Agenda packet — Rancho Cordova City Council, October 6, 2025 (part 1 of 4)

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, October 6, 2025

4:00 PM Special Meeting
American River Room

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 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, October 6, 2025. 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, October 6, 2025, at 2:00 p.m.

AMENDED AGENDA

Page 1 of 536 ends

Rancho Cordova City Council - AMENDED AGENDA
Special and Regular Meeting of Monday, October 6, 2025

Page 2 of 6 ends

1. SPECIAL MEETING - CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL

Council Members Linda Budge, Garrett Gatewood, Joe Little, David Sander, and Mayor Siri Pulipati

2. PUBLIC COMMENT

At a special meeting, citizens 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

3.1. Subject: Discussion and Update on Public School Educational Opportunities and the Future of Education in Rancho Cordova.

Recommendation: Receive an update on the education opportunities in Rancho Cordova and provide direction.

4. ADJOURNMENT OF SPECIAL MEETING

Mayor Pulipati will adjourn the special meeting to the regular meeting in the David B. Roberts Council Chambers.

5. REGULAR MEETING - CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL

Council Members Linda Budge, Garrett Gatewood, Joe Little, David Sander, and Mayor Siri Pulipati

6. METRO CABLE TV TELEVISION ANNOUNCEMENT

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

7. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

The Mayor will call on someone in attendance to lead the Pledge.

8. INVOCATION

Jasvi Patel and Prapti Patel with BAPS will give the invocation.

9. PRESENTATIONS

9.1. Presentation of Proclamation Recognizing Hindu Heritage Month and the Festival of Diwali.

9.2. Introduction of New Employees Jordan Townsend, Code Enforcement Officer I, by Brittany Mariscal, Code Enforcement Supervisor, Lucas McElwee, Neighborhood Services Technician II, by April Stevenson, Management Analyst I, and Tasha Toy, Neighborhood Services Technician II by Russell Ducharme, Neighborhood Services Manager.

10. PUBLIC COMMENT

Members of the public wishing to address the 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

Page 2 of 536 ends

Rancho Cordova City Council - AMENDED AGENDA
Special and Regular Meeting of Monday, October 6, 2025

Page 3 of 6 ends

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.

11. COUNCIL REPORTS

12. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT

13. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS - ROLL CALL VOTE

13.1. Subject: Meeting Minutes from the Regular City Council Meeting of September 15, 2025, and the Special City Council Meeting of September 23, 2025.

Recommendation: Adopt the minutes.

13.2. Subject: A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Contract Amendment No. 2025-83-1 with Bennett Engineering Services, Inc. to Increase the Contract Amount from $132,324.00 to an Amount not to Exceed $164,244.00 for Professional Engineering Services on the Highway Safety Improvement Project (HSIP) Cycle 12 Traffic Signals Enhancements Project.

Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution.

13.3. Subject: A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Contract Amendment No. 2024-39-1 with Tetra Tech, Inc. to Extend the Contract Term and Increase the Contract Amount from $738,900.68 to an Amount not to Exceed $1,104,041.33 for the Environmental Engineering Services for the Soil Remediation Project Construction at 10153-10179 Folsom Boulevard.

Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution.

13.4. Subject: A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Contract Amendment No. 2025-6-1 with NORR Associates, Inc. to Increase the Contract Amount from $90,800 to an Amount not to Exceed $120,400 for the City Hall First Floor Tenant Improvement Project Architectural Design, Fire Sprinkler and Alarm Drawings.

Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution.

13.5. Subject: A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Agreement with Ascent Environmental, Inc. for a Mixed-Use & Multi-family Housing Study in an Amount Not to Exceed $185,000.

Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution.

13.6. Subject: A Resolution Approving a New Public Road Connection at Rancho Cordova Parkway to U.S. Route 50 between Postmile 12.5 and Postmile 15.8 for the Rancho Cordova Parkway Interchange Project.

Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution.

13.7. Subject: A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Contract Amendment No. 2021-336-5 with Dewberry Engineers Inc. to Increase the Contract Amount by $164,319.63 to an Amount not to Exceed $344,020.60 for Professional Engineering Services on the Mather Field Road Enhancements Phase 2 Project.

Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution.

Page 3 of 536 ends

Rancho Cordova City Council - AMENDED AGENDA
Special and Regular Meeting of Monday, October 6, 2025

Page 4 of 6 ends

13.8. Subject: A Resolution to Approve the Execution of a Fiscal Year 2024 Community Project Funding Grant Agreement with the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development to Receive Grant Funds in the Amount of $1,000,000 for the Mather Veterans Village Phase 4 Project.

Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution.

14. CONSENT PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS - ROLL CALL VOTE

15. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS

15.1. Subject: Fite Circle Digital Billboard Sign - Zoning Text Amendment, Conditional Use Permit, Minor Design Review and Operating Agreement (Mitigated Negative Declaration Prepared Pursuant to Article 6 of the California Environmental Quality Act) - Project No. PLND-1124- 0113-3127 Fite Circle; APN: 077-0330-039-0000.

Recommendation: Certify the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration that was prepared and circulated pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), waive the first reading and introduce the Ordinance for the Digital Freeway Sign Overlay zoning text amendment for Section

23.743.150; adopt the Resolution for the Fite Circle Digital Billboard Sign Zoning Text Amendment, Conditional Use Permit and Minor Design Review; and approve the Fite Circle Digital Billboard Sign Operating Agreement.

16. REGULAR CALENDAR ITEMS

16.1. Subject: Presentation of the Proposed Sacramento County Homeless & Housing Partnership Model.

Recommendation: Receive presentation, provide comments and feedback.

16.2. Subject: Presentation from Cordova Community Council Foundation on Fiscal Year 2024-25 Outcomes and Accomplishments and a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the Fourth Restated Grant Agreement with the Cordova Community Council Foundation.

Recommendation: Receive information and adopt the Resolution.

16.3. Subject: Discussion and Possible Adoption of a Resolution Adopting a Code of Conduct for the City Council, City Commissions, and City Boards.

Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution.

17. COUNCIL REQUESTS FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS

18. ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION

Mayor Pulipati will adjourn the meeting to closed session.

19. CLOSED SESSION - CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL

Council Members Linda Budge, Garrett Gatewood, Joe Little, David Sander, and Mayor Siri Pulipati

20. CLOSED SESSION

Council will meet in closed session to discuss the following item:

20.1. Subject: CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION: Significant Exposure to Litigation Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(2)(Two cases).

Page 4 of 536 ends

Rancho Cordova City Council - AMENDED AGENDA
Special and Regular Meeting of Monday, October 6, 2025

Page 5 of 6 ends

21. OPEN SESSION - REPORT FROM CLOSED SESSION

The City Attorney will report on action taken in closed session.

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.

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
October 20, 2025 5:30 PM Regular Meeting
October 28, 2025 5:30 PM Special Meeting/Work Session
November 3, 2025 4:00 PM Special Meeting/5:30 PM Regular Meeting November 17, 2025 5:30 PM Regular Meeting
November 25, 2025 5:30 PM Special Meeting/Work Session
December 1, 2025 4:00 PM Special Meeting/5:30 PM Regular Meeting December 9, 2025 5:30 PM Special Meeting/Work Session
December 15, 2025 5:30 PM 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 and Direct TV 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.

Page 5 of 536 ends

Rancho Cordova City Council - AMENDED AGENDA
Special and Regular Meeting of Monday, October 6, 2025

Page 6 of 6 ends

CERTIFICATION OF POSTING OF AGENDA

I, Stacy Leitner, City Clerk for the City of Rancho Cordova, declare that the foregoing agenda for the October 6, 2025 Regular Meeting of the Rancho Cordova City Council was posted and available for review on October 2, 2025, 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.

Signed October 2, 2025, at Rancho Cordova, California.

Stacy Leitner, CMC
City Clerk

Page 6 of 536 ends

MEMORANDUM

City Council Staff Report - Page 1 of 2

ITEM 3.1.

DATE: October 6, 2025

TO: Honorable Mayor and Council Members

FROM:

Micah Runner, City Manager
Megan Siren, Assistant to the City Manager
Stacy Delaney, Senior Management Analyst

SUBJECT: DISCUSSION AND UPDATE ON PUBLIC SCHOOL EDUCATIONAL

OPPORTUNITIES AND THE FUTURE OF EDUCATION IN RANCHO

CORDOVA

RECOMMENDATION

Receive an update on the education opportunities in Rancho Cordova and provide direction.

RESULT OF RECOMMENDED ACTION

As a result of the discussion, the City Council could direct staff to prepare an educational plan, have staff bring back additional information, or direct no continued action.

BACKGROUND

The City of Rancho Cordova has four school districts located within the city limits: Folsom Cordova Unified School District, Elk Grove Unified School District, Sacramento City Unified School District, and San Juan Unified School District. These four school districts cover geographically distinct areas of the city and provide public education for students within their specific territories.

Beginning in the summer of 2023, at the request of the Folsom Cordova Unified School District (FCUSD), the City Council, FCUSD, and the City of Folsom held two joint sessions. One was held on June 8, 2023, and the second was held on January 29, 2024, to discuss a potential district reorganization and feasibility study. FCUSD hired Schools Services of California (SSC) to complete a feasibility study, which was jointly funded by all three parties, and presented the findings at the January 29, 2024 joint session. The feasibility study completed by SSC was based on currently available data and provides the firm's opinion on whether the separation of FCUSD would satisfy the nine feasibility conditions set forth in the Education Code. At the conclusion of the joint session, the FCUSD Board, based on the feasibility study, determined that they would not move forward with a district reorganization at this time, but one of the cities may proceed if desired.

On February 27, 2024, a Special meeting was held with the City Council summarizing the two joint sessions with FCUSD and the City of Folsom and to discuss some potential options for addressing educational challenges for Rancho Cordova students. The City Council directed

Page 7 of 536 ends

City Council Staff Report - Page 2 of 2

staff to conduct a public input process. In May 2024, the city contracted services with Ryland SBC and Capitol PFG to prepare a multi-modal survey for this purpose. Since the four school districts placed ballot measures for the November 2024 General Election and were conducting their own public input, the city's public input process was paused pending the results of the ballot measures and the State of California's ballot proposition for education finance. The ballot measures for the four school districts and the education finance proposition for the State passed.

On February 18, 2025, City Council directed staff to proceed with the public input process. Staff with our consultants, Ryland SBC and Capitol PFG conducted 4 focus group meetings that included representation from FCUSD, Elk Grove Unified School District and Sacramento City Unified School District in April and May 2025. The summary of the focus groups is attached as Attachment 2. A public opinion survey was fielded by EMC Research, Inc. from July to August 2025. The full report of the public opinion survey is attached as Attachment 3.

Staff is seeking direction on whether the City Council wants to proceed with the process and develop an educational program plan, have staff bring back additional information, or direct no continued action. An educational program plan will require the city to engage an educational program consultant and complete community visioning work over the next 6–9 months at a cost of $100,000.

FISCAL IMPACT AND FUNDING SOURCE

The three General Fund contracts total $142,500 which include services beyond the multi- modal survey. The estimated cost for the educational plan is $100,000 which is budgeted in the FY 25-27 Adopted Operating Budget out of the General Fund.

ATTACHMENT(S)

1. Presentation

2. Final Focus Group Report

3. EMC Research - Public Opinion Survey Results

Page 8 of 536 ends

October 6, 2025
Evaluating the Future of Education in Rancho Cordova
ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 9 of 536 ends

Background & Current Concerns
2  Discussion History:
o Ongoing dialogue about the adequacy of education services in Rancho Cordova o Concerns raised about student services and school locations  Key Concerns:
o Are our students receiving the services they need?
o How does the location of schools impact service delivery? o The feasibility of a potential FCUSD separation, EGUSD separation, and/or SCUSD separation.

ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 10 of 536 ends

Original Direction & Current Status
3  Initial Roadmap:
o Community Outreach: Gather input and data
o Return to Council: Review and provide further direction o Design Educational Program Plan: Based on Council feedback o Return to Council: Determine next steps
 Current Status:
o Community Outreach has been completed
 Focus Groups
 Public Opinion Survey
o Tonight’s meeting will provide an overview of the feedback received to obtain further direction from Council
ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 11 of 536 ends

Overview of Focus Groups
4  Four focus groups (total of 37 participants) were
held with community members connected to
Folsom Cordova USD, Elk Grove USD, and
Sacramento City USD.
o To understand perspectives on the education
experience in Rancho Cordova.

ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 12 of 536 ends

Focus Group Content
5  Provided feedback on what is working well and what needs improvement or doesn’t exist
o School safety, quality of education and learning experience, equity in resources, transportation, facilities, teacher support and retention, parent involvement opportunities, student mental health support, curriculum, library, sports, teacher quality, administration transparency, school/district communication, levels of learning differences, access to special programs, and program quality
 Level of intensity
o Satisfaction Rank and Level of Importance Rank
 Responded to 3 key prompts:
o Remain with the existing district and maintain the status quo o Advocate for improved programs and services within the current structure
o Pursue the creation of a locally controlled district in Rancho Cordova 📋📋 SURVEY 1: Satisfaction & Importance
Ranking
For each topic below, rate both your satisfaction (1–5) and its importance (1–5) Topic Satisfaction (1–
5)
Importance (1–
5)
School safety
Quality of education and learning experience
Equity in resources
Transportation
Condition of facilities
Teacher support and retention
Parent involvement opportunities
Student mental health support
Curriculum, Textbooks, and learning
programs

Library
Sports
Teacher Quality
Administration Transparency
ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 13 of 536 ends

Focus Group Findings
6  Folsom Cordova USD (Groups 1 & 2):
o Strong concerns about poor communication, inequitable resources, and inconsistent teacher quality. Both groups favored separating from Folsom Cordova USD, with an average rating of 2.88 (out of 3.0), and 33 participants overall recommending a new locally controlled district.  Elk Grove USD (Group 3):
o Praised for diversity and parent involvement but frustrated with overcrowding and transportation.

Majority preferred improvements within the district, though some supported eventual separation from their current district.
 Sacramento City USD (Group 4):
o Valued diversity and teachers but raised concerns about inequities, facilities, and mental health supports. Majority supported changes within the district, with minority support for separation from their current district.
 Overall Recommendation:
o Pursue a new, locally controlled school districtstarting with separation from Folsom Cordova USD and consider future separation from Elk Grove and Sacramento City school districts.

ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 14 of 536 ends

Community Survey
Executive Summary
July 2025
ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 15 of 536 ends

25-9682 Rancho Cordova Research Summary | 8
Methodology
 Survey of adult residents in the Rancho Cordova, La
Riviera/BRECA, and Mather portions of the Folsom Cordova Unified School District
 Conducted July 30 – August 11, 2025
 Offered in English and Spanish
 Mixed mode telephone and web (email-/text-to-web)
methodology
• Email and text invitations were sent with a link to an online survey • Phone interviews conducted by trained, professional interviewers; l
andlines and mobile phones included
 400 interviews; overall margin of error ±4.9 percentage points
Please note that due to rounding, some percentages may not add up to exactly 100%.

Rancho Cordova
Mather
BRECA/La Riviera
Included Areas of Each Jurisdiction
ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 16 of 536 ends

25-9682 Rancho Cordova Research Summary | 9
Key Findings
 Residents are optimistic about the direction of the Rancho Cordova area, and Rancho Cordova and Folsom are largely seen as two distinct communities.  Residents perceive schools in Folsom to be higher-quality than those in Rancho Cordova.
 Residents are initially split on the idea of dividing the school district.  While statements describing potential benefits of dividing the district are impactful, potential downsides also resonate, and final support hovers around 50%.

ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 17 of 536 ends

Issue Environment
ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 18 of 536 ends

25-9682 Rancho Cordova Research Summary | 11
Direction of the Community
*If Rancho Cordova resident; If not a Rancho Cordova resident (n=44) “your area” was shown instead Three-quarters of residents say they feel things are generally going in the right direction.

Generally going in
the right direction
75%
Pretty seriously off on the
wrong track
21%
(Don't know)
4%
Do you feel that things in Rancho Cordova* are…
ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 19 of 536 ends

25-9682 Rancho Cordova Research Summary | 12
Distinct Communities
6-in-7 residents say they consider the City of Rancho Cordova and City of Folsom to be different communities.

Same community
13%
Different communities
87%
Do you consider the City of Rancho Cordova and the City of Folsom to be part of one community or different communities? ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 20 of 536 ends

School Ratings
ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 21 of 536 ends

25-9682 Rancho Cordova Research Summary | 14
10%
33%
7%
53%
51%
43%
3%
4%
2%
25%
10%
33%
9%
2%
15%
63%
84%
50%
33%
12%
48%
The quality of schools in the
Folsom-Cordova Unified School
District overall
The quality of schools in Folsom
The quality of schools in Rancho
Cordova
Excellent Good (Don't know) Only fair Poor
School Quality Ratings
As you may know, you live in the Folsom Cordova Unified School District. Whether you have children in school or not, please rate each of the following.

These residents rate the quality of schools in Folsom more positively than schools in Rancho Cordova or the District overall.

Views about the quality of schools in each area are even more polarized among parents.

Total
Positive
Total
Negative
ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 22 of 536 ends

25-9682 Rancho Cordova Research Summary | 15
School Descriptor Comparison
How well do you think each of the following phrases describes schools in Folsom? How well do you think each of the following phrases describes schools in Rancho Cordova? There is a significant gap in average ratings for each city’s schools. Folsom schools are rated higher on all descriptors.

Differences are even more stark among parents.

4.1 4.1

4.0 4.0

3.8 2.9

3.1 2.9

3.1 3.1
1 2 3 4 5
have high quality school facilities and
grounds
have good sports programs
have high quality academics
offer a variety of courses and programs
have high quality teachers and staff
Folsom Schools
Rancho Cordova Schools
Mean (1-5 Scale) Describes very wellDoes not describe at all ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 23 of 536 ends

Potential District Division
ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 24 of 536 ends

25-9682 Rancho Cordova Research Summary | 17
District Division Support Initial Ask
Residents are split on the idea of dividing the district initially, though there is higher intensity on the opposition side.

Strongly 21% Strongly 28%
Somewhat 20% Somewhat 13%
Support
41%
Oppose
41%
Don't know/(Refused)
18%
Would you support or oppose dividing the Folsom Cordova Unified School District into two different school districts, one that serves families in Folsom, and the other that serves families in Rancho Cordova, Mather, and other western parts of the current district? ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 25 of 536 ends

25-9682 Rancho Cordova Research Summary | 18
7%
8%
29%
18%
3% 30%
25%
31%
49%
36%
26%
61%
74%
Overall
FCUSD
Parent (22%)
Strongly
agree
Somewhat
agree
(Don't
know)
Somewhat
disagree
Strongly
disagree
Fair Resource Allocation Belief
Please indicate whether you agree or disagree with the following statements.

Most disagree that resources and funding are allocated fairly between schools; half of parents in this area strongly disagree.

Total
Agree
Total
Disagree
Resources and
funding are allocated
fairly between
schools in Rancho
Cordova and Folsom
ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 26 of 536 ends

25-9682 Rancho Cordova Research Summary | 19
Support District Division Statements
Next you will read statements from people who support dividing the Folsom Cordova Unified School District into two different districts. After each one, please indicate how convincing that statement is as a reason to support dividing the school district.

Over a third of residents find the local leadership, new resources, and local funding arguments very convincing. [LOCAL LEADERSHIP] Kids in Rancho Cordova deserve to have the same quality school facilities and academics as kids in Folsom. An independent district would ensure Rancho Cordova area students are served by local leadership who can focus on our schools’ needs and who will be accountable only to our community.
[NEW RESOURCES] The new Rancho Cordova and Mather district would qualify Rancho Cordova schools for millions more in state funding. [LOCAL FUNDING] Establishing an independent school district would ensure all funding intended for Rancho Cordova area schools benefits local students, rather than getting unfairly distributed to schools in Folsom. [COMMUNITY BENEFIT] Whether you have kids in school or not, better schools increase property values and strengthen the local economy, and an independent district in Rancho Cordova and Mather will better meet community needs and prepare students for our local workforce. [MORE RESPONSIVE STAFF AND PROGRAMS] Creating two independent school districts would allow local schools to tailor their educational and extracurricular programs and have more high-quality, culturally responsive teachers, coaches, and mentors who understand the unique needs and interests of Rancho Cordova area students.

Very, 43%
39%
39%
30%
25%
Somewhat, 32%
33%
31%
36%
38%
75% Convincing
72%
70%
67%
63%
ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 27 of 536 ends

25-9682 Rancho Cordova Research Summary | 20
Strongly
21%
Strongly
28%
Strongly
35% Strongly
19%
Somewhat
20%
Somewhat
13%
Somewhat
34%
Somewhat
12%
Support
41%
Oppose
41%
Don't know/
(Refused)
18%
Support
68%
Oppose
31%
(Don't know/
Refused)
1%
District Division Ask After Support
After statements describing benefits, two-thirds of residents support the proposed division.

Given what you have read, would you support or oppose dividing the Folsom Cordova Unified School District into two different school districts, one that serves families in Folsom, and the other that serves families in Rancho Cordova, Mather, and other western parts of the current district? Initial After Support Statements
ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 28 of 536 ends

25-9682 Rancho Cordova Research Summary | 21
Oppose District Division Statements
Next you will read statements from people who oppose dividing the Folsom Cordova Unified School District into two different districts. After each one, please indicate how convincing that statement is as a reason to oppose dividing the school district.

All negative statements are convincing to at least 60% of residents.

Over a third say the “reduces choice” statement is very convincing. [REDUCES CHOICE] Dividing the existing school district would make it much harder for Rancho Cordova-area parents to send their children to Folsom schools. That means kids in our community wouldn’t have the option to participate in advanced college-preparatory courses, athletics, and other programs that are currently only available in Folsom schools. [STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES] If the school district is divided, the new Rancho Cordova-area district wouldn’t be able to maintain the same level of service for students with disabilities that the combined district is able to offer. [LESS RESOURCES] Our students benefit from being part of a bigger district with more resources and programs. Dividing the district will result in worse, even more under-resourced schools, which is bad for our children and for our community. [DISTRICT TRANSITION] Setting up a new district is a complicated process that takes time to do properly and will require hiring new administrators, duplicating roles in our small region. Our students will suffer during the uncertainty of this transition and there’s no guarantee that we’ll get better schools as a result.

Very, 36%
26%
30%
27%
Somewhat, 31%
39%
34%
33%
67% Convincing
65%
64%
60%
ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 29 of 536 ends

25-9682 Rancho Cordova Research Summary | 22
Strongly
21%
Strongly
28%
Strongly
35% Strongly
19%
Strongly
24%
Strongly
25%
Somewhat
20%
Somewhat
13%
Somewhat
34%
Somewhat
12%
Somewhat
28%
Somewhat
23%
Support
41%
Oppose
41%
Don't know/
(Refused)
18%
Support
68%
Oppose
31%
(Don't
know)
1%
Support
52% Oppose
47%
(Don't
know)
1%
Final District Division Ask
On the final ask, sentiment returns to being divided,
with about half of residents supporting the proposed division and half opposing.

Finally, after everything you have read, would you support or oppose dividing the Folsom Cordova Unified School District into two different school districts, one that serves families in Folsom, and the other that serves families in Rancho Cordova, Mather, and other western parts of the current district? Initial After Support Statements Final
ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 30 of 536 ends

Next Steps & Council Discussion
23  Council’s Role:
o Provide feedback on focus group and survey results
o Provide direction on moving forward with the creation of an Educational Program Plan
 Return to Council before preparing a Reorganization Feasibility Study ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 31 of 536 ends

Timeline and Estimated Cost of Next Steps (~4-year process) 24  Next Steps (based on Council direction):
o City Staff Contract for Consultant Services
o Develop Educational Program Plan (approximately 6-9 months and up to $100,000)  Engage Educational Program Consultant
 Complete community visioning work
 Develop Educational Program Plan for Feasibility Study submittal o Return to City Council before Preparing a Reorganization Feasibility Study o Future Next Steps: (up to $300,000 to finish over a 3-year period)  Prepare Reorganization Feasibility Study
 Report on analysis of Nine Feasibility Criteria from Education Code  Develop strategy for successful Petition (lobbyist, special legislation, outreach, etc.)  Prepare and Submit Petition to Reorganize School District ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 32 of 536 ends

City of Rancho Cor
dova
C

OMMUNITY FOCUS GROUP REPORT

ON RANCHO CORDOVA EDUCATION

EXPERIENCE AND DISTRICT ALIGNMENT
8334 P
arus Way, Granite Bay, California 95746
Office (916) 652-7165 Fax (916) 652-7168
ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 33 of 536 ends

Re: Community Focus Group Report
2 | Page
June 3, 2025
8334 P
arus Way, Granite Bay, California 95746
Office (916) 652-7165 Fax (916) 652-7168 [email protected] ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 34 of 536 ends

Re: Community Focus Group Report
3 | Page

Executive Summary: Community Focus Group Report on Rancho Cordova Education Experience and District Alignment

Overview
Four community focus groups were conducted to evaluate the current educational experience for students in Rancho Cordova and gather input on future governance options for local schools.

These groups included participants affiliated with the Folsom Cordova Unified School District (Groups 1 and 2), Elk Grove Unified School District (Group 3), and Sacramento City Unified School District (Group 4). In total, 37 community members participated across the four groups.

Each group discussed strengths, concerns, and satisfaction levels regarding their current educational systems and offered recommendations related to potential governance restructuring. Participants were presented with three options:
● Option 1 – Maintain current district arrangements

● Option 2 – Advocate for change within the existing district

● Option 3 – Advocate for the creation of a new, locally controlled Rancho Cordova School District

Key Findings Across All Focus Groups
Common Themes
● Strong appreciation for diversity among students and staff.

● Repeated concerns about district communication, inequitable resource allocation, and teacher support and retention.

● Frustration with inconsistent teacher and administrator quality.

● Facilities, especially those supporting sports, arts, and science, were viewed as inadequate or unequally accessible.

8334 Parus Way, Granite Bay, California 95746
Office (916) 652-7165 Fax (916) 652-7168 [email protected] ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 35 of 536 ends

Re: Community Focus Group Report
4 | Page

● Overcrowding and transportation challenges were frequently cited, particularly in EGUSD.

● Desire for more culturally competent and community-connected educators and programs.

District-Specific Observations
Folsom Cordova Unified School District (Groups 1 & 2 – 22 participants total) ● Unanimous recommendation from Group 1 (13 participants) for Option 3 – full separation from Folsom Cordova Unified School District.

● Majority recommendation from Group 2 (9 participants) for Option 3.

● Themes: Poor district communication, inequitable resources between Rancho Cordova and Folsom, strong local sports culture, and underinvestment in arts and science.

● Average preference rating across both groups: 2.88 (on a 1–3 scale; 3 = strong support for a new district).

Elk Grove Unified School District (Group 3 – 9 participants) ● Recognized for being a desirable district with strong parent involvement and school-site communication.

● Challenges included overcrowded schools, transportation difficulties, and insufficient collaboration on shared facilities.

● Majority favored Option 2 – improving within the current district.

