Rancho Cordova City Council
May 26, 2026

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Tuesday, May 26, 2026

5:30 PM – Special Meeting/Work Session
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 Tuesday, May 26, 2026. 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 Tuesday, May 26, 2026, at 2:00 p.m.

AGENDA

1. SPECIAL MEETING - CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL

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

Rancho Cordova City Council - AGENDA
Special Meeting of Tuesday, May 26, 2026

Gatewood

2. PUBLIC COMMENT

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

3. SPECIAL MEETING

3.1. Subject: Discussion and Direction on the General Plan Update Preferred Land Use Alternative.

Recommendation: Review and discuss the Land Use Alternatives, consider the community feedback and the Planning Commission recommendations, and recommend approval of a Preferred Land Use Alternative.

4. ADJOURNMENT

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

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

Public documents related to items on the open session portion of this agenda, which are distributed to the City Council less than 24 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 Special City Council Meeting.

UPCOMING MEETINGS
June 1, 2026 4:00 PM Special Meeting/5:30 PM Regular Meeting June 15, 2026 5:30 PM Regular Meeting
June 23, 2026 5:30 PM Special Meeting/Work Session
July 6, 2026 4:00 PM Special Meeting/5:30 PM Regular Meeting July 28, 2026 5:30 PM Special Meeting/Work Session
August 3, 2026 4:00 PM Special Meeting/5:30 PM Regular Meeting August 17, 2026 5:30 PM Regular Meeting
August 25, 2026 5:30 PM Special Meeting/Work Session

If you have any technical questions related to the agenda items, please contact City Hall at (916) 851- 8700.

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.

Rancho Cordova City Council - AGENDA
Special Meeting of Tuesday, May 26, 2026

CERTIFICATION OF POSTING OF AGENDA

I, Stacy Leitner, City Clerk for the City of Rancho Cordova, declare that the foregoing agenda for the May 26, 2026, Special Meeting of the Rancho Cordova City Council was posted and available for review on May 21, 2026, 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 May 26, 2026, at Rancho Cordova, California.

Stacy Leitner, CMC
City Clerk

City Council Staff Report – Page 1 of 5

MEMORANDUM

ITEM 3.1.

DATE: May 26, 2026

TO: Honorable Mayor and Council Members

FROM: Arlene Granadosin-Jones, AICP, Planning Manager

SUBJECT: DISCUSSION AND DIRECTION ON THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE

PREFERRED LAND USE ALTERNATIVE

RECOMMENDATION

Review and discuss the Land Use Alternatives, consider the community feedback and the Planning Commission recommendations, and recommend approval of a Preferred Land Use Alternative.

RESULT OF RECOMMENDED ACTION

The Preferred Land Use Alternative will be the proposed Land Use Diagram for the updated 2050 General Plan. Approval of a Preferred Land Use Alternative will also enable the project team to initiate the General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report and move to the next phase of the project, which focuses on formulating draft goals and policies for different elements in the General Plan.

BACKGROUND

A General Plan is the city’s guiding policy document for meeting the community’s long-term vision for the future. General Plans are required by California law to address the mandated elements in Government Code Section 65302, including land use, circulation, housing, conservation, open space, noise, safety and environmental justice. A General Plan is typically a 20-year community vision for how the city will grow.

City Council Staff Report – Page 2 of 5

The City of Rancho Cordova's General Plan was adopted in 2006 and has undergone a few minor updates throughout the years. Given changing economic conditions, environmental considerations, housing needs, and new state requirements, this General Plan update provides an opportunity for the city to reaffirm and identify new goals to guide growth in the community through the year 2050.

LAND USE ALTERNATIVES

The General Plan Update process provides an opportunity for the Rancho Cordova community to shape future growth within the city. The land use alternatives phase asks community members to help determine the location, type, and intensity of future development.

Each alternative presents various concepts that represent different options for the future in Rancho Cordova, addressing goals for housing, jobs, entertainment options, and gathering places within bikeable/walkable neighborhoods and districts. The complete Land Use Alternatives Report is included as Attachment 1.

While the alternatives vary in the extent and distribution of land uses, they all focus on the following objectives:
• Removing barriers to infill development to encourage new development and reinvestment in older parts of Rancho Cordova;
• Allowing flexibility for new uses in office parks to encourage them to adapt to changing trends;
• Promoting a wider variety of housing types along commercial corridors, in office parks, and in transit-rich areas to meet housing needs and invigorate these areas with new residents;
• Creating more neighborhood and community gathering places and dynamic entertainment options for residents and visitors from the region.

City Council Staff Report – Page 3 of 5

COMMUNITY OUTREACH FOR LAND USE ALTERNATIVES PHASE

Community outreach for the land use alternatives phase focused on working with the community to identify land use options that will shape the future of the city, including reimagining underused office parks, and creating vibrant places where people can live, gather, and discover. The goals of this phase of engagement were to continue raising awareness about the General Plan Update and land use alternatives and to gather a broad range of community feedback to understand preferences for future land use and development. The team focused on connecting with youth, longtime and new residents, workers, and other representative community member groups through in-person and online methods. The feedback collected during this community outreach phase has been used to inform the preferred land use alternative.

The Land Use Alternatives Phase community outreach included the following events:

• Community Workshop on February 26, 2026
• Two pop-up events at the Farmer’s Market and KP International on March 14, 2026 • Cordova High School Outreach on February 26, 2026
• Online Feedback Form available from February 26 through April 1, 2026 • Youth Career Workshop at Hagan Park on April 11, 2026 • Three stakeholder meetings hosted by Folsom Cordova Community Partnership on April 14, April 15, and April 16, 2026

As of mid-April 2026, approximately 200 people were engaged in this specific phase of the project. A full report of the community outreach events is provided in Attachment 2.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ON PREFERRED LAND USE ALTERNATIVE

On April 22, 2026, city staff presented the General Plan Update Staff Recommended Land Use Alternative for Planning Commission consideration. The Planning Commission highlighted the following matters during their deliberation and discussion on future land use designations in the city:

• Conserving some existing office professional uses to support any future potential high- tech businesses that may return to the office parks
• Providing flexibility in land use for the office parks to accommodate future uses • Challenges for new development along Folsom Boulevard and maintaining commercial uses that serve as activity centers
• Multi-level development may be more expensive, so carefully consider the appropriate density

City Council Staff Report – Page 4 of 5
• Consider how traffic will be affected by additional density and intensity along Folsom Boulevard
• Encouraging multiple activity centers throughout the community along with a “Downtown”
• There are many existing State laws that limit the ability to regulate higher density housing

After the discussion, Planning Commission voted to recommend the Staff Recommended Land Use Alternative to the City Council for approval. The Staff Recommended Land Use Alternative identifies specific General Plan land use designations for all parcels within the city and also highlights key areas of change. The Staff Recommended Land Use Alternative incorporates the following Planning Strategies:

• Planning Strategy #1: Reimagining Office Parks. Community feedback favored Alternative A, which removes the restrictive 50 percent office mandate and allows mixed- use redevelopment at densities up to 40 units per acre. However, given the community support for even higher densities expressed in the feedback on Planning Strategy #5 and the Mixed-use Multifamily Housing Study concepts, city staff is recommending Alternative B, which allows a maximum density to 80 units/acre and includes the Advanced Industrial land use designation to preserve employment-only areas. • Planning Strategy #2: Removing Barriers to Redeveloping Folsom Boulevard.

Consistent with community feedback, city staff is recommending Alternative B, which applies the higher-density version of Transit Corridor Mixed-Use (TCMU), allowing densities up to 60 units/acre, and a Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) overlay permitting up to 100 units/acre near light rail stations. • Planning Strategy #3: Reenvisioning the Downtown. Community feedback generally favored Alternative B's model of dispersed activity centers distributed throughout the city; however, there was also community support for a new City Center surrounding the proposed arena. Staff is recommending a hybrid of Alternatives A and B, which replaces the Convention Overlay with a new Entertainment Mixed-Use District (EMUD) land use designation and identifies a new larger City Center Planning Area in response to City Council's desire for a centralized downtown focused on entertainment and housing. • Planning Strategy #4: Activating Commercial Centers. Consistent with community feedback, Staff is recommending Alternative A, which designates most commercial nodes as Commercial Mixed-Use (CMU). The updated CMU designation provides greater flexibility to accommodate a mix of uses at these activity centers throughout the city, including standalone residential at densities of 10-30 units per acre. • Planning Strategy #5: Increasing Housing Choices in Infill Areas. Consistent with community feedback, Staff is recommending Alternative B, which provides higher densities within the Transit Corridor Mixed-Use (TCMU) and Innovation Mixed-Use (IMU) land use designations.

The Staff Recommended Land Use Alternative, as shown in Attachment 3, is a result of input and feedback received during the community outreach activities focused on the land use alternatives and further review and analysis by the General Plan Technical Advisory Committee.

City Council Staff Report – Page 5 of 5

FISCAL IMPACT

The City of Rancho Cordova has collected $1.3 million in General Plan fees through the issuance of permits that will go towards the cost of the General Plan update. The remaining cost will come from the General Fund.

ATTACHMENT(S)

1. Land Use Alternatives Report

2. Phase 3 Community Outreach Summary Report

3. Staff Recommended Land Use Alternative

4. General Plan Update Land Use Alternatives Presentation

LAND USE ALTERNATIVES REPORT
February 2026
ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Land Use Alternatives Report | February 2026 i
Table of Contents

1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................................................... 0 Purpose of the Land Use Alternatives ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Overview of the General Plan Update ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Community Engagement ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................3 Vision and Guiding Principles ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4

2. BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT ............................................................................................................................................. 6 Existing 2006 General Plan .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 7 Specific Plan Development Capacity ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 9 Growth Projections .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 11 Environmental Constraints .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 13

3. LAND USE ALTERNATIVES ................................................................................................................................................. 15 Overview ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 16 Land Use Designations ................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 17

4. PLANNING STRATEGIES ..................................................................................................................................................... 28 Planning Strategy #1: Reimagining Office Parks ............................................................................................................................................................... 29 Planning Strategy #2: Removing Barriers to Redeveloping Folsom Boulevard .................................................................................................. 32 Planning Strategy #3: Reenvisioning the Downtown ..................................................................................................................................................... 35 Planning Strategy #4: Activating Commercial Centers ................................................................................................................................................. 38 Planning Strategy #5: Increasing Housing Choices in Infill Areas .............................................................................................................................. 41

5. COMPARISON ..................................................................................................................................................................... 46 Development Capacity ................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 47 Transportation Impacts ................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 51 Fiscal Impacts .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 53 GHG Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 56 APPENDIX .............................................................................................................................................................................. 57 ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Land Use Alternatives Report | February 2026 0

1. INTRODUCTION
This section describes the purpose of the Land Use Alternatives Report and provides an overview of the broader General Plan Update process. It summarizes community input gathered since the process began in May 2024 and presents the vision and guiding principles that guide each phase of the General Plan Update.

ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Land Use Alternatives Report | February 2026 1
Purpose of the Land Use Alternatives
The General Plan Update process provides an opportunity for the Rancho Cordova community to shape future growth
within the city. During this land use alternatives phase, community members are being asked to help determine the location, type, and intensity of future development. These alternatives are based on input provided by community
members and elected and appointed officials over the past year, as well as city staff and consultant team expertise.

The purpose of this Land Use Alternatives Report is to
provide the city with a framework for making decisions about how to accommodate future development, support a range of housing options, encourage economic growth, and maintain fiscal sustainability. The community is being asked to review three different land use alternatives and consider the best path to achieve Rancho Cordova’s vision for the future.

Community feedback on these alternatives will help create the Preferred Land Use Alternative, which will become the city’s new General Plan Land Use Diagram that establishes rules for how properties can develop. Community feedback will be
presented to decision-makers as they consider making
changes to the Land Use Diagram. Ultimately it is the City Council who will provide direction on the Preferred
Alternative. The Preferred Alternative does not have to be just one of these alternatives. Instead, it will likely combine the best features from each alternative along with new ideas from public discussions.

FIGURE 1: LAND USE ALTERNATIVES PROCESS
ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Land Use Alternatives Report | February 2026 2
Overview of the General Plan Update
What is a General Plan?
Every city and county in California must have a general plan, which provides a long-term framework for future
development. The general plan represents the community’s vision of the future and contains goals and policies upon which elected officials, appointed commissioners, and staff base their decisions.

The Rancho Cordova General Plan will contain topical
chapters called “elements.” Each element will contain goals, policies, and programs designed to implement the community vision and address the issues and opportunities facing the city through 2050. The Preferred Land Use Alternative will
become the General Plan Land Use Diagram included in the Land Use Element and will be accompanied by policies to guide development in the city.

General Plan Update Process
The City of Rancho Cordova initiated the General Plan update in May 2024. The General Plan Update consists of several phases shown in Figure 2 to the right. The city has completed the project initiation, existing conditions, and visioning phases and is currently (Spring 2026) working on the land use
alternatives. Following the land use alternatives phase, the city will be preparing the 2050 General Plan and analyzing the impacts in an environmental impact report. The city
anticipates adoption of the Rancho Cordova 2050 General Plan in mid-2027.

FIGURE 2: GENERAL PLAN PROCESS
ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Land Use Alternatives Report | February 2026 3
Community Engagement
Workshop #1: Issues, Opportunities, Assets, and
Big Ideas
The city kicked off community engagement on the General Plan Update in October 2024 with a focus on issues,
opportunities, assets, and big ideas. Across all the outreach activities, which included a community workshop, pop-up events, and online survey, the following key themes emerged:
• Education and youth opportunities: Participants noted that there aren’t enough quality schools in Rancho
Cordova to serve the youth, and wanted to see more
programming, social spaces, and educational opportunities for future generations.
• Vibrant, accessible, local community: Participants
expressed a desire for denser, more walkable/bikeabl
e
n
eighborhoods, with amenities, attractions, and public
spaces/events that bring community together.
• Protect and enjoy Rancho Cordova’s natural spaces:

Participants highly value the parks, river, and other open spaces in Rancho Cordova, and are enthusiastic about
creating more opportunities for outdoor recreation
.
• Affordable housing, thriving local economy: Participants were supportive of affordable housing options and local employment opportunities, so all Rancho Cordovans can
thrive in their city.

The top priority among participants was to create a new, energetic downtown in Rancho Cordova. Protecting the
environment, improving public safety, and investing in
entertainment, arts, and culture were also among top
priorities.

Workshop #2: Vision & Guiding Principles and
Land Use Changes
The second phase of engagement, which took place from
February through April 2025, was focused on refining the vision statement and guiding principles that were drafted based on community feedback from the first phase of
engagement and gathering ideas about potential land use changes. Community members shared their ideas at a
community workshop, at pop-up events, and through an
online survey.

Across all the outreach activities during the second phase of engagement, the following key themes emerged:
• Create a vibrant downtown and gathering places
• Protect and enjoy Rancho Cordova’s natural spaces
• Add multifamily housing where it makes sense
• Provide additional middle and high schools
• Improve connectivity throughout Rancho Cordova
• Provide a medical Center for Rancho Cordova residents ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Land Use Alternatives Report | February 2026 4
Vision and Guiding Principles
The main outcome of community engagement efforts to date is the 2050 General Plan vision and guiding principles shown below. 2050 VISION STATEMENT
The City of Rancho Cordova is an inclusive and welcoming city that cultivates a deep sense of belonging for all. This vibrant community of strong, established neighborhoods connected to one another with well-planned roadways, trails, parks and open space networks is known in the region as a dynamic destination for good jobs, rich culture, diverse shopping and dining, and abundant outdoor recreation. Rancho Cordova celebrates the beauty of the natural environment through preservation and enhancement of its connection to the American River and wide-open spaces.

ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Land Use Alternatives Report | February 2026 5
Guiding Principles

GATHERING PLACES
Create vibrant activity centers that serve as local
gathering places and regional destinations for socializing, shopping, dining, and entertainment. Cultivate a unique identity and sense of place in these centers through
attractive streetscapes, active public spaces, and
dedicated spaces for local small businesses.

SUSTAINABILITY
Prioritize sustainability through smart and fiscally-
responsible land use patterns that create a balanced and integrated mix of uses, preserve natural resources,
improve air quality, support active transportation, and promote a healthy community.

ENTERTAINMENT, ARTS, AND CULTURE
Establish Rancho Cordova as a premier regional
destination for entertainment, arts, music, and culture by creating vibrant civic spaces and entertainment venues
that foster a variety of events and programs that
celebrate the city’s unique cultures, honor its history, attract visitors, and enhance community pride and
connection.

NEIGHBORHOODS
Ensure all residential areas throughout the city are
walkable neighborhoods that promote diverse housing
options and foster strong community identity and social interactions. Strengthen connections from residential
neighborhoods to parks, schools, shopping, jobs, and
amenities and revitalize older areas to foster unity and a sense of one cohesive city.

ECONOMIC PROSPERITY
Strengthen Rancho Cordova’s position as a dynamic
regional economic center by encouraging the creative
evolution of commercial and employment areas, adopting
emerging technologies, positioning the City as a hub for innovation and future-ready industries - all while
supporting long-term fiscal sustainability.

A

CCESS TO OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION
Ensure access to safe, well-maintained parks, open
spaces, and recreational opportunities that foster
community well-being and promote healthy connections
to the natural environment for all residents. Enhance
access to the American River Parkway as a vital regional asset.

MOBILITY
Create a comprehensive, interconnected transportation
network that ensures a range of safe, attractive, and
convenient transportation options for people of all ages and abilities to walk, bike, roll, drive, and take public transit throughout all areas of the city. Invest in improved infrastructure and explore emerging mobility solutions to ensure Rancho Cordova remains adaptable, forward-
thinking, and accessible for all.

UPLIFT OUR YOUTH
Support Rancho Cordova’s identity as a family-friendly
community by empowering and uplifting the youth of our
community. Foster access to high-quality education,
enriching extracurricular activities, and safe and inclusive spaces that ensure the next generation is equipped to
thrive and contribute to a bright future.

HEALTHY COMMUNITY FOR ALL
Ensure Rancho Cordova is a thriving and healthy city
where all people have access to clean air, water, nutritious food, recreation, and opportunities to participate in civic life.

SAFETY
Enhance community safety and livability by providing
effective and responsive police, fire, and emergency
response services, and proactively planning for long-term resilience to climate-related risks.

ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Land Use Alternatives Report | February 2026 6

2. BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT
This section provides an overview of the planning framework that informs the General Plan update. It summarizes the City’s 2006 General Plan, outlines relevant growth projections and demographic trends, and describes existing development within the Planning Area, including adopted and proposed specific plans. Together, this information establishes the baseline conditions and planning history that guide land use decisions.

ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Land Use Alternatives Report | February 2026 7
Existing 2006 General Plan
2006 General Plan Boundaries
The existing Rancho Cordova General Plan was adopted in 2006 and establishes land use designations for areas within the 2006 General Plan Planning Area, which includes both city limits and over 40,000 acres of surrounding unincorporated lands in Sacramento County. These unincorporated areas
were identified as locations where the city had an interest in guiding development decisions and were envisioned as
potential areas for future city expansion.

Planning Areas vs. Land Use Designations
The 2006 General Plan includes 16 individual Planning Areas covering areas both within and outside city limits, as shown on Figure 4. The Land Use Element contains conceptual land use plans for each of these Planning Areas rather than specific land use designations for each parcel. The parcels within the remaining areas are each assigned a specific land use
designation, with low-density residential, medium-density residential, parks and open space, and office mixed-use being the predominant designations.

With recent changes in State law, it is important that every parcel of land within city limits has an assigned land use designation. This is one of the goals of this land use
alternatives process, which is discussed more in the next section of this report.

Smart Growth Principles
The 2006 General Plan prioritizes Smart Growth principles to enhance quality of life. It proposes developing neighborhoods, villages, districts, and centers with mixed land uses,
walkability, transportation options, and preserved open space.

These "building blocks", illustrated below in Figure 3, are aimed at creating compact, sustainable, and livable
communities through interconnected residential, commercial, and natural spaces. The building blocks concept has guided the land use patterns of the new growth areas within the city, as the specific plans adopted for these areas have
incorporated smart growth principles.

The city is proposing to retain these smart growth principles in the 2050 General Plan, and one of the goals of this land use alternatives process is to find ways to retrofit the older commercial corridors, employment centers, and
neighborhoods to better reflect smart growth principles.

FIGURE 3: BUILDING BLOCKS OF THE CITY
ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Land Use Alternatives Report | February 2026 8
FIGURE 4: 2006 GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DIAGRAM

Source: City of Rancho Cordova and Ascent, 2024.

ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Land Use Alternatives Report | February 2026 9
Specific Plan Development Capacity
Significant growth is anticipated within specific plan areas both inside and outside city limits. Within the city limits, there are six specific plans or master plans, shown in Figure 5, that are either adopted or in process. While specific plans are required to be consistent with the General Plan, the specific plans contain the more detailed land use designations and development standards that apply to these areas. Land use alternatives in this report focus on changes to “infill areas” within the city limits. As shown in Table 1, the specific plans within city limits have remaining capacity for over 38,000 housing units and over 7.4 million square feet of non-residential development. Additionally, as shown in Figure 5, there are seven specific plans or master plans controlled by the County within the broader General Plan Planning Area that have capacity for over 41,000 housing units.

TABLE 1. REMAINING DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY WITHIN CITY SPECIFIC PLAN AREAS Specific Plan Residential Units Remaining Non-Residential Square Footage Remaining Single Family Multifamily Commercial Office Industrial
Westborough at Easton
Specific Plan (in process) 4,100 3,000 - - -
Legado (in process) 4,200 800 - - -
Rio Del Oro Specific Plan 9,000 3,000 2,398,000 1,181,000 2,430,000 Sunridge Specific Plan 8,200 1,200 245,000 - -
Suncreek Specific Plan 2,600 1,400 1,189,000 - -
The Ranch 800 200 32,000 - -
Total 28,900 9,600 3,864,000 1,181,000 2,430,000 Notes: The capacity numbers are estimates as of 2025. Some of these estimates are subject to change as plans that are in process are still being finalized or updated. Non-residential square footage is estimated based on non-residential acreages.

ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Land Use Alternatives Report | February 2026 10
FIGURE 5: CITY AND COUNTY SPECIFIC PLANS WITHIN THE PLANNING AREA

ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Land Use Alternatives Report | February 2026 11
Growth Projections
When updating the land use plan, cities typically start by estimating future population and job growth. They need to ensure there's enough land to accommodate that growth.

However, the City of Rancho Cordova is in a different
situation. Because the city has large amounts of vacant land within city limits, the usual question – "Do we have enough land?" – isn't the main concern. As demonstrated below, Rancho Cordova already has sufficient land designated for new housing and jobs by 2050 – the horizon year of the
General Plan. This means the city can focus on a different question: "What mix of housing, jobs, and amenities will create the vibrant, connected city we want?"
Population Projections
To account for the uncertainty of various factors influencing future population growth in the city, a low-growth scenario and a high-growth scenario were developed for the period of 2020 to 2050. The projections show that the city may add between 30,000 to 40,000 residents by 2050, resulting in a 2050 population of about 109,000 to 119,000 residents.

FIGURE 6: POPULATION PROJECTIONS, 2020-2050

Source: Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS), 2025.

Job Projections
Sacramento County employment is projected to grow at
approximately 0.6 percent annually from 2025 to 2050,
adding roughly 131,000 jobs countywide—a slower pace than historical growth. Based on SACOG projections, the city's share of county growth, and historical trends, Rancho
Cordova is estimated to add between 14,000 to 24,000 jobs by 2050, reaching a total employment base of 78,000 to
88,000 jobs. While the city's job growth averaged over 2 percent annually from 2010 to 2020, future growth is
expected to be below 1 percent per year. The low-growth scenario projects 0.8 percent annual growth (about 600 jobs per year), while the high-growth scenario assumes 1.3 percent annual growth (nearly 1,000 jobs per year).

FIGURE 7: EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS, 2025-2050

High Growth

0.8%
Source: Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS), 2025.

1.3%
24,000
Low Growth
14,000
ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Land Use Alternatives Report | February 2026 12
Housing Unit Projections
Between 2013 and 2024, the city issued a total of 6,496 building permits for new housing units. This equates to an annual average of 541 new housing units per year. This
included a record year in 2024 when the city issued 1,309 permits. During this period, multifamily units in buildings with five or more units comprised 11 percent of the total permitted units, while single-family units accounted for the remaining 89 percent.

FIGURE 8: HOUSING UNITS PERMITTED BY YEAR, RANCHO
CORDOVA 2013-2024

If housing continues to be built at this same rate, it is anticipated that the city might add 14,000 new housing units by 2050, the horizon year of the General Plan. At this same average rate, the city’s specific plan areas alone would have capacity to accommodate new housing growth through about 2080.

FIGURE 9: HOUSING UNIT PROJECTIONS VS. CAPACITY IN

SPECIFIC PLANS
0 200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
0 10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
80000
2025 2035 2045 2055 2065 2075 2085 2095
+14,000 units
projected by 2050
+38,500 capacity
in city specific

Existing Housing Stock ~ 32,000
City specific plans have enough
remaining capacity for housing growth
through 2095 (based on the 10-year average of
541 units/year)
2024 2013
ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Land Use Alternatives Report | February 2026 13
Environmental Constraints
Environmental constraints are an important consideration in land use planning to ensure that new development occurs in safe locations and protects natural resources. Rancho
Cordova must carefully consider hazards such as flooding, wildfire risk, airport safety zones, protected habitat areas, and other environmental issues when determining where and how growth should occur. Most of the infill areas that are the focus of the land use alternatives—including commercial centers, office parks, and corridors like Folsom Boulevard—are already developed and are not as impacted by environmental hazards.

Environmental constraints have a greater impact on
undeveloped areas at the city's edges. These areas are
addressed through specific plans that include mitigation measures and development standards to ensure safe and
sustainable growth.

Flooding
While most of the city is outside of floodplains, flooding is a threat to some areas of Rancho Cordova, particularly along the northern boundary near the American River. Around 5 percent of the city is within the 1 percent annual chance floodplains (aka 100-year flood zones), with additional localized flooding due to undersized drainage systems.

Wildfire Severity Zones
Rancho Cordova faces relatively low direct wildfire risk in most developed areas, with the primary concerns being
wildland-urban interface areas near the American River
Parkway and in some developments with large wetland
preserves containing natural vegetation. Cal Fire's fire hazard severity maps place portions of Rancho Cordova in the
moderate and high hazard zones, but there are no areas in the city in the very high fire hazard severity zones.

FIGURE 10: FLOOD HAZARDS

FIGURE 11: WILDFIRE THREAT

ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Land Use Alternatives Report | February 2026 14
Airport Hazards
Mather Airport is located just outside city limits. The Mather Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) places
restrictions on development to maintain compatibility
between Mather Airport and surrounding land uses,
protecting the airport from incompatible developments and minimizing noise and safety risks for nearby populations. The ALUCP establishes six safety zones that set limits on allowed uses, densities, intensities, and lot coverage. However, Zone 6 is the zone that covers the largest area within city limits. This zone places the fewest restrictions on land uses, with no limits on density; however, it does places a few conditions on uses such as assembly facilities, care facilities, schools, and certain industrial uses.

FIGURE 12: AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY ZONES

Habitat Preservation
The South Sacramento Habitat Conservation Plan (SSHCP), approved by Sacramento County in 2018, takes a regional approach to protect federal and state endangered and
threatened species while streamlining the development
permitting process in areas planned for growth (i.e., Urban Development Area). The SSHCP covers 317,000 acres in south Sacramento County, Rancho Cordova, and Galt. The SSHCP is a consolidated effort to protect and enhance wetlands
(primarily vernal pools), aquatic habitats, and upland habitats for 28 special-status plant and animal species, including 10 state and federally listed species. Development projects within the Urban Development Area must either preserve
habitat or pay mitigation fees to offset any habitat impacted by development.

FIGURE 13: VERNAL POOLS

ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Land Use Alternatives Report | February 2026 15

3. LAND USE ALTERNATIVES
This section of the report describes the three land use alternatives developed for community feedback. It starts with a discussion of the land use designations used in the alternatives and then identifies the defining features of each alternative.

ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Land Use Alternatives Report | February 2026 16
Overview
Each alternative presents various concepts that represent different options for the future in Rancho Cordova, addressing goals for housing, jobs, entertainment options, and gatherings places within bikeable/walkable neighborhoods and districts.

While the alternatives vary in the extent and distribution of land uses, they all focus on the following objectives, which are reflected in the Planning Strategies later in this section:
• Removing barriers to infill development to encourage new development and reinvestment in older parts of Rancho
Cordova;
• Allowing flexibility for new uses in office parks to
encourage them to adapt to changing trends;
• Promoting a wider variety of housing types along
commercial corridors, in office parks, and in transit-rich areas to meet housing needs and invigorate these areas
with new residents;
• Creating more neighborhood and community gathering
places and dynamic entertainment options for residents
and visitors from the region.

Key Terms Used in this Section
• Infill Development. New development on vacant or
underused sites within already-built areas, such as
redeveloping old shopping centers.
• Specific Plan. A detailed planning document for a specific area that provides more precise land use rules than the General Plan.
• Mixed-Use. Development that combines different uses—such as housing, retail, and offices—in one building or area, allowing people to live, work, and shop nearby.
• Density. The number of housing units allowed per acre of land.

