Rancho Cordova City Council
December 1, 2025

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, December 1, 2025

4:30 PM – Special Meeting/Closed Session
5:30 PM – Regular Meeting
David B. Roberts Council Chambers

City Hall
2729 Prospect Park Drive, Rancho Cordova

How to Observe or Listen to the Meeting:
• Online 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, December 1, 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, December 1, 2025, at 2:00 p.m.

Rancho Cordova City Council - AGENDA
Special and Regular Meeting of Monday, December 1, 2025

AGENDA

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

3. ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION

Mayor Pulipati will adjourn the meeting to closed session.

4. CLOSED SESSION - CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL

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

5. CLOSED SESSION

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

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

6. OPEN SESSION - REPORT FROM CLOSED SESSION

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

7. ADJOURN TO REGULAR MEETING

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

8. REGULAR MEETING - CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL

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

9. METRO CABLE TV TELEVISION ANNOUNCEMENT

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

10. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

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

11. INVOCATION

Jason Harper with the Rancho Cordova Athletic Association will give the invocation.

Rancho Cordova City Council - AGENDA
Special and Regular Meeting of Monday, December 1, 2025

12. PRESENTATIONS

12.1. Presentation by the Folsom Cordova Community Partnership Providing Updates on their Family Resource Center and Job Center.

13. 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 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.

14. COUNCIL REPORTS

15. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT

16. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS - ROLL CALL VOTE

16.1. Subject: Meeting Minutes from the Regular City Council Meeting of November 17, 2025.

Recommendation: Adopt the minutes.

16.2. Subject: A Resolution Authorizing the Transition of the Community Enhancement & Investment Fund Citizen Oversight Board to the Community Enhancement & Investment Fund Oversight Committee.

Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution.

16.3. Subject: Second Reading of an Ordinance Adopting a Second Amendment to the Development Agreement Between the City of Rancho Cordova and Grantline 220 Investors, LLC Relative to the Suncreek Project.

Recommendation: Waive the second reading and adopt the Ordinance.

17. CONSENT PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS - ROLL CALL VOTE

17.1. Subject: Second Reading of an Ordinance Repealing and Replacing Chapter 17.04, "Fire Code" to the Rancho Cordova Municipal Code by Adopting by Reference the 2025 California Fire Code and Making Local Amendments to Portions Thereof.

Recommendation: Waive the second reading and adopt the Ordinance.

18. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS

None.

19. REGULAR CALENDAR ITEMS

19.1. Subject: Review and Approval of Tolling and Settlement Agreement between the City of Rancho Cordova and TH Rancho Cordova LLC et al (Trumark).

Recommendation: Approve the Tolling and Settlement Agreement.

Rancho Cordova City Council - AGENDA
Special and Regular Meeting of Monday, December 1, 2025

20. COUNCIL REQUESTS FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS

21. 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
December 9, 2025 5:30 PM Special Meeting/Work Session
December 15, 2025 5:30 PM Regular Meeting
January 5, 2026 4:00 PM Special Meeting/5:30 PM Regular Meeting January 20, 2026 5:30 PM Regular Meeting
January 27, 2026 5:30 PM Special Meeting/Work Session
February 2, 2026 4:00 PM Special Meeting/5:30 PM Regular Meeting February 10, 2026 9:00 AM Special Meeting/Work Session
February 17, 2026 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.

CERTIFICATION OF POSTING OF AGENDA

Rancho Cordova City Council - AGENDA
Special and Regular Meeting of Monday, December 1, 2025

I, Stacy Leitner, City Clerk for the City of Rancho Cordova, declare that the foregoing agenda for the December 1, 2025, Regular Meeting of the Rancho Cordova City Council was posted and available for review on November 26, 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 November 26, 2025, at Rancho Cordova, California.

Stacy Leitner, CMC
City Clerk

ITEM 16.1. ATTACHMENT 1

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, November 17, 2025

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

City Hall
2729 Prospect Park Drive, Rancho Cordova

DRAFT MINUTES

1. REGULAR MEETING - CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL

Vice Mayor Gatewood called the Regular meeting to order in the David B. Roberts Council Chambers at 5:32 p.m.

Council Members Present: Linda Budge, Joe Little (arrived at 5:50 p.m.), David Sander, and Vice Mayor Garrett Gatewood

Council Members Absent: Mayor 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

Vice Mayor Garrett Gatewood led the pledge.

4. INVOCATION

Vice Mayor Garrett Gatewood gave the invocation.

5. PRESENTATIONS

5.1. United College Action Network Presentation on the Summer 2025 Historically Black Colleges and Universities Tour.

5.2. Presentation of Proclamation Recognizing Soil Born Farms' 25th Anniversary.

ITEM 16.1. ATTACHMENT 1 Rancho Cordova City Council – DRAFT MINUTES
Meeting of Monday, November 17, 2025

5.3. Introduction of New Employees Deana Williams, Customer Service Representative by Stacy Leitner, City Clerk/Senior Executive Assistant to the City Manager and Harikishan Perugu, Principal Civil Engineer by Edgar Medina, Assistant Public Works Director.

5.4. Council Member Sander's Birthday on November 25, 2025.

6. PUBLIC COMMENT

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

1. James Domsic

2. Larry Leroy Ladd

3. James Garcia

4. Helen Whelan Bashaw

5. Donald Childs

6. Larry Ladd

Vice Mayor Gatewood closed the public comment period.

7. COUNCIL REPORTS

8. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT

9. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS - ROLL CALL VOTE

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

Vice Mayor Gatewood stated that Item 9.3 would be pulled for separate discussion.

ACTION: Motion to approve items 9.1, 9.2, and items 9.4 through 9.8 by Budge second by Sander;
Motion passed with a 4:0 vote.

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

9.1. Subject: Meeting Minutes from the Regular City Council Meeting of November 3, 2025.

Recommendation: Adopt the minutes.

9.2. Subject: A Resolution Authorizing the Public Works Director to Grant Non-Exclusive Franchises and Execute Agreements with Multiple Waste Hauling Companies for the Collection of Solid Waste, Recyclables, and Organic Materials from Businesses and Multi-Family Properties; and to Grant Non-Exclusive Franchises and Execute Agreements with Multiple Waste Hauling Companies for the Provision of Temporary Collection Service Only.

Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution.

9.3. Subject: A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Contract No. 2025-236 with K&K JL Services, Inc. in an Amount not to Exceed $578,522 for Landscape Maintenance Services of Public Frontages in the Mather Commerce Area Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution.

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

ITEM 16.1. ATTACHMENT 1 Rancho Cordova City Council – DRAFT MINUTES
Meeting of Monday, November 17, 2025

Mayor Gatewood closed the public comment period.

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

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

9.4. Subject: A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Contract Amendment No. 2024-42-1 with the Cordova Community Council Foundation to Modify the Mineshaft Digital Billboard Operating Agreement to Remove the "West" Sign from the Original Agreement and Change the Number of Signs from Two to One.

Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution.

9.5. Subject: A Resolution Approving Contract Amendment No. 165-2018-3 Between City of Rancho Cordova and Folsom Lake College for the Rancho Cordova College Promise Program.

Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution.

9.6. Subject: A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Contract No. 2025-163 with DKS & Associates, Inc. in an Amount not to Exceed $1,000,000 for Professional Engineering Planning and Engineering Services for the Transportation Planning and Engineering Division.

Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution.

9.7. Subject: A Resolution Amending Resolution No. 5-2004 and Resolution No. 185-2004 to Update the Date on Which the City Council Shall Annually Select A Mayor and Vice Mayor.

Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution.

9.8. Subject: A Resolution Approving the Annexation of Land into Improvement Area No. 1 of the City of Rancho Cordova The Preserve Community Facilities District No. 2025-1.

Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution.

10. CONSENT PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS - ROLL CALL VOTE

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

ACTION: Motion to approve items 10.1 through 10.3 by Budge second by Sander; Motion passed with a 4:0 vote.

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

10.1. Subject: A Resolution Vacating a Public Utility Easement at 3978 Security Park Drive Pursuant to the Provisions of Chapter 3, Part 3 of Public Streets, Highways, and Service Easements Vacation Law Commencing at Section 8320 of the California Streets and Highways Code.

Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution.

10.2. Subject: An Ordinance Adopting a Second Amendment to the Development Agreement

ITEM 16.1. ATTACHMENT 1 Rancho Cordova City Council – DRAFT MINUTES
Meeting of Monday, November 17, 2025

Between the City of Rancho Cordova and Grantline 220 Investors, LLC Relative to the Suncreek Project.

Recommendation: Waive the first reading and introduce the Ordinance.

10.3. Subject: Second Reading of Ordinances Repealing and Replacing Various Chapters of Title 16 "Buildings and Construction," by Adopting by Reference State Building Codes and Making Local Amendments to Portions Thereof, and Adopting Other Related Codes.

Recommendation: Waive the second reading and adopt the Ordinances.

11. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS

11.1. Subject: A Resolution Determining the Need for Local Modifications to the California Building Standards Code and an Ordinance Repealing and Replacing Chapter 17.04, "Fire Code" to the Rancho Cordova Municipal Code by Adopting by Reference the 2025 California Fire Code and Making Local Amendments to Portions Thereof.

Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution and waive the first reading and introduce the Ordinance.

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

ACTION: Motion to approve item 11.1. by Budge second by Little; Motion passed with a 4:0 vote.

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

12. REGULAR CALENDAR ITEMS

12.1. Subject: Rancho Cordova Youth Center Update.

Recommendation: Receive the presentation.

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 Rancho Cordova Youth Center Update.

12.2. Subject: A Resolution Approving the Modifications and Continuation of Existing Economic Development Incentives, and Introduction of a New Retail Incentive Program.

Recommendation: Adopt Resolution approving Economic Development Incentive Program updates and adoption of new Retail Incentive Program.

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

ACTION: Motion to approve item 12.2. by Sander second by Budge; Motion passed with a 4:0 vote.

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

12.3. Subject: A Resolution Adopting the 2026 Rancho Cordova City Council Meeting Schedule.

ITEM 16.1. ATTACHMENT 1 Rancho Cordova City Council – DRAFT MINUTES
Meeting of Monday, November 17, 2025

Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution.

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

ACTION: Motion to approve item 12.3. by Budge second by Gatewood; Motion passed with a 4:0 vote.

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

13. COUNCIL REQUESTS FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS

None.

14. ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION

Mayor Gatewood adjourned the meeting to closed session at 7:12 p.m.

15. CLOSED SESSION - CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL

Vice Mayor Gatewood called closed session to order at 7:13 p.m.

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

Council Members Absent: Mayor Siri Pulipati

Staff Members Present: Adam Lindgren and Micah Runner

16. CLOSED SESSION

Council met in closed session to discuss the following item:

16.1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING LITIGATION (pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1)) DPML Bear Hollow, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and DPML Stonecreek, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company v. City of Rancho Cordova, City Council of Rancho Cordova, and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive. Sacramento Superior Court Case No. 23WM000122.

17. 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.

18. ADJOURNMENT

Vice Mayor Gatewood adjourned the meeting in memory of former Vice President Dick Cheney and in honor Transgender Day of Remembrance on November 20, 2025, at 7:37 p.m.

___________________
Stacy Leitner, CMC
City Clerk

MEMORANDUM

City Council Staff Report - Page 1 of 2

ITEM 16.2.

DATE: December 1, 2025

TO: Honorable Mayor and Council Members

FROM: Randi Kay Stephens, Management Analyst II

SUBJECT: A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE TRANSITION OF THE

COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT & INVESTMENT FUND CITIZEN

OVERSIGHT BOARD TO THE COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT &

INVESTMENT FUND OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE

RECOMMENDATION

Adopt the Resolution.

RESULT OF RECOMMENDED ACTION

Adoption of the Resolution would authorize the City Manager or the City Manager's designee to maintain a Community Enhancement & Investment Fund Oversight Committee (CEIF-OC).

Existing members of the Community Enhancement & Investment Fund Citizen Oversight Board would transition their service to the CEIF-OC. Members of the CEIF-OC shall be appointed by the City Manager.

BACKGROUND

The city established the Community Enhancement & Investment Fund (CEIF) Citizen Oversight Board (COB) in 2017 to provide an additional layer of transparency to the community on how Measure H and Meaure R voter-approved tax dollars are spent. While not specifically required by the ballot language, the intent was to engage a group of residents to review the accomplishments achieved with CEIF funds and make recommendations on projects and programs to highlight in the annual report and/or transparency portal. The COB was established as a five-member board appointed by majority vote of the City Council, with two at-large youth representatives at the high school and college level. While COB members are appointed to two- year terms, often times members will transition off the board prior to the end of the term, requiring a formal recruitment to fill a vacancy, which can take several months from start of the recruitment to appointment. COB vacancies often result in delays in when the board can meet.

