Rancho Cordova City Council
April 21, 2025

M I L L S C R O S S I N G P R O J E C T E I R M I T I G A T I O N M O N I T O R I N G A N D R E P O R T I N G P R O G R A M

C I T Y O F R A N C H O C O R D O V A

3. Mitigation Monitoring Requirements
March 2025 Page 9
Table 3-1 Mitigation Monitoring Requirements
Mitigation Measure
Responsibility for
Implementation Timing
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature Required)
(Date of Compliance)
BIO-2 A qualified biologist shall conduct a survey for suitable bat roosting habitat within 14 days of construction activities. If no suitable roosting habitat is identified, no further measures are necessary. If suitable roosting habitat is identified and proposed for removal, a qualified biologist shall conduct an evening bat emergence survey that may include acoustic monitoring to determine whether bats are present. If roosting bats are found, consultation with CDFW prior to initiation of construction activities will be required. If bats are not found during the preconstruction surveys, no further measures are necessary.

Project Applicant,
Construction
Contractor, Wildlife
Biologist
Within 14 days of
construction activities.

City of Rancho Cordova

CULTURAL RESOURCES
CUL-1 If subsurface deposits believed to be cultural or human in origin are discovered during construction, all work must halt within a 100-foot radius of the discovery. A qualified professional archaeologist, meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for prehistoric and historic archaeology, shall be retained to evaluate the significance of the find, and shall have the authority to modify the nowork radius as appropriate, using professional judgment. The following notifications shall apply, depending on the nature of the find:
• If the professional archaeologist determines that the find does not represent a cultural resource, work may
resume immediately, and no agency notifications are
required.
• If the professional archaeologist determines that the find does represent a cultural resource from any time
period or cultural affiliation, the archaeologist shall immediately notify the lead agencies. The agencies
shall consult on a finding of eligibility and implement appropriate treatment measures, if the find is
determined to be a Historical Resource under CEQA,
as defined in Section 15064.5(a) of the CEQA
Guidelines or a historic property under Section 106
NHPA, if applicable. Work may not resume within the
no-work radius until the lead agencies, through
consultation as appropriate, determine that the site
either: 1) is not a Historical Resource under CEQA or
Project Applicant,
Construction
Contractor,
Archeologist
If subsurface deposits
believed to be cultural
or human in origin are
discovered during
construction
City of Rancho Cordova
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 2 Exhibit A to the Resolution

M I L L S C R O S S I N G P R O J E C T E I R M I T I G A T I O N M O N I T O R I N G A N D R E P O R T I N G P R O G R A M

C I T Y O F R A N C H O C O R D O V A

3. Mitigation Monitoring Requirements

Table 3-1 Mitigation Monitoring Requirements
Mitigation Measure
Responsibility for
Implementation Timing
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature Required)
(Date of Compliance)
a Historic Property under Section 106; or 2) that the
treatment measures have been completed to their
satisfaction.

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
GHG-1 Implement SMAQMD Tier 1 Best Management Practices. The implementing agency will require the Project to implement Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District Tier 1 Best Management Practices:
• BMP 1: projects shall be designed and constructed
without natural gas infrastructure.
• BMP 2: projects shall meet the current CalGreen Tier
2 standards, except all electric vehicle capable
spaces shall instead be electric vehicle ready.

Project Applicant,
Construction
Contractor,
Prior to construction City of Rancho Cordova
GHG-2 Implement SMAQMD Tier 2 Best Management Practices. The implementing agency will require the Project to implement Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District Tier 2 Best Management Practices:
• BMP 3: The project applicant shall coordinate with the City of Rancho Cordova to implement feasible transportation
demand management (TDM) strategies, which would
decrease the vehicle miles traveled generated by the
proposed project as follows:
o The project community office space component
must achieve a 15 percent reduction in VMT per
worker compared to the existing average VMT
per capita for Sacramento County.
o The project residential component must achieve
a 15 percent reduction in VMT per resident
compared to the existing average VMT per
capita in Sacramento County.

Project Applicant,
Construction
Contractor
During the project's
planning and
operational phases.

City of Rancho Cordova
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 2 Exhibit A to the Resolution

M I L L S C R O S S I N G P R O J E C T E I R M I T I G A T I O N M O N I T O R I N G A N D R E P O R T I N G P R O G R A M

C I T Y O F R A N C H O C O R D O V A

3. Mitigation Monitoring Requirements
March 2025 Page 11
Table 3-1 Mitigation Monitoring Requirements
Mitigation Measure
Responsibility for
Implementation Timing
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature Required)
(Date of Compliance)
o The project retail component must achieve no
net increase in total VMT
Examples of potential measures include (but are not limited to): paid parking, employee telecommuting, employee shuttle service, expansion of transit service coverage/ subsidized transit fares, enhanced bicycle and pedestrian connections, and flexible work schedules.

In the case that the necessary VMT reductions are infeasible, the purchasing and retiring GHG/carbon offsets from a SMAQMDapproved registry is required. Approved registries may include but are not limited to any of the following: (i) the Climate Action Reserve, the American Carbon Registry and Verra; (ii) any entity approved at any time by the California Air Resources Board to act as an “offset project registry” under the state’s cap-and-trade program; (iii) other regulatory or voluntary credits that demonstrate, based on substantial evidence, that the offsets are real, permanent, quantifiable, verifiable, enforceable, and additional.

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
HAZ-1 Implement Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board approved Site Cleanup Plan. Prior to the issuance of construction permits, the project applicant shall complete all recommendations from the Site Cleanup Plan and Addendum to the Site Cleanup Plan prepared by Tetra Tech (Appendix 5.6-1, dated March 16, 2022, and Appendix 5.6-2, August 30, 2023) for the proposed project into the project’s construction plans. Short-term soil vapor extraction (SVE) will be conducted to remove the impacted soil vapor that migrated to this area. Up to 15 SVE wells will be installed and operated as extraction and/or venting wells to expedite the pore volume flushing of the vadose zone (Section 3.9) for an approximate duration of two months.

The City Engineer will transmit testing results to the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board for review and concurrence before issuing construction permits. The City Engineer will also ensure that the project’s construction plans incorporate all applicable recommendations of the Site Cleanup Plan and comply with all applicable requirements of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Project Applicant, Prior to the issuance of
construction permits
City of Rancho Cordova
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 2 Exhibit A to the Resolution

M I L L S C R O S S I N G P R O J E C T E I R M I T I G A T I O N M O N I T O R I N G A N D R E P O R T I N G P R O G R A M

C I T Y O F R A N C H O C O R D O V A

3. Mitigation Monitoring Requirements

Table 3-1 Mitigation Monitoring Requirements
Mitigation Measure
Responsibility for
Implementation Timing
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature Required)
(Date of Compliance)
Control Board. The City inspectors will ensure that the procedures and requirements included in the construction plans are followed and documented. Documentation will be part of the mitigation monitoring and reporting program.

TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
TCR-1 Prior to issuance of grading permits, a qualified Tribal monitor/consultant shall be identified to be on call during grounddisturbing activities. The Project Applicant shall be required to retain and compensate for the services of a Tribal monitor/consultant who is both ancestrally affiliated with the project area and approved by the Wilton Rancheria Tribal Government and is listed under the NAHC Tribal Contact list for the area of the project location. A Native American monitor shall be retained by the Lead Agency or owner of the project to be on-site to monitor all project-related, grounddisturbing construction activities (i.e., boring, grading, excavation, potholing, trenching, etc.). A monitor associated with one of the NAHC recognized Tribal governments that have commented on the project shall provide the Native American monitor. The monitor/consultant will only be present on site during the construction phases that involve ground-disturbing activities. The Tribal Monitor/consultant will complete daily monitoring logs that will provide descriptions of the day’s activities, including construction activities, locations, soil, and any cultural materials identified. The onsite monitoring shall end when the project site grading and excavation activities are completed, or when the Tribal Representatives and monitor/consultant have indicated that the site has a low potential for impacting Tribal Cultural Resources.

Project Applicant,
Construction
Contractor, Tribal
Monitor
Prior to the issuance of
grading permits
City of Rancho Cordova
TCR-2 If any tribal cultural are discovered during excavation and/or construction activities, construction shall stop within 100 feet of the find, and the qualified Tribal monitor/consultant shall be consulted to determine whether the resource requires further study. The Tribal monitor/consultant shall make recommendations to the City to protect the discovered resources. All tribal cultural resources unearthed by project construction activities shall be evaluated by the qualified tribal monitor/consultant. If the resources are Native American in origin, the Project Applicant,
Construction
Contractor, Tribal
Monitor
If any tribal cultural
resources are
discovered during
excavation or
construction,
City of Rancho Cordova
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 2 Exhibit A to the Resolution

M I L L S C R O S S I N G P R O J E C T E I R M I T I G A T I O N M O N I T O R I N G A N D R E P O R T I N G P R O G R A M

C I T Y O F R A N C H O C O R D O V A

3. Mitigation Monitoring Requirements
March 2025 Page 13
Table 3-1 Mitigation Monitoring Requirements
Mitigation Measure
Responsibility for
Implementation Timing
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature Required)
(Date of Compliance)
Wilton Rancheria Tribal Government shall coordinate with the landowner regarding treatment and curation of these resources. Work may continue on other parts of the project while evaluation and, if necessary, additional protective mitigation takes place (CEQA Guidelines Section 1506.5[f]).

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 2 Exhibit A to the Resolution

M I L L S C R O S S I N G P R O J E C T E I R M I T I G A T I O N M O N I T O R I N G A N D R E P O R T I N G P R O G R A M

C I T Y O F R A N C H O C O R D O V A

3. Mitigation Monitoring Requirements

This page intentionally left blank.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 2 Exhibit A to the Resolution

March 2025 Page 15

4. Mitigation Monitoring Reports
Mitigation monitoring reports are required to document compliance with the Mitigation Monitoring Program and to dispute arbitration enforcement resolution. Specific reports include:
▪ Field Check Report
▪ Implementation Compliance Report
▪ Arbitration/Enforcement Report

4.1 FIELD CHECK REPORT
Field check reports are required to record in-field compliance and conditions.

4.2 IMPLEMENTATION COMPLIANCE REPORT
The Implementation Compliance Report (ICR) is prepared to document the implementation of mitigation measures on a phased basis, based on the information in Table 3-1. The report summarizes implementation compliance, including mitigation measures, date completed, and monitor’s signature.

4.3 ARBITRATION/ENFORCEMENT REPORT
The Arbitration/Enforcement Report (AER) is prepared to document the outcome of arbitration committee review and becomes a portion of the ICR.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 2 Exhibit A to the Resolution

P R O J E C T T I T L E M I T I G A T I O N M O N I T O R I N G A N D R E P O R T I N G P R O G R A M

C L I E N T

4. Mitigation Monitoring Reports

This page intentionally left blank.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 2 Exhibit A to the Resolution

March 2025 Page 17

5. Community Involvement
Monitoring reports are public documents and are available for review by the general public. Discrepancies in monitoring reports can be taken to the arbitration committee by the general public.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 2 Exhibit A to the Resolution

P R O J E C T T I T L E M I T I G A T I O N M O N I T O R I N G A N D R E P O R T I N G P R O G R A M

C L I E N T

5. Community Involvement

This page intentionally left blank
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 2 Exhibit A to the Resolution

March 2025 | Final Environmental Impact Report
State Clearinghouse No. 2023010102
MILLS CROSSING PROJECT:

CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT REGARDING THE FINAL

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
City of Rancho Cordova
Prepared for:

City of Rancho Cordova
Contact: Stefan Heisler, Housing Manager
2729 Prospect Park Drive,
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
916.851.8700
Prepared by:

PlaceWorks
Contact: Patrick Hindmarsh, Senior Associate
101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 200
Folsom, CA 95630
[email protected]
www.placeworks.com
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 2 Exhibit A to the Resolution

- i -
Table of Contents
I. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................... 1 A. STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS FOR FINDINGS ...................................................1 B. CERTIFICATION ................................................................................................................3 C. PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT AND DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS ...................................................................................................................................................4 II. PROCEDURAL COMPLIANCE WITH CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT ...................................................................................................... 4 A. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND OUTREACH............................................................4 B. FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND PROCEEDINGS ...........5 C. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS........................................................................................6 D. CUSTODIAN AND LOCATION OF RECORDS.......................................................7 E. PROJECT LOCATION.......................................................................................................7 F. PROJECT OBJECTIVES ....................................................................................................7 G. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................8 III. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDINGS ............................. 8 A. FORMAT ................................................................................................................................8 B. ISSUES DEEMED “NO IMPACT” OR “LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
IMPACT” IN THE DEIR..................................................................................................10 C. FINDINGS ON SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS THAT CAN BE MITIGATED TO LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT .................................................14 IV. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT............................................ 23 A. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND REJECTED DURING THE
SCOPING/PROJECT PLANNING PROCESS ..........................................................24 B. ALTERNATIVES SELECTED FOR FURTHER ANALYSIS.................................24 V. LACK OF NEED FOR STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS ... 26 VI. FINDINGS ON RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIR AND REVISIONS TO THE Final EIR............................................................................................... 26 ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 2 Exhibit A to the Resolution

- 1 -

CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT

AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS

REGARDING THE

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

FOR THE

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2023010102
Exhibit A
I. INTRODUCTION
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that a number of written findings be made by the lead agency in connection with certification of an environmental impact report (EIR) prior to approval of the project pursuant to Sections 15091 and 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines and Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code. This document provides the findings required by CEQA. The potential environmental effects of the proposed Mills Crossing Project have been analyzed in a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) (State Clearinghouse [SCH] 2023010102) dated January 2023.

A Final EIR has also been prepared that incorporates the DEIR and contains comments received on the DEIR; responses to the individual comments; revisions to the DEIR, including any clarifications based on the comments and the responses to the comments; and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the proposed project. This document provides the findings required by CEQA for approval of the proposed project.

A. Statutory Requirements for Findings
The CEQA (Pub. Res. Code §§ 21000, et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (Guidelines) (14 Ca.

Code Regs §§ 15000, et seq.) promulgated thereunder require the environmental impacts of a project to be examined before a project is approved. Specifically, regarding findings, Guidelines Section 15091 provides:
(a) No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are:

1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR.

2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 2 Exhibit A to the Resolution

- 2 -

3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR.
(b) The findings required by subsection (a) shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record.
(c) The finding in subdivision (a)(2) shall not be made if the agency making the finding has concurrent jurisdiction with another agency to deal with identified feasible mitigation measures or alternatives. The finding in subsection (a)(3) shall describe the specific reasons for rejecting identified mitigation measures and project alternatives.
(d) When making the findings required in subdivision (a)(1), the agency shall also adopt a program for reporting on or monitoring the changes which it has either required in the project or made a condition of approval to avoid or substantially lessen significant environmental effects. These measures must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures.
(e) The public agency shall specify the location and custodian of the documents or other material which constitute the record of the proceedings upon which its decision is based.
(f) A statement made pursuant to Section 15093 does not substitute for the findings required by this section.

The “changes or alterations” referred to in Section 15091(a)(1)—that are required in or incorporated into the project to mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects of the project—may include a wide variety of measures or actions as listed in Guidelines Section 15370, including:
(a) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action.
(b) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation.
(c) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the impacted environment.
(d) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action.
(e) Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments, including through permanent protection of such resources in the form of conservation easements.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 2 Exhibit A to the Resolution

- 3 -
Regarding a Statement of Overriding Considerations, Guidelines Section 15093 provides:
(a) CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including region-wide or statewide environmental benefits, of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including region-wide or statewide environmental benefits, of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered “acceptable.” (b) When the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the final EIR but are not substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the final EIR and/or other information in the record. The statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record.
(c) If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the notice of determination. This statement does not substitute for, and shall be in addition to, findings required pursuant to Section 15091.

B. Certification
Having received, reviewed, and considered the Final EIR for the Mills Crossing Project, as well as other information in the record of proceedings on this matter, the City of Rancho Cordova City Council adopts the following Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (Findings), in its capacity as the legislative body for the City of Rancho Cordova (City), which is the CEQA Lead Agency. The Findings set forth the environmental and other bases for current and subsequent discretionary actions to be undertaken by the City and responsible agencies for the implementation of the proposed project.

In addition, the City of Rancho Cordova City Council hereby makes findings pursuant to and in accordance with Section 21081 of the California Public Resources Code and State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15090 and 15091 and hereby certifies that:
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR. (2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. (3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 2 Exhibit A to the Resolution

- 4 -
C. Project Environmental Report and Discretionary Actions The Final EIR addresses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental effects of construction and operation activities associated with the proposed project. The Final EIR provides the environmental information necessary for the City to make a final decision on the requested discretionary actions for all phases of the proposed project. The Final EIR was also intended to support discretionary reviews and decisions by other responsible agencies. Discretionary actions to be considered by the City may include, but are not limited to, the following:
▪ Certify that the Final EIR for the proposed project has been completed in compliance with CEQA and reflects the independent judgement and analysis of the City; find that the City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR prior to approving the proposed project; adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, finding that the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is adequately designed to ensure compliance with the mitigation measures during proposed project implementation; and determine that the significant adverse effects of the proposed project either have been reduced to an acceptable level, or are outweighed by the specific overriding considerations of the proposed project as outlined in the CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, as set forth herein. ▪ Approve the proposed project and related discretionary actions needed.

II. PROCEDURAL COMPLIANCE WITH CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL

QUALITY ACT
The City published a DEIR on June 7, 2024. The Final EIR has been prepared in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, as amended. As authorized in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15084(d)(2), the City retained a consultant to assist with the preparation of the environmental documents. City staff from multiple departments, representing the Lead Agency, have directed, reviewed, and modified where appropriate all material prepared by the consultant. The Final EIR reflects the City’s independent analysis and judgement. The key milestones associated with the preparation of the DEIR are summarized in this section. An extensive public involvement and agency notification effort was conducted to solicit input on the scope and content of the DEIR and to solicit comments on the results of the environmental analysis in the DEIR.

A. Public Notification and Outreach
In conformance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Rancho Cordova CEQA Guidelines, the City conducted an extensive environmental review of the proposed project. ▪ Completion of a Notice of Preparation (NOP) on January 06, 2023, titled “Notice of Preparation of a Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report and Scoping Meeting for the Mills Crossing Civic Center Project” for the Mills Crossing Civic Center Project Environmental Impact Report (EIR). A public scoping meeting was conducted on January 19, 2023, and the public comment period for the NOP closed on February 06, 2023.
▪ Preparation of a DEIR, which was made available for a 45-day public review period beginning June 7, 2024, and ending July 22, 2024. The scope of the DEIR was determined based on the CEQA Guidelines’ Appendix G Checklist and comments received in response to the NOP. The ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 2 Exhibit A to the Resolution

- 5 -
Notice of Availability (NOA) for the DEIR was sent to interested persons and organizations, sent to the State Clearinghouse in Sacramento for distribution to public agencies, posted at the City’s website, and published in the Grapevine Independent on June 7, 2024. The NOA was posted at the Sacramento County Clerk’s office on June 7, 2024.
▪ Preparation of a Final EIR, including the responses to comments to the DEIR. The Final EIR was released for a 10-day agency review period prior to certification of the Final EIR. ▪ Public hearings on the proposed project
In summary, the City conducted all required noticing and scoping for the proposed project in accordance with Section 15083 of the CEQA Guidelines, and the public review for the DEIR exceeded the requirements of Section 15087 of the CEQA Guidelines.

B. Final Environmental Impact Report and Proceedings
The City prepared a Final EIR, including Responses to Comments on the DEIR. The Final EIR/Response to Comments contains comments on the DEIR, responses to those comments, and revisions to the DEIR. Seven comment letters were received—five were from public agencies and Native American tribes, and two were from individuals.

None of the comment letters resulted in the need to modify the environmental analysis in the DEIR.

The Final EIR found that prior to mitigation, implementation of the proposed project would result in potentially significant impacts to air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, greenhouse gas emissions, tribal cultural resources, and wildfire. However, implementation of the proposed mitigation measures would reduce all impacts to less than significant.

The following environmental impacts would be potentially significant with the proposed project; however, mitigation measures would reduce their level of significance to less than significant:

Air Quality
▪ Impact 5.1-2: The proposed project could result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of a criteria pollutant that the project region is nonattainment under federal or state ambient air quality standards (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative threshold for ozone precursors).

Biological Resources
▪ Impact 5.2-1: Development of the proposed project would not significantly impact the following sensitive species: special status birds and bats. ▪ Impact 5.2-3: The proposed project could affect wildlife movement of special status species.

Cultural Resources
▪ Impact 5.3-2: Development of the project could impact archaeological resources. ▪ Impact 5.3-3: Grading activities could potentially disturb human remains.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 2 Exhibit A to the Resolution

- 6 -
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
▪ Impact 5.5-1: The proposed project would generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
▪ Impact 5.6-1: The project could potentially create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. ▪ Impact 5.6-2: The proposed project could potentially create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. ▪ Impact 5.6-3: The proposed project could potentially emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.
▪ Impact 5.6-4: The proposed project would be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled under Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. ▪ Impact 5.6-6: The proposed project could potentially impair the implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.

Tribal Cultural Resources
▪ Impact 5.13-1: The proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource that is:
▪ i) listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k);
▪ ii) determined by the lead agency to be significant pursuant to criteria in Public Resources Code section 5024.1(c). In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

C. Record of Proceedings
For purposes of CEQA and these Findings, the Record of Proceedings for the proposed project consists of the following documents and other evidence, at a minimum:
▪ The NOP, NOA, and all other public notices issued by the City in conjunction with the proposed project.
▪ The DEIR and Final EIR for the proposed project.
▪ All written comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the public review comment period on the DEIR.
▪ All responses to written comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the public review comment period on the DEIR.
▪ All written and verbal public testimony presented during a noticed public hearing for the proposed project.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 2 Exhibit A to the Resolution

- 7 -
▪ The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
▪ The reports and technical memoranda included or referenced in the Final EIR. ▪ All documents, studies, EIRs, or other materials incorporated by reference in the DEIR and Final EIR.
▪ The Resolutions adopted by the City in connection with the proposed project and all documents incorporated by reference therein, including comments received after the close of the comment period and responses thereto.
▪ Matters of common knowledge to the City, including but not limited to federal, state, and local laws and regulations.
▪ Any documents expressly cited in these Findings.
▪ Any other relevant materials required to be in the record of proceedings by Public Resources Code Section 21167.6(e).

D. Custodian and Location of Records
The documents and other materials that constitute the administrative record for the City’s actions related to the proposed project are at the City of Rancho Cordova Department of Community Development (2729 Prospect Park Drive, Rancho Cordova). The Department of Community Development is the custodian of the administrative record for the proposed project. Copies of these documents, which constitute the record of proceedings, are and at all relevant times have been and will be available upon request of the City of Rancho Cordova City Clerk’s Department. Additionally, the documents are available online at: https://www.cityofranchocordova.org/residents/new-businesses -and-projects/mills-crossing. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6(a)(2) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(e).

E. Project Location
The 10.34-acre project site encompasses the following Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs): 076-0020- 019, -20, -21, -22, and 076-0213-013. The project site is located at the corner of Folsom Boulevard and La Loma Drive in the City of Rancho Cordova, Sacramento County. The City of Rancho Cordova is surrounded by unincorporated Sacramento County to the north, south, east, and west.

F. Project Objectives
The following objectives for the Mills Crossing Civic Center Project will aid decision makers in their review of the project and associated environmental impacts.

1. Provide for a mix of uses onsite by developing residential, commercial, and recreational uses on infill and underutilized parcels near the Mather Field/Mills Station.

2. Increase the City’s housing stock by providing a range of housing density types, including affordable housing.

3. Increase employment opportunities in the City.

4. Improve the jobs-housing balance in the City of Rancho Cordova and provide new housing close to jobs and services.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 2 Exhibit A to the Resolution

- 8 -

5. Promote healthy living and physical activity by providing open space areas and opportunities to utilize alternative transportation options available proximate to the site, including the Mather Field/Mills Station.

