Vacaville City Council
July 28, 2026

CITY OF VACAVILLE

PROPERTY PURCHASE AGREEMENT
In consideration of the terms and conditions set forth in this Property Purchase Agreement (the “Agreement”) COUNTY OF SOLANO (“GRANTOR”) shall deposit in an escrow designated by the CITY OF VACAVILLE, a Municipal Corporation (“CITY”), a Grant Deed suitable for recordation and conveying from GRANTOR to CITY fee simple title as indicated in Attachment 1, incorporated herein by this reference.

In consideration of which, and the other considerations hereinafter set forth, it is mutually agreed as follows:

1. Entire Agreement
The parties have herein set forth the whole of their agreement. The performance of this Agreement constitutes the entire consideration for the Grant Deed and shall relieve CITY of all further obligations or claims on this account or on account of the location, grade, construction or operation of the proposed public improvement.

2. CITY shall
A. Pay the sum of EIGHTY-SEVEN THOUSAND AND THREE HUNDRED DOLLARS ( $87,300.00), subject to City Council authorization and approval, for the property identified in Attachment 1 attached hereto and made a part hereof, to the following title company: Chicago Title Insurance Company, for the account of the GRANTOR, Escrow No. to be determined conditioned upon the property vesting in CITY free and clear of all liens, leases, encumbrances, recorded or unrecorded, assessments and taxes except any exceptions to title which are acceptable to CITY as said exceptions are identified in the title report relating to the subject property issued by the above Title Company bearing the escrow number shown in Clause 2A and dated to be determined, and updates thereof. Clearing of any title exceptions not acceptable to CITY is the responsibility of GRANTOR.

B. Pay all escrow, recording and title insurance charges, if any, incurred in this transaction.

C. Have the authority to deduct and pay from the amount shown in Clause 2A above any amount necessary to satisfy any liens, bond demands and delinquent taxes due in any year except the year in which this escrow closes, together with penalties and interest thereon, and/or delinquent and unpaid non-delinquent assessments, which may have become a lien at the close of escrow. Taxes for the tax year in which this escrow closes shall be cleared and paid in the manner required by Section 5086 of the Revenue and Taxation Code if unpaid at the close of escrow.

Close of escrow for this transaction shall be contingent upon the title company receiving deeds of reconveyance from any deed of trust or mortgage holder trustees and beneficiaries.

Item 9.m
GRANTOR: COUNTY OF SOLANO APN: 0133-070-110
PROJECT NAME: CITY OF VACAVILLE’S I-505/VACA VALLEY

PARKWAY MULTIMODAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT

3. Indemnification
CITY shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless GRANTOR from and against all claims, causes of action, damages, liabilities, cost and expenses (including reasonable attorney fees and cost), and exercise of CITY’s right under this agreement. The obligations of CITY under this paragraph shall not be applicable to the extent of GRANTOR’S negligence or willful misconduct.

4. CITY Performed Work
All work done under this agreement shall conform to all applicable building, fire and sanitary laws, ordinances, and regulations relating to such work, and shall be done in a good workmanlike manner. All structures, improvements, or other facilities, when removed, and relocated, or reconstructed by the CITY or its authorized agent, shall be left in as good condition as found.

5. Payment of Deed of Trust
If this property is secured by a mortgage(s) or deed(s) of trust, GRANTOR is responsible for payment of any demand under authority of said mortgage or deed of trust out of GRANTOR’S proceeds. Such amounts may include, but not be limited to, payments of unpaid principal and interest.

6. Escrow Instructions
GRANTOR hereby authorizes CITY to prepare and file escrow instructions in accordance with this Agreement on behalf of both parties.

7. Hazardous Wastes
GRANTOR hereby represents and warrants that during the period of GRANTOR’S ownership of the Subject Property, there have been no disposals, releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances or hazardous waste on, from, or under the Subject Property.

GRANTOR further represents and warrants that GRANTOR has no knowledge of any disposal, release, or threatened release of hazardous substances or hazardous waste, on, from, or under the Subject Property which may have occurred prior to GRANTOR taking title to the Subject Property.

The acquisition price of the Subject Property being acquired in this transaction reflects the fair market value of the Subject Property without the presence of contamination. If the Subject Property being acquired is found to be contaminated by the presence of hazardous waste which requires mitigation under Federal or State law, the CITY may elect to recover its cleanup costs from those who caused or contributed to the contamination.

8. Right of Possession and Use
It is agreed and confirmed by the parties hereto that, notwithstanding the other provisions in this Agreement, the right of possession and use of the subject property by CITY, and/or its designees or assignees, including the right to remove and dispose of improvements, and install and connect utilities, shall commence on the date the amount of as specified in Clause 2A herein are deposited into the escrow controlling transaction, and that the amount shown Item 9.m
GRANTOR: COUNTY OF SOLANO APN: 0133-070-110
PROJECT NAME: CITY OF VACAVILLE’S I-505/VACA VALLEY

PARKWAY MULTIMODAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT

in Clause 2A herein includes, but is not limited to, full payment for such possession and use, including interest and damages if any, from said date.

9. No Leases
GRANTOR warrants that there are no oral or written leases on all or any portion of the property exceeding a period of one month, and GRANTOR further agrees to hold CITY harmless and reimburse CITY for any and all of its losses and expenses occasioned by reason of any lease of said property held by any tenant of GRANTOR for a period exceeding one month.

10. Quitclaim Deeds
If any lessee interests are identified in Clause 9 herein, as a condition precedent to approval of this Agreement by the CITY Council, Quitclaim Deeds or similar releases sufficient to clear any possessory rights from the subject property will be required. GRANTOR agrees to assist CITY in securing said Quitclaim Deeds or releases.

11. Release of Claims
GRANTOR, for itself, its agents, assigns, successors in interest, and any related or affiliated entities, hereby fully releases and discharges CITY, elected officials, its agents, employees, officers, directors, divisions, attorneys, accountants, insurers, successors, and other representatives, and any and all related or affiliated private or public agencies or entities, from any and all causes of action, actions, judgments, liens, indebtedness, obligations, losses, claims, damages, liabilities and demands, including without limitation any claim arising out of or pertaining, directly or indirectly, to the acquisition of the Subject Property described in this Agreement and the construction and maintenance of any improvements thereon, including without limitation, inverse condemnation, nuisance, severance damages, relocation benefits, reestablishment benefits, the cost or value of any equipment or fixtures, attorneys’ fees and costs, loss of goodwill, construction-related dust, noise, traffic and other related construction activity, and lost rentals or business associated with construction of any improvements, and any other types of related losses or damages.

GRANTOR acknowledges that it may hereafter discover facts or law different from, or in addition to that which it now believes to be true with respect to his/her release of claims as set forth in this Agreement, and understands that by executing this Agreement it is waiving any rights of claims for any other or future benefits or damages to which it might be entitled which are not specifically exempted herein. In giving this release, GRANTOR expressly waives the protection of Civil Code Section 1542, which statute provides as follows:

A GENERAL RELEASE DOES NOT EXTEND TO CLAIMS WHICH THE CREDITOR

DOES NOT KNOW OR SUSPECT TO EXIST IN HIS FAVOR AT THE TIME OF

EXECUTING THE RELEASE, WHICH IF KNOWN BY HIM MUST HAVE MATERIALLY AFFECTED HIS SETTLEMENT WITH THE DEBTOR.

If this Agreement is terminated this Clause 11 shall have no force and effect.

Item 9.m
GRANTOR: COUNTY OF SOLANO APN: 0133-070-110
PROJECT NAME: CITY OF VACAVILLE’S I-505/VACA VALLEY

PARKWAY MULTIMODAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT

12. Approval of CITY
GRANTOR understands that this Agreement is subject to the approval of CITY. Further, that this Agreement shall have no force or effect unless and until said CITY approval has been obtained.

13. Authority to Sign
GRANTOR and the signatories represent and warrant that the signatories to this Agreement are authorized to enter into this Agreement to convey real property and that no other authorizations are required to implement this Agreement on behalf of GRANTOR.

14. Binding on Successors and Assigns
This Agreement shall be binding on and inure to the benefit of the respective heirs, successors and assigns of the parties to this Agreement.

15. Counterparts Signature
This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be an original, but all counterparts shall constitute one agreement.

16. Specific Performance
In the event of a breach of this Agreement by GRANTOR, CITY shall be entitled to pursue any and all remedies available to it against GRANTOR, including, without limitation, claims for all damages attributable to GRANTOR’s breach, and specific performance of this Agreement.

17. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The parties to this Agreement shall, pursuant to Section 21.7(a) of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, comply with all elements of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

This requirement under Title VI and the Code of Federal Regulations is to complete the USDOT Non-Discrimination Assurance requiring compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 49 C.F.R. Parts 21 and 28 C.F.R. Section 50.3.

Further, no person in the United States shall, on the grounds of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program or activity that is the subject of this Agreement.
(As used above, the term, “GRANTOR” shall include the plural as well as the singular number) Item 9.m
GRANTOR: COUNTY OF SOLANO APN: 0133-070-110
PROJECT NAME: CITY OF VACAVILLE’S I-505/VACA VALLEY

PARKWAY MULTIMODAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement the day and year first written herein below.

GRANTOR:

COUNTY OF SOLANO
By:

Print Name:

Title:

Date:

CITY OF VACAVILLE,
A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION:

By:

Title:

Date:

Approved as to form and legality:

Office of the City Attorney
Date:

NO OBLIGATION OTHER THAN SET FORTH HEREIN WILL BE RECOGNIZED Item 9.m

CITY OF VACAVILLE
City Council
Staff Report
Meeting Date: July 28, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
Attention: Savita Chaudhary, City Manager
From: Erin Morris, Community & Economic Development Director (Staff Contact: Peyman Behvand, Acting Assistant Director of Community & Economic Development (707) 449-5332)
Subject: Resolution of the City Council of the City of Vacaville to amend the contract for the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Priority Development Area (PDA) Grant to extend it from August 31, 2026 to June 30, 2028, and approve a one-time budget augmentation to the Fiscal Year 2026-27 operating budget in the amount of $60,000 to fund a Water and Storm Drain System Impact Evaluation for the Peabody Allison Specific Plan.

Actions for Consideration:

Amend the contract for the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Priority Development Area (PDA) Grant to extend it from August 31, 2026, to June 30, 2028, and approve a one-time budget augmentation to the 2026-27 Fiscal Year operating budget in the amount of $60,000 to fund a Water and Storm Drain System Impact Evaluation for the Peabody Allison Specific Plan.

Recommendations:

By simple motion, adopt the subject resolution.

Background:

In 2008, the State of California passed Senate Bill (SB) 375, which requires all California regions to prepare a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) outlining how each region will achieve the greenhouse gas reduction targets set by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). The City of Vacaville is part of the nine-county Bay Area region, which includes Solano County. In 2013, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) adopted the Bay Area’s first SCS, entitled Plan Bay Area. Under the Plan Bay Area framework, local jurisdictions can identify Priority Development Areas (PDAs), where new development will support residents’ and workers’ daily needs in a pedestrian-friendly environment served by transit. The City of Vacaville has two PDAs: the Downtown PDA and the Allison PDA.

Item 9.n
To encourage implementation of the strategies identified under Plan Bay Area, MTC/ABAG established the One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) program, under which PDAs are eligible to receive funding for future planning efforts and transportation projects. The City previously received OBAG funds to prepare the Downtown Specific Plan. On October 10, 2023, the City Council accepted $1.2 million in OBAG funds to prepare a new specific plan for the Allison PDA, titled the PeabodyAllison Specific Plan (PASP).

The PASP area encompasses approximately 400 acres and features major amenities, including the Vacaville Transportation Center, the Vacaville Cultural Center, Will C. Wood High School, County Square Market, the Vaca Village shopping center, and the Vacaville Commons shopping center. The Plan Area is bound by Interstate 80 to the north and west and by the Putah South Canal to the east. The southern boundary primarily follows Elmira Road, extending south along Peabody Road to include Will C. Wood High School. Attachment 1 shows an overview of the PASP Plan Area.

On July 1, 2024, the City executed a professional services agreement with Environmental Science Associates (ESA) for planning consulting services to assist the City in preparing the Peabody Allison Specific Plan (PASP). City staff and ESA began preparing the Plan in August 2024, and it is anticipated to be completed by late summer 2028. Staff and ESA have completed an existing conditions analysis and preliminary community outreach and are currently developing land-use alternatives and streetscape design recommendations for the Plan.

Discussion:

On August 6, 2024, Staff and ESA began preparing the Peabody Allison Specific Plan. Staff and ESA are currently developing Land Use Alternatives and Streetscape Design Recommendations for the Plan, which requires a Water and Storm Drain System Impact Evaluation. This task was not itemized in the original Scope of Work, and it was determined that additional funding beyond the originally approved $1.2 million from MTC would be needed to complete it.

On April 10, 2026, MTC informally approved a contract amendment, as outlined in Attachment 2.

This amendment provides an additional $60,000 in funding for the Water and Storm Drain System Impact Evaluation. It also extends the term of the agreement to June 30, 2028. The formal approval by the MTC Programming and Allocations Committee is scheduled for August 12, 2026.

The Community & Economic Development Department is requesting that the City Council adopt a resolution to extend the term of the MTC PDA contract from August 30, 2026, to June 30, 2028, to accommodate the delay in completing the Water and Storm Drain System Impact Evaluation.

Additionally, the Department seeks authorization from the City Council to amend the contract to accept the additional $60,000 for this evaluation. Furthermore, the Department requests that the City Council approve a $60,000 contract with West Yost to carry out the Water and Storm Drain System Impact Evaluation. Attachment 3 includes the Scope of Work for this evaluation.

Item 9.n
Environmental Impact:

This action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it is not a project that has the potential to result in either a physical change in the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, pursuant to California Code of Regulations Title 14 Section 15378(b)(5).

Fiscal Impact:

Amount Requested: $60,000
Funding Source: Metropolitan Transportation Commission Priority Development Area grantAllison (2919).

Budget Distribution: If approved by Council, the budget would be loaded into special revenue account (2919.20.2027.4508|672).

Alternatives:

The City Council could choose not to adopt the subject resolution. Funding for the Water and Storm Drain System Impact Evaluation would need to come from the General Fund; otherwise, the plan would not be able to move forward.

Strategic Plan Goal/Initiative:

Goal 3: Protect Vacaville’s Quality of Life
Levine Act:

No
Attachments:

Resolution – Action Item
Attachment 1 – Specific Plan Boundary
Attachment 2 – Supplement No. 2 to Master Funding Agreement (MTC and City of Vacaville) Attachment 3 – Water and Storm Drain System Impact Evaluation Scope of Work Item 9.n
Resolution No. 2026-
Resolution of the City Council of the City of Vacaville to amend the contract for the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Priority Development Area (PDA) Grant to extend it from August 31, 2026 to June 30, 2028, and approve a one-time budget augmentation to the Fiscal Year 2026-27 operating budget in the amount of $60,000 to fund a Water and Storm Drain System Impact Evaluation for the Peabody Allison Specific Plan
Whereas, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s Priority Development Area (PDA) Program has initiated 80 Planning and 50 Technical grants since 2007; and Whereas, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) called for projects in February 2023; and
Whereas, on June 28, 2023, MTC approved funding for the Allison Area PDA located in Vacaville in the amount of $1,200,000; and
Whereas, on October 10, 2023, the City Council of the City of Vacaville approved the acceptance of grant funds from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission in the amount of $1,200,000 for the purpose of creating a Specific Plan for the Allison PDA, also known as the Peabody Allison Specific Plan.

Whereas, on April 10, 2026, MTC informally approved additional funding for the Allison Area PDA, also known as the Peabody Allison Specific Plan, in the amount of $60,000 to fund a Water and Storm Drain System Impact Evaluation for the Plan; Whereas, on August 12, 2026, the MTC Programming and Allocations Committee will formally approve additional funding for the Allison Area PDA, also known as the Peabody Allison Specific Plan, in the amount of $60,000 to fund a Water and Storm Drain System Impact Evaluation for the Plan;
Now, therefore, be it resolved that the City Council of the City of Vacaville does hereby amend the contract for the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Priority Development Area (PDA) Grant to extend it from August 31, 2026 to June 30, 2028, and approve a one-time budget augmentation to the Fiscal Year 2026-27 operating budget in the amount of $60,000 to fund a Water and Storm Drain System Impact Evaluation for the Peabody Allison Specific Plan.

I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Vacaville held on the 28th day of July 2026, by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Attest:
_____________________________
Michelle A. Thornbrugh, City Clerk
Item 9.n

CITY OF VACAVILLE

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PEABODY-ALLISON SPECIFIC PLAN

DEPARTMENT
SPECIFIC PLAN BOUNDARY N FILE NO. 24-074
Allison Dr

VACAVILLE, SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Elmira Rd
Aegean Way
%&'(80
Peabody Rd
Hume Way
Marshall Rd
Harbison Dr
Ulatis Dr
Cliffside Dr
Nut Tree
Pkwy
E Monte Vista Ave
Depot St
McClellan St
Berryessa Dr
Beelard Dr
Browns
Val el y
Pkwy
Callen St
Helen Power Dr
Will C. Wood
High School
County
Square
Market
Vaca
Village
Vacaville
Cultural
Center
n£
Vacaville
Commons
Costco
Target
Safeway Walmart
Sprouts
Travis
Credit
Union
Nut Tree
Village
Power
Plaza
Bowlero
Browns
Valley
Marketplace
Sterling
Pointe
Putah South Canal
Ulatis Creek
Southside Bikeway
Planning Area
n£Vacaville Transportation Center
VacavilleElmira
Cemetery
Fairmont
Charter
School

PLANNING
AREA
ATTACHMENT 1 Item 9.n
AMENDMENT NO. 1 SUPPLEMENT NO. 2
To MASTER FUNDING AGREEMENT
Between METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
And CITY OF VACAVILLE
For SPECIFIC PLAN FOR ALLISON PDA
THIS AMENDMENT, effective as of July 1, 2026 is Amendment No. 1 to Supplement 2 by and between the METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (“MTC”) and CITY OF VACAVILLE ("AGENCY”), dated February 1, 2024. The Agreement supplements the Master Funding Agreement between MTC and Agency.

NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree to modify the subject Agreement as follows.

1. Paragraph 2 is revised to increase the amount of the Agreement by sixty thousand dollars ($60,000) for a new not to exceed amount of one million two hundred sixty thousand dollars ($1,260,000).

2. Paragraph 3 is revised to extend the completion date from August 31, 2026 to June 30, 2028.

3. The following text is added to the Agreement:

AGENCY is not required to have insurance for this project, but shall require its subconsultants, if any, to maintain appropriate levels of insurance against claims, damages and losses due to injuries to persons or damage to property or other losses that may arise in connection with the performance of work under this Agreement.

Payments under this Supplement shall be subject to the availability of federal funds to MTC. If federal funding is delayed, terminated, or reduced, MTC shall promptly notify AGENCY, in writing, of any termination, modification, of federal funding that may negatively impact or alter the funding available under this Supplement. If federal funding is delayed MTC may extend the time to make payment to AGENCY upon prompt written notification of such delay. AGENCY shall not suspend or terminate performance due to delayed payment if such delay is the result of a corresponding delay in MTC’s receipt of federal funds. Upon MTC’s receipt of federal funds, MTC will proceed with payment in accordance with the terms of the Supplement.

Item 9.n
MTC/ City of Vacaville
Specific Plan (Allison PDA)
Amendment 1 Supplement 2 to MFA

MTC may terminate this Supplement immediately by written notice if federal funding is terminated or materially reduced. AGENCY shall be entitled to payment for services satisfactorily rendered and obligations properly incurred up to the date of written notice of termination. AGENCY agrees to hold harmless MTC from claims asserted by any officers, agents, employees of AGENCY, or any claims asserted by subconsultants of AGENCY or their officers, agents or employees, at any tier, in the event that MTC cannot or does not pay for services as a result of the unavailability of funds.

4. Annex I, Project Description and Scope of Work is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the attached Annex I, Project Description and Scope of Work (Revised via Amendment 1).

5. Annex II, Project Schedule, Budget and Payment is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the attached Annex II, Project Schedule, Budget, and Payment (Revised via Amendment 1).

6. Retention of Contract Provisions. Except as provided herein, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement remain unchanged.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been executed by the parties hereto as of the Effective Date written above.

METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION

COMMISSION

CITY OF VACAVILLE
Andrew B. Fremier, Executive Director Erin Morris, Director of Community Development

Item 9.n
MTC/ City of Vacaville
Specific Plan (Allison PDA)
Amendment 1 Supplement 2 to MFA

ANNEX I
Project Description and Scope of Work
(Revised via Amendment 1)
TASK 1 Project Startup
AGENCY’S Consultant (“Consultant” or “the Consultant”) will review existing information obtained from the City of Vacaville (“City” or “the City”), including GIS files, land use data, and applicable plans, studies and other documents. Based on this review, the Consultant will identify and compile any missing pertinent studies and other data that will be necessary to perform Specific Plan and environmental analysis. Consultant team is expected to provide the City with an initial information needs memo detailing the necessary information necessary to conduct the planning and environmental analysis tasks.

1.1 Review Data and Create Geospatial Database
As part of this task, the Consultant will create a geospatial database to store, analyze, and map all data. Included will be a basemap for subsequent planning, design, analysis and outreach tasks. The GIS database will be updated throughout the process to allow for efficient storage, analysis, and mapping of data. Upon completion of the project, Consultant will provide the City with all map layers, graphics, and the associated database for the City’s continued use and will coordinate with the City to ensure that all data and mapping are easily transferable and comply with City standards.

1.2 Kick-Off Meeting/Site Tour
The Consultant and City staff will hold a kick-off meeting in order to: 1) discuss the City’s objectives for the work program; 2) review the scope of work and schedule to ensure a common understanding of project deliverables, methodologies, expected outcomes, and responsibilities; 3) determine regular management/progress meetings/calls, staff working sessions, and review of work products; 4) identify and begin to prioritize the major issues to be addressed as part of the planning effort; 5) review the information needs and confirm what additional data is available to support the planning and environmental analysis processes; and 6) confirm the method for invoices and project progress reports.

As part of this kick-off meeting, the Consultant and City staff will conduct a field tour of the Allison PDA to facilitate an understanding of the area’s character, a common discussion of important planning and design issues, and enable all participants to benefit from City staff’s insights and perspectives.

Task 1 Deliverables:

1.1 Information needs memo (electronic)

1.2 Geospatial database (electronic)

1.3 Kick-off meeting/site tour agenda and summary notes (electronic) Item 9.n
MTC/ City of Vacaville
Specific Plan (Allison PDA)
Amendment 1 Supplement 2 to MFA

TASK 2 Existing Conditions Assessment and Analysis
Based on initial observations, the Allison area may be divided into subdistricts due to differences and commonalities in land use and design. The Consultant may collect existing conditions data by identified subdistricts that will be reflected in the Specific Plan development. The Consultant will need an approved map of the subdistrict boundaries before preparing the existing conditions analysis.

2.1 Document Existing Conditions
The Consultant will work with the City and other sources to collect, organize and review available information on existing conditions for the Allison Area and surrounding corridors. Information to be collected and analyzed includes:

Traffic and infrastructure data. Consultant will work with City staff to identify pertinent data already collected by the City, as well as existing planning documents and projects and improvements already identified in the PDA area. Consultant will have a qualified data collection firm collect AM and PM and midday Peak Hour turning movement counts (including pedestrian and bicycle volumes) at specified study area intersections, as well as conduct speed surveys at up to ten study area roadway segments.

Policy and regulatory documents. The Consultant will collect and summarize relevant City street design, zoning and development standards. The Consultant will also review critical studies and policy documents for their applicability and implications on the Allison Planning Area, including the Vacaville General Plan (especially the Transportation Element for bike facilities and LOS thresholds), the Vacaville Housing Element, the Land Use & Development Code, the Energy & Conservation Action, the Vacaville Directional Signage Program, Solano County Active Transportation Plan, Solano Transportation Authority’s Safe Routes to School Plan, and the Solano County Congestion Management Plan (CMP).

Identify Multimodal Needs. Consultant will identify existing and planned transit routes, ridership data, pedestrian facilities and bicycle routes and use available models to project future peak hour traffic volumes and requirements along key corridors and at key intersections selected in consultation with City Public Works staff. Consultant will prepare exhibits that illustrate existing and planned facilities and peak hour traffic volumes, and will document the assumptions, methodologies and findings of their analysis in a technical memorandum.

The data collected will be compiled to form the existing conditions chapter of the Streetscape Plan. The existing conditions chapter will include relevant figures, photos and graphics to illustrate the existing conditions of the area. Consultant will prepare exhibits that illustrate existing and planned facilities and peak hour traffic volumes, and will document the assumptions, methodologies and findings of their analysis in a technical memorandum. The data collected will be compiled into the Allison PDA Specific Plan.

2.2 Analysis of Opportunities and Constraints
Item 9.n
MTC/ City of Vacaville
Specific Plan (Allison PDA)
Amendment 1 Supplement 2 to MFA

The Consultant will analyze the data collected and prepare an opportunities and constraints exhibit for the Allison Planning Area showing impediments to pedestrian and bicycle circulation and potential solutions to those constraints including improvements to increase safety and improve access to transit. The exhibit will address both the public ROW and adjacent parcels in a holistic view of the ultimate redevelopment of the Allison Area. The opportunities and constraints exhibit will be used in the Streetscape Plan.

Another component of the opportunities and constraints analysis should address nonresidential land uses in particular how the proposed Specific Plan will help retain and enhance existing businesses particularly those serving the local community.

2.3 Allison Priority Development Area Specific Plan Profile The Consultant, in coordination with City staff, will prepare a Priority Development Area (PDA) profile report for the area located within the Allison Planning Area. The PDA Profile will provide an overview of the demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of the area, transit/travel patterns and use, physical aspects of the Planning Area, as well as any known issues that will need to be considered or addressed during the planning process. The information contained in this report will be referenced throughout the planning process and used in the development of the Specific Plan.

The PDA profile will address the following:
 Physical Context: existing land uses, General Plan designations, zoning districts, potentially presented by identified subdistricts.  Population and Households: Race/ethnicity, age, household income, poverty status, level of education, primary language spoken at home  Housing: Units by type, tenure, rent/mortgage—including cost as a share of income  Economy: For Allison Area residents--place of work, industry, occupation and wage; for employees of Allison Area businesses—place of residence, industry, occupation, and wages
 Growth: Projected housing, job, and population growth in adopted local plans and Plan Bay Area 2040; breakdown of population growth by age, household size, and other demographic factors
 Travel Patterns: For residents and employees—Commute distance, mode, and travel time; additional data for residents including vehicle availability. In order to document existing travel patterns, the Consultant will work with readily available census data to estimate and map origin-destination pairs by census tract for households and jobs within the study area. This data will be presented using GIS mapping.
 Displacement Risk: Level of displacement risk; specific groups at risk of displacement  Infrastructure: Water, energy, waste, and stormwater; including any current or anticipated capacity issues
 Transportation How the area is accessed by various transportation methods  Community Services & Amenities: parks, schools/playgrounds, schools, libraries, social services, healthcare, community centers, grocery and drug stores, and Farmer’s Markets
Item 9.n
MTC/ City of Vacaville
Specific Plan (Allison PDA)
Amendment 1 Supplement 2 to MFA

 Climate and Resilience: consistency with the City’s Energy and Conservation Action Strategy; natural hazards such as flooding, air quality, and how it can affect the health of the community.
 Constraints: known issues or concerns to be addressed in planning process  Opportunities: identification of key opportunity sites/areas for future development, including housing opportunity sites
Consultant will prepare a draft PDA profile for City. Based on comments provided by the City, Consultant will prepare and submit a final PDA profile. The PDA profile will include relevant figures, photos, and graphics to illustrate the exiting conditions of the Allison Planning Area.

Task 2 Deliverables:

2.1 Draft and Final Existing conditions section to be included in the Streetscape Plan (electronic)

2.2 Draft and Final Opportunities and constraints exhibit for the Streetscape Plan

2.3 Draft and Final PDA Profile Report (electronic)

2.4 PDA Profile (electronic)

2.5 Technical traffic memorandum Data Collection will include  AM/PM Peak Hour Traffic Counts (including pedestrians and bicycles at specified intersections
 Midday counts.
 ADTs at locations specified by the City Traffic Engineer.  Speed surveys at up to 10 locations
TASK 3 Development of Strategies and Alternatives
The Consultant will work with the City to develop three potential development pattern alternatives that are supported by Streetscape Design Alternatives, as described below.

3.1 Develop/Refine Streetscape Design
Consultant will work with the City to develop potential alternatives strategies for multimodal access, connectivity, pedestrian-friendly design, and other streetscape improvements. The intent will be to define alternatives which help the City better realize their goals for the Allison PDA area including improved multimodal mobility and accessibility for all people to support economic vitality, to improve public safety, and to foster conditions of livability. These alternatives could include options to provide ways for people to walk, bike, take transit, or drive a car within and through the Allison Planning Area. The plan will also identify locations where streetscape improvements such as public gathering places, street tree plantings, site furnishings, art installations and other aesthetics can be introduced into the Allison Planning Area.

Using the input received at outreach meeting(s), Consultant will work with the City to prioritize where improvements are needed and what types of improvements would be Item 9.n
MTC/ City of Vacaville
Specific Plan (Allison PDA)
Amendment 1 Supplement 2 to MFA

desirable. The design team will produce design alternatives for the streetscape and connections strategy. A memo detailing alternatives will be provided. These design alternatives will be taken into the Planning Commission for review, as well as to the community at a workshop for input.

3.2 Screen Opportunity Site/Area Alternatives
The Consultant will prepare an alternatives screening assessment focused on opportunity sites/areas Key steps include:
o Define Evaluation Criteria. The Consultant, with input from City staff, will define evaluation criteria to measure and compare the land use alternatives for the opportunity sites/areas. The criteria may consider: the following land use compatibility, market feasibility, infrastructure capacity, and mobility impacts and opportunities. Other qualitative criteria may be included based upon input from City staff.
o Screening Alternatives Based on Evaluation Criteria. The Consultant will conduct a screening assessment of the opportunity site/area land use alternatives using the defined evaluation criteria:
o Land Use Compatibility. Consultant will analyze the land use compatibility of each alternative with adjacent uses and the overall character of the Allison Area.
o Market Feasibility. Consultant will analyze the ability of the market to support each alternative including site suitability for the targeted use(s) and financial feasibility.
o Infrastructure Capacity. Consultant will calculate potential for wastewater demand, and City Utility staff will calculate potential for water utility demands and drainage capacity. While it is not expected that the alternatives will result in significant variations in utility usage, the analysis will focus on possible sitespecific infrastructure impacts/deficiencies/ improvements associated with each of the alternatives that could influence development.
o Mobility Impacts and Opportunities. The Consultant will evaluate the effects of proposed roadway alterations (including pedestrian and bicycle facilities) on mobility. This will include both impacts to the roadways and pedestrian/ bicycle access being altered (such as by reduced lanes or speed) and the intersections directly adjacent to those roadways, and to roadways in the vicinity of altered roadways (such as parallel facilities that are not directly adjacent to the modified roadways. This analysis will include the four (4) signalized intersections within the PDA, as well as up to ten (10) additional signalized or stop controlled intersections within Vacaville. In addition to Level of Service effects, Consultant will document other transportation related effects such as effects on bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities and users.

Consultant will prepare a technical memorandum or report summarizing potential effects identified.

Based on the screening assessment, the opportunity sites/areas are corresponding alternatives will be ranked as high, medium, or low development priority. Note: Any Item 9.n
MTC/ City of Vacaville
Specific Plan (Allison PDA)
Amendment 1 Supplement 2 to MFA

lane configuration must evaluate existing and future traffic. This will require running the City's travel demand model.

Only the City's on-call consultants (DKS, Fehr & Peers and GHD) can run the model.

They can be subs to the prime if necessary.

3.3 Prepare Alternatives Screening Memo
The Consultant Team will prepare a memorandum that summarizes and documents the land use alternatives evaluation for the opportunity sites/areas. Based on the land use alternatives and the screening of opportunity sites/areas in Task 3.2, Develop Specific Plan Land Use Alternatives and Task 3.3 Screen Opportunity Site/Area Alternatives, a preferred land use plan will be selected. This will include incorporating the desired alternatives for each of the opportunity sites/areas into a preferred overall land use plan.

The preferred plan will be selected and refined at a working session with City staff. This effort will include incorporation of a preferred streetscape and connections strategy to ensure consistency. The Preferred Land Use Plan will be reviewed by the TAC.

Task 3 Deliverables:

3.1 Streetscape and connections strategy alternatives with maps and diagrams

3.2 Map of areas of preservation and change (electronic)

3.3 Land use alternatives including opportunity site/area alternatives with sketches.

3.4 Alternatives screening criteria and assessment

3.5 Preferred land use plan and streetscape and connections strategy

3.6 Water System Impact Evaluation and Storm Drain System Impact Evaluation:

Land Use Alternatives

3.7 Water System Impact Evaluation and Storm Drain System Impact Evaluation:

Land Use Alternatives: Preferred Plan
TASK 4 Prepare Streetscape Plan

4.1 Prepare Administrative Draft Streetscape and Technology Plan Consultant will approach the streetscape planning in a manner that looks at the built and natural environments as one seamless community asset. The recommendations will include amenities, gathering places and unique place-making opportunities that blur the lines between public and private ownership to create a vibrant place for people.

The Streetscape Plan will be a plan for improving the physical design of the Allison Planning Area pedestrian environment and the connections within and to the Allison PDA for people walking, bicycling, taking transit or driving a car. It will include detailed recommendations (goals, polices, actions and standards) for street and trail networks, for urban design and landscaping, and will be illustrated with ample graphics and drawings.

The Streetscape Plan will also provide recommendations for streetscape improvements, including small and feasible enhancements, larger, more complex capital-intensive projects, and identify how technology (traffic signal upgrades, detection devices for bike, cars and pedestrians, transit preemption, transit real time route information) can improve the area. The Plan will lend itself to revitalization efforts and investment programming.

Item 9.n
MTC/ City of Vacaville
Specific Plan (Allison PDA)
Amendment 1 Supplement 2 to MFA

The Streetscape Plan will also support the goals of the State, Bay Area Metropolitan’s Sustainable Communities Strategy, and Plan Bay Area by improving mobility and access in and around the Allison Area by making it easier for people to travel, and encouraging walking, biking, and transit use. This will result in making more efficient use of the existing mobility system, while reducing greenhouse gas emissions, reducing impacts to climate change and improving the health of the community. The Consultant, working closely with the City, will also prepare an implementation strategy that identifies improvement projects, phasing/timing, cost estimates, and available funding sources. The plan will identify steps for securing additional funds for implementation of the improvements anticipated.

Consultant will prepare an administrative draft plan for review by the City. The plan will include documentation of existing conditions, constraints and opportunities, and the public process, a series of maps illustrating a recommended network of routes along with conceptual drawings of proposed enhancements for streets and cross sections. The plan will identify the next steps for project implementation. City staff will collect and review all comments and provide a comprehensive set of consistent comments to the Consultant for revisions.

4.2 Prepare Public Draft Streetscape Plan
The Consultant Team will revise the plan based on one set of consolidated comments provided by the City and prepare the Draft Streetscape Plan.

4.3 Prepare Final Streetscape Plan
Up to one member of the Consultant Team will attend a community workshop, where community members can review and provide input on the Streetscape Plan recommendations. Based on one set of consolidated comments provided by the City from the public workshop, the Consultant Team will make revisions to the Draft Plan and submit the Final Streetscape Plan.

The Final Plan will be taken to the City Council, and the Consultant Team will attend the hearing and be available to answer any questions.

Task 4 Deliverables:

4.1 Administrative Draft Streetscape Plan (electronic)

4.2 Public Draft Streetscape Plan (electronic)

4.3 Final Streetscape Plan (electronic and hard copies) TASK 5 Specific Plan

5.1 Specific Plan Components
The Consultant will develop a working outline of the Specific Plan to confirm the overall structure and content of the document with City staff. This scope anticipates the following topics will be addressed, with the final structure, chapter headings and format subject to consultation with the City:

Item 9.n
MTC/ City of Vacaville
Specific Plan (Allison PDA)
Amendment 1 Supplement 2 to MFA

 Vision. Specific Plan vision and desired outcomes; key findings from the community engagement and how they inform the Specific Plan; summary of area’s history; summary of planning process; explanation of plan structure; and a summary of implementation actions and timelines.
 Development Standards. Zoning districts (permitted uses, density/intensity, height); urban architectural design (setbacks, building façades, solar orientation, ground floor transparency); parking (maximum parking ratios, shared parking, adaptability to autonomous vehicles and reduced car ownership); community benefits (e.g. public spaces, community facilities, or other amenities that can be provided in exchange for higher densities or other developer benefit)
 Building Design Objectives. Design intent and objectives; streetscape design and landscaping from Task 4, Streetscape Plan
 Affordable Housing. Affordable housing strategy and policies; anti-displacement strategy and policies; Expected need for affordable housing, by income level, in the Allison Planning Area based on the characteristics of the existing and expected future population, taking into account RHNA allocation and future industry growth; and identify the gap between need, by income level, and anticipated provision through private investment and available subsidies.  Parking. Consultant will prepare a parking analysis and policy strategy to address how parking needs would be satisfied as future developments occurs and affects existing parking lots.
 Development Standards. The Consultant will prepare high level design guidelines for the Allison Planning Area that reinforce the urban design, streetscape and land use solutions within the Specific Plan. In addition, the Consultant shall assess the objective design standards in the LUDS and determine whether the Specific Plan can effectively rely on the existing standards or whether area -specific design standards are necessary. If area specific standards are needed, these must be incorporated in the Specific Plan.  Circulation Network and Right-of-Way Design. Mobility plan; street designations (identifying streets in the Allison Planning Area by designation); complete streets design standards (standard cross-sections, including provisions for pedestrians, bicycles, transit, parking, and green infrastructure where applicable; parking policy strategy; appropriate level of detail to guide future projects; use of transportation technology, a discussion of how the mobility plan and streetscape design will contribute positively to the health of its residents and employees.
 Public Spaces. Parks and public spaces; off-street trails; habitat conservation and enhancement areas; public and private open space standards; schools/job training centers; health care and social services; cultural facilities; discussion on how these amenities can improve public health.
 Community and Equity. The Consultant will review the City’s Housing Element and will incorporate affirmatively furthering fair housing programs into the Specific Plan.
 Capital Improvements. Consultant and City staff will provide an analysis for infrastructure demands that will identify improvements necessary to meet the Item 9.n
MTC/ City of Vacaville
Specific Plan (Allison PDA)
Amendment 1 Supplement 2 to MFA

needs of projected growth for the Allison Area, and it may identify improvements within or outside the Allison Area. The recommendations for all systems will take into account existing facilities, ability to phase improvements, constructability, and cost. In addition, the Consultant will provide an overview of the future public services and utility needs to serve the buildout of the Allison Planning Area, including fire protection, law enforcement, schools, libraries, solid waste/recycling, and green infrastructure.
 Implementation. A table identifying development milestones and dates, responsible parties, estimated cost, committed and anticipated funding, and ongoing tracking and reporting process.

5.1 Administrative Draft Specific Plan

5.2 Final Draft Specific Plan
TASK 6 Environmental Analysis

6.1 Environmental Analysis Determination
The Consultant will recommend an appropriate environmental analysis for the project. The City’s initial expectations is that the analysis will build off of recently certified Environmental Impact Reports and subsequent environmental analyses including the 2015 General Plan EIR and subsequent SEIR for VMT purposes. The City desires a streamlined approach to CEQA compliance.

6.2 Administrative Draft Environmental Analysis
The Consultant will prepare an Administrative Draft Environmental document. The impact analysis will be comprehensive and cover all CEQA requirements.

6.3 Draft Environmental Analysis
Based on the comments from staff, on the Admin Draft, Consultant will prepare a Public Review Draft of the environmental assessment document.

6.4 Final Draft Environmental Analysis
Consultant will respond to environment-related comments from the public in writing and provide a final version that address public input (if necessary).

6.1 Administrative Environmental Assessment Document (Electronic)

6.2 Final Draft Environmental Assessment Document (Electronic) TASK 7 Community Involvement and Engagement
The Consultant will be leading the outreach tasks related to the Specific Plan including community workshops, stakeholder meetings, and any other community engagement. City staff will take the lead in establishing and coordinating the Technical Advisory Committee and leading the TAC meetings. The Consultant is expected to attend some TAC meetings to Item 9.n
MTC/ City of Vacaville
Specific Plan (Allison PDA)
Amendment 1 Supplement 2 to MFA

gain a better understanding of technical data, and advising City staff on which activities and questions can be used to elicit the type of feedback and input that is needed from each of the stakeholder involvement/public outreach meetings and activities.