Since its inception, the COB has met approximately once or twice per year. Board members are currently required to complete annual Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) Form 700 and bi-annual ethics training under AB1234, an additional administrative burden to both board members and staff. Based on the lessons learned since the creation of the COB, staff presented options to the Council in an effort to create efficiencies for the public members and staff. On November 3, 2025, the City Council provided direction to staff to transition the COB to a Community Enhancement & Investment Fund Oversight Committee (CEIF-OC).

City Council Staff Report - Page 2 of 2

Converting the COB into a CEIF-OC would allow city staff to directly manage member recruitment, appointments, and administration under the direction of the City Manager. It supports the city’s commitment to open government, fiscal stewardship, and youth inclusion.

The Committee would continue to perform the same fiscal review and transparency functions currently performed by the COB, but would operate as a staff-led advisory body rather than a formal City Council appointed board. This structure maintains strong transparency and accountability while improving accessibility and community engagement. The CEIF-OC will continue to review Measure H and Measure R spending reports, assess grantee compliance, and provide feedback for inclusion in the city’s annual Citizen Report and online portals, including the city’s website and OpenGov transparency platform.

FISCAL IMPACT AND FUNDING SOURCE

There is no direct fiscal impact associated with this action. The restructuring will not change the scope of Measure H or Measure R oversight activities, and existing staff and resources will continue to support the Committee’s work. The transition of the Citizen Oversight Board to a Citizen Oversight Committee would improve efficiency and make more productive use of board/committee members' time.

ATTACHMENT(S)

1. Resolution

ITEM 16.2. 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 ESTABLISHMENT OF THE COMMUNITY

ENHANCEMENT & INVESTMENT FUND OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE IN LIEU OF THE

COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT & INVESTMENT FUND CITIZEN OVERSIGHT BOARD

WHEREAS, the Rancho Cordova Citizen Oversight Board was established through a series of City Council Resolutions between 2017 and 2024 to provide fiscal transparency and accountability for the Community Enhancement & Investment Fund (Measures H and R); and

WHEREAS, currently, the Citizen Oversight Board is a City Council appointed body subject to Brown Act and governance requirements; and

WHEREAS, at the November 3, 2025, meeting, the City Council provided direction to staff to transition the formal Citizen Oversight Board to a committee in an effort to streamline operations and ease the burden of service on members of the public providing oversight; and

WHEREAS, the City Council desires to rescind Resolution No. 115-2024 in its entirety and establishes the Community Enhancement & Investment Fund Oversight Committee (CEIF- OC); and

WHEREAS, the CEIF-OC shall consist of up to seven members, including at least two youth or student participants, selected through an application process administered by the City Manager or designee; and

WHEREAS, the CEIF-OC shall provide advice, review annual spending reports for Measures H and R, and provide feedback to city staff for inclusion in the annual reports and/or online resources; and

WHEREAS, membership on the CEIF-OC shall not constitute an appointment to a city board or commission, and members shall serve at the pleasure of the City Manager or designee; and

WHEREAS, the CEIF-OC’s recommendations shall be advisory only and shall not bind the City Council; and

WHEREAS, the transition to a Community Enhancement & Investment Fund Oversight Committee provides many advantages including but not limited to, streamlining recruitment and onboarding processes, encouraging broader community and youth participation, reducing administrative burdens, and allowing a more flexible meeting structure and frequency of meetings.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA does rescind Resolution No. 115-2024 and authorizes the City Manager or the City Manager’s designee to maintain a Community Enhancement & Investment Fund Oversight Committee whose members shall be appointed by the City Manager.

ITEM 16.2. 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 1st of December 2025 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Siri Pulipati, Mayor
ATTEST:

Stacy Leitner, CMC
City Clerk

MEMORANDUM

City Council Staff Report - Page 1 of 1

ITEM 16.3.

DATE: December 1, 2025

TO: Honorable Mayor and Council Members

FROM: Rachel Trinh, Development Senior Analyst

SUBJECT: SECOND READING OF AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING A SECOND

AMENDMENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA AND GRANTLINE 220

INVESTORS, LLC RELATIVE TO THE SUNCREEK PROJECT

RECOMMENDATION

Waive the second reading and adopt the Ordinance.

RESULT OF RECOMMENDED ACTION

Adoption of the Ordinance would amend the Development Agreement (DA) for the Suncreek Project which would remove the burdens and obligations of the DA and the First Amendment for the Firehouse Parcel 1 parcel.

BACKGROUND

On November 17, 2025, the City Council waived the first reading and passed to a second reading of the Ordinance.

FISCAL IMPACT AND FUNDING SOURCE

The proposed Second Amendment removing the Firehouse Parcel 1 parcel from the burdens and obligations of the DA and the First Amendment would not have any fiscal impact due to the parcel being exempt from the certain fees required by the DA. The Firehouse Parcel 1 parcel is still required to pay Specific Plan and applicable citywide fees, per city Municipal Code, Title 16.

ATTACHMENT(S)

1. Ordinance

2. Exhibit A to the Ordinance - Second Amendment to the Development Agreement

ITEM 16.3. ATTACHMENT 1 Ordinance No. XX-2025 Page 1 of 4

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

ORDINANCE NO. XX-2025

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA, STATE

OF CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT

AGREEMENT FOR THE SUNCREEK PROJECT

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Recitals.

A. In order to strengthen the public planning process, encourage private participation in comprehensive planning and reduce the economic risk of development, the Legislature of the State of California adopted Section 65864, et seq., of the Government Code (the "Development Agreement Statute"), authorizing the City, and any person having a legal or equitable interest in the real property, to enter into a development agreement and establish certain development rights in the property, which is the subject of the development project application. Pursuant to Government Code section 65868, Development Agreements may be amended by mutual assent of the parties.

B. In 2013 the City of Rancho Cordova (“City”) adopted the Suncreek Specific Plan Project (“Specific Plan”) and related approvals. The Specific Plan is a plan for a mixed-use development with a combination of employment-generating uses, retail and retail supporting services, recreational uses, and a broad range of residential uses and associated infrastructure and roads on an approximately 1,265-acre site in the city. The Specific Plan includes approximately 4,893 residential units at various densities on approximately 589 acres; approximately 80 acres of commercial use; approximately 12 acres of public/quasi-public uses; elementary schools and a combined middle/high school on approximately 111 acres; approximately 74 acres of parks and greens; approximately 387 acres of wetland preserve, stormwater detention basins and buffers; and major and minor roads with landscaping. In addition, the Project includes various on- and off-site infrastructure improvements; and

C. On November 18, 2013, the City Council, pursuant to Resolution No. 127-2013, certified the EIR, adopted mitigation findings pursuant to CEQA guidelines Section 15091, adopted a statement of overriding considerations, and adopted a mitigation monitoring plan for the Specific Plan.

D. On December 2, 2013, the City and Grantline & Chrysanthy 220 Investors, LLC, entered (“Landowner”) into a Development Agreement for the Suncreek Project (“Project”), consisting of 605 residential lots, 3 high density lots, 2 neighborhood parks, a school site, water quality basin and landscaping, and a remainder parcel (Ordinance Number 42-2013). The Project is located on the west side of Grant Line Road, approximately 1 mile south of Douglas Road (the “Property”).

E. On August 17, 2021, Landowner entered into an Assignment and Assumption Agreement (“Assignment”) with Lennar Homes of California, LLC relative to the Development Agreement. By the Assignment, Lennar Homes of California assumed all of Landowner’s right,

ITEM 16.3. ATTACHMENT 1 Ordinance No. XX-2025 Page 2 of 4
title, interest, burdens and obligations under the Development Agreement with respect to and as related to the Property.

F. On June 6, 2022, the City Council, adopted Ordinance No. 11-2022, which was recorded in the Official Records of Sacramento County as Book 20220920 Page 0519. The Ordinance amended certain sections of the Development Agreement (“First Amendment”) to revise Lennar’s obligations with respect to the implementation and payment of the Land Equalization Fee and to simplify the land equalization by eliminating the public land uses other than Quimby parks and implementing a Quimby Park In-Lieu Fee Program by Cordova Recreation and Park District.

G. Lennar Homes of California reconveyed a portion of the Property (“Lots 8, 9, 10 and the remainder”) back to Landowner by grant deed recorded December 5, 2022, as Document No. 202212050362 and re-recorded February 23, 2023, as Document No. 202302230812, and by a grant deed recorded April 3, 2023, as Document No. 202304030436.

An Assignment for Lots, 8, 9, 10, and the remainder of the Property, recorded as Document No. 202409120710, assigned Landowner all right, title, interest, burdens, and obligations under the Development Agreement with respect to and as related to Lots 8, 9, 10, and the remainder.

H. On September 29, 2025, Landowner granted a portion of the remainder parcel of the Property (“Firehouse Parcel 1”) to Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District for future fire station, by grant deed recorded September 29, 2025, as Document No.202509290679.

I. Pursuant to Government Code section 65868, the City and Landowner desire to revise the Development Agreement and the First Amendment to remove the Firehouse Parcel 1 from the burdens and obligations of the Development Agreement and the First Amendment.

J. On November 17, 2025, the City Council, as the legislative body for the purposes of Development Agreement approval, held a properly noticed public hearing pursuant to Government Code section 65867 and considered all comments received in writing and all testimony received at the public hearing.

SECTION 2. Findings.

Therefore, on the basis of: (a) the foregoing recitals, which are incorporated herein; (b) the Suncreek Specific Plan; (c) the City of Rancho Cordova’s General Plan; (d) the Environmental Impact Report for the Suncreek Specific Plan, and (e) on the basis of the specific conclusions set forth below, the City Council finds and determines that:

A. The Second Amendment to the Development Agreement is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified and contained in the City’s General Plan in that: (a) the Project remains predominantly low-density residential and consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Code; (b) the only change made to the Development Agreement and the First Amendment is to remove the Firehouse Parcel 1 from burdens and obligations of the Development Agreement and the First Amendment. All other previously approved terms and conditions remain the same for the remaining portion of the Property.

ITEM 16.3. ATTACHMENT 1 Ordinance No. XX-2025 Page 3 of 4
B. Because the Second Amendment allows for only the release of burdens and obligation of a portion of the remainder parcel of the Property, it is compatible with the uses authorized in, and the regulations prescribed for, the land use area in which the Property is located.

C. The Second Amendment to the Development Agreement is in conformity with public convenience, general welfare and good land use policies in that the Second Amendment will continue to implement land use guidelines set forth in the General Plan and help fund infrastructure needed to serve new development.

D. The Second Amendment will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare in that the Project will proceed in accordance with the programs and policies of the General Plan.

E. The Second Amendment will not adversely affect the orderly development of property, or the preservation of property values, in that the amendment is consistent with the General Plan.

F. The Second Amendment is consistent with and includes the substantive elements of Government Code sections 65864 through 65869.5, and has been processed consistent with all the procedural requirements thereof.

SECTION 3. Approval of Second Amendment to Development Agreement.

The City Council hereby approves the Second Amendment to the Development Agreement, attached to this Ordinance and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit A, and authorizers the City manager to sign the amended Development Agreement after the effective date of this Ordinance.

SECTION 4. CEQA. Approval of this Ordinance Amendment is exempt from further environmental review under the general rule in California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) which states that CEQA only applies to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. The proposed Ordinance is exempt from CEQA because the only change is to remove the Firehouse Parcel 1 from burdens and obligations of the Development Agreement and it can therefore be seen with a certainty that there will be no significant effect on the environment.

SECTION 5. Recordation. Within ten (10) days after the Second Amendment to the Development Agreement is executed by the City Manager, the City Clerk shall submit the amendment to the County Recorder for recordation.

SECTION 6. Severability. If any provision of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the Ordinance, including the application of such part or provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby and shall continue in full force and effect. To this end, provisions of this Ordinance are severable. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase hereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases be held unconstitutional, invalid, or unenforceable.

SECTION 7. Effective Date. Within fifteen (15) days after adoption, a Summary of this Ordinance shall be published once in the Grapevine Independent, or the Sacramento Bee, a

ITEM 16.3. ATTACHMENT 1 Ordinance No. XX-2025 Page 4 of 4
newspaper of general circulation printed and published in Sacramento County and circulated in the City of Rancho Cordova, in accordance with Government Code section 36933. This Ordinance shall take effect 30 days after its adoption and, pursuant to Government Code section 66017(a), the fees established hereby shall be effective 60 days after the adoption of this Ordinance.