G. Project Description
The proposed project would result in up to 120 dwelling units, which, assuming an average of 2.68 persons per household (as outlined in the General Plan EIR), would accommodate approximately 322 residents. It would also feature up to 140,000 square feet of nonresidential space. The site would offer up to 28,400 square feet of publicly accessible open space. The development would be carried out in phases. Phase 1 would involve the construction of nonresidential buildings (1, 2, and 3), three surface parking lots, open space, and other site improvements. Housing would be constructed in future phases as funding becomes available. Additionally, future phases may involve adjustments to on-site parking, up to a maximum of 325 spaces, as well as the construction of additional nonresidential building space.

III. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDINGS
A. Format
Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that a Lead Agency make a finding for each significant effect for the proposed project. This section summarizes the significant environmental impacts of the proposed project, describes how these impacts are to be mitigated, and discusses various alternatives to the proposed project, which were developed to reduce the remaining significant environmental impacts. All impacts are considered potentially significant prior to mitigation unless otherwise stated in the findings.

This remainder of this section is divided into the following subsections:

Section B, Issues Deemed “No Impact” or “Less Than Significant Impact” in the DEIR, presents a table of the environmental issues that were determined to have no impact or less than significant impacts. These topics are found in Chapter 8, Impacts Found Not to Be Significant, or in individual chapters in individual sections of Chapter 5, Environmental Analysis, of the DEIR.

Section C, Findings on Impacts Mitigated to Less Than Significant, presents significant impacts of the proposed project that were identified in Chapter 5 of the DEIR, the mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program, and the rationales for the findings.

Section IV, Alternatives to the Proposed Project, presents alternatives to the proposed project and evaluates them in relation to the findings in Section 15091(a)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, which allows a public agency to approve a project that would result in one or more significant environmental effects if the project alternatives are found to be infeasible because of specific economic, social, or other considerations.

Section V, Lack of Need for Statement of Overriding Considerations, explains that the proposed project would have no significant and unavoidable adverse impacts.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 2 Exhibit A to the Resolution

- 9 -
Section VI, Findings on Responses to Comments on the DEIR and Revisions to the Final EIR, presents the City’s findings on the response to comments and revisions to the Final EIR, and the decision on whether a recirculated DEIR is necessary.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 2 Exhibit A to the Resolution

- 10 -
B. Issues Deemed “No Impact” or “Less Than Significant Impact” in the DEIR Table 1, Environmental Issues Determined No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact in the DEIR, lists the environmental issues determined to have no impact or a less than significant impact in Chapter 8 or Chapter 5 of the DEIR.

Table 1 Environmental Issues Determined No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact in the DEIR Environmental
Issue Impact Determination
Chapter 5, Environmental Analysis
Section 5.1, Air
Quality
Impact 5.1-1: The proposed project is consistent with the applicable air quality management plan. Less than significant Impact 5.1-3: The proposed project could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Less than significant Impact 5.1-4: The proposed project would not result in other emissions that would adversely affect a substantial number of people. Less than significant Section 5.2,
Biological
Resources
Impact 5.2-2: Development of the proposed project would not result in the loss of any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community nor on state or federally protected wetland.

No Impact
Impact 5.2-4: The proposed project would not conflict with the City’s tree preservation ordinance or with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Plan, or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan.

Less than significant
Impact 5.3-1: Development of the project could impact an identified historic resource. No Impact Section 5.3,
Cultural
Resources
Impact 5.4-1: Project construction and operation would not cause wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary energy use. Less than significant Section 5.4,
Energy
Impact 5.4-2: The project would not conflict with a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Less than significant Impact 5.4-3: The proposed project would not require the relocation or construction of new or expanded energy facilities that would result in significant environmental effects.

Less than significant
Section 5.5,
Greenhouse
Gas Emissions
Impact 5.5-2: The proposed project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.

Less than significant
Section 5.6,
Hazards and
Hazardous
Materials
Impact 5.6-5: The proposed project would not conflict with an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area.

Less than significant
Impact 5.6-7: The proposed project would not expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires.

Less than significant
Section 5.7,
Land Use and
Planning
Impact 5.7-1: Project implementation would not divide an established community. Less than significant Impact 5.7-2: Project implementation would not cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.

Less than significant
Section 5.8,
Mineral
Resources
Impact 5.8-1: The proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource nor the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan.

Less than significant
Impact 5.9-1: Construction activities would result in temporary noise increases in the vicinity of the proposed project. Less than significant ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 2 Exhibit A to the Resolution

- 11 -
Environmental
Issue Impact Determination
Section 5.9,
Noise
Impact 5.9-2: The proposed project would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in excess of City standards during the project’s operation phase.

Less than significant
Impact 5.9-3: The project would not generate excessive groundborne vibration during construction or operation. Less than significant Impact 5.9-4: The proximity of the project site to an airport would not result in exposure of future residents or workers to airport-related noise. Less than significant Section 5.10,
Population and
Housing
Impact 5.10-1: The Mills Crossing project would not induce unplanned population growth either directly or indirectly within the project area. Less than significant Impact 5.10-2: Project implementation would not result in substantially displace existing people and/or the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.

Less than significant
Section 5.11,
Public Services
Impact 5.11-1: The proposed project would introduce new structures, residents, and workers into the Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District service boundaries; however this increase would not require the need for additional fire protection facilities.

Less than significant
Impact 5.11-2: The proposed project would introduce new structures, residents, and workers into the Rancho Cordova Police Department service boundaries; however this increase would not require the need for additional police protection facilities or personnel.

Less than significant
Impact 5.11-3: The proposed project would generate 57 new students into the FCUSD which would impact the school enrollment capacities of area schools.

Less than significant
Impact 5.11-4: The proposed project would introduce new residents into the Sacramento Public Library System/Rancho Cordova Library service boundaries, thereby increasing the requirement for library facilities and personnel.

Less than significant
Section 5.12,
Recreation
Impact 5.12-1: The proposed project would increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks and other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated.

Less than significant
Impact 5.12-2: Project implementation would require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment.

Less than significant
Section 5.14,
Utilities and
Service
Systems
Impact 5.14-1: The proposed project would not require the relocation or construction of new or expanded wastewater treatment facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental effects.

Less than significant
Impact 5.14-2: The proposed project would result in the determination of a wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments.

Less than significant
Impact 5.14-3: The proposed project would not require the relocation or construction of new or expanded water facilities, which could cause significant environmental effects.

Less than significant
Impact 5.14-4: CAW would have sufficient water supplies to serve the proposed project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years.

Less than significant
Impact 5.14-5: The proposed project would not require the relocation or construction of new or expanded storm drainage facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental effects.

Less than significant
Impact 5.14-6: The proposed project would not generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of waste reduction goals.

Less than significant
Impact 5.14-7: The proposed project would comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste.

Less than significant
Chapter 8, Impacts Found Not to Be Significant

8.1, Aesthetics Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less than significant Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No Impact ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 2 Exhibit A to the Resolution

- 12 -
Environmental
Issue Impact Determination
In nonurbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
Less than significant
Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Less than significant

8.2, Agriculture
and Forestry
Resources
Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? No Impact
Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))? No Impact
Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
No Impact

8.3, Geology
and Soils
Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning map, issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

Less than significant
Strong seismic ground shaking? Less than significant
Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less than significant Landslides? No Impact
Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less than significant Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? Less than significant
Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
Less than significant
Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
No Impact
Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Less than significant

8.4, Hydrology
and Water
Quality
Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? Less than significant Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
Less than significant
Result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? Less than significant Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite? Less than significant Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
Less than significant
Impede or redirect flood flows? Less than significant
In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? Less than significant Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? Less than significant ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 2 Exhibit A to the Resolution

- 13 -
Environmental
Issue Impact Determination

8.5,
Transportation
The proposed project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities.

Less than significant
The proposed project would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3, subdivision (b) Less than significant The proposed project would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment).

Less than significant
The proposed project would not result in inadequate emergency access. Less than significant

8.6, Wildfire If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Less than significant
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
Less than significant
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? Less than significant
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? Less than significant
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 2 Exhibit A to the Resolution

- 14 -
C. Findings on Significant Environmental Impacts That Can Be Mitigated to Less Than Significant
The following summary describes the impacts of the proposed project that, without mitigation, would result in significant adverse impacts. Upon implementation of the mitigation measures in the DEIR, these impacts from Chapter 5 would be considered less than significant.

1. Air Quality
Impact 5.1-2: The proposed project could result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of a criteria pollutant that the project region is nonattainment under federal or state ambient air quality standards (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative threshold for ozone precursors.

Construction Phase
As explained in Impact 5.1-2 of the DEIR, the proposed project could exceed SMAQMD’s significance criteria during construction, which could result in the cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants in a non-attainment area. The following mitigation measure would reduce air quality impacts during construction to less than significant.

Operation Phase
As explained in Impact 5.1-2 of the DEIR, the proposed project’s operational contribution to overall emissions is minimal and is not expected to delay the region's attainment of air quality standards. No mitigation measures are required, and impacts during operation of the proposed project would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures:

AQ-1 Implement SMAQMD Basic and Enhanced Construction Emission Control Practices to Reduce Fugitive Dust. The implementing agency will require the construction contractor(s) to implement basic and enhanced control measures to reduce constructionrelated fugitive dust as a standard or specification of their contract. The measures are required for the entirety of the construction area. The implementing agency will ensure, through contract provisions and specifications, that the contractor adheres to the mitigation measures before and during construction and documents compliance with the adopted mitigation measures.

Finding: The City Council finds that the mitigation measure recommended in the EIR to mitigate Impact 5.1-2 has been incorporated into the proposed project and adopted, as stated in the applicable City Council resolution. This measure mitigates Impact 5.1-2 to a less than significant level.

Rationale for Finding:

Mitigation Measure AQ-1 requires construction to implement basic and enhanced control measures to reduce construction-related fugitive dust as a standard or specification of their contract. This would ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 2 Exhibit A to the Resolution

- 15 -
result in the containment of project activity and reduce air quality impacts. Therefore, Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would reduce impacts on air quality to less than significant.

2. Biological Resources
Impact 5.2-1: Development of the proposed project could significantly impact the following sensitive species: special status birds and bats.

As explained in Impact 5.2-1 of the DEIR, development allowed by the proposed project could potentially impact special-status birds and bats. Construction activities could disturb or destroy nests of special-status birds and lead to the loss of foraging habitat for various bird species. Additionally, construction may disturb bat roosts, destroy active roosts, or result in the loss of bats. Development activities from the proposed project could disturb the habitat of special status species, resulting in significant impact.

Mitigation Measures:

BIO-1 To protect nesting birds, no project activity shall begin from February 1 through August 31 unless a qualified wildlife biologist completes the following surveys.

Separate surveys and avoidance requirements are listed for nesting birds and raptors.

BIO-2 A qualified biologist shall conduct a survey for suitable bat roosting habitat within 14 days of construction activities. If no suitable habitat is found, no further action is needed. If suitable habitat is identified for removal, an evening bat emergence survey, including possible acoustic monitoring, will be conducted. If bats are found, consultation with CDFW may be required before construction begins.

Finding: The City Council finds that the mitigation measures recommended in the EIR to mitigate Impact 5.2-1 have been incorporated into the proposed project and adopted, as stated in the applicable City Council resolution. These measures mitigate Impact 5.2-1 to a less than significant level.

Rationale for Finding:

Mitigation Measure BIO-1 requires a biologist to perform a preconstruction nesting bird survey within seven days before construction. If any active nests are observed, these nests shall be designated a sensitive area and protected by an avoidance buffer established by a qualified biologist in coordination with CDFW. The avoidance buffer shall be maintained until a qualified biologist has determined that the young have fledged and are no longer reliant upon the nest, or that the nest is otherwise no longer active. Mitigation Measure BIO-2 requires a biologist to survey suitable bat roosting habitat within 14 days of construction activities. If roosting bats are found, consultation with CDFW before initiation of construction activities may be required. Therefore, Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2 would reduce impacts on biological resources to less than significant.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 2 Exhibit A to the Resolution

- 16 -
Impact 5.2-3: The proposed project could affect wildlife movement of special status species.

As explained in Impact 5.2-3 of the DEIR, although the project site is a disturbed, developed area surrounded by other developments and with no significant wildlife use or movement corridors, the trees on-site could be used for special status species of birds and bats. Therefore, development allowed under the proposed project could disturb the movement of special status species, resulting in potentially significant impacts.

Mitigation Measures:

Implement mitigation measures BIO-1 and BIO-2.

Finding: The City Council finds that the mitigation measures recommended in the EIR to mitigate Impact 5.2-3 have been incorporated into the proposed project and adopted, as stated in the applicable City Council resolution. These measures mitigate Impact 5.2-3 to a less than significant level.

Rationale for Finding:

Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2 require a qualified biologist for nesting birds and bats during construction. These mitigation measures would ensure that impacts towards wildlife movement of special status such as special status birds and bats from the proposed project are reduced to less than significant levels.

3. Cultural Resources
Impact 5.3-2: Development of the project could impact archaeological resources.

As explained in Impact 5.3-2 of the DEIR, although the project site has a low potential for buried precontact archaeological sites due to prior development and the presence of alluvium along the American River, ground-disturbing activities could still expose unrecorded cultural and archaeological resources, resulting in potentially significant impacts.

Mitigation Measure:

CUL-1: If subsurface deposits believed to be cultural or human in origin are discovered during construction, all work must halt within a 100-foot radius of the discovery. A qualified professional archaeologist, meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for prehistoric and historic archaeology, shall be retained to evaluate the significance of the find and shall have the authority to modify the nowork radius as appropriate, using professional judgment. The notifications depend on the nature of the find.

Finding: The City Council finds that the mitigation measure recommended in the EIR to mitigate Impact 5.3-2 has been incorporated into the proposed project and adopted, as stated in the applicable City Council resolution. This measure mitigates Impact 5.3-2 to a less than significant level.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 2 Exhibit A to the Resolution

- 17 -
Rationale for Finding:

Mitigation Measure CUL-1 requires an archaeological monitor to oversee ground-disturbing activities and determine if a find represents a cultural resource from any period or cultural affiliation, the archaeologist shall immediately notify the lead agencies and take care of the resource appropriately.

Therefore, Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would reduce impacts on cultural resources to less than significant.

Impact 5.3-3: Grading activities could potentially disturb human remains.

As explained in Impact 5.3-3 of the DEIR, the undeveloped project site requires ground-disturbing activities, which have the potential to disturb human remains, leading to potentially significant impacts.

However, these impacts can be reduced to a less-than-significant level through specific mitigation measures, including protocols for handling accidental discoveries of human remains as outlined by the California Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5; CEQA Section 15064.5; and Public Resources Code, Section 5097.98.

Mitigation Measure:

CUL-2: If human or potentially human remains are discovered, protection measures will be taken to prevent disturbance. The archaeologist will notify the Sacramento County Coroner, who will determine if the remains are Native American. If so, the coroner will contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which will designate a Most Likely Descendant (MLD) to make recommendations on the treatment of the remains. If there is a disagreement, the NAHC can mediate, and if no agreement is reached, the remains will be reburied and protected. Work will halt until the appropriate agencies confirm the remains have been properly treated.

Finding: The City Council finds that the mitigation measure recommended in the EIR to mitigate Impact 5.3-3 has been incorporated into the proposed project and adopted, as stated in the applicable City Council resolution. This measure mitigates Impact 5.3-3 to a less than significant level.

Rationale for Finding:

Mitigation Measure CUL-2 requires if there is a find that includes human remains, or remains that are potentially human, they shall ensure reasonable protection measures are taken to protect the discovery from disturbance. This would result in the protection of important resources, and being preserved in appropriate locations. Therefore, Mitigation Measure CUL-2 would reduce impacts on cultural resources to less than significant.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 2 Exhibit A to the Resolution

- 18 -

4. Greenhouse Gases
Impact 5.5-1: The proposed project would generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment.

Construction
As explained in Impact 5.5-1 of the DEIR, construction activities for the proposed project—including worker commutes, haul truck trips, and off-road equipment use—would generate GHG emissions.

The maximum emissions during the third year of construction would be 973 metric tons of CO2e, which is below the SMAQMD significance threshold. These emissions would cease once construction is complete. Impacts during construction would be less than significant.

Operational Significance Analysis
As explained in Impact 5.5-1, of the DEIR, the operation of the proposed project would increase GHG emissions, mainly from motor vehicle trips and on-site energy use. To meet SMAQMD guidelines and ensure emissions are less than significant, the project will implement Mitigation Measures GHG-1 and GHG-2.

Mitigation Measures:

GHG-1 Implement SMAQMD Tier 1 Best Management Practices. The proposed project will implement SMAQMD Tier 1 Best Management Practices (BMPs), including designing the project without natural gas infrastructure and meeting CalGreen Tier 2 standards, with all electric vehicle spaces being electric vehicle ready.

GHG-2 Implement SMAQMD Tier 2 Best Management Practices. The proposed project will implement SMAQMD Tier 2 Best Management Practices (BMPs), including coordinating with the City of Rancho Cordova to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) through transportation demand management (TDM) strategies.

The project aims for a 15 percent VMT reduction per worker and resident, and no net increase in VMT for the retail component.

Finding: The City Council finds that the mitigation measures recommended in the EIR to mitigate Impact 5.5-1 have been incorporated into the proposed project and adopted, as stated in the applicable City Council resolution, and these measures mitigate Impact 5.5-1 to a less than significant level.

Rationale for Finding:

Mitigation Measure GHG-1 requires the proposed project to implement Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District Best Management Practices, such as projects shall be designed and constructed without natural gas infrastructure and shall meet the current CALGreen Tier 2 standards, except all-electric-vehicle-capable spaces shall instead be electric-vehicle ready. Mitigation Measure GHG-2 requires the project applicant to coordinate with the City of Rancho Cordova to implement feasible transportation demand management strategies, which would decrease the ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 2 Exhibit A to the Resolution

- 19 -
vehicle miles traveled generated by the proposed project. Mitigation Measures GHG-1 and GHG-2 would reduce impacts on greenhouse gases to less than significant.

5. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impact 5.6-1: The project could potentially create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.

As explained in Impact 5.6-1 of the DEIR, the project site’s remediation work for a former parking lot area may involve handling soil with low tetrachloroethylene (PCE) concentrations. If PCE levels exceed safety standards, the soil will be disposed of at a hazardous waste facility. The project will follow regulations for the transport, disposal, and handling of hazardous materials, including implementing a Health and Safety Plan (HASP) with measures to prevent spills and control air quality. Real-time air and dust monitoring will protect public health during excavation, and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) must confirm the remediation is successful before construction can begin.

With mitigation, impacts are expected to be less than significant.

Mitigation Measure:

HAZ-1 The project will implement the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Boardapproved Site Cleanup Plan, including short-term soil vapor extraction (SVE) to remove impacted soil vapor. Up to 15 SVE wells will be installed for approximately two months. Before construction permits are issued, the City Engineer will submit testing results to the Regional Water Quality Control Board for review. The project’s construction plans will incorporate all recommendations from the Site Cleanup Plan, and City inspectors will ensure compliance and documentation as part of the mitigation monitoring and reporting program.

Finding: The City Council finds that the mitigation measure recommended in the EIR to mitigate Impact 5.6-1 has been incorporated into the proposed project and adopted, as stated in the applicable City Council resolution, and this measure mitigates Impact 5.6-1 to a less than significant level.

Rationale for Finding:

Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 requires the project applicant to complete all recommendations from the Site Cleanup Plan and Addendum to the Site Cleanup Plan prepared by Tetra Tech for the proposed project. Short-term soil vapor extraction (SVE) will be conducted to remove the impacted soil vapor that migrated to the proposed project site. The City will also ensure that the project’s construction plans incorporate all applicable recommendations of the Site Cleanup Plan and comply with all applicable requirements of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. The City inspectors will ensure that the procedures and requirements included in the construction plans are followed and documented. Documentation will be part of the mitigation monitoring and reporting program. Therefore, Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 would reduce impacts to less than significant.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 2 Exhibit A to the Resolution

- 20 -
Impact 5.6-2: The proposed project could potentially create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment.

As mentioned in Impact 5.6-2 of the DEIR, the proposed project involves additional remediation efforts that may include the storage, use, and transport of hazardous materials, with potential risks of accidental release or exposure to toxic emissions, particularly during ongoing remediation activities. To prevent environmental impact, the project must comply with the hazard safety plan and safe work practices outlined in mitigation measure HAZ-1, including site-specific training for personnel on emergency response and safety procedures. The project also involves residential and commercial uses that typically use small amounts of hazardous materials, but with adherence to regulations, impacts are expected to be less than significant.

Mitigation Measure:

See Mitigation Measure HAZ-1.

Finding: The City Council finds that the mitigation measure recommended in the EIR to mitigate Impact 5.6-2 has been incorporated into the proposed project and adopted, as stated in the applicable City Council resolution, and this measure mitigates Impact 5.6-2 to a less than significant level.

Rationale for Finding:

Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 requires the project applicant to complete all recommendations from the Site Cleanup Plan and Addendum to the Site Cleanup Plan prepared by Tetra Tech for the proposed project. SVE will be conducted to remove the impacted soil vapor that migrated to the proposed project site. The City will also ensure that the project’s construction plans incorporate all applicable recommendations of the Site Cleanup Plan and comply with all applicable requirements of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. The City inspectors will ensure that the procedures and requirements included in the construction plans are followed and documented. Therefore, Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 would minimize impacts on the potential of release of hazardous materials.

Impact 5.6-3: The proposed project could potentially emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within onequarter mile of an existing or proposed school.

As explained in Impact 5.6-3 of the DEIR, the proposed project, located less than 0.25 miles west of Folsom Lake College-Rancho Cordova, involves handling hazardous materials that could pose a risk to the school. Mitigation measure HAZ-1 ensures safe handling practices to minimize hazardous material release, reducing risks to the public, including students. The City of Rancho Cordova has informally consulted with Folsom Lake College and Los Rios Community College District regarding the project and remediation activities. The City has also adhered to CEQA requirements, including a 30-day notice to the school district. The City’s ongoing coordination with the district and compliance with safety protocols, including site-specific training and RWQCB remediation oversight, will ensure impacts are less than significant.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 2 Exhibit A to the Resolution

- 21 -
Mitigation Measure:

See Mitigation Measure HAZ-1.

Finding: The City Council finds that the mitigation measure recommended in the EIR to mitigate Impact 5.6-3 has been incorporated into the proposed project and adopted, as stated in the applicable City Council resolution, and this measure mitigates Impact 5.6-3 to a less than significant level.

Rationale for Finding:

Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 requires the project applicant shall complete all recommendations from the Site Cleanup Plan and Addendum to the Site Cleanup Plan prepared by Tetra Tech for the proposed project. SVE will be conducted to remove the impacted soil vapor that migrated to the proposed project site. The City will also ensure that the project’s construction plans incorporate all applicable recommendations of the Site Cleanup Plan and comply with all applicable requirements of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. The City inspectors will ensure that the procedures and requirements included in the construction plans are followed and documented. Therefore, Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 would minimize impacts on the potential to emit hazardous emissions within onequarter mile of an existing or proposed school.

Impact 5.6-4: The proposed project would be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled under Government Code Section 65962.5, and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.

As explained in Impact 5.6-4 of the DEIR, the project site, including the former dry cleaner location with PCE contamination, will undergo additional remediation activities to remove hazardous materials.

Compliance with Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 and the Central Valley RWQCB’s site cleanup plan will ensure proper removal, sampling, and reporting of hazardous materials. The mitigation measures and General Plan policies will reduce potential hazards to the environment, ensuring impacts are less than significant.

Mitigation Measure:

See Mitigation Measure HAZ-1.

Finding: The City Council finds that the mitigation measures recommended in the EIR to mitigate Impact 5.6-4 have been incorporated into the proposed project and adopted, as stated in the applicable City Council resolution, and these measures mitigate Impact 5.6-4 to a less than significant level.

