TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...............................................................................................2 II. INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................3 III. METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................4
3.1 Water........................................................................................................................4
3.2 Wastewater...............................................................................................................4
3.3 Stormwater Drainage ...............................................................................................5 IV. ALTERNATIVE A: INFRASTRUCTURE EVALUATION.........................................7
4.1 Water........................................................................................................................7
4.2 Wastewater...............................................................................................................7
4.2.1 Projected Wastewater Generation......................................................................................7
4.3 Stormwater Drainage ...............................................................................................7
4.3.1 Developable Acreage............................................................................................. 7
4.3.2 Water Quality Treatment Area .............................................................................. 7 V. ALTERNATIVE B: INFRASTRUCTURE EVALUATION.........................................8
5.1 Water........................................................................................................................8
5.2 Wastewater...............................................................................................................8
5.2.1 Projected Wastewater Demand ............................................................................. 8
5.3 Stormwater Drainage ...............................................................................................8
5.3.1 Developable Acreage............................................................................................. 8
5.3.2 Water Quality Treatment Area .............................................................................. 8 VI. ALTERNATIVE C: INFRASTRUCTURE EVALUATION.........................................9
6.1 Water........................................................................................................................9
6.2 Wastewater...............................................................................................................9
6.2.1 Projected Wastewater Demand ............................................................................. 9
6.3 Stormwater Drainage ...............................................................................................9
6.3.1 Developable Acreage............................................................................................. 9
6.3.2 Water Quality Treatment Area .............................................................................. 9 VII. CONNECTION AND ALIGNMENT RECOMMENDATIONS ................................10
7.1 Water......................................................................................................................10
7.2 Wastewater.............................................................................................................10 Item 12.a
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Water, wastewater, and storm drainage metrics were prepared for each Vacaville Northeast Growth Area Planning Study land use alternative to assist in the selection of the preferred option.
Some key findings:
• While water demand varied slightly between alternatives, the distribution system required to support any alternative is not likely to be significantly different. • The total length of new roadways will mimic the water pipe network, so the extent to which roads can be minimized will result in a corresponding cost savings for the water system. • Stormwater storage and water quality treatment are similar for all three alternatives and likely not a determining factor in selecting a preferred alternative. • Developable acreage can be maximized by co-locating the planned detention basins with open space and park uses.
• Wastewater generation varies slightly between alternatives, but likely not enough to impact the backbone sewer system.
• Of greater concern will be the sewer collection main routes and point(s) of connection to the existing system. Elevations in the planning area drop from west to east, the opposite direction collection mains would slope if they ultimately connect to the existing system in Leisure Town Road. This difference in slope direction will require multiple sewer lift stations which are expensive to build and operate.
Item 12.a
II. INTRODUCTION
To support the Vacaville Northeast Growth Area land use alternatives analysis, CBG prepared sewer generation and potable water demand estimates for each alternative. In addition, the Storm Drainage Master Plan proposed detention basin locations were compared against each alternative, and water quality treatment area and costs were estimated. A description of the methodologies and results are outlined in the following sections.
Item 12.a
III. METHODOLOGY
The City’s master plans for water, wastewater, and storm drainage establish design criteria for each utility system. Each master plan is supported by a robust model, and updates to those models are outside of the scope of this Planning Study. To allow for a comparative analysis of the land use alternatives, specific metrics were calculated for each utility as detailed below.
3.1 Water
The 2023 Water Master Plan (WMP) provides water use factors for all proposed land uses included in the alternatives except Business Park. In consultation with Utilities Department staff, it was agreed to use the Industrial water use factor for Business Park uses for this analysis (600 gallons per day per acre). For roadways it is assumed 10% of the area is irrigated landscape.
Metrics of interest in water master planning are average day demand (ADD), maximum day demand (MDD), and peak hour demand (PHD). ADD represents what the water system must handle most of the time, MDD ensures the system can supply enough water during the highest demand day (such as holidays or excessively hot days), and PHD represents what the system must handle for short bursts of intense demand. Factoring in all three ensures that the system is not under or overbuilt.