PASSED AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cordova this 1st day of December 2025 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

__________________________
Siri Pulipati, Mayor

ATTEST:

__________________________
Stacy Leitner, CMC
City Clerk

OFFICIAL BUSINESS
Document entitled to free recording
Government Code Section 6103

RECORDING REQUESTED BY
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:

City of Rancho Cordova
2729 Prospect Park Drive
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
Attn: City Clerk
(SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE RESERVED FOR RECORDER’S USE)

SECOND AMENDMENT OF
DEV

ELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN

THE CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA AND GRANTLINE
& CHRYSANTHY 220 INVESTORS, LLC
RELA

TIVE TO THE SUNCREEK PROJECT
ITEM 16.3.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Ordinance

SECOND AMENDMENT TO
D

EVELOPMENT AGREEMENT

RELATIVE TO THE SUNCREEK

PROJECT BY AND BETWEEN

THE CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

AND GRANTLINE &
CHRYSANTHY 220 INVESTORS,
LLC
Th
is Second Amendment of the Development Agreement (“Second Amendment”) is entered into as of this _____ day of _____2025, by and between the CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA, a municipal corporation (“City”), and Grantline & Chrysanthy 220 Investors, LLC, a California limited liability company (“Landowner”) pursuant to Government Code section 65864 et. seq., relating to Development Agreements. City and Landowner are hereinafter collectively referred to as the “ Parties,” and singularly as “Party.”

RECITALS
A. C
ity and Landowner entered into a Development Agreement (the “Development Agreement”) dated December 2, 2013 and recorded on January 21, 2014, in the Official Records of Sacramento County as Book 20140121 Page 1146 establishing certain development rights for real property located in the City of Rancho Cordova, California, as more particularly described in Exhibit A-1 and Exhibit A-2 of the Development Agreement (the “Property”).

B. O
n August 17, 2021, Landowner entered into an Assignment and Assumption Agreement (“Assignment”) with Lennar Homes of California, LLC relative to the Development Agreement. By the Assignment, Lennar Homes of California assumed all of Landowner’s right, title, interest, burdens and obligations under the Development Agreement with respect to and as related to the Property.

C. T
he Development Agreement was subsequently amended by the City and Lennar Homes of
California on June 6, 2022 by an instrument entitled “First Amendment of Development Agreement By and Between the City of Rancho Cordova and Lennar Homes of California, LLC, a California limited liability company Relative to The Suncreek Project” and was recorded on September 20, 2022 in the Official Records of Sacramento County as Book 20220920 Page 0519 (the “First Amendment”) which amended certain sections of the Development Agreement including certain, neighborhood greens and park development and dedication obligations among other material terms.

D. L
ennar Homes of California reconveyed a portion of the Property (“Lots 8, 9, 10 and the remainder”) back to Landowner by grant deed recorded December 5, 2022 as Document No. 202212050362 and re-recorded February 23, 2023 as Document No. 202302230812, and by a grant deed recorded April 3, 2023 as Document No. 202304030436. An Assignment and Assumption for Lots, 8, 9, 10, and the remainder of the Property, recorded as Document No. 202409120710, assigned Landowner all right, title, interest, burdens, and obligations under the Development Agreement with respect to and as related to Lots 8, 9, 10, and the remainder.

E. On
September 29, 2025 Landowner deeded a portion of the remainder (“Firehouse Parcel 1”), as described in Exhibits “B” and “B-1”, to Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District for future fire station, by grant deed recorded September 29, 2025, as Document No.202509290679.

ITEM 16.3.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Ordinance

F. Pursuant to Government Code section 65868, City and Landowner desire to revise the D
evelopment Agreement and its First Amendment and intend for this Second Amendment to remove the Firehouse Parcel 1 from the burdens and obligations of the Development Agreement and the First Amendment.

G. Th
is Second Amendment affects only the Firehouse Parcel 1 of the remainder parcel of the Property, as more precisely defined in Exhibit “A” of the grant deed, Document No 202509290679.

This Second Amendment is authorized by Section 11.4 of the Development Agreement and shall run with the Property.

H. On
______, 2025, the City Council held a public hearing and introduced City Council Ordinance No.________ approving this Second Amendment. City adopted City Council Ordinance __________ on _______, 2025. On ______, 2025, by Ordinance No. _______, the City Council found the adoption of this Second Amendment exempt from CEQA under Public Resources Code Section 21166 as the impacts of the Project have already been analyzed, and no substantial changes result from this Second Amendment.

NOW, TH
EREFORE, THE PARTIES MUTUALLY AGREE AS FOLLOWS:

1. Second Amendment of the Development Agreement. Firehouse Parcel 1, as described in Exhibits “B” and "B-1", is exempt from the burdens and obligations of the Development Agreement and its First Amendment.

2. Consistency with General Plan . The City Council has found and determined that this Second Amendment is consistent with the General Plan and the Suncreek Specific Plan.

3. Amendment Applicable to Property. This Second Amendment applies to development of the Property and does not affect or apply in any manner with respect to the development of any other property within the Suncreek Specific Plan Area.

4. Amendment. This Second Amendment amends, but does not replace or supersede, the Development Agreement or the First Amendment except as specified herein. As amended hereby with respect to the Property, the Development Agreement and First Amendment to the Development Agreement remain in full force and effect.

5. Incorporation of Recitals. The Preamble, Recitals, and all exhibits attached hereto are incorporated into this Second Amendment as if set forth herein in full.

6. Effective Date and Term of Second Amendment. The Effective Date of this Second Amendment is _______, 2025 which is the effective date of City Ordinance No. ________-2025, adopting this Second Amendment.

Ci
ty Manager Authorization. City, a municipal corporation, has authorized this Second Amendment to be executed in two (2) duplicate originals, each of which is deemed to be an original, by its City Manager and attested to by its City Clerk under the authority of Ordinance No. _____-2025 adopted by the City Council on the ____th day of ________, 2025, and has caused this Second Amendment to be executed.

ITEM 16.3.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Ordinance

“CITY”

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA,
a municipal corporation

By: _________________________________
Name: Micah Runner
Its: City Manager
Date: _______________________________

“LANDOWNER”

Grantline & Chrysanthy 220 Investors, LLC, a
California limited liability company

By: AKT Investments, Inc., Its: Manager

By: ________________________________
Ron Bertolina, Vice President

Date: _______________________________
ATTEST:

__________________________________
City Clerk

ITEM 16.3.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Ordinance

ITEM 16.3.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Ordinance

ITEM 16.3.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Ordinance

EXHIBIT “B”
GRANTLINE 220 RTC

DESCRIPTION FOR
FIREHOUSE PARCEL 1
A portion of the Resultant Remainder as shown on the Lot Line Adjustment (LLA). Filed as Doc# 202509290679 , Sacramento County Official Records, City of Rancho Cordova, County of Sacramento, State of California, being more particularly described as follows:

BEGINNING at a point being the most westerly, northwest corner of said Resultant Remainder, also being the southwest corner of Resultant Lot 8, as shown on said LLA, thence along the northerly line of said Resultant Remainder, North 89°57'52" East, a distance of 412.84 feet; thence through said Resultant Remainder, the following four (4) arcs, distances and courses:

1. South 00°02'08" East, a distance of 308.06 feet;

2. South 89°57'52" West, a distance of 316.23 feet;

3. thence along a tangent curve concave to the south, having a radius of 300.00 feet, westerly

54.00 feet along said curve through a central angle of 10°18'48";

4. South 79°39'05" West, a distance of 10.36 feet to the westerly line of said Resultant Remainder
thence along said westerly line, the following three (3) arcs, distances, and courses:

1. North 10°20'55" West, a distance of 94.56 feet;

2. along a tangent curve concave to the east, having a radius of 976.00 feet, northerly 175.68 feet along said curve through a central angle of 10°18'48";

3. North 00°02'08" West, a distance of 46.99 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING .

END OF DESCRIPTION
ITEM 16.3.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Ordinance

EXHIBIT 'B-1'

PLAT TO ACCOMPANY

DESCRIPTION
0 GRANTLINE 220 RTC
FIREHOUSE PARCEL 1

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO STATE OF CALIFORNIA

CHRYSANTHYBOULEVARD
-
1 ---------------------
�
�
�
0 1
�I
\
I
\
50 100
r/
,,_
[ 25.00' PEDESTRl;�;::NDSCAPE/

PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT
PER 442-BM-13
IAIESlll T AINIT lOT 8
IDOCoo ____ _
POB N89"5 7'52"E 412.84'
Noo·o2·08"w
I 46.99'
I
I
I
I
:;at>,
11 � II
(00
--"
-.....J .-.....J
(J) (XI SJ'• ·(J) 0 -+'"OJ 0.0J . •
FIREHOUSE PARCEL 1

2.855±· ACRES
(D 0
OJ 0 n
; • 25.00' PEDESTRIAN/LANDSCAPE/PUBLIC
;-- UTILITY EASEMENT PER 442-BM-13
w
OJ 0
\
\
I I
1 N10·20'55"wI
I 94.56'
I
, s79·39'05"w 1 o.36'
s:i 0 0 <.n
S89"57'52"W 316.23'

I I I I I I I
R=300.00'
6= 10"18' 48"
L=54.00'
200
IRIESUl TAINT IRIEMAIINIIDEIA
[!IOCe ______ _
LEGEND:

BM BOOK OF MAPS

POB POINT OF BEGINNING
�
L&JCCO -RCOGE:R:S

BUILDING RELATIONSHIPS ONE PROJECT AT A TIME
330 1 C ST, BLDG. 1 00-B TEL 9 1 6.341. 7760
SACRAMENT□, CA 9 5B 1 6 FAX 9 1 6.341 . 7767
SCALE: 1 "= 100' APRIL 25 2025 1258.040 SHEET 1 OF 1
ITEM 16.3.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Ordinance

MEMORANDUM

City Council Staff Report - Page 1 of 1

ITEM 17.1.

DATE: December 1, 2025

TO: Honorable Mayor and Council Members

FROM: Jeremiah Zillig, Chief Building Official

SUBJECT: SECOND READING OF AN ORDINANCE REPEALING AND
REPLACING CHAPTER 17.04, "FIRE CODE" TO THE RANCHO

CORDOVA MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADOPTING BY REFERENCE THE
2025 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE AND MAKING LOCAL AMENDMENTS

TO PORTIONS THEREOF

RECOMMENDATION

Waive the second reading and adopt the Ordinance.

RESULT OF RECOMMENDED ACTION

Adoption of the Ordinance would result in the city’s fire codes being updated to current industry best practices and will coincide with new fire codes mandated by the State of California to protect property, health, life and safety.

BACKGROUND

On November 17, 2025, the City Council waived the first reading and passed to a second reading of the Ordinance.

FISCAL IMPACT AND FUNDING SOURCE

There is no fiscal impact.

ATTACHMENT(S)

1. Ordinance

2. Comparison and Summary 2022 v 2025

ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1 Ordinance No. XX-2025 Page 1 of 13

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

ORDINANCE NO. XX-2025

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, REPEALING AND REPLACING CHAPTER 17.04, “FIRE CODE” TO THE RANCHO CORDOVA MUNICIPAL CODE WHICH ADOPTS BY REFERENCE THE 2025

CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Title 17, Chapter 17.04, “Fire Code,” is hereby repealed in its entirety and replaced and amended as follows:

Chapter 17.04

FIRE CODE

17.04.005 Title. These regulations shall be known as the “California Fire Code.”

17.04.010 Adoption of California Fire Code. There is hereby adopted by the city of Rancho Cordova for the purpose of prescribing regulations governing conditions hazardous to life and property from fire or explosion, that certain code known as the 2025 California Fire Code, Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 9 (California Fire Code), incorporating the International Fire Code, 2024 Edition, published by the International Code Council in its entirety including Appendix 4, Appendix B, Appendix BB, Appendix C, Appendix CC, Appendix H, Appendix O, Appendix P, save and except such portions as hereinafter deleted, modified, or amended. Not less than one copy of such code has been and now is filed with the clerk of the city of Rancho Cordova. From the effective date of the ordinance establishing this chapter, the provisions thereof shall be controlling within the limits of the city of Rancho Cordova except that any inconsistent regulations and ordinances adopted pursuant to applicable law by the Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District shall be controlling within the city of Rancho Cordova if said regulation or ordinance has been ratified by the city in accordance with Section 13869.7 of the California Health and Safety Code.

17.04.020 Enforcement. The division of authority for enforcement of this chapter shall be as follows:

The Chief of the Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District or the chief’s designated representatives shall have authority to enforce this chapter and issue citations for violations.

17.04.030 Findings. The findings of fact are filed separately with the California Building Standards Commission and State Department of Housing and Community Development.

17.04 040 Definitions.

A. Wherever the word “municipality” is used in the California Fire Code, it shall mean the city of Rancho Cordova.

B. Wherever the word “chief” is used in this chapter or the California Fire Code, it shall mean the

ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1 Ordinance No. XX-2025 Page 2 of 13
chief of the Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District.

17.04.050 Amendments to the 2025 Edition of the California Fire Code.

SECTION 105.5.5 "CARNIVALS AND FAIRS" IS AMENDED AS FOLLOWS:

Section 105.5.5 Carnivals, fairs, festivals, or exhibitions. An operational permit is required to conduct a carnival, fair, festival, or exhibition.

SECTION 105.6 “REQUIRED CONSTRUCTION PERMITS” IS ADDED AS FOLLOWS:

Section 105.6.26 Architectural. A construction permit is required prior to the construction of all new buildings, alterations, additions or tenant improvements.