7.1 Involvement Plan
The proposal will divide the outreach program into three phases: a) provision of a detailed outreach plan and materials, b) completion of initial outreach activities and summary, and c) completion of a final outreach activities and summary.

Consultant with input from the City, will prepare an involvement plan to inform residents, businesses and other stakeholders about the project and upcoming community events. The plan will include:
 A schedule and set of task descriptions for carrying out all of the Community Involvement activities with timing for release, distribution and placement of publicity items.
 A focus will be direct engagement with lower income residents and communities of color identified in the PDA Profile section, including the roles of local service providers (e.g. community centers, clinics, etc.). Translation needs will be provided when needed and will be documented throughout the process.  Potential members of the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) by role or specialty  A comprehensive stakeholder outreach list of residents (renters and homeowners), property owners, businesses, developers (nonprofit and for profit), neighborhood associations community and faith-based organizations, seniors, youth, and non-English speaking populations to maximize participation and positive input at community events.  Specific ways that community input at various phases of the planning process will be integrated into the Specific Plan.
 Roles and Responsibilities.

7.2 Convene Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)
The Consultant will participate in meetings as needed involving staff from local, county and regional agencies, such as utilities, transit agencies, congestion management agencies, air and water quality management districts, and the Bay Area Metro (ABAG/MTC) grant manager. Consultant will take the lead on facilitating these meetings.

7.3 Develop and Disseminate Outreach Materials
Materials will be produced in English and Spanish to inform all segments of the community about the planning process and how they may participate in developing the Allison PDA Specific Plan. Steps include:
 Branding the Plan. Consultant will work with the City to brand the project using a consistent logo and tag line/motto to increase visibility.  Produce Materials. Consultant will produce flyers and posters in English and Spanish publicizing events for community-wide distribution. Outreach mistakes in additional Item 9.n
MTC/ City of Vacaville
Specific Plan (Allison PDA)
Amendment 1 Supplement 2 to MFA

languages may be necessary to engage business owners and residents who do not speak English or Spanish.
 Disseminate Materials. Materials will be posted in prominent locations and distributed in person. The City will use its social media and television outreach channels to encourage public participation. Flyers and posters will be distributed to City Coach Transit, businesses, the Chamber of Commerce, and other interested parties.
 Outreach to Media. Announcements and articles will be distributed to The Reporter and other local media in English and Spanish. Meeting announcements and project updates will be posted on the City’s website, and other websites and social media pages, and through newsletters and community TV.

7.4. Online Engagement
It is anticipated that the Consultant will assist in the preparation of online materials including text and graphics..

7.5 Policymaker Engagement
Consultant will coordinate with the City to schedule any necessary briefings with Council members and Planning Commissioners in combination with hearings to provide an overview of the planning process, an opportunity to review and comment on alternatives and provide input during the development of the Draft Plan to help ensure buy-in and smooth the plan adoption process. Consultant will provide technical support and materials to be used by the City to create presentations. It is assumed the City staff will present to the Planning Commission and City Council with assistance from Consultant when needed.

7.6 Plan and Coordinate Event Logistics
Consultant, in coordination with the City, will develop a detailed agenda for public workshops and activities.

7.7 Facilitate Kickoff and Goal-Setting
The Consultant will conduct stakeholder meetings for the Specific Plan to identify community assets, challenges, and opportunities in the plan area; develop goals and targets for the plan; and identify areas of change and preservation. Any needed translation services identified in the Community Involvement Plan and childcare will be provided. The conceptual schedule of kick-off activities includes:

1. Facilitated bus tour of the Allison PDA area or equivalent method for viewing the area as a group.

2. Focus Group Meetings. Facilitate focus group meetings with stakeholder groups representing population segments identified by the City and the TAC. At this time, developers, landowners, and other interest groups are anticipated to attend the focused meetings.

3. Community Event. Kick-off community event (workshop or similar) to ensure high quality and representative community participation.

The kick-off events will provide participants with an overview of the project goals and objectives and will include activities to gather community input.

Item 9.n
MTC/ City of Vacaville
Specific Plan (Allison PDA)
Amendment 1 Supplement 2 to MFA

4. Review of recommendations with MTC staff and TAC.

7.1 Improvement Plan

7.2 Summary Notes from Outreach Efforts
TASK 8 Project Management

8.1 Communication with City Staff
The Consultant will coordinate with the City to establish regularly scheduled project management calls/meetings throughout the planning process. The primary intent of will be for City staff and the and the Consultant to regularly and efficiently check in on project progress and schedule.

As part of project closure, the consultant will provide a plan summary in response to MTC plan summary questionnaire:

Land Use and Zoning:
d) What was the net change in Zoned Residential Capacity (dwelling units) within the PDA?
d) Describe the net impact of any parking requirement reductions. o If parking policies were revised or adopted, list the policy and a summary of the change(s).
d) What is the potential change indeed restricted affordable housing that will result from the changes in zoned residential capacity? How is that being achieved? Inclusionary Zoning or other zoning strategies to increase the number of affordable units built as part of new development? d) What was the net change to Zoned Commercial capacity (square feet) within the PDA?
Equity Priority Communities and Quality of Life for Existing Residents c) What are the infrastructure and public amenities (parks, recreation centers, senior centers, libraries etc.) planned within the PDA and/or citywide to accommodate the new growth?
c) Does the city have a Broadband Plan that covers the PDA? Is additional infrastructure required / included as part of development requirements to ensure universal access?
c) Are there any anti-displacement policies incorporated into the specific plan or identified for implementation after the plan?
Circulation and Parking
b) Does the plan amend street standards or adopt other policies to reduce overall speeds and improve pedestrian safety? Please describe briefly. b) Does the plan include a parking management program or require future development of a program? Please briefly describe.

Priorities for Future Investments
b) What Priority Sites have been identified within the PDA? b) What mobility hubs within the PDA are being prioritized for capital investments? Item 9.n
MTC/ City of Vacaville
Specific Plan (Allison PDA)
Amendment 1 Supplement 2 to MFA

Transit Oriented Community Policy (if relevant)
a) After the adoption of the plan, will the planned station area within the PDA be consistent with applicable TOC standards? If not, please explain.

Item 9.n
MTC/ City of Vacaville
Specific Plan (Allison PDA)
Amendment 1 Supplement 2 to MFA

ANNEX II
Project Schedule, Budget, and Payment
(Revised via Amendment 1)

FIRM- FIXED PAYMENT
Payment to AGENCY shall be due in the firm fixed amounts indicated below, upon acceptance by the MTC Project Manager of the following deliverables or milestones, described in detail in Attachment A:

Budget amounts may be reallocated between line items at the discretion of the MTC Project Manager in consultation with the AGENCY.

AGENCY shall submit an invoice identifying the project deliverable or milestone for which payment is sought no later than thirty (30) days after MTC's acceptance of such deliverable/milestone. Final invoice shall be submitted no later than thirty (30) days after the end of date of this supplement.
# Deliverable Due Date: Amount
Due
1 Project Startup 6/30/24 $25,000

2.1, 2.2, and

2.3 Draft Existing Conditions Assessment and
Analysis Drafts
12/31/24 $75,000

2.4 and

2.5 PDA Profile and Technical Traffic
Memorandum
12/31/24 $25,000

3.1-3.5 Development of Strategies and Alternatives 3/31/25 $150,000

3.6 Water System Impact Evaluation and Storm
Drain System Impact Evaluation: Land Use
Alternatives
10/1/26 $30,000

3.7 Water System Impact Evaluation and Storm
Drain System Impact Evaluation: Preferred
Plan
1/31/27 $30,000

4.1 and

4.2 Prepare Draft Streetscape and Technology
Plan
6/30/25 $165,000

4.3 Prepare Final Streetscape Plan 1/30/27 $60,000

5.1 Administrative Draft Specific Plan 8/30/27 $280,000

5.2 Final Draft Specific Plan 1/30/28 $95,000

6.1 Admin Draft Environmental Assessment
Document
7/31/27 $110,000

6.2 Final Draft Environmental
Assessment Document
11/31/27 $40,000
Item 9.n
MTC/ City of Vacaville
Specific Plan (Allison PDA)
Amendment 1 Supplement 2 to MFA

7.1 Community Involvement Plan 3/31/28 $30,000

7.2 Completion of Initial Outreach Activities 3/31/28 $50,000

7.3 Completion of Final Outreach Activities and
Summary
3/31/28 $20,000
8 Project Management 7/31/28 $75,000
TOTAL $1,260,000
Item 9.n
2020 Research Park Drive
Suite 100
Davis CA 95618
530.756.5905 phone
530.756.5991 fax
westyost.com
December 20, 2025 SENT VIA: EMAIL
Daniel L. DeCaro
Engineering Project Coordinator
City of Vacaville – Utilities Department
Vacaville, CA 95625
SUBJECT: Proposal for Water and Storm Drain System Impact Evaluation for the City of Vacaville Peabody-Allison Specific Plan Land Use Alternatives
Dear Daniel:

The purpose of this letter proposal is to provide the City of Vacaville (City) with a proposed scope of services, budget, and schedule for the Impact Evaluation for the Peabody-Allison Specific Plan (PASP) Land Use Alternatives (Project).

BACKGROUND
The City, in collaboration with Environmental Science Associates (ESA), is preparing the PASP and has developed two conceptual land use alternatives for the PASP area. Both alternatives propose changes from existing land uses. While the City’s 2023 Water Master Plan (WMP) identified potential future land use changes in the PASP area, those assumptions do not reflect the current proposed alternatives.

To help the City understand how each alternative may affect the water and storm drain infrastructure, West Yost proposes to complete the evaluation in two phases. The first phase will provide an initial highlevel analysis of the two alternatives. As part of this effort, West Yost will review fire flow requirements for each land use concept, since fire flow typically drives local water system sizing, and will identify which alternative is more likely to require improvements beyond those included in the 2023 WMP. The initial analysis will also assess changes in impervious surface area, estimate the resulting increase in stormwater runoff, and evaluate the potential impacts on the existing storm drain system.

After the initial alternatives analysis, the City and ESA will identify a Preferred Plan. West Yost will then prepare a more detailed hydraulic evaluation, which is anticipated to be incorporated into a future environmental review effort. This detailed evaluation will confirm the sizing of required water and storm drain infrastructure improvements associated with the Preferred Plan.

The following scope of services describes the tasks necessary to complete this two-phase evaluation.

Item 9.n
Daniel DeCaro
December 20, 2025

SCOPE OF SERVICES
The proposed scope of services for this evaluation is described below in the following tasks:
 Task 1. Water System Impact Evaluation
 Task 2. Storm Drain System Impact Evaluation
Task 1. Water System Impact Evaluation
The water system analyses completed under Tasks 1.1 and 1.2 will be documented in two separate Technical Memorandums. Draft memorandums will be submitted to the City for review and comment.

After receipt of one consolidated set of comments for each memorandum, West Yost will prepare and submit final memorandums that incorporate City comments.

Task 1.1 Alternatives Analysis
In this task, West Yost will review the two land use alternatives for the PASP and will evaluate the changes in comparison with future land use used for previous evaluations. This comparison will establish the basis for the evaluations of the water system.

West Yost will review PASP-related documents and perform an evaluation comparing the fire flow requirements for the two proposed land use alternatives in the PASP area. The purpose of this evaluation is to determine whether the water system improvements recommended in the City’s 2023 WMP would change based on the fire flow demands of each alternative. As part of this evaluation, West Yost will prepare figures illustrating the differences in fire flow requirements between the two alternatives.

Preliminary recommendations for changes to the 2023 WMP improvements will be identified. Once a preferred alternative is selected by the City and/or Project proponents, a detailed hydraulic evaluation to verify recommendations will be performed as part of Task 2.

Task 1.2 Preferred Plan Evaluation
After the preferred land use plan is selected, West Yost will complete a detailed evaluation of the water system to confirm the improvements necessary to support the Preferred Plan. This work will build on the findings from Task 1.1 and provide the level of analysis anticipated to support a future environmental review effort.

West Yost will update the City’s water system hydraulic model to incorporate the spatially-located fire flow requirements associated with the Preferred Plan. Fire flow performance will then be evaluated under the existing maximum day demand condition consistent with prior City water system performance and operational criteria established in the 2023 WMP. If any evaluated locations do not meet required fire flows while maintaining pressure and velocity criteria (e.g., 20 pounds per square inch and 10 feet per second), West Yost will identify the improvements needed to address deficiencies.

West Yost will also determine the net change in water demands associated with the Preferred Plan compared with future demand projections in the 2023 WMP. The net change will be used to evaluate whether the supply and storage facilities recommended in the 2023 WMP remain adequate to meet performance and operational criteria. If additional capacity is required, West Yost will identify the improvements needed to mitigate the identified deficiencies.

Item 9.n
Daniel DeCaro
December 20, 2025

Task 1.3 Project Management
West Yost will provide overall project management activities to keep this project on schedule and within budget. Communication of project progress will generally be provided via emails and conference calls.

Monthly invoices will also be prepared and submitted. West Yost anticipates holding one meeting with the City to discuss the findings from the evaluation.

Task 1 Assumptions
 The hydraulic performance and operational criteria established in the 2023 WMP remains valid.  Water use factors defined in the 2023 WMP will be used to determine the net change in water demand associated with the preferred alternative.
 Hydraulic modeling will not be conducted for Task 1.1  The City will provide one consolidated set of written comments for each draft TM within two (2) weeks after the respective draft is submitted.
 West Yost participation in meetings will be virtual.

Task 1 Deliverables
 West Yost will provide two PDF electronic draft TMs, one for the Task 1.1 and one for Task 1.2.  West Yost will provide two PDF electronic final TMs, one for Task 1.1 and one for Task 1.2. The final TMs will incorporate City comments on the draft TM.
 West Yost will prepare monthly invoices and descriptions of services performed.

Task 2. Strom Drain System Impact Evaluation
The storm drain system evaluations completed under Tasks 2.1 and 2.2 will be documented in two separate Technical Memorandums. Draft memorandums will be submitted to the City for review and comment. After receipt of one consolidated set of comments for each memorandum, West Yost will prepare and submit final memorandums that incorporate City comments.

Task 2.1 Alternatives Analysis Evaluation
In this task, West Yost will review the two land use alternatives for the PASP and will evaluate the changes in comparison with future land use used for previous evaluations. This comparison will establish the basis for the evaluations of storm drain system.

West Yost will review existing storm drain information relevant to the PASP area, including the Draft East Vacaville Storm Drain Master Plan and FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps. A figure will be prepared showing existing storm drain facilities within the PASP area along with the FEMA floodplain limits near Ulatis Creek.

For each land use alternative, West Yost will estimate the additional impervious surface area and the resulting increase in stormwater runoff. This analysis will identify whether drainage improvements are needed to mitigate the increased runoff associated with the proposed development. If mitigation is required, West Yost will calculate the storage volume necessary to offset the increase in peak flows.

Item 9.n
Daniel DeCaro
December 20, 2025

Task 2.2 Preferred Plan Evaluation
After the preferred land use plan is selected, West Yost will complete a detailed evaluation of the water system to confirm the improvements necessary to support the Preferred Plan. This work will build on the findings from Task 2.1 and provide the level of analysis anticipated to support a future environmental review effort.

West Yost will update the storm drain system analysis completed in Task 2.1 based on the Preferred Plan.

It is assumed that the Preferred Plan will be similar to one of the alternatives evaluated in Task 2.1 and that only minor adjustments will be necessary. Based on these refinements, West Yost will identify drainage improvements required to accommodate anticipated runoff conditions under the Preferred Plan.

Task 2.3 Project Management
West Yost will provide overall project management activities to keep this project on schedule and within budget. Communication of project progress will generally be provided via emails and conference calls.

Monthly invoices will also be prepared and submitted. West Yost anticipates holding one meeting with the City to discuss the findings from the evaluation.

Task 2 Assumptions
 The City will provide one consolidated set of written comments for each draft TM within two (2) weeks after the respective draft is submitted.
 West Yost participation in meetings will be virtual.

Task 2 Deliverables
 West Yost will provide two PDF electronic draft TMs, one for Task 2.1 and one for Task 2.2.  West Yost will provide two PDF electronic final TMs, one for Task 2.1 and one for Task 2.2. The final TMs will incorporate City comments on the draft TM.
 West Yost will prepare monthly invoices and descriptions of services performed.

Item 9.n
Daniel DeCaro
December 20, 2025

PROJECT BUDGET
West Yost’s proposed level of effort and budget for each of the tasks described above is shown in Table 1.

West Yost will perform the scope of services described above on a time-and-expenses basis, at the billing rates set forth in West Yost’s attached 2026 Billing Rate Schedule (Attachment A), with a not-to-exceed budget as summarized in Table 1. Any additional services not included in this scope of services will be performed only after receiving written authorization and a corresponding budget augmentation.

Table 1. Estimated Project Hours and Budget
Task
Level of Effort,
hours
Estimated Budget,
dollars
Task 1. Water System Impact Evaluation - -
Task 1.1. Alternatives Analysis 39 $10,500
Task 1.2 Preferred Plan Evaluation 64 $17,100
Task 1.3 Project Management 9 $2,850
Task 2. Storm Drain System Impact Evaluation - -
Task 2.1. Alternatives Analysis 39 $12,200
Task 2.2 Preferred Plan Evaluation 29 $9,000
Task 2.3 Project Management 9 $2,850
Total Project Hours and Budget 189 $54,500
Subtotal Water System Impact Evaluation 112 $30,450
Subtotal Storm Drain System Evaluation 77 $24,050
Item 9.n
Daniel DeCaro
December 20, 2025

SCHEDULE
West Yost anticipates providing draft Tasks 1.1 and 2.1 TMs within six (6) weeks after receiving notice to proceed and all required data. The final TMs will be provided within two (2) weeks after receipt of consolidated City comments to the draft TMs.

West Yost anticipates providing draft Tasks 1.2 and 2.2 TMs within six (6) weeks after the City and/or Project proponents selection of a preferred alternative and receipt of required data associated with the preferred alternative. The final TMs will be provided within two (2) weeks after receipt of consolidated comments to the draft TMs.

Thank you for providing West Yost the opportunity to be of continued service to the City. Please call me at 916.306.2212 if you have any questions or require additional information.

Sincerely,

WEST YOST
Roberto Vera, PE
Principal Engineer / Project Manager
RCE #83500
Attachment: Attachment A. West Yost’s 2026 Billing Rates Item 9.n
West Yost’s 2026 Billing Rate Schedule
Attachment A
Item 9.n
(Effective January 1, 2026, through December 31, 2026)*

POSITIONS

ENGINEERING
Principal/Vice President $392
Engineer/Scientist/Geologist Manager I / II $370 / $387 Principal Engineer/Scientist/Geologist I / II $333 / $355 Senior Engineer/Scientist/Geologist I / II $297 / $312
Associate Engineer/Scientist/Geologist I / II $246 / $265 Engineer/Scientist/Geologist I / II / III $191 / $221 / $231 Engineering Aide $117
Field Monitoring Services $145
Administrative I / II / III / IV $107 / $133 / $160 / $176

ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY
Engineering Tech Manager I / II $384 / $387
Principal Tech Specialist I / II $353 / $365
Senior Tech Specialist I / II $320 / $334
Senior GIS Analyst $292
GIS Analyst $277
Technical Specialist I / II / III / IV $206 / $231 / $261 / $291 Technical Analyst I / II $148 / $176
Technical Analyst Intern $119
Cross-Connection Control Specialist I / II / III / IV $154 / $167 / $188 / $208 CAD Manager $233
CAD Designer I / II $181 / $204

CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT
Senior Construction Manager $373
Construction Manager I / II / III / IV $222 / $237 / $251 / $318 Resident Inspector (Prevailing Wage Groups 4 / 3 / 2 / 1) $200 / $222 / $247 / $256 Apprentice Inspector $181
CM Administrative I / II $96 / $130
Field Services $256
2026 Billing Rate Schedule

LABOR CHARGES (DOLLARS PER HOUR)
■ Hourly rates include charges for technology and communication, such as general and CAD computer software, telephone calls, routine in-house copies/prints, postage, miscellaneous supplies, and other incidental project expenses. ■ Outside services, such as vendor reproductions, prints, and shipping; major West Yost reproduction efforts; as well as engineering supplies, etc., will be billed at the actual cost plus 15%. ■ The Federal Mileage Rate will be used for mileage charges and will be based on the Federal Mileage Rate applicable to when the mileage costs were incurred. Travel other than mileage will be billed at cost. ■ Subconsultants will be billed at actual cost plus 10%. ■ Expert witness services, research, technical review, analysis, preparation, and meetings will be billed at 150% of standard hourly rates. Expert witness testimony and depositions will be billed at 200% of standard hourly rates. ■ A finance charge of 1.5% per month (an annual rate of 18%) on the unpaid balance will be added to invoice amounts if not paid within 45 days from the date of the invoice. * This schedule is updated annually Page 1 of 2
Item 9.n
(Effective January 1, 2026, through December 31, 2026)* Equipment Charges

EQUIPMENT
2" Purge Pump & Control Box $300 / day
Aquacalc / Pygmy or AA Flow Meter $28 / day
Emergency SCADA System $35 / day
Field Vehicles (Groundwater) $200 / day
Gas Detector $80 / day
Generator $60 / day
Hydrant Pressure Gauge $10 / day
Hydrant Pressure Recorder, Impulse (Transient) $55 / day Hydrant Pressure Recorder, Standard $40 / day
Low Flow Pump Back Pack $135 / day
Low Flow Pump Controller $200 / day
Powers Water Level Meter $32 / day
Precision Water Level Meter 300ft $30 / day
Precision Water Level Meter 500ft $40 / day
Precision Water Level Meter 700ft $45 / day
QED Sample Pro Bladder Pump $65 / day
Skydio 2+ Drone (2 hour minimum) $100 / hour
Storage Tank $20 / day
Sump Pump $24 / day
Transducer Communications Cable $10 / day
Transducer Components (per installation) $23 / day
Trimble GPS – Geo 7x $220 / day
Tube Length Counter $22 / day
Turbidity Meter $30 / day
Turbidity Meter (2100Q Portable) $35 / day
Vehicle (Construction Management) $18.75 / hour
Water Flow Probe Meter $20 / day
Water Quality Meter $50 / day
Water Quality Multimeter $185 / day
Well Sounder $30 / day

BILLING RATES
2026 Billing Rate Schedule
* This schedule is updated annually Page 2 of 2
Item 9.n

MINUTES OF THE JOINT REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL,

SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY,

GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY AUTHORITY

AND PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY

OF THE CITY OF VACAVILLE
Tuesday, June 23, 2026

1. Closed Session

1.a Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation Pursuant to (Government Code § 54956.9(d)(1)) City of Indio et al v. State Water Resources Control Board, Case No. 24CECG04779

1.b Conference with Real Property Negotiator
(Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8) Property: 50 Nut Tree Road, APN #s 0129240560 (10.08 acres), 0129240310 (2.22 acres), and 0129240320 (1,17 acres) Negotiating Parties: Savita Chaudhary - City Manager - Successor Agency, Executive Director Negotiating Parties: Robb Osborne - Agent Green Acres Nursery and Supply, LLC Under Negotiation: Price and terms of payment

2. Roll Call for the Regular Meeting
They Mayor called the Regular Meeting of the City Council to order at 6:01 pm in the Vacaville Council Chamber located at 650 Merchant St.

Present:

John Carli, Mayor
Michael Silva, Vice Mayor, District 3
Roy Stockton, District 1
Greg Ritchie, District 2
Sarah Chapman, District 4
Ted Fremouw, District 5
Jeanette Wylie, District 6

Absent: None

3. Moment of Silence followed by the Pledge of Allegiance A moment of silence was observed, and Councilmember Fremouw led the Pledge of Allegiance.

4. Report out of Closed Session
Following a conference with legal counsel, the City of Vacaville will join other cities and water agencies in filing an appeal in the City of Indio et al v. State Water Resources Control Board, Case No. 24CECG04779.

5. Approval of Agenda
On a motion by Vice Mayor Silva, seconded by Councilmember Wylie, the Council unanimously voted to approve the agenda as written.

6. Reports of the City Council

6.a Update on Recent Attended Boards, Commissions, and Committee Meetings Item 9.o
Councilmember Ritchie attended Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) meeting which focused on regionalism in city government to effect change with freeways, BART, etc. He said that there was no mention of a possible bond measure.

Vice Mayor Silva thanked staff for helping to make our meetings more accessible. He highlighted that Parks and Recreation does offer a scholarship program for those who qualify, and more information can be found on the City's website.

Mayor Carli noted that there was a mock City Council meeting for students participating in the Summer at City Hall Program. He also attended the Habitat for Humanity ribbon cutting event.

The Mayor also attended a joint meeting of the Solano Transportation Authority (STA) Highway 12 and 113 subcommittees which focused on the baseline where our area is at with regards to transportation and feeder roads throughout Solano County. This will be an 18-month process looking at alternate routes around our City and County. Public Works Director Brian Oxley will be the City's representative during this process.

Councilmember Chapman attended the Habitat for Humanity ribbon cutting last week and noted that these families contribute to building these homes. Habitat will be building 20 units on that site.

Councilmember Wylie reported that the Yolo Solano Air Quality Board (YSAQB) has an e-bike incentive program. She plans to ask the City's Public Relations Manager to coordinate on this effort.

7. Reports of City Manager
City Manager Chaudhary reported that Wildland firefighting training continues to take place and have logged 36 acres of training burns already. She also announced that due to staffing shortages, the Community and Economic Development Department will be limiting customer services hours temporarily to 8-5:30 and closed from 12-1. The City Manager noted that the City will work with the County and Union Pacific Railroad to evaluate the noise around railroad crossings near Robert's Ranch, but that any mitigation efforts will come back to Council. The City's Finance Department is one of just over 400 departments recognized nationally by the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) as a Triple Crown Winner. Lastly, she reported that the City's transparency portal is live and the public can visit it at CityofVacaville.gov/transparency. It will be updated quarterly as the City works towards the new Strategic Plan.

8. Presentations

8.a Proclamation for Parks and Recreation Month
Proclamation presented to Melody Land, Recreation Supervisor in honor of Parks and Recreation Month.

8.b Proclamation for Real Time Crime Center Week
Proclamation presented to Nikki Bell, Police Services Manager and her staff in honor of Real Time Crime Center Week.

9. Consent Calendar
On a motion by Councilmember Ritchie, seconded by Councilmember Stockton, the Council unanimously approved all items on the consent calendar except 9.a and 9.g.

Item 9.o

9.a Ordinance to Amend Title 12 of the Vacaville Municipal Code (VMC) by Adding Chapter 12.34 Entitled “Entertainment Zones” to Create New Policies, Procedures, and Standards for Establishing and Regulating Entertainment Zones Within the City of Vacaville (Second Reading)
Motion: Councilmember Fremouw
Second: Councilmember Stockton
Action: Approve Ordinance No. 2021 to Amend Title 12 of the Vacaville Municipal Code (VMC) by Adding Chapter 12.34 Entitled “Entertainment Zones” to Create New Policies, Procedures, and Standards for Establishing and Regulating Entertainment Zones Within the City of Vacaville Ayes (7): Mayor Carli, Councilmember Stockton, Councilmember Ritchie, Vice Mayor Silva, Councilmember Chapman, Councilmember Fremouw, and Councilmember Wylie Vote Approved (7 to 0)

9.b Resolution to Approve a First Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with Economic & Planning Systems, Inc., in an Amount Not to Exceed $79,670, to Provide Additional Consultant Services for the Remaining Tasks Associated with Preparing a Comprehensive Update to the City of Vacaville Municipal Service Review Approved Resolution No. 2026-095; Resolution to Approve a First Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with Economic & Planning Systems, Inc., in an Amount Not to Exceed $79,670, to Provide Additional Consultant Services for the Remaining Tasks Associated with Preparing a Comprehensive Update to the City of Vacaville Municipal Service Review

9.c Resolution Adopting the Appropriation Spending Limit for Fiscal Year 2026/27 in Compliance with Article XIIIB of the State Constitution Approved Resolution No. 2026-096; Resolution Adopting the Appropriation Spending Limit for Fiscal Year 2026/27 in Compliance with Article XIIIB of the State Constitution

9.d Submittal of the City of Vacaville 2026 Annual Water Supply and Demand Assessment
Council received the information regarding the submittal of the City of Vacaville 2026 Annual Water Supply and Demand Assessment

9.e Resolution to Award the Well 23 and 24 Drilling Project to the Apparent Low Bidder, Well Industries Inc., and Authorize the Director of Utilities to Execute Said Contract in the Amount of $3,394,402
Approved Resolution No. 2026-097; Resolution to Award the Well 23 and 24 Drilling Project to the Apparent Low Bidder, Well Industries Inc., and Authorize the Director of Utilities to Execute Said Contract in the Amount of $3,394,402
Item 9.o

9.f

9.g

9.h

9.i

9.j

9.k

9.l
Resolution to Contribute to the Capital Purchase of Two (2) Vehicles to Support Continued Transit Service Between Vacaville, Dixon, Davis, and Sacramento Through the Solano Express Route 30 Pilot Program
Approved Resolution No. 2026-098; Resolution to Contribute to the Capital Purchase of Two (2) Vehicles to Support Continued Transit Service Between Vacaville, Dixon, Davis, and Sacramento Through the Solano Express Route 30 Pilot Program Resolution to Authorize the City Manager or their Designee to Execute the Third Amendment to the Agreement for the Provision of Fixed-Route, Demand Response, and Paratransit Services Between the City of Vacaville and First Transit, Inc.

City Manager noted that the item will be continued to the July 28th meeting Resolution to Accept Public Improvements for the Montessa Subdivision Approved Resolution No. 2026-099; Resolution to Accept Public Improvements for the Montessa Subdivision
Resolution Authorizing City of Vacaville to Submit an Encampment Resolution Funding (ERF) Program Application to the California Interagency Council on Homelessness
Approved Resolution No. 2026-100; Resolution Authorizing City of Vacaville to Submit an Encampment Resolution Funding (ERF) Program Application to the California Interagency Council on Homelessness
Resolution Calling and Providing for a General Municipal Election to Elect City Officers, Determining Charges for Candidates Statements, Requesting the Board of Supervisors of the County of Solano to Consolidate Said General Municipal Election with the General Election to be Held on Tuesday, November 3, 2026, and to Permit the Solano County Registrar of Voters to Render Election Services Approved Resolution No. 2026-101; Resolution Calling and Providing for a General Municipal Election to Elect City Officers, Determining Charges for Candidates Statements, Requesting the Board of Supervisors of the County of Solano to Consolidate Said General Municipal Election with the General Election to be Held on Tuesday, November 3, 2026, and to Permit the Solano County Registrar of Voters to Render Election Services
Approval of Minutes – Approve the Minutes for the Meeting of June 9, 2026 Approved; Approval of Minutes – Approve the Minutes for the Meeting of June 9, 2026 Approval of Accounts Payable and Payroll Payment of Claims for the Weeks Ending June 5, 2026; and June 12, 2026.

Approved; Approval of Accounts Payable and Payroll Payment of Claims for the Weeks Ending June 5, 2026 ; and June 12, 202
Item 9.o

9.m Resolution Approving Four (4) Agreements and Contract Amendments Totaling $1,593,273 Supporting Essential City Operations, Capital Projects, Regulatory Compliance, and Organizational Services
Approved Resolution No. 2026-102; Resolution Approving Four (4) Agreements and Contract Amendments Totaling $1,593,273 Supporting Essential City Operations, Capital Projects, Regulatory Compliance, and Organizational Services

10. Business from the Floor
Click on the link to listen to public comment on items within the Council's jurisdiction but not listed on the agenda. Topics include: Cannabis, California Forever, Pilot Truck Center on Cherry Glen Road, and general plan amendment request regarding agricultural lands in the City's growth areas.

11. Public Hearings

11.a Resolution Approving the Issuance by the California Statewide Communities Development Authority of Exempt Facility Bonds for the Vacaville Gables Apartments Located at 131 Gables Avenue
Motion: Vice Mayor Silva
Second: Councilmember Wylie
Action: Approve Resolution No. 2026-103 Approving the Issuance by the California Statewide Communities Development Authority of Exempt Facility Bonds for the Vacaville Gables Apartments Located at 131 Gables Avenue
Ayes (7): Mayor Carli, Councilmember Stockton, Councilmember Ritchie, Vice Mayor Silva, Councilmember Chapman, Councilmember Fremouw, and Councilmember Wylie Vote Approved (7 to 0)

11.b Resolution to Reaffirm the Vandengate Mitigated Negative Declaration for the First Amendment to the Development Agreement for the Vandengate Subdivision, Located East of Vanden Road and South of Joyce Drive on Assessor Parcel Number 0137-010-140; and Ordinance to Adopt the First Amendment to the Development Agreement between the City of Vacaville and Vanden Cove, LLC, Regarding the Development of Real Property Commonly Referred to as Vandengate, Located East of Vanden Road and South of Joyce Drive on Assessor Parcel Number 0137-010-140.

Motion: Councilmember Chapman
Second: Councilmember Fremouw
Action: Approve Resolution No. 2026-104 to Reaffirm the Vandengate Mitigated Negative Declaration for the First Amendment to the Development Agreement for the Vandengate Subdivision, Located East of Vanden Road and South of Joyce Drive on Assessor Parcel Number 0137-010-140; and Ordinance No. 2022 to Adopt the First Amendment to the Item 9.o
Development Agreement between the City of Vacaville and Vanden Cove, LLC, Regarding the Development of Real Property Commonly Referred to as Vandengate, Located East of Vanden Road and South of Joyce Drive on Assessor Parcel Number 0137-010-140.

Ayes (7): Mayor Carli, Councilmember Stockton, Councilmember Ritchie, Vice Mayor Silva, Councilmember Chapman, Councilmember Fremouw, and Councilmember Wylie Vote Approved (7 to 0)

11.c Resolution to Adopt The 2025 Urban Water Management Plan and Water Shortage Contingency Plan
Motion: Councilmember Wylie
Second: Councilmember Chapman
Action: Approve Resolution No. 2026-105 to Adopt The 2025 Urban Water Management Plan and Water Shortage Contingency Plan
Ayes (7): Mayor Carli, Councilmember Stockton, Councilmember Ritchie, Vice Mayor Silva, Councilmember Chapman, Councilmember Fremouw, and Councilmember Wylie Vote Approved (7 to 0)

11.d Ordinance Imposing a Transactions and Use Tax to be Administered by the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (First Reading); and Resolution Ordering the Submission to the Qualified Electors of the City at the General Municipal Election to be held on November 3, 2026, a Measure Establishing an Additional One-Cent Sales Tax Providing Approximately Twenty-Eight Million Dollars Annually, Under Local Control with Citizen's Oversight and Annual Audits Including Public Recording, until ended by Voters and Approving the Ordinance to be Submitted to the Voters Pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code Section 7285.9; Requesting the Solano County Elections Department to Conduct the Election and Requesting Consolidation of the General Municipal Election with the Statewide General Election to be Held on November 3, 2026; Directing the City Attorney to Prepare an Impartial Analysis Concerning Such Measure; Setting Rules for the Filing of Written Arguments Regarding Said City Measure
Motion: Councilmember Fremouw
Second: Councilmember Stockton
Action: Approve Ordinance No. 2023 Imposing a Transactions and Use Tax to be Administered by the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (First Reading); and Resolution No. 2026-106 Ordering the Submission to the Qualified Electors of the City at the General Municipal Election to be held on November 3, 2026, a Measure Establishing an Additional One-Cent Sales Tax Providing Approximately Twenty-Eight Million Dollars Annually, Under Local Control with Citizen's Oversight and Annual Audits Including Public Recording, until ended by Voters and Approving the Ordinance to be Submitted to the Voters Pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code Section 7285.9; Requesting the Solano County Elections Department to Conduct the Election Item 9.o
and Requesting Consolidation of the General Municipal Election with the Statewide General Election to be Held on November 3, 2026; Directing the City Attorney to Prepare an Impartial Analysis Concerning Such Measure; Setting Rules for the Filing of Written Arguments Regarding Said City Measure
Ayes (7): Mayor Carli, Councilmember Stockton, Councilmember Ritchie, Vice Mayor Silva, Councilmember Chapman, Councilmember Fremouw, and Councilmember Wylie Vote Approved (7 to 0)

12. Business

12.a Resolution Adopting the Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2027-2029 (July 2026 through June 2029)
Motion: Vice Mayor Silva
Second: Councilmember Stockton
Action: Approve Resolution No. 2026-107 Adopting the Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2027-2029 (July 2026 through June 2029)
Ayes (7): Mayor Carli, Councilmember Stockton, Councilmember Ritchie, Vice Mayor Silva, Councilmember Chapman, Councilmember Fremouw, and Councilmember Wylie Vote Approved (7 to 0)

12.b Resolution of the City Council of the City of Vacaville Adopting the City of Vacaville Operating Budget for Fiscal Year 2026-27; and Resolution of the City Council of the City of Vacaville, Acting in its Capacity as Governing Board of the Successor Agency to the Former Redevelopment Agency, Adopting the City of Vacaville Successor Agency Operating Budget for Fiscal Year 2026-27; and Resolution of the City Council of the City of Vacaville Adopting the Fiscal Year 2026-27 City of Vacaville Capital Improvement Program Budget for $39,055,810 and Finding it Consistent with the Capital Improvement Program, General Plan, and Environmental Considerations Report; and Resolution of the City Council of the City of Vacaville Approving the Current Pay Schedule per Government Code Section 20636.

Motion: Vice Mayor Silva
Second: Councilmember Stockton
Action: Approve Resolution No. 2026-108 Adopting the City of Vacaville Operating Budget for Fiscal Year 2026-27; and Resolution No. SA 2026-01 Acting in its Capacity as Governing Board of the Successor Agency to the Former Redevelopment Agency, Adopting the City of Vacaville Successor Agency Operating Budget for Fiscal Year 2026-27; and Resolution 2026-110 Adopting the Fiscal Year 2026-27 City of Vacaville Capital Improvement Program Budget for $39,055,810 and Finding it Consistent with the Capital Improvement Program, General Plan, and Environmental Considerations Report; and Resolution 2026-111 Approving the Current Pay Schedule per Government Code Section 20636.

Item 9.o
Ayes (7): Mayor Carli, Councilmember Stockton, Councilmember Ritchie, Vice Mayor Silva, Councilmember Chapman, Councilmember Fremouw, and Councilmember Wylie Vote Approved (7 to 0)

13. Adjournment
There being no further business, the regular meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p.m.

Item 9.o

CITY OF VACAVILLE
City Council
Staff Report
Meeting Date: July 28, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
Attention: Savita Chaudhary, City Manager
From: Ken Matsumiya, Director of Finance
(Crystal Fair Welty, Management Analyst II (707) 449-5121) Subject: Approval of Accounts Payable and Payment of Payroll Claims for the Weeks Ending June 19, 2026; June 26, 20026; July 3, 2026; July 10, 2026; and Wire and ACH Disbursements for the Month of June 2026
Actions for Consideration:

Approval of payments drawn in accordance with the City’s approved budget.

Recommendations:

By simple motion, adopt the subject resolution.

Background:

The City’s Finance Department is responsible for ensuring the financial obligations of the City are met in a timely and efficient manner. Accounts Payable processes payments to external vendors on a weekly basis and employee payroll is processed biweekly while any payments requiring remittance by wire transfer are paid on an as-needed basis throughout the month.

Pursuant to California Government Code Section 37208, payments drawn in accordance with the City’s approved budget need not be ratified by the legislative body prior to payment. The payment of claims registers shall be presented to the legislative body for ratification and approval at the first meeting after delivery of the checks. The Finance Director has submitted the register(s) showing the payment of claims for the timeframe above for approval by the City Council.

Environmental Impact:

This action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it is not a project that has the potential to result in either a physical change in the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, pursuant to California Code of Regulations Title 14 Section 15378(b)(5).

Item 9.p
Fiscal Impact:

The claims paid for the period total $24,996,451.76
Amount Requested: Not applicable
Funding Source: Various
Budget Distribution: The costs of staff time associated with this item are covered within the existing Finance Department operating budget.

The budget for this project is included in the Capital Improvement Project budget # Alternatives:

No alternative recommendation.