ADD is calculated by applying the water use factor to the proposed land use unit (development units for residential and acres for non-residential). Per the WMP, MDD is calculated by applying a peaking factor of 1.7 to ADD and PHD is calculated by applying a peaking factor of 3.2 to ADD. Demands are reported in millions of gallons per day (MGD).
3.2 Wastewater
The 2018 Wastewater Facilities Master Plan (WFMP) provides sewer generation flow factors for all proposed land uses included in the alternatives except Business Park. Like water, Utilities Department staff suggested generation factors be equal for Industrial and Business Park uses (2,000 gallons per day per acre).
Item 12.a
Applying the flow factors to the respective land use unit (development units for residential and acres for non-residential) calculates the average dry weather flow (Qa). This will be the comparative metric used for this task. Once a preferred alternative is selected in later stages of the planning study, a preliminary sewer routing plan will be developed. Pipes can then be preliminarily sized using the design flow (Qd), which accounts for a peaking factor and infiltration and inflow. The design flow calculation is exponential, so it is not simply a matter of adding all flows from individual parcels and must be calculated at specific nodes that will be determined with the preliminary sewer routing plan. Confirmation of flows, pipe capacity, velocities, pipe sizes, and downstream system capacity will require an update of the City’s sewer hydraulic model which will likely be completed by the City’s sewer modeler when a specific plan is prepared. According to Utilities Department staff, an update to the 2023 WMP has already begun to evaluate the East of Leisure Town Growth Area Specific Plan (ELTSP). Any future updates to incorporate the preferred Vacaville Northeast Growth Area land uses will tier of the ELTSP update.
3.3 Stormwater Drainage
The 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (SDMP) anticipated development of the Planning Study Area and sized and sited 6 separate detention basins (Basins 7, 8, 9, 9B, 10, and 11; see figure below) to accommodate the added runoff. These basins are for flood control purposes only and do not provide water quality treatment. The basin locations are compatible with all three land use alternatives so no modifications to parcel land uses are needed. Confirmation of basin sizing and configurations will require updating the City’s storm drain model which will likely be completed by the City’s stormwater modeler when a specific plan is prepared.
Item 12.a
CLIP OF SDMP FIGURE 7-6
In addition to any additional flood control storage called for in the SDMP, all new development within the city must provide post-construction water quality treatment and runoff control measures.
While runoff control may be achieved through the planned detention basins, the typical method for water quality is on-site bio-filtration basins that allow for infiltration prior to discharge to the storm drain system. For comparative purposes, water quality areas were calculated for each development parcel using the “four-percent rule.” This site planning rule of thumb assumes four percent of the gross area of each development parcel is reserved for water quality treatment. Only four tenths of a percent of gross parks and open space parcel area is reserved for water quality treatment due to their reduced impervious area. For cost estimating purposes, a value of $25 per square foot of treatment area is used which accounts for the basin soil, underdrain system, overflow structures, and compatible landscaping.
Item 12.a
IV. ALTERNATIVE A: INFRASTRUCTURE EVALUATION
4.1 Water
Table 1: Project Water Demand
Average Day Demand (MGD) Maximum Day Demand (MGD) Peak Hour Demand (MGD)
1.61 2.74 5.16
Due to the lack of residential uses, Alternative A has the lowest water demand with an ADD roughly 6% less than Alternative B and 30% less than Alternative C.
4.2 Wastewater
4.2.1 Projected Wastewater Generation
Average Dry Weather Flow (Qa)- 2.20 MGD
Due to the lack of residential uses, Alternative A has the lowest wastewater generation with an Qa roughly 2% less than Alternative B and 11% less than Alternative C.
4.3 Stormwater Drainage
4.3.1 Developable Acreage
Based on the locations contemplated in the SDMP, reductions in the developable acreage of the following parcels will be required to accommodate the proposed detention basins.
Table 2: Developable Acreage
Parcel ID Land Use Basin ID Parcel Size (AC) Basin Size (AC) Net Size (AC) 17 IP 9 32.9 16.3 16.6
18 BP 8 17.8 6.3 11.5
19 BP 9B 43.7 13.1 30.6
35 BP 10 31.2 13.8 17.4
40 IP 11 46.3 3.5 42.8
42 OS 7 62.7 12.7 50.0
Total 234.6 65.7 168.9
4.3.2 Water Quality Treatment Area
Due to the highest total developable land use acreage, Alternative A requires to most water quality treatment area at 1.74 million square feet across all parcels.
