Rancho Cordova City Council
March 4, 2024

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, March 4, 2024
4:00 PM – Special Meeting/Closed Session
5:30 PM – Regular Meeting
David B. Roberts Council Chambers
City Hall
2729 Prospect Park Drive, Rancho Cordova
How to Observe or Listen to the Meeting:
• Online at https://ranchocordovaca.portal.civicclerk.com • Online via Zoom: https://cityofranchocordova.zoom.us/j/81630466928 Webinar ID: 816 3046 6928
• By phone: +1 669 900 6833 or +1 253 215 8782
Webinar ID: 816 3046 6928
Public Comment

Members of the public who wish to address the City Council may do so in person during the meeting by completing and submitting a Speaker Card to the City Clerk.

Members of the public who wish to provide public comment via email will need to submit comments to [email protected] no later than 2:00 p.m. on Monday, March 4, 2024. Written comments received no later than 2:00 p.m. will be distributed to the Council, filed in the record, and will not be read aloud. All comments submitted later than 2:00 p.m. will be distributed to the Council.

If you have questions related to the City Council Meeting, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at (916) 851-8720 before Monday, March 4, 2024, at 2:00 p.m.

AMENDED AGENDA

1. SPECIAL MEETING - CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL

Rancho Cordova City Council - AMENDED AGENDA
Special and Regular Meeting of Monday, March 4, 2024

Council Members Linda Budge, Garrett Gatewood, Siri Pulipati, Donald Terry, and Mayor David Sander

2. PUBLIC COMMENT
At a special meeting, members of the public wishing to address the Council for any matter on the agenda may do so at the time the matter is discussed. Under the provisions of the California Government Code, the City Council is prohibited from discussing or taking action on any item not on the agenda.

3. SPECIAL MEETING ITEMS

3.1. Subject: Appointment of Real Property Negotiators City Manager Micah Runner, and City Attorney Adam U. Lindgren, for the Following Property and Assessor's Parcel Number (APN):
10801 White Rock Road, 072-0610-091.

Recommendation: Approve appointment of Real Property Negotiators.

4. ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION
Mayor Sander will adjourn the meeting to closed session.

5. CLOSED SESSION - CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
Council Members Linda Budge, Garrett Gatewood, Siri Pulipati, Donald Terry, and David Sander

6. CLOSED SESSION
Council will meet in closed session to discuss the following items:

6.1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING LITIGATION (pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1)) 350 Sacramento, a California non-profit benefit corporation; and Oscar Balaguer v. City of Rancho Cordova, a general law city; City Council for the City of Rancho Cordova, and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive. Sacramento Superior Court Case No. 23WM000101.

6.2. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS: Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8: Property 10801 White Rock Road, Assessor's Parcel Number (APN): 072- 0610-091, City Negotiators: Micah Runner, City Manager, and Adam U. Lindgren, City Attorney, Negotiating Parties: Brooks Erickson and Amy Brager. Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment.

7. OPEN SESSION - REPORT FROM CLOSED SESSION
The City Attorney will report on action taken in closed session.

8. ADJOURNMENT TO REGULAR MEETING
Mayor Sander will adjourn closed session to the Regular meeting in the David B. Roberts Council Chambers.

9. REGULAR MEETING - CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
Council Members Linda Budge, Garrett Gatewood, Siri Pulipati, Donald Terry, and Mayor David Sander

10. METRO CABLE TV TELEVISION ANNOUNCEMENT

Rancho Cordova City Council - AMENDED AGENDA
Special and Regular Meeting of Monday, March 4, 2024

The Clerk will announce the meetings video recording and playback schedules.

11. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Mayor will call on someone in attendance to lead the pledge.

12. INVOCATION
Donny Burleson with Freedom Church will give the invocation.

13. PRESENTATIONS

13.1. Presentation of Proclamation to Soroptimist International of Rancho Cordova and Gold River for Women’s History Month 2024.

14. PUBLIC COMMENT
Members of the public wishing to address the City Council for any matter not on the agenda may do so at this time by completing and submitting a Speaker Card to the City Clerk.

For items on the agenda, speakers will be called by the Mayor at the point on the agenda when the item will be heard. Speakers are encouraged to keep comments to three minutes or less and to state name and community of residence.

Under the provisions of the California Government Code, the City Council is prohibited from discussing or taking immediate action on any item not on the agenda unless it can be demonstrated to be of an emergency nature or the need to take immediate action arose after the posting of the agenda.

15. COUNCIL REPORTS

16. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT

17. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS - ROLL CALL VOTE

17.1. Subject: Meeting Minutes from the Regular City Council Meeting of February 20, 2024.

Recommendation: Adopt the minutes.

17.2. Subject: Citywide Roundabout Feasibility Study and Implementation Plan.

Recommendation: Approve the Citywide Roundabout Feasibility Study and Implementation Plan.

17.3. Subject: A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Contract Amendment No. 38- 2019-2 with Roush Landscape Services to Extend the Contract Term from June 30, 2024, to June 30, 2026, Resulting in an Increase to the Contract Amount from $2,396,000 to an Amount not to Exceed $3,404,600 for Continued Landscape Maintenance Services.

Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution.

18. CONSENT PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS - ROLL CALL VOTE

18.1. Subject: Second Reading of an Ordinance Amending Sections 10.50.010 and 10.50.020 of Chapter 10.50 of Title 10 of the Rancho Cordova Municipal Code to Establish Enforceable Speed Limits on the Roads Listed in the Ordinance.

Recommendation: Waive the second reading and adopt the Ordinance.

Rancho Cordova City Council - AMENDED AGENDA
Special and Regular Meeting of Monday, March 4, 2024

18.2. Subject: An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cordova Amending Title 2 Administration and Personnel, Chapter 2.30 Planning Commission to Incorporate Additional Qualifications to At-Large Members (CEQA Exempt pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3)).

Recommendation: Waive the first reading and introduce the Ordinance.

18.3. Subject: A Resolution Approving the Street Name Change of Poopenaut Court to Artist Point Court in the Sunridge Park Community.

Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution.

18.4. Subject: A Resolution Approving the 2023 Community Development Block Grant Consolidated Annual Performance Evaluation Report for Submittal to U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution.

19. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS

19.1. Subject: Public Hearing to Receive Protests to the Proposed Stormwater Utility 1 Fee Increase and a Resolution to Submit the Question to a Vote of the Property Owners for Approval of the Proposed Stormwater Utility 1 Fee Increase.

Recommendation: Hold a noticed public hearing to consider protests to the proposed Stormwater Utility 1 increase and, if a majority protest is not received at the Protest Hearing, adopt the Resolution to submit the question of the proposed Stormwater Utility 1 Fee increase to a vote of the owners of the property subject to the proposed fee increase for approval.

20. REGULAR CALENDAR ITEMS

20.1. Subject: A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Contract No. 2024-33 with either Atlas Disposal Industries or Allied Waste Services of North America for the Residential Solid Waste Services and Street Sweeping Services Contract Beginning January 1, 2025, through December 31, 2034.

Recommendation: Select the preferred contractor for the Residential Solid Waste Services and Street Sweeping Services contract beginning January 1, 2025, and adopt the Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute the contract with either Atlas Disposal Industries or Allied Waste Services of North America (Republic Services).

20.2. Subject: Selection of Official City Flower.

Recommendation: Select the official City of Rancho Cordova flower.

20.3. Subject: Rancho Cordova Police Department Update.

Recommendation: Receive information.

21. COUNCIL REQUESTS FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS

22. ADJOURNMENT

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Special Meetings listed below are subject to change/cancellation without further notice.

Unless the Council adopts a motion to extend the meeting, any item that is not initiated before 11:00 p.m. will be continued to the next day at 5:30 p.m. or scheduled on the next regular meeting agenda of the Council.

Rancho Cordova City Council - AMENDED AGENDA
Special and Regular Meeting of Monday, March 4, 2024

Public documents related to items on the open session portion of this agenda, which are distributed to the City Council less than 72 hours prior to the meeting, shall be available for public inspection at the time the documents are distributed to the Council. Documents are available for inspection at the City Clerk's office located in Rancho Cordova City Hall.

The agenda items are accessible on the City’s website at www.cityofranchocordova.org on Thursdays or Fridays prior to the Regular City Council Meeting.

UPCOMING MEETINGS
March 18, 2024 5:30 PM Regular Meeting
March 26, 2024 5:30 PM Special Meeting/Work Session
April 2, 2024 4:00 PM Special Meeting/Regular Meeting
April 23, 2024 5:30 PM Special Meeting/Work Session
May 6, 2024 4:00 PM Special Meeting/Regular Meeting
May 20, 2024 5:30 PM Regular Meeting
May 28, 2024 5:30 PM Special Meeting/Work Session
June 3, 2024 4:00 PM Special Meeting/Regular Meeting
If you have any technical questions related to the agenda items, please contact City Hall at (916) 851- 8700.

The Rancho Cordova City Council meeting will be videotaped in its entirety and will be cablecast without interruption on Metro Cable 14, the Government Affairs Channel on the Comcast, Consolidated Communications and AT&T U-Verse Systems. Closed Captioning will be available on the playback cablecast. A DVD copy is available from the City Clerk’s Department and a webcast of this meeting will be available for viewing via video streaming from the City’s website within 48 hours of adjournment of this meeting.

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need a disability-related modification or accommodation, including auxiliary aids or services, to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at (916) 851-8720 at least 48 hours prior to the meeting.

CERTIFICATION OF POSTING OF AGENDA
I, Stacy Leitner, City Clerk for the City of Rancho Cordova, declare that the foregoing agenda for the March 4, 2024, Regular Meeting of the Rancho Cordova City Council was posted and available for review on February 29, 2024 at City Hall of the City of Rancho Cordova, 2729 Prospect Park Drive, Rancho Cordova, California, 95670. The agenda is also available on the city website at www.cityofranchocordova.org.

Rancho Cordova City Council - AMENDED AGENDA
Special and Regular Meeting of Monday, March 4, 2024

Signed February 29, 2024 at Rancho Cordova, California.

Stacy Leitner, CMC
City Clerk

ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Tuesday, February 20, 2024
5:30 PM – Regular Meeting
David B. Roberts Council Chambers
City Hall
2729 Prospect Park Drive, Rancho Cordova

DRAFT MINUTES

1. REGULAR MEETING - CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
Mayor Sander called the Regular meeting to order in the David B. Roberts Council Chambers at 5:36 p.m.

Council Members Present: Linda Budge, Garrett Gatewood, Donald Terry, and Mayor David Sander
Council Members Absent: Siri Pulipati
Staff Members Present: Anthony Amara, Stacy Leitner, Persephonie Riley, and Micah Runner

2. METRO CABLE TV TELEVISION ANNOUNCEMENT
The City Clerk read the meetings recordings and playback schedule.

3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Matthew Tamayo led the pledge.

4. INVOCATION
Dr. Dan DeShong with River City Christian Church gave the invocation.

5. PRESENTATIONS

5.1. Introduction of New Employee Samantha Mott, Senior Communications Officer by Maria Kniestedt, Communications and Public Affairs Director.

6. PUBLIC COMMENT
Mayor Sander opened the public comment period. The following individuals addressed

ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1
Rancho Cordova City Council - DRAFT MINUTES
Meeting of Tuesday, February 20, 2024

the Council or submitted public comment via email:

1. Larry Ladd

2. James Garcia

3. Helen Whelan-Bashaw

4. Shawna Mandell

5. Heidi Moore

6. Bethany Royer

7. Angel Ball
Mayor Sander closed the public comment period.

7. COUNCIL REPORTS
Council reported on events since the last meeting.

8. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
City Manager Micah Runner gave his report.

9. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS - ROLL CALL VOTE
Mayor Sander stated that items 9.4 and 9.5 would be pulled for separate discussion.

Mayor Sander opened the public comment period. Seeing no speakers, Mayor Sander closed the public comment period.

ACTION: Motion to approve item 9.1 through 9.3 by Budge second by Terry; Motion passed with a 4:0 vote.

AYES: Budge, Gatewood, Terry, and Sander
NOES: None
ABSENT: Pulipati
ABSTAIN: None

9.1. Subject: Meeting Minutes from the Regular City Council Meeting of February 5, 2024 and the Special Meeting of February 12, 2024.

Recommendation: Adopt the minutes.

9.2. Subject: A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Contract No. 2024-17 in an Amount not to Exceed $212,417 with PBM Construction, Inc. to Construct the 2023 ADA Sidewalk Improvement Project - Phase 2 at Various Locations in the City.

Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution.

9.3. Subject: A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Contract No. 2024-24 in an Amount not to Exceed $1,956,889 with Ascent Environmental, Inc. for the General Plan Update and Associated Environmental Impact Report.

Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution.

9.4. Subject: A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Agreement with the United States Department of Energy to Receive Grant Funds in the Amount of $138,900 for the Purchase and Installation of Additional Electric Vehicle Chargers at City Hall.

Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution.

Mayor Sander opened the public comment period. The following individuals addressed the Council or submitted public comment via email:

ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1
Rancho Cordova City Council - DRAFT MINUTES
Meeting of Tuesday, February 20, 2024

1. Larry Ladd
Mayor Sander closed the public comment period.

9.5. Subject: A Resolution Authorizing Application to the California Department of Housing and Community Development Prohousing Incentive Pilot Program Round 2 Funding and Allocating Program Funds to the Mather Veterans Village Phase 4 Affordable Housing Development Project.

Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution.

Mayor Sander opened the public comment period. The following individuals addressed the Council or submitted public comment via email:

1. Helen Whelan-Bashaw
Mayor Sander closed the public comment period.

ACTION: Motion to approve items 9.4 and 9.5. by Budge second by Terry; Motion passed with a 4:0 vote.

AYES: Budge, Gatewood, Terry, and Sander
NOES: None
ABSENT: Pulipati
ABSTAIN: None

10. CONSENT PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS - ROLL CALL VOTE
Mayor Sander stated that items 10.2 and 10.3 would be pulled for separate discussion.

Mayor Sander opened the public comment period. Seeing no speakers, Mayor Sander closed the public comment period.

ACTION: Motion to approve item 10.1 by Budge second by Terry; Motion passed with a 5:0 vote.

AYES: Budge, Gatewood, Terry, and Sander
NOES: None
ABSENT: Pulipati
ABSTAIN: None

10.1. Subject: Sunridge Park III – Tentative Subdivision Map and General Plan Amendment (CEQA Exempt Pursuant to Section 15183. Projects Consistent with the Community Plan, General Plan or Zoning) – Project PLND-0822-0050 – Located at the Southwest Corner of Canyonlands Drive and Timberland Drive; APN: 067-0650-052-0000.

Recommendation: Determine the project Exempt per Section 15183 Projects Consistent with a Community Plan, General Plan, or Zoning and adopt the Resolution approving the Sunridge Park III Tentative Subdivision Map and General Plan Amendment subject to the findings contained in the Resolution and Conditions of Approval.

10.2. Subject: An Ordinance Amending Sections 10.50.010 and 10.50.020 of Chapter 10.50 of Title 10 of the Rancho Cordova Municipal Code to Establish Enforceable Speed Limits on the Roads Listed in the Ordinance.

Recommendation: Waive the first reading and introduce the Ordinance.

Mayor Sander opened the public comment period. The following individuals addressed

ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1
Rancho Cordova City Council - DRAFT MINUTES
Meeting of Tuesday, February 20, 2024

the Council or submitted public comment via email:

1. Tera Kolvenbach

2. James Garcia

3. Helen Whelan-Bashaw

4. Valerie Knippschild

5. James Garcia

6. Marilyn Metzger
Mayor Sander closed the public comment period.

ACTION: Motion to approve item 10.2. by Terry second by Budge; Motion passed with a 4:0 vote.

AYES: Budge, Gatewood, Terry, and Sander
NOES: None
ABSENT: Pulipati
ABSTAIN: None

10.3. Subject: An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cordova Amending Title 2 Administration and Personnel, Chapter 2.30 Planning Commission to Incorporate Additional Qualifications to At-Large Members (CEQA Exempt pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3)).

Recommendation: Waive the first reading and introduce the Ordinance.

Mayor Sander opened the public comment period. The following individuals addressed the Council or submitted public comment via email:

1. James Garcia

2. Helen Whelan-Bashaw

3. Belinda Rianda

4. Jim Garcia
Mayor Sander closed the public comment period.

ACTION: Motion to continue item 10.3 to the March 4, 2024 City Council meeting by Budge second by Terry;
Motion passed with a 4:0 vote.

AYES: Budge, Gatewood, Terry, and Sander
NOES: None
ABSENT: Pulipati
ABSTAIN: None

11. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS

11.1. Subject: Mine Shaft Digital Billboard Signs - Conditional Use Permit, Minor Design Review, and Operating Agreement (Mitigated Negative Declaration Prepared Pursuant to Article 6 of the California Environmental Quality Act) - Project PLND-0822-0047 - 2300 Mine Shaft Lane; APN: 072-0231-014-0000.

Recommendation: Find the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration with mitigation measures that was prepared and circulated pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the project is adequate; adopt the Resolution for the Mine Shaft Digital Billboard Signs Conditional Use Permit and Minor Design Review; and approve the Mine Shaft Digital Billboard Signs Operating Agreement.

ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1
Rancho Cordova City Council - DRAFT MINUTES
Meeting of Tuesday, February 20, 2024

Mayor Sander opened the public comment period. The following individuals addressed the Council or submitted public comment via email:

1. James Garcia

2. Helen Whelan-Bashaw

3. James Garcia

4. Jim Garcia
Mayor Sander closed the public comment period.

ACTION: Motion to approve item 11.1 east digital billboard sign by Budge second by Terry;
Motion passed with a 4:0 vote.

AYES: Budge, Gatewood, Terry, and Sander
NOES: None
ABSENT: Pulipati
ABSTAIN: None
ACTION: Motion to approve item 11.1 west digital billboard sign by Terry second by Gatewood;
Motion passed with a 3:1 vote.

AYES: Gatewood, Terry, and Sander
NOES: Budge
ABSENT: Pulipati
ABSTAIN: None

11.2. Subject: Public Hearing to Receive Protests to the Proposed Stormwater Utility 1 Fee Increase and a Resolution to Submit the Question to a Vote of the Property Owners for Approval of the Proposed Stormwater Utility 1 Fee Increase.

Recommendation: Continue item to the March 4, 2024, City Council meeting.

Mayor Sander opened the public comment period. The following individuals addressed the Council or submitted public comment via email:

1. Larry Ladd

2. Derald Langwell
Mayor Sander closed the public comment period.

ACTION: Motion to continue item 11.2. to the March 4, 2024 City Council meeting by Budge second by Terry;
Motion passed with a 3:1 vote.

AYES: Budge, Terry, and Sander
NOES: Gatewood
ABSENT: Pulipati
ABSTAIN: None

12. REGULAR CALENDAR ITEMS

12.1. Subject: Communications Strategic Plan.

Recommendation: Provide July 2022 – December 2023 communications update and answer Council questions.

ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1
Rancho Cordova City Council - DRAFT MINUTES
Meeting of Tuesday, February 20, 2024

Council Member Terry left the meeting at 7:26 p.m.

Break 7:30 p.m. - 7:40 p.m.

Mayor Sander opened the public comment period. Seeing no speakers, Mayor Sander closed the public comment period.

ACTION: Input was received regarding Communications Strategic Plan.

12.2. Subject: Update on California Laws Enacted in 2023.

Recommendation: Receive the report.

Mayor Sander opened the public comment period. Seeing no speakers, Mayor Sander closed the public comment period.

ACTION: Input was received regarding California Laws Enacted in 2023.

13. COUNCIL REQUESTS FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
None.

14. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Sander adjourned the meeting in memory of Lloyd Johns at 8:34 p.m. ____________________
Stacy Leitner, CMC
City Clerk

MEMORANDUM
City Council Staff Report - Page 1 of 2

ITEM 17.2.

DATE: March 4, 2024
TO: Honorable Mayor and Council Members
FROM: Albert Stricker, Public Works Director
Kristine Courdy, Senior Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: CITYWIDE ROUNDABOUT FEASIBILITY STUDY AND

IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

RECOMMENDATION
Approve the Citywide Roundabout Feasibility Study and Implementation Plan.

RESULT OF RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff would utilize the Citywide Roundabout Feasibility Study and Implementation Plan which would provide a roadmap for potential retrofitting of roundabouts at existing locations in the City and guidelines for including roundabouts in future developments.

BACKGROUND
The City of Rancho Cordova applied for and successfully received a Fiscal Year 2021-22 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant in the amount of $154,928 for the Citywide Roundabout Feasibility Study and Implementation Plan (the Plan). The Plan explored options to include roundabouts to better serve the needs of the community and evaluated the feasibility of switching traffic signals and stop sign controlled intersections to roundabouts. The Plan created a prioritized roundabout implementation plan with conceptual designs of potential locations and created guidelines to evaluate roundabout locations in the future.

On June 6, 2022, the City Council awarded a professional services agreement to Kittelson & Associates, Inc. to prepare the Plan. To develop the Plan, Kittelson screened potential roundabout locations, studied the intersections, tested overlay design sketches, and gathered input from the community and stakeholders. The community feedback included three community meetings reaching fifty attendees and an online survey with eighty-eight responses.

One section of the Plan includes the Roundabout Guidelines (refer to Appendix F of the Plan, Attachment 1) that will help guide the design of roundabouts in new developments throughout the City.

The Plan was initially presented at the January 16, 2024, City Council meeting. The City Council and community feedback has been incorporated into the Plan. After approval, the next steps will be to seek grants and funding to implement concepts and use the Roundabout Guidelines to identify new roundabouts within existing neighborhoods and future development.

City Council Staff Report - Page 2 of 2

FISCAL IMPACT AND FUNDING SOURCE
Funding for the Citywide Roundabout Feasibility Study and Implementation Plan consists of $154,928.00 from the Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant Program and the required City match is funded from Gas Tax for the delivery of this project. The project has no impact on the General Fund.

This project is included in the City's current approved Capital Improvement Plan and is in the current budget.

ATTACHMENT(S)

1. CORC Roundabout Final Report - Report & Appendices

DECEMBER 2023
RANCHO

CORDOVA

ROUNDABOUT

FEASIBILITY

STUDY REPORT
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 6
INTRODUCTION 10
About the Project  10
Why Roundabouts? 12
PLANNING CONTEXT 18
General Plan  18
Bicycle Master Plan  18
Local Road Safety Plan  18
Pedestrian Master Plan  19
Specific Plans  19
Neighborhood Traffic Management Program Manual  19
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT 22
Project Website  22
Community Meetings  23
Technical Advisory Committee  25
LOCATION SCREENING 28
Priority Screening  29
Feasibility Screening 31
WHAT’S NEXT? 34
Roundabout Guidelines  34
Next Steps for Future Locations  34
Funding  35
APPENDIX A: COMMUNITY & STAKEHOLDER
ENGAGEMENT MATERIALS 37
APPENDIX B: SCREENING MEMO 39
APPENDIX C: SCREENING RESULTS 42
APPENDIX D: EXHIBITS 51
APPENDIX E: FUNDING SOURCES 53
APPENDIX F: ROUNDABOUT GUIDELINES 59
Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study Report 2
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

FIGURES
TABLES
Figure 1. Planted Roundabout as Community Gateway (Citrus Heights, CA) 10 Figure 2. Roundabout Features 13
Figure 3. Comparing Conflict Points: Signalized or
Stop-Controlled Intersection vs. Roundabout 14
Figure 4. Comparing Crash Types: Signalized or
Stop-Controlled Intersection vs. Roundabout 15
Figure 5. Roundabout Project Website 22
Figure 6. Sample Survey Question 24
Figure 7. Priority Screening Weighted Factor Scoring 30 Figure 8. Sample Roundabout Footprint Sketch 31
Table 1. Funding Source Summary, as of 2023 35
3 Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study Report
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study Report 4
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

Executive
Summary
5 Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study Report
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

4/ Prepare City roundabout guidelines.
3/ Gather input from the community and technical advisory committee and develop roundabout designs.
2/ Study top location intersections and
test overlay design sketches.
1/ Screen potential roundabout locations
using existing city data.

Project Process
Executive Summary
About the Project
Roundabouts can decrease city congestion, improve
traffic safety, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

This document outlines guidance to help the City
plan and implement roundabouts at future and
existing locations, where feasible.

Project Goals
The City set three goals for this project:
1 2
3 / Identify suitable existing
locations for roundabouts.
/ Prepare planning and design
guidelines for future roundabouts.
/ Develop a forward-looking
roundabout priority plan for
the City of Rancho Cordova.

Technical Advisory
Committee (TAC)
Feedback and questions from the TAC helped
guide design priorities, emergency vehicle and
access needs, and existing and planned transit
needs.

TAC Members
Sacramento Regional
Transit District (SacRT)
Folsom Cordova Unified
School District
Sacramento Metropolitan
Fire District
Civic Thread
Sacramento Area Bicycle
Advocates
Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study Report 6
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

Roundabout Guidelines
As part of this project, the project team developed a
guide for planning and designing future roundabouts
(Appendix F). Based on national best practices, this
guide will help support City staff, consultants, and other practitioners involved in City projects during the roundabout planning and design process. These guidelines will also help the City and partners site, plan, and move roundabouts
through the project development process.

Community
Engagement
Rancho Cordova community member questions,
concerns, and ideas informed project priorities and
the viability of future roundabout locations.

Location Screening
Process
To identify existing intersections in Rancho Cordova
that may be good candidates for roundabouts,
the project team developed a screening process
that evaluated locations first by priority and then
by feasibility. The screening process used data on
traffic counts and travel demand forecasts, land
use, roadway characteristics, demographics, and
environmental characteristics. Engagement by the Numbers 3 Public Meetings
50 Attendees
88 Survey Responses
138
Total Connections
Feasibility Screening
Community Feedback
Priority Screening
All Intersections in the City
Top 50 Intersections
9 Feasible Locations
5 Concept Locations
7 Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study Report
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study Report 8
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

Introduction
9 Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study Report
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

Introduction
1 City of Rancho Cordova, “Growth by the Numbers,” https://www. cityofranchocordova.org/Home/Components/News/News/4586/19. 2 FHWA, “Roundabouts,” August 2023, https://highways.dot.gov/safety/ intersection-safety/intersection-types/roundabouts.

The City of Rancho Cordova got its start during the Gold Rush, when entrepreneurial spirits raced to extract wealth and opportunity from the landscape. Today, in its prime spot along the American River outside Sacramento, Rancho Cordova is once again a boom town. The city is one of the region’s largest employers and boasts a population that has grown by almost 50 percent in 20 years.1 The city’s recent growth in population has created the need to address local transportation safety, circulation, and congestion.

This report summarizes the results of the City of Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study, a project funded through the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant Program. The study considered roundabouts as a way to decrease city congestion, improve traffic safety, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by identifying appropriate existing and future intersection locations for roundabouts. This document identifies the top existing locations for potential Rancho Cordova roundabout projects, offers concepts for those locations, and outlines guidance to help the City plan and implement roundabouts moving forward.

About the Project
Versatile in their size, shape, and design,
roundabouts offer numerous safety and operational
benefits. Their design forces low vehicle speeds,
reduces conflict points for all road users, and
promotes efficient traffic operations.2 Installing
roundabouts can reduce the number and severity of
crashes, reduce traffic congestion, and help create
a sense of place and function as a gateway into a
community (Figure 1). And, because they don’t
require electrical controllers or signal operations,
many roundabouts have reduced ongoing costs
compared to traffic signals. Roundabouts also
are resilient during natural disasters since the
intersections continue to function as designed when
the power goes out.

To take advantage of these safety and operational
benefits, the City of Rancho Cordova studied the
feasibility of building roundabouts at new and
existing intersections throughout the city. Using a
series of data points and community feedback, the
project team evaluated and prioritized potential
roundabout locations, created an implementation
plan—including conceptual designs at five potential
roundabout locations—and developed guidelines
to help the City plan for and prioritize future
roundabouts.

Figure 1. Planted Roundabout as Community
Gateway (Citrus Heights, CA)
Source: Google Earth, (38.684381, -121.296489)
Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study Report 10
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

4/ Prepare City roundabout guidelines.
3/ Gather input from the community and technical advisory committee and develop roundabout designs.
2/ Study top location intersections and
test overlay design sketches.

Project Goals
With this project, the City set out to achieve three goals:
/ Identify suitable existing locations for roundabouts. / Prepare planning and design guidelines for future roundabouts. / Develop a forward-looking roundabout priority plan for the City of Rancho Cordova.

Throughout this project, the City relied on public and stakeholder feedback to help shape and refine the study.