● Minority showed interest in Option 3 – future consideration of separation.

● Average preference rating: 2.3

8334 Parus Way, Granite Bay, California 95746
Office (916) 652-7165 Fax (916) 652-7168 [email protected] ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 36 of 536 ends

Re: Community Focus Group Report
5 | Page

Sacramento City Unified School District (Group 4 – 6 participants) ● Cited strengths in diversity and teacher quality but raised serious concerns about district isolation, resource inequities, and mental health support.

● Majority favored Option 2 – improve within the current structure.

● Minority supported Option 3 – potential future separation.

● Average preference rating: 2.43

Unified Community Recommendation: Rancho Cordova’s Voice Across all four groups, the community expressed a unified voice advocating for significant change. Rancho Cordova participants articulated that:
“There are significant challenges regarding the educational offerings and experience for our students in Rancho Cordova. The community recommends pursuing a new, locally controlled School District in Rancho Cordova, beginning with separation from the Folsom Cordova Unified School District, and in the future, potentially from Elk Grove Unified and Sacramento City Unified School Districts.” This recommendation reflects a clear desire for local control, equitable resource distribution, and community-responsive governance that centers the unique needs and identities of Rancho Cordova students and families.

Conclusion
With an average score of 2.88 favoring Option 3 from participants representing all districts and 33 out of 37 participants recommending separation from Folsom Cordova USD, the data demonstrates strong community momentum toward the formation of a locally governed Rancho Cordova School District.

This consensus affirms the urgency to explore structural change in educational governance to ensure equitable, high-quality, and community-centered education for Rancho Cordova’s students.

8334 Parus Way, Granite Bay, California 95746
Office (916) 652-7165 Fax (916) 652-7168 [email protected] ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 37 of 536 ends

Re: Community Focus Group Report
6 | Page

Summary Report: Community Education Experience – Focus Group 1 Overview:

A focus group consisting of 13 participants from the Folsom Cordova Unified School District (FCUSD) community was convened to gather perspectives on the current educational experience. Participants included parents, educators, and community members from schools within Rancho Cordova.

Key Themes Identified:
● Diversity: Participants acknowledged a strong and visible presence of diversity among staff and students.

● District Communication: There was a widespread sentiment of poor communication from the district, leading to frustration and disengagement.

● School Isolation: Rancho Cordova schools reported feeling isolated and overlooked by district leadership and decision-makers.

● Resource Inequity: Participants cited unequal distribution of resources—especially in sports, creative arts, and science—between schools in different areas.

● Inconsistency in Staffing Quality: Concerns were raised about disparities in the quality of teachers and administrators across schools.

● Sports Programs: While strong athletic programs exist, equity concerns were highlighted, particularly regarding student access to quality facilities and coaching.

● Cultural Representation: There is a critical need for more high-quality, culturally responsive teachers, coaches, and mentors who reflect the diversity of the student population.

Most Popular Concerns:

1. Teacher Support and Retention

2. Equity in Resources

Most Frequently Cited Strengths:
● Sports Programs

● School Site-Level Communication

● Parent Involvement Opportunities

● Program Quality

● Veteran Teacher Quality

Top Issues with Lowest Satisfaction (ranked in order of concern):

1. Teacher Support and Retention

2. Equity in Resources

3. Quality of Education and Learning Experience

4. Condition of Facilities

5. Program Quality

Community Recommendation:

Participants were asked to evaluate three governance options. The group averaged 2.56, indicating majority support for Option 3:

Option 3 – Advocate for the creation of a new, locally controlled school district in Rancho Cordova City.

8334 Parus Way, Granite Bay, California 95746
Office (916) 652-7165 Fax (916) 652-7168 [email protected] ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 41 of 536 ends

Re: Community Focus Group Report
10 | Page

A minority of participants supported Option 2, which proposed advocating for reforms within the existing FCUSD governance structure.

Conclusion:

Focus Group 2 reaffirmed several critical concerns voiced by other community stakeholders, particularly regarding teacher recruitment and resource equity. While recognizing pockets of strength, such as veteran teachers and robust sports programs, participants largely favored a new district model to better serve the unique needs and priorities of Rancho Cordova students and families.

8334 Parus Way, Granite Bay, California 95746
Office (916) 652-7165 Fax (916) 652-7168 [email protected] ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 42 of 536 ends

Re: Community Focus Group Report
11 | Page

Summary Report: Community Education Experience – Focus Group 3 Overview:

Focus Group 3 consisted of 9 participants from the Elk Grove Unified School District (EGUSD), convened to understand community perspectives on current educational experiences. This group offered insight into both strengths and challenges within the district, with a particular focus on accessibility, diversity, and infrastructure.

Key Discussion Themes:
● District Reputation: EGUSD was described as a highly desirable district, with families valuing the overall educational environment.

● Diversity: Participants highlighted the district’s strong emphasis and value placed on diversity among students and staff.

● Parental Involvement: Ample opportunities for parent participation were noted as a strength, fostering a strong school-community connection.

● Special Education: Concerns were raised regarding the adequacy and effectiveness of services for students with learning differences and special needs.

● Overcrowding: Schools in areas like Sunrise are experiencing significant overcrowding, which was cited as a major frustration.

● Transportation: Families expressed concerns about the long distances students must travel to attend school, causing stress and logistical challenges.

● Facilities and Shared Resources: There is a strong desire for enhanced collaboration between the city and schools, especially to develop shared-use facilities such as a community pool and theater.

● Communication Overload: While district communication is robust, some participants noted that the volume of information is overwhelming and could benefit from improved streamlining.

8334 Parus Way, Granite Bay, California 95746
Office (916) 652-7165 Fax (916) 652-7168 [email protected] ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 43 of 536 ends

Re: Community Focus Group Report
12 | Page

Most Popular Concerns:
● Learning Differences (Special Education)

● Sports Access

● Transportation

● Parent Involvement

● Program Quality

● School Safety

Most Frequently Cited Strengths:
● Parent Involvement Opportunities

● Transportation (despite challenges, appreciated availability)

● Teacher Quality

● Quality of Education and Learning Experience

● School Site Communication

● School Safety

Top Issues with Lowest Satisfaction (ranked in order of concern):

1. School Safety

2. Transportation

3. Curriculum, Textbooks, and Learning Programs

8334 Parus Way, Granite Bay, California 95746
Office (916) 652-7165 Fax (916) 652-7168 [email protected] ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 44 of 536 ends

Re: Community Focus Group Report
13 | Page

Community Recommendation:

Participants rated potential governance models, yielding an average score of 2.3, indicating a majority preference for Option 2:

Option 2 – Advocate for changes and improvements within the existing school district arrangement.

A minority of participants supported Option 3, which would involve creating a new, locally controlled school district.

Conclusion:

Focus Group 3 from EGUSD expressed broad satisfaction with the district’s diversity, educational quality, and family engagement. However, infrastructure concerns such as overcrowding, transportation logistics, and access to specialized programs emerged as pressing issues.

Participants favored working within the current district structure to address these concerns, rather than pursuing a complete governance shift.

8334 Parus Way, Granite Bay, California 95746
Office (916) 652-7165 Fax (916) 652-7168 [email protected] ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 45 of 536 ends

Re: Community Focus Group Report
14 | Page

Summary Report: Community Education Experience – Focus Group 4 Sacramento City Unified School District (SCUSD)
Overview:

Focus Group 4 consisted of 6 participants from the Sacramento City Unified School District. The purpose was to understand the community’s perspective regarding the current education experience. Participants voiced strong support for improvements within the existing district, while expressing frustration with key operational and equity concerns.

Key Discussion Themes:
● Diversity: Participants recognized a strong presence of diversity among both staff and students, which they viewed as a valuable district asset.

● District Communication: A recurring concern was the poor quality of communication between the district and school sites. Participants felt uninformed and disconnected from district decisions.

● School Isolation: Schools reported feeling overlooked or isolated from district leadership and broader support systems.

● Resource Inequities: There was significant concern about unequal access to sports, creative arts, and science programs across the district.

● Staff Quality Variability: Participants observed inconsistencies in teacher and administrator quality, contributing to uneven student experiences across schools.

● Equity and Access: Although sports were seen as a district strength, equity issues—especially related to facility access and program inclusion—were highlighted as serious barriers.

● Cultural Representation: There was a strong expressed need for more high-quality teachers, mentors, and coaches who reflect the diverse cultural backgrounds of the student body.

8334 Parus Way, Granite Bay, California 95746
Office (916) 652-7165 Fax (916) 652-7168 [email protected] ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 46 of 536 ends

Re: Community Focus Group Report
15 | Page

Most Popular Concerns:
● District Communication

● Condition of Facilities

Most Frequently Cited Strengths:
● Teacher Quality

● Sports

Top Issues with Lowest Satisfaction (ranked in order of concern):

1. Quality of Education and Learning Experience

2. Equity in Resources

3. Student Mental Health Support

4. District Communication

Community Recommendation:

The group provided an average governance preference rating of 2.43, indicating majority support for Option 2:

Option 2 – Advocate for changes within the existing school district arrangement.

A minority supported Option 3, which would involve creating a new, locally controlled school district in Rancho Cordova.

8334 Parus Way, Granite Bay, California 95746
Office (916) 652-7165 Fax (916) 652-7168 [email protected] ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 47 of 536 ends

Re: Community Focus Group Report
16 | Page

Conclusion:

Focus Group 4 from SCUSD highlighted systemic inequities and communication breakdowns as key barriers to student success. While valuing diversity and the quality of certain educators and athletic programs, participants voiced a desire for more equitable distribution of resources and improved district responsiveness. The majority favored working within the current district structure to resolve these challenges, rather than pursuing structural separation.

8334 Parus Way, Granite Bay, California 95746
Office (916) 652-7165 Fax (916) 652-7168 [email protected] ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 48 of 536 ends

Community Survey
Full Report
July 2025
ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 49 of 536 ends

25-9682 Rancho Cordova | 2
Methodology
 Survey of adult residents in the Rancho Cordova, La
Riviera/BRECA, and Mather portions of the Folsom Cordova Unified School District
 Conducted July 30 – August 11, 2025
 Offered in English and Spanish
 Mixed mode telephone and web (email-/text-to-web)
methodology
• Email and text invitations were sent with a link to an online survey • Phone interviews conducted by trained, professional interviewers; landlines and mobile phones included
 400 interviews; overall margin of error ±4.9 percentage points
Please note that due to rounding, some percentages may not add up to exactly 100%.

Rancho Cordova
Mather
BRECA/La Riviera
Included Areas of Each Jurisdiction
ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 50 of 536 ends

25-9682 Rancho Cordova | 3
Key Findings
 Rancho Cordova and Folsom are largely seen as two distinct communities, and most residents report completing daily activities and errands within Rancho Cordova.
 Residents perceive schools in Folsom to be higher-quality than those in Rancho Cordova. This perception is even more stark among current District parents, though it’s important to note Folsom-area parents were not included in the survey.
 Residents are initially split on the idea of dividing the school district.  While statements describing potential benefits of dividing the district are impactful, potential downsides also resonate, and final support hovers around 50%. Current FCUSD parents are less likely to support on the final ask.

ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 51 of 536 ends

Issue Environment
ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 52 of 536 ends

25-9682 Rancho Cordova | 5
Direction of the Community
Three-quarters of residents say they feel things are generally going in the right direction.

Generally going in
the right direction
75%
Pretty seriously off
on the wrong …
(Don't know)
4%
Q2. *IF Q1=1 Rancho Cordova resident; IF Q1=2-4, not a Rancho Cordova resident; n=44 “your area” was shown instead Do you feel that things in Rancho Cordova* are…
ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 53 of 536 ends

Community Identity
ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 54 of 536 ends

25-9682 Rancho Cordova | 7
89%
84%
77%
69%
68%
51%
47%
46%
40%
4%
12%
13%
11%
13%
18%
20%
14%
13%
3%
2%
6%
9%
7%
17%
19%
21%
32%
3%
3%
4%
12%
12%
14%
14%
19%
16%
Go to a home improvement store (n=374)
Go to a big-box store like Target, Walmart, or
Costco (n=390)
Go to a grocery store (n=398)
Go to a gym (n=233)
Go to a park or outdoor recreation area (n=371)
Go to youth sporting events (n=160)
Go out to eat (n=385)
Go to religious services (n=193)
Go to community events like a festival or farmers’
market (n=330)
Rancho Cordova Folsom Sacramento Somewhere else in the area Activity Locations
NOTE: “Never do that activity” and “(Don’t know/Refused)” responses are excluded for percentage calculations shown here.

Q3-Q11. Next you will see a list of activities. For each one, please indicate where you do that activity most often.

Among those who report doing each of the tested activities, the majority or plurality report doing them most often in Rancho Cordova.

ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 55 of 536 ends

25-9682 Rancho Cordova | 8
Sports and Community Group Locations
Two-thirds of those who participate in a sports club or league do so in Rancho Cordova. Among the one-in-five residents who report household participation in community groups, 58% say they participate in Rancho Cordova.

Q14/Q15. Asked only of those who do each activity
participate in a club or community group, such as Girl
Scouts or Kiwanis? (Multiple responses accepted) n=85
58%
11%
26%
21%
1%
Rancho Cordova
Folsom
Sacramento
Somewhere else in
the area
(Don't know/Refused)
participate in a sports club or league?
(Multiple responses accepted) n=149
63%
20%
26%
14%
1%
Rancho Cordova
Folsom
Sacramento
Somewhere else in
the area
(Don't know/Refused)
In what city or cities do you or a member of your household … ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 56 of 536 ends

25-9682 Rancho Cordova | 9
Work Location
Q57/Q58.

Yes
85%
No/(Ref)
15%
Among those who work outside of their home, about a third work in Rancho Cordova, followed by a fourth in Sacramento.

Only 10% work in Folsom.
29%
25%
10%
3%
2%
1%
1%
1%
1%
11%
12%
4%
Rancho Cordova
Sacramento
Folsom
Carmichael
Elk Grove
Mather
North Highlands
Citrus Heights
Arden-Arcade
Elsewhere in Sacramento County
Outside of Sacramento County
(Refused)
Do you work outside of your home at least once a week?
(Among residents who are employed part or full time; n=249) Where do you work? n=212
ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 57 of 536 ends

25-9682 Rancho Cordova | 10
Distinct Communities
Q16.
6-in-7 residents say they consider the City of Rancho Cordova and City of Folsom to be different communities.

Same community
13%
Different communities
87%
Do you consider the City of Rancho Cordova and the City of Folsom to be part of one community or different communities? ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 58 of 536 ends

25-9682 Rancho Cordova | 11
13%
12%
14%
11%
12%
14%
8%
18%
10%
16%
13%
12%
87%
88%
86%
89%
88%
86%
92%
82%
90%
84%
87%
88%
Overall
Rancho Cordova (90%)
Men (49%)
Women (51%)
18-49 (59%)
50+ (41%)
White (51%)
BIPOC (40%)
Homeowner (61%)
Non-Homeowner (39%)
Children <19 At Home (37%)
No Children <19 At Home (63%)
Same community Different communities
Distinct Communities by Subgroups
Q16. Do you consider the City of Rancho Cordova and the City of Folsom to be part of one community or different communities? Residents across subgroups report Folsom and Rancho Cordova are part of different communities. BIPOC and non-homeowner residents are most likely to say they are part of the same community.

ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 59 of 536 ends

25-9682 Rancho Cordova | 12
Community Connectedness
Q17.

Three-quarters say they feel more connected to the community of Rancho Cordova than to Folsom. 74%
25%
1%
I feel more connected to the
community of Rancho Cordova
I feel more connected to the
community of Folsom
(Don't know/Refused)
Please indicate which of the following statements is closer to your opinion:

ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 60 of 536 ends

25-9682 Rancho Cordova | 13
74%
75%
73%
75%
69%
82%
72%
78%
75%
73%
69%
77%
61%
76%
25%
24%
26%
25%
30%
18%
28%
21%
24%
26%
30%
22%
36%
23%
Overall
Rancho Cordova (90%)
Men (49%)
Women (51%)
18-49 (59%)
50+ (41%)
White (51%)
BIPOC (40%)
Homeowner (61%)
Non-Homeowner (39%)
Children <19 At Home (37%)
No Children <19 At Home (63%)
Same community (13%)
Different communities (87%)
I feel more connected to Rancho Cordova (DK/Ref) I feel more connected to Folsom Community Connectedness by Subgroups
Q17. Please indicate which of the following statements is closer to your opinion:

Across demographic groups, majorities report feeling more connected to Rancho Cordova.

ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 61 of 536 ends

25-9682 Rancho Cordova | 14
85%
77%
65%
64%
62%
47%
23%
23%
12%
12%
23%
28%
24%
42%
38%
33%
1%
11%
6%
7%
13%
11%
37%
43%
6%
Has housing that is affordable
Is where I spend most of my time
Is a military community
Is a diverse community
Is a working-class community
Can easily get to anywhere one may need to go
from there
Is a big employment center
Has experienced a lot of commercial growth
and development
Rancho Cordova Describes both equally Folsom (Don't know/Refused) City Traits
Q18-25. For each of the following traits, please indicate if that trait better describes Rancho Cordova, Folsom, or both equally.

Residents differentiate Rancho Cordova and Folsom on many traits, including housing affordability, diversity, and being a working-class and military community, all of which are seen as more descriptive of Rancho Cordova.

ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 62 of 536 ends

School Ratings
ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 63 of 536 ends

25-9682 Rancho Cordova | 16
10%
33%
7%
53%
51%
43%
3%
4%
2%
25%
10%
33%
9%
2%
15%
63%
84%
50%
33%
12%
48%
The quality of schools in the
Folsom-Cordova Unified School
District overall
The quality of schools in Folsom
The quality of schools in Rancho
Cordova
Excellent Good (Don't know) Only fair Poor
School Quality Ratings
Q26-28. As you may know, you live in the Folsom Cordova Unified School District.

Whether you have children in school or not, please rate each of the following.

These residents rate the quality of schools in Folsom more positively than schools in Rancho Cordova or the District overall.

Total
Positive
Total
Negative
ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 64 of 536 ends

25-9682 Rancho Cordova | 17
The quality of
schools in Folsom
The quality of
schools in Rancho
Cordova
40%
31%
7%
7%
55%
50%
38%
44%
1%
4%
3%
3%
12%
33%
33%
2%
3%
22%
13%
95%
81%
45%
51%
4%
15%
55%
46%
FCUSD Parent
(22%)
Not FCUSD
Parent (78%)
FCUSD Parent
(22%)
Not FCUSD
Parent (78%)
Excellent Good (Don't know) Only fair Poor
School Quality Ratings by FCUSD Parents
Q27/28. As you may know, you live in the Folsom Cordova Unified School District. Whether you have children in school or not, please rate each of the following. Among FCUSD parents; n=89, MOE = ±10.39 % pts Views about the quality of schools in each area are even more polarized among those who are parents in the Rancho Cordova and western parts of the District.

Total
Positive
Total
Negative
ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 65 of 536 ends

25-9682 Rancho Cordova | 18
School Descriptor Comparison
Q30-34. How well do you think each of the following phrases describes schools in Folsom? Q35-39. How well do you think each of the following phrases describes schools in Rancho Cordova?

4.1 4.1

4.0 4.0

3.8 2.9

3.1 2.9

3.1 3.1
1 2 3 4 5
have high quality school facilities and
grounds
have good sports programs
have high quality academics
offer a variety of courses and programs
have high quality teachers and staff
Folsom Schools
Rancho Cordova Schools
There is a significant gap in average ratings for each city’s schools. Folsom schools are rated higher on all descriptors.

Mean (1-5 Scale) Describes very wellDoes not describe at all ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 66 of 536 ends

25-9682 Rancho Cordova | 19
School Descriptor Comparison among FCUSD Parents
Q30-34. How well do you think each of the following phrases describes schools in Folsom? Q35-39. How well do you think each of the following phrases describes schools in Rancho Cordova?

4.4 4.3

4.1 4.1

4.0 2.5

2.8 2.7

2.9 3.0
1 2 3 4 5
have high quality school facilities and
grounds
have good sports programs
have high quality academics
offer a variety of courses and programs
have high quality teachers and staff
Folsom Schools
Rancho Cordova Schools
The difference in mean ratings is even more stark amongst current FCUSD parents.

Mean (1-5 Scale) Describes very wellDoes not describe at all ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 67 of 536 ends

Potential District Division
ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 68 of 536 ends

25-9682 Rancho Cordova | 21
District Division Support Initial Ask
Residents are split on the idea of dividing the district initially, though there is higher intensity on the opposition side.

Q40.

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 69 of 536 ends

25-9682 Rancho Cordova | 22
41%
42%
39%
42%
44%
37%
43%
40%
42%
39%
45%
39%
42%
41%
18%
18%
17%
19%
12%
26%
17%
17%
18%
18%
11%
22%
16%
18%
41%
41%
43%
39%
44%
37%
40%
43%
40%
43%
44%
39%
41%
41%
21%
22%
20%
23%
24%
17%
21%
22%
22%
19%
27%
18%
27%
20%
28%
28%
29%
27%
27%
30%
29%
28%
30%
26%
34%
25%
32%
27%
Overall
Rancho Cordova (90%)
Men (49%)
Women (51%)
18-49 (59%)
50+ (41%)
White (51%)
BIPOC (40%)
Homeowner (61%)
Non-Homeowner (39%)
Children <19 At Home (37%)
No Children <19 At Home (63%)
FCUSD Parent (22%)
Not FCUSD Parent (78%)
Total Support Don't know/(Refused) Total Oppose
District Division Initial Ask by Subgroups
Q40. Would you support or oppose dividing the Folsom Cordova Unified School District into two different school districts, one that serves families in Folsom, and the other that serves families in Rancho Cordova, Mather, and other western parts of the current district? Across subgroups, residents are split on the idea of dividing the district. About a fifth are not sure.

Strongly
Support
Strongly
Oppose
ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 70 of 536 ends

25-9682 Rancho Cordova | 23
41%
41%
41%
43%
39%
18%
20%
15%
20%
15%
41%
39%
44%
37%
46%
21%
21%
23%
19%
23%
28%
29%
27%
25%
32%
Overall
Rate overall quality of district
schools positively (63%)
Rate overall quality of district
schools negatively (33%)
Rate quality of Rancho Cordova
schools positively (50%)
Rate quality of Rancho Cordova
schools negatively (48%)
Total Support Don't know/(Refused) Total Oppose
District Division Initial Ask by Subgroups
Q40. Would you support or oppose dividing the Folsom Cordova Unified School District into two different school districts, one that serves families in Folsom, and the other that serves families in Rancho Cordova, Mather, and other western parts of the current district? Residents who negatively rate Rancho Cordova schools are more likely to oppose the division – suggesting they may not see dividing the district as a solution to existing issues.

Strongly
Support
Strongly
Oppose
ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 71 of 536 ends

25-9682 Rancho Cordova | 24
24%
33%
33%
27%
2%
2%
23%
13%
17%
25%
58%
60%
41%
39%
Overall
FCUSD
Parent (22%)
Strongly
agree
Somewhat
agree
(Don't
know)
Somewhat
disagree
Strongly
disagree
Smaller District Belief
Q42. Please indicate whether you agree or disagree with the following statements.

About 6-in-10 overall and among district parents agree that a smaller district would better meet the needs of students, but current parents are more likely to strongly agree.

Total
Agree
Total
Disagree
A smaller school
district would better
meet the needs of
students in my
community
ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 72 of 536 ends

25-9682 Rancho Cordova | 25
7%
8%
29%
18%
3% 30%
25%
31%
49%
36%
26%
61%
74%
Overall
FCUSD
Parent (22%)
Strongly
agree
Somewhat
agree
(Don't
know)
Somewhat
disagree
Strongly
disagree
Fair Resource Allocation Belief
Q41. Please indicate whether you agree or disagree with the following statements.

Most disagree that resources and funding are allocated fairly between schools; half of parents in this area strongly disagree.

Total
Agree
Total
Disagree
Resources and
funding are allocated
fairly between
schools in Rancho
Cordova and Folsom
ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 73 of 536 ends

25-9682 Rancho Cordova | 26
41%
38%
43%
62%
12%
18%
19%
16%
20%
14%
41%
43%
41%
18%
74%
21%
16%
25%
32%
6%
28%
26%
30%
9%
56%
Overall
Agree: Fair resource allocation
(36%)
Disagree: Fair resource allocation
(61%)
Agree: Smaller school district better
(58%)
Disagree: Smaller school district
better (41%)
Total Support Don't know/(Refused) Total Oppose
District Division Initial Ask by Beliefs
Q40. Would you support or oppose dividing the Folsom Cordova Unified School District into two different school districts, one that serves families in Folsom, and the other that serves families in Rancho Cordova, Mather, and other western parts of the current district? Most who agree that a smaller school district would be better for students support dividing the district. Support is similar regardless of whether residents believe resources are fairly allocated, though intensity is stronger among those who disagree.

Strongly
Support
Strongly
Oppose
ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 74 of 536 ends

25-9682 Rancho Cordova | 27
[LOCAL LEADERSHIP] Kids in Rancho Cordova deserve to have the same quality school facilities and academics as kids in Folsom. An independent district would ensure Rancho Cordova area students are served by local leadership who can focus on our schools’ needs and who will be accountable only to our community.
[NEW RESOURCES] The new Rancho Cordova and Mather district would qualify Rancho Cordova schools for millions more in state funding. [LOCAL FUNDING] Establishing an independent school district would ensure all funding intended for Rancho Cordova area schools benefits local students, rather than getting unfairly distributed to schools in Folsom. [COMMUNITY BENEFIT] Whether you have kids in school or not, better schools increase property values and strengthen the local economy, and an independent district in Rancho Cordova and Mather will better meet community needs and prepare students for our local workforce. [MORE RESPONSIVE STAFF AND PROGRAMS] Creating two independent school districts would allow local schools to tailor their educational and extracurricular programs and have more high-quality, culturally responsive teachers, coaches, and mentors who understand the unique needs and interests of Rancho Cordova area students.

Very, 43%
39%
39%
30%
25%
Somewhat, 32%
33%
31%
36%
38%
75% Convincing
72%
70%
67%
63%
Support District Division Statements
Q43-47. Next you will read statements from people who support dividing the Folsom Cordova Unified School District into two different districts. After each one, please indicate how convincing that statement is as a reason to support dividing the school district.

Over a third of residents find the local leadership, new resources, and local funding arguments very convincing.

ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 75 of 536 ends

25-9682 Rancho Cordova | 28
[LOCAL LEADERSHIP] Kids in Rancho Cordova deserve to have the same quality school facilities and academics as kids in Folsom. An independent district would ensure Rancho Cordova area students are served by local leadership who can focus on our schools’ needs and who will be accountable only to our community.
[NEW RESOURCES] The new Rancho Cordova and Mather district would qualify Rancho Cordova schools for millions more in state funding. [LOCAL FUNDING] Establishing an independent school district would ensure all funding intended for Rancho Cordova area schools benefits local students, rather than getting unfairly distributed to schools in Folsom. [COMMUNITY BENEFIT] Whether you have kids in school or not, better schools increase property values and strengthen the local economy, and an independent district in Rancho Cordova and Mather will better meet community needs and prepare students for our local workforce. [MORE RESPONSIVE STAFF AND PROGRAMS] Creating two independent school districts would allow local schools to tailor their educational and extracurricular programs and have more high-quality, culturally responsive teachers, coaches, and mentors who understand the unique needs and interests of Rancho Cordova area students.