Rationale for Finding:

Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 requires the project applicant shall complete all recommendations from the Site Cleanup Plan and Addendum to the Site Cleanup Plan prepared by Tetra Tech for the proposed project. SVE will be conducted to remove the impacted soil vapor that migrated to the proposed project site. The City will also ensure that the project’s construction plans incorporate all applicable recommendations of the Site Cleanup Plan and comply with all applicable requirements of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. The proposed project site is included on a list of ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 2 Exhibit A to the Resolution

- 22 -
hazardous materials sites compiled under Government Code Section 65962.5; therefore compliance with Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 would address and mitigate hazardous materials within the site.

Impact 5.6-6: The proposed project could potentially impair the implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.

As explained in Impact 5.6-6 of the DEIR, the Sacramento County Evacuation Plan, managed by the City of Rancho Cordova, could be affected by construction closures for trenching and utility work.

Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 ensures that evacuation procedures, including routes based on the work location, will be discussed before site work begins. With this mitigation, the proposed project will comply with emergency response and evacuation plans, making impacts less than significant.

Mitigation Measure:

See Mitigation Measure HAZ-1.

Finding: The City Council finds that the mitigation measure recommended in the EIR to mitigate Impact 5.6-6 has been incorporated into the proposed project and adopted, as stated in the applicable City Council resolution, and this measure mitigates Impact 5.6-6 to a less than significant level.

Rationale for Finding:

Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 mandates a discussion on evacuation procedures before site work commencement, determining evacuation routes based on work location and necessary circumstances.

The City inspectors will ensure that the procedures and requirements included in the construction plans are followed and documented. Therefore, Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 would reduce impacts to less than significant.

6. Tribal Cultural Resources
Impact 5.13-1: The proposed project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource that is: (i) listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k). (ii) determined by the lead agency to be significant pursuant to criteria in Public Resources Code Section 5024.1(c). In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

As mentioned in Impact 5.13-1 of the DEIR, the proposed project could significantly impact tribal cultural resources listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources. The 2006 General Plan EIR conducted archaeological investigations, identifying 31 cultural resources in the area, with part of the project site having undergone previous investigations. While the project site is not in an archaeologically sensitive area, the development may still affect cultural resources, including previously unrecorded resources and human remains. The lead agency must evaluate the significance of tribal cultural resources following Public Resources Code criteria, and the City consulted with Native ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 2 Exhibit A to the Resolution

- 23 -
American tribes regarding potential resources. Despite a low likelihood of uncovering tribal resources due to past disturbances, the City will follow mitigation measures recommended by Wilton Rancheria.

Mitigation Measures:

TCR-1 Prior to grading permits being issued, a qualified tribal monitor/consultant will be selected to oversee ground-disturbing activities. The project applicant must hire a tribal monitor/consultant who is ancestrally affiliated with the project area, approved by the Wilton Rancheria Tribal Government, and listed on the NAHC Tribal Contact list. The monitor will be on-site during construction activities such as grading, excavation, and trenching, and will maintain daily logs documenting construction activities and any cultural materials found. The monitoring will continue until grading and excavation are complete or until the tribal representatives determine the site has a low potential for impacting tribal cultural resources..

TCR-2 If tribal cultural resources are found during excavation or construction, work will stop within 100 feet of the discovery, and the tribal monitor/consultant will be consulted to assess whether further study is needed. The monitor/consultant will recommend actions to protect the resources, and all unearthed resources will be evaluated. If the resources are Native American in origin, the Wilton Rancheria Tribal Government will work with the landowner on their treatment and curation.

Construction can resume in other areas of the project while the evaluation and any necessary mitigation take place.

Finding: The City Council finds that the mitigation measures recommended in the EIR to mitigate Impact 5.13-1 have been incorporated into the proposed project and adopted, as stated in the applicable City Council resolution, and these measures mitigate Impact 5.13-1 to a less than significant level.

Rationale for Finding:

Mitigation Measure TCR-1 requires an archaeological monitor to oversee ground-disturbing activities and determine if a resource requires further study. This would result in the protection and documentation of important tribal cultural resources. Mitigation Measure TCR-2 states that if tribal cultural resources are found during construction, work must stop and a tribal monitor will assess and recommend protection, and if the resources are Native American, the Wilton Rancheria Tribal Government will oversee their treatment. Mitigation Measures TCR-1 and TCR-2 would reduce impacts on tribal cultural resources to less than significant.

IV. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
An EIR must briefly describe the rationale for selection and rejection of alternatives. The lead agency may make an initial determination as to which alternatives are feasible, and therefore, merit in-depth consideration, and explanation of which alternatives are infeasible.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 2 Exhibit A to the Resolution

- 24 -
A. Alternatives Considered and Rejected During the Scoping/Project Planning Process
The following is a discussion of the alternatives considered during the scoping and planning process and the reasons why they were not selected for detailed analysis in the DEIR.

1. Alternative Development Areas
As discussed in Section 7.2.1 of the DEIR, the project site is zoned Residential Mixed-Use Folsom Boulevard Specific Plan, incorporating medium- and high-density housing, office, and commercial services. Although there may be other vacant sites that can accommodate this mixed-use project, one of the project’s objectives is to develop diverse on-site uses on underutilized parcels near Mather Field/Mills Station. There are no sites of a similar size and proximity to light rail and the Mather Field/Mills Station that would be suitable for the uses planned with the proposed project. In addition, any development of the size and type proposed by the proposed project would have substantially the same environmental impacts. Because no off-site locations could accommodate the uses and scale of the proposed project with less effect on the environment, an alternate site was eliminated from consideration.

2. Residential-Only Alternative
As discussed in Section 7.2.2 of the DEIR, the Residential-Only Alternative would only develop the residential component of the proposed project (up to 394 dwelling units). Eliminating the nonresidential component of the proposed project would result in accounting for more non-residential square footage elsewhere in the City and would require future residents to travel further for services that are currently planned on-site, likely increasing VMT. Given the Specific Plan’s location and proximity to the Mather Field/Mills light rail station, this site is suitable for both residential and nonresidential uses, including commercial uses. According to the Folsom Boulevard Specific Plan (FBSP), the project site has a land use designation of Residential Mixed Use (FB-RMU), which allows for medium- and high-density housing (between 6.1 and 40 dwelling units per acre). Therefore, the project site could allow between 61 and 394 units. The proposed project has the potential to generate 322 residents and 280 jobs, and the Residential-Only Alternative would allow up to 1,056 residents.

The proximity to a major transit system makes this site ideal for mixed use. Limiting the property to residential-only would force commercial interests to locate elsewhere in the region. In addition, this alternative would only meet three of the project objectives—it would not be able to provide for a mix of uses near the Mather Field/Mills Station nor improve the jobs-housing balance by providing new housing close to jobs and services. The Residential-Only Alternative would not be feasible because it would not be compatible with the goals and policies regarding the jobs-housing balance and would instead only focus on increasing the housing supply.

B. ALTERNATIVES SELECTED FOR FURTHER ANALYSIS
The following alternatives were determined to represent a reasonable range of alternatives that have the potential to feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the proposed project but may avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the proposed project.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 2 Exhibit A to the Resolution

- 25 -

1. No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative
As discussed in Section 7.3.1 of the DEIR, the No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative is required to discuss the existing conditions at the time the notice of preparation is published and evaluate what would reasonably be expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the proposed project is not approved (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6[e]). Pursuant to CEQA, this alternative is based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services. Therefore, the No Project Alternative assumes that the proposed project would not be adopted, and development on the site would be consistent with the projected buildout in the General Plan. DEIR Table 7-1, No Project Alternative Buildout Statistical Summary, compares the buildout summary of the proposed project with the No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative. The proposed project designates 42 percent of the site for residential uses, 33 percent for non-residential uses, and 25 percent for open space. The proposed project assumes 29 units per acre density to generate 120 dwelling units and a FAR of approximately 1.01 to calculate non-residential square footage. Under the No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative, the density and FAR are the same as the proposed project; however, the amount of land allocated to each land use type is modified. Since the FBSP requires a greater than 50 percent residential use on the site, the No Project/Existing General assumes 51 percent of the site for residential use and 49 percent for nonresidential development. There is no open space requirement under the FBSP.

Finding:

As discussed in Section 7.3.1.15 of the DEIR, the No Project Alternative would increase impacts on air quality, energy, greenhouse gases, and other factors compared to the proposed project. The alternative would not meet the proposed project objective for including open space and recreational use. The City Council rejects this alternative for these reasons.

2. Reduced Development Alternative
The Reduced Development Alternative would reduce residential and nonresidential development and increase the amount of public open space at the project site. DEIR Table 7-2, Reduced Development Alternative Buildout Statistical Summary, compares the buildout summary of the proposed project with the Reduced Development Alternative. Under the Reduced Development Alternative the density and FAR are the same as the proposed project; however, the amount of land allocated to each land use type is modified to reduce development for residential and non-residential development while increasing the amount of open space. The Reduced Development Alternative designates 33 percent of the site for residential uses, 33 percent for non-residential uses, and 34 percent for open space.

Finding:

As discussed in Section 7.3.2.15, of the DEIR, the Reduced Development Alternative would increase impacts related to land use and planning compared to the proposed project but have similar or fewer impacts in other areas. Under this Alternative, all project objectives would be met; however, the reduction in residential units compared to the proposed project, particularly with the site’s proximity to a light rail stop, makes this alternative less attractive in terms of the use of alternative transportation.

Further, the reduction in residential units also makes this alternative less compatible with Objective 2:

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 2 Exhibit A to the Resolution

- 26 -
Increase the City’s housing stock by providing a range of housing density types, including affordable housing.. The City Council rejects this alternative for these reasons.

V. LACK OF NEED FOR STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS CEQA requires decision makers to balance the benefits of the proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve a proposed project. If the benefits of the proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse effects, those effects may be considered “acceptable” (State CEQA Guidelines § 15093[a]). CEQA requires the agency to support, in writing, the specific reasons for considering a project acceptable when significant impacts are infeasible to mitigate. Such reasons must be based on substantial evidence in the Final EIR or elsewhere in the administrative record (State CEQA Guidelines § 15093 [b]). The agency’s statement is referred to as a Statement of Overriding Considerations.

Because the proposed project would not result in significant and unavoidable impacts, no statement of overriding considerations is necessary.

VI. FINDINGS ON RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIR AND REVISIONS

TO THE FINAL EIR
The Final EIR contains responses to comments, revisions, clarifications, and corrections to the DEIR.

The focus of the response to comments is on the disposition of significant environmental issues raised in the comments, as specified by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(b). The City provided a written response to each comment made by a public agency (and two individuals) in Section 2 of the Final EIR, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(b).

City staff has reviewed this material and determined that none of it constitutes the type of significant added information that requires recirculation of the DEIR for further public comment under CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. None of the new material indicates that the proposed project will result in a significant new environmental impact not previously disclosed in the DEIR. And none of the new material indicates that there would be a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified environmental impact that will not be mitigated, or that there would be any of the other circumstances requiring recirculation described in Section 15088.5 of the CEQA Guidelines.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 2 Exhibit A to the Resolution

June 2024 | Draft Environmental Impact Report
State Clearinghouse No. 2023010102

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR
Prepared for:

City of Rancho Cordova
Contact: Stefan Heisler, Housing Manager
2729 Prospect Park Drive,
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
[email protected]
Prepared by:

PlaceWorks
Contact: Mark Teague, Managing Principal
101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 200
Folsom, CA 95630
[email protected]
www.placeworks.com
~ PLACEWORKS
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

M I L L S C R O S S I N G P R O J E C T D R A F T E I R

C I T Y O F R A N C H O C O R D O V A
Table of Contents
Contents Page
June 2024 Page i

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..............................................................................................................1-1

1.1 INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEDURES ...................................................................................................... 1-1

1.2.1 EIR Format...................................................................................................................................... 1-2

1.2.2 Type and Purpose of This DEIR.................................................................................................. 1-3

1.3 PROJECT LOCATION ................................................................................................................................ 1-4

1.4 PROJECT SUMMARY.................................................................................................................................. 1-5

1.5 SUMMARY OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES ......................................................................................... 1-5

1.6 NO-PROJECT/EXISTING GENERAL PLAN ALTERNATIVE...................................................... 1-5

1.6.1 Reduced Development Alternative ............................................................................................... 1-5

1.7 ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED....................................................................................................................... 1-5

1.8 AREAS OF CONTROVERSY..................................................................................................................... 1-6

1.9 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, MITIGATION MEASURES, AND LEVELS OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION......................................................................................... 1-6

2. INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................2-1

2.1 PURPOSE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT .......................................................... 2-1

2.2 NOTICE OF PREPARATION .................................................................................................................. 2-2

2.3 SCOPE OF THIS DEIR ............................................................................................................................... 2-9

2.3.1 Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts.................................................................................... 2-9

2.4 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE.................................................................................................... 2-9

2.5 FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION................................................................................................................... 2-9

2.6 MITIGATION MONITORING...............................................................................................................2-10

3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...........................................................................................................3-1

3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING................................................................................................................ 3-1

3.1.1 Project Location .............................................................................................................................. 3-1

3.1.2 Project Site History ......................................................................................................................... 3-1

3.1.3 Existing and Surrounding Uses..................................................................................................... 3-1

3.1.4 Existing Zoning and Land Use Designations.............................................................................. 3-2

3.2 STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES............................................................................................................... 3-2

3.3 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS ................................................................................................................ 3-2

3.3.1 Description of the City’s General Plan Environmental Impact Report ................................. 3-5

3.3.2 Description of the Proposed Project ........................................................................................... 3-5

3.3.3 Project Site Rezone Designations................................................................................................3-10

3.3.4 Construction and Operation........................................................................................................3-11

3.4 INTENDED USES OF THE DEIR ........................................................................................................3-11

3.4.1 References ......................................................................................................................................3-12

4. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ......................................................................................................4-1

4.1 INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................................... 4-1

4.2 REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING........................................................................................ 4-1

4.2.1 Regional Location............................................................................................................................ 4-1

4.2.2 Regional Planning Considerations................................................................................................. 4-1

4.3 LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ................................................................................................ 4-4

4.3.1 Location and Land Use .................................................................................................................. 4-4

4.3.2 Environmental Resources and Infrastructure.............................................................................. 4-4

4.3.3 General Plan and Zoning ............................................................................................................... 4-6

4.4 ASSUMPTIONS REGARDING CUMULATIVE IMPACTS................................................................ 4-6

4.5 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................... 4-8

5. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................5-1

5.1 AIR QUALITY.............................................................................................................................................5.1-1 ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

M I L L S C R O S S I N G P R O J E C T D R A F T E I R

C I T Y O F R A N C H O C O R D O V A
Table of Contents
Contents Page
Page ii PlaceWorks

5.1.1 Environmental Setting .................................................................................................................5.1-1

5.1.2 Thresholds of Significance .......................................................................................................5.1-10

5.1.3 Plans, Programs, and Policies....................................................................................................5.1-11

5.1.4 Environmental Impacts.............................................................................................................5.1-13

5.1.5 Cumulative Impacts....................................................................................................................5.1-24

5.1.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation..................................................................................5.1-25

5.1.7 Mitigation Measures...................................................................................................................5.1-25

5.1.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation ....................................................................................5.1-25

5.1.9 References ...................................................................................................................................5.1-26

5.2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES...................................................................................................................5.2-1

5.2.1 Environmental Setting .................................................................................................................5.2-1

5.2.2 Thresholds of Significance .........................................................................................................5.2-3

5.2.3 Plans, Programs, and Policies......................................................................................................5.2-3

5.2.4 Environmental Impacts...............................................................................................................5.2-6

5.2.5 Cumulative Impacts......................................................................................................................5.2-9

5.2.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation....................................................................................5.2-9

5.2.7 Mitigation Measures.....................................................................................................................5.2-9

5.2.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation ....................................................................................5.2-10

5.2.9 References ...................................................................................................................................5.2-10

5.3 CULTURAL RESOURCES .......................................................................................................................5.3-1

5.3.1 Environmental Setting .................................................................................................................5.3-1

5.3.2 Thresholds of Significance .........................................................................................................5.3-8

5.3.3 Plans, Programs, and Policies......................................................................................................5.3-9

5.3.4 Environmental Impacts...............................................................................................................5.3-9

5.3.5 Cumulative Impacts....................................................................................................................5.3-12

5.3.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation..................................................................................5.3-13

5.3.7 Mitigation Measures...................................................................................................................5.3-13

5.3.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation ....................................................................................5.3-14

5.3.9 References ...................................................................................................................................5.3-14

5.4 ENERGY......................................................................................................................................................5.4-1

5.4.1 Environmental Setting .................................................................................................................5.4-1

5.4.2 Thresholds of Significance .......................................................................................................5.4-10

5.4.3 Plans, Programs, and Policies....................................................................................................5.4-10

5.4.4 Environmental Impacts.............................................................................................................5.4-10

5.4.5 Cumulative Impacts....................................................................................................................5.4-15

5.4.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation..................................................................................5.4-15

5.4.7 Mitigation Measures...................................................................................................................5.4-16

5.4.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation ....................................................................................5.4-16

5.4.9 References ...................................................................................................................................5.4-16

5.5 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS .......................................................................................................5.5-1

5.5.1 Environmental Setting .................................................................................................................5.5-1

5.5.2 Thresholds of Significance .........................................................................................................5.5-8

5.5.3 Plans, Programs, and Policies....................................................................................................5.5-10

5.5.4 Environmental Impacts.............................................................................................................5.5-11

5.5.5 Cumulative Impacts....................................................................................................................5.5-14

5.5.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation..................................................................................5.5-15

5.5.7 Mitigation Measures...................................................................................................................5.5-15

5.5.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation ....................................................................................5.5-15

5.5.9 References ...................................................................................................................................5.5-15

5.6 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ..................................................................................5.6-1

5.6.1 Environmental Setting .................................................................................................................5.6-1

5.6.2 Thresholds of Significance .......................................................................................................5.6-13 ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

M I L L S C R O S S I N G P R O J E C T D R A F T E I R

C I T Y O F R A N C H O C O R D O V A
Table of Contents
Contents Page
June 2024 Page iii

5.6.3 Plans, Programs, and Policies....................................................................................................5.6-13

5.6.4 Environmental Impacts.............................................................................................................5.6-14

5.6.5 Cumulative Impacts....................................................................................................................5.6-21

5.6.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation..................................................................................5.6-22

5.6.7 Mitigation Measures...................................................................................................................5.6-22

5.6.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation ....................................................................................5.6-23

5.6.9 References ...................................................................................................................................5.6-23

5.7 LAND USE AND PLANNING...............................................................................................................5.7-1

5.7.1 Environmental Setting .................................................................................................................5.7-1

5.7.2 Thresholds of Significance .........................................................................................................5.7-3

5.7.3 Plans, Programs, and Policies......................................................................................................5.7-4

5.7.4 Environmental Impacts...............................................................................................................5.7-4

5.7.5 Mitigation Measures.....................................................................................................................5.7-6

5.7.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation ......................................................................................5.7-6

5.7.7 Cumulative Impacts......................................................................................................................5.7-6

5.7.8 References .....................................................................................................................................5.7-7

5.8 MINERAL RESOURCES..........................................................................................................................5.8-1

5.8.1 Environmental Setting .................................................................................................................5.8-1

5.8.2 Thresholds of Significance .........................................................................................................5.8-4

5.8.4 Environmental Impacts...............................................................................................................5.8-5

5.8.5 Cumulative Impacts......................................................................................................................5.8-5

5.8.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation....................................................................................5.8-6

5.8.7 Mitigation Measures.....................................................................................................................5.8-6

5.8.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation ......................................................................................5.8-6

5.8.9 References .....................................................................................................................................5.8-6

5.9 NOISE...........................................................................................................................................................5.9-1

5.9.1 Environmental Setting .................................................................................................................5.9-1

5.9.2 Thresholds of Significance .......................................................................................................5.9-11

5.9.3 Plans, Programs, and Policies....................................................................................................5.9-11

5.9.4 Environmental Impacts.............................................................................................................5.9-12

5.9.5 Cumulative Impacts....................................................................................................................5.9-22

5.9.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation..................................................................................5.9-22

5.9.7 Mitigation Measures...................................................................................................................5.9-22

5.9.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation ....................................................................................5.9-22

5.9.9 References ...................................................................................................................................5.9-22

5.10 POPULATION AND HOUSING.........................................................................................................5.10-1

5.10.1 Environmental Setting ...............................................................................................................5.10-1

5.10.2 Thresholds of Significance .......................................................................................................5.10-7

5.10.3 Plans, Programs, and Policies....................................................................................................5.10-7

5.10.4 Environmental Impacts.............................................................................................................5.10-8

5.10.5 Cumulative Impacts....................................................................................................................5.10-9

5.10.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation................................................................................5.10-10

5.10.7 Mitigation Measures.................................................................................................................5.10-10

5.10.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation ..................................................................................5.10-10

5.10.9 References .................................................................................................................................5.10-10

5.11 PUBLIC SERVICES..................................................................................................................................5.11-1

5.11.1 Fire Protection and Emergency Services................................................................................5.11-1

5.11.2 Police Protection ........................................................................................................................5.11-6

5.11.3 School Services.........................................................................................................................5.11-10

5.11.4 Library Services........................................................................................................................5.11-16

5.11.5 References .................................................................................................................................5.11-19

5.12 RECREATION..........................................................................................................................................5.12-1 ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

M I L L S C R O S S I N G P R O J E C T D R A F T E I R

C I T Y O F R A N C H O C O R D O V A
Table of Contents
Contents Page
Page iv PlaceWorks

5.12.1 Environmental Setting ...............................................................................................................5.12-1

5.12.2 Thresholds of Significance .......................................................................................................5.12-7

5.12.3 Plans, Programs, and Policies....................................................................................................5.12-7

5.12.4 Environmental Impacts.............................................................................................................5.12-7

5.12.5 Cumulative Impacts....................................................................................................................5.12-8

5.12.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation..................................................................................5.12-9

5.12.7 Mitigation Measures...................................................................................................................5.12-9

5.12.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation ....................................................................................5.12-9

5.12.9 References ...................................................................................................................................5.12-9

5.13 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES.....................................................................................................5.13-1

5.13.1 Environmental Setting ...............................................................................................................5.13-1

5.13.2 Thresholds of Significance .......................................................................................................5.13-7

5.13.3 Plans, Programs, and Policies....................................................................................................5.13-8

5.13.4 Environmental Impacts.............................................................................................................5.13-8

5.13.5 Cumulative Impacts..................................................................................................................5.13-11

5.13.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation................................................................................5.13-12

5.13.7 Mitigation Measures.................................................................................................................5.13-12

5.13.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation ..................................................................................5.13-13

5.13.9 References .................................................................................................................................5.13-13

5.14 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS...............................................................................................5.14-1

5.14.1 Wastewater Treatment and Collection.....................................................................................5.14-1

5.14.2 Water Supply and Distribution Systems..................................................................................5.14-8

5.14.3 Storm Drainage Systems .........................................................................................................5.14-19

5.14.4 Solid Waste ................................................................................................................................5.14-25

5.14.5 References .................................................................................................................................5.14-31

6. SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS, IRREVERSIBLE CHANGES, AND GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS ......................................................................................................................................6-1

6.1 SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT..................... 6-1

6.2 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE CHANGES DUE TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT ............... 6-3

6.3 GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT.............................................. 6-4

7. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT .....................................................................7-1

7.1 INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................................... 7-1

7.1.1 Purpose and Scope.......................................................................................................................... 7-1

7.1.2 Project Objectives ........................................................................................................................... 7-2

7.1.3 Summary of Significant Impacts................................................................................................... 7-2

7.2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND REJECTED.......................................................................... 7-4

