Agenda packet — Rancho Cordova City Council, June 2, 2025 (part 24 of 26)

7 > PROCEDURES FOR ACCLIMATIZATION:

Acclimatization is the temporary and gradual physiological change in the body that occurs when the environmentally induced heat load to which the body is accustomed is significantly and suddenly exceeded by sudden environmental changes. In more common terms, the body needs time to adapt when temperatures rise suddenly, and an employee risks heat illness by not taking it easy when a heat wave strikes or when starting a new job that exposes the employee to heat to which the employee’s body hasn’t yet adjusted.

Inadequate acclimatization can be significantly more perilous in conditions of high heat and physical stress. Employers are responsible for the working conditions of their employees, and they must act effectively when conditions result in sudden exposure to heat their employees are not used to.  The weather will be monitored daily. The supervisor will be on the lookout for sudden heat wave(s), or increases in temperatures to which employees haven’t been exposed to for several weeks or longer. During a heat wave or heat spike, the work day will be cut short (example 12 p.m.), will be rescheduled (example conducted at night or during cooler hours) or if at all possible cease for the day.
 New employees, or those employees who have been newly assigned to a high heat area will be closely observed by the supervisor or designee for the first 14 days. The intensity of the work will be lessened during a two-week break-in period (such as scheduling slower paced, less physically demanding work during the hot parts of the day and the heaviest work activities during the cooler parts of the day (early-morning or evening). Steps taken to lessen the intensity of the workload for new employees will be documented.  The supervisor, or the designee will be extra-vigilant with new employees and stay alert to the presence of heat related symptoms. New employees will be assigned a “buddy” or experienced coworker to watch each other closely for discomfort or symptoms of heat illness.

During a heat wave, all employees will be observed closely (or maintain frequent communication via phone or radio), to be on the lookout for possible symptoms of heat illness. Employees and supervisors will be trained on the importance of acclimatization, how it is developed and how these company procedures address it > SAMPLE PROCEDURES FOR EMERGENCY RESPONSE:
 Every morning, Tetra Tech employees will be reminded about site addresses and directions to the worksite and emergency procedures (see HASP), to avoid a delay of emergency medical services.
 Supervisors of each company will carry cell phones or other means of communication, to ensure that emergency services can be called, and check that these are functional at the worksite prior to each shift. See HASP for medical emergency facility location and phone numbers.
 When an employee is showing symptoms of possible heat illness, steps will be taken immediately to keep the stricken employee cool and comfortable once emergency service responders have been called (to reduce the progression to more serious illness). Under no ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

Page 2236 of 2588 ends

8 circumstances will the affected employee be left unattended.  During a heat wave or hot temperatures, workers will be reminded and encouraged to immediately report to their supervisor any signs or symptoms they are experiencing.  Employees and supervisors training will include every detail of these written emergency procedures.
> WRITTEN PROCEDURES
Written procedures help reduce the risk of heat related illnesses, and ensure that emergency assistance is provided without delay.
3395 (i) Heat Illness Prevention Plan. The employer shall establish, implement, and maintain shall be in writing in both English and the language understood by the majority of the employees and shall be made available at the worksite to employees and to representatives of the Division upon request. The Heat Illness Prevention Plan may be included as part of the employer’s Illness and Injury Prevention Program required by 3203, and shall, at a minimum, contain:
(1) Procedures for the provision of water and access to shade. (2) The high heat procedures referred to in subsection (e). (3) Emergency Response Procedures in accordance with subsection (f). (4) Acclimatization methods and procedures in accordance with subsection (g). > TRAINING
Training is critical to help reduce the risk of heat related illnesses and to assist with obtaining emergency assistance without delay.
3395 (e) (1) Employee training: Training in the following topics shall be provided to all supervisory and non-supervisory employees:
(A) The environmental and personal risk factors for heat illness; (B) The employer’s procedures for complying with the requirements of this standard; (C) The importance of frequent consumption of small quantities of water, up to 4 cups per hour, when the work environment is hot and employees are likely to be sweating more than usual in the performance of their duties;
(D) The importance of acclimatization;
(E) The different types of heat illness and the common signs and symptoms of heat illness; (F) The importance to employees of immediately reporting to the employer, directly or through the employee’s supervisor, symptoms or signs of heat illness in themselves, or in co-workers; (G) The employer’s procedures for responding to symptoms of possible heat illness, including how emergency medical services will be provided should they become necessary; (H) The employer’s procedures for contacting emergency medical services, and if necessary, for transporting employees to a point where they can be reached by an emergency medical service provider;
(I) The employer’s procedures for ensuring that, in the event of an emergency, clear and precise directions to the work site can and will be provided as needed to emergency responders.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

Page 2237 of 2588 ends

9 Note: T8 CCR 3203(a)(3) requires that communication for employees shall be in a form readily understandable by all affected employees.
(e) (2) Supervisor training: Prior to assignment to supervision of employees working in the heat, training on the following topics shall be provided:
(A) The information required to be provided by section (e) (1) above. (B) The procedures the supervisor is to follow to implement the applicable provisions in this section. (C) The procedures the supervisor is to follow when an employee exhibits symptoms consistent with possible heat illness, including emergency response procedures.

To ensure employees are trained and are provided training, the following steps will be taken:
 Tetra Tech and each subcontractor’s employees will receive heat illness prevention training from their respective employers prior to working outdoors. Especially all newly hired employees. All workers will read and comply with heat illness prevention brochures attached to this document.
 On hot days, and during a heat wave, supervisors will hold short tailgate meetings to review this important information with all workers.
 All newly hired workers will be assigned a buddy or experienced coworker to ensure that they understood the training and follow the company procedures.  Supervisors will be trained prior to being assigned to supervise outdoor workers. > PROCEDURES FOR HANDLING A SICK EMPLOYEE:

Tetra Tech will implement effective emergency response procedures including:
 Ensuring that effective communication by voice, observation, or electronic means is maintained so that employees at the work site can contact a supervisor or emergency medical services when necessary. An electronic device, such as a cell phone or text messaging device, may be used for this purpose only if reception in the area is reliable. If an electronic device will not furnish reliable communication in the work area, the employer will ensure a means of summoning emergency medical services.  Responding to signs and symptoms of possible heat illness, including but not limited to first aid measures and how emergency medical services will be provided.  If a supervisor observes, or any employee reports, any signs or symptoms of heat illness in any employee, the supervisor shall take immediate action commensurate with the severity of the illness.
 If the signs or symptoms are indicators of severe heat illness (such as, but not limited to, decreased level of consciousness, staggering, vomiting, disorientation, irrational behavior or convulsions), the employer must implement emergency response procedures.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

Page 2238 of 2588 ends

10  An employee exhibiting signs or symptoms of heat illness shall be monitored and shall not be left alone or sent home without being offered onsite first aid and/or being provided with emergency medical services in accordance with the employer’s procedures.  Contacting emergency medical services and, if necessary, transporting ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

Page 2239 of 2588 ends

TETRA TECH, INC. 24
3101 Zinfandel Drive, Suite 200, Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 Tel 916.853.1800 Fax 916.853.1860 www.tetratech.com

APPENDIX B
Perimeter Air and Dust Monitoring Plan
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

Page 2240 of 2588 ends

TETRA TECH, INC.
3101 Zinfandel Drive, Suite 200, Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 Tel 916.853.1800 Fax 916.853.1860 www.tetratech.com

AIR AND DUST MONITORING PLAN

SOIL CLEANUP
10153 FOLOSOM BLVD,

RANCHO CORDOVA, CALIFORNIA
March 15, 2022
Prepared for:

City of Rancho Cordova
2729 Prospect Park Drive
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
Prepared by:

Tetra Tech, Inc.
3101 Zinfandel Drive
Suite 200
Rancho Cordova, California 95670

Tetra Tech, Inc. Project 117-9040001
["'fl:] TETRA TECH
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

Page 2241 of 2588 ends

Air and Dust Monitoring Plan
10153 Folsom Blvd, Ranch Cordova, California March 15, 2022 i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................. 1

2.0 SUMMARY OF SOIL EXCAVATION.................................................................... 2

3.0 PERIMETER AIR AND DUST MONITORING LOCATIONS ................................ 2

4.0 FIELD MONITORING INSTRUMENTS ................................................................ 2

4.1 Real-Time Dust Monitors ................................................................................... 3

4.2 Real-Time VOC Monitor..................................................................................... 4

5.0 FIELD MONITORING PROTOCOLS .................................................................... 4

5.1 Real-Time Dust Monitoring ................................................................................ 4

5.2 Real-Time VOC Monitoring ................................................................................ 5

6.0 AIR SAMPLING PROCEDURES FOR LABORATORY ANALYSIS ..................... 5

7.0 METEOROLOGICAL MONITORING.................................................................... 6

8.0 REPORTING ........................................................................................................ 7

9.0 AIR MONITORING COMPARISON CRITERIA .................................................... 7

9.1 Real-Time Field Monitoring – PID Action Level.................................................. 8

9.2 Dust Monitoring and Action Level....................................................................... 8

9.3 Comparison Criteria Exceedances................................................................... 10

10.0 REFERENCES................................................................................................... 10

FIGURES
Figure 1 Extent of Soil Excavation and Sewer Line Removal Figure 2 Proposed Perimeter Air Monitoring Locations

TETRA TECH
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

Page 2242 of 2588 ends

Air and Dust Monitoring Plan
10153 Folsom Blvd, Rancho Cordova, California March 15, 2022 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION
This air and dust monitoring plan addresses methods for monitoring potential fugitive dust and volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions – laden dust around the work area perimeter during soil excavation and trenching activities within the 10153 Folsom Blvd, Rancho Cordova (the “Site”). A description of field monitoring instruments, field monitoring protocols, air sampling procedures, action levels, and meteorological monitoring is presented.

The purpose of the perimeter air and dust monitoring is to protect members of the public from being exposed to elevated concentrations of dust and/or VOC contaminants while soil is being excavated and stockpiled on-site. Residential development is present immediately west and north of the proposed excavation area and overall Site boundary.

Commercial development is located southwest and south of the Site. Additional residential development present east of the Site along with a Folsom Lake College building.

The primary VOC chemical of concern (COC) at this site is tetrachloroethene (PCE), with lesser concentrations of trichloroethene (TCE) and cis-1,2-dchlorothene (cis-1,2-DCE) having been detected intermittently in on-site media (soil, groundwater, and soil vapor) since initial investigation work in 2008. Subsequent on-site soil vapor and groundwater extraction activities resulted in reduced concentrations of the three COCs.

Concentrations of dust (to be measured as particles less than 10 microns in diameter, referred to as “PM10”) and VOCs in ambient air around the work perimeter will be compared to action levels to document that the work being performed is protective of public health. Should monitoring results exceed action levels then work practices will be modified in response to the exceedance. Such modifications could include additional soil wetting to minimize dust and volatilization of VOCs, and/or placement of clean soil over suspected VOC-impacted soil to minimize volatilization of VOCs.

While this plan addresses the potential for exposure by members of the public in proximity of the Site while excavating and loading soil into trucks, it does not address the potential for exposure by Site workers. The potential for exposure by Site workers will be handled separately by the contractors under their respective health and safety plans, as different monitoring procedures and action levels apply to Site workers as opposed to members of the public. Tetra Tech has developed a Site-specific Health and Safety Plan for the onsite Tetra Tech employees.

TETRA TECH
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

Page 2243 of 2588 ends

Air and Dust Monitoring Plan
10153 Folsom Blvd, Rancho Cordova, California March 15, 2022 2 Figure 1 shows the Site and proposed excavation area. The Site is currently a vacant lot which includes vegetated soil areas, some trees, and remnant asphalt paved parking areas. An inactive sewer line runs through the northwest quadrant of the Site, including through the proposed soil excavation area. Perimeter air monitoring stations are indicated on Figure 2, marking the locations where periodic real-time VOC and dust measurements will be collected. As the active work area will be limited to the west half of the Site, the eastern air monitoring station will be established near the center of the Site, instead of the far eastern fence line.

2.0 SUMMARY OF SOIL EXCAVATION
The soil excavation area is planned for a total depth of 15 feet below ground surface (bgs). The excavation includes removing the sanitary sewer line within the excavation limits as well as the balance of the sewer that extends beyond the excavation footprint.

The soil will be removed using a standard excavator and loaded into a transport truck for stockpiling and covering just east of the excavation. The resultant excavation sidewalls will be sloped for safety, according to the Competent Person’s determination (e.g., 1:1 slope).

Routine real-time air and dust monitoring will be conducted during all excavation, stockpiling and backfilling activities, with laboratory air samples collected three times during the excavation phase of the work at selected depth intervals.

3.0 PERIMETER AIR AND DUST MONITORING LOCATIONS
Perimeter air and dust monitoring will be performed at four fixed locations outside the work area, as shown on Figure 2. The locations will provide monitoring data close to the adjacent residential area.

Visual evidence of fugitive dust emissions will be assessed by the Tetra Tech field representative. Visual dust emissions will trigger additional soil wetting to suppress fugitive dust from becoming airborne and potentially leaving the Site.

4.0 FIELD MONITORING INSTRUMENTS
Perimeter air monitoring will be performed during soil excavation, stockpiling, and backfill, consisting of: 1) real-time dust monitoring using portable dust monitors; and 2) real-time VOC monitoring using a portable screening level photo-ionizing detector (PID). Ambient 8-hour air samples will also be collected three times during the excavation phase for

TETRA TECH
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

Page 2244 of 2588 ends

Air and Dust Monitoring Plan
10153 Folsom Blvd, Rancho Cordova, California March 15, 2022 3 laboratory analysis of VOCs. Collection of 8-hour ambient air samples will facilitate achieving low laboratory reporting limits of VOCs in air, lower than the field instruments can reach. The laboratory samples will also report concentrations of specific compounds, whereas the field monitoring provides for a total of all VOCs in air that the instrument can recognize (ionize). Since automobile and equipment exhaust and other external sources can affect field instrument readings, the field monitoring results can contain false-positive readings due to influences from compounds not related to the Site.

A description of the real-time field monitoring instrumentation is presented below.

4.1 Real-Time Dust Monitors
Real-time dust monitoring and data logging will be performed using a Thermo Scientific personal DataRAM (pDR-1000AN) instrument, or equivalent. The pDR-1000AN instrument measures mass concentrations of dust, smoke, mists, and fumes in real time, and can sound an audible alarm whenever the user-defined action level is exceeded.

According to product literature, the pDR-1000AN is a light scattering photometer (i.e., nephelometer) incorporating a pulsed, high output, near infrared light emitting diode source, a silicon detector/ hybrid preamplifier, and collimating optics and a source reference feedback PIN silicon detector.

The datalogging option will be enabled on the dust monitor, allowing the pDR-1000AN to automatically tag and time stamp the collected data to be stored for subsequent retrieval, printing or computer graphing.

The unit will be calibrated (zeroed) at the beginning of each day before earthwork commences, and the zeroing documented. The unit is zeroed by drawing in filtered ambient air using a “z-pouch”. The instrument provides continuous readouts of instantaneous and time-averaged dust levels and will provide an average dust level at the end of each monitoring period (workday).

The dust monitors will be rented from a reputable equipment supplier such as EnviroTech, Pine Environmental, or Argus-Hazco.

Results of the real time dust monitoring will be used to document field dust (PM-10) conditions throughout each day of field work while soil excavation is being performed within the Site.

TETRA TECH
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

Page 2245 of 2588 ends

Air and Dust Monitoring Plan
10153 Folsom Blvd, Rancho Cordova, California March 15, 2022 4 Visible dust emissions will trigger response actions to suppress the dust, including additional wetting of the soil.

4.2 Real-Time VOC Monitor
Real-time VOC monitoring will be performed using a ppbRAE 3000 PID equipped with a

10.6 eV lamp. The ppbRAE 3000 has an extended measuring range of 1 part per billion (ppb) to 10,000 parts per million (ppm) and has humidity compensation.

The unit will be calibrated at the beginning of each day with 10 ppm isobutylene calibration gas and zeroed using either ambient air passed through a carbon filter cartridge or certified zero gas, and the calibration documented.

The PID will be rented from a reputable equipment supplier such as EnviroTech, Pine Environmental, or Argus-Hazco.

5.0 FIELD MONITORING PROTOCOLS
A description of the field monitoring protocols is presented below.

5.1 Real-Time Dust Monitoring
Real-time dust monitoring will be performed at four stations located around the excavation and stockpile area (Figure 2). The dust monitors will be mounted to a fence, support pole or placed on a surface approximately 5-feet above grade. The dust monitors will be operational during periods in which soil is being excavated, stockpiled, and backfilled, and will continuously monitor and log dust concentrations at 1-minute intervals. The daily average dust reading will be recorded at the end of each field day. Dust readings will also be recorded manually on a field sheet throughout every 60-mintues throughout the workday.

Field personnel will periodically check each instrument during the day for proper operation and battery life.

Visual evidence of fugitive dust emissions will be assessed by the Tetra Tech field representative during each day soil is excavated and/or loaded into trucks. Visual dust emissions will trigger additional soil wetting to suppress fugitive dust from becoming airborne and potentially leaving the Site. The real-time dust monitoring data will be used to establish actual dust conditions throughout each day that soil is handled, and to

TETRA TECH
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

Page 2246 of 2588 ends

Air and Dust Monitoring Plan
10153 Folsom Blvd, Rancho Cordova, California March 15, 2022 5 correlate measured dust sample results with observed periods of visible fugitive dust emissions, if any. If visible fugitive dust is observed, a reading from the nearest dust monitor will be recorded within a few minutes of that observation.

5.2 Real-Time VOC Monitoring
Real-time VOC air monitoring will be conducted by field personnel during periods of active earthwork (excavation, stockpiling, backfill). Field measurements will be collected at the four perimeter monitoring station locations with the ppbRAE 3000 PID at approximate 60- minute intervals during active earthwork. The field readings will be collected at the same four locations as the dust reading stations. Monitoring results will be recorded on a field sheet, noting station, time, and current excavation activities/depths below grade. Realtime VOC air monitoring will also be performed more frequently near the areas of active soil excavation during each field day (direct soil readings) and recorded on the field sheet.

Direct soil readings will be collected roughly every 15-minutes until a baseline is established in each excavation depth interval (see below), then every 30- to 60-minutes thereafter. Additional direct soil readings will be collected if site conditions change, or unexpected soil impacts are encountered. A grid will be developed for the excavation area to aid in noting the location where direct soil readings were taken and at what depth.

The real-time monitoring results will be compared to a target total VOC concentration value to assess whether response actions are necessary to suppress VOC emissions.

Response actions would include soil wetting.

6.0 AIR SAMPLING PROCEDURES FOR LABORATORY ANALYSIS
To augment real-time dust and VOC field monitoring, work perimeter ambient air samples will be periodically collected for laboratory analysis during excavation and stockpiling of soil. A minimum of three sampling episodes will be performed while excavating down to 15-feet below grade – the first event during the 0-to-5-foot depth interval, the second event during the 5-to-10-foot depth interval, and the third event during the 10-to15-foot depth interval. The perimeter ambient air samples will be collected from the same locations as the dust and VOC field monitoring stations. One ambient background air sample will also be collected during the 8-hour air sampling events. The background sample will be placed near the east site boundary, away and upwind of the active work area. If the prevailing wind direction is west to east (or otherwise) during air sample collection, the background sample will be moved to the upwind side of the site.

TETRA TECH
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

Page 2247 of 2588 ends

Air and Dust Monitoring Plan
10153 Folsom Blvd, Rancho Cordova, California March 15, 2022 6 Each ambient air sample will be collected in a laboratory-supplied SIM-Certified 6-liter Summa canister, equipped with an 8-hour sample flow regulator. The sample intake will be positioned approximately 5-feet above grade. Prior to initiating sample collection, the canister number, sample ID, and vacuum will be noted for each canister and recorded on a chain of custody form. At the end of the 8-hour sample collection period, the final canister vacuum will be noted, the canisters properly packaged, and delivered to Eurofins Air Toxics laboratory for analysis.

Each air sample will be analyzed for tetrachloroethene (PCE), trichloroethene (TCE) and cis-1,2-DCE, in addition to two additional compounds often detected at dry cleaner sites (trans-1,2-DCE and vinyl chloride) using EPA Method TO-15 (SIM). The data will be reported in micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3). The laboratory reporting limits in µg/m3 for each compound, dependent on the final sample volume and assuming a dilution factor of 1, are approximately:

PCE – 0.19
TCE – 0.15
Cis-1,2-DCE - 0.11
Trans-1,2-DCE - 0.55
Vinyl chloride – 0.035
The laboratory results of perimeter ambient air monitoring will be compared to screening levels to assess the significance of the results. Screening levels are presented in Section

9.0. As the air sample results will be received following completion of the soil excavation in the target depth interval, they will serve to document air quality conditions for the record.

7.0 METEOROLOGICAL MONITORING
Prior to the on-set of earthwork activities within the Site, a weather monitoring station will be installed along the Site perimeter to continuously monitor daily wind patterns (speed and direction), as well as other conditions such as temperature and humidly.

Meteorological data will be manually recorded at approximately every 60 minutes. The information will be entered into field notes. Photographs of the monitor display may also be taken to supplement the field notes. The weather station will be operational throughout the time that soil is being excavated and stockpiled.

TETRA TECH
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

Page 2248 of 2588 ends

Air and Dust Monitoring Plan
10153 Folsom Blvd, Rancho Cordova, California March 15, 2022 7 Results of the meteorological monitoring will allow for determination of factors that could have a bearing on field conditions, such as wind speed and direction. The results will allow for determination of up-wind and down-wind areas during different times of each day, and correlation between perimeter air sample results and wind/temperature conditions. Comparing up-wind perimeter air monitoring results to down-wind air monitoring results will be helpful in evaluating whether ambient air conditions may be affected by Site excavation and soil handling activities.

8.0 REPORTING
Results of the perimeter air and dust monitoring will be presented in a written report to be prepared at the conclusion of the soil cleanup activities.

9.0 AIR MONITORING COMPARISON CRITERIA
Comparison levels for VOCs in ambient air will be the California Region 2 Regional Water Quality Control Board Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs) for cancer hazard endpoint, commercial/industrial air (ESL Table 1A-1, 2019 rev 2). If a cancer endpoint value does not exist, the non-cancer hazard value is used. The commercial/industrial air value is used rather than the residential air value because the commercial/industrial air exposure duration of a workday matches the potential exposure posed by the work activities at the site (8-hour workday). Tetra Tech notes that the commercial/industrial ESLs are predicated on chronic exposure over a 25-year time frame. Conversely, potential exposure posed by the soil excavation would only occur over the duration of the soil excavation activities, which are anticipated to take approximately 2 weeks. Therefore, use of the ESLs is conservative and extremely protective.

Comparison levels for the laboratory analytical results of the air samples from the Site are as follows:

PCE 2.0 µg/m3
TCE 3.0 µg/m3
Cis-1,2-DCE 35 µg/m3 (non-cancer hazard)
Trans-1,2-DCE 350 µg/m3 (non-cancer hazard)
Vinyl chloride 0.16 µg/m3

TETRA TECH
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

Page 2249 of 2588 ends

Air and Dust Monitoring Plan
10153 Folsom Blvd, Rancho Cordova, California March 15, 2022 8 9.1 Real-Time Field Monitoring – PID Action Level
Real-time VOC air monitoring will be periodically performed with a part per billion (ppb) level PID instrument, the ppbRAE 3000 model, or equivalent.

The PID measurements will be compared to an action level of 500 ppbv (0.5 ppmv). The 500 ppbv value has been used at DTSC-lead cleanup sites for VOCs and can be used as a real-time screening value for these VOCs at the Site. Additionally, a 500 ppbv value is considered technically achievable using the PID meter.

In practice, ambient total VOC concentrations may periodically approach 500 ppbv depending on climate conditions, construction equipment exhaust, traffic exhaust, and other possible sources of emissions. The PID meter will be field calibrated daily prior to the start of work, and background readings away from the work area will be collected and recorded daily.

As described in the Tetra Tech Health and Safety Plan, a field PID reading of 5 ppmv (5,000 ppbv) will be used as an action level for worker safety. The action level is based on Cal-OSHA permissible exposure levels (PELs) and includes safety factors. Use of PEL values in evaluating potential exposure to non-workers is not appropriate.

9.2 Dust Monitoring and Action Level
Real-time perimeter air monitoring for dust will be periodically performed with an instrument such as a Thermo Scientific personal DataRAM (pDR-1000AN), or equivalent.

The instrument records concentrations of dust (suspended particulate matter) less than 10 microns in size (PM10).

The Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District’s (SMAQMD’s) Air Quality Standard for PM10 is 50 µg/m3 (0.050 mg/m3), measured as a 24-hour TWA. The 24- hour TWA value is converted to an 8-hour TWA value for use as an action level at the Site since work will only be performed over an 8-hour time-period each day. Review of annual 2021 data for the Sacramento Valley Air Basin (Sacramento-T Street location), obtained from the California Air Resources Board AQMIS website, shows an average background PM10 of 23.3 µg/m3 in 2021 (average of 12-month daily averages).

TETRA TECH
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

Page 2250 of 2588 ends

Air and Dust Monitoring Plan
10153 Folsom Blvd, Rancho Cordova, California March 15, 2022 9 The 8-hour TWA value is therefore calculated as follows:
8-hour TWA = (24hrs x PM10 Air Quality Standard) - (16 hrs x PM10 Background) 8 hrs
= (24 hrs x 50 µg/m3) - (16 hrs x 23.3 µg/m3)
8 hrs
= 1,200 hrs-µg/m3 – 372.8 hrs-µg/m3
8 hrs
= 827.2 hrs-µg/m3
8 hrs
= 103.4 µg/m3
The action level for dust (PM10) at the Site will be 103.4 µg/m3 as an 8-hour TWA value.

Visible dust emissions will be used on a short-term basis as an indication to modify work practices, such as increasing soil wetting to suppress dust.

Background readings will be collected prior to start of work each day and may also be collected later in the day if readings throughout the day become elevated and potential ambient sources are suspected.

Action/Comparison Level Summary
Perimeter air monitoring action levels for use at the Site are as follows:

Monitoring Method Compound Action Level
Real Time VOCs 500 ppbv
Dust (PM10) 103 µg/m3 (8-hr TWA)
Summa Canisters PCE 2.0 µg/m3
TCE 3.0 µg/m3
Cis-1,2-DCE 35 µg/m3
Trans-1,2-DCE 350 µg/m3
Vinyl Chloride 0.16 µg/m3

TETRA TECH
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

Page 2251 of 2588 ends

Air and Dust Monitoring Plan
10153 Folsom Blvd, Rancho Cordova, California March 15, 2022 10 9.3 Comparison Criteria Exceedances
The comparison levels to be used for VOCs are based on screening levels (not cleanup values) published by the RWQCB. Screening levels are appropriate for use as comparison levels because they are conservative and protective of human health. As such, if exceeded, that does not necessarily indicate a human health threat.

If dust or PID action levels are exceeded, then additional water will be applied to the soil to suppress fugitive emissions. Clean soil may also be temporarily added to the surface of soil suspected as being impacted to aid in suppressing emissions. If dust or PID levels cannot be adequately controlled through the application of clean soil or additional water, excavation activities will be halted until a plan can be implemented to maintain concentrations below the action level.

Monitoring real-time dust levels throughout each day at the four fixed monitoring station locations, along with looking for visible emissions, will allow for quick response if needed to add additional water to suppress dust. Real time VOC monitoring at the four station locations will also be used to trigger additional water application if VOC concentrations exceed 500 ppbv.

If laboratory test results from the quantitative VOC monitoring events show one or more compounds detected above screening levels, then the RWQCB will be notified of the exceedance(s). As the laboratory data will be received after the soil excavation work has been completed in the excavation depth interval, the data will be for the record only. The use of real-time dust/VOC monitoring instrumentation remains the most effective method for mitigating emissions while actively handling soil.

10.0 REFERENCES
Regional Water Quality Control Board Environmental Screening Levels, ESL Workbook, Table 1A-1, prepared by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region, dated January 2019 (Rev 2).
2021 Daily PM10 Averages, Sacramento T-Street Monitoring Station, California Air Resources Board AQMIS database, online data retrieval 3/7/2022.

