Rancho Cordova City Council
April 21, 2025

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

5. Environmental Analysis

TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES

5.13.3 Plans, Programs, and Policies
The 2006 General Plan Environmental Impact Report
The 2006 Rancho Cordova General Plan EIR does not discuss tribal cultural resources; however, the Impact

4.11.1 in the DEIR did determine implementation of the General Plan could result in the potential disturbance of cultural resources (i.e., prehistoric sites, historic sites, and isolated prehistoric/historic artifacts and features) and human remains. The implementation of General Plan policies and action items aims to reduce significant impacts on known and unknown cultural resources. However, it is uncertain whether all significant impacts can be avoided or mitigated. Therefore, the 2006 EIR concluded the impact would be significant and unavoidable due to uncertainty.

5.13.4 Environmental Impacts

5.13.4.1 METHODOLOGY
SB 18 and AB 52 Consultation
The 2006 General Plan was proposed prior to March 1, 2005, and is therefore not subject to SB 18. Regardless, the City of Rancho Cordova requested a sacred lands search of Native American contacts and SB 18 contacts from the NAHC for the project site. The sacred lands search did not identify any Native American cultural resources in or near the project site. All Native American groups or individuals identified by the NAHC were contacted, and tribes were asked to consult regarding the General Plan.

In accordance with AB 52 and SB 18, ECORP requested a Sacred Lands File and Native American Contact List Request search from NAHC on January 17, 2023. NAHC responded on February 27, 2023. The search of the Sacred Lands File from the NAHC resulted in a positive result for the presence of Native American Sacred Lands near the proposed project.

In accordance with SB 52, the City sent letters to the Ione Band of Miwok Indians, Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians, United Auburn Indian Community of the Auburn Rancheria, and Wilton Rancheria on January 10, 2023, notifying them of the proposed project and requesting comments or concerns for the project area.

The date that the 30-day window closed for the City’s response was February 16, 2023. Two tribes sent responses: Wilton Rancheria and the Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians.

In a letter dated March 13, 2023, the Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians requested consultation regarding the proposed project via email. The City’s response was sent via email offering to set up a consultation on March 20, 2023. The Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians have yet to respond to set up a meeting for consultation.

The Wilton Rancheria tribe reached out to the City via email on January 17, 2023. The City responded by email offering to set up a consultation on January 20, 2023. The tribe confirmed their availability on February 7, 2023, and confirmed the date and time on February 8, 2023. The City then sent a Zoom meeting invitation on February 8, 2023, for the consultation on February 15, 2023. During the consultation, the tribe shared the ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

5. Environmental Analysis

TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
June 2024 Page 5.13-9
history of tribal activity in the area and requested an on-site visit, review of the EIR cultural study, and on-site monitoring during trenching and site work.

The City sent letters to the tribes that were listed in their current internal list of tribes recently contacted for CEQA, planning, and project-related matters. The City of Rancho Cordova sent tribal letters before receiving the official tribal list from NAHC. The NAHC tribal list identified three new tribes not identified in the City’s internal tribal list, including Buena Vista Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians, Tsi Akim Maidu, and Colfax-Todds Valley Consolidated Tribe. The City sent letters notifying the three additional tribes of their opportunity for consultation, which were mailed on April 22, 2024. The City sent two letters to the Tsi Akim Maidu tribe at the address listed by the NAHC. Both letters were returned to the City undeliverable. No responses or requests for consultation were received from these additional tribes within 30 days of the letters’ send date of April 22, 2024. All tribes that needed to be contacted to request information and consultation received a letter.

The City has accepted all requests and is collaborating with Wilton Rancheria to have an on-site monitor present during soil remediation excavation work.

No other comments were received for the proposed project.

5.13.4.2 IMPACT ANALYSIS
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. [Thresholds TCR-1.i and TCR-1.ii] The proposed project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource that is 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. The 2006 General Plan EIR stated the Pacific Municipal Consultants conducted archaeological and historical investigations for the General Plan, including a records search at the NCIC, archival research at other repositories, and field investigation of the project site. The investigations identified 31 cultural resources or prehistoric/historic sites in the area, demonstrating the archaeological and historical sensitivity of the area. Impact 4.11.1 of the 2006 Rancho Cordova General Plan DEIR states that part of the project site has been subject to archaeological and historical investigations (as shown in Figure 4.11-1, Archaeological and Cultural Sensitivity Areas Within the General Plan Planning Area, of the 2006 Rancho Cordova General Plan EIR), but the entire area has not been subjected to investigation. Impact 4.11.1 notes the General Plan Roadway System Sizing Map is expected to significantly impact a historic resource site, potentially eligible under the National Register of Historic Places. The development under the Rancho Cordova General Plan could also negatively affect known cultural resources, undiscovered resources, and human remains. In addition, as shown in Figure 4.11-1 of the 2006 Rancho Cordova General Plan DEIR, the project site is not in an archaeologically sensitive area.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

5. Environmental Analysis

TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES

In addition, the lead agency must assess the significance of a tribal cultural resource to a California Native American tribe, following the criteria outlined in Public Resources Code Section 5024.1(c). The Public Resources Code Section 5024.1(c) states that a historical resource in the California Register can be listed if it meets the National Register of Historic Places criteria, such as being associated with significant events in California’s history and cultural heritage, representing important historical figures, embodying distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or containing high artistic values, and potentially yielding important information in prehistory or history. The City of Rancho Cordova adopts this definition as a guideline for identifying tribal cultural resources.

As shown in Table 5.13-1, of the six pre-contract and historic-era cultural resources, two are associated with Native American occupation – CA-SAC-157 and CA-SAC-233. CA-SAC-157 was recorded in 1949 as a habitation and burials, and CA-SAC-233 was recorded in 1958 as “other.” Both of these sites are not within the project site. Construction and operation would be contained to the project site; therefore, the proposed project would not result in significant impacts to these identified tribal resources.

ECORP notes that the project site sits on a terrace with approximately 50 percent of the ground surface covered with an asphalt paved lot and the remaining 50 percent of the ground surface was tall grass (Appendix

5.3-1). Additionally as mentioned in Chapter 3, Project Description, the project site has been graded, paved, and developed in the past and currently includes paved areas with patches of vegetated areas. Therefore, due to the previous ground-disturbing activities on-site, the likelihood of uncovering tribal cultural resources is low. No significant impacts on tribal cultural resources are expected to occur as a result of the proposed project.

Nonetheless, the City contacted Native American tribes pursuant to AB 52; the City consulted with the Wilton Rancheria who provided recommended mitigation measures for the project. As described in Section 5.13.1.2, Existing Conditions, Wilton Rancheria identified the possibility of tribal cultural resources in the project area. On February 15, 2023, the City consulted with Wilton Rancheria and they requested an on-site visit, review of the ECORP cultural study, and implementation of site monitoring in accordance with project mitigation. At the time of drafting this DEIR, the City and Wilton Rancheria site visit has not yet occurred.

Although the project site presents a low likelihood of uncovering tribal cultural resources due to previous ground-disturbing activities, this does not make it impossible. In addition, with the request of Wilton Rancheria to implement mitigation, the following mitigation measures would need to be followed by future developers/project applicants. This impact is determined to be potentially significant.

Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Impact 5.13-1 would be considered potentially significant.

Mitigation Measures
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 Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Tribal Contact list for the project area. A Native American monitor shall be retained by the lead agency or owner of the ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

5. Environmental Analysis

TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
June 2024 Page 5.13-11
project to be on-site to monitor all project-related, ground-disturbing construction activities (e.g., boring, grading, excavation, potholing, trenching). 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 shall only be present on-site during the construction phases that involve ground-disturbing activities. The tribal monitor/consultant shall complete daily monitoring logs that provide descriptions of the day’s activities, including construction activities, locations, soil, and any cultural materials identified. The on-site 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 resources are discovered during excavation 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 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]).

Level of Significance After Mitigation: Impact 5.13-1 would be considered less than significant with mitigation applied.

5.13.5 Cumulative Impacts
The Rancho Cordova General Plan EIR did not specifically analyze the potential impacts of tribal cultural resources; however, tribal cultural resource analysis may be relevant to the discussion of impacts on tribal cultural resources (i.e., prehistoric sites, historic sites, and isolated prehistoric/historic artifacts and features) and human remains. The Rancho Cordova General Plan EIR analyzed the cumulative impacts on cultural resources and human remains under Impact 4.11.3. Land uses associated with the buildout of Rancho Cordova would require considerable ground-disturbing activities. The General Plan EIR concluded implementation of the General Plan that impacts related to cultural resources and human remains would be cumulatively significant and unavoidable.

The project site is not determined to be in an archaeologically sensitive area (seen in Figure 4.11-1 of the 2006 Rancho Cordova General Plan EIR). Additionally, other projects in the city may have the potential to impact tribal cultural resources directly or indirectly through ground-disturbing activities during development. Other projects would be required to adhere to laws and regulations, such as AB 52 and SB 18. As the project site has been previously graded and developed, there is a low likelihood that the proposed project would significantly impact tribal resources in the project site. In addition, the construction and operation of the proposed project would be within the boundaries of the project site; therefore, the project site would not significantly impact ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

5. Environmental Analysis

TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES

surrounding tribal cultural resources. However, if tribal cultural resources are discovered within the project site, then the proposed Mitigation Measures TCR-1 and TCR-2 would reduce impacts to less than significant.

5.13.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation
After implementation of regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval, Impact 5.13-1 would be less than significant. Without mitigation, Impact 5.13-1 would be potentially significant. the following impact would be potentially significant:

5.13.7 Mitigation Measures
Impact 5.13-1
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 Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Tribal Contact list for the project area. 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 (e.g., boring, grading, excavation, potholing, trenching). 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 shall only be present on-site during the construction phases that involve ground-disturbing activities. The tribal monitor/consultant shall complete daily monitoring logs that provide descriptions of the day’s activities, including construction activities, locations, soil, and any cultural materials identified. The on-site 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 resources are discovered during excavation 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 Wilton Rancheria Tribal Government shall coordinate with the landowner regarding the 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 3

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

5. Environmental Analysis

TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
June 2024 Page 5.13-13

5.13.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation
With incorporation of Mitigation Measures TCR-1 and TCR-2, Impact 5.13-1 would be less than significant.

5.13.9 References
ECORP Consulting Inc (ECORP). 2023, March. Archaeological Resources Inventory Report for the Mills Crossing Project. Appendix 5.3-1 to this DEIR.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

5. Environmental Analysis

TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES

This page intentionally left blank.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

5. Environmental Analysis
June 2024 Page 5.14-1

5.14 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
This section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) evaluates the potential for implementation of the proposed Mills Crossing project (proposed project) to impact utilities and service systems. Utilities and service systems include wastewater (sewage) treatment and collection systems, water supply and distribution systems, storm drainage, solid waste collection and disposal, and other public utilities. Potential impacts to hydrology (e.g., flooding) and water quality are provided in Chapter 8, Impacts Found Not to be Significant, in the discussion of hydrology and water quality impacts. Storm drainage, though discussed in this section, is also addressed in Chapter 8. Impacts associated with electrical and natural gas infrastructure are discussed in Section

5.4, Energy.

5.14.1 Wastewater Treatment and Collection

5.14.1.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Regulatory Background
Federal, state, and local laws, regulations, plans, or guidelines related to wastewater treatment and collection that are applicable to the Specific Plan are summarized below.

Federal Regulations
Clean Water Act and National Pollution Elimination Discharge System The Clean Water Act (CWA) establishes regulations to control the discharge of pollutants into waters of the United States and regulates water quality standards for surface waters (US Code, Title 33, Sections 1251 et seq.).

Under the CWA, the US Environment Protection Agency (EPA) is authorized to set wastewater standards and run the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program. Under the NPDES program, permits are required for all new developments that discharge directly into waters of the United States.

The federal CWA requires wastewater treatment of all effluent before it is discharged into surface waters.

NPDES permits for such discharges in the project region are issued by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB).

The quality of the effluent that can be discharged to waterways in the Sacramento area, including the entire city of Rancho Cordova by the Sacramento Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant (SRWTP) which is owned and operated by the Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District (SRCSD). The SRWTP is established by the Central Valley RWQCB through waste discharge requirements (WDRs) that implement the NPDES permit.

WDRs are updated at least every five years. A new permit must be issued in the event of a major change or expansion of the facility. In April 2021, the Central Valley RWQCB issued Order No. R5-2021-0019, NPDES No. CA 0077682, to the SRCSD (Regional San) for its SRWTP, which treats wastewater from its service area before discharging the treated effluent to the Sacramento River (Regional San 2017). The water quality objectives established in the Central Valley RWQCB Basin Plan are protected, in part, by Order No. R5-2021- 0019, NPDES No. CA 0077682.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

5. Environmental Analysis

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

State Regulations
State Water Resources Control Board: Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements The General Waste Discharge Requirements specify that all federal and state agencies, municipalities, counties, districts, and other public entities that own or operate sanitary sewer systems greater than one mile in length that collect and/or convey untreated or partially treated wastewater to a publicly owned treatment facility in the State of California need to develop a sewer master plan. The master plan evaluates existing sewer collection systems and provides a framework for undertaking the construction of new and replacement facilities to maintain proper levels of service. It includes inflow and infiltration studies to analyze flow monitoring and water use data, a capacity assurance plan to analyze the existing system with existing land use and unit flow factors, a condition assessment and sewer system rehabilitation plan, and a financial plan with recommended capital improvements and financial models.

General Pretreatment Regulations for Existing and New Sources of Pollution The General Pretreatment Regulations establish the responsibilities of federal, state, and local governments; industry; and the public to implement National Pretreatment Standards to control pollutants that pass through or interfere with treatment processes in publicly owned treatment works or that may contaminate sewage sludge.

Pretreatment standards are pollutant discharge limits that apply to industrial users (Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Part 403).

Local Regulations
Sacramento Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant 2020 Master Plan SRWTP’s 2020 Master Plan provides a phased program of recommended wastewater treatment facilities and management programs to accommodate planned growth and to meet existing and anticipated regulatory requirements through the year 2020. The master plan addresses both public health and environmental protection issues while providing reliable service at affordable rates for Regional San customers. The key goals of the master plan are to provide sufficient capacity to meet growth projections and an orderly expansion of SRWTP facilities, comply with applicable water quality standards, and provide for the most cost-effective facilities and programs from a watershed perspective, as described in Chapter 2, Master Planning Goals, Objectives, Planning Assumptions, and Regulatory Requirements, of the 2020 Master Plan (Regional San 2008).

The 2020 Master Plan relies on the Sacramento Area Council of Government’s (SACOG’s) population projections to determine SRWTP capacity requirements in the Regional San service area, which includes the proposed project, through 2020. The population projections used in the master plan do not represent a buildout population total for Regional San; rather, they represent the amount of growth expected in the Regional San service area. Regional San’s planning and facility construction is not tied to the long-range growth projection, but instead is designed to respond to the actual growth rate and associated wastewater flows (Regional San 2008).

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

5. Environmental Analysis

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEM
June 2024 Page 5.14-3
Sacramento Area Sewer Capacity Plan 2020 Update
The primary objective of the Sacramento Area Sewer District (SASD)’s 2020 System Capacity Plan (SCP) update was to develop a comprehensive plan that addresses existing and buildout sewer capacity needs. Existing capacity needs are based on SASD’s current sewer system conditions. Buildout capacity needs are based on providing sewer service to the entire SASD service area in the future, as described in Section 1.1, Objectives and Scope, of the 2020 SCP.

Rancho Cordova General Plan
The Rancho Cordova General Plan contains the following goal and policies that are relevant to wastewater:

Infrastructure, Services, and Finance Element
 Goal ISF.2: Ensure the development of quality infrastructure to meet community needs at the time they are needed.
 Policy ISF.2.1: Ensure the development of public infrastructure that meets the long-term needs of residents and ensure infrastructure is available at the time such facilities are needed.  Policy ISF.2.2: Coordinate with independent public service providers, including schools, parks and recreation, utility, transit, and other service districts, in developing service and financial planning strategies.
 Policy ISF.2.3: Ensure that adequate funding is available for all infrastructure and public facilities, and make certain that the cost of improvements is equitably distributed.  Policy ISF.2.4: Ensure the development of public infrastructure that meets the long-term needs of residents and ensure infrastructure is available at the time such facilities are needed.  Policy ISF.2.6: Ensure that sewage conveyance and treatment capacity are available in time to meet the demand created by new development, or are guaranteed to be built by bonds or other sureties.

City of Rancho Cordova Municipal Code
Chapter 6.32, Sanitary Sewage Systems. This chapter requires that the drainage system in every building where persons reside, congregate or are employed, is available to a public sanitary sewer.

Chapter 15.04, Sewer Use. This chapter establishes provisions to assure efficient operation and protection of maintenance district sewage facilities. Per Section 15.04.070, a connection permit is required for any connection to the City’s sewer system.

Chapter 15.05, Sewer Rates. This chapter establishes the fees for sewer use for new development. The rates applicable to the proposed project are shown in Section 15.05.030 of the Municipal Code.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

5. Environmental Analysis

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

5.14.1.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Wastewater Service
Sanitary sewer service for the proposed project would be provided by SASD and Regional San. SASD operates and maintains the laterals and main line pipes for wastewater conveyance and collection from the source to the Regional San interceptors (sanitary sewers that are designed to carry flows in excess of 10 million gallons per day [mgd]). Regional San is responsible for collection by interceptors and for wastewater treatment in Sacramento County (Regional San 2022). This district owns, operates, and is responsible for the collection, trunk, and interceptor sewer systems throughout Sacramento County as well as the SRWTP near Elk Grove (Regional San 2022).

The main SASD collection system includes over 3,100 miles of sewer pipelines ranging in size from 1.25 to 75 inches in diameter (SASD 2020). The collection system pipelines are categorized based on size, function, and hydraulic capacity. Sewer collectors generally receive flow directly from individual homes and businesses and are designed to carry less than one mgd of peak wet-weather flow (PWWF) (SASD 2020). In general, collector sewers are 10 inches and smaller in diameter and comprise the majority (over 85 percent) of the pipes in the collection system. Trunk sewers carry one mgd of PWWF or more to the Regional San interceptor system.

Trunk sewers are generally 12 inches in diameter (SASD 2020).

Wastewater flows collected from the Regional San interceptors are ultimately transported into the SRWTP.

Wastewater conveyed to the SRWTP is treated to a secondary level, which is designed to substantially degrade the biological content of the waste, which allows for safe release into the local environment and is ultimately discharged into the Sacramento River. The SRWTP receives and has a permitted plant treatment capacity of 181 mgd for average dry weather flow (ADWF) and 392 mgd under wet-weather conditions (Regional San 2008). The SRWTP had an average effluent flow of 115 mgd in 2021 (Ramirez 2022).

Future wastewater capacity needs are based on the wastewater flow and load projections. Beyond the 20-year planning period, flows (and loads) can be expected to continue to increase above the projected 181 mgd average dry-weather flow for the year 2020 (Regional San 2022b). Construction of the EchoWater Project is underway to rehabilitate the older facilities at the SRWTP to increase capacity, and when the project is complete, the SRWTP will produce about 120 mgd of tertiary-treated water, which removes inorganic compounds, bacteria, viruses, and parasites, which is then safe to reuse, recycle, or release into the environment (Regional San 2023a).

A portion of the SRWTP’s secondary-treated flow is sent to a Water Reclamation Facility at SRWTP. Regional San, in cooperation with Sacramento County Water Agency (SCWA), operates an existing recycled water program that distributes up to 3.5 mgd of tertiary-treated water from the Water Reclamation Facility.

5.14.1.3 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
According to Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would:

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

5. Environmental Analysis

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEM
June 2024 Page 5.14-5
U-1 Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects.

U-3 Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that 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.

5.14.1.4 PLANS, PROGRAMS, AND POLICIES
The 2006 General Plan Environmental Impact Report
The 2006 General Plan EIR determined that impacts to wastewater facilities would be significant and unavoidable since buildout under the General Plan would contribute to the need for expanded wastewater conveyance and treatment facilities. Under the calculations made in the 2006 EIR, projected wastewater generation rates by year 2030 were estimated to be 36.5 mgd and under buildout conditions 42.2 mgd. No mitigation measures were considered feasible.

5.14.1.5 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
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. [Threshold U-1 (part)]
The proposed project is in the service area of SASD, which manages the sewer system and serves much of Sacramento County, including the City of Rancho Cordova. Wastewater treatment services are provided by the SRWTP. As discussed previously, an upgrade of the SRWTP is underway, known as the EchoWater Project, to meet new water quality requirements that were issued by the Central Valley RWQCB as part of Regional San’s 2010 NPDES permit (Regional San 2023b). The requirements are designed primarily to help protect the Delta ecosystem downstream by removing most of the ammonia and nitrates and improving the removal of pathogens from wastewater discharge. The upgrade will include deployment of new treatment technologies and facilities and will increase the quality of effluent discharged into the Sacramento River and ensure that the SRWTP discharge constituents are below permitted discharge limits specified in the NPDES permit. Flows to the SRWTP have decreased as a result of water conservation efforts over the last 10 years (Ramirez 2022).

Furthermore, adequate capacity for wastewater is anticipated well into the future. The average effluent flow in 2021 was approximately 115 mgd, compared to the current permitted capacity of 181 mgd. Wastewater would be conveyed off the project site using a network of collectors (up to 1 mgd flow capacity) and trunk sewers (1 to 10 mgd flow capacity), which currently exist adjacent to the project site, as seen in the 2020 SCP in Figure 1-2, SASD and Regional San Existing Sewer Systems (SASD 2020). The proposed project would involve reconfiguring the existing connections on the project site to accommodate the uses under the proposed project, the environmental impacts of which are addressed through this DEIR. The construction of these improvements would adhere to SASD’s adopted Standards and Specifications (SASD 2022).

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

5. Environmental Analysis

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

These sanitary sewer lines would then connect to the district’s sewer system by connecting to an existing interceptor line along Folsom Boulevard, which has a flow capacity of greater than 10 mgd (SASD 2020). The project would construct up to 120 housing units and up to 154,000 square feet1 (3.53 acres) of commercial and event center space. The SASD’s Standards and Specifications determined the average dry-weather flow rates for land use type. The flow rates relevant to the proposed project include 310 gallons per day per single-family dwelling unit, 233 gallons per day per multifamily dwelling unit, and 1,900 gallons per day per acre of commercial development, as seen in Table 201-1, ADWF Summary, in Section 201, Capacity Design, of SASD’s the Standards and Specifications document (SASD 2023). When multiplied by the residential dwelling units and commercial acreage under the proposed project, the total average dry-weather flow would be 38,000 gallons per day, or 0.038 mgd.

These calculations and assumptions are shown in Table 5.14-1, Proposed Project Wastewater Generation.

Table 5.14-1 Proposed Project Wastewater Generation
Land Use Units/Acres ADWF1 Rate (g/d) ADWF (mgd)
Single-Family 60 units 310 0.018
Multifamily 60 units 233 0.014
Commercial 3.53 acres 1,900 0.006
Total 0.038
Source: SASD 2023. 1 Average Dry-Weather Flow
The wastewater generated by the project would be less than 0.01 percent of a 10 mgd flow capacity. This flow represents an even smaller fraction of the 181 mgd capacity of the SRWTP. Therefore, existing utility infrastructure, including the interceptor sewer line on Folsom Boulevard and the SRWTP would have sufficient capacity to accommodate the wastewater flows that the project is estimated to generate.

Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Impact 5.14-1 would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.

Level of Significance After Mitigation: Impact 5.14-1 would be less than significant.

Impact 5.14-2: The proposed project would result in the determination of a wastewater treatment provider that 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. [Threshold U-3] As described previously, the project site is in the service area of SASD, which maintains the wastewater treatment conveyance system that would collect wastewater at the project site. SASD’s system connects to Regional San interceptors that convey the wastewater to the SRWTP in Sacramento County for treatment. The SRWTP receives and has a permitted plant treatment capacity of 181 mgd for ADWF and 392 mgd under wet1 Based on coverage of the project site, the total acreage per building site was calculated by adding 10 percent to building footprint of the nonresidential buildings (140,000*1.1= 154,000).

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

5. Environmental Analysis

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEM
June 2024 Page 5.14-7
weather conditions (Regional San 2008). The SRWTP had an average effluent flow of 115 mgd in 2021 (Ramirez 2022).

