Agenda packet — Rancho Cordova City Council, October 19, 2026 (part 3 of 3)

2.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES

Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource pursuant to
Section 15064.5?
No Impact No No N/A
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant
to Section 15064.5?
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
No No Yes
c) Substantially disturb human remains, including
those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No No N/A

2.5.1 Environmental Setting
The environmental setting for the modified project site with respect to cultural resources is consistent with that of the approved project site, as described on page 3-27 in Section 3.5.1, “Environmental Setting,” of the 2022 IS/MND. The modified project site includes the 22.9-acre project site evaluated in the 2022 IS/MND (Site 1) and an additional 5- acre parcel (Site 2), approximately 0.1 mile southwest of Site 1. The Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment (Natural Investigations Company 2022) prepared for the approved project describes existing conditions associated with the entire site for the modified project (i.e., Sites 1 and 2). The records search revealed that one cultural resource (Folsom Mining District-P-34-000335H) has been previously recorded within the modified project site; no new cultural resources were identified during the field survey.

ITEM 10.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 347 of 456 ends

2.5.2 Discussion
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
and
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
and
c) Substantially disturb human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Sections 3.16.2(a), (b), and (c) on pages 3-28 and 3-29 of the 2022 IS/MND evaluate the potential for the approved project to adversely affect historical resources, archaeological resources, and human remains. The 2022 IS/MND concludes that there would be no impacts to historical resources, a less-than-significant impact related to human remains, and that implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.5-1 would reduce archaeological resource impacts to a less-than-significant level by requiring cessation of work, implementation of proper data recovery, and/or preservation procedures upon discovery of previously unknown archaeological resources.

Although the cultural report was prepared for the approved project, the assessment covered the entire site for the modified project (i.e., Sites 1 and 2). Mitigation Measure 3.5-1 would continue to be implemented for the modified project if it is approved. Like the approved project, the modified project would be required to comply with Action CHR 1.3.2 in the City’s General Plan, which specifies procedures to follow in the event of an unanticipated discovery of human remains. This requirement would be identified as a condition of project approval through the City’s permit process. Therefore, the modified project would not result in new or more severe impacts than were identified in the 2022 IS/MND with regard to cultural or archeological resources. No substantial change from the conclusions in the 2022 IS/MND would occur.

ITEM 10.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 348 of 456 ends

2.6 ENERGY

Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No No N/A
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency?
No Impact No No N/A

2.6.1 Environmental Setting
The environmental setting for the modified project site with respect to energy is generally consistent with that of the approved project site, as described on page 3-30 Section 3.6.1, “Environmental Setting,” of the 2022 IS/MND.

Electricity service to Site 2 would be similarly provided by Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) and natural gas service is provided by Pacific Gas and Electric Company.

2.6.2 Discussion
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
Section 3.6.2(a) on pages 3-30 through 3-32 of the 2022 IS/MND evaluates the potential for the approved project to result in a significant environmental impact due to the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project construction or operation. As noted in the 2022 IS/MND, neither SMAQMD nor the City of Rancho Cordova endorse a numeric threshold for determining a project’s energy impacts under CEQA. Tables 3.6-1 and

3.6-2 of the 2022 IS/MND disclose the project’s energy demand during the construction and operational phases of the project as measured in gallons of diesel fuel and gasoline, megawatt hours per year of electrical demand, and Therms per year of natural gas combustion. The 2022 IS/MND found that the approved project would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy because the approved project was (1) in a VMT efficient area, (2) covered by State and federal regulations the improve fuel efficiency, (3) consistent with the Title 24 California Building Code, (4) the residential and nonresidential land uses would participate in SMUD’s SolarShares program, (5) residential buildings would be all electric, and (6) construction would be a one-time energy expenditure and similar to other projects in the area. The modified project would result in the development of an additional 5-acre parcel (Site 2) and a ITEM 10.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 349 of 456 ends

reconfiguration of land uses on Site 1 from multi-family to single-family housing. This reconfiguration would not result in a substantial difference in construction or operational energy use, as the development footprint would be similar. The single-family uses under the modified project would continue to participate in SMUD’s SolarShare’s program.

Moreover, the modified project proposes fewer residences (166 single family units with 59 attached ADUs) than the approved project (417 residential units), the residential population and associated electrical demand is expected to be reduced under the modified project. The residences constructed in the modified project would be all electric, like the approved project. Therefore, the modified project would not result in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant effect with regard to the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy. No substantial change from the previous conclusions in the 2022 IS/MND would occur. b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency
Section 3.6.2(b) on page 3-32 of the 2022 IS/MND evaluates the potential for the approved project to conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. The 2022 IS/MND found that the approved project would have no impact with respect to conflicting with or obstructing an energy plan because implementation of the project would ensure various energy conservation and generation features would be incorporated into new development including the installation of renewable energy features and the installation of energy efficient appliances and features, which would align with the Energy Efficiency Action Plan and City’s General Plan. The modified project would include similar project design features that would decrease reliance on fossil fuels (i.e., all electric development) and commitments to SMUD’s SolarShares program. The increased development footprint of 5 acres (Site 2) would not substantially alter the electrical demand of the project. Therefore, the modified project would not result in new or more significant impacts than were identified in the 2022 IS/MND with regard to conflicting with or obstructing a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. No substantial change from the previous conclusions in the 2022 IS/MND would occur.

ITEM 10.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 350 of 456 ends

2.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS

Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated
on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the
area or based on other substantial evidence of a
known fault? (Refer to California Geological Survey
Special Publication 42.)
No Impact No No N/A
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No No N/A
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No No N/A
iv) Landslides? No Impact No No N/A
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less Than
Significant
Impact
No No N/A
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No No N/A
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1- B of the Uniform Building Code (1994, as updated),
creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No No N/A
ITEM 10.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 351 of 456 ends

e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal
systems where sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water?
No Impact No No N/A
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No No N/A

2.7.1 Environmental Setting
The modified project site includes the 22.9-acre project site evaluated in the 2022 IS/MND (Site 1) and an additional 5-acre parcel (Site 2), approximately 0.1 mile southwest of Site 1. The Geotechnical Engineering Report (Mid Pacific Engineering, Inc. 2020) and the Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment (Natural Investigations Company 2022) prepared for the approved project include an evaluation of underlying soils, groundwater conditions, geologic hazards, and paleontological sensitivity of Sites 1 and 2. Therefore, the environmental setting for the modified project site with respect to geology and soils is generally consistent with that of the approved project site, as described on pages 3-33 and 3-34 in Section 3.7.1, “Environmental Setting,” of the 2022 IS/MND.

2.7.2 Discussion
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (Refer to California Geological Survey Special Publication 42.)
Section 3.7.2(a)(i) on page 3-34 of the 2022 IS/MND evaluates the potential for the approved project to cause substantial adverse effects from rupture of a known earthquake fault. The 2022 IS/MND concludes that no impact from fault rupture would occur because the approved project site (i.e., Site 1) is not within an Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone and is located over 50 miles east of the nearest Alquist-Priolo Fault Zones. Due to the proximity of the two sites, the potential for surface fault rupture at Site 2 would be the same as that of Site 1. Therefore, the modified project would not result in new or more severe impacts than were identified in the 2022 IS/MND with regard to fault rupture.

No substantial change from the previous conclusions in the 2022 IS/MND would occur. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
Section 3.7.2(a)(ii) on pages 3-34 and 3-35 of the 2022 IS/MND evaluates the potential for the approved project to cause substantial adverse effects from strong seismic ground shaking. The 2022 IS/MND concludes that a less than significant impact from strong seismic ground shaking would occur because the approved project design would incorporate applicable seismic design standards from Chapter 16.04, “Building Code,” of the Rancho Cordova Municipal Code, which would reduce seismically induced building damage and public safety risks. Similarly, the modified project would incorporate the most current seismic design standards available at the time of construction.

Like the approved project, the modified project would not create new seismic events or exacerbate existing seismic hazards. Therefore, the modified project would not result in new or more severe impacts than were identified in the 2022 IS/MND with regard to strong seismic ground shaking. No substantial change from the previous conclusions in the 2022 IS/MND would occur.

ITEM 10.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 352 of 456 ends

iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Section 3.7.2(a)(iii) on page 3-35 of the 2022 IS/MND evaluates the potential for the approved project to cause substantial adverse effects from seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction. The 2022 IS/MND concluded that a less-than-significant impact from seismic-related ground failure would occur because the approved project site (i.e., Site 1) has a depth to groundwater greater than 50 feet below the ground surface (bgs) and is over 40 miles from the nearest active fault. Due to the proximity of the two sites, the potential for seismic-related ground failure and liquefaction to occur at Site 2 would be the same as that of Site 1. Therefore, the modified project would not result in new or more severe impacts than were identified in the 2022 IS/MND with regard to seismic-related ground failure and liquefaction. No substantial change from the previous conclusions in the 2022 IS/MND would occur. iv) Landslides?
Section 3.7.2(a)(iv) on page 3-35 of the 2022 IS/MND evaluates the potential for the approved project to cause substantial adverse effects from landslides. The 2022 IS/MND concludes that no impact from landslides would occur because the approved project site is generally flat and is not surrounded by steep slopes. Because the conditions at Site 2 are similar, the potential for landslides to occur at the modified project site would also be negligible. Therefore, the modified project would not result in new or more severe impacts than were identified in the 2022 IS/MND with regard to landslides. No substantial change from the previous conclusions in the 2022 IS/MND would occur. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Section 3.7.2(b) on pages 3-35 and 3-36 of the 2022 IS/MND evaluates the potential for the approved project to result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. The 2022 IS/MND concludes that a less-than-significant impact from erosion and loss of topsoil would occur because the approved project would be required to implement best management practices (BMPs) to control erosion in compliance with existing permits and regulations, which include the following: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction General Permit, which regulates stormwater discharges from construction sites; Chapter 16.44, “Land Grading and Erosion Control,” of the Rancho Cordova Municipal Code, which regulates ground-disturbing activities; and Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District Rule 403, which regulates fugitive dust emissions from construction and earth-moving activities.

Although the modified project would disturb a larger area (27.9 acres) than the approved project (22.9 acres), the modified project would be required to comply with the same permits and regulations for minimizing erosion during construction activities. Like the approved project, the modified project would be designed to meet the stormwater and low impact development requirements of the Stormwater Quality Design Manual (SQDM) for the Sacramento Region (Sacramento Stormwater Quality Partnership 2018) to reduce erosion potential from stormwater runoff.

Therefore, the modified project would not result in new or more severe impacts than were identified in the 2022 IS/MND with regard to soil erosion and the loss of topsoil. No substantial change from the previous conclusions in the 2022 IS/MND would occur.
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
Section 3.7.2(c) on page 3-36 of the 2022 IS/MND evaluates the potential for the approved project to be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable or would become unstable because of the project and potentially result in landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. The 2022 IS/MND concludes that a less-than-significant impact would occur because the approved project site (i.e., Site 1) is generally flat, has a depth to groundwater greater than 50 feet bgs, and is over 40 miles from the nearest active fault. Because the conditions at Site 2 are similar, the potential for such hazards to occur at the modified project site would also be low. As with the approved project, the modified project would be developed in accordance with the recommendations of a design-level geotechnical investigation that considers site-specific conditions. Therefore, the modified project would not result in new or more severe impacts than were identified in the 2022 IS/MND with regard to landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. No substantial change from the previous conclusions in the 2022 IS/MND would occur.