TETRA TECH
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

Page 2252 of 2588 ends

MATHER FIELD ROAD

PASEO DRIVE

LA LOMA DRIVE

CAPRICE DR

BETTENCOURT LANE

FOLSOM BOULEVARD
REMOVE

ENTIRE OLD

SEWER LINE
FORMER

PARKING

LOT AREA
FORMER

DRY CLEANER

AND SEWER

LINE AREA

EXTENT OF SOIL EXCAVATION, ADDITIONAL SITE

REMEDIATION LOCATIONS, AND SEWER LINE REMOVAL
10153 Through 10179 Folsom Boulevard
Rancho Cordova, California
N
LEGEND
RISK <= 10 AND HQ <=1
10 < RISK <= 10 AND HQ <= 1
RISK > 10 OR HQ > 1

GROUNDWATER EXTRACTION WELL

GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL

SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION WELL

PRE-DESIGN INVESTIGATION LOCATION

SANITARY SEWER LINE LOCATION
(APPROXIMATE)

SOIL EXCAVATION EXTENT
5 15
<13
<13
DEPTH
(Ft, BGS)
PCE
(µg/m3)
TTVP1
5 15
<13
<13
DEPTH
(Ft, BGS)
PCE
(µg/m3)
TTVP2
5 15
<13
<13
DEPTH
(Ft, BGS)
PCE
(µg/m3)
TTVP3
5 15
<13
<13
DEPTH
(Ft, BGS)
PCE
(µg/m3)
TTVP4
5 15
<13
<13
DEPTH
(Ft, BGS)
PCE
(µg/m3)
TTVP5
5 15
<13
<13
DEPTH
(Ft, BGS)
PCE
(µg/m3)
TTVP6
5 15
<13
54 DEPTH
(Ft, BGS)
PCE
(µg/m3)
TTVP7
5 15
<13
<13
DEPTH
(Ft, BGS)
PCE
(µg/m3)
TTVP8
5 15
<13
<13
DEPTH
(Ft, BGS)
PCE
(µg/m3)
TTVP9
5 15
<13
<13
DEPTH
(Ft, BGS)
PCE
(µg/m3)
TTVP10
5 15
<13
<13
DEPTH
(Ft, BGS)
PCE
(µg/m3)
TTVP11
5 15
<13
<13
DEPTH
(Ft, BGS)
PCE
(µg/m3)
TTVP12
5 15
<13
14 DEPTH
(Ft, BGS)
PCE
(µg/m3)
TTVP13
5 15
<13
<13
DEPTH
(Ft, BGS)
PCE
(µg/m3)
TTVP14
5 15
<13
NS
DEPTH
(Ft, BGS)
PCE
(µg/m3)
TTVP15
5 15
2,400
1,200
DEPTH
(Ft, BGS)
PCE
(µg/m3)
DB-1
5 15
78 380
DEPTH
(Ft, BGS)
PCE
(µg/m3)
DB-2
5 15
56 62
DEPTH
(Ft, BGS)
PCE
(µg/m3)
DB-3
5 15
15 <13
DEPTH
(Ft, BGS)
PCE
(µg/m3)
DB-4
5 15
<13
46 DEPTH
(Ft, BGS)
PCE
(µg/m3)
DB-5
5 15
75 240
DEPTH
(Ft, BGS)
PCE
(µg/m3)
DB-6
5 14
<13
59 DEPTH
(Ft, BGS)
PCE
(µg/m3)
DB-7
5 15
130
NS
DEPTH
(Ft, BGS)
PCE
(µg/m3)
DB-8
5 15
<13
51 DEPTH
(Ft, BGS)
PCE
(µg/m3)
DB-9
5 14
44 98
DEPTH
(Ft, BGS)
PCE
(µg/m3)
DB-10
5 15
39 140
DEPTH
(Ft, BGS)
PCE
(µg/m3)
DB-11
5 15
140
160
DEPTH
(Ft, BGS)
PCE
(µg/m3)
DB-12
5 10
1,200
200
DEPTH
(Ft, BGS)
PCE
(µg/m3)
AVB-1
5 10
<13
<13
DEPTH
(Ft, BGS)
PCE
(µg/m3)
AVB-2
5 10
15 <12
DEPTH
(Ft, BGS)
PCE
(µg/m3)
AVB-3
5 10
48 150
DEPTH
(Ft, BGS)
PCE
(µg/m3)
AVB-4
5 10
160
410
DEPTH
(Ft, BGS)
PCE
(µg/m3)
AVB-5
5 10
95 400
DEPTH
(Ft, BGS)
PCE
(µg/m3)
AVB-6
5 10
110
490
DEPTH
(Ft, BGS)
PCE
(µg/m3)
AVB-7
5 10
270
190
DEPTH
(Ft, BGS)
PCE
(µg/m3)
AVB-8
5 10
1,000
140
DEPTH
(Ft, BGS)
PCE
(µg/m3)
AVB-9
5 10
3,300
1,600
DEPTH
(Ft, BGS)
PCE
(µg/m3)
AVB-10
-6
-6 -4
-4
\ L..."""'!"'"-.L..-"T""
1 1l
LOCATION:
0 0
•
D.
6l
0 ◊
■---■
0 120

SCALE IN FEET

APPROVED
[ 11:: l TETRA TECH DRAFTED
PROJECT#
DATE
240

BL FIGURE
CP
11 7 -9040001 4
03-14-22
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

Page 2253 of 2588 ends

MATHER FIELD ROAD

PASEO DRIVE

LA LOMA DRIVE

CAPRICE DR

BETTENCOURT LANE

FOLSOM BOULEVARD
REMOVE

ENTIRE OLD

SEWER LINE
FORMER

PARKING

LOT AREA
FORMER

DRY CLEANER

AND SEWER

LINE AREA

EXTENT OF SOIL EXCAVATION, ADDITIONAL SITE

REMEDIATION LOCATIONS, AND SEWER LINE REMOVAL
10153 Through 10179 Folsom Boulevard
Rancho Cordova, California
N
LEGEND
RISK <= 10 AND HQ <=1
10 < RISK <= 10 AND HQ <= 1
RISK > 10 OR HQ > 1

GROUNDWATER EXTRACTION WELL

GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL

SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION WELL

PRE-DESIGN INVESTIGATION LOCATION

SANITARY SEWER LINE LOCATION
(APPROXIMATE)

SCALE IN FEET

APPROVED
[ 11:: l TETRA TECH DRAFTED
PROJECT#
DATE
240

BL FIGURE
CP
11 7 -9040001 4
03-14-22
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

Page 2254 of 2588 ends

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF R ANCHO CORDOVA
Appendices
PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

Page 2255 of 2588 ends

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA
Appendices
June 2024
Appendix 5.6-2 Site Cleanup Plan Addendum
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

Page 2256 of 2588 ends

Tetra Tech, Inc.
3101 Zinfandel Drive, Suite 200, Rancho Cordova, California 95670 Tel +1.916.853.4500 | tetratech.com
August 30, 2023
Isabella Hagopian
Engineering Geologist, Private Sites Cleanup Unit
Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board
11020 Sun Center Drive, Suite 200
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670-6114
Re: Site Cleanup Plan Addendum, Former Lily Company Property, 10153 – 10175 Folsom Boulevard, Rancho Cordova, California
Dear Ms. Hagopian:

On behalf of City of Rancho Cordova (the City), Tetra Tech, Inc. (Tetra Tech) prepared the Site Cleanup Plan Addendum (the Addendum) for the former Lily Company site located at 10153 – 10175 Folsom Boulevard, Rancho Cordova, California (the Site), in accordance with our call on August 10, 2023.

Background
The environmental impact identified at the Site is related to historical operation of a former dry cleaner. The Site has been previously remediated via soil vapor extraction (SVE) from 2010 – 2016 and groundwater extraction from 2014 to 2017. Residual tetrachloroethene (PCE) was identified in soil vapor after the remediation, which appeared to be emanating from residual PCE in soil along a sewer line onsite. The City plans to conduct additional remediation at the Site, and a Site Cleanup Plan, Former Lily Company Property, 10153 – 10175 Folsom Boulevard, Rancho Cordova, California (the Cleanup Plan) was subsequently prepared and approved by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (the RWQCB) in a RWQCB letter dated March 30, 2022.

In summary, the planned additional remediation detailed in the Cleanup Plan includes additional SVE and soil excavation, stockpiling, and backfill. The stockpiles of the excavated soil will be sampled. Depending on the soil sampling results, dry potassium permanganate may be added to the stockpiled soil prior to backfill and compaction. The dosing of the oxidant will be based on the results of a bench scale test. For the planned oxidant use, the RWQCB’s March 30, 2022 letter indicates that “Central Valley Water Board staff may require additional information on the use of the oxidant addition prior to approval”.

The City, the RWQCB, and Tetra Tech had a conference call on August 10, 2023 to discuss the RWQCB’s note in the approval letter for oxidant use at the Site. Per the call, this addendum is prepared to provide additional information about the planned soil handling at the Site for the stockpiled soil. [ U) TETRA TECH
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

Page 2257 of 2588 ends

Planned Soil Handling
Soil will be excavated, stockpiled, and sampled in accordance with the approved Cleanup Plan. Since the highest PCE soil concentration found at the Site was 54 microgram per kilogram (µg/kg)1 it is expected the PCE concentrations in the stockpiled soil would be low. Based on the stockpile soil PCE concentrations, the excavated soil will be handled as follows:
• Soil with PCE concentrations greater than the San Francisco Bay RWQCB Environmental Screening Level (ESL) for residential Soil Direct Exposure Human Health Risk Screening (i.e., 590 µg/kg): the soil in the stockpiles will be disposed offsite.
• Soil with positive PCE detections at concentrations between 60 and 590 µg/kg: the soil in the stockpiles will be aerated via additional mechanic soil mixing (e.g., relocation of stockpiles) or landfarming. Before backfill, dry potassium permanganate will be mixed with the soil at a dosing of 3 - 4% by weight, in accordance with the soil oxidant demand bench scale test results (Attachment A). As discussed in the Cleanup Plan, the oxidant is expected to react with the residual PCE (if any) and natural organics in the soil when in contact and when tap water is applied as part of the backfill and compaction processes. • Soil with positive PCE detections at concentrations lower than 60 µg/kg: the soil in the stockpiles will be aerated via additional mechanic soil mixing (e.g., relocation of stockpiles) or landfarming. • Soil without PCE detections: the soil in the stockpiles will be backfilled directly.

Closing
If additional information is needed or you have any question, please feel free to contact Betty Li at (916) 853- 4525.

Sincerely,
Tetra Tech
Betty Li, PhD
Senior Environmental Engineer
Enclosure:

Attachment A
cc: Ms. Kristine Courdy and Mr. Stefan Heisler, City of Rancho Cordova 1 Tetra Tech, 2022. Additional Soil and Soil Vapor Testing, Former Lily Company Property, 10153 – 10175 Folsom Boulevard, Rancho Cordova, California.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

Page 2258 of 2588 ends

Attachment A – Bench Scale Test Laboratory Report
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

Page 2259 of 2588 ends

5070 Robert J. Mathews Parkway, Suite 300, El Dorado Hills, CA 95762 Ph (916) 939-7300 • Fax (916) 939-7398
www.primaenvironmental.com
August 2, 2023
Betty Li, Ph.D.

Tetra Tech
3101 Zinfandel Drive, Suite 200
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
RE: Report of Findings, KMnO4 Soil Oxidant Demand and Mixing Client Project ID: 10153 Folsom
PRIMA Project ID: TT-Folsom

Dear Dr. Li:

This letter report describes the results of the soil oxidant demand (SOD) measurement conducted by PRIMA Environmental, Inc on two soil samples from the 10153 Folsom site.

Sample Receipt and Preparation
Two soil samples (10153Folsom-A, 10153Folsom-B) were received on July 5, 2023.

KMnO4 SOD was measured for each sample. Prior to testing, each sample was sieved to remove particles greater than 4 mesh then homogenized.

Materials
Potassium Permanganate, KMnO4. ACS reagent grade KMnO4 was used for these tests.

Procedures
For each soil, five reactors containing 20 g soil and 20 mL of KMnO4 solution were prepared, with each reactor containing a different initial concentration of KMnO4 ranging from 512 to 20,800 mg/L KMnO4. Controls containing KMnO4 solution, but no soil were also prepared. The reactors were placed on a shaker table. At 48 hours, the reactors were destructively sampled and the residual KMnO4 was measured via visible spectroscopy by PRIMA. Because all KMnO4 was consumed in all reactors, two additional reactors were set. These reactors contained 10 g soil and 20 mL KMnO4 solution. The reactors were mixed and analyzed as before. The SOD was calculated as follows:
l~ ~o~!MA~ ---Questions Answered.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

Page 2260 of 2588 ends

PRIMA Environmental, Inc. BLi/2 of 3
August 2, 2023
KMnO4 SOD – 10153Folsom rev1
SOD = ([Ox]init – [Ox]t) x (V/M)
where
− SOD is soil oxidant demand, in g (or mg) oxidant/kg soil − [Ox]init is the initial concentration of oxidant, in g (or mg) oxidant/L − [Ox]t is the concentration of oxidant at time, t, in g (or mg) oxidant/L − V is total volume of the aqueous phase, in L
− M is mass of soil, in kg
Results
The results of the 48-hour KMnO4 SOD test are shown in Table 1 (attached). The SOD was similar for both samples, ranging from 32,000 to 43,000 mg KMnO4/kg soil, depending upon the initial concentration of KMnO4. These values are considered very high. Higher SOD values with increasing initial concentration of KMnO4 is a common phenomenon.

If you have any questions regarding these results, please give me a call at 916-939-7300.

Thank you for the opportunity to be of service.

Sincerely,
PRIMA Environmental, Inc.

Cindy G. Schreier, Ph.D.

President
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

Page 2261 of 2588 ends

PRIMA Environmental, Inc. BLi/3 of 3
August 2, 2023
KMnO4 SOD – 10153Folsom rev1
Table 1. 48-Hour KMnO4 SOD Results.

Initial KMnO4
KMnO4
Remaining
KMnO4
Consumed^
mg/L mg/L mg/kg soil
1:1* 512 507
1:1* 1,010 947
1:1* 2,510 2,530
1:1* 5,210 5,180
1:1* 20,800 21,000
1:2** 20,600 20,700
1:2** 43,500 44,000
1:1 512 < 20 > 510
1:1 1,010 < 5 > 1,000
1:1 2,510 < 5 > 2,500
1:1 5,210 < 5 > 5,200
1:1 20,800 < 5 > 21,000
1:2 20,600 4,600 32,000
1:2 43,500 22,480 42,000
1:1 512 < 20 > 510
1:1 1,010 < 5 > 1,000
1:1 2,510 < 5 > 2,500
1:1 5,210 < 5 > 5,200
1:1 20,800 < 5 > 21,000
1:2 20,600 4,560 32,000
1:2 43,500 22,100 43,000
* These Controls associated with soil tests using 1:1 ratio. ** These Controls associated with soil tests using 1:2 ratio. ^wet-weight basis
Soil
10153 Folsom-B
Soil ID
Control (No soil) not applicable
Soil
10153 Folsom-A
Soil to
KMnO4
Ratio
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

Page 2262 of 2588 ends

·/
h PRiMA ~ V I R O N M E N TA L 1Nc.
--Questions Answered .
5070 Robert J Mathews Parkway, Suite 300
El Dorado Hills, CA 95762
916-939-7300
www.primaenvironmental.com
Sample Receipt Summary
Date/Time: ::::r "-),I 6 ; '2.Q'L3
Client/Company: J" e::\:ro,. 1e c~ - f O I s qtY\ ( j'.'._j\i\ r, o~J /
Project:

Custody seals intact?
Chain of custody Present?
If no, list number of samples and Sample ID
Ice present?
If no, what is temperature? __
Samples in good condition?
If no, explain:

Do sample IDs on containers match IDs on COC?
If no, explain:

Other Comments:

Yes
□
□
□
)\
No
□
□
□
□
□
N/A
□
□
P:\Templates\Templates_Forms\Shipping Receiving\Sample Receipt Checklist 8-27-19 ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

Page 2263 of 2588 ends

h PRiMA 5070 Robert J. Mathews Parkway, Suite 300 • El Dorado Hills, CA 95762 (916) 939-7300 • www.primaenvironmental.com ~ V/RONMENTAL N --Questions Answered. Page l_ot_1
Project Manager: B +> ± ·~ '--/ l t' Project Name to rr "3 w Jc;e2 iLYJ Company: rt Mr,] T cc,h Project Number
Phone: TAT fut1dar11J~
Email: Be tiy , lo (f)f-ef f'cttech rl 01'17 Sampler
Signature ~><=; -- - -
_,_ \ / /
SAMPLE ID Date Time """ Analysis or Proposal Description/Date L/ Comments I-
(/) t
~ Q)
>< C ·c ·ro
~ ro c ~ 0
(.)
~ ::i:t:
-~r,rs; Po g:1v1 - A- '7·-5-9>.;3 c: C)(-') , T t
10/538 lq)IV)- 'fJ? .,,..

C'~C) f
lo/ s~ F,-)}L./JKIJ-Vn~u.,~ -~ l(9 -r)(') I
/
Special Instructions Relinquished by: [Cd ,_ Received by:

Company tP+f):.,-1 ·~J.-rc h Dat~ 4 k1 ft-. '2D~3 Company ~ J.--\ A Printed Name -;:=:,orL{ l-Mor·-cf- Time l 2-.2-~' Printed Nam<-_,~}\/ ~r }\ff~-€!( Signatu~ ~ J r'
Signature ~-y___, - -
r ~nquished by: - Received by:

Company Date Company
Printed Name Time Printed Name
Signature Signature
Matrix key: S - soil/sediment; W - water; OT - other
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

Page 2264 of 2588 ends

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF R ANCHO CORDOVA
Appendices
PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

Page 2265 of 2588 ends

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA
Appendices
June 2024
Appendix 5.6-3 Site Remediation Notice of Exemption
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

Page 2266 of 2588 ends

To:

NOTICE OF EXEMPTION
□ Office of Planning and Research
1400 Tenth Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
~ County Clerk-Recorder
Sacramento County
600 8th Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
From: City of Rancho Cordova
Public Works Department
2729 Prospect Park Drive
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
Project Title: SEWER LINE REMOVAL AND SOIL EXCAVATION AND BACKFILL Project Location: Northeast corner of Folsom Boulevard and La Loma Drive Assessor's Parcel Number(s): 076-0020-019, -20, -21, -22 Project Description: The City of Rancho Cordova proposes to remove an old sewer pipe section from an approximately 1.1-acre excavation area at the Project Location. The soil within the excavation area will be stockpiled onsite, and then backfilled to the excavation area. The site will be restored to its original condition after the excavation and backfill.

Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cordova
Applicant: City of Rancho Cordova
2729 Prospect Park Drive
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
Exemption Status: □
□
□
~
□
□
□
Ministerial [Section 21080(b); 15268];
Declared Emergency [Section 21080(b)(3); 15269(a)];
Emergency Project [Section 21080(b)(4); 15269(b)(c)];
Minor Alterations to Land [Section 15304(f)
Categorical Exemption [Section 15301 (a), Existing Facilities]; Approval of Rates, Tolls, Fares, and Charges [Section 21080(b)(8)(D)]; Statutory Exemption [Section 15273(a)(4)].

REASONS WHY THIS PROJECT IS EXEMPT OR DOES NOT REQUIRE FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION:

The project is exempt under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15304(f), which states (in part):

Class 4 consists of minor public or private alterations in the condition of land, water, and/or vegetation which do not involve removal of healthy, mature, scenic trees except for forestry or agricultural purposes. Examples include, but are not limited to:
f) Minor trenching and backfilling where the surface is restored The California Environmental Quality Act (Section 21000, et. seq. of the California Public Resources Code, hereafter CEQA) requires analysis of agency approvals of discretionary "projects." A "project," under CEQA, is defined as "the whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment." The proposed project would remove an old sewer line section within an approximate 1.1-acre area. The soil within the 1.1-acre area 1 ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

Page 2267 of 2588 ends

would also be excavated to approximately 15 feet deep and stockpiled onsite for aeration purpose. The aeration would allow volatile organic compounds in the soil vapor to dissipate, if any. The City will conduct soil testing of the stockpiles and, when determined to be clean, the soil will be returned to the excavation site and the former grades will be established. The overall goal of this project is to remove the sewer line and reduce potential contamination to below the minimum regulatory screening levels for residential projects.

The proposed activity is considered a project as defined by CEQA. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15304, trenching and backfilling of soil where the ground surface is restored to the original condition is generally exempt except for parcels of land located in an area of statewide, regional, or areawide concern identified in Section 15206(b)(4) and the property does not have significant values for wildlife habitat or other environmental purposes. The property is not located in an area of statewide, regional, or areawide concern identified in Section 15206(b)(4) and the use of the property and adjacent property has not changed since the time of purchase by the City of Rancho Cordova. Therefore, the project is exempt from furth r CEQA analysis. 2 eisler, Environmental Coordinator
City of Rancho Cordova
(916) 851-8757
November 1, 2023
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

Page 2268 of 2588 ends

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF R ANCHO CORDOVA
Appendices
PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

Page 2269 of 2588 ends

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA
Appendices
June 2024
Appendix 5.9-1 Noise Impact Assessment
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

Page 2270 of 2588 ends

Noise Impact Assessment
Mills Crossing Project
Rancho Cordova, California
Prepared For:

Placeworks, Inc.
101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 112
Folsom, California 95630
Prepared By:
55 Hanover Lane, Suite A
Chico, California 95973
June 2023
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

Page 2271 of 2588 ends

Noise Impact Assessment
ECORP Consulting Inc.

Mills Crossing Project
i June 2023
2023-009

CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Project Location and Description.................................................................................................................. 1

2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE AND GROUNDBORNE VIBRATION ANALYSIS ..................................................... 4

2.1 Fundamentals of Noise and Environmental Sound ............................................................................... 4

2.1.1 Addition of Decibels .......................................................................................................................... 4

2.1.2 Sound Propagation and Attenuation ......................................................................................... 6

2.1.3 Noise Descriptors ............................................................................................................................... 7

2.1.4 Human Response to Noise ............................................................................................................. 9

2.1.5 Effects of Noise on People ........................................................................................................... 10

2.2 Fundamentals of Environmental Groundborne Vibration ............................................................... 10

2.2.1 Vibration Sources and Characteristics ..................................................................................... 10

3.0 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE SETTING ....................................................................................................... 12

3.1 Noise Sensitive Land Uses ............................................................................................................................ 12

3.1.1 Existing Ambient Noise Measurements .................................................................................. 12

4.0 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK ......................................................................................................................................... 15

4.1 Federal .................................................................................................................................................................. 15

4.1.1 Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 ....................................................................... 15

4.1.2 National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health ...................................................... 15

4.1.3 Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON) ........................................................... 15

4.2 State ...................................................................................................................................................................... 16

4.2.1 State of California General Plan Guidelines .......................................................................... 16

4.2.2 State Office of Planning and Research Noise Element Guidelines .............................. 16

4.2.3 California Department of Transportation .............................................................................. 16

4.3 Local ...................................................................................................................................................................... 16

4.3.1 City of Rancho Cordova General Plan Noise Element ...................................................... 16

5.0 IMPACT ASSESSMENT .................................................................................................................................................... 19

5.1 Thresholds of Significance ............................................................................................................................ 19

5.2 Methodology ..................................................................................................................................................... 19

5.3 Impact Analysis ................................................................................................................................................. 20

5.3.1 Project Construction Noise .......................................................................................................... 20

5.3.2 Project Operational Noise ............................................................................................................ 23

5.3.3 Project Groundborne Vibration ................................................................................................. 29

5.3.4 Excess Airport Noise ....................................................................................................................... 30

6.0 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................................................ 31 ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

Page 2272 of 2588 ends

Noise Impact Assessment
ECORP Consulting Inc.

Mills Crossing Project
ii June 2023
2023-009

LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1. Common Acoustical Descriptors ............................................................................................................................... 8 Table 2-2. Human Reaction and Damage to Buildings for Continuous or Frequent Intermittent Vibration Levels ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 11 Table 3-1. Existing (Baseline) Noise Measurements ............................................................................................................ 13 Table 3-2. Existing Roadway Noise Levels ............................................................................................................................... 13 Table 4-1. City of Rancho Cordova Noise Standards .......................................................................................................... 13 Table 5-1. Construction Average (dBA) Noise Levels at Nearest Receptors .............................................................. 22 Table 5-2. Proposed Project Predicted Traffic Noise Levels ............................................................................................. 13 Table 5-3. Operational Noise Levels .......................................................................................................................................... 27 Table 5-4. Representative Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment .................................................... 29 Table 5-5. Onsite Construction Vibration Levels at 341 Feet ........................................................................................... 30

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2-1. Common Noise Levels ................................................................................................................................................. 5 Figure 5-1. Onsite Operational Noise Levels...................................................................................................................... 28

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A – Baseline (Existing) Noise Measurements – Project Site and Vicinity Attachment B – Federal Highway Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108) Outputs – Project Traffic Noise
Attachment C – Federal Highway Administration Roadway Construction Noise Model Outputs – Project Construction
Attachment D – SoundPLAN 3-D Noise Model Outputs – Project Onsite Noise Propagation ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

Page 2273 of 2588 ends

Noise Impact Assessment
ECORP Consulting Inc.

Mills Crossing Project
iii June 2023
2023-009

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Term Description
ADT Average Daily Trips
APN Assessor’s Parcel Number
CAlEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
City City of Rancho Cordova
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
County Sacramento County
dB Decibel
dBA Decibel is A-weighted
FB-RMU Residential Mixed-Use
FBSP Folsom Boulevard Specific Plan
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FICON Federal Interagency Committee on Noise
FTA Federal Transit Administration
Hz Hertz
Ldn Day-night average sound level
Leq Measure of ambient noise
Lmax The maximum A-weighted noise level during the
measurement period.

Lmin The minimum A-weighted noise level during the
measurement period.

NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health OPR Office of Planning and Research
OSHA Federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration PPV Peak particle velocity
Project Mills Crossing Project
RMS Root mean square
RMU Residential Mixed-Use
RMU
(FBSP)
Residential Mixed-Use – Folsom Boulevard Specific Plan
STC Sound Transmission Class
VdB Vibration Velocity Level

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

Page 2274 of 2588 ends

Noise Impact Assessment
ECORP Consulting Inc.

Mills Crossing Project
1 June 2023
2023-009

1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report documents the results of a Noise Impact Assessment completed for the Mills Crossing Project (Project), which proposes the construction of a community center with a health and wellness center, a parking structure, arts center and theater, a multifamily and single-family housing development, commercial and retail businesses, and community and event centers in Rancho Cordova, California. This assessment was prepared as a comparison of predicted Project noise levels to noise standards promulgated by the City of Rancho Cordova General Plan Noise Element and the City of Rancho Cordova Municipal Code. The purpose of this report is to estimate Project-generated noise levels and to determine the level of impact the Project would have on the environment.

1.1 Project Location and Description
The Project Site is a 9.85-acre property located at the corner of Folsom Boulevard and La Loma Drive in the City of Rancho Cordova, Sacramento County, and encompasses the following Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs): 076-0020-019, -20, -21, -22. The Proposed Project Area is roughly bounded by Folsom Boulevard to the south, La Loma Drive to the west, El Caprice Drive to the east, and residential housing to the north fronting Malaga Way and Ashbury Court. Surrounding land uses includes the 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. The Mather Field/Mills Train Station is located directly across Folsom Boulevard from the Project Site and can be accessed via a pedestrian crosswalk with stop-traffic control. Additionally, the site is fronted by a Class II bike lane on Folsom Boulevard.

The Project Site is located within the Folsom Boulevard Specific Plan area. The Folsom Boulevard Specific Plan (FBSP or Specific Plan) is the primary planning tool the City uses to guide future development and redevelopment within the Specific Plan area. It seeks to increase the density of both housing and commercial activity; increase pedestrian, bicycle, and transit trips to, from, and through the area; increase the visibility of the corridor as a destination; and change the dynamic and image to that of a high demand, thriving urban area. The site is zoned Residential Mixed-Use – Folsom Boulevard Specific Plan (RMU [FBSP]).

The RMU (FBSP) Zoning District is intended to designate property for the development of medium and high-density housing (between 6.1 and 40 dwelling units per acre) that may incorporate office and/or commercial services. While the predominant use of the development is residential, the City encourages the vertical and/or horizontal integration of commercial and/or office uses that are compatible with the residential development.

