Creek Energy Storage Project 13267.05
May 2023 RTC-8
Response to Comment Letter I2
Individual
William Buckans
February 8, 2023
The comment letter also expresses safety concerns regarding the proposed Project. The commenter is referred to Section 3.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and Section 3.20, Wildfire, of the IS/MND for a discussion of hazard, safety, and fire impacts. Section 2.3, Project Characteristics, of the IS/MND also includes a description of the Project’s safety measures such as being designed and installed in conform with the California Fire Code and nationally recognized National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 855 Standard for the Installation of Stationary Energy Storage Systems, along with all applicable local fire protection requirements. Pursuant to the 2019 California Fire Code, all battery manufacturers must prove that a failed battery cell inside and enclosure will not cause a fire outside the system. The Project must meet the industry standards for adequate separations, cascading protections, and suppression systems to limit failure to a single battery cell. All BESS must use an Energy Management System for 24/7 monitoring, management, and balancing of cell voltages, currents and temperatures in order to ensure every cell remains within its safe operating parameters. The system must transmit an alarm signal if potentially hazardous temperatures or other conditions such as short circuits, over voltage or under voltage, are detected. This system is capable of controlling and isolating individual cells from the rest of the system both remotely and manually. The Project will also include perimeter security fencing.

In addition, the following information has been provided by the Project developer regarding the safety and benefits of a BESS:

ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 2

Page 866 of 981 ends

Responses to Comments
Juniper Creek Energy Storage Project 13267.05
May 2023 RTC-9
To reduce the risk of fire and ensure the safety of the system, the Project will be equipped with automatic fire suppression equipment, and air conditioning or cooling systems to ensure it operates within an ideal temperature range. In addition, Vesper Energy will work with local fire departments and emergency responders to ensure they have adequate training to respond in the rare event of a fire or other safety issues.

The Juniper Creek Energy Storage project will operate under established safety guidelines and regulations plus it will provide the community and surrounding electrical grid with several benefits.

ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 2

Page 867 of 981 ends

Responses to Comments
Juniper Creek Energy Storage Project 13267.05
May 2023 RTC-10
Response to Comment Letter I3
Individual
Nai Chen (Wayne) Wang
February 19, 2023
The comment letter expresses safety concerns regarding the proposed Project. The commenter is referred to Section 3.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the IS/MND for a discussion of hazard and safety impacts as well as Section 3.4, Biological Resources, of the IS/MND for a discussion of impacts to special status species and habitat. In addition, the following information has been provided by the Project developer regarding the safety and benefits of a BESS:

To reduce the risk of fire and ensure the safety of the system, the Project will be equipped with automatic fire suppression equipment, and air conditioning or cooling systems to ensure it operates within an ideal temperature range. In addition, Vesper Energy will work with local fire departments and emergency responders to ensure they have adequate training to respond in the rare event of a fire or other safety issues.

ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 2

Page 868 of 981 ends

Responses to Comments
Juniper Creek Energy Storage Project 13267.05
May 2023 RTC-11
The Juniper Creek Energy Storage project will operate under established safety guidelines and regulations plus it will provide the community and surrounding electrical grid with several benefits.

ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 2

Page 869 of 981 ends

Responses to Comments
Juniper Creek Energy Storage Project 13267.05
May 2023 RTC-12
Response to Comment Letter I4
Individual
Jennifer Stewart
March 3, 2023

This comment asks if a report has been prepared that estimates noise levels for the cooling system fans associated with the BESS. The commenter is referred to Section 3.13, Noise, of the IS/MND and the Noise and Vibration Assessment Letter Report prepared for the Project (Appendix E of the IS/MND), which studied the potential for sound impact. The report determined that operational noise levels created by the Project would be within the City’s daytime and nighttime noise standards at the nearby receptors. Therefore, the Project would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels from on-site noise sources. Impacts would be less than significant. The Project also proposes a 12-foot concrete wall and landscaping along the western boundary of the project site to reduce potential noise and visual impacts. While the project would result in less than significant operational noise impacts, it should be noted that the concrete wall and landscaping will further obscure noise.

ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 2

Page 870 of 981 ends

ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 3
Ordinance No. XX-2023 Page 1 of 4

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA
ORDINANCE NO. XX-2023

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AMENDING TITLE 23 ZONING CODE, ARTICLE 9 SPECIFIC USE PEROVISIONS, CHAPTER 23.907 UTILITY, TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATION USES; ARTICLE 10 SPECIFIC PLANS AND SPECIAL PLANNING AREAS, CHAPTER

23.1000 SPECIFIC PURPOSE ZONES AND ARTICLE 11 DEFINITIONS, CHAPTER 23.1104

GENERAL DEFINITIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Purpose and Declarations.

WHEREAS, periodically updates of the provisions of the Rancho Cordova Municipal Code (RCMC) are necessary to ensure compliance with current laws, changes in local policy, consistency with adopted plans and programs, clarify ambiguities, address changing market conditions or new uses, reflect best practices, and to address issues or concerns with current regulations; and
WHEREAS, Sunridge Energy, LLC, (hereinafter referred to as Applicant) filed an application with the City of Rancho Cordova for a Zoning Text Amendment to add a Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) facility as a use in the RCMC, subject to approval of a conditional use permit; and
WHEREAS, BESS facilities provide benefits such as back-up power during emergencies such as blackouts or equipment failure, as well a balancing power supply and demand, which makes the electrical gride more resilient and efficient; and WHEREAS, Title 23 Zoning regulates uses and development standards for various utility uses within the Ccity:

A. The Ordinance would revise Chapter 23.907 Utility, Transportation and Communication Uses and Chapter 23.1000 adding in the term BESS facilities into sections of the chapter such as purpose and applicability location and development requirements.

B. The Ordinance would revise Chapter 23.1104 General Definitions to add a land use definition of a BESS facility; and
WHEREAS, on July 17, the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing for this Ordinance and considered all oral and written testimony.