ITEM 10.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 353 of 456 ends

d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994, as updated), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? Section 3.7.2(d) on page 3-36 of the 2022 IS/MND evaluates the potential for the approved project to create risks to life or property by being located on expansive soil. The 2022 IS/MND concludes that a less-than-significant impact would occur because the approved project is subject to California Building Code standards, which include common engineering practices requiring special design and construction methods that reduce or eliminate risks associated with expansive soils at the approved project site. Soil conditions would be similar at the modified project site, and the modified project would be subject to the same California Building Code standards. Therefore, the modified project would not result in new or more severe impacts than were identified in the 2022 IS/MND with regard to expansive soils. No substantial change from the previous conclusions in the 2022 IS/MND would occur. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
Section 3.7.2(e) on pages 3-36 and 3-37 of the 2022 IS/MND evaluates the potential for the approved project to have soils incapable of adequately supporting septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. The 2022 IS/MND concluded that no impact related to septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems would occur because the approved project would be served by the Sacramento Area Sewer District and Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District. Like the approved project, the modified project does not propose the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems and would be served by the existing sewer and wastewater collection and treatment providers. Therefore, the modified project would not result in new or more severe impacts than were identified in the 2022 IS/MND with regard to septic tanks and alternative wastewater disposal systems. No substantial change from the previous conclusions in the 2022 IS/MND would occur. f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Section 3.7.2(f) on page 3-37 of the 2022 IS/MND evaluates the potential for the approved project to destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. The 2022 IS/MND concluded that a less than significant impact would occur based on the findings of a Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment (Natural Investigations Company 2022). Although the report was prepared for the approved project, the assessment covered the entire site for the modified project (i.e., Sites 1 and 2). The report concluded that the potential for encountering paleontological resources is low due to previous ground disturbance from historical mining activities.

Like the approved project, the modified project would be required to comply with Action CHR 1.3.2 in the City’s General Plan, which specifies procedures to follow in the event of an unanticipated discovery of paleontological resources. This requirement would be identified as a condition of project approval through the City’s permit process.

Therefore, the modified project would not result in new or more severe impacts than were identified in the 2022 IS/MND with regard to unique paleontological resources and geologic features. No substantial change from the previous conclusions in the 2022 IS/MND would occur.

ITEM 10.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 354 of 456 ends

2.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No No N/A
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No No N/A

2.8.1 Environmental Setting
The environmental setting for the modified project site with respect to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is generally consistent with that of the approved project site, as described on pages 3-38 through 3-40 in Section 3.8.1, “Environmental Setting,” of the 2022 IS/MND, with the exception of the status of the City of Rancho Cordova’s Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (CAAP). The 2022 IS/MND noted that, at the time of its preparation, the City’s CAAP was currently in development. The City adopted the CAAP in July of 2023 and most recently updated the CAAP in June 2024. Nevertheless, the CAAP is not considered a “qualified” plan under CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b), and is therefore ineligible for CEQA streamlining. Therefore, this analysis does not rely on the City’s CAAP to make a significance determination. Notably, SMAQMD continues to recommend the significance threshold used in the 2022 IS/MND, which has been applied here for Sites 1 and 2 of the modified project.

2.8.2 Discussion
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
and
b) b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Section 3.8.2(a) on pages 3-40 through 3-43 of the 2022 IS/MND evaluates the significance of the approved project’s indirect or direct emissions of GHGs. Table 3.8-1 in the 2022 IS/MND discloses the approved project’s construction emissions per year as compared to SMAQMD’s 1,100 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year ITEM 10.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 355 of 456 ends

(MTCO2e/year) threshold of significance, and determines that emissions would not exceed this threshold. Section

3.8.2(a) also provides a quantitative and qualitative assessment of the approved project’s operational emissions based on SMAQMD’s guidance, which recommends that projects be constructed to be fully electric and meet the Tier 2 voluntary standards of the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) with respect to electric vehicle (EV) charging. The 2022 IS/MND finds that the approved project’s commitments to planting 804 new trees; investments in bicycle storage, EV charging, and cool roofing; participation in SMUD’s SolarShare program; all electric residential uses; and construction of commercial development to easily transition to electric in the future, would be sufficient to offset the remaining natural gas that was assumed for the community center. The modified project would decrease the density of the project site from 18.28 dwelling units per acre to 7.5 dwelling units per acre. The square footage of commercial space would remain the same (i.e., 5,000 sf). The modified project would commit to similar project design features as the approved project, including all electric residential development, planting of trees, participation in SMUD’s SolarShare program, and investments in bicycle, cool roofing, and EV charging infrastructure exceeding the Tier 2 voluntary requirements of the CalGreen Code. Moreover, the modified project, like the approved project, is in a VMT efficient area. The modified project’s commitment to these project design features would be sufficient to offset emissions from commercial natural gas usage and would be consistent with SMAQMD’s GHG thresholds of significance. Therefore, the modified project would not result in new or more severe impacts than were identified in the 2022 IS/MND with regard to the project’s cumulative contribution of GHG emissions to global climate change. No substantial change from the previous conclusions in the 2022 IS/MND would occur.

ITEM 10.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 356 of 456 ends

2.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No No N/A
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and/or accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No No N/A
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
No Impact No No N/A
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment?
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No No N/A
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project result in a safety hazard or
excessive noise for people residing or working in the
project area?
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No No N/A
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No No N/A
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or
indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires?
No Impact No No N/A
ITEM 10.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 357 of 456 ends

2.9.1 Environmental Setting
The environmental setting for the modified project site with respect to hazards and hazardous materials is generally consistent with that of the approved project site, as described on pages 3-44 through 3-46 in Section 3.9.1, “Environmental Setting,” of the 2022 IS/MND. The modified project site includes the 22.9-acre project site evaluated in the 2022 IS/MND (Site 1) and an additional 5-acre parcel (Site 2), approximately 0.1 mile southwest of Site 1. Site 1 includes the voluntary cleanup site associated with Assessor’s Parcel Number 072-0260-056, which was identified in the 2022 IS/MND. No additional hazardous materials sites pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 (i.e., Cortese list sites) were identified within Site 2, based on a review of the following sources:
 The Department of Toxic Substances Control’s (DTSC) list of hazardous waste and substances sites from the EnviroStor Database (DTSC 2025);
 The State Water Resources Control Board’s (SWRCB) list of leaking underground storage tank sites from the GeoTracker Database (SWRCB 2025);
 The California Environmental Protection Agency’s list of solid waste disposal sites identified by the SWRCB with waste constituents above hazardous waste levels outside the waste management unit (CalEPA 2016);  SWRCB’s list of active cease and desist orders and cleanup and abatement orders (SWRCB 2020); and  DTSC’s list of hazardous waste facilities subject to corrective action pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 25187.5 (Cal EPA 2025).

2.9.2 Discussion
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Section 3.9.2(a) on page 3-46 of the 2022 IS/MND evaluates the potential for the approved project to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. The 2022 IS/MND concludes that a less-than-significant impact would occur because the approved project does not include land uses that involve the substantial use or generation of hazardous materials (e.g., manufacturing plants, dry cleaning facilities, gas stations, agricultural properties, recycling centers, refineries, and shipyards).

Construction and maintenance activities for the approved project may require the use, handling, and disposal of small amounts of hazardous materials (inorganic and organic chemicals, solvents, paints, oil, gasoline, and cleaners); however, existing laws and regulations are in place to protect workers, the public, and the environment. The modified project would involve the same land uses as the approved project and would be required to comply with applicable laws and regulations governing the transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials. Therefore, the modified project would not result in new or more severe impacts than were identified in the 2022 IS/MND with regard to the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. No substantial change from the previous conclusions in the 2022 IS/MND would occur.
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and/or accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
Section 3.9.2(b) on pages 3-46 and 3-47 of the 2022 IS/MND evaluates the potential for the approved project to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment involving the release of hazardous materials to the environment. The 2022 IS/MND concludes that a less-than-significant impact would occur because the approved project would be required to comply with existing laws and regulations intended to prevent releases of hazardous materials and provide for prompt containment in the event of a release. The modified project would be subject to the same laws and regulations. Therefore, the modified project would not result in new or more severe impacts than were identified in the 2022 IS/MND with regard to the release of hazardous materials. No substantial change from the previous conclusions in the 2022 IS/MND would occur.

ITEM 10.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 358 of 456 ends

c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Section 3.9.2(c) on page 3-47 of the 2022 IS/MND evaluates the potential for the approved project to emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school. The 2022 IS/MND concludes that no impact would occur because the approved project site is not within 0.25 mile of any existing or proposed schools.

However, the Play-ology Preschool & Playschool has been identified as located 0.22 mile northeast of the modified project site. Although construction and maintenance activities for the project may require the use, handling, and disposal of small amounts of hazardous materials (inorganic and organic chemicals, solvents, paints, oil, gasoline, and cleaners), existing laws and regulations are in place to protect the public, the modified project does not propose land uses or activities that emit hazardous emissions or generate hazardous waste (e.g., manufacturing plants, dry cleaning facilities, gas stations, agricultural properties, recycling centers, refineries, and shipyards). Therefore, although a school site has been identified within 0.25 mile of the modified project site, there would not be new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant effect with regard to emitting hazardous missions or handling hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of schools. No substantial change from the previous conclusions in the 2022 IS/MND would occur. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code §65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
Section 3.9.2(d) on page 3-48 of the 2022 IS/MND evaluates the potential for the approved project to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment by being located on a Cortese list site. The 2022 IS/MND concludes that a less-than-significant impact would occur. As identified in the 2022 IS/MND, the approved project site includes a parcel that is listed as a voluntary cleanup site on the DTSC EnviroStor database; however, the approved project would be developed in accordance with the land use restrictions established in a 2010 Land Use Covenant and construction activities involving contaminated soils would be subject to, and comply with, the 2021 Soil Management Plan (Wallace-Kuhl & Associates 2021). The same requirements would apply to the modified project. As discussed in Section 2.9.1, “Environmental Setting,” above, no other Cortese list sites were identified within the modified project site boundaries. Therefore, the modified project would not result in new or more severe impacts than were identified in the 2022 IS/MND with regard to hazardous materials sites. No substantial change from the previous conclusions in the 2022 IS/MND would occur.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
Section 3.9.2(e) on page 3-48 of the 2022 IS/MND evaluates the potential for the approved project to be located within an airport land use plan or within 2 miles of a public airport and result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area. The 2022 IS/MND concluded that a less-than-significant impact would occur because the approved project site is within the Airport Influence Area of Mather Airport and the approved project would be consistent with the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Like the approved project site, the modified project site is not within the 60 to 75+ decibel Community Noise Equivalent noise exposure range for Mather Airport, which represents noise levels that are normally unacceptable for residential uses. Therefore, the modified project would not result in new or more severe impacts than were identified in the 2022 IS/MND with regard to airport safety hazards and noise. No substantial change from the previous conclusions in the 2022 IS/MND would occur.

ITEM 10.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 359 of 456 ends

f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Section 3.9.2(f) on page 3-48 of the 2022 IS/MND evaluates the potential for the approved project to impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or evacuation plan. The 2022 IS/MND concluded that a less than significant impact would occur because the approved project would not induce unplanned population growth or permanently alter roadways in a manner that could hinder emergency response or evacuation. Because the modified project proposes fewer residences (166 single family units with 59 attached ADUs) than the approved project (417 residential units), less population growth with potential to affect emergency response and evacuation would be expected under the modified project. Like the approved project, the modified project would be reviewed by the Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District to ensure adequate emergency access and traffic safety. Therefore, the modified project would not result in new or more severe impacts than were identified in the 2022 IS/MND with regard to emergency response and evacuation plans. No substantial change from the previous conclusions in the 2022 IS/MND would occur.
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires?
Section 3.9.2(g) on page 3-48 of the 2022 IS/MND evaluates the potential for the approved project to expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. The 2022 IS/MND concluded that no impact would occur because the approved project site is within a non-Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) and not within an area susceptible to wildland fires. The same is true for the modified project. Therefore, the modified project would not result in new or more severe impacts than were identified in the 2022 IS/MND with regard to wildland fires. No substantial change from the previous conclusions in the 2022 IS/MND would occur.

ITEM 10.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 360 of 456 ends

2.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade
surface or groundwater quality?
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No No N/A
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such
that the project may impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No No N/A
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river or through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:

Less Than
Significant
Impact
No No N/A
i) Result in substantial on- or offsite erosion or
siltation;
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No No N/A
ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result
in flooding on- or offsite;
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No No N/A
iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted
runoff; or
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No No N/A
iv) Impede or redirect flood flows? No Impact No No N/A d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
No Impact No No N/A
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water
quality control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan?
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No No N/A
ITEM 10.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 361 of 456 ends

2.10.1 Environmental Setting
The environmental setting for the modified project site with respect to hydrology and water quality is generally consistent with that of the approved project site, as described on pages 3-49 and 3-50 in Section 3.10.1, “Environmental Setting,” of the 2022 IS/MND.