The Project Site has a City of Rancho Cordova General Plan land use designation of Residential Mixed-Use (FB-RMU).

The Project proposes a mix of land uses as follows:

Community-Commercial Buildings
The community-commercial buildings would include up to 140,000 square feet of uses, and would include the following:

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

Page 2275 of 2588 ends

Noise Impact Assessment
ECORP Consulting Inc.

Mills Crossing Project
2 June 2023
2023-009
 Health and Wellness
o Community Health Clinic – up to 30,000 square feet
 Events and Meetings Space
o Space for meetings, community and cultural events, banquet, and weddings – up to 15,000 square feet
 Arts Center (Subtotal – up to 35,000 square feet)
o Flex Theater (black/white/green box) – up to 18,000 square feet o Flexible Classrooms and Rehearsal Space – up to 6,000 square feet o Production/Artist’s Studios – up to 4,000 square feet o Gallery/Exhibits – up to 4,000 square feet
o Administrative Space – up to 3,000 square feet
 Community-Commercial Building (Subtotal – up to 52,500 square feet) o Commercial Office-Anchor – up to 25,000 square feet
o Commercial Office-Shared – up to 10,000 square feet
o Flexible Studios 1 – up to 5,000 square feet
o Flexible Studios 2 – up to 7,500 square feet
o Commercial Kitchen – up to 5,000 square feet
 Commercial-Retail (Subtotal – up to 7,500 square feet) o Fresh Market, Food and Beverage, Café, Retail – up to 5,000 square feet o Café – up to 2,500 square feet
Housing
The Proposed Project would provide up to 120 dwelling units, as follows:
 Between 55-60 Multi-Family Affordable Apartments
 Between 50-60 Zero Lot Line Townhouse-Style Homes for Sale Public Open Space
The Proposed Project would include up to 2.5 acres of public open space as follows:
 Between 1.3-1.5 acres of Neighborhood and Community Greens  Between 0.75-1.0-acre of Plaza and Green Space
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

Page 2276 of 2588 ends

Noise Impact Assessment
ECORP Consulting Inc.

Mills Crossing Project
3 June 2023
2023-009
Parking Structure
The Proposed Project would include a parking structure with between 275-325 parking spaces.

The Project Site would be accessible via Folsom Boulevard to the south and La Loma Drive to the west of the Project Site.

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

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

Page 2277 of 2588 ends

Noise Impact Assessment
ECORP Consulting Inc.

Mills Crossing Project
4 June 2023
2023-009

2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE AND GROUNDBORNE VIBRATION ANALYSIS

2.1 Fundamentals of Noise and Environmental Sound

2.1.1 Addition of Decibels
The decibel (dB) scale is logarithmic, not linear, and therefore sound levels cannot be added or subtracted through ordinary arithmetic. Two sound levels 10 dB apart differ in acoustic energy by a factor of 10. When the standard logarithmic decibel is A-weighted (dBA), an increase of 10 dBA is generally perceived as a doubling in loudness. For example, a 70-dBA sound is half as loud as an 80-dBA sound and twice as loud as a 60-dBA sound. When two identical sources are each producing sound of the same loudness, the resulting sound level at a given distance would be three dB higher than one source under the same conditions (Federal Transit Administration [FTA] 2018). For example, a 65-dB source of sound, such as a truck, when joined by another 65 dB source results in a sound amplitude of 68 dB, not 130 dB (i.e., doubling the source strength increases the sound pressure by three dB). Under the decibel scale, three sources of equal loudness together would produce an increase of five dB.

Typical noise levels associated with common noise sources are depicted in Figure 2-1.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

Page 2278 of 2588 ends

Figure 2-1. Common Noise Levels
Source: California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) 2020a 2023-009 Mills Crossing
Common Outdoor Noise Level Common Indoor
Activities (dBA) Activities
(§) Rock Band
Jet Fly-over at 300m (1000 ft)
Gas Lawn Mower at 1 m (3 ft) (@)
Diesel Truck at 15 m (50 ft) ® Food Blender at 1 m (3 ft) at 80 km (50 mph) ® Garbage Disposal at 1 m (3 ft)
Noisy Urban Area, Daytime
Gas Lawn Mower, 30 m ( 100 ft) ® Vacuum Cleaner at 3 m (10 ft) Commercial Area Normal Speech at 1 m (3 ft)
Heavy Traffic at 90 m (300 ft) ® Large Business Office
Quiet Urban Daytime ® Dishwasher Next Room
Quiet Urban Nighttime ® Theater Large Conference
Quiet Suburban Nighttime Room (Background)
® Library
Quiet Rural Nighttime Bedroom at Night,
® Concert Hall (Background)
Broadcast/Recording Studio
®
Lowest Threshold of Human 0 Lowest Threshold of Human
Hearing Hearing
nsulting, Inc.

TA L CONSULTA TS
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

Page 2279 of 2588 ends

Noise Impact Assessment
ECORP Consulting Inc.

Mills Crossing Project
6 June 2023
2023-009

2.1.2 Sound Propagation and Attenuation
Noise can be generated by a number of sources, including mobile sources such as automobiles, trucks and airplanes, and stationary sources such as construction sites, machinery, and industrial operations. Sound spreads (propagates) uniformly outward in a spherical pattern, and the sound level decreases (attenuates) at a rate of approximately 6 dB (dBA) for each doubling of distance from a stationary or point source (FHWA 2017). Sound from a line source, such as a highway, propagates outward in a cylindrical pattern, often referred to as cylindrical spreading. Sound levels attenuate at a rate of approximately three dB for each doubling of distance from a line source, such as a roadway, depending on ground surface characteristics (Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] 2017). No excess attenuation is assumed for hard surfaces like a parking lot or a body of water. Soft surfaces, such as soft dirt or grass, can absorb sound, so an excess ground-attenuation value of 1.5 dB per doubling of distance is normally assumed. For line sources, an overall attenuation rate of three dB per doubling of distance is assumed (FHWA 2011).

Noise levels may also be reduced by intervening structures; generally, a single row of detached buildings between the receptor and the noise source reduces the noise level by about five dBA (FHWA 2006), while a solid wall or berm generally reduces noise levels by 10 to 20 dBA (FHWA 2011). However, noise barriers or enclosures specifically designed to reduce site-specific construction noise can provide a sound reduction 35 dBA or greater (Western Electro-Acoustic Laboratory, Inc. 2000). To achieve the most potent noisereducing effect, a noise enclosure/barrier must physically fit in the available space, must completely break the “line of sight” between the noise source and the receptors, must be free of degrading holes or gaps, and must not be flanked by nearby reflective surfaces. Noise barriers must be sizable enough to cover the entire noise source and extend lengthwise and vertically as far as feasibly possible to be most effective. The limiting factor for a noise barrier is not the component of noise transmitted through the material, but rather the amount of noise flanking around and over the barrier. In general, barriers contribute to decreasing noise levels only when the structure breaks the "line of sight" between the source and the receiver.

The manner in which older homes in California were constructed generally provides a reduction of exteriorto-interior noise levels of about 20 to 25 dBA with closed windows (California Department of Transportation [Caltrans] 2002). The exterior-to-interior reduction of newer residential units is generally 30 dBA or more (Harris Miller, Miller & Hanson Inc. 2006). Generally, in exterior noise environments ranging from 60 dBA Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) to 65 dBA CNEL, interior noise levels can typically be maintained below 45 dBA, a typically residential interior noise standard, with the incorporation of an adequate forced air mechanical ventilation system in each residential building, and standard thermal-pane residential windows/doors with a minimum rating of Sound Transmission Class (STC) 28. (STC is an integer rating of how well a building partition attenuates airborne sound. In the U.S., it is widely used to rate interior partitions, ceilings, floors, doors, windows, and exterior wall configurations.) In exterior noise environments of 65 dBA CNEL or greater, a combination of forced-air mechanical ventilation and sound-rated construction methods is often required to meet the interior noise level limit. Attaining the necessary noise reduction from exterior to interior spaces is readily achievable in noise environments less than 75 dBA CNEL with proper wall construction techniques following California Building Code methods, the selections of proper windows and doors, and the incorporation of forced-air mechanical ventilation systems.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

Page 2280 of 2588 ends

Noise Impact Assessment
ECORP Consulting Inc.

Mills Crossing Project
7 June 2023
2023-009

2.1.3 Noise Descriptors
The decibel scale alone does not adequately characterize how humans perceive noise. The dominant frequencies of a sound have a substantial effect on the human response to that sound. Several rating scales have been developed to analyze the adverse effect of community noise on people. Because environmental noise fluctuates over time, these scales consider that the effect of noise on people is largely dependent on the total acoustical energy content of the noise, as well as the time of day when the noise occurs. The noise descriptors most often encountered when dealing with traffic, community, and environmental noise include the average hourly noise level (in Leq) and the average daily noise levels/community noise equivalent level (in Ldn/CNEL). The Leq is a measure of ambient noise, while the Ldn and CNEL are measures of community noise. Each is applicable to this analysis and defined as follows:
 Equivalent Noise Level (Leq) is the average acoustic energy content of noise for a stated period of time. Thus, the Leq of a time-varying noise and that of a steady noise are the same if they deliver the same acoustic energy to the ear during exposure. For evaluating community impacts, this rating scale does not vary, regardless of whether the noise occurs during the day or the night.  Day-Night Average (Ldn) is a 24-hour average Leq with a 10-dBA “weighting” added to noise during the hours of 10:00 pm to 7:00 am to account for noise sensitivity in the nighttime. The logarithmic effect of these additions is that a 60 dBA 24-hour Leq would result in a measurement of 66.4 dBA Ldn.
 Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is a 24-hour average Leq with a 5-dBA weighting during the hours of 7:00 pm to 10:00 pm and a 10-dBA weighting added to noise during the hours of 10:00 pm to 7:00 am to account for noise sensitivity in the evening and nighttime, respectively.

Table 2-1 provides a list of other common acoustical descriptors.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

Page 2281 of 2588 ends

Noise Impact Assessment
ECORP Consulting Inc.

Mills Crossing Project
8 June 2023
2023-009
Table 2-1. Common Acoustical Descriptors
Descriptor Definition
Decibel, dB A unit describing the amplitude of sound, equal to 20 times the logarithm to the base 10 of the ratio of the pressure of the sound measured to the reference pressure. The reference pressure for air is 20.

Sound Pressure Level Sound pressure is the sound force per unit area, usually expressed in micropascals (or 20 micronewtons per square meter), where 1 pascal is the pressure resulting from a force of 1 newton exerted over an area of 1 square meter. The sound pressure level is expressed in decibels as 20 times the logarithm to the base 10 of the ratio between the pressures exerted by the sound to a reference sound pressure (e.g., 20 micropascals). Sound pressure level is the quantity that is directly measured by a sound level meter.

Frequency, Hz The number of complete pressure fluctuations per second above and below atmospheric pressure. Normal human hearing is between 20 Hz and 20,000 Hz.

Infrasonic sound are below 20 Hz and ultrasonic sounds are above 20,000 Hz.

A-Weighted Sound Level,
dBA
The sound pressure level in decibels as measured on a sound level meter using the A weighting filter network. The A-weighting filter de-emphasizes the very low and very high frequency components of the sound in a manner similar to the frequency response of the human ear and correlates well with subjective reactions to noise.

Equivalent Noise Level, Leq The average acoustic energy content of noise for a stated period of time. Thus, the Leq of a time-varying noise and that of a steady noise are the same if they deliver the same acoustic energy to the ear during exposure. For evaluating community impacts, this rating scale does not vary, regardless of whether the noise occurs during the day or the night.

Lmax, Lmin The maximum and minimum A-weighted noise level during the measurement period.

L01, L10, L50, L90 The A-weighted noise levels that are exceeded 1%, 10%, 50%, and 90% of the time during the measurement period.

Day/Night Noise Level, Ldn
or DNL
A 24-hour average Leq with a 10 dBA “weighting” added to noise during the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. to account for noise sensitivity in the nighttime. The logarithmic effect of these additions is that a 60 dBA 24-hour Leq would result in a measurement of 66.4 dBA Ldn.

Community Noise
Equivalent Level, CNEL
A 24-hour average Leq with a 5 dBA “weighting” during the hours of 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and a 10 dBA “weighting” added to noise during the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. to account for noise sensitivity in the evening and nighttime, respectively. The logarithmic effect of these additions is that a 60 dBA 24-hour Leq would result in a measurement of 66.7 dBA CNEL.

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

Decibel, dB A unit describing the amplitude of sound, equal to 20 times the logarithm to the base 10 of the ratio of the pressure of the sound measured to the reference pressure. The reference pressure for air is 20.

The A weighted decibel sound level scale gives greater weight to the frequencies of sound to which the human ear is most sensitive. Because sound levels can vary markedly over a short period of time, a method ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

Page 2282 of 2588 ends

Noise Impact Assessment
ECORP Consulting Inc.

Mills Crossing Project
9 June 2023
2023-009
for describing either the average character of the sound or the statistical behavior of the variations must be utilized. Most commonly, environmental sounds are described in terms of an average level that has the same acoustical energy as the summation of all the time-varying events.

The scientific instrument used to measure noise is the sound level meter. Sound level meters can accurately measure environmental noise levels to within about ±1 dBA. Various computer models are used to predict environmental noise levels from sources, such as roadways and airports. The accuracy of the predicted models depends on the distance between the receptor and the noise source. Close to the noise source, the models are accurate to within about ±1 to 2 dBA.

2.1.4 Human Response to Noise
The human response to environmental noise is subjective and varies considerably from individual to individual. Noise in the community has often been cited as a health problem, not in terms of actual physiological damage, such as hearing impairment, but in terms of inhibiting general well-being and contributing to undue stress and annoyance. The health effects of noise in the community arise from interference with human activities, including sleep, speech, recreation, and tasks that demand concentration or coordination. Hearing loss can occur at the highest noise intensity levels.

Noise environments and consequences of human activities are usually well represented by median noise levels during the day or night or over a 24-hour period. Environmental noise levels are generally considered low when the CNEL is below 60 dBA, moderate in the 60 to 70 dBA range, and high above 70 dBA. Examples of low daytime levels are isolated, natural settings with noise levels as low as 20 dBA and quiet, suburban, residential streets with noise levels around 40 dBA. Noise levels above 45 dBA at night can disrupt sleep.

Examples of moderate-level noise environments are urban residential or semi-commercial areas (typically 55 to 60 dBA) and commercial locations (typically 60 dBA). People may consider louder environments adverse, but most will accept the higher levels associated with noisier urban residential or residentialcommercial areas (60 to 75 dBA) or dense urban or industrial areas (65 to 80 dBA). Regarding increases in A-weighted noise levels (dBA), the following relationships should be noted in understanding this analysis:
 Except in carefully controlled laboratory experiments, a change of 1 dBA cannot be perceived by humans.
 Outside of the laboratory, a 3-dBA change is considered a just-perceivable difference.  A change in level of at least 5 dBA is required before any noticeable change in community response would be expected. An increase of 5 dBA is typically considered substantial.  A 10-dBA change is subjectively heard as an approximate doubling in loudness and would almost certainly cause an adverse change in community response.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

Page 2283 of 2588 ends

Noise Impact Assessment
ECORP Consulting Inc.

Mills Crossing Project
10 June 2023
2023-009

2.1.5 Effects of Noise on People

2.1.5.1 Hearing Loss
While physical damage to the ear from an intense noise impulse is rare, a degradation of auditory acuity can occur even within a community noise environment. Hearing loss occurs mainly due to chronic exposure to excessive noise but may be due to a single event such as an explosion. Natural hearing loss associated with aging may also be accelerated from chronic exposure to loud noise.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has a noise exposure standard that is set at the noise threshold where hearing loss may occur from long-term exposures. The maximum allowable level is 90 dBA averaged over eight hours. If the noise is above 90 dBA, the allowable exposure time is correspondingly shorter.

2.1.5.2 Annoyance
Attitude surveys are used for measuring the annoyance felt in a community for noises intruding into homes or affecting outdoor activity areas. In these surveys, it was determined that causes for annoyance include interference with speech, radio and television, house vibrations, and interference with sleep and rest. The Ldn as a measure of noise has been found to provide a valid correlation of noise level and the percentage of people annoyed. People have been asked to judge the annoyance caused by aircraft noise and ground transportation noise. There continues to be disagreement about the relative annoyance of these different sources.

2.2 Fundamentals of Environmental Groundborne Vibration

2.2.1 Vibration Sources and Characteristics
Sources of earthborne vibrations include natural phenomena (e.g., earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, sea waves, landslides) or manmade causes (explosions, machinery, traffic, trains, construction equipment, etc.).

Vibration sources may be continuous (e.g., factory machinery) or transient (e.g., explosions).

Ground vibration consists of rapidly fluctuating motions or waves with an average motion of zero. Several different methods are typically used to quantify vibration amplitude. One is the peak particle velocity (PPV); another is the root mean square (RMS) velocity. The PPV is defined as the maximum instantaneous positive or negative peak of the vibration wave. The RMS velocity is defined as the average of the squared amplitude of the signal. The PPV and RMS vibration velocity amplitudes are used to evaluate human response to vibration.

PPV is generally accepted as the most appropriate descriptor for evaluating the potential for building damage. For human response, however, an average vibration amplitude is more appropriate because it takes time for the human body to respond to the excitation (the human body responds to an average vibration amplitude, not a peak amplitude). Because the average particle velocity over time is zero, the RMS amplitude is typically used to assess human response. The RMS value is the average of the amplitude squared over time, typically a 1- sec. period (FTA 2018).

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

Page 2284 of 2588 ends

Noise Impact Assessment
ECORP Consulting Inc.

Mills Crossing Project
11 June 2023
2023-009
Table 2-2 displays the reactions of people and the effects on buildings produced by continuous vibration levels. The annoyance levels shown in the table should be interpreted with care since vibration may be found to be annoying at much lower levels than those listed, depending on the level of activity or the sensitivity of the individual. To sensitive individuals, vibrations approaching the threshold of perception can be annoying. Low-level vibrations frequently cause irritating secondary vibration, such as a slight rattling of windows, doors, or stacked dishes. The rattling sound can give rise to exaggerated vibration complaints, even though there is very little risk of actual structural damage. In high-noise environments, which are more prevalent where groundborne vibration approaches perceptible levels, this rattling phenomenon may also be produced by loud airborne environmental noise causing induced vibration in exterior doors and windows.

Ground vibration can be a concern in instances where buildings shake, and substantial rumblings occur.

However, it is unusual for vibration from typical urban sources such as buses and heavy trucks to be perceptible. For instance, heavy-duty trucks generally generate groundborne vibration velocity levels of

0.006 PPV at 50 feet under typical circumstances, which as identified in Table 2-2 is considered very unlikely to cause damage to buildings of any type. Common sources for groundborne vibration are planes, trains, and construction activities such as earth-moving which requires the use of heavy-duty earth moving equipment.

Table 2-2. Human Reaction and Damage to Buildings for Continuous or Frequent Intermittent Vibration Levels
Peak Particle
Velocity
(inches/second)
Approximate
Vibration
Velocity Level
(VdB)
Human Reaction Effect on Buildings

0.006–0.019 64–74 Range of threshold of
perception
Vibrations unlikely to cause damage of any
type

0.08 87 Vibrations readily perceptible Recommended upper level to which ruins and ancient monuments should be subjected

0.1 92
Level at which continuous
vibrations may begin to annoy
people, particularly those
involved in vibration sensitive
activities
Virtually no risk of architectural damage to
normal buildings

0.2 94 Vibrations may begin to
annoy people in buildings
Threshold at which there is a risk of
architectural damage to normal dwellings

0.4–0.6 98–104
Vibrations considered
unpleasant by people
subjected to continuous
vibrations and unacceptable
to some people walking on
bridges
Architectural damage and possibly minor
structural damage
Source: Caltrans 2020b
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

Page 2285 of 2588 ends

Noise Impact Assessment
ECORP Consulting Inc.

Mills Crossing Project
12 June 2023
2023-009

3.0 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE SETTING

3.1 Noise Sensitive Land Uses
Noise-sensitive land uses are generally considered to include those uses where noise exposure could result in health-related risks to individuals, as well as places where quiet is an essential element of their intended purpose. Residential dwellings are of primary concern because of the potential for increased and prolonged exposure of individuals to both interior and exterior noise levels. Additional land uses such as hospitals, historic sites, cemeteries, and certain recreation areas are considered sensitive to increases in exterior noise levels. Schools, churches, hotels, libraries, and other places where low interior noise levels are essential are also considered noise-sensitive land uses.

The nearest existing noise sensitive receptors to the Project Site are single-family residences approximately 49 feet from the Project’s northeastern boundary, fronting El Caprice Drive. Furthermore, there are several residential apartments on Bettencourt Lane and La Loma Drive that are along the Project’s Site’s north and western boundaries, with the closest location being 56 feet distant.

3.1.1 Existing Ambient Noise Measurements
The Project Site is currently undeveloped land surrounded mainly by residential and commercial land uses.

In order to quantify existing ambient noise levels in the Project Area, ECORP Consulting, Inc. conducted three short-term noise measurements (15-minutes) in the surrounding areas and one long-term noise measurement (24 hours) on the Project Site on April 11th, 2023. The 15-minute measurements were taken between 10:54 a.m. and 11:54 a.m. on April 11th and are representative of typical existing noise exposure within and immediately adjacent to the Project Site during the daytime. The long-term measurement was taken from 12:28 p.m. on April 11th to 12:28 p.m. on April 12th. This 24-hour noise measurement is representative of typical existing noise exposure on the Project Site during a typical 24-hour day. The average noise levels of noise measured at each location are listed in Table 3-1.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

Page 2286 of 2588 ends

Noise Impact Assessment
ECORP Consulting Inc.

Mills Crossing Project
13 June 2023
2023-009
Table 3-1. Existing (Baseline) Noise Measurements
Location
Number Location Leq dBA Ldn dBA Lmin dBA Lmax dBA Time
Short Term Measurements
1 End of cul-de-sac of
White Rock Road
adjacent to Aspen
Grove Mobile Home
Park

54.0 N/A 50.3 68.2 10:54 a.m. – 11:09
a.m.
2 On La Verta Court
adjacent to the
Ashbury Court
Apartments

47.9 N/A 39.7 62.9 11:39 a.m. – 11:54
a.m.
3 On La Loma Drive
behind the Project Site
adjacent to the
Meadows Apartments

61.8 N/A 44.9 74.4 11:16 a.m. – 11:31
a.m.
4 North end of Project
Site 57.1 60.9 38.3 83.2 12:28 p.m. – 12:28
p.m.

Source: Measurements were taken by ECORP with a Larson Davis SoundExpert LxT precision sound level meter, which satisfies the American National Standards Institute for general environmental noise measurement instrumentation. Prior to the measurements, the SoundExpert LxT sound level meter was calibrated according to manufacturer specifications with a Larson Davis CAL200 Class I Calibrator. See Attachment A for noise measurement outputs.

Notes: Leq is the average acoustic energy content of noise for a stated period of time. Thus, the Leq of a time-varying noise and that of a steady noise are the same if they deliver the same acoustic energy to the ear during exposure.

Lmin is the minimum noise level during the measurement period and Lmax is the maximum noise level during the measurement period.

As shown in Table 3-1, the ambient recorded noise levels range from 47.9 to 61.8 dBA Leq over the course of the three short-term noise measurements taken in the Project vicinity. The ambient noise levels recorded by the long-term measurement indicate that the Project currently experiences a noise level of 60.9 dBA Ldn.

The most common noise in the Project vicinity is produced by automotive vehicles (e.g., cars, trucks, buses, motorcycles) on Folsom Boulevard, noise from light rail train activity, and noises from residential activity.

3.1.1 Existing Roadway Noise Levels
Existing roadway noise levels were calculated for the roadway segments in the Project vicinity. This task was accomplished using the FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108) (see Attachment B) and traffic volumes from the Mills Crossing Local Traffic Analysis (DKS Associates 2023). The model calculates the average noise level at specific locations based on traffic volumes, average speeds, roadway geometry, and site environmental conditions. The average vehicle noise rates (energy rates) used in the FHWA model have been modified to reflect average vehicle noise rates identified for California by Caltrans.

The Caltrans data shows that California automobile noise is 0.8 to 1.0 dBA higher than national levels and ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

Page 2287 of 2588 ends

Noise Impact Assessment
ECORP Consulting Inc.

Mills Crossing Project
14 June 2023
2023-009
that medium and heavy truck noise is 0.3 to 3.0 dBA lower than national levels. The average daily noise levels along these roadway segments are presented in Table 3-2.

Table 3-2. Existing Roadway Noise Levels
Roadway Segment Surrounding Uses
Ldn at 100 feet from Centerline
of Roadway
Folsom Boulevard
West of Mather Field Road Commercial 64.1
East of Mather Field Road Commercial 65.7
Between La Loma Drive and Paseo Drive Commercial 64.1
Routier Road
South of Folsom Boulevard Residential 59.1
La Loma Drive
North of Folsom Boulevard
Commercial and
Residential

51.9 Paseo Drive
North of Folsom Boulevard
Commercial and
Residential

50.7 Mather Field Road
South of Folsom Boulevard
Commercial and
Residential

65.5 Source: Traffic noise levels were calculated by ECORP using the FHWA roadway noise prediction model in conjunction with the trip generation rate identified by DKS Associates (2023). The most relevant roadway segments were chosen by DKS Associates. Refer to Attachment B for traffic noise modeling assumptions and results.

As shown, the existing traffic-generated noise level on Project-vicinity roadways currently ranges from 50.7 to 65.7 dBA Ldn at a distance of 100 feet from the centerline. As previously described, Ldn is a 24-hour average Leq with a 10-dBA “weighting” added to noise during the hours of 10:00 pm to 7:00 am to account for noise sensitivity in the nighttime. The logarithmic effect of these additions is that a 60 dBA 24-hour Leq would result in a measurement of 66.4 dBA Ldn. It should be noted that the modeled noise levels depicted in Table 3-2 may differ from measured levels in Table 3-1 because the measurements represent noise levels at different locations around the Project Area and are also reported in different noise metrics (e.g., noise measurements are the Leq values and traffic noise levels are reported in Ldn).

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

Page 2288 of 2588 ends

Noise Impact Assessment
ECORP Consulting Inc.

Mills Crossing Project
15 June 2023
2023-009

4.0 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

4.1 Federal

4.1.1 Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970
OSHA regulates onsite noise levels and protects workers from occupational noise exposure. To protect hearing, worker noise exposure is limited to 90 decibels with A-weighting (dBA) over an eight-hour work shift (29 Code of Regulations 1910.95). Employers are required to develop a hearing conservation program when employees are exposed to noise levels exceeding 85 dBA. These programs include provision of hearing protection devices and testing employees for hearing loss on a periodic basis.

4.1.2 National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health A division of the US Department of Health and Human Services, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) has established a construction-related noise level threshold as identified in the Criteria for a Recommended Standard: Occupational Noise Exposure prepared in 1998. NIOSH identifies a noise level threshold based on the duration of exposure to the source. The NIOSH construction-related noise level threshold starts at 85 dBA for more than 8 hours per day; for every 3-dBA increase, the exposure time is cut in half. This reduction results in noise level thresholds of 88 dBA for more than 4 hours per day, 92 dBA for more than 1 hour per day, 96 dBA for more than 30 minutes per day, and up to 100 dBA for more than 15 minutes per day. The intention of these thresholds is to protect people from hearing losses resulting from occupational noise exposure.

4.1.3 Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON)
The FICON thresholds of significance assist in the evaluation of increased traffic noise. The 2000 FICON findings provide guidance as to the significance of changes in ambient noise levels due to transportation noise sources. FICON recommendations are based on studies that relate aircraft and traffic noise levels to the percentage of persons highly annoyed by the noise. FICON’s measure of substantial increase for transportation noise exposure is as follows:
 If the existing ambient noise levels at existing and future noise-sensitive land uses (e.g. residential, etc.) are less than 60 dBA Ldn and the project creates a readily perceptible 5 dBA Ldn or greater noise level increase and the resulting noise level would exceed acceptable exterior noise standards; or
 If the existing noise levels range from 60 to 65 dBA Ldn and the project creates a barely perceptible 3 dBA Ldn or greater noise level increase and the resulting noise level would exceed acceptable exterior noise standards;
or
 If the existing noise levels already exceed 65 dBA Ldn and the project creates a community noise level increase of greater than 1.5 dBA Ldn.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

Page 2289 of 2588 ends

Noise Impact Assessment
ECORP Consulting Inc.