Strategic Plan Goal/Initiative:

Goal 4: Maintain Effective and Efficient Services
Levine Act:

No
Attachments:

Attachment 1: Affidavit of Finance Director
Item 9.p
Affidavit of Finance Director Attachment 1
Accounts Payable Check Register(s) for Week Ending: Register Total(s) June 19, 2026 $ 1,593,588.52
June 26, 2026 $ 2,179,022.10
July 3, 2026 $ 2,224,390.17
July 10, 2026 $ 4,315,818.80
Payroll Check Register(s) for Week Ending: Register Total(s) June 19, 2026 $ 2,340,306.59
June 26, 2026 $ (1,044.54)
July 3, 2026 $ 2,445,901.73
July 10, 2026 $ -
Wire and ACH Transfers Monthly Total
Month of June 2026 $ 9,898,468.39
Grand Total $ 24,996,451.76
_______________________________________________________________________________ Ken Matsumiya, Finance Director
Item 9.p
Item 9.p
Item 9.p
Item 9.p
Item 9.p
Item 9.p
Item 9.p
Item 9.p
Item 9.p
Item 9.p
Item 9.p
Item 9.p
Item 9.p
Item 9.p
Item 9.p
Item 9.p
Item 9.p
Item 9.p
Item 9.p
Item 9.p
Item 9.p
Item 9.p
Item 9.p
Item 9.p
Item 9.p
Item 9.p
Item 9.p
Item 9.p
Item 9.p
Item 9.p
Item 9.p
Item 9.p
Item 9.p
Item 9.p
Item 9.p
Item 9.p
Item 9.p
City of Vacaville, CA - Live

DETAIL PROOF - FINAL REPORT
Report generated: 06/16/2026 18:18
User: 6582mnicholson
Program ID: prpyddpf

Pay Period 05/24/26 To 06/06/26
WARRANT: 061826 PAYROLL TYPE: BIWEEKLY C CHECK DATE: 06/18/2026 Earnings-Deductions Proof Summaries

Total: 3,572,589.16 2,021,270.37
Total Females: 342 Gross Pay: 1,086,379.90
Total Males: 511 Gross Pay: 2,485,133.12
Total Employees: 853 Gross Pay: 3,571,513.02
Total Pre-Notes: 5
Benefits Only Employees: 6 Employer Amount:

Available Cash Balance after payroll: -437,409,817.33
Total Cash Requirements:

Total Employee Checks: 9,144.05
Total Employee/Employer ACH Transactions: 2,331,162.54
Total Vendor Checks this payroll: 0.00
Total Vendor Checks other payrolls: 0.00
Total Vendor Electronic Transfers this payroll: 0.00
Total Vendor Electronic Transfers other payrolls: 0.00
Total Vendor Telephone Transfers this payroll: 0.00
Total Vendor Telephone Transfers other payrolls: 0.00
Total Cash Required: 2,340,306.59
Payments to be Processed:

Total Telephone Transfers: 0.00
Remaining Payroll Liabilities:

Total Employee/Employer (Check type = No check): 3,238,789.84 Total Pay Escrow: 0.00
Total Escrow Balance: 0.00
Total Invoices this payroll: 25,714.03
Total Invoices other payrolls: 0.00
Total Checks/Invoices/EFT/Telephone transfers
this payroll (deferred): 0.00
Total Checks/Invoices/EFT/Telephone transfers
other payrolls (deferred): 0.00
Total Liabilities: 3,264,503.87
* Employee Accruals Exist Outside Payroll Date Range - Check Accrual Out of Range Report

** END OF REPORT - Generated by Marlisa Nicholson **
Item 9.p
City of Vacaville, CA - Live

DETAIL PROOF - FINAL REPORT
Report generated: 06/29/2026 10:37
User: 6582szamora
Program ID: prpyddpf

Pay Period 06/22/26 To 06/22/26
WARRANT: 062226 PAYROLL TYPE: VOID CHECK DATE: 06/22/2026 Earnings-Deductions Proof Summaries
Total Pre-Notes: 0
Available Cash Balance after payroll: -437,069,638.22
Total Cash Requirements:

Total Employee Checks: 0.00
Total Employee/Employer ACH Transactions: -1,512.40
Total Vendor Checks this payroll: 0.00
Total Vendor Checks other payrolls: 0.00
Total Vendor Electronic Transfers this payroll: 0.00
Total Vendor Electronic Transfers other payrolls: 0.00
Total Vendor Telephone Transfers this payroll: 0.00
Total Vendor Telephone Transfers other payrolls: 0.00
Total Cash Required: -1,512.40
Payments to be Processed:

Total Telephone Transfers: 0.00
Remaining Payroll Liabilities:

Total Employee/Employer (Check type = No check): -1,847.86 Total Pay Escrow: 0.00
Total Escrow Balance: 0.00
Total Invoices this payroll: 0.00
Total Invoices other payrolls: 0.00
Total Checks/Invoices/EFT/Telephone transfers
this payroll (deferred): 0.00
Total Checks/Invoices/EFT/Telephone transfers
other payrolls (deferred): -12.00
Total Liabilities: -1,859.86
* Employee Accruals Exist Outside Payroll Date Range - Check Accrual Out of Range Report ** END OF REPORT - Generated by Sara Zamora **
Item 9.p
City of Vacaville, CA - Live

DETAIL PROOF - FINAL REPORT
Report generated: 06/24/2026 10:50
User: 6582mnicholson
Program ID: prpyddpf

Pay Period 06/24/26 To 06/24/26
WARRANT: 062426 PAYROLL TYPE: MISC CHECK DATE: 06/24/2026 Earnings-Deductions Proof Summaries

DEDUCTION SUMMARY
=================

DED TYPE EMPLOYEE AMT EMPLOYER AMT TOTAL AMT EMPLOYEE GROSS FICA/MED CALC 2000 MEDICAL -455.86 -2,583.18 -3,039.04 0.01
8800 DUES VCEA -12.00 0.00 -12.00 0.01
9999 DIRECT DEP N 467.86 0.00 467.86 0.00
Total: 0.00 -2,583.18
Total Females: Gross Pay: 0.00
Total Males: Gross Pay: 0.00
Total Employees: Gross Pay: 0.00
Total Pre-Notes: 0
Available Cash Balance after payroll: -438,583,139.57
Total Cash Requirements:

Total Employee Checks: 0.00
Total Employee/Employer ACH Transactions: 467.86
Total Vendor Checks this payroll: 0.00
Total Vendor Checks other payrolls: 0.00
Total Vendor Electronic Transfers this payroll: 0.00
Total Vendor Electronic Transfers other payrolls: 0.00
Total Vendor Telephone Transfers this payroll: 0.00
Total Vendor Telephone Transfers other payrolls: 0.00
Total Cash Required: 467.86
Payments to be Processed:

Total Telephone Transfers: 0.00
Remaining Payroll Liabilities:

Total Employee/Employer (Check type = No check): -3,039.04 Total Pay Escrow: 0.00
Total Escrow Balance: 0.00
Total Invoices this payroll: 0.00
Total Invoices other payrolls: 0.00
Total Checks/Invoices/EFT/Telephone transfers
this payroll (deferred): -12.00
Total Checks/Invoices/EFT/Telephone transfers
other payrolls (deferred): 0.00
Total Liabilities: -3,051.04
Item 9.p
City of Vacaville, CA - Live

DETAIL PROOF - FINAL REPORT
Report generated: 06/30/2026 16:20
User: 6582szamora
Program ID: prpyddpf

Pay Period 06/07/26 To 06/20/26
WARRANT: 070226 PAYROLL TYPE: BIWEEKLY C CHECK DATE: 07/02/2026 Earnings-Deductions Proof Summaries
Total: 3,667,063.89 4,061,088.69
Total Females: 364 Gross Pay: 1,154,893.32
Total Males: 532 Gross Pay: 2,532,635.03
Total Employees: 896 Gross Pay: 3,687,528.35
Total Pre-Notes: 7
Benefits Only Employees: 611 Employer Amount:

Available Cash Balance after payroll: -439,515,539.95
Total Cash Requirements:

Total Employee Checks: 27,652.03
Total Employee/Employer ACH Transactions: 2,418,249.70
Total Vendor Checks this payroll: 0.00
Total Vendor Checks other payrolls: 0.00
Total Vendor Electronic Transfers this payroll: 0.00
Total Vendor Electronic Transfers other payrolls: 0.00
Total Vendor Telephone Transfers this payroll: 0.00
Total Vendor Telephone Transfers other payrolls: 0.00
Total Cash Required: 2,445,901.73
Payments to be Processed:

Total Telephone Transfers: 0.00
Remaining Payroll Liabilities:

Total Employee/Employer (Check type = No check): 5,285,696.10 Total Pay Escrow: 0.00
Total Escrow Balance: 0.00
Total Invoices this payroll: 25,402.43
Total Invoices other payrolls: 0.00
Total Checks/Invoices/EFT/Telephone transfers
this payroll (deferred): 0.00
Total Checks/Invoices/EFT/Telephone transfers
other payrolls (deferred): 0.00
Total Liabilities: 5,311,098.53
* Employee Accruals Exist Outside Payroll Date Range - Check Accrual Out of Range Report ** END OF REPORT - Generated by Sara Zamora **
Item 9.p

CITY OF VACAVILLE
City Council
Staff Report
Meeting Date: July 28, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
Attention: Savita Chaudhary, City Manager
From: GeorgeAnne Meggers-Smith, Assistant City Manager
(Staff Contact, GeorgeAnne Meggers-Smith (707) 449-5651) Subject: Resolution of the City Council of the City of Vacaville Approving Four Agreements and Contract Amendments Totaling Approximately $1,872,375 Supporting Essential City Operations, Capital Projects, Regulatory Compliance, and Organizational Services.

Actions for Consideration:

Adopt the Resolution approving the agreements in Attachment 1 and authorize the City Manager, or designee, to execute the agreements and any non-substantive administrative documents necessary to implement the approved actions.

Recommendations:

By simple motion, adopt the subject resolution.

Background:

City departments periodically require specialized professional, technical, maintenance, and operational services to support ongoing programs, projects, and the delivery of essential municipal services. The City has historically utilized the services identified in Attachment 1 to supplement staff resources, provide specialized expertise, and ensure the effective and efficient operation of City functions.

As the City continues to advance significant initiatives, capital improvement projects, regulatory compliance efforts, and operational priorities, these agreements are necessary to maintain continuity of services and provide the professional support needed to successfully implement and complete these activities. The consultants and service providers associated with these agreements offer expertise, resources, and capabilities that are either unavailable internally or are more cost-effective to obtain through contracted services.

The agreements generally fall into one or more of the following categories:

1. Specialized expertise and technical knowledge;

2. One-time or project-specific services;

3. Industry-standard evaluations, assessments, and benchmarking;

4. Legal, regulatory, and compliance requirements;

5. Health, safety, and risk management obligations;
Item 9.q

6. Conflict-of-interest and independent review requirements;

7. Capital improvement and infrastructure project support; and

8. Supplemental staffing resources and cost efficiencies.

The agreements presented for approval are routine in nature and necessary to maintain continuity of City operations and services. Each agreement has been reviewed by the requesting department and developed in accordance with applicable City purchasing policies, contracting procedures, and procurement requirements.

Discussion:

The City’s current Purchasing Policy was adopted by Resolution No. 2000-47 and later amended on January 12, 2010, through minute action to revise the Local Vendor Policy and establish a Local Business Preference. The City continues to follow the California Public Contract Code for all public construction projects.

Under the existing policy, Department Heads or their designees with purchasing authority may approve budgeted purchases of materials, services, supplies, and equipment (excluding public construction projects) within the limits authorized through the adopted departmental budget. While this approach provides operational flexibility, it has resulted in limited centralized visibility into contract activity across the organization and increased the risk of fragmented contract management and inconsistent procurement practices.

Historically, many contracts have been approved administratively pursuant to the City’s Purchasing Policy. As part of the City’s ongoing efforts to enhance transparency, strengthen contract oversight, and improve public visibility into consultant and vendor expenditures, staff is presenting this consolidated contract list for City Council review and approval.

This report is intended to establish a baseline inventory of significant service agreements and provide the City Council and the public with greater visibility into the contractual services supporting City operations.

This action seeks approval of four agreements and contract amendments totaling approximately $1,872,375 across four departments. These agreements are funded through the Fiscal Year 2026-27 Budget and represent a combination of recurring operational services, project-specific support, and specialized professional expertise necessary to carry out City programs, regulatory compliance, public safety, infrastructure maintenance, and organizational support services.

Additionally, the City is currently evaluating comprehensive updates to its Purchasing Policy during Fiscal Year 2026-27. In the interim, the City Manager’s Office, in collaboration with the City Attorney’s Office and Finance Department, has implemented additional controls to enhance transparency, consistency, and oversight of City contracts.

Effective immediately and until a revised Purchasing Policy is adopted, contract approval authority will be as follows:

Item 9.q
• Contracts with a value of less than $75,000 may be approved by the Department Head or authorized designee;
• Contracts with a value between $75,000 and $150,000 require approval by the City Manager; and
• Contracts with a single or cumulative value exceeding $150,000 require City Council approval.

These interim measures are intended to strengthen contract oversight and increase transparency while the City develops a comprehensive Purchasing Policy. Staff anticipates presenting the updated Purchasing Policy to the City Council for consideration during the first quarter of 2027 and will continue refining contract reporting and procurement oversight processes as part of that effort.

Public Works projects are governed by the California Public Contract Code (PCC), specifically Section 22000, known as the Uniform Public Construction Cost Accounting Act (UPCCAA). Public Works projects are defined in PCC Section 22002(c) and are subject to the bidding thresholds and requirements established in PCC Section 22032.

The most common method used by California cities for approving routine contracts is through the Consent Calendar. The contracts included in Attachment 1 represent a combination of new agreements, renewals, work orders, and amendments for services that support the City’s day-today operations. Contractor and consultant selections were completed through competitive procurement processes, cooperative purchasing programs, qualification-based selection procedures, or other methods authorized by applicable law, the Municipal Code, City purchasing policies, and administrative procedures.

The contracts presented for Council consideration do not include: (1) agreements with other governmental agencies; (2) contracts related to employee hiring, wages, hours, or working conditions; (3) purchase and sale agreements for wholesale utility commodities and services; and (4) revenue-generating agreements or bond financing transactions.

Approval of these agreements does not:
• Authorize expenditures beyond amounts budgeted by the City Council; • Approve new positions;
• Approve construction contracts governed by the Public Contract Code; • Approve labor agreements; or
• Commit the City to future appropriations.

Staff has reviewed each agreement to confirm that sufficient appropriations exist within the proposed Fiscal Year 2026-27 Budget and that the agreements are necessary to support approved programs, projects, and operations. Future contract amendments exceeding established approval thresholds will be brought back to the City Council for consideration, as required.

Item 9.q
Approval of these agreements will allow departments to continue providing essential services efficiently and effectively while maintaining compliance with applicable procurement requirements and ensuring continuity of operations. Many of the agreements are renewals of existing services and represent ongoing operational needs rather than new programs or initiatives.

With the adoption of the Fiscal Year 2026-27 Budget on June 23, 2026, funding for the services covered by these agreements will be appropriated within the budgets of the respective departments responsible for the operation, maintenance, and administration of these programs and services.

Accordingly, staff recommends that the City Council approve the agreements identified in Attachment 1 and authorize the City Manager, or designee, to execute the agreements on behalf of the City.

Attachment 1 provides a summary of each agreement, including the department, vendor, description of services, contract amount, cumulative contract amount, contract term, funding source, and justification for the agreement.

Environmental Impact:

This action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it is not a project that has the potential to result in either a physical change in the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, pursuant to California Code of Regulations Title 14 Section 15378(b)(5).

Fiscal Impact:

Amount Requested: No additional appropriations are requested. Funding for the agreements identified in Attachment 1 is included in the adopted FY 2026-27 Budget.

Funding Source: Funding for the agreements identified in Attachment 1 is included in the department budgets in the adopted FY 2026-27 Budget.

Budget Distribution: Funding for each of these contracts is included in the FY26/27 budget, approved by City Council on June 23, 2026.

Alternatives:

The City Council may choose to address some or all of these contracts individually, or request clarification.

1. Approve a subset of the contracts: Council could choose to pull specific contracts for separate consideration. This may lead to service interruptions and project delays.

2. Do not approve the contracts: This would require staff to renegotiate terms or re-bid services, causing significant operational delays.

Item 9.q
Strategic Plan Goal/Initiative:

Goal 1: Organizational Culture
Goal 2: Economic Development
Goal 3: Quality of Life
Goal 4: Public Safety and Infrastructure
Goal 5: Fiscal Health
Levine Act:

Yes
Attachments:

Resolution – Action Item
Attachment 1 - Contract List includes the following information:
• Department Name
• Contract/Vendor Name
• Description of Services
• Contract Amount
• Cumulative Contract Amount (including any amendments) beginning with the latest active agreement including all subsequent amendments.
• Current Contract Term
• Funding Source
• Justification for the Agreement
• Procurement Method
Item 9.q
7-28-26 Batch Contract List for Council Approval Item 9.q RESOLUTION NO. 2026-

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VACAVILLE APPROVING 4 AGREEMENTS AND CONTRACT AMENDMENTS TOTALING
APPROXIMATELY $1,872,375 SUPPORTING ESSENTIAL CITY OPERATIONS, CAPITAL

PROJECTS, REGULATORY COMPLIANCE, AND ORGANIZATIONAL SERVICES WHEREAS, City departments periodically require specialized professional, technical, maintenance, and operational services to support ongoing programs, projects, and the delivery of essential municipal services; and
WHEREAS, agreements for these services are necessary to maintain continuity of services and provide the professional support needed to successfully implement and complete initiatives, capital improvement projects, regulatory compliance efforts, and operational priorities; and
WHEREAS, consultants and service providers associated with these agreements offer expertise, resources, and capabilities that are either unavailable internally or are more cost-effective to obtain through contracted services; and WHEREAS, until the Purchasing Policy is updated in 2027, the Signing Authority Policy states that contracts with a single or cumulative value exceeding $150,000 require City Council approval; and
WHEREAS, this interim measure is intended to strengthen contract oversight and increase transparency; and
WHEREAS, approval of these agreements will allow departments to continue providing essential services efficiently and effectively while maintaining compliance with applicable procurement requirements and ensuring continuity of operations.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Vacaville that the City Council does hereby approve the 4 agreements and contract amendments identified in the batch contract list provided concurrently with this resolution and associated staff report, totaling $1,872,375.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was introduced and passed at a special meeting of the City Council of the City of Vacaville, held on the 28th of July, 2026, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ATTEST:
___________________________________
Michelle A. Thornbrugh, City Clerk
Item 9.q
City of Vacaville
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Signing Authority Policy for Executing Agreements on Behalf of the City Effective Date: 2026.05.07 Page 1 of 9
Signing Authority Policy for Executing Agreements on Behalf of the City

PURPOSE AND SCOPE
The purpose of this Signing Authority Policy (“Policy”) is to document the delegation of authority from the City Council to the City Manager, and from the City Manager to designated City employees (“City Manager Designee”), to sign agreements on behalf of the City (“Agreements”).

This Policy also documents the authority of the Purchasing Agent, City Attorney, and Finance Director in specified and limited capacities.

This Policy repeals, replaces, and supersedes any previously approved delegation of signing authority that conflicts with this Policy.

POLICY

1. Definitions.

1.1 Agreement – City contract, agreement, purchase order for supplies, equipment, materials, or services, other document imposing a financial obligation or liability on the City or subjecting the City to any form of equitable relief, and settlement documents of any nature.

1.2 Purchasing Agent – The City Manager or any person designated by the City Manager to purchase supplies, materials, equipment, or services on behalf of the City, as defined by Section 2.68.110 of the Vacaville Municipal Code (“VMC”).

1.3 City Manager Designee – Any City employee identified in Section(s) 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 below, to whom the City Manager has formally designated in writing the authority to sign Agreements on behalf of the City.

1.4 Emergency – a) A public calamity including, but not limited to fire, flood, storm, earthquake, epidemic, or other disaster; or b) a threat to the national or local defense. For purposes of this Policy, any authority exercised under the Council-adopted emergency provisions of the VMC shall extend only for the defined duration of that emergency as Council may determine, and in accordance with VMC Section 2.08.060, at the conclusion of the emergency as determined by City Council, the City Manager shall be responsible for filing information with the City Council demonstrating the existence of the emergency, the necessity for the action(s) taken, and an itemized account of all expenditures during the emergency.

2. City Manager Authority.

2.1. VMC Section 2.08.040 provides the City Manager with the authority to supervise and approve the purchase of all materials, supplies, and equipment for which funds are provided in the budget.

Item 9.q

2.2. VMC Section 2.68.160 provides that the City Manager can establish purchasing and contracting procedures, in accordance with applicable VMC provisions and other laws and regulations, for the acquisition of supplies, materials, equipment, and services by officers and employees of the City.

2.2.1. “Service” is defined under VMC Section 2.68.120 as including, without limitation, the following: consultant services; repairs, modification, and maintenance of City equipment and software; maintenance work; cleaning, analysis, testing, moving, removal or disposal of City supplies, materials, or equipment; demolition work; temporary personnel services; other miscellaneous services to facilitate City operations; licensing software; and leasing or rental of personal property for use by the City. “Service” does not include public projects as that term is defined in the Public Contract Code (see also Chapter 2.72 of the VMC).

2.2.2. In accordance with this definition, the City Manager has authority on behalf of the City to execute, or delegate the execution of, documents including grant agreements, financial and nonfinancial Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs), revenue-generating agreements, and cooperative and Joint Powers Authority (JPA) agreements, so long as no expenditure of City funds under such agreement otherwise exceeds the City Manager’s or City Manager Designee’s authority under this Policy. In the event an expenditure of City funds is required as a component of such agreement, the agreement will be reviewed in accordance with this Policy, and will be subject to execution by the appropriate person as designated and authorized by the terms of this Policy.

2.3. The City’s Purchasing Agent has authority to execute on behalf of the City, without prior approval of the City Council, the following:

2.3.1. Agreements and purchase orders for supplies, materials, and equipment, provided there is an unencumbered balance of an allocated budget appropriation available for that purpose; and

2.3.2. Agreements and purchase orders for supplies, materials, and equipment for which funds have not been appropriated, but which do not exceed $25,000. In excess of $25,000, no Agreement or purchase order for which funds have not been appropriated may be entered without first obtaining the approval of the City Council.

2.4. VMC Sections 2.68.060 and 2.68.190(C) provide the City Manager and Purchasing Agent authority to execute Agreements for the acquisition of supplies, materials, and equipment in the event of an emergency when a determination is made that the purchase of such supplies, Item 9.q
materials, and equipment is necessary to safeguard life, health, safety, or property.

2.5. In specific instances, the City Council may, by formal action such as a resolution or minute order, authorize the City Manager or Designee to execute a particular contract. In such instances, this Policy also covers the staff-level signatory authority that would apply once Council authorization is provided.

2.6. To the extent that the City Manager is authorized to sign City Agreements as set forth above, the City Council has authorized the CityManagerto furtherdelegate that authority to City employees in accordance with Resolution 2000-47 (attached as Exhibit B).

2.7. In situations where an Agreement exceeds $150,000, even if authority would otherwise be delegated to the City Manager by the City Council, the Agreement will be submitted to City Council at a public meeting for approval and authorization to execute the Agreement. This Section 2.7. is subject to the clarifications regarding how to interpret dollar limit thresholds set forth in Section 3.1.7. of this Policy.

3. City Manager Delegation of Authority.

3.1. Scope of Signature Authority for all City Manager Designees.

3.1.1. To the extent that the City Council has delegated contracting authority to the City Manager (as summarized above), and unless direction from the City Council in a specific instance or other applicable authority clearly indicates that only the City Manager may sign, the City Manager delegates authority to the City employees holding the positions identified in Section

3.2 to execute City Agreements that do not exceed $75,000, in accordance with the requirements of this Policy. Agreements in the range of $75,000 to $150,000 must be reviewed and signed by the City Manager.

3.1.2. Each person designated by Section 3.2. as a City Manager Designee may, in turn, designate certain positions within their Department as authorized to sign on a City Manager Designee’s behalf (an “Authorized Departmental Signatory List”). The City Manager’s Office is responsible for maintaining such Authorized Departmental Signatory List, which will be reviewed and updated as needed. Delegations may be revoked at any time by the City Manager.

3.1.3. Each City Manager Designee, and any person identified on the Authorized Departmental Signatory List, who is authorized by this Policy to execute any City Agreement shall comply with the goals and requirements of the City’s rules pertaining to contracts for goods and services, including, but not limited to, VMC Chapters 2.08 and 2.68, and the Purchasing Policies Item 9.q
and Procedures Manual. Each City Manager Designee must go through mandatory procurement and contract training provided by the Finance Department prior to receiving designee status, and may be required to repeat or update such training as the City Manager may determine in their discretion.

3.1.4. The cost and purpose of any City Agreement executed by a City Manager Designee must be covered by the budgeted departmental operations of the Department to which the City Manager Designee is assigned. This includes the verification of budget availability, account coding, and risk management review for insurance and indemnification.

3.1.5. Legal Services Agreements. Only the City Attorney or the Senior Assistant City Attorney is authorized to sign an Agreement for services provided by an attorney. Any request to procure legal services must be submitted to the City Attorney for approval on behalf of the City.

3.1.6. Agreements to Settle Claims. Only the City Manager, Assistant City Manager, or City Attorney is authorized to sign an Agreement to settle or resolve a claim against the City under the Government Claims Act.

Pursuant to Resolution 1990-T1 (attached as Exhibit C), the City Attorney is expressly authorized to sign Agreements to settle claims or litigation, including worker’s compensation claims, in the amount of $50,000 or less.

This settlement authority is on a per-claim basis, and is not cumulative.

3.1.7. Interpreting Dollar Limit Thresholds for City Agreements. As set forth below, the authority of the City Manager and City Manager Designees to execute City Agreements may be limited by the dollar amount of the contract (e.g., $25,000 where funds have not been appropriated, or $75,000 for determining whether the City Manager must sign, or whether a designee may). The dollar limit thresholds set forth in this Policy shall be interpreted as follows:
a. The dollar limit threshold shall be applied to the total dollar amount of each Agreement, even if the Agreement is to be performed over multiple fiscal years. However, an Agreement shall be considered “year-to-year,” and the dollar limit shall be applied to each fiscal year of the contract, if the City Manager determines that: (i) the work is in the nature of a recurring number ofrelatively small projects as opposed to one specified larger project, and (ii) the Agreementincludes a clause that authorizesthe City to terminate the Agreement without cause and without penalty.

Pursuant to California Public Contract Code Section 20657, Agreements must not be split or separated into smaller Agreementsfor Item 9.q
the purpose of evading the dollar amounts identified in this Policy or in state or federal laws.
b. For each Agreement, the dollar amount shall be calculated as the greater of: (i) the total dollar amount of the City’s commitment to pay a contractor; or (ii) the total dollar amount of a contractor’s commitment to pay the City; or (iii) the estimated fair market value of property (or services) acquired or disposed. For the purpose of determining dollar limits pursuant to this Policy, a “commitment” to pay includes the amount designated in an Agreement as a “not to exceed” amount, or an estimated payment amount, even though the City’s actual obligation under the Agreement may be less if based on actual hours performed at an hourly rate.
c. When this Policy authorizes the City Manager or a City Manager Designee to execute an Agreement, the City Manager or Designee is also authorized to execute change orders, amendments, or extensions to existing Agreements so long as the total City expenditure as a result of that adjustment does not exceed that person’s authorization as set forth in this Policy. If executing a change order, amendment, or extension would cause the Agreement to exceed the relevant person’s authorization (for instance, if the City Manager previously executed an Agreement for $140,000, and the requested amendment will raise the compensation due to $170,000, that amendment would require Council approval as it causes the Agreement to exceed the City Manager’s $150,000 authority).

3.2. Delegation of Authority to City Manager Designees. Each City employee assigned to a position listed in subsections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 (below) is authorized to execute City Agreements when allowed under this Policy:

3.2.1. Department Heads:
a. City Manager
b. City Attorney
c. Community and Economic Development Director
d. Finance Director
e. Fire Chief
f. Human Resources Director
g. Housing and Community Services Director
h. Information Technology Director
i. Parks and Recreation Services Director
j. Police Chief
k. Public Works Director
l. Utilities Director
Item 9.q

3.2.2. Other City Employees: To the extent that the City Manager has delegated authority to a Department Head, per subsection 3.2.1 (above), the City Manager authorizes each Department Head to provide to the City Manager’s Office a written designation of no more than two (2) City employees authorized to execute City agreements on behalf of that Department Head, as contemplated in Section 3.1.2. The City Manager’s Office shall assemble and keep updated the list of all City employees designated by this subsection 3.2.2, and the list shall be appended to this Policy (as Exhibit A) and updated as needed, but no less than annually.

4. City Attorney Approval as to Form. Each City Agreement is subject to review and approval as to form by the City Attorney. By approving the form of this Policy, the City Attorney hereby authorizes the following:

4.1. Definition of Approval as to Form. The approval as to form of a City Agreement is the City Attorney’s internal communication to City officials that the Agreement is legally binding as written, and it is not intended to be a representation to any third party. The approval as to form does not represent an opinion regarding the adequacy of an Agreement (the clarity or level of detail of the Agreement terms) to achieve a particular City goal. If a City employee, including a Project Manager or Department Head, has any questionsregarding the ability to legally enforce a particular Agreement requirement or achieve a particular City goal through a particular Agreement, the Project Manager or the Department Head may request the City Attorney’s Office to provide separate confidential legal advice, under the protection of the attorney-client privilege, regarding the strengths and weaknesses of a particular Agreement.

4.2. Updating Agreement Templates. The City Attorney is hereby authorized to update the standard form Agreement Templates, by filing the written update with the City Clerk, which will be published as an update on the City’s intranet.

4.3. Delegation of Authority to Approve as to Form. The City Attorney hereby delegates authority to any Senior Assistant City Attorney, Assistant City Attorney, or Deputy City Attorney to review and approve the form of City Agreements.

Item 9.q
Exhibit “A”
As authorized by Section 3.2.2 of this Policy, the following is the list of City employees authorized to execute City Agreements on behalf of the relevant Department Head (generally subject to a limit of $75,000 or less). NOTE: this authority is subject to the limitations applicable to Legal Services Agreements and Agreements to Settle Claims, as set forth in Sections 3.1.5. and 3.1.6. of this Policy. This list of City employees (Designees) will be reviewed on an annual basis.

City Attorney's Office:

Anne Branham, Senior Assistant City Attorney
City Manager's Office:

GeorgeAnne Meggers-Smith, Assistant City Manager
Community & Economic Development:

VACANT, Assistant Director
Finance:

Shelby Milliren, Assistant Director
Fire:

Alex Nourot, Deputy Fire Chief
Ryan Purnell, Acting Deputy Chief - Support
Housing and Community Services:

Amanda Wilken, Management Analyst
Human Resources:

Sandy Hess, Assistant Director
Information Technology:

Keith McDonald, IT Manager
Parks and Recreation:

Melody Land, Recreation Manager
Nemo Gonzalez, Senior Park Planner
Police:

Leslie Hoover, Police Fiscal Manager
Katie Cardona, Captain
Public Works:

Robert Armijo, Assistant Director
VACANT, Assistant Director - Maintenance
Utilities:

Timothy Hawkins, Assistant Director
Matt Yttrup, Administrative Manager
Item 9.q
Exhibit “B” – Resolution 2000-47
Item 9.q
Item 9.q
Item 9.q
Item 9.q
Item 9.q
Exhibit “C” – Resolution 1990-T1
Item 9.q
Item 9.q
Levine Act Disclosure Statement -1-
**COMPLETE & RETURN THIS PAGE**

CALIFORNIA LEVINE ACT DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
In 2022, California SB1439 extended requirements under Government Code Section 84308, also known as the "Levine Act", to prohibit City of Vacaville “officers” from participating in any action related to a contract if such member receives political contributions totaling more than $250 within the previous twelve months, and for three months following the date a final decision concerning the contract has been made, from the person or company awarded the contract. The Levine Act also requires disclosure of such contribution by a party to be awarded a specific contract.

Section 84308(a)(4) of the Levine Act defines an "officer" asfollows: “Officer” means any elected or appointed officer of an agency, any alternate to an elected or appointed officer of an agency, and any candidate for elective office in an agency. The term “officer” is further defined 2 Cal. Code Regs. Section 18438.1, which states:

An officer of an agency includes only those persons who make, participate in making, or in any way attempt to use their official position to influence a decision in the license, permit, or entitlement for use proceeding, or who exercise authority or budgetary control over the agency of officers who may do so, and:
(1) Serve in an elected position, including an official appointed to an elected position due to an interim vacancy or an election otherwise canceled because the official was the sole candidate for the position; (2) Serve as a member of a board or commission;
(3) Serve as the chief executive of a state agency, or county, city or district of any kind; or (4) Have decision making authority with respect to the proceeding involving a license, permit, or other entitlement for use and is also a candidate for elected office or has been a candidate for elective office in the 12 months prior to the proceeding.

A list of City of Vacaville Council Members and Commissioners can be found online at www.CityofVacaville.gov. The party making this certification is responsible for determining whether a recipient of a political contribution is a City officer prior to answering the following questions:

1. Have you, your company, or any agent on behalf of you or your company, made any political contributions of more than $250 to any City officer, in the twelve (12) months preceding the date of the submission of your proposals or the anticipated date of any Board action related to this contract?
☐ YES X NO
If YES, please identify the person(s) or agent(s) making the contribution:

If YES, please identify the City officerreceiving the contribution:

2. Do you, or your company, or any agent on behalf of you or your company, anticipate or plan to make any political contribution of more than $250 to any City officer in the three (3) months following any Board action related to this contract? ☐ YES X NO
If YES, please identify the person(s) or agent(s) making the contribution:

If YES, please identify the City officer receiving the contribution:

Item 9.q
Levine Act Disclosure Statement -2-
Answering YES to either of the questions above does not preclude the City of Vacaville from awarding a contract to your firm or taking any subsequent action related to the contract. It does, however, preclude the identified City officer from participating in any actions related to such contract.

I HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THAT THE FOREGOING IS TRUE AND CORRECT.

Signature: Date Signed: 7/22/2026
Print Name: Samuel Ledwell
Title: President:

Company: Environmental Operating Solutions, Inc.

Item 9.q

CITY OF VACAVILLE
City Council
Staff Report
Meeting Date: July 28, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
Attention: Savita Chaudhary, City Manager
From: Erin Morris, Community & Economic Development Director (Staff Contact: Peyman Behvand, Planning Manager (707) 449- 5332)
Subject: Resolution of the City Council of the City of Vacaville to Affirm that the Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to update the
City’s process for reviewing proposed amendments to its General Plan is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines; and
Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Vacaville to Amend Title 14 of the City of Vacaville Municipal Code, by amending Division 14.04, entitled General Plan Amendments, to change administrative procedures and requirements for General Plan Map and Text Amendment applications
Actions for Consideration:

The City Council will consider the following actions: (1) Adopt a resolution to affirm that the General Plan Amendment Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines; and (2) Adopt an ordinance to amend Title 14 of the City of Vacaville Municipal Code, by amending Division 14.04, entitled General Plan Amendments, to change administrative procedures and requirements for General Plan Map and Text Amendment applications.

Recommendations:

By simple motion, adopt the subject resolution.

By title only, introduce the subject ordinance and waive reading of the title per Government Code §36934.

Item 11.a
Background:

The Vacaville General Plan is a long-range planning policy document that guides future development in the City. It provides policy direction from the Vacaville City Council to address all aspects of development, including land use, transportation, housing, economic development, public facilities and infrastructure, open spaces, and the environment. The General Plan was adopted in 2015 and is intended to guide the City’s actions through 2035.

Under State law, cities may only amend mandatory elements of the General Plan four times per year. The City complies with this requirement and manages all General Plan Amendments (GPAs) to ensure they are grouped to comply with State law. Several applications affecting the same mandatory element may be grouped together as components of the same amendment. Each amendment may include multiple changes to the General Plan. These components are considered one amendment, provided the City Council, when taking an action, considers each component during a single public hearing and takes one action on the amendments as a whole.

The amendments to the Vacaville Municipal Code ("VMC") proposed for adoption through this ordinance consist of two distinct topic areas:

Initiation Hearing
VMC Section 14.04.010.040 currently requires City Council approval before the formal submittal of a GPA application. This provision is intended to allow the City to avoid processing applications that are substantially inconsistent with City policies or standards. However, this requires additional review time and staff resources when applicants are seeking GPAs, and in several cases, the Council’s decision at this early stage about whether or not to support initiation of a GPA is made based on partial information and prior to community outreach, given that the Council is not asked at this stage to consider the factors actually required to approve a GPA, since it comes back as a separate hearing item only if Council allows the applicant to move forward with a formal submittal.

Application Filing Windows
VMC Section 14.04.020.010 currently limits the submission of GPA applications to two filing windows each year: March through April and September through October. This provision is intended to avoid City staff processing applications year-round, as they come in, rather than in defined windows of time. If this limitation on when GPA applications are accepted for processing is removed, Staff would be able to accept GPA applications year-round rather than receiving an influx of applications during restricted windows. The City would still need to comply with State legislation that limits the number of times a mandatory element of the General Plan can be amended to a maximum of four times per year, and Staff would continue to group applications accordingly after assessing appropriate schedules and timeframes.

Discussion:

The initiation hearing and application filing window requirements in VMC Sections 14.04.010.040 and 14.04.020.010 are not unique to Vacaville, but are also uncommon in many other jurisdictions. It is staff’s position that removal of these requirements would streamline the review Item 11.a
process while still providing ample opportunity for public involvement and protecting the City Council’s legislative authority. As part of the revised process, if adopted, staff would conduct a pre-application meeting with potential applicants to advise them on whether their project is consistent with City policies and standards before formal submittal (this meeting would effectively take the place of the current formal hearing process in VMC section 14.04.010.040). Depending on the outcome of this pre-application meeting, applicants could then file a formal GPA application. After the formal GPA application is submitted, the City would conduct a Neighborhood Meeting to ensure the public understands the process and can provide public comments on the project prior to formal consideration by the Council of the proposed amendment.

Planning Commission
On June 16, 2026, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and voted 6-0 to recommend that the City Council adopt the subject resolution and introduce the subject ordinance. The Planning Commission had the following questions and comments, and staff has included its responses below:

1. Does this amendment originate from a staff initiative, or did the City Council request this? Is this amendment related to the process improvement initiatives that the City is working on?
Staff Response: On January 27, 2026, the City Council passed Resolution 2026-017, initiating this Zoning Text Amendment. This action was based on requests from the public and staff’s experiences administering the preliminary merit hearing process. The proposed amendment would also contribute to the City’s process improvement initiatives for the development review process.
• How will this reduce workload on staff?
Staff Response: Staff spends a considerable amount of time preparing staff reports and accompanying materials for the preliminary merit hearing currently required by VMC section 14.04.010.040. Eliminating one step in the process will save staff time that can be allocated to other projects and public inquiries. Staff will still be able to sort and group zoning and general plan amendment requests for City Council meetings at different times throughout the year to ensure that the City maintains compliance with state law and balances competing demands on staff and Council time and resources. • Do we have data over the past few years on the number of applications that were denied or the number of applications over the last few years?
Staff Response: Since January 1, 2020, there have been 25 General Plan Amendment applications and 12 Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment applications. There has been one Zoning Text Amendment application, proposed by a private developer (Corby), that did not move forward after the GPA initiation process; otherwise, none have been denied to the best of staff’s recollection.
• This amendment appears to create more efficiencies and will help expedite the process.

Item 11.a
• Are there any jurisdictions that don’t have these existing requirements that we are proposing to eliminate?
Staff Response: Most jurisdictions do not require a similar process to Vacaville’s current requirements for the merit hearing and limited filing windows. This amendment would align Vacaville with standard practices of other jurisdictions.

Public Comments
Staff received the following public comments.
• Vote no to keep the Vacaville City Council and the public informed and involved in decisions. Maintain transparency and ensure there is robust notification.

Staff Response: This amendment does not reduce the scope of or eliminate project notifications to the public or impact the City Council’s decision-making authority. It simply reduces a step that can be considered redundant as all aspects of a project would continue to be subject to staff's analysis and the Planning Commission and City Council review and approval requirements. A Neighborhood Meeting will be required for these types of applications, where the public may ask the project applicant and City staff questions about the proposal, provide feedback, and express their concerns or support for each project.

Staff will continue to present public feedback and comments to the Planning Commission and City Council for their consideration. A public hearing is still required by both the Planning Commission and City Council, where staff will present a staff report and presentation with a thorough analysis of each proposal and its compatibility with City policies and regulations, and where the decision-makers will have to make specified findings before approving or denying an application. The public will also be able to speak and ask questions to encourage deliberation by the Council and Planning Commission, so that an informed decision that carefully considers public sentiment is made. • Eliminating the merit hearing step invites processing of marginal or speculative applications and GPA, increases both private costs and staff resources used before City Council direction is set, and diminishes early, transparent Council judgment on how staff effort should be implemented.