As described under Impact 5.14-1, the proposed project is anticipated to result in an ADWF of 0.038 mgd, which would represent approximately 0.002 percent of the SRWTP’s current ADWF capacity. Additionally, the proposed project’s increase in wastewater treated at the SRWTP would not cause the SRWTP’s existing average effluent flow of 115 mgd to exceed the ADWF capacity of the plant. Therefore, the proposed project would not exceed Regional San’s wastewater treatment capacity. Impacts would be less than significant.

5.14.1.6 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The 2006 General Plan EIR analyzed cumulative impacts to wastewater treatment capacity and conveyance infrastructure under Impact 4.12.4.2. Development under the General Plan and other development planned in Sacramento County and SRCSD’s service area would substantially increase cumulative demands for wastewater services and related facilities. While planned improvements to the wastewater infrastructure network have been analyzed in the 2006 EIR, future growth may require modification and expansion of currently planned wastewater facility improvements. Overall, the 2006 EIR concluded that impacts related to cumulative wastewater service demands are less than cumulatively considerable, but impacts related to infrastructure/facility expansion are cumulatively considerable, significant, and unavoidable.

As discussed under Impact 5.14-1, the existing infrastructure is sufficient to serve the proposed project. The SRWTP currently has a permitted capacity of 181 mgd for ADWF and 392 mgd of Average Wet Weather Flows (AWWF). Per the City’s General Plan EIR, projected wastewater generation rates by 2030 are estimated to be

36.5 mgd and under buildout conditions 42.2 mgd. As such, wastewater generated from the proposed project (0.038 mgd) would constitute 0.1 percent of the wastewater treatment demand at buildout of the City’s planning area. The proposed project does not include any change in land use designation; the growth under the proposed project was included as part of the City’s planned regional growth estimate. Therefore, impacts to wastewater treatment facilities have been anticipated in the 2006 General Plan EIR. While the 2006 EIR concluded that impacts related to infrastructure/facility expansion would be cumulatively considerable, significant, and unavoidable, the proposed project would be subject to payment of development fees to fund the planned Capital Improvement Program, and the project’s incremental contribution to the impact would be less than cumulatively considerable.

5.14.1.7 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE BEFORE MITIGATION
After implementation of regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval, the following impacts would be less than significant: 5.14-1 and 5.14-2.

5.14.1.8 MITIGATION MEASURES
No mitigation measures are required.

5.14.1.9 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Impact would be less than significant.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

5. Environmental Analysis

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

5.14.2 Water Supply and Distribution Systems

5.14.2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Regulatory Background
State Regulations
California Urban Water Management Planning Act
The Urban Water Management Planning Act requires urban water suppliers to prepare an urban water management plan (UWMP) if they provide water for municipal purposes to more than 3,000 customers or provide more than 3,000 acre-feet per year (afy) of water. The intent of the UWMP is to assist water supply agencies in water resource planning given their existing and anticipated future demands. The UWMP must include a water supply and demand assessment that compares total water supply available to the water supplier with the total projected water use over a 20-year period. It is also mandatory that UWMPs be updated every five years.

Water Conservation Act of 2009 (Senate Bill X7-7)
The Water Conservation Act of 2009, Senate Bill (SB) X7-7, requires all water suppliers to increase water-use efficiency. The legislation sets an overall goal of reducing per-capita water use by 20 percent by 2020, with an interim goal of a 10 percent reduction in per-capita water use by 2015. As of 2016, urban retail water suppliers who do not meet the water conservation requirements established by this bill are not eligible for state water grants or loans. SB X7-7 requires that urban water retail suppliers determine baseline water use and set reduction targets according to specified standards; it also requires that agricultural water suppliers prepare plans and implement efficient water management practices.
20x2020 Water Conservation Plan
The 20x2020 Water Conservation Plan of 2010 was a byproduct of the Water Conservation Act of 2009. The plan had a threefold effect, establishing: (1) a benchmark of current usage per capita of 2005 baseline data, (2) an intermediate goal for all water providers to meet by 2015, (3) a 20 percent reduction by 2020 of water usage.

Assembly Bill 1668 and Senate Bill 606
On May 31, 2018, Governor Brown signed two bills (Assembly Bill [AB] 1668 and SB 606) that established long-term standards for water suppliers. The bills called for the creation of new urban efficiency standards for indoor use, outdoor use, and water lost to leaks as well as any appropriate variances for unique local conditions.

The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) is in the process of adopting standards for indoor residential water use, outdoor residential water use, commercial and industrial water use, and water loss. The indoor water use standard will be 55 gallons per person per day until January 2025; the standard will become stricter over time, decreasing to 50 gallons per person per day in January 2030. The outdoor water use standard will be based on land cover, climate, and other factors determined by the Department of Water Resources (DWR) and the SWRCB.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

5. Environmental Analysis

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEM
June 2024 Page 5.14-9
Mandatory Water Conservation
Following the declaration on July 15, 2014, of a state of emergency due to drought conditions, the SWRCB adopted Resolution No. 2014-0038 for emergency regulation of statewide water conservation efforts. These regulations, which went into effect on August 1, 2014, were intended to reduce outdoor urban water use and persuade all California households to voluntarily reduce their water consumption by 20 percent. Water companies with 3,000 or more service connections were required to report monthly water consumption to the SWRCB. The SWRCB readopted the regulations several times until Governor Brown issued Executive Order B-40-17 in April 2017, ending the drought emergency and directing the SWRCB to rescind portions of its existing drought emergency water conservation regulations but maintain the portions that prohibit wasteful water use practices until permanent requirements are in place. The prohibitions that are still in effect address:
(1) the application of potable water to outdoor landscapes in a manner that causes excess runoff, (2) the use of a hose to wash a motor vehicle except where the hose is equipped with a shut-off nozzle, (3) the application of potable water to driveways and sidewalks, (4) the use of potable water in nonrecirculating ornamental fountains, and (5) the application of potable water to outdoor landscapes during and within 48 hours after measurable rainfall. Also, urban water suppliers are still required to submit monthly water monitoring reports to the SWRCB.

Governor’s 2021 Drought Declaration
Governor Gavin Newsom declared a drought state of emergency on April 21, 2021, and asked State agencies to partner with local water districts and utilities to make Californians aware of drought and encourage actions to reduce water usage by promoting DWR’s Save Our Water Campaign and other water conservation programs.

The proclamation also included measures to be implemented by the DWR, SWRCB, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and the Department of Food and Agriculture that included coordinated State and local actions to address issues stemming from continued dry conditions.

Governor Newsom issued subsequent drought emergency proclamations on May 10, June 8, and October 19, 2021, and March 28, 2022. The May 10 proclamation included further measures to be implemented by DWR, SWRCB, CDFW, and the Department of Food and Agriculture. The July 8 proclamation called on Californians to voluntarily reduce water use by 15 percent from their 2020 levels. The October 19 proclamation required local water suppliers to implement water shortage contingency plans that are responsive to local conditions and prepare for the possibility of a third dry year. The March 28 proclamation requires that by May 25, 2022, the SWRCB must consider adopting emergency regulations defining non-functional turf2 and banning irrigation of non-functional turf in the commercial, industrial, and institutional sectors. The proclamation also requires that by May 25, 2022, SWRCB must consider adopting emergency regulations to implement the shortage response actions specified in UWMPs for a water shortage level of up to 20 percent.

The SWRCB tracks and reports monthly on the state’s progress toward achieving a 15 percent reduction in statewide urban water use compared to 2020.
2 Nonfunctional turf is turf that is ornamental and not otherwise used for human recreation purposes, such as school fields, sports fields, and parks.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

5. Environmental Analysis

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

Executive Order N-5-23
Executive Order N-5-23 ends the voluntary 15 percent water conservation target, while continuing to encourage that Californians make conservation a way of life, as well as ends the requirement that local water agencies implement level two of their drought contingency plans. It also maintains the ban on wasteful water uses, such as watering ornamental grass on commercial properties, while preserving all current emergency orders focused on groundwater supply, where the effects of the multi-year drought continue to be devastating.

It also maintains orders focused on specific watersheds that have not benefited as much from recent rains, including the Klamath River and Colorado River basins, which both remain in drought and retains a state of emergency for all 58 counties to allow for drought response and recovery efforts to continue (California Governor 2023).

State Water Resources Control Board Resolution No. 2022-002 On January 4, 2022, the SWRCB adopted an emergency regulation by resolution. On January 18, 2022, the emergency regulation became effective and remains in effect for one year from the effective date unless the SWRCB acts to end, modify, or readopt it. The following emergency regulation restrictions remain in effect until December 2023 (SWRCB 2024):
 Outdoor watering that lets water run onto sidewalks and other areas (except incidental runoff)  Washing vehicles without an automatic shutoff nozzle
 Washing hard surfaces like driveways or sidewalks that don’t absorb water  Street cleaning or construction site preparation
 Filling decorative fountains, lakes, or ponds without a recirculation pump  Outdoor watering within 48 hours after at least a quarter-inch of rainfall  Watering decorative grass on public medians
Water Conservation in Landscaping Act of 2006 (AB 1881) The Water Conservation in Landscaping Act of 2006 (AB 1881) required DWR to update the State Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance by 2009. The State’s model ordinance was issued on October 8, 2009.

Under AB 1881, cities and counties are required to adopt a State updated model landscape water conservation ordinance by January 31, 2010, or to adopt a different ordinance that is at least as effective in conserving water as the updated model ordinance. It also requires reporting on the implementation and enforcement of local ordinances, with required reports due by December 31, 2015. 2015 Update of the State Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (Executive Order B-29-15) To improve water savings in the landscaping sector, DWR updated the State Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance in accordance with Executive Order B-29-15. The Model Ordinance promotes efficient landscapes in new developments and retrofitted landscapes. The Executive Order called for revising the Model Ordinance to increase water-efficiency standards for new and retrofitted landscapes through more efficient irrigation systems, greywater usage, and on-site stormwater capture, and by limiting the portion of landscapes that can be covered in turf.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

5. Environmental Analysis

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEM
June 2024 Page 5.14-11
New development projects that include landscaped areas of 500 square feet or more—including residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional projects that require a permit, plan check, or design review—are subject to the Model Ordinance. The previous landscape-size threshold for new development projects ranged from 2,500 to 5,000 square feet.

California Green Building Standards Code
The residential provisions of the 2019 California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) outline planning, design, and development methods that include environmentally responsible site selection, building design, building siting and development to protect, restore, and enhance the environmental quality of the site and respect the integrity of adjacent properties. The code also establishes the means of conserving water used indoors, outdoors, and in wastewater conveyance, outlines means of achieving material conservation and resource efficiency, and outlines means of reducing the quantity of air contaminants.

Regional and Local Regulations
2020 Urban Water Management Plan for California American Water’s Northern Division - Sacramento Main District
The project site is in the service area of California American Water (CAW) Northern Division’s Sacramento Main District. Within the Sacramento Main District, the project site is in the Suburban-Rosemont Service Area, which covers the eastern portion of the City of Rancho Cordova in addition to the La Riviera and Rosemont neighborhoods in unincorporated Sacramento County. The 2020 UWMP addresses current and future water use in the Sacramento Main District and its constituent service areas in addition to identifying all available potable and non-potable water supplies and providing a water supply reliability analysis, a drought risk assessment, and a water shortage contingency plan.

City of Rancho Cordova General Plan
The Rancho Cordova General Plan contains the following goals and policies that are relevant to water service.

Infrastructure, Services, and Finance Element
 Goal ISF.2: Ensure the development of quality infrastructure to meet community needs at the time they are needed.
 Policy ISF.2.1: Ensure the development of public infrastructure that meets the long-term needs of residents and ensure infrastructure is available at the time such facilities are needed.  Policy ISF.2.2: Coordinate with independent public service providers, including schools, parks and recreation, utility, transit, and other service districts, in developing service and financial planning strategies.
 Policy ISF.2.3: Ensure that adequate funding is available for all infrastructure and public facilities, and make certain that the cost of improvements is equitably distributed.  Policy ISF.2.4: Ensure the development of public infrastructure that meets the long-term needs of residents and ensure infrastructure is available at the time such facilities are needed.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

5. Environmental Analysis

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

Natural Resources Element
 Goal NR.5: Protect the quantity and quality of the City’s water resources.  Policy NR.5.1: Promote water conservation within existing and future urban uses.  Policy NR.5.2: Encourage the use of treated wastewater to irrigate parks, golf courses, and landscaping.

City of Rancho Cordova Municipal Code
The City’s Municipal Code, Chapter 22.180, Water Use and Conservation, establishes the standards and procedures for the design, installation, and management of landscapes for the purpose of water conservation.

The standards in this chapter would be applicable to landscaping the proposed project.

South American Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan As explained below, the primary water supply for the project site is groundwater from the South American Subbasin under the Sacramento Valley Groundwater Basin. The South American Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan was adopted in 2021 by the six groundwater sustainability agencies that manage and use the groundwater in the South American Subbasin. The plan reviewed the past, current, and future water needs of the subbasin’s users and assesses the impacts of predicted future groundwater levels. The key finding of the plan is that the basin will be sustainable over the next 20 years as long as planned recycled water, recharge, and other projects are implemented, as explained in the Executive Summary of the plan (South American Subbasin 2021). These projects will raise groundwater levels above current levels, maintain storage volumes, and protect ecosystems, interconnected surface water, and shallow well users.

5.14.2.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Water Service Area
As described previously, the project site is in the service area of California American Water (CAW). CAW is a privately owned utility that provides service to approximately 675,000 customers throughout California. The Sacramento Main District (District) is part of CAW’s Northern Division and contains 11 public water systems.

The Suburban-Rosemont Public Water System contains the project site. The Suburban-Rosemont service area covers approximately 13,600 acres in Sacramento County and a portion of eastern Rancho Cordova along the American River. It is bordered to the north by the American River and to the west by the Mather Airport. The service area extends to Fruitridge Road in the south and approximately 1 mile west of Watt Avenue in the west.

The Suburban-Rosemont service area contained 16,585 municipal connections and supplied 8,813 acre-feet (AF) of water in 2020, as shown in Table 2-1, Water System Information, of the CAW-Sacramento Main District 2020 UWMP (CAW 2021).

Water Demand
The Suburban-Rosemont water system serves primarily residential and commercial customers. The historical and projected water use for the service area is shown in Table 5.14-2, Suburban-Rosemont Historical and Projected ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

5. Environmental Analysis

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEM
June 2024 Page 5.14-13
Water Use. This data can also be found in Table 4-9, Suburban-Rosemont Historical and Projected Water Use, of the CAW-Sacramento Main District 2020 UWMP.

Table 5.14-2 Suburban-Rosemont Historical and Projected Water Use Year Total Water Use (Million Gallons)
2011 3,176
2012 2,938
2013 2,716
2014 2,526
2015 2,216
2016 2,389
2017 2,676
2018 2,691
2019 2,629
2020 2,872
2021 2,836
2022 2,839
2023 2,842
2024 2,845
2025 2,848
2030 2,915
2035 3,036
2045 3,162
Source: CAW 2021.

The 2020 UWMP estimated the population and growth rates of the service area using the data from the SACOG Transportation Analysis Zones projections. The total population for the District in 2020 was estimated to be 234,686 with the population in 2040 projected to be 287,145, as discussed in Section 3.5.1, Population, of the CAW-Sacramento Main District 2020 UWMP. The UWMP notes that the Suburban-Rosemont service area includes a portion of land designated as the West Jackson development, which has the potential to add about 4,000 new customers in the future; however, CAW anticipates that most growth in the District will consist of infill development.

Water Supply
CAW has wholesale water supply agreements with several water providers. The CAW service areas, Arden, Fruitridge, Parkway, and Suburban-Rosemont, lie within the Place of Use for the City of Sacramento’s American River Water Rights. CAW has an agreement with the City of Sacramento to receive a maximum of

3.46 mgd of non-firm supply during off-peak periods (October 15th through May 14th), plus an additional 2.3 mgd of firm capacity, for a total of 5.76 mgd. The agreement stipulates that the City would supply surface water unless the Lower American River is below the Hodge Flow Criteria, in which case, the City would produce groundwater instead of surface water when demands exceed 1.13 mgd. This mixed supply is available to CAW up to 2.3 mgd. Other service agreements serve other service areas in the Sacramento Main District, including agreements with Placer County Water District, Sacramento County Water Agency, and the Sacramento Suburban Water District.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

5. Environmental Analysis

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

The 2020 UWMP notes that groundwater is the primary source of supply for most of the water systems in the Sacramento Main District. All water systems in the Sacramento Main District are within the boundaries of the Sacramento Valley Groundwater Basin of the Sacramento River Hydrologic Region. The Suburban-Rosemont service area is in the South American Subbasin of the Sacramento Valley Groundwater Basin. A total of 15,357 million gallons (mg) of water were pumped from the South American Subbasin in 2020. This subbasin is managed by the Sacramento Groundwater Authority. The current and projected water supplies available to the Suburban-Rosemont service area are shown in Table 5.14-3, Current and Projected Water Supplies for the SuburbanRosemont Service Area.

Table 5.14-3 Current and Projected Water Supplies for the Suburban-Rosemont Service Area Source (MG)
Groundwater (South American Subbasin) Purchased Water (City of Sacramento) 2020 Drinking Water Available 9,217 1,417
Safe Yield 8,924 403
2025 Reasonably Available 9,217 1,471
Safe Yield 8,924 403
2030 Reasonably Available 9,217 1,471
Safe Yield 8,924 403
2035 Reasonably Available 9,217 1,471
Safe Yield 8,924 403
2040 Reasonably Available 9,217 1,471
Safe Yield 8,924 403
Source: CAW 2021.

Note: All quantities are expressed in millions of gallons (MG) The safe yield for groundwater is calculated as the total capacity of all the wells in each system with the largest well out of service. Safe yield for purchased supply refers to the amount of water guaranteed to CAW.

As shown in Table 5.14-3, CAW expects that all current water agreements will continue to serve the SuburbanRosemont area through 2040. A total of 9,327 mg of water is guaranteed to the service area each year. This is composed of 8,924 mg of safe yield water from the South American Sub-basin and 403 mg purchased from the City of Sacramento. The safe yield is calculated as the total capacity of all the wells in each system with the largest well out of service. The 2020 UWMP’s drought risk assessment notes that its groundwater supply is expected to remain dependable under drought conditions. Overall, CAW expects all 9,327 mg of safe yield water supply available to Suburban-Rosemont service area under single-year and multiple-year drought conditions. At the expected demand of 3,162 mg in 2040, 6,165 mg of water supply would still be available to the service area, as shown in Table 5.14-4, Normal, Single Dry, and Multiple Dry Year Supply and Demand (MG).

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

5. Environmental Analysis

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEM
June 2024 Page 5.14-15
Table 5.14-4 Normal, Single Dry, and Multiple Dry Year Supply and Demand (MG) 2025 2030 2035 2040
Normal Year
Supply Totals 10,395 10,395 10,395 10,395
Demand Totals 2,849 2,915 3,036 3,162
Surplus 7,546 7,480 7,359 7,233
Single Dry Year
Supply Totals 9,327 9,327 9,327 9,327
Demand Totals 2,849 2,915 3,036 3,162
Surplus 6,478 6,412 6,291 6,165
Multiple Dry Year
Year 1
Supply Totals 9,327 9,327 9,327 9,327
Demand Totals 2,849 2,915 3,036 3,162
Surplus 6,478 6,412 6,291 6,165
Year 2
Supply Totals 9,327 9,327 9,327 9,327
Demand Totals 2,849 2,915 3,036 3,162
Surplus 6,478 6,412 6,291 6,165
Year 3
Supply Totals 9,327 9,327 9,327 9,327
Demand Totals 2,849 2,915 3,036 3,162
Surplus 6,478 6,412 6,291 6,165
Year 4
Supply Totals 9,327 9,327 9,327 9,327
Demand Totals 2,849 2,915 3,036 3,162
Surplus 6,478 6,412 6,291 6,165
Year 5
Supply Totals 9,327 9,327 9,327 9,327
Demand Totals 2,849 2,915 3,036 3,162
Surplus 6,478 6,412 6,291 6,165
Source: CAW 2021.

5.14.2.3 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would:

U-1 Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects.

U-2 Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years.

I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

5. Environmental Analysis

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

5.14.2.4 PLANS, PROGRAMS, AND POLICIES
The 2006 General Plan Environmental Impact Report
The 2006 General Plan EIR determined that impacts on water supplies and treatment would be significant and unavoidable since buildout under the General Plan would contribute to the need for expanded water supplies and facilities. No mitigation measures were considered feasible.

5.14.2.5 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
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. [Threshold U-1 (part)] Existing water distribution pipelines and valves are present on-site from previous commercial uses; however, utility connections would need to be reconfigured for the proposed site plan. The environmental impacts of constructing these improvements are discussed throughout Chapter 5, Environmental Analysis, of this DEIR.

Therefore, the proposed project is not expected to result in the construction of new or expanded water facilities that would cause significant environmental impacts.

Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Impact 5.14-3 would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.

Level of Significance After Mitigation: Impact 5.14-3 would be 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. [Threshold U-2] As described above, CAW’s 2020 UWMP assumed infill development and population growth based on SACOG population projections. The proposed project is an infill development that would not involve any land use changes. Therefore, the development of the site under the proposed project was anticipated within the SACOG population projections and the CAW 2020 UWMP. Furthermore, the proposed project represents approximately less than 1 percent of the population growth assumed in the UWMP for the Sacramento Main District between 2020 and 2045.

The UWMP identifies a 2020 water use target of 173 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) for the Sacramento Main District. The District is currently in compliance with this target (CAW 2021). The California State Water Resources Control Board’s Water Conservation and Production Reports state that the Suburban-Rosemont service area (Public Water System ID: CA3410010) had a gpcd of 61.86 for December 2022 (DWRCB 2022).

However, to estimate the proposed project’s indoor water use for both its residential and commercial components, the water use factors in Appendix G, Default Data Tables, of the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) are used.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

5. Environmental Analysis

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEM
June 2024 Page 5.14-17
Table 5.14-5 Indoor Water Usage
Project Component CalEEMod Land Use Type CalEEMod Water Use Factor (gallons/year)
Water Use
(gallons/year)
Water Use (million
gallons/year)
Residential
120 Dwelling Units Indoor Residential Water Consumption per dwelling unit in Sacramento County 35,259 4,231,080 4.23 Commercial
Community Health Clinic
(30,000 square feet)
Indoor Water Consumption for Medical
Office Buildings per 1,000 square feet 125,481 3,764,430 3.76 Arts Center (35,000
square feet)
Indoor Water Consumption for Arenas
per 1,000 square feet 430,770 15,076,950 15.08
Events Meeting Space
(15,000 square feet)
Indoor Water Consumption for Arenas
per 1,000 square feet 430,770 6,461,550 6.46
Community Office Building
(52,500 square feet)
Indoor Water Consumption for Office
Parks per 1,000 square feet 177,734 9,331,035 9.33
Commercial Retail (7,500
square feet)
Indoor Water Consumption for
Convenience Market (24 Hour) per acre 74,073 555,548 0.55 TOTAL 39,420,593 39.41
Source: CAPCOA 2022.

Consistent with the water consumption modeled for the proposed project in CalEEMod shown in Appendix

5.1-1, the project’s estimated outdoor water usage would be approximately 3.10 mg per year.

As shown in Table 5.14-5, Indoor Water Usage, total indoor yearly water use from the proposed project is estimated to be 39.41 mg per year and when added to the proposed project’s estimated outdoor water usage, the proposed project’s total water usage would be 42.51 mg per year. The water demand from the proposed project would be approximately 1.4 percent of the water demand anticipated during normal years during the year 2040 in the UWMP. The 2020 UWMP estimated that, in the event of multiple-year drought conditions, the supplier would have reliable water supplies for the District through 2040 for a projected population of 234,686. Due to conjunctive management and a Water Shortage Contingency Plan, the 2020 UWMP projects adequate supply to meet demand in all water years through 2040. The proposed project is consistent with the type of infill development assumed in CAW’s 2020 UWMP. Normal water year demand is expected to increase by 323 mg (from 2,839 mg to 3,162 mg) between 2020 and 2040. The projected increase in water demand under the proposed project is accounted for in the UWMP, which concludes that there is sufficient supply to serve the reasonably foreseeable development in its service area through 2040. Therefore, impacts are less than significant.

Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Impact 5.14-4 would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.

Level of Significance After Mitigation: Impact 5.14-4 would be less than significant.

I I
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

5. Environmental Analysis

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

5.14.2.6 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The Rancho Cordova General Plan EIR analyzed cumulative impacts to water supply and water conveyance infrastructure under Impact 4.12.3.2. As noted therein, the land uses associated with buildout of the Rancho Cordova General Plan would require considerable modifications and improvements to the existing water supply delivery system to meet the projected water demands. Additional water treatment, storage capacity, and the extension of the existing water system, including pipelines and other transmission and conveyance infrastructure, would be required to meet the demand for the General Plan growth and other anticipated regional growth. The General Plan concluded that impacts related to water supply utilities would be cumulatively considerable, significant, and unavoidable.

However, per CAW’s Sacramento Main District 2020 UWMP, the Suburban-Rosemont service area would have a surplus of 6,165 mg of water by 2040. The proposed project is anticipated to consume approximately 42.51 mg per year based on the assumptions explained above regarding its indoor and outdoor water use. This would represent approximately 1.45 percent of the Suburban-Rosemont service area’s annual demand (at single- and multi-year drought levels) for the year 2040. Though the proposed project is an infill project and was therefore considered to be part of the demand projected for the Suburban-Rosemont service area, the proposed project’s water use, when added to the water demand for the service area in 2040, does not exceed CAW’s supply of 9,327 mg. The surplus with the proposed project would be 6,122.5 mg in 2040. The CAW’s 2020 UWMP for the Sacramento Main District considers the cumulative buildout of the service area primarily accounting for infill development in addition to larger development projects that are anticipated in the next 18 years. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a cumulative impact on water supply or water supply systems.

5.14.2.7 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE BEFORE MITIGATION
After implementation of regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval, Impact 5.14-4 would be less than significant.

5.14.2.8 MITIGATION MEASURES
No mitigation measures are required.

5.14.2.9 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Impacts would be less than significant.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

5. Environmental Analysis

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEM
June 2024 Page 5.14-19

5.14.3 Storm Drainage Systems

5.14.3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Regulatory Background
Federal Regulations
National Pollution Elimination Discharge System
The CWA mandates permits for stormwater discharges and requirements for stormwater discharges are regulated under the NPDES program. In California, the NPDES permit program is administered by the SWRCB through the nine RWQCBs. The project site lies in the jurisdiction of the Central Valley RWQCB (Region 5).

State Regulations
State Water Resources Control Board General Construction Permit The SWRCB has adopted a statewide Construction General Permit (Order No. 2012-0006-DWQ) for stormwater discharges associated with construction activity. These regulations prohibit the discharge of stormwater from construction projects that include one acre or more of soil disturbance. Construction activities subject to this permit include clearing, grading, and other disturbance to the ground, such as stockpiling or excavation, that results in soil disturbance of at least one acre of total land area. Individual developers are required to submit a Notice of Intent to the SWRCB for coverage under the NPDES permit and would be obligated to comply with its requirements.

The NPDES Construction General Permit requires all dischargers to (1) develop and implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that specifies best management practices (BMPs) to be used during construction of the project, (2) eliminate or reduce non-storm-water discharge to stormwater conveyance systems, and (3) develop and implement a monitoring program of all BMPs specified. The two major objectives of the SWPPP are to (1) help identify the sources of sediment and other pollutants that affect the water quality of stormwater discharges and (2) to describe and ensure the implementation of BMPs to reduce or eliminate sediment and other pollutants in stormwater as well as non-stormwater discharges.

Regional Regulations
Sacramento County (MS4) Permit
The City of Rancho Cordova, along with the cities of Citrus Heights, Folsom, and Galt, and the County of Sacramento, operate under a NPDES municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) permit to discharge stormwater runoff from storm drains within their jurisdictions (NPDES No. CAS082597). The NPDES MS4 Permit establishes waste discharge requirements needed to attain water quality standards and protection of beneficial uses consistent with the Basin Plan. To comply with the NPDES MS4 Permit, the City imposes water quality and watershed protection measures for all new development projects.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

5. Environmental Analysis

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

A Stormwater Quality Improvement Plan (SQIP) was adopted by the Cities of Citrus Heights, Elk Grove, Folsom, Galt, Rancho Cordova, Sacramento, and the County of Sacramento in 2010 for compliance with the NPDES permit. The SQIP is composed of six program elements developed to reduce contaminants discharged into receiving-water bodies. The six Minimum Control Measure elements of the SQIP are public education and outreach, public involvement/participation, detection and elimination of illicit discharges, construction-site runoff control, post-construction runoff control in new development and redevelopment, and pollution prevention/good housekeeping for municipal operations (CRWQCB 2007).

Stormwater Quality Design Manual for the Sacramento Region The Stormwater Quality Design Manual (SQDM) for the Sacramento Region outlines planning tools and requirements to reduce urban runoff pollution to the maximum extent practicable from new development and redevelopment projects for jurisdictions in the Sacramento Stormwater Quality Partnership (SSQP), which includes Rancho Cordova. The Design Manual primarily addresses stormwater quality features that can be optimally integrated into the site and project design of projects, including a selection of multiple categories of stormwater quality control measures: source control, treatment control, low-impact development, hydromodification management, and trash control (SSQP 2018).

Local Regulations
City of Rancho Cordova General Plan
The Rancho Cordova General Plan contains the following goal and policies that are relevant to water service:

Infrastructure, Services, and Finance Element
 Goal ISF.2: Ensure the development of quality infrastructure to meet community needs at the time they are needed.
 Policy ISF.2.1: Ensure the development of public infrastructure that meets the long-term needs of residents and ensure infrastructure is available at the time such facilities are needed.  Policy ISF.2.2: Coordinate with independent public service providers, including schools, parks and recreation, utility, transit, and other service districts, in developing service and financial planning strategies.
 Policy ISF.2.3: Ensure that adequate funding is available for all infrastructure and public facilities, and make certain that the cost of improvements is equitably distributed.  Policy ISF.2.4: Ensure the development of public infrastructure that meets the long-term needs of residents and ensure infrastructure is available at the time such facilities are needed.

City of Rancho Cordova Municipal Code
Chapter 15.95, Storm Drainage Impact Fee Program. The provisions of this chapter impose development fees on all new development projects to fund the cost of certain storm drainage facilities. Fees are required upon the issuance of building permits. The adopted fee schedule for the year of 2023 is calculated by acre and ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

5. Environmental Analysis

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEM
June 2024 Page 5.14-21
includes a fee for construction impacts and administrative costs. The fees were established based on the assumed impervious area of the land uses as identified in the storm drainage impact fee program nexus study.

Chapter 15.12, Stormwater Management and Discharge Control. This chapter implements the requirements of the City’s MS4 permit. The provisions of this chapter are applicable to all users and potential users located within the incorporated area of the city and all users that discharge either directly or indirectly into the county stormwater conveyance system. This also applies to all activities that would make nonstormwater discharges directly into the Sacramento River, American River, Cosumnes River, Mokelumne River, or navigable waters of the delta. The chapter also states that activities subject to this chapter shall reduce the discharge of pollutants from those activities through the implementation of BMPs.

Chapter 16.44 Land Grading and Erosion Control. This chapter requires projects disturbing 350 cubic yards or more of soil or one or more acres of land to prepare an erosion and sediment control plan specifying BMPs for erosion and sediment control. It also provides legal authority for inspections and enforcement needed on local construction sites to ensure compliance with the ordinance.

5.14.3.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS
The City of Rancho Cordova is home to six miles of the American River, as well as 41 miles of creeks and channels, some of which flow directly into the river. The City’s Stormwater Division protects these waterways by preventing pollutants from entering the drainage system (Rancho Cordova 2023).

This includes operating and maintaining:
 Six pump stations
 Six regional detention basins
 254 miles of drainage pipes
 7,740 drainage inlets
 4,370 manholes
According to the U.S. Geological Survey Watershed Boundary Dataset, the project site is in the American River Watershed and the Lower American River Sub-watershed. The nearest surface water is the American River, located approximately 0.72 miles northwest of the project site. Runoff at the project site generally flows from northeast to southwest. Runoff drains into drop inlets on the streets bordering the project site, as shown in Figure 5.14-1, Storm Drainage Infrastructure. From these inlets, stormwater is conveyed through a drainage lateral on La Loma Drive and another on Folsom Boulevard to drainage mains along Folsom Boulevard and La Loma Drive. Historically, the project site has featured commercial uses; a large portion of the site is currently covered in impervious concrete hardscape from the remains of the previous development (Kleinfelder 2008).

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

Figure XX - Figure Title Here

1. Introduction

PROJECT NAME HERE

CITY OF PROJECT HERE
0 350
Feet Source: ESRI, 2015
Drop Inlets
Drainage Manholes
Drainage Laterals
Project Boundary
Figure 5.14-1
Storm Drainage Infrastructure
0 Scale (Feet)
350

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

PLACEWORKS
Source: Generated using ArcMap, Inc. 2022.; City of Rancho Cordova 2023.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

5. Environmental Analysis

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEM
June 2024 Page 5.14-23

5.14.3.3 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would:

U-1 Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects.

5.14.3.4 PLANS, PROGRAMS, AND POLICIES
The 2006 General Plan Environmental Impact Report
The 2006 General Plan EIR analyzed impacts to the City’s drainage system in Section 4.9, Hydrology, and concluded that because the General Plan contains adequate policies and actions that address drainage and flooding issues, impacts are considered less than significant. No mitigation measures related to stormwater drainage are required under the 2006 EIR.

5.14.3.5 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
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. [Threshold U-1 (part)]
Runoff from the project site would be collected through existing stormwater drainage infrastructure on La Loma Drive and Folsom Boulevard. Much of the site is currently composed of impervious surfaces, including concrete foundations and asphalt parking lots that have remained on-site from previous commercial uses. The proposed project would also feature 2.5 acres of open space and additional landscaping throughout the site.

Any proposed stormwater infrastructure would fulfill the requirements of the SQDM for the Sacramento Region, ensuring that the proposed project implements all applicable hydromodification control measures and low-impact development measures to reduce and accommodate stormwater runoff. The proposed project would also be required to comply with Chapter 15.12 of the Municipal Code which regulates discharges into the stormwater conveyance system. The proposed project would also be subject to fees under Chapter 15.95 which requires payment from all new development to fund improvements to the City’s stormwater infrastructure. Furthermore, the proposed project would also be required to comply with the provisions of the NPDES Construction General Permit issued by the Central Valley RWQCB. The proposed project would also require preparation of a SWPPP with BMPs to control erosion. These requirements are consistent with the land grading and erosion-control requirements outlined in Chapter 16.44 of the Municipal Code. Compliance with the applicable regulations and design measures would ensure that impacts to the City’s stormwater infrastructure would be less than significant.

Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Impact 5.14-5 is less than significant.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

5. Environmental Analysis

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.

Level of Significance After Mitigation: Impact 5.14-5 is less than significant.

5.14.3.6 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The Rancho Cordova General Plan EIR concluded cumulative impacts to flood hazards would be less than cumulatively considerable under implementation of the General Plan. The 2006 EIR notes that development under the General Plan would increase impervious surfaces in the Planning Area that would contribute (in combination with cumulative development in the watershed) to increases in flood conditions for area waterways, as discussed in Sections 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, and 4.12, Public Services and Utilities, of the 2006 EIR. The 2006 EIR also notes that the City’s NPDES permit requires the provision of water quality control measures that would treat stormwater drainage, reducing cumulative impacts with respect to stormwater quality (see Sections 4.9.3 and 4.12.4.3 of the 2006 EIR).

Cumulative projects in the American River watershed could increase impervious areas and thus increase local runoff volumes at those project sites which could require the relocation or construction of new or expanded storm water drainage facilities. However, as noted above and within the 2006 EIR, cumulative projects in the region would be required to capture and infiltrate runoff as applicable in accordance with the NPDES MS4 permit. Compliance with the MS4 permit would ensure projects retain a specified volume of stormwater runoff, and the SSQP’s Stormwater Quality Design Manual provides guidance on how projects can meet these on-site retention requirements using stormwater quality control measures. Projects in the region would also be required to limit post-development runoff discharges per the requirements of the Stormwater Quality Improvement Plan listed throughout Sections 9.3 through 9.8 of the SQIP, and projects in the City would be required to comply with the Rancho Cordova Stormwater Management and Discharge Control ordinance. These measures minimize the potential for exceedance of the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems. No significant cumulative drainage impact would occur, and the proposed project’s drainage impacts would not be cumulatively considerable; impacts would be less than significant.

5.14.3.7 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE BEFORE MITIGATION
After implementation of regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval, Impact 5.14-5 would be less than significant.

5.14.3.8 MITIGATION MEASURES
Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required.

5.14.3.9 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Impacts would be less than significant.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

5. Environmental Analysis

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEM
June 2024 Page 5.14-25

5.14.4 Solid Waste

5.14.4.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Regulatory Background
Federal Regulations
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (Title 40 of the CFR), Part 258, contains regulations for municipal solid waste landfills and requires states to implement their own permitting programs incorporating the federal landfill criteria. The federal regulations address the location, operation, design (liners, leachate collection, run-off control, etc.), groundwater monitoring, and closure of landfills.

State Regulations
Assembly Bill 939
AB 939 (California Integrated Solid Waste Management Act of 1989; Public Resources Code Section 40050 et seq.) established an integrated waste-management system that focused on source reduction, recycling, composting, and land disposal of waste. AB 939 required every California city and county to divert 50 percent of its waste from landfills by the year 2000. Compliance with AB 939 is measured in part by comparing solid waste disposal rates for a jurisdiction with target disposal rates; actual rates at or below target rates are consistent with AB 939. AB 939 also requires California counties to show 15 years of disposal capacity for all jurisdictions in the county or show a plan to transform or divert its waste.

Assembly Bill 1327
The California Solid Waste Reuse and the Recycling Access Act of 1991 (AB 1327) is codified in Public Resources Code Sections 42900 through 42911. As amended, AB 1327 requires each local jurisdiction to adopt an ordinance requiring commercial, industrial, institutional, and residential buildings with five or more living units to provide an adequate storage area for the collection and removal of recyclable materials. The size of these storage areas is determined by the appropriate jurisdictions’ ordinance.

Organic Waste Methane Emissions Reduction Act (Senate Bill 1383) In September 2016, SB 1383 was signed into law establishing methane emissions reduction targets in a statewide effort to reduce emissions of short-lived climate pollutants in various sectors of California’s economy. SB 1383 establishes goals to reduce the landfill disposal of organics by achieving a 50 percent reduction in the 2014 level of statewide disposal of organic waste by 2020 and a 75 percent reduction by 2025. SB 1383 grants CalRecycle the regulatory authority to achieve the organic waste disposal reduction targets and establishes an additional target that at least 20 percent of currently disposed edible food must be recovered for human consumption by 2025.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

5. Environmental Analysis

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

As of January 2022, SB 1383 affects all generators of organic waste, including businesses, institutions, and nonprofit organizations, multifamily property owners or managers of buildings with five or more units, residents in single-family homes, apartments, and condominiums, public and private schools, and government agencies, such as State agencies and park districts. All generators must be provided with curbside organics service.

California Green Building Standards Code
Section 5.408 (Construction Waste Reduction, Disposal, and Recycling) of CALGreen requires that at least 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste from nonresidential construction operations be recycled and/or salvaged for reuse. Additionally, newly constructed non-residential buildings, certain non-residential additions and multi-family housing with more than 5 units are required to provide readily accessible areas that serve the entire building and are identified for the depositing, storage and collection of non-hazardous materials for recycling, including (at minimum) paper, corrugated cardboard, glass, plastics, organic waste and metals. CALGreen is updated on a three-year cycle; the 2022 CALGreen took effect on January 1, 2023.

Rancho Cordova General Plan
The Rancho Cordova General Plan contains the following goals and policies that are relevant to solid waste disposal and recycling.

Natural Resources Element
 Goal NR.8: Promote waste reduction, reuse, recycling, and composting efforts.  Policy NR.8.1: Support recycling efforts by developing a set of programs to educate residents on recycling and provide recycling services.
 Policy NR.8.2: Encourage all companies that do business in Rancho Cordova to recycle and reuse construction scraps, demolition materials, concrete, industrial waste, and green waste.  Policy NR.8.3: Promote the use of rubberized asphalt on all public roadways in an effort to recycle old tires and reduce noise impacts. Implementation of this policy will help to preserve aggregate resources.
 Policy NR.8.4: Encourage the use of recycled materials and source reduction (also known as waste prevention) by governmental agencies and local businesses.  Policy NR.8.5: Meet state mandates for solid waste reduction and recycling. Increase recycling efforts beyond those required by state law through supporting businesses that buy and sell re-used materials, such as materials exchange centers.
 Policy NR.8.6: Encourage the use of recycled-content products and construction materials.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

5. Environmental Analysis

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEM
June 2024 Page 5.14-27
 Policy NR.8.7: Maintain contact with Sacramento County and Allied Waste (or its successor) regarding the capacity projections of Kiefer Landfill and Lockwood Landfill to ensure an adequate capacity in their disposal facilities for the long-term disposal needs of Rancho Cordova.

Infrastructure, Services, and Financing Element
 Policy ISF.2.1: Ensure the development of public infrastructure that meet the long-term needs of residents and ensure infrastructure is available at the time such facilities are needed.

City of Rancho Cordova Municipal Code
Chapter 6.20, Solid Waste Management. This chapter regulates the management of garbage, recyclables, and other wastes. Section 6.20.230 outlines the rules and regulations for collection, transportation, and disposal of commercial solid waste and recyclables in the city.

Chapter 6.21, Business and Multifamily Recycling and Organics Recycling. This chapter promotes recycled and organics recycling for businesses and multifamily uses by:
 Requiring covered generators in the city of Rancho Cordova to keep recyclable materials separate from all other solid waste for recycling;
 Requiring covered generators in the city of Rancho Cordova to keep organic recyclable materials separate from all other solid waste for organics recycling;
 Requiring covered generators to provide signs and labeled containers for the storage and collection of recyclable materials and organic recyclable materials; and  Requiring covered generators to either self-haul or enter into a written service agreement for the collection and subsequent delivery of recyclable materials and organic recyclable materials to a recycling facility.

Chapter 16.92, Construction and Demolition Debris. This chapter outlines the City’s Construction and Demolition Debris ordinance. “Covered project” means a project that meets one or more of the following criteria: (1) is new construction; (2) is a demolition project; or (3) is a tenant improvement with a permit valuation greater than or equal to $250,000. “Covered project” shall not include: (1) activities performed in response to an emergency, such as a natural disaster; or (2) activities that contain significant amounts of materials that cannot be disposed of in Class II sanitary landfills described in Title 27, Section 20250 of the California Code of Regulations, and as may be amended from time to time. The general requirements of the Construction and Demolition Debris ordinance are outlined in Section 16.92.030.

5.14.4.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Republic Services Inc. currently provides solid waste and recycling collection services to the City. Solid waste is transported to the Republic Services Forward Inc. & Austin Rd. Landfill (Forward Landfill), located at 9999 South Austin Road in the City of Manteca. Forward Landfill is owned and operated by Republic Services.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

5. Environmental Analysis

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

Forward Landfill is a total of 567 acres in size, with a permitted disposal area of 371.80 acres. Forward is classified as a Class I, II, and III municipal solid waste landfill facility and is permitted to accept tires, sludge (biosolids), mixed municipal, industrial, green materials, contaminated soil, construction/demolition materials, ash, asbestos, and agricultural debris (CalRecycle 2024a). The landfill is permitted to accept a maximum of 8,668 tons per day of solid waste (CalRecycle 2024a). The site currently has a permitted capacity of approximately 59 million cubic yards and a remaining capacity of 24 million cubic yards (CalRecycle 2024a).

The landfill is currently operating; however, the closure date was reported in 2020, which occurs when a landfill or disposal site is no longer receiving waste due to being prepared for post-closure maintenance to an approved plan or construction schedule. Closure and post-closure maintenance plans ensure that landfill closure and post-closure maintenance and the eventual reuse of disposal sites will conform to state performance standards and minimum substantive requirements (Cal Recycle 2024b). The landfill has a cease operation date of January 1, 2036 (CalRecycle 2024a).

California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) provides an average per-capita solid waste disposal rate for residents and businesses. In Rancho Cordova, CalRecycle identified solid waste disposal rates of 4.7 tons per resident per year and 7.0 tons per employee per year in 2021 (CalRecycle 2023). The Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan requires recycling programs that are expected to result in a 50 percent diversion away from landfills, thereby extending the life of landfills. According to the 2006 Regional Waste Management Authority Annual Report, Rancho Cordova showed 48 percent of the solid waste generated in the city was diverted from landfills through recycling, composting, and other waste diversion methods. To comply with the CIWMA, the City adopted the Business and Multifamily Recycling and Organics Ordinance (Title 6, Chapter 6.21) in October 2008. The ordinance requires businesses and multifamily residential properties with five or more units that generate four or more cubic yards per week of solid waste to implement an on-site recycling program. Businesses and multifamily properties that generate an excess of two cubic yards of organic waste per week are also subject to the provisions of the ordinance.

5.14.4.3 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would:

U-4 Generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals.

U-5 Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste.

5.14.4.4 PLANS, PROGRAMS, AND POLICIES
The 2006 General Plan Environmental Impact Report
The 2006 General Plan EIR determined that implementation of the proposed policies Infrastructure, Services, and Financing and Natural Resource Elements and associated actions and mitigation measures would ensure that the 2006 General Plan’s solid waste service impacts would be less than significant.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

5. Environmental Analysis

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEM
June 2024 Page 5.14-29

5.14.4.5 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
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. [Threshold U-4]
With the implementation of the proposed project, the population is anticipated to increase by 322 residents3 and approximately 280 jobs4 are projected to be generated. As shown in Table 5.14-6, Increase in Solid Waste Generation Rates, this projected growth would result in an increase in solid waste of approximately 2.4 tons/day or 864.9 tons/year. Table 5.14-6 also shows the disposal rate for residential and employees in Rancho Cordova.

The per-capita disposal rate is a jurisdiction-specific index used to determine compliance with AB 939, allowing CalRecycle and jurisdictions to focus on the successful implementation of diversion programs, as one of several factors (CalRecycle 2023).

Table 5.14-6 Increase in Solid Waste Generation Rates
Category Increase in
Residents
Solid Waste Generation Rate
(ppd)
Increase in Solid Waste
(tons/day)
Increase in Solid Waste
(tons/year)
Residents 322 7.5 1.2 440.7
Jobs 280 8.3 1.2 424.1
Total 2.4 864.9
Source: CalRecycle 2023.

Municipal waste services in the city are currently provided by Republic Services, Inc. The proposed project would increase the waste delivered to The Forward Landfill (SWIS No. 39-AA-0015) by 2.4 tons per day. The remaining capacity at the Forward Landfill was reported to be 24,720,669 tons with a Ceased Operation Date of January 1, 2036 (CalRecycle 2024a). The Ceased Operation Date is when the landfill will no longer receiving waste and is being prepared for post-closure maintenance according to an approved plan and construction schedule (CalRecycle 2024b). The proposed project would result in a nominal increase in waste generation that would not exceed the capacity of the Forward Landfill.

During construction, the proposed project would need to comply with CALGreen requirements, specifically recycling and/or salvaging for reuse a minimum of 65 percent of nonhazardous construction and demolition waste generated during most “new construction” projects. Section 74-04.006, Amendments to CALGreen Building Standards Code, amends Section 5.408.1, Construction Waste Management, to include 2019 CALGreen requirements. Furthermore, the proposed project would also comply with the requirements of AB 341 which mandates recycling for commercial land uses and SB 1383, which requires every jurisdiction to provide organic waste collection services to all residents and businesses. Additionally, any organic waste generated in amounts over a certain threshold would be recycled in accordance with AB 1826. Therefore, the 3 Based on the average household size of 2.68 persons per household from the General Plan multiplied by the 120 dwelling units from the proposed project. 4 Based on the 140,000 square feet proposed by the project and multiplied by the 2 employees per 1,000 square feet factor (see Chapter

5.10, Population and Housing).

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

5. Environmental Analysis

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

proposed project would not generate waste in excess of state and local standards or in excess of local infrastructure, causing the impairment of solid waste reduction goals. Impacts would be less than significant.

Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Impact 5.14-6 is less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.

Level of Significance After Mitigation: Impact 5.14-6 is 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. [Threshold U-5] As noted above, the proposed project would comply with applicable federal, state, and local statues and regulations related to solid waste. For example, during construction, the proposed project would be required to salvage or recycle a minimum of 65 percent of nonhazardous construction and demolition waste generated during construction activities in order to comply with CALGreen Section 5.408 requirements. Additionally, the proposed project would need to provide readily accessible areas for the depositing, storage, and collection of non-hazardous materials for recycling including for organics, under CALGreen Section 5.408. Furthermore, the proposed project would also comply with the requirements of AB 341 which mandates recycling for commercial land uses and SB 1383, which requires every jurisdiction to provide organic waste collection services to all residents and businesses. The City Municipal Code implements these state requirements in Sections 6.20 and 6.21. The proposed project would also comply with these sections of the Municipal Code by collecting recyclables in separated and labeled containers. Therefore, the proposed project would comply with the federal, state, and local standards related to solid waste. Impacts would be less than significant.

5.14.4.6 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The Rancho Cordova General Plan EIR determined that cumulative impacts to solid waste would be less than cumulatively considerable under implementation of the General Plan. The 2006 EIR notes that the Kiefer Landfill, Forward Landfill, and Lockwood Regional Landfill can accommodate solid waste disposal demands from the Planning Area.

The cumulative setting for the discussion of solid waste in the 2006 EIR includes all existing, planned, proposed, approved, and reasonably foreseeable development in all of Rancho Cordova. Implementation of the proposed project is estimated to result in an increase of 322 residents and 280 jobs. As evaluated in Impact

5.14-6, this would result in an increase in solid waste generation of approximately 2.4 tons/day. All waste in the City is deposited at the Forward Landfill. Like the proposed project, all projects in the City would be required to adhere to state and local waste diversion requirements including the 2022 CALGreen standards and various mandates at the state level that require jurisdictions to implement recycling programs. As such, the proposed project in conjunction with other foreseeable projects in the City would not generate waste in excess of state or local standards or in exceedance of the Forward Landfill’s remaining capacity. Furthermore, other projects ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

5. Environmental Analysis

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEM
June 2024 Page 5.14-31
proposed within the city would be subject to environmental review to evaluate their contributive increase in solid waste.

Continued compliance with the applicable regulations that require waste diversion would ensure that the proposed project’s incremental impacts regarding solid waste are not cumulatively considerable.

5.14.4.7 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE BEFORE MITIGATION
After implementation of regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval, Impact 5.14-7 would be less than significant.

5.14.4.8 MITIGATION MEASURES
Impacts would be less than significant.

5.14.4.9 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Impacts would be less than significant.

5.14.5 References
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). 2022. CalEEMod Version 2022.1- Appendix G: Default Data Tables. https://www.caleemod.com/user-guide California American Water (CAW). 2021, June. Urban Water Management Plan- Sacramento Main District. https://www.amwater.com/caaw/resources/PDF/Customer-Service-Billing/Rates-Tariffs/GRCApplications/Sacramento_UWMP.pdf California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2023, March 6 (Accessed).

Jurisdiction Diversion/Disposal Rate Summary.
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/DiversionProgram/JurisdictionDiversionPost2006 ______.2024a, February 14 (Accessed). SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details: Forward Landfill, Inc. (39-AA0015). https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/1434?siteID=3106 ______.2024b, May 24 (Accessed). Closure/Postclosure of Disposal Sites. https://calrecycle.ca.gov/swfacilities/closure/
California Governor’s Office (California Governor). 2023, March 23. Easing Drought Restrictions. https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/FACT-SHEET_-DroughtEO.pdf?emrc=45befa#:~:text=Newsom%20is%20now%20easing%20some,2%20drought%20conti ngency%20plans%3B%20%E2%97%8F
California Regional Water Quality Control Board (CRWQCB). 2007. Stormwater Quality Improvement Plan for the County of Sacramento and the Cities of Citrus Heights, Elk Grove, Folsom, Galt, and Rancho Cordova. https://waterresources.saccounty.gov/Documents/June2007-SQIP-DRAFT.pdf ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

5. Environmental Analysis

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

______.2023. Water Conservation Emergency Regulations.
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/conservation_portal/regs/emergency_reg ulation.html
Department of Water Resources Control Board (DWRCB). 2022. Water Conservation and Production Reports- Current Monthly Reports.
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/conservation_portal/conservation_reporti ng.html
Kleinfelder. 2008, January 11. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment: Folsom Mather Center.

Ramirez, Jose, Water Recycling Program Manager. 2022, May 6. Declining Water Flows and Impacts to Regional San and Sacramento Wastewater Treatment Plant May 6, 2022 (Presentation). https://watereuse.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/2.-Jose-Ramirez-Regional-San-DecliningFlows.pdf Rancho Cordova, City of. 2006. Appendix C: Water Supply Evaluation, Table 11. https://www.cityofranchocordova.org/home/showpublisheddocument/1491/635895080495700000 _____. 2023, March 6 (Accessed). “Stormwater Quality Program.” https://www.cityofranchocordova.org/departments/public-works/stormwater-quality-program Sacramento Area Sewer District (SASD). 2023. Standards and Specifications. https://sacsewer-bucket.s3.uswest-1.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/SacSewer-Standards-and-Specifications.pdf _______. 2020, December. System Capacity Plan 2020 Update. https://www.sacsewer.com/sites/main/files/fileattachments/2020_scp_final_report_20210108.pdf?1615570170 Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District (Regional San). 2008, May. 2020 Master Plan: Final Executive Summary. https://www.regionalsan.com/sites/main/files/file-attachments/execsum_0.pdf?1391022948 ______. 2016, July. Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District’s South Sacramento County Agriculture and Habitat Lands Recycled Water Program Draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH#: 2015022067). https://www.regionalsan.com/sites/main/files/file-attachments/draft_eir_final.pdf ______. 2017, July. Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District Sacramento Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant:

Progress Report Method of Compliance Work Plan and Schedule for Ammonia, Nitrate plus Nitrite, and Disinfection Byproduct Effluent Limitations and Title 22 or Equivalent Disinfection Requirements. https://www.regionalsan.com/sites/main/files/fileattachments/progress_report_no._19_july_7_2022.pdf?1657554136 ______. 2022. 2022 State of the District. https://www.regionalsan.com/sites/main/files/fileattachments/regional_san_sod_final.pdf?1677776638 ______. 2023a, February 28 (Accessed). EchoWater Fast Facts. https://www.regionalsan.com/sites/main/files/fileattachments/echowater_summary_fact_sheet.pdf?1601047808 ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

5. Environmental Analysis

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEM
June 2024 Page 5.14-33
______. 2023b, February 28 (Accessed). “Our New Evolution in Wastewater Treatment.” https://www.regionalsan.com/echowater-project
Sacramento Stormwater Quality Partnership (SSQP). 2018, July. Sacramento Stormwater Quality Design Manual for the Sacramento Region.

South American Subbasin. 2021, October 21. South American Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan. http://www.sasbgroundwater.org/assets/pdf/resources/complete/SASbGSP_FINAL_01212022.pd f
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2024 (accessed). State Water Resources Control Board Resolution No. 2022-0054.
https://waterboards.ca.gov/board_decisions/adopted_orders/resolutions/2022/rs2022-0054.pdf ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

5. Environmental Analysis

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

This page intentionally left blank.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

June 2024 Page 6-1

6. Significant Impacts, Irreversible Changes, and
Growth-Inducing Impacts
Section 15126(b) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines requires an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to describe any significant impacts of the proposed project, including those which can be mitigated but not reduced to a level of insignificance. Significant impacts of a proposed project that cannot be reduced to a less than significant level are referred to as significant and unavoidable impacts. This chapter provides an overview of the significant and unavoidable impacts of the proposed project, as well as impacts found not to be significant, growth inducing, significant and unavoidable impacts, and significant irreversible changes.

A more detailed analysis of the effects the proposed project would have on the environment, and proposed mitigation measures to minimize significant environmental impacts, are provided in Sections 5.1 through 5.13 of this EIR.

6.1 SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED

PROJECT
Sections 5.1 through 5.14 of Chapter 5, Environmental Analysis, of this EIR evaluate the significant effects of the proposed project and provide mitigation for impacts that can be reduced to a less than significant level.

Each chapter discusses the significant impact and provides a corresponding mitigation measure. The mitigation measures are summarized in Chapter 1, Executive Summary, of this EIR.

Pursuant to Section 15126.2(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, this EIR considers the significant environmental effects that cannot be avoided if the proposed project is implemented.

The environmental impacts listed below would be potentially affected by the proposed project; however, mitigation measures would reduce their level of significance to less than significant, as determined in the chapters analyzing each of these impacts.

Air Quality
 Impact 5.1-2: Construction activities associated with the proposed project could generate short-term emissions in exceedance of Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District’s threshold criteria.

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

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

6. Significant Impacts, Irreversible Changes, and Growth-Inducing Impacts

 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.

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, which could 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 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); or 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.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

6. Significant Impacts, Irreversible Changes, and Growth-Inducing Impacts June 2024 Page 6-3

6.2 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE CHANGES DUE TO THE PROPOSED

PROJECT
Section 15126.2(c) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) describe any significant irreversible environmental changes that would be caused by the proposed project should it be implemented. Specifically, the CEQA Guidelines state:

Uses of nonrenewable resources during the initial and continued phases of the project may be irreversible since a large commitment of such resources makes removal or nonuse thereafter unlikely. Primary impacts and, particularly, secondary impacts (such as highways improvement which provides access to a previously inaccessible area) generally commit future generations to similar uses. Also, irreversible damage can result from environmental accidents associated with the project. Irretrievable commitments of resources should be evaluated to assure that such current consumption is justified.

The following are the significant irreversible changes that would be caused by the proposed project, should it be implemented:
 Implementation of the proposed project would include construction activities that would entail the commitment of nonrenewable and/or slowly renewable energy resources; human resources; and natural resources such as lumber and other forest products, sand and gravel, asphalt, steel, copper, lead, other metals, water, and fossil fuels. Operation of the proposed project would require the use of natural gas and electricity, petroleum-based fuels, fossil fuels, and water. The commitment of resources required for the construction and operation of the proposed project would limit the availability of such resources for future generations or for other uses during the life of the project.  An increased commitment of social services and public maintenance services (e.g., police, fire, schools, libraries, and sewer and water services) would also be required. The energy and social services commitments would be long-term obligations in view of the low likelihood of returning the land to its original condition once it has been developed.
 An increase in vehicle trips would accompany project-related population growth. Over the long term, emissions associated with such vehicle trips would continue to contribute to the South Coast Air Basin’s nonattainment designation for ozone (O3) and particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10) under the California and National Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS), and nonattainment for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) under the California AAQS.

Given the low likelihood that the land at the project site would revert to its original form, the proposed project would generally commit future generations to these environmental changes.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

6. Significant Impacts, Irreversible Changes, and Growth-Inducing Impacts

6.3 GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Pursuant to Sections 15126(d) and 15126.2(d) of the CEQA Guidelines, this section is provided to examine ways in which the proposed project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. Also required is an assessment of other projects that would foster other activities which could affect the environment, individually or cumulatively. To address this issue, potential growth-inducing effects will be examined through analysis of the following questions:
 Would this project remove obstacles to growth, e.g., through the construction or extension of major infrastructure facilities that do not presently exist in the project area, or through changes in existing regulations pertaining to land development?
 Would this project result in the need to expand one or more public services to maintain desired levels of service?
 Would this project encourage or facilitate economic effects that could result in other activities that could significantly affect the environment?
 Would approval of this project involve some precedent-setting action that could encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment? Please note that growth-inducing effects are not to be construed as necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment. This issue is presented to provide additional information on ways in which this project could contribute to significant changes in the environment, beyond the direct consequences of developing the land use concept examined in the preceding sections of this EIR.

Would this project remove obstacles to growth, e.g., through the construction or extension of major infrastructure facilities that do not presently exist in the project area, or through changes in existing regulations pertaining to land development?
The construction of the proposed project would not require the extension of major infrastructure facilities to the site. The project site does not have any built structures onsite and would require connections; however the site is within an existing residential area and is in an urban area served by existing infrastructure, including water and sewer mains, and electricity and natural gas services.

As mentioned in Section 5.7, Land Use and Planning, of the DEIR, the proposed project is located within the Folsom Boulevard Planning area and is zoned RMU (FBSP) with additional development standards. The project consists of community-commercial buildings, parking structures, and affordable multi-family development, adhering to the Mather Mills opportunity site's development standards. In addition, the project aligns with City general plan policies for high-density residential and mixed-use development within 0.25 miles of a transit stop and a strong job-housing ratio.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

6. Significant Impacts, Irreversible Changes, and Growth-Inducing Impacts June 2024 Page 6-5
Would this project result in the need to expand one or more public services to maintain desired levels of service?
The proposed project would increase employment and residences in the City. The proposed project is expected to increase the demand for public services, which would contribute to the needs to expand facilities. However, as substantiated in Section 5.11, Public Services, of this DEIR, existing programs and policies would ensure that the increase in uses, and impacts to public services, would be less than significant.

Would this project encourage or facilitate economic effects that could result in other activities that could significantly affect the environment?
Future development under the proposed project would increase population, housing, and jobs in the City. The project is expected to increase demand for fire protection services, police services, school services, and library services, which would contribute to the need to expand facilities. However, as substantiated in 5.11, Public Services, and 5.14, Utilities and Service Systems, of the DEIR, existing programs and policies would ensure that the service capability will grow proportionate to the increase in uses and impacts to public services and utilities would be less than significant.

Would approval of this project involve some precedent-setting action that could encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment? During construction of future development on the site, several design, engineering, and construction jobs would be created. Construction employees would be from the regional labor force, and the construction of the project would not be expected attract new workers to the region. The proposed project could result in a maximum of 322 residents and 280 employees (see 5.10, Population and Housing). Although the proposed project would require a zoning amendment this action would not approve growth beyond that considered in the 2006 GP EIR.

Future residents of the proposed project would seek shopping, entertainment, employment, and other economic opportunities in the City of Rancho Cordova. This would create an increased demand for such economic goods and services and would, therefore, encourage the creation of new businesses. Proximity to the commercial uses onsite and in the surroundings, would result in beneficial impacts to the City’s jobs-housing balance (see Section 5.10, Population and Housing), and the close proximity to such uses would reduce vehicle trips, and thereby reduce impacts to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and transportation. Therefore, although the proposed project would have a direct growth-inducing effect, indirect growth-inducing effects would be minimized due to the balance of land uses in the proposed project.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

6. Significant Impacts, Irreversible Changes, and Growth-Inducing Impacts

This page intentionally left blank.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

June 2024 Page 7-1

7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project

7.1 INTRODUCTION

7.1.1 Purpose and Scope
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that an environmental impact report (EIR) include a discussion of reasonable project alternatives that would “feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives” (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6[a]). As required by CEQA, this chapter identifies and evaluates potential alternatives to the proposed project.

Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines explains the foundation and legal requirements for the alternatives analysis in an EIR. Key provisions are:
 “[T]he discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the project or its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly.” (15126.6[b])  “The specific alternative of ‘no project’ shall also be evaluated along with its impact.” (15126.6[e][1])  “The no project analysis shall discuss the existing conditions at the time the notice of preparation is published, or if no notice of preparation is published, at the time environmental analysis is commenced, as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services. If the environmentally superior alternative is the ‘no project’ alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives.” (15126.6[e][2])  “The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by a ‘rule of reason’ that requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The alternatives shall be limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project.” (15126.6[f])  “Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries…, and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alternative site (or the site is already owned by the proponent)” (15126.6[f][1]).
 “Only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project need be considered for inclusion in the EIR.” (15126.6[f][2][A]) ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project

 “An EIR need not consider an alternative whose effect cannot be reasonably ascertained and whose implementation is remote and speculative.” (15126.6[f][3]) For each development alternative, this analysis:
 Describes the alternative.
 Analyzes the impact of the alternative as compared to the proposed project.  Identifies the impacts of the project that would be avoided or lessened by the alternative.  Assesses whether the alternative would meet most of the basic project objectives.  Evaluates the comparative merits of the alternative and the project.

According to Section 15126.6(d) of the CEQA Guidelines, “[i]f an alternative would cause…significant effects in addition to those that would be caused by the project as proposed, the significant effects of the alternative shall be discussed, but in less detail than the significant effects of the project as proposed.”

7.1.2 Project Objectives
As described in Section 3.2, the following objectives have been established for the proposed project and will aid decision makers in their review of the project, the project alternatives, 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.

7.1.3 Summary of Significant Impacts
The following environmental topics would result in potentially significant impacts with implementation of the proposed project. However due to proposed mitigation measures these impacts would ultimately be reduced to a less than significant level. The DEIR has determined that there would be no significant and unavoidable impacts from the implementation of the proposed project.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project
June 2024 Page 7-3
Air Quality
 Impact 5.1-2: Construction activities associated with the proposed project could generate short-term emissions in exceedance of Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District’s (SMAQMD) threshold criteria.

Biological Resources
 Impact 5.2-1: Development of the proposed project could 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.

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, which could 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 5.12-1: 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 ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project

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.

7.2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND REJECTED
The following is a discussion of the land use alternatives considered during the scoping and planning process and the reasons why they were not selected for detailed analysis in this EIR.

7.2.1 Alternative Development Areas
CEQA requires that the discussion of alternatives focus on alternatives to the project or its location that are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project. The key question and first step in the analysis is whether any of the significant effects of the project would be avoided or substantially lessened by putting the project in another location. Only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project need be considered for inclusion in the EIR (CEQA Guidelines § 15126[5][B][1]). Key factors in evaluating the feasibility of potential offsite locations for EIR project alternatives include:
 If it is in the same jurisdiction.
 Whether development as proposed would require a General Plan Amendment.  Whether the project applicant could reasonably acquire, control, or otherwise have access to the alternative site (or the site is already owned by the proponent). (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[f][1]) The proposed project involves the construction of community-commercial buildings, housing, public open space, and a parking structure on a 9.85-acre vacant site. 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. As there are no off-site locations that could accommodate the uses and scale of development proposed with the proposed project, an alternate site was eliminated from consideration.

7.2.2 Residential-Only Alternative
The Residential-Only Alternative would only develop the residential component of the proposed project (up to 394 dwelling units). Eliminating the non-residential 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 onsite, likely increasing VMT. Given the Specific Plan’s ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project
June 2024 Page 7-5
location and proximity to the Mather Field Mills light rail station, this site is suitable for both residential and non-residential 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 while the Residential-Only Alternative would allow up to 1,056 residents. The proximity to major transit system makes this site ideal for mixed use. Limiting the property to only residential would force commercial interests to locate elsewhere in the region. In addition, this alternative would only meet three of the project objectives—this alternative would not be able to provide for a mix of uses near the Mather Field/Mills Station nor improve the jobs-housing balance by provide new housing close to jobs and services. The Residential-Only Alternative would not be feasible as 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.

7.3 ALTERNATIVES SELECTED FOR FURTHER ANALYSIS
Based on the criteria listed above, the following alternatives have been determined to represent a reasonable range of alternatives which have the potential to feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project, but which may avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. These alternatives are analyzed in detail in the following sections.
 No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative
 Reduced Development Alternative
An EIR must identify an “environmentally superior” alternative, and where the No Project Alternative is identified as environmentally superior, the EIR is then required to identify as environmentally superior an alternative from among the others evaluated. Each alternative's environmental impacts are compared to the proposed project and determined to be environmentally superior, neutral, or inferior. Section 7.7 identifies the Environmentally Superior Alternative. The preferred land use alternative (proposed project) is analyzed in detail in Chapter 5 of this DEIR.

7.3.1 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.

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 floor area ratio (FAR) of ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project

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.

Table 7-1 No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative Buildout Statistical Summary Proposed Project
No Project/
Existing General Plan Alternative
Dwelling Units 120 146
Population 322 3901
Jobs 280 4632
Non-Residential Square Footage 140,000 231,267
Jobs-to-Housing Ratio 2.3 3.2
1 Based on the average household size of 2.68 persons per household from the General Plan EIR. 2 Based on the approximate 2 employees per 1,000 square feet from the General Plan EIR (see Chapter 5.9, Population and Housing).

7.3.1.1 AIR QUALITY
Under this No Project Alternative, new development would also occur on the site although with an increase in residential units and non-residential square footage compared to the proposed project. As with the proposed project the entire site would be developed consistent with the existing zoning. Therefore, construction activities and associated exhaust and fugitive dust emissions would occur like the proposed project. The No Project Alternative would result in an increase in vehicle trips and building energy use, compared to existing conditions and development assumed in the General Plan. Air quality impacts under this Alternative would be greater than the proposed project and would still result in potentially significant short-term construction impacts and require mitigation measure AQ-1, which requires the construction contractor(s) to implement basic and enhanced control measures to reduce construction-related fugitive dust as a standards to reduce impacts to less than significant impacts.

7.3.1.2 BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS
Under this No Project Alternative, new development would also occur on the site; therefore, construction and operational activities would still occur. Development activities under the No Project Alternative could disturb the habitat and movement of special status species. Because this alternative would also disturb the entire project site, biological resources impacts under this No Project Alternative would be the same as the proposed project.

Both scenarios would be required to include mitigation measure BIO-1, which protects nesting birds, and BIO-2, which protects bat roosting habitat to reduce impacts to less than significant impacts.

7.3.1.3 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Under this No Project Alternative, new development would also occur on the site. Therefore development activities under the No Project Alternative could still potentially disturb human remains and impact archaeological resources. Cultural resources impacts under this Alternative would be similar to the proposed project and would require mitigation measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 to reduce impacts to less than significant.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project
June 2024 Page 7-7
Mitigation measure CUL-1 mandates that construction work must stop within a 100-foot radius of cultural or human-related subsurface deposits and a qualified archaeologist must evaluate the find’s significance and modify the no-work radius, using professional judgment. Mitigation measure CUL-2 states that the California Code requires archaeologists to protect human remains or potentially human remains from disturbance, and to inform the Sacramento County Coroner of any such discovery, as per Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code.

7.3.1.4 ENERGY
Under this No Project Alternative, new development would occur on the site. Development intensity under this alternative would be greater than the proposed project, in terms of housing, and therefore, energy use from residential uses would be increased compared to the proposed project. Because the types of non-residential uses under this alternative cannot be determined at this time, it is unknown what the energy demand would be for those uses. However, any future use would be required to comply with the same energy-conserving regulations as the proposed project, so it is assumed that this alternative would not result in wasteful or inefficient energy use or conflict with plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Impacts under this alternative would be increased to that of the proposed project; however impacts would remain less than significant.

7.3.1.5 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Under the No Project Alternative, new development would generate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the construction and operation activities. The No Project Alternative would result in an increase in vehicle trips, compared to existing conditions due to the increase in population. GHG impacts under this alternative would be greater than the proposed project. Therefore this No Project Alternative could exceed SMAQMD Annual Construction Significance Threshold and would require mitigation measures GHG-1, which implements SMAQMD Tier 1 Best Management Practices, and GHG-2, which implements SMAQMD Tier 2 Best Management Practices in order to reduce impacts to less than significant.

7.3.1.6 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Under this No Project Alternative, new development would also occur on the site; therefore, remediation, construction, and operational activities would still occur. Development activities under the No Project Alternative would require remediation of the hazardous materials on the project site. Because this alternative would introduce commercial and residential uses that could expose people to hazardous materials, the impacts would be the same as for the proposed project. Both scenarios would be required to include mitigation measure HAZ-1, which incorporates all recommendations from an approved Site Cleanup Plan and Addendum to the Site Cleanup Plan prepared by Tetra Tech; impacts would be reduced to less than significant.

7.3.1.7 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Under this No Project Alternative, new development would also occur on the site; however, neither scenario would result in dividing an established community. As both scenarios would not conflict with either the 2006 General Plan EIR or the FBSP, impacts would be similar and less than significant.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project

7.3.1.8 MINERAL RESOURCES
Under either scenario, the project site is within MRZ-3. MRZ-3 Zones are Mineral Resources Zones where the significance of mineral deposits cannot be determined from the available data. Similar to the proposed project, the No Project Alternative would be unlikely to cause a loss of known mineral resources due to previous ground disturbance activities on the project site. The project site is in an urban area with residential, commercial, and residential uses to the north, east, south, and west. Under the No Project Alternative, the project would still result in urban use. Therefore, under both scenarios the project would unlikely reveal any mineral resources due to previous development and would be compatible with the surrounding environment. The impact would be similar and less than significant.