Mills Crossing Project
16 June 2023
2023-009

4.2 State

4.2.1 State of California General Plan Guidelines
The State of California regulates vehicular and freeway noise affecting classrooms, sets standards for sound transmission and occupational noise control, and identifies noise insulation standards and airport noise/land-use compatibility criteria. The State of California General Plan Guidelines (State of California 2003), published by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR), also provides guidance for the acceptability of projects within specific CNEL/Ldn contours. The guidelines also present adjustment factors that may be used in order to arrive at noise acceptability standards that reflect the noise control goals of the community, the particular community’s sensitivity to noise, and the community’s assessment of the relative importance of noise pollution.

4.2.2 State Office of Planning and Research Noise Element Guidelines The State OPR Noise Element Guidelines include recommended exterior and interior noise level standards for local jurisdictions to identify and prevent the creation of incompatible land uses due to noise. The Noise Element Guidelines contain a land use compatibility table that describes the compatibility of various land uses with a range of environmental noise levels in terms of the CNEL.

4.2.3 California Department of Transportation
In 2020, Caltrans published the Transportation and Construction Vibration Manual (Caltrans 2020b). The manual provides general guidance on vibration issues associated with the construction and operation of projects concerning human perception and structural damage. Table 2 presents recommendations for levels of vibration that could result in damage to structures exposed to continuous vibration.

4.3 Local

4.3.1 City of Rancho Cordova General Plan Noise Element The Noise Element of the General Plan provides policy direction to protect its citizens and community from noise disturbances. By quantifying existing noise sources and identifying noise policies and actions, the City ensures comfortable and safe noise levels throughout the community. The main goals of the document are to improve the noise environment for its residents, employees, visitors, and other persons. The City’s existing noise ordinance establishes allowable exterior and interior noise levels for affected land uses. The Noise Element notes that activities that are generally considered to be exempt from the noise standards include construction activities (provided that they occur within the daytime hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday, and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Sunday), school athletic and entertainment events, activities conducted on public parks and playgrounds, and transportation noise. The General Plan goals and policies applicable to the Proposed Project are listed below.
 Policy N 1.2: Ensure that the indoor and outdoor areas of new projects will be located, constructed, and/or shielded from noise sources in compliance with the City’s noise standards to the maximum extent feasible [shown below in Table 4-1].

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

Page 2290 of 2588 ends

Noise Impact Assessment
ECORP Consulting Inc.

Mills Crossing Project
17 June 2023
2023-009
Table 4-1. City of Rancho Cordova Noise Standards
Land Use Category Outdoor Activity
Areas Ldn 1, dB Interior Ldn dB
Residential 603 45
Transportation Residential2 603 405
Transient lodging 604 45
Hospitals, nursing homes 603 45
Theaters, auditoriums, music halls -- --
Churches, meeting halls 603 --
Office buildings -- --
Schools, libraries, museums -- --
Playgrounds, neighborhood parks 70 --
Source: City of Rancho Cordova General Plan Noise Element 2006 Notes:
1 Where the location of outdoor activity areas is unknown, the exterior noise level standard shall be applied to the property line of the receiving land use. Where it is not practical to mitigate exterior noise levels at patio or balconies of apartment complexes, a common area such as a pool or recreation area may be designated as the outdoor activity area. 2 Transportation Residential applies to residence that are subject to noise from railroad tracks, aircraft overflights, or similar noise sources which produce clearly identifiable, discrete noise events (e.g., the passing of a single train). 3 Where it is not possible to reduce noise in outdoor activity areas to 60 dB Ldn or less using a practical application of the best-available noise reduction measures, an exterior noise level of up to 65 dB Ldn may be allowed provided that available exterior noise level reduction measures have been implemented and interior noise levels are in compliance with this table.
4 In the case of hotel/motel facilities or other transient lodging, outdoor activity areas such as pool areas may not be included in the project design. In these cases, only the interior noise level criterion will apply. 5 The intent of this noise standard is to provide increased protection against sleep disturbance for residences located near railroad tracks.
 Policy N 1.3: Ensure that proposed non-residential land uses likely to exceed the City’s standards do not create noise disturbances in existing noise-sensitive areas.  Policy N.1.4: Mitigate noise created by proposed non-transportation noise sources to comply with the City’s noise standards to the maximum extent feasible. o Action N.1.4.1 - Limit construction activity to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. weekdays and 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. weekends when construction is conducted in proximity to residential uses.
 Policy N.1.7: To the extent feasible and appropriate, the City shall require the use of temporary construction noise control measures for public and private project that may include the use of ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

Page 2291 of 2588 ends

Noise Impact Assessment
ECORP Consulting Inc.

Mills Crossing Project
18 June 2023
2023-009
temporary noise barriers, temporary relocation of noise-sensitive land uses or other appropriate measures.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

Page 2292 of 2588 ends

Noise Impact Assessment
ECORP Consulting Inc.

Mills Crossing Project
19 June 2023
2023-009

5.0 IMPACT ASSESSMENT

5.1 Thresholds of Significance
The impact analysis provided below is based on the following California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Appendix G thresholds of significance. The Project would result in a significant noise-related impact if it would produce:
1) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies.
2) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. 3) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.

For purposes of this analysis, Project construction noise is compared to the allowable hours of construction mandated by the City as well as the NIOSH standard of 85 dBA for more than 8 hours per day, since construction work for the Proposed Project is anticipated to span a typical workday of 8 hours daily. The City does not regulate vibrations associated with construction or operations. However, a discussion of construction vibration is included for full disclosure purposes. For comparison purposes, Project groundborne vibration is evaluated against the Caltrans (2020b) recommended standard of 0.2 inches per second PPV.

The noise/land use compatibility associated with locating the proposed residences on the Project Site is determined by a comparison of existing noise levels against the City’s noise/land use compatibility standard of 60 dBA Ldn for Residential and Transportation Residential land uses (shown in Table 4-1). Furthermore, noise generated by the Project’s offsite transportation noise is compared to the FICON thresholds of significance in the evaluation of increased traffic noise, and the Caltrans Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol (2013) that notes that a doubling of traffic on a roadway is required to result in an increase of 3 dB (outside of the laboratory, a 3-dBA change is considered a just-perceivable difference).

Onsite noise generated by Project operations is compared against the City’s protective standard of 60 dBA Ldn promulgated by the City’s General Plan, which establishes exterior and interior noise levels for various land uses.

5.2 Methodology
This analysis of the existing and future noise environments is based on noise-prediction modeling. In order to estimate the worst-case construction noise levels that may occur at the nearest noise-sensitive receptors in the Project vicinity, predicted construction noise levels were calculated utilizing the FHWA’s Roadway Construction Noise Model (2006). Groundborne vibration levels associated with construction-related activities for the Project were evaluated utilizing typical groundborne vibration levels associated with construction equipment. Potential groundborne vibration impacts related to structural damage and human ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

Page 2293 of 2588 ends

Noise Impact Assessment
ECORP Consulting Inc.

Mills Crossing Project
20 June 2023
2023-009
annoyance were evaluated, taking into account the distance from construction activities to nearby structures and typically applied criteria for structural damage and human annoyance.

Transportation-source noise levels associated with the Project were calculated using the FHWA Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108) with trip generation rates from the Mills Crossing Local Traffic Analysis (DKS Associates 2023). Onsite stationary source noise levels associated with the Project have been calculated with the SoundPLAN 3D noise model, which predicts noise propagation from a noise source based on the location, noise level, and frequency spectra of the noise sources as well as the geometry and reflective properties of the local terrain, buildings and barriers.

5.3 Impact Analysis

5.3.1 Project Construction Noise
Would the Project Result in Short-Term Construction-Generated Noise in Excess of Standards?
Onsite Construction Noise
Construction noise associated with the Proposed Project would be temporary and would vary depending on the nature of the activities being performed. Noise generated would primarily be associated with the operation of off-road equipment for onsite construction activities as well as construction vehicle traffic on area roadways. Construction noise typically occurs intermittently and varies depending on the nature or phase of construction (e.g., land clearing, grading, excavation, building construction, paving). Noise generated by construction equipment, including earth movers, material handlers, and portable generators, can reach high levels. Typical operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve one or two minutes of full power operation followed by three to four minutes at lower power settings. Other primary sources of acoustical disturbance would be random incidents, which would last less than one minute (such as dropping large pieces of equipment or the hydraulic movement of machinery lifts). During construction, exterior noise levels could negatively affect sensitive land uses in the vicinity of the construction site.

The nearest existing noise sensitive receptors to the Project Site are several residences on the northern boundary of the Project Site, approximately 49 feet distant at the nearest. As previously mentioned, construction is exempt from the noise standards, provided that the construction occurs between the daytime hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday, and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Sunday.

Outside of the provided time frames where construction is exempt, construction activities are subject to the City’s noise standards. Furthermore, City General Plan Noise Element Action N.1.4.1 limits construction activity to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. weekdays and 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. weekends when construction is conducted in proximity to residential uses. The Project Site is located in proximity to existing residential land uses and is therefore required to adhere to the construction timing limitations established by Noise Element Action N.1.4.1 (7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. weekdays and 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. weekends).

However, in order to be considered exempt from City noise standards Project construction must be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday, and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Sunday.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

Page 2294 of 2588 ends

Noise Impact Assessment
ECORP Consulting Inc.

Mills Crossing Project
21 June 2023
2023-009
Outside of the provided time frames where construction is exempt, construction activities are subject to the City’s noise standards. As shown in Table 5-1 below, Project construction noise would surpass the City’s protective standard of 60 dBA and therefore must be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday, and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Sunday in order to be considered a less than significant impact.

To estimate the worst-case onsite construction noise levels that may occur at the nearest noise-sensitive receptor and in order to evaluate the potential health-related effects (physical damage to the ear, psychological effects) from construction noise, the construction equipment noise levels were calculated using the Roadway Noise Construction Model and compared against the construction-related noise level threshold established in the Criteria for a Recommended Standard: Occupational Noise Exposure prepared in 1998 by National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). A division of the US Department of Health and Human Services, NIOSH identifies a noise level threshold based on the duration of exposure to the source. The NIOSH construction-related noise level threshold starts at 85 dBA for more than 8 hours per day; for every 3-dBA increase, the exposure time is cut in half. This reduction results in noise level thresholds of 88 dBA for more than 4 hours per day, 92 dBA for more than 1 hour per day, 96 dBA for more than 30 minutes per day, and up to 100 dBA for more than 15 minutes per day. For the purposes of this analysis, the lowest, more conservative threshold of 85 dBA Leq is used as an acceptable threshold for construction noise at the nearby sensitive receptors.

It is acknowledged that the majority of construction equipment is not situated at any one location during construction activities, but rather spread throughout the Project Site and at various distances from sensitive receptors. Therefore, this analysis employs the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) guidance for calculating construction noise, which recommends measuring construction noise produced by all construction equipment from the center of the Project Site (FTA 2018), which in this case is approximately 341 feet from the closest residence on Bettencourt Lane. The anticipated short-term construction noise levels generated for the necessary equipment for each phase of construction are presented in Table 5-1.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

Page 2295 of 2588 ends

Noise Impact Assessment
ECORP Consulting Inc.

Mills Crossing Project
22 June 2023
2023-009
Table 5-1. Construction Average (dBA) Noise Levels at Nearest Receptors Construction Phase
Estimated Exterior
Construction Noise Level at
Nearest Sensitive Receptor
(dBA Leq)
Construction Noise
Standards (dBA Leq)
Exceeds
Standards?
Pavement Excavation 69.8 85 No
Site Preparation 70.9 85 No
Grading 70.1 85 No
Building Construction, Paving
and Painting

73.8 85 No
Source: Construction noise levels were calculated by ECORP Consulting using the FHWA Roadway Noise Construction Model (FHWA 2006). Refer to Attachment C for Model Data Outputs.

Notes: Construction equipment used during construction derived from the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2022.1. CalEEMod is designed to calculate air pollutant emissions from construction activity and contains default construction equipment and usage parameters for typical construction projects based on several construction surveys conducted in order to identify such parameters. Consistent with FTA recommendations for calculating construction noise, construction noise was measured from the center of the Project Site (FTA 2018), which is 341 feet from the nearest residence. Construction, paving and painting are assumed to occur simultaneously.

Leq = The equivalent energy noise level, is the average acoustic energy content of noise for a stated period of time. Thus, the Leq of a time-varying noise and that of a steady noise are the same if they deliver the same acoustic energy to the ear during exposure. For evaluating community impacts, this rating scale does not vary, regardless of whether the noise occurs during the day or the night.

As shown in Table 5-1, construction activities would not exceed the 85 dBA NIOSH construction noise threshold during any phase of construction at the nearby noise-sensitive receptors. It is noted that construction noise was modeled on a worst-case basis. It is very unlikely that all pieces of construction equipment would be operating at the same time for the various phases of Project construction as well as at the point closest to residences.

Offsite Construction Worker Traffic Noise
Project construction would result in additional traffic on adjacent roadways over the period that construction occurs. According to the California Emissions Estimator Model, which is used to predict the maximum number of construction related vehicle trips traveling to and from the Project Site, the maximum number of construction related trips traveling to and from the Project Site during a single construction phase would not be expected to exceed 298 trips in total (241 construction worker commute trips and 57 vendor trips). According to Caltrans’ Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol (2013), doubling of traffic on a roadway is required to result in an increase of 3 dB (outside of the laboratory, a 3- dBA change is considered a just-perceivable difference). During construction, the Project Site would be accessible from Folsom Boulevard. According to analysis done in conjunction with the Project’s Traffic Report from DKS Associates (2023), the portion of Folsom Boulevard between Mather Field Road and La Loma Drive, which includes the Project Site, currently accommodates approximately 19,136 average daily trips (ADT). Thus, the Project construction would not result in a doubling of traffic, and therefore its contribution to existing traffic noise would not be perceptible. Additionally, it is noted that construction is temporary, and these trips would cease upon completion of the Project.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

Page 2296 of 2588 ends

Noise Impact Assessment
ECORP Consulting Inc.

Mills Crossing Project
23 June 2023
2023-009

5.3.2 Project Operational Noise
Would the Project Result in a Substantial Permanent Increase in Ambient Noise Levels in Excess of City Standards During Operations?
As previously described, noise-sensitive land uses are locations where people reside or where the presence of unwanted sound could adversely affect the use of the land. Residences, schools, hospitals, guest lodging, libraries, and some passive recreation areas would each be considered noise-sensitive and may warrant unique measures for protection from intruding noise. The nearest existing noise sensitive receptors to the Project Site are several residences on the northern boundary of the Project Site, approximately 49 feet away at the nearest.

The Project proposes the construction of a community center with a health and wellness center, a parking structure, arts center and theater, a multifamily and single-family housing development, commercial and retail businesses, and community and event centers. Operational noise sources associated with the Proposed Project include mobile and stationary (i.e., people talking, car door opening and closing, parking garage noise, park activities, the unloading of trucks, typical neighborhood noise, and internal circulation) sources.

Project Land Use Compatibility
The City’s General Plan establishes the use of exterior and interior noise standards as seen in Table 4-1 above. The City’s noise level standards are applicable to new projects and act as a tool to gauge the compatibility of new land uses relative to existing noise levels. Table 4-1 identifies the exterior noise levels standards for various land uses, including residential, meeting hall, and community park uses such as those proposed by the Project. In the case that the noise levels identified at the Proposed Project Site fall below the protective noise limits presented in the General Plan, the Project is considered compatible with the existing noise environment. As previously stated, the Project is proposing the construction of a community center with a health and wellness center, a parking structure, arts center and theater, a multifamily and single-family housing development, commercial and retail businesses, and community and event centers.

The long-term noise measurement taken by ECORP Consulting Inc. on April 11th to April 12th, 2023, can be used to quantify existing ambient noise levels in the Project Area. The ambient noise levels recorded by the long-term measurement indicate that the Project Site currently experiences a noise level of 60.9 dBA Ldn.

According to the City’s noise level standards table, presented in Table 4-1, this noise level falls above the exterior noise standard for residential and meeting hall land uses (60 dBA). However, as noted in the General Plan, where it is not possible to reduce noise in outdoor activity areas to 60 dBA Ldn or less using a practical application of the best-available noise reduction measures, an exterior noise level of up to 65 dBA Ldn may be allowed provided that available exterior noise level reduction measures have been implemented and interior noise levels are in compliance with the standards identified in Table 4-1. As such, the Project Site currently experiences an ambient noise level of 60.9 dBA Ldn, which is just over the exterior noise standard of 60 dBA Ldn for residential and meeting hall land uses, yet below the maximum standard of 65 dBA Ldn when the application of the best-available noise reduction measures is implemented.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

Page 2297 of 2588 ends

Noise Impact Assessment
ECORP Consulting Inc.

Mills Crossing Project
24 June 2023
2023-009
The maximum standard of 65 dBA Ldn, to be applied to Projects that employ the best-available noise reduction measures, is appropriate for the Proposed Project. According to the Project’s Site Plans, the Project’s design and layout would reduce offsite transportation noise sources at the proposed noisesensitive residential land uses. Specifically, the community commercial, art center, event center, and health and wellness buildings would be located on the southern portion of the Project Site directly fronting Folsom Boulevard, while the northern portion of the Site, farthest from Folsom Boulevard, would accommodate the residential component. As such, the layout of the Proposed Project’s nonresidential buildings would effectively shield the residential receptors from offsite traffic noise occurring on Folsom Boulevard.

According to the FHWA (2006), when a receiver is shielded from a noise source with a barrier (such as a building) with some gaps it experiences a 5 dBA noise reduction from the source. Thus, the residents located on the northern portion of the Project Site would have an approximate 5 dBA reduction from the traffic noise on Folsom Boulevard due to the positioning of the other proposed nonresidential buildings on Site.

This would result in an exterior ambient noise level of approximately 55.9 dBA Ldn, which would be under the City’s exterior standard for residences. Thus, the Project Site design of placing the proposed nonresidential buildings between the predominate source of noise in the Project Area, Folsom Boulevard, and the proposed noise-sensitive residential buildings represents the best-available noise reduction measure to reduce noise on the Project Site. Furthermore, the exterior-to-interior reduction of newer residential units is generally 30 dBA or more (Harris Miller, Miller & Hanson Inc. 2006). With this reduction, the exterior to interior noise environment would be reduced so that interior noise levels would be maintained below the City’s protective interior standards of 45 dBA. For these reasons, the Project complies with the City’s noise/land use compatibility standards.

Operational Offsite Traffic Noise
Future traffic noise levels throughout the Project vicinity for the Proposed Project were modeled based on the traffic volumes identified by DKS Associates (2023) to determine the noise levels along Project vicinity roadways. Table 5-2 shows the calculated offsite roadway noise levels with traffic levels during existing levels and the projected levels of project buildout. The City of Rancho Cordova does not regulate noise from transportation sources and does not have noise standards for such sources. As such, the thresholds recommended by FICON will be used in this analysis.
 If the existing ambient noise levels at existing and future noise-sensitive land uses (e.g. residential, etc.) are less than 60 dBA Ldn and the project creates a readily perceptible 5 dBA Ldn or greater noise level increase and the resulting noise level would exceed acceptable exterior noise standards; or
 If the existing noise levels range from 60 to 65 dBA Ldn and the project creates a barely perceptible 3 dBA Ldn or greater noise level increase and the resulting noise level would exceed acceptable exterior noise standards;
or
 If the existing noise levels already exceed 65 dBA Ldn and the project creates a community noise level increase of greater than 1.5 dBA Ldn.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

Page 2298 of 2588 ends

Noise Impact Assessment
ECORP Consulting Inc.

Mills Crossing Project
25 June 2023
2023-009
Table 5-2. Proposed Project Predicted Traffic Noise Levels Roadway Segment Surrounding
Uses
Ldn at 100 feet from
Centerline of Roadway
Change
FICON’s
Standard
Exceed
Standard?
Existing Existing +
Project
Folsom Boulevard
West of Mather Field
Road
Commercial 64.1 64.5 +0.4 >3 No
East of Mather Field
Road
Commercial 65.7 65.9 +0.2 >1.5 No
Between La Loma
Drive and Paseo Drive
Commercial 64.1 64.5 +0.4 >3 No
Routier Road
South of Folsom
Boulevard
Commercial &
Residential

59.1 59.4 +0.3 >5 No
La Loma Drive
North of Folsom
Boulevard
Commercial &
Residential

51.9 54.7 +2.8 >5 No
Paseo Drive
North of Folsom
Boulevard
Commercial &
Residential

50.7 52.6 +1.9 >5 No
Mather Field Road
South of Folsom
Boulevard
Commercial &
Residential

65.5 65.8 +0.3 >1.5 No
Source: Traffic noise levels were calculated by ECORP using the FHWA roadway noise prediction model in conjunction with the trip generation rate identified by DKS Associates (2023). The most relevant roadway segments were chosen by DKS Associates. Refer to Attachment B for traffic noise modeling assumptions and results.

As shown in Table 5-2, none of the Project vicinity roadway segments would experience an increase of traffic noise in excess of the FICON standards.

Operational Onsite Stationary Noise
The Project is proposing the construction of a community center with a health and wellness center, a parking structure, arts center and theater, a multifamily and single-family housing development, commercial and retail businesses, and community and event centers. The main stationary operational noise associated with the Project would include internal circulation/ parking lot activity at the commercial buildings (i.e., people ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

Page 2299 of 2588 ends

Noise Impact Assessment
ECORP Consulting Inc.

Mills Crossing Project
26 June 2023
2023-009
talking, car door opening and closing, and car stereos). Noise associated with residential neighborhoods is quieter than commercial uses and includes activities such as internal circulation, dogs barking, lawnmowers, and other mechanical equipment). Onsite Project operations have been calculated using the SoundPLAN 3D noise model. The modeling scenario includes the features of the Proposed Project, namely the parking lots, community commercial and art center buildings, residential units, and recreational/park plaza.

Reference sound power measurements used to inform the 3D noise model representing the parking areas, single-family housing, mixed used developments, and residential parks were previously recorded by ECORP Consulting. The results of the SoundPLAN model can be found in Attachment D.

The City has established noise exterior standards for various land uses, shown in Table 4-1 above. The standard for residential receptors is under 60 dBA. Table 5-3 shows the predicted Project noise levels at nine locations in the Project vicinity, as predicted by SoundPLAN. These locations represent the closest residential and commercial land uses to the Project Site. Additionally, a noise contour graphic (see Figure 5-1) has been prepared to provide a visual depiction of the predicted noise levels in the Project vicinity from Project operations.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

Page 2300 of 2588 ends

Noise Impact Assessment
ECORP Consulting Inc.

Mills Crossing Project
27 June 2023
2023-009
Table 5-3. Operational Noise Levels
Location Operational Noise
Attributed to Project (dBA)
City Exterior
Noise
Standard
(dBA)
Exceed
Standard?
#1 Apartments on Bettencourt Lane 40.4 dBA 60 No
#2 Apartments on La Loma Drive 39.6 dBA 60 No
#3 Apartments on La Loma Drive 36.0 dBA 60 No
#4 Auto Repair Shop on La Loma Drive 47.3 dBA 60 No
#5 Folsom Lake College 39.4 dBA 60 No
#6 Medical Clinic 47.5 dBA 60 No
#7 Residence on El Caprice Drive 44.1 dBA 60 No
#8 Residence on El Caprice Drive 32.6 dBA 60 No
#9 Residence on El Caprice Drive 33.9 dBA 60 No
Source: Stationary source noise levels were modeled by ECORP Consulting using SoundPLAN 3D noise model.

Refer to Attachment D for noise modeling assumptions and results.

As shown in Table 5-3, the operational noise levels as a result of operational activities on the Project Site would not exceed the City’s noise standards (shown in Table 4-1) for the existing residential uses west and south of the Project Site. Furthermore, it is noted that the modeled noise levels identified are a worst-case scenario. All noise producing sources on the Project Site were modeled for noise as if occurring at the same time and at the highest activity level to produce noise levels at the level as those predicted. Not all activities taking place on the Project Site would generate as much noise as predicted.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

Page 2301 of 2588 ends

2023-009 Mills Crossing Project
Map Date: 6/27/2023
Photo (or Base) Source: SoundPLAN
Figure 5-1 SoundPLAN Noise Contour

39.6 dBA

33.9 dBA

32.6 dBA

36.0 dBA

47.5 dBA

47.3 dBA

44.1 dBA

39.6 dBA

46.8 dBA
Wellness
Center
Cafe
Flex
Theater
and
Studios Flex Community Center

36.9 dBA
Single-Family
Residences
Multi-Family
Residences
Flex Community Center
~ '~ -. ECORP Consulting, Inc . ....... ~~1111" ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS Mills Crossing
Noise Activity
Project Noise
in dB(A)
- >= 64
[:=J 61 - 64
- 58 - 61
c=J 55 - 58
- 52 - 55
- 49 - 52
[:=J 46 - 49
c=J 43 - 46
c=J 40 - 43
c=J < 40
Legend
a Area Sources
Proposed Buildings
• Receiver
Scale 1:199
50 100
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

Page 2302 of 2588 ends

Noise Impact Assessment
ECORP Consulting Inc.

Mills Crossing Project
29 June 2023
2023-009

5.3.3 Project Groundborne Vibration
Would the Project Expose Structures to Substantial Groundborne Vibration During Construction?
Excessive groundborne vibration impacts result from continuously occurring vibration levels. Increases in groundborne vibration levels attributable to the Project would be primarily associated with short-term construction-related activities. Construction on the Project Site would have the potential to result in varying degrees of temporary groundborne vibration, depending on the specific construction equipment used and the operations involved. Ground vibration generated by construction equipment spreads through the ground and diminishes in magnitude with increases in distance.

Construction-related ground vibration is normally associated with impact equipment such as pile drivers, jackhammers, and the operation of some heavy-duty construction equipment, such as dozers and trucks.

Vibration decreases rapidly with distance, and it is acknowledged that construction activities would occur throughout the Project Site and would not be concentrated at the point closest to sensitive receptors.

Groundborne vibration levels associated with standard construction equipment at 25 feet distant are summarized in Table 5-4.

Table 5-4. Representative Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment Equipment Type Peak Particle Velocity at 25 Feet
(inches per second)
Vibratory Roller 0.210
Impact Pile Driver 0.170
Large Bulldozer 0.089
Caisson Drilling 0.089
Hoe Ram 0.089
Loaded Trucks 0.076
Jackhammer 0.035
Small Bulldozer/Tractor 0.003
Source: FTA 2018; Caltrans 2020b
The City does not have a numeric threshold associated with construction vibrations. However, a discussion of construction vibration is included for full disclosure purposes. For comparison purposes, the Caltrans (2020b) recommended standard of 0.2 inches per second PPV with respect to the prevention of structural damage for older residential buildings is used as a threshold. This is also the level at which vibrations may begin to annoy people in buildings. Consistent with FTA recommendations for calculating vibration generated from construction equipment, construction vibration was measured from the center of the Project Site (FTA 2018). The nearest structure of concern to the construction site are residences located 341 feet from the center of the Site.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

Page 2303 of 2588 ends

Noise Impact Assessment
ECORP Consulting Inc.

Mills Crossing Project
30 June 2023
2023-009
Based on the representative vibration levels presented for various construction equipment types in Table 5-4 and the construction vibration assessment methodology published by the FTA (2018), it is possible to estimate the potential Project construction vibration levels. The FTA provides the following equation:
[PPVequip = PPVref x (25/D)1.5]
Table 5-5 presents the expected Project related vibration levels at a distance of 341 feet.

Table 5-5. Onsite Construction Vibration Levels at 341 Feet Receiver PPV Levels (in/sec)1
Peak
Vibration Threshold Exceed Threshold Impact
Pile
Driver
Vibratory
Roller
Large
Bulldozer,
Caisson
Drilling, &
Hoe Ram
Loaded
Trucks
Jackhammer Small
Bulldozer

0.003 0.004 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.004 0.2 No
Notes: 1Based on the Vibration Source Levels of Construction Equipment included on Table 5-3 (FTA 2018). Distance to the nearest structure of concern is approximately 341 feet measured from Project Site center.

As shown in Table 5-5, vibration as a result of onsite construction activities on the Project Site would not exceed 0.2 PPV at the nearest structure. Thus, onsite Project construction would not exceed the recommended threshold.