Staff Response: The City has also received comments from the public about the increased processing time for development applications that results from the merit hearing requirement, and this amendment seeks to balance these competing issues. The preparation process for a merit hearing can take approximately two to four months, from review of the initial application, internal staff review, applicants making revisions or providing additional information to address staff comments, and the preparation of staff reports and other materials. To deter applications that are substantially incompatible with City policies or that have possible development constraints, the City will still require a preapplication meeting for these proposals to inform the project applicant in detail of any potential conflicts with City policies or standards that may result from their proposal.

Item 11.a
• The proposal will reduce City Council authority and allow any interested party to initiate the amendment process. A merit analysis is needed to prevent excessive staff workload and ensure a coordinated citywide review for alignment with City policies.

Staff Response: The City Council’s approval authority over the actual GPA applications will not change or be reduced. Currently, the Vacaville Municipal Code allows the Planning Commission or Director of Community & Economic Development to request that the City Council initiate an amendment. Staff then prepares project information for the merit hearing that may be used again when the project is brought back to the City Council after the project initiation. If the merit hearing is removed from the process, then the City Council will still be able to review projects for compliance with City policies. Furthermore, the amendment allows other departments to initiate amendments to reduce delays in City projects, while still ensuring that the Council retains full legislative authority.

The VMC currently also allows any interested person to apply for a GPA for a non-cityinitiated projects, which then triggers the initiation merit hearing process. The text amendment provides additional clarification as it relates to property owners and authorized entities, as the existing text does not clearly state whether only a property owner can submit an application. All proposals are reviewed for alignment with City policies, and applicants are informed of staff’s analysis in a pre-application meeting prior to the formal submittal of an application.

Recommendation:

Staff recommend that the City Council adopt the subject resolution and introduce the ordinance for first reading.

Environmental Impact:

Pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), the project is exempt from additional environmental review under the common-sense exemption, because there is no possibility that the amendment to procedural and administrative requirements for General Plan Map or Text Amendments in the Vacaville Municipal Code will have a significant effect on the environment.

Fiscal Impact:

Amount Requested: None
Funding Source: Community Development (2022)
Budget Distribution: The cost of staff time associated with this item are covered within the operating budget of the Community & Economic Development Department.

Item 11.a
Alternative:

The City Council could choose not to adopt the subject resolution or introduce the ordinance.

This is not recommended, as it would not implement City Council Resolution 2026-017, which requested that staff bring forward this amendment.

Strategic Plan Goal/Initiative:

Goal 3: Protect Vacaville’s Quality of Life
Levine Act:

No
Attachments:

Resolution – Action Item
Exhibit A – Zoning Text Amendment Findings
Ordinance – Action Item
Exhibit A – Zoning Text Amendment Findings of Fact
Exhibit B – Zoning Text Amendments
Item 11.a
Resolution No. 2026-
Resolution of the City Council of the City of Vacaville affirming that the Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to update the City’s process for reviewing proposed amendments to its General Plan is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines
Whereas, on August 11, 2015, the City Council of the City of Vacaville certified the General Plan FEIR (SCH No. 2011022043), and on September 28, 2021, certified the FSEIR for the General Plan Transportation Element Update and Energy and Conservation Action Strategy Update Project (SCH No. 2020090526); and
Whereas, on February 22, 2022, the City Council of the City of Vacaville adopted Ordinance No. 1972 amending Title 14 (Land Use and Development Code) of the Vacaville Municipal Code; and
Whereas, on June 27, 2023, the City Council of the City of Vacaville adopted Resolution No. 2023-059 reaffirming the 2015 General Plan FEIR and 2021 Transportation Element FSEIR and amending the General Plan to adopt the 2023-2031 Housing Element; and Whereas, on January 27, 2026, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2026-017 to initiate an amendment to the Vacaville Municipal Code Chapter 14.04.010, entitled General Provisions – Title, and Chapter 14.04.020, entitled Application Process, to allow General Plan amendment applications to be filed year-round and to modify the initiation process for General Plan amendment requests;
Whereas, on June 16, 2026, the Vacaville Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the proposed Zoning Text Amendment to allow General Plan amendment applications to be filed year-round and to modify the initiation process for General Plan amendment requests; and
Whereas, the Vacaville Planning Commission voted 6-0 to recommend that the City Council determine the project is categorically exempt from environmental review in accordance with Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act, and adopt the Zoning Text Amendments, based on the Findings of Fact as shown in Exhibit A; and Whereas, the Vacaville City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on July 28, 2026, to consider the amendment to the Vacaville Municipal Code Chapter 14.04.010, entitled General Provisions – Title, and Chapter 14.04.020, entitled Application Process, to allow General Plan amendment applications to be filed year-round and to modify the initiation process for General Plan amendment requests, at which time they received testimony from City staff and all interested persons regarding the proposed project.

Now, therefore be it resolved that the City Council of the City of Vacaville finds, based on substantial evidence in the record, the following:

1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated by reference into this action.

Item 11.a

2. The proposed Zoning Text Amendments to the General Plan amendment zoning ordinance are categorically exempt from environmental review pursuant to section 15061(b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act.

I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Vacaville, held on the 28th day of July 2026, by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Attest:
______________________________
Michelle A. Thornbrugh, City Clerk
List of Exhibits
Exhibit A – Findings of Fact
Item 11.a
Exhibit A to Resolution No. 2026-
Zoning Text Amendment
Findings of Fact
Citywide
Categorical Exemption and Zoning Text Amendment
File No. 26-022
Code sections referenced below are from the Vacaville Municipal Code (VMC), and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), unless otherwise specified.

Summary of Evidence
The decision-maker bases its decision on the following information: (1) the project application, including attachments and related studies; (2) the staff reports, City files, records and other documents prepared for and/or submitted to the City relating to the environmental review and the project itself; (3) the evidence, facts, findings and other determinations set forth in this resolution; (4) the Vacaville General Plan, the Vacaville Land Use and Development Code and other applicable plans, codes and resolutions of the City of Vacaville; (5) all documentary and oral evidence received at public workshops, neighborhood meetings, and hearings or submitted to the City during the comment period relating to the project or the environmental review; (6) the minutes and recordings of the Planning Commission hearings; and (7) all other matters of common knowledge to the to the City, including, but not limited to, City, state, and federal laws, policies, rules, regulations, reports, records and projections related to development within the City and its surrounding areas.

Environmental Review Findings
VMC Section 14.03.021 Categorical Exemptions
The project is categorically exempt under Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, based on the following findings:

Finding: The Lead Agency has evaluated the potential for project-related impacts resulting from the draft zoning text amendments and hereby concludes that the proposed changes will not result in any foreseeable impact on the environment. This determination is supported by the following claims: (1) the ordinance does not authorize or approve entitlements to construct or make any physical change to the environment; (2) the ordinance does not exempt any future project from environmental review; and (3) and the ordinance does not authorize new uses or physical development and does not expand the range of allowable land uses beyond what is already permitted under existing state law.

Environmental Review Conclusion
The City Council has concluded that no additional environmental review is required pursuant to CEQA Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines.

Item 11.a
Ordinance No.

Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Vacaville amending Title 14 of the City of Vacaville Municipal Code by amending Division 14.04, entitled General Plan Amendments, to change administrative procedures and requirements for General Plan Map and Text Amendments
Whereas, on August 11, 2015, the City Council of the City of Vacaville certified the General Plan FEIR (SCH No. 2011022043), and on September 28, 2021, certified the FSEIR for the General Plan Transportation Element Update and Energy and Conservation Action Strategy Update Project (SCH No. 2020090526); and
Whereas, on February 22, 2022, the City Council of the City of Vacaville adopted Ordinance No. 1972 amending Title 14 (Land Use and Development Code) of the Vacaville Municipal Code; and
Whereas, on June 27, 2023, the City Council of the City of Vacaville adopted Resolution No. 2023-059 reaffirming the 2015 General Plan FEIR and 2021 Transportation Element FSEIR and amending the General Plan to adopt the 2023-2031 Housing Element; and Whereas, on January 27, 2026, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2026-017 to initiate an amendment to the Vacaville Municipal Code Chapter 14.04.010 entitled General Provisions - Title and Chapter 14.04.020 entitled Application Process to allow General Plan amendment applications to be filed year-round and to modify the initiation process for General Plan amendment requests;
Whereas, the Vacaville Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on June 16, 2026, to consider the Environmental Assessment and Zoning Text Amendment to allow General Plan amendment applications to be filed year-round and to modify the initiation process for General Plan amendment requests; and
Whereas, the Vacaville Planning Commission voted 6-0 to recommend that the City Council determine the project is categorically exempt from environmental review in accordance with Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act, and adopt the Zoning Text Amendments, based on the Findings of Fact as shown in Exhibit A; and Whereas, the Vacaville City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on July 28, 2026, to consider the amendment to the Vacaville Municipal Code Chapter 14.04.010 entitled General Provisions - Title and Chapter 14.04.020 entitled Application Process to allow General Plan amendment applications to be filed year-round and to modify the initiation process for General Plan amendment requests, where they received testimony from City staff and all interested persons regarding the proposed project.

Whereas, the Vacaville City Council affirmed the General Plan Amendment Text Amendments are categorically exempt from environmental review in accordance with Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act, which is hereby referenced as City Council Resolution 2026-_____.

Now, therefore, the City Council of the City of Vacaville does ordain as follows:

Item 11.a
Section 1: The City Council hereby finds the facts set forth in the recitals to this Ordinance are true and correct and establishes the factual basis for the City Council’s adoption of this Ordinance.

Section 2: The City Council has reviewed the Zoning Text Amendment request for Division 14.04, entitled General Plan Amendments, as shown in Exhibit A and Exhibit B, and adopts the findings of fact shown in Exhibit A.

Section 3: The City Council hereby adopts the Zoning Text Amendments to Title 14 of the City of Vacaville Municipal Code by amending Division 14.04, entitled General Plan Amendments, to change administrative procedures and requirements for General Plan map and text amendment applications as shown in Exhibit B, which is hereby incorporated by reference into this Ordinance.

Section 4: If any section, subsection, phrase, or clause of this ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance.

The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this ordinance and each section, subsection, phrase, or clause thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more section, subsection, phrases, or clauses be declared unconstitutional.

Section 5: This ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after passage thereof.

Section 6: This ordinance shall be published in accordance with the provisions of California Government Code Section 36933.

I hereby certify that this ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Vacaville on the 28th day of July 2026 by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Attest:
______________________________
Michelle A. Thornbrugh, City Clerk
List of Exhibits
Exhibit A – Findings of Fact
Exhibit B – Zoning Text Amendments
Item 11.a
Exhibit A to Ordinance No.

General Plan Amendment Zoning Text Amendment
Findings of Fact
Citywide
Categorical Exemption and Zoning Text Amendment
File No. 26-022
Code sections referenced below are from the Vacaville Municipal Code (VMC), and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), unless otherwise specified.

Summary of Evidence
The decision-maker bases its decision on the following information: (1) the project application, including attachments and related studies; (2) the staff reports, City files, records and other documents prepared for and/or submitted to the City relating to the environmental review and the project itself; (3) the evidence, facts, findings and other determinations set forth in this resolution; (4) the Vacaville General Plan, the Vacaville Land Use and Development Code and other applicable plans, codes and resolutions of the City of Vacaville; (5) all documentary and oral evidence received at public workshops, neighborhood meetings, and hearings or submitted to the City during the comment period relating to the project or the environmental review; (6) the minutes and recordings of the Planning Commission hearings; and (7) all other matters of common knowledge to the to the City, including, but not limited to, City, state, and federal laws, policies, rules, regulations, reports, records and projections related to development within the City and its surrounding areas.

Zoning Text Amendment Findings
VMC Section 14.09.020.070 Amendments to Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map – Required Findings
The City Council hereby approves the Zoning Text Amendments, based on the following findings:

A. That the proposed amendments are internally consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, and the Land Use and Development Code; Finding: The project meets this finding as described below:

1. GENERAL PLAN – As proposed, the project is consistent with the following goals and policies of the Vacaville General Plan:

HE.4 Identify and address governmental and nongovernmental constraints to the production, improvement, and preservation of housing in Vacaville.

HE.11 Allow a shortened process to help expedite housing projects and work with applicants to combine stages of the review process to help facilitate an expedited review.

2. ZONING ORDINANCE – The project is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance because:
(1) the City provided adequate notification about the project in accordance with Section Item 11.a

14.09.030.070 (Public Notice) of the Code.

3. DEVELOPMENT CODE – The Zoning Text Amendment modifies an existing administrative procedure for General Plan text and map amendments. The project, as proposed, will be internally consistent with the Vacaville Land Use and Development Code.

B. That the proposed amendments would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare of the community;
Finding: The project meets this finding because: (1) the amendment modifies administrative procedures for General Plan amendments; and (2) any new application received under the proposed amendments would be required to demonstrate compliance with the City’s development standards and would require a neighborhood meeting, Planning Commission meeting, and City Council public hearing.

C. That the proposed amendments would maintain the appropriate balance of land uses within the City;
Finding: The project meets this finding because new applications received under this text amendment will still be required to be reviewed by City staff, presented to the public for feedback at a neighborhood meeting, presented to the Planning Commission, and presented to the City Council for a public hearing.

D. That the anticipated land uses on the subject site would be compatible with existing and future surrounding uses;
Finding: The project meets this finding because it is for an amendment to an administrative process and not a land development proposal.

E. That the potential impacts to the City’s inventory of residential lands has been considered; and Finding: Not applicable. The project proposal is to amend the Vacaville Land Use and Development Code to modify administrative procedures. There would be no impact to the City’s inventory of residential lands.

F. That the proposed amendment is consistent with any development-related application that is processed and approved concurrently with the amendment application.

Finding: There are no other development-related applications that are being processed concurrently with the amendment application.

Zoning Text Amendment Conclusion
The project meets all of the required findings for approving the Zoning Text Amendment.

Item 11.a
Attachment 1 to Ordinance No.

General Plan Amendment Zoning Text Amendment
Citywide
Zoning Text Amendment
File No. 26-022
Amended text is written in red strikethrough for deletions and red underlined for additions.

Chapter 14.040.010
General Provisions
Section 14.04.010.010. Title.

This division shall be known as the General Plan Amendment Ordinance of the City.

Section 14.04.010.020. Purpose.

The General Plan serves as the long range master plan guiding the direction of development within the community. As conditions within the City change, it may become necessary to amend or update the General Plan to ensure its effectiveness. This division establishes the minimum standards for processing applications to amend the General Plan. However, the Director of Community Development may determine that significantly complex projects, such as a General Plan update, require a greater level of review, and may provide for additional notice or public participation beyond the provisions of this division.

The regulations of this chapter are established to achieve the following:

A. To comply with the requirements of the California Government Code as they pertain to planning, zoning, and development;
B. To establish the procedures for the review and processing of applications to amend the General Plan;
C. To ensure that the General Plan is internally consistent; and D. To ensure that the General Plan remains an effective, timely guide for orderly growth and development, the preservation of open space land, and the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare.

Section 14.04.010.030. Reference to the California Government Code.

This division is intended to supplement the California Planning and Zoning Law, Division 1 of Title 7 of the California Government Code, regulating the processing, review, and adoption of General Plans, updates, and amendments. Where this division establishes more restrictive objectives and procedures that are unique to the City and are consistent with the California Government Code, the more restrictive procedures shall apply. Any revision to Division 1 of Title 7 of the California Government Code that is applicable to this division, shall automatically be incorporated by reference into this division; provided, that the revisions are not less restrictive than those required by the City.

Item 11.a
Section 14.04.010.040. Initiation of Amendment.

An amendment to the General Plan map or text may be initiated by:

A. A motion of the City Council or Planning Commission; or B. An application by the owner or authorized agent of property for which the amendment is sought, and if the subject property is under multiple ownership, all of the owners or their authorized agents shall join in filing the petition; or C. Any director of a City department to the Planning Commission and City Council.

Amendments to the General Plan may be initiated by the City Council at the City Council's discretion through a specific action, through the adoption of the City's operating budget, or through any other form of City Council direction. Requests to initiate a General Plan amendment may be made as follows:

A. City-Initiated Projects

1. The Planning Commission may request that the City Council initiate an amendment; and/or

2. The Director of Community Development may request that the City Council initiate an amendment for City-sponsored projects.

B. Non-City-Initiated Projects

1. An application for a project that is not City-initiated may be submitted within one of the designated application periods, as described in Section 14.04.020.010; and

2. The City Council shall have the discretion to initiate a General Plan amendment for a non-City-related project during a time other than one of the designated application periods, as described in Section 14.04.020.010.A, when the City Council finds that the project will result in a community-wide benefit or when the amendment is necessary to deal with a unique or unforeseen circumstance.

C. Requests for non-City-initiated amendments shall be reviewed and processed as follows:

1. Any interested party may submit an application for a General Plan amendment in accordance with the provisions of this division.

2. Such applications shall be reviewed by the City Council. The City Council may initiate the amendment and direct staff to proceed with processing the application.

3. The City Council may decline to initiate the application for reasons which may include the following:
a. The amendment is substantially inconsistent with City policies or standards; and b. Staff resources are not available at the time to provide for processing of the application due to priorities or staff commitments established through a Cityadopted work program.

Item 11.a

4. A determination by the City Council to initiate an application shall not be considered an indication that the amendment either will be recommended for approval or will be approved.

Section 14.04.010.050. Limitation on Number of Amendments.

A. Except as otherwise provided in Division 1 of Title 7 of the California Government Code, no mandatory element of the General Plan shall be amended more than four times per calendar year.

B. Several applications affecting the same mandatory element may be grouped together as components of the same amendment. Each amendment may include more than one change to the General Plan. Such components shall be considered one amendment provided the City Council, when taking an action, considers each component during one public hearing and takes one action on the amendments as a whole.

Chapter 14.040.020
Application Process
Section 14.04.020.010. Application and Fees.

A. An application for a General Plan amendment shall be made on a form specified by the Director of Community & Economic Development.

B. The application shall include all items described on the application form.

C. The application shall be accompanied by fees set by resolution of the City Council sufficient to cover costs associated with processing the application and with conducting any related environmental review, as necessary.

Applications to amend the General Plan shall be accepted in accordance with the following provisions:

A. General Plan amendment applications for non-City-initiated projects may be accepted by the City during two window periods per calendar year. These window periods shall be during the months of March through April and September through October.

B. An application for a General Plan amendment shall be made on a form specified by the Director of Community Development. The application shall include all items described on the application form, all items described on the supplemental application form, and shall be accompanied by fees set by resolution of the City Council sufficient to cover costs associated with processing the application and with conducting any related environmental review, as necessary.

Section 14.04.020.020. Refund of Fees.

Applications that are withdrawn may be eligible for a refund of fees only in the following instances:

A. Full refund if no action has been taken to review the application materials.

Item 11.a
B. If the City Council declines to initiate an amendment application submitted by a private party, the applicant may receive a partial refund of fees, with the amount to be determined by the Director of Community Development, based upon the total costs of the City's review up to the point of the Council decision.

C. Partial refund, with the amount to be determined by the Director of Community Development, based upon the total costs of the City's review prior to the City receiving notice that the application is withdrawn.

D. No refund shall be given after the preparation of a staff report for the Planning Commission or the City Council.

Section 14.04.020.030. Submittal With Other Applications.

A zoning map amendment or a development-related application may be processed concurrently with a General Plan amendment if the Director of Community Development determines that there are no major conflicting policy issues associated with the amendment. A General Plan amendment application that is processed as a special performance option shall follow the procedures established in this division, except as otherwise required by Chapter 14.04.030 of this code.

A. Two or more applications may be presented together during the public hearing; however, if approval of the General Plan amendment is necessary to ensure consistency between the General Plan and the accompanying applications, then the General Plan amendment shall be acted upon prior to an action being taken on any other application.

1. If the Planning Commission is the decision maker for a development-related application filed concurrently with a General Plan amendment, the Planning Commission action shall be as follows:
a. If a General Plan amendment is filed concurrently with a nonresidential development-related application, the Planning Commission shall make a recommendation on the General Plan amendment, but shall take action on the development-related application only after the City Council has approved the General Plan amendment; or
b. If a General Plan amendment is filed concurrently with a zoning map amendment and a residential development project, the Planning Commission shall make a recommendation on the whole of the project, and the City Council shall approve, approve with modifications, or deny the project.

Item 11.a
General Plan Amendment Zoning Ordinance
Text Amendment
Community & Economic Development Department
Item 11.a
Request
Amend Title 14 of the City of Vacaville Municipal Code by amending Division

14.04 entitled General Plan Amendments to change administrative procedures and requirements for General Plan Map and Text Amendment applications.

July 28, 2026 Agenda Item 11.a General Plan Amendment Zoning Text Amendment - Slide of 12 2 Item 11.a
Overview
• Proposal to remove current requirements for General Plan Amendments (GPAs) to map or text:
o Initiation Hearing
o Application Filing Windows (March through April and September through October)
• Amend Zoning Text to clarify who can initiate a GPA:
o Motion of City Council or Planning Commission
o Property Owner or Authorized Agent
o Director of any City Department
July 28, 2026 Agenda Item 11.a General Plan Amendment Zoning Text Amendment - Slide of 12 3 Item 11.a
What This Ordinance Does – and Does Not Do
This Ordinance Does: This Ordinance Does Not:

Streamline the internal application review
process.

Does not change who approves General Plan
Amendments.

Remove an administrative procedural
step that has become redundant.

Does not eliminate City Council public
hearings.

Improve efficiency and reduce
unnecessary processing time.

Does not reduce public notice or opportunities
for public comment.

Align City procedures with current
planning practices.

Does not reduce environmental review
required by CEQA.

Clarify administrative responsibilities.

Does not change General Plan policies, land
use designations, zoning standards, or
development regulations.

July 28, 2026 Agenda Item 11.a General Plan Amendment Zoning Text Amendment - Slide of 12 4 Item 11.a
Overview, continued:
• Public Process Remains Unchanged and does not reduce public input o Public notice, hearings, and opportunities to comment remain unchanged. o This ordinance changes how applications are processed internally—not how decisions are made publicly.
• Environmental Review Is Not Being Reduced or Eliminated o If a project requires an EIR under CEQA, one will still be prepared. o The level of environmental review will continue to depend on the potential impacts of each individual project, not on this procedural ordinance. • Does this make it easier for developers?
o No. Projects must still comply with the General Plan, Zoning Code, CEQA, and all applicable development regulations.

July 28, 2026 Agenda Item 11.a General Plan Amendment Zoning Text Amendment - Slide of 12 5 Item 11.a
Overview, continued:
• Does this change the City's General Plan?
No. This ordinance changes only the administrative procedures for processing Applications, not General Plan policies or land use designations. • City Council Authority Remains Unchanged
Before Ordinance
Application → Merit Application Process → Staff Review → Planning Commission → City Council Decision
After Ordinance
Application → Staff Review (streamlined procedure) → Planning Commission (where required) → City Council Decision
No change to:

Council authority, Public hearings, Final approval authority July 28, 2026 Agenda Item 11.a General Plan Amendment Zoning Text Amendment - Slide of 12 6 Item 11.a
General Plan Amendment Process
Preapplication
Meeting
(City Staff)
Initiation
Hearing
(City Council)
8 Week Staff
Preparation
Planning
Commission
Public Hearing
City Council
Public Hearing
(1st and 2nd
Readings)
Current Process
Proposal: Remove Initiation
Hearing requirement
July 28, 2026 Agenda Item 11.a General Plan Amendment Zoning Text Amendment - Slide of 12 7 Item 11.a
General Plan Amendment Process
Preapplication
Meeting
(City Staff)
Planning
Commission Public
Hearing
City Council Public
Hearing
(1st and 2nd Readings)
Proposed Process
July 28, 2026 Agenda Item 11.a General Plan Amendment Zoning Text Amendment - Slide of 12 8 Item 11.a
Conclusion
The proposed Ordinance:
• Modernizes an outdated administrative procedure
• Improves efficiency without reducing oversight
• Maintains transparency
• Preserves all CEQA requirements
• Preserves all public hearing requirements
• Preserves City Council's decision-making authority
• Continues to ensure that General Plan Amendments receive full public review Next Steps:
• City Council Public Hearing (1st Reading): July 28, 2026 • City Council Public Hearing (2nd Reading): August 11, 2026 July 28, 2026 Agenda Item 11.a General Plan Amendment Zoning Text Amendment - Slide of 12 9 Item 11.a
Recommendation
By simple motion, recommend that the City Council:
• Adopt a resolution of the City of Vacaville affirming that the General Plan Amendment Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines; and
• Introduce an ordinance of the City of Vacaville City Council amending Title 14 of the City of Vacaville Municipal Code by amending Division 14.04 entitled General Plan Amendments to allow General Plan amendment applications to be filed year-round and to modify the initiation process for General Plan amendment requests.

July 28, 2026 Agenda Item 11.a General Plan Amendment Zoning Text Amendment - Slide of 12 10 Item 11.a
Questions or Comments
July 28, 2026 Agenda Item 11.a General Plan Amendment Zoning Text Amendment - Slide of 12 11 Item 11.a
Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor, and Members of the Vacaville City Council, Resolution to Affirm that the General Plan Amendment Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment is Exempt from Environmental Review Pursuant to Section 15061(b)( 3) of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines; and Ordinance to Amen d Title 14 of the City of Vacaville Municipal Code by Amending Division 14.04 entit led General
Plan Amendments to Change Administrative Procedures and Requirements for General Plan Map and Text Amendment Applications (agenda item 11a on 7/28 meeting)
I respectfully urge you to vote No on Agenda item 11a, the proposed amendment to the General Plan Amendment and Zoning Ordinance procedures.

The General Plan serves as the City’s long-term blueprint for growth and is intended to protect the public interest through thoughtful planning and meaningful checks and balances. Before weakening or removing procedural safeguards, I believe the Council should carefully consider whether doing so benefits the community or simply expedites future development applications. The proposal raises an important question: Why would the City reduce internal safeguards in a process specifically designed to ensure careful environmental review? These procedures exist to promote transparency, consistency, and public confidence in decisions that will shape Vacaville for generations.

Developers play an important role in providing housing and economic investment, but they also have a legitimate financial interest in maximizing the return on their projects.

During public hearings, it is common to hear requests for reduced park requirements, narrower streets, shorter setbacks, or other modifications intended to improve project economics. While these requests may be reasonable on a project-by-project basis, they also demonstrate why strong planning safeguards remain essential. The City’s responsibility extends beyond individual projects to protecting the long-term interests of the entire community.

I also ask the Council to consider this proposal within the broader context of California’s ongoing loss of agricultural land. While I recognize the RHNA housing requirements present significant challenges for cities throughout the state, I question whether reducing oversight of General Plan amendments is the appropriate response. Has the city explored additional opportunities to advocate for more realistic state housing policies that better balance housing needs with the preservation of productive agricultural land and natural habitat?
Vacaville’s agricultural lands are among its greatest assets. Once converted to urban development, they are effectively lost forever. Continued outward expansion without careful consideration threatens local food production, wildlife habitat, and the rural character that makes Vacaville unique.

Item 11.a
I support thoughtful, well-planned growth. However, growth should enhance the community rather than diminish the very qualities that make people choose to live here.

Weakening the City’s General Plan amendment process risks accelerating decisions that may have lasting and unintended consequences.

I also encourage the City to remain mindful of public confidence in the planning process.

Whenever individuals involved in land-use decision-making have professional or financial interests that could reasonably be perceived as benefiting from planning decisions, transparency and appropriate recusals are essential to maintaining public trust. Even the appearance of a potential conflict of interest can undermine confidence in decisions affecting the future of our community.

Finally, I struggle to see how this proposal advances the City’s Strategic Plan goal of improving Quality of Life. Decisions involving the General Plan deserve the highest level of scrutiny because their impacts extend far beyond today’s residents and will shape Vacaville for future generations.

As a reminder, those entrusted with public office have taken an oath to faithfully discharge the duties of their office in service to the public. I respectfully ask that this responsibility guide your decision on this important matter.

Please protect the integrity of Vacaville’s General Plan, preserve meaningful public oversight, and vote No on Agenda Item 11A.

Respectfully,
Chris Whitaker
A concerned Vacaville Resident
Item 11.a

PUBLIC COMMENT
Vacaville City Council Meeting- July 28, 2026
Agenda Items 11 & 12
Regarding: Proposed General Plan Amendments and Related Actions Submitted by: Amber Mineni
Vacaville Resident
____________________________________________________________________________ Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor, and Members of the Vacaville City Council, Please include this correspondence in the public record for the July 28, 2026 City Council meeting, including Agenda Items 11A and 12A.

I urge the Council to vote no on Agenda Item 11A and to pause further advancement of the Northeast Growth Plan under Agenda Item 12A until the City can provide clearer transparency, stronger public engagement, and a documented explanation of how community input has been incorporated into the planning process.

The General Plan is meant to serve as a long-term framework guiding land-use decisions that will shape Vacaville for decades. Given the scale of proposed annexation and development on agricultural and rural lands, it is important that established review processes remain intact and fully transparent.

Public trust in land-use decisions depends on openness. When individuals involved in evaluating or recommending development proposals have professional, financial, or business ties within the broader real estate, development, consulting, or investment sectors connected to those proposals, the City must ensure that any such relationships are properly disclosed and evaluated for potential conflicts or perceived bias.

Even when no legal conflict exists, undisclosed relationships that could reasonably raise questions about independence can weaken confidence in the fairness of the process. For that reason, disclosure and recusal standards must be applied consistently and transparently.

I respectfully request clarification on the following:

1. What categories of professional, financial, or business relationships are required to be disclosed by Planning Commissioners and other decision-makers.

2. How the City evaluates whether a disclosed relationship requires recusal or other safeguards.

3. Whether each decision-maker involved in these items has been reviewed for potential conflicts or appearances of partiality.

4. At what point in the process such disclosures become available to the public.

This request is not an allegation of wrongdoing. It is a request for clarity and transparency to ensure the integrity of the decision-making process is maintained.

Item 11.a

PUBLIC COMMENT
Vacaville City Council Meeting- July 28, 2026
Agenda Items 11 & 12
Regarding: Proposed General Plan Amendments and Related Actions Submitted by: Amber Mineni
Vacaville Resident
____________________________________________________________________________ These concerns are particularly relevant in the context of the proposed Corby Battery Energy Storage System. The California Energy Commission’s Staff Assessment identifies impacts including conversion of Important Farmland, inconsistency with agricultural zoning, and conflicts with Solano County’s restrictions on front-of-the-meter BESS facilities in agricultural areas.

While the state opt-in process may allow the project to proceed under CEC authority, it does not eliminate the need for local governments to fully evaluate and respond to its implications.

The assessment also identifies potential fire and thermal runaway hazards, risks to air, soil, and water resources, the need for specialized emergency response capabilities, and long-term impacts to the rural landscape. These factors are being considered within a state framework that presumes economic benefit, making it especially important for local agencies to independently evaluate costs, risks, and community impacts.

Before any local support is considered, the public should have a clear understanding of:
● emergency response staffing, training, and equipment needs; ● long-term funding responsibility for emergency preparedness and response; ● containment and cleanup requirements for hazardous firefighting runoff; ● evacuation planning and roadway capacity constraints; ● impacts on nearby residents, farms, and agricultural operations; ● permanent loss of Important Farmland;
● interaction with the Northeast Growth Plan and future land-use planning; ● division of oversight responsibilities between state agencies; and ● whether projected economic benefits outweigh long-term community costs and risks.

The Northeast Growth Plan should not proceed without considering the cumulative impact of large-scale energy infrastructure proposals in the same area. The City should clearly explain how these projects may influence future housing patterns, infrastructure planning, emergency access, agricultural preservation, and the long-term suitability of the area for residential expansion.

Community members engaged in earlier outreach did so with the expectation that their input would meaningfully inform outcomes, including strong support for preserving agricultural zoning.

That input should be clearly reflected in the record and visibly carried forward in decision-making materials.

I respectfully request that the City maintain strong procedural safeguards in the General Plan amendment process, ensure full and consistent disclosure of potential conflicts, apply recusal standards where appropriate, and pause advancement of the Northeast Growth Plan until these issues are fully addressed.

Item 11.a

PUBLIC COMMENT
Vacaville City Council Meeting- July 28, 2026
Agenda Items 11 & 12
Regarding: Proposed General Plan Amendments and Related Actions Submitted by: Amber Mineni
Vacaville Resident
____________________________________________________________________________ Respectfully,
Amber Mineni
Vacaville Resident
Responsible Growth Vacaville
Item 11.a

CITY OF VACAVILLE
City Council
Staff Report
Meeting Date: July 28, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
Attention: Savita Chaudhary, City Manager
From: Erin Morris, Director of Community & Economic Development (Staff Contact: Albert Enault, Acting Planning Manager (707) 449-5364) Subject: Informational update on the Northeast Growth Area Planning Study
Actions for Consideration:

The City Council will receive a Study Session regarding the Northeast Growth Area Planning Study and provide feedback to staff.

Recommendations:

Receive report, open discussion, and provide direction to staff.

Background:

A. Location and History
The Northeast Growth Area, which was established in 2008, is approximately 1,400 acres and comprises 789 acres of land within the City and 611 acres of land within unincorporated Solano County. The area is located fully within the City’s Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) and Sphere of Influence (SOI). When annexed, the Northeast Growth Area will extend the City’s boundary to the east and provide an additional three miles of Interstate 80 (I-80) frontage. The southern portion of the Northeast Growth Area is just north of the Leisure Town Road and Vaca Valley Parkway I80 interchange and will have access from two highway interchanges: the Meridian and Weber Road interchange in the southern portion of the growth area, and the Midway Road interchange to the north (see Figure 1). The Northeast Growth Area is approximately 5 miles south of the City of Dixon and about 12 miles south of the City of Davis.

In addition to its location close to the other key growth area in Vacaville (the East of Leisure Town Road Growth Area), the Northeast Growth Area is located adjacent to three existing City business parks, the approved North Village Specific Plan, a nearly 900-acre project area with plans for about 2,400 residential units, and the proposed Greentree Specific Plan, a 185-acre project area with 1,149 residential units and approximately 299,000 square feet of retail uses. The City’s three proximate business parks, including Interchange, Vacaville Golden Hills, and Vaca Valley, are mostly built out.

In 2015, the City adopted its current General Plan. The General Plan serves as the long-range master plan for the City and is intended to guide growth in and around the community through the Item 12.a
year 2035. The General Plan identifies the Northeast Growth Area as an opportunity for developing job-generating uses, such as high-quality office, industrial, and technology campus uses (General Plan Policy LU-P18.1). Policy LU-P18.3 requires that Specific Plans be prepared for development in the Northeast Growth Area to ensure that coordinated plans for land uses, public facilities, and public services are created for each area, and requires that these Specific Plans are consistent with the City’s updated infrastructure master plans that account for development in the Northeast Growth Area.

Figure 1 – Northeast Growth Area Boundary

Item 12.a
B. Previous Actions
On August 23, 2022, the City Council received a presentation from staff about existing General Plan goals and policies applicable to growth areas and related land use planning opportunities to support the City’s economic development initiatives. The Council provided unanimous direction to staff to prepare an action plan for a Northeast Growth Area Specific Plan. Following Council direction, City staff began reaching out to County staff to discuss opportunities for collaboration.

An initial meeting was held in fall 2022. City staff began to explore potential funding sources for planning work and developing interim zoning regulations to allow temporary land uses to be established through a Conditional Use Permit and Development Agreement process to ensure the land would remain available for future development of biotechnology and advanced manufacturing uses.

On November 15, 2022, the Council introduced an ordinance to create the Northeast Growth Area Overlay District. The ordinance went into effect in January 2023. On October 14, 2023, the Council introduced an ordinance to approve the Weber Road Construction Yard project, which allowed a temporary construction and storage yard on land within the Northeast Growth Area in exchange for public benefit contributions toward future Northeast Growth Area planning efforts. To date, the Weber Road project has contributed $125,000 to a special planning fund with the remaining $75,000 due in November 2026.

On October 24, 2023, the City Council received a presentation about the Urban Reserve Analysis (Draft Urban Reserve Land Inventory and Development Forecast) and held a subsequent study session to gauge interest in commencing land use planning activities for areas designated Urban Reserve in the General Plan. Following that study session, the City Council provided staff with direction to move forward with appropriate land use planning activities for the Urban Reserve areas, which includes the Northeast Growth Area and East of Leisure Town Road Growth Area, and to conduct community outreach prior to future Council discussions.

In February and March of 2024, staff facilitated three community meetings to share information about potential planning efforts within the established growth areas. These meetings included one focused stakeholder meeting for residents of the Locke Paddon and Maplewood neighborhoods held on February 21, 2024, and two broader community meetings held on February 28, 2024, and March 5, 2024, open to all residents in the community. In June, the City Council budgeted $375,000 of Measure M funds toward Northeast Growth Area planning activities and directed staff to coordinate further with the County to ensure a collaborative approach.

In August 2024, City staff met with County staff to discuss the Northeast Growth Area. At this meeting, City staff learned that the County is interested in exploring land development in the unincorporated County, north and east of the Northeast Growth Area, to increase County revenues. Initial ideas about City and County collaboration were discussed, in particular how bringing sewer and water service to the Northeast Growth Area could provide development potential for adjacent areas.

On April 22, 2025, the City Council authorized staff to execute a professional services agreement with PlaceWorks, Inc. to prepare the Northeast Growth Area Planning Study.

Discussion:

In collaboration with PlaceWorks, the City initiated the Northeast Growth Area Planning Study (Planning Study) in January 2025. The overall purpose of the Planning Study is to evaluate Item 12.a
potential land use and development scenarios with the goal of supporting employment generating uses in the Northeast Growth Area Study Area (Study Area), and to establish the foundation for a future specific plan process. As noted above, the Study Area encompasses approximately 1,400 acres of land within the City of Vacaville’s UGB and SOI, of which 789 acres are presently unincorporated Solano County land. To adequately prepare for the future development of the Study Area, the project team developed three land use and circulation scenarios, each providing a distinct composition of land uses and spatial distribution. These scenarios were subsequently evaluated to understand the potential transportation, infrastructure, and economic impacts on both the local area and the City.

A. Land Use Alternatives
Each alternative is summarized below, followed by a comparison of transportation and infrastructure needs required to support future growth in the Study Area. Certain features are common across all alternatives, including a mix of Business Park and Industrial Park designations; Highway Commercial uses adjacent to I-80 interchanges; an Open Space buffer on the south edge of the Study Area to facilitate the transition of uses and minimize impacts on adjacent properties; neighborhood and community parks consistent with General Plan and Parks and Recreation Master Plan policies and standards; and a primary vehicular connection to the southwest end of the Study Area from Orange Drive.

Please note that each land use alternative also identifies the proposed battery storage project within the Study Area at Kilkenny Road and I-80 and one that is proposed outside and adjacent to the south boundary of the Study Area at the southwest corner of Kilkenny and Bynes Roads within Solano County. These projects are proposed through the California Energy Commission’s Opt-In Certification Program, which allows developers to propose such projects to the State agency and bypass the City of Vacaville and Solano County local development permitting processes.

Alternative A
Alternative A is the most employment-oriented option, with no residential development planned (see Figure 2). The area would consist of 42 total parcels of varying sizes with a highly regular, grid-like circulation network. Of the employment-oriented land, the majority is dedicated to Business Parks, which is intended to accommodate technology and high-end industrial uses. In this land use alternative, Business Parks are given priority frontage to I-80 for greater visibility.

The second most dominant land use would be Industrial Park land, which allows for some commercial services as well as warehousing and logistics. This land use is concentrated near the I-80 interchanges and adjacent areas to maximize accessibility.

The industrial parcels shown on the land use map have been sized appropriately to meet the current market demand for high-end industrial lands. This generally ranges from 20 to 40 acres.

While existing parcel lines were followed as closely as possible, some small parcels were consolidated, and some large parcels were subdivided to create parcels of appropriate size.

Item 12.a
This alternative also includes a Community Park at the southwestern corner of the Study Area, near the Vaca Valley Parkway I-80 interchange, creating a buffer between the nearby residential uses and the planned employment-oriented uses in the Study Area. This alternative also shows three Neighborhood Parks, one located north of I-80, one northeast by the Midway Road interchange, and one south of I-80 centrally located among the industrial uses.

Figure 2 - Alternative A Land Use Diagram

Source: Northeast Growth Area Alternatives Evaluation Memo, PlaceWorks 2026.