Project Process
1 2
3 1/ Screen potential roundabout locations
using existing city data.
11 Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study Report
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

/ Safer Intersections
Roundabouts can effectively decrease
the frequency and severity of crashes by
reducing the number of conflict points for
drivers, pedestrians, and bicyclists and by
reducing vehicle speeds (see Figure 3).
/ More Resilient Infrastructure
Because roundabouts typically don’t have
signals requiring power, they continue
to function even when the power goes
out, such as during an earthquake,
wildfire, or other emergency.
/ Lower Life Cycle Costs
Roundabouts don’t need electrical controllers,
signal maintenance, or retiming, and they have
a longer service life than traffic signals. As a
result, roundabouts can reduce municipality
maintenance costs compared to a signal.3
3 Niederhauser, M., B. Collins, and E. Myers. “The Use of Roundabouts: Comparison with Alternate Design Solution.” Presented at the 67th Annual Meeting of the Institute of Transportation Engineers, Washington, DC, 1997. 4 National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP), NCHRP Research Report 1043: Guide for Roundabouts (2023), Section 2.4.2, https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/27069/guide-forroundabouts and Salamati, K., N. Rouphail, C. Frey, B. Schroeder, and L. Rodegerdts. Assessment of the Environmental Characteristics of Roundabouts. Vol. III of VII, Accelerating Roundabout Implementation in the United States, publication FHWA-SA-15-071, FHWA, US Department of Transportation, 2015. / More Attractive Streets
Roundabout central islands provide
natural locations for landscape and art,
which can enhance street aesthetics and
help visually indicate that roadway users
are entering a distinct community.
/ Access Management
Roundabouts can naturally provide U-turn
movements but without the delay of vehicles
waiting to make a tight U-turn. This allows
the installation of raised medians that
restrict left turn movements across traffic,
which can help make the street safer.
/ Less Congestion and
Reduced Emissions
When operating within their capacity,
roundabouts typically result in lower travel
time delays and reduced emissions compared
to other intersection control types.4 Drivers
yield to circulating traffic and take turns rather
than waiting for a programmed green signal.

This benefit is especially helpful when traffic
volume is low outside the peak periods.

Why Roundabouts?
Roundabouts are a type of circular intersection where vehicles move counterclockwise around a central island. Drivers entering the roundabout yield and wait for a gap to appear before merging into circulating traffic. This design feature means that no one movement has priority or more dedicated time over the other movements.

Roundabouts have proven safety and operational benefits:

Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study Report 12
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

3 4
2 9
7 8
6 5
1 Roundabout Features
Not all circular intersections are roundabouts: roundabouts require drivers to yield on entry. Figure 2 illustrates common features of roundabouts in the United States.

Figure 2. Roundabout Features
Source: Adapted from NCHRP Research Report 1043, Exhibit 2.1 3 2
4 9
7 8
6 5
1 Sidewalk/multiuse path
ADA accessible pedestrian crossings
Splitter island with accessible
pedestrian refuge
Central island
Circulatory roadway
Truck apron
Yield at entry
Buffer/landscape strip
Bicycle ramp
13 Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study Report
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

Speed Management
A roundabout’s circular design creates deflection, which naturally reduces vehicle speeds.

Vehicle speed is a critical component of intersection safety because the speed at which a crash occurs greatly influences the survivability of that crash—particularly for vulnerable road users like bicyclists and pedestrians. Roundabouts save lives by keeping speeds low. In a roundabout, every movement is controlled by forcing drivers to turn along curved paths rather than merely going straight. This deflection naturally slows drivers down (Figure 4).

For more on the impact and influence of speed, check out City Limits: Setting Safe Speed Limits on City Streets from the National Association of City Transportation Officials and NCHRP Research Report 1043: Guide for Roundabouts.

Well-designed roundabouts keep speeds low at entrances, conflict points, and pedestrian crossings.

Roundabouts Reduce Conflict Points
Because they reduce the number of conflict points and their potential severity, roundabouts design away potentially severe head-on and left-turn conflicts (Figure 3).

For more on the proven safety outcomes of roundabouts, check out https://highways.dot.gov/safety/ proven-safety-countermeasures/roundabouts.

Source: Adapted from NCHRP Research Report 1043, Exhibits 7.2 and 7.3.

Typical Orthogonal
Intersection Roundabout
32 Conflict Points 8 Conflict Points
Figure 3. Comparing Conflict Points: Signalized or Stop-Controlled Intersection vs. Roundabout Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study Report 14
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

Solutions to SiteSpecific Challenges
Particular locations where roundabouts could
provide more benefits than another intersection
type share some common features. Intersections or
corridors with one or more of the following features
could be good candidates for a roundabout:
/ Documented crash history—especially severe
angle, turning, or speed-related crashes
/ Drivers routinely exceed the
posted or target speed
/ Desired traffic calming
/ Particularly low traffic volumes during nonpeak hours compared to the peak hours / Two-way stop-control with long
delays on side streets
/ Five or more legs of the intersection
/ A high percentage of turning movements,
especially left turns or U-turns
/ Change in context and speed (such as
at the entrance into a business district
or residential neighborhood)
/ A campus, neighborhood, commercial
development, or urban area gateway or entrance
Reduced Head-On and
Right-Angle Crashes
As they reduce conflict points, roundabouts also
design away two types of crashes: right-angle (also
called T-bone) and left-turn crashes (Figure 4).

These two crash types are typically some of the
most severe due to the angles of the collision and
the resulting high levels of energy transfer involved.

Collisions that occur in a roundabout—typically
sideswipe, shallow-angle, or low-speed rear-end
crashes—are less severe because the collision angles
reduce the impact force and because vehicles are
traveling at slower speeds.

Additional Resources
/ Federal Highway Association, “Roundabouts,”
https://highways.dot.gov/safety/provensafety-countermeasures/roundabouts. / NCHRP Research Report 1043: Guide for
Roundabouts, 2023, https://www.trb.
org/Publications/Blurbs/182939.aspx.

Figure 4. Comparing Crash Types: Signalized or
Stop-Controlled Intersection vs. Roundabout
Source: Adapted from Kansas Roundabout
Guide, Second Edition
Right-Angle
Left Turn
Sideswipe
Shallow-Angle
Stop-Controlled Intersections
Roundabout
15 Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study Report
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study Report 16
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

Planning
Context
17 Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study Report
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

Planning Context
The City of Rancho Cordova works hard to develop plans and policies that provide safe and efficient transportation options for everyone who lives in and visits the city. This project was developed within the City’s larger planning and policy ecosystem.

General Plan
The 2006 Rancho Cordova General Plan and its subsequent updates provide a long-term vision for land use in the city. The City uses this plan as a reference for anticipated future land use and travel demand.

The travel demand needs from the General Plan influence roundabout viability and help determine whether a single-lane or multilane roundabout will be most appropriate in a given location. This roundabout feasibility study and accompanying guidelines offers the next general plan a means to incorporate and evaluate roundabouts as part of future development.

Bicycle Master Plan
The City’s 2016 Bicycle Master Plan puts the General Plan’s bicycling policies and goals into action. The Bicycle Master Plan recommends infrastructure like bike lanes and paths and charts a course for implementation.

This roundabout study used the Bicycle Master Plan to design prospective roundabouts in the context of planned bicycle networks.

For example, where the bicycle plan recommends separated bike lanes, this project includes those facilities in the concept design.

Local Road Safety Plan
The City’s Local Road Safety Plan identifies emphasis areas, priority locations, and project recommendations for the City to implement to improve traffic safety. The City may reconsider these locations in light of the results of this feasibility report to determine whether roundabouts are appropriate at previously identified locations.

Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study Report 18
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

Specific Plans
A specific plan sets planning policies and standardizes how a particular geographic area should develop,
including where development can occur, how dense
that development can be, and what structures
might look like. For the City’s specific plans, check
out the Planning Division’s document library.

When developing specific plans, the City
can use information in this roundabout study
to identify roundabout locations before
setting development constraints.

Pedestrian Master Plan
The City’s 2011 Pedestrian Master Plan offers a policy framework to increase walking and improve walking conditions in the city. In addition to development patterns that support walking, the plan identifies pedestrian-supportive infrastructure improvements, such opportunities to fill sidewalk gaps, intersection and crossing improvements, street lights, and neighborhood traffic calming efforts. The Pedestrian Master Plan is a supplement to the General Plan’s Circulation Element.

Neighborhood Traffic
Management Program Manual
The City’s Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP) Manual provides a framework and guidelines to help City staff, residents, developers, and other professionals select and prioritize traffic calming devices and designs for streets and neighborhood areas.

Roundabouts and traffic circles tools of the NTMP.
19 Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study Report
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study Report 20
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

Community
Engagement
21 Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study Report
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

Community
Engagement
Throughout this project, the project team
collaborated with Rancho Cordova community
members. Their questions, concerns, and ideas
informed project priorities and the viability of future roundabout locations.

For more on community engagement for this
project, see Appendix A.

Project Website
To help connect community members with study
information, the project team developed a website
(Figure 5). The site explained the study’s purpose
and timeline and provided links to public meetings
and presentation materials. To visit the site,
check out https://www.cityofranchocordova.org/
residents/new-businesses-and-projects/publicworks-plans-and-projects/.

Figure 5. Roundabout Project Website
Engagement by the Numbers
3 Public Meetings
50 Attendees
88 Survey Responses
138
Total Connections
Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study Report 22
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

Community Meetings
The project team hosted three community meetings during this project.

Key Findings
/ Safety is this community’s top priority.
/ Residents are excited to see landscape
features in roundabout center islands.
/ Rancho Cordova residents have
concerns about driver behavior.
/ Meeting attendees had questions
about the roundabouts in future
City development plans.

October 2022, First Community Meeting:

The team introduced the project and implementation plan. The team also explained why the City is considering roundabouts and answered questions about the plan and roundabouts. This meeting was recorded, and the video remained available on the website throughout the project.

January 2023, Second Community Meeting:

The team shared their location screening process to
identify the top 50 potential locations, presented nine potential roundabout locations deemed most feasible,
and gathered for public input on locations.

June 2023, Third Community Meeting:

The project team shared project updates
and asked for feedback on the five remaining
highest ranked roundabout locations and
concept designs.

For complete meeting summaries, see Appendix A.
23 Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study Report
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

Online Survey
To hear from more community members about the
project and different design concepts, the project
team hosted an online survey, which was open
during June and July in 2023 (Figure 6). The survey
received 88 responses and asked participants about
the five potential intersection locations and about
different roundabout features, including landscape,
public art, and bicycle and pedestrian treatments.

The survey also asked Rancho Cordova community
members about their priorities when it comes to
roundabout implementation.

Survey respondents had positive reactions to
pedestrian crossing safety elements, and ranked the
following priorities for siting future roundabouts:
1/ Safety improvements
2/ Reduced traffic delay
3/ Bicycle comfort
4/ Prioritizing social equity
5/ Walking comfort
6/ Aesthetic improvements
For complete survey results, see Appendix A.

Figure 6. Sample Survey Question
Source: Metroquest
Community Survey Voices
Life is a short trip. People need
to slow down and stay safe.

Roundabouts are an innovative
way to increase safety for all.

I like the look and feel of
roundabouts; they add
value to cities’ aesthetics.

Safety is the number
one priority.

More than half of survey
respondents indicated that
safety was their top priority.

Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study Report 24
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

Technical Advisory Committee
Throughout the project, feedback and questions from the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) helped guide design priorities, emergency vehicle and access needs, and existing and planned transit needs. The team began collaborating with the TAC in September 2022 and provided subsequent updates throughout the project. The TAC reviewed and gave valuable feedback on this report.

Sacramento Regional
Transit District (SacRT)
TAC Members
Folsom Cordova Unified
School District
Sacramento Area
Bicycle Advocates
Civic Thread
Sacramento Metropolitan
Fire District
Multimodal Advocacy Groups
25 Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study Report
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study Report 26
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

Location
Screening
27 Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study Report
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

Location
Screening
To identify existing intersections in Rancho Cordova
that would be good candidates for roundabouts,
the project team developed a screening process
that evaluated locations first by priority and then
by feasibility. The screening process used data on
traffic counts and travel demand forecasts, land
use, roadway characteristics, demographics, and
environmental characteristics. Below is a summary
of the screening process.

The screening revealed locations with the most
potential benefit and deprioritized locations where
right-of-way constraints would be too great to build,
such along local roadways.

What Data Did We Use?
Transportation Data
/ Roadway functional classification
/ Posted speed limits
/ Number of lanes
/ Existing intersection control type
/ Existing and proposed
bikeway classification
/ Transit lines and stops
/ Existing and projected traffic volumes
/ Crash history
Land Use Data
/ Planning areas
/ Zoning opportunities and constraints
Demographic,
Socioeconomic, and
Environmental Data
/ Social equity indicators
/ Hazard risk
Feasibility Screening
Community Feedback
Priority Screening
All Intersections in the City
Top 50 Intersections
9 Feasible Locations
5 Concept Locations
For a complete discussion of both the priority
screening and feasibility screening process, see
Appendix B.

Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study Report 28
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

Priority Screening
To understand what locations would most benefit
from a roundabout, the project team began a
priority screening process of all city intersections.

The first step was to remove intersections that met
one or more of the follow criteria:
/ Had vehicle travel volumes higher than the
estimated capacity for a two-lane roundabout.
/ On a state highway or exclusively
on neighborhood streets.
/ Had six or more total lanes.5
The project team then screened the remaining
intersections according to locations that were
appropriate for roundabouts and locations that
reflected City priorities.

To identify locations that aligned with City
priorities, the project team examined:
/ Safety—The frequency and
severity of crashes at intersections
over a five-year period.
/ Social equity—How disadvantaged,
underserved or burdened the area
is according to two indicators:
the CalEnviroScreen and Healthy
Places Index (see Appendix B).
/ Modal priority—Whether a location was
along an existing or planned bike lane or bike
route (increased priority); whether it was
within 250 feet of a transit stop (increased
priority); and whether it was on a designated
STAA truck route (decreased priority).
/ Land use opportunities and constraints—
Whether the intersection area may have
fewer property conflicts (due to being
on undeveloped land or City-owned
parcels, for example) and whether it
avoids potentially sensitive land uses
(such as a creek or other waterway).
/ Natural hazard risk—The likelihood of
impacts from wildfire, flood, or earthquake
according to the Federal Emergency
Management Agency’s National Risk Index.
5 The team removed six-lane roadways from consideration because properly accommodating three lanes of circulating vehicle traffic requires a very large roundabout. Designs for roundabouts of this size are challenging to implement. Roundabouts with three circulating lanes offer fewer benefits and did not align with study goals. Smaller, one- and two-lane roundabouts are a better fit for City needs because they offer the greatest safety and operational benefits.

These factors alerted the project team to potential
design challenges, how the intersection might
grow and change over time, and whether a
roundabout might slow traffic or need further speed
management treatments.

The list of screened locations was then prioritized
using a system that placed a heavier emphasis
on intersections with identified safety concerns
(Figure 7). Safety is the City’s—and community’s—
top priority, and this weighting scheme prioritizes
roundabouts in locations that could benefit most.

From this list of prioritized projects, the team
identified the top 50 locations, which represented
the intersections with the greatest potential to reap
the many benefits of a roundabout.

Roundabouts and Resilience
Roundabouts are a more resilient type
of intersection because they do not rely
on electrically-powered traffic signals to
operate. This means that during times of
power outages, such as in the aftermath
of an earthquake, flood, or wildfire, the
intersection can continue to move people
and goods through the community.

To help Rancho Cordova prepare to meet
the increasing uncertainty from a changing
climate, the screening criteria for this project
prioritized areas that would be most at-risk
for natural hazards.
29 Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study Report
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

Decreased
Priority
Increased
Priority

12.5%
Natural
Hazard
Risk

12.5%
Modal
Priorities
Bike Lanes
and Paths
Transit
Stops
Truck
Routes 12.5%
Land Use
Opportunities
Constraints

12.5%
Social Equity
Disadvantaged
Neighborhoods
50%
Safety
High Crash
Intersections
Weighted
Factor
Scoring
Figure 7. Priority Screening Weighted Factor Scoring
Locations were evaluated
to put safety first, based
on received feedback.

Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study Report 30
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

Feasibility Screening
To develop the list of the top 50 intersections using the safety first screening criteria, the project team placed planning-level roundabout footprints on top of aerial imagery according to national best-practice standards outlined NCHRP Research Report 1043: Guide for Roundabouts (Figure 8). Footprint sizes corresponded to the number of travel lanes and the types and sizes of vehicles expected to use that intersection. For more on these sketches and standard sizing, see Appendix B and the Rancho Cordova Roundabout Guidelines.

Figure 8. Sample Roundabout Footprint Sketch
Source: Google Earth and Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Sketches of potential roundabouts and the space they would occupy (called footprints) were used to identify nine intersections that, upon initial review, could accommodate a new roundabout with limited right-of-way and property impacts.

Further analysis was done to assess planning and engineering feasibility and land use impacts. The analysis assessed where intersections were too constrained to build, such as where a roundabout footprint would obviously impact buildings.

This additional analysis narrowed down the list to the five most feasible locations given initial impact assessments and safety-first screening criteria (see Appendix C):
/ Old Placerville Road and Rockingham Drive
/ Old Placerville Road and Routier Drive
/ Kilgore Road and Sun Center Drive
/ Capital Center Drive and Disk Drive
/ Mather Field Road and Peter A McCuen Boulevard
Appendix F: Roundabout Guidelines can be used to evaluate existing and proposed city intersections for roundabout feasibility.
31 Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study Report
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study Report 32
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

What’s Next?
33 Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study Report
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

What’s Next?
Next Steps for
Future Locations
To support more roundabouts in Rancho Cordova,
the City can also:
/ Identify locations for desired roundabouts
in future developments.
/ Use traffic volume forecasts to
inform feasibility and design.
/ Pursue grants to fund roundabout
implementation.
/ Integrate potential priority locations
into upcoming specific plans.
/ Consult the NTMP for roundabouts in
challenging or constrained residential locations.

Next Steps for
Existing Locations
Over the course of this project, the project team
identified the five feasible roundabout locations
based on the safety criteria and according to
existing traffic volumes, land use constraints, and
screening criteria. The City can also consider the
following:
1/ Using the City’s updated travel demand model
to determine if the proposed concepts can
adequately serve projected traffic growth
using Appendix F: Roundabout Guidelines.
2/ Continuing to gather input to understand
and address community concerns.
3/ Identifying appropriate funding sources
to make viable roundabouts a reality (see
the funding section on the next page).
4/ Using the Rancho Cordova Roundabout
Guidelines and principles from NCHRP
Research Report 1043 to develop
context-appropriate designs.

Roundabout Guidelines
As part of this project, the project team developed a guide for planning and designing future roundabouts (Appendix F). Based on national best practices, this guide will help support City staff, consultants, and other practitioners involved in City projects during the roundabout planning and design process. These guidelines will also help the City and partners site, plan, and move roundabouts through the project development process.

Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study Report 34
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

Funding
There are several funding sources that can help the City pay for roundabout projects (Table 1). The listed funding sources have requirements and scoring systems that will determine whether the five concepts or any other potential locations could be competitive. For more information on funding sources, see Appendix E.

Table 1. Funding Source Summary, as of 2023
Funding Source Frequency Application Period
Safe Streets for All (SS4A) Annual until
Fiscal Year 2026
March–July
Award Notification: October
Surface Transportation Block Grant Program Annual Application Due Date Varies Apportionment: October
Rebuilding American Infrastructure with
Sustainability and Equity (RAISE), formerly

BUILD & TIGER
Annual December–February
Award Notification: June
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ)
Improvement Program
Annual Apportionment: October
Active Transportation Program (ATP) Every 2–3 years March–June Award Notification: October
Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Every 1–2 Years May–November Award Notification: March
Affordable Housing and Sustainable
Communities Program
Every 1–2 years January–April
Award Notification: August
Transformative Climate Communities (TCC) Annual March–August Pre-Proposals due in May
Award Notification: December
Sacramento Area Council of Governments
(SACOG) regional funding rounds
Annual Varies
35 Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study Report
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study Report 36
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

Appendix A:

Community &
Stakeholder
Engagement
Materials
43 Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study Report
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

1/3/2024
1 City of Rancho Cordova Roundabout
Feasibility Study
Stakeholder Meeting
September 14, 2022
CityOfRanchoCordova.org
2 • Introductions• Provide Project Overview• Provide Information on Roundabouts• Solicit Stakeholder Feedback Meeting Goals
12 ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT
1

1/3/2024
3 Project Team
City of Rancho Cordova (Grant Recipient)
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. (Project Consultant)
Project Manager = Kristine CourdyPrincipal Engineer = Edgar Medina Senior Transportation Planner = Drew Hart
Project Manager = Mike Alston
Principal In-Charge = Wade Scarbrough
Project Planner = Matt Braughton
FY21/22 Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant Project: Citywide Feasibility Study & Implementation Plan 4 • Develop the Roundabout Priority Plan for the City• Prepare Guidelines for Future Decisions about Roundabouts• Utilize Public & Stakeholder Feedback to Develop Project Deliverables
Project Objectives
34 ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT
1

1/3/2024
5 What is a Roundabout?
6 What is a Roundabout?
SacramentoWest River Dr / Orchard Ln
RosevilleOak St / Washington Blvd
Source: Google Earth Source: Google Earth
56 ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT
1

1/3/2024
7 • Roundabouts are being considered as viable or
even preferred alternatives due to potential benefits:
• Safety performance• Lower delay• Environmental benefits (emissions, fuel savings)• Access management• Operations and maintenance costs• Aesthetics Why Build Roundabouts?
8 • 90-100% reduction in fatalities• 75% reduction in injuries• 35% reduction in total crashes• Very little reported pedestrian and bicycle crash experience Safety Performance
MergingDivergingCrossing
Source: NCHRP Report 572, NCHRP Report 672
78 ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT
1

1/3/2024
9 • Geometry controls entry
and circulating speeds roundabouts
• Entry speeds at or less than:
• 25 mph for single-lane• 30 mph for two-lane
• Circulating speeds: 10 to 12mph
• Slow intersection speeds =
• Increased time for driver reaction• Decreased chance for injury or fatality
Vehicle Speeds: Reduced
10 Aesthetic & Green Infrastructure Opportunities
Bend, OregonSource: Lee Rodegerdts
Portland, OregonSource: Lee Rodegerdts
910
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT
1

1/3/2024
11 Where to Consider Roundabouts?
Advantageous Potentially Challenging
• Physical or geometric constraints • Frequent large vehicles: Routes or land uses generating oversized loads
• Nearby Preemption needs (e.g.
nearby rail crossing)
• Location along a
coordinated signal network
• Identified opportunity to
improve safety
• Long delays (Two-way or allway stop capacity exceeded) • Closely spaced intersections • Aesthetic/gateway treatment desired
• Near Schools • Unusual geometry
12 • Benefits:
• Slow vehicle speeds• Two-stage crossing
• Considerations:
• Crosswalk alignment• Width of splitter island• Space for exiting vehicles to yield to pedestrians
• Yield-controlled crossings
Roundabouts & Pedestrians
Storage space for exiting vehicles
Median refuge and two-stage crossing
Sources: Google Earth; Kittelson
1112
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT
1

1/3/2024
13 Considerations for Visually Impaired:1. Well defined walkway edges2. Separated walkways3. Aligned detectable warnings4. Perpendicular crossings5. Contrasting crosswalk markingsPerformance assessment detailed in NCHRP Report 834 Roundabouts & Pedestrians
3 2
1 4
5 Note presence of push-button for multilane roundabout crossing.Source: Lee Rodegerdts 14 • Roundabouts slow vehicles to speeds
compatible with bicycles
• Bicyclists have option of traveling as
vehicle or pedestrian
• Serve different users based on
their level of comfort
• No bicycle lanes within circulatory
roadway
• Guidance for off-street paths
is emerging
Roundabouts & Bicycles
1314
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT
1

1/3/2024
15 Separate Bike/Ped Options
San Luis Obispo, CaliforniaSource: Brian Ray
Source: Massachusetts DOT Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide 16 • Buses will be a design vehicle;
use turn analysis to verify line/route movements
• Bus stops may be on entry or exit:
• Locate near crosswalk• Avoid conflict with circulatory roadway• May end up further from corner compared to other intersection types
Roundabouts & Buses
Verifying bus movements at a roundabout concept.
1516
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT
1

1/3/2024
17 • "Design" versus "accommodate"
larger vehicles
• Accommodations include:
• Truck aprons• Placement of landscaping• Reinforced curbs Roundabouts & Larger Vehicles
18 • We want to hear from you:
• Overall feedback on
Roundabouts
• Concerns• Input on how to prioritize
locations
• Additional engagement• How to make
future projects successful
Stakeholder Feedback
1718
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT
1

1/3/2024
19 • Community Meeting• Launch Project Website• Develop Prioritization Plan• Develop Concept Locations• Future Stakeholder Working Meetings? Next Steps
20 THANK YOUTHANK YOU
Check Web Portal for Project Updates:
www.cityofranchocordova.org/CurrentProjects
If you have additional questions about the project, please reach out to the City’s Project Manager:

Kristine Courdy
(916) 851-8842
[email protected]
CityOfRanchoCordova.org
1920
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT
1

City of Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study
Community Workshop #1
October 12, 2022 5:30 – 6:30 p.m.

City of Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study
Community Workshop #1
Meeting Summary
Introduction
On Wednesday, October 12, 2022, from 5:30 – 6:30 p.m., the City of Rancho Cordova held its first virtual community workshop about the Roundabout Feasibility Study, wherein participants had a chance to learn about roundabouts and provide feedback on potential locations and implementation. A total of 41 community members registered, and 19 community members attended the meeting, which was hosted virtually through Zoom to create the most flexibility and accommodation for participants. The project team also hosted six community members in person at City Hall.

About the Project
The City of Rancho Cordova received a grant to begin the Roundabout Feasibility Study, which explores the possibility of constructing roundabouts in new and existing intersections throughout the city. There are many benefits of installing roundabouts including fewer and less severe crashes, reduction of traffic congestion, less vehicle pollution, creating a sense of place and a “gateway” into the community, and lower maintenance costs compared to traffic signals.

The study will evaluate and prioritize potential locations, create an implementation plan including conceptual designs, and develop guidelines for additional roundabout locations in the future.

Community Workshop Purpose & Format
As the first community outreach effort of the
Roundabout Feasibility Study, the purpose of this
community meeting was more to inform and
begin the conversation with the public.

Specifically, the virtual community workshop
educated participants the benefits of
roundabouts and why the city is considering
them as well as created a space for community
feedback on roundabouts themselves and where
they should be considered for installation.

Following a presentation, Katie DeMaio of AIM Consulting led the project team in facilitating a large group discussion where participants asked questions and provided input through the virtual “chat box” or by verbally asking questions. The project team concluded the community workshop by reviewing project’s next steps and plans for future outreach events.

Introducing the project team from the City & from Kittelson.

ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

City of Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study
Community Workshop #1
October 12, 2022 5:30 – 6:30 p.m.

Presentation
City of Rancho Cordova’s Project Manager Kristine Courdy began the meeting by welcoming everyone, introducing the team, and introducing the project in a high-level way.

First Poll
Katie then facilitated two polls to gauge participants’ connection to the project and background with roundabouts:
1) How people are connected to Rancho Cordova (resident, work, recreation, visit with friends/leisure, other); and
2) What are your general thoughts/attitude about roundabouts (Likert scale ranging from “very negative” to “very positive”).

Most people are indeed residents and/or work in Rancho Cordova, and there were mostly positive feelings about roundabouts. In addition to the digital poll results below, three inperson submissions all noted they are residents. Two are “very positive” about roundabouts and one is “neutral.”
Mike Alston, Project Manager from Kittelson & Associates, Inc., began the formal presentation, which provided an overview of the benefits of roundabouts, addressed common questions, and shared the four-phase process for the study. A link to the presentation is included on the Project website.

Detailed results from the first two live poll questions in Zoom.

The presentation started by stating objectives, then defining what a roundabout is so as to discuss benefits.

ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

City of Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study
Community Workshop #1
October 12, 2022 5:30 – 6:30 p.m.

Second Poll
Following Mike’s presentation, Katie facilitated a live poll asking people “Do you feel you have a better
understanding of roundabouts?” A lot of participants have a better understanding of roundabouts because of the
presentation. This was also reflected in the three in-person poll answers: two understand them better while one
remains “already an expert” (written in). Following the live poll, Mike Alston continued the presentation, now
focusing on the Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility
Study.

Project Overview
A high-level project schedule was shared, demonstrating the four phases of the project: screen locations using existing data such as traffic volumes and bus routes, test top
locations by looking at the specifics at desirable
intersections and overlaying design sketches, gather input and develop designs, and prepare city roundabout
guidelines as a formal report. The entire project is
anticipated to conclude by the end of winter 2023-2024.

Third Poll
As a transition into the Question & Answer session, Katie asked two questions for the third poll:
1) What is the top priority you would like the City to emphasize for roundabout project opportunities? Answer options: maximum safety benefit, social equity location emphasis, bike route locations, others (participants were encouraged to utilize the Zoom chat box to share additional priorities).
o 88% of participants selected safety.
o Two of the three people in person also selected safety (one of whom added “air quality”), and the third noted bike route locations.

Detailed results from the live poll question.

Project overview, demonstrating the four phases.

ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

City of Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study
Community Workshop #1
October 12, 2022 5:30 – 6:30 p.m.
2) Has the information presented today changed your thoughts on roundabouts at all? Answer options as a Likert scale ranging from “significantly less favorable opinion” to “significantly more favorable opinion”
o A lot of opinions were unchanged, but there were a lot of favorable opinions coming in already.
o Again, this was reflected in the in-person results: one remained unchanged (“no change in expertise”), while two noted “significantly more favorable opinion.” Question and Answer Discussion
The meeting was then opened up for questions
and answers. What follows is a summary of each
question and the project team’s response:

Participant 1 asked if the team has considered adding in Rancho Cordova Police ticketing information, specifically around failure to yield.
• The project team noted that they are including crash history, so it gets added in an indirect way. They don’t have anything as granular as ticket citations, failure to yield in particular – but it is a great idea, and it can be discussed as the project moves forward.