Section 2: Findings. This Ordinance is adopted pursuant to the following findings:

CEQA Compliance. The project has been analyzed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)(Public Resource Code Section 2100 et. seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et. seq.).

Page 871 of 981 ends

ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 3
Ordinance No. XX-2023 Page 2 of 4
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)(Public Resource Code Section 2100 et. seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et. seq.), a Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was prepared and circulated for the required 30-day review period, from February 3, 2023, and ending March 6, 2023. Areas identified in the Draft IS/MND that required mitigation measures to avoid significant effects on the environment were Geology and Soils and Mandatory Findings of Significance. A mitigation measure has been placed upon the project to ensure that the appropriate measures are taken in the event that any archaeological resources are exposed during construction. While none of these features were identified on the site or are known to be on the site, the mitigation measure provides extra assurance that all appropriate measures will be taken if any are discovered.

During the public review period, eight comment letters and/or emails on the Draft IS/MND were received from outside agencies and interested parties. As a result of comments received on the Draft IS/MND, minor revisions were made to the Draft IS/MND, however there were no substantial revisions that would require recirculation of the document. The revisions proposed in the Final MND do not meet the criteria for recirculation provided in Section 15073.5(c) of the CEQA Guidelines, nor were project revisions required based upon the comments received.

Zoning Text Amendment subject to the Findings required by Title 23 Zoning, Section

23.146.070 and the proposed amendments (Exhibit A).

A. The proposed amendment is consistent with the General Plan. The attached Municipal Code Amendments (“Amendment”) for Title 23 as it relates to Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) facilities are consistent with the General Plan. The amendments would make it possible for an entity to obtain a Conditional Use Permit for a BESS facility, which would include the ability to store energy in order to supply electrical energy at a future date in time.

General Plan Element VIII Infrastructure, Services, and Finance states that the goals, policies and actions of the Element is to set forth methods for ensuring that the City provides the highest service levels possible, which includes reducing incidences of service interruption and improving the quality and sustainability of services. Goal ISF.2 mentions the desire to ensure the development of quality infrastructure to meet community needs at the time they are needed. Policy ISF.2.1.1 addresses the need of public infrastructure that meets the long-term needs of residents. And ensures infrastructure is available at the time such facilities are needed. The ability to install BESS facilities within the City will help to store necessary energy for high demand times, and future needs of the growing City.

B. The proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City. The attached amendments would permit the operation of a BESS facility on property within the Sunridge Specific Plan with a designation of Limited Commercial, upon issuance of a Conditional Use Permit. Energy storage facilities use established safety equipment and strategies to ensure that risks associated with the installation and operation of the battery systems are avoided and if required, appropriately mitigated. Numerous nationally and internationally recognized standards and codes have been developed to inform safe manufacturing, construction, installation, and operation of energy storage systems. In addition, Sacramento Metro Fire District will have the ability to review and adequately conditioned future projects to ensure

Page 872 of 981 ends

ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 3
Ordinance No. XX-2023 Page 3 of 4
compliance with all CA Fire Code, as well as the National Fire Protection Association codes and standards related to the use of BESS facilities. None of these proposed amendments will be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City.

C. The proposed amendments are internally consistent with other applicable provisions in this Zoning Code. The Amendments have been reviewed for consistency with the entirety of the Municipal Code and is consistent with other applicable provisions of the Municipal Code.

Section 3. Amendments to Title 23 Zoning Code and the Folsom Boulevard Specific Plan The City Council hereby adopts the amendments to Title 23 Zoning Code of the Rancho Cordova Municipal Code, as shown and incorporated in Exhibit A to this ordinance.

Section 4. Severability
If any provision of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance, is held invalid, the remainder of the Ordinance, including the application of such part or provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby and shall continue in full force and effect. To this end, provisions of this Ordinance are severable. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase hereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases be held unconstitutional, invalid or unenforceable.

Section 5. Effective Date
Within fifteen (15) days after adoption, a Summary of this Ordinance shall be published once in the Grapevine Independent, or the Sacramento Bee, a newspaper of general circulation printed and published in Sacramento County and circulated in the City of Rancho Cordova, in accordance with Government Code Section 36933. This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days after its adoption.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cordova on the 17th day of July 2023 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

ATTEST:
____________________________
Linda Budge, Mayor

Page 873 of 981 ends

ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 3
Ordinance No. XX-2023 Page 4 of 4
Stacy Leitner, CMC
City Clerk

Page 874 of 981 ends

ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 4
Exhibit A to the Ordinance
The Rancho Cordova Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 6-2023, passed April 3, 2023.

Note: Only those sections and/or subsections that are proposed to be amended within the indicated Chapter are included below. In some instances, the entirety of the Chapter or Section is included for context, even if amendments are not proposed. Amendments are reflected in a track change format. All other sections and/or subsections within the indicated Chapter that are not included below are not proposed to change and shall remain intact.

Chapter 23.907

UTILITY, TRANSPORTATION, AND COMMUNICATION USES

23.907.010 Purpose and applicability.

A. Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to establish site planning, development, and/or operating standards for utility, transportation, and communication uses, including telecommunication facilities and utility facilities and infrastructure and battery energy storage system (BESS) facilities. It is the city’s intent, in establishing these standards, to mitigate the potential adverse impacts of these uses and activities on adjacent and surrounding land uses by regulating the size, scale, and location of these uses, as well as requiring additional setbacks, landscaping, and other buffering between the subject use and surrounding property.

B. Applicability. The regulations and standards contained in this chapter shall apply only to telecommunication facilities, BESS facilities, and utility facilities and infrastructure as expressly identified in the corresponding sections and shall be in addition to any other development standards and regulations contained elsewhere within this zoning code (e.g., lighting, landscaping, parking). These uses may only be located in those zoning districts as described in, and shall only be authorized in concert with the permit requirements of, Article 3 of this title (Zoning Districts, Allowable Uses, and General Development Standards) or Article 10 of this title (Special Purpose Zones). [Ord. 11-2018 § 3 (Exh. A); Ord. 4-2017 § 3 (Exh. B); Ord. 12-2011 § 3 (Exh. A); Ord. 27-2008 § 1 (Exh. A § 5.3.010)].