This is 2% more than Alternative B and 4% more than alternative C. Order of magnitude cost is $43.6 million.
Item 12.a
V. ALTERNATIVE B: INFRASTRUCTURE EVALUATION
5.1 Water
Table 3: Project Water Demand
Average Day Demand (MGD) Maximum Day Demand (MGD) Peak Hour Demand (MGD)
1.71 3.02 5.68
Due to the addition of some residential uses, Alternative B has the median water demand with an ADD roughly 6% more than Alternative A and 25% less than Alternative C.
5.2 Wastewater
5.2.1 Projected Wastewater Demand
Average Dry Weather Flow (Qa)- 2.23 MGD
Due to the addition of some residential uses, Alternative B has the median wastewater generation with an Qa roughly 2% more than Alternative A and 9% less than Alternative C.
5.3 Stormwater Drainage
5.3.1 Developable Acreage
Based on the locations contemplated in the SDMP, reductions in the developable acreage of the following parcels will be required to accommodate the proposed detention basins.
Table 4: Developable Acreage
Parcel ID Land Use Basin ID Parcel Size (AC) Basin Size (AC) Net Size (AC) 6/10 OS/RMH 7 21.5 12.7 8.8
26 BP 8 20.4 6.3 14.1
33 PK 9 33.3 16.3 17.0
37 BP 9B 20.8 13.1 7.7
60 BP 10 32.9 13.8 19.1
62 IP 11 36.0 3.5 32.5
Total 164.9 65.7 99.2
5.3.2 Water Quality Treatment Area
Due to the median total developable land use acreage, Alternative B requires the median water quality treatment area at 1.70 million square feet across all parcels.
This is 2% less than Alternative A and 1% more than alternative C. Order of magnitude cost is $42.6 million.
Item 12.a
VI. ALTERNATIVE C: INFRASTRUCTURE EVALUATION
6.1 Water
Table 5: Project Water Demand
Average Day Demand (MGD) Maximum Day Demand (MGD) Peak Hour Demand (MGD)
2.19 3.73 7.02
Due to the highest amount of residential uses, Alternative C has the highest water demand with an ADD roughly 30% more than Alternative A and 25% more than Alternative B.
6.2 Wastewater
6.2.1 Projected Wastewater Demand
Average Dry Weather Flow (Qa)- 2.44 MGD
Due to the highest amount of residential uses, Alternative C has the highest wastewater generation with an Qa roughly 11% more than Alternative A and 9% more than Alternative B.
6.3 Stormwater Drainage
6.3.1 Developable Acreage
Based on the locations contemplated in the SDMP, reductions in the developable acreage of the following parcels will be required to accommodate the proposed detention basins.
Table 6: Developable Acreage
Parcel ID Land Use Basin ID Parcel Size (AC) Basin Size (AC) Net Size (AC) 3/6 OS/RM 7 68.6 12.7 55.9
21 BP 8 17.3 6.3 11.1
30 BP 9 33.9 16.3 17.6
31 BP 9B 35.4 13.1 22.3
44 BP 10 23.1 13.8 9.3
54 BP 11 17.9 3.5 14.4
Total 196.2 65.7 130.6
6.3.2 Water Quality Treatment Area
Due to the lowest total developable land use acreage, Alternative C requires the least water quality treatment area at 1.68 million square feet across all parcels. This is 4% less than Alternative A and 1% less than alternative B. Order of magnitude cost is $42.0 million.
Item 12.a
VII. CONNECTION AND ALIGNMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1 Water
Water connection and alignment recommendations do not vary based on alternative. The City’s current water distribution network is established in Leisure Town Road, Orange Drive, and Quinn Road near the southwest corner of the study area. To support any of the proposed land use alternatives, the water distribution system will need to be extended through the entirety of the proposed roadway network to provide a looped and redundant system. Pipe sizing and system pressures will need to be confirmed by the City’s water modeling consultant (presumably as part of the specific plan effort), but it is likely that a backbone system of at least 12-inch waterlines will be required to provide adequate domestic and fire flows, with smaller 8-inch lines completing the network. The WMP recommends fire flow requirements of 4,500 gallons per minute for a 4- hour duration for Industrial and Commercial/Office uses, which is the highest fire flow level. The predominance of Business Park and Industrial Park land uses in all three alternatives is likely to result in similar sized water lines to provide the required fire flow.