7.3.1.9 NOISE
Under this No Project Alternative, new development would also occur on the site; therefore, noise from construction and operation would still occur. Noise impacts under this No Project Alternative would be similar to the proposed project, and impacts would be less than significant.

7.3.1.10 POPULATION AND HOUSING
The No Project Alternative would generate 146 dwelling units, 390 residents, and 425 jobs. Compared to the proposed project, the No Project Alternative would result in a increase of 26 dwelling units, 68 residents, and an increase in 145 jobs. Like the proposed project, the No Project Alternative would not displace housing or people. Both scenarios would not result in unplanned population growth in the project area since they would not result in more housing units, residents, and jobs then what was projected in the 2006 General Plan EIR or FBSP. Impacts would be the same.

7.3.1.11 PUBLIC SERVICES
The No Project Alternative would create an increase in demand for fire, police, school, and library services and facilities in the City. Development under the No Project Alternative would result in more residents compared to the proposed project. However, compliance with the General Plan policies, City’s Municipal Code, and payment of fees for Government Code Section 65996 would reduce impacts. Impacts would be less than significant under both scenarios.

7.3.1.12 RECREATION
Development would occur under this No Project Alternative; however, no open space would be developed on the site. The proposed project would introduce up to 2.5 acres of public open space with 1.3 to 1.5 acres of Neighborhood and Community Greens and 0.75 to 1.0-acre of Plaza and Green Space. The existing General Plan and FBSP do not specify requirement for parkland or open space; therefore, this No Project Alternative would generate additional residents that would increase the use of existing park and recreational facilities and result in environmental impacts to provide new and/or expanded recreational facilities. Under both scenarios, compliance with Cordova Recreation and Parks District Quimby Parks requirements (land dedication or fees) would be required. Neither the proposed project nor the No Project Alternative would result in significant ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project
June 2024 Page 7-9
impacts to recreational facilities. Impacts of the No Project Alternative would be greater than the proposed project.

7.3.1.13 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Under this No Project Alternative, new development would also occur on the site. Impacts under the No Project Alternative would be similar to the proposed project. Future development under this alternative and the proposed project could result in potentially significant impacts to the uncovering of tribal cultural resources.

The No Project Alternative would also require mitigation measure TCR-1 which states that before grading permits, a qualified archaeological monitor must be on call during ground-disturbing activities and if archeological resources are discovered, construction must stop within 25 feet and an archaeologist will be consulted to determine if further study is required. Impacts under this alternative, as with the proposed project, would be similar and less than significant.

7.3.1.14 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
The No Project Alternative would create an increase in demand for potable water, wastewater generation, and solid waste disposal in the City. Development under the No Project Alternative would result in more residents compared to the proposed project. However, compliance with the General Plan policies and the City’s Municipal Code would reduce impacts. Impacts would be less than significant under both scenarios.

7.3.1.15 CONCLUSION
The No Project Alternative would increase impacts on air quality, energy, greenhouse gases, population and housing, public services, recreation, and utilities and service systems compared to the proposed project. All other impacts would be similar to the proposed project. The No Project Alternative would be developed at 51 percent of the site for residential use and 49 percent for non-residential development, with a similar residential density and commercial uses FAR as the proposed project. Under this Alternative, all project objectives would be met except for Objective 1, because no open space would be developed under this scenario; therefore it would not meet the recreational uses goal stated in Objective 1.

7.3.2 Reduced Development
The Reduced Development Alternative would reduce residential and nonresidential development and increase the amount of public open space at the project site.

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.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project

Table 7-2 Reduced Development Alternative Buildout Statistical Summary Proposed Project Reduced Development Alternative
Dwelling Units 120 94
Population 322 2531
Jobs 280 2862
Non-residential Square Footage 140,000 143,007
Jobs-to-Housing Ratio 2.3 3.0
1 Based on the average household size of 2.68 persons per household from the General Plan EIR. 2 Based on the approximate 2 employees per 1,000 square feet from the General Plan EIR (see Chapter 5.9, Population and Housing).

7.3.2.1 AIR QUALITY
Under this Reduced Development Alternative, new development would also occur on the site although with a decrease in residential units and non-residential square footage and an increase in open space compared to the proposed project. Although the Reduced Development Alternative would result in less development, construction activities and associated exhaust and fugitive dust emissions would occur like the proposed project.

The Reduced Development Alternative would result in an increase in vehicle trips and building energy use, compared to existing conditions and development assumed in the General Plan. Air quality impacts under this Alternative would be less than the proposed project but would still result in potentially significant impacts in regard to short-term construction impacts and require mitigation measure AQ-1, which requires the construction contractor(s) to implement basic and enhanced control measures to reduce construction-related fugitive dust as a standard to reduce impacts to less than significant.

7.3.2.2 BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS
Under this Reduced Development Alternative, new development would also occur on the site; therefore, construction and operational activities would still occur. Development activities under the Reduced Development Alternative could disturb the habitat and movement of special status species. Because this alternative would also disturb the entire project site, biological resources impacts under this Reduced Development Alternative would be the same as the proposed project. Both scenarios would be required to include mitigation measure BIO-1, which protects nesting birds, and BIO-2, which protects bat roosting habitat to reduce impacts to less than significant impacts.

7.3.2.3 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Under this Reduced Development Alternative, new development would also occur on the site. Therefore, development activities under the Reduced Development Alternative could still potentially disturb human remains and impact archaeological resources. Cultural resources impacts under this Alternative would be similar to the proposed project and would require mitigation measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 to reduce impacts to less than significant. Mitigation measure CUL-1 mandates that construction work must stop within a 100-foot radius of cultural or human-related subsurface deposits and a qualified archaeologist must evaluate the find's significance and modify the no-work radius, using professional judgment. Mitigation measure CUL-2 states that the California Code requires archaeologists to protect human remains or potential human remains from ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project
June 2024 Page 7-11
disturbance, and to inform the Sacramento County Coroner of any such discovery, per Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code.

7.3.2.4 ENERGY
Under this Reduced Development Alternative, new development would occur on the site. Development intensity under this alternative would be less than the proposed project, in terms of housing, and therefore, energy use from residential uses would be decreased compared to the proposed project. Because the types of non-residential uses under this alternative cannot be determined at this time, it is unknown what energy demand would be for those uses. However, any future use would be required to comply with the same energy conserving regulations as the proposed project so it is assumed that this alternative would not result in wasteful or inefficient energy use or conflict with plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Impacts under this alternative would be less than the proposed project and impacts would be less than significant.

7.3.2.5 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Under this Reduced Development Alternative, new development would GHG emissions from the construction and operation activities. The Reduced Development Alternative would result in an increase in vehicle trips compared to existing conditions due to the increase in population. GHG impacts under this alternative would be less than the proposed project. However, this Alternative could still exceed SMAQMD Annual Construction Significance Threshold and would also require mitigation measures GHG-1, which requires the project to implement SMAQMD Tier 1 Best Management Practices, and GHG-2, which would require the project to implement SMAQMD Tier 2 Best Management Practices in order to reduce impacts to less than significant.

7.3.2.6 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
The Reduced Development Alternative would still introduce commercial and residential uses, exposing people to hazardous materials. The impacts of this alternative are the same as the proposed project. Both scenarios require mitigation measure HAZ-1, which incorporates recommendations from an approved Site Cleanup Plan and Addendum prepared by Tetra Tech, to reduce impacts to less than significant.

7.3.2.7 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Under this Alternative, new development would also occur on the site; however, the development of this alternative would not result in dividing an established community. Under this Reduced Development Alternative, the project would conflict with the FBSP since the FBSP requires greater than 50 percent residential use on the site, and the Reduced Development Alternative would result in fewer residential units than the proposed project. Therefore impacts would be greater than the proposed project but this conflict would not result in a physical environmental effect.

7.3.2.8 MINERAL RESOURCES
The project site is within the MRZ-3 zone. MRZ-3 Zones are Mineral Resources Zones where the significance of mineral deposits cannot be determined from the available data. Similar to the proposed project, the No Project Alternative would be unlikely to cause a loss of known mineral resources due to previous ground ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project

disturbance activities on the project site. The project site is in an urban area with residential, commercial, and residential uses to the north, east, south, and west. Under the No Alternative, the project would still result in urban use. Therefore under both scenarios the project would be unlikely to reveal any mineral resources due to previous development and would be compatible with the surrounding environment. The impact would be similar and less than significant.

7.3.2.9 NOISE
Under this Reduced Development Alternative, new development would also occur on the site; therefore, noise from construction and operation would still occur. Noise generated on site under this Reduced Development Alternative would be similar to the proposed project, but because the site would be developed with less intense uses, construction noise and traffic noise would be less than the proposed project. Impacts under the Reduced Development Alternative would be less than significant.

7.3.2.10 POPULATION AND HOUSING
The Reduced Development Alternative would include 94 dwelling units and generate 253 residents and 286 jobs. Compared to the proposed project, the Reduced Development Alternative would result in a decrease of 26 dwelling units and 69 residents, and an increase in 6 jobs. Like the proposed project, the Reduced Development Alternative would not displace housing or people. Because the Reduced Development Alternative would not result in unplanned population growth in the project area—in comparison to the 2006 General Plan EIR or the FBSP that increase housing units, residents, and jobs compared to existing conditions—impacts would be similar.

7.3.2.11 PUBLIC SERVICES
The Reduced Development Alternative would create an increase in demand for fire, police, school, and library services and facilities in the city. Development under the Reduced Development Alternative would result in fewer residents compared to the proposed project. Compliance with the General Plan policies, City’s Municipal Code, and payment of fees for Government Code Section 65996 would reduce impacts. Impacts would be less than significant.

7.3.2.12 RECREATION
Under this Reduced Development Alternative approximately 3.35 acres of open space would be developed on the site. The proposed project would introduce up to 2.5 acres of public open space with 1.3 to 1.5 acres of Neighborhood and Community Greens and 0.75 to 1.0 acre of Plaza and Green Space. The Reduced Development Alternative would generate additional residents that would increase the use of existing park and recreational facilities and result in environmental impacts to provide new and/or expanded recreational facilities. This alternative would be required to comply with Cordova Recreation and Parks District Quimby Parks requirements (land dedication or fees). Neither the proposed project nor the Reduced Development Alternative would result in significant impacts to recreational facilities. Impacts of the Reduced Development Alternative would be less than the proposed project.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project
June 2024 Page 7-13

7.3.2.13 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Under this Reduced Development Alternative, new development would also occur on the site. Impacts under the Reduced Development Alternative would be similar to the proposed project. Future development under this alternative and the proposed project could result in potentially significant impacts to the uncovering tribal cultural resources. The Reduced Development Alternative would also require mitigation measure TCR-1 which states that before grading permits, a qualified archaeological monitor must be on call during ground-disturbing activities and if archeological resources are discovered, construction must stop within 25 feet and an archaeologist will be consulted to determine if further study is needed. Impacts under this alternative would be similar to those of the proposed project and less than significant with the mitigation measure.

7.3.2.14 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
The Reduced Development Alternative would create an increase in demand for potable water, wastewater generation, and solid waste disposal in the City. Development under the Reduced Development Alternative would result in fewer residents compared to the proposed project. However, like the proposed project, compliance with the General Plan policies and City’s Municipal Code would reduce impacts on utilities. Impacts would be less than significant.

7.3.2.15 CONCLUSION
The Reduced Development Alternative would increase impacts related to land use and planning compared to the proposed project. All other impacts would be similar or less than compared to the proposed project. The Reduced Development Alternative would be developed at a similar residential density and commercial uses would have similar FARs as the proposed project. 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: Increase the City’s housing stock by providing a range of housing density types, including affordable housing.

7.4 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
CEQA requires a lead agency to identify the “environmentally superior alternative” to the proposed project.

Because the No Project Alternative would result in an overall increase in the level of impacts identified for the proposed project, the Reduced Development Alternative has been identified as “environmentally superior” to the proposed project. Because the proposed project would not result in significant and unavoidable impacts, additional alternatives were not analyzed.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project

This page intentionally left blank.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

June 2024 Page 8-1

8. Impacts Found Not to Be Significant
California Public Resources Code Section 21003 (f) states: “…it is the policy of the state that…[a]ll persons and public agencies involved in the environmental review process be responsible for carrying out the process in the most efficient, expeditious manner in order to conserve the available financial, governmental, physical, and social resources with the objective that those resources may be better applied toward the mitigation of actual significant effects on the environment.” This policy is reflected in the State California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Guidelines) Section 15126.2(a), which states that “[a]n EIR [Environmental Impact Report] shall identify and focus on the significant environmental impacts of the proposed project” and Section 15143, which states that “[t]he EIR shall focus on the significant effects on the environment.” State CEQA Guidelines Section 15128 requires that an EIR contain a statement briefly indicating the reasons that various possible significant effects of a project were determined not to be significant. This chapter includes an environmental analysis and finding of no impact and less than significant for the topics not included in Chapter 5, Environmental Analysis, of this DEIR.

8.1 AESTHETICS
Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less Than Significant Impact. The 2006 EIR indicated that numerous scenic vistas of the American River are provided from various public areas, including Folsom Boulevard. Development with the American River Parkway is regulated via the provisions of the American River Parkway Plan. The American River is adjacent to the City’s northern boundary and is approximately 1.30 miles north of the project site. Given the distance, varying topography, and development between the project site and the American River, impacts to scenic resources would be less than significant, and the proposed project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts.
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
No Impact. As indicated in the 2006 EIR and on the California State Scenic Highway System Map, there are no State-Designated or State-Eligible Scenic Highways within the city (Caltrans 2022). Additionally, as indicated in the 2006 EIR, there are no locally designated scenic highways within the city. As such, the proposed project would not affect scenic resources within a State Scenic Highway. Therefore, no impact would occur, and the proposed project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

8. Impacts Found Not to Be Significant

c) 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 Impact. The 2006 EIR indicated that intensification of urban uses within the city would change the visual character of the area. The Folsom Boulevard Specific Plan Area indicates that the maximum height for the project site is 65 feet or 4 stories, however, if vertical mixed-use, where residential uses are located above non-residential uses, is proposed, then there is no maximum height. The 2006 EIR indicated that there could be areas where no height restrictions are proposed which could result in development that is not compatible with low-rise development. The 2006 EIR identified that even with the implementation of the General Plan Policies and Mitigation Measure 4.13.3 impacts would be significant and unavoidable as high-rise structures would irrevocably alter the skyline and visual character of the city. Compared to the 2006 EIR, the proposed project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Less Than Significant Impact. As indicated in the 2006 EIR, development in the city would increase the amount of daytime glare and nighttime lighting through intensification, however, with the implementation of lighting standards and General Plan policies, impacts would be less than significant. Although the project site is vacant and implementation of the proposed project would increase light and glare in the area, the 2006 EIR accounted for the increase in light and glare, as such impacts would be similar. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and the proposed project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts.

8.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.

In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:
a) 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. The 2006 EIR and California Important Farmland Finder indicate that the project site is designated Urban and Built-Up (CDC 2022a). While areas within the city are designated Prime Farmland and ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

8. Impacts Found Not to Be Significant
June 2024 Page 8-3
Farmland of Statewide Importance, the project site does not contain any such designated areas, and project construction would occur within the project site boundaries. Therefore, no lands currently designated as farmland would be converted to non-agricultural uses. No impact would occur, and the proposed project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. According to the 2006 EIR, the project site is not part of a Williamson Act contract, nor is it designated as agricultural uses. While areas of the city are within a Williamson Act contract and are designated as agricultural, project construction would occur within the project site boundaries. As such, no impact would occur, and the proposed project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts. c) 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. The project site is not zoned as forestland or timberland; the project site is zoned RMU (FBSP).

Project construction would occur within the project site boundaries. Therefore, no impact would occur, and the proposed project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts. d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact. The project site does not contain forestland, and therefore would not result in the loss of forestland or conversion of forestland to non-forest uses. Project construction would occur within the project site boundaries. Therefore, no impact would occur, and the proposed project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts.
e) 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. The project site is zoned RMU (FBSP) and is located in an urbanized portion of the city. There are no forestlands or agricultural uses onsite. Project construction would occur within the project site boundaries. As such, no impact would occur, and the proposed project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

8. Impacts Found Not to Be Significant

8.3 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning map, issued by the State Geologist 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 Impact. As indicated in the 2006 EIR and Regulatory Maps, the city is not located within an Alquist-Priolo earthquake zone (CDC 2022b). The proposed project would be required to comply with the most recent version California Building Code (CBC) to minimize impacts as a result of seismic events. As such, impacts would be less than significant, and the proposed project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less Than Significant Impact. As indicated in the 2006 EIR and the Fault Activity Map of California, there are no known active faults occurring within Sacramento County (CDC 2015). However, as with most of California, the project site could be subject to minor ground shaking. The proposed project would be required to comply with the most recent version CBC to minimize impacts as a result of seismic events.

As such, impacts would be less than significant, and the proposed project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts.
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less Than Significant Impact. The 2006 EIR indicated that the potential for soil liquefaction is considered minimal as development would be required to comply with the most recent version of the CBC.

The 2006 EIR indicated that groundwater in the City is greater than 50 feet, and therefore the potential for liquefaction, including at the project site, is low. As such, impacts would be less than significant, and the proposed project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts. iv) Landslides?
No Impact. According to the California Department of Conservation, the project site is not within a landslide zone (CDC 2022c). The project site is located within a flat urbanized portion of the city, and the likelihood of landslides impacting the site is low. Additionally, the proposed project would be required to comply with the most recent version of the CBC. As such, no impact would occur, and the proposed project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

8. Impacts Found Not to Be Significant
June 2024 Page 8-5
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less Than Significant Impact. As indicated in the 2006 EIR, construction activities that would disturb one or more acres would be subject to the State’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Storm Water Permit. Applicants would be required to prepare and comply with a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that would include Best Management Practices (BMPs) to avoid soil erosion. Additionally, Chapter 16.44, Land Grading and Erosion Control, is intended to minimize impacts to surrounding properties as a result of grading activities. Chapter 16.44 establishes administrative procedures, minimum standard of review, and implementation and enforcement procedures for controlling erosion, sedimentation, and other pollutant runoff from new development projects. The proposed project would be required to comply with the NPDES, SWPPP, and Chapter 16.44 of the Rancho Cordova Municipal Code, which would reduce the impacts of soil erosion and loss of topsoil. As such, impacts would be less than significant, and the proposed project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts. c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is flat and not located in a landslide zone (CDC 2022c). Due to the low groundwater table (greater than 50 feet) in the city, the potential for liquefaction and collapse at the project site are low. The potential for lateral spreading is also considered low as there are no active faults in the project area. The 2006 EIR indicated that subsidence in the county did not exceed 0.40 feet when minor land subsidence was observed between 1912 and the mid-1960s. Therefore, the likelihood of subsidence in the city, including the project site, is considered low. The proposed project would be required to comply with the most recent version of the CBC to ensure soil impacts are minimized. As such, impacts would be less than significant, and the proposed project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts. d) 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 Impact. The 2006 EIR indicated that the majority of the City has soil characterized as having expansive soils. The proposed project would be required to comply with the most recent version of the CBC which would minimize impacts related to expansive soils. As such, impacts would be less than significant, and the proposed project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? No Impact. The 2006 EIR stated that all commercial and industrial development, as well as all residential development with lots smaller than two acres, would be required to connect to the public sewer system. Rural residential areas would allow septic tanks. The proposed project is located in an urbanized area of the city and would provide a mix of uses onsite. Therefore, the proposed project would connect to the City’s public sewer system. As such, no impact would occur, and the proposed project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

8. Impacts Found Not to Be Significant

f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Less Than Significant Impact. The 2006 EIR indicated that the database search did not identify any evidence of the existence of paleontological resources or potential in the city. The 2006 EIR stated that development under the General Plan could impact undiscovered paleontological resources, but the likelihood of paleontological resources existing in the city would be low. The project site would require ground-disturbing activities; in addition to comply with the policies and actions of the General Plan, the proposed project would implement Mitigation Measure 4.11.2 of the 2006 EIR, which would require that paleontological resources studies be conducted for all applicable discretionary projects. The studies should identify paleontological resources in the project area, and provide mitigation measures for any resources in the project area that cannot be avoided. Mitigation Measure 4.11.2 would reduce impacts to less than significant. As such, impacts would be less than significant, and the proposed project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts.

8.4 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is within the jurisdiction of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The 2006 EIR stated that runoff can occur during construction and operational activities which could contaminate surface water and groundwater. However, the City of Rancho Cordova operates under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for municipal discharges to surface waters (NPDES No. CAS0085324). The permit requires that the City impose water quality and watershed protection measures for all development projects. Additionally, the City has identified a range of BMPs to address stormwater discharges in the City. As stated in the 2006 DEIR, implementation of Mitigation Measure MM4.9.1a and Mitigation Measure MM4.9.1b would reduce impacts. Mitigation measure MM4.9.1a adds a new policy under Goal NR.5 to continue to cooperate and participate with the County, other cities, and the Regional Water Quality Control Board regarding compliance with the joint National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit (NPDES No. CAS082597) or any subsequent permit and support water quality improvement projects in order to maintain compliance with regional, state and federal water quality requirements. Mitigation measure MM4.9.1b adds an action item under Policy NR.5.3 which states that future land uses that are anticipated to utilize hazardous materials or generate hazardous waste shall be required to provide adequate containment facilities to ensure that surface water and groundwater resources are protected from accidental releases. This shall include double-containment, levees to contain spills, and monitoring wells for underground storage tanks, as required by local, state and federal standards. The land use and zoning designation for the project site would be the same as what the 2006 EIR analyzed.

In addition, as mentioned in Section 5.6, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the project site operated a former dry-cleaning site on its northwest corner from 1971 to 2003. Tetrachloroethylene (PCE) was stored and dispensed from a 45-gallon container near the site, as well as in an above-ground tank and drums near the ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

8. Impacts Found Not to Be Significant
June 2024 Page 8-7
facility's back. PCE concentrations were revealed in the project site's groundwater. Tech reports state that the elevated soil vapor concentrations detected since 2019 seem less likely to be attributed to the volatilization of residual PCE in the groundwater, in comparison to the potential impact from residual PCE in the vadose zone.

This is due to the concentrations of PCE in groundwater and the depth of the groundwater at the project site, after previous remedial efforts. The contamination within the groundwater in the project site is an existing condition that would not be caused or exacerbated by the proposed project. Refer to Section 5.6, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, for more information on PCE concentrations in the groundwater.