Very, 45%
33%
47%
30%
29%
Somewhat, 24%
33%
18%
34%
29%
70% Convincing
66%
65%
64%
58%
Support Statements among FCUSD Parents
Q43-47. Next you will read statements from people who support dividing the Folsom Cordova Unified School District into two different districts. After each one, please indicate how convincing that statement is as a reason to support dividing the school district.

Current FCUSD parents are more likely to find the local funding statement very convincing compared to the overall.

ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 76 of 536 ends

25-9682 Rancho Cordova | 29
Strongly
21%
Strongly
28%
Strongly
35% Strongly
19%
Somewhat
20%
Somewhat
13%
Somewhat
34%
Somewhat
12%
Support
41%
Oppose
41%
Don't know/
(Refused)
18%
Support
68%
Oppose
31%
(Don't know/
Refused)
1%
District Division Ask After Support
After statements describing benefits, two-thirds of residents support the proposed division.

Q40/Q48
Given what you have read, would you support or oppose dividing the Folsom Cordova Unified School District into two different school districts, one that serves families in Folsom, and the other that serves families in Rancho Cordova, Mather, and other western parts of the current district? Initial After Support Statements
ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 77 of 536 ends

25-9682 Rancho Cordova | 30
[REDUCES CHOICE] Dividing the existing school district would make it much harder for Rancho Cordova-area parents to send their children to Folsom schools. That means kids in our community wouldn’t have the option to participate in advanced college-preparatory courses, athletics, and other programs that are currently only available in Folsom schools. [STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES] If the school district is divided, the new Rancho Cordova-area district wouldn’t be able to maintain the same level of service for students with disabilities that the combined district is able to offer. [LESS RESOURCES] Our students benefit from being part of a bigger district with more resources and programs. Dividing the district will result in worse, even more under-resourced schools, which is bad for our children and for our community. [DISTRICT TRANSITION] Setting up a new district is a complicated process that takes time to do properly and will require hiring new administrators, duplicating roles in our small region. Our students will suffer during the uncertainty of this transition and there’s no guarantee that we’ll get better schools as a result.

Very, 36%
26%
30%
27%
Somewhat, 31%
39%
34%
33%
67% Convincing
65%
64%
60%
Oppose District Division Statements
Q49-52. Next you will read statements from people who oppose dividing the Folsom Cordova Unified School District into two different districts. After each one, please indicate how convincing that statement is as a reason to oppose dividing the school district.

All negative statements are convincing to at least 60% of residents. Over a third say the “reduces choice” statement is very convincing.

ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 78 of 536 ends

25-9682 Rancho Cordova | 31
[REDUCES CHOICE] Dividing the existing school district would make it much harder for Rancho Cordova-area parents to send their children to Folsom schools. That means kids in our community wouldn’t have the option to participate in advanced college-preparatory courses, athletics, and other programs that are currently only available in Folsom schools. [STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES] If the school district is divided, the new Rancho Cordova-area district wouldn’t be able to maintain the same level of service for students with disabilities that the combined district is able to offer. [LESS RESOURCES] Our students benefit from being part of a bigger district with more resources and programs. Dividing the district will result in worse, even more under-resourced schools, which is bad for our children and for our community. [DISTRICT TRANSITION] Setting up a new district is a complicated process that takes time to do properly and will require hiring new administrators, duplicating roles in our small region. Our students will suffer during the uncertainty of this transition and there’s no guarantee that we’ll get better schools as a result.

Very, 46%
31%
39%
33%
Somewhat, 20%
35%
29%
27%
67% Convincing
66%
68%
60%
Opposition Statements among FCUSD Parents
Q49-52. Next you will read statements from people who oppose dividing the Folsom Cordova Unified School District into two different districts. After each one, please indicate how convincing that statement is as a reason to oppose dividing the school district.

Nearly half of parents say the “reduces choice” opposition statement is very convincing.

ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 79 of 536 ends

25-9682 Rancho Cordova | 32
Strongly
21%
Strongly
28%
Strongly
35% Strongly
19%
Strongly
24%
Strongly
25%
Somewhat
20%
Somewhat
13%
Somewhat
34%
Somewhat
12%
Somewhat
28%
Somewhat
23%
Support
41%
Oppose
41%
Don't know/
(Refused)
18%
Support
68%
Oppose
31%
(Don't
know)
1%
Support
52% Oppose
47%
(Don't
know)
1%
Final District Division Ask
On the final ask, sentiment returns to being divided, with about half of residents supporting the proposed division and half opposing.

Q40/Q48/Q53.

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 80 of 536 ends

25-9682 Rancho Cordova | 33
Strongly
27%
Strongly
32%
Strongly
36% Strongly
28%
Strongly
26%
Strongly
36%
Somewhat
16%
Somewhat
9%
Somewhat
26%
Somewhat
9%
Somewhat
21%
Somewhat
17%
Support
42%
Oppose
41%
Don't know/
(Refused)
16%
Support
63%
Oppose
37%
(Don't
know)
0%
Support
47%
Oppose
53%
(Don't
know)
0%
Support Progression among FCUSD Parents
FCUSD parents hold more intense opinions throughout the progression, particularly among those who oppose the division.

Q40/Q48/Q53.

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 81 of 536 ends

25-9682 Rancho Cordova | 34
18%
58%
9%
11%
5%
9%
Hispanic/Latino
White
Black/African American
Asian/Pacific Islander
Another race or ethnicity
Prefer not to respond
Respondent Profile
Gender
19% 21% 19% 22% 19%
18-29 30-39 40-49 50-64 65+
Age
Ethnicity
<4-year
degree
55%
4-year
degree+
45%
Education
Men
49%
Women
51%
ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 82 of 536 ends

25-9682 Rancho Cordova | 35
90%
6%4%
Rancho CordovaMatherLa Riviera Area
Respondent Household Profile
Homeowner
61%
Non-
Homeowner
39%
Homeowner
Employment
Parent/
Guardian
Region (within FCUSD)
No
children
<19
60%
PNR
3%
FCUSD
parent
22%
Not FCUSD
parent
14%
Parent of
child <19
37%
55%
8%
4%
21%
3%
4%
5%
Employed full time
Employed part time
Unemployed
Retired
Student
Homemaker
(Other)/PNR
ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 83 of 536 ends

Jessica Polsky-Sanchez
510.550.8933
[email protected]
Sianna Ziegler
206.204.8045
[email protected]
Emerson Rogers
[email protected]
ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 84 of 536 ends

ITEM 13.1. ATTACHMENT 1

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, September 15, 2025

5:30 PM PST – Regular Meeting
David B. Roberts Council Chambers

City Hall
2729 Prospect Park Drive, Rancho Cordova, CA

DRAFT MINUTES

1. REGULAR MEETING - CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL

Vice Mayor Gatewood called the Regular meeting to order in the David B. Roberts Council Chambers at 5:30 p.m.

Council Members Present: Linda Budge, Joe Little, and Vice Mayor Garrett Gatewood

Council Members Absent: David Sander and Siri Pulipati

Staff Members Present: Stacy Leitner, Adam Lindgren, 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

Richard Montgomery led the pledge.

4. INVOCATION

Daniel DeRosa from Church in Rancho Cordova gave the invocation.

5. PRESENTATIONS

5.1. Presentation of Proclamation in Recognition of Prostate Cancer Awareness Month.

5.2. Historic Presentation by the Lerch/Lauridson Family.

6. PUBLIC COMMENT

Vice Mayor Gatewood opened the public comment period. The following individuals

Page 85 of 536 ends

ITEM 13.1. ATTACHMENT 1 Rancho Cordova City Council - DRAFT MINUTES
Meeting of Monday, September 15, 2025

Page 2 of 4 ends

addressed the Council or submitted public comment via email:

1. Helen Whelan-Bashaw

Vice Mayor Gatewood 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

ACTION: Motion to approve items 9.1 through 9.3 with amendments to the September 2, 2025, meeting minutes by Little second by Budge; Motion passed with a 3:0 vote.

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

9.1. Subject: Meeting Minutes from the Special City Council Meeting on August 26, 2025, and the Regular City Council Meeting of September 2, 2025.

Recommendation: Adopt the minutes.

9.2. Subject: Second Reading of an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cordova, State of California, Amending Title 23, Article 9 Specific Use Provisions of the City of Rancho Cordova Municipal Code.

Recommendation: Waive the second reading and adopt the Ordinance.

9.3. Subject: A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Contract No. 2025-199 in an Amount not to Exceed $284,045.00 with Lister Construction, Inc. to Construct the ADA Sidewalk Improvements Project at Various Locations in the City.

Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution.

10. CONSENT PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS - ROLL CALL VOTE

None.

11. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS

None.

12. REGULAR CALENDAR ITEMS

12.1. Subject: Sifi Update on Citywide High Speed Internet Project in Rancho Cordova.

Recommendation: Receive presentation from Sifi.

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

ACTION: Input was received regarding the Sifi Update on Citywide High Speed Internet Project in Rancho Cordova.

12.2. Subject: Sacramento Regional Transit Update on Horn Road Light Rail Station — Funding and Design Options.

Recommendation: Receive information from Sacramento Regional Transit staff and

Page 86 of 536 ends

ITEM 13.1. ATTACHMENT 1 Rancho Cordova City Council - DRAFT MINUTES
Meeting of Monday, September 15, 2025

Page 3 of 4 ends

provide direction on preferred design alternative.

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

ACTION: Input was received regarding the Sacramento Regional Transit Update on the Horn Road Light Rail Station - Funding and Design Options.

12.3. Subject: Measure R and Measure H Community Enhancement & Investment Fund Citizen Oversight Board Appointments.

Recommendation: Discuss and select, by a majority vote of the full City Council, an appointment to fill a vacancy on the Citizen Oversight Board as well as the appointments of one-year term/at-large student appointees representing Folsom Cordova Unified School District and the Folsom Lake College - Rancho Cordova Promise Program.

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

ACTION: Motion to appoint Philip Thai to fill a vacancy on the Community Enhancement & Investment Fund Citizen Oversight Board by Gatewood second by Budge;
Motion passed with a 3:0 vote.

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

ACTION: Motion to appoint Vanshit Thakkar and Jonathan Estrada as Student At- Large Members to the Community Enhancement & Investment Fund Citizen Oversight Board by Gatewood second by Budge;
Motion passed with a 3:0 vote.

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

13. COUNCIL REQUESTS FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS

None.

14. ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION

Vice Mayor Gatewood adjourned the meeting to closed session at 6:39 p.m.

15. CLOSED SESSION - CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL

Vice Mayor Gatewood called closed session to order at 6:40 p.m.

Council Members Present: Linda Budge, Joe Litte, and Vice Mayor Garrett Gatewood

Council Members Absent: David Sander and Siri Pulipati

Staff Members Present: Adam Lindgren and Micah Runner

16. CLOSED SESSION

Council met in closed session to discuss the following item:

Page 87 of 536 ends

ITEM 13.1. ATTACHMENT 1 Rancho Cordova City Council - DRAFT MINUTES
Meeting of Monday, September 15, 2025

Page 4 of 4 ends

16.1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING LITIGATION (pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1)). Peter A. Demetroulas and Julie Demetroulas, as Trustees of the Demetroulas Family Trust Dated September 6, 1995 v.

City of Rancho Cordova, Sacramento County Superior Court Case Number 24CV009544.

17. OPEN SESSION - REPORT FROM CLOSED SESSIONS

City Attorney Adam Lindgren reported that on September 2, 2025 Council met in closed session regarding the following: CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(4) (one case): Potential Litigation Related to National Opioid Cases and Settlement (In re:

National Prescription Opiate Litigation, U.S.D.C., Northern District of Ohio, MDL No. 2804, Case No. 17-MD-2804) and CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(4) (one case): Potential Litigation Related to National Opioid Cases and Settlement (In re:

Purdue Pharma L.P., et al, United States Bankruptcy Court., Southern District of New York, Case No. 19-23649), the City Council provided authorization for the City to enter into settlement agreements for both of those cases.

City Attorney Adam Lindgren reported that for the September 15, 2025 closed session Council took up one case and authorized the city to settle litigation in the amount of $40,000.

18. ADJOURNMENT

Vice Mayor Gatewood adjourned the meeting at 6:52 p.m.

__________________
Stacy Leitner, CMC
City Clerk

Page 88 of 536 ends

ITEM 13.1. ATTACHMENT 2

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Tuesday, September 23, 2025

5:30 PM — Special Meeting
David B. Roberts Council Chambers

City Hall
2729 Prospect Park Drive, Rancho Cordova

DRAFT MINUTES

1. 4:00 PM SPECIAL MEETING - CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL

Vice Mayor Gatewood called the Special meeting to order in the David B. Roberts Council Chambers at 4:12 p.m.

Council Members Present: Linda Budge, Joe Little, David Sander, and Vice Mayor Garrett Gatewood

Council Members Absent: Siri Pulipati

Staff Members Present: Stacy Leitner, Adam Lindgren, Persephonie Riley, and Micah Runner

2. PUBLIC COMMENT

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

3. ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION

Vice Mayor Gatewood adjourned the meeting to closed session at 4:14 p.m.

4. CLOSED SESSION - CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL

Vice Mayor Gatewood called closed session to order at 4:14 p.m.

Council Members Present: Linda Budge, Joe Little, David Sander, and Vice Mayor Garrett Gatewood

Council Members Absent: Siri Pulipati

Page 89 of 536 ends

ITEM 13.2. ATTACHMENT 2 Rancho Cordova City Council - DRAFT MINUTES
Meeting of Tuesday, September 23, 2025

Page 2 of 4 ends

Staff Members Present: Adam Lindgren and Micah Runner

5. CLOSED SESSION

Council met in closed session to discuss the following item:

5.1. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS: Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8: Property: 2875 Kilgore Road, Rancho Cordova APN: 072-0490- 024-0000. City Negotiators: Micah Runner, City Manager, and Adam U. Lindgren, City Attorney. Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment.

6. OPEN SESSION - REPORT FROM CLOSED SESSION

City Attorney Adam Lindgren reported that staff was given direction and no reportable action was taken in closed session.

7. ADJOURN TO SPECIAL MEETING

Mayor Pulipati adjourned closed session to the special meeting reconvening at 5:30 p.m. at 5:34 p.m.

8. SPECIAL MEETING - CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL

Mayor Pulipati called the Special meeting back to order in the David B. Roberts Council Chambers at 5:34 p.m.

Council Members Present: Linda Budge, Garrett Gatewood, Joe Little, David Sander, and Mayor Siri Pulipati

Council Members Absent: None

Staff Members Present: Stacy Leitner, Adam Lindgren, Persephonie Riley, and Micah Runner

9. PUBLIC COMMENT

Mayor Pulipati stated that public comment would be taken once Council has heard from staff regarding the items on the agenda.

10. 5:30 PM OR SOON THEREAFTER - SPECIAL MEETING ITEM

10.1. Subject: AI & Robotics Ecosystem Authorization to Enter into a Professional Services Agreement with Human Machine Collaboration Institute (HMCI), Budget Appropriation of $5 Million, and Enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with NVIDIA and HMCI.

Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution authorizing the City Manager, or designee, to execute a Professional Services Agreement with HMCI, subject to approval as to form by the City Attorney, including final scope of work as deemed consistent with the Resolution by the Advisory Group, timelines, governance, and payment schedule, and compliant with all applicable provisions of state and local law; and approve budget appropriation for an amount not to exceed $5,000,000 to fund activities in support of the AI & Robotics Ecosystem; and authorize the City Manager to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with NVIDIA Corporation and HMCI to operationalize NVIDIA’s platforms, curriculum, and certification pathways at the regional level.

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

1. Erik Swanson

2. Diann Rogers

Page 90 of 536 ends

ITEM 13.2. ATTACHMENT 2 Rancho Cordova City Council - DRAFT MINUTES
Meeting of Tuesday, September 23, 2025

Page 3 of 4 ends

3. Tiffani Alvidrez

4. Adonai Mack

5. Daniel Francisco

6. James Garcia

7. Hemant Bhargava

8. Josh Hoover

9. Jonmichael Hands

10. Dr. Art Pimentel

11. Adonai Mack

12. Donald Childs

Mayor Pulipati closed the public comment period.

ACTION: Motion to approve item 10.1. by Gatewood second by Budge; Motion passed with a 4:1 vote.

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

BREAK 6:23 PM - 6:31 PM

11. 6:30 PM OR SOON THEREAFTER - SPECIAL MEETING ITEM

11.1. Subject: Economic Development and Participation Agreement: 2875 Kilgore Road and Parcels: 072-0490-024-0000, 072-0223-004-0000, 072-0223-001-0000, 072-0223-003- 0000, 072-0223-002-0000, 058-0530-001-0000, 058-0530-002-0000, and 072-0490- 004-0000, and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Exemptions.

Recommendation: Review, discuss and adopt the Resolution approving the Economic Development and Participation Agreement (EDPA) and approve the CEQA exemptions.

The EDPA is exempted from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Guideline section 15004 (b)(4) as the EDPA is for financing only. The EDPA is also consistent with the provisions of CEQA Guidelines section 15183.

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

1. Dan Branton

2. Allyn Green

3. Diann Rogers

4. Sara Malone

5. James Garcia

6. Helen Whelan-Bashaw

7. Jaime Torres

8. Keith Tozer

9. Jenny Hooker

10. Dr. Parnell Lovelace

11. Mitchell Bechtel

12. Noah Painter

13. Corey Brandt

14. Caleb Kwong

15. DeJohn Jones

16. Valerie Knippschild

Page 91 of 536 ends

ITEM 13.2. ATTACHMENT 2 Rancho Cordova City Council - DRAFT MINUTES
Meeting of Tuesday, September 23, 2025

Page 4 of 4 ends

17. Lupe Hernandez

18. Leoni Fabiani

19. Marilyn Metzger

20. Jonathan Armstrong

21. Brandon Collins

22. Ron Trengove

23. Krystallynn Ortega

24. Sara Malone, Marilyn Metzger, and Ane Deister

25. Josh Hoover

26. Robert Butler

27. Kat Natsuko

28. Eva Yoon

29. Jordan Strutsman

30. Sandeep Pannu

31. Donald Childs

32. Warren Smith

Mayor Pulipati closed the public comment period.

ACTION: Motion to approve item 11.1. by Budge second by Sander; Motion passed with a 5:0 vote.

12. ADJOURNMENT

Mayor Pulipati adjourned the meeting at 8:06 p.m.

_____________________
Stacy Leitner, CMC
City Clerk

Page 92 of 536 ends

MEMORANDUM

City Council Staff Report - Page 1 of 2

ITEM 13.2.

DATE: October 6, 2025

TO: Honorable Mayor and Council Members

FROM:

Albert Stricker, Public Works Director
Edgar Medina, Assistant Public Works Director
Kevin Velazquez, Assistant Civil Engineer

SUBJECT: A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO. 2025-83-1 WITH BENNETT
ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC. TO INCREASE THE CONTRACT
AMOUNT FROM $132,324.00 TO AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED
$164,244.00 FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES ON

THE HIGHWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (HSIP) CYCLE
12 TRAFFIC SIGNALS ENHANCEMENTS PROJECT

RECOMMENDATION

Adopt the Resolution.

RESULT OF RECOMMENDED ACTION

Adoption of the Resolution would provide various benefits to our community, specifically in road safety and visibility. Upgrading traffic signal heads will significantly improve the visibility of signals at intersections, which contributes to improved safety for all road users. Improved signal visibility helps in reducing accidents and contributes to safer streets overall.

BACKGROUND

The City of Rancho Cordova received a State Highway Safety Improvement Project (HSIP) Cycle 12 grant in 2025 for the amount of $975,690 for the Traffic Signal Enhancements Project.

This project includes upgrading vehicle signal lenses and adding retroreflective backplates to vehicle signal heads throughout the city to improve visibility and intersection safety.

The city selected Bennett Engineering Services, Inc., from its on-call list for professional design and engineering services through the completion of the project. Bennett Engineering has successfully supported the city in designing and constructing prior HSIP Cycle 9, 10 and 11 projects.

On July 7, 2025, City Council approved Contract No. 2025-83 for the design phase. As the design advanced, the project team identified additional intersection locations to include in the project. This contract amendment would cover the design services for the additional intersections. The additional scope of work for this amendment is covered within the original project budget and does not require additional funds. See attached map for current locations

Page 93 of 536 ends

City Council Staff Report - Page 2 of 2

and proposed contract locations.

The project timeline remains the same, with design having begun in summer 2025 and construction in fall/winter 2025.

FISCAL IMPACT AND FUNDING SOURCE

This project is included in the Capital Improvement Plan budget for Fiscal Years 2025-26 and 2026-27. The Project budget consists of funding from HSIP Grant Program and Infrastructure Replacement Fund. There is no impact on the city's General Fund.

ATTACHMENT(S)

1. Resolution

2. Contract Amendment No. 2025-83-1

3. Project Area Map

Page 94 of 536 ends

ITEM 13.2. ATTACHMENT 1

Resolution No. XX-2025 Page 1 of 2

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

RESOLUTION NO. XX-2025

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

OF CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO. 2025-83-1 WITH BENNETT ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC., TO INCREASE THE CONTRACT AMOUNT FROM $132,324.00 TO AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $164,244.00 FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES ON THE HSIP CYCLE 12 TRAFFIC SIGNALS ENHANCEMENTS PROJECT

WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Cordova received Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funds in the amount of $975,690 to construct the Traffic Signals Enhancements Project (Project); and

WHEREAS, staff selected Bennett Engineering Services, Inc. from a qualified on-call list as the professional engineering consultant to develop the final designs for the project; and

WHEREAS, on July 2025, Council approved Contract No. 2025-83 with Bennett Engineering Services, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $132,324.00 for professional services; and

WHEREAS, staff identified additional signal heads that would benefit from this phase of improvements; and

WHEREAS, Contract Amendment No. 2025-83-1 with Bennett Engineering Services, Inc. will increase the contract amount from $132,324.00 to an amount not to exceed $164,244.00 for professional services.

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. 2025-83-1 with Bennett Engineering Services, Inc. to increase the contract amount from $132,324.00 to an amount not to exceed $164,244.00 for professional engineering services on the HSIP Cycle 12 Traffic Signals Enhancements Project in a form approved by the City Attorney.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cordova on the 6th day of October 2025 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Page 95 of 536 ends

ITEM 13.2. ATTACHMENT 1

Resolution No. XX-2025 Page 2 of 2

ATTEST:

Siri Pulipati, Mayor

Stacy Leitner, CMC
City Clerk

Page 96 of 536 ends

CONTRACT NO. 2025-83-1
First Amendment to Professional Services Agreement between City of Rancho Cordova and Bennett Engineering Services, Inc. Page 1 of 5 Revised 06/2025

FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN

THE CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA AND BENNET ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC This First Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement ( “Amendment”) is made by and between the City of Rancho Cordova (“City”) and Bennet En gineering Services, Inc. (“Professional”) as of October 6, 2025. City and Professional are hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Parties.”

RECITALS
WHEREAS, on July 7, 2025, City Council approved and entered into a Professional Services Agreement (“PSA”) for Profession al Engineering Services on the HSIP Cycle 12 Traffic Signals Enhancements Project ; and
WHEREAS, the City of R ancho Cordova received Highway S afety Improvement Program (HSIP) funds in the amount of $975,690 to construct the Traffic Signals Enhancements Project (Project); and WHEREAS, staf f select ed Bennett E ngineering Services, I nc. from a qual ified on- call list a s t he professional engineering consultant to develop the final designs for the project; and WHEREAS, this Contract Amendment 2025-83-1 will increase the contract amount by $31,920.00 to a not-to-exceed contract amount of $164,244.00; and
WHEREAS, this Contract Amendment 2025-83-1 is associated with 1) Additional signals that require enhancements; and 2) Final adjustments in fee estimate hours; and NOW
, THEREFORE, the Parties hereto agree as follows:

AGREEM
ENT

1. The Par
ties agree to amend Section 2 of the Agreement, “Compensation,” provides for the City to pay Professional a sum not to exceed One hundred sixty-four thousand two hundred forty-four dollars: ($164,244.00). The Parties agree to amend Section 2 of the Agreement in order to increase the compensation amount to pay Professional for additional services. The first sentence of Section 2 of the Agreement is amended to read as follows:
"Ci
ty hereby agrees to pay Professional a sum not to exceed One hundred sixty-four thousand two hundred forty-four dollars ($164,244.00), notwithstanding any contrary indication that may be contained in Professional’s proposal, for services to be performed and reimbursable costs incurred under this Agreement.”

2. The docum
ent entitled “Scope of Services,” attached hereto as Exhibit C, shall add to the Agreement's Exhibit A.

3. The docum
ent entitled “Compensation Schedule,” attached hereto as Exhibit D, shall add to the Agreement's Exhibit B.

ITEM 13.2.

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 97 of 536 ends

CONTRACT NO. 2025-83-1

First Amendment to Professional Services Agreement between City of Rancho Cordova and Bennett Engineering Services, Inc. Page 2 of 5 Revised 06/2025

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

5. The signatures of the Parties to this Amendment may be executed and acknowledged on separate pages or in counterparts which, when attached to this Amendment, shall constitute one complete Amendment.

ITEM 13.2.

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 98 of 536 ends

CONTRACT NO. 2025-83-1

First Amendment to Professional Services Agreement between City of Rancho Cordova and Bennett Engineering Services, Inc. Page 3 of 5 Revised 06/2025

IN WITNESS WHEREOF , the parties have executed this A mendment as of the day and year first above written.

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA PROFESSIONAL

______________________________ ______________________________ Micah Runner, City Manager

Date:__________________ Date:__________________

Attest:

______________________________
Stacy Leitner, CMC, City Clerk

Date:__________________

Approved as to Form:

______________________________
Adam U. Lindgren, City Attorney

Date:_________________

ITEM 13.2.

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 99 of 536 ends

CONTRACT NO. 2025-83-1

First Amendment to Professional Services Agreement between City of Rancho Cordova and Bennett Engineering Services, Inc. Page 4 of 5 Revised 06/2025

EXHIBIT A
ITEM 13.2.

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 100 of 536 ends

CONTRACT NO. 2025-83-1

First Amendment to Professional Services Agreement between City of Rancho Cordova and Bennett Engineering Services, Inc. Page 5 of 5 Revised 06/2025

EXHIBIT B

ITEM 13.2.

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 101 of 536 ends

LEGEND
Currently Scoped Signals
Proposed Scope Signals
ITEM 13.2.

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 102 of 536 ends

MEMORANDUM

City Council Staff Report - Page 1 of 2

ITEM 13.3.