Participant 2 gets around town on a bike or foot. For roundabouts where bikes take a lane, how does the cultural element get tackled so that everyone can use it without issue? How do we help people know what the actual traffic laws are?
• If it’s a location where it is appropriate to have a bike lane on the approach roadways, then it may be the case for it to be appropriate to provide a bike lane outside of the roundabout to keep bicyclists off the roadway. If it’s a location where speeds are managed pretty well, then people on bikes can use the travel lanes. • The City does have a Bike Master Plan which will also inform this project and the development of the guidelines. Once roundabouts are actually getting implemented, there will be a corresponding educational campaign in the community.

Zoom Chat: Participants started sharing possible intersection ideas in the chat box, including Coloma Road & Zinfandel Road, Olsen Drive & Calle Del Sol Way, Routier & Rockingham, Sunrise near the new developments, Aramon Drive & Chassella Way, and Rancho Cordova Parkway.

The screen projected during the Q&A Session.

Detailed results from the live poll question.

ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

City of Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study
Community Workshop #1
October 12, 2022 5:30 – 6:30 p.m.

Participant 3 asked for a right-of-way clarification: if a test plot on the desired location goes over into private property, the city has to make an offer to buy that property, correct? • The project team noted that right of way constraints are a consideration for each location and if required will follow the right of way acquisition procedures.

Participant 4 asked if the crash data will be provided to the public because there are a lot of hot spots/areas that need improvement but it’s hard to suggest locations without access to true data.
• The project team noted that their intent is to share their work with the public as the Project moves along. The city also has a Local Road Safety Plan adopted by City Council earlier this year which captures crash history data from the past five years. That will be available on the City’s website.

Participant 5 asked if intersections without streetlights can be prioritized. • The project team noted they include traffic signals in the analysis. They have not used street lighting data, but that can be assessed as locations are tested.

Next Steps
Kristine Courdy concluded the meeting by sharing the next steps of the project, which reviewed the four phases shared earlier in the presentation. The next community workshop is planned for early 2023.

Two final comments/questions were made at the end of the meeting:

Participant 6 asked about road design, noting that the trend in traffic engineering is now toward traffic calming. That being the case, why are new roads in the newer parts of the city still being designed like highways?
• The project team shared that part of this project is creating guidelines to be taken into the development of future projects – so it is not just for how they implement roundabouts in existing parts of the city, but also as an integral planning element in the development of newer communities.
• The historic trend for a long time used to prioritize how to get the most cars through the fastest, but now the industry is seeing a shift toward traffic calming especially in neighborhoods – so people will start to see the newer developments incorporate roundabouts. But the project team doesn’t want to just focus on the newer parts of the city – they want to look at where roundabouts would be appropriate treatments and design elements in all parts of the city.

Participant 7 commented that he believes only single-lane roundabouts should be used; multilane streets should be reduced prior to the crosswalks. Please design streets physically (narrowing lane widths, etc.) to reduce speeds approaching roundabouts to 15 mph or less, without relying on ineffective "speed limit" signs. Separate bicycle lanes would be great.

ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

1/3/2024
1 City of Rancho Cordova Roundabout
Feasibility Study
Community Workshop
October 12, 2022
CityOfRanchoCordova.org
2 Zoom Instructions
12 ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT
1

1/3/2024
3 • Introductions• Provide Information on Roundabouts• Provide Project Overview• Solicit Community Feedback Meeting Goals
4 Project Team
City of Rancho Cordova (Grant Recipient)
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. (Project Consultant)
Project Manager = Kristine CourdyPrincipal Engineer = Edgar Medina Senior Transportation Planner = Drew Hart
Project Manager = Mike Alston
Principal In-Charge = Wade Scarbrough
Project Planner = Matt Braughton
FY21/22 Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant Project: Citywide Feasibility Study & Implementation Plan 34 ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT
1

1/3/2024
5 Live Poll #1
Question 1: Identify Purpose In Rancho CordovaA. ResidentB. WorkC. RecreationD. Visit with Friends/LeisureE. Other (put in chat)Question 2: What are your general thoughts/attitude about roundabouts?1 - Very negative2 – Slightly negative3 - Neutral4 – Slightly positive5 – Very positive 6 • Develop the Roundabout Priority Plan for the City• Utilize Public & Stakeholder Feedback to Develop Project Deliverables
• Prepare Guidelines for Future Guidance about Roundabouts Project Objectives
56 ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT
1

1/3/2024
7 What is a Roundabout?
8 What is a Roundabout?
SacramentoWest River Dr / Orchard Ln
RosevilleOak St / Washington Blvd
Source: Google Earth Source: Google Earth
78 ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT
1

1/3/2024
9 • Roundabouts are being considered for potential benefits:
• Safety improvements• Lower delay• Environmental benefits (emissions, fuel savings)• Access management• Operations and maintenance costs• Aesthetics Why Build Roundabouts?
10 • 90-100% reduction in fatalities• 75% reduction in injuries• 35% reduction in total crashes• Very little reported pedestrian and bicycle crash experience Safety Performance
MergingDivergingCrossing
Source: NCHRP Report 572, NCHRP Report 672
910
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT
1

1/3/2024
11 • Roundabouts controls vehicle speeds
• Entry speeds at or less than:
• 25 mph for single-lane• 30 mph for two-lane
• Circulating speeds: 10 to 12mph
• Slow speeds
• Increased time for driver reaction• Decreased chance for injury or fatality Vehicle Speeds Reduced
12 Aesthetic & Green Infrastructure Opportunities
Bend, OregonSource: Lee Rodegerdts
Portland, OregonSource: Lee Rodegerdts
1112
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT
1

1/3/2024
13 • Benefits:
• Slow vehicle speeds• Two-stage crossing
• Considerations:
• Crosswalk location• Space for exiting vehicles to yield to pedestrians
• Yield-controlled crossings
Roundabouts & Pedestrians
Storage space for exiting vehicles
Median refuge and two-stage crossing
Sources: Google Earth; Kittelson
14 Considerations for Visually Impaired:1. Well defined walkway edges2. Separated walkways3. Aligned detectable warnings4. Perpendicular crossings5. Contrasting crosswalk markingsPerformance assessment detailed in NCHRP Report 834 Roundabouts & Pedestrians
3 2
1 4
5 Note presence of push-button for multilane roundabout crossing.Source: Lee Rodegerdts 1314
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT
1

1/3/2024
15 • Roundabouts slow vehicles to speeds
compatible with bicycles
• Bicyclists have option of traveling as
vehicle or pedestrian
• Serve different users based on
their level of comfort
• No bicycle lanes within circulatory
roadway
• Guidance for off-street paths
is emerging
Roundabouts & Bicycles
16 Separate Bike/Ped Options
San Luis Obispo, CaliforniaSource: Brian Ray
Source: Massachusetts DOT Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide 1516
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT
1

1/3/2024
17 • Roundabouts can accommodate
large vehicles through design:
• Truck aprons• Placement of landscaping• Reinforced curbs Roundabouts & Larger Vehicles
18 Live Poll #2
Question 1: Do you feel you have a better understanding of roundabouts?A. Yes – I understand them betterB. UnchangedC. No – I have more confusion 1718
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT
1

1/3/2024
19 Project Overview
1Screen Locations
2Test Top Locations
3Gather Input + Develop Designs
4Prepare CityRoundabout Guidelines
2022 2023
Fall Winter Spring Summer Fall Winter
We are here
20 • Part 1: Screen Locations
• Filter locations with data• Use prioritization scores Project Overview
1920
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT
1

1/3/2024
21 Part 2: Test Top Locations
Project Overview
Example feasibility Testing, starting with assumed size and advancing to sketch level concept. 22 Part 3: Gather Input + Develop Designs
Project Overview
Example rendering of roundabout design concept
2122
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT
1

1/3/2024
23 • Part 4: Prepare City Roundabout Guidelines
Project Overview
24 Project Overview
1Screen Locations
2Test Top Locations
3Gather Input + Develop Designs
4Prepare City Roundabout Guidelines
2022 2023
Fall Winter Spring Summer Fall Winter
We are here
2324
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT
1

1/3/2024
25 Live Poll #3
Question 1: What is the top priority you would like the City to emphasize for roundabout project opportunities?A. Maximum safety benefitB. Social equity location emphasisC. Bike route locationsD. Other (tell us your comment in the chat!)Question 2: Has the information presented today changed your thoughts on roundabouts at all?1 - Significantly less favorable opinion2 – Slightly less favorable opinion3 – Opinion has not changed4 – Slightly more favorable opinion5 – I now have a significantly more favorable opinion 26 • We want to hear from you:
• Overall feedback on
roundabouts
• Input on how to prioritize
locations
• Other questions
Questions & Answers
2526
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT
1

1/3/2024
27 • Identify top locations• Develop Concept Locations• Document feedback and best practices for City Guidelines• Next Community Workshop in early 2023 Next Steps dh0
28 THANK YOUTHANK YOU
Check Web Portal for Project Updates:
www.cityofranchocordova.org/CurrentProjects
If you have additional questions about the project, please reach out to the City’s Project Manager:

Kristine Courdy
(916) 851-8842
[email protected]
CityOfRanchoCordova.org
2728
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT
1

Slide 27
dh0 Consider:

Add new first bullet, "Document Feedback"
[email protected], 2022-10-11T23:50:58.782
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

Rockingham Dr.

Single-lane
Routier Rd.

Data Dr.

Disk Dr.

Roundabout Type
Yellow: Multilane roundabout
Green: Single-lane roundabout
(not on a truck route)
Multilane

DATA DRIVE &

DISK DRIVE

ROCKINGHAM DRIVE &

ROUTIER ROAD
Do you think this is a good
location for a roundabout?
Do you think this is a good
location for a roundabout?
Comments/Concerns Comments/Concerns
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

White Rock Rd.

Quality Dr.

Vehicle Dr.

Zinfandel Dr.

Roundabout Type
Green: Single-lane roundabout
(not on a truck route)
Single-lane
Single-lane

VEHICLE DRIVE &

ZINFANDEL DRIVE

QUALITY DRIVE & WHITE

ROCK ROAD
Do you think this is a good
location for a roundabout?
Do you think this is a good
location for a roundabout?
Comments/Concerns Comments/Concerns
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

OLD PLACERVILLE ROAD &

ROUTIER ROAD

OLD PLACERVILLE ROAD
& ROCKINGHAM ROAD
Do you think this is a good
location for a roundabout?
Do you think this is a good
location for a roundabout?
Comments/Concerns Comments/Concerns
Rockingham Dr.

Old Placerville Rd.

Old Placerville Rd.

Routier Rd.

Roundabout Type
Yellow: Multilane roundabout
Blue: Single-lane roundabout
(on a truck route) Single-lane Multilane
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

EXPLORER DRIVE & LINCOLN

VILLAGE DRIVE

KILGORE ROAD & SUN

CENTER DRIVE
Do you think this is a good
location for a roundabout?
Do you think this is a good
location for a roundabout?
Comments/Concerns Comments/Concerns
Sun Center Dr.

Kilgore Rd.

Lincoln Village Dr.

Explorer Dr.

Roundabout Type
Green: Single-lane roundabout
(not on a truck route)
Single-lane
Single-lane
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

FEMOYER STREET & PETER A

MCCUEN BLVD

CAPITAL CENTER DRIVE
& DATA DRIVE
Do you think this is a good
location for a roundabout?
Do you think this is a good
location for a roundabout?
Comments/Concerns Comments/Concerns
Capital Center Dr.

Data Dr.

Peter A McCuen Blvd.

Femoyer St.

Roundabout Type
Green: Single-lane roundabout
(not on a truck route)
Single-lane
Single-lane
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

MATHER FIELD ROAD & PETER

A MCCUEN BLVD

DEBELLEVUE STREET

PETER MCCUEN BLVD
Do you think this is a good
location for a roundabout?
Do you think this is a good
location for a roundabout?
Comments/Concerns Comments/Concerns
Peter A McCuen Blvd.

DeBellevue St.

Peter A McCuen Blvd.

Mather Field Rd.

Roundabout Type
Yellow: Multilane roundabout
Green: Single-lane roundabout
(not on a truck route)
Single-lane
Multilane
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

1/3/2024
1 City of Rancho Cordova Roundabout
Feasibility Study
Stakeholder Meeting
May 16, 2023
CityOfRanchoCordova.org
2 • Provide Project Update• Get Feedback on Prioritization for Future Intersections• Solicit Stakeholder Feedback Meeting Goals
12 ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT
1

1/3/2024
3 • Develop the Roundabout Priority Plan for the City• Prepare Guidelines for Future Decisions about Roundabouts• Utilize Public & Stakeholder Feedback to Develop Project Deliverables
Project Objectives
4 Screening and Prioritization
34 ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT
1

1/3/2024
5 Screening and Prioritization
6 Screening and Prioritization
56 ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT
1

1/3/2024
7 Screening and Prioritization
• Vetted top 50 for feasibility
• Traffic volumes accounting for future
growth
• Size of intersection based on design
vehicles
• Narrowed list to 12 intersections
8 Advancing Five Locations for Concept Designs
• Narrowed to five based on:
• Prioritization rank• Land uses (avoiding property takes)• Public input• Public Works and Planning feedback• Traffic Data • 5 Locations are:
• Old Placerville Rd / Rockingham Dr• Old Placerville Rd / Routier Dr• Kilgore Rd / Sun Center Dr• Capital Center Dr / Data Dr• Mather Field Rd / Peter A McCuen Blvd 78 ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT
1

1/3/2024
9 Draft Concepts
#18 Old Placerville Rd / Rockingham Dr
10 Draft Concepts
#19 Old Placerville Rd / Routier Dr
910
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT
1

1/3/2024
11 Draft Concepts
#35 Capital Center Dr / Data Dr
12 • Document work to date• Identify funding and implementation plan• Developing greenfield intersection/roundabout approach• We welcome your input now on what to prioritize/consider
Draft and Final Plan
1112
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT
1

1/3/2024
13 • 6/7 Community Meeting and survey• Refine concept locations• Develop prioritization plan Next Steps
We are here
14 THANK YOUTHANK YOU
Check Web Portal for Project Updates:
www.cityofranchocordova.org/CurrentProjects
If you have additional questions about the project, please reach out to the City’s Project Manager:

Kristine Courdy
(916) 851-8842
[email protected]
CityOfRanchoCordova.org
1314
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT
1

1/3/2024
1 City of Rancho Cordova Roundabout
Feasibility Study
Community Workshop
June 7th, 2023
CityOfRanchoCordova.org
2 • Introductions• Meet the Team• Prior Engagement• Project Objectives• Information on Roundabouts• Feasible Locations• Next Steps Meeting Agenda
12 ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT
1

1/3/2024
3 Project Team
City of Rancho Cordova (Grant Recipient)
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. (Project Consultant)
Project Manager = Kristine CourdyPrincipal Engineer = Edgar Medina Senior Transportation Planner = Drew Hart
Project Manager = Mike Alston
Principal In-Charge = Wade Scarbrough
Project Planner = Matt Braughton
FY21/22 Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant Project: Citywide Feasibility Study & Implementation Plan 4 Prior Engagement
Virtual Workshop October 2022 Open House January 2023
34 ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT
1

1/3/2024
5 Project Objectives
6 Develop the Roundabout Priority Plan for the CityUtilize Public & Stakeholder Feedback to Develop Project DeliverablesPrepare Guidelines for Future Guidance about Roundabouts Project Objectives
56 ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT
1

1/3/2024
7 Roundabout Education
8 What is a Roundabout?
78 ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT
1

1/3/2024
9 Safety improvements:
• 90-100% reduction in fatalities• 75% reduction in injuries• 35% reduction in total crashes Roundabouts controls vehicle speeds:
• 25 mph for single-lane• 30 mph for two-lane• Increased time for drive reaction• Decreased chance for injury or fatality Why Build Roundabouts?
10 Aesthetic & Green Infrastructure Opportunities
Bend, OregonSource: Lee Rodegerdts
Portland, OregonSource: Lee Rodegerdts
910
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT
1

1/3/2024
11 Considerations for Visually Impaired:1. Well defined walkway edges2. Separated walkways3. Aligned detectable warnings4. Perpendicular crossings5. Contrasting crosswalk markings Roundabouts & Pedestrians
3 2
1 4
5 Note presence of push-button for multilane roundabout crossing.Source: Lee Rodegerdts Performance assessment detailed in NCHRP Report 834
12 Roundabouts slow vehicles to speeds compatible with bicyclesBicyclists have option of traveling asvehicle or pedestrian • Serve different users based on
their level of comfort
No bicycle lanes within circulatory roadwayGuidance for off-street paths is emerging Roundabouts & Bicycles
1112
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT
1

1/3/2024
13 Separate Bike/Ped Options
San Luis Obispo, CaliforniaSource: Brian Ray
Source: Massachusetts DOT Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide 14 Roundabouts can accommodate large vehicles through design:
• Truck aprons• Placement of landscaping• Reinforced curbs Roundabouts & Larger Vehicles
1314
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT
1

1/3/2024
15 Project Overview
16 Project Overview
1Screen Locations
2Test Top Locations
3Gather Input + Develop Designs
4Prepare City Roundabout Guidelines
2022 2023
Fall Winter Spring Summer Fall Winter
We are here
1516
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT
1

1/3/2024
17 Project Overview
Part 1: Screen Locations
18 Project Overview
Part 1: Screen Locations
1718
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT
1

1/3/2024
19 Project Overview
Part 1: Screen Locations
20 Part 2: Test Top Locations
Example rendering of roundabout design concept
Project Overview
• Vetted top 50 for feasibility
• Traffic volumes accounting for future growth• Size of intersection based on design vehicles• Narrowed list to 12 intersections Example feasibility testing
1920
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT
1

1/3/2024
21 Part 3: Gather Input + Develop Designs
Example rendering of roundabout design concept
Project Overview
22 Part 4: Prepare City Roundabout Guidelines
Project Overview
2122
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT
1

1/3/2024
23 Feasible Locations
24 Advancing Five Locations for Concept Designs
• Narrowed to five based on:
• Prioritization rank• Land uses (avoiding property takes)• Public input• Public Works and Planning feedback• Traffic Data • 5 Locations are:
• Old Placerville Rd / Rockingham Dr• Old Placerville Rd / Routier Dr• Kilgore Rd / Sun Center Dr• Capital Center Dr / Data Dr• Mather Field Rd / Peter A McCuen Blvd 2324
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT
1

1/3/2024
25 Draft Concepts
#18 Old Placerville Rd / Rockingham Dr
26 Draft Concepts
#19 Old Placerville Rd / Routier Dr
2526
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT
1

1/3/2024
27 Draft Concepts
#22 Kilgore Rd / Sun Center Dr
28 Draft Concepts
#35 Capital Center Dr / Data Dr
2728
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT
1

1/3/2024
29 Draft Concepts
#46 Mather Field Rd / Peter A McCuen Blvd
30 • Refine concept locations• Develop prioritization plan Next Steps
We are here
2930
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT
1

1/3/2024
31 We want to hear from you!
https://metroquestsurvey.com/dv2v2i
Or bit.ly/RanchoRoundabout
Next Steps
32 THANK YOUTHANK YOU
Check Web Portal for Project Updates:
www.cityofranchocordova.org/CurrentProjects
If you have additional questions about the project,
please reach out to the City’s Project Manager:

Kristine Courdy
(916) 851-8842
[email protected]
CityOfRanchoCordova.org
3132
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT
1

1 Roundabout Feasibility Study
Survey Screens
August 1, 2023
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

2 Welcome Screen
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

3 Welcome Screen
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

4 Welcome Screen
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

5 Preferences Screen
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

6 Preferences Screen
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

7 Preferences Screen
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

8 Preferences Screen
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

9 Preferences Screen
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

10 Preferences Screen
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

11 Image Rating Screen
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

12 Image Rating Screen
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

13 Image Rating Screen
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

14 Image Rating Screen
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

15 Image Rating Screen
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

16 Image Rating Screen
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

17 Image Rating Screen
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

18 Image Rating Screen
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

19 Image Rating Screen
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

20 Image Rating Screen
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

21 Image Rating Screen
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

22 Image Rating Screen
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

23 Image Rating Screen
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

24 Priorities Screen
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

25 Priorities Screen
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

26 Priorities Screen
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

27 Priorities Screen
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

28 Priorities Screen
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

29 Priorities Screen
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

30 Priorities Screen
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

31 Wrap-Up Screen
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

32 Wrap-Up Screen
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

33 Wrap-Up Screen
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study Report 38
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

Appendix B:

Screening
Memo
39 Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study Report
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Technical Memorandum

INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. (Kittelson) is helping the City of Rancho Cordova (City) develop a Citywide Roundabout Feasibility Study and Implementation Plan. The plan will identify top locations for roundabout projects, including concepts for those locations and guidance for roundabout planning and implementation moving forward.

Top locations will be identified with a priority and feasibility screening. The screening will use data that describe existing conditions and planning priorities for the City.

This memo documents the data and planning information assembled to describe existing transportation, land use, and demographic information in the City. Each data source is desribed and visually presented in a map. Following the description of existing conditions data, this memo proposes a priority and feasibility screening methodology that will allow the City to transparently describe a roundabout prioritization process. As a next step, Kittelson and the City will test the proposed screening scenarios to identify top locations for roundabouts.

The memo is organized as follows:
◼ Existing Conditions Data
◼ Proposed Screening Methodology
◼ Next Steps
155 Grand Avenue, Suite 505
Oakland, CA 94612
P 510.839.1742
January 17, 2023 Project# 27668
To: Kristine Courdy, PE
City of Rancho Cordova
2729 Prospect Park Drive
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
From: Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

CC: Edgar Medina, PE; Drew Hart
RE: Roundabout Study – Final Existing Conditions and Screening Process Memo ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

January 17, 2023 Page 2
Roundabout Study – Final Existing Conditions and Screening Process Memo Existing Conditions Data Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

EXISTING CONDITIONS DATA
This section documents the data available for potential use in a citywide roundabout priority and feasibility screening process. The available data include:
◼ Transportation data
– Roadway functional classification
– Posted speed limits
– Lane numbers
– Intersection control type
– Existing and proposed bikeway classification
– Truck routes
– Transit lines and stops
– Existing and projected traffic volumes
– Crash history
◼ Land use data
– Planning areas
– Land use opportunities and constraints
◼ Demographic, Socioeconomic, and Environmental Data
– Social equity indicators
– Hazard risk
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

January 17, 2023 Page 3
Roundabout Study – Final Existing Conditions and Screening Process Memo Existing Conditions Data Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Transportation data
This section documents assembled data that describe existing and proposed transportation conditions in the City. The transportation data are displayed in a series of maps starting on page 7.

Roadway Functional Classification
City-provided data include the following roadway functional classification designations: state highway, arterial, collector, and local. The City data also included the location of proposed future roads, shown in the figure.

Because the screening will analyze and identify intersections, Kittelson has classified intersections by their intersecting roadway functional classes, including the highest order classification each intersection serves (e.g., if an intersection connects a local and arterial roadway, the arterial roadway would be identified as the highest-order functional classification). The following roadways were changed from local to collector classification (so that they could be included in the screening) at the direction of the City. • Georgetown Drive
• Anatolia Drive
• Cobble Brook Drive
• Dawes Street
• Country Garden Drive
• Laurelhurst Drive
• Rockingham Drive
• Peter A McCuen Boulevard
Posted Speed Limits
City-provided data include posted speed limits.

Roundabouts are a proven safety treatment that force slow driving speeds (typically entry speeds no higher than 30 miles per hour and circulating/exiting speeds ranging from 15 to 25 miles per hour).

Roundabouts built on higher-speed roadways (45 miles per hour or higher) may require some additional traffic calming measures in advance of the intersection or design features to promote slow speeds on approach. The desirable maximum entry design speed for a roundabout is dependent upon the roadway operational context, which may impact the roundabout design. At a high level, NCHRP Report 672 Exhibit 1-9 recommends desirable entry speeds for different roundabout types. ◼ Mini Roundabout (1 lane): 15 - 20 mph
◼ Single-Lane Roundabout (1 lane): 20 – 25 mph
◼ Multilane roundabout (2+ lanes): 25 – 30 mph
Roundabouts have successfully been built in higher speed environments with additional speed-reduction elements (e.g., extending splitter islands on the approaching roadway).

Lane Numbers
City-provided data include information on the total number of through lanes for each roadway (which does not include turn lanes at intersections).

ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

January 17, 2023 Page 4
Roundabout Study – Final Existing Conditions and Screening Process Memo Existing Conditions Data Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Existing roadway lane numbers do not necessarily indicate how many lanes a roundabout would require but do provide an indication of existing curb-to-curb and right-of-way space and the relative amount of traffic a road may carry (streets with more lanes typically carry more traffic)1. In the absence of traffic volume data at any location, the number of lanes on a roadway is a starting point for an assumption about whether a single- or multilane roundabout would provide adequate capacity. The City and Kittelson have agreed that a feasibility screening will screen out six-lane roadways (total through lane number) from further consideration. Ultimately, traffic volumes are necessary to plan roundabout lane number and sizing.

Intersection Control Type
City-provided data include intersection locations and control type. The control type data include the following values: 1 way stop, 2 way stop, 3 way stop, 4 way stop, traffic signal, or uncontrolled. Existing traffic control data provide helpful context.

Existing and Proposed Bikeways by Classification
Kittelson obtained existing and proposed citywide bikeway network data as identified in the Bicycle Master Plan.
2 These data indicate the City’s priorities for people biking; existing and proposed bikeways will determine how people biking are to be served at the intersection for any roundabout project (e.g., shared or separated dedicated lane on approach or exit). A separated, dedicated lane will typically require more space at the intersection, so the desired bikeway type helps to determine planning-level size estimates.

Truck Routes
The City provided data on the federal and local truck routes, as well as other roadways along which trucks frequently travel to serve commercial businesses. More detailed information will become available with the City’s ongoing freight study.

Truck volume and size is a key design input for roundabouts. Large trucks and buses typically dictate a roundabout’s dimensions: if either vehicle frequently uses the intersection, the roundabout will need to be larger than it otherwise would be. At any location, the largest vehicle frequently using the intersection, or the design vehicle, should be able to make all movements in-lane without striking curbs or crossing outside its travel lane. Less frequent larger vehicles can be accommodated through the design (e.g., with use of a truck apron for the rear wheels of a larger truck (see Exhibit 1). 1 Many City roadways are built to accommodate anticipated future (2040) volumes, further reinforcing that lane numbers are a rough proxy for traffic volume data.
2 Available at https://www.cityofranchocordova.org/home/showpublisheddocument/11416/635996042085130000 (as of July 27,2022)
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

January 17, 2023 Page 5
Roundabout Study – Final Existing Conditions and Screening Process Memo Existing Conditions Data Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Exhibit 1: Basic Geometric Elements of a Roundabout
Source: Reproduced from NCHRP Report 672
Transit Lines and Stops
Kittelson obtained transit routes and stop locations within the City from the Sacramento Regional Transit (SacRT) website. Transit stop location is helpful in the design of a roundabout but would typically not affect its feasibility.

Existing and Projected Traffic Volumes
Existing approach roadway traffic volumes will help identify at a planning level whether a single-lane roundabout would suffice or whether some portions of a roundabout would need multiple lanes. Future projected traffic volumes will allow the project team to test the resilience of roundabout sizing decisions against projected future growth.

Two sources of traffic volume data were available to the project team:
◼ Existing and future model volumes from SACSIM. SACSIM is the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) activity based model that represents the Sacramento County area and provides existing and future calibrated hourly and daily volumes. ◼ City Fee Study projected future (2055) volumes. The City has prepared future volumes for its recent traffic impact fee study.

For this screening Kittelson recommends used existing (2016) SacSIM volumes to screen locations that could not feasibly be served by single or multilane roundabouts. Because future volumes in Rancho Cordova show anticipated growth, a feasibility assessment would only rule out locations that would be over capacity with existing volumes and would therefore continue to exceed capacity into the future.

ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

January 17, 2023 Page 6
Roundabout Study – Final Existing Conditions and Screening Process Memo Existing Conditions Data Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Crash History
Reported crash history for the City for 2017-2021 was obtained from the online Statewide Integrated Traffic Reporting System (SWITRS) database maintained by California Highway Patrol and the Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) maintained by SafeTREC at the University of California, Berkeley. The crash datasets were combined into a single geocoded dataset. The dataset was then filtered to include intersectionrelated crashes on local roadways (i.e., not state highways).3 The crash dataset was then used to develop crash severity scores. Severity scores are calculated based on Caltrans estimated costs of crash outcomes and are normalized to be expressed in terms of equivalent property damage only collisions (PDOs).4 The relative severity values are as follows:
◼ Fatal/severe injury collisions are 119.9 equivalent PDOs at signalized intersections and 190.8 at unsignalized intersections.
◼ Moderate injuries are 10.7.
◼ Minor injuries are 6.1.

For example, a signalized intersection with an annualized crash severity score of 48, for example, would represent the equivalent of 48 PDO collisions per year, two fatal/severe injury collisions over 5 years (119.9*2/5 = 48), or some combination of severity levels resulting in the same score.

Figure 9 on page 15 shows the crash severity scores at each intersection.

Because roundabouts are a proven safety treatment and have been demonstrated to drastically reduce fatal and injury crashes, the screening can prioritize locations with a high severity score that would see a substantial safety benefit from a roundabout project.
.
3 Intersection-related crashes are those recorded as occurring within 250 feet of an intersection. This distance is a typical value used to consider the influence area of the intersection and is the definition used by Caltrans. 4 Caltrans Local Road Safety Manual (April 2022).

ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

January 17, 2023 Page 7
Roundabout Study – Final Existing Conditions and Screening Process Memo Existing Conditions Data Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Figure 1: Roadway Functional Classification
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

January 17, 2023 Page 8
Roundabout Study – Final Existing Conditions and Screening Process Memo Existing Conditions Data Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Figure 2. Posted Speed Limits
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

January 17, 2023 Page 9
Roundabout Study – Final Existing Conditions and Screening Process Memo Existing Conditions Data Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Figure 3. Number of Lanes
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

January 17, 2023 Page 10
Roundabout Study – Final Existing Conditions and Screening Process Memo Existing Conditions Data Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Figure 4. Intersection Control Type
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

January 17, 2023 Page 11
Roundabout Study – Final Existing Conditions and Screening Process Memo Existing Conditions Data Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Figure 5. Existing and Proposed Bikeways
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

January 17, 2023 Page 12
Roundabout Study – Final Existing Conditions and Screening Process Memo Existing Conditions Data Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Figure 6. Truck Routes
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

January 17, 2023 Page 13
Roundabout Study – Final Existing Conditions and Screening Process Memo Existing Conditions Data Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Figure 7. Transit Lines & Stops
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

January 17, 2023 Page 14
Roundabout Study – Final Existing Conditions and Screening Process Memo Existing Conditions Data Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Figure 8 Intersection Volumes
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

January 17, 2023 Page 15
Roundabout Study – Final Existing Conditions and Screening Process Memo Existing Conditions Data Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Figure 9. Crash Frequency and Severity (2017-2021)
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

January 17, 2023 Page 16
Roundabout Study – Final Existing Conditions and Screening Process Memo Existing Conditions Data Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Land Use Data
This section includes the data that describe existing and proposed land use in the City.

Planning Areas
The City’s website provides the spatial boundaries of Special Planning areas, which allow for creative implementation of the City’s General Plan. Special Planning Areas may have unique standards to achieve certain planning outcomes. However, planning Areas would not be a part of the screening. Their location and relation to potential roundabout sites will be retained for future City decision making.

Land Use Opportunities and Constraints
Kittelson obtained parcel-level data identifying existing land use categories. These data indicate potential opportunities (e.g., vacant parcels or city-owned parcels where right-of-way impacts may be accommodated) and “fatal flaw” right-of-way impacts (e.g., sensitive land uses on the corner of an intersection). Figure 11 on page 18 shows the following land uses as opportunities:
◼ Vacant parcels, where a project with a right-of-way impact may be feasible). ◼ Parcels identified as flood plains, where a roundabout project may provide an increase in pervious area or may include rain garden features to help guard against flooding.

Conversely, the figure shows the following as constraints, where a project with right-of-way impacts would likely be infeasible:
◼ Cemeteries
◼ Utilities
◼ Drainage ditches
◼ Levees
◼ Adjacent rail tracks
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

January 17, 2023 Page 17
Roundabout Study – Final Existing Conditions and Screening Process Memo Existing Conditions Data Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Figure 10: Planning Areas
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

January 17, 2023 Page 18
Roundabout Study – Final Existing Conditions and Screening Process Memo Existing Conditions Data Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Figure 11. Land Use Opportunities & Constraints
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

January 17, 2023 Page 19
Roundabout Study – Final Existing Conditions and Screening Process Memo Existing Conditions Data Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Demographic, Socioeconomic, and Environmental
Data
Social Equity Indicators
A number of social equity indicators are available at the national, state, and regional level to characterize population characteristics and environmental conditions. The following social equity indicators compiled were obtained or compiled:
◼ USDOT Historically Disadvantaged Communities (Figure 12) ◼ USDOT Areas of Persistent Poverty (Figure 13)
◼ CalEnviroScreen 4.0 (Figure 14)
◼ Healthy Places Index (Figure 15)
◼ SACOG Disadvantaged Communities and Communities of Concern (Figure 16) ◼ TDP index, calculated from US Census ACS data (Figure 17) In addition to several national, federal, and regional social equity focused indicators which provide data at the Census tract level, Kittelson has supplemented with ACS data to incorporate a number of demographic and socioeconomic factors at the more granular Census block group level to identify populations with overlapping determinants of economic disadvantage.

Table 1 summarizes the social equity datasets Kittelson has compiled. Several of these indicators have historically been included as social equity critiera in grant programs such as the federal Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity (RAISE) and the state Sustainable Communities Planning Grant programs.

ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

January 17, 2023 Page 20
Roundabout Study – Final Existing Conditions and Screening Process Memo Existing Conditions Data Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Table 1. Social Equity Indicators
Social Equity
Indicator
Associated
Governmental
Level
Granularity Inputs Application
Areas of Persistent
Poverty Federal (USDOT) Census tract (2010) ◼ Poverty ◼ Y/N Historically
Disadvantaged
Communities
Federal (USDOT) Census tract
(2010)
◼ Transportation Access
◼ Health
◼ Environmental
◼ Economic
◼ Resilience
◼ Social
◼
◼ Y/N
CalEnviroScreen

4.0 State Census tract (2010)
◼ Pollution burden
◼ Environmental quality,
◼ Socioeconomic
◼ Public health conditions
◼ Percentile
scores
Healthy Places
Index 3.02
State Census tract
(2010)
◼ Economic
◼ Education
◼ Social
◼ Transportation
◼ Healthcare Access
◼ Housing
◼ Clean Environment
◼ Percentile
scores
SACOG
Disadvantaged
Communities
Regional
Census
block
groups
(2010)
◼ Minority
◼ Low-income
◼ “other” vulnerable
communities -- measures
such as individuals over
age 75, linguistically
isolated households, and
concentrations of
households with at least
one person with a
disability.
◼ Y/N
Transportation
Disadvantaged
Populations Index
Custom
(Kittelson &
Associates)
Census
block (2020)
◼ Demographic factors
(race/ethnicity, poverty
status, English
proficiency, vehicle
access, age, disability,
single-parent families)
◼ Percentile
scores
1 A census tract is considered historically disadvantaged by USDOT if it meetings 4 or more of the social equity indicators. More information on this dataset can be found at https://www.transportation.gov/equity-Justice40 2 More information on the HPI methodology can be found at: https://www.healthyplacesindex.org/learningcenter#first-time The City can use this data to be intentional in the prioritization of legacy and disadvantaged communities for improvement. Kittelson has associated the socialequity scores with each intersection so that any of them may be used in the screening or recalled in the future for reference or reprioritization (for example, when grant opportunities arise and reference a certain indicator).

ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

January 17, 2023 Page 21
Roundabout Study – Final Existing Conditions and Screening Process Memo Existing Conditions Data Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Figure 12 Historically Disadvantaged Communities
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

January 17, 2023 Page 22
Roundabout Study – Final Existing Conditions and Screening Process Memo Existing Conditions Data Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Figure 13. Areas of Persistent Poverty
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

January 17, 2023 Page 23
Roundabout Study – Final Existing Conditions and Screening Process Memo Existing Conditions Data Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Figure 14. CalEnviroScreen 4.0
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

January 17, 2023 Page 24
Roundabout Study – Final Existing Conditions and Screening Process Memo Existing Conditions Data Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Figure 15. Healthy Places Index
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

January 17, 2023 Page 25
Roundabout Study – Final Existing Conditions and Screening Process Memo Existing Conditions Data Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Figure 16. SACOG Disadvantaged Communities
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

January 17, 2023 Page 26
Roundabout Study – Final Existing Conditions and Screening Process Memo Existing Conditions Data Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Figure 17. Transportation Disadvantaged Populations
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

January 17, 2023 Page 27
Roundabout Study – Final Existing Conditions and Screening Process Memo Existing Conditions Data Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Hazard Risk
Roundabouts are a more resilient infrastructure option than traffic signals because they do not require power supply to operate. Therefore, in the event of a power outage, they can continue to operate without the presence of traffic control officers. Hence, the proposed screening includes prioritization of locations sensitive to hazard risks.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) developed the National Risk Index (NRI) to create a framework for assessing the likelihood and consequences of natural hazards combined with social factors and resilience capabilities. The NRI includes eighteen hazard types. The three most relevant hazard types to the City of Rancho Cordova geographic context and its roadway operations are:
◼ Wildfire
◼ Flooding
◼ Earthquake
Figure 18 through Figure 20 show a map of the NRI scores in the City by Census tract for each of the three isolated hazard types. The hazard type risk score is relative to all other Census tracts nationally. Scores are not absolute measurements and should be expected to change over time either by their own changing measurements or changes in other communities.

ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

January 17, 2023 Page 28
Roundabout Study – Final Existing Conditions and Screening Process Memo Existing Conditions Data Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Figure 18. Earthquake Hazard Risk
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

January 17, 2023 Page 29
Roundabout Study – Final Existing Conditions and Screening Process Memo Existing Conditions Data Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Figure 19. Flooding Hazard Risk
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

January 17, 2023 Page 30
Roundabout Study – Final Existing Conditions and Screening Process Memo Existing Conditions Data Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Figure 20. Wildfire Hazard Risk
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

January 17, 2023 Page 31
Roundabout Study – Final Existing Conditions and Screening Process Memo Proposed Screening Methodology Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

PROPOSED SCREENING METHODOLOGY
This section identifies a proposed screening method to identify priority locations for the City to pursue roundabout projects. The screening as proposed will not by itself determine project feasibility but will rank locations based on City priorities and will include relevant data to help assess feasibility at a planning level.

The proposed screening will use factors to describe the City’s priorities and criteria to evaluate them. The following definitions apply to the screening:
◼ Factors: Categories used to express community or agency values, or general categories that define technical feasibility. An example factor is safety.
◼ Criteria: Characteristics used to measure or evaluate each factor. An example criterion for the safety factor would be intersection crash severity score, where each intersection is given a score to evaluate the relative crash frequency and severity.
◼ Scaling: The process of making two variables comparable. An example scaling would be normalizing the intersection crash severity score (dividing all scores by the maximum score) to create values that range from 0 to 1.
◼ Weights: Number used to indicate the relative importance of different factors. Weighting allows a screening to emphasize certain factors.

Kittelson proposes to conduct the screening in three steps:
◼ Step 1 – Roadway Class, Lane, and Volume Selection. This step acts as a filter and reduces the analysis to include only portions of the roadway network where the City would consider a project. Therefore, this step would exclude:
– Local/local intersections (volumes would not likely justify a roundabout) – Roadways with more than four approaching through lanes, – State-owned facilities (outside of City jurisdiction) – Intersections for which all approaches are private roadways (as indicated by City provided GIS layer).
◼ Step 2 – Prioritization. This step applies a score for each proposed factor and weights the factor scores to calculate a single score for each intersection. The single score would be used to sort the top locations.
◼ Step 3 – Planning and Design Values. This step will add relevant information that can be carried forward to inform roundabout design needs and assess feasibility of the top scoring sites. This step does not modify scores or further filter intersections but provides relevant context information for the City to refine its list of priority locations from the scores created in Step 2.

The steps and relevant data are listed in Table 2.

ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

January 17, 2023 Page 32
Roundabout Study – Final Existing Conditions and Screening Process Memo Proposed Screening Methodology Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Table 2. Proposed Screening Methodology
Factor Criterion/Criteria
Step 1: Roadway Class, Lane, and Volume Selection
Roadway functional
classification
Identify intersections that serve collector or arterial roadways. Exclude all others.

Lane Number Identify intersections that serve roadways with fewer than 6 total through lanes.

Exclude all others.

Volume Exclude intersections where a multilane would be over capacity with existing traffic volumes (see discussion below table).

Step 2: Prioritization
Safety Calculate a crash severity score based on five-year intersection crash frequency and severity. All intersections at the 97.5 percentile score and above receive a maximum score, and intersections below that level are assigned a proportionally scaled score.

Social equity Calculate a composite social equity score for the intersection’s location based on HPI and CES4.0 scores (weighing each of the two equally).

Natural hazard risk Calculate a composite score for the intersection based on natural hazard risk (weighing all three inputs equally).

Modal priorities An aggregate modal priority score is calculated with one point each for the following:
◼ Existing or proposed Class I or Class IV bikeway
◼ NOT along a truck route (0 points for an intersection along a truck route) ◼ Along a transit line
Land Use
Opportunities and
Constraints
Identify existing and expected access need(s), traffic characteristics, and growth potential at potential site locations. Identifies potential “fatal flaw” right-of-way impacts. Scores range from -0.5 to +1 for a combination of the following factors:
◼ Point deductions for an intersection located directly adjacent to a rail line or other constraint land use types
◼ Point additions for an intersection located directly adjacent to an opportunity land use type
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

January 17, 2023 Page 33
Roundabout Study – Final Existing Conditions and Screening Process Memo Proposed Screening Methodology Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Capacity Feasibility
Exhibit 3-12 from NCHRP Report 672 (recreated as Exhibit 2 below) provides a planning-level assessment of roundabout intersection capacity based on daily volumes. To apply the chart to this feasibility screening, the following daily capacities may be applied:
◼ Single Lane Volumes: Less than or equal to 25,000 daily entering vehicles ◼ Multilane Volumes: Greater than 25,000 and less than or equal to 45,000 ◼ Infeasible: Greater than 45,000
For intersections where model volumes can readily be postprocessed, the modeled daily entering existing conditions volumes can be applied against these values. Kittelson was able to estimate daily entering volumes for 84 intersections and apply this feasibility screening as a proposed element of Step 1.

Exhibit 2 Planning-Level Daily Intersection Volumes
Source: NCHRP Report 672, Exhibit 3-12
Factor/Criteria Notes
The approach presented in Table 2 represents a screening agreed upon between Kittelson and the City.

More details about some of the factors and criteria are listed below. ◼ Social equity factor. create a composite score from the CES4.0 and HPI datasets. These two indicators offer most of the input information that each of the other datasets independently offer, so combining these two avoids unnecessary redundancy. A composite score avoids double counting with other indicators but would incorporate pollution burden, environmental quality, socioeconomic characteristics, public health conditions, economic conditions, education levels, transportation access, and healthcare access.
◼ Modal priority. Deprioritize locations along truck routes because they require larger roundabouts (costlier and harder to fit within site constraints). Prioritize locations along transit lines to capture ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

January 17, 2023 Page 34
Roundabout Study – Final Existing Conditions and Screening Process Memo Proposed Screening Methodology Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
potential benefit provided to transit riders. All else equal, intersections that serve buses would require a larger roundabout, but roundabouts can improve safety and operations for buses. Prioritize locations along bike routes/trails because roundabout’s safety and traffic calming benefits would help improve conditions for people biking.

Table 3 provides the data Kittelson proposes to associate with intersections as part of step 3. As previously indicated, these data would not affect prioritization scores but would help inform an initial assessment of project feasibility for locations identified in Steps 1 and 2. The table explains the influence of each input on roundabout feasibility.

Table 3: Proposed Screening Step 3: Planning and Design Values Data Purpose
Intersection
Control Type
Contextual information.

Transit stop at
intersection
Identifies if relocating a bus stop may present a design challenge.

Traffic volumes Determine single- versus multilane feasibility and test the resilience of roundabout sizing decisions against future growth.

Lane numbers Provides an indication of relative volumes served (if traffic volumes are not available) and the existing curb-to-curb size.

Speed limits Indicate whether roundabouts would slow traffic, integrate well with existing traffic speeds, or (if high-speed approaches) require approach speed management techniques.

Roundabout Corridors
Research documented in NCHRP Report 772: Evaluating the Performance of Corridors with Roundabouts indicates that roundabouts may provide increased benefits if present as a consistent intersection control throughout a corridor in certain scenarios.5 However, the document emphasizes a corridor-specific approach which acknowledges the unique operating, political, and community context of an area. The screening processes proposed in this memo will help identify areas with a high viability for roundabout implementation based on desired operational and community characteristics. The City may choose to evaluate the final list of prioritized and feasible roundabout locations by elevating sites that begin to create a roundabout “series”.
5 NCHRP 722 defined a “series of roundabouts” as a minimum of three roundabouts that function independently on an arterial roadway.

ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

January 17, 2023 Page 35
Roundabout Study – Final Existing Conditions and Screening Process Memo Proposed Screening Methodology Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Factor Weighting
Factor weighting provides the City the opportunity to express priorities by assigning larger weights to some factors than to others. Table 4 provides example weighting scenarios for step 2 of the screening which reflect various potential goals such as equally weighing inputs or emphasizing safety over modal priorities and social equity. The outcome of this is a score that can be used to prioritize locations. Kittelson will set up the screening process so that the City can iterate and conducted sensitivity testing of various scenarios.

The City and Kittelson will collaboratively determine the desired weighting scenario to use for the plan.

Table 4: Example Initial Spatial Prioritization for Screening Step 2 Factor Weights
Factor Option 1: Equal Weights Option 2: Safety First Option 3: Social Equity and Opportunities
Safety 20% 50% 30%
Equity Indicators 20% 12.5% 30%
Hazard Risk 20% 12.5% 7.5%
Modal Priorities 20% 12.5% 7.5%
Land Use Opportunities
and Constraints
20% 12.5% 25%
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

January 17, 2023 Page 36
Roundabout Study – Final Existing Conditions and Screening Process Memo Next Steps Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

NEXT STEPS
Kittelson and the City have discussed appropriate inputs for the screening, and decisions are reflected in the preceding discussion. Kittelson and the City have compared the results of the scenarios presented in Table 4 and have decided to proceed with “Option 2: Safety First.” The screening process will be used to identify an initial top 50 locations to assess design feasibility as part of Task 2.2. Kittelson will test roundabout footprint sizes on the top 50 locations as a first-pass feasibility check.

Following that test, Kittelson and the City will meet to determine locations for further project development and determine the right time for a community meeting to gather input.

ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study Report 40
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

Appendix C:

Screening
Results
41 Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study Report
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

Appendix C: Screening Results
To better understand how a roundabout would fit at each of the five intersections, the project team developed sketch design concepts for each site (see Figure C1–Figure C6). Drawn over scaled aerial photo base maps, these initial concepts helped the project team and community members envision the potential roundabout at the site and helped the City prepare for project development and future funding opportunities.

The project team also prepared scorecards to summarize each location’s screening results according to safety, social equity, hazard risk, modal priority, opportunities and constraints, intersection volume and capacity, and crash history.

The following pages present an overview of each priority location and include the concept sketch and score results.

Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study Report 42
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

Figure C1. Rancho Cordova Roundabout Priority Locations 43 Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study Report
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

Old Placerville Road
and Rockingham Drive
Figure C2. Old Placerville Road and Rockingham Drive Concept Sketch Scorecard
Safety
Social Equity
Hazard Risk
Modal Priority
Opportunities/Constraints
CalEnviroScreen
Healthy Places Index
X
Volume
to Capacity
Ratio
Number
of Crashes
(2017–2021)
Historically
Disadvantaged
Community
SACOG
Disadvantaged
Communities
24%
below capacity
with roundabout
15 3 injury +
12 property damage
Low
Income
Low High
Priority
LEGEND
Parcel Boundary
Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study Report 44
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

Old Placerville Road
and Routier Drive
Figure C3. Old Placerville Road and Routier Drive Concept Sketch Scorecard
Safety
Social Equity
Hazard Risk
Modal Priority
Opportunities/Constraints
CalEnviroScreen
Healthy Places Index
X
X
Volume
to Capacity
Ratio
Number
of Crashes
(2017–2021)
Historically
Disadvantaged
Community
Areas of
Persistent
Poverty
SACOG
Disadvantaged
Communities
37%
below capacity
with roundabout
10 3 injury +
7 property damage
Low
Income
Low High
Priority
LEGEND
Parcel Boundary
45 Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study Report
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

Kilgore Road and
Sun Center Drive
Figure C4. Kilgore Road and Sun Center Drive Concept Sketch Scorecard
Safety
Social Equity
Hazard Risk
Modal Priority
Opportunities/Constraints
CalEnviroScreen
Healthy Places Index
Volume
to Capacity
Ratio
Number
of Crashes
(2017–2021)
Historically
Disadvantaged
Community
SACOG
Disadvantaged
Communities
67%
below capacity
with roundabout
5 4 injury +
1 property damage
NA
Low High
Priority
LEGEND
Parcel Boundary
Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study Report 46
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

Capital Center Drive
and Data Drive
Figure C5. Capital Center Drive and Data Drive Concept Sketch Scorecard
Safety
Social Equity
Hazard Risk
Modal Priority
Opportunities/Constraints
CalEnviroScreen
Healthy Places Index
Volume
to Capacity
Ratio
Number
of Crashes
(2017–2021)
Historically
Disadvantaged
Community
SACOG
Disadvantaged
Communities
85%
below capacity
with roundabout
2 1 injury +
1 property damage
NA
Low High
Priority
LEGEND
Parcel Boundary
47 Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study Report
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

Mather Field Road and
Peter A McCuen Boulevard
Figure C6. Mather Field Road and Peter A McCuen Boulevard Concept Sketch Scorecard
Safety
Social Equity
Hazard Risk
Modal Priority
Opportunities/Constraints
CalEnviroScreen
Healthy Places Index
X
Volume
to Capacity
Ratio
Number
of Crashes
(2017–2021)
Historically
Disadvantaged
Community
SACOG
Disadvantaged
Communities
38%
below capacity
with roundabout
1 1 injury +
0 property damage
Low
Income
Low High
Priority
LEGEND
Parcel Boundary
Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study Report 48
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

49 Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study Report
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study Report 50
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

Appendix D:

Exhibits
51 Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study Report
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

© 2023 Microsoft Corporation © 2023 Maxar ©CNES (2023) Distribution Airbus DS

ROCKINGHAM DR OLD PLACERVILLE RD
50 25 0 50
Scale: 1" = 50'
H:\27\27668 - Rancho Cordova Roundabout Study\2_Analysis\2.3_Priority List and Concept Design\concept design files\CAD base files\27668_CORC_Intersection sketch aerials.dwg Jun 06, 2023 - 8:49am - malston Layout Tab: Old Placerville x Rockingham 11x17 Old Placerville Rd & Rockingham Dr
Rancho Cordova, CA
Roundabout Concept 2
N
ROW
Parcel Boundary

LEGEND DRAFT
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

© 2023 Microsoft Corporation © 2023 Maxar ©CNES (2023) Distribution Airbus DS

OLD PLACERVILLE RD ROUTIER RD
2550 0 50
Scale: 1" = 50' \\kittelson.com\fs\H_Projects\27\27668 - Rancho Cordova Roundabout Study\2_Analysis\2.3_Priority List and Concept Design\concept design files\CAD base files\27668_CORC_Intersection sketch aerials.dwg May 05, 2023 - 4:18pm - bdemonbreun Layout Tab: Old Placerville x Routier 11x17 Old Placerville Rd & Routier Rd Rancho Cordova, CA
DRAFT Roundabout Concept May 2023
N
130'
10'
Right of Way
Parcel Boundary

LEGEND DRAFT
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

© 2023 Microsoft Corporation © 2023 Maxar ©CNES (2023) Distribution Airbus DS

SUN CENTER DR CAPITAL CENTER DRIVE
2550 0 50
Scale: 1" = 50' H:\27\27668 - Rancho Cordova Roundabout Study\2_Analysis\2.3_Priority List and Concept Design\concept design files\CAD base files\27668_CORC_Intersection sketch aerials.dwg May 23, 2023 - 3:34pm - malston Layout Tab: Kilgore Road x Sun Center 11x17 Kilgore Rd & Sun Center Dr Rancho Cordova, CA
DRAFT Roundabout Concept May 2023
N
110'
10'
Right of Way
Parcel Boundary

LEGEND DRAFT
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

© 2023 Microsoft Corporation © 2023 Maxar ©CNES (2023) Distribution Airbus DS

DATA DRIVE

CAPITAL CENTER DRIVE
2550 0 50
Scale: 1" = 50' \\kittelson.com\fs\H_Projects\27\27668 - Rancho Cordova Roundabout Study\2_Analysis\2.3_Priority List and Concept Design\concept design files\CAD base files\27668_CORC_Intersection sketch aerials.dwg May 05, 2023 - 4:21pm - bdemonbreun Layout Tab: Capital Center x Data 11x17 Capital Center Dr & Data Dr Rancho Cordova, CA
DRAFT Roundabout Concept May 2023
N
125'
10'
Right of Way
Parcel Boundary
LEGEND
Existing Bus Stop DRAFT
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

© 2023 Microsoft Corporation © 2023 Maxar ©CNES (2023) Distribution Airbus DS © 2023 Microsoft Corporation © 2023 Maxar ©CNES (2023) Distribution Airbus DS PETER A MCCUEN BLVD

MATHER FIELD RD
50100 0 100
Scale: 1" = 100' H:\27\27668 - Rancho Cordova Roundabout Study\2_Analysis\2.3_Priority List and Concept Design\concept design files\CAD base files\27668_CORC_Intersection sketch aerials.dwg May 23, 2023 - 8:36am - malston Layout Tab: Mather Field x Peter McCuen 11x17 Mather Field Rd & Peter A McCuen Blvd Rancho Cordova, CA
DRAFT Roundabout Concept May 2023
N
140'
Right of Way
Parcel Boundary

LEGEND DRAFT
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study Report 52
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

Appendix E:

Funding
Sources
53 Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study Report
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

Appendix E: Funding Sources
This appendix summarizes potential federal, state,
regional, and local funding sources for roundabout
design and implementation as of 2023. This list
also includes funding sources for projects that
would install bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure
via roundabouts and educational programs.

Federal
Surface Transportation Block
Grant (STBG) Program
Managing Agency:

Federal Highway Administration
The 2015 Fixing America’s Surface Transportation
(FAST) Act converted the long-standing Surface
Transportation Program (STP) into the STBG
Program. Funding is allocated to the state
and may be used for projects to preserve and
improve the conditions and performance on any
federal-aid highway; highway and transit safety
infrastructure improvement projects; bridge
and tunnel projects on qualifying public roads;
pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure; and transit
capital projects, including intercity bus terminals.

Website:

STBG - Federal-aid Programs - Federalaid Programs and Special Funding - Federal Highway Administration (dot.gov)
Safe Streets and Roads for
All (SS4A) Grant Program
Managing Agency:

United States Department of Transportation
The 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL)
established the SS4A discretionary program with
$5 billion in appropriated funds over five years.

The SS4A Program funds regional, local, and Tribal
initiatives through grants to support planning,
infrastructure, behavioral, and operational initiatives to prevent death and serious injury on roads and
streets involving all roadway users, including
pedestrians; bicyclists; public transportation,
personal conveyance, and micromobility users;
motorists; and commercial vehicle operators.

Individual roundabouts are not eligible. But because
roundabouts are proven safety countermeasures,
roundabout projects can be eligible if they are
submitted as part of multi-location, citywide, or
corridor safety improvement project or action plan.

Website:

Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) Grant
Program | US Department of Transportation
Rebuilding American
Infrastructure with
Sustainability and
Equity (RAISE) Grant
Managing Agency:

United States Department of Transportation
Through the RAISE Grant Program, Congress
has dedicated nearly $5.6 billion for nine rounds
of National Infrastructure Investments to fund
projects that have a significant local or regional
impact. (These grants were previously known
as BUILD or TIGER discretionary grants.)
RAISE also aims to award additional funding
to projects in areas of persistent poverty or
historically disadvantaged communities.

The RAISE Program’s eligibility requirements allow
state and local project sponsors to obtain funding
for multimodal, multi-jurisdictional projects that
are traditionally more difficult to fund through
department of transportation programs.

A RAISE application requires the
following components:
1/ SF-424 form
2/ Project Information Form
3/ Project Description
4/ Project Location File
5/ Project Budget
6/ Funding Commitment Documentation
7/ Merit Criteria
8/ Project Readiness
9/ Benefit-Cost Narrative and Calculations
10/ Optional Letters of Support
Website:

RAISE Discretionary Grants | US Department of
Transportation; How to Apply for RAISE Grants
Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study Report 54
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

Congestion Mitigation
and Air Quality (CMAQ)
Improvement Program
Managing Agency:

United States Department of Transportation
The CMAQ Program funds state transportation
projects designed to reduce traffic congestion
and improve air quality—particularly in areas that
do not attain national air quality standards. The
program helps support investments that encourage
alternatives to driving alone, improve traffic flow,
and help urban areas meet air quality goals. The
CMAQ Program aims to reduce regulated emissions
associated with carbon monoxide, ozone and
particulate matter pollution in nonattainment and
maintenance areas, often through congestion
mitigation techniques. Managing congestion
can help reduce regulated emissions, reduce
travel delays, decrease engine idle time, and
prevent unproductive fuel consumption.

Website:

Federal Programs Directory: Congestion
Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Improvement
Program | US Department of Transportation
State
Active Transportation
Program (ATP) Grants
Managing Agency:

California Transportation Commission (CTC)
The Active Transportation Program (ATP)
consolidates existing federal and state
transportation programs—including the
Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP),
Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA), and state
Safe Routes to School (SR2S)—into a single
discretionary grant program. The ATP emphasizes:
/ Increasing use of active modes by increasing
the proportion of walking and bicycling trips.
/ Increasing safety of non-motorized users.
/ Reducing greenhouse gases.
/ Improving public health.
/ Having disadvantaged communities
fully share in program benefits.

The program includes a state-administered and
a regionally-administered component. The latter
is listed and described in the next section.

Roundabout projects submitted for ATP
grants must be a part of broader active
transportation improvement projects
focused on the items listed above.