23.907.030 Utility facilities and infrastructure.

A. Purpose and Applicability. The regulations contained in this section shall apply to utility facilities and infrastructure, as well as BESS facilities, as defined in RCMC 23.1104.040 (Land use definitions). The establishment of new utility facilities and infrastructure and BESS facilities shall be consistent with the allowed use provisions of Article 3 of this title (Zoning Districts, Allowable Uses, and General Development Standards) and the standards contained within this section, as well as other development standards as required in the underlying zoning district. Where the standards of the underlying district conflict with the standards herein, these standards shall apply.

The intent of these provisions is to minimize the visual and physical impacts of the use on surrounding property by balancing the need for the facilities with a desire to minimize the visual impact.

B. Permit Requirements and Exemptions. To the extent allowed by state or federal law, the uses regulated by this section shall be subject to the allowed use and permit requirements of Article 3 of this title (Zoning Districts, Allowable Uses, and General Development Standards) and, where applicable, Article 10 of this title (Special Purpose Zones). In addition, such facilities may be subject to design review as required by Chapter 23.140 RCMC (Minor Design Review) or Chapter 23.141 RCMC (Major Design Review) and allowed by state and federal law.

C. Location Requirements for Transmission Lines and Pipelines.

1. General Location. Generally, transmission lines and pipelines shall be located within public rights-of-way (with approval of the public works director) or within dedicated easements for transmission lines (e.g., public utility easement).

2. Electrical Transmission Lines. Electrical transmission lines of 100,000 volts or greater capacity may be located in any zone and shall be located in easements or rights-of-way which permit access for maintenance

Page 875 of 981 ends

ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 4
Exhibit A to the Ordinance
The Rancho Cordova Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 6-2023, passed April 3, 2023. with minimal disruption to surrounding properties. Preference shall be given to the location of transmission lines in the rank order specified below; every reasonable effort shall be exerted to avoid established residential areas. In the event SMUD determines that it has no alternative but to route a 100,000 volt or greater capacity transmission line through an established residential area, such lines shall be installed underground except when SMUD can demonstrate that it is not feasible to do so. “Feasible” shall be as defined in California Government Code Section 53096(c).
a. Within existing SMUD transmission rights-of-way or those anticipated for other projects proposed subject to this code.
b. Adjacent to railroads or adopted freeway routes.
c. Along or adjacent to major arterial streets where existing or planned uses are commercial or industrial. d. Adjacent to or through existing or planned commercial, industrial, or agricultural uses. e. Along arterial streets where residential uses designated in an adopted plan are RD-20 or greater density. f. Through areas where land uses in an adopted plan are predominantly commercial, but include residential uses.
g. Through residential areas, including side and rear yards, irrespective of density.

D. Location Requirements for Fixed-Base Structures and Facilities and BESS facilities. In siting fixed-base structures and facilities and BESS facilities, the city shall place preference on the locations listed below in the order listed. In any case, siting fixed-base facilities or BESS facilities within residential zoning districts, particularly those intended for multifamily housing, shall be a last resort. All new subdivisions and land planning (e.g., Specific Plans) shall include provisions for siting fixed-base facilities in dedicated, reserved locations that are identified with assistance from the utility service provider.

1. Sites zoned community service (CS), transportation corridor (T), or parks and open space (POS);

2. Areas within Specific Plans or special planning areas specifically identified for utility facilities and infrastructure uses or BESS facilities;

3. Sites zoned heavy industrial (M-2);

4. Sites zoned any limited commercial or mixed-use zoning district, provided the facility is not located at the intersection of two major streets;

5. Any other portion of a limited commercial or mixed-use zoning district not otherwise described above; or

6. Within a residential or agricultural zoning district.

E. Development Requirements for Fixed-Base Structures and Facilities.

1. Communication Substations. Communication substations shall be entirely located within an enclosed building, the design of which shall be consistent with the standards of the underlying zoning district and the citywide design guidelines, the intent being to integrate the design of the facility into the area in which it is located.

2. Electrical Substations and BESS Facilities.
a. Overhead electrical transmission lines of 100,000 volts or greater capacity shall be installed in such a manner as to minimize adverse visual impacts. When feasible, SMUD shall relocate and combine existing overhead transmission poles and lines with new installations.

Page 876 of 981 ends

ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 4
Exhibit A to the Ordinance
The Rancho Cordova Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 6-2023, passed April 3, 2023. b. Substations and BESS Facilities shall be designed and constructed in such a manner as to minimize off-site visual and noise impacts. Planted or landscaped setbacks of at least 25 feet shall be provided on all property lines.

3. Potable Water Storage Facility. Potable water storage facilities shall observe all development standards of the underlying zoning district. Additionally, such facilities shall be screened consistent with the provisions of Chapter 23.731 RCMC (Fences, Walls, and Screening).

4. Treatment Plant. Treatment plants shall observe all development standards of the underlying zoning district, except that any treatment ponds or other structures that may emit an odor shall be located a minimum of 200 feet from a residential zoning district or residential use. The use shall also provide landscaping along the perimeter of the use, including a minimum 25-foot-wide landscape area and evergreen trees planted 30 feet on center. [Ord. 11-2018 § 3 (Exh. A); Ord. 4-2017 § 3 (Exh. B); Ord. 13-2013 § 4 (Exh. B); Ord. 12-2011 § 3 (Exh. A); Ord. 27-2008 § 1 (Exh. A § 5.3.030)].

Page 877 of 981 ends

ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 4
Exhibit A to the Ordinance
Rancho Cordova Municipal Code
Chapter 23.1000 SPECIAL PURPOSE ZONES

Page 4 ends

The Rancho Cordova Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 6-2023, passed April 3, 2023.