Would the Project Expose Structures to Substantial Groundborne Vibration During Operations?
Project operations would not include the use of any stationary equipment that would result in excessive vibration levels. Therefore, the Project would not result in groundborne vibration impacts during operations.

5.3.4 Excess Airport Noise
Would the Project Expose People Residing or Working in the Project area to Excessive Airport Noise?
The Project Site is located approximately 2.1 miles northwest of the Mather Airport. According to the Sacramento County Department of Airports (2023), the Project Site is not located within the Mather Airport planning noise contours. The Proposed Project would not expose people residing or working on the Project Site to excess airport noise levels.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

Page 2304 of 2588 ends

Noise Impact Assessment
ECORP Consulting Inc.

Mills Crossing Project
31 June 2023
2023-009

6.0 REFERENCES
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2020a. IS/EA Annotated Outline. http://www.dot.ca.gov/ser/vol1/sec4/ch31ea/chap31ea.htm. _____. 2020b. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. _____. 2013. Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. _____. 2002. California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook.

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2011. Effective Noise Control During Nighttime Construction.

Available online at: http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/wz/workshops/accessible/schexnayder_paper.htm. _____. 2006. Roadway Construction Noise Model.

Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment.

Harris Miller, Miller & Hanson Inc. 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, Final Report.

Rancho Cordova, City of. 2006. General Plan Noise Element. https://www.cityofranchocordova.org/home/showpublisheddocument/680/635895080495700000 Sacramento County. 2023. Sacramento County Department of Airports: Mather Airport Land Use Compatibility Planning Noise Contours.
https://sacramento.aero/scas/environment/noise/mather_airport_mhr/noise_contours2 Office of Planning and Research. 2003. State of California General Plan Guidelines.

Western Electro-Acoustic Laboratory, Inc. 2000. Sound Transmission Sound Test Laboratory Report No. TL 96-186.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

Page 2305 of 2588 ends

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A - Baseline (Existing) Noise Measurements – Project Vicinity Attachment B – Federal Highway Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108) Outputs – Project Traffic Noise
Attachment C – Federal Highway Administration Roadway Construction Noise Model Outputs – Project Construction
Attachment D- SoundPLAN 3-D Noise Model Outputs – Project Onsite Noise Propagation

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

Page 2306 of 2588 ends

ATTACHMENT A
Baseline (Existing) Noise Measurements –Project Vicinity

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

Page 2307 of 2588 ends

Site Number: 1
Recorded By: Rosey Worden
Job Number: 2023-009
Date: 4/11/2023
Time: 10:54 a.m. – 11:09 a.m.

Location: End of cul-de-sac of White Rock Road adjacent to Aspen Grove Mobile Home Park Source of Peak Noise: Humming from White Rock SMUD Power Station and light rail train activity Noise Data
Leq (dB) Lmin (dB) Lmax (dB) Peak (dB)

54.0 50.3 68.2 90.3
Equipment
Category Type Vendor Model Serial No. Cert. Date Note
Sound
Sound Level Meter Larson Davis LxT SE 0006133 02/24/2021 Microphone Larson Davis 377B02 315201 02/24/2021
Preamp Larson Davis PRMLxT1L 069947 02/24/2021
Calibrator Larson Davis CAL200 17325 02/25/2021
Weather Data
Est.

Duration: 15 min Sky: Clear
Note: dBA Offset = 0.04 Sensor Height (ft): 4.5
Wind Ave Speed (mph) Temperature (degrees Fahrenheit) Barometer Pressure (hPa) 6 62 30.08
Photo of Measurement Location
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

Page 2308 of 2588 ends

Measurement Report
Report Summary
Meter's File Name LxT_Data.057.s Computer's File Name LxT_0006133-20230411 105411-LxT_Data.057.ldbin Meter LxT1 0006133 Firmware 2.404
User Location
Job Description
Note
Start Time 2023-04-11 10:54:11 Duration 0:15:00.0
End Time 2023-04-11 11:09:11 Run Time 0:15:00.0 Pause Time 0:00:00.0 Pre-Calibration 2023-04-11 10:52:58 Post-Calibration None Calibration Deviation --- Results
Overall Metrics
LAeq

54.0 dB
LAE 83.5 dB SEA --- dB
EA 25.1 µPa²h
EA8 803.8 µPa²h
EA40 4.0 mPa²h
LZSpeak 90.3 dB 2023-04-11 11:07:33
LASmax 68.2 dB 2023-04-11 10:58:39
LASmin 50.3 dB 2023-04-11 11:08:16
LAeq 54.0 dB
LCeq 66.3 dB LCeq - LAeq 12.3 dB
LAIeq 55.4 dB LAIeq - LAeq 1.4 dB
Exceedances Count Duration
LAS > 85.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
LAS > 115.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
LZSpeak > 135.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
LZSpeak > 137.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
LZSpeak > 140.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
Community Noise LDN LDay LNight

54.0 dB 54.0 dB 0.0 dB
LDEN LDay LEve LNight

54.0 dB 54.0 dB --- dB --- dB
Any Data A C Z
Level Time Stamp Level Time Stamp Level Time Stamp
L
eq 54.0 dB --- dB --- dB
Ls(max) 68.2 dB 2023-04-11 10:58:39 --- dB None --- dB None LS(min) 50.3 dB 2023-04-11 11:08:16 --- dB None --- dB None LPeak(max) --- dB None --- dB None 90.3 dB 2023-04-11 11:07:33 Overloads Count Duration
0 0:00:00.0
Statistics
LAS 5.0 56.1 dB
LAS 10.0 54.8 dB
LAS 33.3 53.1 dB
LAS 50.0 52.5 dB
LAS 66.6 52.1 dB
LAS 90.0 51.3 dB
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

Page 2309 of 2588 ends

Time History
V)
Q.I
::::,
"iii
>
140
120
100
80 60
40 20
0 l 0:56 l 0:58 11 :00 11 :02 11 :04 11 :06 11 :08
I - LZpeak
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

Page 2310 of 2588 ends

Site Number: 2
Recorded By: Rosey Worden
Job Number: 2023-009
Date: 4/11/2023
Time: 11:39 a.m. – 11:54 a.m.

Location: On La Verta Court adjacent to the Ashbury Court Apartments Source of Peak Noise: People talking and vehicles on La Verta Court Noise Data
Leq (dB) Lmin (dB) Lmax (dB) Peak (dB)

47.9 39.7 62.9 87.8
Equipment
Category Type Vendor Model Serial No. Cert. Date Note
Sound
Sound Level Meter Larson Davis LxT SE 0006133 02/24/2021 Microphone Larson Davis 377B02 315201 02/24/2021
Preamp Larson Davis PRMLxT1L 069947 02/24/2021
Calibrator Larson Davis CAL200 17325 02/25/2021
Weather Data
Est.

Page 2311 of 2588 ends

Measurement Report
Report Summary
Meter's File Name LxT_Data.059.s Computer's File Name LxT_0006133-20230411 113946-LxT_Data.059.ldbin Meter LxT1 0006133 Firmware 2.404
User Location
Job Description
Note
Start Time 2023-04-11 11:39:46 Duration 0:15:00.0
End Time 2023-04-11 11:54:46 Run Time 0:15:00.0 Pause Time 0:00:00.0 Pre-Calibration 2023-04-11 10:52:53 Post-Calibration None Calibration Deviation --- Results
Overall Metrics
LAeq

47.9 dB
LAE 77.4 dB SEA --- dB
EA 6.2 µPa²h
EA8 197.3 µPa²h
EA40 986.6 µPa²h
LZSpeak 87.8 dB 2023-04-11 11:53:20
LASmax 62.9 dB 2023-04-11 11:44:40
LASmin 39.7 dB 2023-04-11 11:53:13
LAeq 47.9 dB
LCeq 56.9 dB LCeq - LAeq 9.0 dB
LAIeq 51.1 dB LAIeq - LAeq 3.2 dB
Exceedances Count Duration
LAS > 85.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
LAS > 115.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
LZSpeak > 135.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
LZSpeak > 137.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
LZSpeak > 140.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
Community Noise LDN LDay LNight

47.9 dB 47.9 dB 0.0 dB
LDEN LDay LEve LNight

47.9 dB 47.9 dB --- dB --- dB
Any Data A C Z
Level Time Stamp Level Time Stamp Level Time Stamp
L
eq 47.9 dB --- dB --- dB
Ls(max) 62.9 dB 2023-04-11 11:44:40 --- dB None --- dB None LS(min) 39.7 dB 2023-04-11 11:53:13 --- dB None --- dB None LPeak(max) --- dB None --- dB None 87.8 dB 2023-04-11 11:53:20 Overloads Count Duration
0 0:00:00.0
Statistics
LAS 5.0 52.5 dB
LAS 10.0 49.9 dB
LAS 33.3 46.7 dB
LAS 50.0 45.6 dB
LAS 66.6 44.5 dB
LAS 90.0 41.8 dB
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

Page 2312 of 2588 ends

Site Number: 3
Recorded By: Rosey Worden
Job Number: 2023-009
Date: 4/11/2023
Time: 11:16 a.m. – 11:31 a.m.

Location: On La Loma Drive behind the Project Site adjacent to the Meadows Apartments Source of Peak Noise: Vehicles on La Loma Drive and Folsom Boulevard Noise Data
Leq (dB) Lmin (dB) Lmax (dB) Peak (dB)

61.8 44.9 74.4 98.8
Equipment
Category Type Vendor Model Serial No. Cert. Date Note
Sound
Sound Level Meter Larson Davis LxT SE 0006133 02/24/2021 Microphone Larson Davis 377B02 315201 02/24/2021
Preamp Larson Davis PRMLxT1L 069947 02/24/2021
Calibrator Larson Davis CAL200 17325 02/25/2021
Weather Data
Est.

Page 2313 of 2588 ends

Measurement Report
Report Summary
Meter's File Name LxT_Data.058.s Computer's File Name LxT_0006133-20230411 111641-LxT_Data.058.ldbin Meter LxT1 0006133 Firmware 2.404
User Location
Job Description
Note
Start Time 2023-04-11 11:16:41 Duration 0:15:00.0
End Time 2023-04-11 11:31:41 Run Time 0:15:00.0 Pause Time 0:00:00.0 Pre-Calibration 2023-04-11 10:52:53 Post-Calibration None Calibration Deviation --- Results
Overall Metrics
LAeq

61.8 dB
LAE 91.3 dB SEA --- dB
EA 151.4 µPa²h
EA8 4.8 mPa²h
EA40 24.2 mPa²h
LZSpeak 98.8 dB 2023-04-11 11:30:36
LASmax 74.4 dB 2023-04-11 11:30:36
LASmin 44.9 dB 2023-04-11 11:24:24
LAeq 61.8 dB
LCeq 66.2 dB LCeq - LAeq 4.4 dB
LAIeq 65.5 dB LAIeq - LAeq 3.7 dB
Exceedances Count Duration
LAS > 85.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
LAS > 115.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
LZSpeak > 135.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
LZSpeak > 137.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
LZSpeak > 140.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
Community Noise LDN LDay LNight

61.8 dB 61.8 dB 0.0 dB
LDEN LDay LEve LNight

61.8 dB 61.8 dB --- dB --- dB
Any Data A C Z
Level Time Stamp Level Time Stamp Level Time Stamp
L
eq 61.8 dB --- dB --- dB
Ls(max) 74.4 dB 2023-04-11 11:30:36 --- dB None --- dB None LS(min) 44.9 dB 2023-04-11 11:24:24 --- dB None --- dB None LPeak(max) --- dB None --- dB None 98.8 dB 2023-04-11 11:30:36 Overloads Count Duration
0 0:00:00.0
Statistics
LAS 5.0 68.3 dB
LAS 10.0 66.1 dB
LAS 33.3 60.1 dB
LAS 50.0 57.5 dB
LAS 66.6 54.0 dB
LAS 90.0 48.8 dB
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

Page 2314 of 2588 ends

Time History
V)
Q.I
::::,
"iii
>
140
120
100
80 60
40 20
0 11 :18 11 :20 11 :22 11 :24 11 :26 11 :28 11 :30
I - LZpeak
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

Page 2315 of 2588 ends

Site Number: 24 hours
Recorded By: Rosey Worden
Job Number: 2023-009
Date: 4/11/2023
Time: 12:28 p.m. – 12:28 p.m.

Location: North end of Project Site
Source of Peak Noise: Vehicles on Folsom Boulevard
Noise Data
Leq (dB) Lmin (dB) Lmax (dB) Ldn (dB)

57.1 38.3 83.2 60.9
Equipment
Category Type Vendor Model Serial No. Cert. Date Note
Sound
Sound Level Meter Larson Davis LxT SE 0006133 02/24/2021 Microphone Larson Davis 377B02 315201 02/24/2021
Preamp Larson Davis PRMLxT1L 069947 02/24/2021
Calibrator Larson Davis CAL200 17325 02/25/2021
Weather Data
Est.

Duration: 24 hours Sky: Clear
Note: dBA Offset = 0.04 Sensor Height (ft): 4.5
Wind Ave Speed (mph) Temperature (degrees Fahrenheit) Barometer Pressure (hPa) 6 62 30.08
Photo of Measurement Location
I
I
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

Page 2316 of 2588 ends

Measurement Report
Report Summary
Meter's File Name LxT_Data.060.s Computer's File Name LxT_0006133-20230411 122828-LxT_Data.060.ldbin Meter LxT1 0006133 Firmware 2.404
User Location
Job Description
Note
Start Time 2023-04-11 12:28:28 Duration 24:00:00.0
End Time 2023-04-12 12:28:28 Run Time 24:00:00.0 Pause Time 0:00:00.0 Pre-Calibration 2023-04-11 12:20:34 Post-Calibration None Calibration Deviation --- Results
Overall Metrics
LAeq

57.1 dB
LAE 106.5 dB SEA --- dB
EA 4.9 mPa²h
EA8 1.6 mPa²h
EA40 8.2 mPa²h
LZSpeak 101.3 dB 2023-04-12 12:15:25
LASmax 83.2 dB 2023-04-12 04:42:24
LASmin 38.3 dB 2023-04-12 02:04:42
LAeq 57.1 dB
LCeq 62.8 dB LCeq - LAeq 5.7 dB
LAIeq 58.7 dB LAIeq - LAeq 1.6 dB
Exceedances Count Duration
LAS > 85.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
LAS > 115.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
LZSpeak > 135.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
LZSpeak > 137.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
LZSpeak > 140.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
Community Noise LDN LDay LNight

60.9 dB 58.5 dB 0.0 dB
LDEN LDay LEve LNight

61.2 dB 59.1 dB 54.7 dB 53.2 dB
Any Data A C Z
Level Time Stamp Level Time Stamp Level Time Stamp
L
eq 57.1 dB --- dB --- dB
Ls(max) 83.2 dB 2023-04-12 04:42:24 --- dB None --- dB None LS(min) 38.3 dB 2023-04-12 02:04:42 --- dB None --- dB None LPeak(max) --- dB None --- dB None 101.3 dB 2023-04-12 12:15:25 Overloads Count Duration
0 0:00:00.0
Statistics
LAS 5.0 61.2 dB
LAS 10.0 58.9 dB
LAS 33.3 54.5 dB
LAS 50.0 52.2 dB
LAS 66.6 50.2 dB
LAS 90.0 45.9 dB
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

Page 2317 of 2588 ends

ATTACHMENT B
Federal Highway Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108) Outputs – Project Traffic Noise ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

Page 2318 of 2588 ends

TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS
Project Number: 2023-009
Project Name: Mills Crossing
Background InformationModel Description: FHWA Highway Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108) with California Vehicle Noise (CALVENO) Emission Levels.Analysis Scenario(s): Existing Source of Traffic Volumes: DKS Associates 2023 Community Noise Descriptor: Ldn: x CNEL: Assumed 24-Hour Traffic Distribution: Day Evening NightTotal ADT Volumes 77.70% 12.70% 9.60%Medium-Duty Trucks 87.43% 5.05% 7.52%Heavy-Duty Trucks 89.10% 2.84% 8.06%Traffic Noise Levels Peak Design Dist. from Barrier Vehicle Mix Peak Hour 24-Hour Analysis Condition Median Hour ADT Speed Center to Alpha Attn. Medium Heavy dB(A) dB(A) Roadway Segment Land Use Lanes Width Volume Volume (mph) Receptor1 Factor dB(A) Trucks Trucks Leq Ldn Folsom Boulevard
West of Mather Field Road Commercial 2 0 19,136 40 100 0.5 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 64.1East of Mather Field Road Commercial 2 0 28,052 40 100 0.5 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 65.7Between La Loma Drive and Pasero Drive Commercial 2 0 19,136 40 100 0.5 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 64.1 Routier Road
South of Folsom Boulevard Residential and Commercial 2 0 6,152 40 100 0.5 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 59.1 La Loma Drive
North of Folsom Boulevard Residential and Commercial 2 0 3,192 25 100 0.5 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 51.9 Paseo Drive
North of Folsom Boulevard Residential and Commercial 2 0 2,432 25 100 0.5 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 50.7 Mather Field Road
South of Folsom Boulevard Residential and Commercial 2 0 19,962 45 100 0.5 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 65.5 Mills Crossing - Existing ECORP Consulting 6/27/2023
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT
3

Page 2319 of 2588 ends

TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS
Project Number: 2023-009
Project Name: Mills Crossing
Background InformationModel Description: FHWA Highway Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108) with California Vehicle Noise (CALVENO) Emission Levels.Analysis Scenario(s): Existing + ProjectSource of Traffic Volumes: DKS Associates 2023 Community Noise Descriptor: Ldn: x CNEL: Assumed 24-Hour Traffic Distribution: Day Evening NightTotal ADT Volumes 77.70% 12.70% 9.60%Medium-Duty Trucks 87.43% 5.05% 7.52%Heavy-Duty Trucks 89.10% 2.84% 8.06%Traffic Noise Levels Peak Design Dist. from Barrier Vehicle Mix Peak Hour 24-Hour Analysis Condition Median Hour ADT Speed Center to Alpha Attn. Medium Heavy dB(A) dB(A) Roadway Segment Land Use Lanes Width Volume Volume (mph) Receptor1 Factor dB(A) Trucks Trucks Leq Ldn Folsom Boulevard
West of Mather Field Road Commercial 2 0 20,956 40 100 0.5 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 64.5East of Mather Field Road Commercial 2 0 29,379 40 100 0.5 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 65.9Between La Loma Drive and Paseo Drive Commercial 2 0 21,366 40 100 0.5 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 64.5 Routier Road
South of Folsom Boulevard Residential and Commercial 2 0 6,552 40 100 0.5 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 59.4 La Loma Drive
North of Folsom Boulevard Residential and Commercial 2 0 6,118 25 100 0.5 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 54.7 Paseo Drive
North of Folsom Boulevard Residential and Commercial 2 0 3,738 25 100 0.5 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 52.6 Mather Field Road
South of Folsom Boulevard Residential and Commercial 2 0 21,047 45 100 0.5 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 65.8 Mills Crossing - Existing+Project ECORP Consulting 6/27/2023 ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT
3

Page 2320 of 2588 ends

ATTACHMENT C
Federal Highway Administration Roadway Construction Noise Model Outputs – Project Construction ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

Page 2321 of 2588 ends

Report date: 6/23/2023
Case Description: Pavement Excavation (Demolition)
Description Land Use
Residential
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet)
Dozer No 40 81.7 341
Dozer No 40 81.7 341
Excavator No 40 80.7 341
Excavator No 40 80.7 341
Excavator No 40 80.7 341
Concrete Saw No 20 89.6 341
Calculated (dBA)
Equipment *Lmax Leq
Dozer 65 61
Dozer 65 61
Excavator 64 60.1
Excavator 64 60.1
Excavator 64 60.1
Concrete Saw 72.9 65.9
Total 72.9 69.8
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.

Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
Pavement Excavation
(Demolition)
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

Page 2322 of 2588 ends

Report date: 6/23/2023
Case Description: Site Preparation
Description Land Use
Site Preparation Residential
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet)
Dozer No 40 81.7 341
Dozer No 40 81.7 341
Dozer No 40 81.7 341
Tractor No 40 84 341
Tractor No 40 84 341
Tractor No 40 84 341
Tractor No 40 84 341
Calculated (dBA)
Equipment *Lmax Leq
Dozer 65 61
Dozer 65 61
Dozer 65 61
Tractor 67.3 63.3
Tractor 67.3 63.3
Tractor 67.3 63.3
Tractor 67.3 63.3
Total 67.3 70.9
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.

Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

Page 2323 of 2588 ends

Report date: 6/23/2023
Case Description: Grading
Description Land Use
Grading Residential
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet)
Grader No 40 85 341
Excavator No 40 80.7 341
Tractor No 40 84 341
Tractor No 40 84 341
Tractor No 40 84 341
Calculated (dBA)
Equipment *Lmax Leq
Grader 68.3 64.3
Excavator 64 60.1
Tractor 67.3 63.3
Tractor 67.3 63.3
Tractor 67.3 63.3
Total 68.3 70.1
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.

Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

Page 2324 of 2588 ends

Report date: 6/23/2023
Case Description: Building construction, paving, and painting Description Land Use
Residential
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet)
Gradall No 40 83.4 341
Gradall No 40 83.4 341
Gradall No 40 83.4 341
Generator No 50 80.6 341
Crane No 16 80.6 341
Welder / Torch No 40 74 341
Tractor No 40 84 341
Tractor No 40 84 341
Tractor No 40 84 341
Paver No 50 77.2 341
Paver No 50 77.2 341
Pavement Scarafier No 20 89.5 341
Pavement Scarafier No 20 89.5 341
Roller No 20 80 341
Roller No 20 80 341
Compressor (air) No 40 77.7 341
Calculated (dBA)
Equipment *Lmax Leq
Gradall 66.7 62.7
Gradall 66.7 62.7
Gradall 66.7 62.7
Generator 64 60.9
Crane 63.9 55.9
Welder / Torch 57.3 53.3
Tractor 67.3 63.3
Tractor 67.3 63.3
Tractor 67.3 63.3
Paver 60.5 57.5
Paver 60.5 57.5
Pavement Scarafier 72.8 65.8
Pavement Scarafier 72.8 65.8
Roller 63.3 56.3
Roller 63.3 56.3
Compressor (air) 61 57
Total 72.8 73.8 *Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.

Building construction,
paving, and painting
Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

Page 2325 of 2588 ends

ATTACHMENT D
SoundPLAN 3-D Noise Model Outputs – Project Onsite Noise Propagation ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

Page 2326 of 2588 ends

SoundPLAN
Output Source Information
Number Reciever Name Floor Level at Receiver
1 Apartments on Bettencourt Lane Ground Floor 40.4 dBA
2 Apartments on La Loma Drive Ground Floor 39.6 dBA3 Apartments on La Loma Drive Ground Floor 36.0 dBA4 Auto Repair Shop on La Loma Drive Ground Floor 47.3 dBA5 Folsom Lake College Ground Floor 39.4 dBA6 Medical Clinic Ground Floor 47.5 dBA7 Residence on El Caprice Drive Ground Floor 44.1 dBA8 Residence on El Caprice Drive Ground Floor 32.6 dBA9 Residence on El Caprice Drive Ground Floor 33.9 dBA Number Noise Source Information Citation Level at Source 1 City Playground/Park ECORP Noise Measurements 59.0 dBA 2 Single‐Family Housing ECORP Noise Measurements 52.9 dBA 3 Downtown Parking Garage ECORP Noise Measurements 62.6 dBA 4 Multi‐Family Townhouse ECORP Noise Measurements 59.0 dBA ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT
3

Page 2327 of 2588 ends

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT EIR

CITY OF R ANCHO CORDOVA
Appendices
PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 3

Page 2328 of 2588 ends

March 2025 | Final Environmental Impact Report
State Clearinghouse No. 2023010102

MILLS CROSSING PROJECT
for the City of Rancho Cordova
Prepared for:

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

PlaceWorks
Contact: Mark Teague, Managing Principal
101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 200
Folsom, California 95630
858.776.5574
[email protected]
www.placeworks.com
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2329 of 2588 ends

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

C I T Y O F R A N C H O C O R D O V A
Table of Contents
March 2025 Page i
Section Page

1. INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................................. 1

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

1.2 FORMAT OF THE FEIR.................................................................................................................................1

1.3 CEQA REQUIREMENTS REGARDING COMMENTS ........................................................................2

2. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS......................................................................................................... 5

3. CORRECTIONS, CLARIFICATIONS, AND ADDITIONS TO THE DEIR...................................... 35

3.1 INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................................35

3.2 REVISIONS TO THE DEIR IN RESPONSE TO COMMENTS.........................................................36

3.3 REVISIONS TO THE PROJECT DESCRIPTION..................................................................................39

3.4 PROPOSED PROJECT VS. REVISED SITE PLAN................................................................................53

3.5 RECIRCULATION CRITERIA....................................................................................................................55

3.5.1 New Significant Environmental Impact or New Mitigation Measure .......................................55

3.5.2 Substantial Increase in the Severity of an Environmental Impact .............................................57

3.5.3 A Feasible Alternative or Mitigation Measure Not Adopted.......................................................58

3.5.4 Inadequacy of the Draft EIR ..........................................................................................................58

3.6 AESTHETIC/LIGHT ANALYSIS...............................................................................................................58

3.7 NOISE ANALYSIS..........................................................................................................................................59

3.8 AIR QUALITY/GREENHOUSE GAS/ENERGY ANALYSIS ............................................................60

APPENDICES
APPENDIX A, MILLS CROSSING PARKING UPDATE: NOISE, OF THIS FEIR APPENDIX B, MILLS CROSSING PARKING UPDATE: IMPACT ON EMISSIONS ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2330 of 2588 ends

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

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

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3-2 Aerial Photograph ..............................................................................................................................41 Figure 3-3 Proposed Parcel Plan ........................................................................................................................47 Figure 3-4 Conceptual Site Plan ..........................................................................................................................49 Figure 3-5 Zoning Option 1.................................................................................................................................50

LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
Table 3-1 Differences between the Proposed Project vs. Revised Site Plan...............................................54 ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2331 of 2588 ends

March 2025 Page 1

1. Introduction

1.1 INTRODUCTION
This Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as amended (Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.), and CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Sections 15000 et seq.).

According to the CEQA Guidelines, Section 15132, the FEIR shall consist of:
(a) The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) or a revision of the DEIR; (b) Comments and recommendations received on the DEIR either verbatim or in summary; (c) A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the DEIR; (d) The responses of the lead agency to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process; and
(e) Any other information added by the lead agency.

This document contains responses to comments received on the DEIR for the Mills Crossing Project during the 45-day public review period, which began June 7, 2024, and closed July 22, 2024. This document has been prepared in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, and represents the independent judgment of the lead agency. This document and the circulated DEIR comprise the FEIR, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15132.

1.2 FORMAT OF THE FEIR
Section 1, Introduction. This section describes the CEQA requirements and contents of this FEIR.

Section 2, Response to Comments. This section provides a list of agencies and interested persons that commented on the DEIR; copies of comment letters received during the public review period, and the lead agency’s responses to written comments. To facilitate review of the responses, each comment letter has been reproduced and assigned an alphanumeric designator (A through E for letters received from agencies and organizations, and 1 and 2 for letters received from residents). Individual comments have been numbered for each letter, and the letter is followed by responses with references to the corresponding comment number.

In accordance with CEQA, Public Resources Code Section 21092.5, copies of the lead agency’s written responses to public agencies will be forwarded to those agencies at least 10 days prior to certifying the EIR.

The responses will be forwarded with copies of this FEIR, as permitted by CEQA, and will conform to the legal standards established for response to comments on DEIRs.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2332 of 2588 ends

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

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

1. Introduction

Page 2 ends

Section 3, Corrections, Clarifications, and Additions to the DEIR Section 3.1, Introduction
This section provides an introduction to the suggested DEIR revisions that follow.

Section 3.2, Revision to the DEIR in Response to Comments This section consolidates revisions to the DEIR and outlines differences between the proposed project and the revised site plan, along with other items requiring updating, clarification, and/or correction, based on comments received by agencies and interested persons, as described in Section 2.

Section 3.3, Revisions to the Project Description
The project description in Chapter 3 of the DEIR has been updated to incorporate changes from the revised entitlement package received on September 13, 2024. Changes made to the DEIR are identified in strikeout text (e.g., strikeout) to indicate deletions and in underlined text (e.g., underline) to signify additions.