7.2.1 Alternative Development Areas.................................................................................................... 7-4

7.2.2 Residential-Only Alternative .......................................................................................................... 7-4

7.3 ALTERNATIVES SELECTED FOR FURTHER ANALYSIS ............................................................. 7-5

7.3.1 No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative ........................................................................... 7-5

7.3.2 Reduced Development ................................................................................................................... 7-9

7.4 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE ......................................................................7-13

8. IMPACTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT............................................................................8-1

8.1 AESTHETICS................................................................................................................................................. 8-1

8.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES................................................................................ 8-2

8.3 GEOLOGY AND SOILS............................................................................................................................. 8-4

8.4 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ............................................................................................... 8-6

8.5 TRANSPORTATION.................................................................................................................................... 8-9

8.6 WILDFIRE....................................................................................................................................................8-13

8.7 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................................8-15 ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

M I L L S C R O S S I N G P R O J E C T D R A F T E I R

C I T Y O F R A N C H O C O R D O V A
Table of Contents
Contents Page
June 2024 Page v

9. ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED AND QUALIFICATIONS OF PREPARERS ...........................9-1 ORGANIZATIONS....................................................................................................................................................... 9-1 QUALIFICATIONS OF PREPARERS ...................................................................................................................... 9-1 CONTRIBUTING EIR CONSULTANTS ................................................................................................................ 9-2 ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

M I L L S C R O S S I N G P R O J E C T D R A F T E I R

C I T Y O F R A N C H O C O R D O V A
Table of Contents
Contents Page
Page vi PlaceWorks

APPENDICES
Appendix 2-1: NOP and NOP Comments
Appendix 5.1-1: Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment Appendix 5.2-1: Biological Resource Assessment
Appendix 5.3-1: Archeological Resources Inventory Report Appendix 5.4-1: Energy Calculations for Mills Crossing
Appendix 5.6-1: Site Cleanup Plan for Mills Crossing
Appendix 5.6-2: Site Cleanup Plan Addendum
Appendix 5.6-3: Soil Remediation Notice of Exemption
Appendix 5.8-1: Noise Impact Assessment
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

M I L L S C R O S S I N G P R O J E C T D R A F T E I R

C I T Y O F R A N C H O C O R D O V A
Table of Contents
Contents Page
June 2024 Page vii
Figure 3-1 Regional Location.......................................................................................................................................3-3 Figure 3-2 Aerial Photograph ......................................................................................................................................3-4 Figure 3-3 Conceptual Site Plan ..................................................................................................................................3-7 Figure 3-4 Zoning Option 1.........................................................................................................................................3-8 Figure 3-5 Zoning Option 2.........................................................................................................................................3-9 Figure 5.6-1 Project Site Remediation Map............................................................................................................ 5.6-12 Figure 5.9-1 SoundPlan Noise Contour for Mills Crossing................................................................................. 5.9-19 Figure 5.14-1 Storm Drainage Infrastructure ......................................................................................................... 5.14-22 ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

M I L L S C R O S S I N G P R O J E C T D R A F T E I R

C I T Y O F R A N C H O C O R D O V A
Table of Contents
Tables Page
Page viii PlaceWorks
Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation ....................................................................................................1-7 Table 1-1 Notice of Preparation Comments............................................................................................................2-2 Table 4-1 Related Cumulative Projects in the City of Rancho Cordova.............................................................4-7 Table 5.1-1 Criteria Air Pollutants- Summary of Common Sources and Effects............................................. 5.1-1 Table 5.1-2 Summary of Ambient Air Quality Data.............................................................................................. 5.1-9 Table 5.1-3 Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in the Sacramento County Portion of the SVAB ........................................................................................................................................ 5.1-9 Table 5.1-4 SMAQMD Regional Significance Thresholds................................................................................. 5.1-10 Table 5.1-5 Construction-Related Emissions........................................................................................................ 5.1-16 Table 5.1-6 Operational-Related Emissions.......................................................................................................... 5.1-17 Table 5.2-1 Evaluation of Special-Status Plant and Wildlife Species for the Project Site ............................... 5.2-6 Table 5.4-1 Construction Energy Consumption .................................................................................................. 5.4-11 Table 5.4-2 Project Annual Electricity Demand................................................................................................... 5.4-13 Table 5.4-3 Project Annual Operation-Related Fuel Usage ............................................................................... 5.4-13 Table 5.5-1 Construction-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions ........................................................................ 5.5-11 Table 5.5-2 Operational-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions........................................................................... 5.5-12 Table 5.6-1 Hazardous Materials within a 0.25-mile of the Project Site ............................................................ 5.6-8 Table 5.7-1 Mather Mills Opportunity Site: Additional Development Standards............................................ 5.7-2 Table 5.7-2 Transit-Oriented Development Overlay Zoning District Development Standards................... 5.7-3 Table 5.7-3 Proposed Rezone Development Standards for the Project Site..................................................... 5.7-5 Table 5.9-1 Typical Noise Levels.............................................................................................................................. 5.9-4 Table 5.9-2 Human Reaction to Typical Vibration Levels................................................................................... 5.9-5 Table 5.9-3 City of Rancho Cordova Noise Standards......................................................................................... 5.9-8 Table 5.9-4 Existing (Baseline) Noise Measurements ........................................................................................... 5.9-9 Table 5.9-5 Existing Roadway Noise Levels......................................................................................................... 5.9-10 Table 5.9-6 Construction Average (dBA) Noise Levels at Nearest Receptors ............................................... 5.9-14 Table 5.9-7 Proposed Project Predicted Traffic Noise Levels........................................................................... 5.9-17 Table 5.9-9 Representative Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment....................................... 5.9-20 Table 5.9-10 On-Site Construction Vibration Levels at 341 Feet ....................................................................... 5.9-21 Table 5.10-1 Population Trends in the City of Rancho Cordova........................................................................ 5.10-4 Table 5.10-2 Housing Growth Trends in the City of Rancho Cordova............................................................. 5.10-5 Table 5.10-3 City of Rancho Cordova 2021-2029 RHNA.................................................................................... 5.10-5 Table 5.10-4 City of Rancho Cordova Average Employment Trends................................................................ 5.10-6 Table 5.10-5 SACOG Growth Projections for the City of Rancho Cordova ................................................... 5.10-6 ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

M I L L S C R O S S I N G P R O J E C T D R A F T E I R

C I T Y O F R A N C H O C O R D O V A
Table of Contents
Table Page
June 2024 Page ix
Table 5.11-1 Fire Stations Serving Rancho Cordova ............................................................................................. 5.11-3 Table 5.11-2 FCUSD Schools.................................................................................................................................. 5.11-12 Table 5.11-3 FCUSD Student Generation Rates and Student Generation...................................................... 5.11-15 Table 5.12-1 CRPD’s Parks and Recreation Facilities........................................................................................... 5.12-4 Table 5.13-1 Previously Recorded Archaeological Resources within a 0.5-Mile Radius of the Project Site ............................................................................................................................. 5.13-7 Table 5.14-1 Proposed Project Wastewater Generation ....................................................................................... 5.14-6 Table 5.14-2 Suburban-Rosemont Historical and Projected Water Use .......................................................... 5.14-13 Table 5.14-3 Current and Projected Water Supplies for the Suburban-Rosemont Service Area................. 5.14-14 Table 5.14-4 Normal, Single Dry, and Multiple Dry Year Supply and Demand (MG) ................................. 5.14-15 Table 5.14-5 Indoor Water Usage ........................................................................................................................... 5.14-17 Table 5.14-6 Increase in Solid Waste Generation Rates...................................................................................... 5.14-29 Table 7-1 No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative Buildout Statistical Summary.................................7-6 Table 7-2 Reduced Development Alternative Buildout Statistical Summary.................................................. 7-10 ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

M I L L S C R O S S I N G P R O J E C T D R A F T E I R

C I T Y O F R A N C H O C O R D O V A
Abbreviations and Acronyms
Page x PlaceWorks

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
AB Assembly Bill
ADT average daily trips
af acre-feet
afy acre-feet per year
ALUC Airport Land Use Commission
ALUCP Airport Land Use Commission Plan
bgs below ground surface
BMP best management practice
BP Before Present
CAA Clean Air Act
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
CAFÉ Corporate Average Fuel Economy
CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection CalEE Mod California Emissions Estimator Model
CalGEM California Department of Conservation Geologic Energy Management Division CALGreen California Green Building Standards Code
California
Register California Register of Historical Resources
CalRecycle California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CARB California Air Resources Board
CAW California American Water
CBC California Building Code
CBSC California Building Standards Commission
CCR California Code of Regulations
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEC California Energy Commission
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CERCLIS Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System
CESA California Endangered Species Act
CFC Chlorofluorocarbon
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CGS California Geological Survey
CH4 methane
CHP California Highway Patrol
CHRIS California Historical Resources Information System CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

M I L L S C R O S S I N G P R O J E C T D R A F T E I R

C I T Y O F R A N C H O C O R D O V A
Abbreviations and Acronyms
June 2024 Page xi
CO2 carbon dioxide
CO2e Carbon dioxide equivalent
CO Carbon monoxide
CPUC California Public Utilities Commission
CRHR California Register of Historical Resources
CRPD Cordova Recreation and Parks Department
CUPA Certified Unified Program Agencies
dB decibel
dBA A-weighted decibel
DEIR Draft Environmental Impact Report
DOF California Department of Finance
DOT Department of Transportation
DPM Diesel particulate matter
DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control
DWR Department of Water Resources
EDD California Employment Development Department
EO Executive Order
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
EPCRA Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act ESL Endangered Species List
FAR floor-area ratio
FBSP Folsom Boulevard Specific Plan
FCUSD Folson-Cordova Unified School District
FESA federal Endangered Species Act
FHSZ Fire Hazard Severity Zone
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FICON Federal Interagency Committee on Noise
FTA Federal Transit Administration
GHG greenhouse gas
gpcd gallons per capita per day
GWh gigawatt hours
GWP Global warming potential
HAA Housing Accountability Act
HASP Health and Safety Plan
HCD California Department of Housing and Community Development HCP Habitat Conservation Plan
HVAC heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
Hz Hertz
IFC International Fire Code
Ldn or DNL Day-Night Sound Level
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

M I L L S C R O S S I N G P R O J E C T D R A F T E I R

C I T Y O F R A N C H O C O R D O V A
Abbreviations and Acronyms
Page xii PlaceWorks
Leq Equivalent Continuous Noise Level
LHMP Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
Ln Statistical Sound Level
LOS level of service
LUST leaking underground storage tank
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MMTCO2e Million metric tons of CO2e
MOU memorandum of understanding
MPO metropolitan planning organizations
MRZ Mineral Resource Zone
MTCO2e Metric ton of CO2e
MTIP Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program
MTP Metropolitan Transportation Plan
N2O nitrous oxide
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NCIC North Central Information Center
NHPA National Historic Preservation Act of 1966
NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health NO2 nitrogen dioxide
NOP Notice of Preparation
Nox oxides of nitrogen
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elliminiation System NPL National Priorities List
NPPA Native Plant Protection Act
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
O3 ozone
OPR Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
P-C Product-Consumption
PCE Tetrachloroethylene
PM particulate matter
ppm parts per million
PPV Peak Particle Velocity
PRC California Public Resources Code
PRC Public Resources Code
RCPD Rancho Cordova Police Department
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RHNA Regional Housing Needs Allocation
RPS Renewables Portfolio Standard
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

M I L L S C R O S S I N G P R O J E C T D R A F T E I R

C I T Y O F R A N C H O C O R D O V A
Abbreviations and Acronyms
June 2024 Page xiii
RTAC Regional Transportation Advisory Committee
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SACOG Sacramento Area Council of Government
SacRT Sacramento Regional Transit District
SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
SB Senate Bill
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SCP Site Cleanup Program
SCS Sustainable Communities Strategy
SIP State Implementation Plan
SMAQMD Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District SMARA Surface Mining and Reclamation Act
SMFD Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District
SMGB California State Mining and Geology Board
SMUD Sacramento Municipal Utility District
SO2 sulfur dioxide
SOI sphere of influence
SQDM Stormwater Quality Design Manual
SQIP Stormwater Quality Improvement Plan
SSQP Sacramento Stormwater Quality Partnership
SVAB Sacramento Valley Air Basin
SVE soil vapor extraction
SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TAC toxic air contaminant
TDM transportation demand management
TOD Transit- Oriented Development
TTCP traditional tribal cultural places
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
UST Underground Storage Tank
VdB vibration decibel
VMT vehicle miles traveled
VOC volatile organic compound
ZCP Zero Carbon Plan
ZE zero-emission
ZEV zero-emission vehicle
ZNE zero net energy
μg/kg micrograms/kilogram
μg/L micrograms per liter
μg/m3 microgram per cubic meter
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

June 2024 Page 1-1

1. Executive Summary

1.1 INTRODUCTION
This Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) (State Clearinghouse No. 2023010102) addresses the environmental effects associated with the implementation of the proposed Mills Crossing Project (proposed project). The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that local government agencies consider the environmental consequences before taking action on projects over which they have discretionary approval authority. An environmental impact report (EIR) analyzes potential environmental consequences in order to inform the public and support informed decisions by local and state governmental agency decision makers.

This DEIR has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of CEQA and the City of Rancho Cordova CEQA procedures. The City of Rancho Cordova, as the lead agency, has reviewed and revised all submitted drafts, technical studies, and reports as necessary to reflect its own independent judgment, including reliance on City technical personnel from other departments and review of all technical subconsultant reports.

Data for this DEIR derive from onsite field observations, discussions with affected agencies, analysis of adopted plans and policies, review of available studies, reports, data and similar literature, and specialized environmental assessments (air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, energy, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, noise).

1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEDURES
This DEIR has been prepared pursuant to CEQA to assess the environmental effects associated with implementation of the proposed project, as well as anticipated future discretionary actions and approvals.

CEQA established six main objectives for an EIR:

1. Disclose to decision makers and the public the significant environmental effects of proposed activities.

2. Identify ways to avoid or reduce environmental damage.

3. Prevent environmental damage by requiring implementation of feasible alternatives or mitigation measures.

4. Disclose to the public reasons for agency approval of projects with significant environmental effects.

5. Foster interagency coordination in the review of projects.

6. Enhance public participation in the planning process.

An EIR is the most comprehensive form of environmental documentation in CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines; it is intended to provide an objective, factually supported analysis and full disclosure of the environmental consequences of a proposed project with the potential to result in significant, adverse environmental impacts.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

1. Executive Summary

An EIR is one of various decision-making tools used by a lead agency to consider the merits and disadvantages of a project that is subject to its discretionary authority. Before approving a proposed project, the lead agency must consider the information in the EIR; determine whether the EIR was prepared in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines; determine that it reflects the independent judgment of the lead agency; adopt findings concerning the project’s significant environmental impacts and alternatives; and adopt a statement of overriding considerations if significant impacts cannot be avoided.

1.2.1 EIR Format
Chapter 1. Executive Summary: Summarizes the background and description of the proposed project, the format of this EIR, project alternatives, any critical issues remaining to be resolved, and the potential environmental impacts and mitigation measures identified for the project.

Chapter 2. Introduction: Describes the purpose of this EIR, background on the project, the notice of preparation, the use of incorporation by reference, and Final EIR certification.

Chapter 3. Project Description: A detailed description of the project, including its objectives, its area and location, approvals anticipated to be required as part of the project, necessary environmental clearances, and the intended uses of this EIR.

Chapter 4. Environmental Setting: A description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project as they existed at the time the notice of preparation was published, from local and regional perspectives. These provide the baseline physical conditions from which the lead agency determines the significance of the project’s environmental impacts.

Chapter 5. Environmental Analysis: Each environmental topic is analyzed in a separate section that discusses: the thresholds used to determine if a significant impact would occur; the methodology to identify and evaluate the potential impacts of the project; the existing environmental setting; the potential adverse and beneficial effects of the project; the level of impact significance before mitigation; the mitigation measures for the proposed project; the level of significance after mitigation is incorporated; and the potential cumulative impacts of the proposed project and other existing, approved, and proposed development in the area.

Chapter 6. Unavoidable Impacts, Irreversible Changes, and Growth-Inducing Impacts: Describes the significant unavoidable adverse impacts of the proposed project, the significant irreversible environmental changes associated with the project, and the ways in which the proposed project would cause increases in employment or population that could result in new physical or environmental impacts.

Chapter 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project: Describes the alternatives and compares their impacts to the impacts of the proposed project. Alternatives include the No Project Alternative and a Reduced Intensity Alternative.

Chapter 8. Impacts Found Not to Be Significant: Briefly describes the potential impacts of the project that were determined not to be significant by prior environmental review and were therefore not discussed in detail in this EIR.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

1. Executive Summary
June 2024 Page 1-3
Chapter 9. Organizations Consulted and Qualifications of Preparers: Lists the people and organizations that were contacted during the preparation of this EIR, and lists the people who prepared this EIR for the proposed project.

Appendices: The appendices for this document comprise these supporting documents:
 Appendix 2-1: NOP and NOP Comments
 Appendix 5.1-1: Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment  Appendix 5.2-1: Biological Resource Assessment
 Appendix 5.3-1: Archeological Resources Inventory Report  Appendix 5.4-1: Energy Calculations for Mills Crossing  Appendix 5.6-1: Site Cleanup Plan for Mills Crossing
 Appendix 5.6-2: Site Cleanup Plan Addendum
 Appendix 5.6-3: Site Remediation Notice of Exemption
 Appendix 5.9-1: Noise Impact Assessment

1.2.2 Type and Purpose of This DEIR
This DEIR has been prepared as a “Project EIR,” defined by Section 15161 of the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3). This type of EIR examines the environmental impacts of a specific development project and should focus primarily on the changes in the environment that would result from the development project. The EIR shall examine all phases of the project including planning, construction, and operation.

The City Council certified the Rancho Cordova General Plan EIR (“2006 EIR” or “2006 General Plan EIR”) on June 26, 2006 (State Clearinghouse Number 2005022137). The 2006 General Plan EIR is incorporated by reference. In the section discussing Tiering, CEQA Guidelines Section 15152 provides that:
(a) "Tiering" refers to using the analysis of general matters contained in a broader EIR (such as one prepared for a general plan or policy statement) with later EIRs and negative declarations on narrower projects; incorporating by reference the general discussions from the broader EIR; and concentrating the later EIR or negative declaration solely on the issues specific to the later project. (b) Agencies are encouraged to tier the environmental analyses which they prepare for separate but related projects including general plans, zoning changes, and development projects. This approach can eliminate repetitive discussions of the same issues and focus the later EIR or negative declaration on the actual issues ripe for decision at each level of environmental review. Tiering is appropriate when the sequence of analysis is from an EIR prepared for a general plan, policy, or program to an EIR or negative declaration for another plan, policy, or program of lesser scope, or to a site-specific EIR or negative declaration. Tiering does not excuse the lead agency from adequately analyzing reasonably foreseeable significant environmental effects of the project and does not justify deferring such analysis to a later tier EIR or negative declaration. However, the level of detail contained in a first tier EIR need not be greater than that of the program, plan, policy, or ordinance being analyzed;
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

1. Executive Summary

(c) Where a lead agency is using the tiering process in connection with an EIR for a large-scale planning approval, such as a general plan or component thereof (e.g., an area plan or community plan), the development of detailed, site-specific information may not be feasible but can be deferred, in many instances, until such time as the lead agency prepares a future environmental document in connection with a project of a more limited geographical scale, as long as deferral does not prevent adequate identification of significant effects of the planning approval at hand
(d) Where an EIR has been prepared and certified for a program, plan, policy, or ordinance consistent with the requirements of this section, any lead agency for a later project pursuant to or consistent with the program, plan, policy, or ordinance should limit the EIR or negative declaration on the later project to effects which (1) Were not examined as significant effects on the environment in the prior EIR; or (2) Are susceptible to substantial reduction or avoidance by the choice of specific revisions in the project, by the imposition of conditions, or other means; (e) Tiering under this section shall be limited to situations where the project is consistent with the general plan and zoning of the city or county in which the project is located, except that a project requiring a rezone to achieve or maintain conformity with a general plan may be subject to tiering. (f) A later EIR shall be required when the initial study or other analysis finds that the later project may cause significant effects on the environment that were not adequately addressed in the prior EIR. A negative declaration shall be required when the provisions of Section 15070 are met. (g) When tiering is used, the later EIRs or negative declarations shall refer to the prior EIR and state where a copy of the prior EIR may be examined. The later EIR or negative declaration should state that the lead agency is using the tiering concept and that it is being tiered with the earlier EIR (h) The rules in this section govern tiering generally. Several other methods to streamline the environmental review process exist, which are governed by the more specific rules of those provisions. Where multiple methods may apply, lead agencies have discretion regarding which to use.

This DEIR relies on the analysis of general matters in the 2006 EIR focused on the area defined as the Folsom Boulevard Planning Area by the 2006 General Plan EIR. This DEIR evaluates the potential environmental impacts that might reasonably be anticipated to result from the development of the proposed project. The analysis in this DEIR is specific to the conditions of the 9.85-acre site within the larger Rancho Cordova Planning Area and the impacts of the proposed project. As such, this Project DEIR is intended to fully analyze the impacts of the proposed project.

1.3 PROJECT LOCATION
The 9.85-acre project site encompasses the following Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs): 076-0020-019, -20, -21, -22. The project site is located at the corner of Folsom Boulevard and La Loma Drive in the City of Rancho Cordova, Sacramento County. The City of Rancho Cordova is surrounded by unincorporated Sacramento County to the north, south, east, and west (see Figure 3-1, Regional Location, in Chapter 3, Project Description).

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

1. Executive Summary
June 2024 Page 1-5

1.4 PROJECT SUMMARY
The proposed project would feature a variety of uses including commercial, residential, open space, and community event space on the 9.85-acre site. The community-commercial uses on-site located at the south portion of the site would include a community health clinic; an events and meeting space; an arts center; a community-commercial building with office and studio spaces and a commercial kitchen; and a commercialretail building featuring a fresh market and a café. The residential uses on the northern portion of the site would include a multifamily affordable apartments and zero lot line townhouse-style homes. The open spaces on the site would include 1.3 to 1.5 acres of neighborhood and community green space and a 0.75- to 1.0-acre plaza and green space in the south-central portion of the site.

1.5 SUMMARY OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
The CEQA Guidelines (§ 15126.6[a]) state that an EIR must address “a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project and evaluated the comparative merits of the alternatives.” The DEIR has determined that there would be no significant and unavoidable impacts from the implementation of the proposed project. Therefore alternatives in this DEIR were based, in part, on their potential ability to reduce or eliminate the impacts determined to be potentially significant for implementation of the proposed project. Project alternatives are assessed in further detail in Chapter 7, Alternatives to the Proposed Project.

1.6 NO-PROJECT/EXISTING GENERAL PLAN ALTERNATIVE
The No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative is required to discuss the existing conditions at the time the notice of preparation is published and evaluate what would reasonably be expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the proposed project is not approved (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6[e]). Pursuant to CEQA, this alternative is based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services.

Therefore, the No Project Alternative assumes that the proposed project would not be adopted and development on the site would be consistent with the projected buildout in the General Plan.

1.6.1 Reduced Development Alternative
The Reduced Development Alternative would reduce residential and nonresidential development and increase the amount of public open space at the project site. The reduced development alternative designates 33 percent of the site for residential uses, 33 percent for non-residential uses, and 34 percent for open space.

1.7 ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED
Section 15123(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR contain issues to be resolved, including the choice among alternatives and whether or how to mitigate significant impacts. With regard to the proposed project, the major issues to be resolved include decisions by the lead agency as to:

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

1. Executive Summary

1. Whether this DEIR adequately describes the environmental impacts of the project.

2. Whether the benefits of the project override those environmental impacts which cannot be feasibly avoided or mitigated to a level of insignificance.