Section 105.6.27 Civil Engineering. A construction permit is required for civil improvements involving all new buildings, additions, structural alterations, subdivisions, site developments or civil improvements.

Section 105.6.28. Underground Fire Service . A construction permit is required prior to the installation of underground fire service mains and appurtenances.

SECTION 108.7 "COST RECOVERY FEES" IS ADDED AS FOLLOWS:

Section 108.7 Cost recovery fees. Cost recovery fees may be charged to any person, firm, corporation, or business that through negligence, violation of the law, or as a result of carelessness, is responsible for an incident resulting in Fire Department response. (Health & Safety Code 13916).

SECTION 110.3.1 “ELECTRONIC FILING" IS ADDED AS FOLLOWS:

Section 110.3.1 Electronic filing. When required by the fire code official, records of all system inspections, tests and maintenance required by the referenced standards and Title 19 of the California Code of Regulations shall be submitted to the fire code official electronically.

SECTION 112 “MEANS OF APPEALS” IS AMENDED AS FOLLOWS:

Section 112.1 General. In order to hear and decide appeals of orders, decisions or determinations made by the fire code official relative to the application and interpretation of this code, there shall be and is hereby created a board of appeals. The board of appeals shall be the Board of Directors of the fire protection district or community services district having jurisdiction.

SECTION 113.4 "VIOLATION PENALTIES" IS AMENDED AS FOLLOWS:

Section 113.4 Violation penalties. Persons who shall violate a provision of this code or shall fail to comply with any of the requirements thereof or who shall erect, install, alter, repair or do work in violation of the approved construction documents or directive of the fire code official, or of a permit or certificate used under provisions of this code, shall be guilty of an infraction or a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not less than one hundred dollars ($100) and not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment not exceeding

ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1 Ordinance No. XX-2025 Page 3 of 13
180 days, or both such fine and imprisonment. Each day that a violation continues after due notice has been served shall be deemed a separate offense.

SECTION 113.4.2 "CITATIONS" IS ADDED AS FOLLOWS:

Section 113.4.2 Citations. The Chief, or the Chief’s duly authorized representative, may issue citations for infractions or misdemeanor violations of this code pursuant to Section 13871 of the Health and Safety Code of the State of California and Chapter 5c (commencing with Section 853.6) of Title 3 of Part 2 of the Penal Code of the State of California.

SECTION 113.4.3 “CALIFORNIA BAIL SCHEDULE" IS ADDED AS FOLLOWS:

Section 113.4.3 – California Bail Schedule.

SECTION NATURE OF OFFENSE PC MA BAIL
PA

NCA TOTAL
112.4.3* NC W/ORDERS OR NOTICE X $1700 $2700
112.4.3* NC W/CONDEMNATION
TAG
X $1700 $2700
112.4.3* DESTRUCTION OF TAGS X $1700 $2700
112.4.3* CONTINUANCE OF
HAZARD
X $1700 $2700
ALL
OTHER

SECTIONS
X $170 $270

*- MISDEMEANOR
PC – ELIGIBLE FOR PROOF OF CORRECTION
PA – PENALTY ASSESSMENT
NCA – NIGHT COURT ASSESSMENT

NC - NONCOMPLIANCE

SECTION 114.4 “FAILURE TO COMPLY" IS AMENDED AS FOLLOWS:

Section 114.4 Failure to comply. Any person who shall continue any work after having been served with a stop work order, except such work as that person is directed to perform to remove a violation or unsafe condition shall be guilty of an infraction or a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not less than one hundred ($100) dollars or more than one thousand ($1000) dollars.

SECTION 202 “SUPERVISING STATION" IS AMENDED AS FOLLOWS:

SUPERVISING STATION. An approved UL listed, Type A, Full Service Central Station facility that receives signals and at which personnel are in attendance at all times to respond to these signals. The approved supervising station shall have the ability to relay the alarm to the (a) Sacramento Regional Fire/EMS Communications Center or (b) to the Sacramento International Airport Communication Center in an approved manner.

ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1 Ordinance No. XX-2025 Page 4 of 13
SECTION 202 “FALSE ALARM" IS AMENDED AS FOLLOWS:

FALSE ALARM. The willful and knowing or negligent initiation or transmission of a signal, message or other notification of an event of fire when no such danger exists.

Section 503.6.1 “ELECTRIFIED SECURITY FENCES" IS ADDED AS FOLLOWS:

Section 503.6.1 Electrified security fences. Electrified security fences, shall be approved by the fire code official prior to installation.

SECTION 507.1.1 "CONNECTION" IS ADDED AS FOLLOWS:

Section 507.1.1 Connection. When required by the fire code official, buildings without a public water supply shall be connected to the public water supply once the public water supply becomes available.

Exception: Group U occupancies

SECTION 510.4.1.1 “MINIMUM SIGNAL STRENGTH INTO THE BUILDING” IS AMENDED AS FOLLOWS:

Section 510.4.1.1 Minimum signal strength into the building. The minimum inbound signal strength shall be sufficient to provide usable voice communications throughout the coverage area as specified by the fire code official. The inbound signal level shall be a minimum of - 95dBm throughout the coverage area and sufficient to provide not less than a Delivered Audio Quality (DAQ) of 3.4 or an equivalent Signal-to-Interference-Plus-Noise Ratio (SINR) applicable to the technology for either analog or digital signals.

SECTION 510.4.1.2 “MINIMUM SIGNAL STRENGTH OUT OF THE BUILDING” IS AMENDED AS FOLLOWS:

Section 510.4.1.2. Minimum signal strength out of the building. The minimum uplink signal strength shall be sufficient to provide usable voice communications throughout the coverage area as specified by the fire code official. The uplink signal level shall be sufficient to provide not less than a DAQ of 3.4 using either narrowband analog, digital or wideband LTE signals or an equivalent bit error rate (BER), or signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio (SINR) applicable to the technology for either analog or digital signals.

SECTION 901.4.7 "PUMP AND RISER ROOM SIZE" IS AMENDED AS FOLLOWS:

Section 901.4.7 Pump and riser room size. Approved fire pump rooms and/or automatic sprinkler system riser rooms shall be provided in all new buildings protected by an automatic sprinkler system. Fire pump rooms and automatic sprinkler system riser rooms shall be designed with adequate space for all equipment necessary for the installation, as defined by the manufacturer, with sufficient working space around the stationary equipment. Clearances around equipment to elements of permanent construction, including other installed equipment and appliances, shall be sufficient to allow inspection, service, repair or replacement without removing such elements of permanent construction or disabling the function of a required fire- resistance-rated assembly. Fire pump and automatic sprinkler system riser rooms shall be provided with doors and unobstructed passageways large enough to allow removal of the largest piece of equipment.

Exception: Group R-3 Occupancies.

ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1 Ordinance No. XX-2025 Page 5 of 13

SECTION 901.4.7.4 LIGHTING IS AMENDED AS FOLLOWS:

901.4.7.4 Lighting. Permanently installed artificial illumination and emergency illumination shall be provided in the automatic sprinkler system riser rooms, fire control rooms, and fire pump fire control rooms.

SECTION 903.2. "WHERE REQUIRED" IS AMENDED AS FOLLOWS:

Section 903.2 Where required. Approved automatic sprinkler systems in new buildings and structures shall be provided in the locations described in Sections 903.2.1 through 903.2.21.

Exception: Spaces or areas in telecommunications buildings used exclusively for telecommunications equipment, associated electrical power distribution equipment, batteries not required to have an automatic sprinkler system by Section 1207 for energy storage systems and standby engines, provided that those spaces or areas are equipped throughout with an automatic smoke detection system in accordance with Section 907.2 and are separated from the remainder of the building by not less than 1- hour fire barriers constructed in accordance with Section 707 of the California Building Code, or not less than 2-hour horizontal assemblies constructed in accordance with Section 711 of the California Building Code, or both.

Exception: Non-combustible, detached canopies open on four sides not exceeding the basic allowable area in CBC Table 506.2 used exclusively for the parking or storage of private or recreational vehicles and non-combustible storage (includes fuel islands).

SECTION 903.2.1.1 "GROUP A-1" IS AMENDED AS FOLLOWS:

Section 903.2.1.1 Group A-1. An automatic sprinkler system shall be provided throughout stories containing Group A-1 occupancies and throughout all stories from the Group A-1 occupancy to and including the levels of exit discharge serving that occupancy where one of the following conditions exists:

1. The fire area exceeds 3,599 square feet (334.36 m2).

2. The fire area has an occupant load of 300 or more.

3. The fire area is located on a floor other than a level of exit discharge serving such occupancies

4. The fire area contains a multi-theater complex

SECTION 903.2.1.2 “GROUP A-2" IS AMENDED AS FOLLOWS:

Section 903.2.1.2 Group A-2. An automatic sprinkler system shall be provided throughout stories containing Group A-2 occupancies and throughout all stories from the Group A-2 occupancy to and including the levels of exit discharge serving that occupancy where one of the following conditions exists:

1. The fire area exceeds 3,599 square feet (334.36 m2);

2. The fire area has an occupant load of 100 or more.

3. The fire area is located on a floor other than a level of exit discharge serving such occupancies.

4. The structure exceeds 3,599 square feet (334.36 m2), contains more than one fire area containing a Group A-2 occupancy, and is separated into two or more

ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1 Ordinance No. XX-2025 Page 6 of 13
buildings by fire walls of less than 4-hour fire resistance rating without openings.

SECTION 903.2.1.3 “GROUP A-3" IS AMENDED AS FOLLOWS:

Section 903.2.1.3 Group A-3. An automatic sprinkler system shall be provided throughout stories containing Group A-3 occupancies and throughout all stories from the Group A-3 occupancy to and including the levels of exit discharge serving that occupancy where one of the following conditions exists:

1. The fire area exceeds 3,599 square feet (334.36 m2).

2. The fire area has an occupant load of 300 or more.

3. The fire area is located on a floor other than a level of exit discharge serving such occupancies.

4. The structure exceeds 3,599 square feet (334.36 m2), contains more than one fire area containing a Group A-3 occupancy, and is separated into two or more buildings by fire walls of less than 4-hour fire resistance rating without openings.

SECTION 903.2.1.4 “GROUP A-4" IS AMENDED AS FOLLOWS:

Section 9.3.2.1.4 Group A-4. An automatic sprinkler system shall be provided throughout stories containing Group A-4 occupancies and throughout all stories from the Group A-4 occupancy to and including the levels of exit discharge serving that occupancy where one of the following conditions exists:

1. The fire area exceeds 3,599 square feet (334.36 m2).

2. The fire area has an occupant load of 300 or more.

3. The fire area is located on a floor other than a level of exit discharge serving such occupancies.

SECTION 903.2.2 "GROUP B" IS AMENDED AS FOLLOWS:

Section 903.2.2 Group B. An automatic sprinkler system shall be provided throughout all buildings containing Group B occupancies where the fire area exceeds 3,599 square feet (334.36 m2) and as required in Sections 903.2.2.1 and 903.2.2.2.

SECTION 903.2.3 “GROUP E" IS AMENDED AS FOLLOWS:

Section 903.2.3 Group E. An automatic sprinkler system shall be provided for Group E occupancies as follows:

1. Throughout all Group E fire areas greater than 3,599 square feet (334.36 m2) in area.

2. The Group E fire area is located on a floor other than a level of exit discharge serving such occupancies.

Exception: In buildings where every classroom has not fewer than one exterior exit door at ground level, an automatic sprinkler system is not required in any area below the lowest level of exit discharge serving that area.

3. The Group E fire area has an occupant load of 300 or more.

4. In rooms or areas with special hazards such as laboratories, vocational shops and other such area where hazardous materials in quantities not exceeding the maximum allowable quantity are used or stored.

ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1 Ordinance No. XX-2025 Page 7 of 13

5. Throughout any Group E structure greater than 3,599 square feet (334.36 m2), contains more than one fire area containing a Group E occupancy, and is separated into two or more buildings by fire walls of not less than 4-hour fire resistance rating without openings.

6. For public school state funded construction projects see Section 903.2.19.

7. For public school campuses, Kindergarten through 12th grade, see Section 903.2.20.

SECTION 903.2.4 “GROUP F-1" IS AMENDED AS FOLLOWS:

Section 903.2.4 Group F-1. An automatic sprinkler system shall be provided throughout all buildings containing a Group F-1 occupancy where one of the following conditions exists:

1. A Group F-1 fire area exceeds 3,599 square feet (334.36 m2).

2. A Group F-1 fire area is located more than three stories above grade plane.

3. The combined area of all Group F-1 fire areas on all floors, including any mezzanines exceeds 3,599 square feet (334.36 m2).

SECTION 903.2.4.4 “GROUP F-2” IS ADDED AS FOLLOWS:

Section 903.2.4.4 Group F-2. An automatic sprinkler system shall be provided throughout all buildings containing a Group F-2 occupancy where the fire area exceeds 3,599 square feet.