Website:

Active Transportation Program (ATP) | Caltrans
Highway Safety
Improvement Program
(HSIP) Grants
Managing Agency:

Caltrans
The HSIP is a core federal-aid program in the
FAST Act and the Infrastructure Investment and
Jobs Act (IIJA). The HSIP aims to reduce traffic
fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads,
including non-State-owned public roads and
roads on Tribal land. Safety projects can include
improvements like crosswalk markings, rapid
flashing beacons, curb extensions, speed feedback
signs, guard rails, pedestrian refuge islands,
and high friction surface treatments. Local HSIP
projects must be identified based on crash data.

HSIP projects must demonstrate a
competitive benefit-cost ratio based on
historical crash data. The lowest awarded
benefit-cost ratio from Cycle 11 was 19.

Website:

Local Highway Safety Improvement
Program (HSIP) | Caltrans
Affordable Housing and
Sustainable Communities
(AHSC) Program
Managing Agency:

California Strategic Growth Council
The AHSC Program aims to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions through projects that implement
land-use, housing, transportation, and agricultural
land preservation practices to support infill and
compact development and that support related and
coordinated public policy objectives, Objectives
include efforts to reduce air pollution, improve
conditions in disadvantaged communities, support
or improve public health, improve connectivity
and accessibility to jobs, increase options for
mobility, and increase transit ridership.
55 Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study Report
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

Roundabout projects submitted for the AHSC
Program must be a part of broader active
transportation improvement projects that are
alongside affordable housing developments.

Website:

Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities
(AHSC) - Strategic Growth Council (ca.gov)
Transformative Climate
Communities (TCC) Program
Managing Agency:

California Strategic Growth Council
Established by Assembly Bill 2722, the TCC Program
funds the development and implementation
of neighborhood-level transformative climate
community plans. To be eligible for funding,
projects must reduce greenhouse gas emissions
significantly over time, and they must leverage
additional funding sources and provide health,
environmental and economic benefits to the
community. The TCC Program funds both
implementation and planning grants.

Transportation-related projects can include:
/ Developing active transportation
and public transit projects.
/ Supporting transit ridership programs and
transit passes for low-income riders.
/ Expanding first-and-last mile connections
/ Building safe and accessible
biking and walking routes.
/ Encouraging education and planning
activities to promote increased use
of active transportation modes.

Website:

Transformative Climate Communities (TCC)
- Strategic Growth Council (ca.gov)
Local
Revolving Match Program
Managing Agency:

Sacramento Area Council of Governments
The Revolving Match Program offers project
sponsors additional funding to help pursue major
federal or state grants and deliver maintenance and
capital projects. Projects must fall within the fourcounty (Sacramento, Sutter, Yolo, Yuba) region and be listed in the 2020 Metropolitan Transportation
Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (MTP/SCS)
or fit within a lump-sum project category. Lump
sum project categories include road maintenance
and reconstruction, transit vehicle replacements,
operational improvements, intelligent transportation
systems, and bicycle and pedestrian investments.

Projects must be federal-aid eligible for CMAQ,
Regional Surface Transportation Program or State
Transportation Improvement Program funding.

Federal-aid eligible projects are those that contain
significant transportation infrastructure in the
public right-of-way. The project sponsor must
identify a specific state or federal grant program
in their application, and the project must meet
the eligibility requirements of that grant program.

Projects must also have a funding or financial plan
and be listed in an adopted planning document.

A draft planning document may be acceptable,
depending on the phase of the document.

Website:

Revolving Match Program - Sacramento Area
Council of Governments (sacog.org)
SACOG Regional
Funding Program
Managing Agency:

Sacramento Area Council of Governments
This regional funding program
funds three subprograms:
/ Community Design grants local government
agencies and their partners funds to
implement the SACOG Blueprint smart
growth principles. This program aims to use
regional transportation funding to promote
the construction of land use developments
(or land use and related projects) to reduce
congestion, decrease vehicle miles traveled and
support more walking, biking, and transit use.
/ Transformative is for projects seeking $5
million or more to address regional outcomes
or add new transit service. Outcomes may
include reducing regional vehicle miles
traveled or greenhouse gas emissions per
capita; reducing congestion; increasing
multimodal travel options; providing longterm economic benefits; improving goods movement; and improving safety and security.
/ Maintenance & Modernization funds projects
requesting less than $5 million to target
intelligent transportation systems or operations;
road rehabilitation or reconstruction; transit
Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study Report 56
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

improvements; bicycle and pedestrian
improvements; or complete streets. (Other
project types may also be eligible.)
To receive funding from these local programs,
roundabout projects will need to take a
programmatic approach and be part of a broader
package of safety, complete streets, or traffic
calming. Eligibility may also vary for each of
these programs depending on project costs.

Website:

Regional Program Call for Projects - Sacramento
Area Council of Governments (sacog.org)
Regional Active
Transportation
Program (ATP)
Managing Agency:

Sacramento Area Council of Governments
SACOG competitively distributes ATP funding
to projects and programs in El Dorado, Placer,
Sacramento, Sutter, Yolo, and Yuba counties to
increase biking and walking. The ATP aims to
increase walking and bicycling trips, increase
the safety of non-motorized users, reduce
greenhouse gases, enhance public health,
and ensure that disadvantaged communities
fully share in the benefits of the program.

Roundabout projects submitted for ATP
grants must be a part of broader active
transportation improvement projects that
focus on pedestrian and bicycle safety.

Website:

Active Transportation Program - Sacramento
Area Council of Governments (sacog.org)
57 Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study Report
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study Report 58
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

Appendix F:

Roundabout
Guidelines
59 Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study Report
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 62
Using this Document 62
CAPACITY AND NUMBER OF LANES 63
Assess Demand with Daily Traffic Volumes 65
Compare Control Types with Peak Hour Roadway Volumes 66 Estimate Capacity Using Peak Hour TMCs 68
Determine Desired Level of Mobility 72
Forecast Future Conditions 72
USER AND CONTEXT CONSIDERATIONS 73
Trucks 73
Walking and Bicycling 75
Transit 80
APPLICATION 82
Identify Development Area 82
Screen Potential Locations 84
Sample Application: Rio Del Oro 84
Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study Report 60
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

FIGURES
Figure F1. Data and Methodologies by Data Specificity and Project Development Stage 64
Figure F2. Planning-level Daily Intersection Volumes 65 Figure F3. Intersection Control Type by Operation Performance and 50/50 Volume Distribution on Each Street 67
Figure F4. Intersection Control Type by Operation Performance and 67/33 Volume Distribution on Each Street 67
Figure F5. Traffic Flows at a Roundabout Entry 68
Figure F6. Calculating Circulating Volumes for South Leg 69 Figure F7. Planning-Level Practical Capacity Estimates
Using Peak Hour Volumes for a Given Entry 71
Figure F8. Rancho Cordova STAA Truck Routes 74
Figure F9. Roundabout with Staggered Crosswalk 77
Figure F10. Two-Stage Crossing Example 77
Figure F11. A Raised Crosswalk with RRFBs 79
Figure F12. Roundabout Opportunity Areas by Land Constraints 83 Figure F13. Rio Del Oro Intersections Tested 85
Figure F14. Rio Del Oro Sample Footprints 86
Figure F15. Roundabout Footprint and Potential Parcel Conflict 87 Figure F16. Resulting Assessment of Possible Roundabout Locations 87 TABLES
Table F1. Analysis Methodologies by Input and Level of Detail 64 Table F2. Planning-Level Sizing Guide Using Peak Period Volume Thresholds 70
Table F3. Common Inscribed Circle Diameters 73
Table F4. Roundabout Bicycle Facility Type by Approaching Class 75 Table F5. Footprint Sizes for Roundabouts with Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities—AASHTO WB-62 or WB-67 Design Vehicle 76 Table F6. ICDs for Roundabouts with Pedestrian and
Bicycle Facilities—City Bus Design Vehicle 76
Table F7. Bus Stop Location Considerations 81
61 Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study Report
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

Appendix F: Roundabout Guidelines
1 FHWA, Roundabouts, August 2023, https://highways.dot.gov/safety/ intersection-safety/intersection-types/roundabouts.
2 AASHTO, Highway Capacity Manual 7th Edition: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis (2022), https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/26432/highway-capacity-manual7th-edition-a-guide-for-multimodal-mobility and NCHRP Research Report 1043: Guide for Roundabouts (2023), https://www.trb.org/Publications/Blurbs/182939.aspx.

Introduction
Roundabouts offer communities key safety and
operational benefits. Roundabouts slow vehicle
speeds and reduce conflict points while offering
improved traffic operations and community
aesthetics.1 And, because they don’t use traffic
signals that require power and routine maintenance,
roundabouts have lower operating costs and are
more resilient during natural disasters when the
power goes out.

To take advantage of these safety and operational
benefits, the City of Rancho Cordova studied the
feasibility of building roundabouts at new and
existing intersections throughout the city. Produced
as part of that study, these guidelines will help the
City plan for future roundabout implementation.

Using this Document
This document is intended to guide the City as it
plans and designs future roundabouts. The best
practices in these pages are designed to:
/ Support City staff, consultants, and other
practitioners involved in City projects during
the roundabout planning and design process.
/ Communicate roundabout planning and
design principles to guide the City and
partners when siting, planning, and moving
roundabouts through project development.
/ Reinforce best practices established
by national guidance documents.

Guidelines in this handbook primarily draw on
national guidance provided by the Highway
Capacity Manual 7th Edition (HCM-7) from the
Transportation Research Board (TRB) and NCHRP
Research Report 1043: Guide for Roundabouts
from the National Cooperative Highway Research
Program (NCHRP).2 Before beginning any
roundabout project, be sure to check that reference
material is the most recent version.

Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study Report 62
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

Capacity and
Number of Lanes
When planning and designing roundabouts,
determining desired capacity and number of lanes is
a critical first step.

Operational analysis tests whether a roundabout
would adequately serve existing or projected traffic
volumes and, if so, how many lanes that roundabout
would need. There are several operational analysis
tools to choose from, depending on how precise
results need to be and available data. Typically, the
level of detail required of the data increases as the
project development process advances beyond a
high-level assessment.

To select an assessment methodology, consider
the following:
/ Output precision—What questions does the
analysis need to answer? Does it need to test
whether a single or multilane roundabout
could work given future volumes? Does
it need to size a roundabout to develop a
concept design? What outputs are necessary?
Are you looking for a yes or no answer for
potential viability or average travel delays?
/ Existing or projected conditions—Are
you looking for an analysis based on the
intersection’s current conditions? If you are
interested in projected future conditions,
how well developed are future volumes—are
they daily link volumes or detailed turning
movement counts (TMCs)? What is the
level of confidence for those estimates?
/ Time period—Is the analysis focused only
on peak hours? Do you need or already
have data for other analysis periods,
such as 24-hour or 12-hour periods?
Use answers to those questions, Table F1, and
Figure F1 to select the appropriate methodology
or reference. The following sections cover each
methodology in more detail.

Table F1 arranges available methodologies
according to input and level of detail. Figure F1
arranges the methodologies according to the project
development stage in which they’d likely be used.

Six-Lane Roadways
The City is not pursuing roundabouts on
six-lane roadways due to the high cost of
retrofitting those locations. However, a
planned six-lane roadway (assumed to be
signalized) could be accommodated with a
two-lane roundabout and become a fourlane roadway instead. A planning-level operational analysis can determine whether
such a change would be feasible given
current and future volumes.
63 Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study Report
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

Planning Alternatives
Identification
& Selection
Detailed
Assessment
Table F1. Analysis Methodologies by Input and Level of Detail Project Development Stage Application Data Required
Planning Study Planning-level sizing to
determine feasibility and
number of lanes
Annual average daily
traffic
High-level selection of suitable
alternatives, such as comparing
roundabout to stop control or
signal
Peak hour roadway
volumes
Alternatives Identification
and Selection
Lane number and assignment Peak hour roadway
volumes
Conceptual design of
roundabout, including lane
numbers for each approach
and exit
Peak hour turning
movement counts
Detailed Assessment Conceptual design refinement Peak hour turning movement counts
Public involvement with
animation or simulation of
proposed alternatives
Peak hour turning
movement counts
Less
Detail
More
Detail
Figure F1. Data and Methodologies by Data Specificity and Project Development Stage Input & Results Level of Detail Project Development Stage
Annual
Average
Daily Traffic
Peak
Hour
Roadway
Volumes
Peak
Hour
Turning
Movement
Counts
Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study Report 64
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

Assess Demand with
Daily Traffic Volumes
Planning-level volume thresholds using daily
volumes can help determine whether a roundabout
could serve an intersection’s travel demand and, if
so, then how many lanes would be required to meet
mobility goals.

Guidance in this section applies to four-leg
intersections with all of the following conditions:
/ 9–10 percent of daily traffic occurs during
the peak hour—this is the “K factor”.
/ During the peak hour, the peak direction
carries 52–58 percent of the roadway’s
traffic—this is the “D factor”.
/ Volume-to-capacity ratio per approach
of 0.9 or 90 percent—this represents this
intersection’s “practical capacity”.

For more information about these conditions,
consult NCHRP Research Report 1043, Section 8.6
or HCM-7.

Use the following guidelines, as well as Figure F2, to
match daily entering vehicles to the number of lanes
required:
/ Intersections with less than 17,000 daily
entering vehicles would be well within
a single-lane roundabout’s capacity.
/ Intersections with between 17,000 and
25,000 daily entering vehicles would be
well within a two-lane roundabout’s capacity.

A single-lane roundabout may provide
sufficient capacity but would need to be
analyzed in more detail to confirm. The results
would depend on the percentage of traffic
occurring in the peak hour and the particular
turning movements at the intersection.
/ Intersections with 27,000–42,000 daily
entering vehicles would be over capacity
with a single-lane roundabout. A two-lane
roundabout may provide sufficient capacity, but
further analysis would be needed to confirm.

A note on left turns—These values assume a
left-turn percentage of 20 percent. Figure
F2 demonstrates how changes in the leftturning percentage may impact capacity (higher left-turn percentages reduce the capacity).

Figure F2. Planning-level Daily Intersection Volumes
Source: Reproduced from NCHRP Research Report 1043, Exhibit 8.2; data derived from HCM-1 Annual
Average Daily
Traffic
Passenger-Car
Equivalent Units
Throughout this guide, analysis volumes
are presented in passenger-car equivalent
units (PCUs). Raw traffic volumes need
to be converted to PCUs by applying
the conversion methodology from
the HCM-7. In this methodology, large
vehicles account for more than 1 PCU.
65 Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study Report
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

Compare Control Types with
Peak Hour Roadway Volumes
Peak-hour roadway volume data can be used to
compare operational performance across different
intersection control types. NCHRP Research
Report 825: Planning and Preliminary Applications
Guide uses HCM methodologies and some base
assumptions to establish comparable values among
two-way stop-controlled intersections, all-way stop
controlled intersections, signalized intersections,
and roundabouts.

Use Figure F3 and Figure F4 to match peak
hour roadway volumes with one or more feasible
intersection control types. Replicated from NCHRP
Research Report 825 and NCHRP Research Report
1043, respectively, these charts use total peak hour
volume on major and minor streets to assess which
type of roundabout or other intersection control
type would be feasible. The charts are based on
motor vehicle volumes and FHWA’s Manual on
Uniform Traffic Control Devices signal warrants.

To know which chart to use, check available
directional data. If streets have a roughly 50/50
split of directional traffic during the peak hour,
use Figure F3. If this data is unavailable, consider
using the more conservative 67/33 split in Figure
F4. If data shows a particular intersection type
would work for a 67/33 split, that type will work for
50/50—however, the reverse is not necessarily true.

A note on active transportation—Because
these charts only show control delay for
motor vehicles and do not include quality of
service for bicyclists and pedestrians, they
should not be used as the sole factor for choosing
intersection control type.

The Peak Hour Factor
If the City desires to use a peak
15-minute analysis instead of a
peak hour analysis, the analysis
should adjust raw peak hour
turning movement volumes with
the use of a peak hour factor,
as noted in the HCM-7.

Peak Hour
Roadway
Volumes
Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study Report 66
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

Figure F3. Intersection Control Type by Operation Performance and 50/50 Volume Distribution on Each Street
Figure F4. Intersection Control Type by Operation Performance and 67/33 Volume Distribution on Each Street
Peak Hour
Roadway
Volumes
Source: Reproduced
from NCHRP Research
Report 1043, Exhibit 8.8
Note: Mini-roundabouts
and compact roundabouts
are not included in this
exhibit. Assumes eighthhighest-hour volumes
equal 55 percent of peak
hour volumes, peak hour
factor equals 0.92, each
approach has 10 percent
left turns and 10 percent
right turns, and each
approach is a single lane
in the base case. Derived
from MUTCD 8-hour
signal warrant, MUTCD
all-way stop warrant,
and HCM methods for
two-way stop-controlled
intersections and singlelane roundabouts. Source:

NCHRP Report 825 (10).

Source: Reproduced
from NCHRP Research
Report 1043, Exhibit 8.7
Note: Mini-roundabouts
and compact roundabouts
are not included in this
exhibit. Assumes eighthhighest-hour volumes
equal 55 percent of peak
hour volumes, peak hour
factor equals 0.92, each
approach has 10 percent
left turns and 10 percent
right turns, and each
approach is a single lane
in the base case. Derived
from MUTCD 8-hour
signal warrant, MUTCD
all-way stop warrant,
and HCM methods for
two-way stop-controlled
intersections and singlelane roundabouts. Source:

NCHRP Report 825 (10).
67 Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study Report
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

Estimate Capacity Using
Peak Hour TMCs
If turning movement count (TMC) data is available, a
more detailed analysis may be conducted. Peak hour
TMCs record all through and turning movements
at each intersection leg during the busiest hour of
the day. These TMCs can be used to determine the
two relevant traffic flows for each roundabout leg:
entering vehicles and circulating vehicles (Figure
F5). Capacity can be estimated using the volumes of
these traffic flows.

In addition, an analyst or designer may use
HCM-7 methodologies or other, more current
methodologies, if available.

Figure F5. Traffic Flows at a Roundabout Entry
Source: HCM-1
To estimate capacity using peak hour TMCs, use the
following process:
1/ Begin with Peak Hour TMCs
Peak hour TMC data will include all through or
turning movements for each leg of an intersection
during the busiest 60 minutes of a day.

Example:

Peak Hour
Turning
Movement
Counts
1 Vc
Ve
Ve
Vc
Entering Volumes
Circulating Volumes
2 166
25 72280
8 269
409
26 3
553
Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study Report 68
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

2 166
25 72280
8 269
409
26 3
553
Source: Reproduced from NCHRP Research Report
1043, Exhibit 8.4 and adapted from HCM-1
Figure F6. Calculating Circulating
Volumes for South Leg
2/ Calculate Relevant Volumes at Entry
Use the TMCs to calculate the volumes entering
(Ve) and circulating (Vc) for one entry leg. To
calculate Vc of a selected entry leg, add each of the
conflicting through, left, and U-turn movements for
that entry (see Figure F6). Example:

Peak Hour
Turning
Movement
Counts
2 Ve
Vc
Vc
Entering = 26 + 3 + 553 = 582 veh/hr
Circulating = 2 + 166 + 80 = 248 veh/hr
Ve
Vc
69 Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study Report
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

3/ Estimate Capacity
Use Table F2 and Figure F7 to calculate roundabout
type and number of lanes. For Table F2, add Ve and
Vc. For Figure F7, Vc and Ve will be the x and y axes,
respectively.

Table F2. Planning-Level Sizing Guide Using Peak Period Volume Thresholds Ve + Vc
Sum of Peak Period Entering
and Conflicting Flows
(vehicles/hour)
Type of Roundabout and Number of Lanes
700 or less Single-lane roundabout with traversable or non-traversable central island is likely sufficient.
701–900 Single-lane roundabout with non-traversable central island is likely sufficient; single-lane roundabout with traversable central island may be sufficient.
901–1,300 Single-lane roundabout with non-traversable central island may be sufficient.
1,301–1,600 Two-lane entry into multilane roundabout is likely sufficient; detailed turning movement analysis recommended.
1,601–2,300 Two-lane entry into multilane roundabout may be sufficient; detailed turning movement analysis recommended.

Greater than 2,300 Three-lane entry into multilane roundabout may be sufficient; detailed turning movement analysis recommended.

Source: Reproduced from NCHRP Research Report 1043, Exhibit 8.6 3 Peak Hour
Turning
Movement
Counts
Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study Report 70
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

Figure F7. Planning-Level Practical Capacity Estimates
Using Peak Hour Volumes for a Given Entry
Source: Reproduced from NCHRP Research Report 1043, Exhibit 8.5 Example:

Example:

The sum of peak period entering and conflicting
flows is 830. Using Table F2, this flow indicates that
a single-lane roundabout with a non-traversable
central island is likely sufficient and that a singlelane roundabout with a traversable central island (also called a mini roundabout) may be sufficient.

Figure F7 provides a more nuanced view of the
nonlinear relationship and provides the same
answer: with 456 conflicting vehicles, 582 entering
vehicles could be served by a single-lane with nontraversable central island and may be served with a smaller, single-lane entry at a roundabout with a
traversable central island. A two-lane roundabout
with a non-traversable central island would likely
create unused capacity and increase implementation
costs.

Peak Hour
Turning
Movement
Counts
4/ Repeat Calculations for Remaining Legs
5/ Compare Estimated
Capacities for Each Leg
Use the capacity estimates for each leg to sketch
potential lane configurations for the roundabout.

Leg capacities may all suggest the same number of
lanes for all entries. Sometimes, however, different
legs will require different numbers of lanes. When
leg capacities are close to the thresholds for
different lane numbers, use software to conduct a
more detailed analysis.
4 5
71 Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study Report
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

Determine Desired
Level of Mobility
When planning a roundabout (as with any
intersection), consider the desired level of mobility,
or how easily people and goods can move through
an intersection.

Level of Service
One way to assess the mobility of motor vehicles
is through level of service (LOS), a qualitative
measure of a roadway or intersection’s operations.

LOS provides a letter grade from A to F to describe
the average delay experienced by people in motor
vehicles, with A being the best and F being the
worst. Delay is measured in seconds per vehicle.

LOS thresholds for roundabouts in the HCM are the
same as those for other unsignalized intersections.

Note, however, that the HCM assigns LOS F if the
roundabout’s volume-to-capacity ratio is greater
than 1.0, regardless of control delay. Simply using
the LOS grade can obscure important differences
in delay. (For instance, the difference between two
LOS grades can be a fraction of a second of delay
or many seconds.) Instead, prioritize overall average
and per-user intersection delay numbers, which
reflect conditions more accurately and specifically.

According to the City’s
existing Circulation Element,
the minimum acceptable
level of service in Rancho
Cordova is LOS D.

Underused Capacity
It’s important to balance peak hour needs against
all-day needs. Achieving a low level of delay during
the peak hour could result in an intersection that
is “overbuilt,” meaning it is underused for the
vast majority of the day and that it generates
unnecessary construction and maintenance cost,
all while taking up valuable city space that could
be used for other purposes. When setting the
desired mobility, determine whether the peak hour
is concentrated (occurring just 15 or 60 minutes of
the day, for example) or if it represents conditions
across many hours of the day.

Forecast Future Conditions
Roundabouts need to meet the city’s capacity needs
today and tomorrow. Currently, Rancho Cordova
plans for the year 2055.

To generate 2055 volumes, the City uses a modified
version of the SACSIM-19 Activity-Based Travel
Model from the Sacramento Area Council of
Governments (SACOG). (This modified version
provides greater roadway and transit network
detail and more refined traffic analysis zones in
the city and adjacent areas.) This model estimates
movement within Rancho Cordova and predicts how
city development will interact with land use and
transportation across the region.

Future volume projections provided by this model
help estimate whether a roundabout will operate
within desired mobility targets in the future and the
extent to which new development may degrade its
operations.

The 2055 land use projections in this model
assume that:
/ Residential uses will be fully built out
/ About half of non-residential
uses will be built out
/ Areas outside city limits will develop according
to SACOG’s 2020 Metropolitan Transportation
Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy
(MTP/SCS) preferred land use assumptions,
except in four proposed development areas
in Sacramento County adjacent to the City:

Cordova Hills, Easton/Glenborough, Mather
South, and New Bridge. These areas will
develop according to 2055 estimates.

These land use assumptions underpin the 2055
travel forecasts for daily, weekday AM peak hour,
and weekday PM peak hour forecasts. These
forecasts also account for future transit ridership
from planned transit services in Rancho Cordova
and surrounding areas, including those partially
funded by the Transit Benefit District.

For more on this methodology, see the Rancho
Cordova Nexus Study. Contact the City for relevant
traffic projections.

Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study Report 72
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

User and Context
Considerations
Trucks
The City aims to serve the community’s
transportation needs and balance the needs of all
roadway users.

Expect Truck Use
Roundabouts that serve trucks must be large
enough to accommodate wide turning movements.

Due to Rancho Cordova’s strategic shipping
location, the City is authorized to designate certain
trucking terminals as interstate truck terminals and
certain City highways or parts of City highways as
terminal access routes for interstate trucks (see
Rancho Cordova Municipal Code 10.41). However,
some very large trucks—called STAA trucks or
extralegal trucks—are restricted in where they can
travel in Rancho Cordova. Figure F8 illustrates
where STAA trucks may travel. Smaller trucks,
including the California legal trucks, are not
restricted within the city. (For more, check out
Caltran’s quick guide to truck lengths and routes.)
Therefore, for roundabout planning purposes, start
by assuming a given intersection will be used by
California Legals (in addition to smaller trucks)
unless it is on a designated restricted route. The
particular right- or left-turning movements needed
for those trucks can be vetted with the City.

Determine and Draw ICDs
To accommodate trucks at a roundabout, begin
with an inscribed circle diameter (ICD) that will
meet the needs of the intended design vehicle (the
largest trucks expected to use the route, although
infrequently). A roundabout should be designed
so that these trucks can navigate the circle while
remaining in their lanes and avoiding curbs.

To determine an ICD range consult Table F3, which
summarizes common inscribed circle diameter
ranges by design vehicle and roundabout type.

These values are not prescriptive but provide a good
starting point for developing a design (assuming
a four-leg intersection with roughly perpendicular
approaches).

What is an ICD?
An inscribed
circle diameter,
or ICD, is the
outer diameter of
the roundabout.

This measurement
includes the center
island and the width
of the circulating
travel lanes.

Table F3. Common Inscribed Circle Diameters
Roundabout Configuration Typical AASHTO Design Vehicle Common ICD Range3 Single-lane roundabout with a
non-traversable central island
BUS-40 90–120 ft
WB-40 100–130 ft
WB-62 or WB-67 120–180 ft
Two-lane roundabout4 WB-40 135–160 ft
WB-62 or WB-67 140–180 ft
3 Assumes 90-degree angles between entries and no more than four legs.

This list of possible design vehicles is not comprehensive. 4 Common ICD ranges depend on whether the design vehicle will straddle or stay inlane. These ranges do not account for special, oversized, or overweight vehicles.

Source: NCHRP Research Report 1043, Exhibit 10.3
73 Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study Report
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

Figure F8. Rancho Cordova STAA Truck Routes
Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study Report 74
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

Next, use this information to sketch a roundabout
layout with an ICD in the appropriate range for the
given design vehicles. Then use available software
to test whether the design vehicle can make turning
movements with the selected roundabout size.

Typically, right turns will be the most constrained
in entries and exits, and left turns will determine
truck apron requirements around the central island.

Design vehicle turning paths may be tested even at
a sketch level to establish geometry before further
details are developed.

For larger trucks that may occasionally but
infrequently use an intersection, first consider
adapting geometry to provide for required
movements. If necessary, provide reinforced
mountable curbs and external truck aprons in
strategic locations. For more on roundabouts and
trucks, see NCHRP Research Report 1043, Sections

9.7 and 10.5.

Walking and Bicycling
With their ability to slow vehicle speeds,
roundabouts can play an important role in creating
safe and comfortable space for people to walk and
bicycle.

To properly incorporate pedestrians and bicyclists
in roundabout plans and designs, consult facility
design recommendations in the Bicycle Master Plan
and other City design standards. Roundabouts,
like any other intersection, should be planned and
designed to provide adequate mobility for people
walking and biking and can be designed to provide
the same quality of service as the approaching
roadways.

In California, bicycle facilities are defined by four
types as described in the Caltrans Highway Design
Manual:
/ Class I: Bike Paths, Shared Use Paths, or
Sidepaths provide a completely separated
facility for the exclusive use of bicyclists and
pedestrians. These facilities have minimal
or no conflicts with motor vehicle traffic.
/ Class II: Bike Lanes are on-street bikeways
that provide a dedicated right-of-way
for bicycles. These facilities may include
painted buffers, but they are not physically
separated from vehicle travel lanes.
/ Class III: Bike Routes or Bicycle Boulevards are
shared right-of-way with motor vehicles and are
designated by signs or permanent markings.
/ Class IV: Separated Bike Lanes or Cycle
Tracks provide physical separation from motor
vehicle traffic through grade separation,
flexible posts, planters, on-street parking,
or other strong physical barriers.