The proposed project would be required to comply with local, state, and federal regulations governing water quality. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and the proposed project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts.
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is within the Sacramento Valley–South American Groundwater Basin (DWR 2022). Currently, there are no structures on the project. The project site is occupied by paved areas with patches of vegetated areas. The proposed project does not propose groundwater wells that would extract groundwater from the aquifer. Although the project site would create impervious surfaces that could impede water recharge, the project site also includes open space and pervious surfaces, as shown in Figure

3.3, Conceptual Site Plan, in Chapter 3, Project Description. Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially affect recharge capabilities for the Basin. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and the proposed project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts. c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i) Result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? Less Than Significant Impact. See Impact 8.3(b), above. As indicated in the 2006 EIR, construction activities that would disturb one or more acres would be subject to the State’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Storm Water Permit. Applicants would be required to prepare and comply with a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that would include BMPs to avoid soil erosion for example using erosion control techniques such as mulching and matting, filter fences, straw bales, diversion terracing, and sediment basins (CASQA 2003). Additionally, Chapter 16.44 of the City’s Municipal Code, Land Grading and Erosion Control, is intended to minimize impacts to surrounding properties as a result of grading activities. Chapter 16.44 establishes administrative procedures, minimum standard of review, and implementation and enforcement procedures for controlling erosion, sedimentation, and other pollutant runoff from new development projects. The proposed project would be required to comply with the NPDES, SWPPP, and Chapter 16.44 of the Municipal Code, which would reduce the impacts of soil erosion, thereby ensuring that waterways are not substantially impacted. As such, impacts would be less than significant, and the proposed project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

8. Impacts Found Not to Be Significant

ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite?
Less Than Significant Impact. The 2006 EIR stated urban development increases the amount of impervious surfaces which does not allow precipitation to saturate the ground and enter the groundwater table; this can also result in flooding. In addition, downstream drainage system capacity issues may also be exasperated if not properly mitigated onsite. With the implementation of, onsite flood control mitigation measures, the City’s General Plan policies, and the City’s Municipal Code Chapter 16.44, Land Grading and Erosion Control, the impacts to flooding would be reduced. Chapter 16.44 establishes administrative procedures, minimum standard of review, and implementation and enforcement procedures for controlling pollutant runoff from new development projects. The chapter also ensures compliance with the City’s NPDES Permit, which is issued by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. As such, impacts would be less than significant, and the proposed project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts.
iii) 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 Impact. See Impact 8.5(a), above. The City’s NPDES permit requires the provision of water quality control measures that would treat stormwater drainage. Additionally, the implementation of BMPs, Mitigation Measures MM 4.9.1a and MM 4.9.1b, and onsite flood control mitigation measures would reduce sources of polluted runoff from entering the stormwater drainage system. As such, impacts would be less than significant, and the proposed project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts.
iv) Impede or redirect flood flows?
Less Than Significant Impact. According to FEMA, the project site is not within a flood zone (FEMA 2012). The 2006 EIR states that the project site is within a 500-year floodplain. Since the likelihood of floods on the project site is low, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on impeding or redirecting flood flows, and the proposed project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts.
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? Less Than Significant Impact. According to FEMA the project site is not within a flood zone, while the 2006 EIR indicates it is within a 500-year floodplain. Since the project site is not within a flood hazard area, the risk release of pollutants due to project inundation is low.

A seiche is a surface wave created when a body of water is shaken, usually by earthquake activity. Seiches are of concern relative to water storage facilities because inundation from a seiche can occur if the wave overflows a containment wall, such as the wall of a reservoir, water storage tank, dam or other artificial body of water.

Although there are no large water tanks in the area that could impact the proposed project site, there are dams in the region that could create flooding impacts. Thirteen dams in the greater Los Angeles area moved or ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

8. Impacts Found Not to Be Significant
June 2024 Page 8-9
cracked during the 1994 Northridge earthquake. However, none were severely damaged. This low damage level was due in part to the completion of the retrofitting of dams and reservoirs pursuant to the 1972 State Dam Safety Act.

Inundation occurs when there is a break in a dam and water is released, washing downstream and causing flooding. The 2006 EIR stated that failure of either the Cordova Meadows Levee or the Sunriver Levee along the American River could potentially result in the inundation of properties within the northern portion of the City. However, according to the 2006 EIR, such an event has an extremely low probability of occurring and is not considered to be a reasonably foreseeable event. The 2006 EIR indicated that there are planning efforts by the US Army Corps of Engineers to improve flood capacity of the Folsom Reservoir, and improvements have been made to the Folsom Dam. As shown in the Dam Failure/Inundation Map Web Publisher provided by the Department of Water Resources, the project site is not within or near a dam failure inundation area (DWR 2023).

The project site is over 90 miles east of the Pacific Ocean, and therefore is not within a tsunami hazard zone.

As such, impacts would be less than significant, and the proposed project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts.
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not obstruct or conflict with the implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable water management plan. The proposed project would comply with the water quality and use requirements of these plans through the implementation of BMPs such as erosion control measures approved in the Chapter 16.44, Land Grading and Erosion Control, in the City’s Municipal Code. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

8.5 TRANSPORTATION
a) 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 Impact.

Roadways
The proposed project would include an internal through road at the central portion of the site that connects La Loma Drive to El Caprice Drive. This roadway is proposed to include two shared vehicular and bicycle lanes and on-street parking. The internal roadway would also feature a midblock crossing between the proposed plaza and the community green space. This roadway would provide access to the proposed parking structure and an internal loop on the north portion of the project site for the residential uses. The parking structure would also be accessible via La Loma Drive south of the access point for the new project roadway. This roadway would be constructed in compliance with the City’s roadway design and improvement standards.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

8. Impacts Found Not to Be Significant

Automobile delay, as described by Level of Service (LOS) or other measurements of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion, is no longer considered a significant impact under CEQA. However, per the General Plan’s Circulation Element Policy C.1.2, the City strives to maintain an LOS of D or better at all roadways and intersections. Policy C.1.2 states that congestion in excess of LOS D may be accepted, provided that provisions are made to improve traffic flow and/or promote non-vehicular transportation as part of a development project or a City-initiated project. As determined in the 2006 General Plan EIR, the segment of Folsom Boulevard fronting the project site would operate at LOS F under the buildout conditions of the General Plan. The General Plan EIR adopted Mitigation Measure 4.4.1, which directs subsequent development projects to implement system improvements that would impact roadways operating at or better than LOS D. Such improvements could include development of on- or off-street bicycle or pedestrian circulation and providing or funding public transportation facilities.

The proposed project includes several design features that would reduce vehicle trips to and from the site and therefore implement Mitigation Measure 4.4.1, that is, provide consistency with Policy C.1.2. This includes the proposed project’s mixed-use design, its proximity to a high-quality transit stop (Mather Field Mills light rail station), and inclusion of affordable housing (see OPR’s 2018 Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA).

Circulation Element Policy C.5.2 requires that new development projects analyze their contribution to increased traffic and implement improvements necessary to address their impact on facilities not covered by a fee program. The 2007 IS/MND also adopted Mitigation Measure 15.2, which also requires projects under the Folsom Boulevard Specific Plan to pay their fair share of traffic mitigation fees as determined by City staff.

The proposed project would be required under Chapters 16.84 and 16.86 of the City’s Municipal Code to pay the applicable development impacts per the most recent fee schedule.

The proposed project is therefore consistent with the City’s roadway-related plans, policies, and ordinances.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
The proposed project would provide green space and pedestrian pathways throughout the project site, connecting bicyclists and pedestrians with the existing sidewalks, crossings, and bike lanes on the roadways surrounding the project site. As required by Municipal Code Section 23.719.110, Bicycle Parking Requirements, the proposed project would provide bicycle parking stalls for short term use in the commercial area and secure bicycle parking stalls in the residential portion for long-term tenant use, satisfying City Bicycle Master Plan Policy 3.3. The proposed project does not involve any additional bicycle facility improvements; however, the project would enhance the environment for pedestrians and bicyclists in the vicinity of the project site by providing a new roadway connecting La Loma Drive to El Caprice Drive.

The proposed project would construct a mix of residential and retail uses within the project site aligning with City Bicycle Master Plan Policy 7.2, which encourages the use of active transportation by locating different land uses within close proximity of one another and providing safe connections for people walking and bicycling in the area. The adopted Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plans identified bicycle and pedestrian facilities improvements on roadways in the vicinity of the project site, including the construction of planned connection ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

8. Impacts Found Not to Be Significant
June 2024 Page 8-11
between bicycle routes on Mather Field Road and Paseo Drive. This improvement would provide improved bicycle and pedestrian access to and from the project site, and construction and operation of the proposed project would not conflict with this future improvement. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with any programs, plans, ordinances, or policies addressing pedestrian and bicycle facilities.

Transit Service
The project site is located approximately 120 feet from the Mather Field Mills Gold Line light rail transit station along Folsom Boulevard. Visitors and residents of the proposed project would have direct access to the Gold Line service. The SacRT bus lines operate from a stop adjacent to the project site at the Folsom Lake College Rancho Cordova campus. The proposed project would, by design, encourage transit use in the area due to it being a mixed-use, infill development. The proposed project would promote pedestrian activity and connection between commercial and residential uses, as described in General Plan Action C.3.3.2, and comply with the policies regarding transit service. Additionally, the proposed project would not reconstruct or reconfigure the surrounding roadway network, including the alteration of any existing transit stops. Therefore, the Mills Crossing project would not conflict with any programs, plans, ordinances, or policies addressing transit services or facilities.

The proposed project would therefore not conflict with any policies, programs, or ordinances addressing the circulation system, and impacts would be less than significant. b) The proposed project would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3, subdivision (b).

Less Than Significant Impact. Per the City of Rancho Cordova Transportation Impact Guidelines, the proposed project would not substantially increase regional VMT. Section 5.12.1.1 of the Impact Guidelines use a variety of screening criteria to identify projects that can be expected to result in a less-than-significant VMT impact. As described below, the proposed project would screen from analysis under several criteria in the Impact Guidelines.
 Residential Located in a VMT Efficient Area: The proposed project would construct up to 120 dwelling units in a VMT “efficient area” per SACOG’s location-based screening map (SACOG 2023).  Proximity to Transit: The proposed project is a mixed-use project located within a ½ mile of a major transit stop and along a high-quality transit corridor. SacRT’s Gold Line light rail service travels adjacent to Folsom Boulevard, and the Mather Field Mills transit stop is located approximately 150 feet from the project site. Bus service is also available at two stops in the vicinity of the project site in front of the Folsom Lake College Rancho Cordova campus and near the Mather Field Mills light rail station.  Affordable Housing: The housing portion of the proposed project is proposed to include affordable units.

As the proposed project would screen from review, it would be consistent with CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3, subdivision (b), and impacts would be less than significant.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

8. Impacts Found Not to Be Significant

c) 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 Impact. Construction and operations of the proposed project would be required to follow all local regulations related to design and safety. The design of the Mills Crossing Project is subject to plan review and an encroachment and traffic control permit is required for all improvements.

The proposed project would include up to 120 housing units including a multi-family development and townhomes. The proposed project also includes a commercial retail and event center component with open space and pathways provided throughout the project site. Internal circulation for vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians would be required to follow the City’s Design Guidelines: Provisions for a Quality Community.

Additionally, the proposed project would follow site design standards set forth in the City Municipal Code, including those in Section 23.707.040 pertaining to pedestrian access and open space, Section 23.719.090 regarding parking design standards, and Section 23.722.050 related to on-site pedestrian pathway standards.

Vehicular access would be provided via two entrances on the east and west boundaries of the project site at La Loma Drive and El Caprice Drive. Internal access and access through the proposed project would be provided via a new City roadway that connects La Loma Drive and El Caprice Drive. The proposed project would provide adequate site distance at all access points. Additionally, the proposed project plans are subject to review by the City Building & Safety Division and Public Works Department ensuring City standards, including those pertaining to site accessibility and safety, are met. Therefore, the Mills Crossing project would not substantially increase hazards in the area.
i) The proposed project would not result in inadequate emergency access.

Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is in an urban area with an established roadway network. The surrounding roadways provide adequate circulation and access for emergency response. Project-related construction activities have the potential to result in short-term, temporary impacts to surrounding roadways from partial lane closures or the presence of construction vehicles, which may cause temporary traffic slowdown. Any impacts associated with construction activities would be temporary in nature and would be generally confined to the project site.

Furthermore, construction activities would not affect access on any major roadways that may serve as emergency evacuation routes for the region, such as US-50. All construction activities would be subject to emergency access standards and requirements of Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District (Metro Fire) to ensure traffic safety. Chapter 33 of the 2022 CFC contains applicable standards for fire safety during construction and demolition including required provisions for emergency access. As detailed in item c, the proposed project is required to obtain an encroachment permit and submit a traffic control plan for work within public right of way which would demonstrate safe traffic handling during construction including maintaining adequate emergency access. Additionally, emergency access would be subject to review by the City and responsible emergency service agencies; thus, ensuring the project would be designed to meet all applicable emergency access and design standards.

The final site plan for the project would also be subject to approval by Metro Fire. Three emergency vehicle access points are provided for the residential components of the proposed project including access to La Loma ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

8. Impacts Found Not to Be Significant
June 2024 Page 8-13
Drive and El Caprice Drive. The proposed project design is required to follow the standards and regulations set forth in the 2022 California Building Standards Code, Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 9 (2022 California Fire Code) as adopted by the City (City of Rancho Cordova Municipal Code Chapter 17.04).

Appendix D of the 2022 CFC provides minimum dimensions and design standards for fire apparatus roads to maintain adequate emergency access during operations of commercial and residential developments. For these reasons, the proposed project would not result in inadequate emergency access.

8.6 WILDFIRE
a) 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 Impact. The project site is not within a designated Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) (CAL FIRE 2023b). Future development from the proposed project would be subject to compliance with the 2022 CBC (or the most current version) and the 2022 edition of the CFC (or the most current version). Section 4905.2, Construction Methods and Requirements within Established Limits, of the 2022 CFC (Part 9 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations) includes construction methods intended to mitigate wildfire exposure. The project applicant must adhere to the wildfire protection building construction standards outlined in the California Building Standards Code, including Chapter 12-7A, Materials and Construction Methods for Exterior Wildfire Exposure. In addition, the City of Rancho Cordova is covered under the Sacramento County Emergency Operations Plan and the 2021 Sacramento County Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP); these plans guide to effectively respond to any emergency, including wildfires.

Construction associated with the proposed project could temporarily block local roadways during excavation or paving, but would not impair the existing evacuation route since the City of Rancho Cordova has not designated any evacuation routes. The site is served by Folsom Boulevard, a four-lane roadway with a raised and landscaped center median, La Loma Drive, and El Caprice Drive which are two-lane roadways.

Construction is unlikely to block all of Folsom Boulevard because any cross-cutting of the roadway for utility extension can be done in phases to ensure access through the area if needed. Construction activity could temporarily block La Loma and El Caprice Drives; however, both of these roadways connect to other throughways such as Malaga Way/Capitates Drive, which in turn connect either back to Folsom Boulevard or to Coloma Road, offering different routes out of the vicinity. Therefore, even the temporary closure of all or part of one of the local roadways adjacent to the proposed project still allows movement and evacuation out of the area.

In addition, all construction projects are reviewed by the City to ensure that do not interfere with emergency response and evacuation plans (SCES 2022). As the proposed project would occur within the project site boundaries, development plans would be reviewed by the City, and there are alternative evacuation routes away from the project site, impacts would be less than significant. b) 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 ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

8. Impacts Found Not to Be Significant

risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is not within a designated Very High FHSZ. The project site does not have any built structures and is occupied by paved areas with patches of vegetation, including trees.

The project site is generally flat and would not exacerbate wildfire risk due to slope. The LHMP states high winds are common occurrences in the city throughout the entire year, and straight line winds are primarily a public safety and economic concern (Sacramento 2021, pg. E-80). High winds can increase wildfire risks especially during periods of dry vegetation. The proposed project would need to comply with the CBC, which helps regulate construction techniques that minimize damage from windstorms such as Section 1609, Wind Load. In addition, the City’s Municipal Code, Chapter 17.12, Weed Control, would help to prevent fire hazards by requiring firebreaks and removal of accumulation. Moreover, the City’s LHMP and Emergency Operations Plan provide guidance to effectively respond to and mitigate wildfires.

Although the project site is not in or near a State Responsibility Area (SRA) or a Very High FHSZ, compliance with applicable laws and regulations regarding wildfire emergencies would ensure that the proposed project would not exacerbate wildfire risk, and impacts would be less than significant. c) 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? The project site is not within a designated Very High FHSZ. Currently, there are no built structures on the project site, and the proposed project would require the expansion of connections to utilities such as electricity, water, and sewer. The proposed project would also introduce circulation network into the project site. However, General Plan Policy C.1.7 requires the installation of traffic pre-emption devices for emergency vehicles (police and fire) at all newly constructed intersections and seeks to retrofit all existing intersections to incorporate these features. Since the project site is not within a FHSZ or Very High FHSZ, impacts would be less than significant. d) 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?
The project site is not located in an SRA or Very High FHSZ, and project development would not exacerbate wildfire risk on-site. As indicated in Section 8.3, Geology and Soils, and Section 8.5, Hydrology and Water Quality, the project site is not within a landslide hazard area or floodplain (CDC 2022c; FEMA 2012). Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to significant risks. Construction activities related to the proposed project would be subject to compliance with the CFC and would include BMPs. Section 3303, Owner’s Responsibility for Fire Protection, of the CFC requires that landowners, or an authorized agent, to prepare a site safety plan prior to building permit issuance. BMPs may include but are not limited to grading in a pattern that slows stormwater flow and reduce the potential for erosion, landslides, and downstream flooding.

Operationally, drainage could facilitate in areas of open space proposed by the project (See Figure 3-3, Conceptual ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

8. Impacts Found Not to Be Significant
June 2024 Page 8-15
Site Plan). However, General Plan Policy S.2.4 would ensure that adequate drainage exists for both existing and new development. As such, impacts would be less than significant, and the proposed project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts.

8.7 REFERENCES
California Department of Conservation (CDC). 2015. Fault Activity Map of California. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/fam/
_____. 2022a. California Important Farmland Finder. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff/ _____.2022b (accessed). Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/
_____.2022c. CGS Information Warehouse: Landslides.
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/index.html?map=regulatorymaps California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2022 (accessed). FHSZ Viewer. https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/
California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2022. EnviroStor. https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/profile_report?global_id=34720121 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2022 (accessed). California State Scenic Highway System Map.
https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116f 1aacaa
California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2022 (accessed). Groundwater Basin Boundary Assessment Tool. https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/bbat/
______.2023 (accessed). Dam Breach Inundation Map Web Publisher. https://fmds.water.ca.gov/webgis/?appid=dam_prototype_v2 California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA). 2003. Stormwater Best Management Practice Handbook. https://www.casqa.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/BMP_Municipal_Complete.pdf Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2012, August 16. FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map ID #06067C0205H.
https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=rancho%20cordova%2Cc%20a#searchresultsa searc.

Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR). 2018, April. Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA. https://opr.ca.gov/docs/20180416- 743_Technical_Advisory_4.16.18.pdf
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

8. Impacts Found Not to Be Significant

Rancho Cordova, City of. 2003. Bicycle Master Plan.
https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/51769975/bicycle-master-plan-city-of-ranchocordova Sacramento County Association of Governments (SACOG). 2022, August. Mather Airport – Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. https://www.sacog.org/sites/main/files/fileattachments/2_draft_alucp_august_2022.pdf Sacramento County Office of Emergency Services (SCES). 2022. Operational Area Plan. https://sacoes.saccounty.gov/Documents/EOP%20Plan%20-%20Sacramento%20County%20- %20Final%204-22-2022.pdf.

Sacramento Regional Transit District (SacRT). 2021. “Smart Ride On-Demand Transit Expanded in Rancho Cordova.” https://www.sacrt.com/apps/wp-content/uploads/2021_SmartRide-Flyer_RanchoCordova_r2.pdf State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2022. GeoTracker. https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile_report.asp?global_id=T10000000403 ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

May 2024 Page 9-1

9. Organizations Consulted and Qualifications of
Preparers

ORGANIZATIONS
Native American Tribes
Wilton Rancheria
City of Rancho Cordova Department of Community Development: Planning Division Stefan Heisler, Housing Manager

QUALIFICATIONS OF PREPARERS

PLACEWORKS
Mark Teague, AICP
Principal  BA, Political Science, California State University Stanislaus
Lexie Zimny
Associate  BS, Environmental Policy Analysis and Planning, Sustainable Environmental Design, University of
California, Davis
Jessica Mendoza
Project Planner  BS, Environmental Science and Management, University of California, Davis
Angel Castro
Planner  BA, Urban Studies and Business Economics,
University of California, Irvine
Joseph Ruiz
Planner  BA, History, University of California, Los Angeles  Master of Urban and Regional Planning, University
of California, Irvine
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

9. Organizations Consulted and Qualifications of Preparers

CONTRIBUTING EIR CONSULTANTS
 ECORP Consulting, Inc.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

APPENDICES
Appendix 2-1 NOP and NOP Comments
Appendix 5.1-1 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Assessment
Appendix 5.2-1 Biological Resources 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
Appendix 5.6-2 Site Cleanup Plan Addendum
Appendix 5.6-3 Site Remediation Notice of Exemption
Appendix 5.9-1 Noise Impact Assessment
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA
Appendices
June 2024
Appendix 2-1 NOP and NOP Comments
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

2729 Prospect Park Drive | Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 | 916.851.8700 | CityofRanchoCordova.org Date: January 6, 2023
Subject: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report and Scoping Meeting for the Mills Crossing Civic Center Project To: State Clearinghouse
State Responsible Agencies
State Trustee Agencies
Other Public Agencies
Organizations and Interested Persons
Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cordova
Department of Community Development – Planning Division 2729 Prospect Park Drive
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
Phone: (916) 851-8700
Contact: Stefan Heisler, Housing Manager
Email: [email protected]
Notice of Preparation: This is to notify the public agencies and the general public that the City of Rancho Cordova, as Lead Agency, will prepare a subsequent environmental impact report (SEIR) for the Mills Crossing Civic Center Project (referred to as the “proposed project”). The City is interested in the input and/or comments of public agencies and the general public as to the scope and content of the environmental information that should be evaluated in the SEIR. Public agencies will need to use the SEIR prepared by the City when considering applicable permits, or other approvals for the proposed project.

Project Title: Mills Crossing Civic Center Project
Project Location: A 9.85-acre site at the corner of Folsom Boulevard and La Loma Drive in the City of Rancho Cordova (Assessor’s Parcels Numbers [APN] 076-0020-019, -20, -21, - 22).

Scoping Meeting: Thursday January 19, 2023 starting at 6:00 PM, the City of Rancho Cordova Department of Community Development will conduct an in-person public scoping meeting to solicit input and comments from public agencies and the general public on the proposed SEIR for the Mills Crossing Civic Center Project.

This public scoping meeting will be held:
- In-person:

Rancho Cordova City Hall
2729 Prospect Park Drive
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
The scoping meeting will include a materials describing the proposed Mills Crossing Civic Center Project, followed by an opportunity for members of the public to discuss the project with City and consultant staff and provide comment on environmental topics which should be discussed and analyzed in the SEIR.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

If you have any questions regarding this scoping meeting, contact Stefan Heisler at [email protected], or (916) 851-8700. Additional information about the proposed project is available at the following City webpage:
https://www.cityofranchocordova.org/residents/new-businesses-and-projects/mills-crossing-civic-center Comment Period: Consistent with the time limits mandated by State law, your input, comments, or responses must be received in writing and sent at the earliest possible date, but not later than 5:00 PM on February 6, 2023.

Comments/ Input: Please send your input, comments, or responses (including the name for a contact person in your agency, if applicable) to:

Attn: Stefan Heisler, Housing Manager
City of Rancho Cordova Department of Community Development 2729 Prospect Park Drive
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
[email protected]
If sending input, comments, or responses via email, please write “Mills Crossing Civic Center NOP Comments” in the subject line.

Project Location and Existing Uses
The 9.85-acre project site is located at the corner of Folsom Boulevard and La Loma Drive in the City of Rancho Cordova, Sacramento County (see Figure 1, Regional Location). The project site is vacant and includes grassy and paved areas. The project site is surrounded by residential uses to the north, residential uses and Folsom Lake College/Rancho Cordova Civic Center to the east, light industrial uses to the south, and commercial and residential uses to the west (see Figure 2, Aerial Photograph). The project site is listed on the Department of Toxic Substance Control’s Envirostor site for evaluation.

Project Description
The proposed project would result in the following uses:
- Community-Commercial Buildings (up to 132,000 square feet) and would include:
- Housing Units (up to 120 units):
o Between 55-60 Multi-Family Affordable Apartments
o Between 50-60 Zero Lot Line Townhouse-Style Homes for Sale Gross
Area (SF) Building
Health & Wellness 27,500 1
Community-Commercial 25,000 1
Community-Commercial 27,000 3
Arts Center - Theater 18,000 2
Arts Center - Flex Studios 17,000 2
Community Event Hall 9,000 3
Commercial-Retail 7,200 4
Total 130,700
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

- Public Open Space (up to 2.5 acres):
o Between 1.3-1.5 acres of Neighborhood and Community Greens o Between 0.75-1.0-acre of Plaza and Green Space
- Parking Structure which would include between 275-325 parking stalls.

Figure 3, Conceptual Site Plan, shows the proposed layout of these uses on the project site. It is anticipated that construction of the project would occur from 2024 through 2029.

Areas of Potential Impacts
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15128 allows environmental issues, for which there is no likelihood of significant impact, to be “scoped out” and not analyzed further in the SEIR. As the project site was assumed for development in the General Plan EIR, some footprint-related topics can be focused out of the SEIR as adequately addressed in the General Plan EIR.