2.10.2 Discussion
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality?
Section 3.10.2(a) on pages 3-50 and 3-51 of the 2022 IS/MND evaluates the potential for the approved project to violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality. The 2022 IS/MND concludes that a less-than-significant impact would occur. The applicant for the approved project would be required to develop and implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) with BMPs to prevent stormwater contamination, control sedimentation and erosion, and comply with stormwater discharge requirements during construction activities in accordance with the NPDES Construction General Permit. In addition, the approved project design includes stormwater infrastructure to treat runoff from the project site in accordance with the Stormwater Quality Design Manual (SDQM) for the Sacramento Region (Sacramento Stormwater Quality Partnership 2018) to ensure compliance with the City’s NPDES municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) permit. The modified project would result in ground disturbance and changes to existing drainage patterns over a larger area (27.9 acres) than the approved project (22.9 acres), which would have greater potential to degrade water quality relative to the approved project. However, the modified project would be required to comply with the same NPDES permit requirements to ensure water quality standards established by the Central Valley RWQCB are met during construction and operation. Therefore, the modified project would not result in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant effect with regard to water quality standards, waste discharge requirements, and surface and groundwater quality. No substantial change from the previous conclusions in the 2022 IS/MND would occur.
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
Section 3.10.2(b) on page 3-51 of the 2022 IS/MND evaluates the potential for the approved project to substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge in a manner that impedes sustainable groundwater management of the basin. The 2022 IS/MND concludes that a less-than-significant impact would occur.

Although the approved project would introduce new impervious cover that would reduce the area for stormwater recharge, the approved project design includes stormwater infrastructure that would allow runoff to percolate into the soil, which would fulfill the requirements of the SQDM for the Sacramento Region (Sacramento Stormwater Quality Partnership 2018). The modified project would introduce a larger area of impervious surfaces than the approved project, which would have greater potential to interfere with groundwater recharge relative to the approved project. However, the modified project includes bioretention basins designed to fulfill the same SQDM requirements as the approved project. The modified project proposes bioretention basins at Sites 1 and 2 to collect and treat stormwater runoff from the project site and allow it to percolate back into the soil. In addition, as described further in Section 2.19, the modified project would result in less water demand than the approved project, which would reduce the potential for effects on groundwater. Therefore, the modified project would not result in new or more severe impacts than were identified in the 2022 IS/MND with regard to groundwater supplies, recharge, and management. No substantial change from the previous conclusions in the 2022 IS/MND would occur.

ITEM 10.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 362 of 456 ends

c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i) Result in substantial on- or offsite erosion or siltation; Section 3.10.2(c)(i) on pages 3-51 and 3-52 of the 2022 IS/MND evaluates the potential for the approved project to alter existing drainage patterns or add impervious surfaces in a manner that results in substantial soil erosion or siltation. The 2022 IS/MND concluded that a less than significant impact would occur because the approved project would be required to implement BMPs to control erosion in compliance with existing permits and regulations, which include the following: NPDES Construction General Permit, which regulates stormwater discharges from construction sites; Chapter 16.44, “Land Grading and Erosion Control,” of the Rancho Cordova Municipal Code, which regulates ground-disturbing activities; and Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District Rule 403, which regulates fugitive dust emissions from construction and earth-moving activities. Although the modified project would disturb a larger area (27.9 acres) than the approved project (22.9 acres), the modified project would be required to comply with the same permits and regulations for minimizing erosion during construction activities. Like the approved project site, the modified project site includes bioretention basins designed to meet the stormwater and low impact development requirements of the SQDM for the Sacramento Region (Sacramento Stormwater Quality Partnership 2018) to reduce erosion potential from stormwater runoff. Therefore, the modified project would not result in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant effect with regard to erosion and siltation. No substantial change from the previous conclusions in the 2022 IS/MND would occur. ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite;
Section 3.10.2(c)(ii) on page 3-52 of the 2022 IS/MND evaluates the potential for the approved project to substantially increase surface runoff in a manner that results in flooding. The 2022 IS/MND concludes that a less-than-significant impact would occur because the approved project would be designed to meet the stormwater and low impact development requirements of the SQDM for the Sacramento Region (Sacramento Stormwater Quality Partnership 2018) to collect stormwater runoff and allow it to percolate back into the soil. The modified project would introduce a larger area of impervious surfaces than the approved project, which would have potential to result in greater amounts of surface runoff. However, the modified project includes bioretention basins designed to fulfill the same SQDM requirements as the approved project. Figures 1-4b and 1-4c in Chapter 1, “Introduction,” illustrate the location and size of the bioretention basins proposed as part of the modified project. These basins are located near the proposed commercial development on Site 1 and adjacent to International Drive on Site 2. The bioretention basins would collect, filter, and temporarily store stormwater runoff from the proposed development, which would minimize the potential for localized flooding by reducing peak flow rates and the overall volume of water entering the City’s drainage system during storm events. Therefore, the modified project would not result in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant effect with regard to flooding from increased surface runoff. No substantial change from the previous conclusions in the 2022 IS/MND would occur. iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or
Section 3.10.2(c)(iii) on page 3-52 of the 2022 IS/MND evaluates the potential for the approved project to create runoff water that exceeds the capacity of planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. The 2022 IS/MND concludes that a less-than-significant impact would occur because the approved project would be designed to meet the stormwater and low impact development requirements of the SQDM for the Sacramento Region (Sacramento Stormwater Quality Partnership 2018) to collect stormwater runoff and allow it to percolate back into the soil. The modified project would introduce a larger area of impervious surfaces than the approved project, which would have potential to result in a greater amount of surface runoff. However, the ITEM 10.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 363 of 456 ends

modified project includes bioretention basins designed to fulfill the same SQDM requirements as the approved project. As noted in Section 3.9.2(c)(ii) above, the bioretention basins would collect, filter, and temporarily store stormwater runoff from the proposed development, which would reduce peak flow rates and the overall volume of water entering the City’s drainage system during storm events. Therefore, the modified project would not result in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant effect with regard to excess runoff. No substantial change from the previous conclusions in the 2022 IS/MND would occur. iv) Impede or redirect flood flows?
Section 3.10.2(c)(iv) on page 3-52 of the 2022 IS/MND evaluates the potential for the approved project impede or redirect flood flows. The 2022 IS/MND concludes that no impact would occur because the approved project site is in an area of minimal flood hazard. The same is true for the modified project site. Therefore, the modified project would not result in new or more severe impacts than were identified in the 2022 IS/MND with regard to impeding or redirecting flood flows. No substantial change from the previous conclusions in the 2022 IS/MND would occur. d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
Section 3.10.2(d) on page 3-52 of the 2022 IS/MND evaluates the potential for the approved project impede to risk release of pollutants due to project inundation in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones. The 2022 IS/MND concludes that no impact would occur because the approved project site is not within a flood hazard zone, tsunami, or seiche zone. The same is true for the modified project site. Therefore, the modified project would not result in new or more severe impacts than were identified in the 2022 IS/MND with regard to the release of pollutants due to project inundation. No substantial change from the previous conclusions in the 2022 IS/MND would occur. e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Section 3.10.2(e) on pages 3-52 and 3-53 of the 2022 IS/MND evaluates the potential for the approved project to conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan.

The 2022 IS/MND concludes that a less than significant impact would occur because the approved project would comply with applicable requirements of the NPDES Construction General Permit and SQDM for the Sacramento Region (Sacramento Stormwater Quality Partnership 2018), which would prevent conflicts with the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. In addition, the approved project would not interfere with groundwater recharge or use groundwater resources in a manner that would conflict with the Groundwater Sustainability Plan for the South American Subbasin. As discussed in Sections 2.10.2(a) and (b) above, the modified project would result in a larger area of construction-related ground disturbance and introduce more impervious surface area than the approved project; however, the modified project would be required to fulfill the same NPDES and SQDM requirements as the approved project. In addition, water demand is anticipated to decrease due to the reduction in dwelling units. Therefore, the modified project would not result in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant effect with regard to conflicts with water quality control and sustainable groundwater management plans. No substantial change from the previous conclusions in the 2022 IS/MND would occur.

ITEM 10.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 364 of 456 ends

2.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING

Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? No Impact No No N/A b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a
conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating
an environmental effect?
No Impact No No N/A

2.11.1 Environmental Setting
The environmental setting for the modified project site with respect to land use and planning is generally consistent with that of the approved project site, as described on page 3-54 in Section 3.11.1, “Environmental Setting,” of the 2022 IS/MND. Like Site 1, Site 2 is vacant and surrounded by urban development on all sides, including government facilities to the west, medical offices to the north, and single-family residences to the east and south. Site 2 is also designated as OMU in the City’s General Plan Land Use Diagram and within the OPMU Zoning Designation.

2.11.2 Discussion
a) Physically divide an established community?
Section 3.11.2(a) on page 3-54 of the 2022 IS/MND evaluates the potential for the approved project to physically divide an established community. The 2022 IS/MND concludes that no impact would occur because the approved project would be compatible with surrounding land uses and would not include any physical features that would restrict access to neighboring communities. Similarly, the modified project would develop vacant parcels with residential and commercial land uses. The modified project, like the approved project, would not permanently modify any existing roads and would not introduce any physical barriers (e.g., freeways) within the existing community.

Therefore, the modified project would not result in new or more severe impacts than were identified in the 2022 IS/MND with regard to dividing established communities. No substantial change from the previous conclusions in the 2022 IS/MND would occur.

ITEM 10.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 365 of 456 ends

b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
Section 3.11.2(b) on page 3-54 of the 2022 IS/MND evaluates the potential for the approved project to cause significant environmental impacts due to conflicts with land use plans, policies, and regulations. The 2022 IS/MND concludes that no impact would occur because the approved project would be consistent with the land use and zoning designation for the site and would be consistent with the City’s General Plan policies. Similarly, the single family residences and commercial uses proposed under the modified project would be consistent with the OMU land use and OPMU zoning designation for the modified project site. Therefore, the modified project would not result in new or more severe impacts than were identified in the 2022 IS/MND with regard to conflicts with land use plans, policies, and regulations. No substantial change from the previous conclusions in the 2022 IS/MND would occur.

ITEM 10.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 366 of 456 ends

2.12 MINERAL RESOURCES

Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and
the residents of the state?
Less Than
Significant
No No N/A
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
No Impact No No N/A

2.12.1 Environmental Setting
The environmental setting for the modified project site with respect to mineral resources is generally consistent with that of the approved project site, as described on page 3-55 in Section 3.12.1, “Environmental Setting,” of the 2022 IS/MND. Like Site 1, Site 2 is currently vacant and does not have any active mining operations.

2.12.2 Discussion
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
Section 3.12.2(a) on page 3-55 of the 2022 IS/MND evaluates the potential for the approved project to result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource. The 2022 IS/MND concludes that a less-than-significant impact would occur because mineral resources were historically removed from the approved project site from past mining activities.

The same is true for the modified project site. Therefore, the modified project would not result in new or more severe impacts than were identified in the 2022 IS/MND with regard to mineral resources. No substantial change from the previous conclusions in the 2022 IS/MND would occur.
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? Section 3.12.2(a) on page 3-55 of the 2022 IS/MND evaluates the potential for the approved project to result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource. The 2022 IS/MND concludes that no impact would occur because the approved project site is zoned for professional mixed-use land uses and is surrounded by urban development that precludes mineral resource extraction. The modified project site has the same zoning designation and is also ITEM 10.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 367 of 456 ends

surrounded by urban development. Therefore, the modified project would not result in new or more severe impacts than were identified in the 2022 IS/MND with regard to mineral resources. No substantial change from the previous conclusions in the 2022 IS/MND would occur.