Roundabouts, like other intersections, may provide
a similar level of separation, quality of service,
and comfort as their approaching roadways. For
example:
/ Where a Class I path is provided or
planned for an approaching roadway, the
roundabout should provide a ramp to a
Class I path outside the roundabout to
separate bicyclists from motor vehicles
traveling through the circulatory roadway.
/ Where an approaching roadway has Class II
bike lanes, the roundabout should provide
a ramp to a multiuse path or separated
bike lane to separate bicyclists from motor
vehicles in the circulatory roadway.
/ Where the approaching roadway
volumes and speeds are appropriate for
a Class III route, the roundabout could
provide a shared-lane for bicyclists.
/ Where the approaching roadway has Class
IV bike lane, the roundabout should provide
a multiuse path or separated bike lane to
separate bicyclists from motor vehicles
traveling through circulatory roadway.

Table F4 summarizes the relationship between
bicycle infrastructure on an approaching roadway
and the comparable facility through a roundabout.

See the following subsection for more information
on accommodating bicycle lanes at roundabouts.

Table F4. Roundabout Bicycle Facility
Type by Approaching Class
Approaching Bike
Infrastructure
Comparable Provision at
Roundabout
Class I Multiuse path or separated
bike lane
Class II Multiuse path or separated
bike lane
Class III Shared lane with motor
vehicles
Class IV Separated bike lane
75 Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study Report
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

Accommodate Bike Lanes
At roundabouts with pedestrian and bicycle
facilities, the area outside the traveled way will need to be wider than those without them. The resulting
intersection footprint will be larger.

To accommodate shared use paths at the planning
level, add 28 feet to the ICD for a single lane
roundabout and 32 feet for a multilane roundabout.

These ranges assume 4-foot landscape buffers,
10-foot paths for a single-lane roundabout, 12-foot
paths for a multilane roundabout.

To accommodate a sidewalk and a separated
bike lane at the planning level, add 40 feet to the
ICD. This extra width for a separated bike lane
and sidewalk assumes 6-foot sidewalks, 4-foot
landscape buffers, and a 10-foot separated bike
lane.

To determine the total ICD for a roundabout with
pedestrian and bicycle facilities according to
different design vehicles, use Table F5 and Table F6.

These are by no means the only suitable sizes for
roundabouts; they are simply a reasonable starting
point for estimating spatial needs, given certain
characteristics and assuming a four-leg intersection
with roughly perpendicular approaches.

Table F5. Footprint Sizes for Roundabouts with Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities—AASHTO WB-62 or WB-67 Design Vehicle
Roundabout Type Sidewalk Only Shared Use Path Separated Bicycle Lanes Single Lane 150 + 20 = 170 feet 150 + 28 = 178 feet 150 + 40 = 190 feet Multilane N/A 165 + 28 = 193 feet 165 + 40 = 205 feet
Table F6. ICDs for Roundabouts with Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities—City Bus Design Vehicle Roundabout Type Sidewalk Only Shared Use Path Separated Bicycle Lanes Single Lane 100 + 20 = 120 feet 100 + 28 = 128 feet 100 + 40 = 140 feet Multilane N/A 150 + 28 = 178 feet 150 + 40 = 190 feet
Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study Report 76
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

Locating and Designing Crossings
Crosswalk placement is a balancing act.

Practitioners often must reconcile competing
design objectives, such as:
/ Pedestrian convenience—People walking
naturally look for the shortest path between
their origins and destinations. The farther
a crossing is from the roundabout, the
more likely pedestrians are to choose a
shorter route that is not provided by the
design. Often times, that shorter route
increases their exposure and crash risk.
/ Pedestrian safety—Minimizing crossing
distance decreases pedestrian crash risk.

Because roundabouts typically have flared
entries, a location 20–25 feet back (about
one car length) from the entrance provides
a shorter crossing than one closer to the
circulatory roadway. This setback location
separates the pedestrian crossing from
any vehicular conflict points and allows
drivers to focus exclusively on each conflict,
rather than on both simultaneously.
/ Driver stopping or yielding—Pedestrian
crossings affect roundabout operations
because drivers must yield or stop for crossing
pedestrians. A queuing analysis may reveal
that an exit crossing should be located more
than one car length away from the circulatory
roadway to avoid a backup. However,
that placement must be balanced against
pedestrian convenience and safety needs.

Most roundabout crossings are located at least
20 feet (about one car length) back from the
circulatory roadway. In some cases, crossings are
located two or three car lengths on the exit. If an
exit crossing is farther away from the roundabout
than the typical one-car length, a two-stage
crossing can be provided to accommodate
staggered crossing distances with a closer
entrance crossing and farther exit crossing (see
Figure F9).

Regardless of a crossing’s location, a two-stage
crossing with an accessible refuge in the median
splitter island simplifies crossing and improves
safety for pedestrians (see Figure F10).

Figure F9. Roundabout with Staggered Crosswalk
Source: NCHRP Research Report 834, Figure 4-4
Figure F10. Two-Stage Crossing Example
Source: Lee Rodegerdts, NCHRP Research
Report 1043, Exhibit 14.14
77 Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study Report
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

Roundabouts and Accessibility
Roundabouts can be designed to be safe and
accessible for all people walking.

NCHRP Research Report 834 provides principles
and checks for designing roundabouts that are
accessible for people with low vision and that
promote safe conditions for all people walking.

The report includes an assessment that designers
can use to evaluate whether a roundabout design
provides accessible crossings. The assessment
asks a series of questions related to the two
tasks a pedestrian must complete to navigate an
intersection:
/ Wayfinding—Locating the crosswalk,
aligning to cross, and maintaining correct
heading while crossing the street.
/ Crossing—Deciding when to cross the street.

The report also provides direction on how to
thoughtfully design the following elements which
contribute to creating accessible crossings:
/ Crosswalk location and angle
/ Sidewalk alignment
/ Buffering the outer edge of the sidewalk
/ Detectable warning and guidance surfaces
/ Curb ramp location and design
/ Crosswalk markings
/ Median splitter island design
/ Type, location, and accessibility
of traffic control devices
/ Signing and markings
For an example roundabout design accessibility
assessment, see NCHRP Research Report 1043,
Appendix A.7
Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study Report 78
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

Multilane Crossings
Multilane crossings are more complicated than
single-lane crossings and can present greater
exposure for people walking. As of September
2023, the United States Access Board has issued a
final rule on the Public Right-of-Way Accessibility
Guidelines (PROWAG), which provides minimum
guidelines for implementing the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 for public rights-ofway.

With the final rule, multilane roundabouts are
required to implement at least one of the following
four pedestrian treatments to make the crossings
accessible for people who are blind or have low
vision:
/ Traffic control signal with pedestrian signal
head—A signal displays red-yellow-green
indications to drivers and rests in green. A
pedestrian signal head displays “Walk” and
flashing “Don’t Walk” phases for crossing
pedestrians. Signals should be sufficiently
offset from the entry yield sign to prevent users
from being confused by two traffic controls.
/ Raised crosswalks—A raised crosswalk refers to
an elevated crossing area relative to vehicular
travel lanes, with the full crosswalk width raised
(as opposed to a narrower speed bump or
hump). Elevating crossing areas forces drivers
to slow down and improves driver yielding
(Figure F11). Raised crosswalks can be paired
with other treatments (typically RRFBs).
5 PROWAG, R102.1, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/08/08/2023-16149/ accessibility-guidelines-for-pedestrian-facilities-in-the-public-right-of-way. / Rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFBs)—
These push-button activated signs use flashing
yellow lights to alert drivers to pedestrians or
bicyclists waiting to cross the roadway (Figure
F11). RRFBs improve driver yielding and are
typically used for multilane roundabouts. Adding
audible messages helps people who are blind
or have low vision navigate the crossing.
/ Pedestrian hybrid beacons (PHBs)—Typically
mounted on mast arms, PHBs use a series
of colored lights to signal drivers to stop for
pedestrians. Until the device is activated, the
lights are dark. When activated, the beacon
flashes yellow then turns solid yellow. During
the pedestrian walk interval, the lights are solid
red. During the pedestrian clearance interval,
the lights alternate flashing red. PHBs also signal
“Walk” and “Don’t Walk” to pedestrians and
can be coordinated with other traffic control
devices at adjacent intersections. An audible
message like “Wait” or a percussive tone during
the “Walk” phase may help pedestrians who are
blind or have low-vision navigate the crossings.

The PROWAG final rule also provides for equivalent
facilitation: alternative designs are allowed so long
as they “result in substantially equivalent or greater
accessibility and usability then the requirements.”5
Although this suggests a performance measure
to compare and evaluate relative performance,
no metric is provided. NCHRP Research Report
1043, Appendix A.6 contains more information on
applying these treatments, including a potential
evaluation measure.

Figure F11. A Raised Crosswalk with RRFBs
Source: Jonathan French, NCHRP Research Report 1043,
Exhibit 11.15
Careful consideration should
be applied when selecting
crossing treatments at
multilane roundabouts.
79 Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study Report
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

Transit
Transit plays an important role in Rancho Cordova’s
transportation network. Access to transit is
critical for many residents, particularly those
from groups more likely to rely on transit for their
everyday needs, including people from low-income
households, historically underserved communities,
and marginalized backgrounds.

Two critical elements of designing roundabouts for
transit are a) sizing to allow buses to travel in lane
(not using truck aprons), and b) locating bus stops
to balance access convenience with traffic and
service efficiency.

Planning for SacRT
The Sacramento Regional Transit District (SacRT)
is the regional transit service provider, and their
buses will travel through roundabouts in Rancho
Cordova. SacRT representatives played a key role
in developing these guidelines and advising on key
transit considerations.

When planning for transit at roundabouts, use the
following guidance:
/ Design roundabouts to serve buses fully
within the circulatory roadway (rather
than relying on the use of a truck apron)
to avoid jostling bus occupants.
/ Consult the SacRT Bus Stop Improvement
Plan to determine the recommended bus stop
improvements, design recommendations,
and amenities recommended for the location.

Corridors cited in that plan include Coloma
Road, Kilgore Road, Lincoln Village Drive,
Rockingham Drive, and Routier Road.
/ Consult the latest SACOG plans to
determine intended future bus service and
stop locations along project corridors.
/ Bus stops should not be located within the
circulatory roadway. Placing stops as close
to pedestrian crossings as possible minimizes
out-of-direction travel. Place these stops
either at nearside (on entry) or far side (on
exit), using the considerations in Table F7.

For more on these plans, see the SacRT Bus
Stop Improvement Plan and the SACOG Transit
Improvement Plan.

Schools
Well-designed roundabouts can help make
transportation around schools safer and more
efficient for everyone. Safety near schools is a top
concern for the City and for constituent schools,
including Elk Grove Unified School District,
Folsom Cordova Unified School District (FCUSD),
Sacramento City Unified School District, and area
private schools. As key stakeholders in projects
near schools, FCUSD has identified the following
priorities that are appropriate to consider for all
projects near schools:
/ Pedestrian Crossing Safety—A number of
design checks can be used to promote safety
and comfort for pedestrians—including schoolage children—crossing at roundabouts (see “Multilane Crossings” on page 79). FCUSD
has expressed interest in supplemental crossing
treatments like raised crosswalks and PHBs,
the suitability of which can be determined on
a case-by-case basis. In some cases, schools
may request post-implementation evaluation
to determine if additional interventions (such
as additional signage or RRFBs) are desirable.
/ Landscape and Plant Height—To provide
adequate sight distance, landscape and
plants should be maintained to meet the
sight distance checks conducted as part of
typical roundabout design. (For more detail on
roundabout sight distance and landscaping,
see NCHRP Research Report 1043, Chapters
9 and 14.) A maintenance agreement can
provide a framework to keep landscape
features compliant with sight distance needs.

Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study Report 80
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

Table F7. Bus Stop Location Considerations
Nearside Far Side
In-lane stops on a single-lane approach just
upstream of the pedestrian crossing are well
located but stop traffic temporarily to board and
alight passengers.

On multilane approaches:
• An in-lane bus stop may allows for the
“multiple-threat” condition in which the bus
stops for pedestrians crossing but an adjacent
driver does not see the pedestrian.
• A bus pullout avoids the “multiple threat,” but
buses existing the pullout may further obstruct
visibility between pedestrians and entering
traffic.

Bus stops located just beyond the pedestrian
crossing improve the visibility of crossing
pedestrians, who cross behind the bus.

Bus pullouts reduce the potential for vehicles to
queue into the roundabout when the bus stops to
board and alight passengers.
81 Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study Report
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

Application
The process outlined in this section provides a blueprint that City staff can use to identify, plan, and implement roundabouts for future developments.

Identify Development Area
Identify potential areas early on in the parcel acquisition, subdivision, and development process. This increases the number of available opportunities for implementation before site and off-site improvement plans lock in constraints.

To identify roundabout opportunities in upcoming areas, use Figure F12. Consider all future intersections of roadways with functional classifications of collectors and above and with fewer than six lanes.

This map categories Rancho Cordova areas into two area types:
/ No tentative maps approved. These areas have the fewest constraints and the most potential for roundabouts. Intersections in these areas that meet the functional classification and lane criteria can proceed through the screening process explained in the following section.

Local examples: Arboretum and Westborough
/ Approved final or tentative maps. These areas are well on their way to development and have the most constraints. Given those constraints, these areas are unlikely to have as much roundabout potential. Nevertheless, City staff should engage in discussions with developers as early as possible. Intersections in these areas can be evaluated using the screening process in the following section.

Local example: The Ranch at Sunridge
Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study Report 82
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

Figure F12. Roundabout Opportunity Areas by Land Constraints 83 Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study Report
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

Screen Potential Locations
To identify future locations for roundabouts, use the
following three-step screening process:

Step 1: Assess Capacity
and Number of Lanes
A/ Determine the anticipated lane arrangement
(single lane or multilane) according to existing
and anticipated traffic volumes and the planned
number of lanes on the intersecting roadways.

To determine appropriate analysis volumes,
either modify existing count data or refer
to the model. Existing count data will likely
be unavailable for greenfield development
locations. In those cases, refer to the City’s travel
demand model to determine traffic volumes for
the appropriate analysis year. The model will
provide daily or peak-hour bidirectional volumes.

If necessary, methods are available to estimate
turning movement volumes from model link
volumes.

More information on converting model link
volumes to turning movement counts is beyond
the scope of this document but is available in
NCHRP Research Report 765: Analytical Travel
Forecasting Approaches for Project-Level
Planning and Design (2014).

Step 2: Test Roundabout Size
A/ Select the appropriate design vehicle based on
functional classification, roadway ownership,
and existing or planned transit service.

B/ Identify the appropriate inscribed circle
diameter (ICD) range to test based on the
number of lanes and the design vehicle.

C/ Identify additional width needed for existing
and planned pedestrian and bicycle facilities
according to the Active Transportation Plan or
other relevant planning documents and data. For
City planning documents and data, visit https://
data-ranchocordova.opendata.arcgis.com/.

Step 3: Develop Footprint Sketch
A/ Overlay circles with the widths from steps
2B and 2C on aerial imagery. Include
right-of-way and building lines.

B/ Assess this sketch for the feasibility of
implementing a roundabout based on the
following factors: potential right-of-way impacts,
building impacts, topographical challenges,
and impacts to roadway configuration. Note
that this feasibility sketch is based on the
expected width of the circular portion of the
roundabout and does not include potential
right-of-way impacts of the approaches.

Sample Application: Rio Del Oro
To see the roundabout prioritization process in action, review the following test case in Rio del Oro. The Rio Del Oro Plan Area includes 3,828 acres in Rancho Cordova south of White Rock Road, east of Sunrise Boulevard, and north of Douglas Road (just east of Mather Airport). At the time of the 2016 plan, the land was predominantly used for mining and grazing. The Rio Del Oro Specific Plan was intended to present a balanced, mixed-use community consistent with the City’s General Plan. This Rio del Oro test case shows the process to screen potential locations early in the entitlement process; it does not reflect final roundabout locations.

Step 1: Assess Capacity and Number of Lanes
To determine the number of lanes, we tested intersections identified in the published Rio Del Oro Circulation Plan (Figure F13). All of the intersections were on collectors and above. Some of the roadways are six lanes today, and some are planned to be six lanes. We used preliminary testing to understand whether those lanes could be reduced and better served with a roundabout.

A/ Determine whether a single or multilane roundabout is appropriate according to traffic volumes and the number of lanes on the intersecting roadways.

We used SACSIM future model volumes, which provide annual average daily traffic (daily, two-way volumes). From those numbers, we estimated daily total entering vehicles and compared the future volume estimates to the planning-level daily Intersection volumes in Figure F2.

Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study Report 84
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

Figure F13. Rio Del Oro Intersections Tested
Source: Rio Del Oro Specific Plan
Step 2: Test Roundabout Size
A/ Select the appropriate design vehicle based on functional classification, roadway ownership, and existing or planned transit service.

Because all intersections in Rio Del Oro are expected to serve trucks, we selected an AASHTO WB-67 as the design vehicle.

B/ Identify the appropriate inscribed circle diameter (ICD) range to test based on the type of roundabout and the design vehicle.

We selected single-lane and multilane roundabouts with ICDs of 150 feet and 165 feet, respectively, to provide for WB-67 design vehicles.

C/ Example Footprint Selection
We used the Bicycle Master Plan to identify where bike lanes and paths were proposed. We added appropriate buffer distances to the ICDs and determined the appropriate total footprint for each intersection. The resulting footprint estimates ranged from 170 to 205 feet. Figure F14 shows single-lane and multilane footprints at two different roundabout locations in Rio del Oro. 85 Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study Report
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

Figure F14. Rio Del Oro Sample Footprints
This location was tested as a multilane roundabout with a 165-foot ICD and a 205-foot total footprint. The roundabout was overlaid over an existing development plan where—as this aerial shows—there are potential constraints.

Step 3: Develop Footprint Sketch
A/ Overlay circles with the widths from steps 3 and 4 on aerial imagery. Include right-of-way and building lines.

To determine feasibility, we overlayed the ICD footprint on a GIS map of planned roadways in Rio Del Oro and a plan-set development along the Rancho Cordova Parkway corridor (Figure F15).

B/ Assess this sketch for the feasibility of implementing a roundabout based on the following factors: potential right-of-way impacts, building impacts, topographical challenges, and impacts to roadway configuration. For example, assess whether the roadway would need to be reconfigured to match the number of lanes through the roundabout. Note that this feasibility sketch is based on the expected width of the circular portion of the roundabout and does not include potential right-of-way impacts of the approaches.

This high-level exercise revealed that this particular intersection would be a challenge to implement due to committed right-of-way within the footprint.

We repeated this exercise for all test intersections in Rio del Oro, and the result was a map of prospective roundabout locations, organized by number of lanes and feasibility (Figure F16).

Out of 34 locations we identified 5 potential single-lane roundabouts and 14 potential multilane roundabouts.

We ruled out 15 locations, one for having a tentative map conflict (according to constraints of development currently underway) and 14 for being on existing six-lane roadways.

Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study Report 86
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

Figure F15. Roundabout Footprint and Potential Parcel Conflict Figure F16. Resulting Assessment of Possible Roundabout Locations Note: This Rio del Oro test case shows the process to screen potential locations early in the entitlement process; it does not reflect final roundabout locations. 87 Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study Report
ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

ITEM 17.2. ATTACHMENT 1

MEMORANDUM
City Council Staff Report - Page 1 of 2

ITEM 17.3.

DATE: March 4, 2024
TO: Honorable Mayor and Council Members
FROM: Albert Stricker, Public Works Director
Steve Harriman, Public Works Division Manager
SUBJECT: A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO. 38-2019-2 WITH ROUSH

LANDSCAPE SERVICES TO EXTEND THE CONTRACT TERM FROM
JUNE 30, 2024, TO JUNE 30, 2026, RESULTING IN AN INCREASE TO THE CONTRACT AMOUNT FROM $2,396,000 TO AN AMOUNT NOT
TO EXCEED $3,404,600 FOR CONTINUED LANDSCAPE

MAINTENANCE SERVICES

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the Resolution.

RESULT OF RECOMMENDED ACTION
Adoption of the Resolution would authorize the City Manager to execute Contract Amendment No. 38-2019-2 with Roush Landscape Services for landscape maintenance services. The Amendment would extend the Contract term from June 30, 2024, to June 30, 2026, resulting in an increase to the Contract amount from $2,396,000 to an amount not to exceed $3,404,600 for continued maintenance services.

BACKGROUND
In June 2019, the City entered into an agreement with Roush Landscape Services (Contract No. 38-2019) to provide landscape maintenance services. The Contract covers routine landscape maintenance activities of city-owned and maintained parcels, including turf mowing and edging, tree and shrub pruning, irrigation system maintenance, fertilization, and litter and weed control. The scope also includes maintenance of landscaped areas at the four light rail stations in Rancho Cordova as part of the ongoing maintenance agreement with the Sacramento Regional Transit District.

Contract Amendment No. 38-2019-1 was executed on April 28, 2021, which included, adding, revising, and removing areas from the scope of work and did not alter the contract term or the contract total.

City staff recommends the approval of Contract Amendment No. 38-2019-2 with Roush Landscape Services to extend the contract term from June 30, 2024, to June 30, 2026, resulting in an increase to the Contract amount from $2,396,000 to an amount not to exceed

City Council Staff Report - Page 2 of 2

$3,404,600 for continued maintenance services. The Contract includes a rate increase for the final two years based on the Consumer Price Index. The revised rates in Amendment No. 2 will go into effect on July 1, 2024.

The City will conduct a competitive request for proposals and execute a new contract for the term beginning July 1, 2026.

FISCAL IMPACT AND FUNDING SOURCE
Funding for the Contract Amendment includes a combination of Special Districts, Measure A, the Public Works operating budget, and the Sacramento Regional Transit District.

There is no impact to the City's General Fund.

ATTACHMENT(S)

1. Resolution

2. Contract Amendment No. 38-2019-2

ITEM 17.3. ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution No. XX-2024 Page 1 of 2

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA
RESOLUTION NO. XX-2024

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

OF CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO. 38-2019-2 WITH ROUSH LANDSCAPE SERVICES TO EXTEND THE CONTRACT TERM FROM JUNE 30, 2024, TO JUNE 30, 2026 RESULTING IN AN INCREASE TO THE CONTRACT AMOUNT FROM $2,396,000 TO AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $3,404,600 FOR CONTINUED LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE SERVICES WHEREAS, the parties entered into a five-year General Services Agreement (“GSA”) dated July 1, 2019 (Contract No. 38-2019) in the amount of $2,396,000 to provide landscape maintenance services; and
WHEREAS, Amendment No. 1 was executed on April 28, 2021, which amended the Contract by adding, revising, and removing areas from the scope of work; and WHEREAS, adoption of this Resolution will allow the City Manager to execute Amendment No. 2 with Roush Landscape Services for continued landscape services; and WHEREAS, the Amendment will extend the contract term from June 30, 2024, to June 30, 2026, resulting in an increase to the contract amount from $2,396,000 to an amount not to exceed $3,404,600; and
WHEREAS, the services will exceed the maximum the City Manager is authorized to approve; and
WHEREAS, funding for the contract amendment will be from a combination of Special District funds, Measure A, the Public Works operating budget, and the Sacramento Regional Transit District. There is no impact to the City’s general fund.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA does authorize the City Manager to execute Contract Amendment No. 38-2019-2 with Roush Landscape Services to extend the Contract term from June 30, 2024, to June 30, 2026, resulting in an increase to the Contract amount from $2,396,000 to an amount not to exceed $3,404,600 in a form approved by the City Attorney.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cordova on the 4th day of March 2024 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

ITEM 17.3. ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution No. XX-2024 Page 2 of 2
ATTEST:

David Sander, Mayor
Stacy Leitner, CMC
City Clerk

CONTRACT NO. 38-2019-2
Second Amendment to General Services Agreement between March 18, 2024 City of Rancho Cordova and Roush Landscape Services Page 1 of 4

SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL SERVICES AGREEMENT

BETWEEN THE CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA AND ROUSH LANDSCAPE SERVICES This Second Amendment to the General Services Agreement (“Amendment”) is made by and between the City of Rancho Cordova (“City”) and Roush Landscape Service (“Contractor”) as of March 4, 2024. City and Contractor are hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Parties."

RECITALS
WHEREAS, the Parties entered into a General Services Agreement (“GSA”) dated July 1, 2019, for on-call landscape maintenance services; and
WHEREAS, the First Amendment executed April 2021, revised Section 4.2 modifying the monthly charges related to changes to the landscape areas; and
WHEREAS, this Amendment will extend the term of the agreement from June 30, 2024 to June 30, 2026; and
WHEREAS, the term extension will result in an increase to the contract amount from $2,396,000 to an amount not to exceed $3,404,600; and
WHEREAS, the monthly rates provided in Exhibit A of this Amendment will take place on July 1, 2024; and
WHEREAS, the Parties agree that changes to the contract term provided for in the GSA are necessary in order for the City to continue receiving services by Contractor.

NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties hereto agree as follows:

AGREEMENT

1. The Parties agree to modify the end date of the GSA from June 30, 2024 to June 30, 2026. The first sentence of Section 2 of the GSA, “Term,” is amended to read as follows:
"The term of this Agreement shall begin on the date first noted above and shall end on June 30, 2026 unless the term of the Agreement is otherwise terminated at provided for in Section 13.”

2. Section 4 of the GSA, “Compensation of Contractor,” provides for the City to pay Contractor $2,396,000.

The Parties agree to amend Section 4 of the GSA in order to increase the compensation amount to pay Contractor for additional services. The first sentence of Section 4 of the GSA is amended to read as follows:
"The Contractor shall be paid an amount not to exceed $3,404,600 for performance of the Services pursuant to this Agreement.”
ITEM 17.3. ATTACHMENT 2

CONTRACT NO. 38-2019-2
Second Amendment to General Services Agreement between March 18, 2024 City of Rancho Cordova and Roush Landscape Services Page 2 of 4

3. The document entitled “4.2 Monthly Maintenance Price Schedule,” attached hereto as Exhibit A, shall be made part of the GSA's Exhibit A.

4. All other terms and conditions in the GSA shall remain in full force and effect to the extent they are not in conflict with this Amendment.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Amendment on the day and year first above written.

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA CONTRACTOR
____________________________ ________________________________ Micah Runner, City Manager Richard Roush, Owner
Date:__________________ Date:__________________
Attest:
____________________________
Stacy Leitner, CMC, City Clerk
Date:__________________
Approved as to Form:
____________________________
Adam U. Lindgren, City Attorney
Date:__________________
ITEM 17.3. ATTACHMENT 2

EXHIBIT A ONTRACT O
ITEM 17.3. ATTACHMENT 2

EXHIBIT A
ITEM 17.3. ATTACHMENT 2

MEMORANDUM
City Council Staff Report - Page 1 of 2

ITEM 18.1.

DATE: March 4, 2024
TO: Honorable Mayor and Council Members
FROM: Albert Stricker, Public Works Director
Edgar Medina, Principal Engineer
SUBJECT: SECOND READING OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS

10.50.010 AND 10.50.020 OF CHAPTER 10.50 OF TITLE 10 OF THE

RANCHO CORDOVA MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH

ENFORCEABLE SPEED LIMITS ON THE ROADS LISTED IN THE

ORDINANCE

RECOMMENDATION
Waive the second reading and adopt the Ordinance.

RESULT OF RECOMMENDED ACTION
Adoption of the Ordinance would result in amending Sections 10.50.010 and 10.50.020 of the Rancho Cordova Municipal Code to establish enforceable speed limits on the roads listed in the Ordinance.

BACKGROUND
The California Vehicle Code (CVC) requires local authorities to review, reaffirm, or adjust speed limits within their jurisdictions every seven years based on an Engineering and Traffic Survey (ETS). The CVC also mandates new speed limits be established based on an ETS. The ETS provides the mechanism for legal enforcement of the posted speed limit by laser, radar and/or other electronic speed measuring devices.

As defined in the CVC, an ETS is a survey of highway and traffic conditions in accordance with the guidelines and methods contained in the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CAMUTCD) for use by state and local authorities. The survey shall include, but not be limited to, consideration of prevailing speeds as determined by traffic engineering measurements, accident statistics, and highway traffic and roadside conditions not readily apparent to the driver. These characteristics are all considered when determining a reasonable and prudent posted speed limit. Establishing a speed limit inconsistent with the 85th percentile speed, constitutes a “speed trap” as defined in the CVC, and is not enforceable by use of laser, radar and/or other electronic speed measuring devices. The 85th percentile speed is defined as the speed at which 85% of the traffic is traveling at or below.

The CVC also allows local authorities to extend an ETS for a period of an additional seven years (up to 14 years), if a registered engineer determines that no significant changes in

City Council Staff Report - Page 2 of 2

roadway or traffic conditions have occurred, including changes in adjoining property or land use, roadway width, or traffic volume.

In the interest of public safety and to comply with the requirements of the CVC, a Citywide ETS update was conducted on forty roadways to determine the appropriate speed for each roadway segment. A summary of the locations is shown in Attachment 3 along with the recommended speed limit for each location. This update will include posted road segments not originally included in the ordinance.

On February 20, 2024, the City Council held an initial public hearing identifying the recommended speed limit changes to certain road segments.