Section 3.4, Differences in the Proposed Project vs. Revised Site Plan Since the issuance of the DEIR, modifications have been made to the proposed project’s planning and design.

These modifications have been evaluated to assess whether additional analysis is necessary for the FEIR. The DEIR remains sufficient for evaluating the new revised site plan (see Figure 3-4, Conceptual Site Plan (NEW)), as it reflects a more conservative development. The DEIR analysis accounts for a larger and more intensive development than the revised project, meaning the new modifications fall within the scope of the original environmental analysis.

As discussed in greater detail in Section 3.4, Differences in the Proposed Project vs. Revised Site Plan, the City of Rancho Cordova staff has reviewed these changes and determined that none of the changes constitute significant new information requiring recirculation of the DEIR for further public comment under CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. None of the new material indicates that the project will cause a significant new environmental impact not previously disclosed in the DEIR, or that there will be a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified impact that cannot be mitigated. Additionally, none of the material suggests any other circumstances that would necessitate recirculation, as outlined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5.

1.3 CEQA REQUIREMENTS REGARDING COMMENTS
CEQA Guidelines Section 15204 outlines parameters for persons and public agencies reviewing and commenting on the sufficiency of DEIRs.

Section 15204 of the State CEQA Guidelines states, in pertinent part:
(a) In reviewing draft EIRs, persons and public agencies should focus on the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing the possible impacts on the environment and ways in which the significant effects of the project might be avoided or mitigated. Comments are most helpful when they suggest additional specific alternatives or mitigation measures that would provide better ways to avoid or mitigate the significant environmental effects. At the same time, reviewers should be aware that the ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2333 of 2588 ends

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

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

1. Introduction
March 2025 Page 3
adequacy of an EIR is determined in terms of what is reasonably feasible, in light of factors such as the magnitude of the project at issue, the severity of its likely environmental impacts, and the geographic scope of the project. CEQA does not require a lead agency to conduct every test or perform all research, study, and experimentation recommended or demanded by commentors. When responding to comments, lead agencies need only respond to significant environmental issues and do not need to provide all information requested by reviewers, as long as a good faith effort at full disclosure is made in the EIR.
…
(c) Reviewers should explain the basis for their comments, and should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence.
(d) Reviewing agencies or organizations should include with their comments the name of a contact person who would be available for later consultation if necessary. Each responsible agency and trustee agency shall focus its comments on environmental information germane to that agency's statutory responsibility.
(e) This section shall not be used to restrict the ability of reviewers to comment on the general adequacy of a document or of the lead agency to reject comments not focused as recommended by this section. (f) Prior to the close of the public review period for an EIR or mitigated negative declaration, a responsible or trustee agency which has identified significant effects on the environment may submit to the lead agency proposed mitigation measures which would address those significant effects. Any such measures shall be limited to impacts affecting those resources which are subject to the statutory authority of that agency. If mitigation measures are submitted, the responsible or trustee agency shall either submit to the lead agency complete and detailed performance objectives for the mitigation measures, or shall refer the lead agency to appropriate, readily available guidelines or reference documents which meet the same purpose.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2334 of 2588 ends

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

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

1. Introduction

Page 4 ends

This page intentionally left blank.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2335 of 2588 ends

March 2025 Page 5

2. Response to Comments
Section 15088 of the CEQA Guidelines requires the lead agency (City of Rancho Cordova) to evaluate comments on environmental issues received from public agencies and interested parties who reviewed the DEIR and prepare written responses.

Regarding evaluation and responses to public comments, Section 15088 of the State CEQA Guidelines states:
(a) The lead agency shall evaluate comments on environmental issues received from persons who reviewed the draft EIR and shall prepare a written response. The lead agency shall respond to comments raising significant environmental issues received during the noticed comment period and any extensions and may respond to late comments.
(b) The lead agency shall provide a written proposed response, either in a printed copy or in an electronic format, to a public agency on comments made by that public agency at least 10 days prior to certifying an environmental impact report.
(c) The written response shall describe the disposition of significant environmental issues raised (e.g., revisions to the proposed project to mitigate anticipated impacts or objections). In particular, the major environmental issues raised when the lead agency’s position is at variance with recommendations and objections raised in the comments must be addressed in detail giving reasons why specific comments and suggestions were not accepted. There must be good faith, reasoned analysis in response. Conclusory statements unsupported by factual information will not suffice. The level of detail contained in the response, however, may correspond to the level of detail provided in the comment (i.e., responses to general comments may be general). A general response may be appropriate when a comment does not contain or specifically refer to readily available information, or does not explain the relevance of evidence submitted with the comment.
(d) The response to comments may take the form of a revision to the draft EIR or may be a separate section in the final EIR. Where the response to comments makes important changes in the information contained in the text of the draft EIR, the lead agency should either:
(1) Revise the text in the body of the EIR, or
(2) Include marginal notes showing that the information is revised in the response to comments.

This section includes all written comments received on the DEIR during the 45-day public review period, discussed in Section 1, and the City of Rancho Cordova’s responses to each comment. Brackets delineating the individual comments and an alphanumeric identifier have been added to the right margin of the letter.

Responses to each comment identified are on the page(s) following each comment letter. Where sections of the DEIR are excerpted in this document, changes to the DEIR text are shown in underlined text for additions and strikeouts for deletions.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2336 of 2588 ends

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

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

2. Response to Comments

Page 6 ends

The following is a list of agencies, organizations, and individuals that submitted comments on the DEIR during the public review period.

Letter
Reference Commenting Person/Agency Date of Letter
Agencies and Organizations
A Department of Toxic Substances Control July 10, 2024
B Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians July 15, 2024
C Cordova Recreation and Park District July 18, 2024
D Sacramento Area Sewer District July 19, 2024
E Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District July 19, 2024 Individuals
1 Karl Haas June 7, 2024
2 Larry (no last name provided) June 7, 2024
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2337 of 2588 ends

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

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

2. Response to Comments
March 2025 Page 7
LETTER A – Department of Toxic Substances Control (3 pages) ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2338 of 2588 ends

SENT VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
July 10, 2024
Stefan Heisler
Housing Manager
City of Rancho Cordova
2729 Prospect Park Drive
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
[email protected]
RE: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE MILLS CROSSING PROJECT, DATED JUNE 7, 2024, STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER 2023010102 Dear Stefan Heisler,
The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) received a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Mills Crossing Project (Project). The City of Rancho Cordova is proposing a 9.85-acre mixed use Project located at the corner of Folsom Boulevard and La Loma Drive in Rancho Cordova. The Project will include approximately 140,000 square feet of community-commercial space, up to 120 housing units including multi-family affordable 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. Adoption of the Project contemplates approval of the following city entitlements: certification of the EIR; amendment of the City of Rancho Cordova General Plan and Specific Plan; a zoning amendment; a tentative subdivision map; and a Major Design Review approval. DTSC recommends and requests consideration of the following comments:

A-1
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2339 of 2588 ends

1. DTSC recommends that all imported soil and fill material should be tested to ensure any contaminants of concern are within DTSC’s and U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency Regional Screen Levels for the intended land use. To minimize the possibility of introducing contaminated soil and fill material there should be documentation of the origins of the soil or fill material and, if applicable, sampling be conducted to ensure that the imported soil and fill material meets screening levels outlined in the Preliminary Endangerment Assessment Guidance Manual for the intended land use. The soil sampling should include analysis based on the source of the fill and knowledge of the prior land use. Additional information can be found by visiting DTSC’s Human and Ecological Risk Office (HERO) webpage.

2. The City of Rancho Cordova coordinate with the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) as the Veterans Martinizing Cleaners once occupied a portion of the proposed Project area. The RWQCB will oversee the cleanup if it is necessary as they manage the Lily Company site.

DTSC appreciates the opportunity to comment on the DEIR for the Mills Crossing Project. Thank you for your assistance in protecting California’s people and environment from the harmful effects of toxic substances. If you have any questions or would like any clarification on DTSC’s comments, please respond to this letter or via email for additional guidance.

Sincerely,
Dave Kereazis
Associate Environmental Planner
HWMP-Permitting Division – CEQA Unit
Department of Toxic Substances Control
[email protected]
A-2
A-3
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2340 of 2588 ends

cc: (via email)
Governor’s Office of Planning and
Research State Clearinghouse
[email protected]
Isabella Hagopian
Engineering Geologist, Private Sites Cleanup Unit
Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board
11020 Sun Center Drive, Suite 200
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670-6114
[email protected]
Tamara Purvis
Associate Environmental Planner
HWMP - Permitting Division – CEQA Unit
Department of Toxic Substances Control
[email protected]
Scott Wiley
Associate Governmental Program Analyst
HWMP - Permitting Division – CEQA Unit
Department of Toxic Substances Control
[email protected]
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2341 of 2588 ends

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

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

2. Response to Comments
March 2025 Page 11
A. Response to Comments from Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), dated July 10, 2024.

A-1 The comment confirms that DTSC received the DEIR, summarizes the proposed project, including a General Plan and Specific Plan amendment, and provides a list of recommendations for the City to consider.

The City of Rancho Cordova thanks DTSC for their comments on the DEIR. The proposed project does not require an amendment to the General Plan. As outlined in Section 3.4, Intended Uses of the DEIR, the necessary approvals for the project include a zoning and Specific Plan amendment, not a General Plan amendment. The project’s proposed zoning aligns with the Folsom Boulevard Specific Plan’s FB-RMU designation, as discussed in Section 5.7, Land Use and Planning. Therefore, only a zoning and Specific Plan amendment is needed, which is detailed in the DEIR in Chapter 3, Project Description, and in Section 5.7. Revisions to the DEIR based on this clarification are provided in FEIR Section 3.2, Revisions to the DEIR in Response to Comments. These revisions, which clarify that the proposed project would not require a General Plan amendment, constitute minor clarifications to the DEIR and do not alter the findings or result in material changes to the project’s environmental analysis.

A-2 DTSC recommends testing imported soil and fill material to ensure contaminants of concern are within DTSC and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Regional Screening Levels for the intended land use.

The DTSC suggests that to prevent soil and fill materials contamination, documentation of the soil or fill material’s origins and, if applicable, sampling should be conducted to ensure imported soil and fill material meet the screening levels in the Preliminary Endangerment Assessment Guidance Manual for the intended land use. DTSC suggests basing soil sampling analysis on the source of the fill and prior land use.

DTSC’s comment recommends testing all imported soil and fill material to ensure contaminants of concern are within established environmental safety levels. Based on the information in Appendix 5.6-1, Site Cleanup Plan, through Appendix 5.6-3, Site Remediation Notice of Exemption. of the DEIR, the site cleanup processes outlined focus on the treatment and management of soil that has been excavated or stockpiled from the project site. The site cleanup plan does not involve the import of additional soil from external sources. DTSC advises that soil samples be analyzed according to screening levels outlined in the Preliminary Endangerment Assessment Guidance Manual written by the Environmental Protection Agency and DTSC. The Preliminary Endangerment Assessment Guidance Manual permits the use of certain human-health-risk-based environmental screening levels (ESL) developed by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) as acceptable screening thresholds. These ESLs are used in the site cleanup plan and will continue to be used for evaluating soil at the project site (e.g., Appendix 5.6-1, pp. 6, 16–17; Appendix 5.6-1, Appendix A, Health and Safety Plan, pp. 9–10, of the DEIR). Specifically, pages 1 and 2 of Appendix 5.6-2 of the DEIR ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2342 of 2588 ends

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

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

2. Response to Comments

Page 12 ends

outline the City’s methodology for sampling and treating soil fill to ensure contaminantof-concern levels remain below the San Francisco Bay RWQCB ESLs.

As discussed on pages 5.6-8 to 5.6-16 of Section 5.6, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the DEIR, Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 incorporates DTSC’s comprehensive testing and documentation requirements for ensuring imported soil and fill material comply with ESLs. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 addresses DTSC’s recommendation by mandating that, before issuing construction permits, the project applicant implement all recommendations from the site cleanup plan and its addendum prepared by Tetra Tech (see, e.g., Appendix 5.6-1 and Appendix 5.6-2 of the DEIR). The site cleanup plan bases sampling frequency for import fill on DTSC sampling guidance (see Appendix 5.6-1, pp. 14-15, of the DEIR). Post-cleanup effectiveness sampling will be conducted to ensure contaminantof-concern levels do not exceed screening levels for the intended use (see, e.g., DEIR Appendix 5.6-1, pp. 16–17; and DEIR Appendix 5.6-1, Appendix A, Health and Safety Plan, pp. 11–12, of the DEIR). As discussed on page 17 of Appendix 5.6-1, a summary report will detail field activities and sampling results and include laboratory data sheets and chain of custody forms.

For these reasons, Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 in the DEIR would adequately address impacts to hazardous materials in the project; therefore, no changes are required.

A-3 DTSC requests that the City coordinate with the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regarding the proposed project, a portion of which was previously occupied by Veterans Martinizing Cleaners. DTSC states that the RWQCB will oversee any required cleanup activities because they currently manage the Lily Company site. The DTSC appreciates the opportunity to comment on the DEIR for the Mills Crossing Project.

The City’s coordination with the Central Valley RWQCB is detailed in the site cleanup plan and its addendum prepared by Tetra Tech (see Appendix 5.6-1 and Appendix 5.6-2 of the DEIR). The Central Valley RWQCB has been the agency overseeing site characterization and remediation, which dates back to 2008 (see, e.g., Appendix 5.6-1, Appendix A, Health and Safety Plan, p. 8, of the DEIR). The project site has been owned by the City of Rancho Cordova since 2018, and the Central Valley RWQCB is a responsible agency for the project (DEIR, pp. 3-1, 3-12.) As required by Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, the City will implement the site cleanup plan, which the Central Valley RWQCB approved in a letter dated March 30, 2022 (DEIR, pp.

5.6-14–5.6-16; Appendix 5.6-2, pp. 1–2). Implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 and the site cleanup plan necessarily involve coordination with the Central Valley RWQCB. For example, the City Engineer will transmit testing results from the project site to the RWQCB for review and concurrence before issuing construction permits (DEIR, pp. 5-16–5-17). Additionally, the air and dust monitoring plan requires notifying the Central Valley RWQCB when compounds exceed screening levels (see Appendix 5.6-1, ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2343 of 2588 ends

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

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

2. Response to Comments
March 2025 Page 13
Appendix B, Perimeter Air and Dust Monitoring Plan, p. 10, of the DEIR). This coordination is further discussed in a letter from the City to the Central Valley RWQCB on pages 1 and 2 of Appendix 5.6-2 of the DEIR.

For these reasons, Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 in the DEIR would adequately address impacts to hazardous materials in the project; therefore, no changes are required.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2344 of 2588 ends

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

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

2. Response to Comments

Page 14 ends

This page intentionally left blank.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2345 of 2588 ends

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

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

2. Response to Comments
March 2025 Page 15
LETTER B – Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians (1 page) ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2346 of 2588 ends

B-1
B-2
B-3
B-2
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2347 of 2588 ends

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

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

2. Response to Comments
March 2025 Page 17
B. Response to Comments from Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians, dated July 15, 2024.

B-1 The Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians confirms receipt of the City’s letter inviting Tribal consultation, expresses that the Tribe is unaware of known cultural resources on the Project site, and requests consultation in the form of continued updates and communication with the Tribe as the project progresses.

The City of Rancho Cordova appreciates the Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians’ response and will ensure that the Shingle Springs Rancheria is kept informed as the project advances. The tribal consultation process with the Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians is described in Section 5.13.4.1 in Chapter 5.13 of the DEIR. Tribal consultation is ongoing, but no additional communications have been sent or received since the DEIR comment letter was submitted. This response will be sent to the Shingle Springs Tribe once the FEIR is finalized.

B-2 The Tribe requests any and all completed record searches and surveys that were done in or around the project site such as environmental, archaeological, and cultural reports.

The DEIR includes Appendix 5.3-1, Archaeological Resources Inventory, of the DEIR, which provides information on cultural and archaeological resources. On December 9, 2024, the City sent the completed Appendix 5.3-1, Archaeological Resource Inventory Report, to the Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians and Wilton Rancheria for their review. On December 10, 2024, the Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians confirmed receipt of the report. On December 10, 2024, the Wilton Rancheria responded, stating that they would review the report and contact the City if they had any questions.

B-3 The Tribe requests that the City contact the Tribe if new information or human remains are found during project development, particularly near rivers and streams, to give the Tribe an opportunity to review its sacred artifact protection processes with the City.

The City will notify the Tribe if significant new information or human remains are found during project development. The City welcomes comments on the Tribe’s sacred artifact protection processes. The mitigation measures related to tribal cultural resource protection as part of this project are detailed in Section 5.13, Tribal Cultural Resources, of the DEIR. Relevant mitigation measures can also be found in Section 5.3, Cultural Resources. If human remains are discovered, work shall halt in that area and the procedures required by Mitigation Measures CUL-2 and TCR-2, described below, shall be followed, pursuant to requirements of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98.

Pursuant to Mitigation Measure CUL-2 in Section 5.3, Cultural Resources, of the DEIR, if Native American human remains are found, then the Sacramento County Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission, which will designate a Native American Most Likely Descendant for the project. In addition, Mitigation Measure TCR-2, in ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2348 of 2588 ends

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

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

2. Response to Comments

Page 18 ends

Section 5.13, Tribal Cultural Resources, of the DEIR states that if any tribal cultural resources are discovered during excavation or construction, work must stop within 100 feet of the find, and a qualified tribal monitor or consultant will be consulted to assess whether the resource requires further study and to recommend measures to protect it.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2349 of 2588 ends

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

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

2. Response to Comments
March 2025 Page 19
LETTER C– Cordova Recreation and Park District (3 pages) ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2350 of 2588 ends

C-1
July 18, 2024
Stefan Heisler
or
Recreation & Park District
11070 White Rock Road, Suite 130
Rancho Cordova, California, 95670
(916) 842-3300
City of Rancho Cordova Housing Division
2729 Prospect Park Dr.

Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
(916) 851-8757
Regarding:

Review
Documents:

Public Comment
Opportunity:

Mills Crossing Civic Center
Draft Environmental Impact Report {DSEIR}
Mills Crossing Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 7 - July 22, 2024
Reviewed by: Cordova Recreation and Park District
Laura Taylor, CRPD Park Planning and Development Manager Cordova Recreation and Park District (CRPD) is responding to the City of Rancho Cordova's public notice of the availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Mills Crossing Civic Center project.

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 units.

The final number of residential units within Mills Crossing is not yet known.

The proposed project falls under Quimby parkland requirements for projects with 50 or more lots.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2351 of 2588 ends

C-1
C-2
C-3
C-4
In several sections the DEIR discusses this project's impact to local park and recreation facilities under the jurisdiction of Cordova Recreation and Park District. This letter provides a review of mentions in the report related to CRPD parkland.

REVIEW OF EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
It lists 13 "Areas of Controversy" on Page 1-6, section 1.8 "Areas of Controversy". Bullet 11 lists "Project's contribution of parkland" as one point of controversy that was raised by public comment in the responses to the Notice of Preparation.

On page 1-16, Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation, section 5.12 Recreation:
• Impact 5.12-1: has determined that while the proposed project would increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks and other facilities, such that substantial physical deterioration of the facilities would occur or be accelerated, the impact is "less than significant" and "no mitigation measures are required." • Impact 5.12-2: has determined that while the project implementation would require the construction of expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical impact on the environment, the impact is "less than significant" and "no mitigation measures are required."

Page 2 ends

- provides a summary of CRPD's comments submitted February 2, 2023. The Table states that CRPD's comments are addressed in Section 5.12 Recreation starting on page 5.12-1.

REVIEW OF SECTION 5.12 RECREATION

5.12.1.2 Existing Conditions
This section provides a calculation for the amount of parkland acres per 1,000 residents in the City of Rancho Cordova. This calculation should not be considered the total amount of Quimby parkland available for City residents. It is more accurate to state in the fifth sentence of paragraph one, "CRPD's standard for dedication of Quimby parkland is 5 acres per 1,000 residents ..... " A Quimby parkland calculation for the City of Rancho Cordova should include the larger linear park corridors in the Villages of Zinfandel development (approximately 63 acres) and the existing CRPD Center property (73 acres) located at 11551 Douglas Road in Rancho Cordova. The Center property is in transition to park and recreation uses.

5.12.4.Environmental Impacts, 5.12-1 and 5.12-2. Impact Analysis: The analysis for both impacts is determined to be "less than significant". CRPD concurs with this analysis. The analysis for both mentions the requirement to comply with the City's General Plan and City Municipal Code Chapter 22.40. Compliance with the City's General Plan and City Municipal Code will result in adequate resources (land and/or fees) to offset the impact of this project on local park and recreation facilities.

Mills Crossing Civic Center DEIR
CRPD Comments, July 18, 2024

Page 2 ends

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2352 of 2588 ends

C-5

5.12.5 Cumulative Impacts states the review of all development proposals to ensure adherence to Chapter 22.40 would provide sufficient resources for design, construction and maintenance of new parks and associated facilities needed to accommodate future growth in the city. Proposed project's contribution to this impact would be less than cumulatively considerable.

CRPD concurs that no Mitigation Measures are required because City Municipal Code Chapter 22.40 ensures adequate resources for park resources to address the increased population.

CRPD will continue to follow the progress of Rancho Cordova's new Civic Center project with great interest.
y;:_51~
Laura L. Taylor, ASLA
Park Planning and Development Manager
Cordova Recreation and Park District
Copy: Patrick Larkin, CRPD General Manager
Terry Zeller, CRPD Principal Planner
Andrew Saltmarsh, CRPD Planning Technician
Mills Crossing Civic Center DEIR
CRPD Comments, July 18, 2024

Page 3 of 3 ends

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2353 of 2588 ends

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

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

2. Response to Comments
March 2025 Page 23
C. Response to Comments Cordova Recreation and Park District, dated July 18, 2024.

C-1 The Cordova Recreation and Park District (CRPD) summarizes the project description and states that the project falls under the Quimby parkland requirements for projects with 50 or more lots. The CRPD states the DEIR details how the project will impact local park and recreation facilities that fall under the CRPD’s jurisdiction.

The City of Rancho Cordova appreciates CRPD’s insights. Please review responses to specific comments in Responses C-2 through C-5.

C-2 CRPD notes that the project’s contribution to parkland was noted as an area of controversy in DEIR Section 1.8. CRPD notes that Impacts 5.12-1 and 5.12-2 were determined to be less than significant and would require no mitigation measures. CRPD notes that Table 1-1, Notice of Preparation of Comments, states that CRPD’s February 2, 2023, comments are addressed in Section 5.12, Recreation.

The comment incorrectly summarizes the impact thresholds. The first column of Table 1-1 provides the significance threshold for each environmental impact and does not represent the City’s conclusion.

Regarding Impact 5.12-1, the comment states that the City has determined the proposed project would increase use of existing recreational facilities, such that substantial physical deterioration of the facilities would occur or be accelerated. As discussed on page 5.12-8, the City determined that “[[i]mplementation of the General Plan policies and the City’s Municipal Code, discussed above, would ensure that the proposed project’s generation of new residents would not cause or accelerate substantial physical deterioration of any parkland facilities”
Regarding Impact 5.12-2, the comment states that the City has determined project implementation would require construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical impact on the environment. As discussed on page 5.12-8 of the DEIR, the City determined that “[a]lthough the proposed project would require the construction or expansion of recreation facilities, the proposed project would comply with the City’s Municipal Code and goals in the General Plan; therefore no adverse physical effect would occur.”
This comment does not raise significant environmental issues or describe any inadequacies of the DEIR, and no changes to the DEIR are necessary.

C-3 CRPD notes that, in Section 5.12.1.2, Existing Conditions, of the Recreation Chapter, the calculation for parkland used should not be considered the total amount of Quimby parkland available but rather state that CRPD’s standard for the dedication of Quimby parkland is 5 acres per 1,000 residents.

In response to this comment, the fifth sentence of paragraph one of Section 5.12.1.2 has been revised to make the suggested change to 5 acres per 1,000 residents. This revision reflects a minor update or clarification to the content of the DEIR and thus does not ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2354 of 2588 ends

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

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

2. Response to Comments

Page 24 ends

represent material changes or revisions that modify the findings. (See Section 3.2, DEIR Revisions in Response to Written Comments).

In addition, the CRPD explains that Quimby parkland calculation for the City should include the larger linear park corridors in the Villages of Zinfandel development (approximately 63 acres) and the existing CRPD Center property (73 acres). CRPD notes that the Center property is in transition to provide park and recreational uses.

See Section 3.2, DEIR Revisions in Response to Written Comments, which adds the linear park corridors in the Villages of Zinfandel development to the Quimby parkland calculations.

This revision reflects a minor update of the existing Quimby parkland numbers but does not modify the findings. The center properties noted by CRPD are park projects proposed or still underway. The calculations in the DEIR are conservative, meaning the project is designed to meet applicable standards without taking into consideration parkland that has not yet been finalized; therefore, no changes are required regarding this comment.

C-4 CRPD concurs with the analysis for Impacts 5.12-1 and 5.12-2 and the determination that both impacts are less than significant. CRPD agrees that the City’s General Plan policies and Municipal Code Chapter

22.40 will offset the project’s impact on local park and recreation facilities.

This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. As this comment does not raise significant environmental issues or describe any inadequacies of the DEIR, no changes to the DEIR are necessary.

C-5 The CRPD summarizes the DEIR’s analysis of Cumulative Impact 5.12.5, and agrees that no mitigation measure is needed because the City’s Municipal Code Chapter 22.40 ensures adequate resources for park and recreational infrastructure to offset project impacts. CRPD will continue to follow the progress of the project with great interest.

This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the project decision makers for review and consideration. As this comment does not raise significant environmental issues or describe any inadequacies of the DEIR, no changes to the DEIR are necessary.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2355 of 2588 ends

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

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

2. Response to Comments
March 2025 Page 25
LETTER D – Sacramento Area Sewer District (2 pages)
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2356 of 2588 ends

July 19, 2024
Stefan Heisler
City of Rancho Cordova
Planning Department
2729 Prospect Park Drive
Rancho Cordova, California 95670
Subject: NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY (NOA) FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL

IMPACT REPORT (EIR) FOR THE MILLS CROSSING PROJECT
APN: 076-0020-019, -020, -021, & -022
File No: SCH# 2023010102
Dear Mr. Heisler,
The Sacramento Area Sewer District (SacSewer) has reviewed the subject document and has the following comments.

The City of Rancho Cordova is proposing a 9.85-acre mixed-use project (the Mills Crossing Project) located at the corner of Folsom Boulevard and La Loma Drive in the City of Rancho Cordova. The property is zoned Residential Mixed Use (RMU) within the Folsom Blvd Specific Plan (FBSP) designation of the General Plan. The project will include approximately 140,000 square feet of community-commercial buildings, up to 120 housing units including multi-family affordable 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, and arts center with black box theater and flex studios, a community event hall, and retail. Adoption of the project contemplates approval of the following City entitlements: certification of the EIR; amendment of the City of Rancho Cordova General Plan and Specific Plan; zoning amendment; tentative subdivision map; and a Major Design Review approval. Future City entitlement approvals may include, but are not limited to, the following: a Development Agreement Note: Effective January 1, 2024, the Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District and the Sacramento Area Sewer District merged into one district called the Sacramento Area Sewer District, or SacSewer for short.

SacSewer provides local sewer service to the proposed project site via its collection system and conveys sewage from the collection system to the EchoWater Resource Recovery Facility for treatment, resource recovery, and disposal.

D-1
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2357 of 2588 ends

SacSewer is not a land-use authority and plans and designs its sewer systems using information from land-use authorities. SacSewer bases the projects identified within its planning documents on growth projections provided by these land-use authorities.

To receive sewer service, the project proponent must complete Sewer Master Plans that include connection points and phasing information to assess the existing capacity of the collection systems to determine if the current facilities can convey the additional flows generated by the Project.

For SacSewer to more fully evaluate the subject project’s impact on the system, a sewer study will be needed. This study shall demonstrate the permanent connection(s) to SacSewer system. The sewer study shall demonstrate the quantity of discharge along with appropriate pipe sizes and related appurtenances from this subject and other upstream areas and shall be done in accordance with SacSewers’ most recent “Minimum Sewer Study Requirements”. The study shall be done on a no “Shed-Shift” basis unless approved by SacSewer in advance and in compliance with the SacSewer’s Standards and Specifications. This study may be refined by supplemental studies as the scope and details of the subject project become more defined. If the proposed density exceeds what was planned in SacSewer’s Master Plan, the downstream system capacity may be constrained. SacSewer will model the effects on the downstream system when the sewer study is submitted.