3. Whether the proposed land use changes are compatible with the character of the existing area.

4. Whether the identified goals, policies, or mitigation measures should be adopted or modified.

5. Whether there are other mitigation measures that should be applied to the project besides the Mitigation Measures identified in the DEIR.

6. Whether there are any alternatives to the project that would substantially lessen any of the significant impacts of the proposed project and achieve most of the basic project objectives.

1.8 AREAS OF CONTROVERSY
The State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15123(b)(2) and (3) require that a DEIR identify areas of controversy known to the lead agency, including issues raised by other agencies and the public and issues to be resolved, including the choice among alternatives and whether, or how to, mitigate the significant effects. A Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the project was circulated on January 6, 2023, with a 30-day public review period ending on February 6, 2023. The following issues of concern were identified during the review period of the distribution of the NOP during the public scoping meeting held on January 19, 2023:
 Removal of on-site trees
 Crime and safety concerns associated with the project  Overcrowding in the housing portion of the project
 Parking concerns on surrounding residential streets
 Waste collection for the project
 Increased traffic and freeway congestion; improvements to freeway exits  Design conformity with surrounding uses
 Noise generated by the project
 Flooding concerns on surrounding streets due to the southwesterly slope of the project site  Emergency access to and from the site
 Project’s contribution of parkland
 Project proposes too much parking
 Project’s proposed roadways and access points create hazards

1.9 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, MITIGATION

MEASURES, AND LEVELS OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Table 1-1 summarizes the conclusions of the environmental analysis contained in this EIR. Impacts are identified as significant or less than significant, and mitigation measures are identified for all significant impacts.

The level of significance after imposition of the mitigation measures is also presented.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

1. Executive Summary
June 2024 Page 1-7
Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation

5.1 AIR QUALITY
Impact 5.1-1: The proposed project is
consistent with the applicable air quality
management plan.

Less than significant No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant Impact 5.1-2: The proposed project could result
in a cumulatively considerable net increase of a
criteria pollutant that the project region is
nonattainment under federal or state ambient
air quality standards (including releasing
emissions which exceed quantitative threshold
for ozone precursors).

Potentially significant AQ-1 Implement SMAQMD Basic and Enhanced Construction Emission Control Practices to Reduce fugitive Dust. The implementing agency will require the construction contractor(s) to implement basic and enhanced control measures to reduce construction-related fugitive dust as a standard or specification of their contract. The following measures are required for the entirety of the construction area. The implementing agency will ensure, through contract provisions and specifications, that the contractor adheres to the mitigation measures before and during construction and documents compliance with the adopted mitigation measures.
 Control of fugitive dust is required by District Rule 403 and enforced by District staff.
 Water all exposed surfaces two times daily. Exposed surfaces include, but are not limited to soil piles, graded areas, unpaved parking areas, staging areas, and access roads.
 Cover or maintain at least two feet of free board space on haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material on the site. Any haul trucks that would be traveling along freeways or major roadways should be covered.
 Use wet power vacuum street sweepers to remove any visible track out mud or dirt onto adjacent public roads at least once a day. Use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.
 Limit vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour (mph).  All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, parking lots to be paved should be completed as soon as possible. In addition, building pads should be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.  Minimize idling time either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the time of idling to 5 minutes [California Code of Regulations, Title 13, sections 2449(d)(3) and 2485]. Provide clear signage that posts this requirement for workers at the entrances to the site.

Less than significant
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

1. Executive Summary

Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
 Provide current certificate(s) of compliance for CARB’s In-Use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets Regulation [California Code of Regulations, Title 13, sections 2449 and 2449.1].
 Maintain all construction equipment in proper working condition according to manufacturer’s specifications. The equipment must be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition before it is operated
Impact 5.1-3: The proposed project could
expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations
Less than significant No mitigation measures required. Less than significant Impact 5.1-4: The proposed project would not
result in other emissions that would adversely
affect a substantial number of people
Less than significant No mitigation measures required. Less than significant

5.2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Impact 5.2-1: Development of the proposed
project could significantly impact the following
sensitive species: special status birds and bats
Potentially significant BIO-1: To protect nesting birds, no project activity shall begin from February 1 through August 31 unless a qualified wildlife biologist completes the following surveys.

Separate surveys and avoidance requirements are listed below for nesting birds and raptors. If project construction begins between February 1 through August 31, a qualified biologist shall perform a preconstruction nesting bird survey within seven days prior to construction (or less if recommended by CDFW), within the project work area for all birds protected under the MBTA, including raptors. If any active nests are observed, these nests shall be designated a sensitive area and protected by an avoidance buffer established by a qualified biologist in coordination with CDFW. The avoidance buffer shall be maintained until a qualified biologist has determined that the young have fledged and are no longer reliant upon the nest, or that the nest is otherwise no longer active.

BIO-2: A qualified biologist shall conduct a survey for suitable bat roosting habitat within 14 days of construction activities. If no suitable roosting habitat is identified, no further measures are necessary. If suitable roosting habitat is identified and proposed for removal, a qualified biologist shall conduct an evening bat emergence survey that may include acoustic monitoring to determine whether bats are present. If roosting bats are found, consultation with CDFW prior to initiation of construction activities will be required. If bats are not found during the preconstruction surveys, no further measures are necessary.

Less than significant
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

1. Executive Summary
June 2024 Page 1-9
Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
Impact 5.2-2: Development of the proposed
project would not result in the loss of any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community nor on state or federally protected
wetland
No impact No mitigation measures are required. No impact Impact 5.2-3: The proposed project could affect
wildlife movement of special status species
Potentially significant Implement mitigation measure BIO-1 and BIO-2. Less than significant Impact 5.2-4: The proposed project would not
conflict with the City’s tree preservation
ordinance or with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Plan, or other approved local, regional or state
habitat conservation plan
Less than significant No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant

5.3 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Impact 5.3-1: Development of the project could
impact an identified historic resource
No impact No mitigation measures are required. No impact Impact 5.3-2: Development of the project could
impact archaeological resources
Potentially significant CUL-1 If subsurface deposits believed to be cultural or human in origin are discovered during construction, all work must halt within a 100-foot radius of the discovery. A qualified professional archaeologist, meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for prehistoric and historic archaeology, shall be retained to evaluate the significance of the find, and shall have the authority to modify the no-work radius as appropriate, using professional judgment. The following notifications shall apply, depending on the nature of the find:
 If the professional archaeologist determines that the find does not represent a cultural resource, work may resume immediately, and no agency notifications are required.
 If the professional archaeologist determines that the find does represent a cultural resource from any time period or cultural affiliation, the archaeologist shall immediately notify the lead agencies. The agencies shall consult on a finding of eligibility and implement appropriate treatment measures, if the find is determined to be a Historical Resource under CEQA, as defined in Section 15064.5(a) of the CEQA Guidelines or a historic property under Section 106 NHPA, if applicable. Work may not resume within the no-work radius until the lead agencies, through Less than significant
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

1. Executive Summary

Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
consultation as appropriate, determine that the site either: 1) is not a Historical Resource under CEQA or a Historic Property under Section 106; or 2) that the treatment measures have been completed to their satisfaction.

Impact 5.3-3: Grading activities could
potentially disturb human remains
Potentially significant CUL-2 If the find includes human remains, or remains that are potentially human, they shall ensure reasonable protection measures are taken to protect the discovery from disturbance (AB 2641). The archaeologist shall notify the Sacramento County Coroner (per Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code). The provisions of Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.98 of the California PRC, and AB 2641 will be implemented. If the coroner determines the remains are Native American and not the result of a crime scene, the coroner will notify the NAHC, which then will designate a Native American Most Likely Descendant (MLD) for the Project (Section 5097.98 of the PRC). The designated MLD will have 48 hours from the time access to the property is granted to make recommendations concerning treatment of the remains. If the landowner does not agree with the recommendations of the MLD, the NAHC can mediate (Section 5097.94 of the PRC). If no agreement is reached, the landowner must rebury the remains where they will not be further disturbed (Section 5097.98 of the PRC). This will also include either recording the site with the NAHC or the appropriate Information Center; using an open space or conservation zoning designation or easement; or recording a reinternment document with the county in which the property is located (AB 2641). Work may not resume within the nowork radius until the lead agencies, through consultation as appropriate, determine that the treatment measures have been completed to their satisfaction.

Less than significant

5.4 ENERGY
Impact 5.4-1: Project construction and
operation would not cause wasteful, inefficient,
or unnecessary energy use.

Less than significant No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant Impact 5.4-2: The project would not conflict
with a State or local plan for renewable energy
or energy efficiency.

Less than significant No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant Impact 5.4-3: The proposed project would not
require the relocation or construction of new or
expanded energy facilities that would result in
significant environmental effects.

Less than significant No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

1. Executive Summary
June 2024 Page 1-11
Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation

5.5 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Impact 5.5-1: The proposed project would
generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment
Potentially significant GHG-1 Implement SMAQMD Tier 1 Best Management Practices. The implementing agency will require the Project to implement Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District Tier 1 Best Management Practices:
 BMP 1: projects shall be designed and constructed without natural gas infrastructure.
 BMP 2: projects shall meet the current CalGreen Tier 2 standards, except all electric vehicle capable spaces shall instead be electric vehicle ready.

GHG-2 Implement SMAQMD Tier 2 Best Management Practices. The implementing agency will require the Project to implement Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District Tier 2 Best Management Practices:
 BMP 3: The project applicant shall coordinate with the City of Rancho Cordova to implement feasible transportation demand management (TDM) strategies, which would decrease the vehicle miles traveled generated by the proposed project as follows:
o The project community office space component must achieve a 15 percent reduction in VMT per worker compared to the existing average VMT per capita for Sacramento County.
o The project residential component must achieve a 15 percent reduction in VMT per resident compared to the existing average VMT per capita in Sacramento County.
o The project retail component must achieve no net increase in total VMT
Examples of potential measures include (but are not limited to): paid parking, employee telecommuting, employee shuttle service, expansion of transit service coverage/ subsidized transit fares, enhanced bicycle and pedestrian connections, and flexible work schedules.

In the case that the necessary VMT reductions are infeasible, the purchasing and retiring GHG/carbon offsets from a SMAQMD-approved registry is required.

Approved registries may include but are not limited to any of the following: (i) the Climate Action Reserve, the American Carbon Registry and Verra; (ii) any entity approved at any time by the California Air Resources Board to act as an “offset Less than significant
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

1. Executive Summary

Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
project registry” under the state’s cap-and-trade program; (iii) other regulatory or voluntary credits that demonstrate, based on substantial evidence, that the offsets are real, permanent, quantifiable, verifiable, enforceable, and additional.

Impact 5.5-2: The proposed project would not
conflict with any applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing
the emissions of greenhouse gases
Less than significant No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant

5.6 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Impact 5.6-1: The project could potentially
create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use
or disposal of hazardous materials
Potentially significant HAZ-1 Implement Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board approved Site Cleanup Plan. Prior to the issuance of construction permits, the project applicant shall complete all recommendations from the Site Cleanup Plan and Addendum to the Site Cleanup Plan prepared by Tetra Tech (Appendix 5.6-1, dated March 16, 2022, and Appendix 5.6-2, August 30, 2023) for the proposed project into the project’s construction plans. Short-term soil vapor extraction (SVE) will be conducted to remove the impacted soil vapor that migrated to this area. Up to 15 SVE wells will be installed and operated as extraction and/or venting wells to expedite the pore volume flushing of the vadose zone (Section

3.9) for an approximate duration of two months. The City Engineer will transmit testing results to the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board for review and concurrence before issuing construction permits. The City Engineer will also ensure that the project’s construction plans incorporate all applicable recommendations of the Site Cleanup Plan and comply with all applicable requirements of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. The City inspectors will ensure that the procedures and requirements included in the construction plans are followed and documented. Documentation will be part of the mitigation monitoring and reporting program.

Less than significant
Impact 5.6-2: The proposed project could
potentially create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials
into the environment
Potentially significant Implement Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 Less than significant Impact 5.6-3: The proposed project could
potentially emit hazardous emissions or handle
Potentially significant Implement Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 Less than significant ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

1. Executive Summary
June 2024 Page 1-13
Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of
an existing or proposed school
Impact 5.6-4: The proposed project would be
located on a site that is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled under
Government Code Section 65962.5; which
could create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment
Potentially significant Implement Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 Less than significant Impact 5.6-5: The proposed project would not
conflict with an airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project result in a safety hazard or
excessive noise for people residing or working
in the project area.

Less than significant No mitigation measures are required Less than significant Impact 5.6-6: The proposed project could
potentially impair the implementation of or
physically interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan
Potentially significant Implement Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 Less than significant Impact 5.6-7: The proposed project would not
expose people or structures, either directly or
indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or
death involving wildland fires
Less than significant No mitigation measures are required Less than significant

5.7 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Impact 5.7-1: Project implementation would not
divide an established community
Less than significant No mitigation measures are required Less than significant Impact 5.7-2: Project implementation would not
cause a significant environmental impact due to
a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding
or mitigating an environmental effect
Less than significant No mitigation measures are required Less than significant ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

1. Executive Summary

Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation

5.8 MINERAL RESOURCES
Impact 5.7-1: The proposed project would not
result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource nor the loss of availability of a
locally important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan
or other land use plan.

Less than significant No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant

5.9 NOISE
Impact 5.8-1: Construction activities would
result in temporary noise increases in the
vicinity of the proposed project.

Less than significant No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant Impact 5.8-2: The proposed project would not
result in a substantial permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in excess of City
standards during the project’s operation phase
Less than significant No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant Impact 5.8-3: The project would not generate
excessive groundborne vibration during
construction or operation.

Less than significant No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant Impact 5.8-4: The proximity of the project site
to an airport would not result in exposure of
future residents or workers to airport-related
noise
Less than significant No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant

5.10 POPULATION AND HOUSING
Impact 5.9-1: The Mills Crossing project would
not induce unplanned population growth either
directly or indirectly within the project area
Less than significant No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant Impact 5.9-2: Project implementation would not
result in substantially displace existing people
and/or the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere
Less than significant No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

1. Executive Summary
June 2024 Page 1-15
Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation

5.11 PUBLIC SERVICES

FIRE PROTECTION AND EMERGENCY SERVICES
Impact 5.11-1: The proposed project would
introduce new structures, residents, and
workers into the Sacramento Metropolitan Fire
District service boundaries; however this
increase would not require the need for
additional fire protection facilities
Less than significant No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant

POLICE PROTECTION
Impact 5.11-2: The proposed project would
introduce new structures, residents, and
workers into the Rancho Cordova Police
Department service boundaries;however this
increase would not require the need for
additional police protection facilities or
personnel
Less than significant No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant

SCHOOL SERVICES
Impact 5.11-3: The proposed project would
generate 57 new students into the FCUSD
which would impact the school enrollment
capacities of area schools
Less than significant No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant

LIBRARY SERVICES
Impact 5.11-4: The proposed project would
introduce new residents into the Sacramento
Public Library System/Rancho Cordova Library
service boundaries, thereby increasing the
requirement for library facilities and personnel
Less than significant No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

1. Executive Summary

Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation

5.12 RECREATION
Impact 5.12-1: The proposed project would
increase the use existing neighborhood and
regional parks and other recreational facilities
such that substantial physical deterioration of
the facility would occur or be accelerated
Less than significant No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant Impact 5.12-2: Project implementation would
require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment
Less than significant No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant

5.13 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Impact 5.13-1: The proposed project could
cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a tribal cultural resource that is:
i) listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources or in a local
register of historical resources as defined in
Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k). ii)
determined by the lead agency to be significant
pursuant to criteria in Public Resources Code
section 5024.1(c). In applying the criteria set
forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources
Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall
consider the significance of the resource to a
California Native American tribe
Potentially significant TCR -1 Prior to issuance of grading permits, a qualified Tribal monitor/consultant shall be identified to be on call during ground-disturbing activities. The Project Applicant shall be required to retain and compensate for the services of a Tribal monitor/consultant who is both ancestrally affiliated with the project area and approved by the Wilton Rancheria Tribal Government and is listed under the NAHC Tribal Contact list for the area of the project location. A Native American monitor shall be retained by the Lead Agency or owner of the project to be on-site to monitor all project-related, ground-disturbing construction activities (i.e., boring, grading, excavation, potholing, trenching, etc.). A monitor associated with one of the NAHC recognized Tribal governments that have commented on the project shall provide the Native American monitor. The monitor/consultant will only be present on site during the construction phases that involve ground-disturbing activities. The Tribal Monitor/consultant will complete daily monitoring logs that will provide descriptions of the day’s activities, including construction activities, locations, soil, and any cultural materials identified. The onsite monitoring shall end when the project site grading and excavation activities are completed, or when the Tribal Representatives and monitor/consultant have indicated that the site has a low potential for impacting Tribal Cultural Resources.

TCR-2: If any tribal cultural are discovered during excavation and/or construction activities, construction shall stop within 100 feet of the find, and the qualified Tribal monitor/consultant shall be consulted to determine whether the resource requires further study. The Tribal monitor/consultant shall make recommendations to the Cityto protect the discovered resources. All tribal cultural resources unearthed by project construction activities shall be evaluated by the qualified Less than significant
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

1. Executive Summary
June 2024 Page 1-17
Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
tribal monitor/consultant. If the resources are Native American in origin, the Wilton Rancheria Tribal Government shall coordinate with the landowner regarding treatment and curation of these resources. Work may continue on other parts of the project while evaluation and, if necessary, additional protective mitigation takes place (CEQA Guidelines Section 1506.5[f]).

5.14 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Impact 5.14-1: The proposed project would not
require the relocation or construction of new or
expanded wastewater treatment facilities, the
construction of which would cause significant
environmental effects.

Less than significant No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant Impact 5.14-2: The proposed project would
result in the determination of a wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may serve
the project that it has adequate capacity to
serve the project’s projected demand in
addition to the provider’s existing commitments.

Less than significant No mitigation measures are required, Less than significant Impact 5.14-3: The proposed project would not
require the relocation or construction of new or
expanded water facilities, which could cause
significant environmental effects.

Less than significant No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant Impact 5.14-4: CAW would have sufficient
water supplies to serve the proposed project
and reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry, and multiple
dry years
Less than significant No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant Impact 5.14-5: The proposed project would not
require the relocation or construction of new or
expanded storm drainage facilities, the
construction of which would cause significant
environmental effects
Less than significant No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

1. Executive Summary

Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
Impact 5.14-6: The proposed project would not
generate solid waste in excess of state or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the
attainment of waste reduction goals
Less than significant No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant Impact 5.14-7: The proposed project would
comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste
Less than significant No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

June 2024 Page 2-1

2. Introduction

2.1 PURPOSE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that all state and local governmental agencies consider the environmental consequences of projects over which they have discretionary authority before taking action on those projects. This draft environmental impact report (DEIR) has been prepared to satisfy CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. The environmental impact report (EIR) is a public document designed to provide decision-makers and the public with an analysis of the environmental effects of the proposed project, to indicate possible ways to reduce or avoid environmental damage, and to identify alternatives to the project.

The EIR must also disclose significant environmental impacts that cannot be avoided; growth-inducing impacts; effects not found to be significant; and significant cumulative impacts of all past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects.

The lead agency means “the public agency which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project which may have a significant effect upon the environment” (CEQA § 21067). The City of Rancho Cordova has the principal responsibility for approval of the Mills Crossing project. For this reason, the City of Rancho Cordova is the CEQA lead agency for this project.

The DEIR intends to provide sufficient information on the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Mills Crossing project to allow the City of Rancho Cordova to make an informed decision regarding the approval of the project. Specific discretionary actions to be reviewed by the City are described in Section 3.4, Intended Uses of the EIR.

This DEIR has been prepared in accordance with requirements of the:
 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, as amended (Public Resources Code, §§ 21000 et seq.)
 State Guidelines for the Implementation of the CEQA of 1970 (CEQA Guidelines), as amended (California Code of Regulations, §§ 15000 et seq.)
The overall purpose of this DEIR is to inform the lead agency, responsible agencies, decision makers, and the general public about the environmental effects of the development and operation of the proposed Mills Crossing project. This DEIR addresses effects that may be significant and adverse; evaluates alternatives to the project; and identifies mitigation measures to reduce or avoid adverse effects.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

2. Introduction

2.2 NOTICE OF PREPARATION
The City of Rancho Cordova issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for public review from January 6 to February 6, 2023. Comments received during the public review period are in Appendix 2-1. Table 1-1, Notice of Preparation Comment Letters, summarizes the comments received during the public comment period.

The City of Rancho Cordova conducted an in-person public scoping meeting on Thursday, January 19, 2023, and public comments are summarized and noted under “Scoping Meeting” in Table 1-1.

Table 1-1 Notice of Preparation Comments
Agency/Organization/
Individual Date Summary of Comments
DEIR Section Where
Comment Is
Addressed
Agency
Sacramento Municipal
Utility District (SMUD)
01/07/2023 • SMUD requires the project acknowledge impacts related to:
- Overhead and/or underground transmission and
distribution line easements
- Utility line routing
- Electrical load needs/requirements
- Energy efficiency
- Climate change
- Cumulative impacts related to the need for increased
electrical delivery.
- Potential need to relocate and/or remove any SMUD
infrastructure that may be affected in or around the project area.
• SMUD would like to have the following details related to the electrical infrastructure in the DSEIR’s project description:
- Existing 69/12kV OH/UG facilities south of Folsom Blvd. - Existing 12kV OH/UG facilities on the project site
- Building foundation must have a minimum horizontal
clearance of 5 feet from any SMUD trench.
- Proposed SMUD facilities located on the customer’s
property outside of the existing or proposed PUE(s) may require a dedicated SMUD easement.
- Applicant shall dedicate and provide a vehicular access road.
- Requires a minimum 1.5-foot OUE adjacent to all public roads for 12kV facilities.
- Developer shall dedicate any private drive, ingress and egress easement, or Irrevocable Offer of Dedication as a public utility easement for overhead and underground
facilities and appurtenances.
- If alternative locations are not provided, existing
overhead/underground 12kV facilities will need to remain to maintain existing services not part of development.
- If applicable existing overhead lines will be removed and existing underground cables will be relocated at
developer’s expense to maintain existing services within development.

Section 5.4, Energy
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

2. Introduction
June 2024 Page 2-3
Table 1-1 Notice of Preparation Comments
Agency/Organization/
Individual Date Summary of Comments
DEIR Section Where
Comment Is
Addressed
Pacific Gas and Electric
Company (PG&E)
01/10/2023 • PG&E thanks for the notice and asks once detailed plans are available to send for review.

N/A
Native American
Heritage Commission
(NAHC)
01/13/2023 • The NAHC explains Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) and Senate Bill 18 (SB 18) which both have tribal consultation requirements. • The NAHC recommends consultation with California Native American tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project as early as possible to avoid inadvertent discoveries of Native American human remains and best protect tribal cultural resources.
• AB 52 applies to any project for which a notice of preparation, a notice of negative declaration, or a mitigated negative declaration is filed on or after July 1, 2015.
• SB 18 applies to all California tribes and local governments that adopt or amend general plans or specific plans or create open space designations.
• NAHC recommends contacting the appropriate regional
California Historical Research Information System (CHRIS) Center for an archaeological record search.
• NAHC recommends if an archaeological inventory survey is required then prepare a professional report detailing the findings and recommendations of the records search and field study. • NAHC recommends contacting the NAHC for a Sacred Lands File search and a Native American Consultation List of
appropriate tribes for consultation concerning the project site.

Section 5.13, Tribal
Cultural Resources
Sacramento County
Department of
Transportation
01/25/2023 • Commenter anticipates based on the project’s size; the project may generate enough traffic to cause impacts in Sacramento County.
• Commenter asks the City to analyze the Folsom Blvd. at Horn Rd. Paseo Rio Way and Folsom Blvd. at Bradshaw Rd for LOS and queuing analysis.
• Commenter states that if any County facilities are impacted from the project, then the Sacramento County would request to enter a Project Specific Reciprocal Funding Amendment with the City of Rancho Cordova.