Chapter 23.1000

SPECIAL PURPOSE ZONES
Sections:

23.1000.010 Purpose.

23.1000.020 Specific Plan zoning districts.

23.1000.030 Special planning area zoning districts.

23.1000.010 Purpose.

The purpose of this chapter is to identify and provide reference to all special purpose zones within the city. Special purpose zones provide unique development regulations to subject property than may otherwise be granted through the application of any base zoning district provided by this title. Currently there are two special purpose zones in the city:

A. Specific Plan zones;
B. Special planning area zones. [Ord. 6-2011 § 3 (Exh. A)].

23.1000.020 Specific Plan zoning districts.

A. Purpose of the Specific Plan Zoning District. The purpose of the Specific Plan zoning district is to designate unique planning areas within the city for which the city council has adopted or requires adoption of a separate planning document (a Specific Plan) consistent with the General Plan and state law. The contents, requirements, and adoption and amendment procedures for Specific Plans are listed in Chapter 23.152 RCMC (Specific Plans).

B. Designation. Specific Plan zoning districts shall be delineated on the zoning map in a manner similar to that of any other zoning district except that each Specific Plan-zoned area shall also bear a name, number, symbol, or other delineation, as determined by the planning director, which distinguishes it from other Specific Plan zones, base zoning districts, or overlay zones. The assignment of the Specific Plan zone designation serves to provide a reference to the corresponding Specific Plan zoning document adopted by ordinance of the city council. Applicable zoning regulations and standards applicable to the land area are provided in the Specific Plan zones document, as adopted by reference in this title.

C. Specific Plans Adopted by Reference. The following Specific Plans have been adopted as part of this title by reference and are so designated on the zoning map of the city:

1. Mather Specific Plan (adopted 1997 by Sacramento County);

2. Sunridge Specific Plan (adopted July 17, 2002, by Sacramento County);

3. Folsom Boulevard Specific Plan (first adopted November 6, 2006, by Ordinance No. 57-2006; amended July 7, 2008, by Ordinance No. 13-2008).

D. Allowed Uses. Allowed uses within the Specific Plan area are those listed uses in the adopted Specific Plan document. A Specific Plan may reference the allowed use provisions of the concurrent base zoning district contained in this title; however, in the event that there are conflicts between the provisions of the Specific Plan and this title, the Specific Plan shall prevail. BESS facilities, as defined by RCMC 23.1104.040 (Land Use Definitions), are an allowed use for those parcels identified as Sunridge Specific Plan Limited Commercial (LC) zoning district upon issuance of a conditional use permit as required by RCMC Chapter 23.134 (Conditional Use Permits.

E. Development Standards. Development standards within the Specific Plan area are those standards listed in the adopted Specific Plan. A Specific Plan may reference the development standards of this title, in which case the standards of this title shall apply. Where a Specific Plan is silent regarding a city-wide standard (e.g., sign regulations), the city standard shall apply. Where a Specific Plan establishes unique standards that are in conflict

Page 878 of 981 ends

ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 4
Exhibit A to the Ordinance
Rancho Cordova Municipal Code
Chapter 23.1000 SPECIAL PURPOSE ZONES

Page 5 ends

The Rancho Cordova Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 6-2023, passed April 3, 2023. with the standards of this title, the Specific Plan standards shall prevail. BESS Facilities, as defined in RCMC

23.1104.040 (Land Use Definitions), in the Sunridge Specific Plan Limited Commercial (LC) zoning district are subject to the standards in RCMC 23.907.030 (Utility facility and infrastructure) and those standards in RCMC

23.316.040 (Development standards for general commercial and industrial zones) applicable to the General Commercial (GC) district. [Ord. 6-2011 § 3 (Exh. A)].

Page 879 of 981 ends

ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 4
Exhibit A to the Ordinance
Rancho Cordova Municipal Code
Chapter 23.1104 GENERAL DEFINITIONS

Page 6 ends

Chapter 23.1104

GENERAL DEFINITIONS

23.1104.010 Purpose.

The purpose of this chapter is to provide all definitions used throughout this title. Definitions are organized alphabetically. [Ord. 4-2017 § 3 (Exh. B); Ord. 12-2011 § 3 (Exh. A); Ord. 27-2008 § 1 (Exh. A § 10.2.010)].

23.1104.040 Land use definitions.
“Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) facility” means a system consisting of electrochemical storage batteries, battery chargers, controls, power condition systems and associated electrical equipment, assembled together, capable of storing energy in order to supply electrical energy at a future time, not to include a stand-alone 12-volt car battery or an electric motor vehicle or behind-the-meter battery energy storage systems.

Page 880 of 981 ends

ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 5
Resolution No. XX-2023 Page 1 of 3

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. XX-2023

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA,

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, FINDING THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION WITH

MITIGATION MEASURES TO BE ADEQUATE AND ADOPTING A RESOLUTION

APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR JUNIPER CREEK ENERGY STORAGE PROJECT NO. PLND-0422-0034
WHEREAS, Sunridge Energy, LLC, (hereinafter referred to as Applicant) filed an application with the City of Rancho Cordova for a Zoning Text Amendment and a Conditional Use Permit for Juniper Creek Energy Storage; and
WHEREAS, the proposed project is located on real property in the incorporated portions of the City more particularly described as APN: 067-0780-011; and WHEREAS, the project includes a Zoning Text Amendment to require a Conditional Use Permit for battery energy storage in a Limited Commercial (LC) zone within the Sunridge Specific Plan, as well as a Conditional Use Permit to operate a 200-megawatt battery energy storage system project; and
WHEREAS, an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared and circulated for the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)(Public Resource Code Section 2100 et. seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et. seq.); and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cordova conducted a properly noticed public hearing pursuant to Government Code Section 65090 and has duly considered all written and verbal testimony presented during the hearing.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Rancho Cordova finds that project has been analyzed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resource Code Section 2100 et. seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et. seq.) based upon the following finding:

A. Finding: The project has been analyzed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resource Code Section 2100 et. seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et. seq.), Evidence: In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)(Public Resource Code Section 2100 et. seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et. seq.), a Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was prepared and circulated for the required 30-day review period, from February 3, 2023, and ending March 6, 2023. Areas identified in the Draft IS/MND that required mitigation measures to avoid significant effects on the environment were Geology and Soils and Mandatory Findings of Significance. A mitigation measure has been placed upon the project to ensure that the appropriate measures are taken in the event that any archaeological resources are exposed during construction. While none of these features were identified on the site or are known to be on the site, the mitigation

Page 881 of 981 ends

ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 5
Resolution No. XX-2023 Page 2 of 3
measure provides extra assurance that all appropriate measures will be taken if any are discovered.