Item 12.a
A summary of the potential buildout per land use types proposed under Alternative A is shown in Table 1 below.

Table 1 - Alternative A Buildout Summary
Land Use Lot Size
(acres)
Potential
Buildout
(square feet)
Percent of
Land Use by
Total Acreage
Accessible Open Space, Buffers, and
Easements 156.39 50%
Business Park 594.47 7,737,669 26%
Highway Commercial 76.34 993,574 6%
Industrial Park 313.33 4,078,324 13%
Park 53.78 5%
Total 1,194.32 12,809,568.23
Source: Northeast Growth Area Alternatives Evaluation Memo, PlaceWorks 2026.

Alternative B
Alternative B is predominantly occupied by Business and Industrial Parks, with a small amount of residential and highway commercial land uses (see Figure 3). This alternative would consist of 66 total parcels. Business Parks comprise the majority of the industrial uses and are given preferential frontage to I-80, with Industrial Parks placed behind, making them less visible from I80.

Residential uses are concentrated at the southern end of the Study Area and include both highdensity housing and medium-high density housing, with the high-density housing located closest to I-80. The medium-high density housing is located adjacent to the Locke Paddon community, with an open space buffer separating the two areas. A small amount of Highway Commercial is located on the east side of I-80 at the Weber Road interchange, in addition to one parcel at the Midway Road interchange.

A Community Park is located south of Weber Road and north of Gibson Canyon Creek. This park is adjacent to Business and Industrial Park areas. This alternative shows two additional Neighborhood Parks, one centrally located among the industrial uses north of I-80 and one located in the south of the Study Area adjacent to the residential uses. This alternative also highlights the Orange Drive extension alignment included in the General Plan Transportation Element. It is roughly parallel to I-80, which created more curvilinear streets and smaller parcels near the I-80 and Weber Road interchange.

Item 12.a
Figure 3 – Alternative B Land Use Diagram

Source: Northeast Growth Area Alternatives Evaluation Memo, PlaceWorks 2026.

A summary of the potential buildout per land use types proposed under Alternative B is shown in Table 2 below.

Table 2. Alternative B Buildout Summary
Land Use Lot Size
(acres)
Potential
Buildout
(square feet)
Residential
Units
Percent
of Land
Use by
Total
Acreage
Business Park 561.55 7,320,485.24 48%
Industrial Park 289.97 3,774,145.32 25%
Highway Commercial 39.05 498,577.50 3%
Accessible Open Space, Buffers, &
Easements
151.92 13%
Park 55.37 5%
Residential High Density (Units) 41.79 918 4%
Residential Medium High Density (Units) 28.27 479 2%
Total 1,167.92 11,593,208.06 1,397
Item 12.a
Source: Northeast Growth Area Alternatives Evaluation Memo, PlaceWorks 2026.

Alternative C
Alternative C, while still maintaining an industrial focus, includes a more substantial amount of residential land uses (see Figure 4). This alternative has a total of 59 parcels and includes a combination of Business and Industrial Parks. The Industrial Park lands, which would include uses such as logistics and warehousing, are given preferential frontage to the I-80 freeway, and the Business Parks would be located behind. The residential areas in this alternative include medium-density housing at the northern edge of the Study Area, adjacent to the residential uses in the County, in addition to high, medium-high, and medium-density housing adjacent to the Locke Paddon community. The new housing developments would be separated from Locke Paddon by an open space buffer. The residential lands would provide a more gradual transition from the existing residential areas near the Study Area to the new employment areas.

A Community Park is included at the eastern edge of the Study Area along Lewis Road. This alternative shows four additional Neighborhood Parks, one located north of I-80 adjacent to residential uses, one located south of the PG&E gas line easement along Kilkenny Road, one located in the southeast along the south side of Gibson Canyon Creek, and one centrally located in the southwest among the residential uses there. A small amount of Highway Commercial area is located on both sides of I-80 at the Weber Road and Midway Road interchanges.

Figure 4 - Alternative C Land Use Diagram
Source: Northeast Growth Area Alternatives Evaluation Memo, PlaceWorks 2026.

Item 12.a
A summary of the potential buildout per land use types proposed under Alternative C is shown in Table 3 below.

Table 3 - Alternative C Buildout Summary
Source: Northeast Growth Area Alternatives Evaluation Memo, PlaceWorks 2026.

B. Transportation Assessment
The transportation analysis utilized a regional travel demand model and intersection-level operation modeling tools to evaluate future traffic conditions under each land use alternative.

Traffic operations were quantified through the determination of Level of Service (LOS). Level of Service is a qualitative measure of traffic operating conditions, whereby a letter grade "A" through "F" is assigned to an intersection, or roadway segment, representing progressively worsening traffic conditions. LOS "A" represents free-flow operating conditions and LOS "F" represents overcapacity conditions.

The Level of Service (LOS) was modeled and analyzed for the 18 intersections within the Study Area (see Table 4). Generally, a greater mix of residential and commercial land uses leads to fewer traffic impacts. Alternative A is primarily oriented toward Industrial and Business Park land uses with Highway Commercial land uses centered around the I-80 and Meridian Road interchange and the I-80 and Midway Road interchange. Results indicate that all intersections under Alternative A are projected to fail in one or both peak hours, except for the intersections at Lewis Road and Weber Road, and I-80 Westbound Ramps and Oday Road. This means 16 of the 18 intersections would be considered to have unacceptable conditions.

Alternative B is primarily oriented toward Industrial and Business Park land uses with some Highway Commercial and residential uses. A connection at Orange Drive is proposed to support the development of the Orange Drive Extension per the City of Vacaville General Plan. Alternative B is the only alternative which incorporates the full alignment of the Orange Drive Extension.

Results indicate that all intersections under Alternative B are projected to fail in one or both peak hours, except for the intersections of Leisure Town Road and I-80 Eastbound Off-Ramp/ Driveway; Lewis Road and Weber Road; and the I-80 Westbound Ramps and Oday Road. This means 15 of the 18 intersections were considered to have unacceptable conditions.

Alternative C has the greatest mixture of uses, while still being oriented toward Industrial and Business Park land uses. The proposed roadway network combines elements from the more conventional grid layout of Alternative A with some of the less conventional elements of the Alternative B roadway network. A connection at Orange Drive is proposed to support the development of the Orange Drive Extension. Based on the analysis was conducted for intersection delays and LOS results by peak hour, all intersections under Alternative C are projected to fail in one or both peak hours, except for the intersections of Leisure Town Rd & I-80 WB Ramps; Leisure Town Rd & I-80 EB Off-Ramp/ Driveway; Lewis Road and Weber Road; and Item 12.a
the I-80 Westbound Ramps and Oday Road. This means 14 of the 18 intersections were considered to have unacceptable conditions.

To improve unacceptable LOS conditions, accommodate projected traffic conditions, and maintain acceptable operations, a series of improvements and mitigation measures were developed and identified in the Transportation Study (see Attachment 2) and summarized in the Alternatives Evaluation Report (see Attachment 1). Suggested improvements range from extension of Orange Drive, road widening, roundabouts, improved signal timing, and added turning lanes. With implementation of the proposed measures, all the intersections are projected to operate within acceptable LOS. Of the three proposed land use alternatives, Alternative C appears to require the fewest operational mitigation measures likely due to the more mixed land use pattern which can promote more internal trip capture and distribute traffic more evenly across the roadway network.

Item 12.a
Table 4. Transportation Comparison
No Build
Conditions
Buildout:

Alternative A
Buildout:

Alternative B
Buildout:

Alternative C
Transportation:

Intersection
Operations
1 1.Leisure Town Rd &
Orange Rd

2. Leisure Town Rd
& I-80 WB Ramps

3. Leisure Town Rd
& I-80 EB Off-Ramp/
Driveway

4. Willow Rd &
Walnut Rd

5. Orange Dr &
Walnut Rd

6. Lewis Rd & Weber
Rd

7. Byrnes Rd &
Weber Rd

8. Meridian Rd & I-80
EB Ramps/ Weber
Rd

9. Meridian Rd & I-80
WB Ramps

10. Meridian Rd &
Midway Rd

11. Leisure Town Rd
& Midway Rd

12. I-505 NB Ramps
& Midway Rd

13. I-505 SB Ramps
& Midway Rd

14. I-80 WB Ramps
& Oday Rd

15. Oday Rd &
Midway Rd

16. Gentile Ln &
Midway Rd

17. I-80 EB Ramps &
Midway Rd

18. Lewis Rd &
Midway Rd
Source: Northeast Growth Area Alternatives Evaluation Memo, PlaceWorks 2026. Notes: 1. These indicate operations conditions as acceptable or unacceptable without any mitigation measures implemented. 2. =Improvements Needed to Maintain Acceptable Conditions =Acceptable Conditions Item 12.a
C. Infrastructure Assessment
Water connections and alignment recommendations are consistent across the three alternatives, as the existing water distribution system will need to be extended through the entire proposed roadway network (see Attachment 3). As all three alternatives are predominantly occupied by Industrial Park or Business Park land uses, the required water lines will likely be similar.

Alternative B includes slightly more roadways, which will induce a slightly higher cost to build out the water system.

Sewer connections and alignment recommendations also do not vary much across the alternatives. When considering gravity sewer alignments, it is most efficient to have the slope of the pipe follow the slope of the ground to manage pipe depths. For the Northeast Growth Area, that would mean directing flows towards Byrnes or Lewis Road, and then south to the wastewater treatment plant. Any such sewer alignment will need to be coordinated with Solano County as these would go through unincorporated County lands and will likely require an easement agreement between the City and County to allow this type of infrastructure alignment. Additionally, sewer infrastructure is being studied as part of the East of Leisure Town Specific Plan process for that growth area, which the City will ensure are coordinated with the sewer connections needed for the Northeast Growth Area with the sewer Plan.

An alternative option would be to direct sewer connections to the Leisure Town Road corridor.

However, this connection would be on the high elevation side of the Study Area and would require a series of lift stations. Lift stations are quite costly to both build and operate, and as a result the City may elect to conduct a preliminary sewer conveyance design effort as part of the future specific plan process to explore long force mains as a method of reducing the number of required lift stations. A full life-cycle cost analysis should be prepared, because long force mains and fewer lift stations will likely result in lower upfront capital costs but higher long-term operation and maintenance costs. In any circumstances, the sewer crossing of I-80 would only occur at one point.

D. Fiscal Impact Assessment
Development of the Northeast Growth Area, as envisioned in the three alternatives, would have the potential to generate revenue for the City. At buildout, all three Alternatives would be expected to create a net fiscal surplus of the City’s General Fund. The specific fiscal impacts of the land use scenarios will vary based on several factors. Residential and commercial land uses are more favorable than industrial uses as they provide greater property tax and sales tax revenues, respectively, to the City. At the same time, residential uses result in increased operations and maintenance (O&M) costs due to services such as fire, police, and infrastructure maintenance. It is anticipated that Alternative C would have the highest O&M costs due to the greater amount of residential development compared to Alternatives A and B.

Based on these factors and the distribution of land uses proposed in each alternative, it is estimated that Alternative C would create the greatest net fiscal surplus, and Alternative B would generate the least net fiscal surplus. This is primarily correlated with the higher levels of residential Item 12.a
uses in Alternative C, which would bring in more property tax revenues, and the higher levels of highway commercial designated land in both Alternatives A and C in comparison to Alternative B.

However, Alternative A would provide opportunities for a greater concentration of job generating uses in the Study Area which could help improve the jobs to housing balance in the City.

E. Community Engagement
Staff and PlaceWorks have utilized a variety of methods for community engagement to reach members of the community and gather feedback, including mailings, 10 stakeholder interviews, meetings with County representatives, and a community workshop held on July 30, 2025.

Approximately 20 community members attended the community workshop. While a range of opinions were heard within and across the two groups, there was some consensus around certain key topics. Notably, there was greater support for keeping the land agricultural, helping to maintain the character of the area. However, in both groups, there were some community members who expressed interest in new industrial development in the area provided that new businesses would be required to incorporate local amenities/improvements to the area. There was also consensus about the need for a grocery store and green space buffers if new development were to occur.

On June 16, 2026, the Planning Commission received the informational presentation on the Northeast Growth Area Planning Study and provided feedback on the three alternatives.

Commissioner comments are listed below:
• Support for Alternative A and Alternative B which have the highest percentage of land uses that could support future job growth in the Study Area. • Requested an option for an accelerated timeline to prepare a future Specific Plan for the Northeast Growth Area.
• Explore opportunities to build a sports complex in the Study Area. • Combine proposed open space and park land uses to create a larger community park. • Include a policy to prohibit development of future data centers in the Study Area. • Support continued coordination with the County on future efforts for the Northeast Growth Area.

Members of the public also commented on the Planning Study. They expressed concern about future development in the Study Area and urged the Planning Commission to retain the agricultural character of the Study Area.

F. Next Steps
Staff will work with PlaceWorks to finalize the Planning Study to incorporate feedback received from the public, Planning Commission, and City Council.

Environmental Impact:

This action is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15306, because the Northeast Growth Area Planning Study Item 12.a
consists of basic data collection, research, and resource evaluation activities which do not result in a serious or major disturbance to an environmental resource, nor does it commit the City to a specific course of action.

Fiscal Impact:

Amount Requested: There are no funds requested for this item.

Funding Source: Special Revenue Fund East of Leisure Town Growth-(2923) Budget Distribution: The budget for any expenses related to this item for the preparation of the Planning Study is included in the Community & Economic Development annual operating budget.

Strategic Plan Goal/Initiative:

Goal 2: Strengthen the Local Economy
Levine Act:

No
Attachments:

Attachment 1 – Northeast Growth Area Planning Study Alternatives Evaluation Report Attachment 2 – Alternatives Technical Evaluation: Transportation Attachment 3 – Alternatives Technical Evaluation: Infrastructure Item 12.a
Vacaville Northeast Growth Area Planning Study
Alternatives
Evaluation Report
July 9, 2026
Prepared by:

Item 12.a
Northeast Growth Area Planning Study Alternatives Evaluation Report 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary ........................................3 Purpose..........................................................4 Background Information..................................5 Transportation Technical Evaluations............................ 8 Infrastructure Technical Evaluations........................... 13 Alternatives Comparison...............................14 Land Use and Circulation Network ............................. 14 Transportation Assessment........................................ 18 Infrastructure Demands............................................. 21 Fiscal Impact Analysis ............................................... 23

INDIVIDUAL ALTERNATIVES EVALUATIONS
Alternative A .................................................24 Transportation Assessment........................................28 Projected Infrastructure Demands..............................32 Alternative B .................................................33 Transportation Assessment........................................36 Projected Infrastructure Demands..............................41 Alternative C.................................................42 Transportation Assessment........................................45 Projected Infrastructure Demands..............................49 Item 12.a
Northeast Growth Area Planning Study Alternatives Evaluation Report 3 Executive Summary
As part of the Northeast Growth Area Planning Study, this Alternatives Evaluation Report analyzes and compares three different land use alternatives created for the 1,400-acre Northeast Growth Area (Study Area). The three alternatives, while all maintaining a focus on employment-generating
industrial uses, vary in land use distribution, layout, and internal circulation.

Alternative A accommodates: 11,815,994 square feet of
industrial development; 993,574 square feet of highway
commercial development; 61 acres of parks; 156 acres of accessible open space, including buffers and easements; and 0 residential units. The roadway network follows an overall regular, grid-like system.

Alternative B accommodates: 11,094,630 square feet of
industrial development; 498,577 square feet of highway
commercial development; 55 acres of parks; 152 acres of accessible open space, including buffers and easements; and 1,397 total residential units. The roadway network has a more curvilinear roadway system.

Alternative C accommodates: 8,507,313 square feet of
industrial development; 989,822 square feet of highway
commercial development; 57 acres of parks; 174 acres of accessible open space, including buffers and easements; and 3,145 total residential units.

The transportation evaluation analyzed 18 intersection
operations near the Study Area and determined that
Alternative A would result in the greatest number of
intersections, 16 of the 18, that would need improvements to maintain acceptable conditions. The only acceptable
intersections were Lewis Road and Weber Road, and the I-80 Westbound Ramps and Oday Road. Alternative B has one
additional acceptable intersection at Leisure Town Road and the I-80 Eastbound Off Ramp/Driveway. Alternative C also has one more additional acceptable intersection at Leisure Town Road and the I-80 Westbound Ramps.

The infrastructure evaluation found that Alternative C has the highest water and wastewater demand of the three
alternatives, and Alternative A has the lowest. All three alternatives would require similar amounts of water treatment area and therefore have similar order of magnitude costs.

A high-level fiscal assessment found that Alternative C would be the biggest source of General Fund revenue for the City, but would also have the highest operations and maintenance
costs.

Item 12.a
Northeast Growth Area Planning Study Alternatives Evaluation Report 4 Purpose
The City is conducting the Vacaville Northeast Growth Area Planning Study to analyze potential land use and development scenarios for the Northeast Growth Area (Study Area), with the goal of supporting employment-generating uses in the area.

Three land use and circulation alternatives were developed and evaluated for infrastructure and transportation needs, as well as fiscal impact considerations for the City.

The purpose of this Alternatives Evaluation Report is to summarize these three draft alternatives and consolidate the findings from the supporting technical evaluations. This information is intended to guide the selection of the preferred development scenario.

The Background section provides an overview of the
Northeast Growth Area Planning Study and describes the
methodology behind the technical evaluations.

The Alternatives Comparison section compares the land use and technical findings between all three alternatives.

Following the comparisons, a section is dedicated to each of the three alternatives that provides a more detailed summary of the land use and technical findings.

Item 12.a
Northeast Growth Area Planning Study Alternatives Evaluation Report 5 Background Information
The Study Area encompasses approximately 1,400 acres of land within the City of Vacaville’s Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) and Sphere of Influence (SOI), of which 789 acres are unincorporated Solano County land. The land was identified in the City’s 2015 General Plan as a future growth area for the city that would prioritize employment-generating uses. The planning study highlights infrastructure and transportation needs to support such growth, as well as sets the foundation for a future specific plan process.

To adequately prepare for the future development of this area, the project team developed three land use and circulation scenarios for the area, each providing a distinct option of land use makeup and distribution within the area. These scenarios were subsequently evaluated to understand the potential transportation, infrastructure, and economic impacts on both the local area and the city.

A detailed description of each alternative is provided in this evaluation report with a summary of benefits, needs, and potential costs. Certain features are common across all alternatives, which are listed to the right.

Features Common Between All Alternatives
◼ A mix of Business Park and Industrial Park
designations. The Business Park designation
represents high-end industrial uses and the Industrial
Park designation represents lower-end industrial uses,
which could include logistics and warehousing.
◼ Highway Commercial uses adjacent to I-80
interchanges.
◼ An Open Space buffer on the south edge of the Study
Area to facilitate the transition of uses and minimize
impacts on adjacent properties.
◼ Neighborhood and community parks consistent with
General Plan and Parks and Recreation Master Plan
policies and standards.
◼ Accessible open space along existing creeks.
◼ Primary vehicular connection to the southwest end of
the Study Area will be from Orange Drive.
◼ A PG&E gas line crosses the growth area between
Weber and Kilkenny Roads.
◼ One proposed battery storage project within the Study Area at Kilkenny Road and I-80 and one proposed
outside and adjacent the south boundary of the Study
Area at the southwest corner of Kilkenny and Bynes
Roads (by others). This project was proposed through
the California Energy Commission’s Opt-In
Item 12.a
Northeast Growth Area Planning Study Alternatives Evaluation Report 6 Certification Program1, which allows developers to
propose such projects to the State agency instead of
the City of Vacaville or Northeast Growth Area Planning Study Boundary
1 https://www.energy.ca.gov/programs-and-topics/topics/powerplants/opt-certification-program Item 12.a
Northeast Growth Area Planning Study Alternatives Evaluation Report 7 Northeast Growth Area Planning Study Boundary
Item 12.a
Northeast Growth Area Planning Study Alternatives Evaluation Report 8 Transportation Technical Evaluations
GHD evaluated the alternatives for potential transportation impacts and improvements evaluation and evaluated 18
nearby intersections based on their proximity and expected impact from the envisioned land uses. These were assessed based on weekday AM and PM peak hour conditions. These
intersections were:

1. Leisure Town Road/Orange Drive

2. Leisure Town Road/I-80 Westbound Ramps

3. Leisure Town Road/I-80 EB Off-Ramp/76 & McDonalds
DW

4. Willow Road/Walnut Road

5. Orange Drive/Walnut Road

6. Lewis Road/Weber Road

7. Byrnes Road/Weber Road

8. Meridian Road/I-80 EB Ramps/Weber Road

9. Meridian Road/I-80 Westbound Ramps

10. Meridian Road/Midway Road

11. Leisure Town Road/Midway Road

12. I-505 Northbound Ramps/Midway Road

13. I-505 Southbound Ramps/Midway Road

14. I-80 Westbound Ramps/Midway Road

15. Oday Road/Midway Road

16. Gentile Lane/Midway Road

17. I-80 Eastbound Ramps/Midway Road

18. Lewis Road/Midway Road
To evaluate for future traffic
conditions, the analysis utilized
the City of Vacaville’s travel
demand model in Bentley CUBE, a
travel demand modeling tool. This
model accounted for regional
background growth, trip generation
associated with new development,
trip distribution patterns, and
network assignment across the
regional roadway system, in
addition to the internal trip capture within the Study Area and redistribution of non-project trips. The evaluation included a future conditions analysis by estimating traffic conditions in the 2050 “Cumulative No Build” scenario, which is a
hypothetical scenario that assumes no development nor
transportation improvements (including any TIF Program
improvements, described later in this section) in the Study Area in order establish future baseline conditions for traffic analysis of the Study Area, shown in Table 2. The
transportation evaluation then evaluated the traffic conditions that would result from the buildout of each alternative, which are called the “Cumulative Plus Project” scenarios, by
comparing against the Cumulative No Build conditions. These were all calculated for the year 2050. In this report, the Cumulative No Build scenario is called the “No Build”
Level of Service (LOS):
a qualitative measure
of traffic operating
conditions assigned
from “A” (free flowing
conditions) to “F” (overcapacity conditions).

Item 12.a
Northeast Growth Area Planning Study Alternatives Evaluation Report 9 scenario, and the “Cumulative Plus Project” scenarios are called the “Buildout” scenarios.

Operations for signalized, all-way stop-controlled, and twoway stop-controlled intersections were evaluated for the buildout of each alternative, consistent with the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 7th Edition) methodologies, using the modeling tool Synchro 12. This modeling calculated control delay, volume to capacity ratios, and Level of Service (LOS) for each intersection.

Based on the traffic evaluation findings, potential traffic mitigation strategies and infrastructure enhancements were also identified. Some of the proposed intersection and
roadways improvements suggested for each alternative’s
buildout conditions incorporated improvements from the
2025 Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) Program that were
identified as part of the 2025 City of Vacaville Nexus Study.

Four intersections and two roadways identified in the study for TIF Program improvements within the Northeast Growth Area, which are shown in Table 3. The Cumulative No Build scenario did not include TIF Program improvements in order to hold roadway geometry constant for analyzing the traffic conditions at full buildout of each alternative.

Item 12.a
Northeast Growth Area Planning Study Alternatives Evaluation Report 10 Figure 1: Northeast Growth Area Study Intersections
Item 12.a
Northeast Growth Area Planning Study Alternatives Evaluation Report 11 Table 1: LOS Categories
LOS Type of
Flow Delay
A Stable Flow Very slight delay. Progression is very favorable, with most vehicles arriving during the green
phase not stopping at all.

B Stable Flow Good progression and/or short cycle lengths.

More vehicles stop than for LOS A, causing higher
levels of average delay.

C Stable Flow Higher delays resulting from fair progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle
failures may begin to appear at this level. The
number of vehicles stopping is significant,
although many still pass through the intersection
without stopping.

D Approaching
Unstable Flow
The influence of congestion becomes more
noticeable. Longer delays may result from some
combination of unfavorable progression, long
cycle lengths, or high volume-to-capacity ratios.

Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of
vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle
failures are noticeable.

E Unstable Flow Generally considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. Indicative of poor progression,
long cycle lengths, and high volume-to-capacity
ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent
occurrences.

F Forced Flow Generally considered to be unacceptable to most drivers. Often occurs with over saturation. May
also occur at high volume-to-capacity ratios.

There are many individual cycle failures. Poor
progression and long cycle lengths may also be
major contributing factors.

Table 2: 2050 No Build LOS Operations
# Intersection Control
Type1
Alternative A
LOS2
AM PM
1 Leisure Town Rd & Orange Rd Signal F D
2 Leisure Town Rd & I-80 WB
Ramps
Signal C B
3 Leisure Town Rd & I-80 EB OffRamp/ DrivewaySignal C B 4 Willow Rd & Walnut Rd TWSC B A
5 Orange Dr & Walnut Rd TWSC B B
6 Lewis Rd & Weber Rd AWSC A A
7 Byrnes Rd & Weber Rd TWSC D D
8 Meridian Rd & I-80 EB
Ramps/ Weber Rd

TWSC C E
9 Meridian Rd & I-80 WB Ramps TWSC A B
10 Meridian Rd & Midway Rd AWSC B C
11 Leisure Town Rd & Midway Rd AWSC B C
12 I-505 NB Ramps & Midway Rd TWSC C F
13 I-505 SB Ramps & Midway Rd TWSC D F
14 I-80 WB Ramps & Oday Rd TWSC A A
15 Oday Rd & Midway Rd TWSC B B
16 Gentile Ln & Midway Rd TWSC B B
17 I-80 EB Ramps & Midway Rd TWSC C D
18 Lewis Rd & Midway Rd TWSC C D
Notes:

1. AWSC = All Way Stop Control; TWSC = Two Way Stop Control

2. LOS = Delay based on worst minor street approach for TWSC intersections, average of all approaches for AWSC, Signal

3. Bold = Unacceptable Conditions
Item 12.a
Northeast Growth Area Planning Study Alternatives Evaluation Report 12 Table 3: 2022 TIF Program Recommendations
Intersection/Roadway TIF Improvement
I‐505 SB Ramps and Midway Road • Install Roundabout.

I‐505 NB Ramps and Midway Road • Install Roundabout.

Leisure Town Road and I‐80 EB Off
Ramp/Driveway
• Modify EB Approach (I-80 EB Off Ramp) - 2 EBL, 1 EBT & 1 EBR. • Remove Split Phase (E-W).

Leisure Town Road and Orange Drive • Modify NB Approach (Leisure Town) - 1 NBL, 3 NBT. • Modify SB Approach (Leisure Town) - 1 SBL, 3 SBT & 1 SBR.

Leisure Town Road 4-lane widening
between Elmira Road and Orange Drive
• Four 12-ft lanes.
• Two 8-ft shoulders (includes 2-ft curb and gutter).
• 16-ft raised median with landscaping and various locations of 4-ft raised median with 11-ft / 12- ft left turn pockets.
• 10-ft detached sidewalk/pathway.
• Intersection Improvements including traffic signal modification at Elmira Road and Sequoia Drive intersections and new traffic signals installation at Hawkins Rd/Ulatis Drive and Stonegate Drive intersections.
• Improvements exclude developer frontage such as 12-ft travel lane, 8-ft shoulder including 2-ft curb and gutter, and 10-ft detached sidewalk/pathway with 13-ft to 24-ft landscape area.

Leisure Town Road 6-lane widening
between Elmira Road and Orange Drive
• Six 11-ft lanes.
• Two 5-ft bike lanes (including 2-ft curb and gutter). • 11-ft left turn pockets at various intersections.
• 10-ft sidewalk/pathway.
• Improvements do not include any traffic signal modification at all intersections within this Study Area.

Midway Road Widening between west City
Limit and O’Day Road/I-80WB Off Ramp
• Four 12-ft lanes;
• Two 5-ft bike lanes (including 2-ft curb and gutter). • 12-ft two-way left turn lane.
• 10-ft sidewalk/pathway.
• Drainage channel relocation.
• Intersection improvements at I-505 NB and SB ramps are not part of the project. • Improvements exclude developer frontage such as 12-ft travel lane, 5-ft bike lane including 2-ft curb and gutter, and 10-ft detached sidewalk/pathway.

Item 12.a
Northeast Growth Area Planning Study Alternatives Evaluation Report 13 Infrastructure Technical Evaluations
CBG evaluated the water, wastewater, and storm drainage demands for each of the land use alternatives to aid in the selection process.

Estimates for water usage were determined using the 2023 Water Master Plan (WMP), which provides water use factors based on the type of
land use. While the
WMP does not include a
factor for Business Park
uses, the City’s Utilities
Department staff
recommended the
industrial water factor of
600 gallons per day per acre be
applied for calculations. It was
assumed that 10% of roadways
are irrigated landscape. Three
primary metrics are used for
measuring water demand:

Average day demand (ADD),
maximum day demand
(MDD), and peak hour
demand (PHD). Demands are
reported in millions of gallons
per day (MGD).

For wastewater and sewer generation, average dry weather flow (Qa) was calculated using sewer generation flow factors identified in the 2018 Wastewater Facilities Master Plan (WFMP). Like the WMP, the Business Park land use
designation was not listed in the WFMP. A generation factor of 2,000 gallons per day per acre, equal to that of industrial uses, was used for the analysis. Qa is reported in millions of gallons per day (MGD). A preliminary sewer routing plan will be developed once a preferred land use is selected.

For storm drainage, all new developments in the city are required to provide post-construction water quality treatment and runoff control measures. This evaluation calculated the water quality areas using the “four-percent rule”, which assumes four percent of the gross area is reserved for water quality treatment with a 90% reduction being applied to parks and open space. For cost estimates, a value of $25 per square foot of treatment is used to account for basin soil, the underdrain system, overflow structures, and compatible
landscaping. Additionally, six detention basins totaling 66 acres are planned within the Study Area per the City’s 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan. These basins are for flood
control purposes only, and do not provide water quality treatment. The location and size of the basins do not vary across the alternatives and have been accounted for.

Average Day
Demand (ADD):
what the water
system must
handle most of the
time.

Maximum Day
Demand (MDD):
ensures the system
can supply enough
water during the
highest demand.

Peak Hour Demand
(PHD):
represents what the
system must handle
for short bursts of
intense demand.

Item 12.a
Northeast Growth Area Planning Study Alternatives Evaluation Report 14 Alternatives Comparison
Land Use and Circulation Network
While all three alternatives focus on industrial uses, with most of the land dedicated to Business and Industrial Parks, there are key differences in the land use distributions and
circulation networks of each.

Alternative A generally has larger parcel sizes, approximately 20 to 40 acres, which is intended to match the market
demand for high-end industrial lands while resulting in a total of 42 parcels, the fewest among the alternatives. Business Park parcels in Alternative B are 30 to 40 percent smaller than Alternative A on average, resulting in 66 total parcels, the greatest number of parcels among the alternatives. Alternative C includes a more diverse mix of larger and smaller parcels, resulting in total of 59 parcels.

One of the main differences between the alternatives is the placement of the land uses. Alternative A has a combination of Business and Industrial Parks fronting the I-80, with Industrial Park land being more heavily concentrated around the I-80 interchanges. Alternative B gives Business Parks preferential frontage along the I-80 freeway and places Industrial Park lands behind. In Alternative C, on the other hand, Industrial Park lands are given preferential frontage to the I-80 and Business Park lands are placed behind.

Of the three alternatives, Alternative A has the most land dedicated to industrial uses and no residential land uses.

Comparatively, Alternative C has the highest distribution of residential uses, with 217 acres of residential land on the northern and southern edges of the Study Area. This
alternative also incorporates the widest range of housing densities, including medium-, medium-high, and high-density residential. Alternative B is in between the two,
accommodating 70 acres of medium-high and high-density
residential land at the southern edge of the Study Area.

All three alternatives have relatively small amounts of Highway Commercial land. Alternatives A and C both have approximately 76 acres of land dedicated to this use, while Alternative B has only 39 acres. In all alternatives, this land use is concentrated most heavily around the Weber Road / I80 interchange, with smaller amounts near the Midway Road / I-80 interchange.

In terms of roadway systems, Alternative A has the most regular, grid-like roadway layout. Alternative B has more curvilinear streets and is the only alternative that incorporates the Orange Drive extension alignment as shown in the General Plan. Alternative C combines roadway characteristics from both Alternative A and B.

Item 12.a
Northeast Growth Area Planning Study Alternatives Evaluation Report 15 Figure 2: Alternative A Figure 3: Alternative B Figure 4: Alternative C Item 12.a
Northeast Growth Area Planning Study Alternatives Evaluation Report 16 Figure 5: Alternative A
Land Use Breakdown
Figure 6: Alternative B
Land Use Breakdown
Figure 7: Alternative C
Land Use Breakdown
26%
50%
6%
13%
5%
Industrial Park
Business Park
Highway Commercial
Accessible Open Space, Buffers, & Easements
Park
25%
48%
3%
13%
5%
4% 2%
Industrial Park
Business Park
Highway Commercial
Accessible Open Space, Buffers, & Easements
Park
Residential High Density
Residential Medium High Density
18%
37%
6%
15%
5%
5%
11%
3%
Industrial Park
Business Park
Highway Commercial
Accessible Open Space, Buffers, & Easements
Park
Residential High Density
Residential Medium Density
Residential Medium High Density
Item 12.a
Northeast Growth Area Planning Study Alternatives Evaluation Report 17 Figure 8: Buildout Comparison of Residential Units
Figure 9: Buildout Comparison of Nonresidential Square Footage 1,181
918
0 500
479
1,464
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500
Alternative C
Alternative B
Alternative A
Units
Residential High Density Residential Medium High Density Residential Medium Density 2,787,910
3,774,145
3,985,822
5,668,315
7,320,485
7,737,670
989,822
498,577
993,574
0 2,000,000 4,000,000 6,000,000 8,000,000 10,000,000 12,000,000 14,000,000 Alternative C
Alternative B
Alternative A
Square Feet
Industrial Park Business Park Highway Commercial
Item 12.a
Northeast Growth Area Planning Study Alternatives Evaluation Report 18 Transportation Assessment
GHD modeled and analyzed the Level of Service (LOS) for the 18 intersections identified previously. The 2050 NoBuild scenario conditions found that four of the 18 intersections studied would have unacceptable conditions:

Leisure Town Road and Orange Drive; Meridian Road and I80 Eastbound Ramps/Weber Road; I-505 Northbound Ramps and Midway Road; and I-505 Southbound Ramps
and Midway Road.

Generally, a greater mix of residential and commercial land uses leads to fewer traffic impacts. Without any mitigation measures put in place, Alternative A has the greatest
number of unacceptable conditions, with only two studied intersections with acceptable conditions: Lewis Road and Weber Road, and the I-80 Westbound Ramps and Oday
Road. Alternative B has similar results, with one additional acceptable intersection at Leisure Town Road and the I-80 Eastbound Off Ramp/Driveway. Alternative C also has one additional acceptable intersection at Leisure Town Road and the I-80 Westbound Ramps.

Ultimately, all the alternatives were found to have very few intersections with acceptable operations, with 16, 15, and 14 intersections having unacceptable conditions,
respectively.

For all three alternatives, all intersections would reach acceptable levels if the suggested improvements and
mitigation measures were implemented, including the TIF Program intersections identified in Table 4. Please note that for each Alternative, the suggested TIF improvements may have been modified from the TIF projects to be more or less extensive.

Orange Drive Extension
The extension of Orange Drive into the Study Area as
envisioned in the General Plan offers many potential
transportation and network efficiency benefits, functioning as a north-south arterial running parallel to I-80, and potentially reducing internal, shorter-distance trips that would otherwise enter and exit I-80. This could help reduce pressure at certain ramp terminals and strengthen overall network connectivity and resilience. Alternative B is the only alternative which incorporates the full alignment as identified in the General Plan. Alternatives A and C connect Orange Drive at the same location but include a different alignment within the Study Area to integrate with a more gridded circulation system in these two scenarios.

Cost Implications
Freeway ramp or interchange improvements associated
with the Study Area, particularly at the I-80 and I-505 interchanges, would require coordination with Caltrans, Item 12.a
Northeast Growth Area Planning Study Alternatives Evaluation Report 19 and potentially other State and Federal agencies for review.

The uncertainty regarding level of procedural requirements makes it difficult to reliably estimate implementation costs.

However, Alternative C appears to require the fewest
operational mitigation measures relative to the other two scenarios, attributable to its more mixed land use pattern which can promote more internal trip capture and
distribute traffic more evenly across the network.

Item 12.a
Northeast Growth Area Planning Study Alternatives Evaluation Report 20 Table 4: Alternatives Transportation Comparison
No Build
Conditions
Buildout:

Alternative A
Buildout:

Alternative B
Buildout:

Alternative C
Transportation: Intersection Operations1

1.Leisure Town Rd & Orange Rd

2. Leisure Town Rd & I-80 WB Ramps

3. Leisure Town Rd & I-80 EB Off-Ramp/ Driveway

4. Willow Rd & Walnut Rd

5. Orange Dr & Walnut Rd

6. Lewis Rd & Weber Rd

7. Byrnes Rd & Weber Rd

8. Meridian Rd & I-80 EB Ramps/ Weber Rd

9. Meridian Rd & I-80 WB Ramps

10. Meridian Rd & Midway Rd

11. Leisure Town Rd & Midway Rd

12. I-505 NB Ramps & Midway Rd

13. I-505 SB Ramps & Midway Rd

14. I-80 WB Ramps & Oday Rd

15. Oday Rd & Midway Rd

16. Gentile Ln & Midway Rd

17. I-80 EB Ramps & Midway Rd

18. Lewis Rd & Midway Rd
Notes:

1. These indicate operations conditions as acceptable or unacceptable without any mitigation measures implemented.

2. =Improvements Needed to Maintain Acceptable Conditions =Acceptable Conditions Item 12.a
Northeast Growth Area Planning Study Alternatives Evaluation Report 21 Infrastructure Demands
Water
Alternative A has the lowest water demand of the three
alternatives for ADD, MDD, and PHD. Alternative C has the highest water demand of the three alternatives for all three metrics. Water demand for Alternative B is in the median.

Wastewater
Alternative A has the lowest average dry weather flow (Qa) at 2.20 MGD, and Alternative C has the highest at 2.44
MGD. Alternative B would yield a Qa of 2.23 MGD.

Stormwater Drainage
Water quality treatment areas and costs do not vary much between the three alternatives given similar amounts of developable areas and anticipated hardscapes. Alternative A would require a water quality treatment area 1.74 million square feet, inducing an order of magnitude cost of $43.6 million; Alternative B would require 1.70 million square feet with an order of magnitude cost of $43.6 million; and
Alternative C would require 1.68 million square feet with an order of magnitude cost of $42.0 million.

Connection & Alignment Recommendations
Water connections and alignment recommendations are
consistent across the three alternatives, as the existing water distribution system will need to be extended through the entire proposed roadway network. As all three
alternatives are predominantly occupied by Industrial Park or Business Park land uses, the required water lines will likely be similar. Alternative B includes slightly more roadways, which will induce a slightly higher cost to build out the water system.

Sewer connections and alignment recommendations also
do not vary much across the alternatives. When
considering gravity sewer alignments, it is most efficient to have the slope of the pipe follow the slope of the ground to manage pipe depths. For the Northeast Growth Area, that would mean directing flows towards Byrnes or Lewis Road, and then south to the wastewater treatment plant. Any
such sewer alignment will need to be coordinated with
Solano County as these would go through unincorporated
County lands and will likely require an easement
agreement between the City and County to allow this
infrastructure alignment. Additionally, sewer infrastructure is being studied as part of the East of Leisure Town Specific Plan process for that growth area, which the City will
ensure are coordinated with the sewer connections needed for the Northeast Growth Area with the sewer Plan. As
Byrnes Road/Lewis Road and Willow Road are not available options for sewer connections, flows will most likely need to be directed to the Leisure Town Road corridor as the next best alternative. However, this connection would be on the high elevation side of the Study Area and would require a Item 12.a
Northeast Growth Area Planning Study Alternatives Evaluation Report 22 series of lift stations. Lift stations are quite costly to both build and operate, and as a result the City may elect to conduct a preliminary sewer conveyance design effort as part of the future specific plan process to explore long force mains as a method of reducing the number of required lift stations. A full life-cycle cost analysis should be prepared, as long force mains and fewer lift stations will likely result in lower upfront capital costs but higher long-term
operation and maintenance costs. In any circumstances,
the sewer crossing of I-80 would only occur at one point.