ITEM 10.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 368 of 456 ends

2.13 NOISE

Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies, or a substantial
temporary or permanent increase in noise levels
above existing ambient levels that could result in an
adverse effect on humans?
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No No N/A
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No No N/A
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a
plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area
to excessive noise levels?
No Impact No No N/A

2.13.1 Environmental Setting
The environmental setting for the modified project site with respect to noise is generally consistent with that of the approved project site, as described on page 3-56 in Section 3.13.1, “Environmental Setting,” of the 2022 IS/MND.

ITEM 10.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 369 of 456 ends

2.13.2 Discussion
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies, or a substantial temporary or permanent increase in noise levels above existing ambient levels that could result in an adverse effect on humans?
Section 3.13.2(a) on page 3-60 of the 2022 IS/MND evaluates the potential for the approved project to generate substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in excess of applicable standards, or a substantial temporary or permanent increase in noise levels above existing ambient levels that could result in an adverse effect on humans.

Construction
The 2022 IS/MND concludes that temporary noise-related impacts would be less-than-significant because the approved construction activities would occur within the timeframe that is identified by the City’s noise ordinance as exempt from applicable noise standards. The modified project’s construction activities are expected to be similar to the construction activities related to the approved project and would also occur during noise-exempt daytime hours.

Land uses adjacent to Site 2 are International Drive and Kilgore Road to the north and east, the Stone Creek Community Bike Trail to the south, and an office building occupied by Child Support Services to the west. These land uses are not considered sensitive receptors for the analysis of construction noise. Although there are residences near Site 2, they are buffered from the site by Kilgore Road and the bike trail. Because construction noise would remain exempt, the modified project would not result in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant effect with regard to construction noise. No substantial change from the previous conclusions in the 2022 IS/MND would occur.

Operation
Section 3.13.2(a) on page 3-61 of the 2022 IS/MND evaluates the potential for the approved project to generate substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in excess of applicable standards or permanent increase in noise levels above existing ambient levels that could result in an adverse effect on humans.

Traffic Noise
The 2022 IS/MND concludes that this impact would be less than significant because project-generated traffic would not result in a perceptible change (i.e. +3 dB) on any of the roadway study segments compared to existing conditions. Daily trips that would be generated by the modified project are expected to be 2,616; a 754 vehicle trip decrease from the approved project (Kimley Horn 2025). As such, traffic-related noise generated by the modified project would be less than those under the approved project. Therefore, the modified project would not result in new or more severe impacts than were identified in the 2022 IS/MND with regard to traffic noise. No substantial change from the previous conclusions in the 2022 IS/MND would occur.

Stationary Noise
The 2022 IS/MND determined that potential noise impacts associated with HVAC equipment would be less than significant, based on the finding that no sensitive receptors would be located within 75 feet of proposed equipment.

With the modified project, Site 2 would place HVAC equipment approximately 120 feet from the nearest sensitive receptor, as measured from the potential HVAC equipment location to the façade of the closest receptor. The distance between the source and the nearest sensitive receptor (i.e., residence) would be reduced from 200 feet (as previously analyzed) to approximately 120 feet under the modified project. Because noise levels increase with reduced distances from the source, the anticipated noise levels would be higher than under the approved project.

The noise sources would still be located outside of the 75 feet impact distance identified in the 2022 IS/MND, as such the modified project would not exceed the City of Rancho Cordova’s nighttime noise standard at sensitive receptors.

In addition, the noise generated by the project would be typical of residential uses and consistent with the existing ITEM 10.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 370 of 456 ends

residential noise that the receptors are exposed to in the existing condition. Therefore, the modified project would not result in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant effect with regard to project-generated noise levels. No substantial change from the previous conclusions in the 2022 IS/MND would occur.
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Section 3.13.2(b) on page 3-62 of the 2022 IS/MND evaluates the potential for the approved project to result in excessive groundborne vibration or noise levels. The 2022 IS/MND concludes that the impact would be less than significant because no sensitive receptors would be located within 26 feet where thresholds for structural damages would be exceeded or 73 feet where the thresholds for human annoyance would be exceeded. The nearest sensitive receptors would be located approximately 120 feet from the modified project. Therefore, the modified project would not result in new or more severe impacts than were identified in the 2022 IS/MND with regard to groundborne vibration or noise levels. No substantial change from the previous conclusions in the 2022 IS/MND would occur. c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Section 3.13.2(c) on page 3-62 of the 2022 IS/MND evaluates the potential for the approved project to result in the exposure of people residing or working in the project area to excessive airport noise. The 2022 IS/MND concludes that no impact would occur because the approved project site is located outside the 60 dB CNEL noise contour. The modified project site is still located outside the 60 dB CNEL noise contour. Therefore, the modified project would not result in new or more severe impacts than were identified in the 2022 IS/MND with regard to airport noise. No substantial change from the previous conclusions in the 2022 IS/MND would occur.

ITEM 10.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 371 of 456 ends

2.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING

Would the project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in
an area, either directly (for example, by proposing
new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No No N/A
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact No No N/A

2.14.1 Environmental Setting
The environmental setting for the modified project site with respect to population and housing is generally consistent with that of the approved project site, as described on page 3-55 in Section 3.12.1, “Environmental Setting,” of the 2022 IS/MND. As of January 1, 2025, the population in the City was 85,451 people (DOF 2025).

2.14.2 Discussion
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
Section 3.14.2(a) on page 3-63 of the 2022 IS/MND evaluates the potential for the approved project to induce substantial unplanned population growth. The 2022 IS/MND concludes that a-less-than significant impact would occur because although the approved project would introduce new housing that could contribute to population growth in the city, the growth would occur in an area that is already planned for development and would help meet the housing needs of the City’s residents. Because the modified project proposes fewer residences (166 single family units with 59 attached ADUs) than the approved project (417 residential units), less population growth would be expected under the modified project. Based on the City’s average household size of 2.85 residents (US Census Bureau 2021), the approved project was estimated to have residential population of approximately 1,043 residents. In comparison, the 166 single family homes would have a residential population of approximately 474 residents and the ADUs could add up to 118 additional residents (assuming a maximum capacity of two people for each ADU), for a total of 592 residents for the modified project. Therefore, the modified project would not result in new or more ITEM 10.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 372 of 456 ends

severe impacts than were identified in the 2022 IS/MND with regard to unplanned population growth. No substantial change from the previous conclusions in the 2022 IS/MND would occur. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Section 3.14.2(b) on page 3-63 of the 2022 IS/MND evaluates the potential for the approved project to displace existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing. The 2022 IS/MND concludes that no impact would occur because the approved project site is vacant and does not contain existing housing units.

Because the modified project site is also vacant, the modified project would not result in new or more severe impacts than were identified in the 2022 IS/MND with regard to the displacement of people and housing. No substantial change from the previous conclusions in the 2022 IS/MND would occur.

ITEM 10.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 373 of 456 ends

2.15 PUBLIC SERVICES

Would the project:
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, or the need for new
or physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times, or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:

Fire protection?
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No No N/A
Police protection?
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No No N/A
Schools?
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No No N/A
Parks?
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No No N/A
Other public facilities?
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No No N/A

2.15.1 Environmental Setting
The environmental setting for the modified project site with respect to public services is generally consistent with that of the approved project site, as described on pages 3-64 and 3-65 in Section 3.15.1, “Environmental Setting,” of the 2022 IS/MND. Like the approved project site, the modified project site is within the service area of the following public service providers: Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District, Rancho Cordova Police Department, Folsom Cordova Unified School District, Cordova Recreation and Park District, and Sacramento Public Library System.

ITEM 10.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 374 of 456 ends

2.15.2 Discussion
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

Fire protection?
Section 3.15.2(a) on page 3-66 of the 2022 IS/MND evaluates the potential for the approved project to result in significant environmental impacts associated with the construction of new or physically altered government facilities in order to maintain acceptable performance objectives for fire protection. The 2022 IS/MND concludes that a less than significant impact would occur because the population growth attributable to the approved project would be consistent with the type of growth anticipated in the City’s General Plan and could be served by the Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District upon payment of the City’s Capital Fire Facilities Fee. Because the modified project proposes fewer residences (166 single family units with 59 attached ADUs) than the approved project (417 residential units), less population growth and associated demand for fire protection services would be expected under the modified project. As with the approved project, no new fire stations would be necessary to adequately serve the residents of the modified project. Therefore, the modified project would not result in new or more severe impacts than were identified in the 2022 IS/MND with regard to fire protection. No substantial change from the previous conclusions in the 2022 IS/MND would occur.

Police protection?
Section 3.15.2(a) on pages 3-66 and 3-67 of the 2022 IS/MND evaluates the potential for the approved project to result in significant environmental impacts associated with the construction of new or physically altered government facilities in order to maintain acceptable performance objectives for police protection. The 2022 IS/MND concluded that a less than significant impact would occur because the population growth attributable to the approved project would be consistent with the type of growth anticipated in the City’s General Plan and could be served by the Rancho Cordova Police Department upon payment of the City’s development impact fee. Because the modified project proposes fewer residences (166 single family units with 59 attached ADUs) than the approved project (417 residential units), less population growth and associated demand for police protection services would be expected under the modified project. As with the approved project, no new police stations would be necessary to adequately serve the residents of the modified project. Therefore, the modified project would not result in new or more severe impacts than were identified in the 2022 IS/MND with regard to police protection. No substantial change from the previous conclusions in the 2022 IS/MND would occur.

Schools?
Section 3.15.2(a) on page 3-67 of the 2022 IS/MND evaluates the potential for the approved project to result in significant environmental impacts associated with the construction of new or physically altered government facilities in order to maintain acceptable performance objectives for schools. The 2022 IS/MND concludes that a less than significant impact would occur because the student population growth attributable to the approved project would be consistent with the type of growth anticipated in the City’s General Plan and could be served by the Folsom Cordova Unified School District upon payment of the City’s development impact fees in accordance with Government Code Section 65995 and 65996. Because the modified project proposes fewer residences (166 single family units with 59 attached ADUs) than the approved project (417 residential units), the resident population growth and associated demand for school facilities would be reduced under the modified project. As with the approved project, no new schools would be necessary to adequately serve the student resident population of the modified project. Therefore, the modified project would not result in new or more severe impacts than were identified in the 2022 IS/MND with regard to schools. No substantial change from the previous conclusions in the 2022 IS/MND would occur.

ITEM 10.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 375 of 456 ends

Parks?
Section 3.15.2(a) on pages 3-67 and 3-68 of the 2022 IS/MND evaluates the potential for the approved project to result in significant environmental impacts associated with the construction of new or physically altered government facilities in order to maintain acceptable performance objectives for parks. The 2022 IS/MND concludes that a less-than-significant impact would occur because the approved project would provide recreational amenities for residents and the applicant would pay applicable development impact fees to fund Cordova Recreation and Park District park improvements that would offset the increased use of parks from new residential development. The modified project would be subject to the same requirement. The modified project includes approximately 1 acre of land dedicated to pedestrian paths, common open spaces, picnic areas, play nodes, a multi-use lawn, and a tot lot. Because these parks would be private, they would not count toward the City’s park and recreation dedication requirements. Therefore, the applicant would be required to pay in-lieu fees in accordance with Rancho Cordova Municipal Code Chapter 22.40, “Park and Recreation Dedication and Fees,” to offset the impact of new residential developments on existing park and recreational facilities. The modified project would not result in new or more severe impacts than were identified in the 2022 IS/MND with regard to parks. No substantial change from the previous conclusions in the 2022 IS/MND would occur.

Other public facilities?
Section 3.15.2(a) on page 3-68 of the 2022 IS/MND evaluates the potential for the approved project to result in significant environmental impacts associated with the construction of new or physically altered government facilities in order to maintain acceptable performance objectives for libraries. The 2022 IS/MND concludes that a less than significant impact would occur because the residents of the approved project would be served by the City’s existing public facilities. Because the modified project proposes fewer residences (166 single family units with 59 attached ADUs) than the approved project (417 residential units), less population growth and associated demand for other public services would be expected under the modified project. As with the approved project, no new public facilities would be necessary to adequately serve the residents of the modified project. Therefore, the modified project would not result in new or more severe impacts than were identified in the 2022 IS/MND with regard to other public facilities. No substantial change from the previous conclusions in the 2022 IS/MND would occur.