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Rancho Cordova adopts an Ordinance approving the Zoning Text Amendment and adopts a Resolution approving a Conditional Use Permit based upon the following findings and evidence:

Conditional Use Permit subject to the Findings required by Title 23, Zoning, Section

23.134.070, and the Project Plans (Exhibit A), Conditions of Approval (Exhibit B) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Exhibit C).

A. The site size, dimensions, location, topography, and access are adequate for the needs of the proposed use, considering the proposed building mass, parking, traffic, noise, vibration, exhaust/ emissions, light, glare, erosion, odor, dust, visibility, safety, and aesthetic considerations. The project, as designed would not create a visual impact on the overall neighborhood. It is immediately adjacent to a SMUD Substation and a power line corridor. The nearest residential property is approximately 250 feet to the west of the project site. The project site is of a sufficient size to adequately accommodate the necessary facilities needed to operate a BEES facility, while meeting the standards of the Rancho Cordova Municipal Code. The project will not generate any erosion, odor, or dust as part of the operation of a BEES facility. During construction, there may be noise, dust, ground vibration and additional movement in the area, but these are temporary in nature and not part of the long-term operation of the project. The project is conditioned to meet the Zoning Code standards as it relates to lighting and not create any off-site glare. There are no permanent buildings on the site beyond the storage cabinets, which will be screened from view by landscaping and a 12-foot wall. The site is unmanned, with minimal weekly traffic that would be generate by routine maintenance at the site.

B. The negative impacts of the proposed use on adjacent properties and on the public can be mitigated through application of other code standards or other reasonable conditions of approval. As mentioned in the finding above, the project, as designed would not create a visual impact on the overall neighborhood. It is immediately adjacent to a SMUD Substation and a power line corridor. The nearest residential property is approximately 250 feet to the west of the project site. The project site is of a sufficient size to adequately accommodate the necessary facilities needed to operate a BEES facility, while meeting the standards of the Rancho Cordova Municipal Code. The project will not generate any erosion, odor, or dust as part of the operation of a BEES facility. During construction, there may be noise, dust, ground vibration and additional movement in the area, but these are temporary in nature and not part of the long-term operation of the project. The project is conditioned to meet the Zoning Code standards as it relates to lighting and not create any off-site glare. There are no permanent buildings on the site beyond the storage cabinets, which will be screened from view by landscaping and a 12-

Page 882 of 981 ends

ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 5
Resolution No. XX-2023 Page 3 of 3
foot wall. The site is unmanned, with minimal weekly traffic that would be generate by routine maintenance at the site.

C. All required public facilities have adequate capacity to serve the proposal. The proposed project utilizes very little public utilities such as water and would not generate a need for the use of any public facilities such as parks or schools. The site would be unmanned with minimal weekly visits to the site for routine maintenance. The operation of a BESS facility does not generate any residential units and therefore would not increase the use of any nearby facilities such as parks or schools.

D. The project meets the requirements of the zoning code including development standards, design guidelines, and special use provisions. The project, as proposed meet the requirements of the zoning code, including development standards related to setbacks, screening of the site and providing landscaping and lighting for safety. The project as designed meets the minimum setback requirements from the roadway which is 25 feet. A 12-foot wall with the incorporation of landscaping sufficiently meets the screening requirement of the site per Section 23.907.030 E.2.b. of the Zoning Code.

Conditions have been placed upon the project for compliance with various standards such as lighting, landscaping that meets the requirements of size, spacing and tree species.

Approval of Conditional Use Permit
The City Council, based upon the findings herein, hereby approves the Conditional Use Permit for the Juniper Creek Energy Storage Project No. PLND-0422-0034.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cordova on the 17th day of July 2023 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

ATTEST:
____________________________
Linda Budge, Mayor
Stacy Leitner, CMC
City Clerk

Page 883 of 981 ends

Date: 8/6/2021 - Last saved by: Bdokkestul - Path: Z:\Projects\j1326705\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\Figure1_ProjectLocation.mxd Project Location
Sunridge Energy Storage Project
SOURCE: Bing Maps 2020; Open Street Maps 2020
0 0.075 0.15 n Miles
Project Boundary
FIGURE 1
Isleton
Rancho
Cordova
Galt
Elk
Grove
Folsom
Citrus
Heights
Sacramento
A m a d o r
C o u n t y
E l D o r a d o
C o u n t y
P l a c e r C o u n t y
S a n
J o a q u i n
C o u n t y
Y o l o C o u n t y
S o l a n o C o u n t y
S a c r a m e n t o
C o u n t y
£¤50
ÄÆ99
160 ÄÆ
244 ÄÆ
220 ÄÆ
124 ÄÆ
ÄÆ4
ÄÆ12
ÄÆ16
ÄÆ26
113 ÄÆ
ÄÆ12
ÄÆ84 104 ÄÆ
ÄÆ16
ÄÆ88
ÄÆ99
§¨¦80
§¨¦505
§¨¦5
Project Site !(^
SMUD
Cordova
Substation
ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 6 Exhibit A to the Resolution

Page 884 of 981 ends

Date: 8/6/2021 - Last saved by: Bdokkestul - Path: Z:\Projects\j1326705\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\Figure3_Zoning.mxd Zoning
Sunridge Energy Storage Project
SOURCE: Bing Maps (Accessed 2021), Sacremento County 2021 0 0.045 0.09 n Miles
Project Boundary
Zoning
AG80