Environmental Topics Evaluated in EIR Not Evaluated in EIR Aesthetics X
Agriculture and Forestry X
Air Quality X
Biological Resources X
Cultural Resources X
Energy X
Geology and Soils X
Greenhouse Gas Emissions X
Hazardous Materials X
Hydrology/Water Quality X
Land Use/Planning X
Mineral Resources X
Noise X
Population/Housing X
Public Services X
Parks and Recreation X
Transportation X
Tribal Cultural Resources X
Utilities/Service Systems X
Wildfire X
Requested Actions
This section presents the actions that would be required to implement the proposed project.

City of Rancho Cordova
- Site Plan Approval
- Building Permits
- Certify SEIR and Adopt Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board
- Issuance of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit - Issuance of Construction Permit
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

I ; __J

MILLS CROSSING CIV IC CENT E R PROJ ECT NOTIC E OF PR EPARATION

C ITY O F RANCHO CORDOVA
~
I ------ --- - - ~ou Placer
01""~------3 ~ Scale (Miles) \..U

PLACEWORKS
Coun - .. .__ __ _ _ _
Note: Unincorporated county areas are shown in white.

Figure 1
Regional Location
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

Source: Nearmap, Inc., 2022.
o=~--=~-210/'A\\
Scale (Feet) \.lJ

PLACEWORKS

MILLS CROSSING CIVIC CENTER PROJECT NOTICE OF PREPARATION

CITY OF RANCHO COR DOVA
Project Boundary
Mather Field/Mills Station
Mills Station Ra
Figure 2
Aerial Photograph
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

'
' \
'
~
C
<(
~
0 ...J
<(
...J

PROPERTY LINE
\
' .
\
\
' ' I Affordable Multl-Famlly
' I .__ _____ __,
Parking Structure
Levels
__ sr, .. e
Community Facllltl•
Source: City of Ra ncho Cordova, 2022.

Townhome Lots
0 _________ 1_00 f'i\ - • • - Project Boundary
Scale (Feet) '<J

PLACEWORKS
Arts Center -
Flex
Arts Center -
Theater
Neighborhood
Graen
11 res
Public Plaza + Graen Space
O.B~es

FOLSOM BLVD
Community Facllltl•
Commercial/ "
Retell
"
/ ) ···············------··'j
: !
/ FLC (
PHASE 3 •-••
Community
Green

0.3 acres

MILLS CROSSING CIVIC CENTER PROJECT NOTICE OF PREPARATION

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA
I
.

I
.

I
I
FLC
PHASE2
FOLSOM
LAKE

COLLEGE
Figure 3
Site Plan
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

From:

To:

Subject:

Date:

Nancy
Stefan Heisler
Comments on Mills Crossing plan
Thursday, January 5, 2023 5:45:08 PM

1. Parking seems excessive when there is so much street parking avai lable; the Folsom Lake College parking lot is NEVER even close to full and could be leased for events. Public transportation should be encouraged as the space is right across the street from buses and light rail. Reduce parking and add more green space or a craft center (like in Davis).

2. Please landscape with native plants and trees - CA Native Plant Society should be used as a resource. No more crepe myrtle please - those trees are getting t iresome. Add oaks or CA sycamore ... shrubs with native fruit for birds. Save on maintenance, support plant diversity and wildlife with native plants.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

Sent Via E-Mail
January 7, 2023
Stefan Heisler, Housing Manager
City of Rancho Cordova
Department of Community Development – Planning Division 2729 Prospect Park Drive
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
[email protected]
Subject: Mills Crossing Civic Center Project / 2023010102 / NOP Dear Mr. Heisler:

The Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the Notice of Preparation of a Draft EIR (NOP) for the Mills Crossing Civic Center Project (Project, SCH 2021040039). SMUD is the primary energy provider for Sacramento County and the proposed Project area. SMUD’s vision is to empower our customers with solutions and options that increase energy efficiency, protect the environment, reduce global warming, and lower the cost to serve our region. As a Responsible Agency, SMUD aims to ensure that the proposed Project limits the potential for significant environmental effects on SMUD facilities, employees, and customers.

It is our desire that the Project will acknowledge any impacts related to the following:
• Overhead and or underground transmission and distribution line easements. Please view the following links on smud.org for more information regarding transmission encroachment:
• https://www.smud.org/en/Business-Solutions-and-Rebates/Design-andConstruction-Services • https://www.smud.org/en/Corporate/Do-Business-with-SMUD/LandUse/Transmission-Right-of-Way • Utility line routing
• Electrical load needs/requirements
• Energy Efficiency
• Climate Change
• Cumulative impacts related to the need for increased electrical delivery • The potential need to relocate and or remove any SMUD infrastructure that may be affected in or around the project area
Powering forward. Together .
• SMUD®
SMUD HO I 6201 S Street I P.O. Box 15830 I Sacramento, CA 95852-1830 I 1.888.74 2.7683 [ smud.org ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

More specifically, SMUD would like to have the following details related to the electrical infrastructure incorporated into the project description:
• South of Folsom Blvd, there are existing 69/12kV OH/UG facilities • On project site, there are existing 12kV OH/UG facilities • Structural setbacks of less than 14-feet shall require the applicant to conduct a preengineering meeting with all utilities to ensure proper clearances are maintained • To maintain adequate trench integrity, building foundations must have a minimum horizontal clearance of 5 feet from any SMUD trench. Developer to verify with other utilities (Gas, Telephone, etc.) for their specific clearance requirements • Proposed SMUD facilities located on the customer’s property outside of the existing or proposed PUE(s) may require a dedicated SMUD easement
• The 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)
• SMUD requires a minimum 12.5-foot PUE adjacent to all public roads for 12kV facilities • The developer 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 will 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 developer’s expense to maintain existing services within development
SMUD would like to be involved with discussing the above areas of interest as well as discussing any other potential issues. We aim to be partners in the efficient and sustainable delivery of the proposed Project. Please ensure that the information included in this response is conveyed to the Project planners and the appropriate Project proponents.

Environmental leadership is a core value of SMUD and we look forward to collaborating with you on this Project. Again, we appreciate the opportunity to provide input on this Project. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please do not hesitate to contact me at 916.732.7406, or by email at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Jerry Park
Environmental Services Specialist
Sacramento Municipal Utility District
cc: Entitlements
SMUD HQ I 6201 S Street I P.O. Box 15830 I Sacramento, CA 95852-1830 I 1.888.742.7683 I smud.org ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom, Governor

NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION

January 9, 2023
Stefan Heisler
City of Rancho Cordova
2729 Prospect Park Drive
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
Re: 2023010102, Mills Crossing Civic Center Project, Sacramento County Dear Mr. Heisler:

The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) has received the Notice of Preparation (NOP), Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) or Early Consultation for the project referenced above. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code §21000 et seq.), specifically Public Resources Code §21084.1, states that a project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment. (Pub. Resources Code § 21084.1; Cal. Code Regs., tit.14, §15064.5 (b) (CEQA Guidelines §15064.5 (b)). If there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before a lead agency, that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) shall be prepared. (Pub. Resources Code §21080 (d); Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 5064 subd.(a)(1) (CEQA Guidelines §15064 (a)(1)).

In order to determine whether a project will cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, a lead agency will need to determine whether there are historical resources within the area of potential effect (APE).

CEQA was amended significantly in 2014. Assembly Bill 52 (Gatto, Chapter 532, Statutes of 2014) (AB 52) amended CEQA to create a separate category of cultural resources, “tribal cultural resources” (Pub. Resources Code §21074) and provides that a project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment. (Pub. Resources Code §21084.2). Public agencies shall, when feasible, avoid damaging effects to any tribal cultural resource. (Pub. Resources Code §21084.3 (a)). 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. If your project involves the adoption of or amendment to a general plan or a specific plan, or the designation or proposed designation of open space, on or after March 1, 2005, it may also be subject to Senate Bill 18 (Burton, Chapter 905, Statutes of 2004) (SB 18).

Both SB 18 and AB 52 have tribal consultation requirements. If your project is also subject to the federal National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.) (NEPA), the tribal consultation requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (154 U.S.C. 300101, 36 C.F.R. §800 et seq.) may also apply.

The NAHC recommends consultation with California Native American tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of your proposed project as early as possible in order to avoid inadvertent discoveries of Native American human remains and best protect tribal cultural resources. Below is a brief summary of portions of AB 52 and SB 18 as well as the NAHC’s recommendations for conducting cultural resources assessments.

Consult your legal counsel about compliance with AB 52 and SB 18 as well as compliance with any other applicable laws.

AB 52

CHAIRPERSON
Laura Miranda
Luiseño

VICE CHAIRPERSON
Reginald Pagaling
Chumash

SECRETARY
Sara Dutschke
Miwok

COMMISSIONER
Isaac Bojorquez
Ohlone-Costanoan

COMMISSIONER
Buffy McQuillen
Yokayo Pomo, Yuki,
Nomlaki

COMMISSIONER
Wayne Nelson
Luiseño

COMMISSIONER
Stanley Rodriguez
Kumeyaay

COMMISSIONER
[Vacant]

COMMISSIONER
[Vacant]

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
Raymond C.

Hitchcock
Miwok/Nisenan

NAHC HEADQUARTERS
1550 Harbor Boulevard
Suite 100
West Sacramento,
California 95691
(916) 373-3710
[email protected]
NAHC.ca.gov
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

AB 52 has added to CEQA the additional requirements listed below, along with many other requirements:

1. Fourteen Day Period to Provide Notice of Completion of an Application/Decision to Undertake a Project:

Within fourteen (14) days of determining that an application for a project is complete or of a decision by a public agency to undertake a project, a lead agency shall provide formal notification to a designated contact of, or tribal representative of, traditionally and culturally affiliated California Native American tribes that have requested notice, to be accomplished by at least one written notice that includes:
a. A brief description of the project.
b. The lead agency contact information.
c. Notification that the California Native American tribe has 30 days to request consultation. (Pub.

Resources Code §21080.3.1 (d)).
d. A “California Native American tribe” is defined as a Native American tribe located in California that is on the contact list maintained by the NAHC for the purposes of Chapter 905 of Statutes of 2004 (SB 18). (Pub. Resources Code §21073).

2. Begin Consultation Within 30 Days of Receiving a Tribe’s Request for Consultation and Before Releasing a Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration, or Environmental Impact Report: A lead agency shall begin the consultation process within 30 days of receiving a request for consultation from a California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project. (Pub. Resources Code §21080.3.1, subds. (d) and (e)) and prior to the release of a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration or Environmental Impact Report. (Pub. Resources Code §21080.3.1(b)). a. For purposes of AB 52, “consultation shall have the same meaning as provided in Gov. Code §65352.4 (SB 18). (Pub. Resources Code §21080.3.1 (b)).

3. Mandatory Topics of Consultation If Requested by a Tribe: The following topics of consultation, if a tribe requests to discuss them, are mandatory topics of consultation:
a. Alternatives to the project.
b. Recommended mitigation measures.
c. Significant effects. (Pub. Resources Code §21080.3.2 (a)).

4. Discretionary Topics of Consultation: The following topics are discretionary topics of consultation:
a. Type of environmental review necessary.
b. Significance of the tribal cultural resources.
c. Significance of the project’s impacts on tribal cultural resources. d. If necessary, project alternatives or appropriate measures for preservation or mitigation that the tribe may recommend to the lead agency. (Pub. Resources Code §21080.3.2 (a)).

5. Confidentiality of Information Submitted by a Tribe During the Environmental Review Process: With some exceptions, any information, including but not limited to, the location, description, and use of tribal cultural resources submitted by a California Native American tribe during the environmental review process shall not be included in the environmental document or otherwise disclosed by the lead agency or any other public agency to the public, consistent with Government Code §6254 (r) and §6254.10. Any information submitted by a California Native American tribe during the consultation or environmental review process shall be published in a confidential appendix to the environmental document unless the tribe that provided the information consents, in writing, to the disclosure of some or all of the information to the public. (Pub. Resources Code §21082.3 (c)(1)).

6. Discussion of Impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources in the Environmental Document: If a project may have a significant impact on a tribal cultural resource, the lead agency’s environmental document shall discuss both of the following:
a. Whether the proposed project has a significant impact on an identified tribal cultural resource. b. Whether feasible alternatives or mitigation measures, including those measures that may be agreed to pursuant to Public Resources Code §21082.3, subdivision (a), avoid or substantially lessen the impact on the identified tribal cultural resource. (Pub. Resources Code §21082.3 (b)).

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

7. Conclusion of Consultation: Consultation with a tribe shall be considered concluded when either of the following occurs:
a. The parties agree to measures to mitigate or avoid a significant effect, if a significant effect exists, on a tribal cultural resource; or
b. A party, acting in good faith and after reasonable effort, concludes that mutual agreement cannot be reached. (Pub. Resources Code §21080.3.2 (b)).

8. Recommending Mitigation Measures Agreed Upon in Consultation in the Environmental Document: Any mitigation measures agreed upon in the consultation conducted pursuant to Public Resources Code §21080.3.2 shall be recommended for inclusion in the environmental document and in an adopted mitigation monitoring and reporting program, if determined to avoid or lessen the impact pursuant to Public Resources Code §21082.3, subdivision (b), paragraph 2, and shall be fully enforceable. (Pub. Resources Code §21082.3 (a)).

9. Required Consideration of Feasible Mitigation: If mitigation measures recommended by the staff of the lead agency as a result of the consultation process are not included in the environmental document or if there are no agreed upon mitigation measures at the conclusion of consultation, or if consultation does not occur, and if substantial evidence demonstrates that a project will cause a significant effect to a tribal cultural resource, the lead agency shall consider feasible mitigation pursuant to Public Resources Code §21084.3 (b). (Pub. Resources Code §21082.3 (e)).

10. Examples of Mitigation Measures That, If Feasible, May Be Considered to Avoid or Minimize Significant Adverse Impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources:
a. Avoidance and preservation of the resources in place, including, but not limited to:
i. Planning and construction to avoid the resources and protect the cultural and natural context.
ii. Planning greenspace, parks, or other open space, to incorporate the resources with culturally appropriate protection and management criteria.
b. Treating the resource with culturally appropriate dignity, taking into account the tribal cultural values and meaning of the resource, including, but not limited to, the following:
i. Protecting the cultural character and integrity of the resource. ii. Protecting the traditional use of the resource.
iii. Protecting the confidentiality of the resource.
c. Permanent conservation easements or other interests in real property, with culturally appropriate management criteria for the purposes of preserving or utilizing the resources or places. d. Protecting the resource. (Pub. Resource Code §21084.3 (b)). e. Please note that a federally recognized California Native American tribe or a non-federally recognized California Native American tribe that is on the contact list maintained by the NAHC to protect a California prehistoric, archaeological, cultural, spiritual, or ceremonial place may acquire and hold conservation easements if the conservation easement is voluntarily conveyed. (Civ. Code §815.3 (c)). f. Please note that it is the policy of the state that Native American remains and associated grave artifacts shall be repatriated. (Pub. Resources Code §5097.991).

11. Prerequisites for Certifying an Environmental Impact Report or Adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration or Negative Declaration with a Significant Impact on an Identified Tribal Cultural Resource: An Environmental Impact Report may not be certified, nor may a mitigated negative declaration or a negative declaration be adopted unless one of the following occurs:
a. The consultation process between the tribes and the lead agency has occurred as provided in Public Resources Code §21080.3.1 and §21080.3.2 and concluded pursuant to Public Resources Code §21080.3.2.
b. The tribe that requested consultation failed to provide comments to the lead agency or otherwise failed to engage in the consultation process.
c. The lead agency provided notice of the project to the tribe in compliance with Public Resources Code §21080.3.1 (d) and the tribe failed to request consultation within 30 days. (Pub. Resources Code §21082.3 (d)).

The NAHC’s PowerPoint presentation titled, “Tribal Consultation Under AB 52: Requirements and Best Practices” may be found online at: http://nahc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/AB52TribalConsultation_CalEPAPDF.pdf ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

SB 18
SB 18 applies to local governments and requires local governments to contact, provide notice to, refer plans to, and consult with tribes prior to the adoption or amendment of a general plan or a specific plan, or the designation of open space. (Gov. Code §65352.3). Local governments should consult the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research’s “Tribal Consultation Guidelines,” which can be found online at:
https://www.opr.ca.gov/docs/09_14_05_Updated_Guidelines_922.pdf.

Some of SB 18’s provisions include:

1. Tribal Consultation: If a local government considers a proposal to adopt or amend a general plan or a specific plan, or to designate open space it is required to contact the appropriate tribes identified by the NAHC by requesting a “Tribal Consultation List.” If a tribe, once contacted, requests consultation the local government must consult with the tribe on the plan proposal. A tribe has 90 days from the date of receipt of notification to request consultation unless a shorter timeframe has been agreed to by the tribe. (Gov. Code §65352.3 (a)(2)).

2. No Statutory Time Limit on SB 18 Tribal Consultation. There is no statutory time limit on SB 18 tribal consultation.

3. Confidentiality: Consistent with the guidelines developed and adopted by the Office of Planning and Research pursuant to Gov. Code §65040.2, the city or county shall protect the confidentiality of the information concerning the specific identity, location, character, and use of places, features and objects described in Public Resources Code §5097.9 and §5097.993 that are within the city’s or county’s jurisdiction. (Gov. Code §65352.3 (b)).

4. Conclusion of SB 18 Tribal Consultation: Consultation should be concluded at the point in which:
a. The parties to the consultation come to a mutual agreement concerning the appropriate measures for preservation or mitigation; or
b. Either the local government or the tribe, acting in good faith and after reasonable effort, concludes that mutual agreement cannot be reached concerning the appropriate measures of preservation or mitigation. (Tribal Consultation Guidelines, Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (2005) at p. 18).

Agencies should be aware that neither AB 52 nor SB 18 precludes agencies from initiating tribal consultation with tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with their jurisdictions before the timeframes provided in AB 52 and SB 18. For that reason, we urge you to continue to request Native American Tribal Contact Lists and “Sacred Lands File” searches from the NAHC. The request forms can be found online at: http://nahc.ca.gov/resources/forms/.

NAHC Recommendations for Cultural Resources Assessments To adequately assess the existence and significance of tribal cultural resources and plan for avoidance, preservation in place, or barring both, mitigation of project-related impacts to tribal cultural resources, the NAHC recommends the following actions:

1. Contact the appropriate regional California Historical Research Information System (CHRIS) Center (https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=30331) for an archaeological records search. The records search will determine:
a. If part or all of the APE has been previously surveyed for cultural resources. b. If any known cultural resources have already been recorded on or adjacent to the APE. c. If the probability is low, moderate, or high that cultural resources are located in the APE. d. If a survey is required to determine whether previously unrecorded cultural resources are present.

2. If an archaeological inventory survey is required, the final stage is the preparation of a professional report detailing the findings and recommendations of the records search and field survey. a. The final report containing site forms, site significance, and mitigation measures should be submitted immediately to the planning department. All information regarding site locations, Native American human remains, and associated funerary objects should be in a separate confidential addendum and not be made available for public disclosure.
b. The final written report should be submitted within 3 months after work has been completed to the appropriate regional CHRIS center.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

3. Contact the NAHC for:
a. A Sacred Lands File search. Remember that tribes do not always record their sacred sites in the Sacred Lands File, nor are they required to do so. A Sacred Lands File search is not a substitute for consultation with tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the project’s APE.
b. A Native American Tribal Consultation List of appropriate tribes for consultation concerning the project site and to assist in planning for avoidance, preservation in place, or, failing both, mitigation measures.

4. Remember that the lack of surface evidence of archaeological resources (including tribal cultural resources) does not preclude their subsurface existence.
a. Lead agencies should include in their mitigation and monitoring reporting program plan provisions for the identification and evaluation of inadvertently discovered archaeological resources per Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §15064.5(f) (CEQA Guidelines §15064.5(f)). In areas of identified archaeological sensitivity, a certified archaeologist and a culturally affiliated Native American with knowledge of cultural resources should monitor all ground-disturbing activities.
b. Lead agencies should include in their mitigation and monitoring reporting program plans provisions for the disposition of recovered cultural items that are not burial associated in consultation with culturally affiliated Native Americans.
c. Lead agencies should include in their mitigation and monitoring reporting program plans provisions for the treatment and disposition of inadvertently discovered Native American human remains. Health and Safety Code §7050.5, Public Resources Code §5097.98, and Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §15064.5, subdivisions (d) and (e) (CEQA Guidelines §15064.5, subds. (d) and (e)) address the processes to be followed in the event of an inadvertent discovery of any Native American human remains and associated grave goods in a location other than a dedicated cemetery.

If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at my email address: Pricilla.Torres[email protected].

Sincerely,
Pricilla Torres-Fuentes
Cultural Resources Analyst
cc: State Clearinghouse
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

From: PGE Plan Review
To: Stefan Heisler
Subject: RE: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Date: Tuesday, January 10, 2023 7:59:53 AM
Attachments: image002.png
image003.jpg
Classification: Public
Good morning, Stefan,
Thank you for your email. Once detailed project plans are available, please send via email and we will review.

Best Regards,
Pacific Gas and Electric Company
Plan Review Team
Email: [email protected]
From: Stefan Heisler <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, January 6, 2023 9:23 AM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Hannah Hughes <[email protected]>; Maya Vishwanath <[email protected]>; Egbert, Adam <[email protected]>; Adam Lindgren <[email protected]>; Adam Lindgren <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Albert Stricker <[email protected]>; Amanda Norton <[email protected]>; Andrew Saltmarsh <[email protected]>; Audie Foster <[email protected]>; Benjamin Turner <[email protected]>; Bree Chuong <[email protected]>; Brian Bailey <[email protected]>; Caltrans District 3 Local Development Review <[email protected]>; Cameron Shew <[email protected]>; Chris Bohrer <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; Cristina James <[email protected]>; Civic Thread General Project Email <[email protected]>; Cristian Ganea <[email protected]>; Cyrus Abhar <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Dave Ghirardelli <[email protected]>; Dennis Barber <[email protected]>; Dov Kadin <[email protected]>; Elizabeth Sparkman <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Erin Naderi <[email protected]>; Gary Gasperi <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Jeremiah Zillig <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; Joanne McCarthy <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; Kim Juran <[email protected]>; Laura Fickle <[email protected]>; Liisa Behrends <[email protected]>; Lisbet Gullone <[email protected]>; Lori Murphy ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

<[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; Maria Lopez <[email protected]>; Mary Pakenham-Walsh <Mary.R.Pakenham[email protected]>; Micah Runner <[email protected]>; Michelle Havens <[email protected]>; Michelle Mingay <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Nancy Quaresma <[email protected]>; Palmer Hilton <[email protected]>; Palmer Hilton <[email protected]>; [email protected]; PGE Plan Review <[email protected]>; Pham Saechao <[email protected]>; Quoc Nham <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; saccounty wateragency <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Sacramento Regional Transit <[email protected]>; Sarah Poe <[email protected]>; SASD General Review Email <[email protected]>; Sean Twilla <[email protected]>; SMAQMD Project Review <[email protected]>; Smud <[email protected]>; Stefan Heisler <[email protected]>; Steve Harriman <[email protected]>; USFWS
<[email protected]>; Victor Ramos <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Nicholas Sosa <[email protected]>; Darcy Goulart <[email protected]> Subject: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report CAUTION: EXTERNAL SENDER!
This email was sent from an EXTERNAL source. Do you know this person? Are you expecting this email? Are you expecting any links or attachments? If suspicious, do not click links, open attachments, or provide credentials. Don't delete it. Report it by using the "Report Phish" button.

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF A DRAFT

SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE MILLS

CROSSING PROJECT
Dated: January 6, 2023
TO: Responsible Agencies, Interested Parties, and Organizations SUBJECT: Mills Crossing Project Preparation of Draft SEIR — CITY OF RANCHO

CORDOVA, SACRAMENTO COUNTY
The City of Rancho Cordova, as Lead Agency, intends to prepare a Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the Mills Crossing project (Project). In accordance with Section 15082 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City has prepared this Notice of Preparation (NOP) to provide responsible agencies and other interested parties with sufficient information describing the Project and its potential environmental effects.