SECTION 903.2.7 “GROUP M" IS AMENDED AS FOLLOWS:

Section 903.2.7 Group M. An automatic sprinkler system shall be provided throughout buildings containing a Group M occupancy where one of the following conditions exists:

1. A Group M fire area exceeds 3,599 square feet (334.36 m2).

2. A Group M fire area is located more than three stories above grade plane.

3. The combined area of all Group M fire areas on all floors, including any mezzanines, exceeds 3,599 square feet (334.36 m2).

4. [SFM] The structure exceeds 3,599 square feet (334.36 m2) contains more than one fire area containing a Group M occupancy, and is separated into two or more buildings by fire walls of less than 4-hour fire resistance rating without openings.

SECTION 903.2.7.2 “GROUP M” IS AMENDED AS FOLLOWS:

Section 903.2.7.2 Group M upholstered furniture or mattresses: An automatic sprinkler system shall be provided throughout a Group M fire area where the area used for the display and sale of upholstered furniture or mattresses exceeds 3,599 square feet (334.36 m2).

SECTION 903.2.8.1.1 “GROUP R-3 MANUFACTURED HOUSING” IS ADDED AS FOLLOWS:

903.2.8.1.1 Group R-3 manufactured housing. Fire sprinkler systems shall be installed in new manufactured homes (HSC Sections 18007 and 18009) and multifamily manufactured homes with two dwelling units (HSC 18008.7) in accordance with Title 25 of the California Code of Regulations.

SECTION 903.2.9 "GROUP S-1" IS AMENDED AS FOLLOWS:

ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1 Ordinance No. XX-2025 Page 8 of 13
Section 903.2.9 Group S-1. An automatic sprinkler system shall be provided throughout all buildings containing a Group S-1 occupancy where one of the following conditions exists:

1. A Group S-1 fire area exceeds 3,599 square feet (334.36 m2).

2. A Group S-1 fire area is located more than three stories above grade plane.

3. The combined area of all Group S-1 fire areas on all floors, including any mezzanines, exceeds 3,599 square feet (334.36 m2).

4. A Group S-1 fire area used for the storage of commercial motor vehicles where the fire area exceeds 3,599 square feet (334.36 m 2).

5. A Group S-1 fire area used for the storage of lithium-ion or lithium metal powered vehicles where the fire area exceeds 500 square feet (46.4 m2).

SECTION 903.2.9.1 “REPAIR GARAGES" IS AMENDED AS FOLLOWS:

Section 903.2.9.1 Repair garages. An automatic sprinkler system shall be provided throughout all buildings used as repair garages in accordance with Section 406.8 of the California Building Code, as shown:

1. Buildings having two or more stories above grade plane, including basements, with a fire area containing a repair garage exceeding 3,599 square feet (334.36 m2).

2. Buildings no more than one story above grade plane, with a fire area containing a repair garage exceeding 3,599 square feet (334.36 m2).

3. Buildings with repair garages servicing vehicles parked in basements.

4. A Group S-1 fire area used for the repair of commercial motor vehicles where the fire area exceeds 3,599 square feet (334.36 m 2).

5. A Group S-1 fire area used for the storage of lithium-ion or lithium metal powered vehicles where the fire area exceeds 500 square feet (46.4 m2).

SECTION 903.2.10 "GROUP S-2 PARKING GARAGES" IS AMENDED AS FOLLOWS:

Section 903.2.10 Group S-2 parking garages. An automatic sprinkler system shall be provided throughout buildings classified as parking garages where any of the following conditions exist:

1. Where the fire area of the enclosed parking garage, in accordance with section 406.6 of the California Building Code, exceeds 3,599 square feet (334.36 m2).

2. Where the enclosed parking garage, in accordance with Section 406.6 of the California Building Code, is located beneath other groups.

Exception: Enclosed parking garages located beneath Group R-3 occupancies.

3. Where the fire area of the open parking garage, in accordance with Section 406.5 of the California Building Code, exceeds 3,599 square feet (334.36 m2).

SECTION 903.2.10.1 "COMMERCIAL PARKING GARAGES" IS AMENDED AS FOLLOWS:

Section 903.2.10.1 Commercial parking garages. An automatic sprinkler system shall be provided throughout buildings used for storage of commercial motor vehicles where the fire area exceeds 3,599 square feet (334.36 m 2).

SECTION 903.2.10.3 “GROUP S-2” IS ADDED AS FOLLOWS:

Section 903.2.10.3 Group S-2. An automatic sprinkler system shall be provided throughout all buildings containing a Group S-2 occupancy where the fire area exceeds 3,599 square feet.

ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1 Ordinance No. XX-2025 Page 9 of 13

SECTION 903.2.18.1 "GROUP U PRIVATE GARAGES AND CARPORTS" IS ADDED AS FOLLOWS:

Section 903.2.18.1 Group U private garages and carports. Carports and garages within 6- feet of a Group R occupancy equipped with automatic fire sprinklers, shall be protected by fire sprinklers in accordance with NFPA 13D or NFPA 13, as applicable.

SECTION 903.3.8.4 “SUPERVISION" IS AMENDED AS FOLLOWS:

Section 903.3.8.4 Supervision. Control valves shall not be installed between the water supply and sprinklers unless the valves are of an approved indicating type that are supervised and secured in the open position.

SECTION 903.3.10 "FLOOR CONTROL VALVES" IS AMENDED AS FOLLOWS:

Section 903.3.10 Floor control valves. Supervised and indicating floor control valves and waterflow detection assemblies shall be installed at each floor in multi-story buildings, at an approved location.

Exception: Group R-3 and R-3.1 occupancies floor control valves and waterflow detection assemblies shall not be required.

SECTION 903.6 “WHERE REQUIRED IN EXISTING BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES” IS AMENDED AS FOLLOWS:

Section 903.6 Where required in existing buildings and structures. An automatic sprinkler system shall be provided in existing buildings and structures where required in Chapter 11 and as follows:

1. In existing buildings and structures exceeding 3,599 square feet (334.36 m2), where the floor area of the building or structure is increased.

Exception:

1. The total new plus existing floor area does not exceed 12,000 square feet and Section 903.2 occupancy requirements are met.

2. When the building increase is to accommodate state mandated accessibility improvements and is less than 500 square feet (46.45 m2).

2. In existing buildings and structures less than 3,600 square feet (334.45 m2), where the floor area of the building or structure is increased to exceed 3,599 square feet (334.36 m2).

Exception:

1. Buildings constructed under the Uniform Building Code where the total new plus existing floor area does not exceed 12,000 square feet and Section 903.2 occupancy requirements are met.

2. When the building increase is to accommodate state mandated accessibility improvements and is less than 500 square feet (46.45 m2).

SECTION 903.6.1 "MONITORING OF EXISTING BUILDINGS" IS ADDED AS FOLLOWS:

Section 903.6.1 Monitoring of Existing Buildings. When required by the fire code official, valves controlling the water supply for automatic sprinkler systems, pumps, tanks, water levels and temperatures, critical air pressures, and water flow switches on all existing sprinkler

ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1 Ordinance No. XX-2025 Page 10 of 13
systems shall be monitored by an approved supervising station.

SECTION 1028.5.1 "EXIT DISCHARGE SURFACE" IS ADDED AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1028.5.1 Exit discharge surface. Exterior exit pathway surfaces shall be a paved and shall terminate at a public way as defined in the California Building Code.

SECTION 5003.9.1.2 “EMERGENCY RESPONSE SUPPORT INFORMATION” IS ADDED AS FOLLOWS:

Section 5003.9.1.2 Emergency response support information. Ready access to floor plans, safety data sheets (SOS), Hazardous Materials Management Plans (HMMP), and Hazardous Material Inventory Statements (HMIS) shall be provided as determined by the fire code official.

SECTION 5601.1.6 “FIREWORKS DISPLAY” IS ADDED AS FOLLOWS:

Section 5601.1.6 Fireworks display. In addition to the California Code of Regulations, Title 19, Division 1, Chapter 10, NFPA 1123 shall govern the handling, operation, and use of fireworks and equipment intended for outdoor fireworks for public display.

Exception: Use of California Safe and Sane consumer fireworks.

Chapter 80 "REFERENCED STANDARDS" IS ADDED AS FOLLOWS:

NFPA 1123-26: Code for Fireworks Display

APPENDIX B, TABLE NO. B105.2, REQUIRED FIRE-FLOW FOR BUILDINGS OTHER THAN ONE-AND TWO-FAMILY DWELLINGS, GROUP R-3 AND R-4 BUILDINGS AND TOWNHOUSES IS AMENDED AS FOLLOWS:

TABLE NO. B105.2

REQUIRED FIRE-FLOW FOR BUILDINGS OTHER THAN ONE-AND TWO-FAMILY DWELLINGS, GROUP R-3 AND R-4 BUILDINGS AND TOWNHOUSES

AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER
SYSTEM (Design Standard)

MINIMUM FIRE FLOW
(Gallons per Minute)

FLOW DURATION
(Hours)
No automatic sprinkler system Value in Table B105.1 (2) a Duration in Table B105.1 (2)
Section 903.3.1.1 of the
California Fire Code
50% of the Value in
Table B105.1 (2)a
Duration in
Table B105.1(2) at the
reduced flow rate
Section 903.3.1.2 of the
California Fire Code
50% of the Value in
Table B105.1 (2)b
Duration in
Table B105.1(2) at the
reduced flow rate
For SI: 1 gallon per minute= 3.785 L/m.
a. The reduced fire flow shall not be less than 1,500 gallons per minute. b. The reduced fire flow shall not be less than 1,500 gallons per minute.

ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1 Ordinance No. XX-2025 Page 11 of 13

TABLE NO. C102.1 "REQUIRED NUMBER AND SPACING OF FIRE HYDRANTS" IS AMENDED AS FOLLOWS:

TABLE NO. C102.1
REQUIRED NUMBER AND SPACING OF FIRE HYDRANTS h, i

FIRE FLOW

REQUIREMENT
(gpm)
MINIMUM NO.

OF HYDRANTS

AVERAGE

SPACING

BETWEEN
HYDRANTS a,b,c,f,
j
(Ft.)

MAXIMUM DISTANCE

FROM HYDRANT TO

ANY POINT

ON STREET OR

ROADWAY
FRONTAGE d,f,
(Ft.)
1750 or less 1 300 150
1751-2250 2 300 150
2251-2750 3 300 150
2751-3250 3 300 150
3251-4000 4 300 150
4001-5000 5 300 150
5001-5500 6 300 150
5501-6000 6 250 150
6001-7000 7 250 150
7001or more 8 or more 200 120
For SI: 1 foot= 304.8 mm, 1 gallon per minute= 3.785 Lim. a. Reduce by 100 feet for dead-end roads.
b. Where streets are provided with median dividers that cannot be crossed by firefighters pulling hose lines, or where arterial streets are provided with four or more traffic lanes or street width is more than 88 feet (26.82 m), hydrant spacing shall average 300 feet on each side of the street and be arranged on an alternating basis.
c. Where new water mains are extended along streets where hydrants are not needed for protection of structures or similar fire problems, fire hydrants shall be provided at spacing not to exceed 1,000 feet (304.8 m) to provide for transportation hazards. In addition, there shall be at least one hydrant at each intersection. d. Reduce by 50 feet for dead-end roads.
e. One Hydrant for each 1,000 gallons per minute or fraction thereof. f. The fire code official is authorized to modify the location, number and distribution of fire hydrants based on site-specific constraints and hazards. g. Reduction of fire flow does not apply to the number of fire hydrants required or fire flow duration.
h. Average spacing between fire hydrants may be extended to 500 feet (152.4 m) on streets serving one- and two-family dwellings.

SECTION C104.2 "SINGLE OUTLET FIRE HYDRANTS" IS ADDED AS FOLLOWS:

Section C104.2 Single outlet fire hydrants. Where required by the fire code official, existing

ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1 Ordinance No. XX-2025 Page 12 of 13
single outlet 2 ½ inch fire hydrants shall be changed to an approved steamer fire hydrant, when the following conditions occur:

1. The modification of an existing structure resulting in an increased fire flow.

2. A change in occupancy type, use, or character of the building that results in an increased life safety or fire risk, as determined by the fire code official.

3. The construction of a new building.

EXCEPTION:

1. Where the single outlet fire hydrant meets required fire flow

2. Where existing infrastructure does not support the installation of an approved steamer fire hydrant, fire code official may permit an alternate means and methods of fire protection.

SECTION C106.1 "HYDRANT TYPE" IS ADDED AS FOLLOWS:

Section C106.1 Hydrant type. The fire code official shall approve the type of fire hydrants to be installed on private property prior to any such installation.

17.04.60 Repeal of Conflicting Ordinances.

All former fire prevention ordinances or parts thereof conflicting or inconsistent with the provision of this ordinance or of the code hereby adopted are hereby repealed.