ALTERNATIVE A
Focuses on creating a new
dynamic City Center as the
heart of Rancho Cordova and is
the most flexible in removing
barriers to development in other
infill areas of the city.

ALTERNATIVE B
Focuses on multiple centers of activity
throughout the city rather than one City
Center, with more flexibility for infill
development compared to the Base
Alternative but slightly more restrictions
than Alternative A.

BASE ALTERNATIVE
Slightly modified version of the land
use plan from the City’s existing 2006
General Plan. This alternative assigns
land use designations to all parcels
within Planning Areas inside city limits,
based on the conceptual land use
plans in the 2006 General Plan.

THE THREE ALTERNATIVES ARE GENERALLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

The Preferred Alternative can mix and match
pieces of the three alternatives and/or add new
ideas from the community or decision-makers.

ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Land Use Alternatives Report | February 2026 17
Land Use Designations
General Plan land use designations specify the type of future development allowed on each parcel of land in the city (e.g., residential, commercial, industrial) and how dense or intense that development can be, meaning the number of housing
units per acre (units/acre) or the size of buildings. These designations are not the same as zoning. Zoning sets more detailed development rules, such as allowed uses, setbacks, and building heights. However, zoning must be consistent with the General Plan land use designations.

Table 2 includes descriptions of the land use designations used in the three land use alternatives. Most of these
designations come from the existing 2006 General Plan and continue in all three alternatives. However, some of the existing designations have been modified and others have been replaced with new designations, as described below.

How is Density and Intensity Measured?
Residential Density measures how many homes are allowed on a piece of land. It's expressed as units per acre
(units/acre). For example, a density of 10 units/acre means you could build 10 homes on one acre of land. This could be 10 single-family homes on small lots or 10 apartment units on a one-acre lot.

Higher density numbers allow more homes on the same
amount of land, which typically means smaller lots or multi- family housing like apartments or condos.

The diagram below shows various building configurations representing different density ranges. Standards of population density can be determined based on an assumption of
persons per household.

FIGURE 14: CONCEPTUAL DIAGRAM OF RESIDENTIAL DENSITY
ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Land Use Alternatives Report | February 2026 18
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is used to regulate the intensity of nonresidential and mixed-use development. It's a measure of building size compared to the size of the lot, calculated by dividing the total building floor area by the lot area.

For example, a FAR of 1.0 means a building could be one story covering the entire lot, or two stories covering half the lot. A FAR of 2.0 allows twice as much building space—like a two- story building covering the entire lot, or a four-story building covering half the lot.

Higher FAR numbers allow taller or larger buildings on the same size lot.

FIGURE 15: CONCEPTUAL DIAGRAM OF FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR) Figure 15: Conceptual Diagram of Floor Area Ratio (FAR) ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Land Use Alternatives Report | February 2026 19
TABLE 2: LAND USE DESIGNATION DESCRIPTIONS DENSITY/INTENSITY General Agriculture (GA)
Lands within the General Agriculture category are set aside for commercial-level agricultural production. Sites for General Agriculture are considered economically viable for farming operations.

N/A
Urban Agriculture (UA) – NEW
The Urban Agriculture designation allows for small-scale agricultural operations that include crop production, animal raising, beekeeping, market gardens, community gardens, and produce stands in a form and at a scale appropriate for the urban context of Rancho Cordova.

N/A
Estate Residential (ER)
The Estate Residential category is characterized by larger, “executive”-style homes on generous lots. It allows a smooth transition between the rural areas of the city and the more intensively developed neighborhoods.

0.51-2 units/acre
Low Density Residential (LDR)
The Low Density Residential designation represents the traditional single-family neighborhood with a majority of single-family detached homes. This is the predominant land use designation of the city’s neighborhoods.

2.1-6 units/acre
Medium Density Residential (MDR)
The Medium Density Residential designation allows for small lot single-family detached, single-family attached (e.g., town homes, condominiums, brownstones), and small apartment complexes.

6.1-20 units/acre
High Density Residential (HDR)
The High Density Residential designation allows for development of larger multi-family housing complexes, including apartments and condominiums.
20-40 units/acre
Residential Mixed-Use (RMU)
The Residential Mixed-Use designation allows for commercial or office uses to be co-located on the same property, either vertically or horizontally, with residential development at medium to high densities. It does not preclude residential development within the designation but rather encourages a mixing of uses.

6.1-40 units/acre
FAR: 1.5 Max

General Agriculture is removed from the land use
designations in Alternatives A and B because there are no lands within the city for large-scale, commercial
agriculture.

Urban Agriculture is a new designation in Alternatives A and B to allow for community gardens and other urban-
scale agriculture appropriate within city limits.

The maximum density for Medium Density Residential is
increased from 18 to 20 units/acre across all alternatives to better align with density limits in State Housing
Element law.

The minimum density for High Density Residential is
changed from 18.1 to 20 units/acre across all alternatives to better align with density limits in State Housing
Element law.

What’s Changing in the Alternatives?
ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Land Use Alternatives Report | February 2026 20
TABLE 2: LAND USE DESIGNATION DESCRIPTIONS DENSITY/INTENSITY Commercial Mixed-Use (CMU)
The Commercial Mixed-Use designation encourages the integration of retail and service commercial uses with office and/or residential uses. In mixed-use projects, commercial use is the predominant use on the ground floor; however, standalone residential is allowed with active ground floor uses.

Base Alternative

2.1-18 units/acre
FAR: 0.25-1.5
Alternative A + B
10-30 units/acre
FAR: 0.25-1.5
General Commercial (GC) - NEW
The General Commercial designation allows for a broad range of commercial uses, including retail, personal services, restaurants, and entertainment uses.

Alternative B
FAR: 0.25 - 1.0

Transit Corridor Mixed-Use (TCMU) - NEW
The Transit Corridor Mixed-Use designation is intended to activate the Folsom Boulevard corridor with transit-oriented development.

This designation provides for high density residential and a broad range of commercial uses, including retail, services, restaurants, hotels, and offices. Uses may be either freestanding or co-located on the same property, either vertically or horizontally integrated.

Alternative A
10-40 units/acre
FAR: 0.25-2.0
Alternative B
20-60 units/acre
FAR: 0.5-2.5
Village Center (VC)
The Village Center designation meets daily shopping needs for residents in a village as described in the building blocks concept.

Typical uses include small- to medium-sized grocery stores, drug stores, dry cleaners, and coffee shops. This designation also allows housing as part of a mixed-use commercial center. Development is pedestrian friendly with neighborhood gathering places.

Base Alternative + A

6.1-18 units/acre
FAR: 0.25-1.0
Alternative B
18-30 units/acre
FAR: 0.25-1.0
Local Town Center (LTC) / Community Activity Center (CAC) The Local Town Center designation provides retail, restaurant, and entertainment uses within a district as described in the building block concept. Typical uses include a combination of retail, restaurant, office, and residential. This designation may also include large retail stores, lodging, entertainment, public/quasi-public, and indoor and outdoor recreational facilities. Development is pedestrian friendly with gathering places for both daytime and nighttime activities.

Base Alternative + A

6.1-18 units/acre
FAR: 0.3-1.5
Alternative B
18-40 units/acre
FAR: 0.3-1.5
Regional Town Center (RTC)
The Regional Town Center designation is generally characterized by a horizontal or vertical mix of integrated retail, office, and residential uses that serve both the entire City and the region. Large retail stores, restaurants, public/quasi-public uses, and entertainment venues are common. Regional activity centers are vibrant destination places for the entire region and foster an active nightlife.

6.1-40 units/acre
FAR: 0.35-4.0
The density range for Commercial Mixed-Use is increased to 10-30 units/acre and standalone residential is allowed in Alternatives A and B to facilitate infill housing.

General Commercial is a new designation used in
Alternative B on parcels where the city might want to
consider allowing only commercial uses.

Local Town Center is renamed “Community Activity
Center” in Alternatives A and B and the density range is increased to 18-40 units/acre in Alternative B to allow for a greater variety of housing types.

Regional Town Center is renamed “Regional Activity
Center” and is only used in one of the city’s specific plan areas. It does not appear in the land use alternatives.

The density range for Village Center is increased to 18- 30 units/acre in Alternative B to allow for a greater
variety of housing types.

ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Land Use Alternatives Report | February 2026 21
TABLE 2: LAND USE DESIGNATION DESCRIPTIONS DENSITY/INTENSITY City Center (CC) - NEW
The City Center is envisioned to become the vibrant core of Rancho Cordova, where commerce, culture, entertainment, and government converge. This designation allows for the densest concentration of retail, restaurants, entertainment, personal services, hotels, civic uses, multifamily housing, and employment in a pedestrian-oriented environment. Uses may be either freestanding or co-located on the same property, either vertically or horizontally integrated.

Alternative A
30-100 units/acre
FAR: 0.5-5.0

Entertainment Mixed-Use District (EMUD) - NEW
The Entertainment Mixed-Use District designation is intended to establish an area in the city specifically for the development of a large-scale entertainment center with related and supporting uses including retail, restaurants, hotels, and multifamily housing. The district is intended to be a special place in the city that is entertaining, vibrant, and inviting to tourists, visitors, and residents alike.

Alternative B
20-80 units/acre
FAR: 0.35-4.0

Office Mixed-Use (OMU)
The Office Mixed-Use designation encourages the integration of commercial and/or residential use in conjunction with office use of a site. Office uses are the predominant use, but others may be included in a vertical or horizontal configuration.

Base Alternative

2.1 – 18 units/acre
FAR: 0.25-1.5

Innovation Mixed-Use (IMU) - NEW
The Innovation Mixed-Use designation provides for professional offices and innovative businesses in an amenity-rich environment that integrates employment with commercial and residential. This designation allows for a variety of businesses and professional offices with supporting services, retail, and multifamily housing. Uses may be either freestanding or co-located on the same property, either vertically or horizontally integrated. Existing industrial uses may remain and expansions with clean industrial uses are allowed; however, new industrial uses shall be limited to those with a low environmental impact to ensure compatibility with adjacent residential.

Alternative A
20-40 units/acre
FAR: 0.25 - 3.0

Alternative B
20-80 units/acre
FAR: 0.25 - 3.0

Advanced Industrial (AI) - NEW
The Advanced Industrial designation encourages the growth of creative and innovative industries and businesses. The designation allows for professional office, research and development, incubator spaces, light industrial uses with low environmental impacts, and supportive retail and commercial development.

Alternative B
FAR: 0.25 - 3.0

City Center is a new designation in Alternative A that
replaces the Convention Overlay with a larger City
Center at the intersection of Sunrise and Folsom
Boulevards

Entertainment Mixed-Use District is a new designation
in Alternative B that replaces the Convention Overlay
with an entertainment district.

Innovation Mixed-Use replaces Office Mixed-use in
Alternatives A and B. This designation allows for
increased density and FAR to encourage innovative
new residential, commercial, and employment uses
within the city’s office parks.

In Alternative B, Advanced Industrial replaces some
areas designated Office Mixed-Use to reserve areas
within the city’s office parks for employment uses only, ensuring land use reserved for new and expanding
industries.

ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Land Use Alternatives Report | February 2026 22

TABLE 2: LAND USE DESIGNATION DESCRIPTIONS DENSITY/INTENSITY Light Industrial (LI)
The Light Industrial designation allows industrial or manufacturing activities that occur entirely within an enclosed building. This designation also includes warehousing activities or distribution centers but excludes corporation yards. Employee intensive operations (e.g., research and development) that would otherwise not occur within the Office Mixed-Use designation are permitted. The designation also allows hospitals and other public/quasi-public uses.

FAR: 1.0 Max

Heavy Industrial (HI)
The Heavy Industrial designation allows for industrial or manufacturing activities that may occur inside or outside of a building or structure. This designation includes corporation yards and surface mining and related operations.

FAR: 0.6 Max

Public/Quasi-Public (QP)
The Public/Quasi-Public designation allows for uses including civic buildings; schools, colleges, and universities; religious institutions; hospitals; museums; cemeteries; and others. Most buildings in this designation are high profile and prominent within the community. To meet future community needs, new development projects should include public/quasi-public sites for future, undetermined uses.

FAR: 0.1-1.0
Parks and Open Space (OS)
The Parks and Open Space designation allows for both active and passive recreational activities, such as parks, lakes, golf courses, and trails.

N/A

Natural Resources (NR)
The Natural Resources designation sets aside land as natural habitat that typically has no urban development on it. Often, open space trails will be sited adjacent to Natural Resource areas.

N/A

ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Land Use Alternatives Report | February 2026 23

TABLE 2: LAND USE DESIGNATION DESCRIPTIONS (CONT.)
Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay
The Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay applies within one- quarter mile of light rail stations. The purpose of the TOD Overlay is to promote and provide for higher density and intensity uses as part of or in proximity to transit stations. The objective of locating more intensive uses near transit stations is to promote transit services along major transit corridors of the city.

Base Alternative
18-80 units/acre
FAR: 0.5-2.5
Alternative A
20-80 units/acre
FAR: 0.5-3.0
Alternative B
20-100 units/acre
FAR: 0.5-3.0
Convention Overlay (CO)
The Convention Overlay applies to an area around Sunrise Boulevard and Folsom Boulevard. It allows higher densities and intensities and modifies the uses allowed by the underlying land use designations to support a convention center district, including hotels, restaurants, and meeting spaces. Retail, office, and higher-density residential uses are permitted if they support the convention center. The Convention Overlay area is also a prime location for a performing arts or entertainment complex.

Base Alternative
10-40 units/acre
FAR: 0.25-3.0

Downtown Planning Area (DPA)
The Downtown Planning Area (DPA) is envisioned in the 2006 General Plan as the heart of Rancho Cordova - a vibrant place to live, work, play, and shop. The DPA acts as an overlay, allowing higher intensities (i.e., FAR) and height than what is allowed in the underlying designations.

Base Alternative
No change to
underlying density
FAR: 0.25-3.0

What is an Overlay?
An overlay designation is a special set of rules placed over existing land use designations to add extra
requirements or standards. It modifies or adds to the
existing land use rules, allowing specific uses or
development that may not be permitted in the base
designation. For example, the Transit-Oriented
Development (TOD) Overlay is placed over various land
use designations on parcels within one-quarter mile of
transit stops, including Commercial Mixed-Use, Office
Mixed-Use, and other designations, and allows for
increased density, intensity, and height beyond what
would otherwise be allowed in those designations.

FIGURE 16: OVERLAY
The Downtown Planning Area is only
reflected in the Base Alternative.

Alternative A shifts the focus to the
City Center at Sunrise and Folsom, and
Alternative B focuses on multiple
centers of activity rather than a
downtown.

The Convention Overlay is replaced by
the City Center designation in
Alternative A and Entertainment Mixed-
Use District in Alternative B.

The Land Use Alternatives propose
modified densities for the TOD
Overlay, increasing to 20-80
units/acre in Alternative A and 20-100
units/acre in Alternative B, with a
maximum FAR of 3.0 in both
alternatives. The boundaries of the
TOD Overlay have been modified in all
three alternatives to snap to parcel
lines and exclude single-family parcels.

ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Land Use Alternatives Report | February 2026 24
Senate Bill 79 and Transit-Oriented Development
Senate Bill (SB) 79 is a State law that allows for higher- density housing development within one-half mile of transit stops. Beginning July 1, 2026, land zoned for residential, commercial, or mixed-use near transit stops may be eligible for increased development standards. These standards vary based on transit type and proximity, with greater densities allowed closer to higher-capacity, more frequent transit.

In Rancho Cordova, parcels surrounding Mather Field/Mills, Zinfandel, Cordova Town Center, Sunrise, Hazel, and the planned Horn Road light rail stations are eligible for SB 79.

Parcels of land within one-quarter mile of a light rail station may develop up to 65 feet in height, 100 units/acre, and a 3.0 FAR, while parcels located within one-half mile may develop up to 55 feet, 80 units/acre, and a 2.5 FAR.

The city’s Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay, as proposed in the land use alternatives, is a locally-tailored zoning tool that directs higher-density development to select areas within one-quarter mile of light rail stations, while generally excluding existing single-family neighborhoods. In contrast, SB 79 establishes a statewide, one-size-fits-all framework intended to broadly increase housing capacity near transit within a larger half-mile area. Under SB 79, development projects must provide a minimum percentage of affordable housing, comply with anti-displacement measures, and meet other eligibility criteria that do not apply to projects utilizing the city’s TOD Overlay.

While the TOD Overlay and SB 79 allow comparable densities within one-quarter mile of light rail stations, the State law is more expansive in the area that is eligible for increased density. In practice, however, development under either framework remains concentrated along the Folsom Boulevard corridor. Both the TOD Overlay and SB 79 support the vision for transit-oriented development around light rail stations, with the state law potentially enabling additional housing capacity across a wider area.

SB 79 allows jurisdictions to exempt certain sites or adopt TOD alternative plans. However, the alternative plans must allow the same total net zoned capacity and must comply with other rules that are fairly restrictive. The State has not yet provided guidance on SB 79 implementation.
½ Mile Radius ¼ Mile Radius
FIGURE 17: SB 79 ELIGIBLE AREAS
ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Land Use Alternatives Report | February 2026 25

BASE LAND USE ALTERNATIVE
Base Land Use Alternative generally represents
the "no change" alternative. It is a slightly
modified version of the land use plan from the
City’s existing 2006 General Plan. Unlike the
2006 General Plan, every parcel within city limits
is assigned a land use designation. The TOD
Overlay is also modified from a straight ¼-mile
buffer to better align with parcel boundaries and
avoid single-family neighborhoods.

ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Land Use Alternatives Report | February 2026 26

LAND USE ALTERNATIVE A
Land Use Alternative A features a single
downtown core and a more flexible land use
framework citywide. The City Center is the main
focal point, building off the momentum of the
proposed arena to create a central destination
for entertainment, hotels, shopping, restaurants,
housing, and amenities. The flexible land use
framework applies new or revised mixed-use
designations to remove barriers to housing and
mixed-use development in older areas of the
city.

ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Land Use Alternatives Report | February 2026 27

LAND USE ALTERNATIVE B
Instead of focusing on one City Center, Land Use
Alternative B activates multiple hubs throughout
the city. These include an entertainment district,
community activity centers, and village centers that
serve neighborhoods. Alternative B also allows
slightly higher densities in mixed-use areas to
create more housing in walkable, transit-friendly
locations.

ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Land Use Alternatives Report | February 2026 28

4. PLANNING STRATEGIES
This section describes five key Planning Strategies and how the three Land Use Alternatives respond to each. These strategies address the city’s challenges and opportunities based on current conditions, market trends, community input, and policy goals, and provide direction for Rancho Cordova’s long-term growth. Together, they form the foundation of the Land Use Alternatives, guiding where and how development should occur to support economic vitality, housing diversity, and quality of life.

Planning Strategy #1: Reimagining Office Parks
Planning Strategy #2: Removing Barriers to Redeveloping Folsom Boulevard Planning Strategy #3: Reenvisioning the Downtown

Planning Strategy #4: Activating Commercial Centers
Planning Strategy #5: Increasing Housing Choices in Infill Areas ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Land Use Alternatives Report | February 2026 29
The current Office Mixed-Use (OMU) designation allows office and light industrial, along with residential (2.1-18 units/acre) and commercial uses.

The current Office Mixed-Use (OMU) designation allows office and light industrial, along with residential (2.1-18 units/acre) and commercial uses.

However, any project must include at least 50 percent office space, making it difficult to build housing, retail, entertainment uses, or other amenities in these areas. The density range of 2.1-18 units/acre allows single-family homes or townhomes, but limits multifamily housing in these areas.

Why do we need to reimagine office parks?
• Changing Work Patterns: Traditional office demand has declined across the region and nation, requiring new approaches to these large employment areas.
• High Vacancy Rates: Rancho Cordova's office vacancy rate is 23%— nearly double the regional average—leaving major employment areas underutilized.
• Inefficient Land Use: Over 1,500 acres are designated for office use, with parking lots often taking up more space than the buildings themselves.
• Economic Opportunity: Transforming underutilized office parks can create vibrant, revenue-generating districts that strengthen the city's fiscal health.
• Community Vision: Residents support adding mixed-use housing, destination retail, and public gathering spaces to office park areas. • Supporting Business Growth: More flexible regulations help the city attract new employers while supporting existing businesses in a changing economy.

Planning Strategy #1: Reimagining Office Parks
Across the region and the nation, office vacancy rates have climbed with the reduced demand for traditional office space, leaving many office parks underutilized and challenging communities to consider new approaches to these large employment areas.

As of 2024, the office vacancy rate in Rancho Cordova reached approximately 23 percent—nearly twice the regional average. More than 1,500 acres within the city are designated as Office Mixed-Use, much of which is characterized by conventional office buildings surrounded by extensive surface parking. In many cases, parking areas occupy more land than the buildings themselves.

Recognizing these dynamics, both the Planning Commission and City Council identified the reimagining of office parks as a key priority for the General Plan Update. This direction aligns with the City’s Economic Development Strategic Plan, which emphasizes transforming underutilized office park areas into vibrant, revenue-generating districts.

Community input has reinforced this vision, with strong support for integrating mixed-use housing, destination retail, and public gathering spaces.

At the same time, the city remains committed to supporting existing employers and positioning Rancho Cordova as an attractive location for new businesses. Repositioning office parks is therefore both a challenge and an opportunity: to adapt to a changing economic landscape while advancing broader goals for economic vitality, housing diversity, and community livability.

Office parks that were once active now face high vacancy rates. These vacant spaces present opportunities to reimagine these areas, attract new forms of business, and integrate housing and commercial services in innovative mixed-use developments.

Office Mixed-Use (OMU)
Predominately office and
light industrial, but allows
commercial and residential
at 2.1-18 units/acre if office is
at least 50 percent of the
development’s square
footage.

Less

2.1-18 units/acre
BASE

ALTERNATIVE

0.25-1.5 FAR
Innovation Mixed-Use FAR
ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Land Use Alternatives Report | February 2026 30

ALTERNATIVE A
A new Innovation Mixed-Use (IMU) designation replaces the Office Mixed-Use designation, with a vision of transforming office parks into thriving districts where people can live near their jobs and workers can walk to shops, restaurants, and services. This more flexible designation allows mixed-use developments or standalone uses, including office, industrial, residential, retail, or entertainment uses. Densities of 20-40 units/acre allow for multifamily housing, and an FAR of 0.25-3.0 provides more flexibility for higher-intensity mixed-use developments. New development would be expected to provide amenities, such as public plazas, gathering spaces, and large sidewalks and pedestrian paths connecting adjacent buildings to create a more cohesive district.

Planning Strategy #1: Reimagining Office Parks
Innovation Mixed-Use (IMU)
replaces the OMU. Emphasis
remains office and light
industrial, but standalone
commercial and residential
at 18-40 units/acre are
allowed.

0.25-3.0 FAR
Innovation Mixed-Use continues to encourage office, light industrial, and new innovative employment uses.

Innovation Mixed-Use allows for standalone residential development or mixed-use developments at densities of up to 40 units/acre (e.g., 2-3 story apartments).

Innovation Mixed-Use FAR
Innovation Mixed-Use Density
20-40 units/acre
ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Land Use Alternatives Report | February 2026 31
A higher density version of Innovation Mixed-Use (IMU) applies to large parts of the office parks, allowing a greater range of multifamily housing types at 20-80 units/acre. This allows for vibrant districts with housing close to employment and shops within walking distance of jobs. Another new designation, Advanced Industrial (AI), applies to portions of the office parks to preserve these areas for employment uses only, ensuring space remains available for businesses that need dedicated industrial areas.

Innovation Mixed-Use (IMU)
replaces much of the OMU
and allows an even higher
density of 20-80 units/acre.

Advanced Industrial (AI)
preserves areas for
employment uses.
20-80 units/acre

ALTERNATIVE B
Planning Strategy #1: Reimagining Office Parks

0.25-3.0 FAR
Employment uses are allowed anywhere in the IMU designation, but Alternative B preserves 450 acres for employment uses only by designating them Advanced Industrial.

In Alternative B, Innovation Mixed-Use allows for housing and mixed-use development

Innovation Mixed-Use FAR
Innovation Mixed-Use Density
ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Land Use Alternatives Report | February 2026 32
Planning Strategy #2: Removing Barriers to
Redeveloping Folsom Boulevard
Folsom Boulevard is Rancho Cordova’s most prominent corridor – a major east-west roadway that parallels the light rail line and connects key destinations throughout the city. This major transportation corridor is a key redevelopment opportunity, with the potential to evolve into a more vibrant and active urban corridor.

Community feedback included a strong desire to transform Folsom Boulevard into a more active area, with gathering spaces, entertainment venues, cultural destinations, retail amenities, and mixed-use housing.

Currently, the existing mixed-use land use designations and the Folsom Boulevard Specific Plan allow for a range of commercial and residential uses although certain regulatory requirements present barriers for housing. Permitted residential densities are relatively low, and standalone housing development is generally not permitted, requiring instead that housing be integrated into commercial mixed-use projects.

While the corridor’s proximity to the light rail presents opportunities for transit-oriented development (TOD), the alignment of the tracks parallel to the roadway limits development on one side of the corridor difficult to create a cohesive urban environment. In addition, community feedback has identified safety concerns and lingering negative perceptions of the corridor, which pose challenges to attracting new investment.

Addressing these barriers will be essential to realizing the full potential of Folsom Boulevard as a safe, connected, and livable urban corridor that combines housing, services, and amenities in ways that enhance Rancho Cordova’s identity and economic vitality.

Why remove barriers on Folsom Boulevard?
• Major Redevelopment Opportunity: Folsom Boulevard is the city's most prominent corridor with strong potential to become a vibrant urban center.
• Community Vision: Residents want an active destination with gathering spaces, entertainment, retail, and mixed-use housing. • Current Barriers Limit Housing: Low densities and requirements to pair housing with commercial projects restrict residential development.
• Transit Access Underutilized: Proximity to light rail creates transit- oriented development opportunities that current regulations do not fully support.
• Safety and Perception Challenges: Community safety concerns and negative perceptions deter investment and need addressing. • Economic Vitality: Removing barriers will attract investment and create a safe, livable corridor that enhances the city's identity.

The Base Alternative maintains the existing Commercial Mixed-Use (CMU) designation along Folsom Boulevard as established in the 2006 General Plan. Under this designation, residential development is only allowed when integrated with commercial uses, with commercial space required to occupy at least 50 percent of the ground floor. Standalone residential buildings are not permitted. Residential densities are capped at 18 units/acre in most areas, with higher densities of up to 80 units/acre allowed only within the Transit- Oriented Development (TOD) overlay near transit stations. These restrictions prioritize maintaining Folsom Boulevard as a commercial corridor but limit flexibility for new housing development and may constrain the corridor's ability to attract investment in both residential and commercial amenities.

Folsom Boulevard is a major transportation corridor supporting bus and light rail access within the community.

2.1-18 units/acre
BASE

ALTERNATIVE

0.25-2.5 FAR
ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Land Use Alternatives Report | February 2026 33
In Alternative A, a new Transit Corridor Mixed-Use (TCMU) land use designation replaces much of the area currently designated as Commercial Mixed-Use (CMU). This new designation
provides greater flexibility by allowing standalone residential or commercial uses, as well as integrated mixed-use development along the corridor. It also increases residential densities to 10-40 units/acre and maintains the current high density allowed within the TOD overlay areas (80 units/acre). While the TCMU
designation allows for more housing, the intent is to maintain Folsom Boulevard's role as a vital commercial corridor, not to replace commercial uses entirely with residential development.

The emphasis on facilitating housing along Folsom Boulevard is based on the idea that building a variety of housing options can transform older parts of the city into thriving destinations. More residents mean more customers for local businesses, and more foot traffic creates safer, livelier streets. By allowing residential development alongside commercial uses rather than requiring them to be integrated, the city can attract investment in both housing and commercial amenities. The goal is a balanced corridor where housing supports and strengthens commercial activity, leading to better restaurants, shops, and services that benefit both residents and the broader community.

How the Alternatives Address Planning Strategy #2

ALTERNATIVE A
10-40 units/acre

0.25-2.0 FAR
In Alternative A, Transit Corridor Mixed-Use allows for housing and mixed use up to 40 units/acre.

In Alternative A, the TOD Overlay allows for housing and mixed use up to 80 units/acre.

Transit Corridor Mixed-Use Density
Transit Corridor Mixed-Use FAR
ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Land Use Alternatives Report | February 2026 34
Alternatives B expands the TCMU designation to include
additional parcels south of Folsom Boulevard. Like Alternative A, it provides greater flexibility by allowing standalone residential or commercial uses alongside integrated mixed-use development, while maintaining Folsom Boulevard's role as a vital commercial corridor. However, Alternative B takes a more intensive approach by increasing the density range of the TCMU designation to 20-60 units/acre (compared to 10-40 units/acre in Alternative A) and raising the TOD overlay density to 100 units/acre (compared to 80 units/acre in Alternative A). These higher densities increase capacity for new infill housing on Folsom Boulevard while still supporting the balance between residential and commercial uses. The underlying goal remains the same—creating a thriving corridor where more residents support local businesses and attract quality restaurants, shops, and amenities—but Alternative B is flexible in accommodating even more urban types of housing.