PROJECT LOCATION: The Project is located at 10153-10179 Folsom Blvd (APNs:
076-0020-019, -020, -021, & -022)
PROPERTY OWNER: City of Rancho Cordova
APPLICANT/DEVELOPER:City of Rancho Cordova
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

2729 Prospect Park
Drive 2729 Prospect Park Drive
Rancho Cordova, CA
95670 Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The City of Rancho Cordova is proposing a mixed-use project located on a property zoned Residential Mixed Use (RMU) within the Folsom Blvd Specific Plan (FBSP) designation of the General Plan. The project will include approximately 130,700 SF of community-commercial buildings, up to 120 housing units including multifamily apartments and zero lot line townhouse-style homes, up to 2.5 acres of public open space, and a parking structure with up to 325 parking stalls. The Community-commercial component will include health and wellness, community serving commercial, an arts center with black box theater and flex studios, a community event hall, and retail.

Hazardous Waste Sites: Pursuant to Section 15087(c)(6) of the Guidelines for California Environmental Quality Act, the City of Rancho Cordova acknowledges that a portion of the property, specifically the parcel in the west corner of the project site (APN: 076-0020-021) is listed as a site for evaluation on the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) EnviroStor database (DTSC 2022).

Public Comment Opportunity: The public review and comment period for the NOP will extend for 30 days starting January 6, 2023 and ending February 6, 2023 at 5:00 PM.

The NOP can be viewed and/or downloaded at the following website:
https://www.cityofranchocordova.org/residents/new-businesses-and-projects/millscrossing-civic-center A Scoping Meeting will be held on Thursday, January 19, 2023 at 6:00 p.m. in the City of Rancho Cordova City Hall, American River Room North, located at 2729 Prospect Park Drive, Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
Comments/Questions: Comments and/or questions regarding the NOP may be directed to:

Stefan Heisler, Housing Manager
City of Rancho Cordova Housing Division
2729 Prospect Park Dr.

Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
or [email protected]
Stefan Heisler
Housing Manager
City of Rancho Cordova
2729 Prospect Park Drive
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
(916) 851-8757
[email protected]
www.cityofranchocordova.org
I R
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

You can read about PG&E’s data privacy practices here or at PGE.com/privacy.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

Department of Transportation
Ron E. Vicari, Director
County of Sacramento
Divisions
Administration
Maintenance & Operations
Engineering & Planning
4111 Branch Center Road • Sacramento, California 95827 • phone (916) 874-6291 • fax (916) 874-7831 • www.saccounty.net January 25, 2023
Stefan Heisler
Housing Manager
City of Rancho Cordova
2729 Prospect Park Drive
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
SUBJECT: COMMENTS ON NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF A DRAFT SUBSEQUENT

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND SCOPING MEETING FOR THE MILLS CROSSING CIVIC CENTER PROJECT.

Stefan Heisler,
The County of Sacramento appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Notice of Preparation of a Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report for the Mills Crossing Civic Center Project (The Mills). We anticipate a project of this size may generate enough traffic to cause impacts in Sacramento County. Because of this, we’d ask the city to analyze the following County facilities:
 Intersections (LOS and queuing analysis)
o Folsom Blvd. at Horn Rd./Paseo Rio Way
o Folsom Blvd. at Bradshaw Rd.

If any County facilities are impacted from the project, Sacramento County would request to enter a Project Specific Reciprocal Funding Agreement with the City of Rancho Cordova, as necessary. Please feel free to contact me at (916) 876-4108 with any questions or comments.

Sincerely,
_______________________
Gary Gasperi, P.E., T.E.

Senior, Civil Engineer
Department of Transportation
GG
CC: Matthew Darrow, DOT
Cameron Shew, DOT
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

February 2, 2023
Stefan Heisler
Recreation & Park District
City of Rancho Cordova Housing Division
2729 Prospect Park Dr.

Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
(916) 8? 1-8757
Regarding:

Review
Documents:

Public Comment
Opportunity:

Mills Crossing Civic Center
Notice of Preparation (NOP)
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report {DSEIR)
Mills Crossing Civic Center, Concept 2
Folsom Boulevard Specific Plan {FBSP)
Rancho Cordova's Zoning Code and General Plan
Scoping Meeting Information Provided on January 19, 2023 January 6 - February 6, 2023
Reviewed by: Cordova Recreation and Park District
Laura Taylor, CRPD Park Planning and Development Manager Lisbet Gullone, CRPD Contract Planner
Cordova Recreation and Park District (CRPD) is responding to the City of Rancho Cordova's Notice of Preparation to prepare a Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report for the Mills Crossing Civic Center project.

This comment letter has more requests for clarifications than statements. This is a unique project. Usually CRPD would have more familiarity with a development project before CRPD is asked to comment on an EIR because CRPD, the Developer and City would have already worked together on a land use plan that clearly identifies Quimby park land dedication and City Open Space (or Neighborhood Green Space). The land use plan and ownership responsibilities are often out prior to the NOP for an EIR. CRPD has not previously made comments regarding the proposed Civic Center development.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

CRPD Planning staff attended the City's Scoping Meeting held on January 19, 2023. After that meeting Planning staff had email correspondence with Stefan Heisler following up on a few questions.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed 10-acre Mills Crossing development is located in the Transit Oriented District Overlay Zone of Mather Field/Mills Light Rail Station on the south side of Folsom Boulevard.

Concept 2 of the project will include 130,700 square feet of commercial space, a parking structure for 325 vehicles, 2.5 acres of public open space and up to 120 housing units. The current master plan exhibit shows 48 townhome lots and a four-story apartment building.

According to the housing program, the apartment building will include a minimum of 55 affordable units. The final number of residential units within Mills Crossing is not yet known.

Stefan confirmed that the proposed townhomes will be on individual lots. The proposed project falls under Quimby park land requirements for projects with 50 or more lots. Stefan said it is not clear yet if some portion of the public outdoor space in the land use plan is intended to be Quimby park land dedicated to Cordova Recreation and Park District and that further conversations are needed between the City and CRPD.

PARK AND RECREATION SYSTEM IMPACTS
Rancho Cordova's new Civic Center project includes three public outdoor space parcels with a combined area of 2.5 acres. The parcels have inconsistent labels so it is unclear which parcels are intended to be City Open Space or Quimby park land dedications. The project graphic on the City's web page Mills Crossin!!. ivic Center I Cit of Rancho Cordova indicates a 1.1 acre Community Park. Community Parks are under the jurisdiction of CRPD and are dedicated to CRPD as Quimby park land dedication. However the City Council agenda staff report associated with the 12/6/2021 presentation to the City Council states, "City maintaining ownership, management and control of the community facilities, ... ". CRPD has not yet been included on discussions pertaining to the proposed Community Park site. The intent for ownership and maintenance of the Hybrid/Plaza Park also needs clarification.

CRPD anticipates that standard Quimby dedication requirements will be applied to all residential units per the Municipal Code, Chapter 22.40. Once more information about the townhomes and apartment units have been provided CRPD will calculate the Quimby dedication acre.age requirement. For order of magnitude consideration, CRPD anticipates the Quimby park land dedication amount for this project to be around 1.25 acres. This project may also need to contribute towards maintenance of the Quimby Community Park and other existing park facilities impacted by the residents of this project by annexing into an existing CRPD Community Facilities District.

CRPD's Recommendations
The Subsequent Environmental Impact Report should include the following information:
• For CRPD to accurately respond to the potential impacts of this project, the land use plan should clearly identify Quimby park land and City Open Space in the proposed project. CRPD looks forward to further discussions with the City on this item.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

• Cordova Recreation and Park District should be listed as the jurisdiction responsible for Quimby Parkland.
• Once the Quimby park land (and/or Quimby in-lieu fees) for this project have been clarified for this project then CRPD can provide more information about Quimby inlieu fees , park impact fees and on-going maintenance assessments for park land.

FUTURE ENTITLEMENT PROCESS
Thank you for notifying CRPD regarding the preparation of additional environmental documents for the Mills Crossing project. Please contact CRPD if you have any questions or comments regarding CRPD's current recommendations.

CRPD will continue to follow the progress of Rancho Cordova's new Civic Center project with great interest.
~:~_-4--b=,,,...,.,.[
Laura L. Taylor, ASLA
Park Planning and Development Manager
Cordova Recreation and Park District
Copy: Patrick Larkin, General Manager for Cordova Recreation and Park District Elizabeth Sparkman, Rancho Cordova Community Development Director

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

February 4, 2023
Stefan Heisler
Housing Manager
City of Rancho Cordova
2729 Prospect Park Drive
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
NAME OF DEVELOPMENT: Mills Crossing Project
TYPE OF DOCUMENTS: Notice of Preparation (NOP) - Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report
Sacramento Regional Transit District (SacRT) appreciates the opportunity to review the NOP for the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report for the Mills Crossing Project. SacRT has provided previous support related to this project, to the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) in October 2022 related to the Green Means Go Early Activation Category Application (Attachment 1).

The Mills Crossing Project (Project) is located on a 9.85-acre site at the corner of Folsom Boulevard and La Loma Drive in the City of Rancho Cordova. The Project will include approximately 130,700 SF of community-commercial buildings, up to 120 housing units including multi-family apartments and zero lot line townhouse-style homes, up to 2.5 acres of public open space, and a parking structure with up to 325 parking stalls. The Community-commercial component will include health and wellness, community serving commercial, an arts center with black box theater and flex studios, a community event hall and retail.

SacRT’s previous letter of support for the Project was primarily focused on transit-oriented development (TOD) goals, and the opportunities that the Project presents. SacRT has a renewed focus on TOD, which helps the community and surrounding neighborhoods by providing 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 feels that the Mills Crossing Project will provide these benefits such as these.

In addition to the statements described above, SacRT also has the following comments pertaining to the Project:
 SacRT supports the development patterns with a mix of commercial and residential, as they are appropriate for efficient transit operations and supportive of TOD.  SacRT supports the high-density residential sites located within the planned community and planned pedestrian pathways and crossings to fixed-route transit options.  SacRT supports the inclusion of 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.

Comments listed below pertain specifically to the site plan included in the NOP:
 SacRT is in favor of placing the community facilities, commercial/retail spaces, and the arts center facing Folsom Boulevard, and nearest to transit. Additionally, with the public plaza also fronting ~ Regional
Transit
Sacramento Regional
Transit District A Public Transit Agency
and Equal Opportunity Employer
Administrative Offices
1400 29th Street
Sacramento, CA 95816
916-321-2800
Mailing Address
P.O. Box 2110
Sacramento, CA 95812-2110
Human Resources
2810 0 Street
Sacramento, CA 95816
916-556-0299
Customer Service &
Sales Center
1225 R Street
Sacramento, CA 95811
Route, Schedule & Fare
Information
916-321-BUSS (2877)
TDD 916-483-HEAR (4327)
sacrt.com
Public Transit Since 1973
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

Folsom Boulevard, this provides easy pedestrian access into the center and onto safe crossings and pathways leading directly to housing units.
 SacRT is interested in a revised layout of the residential units within the community. As it is currently proposed, the affordable housing units are located around the perimeter of the Project area, adjacent to La Loma Drive and at the edge of the property line. SacRT would be interested to see the affordable housing units brought closer to the center of the community, around the neighborhood green space, and closer to the planned pathways to transit. SacRT believes 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.

Thank you again for the opportunity to review the NOP for the Mills Crossing Project. SacRT staff looks forward to the continued review of project information as it becomes available and looks forward to collaborating on the transit goals identified in the future SEIR.

Sincerely,
Sarah Poe
Planner, SacRT
Attachment: SacRT Letter of Support – Green Means Go - Mills Crossing Project

~ Regional
Transit
Sacramento Regional
Transit District A Public Transit Agency
and Equal Opportunity Employer
Administrative Offices
1400 29th Street
Sacramento, CA 95816
916-321-2800
Mailing Address
P.O. Box 2110
Sacramento, CA 95812-2110
Human Resources
2810 0 Street
Sacramento, CA 95816
916-556-0299
Customer Service &
Sales Center
1225 R Street
Sacramento, CA 95811
Route, Schedule & Fare
Information
916-321-BUSS (2877)
TDD 916-483-HEAR (4327)
sacrt.com
Public Transit Since 1973
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

777 12th Street, Ste. 300 • Sacramento, CA 95814
Tel: 916-874-4800 • Toll Free: 800-880-9025
AirQuality.org
February 6, 2023
Stefan Heisler, Housing Manager
City of Rancho Cordova Housing Division
2729 Prospect Park Dr.

Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
[email protected]
Subject: Mills Crossing Project Preparation of Draft SEIR Dear Stefan Heisler:

Thank you for providing the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (Sac Metro Air District) with the Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the Mills Crossing project (Project). The project, located at 10153- 10179 Folsom Blvd, will include approximately 130,700 SF of community-commercial buildings, up to 120 housing units, including multi-family apartments and zero lot line townhouse-style homes, up to 2.5 acres of public open space, and a parking structure with up to 325 parking stalls. The Community-commercial component will include health and wellness, community serving commercial, an arts center with black box theater and flex studios, a community event hall, and retail. Sac Metro Air District comments on the project CEQA review follow.

CEQA Review:

CEQA Guide:

The Sac Metro Air District recommends that the City of Rancho Cordova utilize the Guide to Air Quality Assessment in Sacramento County1 (CEQA Guide) as a resource for preparing the DEIR. The CEQA Guide includes recommended thresholds of significance, analysis methods, mitigation measures, and best management practices for project CEQA review in support of regional plans to attain Federal and State air quality and climate goals, reduce public exposure to toxic air contaminants, and disclose project public health effects.

Construction Analysis:

The DEIR’s construction analysis should quantify and 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 applicable Sac Metro Air District thresholds of significance, the DEIR should incorporate mitigation measures for construction emissions using methods in this chapter.
1 Guide to Air Quality Assesment in Sacramento County: https://www.airquality.org/Businesses/CEQA-Land-UsePlanning/CEQA-Guidance-Tools

SACRAMENTO METROPOLITAN
Al R QUALITY

MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

Mills Crossing Project NOP
All projects must implement Sac Metro Air District Basic Construction Emission Control Practices to use the non-zero particulate matter CEQA thresholds of significance. These are also helpful to ensure compliance with Sac Metro Air District’s Rule 403, Fugitive Dust.

Please note that all projects are subject to Sac Metro Air District rules and regulations at the time of construction. Please visit our website to find a list of the most common rules that apply during the construction phase of projects2.

Operational Analysis:

The DEIR’s analysis of operational emissions should quantify and disclose projected operational emissions of Criteria Pollutants using methods referenced in the CEQA Guide’s chapter on Operational Criteria Air Pollutant and Precursor Emissions3. For projects that will exceed Sac Metro Air District’s operational emissions thresholds of significance for reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen, or particulate matter, Sac Metro Air District recommends the project proponent develop an Air Quality Mitigation Plan (AQMP), using methods described in the CEQA Guide. Consistent with the City of Rancho Cordova General Plan Air Quality Element4 5, the AQMP should include measures to reduce operational emissions of these pollutants by 15% or more and can be a standalone document or incorporated into the environmental document.

The AQMP must be referenced in the DEIR as an air quality mitigation measure, appended to the document, and referenced as a condition of approval by the lead agency.

Sac Metro Air District recommends using its Recommended Guidance for Land Use Emission Reductions6 to develop AQMP measures. Should the project need to develop an AQMP, Sac Metro Air District respectfully requests consultation to review the AQMP for technical adequacy before inclusion in the DEIR.

Analysis of operational Criteria Pollutants should also include an analysis of health effects that may result from operational emissions pursuant to the “Friant Ranch” decision. In December 2018, the California Supreme Court issued a decision in the Sierra Club v. County of Fresno case regarding the “Friant Ranch” project ((2018) 6 Cal. 5th 502). The Court determined that CEQA air quality analysis should include a reasonable effort to connect a project’s air quality impacts to likely health consequences or explain why it is not feasible to do so in meaningful detail. To analyze health effects pursuant to the Friant Ranch decision, consult Sac Metro Air 2 Sac Metro Air District Rules Attachment,
https://www.airquality.org/LandUseTransportation/Documents/RulesAttachment10-2020Final.pdf 3 Sac Metro Air District, Guide to Air Quality Assesment in Sacramento County, Chapter 4-Operational, http://www.airquality.org/LandUseTransportation/Documents/Ch4OperationalFinal10-2020.pdf 4 City of Rancho Cordova General Plan, Chapter XII, page 11; Action AQ.1.2.2.– “Require project proponents to coordinate with SMAQMD on appropriate methodologies for evaluating project emissions and air quality impacts (e.g., emissions modeling software, SMAQMD’s thresholds of significance, etc.).” Adopted 6/26/2006 5 City of Rancho Cordova General Plan, Chapter XII, page 11; Action AQ.1.2.3.– “Require all new development projects that exceed SMAQMD’s thresholds of significance to incorporate design, construction material, and/or other operational features that will result in a 15 percent reduction in emissions when compared to an “unmitigated baseline” project.” Adopted 6/26/2006 6 Sac Metro Air District Guide to Air Quality Assesment in Sacramento County, http://www.airquality.org/Residents/CEQA-Land-Use-Planning/CEQA-Guidance-Tools ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

Mills Crossing Project NOP
District’s Guidance to Address the Friant Ranch Ruling for CEQA Projects in the Sac Metro Air District.7
The operational analysis should also study consistency with local and regional plans, including the City of Rancho Cordovoa’s Folsom Boulevard Specific Plan8 and SACOG Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (MTP/SCS) for the Sacramento region9.

Greenhouse Gases:

If CEQA analysis demonstrates that Project greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, from construction or operations will exceed applicable Sac Metro Air District thresholds of significance10, we recommend mitigating emission impacts using mitigation methods referenced in the CEQA Guide’s chapter on GHG Emissions11.

Permit Requirements:

Equipment in the Community center or commercial operations may be subject to Sac Metro Air District permit requirements. Sac Metro Air District Rule 201 requires any business or person to obtain an Authority to Construct and Permit to Operate before installing or operating new equipment or processes that may release or control air pollutants. To ensure that all Sac Metro Air District rules and regulations are considered, please visit the Sac Metro Air District’s website12 for permit application instructions and forms.

Design Comments:

Clean Air Resiliency Center
Climate-exacerbated hazards and disasters will likely compound existing vulnerabilities and challenges for individuals and communities. With increasing extreme weather events, wildfires, and other worsening natural disasters, it becomes critical to develop and establish local resilience centers that can support the needs of the surrounding community—as well as potentially evacuees—at short notice for potentially extended periods.

The City of Rancho Cordova can assist in this effort by anticipating how the proposed community center can be adapted to serve as a resilience center or provide emergency services, such as a cooling center or clean air centers. We recommend that the project be equipped with MERV-13 or higher-rated air filtration systems to serve as a clean air center during wildfire smoke events. We recommend including an onsite renewable energy system, specifically a solar photovoltaic system coupled with battery storage, to provide emergency 7 Sac Metro Air District Guidance to address the Friant Ranch Ruling for CEQA Projects in the Sac Metro Air District, http://www.airquality.org/LandUseTransportation/Documents/SMAQMDFriantRanchFinalOct2020.pdf 8 Folsom Boulevard Specific Plan, City of Rancho Cordova, 12/16/2013; https://www.cityofranchocordova.org/home/showdocument?id=10725 9 Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (MTP/SCS) for the Sacramento region https://www.sacog.org/metropolitan-transportationplansustainable-communities-strategy 10 http://www.airquality.org/LandUseTransportation/Documents/CH2ThresholdsTable4-2020.pdf 11 http://www.airquality.org/LandUseTransportation/Documents/Ch6GHG2-26-2021.pdf 12 Sac Metro Air District Permit & Registration Programs webpage: https://www.airquality.org/Businesses/PermitsRegistration-Programs ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

Mills Crossing Project NOP
power. Disaster preparedness training, supplies, and other capacity-building features should be included in the final plan for the Project.

Multi-Modal Accommodation
The DEIR should evaluate project support of bicycle and pedestrian transportation as consistent with adopted policies to encourage multi-modal transportation. Specific policies include those in the Folsom Boulevard Specific Plan13.

Urban Heat Island (UHI) impacts:

Sac Metro Air District participated in the Capital Region Transportation Sector Urban Heat Island Mitigation Project (UHI Project), producing a report on urban heat island effect impacts on the Sacramento region and mitigation strategies for these impacts. According to the report, the heat island effect already presents a serious challenge for our region. Developed areas in Sacramento range from 3 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than surrounding areas, which results in decreased air quality and associated public health impacts. The urban heat island results from the conversion of undeveloped land to developed land.

Higher ambient temperatures can increase the formation of ozone, a respiratory system irritant.

During extreme heat and extended heat waves, these higher temperatures can lead to heat stress, heat stroke, and even heat mortality, especially for the elderly, the young, and those with pre-existing health conditions.

The recommendations below on strategies to reduce urban heat island effect impacts are consistent with the UHI Project.
 Utilize certified cool roofs, consistent with recommendations for solar reflectance and thermal emittance in the California Building Energy Efficiency Standards Table 170.2-A for the Sacramento Climate Zone (Zone 12), as applicable.  Utilize “cool pavement” for new outdoor pavement, with the highest albedo possible but no less than 0.25. Please visit Sac Metro Air District’s Recommended Cool Pavement Strategies14 for guidance on cool pavement strategies
 Incorporate new trees to shade new and existing pavements and structures to the full extent feasible.
 We recommend selecting air-quality supportive tree species for these plantings. A list of air-quality-supportive tree species is available in the Sacramento Tree Foundation’s Shady Eighty guide,15 along with information for each species on tree shade canopy, the distance between plantings, and more.

Communication:
13 Folsom Boulevard Specific Plan, City of Rancho Cordova, 12/16/2013; https://www.cityofranchocordova.org/home/showdocument?id=10725 14 Capital Region Transportation Sector Urban Heat Island Mitigation Plan https://www.airquality.org/LandUseTransportation/Documents/UHI%20Mitigation%20Plan.pdf 15 Sacramento Tree Foundation Shady 80 Guide; https://sactree.org/best-trees-for-sacramento/ ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

Mills Crossing Project NOP
To allow for sufficient time for coordination, please send all future environmental documents and notices to [email protected].

You may contact me at [email protected] or 279-207-1130 if you have questions regarding these comments.
-JJ Hurley
Joseph J. Hurley
Air Quality Planner/Analyst
CEQA & Land Use
Cc: Paul Philley, AICP, CEQA, and Land Use Program Supervisor, Sac Metro Air District

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board
6 February 2023
Stefan Heisler
City of Rancho Cordova
2729 Prospect Park Drive
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
[email protected]

COMMENTS TO REQUEST FOR REVIEW FOR THE NOTICE OF PREPARATION

FOR THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, MILLS CROSSING CIVIC CENTER PROJECT, SCH#2023010102, SACRAMENTO COUNTY
Pursuant to the State Clearinghouse’s 6 January 2023 request, the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (Central Valley Water Board) has reviewed the Request for Review for the Notice of Preparation for the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Mills Crossing Civic Center Project, located in Sacramento County.

Our agency is delegated with the responsibility of protecting the quality of surface and groundwaters of the state; therefore, our comments will address concerns surrounding those issues.

I. Regulatory Setting
Basin Plan
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. Each Basin Plan must contain water quality objectives to ensure the reasonable protection of beneficial uses, as well as a program of implementation for achieving water quality objectives with the Basin Plans. Federal regulations require each state to adopt water quality standards to protect the public health or welfare, enhance the quality of water and serve the purposes of the Clean Water Act. In California, the beneficial uses, water quality objectives, and the Antidegradation Policy are the State’s water quality standards. Water quality standards are also contained in the National Toxics Rule, 40 CFR Section 131.36, and the California Toxics Rule, 40 CFR Section 131.38.

The Basin Plan is subject to modification as necessary, considering applicable laws, policies, technologies, water quality conditions and priorities. The original Basin Plans were adopted in 1975, and have been updated and revised periodically as required, using Basin Plan amendments. Once the Central Valley Water Board has adopted a Basin Plan amendment in noticed public hearings, it must be approved by the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board), Office of Water Boards

MARK B RADFORD, CHAIR I

GAVIN N EWSOM

GOVEFNOR
N
~ YANA GA.CIA l ~ ~ SEC FETAR Y FOR
,...,, EH\'IRmJMENTAL PROTECTION
PATRICK PULUPA, Eso., EXECUTIVE OFFI CER
11 020 Sun Center Drive #200, Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 I www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3