DATE: October 6, 2025

TO: Honorable Mayor and Council Members

FROM: Albert Stricker, Public Works Director
Kristine Courdy, Senior Civil Engineer

SUBJECT: A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO. 2024-39-1 WITH TETRA TECH, INC.

TO EXTEND THE CONTRACT TERM AND INCREASE THE
CONTRACT AMOUNT FROM $738,900.68 TO AN AMOUNT NOT TO
EXCEED $1,104,041.33 FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING

SERVICES FOR THE SOIL REMEDIATION PROJECT
CONSTRUCTION AT 10153-10179 FOLSOM BOULEVARD

RECOMMENDATION

Adopt the Resolution.

RESULT OF RECOMMENDED ACTION

Adoption of the Resolution would authorize the City Manager to execute Professional Services Contract Amendment No. 2024-39-1 with Tetra Tech, Inc. which would allow the City to implement the RWQCB approved site cleanup plan for the site at 10153-10179 Folsom Boulevard.

BACKGROUND

The City of Rancho Cordova received a $3.1M Equitable Community Revitalization Grant (ECRG) from the State of California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) to perform site cleanup and soil remediation at 10153 - 10179 Folsom Boulevard (the Mills Crossing Site). The site cleanup plan was approved by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and utilized to prepare and successfully receive the DTSC grant funding. The Project requires oversight from an Environmental Engineering team to ensure compliance with the RWQCB approved site cleanup plan.

On April 2, 2024, City Council approved Contract No. 2024-39 with Tetra Tech Inc. to provide environmental engineering services for the soil remediation construction Project at 10153- 10179 Folsom Boulevard. In accordance with the approved site cleanup plan the grading project was done, the soil vapor extraction equipment ran for three months and the initial round of testing was completed.

The city met with the RWQCB to go over the testing results and the next steps towards closing out the Project site. Based on the initial results, the Soil Vapor Extraction equipment needs to

Page 103 of 536 ends

City Council Staff Report - Page 2 of 2

run for another three months and additional testing needs to be performed which will require new testing wells to be installed. Amending the contract term and additional funding is required to deliver these additional services. Contract Amendment No. 2024-39-1 would add $365,140.65 in funds to provide the additional environmental engineering for the soil remediation project.

Tetra Tech was selected as part of a competitive procurement process. To maintain consistency with completing the soil remediation project, city staff recommends authorizing Amendment 1 with Tetra Tech, Inc.

FISCAL IMPACT AND FUNDING SOURCE

These services are funded from the awarded $3.1M ECRG grant which is included in the Mills Crossing Capital Improvement Project Budget.

ATTACHMENT(S)

1. Resolution

2. Contract Amendment No. 2024-39-1

Page 104 of 536 ends

ITEM 13.3. ATTACHMENT 1 Resolution No. XX-2025 Page 1 of 1

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

RESOLUTION NO. XX-2025

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

OF CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO. 2024-39-1 WITH TETRA TECH INC., TO EXTEND THE CONTRACT TERM FROM DECEMBER 31, 2025 TO JUNE 30, 2027 AND INCREASE THE CONTRACT AMOUNT FROM $738,900.68 TO AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $1,104,041.33 FOR THE SOIL REMEDIATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT AT 10153-10179 FOLSOM BOULEVARD

WHEREAS, the Parties entered into Professional Services Agreement No. 2024-39, on April 2, 2024, in an amount not to exceed $738,900.68 for the environmental engineering services for the Soil Remediation Project Construction at 10153-10179 Folsom Boulevard; and

WHEREAS, based on the initial results, the Soil Vapor Extraction equipment needs to run for another three months and additional testing needs to be performed; and

WHEREAS, Amendment No. 1 includes additional funding in an amount of $365,140.65 to perform these services for the soil remediation project; and

WHEREAS, Amendment No. 1 includes extending the contract term from December 31, 2025 to June 30, 2027; and

WHEREAS, funding for Amendment No. 1 will consist of the ECRG grant which is included in the Mills Crossing Capital Improvement Project Budget.

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. 2024-39-1 with Tetra Tech, Inc. to extend the contract term from December 31, 2025 to June 30, 2027 and increase the contract amount from $738,900.68 to an amount not to exceed $1,104,041.33 in a form approved by the City Attorney.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cordova on the 6th day of October 2025 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

ATTEST:

Siri Pulipati, Mayor

Stacy Leitner, CMC
City Clerk

Page 105 of 536 ends

CONTRACT NO. 2024-39-1
First Amendment to Professional Services Agreement between City of Rancho Cordova and Tetra Tech, Inc. Page 1 of 3 Revised 06/2025
FI

RST AMENDMENT TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA AND TETRA TECH, INC.

This First Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement (“Amendment”) is made by and between the City of Rancho Cordova (“City”) and Tetra Tech, Inc. (“Professional”) as of October 6, 2025. City and Professional are hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Parties.”

RECITALS
W
HEREAS, the Parties entered into a Professional Services Agreement 2024-39 (“Agreement”) dated April 2, 2024; and
WHEREAS, this Amendment will allow for the soil vapor extraction equipment to be run and additional testing to be performed at 10153-10179 Folsom Boulevard; and WHEREAS, the Parties agree that changes to the term and services provided for in the PSA are necessary in order for the City to continue receiving services by Professional.

NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties hereto agree as follows:

AGREEMENT
1 . The Parties agree to modify the end date of the Agreement from December 31, 2025, to June 30, 2027. The first sentence of Section 1.1 of the Agreement, “Term of Service,” 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, 2027, and Professional shall complete the work described in Exhibit A prior to that date; unless the term of the Agreement is otherwise terminated or extended, as provided in Section 8." 2 . Section 2 of the Agreement, “Compensation,” provides for the City to pay Professional a sum not to exceed seven hundred and thirty-eight thousand nine hundred dollars and sixty-eight cents:
($738,900.68). The Parties agree to amend Section 2 of the Agreement in order to increase the compensation amount to pay Professional for additional services. The first sentence of Section 2 of the Agreement is amended to read as follows:
"City hereby agrees to pay Professional a sum not to exceed one million one hundred and four thousand forty-one dollars and thirty-three cents: ($1,104,041.33), notwithstanding any contrary indication that may be contained in Professional’s proposal, for services to be performed and reimbursable costs incurred under this Agreement.”

3. The Parties agree to modify the scope of services to include the additional tasks outlined in Exhibit C. Section 1 of the PSA “Services” is amended to read as follows:

ITEM 13.3.

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 106 of 536 ends

CONTRACT NO. 2024-39-1

First Amendment to Professional Services Agreement between City of Rancho Cordova and Tetra Tech, Inc. Page 2 of 3 Revised 06/2025

“ Subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the Agreement, Professional shall provide the services described in the Scope of Work attached as Exhibit A and Exhibit C at the time and place and in the manner specified therein. In the event of inconsistency between the terms of this Agreement and Exhibit A or Exhibit C, the Agreement shall prevail.”

4. The attached Exhibit “C” is hereby added to the PSA which provides the additional services and compensation as specified therein.

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

6. The signatures of the Parties to this Amendment may be executed and acknowledged on separate pages or in counterparts which, when attached to this Amendment, shall constitute one complete Amendment.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the day and year first above written.

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA PROFESSIONAL

______________________________ ______________________________ Micah Runner, City Manager Benjamin Weink, Vice President and Department Manager

Date:__________________ Date:__________________

Attest:

______________________________
Stacy Leitner, CMC, City Clerk

Date:__________________

Approved as to Form:

______________________________
Adam U. Lindgren, City Attorney

Date:_________________

ITEM 13.3.

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 107 of 536 ends

CONTRACT NO. 2024-39-1

First Amendment to Professional Services Agreement between City of Rancho Cordova and Tetra Tech, Inc. Page 3 of 3 Revised 06/2025

Exhibit C

Additional Scope of Work and Compensation

ITEM 13.3.

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 108 of 536 ends

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

September 15, 2025

Ms. Kristine Courdy, P.E.

City of Rancho Cordova
Department of Public Works
2729 Prospect Park Drive
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
Re: Contract Amendment Proposal - Environmental Engineering Firm Support of the Soil Remediation & Site Cleanup Plan Implementation at 10153 – 10175 Folsom Boulevard Project Dear Ms. Courdy:

Per the call with the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (the Water Board) on September 9, 2025 and the follow-up discussion with you, Tetra Tech, Inc. (Tetra Tech) prepared this contract amendment proposal for the additional scope we discussed to support the City of Rancho Cordova (the City) for the Soil Remediation & Site Cleanup Plan Implementation at 10153 – 10175 Folsom Boulevard (the Site) Project (the Project). Our existing contract with the City for the Project has a contract number of 2024-39.

This proposal includes seven tasks. These tasks were numbered from Task E to Task K, following our existing Tasks A through D under the current contract.

Scope of Work

Task E – Weekly Site Visit
Tetra Tech has conducted weekly Site visits from June to August 2025, prior to the August 2025 confirmation soil vapor sampling, to visually inspect the soil vapor extraction (SVE) wellheads and equipment trailer for integrity during the 3-month waiting period when the SVE equipment is not operating. This work was conducted per your approval email on June 18, 2025.

One SVE wellhead piping was distorted potentially due to heat. The wellhead piping needs to be repaired before restarting the SVE system. The repair work is included in Task H.

Task F –Soil Vapor Sampling Probe Installation
Soil vapor monitoring probes (VMPs) will be installed at 20 onsite and two offsite locations for soil vapor sampling.

The 20 onsite locations will be those that confirmation soil vapor sampling is required to be conducted.

The two offsite locations were requested by the Water Board for the purpose of delineating the soil vapor impact north and west of the Site. One of the offsite VMP is expected to be installed in the parking lot of the apartment complex immediately north of the Site, which requires access agreement for the installation and subsequent sampling. The other offsite VMP is expected to be installed in the parking lane of La Loma Avenue, which requires an encroachment permit from the City, and potentially traffic control for the installation and subsequent sampling, depending on permit requirement. Due to the uncertainty of access for the offsite locations and the priority of the onsite soil vapor sampling, it is assumed the offsite VMPs installation will be conducted on a separate mobilization.

Tetra Tech will use a direct push technology (DPT) rig to install the VMPs at 5- and 15-feet below ground surface (bgs) (or at drilling refusal depths) at each of the 22 locations. The drilling depths of the 20 onsite VMPs are pending confirmation from the City on the final grade of the Site. Installation of the VMPs will be conducted in accordance with the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) guidance document “Advisory, Active Soil Gas ITEM 13.3.

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 109 of 536 ends

Page 2 ends

Investigation” (July 2015). After completing all soil vapor sampling (Task G), the VMPs will be abandoned by pulling out the probes and tubing and backfilling with clean bentonite and cement. The asphalt pavement of the two offsite locations will be repaired.

Assumptions:
 If needed the City will mow grass at the Site prior to this task to allow access for utility locating and drilling.  Drilling waste is non-hazardous and will be containerized and disposed offsite.  The City will obtain access agreement(s) for the VMP installation and sampling at the offsite location(s) on private properties. An allowance of approximately $2000 is included for supporting the City on access agreement(s).
 An allowance of approximately $2000 is included for the encroachment permit application.

Task G – Soil Vapor Sampling (3 Events)
Three soil vapor sampling events will be conducted at the 22 VMPs in accordance with the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) guidance document “Advisory, Active Soil Gas Investigation” (July 2015). The soil vapor samples will be analyzed for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) using the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) method TO-15 and helium (leak check compound) using ASTM method D-1946. Three sampling events were proposed to track the progress of the additional SVE operations (Task H), as well as obtaining additional soil vapor time series data in accordance with the Water Board’s request for trend analysis. The three events are as follows:
 Event 1: to be conducted following the VMP installation, and before restarting the SVE system.  Event 2: to be conducted immediately after shutdown of the SVE system after the three additional months of SVE operations (Task H).
 Event 3: to be conducted three months (the Water Board requested “wait-time”) after the shutdown of the restarted SVE system.

Assumptions:
 For Event 1, it is assumed the sampling of the offsite VMPs will be conducted via a separate mobilization from the onsite VMP sampling, due to the uncertainty in access and offsite VMP installation schedule.  For Events 2 and 3, it is assumed all 22 VMPs will be sampled via one mobilization.  Lab analysis will be conducted on a standard turnaround time (10 business days).  No duplicate samples will be collected.
 Reporting of the interim sampling results to the Water Board is not needed.  A separate encroachment permit is not required for this task.

Task H – 3-Month SVE Operation
This task includes SVE operation for three additional months using the existing SVE wells and equipment at the Site.

In addition to SVE operation, this task also includes the following:
 Repair of one SVE wellhead piping.
 Collection of one round of vapor samples from the 15 SVE wells to track the progress of the SVE operation during the 3-month operation. The vapor samples will be analyzed for VOCs only by the EPA method TO-

15. Assumptions:
 The SVE wells and equipment will restart and operate normally. No additional repairs are needed.  The Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District will not require another source testing for the SVE restart.
 No carbon change is needed.
 Disposal of up to 550 gallons of condensate is included.

ITEM 13.3.

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 110 of 536 ends

Page 3 ends

Task I – Groundwater Well Installation and Development
Per the September 9, 2025 meeting with the Water Board, three groundwater monitoring wells will be installed at the locations of three previous wells: EW-1, MW-3, and MW-5.

A sonic rig will be used to advance three boreholes at the Site to install groundwater monitoring wells screened between 55 feet and 65 feet bgs (screen depth intervals of the previous monitoring wells). The wells will be properly developed for the subsequent sampling. After completing all groundwater sampling (Task J), the groundwater wells will be abandoned in accordance with the Sacramento County Department of Environmental Management requirements.

Assumptions:
 The cost includes the labor and fees for permitting with the Sacramento County Department of Environmental Management for well installation and well abandonment.  Drilling waste is non-hazardous and will be containerized and disposed offsite.

Task J – Groundwater Sampling (3 Events)
Three groundwater sampling events will be conducted at the three groundwater monitoring wells to be installed under Task I. The purposes of the sampling are to verify the current groundwater conditions against the California Maximum Contaminant Levels and obtain time series data to evaluate the concentration trends per the Water Board’s request. The sampling will be conducted using methodologies consistent with previous groundwater sampling practices at the Site. The groundwater samples will be analyzed for VOCs and total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPHs) using EPA methods 8260B and 8015, respectively. One duplicate sample and one trip blank sample will be collected for quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) purpose. The trip blank sample will be analyzed for VOCs only.

The three events are as follows:
 Event 1: to be conducted following installation and development of the three groundwater monitoring wells.  Events 2 and 3: to be conducted at approximately the same timeframe as the soil vapor sampling Events 2 and 3.

Assumptions;
 Lab analysis will be conducted on a standard turnaround time (10 business days).  The groundwater data will be incorporated to the Project Close-Out Report (Task D). A separate report to the Water Board will not be needed.

Task K – Sensitive Receptor Survey
Per the September 9, 2025 meeting with the Water Board, a sensitive receptor survey will be conducted. The survey will include desktop search of sensitive receptors (hospitals, daycares, K-12 schools, surface water body, and drinking water wells) within 1 mile of the Site using databases such as the Department of Water Resources (DWR) Well Completion Report (WCR) database, the Environmental Data Resources (EDR) database, and Google Earth, followed by a field reconnaissance for verification. Results of the survey will be documented and included in the Project Close-Out Report (Task D) as an appendix.

Cost
A summary of the costs for the individual tasks is provided below. A cost breakdown is attached at the end of the proposal.

 Task E – Weekly Site Visit: $4,670
 Task F – Soil Vapor Sampling Probe Installation: $74,130  Task G – Soil Vapor Sampling (3 Events): $92,656
ITEM 13.3.

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 111 of 536 ends

Page 4 ends

 Task H – 3-Month SVE Operation (Optional): $62,199
 Task I – Groundwater Well Installation and Development $104,892  Task J – Groundwater Sampling (3 Events): $22,274
 Task K – Sensitive Receptor Survey: $4,320
Schedule
The tentative schedule of the individual tasks is described below.  Task E: June – August, 2025 (completed).
 Task F: Depending on proposal approval and subcontractor’s availability, this task is expected to start in October or early November 2025 for the onsite locations. The schedule for the offsite VMP installation depends on access agreement(s) and permitting. Once access and permits are obtained, the drilling and VMP installation field activities for the offsite VMPs are expected to be completed within a week. The drilling and VMP installation field activities for the onsite VMPs are expected to be completed within approximately two weeks.
 Task G: Pending the schedule of Task F, the first sampling event under this task is expected to be completed by end of 2025. The second event is expected to be conducted in February 2026 and the third event is expected to be conducted in May 2026.
 Task H: Depending on proposal approval, this task is expected to be conducted from November 2025 through January 2026.
 Task I: Depending on proposal approval, subcontractor’s availability, and permitting, this task is expected to be conducted in October or early November 2025. The drilling and well installation field activities are expected to be completed within approximately two weeks.  Task J: Pending the schedule of Task I, the first sampling event under this task is expected to be completed by end of 2025. The schedule of Events 2 and 3 are expected to be concurrent with Events 2 and 3 under Task G.
 Task K: this task is expected to be conducted after receiving the sampling results of Event 1 under Tasks G and J, likely in January 2026. The task will take approximately 2-3 weeks to complete.

Closing
Tetra Tech appreciates the opportunity to submit our proposal for this solicitation and we look forward to working with the City on this important project. If you have any questions on the proposal, please contact Betty Li at (916) 853- 4525.

Sincerely,
Tetra Tech
Benjamin Weink, PG Betty Li, PhD
Vice President and Department Manager Senior Environmental Engineer Government Assessment and Remediation 916.853.4525 | [email protected] 909.382.5120 | [email protected]
ITEM 13.3.

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 112 of 536 ends

Page 1 of 115 ends

City of Rancho Cordova Attention: Ms. Kristine Courdy
TRUE
Phases / Tasks
741 hrs 365,140.65$
Bill
Team Hrly Rate Tot Est. Hrs Total Est. Cost Hours Cost Hours Cost Hours Cost Hours Cost Hours Cost Hours Cost Hours Cost Project Manager / B. Li $220.00 56.0 12,320.00$ - -$ 14.0 3,080.00$ 14.0 3,080.00$ 14.0 3,080.00$ 2.0 440.00$ 12.0 2,640.00$ - -$ Construction Manager /K. Hoofard $189.00 148.0 27,972.00$ 8.0 1,512.00$ 44.0 8,316.00$ 8.0 1,512.00$ 46.0 8,694.00$ 8.0 1,512.00$ 14.0 2,646.00$ 20.0 3,780.00$ Professional Geologist / G. Kuhl $189.00 34.0 6,426.00$ - -$ - -$ - -$ - -$ 22.0 4,158.00$ 12.0 2,268.00$ - -$ Field Geologist $112.00 500.0 56,000.00$ 20.0 2,240.00$ 116.0 12,992.00$ 116.0 12,992.00$ 78.0 8,736.00$ 106.0 11,872.00$ 64.0 7,168.00$ - -$ CADD/GIS $160.00 0.0 -$ - -$ - -$ - -$ - -$ - -$ - -$ - -$ Admin $102.00 3.0 306.00$ - -$ 1.0 102.00$ 1.0 102.00$ 1.0 102.00$ - -$ - -$ - -$ Subtotal Tetra Tech Labor 741.0 hrs 103,024.00$ 28.0 3,752.00$ 175.0 24,490.00$ 139.0 17,686.00$ 139.0 20,612.00$ 138.0 17,982.00$ 102.0 14,722.00$ 20.0 3,780.00$ --Total Tetra Tech Labor 103,024.00$ 3,752.00$ 24,490.00$ 17,686.00$ 20,612.00$ 17,982.00$ 14,722.00$ 3,780.00$ Total Est. Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost
Capital Barricade 10,500.00$ -$ 3,000.00$ 7,500.00$ -$ -$ -$ -$ GPRS 2,500.00$ -$ 2,500.00$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Cascade 93,213.00$ -$ 32,178.00$ -$ -$ 61,035.00$ -$ -$ Pace Analytical 3,163.00$ -$ 559.00$ -$ -$ -$ 2,604.00$ -$ Shoreline Environmental 13,211.20$ -$ 2,286.00$ -$ 3,000.00$ 5,696.60$ 2,228.60$ -$ Confluence 23,106.40$ -$ 2,500.00$ 20,606.40$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Eurofins 44,886.50$ -$ -$ 40,460.00$ 4,426.50$ -$ -$ -$ Fliteway 23,700.00$ -$ -$ -$ 23,700.00$ -$ -$ -$
California Laboratory Services 3,046.50$ -$ -$ -$ 1,400.00$ 1,646.50$ -$ -$ Calvada (Survey) 3,550.00$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 3,550.00$ -$ -$
EDR 500.00$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 500.00$
Subtotal Subcontractors 221,376.60$ -$ 43,023.00$ 68,566.40$ 32,526.50$ 71,928.10$ 4,832.60$ 500.00$ Markup 17,710.13$ 8.00% 3,441.84$ 5,485.31$ 2,602.12$ 5,754.25$ 386.61$ 40.00$ --Total Subcontractors 239,086.73$ -$ 46,464.84$ 74,051.71$ 35,128.62$ 77,682.35$ 5,219.21$ 540.00$ Total Est. Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost
Field Truck 4,590.00$ 850.00$ 1,020.00$ 850.00$ 1,190.00$ 680.00$ -$ -$ ParcelQuest 250.00$ -$ 250.00$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Field Supplies 3,020.00$ -$ 480.00$ -$ 1,430.00$ 90.00$ 1,020.00$ -$ Field Equipment Rental 6,615.00$ -$ 1,190.00$ -$ 3,360.00$ 925.00$ 1,140.00$ -$ Permit Fee 6,849.00$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 6,849.00$ -$ -$
Subtotal Other Direct Costs 21,324.00$ 850.00$ 2,940.00$ 850.00$ 5,980.00$ 8,544.00$ 2,160.00$ -$ Markup $1,705.92 8.00% $68.00 $235.20 $68.00 $478.40 $683.52 $172.80 --Total Other Direct Costs 23,029.92$ 918.00$ 3,175.20$ 918.00$ 6,458.40$ 9,227.52$ 2,332.80$ -$ Project/Task --Total 365,140.65$ 4,670.00$ 74,130.04$ 92,655.71$ 62,199.02$ 104,891.87$ 22,274.01$ 4,320.00$ PROJECT Total 365,140.65$
Task J - Groundwater
Sampling (3 Events)
Task K - Sensitive
Receptor Survey
Contract Amendment Proposal -
Support of Soil Remediation & Site Cleanup Plan Implementation at 10153-10179 Folsom Blvd Other Direct Costs
Project Cost Summary
Project Total Task E - Weekly Site Visit
Tetra Tech Labor
Task F - Soil Vapor Probe
Installation
Task G - Soil Vapor
Sampling (3 Events)
Task H - 3-Month SVE
Operation
Task I - Groundwater
Well Installation and
Development
Subcontractors
Tetra Tech Confidential Information
Printed 9/15/2025
TT Cost-Price Model
Proposal
ITEM 13.3.

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 113 of 536 ends

MEMORANDUM

City Council Staff Report - Page 1 of 2

ITEM 13.4.

DATE: October 6, 2025

TO: Honorable Mayor and Council Members

FROM: Laurel Bane, Facilities Management Analyst

SUBJECT: A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO. 2025-6-1 WITH NORR ASSOCIATES,
INC. TO INCREASE THE CONTRACT AMOUNT FROM $90,800 TO
AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $120,400 FOR THE CITY HALL FIRST

FLOOR TENANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ARCHITECTURAL

DESIGN, FIRE SPRINKLER AND ALARM DRAWINGS

RECOMMENDATION

Adopt the Resolution.

RESULT OF RECOMMENDED ACTION

Adoption of the Resolution would authorize the City Manager to execute Contract Amendment No. 2025-6-1 with NORR Associates, Inc. for the City Hall first floor tenant improvement project architectural design and drawings. Upon execution of the Contract Amendment, NORR will proceed with the fire alarm and sprinkler design and drawings for the City Hall first floor tenant improvement project.

BACKGROUND

The city retained NORR Associates, Inc. to establish a Space Planning Master Plan for a 10- year horizon for staffing and operational needs for the city. The Space Planning Master Plan is assisting in prioritizing physical improvements to city-owned facilities. The first and second major improvement projects to remodel Suite 220 and Suite 230 were completed at the end of 2023 and 2025. The city is now working on the third major improvement project to remodel the first floor spaces.

NORR is currently under contract for the first floor design and architectural drawings and the scope of work will now include all Fire Sprinkler and Fire Alarm Plans and drawings.

FISCAL IMPACT AND FUNDING SOURCE

The total project budget for capital improvements is funded from the Capital Facilities Fees and the Community Facilities Fund (CFF). This project is included in the city's current approved Capital Improvement Plan and in the FY 25/27 budget.

ATTACHMENT(S)

1. Resolution

Page 114 of 536 ends

City Council Staff Report - Page 2 of 2

2. Contract Amendment No. 2025-6-1

Page 115 of 536 ends

ITEM 13.4. ATTACHMENT 1 Resolution No. XX-2025 Page 1 of 1

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

RESOLUTION NO. XX-2025

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

OF CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO. 2025-6-1 WITH NORR ASSOCIATES, INC. TO INCREASE THE CONTRACT AMOUNT FROM $90,800 TO AN AMOUNT OF $120,400 FOR THE CITY HALL

FIRST FLOOR TENANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN, FIRE

SPRINKLER AND ALARM DRAWINGS

WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Cordova entered into a Professional Services Agreement with NORR Associates on January 15, 2025, for architectural plans for the first floor improvements at City Hall; and

WHEREAS, this Amendment will increase the contract amount to include additional architectural design and drawing including fire alarm and sprinkler requirements for the City Hall first floor tenant improvement project and extend the term of the agreement; and

WHEREAS, the Parties agree that changes to the terms and services provided for the Profesional Services Agreement are necessary in order for the city to continue receiving services by Professional.

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. 2025-6-1 with NORR Associates, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $120,400 and extend the term to January 15, 2028, in a form approved by the City Attorney.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cordova on the 6th day of October 2025 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

ATTEST:

Siri Pulipati, Mayor

Stacy Leitner, CMC
City Clerk

Page 116 of 536 ends

CONTRACT NO. 2025-6-1

First Amendment to Professional Services Agreement between City of Rancho Cordova and NORR Associates, Inc. Page 1 of 3 Revised 06/2025

FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA AND NORR ASSOCIATES, INC.

This First Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement ( “Amendment”) is made by and between the City of Rancho Cordova (“City”) and NORR Associates, Inc. (“Professional”) as of January 15, 2025. City and Professional are hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Parties.”

RECITALS

WHEREAS, the Parties entered into a Professional Services Agreement (“Agreement”) dated January 15, 2025; and

WHEREAS, this Amendment will increase the contract amount to include additional architectural design and drawings including fire alarm and sprinkler requirements for the City Hall first floor tenant improvement project; and extend the term; and

WHEREAS, the Parties agree that changes to the term and services provided for in the PSA are necessary in order for the City to continue receiving services by Professional.

NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties hereto agree as follows:

AGREEMENT

1. The Parties agree to modify the end date of the Agreement from January 15, 2026 to January 15, 2028. The first sentence of Section 1.1 of the Agreement, “Term of Service,” is amended to read as follows:

"The term of this Agreement shall begin on the date first noted above and shall end on January 15, 2028, and Professional shall complete the work described in Exhibit A prior to that date; unless the term of the Agreement is otherwise terminated or extended, as provided in Section 8."

2. Section 2 of the agreement, “Compensation,” provides for the City to pay Professional a sum not to exceed Ninety thousand eight hundred dollars: ($90,800). The Parties agree to amend Section 2 of the Agreement in order to increase the compensation amount to pay Professional for additional services. The first sentence of Section 2 of the Agreement is amended to read as follows:

"City hereby agrees to pay Professional a sum not to exceed One hundred twenty thousand and four hundred dollars: ($120,400), notwithstanding any contrary indication that may be contained in Professional’s proposal, for services to be performed and reimbursable costs incurred under this Agreement.”

3. The document entitled “Scope of Services,” attached hereto as Exhibit A, shall replace and supersede the Agreement's Exhibit A.

ITEM 13.4.

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 117 of 536 ends

CONTRACT NO. 2025-6-1

First Amendment to Professional Services Agreement between City of Rancho Cordova and NORR Associates, Inc. Page 2 of 3 Revised 06/2025

4. The document entitled “Compensation Schedule,” attached hereto as Exhibit B, shall replace and supersede the Agreement's Exhibit B.

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

ITEM 13.4.

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 118 of 536 ends

CONTRACT NO. 2025-6-1
First Amendment to Professional Services Agreement between City of Rancho Cordova and NORR Associates, Inc. Page 3 of 3 Revised 06/2025
I
N WITNESS WHEREOF , the parties have executed this A mendment as of the day and year first above written.

TY OF RANCHO CORDOVA PROFESSIONAL
___
___________________________ ______________________________ Micah Runner, City Manager Valerie Hoffman, Principal
D
ate:__________________ Date:__________________
A
ttest:
___
___________________________
Stacy Leitner, CMC, City Clerk
D
ate:__________________
A
pproved as to Form:
___
___________________________
Adam U. Lindgren, City Attorney
D
ate:_________________
ITEM 13.4.

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 119 of 536 ends

NORR Associates Inc.

An Ingenium International Company

2020 I Street, Suite 200
Sacramento, CA 95811
U.S.A
T 916 930 0210
F 916 930 1937
norr.com

September 4, 2025

City of Rancho Cordova
2729 Prospect Park Drive
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
916-851-8700

Attention: Megan Siren

Re: First Floor, City of Rancho Cordova (the “Project”) 2729 Prospect Park Drive
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670

The scope of work will be Plan Review and Contractor bidding support, Contract Administration for Architectural, Interior Design and Mechanical, Plumbing, Electrical consultants. Fire Sprinkler and Fire Alarm, services. All work to be performed in support of the first-floor remodel project.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Site Area and Description Single Story Existing Building Building Type B-2
Building Area 16.500 SF +-
Below Grade Construction N/A
Schedule and Phasing Single Phase Construction
Construction Agreement Bid to multiple General Contractors

ASSUMPTIONS & CONSIDERATIONS

1. CAD plans are available for the project and will be provided to NORR.

2. No exterior work is being performed in this proposal/scope of work.

3. This proposal excludes any cost estimating.

4. The Client will be bidding this entire project to multiple General Contractors.

5. The Structural Engineering is not included in this proposal.

6. This fee excludes all permit and inspection fees.

7. The proposal excludes any design review with the City of Rancho Cordova for any exterior work or signage.

8. NORR with the City of Rancho Cordova will submit for permit.

Exclusions:

1. Identification of and recommendations for removal of hazardous materials.

2. Non-code Signage/Graphics or assisting Owner in selection of signage.

3. BOMA calculations or any Efficiency Calculations.

4. Off-site street lighting design, fire pump design, water pressure testing fees, joint trench plans,

5. Fire Protection and MEP pre- bid/pre-con meetings.

6. Life Cycle Cost analysis, Commissioning of Systems, Energy Efficiency Calculations, Pre -balance of air/hydronics systems.

7. Field-testing, inspection, and fees as required by Agencies and Inspectors.

8. LEED documentation and certification.

ITEM 13.4.

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 120 of 536 ends

Page 2 ends

9. Physical models.

10. Preparation of Record drawings.

11. Detail CAD virtual tour.

12. Compiling addenda and bidding revisions into a “conformed construction” set of drawings and specifications for construction purposes.

SCOPE OF SERVICES
The scope of services proposed for the Project (the “Basic Services”) are:

TASK 1 Plan Review and Contractor Bidding Support

1. Review and respond to comments from the authority having jurisdiction during the building permit application process through to receiving a permit.

2. Assist General Contractors with answering subcontractor questions during bidding and plan review.

3. Assistance during bidding as required by the client.

4. Provide those revisions in a resubmittal to the jurisdiction, as needed.

TASK 2 Fire Alarm and Fire Sprinkler Drawings

1. Walk project site with Client to review existing conditions.

2. Fire sprinkler addition and relocation.

3. Fire alarm including strobes.

4. Provide permit drawings for all new and relocated fire alarm and fire sprinkler systems.

5. Respond to comments during plan check with The City of Rancho Cordova.

6. Assist General Contractors with answering subcontractor questions during bidding and plan review.

7. Provide revisions in a resubmittal to the jurisdiction, as needed.

8. Respond to RFI’s and submittals from the General Contracture during construction.

9. Provide close-out drawings to the Client as requested.

TASK 3 Contract Administration

1. NORR to attend weekly calls via TEAMS or on site.

2. Walk site as requested by Client to review any discrepancies.

3. Receive and respond to Client and contractor requests for supplementary information.

4. Electrical Engineer review submittals and shop drawings as it pertains to Electrical drawings, three trips to site during construction, attend punch list walk.

5. Mechanical Engineer to review submittals and shop drawings as it pertains to Mechanical and Plumbing drawings, three trips to the site during construction and attend punch list walk.

6. NORR will respond to Requests for Information (RFI’s): All subcontractor RFI’s must be submitted through the General Contractor. The General Contractor must review the RFI prior to forwarding it to NORR and the Client. If the RFI is not clear, or is clearly answered in the Permit Documents, the GC shall reply to the subcontractor accordingly and copy NORR. While NORR will always endeavor to respond to RFI’s as quickly as possible, review and response time for RFI’s will be three (3) business days or less.

7. Review and process Submittals based on previously received General Contractor (GC) submittal schedule: All sub-contractor submittals must be submitted through the GC. The General Contractor must review the submittal prior to forwarding it to NORR and the Client. If the submittal is incomplete or is clearly not in conformance with the Permit Documents, the GC shall return the submittal to the subcontractor for corrective measures. While NORR will always endeavor to review and process submittals as quickly as possible, review and processing time for submittals will be five (5) business days or less.

ITEM 13.4.

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 121 of 536 ends

Page 3 ends

8. NORR will attend one (1) punch list walk, the General Contractor will provide the punch list document forms and issue for corrections.

If a service is not specifically identified in the Basic Services, it is expressly excluded from NORR’s Basic Services and shall be considered an additional service as outlined in Schedule B (the “Additional Services”).

GENERAL CONDITIONS OF AGREEMENT
The General Conditions of Agreement attached as Schedule C are incorporated herein by reference and apply to the administration of this Agreement unless or until a contract for services on the Project is executed between the Client and NORR.

FEE FOR SERVICES
The following table outlines the basic fees (the “Basic Fee”) for the Basic Services. (Note: Lump Sum is due to outside consultants)

TASK FEE TYPE AMOUNT
TASK 1 Plan Review and Bid and
(Architectural, Electrical,
Mechanical, Plumbing)
Time and Material
Not to Exceed $4,000.00

TASK 2 Fire Alarm and Fire
Sprinkler (includes Construction
Administration) Lump Sum $12,100.00

TASK 3 Construction
Administration (Architectural,
Mechanical, Electrical and
Plumbing)
Time and Materials
Not to Exceed $13,500.00

Total Amount for Services as
defined in this proposal $29,600.00

*Reimbursable expenses include items such as printing and shipping drawing sets, travel beyond what is included in the scope, etc., unless otherwise noted. Reimbursable expenses are marked up 10%. Fees and reimbursable will be invoiced monthly. Hard Copies of documents will be transmitted digitally to the reprographics agency, with the documents available to the Client C.O.D.

RETAINER
No retainer is required for this project.

SCHEDULE AND PHASES
The schedule will be a mutually agreed upon timeline between the Client and NORR established after execution of this agreement. The Project fee is based upon the Project being constructed in a contiguous manner .

ADDITIONAL SERVICES
ITEM 13.4.

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 122 of 536 ends

Page 4 ends

NORR has set forth the Basic Services that reasonably represents the work required to complete the Project as defined by the Client. Should Additional Services be required in the performance of the work, they shall be provided on an hourly basis via a Project Change Notice (PCN). The Client shall pre -approve any Additional Services prior to commencing the work. Additional Services are described in Schedule B to this Agreement.

ACCEPTANCE
In order to accept this Agreement and authorize NORR to proceed with performance of the Basic Services, the Client shall:

1. Sign the acceptance portion of this Agreement.

2. Return (1) one complete copy of the executed document to the undersigned.

This Agreement is open to acceptance by the Client for a period of 30 days from the date hereof, unless otherwise agreed by NORR.

Thank you for considering our firm for participation in this Project.

Yours sincerely,

NORR Associates Inc.

William Westhafer, Vice President Valerie Hoffman, Principal, LEED AP, CID

ITEM 13.4.

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 123 of 536 ends

Page 5 ends

I, ________________________, representing the City of Rancho Cordova, hereby agree to accept the scope of work, including fees for services offered by NORR for the Project and authorize work to proceed based on the terms and conditions outlined in this Agreement, including Schedules A, B and C incorporated herein.

ACCEPTED BY

Signature

Name

Date

ITEM 13.4.

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 124 of 536 ends

Page 6 ends

SCHEDULE A – SUB-CONSULTANTS (Not used for this project) As part of the Basic Services offered by NORR, certain sub-consulting disciplines have been included in the Basic Fee for each phase of work. NORR’s sub-consultants are listed in the table below:

DISCIPLINE ENGAGED BY
NORR

ENGAGED BY
CLIENT
Project Manager N/A
Geotechnical Engineer N/A
Environmental Consultant N/A
Traffic Consultant N/A
Civil Engineer N/A
Plumbing Engineer X
Structural Engineer N/A
Mechanical Engineer X
Electrical Engineer X
Interior Design X
Architect X
Building Envelope Consultant N/A
Security X
Audio Visual and Data X
Signage & Graphics X
Contractor X
Landscape Architect N/A
Cost Estimator N/A
Fire Alarm/Fire Sprinkler X

With respect to other consultants retained directly by the Client (the “Other Consultants”), Sacramento’s responsibility for coordination for those Other Consultants shall be limited solely to the incorporation their design documentation or recommendations into the primary architectural design of the Project.

Where Other Consultants are engaged directly by the Client, they must be retained at the appropriate phase of the design process.

ITEM 13.4.

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 125 of 536 ends

Page 7 ends

SCHEDULE B – ADDITIONAL SERVICES

The following is a list of Additional Services that are not included in the Basic Services or in the Basic Fee. Should Additional Services be required in the performance of the work, they shall be provided on either an hourly basis or a pre-approved extra services work order. The Client shall pre-approve any Additional Services prior to commencement of the work.

• Comparative analysis of multiple building sites for schematic design. • Services required because of, or in contemplation of, land use changes, zoning changes or variances from by-laws.
• Surveys of existing conditions, preparation of measured drawings or verifying the accuracy of any information provided by the Client.
• Services due to significant changes in the Project including but not limited to size, quality, complexity, schedule, or design.
• Additional documentation required due to phasing or sequential bidding of either the design or execution of the Project.
• Administration of the construction procurement process on behalf of the Client. • Preparation of graphic materials, furniture plans, or other materials required for marketing of the Project.
• Preparation of 3D renderings or computer modeling other than basic materials used for design presentations.
• Design, development permit applications and/or working drawings pertaining to sales trailers, marketing centers or other temporary, ancillary structures. • Architectural models requested by the Client.
• Participation in community presentations, development permit appeals, development permit relaxation or variance applications.
• Review and incorporation changes for alternative materials or construction details after Client approval of construction documents.
• Evaluation of extensive or unreasonable claims submitted by the contractor, or others, in connection with the work.
• Extension of the construction schedule beyond the estimated duration stated in the Basic Fees table. • Project-related staff travel time and expenses outside NORR. • Services necessitated by default of the contractor, by major defects in the work of the contractor, or by failure of either the Client or the contractor in performance of the construction contract. • Consultation regarding replacement of any work damaged by fire or other cause during construction. • Preparation of record drawings showing changes in the Project made during construction. • The provision of commissioning or LEED certification services. • Any other service otherwise not expressly listed in the Basic Services.

REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES

Reimbursable expenses include, but are not limited to the following actual expenditures included by NORR or its sub-consultants in the interest of the Project:

• Transportation, lodging and meals in connection with the Project. • Communication, shipping, long distance communication charges, courier, postage, and electronic conveyances.
• Reproduction of Instruments of Service, including plotting of computer-generated drawings ITEM 13.4.

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 126 of 536 ends

Page 8 ends

• Fees, levies, duties or taxes for permits, licenses or approvals from governmental authorities having jurisdiction.

HOURLY RATES

NORR shall set hourly rates for each category of labor on an annual basis. Hourly rates shall be used for billing any Additional Services performed throughout the duration of the Project. The Client shall receive a minimum of 30 days notice prior to any adjustment to the hourly rates. Hourly rates for consultants are available upon request.

ITEM 13.4.

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 127 of 536 ends

Page 9 ends

SCHEDULE C - GENERAL CONDITIONS OF THE AGREEMENT

1. Representatives
Each party shall designate a representative (the “Project Representative”) who is authorized to act on behalf of that party and receive notices under this Agreement.

2. Compensation
The value of Basic Services rendered, and reimbursable expenses will be invoiced on a monthly basis based upon progress of the work. Any unpaid invoice shall bear interest, calculated monthly at a rate of 12% per annum; commencing 60 days after the date NORR submits the invoice.

3. Suspension
NORR reserves the right to suspend service on this Project if invoices are not paid within 60 days from the date of issue and NORR will not be liable for any costs or delays caused by the suspension of services.

4. Termination
This Agreement may be terminated by either party upon not less than seven days written notice should the other party fail substantially to perform in accordance with its terms through no fault of the party initiating the termination. This Agreement may be terminated by the Client upon at least seven days written notice to NORR in the event that the Project is permanently abandoned. In the event of termination, NORR shall be paid within 30 days of the date that an invoice is submitted for all services performed to the effective termination date, together with reimbursable expenses and all termination expenses and applicable taxes then due.

5. Environment
NORR is not responsible for:
• the discovery, reporting, analyses, evaluation, presence, handling, removal or disposal of toxic hazardous substances or materials in any form at the place of the work; and • the advice of any independent expert respecting the exposure of persons, property, or the environment to toxic or hazardous substances or materials in any form at the place of the work, whether or not the consultant was selected by NORR on behalf of the Client and/or the Contractor.

6. Professional Responsibility
NORR shall perform the services and fulfill duties and responsibilities of the Agreement to the standard of care, skill, and diligence that consultants would customarily provide in similar circumstances and in the same relative geographic location. All consultants engaged directly by the Client shall be professionally responsible to the Client for the performance of the work in accordance with normal industry standards. NORR shall not be professionally liable for the scope of work or the performance of services for any consultant hired directly by the Client or any temporary structures, designed or constructed, in the performance of the work.

7. Client Responsibility
The Client shall provide information, surveys, reports, and services and other information required by NORR in a timely manner in order for NORR to perform the services under this Agreement. NORR shall be entitled to rely upon the accuracy of such information as provided by the Client. This information shall include but may not be limited to the following:
• A current, certified legal survey of the site describing physical characteristics, legal description, existing buildings, and structures, adjoining properties and structures, utility locations, boundaries of the site encroachments, easements, rights of way, existing and proposed grades and lines of streets and alleys.

ITEM 13.4.

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 128 of 536 ends

Page 10 ends

• Sub-surface investigation reports outlining the current condition of the site and appropriate professional recommendations regarding the design restrictions of the site. • Toxic or hazardous materials reports, if any.
• Documentation of architectural controls, if any, imposed by the area developer on the site. • Other information regarding the physical characteristics of the site that may be pertinent to NORR ’s services.

8. Construction Phase – Field Review
Field services are at the sole discretion of NORR, to observe whether the work of the contractor retained by the Client is being carried out in general conformity with the intent of the construction documents.

NORR shall not:
• Be required to make exhaustive or continuous on-site reviews; • Be responsible for the acts or omissions of the Client, the contractor, or any other party performing the construction or for any failure of any party to carry out the work in accordance with the construction documents;
• Be responsible for the acts or omissions of the Other Consultants; or • Have control, charge, or supervision of, or responsibility for construction means, methods, techniques or procedures, site safety procedures, temporary structures or any other activity required in construction of the Project.

9. Limitation of Liability
The Client agrees that all claims that the Client has or hereafter may have against NORR, its officers, directors, employees, representatives, agents, subsidiaries, parent companies, and consultants (the “Limited Parties”) in any way arising out of or related to the Limited Parties’ duties and responsibilities pursuant to this Agreement shall be limited to an aggregate amount of $150,000 or the amount of NORR’s Basic Fee, whichever is less. “Claim” or “Claims” shall mean a claim or claims whether in contract or tort or any other cause of action or remedy at law or in equity. No Claim may be brought against NORR more than two (2) years after the services were completed or terminated under this Agreement.

Neither NORR nor the Client shall be liable for any special, indirect, incidental, punitive, or consequential damages, including but not limited to, loss of income, loss of profit, loss of business opportunity, and/or loss of use arising from any and all Claims.

NORR shall not be responsible for:
• the failure of any Contractor or Consultant retained by the Client, to perform the work required on the Project;
• the design of, or defect in, equipment supplied or provided by the Client for incorporation into the Project;
• any cross-contamination resulting from sub-surface investigations; • any damage to subsurface structures and utilities which were identified and located by the Client and/or its consultants;
• decisions made by the Client which were made without the advice of NORR or contrary to, or inconsistent with, NORR’s advice; and
• the unauthorized distribution of any confidential document or report prepared by or on behalf of NORR for the exclusive use of the Client.

ITEM 13.4.

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 129 of 536 ends

c:\users\msiren\downloads\exhibit b psa 2025-6-1.docx Page 11

10. Copyright
Copyright for the design and drawings prepared by or on behalf of NORR belong to NORR. Plans, sketches, drawings, graphic representations, and specifications, including computer-generated designs, are instruments of NORR’s services (the “Instruments of Service”) and shall remain the property of NORR whether the Project for which they are made is executed or not. Submission or distribution of NORR’s plans, sketches, drawings, graphic representations, and specifications to meet official regulatory requirements or for other purposes in connection with the Project shall not to be construed as publication in derogation of NORR ’s reserved rights.

The Client’s use of NORR’s Instruments of Service is contingent upon full payment to NORR for services rendered. The Instruments of Service shall not be used by the Client for any other reason or purpose other than renovations, modifications, additions, or expansions to the Project.

11. Dispute Resolution
All disputes arising out of or in connection with this Agreement shall be resolved in the spirit of maintaining a long term, mutually advantageous business relationship, in accordance with the following procedure:

First Level: the dispute shall be referred to the Project Representatives of each of the parties, as identified in Section 1 of this Schedule C.

Second Level: if unresolved after a period of ten (10) business days under the first level, the dispute shall be brought to the senior management of the parties who shall endeavor to find an acceptable solution. Senior management will endeavor to resolve the dispute through amicable negotiation, within a process and according to timelines that the senior management may determine.

Third Level: if unresolved under the second level after a period of twenty (20) business days, or such longer period as the parties may agree, the parties shall collectively appoint a mediator and schedule a mutually agreeable date to mediate the dispute.

Fourth Level: if unresolved under the third level following the mediation, the parties may avail themselves of all legal recourse.

While a dispute, controversy, or claim is pending, each party shall continue to perform its obligations under this Agreement, unless such party is otherwise entitled to suspend its performance hereunder or terminate this Agreement in accordance with the terms hereof.

ITEM 13.4.

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 130 of 536 ends

MEMORANDUM

City Council Staff Report - Page 1 of 2

ITEM 13.5.

DATE: October 6, 2025

TO: Honorable Mayor and Council Members

FROM: Ka Vang, Management Analyst
Stefan Heisler, Housing Manager

SUBJECT: A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH ASCENT ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. FOR A

MIXED-USE & MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING STUDY IN AN AMOUNT
NOT TO EXCEED $185,000

RECOMMENDATION

Adopt the Resolution.

RESULT OF RECOMMENDED ACTION

Adoption of the Resolution would authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement with Ascent Environmental, Inc. (Ascent) and enable the city to undertake a study of mixed-use multifamily housing opportunities along the Folsom Boulevard corridor, advancing planning efforts that support equitable, climate-resilient infill development and strengthen neighborhood connectivity in historically underserved areas.

BACKGROUND

Rancho Cordova was awarded a subgrant of $185,000 through the Sacramento Area Council of Government's (SACOG) administration of the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Neighborhood Access and Equity (NAE) Discretionary Grant Program, a component of the larger Reconnecting Communities and Neighborhoods (RCN) Program. The grant is federally funded through the Inflation Reduction Act and managed regionally by SACOG as part of the Green Means Go: Green Zone Access and Equity Regional Planning Project.

The Rancho Cordova component of this regional effort is titled Folsom Boulevard: Transforming Old Lincoln Highway Study and is located in one of the city’s designated Green Zones, which also overlaps with a federally recognized Disadvantaged Community (DAC). The grant will support this proposed Mixed-Use Multifamily Housing Study. This study includes background analysis, market and site feasibility analysis, conceptual design renderings, community engagement, and a recommendation memo covering zoning, development and incentive strategies. The target areas of this study include the city's Green Zones centered along the Folsom Boulevard Specific Plan Area and infill areas south of Highway 50.

These efforts will result in clear recommendations to update land use policies and zoning codes, support infill development, identify opportunity sites, and promote equitable access to

Page 131 of 536 ends

City Council Staff Report - Page 2 of 2

housing and transportation.

A Request for Proposals (RFP) for qualified contractors to complete the study was issued by the city on August 22, 2025, with proposals due September 9, 2025, by which time the city received seven proposals. An internal team of staff reviewed and ranked the submittals based on understanding of the scope, relevant experience, proposed timeline, and community outreach strategy. Following this evaluation, the proposal submitted by Ascent received the highest ranking. Staff recommends selecting Ascent to complete the study.

FISCAL IMPACT AND FUNDING SOURCE

There is no fiscal impact.

ATTACHMENT(S)

1. Resolution

Page 132 of 536 ends

ITEM 13.5. ATTACHMENT 1

Resolution No. XX-2025 Page 1 of 2

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

RESOLUTION NO. XX-2025

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

OF CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT WITH ASCENT ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. TO RECEIVE THE RECONNECTING COMMUNITIES AND

NEIGHBORHOODS PROGRAM FUNDS FOR THE MIXED-USE MULTIFAMILY HOUSING STUDY

WHEREAS, the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (“SACOG”) applied for federal funds to implement the Green Means Go: Green Zone Access and Equity Regional Planning Project on behalf of local jurisdictions across the Sacramento region; and

WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Cordova (“City”) has been designated as a subrecipient under the Green Means Go program to conduct a Mixed-Use Multifamily Housing Study (the "Project") focused on the Folsom Boulevard corridor, which is part of a city-designated Green Zone and a federally recognized Disadvantaged Community (DAC); and

WHEREAS, the Project includes $185,000 in grant funding with no local match requirement, and will support feasibility and market studies, visual renderings, stakeholder engagement, and development of recommendations to remove transportation and zoning barriers to equitable infill housing; and

WHEREAS, this effort supports the city's General Plan and Climate Action and Adaptation Plan by fostering compact development, supporting sustainable transportation choices, and promoting equitable access to housing; and

WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Cordova desires to enter into an agreement with Ascent Environmental, Inc. for completion of the study; and

WHEREAS, the planning study is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15262 (feasibility and planning studies), and does not commit the city to a specific project or action with a potential significant effect on the environment.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA:

Section 1. Finds that the Mixed-Use Multifamily Housing Study is exempt from CEQA under CEQA Guidelines Section 15262, which allows for planning studies for possible future actions that the City has not approved, adopted, or funded.

Section 2. Authorizes the City Manager, or their designee, to take all actions and to execute and/or file all documents reasonably necessary to implement the above-referenced Study, in a form approved by the City Attorney, including, without limitation, executing an agreement with Ascent Environmental, Inc. for the receipt of Reconnecting Communities and Neighborhoods Program grant funds in an amount not to exceed $185,000, and taking any administrative actions required to carry out the purpose and intent of this Resolution.

Page 133 of 536 ends

ITEM 13.5. ATTACHMENT 1

Resolution No. XX-2025 Page 2 of 2

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cordova on the 6th day of October 2025 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

ATTEST:

Siri Pulipati, Mayor

Stacy Leitner, CMC
City Clerk

Page 134 of 536 ends

MEMORANDUM

City Council Staff Report - Page 1 of 2

ITEM 13.6.

DATE: October 6, 2025

TO: Honorable Mayor and Council Members

FROM: Albert Stricker, Public Works Director
Edgar Medina, Assistant Public Works Director

SUBJECT: A RESOLUTION APPROVING A NEW PUBLIC ROAD CONNECTION AT RANCHO CORDOVA PARKWAY TO U.S. ROUTE 50 BETWEEN
POSTMILE 12.5 AND POSTMILE 15.8 FOR THE RANCHO CORDOVA

PARKWAY INTERCHANGE PROJECT

RECOMMENDATION

Adopt the Resolution.

RESULT OF RECOMMENDED ACTION

Adoption of the Resolution would provide a public record of support for the Project and would satisfy a California Transportation Commission requirement when a project makes a new connection to the state highway system.

BACKGROUND

The U.S. 50/Rancho Cordova Parkway Interchange Project (Project) is a critical transportation link and project for the City of Rancho Cordova and the Sacramento Region that will alleviate regional congestion, improve roadway safety, support economic development, and promote the livability and quality of life in the city.

The City of Rancho Cordova contains one of the region’s largest employment centers, second to Downtown Sacramento, with over 60,000 commuters coming into the city daily with projected growth currently under way south of the Project Area. The Project proposes a new interchange on U.S. 50 at Rancho Cordova Parkway at the midpoint between the Sunrise Boulevard and Hazel Avenue interchanges. The interchange project will be a “south-only” connection and include the design and construction of an approximate 2-mile stretch of Rancho Cordova Parkway that connects to the newly constructed segment of White Rock Road towards the south (See Attachment 2 - Location Map).