ALTERNATIVE B
How the Alternatives Address Planning Strategy #2
20-60 units/acre

0. 5-3.0 FAR
In Alternative B, the TOD Overlay allows for housing and mixed use up to 100 units/acre.

In Alternative B, Transit Corridor Mixed-Use allows for housing and mixed use up to 60 units/acre.

Transit Corridor Mixed-Use Density
Transit Corridor Mixed-Use FAR
ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Land Use Alternatives Report | February 2026 35
What is Rancho Cordova’s Vision for a Downtown?
• Downtown Planning Area: The 2006 General Plan identified a downtown area along Folsom Boulevard, but this vision has never been built.
• New Opportunity: A proposed 7,500-seat arena at Kilgore Road and Trade Center Drive anchors the proposed Downtown Dova, creating an opportunity to build a new city center. • Strong Community Support: Residents strongly support creating an energetic downtown and rank it as a top priority. • Balancing Priorities: Some residents prefer multiple vibrant centers throughout the city rather than one downtown, suggesting the need to balance a strong downtown with neighborhood-scale destinations citywide.

The Base Alternative reflects the existing 2006 General Plan vision for a Downtown that spans 360 acres of Folsom Boulevard, Olson Drive, and extending south to International Drive. The General Plan establishes a Downtown Planning Area (DPA) that functions as an overlay, modifying the underlying land use designations to allow more intensive development with higher FARs and no height limits. However, the DPA does not increase residential densities beyond what the underlying designations already allow—mostly capped at 18 units/acre, except within the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) overlay, which permits up to 80 units/acre.

The Convention Overlay applies to the area around Folsom Boulevard and Sunrise Boulevard. This Overlay modifies the allowed uses in support of a convention center district, including hotels, restaurants, meeting space, and an entertainment center.

Downtown Planning Area (DPA)
envisions the Olson Island and
Zinfandel Drive area as a future
Downtown. Downtown Planning
Area (DPA) envisions the Olson
Island and Zinfandel Drive area as a
future downtown.

FIGURE 19: COMMUNITY PRIORITIES IDENTIFIED IN WORKSHOP #1 Convention Overlay
restricts uses to
those that support a
convention center
district.

Planning Strategy #3: Reenvisioning the
Downtown
Rancho Cordova has lacked a true downtown since its incorporation 22 years ago. The existing 2006 General Plan envisions a vibrant Downtown along Zinfandel Drive from Folsom Boulevard to International Drive that is a destination for residents, workers, and visitors, anchored by retail, civic, office, and residential uses. It is envisioned as a walkable area with wide urban sidewalks that connect to plazas and other pedestrian-friendly gathering areas. The General Plan allows for the tallest buildings in the city to be located in the Downtown, with no height limit for buildings to encourage a high-density urban core with a recognizable skyline visible from the surrounding areas. While the General Plan set the stage of a new downtown, the vision for downtown in this area has never been realized.

In 2025, a new vision called Downtown Dova (also known as Cordova City Center) has emerged, centered around a proposed 7,500-seat arena at Kilgore Road and Trade Center Drive. Beyond the arena, the project includes up to 1,000 residential units, two hotels totaling 800 rooms, and approximately 150,000 square feet of retail and dining space. The goal is to transform this area into a mixed-use entertainment district—a regional destination where people can live, work, shop, and play.

Community feedback shows strong support for creating an energetic and distinctive downtown for Rancho Cordova, with many residents ranking it as a top priority. However, residents also expressed interest in having multiple vibrant centers throughout the city rather than concentrating all civic and cultural activity in a single downtown area. This suggests a need to balance the downtown vision with broader citywide placemaking goals (see Strategy #4).

17 18
31 24
43 32
17 47
18 5
23 14
22 0 10 20 30 40 50
Other
Enliven commercial corridors
Robust transportation system
Annex Areas for future growth
Provide more services
A new, energetic downtown
Bring in new employers
Entertainment, arts and cultural
Protect the environment
More walkable neighborhoods
Add more parks
Improve public safety
Add more affordable housing
47 participants
identified a new
energetic downtown
as a top priority

2.1-18 units/acre
BASE

ALTERNATIVE

0.25-3.0 FAR
ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Land Use Alternatives Report | February 2026 36
Alternative A shifts the focus from Zinfandel to a new
Downtown/City Center at Folsom Boulevard and Sunrise
Boulevard. This Alternative envisions a mixed-use destination centered around the Downtown Dova (aka Cordova City Center) concept and the proposed arena at Kilgore Road and Trade Center Drive but extends beyond the current project proposal.

This Alternative replaces the Convention Overlay and Downtown Planning Area with a new City Center (CC) designation covering over 420 acres, generally bounded by Highway 50 to the north, White Rock Road to the south, Sunrise Boulevard to the east, and Prospect Park Drive to the west. The City Center designation allows a wide range of uses, including entertainment venues, hotels, shops, restaurants, offices, housing, and other amenities at the highest density and intensity. While not unlimited in height, buildings will be tall enough to shape Rancho Cordova's skyline and urban identity.

The Rancho Cordova City Center aims to become the
Sacramento region's second most urbanized downtown after Sacramento itself, transforming Rancho Cordova into a true urban destination with a vibrant downtown core.

How the Alternatives Address Planning Strategy #3
City Center creates a new
downtown surrounding
the proposed arena. It
allows high-rise
development up to a 5.0
FAR and densities up to
100 units/acre.

ALTERNATIVE A
30-100 units/acre

0. 5-5.0 FAR
Alternative A builds off the momentum of the proposed arena to create a larger downtown district that provides entertainment, hotels, shops, dining, and housing in a walkable, transit friendly setting.

The proposed arena and surrounding development can move forward under any of the alternatives.

Source - Turton Commercial Real Estate.

City Center FAR
City Center Density
ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Land Use Alternatives Report | February 2026 37
Alternative B also shifts away from building a single Downtown and instead focuses on creating multiple mixed-use activity centers dispersed throughout the city. This Alternative removes the Downtown Planning Area from Zinfandel and replaces the Convention Overlay with a new Entertainment Mixed-Use District (EMUD) centered around the proposed arena. The EMUD still supports the proposed arena at Kilgore Road and Trade Center Drive, along with surrounding hotels, shops, restaurants, and housing, but covers a much smaller area than the City Center envisioned in Alternative A.

Alternative B applies various mixed-use designations to strengthen activity centers throughout the city, including Village Center and Commercial Mixed-Use (CMU) for commercial areas serving nearby neighborhoods and Community Activity Center for larger commercial centers serving the broader community. This aspect of Alternative B is discussed further in Planning Strategy #4.

ALTERNATIVE B
How the Alternatives Address Planning Strategy #3
20-80 units/acre

0.35-4.0 FAR
The proposed arena and surrounding development can move forward under any of the alternatives.

Source - Turton Commercial Real Estate.

Rather than a new downtown, Alternative B focuses on creating new activity centers in neighborhoods throughout the city.

Entertainment Mixed-Use District FAR
Entertainment Mixed-Use District Density
Alternative B focuses on
creating multiple
activity centers
throughout the city.

Entertainment Mixed-
Use District (EMUD)
creates a hub for
entertainment, hotels,
dining, and nightlife.

Allows for FAR of 4.0
and densities up to 80
units/acre.

ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Land Use Alternatives Report | February 2026 38
Planning Strategy #4: Activating Commercial
Centers
The fourth Planning Strategy focuses on activating the city’s commercial centers to create vibrant gathering places that support entertainment, cultural activities, amenities, and mixed-use housing. This was one of the top priorities identified by the community during General Plan engagement events.

One of the core concepts of the 2006 General Plan is the “building blocks” – a system designed to ensure walkable, livable, and sustainable development in both existing and new areas of the community. The building blocks consist of neighborhoods, villages, and districts. Each village, or cluster of neighborhoods, is supported by a pedestrian- friendly “village center” that serves residents’ daily shopping needs.

Larger districts, made up of three to four villages, are centered around a “town center.” Town centers – either local or regional – are vibrant activity hubs that provide major retail and entertainment options for the district. These centers are designed to include a concentration of higher- density housing near activity centers. These Village Center and Town Center designations are implemented through form-based zoning codes with prescriptive urban design standards intended to create pedestrian- friendly places. However, feedback from city staff and developers indicates that some of these form-based standards create barriers to development on certain sites.

The building blocks concept has guided development in newer growth areas of Rancho Cordova, such as Rio del Oro, Suncreek, and Sunridge.

However, retrofitting existing neighborhoods and retail centers in older parts of the city built before incorporation has proven more challenging.

While Village Center and Local Town Center designations apply to shopping centers along Coloma, Bradshaw, and other major corridors, these centers are not redeveloping into the walkable, mixed-use gathering places envisioned in the General Plan.

The Base Alternative designates most existing shopping
centers as Commercial Mixed-Use (CMU), except for two
Village Center (VC) designated sites at Bradshaw and Old Placerville Road and Coloma Road at Benita Drive; and a Local Town Center (LTC) at Cap Village. All three of these mixed- use designations are predominately commercial, encourage horizontal or vertical mixed-use development (i.e., mixing of housing and commercial), and have similar intensity/density standards: CMU: FAR 0.25-1.5; 2.1-18 units/acre; VC: FAR 0.25-

1.0; 6.1-18 units/acre; and LTC: FAR 0.3-1.5; 6.1-18 units/acre.

The main difference is that the VC and LTC designations are implemented through prescriptive form-based zoning
standards that require buildings to be configured in specific ways to create pedestrian-friendly (rather than auto-friendly) places. The zoning that implements CMU is more flexible in how commercial uses are laid out.

Local Town Center
(LTC) applies only to
Cap Village.

How can the city encourage vibrant, gathering places for Rancho Cordova residents? • Community Priority for Vibrant Centers: Activating commercial centers to create gathering places with entertainment, cultural uses, amenities, and mixed-use housing emerged as a top community priority during General Plan engagement. • Building Blocks Concept: The 2006 General Plan established a "building blocks" system of neighborhoods, villages, and districts, with village centers serving daily needs and town centers providing major retail and entertainment. • Success in New Growth Areas: The building blocks concept has successfully guided development in newer specific plan areas.
• Challenge in Established Areas: Retrofitting existing shopping centers built before incorporation has proven difficult.

Centers along Coloma, Bradshaw, and other corridors are not redeveloping into the walkable, mixed-use gathering places envisioned.
• Regulatory Barriers Identified: City staff and developers report that regulatory constraints, particularly around infill development and housing, prevent shopping centers from reaching their full potential as dynamic mixed-use environments.

FIGURE 20: BUILDING BLOCKS OF THE CITY
Commercial Mixed-
Use (CMU) allows
commercial or
residential at 2.1-18
units/acre with
commercial required
on the ground floor.

Village Center (VC)
applies to Bradshaw and
Coloma neighborhood
centers.

2.1-18 units/acre
BASE

ALTERNATIVE

0.25-1.5 FAR
ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Land Use Alternatives Report | February 2026 39
Alternative A is the most flexible of the alternatives in its rules for shopping centers. It designates all shopping centers in established parts of the city as Commercial Mixed-Use (CMU). It loosens the restrictions on standalone residential in the CMU designation – removing the current requirement that commercial occupy at least 50 percent of ground-floor space. It also increases densities to 10-30 units/acre (compared to the current range of 2-18 units/acre).

These changes provide property owners and developers with greater flexibility to respond to market conditions and site constraints. By allowing standalone residential buildings alongside commercial uses, shopping centers can attract investment in phases—such as adding apartment buildings on underutilized parking areas while maintaining existing commercial tenants. The increased densities enable a wider range of housing types, from townhomes to small apartment buildings, bringing more residents to support local businesses and create demand for better amenities. This flexible approach can help transform aging shopping centers into more dynamic, mixed-use destinations without prescriptive design standards that may create
development barriers.

How the Alternatives Address Planning Strategy #4

ALTERNATIVE A
Commercial Mixed-Use
(CMU) is less restrictive
in allowing standalone
residential at densities of
10-30 units/acre.
10-30 units/acre

0.25-1.5 FAR
Increased density allows for housing at up to 30 units/acre in the Commercial Mixed- Use designation.

Alternative A applies a more flexible Commercial Mixed-Use designation to most shopping centers in the city, allowing for standalone residential to be built next to commercial uses in shopping centers, similar to the current Stone Creek development.

Commercial Mixed-Use FAR
Commercial Mixed-Use District
ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Land Use Alternatives Report | February 2026 40
Alternative B takes a more prescriptive, tailored approach to designations based on each center's location and vision. It introduces a new General Commercial (GC) designation that does not allow residential, applied to areas that are less appropriate for housing. Alternative B refines existing mixed-use designations to reflect the community's desire for active gathering spaces. Village Center (VC) is retained for sites at Bradshaw and Old Placerville Road and Coloma Road at Benita Drive. The Community Activity Center (CAC) designation
applies to a shopping center that serve the broader community on Sunrise Boulevard at Coloma Road. This Alternative increases the density of VC and CAC designations to 18-30 and 18-40 units/acre, respectively, (compared to 6.1-18 units/acre in the Base Alternative), enabling more housing while supporting commercial activity. Alternative B also recommends revising form-based zoning standards to facilitate development while still ensuring they encourage walkable, mixed-use centers.

By strategically applying different designations, increasing housing capacity, and removing regulatory barriers, Alternative B aims to activate commercial centers throughout the city as vibrant mixed-use hubs and neighborhood-scale destinations.

ALTERNATIVE B
General Commercial (GC)
only allows non-residential
uses.

Community Activity
Center (CAC) applies to
Coloma Road shopping
center and allows
increased density.

Village Center (VC)
applies to Bradshaw and
Coloma neighborhood
centers.

How the Alternatives Address Planning Strategy #4
18-40 units/acre

0.25-1.5 FAR
In Alternative B, higher density housing up to 40 units/acre with commercial on the ground floor is permitted in the Village Center and Community Activity Center designations to encourage new community gathering places.

In Alternative B, General Commercial is applied to areas where commercial is preferred and residential is not a compatible use.

In Alternative B, Village Centers and Community Activity Centers are designed around active gathering spaces.

Village Center / Community Activity Center Density
Village Center / Community Activity Center FAR
ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Land Use Alternatives Report | February 2026 41
Planning Strategy #5: Increasing Housing
Choices in Infill Areas
Detached single-family units have consistently made up the largest portion of the city’s housing supply, increasing from 57 percent to 62 percent of the total housing units over the past 10 years. Multi-unit structures with 5 or more units saw more moderate growth, comprising 20 percent of the total inventory in Rancho Cordova in 2023.

The city’s Specific Plan Areas, shown earlier in Table 1, will perpetuate this trend. Over 75 percent of the remaining capacity in these new growth areas is for single-family homes.

Different people need different types of housing at different stages of life. Young professionals, seniors looking to downsize, families needing affordability, and people who want to live near work or transit all have different housing needs. Single-family homes do not work for everyone— they require higher incomes, car ownership, and a lifestyle centered around driving. Without townhomes, apartments, and other housing types, many residents are priced out.

The lack of housing variety also impacts the city's economic health and fiscal sustainability. When the only option is single-family homes on large lots, land is used inefficiently and the city must extend services and infrastructure over greater distances. Diverse housing types, especially near transit and services, create more efficient use of land and generate more tax revenue per acre.

The city’s infill areas – near transit stops, in office parks, and along aging commercial corridors like Folsom Boulevard – provide opportunities to ensure a greater variety of housing types are available for Rancho Cordova residents.

Diverse housing options can also transform older areas of the city into thriving destinations where people want to be. More neighbors mean more customers for local businesses. More foot traffic means safer, livelier streets. More residents mean better restaurants, shops, and amenities worth walking to.

Why Housing Choice Matters?
• Limited Options. Single-family homes currently make up 62 percent of the housing stock, and over 75 percent of future capacity in Specific Plan Areas is single-family.
• Diverse Needs. Young professionals, downsizing seniors, and families seeking affordability all need different housing types beyond single- family homes.
• Affordability. Single-family homes require higher incomes and car ownership, pricing out residents who need apartments or other housing options.
• Fiscal Efficiency. Diverse housing near transit and services uses land efficiently and generate more tax revenue per acre than single-family development.
• Better Amenities for Everyone: More housing in infill areas supports new restaurants, shops, and gathering spaces that benefit all residents.

As described in the growth projections, the General Plan has sufficient capacity to accommodate future housing needs, and the Plan is built on several smart growth principles that strive to improve housing choices.

However, the Base Alternative has limitations on housing choice. While the TOD Overlay allows dense housing near transit (up to 80 units/acre), the CMU designation permits housing on Folsom Boulevard, and the OMU designation allows housing in the office parks, constraints on multifamily housing remain.

The maximum density of 18 units/acre in most mixed-use areas allows townhomes but not multifamily housing, while minimum densities of 2.1 or 6.1 units/acre allow single-family homes. Furthermore, most mixed- use areas do not allow standalone housing; in the OMU designation, housing is only permitted as part of a coordinated development where office is at least 50 percent of the square footage, and in the CMU designation, residential is only allowed if it provides 50 percent commercial on the ground floor. These regulatory barriers ultimately limit the ability to build housing but serve to protect the areas for office and commercial development.

Existing
Housing
Stock
FIGURE 18: EXISTING HOUSING STOCK

2.1-18 units/acre
BASE

ALTERNATIVE
ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Land Use Alternatives Report | February 2026 42
Alternative A expands housing options in infill areas by removing restrictions on standalone residential development and increasing allowable densities. The new Transit Corridor Mixed-Use (TCMU) designation on Folsom Boulevard permits housing at 10-40 units per /acre, with up to 80 units per /acre allowed near transit stations under the TOD Overlay. The new Innovation Mixed-Use (IMU) designation allows standalone housing in office parks at 20- 40 units per/acre. Housing is permitted in the City Center at up to 100 units/acre. These density ranges enable more multifamily housing types alongside commercial and office development in mixed-use areas, while limiting single-family homes in recognition of ample capacity elsewhere in the city. One consideration is whether protections are needed to prevent the loss of commercial space and job opportunities when allowing standalone residential in these areas.
.

How the Alternatives Address Planning Strategy #5

ALTERNATIVE A
20-40 units/acre
In Alternative A, densities of up to 40 units/acre in the Transit Corridor Mixed-Use and Innovation Mixed-Use allow a broader range of multifamily housing types.

In Alternative A, the TOD Overlay allows for housing and mixed use up to 80 units/acre.

Transit Corridor Mixed-Use Density
ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Land Use Alternatives Report | February 2026 43
Alternative B is like Alternative A in removing restrictions and allows slightly greater maximum densities for housing in infill areas. This includes densities of 20-60 units/acre in TCMU- designated parcels along Folsom Boulevard and 20-80
units/acre in the IMU-designated office parks. With an enhanced focus on multiple community activity centers, Alternative B also introduces higher densities in the Village Center (18-30 units/acre) and Community Activity Center (18-40 units/acre) designations.

ALTERNATIVE B
How the Alternatives Address Planning Strategy #5
20-60 units/acre
In Alternative B, the TOD Overlay allows for housing and mixed use up to 100 units/acre.

In Alternative B, densities of up to 60 and 80 units/acre in the Transit Corridor Mixed-Use and Innovation Mixed-Use allow the broadest range of multifamily housing types.

Transit Corridor Mixed-Use Density
ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Land Use Alternatives Report | February 2026 44

How the Alternatives Address Planning Strategy #5
This table illustrates the range of
residential densities and housing types
permitted in the mixed-use designated
infill areas in each of the Alternatives.

The Base Alternative limits density
to 18 du/ac unless within a TOD.

Alternatives A & B increase range
of densities, with Alternative B
representing the highest densities
in infill areas.

ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Land Use Alternatives Report | February 2026 45
TABLE 4: COMPARISON OF HOW THE LAND USE ALTERNATIVES ADDRESS THE FIVE PLANNING STRATEGIES

Base Alternative Alternative A Alternative B
#1: Reimagining
Office Parks
• Restrictive Office Requirements: Maintains current
restrictions requiring 50 percent of office space in any development, which limits the ability to add housing or retail to office parks.
• Low Density Limits: Low density limits (2.1-18 units/acre) prevent multifamily housing in underutilized office areas. • Removes Office Mandate: Removes the 50 percent office requirement, allowing office parks to transform into mixed- use neighborhoods with housing, retail, and jobs.
• Moderate Density Increase: Increases density to 20-40 units/acre, enabling multifamily housing near employment centers.
• Preserves Employment-Only Areas: Balances mixed-use transformation with job preservation through the new Advanced Industrial designation. • Most Flexible Densities: Provides the most flexibility with densities up to 80 units/acre in some areas, maximizing housing opportunities near jobs. #2: Removing
Barriers to
Redeveloping
Folsom
Boulevard
• Maintains CMU Designation: Keeps the 2006 General Plan's Commercial Mixed-Use designation, requiring residential development to be integrated with commercial uses (50%
ground-floor commercial required).
• Limited Housing Flexibility: Prohibits standalone residential buildings and caps densities at 18 units/acre in many areas (80 units/acre near transit stations in TOD overlay).
• Prioritizes Commercial Corridor: Protects Folsom
Boulevard's commercial character but may limit investment opportunities in both housing and commercial amenities. • New TCMU Designation with Greater Flexibility: Replaces CMU with Transit Corridor Mixed-Use, allowing standalone residential or commercial buildings alongside integrated mixed-use development.
• Increased Housing Capacity: Permits residential densities of 10-40 units/acre (80 units/acre in TOD overlay).
• Balanced Growth Strategy: Aims to create a thriving corridor where more residents support local businesses, generating safer streets and attracting better restaurants, shops, and amenities.

• Expanded and Denser TCMU: Extends TCMU designation to additional parcels south of Folsom Boulevard with higher densities (20-60 units/acre).
• Maximum Housing Capacity: Increases TOD overlay density to 100 units/acre (compared to 80 in Alternative A), accommodating more urban housing types.
• Intensified Mixed-Use Vision: Maintains the same balanced corridor goals as Alternative A but with slightly greater capacity for infill housing development.

#3:

Reenvisioning
the Downtown
• Maintains 2006 Downtown Vision: Preserves the existing Downtown Planning Area (DPA) spanning Folsom Boulevard, Olson Drive, and south to International Drive as an overlay zone.
• Allows Taller Buildings, Not Denser Housing: Permits higher floor area ratios and no height limits but does not increase residential densities beyond 18 units/acre (80 units/acre in TOD overlay).
• New City Center at Folsom and Sunrise: Shifts focus from Zinfandel to a 420-acre City Center centered on Downtown Dova/Cordova City Center and the proposed arena, replacing the Convention Overlay and Downtown Planning Area.
• Highest Density Mixed-Use Development: Allows a wide
range of uses—entertainment, hotels, shops, restaurants, offices, and housing—at the highest densities and intensities with buildings tall enough to shape the city's skyline. • Regional Urban Destination: Aims to create an urbanized downtown, transforming Rancho Cordova into a true urban destination with a vibrant downtown core.
• Dispersed Activity Centers: Shifts away from a single downtown to create multiple mixed-use activity centers throughout the city, spreading civic and cultural activity across multiple locations (discussed further in Planning Strategy #4).
• Smaller Entertainment District: Replaces Convention Overlay with a focused Entertainment Mixed-Use District (EMUD) around the proposed arena that is still a regional destination, but much smaller than Alternative A's City Center footprint.
#4: Activating
Commercial
Centers
• CMU Designation with Limited Flexibility: Designates most shopping centers as Commercial Mixed-Use (CMU) with
densities of 2.1-18 units/acre, requiring residential to be integrated with commercial uses.
• Form-Based Standards for Select Centers: Applies Village Center and Local Town Center designations to three sites (Bradshaw/Old Placerville, Coloma/Benita, and Cap Village) with prescriptive form-based zoning to create pedestrian- friendly places.
• Maximum Flexibility: Designates all older shopping centers as CMU and removes the requirement that residential be
integrated with commercial, allowing standalone residential buildings.
• Increased Housing Capacity: Raises residential densities to 10-30 units/acre, enabling townhomes and small apartment buildings.
• Allows Flexible Approach: Allows shopping centers to add housing to underutilized areas while maintaining existing commercial tenants, transforming centers without
prescriptive design barriers.
• Tailored Designations: Applies a range of designations (CMU, VC, CAC, GC) based on location and character.
• Higher Densities with Design Standards: Increases VC and CAC densities to 18-40 units/acre (from 6.1-18) while using form-based codes for pedestrian-friendly design.
• Modified Zoning Standards: Recommends revisiting form-based zoning standards that may create development barriers while maintaining the walkable, mixed-use vision.
#5: Increasing
Housing
Choices in Infill
Areas
• Limited Multifamily Options: The maximum density of 18 units/acre in most mixed-use areas allows townhomes but excludes multifamily housing, while low minimum densities (2.1 or 6.1 units/acre) permit single-family homes.
• Restrictive Mixed-Use Requirements: Most mixed-use areas prohibit standalone housing—OMU zones require office to comprise at least 50 percent of development, while CMU
zones mandate 50 percent ground-floor commercial.
• Prioritizes Employment and Commercial: These regulatory barriers limit housing development but intentionally protect areas for office and commercial uses.
• Removes Restrictions on Housing: Alternative A eliminates barriers to standalone residential development in infill areas and increases allowable densities to expand housing options. • New Designations Enable Multifamily Housing: The TCMU designation on Folsom Boulevard allows 10-40 units/acre (up to 80 near transit), while the IMU designation permits 20-40 units/acre in office parks, and City Center allows up to 100 units/acre.
• Prioritizes Multifamily Over Single-Family: These density ranges facilitate diverse multifamily housing types in mixed- use areas while limiting single-family homes, which have ample capacity elsewhere in the city.
• Removes Restrictions with Higher Densities: Alternative B is like Alternative A but allows slightly greater maximum densities for housing in infill areas.
• Increased Density in TCMU and IMU: Permits 20-60 units/acre along Folsom Boulevard (TCMU) and 20-80 units/acre in office parks (IMU), enabling denser multifamily development than Alternative A. • Focuses on Community Activity Centers: Introduces higher densities in Village Center and Community Activity Center designations at 18-30 and 18-40 units/acre, supporting multiple neighborhood hubs throughout the city.

ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Land Use Alternatives Report | February 2026 46

5. COMPARISON
This section provides a comparative analysis of the three land use alternatives to help the community and decision-makers better understand the trade-offs and opportunities associated with each alternative. Each alternative represents a different approach to accommodating growth, balancing housing and employment, and shaping the city's character over the next 20 years. The following analysis examines key metrics across all three alternatives, including development capacity for residential and non-residential uses, estimated traffic generation and trip patterns, relative fiscal impacts on the city's budget, and per capita greenhouse gas emissions.

ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Land Use Alternatives Report | February 2026 47
Development Capacity
Each land use alternative includes a different pattern of land uses in infill areas, which results in different capacity for new development. Development capacity represents the full
buildout potential of all remaining developable land within city limits at a roughly average density/intensity. This includes capacity within specific plans (shown earlier in Table 1), anticipated development from approved projects, and
capacity on vacant and underutilized sites. The capacity in the first two categories stays the same across all alternatives.

Only the capacity for vacant and underutilized sites changes between alternatives, since the alternatives do not change assumptions for specific plan areas.

Residential Capacity
Figure 8 shows the total residential capacity of the three alternatives for single-family and multifamily housing units. All three alternatives have capacity for just over 29,000 single- family homes, with minor differences. The three alternatives vary in multifamily capacity, ranging from 13,640 units in the Base Alternative to 16,800 units in Alternative B and 18,190 units in Alternative A.

As described earlier, the city's specific plan areas contain significant development capacity. This is why the total capacity between alternatives is not very different. Figure 9 compares housing capacity outside of Specific Plan areas across the three alternatives. This shows very little remaining capacity for single-family homes in built-out areas of the city, while the alternatives differ in their multifamily housing capacity.

Although Alternative B introduces the highest housing
densities, it also preserves more land exclusively for
employment or commercial uses. This means Alternative B is anticipated to produce slightly less housing capacity
compared to Alternative A, which provides more flexibility citywide for multifamily housing to develop.

FIGURE 19: HOUSING UNIT CAPACITY (CITYWIDE)

FIGURE 20: HOUSING UNIT CAPACITY
(OUTSIDE SPECIFIC PLAN AREAS)

29,440 29,210 29,150
13,640
18,190 16,800
0 5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
Base Alternative Alternative A Alternative B
Single Family Multifamily
340 110 60
3,500
8,100
6,680
0 1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
Base Alternative Alternative A Alternative B
Single Family Multifamily
ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Land Use Alternatives Report | February 2026 48
Future Regional Housing Needs Allocations
The Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) is a state- mandated process in California that determines how many new homes each city and county must plan for during an
eight-year cycle. The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) first calculates regional
housing needs, then regional councils of governments (such as SACOG in the Sacramento region) allocate specific housing targets to each local jurisdiction. Each jurisdiction's allocation is divided into four income categories: very low, low,
moderate, and above moderate income. Cities must adopt a housing element that demonstrates they have sufficient land zoned at appropriate densities to accommodate their
assigned housing numbers. If a city fails to adequately plan for its RHNA allocation, it risks losing local land use control and facing state intervention, making RHNA compliance a critical planning requirement.