Customers receiving service from SacSewer are responsible for rates and fees outlined within the latest SacSewer ordinance. Fees for connecting to the sewer system recover the capital investment of sewer and treatment facilities that serve new customers. SacSewer does not guarantee sewer service or system capacity to the property until the property obtains proper permits to connect to the system and pays all facility impact (capacity) fees. The SacSewer ordinances are on the SacSewer website at https://www.sacsewer.com/ordinances/.

If you have any questions regarding these comments, please call me at (916) 875-9810, Steve Kiyama at (916) 876-6657, or Douglas Kennedy at (916) 875-4563.

Sincerely,
Chika Oya
Chika Oya
SacSewer Development Services
D-1
D-2
D-3
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2358 of 2588 ends

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

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

2. Response to Comments

Page 28 ends

This page intentionally left blank.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2359 of 2588 ends

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

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

2. Response to Comments
March 2025 Page 29
D. Response to Comments from the Sacramento Area Sewer District, dated July 19, 2024.

D-1 The Sacramento Area Sewer District (SacSewer) summarizes the proposed project’s project description.

SacSewer provides local sewer service to a proposed project site through its collection system, which then transports sewage to the EchoWater Resource Recovery Facility for treatment, recovery, and disposal.

SacSewer plans and designs its sewer systems based on growth projections from land-use authorities.

See Response A-1 regarding the project description, which does not require an amendment to the General Plan. The City of Rancho Cordova appreciates SacSewer’s comments on the DEIR. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the project’s decision makers for review and consideration. As this comment does not raise significant environmental issues or describe any inadequacies of the DEIR, no changes to the DEIR are necessary.

D-2 SacSewer states that to receive sewer service, the project proponent must complete Sewer Master Plans, including connection points and phasing information, to assess the existing capacity of collection systems and determine if the current facilities can convey the additional flows generated by the project. In addition, SacSewer requests a sewer study to evaluate the project’s impact more fully on the sewer system. SacSewer requests that the study demonstrate the permanent connections to the SacSewer system, the quantity of discharge, appropriate pipe sizes, and related appurtenances. SacSewer requires that the sewer study be done in compliance with its most recent “Minimum Sewer Study Requirements” and its Standards and Specifications. SacSewer cautions that, “[i]f the proposed density exceeds what was planned in SacSewer’s Master Plan, the downstream system capacity may be constrained.” As requested by the comment, the City will complete a Sewer Master Plan that includes the required information. The proposed project would need to comply with Section

15.04.070, Permits, of the City’s Municipal Code, which states that public sewers cannot be used without obtaining the permits required by this section; therefore, the proposed project would need to go through the City’s Municipal Code before connection to a public sewer such as SacSewer. Completion of the Sewer Master Plan is a procedural step to finalize the detailed connection and phasing information, but it will not alter the capacity conclusions already supported by the DEIR and the General Plan EIR. Revisions to the DEIR based on this regulation are provided in Section 3.2, Revisions to the DEIR in Response to Comments, of the FEIR. This update is a minor clarification to the DEIR and does not alter the findings or result in material changes to the project’s environmental analysis.

As discussed in the DEIR under Impact 5.14-1, the existing infrastructure is sufficient to serve the proposed project. The analysis in the DEIR is based on current data and projections for regional growth, which were factored into the capacity planning for the Sacramento Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant (SRWTP). The SRWTP currently has a permitted capacity of 181 million gallons per day (mgd) for average dry weather flow and 392 mgd for average wet weather flows, which are adequate to support the proposed development. Importantly, the projected growth under the proposed project was included ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2360 of 2588 ends

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

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

2. Response to Comments

Page 30 ends

in the City’s regional growth estimates and planning assumptions, which were incorporated into the 2006 General Plan EIR. Therefore, impacts to wastewater treatment facilities, including the SRWTP, have already been accounted for and anticipated in that earlier analysis. Given that the planned growth and its associated wastewater flows were considered in the General Plan EIR and that current infrastructure is projected to accommodate the additional demand, the DEIR’s analysis remains accurate and reliable for determining that the proposed project will not exceed the wastewater treatment plant’s capacity.

D-3 SacSewer states that customers receiving service from SacSewer are responsible for the rates and fees in the latest SacSewer ordinance. These fees recover the capital investment of sewer and treatment facilities serving new customers. SacSewer does not guarantee sewer service or system capacity until proper permits are obtained and facility impact fees are paid.

Future development would be required to comply with all applicable regulations, including those of SacSewer.

Revisions to the DEIR based on this clarification are provided in Section 3.2, Revisions to the DEIR in Response to Comments, of the FEIR. This update is a minor clarification to the DEIR and does not alter the findings or result in material changes to the project’s environmental analysis. As this comment does not raise significant environmental issues or describe any inadequacies of the DEIR, no changes to the DEIR are necessary.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2361 of 2588 ends

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

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

2. Response to Comments
March 2025 Page 31
LETTER E – Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (1 page) ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2362 of 2588 ends

1 From: Roberto Ramirez <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 19, 2024 10:18 AM
To: Stefan Heisler
Subject: No Comment - DEIR for Mills Crossing Project
Hi Stefan,
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to review the DEIR for the Mills Crossing Project. We have no comments at this time.

Thank you,
Roberto Ramirez
Air Quality Planner/Analyst
ISA CerƟfied Arborist #WE-14276A
TransportaƟon & Climate Change
Desk: (916) 704-4552
www.AirQuality.org
@AQMD
E-1
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2363 of 2588 ends

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

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

2. Response to Comments
March 2025 Page 33
E. Response to Comments from Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District, dated July 19, 2024.

E-1 The Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District thanks the lead agency for allowing them to review the DEIR and adds that they do not have any comments on the project at this time.

The City of Rancho Cordova appreciates the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District’s review of the DEIR. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the project’s decision makers for review and consideration. As this comment does not raise significant environmental issues or describe any inadequacies of the DEIR, no changes to the DEIR are necessary.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2364 of 2588 ends

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

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

2. Response to Comments

Page 34 ends

This page intentionally left blank.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2365 of 2588 ends

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

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

2. Response to Comments
March 2025 Page 35
LETTER 1 – Karl Haas (3 pages)
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2366 of 2588 ends

From: Stefan Heisler
To: Karl Haas
Subject: RE: Mills Crossing Notice of Availability of Draft Environmental Impact Report Date: Friday, June 7, 2024 2:04:00 PM
Attachments: image001.jpg
Got it, thanks Karl!
This is what I wrote down from our conversation this morning: Take out parking in the grove, put in a playground, add interactive water feature, EV charging and bicycle parking.

Sincerely,
Stefan
916-851-8757
From: Karl Haas
Sent: Friday, June 7, 2024 2:02 PM
To: Stefan Heisler <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Mills Crossing Notice of Availability of Draft Environmental Impact Report On second thought, that Folsom Blvd entrance might have a traffic calming effect. I like the idea of that.

Yahoo Mail: Search, Organize, Conquer
On Fri, Jun 7, 2024 at 11:18 AM, Stefan Heisler
<[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Responsible Agencies and Interested Parties,
Notice of Availability of Draft Environmental Impact Report and Public hearing on the MILLS CROSSING PROJECT
The City of Rancho Cordova has prepared a draft environmental impact report (DEIR) for the Mills Crossing Project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et seq.). 1-2
1-1
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2367 of 2588 ends

Description of the Project: The City of Rancho Cordova is proposing a 9.85-acre mixed-use project (the Mills Crossing Project) located on located at the corner of Folsom Boulevard and La Loma Drive in the City of Rancho Cordova. The property is zoned Residential Mixed Use (RMU) within the Folsom Blvd Specific Plan (FBSP) designation of the General Plan. The project will include approximately 140,000 square feet of community-commercial buildings, up to 120 housing units including multi-family affordable 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, and arts center with black box theater and flex studios, a community event hall, and retail. Adoption of the project contemplates approval of the following City entitlements: certification of the EIR; amendment of the City of Rancho Cordova General Plan and Specific Plan; zoning amendment; tentative subdivision map; and a Major Design Review approval. Future City entitlement approvals may include, but are not limited to, the following: a Development Agreement.

Project Location: The Project is located at 10153-10179 Folsom Blvd (APNs: 076- 0020-019, -020, -021, & -022)
Cortese-Listed Sites: Section 15087(c)(6) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that this notice disclose whether the project site is listed on the lists enumerated under Government Code Section 65962.5 (Cortese List). As noted in Chapter 3, Project Description, of the DEIR, there is one remedial site on the northwest corner of the project site of a former dry-cleaning site which operated from 1971 to 2003. The site was found to have elevated levels of tetrachloroethylene (PCE) in groundwater.

Remediation efforts, including soil vapor extraction and groundwater extraction, were conducted from 2010 to 2017; however, residual PCE in soil vapor still exceeds safe levels. The City plans further remediation, including soil and sewer line excavation in the former dry cleaner area and in-situ soil treatment in the former parking lot area.

Chapter 5.6, Hazards, and Hazardous Materials, of the DEIR outlines additional details regarding hazards and hazardous materials at the site.

Significant Environmental Impacts of the Project: The DEIR evaluates three land use development alternatives at an equal level of detail. Analysis of environmental impacts associated with the project identified potentially significant or significant impacts in the following issue areas: air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, tribal cultural resources. Mitigation measures would reduce all potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2368 of 2588 ends

Public Review Period: The DEIR is available for review during a 45-day comment period that begins on June 7, 2024, and ends on July 22, 2024. A public hearing on the DEIR will be held on August 28, 2024, from 5:30-7 pm at the Rancho Cordova City Hall located at 2729 Prospect Park Drive, Rancho Cordova, CA 95670. This public hearing will be open to the public and all interested persons are invited to attend and provide testimony on the DEIR. The hearing will begin with a project overview and summary of the DEIR. Written and verbal comments on the DEIR will be accepted during the meeting. The Planning Commission will preside over the meeting; however, it will not take any action on the DEIR or project. Staff will note general themes of verbal comments made and will address them in the Final EIR. Members of the public are encouraged to submit written comments to ensure that their specific comments are represented in the project record and addressed in the Final EIR.

Copies of the DEIR can be reviewed at the following locations:

City of Rancho Cordova Planning DepartmentRancho Cordova Public Library
2729 Prospect Park Drive9845 Folsom
Boulevard
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 Rancho Cordova, CA
95827
The Draft EIR is also available on the City’s website at: Mills Crossing | City of Rancho Cordova
Written comments on the DEIR must be postmarked no later than July 22, 2024, and should be sent to the following address:

Stefan Heisler
City of Rancho Cordova
Planning Department
2729 Prospect Park Drive
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2369 of 2588 ends

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

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

2. Response to Comments
March 2025 Page 29

1. Response to Comments from Karl Haas, dated June 7, 2024. 1-1 The commenter requests the removal of parking in the grove and the addition of a playground with an interactive water feature, electrical vehicle charging, and bicycle parking.

See Section 3.3, Revisions to the Project Description, which changes the project description and includes a bioretention basin, electrical vehicle charging stations, and bicycle parking. As this comment does not raise significant environmental issues or describe any inadequacies of the DEIR, no changes to the DEIR are necessary.
1-2 The commenter likes the idea of an entrance on Folsom Boulevard, which might result in a traffic-calming effect.

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, the project’s compliance with General Plan Circulation Element Policies related to traffic are discussed on pages 8-9 to 8-10 of the DEIR.

This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the project’s decision makers for review and consideration. As this comment does not raise significant environmental issues or describe any inadequacies of the DEIR, no changes to the DEIR are necessary.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2370 of 2588 ends

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

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

2. Response to Comments

Page 30 ends

This page intentionally left blank.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2371 of 2588 ends

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

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

2. Response to Comments
March 2025 Page 31
LETTER 2 – Larry (1 page)
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2372 of 2588 ends

From: Stefan Heisler
To: Megan Siren
Cc: Kristine Courdy; Edgar Medina
Subject: RE: VM - Mills Crossing
Date: Friday, June 7, 2024 3:04:00 PM
Attachments: image001.jpg
Thanks Megan,
He is the owner(?) of 5 Star Auto Sales on Folsom Blvd on the next block west from Mills Crossing. He was excited to hear about the development and asked when it would be completed. He’s looking forward to the additional improvement it will bring to the neighborhood and positive economic impacts.

Sincerely,
Stefan
916-851-8757
From: Megan Siren
Sent: Friday, June 7, 2024 2:32 PM
To: Stefan Heisler <[email protected]>
Subject: VM - Mills Crossing
Stefan:

Could you call this gentlemen back? He left a VM and was curious about Mills Crossing: Yes, hello, how are you doing? My name is Larry. Please give me a call back at .

I'm curious about the project that you guys are developing over here on Folsom Boulevard in La Loma. Please call me back at . Thank you. Have a nice day.

Thanks,
Megan
2-1
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2373 of 2588 ends

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

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

2. Response to Comments
March 2025 Page 33

2. Response to Comments from Larry (no last name provided), dated June 7, 2024. 2-1 The commenter expressed their excitement about the Mills Crossing development and asked when the project would be completed. The commenter is looking forward to the additional improvements and positive economic impacts it would bring to the neighborhood.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2374 of 2588 ends

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

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

2. Response to Comments

Page 34 ends

This page intentionally left blank.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2375 of 2588 ends

March 2025 Page 35

3. Corrections, Clarifications, and Additions to the
DEIR

3.1 INTRODUCTION
This section contains revisions to the DEIR based on (1) additional or revised information or clarifications generated in response to information or concerns raised by a specific comment, or independently by the City; (2) applicable updated information that was not available at the time of DEIR publication; and/or (3) typographical errors. Changes made to the DEIR are identified here in strikeout text to indicate deletions and in underlined text to signify additions.

These corrections, clarifications, and additions to the DEIR are provided to clarify and amplify the DEIR. The revisions incorporate material and updates added to the EIR text as part of the FEIR. None of this new material constitutes “significant new information” requiring recirculation as defined in Section 15088.5(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines. Specifically, the following criteria are not met:

1. A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented.

2. A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance.

3. A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of the project, but the project’s proponents decline to adopt it.

4. The draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded.

The revised site plan would change the parking structure to three surface parking lots. The revised site plan would include up to approximately 140,000 square feet of nonresidential uses, which is the same amount of nonresidential building space analyzed in the DEIR. The open space for the revised site plan would be approximately 28,400 square feet and would be publicly accessible. Currently, the project is occupied by paved areas with patches of vegetation. No parks or recreation facilities exist on the project site.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2376 of 2588 ends

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

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

Page 36 ends

3.2 REVISIONS TO THE DEIR IN RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
The text on page 3-12, Chapter 3, Project Description, under the heading “Intended Uses of the DEIR,” has been revised in response to Comment A-1 from Department of Toxic Substances Control, dated July 10, 2024.

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

Lead Agency Action
City of Rancho Cordova City Council
Development Agreement
Specific Plan Zoning Amendment
Zoning Amendment
Tentative Subdivision Map
Site Plan Approval
Development Agreement
Major Design Review
Building Permit
Certify EIR and Adopt Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Responsible Agencies Action
Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control
Board
Issuance of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Issuance of Construction Permit
The text on page 5.12-3, Section 5.12, Recreation, under the heading “Existing Conditions,” has been revised in response to Comment C-3 from Cordova Recreation and Park District, dated July 29, 2024.

5.12.1.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS
The CRPD has the primary responsibility for providing and maintaining recreation facilities and services. Table

5.12-1, CRPD’s Parks and Recreation Facilities, shows the locations, acreages, and amenities of these facilities.

As shown in Table 5.12-1, there are a total of 332 park and recreational facilities with a total of 358.5 295.5 acres (CRPD 2012, 2023b). CRPD also anticipates future park development of Exploration Park, Goldrush Park, Gantline 208/Arista Del Sol Community Park, Hummingbird Park, W. H. Williamson Park, Federspiel Park Walkway Improvement, and Rosemont Community Park Sports Courts (CRPD 2023c). CRPD is currently working on a districtwide Optimized Parks, Facilities and Recreation Plan that provides guidance over the next 10 years and began public review in fall of 2022 (CRPD 2023a). CRPD’s standard for dedication of Quimby parkland is 5 acres per 1,000 residents within the city to be devoted to neighborhood and community parks.

Table 5.12-1 shows there are currently 358.5 295.5 acres of available recreation facilities. According to the Department of Finance’s estimates, the current population in Rancho Cordova is 80,359 (DOF 2023). Based ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2377 of 2588 ends

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

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

3. Corrections, Clarifications, and Additions Revisions to the DEIR March 2025 Page 37
on existing population and parkland, the City needs approximately 401.8 acres of parkland to accommodate its current population.

Table 5.12-2 CRPD’s Parks and Recreation Facilities
Facility Name Acres Location Amenities
31 White Rock Community
Park 14 10488 White Rock Rd.Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
2 basketball courts, 2 BBQs, multiuse fields, open grass area, pavilion, 4 picnic areas, playground, rental available, restrooms, soccer field, tennis court
32 White Rock Splash Park 0.53 10488 White Rock Rd.

Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
drinking fountain, open grass area, parking lot, 2 picnic areas, restrooms, showers, spray park, 2 water slides
33 Linear park corridors
Villages of Zinfandel
development
63 Villages Of Zinfandel Rancho
Cordova, CA 95670 linear park corridors
Total 295.5
358.5
Sources: CRPD 2012, 2023b.

The text on page 5.14-5, Section 5.14, Utilities and Service System, under Impact 5.14-1, has been revised in response to Comment D-2 from Sacramento Area Sewer District, dated July 19, 2024.

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.

The proposed project would need to comply with Section 15.04.070, Permits, of the City’s Municipal Code, which states that public sewers cannot be used without obtaining the permits required by this section; therefore, the proposed project would need to go through the City’s Municipal Code before connection to a public sewer such as SacSewer.

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.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2378 of 2588 ends

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

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

Page 38 ends

The text on page 5.14-2, Section 5.14, Utilities and Service System, under the heading “Local Regulations,” has been revised in response to Comment D-3 from Sacramento Area Sewer District, dated July 19, 2024.

Local Regulations
SacSewer Ordinances
Collection Ordinance
The Collection Ordinance defines uniform requirements for the design, construction, and use of the sewage collection system. It establishes provisions for the enforcement of these requirements and sets penalties for non-compliance. The ordinance clarifies the responsibilities for the maintenance of the sewer collection system.

It also establishes the rates and fees for users of SacSewer’s facilities to cover the costs of system operation and maintenance.

Treatment and Resource Recovery Ordinance
The Treatment and Resource Recovery Ordinance establishes requirements for the use of SacSewer’s sewage treatment and resource recovery system, ensuring compliance with environmental and health standards. It outlines enforcement provisions, including penalties for violations, and sets rates and fees for users to cover the costs of treatment, resource recovery, and system maintenance.

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).

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2379 of 2588 ends

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

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

3. Corrections, Clarifications, and Additions Revisions to the DEIR March 2025 Page 39

3.3 REVISIONS TO THE PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The following text and figures have been revised to reflect the updated entitlement package received on September 13, 2024. Only Chapter 3, Project Description, of the DEIR is being updated to align with the new entitlement; the rest of the DEIR should reference this revised project description for accurate information on the Mills Crossing project, such as the project site boundary, project size, project features, and proposed project land uses.

3.1.1 Project Location
The 9.85-10.34-acre project site encompasses the following Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs): 076-0020-019, -20, -21, -22, 076-0213-013. The project site is located at the corner of Folsom Boulevard and La Loma Drive in the City of Rancho Cordova, Sacramento County. The City of Rancho Cordova is surrounded by unincorporated Sacramento County to the north, south, east, and west (see Figure 3-1, Regional Location).

3.1.2 Project Site History
The project site includes a former dry-cleaning site that operated from 1971 through 2003 located on the northwest portion of the project site (See Figure 5.6-1, Project Remediation Map in Chapter 5.6, Hazards and Hazardous Materials). The project site was found to have elevated levels of tetrachloroethylene (also known as perchloroethylene or “PCE”) found in groundwater. The project site was previously remediated via a soil vapor extraction system from 2010 to 2016 and one groundwater extraction well from 2014 to 2017 (Appendix 5.6- 1). The City of Rancho Cordova bought the property in 2018 and is working on addressing residual PCE in soil vapor that still exceeds screening levels (SWRCB 2024). The 2021 soil vapor data show that PCE concentrations in soil vapor exceed the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board’s Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs) for vapor concentrations in the former dry cleaner area located on the northwest portion of the project site. The PCE concentrations exceeded the residential ESL for vapor intrusion consideration, which corresponds to a carcinogenic risk of 10-6. The City plans to perform additional site remediation including soil and sewer line excavation in the former dry cleaner area and contingency in-situ soil treatment at a deeper depth in the former parking lot area. 1 Section 5.6 provides additional details about potential hazards and hazardous materials at the project site.

3.1.3 Existing and Surrounding Uses
The project site is currently vacant. The project site was previously developed as a commercial shopping center, but all the previous buildings have since been demolished, leaving only the parking lot remaining. A few scattered trees are found in weedy patches within and around the perimeter of the project site. The project site also has a sloping incline located on the northwest portion of the project site on La Loma Drive. The project site is surrounded by residential uses to the north, residential uses and Folsom Lake College/Rancho Cordova to the east, light industrial uses to the south, and commercial and residential uses to the west. Figure 3-2, Aerial 1 The proposed remediation activities have been exempt under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15304(f). This remediation work is not part of the proposed project because it needs to be completed whether or not the proposed project goes forward. Also, the remediation work and should be completed before any approval of the proposed project and prior to construction from the proposed project.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2380 of 2588 ends

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

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

Page 40 ends

Photograph (NEW), shows the project site in its local context. Section 4.0, Environmental Setting, includes a more detailed description of the existing environmental setting.

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Increase employment opportunities in the City.

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

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

3.3 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
“Project,” as defined by the CEQA Guidelines, means:
... the whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, and that is any of the following: (1)…enactment and amendment of zoning ordinances, and the adoption and amendment of local General Plans or elements thereof pursuant to Government Code Sections 65100–65700. (14 Cal. Code of Reg. § 15378[a])
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2381 of 2588 ends

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

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

3. Corrections, Clarifications, and Additions Revisions to the DEIR March 2025 Page 41
Figure 3-2 Aerial Photograph (NEW)
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2382 of 2588 ends

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

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

Page 42 ends

Figure 3-2 Aerial Photograph
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2383 of 2588 ends

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

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

3. Corrections, Clarifications, and Additions Revisions to the DEIR March 2025 Page 43

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

As indicated above, the project site is zoned RMU (FBSP) which allows between 6.1 and 40 dwelling units per acre. As such, the project site could allow between 2461 units and 161 394units. As the project site is within the Mather Mills Opportunity Site, additional development standards are provided, which indicate that there is no minimum or maximum floor area ratio (FAR) for the project site.

3.3.2 Description of the Proposed Project
The proposed project would include community-commercial buildings, housing, public open space, and parking lots structure. The project would be constructed in phases. Phase 1 would include the construction of nonresidential development (buildings 1, 2, and 3); surface parking lots 1, 2, and 3; open space; and other site improvements. The proposed housing would be constructed in future phases as funding becomes available. In addition, future phases could include revisions to on-site parking (up to a maximum of 325 spaces) and additional non-residential building space on Parcel 5. Figure 3-3, Proposed Parcel Plan (NEW), shows the proposed parcel plan, and Figure 3-43, Conceptual Site Plan (NEW), shows the layout of the proposed uses on the project site. In order to accommodate the proposed uses listed below, the necessary entitlements include:
▪ A Specific Plan Amendment to rezone portions of the Mills Crossing project site area from a Residential Mixed-Use (RMU) zone to a Commercial Mixed-Use (CMU), Medium Density Residential (MDR), and High-Density Residential (HDR) zone. As shown in Figure 3-54, Zoning Option 1, and 3-5, Zoning Option 2, to view shows the potential new updated configuration for the Mills Crossing Project site. Figure 3-54 shows 2.96 acres MDR, 4.79 acres CMU, and 1.09 acres HDR, and Figure 3-5 shows 3.05 acres MDR, 4.79 acres CMU, and 1.0 acres HDR. The remaining RMU areas will be dedicated as a public right of way. (See Section 3.3.3, Project Site Rezone Designation, for more information on the individual zones) ▪ A Tentative Subdivision Map to create between five and nine seven new parcels for the proposed uses. (See Figure 3-3.)
▪ Major Design Review for new construction
Phase 1
Parcel 1
Community-Commercial Buildings
▪ Building 1: Community Commercial Health and Wellness
⚫ Community Health Clinic—up to 30,000 square feet
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2384 of 2588 ends

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

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

Page 44 ends

⚫ The community-commercial buildings would include Up to 60,000 square feet of uses, and would include the following
⚫ Medical and office building
⚫ Located on 0.7 acres
Parcel 4
▪ Parking Lot 1
⚫ Area: 0.9 acres
⚫ Total parking spaces: 98
• 5 ADA-compliant spaces
• 5 electric vehicle charging stalls
Parcel 2
▪ Located on 1.12 acres
▪ Landscape features: Mix of turf and general planting mix ▪ Building 2: Community Arts Center (Subtotal—
⚫ Up to 45,000 35,000 square feet)
⚫ Flex Theater and Arts Building (black/white/green box)—up to 18,000 square feet ▪ Plaza
⚫ Approximately 20,000 square feet
⚫ 11 short-term bike racks (22 bicycle capacity)
⚫ 9 long-term bike storage
⚫ 1 bike repair work stand
⚫ 19 plaza seating
⚫ 35 modular tables and 4 chairs per table
⚫ 2 waste and recycling receptacles
⚫ 3 electrical power outlets
⚫ Drinking fountain
Parcel 3
▪ Located on 0.65 acres
▪ Building 3: Flex Community Commercial Retail Classrooms and Rehearsal Space—up to 6,000 square feet ⚫ Up to 20,000 square feet
⚫ Events and Meetings Space
⚫ Space for meetings, community and cultural events, banquet, and weddings—up to 15,000square feet ▪ Production/Artist’s Studios—up to 4,000 square feet
▪ Gallery/Exhibits—up to 4,000 square feet
▪ Administrative Space—up to 3,000 square feet
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2385 of 2588 ends

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

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

3. Corrections, Clarifications, and Additions Revisions to the DEIR March 2025 Page 45
▪ Commercial Office-Anchor—up to 25,000 square feet
▪ Commercial Office-Shared—up to 10,000 square feet
▪ Flexible Studios 1—up to 5,000 square feet
▪ Flexible Studios 2—up to 7,500 square feet
▪ Commercial Kitchen —up to 5,000 square feet
▪ Commercial-Retail (Subtotal—up to 7,500 square feet)
⚫ Fresh Market, Food and Beverage, Café, Retail—up to 5,000 ⚫ Café—up to 2,500 square feet
Parcel 5
▪ Located on 1.4 acres
▪ Landscape Features: Mix of turf, bio-retention mix, and general planting mix ▪ Parking Lot 2
⚫ Area: 0.9 acres
⚫ Total parking spaces: 38
o 2 ADA-compliant
o 2 electric vehicle stalls
▪ Project Green
⚫ Area: 8,400 square feet
⚫ 10 project green seating
⚫ 2 waste and recycling receptacles
⚫ 2 electrical power outlets
⚫ Bioretention basins
Public Open Space
The proposed project would include up to 2.5 acres of public open space as follows:
▪ Between 1.3 and 1.5 acres of Neighborhood and Community Greens ▪ Between 0.75 and 1.0-acre Approximately 20,000 square feet of Plaza and approximately 8,400 square feet of Project Green Space
Parking Lots Structure
The proposed project would include a three surface parking lots structure with a maximum of between 275 and 325 parking spaces. As noted above, parking lots 1 and 2 are on parcels 4 and 5, respectively. Parking lot 3 is on 0.49 acres in the southeast corner of the project site, as shown on Figure 3-4, Conceptual Site Plan (NEW).

Parking lot 3 would consist of 41 stalls, including 7 compact stalls, 3 ADA stalls, and 2 EV-only stalls. The area proposed to be parking lot 3 is owned by Folsom Lake College and would be leased to the City of Rancho Cordova for the proposed project.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2386 of 2588 ends

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

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

Page 46 ends

Internal Circulation and Access
Figure 3-43, Conceptual Site Plan (NEW), shows the conceptual internal roadways and access points into and out of the project site. The project site would be accessible via Folsom Boulevard to the south, La Loma Drive to the west, and El Caprice east of the project site.