Chapter 8, Impacts
Not Found to Be
Significant
Cordova Recreation
and Park District
(CRPD)
02/02/2023 • States the proposed project falls under the Quimby park land requirements for project with 50 or more lots.
• The commenter states parcels have inconsistent labels, and it is unclear which parcels are intended to be City Open Space or Quimby park land dedications and recommends the DSEIR to clarify this issue.
• CRPD anticipates standard Quimby dedication requirements be applied to all residential units per the Municipal Code, Chapter

22.40. • CRPD anticipates that standard Quimby dedication to be around

1.25 acres and the project may need to contribute towards maintenance of the Quimby Community Park.
• Recommends CRPD be listed as the jurisdiction responsible for Quimby Parkland.

Section 5.12,
Recreation
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

2. Introduction

Table 1-1 Notice of Preparation Comments
Agency/Organization/
Individual Date Summary of Comments
DEIR Section Where
Comment Is
Addressed
• States once the Quimby park land have been clarified then CRPD can provide more information about Quimby in-lieu fees, park impact fees, and on-going maintenance assessments for park land.

Sacramento Regional
Transit District (SacRT)
02/04/2023 • SacRT feels that the Mills Crossing project will provide benefits such as higher quality of life, increased transit ridership, reduced traffic congestion and driving, healthier lifestyle through more active transportation, and reduced pollution and environmental destruction.
• SacRT is in support of the project because it incorporates:
- Development patterns with a mix of commercial and
residential.
- High-density residential sites with planned pedestrian pathways and crossing to fixed-route transit options.
- 55-60 multi-family affordable housing units.
• SacRt requests review of a traffic impact analysis to further understand the methodology for planned number of parking spaces.
• SacRt suggests revising the layout of affordable housing units be brought closer to the center of the community, around the neighborhood green space, and closer to the planned pathways to transit. SacRT argues that many residents of affordable housing units are likely to be transit-dependent; therefore, placing these units closer to transit options may be more beneficial.

Chapter 3, Project
Description
Chapter 8, Impacts
Not Found to Be
Significant
Central Valley Regional
Water Quality Control
Board (RWQCB)
02/06/2023 • States the Central Valley Water Board is required to formulate and adopt Basin Plans for all areas within the Central Valley region under Section 13240 of the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act.
• States beneficial uses, water quality objectives, and Antidegradation Policy are State’s water quality standards. • States the environmental review document should evaluate potential impacts to surface and groundwater quality.
• Provides an overview of permitting requirements for Construction Storm Water General Permit, Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit.
• Clean water Act Section 402, Waste Discharge Requirements, Dewatering Permit, Limited Threat General NPDES Permit, and NPDES Permit.

Chapter 8, Impacts
Found Not to Be
Significant
Sacramento
Metropolitan Air Quality
Management District
(Sac Metro Air District)
02/06/2023 • Recommends the City utilize the Guide to Air Quality Assessment in Sacramento County (CEQA Guide) as a
resource.
• States the DEIR’s construction analysis should disclose projected construction emissions of Criteria Pollutants, pollutants regulated by the Clean Air Act, using methods referenced in the CEQA Guide’s chapter on Construction-Generated Criteria Air Pollutant and Precursor Emissions. If construction emissions are projected to exceed Sac Metro Air District thresholds, then the DEIR should incorporate mitigation measures from this chapter as well.

Section 5.1, Air
Quality
Section 5.5,
Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

2. Introduction
June 2024 Page 2-5
Table 1-1 Notice of Preparation Comments
Agency/Organization/
Individual Date Summary of Comments
DEIR Section Where
Comment Is
Addressed
• States all projects must implement Sac Metro Air District Basic Construction Emission Control Practices.
• States the DEIR’s analysis should disclose projected operational emissions of Criteria Pollutants using methods referenced in CEQA Guide’s chapter on Operational Criteria Air Pollutant and Precursor Emissions. If project exceed Sac Meto Air District’s operational emissions, then the project proponent develop an Air Quality Mitigation Plan (AQMP) using methods in the CEQA Guide.
• Recommends using its Recommended Guidance for Land Use Emission Reductions to develop AQMP measures.
• Requires the operational analysis of Criteria Pollutants include an analysis of health effects. The operational analysis should also study consistency with local and regional plans such as the City’s Folsom Boulevard Specific Plan and SACOG Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Community Strategy
(MTP/SCS).
• Recommends using mitigation methods referend in the CEQA Guide’s chapter on GHG Emissions if GHG emissions from the project exceed the Sac Metro Air District’s thresholds. • States to review if an Authority to Construct and Permit to Operate is needed before installing or operating new equipment or processes that may release or control air pollutants pursuant to Sac Metro Air District Rule 201.
• Recommends the project be equipped with MERV-13 or higherrated air filtration systems to serve as a clean air center during wildfire smoke events and an onsite renewable energy system to provide emergency power.
• Recommend the DEIR evaluate project support of bicycle and pedestrian transportation as consistent with adopted policies to encourage multi-modal transportation such as the Folsom Boulevard Specific Plan
• Recommends the project incorporate strategies to reduce urban heat island effect from the Urban Heat Island Mitigation Project such as certified cool roofs, cool pavement, new air quality supportive tree species.

Organization
Sacramento Area
Bicycle Advocates –
Marven E. Norman
02/09/2023 • Argues the proposed project would introduce several hazards by design and the DEIR should acknowledge and mitigate these hazards.
• States there is an unacceptable number of options for entering the parking structure off La Loma Drive.
• States the intersection at La Loma Drive and Folsom Blvd does not provide enough space to allow all turning movements into the garage resulting in an additional threat to bicyclists using the Class II bike lanes which exist on La Loma Drive.

Chapter 8, Impacts
Not Found to Be
Significant
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

2. Introduction

Table 1-1 Notice of Preparation Comments
Agency/Organization/
Individual Date Summary of Comments
DEIR Section Where
Comment Is
Addressed
• States the new street proposed by the project which runs from La Loma Drive to El Caprice DR would create a speeding
problem and cut-through traffic. States the EIR must
acknowledge and mitigate this hazard.
• Recommends using AB 45 (Friedman 2021) to keep speeds and traffic counts low.
• States the project should remove the on-street parking along the new street and instead narrow the street by using wider sidewalks and bioswales/planter boxes with trees. The
commenter states incorporating this measure would keep
speeds low and potentially improve water quality and runoff. • Commenter states that if on-street parking is kept in the design then at least provide demarcation between traveled way and parking bay along the new street.
• Suggest making all crosswalks associated with the project site raised crosswalks and incorporating bulbouts.
• States the studies done for the project should not ignore other forms of transportation in the analysis given the location of the project directly adjacent to the rail transit station.
• States that any offsite traffic mitigation deemed to be necessary for the project not contradict and undermine the existing active transportation plans for the City, County, Caltrans, or other entities.

Individual
Nancy Marsh 01/05/2023 • States parking seems excessive considering how much street parking is available.
• Suggest Folsom Lake College parking lot be leased to events since its never full.
• States Public transportation should be encouraged as the space is right across the street from buses and light rail.
• Suggest reducing parking and add more green space or a craft center (like in Davis).
• Asks to please landscape with native plants and trees and recommends using CA Native Plant Society as a resource. • Recommends no more crepe myrtle but instead adding oak or CA sycamore.

Chapter 3, Project
Description
Section 5.2,
Biological
Resources
Chapter 8, Impacts
Not Found to Be
Significant
Scoping Meeting 01/19/2023 On-site trees
• Commenter is concerned about the preservation of the existing trees on-site.
• Commenter states that oak trees are protected in the City. • Commenter counted 24 trees on-site and feels that the design’s smaller replacement trees will not adequately replace the existing trees.

Project contribution to crime/safety concerns
• Commenter asserts that the existing area surrounding the project contains a number of low-income apartment communities that have contributed crime, litter, and overall decay in the community.

Section 5.2,
Biological
Resources
Section 5.11,
Public Services
Chapter 8, Impacts
not found to be
Significant
Section 5.14,
Utilities
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

2. Introduction
June 2024 Page 2-7
Table 1-1 Notice of Preparation Comments
Agency/Organization/
Individual Date Summary of Comments
DEIR Section Where
Comment Is
Addressed
• Commenter is concerned with how the project may exacerbate these issues by catering to risky demographics such as students and low-income renters.
• Commenter further suggests that a sub-station be built on or in proximity to the site.

Overcrowding/parking/waste collection
• Commenter states concern that future project residents, assumed to be young-adult students, will contribute
overcrowding in the units proposed under the project’s housing portion.
• Commenter further expresses concern that the project’s proposed parking will not be sufficient to accommodate all residents’ vehicles due to possible overcrowding in units and commenter’s assumption that residents’ vehicles will be larger than average vehicles.
• Commenter claims that the surrounding community will be overburdened with parking issues due to the project’s lack of accommodation for parking.
• Commenter suggests that the traffic analysis account for parking issues.
• Commenter claims that as a result of overcrowding there will be on-street parking issues.
• Commenter also expresses concerns that issues will arise over the solid waste collection logistics, including the number and storage of bins on-site.

Traffic
• Commenter expressed concerns that the project will significantly exacerbate existing traffic issues on La Loma Drive and other streets in the project vicinity.
• A number of commenters echoed this concern.
• Commenter suggests isolating the traffic study to the project area.

Use of the light rail
• Commenter expresses that the project’s goal to reduce vehicle trips through its proximity to a light rail stop does not consider realistic use of the light rail.
• Commenter states the light rail’s route only extends from Folsom to Sacramento which limits its viability as an option to replace most vehicle trips.
• Commenter implies that the project should not consider the light rail’s effect in reducing traffic, parking and other vehicle related concerns.

Design conformity with surrounding uses
• Commenter states that the project’s design should consider and conform with the surrounding development of the community. • WildlifeCommenter expresses concern about the presence of wild turkeys in the existing community.
• Commenter implies that the project may exacerbate the issue.

Noise
• Commenters discussed the possibility of noise issues attributed to the event center uses from the proposed project.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

2. Introduction

Table 1-1 Notice of Preparation Comments
Agency/Organization/
Individual Date Summary of Comments
DEIR Section Where
Comment Is
Addressed
• Commenter also expressed concerns about noise from parking.

Existing community infrastructure and housing condition • Commenters expressed concern that the existing community’s apartment building, roads and associated infrastructure are unmaintained and create hazards and eyesores in the
community.
• Commenter states that the City should be investing in improving the condition of the existing community as opposed to the proposed project.

Flooding/slope on property
• Commenter states that the property contains a notable incline; the north side of the property is significantly higher than the south portion.
• Several commenters expressed concern that this condition could contribute to flooding issues on-site as well as in the surrounding streets by increasing the hardscape on-site.
• Commenter suggests that the project include storm drainage upgrades and that the EIR address the drainage issues.
• Commenter further states that a ‘wet pit’ is present on the site, indicating a potential jurisdictional water/habitat.

Emergency access
• Commenter expresses concern about access to the site, stating that the project only includes two points of ingress/egress which could create potential issues with internal circulation and access for emergency vehicles.

Mistletoe tree parasite
• Commenter states that a number of trees in the community are affected by mistletoe.
• Commenter suggests that the City invest in the maintenance of trees and implement a tree maintenance program.

Solar panel hazard
• Commenter expresses concern that the project will contribute toxic/hazardous waste through its use of solar panels.

The NOP process helps determine the scope of the environmental issues to be addressed in the DEIR. Based on this process and the initial study for the project, certain environmental categories were identified as having the potential to result in significant impacts. Issues considered Potentially Significant are addressed in this DEIR, but issues identified as Less Than Significant or No Impact are addressed in Chapter 8, Impacts Not Found to Be Significant.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

2. Introduction
June 2024 Page 2-9

2.3 SCOPE OF THIS DEIR
The scope of the DEIR was determined based on the comments received in response to the NOP and comments received at the scoping meeting conducted by the City. Pursuant to Sections 15126.2 and 15126.4 of the CEQA Guidelines, the DEIR should identify any potentially significant adverse impacts and recommend mitigation that would reduce or eliminate these impacts to levels of insignificance.

The information in Chapter 3, Project Description, establishes the basis for analyzing future, project-related environmental impacts. However, further environmental review by the City may be required as more detailed information and plans are submitted on a project-by-project basis.

2.3.1 Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts
This DEIR determined that there would be no significant and unavoidable adverse impacts, as defined by CEQA, that would result from the implementation of the proposed project. Therefore, a “statement of overriding considerations” is not required to approve the project.

2.4 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE
Some documents are incorporated by reference into this DEIR, consistent with Section 15150 of the CEQA Guidelines, and they are available for review at the City of Rancho Cordova.  Rancho Cordova General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report, prepared by Rancho Cordova, March 13, 2006.
 Rancho Cordova General Plan, prepared by Rancho Cordova, June 26, 2006.

2.5 FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION
This DEIR is being circulated for public review for 45 days. Interested agencies and members of the public are invited to provide written comments on the DEIR to the City address shown on the title page of this document.

Upon completion of the 45-day review period, the City of Rancho Cordova will review all written comments received and prepare written responses for each. A Final EIR (FEIR) will incorporate the received comments, responses to the comments, and any changes to the DEIR that result from comments. The FEIR will be presented to the City of Rancho Cordova for potential certification as the environmental document for the project. All persons who comment on the DEIR will be notified of the availability of the FEIR and the date of the public hearing before the City.

The DEIR is available to the general public for review at the City Hall and online.  Rancho Cordova City Hall, 2729 Prospect Park Drive, Rancho Cordova, CA 95670  https://www.cityofranchocordova.org/residents/new-businesses-and-projects/mills-crossing ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

2. Introduction

2.6 MITIGATION MONITORING
Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 requires that agencies adopt a monitoring or reporting program for any project for which it has made findings pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 or adopted a Negative Declaration pursuant to 21080(c). Such a program is intended to ensure the implementation of all mitigation measures adopted through the preparation of an EIR or Negative Declaration.

The Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Mills Crossing project will be completed as part of the Final EIR, prior to consideration of the project by the Rancho Cordova City Council.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

June 2024 Page 3-1

3. Project Description

3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

3.1.1 Project Location
The 9.85-acre project site encompasses the following Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs): 076-0020-019, -20, - 21, -22. The project site is located at the corner of Folsom Boulevard and La Loma Drive in the City of Rancho Cordova, Sacramento County. The City of Rancho Cordova is surrounded by unincorporated Sacramento County to the north, south, east, and west (see Figure 3-1, Regional Location).

3.1.2 Project Site History
The project site includes a former dry cleaning site that operated from 1971 through 2003 located on the northwest portion of the project site (See Figure 5.6-1, Project Remediation Map in Chapter 5.6, Hazards and Hazardous Materials). The project site was found to have elevated levels of tetrachloroethylene (also known as perchloroethylene or “PCE”) found in groundwater. The project site was previously remediated via a soil vapor extraction system from 2010 to 2016 and one groundwater extraction well from 2014 to 2017 (Appendix 5.6-1).

The City of Rancho Cordova bought the property in 2018 and is working on addressing residual PCE in soil vapor that still exceeds screening levels (SWRCB 2024). The 2021 soil vapor data show that PCE concentrations in soil vapor exceed the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board’s Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs) for vapor concentrations in the former dry cleaner area located on the northwest portion of the project site. The PCE concentrations exceeded the residential ESL for vapor intrusion consideration, which corresponds to a carcinogenic risk of 10-6. The City plans to perform additional site remediation including soil and sewer line excavation in the former dry cleaner area and contingency in-situ soil treatment at a deeper depth in the former parking lot area.1 Section 5.6 provides additional details about potential hazards and hazardous materials at the project site.

3.1.3 Existing and Surrounding Uses
The project site is currently vacant. The project site was previously developed as a commercial shopping center, but all of the previous buildings have since been demolished, leaving only the parking lot remaining. A few scattered trees are found in weedy patches within and around the perimeter of the project site. The project site also has a sloping incline located on the northwest portion of the project site on La Loma Drive. The project site is surrounded by residential uses to the north, residential uses and Folsom Lake College/Rancho Cordova 1 The proposed remediation activities have been exempt under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15304(f). This remediation work is not part of the proposed project because it needs to be completed whether or nor the proposed project goes forward. Also, the remediation work and should be completed before any approval of the proposed project and prior to construction from the proposed project.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

3. Project Description

to the east, light industrial uses to the south, and commercial and residential uses to the west. Figure 3-2, Aerial Photograph, shows the project site in its local context. Section 4.0, Environmental Setting, includes a more detailed description of the existing environmental setting.

3.1.4 Existing Zoning and Land Use Designations
The project site is zoned Residential Mixed-Use – Folsom Boulevard Specific Plan (RMU [FBSP]). The RMU (FBSP) Zoning District is intended to designate property for the development of medium and high-density housing (between 6.1 and 40 dwelling units per acre) that may incorporate office and/or commercial services.

While the predominant use of the development is residential, the City encourages the vertical and/or horizontal integration of commercial and/or office uses that are compatible with the residential development.

The project site has a land use designation of Residential Mixed-Use (FB-RMU).

3.2 STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES
Objectives for the Mills Crossing Project will aid decision makers in their review of the project and associated environmental impacts:

1. Provide for a mix of uses onsite by developing residential, commercial, and recreational uses on infill and underutilized parcels near the Mather Field/Mills Station.

2. Increase the City’s housing stock by providing a range of housing density types, including affordable housing.

3. Increase employment opportunities in the City.

4. Improve the jobs-housing balance in the City of Rancho Cordova and provide new housing close to jobs and services.

5. Promote healthy living and physical activity by providing open space areas and opportunities to utilize alternative transportation options available proximate to the site, including the Mather Field/Mills Station.

3.3 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
“Project,” as defined by the CEQA Guidelines, means:
... the whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, and that is any of the following: (1)…enactment and amendment of zoning ordinances, and the adoption and amendment of local General Plans or elements thereof pursuant to Government Code Sections 65100– 65700. (14 Cal. Code of Reg. § 15378[a])
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

Source: Generated using ArcMap, Inc. 2022.

Figure 3-1
Regional Location
0 Scale (Miles)
3 Note: Unincorporated county areas are shown in white.

Project Site
County of Placer
County of Sacramento
Folsom Lake
80 160

CALIFORNIA
99 CALIFORNIA
16 CALIFORNIA
50 MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

PLACEWORKS
__J '
I ·••---------~ ------- - •
/ ( \
/
D \
,
' '
~ '
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

Figure 3-2
Aerial Photograph
0 Scale (Feet)
270
Residential
Folsom Blvd
Mather Field Rd
Mills Station Rd
La Loma Dr
Paseo Dr
El Caprice Dr
Los Amigos Dr
El Segundo Dr
La Verta Ct
Malaga Wy
Bettencourt Ln
Bettencourt Ln
La Loma Dr
Sobrante Wy
Residential
Residential
Light
Industrial
Mather Field/Mills Station
Railroad
Mills Station Lrt Sta
Folsom Lake College
Rancho Cordova
Center
Commercial
Mather Field/Mills Station
Park & Ride
U-Haul
Service Center
Light
Industrial Light
Industrial
Source: Nearmap, Inc. 2022.

Project Boundary

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

PLACEWORKS
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

3. Project Description
June 2024 Page 3-5

3.3.1 Description of the City’s General Plan Environmental Impact Report The Environmental Impact Report for the City of Rancho Cordova General Plan (“2006 EIR”) was approved by the Rancho Cordova City Council on June 26, 2006. The 2006 EIR was proposed to replace the General Plan which the City adopted from Sacramento County upon incorporation in July 2003. As indicated in the 2006 EIR, the project site is located in the Folsom Boulevard Planning Area, and a Specific Plan was prepared for this Planning Area after the adoption of the 2006 General Plan.

As indicated above, the project site is zoned RMU (FBSP) which allows between 6.1 and 40 dwelling units per acre. As such, the project site could allow between 61 units and 394 units. As the project site is within the Mather Mills Opportunity Site, additional development standards are provided, which indicate that there is no minimum or maximum floor area ratio (FAR) for the project site.

3.3.2 Description of the Proposed Project
The proposed project would include community-commercial buildings, housing, public open space, and a parking structure. Figure 3-3, Conceptual Site Plan, shows the layout of the proposed uses on the project site. In order to accommodate the proposed uses lisred below, the necessary entitlements include:
 A Specific Plan Amendment to rezone portions of the Mills Crossing project site area from a Residential Mixed-Use ( RMU) zone to a Commercial Mixed-Use (CMU), Medium Density Residential (MDR), and High-Density Residential (HDR) zone. As shown in Figure 3-4, Zoning Option 1, and 3-5, Zoning Option 2, to view the potential new configuration for the Mills Crossing Project site. Figure 3-4 shows 2.96 acres MDR,

4.79 acres CMU, and 1.09 acres HDR, and Figure 3-5 shows 3.05 acres MDR, 4.79 acres CMU, and 1.0 acres HDR. The remaining RMU areas will be dedicated as a public right of way. (See Section 3.3.3, Project Site Rezone Designation, for more information on the individual zones)  A Tentative Subdivision Map to create between five and nine new parcels for the proposed uses.  Major Design Review for new construction.

Community-Commercial Buildings
The community-commercial buildings would include up to 140,000 square feet of uses, and would include the following:
 Health and Wellness
 Community Health Clinic—up to 30,000 square feet
 Events and Meetings Space
 Space for meetings, community and cultural events, banquet, and weddings—up to 15,000 square feet  Arts Center (Subtotal—up to 35,000 square feet)
 Flex Theater (black/white/green box)—up to 18,000 square feet ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

3. Project Description

 Flexible Classrooms and Rehearsal Space—up to 6,000 square feet  Production/Artist’s Studios—up to 4,000 square feet
 Gallery/Exhibits—up to 4,000 square feet
 Administrative Space—up to 3,000 square feet
 Community-Commercial Building (Subtotal—up to 52,500 square feet)  Commercial Office-Anchor—up to 25,000 square feet
 Commercial Office-Shared—up to 10,000 square feet
 Flexible Studios 1—up to 5,000 square feet
 Flexible Studios 2—up to 7,500 square feet
 Commercial Kitchen—up to 5,000 square feet
 Commercial-Retail (Subtotal—up to 7,500 square feet)
 Fresh Market, Food and Beverage, Café, Retail—up to 5,000 square feet  Café—up to 2,500 square feet
Housing
The proposed project would provide up to 120 dwelling units, as follows:
 Between 55 and 60 Multifamily Affordable Apartments
 Between 50 and 60 Zero Lot Line Townhouse-Style Homes for Sale Public Open Space
The proposed project would include up to 2.5 acres of public open space as follows:
 Between 1.3 and 1.5 acres of Neighborhood and Community Greens  Between 0.75 and 1.0-acre of Plaza and Green Space
Parking Structure
The proposed project would include a parking structure with between 275 and 325 parking spaces.

Internal Circulation and Access
Figure 3-3, Conceptual Site Plan, shows the conceptual internal roadways and access points into and out of the project site. The project site would be accessible via Folsom Boulevard to the south, La Loma Drive to the west, and El Caprice east of the project site.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

Maximum Program for CEQA submission — actual space quantities may vary Mills Crossing 12/09/2022 1 Mills Crossing Site Plan
Source: City of Rancho Cordova 2022.

Figure 3-3
Conceptual Site Plan
0 Scale (Feet)
100 Project Boundary

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

PLACEWORKS
I
0:::

C
<(
:E
0 ....I
<(
....I

PROPERTY LINE ------,
Affordable Multi-Family
4 Levels
Parking Structure
3 Levels
-300 spaces
Community Facilities
55,000 SF
3 Levels
Health & Wellness
21 ;oo SF
Community Commercial
25,000 SI
Townhome Lots
Arts Center -
Flex
17,000 SF '') 3 levels Public Plaza + Green Space
Arts Center -
Theater
18,000 SF
1 levels

FOLSOM BLVD

0.8 acres
.