ITEM 10.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 376 of 456 ends

2.16 RECREATION

Would the project:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No No N/A
b) Include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities
that might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No No N/A

2.16.1 Environmental Setting
The environmental setting for the modified project site with respect to recreation is generally consistent with that of the approved project site, as described on page 3-65 in Section 3.15.1, “Environmental Setting,” of the 2022 IS/MND.

2.16.2 Discussion
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
Section 3.16.2(a) on page 3-69 of the 2022 IS/MND evaluates the potential for the approved project to increase the use of parks and other recreational facilities in a manner that causes substantial physical deterioration of the facilities.

The 2022 IS/MND concludes that a less-than-significant impact would occur because the approved project would provide recreational amenities for residents and the applicant would pay applicable development impact fees to fund Cordova Recreation and Park District park improvements that would offset the increased use of parks from new residential development. The modified project would be subject to the same requirement. The modified project includes approximately 1 acre of land dedicated to pedestrian paths, common open spaces, picnic areas, play nodes, a multi-use lawn, and a tot lot. Because these parks would be private, they would not count toward the City’s park and recreation dedication requirements. Therefore, the applicant would be required to pay in-lieu fees in accordance with Rancho Cordova Municipal Code Chapter 22.40, “Park and Recreation Dedication and Fees,” to offset the impact of new residential developments on existing park and recreational facilities. In addition, because the modified project would result in fewer residents, it would generate less demand for parks as compared to the approved project.

ITEM 10.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 377 of 456 ends

Therefore, the modified project would not result in new or more severe impacts than were identified in the 2022 IS/MND with regard to the physical deterioration of existing parks and recreational facilities. No substantial change from the previous conclusions in the 2022 IS/MND would occur. b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Section 3.16.2(b) on page 3-69 of the 2022 IS/MND evaluates the potential for the approved project to result in adverse physical effects on the environment from the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. The 2022 IS/MND concludes that a less-than-significant impact would occur because the environmental effects of the proposed recreational amenities were considered throughout the 2022 IS/MND as part of the overall environmental impact analysis for the project and no significant impacts were identified. Similarly, no significant environmental effects were identified throughout this addendum in connection with the modified project, including the approximately 1 acre of open space and recreational amenities proposed as part of the overall development.

Therefore, the modified project would not result in new or more severe impacts than were identified in the 2022 IS/MND with regard to the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. No substantial change from the previous conclusions in the 2022 IS/MND would occur.

ITEM 10.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 378 of 456 ends

2.17 TRANSPORTATION

Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities?
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No No N/A
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines
section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No No N/A
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No No N/A
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No No N/A

2.17.1 Environmental Setting
The environmental setting for the modified project site with respect to transportation is generally consistent with that of the approved project site, as described on page 3-70 in Section 3.17.1, “Environmental Setting,” of the 2022 IS/MND. The modified project site includes the 22.9-acre project site evaluated in the 2022 IS/MND (Site 1) and an additional 5-acre parcel (Site 2), approximately 0.1 mile southwest of Site 1. Kilgore Road would provide direct access to the residences proposed on Site 2. Additionally, the Stone Creek Community Bike Trail, an approximately 5-mile loop around the Stone Creek Community subdivision, is located along the southern frontage of Site 2. The City of Rancho Cordova General Plan is in the process of being updated with adoption anticipated in the summer of 2026.

Similarly, the City is developing Rancho Cordova Active Transportation Plan, which will be a new plan that establishes a vision for walking, rolling, and bicycling in Rancho Cordova. Until adoption of the Active Transportation Plan, the existing Bicycle Master Plan and Pedestrian Master Plan remain applicable. The project was previously approved under the 2019 California Fire Code; however, the 2022 California Fire Code has been adopted since then and is now in effect, as incorporated by reference in the City of Rancho Cordova Municipal Code Section 17.04.010.

ITEM 10.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 379 of 456 ends

2.17.2 Discussion
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities? Section 3.17.2(a) on pages 3-74 and 3-75 of the 2022 IS/MND evaluates the potential for the approved project to conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. The 2022 IS/MND concludes that the impact would be less than significant because the approved project would provide an enhanced environment for pedestrians by including open space and pathways within its internal circulation design that would integrate with the existing bicycle network. Additionally, the Residences Project would provide supporting bicycle facilities such as bicycle parking in the commercial area to comply with municipal code requirements and Bicycle Master Plan policies. The approved project would not conflict with transit facilities and all nearby bus stops would remain as is. The modified project would include pedestrian paths and open space to accommodate people walking. As shown on project site plans, all new internal roadways (i.e., Streets A, B, and C for Site 1 and Loop Street for Site 2) would be constructed with sidewalks. The modified project would not conflict with existing transit stops or interfere with the implementation of future transit facilities. Therefore, the modified project would not result in new or more severe impacts than were identified in the 2022 IS/MND with regard to alternative transportation. No substantial change from the previous conclusions in the 2022 IS/MND would occur. b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3(b), which pertains to vehicle miles travelled?
Section 3.17.2(b) on page 3-76 of the 2022 IS/MND evaluates the potential for the approved project to conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3(b), which pertains to vehicle miles travelled (VMT). The 2022 IS/MND concludes that the impact would be less than significant because the approved project satisfied two of the screening criteria established in the City’s Transportation Impact Guidelines: it would be located in a VMT-efficient area and is in proximity to transit. The Capital Village Residences Trip Generation Comparison Memorandum (Trip Generation Comparison Memo) was prepared to evaluate the trip generation of the approved project relative to the modified project being proposed (Kimley-Horn 2025). Table 2.17-1 presents the trip generation comparison. The internal capture percentage between project land uses was developed using National Cooperative Highway Research Program 684 methodology because the approved and proposed modified projects both include a mix of uses.

Table 2.17-1 Trip Generation Comparison
Land Use ITE Code Quantity Units Daily Trips
Approved Project
Multi-Family Housing (Low-Rise) 220 177 DU 1,210
Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) 221 240 DU 1,098
High-Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant 932 13.8 ksf 1,479
Total Trips 3,787
Internal Capture (11% Daily/AM Peak-Hour, 15% PM Peak-Hour)1 417 Net External Trips 3,370
Modified Project
Single-Family Detached Housing 210 107 DU 1,074
Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise) 220 59 DU 454
High-Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant 932 13.8 ksf 1,479
Total Trips 3,007
Internal Capture (14% Daily/AM Peak-Hour, 16% PM Peak-Hour)1 391 Net External Trips 2,616
Net Change in External Trips -754
Notes: DU = dwelling units; ksf = 1,000 square feet; % = percent 1 National Cooperative Highway Research Program 684 Internal Trip Capture Estimation Tool Source: Data provided by Kimley Horn in 2025; table modified by Ascent Environmental in 2025.

ITEM 10.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 380 of 456 ends

As shown in Table 2.17-1, the proposed modified project is anticipated to generate approximately 754 fewer new daily trips. Therefore, it was determined that the modified project would generate less trips, and thus VMT, than the previously evaluated and approved project.

The analysis of construction worker VMT would not change because the addition of Site 2 would not substantially affect the number of workers or travel patterns to the site. The proposed residential construction would be consistent with the type of construction previously evaluated and there are no unique project attributes that would require a specialized labor force that may travel further to the project site than previously assumed. Further, construction activities would be temporary and intermittent in nature and, thus, would not result in long-term increases in vehicular trips. Additionally, VMT of construction workers is not newly generated; instead, it is redistributed throughout the regional roadway network based on the different work sites that workers travel to each day.

Therefore, the modified project would not result in new or more severe impacts than were identified in the 2022 IS/MND with regard to VMT. No substantial change from the previous conclusions in the 2022 IS/MND would occur. c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Section 3.17.2(c) on page 3-76 of the 2022 IS/MND evaluates the potential for the approved project to substantially increase transportation hazards. The 2022 IS/MND concludes that the impact would be less than significant because the project applicant would be required to obtain an encroachment permit for any construction activity within public right of way, in compliance with City of Rancho Cordova Municipal Code Section 12.08.020. The encroachment permit requires the submittal of a traffic control permit for review and approval by the City Public Works Department for any work requiring modification of existing traffic patterns. Additionally, internal circulation for vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians would be required to follow the City’s Design Guidelines: Provisions for a Quality Community.

Additionally, the Residences Project would follow site design standards set forth in the City Municipal Code including those in Section 23.707.040 pertaining to pedestrian access and open space, Section 23.719.090 regarding parking design standards, and Section 23.722.050 related to on-site pedestrian pathway standards. Final site plans for the project would also be subject to review and approval by the City Building & Safety Division and Public Works Department ensuring City standards including those pertaining to site accessibility and safety are met. The modified project, including proposed development on Site 2, would be required to comply with these same regulations, standards, and approval processes for construction and operations. Therefore, the modified project would not result in new or more severe impacts than were identified in the 2022 IS/MND with regard to transportation hazards. No substantial change from the previous conclusions in the 2022 IS/MND would occur. d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Section 3.17.2(d) on pages 3-76 and 3-77 of the 2022 IS/MND evaluates the potential for the approved project to result in inadequate emergency access. The 2022 IS/MND concludes that the impact would be less than significant because construction activities and site plans would be subject to emergency access standards and requirements of Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District to ensure traffic safety, including the California Fire Code. Additionally, the Residences Project is required to obtain an encroachment permit and submit a traffic control plan for work within public right of way which would demonstrate safe traffic handling during construction including maintaining adequate emergency access. Final site plans for the project would also be subject to approval by the Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District and City staff ensuring the project would be designed to meet all applicable emergency access and design standards. The modified project would be required to comply with these same regulations, standards, and approval processes. Therefore, the modified project would not result in new or more severe impacts than were identified in the 2022 IS/MND with regard to emergency access. No substantial change from the previous conclusions in the 2022 IS/MND would occur.

ITEM 10.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 381 of 456 ends

2.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES

Has a California Native American Tribe requested
consultation in accordance with Public Resources Code
section 21080.3.1(b)?
Yes No
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in Public Resources
Code section 5020.1(k)?
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
No No Yes
b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to
be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead
agency shall consider the significance of the
resource to a California Native American tribe?
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
No No Yes

2.18.1 Environmental Setting
The environmental setting for the modified project site with respect to tribal cultural resources is generally consistent with that of the approved project site, as described on pages 3-78 in Section 3.1.8, “Environmental Setting,” of the 2022 IS/MND. The modified project site includes the 22.9-acre project site evaluated in the 2022 IS/MND (Site 1) and an additional 5-acre parcel (Site 2), approximately 0.1 mile southwest of Site 1. The City conducted tribal consultation for the approved project with Wilton Rancheria pursuant to the requirements of Assembly Bill (AB) 52. The consultation included the areas that encompass the modified project site (i.e., Sites 1 and 2). The Tribe did not have knowledge of tribal cultural resources that may be affected by the approved project; however, the Tribe requested implementation of mitigation measures because the Native American Heritage Commission Sacred Lands File search was positive for Native American cultural resources in the vicinity of the approved project site, including the areas that encompass the modified project site.

ITEM 10.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 382 of 456 ends

2.18.2 Discussion
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)?
and
b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe? Sections 3.18.2(a) and (b) on page 3-79 of the 2022 IS/MND evaluate the potential for the approved project to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource. The 2022 IS/MND concludes that a potentially significant impact would occur because the results of the NAHC Sacred Lands File search were positive, reflecting the possibility that tribal cultural resources could be encountered during construction-related ground disturbing activities. The City adopted mitigation measures that would reduce impacts on tribal cultural resources to a less-than-significant level. Specifically, Mitigation Measure 3.18-1 requires the applicant to retain a Native American Tribal monitor to be present onsite during construction phases that involve ground disturbing activities. Mitigation Measure 3.18-2 specifies procedures to follow if tribal cultural resources are encountered, which include contacting the appropriate Native American tribal representative for their input on the preferred treatment of the find. The modified project would result in a larger area of ground disturbance (27.9 acres) than the approved project (22.9 acres). However, implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.18-1 and 3.18-2 from the 2022 IS/MND would be sufficient to reduce impacts from the modified project to a less-than-significant level.