LC (SDSP)
M-2

MP (RDOSP)

O (SPA)
P/OS

POS (H) (SDSP)

POS (SDSP)

RANCH (SPA)
RD 10
RD 10 (SDSP)
RD 4 (SDSP)
RD 5 (SDSP)
RD10 (SDSP)

SC (SDSP)

WP (RDOSP)
SMUD
Cordova
Substation
FIGURE 2
ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 6 Exhibit A to the Resolution

Page 885 of 981 ends

P-POH
P-POH

P-POH X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X POH POH POH POH POH POH POH POH POH POH POH POH POH POH POH POH POH POH POH POH POH POH POH

POH POH POH POH POH POH POH POH POH POH POH POH POH POH POH POH POH POH POH POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH

POH POH POH POH POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH S S S S E E E E E SMUD Cordova Substation LOD LOD

LOD LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD

LOD LOD LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD

LOD LOD LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD W LOD HH X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o X X X X X X X X MISC MISC MISC MISC MISC MISC MISC MISC MISC MISC MISC MISC MISC
CANYONLANDS DR.

POOPENAUT CT. (PRIVATE) R42' 194 200 200 205 205 200 200 202 203 204 195 190 200 202 201 201 202 197 198 199 196 189 190 195 199 200 20' ACCESS ROAD (TYP) PROPOSED BESS EQUIPMENT PROPOSED SECURITY FENCE PROPOSED SUBSTATION PROPOSED NOISE WALL PROJECT BOUNDARY VERNAL POOL (TYP) PROPOSED AUXILIARY EQUIPMENT AREA PROPOSED POI (LOCATION TO BE DETERMINED) 30' ACCESS EASEMENT 12' P.U.E. ACCESS, ELECTRICAL, WATER & COMMUNICATION EASEMENT 20' S.A.S.D. EASEMENT 10' PIPELINE EASEMENT 10' PIPELINE EASEMENT 200' ELECTRICAL FACILITIES EASEMENT 10' L.E. 16' P.U.E. PROPOSED STORMWATER RETENTION BASIN PROPOSED STORMWATER RETENTION BASIN PROPOSED STREET AND ACCENT TREES APPROX. EVERY 40' PROPOSED VERTICAL ACCENT PLANTINGS APPROX. EVERY 20' PROPOSED FLOWERING GROUND COVER PROPOSED VARIED GROUND COVER PROPOSED ENTRANCE GATE PROPOSED ENTRANCE GATE 25.0' LANDSCAPE SETBACK 50.0' SOUTH SACRAMENTO HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN SETBACK 10.0' STORMWATER CONTROL DITCH SETBACK 10.0 69.0 10.0 10.0 65.0 135.0 16.0 20.0' 12.5 N:\0032005.00\_CAD\_Civil\0032005-OA-04 - Tesla Megapack with Buffer Avoided.dwg 4/13/2022 4:43 PM Alex Knicker NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION REVISIONS: # DATE COMMENT 125 E. JOHN CARPENTER FREEWAY, SUITE 525 IRVING, TEXAS 75062 PREPARED FOR: DATE: SHEET: 04/13/2022 Sunridge Solar Storage Project Sacramento County, California westwoodps.com Westwood Professional Services, Inc. Phone (720) 531-8350 10170 Church Ranch Way, Suite #100 Toll Free (888) 937-5150 Westminster, CO 80021 westwoodps.com G 04/13/2022 ISSUED FOR REVIEW Preliminary Overall Site Plan - 3.6 MW Tesla Megapack - Buffer Avoided A 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 BCDEFG 0' 50' 100' 150' LEGEND: PROJECT BOUNDARY PROPOSED 24 FT ACCESS ROAD PROPOSED PERMANENT BASIN 205 EX. 1' INTERVAL CONTOUR EX. 5' INDEX CONTOUR PARCEL LINES EASEMENT LINES PROPOSED EQUIPMENT NOTES: 1. THIS PLAN IS PRELIMINARY AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE. 2. FURTHER SITE DESIGN DETAILS ARE SUBJECT TO SACRAMENTO COUNTY AND CALIFORNIA STATE REQUIREMENTS. 3. PROPOSED GRADING WILL BE ANTICIPATED WITH FURTHER ITERATION OF DESIGN. DETAILED GRADING WILL PRIORITIZE BALANCING EARTHWORK AND TERRACING PADS AS NEEDED TO ACHIEVE SLOPE TOLERANCES OF EQUIPMENT. 4. ALL LANDSCAPING SHOWN IS PRELIMINARY IN NATURE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE. ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPE DETAILS WILL BE PROVIDED AT A LATER DATE. 5. THE HORIZONTAL DATUM IS CALIFORNIA STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM, ZONE 2, NAD83 (2011), IN U.S. SURVEY FEET. THE VERTICAL DATUM IS NAVD88 (GEOID 18) 6. FEMA FLOOD ZONE IDENTIFICATION IS: ZONE X - AREAS OF MINIMAL FLOOD HAZARD. FEMA FLOOD ZONE INFORMATION WAS DERIVED FROM FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP(S) (FIRM) NO. 6067C0240J, ALL WITH AN EFFECTIVE DATE OF JULY 19, 2018. 7. RECTIFIED ORTHOPHOTOGRAPHY AND LiDAR DATA, USED FOR PHOTOGRAMMETRIC MAPPING, ACQUIRED AUGUST 19, 2021. 8. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRIANTS PROVIDED BY DUDEK. PROPOSED SUBSTATION AREA POH LOD EX. ASPHALT LINE EX. CONCRETE LINE EX. POWER OVERHEAD LINE EX. VEGETATION LINE EX. BUILDING LINE EX. RIGHT OF WAY LINE PROPOSED LIMIT OF DISTURBANCE EX. PRESERVE SETBACK (50 FEET) EX. STORMWATER CONTROL DITCH SETBACK (25 FEET) EX. STORMWATER CONTROL DITCH EX. BOUNDARY LINE SETBACK EX. VERNAL POOL EX. VEGETATION BUFFER (25 FEET) X PROPOSED 6-TO-8-FOOT SECURITY FENCE PROPOSED 12-FOOT HIGH WALL X EX. FENCE LINE EXH-G ITEM 17.1.