Table 5: Alternatives Infrastructure Comparison
Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C
Projected Water Demand
Average Day Demand (MGD)
Maximum Day Demand (MGD)
Peak Hour Demand (MGD)
Projected Wastewater Demand
Average Dry Weather Flow (Oa)
Water Quality Treatment Area
Mean water quality treatment area (sq ft)
Order of magnitude cost
= 1 MGD = ¾ MGD = ½ MGD = ¼ MGD
=$10 million $2.5 million
Item 12.a
Northeast Growth Area Planning Study Alternatives Evaluation Report 23 Fiscal Impact Analysis
Potential Revenue
Development of the Northeast Growth Area, as proposed in the three alternatives described in this report, would have the potential to generate revenue for the City. At buildout, all three Alternatives would be expected to create a net fiscal surplus of the City’s General Fund.

The specific fiscal impacts of the land use scenarios will vary based on several factors. Residential and commercial land uses are more favorable than industrial uses as they provide greater property tax and sales tax revenues,
respectively, to the City. At the same time, residential uses result in increased operations and maintenance (O&M)
costs due to services such as police and infrastructure maintenance.

Based on these factors and the distribution of land uses proposed in each alternative, it is estimated that Alternative C would create the greatest net fiscal surplus, and
Alternative B would generate the least net fiscal surplus.

This is primarily correlated with the higher levels of
residential uses in Alternative C, which would bring in more property tax revenues, and the higher levels of highway commercial designated land in both Alternatives A and C in comparison to Alternative B.

Project-Specific O&M Costs
There are also project-specific operation and management (O&M) costs associated services and facilities that would need to be provided. These costs are assumed to include police services and the maintenance of public roads, street lighting, parks, open space, landscaping, and detention basins, following annexation. It is anticipated that
Alternative C would have the highest O&M costs due to the greater amount of residential development compared to
Alternatives A and B.

Item 12.a
Northeast Growth Area Planning Study Alternatives Evaluation Report 24

INDIVIDUAL ALTERNATIVES

EVALUATIONS
The following sections provide a more detailed explanation of each of the three alternatives. While the previous section compared the three alternatives, highlighting their
differences, this section focuses on each individually. This includes a more focused summary of each alternative’s
land use distribution, as well as the individual findings from the infrastructure and transportation technical studies.

Item 12.a
Northeast Growth Area Planning Study Alternatives Evaluation Report 25 Alternative A
The first of the three alternatives, Alternative A, is the most employment-oriented option, with no residential
development planned. The area would consist of 42 total parcels of varying sizes with a highly regular, grid-like circulation network. Of the employment-oriented land, the majority is dedicated to Business Parks, which is intended to accommodate technology and high-end industrial uses.

In this land use alternative, Business Parks are given priority frontage to I-80 for greater visibility.

The second most dominant land use would be Industrial
Park land, which allows for some commercial services as well as warehousing and logistics. This land use is
concentrated near the I-80 interchanges and adjacent
areas to maximize accessibility.

The industrial parcels shown on the land use map have
been sized appropriately to meet the current market
demand for high-end industrial lands. This generally ranges from 20 to 40 acres. While existing parcel lines were
followed as closely as possible, some small parcels were consolidated, and some large parcels were subdivided to create parcels of appropriate size.

This alternative also includes a Community Park at the
southwestern corner of the Study Area, near the Vaca
Valley Parkway I-80 interchange, creating a buffer between the nearby residential uses and the planned employmentoriented uses in the Study Area. This alternative also shows three Neighborhood Parks, one located north of I-80, one northeast by the Midway Road interchange, and one south of I-80 centrally located among the industrial uses.

Full buildout numbers identifying acreages for each land use can be found below in Table 5.

Item 12.a
Northeast Growth Area Planning Study Alternatives Evaluation Report 26 Figure 10: Alternative A Land Use Diagram
Item 12.a
Northeast Growth Area Planning Study Alternatives Evaluation Report 27 Table 6: Alternative A Buildout
Land Use Sum of Lot Size
(acres)
Sum of
Nonresidential (sf)
Count of
Residential (units)
% of Land Use by
Total Acreage
Business Park 594.47 7,737,669.65 - 50%
Industrial Park 306.23 3,985,821.78 - 26%
Highway Commercial 76.34 993,574.31 - 6%
Accessible Open Space, Buffers, & Easements 156.39 - - 13% Park 60.89 92,502.49- - 5%
Total Developed Acreage (acres) 1,194.32 12,809,568.23
Estimated Area for Roadways (acres) 205.68
Land Use Efficiency (%) 85.3%
Figure 11: Alternative A Land Use Distribution
54 76
156
306
594
Park
Highway Commercial
Accessible Open Space, Buffers, & Easements
Industrial Park
Business Park
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Acres
Item 12.a
Northeast Growth Area Planning Study Alternatives Evaluation Report 28 Transportation Assessment
As mentioned previously, Alternative A is primarily oriented toward Industrial and Business Park land uses with
Highway Commercial land uses centered around the I-80
and Meridian Road interchange and the I-80 and Midway
Road interchange. The proposed roadway network follows a mostly conventional grid layout and provides a connection at Orange Drive near the I-80 and Leisure Town Road
interchange.

Based on the Alternative A buildout roadway network,
future traffic forecasts were developed using the City of Vacaville travel demand model. It accounted for internal trip captures within the plan area as well as the
redistribution of non-project trips. When the analysis was conducted for intersection delays and LOS results by peak hour, all intersections in Alternative A were projected to fail in one or both peak hours, except for the intersections of Lewis Road and Weber Road, and the I-80 Westbound
Ramps and Oday Road. This means 16 of the 18
intersections would be considered to have unacceptable
conditions, as shown in in Table 7.

To improve these intersections, accommodate projected
traffic conditions, and maintain acceptable operations, a series of improvements and mitigation measures are
suggested. With the proposed mitigation measures
implemented, all the intersections are projected to operate within acceptable LOS.

Active transportation networks, including pedestrian and bicycle networks, will be analyzed and defined in future planning phases. In the Solano County Active
Transportation Plan, a Class I multi-use (pedestrian and bicycle) path is planned parallel to and along I-80 within the Study Area, which would connect to another planned Class I multi-use path along Leisure Town Road.

Item 12.a
Northeast Growth Area Planning Study Alternatives Evaluation Report 29 Table 7: Alternative A Intersection LOS Operations
# Intersection Control
Type1
Alternative A LOS2
Proposed Improvements AM PM
1 Leisure Town Rd & Orange Rd3 Signal F F • Optimize signal timing. • Widen Leisure Town Road south leg to six lanes. Modify NB4 approach to include 3 NBT lanes with 2 NBL and 1 NBR pockets. • Maintain existing six lanes along Leisure Town Road north of the intersection. Modify SB approach to include 3 SBT lanes with 3 SBL and 1 SBR pockets.
• Maintain existing four lanes along Orange Drive west of the intersection. Modify EB approach to include 2 EBT lanes with 3 EBL and 1 EBR pockets.
• Widen Orange Drive east leg to six lanes. Modify WB approach to include 1 WBT lane with 2 WBL and 1 WBR pockets.
2 Leisure Town Rd & I-80 WB
Ramps
Signal B E • Optimize signal timing.
• Add 1 NBT pocket.
3 Leisure Town Rd & I-80 EB OffRamp/ DrivewaySignal D C • Optimize signal timing. • Modify EB approach to include 1 EBT lane with 2 EBL and 1 EBR pockets.
4 Willow Rd & Walnut Rd TWSC F F Option 1:
• Install traffic signal.
• Widen Willow Road to four lanes.
• Widen Walnut Road to four lanes.

Option 2:
• Install multilane roundabout.
• Widen Willow Road to three lanes.
• Modify NB approach to include 1 NBLT lane and 1 NBTR pocket. • Modify SB approach to include 1 SBLT lane and 1 SBTR pocket. • Maintain existing two lanes along Walnut Road.

Item 12.a
Northeast Growth Area Planning Study Alternatives Evaluation Report 30 # Intersection Control
Type1
Alternative A LOS2
Proposed Improvements AM PM
5 Orange Dr & Walnut Rd TWSC F F • Install traffic signal. • Widen Orange Drive south leg to six lanes. Modify NB approach to include 3 NBT lanes and 1 NBR pocket.
• Widen Orange Drive north leg to six lanes. Modify SB approach to include 3 SBT lanes and 1 SBL pocket.
• Widen Walnut Road east leg to four lanes. Modify WB approach to include 1 WBL lane and 1 WBR lane with 1 WBL pocket.
6 Lewis Rd & Weber Rd AWSC B D • No proposed improvement 7 Byrnes Rd & Weber Rd TWSC F F Option 1:
• Install traffic signal.
• Widen Byrnes Road to four lanes.
• Widen Weber Road to four lanes.

Option 2:
• Install roundabout.
• Modify NB approach to include 1 NBLT lane and 1 NBR pocket. • Modify SB approach to include 1 SBLT lane and 1 SBR pocket. 8 Meridian Rd & I-80 EB Ramps/
Weber Rd
TWSC B F • Install traffic signal.
• Consolidate intersection.
• Widen Weber Road to four lanes.
• Modify SB approach to include 1 SBR lane and 2 SBL pockets. • Modify EB approach to include 2 EBT lanes and 2 EBL pockets. • Modify WB approach to include 1 WBT lane and 1 WBR lane. 9 Meridian Rd & I-80 WB Ramps TWSC F F • Install traffic signal. • Consolidate intersection.
• Modify NB approach to include 1 NBT lane and 2 NBL pockets. • Modify EB approach to include 1 EBL lane and 1 EBR pocket. • Modify SB approach to include 1 SBT lane and 1 SBR lane. 10 Meridian Rd & Midway Rd AWSC F F Option 1:
• Install traffic signal.
• Widen Midway Road to four lanes.
• Widen Meridian Road to four lanes.

Option 2:
• Install roundabout.

Item 12.a
Northeast Growth Area Planning Study Alternatives Evaluation Report 31 # Intersection Control
Type1
Alternative A LOS2 Alternative A LOS2
AM AM
11 Leisure Town Rd & Midway Rd AWSC F F Option 1:
• Install traffic signal.
• Widen Midway Road to four lanes.
• Widen Leisure Town Road to four lanes.

Option 2:
• Install roundabout.
12 I-505 NB Ramps & Midway Rd TWSC F F • Install roundabout. 13 I-505 SB Ramps & Midway Rd TWSC D F • Install roundabout. 14 I-80 WB Ramps & Oday Rd TWSC B A • No proposed improvement. 15 Oday Rd & Midway Rd TWSC F F • Install traffic signal. • Modify EB approach to include 1 EBT lane and 1 EBL pocket. 16 Gentile Ln & Midway Rd TWSC F F • Install traffic signal. • Modify NB approach to include 1 NBLT lane and 1 NBR pocket. • Modify WB approach to include 1 WBTR lane 1 WBL pocket cv. 17 I-80 EB Ramps & Midway Rd TWSC F F Option 1:
• Install traffic signal.
• Consolidate intersection.
• Modify NB approach to include 1 NBLT lane and 1 NBR pocket. • Modify EB approach to include 1 EBT lane and 1 EBL pocket. • Modify WB approach to include 1 WBT lane and 1 WBR pocket.

Option 2:
• Install roundabout.
18 Lewis Rd & Midway Rd TWSC F F Option 1:
• Install traffic signal.

Option 2:
• Install roundabout.

Notes:

1. AWSC = All Way Stop Control; TWSC = Two Way Stop Control

2. LOS = Delay based on worst minor street approach for TWSC intersections, average of all approaches for AWSC, Signal

3. Bold = Unacceptable Conditions

4. EB=Eastbound; WB=Westbound; NB=Northbound; SB=Southbound; L=Left-turn lane; R=Right-turn lane; T=Through lane; TR=Through and right-turn lane Item 12.a
Northeast Growth Area Planning Study Alternatives Evaluation Report 32 Projected Infrastructure Demands
Projected potable water demand, sewer generation, and
stormwater drainage estimates for Alternative A are
summarized on this page. Projected water and wastewater quantities are measured in Million Gallons per Day (MGD).

Water
Based on the analysis, Alternative A has an average day demand (ADD) of 1.61 MGD, a maximum day demand
(MDD) of 2.74 MGD, and a peak hour demand (PHD) of 5.16 MGD. This is the lowest water demand of the three
alternatives.

Wastewater
This analysis concluded that the average dry weather flow (Qa) for Alternative A was 2.20 MGD, the lowest of the three alternatives.

Stormwater Drainage
Based on the acreage that would be developed with
buildings and paved surfaces, Alternative A would require

1.74 million square feet of water quality treatment area across the parcels, with an order of magnitude cost of
$43.6 million. This is the highest of the three alternatives.

1.61 2.74

5.16 0
5 10

ADD MDD PHD
MGD
Figure 12: Alternative A Projected Water
Demand
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

2.2 2

2.2 2.4

2.6 MGD
Figure 13: Alternative A Projected
Wastewater Demand
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

1.74 1.64

1.66 1.68

1.7 1.72

1.74 1.76
Million Square Feet (sqf)
Figure 14: Alternative A
Water Quality Treatment
Area
$43.6
$41
$42
$42
$43
$43
$44
$44
Millions of Dollars ($)
Figure 15: Alternative A
Order of Magnitude Cost
Item 12.a
Northeast Growth Area Planning Study Alternatives Evaluation Report 33 Alternative B
Alternative B is predominantly occupied by Business and Industrial Parks, with a small amount of residential and highway commercial land uses. This alternative would
consist of 66 total parcels.

Business Parks comprise the majority of the industrial uses and are given preferential frontage to I-80, with Industrial Parks placed behind, making them less visible from I-80.

Residential uses are concentrated at the southern end of the Study Area and include both high-density housing and medium-high density housing, with the high-density
housing located closest to I-80. The medium-high density housing is located adjacent to the Locke Paddon
community, with an open space buffer separating the two areas.

A small amount of Highway Commercial is located on the
east side of I-80 at the Weber Road interchange, in addition to one parcel at the Midway Road interchange.

A Community Park is located south of Weber Road and
north of Gibson Canyon Creek. This park is adjacent to
Business and Industrial Park areas. This alternative shows two additional Neighborhood Parks, one centrally located among the industrial uses north of I-80 and one located in the south of the Study Area adjacent to the residential uses.

This alternative also highlights the Orange Drive extension alignment included in the General Plan Transportation
Element. It is roughly parallel to I-80, which created more curvilinear streets and smaller parcels near the I-80 and Weber Road interchange.

Item 12.a
Northeast Growth Area Planning Study Alternatives Evaluation Report 34 Figure 16: Alternative B Land Use Diagram
Item 12.a
Northeast Growth Area Planning Study Alternatives Evaluation Report 35 Table 8: Alternative B Buildout
Figure 17: Alternative B Land Use Distribution
28 39
42 55
152
290
562
Res. Medium-High Density
Highway Commercial
Res. High Density
Park
Accessible Open Space, Buffers, and Easements
Industrial Park
Business Park
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Acres
Land Use Sum of Lot Size
(acres)
Sum of
Nonresidential (sf)
Count of
Residential (units)
% of Land Use by
Total Acreage
Business Park 561.55 7,320,485.24 - 48%
Industrial Park 289.97 3,774,145.32 - 25%
Highway Commercial 39.05 498,577.50 - 3%
Residential High Density 41.79 - 918 4%
Residential Medium High Density 28.27 - 479 2%
Accessible Open Space, Buffers, & Easements 151.92 - - 13% Park 55.37 - - 5%
Total Developed Acreage (acres) 1,167.92 11,593,208.06 1,397 Estimated Area for Roadways (acres) 232.08
Land Use Efficiency (%) 83.4%
Item 12.a
Northeast Growth Area Planning Study Alternatives Evaluation Report 36 Transportation Assessment
Alternative B is primarily oriented toward Industrial and Business Park land uses with some Highway Commercial
and residential uses. The proposed roadway network for
Alternative B does not follow a conventional grid layout. A connection at Orange Drive is proposed to support the
development of the Orange Drive Extension per the City of Vacaville General Plan. Alternative B is the only alternative which incorporates the full alignment of the Orange Drive Extension.

Based on the Alternative B buildout roadway network,
future traffic forecasts were developed using the City of Vacaville travel demand model. It accounts for internal trip capture within the plan area as well as the redistribution of non-project trips. When the analysis was conducted for
intersection delays and LOS results by peak hour, all
intersections in Alternative B were projected to fail in one or both peak hours, except for the intersections of Leisure Town Road and I-80 Eastbound Off-Ramp/ Driveway; Lewis
Road and Weber Road; and the I-80 Westbound Ramps and
Oday Road. This means 15 of the 18 intersections were
considered to have unacceptable conditions, which are
listed Table 9.

To improve these intersections, accommodate projected
traffic conditions, and maintain acceptable operations, a series of improvements and mitigation measures are
suggested. With the proposed mitigation measures
implemented, all the intersections are projected to operate within acceptable LOS.

Active transportation networks, including pedestrian and bicycle networks, will be analyzed and defined in future planning phases. At this time, Solano County has proposed a countywide multi-use path which would accommodate
pedestrians and bicyclists. This path would run parallel to I80 within the Study Area, improving the overall active transportation networks in the area if established.

Item 12.a
Northeast Growth Area Planning Study Alternatives Evaluation Report 37 Table 9: Alternative B Intersection LOS Operations
# Intersection Control
Type1
Alternative A LOS2
Proposed Improvements AM PM
1 Leisure Town Rd & Orange Rd3 Signal F F • Optimize signal timing. • Widen Leisure Town Road south leg to six lanes. Modify NB4 approach to include 3 NBT lanes with 1 NBL and 1 NBR pockets. • Maintain existing six lanes along Leisure Town Road north of the intersection. Modify SB approach to include 3 SBT lanes with 3 SBL and 1 SBR pockets.
• Maintain existing four lanes along Orange Drive west of the intersection. EB approach modified to include 2 EBT lanes with 3 EBL and 1 EBR pockets.
• Widen Orange Drive east leg to six lanes. WB approach modified to include 2 WBT lanes with 2 WBL and 1 WBR pockets.
2 Leisure Town Rd & I-80 WB
Ramps
Signal B E • Optimize signal timing.
• Add 1 NBT storage pocket.
3 Leisure Town Rd & I-80 EB OffRamp/ DrivewaySignal D C • No proposed improvement. 4 Willow Rd & Walnut Rd TWSC F F Option 1:
• Install traffic signal.
• Widen Willow Road to four lanes.
• Widen Walnut Road to four lanes.

Option 2:
• Install multilane roundabout.
• Widen Willow Road to three lanes.
• Modify NB approach to include 1 NBLT lane and 1 NBTR pocket. • Modify SB approach to include 1 SBLT lane and 1 SBTR pocket. • Maintain existing two lanes along Walnut Road.

Item 12.a
Northeast Growth Area Planning Study Alternatives Evaluation Report 38 # Intersection Control
Type1
Alternative A LOS2
Proposed Improvements AM AM
5 Orange Dr & Walnut Rd TWSC F F • Install traffic signal. • Widen Orange Drive south leg to six lanes. Modify NB approach to include 2 NBT and 1 NBR lanes.
• Widen Orange Drive north leg to six lanes. Modify SB approach to include 3 SBT lanes and 1 SBL pocket.
• Widen Walnut Road to four lanes. Modify WB approach to include 2 WBL lanes and 1 WBR pocket.
6 Lewis Rd & Weber Rd AWSC A C • No proposed improvement 7 Byrnes Rd & Weber Rd TWSC F F Option 1:
• Install traffic signal.
• Widen Byrnes Road to four lanes.
• Widen Weber Road to four lanes.

Option 2:
• Install roundabout.
8 Meridian Rd & I-80 EB Ramps/
Weber Rd
TWSC B F • Install traffic signal.
• Consolidate intersection.
• Widen Weber Road to four lanes.
• Modify SB approach to include 1 SBR lane and 2 SBL pockets. • Modify EB approach to include 2 EBT lanes and 2 EBL pockets. • Modify WB approach to include 1 WBT lane and 1 WBR lane. 9 Meridian Rd & I-80 WB Ramps TWSC F B Option 1:
• Install traffic signal.
• Consolidate intersection.
• Modify NB approach to include 1 NBT lane and 2 NBL pockets. • Modify EB approach to include 1 EBL lane and 1 EBR pocket. • Modify SB approach to include 1 SBT lane and 1 SBR lane.

Option 2:
• Install multilane roundabout.
• Widen Meridian Road to four lanes north of interchange. • Modify NB approach to include 1 NBT lane and 1 NBLT pocket. • Maintain existing EB approach EBLR lane.
• Modify SB approach to include 1 SBT lanes and 1 SBR pocket.

Item 12.a
Northeast Growth Area Planning Study Alternatives Evaluation Report 39 # Intersection
Control
Type1
Alternative A LOS2
Proposed Improvements
AM AM
10 Meridian Rd & Midway Rd AWSC F F Option 1:
• Install traffic signal.
• Widen Midway Road to four lanes.
• Widen Meridian Road to four lanes.

Option 2:
• Install roundabout.
11 Leisure Town Rd & Midway Rd AWSC F F Option 1:
• Install traffic signal.
• Widen Midway Road to four lanes.
• Widen Leisure Town Road to four lanes.

Option 2:
• Install roundabout.
12 I-505 NB Ramps & Midway Rd TWSC F F • Install roundabout. 13 I-505 SB Ramps & Midway Rd TWSC F F • Install roundabout. 14 I-80 WB Ramps & Oday Rd TWSC B A • No proposed improvement. 15 Oday Rd & Midway Rd TWSC F F • Install traffic signal. • Modify EB approach to include 1 EBT lane and 1 EBL pocket. 16 Gentile Ln & Midway Rd TWSC F F • Install traffic signal. 17 I-80 EB Ramps & Midway Rd TWSC F F Option 1:
• Install traffic signal.
• Consolidate intersection.
• Modify NB approach to include 1 NBTR lane and 1 NBL pocket. • Maintain existing EB approach EBLT lane.
• Modify WB approach to include 1 WBT lane and 1 WBR pocket.

Option 2:
• Install roundabout.
18 Lewis Rd & Midway Rd TWSC F F Option 1:
• Install traffic signal.
• Modify NB approach to include 1 NBL lane and 1 NBR pocket. • Maintain existing EB approach EBTR lane.
• Modify WB approach to include 1 WBT lane and 1 WBL pocket.

Option 2:
• Install roundabout.

Item 12.a
Northeast Growth Area Planning Study Alternatives Evaluation Report 40 Notes:

1. AWSC = All Way Stop Control; TWSC = Two Way Stop Control

2. LOS = Delay based on worst minor street approach for TWSC intersections, average of all approaches for AWSC, Signal

3. Bold = Unacceptable Conditions

4. EB=Eastbound; WB=Westbound; NB=Northbound; SB=Southbound; L=Left-turn lane; R=Right-turn lane; T=Through lane; TR=Through and right-turn lane Item 12.a
Northeast Growth Area Planning Study Alternatives Evaluation Report 41 Projected Infrastructure Demands
Projected potable water demand, sewer generation, and
stormwater drainage estimates for Alternative B are
summarized on this page. Projected water and wastewater quantities are measured in Million Gallons per Day (MGD).

Water
Based on the analysis conducted by CBG, Alternative B has an average day demand (ADD) of 1.71 MGD, a maximum
day demand (MDD) of 3.02 MGD, and a peak hour demand
(PHD) of 5.68 MGD.

Wastewater
This analysis concluded that the average dry weather flow (Qa) for Alternative B was 2.23 MGD.

Stormwater Drainage
Based on the acreage that would be developed with
buildings and paved surfaces, Alternative B would require

1.70 million square feet of water quality treatment area across the parcels with an order of magnitude cost of $42.6 million.

1.71 3.02

5.68 0
5 10

ADD MDD PHD
MGD
Figure 18: Alternative B Projected Water
Demand
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

2.23 2

2.2 2.4

2.6 MGD
Figure 19: Alternative B Projected
Wastewater Demand
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

1.7 1.64

1.66 1.68

1.7 1.72

1.74 1.76
Million Square Feet (sqf)
Figure 20: Alternative B
Water Quality Treatment
Area
$42.6
$41
$42
$42
$43
$43
$44
$44
Millions of Dollars ($)
Figure 21: Alternative B
Order of Magnitude Cost
Item 12.a
Northeast Growth Area Planning Study Alternatives Evaluation Report 42 Alternative C
Alternative C, while still maintaining an industrial focus, includes a more substantial amount of residential land
uses. This alternative has a total of 59 parcels.

This alternative includes a combination of Business and Industrial Parks. The Industrial Park lands, which would include uses such as logistics and warehousing, are given preferential frontage to the I-80 freeway, and the Business Parks would be located behind.

The residential areas in this alternative include mediumdensity housing at the northern edge of the Study Area, adjacent to the residential uses in the County, in addition to high, medium-high, and medium-density housing adjacent
to the Locke Paddon community. The new housing
developments would be separated from Locke Paddon by
an open space buffer. The residential lands would provide a more gradual transition from the existing residential areas near the Study Area to the new employment areas.

A Community Park is shown at the eastern edge of the
Study Area along Lewis Road. This alternative shows four additional Neighborhood Parks, one located north of I-80 adjacent to residential uses, one located south of the PG&E gas line easement along Kilkenny Road, one located in the southeast along the south side of Gibson Canyon Creek,
and one centrally located in the southwest among the
residential uses there.

A small amount of Highway Commercial areas are located
on both sides of I-80 at the Weber Road and Midway Road interchanges.

Item 12.a
Northeast Growth Area Planning Study Alternatives Evaluation Report 43 Figure 22: Alternative C Land Use Diagram
Item 12.a
Northeast Growth Area Planning Study Alternatives Evaluation Report 44 Table 10: Alternative C Buildout
Figure 23: Alternative C Land Use Distribution
29 54
57 76
133
174
214
435
Res. Medium-High Density
Res. High Density
Park
Highway Commercial
Res. Medium Density
Accessible Open Space, Buffers, and…
Industrial Park
Business Park
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Acres
Land Use Sum of Lot Size
(acres)
Sum of
Nonresidential (sf)
Count of
Residential (units)
% of Land Use by
Total Acreage
Business Park 435.49 5,719,403.05 - 37%
Industrial Park 214.19 2,787,909.52 - 18%
Highway Commercial 76.03 989,822.00 - 6%
Residential High Density 53.77 - 1,181 5%
Residential Medium High Density 29.42 - 500 3%
Residential Medium Density 133.42 1,464 11%
Accessible Open Space, Buffers, & Easements 174.10 - - 15% Park 57.23 - - 5%
Total Developed Acreage (acres) 1,173.65 9,497,134.57 3,145 Estimated Area for Roadways (acres) 226.35
Land Use Efficiency (%) 83.8%
Item 12.a
Northeast Growth Area Planning Study Alternatives Evaluation Report 45 Transportation Assessment
Alternative C has the greatest mixture of uses, while still being oriented toward Industrial and Business Park land uses. Highway Commercial land uses are centered around
the I-80 and Meridian Road interchange and the I-80 and Midway Road interchange. The proposed roadway network
combines elements from the more conventional grid layout of Alternative A with some of the less conventional
elements of the Alternative B roadway network. A
connection at Orange Drive is proposed to support the
development of the Orange Drive Extension.

Based on the Alternative C buildout roadway network,
future traffic forecasts were developed using the City of Vacaville travel demand model. It accounts for internal trip capture within the plan area as well as the redistribution of non-project trips. When the analysis was conducted for
intersection delays and LOS results by peak hour, all
intersections in Alternative A were projected to fail in one or both peak hours, except for the intersections of Leisure Town Rd & I-80 WB Ramps; Leisure Town Rd & I-80 EB OffRamp/ Driveway; Lewis Road and Weber Road; and the I-80 Westbound Ramps and Oday Road. This means 14 of the
18 intersections were considered to have unacceptable
conditions, which are listed in Table 11.

To improve these intersections, accommodate projected
traffic conditions, and maintain acceptable operations, a series of improvements and mitigation measures are
suggested. With the proposed mitigation measures
implemented, all the intersections are projected to operate within acceptable LOS.

Active transportation networks, including pedestrian and bicycle networks, will be analyzed and defined in future planning phases. At this time, Solano County has proposed a countywide multi-use path which would accommodate
pedestrians and bicyclists. This path would run parallel to I80 within the Study Area, improving the overall active transportation networks in the area if established.

Item 12.a
Northeast Growth Area Planning Study Alternatives Evaluation Report 46 Table 11: Alternative C Intersection LOS Operations
# Intersection Control
Type1
Alternative A LOS2
Proposed Improvements AM PM
1 Leisure Town Rd & Orange Rd3 Signal F F • Optimize signal timing. • Widen Leisure Town Road south leg to six lanes. Modify NB4 approach to include 3 NBT lanes with 2 NBL and 1 NBR pockets. • Maintain existing six lanes along Leisure Town Road north of the intersection. Modify SB approach to include 3 SBT lanes with 3 SBL and 1 SBR pockets.
• Maintain existing four lanes along Orange Drive west of the intersection. Modify EB approach to include 2 EBT lanes with 3 EBL and 1 EBR pockets.
• • Widen Orange Drive east leg to six lanes. Modify WB approach to include 2 WBT lanes with 1 WBL and 1 WBR pockets.
2 Leisure Town Rd & I-80 WB
Ramps
Signal B D • No proposed improvement.
3 Leisure Town Rd & I-80 EB OffRamp/ DrivewaySignal D C • No proposed improvement. 4 Willow Rd & Walnut Rd TWSC F F Option 1:
• Install traffic signal.
• Widen Willow Road to four lanes.
• Widen Walnut Road to four lanes.

Option 2:
• Install roundabout.
5 Orange Dr & Walnut Rd TWSC F F • Install traffic signal. • Widen Orange Drive to six lanes. Modify NB approach to include 2 NBT lanes and 1 NBTR lane.
• Widen Walnut Road to four lanes. Modify SB approach to include 2 SBT lanes and 1 SBTL lane.
• Widen Walnut Road east leg to four lanes. Modify WB approach to include 1 WBL lane with 1 WBL pocket and 1 WBR lane.
6 Lewis Rd & Weber Rd AWSC A C • No proposed improvement.

Item 12.a
Northeast Growth Area Planning Study Alternatives Evaluation Report 47 # Intersection Control
Type1
Alternative A LOS2
Proposed Improvements
AM AM
7 Byrnes Rd & Weber Rd TWSC F F Option 1:
• Install traffic signal.
• Widen Byrnes Road to four lanes.
• Widen Weber Road to four lanes.

Option 2:
• Install roundabout.
• Modify SB approach to include 1 SBLT lane and 1 SBR pocket. 8 Meridian Rd & I-80 EB Ramps/
Weber Rd
TWSC B F • Install traffic signal.
• Consolidate intersection.
• Widen Weber Road to four lanes.
• Modify SB approach to include 1 SBR lane and 2 SBL pockets. • Modify EB approach to include 2 EBT lanes and 2 EBL pockets. • Modify WB approach to include 1 WBT lane and 1 WBR lane. 9 Meridian Rd & I-80 WB Ramps TWSC F F • Install traffic signal. • Consolidate intersection.
• Modify NB approach to include 1 NBT lane and 2 NBL pockets. • Modify EB approach to include 1 EBL lane and 1 EBR pocket. • Modify SB approach to include 1 SBT lane and 1 SBR lane. 10 Meridian Rd & Midway Rd AWSC F F Option 1:
• Install traffic signal.
• Widen Midway Road to four lanes.
• Widen Meridian Road to four lanes.

Option 2:
• Install roundabout.
11 Leisure Town Rd & Midway Rd AWSC F F Option 1:
• Install traffic signal.
• Widen Midway Road to four lanes.
• Widen Leisure Town Road to four lanes.

Option 2:
• Install roundabout.
12 I-505 NB Ramps & Midway Rd TWSC F F • Install roundabout. 13 I-505 SB Ramps & Midway Rd TWSC F F • Install roundabout. 14 I-80 WB Ramps & Oday Rd TWSC A A • No proposed improvement.

Item 12.a
Northeast Growth Area Planning Study Alternatives Evaluation Report 48 # Intersection Control
Type1
Alternative A LOS2
Proposed Improvements AM AM
15 Oday Rd & Midway Rd TWSC D F • Install traffic signal. 16 Gentile Ln & Midway Rd TWSC C F • Install traffic signal. 17 I-80 EB Ramps & Midway Rd TWSC D F Option 1:
• Install traffic signal.
• Consolidate intersection.
• Modify NB approach to include 1 NBTR lane and 1 NBL pocket. • Modify EB approach to include 1 EBT lane and 1 EBL pocket. • Modify WB approach to include 1 WBT lane and 1 WBR pocket.

Option 2:
• Install roundabout.
• Modify WB approach to include 1 WBT lane and 1 WBR pocket. 18 Lewis Rd & Midway Rd TWSC F F Option 1:
• Install traffic signal.
• Modify NB approach to include 1 NBL lane and 1 NBR pocket. • Modify EB approach to include 1 EBT lane and 1 EBR pocket. • Modify WB approach to include 1 WBT lane and 1 WBL pocket.

Option 2:
• Install multilane roundabout.
• Modify WB approach to include 1 WBT lane and 1 WBL pocket.

Notes:

1. AWSC = All Way Stop Control; TWSC = Two Way Stop Control

2. LOS = Delay based on worst minor street approach for TWSC intersections, average of all approaches for AWSC, Signal

3. Bold = Unacceptable Conditions

4. EB=Eastbound; WB=Westbound; NB=Northbound; SB=Southbound; L=Left-turn lane; R=Right-turn lane; T=Through lane; TR=Through and right-turn lane Item 12.a
Northeast Growth Area Planning Study Alternatives Evaluation Report 49 Projected Infrastructure Demands
Projected potable water demand, sewer generation, and
stormwater drainage estimates for Alternative C are
summarized on this page. Projected water and wastewater quantities are measured in Million Gallons per Day (MGD).

Water
Based on the analysis conducted by CBG, Alternative C has an average day demand (ADD) of 2.19 MGD, a maximum
day demand (MDD) of 3.73 MGD, and a peak hour demand
(PHD) of 7.02 MGD. This makes it have the highest water demand of the three alternatives.

Wastewater
This analysis concluded that the average dry weather flow (Qa) for Alternative C was 2.44 MGD, the highest of the three alternatives.

Stormwater Drainage
Based on the amount acres that would be developed with
buildings and paved surfaces, Alternative C would require

1.68 million square feet of water quality treatment area across the parcels with an order of magnitude cost of $42.0 million. This is the lowest of the three alternatives.

2.19 3.73

7.02 0
5 10

ADD MDD PHD
MGD
Figure 24: Alternative C Projected Water
Demand
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

2.44 2

2.2 2.4

2.6 MGD
Figure 25: Alternative C Projected
Wastewater Demand
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

1.68 1.64

1.66 1.68

1.7 1.72

1.74 1.76
Million Square Feet (sqf)
Figure 26: Alternative C
Water Quality Treatment
Area
$42.0
$41
$42
$42
$43
$43
$44
$44
Millions of Dollars ($)
Figure 27: Alternative C
Order of Magnitude Cost
Item 12.a
Technical Memorandum
The Power of Commitment
12675578 1
June 09, 2026
To City of Vacaville
From GHD Project No. 12675578
Project Name Northeast Growth Area Planning Study
Subject Alternatives Technical Evaluation: Transportation

1. Introduction
The Northeast Growth Area (Study Area) is a significant potential future development area located in and adjacent to the northeastern portion of the City of Vacaville. The Study Area has been identified in the City’s General Plan as a priority location for employment-generating development intended to support long-term economic growth and regional competitiveness. Strategically positioned near key regional transportation corridors, including Interstate 80 (I-80), Interstate 505 (I-505), and Midway Road, the area offers strong regional accessibility and connectivity to Solano County and the broader region.

Given the scale and intensity of planned development, it is critical to understand how future land use scenarios may affect transportation conditions. This analysis evaluates projected future traffic operations to identify potential capacity constraints, operational challenges, and infrastructure needs. As part of this effort, 18 key intersections within and surrounding the Study Area were selected for evaluation. These locations include critical nodes along Leisure Town Road, Midway Road, Weber Road, Meridian Road, and Orange Drive, as well as the I-80 and I-505 ramp terminals that will serve as primary access points for future development.

Existing transportation conditions within the Study Area are documented in the previously prepared Transportation Existing Conditions Review memorandum. Building upon that foundation, this report presents the results of the 2050 Cumulative No Build and Alternatives analyses.

This study is part of a broader alternatives analysis effort led by PlaceWorks and other subconsultants for the City of Vacaville as part of the Northeast Growth Area Planning Study, which may ultimately inform the preparation of a Specific Plan. The Alternatives Technical Evaluation: Transportation section expands upon the Existing Conditions analysis by evaluating the same 18 intersections under multiple proposed land use alternatives during weekday AM and PM peak hour conditions.

The future conditions analysis includes a 2050 Cumulative No Build scenario, which establishes baseline traffic conditions without development of the Northeast Growth Area. This scenario provides a foundation for assessing the relative transportation performance of each of the three proposed land use alternatives. The results of these analyses, along with findings from prior studies and planned improvements, are used to inform the identification of potential mitigation strategies and infrastructure enhancements.

1.1 Study Intersections
As part of the future conditions and alternatives transportation analysis, 18 intersections (shown in Figure 1.1) were selected for operational analysis based on their proximity to the Northeast Growth Area and their role in providing access to and through the Study Area.

Item 12.a
12675578 2
Of these intersections, three, including Leisure Town Road / Orange Drive, Leisure Town Road / I-80 Westbound Ramps, and Leisure Town Road / I-80 Eastbound Off-Ramp / Driveway are currently signalized.

The remaining intersections are controlled by stop signs or other unsignalized control.

Figure 1.1: Project Study Intersections and Northeast Growth Area Boundary

2. Methodology
The following sections outline the modeling and analysis assumptions and tools utilized for traffic forecasting and evaluating the network for Cumulative No Build and Cumulative Plus Project (Alternatives A, B, and C) Conditions.

Item 12.a
12675578 3

2.1 Analysis Tools and Models
The transportation analysis for the Northeast Growth Area alternatives utilized both a regional travel demand model and intersection-level operational modeling tools to evaluate future traffic conditions under each scenario. Future traffic forecasts were developed using the City of Vacaville’s travel demand model implemented in Bentley CUBE. The model was used to estimate 2050 Cumulative No Build Conditions and to test each of the proposed land use alternatives. Each alternative scenario was coded into the model to reflect the proposed residential, commercial, and employment uses. The model accounts for regional background growth, trip generation associated with new development, trip distribution patterns, and network assignment across the regional roadway system. It also considers internal trip capture within the Study Area and redistribution of non-project trips. Model outputs provided link-level traffic volumes, which were refined and balanced to develop intersection turning movement forecasts for weekday AM and PM peak hour conditions.

Intersection operations were evaluated using Synchro 12 and, where appropriate, SIDRA Intersection 10.0, consistent with the methodologies outlined in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 7th Edition). Synchro was used to analyze signalized, all-way stop-controlled (AWSC), and two-way stop-controlled (TWSC) intersections within the Study Area. The software calculates control delay, volume-to-capacity ratios, and Level of Service (LOS) for each intersection and critical movement. SIDRA was used to analyze roundabout alternatives, and the software calculates similar performance metrics. Where available, existing signal timing plans provided by the City were incorporated into the analysis. For unsignalized intersections, appropriate HCM parameters were applied. Heavy vehicle percentages and peak hour factors were incorporated based on collected data and agency information.

The combined use of Bentley CUBE for forecasting and Synchro 12 and Sidra for operational analysis provides a comprehensive framework for comparing the transportation performance of each alternative scenario.

2.2 Level of Service Methodologies
Traffic operations were quantified through the determination of "Level of Service" (LOS). Level of Service is a qualitative measure of traffic operating conditions, whereby a letter grade "A" through "F" is assigned to an intersection, or roadway segment, representing progressively worsening traffic conditions. LOS "A" represents free-flow operating conditions and LOS "F" represents over-capacity conditions. LOS was determined for all intersection control types using the methods documented in the Transportation Research Board’s publication Highway Capacity Manual, Seventh Edition, A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis, 2022 (HCM 7). The vehicular-based LOS criteria for different types of intersection controls are presented in Table 2.1.

Item 12.a
12675578 4
Table 2.1: Level of Service (LOS) Criteria for Intersections Source: Highway Capacity Manual Seventh Edition, A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis, 2022 (HCM 7) Level of
Service
Type
of
Flow Delay Maneuverability
Stopped Delay per Vehicle
(seconds per vehicle)
Signalized
Stop
Control/
Roundabout
A
Stable
Flow
Very slight delay. Progression is very
favorable, with most vehicles arriving
during the green phase not stopping at
all.