Additionally, because the addendum will not result in an additional certification, the AB 52 procedures specified in PRC Sections 21080.3. 1(d) and 21080.3.2 do not apply and no additional tribal consultation under AB 52 is required. Further, pursuant to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would otherwise necessitate subsequent/supplemental environmental analysis. Therefore, the modified project would not result in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant effect regard to tribal cultural resources. No substantial change from the previous conclusions in the 2022 IS/MND would occur.

ITEM 10.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 383 of 456 ends

2.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of construction of new or expanded water, wastewater
treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power,
natural gas, or telecommunication facilities, the
construction or relocation of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No No N/A
b) Have insufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development
during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No No N/A
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider that serves or may serve the
project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand, in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments?
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No No N/A
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of
solid waste reduction goals?
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No No N/A
e) Fail to comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and regulations
related to solid waste?
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No No N/A

2.19.1 Environmental Setting
The environmental setting for the modified project site with respect to utilities is generally consistent with that of the approved project site, as described on pages 3-80 and 3-81 in Section 3.19.1, “Environmental Setting,” of the 2022 IS/MND. Like the approved project site, the modified project site is within the service areas of the following utility providers: Golden State Water Company (water), Sacramento Area Sewer District (sanitary sewer), City of Rancho Cordova (storm drain), Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District (wastewater), Sacramento Municipal Utility District (natural gas), Pacific Gas and Electric (electricity), AT&T and Comcast (telecommunications), and Republic Services, Inc. (solid waste collection).

ITEM 10.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 384 of 456 ends

2.19.2 Discussion
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunication facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Section 3.19.2(a) on page 3-82 of the 2022 IS/MND evaluates the potential for the approved project to result in significant environmental impacts associated with the construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunication facilities. The 2022 IS/MND concluded that a less than significant impact would occur because existing facilities would have sufficient capacity to accommodate the utility demands of the approved project. Because the modified project proposes fewer residences (166 single family units with 59 attached ADUs) than the approved project (417 residential units), the residential population and associated utility demand is expected to be reduced under the modified project. As with the approved project, existing off-site utility infrastructure would have sufficient capacity to adequately serve the residents of the modified project. The modified project includes the construction of on-site utility connections to existing main lines in the roadways adjacent to the project site; the associated environmental effects are considered throughout this addendum as part of the modified project’s overall impact analysis. Therefore, the modified project would not result in new or more severe impacts than were identified in the 2022 IS/MND with regard to the construction or relocation of utility facilities. No substantial change from the previous conclusions in the 2022 IS/MND would occur. b) Have insufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? Section 3.19.2(b) on pages 3-82 and 3-83 of the 2022 IS/MND evaluates the potential for the approved project to result in environmental impacts associated with insufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. The 2022 IS/MND concludes that a lessthan-significant impact would occur because the approved project is consistent with the type of infill development assumed in Golden State Water Company’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan for the Cordova Service Area (GSWC 2021), which concludes that there is sufficient supply to serve anticipated development through 2045.

The 2020 UWMP identified the following average Unit Demand Factors based on the 2016 to 2020 period: 0.36 for single family connections, 3.46 AFY for multifamily connections, and 3.50 AFY for commercial/industrial connections demand (GSWC 2021: 4-5). The original project would construct 177 single-family townhomes and 240 multi-family apartment units with an estimated 29 total connections and a commercial component for which two connections are assumed. The estimated annual water demand would be 107.34 AFY. Based on the single family unit demand factor in the 2020 UWMP, the modified project would result in a water demand of 59.76 AFY for the residences and 7 AFY for the commercial component. This anticipated water demand is 40.58 AFY less than the water demand disclosed in the 2022 IS/MND.

Because the modified project proposes fewer residences (166 single family units with 59 attached ADUs) than the approved project (417 residential units), the residential population and associated water demand is expected to be reduced under the modified project. Therefore, the modified project would not result in new or more severe impacts than were identified in the 2022 IS/MND with regard to water supplies. No substantial change from the previous conclusions in the 2022 IS/MND would occur.
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand, in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? Section 3.19.2(c) on page 3-83 of the 2022 IS/MND evaluates the potential for the wastewater treatment provider to determine that it has inadequate capacity to serve the approved project’s projected water demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. The 2022 IS/MND concludes that a less-than-significant impact would occur ITEM 10.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 385 of 456 ends

because the wastewater generated from the approved project would represent a negligible percent of Sacramento Area Sewer District’s existing sewer line flow capacity and the Sacramento Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant’s permitted capacity. Because the modified project proposes fewer residences (166 single family units with 59 attached ADUs) than the approved project (417 residential units), the residential population and associated wastewater treatment demand is expected to be reduced under the modified project. Assuming that all water used on the project site is converted to wastewater, the modified project would generate 40.58 AFY less wastewater than the approved project. Therefore, the modified project would not result in new or more severe impacts than were identified in the 2022 IS/MND with regard to wastewater treatment capacity. No substantial change from the previous conclusions in the 2022 IS/MND would occur.
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
and
e) Fail to comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Sections 3.19.2(d) and (e) on pages 3-83 and 3-84 of the 2022 IS/MND evaluate the potential for the approved project to generate solid waste in excess of applicable standards or the capacity of local infrastructure, impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals, and fail to comply with management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste. The 2022 IS/MND concluded that a less than significant impact would occur because solid waste generated by the approved project would represent a negligible percent of the maximum permitted capacity of the landfill that would serve the project.

CalRecycle determined that the average disposal rate, after waste diversion efforts occur in compliance with state regulations, was 4.2 pounds per person per day (CalRecycle 2021). The approved project is estimated produce 4,729 pounds per day or 2.4 tons per day. In comparison, the 166 single family homes would have a residential population of approximately 474 residents and the ADUs could add up to 118 additional residents (assuming a maximum capacity of two people for each ADU), for a total of 592 residents for the modified project. The modified project would generate approximately 2,486 pounds per day or 1.1 tons per day. Because the number of employees resulting from the proposed commercial spaces are not yet determined, a per area generation rate is used. CalRecycle (2019) provides a generation rate of 5 pounds per 1000 square feet per day for commercial land uses. Per this estimate, 5,000 square feet of commercial space would generate approximately 25 pounds per day. This estimate would be consistent between the approved and modified projects.

Because the modified project proposes fewer residences (166 single family units with 59 attached ADUs) than the approved project (417 residential units), the residential population and associated solid waste generation is expected to be reduced under the modified project. Like the approved project, the modified project would be required to comply with applicable regulations governing solid waste disposal including the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, the California Green Building Standards Code, and the Rancho Cordova Municipal Code Chapter 16.92, “Construction and Demolition (C&D) Debris Reduction, Reuse and Recycling” and Chapter 6.20, “Solid Waste Management.” Therefore, the modified project would not result in new or more severe impacts than were identified in the 2022 IS/MND with regard to solid waste. No substantial change from the previous conclusions in the 2022 IS/MND would occur.

ITEM 10.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 386 of 456 ends

2.20 WILDFIRE

Is the project located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as high fire hazard severity zones? If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:

Yes No
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
No Impact No No N/A
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project
occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire
or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
No Impact No No N/A
c) Require the installation of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water
sources, power lines or other utilities) that may
exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary
or ongoing impacts to the environment?
No Impact No No N/A
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
No Impact No No N/A

2.20.1 Environmental Setting
The environmental setting for the modified project site with respect to wildfire is generally consistent with that of the approved project site, as described on page 3-85 in Section 3.20.1, “Environmental Setting,” of the 2022 IS/MND. Like the approved project site, the modified project site is entirely within a non-VHFHSZ in a local responsibility area (CAL FIRE 2008).

ITEM 10.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 387 of 456 ends

2.20.2 Discussion
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Section 3.20.2(a) on pages 3-85 and 3-86 of the 2022 IS/MND evaluates the potential for the approved project to substantially impair an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan. The 2022 IS/MND concludes that no impact would occur because the approved project site would not permanently modify any roads, result in permanent road closures, or otherwise affect emergency response times or evacuation. Because population growth under the modified project would be less than that of the approved project, the modified project would result in less demand for emergency services and a smaller increase in the population using evacuation routes. Therefore, the modified project would not result in new or more severe impacts than were identified in the 2022 IS/MND with regard to emergency response and evacuation plans. No substantial change from the previous conclusions in the 2022 IS/MND would occur.
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
Section 3.20.2(b) on page 3-86 of the 2022 IS/MND evaluates the potential for the approved project to exacerbate wildfire risks and expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of wildfire. The 2022 IS/MND concludes that no impact would occur because the approved project site is not within an area susceptible to wildland fires and does not propose any features that would exacerbate wildfire risks. The site conditions (i.e., topography, wind patterns, and fire risk) and proposed uses (i.e., residential and commercial) are similar for the modified project. Therefore, the modified project would not result in new or more severe impacts than were identified in the 2022 IS/MND with regard to exacerbating wildfire risk. No substantial change from the previous conclusions in the 2022 IS/MND would occur.
c) Require the installation of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? Section 3.20.2(c) on page 3-86 of the 2022 IS/MND evaluates the potential for the approved project to require the installation of infrastructure that would exacerbate fire risk. The 2022 IS/MND concludes that no impact would occur because the approved project does not propose roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, new power lines, or other infrastructure that would exacerbate fire risk. No such infrastructure is proposed under the modified project.

Therefore, the modified project would not result in new or more severe impacts than were identified in the 2022 IS/MND with regard to exacerbating wildfire risk. No substantial change from the previous conclusions in the 2022 IS/MND would occur.
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
Section 3.20.2(d) on page 3-86 of the 2022 IS/MND evaluates the potential for the approved project to expose people or structures to significant risks as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes. The 2022 IS/MND concludesthat no impact would occur because the approved project site is not in an area susceptible to wildland fire, flooding, or landsides. Similar conditions occur within the modified project site. Therefore, the modified project would not result in new or more severe impacts than were identified in the 2022 IS/MND with regard to exposing people or structures to significant risk. No substantial change from the previous conclusions in the 2022 IS/MND would occur.

ITEM 10.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 388 of 456 ends

2.21 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Impact
Conclusion in
2022 IS/MND
Do Proposed
Changes
Involve New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do Any New
Circumstances
Involve New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do the
Mitigation
Measures in
the 2022
IS/MND
Addressor
Resolve
Impacts,
Including
Impacts That
Would
Otherwise be
New or
Substantially
More Severe?
XX. Mandatory Findings of Significance.
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, substantially reduce the
number or restrict the range of an endangered,
rare, or threatened species, or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history
or prehistory?
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
No No Yes
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects, and
the effects of probable future projects.)
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
No No Yes
c) Does the project have environmental effects that
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
No No Yes

2.21.1 Environmental Setting
The environmental setting for this section is presented above in the environmental settings for each of the checklist issue areas.

ITEM 10.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 389 of 456 ends

2.21.2 Discussion
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare, or threatened species, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
Section 3.21.2(a) on pages 3-87 and 3-88 of the 2022 IS/MND evaluates the potential for the approved project to substantially degrade the quality of the environment; reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species; cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels; threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community; reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare, or threatened species or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. The 2022 IS/MND concludes that a potentially significant impact would occur because the approved project would result in the direct loss of approximately 21.6 acres of annual grassland that provides suitable foraging habitat for special-status birds. In addition, the approved project has potential to damage buried archaeological resources that are inadvertently discovered during ground-disturbing activities. However, the City adopted the following mitigation measures that would reduce these impacts to a lessthan-significant level:
 Mitigation Measure 3.4-1 requires the project applicant to implement the avoidance and minimization measures in the South Sacramento Habitat Conservation Plan;
 Mitigation Measure 3.5-1/Mitigation Measure 3.18-2 outlines procedures to follow in the event that unknown buried cultural deposits are encountered during project-related ground disturbance; and  Mitigation Measure 3.18-1 requires the project applicant to retain a Native American Tribal monitor to be present onsite during construction phases that involve ground disturbing activities.