This update indicates most of the existing speed limits do not require a change and the recommended speed limits are consistent with the existing posted speed limits. There are nine locations where a decrease to the posted speed limit is recommended. The locations are as follows:
• Bleckley St. - Mather Blvd. to Peter A McCuen Blvd. 35 MPH to 30 MPH • Douglas Rd. - Sunrise Blvd. to Rancho Cordova Pkwy. 55 MPH to 50 MPH • Douglas Rd. – Americanos Blvd. to Grant Line Rd. 55 MPH to 50 MPH • Folsom Blvd. - Cordova Lane to Sunrise Blvd. 45 MPH to 40 MPH • Gold Camp Dr. - Sun Center Dr. to Prospect Park Dr. 35 MPH to 30MPH • Spoto Dr. - Zinfandel Drive to N. Mather Blvd. 35 MPH to 25 MPH • Trinity River Dr. - Coloma Rd. to Sunrise Blvd. 30 MPH to 25 MPH • White Rock Rd. - Zinfandel Dr. to Sunrise Blvd. 45 MPH to 40 MPH • Zinfandel Dr. - Folsom Blvd. to Sunrise Blvd. 30 MPH to 25 MPH The Citywide ETS also included establishing a posted speed limit on six roadways that are currently not posted. The locations are as follows:
• Airpark Dr. – Femoyer St. to Bear Hollow Dr. 35 MPH
• Gold Valley Dr. – White Rock Rd. to Sanders Dr. 25 MPH • Rockingham Dr. – Old Placerville Rd. to Countryside Way/Nut Plains Dr. 30 MPH • Sanders Dr. – Sunrise Blvd. to Gold Valley Dr. 30 MPH • Timberland Dr. – Douglas Rd. to Borderlands Dr. 25 MPH • White Rock Rd. – Sunrise Blvd. to Macal Dr. 40 MPH
The recommended posted speed limits conform to the requirements of the CVC and CAMUTCD for establishing prudent speed limits that are consistent with roadway conditions, prevailing speeds, and are enforceable.

FISCAL IMPACT AND FUNDING SOURCE
There is no fiscal impact to the City's General Fund.

ATTACHMENT(S)

1. Ordinance

2. Revised Sections 10.50.010 and 10.50.020

3. Engineering Traffic Survey Locations

4. Track Changes - Revised Sections 10.50.010 and 10.50.020

ITEM 18.1. ATTACHMENT 1
Ordinance No. XX-2024 Page 1 of 8

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA
ORDINANCE NO. XX-2024

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTIONS 10.50.010 AND 10.50.020 OF CHAPTER

10.50 OF TITLE 10 OF THE RANCHO CORDOVA MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING

REDUCED SPEED LIMITS ON SPECIFIC STREETS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Purpose and Declarations.

WHEREAS, California Vehicle Code Section 22358 authorizes the City of Rancho Cordova ("City") to determine and declare by ordinance a prima facie speed limit less than the speed limit set forth in Vehicle Code Section 22349 if the City determines upon the basis of an engineering and traffic survey that the speed limit set forth in Vehicle Code Section 22349 is more than is reasonable or safe upon any portion of any street other than a state highway where the speed limit set forth in Vehicle Code Section 22349 is applicable; and WHEREAS, an engineering and traffic survey ("Survey") was conducted by the City; and WHEREAS, the Survey established speed limits for certain City streets, as set forth in Section 3; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the speed limits set forth in the Survey are most appropriate to facilitate the orderly movement of traffic within the City and are reasonable and safe; and
WHEREAS, this ordinance modifies Rancho Cordova Municipal Code section 10.50.010 and 10.50.020 by establishing speed limits for certain City streets, based upon the results of the Survey; and
WHEREAS, this ordinance is exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it is not a project under the act and it only involves the operation of existing streets involving negligible or no expansion of existing use.

Section 2. Amendment of Code.

Section 10.50.010 of Chapter 10.50 of Title 10 of the Rancho Cordova Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

The City Council approves and adopts the engineering and traffic surveys dated May 2023 and October 2023, prepared by the City, for the streets and portions thereof set forth therein, copies of which are on file and available for public inspection in the offices of the City Clerk. The City council finds and determines that the surveys were conducted in accordance with the Vehicle Code and methods of conducting engineering and traffic surveys prescribed in the California Department of Transportation’s Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and that the survey justifies the speed limits recommended for the streets and portions of streets therein described.

The City Council declares these speed limits as prima facie speed limits for the streets or portions

ITEM 18.1. ATTACHMENT 1
Ordinance No. XX-2024 Page 2 of 8
thereof, which limits shall be effective when appropriate signs giving notice thereof are erected upon the streets or portions thereof.

Section 10.50.020 of Chapter 10.50 of Title 10 of the Rancho Cordova Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

The following prima facie speed limits are established based on prevailing speeds and the results of the Engineering and Traffic Surveys.

A. Baroque Drive:

1. Between Zinfandel Drive and Zinfandel Drive, 35 mph; B. Bear Hollow Drive:

1. Between Zinfandel Drive and North Mather Boulevard, 35 mph; C. Business Park Drive:

1. Between Horn Road and Bradshaw Road, 35 mph;
D. Capital Center Drive:

1. Between White Rock Road and International Drive, 35 mph; E. Chase Drive:

1. Between Coloma Road and Hagan Park, 25 mph;
F. Chrysanthy Boulevard:

1. Between Sunrise Boulevard and Adda Way, 35 mph;
G. Coloma Road:

1. Between Folsom Boulevard and Sunrise Boulevard, 40 mph; H. Data Drive:

1. Between International Drive and White Rock Road, 35 mph; I. Disk Drive:

1. Between Data Drive and Prospect Park Drive, 35 mph;
J. Douglas Road:

1. Westerly City Limits and Sunrise Boulevard, 55 mph;

2. Between Sunrise Boulevard and Rancho Cordova Parkway, 50 mph;

3. Between Rancho Cordova Parkway and Americanos Boulevard, 50 mph;

4. Between Americanos Boulevard and Grant Line Road, 50 mph;

ITEM 18.1. ATTACHMENT 1
Ordinance No. XX-2024 Page 3 of 8
K. Explorer Drive:

1. Between Lincoln Village Drive to Lincoln Village Drive, 25 mph; L. Femoyer Street:

1. Between Mather Boulevard and International Drive, 40 mph; M. Fitzgerald Road:

1. Between White Rock Road and Recycle Road, 35 mph;
N. Folsom Boulevard:

1. Between Bradshaw Road and Routier Road, 45 mph;

2. Between Routier Road and Cordova Lane, 40 mph;

3. Between Cordova Lane and Sunrise Boulevard, 40 mph;

4. Between Sunrise Boulevard and Hazel Avenue, 45 mph;
O. Georgetown Drive:

1. Between Coloma Road and McGregor Drive, 25 mph;
P. Gold Camp Drive:

1. Between Sun Center Drive and Prospect Park Drive, 30 mph; Q. Gold Canal Drive:

1. Between Sun Center Drive and White Rock Road, 35 mph; R. Gold Center Drive:

1. Between Zinfandel Drive and Prospect Park Drive, 30 mph;

2. Between Prospect Park Drive (west) and Prospect Park Drive (east), 35 mph; S. Horn Road:

1. Between Folsom Boulevard and Routier Road, 35 mph;
T. International Drive:

1. Between Mather Field Road and Sunrise Boulevard, 45 mph; U. Kiefer Boulevard:

1. Between Sunrise Boulevard and Rancho Cordova Parkway, 45 mph; V. Kilgore Road:

1. Between Folsom Boulevard and White Rock Road, 35 mph;

2. Between White Rock Road and Baroque Way, 40 mph;

ITEM 18.1. ATTACHMENT 1
Ordinance No. XX-2024 Page 4 of 8
W. Lincoln Village:

1. Between Bradshaw Road and Viking Drive, 35 mph;

2. Between Viking Drive and Routier Road, 25 mph;
X. Luyung Drive:

1. Between White Rock Road and Mechanical Drive, 35 mph; Y. Mather Field Road:

1. Between Peter A McCuen Boulevard and Folsom Boulevard, 45 mph; Z. McGregor Drive:

1. Between Folsom Boulevard and Coloma Road, 25 mph;
AA. Mills Park Drive:

1. Between Routier Road and Mather Field Road, 35 mph;

2. Between Mather Field Road and White Rock Road, 25 mph; BB. Mills Station Road:

1. Between Peter A McCuen Boulevard and Folsom Boulevard, 45 mph;

2. Between Mather Field Road and White Rock Road, 25 mph; CC. Monier Circle:

1. Between Sunrise Boulevard and Sunrise Boulevard, 30 mph; DD. Old Placerville Road:

1. Between Bradshaw Road and Granby Drive, 45 mph;

2. Between Grandy Drive and Routier Road, 45 mph;

3. Between Routier Road and Systems Parkway-McCready Avenue, 45 mph;

4. Between Systems Parkway-McCready Avenue and Rockingham Drive, 45 mph; EE. Olson Drive:

1. Between Mills Park Drive and Zinfandel Drive, 25 mph;

2. Between Zinfandel Drive and Folsom Boulevard, 35 mph; FF. Paseo Drive:

1. Between Folsom Boulevard and Las Casas Way, 25 mph;
GG. Peter A McCuen Boulevard:

1. Mather Boulevard and Femoyer Street, 30 mph;

ITEM 18.1. ATTACHMENT 1
Ordinance No. XX-2024 Page 5 of 8
HH. Prospect Park Drive:

1. Between White Rock Road and White Rock Road, 35 mph;

2. Between White Rock Road and Baroque Way, 35 mph;
II. Quality Drive:

1. Between International Drive and White Rock Road, 35 mph; JJ. Rancho Cordova Parkway:

1. Between Kiefer Boulevard and Douglas Road, 45 mph;
KK. Recycle Road:

1. Between Sunrise Boulevard and Elks Circle, 30 mph;
LL. Reserve Drive:

1. Between Data Drive and International Drive, 35 mph;
MM. Rockingham Drive:

1. Between Mather Field Road and S. White Rock Road, 25 mph;

2. Between Mather Field Road and Old Placerville Road, 35 mph;

3. Between Old Placerville Road and Countryside Way-Nut Plains Drive, 30 mph; NN. Routier Road:

1. Between Old Placerville Road and Folsom Boulevard, 40 mph; OO. S. White Rock Road:

1. Between International Drive and White Rock Road, 25 mph; PP. Sun Center Drive:

1. Between Prospect Park Drive and Sunrise Boulevard, 35 mph; QQ. Sunrise Boulevard:

1. Between Jackson Highway and Kiefer Boulevard, 55 mph

2. Between Kiefer Boulevard and Herodian Drive, 50 mph;

3. Between Herodian Drive and White Rock Road, 45 mph;

4. Between White Rock Road and Folsom Boulevard, 45 mph;

5. Between Folsom Boulevard and Coloma Road, 45 mph;

6. Between Coloma Road and city limits, southbound, 45 mph; RR. Systems Parkway:

1. Between Routier Road and Old Placerville Road, 35 mph;

ITEM 18.1. ATTACHMENT 1
Ordinance No. XX-2024 Page 6 of 8
SS. Trade Center Drive:

1. Between Sun Center Road and Mercantile Road, 30 mph; TT. Trinity River Drive:

1. Between Coloma Road and Sunrise Boulevard, 25 mph;
UU. Vanguard Drive:

1. Between Explorer Drive and Routier Road, 25 mph;
VV. White Rock Road:

1. Between Mills Station Road and Evadna Drive, 25 mph;

2. Between Evadna Drive and Mills Park Drive, 25 mph

3. Between S. White Rock Road and Zinfandel Drive, 40 mph;

4. Between Zinfandel Drive and Sunrise Boulevard, 40 mph;

5. Between Sunrise Boulevard and Macal Drive, 40 mph;
WW. Zinfandel Drive:

1. Between Sunrise Boulevard and Folsom Boulevard, 25 mph;

2. Between Folsom Boulevard and White Rock Road, 35 mph;

3. Between White Rock Road and International Drive, 40 mph;

4. Between International Drive and City Limits, 45 mph.

XX. Airpark Drive:

1. Between Femoyer Street and Bear Hollow Drive, 35 mph; YY. Bleckley Street:

1. Between Mather Boulevard and Peter A. McCuen Boulevard, 35mph 30 mph; ZZ. Gold Valley Drive:

1. Between White Rock Road and Sanders Drive, 25 mph;
A1. Mercantile Drive:

1. Between Sunrise Gold Circle and Folsom Boulevard, 35 mph; B1. Mills Tower Drive:

1. Between White Rock Road and Mills Park Drive, 25 mph; C1. Rod Beaudry Drive:

1. Between Folsom Boulevard and East Tiffany Lane, 25 mph;

ITEM 18.1. ATTACHMENT 1
Ordinance No. XX-2024 Page 7 of 8
D1. Sanders Drive:

1. Between Sunrise Boulevard and Gold Valley Drive, 30 mph; E1. Spoto Drive

1. Between Zinfandel Drive and North Mather Boulevard, 35mph 25 mph; F1. Sunrise Gold Circle (N):

1. Between Sunrise Boulevard and Sunrise Gold–Mercantile Drive, 35 mph; G1. Sunrise Gold Circle (E):

1. Between Sunrise Gold Circle (N) and Sunrise Gold Circle (S), 35 mph; H1. Sunrise Gold Circle (S):

1. Between Sunrise Boulevard and Sunrise Gold Circle (E), 35 mph; I1. Sunrise Park Drive:

1. Between Sunrise Boulevard and White Rock Road, 35 mph; J1. Timberland Drive:

1. Between Douglas Road and Borderlands Drive, 25 mph;
K1. Vehicle Drive:

1. Between Zinfandel Drive and Coloma Road, 35 mph;
L1. W. La Loma Drive:

1. Between Folsom Boulevard and La Loma Drive, 25 mph;
Section 3. Environmental
This action is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and therefore is exempt from environmental review under CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3). Additionally, this action is categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines section 15301(c) because it involves the operation of existing streets involving negligible or no expansion of existing use.

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

ITEM 18.1. ATTACHMENT 1
Ordinance No. XX-2024 Page 8 of 8
Section 5. Effective Date
Within fifteen (15) days after adoption, a Summary of this Ordinance shall be published once in the Grapevine Independent, or the Sacramento Bee, a newspaper of general circulation printed and published in Sacramento County and circulated in the City of Rancho Cordova, in accordance with Government Code Section 36933. This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days after its adoption.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cordova on the 4th day of March 2024 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
____________________________
David Sander, Mayor
ATTEST:

Stacy Leitner, CMC
City Clerk

Rancho Cordova Municipal Code
Chapter 10.50 REDUCED SPEED LIMITS ON SPECIFIC STREETS

Chapter 10.50

REDUCED SPEED LIMITS ON SPECIFIC STREETS
Sections:

10.50.010 Determination and declaration of prima facie speed limits.

10.50.020 Prima facie speed limits declared.

10.50.010 Determination and declaration of prima facie speed limits.

The city council approves and adopts the engineering and traffic surveys dated November 9, 2020, prepared by the city, for the streets and portions thereof set forth therein, copies of which are on file and available for public inspection in the offices of the city clerk. The city council finds and determines that the surveys were conducted in accordance with the Vehicle Code and methods of conducting engineering and traffic surveys prescribed in the California Department of Transportation and that the survey justifies the speed limits recommended for the streets and portions of streets therein described. The city council declares these speed limits as prima facie speed limits for the streets or portions thereof, which limits shall be effective when appropriate signs giving notice thereof are erected upon the streets or portions thereof. [Ord. 11-2023 § 3 (Exh. A); Ord. 20-2020 § 2; Ord. 1-2018 § 2; Ord. 13-2015 § 2; Ord. 3-2004 § 1].

10.50.020 Prima facie speed limits declared.

The following prima facie speed limits are established based on prevailing speeds and according to traffic and engineering studies:

A. Baroque Drive:

1. Between Zinfandel Drive and Zinfandel Drive, 35 mph; B. Bear Hollow Drive:

1. Between Zinfandel Drive and North Mather Boulevard, 35 mph; C. Business Park Drive:

1. Between Horn Road and Bradshaw Road, 35 mph;
D. Capital Center Drive:

1. Between White Rock Road and International Drive, 35 mph; E. Chase Drive:

1. Between Coloma Road and Hagan Park, 25 mph;
F. Chrysanthy Boulevard:

1. Between Sunrise Boulevard and Adda Way , 35 mph;
G. Coloma Road:

1. Between Folsom Boulevard and Sunrise Boulevard, 40 mph; H. Data Drive:

1. Between International Drive and White Rock Road, 35 mph; ITEM 18.1. ATTACHMENT 2

Rancho Cordova Municipal Code
Chapter 10.50 REDUCED SPEED LIMITS ON SPECIFIC STREETS

I. Disk Drive:

1. Between Data Drive and Prospect Park Drive, 35 mph;
J. Douglas Road:

1. Between Westerly City Limits to Sunrise Boulevard, 55 mph;

2. Between Sunrise Boulevard and Rancho Cordova Parkway, 50 mph;

3. Between Rancho Cordova Parkway and Americanos Boulevard, 50 mph;

4. Between Americanos Boulevard and Grant Line Road, 50 mph; K. Explorer Drive:

1. Between Lincoln Village Drive to Lincoln Village Drive, 25 mph; L. Femoyer Street:

1. Between Mather Boulevard and International Drive, 40 mph; M. Fitzgerald Road:

1. Between White Rock Road and Recycle Road, 35 mph;
N. Folsom Boulevard:

1. Between Bradshaw Road and Routier Road, 45 mph;

2. Between Routier Road and Cordova Lane, 40 mph;

3. Between Cordova Lane and Sunrise Boulevard, 40 mph;

4. Between Sunrise Boulevard and Hazel Avenue, 45 mph;
O. Georgetown Drive:

1. Between Coloma Road and McGregor Drive, 25 mph;
P. Gold Camp Drive:

1. Between Sun Center Drive and Prospect Park Drive, 30 mph; Q. Gold Canal Drive:

1. Between Sun Center Drive and White Rock Road, 35 mph; R. Gold Center Drive:

1. Between Zinfandel Drive and Prospect Park Drive, 30 mph;

2. Between Prospect Park Drive (west) and Prospect Park Drive (east), 35 mph; S. Horn Road:

1. Between Folsom Boulevard and Routier Road, 35 mph;
ITEM 18.1. ATTACHMENT 2

Rancho Cordova Municipal Code
Chapter 10.50 REDUCED SPEED LIMITS ON SPECIFIC STREETS

T. International Drive:

1. Between Mather Field Road and Sunrise Boulevard, 45 mph; U. Kiefer Boulevard:

1. Between Sunrise Boulevard and Rancho Cordova Parkway, 45 mph; V. Kilgore Road:

1. Between Folsom Boulevard and White Rock Road, 35 mph;

2. Between White Rock Road and Baroque Way, 40 mph;
W. Lincoln Village:

1. Between Bradshaw Road and Viking Drive, 35 mph;

2. Between Viking Drive and Routier Road, 25 mph;
X. Luyung Drive:

1. Between White Rock Road and Mechanical Drive, 35 mph; Y. Mather Field Road:

1. Between Peter A McCuen Boulevard and Folsom Boulevard, 45 mph; Z. McGregor Drive:

1. Between Folsom Boulevard and Coloma Road, 25 mph;
AA. Mills Park Drive:

1. Between Routier Road and Mather Field Road, 35 mph;

2. Between Mather Field Road and White Rock Road, 25 mph; BB. Mills Station Road:

1. Between Peter A McCuen Boulevard and Folsom Boulevard, 45 mph;

2. Between Mather Field Road and White Rock Road, 25 mph; CC. Monier Circle:

1. Between Sunrise Boulevard and Sunrise Boulevard, 30 mph; DD. Old Placerville Road:

1. Between Bradshaw Road and Granby Drive, 45 mph;

2. Between Grandy Drive and Routier Road, 45 mph;

3. Between Routier Road and Systems Parkway-McCready Avenue, 45 mph;

4. Between Systems Parkway-McCready Avenue and Rockingham Drive, 45 mph; ITEM 18.1. ATTACHMENT 2

Rancho Cordova Municipal Code
Chapter 10.50 REDUCED SPEED LIMITS ON SPECIFIC STREETS

EE. Olson Drive:

1. Between Mills Park Drive and Zinfandel Drive, 25 mph;

2. Between Zinfandel Drive and Folsom Boulevard, 35 mph; FF. Paseo Drive:

1. Between Folsom Boulevard and Las Casas Way, 25 mph;
GG. Peter A McCuen Boulevard:

1. Mather Boulevard and Femoyer Street, 30 mph;
HH. Prospect Park Drive:

1. Between White Rock Road and White Rock Road, 35 mph;

2. Between White Rock Road and Baroque Way, 35 mph;
II. Quality Drive:

1. Between International Drive and White Rock Road, 35 mph; JJ. Rancho Cordova Parkway:

1. Between Kiefer Boulevard and Douglas Road, 45 mph;
KK. Recycle Road:

1. Between Sunrise Boulevard and Elks Circle, 30 mph;
LL. Reserve Drive:

1. Between Data Drive and International Drive, 35 mph;
MM. Rockingham Drive:

1. Between Mather Field Road and S. White Rock Road, 25 mph;

2. Between Mather Field Road and Old Placerville Road, 35 mph;

3. Between Old Placerville Road and Countryside Way-Nut Plains Drive, 30 mph; NN. Routier Road:

1. Between Old Placerville Road and Folsom Boulevard, 40 mph; OO. S. White Rock Road:

1. Between International Drive and White Rock Road, 25 mph; PP. Sun Center Drive:

1. Between Prospect Park Drive and Sunrise Boulevard, 35 mph; ITEM 18.1. ATTACHMENT 2

Rancho Cordova Municipal Code
Chapter 10.50 REDUCED SPEED LIMITS ON SPECIFIC STREETS

QQ. Sunrise Boulevard:

1. Between Jackson Highway and Kiefer Boulevard, 55 mph

2. Between Kiefer Boulevard and Herodian Drive, 50 mph;

3. Between Herodian Drive and White Rock Road, 45 mph;

4. Between White Rock Road and Folsom Boulevard, 45 mph;

5. Between Folsom Boulevard and Coloma Road, 45 mph;

6. Between Coloma Road and city limits, southbound, 45 mph; RR. Systems Parkway:

1. Between Routier Road and Old Placerville Road, 35 mph; SS. Trade Center Drive:

1. Between Sun Center Road and Mercantile Road, 30 mph; TT. Trinity River Drive:

1. Between Coloma Road and Sunrise Boulevard,25 mph;
UU. Vanguard Drive:

1. Between Explorer Drive and Routier Road, 25 mph;
VV. White Rock Road:

1. Between Mills Station Road and Evadna Drive, 25 mph;

2. Between Evadna Drive and Mills Park Drive, 25 mph

3. Between S. White Rock Road and Zinfandel Drive, 40 mph;

4. Between Zinfandel Drive and Sunrise Boulevard, 40 mph;

5. Between Sunrise Boulevard and Macal Drive, 40 mph;
WW. Zinfandel Drive:

1. Between Sunrise Boulevard and Folsom Boulevard, 25 mph;

2. Between Folsom Boulevard and White Rock Road, 35 mph;

3. Between White Rock Road and International Drive, 40 mph;

4. Between International Drive and city limits, 45 mph.

XX. Airpark Drive:

1. Between Femoyer Street and Bear Hollow Drive, 35 mph; YY. Bleckley Street:

1. Between Mather Boulevard and Peter A. McCuen Boulevard, 35mph 30 mph; ITEM 18.1. ATTACHMENT 2

Rancho Cordova Municipal Code
Chapter 10.50 REDUCED SPEED LIMITS ON SPECIFIC STREETS

ZZ. Gold Valley Drive:

1. Between White Rock Road and Sanders Drive, 25 mph;
A1. Mercantile Drive:

1. Between Sunrise Gold Circle and Folsom Boulevard, 35 mph; B1. Mills Tower Drive:

1. Between White Rock Road and Mills Park Drive, 25 mph; C1. Rod Beaudry Drive:

1. Between Folsom Boulevard and East Tiffany Lane, 25 mph; D1. Sanders Drive:

1. Between Sunrise Boulevard and Gold Valley Drive, 30 mph; E1. Spoto Drive

1. Between Zinfandel Drive and North Mather Boulevard, 35mph 25 mph; F1. Sunrise Gold Circle (N):

1. Between Sunrise Boulevard and Sunrise Gold–Mercantile Drive, 35 mph; G1. Sunrise Gold Circle (E):

1. Between Sunrise Gold Circle (N) and Sunrise Gold Circle (S), 35 mph; H1. Sunrise Gold Circle (S):

1. Between Sunrise Boulevard and Sunrise Gold Circle (E), 35 mph; I1. Sunrise Park Drive:

1. Between Sunrise Boulevard and White Rock Road, 35 mph; J1, Timberland Drive:

1. Between Douglas Road and Borderlands Drive, 25 mph;
K1. Vehicle Drive:

1. Between Zinfandel Drive and Coloma Road, 35 mph;
L1. W. La Loma Drive:

1. Between Folsom Boulevard and La Loma Drive, 25 mph;
[Ord. 11-2023 § 3 (Exh. A); Ord. 20-2020 § 3; Ord. 1-2018 § 3; Ord. 13-2015 § 3; Ord. 3-2004 § 2].

ITEM 18.1. ATTACHMENT 2

An Ordinance Amending Sec�ons 10.50.010 And 10.50.020 of Chapter 10.50 of Title 10 of the Rancho Cordova Municipal Code To Establish Enforceable Speed Limits On The Roads Listed In The Ordinance Engineering and Traffic Survey Locations

LOCATION SEGMENT

EXISTING

SPEED LIMIT

RECOMMENDED

SPEED LIMIT
Airpark Drive Femoyer Street to Bear Hollow Drive NP 35 Baroque Drive Zinfandel Drive to Zinfandel Drive 35 35
Bear Hollow Drive Zinfandel Drive to North Mather Boulevard 35 35 Bleckley Street Mather Boulevard to Peter A McCuen Boulevard 35 30 Capital Center Drive White Rock Road to International Drive 35 35 Chrysanthy Boulevard Sunrise Boulevard to Adda Way 35 35 Disk Drive Data Drive to Prospect Park Drive 35 35
Douglas Road West City Limits to Sunrise Boulevard
Sunrise Boulevard to Rancho Cordova Parkway
Rancho Cordova Parkway to Americanos Boulevard
Americanos Boulevard to Grant Line Road
55 55
50 55
55 50
50 50
Folsom Boulevard Bradshaw Road to Routier Road
Routier Road to Cordova Lane
Cordova Lane to Sunrise Boulevard
Sunrise Boulevard to Hazel Avenue
45 40
45 45
45 40
40 45
Gold Camp Drive Sun Center Drive to Prospect Park Drive 35 30 Gold Center Drive Zinfandel Drive to Prospect Park Drive Prospect Park Drive to Prospect Park Drive
30 35
30 35**
Gold Valley Drive White Rock Road to Sanders Drive NP 25 International Drive Mather Field Road to Zinfandel Drive Zinfandel Drive to Sunrise Boulevard
45 45
45 45
Lincoln Village Drive Bradshaw Drive to Viking Drive
Viking Drive to Routier Road
35 25
35 25**
McGregor Road Folsom Boulevard to Coloma Road
Coloma Road to Ambassador Drive
25 25
25 25
Mercantile Drive Sunrise Gold Circle to Folsom Boulevard 35 35 Mills Tower Drive White Rock Road to Mills Park Drive 25 25 Monier Circle Sunrise Boulevard to Sunrise Boulevard 30 30 Old Placerville Road Systems Parkway-McCready Avenue to Rockingham Drive Systems Parkway-McCready Avenue to Routier Road
Bradshaw Road to Granby Drive
Granby Drive to Routier Road
45 45
45 45
45 45
45 45
Olson Drive Mills Park Drive to Zinfandel Drive 25 25** ITEM 18.1. ATTACHMENT 3

An Ordinance Amending Sec�ons 10.50.010 And 10.50.020 of Chapter 10.50 of Title 10 of the Rancho Cordova Municipal Code To Establish Enforceable Speed Limits On The Roads Listed In The Ordinance

LOCATION SEGMENT

EXISTING

SPEED LIMIT

RECOMMENDED

SPEED LIMIT
Prospect Park Drive White Rock Road to White Rock Road 35 35 Quality Drive International Drive to White Rock Road 35 35 Recycle Road Sunrise Boulevard to Elks Circle 30 30
Rockingham Drive Mather Field Road to South White Rock Road Old Placerville Road to Mather Field Road
Old Placerville Road to Countryside Way-Nut Plains Drive 25 35
NP
25 35
30 Rod Beaudry Drive Folsom Boulevard to East Tiffany Lane 25 25 S. White Rock Road International Drive to White Rock Road 25 25 Sanders Drive Sunrise Boulevard to Gold Valley Drive NP 30 Spoto Drive Zinfandel Dr. to North Mather Boulevard 35 25 Sunrise Boulevard Jackson Road to Keifer Boulevard 55 55 Sunrise Gold Circle (N) Sunrise Boulevard to Sunrise Gold Circle-Mercantile Drive 35 35 Sunrise Gold Circle (E) Sunrise Gold Circle (N) to Sunrise Gold Circle (S) 35 35 Sunrise Gold Circle (S) Sunrise Boulevard to Sunrise Gold Circle (E) 35 35 Sunrise Park Drive Sunrise Boulevard to White Rock Road 35 35 Timberland Drive Douglas Road to Borderlands Drive NP 25 Trinity River Drive Coloma Road to Sunrise Boulevard 30 25 Vanguard Drive Explorer Drive to Routier Road 25 25
Vehicle Drive Zinfandel Drive to Routier Road 35 35
W. La Loma Drive Folsom Boulevard to La Loma Drive 25 25 White Rock Road Mills Station Road to Evadna Drive
Evadna Drive to Mills Park Drive
S. White Rock Road to Zinfandel Drive
Zinfandel Drive to Sunrise Boulevard
Sunrise Boulevard to Macal Drive
25 25
40 45
NP
25 25
40 40
40 Zinfandel Drive Folsom Boulevard to Sunrise Boulevard White Rock Road to Folsom Boulevard
International Drive to White Rock Road
30 35
40 25
35 40
** 14 Year Extension
XX= New Speed Limit
XX=Decrease
XX=Increase
ITEM 18.1. ATTACHMENT 3

Rancho Cordova Municipal Code
Chapter 10.50 REDUCED SPEED LIMITS ON SPECIFIC STREETS

Chapter 10.50

REDUCED SPEED LIMITS ON SPECIFIC STREETS
Sections:

10.50.010 Determination and declaration of prima facie speed limits.

10.50.020 Prima facie speed limits declared.

10.50.010 Determination and declaration of prima facie speed limits.

The city council approves and adopts the engineering and traffic surveys dated November 9, 2020, prepared by the city, for the streets and portions thereof set forth therein, copies of which are on file and available for public inspection in the offices of the city clerk. The city council finds and determines that the surveys were conducted in accordance with the Vehicle Code and methods of conducting engineering and traffic surveys prescribed in the California Department of Transportation and that the survey justifies the speed limits recommended for the streets and portions of streets therein described. The city council declares these speed limits as prima facie speed limits for the streets or portions thereof, which limits shall be effective when appropriate signs giving notice thereof are erected upon the streets or portions thereof. [Ord. 11-2023 § 3 (Exh. A); Ord. 20-2020 § 2; Ord. 1-2018 § 2; Ord. 13-2015 § 2; Ord. 3-2004 § 1].