Turning movements are
easily made, and nearly
all drivers find freedom of
operation.
≤10.0 ≤10.0
B
Stable
Flow
Good progression and/or short cycle
lengths. More vehicles stop than for
LOS A, causing higher levels of
average delay.

Vehicle platoons are
formed. Many drivers
begin to feel somewhat
restricted within groups of
vehicles.
>10.0
and
≤20.0
>10.0
and
≤15.0
C
Stable Flow
Higher delays resulting from fair
progression and/or longer cycle
lengths. Individual cycle failures may
begin to appear at this level. The
number of vehicles stopping is
significant, although many still pass
through the intersection without
stopping.

Back-ups may develop
behind turning vehicles.

Most drivers feel
somewhat restricted
>20.0
and
≤35.0
>15.0
and
≤25.0
D
Approaching
Unstable Flow
The influence of congestion becomes
more noticeable. Longer delays may
result from some combination of
unfavorable progression, long cycle
lengths, or high volume-to-capacity
ratios. Many vehicles stop, and the
proportion of vehicles not stopping
declines. Individual cycle failures are
noticeable.

Maneuverability is
severely limited during
short periods due to
temporary back-ups.
>35.0
and
≤55.0
>25.0
and
≤35.0
E
Unstable
Flow
Generally considered to be the limit of
acceptable delay. Indicative of poor
progression, long cycle lengths, and
high volume-to-capacity ratios.

Individual cycle failures are frequent
occurrences.

There are typically long
queues of vehicles
waiting upstream of the
intersection.
>55.0
and
≤80.0
>35.0
and
≤50.0
F
Forced Flow
Generally considered to be
unacceptable to most drivers. Often
occurs with over saturation. May also
occur at high volume-to-capacity ratios.

There are many individual cycle
failures. Poor progression and long
cycle lengths may also be major
contributing factors.

Jammed conditions.

Back-ups from other
locations restrict or
prevent movement.

Volumes may vary widely,
depending principally on
the downstream back-up
conditions.
>80.0 >50.0
Item 12.a
12675578 5

2.3 Intersection Operations
The Synchro 12 (Trafficware) software and, where appropriate, SIDRA Intersection 10.0 programs were used to implement HCM 7 and Sidra Standard Roundabout Capacity Model analysis methodologies. Synchro 12 has the capability to produce results based on HCM 2000, HCM 2010, HCM 6, HCM 7, or Synchro methodologies, and takes into account intersection signal timing and queuing constraints when calculating delay and queue lengths. Intersection LOS was calculated for TWSC, AWSC, and signalized intersections using the methods documented in HCM 7, and intersection LOS was calculated for roundabouts using Sidra Standard methodology. For signalized, AWSC, and roundabout intersections, a LOS determination was based on the calculated averaged delay for all approaches and movements. For TWSC intersections, a LOS determination was based on the worst operating minor street approach.

3. Cumulative No Build Transportation Conditions
The Cumulative No Build scenario represents future background traffic conditions without development of the Northeast Growth Area and without implementation of additional roadway or intersection capacity improvements. For this scenario, existing roadway and intersection geometry was assumed to remain unchanged. Traffic signal timings were adjusted as necessary at signalized intersections projected to operate at unacceptable levels of service under existing timing plans. Therefore, this scenario provides a conservative baseline for identifying future operational deficiencies under background growth conditions and for comparing the relative effects of the Northeast Growth Area alternatives. Figure 3.1 and Figure 3.2 present 2050 Cumulative Conditions intersection forecasts for the Study Area.

Item 12.a
1 2 3
4 5 6
7 8 9
10 11 12
Project No.

Report No.

Date
Cumulative Conditions AM & PM
Peak Hour Traffic Volumes,
Lane Geometries & Traffic Control FIGURE 3.1
City of Vacaville
Northeast Growth Area Planning Study
12675578
001
2/24/26
60 (120)
Leisure Town Rd
CrrrrrrErr
Orange Rd
Leisure Town Rd
CrrALrrr
Leisure Town Rd/Orange Rd Leisure Town Rd/I-80 WB Ramps Leisure Town Rd/I-80 EB Ramps CC E 210 (470) * 1,150 (2,270) FrBBBrrrrr
400 (530)790 (1,680)170 (310)
Leisure Town Rd
CrrALrrr
410 (720)
FrrBBrrD
190 (140) 420 (360) 80 (160)
50 (50)
50 (70) 530 (540) 30 (60)
I-80 WB Ramp
Leisure Town Rd
rrrrAArrE I-80 EB Ramps
Leisure Town Rd
rAAL
Orange Rd I-80 WB Ramps Driveway FrBBBrD 890 (2,320) Leisure Town Rd 30 (70) 40 (60)
2,410 (1,530)
20 (20)
500 (320)
110 (160)
1,660 (1,090)
30 (70)
rrMBrDD
60 (110) 130 (270)
rrQD
2,300 (1,350)
100 (160)
390 (320)
Willow Rd/Walnut Rd Orange Dr/Walnut Rd Lewis Rd/Weber Rd Orange Dr P
10 (10)100 (190)
10 (10) 0 (0)
Walnut Rd
Willow Rd
Orr
Orange Dr
rArL Weber Rd
Lewis Rd
Orr
20 (10)0 (10)0 (0)
Willow Rd
Or
40 (90)0 (30)10 (10)
Lewis Rd
Or
0 (0)
10 (10) 40 (20)
0 (0) 190 (50) 10 (10)
Q rBN Q Walnut Rd Walnut Rd Weber Rd
10 (10) 30 (60)
30 (140)
10 (30)
10 (20)
170 (20)
20 (10)
Q
0 (10)
Q
20 (170) 20 (60) 30 (110) 10 (220)
10 (20)
40 (40)
Driveway/Byrnes Rd/Weber Rd Meridian Rd/Weber Rd/I-80 EB Ramps Meridian Rd/I-80 WB Ramps 10 (0) 170 (150)
Weber Rd
Byrnes Rd
Orr I-80 EB Ramps
Meridian Rd
rrL
0 (10)0 (0)0 (0)40 (40)60 (160)
Driveway
Or
20 (40)160 (410)
Meridian Rd
85 (70) 440 (180)
10 (20)
Meridian Rd
Kr
Weber Rd Weber Rd
90 (70)
Q rR FrrBrrrrrr
55 (125) 40 (130)
110 (120)
0 (15)
525 (250)
0 (1)
10 (30)
30 (40)
Q
rrrN
Rr
145 (400) 120 (290)
10 (10)
I-80 WB Ramps
Meridian Rd/Midway Rd Leisure Town Rd/Midway Rd I-505 NB Ramps/Midway Rd Leisure Town Rd Or 0 (10) 60 (70)
Midway Rd
Meridian Rd
Orr Midway Rd
Leisure Town Rd
Orr Midway Rd
I-505 NB Off-Ramp
Midway Rd
20 (20)40 (40)20 (20)
Meridian Rd
Or
30 (20)10 (10)10 (10)
I-505 NB On-Ramp
rrL
10 (10)
200 (170) 330 (250) 470 (355)
10 (10) 10 (20)
Q Q 0 Midway Rd Midway Rd 140 (275) 5 (5) 120 (300)
Orr
20 (40)
70 (60)30 (40)10 (10)
20 (40)
QQ
40 (40)10 (10)20 (30)
rrrN
20 (40)
30 (90) 50 (50)
200 (350) 250 (470) 200 (440)
Legend
XX (YY) AM (PM) Peak Hour Volumes
Turn Lane Stop Sign
Traffic Signal Roundabout
C
* Calculated Volumes Based on Forecasts
Item 12.a
13 14 15
16 17 18
116
Project No.

Report No.

Date
Cumulative Conditions AM & PM
Peak Hour Traffic Volumes,
Lane Geometries & Traffic Control FIGURE 3.2
City of Vacaville
Northeast Growth Area Planning Study
12675578
001
2/24/26
233 (390) *
1 (1)2 (4)
Mrrr
1 (0)
4 (2)
Kr
150 (210) *
Driveway/Midway Rd
Midway Rd
Driveway
Prrr
Midway Rd
0 (10)
30 (20)
rrrN
Mrrr
90 (80)
0 (0)
185 (350)
rrrKrrE Midway Rd
I-80 EB Off-Ramp
rrrN
140 (255)
185 (215)
rR 0 0
235 (384) * 280 (485)
Midway Rd 10 (40)
40 (110)
154 (202) * 420 (350) 420 (360) I-80 EB On-Ramp rrL
0 (10)10 (10)
Gentile Ln
rrL
Gentile Ln/Midway Rd I-80 EB Ramps/Midway Rd Lewis Rd/Midway Rd Kr 0 (20) 40 (120)
20 (40)
Midway Rd Midway Rd
Lewis Rd
Prrr
Midway Rd Midway Rd 149 (227)
MrrrMrrr
rrrN
220 (190) 365 (299)
5 (5)
20 (34)
220 (150) 5 (5)
390 (480) 5 (5) 100 (100)
350 (270)
Midway Rd Oday Rd Midway Rd FrrrrrrDr 100 (110) Oday Rd rrL Midway Rd
I-505 SB On-Ramp
Oday Rd
I-80 WB Ramps
CrrrrrrErr
Midway Rd
Kr
Q
170 (380) 5 (5) 225 (360)
I-505 SB Ramps/Midway Rd I-80 WB Ramps/Oday Rd Oday Rd/Midway Rd Kr 30 (20) 5 (0) 50 (100) 54 (122) I-505 SB Off-Ramp Legend
XX (YY) AM (PM) Peak Hour Volumes
Turn Lane Stop Sign
Traffic Signal Roundabout
C
* Calculated Volumes Based on Forecasts
Item 12.a
12675578 8

3.1 Cumulative No Build Intersection Operations
Table 3.1 presents projected 2050 Cumulative Conditions intersection delay and LOS results for each study intersection by peak hour.

Table 3.1: Cumulative Conditions Intersection LOS Operations # Intersection
Control
Type1
Target
LOS
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Delay LOS Delay LOS
1 Leisure Town Rd & Orange Dr Signal D 81.1 F 44.8 D
2 Leisure Town Rd & I-80 WB Ramps Signal D 28.5 C 10.2 B 3 Leisure Town Rd & I-80 EB Off-Ramp / Driveway Signal D 26.4 C 16.5 B 4 Willow Rd & Walnut Rd TWSC D 10.1 B 9.9 A
5 Orange Dr & Walnut Rd TWSC D 10.7 B 13.0 B
6 Lewis Rd & Weber Rd AWSC D 8.1 A 9.9 A
7 Byrnes Rd & Weber Rd TWSC D 27.0 D 25.8 D
8 Meridian Rd & I-80 EB Ramps / Weber Rd TWSC D 18.6 C 38.1 E 9 Meridian Rd & I-80 WB Ramps TWSC D 9.6 A 12.1 B
10 Meridian Rd & Midway Rd AWSC D 10.2 B 15.2 C
11 Leisure Town Rd & Midway Rd AWSC D 11.7 B 18.7 C
12 I-505 NB Ramps & Midway Rd TWSC D 24.8 C OVR F
13 I-505 SB Ramps & Midway Rd TWSC D 32.3 D 81.6 F
14 I-80 WB Ramps & Oday Rd TWSC D 9.2 A 9.7 A
15 Oday Rd & Midway Rd TWSC D 13.0 B 14.6 B
16 Gentile Ln & Midway Rd TWSC D 11.6 B 12.0 B
17 I-80 EB Ramps & Midway Rd TWSC D 21.2 C 29.8 D
18 Lewis Rd & Midway Rd TWSC D 17.1 C 34.1 D
116 Driveway & Midway Rd * TWSC D 10.5 B 11.7 B
Notes:

1. AWSC = All Way Stop Control; TWSC = Two Way Stop Control

2. LOS = Delay based on worst minor street approach for TWSC intersections, average of all approaches for AWSC, Signal

3. Bold = Unacceptable Conditions

4. OVR = Delay over 300 seconds
* Offset driveway intersection located near the intersection of Gentile Lane and Midway Road analysed due to proximity.

The 2050 Cumulative (No Build) analysis indicates that under background growth conditions, several intersections within and surrounding the Northeast Growth Area would experience operational deficiencies during peak periods. While many study intersections continue to operate at acceptable levels of service, specific locations demonstrate significant delay under future Cumulative Conditions.

During the AM peak hour, the most notable deficiency occurs at Leisure Town Road and Orange Road, which operates at LOS F with 81.1 seconds of delay, exceeding the City’s LOS D performance target for signalized intersections.

Conditions worsen during the PM peak hour, particularly at freeway ramp intersections. The I-505 Southbound Ramps and Midway Road intersection operates at LOS F with 81.6 seconds of delay, while the I-505 Northbound Ramps & Midway Road intersection experiences excessive delay (over 300 seconds on the worst approach), also resulting in LOS F. In addition, Meridian Road & I-80 Eastbound Ramps / Weber Road operates at LOS E (38.1 seconds), exceeding the City’s LOS standard.

Several other intersections, including Lewis Road & Midway Road and I-80 Eastbound Ramps & Midway Road, operate at LOS D during the PM peak hour but remain within the City’s acceptable threshold for two-way stopcontrolled intersections.

Overall, the cumulative analysis indicates that freeway ramp terminals and key arterial intersections near I-505 and I-80 represent the most operationally sensitive locations under future background growth conditions. These Item 12.a
12675578 9
deficiencies occur even without buildout of the Northeast Growth Area, suggesting that regional growth alone will place increasing pressure on interchange operations.

It should also be noted that the travel demand model network used for the Cumulative scenario did not include all ultimate roadway improvements identified in the City’s General Plan. Inclusion of certain planned widenings could relieve traffic from some of the roadways and thus improve intersection performance and potentially reduce some of the identified deficiencies. Therefore, the results presented herein represent a conservative baseline condition against which the proposed land use alternatives are evaluated.

4. 2025 TIF Program Recommendations
The 2025 Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) Program improvements identified in the 2025 City of Vacaville Nexus Study were reviewed as a planning reference for developing potential mitigation measures under the Cumulative Plus Project Conditions for Alternatives A, B, and C. The 2025 TIF improvements were not assumed in the Cumulative No Build scenario, which maintains existing roadway and intersection geometry to establish a baseline condition for comparison. Instead, the TIF improvements were considered during the mitigation development process where intersections were projected to operate below the City’s LOS standard under the Cumulative Plus Project alternatives.

Four TIF-identified intersections are located within or near the Northeast Growth Area and are summarized in Table 4.1. Where feasible, the mitigation measures identified in Sections 5.3, 6.3, and 7.3 were informed by the 2025 TIF Program improvements. However, the recommended mitigation measures were refined based on the operational needs of each alternative and the minimum level of improvement required to achieve acceptable intersection LOS under Cumulative Plus Project Conditions. As a result, the proposed mitigation measures may be less extensive, more extensive, or different in configuration than the improvements identified in the 2025 TIF Program.

In addition to intersection improvements, the 2025 TIF Program includes roadway widening and corridor improvements that are relevant to the Northeast Growth Area. These roadway improvements are also summarized in Table 4.1 and were reviewed when identifying mitigation needs for each Cumulative Plus Project alternative. The mitigation measures presented in Sections 5.3, 6.3, and 7.3 therefore reflect a combination of the 2025 TIF Program recommendations, the City of Vacaville General Plan roadway network, and the specific traffic operations results for each alternative.

Table 4.1: 2025 TIF Program Recommendations
Intersection/ Roadway TIF Improvement
I‐505 SB Ramps & Midway Rd 1. Install Roundabout
I‐505 NB Ramps & Midway Rd 1. Install Roundabout
Leisure Town Rd & I‐80 EB Off
Ramp/Driveway

1. Modify EB Approach (I-80 EB Off Ramp) - 2 EBL, 1 EBT & 1 EBR

2. Remove Split Phase (E-W)
Leisure Town Rd & Orange Dr. 1. Modify NB Approach (Leisure Town) - 1 NBL, 3 NBT

2. Modify SB Approach (Leisure Town) - 1 SBL, 3 SBT & 1 SBR Item 12.a
12675578 10
Intersection/ Roadway TIF Improvement
Leisure Town Road 4-lane
widening between Elmira Road
and Orange Drive (GHD crosssection)
• Four 12-ft lanes;
• Two 8-ft shoulder (includes 2-ft curb and gutter);
• 16-ft raised median with landscaping and various locations of 4-ft raised median with 11-ft / 12- ft left turn pockets; • 10-ft detached sidewalk/pathway;
• Intersection Improvements including traffic signal
modification at Elmira Road and Sequoia Drive
intersections and new traffic signals installation at Hawkins Rd/Ulatis Drive and Stonegate Drive intersections;
• Improvements excludes developer frontage such as 12-ft travel lane, 8-ft shoulder including 2-ft curb and gutter, and 10-ft detached sidewalk/pathway with 13-ft to 24-ft
landscape area
Leisure Town Road 6-lane
widening between Elmira Road
and Orange Drive (GHD crosssection)
• Six 11-ft lanes;
• Two 5-ft bike lanes (including 2-ft curb and gutter); • 11-ft left turn pockets at various intersections;
• 10-ft sidewalk/pathway;
• Improvements do not include any traffic signal modification at all intersections within this
Midway Road Widening between
west City Limit and O’Day Road/I80WB Off Ramp
• Four 12-ft lanes;
• Two 5-ft bike lanes (including 2-ft curb and gutter); • 12-ft two-way left turn lane;
• 10-ft sidewalk/pathway;
• Drainage channel relocation;
• Intersection improvements at I-505 NB and SB ramps are not part of the project;
• Improvements excludes developer frontage such as 12-ft travel lane, 5-ft bike lane including 2-ft curb and gutter, and 10-ft detached sidewalk/pathway

5. Alternative A: Transportation Evaluation
Figure 5.1 presents a conceptual land use layout for full buildout of the City of Vacaville Northeast Growth Area. Alternative A is primarily oriented toward industrial and business park land uses with highway commercial land uses centered around the I-80 and Meridian Road interchange and the I-80 and Midway Road interchange. Parks and open spaces are interspersed throughout the development area. The proposed Item 12.a
12675578 11
roadway network follows a mostly conventional grid layout and provides a connection at Orange Drive, that is different from the General plan, near the I-80 and Leisure Town Road interchange.

Figure 5.1: City of Vacaville Northeast Growth Area Alternative A

5.1 Alternative A Trip Generation
Table 5.1 summarizes the proposed Alternative A land use. Future traffic forecasts were developed by incorporating the project into the latest version of the City of Vacaville travel demand model, provided by Fehr & Peers on January 8, 2026. GHD used the model outputs to estimate future directional link volumes and then applied the Furness method to derive corresponding turning movement volumes.

The travel demand model accounts for internal trip capture within the plan area as well as the redistribution of non-project trips. This approach is particularly important for a project of this scale, as it has the potential to influence the city’s overall job–housing balance and associated travel patterns. Figure 5.2 and Figure 5.3 present 2050 Alternative A intersection forecasts for the Study Area.

Table 5.1: Proposed Alternative A Land Use
Land Use
Lot Size
(acres)
Nonresidential
(sf)
Residential
(units)
Accessible Open Space, Buffers, and Easements 156.39 0 0 Business Park 594.47 7,737,670 0
Highway Commercial 76.34 993,574 0
Industrial Park 313.33 4,078,324 0
Park 53.78 0 0
Grand Total 1,194.32 12,809,568 0
Total Road Area (acres) 205.68
Item 12.a
12675578 12

5.2 Alternative A Intersection Operations
Table 5.2 presents projected 2050 Alternative A Cumulative Plus Project Conditions intersection delay and LOS results for each study intersection by peak hour. All intersections are projected to fail in one or both peak hours except for the intersections of Lewis Road / Weber Road and the I-80 Westbound Ramps / Oday Road.

Table 5.2: Alternative A Intersection LOS Operations
# Intersection
Control
Type1
Target
LOS
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Delay LOS Delay LOS
1 Leisure Town Rd & Orange Dr Signal D OVR F OVR F
2 Leisure Town Rd & I-80 WB Ramps Signal D 11.1 B 63.2 E 3 Leisure Town Rd & I-80 EB Off-Ramp / Driveway Signal D 49.5 D 23.5 C 4 Willow Rd & Walnut Rd TWSC D OVR F OVR F
5 Orange Dr & Walnut Rd TWSC D OVR F OVR F
6 Lewis Rd & Weber Rd AWSC D 12.0 B 26.2 D
7 Byrnes Rd & Weber Rd TWSC D OVR F OVR F
8 Meridian Rd & I-80 EB Ramps / Weber Rd TWSC D 12.4 B OVR F 9 Meridian Rd & I-80 WB Ramps TWSC D OVR F 43.1* F
10 Meridian Rd & Midway Rd AWSC D 269.4 F 202.7 F
11 Leisure Town Rd & Midway Rd AWSC D 185.5 F OVR F
12 I-505 NB Ramps & Midway Rd TWSC D 179.5 F OVR F
13 I-505 SB Ramps & Midway Rd TWSC D 30.7 D OVR F
14 I-80 WB Ramps & Oday Rd TWSC D 10.4 B 9.5 A
15 Oday Rd & Midway Rd TWSC D 161.8 F OVR F
16 Gentile Ln & Midway Rd TWSC D 54.9 F OVR F
17 I-80 EB Ramps & Midway Rd TWSC D OVR F OVR F
18 Lewis Rd & Midway Rd TWSC D 63.3 F OVR F
Notes:

1. AWSC = All Way Stop Control; TWSC = Two Way Stop Control

2. LOS = Delay based on worst minor street approach for TWSC intersections, average of all approaches for AWSC, Signal

3. Bold = Unacceptable Conditions

4. OVR = Delay over 300 seconds
* Reported mainline delay due to higher calculated delay than side-street delay Item 12.a
1 2 3
4 5 6
7 8 9
10 11 12
Project No.

Report No.

Date
Alternative A AM & PM
Peak Hour Traffic Volumes,
Lane Geometries & Traffic Control FIGURE 5.2
City of Vacaville
Northeast Growth Area Planning Study
12675578
001
6/9/26
50 (110)
Leisure Town Rd
CrrrrrrErr
Orange Rd
Leisure Town Rd
CrrALrrr
Leisure Town Rd/Orange Rd Leisure Town Rd/I-80 WB Ramps Leisure Town Rd/I-80 EB Ramps CC E 940 (620) * 1,640 (2,830) FrBBBrrrrr
340 (930)560 (1,660)1,110 (510)
Leisure Town Rd
CrrALrrr
370 (440)
FrrBBrrD
350 (1,430) 490 (1,170) 80 (110)
80 (390)
130 (690) 580 (1,610) 40 (100)
I-80 WB Ramp
Leisure Town Rd
rrrrAArrE I-80 EB Ramps
Leisure Town Rd
rAAL
Orange Rd I-80 WB Ramps Driveway FrBBBrD 2,050 (1,950) Leisure Town Rd 590 (40) 50 (40)
2,510 (2,600)
20 (60)
830 (300)
270 (270)
1,260 (990)
890 (140)
rrMBrDD
300 (140) 280 (260)
rrQD
1,410 (1,490)
100 (620)
580 (130)
Willow Rd/Walnut Rd Orange Dr/Walnut Rd Lewis Rd/Weber Rd Orange Dr P
70 (10)130 (90)
10 (10) 0 (0)
Walnut Rd
Willow Rd
Orr
Orange Dr
rArL Weber Rd
Lewis Rd
Orr
100 (420)60 (1,250)10 (20)
Willow Rd
Or
390 (1,940)10 (20)10 (10)
Lewis Rd
Or
10 (10)
10 (10) 50 (20)
0 (10) 90 (430) 10 (10)
Q rBN Q Walnut Rd Walnut Rd Weber Rd
10 (10) 30 (90)
30 (200)
10 (10)
360 (140)
10 (10)
1,440 (150)
Q
0 (10)
Q
10 (20) 20 (360) 2,060 (360) 330 (180)
10 (90)
340 (60)
Driveway/Byrnes Rd/Weber Rd Meridian Rd/Weber Rd/I-80 EB Ramps Meridian Rd/I-80 WB Ramps 170 (150) 590 (1,440)
Weber Rd
Byrnes Rd
Orr I-80 EB Ramps
Meridian Rd
rrL
20 (310)20 (140)120 (170)130 (1,070)330 (520)
Driveway
Or
10 (50)400 (510)
Meridian Rd
50 (530) 100 (360)
40 (230)
Meridian Rd
Kr
Weber Rd Weber Rd
90 (960)
Q rR FrrBrrrrrr
560 (100) 1,380 (470)
1,330 (690)
350 (50)
50 (150)170 (40)280 (80)
830 (210)
Q
rrrN
Rr
90 (80) 80 (40)
40 (60)
I-80 WB Ramps
Meridian Rd/Midway Rd Leisure Town Rd/Midway Rd I-505 NB Ramps/Midway Rd Leisure Town Rd Or 10 (30) 100 (160)
Midway Rd
Meridian Rd
Orr Midway Rd
Leisure Town Rd
Orr Midway Rd
I-505 NB Off-Ramp
Midway Rd
10 (30)80 (20)10 (10)
Meridian Rd
Or
10 (10)10 (30)30 (20)
I-505 NB On-Ramp
rrL
10 (10)
100 (620) 190 (780) 300 (810)
20 (10) 20 (380)
Q Q 0 Midway Rd Midway Rd 110 (160) 5 (5) 440 (260)
Orr
30 (40)
60 (510)
10 (60)10 (20)
10 (10)
QQ
60 (20)50 (10)
510 (50)
rrrN
20 (30)
630 (170) 30 (80)
580 (360) 740 (520) 460 (400)
Legend
XX (YY) AM (PM) Peak Hour Volumes
Turn Lane Stop Sign
Traffic Signal Roundabout
C
* Calculated Volumes Based on Forecasts
Item 12.a
13 14 15
16 17 18
Project No.

Report No.

Date
Alternative A AM & PM
Peak Hour Traffic Volumes,
Lane Geometries & Traffic Control FIGURE 5.3
City of Vacaville
Northeast Growth Area Planning Study
12675578
001
6/9/26
0 (10)
0 (10)0 (10)
50 (450)
500 (110)
Q
Mrrr
0 (10) 370 (220) 0 (0) 440 (450)
rrrKrrE Midway Rd
I-80 EB Off-Ramp
rrrN
40 (320)
320 (220)
Q 0 0
100 (630) 390 (450)
Midway Rd 20 (140)
120 (540)
390 (280) 520 (810) 420 (450)
310 (260)
I-80 EB On-Ramp
rrL
0 (10)0 (0)10 (20)
Gentile Ln
Or
Gentile Ln/Midway Rd I-80 EB Ramps/Midway Rd Lewis Rd/Midway Rd Kr 0 (30) 20 (180)
50 (40)
Midway Rd
New Road
Orr Midway Rd
Lewis Rd
Prrr
Midway Rd Midway Rd 325 (195)
MrrrMrrr
rrrN
230 (240) 445 (1,105)
5 (5)
70 (650)
110 (300) 5 (5)
300 (670) 5 (5) 640 (460)
380 (460)
Midway Rd Oday Rd Midway Rd FrrrrrrDr 270 (90) Oday Rd rrL Midway Rd
I-505 SB On-Ramp
Oday Rd
I-80 WB Ramps
CrrrrrrErr
Midway Rd
Kr
Q
400 (255) 5 (5) 90 (450)
I-505 SB Ramps/Midway Rd I-80 WB Ramps/Oday Rd Oday Rd/Midway Rd Kr 30 (40) 5 (0) 80 (175) 60 (110) I-505 SB Off-Ramp Legend
XX (YY) AM (PM) Peak Hour Volumes
Turn Lane Stop Sign
Traffic Signal Roundabout
C
Item 12.a
12675578 15

5.3 Alternative A Mitigation Measures
The mitigation measures identified in Table 5.3 were incorporated into the analyzed study intersections and freeway ramps, where warranted, to accommodate projected traffic demand and maintain acceptable level of operation.

As shown in Table 5.2, each intersection projected to operate at unacceptable conditions under Alternative A was evaluated to determine the minimum improvements necessary to achieve non-failing operations. The recommended mitigation measures reflect the least-intensive modifications required to restore acceptable performance under Alternative A conditions.

The proposed improvements are specific to the intersections and alternative scenarios analyzed. Where traffic analysis results indicated the need, these measures were applied to increase operational capacity, enhance safety, and support efficient traffic flow under future conditions.

The intersection of Leisure Town Road and Orange Drive was evaluated in detail, including improvements identified in the 2022 TIF Program as well as additional capacity enhancement concepts. While a range of mitigation options were analyzed, including further widening and alternative control strategies such as a roundabout, the level of improvement required to address projected demand would result in a significantly expanded intersection footprint.

The intersection already provides substantial geometric capacity, including multiple through lanes and dual leftturn lanes, and is built to a relatively large cross-section. Accommodating future demand would require extensive additional widening beyond this existing configuration. At that scale, the associated right-of-way impacts, increased pedestrian crossing distances, and overall intersection size raise concerns related to feasibility, cost, and safety.

Accordingly, while these potential improvements are reflected in the analysis for comparison purposes, they are not recommended at this stage due to the scale of expansion required and the associated safety and design considerations. It is also important to note that the travel demand model did not incorporate all ultimate roadway improvements identified in the City’s General Plan. Implementation of additional planned roadway connections and capacity enhancements elsewhere in the network may redistribute traffic and reduce demand at this intersection under future Cumulative Plus Project Conditions.

The intersections of Lewis Road / Weber Road and I-80 Westbound Ramps / Oday Road were not subject to mitigation analysis, as both are projected to operate at acceptable levels under Alternative A conditions, as shown in Table 5.2.

Table 5.3: Alternative A Intersection Mitigation Measures # Intersection Mitigation Measures
1 Leisure Town Rd & Orange Dr • Optimize signal timing
• Widen Leisure Town Road south leg to six
lanes. Modify NB approach to include 3
NBT lanes with 2 NBL and 1 NBR pockets.
• Maintain existing six lanes along Leisure
Town Road north of the intersection.

Modify SB approach to include 3 SBT
lanes with 3 SBL and 1 SBR pockets.
• Maintain existing four lanes along Orange
Drive west of the intersection. Modify EB
approach to include 2 EBT lanes with 3
EBL and 1 EBR pockets.
• Widen Orange Drive east leg to six lanes.

Modify WB approach to include 1 WBT
lane with 2 WBL and 1 WBR pockets.

Item 12.a
12675578 16
# Intersection Mitigation Measures
2 Leisure Town Rd & I-80 WB Ramps • Optimize signal timing • Add 1 NBT pocket
3 Leisure Town Rd & I-80 EB Off-Ramp/ Driveway • Optimize signal timing • Modify EB approach to include 1 EBT lane
with 2 EBL and 1 EBR pockets
4 Willow Rd & Walnut Rd Option 1:
• Install traffic signal
• Widen Willow Road to four lanes
• Widen Walnut Road to four lanes
Option 2:
• Install multilane roundabout
• Widen Willow Road to three lanes
• Modify NB approach to include 1 NBLT
lane and 1 NBTR pocket
• Modify SB approach to include 1 SBLT
lane and 1 SBTR pocket
• Maintain existing two lanes along Walnut
Road
5 Orange Dr & Walnut Rd • Install traffic signal
• Widen Orange Drive south leg to six lanes.

Modify NB approach to include 3 NBT
lanes and 1 NBR pocket
• Widen Orange Drive north leg to six lanes.

Modify SB approach to include 3 SBT
lanes and 1 SBL pocket
• Widen Walnut Road east leg to four lanes.

Modify WB approach to include 1 WBL
lane and 1 WBR lane with 1 WBL pocket
6 Lewis Rd & Weber Rd • No proposed improvement
7 Byrnes Rd & Weber Rd Option 1:
• Install traffic signal
• Widen Byrnes Road to four lanes
• Widen Weber Road to four lanes
Option 2:
• Install roundabout
• Modify NB approach to include 1 NBLT
lane and 1 NBR pocket
• Modify SB approach to include 1 SBLT
lane and 1 SBR pocket
8 Meridian Rd & I-80 EB Ramps/ Weber Rd • Install traffic signal • Consolidate intersection
• Widen Weber Road to four lanes
• Modify SB approach to include 1 SBR lane
and 2 SBL pockets
• Modify EB approach to include 2 EBT
lanes and 2 EBL pockets
• Modify WB approach to include 1 WBT
lane and 1 WBR lane
Item 12.a
12675578 17
# Intersection Mitigation Measures
9 Meridian Rd & I-80 WB Ramps • Install traffic signal
• Consolidate intersection
• Modify NB approach to include 1 NBT lane
and 2 NBL pockets
• Modify EB approach to include 1 EBL lane
and 1 EBR pocket
• Modify SB approach to include 1 SBT lane
and 1 SBR lane
10 Meridian Rd & Midway Rd Option 1:
• Install traffic signal
• Widen Midway Road to four lanes
• Widen Meridian Road to four lanes
Option 2:
• Install roundabout
11 Leisure Town Rd & Midway Rd Option 1:
• Install traffic signal
• Widen Midway Road to four lanes
• Widen Leisure Town Road to four lanes
Option 2:
• Install roundabout
12 I-505 NB Ramps & Midway Rd • Install roundabout
13 I-505 SB Ramps & Midway Rd • Install roundabout
14 I-80 WB Ramps & Oday Rd • No proposed improvement
15 Oday Rd & Midway Rd • Install traffic signal
• Modify EB approach to include 1 EBT lane
and 1 EBL pocket
16 Gentile Ln & Midway Rd • Install traffic signal
• Modify NB approach to include 1 NBLT
lane and 1 NBR pocket
• Modify WB approach to include 1 WBTR
lane 1 WBL pocket cv
17 I-80 EB Ramps & Midway Rd Option 1:
• Install traffic signal
• Consolidate intersection
• Modify NB approach to include 1 NBLT
lane and 1 NBR pocket
• Modify EB approach to include 1 EBT lane
and 1 EBL pocket
• Modify WB approach to include 1 WBT
lane and 1 WBR pocket
Option 2:
• Install roundabout
18 Lewis Rd & Midway Rd Option 1:
• Install traffic signal
Option 2:
• Install roundabout
Table 5.4 presents projected intersection operations with the proposed mitigation measures outlined in Table

5.3. With the proposed mitigations, all intersections are projected to operate with acceptable LOS.

Item 12.a
12675578 18
Table 5.4: Alternative A Intersection Mitigation LOS Operations # Intersection
Control
Type1
Target
LOS
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Delay LOS Delay LOS
1 Leisure Town Rd & Orange Dr Signal D 49.8 D 40.4 D
2 Leisure Town Rd & I-80 WB Ramps Signal D 9.3 A 39.2 D 3 Leisure Town Rd & I-80 EB Off-Ramp / Driveway Signal D 27.2 C 20.3 C 4 Willow Rd & Walnut Rd Signal D 17.7 B 13.6 B
4 Willow Rd & Walnut Rd RNDBT D 7.1 A 5.3 A
5 Orange Dr & Walnut Rd Signal D 8.8 A 37.2 D
7 Byrnes Rd & Weber Rd Signal D 16.5 B 15.4 B
7 Byrnes Rd & Weber Rd RNDBT D 13.5 B 12.5 B
8 Meridian Rd & I-80 EB Ramps / Weber Rd Signal D 12.2 B 12.3 B 9 Meridian Rd & I-80 WB Ramps Signal D 26.7 C 7.3 A
10 Meridian Rd & Midway Rd Signal D 6.6 A 12.6 B
10 Meridian Rd & Midway Rd RNDBT D 5.7 A 12.2 B
11 Leisure Town Rd & Midway Rd Signal D 17.6 B 5.7 A
11 Leisure Town Rd & Midway Rd RNDBT D 18.2 C 7.3 A
12 I-505 NB Ramps & Midway Rd RNDBT D 6.7 A 6.1 A
13 I-505 SB Ramps & Midway Rd RNDBT D 5.7 A 8.1 A
15 Oday Rd & Midway Rd Signal D 15.5 B 29.7 C
16 Gentile Ln & Midway Rd Signal D 7.6 A 31.2 C
17 I-80 EB Ramps & Midway Rd Signal D 11.7 B 22.2 C
17 I-80 EB Ramps & Midway Rd RNDBT D 9.6 A 9.6 A
18 Lewis Rd & Midway Rd Signal D 7.2 A 45.0 D
18 Lewis Rd & Midway Rd RNDBT D 5.1 A 8.3 A
Notes:

1. RNDBT = Roundabout

2. LOS = Delay based on average of all approaches for Signal, RNDBT

3. Bold = Unacceptable Conditions

4. OVR = Delay over 300 seconds

6. Alternative B: Transportation Evaluation
Figure 6.1 presents Alternative B, a conceptual land use layout for full buildout of the City of Vacaville Northeast Growth Area focused on industrial and business park development with some highway commercial centered around the three I-80 interchanges and residential land uses at the south end of the study area. Parks and open spaces are interspersed throughout the development area. Compared to Alternative A, parcel shapes and sizes have more variation, and the proposed roadway network does not follow a conventional grid layout. A connection at Orange Drive is proposed to support the development of the Orange Drive Extension per the City of Vacaville General Plan. Only Alternative B incorporates the alignment of the Orange Drive Extension as shown in the City of Vacaville General Plan.

Item 12.a
12675578 19
Figure 6.1: City of Vacaville Northeast Growth Area Alternative B

6.1 Alternative B Trip Generation
Table 6.1 summarizes the proposed Alternative B land use. Future traffic forecasts were developed by incorporating Alternative B into the latest version of the City of Vacaville travel demand model. Based on the model outputs, GHD estimated future directional link volumes and then applied the Furness method to determine corresponding intersection turning movement volumes.

The travel demand model accounts for internal trip capture within the plan area as well as the redistribution of non-project trips. This approach is particularly important for a development of this magnitude, as it can influence the city’s overall job-housing balance and related travel patterns. Figure 6.2 and Figure 6.3 present 2050 Alternative B intersection forecasts for the Study Area.

Item 12.a
12675578 20
Table 6.1: Proposed Alternative B Land Use
Land Use
Lot Size
(acres)
Nonresidential
(sf)
Residential
(units)
Accessible Open Space, Buffers, and Easements 151.92 0 0 Business Park 561.55 7,320,485 0
Highway Commercial 39.05 498,577 0
Industrial Park 289.97 3,774,145 0
Park 55.37 0 0
Residential High Density 41.79 0 918
Residential Medium High Density 28.27 0 479
Grand Total 1,167.92 11,593,208 1397
Total Road Area (acres) 232.08

6.2 Alternative B Intersection Operations
Table 6.2 presents projected 2050 Alternative B Cumulative Plus Project Conditions intersection delay and LOS results for each study intersection by peak hour. All intersections are projected to fail in one or both peak hours except for the intersections of Leisure Town Road and the I-80 Eastbound Off-Ramp / Driveway, Lewis Road and Weber Road, and the I-80 Westbound Ramps and Oday Road.

Table 6.2: Alternative B Intersection LOS Operations
# Intersection
Control
Type1
Target
LOS
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Delay LOS Delay LOS
1 Leisure Town Rd & Orange Dr Signal D OVR F OVR F
2 Leisure Town Rd & I-80 WB Ramps Signal D 11.4 B 58.1 E 3 Leisure Town Rd & I-80 EB Off-Ramp / Driveway Signal D 43.6 D 30.8 C 4 Willow Rd & Walnut Rd TWSC D OVR F OVR F
5 Orange Dr & Walnut Rd TWSC D OVR F OVR F
6 Lewis Rd & Weber Rd AWSC D 9.7 A 16.5 C
7 Byrnes Rd & Weber Rd TWSC D OVR F OVR F
8 Meridian Rd & I-80 EB Ramps / Weber Rd TWSC D 14.3 B OVR F 9 Meridian Rd & I-80 WB Ramps TWSC D OVR F 14.4 B
10 Meridian Rd & Midway Rd AWSC D 220.3 F 174.7 F
11 Leisure Town Rd & Midway Rd AWSC D 161.9 F 264.9 F
12 I-505 NB Ramps & Midway Rd TWSC D 163.5 F OVR F
13 I-505 SB Ramps & Midway Rd TWSC D 84.7 F OVR F
14 I-80 WB Ramps & Oday Rd TWSC D 10.1 B 8.9 A
15 Oday Rd & Midway Rd TWSC D 92.4 F OVR F
16 Gentile Ln & Midway Rd TWSC D 177.3 F OVR F
17 I-80 EB Ramps & Midway Rd TWSC D OVR F OVR F
18 Lewis Rd & Midway Rd TWSC D OVR F OVR F
Notes:

1. AWSC = All Way Stop Control; TWSC = Two Way Stop Control

2. LOS = Delay based on worst minor street approach for TWSC intersections, average of all approaches for AWSC, Signal

3. Bold = Unacceptable Conditions

4. OVR = Delay over 300 seconds
Item 12.a
12675578 21
The intersection of Byrnes Road and Weber Road does not exist in Alternative B. Based on the conceptual roadway network in Figure 6.1, the portion of Byrnes Road that connects to Weber Road is removed and is replaced by plot 33, plot 36, and designated open space.