As detailed in Sections 2.1 through 2.20 of this addendum, the modified project would result in similar impacts as the approved project with the addition of the biological resources protection measures identified in Chapter 1 to address changes in the regulatory status of three species. The same mitigation measures as the approved project are recommended to reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, the modified project would not result in new or more severe impacts than were identified in the 2022 IS/MND with respect to this issue area. No substantial change from the previous conclusions in the 2022 IS/MND would occur. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) Section 3.21.2(b) on page 3-88 of the 2022 IS/MND evaluates the potential for the approved project to result in impacts that are cumulatively considerable. The 2022 IS/MND concludes that the approved project’s impacts would not be cumulatively considerable with the incorporation of the mitigation measures. As detailed in Sections 2.1 through 2.20 of this addendum, the modified project would result in similar impacts and would include the same mitigation measures as the approved project to reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, the modified project would not result in new or more severe impacts than were identified in the 2022 IS/MND with respect to this issue area. No substantial change from the previous conclusions in the 2022 IS/MND would occur. c) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Section 3.21.2(c) on page 3-88 of the 2022 IS/MND evaluates the potential for the approved project to result in environmental effects that would cause adverse effects on human beings. The 2022 IS/MND concludes that elements ITEM 10.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 390 of 456 ends

of the project that could affect the way residents experience the existing environment (aesthetics), affect plans for the future use of the area (land use and population and housing), and result in physical effects on sensitive populations (e.g., air quality, noise) would be less than significant. As detailed in Sections 2.1 through 2.20 of this addendum, the modified project would result in similar impacts and would include the same mitigation measures as the approved project to reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, the modified project would not result in new or more severe impacts than were identified in the 2022 IS/MND with respect to this issue area. No substantial change from the previous conclusions in the 2022 IS/MND would occur.

ITEM 10.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 391 of 456 ends

3 REFERENCES
1 Introduction
California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2023. Survey Considerations for California Endangered Species Act (CESA) Candidate Bumble Bee Species. Retrieved from
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=213150&inline. Accessed June 12, 2025. 2 Environmental Checklist

2.1 Aesthetics
City of Rancho Cordova. 2005 (September). Design Guidelines. Available:
https://www.cityofranchocordova.org/home/showpublisheddocument/11071/635900957304900000.

Accessed July 16, 2025.

2.2 Agriculture and Forest Resources
California Department of Conservation. 2022. California Important Farmland Finder. Retrieved from:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff/. Accessed July 17, 2025.

DOC. See California Department of Conservation.

2.3 Air Quality
No references cited in this section.

2.4 Biological Resources
Bumble Bee Watch. 2025. Bubble Bee Sightings. Available:
https://www.bumblebeewatch.org/sightings/bee/?needs=false&type=1- 2&project=&user=&status=2&month=&year=&sex=&species=12&county=326&s… Accessed August 19, 2025.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2023. Survey Considerations for California Endangered Species Act (CESA) Candidate Bumble Bee Species. Retrieved from
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=213150&inline. Accessed June 12, 2025.

California Native Plant Society. 2025. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (online edition, v9.5.1).

Available: http://www.rareplants.cnps.org. Accessed July 25, 2025.

California Natural Diversity Database. 2025. Results of electronic records search. Sacramento: California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Biogeographic Data Branch. Accessed July 25, 2025.

CDFW. See California Department of Fish and Wildlife.

CNDDB. See California Natural Diversity Database.

CNPS. See California Native Plant Society.

US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2025a. Information for Planning and Conservation. Available online at:
http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/. Accessed July 25, 2025.
———. 2025b. National Wetlands Inventory Wetlands Mapper Online Viewer. Accessed July 25, 2025.

USFWS. See US Department of Fish and Wildlife Service.
iNaturalist. 2025a. iNaturalist Community. Observations of Crotch’s bumblebee from Rancho Cordova. Available:
http://inaturalist.org. Retrieved August 8, 2025.

ITEM 10.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 392 of 456 ends

iNaturalist. 2025b. iNaturalist Community. Observations of Monarch Butterfly from Rancho Cordova. Available:
http://inaturalist.org. Retrieved August 8, 2025.
iNaturalist. 2025c. iNaturalist Community. Observations of milkweed (Asclepias) from Rancho Cordova. Available:
http://inaturalist.org. Retrieved August 8, 2025.

Lanterman J., P. Reeher, R. J. Mitchell, and K. Goodell. 2019. “Habitat Preference and Phenology of Nest Seeking and Foraging Bumble Bee Queens in Northeastern North America.” The American Midland Naturalist 182: 131– 159.

Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. 2025. Web Soil Survey. Available online at the following link: http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/. Accessed August 6, 2025.

NRCS. See Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture.

County of Sacramento, City of Rancho Cordova, City of Galt, Sacramento County Water Agency, Southeast Connector Joint Powers Authority. 2018 (January). Final South Sacramento Habitat Conservation Plan. Sacramento, CA.

Williams, P. H., R. W. Thorp, L. L. Richardson, and S. R. Colla. 2014. Bumble Bees of North America. Princeton University Press. Princeton, NJ.

Xerces Society. 2018. A Petition to the State of California Fish and Game Commission to List the Crotch Bumble Bee (Bombus crotchii), Franklin’s Bumble Bee (Bombus franklini), Suckley Cuckoo Bumble Bee (Bombus suckleyi), and Western Bumble Bee (Bombus occidentalis occidentalis) as Endangered under the California Endangered Species Act. Available: https://www.xerces.org/publications/policy-statements/california-esa-bumble-beepetition-2018. Accessed June 2025.

2.5 Cultural Resources
Natural Investigations Company. 2022 (January). Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment: The Residence at Capital Center in Rancho Cordova, Sacramento County, California. Prepared by Tim Spillane and Dylan Stapleton for Ascent Environmental.

2.6 Energy
No references cited in this section.

2.7 Geology and Soils
Natural Investigations Company. 2022 (March). Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment, The Residence at Capital Center in Rancho Cordova, Sacramento County, California.

Sacramento Stormwater Quality Partnership. 2018 (July). Stormwater Quality Design Manual. Available:
https://www.beriverfriendly.net/wpcontent/uploads/2021/05/SWQ_Design_Manual_revOct2019_wFig_wApp.pdf. Accessed July 18, 2025.

Mid Pacific Engineering, Inc. 2020 (October). Geotechnical Engineering Report: Rancho Cordova Proposed Development, Kilgore Road and International Drive, Rancho Cordova, California.

2.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
No references cited in this section.

2.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
CalEPA. See California Environmental Protection Agency.

California Environmental Protection Agency. 2016. Sites Identified With Waste Constituents Above Hazardous Waste Levels Outside the Waste Management Unit. Available: https://calepa.ca.gov/wpcontent/uploads/2016/10/SiteCleanup-CorteseList-CurrentList.pdf. Accessed July 28, 2025.

ITEM 10.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 393 of 456 ends

________. 2025. Cortese List: Section 65962.5(a). Available: https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/section-65962- 5a/. Accessed July 28, 2025.

California Department of Toxic Substances Control. 2025. EnviroStor Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List (Cortese). Retrieved from:
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/search?cmd=search&reporttype=CORTESE&site_type=CSITES,FUD S&status=ACT,BKLG,COM&reporttitle=HAZARDOUS+WASTE+AND+SUBSTANCES+SITE+LIST+%28CORTESE %29. Accessed July 28, 2025.

DTSC. See California Department of Toxic Substances Control.

State Water Resources Control Board. 2020. List of “active” CDO and CAO from Water Board. Retrieved from:
https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/. Accessed July 28, 2025. ________. 2025. GeoTracker Project Search Results.
https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/search?CMD=search&case_number=&business_name=&main_street_ name=&city=&zip=&county=&SITE_TYPE=LUFT&oilfield=&STATUS=&BRANCH=&MASTER_BASE=&Search= Search. Accessed July 28, 2025.

SWRCB. See State Water Resources Control Board.

Wallace-Kuhl & Associates. 2021 (August). Revised Soil Management Plan, 3181 Kilgore Road, Parcel C Development.

Prepared for GGH HWY 50 LLC, Sacramento, CA.

2.10 Hydrology and Water Quality
Sacramento Stormwater Quality Partnership. 2018 (July). Stormwater Quality Design Manual. Available:
https://www.beriverfriendly.net/wpcontent/uploads/2021/05/SWQ_Design_Manual_revOct2019_wFig_wApp.pdf. Accessed July 18, 2025.

2.11 Land Use and Planning
No references cited in this section.

2.12 Mineral Resources
No references cited in this section.

2.13 Noise
Kimley-Horn. 2025 (August). Capital Villages Residences Trip Generation Comparison.

2.14 Population and Housing
California Department of Finance. 2025 (May). Report: 108,000 More Californians in 2024; Total State Population Tops

39.5 Million. Available: https://dof.ca.gov/wpcontent/uploads/sites/352/Forecasting/Demographics/Documents/E-1_2025_Press_Release.pdf. Accessed July 18, 2025.

DOF. See California Department of Finance.

US Census Bureau. 2021. QuickFacts: Rancho Cordova City, California. Available: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/.

Accessed January 11, 2022.

2.15 Public Services
No references cited in this section.

2.16 Recreation
No references cited in this section.

ITEM 10.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 394 of 456 ends

2.17 Transportation
Kimley-Horn. 2025 (August). Capital Villages Residences Trip Generation Comparison.

2.18 Tribal Cultural Resources
No references cited in this section

2.19 Utilities and Service Systems
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. 2019. Estimates Solid Waste Generation Rates. Available:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/wastecharacterization/general/rates. Accessed February 16, 2022. ———. 2021. Jurisdiction Per Capita Disposal Trends report: Rancho Cordova from 2007 to 2021. Available:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/AnnualReporting/ReviewReports. Accessed: February 17, 2021.

Calrecycle. See California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery.

Golden State Water Company. 2021 (June). Cordova Service Area 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. Available:
https://wuedata.water.ca.gov/getfile?filename=/public%2Fuwmp_attachments%2F9589902579%2FGSWCCordova%202020%20UWMP%20Final%20Draft%20(8.6.21).pdf. Accessed July 24, 2025.

GSWC. See Golden State Water Company.

2.20 Wildfire
CAL FIRE. See California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 2008 (July). Sacramento County Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA as Recommended by CAL FIRE.

2.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance
No references cited in this section.

ITEM 10.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 395 of 456 ends

4 REPORT PREPARERS
Pat Angell ...................................................................................................................................................................................................Principal Jessica Babcock.........................................................................................................................................................................Project Manager Nicole Greenfield........................................................................................................................................... Senior Environmental Planner Alta Cunningham...........................................................................................................................................Director of Cultural Resources Carlos Alvarado ..........................................................................................................................................................................Senior Biologist Julia Wilson ...............................................................................................Senior Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Specialist Kenneth Nguyen........................................................................................................................................................................Noise Specialist Jazmin Amini ..........................................................................................................................Transportation and Environmental Planner Tracy Prybyla .................................................................................................................................................................... Publication Specialist ITEM 10.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 396 of 456 ends

This page is intentionally left blank.

ITEM 10.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 397 of 456 ends

MEMORANDUM
City Council Staff Report - Page 1 of 3

ITEM 10.2.

DATE: October 19, 2026
TO: Honorable Mayor and Council Members
FROM:

Albert Stricker, Public Works Director
Edgar Medina, Assistant Public Works Director
Kevin Velazquez, Assistant Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 10.50.010 AND 10.50.020 OF THE

RANCHO CORDOVA MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH RADAR

ENFORCEABLE SPEED LIMITS ON THE ROADS LISTED IN THE

ORDINANCE

RECOMMENDATION
Waive the first reading and introduce the Ordinance.

RESULT OF RECOMMENDED ACTION
Adoption of the Ordinance would maintain compliance with California Vehicle Code speed limit requirements and updates Engineering and Traffic Surveys and local street designations.

BACKGROUND
In California, the process for setting speed limits on public roadways is governed by state law.

The California Vehicle Code (CVC) and the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD) provide guidelines and requirements for establishing radar-enforceable speed limits by law enforcement agencies. Certain roadways are assigned default speed limits by the CVC, such as 15 miles per hour (MPH) in alleys, 25 MPH in residential and business districts, and 55 MPH on two-lane highways. These statutory speed limits are enforceable without the need for additional analysis or Engineering and Traffic Surveys (ETS).