Alternative B includes the most area dedicated to roadways, followed by C, and then A. The added length of roadways will add to the cost of building out the water system. The WMP does not contemplate additional storage reservoirs or booster pumps for the area, but the City may consider adding a well or wells to augment production capacity to offset the added demand, regardless of which alternative is chosen. Pressures in the lower elevations of the study area will need to be evaluated to determine if pressure reducing stations will be necessary to regulate flows.
7.2 Wastewater
Sewer connection and alignment recommendations do not vary based on alternative. The existing sewer lines near the planning area are in Leisure Town Road near the southwest corner of the planning area and in Quinn Road on the north side of the freeway. Elevations in the plan area generally fall west to east, with the eastern boundary as much as 20 feet lower than the western.
City design standards recommend a maximum sewer depth of 12 feet. This depth can be exceeded for special circumstances, but for safety and operational consideration should be followed as closely as possible.
Item 12.a
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.
However, the land south of this portion of the plan area will remain as unincorporated County land so any such sewer alignment will need to be coordinated with the County. This will likely require an easement agreement between the City and County to allow the infrastructure alignment.
As shown below, the WFMP graphically shows sewer to the plan area extending south along Willow Road through the Locke Paddon community. South of this community are properties currently involved in the East of Leisure Town Growth Area Specific Plan (ELTSP). Recent drafts of the conceptual sewer master plan for the ELTSP do not anticipate a sewer connection for the Northeast Growth Area at the Willow Road alignment. Moving forward the City will coordinate internally to ensure that efforts for both the East of Leisure Town and Northeast Growth Area are coordinated. With both the Byrnes/Lewis and Willow routes unavailable, directing flows to the Leisure Town Road corridor is the next most likely alternative.
CLIP OF WFMP FIGURE 3-2
Item 12.a
The downside of the Leisure Town Road sewer connection is that it is on the high side of the planning area elevations, so a series of lift stations will be required to prevent excessively deep pipelines. With multi-million-dollar investments and ongoing operational and maintenance costs, these lift stations will need to be minimized. The size of sewer pipes and pumps may vary slightly based on land use alternative, but likely not enough to impact overall sewer costs significantly.
Since lift stations are quite costly to both build and operate, as part of the future specific plan process the City may elect to conduct a preliminary sewer conveyance design effort to explore long force mains as a method of reducing the number of required lift stations. Long force mains and less lift stations will likely result in a tradeoff of lower upfront capital costs for higher longterm operation and maintenance costs, so a full life-cycle cost analysis should be prepared as part of the alternative analysis.
Regardless of the point of sewer connection to the south, sewer crossings of Highway 80 should be limited to a single location. Caltrans will require the crossing to be bore and jacked under the freeway, which is a costly construction method and limits future maintenance access. Like the ultimate point of connection, this consideration is independent of land use alternative.
Item 12.a
Vacaville Northeast Growth Area
Planning Study
Community & Economic Development Department
Item 12.a
Introduction
City of Vacaville
• Erin Morris, AICP
Community & Economic
Development Director
July 28, 2026 Agenda Item 12.a Informational Update on the Northeast Growth Area Planning Study - Slide of 32 PlaceWorks
• Ellie Fiore, AICP,
Principal
• Cliff Lau, Senior
Associate
• Jennifer Hugoo,
Planner/Designer
Other Team Members
• GHD (Transportation)
• CBG (Infrastructure)
• EPS (Economics)
2 Item 12.a
Northeast Growth Area
• Identified in 2015 General Plan
for future planning and
development
• 1,400 acres:
• 611 acres within the City
• 789 acres in unincorporated
Solano County
• Entirely within the City’s Sphere
of Influence and Urban Growth
Boundary
July 28, 2026 Agenda Item 12.a Informational Update on the Northeast Growth Area Planning Study - Slide 3 of 32 Item 12.a
General Plan Goals
• Prioritize job-generating uses, such as high-quality offices, industrial uses, and technology campuses.