Section 2. Severability

If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstances is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of the ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this ordinance are severable. This City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this ordinance irrespective of the invalidity of any particular portion thereof and intends that the invalid portions should be severed and the balance of the ordinance be enforced.

Section 3. Effective Date and Publication

Within fifteen (15) days from and after adoption, this Ordinance shall be published once in the Grapevine Independent, a newspaper of general circulation printed and published in Sacramento County and circulated in the City of Rancho Cordova, in accordance with California Government Code Section 36933. This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days after its adoption.

ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1 Ordinance No. XX-2025 Page 13 of 13

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cordova on the 1 st day of December 2025 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

____________________________
Siri Pulipati, Mayor

ATTEST:

Stacy Leitner, CMC
City Clerk

ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 2
Comparison and Summary of Significant Changes from the 2022 CFC Ordinance to the 2025 CFC Ordinance

Section

Title
Previously
Amended 2022
CFC Carrying
forward to 2025
CFC- No
Changes
New Proposal
to 2025
Ordinance
Previous
2022 CFC Amendment
Being Removed and
Converted to 2025 CFC
Standard Code
Requirements or FPS*
Explanation

105.5.5

Carnivals and fairs

X

108.7 Cost Recovery Fees X
110.3.1 Electronic filing X
112.1 Board of Appeals X

113.4

Violation Penalties X

113.4.2 Citations X
113.4.3 California Bail Schedule X X
Removed bail
amounts as
recommended
by legal
114.4 Failure to comply X

202

Definitions X
Removing “All
Weather
Surface”
definition from
Ordinance to
define in Fire
Prevention
Standard (FPS)
503.1.2.1 Remoteness X
Removing from
Ordinance and
converting to
FPS
503.6.1 Electrified fences X

505.1

Address identification X
Removing from
Ordinance and
converting to
FPS

505.1.1

Illumination X
Removing from
Ordinance and
converting to
FPS

507.1.1

Connection x

507.5.1

Where required

X
Removing from
Ordinance and
converting to
2025 CFC
Standard Code
requirement

507.5.1.1

Hydrant for standpipe
systems
X
Removing from
Ordinance and
converting to
2025 CFC
standard code
requirement
510.4.1.1 Minimum signal strength
into buildings X

ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 2
510.4.1.2 Minimum signal strength
out of the building X

Section

Title
Previously
Amended 2022
CFC Carrying
forward to 2025
CFC- No
Changes
New Proposal
to 2025
Ordinance
Previous
2022 CFC Amendment
Being Removed and
Converted to 2025 CFC
Standard Code
Requirements or FPS
Explanation

901.4.7

Pump and riser room size

X

901.4.7.2

Marking on access doors

X

Removing from
Ordinance and
converting to
FPS

901.4.7.4

Lighting X

903.2

Where required

X
Removing
previous
ordinance
requirement that
did not allow fire
walls to create
separate
buildings.

903.2.1.1

Group A-1

X

903.2.1.2

Group A-2

X

903.2.1.3

Group A-3 X

903.2.1.4

Group A-4

X

903.2.2.

Group B X

903.2.3

Group E X

903.2.4

Group F-1 X
903.2.4.4 Group F-2 X

903.2.7

Group M X
903.2.7.2 Group M Upholstered
Furniture or Mattress X

903.2.8.1.1

Group R-3 manufactured
housing
X

903.2.9

Group S-1

X

903.2.9.1

Repair garages X

903.2.10 Group S-2 parking garages X

903.2.10.1

Commercial parking
garages

X
903.2.10.3 Group S-2 X

ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 2

903.2.18.1
Group U private garages
and carports accessory to
Group R-3 occupancies
X

Section

Title
Previously
Amended 2022
CFC Carrying
forward to 2025
CFC- No
Changes
New Proposal
to 2025
Ordinance
Previous
2022 CFC Amendment
Being Removed and
Converted to 2025 CFC
Standard Code
Requirements or FPS
Explanation
903.3.1.52 NFPA 13R Sprinkler
Systems X
Removing
previous deletion
to allow for
installation of
NFPA 13R fire
sprinkler
systems

903.3.8.4

Supervision X

903.3.10

Floor control valves

X

903.4.3

Alarms

X
Removing from
Ordinance and
converting to
FPS

903.6

Where required X
Exceptions
added to allow
for greater
flexibility in
increasing
building square
feet without
triggering fire
sprinkler
installation by
giving benefit of
the increased fire
protection of
buildings
constructed
under the
Uniform Fire
Code

903.6.1

Monitoring X

1028.5.1 Exit discharge surface X
1201.1 Energy Storage Systems X
Removed from
Ordinance. Now
provided in
standard code
requirements.
3307.2 When required X
Removed
Ordinance
restrictions
requiring
permanent water
supplies during
construction to
accept
temporary
conditions.
3307.2.1-
3307.4
Water supply for fire
protection X Removed CFC
deletions to

ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 2
permit all CFC
Chapter 33 water
supply
allowances
during
construction

Section

Title
Previously
Amended 2022
CFC Carrying
forward to 2025
CFC- No
Changes
New Proposal
to 2025
Ordinance
Previous
2022 CFC Amendment
Being Removed and
Converted to 2025 CFC
Standard Code
Requirements or FPS
Explanation

5003.9.1.2
Emergency response
support information X

5601.1.6 Fireworks display X

Chapter 80

Reference standards X

Appendix
B
B105.1(1)
Required Fire Flow for
One and two- family
dwellings, Group R-3 and
R-4 buildings and
townhouses
X
Removing from
Ordinance and
converting to
2025 CFC
standard code
requirements
Appendix B
Section
B105.2
Buildings other than
one- and two-family
dwellings, Group R-3
and R-4 and
Townhomes
X
Removing from
Ordinance and
converting to
2025 CFC
standard code
requirements

Appendix B
Table
B105.2
Required fire flow for
buildings other than
one and two-family
dwellings, Group R-3
and R-4
buildings and townhouses

X-1 X-2
X1- Ordinance
has always
amended table
to max 50%
reduction and
min. fire flow to
1,500 gpm.

X2- Removed
CFC table
deletion
regarding fire
flow when
utilizing
NFPA13R
Systems. (Allows
for acceptance of
decreased fire of
50% flow.)

Appendix C,
Table
C102.1
Required number and
spacing of fire hydrants X
Appendix
C104.2 Single outlet fire hydrants X-1 X-2 X-3 X1-Ordinance has always

ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 2
added this
section to
address wharf
fire hydrant
upgrade triggers.

X2-Two
exceptions were
added to allow
for existing wharf
fire hydrants to
remain without
upgrading or
requiring an
alternate means
of protection by
homeowner.

X3- The first two
upgrade triggers,
in previous
Ordinances,
were removed as
they are not
appropriate
without
construction,
such as a lot
split.

C104.3 Right of way X
Removed from
Ordinance.

Requirement
automatically
addressed
during civil
improvements
C106.1 Hydrant type X

• Fire Prevention Standards (FPS)- Where the California Fire Code states “as required by the Fire Code Official”, Metro Fire has created a series of subject-specific documents, Fire Prevention Standards, to clarify Metro Fire’s requirements. Because the content in FPS’s is not more restrictive than Code, the requirements are not required to be adopted through ordinance, but can be edited freely to meet the changing needs of the community. The majority of the referenced Ordinance-to-FPS sections above, were redundant to existing FPS requirements. All FPS’ are available on Metro Fire’s website.

MEMORANDUM

City Council Staff Report - Page 1 of 3

ITEM 19.1.

DATE: December 1, 2025

TO: Honorable Mayor and Council Members

FROM: David Kwong, Assistant City Manager

SUBJECT: REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF TOLLING AND SETTLEMENT

AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA AND TH

RANCHO CORDOVA LLC ET AL (TRUMARK)

RECOMMENDATION

Approve the Tolling and Settlement Agreement.

RESULT OF RECOMMENDED ACTION

Approving the Tolling Agreement and Settlement Agreement creates a timeline or term between the City of Rancho Cordova and TH Rancho Cordova LLC et al (Trumark) where each party will not initiate legal action against each other as it relates to the SB 330 project.

BACKGROUND

The background of this Tolling and Settlement Agreement is further detailed in Attachment 2.

The following summarizes the actions to date regarding the timeline of the application, resubmittal of the applications and the subsequent filing of a SB 330 application on the Kassis Site and the current status of this project.

In April of 2019, an application was submitted for 245 dwelling units on the Kassis Site located within the Folsom Boulevard Specific Plan. The site is designated as Residential Mixed Use within the Folsom Boulevard Specific Plan. Trumark resubmitted its application in response to the city's comments six times, with the sixth submittal occurring on August 17, 2021. By December 16, 2022, Trumark withdrew the Initial Project application.

Concurrently with the withdrawal, Trumark, on December 16, 2022, submitted an initial SB 330 preliminary application for a project with 441 residential dwelling units on the Kassis Site without legislative amendments. On June 7, 2023, Trumark submitted to the city a formal SB 330 application for that 441 residential dwelling unit housing development project (2023 SB 330 Project).

The city reviewed the SB 330 application for completeness and after an initial incompleteness determination, the city on August 25, 2023, determined the application complete and began its consistency review as legally permitted by SB 330. Between October 24, 2023, and the present date, the city acted by deeming the project inconsistent with certain city development standards and Trumark also responded detailing their legal position objecting to the city's inconsistency

City Council Staff Report - Page 2 of 3

determination. Subsequently, Trumark contended that the city failed to process the SB 330 Project application in good faith and was therefore an improper denial of the 2023 SB 330 Project application by the city under Government Code § 65589.5(h)(6)(D). Trumark also informed the city that it may bring a challenge to the city’s failure to approve the 2023 SB 330 Project as a violation of Housing Accountability Act and other laws.

Recently, the city and Trumark have been working together in good faith to resolve the concerns with regard to the 2023 SB 330 Project and finding a collaborative process to move forward. Thus, without admitting the merits or validity of any claims, causes of action, or defenses related to the city’s processing of the 2023 SB 330 Project, the city and Trumark have determined it is in their mutual best interests to toll the statute of limitations for any and all claims between them that relate to the 2023 SB 330 Project and to allow for time to attempt a negotiated settlement.

The tolling agreement spells out a transparent and discretionary decision-making public planning process for an alternative project submittal, which also includes preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on the project specific impacts that are identified and additional environmental analysis that may be required for other city actions required to entitle the project. The Tolling and Settlement Agreement freezes the statute of limitations for which either party may bring about any legal claims it may have with respect to the 2023 SB 330 Project. As emphasis, the Tolling and Settlement Agreement and the subsequent public discretionary process will allow for the city to prepare an Environmental Impact Report for a reduced project alternatives analysis. This approach is consistent with the public comments received by the city from the community in the past discussion regarding the Kassis site.

During the Term of the Tolling and Settlement Agreement, the city and Trumark will not initiate legal action against each other as it relates to the SB 330 Project. If the city and Trumark are unable to come to an agreement with respect to an alternative project, then Trumark can continue to pursue the 2023 SB 330 Project application or any legal claims it may have.

The city will be initiating a specific plan amendment to allow for: (1) a review of city-initiated legislative planning process/project with a reduced intensity alternative; (2) a corresponding EIR of that alternative; and (3) and a review of additional and/or alternative housing inventory sites for consistency with our state-approved housing element.

The negotiated process here is equally important in that it allows our policymakers an alternative analysis and action for a specific plan density that is lower than what is currently allowed in the city's adopted Folsom Boulevard Specific Plan. Without initiating a process to allow for analysis and consideration of a lower density project, the current minimum density of dwellings for the Kassis site is 6.1 residential dwelling units per acre. Anything less dense development is not allowed without amending the Folsom Boulevard Specific Plan. This future city-initiated legislative proposal would be heard for action before the Planning Commission and City Council. There is no direction or assumption that such a legislative change will occur, and this agreement does not pre-commit the city to take legislative action on a lower density project.

Process wise, the costs of the EIR will be shared between the city and Trumark. The costs are based upon the components analyses of the EIR. For example, Trumark shall be responsible for all consultant costs for the preparation of the required technical studies for the Reduced Project’s potential impacts to biology, hydrology, cultural resources, and air quality; (b) the city shall be responsible for all consultant costs for the preparation of the required technical studies related to the required upzoning of other parcels and the city and Trumark shall split the

City Council Staff Report - Page 3 of 3

remainder of the EIR consultant costs for the preparation of the EIR and supporting CEQA studies at a cost share percentage of eighty percent (80%) paid by the city and twenty percent (20%) paid by Trumark. The city is responsible for the higher percentage because the city is initiating the specific plan amendment to revise what is currently allowed in the current specific plan. Staff estimates the city's share of the cost of the EIR is approximately $150,000. Staff will have more information on the cost once a consultant provides the city a scope and cost of the revised application should the City Council approve this Tolling and Settlement Agreement.

Staff anticipate that the revised process will take approximately one year to complete.