Similar to Alternative A, the intersection of Midway Road and the southern driveway (analyzed as intersection 116 in Table 3.1) west of the intersection of Gentile Lane and Midway Road was removed. It was assumed the new roadway proposed in the circulation network would connect into the three-legged Gentile Lane and Midway Road intersection, converting it into a four-legged intersection in Cumulative Plus Project Conditions.

Item 12.a
1 2 3
4 5 6
7 8 9
10 11 12
Project No.

Report No.

Date
660 (130) 30 (80)
470 (380) 680 (500) 480 (380)
30 (30)
50 (550)
10 (70)10 (20)
10 (10)
QQ
60 (20)50 (10)
490 (50)
rrrN
20 (30)
120 (200)
5 (5)
360 (300)
Orr
Q Q 0 Midway Rd Midway Rd
20 (10) 20 (340)
160 (490) 250 (730) 380 (760)
10 (30)70 (20)10 (10)
Meridian Rd
Or
10 (10)10 (40)30 (20)
I-505 NB On-Ramp
rrL
10 (10)
Meridian Rd/Midway Rd Leisure Town Rd/Midway Rd I-505 NB Ramps/Midway Rd Leisure Town Rd Or 10 (30) 80 (170)
Midway Rd
Meridian Rd
Orr Midway Rd
Leisure Town Rd
Orr Midway Rd
I-505 NB Off-Ramp
Midway Rd
380 (50)
90 (260)160 (70)
170 (100)
840 (140)
Q
rrrN
Rr
80 (100) 130 (50)
40 (70)
I-80 WB Ramps
Q rR FrrBrrrrrr
390 (80) 1,290 (480)
1,260 (610)
Meridian Rd
Kr
Weber Rd Weber Rd
110 (940)
80 (350) 110 (390)
30 (170)
Meridian Rd
rrL
40 (310)20 (150)80 (120)110 (980)360 (510)
Driveway
Or
10 (10)480 (550)
Meridian Rd
1,730 (590)
310 (290)
70 (100)
120 (60)
Driveway/Byrnes Rd/Weber Rd Meridian Rd/Weber Rd/I-80 EB Ramps Meridian Rd/I-80 WB Ramps 140 (90) 530 (1,410)
Weber Rd
Byrnes Rd
Orr I-80 EB Ramps
10 (10) 40 (80)
70 (180)
10 (10)
350 (240)
20 (10)
1,190 (180)
Q
0 (10)
Q
10 (40) 30 (160)
Q rBN Q Walnut Rd Walnut Rd Weber Rd
0 (10) 200 (410) 10 (10)
10 (10) 50 (20)
200 (400)80 (1,100)10 (20)
Willow Rd
Or
630 (1,710)10 (40)10 (10)
Lewis Rd
Or
10 (10)
Willow Rd/Walnut Rd Orange Dr/Walnut Rd Lewis Rd/Weber Rd Orange Dr P
70 (30)100 (270)
20 (20) 0 (0)
Walnut Rd
Willow Rd
Orr
Orange Dr
rArL Weber Rd
Lewis Rd
Orr
1,490 (1,480)
100 (480)
370 (140)
510 (70) 40 (50)
2,810 (2,440)
20 (60)
870 (340)
300 (250)
1,310 (950)
770 (210)
rrMBrDD
300 (160) 210 (340)
rrQD
I-80 WB Ramp
Leisure Town Rd
rrrrAArrE I-80 EB Ramps
Leisure Town Rd
rAAL
Orange Rd I-80 WB Ramps Driveway FrBBBrD 1,840 (1,960) Leisure Town Rd 200 (620) 620 (1,610) 40 (110)
130 (340)
Leisure Town Rd/Orange Rd Leisure Town Rd/I-80 WB Ramps Leisure Town Rd/I-80 EB Ramps CC E 810 (500) * 1,600 (2,970) FrBBBrrrrr
380 (910)570 (1,660)960 (750)
Leisure Town Rd
CrrALrrr
380 (390)
FrrBBrrD
570 (1,290) 420 (1,040) 70 (100)
Alternative B AM & PM
Peak Hour Traffic Volumes,
Lane Geometries & Traffic Control FIGURE 6.2
City of Vacaville
Northeast Growth Area Planning Study
12675578
001
6/9/26
50 (100)
Leisure Town Rd
CrrrrrrErr
Orange Rd
Leisure Town Rd
CrrALrrr
Legend
XX (YY) AM (PM) Peak Hour Volumes
Turn Lane Stop Sign
Traffic Signal Roundabout
C
* Calculated Volumes Based on Forecasts
Item 12.a
13 14 15
16 17 18
Project No.

Report No.

Date
I-505 SB Ramps/Midway Rd I-80 WB Ramps/Oday Rd Oday Rd/Midway Rd Kr 20 (30) 5 (0) 100 (125) 90 (40) I-505 SB Off-Ramp 200 (60) Oday Rd rrL Midway Rd
I-505 SB On-Ramp
Oday Rd
I-80 WB Ramps
CrrrrrrErr
Midway Rd
Kr
Q
400 (285) 5 (5) 210 (520)
350 (640)
Midway Rd Oday Rd Midway Rd FrrrrrrDr
320 (680) 5 (5) 720 (350)
180 (280) 5 (5)
MrrrMrrr
285 (95)
rrrN
220 (220) 375 (1,195)
5 (5)
30 (560)
Gentile Ln/Midway Rd I-80 EB Ramps/Midway Rd Lewis Rd/Midway Rd Kr 0 (60) 30 (320)
110 (110)
Midway Rd
New Road
Orr Midway Rd
Lewis Rd
Prrr
Midway Rd Midway Rd I-80 EB On-Ramp rrL
0 (10)0 (0)10 (20)
Gentile Ln
Or
320 (190) 490 (790) 410 (730)
490 (140)
110 (380)
80 (220)
Q 0 0
120 (570) 700 (490)
Midway Rd
0 (10)
0 (10)0 (10)
110 (490)580 (200)
Q
Mrrr
0 (10) 240 (140) 0 (0) 560 (250)
rrrKrrE Midway Rd
I-80 EB Off-Ramp
rrrN
30 (200)
380 (380)
City of Vacaville
Northeast Growth Area Planning Study
12675578
001
6/9/26
Alternative B AM & PM
Peak Hour Traffic Volumes,
Lane Geometries & Traffic Control FIGURE 6.3
Legend
XX (YY) AM (PM) Peak Hour Volumes
Turn Lane Stop Sign
Traffic Signal Roundabout
C
Item 12.a
12675578 24

6.3 Alternative B Mitigation Measures
The mitigation measures identified in Table 6.3 were incorporated into the analyzed study intersections and freeway ramps, where warranted, to accommodate projected traffic demand and to maintain acceptable level of operation.

As shown in Table 6.2 , each intersection projected to operate at unacceptable conditions under Alternative B was evaluated to determine the minimum improvements necessary to achieve non-failing operations. The recommended mitigation measures reflect the least-intensive modifications required to restore acceptable performance under Alternative B conditions.

The intersection of Leisure Town Road and Orange Drive was evaluated in detail, including improvements identified in the 2022 TIF Program as well as additional capacity enhancement concepts. While a range of mitigation options were analyzed, including further widening and alternative control strategies such as a roundabout, the level of improvement required to address projected demand would result in a significantly expanded intersection footprint.

The intersection already provides substantial geometric capacity, including multiple through lanes and dual leftturn lanes, and is built to a relatively large cross-section. Accommodating future demand would require extensive additional widening beyond this existing configuration. At that scale, the associated right-of-way impacts, increased pedestrian crossing distances, and overall intersection size raise concerns related to feasibility, cost, and safety.

Accordingly, while these potential improvements are reflected in the analysis for comparison purposes, they are not recommended at this stage due to the scale of expansion required and the associated safety and design considerations. It is also important to note that the travel demand model did not incorporate all ultimate roadway improvements identified in the City’s General Plan. Implementation of additional planned roadway connections and capacity enhancements elsewhere in the network may redistribute traffic and reduce demand at this intersection under future Cumulative Plus Project Conditions. The intersections of Leisure Town Road and the I-80 Eastbound Off-Ramp / Driveway, Lewis Road and Weber Road, and I-80 Westbound Ramps and Oday Road were not subject to mitigation analysis, as they are projected to operate at acceptable levels under Alternative B conditions, as show in Table 6.2.

Table 6.3: Alternative B Intersection Mitigation Measures # Intersection Mitigation Measures
1 Leisure Town Rd & Orange Dr • Optimize signal timing
• Widen Leisure Town Road south leg to six
lanes. Modify NB approach to include 3
NBT lanes with 1 NBL and 1 NBR pockets.
• Maintain existing six lanes along Leisure
Town Road north of the intersection.

Modify SB approach to include 3 SBT
lanes with 3 SBL and 1 SBR pockets.
• Maintain existing four lanes along Orange
Drive west of the intersection. EB
approach modified to include 2 EBT lanes
with 3 EBL and 1 EBR pockets.
• Widen Orange Drive east leg to six lanes.

WB approach modified to include 2 WBT
lanes with 2 WBL and 1 WBR pockets.
2 Leisure Town Rd & I-80 WB Ramps • Optimize signal timing • Add 1 NBT pocket
3 Leisure Town Rd & I-80 EB Off-Ramp/ Driveway • No proposed improvement Item 12.a
12675578 25
# Intersection Mitigation Measures
4 Willow Rd & Walnut Rd Option 1:
• Install traffic signal
• Widen Willow Road to four lanes
• Widen Walnut Road to four lanes
Option 2:
• Install multilane roundabout
• Widen Willow Road to three lanes
• Modify NB approach to include 1 NBLT
lane and 1 NBTR pocket
• Modify SB approach to include 1 SBLT
lane and 1 SBTR pocket
• Maintain existing two lanes along Walnut
Road
5 Orange Dr & Walnut Rd • Install traffic signal
• Widen Orange Drive south leg to six lanes.

Modify NB approach to include 2 NBT and
1 NBR lanes
• Widen Orange Drive north leg to six lanes.

Modify SB approach to include 3 SBT
lanes and 1 SBL pocket
• Widen Walnut Road to four lanes. Modify
WB approach to include 2 WBL lanes and
1 WBR pocket
6 Lewis Rd & Weber Rd • No proposed improvement
7 Byrnes Rd & Weber Rd Option 1:
• Install traffic signal
• Widen Byrnes Road to four lanes
• Widen Weber Road to four lanes
Option 2:
• Install roundabout
8 Meridian Rd & I-80 EB Ramps/ Weber Rd • Install traffic signal • Consolidate intersection
• Widen Weber Road to four lanes
• Modify SB approach to include 1 SBR lane
and 2 SBL pockets
• Modify EB approach to include 2 EBT
lanes and 2 EBL pockets
• Modify WB approach to include 1 WBT
lane and 1 WBR lane
Item 12.a
12675578 26
# Intersection Mitigation Measures
9 Meridian Rd & I-80 WB Ramps Option 1:
• Install traffic signal
• Consolidate intersection
• Modify NB approach to include 1 NBT lane
and 2 NBL pockets
• Modify EB approach to include 1 EBL lane
and 1 EBR pocket
• Modify SB approach to include 1 SBT lane
and 1 SBR lane
Option 2:
• Install multilane roundabout
• Widen Meridian Road to four lanes north
of interchange
• Modify NB approach to include 1 NBT lane
and 1 NBLT pocket
• Maintain existing EB approach EBLR lane
• Modify SB approach to include 1 SBT
lanes and 1 SBR pocket
10 Meridian Rd & Midway Rd Option 1:
• Install traffic signal
• Widen Midway Road to four lanes
• Widen Meridian Road to four lanes
Option 2:
• Install roundabout
11 Leisure Town Rd & Midway Rd Option 1:
• Install traffic signal
• Widen Midway Road to four lanes
• Widen Leisure Town Road to four lanes
Option 2:
• Install roundabout
12 I-505 NB Ramps & Midway Rd • Install roundabout
13 I-505 SB Ramps & Midway Rd • Install roundabout
14 I-80 WB Ramps & Oday Rd • No proposed improvement
15 Oday Rd & Midway Rd • Install traffic signal
• Modify EB approach to include 1 EBT lane
and 1 EBL pocket
16 Gentile Ln & Midway Rd • Install traffic signal
17 I-80 EB Ramps & Midway Rd Option 1:
• Install traffic signal
• Consolidate intersection
• Modify NB approach to include 1 NBTR
lane and 1 NBL pocket
• Maintain existing EB approach EBLT lane
• Modify WB approach to include 1 WBT
lane and 1 WBR pocket
Option 2:
• Install roundabout
Item 12.a
12675578 27
# Intersection Mitigation Measures
18 Lewis Rd & Midway Rd Option 1:
• Install traffic signal
• Modify NB approach to include 1 NBL lane
and 1 NBR pocket
• Maintain existing EB approach EBTR lane
• Modify WB approach to include 1 WBT
lane and 1 WBL pocket
Option 2:
• Install roundabout
Table 6.4 presents projected intersection operations with the proposed mitigation measures outlined in Table

6.3. With the proposed mitigations, all intersections are projected to operate with acceptable LOS.

Table 6.4: Alternative B Intersection Mitigation LOS Operations # Intersection
Control
Type1
Target
LOS
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Delay LOS Delay LOS
1 Leisure Town Rd & Orange Dr Signal D 49.2 D 38.2 D
2 Leisure Town Rd & I-80 WB Ramps Signal D 9.3 A 40.2 D 4 Willow Rd & Walnut Rd Signal D 13.4 B 17.8 B
4 Willow Rd & Walnut Rd RNDBT D 6.4 A 6.1 A
5 Orange Dr & Walnut Rd Signal D 13.2 B 19.6 B
7 Byrnes Rd & Weber Rd Signal D 10.6 B 12.3 B
7 Byrnes Rd & Weber Rd RNDBT D 11.4 B 16.4 C
8 Meridian Rd & I-80 EB Ramps / Weber Rd Signal D 12.6 B 12.4 B 9 Meridian Rd & I-80 WB Ramps Signal D 29.5 C 17.7 B
9 Meridian Rd & I-80 WB Ramps RNDBT D 4.8 A 10.8 B
10 Meridian Rd & Midway Rd Signal D 7.1 A 12.5 B
10 Meridian Rd & Midway Rd RNDBT D 5.3 A 10.9 B
11 Leisure Town Rd & Midway Rd Signal D 14.9 B 5.6 A
11 Leisure Town Rd & Midway Rd RNDBT D 11.7 B 6.9 A
12 I-505 NB Ramps & Midway Rd RNDBT D 6.4 A 6.6 A
13 I-505 SB Ramps & Midway Rd RNDBT D 6.4 A 7.1 A
15 Oday Rd & Midway Rd Signal D 12.3 B 14.1 B
16 Gentile Ln & Midway Rd Signal D 13.2 B 18.6 B
17 I-80 EB Ramps & Midway Rd Signal D 15.5 B 24.5 C
17 I-80 EB Ramps & Midway Rd RNDBT D 17.5 C 11.6 B
18 Lewis Rd & Midway Rd Signal D 21.5 C 20.8 C
18 Lewis Rd & Midway Rd RNDBT D 5.8 A 8.5 A
Notes:

1. RNDBT = Roundabout

2. LOS = Delay based on average of all approaches for Signal, RNDBT

3. Bold = Unacceptable Conditions

4. OVR = Delay over 300 seconds
Item 12.a
12675578 28

7. Alternative C: Transportation Evaluation
Figure 7.1 presents Alternative C, a conceptual land use layout for full buildout of the City of Vacaville Northeast Growth Area focused on industrial development along the I-80 frontage west of the I-80 and Meridian Road interchange to just west of the I-80 Midway Road interchange. Business park land uses are proposed primarily behind the industrial developments with some located along the I-80 frontage. Highway commercial land uses are centered around the Meridian Road and Midway Road I-80 interchanges, the southwest area is dedicated to residential development, and frontage along Midway Road west of the I-80 and Midway Road interchange is dedicated to residential development. Parks and open spaces are interspersed throughout the development area. Alternative C includes a combination of characteristics between Alternatives A and B.

Parcel shapes and sizes are a combination of the more conventional shapes in Alternative A and the varying types in Alternative B. Additionally, the proposed roadway network combines the conventional grid layout of Alternative A with the less conventional roadway network of Alternative B.

Figure 7.1: City of Vacaville Northeast Growth Area Alternative C

7.1 Alternative C Trip Generation
Table 7.1 summarizes the proposed Alternative C land use. Future traffic forecasts were developed by incorporating Alternative C into the latest version of the City of Vacaville travel demand model. GHD used the model outputs to estimate future directional link volumes and subsequently applied the Furness method to derive intersection turning movement volumes.

The travel demand model accounts for internal trip capture within the plan area and the redistribution of nonproject trips. This is particularly important for a project of this scale, as it may influence the city’s overall jobhousing balance and associated travel patterns. Figure 7.2 and Figure 7.3 present 2050 Alternative C intersection forecasts for the Study Area.

Item 12.a
12675578 29
Table 7.1: Proposed Alternative C Land Use
Land Use
Lot Size
(acres)
Nonresidential
(sf)
Residential
(units)
Accessible Open Space, Buffers, and Easements 174.10 0 0 Business Park 439.42 5,719,403 0
Highway Commercial 76.03 989,822 0
Industrial Park 214.19 2,787,910 0
Park 53.31 0 0
Residential High Density 53.77 0 1181
Residential Medium Density 133.42 0 1464
Residential Medium High Density 29.42 0 500
Grand Total 1,173.65 9,497,135 3145
Total Road Area (acres) 226.35

7.2 Alternative C Intersection Operations
Table 7.2 presents projected 2050 Alternative C Cumulative Plus Project Conditions intersection delay and LOS results for each study intersection by peak hour. All intersections are projected to fail in one or both peak hours except for the intersections of Leisure Town Road and the I-80 Westbound Ramps, Leisure Town Road and the I-80 Eastbound Off-Ramp / Driveway, Lewis Road and Weber Road, and the I-80 Westbound Ramps and Oday Road.

Table 7.2: Alternative C Intersection LOS Operations
# Intersection
Control
Type1
Target
LOS
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Delay LOS Delay LOS
1 Leisure Town Rd & Orange Dr Signal D OVR F OVR F
2 Leisure Town Rd & I-80 WB Ramps Signal D 14.7 B 42.3 D 3 Leisure Town Rd & I-80 EB Off-Ramp / Driveway Signal D 38.2 D 32.1 C 4 Willow Rd & Walnut Rd TWSC D OVR F OVR F
5 Orange Dr & Walnut Rd TWSC D OVR F OVR F
6 Lewis Rd & Weber Rd AWSC D 10.0 A 24.3 C
7 Byrnes Rd & Weber Rd TWSC D OVR F OVR F
8 Meridian Rd & I-80 EB Ramps / Weber Rd TWSC D 12.2 B OVR F 9 Meridian Rd & I-80 WB Ramps TWSC D OVR F 40.2* F
10 Meridian Rd & Midway Rd AWSC D 179.9 F 229.9 F
11 Leisure Town Rd & Midway Rd AWSC D 139.8 F 246.7 F
12 I-505 NB Ramps & Midway Rd TWSC D 174.8 F OVR F
13 I-505 SB Ramps & Midway Rd TWSC D 169.2 F OVR F
14 I-80 WB Ramps & Oday Rd TWSC D 9.8 A 8.9 A
15 Oday Rd & Midway Rd TWSC D 31.6 D OVR F
16 Gentile Ln & Midway Rd TWSC D 22.4 C 168.3 F
17 I-80 EB Ramps & Midway Rd TWSC D 30.9 D OVR F
18 Lewis Rd & Midway Rd TWSC D OVR F OVR F
Notes:

1. AWSC = All Way Stop Control; TWSC = Two Way Stop Control

2. LOS = Delay based on worst minor street approach for TWSC intersections, average of all approaches for AWSC, Signal

3. Bold = Unacceptable Conditions

4. OVR = Delay over 300 seconds
* Reported mainline delay due to higher calculated delay than side-street delay Item 12.a
12675578 30
Similar to Alternatives A and B, the intersection of Midway Road and the southern driveway (analyzed as intersection 116 in Table 3.1) west of the intersection of Gentile Lane and Midway Road was removed. It was assumed the new roadway proposed in the circulation network would connect into the three-legged Gentile Lane and Midway Road intersection, converting it into a four-legged intersection in Cumulative Plus Project Conditions.

Item 12.a
1 2 3
4 5 6
7 8 9
10 11 12
Project No.

Report No.

Date
Alternative C AM & PM
Peak Hour Traffic Volumes,
Lane Geometries & Traffic Control FIGURE 7.2
City of Vacaville
Northeast Growth Area Planning Study
12675578
001
6/9/26
60 (110)
Leisure Town Rd
CrrrrrrErr
Orange Rd
Leisure Town Rd
CrrALrrr
Leisure Town Rd/Orange Rd Leisure Town Rd/I-80 WB Ramps Leisure Town Rd/I-80 EB Ramps CC E 800 (500) * 1,470 (3,060) FrBBBrrrrr
430 (870)580 (1,590)680 (980)
Leisure Town Rd
CrrALrrr
400 (420)
FrrBBrrD
750 (1,030) 460 (1,010) 80 (100)
190 (270)
250 (490) 690 (1,500) 30 (100)
I-80 WB Ramp
Leisure Town Rd
rrrrAArrE I-80 EB Ramps
Leisure Town Rd
rAAL
Orange Rd I-80 WB Ramps Driveway FrBBBrD 1,640 (2,170) Leisure Town Rd 340 (120) 30 (50)
3,010 (2,220)
20 (50)
880 (400)
330 (240)
1,330 (920)
520 (270)
rrMBrDD
290 (190) 130 (360)
rrQD
1,750 (1,380)
110 (310)
340 (160)
Willow Rd/Walnut Rd Orange Dr/Walnut Rd Lewis Rd/Weber Rd Orange Dr P
70 (20)70 (220)
20 (10) 0 (0)
Walnut Rd
Willow Rd
Orr
Orange Dr
rArL Weber Rd
Lewis Rd
Orr
320 (320)150 (870)10 (20)
Willow Rd
Or
790 (1,350)10 (20)10 (10)
Lewis Rd
Or
10 (10)
10 (10) 50 (20)
0 (10) 330 (340) 10 (10)
Q rBN Q Walnut Rd Walnut Rd Weber Rd
10 (10) 40 (80)
10 (190)
10 (10)
200 (360)
30 (10)
970 (220)
Q
0 (10)
Q
10 (50) 30 (270) 1,170 (830) 170 (430)
10 (100)
260 (90)
Driveway/Byrnes Rd/Weber Rd Meridian Rd/Weber Rd/I-80 EB Ramps Meridian Rd/I-80 WB Ramps 100 (90) 650 (1,430)
Weber Rd
Byrnes Rd
Orr I-80 EB Ramps
Meridian Rd
rrL
30 (270)20 (100)70 (90)180 (880)410 (540)
Driveway
Or
10 (70)500 (530)
Meridian Rd
70 (450) 10 (330)
50 (180)
Meridian Rd
Kr
Weber Rd Weber Rd
130 (930)
Q rR FrrBrrrrrr
500 (90) 1,180 (510)
1,190 (690)
330 (50)
90 (320)140 (60)
220 (110)
670 (190)
Q
rrrN
Rr
150 (110) 100 (60)
40 (60)
I-80 WB Ramps
Meridian Rd/Midway Rd Leisure Town Rd/Midway Rd I-505 NB Ramps/Midway Rd Leisure Town Rd Or 10 (30) 80 (150)
Midway Rd
Meridian Rd
Orr Midway Rd
Leisure Town Rd
Orr Midway Rd
I-505 NB Off-Ramp
Midway Rd
20 (30)70 (20)10 (10)
Meridian Rd
Or
10 (10)10 (30)30 (30)
I-505 NB On-Ramp
rrL
10 (10)
260 (340) 370 (680) 470 (710)
30 (10) 30 (330)
Q Q 0 Midway Rd Midway Rd 130 (200) 5 (5) 350 (330)
Orr
40 (30)
80 (640)
10 (70)10 (30)
10 (10)
QQ
70 (20)50 (10)
420 (70)
rrrN
20 (30)
720 (170) 20 (80)
290 (480) 620 (620) 440 (430)
Legend
XX (YY) AM (PM) Peak Hour Volumes
Turn Lane Stop Sign
Traffic Signal Roundabout
C
* Calculated Volumes Based on Forecasts
Item 12.a
13 14 15
16 17 18
Project No.

Report No.

Date
Alternative C AM & PM
Peak Hour Traffic Volumes,
Lane Geometries & Traffic Control FIGURE 7.3
City of Vacaville
Northeast Growth Area Planning Study
12675578
001
6/9/26
0 (10)
0 (10)
0 (0)
140 (280)140 (260)
Q
Mrrr
10 (10) 375 (130) 0 (0) 720 (280)
rrrKrrE Midway Rd
I-80 EB Off-Ramp
rrrN
10 (150)
460 (310)
Q 0 0
190 (420) 805 (460)
Midway Rd
120 (520)150 (270)
150 (320) 440 (990) 360 (820)
150 (270)
I-80 EB On-Ramp
rrL
0 (10)0 (0)10 (20)
Gentile Ln
Or
Gentile Ln/Midway Rd I-80 EB Ramps/Midway Rd Lewis Rd/Midway Rd Kr 0 (30) 40 (350)
180 (180)
Midway Rd
New Road
Orr Midway Rd
Lewis Rd
Prrr
Midway Rd Midway Rd
MrrrMrrr
245 (75)
rrrN
210 (220) 395 (965)
5 (5)
70 (310)
230 (280) 5 (5)
370 (630) 5 (5) 250 (590)
330 (660)
Midway Rd Oday Rd Midway Rd FrrrrrrDr 200 (50) Oday Rd rrL Midway Rd
I-505 SB On-Ramp
Oday Rd
I-80 WB Ramps
CrrrrrrErr
Midway Rd
Kr
Q
360 (345) 5 (5) 270 (410)
I-505 SB Ramps/Midway Rd I-80 WB Ramps/Oday Rd Oday Rd/Midway Rd Kr 20 (20) 5 (0) 100 (115) 50 (30) I-505 SB Off-Ramp Legend
XX (YY) AM (PM) Peak Hour Volumes
Turn Lane Stop Sign
Traffic Signal Roundabout
C
Item 12.a
12675578 33

7.3 Alternative C Mitigation Measures
The mitigation measures presented in Table 7.3 were incorporated into the study intersections and freeway ramps, as warranted, to accommodate projected traffic demand and to maintain acceptable operations. The mitigation measures outlined below were determined by analysing each failing intersection in Table 7.2 with the minimum types of mitigations required to reach nonfailing operations for Alternative C conditions. The mitigations proposed are specific to the intersections and alterative conditions analysed. These mitigations were applied where necessary based on the traffic analysis results and are intended to enhance capacity, improve safety, and support efficient traffic flow under future conditions.

The intersection of Leisure Town Road and Orange Drive was evaluated in detail, including improvements identified in the 2022 TIF Program as well as additional capacity enhancement concepts. While a range of mitigation options were analyzed, including further widening and alternative control strategies such as a roundabout, the level of improvement required to address projected demand would result in a significantly expanded intersection footprint.

The intersection already provides substantial geometric capacity, including multiple through lanes and dual leftturn lanes, and is built to a relatively large cross-section. Accommodating future demand would require extensive additional widening beyond this existing configuration. At that scale, the associated right-of-way impacts, increased pedestrian crossing distances, and overall intersection size raise concerns related to feasibility, cost, and safety.

Accordingly, while these potential improvements are reflected in the analysis for comparison purposes, they are not recommended at this stage due to the scale of expansion required and the associated safety and design considerations. It is also important to note that the travel demand model did not incorporate all ultimate roadway improvements identified in the City’s General Plan. Implementation of additional planned roadway connections and capacity enhancements elsewhere in the network may redistribute traffic and reduce demand at this intersection under future Cumulative Plus Project Conditions. The intersections of Leisure Town Road and the I-80 Westbound Ramps, Leisure Town Road and the I-80 Eastbound Off-Ramp / Driveway, Lewis Road and Weber Road, and the I-80 Westbound Ramps and Oday Road were determined to be exempt from the mitigations analysis due presenting projected acceptable operations for Alternative C conditions in Table

7.2. Table 7.3: Alternative C Intersection Mitigation Measures # Intersection Mitigation Measures
1 Leisure Town Rd & Orange Dr • Optimize signal timing
• Widen Leisure Town Road south leg to six
lanes. Modify NB approach to include 3
NBT lanes with 2 NBL and 1 NBR pockets.
• Maintain existing six lanes along Leisure
Town Road north of the intersection.

Modify SB approach to include 3 SBT
lanes with 3 SBL and 1 SBR pockets.
• Maintain existing four lanes along Orange
Drive west of the intersection. Modify EB
approach to include 2 EBT lanes with 3
EBL and 1 EBR pockets.
• Widen Orange Drive east leg to six lanes.

Modify WB approach to include 2 WBT
lanes with 1 WBL and 1 WBR pockets.
2 Leisure Town Rd & I-80 WB Ramps • No proposed improvement 3 Leisure Town Rd & I-80 EB Off-Ramp/ Driveway • No proposed improvement Item 12.a
12675578 34
# Intersection Mitigation Measures
4 Willow Rd & Walnut Rd Option 1:
• Install traffic signal
• Widen Willow Road to four lanes
• Widen Walnut Road to four lanes
Option 2:
• Install roundabout
5 Orange Dr & Walnut Rd • Install traffic signal
• Widen Orange Drive to six lanes. Modify
NB approach to include 2 NBT lanes and 1
NBTR lane
• Widen Walnut Road to four lanes. Modify
SB approach to include 2 SBT lanes and 1
SBTL lane
• Widen Walnut Road east leg to four lanes.

Modify WB approach to include 1 WBL
lane with 1 WBL pocket and 1 WBR lane
6 Lewis Rd & Weber Rd • No proposed improvement
7 Byrnes Rd & Weber Rd Option 1:
• Install traffic signal
• Widen Byrnes Road to four lanes
• Widen Weber Road to four lanes
Option 2:
• Install roundabout
• Modify SB approach to include 1 SBLT
lane and 1 SBR pocket
8 Meridian Rd & I-80 EB Ramps/ Weber Rd • Install traffic signal • Consolidate intersection
• Widen Weber Road to four lanes
• Modify SB approach to include 1 SBR lane
and 2 SBL pockets
• Modify EB approach to include 2 EBT
lanes and 2 EBL pockets
• Modify WB approach to include 1 WBT
lane and 1 WBR lane
9 Meridian Rd & I-80 WB Ramps • Install traffic signal
• Consolidate intersection
• Modify NB approach to include 1 NBT lane
and 2 NBL pockets
• Modify EB approach to include 1 EBL lane
and 1 EBR pocket
• Modify SB approach to include 1 SBT lane
and 1 SBR lane
10 Meridian Rd & Midway Rd Option 1:
• Install traffic signal
• Widen Midway Road to four lanes
• Widen Meridian Road to four lanes
Option 2:
• Install roundabout
Item 12.a
12675578 35
# Intersection Mitigation Measures
11 Leisure Town Rd & Midway Rd Option 1:
• Install traffic signal
• Widen Midway Road to four lanes
• Widen Leisure Town Road to four lanes
Option 2:
• Install roundabout
12 I-505 NB Ramps & Midway Rd • Install roundabout
13 I-505 SB Ramps & Midway Rd • Install roundabout
14 I-80 WB Ramps & Oday Rd • No proposed improvement
15 Oday Rd & Midway Rd • Install traffic signal
16 Gentile Ln & Midway Rd • Install traffic signal
17 I-80 EB Ramps & Midway Rd Option 1:
• Install traffic signal
• Consolidate intersection
• Modify NB approach to include 1 NBTR
lane and 1 NBL pocket
• Modify EB approach to include 1 EBT lane
and 1 EBL pocket
• Modify WB approach to include 1 WBT
lane and 1 WBR pocket
Option 2:
• Install roundabout
• Modify WB approach to include 1 WBT
lane and 1 WBR pocket
18 Lewis Rd & Midway Rd Option 1:
• Install traffic signal
• Modify NB approach to include 1 NBL lane
and 1 NBR pocket
• Modify EB approach to include 1 EBT lane
and 1 EBR pocket
• Modify WB approach to include 1 WBT
lane and 1 WBL pocket
Option 2:
• Install multilane roundabout
• Modify WB approach to include 1 WBT
lane and 1 WBL pocket
Table 7.4 presents projected intersection operations with the proposed mitigation measures outlined in Table

7.3. With the proposed mitigations, all intersections are projected to operate with acceptable LOS.

Item 12.a
12675578 36
Table 7.4: Alternative C Intersection Mitigation LOS Operations # Intersection
Control
Type1
Target
LOS
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Delay LOS Delay LOS
1 Leisure Town Rd & Orange Dr Signal D 45.6 D 44.1 D
4 Willow Rd & Walnut Rd Signal D 7.2 A 17.1 B
4 Willow Rd & Walnut Rd RNDBT D 6.1 A 12.3 B
5 Orange Dr & Walnut Rd Signal D 7.9 A 11.0 B
7 Byrnes Rd & Weber Rd Signal D 11.6 B 15.2 B
7 Byrnes Rd & Weber Rd RNDBT D 14.8 B 11.9 B
8 Meridian Rd & I-80 EB Ramps / Weber Rd Signal D 11.9 B 11.8 B 9 Meridian Rd & I-80 WB Ramps Signal D 18.2 B 18.2 B
10 Meridian Rd & Midway Rd Signal D 13.3 B 17.7 B
10 Meridian Rd & Midway Rd RNDBT D 5.4 A 12.3 B
11 Leisure Town Rd & Midway Rd Signal D 10.9 B 6.1 A
11 Leisure Town Rd & Midway Rd RNDBT D 8.2 A 7.3 A
12 I-505 NB Ramps & Midway Rd RNDBT D 6.1 A 6.5 A
13 I-505 SB Ramps & Midway Rd RNDBT D 6.8 A 7.0 A
15 Oday Rd & Midway Rd Signal D 6.4 A 6.2 A
16 Gentile Ln & Midway Rd Signal D 6.4 A 12.8 B
17 I-80 EB Ramps & Midway Rd Signal D 24.6 C 34.7 C
17 I-80 EB Ramps & Midway Rd RNDBT D 8.0 A 8.8 A
18 Lewis Rd & Midway Rd Signal D 21.4 C 26.9 C
18 Lewis Rd & Midway Rd RNDBT D 8.9 A 12.8 B
Notes:

1. RNDBT = Roundabout

2. LOS = Delay based on average of all approaches for Signal, RNDBT

3. Bold = Unacceptable Conditions

4. OVR = Delay over 300 seconds

8. Orange Drive Extension
The extension of Orange Drive into the Northeast Growth Area offers several potential transportation and network efficiency benefits. As envisioned in the City’s General Plan, Orange Drive would function as a north– south arterial running generally parallel to Interstate 80, providing an additional internal corridor between Leisure Town Road, Midway Road, and future development areas. By creating a continuous route parallel to the freeway, the extension could serve local and sub-regional trips that might otherwise enter and exit I-80 for short-distance travel.

From an operational perspective, this parallel connection may help intercept internal trips within Vacaville that currently rely on the freeway. Providing a viable arterial alternative could reduce short local trips on I-80 and lessen merging and weaving activity at nearby interchanges. The extension may also help redistribute traffic demand across multiple corridors, potentially reducing pressure at key ramp terminals.

In addition, the Orange Drive extension would strengthen overall network connectivity and resiliency. A continuous parallel arterial improves route choice flexibility, supports emergency response access, and enhances redundancy in the transportation system. This is particularly important in a large employment or mixed-use area, where reliance on a single east–west corridor could create operational vulnerability during incidents or peak demand conditions.

Overall, the extension represents not only a capacity improvement but also a strategic network enhancement that could improve internal circulation and reduce dependency on the regional freeway system for local trips.

Item 12.a
12675578 37

9. Capital Improvement Considerations
Implementation of freeway ramp or interchange improvements associated with the Northeast Growth Area, particularly at the I-80 and I-505 interchanges, would require coordination with Caltrans and compliance with the State’s formal project development process. Because these facilities are located on the State Highway System (SHS), any major improvements would require preparation and approval of a Project Initiation Document (PID) prior to advancing into environmental clearance or design. Depending on the funding source, project scope, and complexity, this may take the form of a Project Study Report (PSR) or a PSR-Project Development Support (PSR-PDS).

For modifications at ramp terminal intersections, such as proposed roundabouts or signal reconfigurations, the Intersection Safety and Operational Assessment Process (ISOAP) would also apply. ISOAP review evaluates operational feasibility, safety performance, multimodal considerations, freight impacts, and geometric constraints, and is typically initiated during the PID phase with additional refinement during environmental review. Projects that modify interchange configuration or affect Interstate access may also require coordination with FHWA.

Given these procedural requirements, including PID/PSR preparation, ISOAP review, environmental documentation, structural analysis, right-of-way evaluation, drainage and utility coordination, and interagency approvals, it is difficult at this planning stage to reliably estimate implementation costs. The ultimate cost of improvements could vary widely depending on whether modifications are limited to ramp terminal geometry or extend to full interchange reconstruction, bridge widening, ramp realignment, and associated infrastructure relocation. As a result, cost considerations at this stage are conceptual and dependent on the scale and configuration of improvements ultimately advanced.

When comparing the alternatives at a high level, Alternative C appears to require the fewest operational mitigation measures relative to the other scenarios. This may be attributable to its more mixed land use pattern, which can promote internal trip capture and distribute traffic more evenly across the network. Reduced peak directional demand at key intersections can lessen the need for substantial geometric modifications, potentially resulting in lower long-term infrastructure requirements. However, final cost implications would ultimately depend on detailed engineering analysis, Caltrans coordination outcomes, and refinement of the preferred land use scenario.

10. Key Findings and Planning Implications
This report summarizes the results of the 2050 Cumulative No Build and Alternatives analyses conducted for the Northeast Growth Area in the City of Vacaville. A total of 18 study intersections were evaluated under weekday AM and PM peak hour conditions using the City’s travel demand model and intersection-level operational modeling tools.

Under Cumulative No Build conditions, several ramp terminal intersections and key arterial locations are projected to experience operational deficiencies due to regional growth and increasing travel demand. The alternatives analysis demonstrates that intersection performance is sensitive to land use intensity, street network configuration, and the degree of internal connectivity within the Northeast Growth Area.

It is important to note that the travel demand model did not include all roadway improvements identified in the City’s General Plan. Inclusion of those planned improvements could alter traffic distribution patterns and potentially improve operations at certain study intersections. Therefore, results should be interpreted within the context of the modeled network assumptions.

All alternatives will require significant modifications to existing interchanges and intersections to accommodate projected travel demand and maintain acceptable operations. However, a detailed internal transportation network will need to be established and evaluated in subsequent phases of planning and design.

Item 12.a
12675578 38
At a comparative level, Alternative C appears to require fewer operational mitigation measures relative to the other scenarios, which may be attributable to its more balanced land use pattern and higher potential for internal trip capture. However, the ultimate determination of required improvements will depend on selection of a preferred alternative, refinement of land use assumptions, and continued coordination with the City and Caltrans for facilities on the State Highway System.

At this conceptual planning stage, the recommended mitigations represent a high-level infrastructure assessment rather than fixed design commitments. The ultimate roadway cross-sections, intersection configurations, and control strategies will be refined through future technical studies and stakeholder coordination, with careful consideration of lifecycle cost, safety performance, operational efficiency, and the potential benefits of roundabout corridors where appropriate. Overall, this analysis provides a planning-level comparison of transportation performance across the alternatives and identifies locations where additional evaluation, design development, and interagency coordination will be necessary as the Northeast Growth Area planning process advances.

Item 12.a

ALTERNATIVES TECHNICAL
EVALUATION:

INFRASTRUCTURE

VACAVILLE NORTHEAST GROWTH AREA PLANNING STUDY

VACAVILLE, CALIFORNIA
April 2026
2633 CAMINO RAMON, SUITE 350 I SAN RAMON, CALIFORNIA 94583 I (925) 866-0322 1430 BLUE OAKS BOULEVARD, SUITE 110 I ROSEVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95747 I (916) 788-4456 www.cbandg.com
Item 12.a