10.50.020 Prima facie speed limits declared.

The following prima facie speed limits are established based on prevailing speeds and according to traffic and engineering studies:

A. Baroque Drive:

1. Between Zinfandel Drive and Zinfandel Drive, 35 mph; B. Bear Hollow Drive:

1. Between Zinfandel Drive and North Mather Boulevard, 35 mph; C. Business Park Drive:

1. Between Horn Road and Bradshaw Road, 35 mph;
D. Capital Center Drive:

1. Between White Rock Road and International Drive, 35 mph; E. Chase Drive:

1. Between Coloma Road and Hagan Park, 25 mph;
F. Chrysanthy Boulevard:

1. Between Sunrise Boulevard and Adda Way eastern terminus of street, 35 mph; G. Coloma Road:

1. Between Folsom Boulevard and Sunrise Boulevard, 40 mph; H. Data Drive:

1. Between International Drive and White Rock Road, 35 mph; ITEM 18.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Rancho Cordova Municipal Code
Chapter 10.50 REDUCED SPEED LIMITS ON SPECIFIC STREETS

I. Disk Drive:

1. Between Data Drive and Prospect Park Drive, 35 mph;
J. Douglas Road:

1. Between Westerly City Limits and Sunrise Boulevard, 55 mph;

2. Between Sunrise Boulevard and Rancho Cordova Parkway, 55 mph50 mph;

23. Between Rancho Cordova Parkway and Americanos Boulevard, 50 mph;

4. Between Americanos Boulevard and Grant Line Road, 50 mph; K. Explorer Drive:

1. Between Lincoln Village Drive andto Lincoln Village Drive, 25 mph; L. Femoyer Street:

1. Between Mather Boulevard and International Drive, 40 mph; M. Fitzgerald Road:

1. Between White Rock Road and Recycle Road, 35 mph;
N. Folsom Boulevard:

1. Between Horn RoadBradshaw Road and Routier Road, 45 mph;

2. Between Routier Road and Cordova Lane, 40 mph;

3. Between Cordova Lane and Sunrise Boulevard, 45 mph40 mph;

4. Between Sunrise Boulevard and Hazel Avenue, 45 mph;
O. Georgetown Drive:

1. Between Coloma Road and McGregor Drive, 25 mph;
P. Gold Camp Drive:

1. Between Sun Center Drive and Prospect Park Drive, 35 mph30 mph; Q. Gold Canal Drive:

1. Between Sun Center Drive and White Rock Road, 35 mph; R. Gold Center Drive:

1. Between Zinfandel Drive and Prospect Park Drive, 30 mph;

2. Between Prospect Park Drive (west) and Prospect Park Drive (east), 35 mph; S. Horn Road:

1. Between Folsom Boulevard and Routier Road, 35 mph;
ITEM 18.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Rancho Cordova Municipal Code
Chapter 10.50 REDUCED SPEED LIMITS ON SPECIFIC STREETS

T. International Drive:

1. Between Mather Field Road and Sunrise Boulevard, 45 mph; U. Kiefer Boulevard:

1. Between Sunrise Boulevard and Rancho Cordova Parkway, 45 mph; V. Kilgore Road:

1. Between Folsom Boulevard and White Rock Road, 35 mph;

2. Between White Rock Road and Baroque Way, 40 mph;
W. Lincoln Village:

1. Between Bradshaw Road and Draco DriveViking Drive, 35 mph;

2. Between DracoViking Drive and Routier Road, 25 mph;
X. Luyung Drive:

1. Between White Rock Road and Mechanical Drive, 35 mph; Y. Mather Field Road:

1. Between Peter A McCuen Boulevard and Folsom Boulevard, 45 mph; Z. McGregor Drive:

1. Between Folsom Boulevard and Coloma Road, 25 mph;
AA. Mills Park Drive:

1. Between Routier Road and Mather Field Road, 35 mph;

2. Between Mather Field Road and White Rock Road, 25 mph; BB. Mills Station Road:

1. Between Peter A McCuen Boulevard and Folsom Boulevard, 45 mph;

2. Between Mather Field Road and White Rock Road, 25 mph; CC. Monier Circle:

1. Between Sunrise Boulevard and Sunrise Boulevard, 30 mph; DD. Old Placerville Road:

1. Between Systems Parkway and Rockingham Drive, 45 mph;

1. Between Bradshaw Road and Granby Drive, 45 mph;

2. Between Grandy Drive and Routier Road, 45 mph;

3. Between Routier Road and Systems Parkway-McCready Avenue, 45 mph;

4. Between Systems Parkway-McCready Avenue and Rockingham Drive, 45 mph; ITEM 18.3. ATTACHMENT 4

Rancho Cordova Municipal Code
Chapter 10.50 REDUCED SPEED LIMITS ON SPECIFIC STREETS

EE. Olson Drive:

1. Between Mills Park Drive and Zinfandel Drive, 25 mph;

2. Between Zinfandel Drive and Folsom Boulevard, 35 mph; FF. Paseo Drive:

1. Between Folsom Boulevard and Las Casas Way, 25 mph;
GG. Peter A McCuen Boulevard:

1. Mather Boulevard and Femoyer Street, 30 mph;
HH. Prospect Park Drive:

1. Between White Rock Road and White Rock Road, 35 mph;

2. Between White Rock Road and Baroque Way, 35 mph;
II. Quality Drive:

1. Between International Drive and White Rock Road, 35 mph; JJ. Rancho Cordova Parkway:

1. Between Kiefer Boulevard and Douglas Road, 45 mph;
KK. Recycle Road:

1. Between Sunrise Boulevard and Elks Circle, 30 mph;
LL. Reserve Drive:

1. Between Data Drive and International Drive, 35 mph;
MM. Rockingham Drive:

1. Between Mather Field Road and S. White Rock Road, 25 mph;

2. Between Mather Field Road and Old Placerville Road, 35 mph;

3. Between Old Placerville Road and Countryside Way-Nut Plains Drive, 30 mph; NN. Routier Road:

1. Between Old Placerville Road and Folsom Boulevard, 40 mph; OO. S. White Rock Road:

1. Between International Drive and White Rock Road, 25 mph; PP. Sun Center Drive:

1. Between Prospect Park Drive and Sunrise Boulevard, 35 mph; QQ. Sunrise Boulevard:

1. Between Jackson Highway and Kiefer Boulevard, 55 mph ITEM 18.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Rancho Cordova Municipal Code
Chapter 10.50 REDUCED SPEED LIMITS ON SPECIFIC STREETS

12. Between Kiefer Boulevard and Herodian Drive, 50 mph;

23. Between Herodian Drive and White Rock Road, 45 mph;

34. Between White Rock Road and Folsom Boulevard, 45 mph;

45. Between Folsom Boulevard and Coloma Road, 45 mph;

56. Between Coloma Road and city limits, southbound, 45 mph; RR. Systems Parkway:

1. Between Routier Road and Old Placerville Road, 35 mph; SS. Trade Center Drive:

1. Between Sun Center Road and Mercantile Road, 30 mph; TT. Trinity River Drive:

1. Between Coloma Road and Sunrise Boulevard, 30 mph25 mph; UU. Vanguard Drive:

1. Between Explorer Drive and Routier Road, 25 mph;
VV. White Rock Road:

1. 1. Between Mills Station Road and Mills Park DriveEvadna Drive, 25 mph;

1.2.Between Evadna Drive and Mills Park Drive, 25 mph

32. Between S. White Rock Road and Zinfandel Drive, 40 mph;

43. Between Zinfandel Drive and Sunrise Boulevard, 45 mph40 mph;

5. Between Sunrise Boulevard and Macal Drive, 40 mph;
WW. Zinfandel Drive:

1. Between Sunrise Boulevard and Folsom Boulevard, 30 mph25 mph;

2. Between Folsom Boulevard and White Rock Road, 35 mph;

3. Between White Rock Road and International Drive, 40 mph;

4. Between International Drive and city limits, 45 mph.

XX. Airpark Drive:

1. Between Femoyer Street and Bear Hollow Drive, 35 mph; YY. Bleckley Street:

1. Between Mather Boulevard and Peter A. McCuen Boulevard, 35mph 30 mph; ZZ. Gold Valley Drive:

1. Between White Rock Road and Sanders Drive, 25 mph;
ITEM 18.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Rancho Cordova Municipal Code
Chapter 10.50 REDUCED SPEED LIMITS ON SPECIFIC STREETS

A1 Mercantile Drive:

1. Between Sunrise Gold Circle and Folsom Boulevard, 35 mph; B1. Mills Tower Drive:

1. Between White Rock Road and Mills Park Drive, 25 mph; C1. Rod Beaudry Drive:

1. Between Folsom Boulevard and East Tiffany Lane, 25 mph; D1. Sanders Drive:

1. Between Sunrise Boulevard and Gold Valley Drive, 30 mph; E1. Spoto Drive

1. Between Zinfandel Drive and North Mather Boulevard, 35mph 25 mph; F1. Sunrise Gold Circle (N):

1. Between Sunrise Boulevard and Sunrise Gold–Mercantile Drive, 35 mph; G1. Sunrise Gold Circle (E):

1. Between Sunrise Gold Circle (N) and Sunrise Gold Circle (S), 35 mph; H1. Sunrise Gold Circle (S):

1. Between Sunrise Boulevard and Sunrise Gold Circle (E), 35 mph; I1. Sunrise Park Drive:

1. Between Sunrise Boulevard and White Rock Road, 35 mph; J1, Timberland Drive:

1. Between Douglas Road and Borderlands Drive, 25 mph;
K1. Vehicle Drive:

1. Between Zinfandel Drive and Coloma Road, 35 mph;
L1. W. La Loma Drive:

1. Between Folsom Boulevard and La Loma Drive, 25 mph;
[Ord. 11-2023 § 3 (Exh. A); Ord. 20-2020 § 3; Ord. 1-2018 § 3; Ord. 13-2015 § 3; Ord. 3-2004 § 2].

ITEM 18.1. ATTACHMENT 4

MEMORANDUM
City Council Staff Report - Page 1 of 2

ITEM 18.2.

DATE: March 4, 2024
TO: Honorable Mayor and Council Members
FROM: Darcy Goulart, Planning Manager
SUBJECT: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA AMENDING TITLE 2 ADMINISTRATION AND
PERSONNEL, CHAPTER 2.30 PLANNING COMMISSION TO

INCORPORATE ADDITIONAL QUALIFICATIONS TO AT-LARGE
MEMBERS (CEQA EXEMPT PURSUANT TO SECTION 15061(B)(3))

RECOMMENDATION
Waive the first reading and introduce the Ordinance.

RESULT OF RECOMMENDED ACTION
The Ordinance would come back for a second reading and adoption at the next regular City Council meeting. Approval of the Ordinance would amend Title 2, Administration and Personnel, Chapter 2.30 Planning Commission.

BACKGROUND
At the December 18, 2023 City Council meeting, the Council had a discussion regarding the potential incorporation of professional experience in a development related field into the Municipal Code for the two at-large Planning Commission members. Upon conclusion of staff's presentation and discussion, the Council directed staff to bring back a code amendment addressing the desire to have professional experience for the two at-large members.

ANALYSIS
Chapter 2.30, Planning Commission, Section 2.30.040 Qualifications is proposed to be amended to include the following:

D. Professional experience in a field closely related to development such as land use or environmental planner, surveyor or engineer, designer, architect, building contractor or other closely related professions is desired for the two at-large members.

This language is proposed to be added based upon the Council's direction at the December 18, 2023, Regular City Council meeting. As of the date of this staff report, both at-large positions are vacant and recruitment to fill both positions will begin in late March of 2024. It's anticipated that Council will have applications to review and make selections to fill these two vacancies in April or May of 2024.

City Council Staff Report - Page 2 of 2

ENVIRONMENTAL
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.” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15378.) As reflected in State CEQA Guideline 15061 (b) (3), an activity is not subject to CEQA, “[where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment…” The proposed amendments are not a “project” within the meaning of CEQA because the amendments seek to provide clarification of qualifications to become an at-large Planning Commissioner. Because no expansion of uses or activities is reasonably anticipated, no possibility exists that the ordinance will result in a significant effect on the environment. Thus, the proposed ordinance is not subject to the requirements of CEQA. However, in the event that adoption of the ordinance is considered a CEQA project, it would nonetheless qualify for categorical exemptions as set forth below.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) states that a project is exempt from CEQA “where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.” The approval of the code amendments set forth in the proposed ordinance does not approve any physical development and it would not result in a direct or indirect physical changes in the environment. For these reasons, the proposed amendments would not have the potential to result in individually or cumulatively significant effects on the environment and these Municipal Code amendments are exempt from review under CEQA and no further environmental review is necessary.

FISCAL IMPACT AND FUNDING SOURCE
There is no fiscal impact.

ATTACHMENT(S)

1. Ordinance

2. Exhibit A to the Ordinance

3. Track Changes

ITEM 18.2. ATTACHMENT 1
Ordinance No. XX-2024 Page 1 of 2

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA
ORDINANCE NO. XX-2024

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA AMENDING TITLE 2 (ADMINISTRATION AND PERSONNEL), CHAPTER 2.30 PLANNING

COMMISSION
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Purpose and Declarations.

WHEREAS, the City Council sees a benefit of incorporating desired professional qualifications related to development for the two at-large Planning Commission members; WHEREAS, the Municipal Code needs to be amended to include language into the code as it relates to desires professional qualifications for the at-large members; WHEREAS, on March 4, 2024 the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing for this Ordinance and considered all oral and written testimony.

Section 2: Findings. The City Council hereby finds:

A. CEQA Compliance. 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.” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15378.) As reflected in State CEQA Guideline 15061 (b) (3), an activity is not subject to CEQA, “[where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment…” The proposed amendments are not a “project” within the meaning of CEQA because the amendments seek to provide clarification of qualifications to become an at-large Planning Commissioner. Because no expansion of uses or activities is reasonably anticipated, no possibility exists that the ordinance will result in a significant effect on the environment.

Thus, the proposed ordinance is not subject to the requirements of CEQA. However, in the event that adoption of the ordinance is considered a CEQA project, it would nonetheless qualify for categorical exemptions as set forth below.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) states that a project is exempt from CEQA “where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.” The approval of the code amendments set forth in the proposed ordinance does not approve any physical development and it would not result in a direct or indirect physical changes in the environment. For these reasons, the proposed amendments would not have the potential to result in individually or cumulatively significant effects on the environment and these Municipal Code amendments are exempt from review under CEQA and no further environmental review is necessary.

B. The proposed amendments comply with applicable state law and local ordinances. The proposed Municipal Code amendment complies with all other applicable

ITEM 18.2. ATTACHMENT 1
Ordinance No. XX-2024 Page 2 of 2
requirements of state law and local ordinances. The establishment of the Planning Commission to fulfill Planning Agency obligations was established under Section 65100 of the Government Code of the state of California. Specific qualifications of the Planning Commission are established under the City of Rancho Cordova Zoning Code. Revisions to the Municipal Code implement and are consistent with both local and state regulations.

Section 3. Amendments to Title 2 Administration and Personnel The City Council hereby adopts the amendments to Title 2 Administration and Personnel of the Rancho Cordova Municipal Code, as shown and incorporated in Exhibit A to this ordinance.

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

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

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cordova on the ____ day of ___________, 2024 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
____________________________
David Sander, Mayor
ATTEST:

Stacy Leitner, CMC
City Clerk

ITEM 18.2. ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Ordinance
Rancho Cordova Municipal Code
Chapter 2.30 PLANNING COMMISSION

Chapter 2.30

PLANNING COMMISSION
Sections:

2.30.010 Establishment.

2.30.020 Membership.

2.30.030 Application, appointments, and terms of office.

2.30.040 Qualifications.

2.30.050 Removal from office.

2.30.060 Vacancies.

2.30.070 Duties and functions of the planning commission.

2.30.080 Rules.

2.30.090 Organization.

2.30.100 Meetings.

2.30.110 Voting.

2.30.120 Compensation.

Prior legislation: Ord. 18-2003.

2.30.010 Establishment.

Pursuant to Section 65100 of the Government Code of the state of California, there is hereby established a planning commission which shall have the powers and duties and serve the purposes enumerated in said Section 65100 and this chapter, and which shall have jurisdiction within the incorporated boundaries of the city of Rancho Cordova; provided, however: from the effective date of the ordinance codified in this section until March 1, 2023 (Phase 1), the planning commission shall only have the power to take action on the following applications, projects, approvals, permits and appeals related to:

A. Processing, considering, and approving tentative and final parcel maps under Chapter 22.20 RCMC.

B. Processing, considering, and approving major design review for new residential projects under RCMC

23.104.030 and Table 23.104-1.

C. All other planning commission responsibilities regarding applications, projects, approvals, permits, and appeals in the Rancho Cordova Municipal Code are suspended from the effective date of the ordinance codified in this section until March 1, 2023. During this time, all appeals which would otherwise be heard by the planning commission shall be heard by the city council.

And further provided, from March 1, 2023, until June 1, 2023 (Phase 2), in addition to all powers granted during Phase 1, the planning commission shall also have the power to take action on the following applications, projects, approvals, permits and appeals related to:

D. Processing, considering, and approving tentative and subdivision maps under Chapter 22.20 RCMC.

E. Processing, considering, and approving major design review for commercial and industrial projects under RCMC

23.104.030 and Table 23.104-1. [Ord. 15-2022 § 3; Ord. 2-2022 § 3 (Exh. A); Ord. 22-2021 § 3 (Exh. A); Ord. 5-2011 § 1; Ord. 56-2004 § 3].

2.30.020 Membership.

The planning commission shall consist of seven commission officers. [Ord. 2-2022 § 3 (Exh. A); Ord. 22-2021 § 3 (Exh. A)].

2.30.030 Application, appointments, and terms of office.

Appointments to the planning commission shall be made by the city council as follows:

ITEM 18.2. ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Ordinance
Rancho Cordova Municipal Code
Chapter 2.30 PLANNING COMMISSION

A. An application period of three weeks shall be opened for any vacant planning commissioner seat. All applications shall be provided to individual members of the city council needing to fill the vacant seat for review and consideration for possible nomination.

B. Five commissioners shall be nominated by the individual members of the city council and confirmed by a majority vote prior to the first meeting of the council in February 2022. A commissioner’s term for those council seats up for re-election in 2024 shall coincide with the term of the councilmember that nominated that commissioner. A commissioner’s term for those council seats up for re-election in 2022 shall serve an initial two years. After the conclusion of the initial two-year term, the councilmember elected in 2022 shall have the ability to nominate a new commissioner for the remainder of the term if desired. Thereafter, following each election of the city council, re-elected or newly elected members of the council shall each nominate one member to serve on the planning commission within 90 days of taking office. All commissioners nominated by an individual member of the city council shall be confirmed by a majority vote of the city council.

C. Two commissioners shall be designated at-large members and shall be selected by the city council as a body from a pool of nominees. At-large members may be nominated by any member of the city council and confirmed by a majority vote prior to the first meeting of the council in February 2022. The term of the at-large commissioners will be terms of four years. [Ord. 2-2022 § 3 (Exh. A); Ord. 22-2021 § 3 (Exh. A)].

2.30.040 Qualifications.

Minimum qualifications for the position of planning commissioner are as follows:

A. Must be at least 18 years of age.

B. Shall not be an elected or appointed official of another public entity whose jurisdiction includes any part of the city.

C. Shall reside within the incorporated boundaries of the city of Rancho Cordova.

D. Professional experience in a field closely related to development such as land use or environmental planner, surveyor or engineer, designer, architect, building contractor or other closely related professions is desired for the two at-large members.
[Ord. 2-2022 § 3 (Exh. A); Ord. 22-2021 § 3 (Exh. A)].

2.30.050 Removal from office.

A planning commissioner may be removed from office by the city council without cause, notice or hearing. [Ord. 2-2022 § 3 (Exh. A); Ord. 22-2021 § 3 (Exh. A)].

2.30.060 Vacancies.

Vacancies which occur within the commission shall be filled for the unexpired portions of the terms pursuant to RCMC 2.30.030. [Ord. 2-2022 § 3 (Exh. A); Ord. 22-2021 § 3 (Exh. A)].

2.30.070 Duties and functions of the planning commission.

The planning commission shall have the duties and functions as specified below.

A. Serve as the approval authority as specified in Chapter 23.104 RCMC; B. Promote public interest in, and understanding of, the general plan, specific plans, special planning areas, and regulations relating to such plans;
C. Consider and provide recommendations to the city council on amendments to the general plan, zoning code, specific plans and special planning areas;
D. Consider subdivision matters arising from the Subdivision Map Act and this code;

ITEM 18.2. ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Ordinance
Rancho Cordova Municipal Code
Chapter 2.30 PLANNING COMMISSION

E. Consider appeals of the community development director; F. Perform other powers and duties as directed by the city council. [Ord. 2-2022 § 3 (Exh. A); Ord. 22-2021 § 3 (Exh. A)].

2.30.080 Rules.

The planning commission shall adopt, subject to city council approval, rules of procedure which shall govern the conduct of hearings and other business of the commission. Copies of the rules shall be published and shall be available with the city clerk’s office. [Ord. 2-2022 § 3 (Exh. A); Ord. 22-2021 § 3 (Exh. A)].

2.30.090 Organization.

At the initial meeting of the commission, and annually thereafter at the first meeting of the calendar year for the commission, the members of the commission shall select a chairperson and vice-chairperson and shall determine the time, place, and frequency of regular meetings. [Ord. 2-2022 § 3 (Exh. A); Ord. 22-2021 § 3 (Exh. A)].

2.30.100 Meetings.

The planning commission shall meet at least twice a month at a regularly scheduled time and date, and at other such times as the chairperson deems necessary to perform the duties of the commission. [Ord. 2-2022 § 3 (Exh. A); Ord. 22-2021 § 3 (Exh. A)].

2.30.110 Voting.

Four members of the seven-member planning commission shall constitute a quorum, and a quorum is required for the commission to take action on any item on its agenda. [Ord. 2-2022 § 3 (Exh. A); Ord. 22-2021 § 3 (Exh. A)].

2.30.120 Compensation.

A. Each member of the planning commission shall receive compensation for services as follows: Each member of the commission shall receive $75.00 compensation for each planning commission meeting attended, including regularly scheduled or special meetings.

B. The city may, at the discretion of the city manager, approve payment to a member for necessary and actual expenses incurred by a member acting in an official capacity as a member of the planning commission. [Ord. 2-2022 § 3 (Exh. A); Ord. 22-2021 § 3 (Exh. A)].

ITEM 18.2. ATTACHMENT 3
Rancho Cordova Municipal Code
Chapter 2.30 PLANNING COMMISSION

Chapter 2.30

PLANNING COMMISSION
Sections:

2.30.010 Establishment.

2.30.020 Membership.

2.30.030 Application, appointments, and terms of office.

2.30.040 Qualifications.

2.30.050 Removal from office.

2.30.060 Vacancies.

2.30.070 Duties and functions of the planning commission.

2.30.080 Rules.

2.30.090 Organization.

2.30.100 Meetings.

2.30.110 Voting.

2.30.120 Compensation.

Prior legislation: Ord. 18-2003.

2.30.010 Establishment.

Pursuant to Section 65100 of the Government Code of the state of California, there is hereby established a planning commission which shall have the powers and duties and serve the purposes enumerated in said Section 65100 and this chapter, and which shall have jurisdiction within the incorporated boundaries of the city of Rancho Cordova; provided, however: from the effective date of the ordinance codified in this section until March 1, 2023 (Phase 1), the planning commission shall only have the power to take action on the following applications, projects, approvals, permits and appeals related to:

A. Processing, considering, and approving tentative and final parcel maps under Chapter 22.20 RCMC.

B. Processing, considering, and approving major design review for new residential projects under RCMC

23.104.030 and Table 23.104-1.

C. All other planning commission responsibilities regarding applications, projects, approvals, permits, and appeals in the Rancho Cordova Municipal Code are suspended from the effective date of the ordinance codified in this section until March 1, 2023. During this time, all appeals which would otherwise be heard by the planning commission shall be heard by the city council.

And further provided, from March 1, 2023, until June 1, 2023 (Phase 2), in addition to all powers granted during Phase 1, the planning commission shall also have the power to take action on the following applications, projects, approvals, permits and appeals related to:

D. Processing, considering, and approving tentative and subdivision maps under Chapter 22.20 RCMC.

E. Processing, considering, and approving major design review for commercial and industrial projects under RCMC

23.104.030 and Table 23.104-1. [Ord. 15-2022 § 3; Ord. 2-2022 § 3 (Exh. A); Ord. 22-2021 § 3 (Exh. A); Ord. 5-2011 § 1; Ord. 56-2004 § 3].

2.30.020 Membership.

The planning commission shall consist of seven commission officers. [Ord. 2-2022 § 3 (Exh. A); Ord. 22-2021 § 3 (Exh. A)].

2.30.030 Application, appointments, and terms of office.

Appointments to the planning commission shall be made by the city council as follows:

ITEM 18.2. ATTACHMENT 3
Rancho Cordova Municipal Code
Chapter 2.30 PLANNING COMMISSION

A. An application period of three weeks shall be opened for any vacant planning commissioner seat. All applications shall be provided to individual members of the city council needing to fill the vacant seat for review and consideration for possible nomination.

B. Five commissioners shall be nominated by the individual members of the city council and confirmed by a majority vote prior to the first meeting of the council in February 2022. A commissioner’s term for those council seats up for re-election in 2024 shall coincide with the term of the councilmember that nominated that commissioner. A commissioner’s term for those council seats up for re-election in 2022 shall serve an initial two years. After the conclusion of the initial two-year term, the councilmember elected in 2022 shall have the ability to nominate a new commissioner for the remainder of the term if desired. Thereafter, following each election of the city council, re-elected or newly elected members of the council shall each nominate one member to serve on the planning commission within 90 days of taking office. All commissioners nominated by an individual member of the city council shall be confirmed by a majority vote of the city council.

C. Two commissioners shall be designated at-large members and shall be selected by the city council as a body from a pool of nominees. At-large members may be nominated by any member of the city council and confirmed by a majority vote prior to the first meeting of the council in February 2022. The term of the at-large commissioners will be terms of four years. [Ord. 2-2022 § 3 (Exh. A); Ord. 22-2021 § 3 (Exh. A)].

2.30.040 Qualifications.

Minimum qualifications for the position of planning commissioner are as follows:

A. Must be at least 18 years of age.

B. Shall not be an elected or appointed official of another public entity whose jurisdiction includes any part of the city.

C. Shall reside within the incorporated boundaries of the city of Rancho Cordova.

D. Professional experience in a field closely related to development such as land use or environmental planner, surveyor or engineer, designer, architect, building contractor or other closely related professions is desired for the two at-large members.
[Ord. 2-2022 § 3 (Exh. A); Ord. 22-2021 § 3 (Exh. A)].

2.30.050 Removal from office.

A planning commissioner may be removed from office by the city council without cause, notice or hearing. [Ord. 2-2022 § 3 (Exh. A); Ord. 22-2021 § 3 (Exh. A)].

2.30.060 Vacancies.

Vacancies which occur within the commission shall be filled for the unexpired portions of the terms pursuant to RCMC 2.30.030. [Ord. 2-2022 § 3 (Exh. A); Ord. 22-2021 § 3 (Exh. A)].

2.30.070 Duties and functions of the planning commission.

The planning commission shall have the duties and functions as specified below.

A. Serve as the approval authority as specified in Chapter 23.104 RCMC; B. Promote public interest in, and understanding of, the general plan, specific plans, special planning areas, and regulations relating to such plans;
C. Consider and provide recommendations to the city council on amendments to the general plan, zoning code, specific plans and special planning areas;
D. Consider subdivision matters arising from the Subdivision Map Act and this code; E. Consider appeals of the community development director;