FISCAL IMPACT AND FUNDING SOURCE

Potentially up to $150,000 from the General Fund

ATTACHMENT(S)

1. Resolution

2. Tolling and Settlement Agreement

3. November 24, 2025 Letter

4. Presentation

ITEM 19.1. ATTACHMENT 1 Resolution No. XX-2025 Page 1 of 3

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 TOLLING AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

BETWEEN THE CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA AND TH RANCHO CORDOVA LLC ET AL (TRUMARK)

WHEREAS, in April of 2019, TH Rancho Cordova LLC et al (“Trumark”) submitted an application for legislative amendments and a tentative map to allow an approximately 245 dwelling unit project (“Initial Project”) on the 41-acre parcel (“Kassis Site”) located within the Folsom Boulevard Specific Plan and designated Residential Mixed Use; and WHEREAS Trumark resubmitted its application in response to city comments six times, with the sixth submittal occurring on August 17, 2021; and WHEREAS, on December 16, 2022, Trumark withdrew the Initial Project application; and WHEREAS, on December 16, 2022, Trumark submitted an initial SB 330 preliminary application for a project with 441 residential units on the Kassis Site that did not require legislative amendments; and

WHEREAS, on June 7, 2023, Trumark submitted to city a formal SB 330 application for that housing development project (“2023 SB 330 Project”); and

WHEREAS, on July 12, 2023, the city determined the 2023 SB 330 Project incomplete; and
WHEREAS, on August 25, 2023, the city determined the application complete and began its consistency review period pursuant to Government Code section 65589.5(j)(2)(A); and WHEREAS, on October 24, 2023, the city deemed the 2023 SB 330 Project inconsistent with the city’s development standards; and
WHEREAS, on November 13, 2024, the city responded to Trumark’s August 15, 2024 response, explaining that the city was processing Trumark’s August 15, 2024 letter under Government Code section 65589.5.1(a)(5)(A) (previously located in Government Code section 65589.5(h)(6)(D)(V)(ia)), and would respond in full to Trumark’s letter within the 90-day review period found in that provision; and

WHEREAS, on January, 24, 2025, Trumark sent a letter to the city with a regarding line stating, “Written Notice of the City’s ‘Course of Conduct Undertaken for an Improper Purpose’ that Has Effectively Disapproved the Trumark Kassis Project (PLND-0623-0073),” asserting the city had effectively disapproved the 2023 SB 330 Project under the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”) (Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(6)(D)) through making improper inconsistency comments and taking other actions to delay the processing of the 2023 SB 330 Project application; and

WHEREAS, On February 11, 2025, per its November 13, 2024, letter, the city responded to Trumark with another consistency review of the 2023 SB 330 Project, explaining how the

ITEM 19.1. ATTACHMENT 1 Resolution No. XX-2025 Page 2 of 3
2023 SB 330 Project was not consistent with the city’s objective standards and not exempt under CEQA under prior Government Code section 65589.5(h)(6)(D)(V)(ia); and WHEREAS, one of the items identified in the city’s February 11, 2025, letter was the need to seek a conditional use permit for the 2023 SB 330 Project. In an effort to show its cooperation, Trumark submitted an application for a conditional permit the city requested in its inconsistency comments even though Trumark asserted the city could not require that application because the city had already determined that the application for 2023 SB 330 Project was complete. The city responded to the conditional use permit application with a list of additional comments on the 2023 SB 330; and
WHEREAS, the city’s response to Trumark’s January 24, 2025, letter was originally due on April 24, 2025. The city and Trumark stipulated an extension for the city to respond to Trumark’s January 24, 2025, letter, and tried to work cooperatively during that time; and WHEREAS, on June 23, 2025, the city timely responded per the city and Trumark’s extension agreement to Trumark’s January 24, 2025, letter, under Government Code section 65589.5(h)(6)(D). The city’s letter reasserted, with extensive supporting documentation, that the 2023 SB 330 Project was not consistent with the city’s objective standards; and

WHEREAS, Trumark contends that the city’s June 23, 2025, letter and the city’s failure to process the SB 2023 Project application in good faith was an improper denial of the on the 2023 SB 330 Project by the city under Government Code section 65589.5(h)(6)(D) and has informed the city that Trumark may bring a challenge to the city’s failure to approve of the 2023 SB 330 Project as a violation of HAA and/or other laws; and
WHEREAS, since that time, the city and Trumark have been working together in good faith to resolve the concerns with the 2023 SB 330 Project; and WHEREAS, without admitting the merits or validity of any claims, causes of action, or defenses related to the city’s processing of the 2023 SB 330 Project, the city and Trumark have determined it is in their mutual best interests to toll the statute of limitations for any and all claims, causes of action, and defenses between them that relate to the 2023 SB 330 Project, to allow for time to attempt a negotiated settlement thereof.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA approves the Tolling and Settlement Agreement between the City of Rancho Cordova and TH Rancho Cordova LLC and Trumark Construction Services Inc.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cordova on the 1 st day of December, 2025 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

ITEM 19.1. ATTACHMENT 1 Resolution No. XX-2025 Page 3 of 3

____________________________
Siri Pulipati, Mayor

ATTEST:

Stacy Leitner, CMC
City Clerk

1 TOLLING AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
This Tolling Agreement (“Agreement”) is made by and between TH Rancho Cordova LLC and Trumark Construction Services Inc. (collectively, “Trumark”) and the City of Rancho Cordova (the “City”; hereinafter, Trumark and the City are sometimes referred to collectively as the “Parties,” or singularly as a “Party”). This Agreement shall be deemed entered into and become effective as of the date by which it is executed by counsel for the Parties (“Effective Date”).

RECITALS
A. In April 2019, Trumark submitted an application for legislative amendments and a tentative map to allow an approximately 245 dwelling unit project (“Initial Project”) on the 41- acre parcel (“Kassis Site”) located within the Folsom Boulevard Specific Plan and designated Residential Mixed Use. Trumark resubmitted its application in response to City comments six times, with the sixth submittal occurring on August 17, 2021. On December 16, 2022, Trumark withdrew the Initial Project application.

B. On December 16, 2022, Trumark submitted an initial SB 330 preliminary application for a project with 441 residential units on the Kassis Site that did not require legislative amendments. On June 7, 2023, Trumark submitted to City a formal SB 330 application for that housing development project (“2023 SB 330 Project”).

C. The City determined the 2023 SB 330 Project incomplete on July 12, 2023, but on August 25, 2023, determined the application complete and began its consistency review period pursuant to Government Code section 65589.5(j)(2)(A).

D. On October 24, 2023, the City deemed the 2023 SB 330 Project inconsistent with the City’s development standards.

E. On August 15, 2024, Trumark sent a letter responding to the City’s inconsistency determination, objecting to certain inconsistency findings and responding to other inconsistency comments. The City and Trumark had a few discussions in October and November 2024 to determine if there was a cooperative path forward on the 2023 SB 330 Project.

F. On November 13, 2024, the City responded to Trumark’s August 15 response, explaining that the City was processing Trumark’s August 15 letter under Government Code section 65589.5.1(a)(5)(A) (previously located in Government Code section 65589.5(h)(6)(D)(V)(ia)), and would respond in full to Trumark’s letter within the 90-day review period found in that provision.

G. On November 18, 2024, Trumark responded to the City’s letter, noting that Trumark had not claimed that the 2023 SB 330 Project qualified for the process previously located in Government Code section 65589.5(h)(6)(D)(V)(ia) and asserted that the City had misinterpreted its letter.

H. On January, 24, 2025, Trumark sent a letter to the City with a regarding line stating, “Written Notice of the City’s ‘Course of Conduct Undertaken for an Improper Purpose’ ITEM 19.1.

ATTACHMENT 2

2 that Has Effectively Disapproved the Trumark Kassis Project (PLND-0623-0073),” asserting the City had effectively disapproved the 2023 SB 330 Project under the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”) (Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(6)(D)) through making improper inconsistency comments and taking other actions to delay the processing of the 2023 SB 330 Project application.

I. On February 11, 2025, per its November 13 letter, the City responded to Trumark with another consistency review of the 2023 SB 330 Project, explaining how the 2023 SB 330 Project was not consistent with the City’s objective standards and not exempt under CEQA under prior Government Code section 65589.5(h)(6)(D)(V)(ia).

J. One of the items identified in the City’s February 11 letter was the need to seek a conditional use permit for the 2023 SB 330 Project. In an effort to show its cooperation, Trumark submitted an application for a conditional permit the City requested in its inconsistency comments even though Trumark asserted the City could not require that application because the City had already determined that the application for 2023 SB 330 Project was complete. The City responded to the conditional use permit application with a list of additional comments on the 2023 SB 330 Project.

K. The City’s response to Trumark’s January 24 letter was originally due on April 24, 2025. The Parties stipulated to an extension for the City to respond to Trumark’s January 24, 2025, letter, and tried to work cooperatively during that time.

L. On June 23, 2025, the City timely responded per the Parties’ extension agreement to Trumark’s January 24, 2025, letter, under Government Code section 65589.5(h)(6)(D). The City’s letter reasserted that the 2023 SB 330 Project was not consistent with the City’s objective standards.

M. Trumark contends that the City’s June 23 letter and the City’s failure to process the SB 2023 Project application in good faith was an improper denial of the on the 2023 SB 330 Project by the City under Government Code section 65589.5(h)(6)(D) and has informed the City that Trumark may bring a challenge to the City’s failure to approve of the 2023 SB 330 Project as a violation of HAA and/or other laws.

N. Since that time, the Parties have been working together in good faith to resolve the concerns with the 2023 SB 330 Project.

O. Without admitting the merits or validity of any claims, causes of action, or defenses related to the City’s processing of the 2023 SB 330 Project, the Parties have determined it is in their mutual best interests to toll the statute of limitations for any and all claims, causes of action, and defenses between them that relate to the 2023 SB 330 Project, to allow for time to attempt a negotiated settlement thereof.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above recitals and the mutual covenants contained herein, the Parties agree as follows:

ITEM 19.1.

ATTACHMENT 2

3 AGREEMENT

1. Term of Agreement. The term of this Agreement (“Term”) shall be from the Effective Date until the earlier of either (1) 90 days after the date that the City issues the first building permit to implement a new project that would propose, among other things, up to six dwelling units per acre on the Kassis Site (“Reduced Project Application”); or (2) the date of termination of this Agreement under Section 4.c, below.

2. Tolling and Standstill on 2023 SB 330 Project.
a. The Parties agree that the running of any unexpired applicable statute of limitations, repose, or other defenses or limitations on actions, to the extent such limitations exist, for all challenges shall be tolled and suspended during the Term of this Agreement. The Parties agree to extend all unexpired statutes of limitations for the duration of this Agreement, and no Party shall plead, allege or assert that the statutes of limitations has expired and/or raise the statute of limitations as a defense without adding on the period of time for the Term, except as to any Party’s pleading, allegation or assertion that the applicable statutes of limitations had expired prior to the Effective Date.
b. During the Term of this Agreement, the Parties shall not initiate against any Party to this Agreement any legal or equitable action which in any way relates to or arises from the 2023 SB 330 Project.
c. Nothing in this Agreement shall have the effect of reviving any claims that are otherwise barred by any statute of limitations or repose or similar rule of law or equity prior to the Effective Date.
d. Upon the expiration of the Term of this Agreement, the Parties shall retain any and all legal or equitable remedies and defenses they may have or may believe they have arising from or related to the 2023 SB 330 Project. e. Each Party shall bear its own costs, including but not limited to legal costs, related to the dispute over the 2023 SB 330 Project, specifically, the costs incurred from August 15, 2024, to the Execution Date of this Agreement.

3. Reduced Project Application and Related Processing.
a. Trumark, prior to or concurrent with the execution of this Agreement, shall submit to the City a request for a pre-application meeting for a Special Planning Area that is consistent with a project at a density lower than 6 dwelling units per acre in aggregate across the Kassis Site (“Reduced Project”). b. Trumark shall submit an initial application for the Reduced Project on or before February 24, 2026.
c. Once Trumark submits the Reduced Project Application, the City agrees to process it and any and all related Reduced Project project-level applications and ITEM 19.1.