Rancho Cordova's current 6th Cycle RHNA (2021-2029) is
9,067 housing units. The lower-income categories (very low and low) are typically the hardest to meet because they require land zoned for multifamily housing at higher densities, while most cities have ample single-family capacity for above moderate-income housing. While future allocations are
difficult to predict, the land use alternatives aim to ensure the city has enough capacity for anticipated 7th and 8th Cycle RHNAs. Without adequate residential sites designated in the General Plan Update, the next Housing Element (due in 2030) would require revising the land use map to accommodate
more housing.

The Base Alternative's density cap of 18 units/acre in most areas limits multifamily development capacity, making it challenging to accommodate future lower-income RHNA
allocations. Alternative A significantly improves capacity by allowing 10-40 units/acre in transit corridors and commercial centers, enabling apartment buildings and townhomes that can support affordable housing development. Alternative B provides the greatest flexibility with densities up to 80-100 units/acre in key areas, maximizing the city's ability to meet lower-income housing requirements in future RHNA cycles while distributing housing opportunities throughout the community.

Table 5: City of Rancho Cordova Regional Needs
Allocation for 2021 - 2029
Income Group 2021-2029 RHNA
Extremely Low 1,057 units
Very Low 1,058 units
Low 1,274 units
Moderate 1,684 units
Above Moderate 3,994 units
Total 9,067 units
Source: City of Rancho Cordova 2021-2029 Housing Element, Adopted June 21, 2021

All of the alternatives provide capacity for over 29,000 new single-family homes within city limits.

ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Land Use Alternatives Report | February 2026 49
Non-Residential Capacity
Figure 10 compares non-residential capacity across the three alternatives, including commercial, office, and industrial square footage. Like the residential development capacity, this represents the full buildout of all remaining developable land within city limits at a target FAR (not the maximum allowed FAR). All alternatives provide more than enough capacity to accommodate the projected demand for non-
residential development through 2050.

Base Alternative provides capacity for approximately 5.97 million square feet (sf) of industrial, 3.74 million sf of office, and 5.98 million sf of commercial development—totaling
about 15.69 million square feet of non-residential space.

Alternative A shows slightly higher overall non-residential capacity at approximately 16.17 million sf, with 6.12 million sf of industrial, 3.72 million sf of office, and 6.33 million sf of commercial space. The slight increase in commercial and office capacity reflects Alternative A's emphasis on relaxing regulations in some commercial and office areas, particularly in office parks and along Folsom Boulevard, to allow more housing and mixed-use development, reducing pure non-
residential capacity. However, slight increases in the maximum FAR balance the reduction of land designated for purely commercial and office use.

Alternative B provides the highest non-residential capacity at approximately 16.46 million sf, with 7.08 million sf of industrial, 3.52 million sf of office, and 5.86 million sf of commercial development. The significant increase in industrial capacity reflects the Advanced Industrial designation, which protects areas for employment-generating uses while still allowing mixed-use transformation in other areas. Despite slightly lower office capacity (as some office parks can more easily convert to mixed-use), Alternative B maintains strong commercial capacity through its increased FAR and use of Village Center, Community Activity Center, and General
Commercial to shopping centers throughout the city.

FIGURE 21: CAPACITY FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDING SQUARE

FOOTAGE (CITYWIDE)

5,970,000
6,120,000
7,080,000
3,740,000
3,720,000
3,520,000
5,980,000
6,330,000
5,860,000
0 2,000,000 4,000,000 6,000,000 8,000,000
Base Alternative
Alternative A
Alternative B
Commercial Office Industrial
See Appendix for More Details
The methodology used to calculate development
capacity is described in further detail in the
Appendix.

ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Land Use Alternatives Report | February 2026 50
Summary of Development Capacity
Table 6 breaks down the development capacity for each land use alternative by source: vacant/underutilized sites outside specific plan areas, approved specific plans, and pipeline projects already in the approval process. The table shows that while specific plans and pipeline projects remain constant across all alternatives (as these are already entitled), the only differences between alternatives occur in how vacant and underutilized sites can be developed—with Alternative A showing the greatest potential increase in capacity for multifamily housing (8,000 units compared to 3,500 in the Base Alternative), and Alternative B providing the highest industrial capacity (4.54 million square feet) while still supporting significant multifamily development (6,680 units).

TABLE 6: LAND USE ALTERNATIVE CAPACITY
Single Family
(units)
Multifamily
(units)
Commercial
(sq. ft.) Office (sq. ft.) Industrial
(sq. ft.)
Base Alternative
Vacant/ Underutilized Sites
(Outside Specific Plan Areas) 340 3,500 2,009,800 2,500,900 3,425,300 Specific Plans 28,900 9,600 3,864,000 1,181,000 2,430,000 Pipeline Projects 190 540 109,400 59,700 114,700
Total Capacity 29,430 13,640 5,983,200 3,741,600 5,970,000 Alternative A
Vacant/ Underutilized Sites
(Outside Specific Plan Areas) 110 8,000 2,360,600 2,482,300 3,580,000 Specific Plans 28,900 9,600 3,864,000 1,181,000 2,430,000 Pipeline Projects 190 540 109,400 59,700 114,700
Total Capacity 29,200 18,140 6,334,000 3,723,000 6,124,700 Alternative B
Vacant/ Underutilized Sites
(Outside Specific Plan Areas) 60 6,680 1,887,700 2,279,100 4,539,300 Specific Plans 28,900 9,600 3,864,000 1,181,000 2,430,000 Pipeline Projects 190 540 109,400 59,700 114,700
Total Capacity 29,150 16,820 5,861,100 3,519,800 7,084,000 Note: development capacity numbers may differ from those used in the transportation and economic analysis due to rounding.

ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Land Use Alternatives Report | February 2026 51
Transportation Impacts
The relative transportation impacts of the three land use alternatives were analyzed using the Mixed-Use Development Plus (MXD+) tool, a trip generation forecasting model
designed to evaluate travel demand associated with different development patterns. The modeling assumes full buildout of all residential and nonresidential land under each land use alternative, which greatly exceeds expected buildout by 2050.

The following summarizes the results of this analysis.

Base Alternative focuses more on business and commercial growth and less on housing. This would likely continue the current imbalance between where jobs and housing are
located in Rancho Cordova. This option also has moderate mixed-use development (where homes and businesses are
near each other) and smaller reductions on car trips outside the city. Total trip generation is 187,450 (see Figure 25). The trip generation rate for the Base Alternative is highest at 7.0 net new trips per service population because of the distance between where jobs and housing are located (see Table 7).

Alternative A creates the fewest new trips per day citywide (144,390). This happens mainly because it has less overall growth—similar housing to Alternative B but much less
business development than the other two options. Alternative A also has the highest rate of internal trips (12.1 percent)— meaning people can walk, bike, or drive short distances within their neighborhood. It also shows strong reductions in car trips outside the city, with more people walking, biking, or using transit (4.6 percent). The trip generation rate for Alternative A is lowest at 5.1 net new trips per service population. This happens because homes and businesses are better mixed together, making local destinations easier to reach.

21,890 29,640 31,670
197,580
143,740
201,920
-9,785 -8,038 -11,959
-22,230 -20,950 -22,580
-50,000
0 50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
Base Alternative Alternative A Alternative B
Number of Trips
Total Residential Trips Total Non-Residential Trips
External Reduction Internal Reduction
FIGURE 22: TOTAL TRIP GENERATION & REDUCTION BY ALTERNATIVE

Total:
187,450
Total:
144,390

Total:
199,050

ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Land Use Alternatives Report | February 2026 52

Alternative B has the most growth overall for both housing and businesses, but growth is spread out differently than the other options. This creates a better balance between jobs and housing than what exists today. Alternative B has slightly lower internal trip rates than the other alternatives. However, it has the best potential for reducing car trips outside the city because growth is in areas with better sidewalks, bike lanes, and public transit. Overall total trip generation is highest at 199,050 because this alternative has the greatest capacity.

The trip generation rate for Alternative B is 6.1 net new trips per service population.

Table 7: Trip Generation Rates
Total Residential Trips /
Population 2.2 2.0 2.0
Total Non-Residential
Trips / Employment 11.7 10.8 12.1
Net New Trips/ Service
Population 7.0 5.1 6.1
See Appendix for More Details
The Appendix contains the full trip generation analysis prepared, including a description of the MXD+ tool, the methodology, and detailed results at both a
neighborhood level and citywide.

Developing new jobs and housing close together and near transit can result in reduction of vehicle trips, and subsequently a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from cars.

ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Land Use Alternatives Report | February 2026 53
Fiscal Impacts
A General Plan Update can shape a city's long-term finances by determining what gets built where, which affects how much revenue the city collects and how much it costs to provide services and infrastructure. In Rancho Cordova, changes in land use from the General Plan Update will impact General Fund revenues, operating costs, and capital
improvement needs. However, fiscal impacts are just one consideration among many when making land use decisions— cities also weigh infrastructure costs, jobs-housing balance, housing affordability, environmental impacts, public health, walkability, and community priorities identified during the planning process. Additionally, fiscal outcomes of individual land uses should not be viewed in isolation, since cities need a balanced mix of residential, commercial, industrial, and public uses to support long-term economic health and meet
community needs.

General Fund Revenue
The City of Rancho Cordova’s fiscal operations are anchored by the General Fund, which serves as the city’s primary operating fund. The General Fund supports public services and daily operations, such as police, public works, and general government functions. It is funded primarily by property tax and sales tax (which together account for about 60 percent of total revenues), along with other taxes, fees, and charges that support core city services. Property taxes are the largest single source of General Fund Revenue for the city,
accounting for approximately half (48 percent) of tax revenue and 35 percent of overall General Fund revenues. Sales tax represents approximately 25 percent of all General Fund revenue, utility user tax, transient occupancy tax (TOT), and other taxes collectively account for the remaining portion of tax-related revenues.

FIGURE 23. CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA GENERAL FUND
REVENUES, FY 25/26

FIGURE 24. CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA, BREAKDOWN OF TAXES
AND ASSESSMENTS, FY 25/26
Taxes &
Assessments
73%
Licenses
Permits &
Fees
9%
Charges for
Services
9%
Fines &
Forfeitures
5%
Transfers In
2%
Intergovern
mental
1%
Use of
Money &
Property
1%
Other
Revenue
0%
Sales Tax
34%
Property
Taxes
48%
Other Taxes
6%
Transient
Occupancy
Tax
6%
Utility User
ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Land Use Alternatives Report | February 2026 54
The following is an analysis of key General Fund revenues and associated land use alternative considerations.

Property Tax - Each land use alternative increases overall development capacity compared to the Base Alternative,
meaning Alternatives A and B would be expected to generate higher total assessed value—and therefore higher property tax revenues—at full buildout. Differences between Alternatives A and B, however, are more nuanced and depend on the mix of residential and nonresidential uses that ultimately materialize and the relative assessed values of those uses.

Traditional fiscal analyses assume retail and office uses generate higher assessed values per square foot than
industrial uses, suggesting Alternative A (with more retail and office capacity) might yield higher property tax revenues at full buildout. However, recent market trends in Rancho
Cordova show stronger performance for residential and
industrial development, while office and retail face higher vacancy rates and ongoing structural shifts related to remote work and e-commerce. If these trends persist, differences in long-term assessed value between Alternatives A and B may be modest, particularly if weak market demand limits office and retail development in either alternative.

Sales Tax - Differences in projected sales tax revenues among the land use alternatives are primarily associated with the amount of retail development permitted under each scenario.

Alternative A allows the greatest amount of retail
development and would therefore be expected, under full buildout assumptions, to generate higher sales tax revenues than the Base Alternative or Alternative B. Alternative A also allows for additional residential development, which may further support taxable sales by increasing local demand.

However, as with property tax, long-term sales tax outcomes depend not only on planned development capacity but also on market demand and the extent to which permitted retail development is ultimately realized.

Transient Occupancy Tax - The city’s hotel market is driven largely by business travel, special events, and employment activity rather than destination tourism. As a result, the General Plan’s influence on TOT revenues is indirect and occurs primarily through land use and economic development policies that support job-generating uses, commercial activity, and event venues, in addition to opportunities for new hotel development where market conditions support it. Land use alternatives that increase occupied commercial space,
particularly professional office and other employment uses, may support incremental growth in hotel demand and
associated TOT revenues over time. However, given current market conditions and the modest size of the city’s hotel sector, differences in TOT revenues among the alternatives are expected to be small in the near term and will depend more on broader economic and hospitality trends than on land use decisions alone.

License Permits and Fees - Revenues from licenses, permits, and fees are generally designed to cover the city’s costs of providing related services, such as plan review, inspections, tax administration, and code enforcement. When these
revenues increase due to more development activity, the City's costs also increase to hire staff and deliver those services. While these revenue sources support city operations, they do not typically result in net increases to General Fund resources because the additional revenue is offset by
additional costs. These revenue sources should be evaluated in the context of service capacity and staffing implications associated with each land use alternative.

ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Land Use Alternatives Report | February 2026 55
Summary of Fiscal Analysis
The city's General Fund relies heavily on property tax and sales tax, which together account for approximately 60
percent of total revenues, with additional contributions from hotel taxes, utility taxes, and fees. This revenue structure provides a stable core funding base but also means that the city’s fiscal performance is closely tied to stable and growing assessed valuation, taxable sales, and broader economic conditions to meet growing municipal service costs.

Implementation of the General Plan Update has the potential to support revenue growth over time, particularly through increases in assessed value from new development and
reinvestment, continued sales tax generation associated with residential and job growth, and incremental gains in
hospitality-related revenues as the local hotel market
strengthens. Differences in long-term revenue outcomes
among the land use alternatives are expected to be influenced as much by market conditions and development timing as by estimated development capacity.

At the same time, the city’s fiscal outlook is shaped by factors largely independent of the land use alternatives. Most notably, the expiration of the property tax revenue neutrality
agreement with Sacramento County in Fiscal Year 2028/29 will have a more immediate and significant positive impact on General Fund resources than differences among the land use alternatives.

Future growth will increase demand for city services,
particularly Police and Public Works, which are already the largest General Fund expenditure categories. While
development-related fees will help offset costs for planning, building, and inspection services, these revenues are designed for cost recovery rather than generating net new resources.

The General Plan Update provides a framework for balancing fiscal considerations with broader community objectives, including housing supply, economic development,
environmental sustainability, and quality of life. Fiscal impacts represent an important input to long-range planning decisions but should be considered alongside other policy goals and implementation considerations. Ongoing monitoring of
revenue performance, service demands, and infrastructure needs as development occurs will be important to maintaining the city’s long-term fiscal sustainability as the General Plan is implemented.

See Appendix for More Details
The Appendix contains the full analysis of fiscal trends and conditions prepared by Economic & Planning
Systems, Inc. (EPS).

ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Land Use Alternatives Report | February 2026 56
GHG Greenhouse Gas Emissions
In 2023 the city adopted a Climate Action & Adaptation Plan (CAAP) that outlines strategies to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and improve resilience to climate change.

The following is a qualitative comparison of the relative difference in per capita GHG emissions of the three land use alternatives based on their different approaches to
development density, mixed-use integration, and housing location.

Base Alternative would have the highest per capita GHG
emissions due to lower residential densities (capped at 18 units/acre in many infill areas), more limited mixed-use integration in office parks and commercial corridors requiring separate trips for housing and commercial needs, and
restrictions that reduce capacity for housing near jobs and transit.

Alternative A would reduce per capita emissions the most because it has the lowest trip generation rate. Alternative A increases residential densities (increasing the maximum from 18 to 40 units/acre in various designations), allows standalone housing along transit corridors like Folsom Boulevard, and enables more mixed-use development in office parks. The concentrated City Center and flexibility to build housing near jobs, transit, and amenities can shorten trip distances and support walking, biking, and transit use.

Alternative B would reduce per capita emissions compared to the Base Alternative. It allows the highest residential densities (up to 80-100 units/acre in some areas), dispersed mixed-use activity centers throughout the city that reduce travel distances, and strong emphasis on housing near transit and employment centers. By creating multiple vibrant
neighborhood destinations and maximizing housing capacity near jobs and transit, Alternative B would reduce emissions from transportation and support more sustainable, lower- carbon lifestyles.

Base Alternative Alternative A Alternative B
FIGURE 25. RELATIVE GHG PER CAPITA
Alternative A is expected to result in the lowest per capita greenhouse gas emissions because it has the lowest trip generation rate, as described earlier.

Climate Action &
Adaptation Plan
Visit the city’s website for
more information about the
city’s adopted Climate
Action & Adaptation Plan:
https://www.cityofranchoco
rdova.org/residents/commu
nity-topics/climate-action-
plan
ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Land Use Alternatives Report | February 2026 57

APPENDIX
• Development Capacity Methodology
• Trip Generation Analysis Memo
• Fiscal Analysis Memo

ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Land Use Alternatives Report | February 2026 A-1
Development Capacity Methodology
This section describes the methodology used to estimate the total housing and non-residential capacity for each
alternative. As used in this report, development capacity is an estimate of the total housing units and non-residential building square footage derived from a set of development assumptions and calculations – it does not represent the maximum density or intensity. It reflects a theoretical buildout of all vacant and underutilized parcels within city limits. Full realization of this capacity by the General Plan horizon year of 2050 is unlikely; rather it represents the theoretical buildout of the entire city at target densities and intensities.

Step 1: Identify Vacant Parcels
Parcel data from the Sacramento County Assessor was used to identify vacant parcels outside Specific Plan areas. Parcels assigned a tax use code of "Vacant" were identified using GIS data from the Assessor and then visually verified against aerial photography to confirm actual vacancy. Once verified, the attributes of the vacant land GIS data were exported to an Excel spreadsheet for use in the capacity analysis.

Step 2: Identify Underutilized Parcels
In addition to vacant parcels, the analysis examined the redevelopment potential of underutilized parcels — those with existing development that could support more intensive uses based on what is permitted under the General Plan.

Step 3: Apply Development Assumptions
Tables A-1 through A-3 present the assumptions used to
calculate development capacity for each alternative, including target residential densities, target floor area ratios (FARs) for non-residential uses, and the percentage distribution of uses within each land use designation. These assumptions were applied to the acreage of vacant and underutilized parcels within the city, excluding Specific Plan areas.

Step 4: Apply Redevelopment Factors to
Underutilized Sites
Development capacity for both vacant and nonvacant parcels is calculated on an acreage basis. Vacant parcels were
assigned a development potential of 100 percent, meaning the entire parcel was assumed to develop. For underutilized parcels, development potential was determined based on
market trends and site conditions, and ranged from 10 to 100 percent. Where 100 percent development potential was
assumed, existing structures were presumed to be
demolished and replaced, and the square footage of existing buildings was subtracted from total capacity to determine net new capacity. Where a lower redevelopment factor was
applied (e.g., 50 percent), existing uses were assumed to remain, with new development occurring on undeveloped
portions of the parcel or in place of surface parking.

Step 5: Estimate Remaining Capacity in Specific
Plan Areas
Remaining capacity within Specific Plan areas was calculated by comparing approved development with the amount that
has received building permits. For residential uses, this involved subtracting permitted units from approved units. For non-residential development, not all Specific Plans quantified square footage — some identified only acreage by land use designation. In those cases, non-residential square footage was estimated by analyzing the FAR of developed
commercial or industrial parcels and applying that FAR to remaining undeveloped lands. The capacity in specific plans is the same for all alternatives.

Step 6: Add Capacity in Pipeline Projects
Some parcels have development projects that have already been entitled by the city. The capacity on these parcels was added to the development capacity for each alternative.

ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Land Use Alternatives Report | February 2026 A-1
TABLE A-1: LAND USE DEVELOPMENT ASSUMPTIONS - BASE ALTERNATIVE General Plan Designation
Allowed Density/Intensity Range Target Development Assumptions Target Distribution of Uses Minimum
Density
(Units/Acre)
Maximum
Density
(Units/Acre)
Minimum
FAR
Maximum
FAR
Assumed
Percent
FAR
Assumed
Percent
Density
Assumed
FAR
Assumed
Density
Percent
Single
Family
Percent
Multifamily
Percent
Commercial
Percent
Office
Percent
Industrial
Percent
Other/
Public
ER Estate Residential 0.5 2 N/A N/A - 75% - 1.5 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% LDR Low Density Residential 2.1 6 N/A N/A - 80% - 4.8 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% MDR Medium Density Residential 6.1 18 N/A N/A - 50% - 9.0 80% 20% 0% 0% 0% 0% HDR High Density Residential 18.1 40 N/A N/A - 80% - 32.0 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% RMU Residential Mixed Use 6.1 40 0.0 1.5 67% 50% 1.00 20.0 15% 80% 5% 0% 0% 0% CMU Commercial Mixed Use 2.1 18 0.25 1.5 25% 90% 0.38 16.2 10% 25% 60% 5% 0% 0% OMU Office Mixed Use 2.1 18 0.25 1.5 35% 80% 0.53 14.4 5% 20% 5% 45% 25% 0% VC Village Center Mixed Use 6.1 18 0.25 1.0 40% 70% 0.40 12.6 0% 25% 60% 15% 0% 0% LTC Local Town Center 6.1 18 0.3 1.5 30% 90% 0.45 16.2 0% 25% 60% 15% 0% 0% LI Light Industrial - - - 1.0 40% - 0.40 - 0% 0% 0% 10% 90% 0% HI Heavy Industry - - - 0.6 50% - 0.30 - 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% TOD Overlay
Office Mixed Use - TOD 18 80 0.5 2.5 35% 70% 0.88 56.0 0% 40% 5% 35% 25% 0% Commercial Mixed Use - TOD 18 80 0.5 2.5 25% 70% 0.63 56.0 0% 35% 60% 5% 0% 0% High Density Residential - TOD 18 80 - - - 70% - 56.0 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% Convention Overlay
High Density Residential - Conv. 18 80 0.5 2.5 67% 70% 1.67 56.0 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% Commercial Mixed Use - Conv. 10 40 0.25 3.0 30% 80% 0.90 32.0 0% 28% 50% 4% 0% 18% Light Industrial - Conv. 10 40 0.25 3.0 30% 80% 0.90 32.0 0% 28% 50% 2% 0% 20% Office Mixed Use - Conv. 10 40 0.25 3.0 40% 80% 1.20 32.0 5% 40% 40% 2% 0% 18% Downtown Planning Area Commercial Mixed Use - DPA 10 40 0.4 3.0 25% 80% 0.75 32.0 0% 48% 50% 2% 0% 0% Office Mixed Use - DPA 10 18 0.3 2.5 25% 80% 0.63 14.4 5% 50% 10% 40% 0% 0%

ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Land Use Alternatives Report | February 2026 A-2
TABLE A-2: LAND USE DEVELOPMENT ASSUMPTIONS – ALTERNATIVE A General Plan Designation
Allowed Density/Intensity Range Target Development Assumptions Target Distribution of Uses Minimum
Density
(Units/Acre)
Maximum
Density
(Units/Acre)
Minimum
FAR
Maximum
FAR
Assumed
Percent
FAR
Assumed
Percent
Density
Assumed
FAR
Assumed
Density
Percent
Single
Family
Percent
Multifamily
Percent
Commercial
Percent
Office
Percent
Industrial
Percent
Other/
Public
ER Estate Residential 0.5 2.0 N/A N/A

75%

1.5 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
LDR Low Density Residential 2.1 6.0 N/A N/A

80%

4.8 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
MDR Medium Density Residential 6.1 20 N/A N/A

50%

10 80% 20% 0% 0% 0% 0%
HDR High Density Residential 20 40 N/A N/A

80%

32 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0%
RMU Residential Mixed-Use 6.1 40 0.0 1.5 67% 50% 1.00 20 15% 80% 5% 0% 0% 0% TCMU Transit Corridor Mixed-Use 10 40 .25 2.5 40% 80% 1 32 10% 70% 18% 2% 0% 0% CMU Commercial Mixed-Use 10 30 0.25 1.5 25% 80% 0.375 24 5% 35% 55% 5% 0% 0% IMU Innovation Mixed-Use 20 40 0.25 3.0 20% 80% 0.6 32 0% 35% 5% 35% 25% 0% CC City Center 30 100 0.5 5.0 30% 70% 1.2 70 0% 50% 40% 10% 0% 0% CAC Community Activity Center 6.1 18 0.3 1.5 30% 75% 0.45 22.5 0% 25% 60% 15% 0% 0% LI Light Industrial N/A N/A N/A 1.0 40%

0.4 0% 0% 0% 10% 90% 0%
HI Heavy Industry N/A N/A N/A 0.6 50% 0.3 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% TOD Overlay
High Density Residential - TOD 20 80 0.5 3.0

70% 0 56 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Innovation Mixed-Use - TOD 20 80 0.5 3.0 25% 70% 0.75 56 0% 40% 5% 30% 25% 0% Commercial Mixed-Use - TOD 20 80 0.5 3.0 25% 70% 0.75 56 0% 35% 60% 5% 0% 0% Transit Corridor Mixed-Use - TOD 20 80 0.5 3.0 40% 70% 1.2 56 0% 80% 18% 2% 0% 0%

ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Land Use Alternatives Report | February 2026 A-3
TABLE A-2: LAND USE DEVELOPMENT ASSUMPTIONS – ALTERNATIVE B General Plan Designation
Allowed Density/Intensity Range Target Development Assumptions Target Distribution of Uses Minimum
Density
(Units/Acre)
Maximum
Density
(Units/Acre)
Minimum
FAR
Maximum
FAR
Assumed
Percent
FAR
Assumed
Percent
Density
Assumed
FAR
Assumed
Density
Percent
Single
Family
Percent
Multifamily
Percent
Commercial
Percent
Office
Percent
Industrial
Percent
Other/
Public
ER Estate Residential 0.5 2.0 N/A N/A 75% 1.5 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% LDR Low Density Residential 2.1 6.0 N/A N/A 80% 4.8 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% MDR Medium Density Residential 6.1 20 N/A N/A 50% 10 80% 20% 0% 0% 0% 0% HDR High Density Residential 20 40.0 N/A N/A 80% 32 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% RMU Residential Mixed-Use 6.1 40.0 0.0 1.5 67% 50% 1.00 20.00 15% 80% 5% 0% 0% 0% TCMU Transit Corridor Mixed-Use 20 60 0.5 2.5 40% 80% 1 48 0% 80% 18% 2% 0% 0% CMU Commercial Mixed-Use 10 30 0.25 1.5 25% 80% 0.375 24 5% 35% 55% 5% 0% 0% GC General Commercial N/A N/A 0.25 1.0 40% 0.4 0% 0% 90% 10% 0% 0% IMU Innovation Mixed-Use 20 80 0.25 3.0 20% 80% 0.6 32 0% 40% 5% 40% 15% 0% AI Advanced Industrial N/A N/A 0.25 3.0 20% 0.6 0% 0% 0% 30% 70% 0% VC Village Center 18 30 0.3 1.0 40% 70% 0.4 12.6 0% 25% 60% 15% 0% 0% CAC Community Activity Center 18 40 0.3 1.5 30% 75% 0.45 22.5 0% 70% 25% 5% 0% 0% EMUD Entertainment Mixed-Use District 20 80 0.35 4.0 30% 70% 1.5 56 0% 40% 40% 0% 0% 20% LI Light Industrial N/A N/A N/A 1.0 40% 0.4 0% 0% 0% 10% 90% 0% HI Heavy Industry N/A N/A N/A 0.6 50% 0.3 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% TOD Overlay
Commercial Mixed-Use - TOD 20 100 0.5 3 25% 70% 0.75 56 0% 35% 60% 5% 0% 0% Advanced Industrial - TOD 20 100 0.5 3 20% 70% 0.6 56 0% 0% 0% 30% 70% 0% Innovation Mixed-Use - TOD 20 100 0.5 3 25% 70% 0.75 56 0% 40% 5% 30% 25% 0% High Density Residential - TOD 20 100 0.5 3 70% 0 56 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% Transit Corridor Mixed-Use - TOD 20 100 0.5 3 40% 70% 1.2 56 0% 80% 18% 2% 0% 0%

ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Memo
Date: February 20, 2026
To: City of Rancho Cordova
From: Yoyo Zeng, Yihao Zhang, and Ron Milam, Fehr & Peers Subject: Rancho Cordova General Plan Update Land Use Alternative Evaluation - Mobility

Introduction
This memorandum documents the comparison of trip generation characteristics among three land use alternatives developed for the updated Rancho Cordova General Plan. Trip generation forecasts were prepared for each neighborhood using the MXD+ tool, based on the proposed growth by land use type for each alternative.

The memorandum is organized into the following sections:

Methodology: This section provides a brief overview of the MXD+ tool, including the key inputs and variables used to estimate trip generation.

Citywide Comparison: This section compares total land use growth and associated trip generation at a citywide scale to evaluate how variations in the magnitude and distribution of growth influence overall trips.

Trip Generation by Neighborhoods: This section compares trip generation and trip rates across neighborhoods for the three land use alternatives. It also discusses how the balance of land use growth within each neighborhood affects internal trip reductions as well as reductions in external walk, bike, and transit trips.