For all other roadways, local jurisdictions must conduct and adopt ETS to establish radarenforceable speed limits in accordance with the CVC. These surveys are based on two primary factors, including 1) the measured 85th percentile speed (the speed at or below which 85% of vehicles are traveling), and 2) roadway conditions that are or are not readily apparent to motorists.

To maintain compliance with CVC requirements and ensure continued enforceability, staff has completed ETS for roadway segments needing new ETS, as well as for roadway segments that have been redefined. Additionally, staff has reviewed the roadway network and identified streets that are classified as “local” under the California Road Systems (CRS) classification system or meet the definition of a “local street or road” under the CVC. These streets are

Page 398 of 456 ends

City Council Staff Report - Page 2 of 3

proposed to be removed from the ETS inventory, as they do not require engineering and traffic surveys to be radar enforceable under CVC provisions.

The following updates are recommended as part of this action:

Street Name Current
Speed Limit
Proposed
Speed Limit
Note
Data Dr - Between
White Rock Rd and
International Dr
35 MPH 30 MPH
Kilgore Rd -
Between Folsom
Blvd to Baroque Dr
40 MPH 35 MPH
Extending speed limit from Folsom
Blvd to Baroque Dr
Routier Rd -
Between Folsom
Blvd and Old
Placerville Rd
40 MPH 35 MPH
Chrysanthy Blvd -
Between Sunrise
Blvd and Grant Line
Rd
35 MPH 35 MPH Extending speed limit from Sunrise
Blvd to Grant Line Rd
Rancho Cordova
Pkwy - Between
White Rock Rd to
Gold Dredge Way
55 MPH 40 MPH
Chase Dr -
Between Hagan
Park to Coloma Rd
25 MPH 25 MPH No longer requires an Engineering
and Traffic Survey (classified as
local)
Systems Pkwy -
Routier Rd to Old
Placerville Rd
35 MPH 35 MPH No longer requires an Engineering
and Traffic Survey (classified as
local)

Page 399 of 456 ends

City Council Staff Report - Page 3 of 3

FISCAL IMPACT AND FUNDING SOURCE
There is no fiscal impact.

ATTACHMENT(S)

1. Ordinance

2. Revised Sections 10.50.010 and 10.50.020

3. Tracked Changes Revised Sections 10.50.010 and 10.50.020

Page 400 of 456 ends

ITEM 10.2. ATTACHMENT 1
Ordinance No. XX-2026 Page 1 of 8

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA
ORDINANCE NO. XX-2026

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

10.50 OF TITLE 10 OF THE RANCHO CORDOVA MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING

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

Section 1. Purpose and Declarations
WHEREAS, California Vehicle Code Section 22358 authorizes the City of Rancho Cordova ("city") to determine and declare by ordinance a prima facie speed limit less than the speed limit set forth in Vehicle Code Section 22349 if the city determines upon the basis of an engineering and traffic survey that the speed limit set forth in Vehicle Code Section 22349 is more than is reasonable or safe upon any portion of any street other than a state highway where the speed limit set forth in Vehicle Code Section 22349 is applicable; and WHEREAS, an engineering and traffic survey ("Survey") was conducted by the city; and WHEREAS, the Survey established speed limits for certain city streets, as set forth in Section 3; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the speed limits set forth in the Survey are most appropriate to facilitate the orderly movement of traffic within the city and are reasonable and safe; and
WHEREAS, this ordinance modifies Rancho Cordova Municipal Code section 10.50.010 and 10.50.020 by establishing speed limits for certain city streets, based upon the results of the Survey; and
WHEREAS, this ordinance is exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it is not a project under the act and it only involves the operation of existing streets involving negligible or no expansion of existing use.

Section 2. Amendment of Code.

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

The City Council approves and adopts the engineering and traffic surveys dated November 2026, prepared by the city, for the streets and portions thereof set forth therein, copies of which are on file and available for public inspection in the offices of the City Clerk. The City council finds and determines that the surveys were conducted in accordance with the Vehicle Code and methods of conducting engineering and traffic surveys prescribed in the California Department of Transportation’s Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and that the survey justifies the speed limits recommended for the streets and portions of streets therein described.

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

Page 401 of 456 ends

ITEM 10.2. ATTACHMENT 1
Ordinance No. XX-2026 Page 2 of 8
portions thereof, which limits shall be effective when appropriate signs giving notice thereof are erected upon the streets or portions thereof.

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

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

A. Baroque Drive:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Between International Drive and White Rock Road, 30 mph; I. Disk Drive:

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

1. Between Westerly city limits to Sunrise Boulevard, 55 mph;

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

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

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

Page 402 of 456 ends

ITEM 10.2. ATTACHMENT 1
Ordinance No. XX-2026 Page 3 of 8
K. Explorer Drive:

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

1. Between Macready Ave and International Drive, 30 mph; M. Fitzgerald Road:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Between Zinfandel Drive and Sunrise Boulevard, 45 mph;

2. Between Mather Field Road and Zinfandel Drive, 45 mph; U. Kiefer Boulevard:

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

1. Between Folsom Boulevard and Baroque Way, 35 mph;

Page 403 of 456 ends

ITEM 10.2. ATTACHMENT 1
Ordinance No. XX-2026 Page 4 of 8
W. Lincoln Village:

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

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

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

1. Between International Drive and Folsom Boulevard, 45 mph;

2. Between Peter A McCuen Boulevard and International Drive, 35 mph; Z. McGregor Drive:

1. Between Folsom Boulevard and Coloma Road, 25 mph;

2. Between Coloma Road and Ambassador Drive, 25 mph;
AA. Mills Station Road:

1. Between Routier Road and Mather Field Road, 35 mph;
BB. Monier Circle:

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. Between Zinfandel Drive and Folsom Boulevard, 35 mph; EE. Peter A McCuen Boulevard:

1. Mather Boulevard and Femoyer Street, 25 mph;
FF. Prospect Park Drive:

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

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

Page 404 of 456 ends

ITEM 10.2. ATTACHMENT 1
Ordinance No. XX-2026 Page 5 of 8

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

1. Between White Rock Road and Gold Dredge Way, 40 mph;

2. Between Kiefer Boulevard and Douglas Road, 45 mph;
II. Recycle Road:

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

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

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

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

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

1. Between Old Placerville Road and Folsom Boulevard, 35 mph; MM. S. White Rock Road:

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

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

1. Between Jackson Highway and Kiefer Boulevard, 55 mph

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

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

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

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

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

1. Between Routier Road and Old Placerville Road, 35 mph; QQ. Trade Center Drive:

1. Between Sun Center Road and Mercantile Road, 30 mph;

Page 405 of 456 ends

ITEM 10.2. ATTACHMENT 1
Ordinance No. XX-2026 Page 6 of 8
RR. Trinity River Drive:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. Between International Drive and city limits, 45 mph.

VV. Airpark Drive:

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

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

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

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

1. Between White Rock Road and Mills Park Drive, 25 mph; A1. Rod Beaudry Drive:

1. Between Folsom Boulevard and East Tiffany Lane, 25 mph; B1. Sanders Drive:

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

Page 406 of 456 ends

ITEM 10.2. ATTACHMENT 1
Ordinance No. XX-2026 Page 7 of 8
C1. Spoto Drive

1. Between Zinfandel Drive and North Mather Boulevard, 35mph 25 mph; D1. Sunrise Gold Circle (N):

1. Between Sunrise Boulevard and Sunrise Gold–Mercantile Drive, 35 mph; E1. Sunrise Gold Circle (E):

1. Between Sunrise Gold Circle (N) and Sunrise Gold Circle (S), 35 mph; F1. Sunrise Gold Circle (S):

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

1. Between Sunrise Boulevard and White Rock Road, 35 mph; H1, Timberland Drive:

1. Between Douglas Road and Borderlands Drive, 25 mph;
I1. Vehicle Drive:

1. Between Zinfandel Drive and Coloma Road, 35 mph;
J1. W. La Loma Drive:

1. Between Folsom Boulevard and La Loma Drive, 25 mph;
Section 3. Environmental
This action is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and therefore is exempt from environmental review under CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3).

Additionally, this action is categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines section 15301(c) because it involves the operation of existing streets involving negligible or no expansion of existing use.

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

Page 407 of 456 ends

ITEM 10.2. ATTACHMENT 1
Ordinance No. XX-2026 Page 8 of 8
Section 5. Effective Date
Within fifteen (15) days after adoption, a Summary of this Ordinance shall be published once in the Grapevine Independent, or the Sacramento Bee, a newspaper of general circulation printed and published in Sacramento County and circulated in the City of Rancho Cordova, in accordance with Government Code Section 36933. This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days after its adoption.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cordova on the 19th day of October 2026 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
____________________________
Garret Gatewood, Mayor
ATTEST:

Stacy Leitner, CMC
City Clerk

Page 408 of 456 ends

ITEM 10.2. ATTACHMENT 2
Rancho Cordova Municipal Code
Chapter 10.50 REDUCED SPEED LIMITS ON SPECIFIC STREETS

Page 1 ends

Chapter 10.50

REDUCED SPEED LIMITS ON SPECIFIC STREETS
Sections:

10.50.010 Determination and declaration of prima facie speed limits.

10.50.020 Prima facie speed limits declared.

10.50.010 Determination and declaration of prima facie speed limits.

The city council approves and adopts the engineering and traffic surveys dated November 2026, prepared by the city, for the streets and portions thereof set forth therein, copies of which are on file and available for public inspection in the offices of the city clerk. The city council finds and determines that the surveys were conducted in accordance with the Vehicle Code and methods of conducting engineering and traffic surveys prescribed in the California Department of Transportation and that the survey justifies the speed limits recommended for the streets and portions of streets therein described. The city council declares these speed limits as prima facie speed limits for the streets or portions thereof, which limits shall be effective when appropriate signs giving notice thereof are erected upon the streets or portions thereof. [Ord. 11-2023 § 3 (Exh. A); Ord. 20-2020 § 2; Ord. 1-2018 § 2; Ord. 13-2015 § 2; Ord. 3-2004 § 1].

10.50.020 Prima facie speed limits declared.

The following prima facie speed limits are established based on prevailing speeds and according to traffic and engineering studies:

A. Baroque Drive:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Between International Drive and White Rock Road, 30 mph;

Page 409 of 456 ends

ITEM 10.2. ATTACHMENT 2
Rancho Cordova Municipal Code
Chapter 10.50 REDUCED SPEED LIMITS ON SPECIFIC STREETS

Page 2 ends

I. Disk Drive:

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

1. Between Westerly City Limits to Sunrise Boulevard, 55 mph;

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

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

4. Between Americanos Boulevard and Grant Line Road, 50 mph; K. Explorer Drive:

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

1. Between Macready Ave and International Drive, 30 mph; M. Fitzgerald Road:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Between Folsom Boulevard and Routier Road, 35 mph;

Page 410 of 456 ends

ITEM 10.2. ATTACHMENT 2
Rancho Cordova Municipal Code
Chapter 10.50 REDUCED SPEED LIMITS ON SPECIFIC STREETS

Page 3 ends

T. International Drive:

1. Between Zinfandel Drive and Sunrise Boulevard, 45 mph;

2. Between Mather Field Road and Zinfandel Drive, 45 mph; U. Kiefer Boulevard:

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

1. Between Folsom Boulevard and Baroque Way, 35 mph;
W. Lincoln Village:

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

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

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

1. Between International Drive and Folsom Boulevard, 45 mph;

2. Between Peter A McCuen Boulevard and International Drive, 35 mph; Z. McGregor Drive:

1. Between Folsom Boulevard and Coloma Road, 25 mph;

2. Between Coloma Road and Ambassador Drive, 25 mph;
AA. Mills Station Road:

1. Between Routier Road and Mather Field Road, 35 mph;
BB. Monier Circle:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 411 of 456 ends

ITEM 10.2. ATTACHMENT 2
Rancho Cordova Municipal Code
Chapter 10.50 REDUCED SPEED LIMITS ON SPECIFIC STREETS

Page 4 ends