Community Facilities
35,000 SF
3 Levels
Community Commercial
27,000 SF
Commercial/ "
Retail
7,200 SF
1 Level
Events/Meeting
9,000 SF
FLC
PHASE 3
Community
Green
0 .3 acres
FLC
PHASE 2
FOLSOM
LAKE

COLLEGE
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

Source: City of Rancho Cordova 2024.

Figure 3-4
Zoning Option 1
0 Scale (Feet)
100
Project Boundary
CMU - Commercial Mixed Use
MDR - Medium Density Residential
HDR - High Density Residential

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

PLACEWORKS
Folsom Blvd
La Loma Dr
Paseo Dr
El Caprice Dr
Los Amigos Dr
Folsom Lake College
Rancho Cordova
Center

2.96ACRES
(129, 089 SF)
FUTURE

EXPANSION
l.46ACRES
(63,582SF)
l ~~I~--~~-=
+- - I

3.33ACRES
(144, 989 SF)
BLDG03
l.09ACRES
(47,625 SF)
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

Source: City of Rancho Cordova 2024.

Figure 3-5
Zoning Option 2
0 Scale (Feet)
100
Project Boundary
CMU - Commercial Mixed Use
MDR - Medium Density Residential
HDR - High Density Residential

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

PLACEWORKS
Folsom Blvd
La Loma Dr
Paseo Dr
El Caprice Dr
Los Amigos Dr
Folsom Lake College
Rancho Cordova
Center
l.OOACRES
(43,784 SF)
l.96ACRES
(85,305 SF)
FUTURE

EXPANSION

3.33ACRES
(144, 989 SF)
l.46ACRES
(63,582SF)
l.09ACRES
(47,625 SF)
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

3. Project Description

Infrastructure Requirements
Electrical Infrastructure
As discussed in Chapter 2, Introduction, the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) commented on the Notice of Preparation for the proposed project and described the potential electrical infrastructure requirements associated with construction and operation of the proposed project (see Appendix 2-1). The following are requirements that the proposed project would adhere to with respect to SMUD’s electrical infrastructure:
 The project applicant shall conduct a pre-engineering meeting with all utilities to ensure proper clearances are maintained for structural setbacks of less than 14-feet.  Building foundations would have a minimum horizontal clearance of 5 feet from any SMUD trench. The project applicant would verify with other utilities (Gas, Telephone, etc.) for their specific clearance requirements.
 A minimum 12.5-foot Public Utility Easement (PUE) adjacent to all public roads for 12kV facilities is required.
 Proposed SMUD facilities located on the project site outside of the existing or proposed PUE(s) may require a dedicated SMUD easement.
 The project applicant shall dedicate and provide a vehicular access road; SMUD will supply the minimum specifications during the acquisition process. (or: The Applicant shall dedicate and provide all-weather vehicular access for service vehicles that are up to 26,000 pounds. At a minimum: (a) the drivable surface shall be 20-feet wide; and (b) all SMUD underground equipment and appurtenances shall be within 15-feet from the drivable surface).
 The project applicant shall dedicate any private drive, ingress and egress easement, or Irrevocable Offer of Dedication (and 10 feet adjacent thereto) as a public utility easement for overhead and underground facilities and appurtenances.
 If alternative locations are not provided, existing overhead/underground 12kV facilities would need to remain in order to maintain existing services not part of development.  If applicable, existing overhead lines will be removed and existing underground cables will be relocated at project applicant’s expense to maintain existing services for surrounding development.

3.3.3 Project Site Rezone Designations
The proposed zoning designations and associated standards are as follows:
 Commercial Mixed-Use (CMU). This district is intended to designate property for vibrant commercial and mixed-use development. While a predominantly commercial district, the CMU category is designed to ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

3. Project Description
June 2024 Page 3-11
provide for the integration of retail and service commercial uses with office and/or residential uses. In multiple-story buildings, retail uses are the predominant use on the ground floor. This district designates property for the development of residential uses with a density between 10 and 18 dwelling units per acre  High Density Residential (HDR). This district designates property for the development of residential uses with a density between 20.1 and 40.0 dwelling units per acre. The HDR district is intended for higherdensity residential development, such as apartments, condominiums, lofts, and other multi-story residential uses. This district is typically located along major roadways and transit corridors near and adjacent to or within service and employment centers. High-density residential development is designed to be pedestrianand transit-friendly  Medium Density Residential (MDR). This district designates property for the development of a wide range of housing types with a density range between 6.1 and 18.0 dwelling units per acre. The MDR district is intended for higher-density single-family homes (attached or detached), condominiums, and small apartment complexes. This district provides a compatible transition between the lower-density residential neighborhoods of the city and the urban centers.

3.3.4 Construction and Operation
Construction
Construction activities would involve the removal of vegetation and paved areas; grading to finished design elevations; excavation to allow construction of building foundations, utilities, roadways, parking areas, sidewalks, and landscaping. Equipment used during construction may include, but is not limited to, crawler tractors, tractors, loaders, backhoes, excavators, graders, scrapers, cranes, forklifts, generator sets, welders, pavers, paving equipment, rollers, and air compressors. It is anticipated that construction of the project would occur from 2024 through 2029.

Operation
The proposed project would result in up to 120 dwelling units which, assuming 2.68 persons per household as included in the General Plan EIR, would result in approximately 322 residents. The project would include up to 140,000 square feet of community-commercial uses. The open space proposed for the project site (up to 2.5 acres) would be publicly accessible.

3.4 INTENDED USES OF THE DEIR
This Draft EIR (EIR) is a project EIR that examines the environmental impacts of the proposed project. This DEIR also addresses various actions by the City and others to adopt and implement the proposed project. This DEIR intends to evaluate the environmental impacts of the proposed project, thereby enabling the City of Rancho Cordova, other responsible agencies, and interested parties to make informed decisions with respect to the requested entitlements. The anticipated approvals required for this project are:

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

3. Project Description

Lead Agency Action
City of Rancho Cordova City Council
 Development Agreement
 Specific Plan Amendment
 Tentative Subdivision Map
 Site Plan Approval
 Development Agreement
 Major Design Review
 Building Permit
 Certify EIR and Adopt Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Responsible Agencies Action
Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control
Board
 Issuance of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit  Issuance of Construction Permit

3.4.1 References
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2024 (accessed). GeoTracker: Lily Company (T10000000403). https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile_report.asp?global_id=T1000000040.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

June 2024 Page 4-1

4. Environmental Setting

4.1 INTRODUCTION
This section provides a “description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, as they exist at the time the notice of preparation is published, ... from both a local and a regional perspective” (Guidelines § 15125[a]), pursuant to provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines. The environmental setting provides the baseline physical conditions from which the lead agency will determine the significance of environmental impacts resulting from the proposed project.

4.2 REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

4.2.1 Regional Location
The City of Rancho Cordova is located entirely within Sacramento County, California. Sacramento County is bounded by Placer and Sutter counties to the north, San Joaquin County to the south, Yolo and Solano counties to the west, and El Dorado and Amador counties to the east. Sacramento County covers approximately 1,015 square miles of land, the majority of which consists of flat grassland and oak woodlands with foothill areas to the west and east of the County line. The land uses in the surrounding counties vary from flat agricultural lands in Yolo, Solano, and San Joaquin counties, to foothill areas in Sutter and Amador counties, and mountain terrains in Placer and El Dorado counties. See Figure 3-1, Regional Location, in Chapter 3, Project Description.

4.2.2 Regional Planning Considerations
Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Community Strategy
SACOG is responsible for the preparation of, and updates to, the MTP/SCS for the region and the corresponding Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (MTIP). The MTIP identifies short-term projects (seven-year horizon) in more detail. The 2020 MTP/SCS was adopted by the SACOG board on November 18, 2019. The MTP/SCS is a long-range plan for transportation improvements in the region and provides a 20-year transportation vision and a corresponding list of projects. The plan is based on projections for growth in population, housing, and jobs. SACOG determines the regional growth projections by evaluating baseline data (existing housing units and employees, jobs/housing ratio, and share of regional growth for housing units and employees), historic reference data (based on five- and ten-year residential building permit averages and historic county-level employment statistics), capacity data (General Plan data for each jurisdiction), and current MTIP data about assumptions used in the most recent MTP/SCS. SACOG staff then meets with each jurisdiction to discuss and incorporate more subjective considerations about planned growth for each area.

Finally, SACOG makes a regional growth forecast for new homes and new jobs based on an economic analysis ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

4. Environmental Setting

provided by a recognized expert to estimate regional growth potential based on market analysis and related economic data, which is incorporated into the MTP/SCS.

Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) The SMAQMD is the regional agency responsible for air quality regulation within Sacramento County. The agency regulates air quality through its planning and review activities and has permit authority over most types of stationary emission sources. SMAQMD can require operators of stationary sources to obtain permits, impose emission limits, set fuel or material specifications, and establish operational limits to reduce air emissions. The SMAQMD regulates new or modified stationary sources of criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants. All areas designated as nonattainment are required to prepare plans showing how the area would meet the air quality standards by its attainment dates. The following are the most recent air quality plans applicable to the area of the proposed project:
 Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan  SMAQMD’s Triennial Report and Air Quality Plan Revision  PM10 Implementation/Maintenance Plan and Redesignation Request for Sacramento County  PM2.5 Maintenance Plan and Redesignation Request
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Legislation
Current State of California guidance and goals for reductions in GHG emissions are generally embodied in a number of State regulations. Executive Order S-03-05, signed June 1, 2005, set the following GHG reduction goals for the State of California:
 2000 levels by 2010
 1990 levels by 2020
 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050
AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act (2006), was passed by the State legislature on August 31, 2006, to place the state on a course toward reducing its contribution of GHG emissions. AB 32 established a legislative target for the year 2020 goal outlined in Executive Order S-03-05. CARB prepared its first Scoping Plan in 2008 that outlined the State’s plan for achieving the 2020 targets of AB 32.

In 2008, SB 375 was adopted to connect passenger-vehicle GHG emissions reduction targets for the transportation sector to local land use decisions that affect travel behavior. Its intent is to reduce GHG emissions from light-duty trucks and automobiles by aligning regional long-range transportation plans, investments, and housing allocations to local land use planning to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and vehicle trips.

In September 2016, Governor Brown signed SB 32, making the Executive Order B-15-30 goal for the year 2030 of a 40 percent reduction below 1990 levels by 2030 into a statewide-mandated legislative target. CARB issued an update to its Scoping Plan in 2017, with programs for meeting the SB 32 reduction target.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

C ITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

4. Environmental Setting
June 2024 Page 4-3
Executive Order B-55-18 sets a goal for the state to achieve carbon neutrality no later than 2045 and to achieve and maintain net negative emissions thereafter. SB 100 would help the state reach the goal set by Executive Order B-55-18 by requiring that the state’s electricity suppliers have a source mix that consists of at least 60 percent renewable/zero carbon sources in 2030 and 100 renewable/zero carbon sources in 2045.

Senate Bill 743
On September 27, 2013, SB 743 was signed into law and started a process that has fundamentally changed transportation impact analysis for CEQA compliance. With the adoption of SB 375, the state signaled its commitment to encourage land use and transportation planning decisions and investments that reduce VMT and contribute to the reduction of GHG emissions, as required by the California Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32).

SB 743 generally eliminates auto delay, level of service, and other similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion as the basis for determining significant impacts under CEQA. Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines, the new criteria “shall promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses” (Public Resources Code § 21099[b][1]).

Pursuant to SB 743, the Natural Resources Agency adopted revisions to the CEQA Guidelines to implement SB 743 on December 28, 2018. Under the new guidelines, VMT-related metric(s) that evaluate the significance of transportation-related impacts under CEQA for development projects, land use plans, and transportation infrastructure projects, were required beginning July 1, 2020. The legislation does not preclude the application of local general plan policies, zoning codes, conditions of approval, or any other planning requirements for evaluation of the level of service, but these metrics can no longer be the basis for determining transportation impacts under CEQA.

Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins (Basin Plan) The Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) adopted the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins (Basin Plan) in 1975, and the most recent edition reflects amendments through May 2018. The purpose of the Basin Plan is to designate beneficial uses of waters within the Sacramento and San Joaquin River basins, establish water quality objectives to protect those beneficial uses and implement a program needed to achieve those objectives. The Basin Plan establishes water quality standards for both surface and ground waters.

The Basin Plan includes an implementation plan describing the actions by the RWQCB and others that are necessary to achieve and maintain water quality standards. The RWQCB regulates waste discharges to minimize and control their effects on the quality of the region’s ground and surface water. Permits are issued under a number of programs and authorities. The terms and conditions of these discharge permits are enforced through a variety of technical, administrative, and legal means. Water quality problems in the region are listed in the Basin Plan, along with the causes, where known. For water bodies with quality below the levels necessary to allow all the beneficial uses of the water to be met, plans for improving water quality are included. The Basin Plan reflects, incorporates, and implements applicable portions of a number of national and statewide water quality plans and policies, including the California Water Code and the Clean Water Act.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

4. Environmental Setting

4.3 LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

4.3.1 Location and Land Use
Project Location
The 9.85-acre project site encompasses the following Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs): 076-0020-019, -20, -21, -22. The project site is at the corner of Folsom Boulevard and La Loma Drive in the City of Rancho Cordova, Sacramento County. The City of Rancho Cordova is surrounded by unincorporated Sacramento County to the north, south, east, and west (see Figure 3-1, Regional Location).

The site is approximately 0.48 miles north of US Route 50 (US-50) and approximately 115 feet north of the Sacramento Regional Transit District’s (SacRT) Mather Field Mills light rail station on the SacRT Gold Line.

Primary access to the site is via Folsom Boulevard and La Loma Drive.

Existing Land Use
The project site is vacant and includes grassy and paved areas. This includes a parking area in the western portion of the property and a landscaped area in the eastern portion. According to the City’s directory, the site was previously developed with commercial and retail properties; however, all structures have since been demolished. The project site is surrounded by residential uses to the north, residential uses and Folsom Lake College/Rancho Cordova Center to the east, light industrial uses and the Mather Field Mills Light Rail station to the south, and commercial and residential uses to the west. Figure 3-2, Aerial Photograph, shows the project site in its local context.

4.3.2 Environmental Resources and Infrastructure
Aesthetics
The project site is currently vacant with a residual parking lot and associated concrete roads covering a large portion of the site. The project site is approximately 0.76 mile southeast of the American River; no other scenic features exist near the project site.

Biological Resources
The project site is situated on leveled flat terrain with elevations ranging from 77 to 82 feet above sea level. The project site includes the previously developed area and surrounding ruderal grassland. No buildings are on-site, but foundations and paved areas remain. A few scattered trees are found in weedy patches around the perimeter.

Refer to Section 5.2, Biological Resources, for a detailed analysis of the existing street network and the Specific Plan’s impacts on biological resources.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

C ITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

4. Environmental Setting
June 2024 Page 4-5
Air Quality
The project site is in the Sacramento Valley Air Basin (SVAB), which includes the counties of Butte, Colusa, Glenn, Placer, Sacramento, Shasta, Solano, Sutter, Tehama, Yolo, and Yuba. Ozone, respirable particulate matter (PM10), and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) are the criteria air pollutants of primary concern in this analysis because of their nonattainment status with respect to the applicable National ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) and California ambient air quality standards (CAAQS) in the SVAB.

Cultural Resources
The project site is currently vacant and is not listed as a state or national historic resource. Refer to Section 5.3, Cultural Resources, for more information on historical, archaeological, and paleontological resources.

Geology and Landform
The project site is in the Great Valley geomorphic province of California. The geology of the Great Valley (Valley) is characterized by thick, Jurassic- through Holocene-aged sedimentary deposits. The California Geological Survey (CGS) and the United States Geological Survey (USGS) have mapped a large portion of the valley as being underlain by Quaternary-aged Riverbank formation. The geological formations underlying the project site consist mostly of Cenozoic Quaternary gravelly alluvial and glacial deposits from the ancestral channel of the American River, which date back to the mid-Pleistocene age or approximately 600,000 years.

Hydrology
As shown on Figure 3-2, Aerial Photograph, the project site is vacant and largely consists of concrete hardscape and unmaintained grass. Though the site is nearly flat, the northwestern portion of the site is several feet above grade at La Loma Drive. The southwestern portion of the site slopes down southwest. Under existing conditions, stormwater is carried through the site’s natural drainage via sheet flow to the southern portion of the site. Additionally, existing storm drains and curb-and-gutter improvements are along La Loma Drive and Folsom Boulevard.

Noise
The noise environment surrounding the project site consists primarily of traffic on surrounding roadways, including Folsom Boulevard and La Loma Drive. Noise associated with the light rail operations can also be heard from the project site. Refer to Section 5.9, Noise, of the DEIR, for additional information concerning the existing noise environment.

Public Services and Utilities
The Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District (SMFD) provides fire protection services, fire suppression, inspection, plan checking, emergency transportation and medical services, public education, advanced life support, and rescue services to the City of Rancho Cordova, including the project site. SMFD station 61 is located approximately 0.97-mile east of the project site. The City of Rancho Cordova Police Department (RCPD) is contracted through the Sacramento County Sheriff ’s Department (SCSD) Patrol Services. Patrol ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

4. Environmental Setting

Services operate the SCSD towing and parking enforcement, community resources and service centers, emergency operations, and specialized patrol units. The project site would be served by the Folsom Cordova Unified School District and in the attendance area of Cordova Meadows Elementary School, which is 0.31 mile north of the project site; Mills Middle School, which is approximately 0.8 mile northeast of the project site; and Cordova High School, which is 0.92 mile northeast of the project site. Refer to Section 5.11, Public Services, of the DEIR, for additional information concerning the existing public services.

Sanitary sewer service for the proposed project would be provided by the Sacramento Area Sewer District (SASD) and the Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District (Regional San). SASD operates and maintains the laterals and mainline pipes for wastewater conveyance and collection from the source to the Regional San interceptors. The project site is within the Suburban-Rosemont Public Water System service area which covers a portion of eastern Rancho Cordova along the American River. For stormwater drainage, the City’s Stormwater Division protects these waterways by preventing pollutants from entering the drainage system. Republic Services Inc. currently provides solid waste and recycling collection services to the City. Solid waste is transported to Forward Landfill in Manteca California. Refer to Section 5.14, Utilities and Service Systems, for additional information concerning the existing wastewater treatment and collection systems, water supply and distribution systems, storm drainage, and solid waste collection and disposal.

Transportation
Regional access to the project site is provided by US-50, which is 0.48 mile south of the site. The City is also regionally connected by the SacRT’s light rail system, which connects Rancho Cordova to Sacramento and Folsom via the Gold Line. The Mather Field Mills light rail stop is south of the project site across Folsom Boulevard.

4.3.3 General Plan and Zoning
The project site is zoned Residential Mixed-Use (RMU) under the Folsom Boulevard Specific Plan (FBSP). The FBSP RMU Zoning District is intended to designate property for the development of medium- and highdensity housing (between 6.1 and 40 dwelling units per acre) that may incorporate office and/or commercial services. While the predominant use of the development is residential, the City encourages the vertical and/or horizontal integration of commercial and/or office uses that are compatible with the residential development.

The project site has a land use designation of Residential Mixed-Use (FB-RMU).

4.4 ASSUMPTIONS REGARDING CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines states that cumulative impacts shall be discussed where they are significant. It further states that this discussion shall reflect the level and severity of the impact and the likelihood of occurrence, but not in as great a level of detail as that necessary for the project alone. Section 15355 of the Guidelines defines cumulative impacts as “…two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts.” Cumulative impacts represent the change caused by the incremental impact of a project when added to other proposed or committed projects in the vicinity.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

C ITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

4. Environmental Setting
June 2024 Page 4-7
The CEQA Guidelines (Section 15130 [b][1]) state that the information utilized in an analysis of cumulative impacts should come from one of two sources:

A. A list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related cumulative impacts, including, if necessary, those projects outside the control of the agency; or B. A summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning document designed to evaluate regional or area-wide conditions.

Depending on the environmental category, the cumulative impact analysis may use either source A or B. Some impacts are site-specific, such as cultural resources and geology and soils, and others may have impacts outside the City boundaries, such as regional air quality. Generally, the growth projections that are identified in the City of Rancho Cordova General Plan have been utilized for the general plan forecast year conditions. Table 4-1, Related Cumulative Projects in the City of Rancho Cordova, provides a list of cumulative projects in the city.

Table 4-1 Related Cumulative Projects in the City of Rancho Cordova Project/Applicant Name Location Project Type/Size
City of Ranch Cordova
Rio Del Oro
Specific Pan Northeast of Sunrise Boulevard and Douglas Road Variety of housing types and styles; 12,189 units Montelena Southwest corner of Douglas Road and Rancho
Cordova Parkway Single-family detached housings; 806 units Anatolia IV Southwest corner of Chrysanthy Boulevard and Rancho Cordova Parkway Single-family detached housings; 139 units North Douglas The northeast corner of Douglas Road and Americanos Boulevard Single-family detached housings; 686 units
Arista Del Sol West of Grantline Road, 1 mile south of Douglas Road Single-family detached housings; 389 units Sunridge Lot J Southeast corner of Douglas Road and Rancho Cordova Parkway Single-family detached housings; 740 units Sundance West of Sunrise Boulevard, approximately a 1/4 mile south of Douglas Road Townhomes; 129 units
Grantline 208 South of Douglas Road and east of Rancho Cordova Parkway Single-family detached housings; 502 units
Douglas 103 The southeast corner of Douglas Road and
Borderlands Drive Single-family detached housings; 198 units Douglas 98 Southwest corner of Douglas Road and Grantline Road Single-family detached housings; 528 units The Ranch East of Rancho Cordova Parkway, approximately 1/2 mile south of Douglas Road
Single Family Detached (Traditional and Active Adult);
1,329 units
Callahan East of Rancho Cordova Parkway and south of North Campus Road Variety of housing types and styles; 553 units Gilmartin/Trevor East of Rancho Cordova Parkway and north of Kiefer Boulevard Variety of housing types and styles; 1,043 units Shalako East of Sunrise Boulevard and south of Kiefer
Boulevard Variety of housing types and styles; 1,050 units Grantline 220 West of Grant Line Road and south of Chrysanthy Boulevard Variety of housing types and styles; 910 units I I
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

4. Environmental Setting

Table 4-1 Related Cumulative Projects in the City of Rancho Cordova Project/Applicant Name Location Project Type/Size
Sierra Sunrise East of Americanos Boulevard and south of North Campus Road Variety of housing types and styles; 1,046 units Westborough
Specific Plan
South of Folsom Boulevard and east of Folsom South
Canal Variety of housing types and styles; 3,898 units
Source: Rancho Cordova 2023.

Cumulative impact analyses for several topical sections are also based on the most appropriate geographic boundary for the respective impact. Several potential cumulative impacts that encompass regional boundaries (e.g., air quality and traffic) have been addressed in the context of various regional plans and defined significance thresholds. Climate change is a global issue, and the cumulative impacts analysis has been addressed in the context of state regulations and regional plans designed to address the global cumulative impact. The following is a summary of the approach and extent of cumulative impacts, which are further detailed in each environmental topical section:
 Air Quality. Air quality impacts include regional (cumulative) impacts and localized impacts. For cumulative impacts, the analysis is based on the regional boundaries of the SVAB.  Energy. While energy impacts are site-specific, they contribute to the consumption and demand for energy in the region and are compared to regional totals.
 Greenhouse Gas Emissions. GHG emissions impacts are not site-specific impacts but cumulative impacts. Therefore, the project-level analysis in Section 5.5 also provides the analysis to determine whether the project would make a cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative GHG emissions impact.
 Noise. Cumulative traffic noise impacts are based on the traffic study, which considers the regional growth based on citywide and regional projections. Cumulative construction impacts are based on nearby projects that may have concurrent construction schedules. Cumulative operational impacts are based on existing development combined with the project and reasonably foreseeable nearby future development.  Population and Housing. Cumulative impacts are based on regional demographic projections in regional plans (e.g., SACOGs MTP/SCS).