Methodology
MXD+ (Mixed-Use Development Plus), a trip generation forecasting tool developed by Fehr & Peers, is used to forecast and compare the trip generation of the three alternatives proposed for the Rancho Cordova General Plan update. These alternatives include the Base Alternative, which reflects growth consistent with the current General Plan, and two proposed alternatives, Alternative A and Alternative B, that differ in their focus and spatial distribution of future land use growth.

The tool is applied to selected neighborhoods within the City of Rancho Cordova to forecast the trips produced and attracted by the proposed land use growth in each alternative. City-wide trip generation is calculated by summing the neighborhood level results of each alternative. It is important to note that the citywide totals represent only land use growth that varies among the three alternatives and does not include certain Specific Plan land uses that remain consistent across all ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

RCGPU Land Use Alternative Evaluation - Mobility | 2
alternatives. Additionally, the trip generation analysis reflects the full development capacity of vacant and underutilized sites under each land use alternative and does not represent a forecast of development expected to occur by 2050. A more detailed introduction of the MXD+ tool and the inputs used is provided in the following subsections.

About MXD+
The MXD+ model is an advanced tool developed by Fehr & Peers for forecasting trip generation for mixed-use developments. MXD+ improves upon traditional methods by integrating research from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE).

Unlike standard models that often overstate vehicle trips by ignoring the effects of land use context, MXD+ adjusts vehicle trip forecasts to account for internal capture of trips due to the seven D’s:
density, diversity, design, distance to transit, destination accessibility, development scale, and demographics. MXD+ enables analysts to forecast vehicle trips1 and the proportion of trips expected to be made by walking, biking, and transit, resulting in a more accurate reflection of travel behavior in mixed-use environments.

MXD+ Input and Model Structure
In general, the MXD+ model uses two types of input data to forecast trip generation: land use amounts and types and site characteristics.

Land use input relies on ITE Trip Generation Manual land use categories of the project, which is used to forecast ‘raw’ vehicle trip generation without considering the effect of the built-environment and mixed-use development.

Site characteristics describe the context of the analysis area, including inputs for the project site and inputs for the surrounding area as listed below.
• Project Characteristics Considered
o Density of Development
o Diversity of Uses: Jobs/Housing
o Diversity of Uses: Housing/Retail
o Diversity of Uses: Jobs/Services
o Diversity of Uses: Entertainment, Hotel
o Design: Connectivity, Walkability
o Design: Separation Among Uses
o Destination Accessibility by Transit
o Destination Accessibility by Walk/Bike
o Distance from Transit Stop
o Development Scale
o Distance from Transit Stop
o Development Scale
o Demographic Profile

• Surrounding Area Characteristics
o Average Residents per Dwelling Unit

1 The current MXD model estimates trip generation based on ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition.

ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

RCGPU Land Use Alternative Evaluation - Mobility | 3
o Average Autos Owned per Dwelling Unit
o Nearby (1/4 mi) Bus Stops and Rail Stations
o Jobs Within 1 Mile of Site
o Jobs Within 30-Minute Transit Trip
o Regional Employment
o Located in Central Business District (CBD) or Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) o Site Development by Classification
o Vehicle Occupancy Estimate
o Mode Split Estimate
The inputs above were obtained from the alternatives data provided by Ascent, the U.S. Census, and the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) regional travel demand model (SACSIM).

The MXD+ model consists of the following four steps to adjust the ITE raw daily vehicle trips.

1. Compute daily vehicle trips using the equations from the ITE Trip Generation Manual (these are referred to as “Raw ITE Trips”). These forecasts do not assume any internalization, and only minimal trips made by walking and/or transit modes.

2. Compute the probability of a trip staying internal to the MXD.

3. Compute the probability an external trip will be made by walking.

4. Compute the probability an external trip will be made by transit.

Mathematically, if we call the probabilities generated in steps 2-4 above Pinternal, Pwalk, and Ptransit, respectively, the desired result of number of external vehicle trips is given by:

Raw ITE Trips * (1- Pinternal) * (1 – Pwalk – Ptransit).

For more information about the MXD+ model and its development, refer to Getting Trip Generation Right, Eliminating the Bias Against Mixed Use Development, American Planning Association, May 20132.

Implementation
The analysis begins with a suitability check to determine whether each neighborhood within the City is appropriate for evaluation using the MXD+ model. This involves comparing the proposed land use growth information of each neighborhood against a reference database of more than 250 mixed-use sites to assess statistical similarity and ensure reasonable results. Also, since this analysis aims to compare land use growth between different alternatives, neighborhoods with no change between alternatives, such as Rio Del Oro and Westborough, are excluded from this assessment.

ITE Land Use Conversion
Because MXD+ relies on land use categories consistent with those defined in the ITE Trip Generation Manual, the General Plan Land Use (GPLU) designations for each alternative are first translated into corresponding ITE land use categories to develop the land use inputs for the MXD+ analysis. This conversion is based on the detailed descriptions and presumed mix of uses associated with each GPLU designation. Depending on the composition of uses within a given GPLU category, one or more ITE land use categories are assigned to represent the land use mix under each alternative.

2 https://planning-org-uploaded-media.s3.amazonaws.com/document/PAS-MEMO-2013-05-06.pdf ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

RCGPU Land Use Alternative Evaluation - Mobility | 4
Once the GPLU designations are converted to the appropriate ITE land use categories, the quantities of each ITE land use type are aggregated at the neighborhood level for each of the three alternatives.

This process results in a consistent set of land use inputs by neighborhood and by alternative that can be directly used in the MXD+ analysis.

For example, a proposed GPLU designation of Medium Density Residential is converted into a distribution between Single-Family Attached (ITE Code 215) and Multifamily Housing Low-Rise (ITE Code 220) based on the detailed GPLU designation within each alternative. For GPLU designations that include commercial uses, Shopping Plaza (40–150 KSF) (ITE Code 821) and Strip Retail Plaza (<40 KSF) (ITE Code 822) were used under the Retail land use group to provide a broadly representative proxy for general retail and service uses. Similar conversion and aggregation procedures are performed for all GPLU designations to translate them into the corresponding ITE land use categories

3. The detailed crosswalk between GPLU designations and ITE land use categories is provided in Appendix A.

Site Characteristic Calibration
Site characteristics are derived from the MXD+ model’s built-in database, with input values selected to best represent existing conditions within each neighborhood and relative differences among them.

The database contains existing estimates of the MXD+ input variables listed above from available sources including the U.S. Census and the SACOG SACSIM model. For some inputs like “intersection density”, an exact intersection density for proposed land use development in each neighborhood is unknown at this time due to the lack of detailed street and intersection design information. Therefore, this input is calibrated through relative comparisons among neighborhoods based on their existing conditions and anticipated growth patterns (e.g., higher density neighborhoods have greater intersection densities). This approach ensures internal consistency and reasonable alignment of site characteristic input variables across the analysis.

Trip Generation and Population/Employment Estimation
The resulting ITE land use allocations are input into the MXD+ model to calculate vehicle trip generation forecasts on average weekdays based on ITE rates. Site characteristic inputs further inform the calculation of internal capture and external trips by alternative modes such as walking, biking, and transit.

In addition to trip generation outputs from MXD+, population and employment are estimated for each neighborhood under all three alternatives to provide context for the magnitude of projected trip growth relative to land use growth. Residential population increases are estimated using the average household size of the census tracts corresponding to each subarea with a variation between single- family and multi-family households

4. Employment is estimated by applying uniform rates across the applicable land use categories as described below:
• Office: 3 employees per 1,000 square feet (KSF)
• Retail: 2 employees per KSF

3 Negative land use growth is observed in some neighborhoods where existing development in certain land use categories is assumed to be demolished and redeveloped into different land use types. These negative values are set to zero in the analysis, as the removed land uses would no longer generate or attract trips, and the analysis focuses solely on net new land use growth.
4 Data obtained from American Census Survey (ACS), 2023 Five-Year Estimates of Table B25024 and B25033.

ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

RCGPU Land Use Alternative Evaluation - Mobility | 5
• Industrial: 1 employee per KSF
Citywide Comparison
This section compares the three alternatives of the proposed development in citywide level as listed below:

1. Base Alternative

2. Alternative A

3. Alternative B
Study Area - Neighborhoods
As discussed in the previous sections, MXD+ is applied to each neighborhood where growth is expected to differ under the three land use alternatives. This resulted in a total of ten neighborhoods included for this analysis, which are shown in Figure 1 below. The neighborhood-level results are then aggregated to develop citywide trip generation estimates for comparative purposes. These neighborhoods were identified in the early stages of the General Plan Update process through analysis of vacant and underutilized sites, as they reflect the most significant differences among the alternatives. Other areas were excluded because they are either largely built out (e.g., White Rock) or governed by entitled Specific Plans (e.g., Rio Del Oro, Westborough).

ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

RCGPU Land Use Alternative Evaluation - Mobility | 6
Figure 1. Study Area - Neighborhoods

ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

RCGPU Land Use Alternative Evaluation - Mobility | 7
Land Use Comparison
The three alternatives proposed different land use growth in the City, each with a different growth focus and distribution. In mixed-use development, production land uses, such as single-family and multifamily residential, primarily contribute to housing supply and influence population distribution, which contributes to generating trip origins. On the other hand, attraction land uses such as retail, industrial, and office serve as employment centers and economic drivers.

The combination and spatial distribution of these uses strongly affect travel patterns: a higher concentration of residential near employment centers can reduce commute distances and encourage walking and bicycling or transit trips, whereas dispersed housing paired with centralized employment centers require more driving and tend to generate higher vehicle trips. Similarly, integrating retail and office uses within residential areas promotes internal capture of trips and reduces external travel demand, while segregated land uses lead to longer distance trips that required the use of private automobiles. These dynamics are critical for evaluating transportation system performance and sustainability under each growth scenario.

The land use comparison of the three alternatives is shown below in Table 1, together with the corresponding population and employment estimation derived from the proposed land use.

Table 1. Comparison of Land Use and Population/Employment Estimation for Affected Neighborhoods Under Each Alternative
Land Use Unit Base Alternative Alternative A Alternative B Single Family DU 539 308 252
Multi Family DU 3,856 6,382 7,036
Retail KSF 2,110 1,378 2,000
Office KSF 3,046 2,307 2,708
Industrial KSF 3,527 3,681 4,627
Population and Employment Estimation
Population Person 9,900 15,080 16,020
Employment Person 16,880 13,360 16,750
Note: The highest value among the three alternatives is shown in bold.

Source: MXD+, Fehr and Peers, 12/2025; ACS 2023 5-year Estimates ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

RCGPU Land Use Alternative Evaluation - Mobility | 8
Based on Table 1, the Base Alternative is projected to deliver the highest number of single-family dwelling units (539 DUs), compared to Alternative A (308 DUs) and Alternative B (252 DUs). In contrast, Alternative B is expected to provide the greatest number of multi-family dwelling units (7,036 DUs), followed by Alternative A (6,382 DUs) and the Base Alternative (3,856 DUs).

For non-residential development, the Base Alternative leads in retail (2,110 KSF) and office space (3,046 KSF), followed Alternative B (2,000 KSF retail and 2,708 KSF office). Alternative A provides the least retail (1,378 KSF) and office space (2,307 KSF). Industrial development shows a different pattern: Alternative B ranks first (4,627 KSF), followed by Alternative A (3,681 KSF) and the Base Alternative (3,527 KSF). Note that the amount of retail in all of the alternatives exceeds the amount expected to solely serve the new residential units. Each new residential unit historically generates retail activity that equates to about 75-100 square feet of new retail land use. This ratio has been declining over time especially since the great recession in 2008-09. Using the historic ratio, this means that for the retail space to be realized, it would require importing shoppers and visitors from outside the affected neighborhoods and the city itself. Inclusion of higher retail growth allocations in a general plan is common as it does create more choices for where to locate retail space as future market preferences on location are difficult to predict.

Overall, Alternatives A and B feature greater multifamily residential growth relative to single-family development and a more balanced increase in total population and employment, with Alternative B accommodating the highest overall growth. In contrast, the Base Alternative emphasizes higher single-family residential growth and comparatively lower multifamily development, alongside a stronger focus on non-residential land uses, reinforcing Rancho Cordova’s role as a regional employment center.

Trip Generation Comparison
The MXD+ trip generation forecasts of the proposed land use development summarized in Table 1 are presented in Table 2 below. Table 2 reports the results in terms of average weekday daily vehicle trip generation, trip reduction, and trip rates.

Table 2. MXD+ Vehicle Trip Generation Comparison by Alternatives Trips1 Base Alternative Alternative A Alternative B
Trip Generation
Total Residential Trips2 21,890 29,640 31,670
Total Non-Residential Trips3 197,580 143,740 201,920 Total Trips 219,460 173,380 233,590
Trip Reduction
Internal Capture4 -22,230 (10.1%) -20,950 (12.1%) -22,580 (9.7%) ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

RCGPU Land Use Alternative Evaluation - Mobility | 9
Trips1 Base Alternative Alternative A Alternative B
External Walk, Bike, and Transit5 -9,790 (4.5%) -8,040 (4.6%) -11,960 (5.1%) Net New Trips6 187,450 144,390 199,050
Trip Rate
Total Residential Trips / Population 2.2 2.0 2.0
Total Non-Residential Trips /
Employment

11.7 10.8 12.1
Net New Trips/ Service Population 7.0 5.1 6.1
Note:

1. All trips are rounded to the nearest 10.

2. Total residential trips include trips generated from Single-Family Detached (ITE Code 210) and Single-Family Attached (ITE Code 215); Multi-Family Low-Rise (ITE Code 220), Multi-Family Mid-Rise (ITE Code 221), and Multi- Family High-Rise (ITE Code 222).

3. Total non-residential trips include trips generated from Shopping Plaza (40-150ksf) (ITE Code 821) and Strip Retail Plaza (<40 ksf) (ITE Code 822); General Office Building (ITE Code 710) and Government Office Building (ITE Code 730); General Light Industrial (ITE Code 110) and Manufacturing (ITE Code 140).

4. Internal capture represents the total number of trips made internally within each neighborhood as a result of mixed- use development.

5. External walk, bike, and transit trips represent the estimated number of trips made by non-auto modes due to the surrounding land use and transportation context, such as proximity to transit, intersection density, and overall walkability and bikeability. Values shown in parentheses indicate the percentage of these trips relative to the total trips generated by the proposed land use.

6. Net new trips represent the total number of new vehicle trips generated by the proposed land use after applying the MXD+ adjustments.

Source: MXD+, Fehr and Peers, 12/2025
Table 2 shows that Alternative B results in the highest trip generation at 233,590, and Alternative A produces the lowest total trips at 173,380.

Internal capture is most effective in Alternative A, reducing 12.1% of trips, compared with 10.1% for the Base Alternative and 9.7% for Alternative B. External modes such as walking, biking, and transit provide additional trip reductions, with Alternative B achieving the highest external mode share at

5.1%. The higher internal capture rate under Alternative A indicates a more balanced distribution of residential and non-residential growth, whereas the higher external mode share under Alternative B suggests that growth is concentrated in areas with greater access to non-auto travel options.

Alternative A also has the best balance of retail to residential.

ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

RCGPU Land Use Alternative Evaluation - Mobility | 10
Trip rates further illustrate these patterns. The residential trip rate is higher under the Base Alternative (2.2 trips), compared with 2.0 trips under both Alternative A and Alternative B. This difference aligns with the land use inputs shown in Table 1, where higher-density, multi-family development in Alternatives A and B typically generates fewer trips per person than lower density, single-family development. For non-residential uses, trip rates are highest in Alternative B (12.1), followed by the Base Alternative (11.7) and Alternative A (10.8). The higher non-residential trip rate in Alternative B suggests a concentration of land uses with strong trip-attraction characteristics, such as retail or employment centers. In contrast, Alternative A demonstrates lower trip rates for both residential and non-residential uses, indicating a more balanced land use mix that supports internal capture and reduces external travel demand.

Lastly, Table 2 indicates that Alternative A results in the lowest trips per service population (approximately 5 trips per service population), as compared with approximately 6 trips in Alternative B and 7 trips in Base Alternative. This outcome reflects that Alternative A is a well-balanced, mixed- use development pattern that minimizes trip generation relative to both population and employment, supporting reduced external travel demand within each neighborhood in the city.

Trip Generation by Neighborhoods
The following section provides a detailed comparison of trip generation across Rancho Cordova’s neighborhoods, focusing on the number of trips generated by residential, retail, office, and industrial land uses under each land use alternative. While the total trips for each neighborhood offer an initial understanding of how growth is distributed among the three alternatives, a more comprehensive assessment of neighborhood mobility also considers trip rates, population and employment forecasts, and the balance between internal and external trips.

The analysis below focuses on a comparative evaluation of overall trip generation patterns across neighborhoods under each alternative.

Residential
The proposed residential development across Rancho Cordova’s neighborhoods is expected to generate a substantial number of average weekday daily trips, as summarized in Table 3. While residential trips may not represent the largest share of total trip generation relative to other land uses, they play a critical role in shaping local travel patterns and establishing the foundation for neighborhood mobility.

Table 3. MXD+ Residential Vehicle Trip Generation Comparison by Neighborhoods by Alternatives Neighborhood
Residential Trips Residential Trips / Person
Base Alt A Alt B Base Alt A Alt B
Coloma Neighborhood 710 1,190 1,160 2.0 1.8 1.7 ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

RCGPU Land Use Alternative Evaluation - Mobility | 11
Neighborhood
Residential Trips Residential Trips / Person
Base Alt A Alt B Base Alt A Alt B
Downtown 4,600 5,250 7,380 1.9 1.7 1.7
Folsom Boulevard East 3,550 3,370 4,490 3.6 3.2 3.3 Folsom Boulevard West 5,120 6,260 7,450 1.9 1.7 1.7 Innovation Center 3,820 4,770 6,770 2.3 2.0 2.0 Lincoln Village 1,120 1,860 1,970 2.6 2.3 2.3 North Mather 950 1,830 1,030 2.7 2.6 2.5
Sunridge / Suncreek 160 240 240 1.3 1.0 1.0
Sunrise Boulevard South 700 1,880 230 1.4 1.1 1.1 Villages of Zinfandel 1,170 3,010 970 3.2 3.2 3.2 Source: MXD+, Fehr and Peers, 12/2025
A comparison of the three land use alternatives shows that Alternative B consistently results in the highest level of residential trip generation, while the Base Alternative produces the lowest.

Neighborhoods such as Downtown, Folsom Boulevard East, and Folsom Boulevard West exhibit particularly high residential trip generation, reflecting concentrated multifamily residential growth across all alternatives. Despite differences in total residential trip generation, residential trip rates (defined as residential trips per resident) remain relatively consistent across neighborhoods under the three alternatives. Citywide average residential trip rates are approximately 2.2 trips per person under the Base Alternative and approximately 2.0 trips per person under Alternatives A and B. This consistency indicates that differences in single-family and multifamily housing distributions result in comparable residential trip generation rates overall.

Overall, the average residential trip rate is lower than what is typically observed for predominantly single-family residential development. This is because all three alternatives assume greater growth in multifamily housing relative to single-family housing, with much of the residential growth located in ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

RCGPU Land Use Alternative Evaluation - Mobility | 12
TOD or mixed-use areas. These contexts provide greater access to nearby destinations and a wider range of active transportation and transit options, which contributes to reduced vehicle trip generation.

Non-Residential
Total non-residential trip generation includes trips generated by retail, office, and industrial land uses.

The distribution of these land use types varies substantially across neighborhoods and among the three alternatives as shown in Table 4. Non-Residential Land Use (KSF) by Neighborhoods by Alternatives, resulting in notable differences in both total non-residential trip generation and non- residential trip ratio (defined as total non-residential trips per total employment). Retail land uses generally generate more trips per employee or per thousand square feet than office or industrial uses; therefore, neighborhoods with a higher share of retail growth tend to exhibit higher non-residential trip generation ratio compared with those dominated by office or industrial development.

Table 4. Non-Residential Land Use (KSF) by Neighborhoods by Alternatives Neighborhood
Retail Office Industrial
Base Alt A Alt B Base Alt A Alt B Base Alt A Alt B
Coloma
Neighborhood
54 48 18 55 20 38 13 3 2
Downtown 225 171 0 7 22 37 0 137 82
Folsom Boulevard
East
587 254 789 377 240 497 688 688 688
Folsom Boulevard
West
210 201 117 237 193 195 93 83 77
Innovation Center 672 322 807 800 317 481 473 431 567
Lincoln Village 69 71 75 190 263 304 201 185 111
North Mather 32 36 16 287 255 250 274 297 451
Sunridge /
Suncreek
50 46 46 4 4 4 0 0 0
ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

RCGPU Land Use Alternative Evaluation - Mobility | 13
Neighborhood
Retail Office Industrial
Base Alt A Alt B Base Alt A Alt B Base Alt A Alt B
Sunrise Boulevard
South
82 90 49 347 319 259 411 435 778
Villages of
Zinfandel
129 138 84 743 676 643 1,374 1,422 1,872
Source: Fehr and Peers, 12/2025
Table 5 below summarizes non-residential total average weekday daily trip generation and trip ratio by land use types. This trip ratio is intended to help understand the overall efficiency of trip generation, calculated as total retail, office, and industrial trips (including work trips, visitor trips, and other trips) divided by total employment. It does not represent an employee trip generation rate.

Table 5. MXD+ Non-Residential Vehicle Trip Generation Comparison by Neighborhoods by Alternatives
Neighborhood
Retail Office Industrial Non-Residential
Trips/Employee
Base Alt A Alt B Base Alt A Alt B Base Alt A Alt B Base Alt A Alt B Coloma
Neighborhood
4,400 4,220 1,460 590 220 410 70 10 10 17.7 28.0 12.4
Downtown 18,210 14,990 0 80 240 400 0 670 400 38.7 29.2 4.1 Folsom
Boulevard
East
37,020 16,620 65,200 6,930 3,990 10,080 3,350 3,350 3,350 15.8 12.5 20.9 Folsom
Boulevard
West
13,260 13,110 7,450 2,560 2,090 2,120 450 410 370 13.3 14.7 11.1 Innovation
Center
42,410 21,040 51,390 11,710 3,430 5,220 2,310 2,100 2,760 13.4 13.1 16.4 ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

RCGPU Land Use Alternative Evaluation - Mobility | 14
Neighborhood
Retail Office Industrial Non-Residential
Trips/Employee
Base Alt A Alt B Base Alt A Alt B Base Alt A Alt B Base Alt A Alt B Lincoln
Village
4,350 4,660 4,780 2,060 2,850 3,300 980 900 540 8.1 7.5 7.3 North Mather 2,010 2,380 1,000 3,110 2, 760 2,710 1,330 1,450 2,200 5.4 5.8 4.8 Sunridge /
Suncreek
4,020 4,040 4,040 40 40 40 0 0 0 36.9 39.7 39.7
Sunrise
Boulevard
South
5,200 5,910 3,120 3,970 3, 760 2,800 2,000 2,120 3,790 6.9 7.5 5.9 Villages of
Zinfandel
10,420 12,140 6,900 8,050 7,330 6,970 6,690 6,930 9,120 6.5 7.1 5.8 Source: MXD+, Fehr and Peers, 12/2025
As shown in Table 5, non-residential vehicle trip generation ratio vary across alternatives for selected neighborhoods, with the largest differences observed in Downtown, Folsom Boulevard East, and the Innovation Center. Under Alternative B, retail growth is more heavily concentrated in Folsom Boulevard East and the Innovation Center, while no retail growth is assumed in Downtown. Alternative B also includes greater office development in Folsom Boulevard East and the Innovation Center, which further contributes to higher non-residential trip generation due to the relatively high trip- attraction characteristics of office uses.

Industrial land use growth is more evenly distributed across the three alternatives within each neighborhood. One notable exception is Downtown, where no industrial growth is assumed under the Base Alternative, compared with a moderate level of industrial development under Alternatives A and B.

Total Trip Generation Comparison
For each neighborhood, after the forecast of total vehicle trip generation, an internal capture and external walk, bike, and transit trip reduction is applied to predict the net new trips generated by the mixed land uses.

Overall, as shown below in Table 6, the internal capture reduction rate is higher than the external walk, bike, and transit reduction rate. This indicates that most neighborhoods in Rancho Cordova are ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

RCGPU Land Use Alternative Evaluation - Mobility | 15
generally more self-contained, with a greater proportion of trips remaining within the neighborhood rather than connecting to other areas by active transportation or transit modes.

The exception is Folsom Boulevard East, which stands out for its higher external walk, bike, and transit reduction rate—averaging 6.4% across the three alternatives—compared to an average internal capture reduction rate of 4.8%. This suggests that Folsom Boulevard East functions more as a trip origin or destination for people traveling to and from other neighborhoods, benefiting from strong connectivity by active modes. However, this pattern also highlights an opportunity to further improve the land use mix in Folsom Boulevard East to enhance internalization and support more local trips.

Table 6. Comparison of Internal and External Vehicle Trip Reduction Rate Neighborhood
Internal Capture Reduction Rate External Walk, Bike, and Transit Reduction Rate Base Alt A Alt B Base Alt A Alt B
Coloma
Neighborhood
-26.0% -33.7% -32.4% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0%
Downtown -10.7% -10.8% -8.1% -5.9% -6.3% -6.1%
Folsom
Boulevard East
-4.6% -5.0% -4.8% -6.3% -6.4% -6.6%
Folsom
Boulevard West
-14.6% -15.4% -15.8% -2.2% -4.5% -4.7%
Innovation
Center
-10.6% -11.8% -12.1% -4.4% -4.5% -4.8%
Lincoln Village -15.2% -16.3% -16.5% -3.2% -3.4% -3.4%
North Mather -3.8% -4.6% -4.0% -4.4% -4.8% -4.5%
Sunridge /
Suncreek
-9.4% -11.4% -11.4% -2.1% -2.2% -2.2%
Sunrise
Boulevard South
-8.4% -9.9% -6.8% -3.1% -3.5% -2.9%
ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

RCGPU Land Use Alternative Evaluation - Mobility | 16
Neighborhood
Internal Capture Reduction Rate External Walk, Bike, and Transit Reduction Rate Base Alt A Alt B Base Alt A Alt B
Villages of
Zinfandel
-13.2% -15.0% -12.4% -3.5% -3.8% -3.6%
Citywide Total -10.1% -12.1% -9.7% -4.5% -4.6% -5.1%
Source: MXD+, Fehr and Peers, 12/2025
Production / Attraction Ratio
A key consideration in evaluating the land use alternatives for Rancho Cordova is the city’s longstanding job–housing imbalance, where only about 9% of the workforce both live and work within the city, while 91% of workers commute into the city and 85% of residents are employed elsewhere.

One way to evaluate the alternatives on this basis is to compare the ratio of trip productions (trips generated by residential uses) to trip attractions (trips generated by non-residential uses). The production/attraction (PA) ratio provides a valuable insight for assessing how well each alternative addresses this imbalance, as shown in Table 7.

Table 7. Comparison of PA Ratio
Citywide Total Base Alternative Alternative A Alternative B Citywide Total 0.11 0.21 0.16
Source: MXD, Fehr and Peers, 12/2025
As shown in Table 7, Alternative A achieves the highest citywide PA ratio at 0.21, compared with 0.11 under the Base Alternative and 0.16 under Alternative B. A higher PA ratio reflects a more balanced relationship between residential production and non-residential trip attraction, supporting the goal of reducing outbound commuting and fostering a more self-sufficient community Conclusions
Based on the discussions above, the three alternative exhibit distinct land use and travel characteristics. However, the overall internal capture rate ranges from approximately 10–12%, and external walk, bike, and transit reductions are approximately 5% across all alternatives. These modest reductions indicate that a substantial number of new vehicle trips would still be generated under each alternative, resulting in overall growth in vehicle travel in the area.

ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

RCGPU Land Use Alternative Evaluation - Mobility | 17
Base Alternative places greater emphasis on non-residential growth with comparatively less residential development. As a result, it is likely to perpetuate a job–housing imbalance similar to existing conditions in Rancho Cordova. This alternative also exhibits a more moderate level of mixed- use development within neighborhoods and generally lower reductions in external non-auto trips.

Alternative A results in the lowest net new trips citywide (144,390), compared with the Base Alternative (187,450) and Alternative B (199,050). This lower trip generation is primarily attributable to the overall scale of land use growth—characterized by residential growth comparable to Alternative B but substantially lower non-residential growth than the other two alternatives. In addition, Alternative A demonstrates the highest rates of internalization (12.1%) and relatively strong reductions in external trip making by walking, biking, and transit (4.6%), as shown in Table 2. These outcomes reflect a more balanced mixed-use development pattern and improved access to local destinations.

Alternative B accommodates the greatest overall growth among the three alternatives for both residential and non-residential land uses, with a different spatial distribution of growth relative to the other scenarios. This pattern results in a moderated job–housing balance that represents an improvement over existing conditions. While mixed-use development is incorporated across neighborhoods, Alternative B exhibits slightly lower internal capture rates than the other alternatives; however, it achieves the highest potential for external non-auto trip reductions due to the placement of growth in areas with better access to walking, bicycling, and transit facilities.

It is important to note that this analysis focuses on trip generation comparisons among the three alternatives. While MXD+ accounts for mixed-use development and site context in estimating internal capture and non-auto trip reductions, the analysis does not include a full evaluation of trip distribution patterns or the resulting operational effects on the city’s roadway network.

ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Appendix A: ITE Land Use Conversion by Neighborhoods by Alternatives
ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

RCGPU Land Use Alternative Evaluation - Mobility | 2
Table A-1: Base Alternative ITE Land Use Conversion
General Plan Designation
General Plan Land Use
ITE Land Use types & Code
Single Family
(DU) Multi Family (DU) Retail (SF) Office
(SF) Industrial (SF) Government Office
(SF)
Tota
l SF
(DU)
Total
MF
(DU)
Total
Comm
(SF)
Total
Office
(SF)
Total Ind
(SF)
Total
Other /
Public
(SF)
210 215 220 221 222 821 822 710 110 140 730
ER Estate Residential 1 - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - LDR Low Density Residential 20 - - - - - 20 - - - - - - - - - - MDR Medium Density Residential 31 8 - - - - - 31 8 - - - - - - - - HDR High Density Residential - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - RMU Residential Mixed Use 21 109 14,883 - - - - 21 - 109 - - 14,883 - - - - CMU Commercial Mixed Use 38 96 232,637 19,386 - - - 38 96 - - 232,637 - 19,386 - - - OMU Office Mixed Use 163 653 259,338 2,334,04
6 1,296,69
2 - - 163 653 - - - 259,33
8 2,334,046 1,296,69
2 - -
VC Village Center Mixed Use - 36 119,882 29,970 - - - - 36 - - - 119,88 2 29,970 - - -
LTC Local Town Center - 4 11,692 2,923 - - - - 4 - - 11,692 - 2,923 - - - LI Light Industrial - - - 243,555 2,191,99
3 - - - - - - - - 243,555 2,191,99
3 - -
HI Heavy Industry - - - - 12,317 - - - - - - - - - - 12,31 7 -
P/QP Public/Quasi-Public - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - P/OS Parks and Open Space - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - NR Natural Resources - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TOD
Office Mixed Use - TOD - 250 21,275 148,928 106,377 - - - - - 250 - 21,275 148,928 106,377 - - Commercial Mixed Use - TOD - 366 304,953 25,413 - - - - - - 366 304,953 - 25,413 - - - High Density Residential - TOD - 463 - - - - - - - - 463 - - - - - - CON
V
High Density Residential -
Conv. - 318 - - - - - - - - 318 - - - - - -
Commercial Mixed Use - Conv. - 138 301,541 24,123 - 108,55 5 - - - 138 - 301,541 - 24,123 - - 108,555
Light Industrial - Conv. - 27 59,033 2,361 - 23,613 - - - 27 - 59,033 - 2,361 - - 23,613 Office Mixed Use - Conv. 66 531 867,599 43,380 - 390,42 0 - - - 598 - 867,599 - 43,380 - - 390,420
DPA
Commercial Mixed Use - DPA - 422 448,394 17,936 - - - - - 422 - - 448,39 4 17,936 - - -
Office Mixed Use - DPA 12 125 47,221 188,883 - - - - 137 - - - 47,221 188,883 - - - Total 353 3,54
5 2,688,44
9 3,080,90
5 3,607,38
0 522,58
8 21 253 935 1,293 1,396 1,777,45
5 910,99
3 3,080,905 3,595,06
3 12,31
7 522,588
ITE Land Use Distribution in Base Alternative 7.8% 92.2% 25.8 %

35.7 %

38.5 % 66.1% 33.9% 100.0% 99.7% 0.3% 100.0%

ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

RCGPU Land Use Alternative Evaluation - Mobility | 3
Table A-2: Base Alternative ITE Land Use Conversion by Neighborhood Base Alternative General Plan Land Use
ITE Land Use – MXD+ Inputs
SF (DU) MF (DU) Retail (KSF) Office (KSF) Industrial (KSF) Government Office (KSF)** Focus Area
Single
Family
(units)
Multifamily
(units)
Commercial
(sq. ft.)
Office
(sq. ft.)
Industrial
(sq. ft.)
Other/Public
(sq. ft.) 210 215 220 221 222 821 822 710 110 140 730
Base Alternative ITE Land Use Distribution 7.8% 92.2% 25.8% 35.7% 38.5% 66.1% 33.9% 100.0% 99.7% 0.3% 100.0% Coloma Neighborhoods 49 79 54,409 54,710 13,394 0 4 45 20 28 31 35.97 18.44 54.71 13.35 0.05 0.00 Downtown 12 1,013 224,998 7,436 0 0 1 12 261 362 390 148.76 76.24 7.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 Folsom Blvd East 22 763 586,727 134,222 687,551 242,351 2 20 197 272 294 387.91 198.82 134.22 685.20 2.35 242.35 Folsom Blvd West 209 806 210,213 236,507 92,535 0 16 193 208 288 311 138.98 71.23 236.51 92.22 0.32 0.00 Innovation Center 105 597 672,170 541,063 473,438 258,652 8 97 154 213 230 444.40 227.77 541.06 471.82 1.62 258.65 Lincoln Village 49 148 68,984 190,102 200,700 -5,008 4 45 38 53 57 45.61 23.38 190.10 200.02 0.69 0* North Mather 21 154 31,845 286,606 273,923 0 2 19 40 55 60 21.05 10.79 286.61 272.99 0.94 0.00 Sunridge/Suncreek 8 20 49,628 3,577 0 0 1 7 5 7 8 32.81 16.82 3.58 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sunrise Blvd South 21 106 82,348 329,807 411,259 17,642 2 19 27 38 41 54.44 27.90 329.81 409.86 1.40 17.64 Villages of Zinfandel 42 168 128,758 742,927 1,374,203 0 3 39 43 60 65 85.13 43.63 742.93 1369.51 4.69 0.00 Total 539 3,855 2,110,081 2,526,957 3,527,003 513,638 43 496 993 1376 1487 1395.07 715.01 2526.96 3514.96 12.04 513.64 Total 539 3,856 2,110.08 2,526.96 3,527.00 513.64
* The negative land use is zero out as MXD is unable to include negative land use ** Government office uses are combined with general office uses in the memo to calculate total office employment for discussion purposes.

ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

RCGPU Land Use Alternative Evaluation - Mobility | 4
Table A-3: Alternative A ITE Land Use Conversion
General Plan Designation
General Plan Land Use
ITE Land Use types & Code
Single Family (DU) Multi Family (DU) Retail (SF) Office (SF) Industrial (SF) Government Office (SF) Total
SF
(DU)
Total
MF
(DU)
Total
Comm
(SF)
Total
Office (SF)
Total Ind
(SF)
Total
Other
/
Public
(SF)
210 215 220 221 222 821 822 710 110 140 730
ER Estate Residential 1 - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - LDR Low Density Residential 20 - - - - - 20 - - - - - - - - - - MDR Medium Density Residential 34 9 - - - - - 34 9 - - - - - - - - HDR High Density Residential - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - RMU Residential Mixed Use - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - TCMU Transit Corridor Mixed Use 30 213 74,704 8,300 - - - 30 - 213 - - 74,704 8,300 - - - CMU Commercial Mixed Use 35 244 260,993 23,727 - - - 35 244 - - 260,993 - 23,727 - - - IMU Innovation Mixed Use - 2,689 313,774 2,196,417 1,568,870 - - - - - 2,689 - 313,774 2,196,417 1,568,870 - - CC City Center - 2,424 1,448,193 362,048 - - - - - - 2,424 1,448,193 - 362,048 - - - CAC Community Activity Center - 6 11,692 2,923 - - - - - 6 - 11,692 - 2,923 - - - LI Light Industrial - - - 231,850 2,086,654 - - - - - - - - 231,850 2,086,654 - - HI Heavy Industry - - - - 12,317 - - - - - - - - - - 12,317 - P/QP Public/Quasi-Public - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - P/OS Parks and Open Space - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - NR Natural Resources - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - UA Urban Agriculture - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TOD
High Density Residential - TOD - 780 - - - - - - - - 780 - - - - - - City Center - TOD - 493 294,595 73,649 - - - - - - 493 294,595 - 73,649 - - - Innovation Mixed Use - TOD - 250 18,236 109,417 91,181 - - - - - 250 - 18,236 109,417 91,181 - - Commercial Mixed Use - TOD - 512 511,587 42,632 - - - - - - 512 511,587 - 42,632 - - - Transit Corridor Mixed Use -
TOD - 483 101,363 11,263 - - - - - - 483 - 101,363 11,263 - - - Total 121 8,103 3,035,136 3,062,226 3,759,021 - 21 99 253 219 7,631 2,527,059 508,077 3,062,226 3,746,704 12,317 - ITE Land Use Distribution in Alternative A 17.7% 82.3% 3.1% 2.7% 94.2% 83.3% 16.7% 100.0% 99.7% 0.3% 100.0%

ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

RCGPU Land Use Alternative Evaluation - Mobility | 5
Table A-4: Alternative A ITE Land Use Conversion by Neighborhood Base Alternative General Plan Land Use
ITE Land Use – MXD+ Inputs
SF (DU) MF (DU) Retail (KSF) Office (KSF) Industrial (KSF) Government Office (KSF)** Focus Area
Single
Family
(units)
Multifamily
(units)
Commercial
(sq. ft.)
Office
(sq. ft.)
Industrial
(sq. ft.)
Other/Public
(sq. ft.) 210 215 220 221 222 821 822 710 110 140 730
Alternative A ITE Land Use Distribution 17.7% 82.3% 3.1% 2.7% 94.2% 83.3% 16.7% 100.0% 99.7% 0.3% 100.0% Coloma Neighborhoods 58 186 48,058 20,095 2,638 142.13 10 48 6 5 175 40.01 8.05 20.10 2.63 0.01 - Downtown 3 1,306 170,705 22,046 136,665 211.78 1 2 41 35 1,230 142.13 28.58 22.05 136.22 0.45 - Folsom Blvd East 0 842 254,353 120,906 687,551 167.03 - - 26 23 793 211.78 42.58 120.91 685.30 2.25 118.65 Folsom Blvd West 213 1,158 200,613 193,058 83,387 268.19 38 176 36 31 1,090 167.03 33.58 193.06 83.11 0.27 - Innovation Center 0 1,034 322,113 316,626 431,138 59.44 - - 32 28 974 268.19 53.92 316.63 429.73 1.41 - Lincoln Village 26 358 71,385 262,577 185,327 30.30 5 22 11 10 337 59.44 11.95 262.58 184.72 0.61 0* North Mather 0 398 36,394 254,761 296,670 38.34 - - 12 11 375 30.30 6.09 254.76 295.70 0.97 - Sunridge/Suncreek 6 42 46,051 3,577 0 75.25 1 5 1 1 40 38.34 7.71 3.58 - - - Sunrise Blvd South 0 407 90,378 292,544 435,075 115.18 - - 13 11 383 75.25 15.13 292.54 433.65 1.43 26.14 Villages of Zinfandel 0 652 138,343 675,836 1,422,126 1,147.65 - - 20 18 614 115.18 23.16 675.84 1,417.47 4.66 - Total 307 6,383 1,378,394 2,162,027 3,680,578 1378.39 55 253 198 173 6,011 1,147.65 230.74 2,162.03 3,668.52 12.06 144.79 Total 308 6,382 1,378.39 2162.03 3,680.58 144.79
* The negative land use is zero out as MXD is unable to include negative land use ** Government office uses are combined with general office uses in the memo to calculate total office employment for discussion purposes.

ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

RCGPU Land Use Alternative Evaluation - Mobility | 6
Table A-5: Alternative B ITE Land Use Conversion
General Plan Designation
General Plan Land Use
ITE Land Use types & Code
Single Family (DU) Multi Family (DU) Retail (SF) Office (SF) Industrial (SF) Government Office (SF) Total
SF
(DU)
Total
MF
(DU)
Total
Comm
(SF)
Total
Office
(SF)
Total Ind
(SF)
Total
Other /
Public
(SF)
210 215 220 221 222 821 822 710 110 140 730
ER Estate Residential 1 - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - LDR Low Density Residential 20 - - - - - 20 - - - - - - - - - - MDR Medium Density Residential 34 9 - - - - - 34 9 - - - - - - - - HDR High Density Residential - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - RMU Residential Mixed Use - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - TCMU Transit Corridor Mixed Use - 329 67,275 7,475 - - - - - 329 - - 67,275 7,475 - - - CMU Commercial Mixed Use 8 59 62,744 5,704 - - - 8 59 - - 62,744 - 5,704 - - - GC General Commercial - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - IMU Innovation Mixed Use - 1,949 198,932 1,591,455 596,795 - - - - - 1,949 - 198,932 1,591,455 596,795 - - AI Advanced Industrial - - - 822,301 1,918,702 - - - - - - - - 822,301 1,918,702 - - VC Village Center Mixed Use - 36 119,882 29,970 - - - - 36 - - - 119,882 29,970 - - - CAC Community Activity Center - 183 56,813 11,363 - - - - - 183 - 56,813 - 11,363 - - - EMUD Entertainment Mixed-Use
District - 1,316 1,535,139 - - 767,570 - - - - 1,316 1,535,139 - - - - 767,570 LI Light Industrial - - - 231,850 2,086,654 - - - - - - - - 231,850 2,086,654 - - HI Heavy Industry - - - - 12,317 - - - - - - - - - - 12,317 - P/QP Public/Quasi-Public - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - P/OS Parks and Open Space - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - NR Natural Resources - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
UA Urban Agriculture - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TOD
Commercial Mixed Use - TOD - 149 149,388 12,449 - - - - - - 149 149,388 - 12,449 - - - Advanced Industrial - TOD - - - 9,802 22,872 - - - - - - - - 9,802 22,872 - - Innovation Mixed Use - TOD - 222 16,194 97,164 80,970 - - - - - 222 - 16,194 97,164 80,970 - - High Density Residential - TOD - 780 - - - - - - - - 780 - - - - - - Transit Corridor Mixed Use -
TOD - 1,694 355,840 39,538 - - - - - - 1,694 - 355,840 39,538 - - - Total 63 6,726 2,562,207 2,859,071 4,718,310 767,591 21 42 103 512 6,110 1,804,085 758,122 2,859,071 4,705,993 12,317 767,570 ITE Land Use Distribution in Alternative B 33.5% 66.5% 1.5% 7.6% 90.9% 70.4% 29.6% 100.0% 99.7% 0.3% 100.0% ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

RCGPU Land Use Alternative Evaluation - Mobility | 7
Table A-6: Alternative B ITE Land Use Conversion by Neighborhood Base Alternative General Plan Land Use
ITE Land Use – MXD+ Inputs
SF (DU) MF (DU) Retail (KSF) Office (KSF) Industrial (KSF) Government Office (KSF)** Focus Area
Single
Family
(units)
Multifamily
(units)
Commercial
(sq. ft.)
Office
(sq. ft.)
Industrial
(sq. ft.)
Other/Public
(sq. ft.) 210 215 220 221 222 821 822 710 110 140 730
Alternative B ITE Land Use Distribution 33.5% 66.5% 1.5% 7.6% 90.9% 70.4% 29.6% 100.0% 99.7% 0.3% 100.0% Coloma Neighborhoods 35 217 17,668 38,077 1,583 0 12 23 3 17 197 12.44 5.23 38.08 1.58 0.00 - Downtown 0 1,830 -19,539 36,918 81,999 0 - - 28 139 1,663 0* 0* 36.92 81.79 0.21 - Folsom Blvd East 0 1,113 788,937 97,441 687,551 399,602 - - 17 85 1,011 555.50 233.44 97.44 685.76 1.80 399.60 Folsom Blvd West 186 1,475 116,966 195,169 76,870 0 62 124 23 112 1,340 82.36 34.61 195.17 76.67 0.20 - Innovation Center 0 1,480 807,406 481,492 566,497 359,239 - - 23 113 1,345 568.51 238.90 481.49 565.02 1.48 359.24 Lincoln Village 23 391 75,060 304,135 111,196 -5,008 8 15 6 30 355 52.85 22.21 304.14 110.91 0.29 0* North Mather 0 226 15,734 249,834 451,147 0 - - 3 17 205 11.08 4.66 249.83 449.97 1.18 - Sunridge/Suncreek 6 42 46,051 3,577 0 0 2 4 1 3 38 32.43 13.63 3.58 - - - Sunrise Blvd South 0 50 49,005 258,521 778,032 0 - - 1 4 45 34.51 14.50 258.52 776.00 2.03 - Villages of Zinfandel 0 212 83,509 642,845 1,871,941 0 - - 3 16 193 58.80 24.71 642.85 1,867.05 4.89 - Total 250 7,036 1,980,797 2,308,009 4,626,815 753,833 84 166 108 536 6,392 1,408.46 591.87 2,308.01 4,614.74 12.08 758.84 Total 250 7,036 2000.34 2308.01 4626.82 758.84
* The negative land use is zero out as MXD is unable to include negative land use ** Government office uses are combined with general office uses in the memo to calculate total office employment for discussion purposes.

ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Memorandum
To: City of Rancho Cordova
From: Amy Lapin and Emilio Balingit
Subject: Fiscal Trends and Conditions Rev iew - Rancho Cordova General Plan Update EPS #232103
Date: February 20, 2026
Introduction
A General Plan Update can significantly influence a city’s long-term fiscal condition by shaping land use patterns that affect public service demands, service standards, facility requirements, and capital investment needs. In the City of Rancho Cordova (City), anticipated changes in land use and development associated with the General Plan Update will have direct implications for General Fund revenues and operating expenditures, as well as for the scale, timing, and funding of capital improvements, some of which may require General Fund support.

In the context of long-range planning, the net fiscal impacts associated with individual land use designations are typically considered as one of several inputs to decision- making, rather than as a singular, determinative factor. Fiscal considerations are evaluated alongside other planning objectives and technical factors, which may include infrastructure needs and associated capital, operations, and maintenance costs; jobs- housing balance; housing affordability; vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gas emissions; impacts to habitat and agricultural lands; public health and walkability; and other community priorities identified through the General Plan process. In addition, fiscal outcomes associated with individual land uses are not evaluated in isolation, as cities require a mix of residential, commercial, industrial, and public uses to support long-term economic sustainability and community needs.

Accordingly, this memorandum summarizes Economic & Planning Systems’ (EPS) high- level review of the City’s fiscal context in support of the General Plan Update. The purpose of this review is to identify key fiscal trends and highlight considerations associated with proposed General Plan land use alternatives, and to inform policy discussions rather than to provide a project-specific fiscal impact analysis. This review was informed by the Demographic and Market Analysis Background Report prepared by EPS in February 2025 and the land use alternatives and development capacity assumptions prepared by Ascent in October 2025.

ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Fiscal Trends and Conditions Review - Rancho Cordova General Plan Update

Land Use Alternatives Summary
The City is currently considering three land use alternatives for adoption: 1) the Base Case Scenario; 2) Alternative A; and 3) Alternative B. These scenarios are described in further detail below.

Because much of the area north of US Highway 50 is already built out, and the southeastern portion of the City is governed by adopted Specific Plans that will remain unchanged under the General Plan Update, variations among the three scenarios are limited to a defined set of vacant and underutilized areas. Differences in land use designations are concentrated primarily along Folsom Boulevard and within the office park areas located between Mather Field Boulevard and Sunrise Boulevard, immediately south of Highway 50.

All three scenarios include the same underlying development assumptions for the City’s Specific Plan areas. These Specific Plan areas provide capacity for:
• 28,900 single family units
• 9,600 units of multifamily housing
• 3.86 million square feet of commercial uses
• 1.18 million square feet of office uses
• 2.43 million square feet of industrial uses
In addition, all three scenarios incorporate projects currently in the development pipeline, totaling 188 single-family units, 546 multifamily units, and approximately 283,000 square feet of nonresidential uses.

The differences among the three land use alternatives reflect changes in land use designations and development intensity within the remaining vacant and underutilized areas outside of the Specific Plan areas and pipeline projects. Table 1 summarizes the net development capacity associated with each alternative in these areas.

Table 1. Land Use Alternatives Net Development Capacity

Item Base Case Alternative Alternative A Alternative B
Residential Uses (dwelling units)
Single Family 351 119 62
Multifamily 3,545 8,103 6,726
Total 3,897 8,222 6,788
Nonresidential Uses (bldg. sq. ft.)
Commercial/ Retail 2,058,783 2,405,470 1,932,541
Office 2,505,007 2,486,328 2,283,173
Industrial 3,428,352 3,579,993 4,539,282
Other/ Public 517,580 (5,008) 762,583
Total 8,509,722 8,466,784 9,517,579
Source: Ascent, Inc. Land Use Alternatives dated 10/21/25.

Alternative
ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

Base Case Scenario
The Base Case Scenario represents development capacity under the existing General Plan.

Of the three alternatives, it has the lowest residential capacity, with approximately 40 percent of the multifamily capacity of Alternative A and about 50 percent of the multifamily capacity of Alternative B. Nonresidential capacity in this alternative is comparable to Alternative A, although the Base Case Scenario includes less retail capacity and greater capacity in Other/Public uses.

Land Use Alternative A
Alternative A would allow significantly more multifamily development compared to the current General Plan, along with approximately 25 percent more retail square footage.

While the total office and industrial capacity would remain largely comparable to the current General Plan, there would be no capacity for Other/Public development under Alternative A.

Land Use Alternative B
Alternative B also increases multifamily development capacity compared to the current General Plan, although to a lesser extent than Alternative A. Additionally, Alternative B would have lower capacity for retail and office development than both the General Plan and Alternative A. However, there would be at least 1 million building square feet more of industrial development capacity under Alternative B compared to both the Base Case Alternative and Alternative A.

City Fiscal Context
The City of Rancho Cordova’s fiscal operations are anchored by the General Fund, which serves as the City’s primary operating fund. The Fiscal Year (FY) 2025/2027 Budget reflects a stable General Fund supported primarily by property tax and sales tax revenues, which combined account for more than 60 percent of total General Fund resources. Additional revenues are generated through transient occupancy tax, utility user tax, franchise fees, building and business license fees, and other revenues.1 General Fund revenues are budgeted at approximately $81.7 million in FY 2025/26 and $83.9 million in FY 2026/27.

General Fund expenditures are budgeted at approximately $81.7 million in FY 2025/26 and $83.9 million in FY 2026/27 and include personnel costs, professional and contract services, operations, debt service and revenue neutrality payments to Sacramento County (County), and transfers out. Police services and public works represent the City’s largest General Fund service areas, together comprising approximately half of total General Fund spending.

1 The FY 2025/27 budget refers to the budget adopted on June 2, 2025 that covers both FY 202526 and FY 2026/27.

ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Fiscal Trends and Conditions Review - Rancho Cordova General Plan Update

Recent budget materials indicate that the City entered the current budget cycle following a period of strong revenue performance supported by growth in assessed valuation, taxable sales, building activity, and interest income. While revenues are expected to continue growing, the FY 2025–27 budget guidance anticipates a moderation in the pace of revenue increases relative to prior years. Within this context, the City’s fiscal condition is characterized as stable, with ongoing operations supported by core General Fund revenues.

In addition to the General Fund, the City’s fiscal framework includes special revenue funds, capital funds, enterprise funds, internal service funds, and debt service funds. The City maintains a multi-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) that identifies substantial planned investments in transportation, public facilities, and community infrastructure.

While major capital improvements are generally funded through dedicated revenues, grants, developer fees, and debt financing, the General Fund contributes to certain capital- related costs, implementation activities, and long-term obligations.

Consistent with the City’s long-term vision, current budget priorities emphasize maintaining strong neighborhoods, investing in infrastructure, advancing the General Plan Update and an economic development strategy, and supporting vibrant community and cultural spaces through partnerships with local organizations.

This following section describes General Fund trends and the distribution of revenues and expenditures in the City’s FY 2025/26 projected budget (as reported in the City’s FY 2025- 27 adopted budget), focusing on categories that will be most directly impacted by the land use decisions made through the General Plan process.2
General Fund Trends
The General Fund serves as the City’s primary operating fund and reflects steady growth over the last decade, between FY 2016/17 and FY 2026/27. As shown in Figure 1, total General Fund revenues increased by 62 percent from approximately $51.7 million in FY 2016/17 to over $80 million by FY 2023/24, driven primarily by tax revenues and charges for services. Budgeted revenues are projected at approximately $81.7 million in FY 2025/26 and $83.9 in FY 2026/27. Note, revenues and expenditures presented in this section represent nominal values that have not been adjusted for inflation.

2 The analysis utilized FY 2023/25 & FY 2025/27 budget data, as this was the most current available reflecting actual revenues and expenditures.

ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

Figure 1. City of Rancho Cordova General Fund Revenue Trends

General Fund Tax Revenue Trends
As mentioned previously, tax revenues constitute the largest and most stable component of the General Fund. Property tax revenues have increased consistently over the past decade, reflecting growth in assessed valuation and new development activity, as shown in Figure 2. In FY 2025/26 and FY 2026/27, property tax revenues are projected to account for approximately 60 percent of total General Fund revenues. Sales tax revenues also show strong growth from FY 2016/17 to FY 2022/23, followed by a leveling trend in more recent years. Other tax revenues have grown more gradually and continue to represent a smaller share of the total tax revenues.

As shown in Table 2, growth in taxes and assessments accounts for more than two-thirds of the change in overall General Fund revenues between FY 2016/17 and the current FY 2025/26. The increase in revenues from taxes and assessments is largely due to increases in property tax and sales tax revenues, with those two categories increasing by 88 percent and 46 percent respectively over the last 10 fiscal years. Notably, transient occupancy tax (TOT) revenues in FY 2025/26 are projected to be approximately 7 percent lower in the current fiscal year compared to FY 2016/17. The decrease in TOT is likely due to reductions in
ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Fiscal Trends and Conditions Review - Rancho Cordova General Plan Update

business travel and associated hotel stays caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. As shown in the February 2025 Existing Conditions Report, the 66 percent occupancy rate (in 2024) for hotels in Rancho Cordova is still lower than the 76 percent rate in 2019, the last full year prior to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Figure 2. City of Rancho Cordova Tax Re venues Trends – FY 2016/17 to FY 2026/27

Table 2. General Fund Tax and Asse ssment Trend (FY 2016/17 and FY 2025/26)

Revenue Type 2016/17 2025/26 Absolute Percent
Taxes and Assessments
Property Taxes $15,072,523 $28,404,155 $13,331,632 88.4% Sales Tax $13,955,727 $20,320,375 $6,364,648 45.6%
Transient Occupancy Tax $3,866,249 $3,585,799 ($280,450) (7.3%) Utility User Tax $3,678,209 $3,814,827 $136,618 3.7%
Other Taxes $2,395,003 $3,483,400 $1,088,397 45.4%
Total Taxes and Assessments $38,967,711 $59,608,556 $20,640,845 53.0% Other Revenues $12,763,468 $22,062,131 $9,298,663 72.9% Total Revenues $51,731,179 $81,670,687 $29,939,508 57.9% Source: City of Rancho Cordova; EPS.

Change (2016/17 to 2025/26)General Fund Revenue by Fiscal Year ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

Among Other Revenues, the largest absolute increase in revenues during this time was in the Licenses, Permits, and Fees category, which includes fees for building permits, franchise fees for privately-operated public services such as waste management and cable.

Building permit revenue increased from $2.5 million in 2016/17 to a peak of $5.3 million in 2023/24. However, the City projects that building permit fee revenue in 2025/26 will decrease to $3.4 million. The City also captured more cost recovery charges in recent years compared to 2016/17, with cost recovery revenues growing from $1.7 million in 2016/17 to a projected $4.9 million in 2025/26. However, because License, Permit, and Fee revenue and other cost recovery revenues are intended to cover the costs of specific City- provided services, such as building plan review, the growth of these revenues does not result in a net increase to General Fund revenues available for budget allocation.

General Fund Expenditure Trends by Department
General Fund expenditures by department have increased steadily over the last decade, reflecting the City’s expanding service responsibilities, inflationary pressures, and growth in staffing and contractual costs. As shown in Figure 4, total General Fund expenditures rose from approximately $46.6 million in FY 2016/17 to a peak of over $94 million in FY 2022/23, followed by a decrease and stabilization in subsequent budget years. This spike in FY 2022/23 is largely attributable to a temporary increase in non-departmental expenditures, rather than sustained growth in operating departments.

Public Safety expenditures increased steadily throughout the period, rising from approximately $18.9 million in FY 2016/17 to approximately $31.8 million by FY 2026/27, and remain the City’s largest General Fund cost center. Public Works expenditures also increased over time, reflecting expanded infrastructure maintenance and support functions.

Together, Public Safety and Public Works consistently account for roughly half of total General Fund expenditures.

Non-Departmental expenditures, such as revenue neutrality payments, accounting entries, and other citywide obligations, show that such expenditures increased slightly over the past 10 fiscal years. The increase in non-departmental spending in FY 2022/23 was due to a one- time purchase of land by the city
3 . Expenditures for Community Development, Neighborhood Services, Administrative Services, and other general government departments increased gradually over the analysis period and represent a relatively small share of total General Fund expenditures.