Future Phases
Parcel 4
Future phases on Parcel 4 could include enhancements to the on-site parking configuration to add additional spaces (maximum of 325 parking spaces) as the need and funding becomes available.

Parcel 5
Future phases could include the construction of a non-residential building on Parcel 5 (up to 15,000 square feet). Funding, planning, and design details are not yet available for this building, but it is anticipated to be within the total building square footage analyzed in the DEIR.

Parcel 6 and Parcel 7
Future Housing
Future housing would be located on parcel 6, which is 2.94 acres, and parcel 7, which is 1.09 acres. The proposed project would provide up to 120 dwelling units, as follows:
▪ Parcel 6 would provide between 40 and 60 dwelling units ▪ Parcel 7 would provide between 55 and 60 dwelling units ▪ Between 55 and 60 Multifamily Affordable Apartments
▪ Between 50 and 60 Zero Lot Line Townhouse-Style Homes for Sale ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2387 of 2588 ends

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

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

3. Corrections, Clarifications, and Additions Revisions to the DEIR March 2025 Page 47
Figure 3-3 Proposed Parcel Plan (NEW)
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2388 of 2588 ends

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

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

Page 48 ends

Figure 3-4 Conceptual Site Plan
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2389 of 2588 ends

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

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

3. Corrections, Clarifications, and Additions Revisions to the DEIR March 2025 Page 49
Figure 3-4 Conceptual Site Plan (NEW)
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2390 of 2588 ends

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

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

Page 50 ends

Figure 3-54 Zoning Option 1
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2391 of 2588 ends

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

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

3. Corrections, Clarifications, and Additions Revisions to the DEIR March 2025 Page 51
Figure 3-5 Zoning Option 2
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2392 of 2588 ends

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

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

Page 52 ends

This page intentionally left blank.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2393 of 2588 ends

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

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

3. Corrections, Clarifications, and Additions Revisions to the DEIR March 2025 Page 53

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

Operation
The proposed project would result in up to 120 dwelling units which, assuming 2.68 persons per household as included in the General Plan EIR, would result in approximately 322 residents. The project would include up to 140,000 square feet of non-residential community-commercial uses. The open space proposed for the project site (up to 28,400 square feet 2.5 acres) would be publicly accessible

3.4 PROPOSED PROJECT VS. REVISED SITE PLAN
Since the public circulation of the DEIR on June 7, 2024, and because of the subsequent planning and entitlement process, site refinements were made as the project team completed full financial projections, focused on final project elements, and incorporated value engineering adjustments. As detailed in Section 3.3, Revisions to the Project Description, the new Figure 3-3, Proposed Parcel Plan (NEW), and revised Figure 3-4, Conceptual Site Plan (NEW), of this FEIR reflect the updated entitlement package received on December 19, 2024. These refinements are reflected in the revised project description (see Section 3.3).

Figure 3-4 of this FEIR includes Building 1, Community Commercial Health and Wellness; Building 2, Community Arts Center; Building 3, Flex Community; three surface parking lots; public open space; and two parcels dedicated to future housing. Figure 3-3, Conceptual Site Plan, in the DEIR, shows four nonresidential buildings, a parking structure, and a residential area in the northern portion of the project site. The project contemplates the immediate development of the nonresidential portion, with residential development to occur later. The EIR has fully analyzed the impacts of both the near-term nonresidential development and the longterm residential development. Figure 3-4 of the FEIR also extends the project boundary to include the proposed parking lot 3 on the southeast corner of the project site and adjacent to Folsom Lake College. The revised site plan would extend the project size by 0.49 acres, from 9.85 acres to 10.34 acres. The addition of parking lot 3 would also create a new driveway south of the project site along Folsom Boulevard.

The updated December 2024 entitlement alters the project originally described in the DEIR. However, the analysis in the DEIR, supplemented by the analysis added in this FEIR, account for the full buildout of the original project (multiple phases), which is for a larger and more intensive development than the revised project.

For example, the revised project removes a parking structure and decreases the total non-residential square footage. While the revised project would extend the project boundaries to include parking lot 3, which was not part of the original site plan, this does not result in significant impacts that were not already addressed in the DEIR. Therefore, the original environmental analysis in the DEIR is still applicable to the revised project. As ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2394 of 2588 ends

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

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

Page 54 ends

such, the analysis in the DEIR, as supplemented by the analysis herein, will serve as the environmental analysis for future phases of development, as described in Section 3.3.2 of this FEIR. No additional project-level environmental review would be required for future phases if the subsequent development is consistent with the analysis in the DEIR and this FEIR.

The differences between the revised site plan and the proposed project are detailed in Table 3-1.

The changes identified do not alter the substantive conclusions of the DEIR concerning any of the significant impacts of the project and do not necessitate a recirculation of the DEIR, as analyzed in Section 3.5, Recirculation.

Table 3-1 Differences between the Proposed Project vs. Revised Site Plan Proposed Project Revised Site Plan Analysis
Figure 3-3, Conceptual Site Plan, of
the DEIR shows a proposed road
from El Caprice Drive crossing to
the west of the project site
connecting to La Loma Drive.

Figure 3-4, Conceptual Site Plan (NEW), of the
FEIR, the proposed road would shift north,
closer to the existing residential area
See Section 3.5.2 of this FEIR, Noise Analysis,
and Section 3.5.3, Air Quality/Greenhouse
Gas/Energy Analysis, for a discussion and
analysis of noise and air quality impacts
discussed below with the shift of the road
closer to an existing residential area.

Figure 3-3, Conceptual Site Plan, of
the DEIR shows a parking structure
of three levels located in the
southwest portion of the site. The
project description, on page 3-6 of
the DEIR, states that the parking
structure would include between
275 and 325 parking spaces.

Figure 3-4, Conceptual Site Plan (NEW), of the
FEIR shows three surface parking lots within
the project boundary. Parking lot 1 would
provide a total of 98 parking spaces with 41
spaces under solar shade canopies. Parking
lot 2 would provide 38 parking spaces and
Parking lot 3 would provide 41 parking
spaces.

See Section 3.5.3 of this FEIR, Air
Quality/Greenhouse Gas/Energy Analysis,, for a
discussion and analysis of the parking
structure change to parking lots.

Figure 3-2, Aerial Photograph,
through Figure 3-4, Zoning Option 1,
of the DEIR shows a smaller
project boundary.

Figure 3-2, Aerial Photograph (NEW), through
Figure 3-5, Zoning Option 1, are revised to
include an extended project boundary to
include the proposed parking lot 3.

See Section 3.5.2, Noise Analysis, and Section

3.5.3, Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas/Energy
Analysis, of this FEIR, for a discussion and
analysis of the noise and air quality impacts
related to the project boundary extension.

Additionally, see the discussion in Section 3.5
for an explanation as to why recirculation is
not required, despite the project boundary
extension.

The project description, on page 3-
6 of the DEIR, states that the
Community-Commercial use would
be 140,000 square feet, which
included:
- Health and Wellness
- Events and Meeting Space
- Arts Center
- Community-Commercial
Building
- Commercial-Retail
Figure 3-4, Conceptual Site Plan (NEW),
provides 140,000 square feet of nonresidential
use, including:
- Building 1– Community Commercial
Health and Wellness
- Building 2 – Community Arts Center
- Building 3 – Flex Community
- Future phases could include
constructing a nonresidential building
on Parcel 5, approximately 15,00
square feet.

The square footage of nonresidential
development would not change; therefore, no
further analysis is necessary.

The project description on page 3-6
of the DEIR states that the project
would provide up to 2.5 acres of
public open space, including:

Figure 3-4, Conceptual Site Plan (NEW),
includes a 20,000-square-foot, or 0.46-acre,
Plaza and 8,400 square feet, or 0.2-acre,
Project Green.

As noted in Impact 5.12-1 of the DEIR, the
proposed project would need to comply with
the City’s General Plan policies requiring
compliance with the City’s parkland and open
space standards and the City’s Municipal
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2395 of 2588 ends

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

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

3. Corrections, Clarifications, and Additions Revisions to the DEIR March 2025 Page 55
Proposed Project Revised Site Plan Analysis
- Between 1.3 and 1.5 acres of
Neighborhood and
Community Green
- Between 0.75 and 1.0 acre of
Plaza and Green Space
Code, Chapter 22.40, Park and Recreation
Dedication Fees. While the revised site plan
eliminates between 1.3 and 1.5 acres of
Neighborhood and Community Green, the
revised plan still proposes a Plaza and Project
Green. The project would still comply with
the these regulations. Therefore, the analysis
of impacts determined in the DEIR would
also apply to the revised site plan.

3.5 RECIRCULATION CRITERIA
As discussed below, the proposed revisions to the project, including the project boundary extension, do not meet any of the criteria outlined in the CEQA recirculation standards, specified under CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, and therefore a recirculation of the DEIR is not warranted.

3.5.1 New Significant Environmental Impact or New Mitigation Measure The recirculation standard requires that the DEIR be recirculated if significant new information is added in the form of a new significant environmental impact resulting from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented. The revisions to the site plan would not result in any new significant environmental impacts or require new mitigation measures.

The DEIR analyzed similar developments compared to the revised site plan (housing units and nonresidential buildings) and concluded that the project would result in less-than-significant impacts with the implementation of mitigation. The DEIR did not include the proposed parking lot 3 site, as identified in Figure 3-4, which extends the original project boundary from the DEIR. However, this site was previously developed and is not zoned for a unique land use. Moreover, the proposed usage (parking lot) does not represent an unusual development type in the city, and the application of both the mitigation measures in the DEIR and applicable City standards for construction and operation ensure that there would be no new significant environmental impacts beyond those analyzed in the DEIR and that no new mitigation measures would be required.

Parking lot 3 is supportive of the rest of the proposed project and does not include structures or uses beyond parking. As such, the environmental analysis is focused on the physical construction of the parking lot rather than the occupational uses evaluated in the DEIR for the rest of the project. The addition of the third parking lot would not lead to any new noise, air quality, greenhouse gas, or energy impacts beyond what was already addressed in the DEIR (refer to Section 3.5.6, Noise Analysis, and Section 3.5.7, Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas/Energy Analysis, of this FEIR). This is because the DEIR evaluated a project similar to the updated December 2024 entitlement proposal. In addition, no new significant environmental impacts to biological resources would result from the proposed changes, and no new mitigation measures would be required. Parking lot 3 is adjacent to the original project boundaries and has a similar topography and vegetation type as shown in Figure 3-2. Accordingly, the biological study from the DEIR (Appendix 5.2-1) remains applicable to the revised site, including the proposed parking lot 3, including the observations in Appendix 5.1-1 for the potential of trees adjacent to the project site to provide habitat for nesting birds. As such, the same biological mitigation ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2396 of 2588 ends

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

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

Page 56 ends

measures for bird nesting (mitigation measure BIO-1) and bat roosting (mitigation measure BIO-2) will apply because the City is the lead agency for the construction of parking 3 and will oversee compliance with the mitigation measures as part of the mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP).

No new significant environmental impacts to tribal and cultural resources would result from the proposed changes, and no new mitigation measures would be required beyond those analyzed and applied in Section 5.3, Cultural Resources, and Section 5.13, Tribal Cultural Resources, of the DEIR. The tribal and cultural resources mitigation measures would also be applied to the new site regarding ground-disturbing activities and monitoring in the event tribal cultural resources are discovered during construction. The cultural study in the DEIR (Appendix 5.3-1) examined records within a 0.5-mile radius of the original project site to identify any previously documented precontact or historic archaeological sites, architectural resources, or traditional cultural properties.

This study area includes the additional parking lot 3 site. The revised project boundaries would not include any of the sites listed in Table 5.13-1, Previously Recorded Archaeological Resources within a 0.5 Mile Radius of the Project Site, of the DEIR. The mitigation measures for the inadvertent discovery of cultural resources (CUL-1 and CUL-2) and tribal cultural resources (TCR-1 and TCR-2) will apply to parking lot 3 because the City is the lead agency for the construction of the parking lot and will ensure compliance through the implementation of the MMRP that covers the entire project, as revised in this FEIR. As a result, the findings of less-than-significant impacts after the application of mitigation measures to tribal and cultural resources identified in the DEIR are also applicable to the revised plan. No new mitigation measures are required.

No new significant environmental impacts are anticipated to result from the proposed parking lot 3 regarding hazards and hazardous materials, nor new mitigation measures needed, beyond those anticipated and applied in Section 5.6 of the DEIR. According to hazardous material databases (EviroStor and GeoTracker), and as shown in Figure 5.6-1, Project Site Remediation Map, in the DEIR, no hazardous materials are present in the proposed parking lot 3 sites. The only hazardous materials present are on the northwest portion of the site, and Section 5.6 of the DEIR already analyzed and applied mitigation measure HAZ-1 to the northwest area.

The construction and operation of the proposed parking lot 3 would involve minimal, if any, transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, and are therefore not anticipated to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment, pursuant to Impact 5.6-1. No reasonably foreseeable upset or accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment exist on the proposed parking lot 3 site. Therefore, no such materials are present on that portion of the project site, and no emissions or handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school is anticipated beyond that already analyzed pursuant to Impacts 5.6-2, 5.6-3, or 5.6-4. Moreover, parking lot 3 would not cause new impacts pursuant to Impact 5.6-5 because it would be subject to the same zoning designation’s height limit of 65 feet and would therefore not conflict with a land use compatibility plan. The proposed parking lot 3 would also not create new significant environmental impacts pursuant to Impacts 5.6-6 or 5.6-7 because it would not impair or physically interfere with the implementation of an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan and would not be sited within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, respectively.

Accordingly, no new significant environmental impacts are anticipated, and no new mitigation measures are needed regarding hazards and hazardous materials.

No new significant environmental impacts to utilities and service system resources would result from the proposed changes, and no new mitigation measures would be required beyond those analyzed and applied in ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2397 of 2588 ends

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

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

3. Corrections, Clarifications, and Additions Revisions to the DEIR March 2025 Page 57
Section 5.14 of the DEIR. The revised site plan introduces a new impervious surface in the proposed parking lot 3, potentially impacting stormwater runoff. However, as shown on Figure 5.14-1, Storm Drainage Infrastructure, of the DEIR, runoff from the site is directed into existing drop inlets on surrounding streets. From there, stormwater flows through drainage laterals on La Loma Drive and Folsom Boulevard, ultimately connecting to drainage mains along these roads. Runoff from the revised site would continue to be managed by this existing stormwater infrastructure. Any new stormwater infrastructure required would need to meet the standards set by the Stormwater Quality Design Manual for the Sacramento Region, ensuring that hydromodification control and low-impact development measures are implemented to manage runoff. Additionally, the project would adhere to local regulations outlined in the DEIR, including Chapter 15.12 of the Municipal Code, which governs discharges into the stormwater system, and Chapter 15.95, which requires new developments to contribute to funding improvements to the City’s stormwater infrastructure. As such, no new significant impacts or mitigation measures pursuant to Impact 5.14-5 are necessary for the revised project.

The proposed parking lot 3 site would also result in a new driveway along Folsom Boulevard. This roadway would be constructed in compliance with the City’s roadway design and improvement standards as stated in the City’s Municipal Code, Chapter 22.110, Design and Improvement Standards. Since the revised project would have similar impacts to the originally proposed project and all mitigation measures would apply, there are no new environmental impacts or mitigation measures associated with the revised project.

Therefore, the revised project does not meet the standard for recirculation based on the introduction of a new significant impact resulting from the revised project or from new mitigation measures proposed to be implemented, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(a)(1).

3.5.2 Substantial Increase in the Severity of an Environmental Impact Recirculation is required if the revised project results in a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact that cannot be mitigated to a less-than-significant level without new mitigation measures.

The DEIR determined that the following impacts require mitigation measures to reduce impacts to less than significant: air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, and tribal cultural resources. While the project description has changed to include parking lot 3, the DEIR already analyzed the construction and operational impacts of similar elements in the original project description. Parking lot 3 will use conventional construction techniques and is similar to surface parking lots 1 and 2, as shown in the revised project. As such, no substantially more severe environmental impacts are anticipated. Moreover, mitigation measures that will address construction impacts such as dust and erosion (such as Mitigation Measure AQ-1) will continue to apply, as will all City regulations for surface parking, included in the municipal code and adopted engineering standards. The mitigation measures applied in the DEIR would apply to the revised project, including the proposed parking lot 3, and there are no substantially more severe environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated to a less-than-significant level without the adoption of new mitigation measures. Therefore, recirculation pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(a)(2) is not required.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2398 of 2588 ends

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

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

Page 58 ends

3.5.3 A Feasible Alternative or Mitigation Measure Not Adopted If a feasible alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from those previously analyzed that would lessen the significant environmental impacts of the project is introduced and then declined, recirculation is required. However, the revisions to the project, as detailed in Section 3.3 of the FEIR, do not introduce any alternatives or mitigation measures that are substantially different from those previously considered in the DEIR. The revised site plan does not propose a new alternative to reduce impacts but reflects refinements to the layout, including changing parking structures to parking lots, extending the project boundary, proposing different building arrangements, and proposing different circulation layouts. These changes do not introduce a new or more feasible alternative that would lessen environmental impacts. Therefore, the recirculation standard pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(a)(3) based on the rejection of a feasible alternative or mitigation measure is not applicable.

3.5.4 Inadequacy of the Draft EIR
Recirculation is also required if the DEIR is found to be so inadequate or conclusory that it precludes meaningful public review and comment. However, the DEIR was comprehensive and provided adequate opportunities for public review. The DEIR thoroughly addressed potential environmental impacts and provided a clear analysis of the project’s effects. Furthermore, the DEIR’s assessment included potential impacts from a more intensive project scenario with a large parking structure. Although the revised site plan extends the project boundary to include proposed parking lot 3, the impacts and mitigation measures determined in the DEIR would also apply to this new site. The revisions in the FEIR have not substantially altered the scope or nature of the project. Therefore, the DEIR was not inadequate, and meaningful public review and comment were not precluded. As a result, recirculation pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(a)(4) is also not required.

In conclusion, the revisions to the project, as outlined in the FEIR and summarized in Section 3.3, do not trigger the need for recirculation of the DEIR under any of the four criteria outlined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(a). The revised site plan does not introduce new significant environmental impacts, does not substantially increase the severity of existing impacts, does not propose any new feasible alternatives or mitigation measures that would lessen impacts, and does not represent an inadequacy in the DEIR that would prevent meaningful public review. Therefore, the DEIR remains sufficient for evaluating the revised project, and no recirculation is required.

3.6 AESTHETIC/LIGHT ANALYSIS
As shown in Figure 3-4 in the FEIR, the revised site plan would include a photovoltaic canopy over parking spaces in parking lot 1. As indicated in Section 8.1 of the DEIR, development in the city would increase the amount of daytime glare and nighttime lighting due to intensification. However, with the implementation of lighting standards and General Plan policies, impacts would be less than significant. The proposed project would need to comply with the City’s local regulations regarding light. As mentioned in Section 23.725.030, Permit Required, of the City’s Municipal Code, outdoor lighting fixtures for new multifamily residential, commercial, industrial, mixed-use, and public/quasi-public uses require design review approval. This approval is granted alongside land use and development permits. Although the project site is vacant and the proposed ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2399 of 2588 ends

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

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

3. Corrections, Clarifications, and Additions Revisions to the DEIR March 2025 Page 59
project would increase light and glare in the area, the DEIR accounted for this increase by referencing local regulations that would reduce impacts. Therefore, analysis in the DEIR would be adequate for the revised site plan. Therefore, the impacts would be less than significant, and the proposed project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts.

3.7 NOISE ANALYSIS
Figure 5.9-1, SoundPlan Noise Contour for Mills Crossing, on page 5.9-19 of the DEIR, reflects project noise from a parking structure, two Flex Community Centers, a Flex Theater and Studios, a Wellness Center, and a café.

Furthermore, Figure 5.9-1 places the Wellness Center on the southeast side of the project site, in an area designated for a road connection to the parking lot (Los Rios) via Street F. However, the site plan shows Street E connected between Street B and El Caprice Drive in the northeastern portion of the project site.

The revised site plan (Figure 3-4, Conceptual Site Plan (NEW)) would not result in noise impacts beyond those addressed in the DEIR. As shown in Figure 5.9-1, of the DEIR, the projected noise levels for the proposed project are significantly below the City’s Exterior Noise Standard of 60 A-weighted decibels (dBA). The noise modeling prepared for the DEIR (Appendix 5.9-1, Noise Impact Assessment, in the DEIR), was done conservatively. The noise modeling took into account the planned parking garage at the southwest corner using reference measurements from an existing garage but did not factor in the noise attenuation typically provided by the garage structure. Noise attenuation refers to the reduction or dampening of sound as it travels through or is absorbed by materials or structures. Parking structures have greater noise attenuation than surface parking lots due to the walls and roof of the structure, which absorb and contain much of the noise. However, the noise modeling in the DEIR did not take this noise attenuation into account for the proposed project. As noted in Appendix 5.9-1 of the DEIR, no additional attenuation is assumed for hard surfaces such as a parking lot.

Therefore, the noise modeling and analysis in the DEIR remain applicable to the revised site plan since the DEIR analysis did not include noise attenuation that a parking structure would provide.

In addition, the other four area noise sources in the model were based on reference measurements from various environments, including single-family and multifamily neighborhoods, playgrounds, and commercial parking lots. This approach ensures a conservative assessment incorporating a wide range of potential noise sources that may vary in intensity and impact. This approach accounts for the broadest possible spectrum of noise levels, including both lower and higher noise-producing scenarios. While the revised site plan may alter the noise dynamics from those modeled, the noise expert who prepared the analysis for the DEIR concluded that these four noise sources would not extend significantly into the northwest area where residential areas currently exist (see Appendix A, Mills Crossing Parking Update: Noise, of this FEIR). Therefore, it can be assumed that the minor adjustments to building locations proposed under the revised site plan would be unlikely to alter the noise level projections substantially or exceed the City’s noise standards.

As shown on Figure 5.9-1 of the DEIR, for the residential area on El Caprice Drive, operational noise levels would be between 32.6 to 44.1 dBA. The standard for residential receptors is under 60 dBA. Therefore, the proposed project as analyzed in the DEIR would not exceed the City’s noise standard. The revised site plan, as depicted on Figure 3-4 of this FEIR, relocates Road E to connect with El Caprice Drive, moving the proposed road closer to a corner lot adjacent to existing residential areas. This adjustment would replace the housing ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2400 of 2588 ends

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

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

Page 60 ends

initially planned for the northeast area with a road, thereby moving the noise source closer to an existing home.

Although the revised plan removes the residential buildings planned in the northeast that originally served as noise buffers (see Figure 3-4, Conceptual Site Plan (NEW), in the FEIR), the revised site plan does not increase the amount of traffic associated with the proposed project, and the noise expert that prepared the noise analysis for the DEIR states that the relocated road would not increase the predicted noise level enough to exceed the City’s threshold (see Appendix A of this FEIR). The revised site plan would also include the additional proposed parking lot 3, which would be south of future housing (see Figure 3-4, Conceptual Site Plan (NEW), in this FEIR). The proposed, future residential buildings would serve as a buffer for the noise from the proposed parking lot 3 to the surrounding area. Therefore, no significant environmental effects would occur. This would not substantially increase the severity of the less-than-significant noise impact determined in Impact 5.9-2 of the DEIR. No new mitigation measures would be required.

3.8 AIR QUALITY/GREENHOUSE GAS/ENERGY ANALYSIS
The change from a parking structure in the proposed project to the three surface parking lots in the revised site plan would not introduce new greenhouse gas emissions impacts not already addressed in the DEIR. The change would result in lower criteria air pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions due to reduced construction material use, decreased maintenance needs, and lower electricity consumption.

The DEIR identified potentially significant impacts from a cumulative increase in criteria pollutants during construction and included Mitigation Measure AQ-1, which requires the implementation of Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District’s basic and enhanced construction emission-control practices to reduce fugitive dust. This mitigation measure would also be applied to the revised site plan, including the proposed parking lot 3. Please refer to Appendix B, Mills Crossing Parking Update: Impact on Emissions, in this FEIR, for a detailed analysis and additional information provided by ECORP Consulting, Inc.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2401 of 2588 ends

APPENDICES
Appendix A Mills Crossing Parking Update: Noise
Appendix B Mills Crossing Parking Update: Impact
on Emissions
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2402 of 2588 ends

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2403 of 2588 ends

Appendix A Mills Crossing Parking Update: Noise
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2404 of 2588 ends

1 Jessica Mendoza
From: Jessica Mendoza
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 1:02 PM
To: Jessica Mendoza
Subject: FW: Mills Crossing Noise

JESSICA MENDOZA
Project Planner
she/her
Sacramento
Work: 916.245.7500 | Cell: 909.643.9383
[email protected] | placeworks.com
PlaceWorks is now 100% employee-owned!
From: Seth Myers <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 1, 2024 8:52 AM
To: Mark Teague <[email protected]>; Jessica Mendoza <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Mills Crossing Noise
Agreed. The original model accounts for a lot of ‘busy-ness’ up there. The new Site Plan appears to show that this would go away. An while those buildings, which create buƯers in the original model, would also go away, that single roadway essentially accommodating internal circulation is not going to jump the predicted noise by 15 decibels, as would be needed to surpass the threshold.

Seth
From: Mark Teague <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2024 5:10 PM
To: Seth Myers <[email protected]>; Jessica Mendoza <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Mills Crossing Noise
Thought on the relocation of road E? Can’t see that it would aƯect noise all that much.

MARK TEAGUE, AICP
Managing Principal, Environmental Services
he/him
OƯices throughout California
Cell: 858.776.5574
[email protected] | placeworks.com
PlaceWorks is now 100% employee-owned!
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2405 of 2588 ends

2 From: Seth Myers <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2024 4:05 PM
To: Mark Teague <[email protected]>; Jessica Mendoza <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Mills Crossing Noise
Hi Mark,
These site plan changes are exactly why we model these things so conservatively. For instance, we modeled the originally planned parking garage at the southwest corner using reference measurements taken inside an existing garage yet didn’t account for any noise attenuation of an actual garage structure in the modeling (parking garages typically have huge gaps in the walls, but they still have walls). The other 4 area noise sources placed in the model are based on reference measurements from single family neighborhoods (which include internal traƯic), multifamily neighborhoods (which include internal traƯic), playgrounds, and commercial parking lots. Modeling all these sources can be considered a bit redundant, but conservative so that’s why we do it. Lastly, while the changes in the site plan may change the noise dynamic from that modeled, the sources wouldn’t extend so far up to the northwest. So while there aren’t those buildings buƯering the existing land uses there’s also not the area sources flanking them.

I totally agree that there is no need to remodel.

Seth Myers  Air Quality/Noise Task Manager  ECORP ConsulƟng, Inc.

California Small Business for Public Works (SB-PW)
smyers@ecorpconsulƟng.com  Direct 530.965.5925  Cell: 530.717.7600 Rocklin  Redlands  Santa Ana  San Diego  Chico  Flagstaff, AZ  Santa Fe, NM From: Mark Teague <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2024 1:37 PM
To: Seth Myers <[email protected]>; Jessica Mendoza <[email protected]> Subject: Mills Crossing Noise
The City has asked if the revised site plan would result in new noise impacts not evaluated in the EIR. We’ve looked at this and think the answer is no. The projected numbers are already well below the 60 dBA threshold and moving a few buildings around probably won’t change them substantially. Further, buildings in the area to the north (single family housing) was ‘assumed’ in the EIR, but this revised site plan doesn’t include buildings, so re-modeling probably wouldn’t make any sense. The only piece that gives us pause is the relocation of Road E on the east connecting to El Caprice Drive. In the EIR it’s a fair distance from the existing home that fronts El Caprice and the revised site plan would make it a corner lot. Even here though, perhaps the 44.1 dBA projection across El Caprice Drive would simply move north but still remain below the threshold. However, we thought it worth asking your opinion as THE expert. The first graphic is from the EIR…Figure 5.9-1. The second is from their revised site plan.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2406 of 2588 ends

Rancho Cordova City CouncilJune 2, 2025

Rancho Cordova City Council
June 2, 2025