ATTACHMENT 6
Exhibit A to the Resolution

Page 886 of 981 ends

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
POH
S S
S
S
E
E
E
E
SMUD Cordova Substation
W
HH
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
MISC
MISC
MISC
MISC
MISC
MISC
MISC
MISC
MISC
MISC
194
200
200
205
205
200
200
202
203
204
195 190
200
202
201 201
202
197 198
199
196
189
190
195
199
200

25.0' LANDSCAPE SETBACK

50.0' SOUTH SACRAMENTO HABITAT

CONSERVATION PLAN SETBACK

10.0' STORMWATER CONTROL

DITCH SETBACK

P-POH P-POH P-POH
22A02 22A-1
22A01
22A-1
22A-1
22A02 22A-1
22A01
22A-1
22A-1
22A02 22A-1
22A01
22A-1
22A-1
22A02 22A-1
22A01
22A-1
22A-1
22A-1
22A02
22A01 22A-1 22A-1
22A-1
22A02
22A01 22A-1 22A-1
22A-1
22A02
22A01 22A-1 22A-1
22A-1
22A02
22A01
22A-1
22A-1
22A02 22A-1
22A01
22A-1
22A-1
22A02 22A-1
22A01
22A-1
22A-1
22A02 22A-1
22A01
22A-1
22A-1
22A02 22A-1
22A01
22A-1
22A-1
22A-1
22A02
22A01 22A-1 22A-1
22A-1
22A02
22A01 22A-1 22A-1
22A-1
22A02
22A01 22A-1 22A-1
22A02 22A-1
22A01
22A-1
22A-1
22A02 22A-1
22A01
22A-1
22A-1
22A02 22A-1
22A01
22A-1
22A-1
22A-1
22A02
22A01 22A-1 22A-1
22A-1
22A02
22A01
22A-1
22A-1
22A02 22A-1
22A01
22A-1
22A-1
CANYONLANDS DR.

POOPENAUT CT. (PRIVATE)
4-ARM
3-SHL
3-SHL
4-KDC
3-WLP
7-WLP
5-DJB
7-WLP
5-DJB
12-BGW
12-SMA
12-CWR
12-SMA
12-BGW
7-SMA
8' WIDE MULCHED PLANTING
BED ALONG SOUND WALL. SEE

PLANTING NOTES FOR DETAILS

EDGER (TYP)

EDGER (TYP)
5-DJB
20' ACCESS ROAD (TYP)

PROPOSED BESS EQUIPMENT

PROPOSED

SECURITY FENCE

PROPOSED SUBSTATION

PROJECT BOUNDARY

VERNAL POOL (TYP)

PROPOSED POI (LOCATION TO BE DETERMINED)
200' ELECTRICAL

FACILITIES EASEMENT

PROPOSED STORMWATERRETENTION BASIN

PROPOSED STREET

AND ACCENT TREES
APPROX. EVERY 40'

PROPOSED VERTICAL

ACCENT PLANTINGS
APPROX. EVERY 20'

PROPOSEDENTRANCE
GATE

PROPOSED

ENTRANCE GATE

PROPOSED NOISE WALL
N:\0032005.00\_CAD\_Civil\0032005-PLP01.dwg 4/29/2022 3:26 PM Ellie Czeck NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION REVISIONS:
# DATE COMMENT125 E. JOHN CARPENTER FREEWAY, SUITE 525
IRVING, TEXAS 75062
PREPARED FOR:

DATE:

SHEET:
04/29/2022
Sunridge SolarStorage Project
Sacramento County, California
westwoodps.com
Westwood Professional Services, Inc.

Phone (720) 531-8350 10170 Church Ranch Way, Suite #100 Toll Free (888) 937-5150 Westminster, CO 80021
westwoodps.com
A
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
BC
D
E
F
G
0' 50' 100' 150'
L.100
Preliminary Landscape
Screening Plan

BUFFER & SCREENING PLANT SPECIES LIST

COMMON/BOTANICAL NAME
SYMBOL SIZE SPACING O.C.

OVERSTORY
TREE
(AT INSTALLATION) MATURE SIZE
Marina Strawberry Tree / Arbutus x 'Marina' 24" BOX 40' O.C. H 20'-30' W 20'-30'Saratoga Hybrid Laurel / Laurus x 'Saratoga' H 25'-30' W 25'-30' NOTES: 1) QUANTITIES ON PLAN SUPERSEDE LIST QUANTITIES IN THE EVENT OF A DISCREPANCY. 2) H.T. SPECIFIES MINIMUM SPECIMEN HEIGHT UPONINSTALLATION. 3) #5 CONT. TO MEET MINIMUM SIZE REQUIREMENT OF 24"H OR 30"W FOR DECIDUOUS SHRUBS UPON INSTALLATION. IF PLANT SIZEUNAVAILABLE AT #5 CONT. UPSIZE CONTAINER UNTIL MINIMUM PLANT SIZE REQUIREMENT IS MET.

Keith Davey Chinese Pistache / Pistacia chinensis 'Keith Davey' H 30'-35' W 30'-35' SHRUBS
California Wildrose / Rosa californica 6' O.C. H 8'-10' W 8'-10'Stanford's Manzanita / Arctostaphylos stanfordiana 6' O.C. H 4'-9' W 6'

VERTICAL

EVERGREEN
SHRUBS
Wax Leaf Privet / Ligustrum japonicum 'Texanum' 5 GAL H 10' W 6'Dwarf Japanese Blueberry Tree / Elaeocarpus decipiens 'Little Emperor' 5 GALBlue Gem Westringia / Westringia fruticosa 6' O.C. H 6'-7' W 6' 464
17151224
CODE QTY.