3 Communication with Erin Naderi, City of Rancho Cordova Department of Finance. January 2026.

ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Fiscal Trends and Conditions Review - Rancho Cordova General Plan Update

Figure 3. City of Rancho Cordova General Fund Expenditure Trends by Department (FYs 2016/17 – 2026/27)

General Fund Revenue Current Conditions
In Rancho Cordova, taxes and assessments, including property, sales, transient occupancy, utility user, and other taxes and assessments, represent nearly 73 percent of overall General Fund revenues, as shown in Figure 4. Licenses permits and fees and charges for service collectively comprise approximately 17 percent of General Fund revenues. The remaining 10 percent of revenues are split among transfers, fines and forfeitures, and investment and city-owned property income.

ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

Figure 4. City of Rancho Cordova FY 25/26 General Fund Revenues

As shown in Figure 4, nearly three-quarters of General Fund revenues in the current fiscal year are expected to come from taxes and assessments. Among taxes and assessments, property taxes are the largest single source of General Fund Revenue for the City of Rancho Cordova, accounting for approximately half (48 percent) of tax revenue and 35 percent of overall General Fund revenues, as shown in Figure 5. Property tax revenues significantly exceed other major tax sources, including sales tax, which represent approximately 25 percent of all General Fund revenue, while utility user tax, transient occupancy tax, and other taxes collectively account for the remaining portion of tax-related revenues.

ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Fiscal Trends and Conditions Review - Rancho Cordova General Plan Update

Figure 5. City of Rancho Cordova FY 25/26 Taxes and Assessment Revenues

An analysis of key General Fund revenues and associated land use alternative considerations are provided below.

Property Tax
Property tax is a major component of the City of Rancho Cordova’s General Fund revenues; however, the City’s ability to influence property tax generation is constrained by State law. Within the City limits, Rancho Cordova and Sacramento County each receive approximately 12 percent of the 1 percent property tax levy, compared to an average allocation of approximately 38 percent to local K–12 school districts. The City does not have authority to adjust the property tax rate or its allocation factor, which are governed by State statute.

In addition, growth in assessed value for existing properties is generally limited to 2 percent annually under Proposition 13, absent a market transaction or significant physical alteration. As a result, growth in property tax revenues above this baseline is primarily driven by new development, reinvestment in existing properties, and ownership turnover.

While the General Plan Update cannot directly influence market turnover, it can affect long-term assessed value growth by shaping development capacity, land use intensity, and the feasibility of redevelopment through zoning policy, infrastructure investment, and stated implementation priorities.

ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

Notably, the City is approaching a significant structural change in its property tax revenues associated with the expiration of its Revenue Neutrality agreement with Sacramento County. This agreement, executed at the time of incorporation in 2003, requires the City to transfer a portion of its property tax revenues to the County through Fiscal Year 2027/28. In recent years, these payments have represented approximately 14 percent of the General Fund budget. Upon expiration of the agreement, beginning in Fiscal Year 2028/29, the City will retain a substantially larger share of its property tax revenues, representing a material shift in General Fund resources independent of the General Plan land use alternatives. In the current fiscal year, the payment to the County is estimated at $10.7 million, while the final payment in Fiscal Year 2027/28 is estimated at $11.7 million.
4 The City also has a second tax sharing agreement with the County stemming from the annexation of approximately 748 acres along Highway 50 composed almost entirely of commercial properties The tax sharing agreement covering that annexation area stipulates that the County retains 100 percent of property tax revenues. Additionally, the City must send to the County 75 percent of the net sales, utility users, and transient occupancy tax revenues from this area, after deducting the City’s cost to provide services to the area. .

Since FY 2022/23, the City has retained approximately 40% of the gross sales tax revenue from this annexation area, which totals around $7 million per year.

In considering future annexation areas, the City should evaluate both the potential for incremental property tax revenues and the associated costs of extending municipal services. Annexation proposals may also be subject to new revenue-sharing or service agreements with the County and/or other affected special districts. Annexation of already developed areas, in particular, may generate limited net fiscal benefit if service obligations and interagency commitments exceed ongoing revenue gains; however, such annexations may still be worthwhile in advancing City policy objectives.

Overall, while the General Plan Update can influence long-term property tax growth by shaping development capacity and redevelopment opportunities, near- and mid-term General Fund revenues will be more significantly affected by broader market conditions and the expiration of the County revenue neutrality agreement than by differences among the land use alternatives alone.

Land Use Alternative Considerations
Each of the land use alternatives evaluated under the General Plan Update increases overall development capacity relative to the Base Case Scenario. Accordingly, under long- term buildout conditions, Alternatives A and B would be expected to generate higher total assessed value—and therefore higher property tax revenues—than the Base Case.

4 City of Rancho Cordova Fiscal Year 2025/27 City Manager’s Budget Message. Available at:
https://stories.opengov.com/ranchocordovaca/ef5e330d-4bf4-4259-bac8- 4f82f5cf02ad/published/7auVAIa8i?currentPageId=66ac031ee30dfea96267fe79 ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Fiscal Trends and Conditions Review - Rancho Cordova General Plan Update

Differences between Alternatives A and B, however, are more nuanced and depend on the mix of residential and nonresidential uses that ultimately materialize and the relative assessed values of those uses over time.

Traditional fiscal analyses in the Sacramento region often assume higher assessed values per square foot for retail and office development relative to industrial uses. Under those assumptions, an alternative with greater office and retail capacity could yield higher assessed value at full buildout. However, recent market trends in Rancho Cordova indicate stronger performance for residential and industrial development compared to office and retail uses, which have experienced higher vacancy rates and face ongoing structural shifts related to remote work and e-commerce. If these trends persist, differences in long-term assessed value between Alternatives A and B may be modest, particularly if market demand limits the realization of office and retail capacity in either scenario.

Sales Tax
Sales tax represents a significant component of the City’s General Fund revenues, accounting for approximately 25 percent of total General Fund revenues.

The City receives a 1 percent Bradley-Burns local sales tax that supports General Fund operations. In addition, City voters have approved two half-cent local sales tax measures, Measure H in 2014 and Measure R in 2020, both of which are general-purpose taxes.

With the adoption of these measures, the City’s current sales tax rate is 8.75 percent, which is comparable to the rates in Elk Grove and the City of Sacramento, and slightly higher than the sales tax rate in neighboring City of Folsom and unincorporated Sacramento County (7.75 percent).

Unlike property tax, sales tax revenues are driven primarily by taxable retail activity rather than assessed value. As a result, the General Plan’s influence on sales tax revenues is indirect and occurs through land use decisions that affect the amount, location, and performance of retail development, as well as the size and characteristics of the City’s residential and employment base.

Residential and employment growth can support sales tax generation by increasing the number of consumers who live and work in Rancho Cordova and are therefore more likely to make taxable purchases within the City. Land use policies that concentrate retail uses along major transportation corridors and within accessible commercial areas can also affect the City’s ability to capture retail spending from both residents and visitors.

As documented in the February 2025 Existing Conditions Report, retail market conditions in Rancho Cordova are weaker than in the Sacramento region overall. As of September 2024, the City’s retail vacancy rate was approximately 9.3 percent, compared to 5.9 percent regionwide, and average retail rents were lower than the regional average. In addition, broader structural shifts in consumer behavior—including the continued growth of e- ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

commerce—suggest that future growth may require less retail space per capita than in prior decades.

These market conditions indicate that new retail development, and therefore incremental sales tax revenues, may be limited regardless of the amount of retail capacity allowed under a given General Plan alternative. As a result, differences in sales tax generation among the land use alternatives may be more modest than implied by differences in retail capacity alone.

Despite these challenges, Rancho Cordova’s taxable sales per capita are among the highest in Sacramento County, exceeded only by the City of Folsom, which contains several regionally significant retail destinations (see Figure 6). This suggests that Rancho Cordova successfully captures a substantial share of retail spending from both residents and visitors.

The strong sales tax per capita figures compared to other jurisdictions also indicate that the city captures a significant amount of taxable business-to-business sales as well. Continued residential and employment growth, combined with strategic positioning of retail uses along key corridors, can help the City maintain and potentially grow its sales tax base over time, even as retail formats and consumer behavior continue to evolve.

Figure 6. Taxable Sales per Capita

Land Use Alternative Considerations
Differences in projected sales tax revenues among the General Plan land use alternatives are primarily associated with the amount of retail development permitted under each scenario. Alternative A allows the greatest amount of retail development and would therefore be expected, under full buildout assumptions, to generate higher sales tax revenues than the Base Case Scenario or Alternative B. Alternative A also allows for ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Fiscal Trends and Conditions Review - Rancho Cordova General Plan Update

additional residential development, which may further support taxable sales by increasing local demand.

However, as with property tax, long-term sales tax outcomes depend not only on planned development capacity but also on market demand and the extent to which permitted retail development is ultimately realized.

Transient Occupancy Tax
Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) revenue represents a small share of overall General Fund revenues, accounting for approximately 4 percent of total revenues. While the hospitality sector has rebounded from the severe impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, recovery remains ongoing. As documented in the Existing Conditions Report, hotel occupancy rates in the City remain below the average levels observed over the past decade, indicating that the local lodging market has not yet fully stabilized. Additionally, both the average daily rate and revenue per available room in Rancho Cordova are lower than in the Sacramento MSA as a whole.

That said, within Sacramento County, Rancho Cordova is among the higher-performing jurisdictions in terms of total TOT revenues, ranking behind only the City of Sacramento and Sacramento County. Jurisdictions in the County generating more than $1 million annually in TOT revenue generally apply a 12 percent TOT rate, including the City. As with other local taxes, the City’s TOT revenues are influenced by the scale and performance of the local hotel market.5
Land Use Alternative Considerations
The City’s hotel market is driven largely by business travel, special events, and employment activity rather than by destination tourism. The city also attracts visitors for large amateur sporting events at facilities within and adjacent to the city, including the Sacramento State Aquatic Center, Mather Sports Complex, Hangtown MX, and Omni Volleyball. As a result, the General Plan’s influence on TOT revenues is indirect and occurs primarily through land use and economic development policies that support employment-generating uses, commercial activity, and special event venues, in addition to opportunities for new hotel development, pending market support. Land use alternatives that increase occupied commercial space, particularly professional office and other employment uses, may support incremental growth in hotel demand and associated TOT revenues over time. However, given current market conditions and the modest size of the City’s lodging sector, differences in TOT revenues among the General Plan alternatives are expected to be limited in the near term and more closely tied to broader economic and hospitality trends than to land use alone.

5 California Cities Transient Occupancy Taxes Revenue, Tax Rate, and Effective Date. California Secretary of State.

Available at: https://www.sco.ca.gov/ard_local_rep_freq_requested.html ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

License Permits and Fees
License permits and fees include building permit fees for residential and nonresidential development, franchise fees, business license fees, and other fees associated with City services. Revenues from these sources are driven primarily by the level of development activity and ongoing business operations within the City.

The General Plan can influence license, permit, and fee revenues indirectly by shaping the scale and pace of new development and business activity. Land use alternatives that accommodate higher levels of growth would be expected to generate higher gross revenues from these sources over time. However, these revenues are generally structured to recover the City’s costs of providing related services, such as plan review, inspections, tax administration, and code enforcement.

Land Use Alternative Considerations
Revenues from licenses, permits, and fees are generally structured to recover the City’s costs of providing related services, such as plan review, inspections, tax administration, and code enforcement. As a result, increases in these revenues are typically accompanied by corresponding increases in personnel, contract services, and operating costs necessary to deliver those services. Accordingly, while these revenue sources play an important role in supporting City operations, they are not generally expected to result in net increases to General Fund resources and should be evaluated in the context of service capacity and staffing implications associated with each land use alternative.

General Fund Expenditure Current Conditions
The City’s General Fund is the primary source of funding for public services and daily operations. In FY 2025/26, General Fund expenditures total approximately $81.7 million, with allocations for different city services depicted in Figure 7. Police services represent the single largest General Fund expenditure, at approximately $30.9 million, or about 38 percent of total General Fund expenditures. Public Works accounts for an additional $8.3 million, or roughly 10 percent of General Fund expenditures. Together, police services and Public Works comprise about half of total General Fund expenditures. Non- departmental costs, which include revenue neutrality payments, debt service, and other citywide obligations, account for approximately $18.8 million, or about 23 percent of total expenditures. The remaining General Fund expenditures are distributed across planning and building functions, code enforcement, community services, administrative services, and other general government departments.

ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Fiscal Trends and Conditions Review - Rancho Cordova General Plan Update

Figure 7. City of Rancho Cordova FY 25/26 General Fund Expenditures.

Notably, the City does not operate public park facilities or provide fire protection services—two functions that typically repres ent significant expenditure categories for many cities. These services are provided by the Cordova Recreation and Park District and the Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District, respectively, and are funded through dedicated property tax allocations rather than the City’s General Fund.

Of the City’s General Fund service areas, police services and Public Works are most directly affected by changes in land use patterns and development intensity. New development and population growth can increase demand for law enforcement services, traffic enforcement, and infrastructure maintenance, particularly where growth expands the geographic service area or increases activity levels. Planning, building, housing, and code enforcement functions are also sensitive to changes in development activity, though impacts tend to be more closely tied to the pace of construction rather than long-term population levels. In contrast, policy, management, and administrative functions generally experience more limited direct impacts from land use change, as these areas tend to have more fixed staffing levels and operational costs.

As described previously, beginning in Fiscal Year 2028/29, the City will no longer be required to make revenue neutrality payments to Sacramento County under the agreement executed at the time of incorporation. In recent years, these payments have represented a substantial non-departmental General Fund obligation. The expiration of this requirement will reduce ongoing General Fund expenditures and improve the City’s fiscal capacity independent of land use changes associated with the General Plan Update.

ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

Conclusions
The City’s General Fund revenues are concentrated in a small number of major tax sources. In FY 2025/26, property tax and sales tax together account for approximately 60 percent of total General Fund revenues, with additional contributions from transient occupancy tax, utility user tax, other local taxes, and fees. This revenue structure provides a stable core funding base but also means that the City’s fiscal performance is closely tied to stable and growing assessed valuation, taxable sales, and broader economic conditions to meet growing municipal service costs.

Implementation of the General Plan Update has the potential to support growth in the City’s major revenue sources over time, particularly through increases in assessed value from new development and reinvestment, continued sales tax generation associated with residential and employment growth, and incremental gains in hospitality-related revenues as the local hotel market continues to strengthen. Differences in long-term revenue outcomes among the land use alternatives are expected to be influenced as much by market conditions and development timing as by estimated development capacity.

At the same time, the City’s fiscal outlook is shaped by factors largely independent of the land use alternatives. Most notably, the expiration of the property tax revenue neutrality agreement with Sacramento County beginning in Fiscal Year 2028/29 will reduce a substantial non-departmental General Fund obligation and improve the City’s long-term fiscal capacity. This structural change is expected to have a more immediate and material effect on General Fund resources than differences among the land use alternatives.

Future growth associated with implementation of the General Plan will also increase demand for City services and infrastructure. Police services and Public Works—already the largest General Fund expenditure categories—are likely to experience the greatest sensitivity to changes in development intensity and population growth, while planning, building, housing, and code enforcement functions will be affected primarily by the pace of development activity. Although license, permit, and fee revenues will help offset the cost of providing development-related services, these revenues are generally structured for cost recovery and are not expected to generate net discretionary resources.

Overall, the General Plan Update provides a framework for balancing fiscal considerations with broader community objectives, including housing supply, economic development, environmental sustainability, and quality of life. Fiscal impacts represent an important input to long-range planning decisions but should be considered alongside other policy goals and implementation considerations. Ongoing monitoring of revenue performance, service demands, and infrastructure needs as development occurs will be important to maintaining the City’s long-term fiscal sustainability as the General Plan is implemented.

ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

1 Summary Report: Phase 3 Community Engagement | April 2026

RANCHO CORDOVA
GENERAL PLAN 2050
PHASE 3 COMMUNITY OUTREACH SUMMARY
REPORT
LAND USE ALTERNATIVES | APRIL 2026
ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Overview of Phase 3 Community Outreach .......................................................................................................................3 Outreach Events ............................................................................................................................................................................6 Summary of Land Use Alternatives Feedback ................................................................................................................ 13 Demographics .............................................................................................................................................................................20 2 Summary Report: Phase 3 Community Engagement | April 2026 ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 2

3 Summary Report: Phase 3 Community Engagement | April 2026 OVERVIEW OF PHASE 3 COMMUNITY OUTREACH
The City of Rancho Cordova General Plan Update is a multi-year effort that began in Spring 2024. The third phase of the project focused on working with the community to identify land use alternatives that will shape the future of the city, including reimagining underused office parks, and creating vibrant places where people can live, gather, and discover. The goals of this phase of engagement were to continue raising awareness about the General Plan Update and land use alternatives and to gather a broad range of community feedback to understand preferences for future land use and development. The team focused on connecting with youth, longtime and new residents, workers, and other representative community member groups through in-person and online methods. The feedback collected in Phase 3 will directly inform the preferred land use alternative presented to Planning Commission and City Council.

Community Workshop
testimonials
Rancho Cordova
workshop and pop-up
View the Land
Use Alternatives
Report at www.
yourcityrc2050.org
for more information
on the three land
use alternatives
and the Planning
Strategies.

ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 2

Summary Report: Phase 3 Community Engagement | April 2026 4

LAND USE ALTERNATIVES ACTIVITY OVERVIEW
The Land Use Alternatives Report, published February 2026, provides a decision-making framework on how to accommodate future development, support a range of housing options, encourage economic growth, and maintain fiscal sustainability. The Land Use Alternatives Activity asked community members to provide feedback on their preferred alternative for five key planning strategies: Reimagining Office Parks, Removing Barriers to Redeveloping Folsom Boulevard, Reenvisioning a Downtown, Activating Commercial Centers, and Increasing Housing Choices in Infill Areas. Community members were asked to review and indicate their preference for one of three land use alternatives:

Base Alternative (a refined version of the 2006 General Plan Land Use Diagram), Alternative A (increased flexibility to remove barriers to infill development), and Alternative B (increased flexibility, higher density, and more specific land use designations).

This activity was used at the in-person workshop and pop-up events, and was also made available through the online feedback platform.

Example of interactive exercise to collect feedback on Land Use Alternative Planning Strategies ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 2

5 Summary Report: Phase 3 Community Engagement | April 2026

MIXED-USE AND MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING STUDY
As part of the General Plan Update, the city and project team also sought community input on mixed-use and multi- family opportunity sites to help inform decisions about density and development potential on vacant parcels throughout the city. Four opportunity sites were presented alongside illustrative concepts showing how each area could be reimagined as a vibrant, transit-oriented residential or mixed-use development. Participants were asked to place a dot on their preferred development scale for each site, ranging from less dense to higher density. Participants were also asked what excites them about the design comments and if there is anything they would change.

Housing Study Board at Workshop Illustrative Concept
ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 2

6 Summary Report: Phase 3 Community Engagement | April 2026

ONLINE FEEDBACK FORM
February 26 - April 1, 2026
Participation: 38

POP-UP EVENTS
March 14, 2026
Participation: ~50

FOCUS GROUP

MEETINGS
April, 2026
Participation: ~70

OUTREACH EVENTS
Phase 3 community outreach of the Rancho Cordova General Plan Update included ten public-facing events: one community workshop, two pop-up pvents, an online feedback form, three meetings with the Folsom Cordova Community Partnership, and three-youth focused events and a visioning session at Cordova High. As of mid-April, approximately 200 people were engaged in the public-facing events, summarized in this report.

COMMUNITY
WORKSHOP #3
February 26, 2026
Rancho Cordova City Hall
Participation: ~50

CORDOVA HIGH

SCHOOL OUTREACH
February 26, 2026
Participation: ~65
ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 2

7 Summary Report: Phase 3 Community Engagement | April 2026 COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #3
Community Workshop #3 of Rancho Cordova’s General Plan Update was conducted on February 26, 2026, in person at Rancho Cordova City Hall. There were approximately 50 community members in attendance. The event included a raffle and prizes and dinner catered by the city.

The workshop was advertised through a city newsletter that was sent to every residence in Rancho Cordova, as well as through the city’s website, social media channels, and email. The workshop started with a presentation about the objectives of the General Plan Update, the land use alternatives, and key planning strategies. Following the presentation, participants provided feedback at six interactive stations (one for each of the five planning strategies, and one on the mixed-use and multi-family housing study). At the end of the workshop, community members were invited to participate in an interactive video testimonial station. Spanish and Russian interpreters were available at the meeting as a resource.

February 26, 2026 Community Workshop
ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 2

8 Summary Report: Phase 3 Community Engagement | April 20268 COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #3 VIDEO TESTIMONIALS
The video testimonial station provided community members with the option to share in their own words the planning strategy that most resonated with them, and their preferred alternative for that strategy. A dozen community members participated in the video testimonials. Below are some perspectives on increasing housing choices, reimagining office parks, and activating commercial centers from members of the Rancho Cordova community. “Although we...are a car-dominated
society, it would be nice if we
shifted more and more towards
office, commercial, all in one
place. So we’re not having to drive
everywhere... We need housing
options. And we need them near
our workplace, for a better work-life
balance. That’s really, I think, what a
lot of our generation is looking for.

Millenials, Gen Z, and such.”
“I think if our neighborhood had access
to daily essentials and a place to
gather, it would be more beneficial for
the City overall, and for the community.

Because it would provide a way for
the community to come together, in
a closer space, versus having to drive
across town to get their essentials and
what they need.”
“When I look at the General Plan
and looking forward to 2050...I think
about my kids. And I want them
to have places that are affordable
where they can live, work, and play.

And having additional housing
opportunities, places where they
can transition from... that young life
to going into the early stages of
having a family are so important.”
“[Reimagining
Office Parks] I was
more interested
in Alternative B–
anything that kind
of brings in more
types of tech jobs
that we have here.

Anything that’s
more conducive
to bringing more
businesses... that’s
why I like the office
parks.”
Kim
Resident, Stone
Creek
Autumn
Resident, Cordova Gardens
Angie
Resident, Anatolia
Humberto
Resident, Kavala
Ranch
ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 2

9 Summary Report: Phase 3 Community Engagement | April 2026

POP-UP EVENTS
Pop-up events were held at the Sunrise Station Farmer’s Market and the KP International Market on March 14, 2026, to bring the Land Use Alternatives and Mixed Use and Multifamily Housing Study Activity to places that are easy for community members to access.

The goal of pop-up events is to meet community residents where they already are, and engage people who may not otherwise attend an event. Consultant staff were present to share information, answer questions, and have informal conversations with residents about the General Plan Update, as well as facilitate the activities.

Sunrise Station Farmer’s Market & KP International Market ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 2

10 Summary Report: Phase 3 Community Engagement | April 2026

CORDOVA HIGH SCHOOL

OUTREACH
The project team joined Cordova High students
on February 26, 2026, to provide an overview of
the General Plan Update, engagement to date,
and land use alternatives planning strategies. The
students were invited to share their Big Ideas for
the future of Rancho Cordova.

The goal of high school engagement is to meet
younger people in places that are comfortable
for them, to ensure that their feedback informs
the General Plan Update even if they may not
otherwise attend an event, and to build a stronger
foundation for youth engagement in all planning
processes.

Cordova High Civics Class Sharing Their Big Ideas
Some of the top ‘Big Ideas’ included:
• Affordable Housing — Lower rents, more multifamily options, and clearer paths to homeownership • Vibrant Downtown — Dining, shops, entertainment, and light rail in a true destination hub • Youth Entertainment — Skate park, arcade, bowling, movies, and a mall to keep youth local • Parks & Nature — More parks, trails, community gardens, and protections for the American River • Transportation — More frequent, affordable transit with better neighborhood connections • Safety & Maintenance — Improved lighting, security, park upkeep, and homelessness solutions • Sustainability — Solar lighting, EV adoption, green development, and local farmers markets • Local Economy — Small business support, local storefronts, and youth-oriented investment • Walkability & Mixed-Use — Integrated uses and a revitalized Folsom Blvd corridor • Equitable Revitalization — Reimagine underused areas and distribute resources fairly citywide ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 2

11 Summary Report: Phase 3 Community Engagement | April 2026

YOUTH OUTREACH
The City of Rancho Cordova gathered youth input across two community events: a Youth @ City Council program on April 6, 2026 at the Rancho Cordova City Hall, and a Career Workshop on April 11, 2026 at the Hagan Community Center. Over 30 youth participated across both events.

Following a brief overview of the City’s General Plan Update and Land Use Alternatives process, students took part in an interactive online poll covering housing preferences, vacant office parks, the future of Folsom Boulevard, downtown vision, and ideas for improving shopping centers citywide.

Youth @ City Council, April 6, 2026 Career Workshop, April 11, 2026 ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 2

12 Summary Report: Phase 3 Community Engagement | April 2026

SUMMARY OF YOUTH FEEDBACK
The survey results from both events are provided below. The youth prioritized affordable housing and envisioned living in quiet neighborhoods, while also supporting mixed-use development along Folsom Blvd and the conversion of vacant office parks into vibrant live-work-shop districts. There was strong interest in a central downtown paired with neighborhood activity centers, locally owned businesses, improved shopping destinations, and more entertainment and gathering spaces.

WHICH OF THESE WOULD YOU WANT TO LIVE IN WHEN YOU’RE ON YOUR OWN?

WHAT WOULD YOU MOST WANT TO SEE ALONG FOLSOM

BOULEVARD
WHAT MATTERS MOST TO YOU IN WHERE YOU LIVE?
WHEN IT COMES TO A “DOWNTOWN” FOR RANCHO CORDOVA,
WHICH APPROACH DO YOU PREFER?
WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN TO LARGE OFFICE PARKS THAT SIT EMPTY?

WHAT WOULD MAKE UNDERUSED STRIP MALLS AND SHOPPING
CENTERS BETTER?

WHERE DO YOU THINK NEW APARTMENTS AND HIGHER-
DENSITY HOUSING MAKE THE MOST SENSE?
A house with a yard in a quiet
neighborhood?
An apartment above shops, near a
light rail stop
A townhome or condo in a walkable
area
Better restaurants, cafes, and shops
Entertainment venues
Improved safety and lighting at transit
stations
Parks and open space
More apartments and housing options
Affordable rent or mortgage
Being near friends and social activities
Being close to work or school
Access to public transit
Having outdoor space nearby
Walking to coffee shops, restaurants,
or stores
A combination — one central hub plus
neighborhood-level hubs
One big ‘City Center’
Several smaller activity centers spread
across different neighborhoods
Convert them into mixed-use
neighborhoods with housing, shops,
and some jobs
Keep them as office space and wait
for businesses to return
Other
Bring in more locally owned
businesses
Add parks or plazas for people to
hang out
Create walkable clusters where you
park once and walk between stores
Improve bus and bike access
Add housing above or next to shops
Near shopping centers and
commercial corridors
Close to a downtown or activity
center
Near light rail stops along Folsom
Boulevard
In and around office parks
Nowhere — keep the current character
of the city
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
||||||||
|||||
|||||||||||||||||||||||
||||||||||||||||||
|||||||||||||||
|||||||||||||
||||||||||
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|||
||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||
|||||||||||||||
||||
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
||||
||
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|||||||||||||||||||
|||||||||||||
|||||||||
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|||||||||||||||||||||
||||||||||||||
|||||||||
|
ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 2

13 Summary Report: Phase 3 Community Engagement | April 2026

FCCP FOCUS GROUP MEETINGS
Three focus group meetings were held at the Folsom Cordova Community Partnerahip (FCCP) on April 14, 2026 (Spanish speakers), April 15, 2026 (Russian/Ukriainian speakers) and April 16, 2026 (African American families) where a total of 45 participants attended. At all three community meetings, a brief presentation was given providing an overview of the City’s General Plan Update and Land Use Alternatives process followed by a brief survey. Presentations and surveys were translated in Spanish and Russian and live interpretation was also provided.

After completing the survey, there was an opportunity to ask questions and provide additional feedback to the questions in the survey.

FCCP Focus Group Meetings, April 14, 15, & 16
ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 2

14 Summary Report: Phase 3 Community Engagement | April 2026

SUMMARY OF FEEDBACK - SPANISH SPEAKING GROUP
The following is a summary of the survey feedback received from the Spanish speaking focus group held on April 14, 2026.

WHAT’S ONE THING

YOU THINK THE CITY

IS MISSING THAT

WOULD MAKE RANCHO

CORDOVA A BETTER
PLACE TO LIVE?
• Safety & Infrastructure:

Better street lighting,
public safety, and
more frequent public
transportation.
• Housing & Healthcare:

Affordable housing,
shelter for homeless
residents, and more
hospitals/medical
offices.
• Education & Family
Services: Nearby
schools, daycare
centers, language
programs, and family
access to arts and
sports.
• Economy & Amenities:

Jobs, cultural
attractions (libraries,
museums, aquariums),
and preserved green
spaces.