The project would help to achieve the following objectives:

1. Improve circulation on U.S. 50, Sunrise Boulevard, White Rock Road, Hazel Avenue and White Rock Road;

2. Improve traffic operations at the U.S. 50/Sunrise Boulevard and U.S. 50/Hazel Avenue interchanges;

Page 135 of 536 ends

City Council Staff Report - Page 2 of 2

3. Provide additional access from U.S. 50 to needed and planned housing development and employment centers;

4. Increase emergency and evacuation alternatives;

5. Catalyze housing developments and job creation;

6. Reduce vehicle miles traveled; and

7. Enhance opportunities to regional transit facilities

In late 2022, the city began final civil & structural design and environmental revalidation services for the U.S. 50/Rancho Cordova Parkway Interchange Project. The current schedule will complete the environmental re-validation and right of way certification in Summer 2026 and final civil & structural design at the end of 2026. The construction schedule will be developed as final design advances and the funding sources are finalized.

As a project requirement, the California Transportation Commission requires local agencies to approve a Resolution ensuring local agencies provide:

1. Statement of support for the proposed connection or interchange modification.

2. Acknowledgment of the project's scope and potential impacts.

3. Agreement to cooperate with Caltrans and the CTC on permitting, right-of-way, or environmental review.

4. Any financial or maintenance obligations the local agency.

Staff will return to Council with the subsequent freeway, access control and maintenance agreements once the design is finalized in late 2026.

FISCAL IMPACT AND FUNDING SOURCE

This project is included in the city’s current approved 2025/26 – 2026/27 City Budget and Capital Improvement Plan. Funding for this project consists of SD Traffic Mitigation Impact Fees, Traffic Mitigation Fees, Supplemental Transportation Fee, Sunridge Anatolia CFD, Sunridge Park CFD, Sunridge North Douglas CFD and Federal Grants.

There are no impacts to the city’s General Fund.

ATTACHMENT(S)

1. Resolution

2. Location Map

Page 136 of 536 ends

ITEM 13.6. ATTACHMENT 1 Resolution No. XX-2025 Page 1 of 2

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

RESOLUTION NO. XX-2025

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

OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE NEW PUBLIC ROAD CONNECTION AT RANCHO CORDOVA PARKWAY TO U.S. ROUTE 50 BETWEEN POSTMILE 12.5 AND POSTMILE

15.8 FOR THE U.S. 50/RANCHO CORDOVA PARKWAY INTERCHANGE PROJECT

WHEREAS, the purpose of the United States (U.S.) Route 50/Rancho Cordova Parkway Interchange Project (Project) is to improve regional circulation and connectivity, relieve existing traffic congestion on U.S. 50, improve traffic operations at U.S. 50/Sunrise Boulevard and U.S. 50/Hazel Avenue interchanges, maintain acceptable levels of service on U.S. 50, provide additional access to and from U.S. 50 and planned development, improve emergency access within the City of Rancho Cordova and the region; and

WHEREAS, the Project will construct a new interchange, Rancho Cordova Parkway, on U.S. 50 between Sunrise Boulevard and Hazel Avenue which has recorded access rights at the planned connection; and

WHEREAS, this interchange will be a “south only” connection and includes construction of a new arterial street, Rancho Cordova Parkway, that extends from the new interchange south to White Rock Road; and

WHEREAS, the city is the lead agency responsible for the implementation of the Project; and

WHEREAS, the project EIR/EA was approved by Rancho Cordova City Council on March 16, 2015, with FONSI approved by Caltrans on April 28, 2015; and

WHEREAS, the Project Report was submitted and approved by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) on November 13, 2015; and

WHEREAS, the Project addresses the need for another connection point to U.S. 50 that supports existing and planned growth within the City of Rancho Cordova and surrounding communities identified in the Circulation Element of the city’s approved General Plan as an interchange improvement; and

WHEREAS, California Transportation Commission (CTC) consent is required for public road opening and connections to controlled access highways, U.S. 50; and

WHEREAS, the U.S.50/Rancho Cordova Parkway Interchange New Public Road Connection designation is a mandate requirement of the CTC; and

WHEREAS, Caltrans has the authority to enter into an access control highway agreement and maintenance agreement with the local agencies; and

WHEREAS, Caltrans and CTC require local agencies to construct public road connections within a reasonable time frame; and

Page 137 of 536 ends

ITEM 13.6. ATTACHMENT 1 Resolution No. XX-2025 Page 2 of 2

WHEREAS, Caltrans and CTC require local agencies to pay all costs to construct a public road project to connect to controlled access highway; and

WHEREAS, the city has a firm commitment to fund and deliver this Public Road Connection in a timely manner.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA hereby approves the New Public Road Connection to United States Route 50 at Rancho Cordova Parkway to United States Route 50, between Postmile 12.5 and Postmile 15.8 for the U.S. 50/Rancho Cordova Parkway Interchange Project.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cordova on the 6th day of October 2025 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

ATTEST:

Siri Pulipati, Mayor

Stacy Leitner, CMC
City Clerk

Page 138 of 536 ends

Attachment 2
Project Location
Map
Sunrise Boulevard
White Rock Road
Project Location
ITEM 13.6.

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 139 of 536 ends

MEMORANDUM

City Council Staff Report - Page 1 of 2

ITEM 13.7.

DATE: October 6, 2025

TO: Honorable Mayor and Council Members

FROM: Albert Stricker, Public Works Director
Edgar Medina, Assistant Public Works Director

SUBJECT: A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO. 2021-336-5 WITH DEWBERRY
ENGINEERS INC. TO INCREASE THE CONTRACT AMOUNT BY
$164,319.63 TO AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $344,020.60 FOR

PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES ON THE MATHER FIELD
ROAD ENHANCEMENTS PHASE 2 PROJECT

RECOMMENDATION

Adopt the Resolution.

RESULT OF RECOMMENDED ACTION

Adoption of the Resolution would promote public safety, improved connections and incorporate aesthetic enhancements along Mather Field Road north of U.S. Highway 50.

BACKGROUND

The City Council has identified Mather Field Road as a key entry point and corridor for the city and over the past several years has invested heavily in upgrading the roadway infrastructure to current standards. In 2022 and in alignment with the Mather Field Road Rehabilitation Project, City Council approved Community Enhancement and Investment Funds to design and construct the Mather Field Road Enhancement Project.

The enhancement project includes converting a California Department of Transportation's (Caltrans) fence to a concrete sound wall on the north side of U.S. 50, upgrading the landscaping and hardscape near the westbound offramp lanes, upgrading the aesthetic wall treatment along the east side of Mather Field, replacing the pedestrian fencing along the overpass structure over U.S. 50 and also includes a design for a pergola entry wall feature at Croydon Drive.

The project has been in design and in recent coordination with Caltrans, the city was notified that the project will need to follow the DEER (Design Engineering Evaluation Report) process for locally funded projects within the State Highway System. In general, the process is designed to simplify the processing of projects that are funded by local agencies, though after years of coordinating with Caltrans, this process was recently set as a project requirement.

Page 140 of 536 ends

City Council Staff Report - Page 2 of 2

The proposed Contract Amendment No. 2021-336-5 is to cover the additional design services to meet the DEER process requirements and to complete the final design. In an effort to efficiently deliver the project enhancements, staff will be separating the project design into two phases. Phase 1 will cover improvements within the city's right-of-way and Phase 2 will cover improvements within Caltrans' right-of-way. Separating the improvements into phases allows the city to proceed with a significant portion of the overall improvements while the remainder project follows the DEER process.

The schedule for Phase 1 is to complete the design in Fall 2025 and begin construction in spring 2026. The schedule for Phase 2 is to complete the design in spring 2026 and begin construction in summer 2026.

FISCAL IMPACT AND FUNDING SOURCE

Funding for Mather Field Road Enhancements Projects consists of Community Enhancement & Investment Funds and Infrastructure Replacement Funds. There is no impact on the city's General Fund.

This project is included in the city’s current approved Capital Improvement Plan and in the 2025/26 budget.

ATTACHMENT(S)

1. Resolution

2. Contract Amendment No. 2021-336-5

Page 141 of 536 ends

ITEM 13.7. ATTACHMENT 1 Resolution No. XX-2025 Page 1 of 2

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

RESOLUTION NO. XX-2025

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

OF CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO. 2021-336-5 TO INCREASE THE CONTRACT AMOUNT BY $164,319.63 TO AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $344,020.60 WITH DEWBERRY ENGINEERS, INC. FOR

ENGINEERING DESIGN SERVICES FOR THE MATHER FIELD ROAD ENHANCEMENTS PROJECT, CS80059

WHEREAS, the Public Works Department employs the assistance of qualified consultants for engineering design services in order to provide flexibility to adapt to the variable Capital Improvement Program demands; and

WHEREAS, on December 2, 2021, the city approved Contract No. 2021-336 with Dewberry Engineers, Inc. in the amount of $79,892.36 for engineering design services for Mather Field Road Enhancements Project, CP22-2233; and

WHEREAS, on December 1, 2023, the city approved Contract Amendment No. 2021- 336-1 with Dewberry Engineers, Inc. to extend the contract term to June 30, 2025; and

WHEREAS, on January 16, 2024, the city approved Contract Amendment No. 2021-336-2 with Dewberry Engineers, Inc. to increase the contract amount by $29,970.39 to an amount not to exceed $109,862.75 for engineering design services for the project; and

WHEREAS, on September 3, 2024, the city approved Contract Amendment No. 2021- 336-3 with Dewberry Engineers, Inc. to increase the contract amount by $69,838.24 to an amount not to exceed $179,700.99 for final engineering design services and Caltrans coordination for the project; and

WHEREAS, on June 20, 2025, the city approved Contract Amendment No. 2021-336-4 that extends the term of this agreement from June 30, 2025, to June 30, 2027; and

WHEREAS, Contract Amendment No. 2021-336-5 will amend Section 2 “Compensation” to increase the contract amount by $164,319.63 to an amount not to exceed $344,020.60 and will cover the additional services to prepare a State of California Design Engineering Evaluation Report for locally funded projects within the State Highway System.

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. 2021-336-5 to increase the contract amount by $164,319.63 to an amount not to exceed $344,020.60 with Dewberry Engineers, Inc. for engineering design services for the Mather Field Road Enhancements Phase 2 Project, CS80059, in a form approved by the City Attorney.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cordova on the 6th day of October 2025 by the following vote:

AYES:

Page 142 of 536 ends

ITEM 13.7. ATTACHMENT 1 Resolution No. XX-2025 Page 2 of 2

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

ATTEST:

Siri Pulipati, Mayor

Stacy Leitner, CMC
City Clerk

Page 143 of 536 ends

CONTRACT NO. 2021-336-5
Fifth Amendment to Professional Services Agreement between Page 1 of 6 City of Rancho Cordova and Dewberry Engineers Inc.

FIFTH AMENDMENT TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA AND DEWBERRY ENGINEERS, INC. FOR

ENGINEERING DESIGN FOR THE MATHER FIELD ROAD ENHANCEMENTS PROJECT CP22-2233, CS80059
This
Fifth Amendment to the Agreement for Professional Services (“Amendment”) is made by and between the City of Rancho Cordova (“City” ”) and Dewberry Engineers , Inc. a California Corporation (“Professional”) as of October 6, 2025. City and Professional are hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Parties."

RECITALS
WHEREAS, t he Parties entered into a Professional Services Agreement (“PSA”) dated January 24, 2022, for the purpose of providing engineering design services; and WHEREAS, on December 01, 2023, City approved administrative amendment 2021-336-1 that amended Section 1.1 Performance Period, extending the term of this agreement from June 30, 2023, to June 30, 2025; and
WHEREAS, on January 16, 2024, Council approved amendment 2021-336-2 that amended Section 2 “Compensation” to Increase the contract amount by $29,970.39 to an amount not to exceed $109,862.75; and
WHEREAS, on September 03, 2024, Council approved amendment 2021- 336-3 that amended Section 2 “Compensation” to Increase the contract amount by $ 69,838.24 to an a mount not to e xceed $179,700.99; and
WHEREAS, on June 20, 2025, City approved administrative amendment 2021-336-4 that amended Section 1.1 Performance Period, extending the term of this agreement from June 30, 2025, to June 30, 2027; and
WHEREAS, this amendment 2021- 336-5 will amended Section 2 “Compensation” to Increase the contract amount by $164,319.63 to an amount not to exceed $344,020.60; and WHEREAS, this amendment 2021- 336-5 will cover the additional services to prepare State of California Design Engineering Evaluation Report for locally funded projects within the State Highway System; and
WHEREAS, the Parties agree that changes to the term and services provided for in the P SA are necessary in order for the City to continue receiving services by Professional.

NOW,
THEREFORE, the Parties hereto agree as follows:

AGREEMENT

1. The Parties agree to amend Section 2 “COMPENSATION” of the PSA to Increase the contract amount by $164,319.63. The first sentence of Section 2. COMPENSATION of the PSA is amended to read as follows:
“City hereby agrees to pay Professional a sum not to exceed Three Hundred Sixteen Thousand Eight Hundred Eleven Dollars and Sixty -Eight Cents ($344,020.60), notwithstanding any contrary ITEM 13.7.

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 144 of 536 ends

CONTRACT NO. 2021-336-5
Fifth Amendment to Professional Services Agreement between Page 2 of 6 City of Rancho Cordova and Dewberry Engineers Inc.
indications that may be contained in Professional’s cost proposal dated September 24, 2025, for services to be performed and reimbursable costs incurred under this Agreement.

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

3. The signatures of the Parties to this Amendment may be executed and acknowledged on separate pages or in counterparts which, when attached to this Amendment, shall constitute one complete Amendment.

4. Contract Administration. This Agreement shall be administered by Mr. Edgar Medina, P.E. ("Contract Administrator"). All correspondence shall be directed to or through the Contract Administrator or his or her designee.

Notices. Any written notice to Professional shall be sent to:

Dewberry Engineers, Inc.

Attention: Jose Silva, P.E.
11060 White Rock Road, Ste 200
Rancho Cordova, Ca. 95670, [email protected]
Any written notice to City shall be sent to:

Mr. Edgar Medina, P.E.

City of Rancho Cordova
2729 Prospect Park Drive
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670, [email protected] I
N WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Amendment on the day and year first above written.

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA PROFESSIONAL
____________________________
___ ___________________________
Micah Runner, City Manager Dennis Haglan, Sr. Vice President D
ate:__________________ Date:__________________
Attest:
________________________

Stacy Leitner, City Clerk
D
ate:__________________
Approved as to Form:
____________________________

Adam Lindgren, City Attorney
Date: __________________
ITEM 13.7.

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 145 of 536 ends

CONTRACT NO. 2021-336-5
Fifth Amendment to Professional Services Agreement between Page 3 of 6 City of Rancho Cordova and Dewberry Engineers Inc.

Exhibit A
Fee Proposal
ITEM 13.7.

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 146 of 536 ends

CONTRACT NO. 2021-336-5
Fifth Amendment to Professional Services Agreement between Page 4 of 6 City of Rancho Cordova and Dewberry Engineers Inc.

Exhibit A (Continued)
ITEM 13.7.

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 147 of 536 ends

CONTRACT NO. 2021-336-5
Fifth Amendment to Professional Services Agreement between Page 5 of 6 City of Rancho Cordova and Dewberry Engineers Inc.

Exhibit A (Continued)
ITEM 13.7.

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 148 of 536 ends

CONTRACT NO. 2021-336-5
Fifth Amendment to Professional Services Agreement between Page 6 of 6 City of Rancho Cordova and Dewberry Engineers Inc.

Exhibit A (Continued)
ITEM 13.7.

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 149 of 536 ends

MEMORANDUM

City Council Staff Report - Page 1 of 2

ITEM 13.8.

DATE: October 6, 2025

TO: Honorable Mayor and Council Members

FROM: Stefan Heisler, Housing Manager

SUBJECT: A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE EXECUTION OF A FISCAL YEAR 2024 COMMUNITY PROJECT FUNDING GRANT AGREEMENT

WITH THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND

URBAN DEVELOPMENT TO RECEIVE GRANT FUNDS IN THE
AMOUNT OF $1,000,000 FOR THE MATHER VETERANS VILLAGE
PHASE 4 PROJECT

RECOMMENDATION

Adopt the Resolution.

RESULT OF RECOMMENDED ACTION

Adoption of the Resolution would allow the City Manager or his designee to execute a Fiscal Year 2024 Community Project Funding Grant Agreement with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to receive $1,000,000 in Community Project Fund (CPF) grant funds for the Mather Veterans Village Phase 4 project (Project).

BACKGROUND

In the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024 (Public Law 118-42) (the FY2024 Act), and the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024 (Public Law 118-47) (the Further FY2024 Act) Congress made $3,290,054,336 in funding available for CPF. On March 16, 2023, city staff submitted an application for FY 24 CPF to Congressman Ami Bera for $1,000,000 to assist with the hard construction costs of the Mather Veterans Village Phase 4 project.

On August 24, 2024, the city received an award letter from HUD confirming that $1,000,000 had been awarded to the city for the Project. Before executing a Grant Agreement the city completed National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) review and clearance. The city now needs to execute a grant agreement with HUD for the CPF funding. A City Council resolution is needed to accept the award and execute the grant agreement.

The $1,000,000 grant will be used to pay for a portion of the vertical construction costs of the Project. The city will have until August 31, 2032, to spend this funding. The Project is expected to begin construction in early 2026 and begin occupancy in fall 2027.

Page 150 of 536 ends

City Council Staff Report - Page 2 of 2

FISCAL IMPACT AND FUNDING SOURCE

There is minimal fiscal impact, limited to a small amount of staff time to administer the grant funding.

ATTACHMENT(S)

1. Resolution

Page 151 of 536 ends

ITEM 13.8. ATTACHMENT 1 Resolution No. XX-2025 Page 1 of 1

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

RESOLUTION NO. XX-2025

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A FISCAL YEAR 2024 COMMUNITY

PROJECT FUNDING GRANT AGREEMENT WITH THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF

HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT TO RECEIVE A GRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,000,000 FOR THE MATHER VETERANS VILLAGE PHASE 4 PROJECT

WHEREAS, in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024 (Public Law 118-42) (the FY2024 Act), and the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024 (Public Law 118-47) (the Further FY2024 Act) Congress made $3,290,054,336 in funding available for Community Project Funding (“CPF”); and

WHEREAS, in March 2023, the City of Rancho Cordova applied for a CPF grant in the amount of $1,000,000 to support the construction of the Mather Veterans Village Phase 4 project (“Project”); and

WHEREAS, in August 2024, Congress approved and the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) awarded the City of Rancho Cordova the full $1,000,000 requested; and

WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cordova desires to enter into a Fiscal Year 2024 Community Project Funding Grant Agreement with HUD for $1,000,000 to receive CPF funding for the Project.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA does authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute a Fiscal Year 2024 Community Project Funding Grant Agreement with HUD in an amount not to exceed $1,000,000, in a form approved by the City Attorney, to receive CPF funding for the Mather Veterans Village Phase 4 project.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cordova on the 6th day of October 2025 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

ATTEST:

Siri Pulipati, Mayor

Stacy Leitner, CMC
City Clerk

Page 152 of 536 ends

City Council Staff Report – Page 1 of 15

MEMORANDUM

ITEM 15.1.

DATE: October 6, 2025

TO: Honorable Mayor and Council Members

FROM: Nick Sosa, Senior Planner

SUBJECT: FITE CIRCLE DIGITAL BILLBOARD SIGN – ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT,

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, MINOR DESIGN REVIEW, & OPERATING

AGREEMENT (MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PREPARED
PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 6 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT) – PROJECT NO. PLND-1124-0113 – 3127 FITE CIRCLE; APN:
077-0330-039-0000

PROPERTY OWNER:
3127fite, LLC c/o BJ Yu
2370 Telegraph Avenue
Oakland, CA 94612
APPLICANT:

Cordova Community Council Foundation
2729 Prospect Park Drive, Ste. 117
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670

PROJECT: The applicant, Cordova Community Council, is seeking approval of a Zoning Text Amendment, Conditional Use Permit, Minor Design Review, and Operating Agreement for a new digital billboard sign along US Highway 50 at 3127 Fite Circle. The sign proposes a sign area display measuring 1,003 square feet. The sign is proposed at 60 feet in height. The applicant will also enter into an Operating Agreement with the city to govern the operations of the digital sign. The Zoning Text Amendment would create an additional area within the Digital Freeway Signs Overlay.

FILE: PLND-1124-0113
LOCATION: 3127 Fite Circle
APN: 077-0330-039-0000
PLANNER: Nick Sosa, Senior Planner

RECOMMENDATION

Certify the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration that was prepared and circulated pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), waive the first reading and introduce the Ordinance for the Digital Freeway Sign Overlay zoning text amendment for Section 23.743.150; adopt the Resolution for the Fite Circle Digital Billboard Sign Zoning Text Amendment, Conditional Use Permit and Minor Design Review; and approve the Fite Circle Digital Billboard Sign Operating Agreement.

Page 153 of 536 ends

City Council Staff Report - Page 2 of 15

RESULT OF RECOMMENDED ACTION

Adoption of the Ordinance and Resolution would find that the project was adequately analyzed in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve the applicant’s request to modify Section 23.743.150 to include an additional area to the existing Digital Freeway Sign Overlay and allow for construction of a single digital billboard sign at the subject property along US Highway 50. This would further allow the applicant to move forward with building permit applications with the Building & Safety Department.

BACKGROUND

The Project site is located at 3127 Fite Circle adjacent to US Highway 50, as shown in Figure 1:

The project parcel is approximately 2.23 acres in size and includes an existing 24,000 square foot building with existing parking lot and other supportive elements such as lighting and landscaping.

The property is located within an Office Industrial Mixed Use (OIMU) zone within the Folsom Boulevard Specific Plan.

Figure 1: Project Location

In addition to the highway located to the south, the project site is also surrounded by other office flex space and light industrial buildings located east, west, and north of the project parcel. Businesses directly adjacent to the site include The Frame Factory, Lighting Solutions, Redtail Technology, and i5LED located within the building on-site. Figure 2 and Figure 3 show current site conditions from Highway 50 and Fite Circle.

Page 154 of 536 ends

City Council Staff Report - Page 3 of 15
Figure 2: Streetview from Hwy 50 looking North toward Fite Circle

Figure 3: Streetview from Fite Circle looking toward Hwy 50

Page 155 of 536 ends

City Council Staff Report - Page 4 of 15
Planning Commission Hearing

The project was heard before the Planning Commission on August 27th and received comments and concerns from both the Commission and the community both in person and via written comments submitted. Key concerns were regarding the size of the proposed signage, exemptions from the sign removal requirement, and concerns with violations of the Outdoor Advertising Act and potentially spot zoning regarding the proposed Zoning Code Amendment. Reponses to these concerns are listed below.

Square Footage Allowance

The applicant originally requested a digital billboard sign with a total of 1,200 SF consistent with their previous sign approval at the Mineshaft Property. The allowed square footage for digital billboard signs is 672 SF unless an exception is made via the Operating Agreement with the city. After listening to comments both from the community as well as the Planning Commission, the applicant has modified their requested square footage from 1,200 SF to a total of 1,003 SF based upon the distance of the sign from the public right of way. It is important to note that the Planning Commission recommendation for approval is for the proposed sign at 1,200 SF. The applicant decided to reduce the size of the sign after the Planning Commission hearing.

The applicant determined this square footage based upon other existing signs along Highway 50 and their distances from the right of way. The existing Clear Channel Sign east of Sunrise Boulevard as well as the Outfront Digital Media sign at the Naturewood property are both located directly adjacent to the highway and are built at the allowed standard of 672 SF. The applicant’s recently approved and constructed Mineshaft east sign is located over 150 feet from the public right of way and was built with a square footage of 1,200 SF, larger than the allowed standard but approved through the Operating Agreement. The proposed Fite Circle Billboard sign would be located approximately 95 feet from the public right of way, which is closer than the Mineshaft east sign’s distance to the right of away, therefore the applicant has reduced the proposed Fite Circle sign to 1,003 SF. The graphic below visually portrays this comparison.

All documents, including project plans, Resolution, and Operating Agreement, have been updated to reflect the updated square footage.

Page 156 of 536 ends

City Council Staff Report - Page 5 of 15
Sign Removal Requirement

Per RCMC 23.743.150(C)(3), the city allows for exemptions from development standards as part of negotiations for the Operating Agreement. The applicant is requesting an exemption from the sign removal requirement (removal of at least four static billboards for every one digital freeway sign) as the proposed sign would be a relocation of their “west” sign that was previously approved at the Cordova Community Council’s (CCC) Mineshaft location and where a static billboard sign has already been removed as part of that proposal. The static sign that was removed from the Mineshaft property was located on private property owned by the CCC and therefore was able to be removed.

However, the remaining static billboards within the city, specifically those along Highway 50, are located on private property not owned by the applicant, and would not feasibly be able to be removed by CCC. Therefore, the applicant continues to make this request as part of the Operating Agreement with the city.

Potential Violations of Outdoor Advertising Act and Spot Zoning

The city received a public comment from Orion Outdoor Media regarding the application during the city’s Planning Commission meeting on August 27, 2025. The comments object to the application on two bases.

First, the comments claim that “[t]he application is in direct conflict and runs afoul of both the City of Rancho Cordova’s general plan and specific plan as it relates to the requirement of the removal of static billboards both number and size, placement of a new billboard outside the lawful areas that allow digital billboards and violates both size and height restrictions.”

The City Attorney has reviewed this comment and does not find merit in the claim. While, the city does enforce certain design standards and requires removal of static billboards as part of the planning process, Rancho Cordova Municipal Code 23.743.150 (C)(3) provides a specific exemption from the stated development standard and requirement to remove existing billboards through entering an operating agreement with the applicant and with the issuance of a conditional use permit if the City Council finds and determines that the operating agreement achieves community benefits that are equivalent to those that would be achieved through strict compliance with subsection (C)(1) and (C)(2) of Section 23.743.150.

The second issue raised by commenters was a vague and undeveloped assertion that approval of the application would violate Federal Law and seek to create spot zoning. Without more detail on what particular Federal Law is at issue here, the City Attorney is unable to comment further on that assertion. Spot zoning occurs when a zoning ordinance prevents a property owner from utilizing his or her property in a certain way, treating the affected property different from neighboring properties resulting in a severe diminution of value to the affected property. The facts here do not align for a spot zoning challenge. The parcel of land affected by the rezone does not act to prevent any already permitted use on the property. The rezone ordinance would add a use to the property through inclusion in the Billboard Overlay Zone. Second, spot zoning challenges are typically filed by the property owner to whom the rezoning would affect. Given that the rezone is being requested by the applicant/property owner, it does not appear that the applicant is a potential litigant under this theory.

Because the recommended action does not diminish the value of the affected property, rather enhances it by offering a wider variety of conditionally approved uses, the City Attorney disagrees that the recommended action constitutes spot zoning.