ATTACHMENT 2

4 permits efficiently and within the statutory timeframes required by law, including all applicable provisions of the Permit Streamlining Act, Housing Accountability Act, Subdivision Map Act, and other laws applicable now or may be applicable in the future. To the extent required by law, the City shall apply only applicable, objective standards when evaluating the initial and subsequent applications and permits for the Reduced Project. To the extent the City’s obligation under this subsection is established by statute, this subsection is not affected by the expiration of the Term of the Agreement.
d. The City shall prepare all legislative amendments necessary for Reduced Project Application to be consistent with all City land use plans, including: (1) an amendment to the Folsom Boulevard Specific Plan; (2) any amendments required to the General Plan Land Use and Housing elements; (3) updates to policies requiring portions of the Kassis Site to be developed at higher densities than the Reduced Project proposes; and (4) any changes as necessary to increase density on other parcels in the City to ensure compliance with Government Code Sections 66300 and 65863 (collectively, “Legislative Approvals”). e. The City shall prepare an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) for the Reduced Project and the Legislative Approvals using a mutually agreeable CEQA consultant for the CEQA documents and peer reviews.
1) The EIR will review of the Reduced Project and the Legislative Approvals at the level of detail appropriate for project elements being analyzed. 2) The Parties shall be jointly responsible for the costs associated with the preparation of the EIR as follows: (a) Trumark shall be solely responsible for all consultant costs for the preparation of any, if required, technical studies for the Reduced Project’s potential impacts to biology, hydrology, air quality, and cultural resources; (b) the City shall be solely responsible for all consultant costs for the preparation of any, if required, technical studies related to the required upzoning of other parcels as required by Government Code §§ 65863 and 66300; and (3) the Parties shall split the remainder of the EIR consultant costs for the preparation of the EIR and supporting CEQA studies at a cost share percentage of eighty percent (80%) paid by the City and twenty percent (20%) paid by Trumark. Each Party will pay its own attorneys’ fees associated with the EIR. The obligation to pay for work done prior to the termination of this Agreement per this subsection 3.d.2 shall remain in effect after expiration of the Term of the Agreement. Both parties shall be entitled to retain and use all EIR, technical reports, studies and other analysis prepared by any retained consultant under this subsection, unless otherwise limited by the terms of any consultant agreement.
f. The City will work collaboratively and in good faith with Trumark and Trumark’s consultants and will use commercially reasonable efforts to limit processing fees applicable to the Reduced Project. To the extent the City’s obligation under this ITEM 19.1.

ATTACHMENT 2

5 subsection is established by statute, this subsection is not affected by the expiration of the Term of the Agreement.
g. The City agrees that if the Reduced Project does not meet the Quimby Act (Government Code § 66477 et seq.) parkland requirements onsite, as determined by the City or Cordova Recreation and Park District, that Trumark may pay the appropriate in-lieu fee for the parkland deficiency.
h. The Parties will use best efforts to complete the preparation of the EIR and notice the Reduced Project Application and Legislative Approvals for final City Council action within twelve (12) months of the Effective Date. i. To the extent feasible, the City will prioritize the processing of any future, downstream applications (“Future Approvals”) required to accomplish the Reduced Project, such as, but not limited to, (vesting) tentative map(s), conditional use permit(s), and design review approval(s), use best efforts to respond to resubmissions in response to inconsistency comments within 30 days, process inconsistency comments simultaneously with any analysis required by the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), comply with the timelines in CEQA Guidelines sections 15107 and 15108, and rely on CEQA exemptions or prior certified EIRs if the City determines, within its discretion based on substantial evidence, that such Future Approvals qualify for such a CEQA process, use that exemption, and employ best efforts to bring those Future Approvals to a hearing within 180 days from applications being deemed complete.
j. This Agreement does not pre-commit the City to: (1) take any specific legislative action with respect to the Reduced Project; (2) make any land use updates necessary for the Reduced Project to be consistent with the City’s planning documents; (3) certify any environmental impact report related to the Reduced Project or amendments to the City land use documents, or (4) take any specific actions with respect to approval of the Reduced Project Application or Future Approvals.

4. Disputes and Termination.
a. Default. If a Party (“Defaulting Party”) fails to perform any covenant or obligations hereunder or commits a material breach of this Agreement (each an “Event of Default”), then it shall not be in default hereunder unless it fails to cure such Event of Default within twenty (20) business days after receiving notice from the other Party (“Non-Defaulting Party”) regarding the failure to perform such covenant or obligation or the material breach, stating with particularity the nature and extent of such Event of Default and specifying the method of cure (“Notice of Default”); provided, however, that if the nature or extent of the obligation or obligations is such that more than twenty (20) business days are required to complete the cure, despite the exercise of commercially reasonable diligence, then the Defaulting Party shall not be in default if it commences such ITEM 19.1.

ATTACHMENT 2

6 performance within such twenty (20) business day period and thereafter pursues the same to completion with commercially reasonable diligence. If the Default relates to delay, the City agrees it will continue processing applications upon Trumark’s request during mediation and arbitration.
b. Remedies for Default. If the Event of Default is not cured within the cure period provided for in this Agreement, the Non-Defaulting Party shall have and shall be entitled to exercise the following remedies:
i. Non-Binding Mediation. In the event of a Default, at any Party’s request, the Parties may, but are not required to, participate in non-binding mediation of the Default. This mediation shall take place in a timeframe that is reasonable under the circumstances. Any such mediation is to be completed in one day and not to exceed a total of eight (8) hours, unless extended by mutual consent. If non-binding mediation is used pursuant to this section, the Parties shall each pay their fair share for the costs of mediation. The mediator will be selected by mutual agreement. ii. Arbitration. Any Dispute that cannot be resolved pursuant to Section 4.a or 4.b.i shall be settled by neutral binding arbitration before a single arbitrator to be held in accordance with the rules of the JAMS applicable to the nature of the dispute in question, and judgment upon the award rendered by the arbitrator may be entered in any court having jurisdiction thereof. The arbitrator shall be licensed practicing attorney in California with a minimum of ten (10) years’ substantial experience in real estate matters. Hearings shall be held in Sacramento County, California. Costs and fees of the arbitrator shall be borne by the non-prevailing Party unless the arbitrator, for good cause, determines otherwise. The Parties will work with the JAMS arbitrator to resolve the dispute in 180 days or as soon thereafter as possible.
c. Termination. Subject to mutual agreement, the Parties may terminate the Tolling Agreement pursuant to this paragraph by giving sixty (60) days’ written notice of its request for termination to the other Party and receiving notice of agreement to termination from the other Party within thirty (30) days. A Party seeking termination pursuant to this paragraph shall meet and confer in good faith with the other Party prior to providing notice of a request to terminate. Written notice required by this Section 4.c shall be provided in the manner specified in Section 5. d. Effect of Termination. Upon termination, the Parties understand that all work on the Reduced Project, including the tasks under Section 3, shall cease immediately.

The Parties’ remedies after Termination shall be limited to the right of Trumark to request that the City to resume processing the 2023 SB 330 Project as set forth in this Agreement or process one or more new applications related to development of the Property.

ITEM 19.1.

ATTACHMENT 2

7 5. Notices. Any notices, demands, correspondence, and communications to be given hereunder to either Party shall be in writing and shall be given either by personal delivery (including delivery by private courier), by electronic mail followed by delivery of a “hard” copy, by nationally recognized overnight courier service, or by registered or certified mail, with return receipt requested and postage prepaid and addressed as follows to such persons and addresses as either Party may from time to time designate in writing at least fifteen (15) days prior to the name and/or address change and as provided in this Section:

If to the City: City of Rancho Cordova
Attn: City Clerk
2729 Prospect Park Drive
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
Email: [email protected]
With a copy to: Meyers Nave
Attn: Adam Lindgren
1999 Harrison Street, 9th Floor
Oakland, California 94612
Email: [email protected]
If to Trumark: Trumark Homes
Attn: Josh Taylor
3001 Bishop Drive, Suite 100
San Ramon, CA 94583
Email: [email protected]
With a copy to Cox, Castle & Nicholson, LLP
Attn: Linda Klein
50 California Street, Suite 3200
San Francisco, CA 94111
Email: [email protected]

6. No Admissions. The execution of this Agreement in no way operates as an admission of liability or responsibility on the part of any Party hereto, or to or by any third party; and does not expressly or impliedly admit that either Party has any valid claims, causes or action, or defenses relating to the City’s approval of the 2023 SB 330 Project or the Reduced Project.

7. Reservation of Rights. The Parties do not waive, and expressly reserve, any and all rights, claims, defenses and objections, including but not limited to those related to statutes of limitations. This Agreement shall in no way affect the right of either party to assert any and all rights, claims, defenses and objections upon termination of this Agreement, except as explicitly stated herein.

ITEM 19.1.

ATTACHMENT 2

8 8. Limited to Parties. This Agreement is intended to benefit only the Parties, and is not intended to benefit or to apply to claims or potential claims that may be asserted by or against any third party.

9. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire and integrated agreement of the Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and may not be altered, modified or amended except in a writing signed by Parties or counsel thereto.

10. Amendment in Writing. This Agreement may only be modified by written agreement executed by all the Parties.

11. Rule of Construction. Each Party has had an adequate opportunity to review each provision of this Agreement and to submit the same to legal counsel for review.

Accordingly, the Parties agree that any ambiguity should not be construed for or against any Party on account of such drafting.

12. Headings. The section and other headings of this Agreement are for convenience of reference only and shall be disregarded in the interpretation of this Agreement.

13. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, which together will be deemed part of the same instrument. Facsimile copies of original signatures and electronic signatures will be treated as originals.

14. Electronic Signatures. The Parties agree that to the extent they sign electronically, their electronic signature is the legally binding equivalent of their handwritten signature.

15. Authority. The undersigned representative of each of the Parties certifies that he or she is fully authorized to enter into the terms and conditions of this Agreement and to legally bind such party to all the terms and conditions of this document.

SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGES
ITEM 19.1.

ATTACHMENT 2

9 DATED: CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA
By: _____________________________
Micah Runner, City Manager
City of Rancho Cordova
DATED: TH RANCHO CORDOVA LLC
By: _________________________
Tony Bosowski, Authorized Signatory
DATED: TRUMARK CONSTRUCTION SERVICES
INC.

By: _________________________
Tony Bosowski, Authorized Signatory
6304644.14
ITEM 19.1.

ATTACHMENT 2

ITEM 19.1.

ATTACHMENT 3

ITEM 19.1.

ATTACHMENT 3

RESIDENTIALNORTH
100 200500
SCALE: 1"=100'
Kassis
Rancho Cordova, California
November 20, 2025
RESIDENTIAL vs OPEN SPACE
SURVEYORSENGINEERS PLANNERS11-19-2025
P:\27204\PLN\Exh-P\Kassis_ConceptualPlan_Residential_vs_OpenSpace_Exhibit.dwg 17:07:27
gmaness

TRAILS, PARKS, OPEN SPACE, DETENTION
EXHIBIT 1
ITEM 19.1.

ATTACHMENT 3

1 City of Rancho Cordova and
Trumark Tolling and
Settlement Agreement
December 1, 2025
CityOfRanchoCordova.org
ITEM 19.1.

ATTACHMENT 4

2 City of Rancho Cordova and Trumark Tolling and Settlement Agreement
Background
• April 2019: Application submitted for 245 dwelling units on the Kassis site w
ithin the Folsom Boulevard Specific Plan
• Site is zoned Residential Mixed Use and allows for 6.1 minimum to 40 maximu
m residential dwelling units per acre
• Six resubmittals; final submittal on August 17, 2021
• December 2022: Project withdrawn; SB 330 preliminary application for
441 units submitted
• June 2023: Formal SB 330 application submitted
• August 2023: Application deemed complete and consistency review bega
n
ITEM 19.1.

ATTACHMENT 4

3 City of Rancho Cordova and Trumark Tolling and Settlement Agreement
Background and Current Status
• City deemed the project inconsistent with development standards • Trumark objected under Government Code §65589.5(h) (6)(D) (Housing Accountability Act)
• Request City Council to approve an agreement between City and Trumark to pause legal actions to pursue a collaborative Tolling and Settlement Agreement
ITEM 19.1.

ATTACHMENT 4

4 City of Rancho Cordova and Trumark Tolling and Settlement Agreement
Terms of the Agreement
• Review of a reduced-de nsity project alternative of no more than 6 residential dwelling units per acre for the Kassis site • City initiates a specific plan amendment to Folsom Boulevard Specific Pla
n adopted in 2006 and amended in 2013
• Preparation of a corresponding EIR
• A di
scretionary public review process
• Evaluation of alternative housing inventory sites for Housing Element cons
istency
• No pre-commitment to legislative changes; subject to Planning Co
mmission and Council review
ITEM 19.1.

ATTACHMENT 4

5 City of Rancho Cordova and Trumark Tolling and Settlement Agreement
Terms of the Agreement Continued
• EIR cost sharing: shared components
• - City: 80% $150,000 from General Fund)
• Sha
red consultant costs for environmental and
tec
hnical studies.
• Process estimated to take approximately one year
to
complete with multiple public opportunities to
comment including public workshop(s)
ITEM 19.1.

ATTACHMENT 4

6 City of Rancho Cordova and Trumark Tolling and Settlement Agreement
Conclusion and Recommendation
• Agreement promotes collaboration and reduces
lit
iga
tion risk
• Supports transparent and inclusive public planning
proc
ess for a reduced density alternative
• Enables preparation of an Environmental Impact
Re
port
• Staff Recommendation:
• - Approve the Tolling and Settlement Agreement
ITEM 19.1.

ATTACHMENT 4

7 THANK YOU
Questions?
CityOfRanchoCordova.org
ITEM 19.1.

ATTACHMENT 4