WHAT MATTERS MOST TO YOU ABOUT WERE
YOU LIVE?
Condition and quality of housing
Walking to grocery stores, coffee shops,
restaurants, or other shopping
Affordable rent or mortgage
Being close to work or school
Having outdoor space nearby
Access to public transit
Being near friends and social activities
|||||||
||||||
|||||
|||||
|||||
|||||
||||

WHAT TYPE OF ACTIVITIES WOULD YOU
LIKE TO SEE IN A NEW “DOWNTOWN”?
Plazas for events and a place to gather
Shopping and restaurants
Entertainment venues
Offices for medical services or
businesses
Apartments and housing options
||||||||
||||||
||||||
|||||
||||

WHAT WOULD MAKE UNDERUSED STRIP
MALLS AND SHOPPING CENTERS BETTER?
Add parks or plazas for people to hang
out
Create walkable clusters where you park
once and walk between stores
Bring in more locally owned businesses
Improve bus and bike access
Add housing above or next to shops
||||||||||
|||||||
||||||
|||||
|||

WHERE DO YOU THINK NEW APARTMENTS

AND HIGHER-DENSITY HOUSING MAKE THE
MOST SENSE?
Near shopping centers and
commercial corridors
In and around office parks
Near light rail stops along Folsom
Boulevard
In a new downtown
|||||||
||||||
|||||
||||

WHAT WOULD YOU MOST WANT TO SEE

ALONG FOLSOM BOULEVARD
Parks and open space
Improved safety and lighting at transit
stations
More apartments and housing options
Entertainment venues
Better restaurants, cafes, and shops
||||||||||
||||||||
|||||||
|||||
|||

WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN TO LARGE OFFICE
PARKS THAT SIT EMPTY?
Convert them into mixed-use
neighborhoods with housing, shops,
and jobs
Keep them as office space and wait
for businesses to return
|||||||||||
|
ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 2

15 Summary Report: Phase 3 Community Engagement | April 2026

SUMMARY OF FEEDBACK - RUSSIAN/UKRAINIAN SPEAKING GROUP
The following is a summary of the survey feedback received from the Russain/Ukrainian speaking focus group held on April 15, 2026.

WHAT’S ONE THING

YOU THINK THE CITY IS

MISSING THAT WOULD

MAKE RANCHO CORDOVA

A BETTER PLACE TO
LIVE?
• Youth & Recreation:

Playgrounds, teen
spaces, sports courts
(football, basketball,
table tennis), and
stadiums.
• Community Gathering:

Public parks, events,
street food vendors,
and spaces for people
to connect.
• Housing & Safety:

Affordable housing,
more construction,
security, and addressing
homelessness.
• Culture & Amenities:

Museums, theaters,
botanical gardens, and
medical centers.

WHAT MATTERS MOST TO YOU ABOUT WERE
YOU LIVE?
Being close to work or school
Affordable rent or mortgage
Having outdoor space nearby
Walking to grocery stores, coffee shops,
restaurants, or other shopping
Condition and quality of housing
Being near friends and social activities
Access to public transit
||||||||
|||||||
|||||||
||||||
|||||
|||
||

WHAT TYPE OF ACTIVITIES WOULD YOU
LIKE TO SEE IN A NEW “DOWNTOWN”?
Plazas for events and a place to gather
Offices for medical services or
businesses
Apartments and housing options
Entertainment venues
Shopping and restaurants
|||||||||
||||||
|||||
|||||
||||

WHAT WOULD MAKE UNDERUSED STRIP
MALLS AND SHOPPING CENTERS BETTER?
Create walkable clusters where you park
once and walk between stores
Add parks or plazas for people to hang
out
Bring in more locally owned businesses
Improve bus and bike access
Add housing above or next to shops
|||||||||
|||||||||
||||||
||||||
|||

WHERE DO YOU THINK NEW APARTMENTS

AND HIGHER-DENSITY HOUSING MAKE THE
MOST SENSE?
In a new downtown
Near light rail stops along Folsom
Boulevard
In and around office parks
Near shopping centers and
commercial corridors
|||||
||||
||||
|||

WHAT WOULD YOU MOST WANT TO SEE

ALONG FOLSOM BOULEVARD
More apartments and housing options
Improved safety and lighting at transit
stations
Parks and open space
Better restaurants, cafes, and shops
Entertainment venues
|||||||
|||||||
||||||
||||
|||

WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN TO LARGE OFFICE
PARKS THAT SIT EMPTY?
Convert them into mixed-use
neighborhoods with housing, shops,
and jobs
Keep them as office space and wait
for businesses to return
||||||||||
|
ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 2

16 Summary Report: Phase 3 Community Engagement | April 2026

SUMMARY OF FEEDBACK - AFRICAN AMERICAN FAMILIES
The following is a summary of the survey feedback received from the African American focus group held on April 16, 2026.

WHAT’S ONE THING

YOU THINK THE CITY

IS MISSING THAT

WOULD MAKE RANCHO

CORDOVA A BETTER
PLACE TO LIVE?
• Entertainment &
Recreation: Fun
activities for all ages,
events, concerts,
movie theaters, gyms,
and youth programs
especially for teens.
• Housing & Affordability:

More apartments,
better rent, and relief
from high cost of living.
• Jobs & Work
Experience: Better-
paying jobs and work
opportunities for teens.
• Community & Services:

More schools, grocery
stores, hospitals, mental
health resources, and
24-hour options for
late-shift workers.

WHAT MATTERS MOST TO YOU ABOUT WERE
YOU LIVE?
Affordable rent or mortgage
Condition and quality of housing
Walking to grocery stores, coffee shops,
restaurants, or other shopping
Being close to work or school
Having outdoor space nearby
Being near friends and social activities
Access to public transit
|||||||||||||||
|||||||||||
||||||||||
||||||||||
||||||||||
||||||||
|||||

WHAT TYPE OF ACTIVITIES WOULD YOU
LIKE TO SEE IN A NEW “DOWNTOWN”?
Shopping and restaurants
Plazas for events and a place to gather
Offices for medical services or
businesses
Entertainment venues
Apartments and housing options
||||||||||||||||||||
|||||||||||||
||||||||||||
|||||||||||
||||||||

WHAT WOULD MAKE UNDERUSED STRIP
MALLS AND SHOPPING CENTERS BETTER?
Bring in more locally owned businesses
Add parks or plazas for people to hang
out
Add housing above or next to shops
Create walkable clusters where you park
once and walk between stores
Improve bus and bike access
|||||||||||||||||
|||||||||||||
||||||||||||
|||||||||||
||||||||

WHERE DO YOU THINK NEW APARTMENTS

AND HIGHER-DENSITY HOUSING MAKE THE
MOST SENSE?
Near light rail stops along Folsom
Boulevard
In and around office parks
Near shopping centers and
commercial corridors
In a new downtown
Nowhere — keep the current character
of the city
|||||||||||||||||
||||||||||||||
|||||||||||||
|||||||||
||

WHAT WOULD YOU MOST WANT TO SEE

ALONG FOLSOM BOULEVARD
More apartments and housing options
Better restaurants, cafes, and shops
Improved safety and lighting at transit
stations
Entertainment venues
Parks and open space
|||||||||||||||||
|||||||||||||||||
|||||||||||||
||||||||||||
|||||||||||

WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN TO LARGE OFFICE
PARKS THAT SIT EMPTY?
Convert them into mixed-use
neighborhoods with housing, shops,
and jobs
Keep them as office space and wait
for businesses to return
||||||||||||
|||||||||||
ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 2

17 Summary Report: Phase 3 Community Engagement | April 2026

ONLINE FEEDBACK FORM
The Online Feedback Form, posted to the Rancho Cordova General Plan Update website, provided a virtual option for community members to provide feedback on the Land Use Alternatives. The Feedback Form landing page also included a link to the Land Use Alternatives Report, the Workshop Presentation, and translated materials in Spanish and Russian.

Similarly to the in-person Community Workshop on February 26, 2026, participants were able to review information about the key planning strategies, vote on their preferred land use alternative, and leave detailed feedback on why they selected this alternative.

Survey QuestionsOverview of Activating Commercial Centers ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 2

18 Summary Report: Phase 3 Community Engagement | April 202618

SUMMARY OF LAND USE ALTERNATIVES FEEDBACK
Participants reviewed three alternatives for each of five planning strategies, voted for their preferred approach, and provided written comments. Results have been combined with feedback from the workshop, pop-up engagement events, and an online feedback form to provide a comprehensive picture of community priorities.

Planning Strategy Top Choice Combined Vote
Share Total Votes
Strategy 1 - Reimagining
Office Parks
Alternative A 50% 42
Strategy 2 - Folsom
Boulevard Redevelopment
Alternative B 66% 32
Strategy 3 - Reenvisioning
Downtown
Alternative B 56% 41
Strategy 4 - Activating
Commercial Centers
Alternative A 59% 29
Strategy 5 - Housing Choices
in Infill Areas
Alternative B 39% 33
ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 2

19 Summary Report: Phase 3 Community Engagement | April 2026 PLANNING STRATEGY 1 - REIMAGINING OFFICE PARKS
Summary of Findings:

Alternative A was the clear preference, reflecting strong community support for removing the restrictive 50%
office requirement and allowing office parks to redevelop into mixed-use neighborhoods with housing, retail, and
employment. Alternative B, which goes further by adding an Advanced Industrial employment preservation zone and allowing densities up to 80 units/acre, earned meaningful combined support.

Alt B 9 votes (21%)
21 votes (50%)
8 votes (19%)
4 votes (10%)A&B
Alt A
Base
Key Themes:
• Redeveloping underutilized surface parking lots into
naturalized spaces or active uses
• Green space, pedestrian corridors, and outdoor
gathering areas must accompany new density
• Light rail integration and maximizing transit-oriented development potential
• Density concerns: shared walls and noise, parking
overflow, and lack of private outdoor space raised by
some respondents
• Responsible siting of tech and AI industries
Alternative A preferred (50% of combined votes) — Remove the 50% office mandate; allow mixed-use redevelopment at 20–40 units/acre.
0 5 10 15 20 25
ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 2

20 Summary Report: Phase 3 Community Engagement | April 2026 2 votes (6%)
9 votes (28%)
21 votes (66%)
PLANNING STRATEGY 2 - REMOVING BARRIERS TO REDEVELOPING FOLSOM Summary of Findings:

Alternative B received an overwhelming majority
of support across workshop, pop-up, and survey
respondents, reflecting a clear community desire to
maximize density and mixed-use potential along Folsom
Blvd. given its proximity to light rail. Participants across all events widely recognized Folsom Blvd. as the city’s most transit-accessible corridor and wanted to leverage that asset fully. Some respondents noted that safety concerns should be addressed prior to redevelopment. Others
expressed skepticism that transit would sufficiently serve Rancho Cordova’s dispersed job centers.

Alt B
Alt A
Base
Key Themes:
• Light rail access makes Folsom Blvd. the right place for highest densities
• Safety should accompany or precede redevelopment
• Strong support for redeveloping underutilized
properties
• Maintain lower-scale transitions (2–3 stories) where
the corridor meets single-family neighborhoods to the
north
• Folsom Blvd. should become an inviting destination,
not just a commercial corridor
Alternative B preferred (66% of combined votes) — Denser Transit Corridor Mixed-Use (TCMU) designation at 20– 60 units/acre; TOD overlay increased to 100 units/acre. 0 5 10 15 20 25
ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 2

21 Summary Report: Phase 3 Community Engagement | April 2026 2 votes (5%)
16 votes (39%)
23 votes (56%)
PLANNING STRATEGY 3 - REENVISIONING THE DOWNTOWN
Summary of Findings:

Alternative B earned the most votes across all engagement events, with participants and survey respondents alike
drawn to the idea of multiple neighborhood-scale activity centers rather than a single large City Center. Alternative A (a 420-acre City Center at Folsom and Sunrise) also
received substantial combined support. A recurring
sentiment across all events was that A and B could be
complementary: establish a central identity first (Alt A), then layer in dispersed neighborhood hubs over time (Alt B).

Alt B
Alt A
Base
Key Themes:
• Dispersed activity centers give each neighborhood its own walkable identity and reduce travel distances
• Strong interest in a model similar to walkable California downtowns (Walnut Creek cited as a reference)
• Public transit connections to activity centers essential • Arena and entertainment location skepticism: proposed arena site seen as poorly located and disconnected
from a downtown feel
• Traffic and congestion concerns: Sunrise Blvd. already a choke point; development will intensify pressure
Alternative B preferred (56% of combined votes) — Focused entertainment district near the proposed arena plus dispersed mixed-use activity centers distributed citywide. 0 5 10 15 20 25
ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 2

22 Summary Report: Phase 3 Community Engagement | April 2026 3 votes (10%)
17 votes (59%)
9 votes (31%)
PLANNING STRATEGY 4 - ACTIVATING COMMERCIAL CENTERS
Summary of Findings:

Alternative A was preferred, valued for its flexibility in allowing shopping centers to add housing on
underutilized land without prescriptive design barriers.

Some respondents cited density concerns, such as Capital Village as a cautionary example. Parking availability and traffic capacity were notes as real constraints that must be planned for.

Alt B
Alt A
Base
Key Themes:
• Flexibility to add housing to underutilized commercial sites without removing existing commercial tenants
• Walkable, clustered commercial arrangements (park-
once model) preferred over car-oriented strip malls
• Revitalizing the Folsom Blvd. commercial corridor is a high priority
• Interest in a marketplace-style anchor tenant (e.g.,
“Ferry Building” concept) as an entertainment/retail
destination
Alternative A preferred (59% of combined votes) — Maximum flexibility; removes 50% ground-floor commercial requirement from CMU designation; allows 10–30 units/acre with standalone residential. 0 5 10 15 20
ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 2

23 Summary Report: Phase 3 Community Engagement | April 2026 PLANNING STRATEGY 5 - INCREASING HOUSING CHOICES IN INFILL AREAS Summary of Findings:

Combined, Alternative B — which allows higher densities in TCMU and IMU designations (20–80 units/acre) and
introduces Village Center and Community Activity Center housing — earned the most votes. A meaningful minority
across all events supported the Base Alternative, reflecting a desire to preserve existing single-family character.

Facilitators noted the vote distribution suggested some participants may have been confused about which dots
corresponded to which alternatives.

Alt B 13 votes (39%)
3 votes (9%)
7 votes (21%)
4 votes (12%)
6 votes (18%)
A&B
Alt A
Base + A
Base
Key Themes:
• Housing for all life stages is desired and affordability is the top priority
• Higher density is most appropriate near light rail,
Folsom Boulevard, and major employment centers
• Open space and parkland standards (Quimby Act, not
in-lieu fees) should accompany density increases
• Cottage housing and senior-oriented smaller units
should be considered within any infill framework
• Mid-rise density with limited surface parking seen
by some as the right balance (but must still consider
parking & transit access)
Alternative B received the most votes (39% of combined votes) — But results were divided across Alternatives and combinations of different alternatives.
0 3 6 9 12 15
ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 2

24 Summary Report: Phase 3 Community Engagement | April 2026

MIXED-USE AND MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING STUDY FEEDBACK
Preferred Scale of
Development
Opportunity Site #1:

Sunrise Station
Opportunity Site #2:

Olson Island
Opportunity Site #4:

Prospect Park
Opportunity Site #6:

Bradshaw Village
Proposed Vision Sunrise Station
park-and-ride lot is
reimagined as a vi-
brant transit-orient-
ed residential com-
munity that includes
a mix of multifamily
housing units and
townhomes.

The Olson Island site,
next to the Cordova
Town Center Station,
is activated with new
mixed-use develop-
ment and accom-
panying landscape,
public space, and
sidewalk improve-
ments.

At Opportunity Site
#4, an underutilized
office parking lot at
the Prospect Park
office park is re-
imagined with a new
mixed-use housing
development at the
corner of Prospect
Park Dr. and White
Rock Rd.

At the corner of
Bradshaw Rd. and
Old Placerville Road,
a shopping center
site is envisioned to
be transformed into
a more urban mixed-
use village with new
mixed-use multifami-
ly housing and town-
homes fronting Old
Placerville Road.

Even higher density
(2+ stories higher) 4 6 12 6
More density (1 story
higher) 6 5 4 4
Just the right mix 15 14 9 11
Less density (1
story less) 6 3 3 5
Lesser density (2
stories less) 0 0 0 0
The following votes were received for preference in development scale.

ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 2

25 Summary Report: Phase 3 Community Engagement | April 2026 OPPORTUNITY SITE #1: SUNRISE STATION
ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 2

26 Summary Report: Phase 3 Community Engagement | April 2026 OPPORTUNITY SITE #2: OLSON ISLAND
ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 2

27 Summary Report: Phase 3 Community Engagement | April 2026 OPPORTUNITY SITE #4: PROSPECT PARK
ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 2

28 Summary Report: Phase 3 Community Engagement | April 2026 OPPORTUNITY SITE #6: BRADSHAW VILLAGE
ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 2

29 Summary Report: Phase 3 Community Engagement | April 2026

MIXED-USE AND MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING STUDY FEEDBACK
What excites you most about these design concepts?
• Strong enthusiasm for mixed-use development
that brings commercial, dining, and community
amenities closer to where people live, reducing car
trips and filling vacant storefronts
• Support for higher-density residential near transit,
particularly at the Sunrise light rail station, with
active ground-floor uses like gyms and restaurants
• Excitement about repurposing underutilized parking
lots and empty spaces, with a “town square”
concept resonating as a gathering place model
• Interest in designs that create walkable, car-optional living environments, particularly at sites like Olson
Island, for residents who want to live without a car
Is there anything you would change about these
concepts?
• Parking is a most frequently raised concern, with
multiple respondents wanting structured parking
included alongside any new density and at minimum
consideration of parking needs of new residents
• Parkland standards should keep pace with new
development; several respondents specifically cited
the 5 acres per 1,000 residents standard
• Density concerns vary, with Sunrise Station and
Bradshaw Village seen by some as already too
dense, Olson Island as needing more density
• In general, gradual density increases preferred over
overnight transformation
• Calls for more local entertainment, restaurants, and
retail alongside requests for more equitable housing
types including seniors, people with disabilities, and
car-free residents; Residents do not want to have to
leave Rancho Cordova for these amenities
The bullets below summarize qualitative feedback collected about the proposed design concepts.

ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 2

30 Summary Report: Phase 3 Community Engagement | April 2026 Demographics Snapshot
• 31% are unemployed or
retired
• Most between 25-44
years old (combined
44%)
• 52% identify as White /
Non-Latino
• 24% have lived in
Rancho Cordova for
longer than 20 years
• 89% own their home

DEMOGRAPHICS

DATA RECEIVED
THROUGH PHASE 3
Participants have the option to
complete a brief survey when
attending in-person events or after
providing feedback through the
virtual exercises. This section shows
the demographics of community
members engaged through the end
of Phase 3 (who elected to share this
information).
*Note that not every participant elected to
report their demographic data. Particularly,
many children who attended events are not
represented in these charts.

Unemployed or retired
Outside my home, in another
county/community
Outside my home, in Rancho
Cordova
No response/write-in
Outside of county
18-24
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-64
65-74
75+
White/Non-
Latino
Asian/Pacific
Islander
Hispanic/Latino
Multi-racial
Black or Afr-
American
Decline to state
Place of
Work
Age
Race /
Ethnicity
31%
20%
52%
15%
14%
9%
7%
24%
9%
17%
14%
15%
1% 3%
22%
20%
20%
7%
ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 2

31 Summary Report: Phase 3 Community Engagement | April 2026 Most common neighborhoods represented
• Stone Creek (14%)
• Lincoln Village (9%)
• Sunridge Anatolia (9%)
• Cordova Gardens (6%)
• Cordova Meadows (6%)
• Sunridge Park (6%)
• Kavala Ranch (5%)
• Mills Ranch (5%)
• Cordova Lane (4%)
• Cordova Vineyards (4%)
• The Ranch (4%)
• Sun River (4%)
• Other write-in or no response (13%)
The remaining 10% of responses included:

Countryside, Mather Business, Rio Del Oro, South
White Rock, Suncreek, Walnut Wood, Somerset
Ranch, Capital Village, and Brookside
Own
Rent
Other
<2 years
2-5 years
6-10 years
11-20 years
>20 years
Don’t live in RC
No response
Homeownership
Years
Residing
in Rancho
Cordova
89%
20%
22%
14%
17%
24%
7%
4%
2% 1%
ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 2

STAFF RECOMMENDED

LAND USE ALTERNATIVE
April 2026
ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 3

Staff Recommended Land Use Alternative | April 2026 1
Land Use Designations
General Plan land use designations specify the type of future development allowed on each parcel of land in the city (e.g., residential, commercial, industrial) and how dense or intense that development can be, meaning the number of housing
units per acre (units/acre) or the size of buildings.

Table 1 includes descriptions of the proposed land use
designations. Most of these designations come from the
existing 2006 General Plan and continue in the proposed alternative. However, some of the existing designations have been modified and others have been replaced with new
designations.

Summary of Staff Recommended
Approach to the Planning Strategies
• Planning Strategy 1: Reimagining Office Parks.

Community feedback favored Alternative A, which
removes the restrictive 50 percent office mandate and
allows mixed-use redevelopment at densities up to 40
units per acre. However, given the community support for even higher densities expressed in the feedback on
Planning Strategy #5 and the Mixed-use Multifamily
Housing Study concepts, city staff is recommending
Alternative B, which allows a maximum density to 80
units/acre and includes the Advanced Industrial land use designation to preserve employment-only areas.
• Planning Strategy #2: Removing Barriers to
Redeveloping Folsom Boulevard. Consistent with
community feedback, city staff is recommending
Alternative B, which applies the higher-density version of Transit Corridor Mixed-Use (TCMU), allowing densities up to 60 units/acre, and a Transit-Oriented Development
(TOD) overlay permitting up to 100 units/acre near light rail stations.

• Planning Strategy #3: Reenvisioning the Downtown.

Community feedback generally favored Alternative B's
model of dispersed activity centers distributed throughout the city; however, there was also community support for a new City Center surrounding the proposed arena. Staff is recommending a hybrid of Alternatives A and B, which
replaces the Convention Overlay with a new Entertainment Mixed-Use District (EMUD) land use designation and
identifies a new larger City Center Planning Area in
response to City Council's desire for a centralized
downtown focused on entertainment and housing.
• Planning Strategy #4: Activating Commercial Centers.

Consistent with community feedback, Staff is
recommending Alternative A, which designates most
commercial nodes as Commercial Mixed-Use (CMU). The
updated CMU designation provides greater flexibility to accommodate a mix of uses at these activity centers
throughout the city, including standalone residential at densities of 10-30 units per acre.
• Planning Strategy #5: Increasing Housing Choices in Infill Areas. Consistent with community feedback, Staff is
recommending Alternative B, which provides higher
densities within the Transit Corridor Mixed-Use (TCMU)
and Innovation Mixed-Use (IMU) land use designations.

ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 3

Staff Recommended Land Use Alternative | April 2026 2
TABLE 1: LAND USE DESIGNATION DESCRIPTIONS DENSITY/INTENSITY General Agriculture (GA)
Lands within the General Agriculture category are set aside for commercial-level agricultural production. Sites for General Agriculture are considered economically viable for farming operations.

N/A
Urban Agriculture (UA)
The Urban Agriculture designation allows for small-scale agricultural operations that include crop production, animal raising, beekeeping, market gardens, community gardens, and produce stands in a form and at a scale appropriate for the urban context of Rancho Cordova.

N/A
Estate Residential (ER)
The Estate Residential category is characterized by larger, “executive”-style homes on generous lots. It allows a smooth transition between the rural areas of the city and the more intensively developed neighborhoods.

0.51-2 units/acre
Low Density Residential (LDR)
The Low Density Residential designation represents the traditional single-family neighborhood with a majority of single-family detached homes. This is the predominant land use designation of the city’s neighborhoods.

2.1-6 units/acre
Medium Density Residential (MDR)
The Medium Density Residential designation allows for small lot single-family detached, single-family attached (e.g., town homes, condominiums, brownstones), and small apartment complexes.

6.1-20 units/acre
High Density Residential (HDR)
The High Density Residential designation allows for development of larger multi -family housing complexes, including apartments and condominiums.
20-40 units/acre
Residential Mixed-Use (RMU)
The Residential Mixed-Use designation allows for commercial or office uses to be co-located on the same property, either vertically or horizontally, with residential development at medium to high densities. It does not preclude residential development within the designation but rather encourages a mixing of uses.

6.1-40 units/acre
FAR: 1.5 Max
Commercial Mixed-Use (CMU)
The Commercial Mixed-Use designation encourages the integration of retail and service commercial uses with office and/or residential uses. In mixed-use projects, commercial use is the predominant use on the ground floor; however, standalone residential is allowed with active ground floor uses. 10-30 units/acre
FAR: 0.25-1.5
Transit Corridor Mixed-Use (TCMU)
The Transit Corridor Mixed-Use designation is intended to activate the Folsom Boulevard corridor with transit -oriented development. This designation provides for high density residential and a broad range of commercial uses, including retail, services, restaurants, hotels, and offices. Uses may be either freestanding or co-located on the same property, either vertically or horizontally integrated.
20-60 units/acre
FAR: 0.5-2.5
ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 3

Staff Recommended Land Use Alternative | April 2026 3
TABLE 1: LAND USE DESIGNATION DESCRIPTIONS DENSITY/INTENSITY Village Center (VC)
The Village Center designation meets daily shopping needs for residents in a village as described in the building blocks concept. Typical uses include small- to medium-sized grocery stores, drug stores, dry cleaners, and coffee shops. This designation also allows housing as part of a mixed-use commercial center. Development is pedestrian friendly with neighborhood gathering places.

6.1-18 units/acre
FAR: 0.25-1.0
Local Town Center (LTC)
The Local Town Center designation provides retail, restaurant, and entertainment uses within a district as described in the building block concept. Typical uses include a combination of retail, restaurant, office, and residential. This designation may also include large retail stores, lodging, entertainment, public/quasi-public, and indoor and outdoor recreational facilities. Development is pedestrian friendly with gathering places for both daytime and nighttime activities.

6.1-18 units/acre
FAR: 0.3-1.5

Regional Town Center (RTC)
The Regional Town Center designation is generally characterized by a horizontal or vertical mix of integrated retail, office, and residential uses that serve both the entire City and the region. Large retail stores, restaurants, public/quasi - public uses, and entertainment venues are common. Regional activity centers are vibrant destination places for the entire region and foster an active nightlife.

6.1-40 units/acre
FAR: 0.35-4.0
Entertainment Mixed-Use District (EMUD)
The Entertainment Mixed-Use District designation is intended to establish an area in the city specifically for the development of a large-scale entertainment center with related and supporting uses including retail, restaurants, hotels, and multifamily housing. The district is intended to be a special place in the city that is entertaining, vibrant, and inviting to tourists, visitors, and residents alike. 20-100 units/acre
FAR: 0.35-5.0

Innovation Mixed-Use (IMU)
The Innovation Mixed-Use designation provides for professional offices and innovative businesses in an amenity -rich environment that integrates employment with commercial and residential. This designation allows for a variety of businesses and professional offices with supporting services, retail, and multifamily housing. Uses may be either freestanding or co-located on the same property, either vertically or horizontally integrated. Existing industrial uses may remain and expansions with clean industrial uses are allowed; however, new industrial uses shall be limited to those with a low environmental impact to ensure compatibility with adjacent residential. 20-80 units/acre
FAR: 0.25 - 3.0
Advanced Industrial (AI)
The Advanced Industrial designation encourages the growth of creative and innovative industries and businesses. The designation allows for professional office, research and development, incubator spaces, light industrial uses with low environmental impacts, and supportive retail and commercial development.

FAR: 0.25 - 3.0

Light Industrial (LI)
The Light Industrial designation allows industrial or manufacturing activities that occur entirely within an enclosed building. This designation also includes warehousing activities or distribution centers but excludes corporation yards.

Employee intensive operations (e.g., research and development) that would otherwise not occur within the Office Mixed-Use designation are permitted. The designation also allows hospitals and other public/quasi -public uses.

FAR: 1.0 Max

ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 3

Staff Recommended Land Use Alternative | April 2026 4
TABLE 1: LAND USE DESIGNATION DESCRIPTIONS DENSITY/INTENSITY Heavy Industrial (HI)
The Heavy Industrial designation allows for industrial or manufacturing activities that may occur inside or outside of a building or structure. This designation includes corporation yards and surface mining and related operations.

FAR: 0.6 Max

Public/Quasi-Public (QP)
The Public/Quasi-Public designation allows for uses including civic buildings; schools, colleges, and universities; religious institutions; hospitals; museums; cemeteries; and others. Most buildings in this designation are high profile and prominent within the community. To meet future community needs, new development projects should include public/quasi-public sites for future, undetermined uses.

FAR: 0.1-1.0
Parks and Open Space (OS)
The Parks and Open Space designation allows for both active and passive recreational activities, such as parks, lakes, golf courses, and trails.

N/A

Natural Resources (NR)
The Natural Resources designation sets aside land as natural habitat that typically has no urban development on it.

Often, open space trails will be sited adjacent to Natural Resource areas.

N/A

Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay
The Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay applies within one-quarter mile of light rail stations. The purpose of the TOD Overlay is to promote and provide for higher density and intensity uses as part of or in proximity to transit stations. The objective of locating more intensive uses near transit stations is to promote transit services along major transit corridors of the city.
20-100 units/acre
FAR: 0.5-3.0
City Center Planning Area
The City Center is a new planning area envisioned to become the vibrant core of Rancho Cordova where commerce, culture, entertainment, and housing converge to create a regional destination. The General Plan will contain policies specific to this area and an implementation program to prepare a subsequent master plan to guide development, transportation, parking, wayfinding, and other topics specific to this area.

N/A

ITEM 3.1.

ATTACHMENT 3