ARMSHLKDCWLPDJBCWRSMABGW

BUFFER & SCREENING PLANT MATERIAL
Marina Strawberry Tree Saratoga Hybrid Laurel
Dwarf Japanese Blueberry Tree California Wildrose
Keith Davey Chinese Pistache
Stanford's Manzanita

23.716.050 LANDSCAPE DESIGN AND PLANTING REQUIREMENTS
B. PLANT TYPE. LANDSCAPE PLANTING SHALL EMPHASIZE DROUGHT-TOLERANT AND NATIVE SPECIES (ESPECIALLY ALONG NATURAL, OPEN SPACE AREAS), SHALL COMPLEMENT THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN OF STRUCTURES ON THE SITE, AND SHALL BE SUITABLE FOR THE SOIL AND CLIMATIC CONDITIONS SPECIFIC TO THE SITE.

1. PLANTING LAYOUT AND PLANT DIVERSITY. PLANT SELECTION SHALL VARY IN TYPE AND PLANTING PATTERN. INFORMAL PLANTING PATTERNS ARE PREFERRED OVER UNIFORM AND ENTIRELY SYMMETRICAL PLANTING PATTERNS. USE OF FLOWERING TREES AND COLORFUL PLANTINGS IS ENCOURAGED IN CONJUNCTION WITH EVERGREEN SPECIES. GROUPINGS OF SHRUBS SHALL CONTAIN MULTIPLE PLANT TYPES, INTERSPERSED WITH VARYING HEIGHTS AND BLOOMING SEASONS FOR YEAR-ROUND INTEREST.

2. STREET AND PARKING LOT TREES. STREET AND PARKING LOT TREES SHALL BE SELECTED FROM THE CITY’S ADOPTED MASTER LIST OF STREET TREES AND PARKING LOT TREES. A MINIMUM OF 30 PERCENT OF THE STREET TREES AND PARKING LOT TREES, RESPECTIVELY, SHALL BE AN EVERGREEN SPECIES.

3. TREES PLANTED WITHIN 10 FEET OF A STREET, SIDEWALK, PAVED TRAIL, OR WALKWAY SHALL BE A DEEP-ROOTED SPECIES OR SHALL BE SEPARATED FROM HARDSCAPES BY A ROOT BARRIER TO PREVENT PHYSICAL DAMAGE TO PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS.

C. PLANTING SIZE, SPACING, AND PLANTER WIDTHS. IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE AN IMMEDIATE EFFECT OF A LANDSCAPE INSTALLATION AND TO ALLOW SUSTAINED GROWTH OF PLANTING MATERIALS, MINIMUM PLANT MATERIAL SIZES, PLANT SPACING, AND MINIMUM PLANTER WIDTHS (INSIDE MEASUREMENT) ARE AS FOLLOWS:

1. TREES. THE MINIMUM PLANTING SIZE FOR TREES SHALL BE 15-GALLON, WITH 25 PERCENT OF ALL TREES ON A PROJECT SITE PLANTED AT A MINIMUM 24-INCH-BOX SIZE. FOR COMMERCIAL, OFFICE, COMMUNITY/CIVIC, AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT, TREE SPACING WITHIN THE PERIMETER PLANTERS ALONG STREETS AND ABUTTING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTYSHALL BE PLANTED NO FARTHER APART ON CENTER THAN THE MATURE DIAMETER OF THE PROPOSED SPECIES. MINIMUM PLANTER WIDTHS FOR TREES SHALL BE BETWEEN FIVE AND 10 FEET, CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY-ADOPTED MASTER TREE LIST FOR STREET TREES AND PARKING LOT TREES.

2. SHRUBS. SHRUB PLANTING SHALL BE A MINIMUM FIVE-GALLON SIZE. THE MINIMUM PLANTER WIDTH FOR SHRUBS IS FOUR FEET.3. GROUND COVER. PLANTS USED FOR MASS PLANTING MAY BE GROWN IN FLATS OF UP TO 64 PLANTS OR IN INDIVIDUAL ONE-GALLON CONTAINERS. ROOTED CUTTINGS FROM FLATS SHALL BE PLANTED NO FARTHER APART THAN 12 INCHES ON CENTER, AND CONTAINERIZED WOODY, SHRUB GROUND COVER PLANTINGS SHALL BE PLANTED NO FARTHER APART THAN THREE FEET ON CENTER IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE FULL COVERAGE WITHIN ONE YEAR. MINIMUM PLANTER WIDTH FOR GROUND COVER IS TWO FEET, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF SOD, WHICH REQUIRES A MINIMUM PLANTER WIDTH OF SIX FEET.

4. ADDITIONAL SPACING PROVISIONS. TREE SPACING SHALL ENSURE UNOBSTRUCTED ACCESS FOR VEHICLES AND PEDESTRIANS AND PROVIDE CLEAR VISION AT INTERSECTIONS.

SPECIFICALLY, TREE PLANTING SHALL COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING SPACING CRITERIA:a. TREES OR SHRUBS WITH A FULL-GROWN HEIGHT EQUAL TO OR GREATER THAN 30 INCHES SHALL NOT BE PLANTED IN ANY CLEAR VISION TRIANGLE. b. A MINIMUM DISTANCE OF 15 FEET IS REQUIRED BETWEEN THE CENTER OF TREES AND SHRUBS TO STREETLIGHT STANDARDS AND FIRE HYDRANTS.

SOLAR ORDINANCE - SCREENING REQUIREMENTS

REQUIREMENT MET

WITH PROPOSED

LANDSCAPE BUFFERPLANTINGS
31 H 10' W 6'-8'
5 GAL5 GAL5 GAL
Wax Leaf Privet
Blue Gem Westringia
24" BOX24" BOX
40' O.C.40' O.C.20' O.C.20' O.C.

ITEM 17.1.

ATTACHMENT 6
Exhibit A to the Resolution

Page 887 of 981 ends

Rancho Cordova City CouncilJuly 17, 2023

Rancho Cordova City Council
July 17, 2023