4.5 REFERENCES
Rancho Cordova, City of. 2023, February 21 (accessed). Major Development and Projects. https://www.cityofranchocordova.org/departments/community-development/planning/major -developments-and-projects.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

June 2024 Page 5-1

5. Environmental Analysis
Chapter 5 examines the environmental setting of the proposed project, analyzes its effects and the significance of its impacts, and recommends mitigation measures to reduce or avoid impacts. This chapter has a separate section for each environmental issue area that was determined to need further study in the DEIR. This scope was determined in the notice of preparation (NOP), which was published January 6, 2023 (see Appendix 2-1), and through public and agency comments received during the NOP comment period from January 6, 2023, through February 6, 2023 (see Appendix 2-1). Environmental issues and their corresponding sections are:
 5.1 Air Quality
 5.2 Biological Resources
 5.3 Cultural Resources
 5.4 Energy
 5.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
 5.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
 5.7 Land Use and Planning
 5.8 Mineral Resources
 5.9 Noise
 5.10 Population and Housing
 5.11 Public Services and Recreation
 5.12 Recreation
 5.13 Tribal Cultural Resources
 5.14 Utilities and Service Systems
Sections 5.1 through 5.14 provide a detailed discussion of the environmental setting, impacts associated with the proposed project, and mitigation measures designed to reduce significant impacts where required and when feasible. The residual impacts following the implementation of any mitigation measure are also discussed. The DEIR has determined that there would be no significant and unavoidable impacts from the implementation of the proposed project.

Organization of Environmental Analysis
To assist the reader with comparing information between environmental issues, each section is organized under ten major headings:
 Environmental Setting
 Thresholds of Significance
 Environmental Impacts
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

5. Environmental Analysis

 Plans, Programs, and Policies
 Cumulative Impacts
 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions
 Level of Significance Before Mitigation
 Mitigation Measures
 Level of Significance After Mitigation
 References
In addition, Chapter 1, Executive Summary, has a table that summarizes all impacts by environmental issue.

Terminology Used in This Draft EIR
The level of significance is identified for each impact in this DEIR. Although the criteria for determining significance are different for each topic area, the environmental analysis applies a uniform classification of the impacts based on definitions consistent with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines:
 No impact. The project would not change the environment.  Less than significant. The project would not cause any substantial, adverse change in the environment.  Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The DEIR includes mitigation measures that avoid substantial adverse impacts on the environment.
 Significant and unavoidable. The project would cause a substantial adverse effect on the environment, and no feasible mitigation measures are available to reduce the impact to a less than significant level.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

5. Environmental Analysis
June 2024 Page 5.1-1

5.1 AIR QUALITY
This section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) evaluates the potential for the Mills Crossing Project (proposed project) to impact air quality in a local and regional context. This evaluation is based on the methodology recommended by the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD).

The analysis focuses on air pollution from regional emissions and localized pollutant concentrations. In this section, “emissions” refers to the actual quantity of pollutant, measured in pounds per day (lbs/day), and “concentrations” refers to the amount of pollutant material per volumetric unit of air. Concentrations are measured in parts per million (ppm), parts per billion (ppb), or micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3).

The analysis in this section is based in part on the following technical report(s):
 Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment: Mills Crossing, ECORP Consulting, Inc., June 2023 A complete copy of this study is included in the technical appendices to this Draft SEIR (Appendix 5.1-1).

5.1.1 Environmental Setting

5.1.1.1 AIR POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN
Criteria air pollutants are defined as those pollutants for which the federal and state governments have established air quality standards for outdoor or ambient concentrations to protect public health with a determined margin of safety. Ozone (O3), coarse particulate matter (PM10), and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) are generally considered to be regional pollutants because they or their precursors affect air quality on a regional scale. Pollutants such as carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and sulfur dioxide (SO2) are considered to be local pollutants because they tend to accumulate in the air locally. PM is also considered a local pollutant. Health effects commonly associated with criteria pollutants are summarized in Table 5.1-1, Criteria Air Pollutants- Summary of Common Sources and Effects.

Table 5.1-1 Criteria Air Pollutants- Summary of Common Sources and Effects Pollutant Major Man-Made Sources Human Health and Welfare Effects CO An odorless, colorless gas formed when carbon in fuel is not burned completely; a component of motor vehicle
exhaust.

Reduces the ability of blood to deliver oxygen to vital tissues, affecting the cardiovascular and nervous system. Impairs vision, causes dizziness, and can lead to unconsciousness or death.

Causes brown discoloration of the atmosphere.

NO2 A reddish-brown gas formed during fuel combustion for motor vehicles, energy utilities and industrial sources.

Respiratory irritant; aggravates lung and heart problems. Precursor to ozone and acid rain.

O3 Formed by a chemical reaction between reactive
organic gases (ROGs) and nitrous oxides (N2O) in the
presence of sunlight. Common sources of these
precursor pollutants include motor vehicle exhaust,
industrial emissions, solvents, paints and landfills.

Irritates and causes inflammation of the mucous membranes and lung airways; causes wheezing, coughing and pain when inhaling deeply; decreases lung capacity; aggravates lung and heart problems. Damages plants; reduces crop yield.

PM10 &
PM2.5
Power plants, steel mills, chemical plants, unpaved
roads and parking lots, wood- burning stoves and
fireplaces, automobiles and others.

Increased respiratory symptoms, such as irritation of the airways, coughing, or difficulty breathing; aggravated asthma; development of chronic bronchitis; irregular heartbeat; nonfatal heart attacks; and premature death in people with heart or lung disease. Impairs visibility (haze).

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

5. Environmental Analysis

AIR QUALITY

Table 5.1-1 Criteria Air Pollutants- Summary of Common Sources and Effects SO2 A colorless, nonflammable gas formed when fuel
containing sulfur is burned. Examples are refineries,
cement manufacturing, and locomotives.

Respiratory irritant. Aggravates lung and heart problems. Can damage crops and natural vegetation. Impairs visibility.

Source: ECORP 2023 (Appendix 5.1-1).

Carbon Monoxide
CO in the urban environment is associated primarily with the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels in motor vehicles. CO combines with hemoglobin in the bloodstream and reduces the amount of oxygen that can be circulated through the body. High CO concentrations can cause headaches, aggravate cardiovascular disease, and impair central nervous system functions. CO concentrations can vary greatly over comparatively short distances. Relatively high concentrations of CO are typically found near crowded intersections and along heavy roadways with slow moving traffic. Even under the most severe meteorological and traffic conditions, high concentrations of CO are limited to locations within relatively short distances of the source. Overall CO emissions are decreasing as a result of the Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program, which has mandated increasingly lower emission levels for vehicles manufactured since 1973. CO levels in the Sacramento Valley Air Basin (SVAB) follow the state and federal one- and eight-hour standards.

Nitrogen Oxides
Nitrogen gas comprises about 80 percent of the air and is naturally occurring. At high temperatures and under certain conditions, nitrogen can combine with oxygen to form several different gaseous compounds collectively called nitric oxides (NOX). Motor vehicle emissions are the main source of NOX in urban areas. NOX is very toxic to animals and humans because of its ability to form nitric acid with water in the eyes, lungs, mucus membrane, and skin. In animals, long-term exposure to NOX increases susceptibility to respiratory infections, and lowering resistance to such diseases as pneumonia and influenza. Laboratory studies show that susceptible humans, such as asthmatics, who are exposed to high concentrations can suffer from lung irritation or possible lung damage. Precursors of NOX such as NO and NO2, are attributed to the formation of O3 and PM2.5.

Epidemiological studies have also shown associations between NO2 concentrations and daily mortality from respiratory and cardiovascular causes and with hospital admissions for respiratory conditions.

Ozone
O3 is a secondary pollutant, meaning it is not directly emitted. It is formed when volatile organic compounds (VOCs) or reactive organic gases (ROGs) and NOX undergo photochemical reactions that occur only in the presence of sunlight. The primary source of ROG emissions is unburned hydrocarbons in motor vehicles and other internal combustion engine exhaust. NOX forms as a result of the combustion process, most notably due to the operation of motor vehicles. Sunlight and hot weather cause ground-level O3 to form. Ground-level O3 is the primary constituent of smog. Because O3 formation occurs over extended periods of time, both O3 and its precursors are transported by wind and high O3 concentrations can occur in areas well away from sources of its constituent pollutants.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

5. Environmental Analysis

AIR QUALITY
June 2024 Page 5.1-3
People with lung disease, children, older adults, and people who are active can be affected when O3 levels exceed ambient air quality standards. Numerous scientific studies have linked ground-level O3 exposure to a variety of problems including lung irritation, difficult breathing, permanent lung damage to those with repeated exposure, and respiratory illnesses.

Particulate Matter
PM includes both aerosols and solid particulates of a wide range of sizes and composition. Of concern are those particles smaller than or equal to 10 microns in diameter size (PM10) and smaller than or equal to 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5). Smaller particulates are of greater concern because they can penetrate deeper into the lungs than larger particles. PM10 is generally emitted directly as a result of mechanical processes that crush or grind larger particles or form the resuspension of dust, typically through construction activities and vehicular travel. PM10 generally settles out of the atmosphere rapidly and is not readily transported over large distances.

PM2.5 is directly emitted in combustion exhaust and is formed in atmospheric reactions between various gaseous pollutants, including NOX, sulfur oxides (SOX) and VOCs. PM2.5 can remain suspended in the atmosphere for days and/or weeks and can be transported long distances.

The principal health effects of airborne PM are on the respiratory system. Short-term exposure of high PM2.5 and PM10 levels are associated with premature mortality and increased hospital admissions and emergency room visits. Long-term exposure is associated with premature mortality and chronic respiratory disease.

According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), some people are much more sensitive than others to breathing PM10 and PM2.5. People with influenza, chronic respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, and the elderly may suffer worse illnesses; people with bronchitis can expect aggravated symptoms; and children may experience decline in lung function due to breathing in PM10 and PM2.5. Other groups considered sensitive include smokers and people who cannot breathe well through their noses. Exercising athletes are also considered sensitive because many breathe through their mouths.

Sulfur Dioxide
SO2 is produced by the combustion of sulfur-containing fuels, such as oil, coal, and diesel. SO2 is a colorless gas with a strong odor. Like nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide can irritate lung tissue and increase the risk of acute and chronic respiratory disease. Sulfur oxides also contribute to particulate matter formation (SACAQMD 2020). SO2 is also generated by natural sources, such as volcanoes, and deposition in the environment contributes to soil and surface water acidification and acid rain (CAPCOA 2021).

Toxic Air Contaminants
In addition to the criteria pollutants discussed above, toxic air contaminants (TACs) are another group of pollutants of concern. TACs are considered either carcinogenic or noncarcinogenic based on the nature of the health effects associatedwith exposure to the pollutant.For regulatory purposes, carcinogenic TACs are assumed to have no safe threshold below which health impacts would not occur, and cancer risk is expressed as excess cancer cases per one million exposed individuals. Noncarcinogenic TACs differ in that there is generally assumed to be a safe level of exposure below which no negative health impact is believed to occur. These levels are determined on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

5. Environmental Analysis

AIR QUALITY

There are many different types of TACs, with varying degrees of toxicity. Sources of TACs include industrial processes such as petroleum refining and chrome plating operations, commercial operations such as gasoline stations and dry cleaners, and motor vehicle exhaust. Public exposure to TACs can result from emissions from normal operations, as well as from accidental releases of hazardous materials during upset conditions. The health effects of TACs include cancer, birth defects, neurological damage, and death.

Most recently, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) identified diesel particulate matter (DPM) as a TAC.

DPM differs from other TACs in that it is not a single substance but rather a complex mixture of hundreds of substances. Diesel exhaust is a complex mixture of particles and gases produced when an engine burns diesel fuel. DPM is a concern because it causes lung cancer; many compounds found in diesel exhaust are carcinogenic. DPM includes the particle-phase constituents in diesel exhaust. The chemical composition and particle sizes of DPM vary between different engine types (heavy-duty, light-duty), engine operating conditions (idle, accelerate, decelerate), fuel formulations (high/low sulfur fuel), and the year of the engine. Some shortterm (acute) effects of diesel exhaust include eye, nose, throat, and lung irritation, and diesel exhaust can cause coughs, headaches, light-headedness, and nausea. DPM poses the greatest health risk among the TACs; due to their extremely small size, these particles can be inhaled and eventually trapped in the bronchial and alveolar regions of the lung.

5.1.1.2 REGULATORY BACKGROUND
Federal Regulations
Clean Air Act
The Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1970 and the CAA Amendments of 1971 required the EPA to establish the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), with states retaining the option to adopt more stringent standards or to include other specific pollutants.

These standards are the levels of air quality considered safe, with an adequate margin of safety to protect public health and welfare. They are designed to protect those “sensitive receptors” most susceptible to further respiratory distress such as asthmatics, the elderly, very young children, people already weakened by other disease or illness, and persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise. Healthy adults can tolerate occasional exposure to air pollutant concentrations considerably above these minimum standards before adverse effects are observed.

The EPA has classified air basins (or portions thereof) as being in attainment, nonattainment, or unclassified for each criteria air pollutant, based on whether or not the NAAQS have been achieved. If an area is designated unclassified, it is because inadequate air quality data were available as a basis for a nonattainment or attainment designation. (Table 5.1-3 lists the federal attainment status of the SVAB for the criteria pollutants.) State
California Clean Air Act
The California Clean Air Act (CCAA) allows the State to adopt ambient air quality standards and other regulations provided that they are at least as stringent as federal standards. CARB, a part of the California ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

5. Environmental Analysis

AIR QUALITY
June 2024 Page 5.1-5
Environmental Protection Agency, is responsible for the coordination and administration of both federal and state air pollution control programs within California, including setting the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). CARB also conducts research, compiles emission inventories, develops suggested control measures, and provides oversight of local programs. CARB establishes emissions standards for motor vehicles sold in California, consumer products (such as hairspray, aerosol paints, and barbecue lighter fluid), and various types of commercial equipment. It also sets fuel specifications to further reduce vehicular emissions. CARB also has primary responsibility for the development of California’s State Implementation Plan (SIP), for which it works closely with the federal government and the local air districts.

California State Implementation Plan
The federal CAA (and its subsequent amendments) requires each state to prepare an air quality control plan referred to as the SIP. The SIP is a living document that is periodically modified to reflect the latest emissions inventories, plans, and rules and regulations of air basins as reported by the agencies with jurisdiction over them. The CAA Amendments dictate that states containing areas violating the NAAQS revise their SIPs to include extra control measures to reduce air pollution. The SIP includes strategies and control measures to attain the NAAQS by deadlines established by the CAA. The EPA has the responsibility to review all SIPs to determine if they conform to the requirements of the CAA.

State law makes CARB the lead agency for all purposes related to the SIP. Local air districts and other agencies prepare SIP elements and submit them to CARB for review and approval. CARB then forwards SIP revisions to the EPA for approval and publication in the Federal Register. To comply with California law, the SMAQMD has rolled out a series of air quality plans and reports that constitute the SIP for the Sacramento County portion of the SVAB. The most recent report, the 2021 Sacramento County Second 10-Year PM10 Maintenance Plan, is a comprehensive strategy to update emission inventories, demonstrates maintenance efforts and updated control measures, and establishes new motor vehicle emission budgets. Additional plans include the SMAQMD 2017 Sacramento Regional 2008 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan (including 2018 updates) and the PM2.5 Implementation/Maintenance Plan and Re-designation Request for Sacramento PM2.5 Nonattainment Area (2013).

These air quality planning documents present comprehensive strategies to reduce the O3 precursor pollutants (ROG and NOX) as well as PM emissions from stationary, area, mobile, and indirect sources.

Tanner Air Toxics Act and Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Information and Assessment Act CARB’s statewide comprehensive air toxics program was established in 1983 with Assembly Bill (AB) 1807, the Toxic Air Contaminant Identification and Control Act (Tanner Air Toxics Act of 1983). AB 1807 created California's program to reduce exposure to air toxics and sets forth a formal procedure for CARB to designate substances as TACs. Once a TAC is identified, CARB adopts an airborne toxics control measure for sources that emit designated TACs. If there is a safe threshold for a substance at which there is no toxic effect, the control measure must reduce exposure to below that threshold. If there is no safe threshold, the measure must incorporate toxics best available control technology to minimize emissions.

CARB also administers the State’s mobile source emissions control program and oversees air quality programs established by state statute, such as AB 2588, the Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Information and Assessment Act of 1987. Under AB 2588, TAC emissions from individual facilities are quantified and prioritized by the air quality ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

5. Environmental Analysis

AIR QUALITY

management district or air pollution control district. High priority facilities are required to perform a health risk assessment and, if specific thresholds are exceeded, required to communicate the results to the public in the form of notices and public meetings. In September 1992, the "Hot Spots" Act was amended by Senate Bill (SB) 1731, which required facilities that pose a significant health risk to the community to reduce their risk through a risk management plan.

Regional Regulations
Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District The SMAQMD is the air pollution control agency for Sacramento County, including the project site. The agency’s primary responsibility is ensuring that the NAAQS and CAAQS are attained and maintained in the Sacramento County portion of the SVAB. The SMAQMD coordinates the work of government agencies, businesses, and private citizens to achieve and maintain healthy air quality for the Sacramento area. The SMAQMD develops market-based programs to reduce emissions associated with mobile sources, processes permits, ensures compliance with permit conditions and with SMAQMD rules and regulations, and conducts long-term planning related to air quality. The SMAQMD is also responsible for adopting and enforcing rules and regulations concerning air pollutant sources, issuing permits for stationary sources of air pollutants, inspecting stationary sources of air pollutants, responding to citizen complaints, monitoring ambient air quality and meteorological conditions, awarding grants to reduce motor vehicle emissions, and conducting public education campaigns, as well as many other activities.

The following is a list of noteworthy SMAQMD rules that are required of construction activities associated with the proposed project:
 Rule 201: General Permit Requirements. Any proposed project that includes the use of equipment capable of releasing emissions into the atmosphere may require permit(s) from SMAQMD prior to equipment operation.The applicant, developer, or operator of a proposed project that includes an emergency generator, boiler, or heater should contact the SMAQMD early to determine if a permit is required, and to begin the permit application process. Other general types of uses that require a permit include, but are not limited to, dry cleaners, gasoline stations, spray booths, and operations that generate airborne particulate emissions. Portable construction equipment (e.g., generators, compressors, pile drivers, lighting equipment, etc.) with an internal combustion engine over 50 horsepower is required to have a SMAQMD permit or a CARB portable equipment registration.
 Rule 402: Nuisance. The purpose of this rule is to limit emissions which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause or have natural tendency to cause injury or damage to business or property.
 Rule 403: Fugitive Dust. The purpose of this rule is to require that reasonable precautions be taken so as not to cause or allow the emissions of fugitive dust from non-combustion sources from being airborne beyond the property line from which the emission originates.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

5. Environmental Analysis

AIR QUALITY
June 2024 Page 5.1-7
 Rule 442: Architectural Coatings. The purpose of this rule is to limit the emissions of volatile organic compounds from the use of architectural coatings supplied, sold, offered for sale, applied, solicited for application, or manufactured for use within the SMAQMD.

Local Regulations
City of Rancho Cordova General Plan
The existing General Plan Air Quality Element contains the following policies that address air quality  Policy AQ.1.2: Evaluate projects for compliance with State and federal ambient air quality standards and the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District’s (SMAQMD) thresholds of significance.  Policy AQ.2.1: Promote strategic land use patterns for businesses that reduce the number and length of motor vehicle trips and that encourage multiple forms of transportation for employees and patrons.  Policy AQ.2.2: Encourage mixed-use developments that put residences in close proximity to services, employment, transit, schools, and civic facilities/services.  Policy AQ.2.3: Encourage infill development as a way to reduce vehicle trips and improve air quality.  Policy AQ.2.5: Utilize the guidelines in the California Air Resources Control Board Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective when evaluating new development requests that either would generate toxic air contaminant emissions near sensitive receptors or locate new sensitive receptors near existing sources of air toxic emissions or order to minimize health hazards, and implement all feasible best available control technology, as required by SMAQMD.

5.1.1.3 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Sacramento Valley Air Basin
CARB divides the state into air basins that share similar meteorological and topographical features. The project site lies in the SVAB, which comprises all of Butte, Colusa, Sacramento, Shasta, Sutter, Tehama, Yolo, and Yuba counties and parts of Solano and Placer Counties. The air basin is relatively flat, bordered by mountains to the east, west, and north and by the San Joaquin Valley to the south. Air flows into the SVAB through the Carquinez Strait, moving across the Sacramento Delta, and bringing pollutants from the heavily populated San Francisco Bay Area. The climate is characterized by hot, dry summers and cool, rainy winters. Characteristic of SVAB winter weather are periods of dense and persistent low-level fog, which are most prevalent between storm systems. From May to October, the region’s intense heat and sunlight lead to high ozone pollutant concentrations. Summer inversions are strong and frequent but are less troublesome than those that occur in the fall. Autumn inversions, formed by warm air subsiding in a region of high pressure, have accompanying light winds that do not provide adequate dispersion of air pollutants.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

5. Environmental Analysis

AIR QUALITY

Meteorological Influences on Air Quality
Regional flow patterns affect air quality patterns by directing pollutants downwind of sources. Localized meteorological conditions, such as moderate winds, disperse pollutants and reduce pollutant concentrations.

However, the mountains surrounding the SVAB can create a barrier to airflow, which can trap air pollutants in the valley when meteorological conditions are right, and a temperature inversion exists. The highest frequency of air stagnation occurs in the autumn and early winter when large high-pressure cells lie over the valley. The lack of surface wind during these periods and the reduced vertical air flow caused by less surface heating reduces the influx of outside air and allows air pollutants to become concentrated in a stable volume of air. The surface concentrations of pollutants are highest when these conditions are combined with smoke from agricultural burning or when temperature inversions trap cool air, fog, and pollutants near the ground.

The ozone season (May through October) in the valley is characterized by stagnant morning air or light winds, with the delta sea breeze arriving in the afternoon out of the southwest. Usually, the evening breeze transports the airborne pollutants to the north out of the valley. During about half of the days from July to September, however, a phenomenon called the Schultz Eddy prevents this from occurring. Instead of allowing the prevailing wind patterns to move north and carry the pollutants out of the valley, the Schultz Eddy causes the wind pattern to circle back south. This phenomenon exacerbates the pollution levels in the area and increases the likelihood of exceeding federal or state standards.

Ambient Air Quality
Ambient air quality at the project site can be inferred from ambient air quality measurements conducted at nearby air quality monitoring stations. The California Ambient Air Monitoring Network consists of more than 250 monitoring stations operated by federal, State, and local agencies (CARB 2023). O3, PM10, and PM2.5 are the pollutant species most potently affecting the project site’s region. The region is designated as a nonattainment area for the federal O3 and PM2.5 standards and is also a nonattainment area for the state standards for O3 and PM10. The Sacramento-Branch Center #2 air monitoring station (3847 Branch Center Road, Sacramento), located approximately 2.7 miles southwest of the project site, monitors ambient concentrations of PM10. The Sacramento-Del Paso Manor air monitoring station (2701 Avalon Drive, Sacramento), located approximately 3.5 miles northwest of the projectsite, monitors ambient concentrations of O3 and PM2.5. Ambient emissions concentrations vary due to localized variation in emissions sources and climate conditions, but the concentrations from this air quality monitoring station should be considered “generally” representative of ambient concentrations in the area.

Table 5.1-2, Summary of Ambient Air Quality Data, summarizes the published data concerning O3, PM2.5 and PM10 from the Sacramento-Branch Center #2 monitoring station and the Sacramento-Del Paso Manor monitoring station. O3, PM10, and PM2.5 are the pollutant species most potently affecting the region.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3