Page 157 of 536 ends

City Council Staff Report - Page 6 of 15

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Cordova Community Council (CCC) is seeking approval of a Zoning Text Amendment, Conditional Use Permit, Design Review, and Operating Agreement for a single digital freeway sign. The development and long-term lease of the digital freeway billboard is a critical component of a strategy that would provide the CCC with long-term financial stability to carry out its mission. As a non-profit organization serving the Rancho Cordova community, the Cordova Community Council has identified the following project objectives:

• Develop a revenue source for the Cordova Community Council from the ownership of an additional digital billboard sign.
• Provide the City of Rancho Cordova and community groups with a medium for communicating to area residents.

Zoning Text Amendment

The Digital Freeway Signs Overlay section of the City of Rancho Cordova Municipal Code regulates the installation and use of digital freeway signs within designated overlay zones. The overlay zones are established to protect residential areas from the negative impacts of digital freeway signs, such as excessive glare or light pollution. Currently there are only three areas within the Digital Freeway Sign Overlay, primarily located in the northeast section of the city along Highway 50 between Sunrise Boulevard and Hazel Ave. See Figure 4 below from RCMC Section 23.743.150.

Figure 4: Digital Freeway Sign Overlay areas

Page 158 of 536 ends

City Council Staff Report - Page 7 of 15
As part of the Application, the applicant has requested to add a fourth area to the Digital Freeway Sign Overlay, as part of a Zoning Text Amendment. This fourth zone would be located at the west entrance of the city bounded by Highway 50 to the south, 9778 Business Park Drive to the west, Business Park Drive and Fite Circle to the North, and the eastern edges of the industrial zoned property on Fite Circle. A graphic of the proposed fourth area is shown below in Figure 5. This newly added area would accommodate the proposed project site at 3127 Fite Circle with the project area marked with a star.

Figure 5: Proposed fourth Overlay Zone (Bradshaw)

Along with the newly proposed fourth area and added graphic, minor amendments are proposed to update the chapter text with descriptors for the new overlay area, however, no changes to the existing development standards or requirements are proposed with this application.

Conditional Use Permit
The proposed digital freeway sign has a sign area display measuring 17’x 59’ (1,003 square feet). The sign has an overall maximum height of 60 feet including the pole. The sign will be located directly adjacent to Highway 50 within the existing parking lot of 3127 Fite Circle. Once installed, the parking areas will continue to be able to be utilized, and the site will not result in any loss of parking.

Page 159 of 536 ends

City Council Staff Report - Page 8 of 15
Figure 6: Sign Location

Page 160 of 536 ends

City Council Staff Report - Page 9 of 15
Figure 7: Site Plan

The proposed digital freeway sign would not operate at brightness levels of more than 0.3 foot- candles above ambient light, automatically adjusting as ambient light conditions change. No trees would be removed as part of construction.

Environmental impacts of the proposed digital freeway sign are identified and analyzed in the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) (SCH# 2025061343). The IS/MND analyzed a number of environmental factors and identified less than significant impact in the following areas: air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, and hazards and hazardous materials. Subsequently, the IS/MND outlines mitigation measures to address these impacts in the Mitigation and Monitoring Program as shown in Attachment 8.

Per the Rancho Cordova Municipal Code Section 23.743.150, a digital freeway sign proposed within the digital freeway signs overlay area requires the approval of a Conditional Use Permit.

Chapter 23.134 of the Rancho Cordova Municipal Code requires specific findings to approve a Conditional Use Permit. As shown in Attachment 1, all applicable findings have been met supporting the Conditional Use Permit.

Minor Design Review
The proposed project is also subject to design review per Section 23.140 of the Rancho Cordova Municipal Code and must adhere to specific design standards. The proposed sign would have a monopole that would support two electronic displays angled to provide line-of- sight for highway travelers. The proposed sign structures supporting and surrounding the digital

Page 161 of 536 ends

City Council Staff Report - Page 10 of 15
display area are as small as possible and avoid any unnecessary height or width to the sign.

The structure also does not add stylistic or architectural detailing that would call additional attention to the sign. Elevations of the proposed sign can be found in Figure 8 along with photo renderings of the sign shown in Figure 9. As shown in Attachment 1, all applicable findings have been met supporting the Minor Design Review.

Figure 8: Project Elevations

Page 162 of 536 ends

City Council Staff Report - Page 11 of 15

Figure 9: Photo Renderings

Page 163 of 536 ends

City Council Staff Report - Page 12 of 15

Operating Agreement
Per Rancho Cordova Municipal Code Section 23.743.150, the city and applicant may enter into an operating agreement that outlines the requirements of installation, ownership, maintenance, standards, use rights, utilities, etc. for a digital freeway sign. The applicant may also use the operating agreement to deviate from the development standards for these types of signs.

As proposed, the project requests deviations from the maximum sign area and a deviation from the billboard removal requirement. The proposed project is requesting to increase the allowed sign area from 672 square feet to 1,003 square feet. Additionally, the project will not be removing any static billboards as part of this application and therefore is requesting a deviation from this requirement. However, as an alternative, the applicant will no longer be constructing their previously approved “west sign” at the Mineshaft property (PLND-0822-0047) and is instead requesting approval of this application in its place. The proposed operating agreement requesting these deviations for this application is included as Attachment 9. The applicant has already begun amendments to the previously approved operating agreement for Mine Shaft property, to effectively remove the “west sign” from that approval.

Table 1: Development Standards for Digital Freeway Signs

Standard Requirement Deviation Request
Number of Faces Two display areas, each
positioned to be visible only
by opposing directions of
traffic
None
Maximum Height 60 feet None
Maximum Area 672 square feet Requesting 1,003 square feet Distance between Signs Minimum 2,500 feet None
Message Display Static messages only None
Billboard Removal For every 1 digital freeway
sign installed, the applicant
must remove at least 4 legally
existing billboard structures
Removal/Cancellation of
approval of “west sign” from
Mine Shaft Property

The applicant, Cordova Community Council, requests the deviations from the requirements for maximum size area and for removal of static Billboards for the following reasons:

• The requested deviation for size of all sign displays (1,003 square feet) is required because the sign is at a further distance from the viewers on the freeway. • If a sign cannot be seen or read, then it will have no economic value. • There are limited static Billboards left within the city. The Cordova Community Council will no longer be constructing their “west sign” digital billboard sign and instead is requesting this approval in the proposed new location.

The billboards would be operated 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year. The electronic messages would be static, with no movement and the minimum display time for each message would be 8 seconds. As previously mentioned, brightness would be 0.3 foot-candles above ambient light, and the brightness would automatically adjust up or down based on ambient light conditions.

Page 164 of 536 ends

City Council Staff Report - Page 13 of 15
The City of Rancho Cordova will be provided with access to a portion of the total available display time to allow the city to present messages of community interest. This access will also include other appropriate agencies for the purpose of displaying public safety messages such as “Amber Alert” messages and emergency-disaster communications.

It’s important to note that the Operating Agreement presented and recommended for approval by the Planning Commission included a request for a 1,200 SF display area and that the sign was setback approximately 110 feet from the Caltrans ROW. However, since the Planning Commission Meeting, the square footage has been reduced to 1,003 SF and the distance from the Caltrans ROW has been updated to be consistent with the project plans and now shows the distance of 95 feet. Additionally, the Operating Agreement language that was no longer applicable regarding a sign removal at the Mineshaft property has been removed from the Agreement as that sign has already been removed from the property.

GENERAL PLAN/ZONING CODE

The proposed project is within the Folsom Boulevard Planning Area of the General Plan and zoned Office Industrial Mixed Use (OIMU). The project is also requesting a Zoning Code Amendment to add a new area within the Digital Freeway Signs Overlay to Section 23.743.150 to allow a digital billboard sign at this location. Although the applicant is requesting deviations from the required standards, deviations are allowed so long as they are agreed upon by way of the Operating Agreement. The applicant is adhering to all required processes for their requested amendments and deviations and therefore is compliant with applicable sections of both the General Plan and Zoning Code.

FISCAL IMPACT

Staff anticipates that project will have no impact to the city’s General Fund.

ENVIRONMENTAL

In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)(Public Resource Code Section 2100 et. seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et. Seq.), a Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) (SCH# 2025061343) was prepared and circulated for the required 30-day review period, from June 27, 2025, to July 28, 2025. Areas identified in the Draft IS/MND that required mitigation measures to avoid potentially significant impacts on the environment were Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils and Tribal Cultural Resources. Mitigation measures to address these impacts include standard reductions to construction emissions, bird surveys prior to construction, construction crew training and protocols in the event of unanticipated discoveries during ground disturbance.

Potential impacts identified in the Fite Circle Digital Sign Project IS/MND include:
• Air Quality
o The project would not exceed Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District’s (SMAQMD) thresholds for construction emissions. However, SMAQMD recommends all construction projects implement the SMAQMD Basic Construction Emission Control Practices (Mitigation Measure AIR-1). • Biological Resources

Page 165 of 536 ends

City Council Staff Report - Page 14 of 15
o The project site provides low habitat value. However, trees are present on site and therefore preconstruction nesting bird surveys will occur prior to construction to verify no nesting birds are present (Mitigation Measure BIO-1). • Cultural Resources
o The project site contains low potential for buried archaeological resources.

However, any project with ground disturbance presents the potential to encounter buried resources. Mitigation is included in the event that unanticipated buried resources are encountered during construction (Mitigation Measure CUL-1). • Geology & Soils
o Project-related construction would result in low potential to encounter paleontologically sensitive resources. However, mitigation is included in case unanticipated buried paleontological resources are encountered during ground disturbance (Mitigation Measure GEO-1).
• Tribal Cultural Resources
o No tribal cultural resources have been identified on the project site. The United Auburn Indian Community (UAIC) has provided a mitigation measure in the event that unanticipated discoveries occur (Mitigation Measure TCR-1).

With implementation of these five (5) mitigation measures, the project would not result in any significant impacts, and no further analysis is required. These measures are also summarized in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) included as Attachment 8.

Aesthetic Impacts/Light and Glare
No impacts related to the creation of a new source of substantial light or glare were identified in the IS/MND. A photometric study (included as Appendix A of the MND) demonstrated that the amount of light generated from the proposed digital sign would be consistent with the city’s Municipal Code, which requires that the amount of light generated by a digital sign cannot increase the overall ambient light levels by more than 0.3 foot candles at a distance of 250 feet.

Noticing and Public Comments

The city sent out a Notice of Intent when the Mitigated Negative Declaration was released for the 30-day public comment period. Public Hearing Notices were mailed out regarding the August 27, 2025, Planning Commission meeting. The radius list notification for the meeting meets the minimum requirement of 500 feet from the project boundary, as required by Section

23.11.120 B.4. of the Rancho Cordova Municipal Code.

During the public review period, 2 email comments were received, one from Sacramento Area Sewer District and one from a resident of Rancho Cordova. As a result of comments received, there were no substantial revisions made to the Draft IS/MND that required recirculation of the document. The revisions proposed in the Final IS/MND do not meet the criteria for recirculation provided in Section 15073.5(c) of the CEQA Guidelines, nor were project revisions required based upon the comments received. Responses were drafted for all comments received and have been included as an attachment to the project.

Page 166 of 536 ends

City Council Staff Report - Page 15 of 15

RECOMMENDED MOTIONS

1. Certify Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration that was prepared and circulated pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and adopting the mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP); and

2. Waive the first reading and introduce the Ordinance for the Digital Freeway Sign Overlay zoning text amendment for Section 23.743.150; and

3. Adopt the Resolution for the Fite Circle Digital Billboard Sign Conditional Use Permit and Minor Design Review

4. Approve the Fite Circle Digital Billboard Sign Operating Agreement.

ATTACHMENT(S)

1. Final Mitigated Negative Declaration

2. MND Response to Comments

3. Ordinance

4. Exhibit A to the Ordinance - Zoning Text

5. Resolution

6. Exhibit A to the Resolution - Project Plans

7. Exhibit B to the Resolution - Conditions of Approval

8. Exhibit C to the Resolution - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan

9. Exhibit D to the Resolution - Operating Agreement

10. Presentation

Page 167 of 536 ends

Final
Fite Circle Digital Sign Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Prepared for:

Prepared by:

August 2025
ITEM 15.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 168 of 536 ends

ITEM 15.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 169 of 536 ends

Final
Fite Circle Digital Sign Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

Prepared for:

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

Darcy Goulart
Planning Manager
916/851-8784
Prepared by:

AECOM
2020 L Street, Suite 300
Sacramento, CA 95811
Contact:

Jed McLaughlin
Project Manager
916/414-5800

August 2025
ITEM 15.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 170 of 536 ends

ITEM 15.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 171 of 536 ends

Fite Circle Digital Sign Project IS/MND AECOM
City of Rancho Cordova i Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 Project Requiring Environmental Analysis .................................................................................. 1-1

1.2 Document Organization ............................................................................................................... 1-2 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 2-1

2.2 Project Location and Setting ........................................................................................................ 2-1

2.3 Project Objectives ......................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.4 Project Characteristics .................................................................................................................. 2-1

2.5 Construction ................................................................................................................................. 2-4

2.6 Operation ...................................................................................................................................... 2-8

2.7 City Discretionary and Ministerial Actions .................................................................................. 2-8 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ................................................................................................................ 3-1

3.1 Aesthetics .................................................................................................................................. 3.1-1

3.1.1 Setting ........................................................................................................................... 3.1-1

3.1.2 Discussion .................................................................................................................... 3.1-6

3.2 Agriculture & Forestry Resources ............................................................................................. 3.2-1

3.2.1 Setting ........................................................................................................................... 3.2-1

3.2.2 Discussion .................................................................................................................... 3.2-2

3.3 Air Quality ................................................................................................................................. 3.3-1

3.3.1 Setting ........................................................................................................................... 3.3-1

3.3.2 Discussion .................................................................................................................... 3.3-3

3.4 Biological Resources ................................................................................................................. 3.4-1

3.4.1 Setting ........................................................................................................................... 3.4-1

3.4.2 Discussion .................................................................................................................... 3.4-4

3.5 Cultural Resources .................................................................................................................... 3.5-1

3.5.1 Setting ........................................................................................................................... 3.5-1

3.5.2 Research Methodology ................................................................................................. 3.5-1

3.5.3 Discussion .................................................................................................................... 3.5-2

3.6 Energy ....................................................................................................................................... 3.6-1

3.6.1 Setting ........................................................................................................................... 3.6-1

3.6.2 Discussion .................................................................................................................... 3.6-1

3.7 Geology and Soils ..................................................................................................................... 3.7-1

3.7.1 Setting ........................................................................................................................... 3.7-1

3.7.2 Discussion .................................................................................................................... 3.7-3

3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ....................................................................................................... 3.8-1

3.8.1 Setting ........................................................................................................................... 3.8-1

3.8.2 Discussion .................................................................................................................... 3.8-2

3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ............................................................................................. 3.9-1

3.9.1 Hazardous Materials ..................................................................................................... 3.9-1

3.9.2 Discussion .................................................................................................................... 3.9-3 ITEM 15.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 172 of 536 ends

AECOM Fite Circle Digital Sign Project IS/MND
Table of Contents ii City of Rancho Cordova

3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality ................................................................................................. 3.10-1

3.10.1 Setting ......................................................................................................................... 3.10-1

3.10.2 Discussion .................................................................................................................. 3.10-2

3.11 Land Use and Planning ............................................................................................................ 3.11-1

3.11.1 Setting ......................................................................................................................... 3.11-1

3.11.2 Discussion .................................................................................................................. 3.11-1

3.12 Mineral Resources ................................................................................................................... 3.12-1

3.12.1 Setting ......................................................................................................................... 3.12-1

3.12.2 Discussion .................................................................................................................. 3.12-2

3.13 Noise ........................................................................................................................................ 3.13-1

3.13.1 Setting ......................................................................................................................... 3.13-1

3.13.2 Discussion .................................................................................................................. 3.13-4

3.14 Population and Housing .......................................................................................................... 3.14-1

3.14.1 Setting ......................................................................................................................... 3.14-1

3.14.2 Discussion .................................................................................................................. 3.14-1

3.15 Public Services ........................................................................................................................ 3.15-1

3.15.1 Setting ......................................................................................................................... 3.15-1

3.15.2 Discussion .................................................................................................................. 3.15-1

3.16 Recreation ................................................................................................................................ 3.16-1

3.16.1 Setting ......................................................................................................................... 3.16-1

3.16.2 Discussion .................................................................................................................. 3.16-2

3.17 Transportation ......................................................................................................................... 3.17-1

3.17.1 Setting ......................................................................................................................... 3.17-1

3.17.2 Discussion .................................................................................................................. 3.17-1

3.18 Tribal Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................ 3.18-1

3.18.1 Setting ......................................................................................................................... 3.18-1

3.18.2 Discussion .................................................................................................................. 3.18-3

3.19 Utilities and Service Systems .................................................................................................. 3.19-1

3.19.1 Setting ......................................................................................................................... 3.19-1

3.19.2 Discussion .................................................................................................................. 3.19-2

3.20 Wildfire ................................................................................................................................... 3.20-1

3.20.1 Setting ......................................................................................................................... 3.20-1

3.20.2 Discussion .................................................................................................................. 3.20-2

3.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance ....................................................................................... 3.21-1

3.21.1 Discussion .................................................................................................................. 3.21-1 4 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................ 4-1 5 LIST OF PREPARERS ................................................................................................................................. 5-1

ITEM 15.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 173 of 536 ends

Fite Circle Digital Sign Project IS/MND AECOM
City of Rancho Cordova iii Table of Contents
Exhibits
Exhibit 2-1. Regional and Local Project Site Location .................................................................................... 2-2 Exhibit 2-2. Proposed Project Site Location .................................................................................................... 2-3 Exhibit 2-3. Proposed Digital Sign Site Plan and Schematics ......................................................................... 2-5 Exhibit 2-4. Proposed City Digital Freeway Signs Overlay – Bradshaw ......................................................... 2-7 Exhibit 3.1-2. Visual Simulation of Proposed Digital Sign from U.S. 50 Looking Northeast ......................... 3.1-2 Exhibit 3.1-3. Proposed Digital Sign Location from Fite Circle Looking South ............................................. 3.1-3 Exhibit 3.1-4. Existing City Digital Freeway Signs Overlay Area .................................................................. 3.1-4 Exhibit 3.1-5. Existing and Proposed City Digital Freeway Signs Overlay Areas .......................................... 3.1-8

Tables
Table 3.3-1. SMAQMD CEQA Air Quality Thresholds of Significance ...................................................... 3.3-3 Table 3.4-1. Special-Status Plant Species with the Potential to Occur in the Project Vicinity ..................... 3.4-7 Table 3.4-2. Special-Status Wildlife Species with the Potential to Occur in the Project Vicinity .............. 3.4-11 Table 3.5-1. Known Cultural Resources within 0.25 miles of Project Site ................................................... 3.5-2 Table 3.5-2. Previous Studies Conducted within 0.25 miles of the Project Site ........................................... 3.5-2 Table 3.8-1. SMAQMD GHG Emissions CEQA Thresholds of Significance .............................................. 3.8-2 Table 3.12-1. California Division of Mines and Geology Mineral Land Classification System ................... 3.12-1 Table 3.13-1. Summary of Existing Traffic Noise Level in the Vicinity of the Project Site ......................... 3.13-3 Table 3.13-2. Project Construction Noise Levels .......................................................................................... 3.13-5 Table 3.19-1. Landfills in the Project Region ................................................................................................ 3.19-2

Appendices
Appendices available for viewing or download on the City of Rancho Cordova’s website at:
https://www.cityofranchocordova.org/departments/community-development/planning/planning-division- document-library
Appendix A Sign Lighting Study
Appendix B Biological Resources CNDDB Database Search and Focal Point Arborist Report

ITEM 15.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 174 of 536 ends

AECOM Fite Circle Digital Sign Project IS/MND
Acronyms and Abbreviations iv City of Rancho Cordova
Acronyms and Abbreviations
AB Assembly Bill
amsl above mean sea level
ANSI American National Standards Institute
APN Assessor’s Parcel Number
bgs Below ground surface
BMPs best management practices
BSA biological study area
CAA federal Clean Air Act
CAAQS California ambient air quality standards
CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CARB California Air Resources Board
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CEQA Guide Guide to Air Quality Assessment in Sacramento County CESA California Environmental Species Act
CH4 methane
City City of Rancho Cordova
CNDDB California Resources Agency Natural Diversity Database CNPS California Native Plant Society Rare Plant Inventory CO carbon monoxide
CO2 carbon dioxide
CO2e carbon dioxide-equivalents
Council Cordova Community Council
CRPD Cordova Recreation and Park District
CWA Clean Water Act
dB decibels
dBA A-weighted decibels
DDT dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane
DOC California Department of Conservation
DPM diesel PM
Draft CAAP Draft Climate Action and Adaptation Plan
DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control
EIR environmental impact report
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ESA federal Environmental Species Act
EV electric vehicle
fc foot-candles
FCUSD Folsom Cordova Unified School District
FEMA Flood Emergency Management Agency
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FTA Federal Transit Administration
GC General Commercial
ITEM 15.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 175 of 536 ends

Fite Circle Digital Sign Project IS/MND AECOM
City of Rancho Cordova v Acronyms and Abbreviations
General Construction Permit General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity Construction General Permit Order 2009-0009-DWQ GHG greenhouse gas
GWP Global warming potential
HFCs hydrofluorocarbons
Hz hertz
in/sec inches per second
IPaC Information for Planning and Consultation
IS initial study
ISA International Society of Arboriculture
Ldn Day-Night Noise Level
LED light emitting diode
Leq Equivalent sound level
Lmax Maximum sound level
Ln Statistical Descriptor
LRA Local Responsibility Areas
MLD Most Likely Descendent
MND mitigated negative declaration
mph miles per hour
MRZ mineral resource zone
MT metric tons
N2O nitrous oxide
NAAQS national ambient air quality standards
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NOX nitrogen oxides
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NWIC Northwest Information Center
OEHHA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
PFCs perfluorocarbons
PM particulate patter
PM10 PM equal to or less than 10 micrometers in diameter PM2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter PPV peak particle velocity
RCNM Roadway Construction Noise Model
RCPD Rancho Cordova Police Department
RMS root-mean-square
ROG reactive organic gases
SACRT Sacramento Regional Transit District
SB Senate Bill
SCGA Sacramento Central Groundwater Authority
SF6 sulfur hexafluoride
SFNA Sacramento Federal Nonattainment Area
SMAQMD Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District SMARA Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975
SMFD Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District
SMUD Sacramento Municipal Utility District
ITEM 15.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 176 of 536 ends

AECOM Fite Circle Digital Sign Project IS/MND
Acronyms and Abbreviations vi City of Rancho Cordova
SR State Route
SSHCP South Sacramento County Habitat Conservation Plan State CEQA Guidelines California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Superfund Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act SVAB Sacramento Valley Air Basin
SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TAC toxic air contaminant
UDA Urban Development Area
UL Underwriters Laboratories
UL-E Underwriters Laboratories Environmental
US 50 U.S. Highway 50
USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
VdB vibration decibel
VMT vehicle miles traveled
μin/sec microinch per second

ITEM 15.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 177 of 536 ends

Fite Circle Digital Sign Project IS/MND AECOM
City of Rancho Cordova 1-1 Introduction
1 INTRODUCTION
Section 21080(a) of the California Public Resources Code states that analysis of a project’s environmental impact is required for any “discretionary projects proposed to be carried out or approved by public agencies…” In this case, the City of Rancho Cordova (City) has determined that an initial study (IS) is required to determine whether there is substantial evidence that implementing the Fite Circle Digital Sign project would result in significant environmental impacts.

Pursuant to Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (CEQA Guidelines) (Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Section 15000 et seq.), an initial study is a preliminary environmental analysis that is used by the lead agency as a basis for determining whether an environmental impact report (EIR), a mitigated negative declaration (MND), or a negative declaration is required for a project. The CEQA Guidelines suggest that an initial study contain, in brief form, a project description; a description of the environmental setting; an identification of environmental effects by checklist or other similar form; an explanation of environmental effects; a discussion of mitigation for significant environmental effects; an evaluation of the project’s consistency with existing, applicable land use controls; the names of persons who prepared the study; and identification of data sources used in the review of environmental impacts and the conclusions reached in the document.

Section 15070 of the CEQA Guidelines provides that a lead agency may prepare a mitigated negative declaration when (1) the initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment; or (2) the initial study identifies potentially significant effects, however incorporation of mitigation measures into the project would reduce all impacts to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation measures are identified to avoid, eliminate, or reduce potentially significant adverse impacts of the proposed project.

Section 15064 specifies that, when an initial study identifies significant environmental impacts, the lead agency must prepare an EIR.

The analysis in this initial study concludes that the proposed project, with implementation of mitigation measures, would have no significant impacts. As such, further environmental review is not required by CEQA.

1.1 PROJECT REQUIRING ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The Cordova Community Council (CCC) is proposing to construct a digital billboard sign with electronic display on the north side of U.S. Highway 50 (U.S. 50) near Fite Circle between Bradshaw Road and Routier Road in the City of Rancho Cordova. The sign would be located in one 2.1-acre parcel currently developed as a commercial business. The proposed digital sign would have a monopole that would support TWO electronic displays (one each angled east and west) to provide line-of-sight for U.S. 50 Highway motorists. The pole would be 60 feet above the ground surface. The face of each display would be 60 feet wide by 20 feet high, with a total display area of 1,200 square feet. The bottom digital display faces would be elevated approximately 40 feet above grade.

ITEM 15.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 178 of 536 ends

AECOM Fite Circle Digital Sign Project IS/MND
Introduction 1-2 City of Rancho Cordova

1.2 DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION
This initial study is organized into five chapters:
► Chapter 1, “Introduction,” provides summary information about the proposed project and describes the purpose and content of the initial study.
► Chapter 2, “Project Description,” provides the project location, project background, project objectives, detailed project description, and the needed permits and approvals. ► Chapter 3, “Environmental Checklist,” contains the completed initial study checklist. The checklist contains an assessment and discussion of impacts associated with each particular environmental issue. When the evaluation identifies potentially significant effects, as identified in the checklist, mitigation measures are provided to reduce such impacts to less-than-significant levels. ► Chapter 4, “References,” identifies the information sources used in preparing this initial study. ► Chapter 5, “List of Preparers,” identifies the individuals who contributed to this initial study.

Appendices contain technical information to supplement the mitigated negative declaration.

ITEM 15.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 179 of 536 ends

Fite Circle Digital Sign Project IS/MND AECOM
City of Rancho Cordova 2-1 Project Description
2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 INTRODUCTION
The Cordova Community Council (CCC) is proposing to construct an advertising billboard sign with electronic display on the north side of U.S. 50 near Fite Circle between Bradshaw Road and Routier Road in the city of Rancho Cordova. This section provides the project location, project objectives, project description, and the required permits and approvals.

2.2 PROJECT LOCATION AND SETTING
The project site is located at 3127 Fite Circle in the city of Rancho Cordova. The project site is approximately 2.1 acres in total land area and encompasses Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 077-0330-039 (Exhibit 2-1). The site is within the Folsom Boulevard Specific Plan Area. The City General Plan land use designation is Folsom Boulevard Planning Area, and the site is zoned Office Industrial Mixed Use within the Folsom Boulevard Specific Plan (OIMU-FB). The project site consists of a light industrial building with paved parking areas and drive aisles.

The site is level and primarily covered with hardscape surfaces; several urban landscape trees are present adjacent to the east side of the building and along the northern property boundary. The proposed digital freeway sign would be installed within a paved parking area at the south end of the project site, as shown on Exhibit 2-2. The project site is situated within and is surrounded by an existing developed office and light industrial park to the north, east, and west. The site is bordered by U.S. 50 on the south side. South of U.S. 50, residential land uses are present.

2.3 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The CCC is seeking approval for a digital freeway billboard in order to promote City-wide events and other advertisements. The following project objectives have been identified:
► Develop a revenue source for the Cordova Community Council from the ownership of a digital billboard. ► Provide the City of Rancho Cordova and community groups with a medium for communicating to area residents.

2.4 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
The Council is proposing to construct a digital billboard sign at the southern end of the project site, as shown on Exhibit 2-2, approximately 110 feet north of the U.S. 50 right-of-way.

ITEM 15.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 180 of 536 ends

AECOM Fite Circlet Digital Sign Project IS/MND
Project Description 2-2 City of Rancho Cordova

Source: AECOM 2025
Exhibit 2-1. Regional and Local Project Site Location

ITEM 15.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 181 of 536 ends

Fite Circle Digital Sign Project IS/MND AECOM
City of Rancho Cordova 2-3 Project Description

Source: RSC Engineering 2025, adapted by AECOM in 2025
Exhibit 2-2. Proposed Project Site Location

ITEM 15.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 182 of 536 ends

AECOM Fite Circlet Digital Sign Project IS/MND
Project Description 2-4 City of Rancho Cordova
The proposed digital sign would have a monopole that would support two electronic displays (one each angled east and west) to provide line-of-sight for U.S. 50 motorists. The pole would be 60 feet above the ground surface.

A 5-foot-diameter hole would be excavated to approximately 30 feet below the ground surface and backfilled with concrete to provide support for the pole. The face of each display would be 60 feet wide by 20 feet high, with a total display area of 1,200 square feet. The bottom digital display faces would be elevated approximately 40 feet above grade. The monopole structure support would have a steel ladder welded to the side of the pole with the bottom of the ladder approximately 30 feet off the ground. The sign would be accessed for any necessary maintenance either by a very tall specialty ladder or a bucket lift.

An approximately 1.5-foot-deep by 1-foot wide utility trench would be excavated from the proposed sign to the adjacent building on the project site for a new underground electrical line. The electrical line for the digital sign would be connected to the existing electrical panel at the building. Electrical service would be provided by the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD). An existing underground stormwater drainage line is located near the proposed digital sign within the existing parking lot; this stormwater drainage line would remain in its current location. No new or modified stormwater drainage, water supply, or wastewater conveyance facilities would be necessary for the proposed project. A site plan with schematic drawings of the proposed digital sign is shown on Exhibit 2-3.

Rancho Cordova Municipal Code Chapter 23.743 allows for consideration of digital freeway signs in certain specific locations within the city with a use permit and a digital freeway signs operating agreement. The project site is not within the City’s existing Digital Freeway Signs Overlay area. Therefore, the proposed project also includes a Zoning Code amendment to the Digital Freeway Signs Overlay Area that would add an area between Bradshaw Road and Routier Road bounded by Highway 50 to the south, 9778 Business Park Drive to the west, Business Park Drive and Fite Circle to the North, and the edges of the industrial zoned property on Fite Circle to the east (see Exhibit 2-4). The proposed project also includes a request for some deviations from the standards of the Zoning Code requirements as part of the Operating Agreement, including the proposed display area of the digital sign, which would be 1,200 square feet per display face (i.e., 528 square feet larger than the current display size limit of 672 square feet). The increased display size has been requested by the project applicant because the sign would be installed 110 feet from the U.S. 50 right-of-way, which is a longer distance than is typical from the motorists who would be viewing the sign.

2.5 CONSTRUCTION
Access to the project site would be through the existing drive aisle on the south side of Fite Circle. Construction is anticipated to be completed over a two-week period, Monday through Friday, between 8 am and 5 pm. No nighttime or weekend construction work would occur. The construction staging area would be situated within the existing paved parking lot at the southern end of the project site, in the area immediately surrounding the proposed sign location (See Exhibit 2-2). Approximately 24 parking spaces within the parking lot would be temporarily inoperable during project construction. No trees would be removed from the project site.

ITEM 15.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 183 of 536 ends

Fite Circle Digital Sign Project IS/MND AECOM
City of Rancho Cordova 2-5 Project Description

Source: RCS Engineering 2025; adapted by AECOM in 2025
Exhibit 2-3. Proposed Digital Sign Site Plan and Schematics

ITEM 15.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 184 of 536 ends

AECOM Fite Circle Digital Sign Project IS/MND
Project Description 2-6 City of Rancho Cordova

This page intentionally left blank
ITEM 15.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 185 of 536 ends

Fite Circle Digital Sign Project IS/MND AECOM
City of Rancho Cordova 2-7 Project Description

Source: Cordova Community Council 2025
Exhibit 2-4. Proposed City Digital Freeway Signs Overlay – Bradshaw ITEM 15.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 186 of 536 ends

AECOM Fite Circle Digital Sign Project IS/MND
Project Description 2-8 City of Rancho Cordova
The prefabricated sign structures would be delivered by truck and assembled in the staging area. An auger would be used to bore the hole for the pole supporting the sign. A crane would be used to install the monopole in the hole and lift the sign parts in the air for attachment to the monopole. An excavator would be used to dig the trench for the underground utility line. A total of approximately 42 cubic yards of soil would be excavated from the project site, along with a small amount of asphalt pavement where the utility trench would be excavated. The excavated soil and asphalt would be transported to L & D Landfill, a disposal facility approximately 6 miles from the project site that is permitted to accept clean fill and construction debris for recycling. Excavated soil would not be stored at the project site; instead, the material would be immediately placed into trucks and transported to the receiving facility. The utility trench would be backfilled and regraded, and the surface would be repaved at the conclusion of construction activities.

2.6 OPERATION
The digital freeway sign would be operated 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year. The electronic messages would be static, with no movement. The minimum display time for each message would be 8 seconds.

Brightness would be 0.3 candles above ambient light. The brightness would automatically adjust up or down based on ambient light conditions. Photo simulations of the proposed digital sign are provided in Section 3.1, “Aesthetics,” of this IS/MND.

During the first three months of operation, project start-up would require approximately 1 visit per week by one person. Regular operation of the sign would require a maximum of four visits per year by one person.

2.7 CITY DISCRETIONARY AND MINISTERIAL ACTIONS
Discretionary approvals and permits are required by the lead agency, the City of Rancho Cordova, for implementation of the proposed project and include:
► Amendment to Rancho Cordova Municipal Code Section 23.743.150 (Zoning Code, Digital Freeway Sign Overlay)
► Site Design Review
► Project submittal to the Airport Land Use Commission (i.e., the Sacramento Area Council of Governments) for a consistency determination with the Mather ALUCP
► Operating Use Agreement Amendment
► CEQA Document Certification
► Conditional Use Permit
In addition, the proposed project would require the following ministerial entitlements from the City of Rancho Cordova for construction:
► Demolition permit
► Building permit
ITEM 15.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 187 of 536 ends

Fite Circle Digital Sign Project IS/MND AECOM
City of Rancho Cordova 3-1 Environmental Checklist
3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

PROJECT INFORMATION

1. Project Title: Fite Circle Digital Sign Project

2. Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cordova

3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Nick Sosa
Senior Planner
City of Rancho Cordova Planning Department
2729 Prospect Park Drive
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670

4. Project Location: 3127 Fite Circle in the City of Rancho Cordova Assessor’s Parcel Number: 077-0330-039

5. Project Sponsor Cordova Community Council

6. General Plan Designation: Folsom Boulevard Planning Area

7. Zoning: Office Industrial Mixed Use within the Folsom Blvd. Specific Plan (OIMU-FB)

8. Description of Project: The digital billboard sign would be located in the paved parking lot of one 2.1-acre parcel currently developed as a commercial business. The proposed digital sign would have a monopole that would support two electronic displays (one each angled east and west) to provide line-of-sight for U.S. 50 motorists. The pole would be 60 feet above the ground surface. The face of each display would be 60 feet wide by 20 feet high, with a total display area of 1,200 square feet. The bottom digital display faces would be elevated approximately 40 feet above grade.

9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The project site is situated within and is surrounded by an existing developed office and light industrial park to the north, east, and west. The site is bordered by U.S. 50 on the south side. South of U.S. 50, residential land uses are present.
10: Other public agencies whose approval may be required: None

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:

The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

Aesthetics Agriculture & Forestry Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology & Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards & Hazardous Materials Hydrology & Water Quality Land Use & Planning Mineral Resources Noise
Population & Housing Public Services Recreation
Transportation/Traffic Tribal Cultural Resources Utilities & Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance

ITEM 15.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 188 of 536 ends

AECOM Fite Circle Digital Sign Project IS/MND
Environmental Checklist 3-2 City of Rancho Cordova
DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:

I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that although the proposed project COULD have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent.

A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

Nick Sosa Senior Planner
Name Title
City of Rancho Cordova
Agency

ITEM 15.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 189 of 536 ends

Fite Circle Digital Sign Project IS/MND AECOM
City of Rancho Cordova 3-3 Environmental Checklist

EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).

2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.

3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.

4. “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from “Earlier Analyses,” as described in (5) below, may be cross-referenced).

5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.

6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.

7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.

8. This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project’s environmental effects in whatever format is selected.

9. The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.

ITEM 15.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 190 of 536 ends

AECOM Fite Circle Digital Sign Project IS/MND
Environmental Checklist 3-4 City of Rancho Cordova

This page intentionally left blank
ITEM 15.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 191 of 536 ends

Fite Circle Digital Sign Project IS/MND AECOM
City of Rancho Cordova 3.1-1 Environmental Checklist-Aesthetics

3.1 AESTHETICS

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
I. Aesthetics. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a State scenic highway?

c) In nonurbanized areas, substantially degrade the
existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?
If the project is in an urbanized area, would the
project conflict with applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality?

d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime views
in the area?

3.1.1 SETTING

VISUAL CHARACTER OF THE PROJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA The proposed digital sign location is approximately 110 feet north of U.S. Highway 50, in the City of Rancho Cordova. The viewshed for motorists traveling east and west along U.S. 50 in the project vicinity consists of block-style commercial and light industrial buildings, with associated paved parking lots and landscaping. Views also include the 12 paved lanes of U.S. 50, and the white concrete barrier in the center that divides the eastbound and westbound traffic lanes, along with numerous motor vehicles on the roadway. Also present in the viewshed are large green and white freeway signs with thick grey metal poles that indicate the distance to upcoming exits, smaller freeway traffic safety signs, and tall overhead white poles for high mast lighting. The north side of U.S. 50 is bounded by chain link fencing. On the south side of U.S. 50, an approximately 15-foot-tall soundwall is present (composed of tan concrete blocks) that blocks views of adjacent residences to the south. However, the tops of tall landscape trees adjacent to these residences are visible above the soundwall. Visual simulations of the views from U.S. 50 including the proposed digital sign, for motorists traveling west and east, are presented in Exhibit 3.1-1 and Exhibit 3.1-2, respectively.

The project site is situated within an office and light industrial park, and is accessed via a drive aisle between paved parking lots between two light industrial buildings, south of Fite Circle. The area immediately surrounding the proposed digital sign to the north, east, and west is composed of light-industrial buildings that are approximately 15–20 feet tall. These buildings are generally of a rectangular block shape and are painted white, grey, or tan (see Exhibit 3.1-3; red arrow indicates proposed sign location). The buildings are surrounded by paved parking areas and landscaping that includes grass, shrubs, and tall urban street trees (both evergreen and deciduous).

ITEM 15.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 192 of 536 ends

AECOM Fite Circle Digital Sign Project IS/MND
Environmental Checklist-Aesthetics 3.1-2 City of Rancho Cordova

Source: Cordova Community Council 2025
Exhibit 3.1-1 Visual Simulation of Proposed Digital Sign from U.S. 50 Looking Northwest

Source: Cordova Community Council 2025
Exhibit 3.1-2. Visual Simulation of Proposed Digital Sign from U.S. 50 Looking Northeast ITEM 15.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 193 of 536 ends

Fite Circle Digital Sign Project IS/MND AECOM
City of Rancho Cordova 3.1-3 Environmental Checklist-Aesthetics

Source: Google Earth 2022
Exhibit 3.1-3. Proposed Digital Sign Location from Fite Circle Looking Sout h The lower American River was designated a Wild and Scenic River under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act in 1981 (County of Sacramento 2008). The project site is not visible from the American River due to the intervening distance (approximately 0.5 mile at the closest point), buildings, and tall landscape trees. Therefore, Wild and Scenic Rivers are not discussed further in this analysis.

SCENIC HIGHWAYS AND CORRIDORS
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) manages the State’s Scenic Highways Program. There are no designed or eligible State Scenic Highways located at or near the project site. The nearest designated State scenic highway, State Route (SR) 160, is approximately 12.5 miles southwest of the project site (Caltrans 2019).

LIGHT AND GLARE
The project site is in an urbanized environment and is surrounded by existing sources of light and glare. These sources include existing streetlights along U.S. 50, Fite Circle, Horn Road, Folsom Boulevard, and within other commercial and residential areas north and south of the project site; exterior lighting on commercial buildings surrounding the project site; parking lot lighting; illuminated building signage; and vehicular headlights on U.S. 50.

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA DIGITAL FREEWAY SIGN STANDARDS
The City of Rancho Cordova Municipal Code Section 23.743 contains signage standards that include prohibitions, regulations, and controls on the design, location, and maintenance of signs. Section 23.743.150 (Digital Freeway Signs Overlay) allows for consideration of digital freeway signs in certain, specific locations within the city with a use permit and a digital freeway signs operating agreement. The digital freeway signs overlay encompasses three specific geographies in the northeastern area of the city. These locations are shown on Exhibit 3.1-4. The proposed new digital sign would be situated approximately 3.8 miles west of the western end of the Digital Freeway Signs Overlay area shown on Exhibit 3.1-4.

ITEM 15.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 194 of 536 ends

AECOM Fite Circle Digital Sign Project IS/MND
Environmental Checklist-Aesthetics 3.1-4 City of Rancho Cordova

Source: City of Rancho Cordova 2022
Exhibit 3.1-4. Existing City Digital Freeway Signs Overlay Area ITEM 15.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 195 of 536 ends

Fite Circle Digital Sign Project IS/MND AECOM
City of Rancho Cordova 3.1-5 Environmental Checklist-Aesthetics Rancho Cordova Municipal Code Section 23.743.150 (C) includes the following development standards related to digital freeway signs:
► A digital freeway sign may consist of, at most, two digital display areas, each positioned to be visible only by opposing directions of traffic. Double-faced signs shall not have an interior angle between the face of the panels greater than 45 degrees.
► The maximum height shall be 60 feet.
► The maximum area of each digital display area is 672 square feet. ► No digital freeway sign shall be located within 2,500 feet of any other digital freeway sign within the city limits.
► The sign structure supporting and surrounding the digital display area shall be as small as feasibly possible so as to avoid any unnecessary height or width to the sign. The sign structure shall not add stylistic or architectural detailing to further call attention to the sign. ► Decorative pole covering is required for newly constructed digital freeway signs as well as any existing traditional billboard that is converted to a digital freeway sign. Such covering shall be simple and streamlined in material and design so as to not call further attention to the sign. ► Digital freeway signs shall display static messages only, and shall not have animation, movement, or the appearance or optical illusion of movement in or on any part of the sign structure, design, or pictorial segment of the sign. Each static message shall not include flashing or scintillating lighting, or varying light intensity. ► Each message on the sign must be displayed for a minimum of eight seconds. ► Digital freeway signs shall not operate at brightness levels of more than 0.3 foot-candles above ambient light, as measured using a foot-candle meter at a distance of 250 feet from the sign face. Each digital display area shall have a light sensing device that will adjust the brightness of the sign as ambient light conditions change throughout the day.
► The sign will not require substantial trimming or reduction of existing vegetation and landscaping. The sign will not obstruct or obscure on-site signs on the same or adjacent properties. ► The sign shall not create a visibility hazard to traffic on adjacent streets, freeways, or parking areas. The sign will not reduce parking availability as required by this title. The sign will not interfere with on-site vehicular circulation.
► The city shall be provided with access to a portion of the total available display time to allow the city to present messages of community interest. This access shall also include other appropriate agencies for the purpose of displaying public safety messages such as “Amber Alert” messages and emergency-disaster communications.
► The applicant must establish a quality and maintenance plan in order to ensure implementation of all above- listed development standards and to assure the proper maintenance and repair of the digital freeway sign as needed.

ITEM 15.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 196 of 536 ends

AECOM Fite Circle Digital Sign Project IS/MND
Environmental Checklist-Aesthetics 3.1-6 City of Rancho Cordova ► For every one digital freeway sign installed, the applicant must permanently remove at least four legally existing billboard structures (each of which may have more than one billboard sign face) within the city prior to operation of the digital freeway sign. An existing billboard being refurbished as a digital freeway sign may count as one of the four required permanent removals.
► At the applicant’s request, the city and applicant may enter into an operating agreement in conjunction with the issuance of a conditional use permit for a digital freeway sign. The city and applicant may use the operating agreement, on a case-by-case basis, to deviate from the development standards listed above or reduce the required billboard removals listed above. The council will only approve an operating agreement if it determines that the operating agreement achieves community benefits that are equivalent to those that would be achieved through strict compliance with subsection (C) as listed above.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OUTDOOR ADVERTISING STANDARDS Outdoor advertising displays require a permit from Caltrans if they are within 660 feet from the edge of the right- of-way and viewed primarily by persons traveling on the main-traveled way of the freeway (California Code of Regulations, Title 4, Chapter 3.5, Division 6). Permit requirements include the following (among others) (Caltrans 2025):
► Must be outside the right of way of any highway.
► Must be outside of any stream or drainage channel.
► There must be an existing business activity within 1,000 feet of proposed display location on either side of the highway.
► Location of property where display is to be placed must be zoned industrial or commercial. ► Maximum height for the advertising display area is 25 feet in height and 60 feet in length, not to exceed an overall maximum of 1,200 square feet

3.1.2 DISCUSSION
Because the project site is located in an urban area (U.S. Census Bureau 2025), the discussion under checklist question c) will address the project’s potential conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality.
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No Impact. A scenic vista is a public viewpoint that provides expansive views of highly valued scenery or landscapes. The project site consists of a paved urban lot surrounded by commercial and light industrial buildings to the north, east, and west, and U.S. 50 to the south. The project site and the surrounding area do not contain scenic vistas, and there are no City-designated scenic vistas within the project viewshed (City of Rancho Cordova 2022). The proposed 60-foot-tall digital sign at the project site would not be visible from the American River due to the intervening distance (approximately 0.5 mile at the closest point), buildings, and tall landscape trees. Thus, there would be no impact.

ITEM 15.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 197 of 536 ends

Fite Circle Digital Sign Project IS/MND AECOM
City of Rancho Cordova 3.1-7 Environmental Checklist-Aesthetics b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? No Impact. The project site is not located along a designated or eligible State scenic highway and is not visible from the nearest State scenic highway (i.e., SR 160 approximately 12 miles to the southwest). Thus, there would be no impact.
c) If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
Less-than-Significant Impact. The proposed project consists of a 20- by 60-foot digital freeway sign with 1,200 square feet of display space. The total height of the sign plus the metal support pole would be 60 feet above the ground surface.

The project site is situated within the Folsom Boulevard Specific Plan Area and is designated as an Office Industrial Mixed-Use zone (City of Rancho Cordova 2013). The Specific Plan states that offices may be developed in an office park setting, but most office and light industrial development stands alone. Commercial and other support services may be integrated vertically and/or horizontally in this zone. The Specific Plan does not contain any standards related to signage; instead, it relies on the City Zoning Code for provisions related to signs. The project site is approximately 0.35-mile (1,800 feet) southeast of Folsom Boulevard, and there are several light industrial buildings and two-story commercial buildings, with associated tall landscape trees, between Folsom Boulevard and the proposed sign location. Given the distance and the intervening buildings and trees, it is unlikely that the sign would be visible to motorists traveling eastbound on Folsom Boulevard, and motorists traveling westbound would only have intermittent views between trees (and only the top of the sign would be visible). As shown in Exhibit 3.1-3, the proposed sign would be visible to motorists traveling on Fite Circle; however, the sign would only be visible from a side view with the two sign panels extending towards the viewer (like wings) and the center support pole. Although the sign structure would appear large to motorists on Fite Circle, these motorists would be limited to employees and customers at the local businesses, and the sign would be visually similar to other billboards in the project area.

The viewshed for motorists traveling east and west along U.S. 50 in the project vicinity consists of block-style commercial and light industrial buildings, with associated paved parking lots and landscaping, along with the 12 paved lanes of U.S. 50. Also present in the viewshed are large green and white freeway signs with thick grey metal poles that indicate the distance to upcoming exits, smaller freeway traffic safety signs, and tall overhead white poles for high mast lighting. Tall landscape trees in the viewshed serve to soften the visual effect of the adjacent urban development. The view is not scenic, and the visual quality is moderate. As shown in the visual simulations contained in Exhibit 3.1-1 and Exhibit 3.1-2, the proposed digital sign would be visually similar in size and slightly taller in height as compared to existing Caltrans distance/destination signs along U.S. 50, and would be visually similar to the existing surrounding commercial and light industrial development.

As described in detail in the Setting subsection above, Rancho Cordova Municipal Code Chapter 23.743 allows for consideration of digital freeway signs in certain, specific locations within the city with a use permit and a digital freeway signs operating agreement. As described in Municipal Code Section 23.743.010, “the City desires to enhance traffic safety in the community by ensuring that signage does not distract motorists or obstruct or otherwise impede traffic circulation, and to ensure aesthetic, architectural, and cosmetic compatibility with the surrounding community by limiting visual clutter of the streetscape, such as through the regulation of oversized ITEM 15.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 198 of 536 ends

AECOM Fite Circle Digital Sign Project IS/MND
Environmental Checklist-Aesthetics 3.1-8 City of Rancho Cordova signs and excessive temporary signs.” The proposed project includes a Zoning Code amendment to the digital sign overlay area that would add the area north of U.S. 50 between Bradshaw Road and Routier Road (see Exhibit

3.1-5). The proposed project also includes a request for a deviation from the Zoning Code requirements due to the proposed display area of the digital sign, which would be 1,200 square feet (i.e., 528 square feet larger than the current size limit of 672 square feet). The increased display size is requested because the sign would be installed 110 feet from the U.S. 50 right-of-way, which is a greater distance than is typical from the motorists who would be viewing the sign. The overall size, display area, and location of the proposed digital sign would be consistent with Caltrans requirements (Caltrans 2025).

Source: Cordova Community Council 2025
Exhibit 3.1-5. Existing and Proposed City Digital Freeway Signs Overlay Area s The proposed project would require site design review and a conditional use permit from the City of Rancho Cordova. In addition, the project would be required to meet the City’s existing digital freeway sign standards (Rancho Cordova Municipal Code Section 23.743.150) and to obtain variances as allowed through an operating agreement. The proposed digital freeway sign would not be located within 2,500 feet of any other digital freeway sign within the city limits. In addition, the billboards would not operate at brightness levels of more than 0.3 foot- candles above ambient light, automatically adjusting as ambient light conditions change. The digital billboard would have a display area of 1,200 square feet, which is greater than the 672 feet specified in the City’s digital freeway sign standards. However, the project proponent has requested a deviation from this standard, which is ITEM 15.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 199 of 536 ends

Fite Circle Digital Sign Project IS/MND AECOM
City of Rancho Cordova 3.1-9 Environmental Checklist-Aesthetics allowed under the digital freeway signs operating agreement if approved by the City. Finally, the proposed project would be consistent with Caltrans permit requirements and applicable standards for outdoor advertising displays.

No trees would be removed as part of the proposed project.

The proposed digital sign would be installed in an urbanized area comprised of commercial and light industrial development in an area of moderate visual quality, and the visual appearance of the proposed sign would be similar to other digital signs and billboards in the project area. With City approval of the proposed Zoning Code amendment for the expansion of the digital freeway signs overlay area to include the project site, and with City approval of the deviations from development standards for the larger sign display area, and considering the project’s required compliance with City regulations governing the location and design for digital freeway signs, as well as a digital signs operating agreement, the proposed project would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Less-than-Significant Impact. The project site is situated in an urban area where nighttime lighting is present under existing conditions. Nighttime lighting sources surrounding the project site include overhead street and highway lights, building and parking lot security lighting, illuminated signage on buildings and marquees, and vehicle headlights. The operation of the proposed digital sign would introduce a new source of nighttime lighting.

To ensure compliance with the Rancho Cordova Municipal Code, a lighting study for the proposed project was performed by Watchfire Signs (Watchfire 2025, Appendix A). Watchfire has adopted the brightness standards endorsed by both the International Sign Association and the Outdoor Advertising Association of America, which are based on accepted practices by the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America for evaluating and controlling “light trespass.” The lighting study modeled the amount of nighttime lighting that would be generated by the proposed digital sign in foot candles1 at distances up to 500 feet to the east and west, and at viewing angles ranging from 0 to 70 degrees. The greatest amount of light that would be generated would be 1.12 foot candles at a distance of 100 feet at a 0-degree viewing angle (i.e. directly in front of sign within the Project site’s parking lot), in both east and west directions. The amount of light generated would decrease greatly with increasing distance and increasing viewing angle, in both east and west directions. At a distance of 250 feet from the sign face (U.S. Highway 50 travel lanes), the proposed digital sign would generate a maximum of approximately 0.2 foot candles (Watchfire 2025). Therefore, the proposed digital sign would be consistent with Rancho Cordova Municipal Code Section 23.743.150 (Digital Freeway Signs Overlay), which requires that the amount of light generated by a digital sign cannot increase the overall ambient light levels by more than 0.3 foot candles at a distance of 250 feet.

Furthermore, the billboard would incorporate light sensing technology that would automatically adjust the brightness of the sign as ambient light conditions change throughout the day so that the brightness level would remain at 0.3 foot-candles above ambient light at a distance of 250 feet from the sign face. In addition, the proposed digital sign would incorporate proprietary vertical louvers designed by Watchfire to reduce light intrusion emanating from the sides of the billboard. Finally, construction activities would occur during the day and would not require nighttime lighting or create other sources of light or glare. Therefore, for the reasons discussed above, the proposed digital sign would not result in a new source of substantial nighttime light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the project vicinity. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

ITEM 15.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 200 of 536 ends

Rancho Cordova City CouncilOctober 6, 2025

Rancho Cordova City Council
October 6, 2025