• Ensure development of employment-generating uses before any allowed residential uses.
• Ensure development is evaluated for environmental impacts. • Support preparation of one or more Specific Plans to ensure orderly development and provision of needed infrastructure.
July 28, 2026 Agenda Item 12.a Informational Update on the Northeast Growth Area Planning Study - Slide 4 of 32 Item 12.a
Planning Study Purpose and Scope
• Engage the Vacaville community
around development opportunities
in the Northeast Growth Area.
• Consider potential land uses and
development scenarios, including:
• Circulation improvement
• Utility and infrastructure needs
• Fiscal considerations
• Identify a preferred land use
scenario.
• Create the foundation for a
possible future Specific Plan.
July 28, 2026 Agenda Item 12.a Informational Update on the Northeast Growth Area Planning Study - Slide 5 of 32 Item 12.a
Planning Process
July 28, 2026 Agenda Item 12.a Informational Update on the Northeast Growth Area Planning Study - Slide 6 of 32 Existing Conditions and Community Engagement
Land Use Alternatives and Technical Evaluations
Presentations to Planning Commission
and City Council on Alternatives
1 2
3 4 Final Report
June – August 2025
September 2025 – May 2026
June – July 2026
Fall 2026
Item 12.a
Community Engagement
July 28, 2026 Agenda Item 12.a Informational Update on the Northeast Growth Area Planning Study - Slide 7 of 32 Public Workshop
• When: July 30, 2025
• Where: Three Oaks Community Center
• Attendees: ~ 20 community members
Key Things We Heard
• Strong support for keeping agricultural land
and maintaining existing character.
• Some members expressed interest in new
industrial development.
• Consensus about the need for a grocery
store and green space buffers.
Item 12.a
Community Engagement
July 28, 2026 Agenda Item 12.a Informational Update on the Northeast Growth Area Planning Study - Slide 8 of 32 Stakeholder Interviews
• What: Discussions to better understand goals, concerns, and feasibility of development in the growth area, particularly high-quality industrial development. • Who: Landowners, real-estate experts, and existing business park owners. • How Many: 10 interviews
• When: August – September 2025
Key Things We Heard
• Landowners: General support for job-generating uses and/or residential. • Real-estate Experts: Need to consider existing vacancy rates of industrial uses; R&D, manufacturing or logistics will likely be more feasible. • Existing Business Park Owners: Seeing a current trend to incorporate residential into business parks.
Item 12.a
Solano County Coordination
• The study focuses on land in the
City’s UGB and SOI, but there is
the opportunity to work in
conjunction with the County.
• The County has shown support for
the study and voiced appreciation
for the opportunity to collaborate.
• City staff will continue to engage
County staff throughout the project
to ensure they remain informed of
any progress.
July 28, 2026 Agenda Item 12.a Informational Update on the Northeast Growth Area Planning Study - Slide 9 of 32 Item 12.a
Existing Land Uses
July 28, 2026 Agenda Item 12.a Informational Update on the Northeast Growth Area Planning Study - Slide10 of 32 Item 12.a
Land Use and
Circulation Alternatives
July 28, 2026 Agenda Item 12.a Informational Update on the Northeast Growth Area Planning Study - Slide 11 of 32 Item 12.a
Alternatives Overview
• Three land use and circulation alternatives were developed to analyze different development scenarios.
• All Alternatives maintained an industrial focus but varied in land use makeup and distribution.
• The study provided an understanding of benefits, needs, and potential costs for each Alternative.
• The study also looked at infrastructure needs, transportation needs, and fiscal impact considerations for the City for each Alternative.
July 28, 2026 Agenda Item 12.a Informational Update on the Northeast Growth Area Planning Study - Slide 12 of 32 Item 12.a
Land Uses Explained
• Business Park: Technology and high-end industrial uses (e.g., R&D, advanced manufacturing)
• Industrial Park: Traditional industrial activities with some commercial services and warehousing / logistics
• Commercial (highway and general)
• Residential (various densities)
• Open Space, Parks, and Buffers
July 28, 2026 Agenda Item 12.a Informational Update on the Northeast Growth Area Planning Study - Slide13 of 32 Item 12.a
Existing General Plan Land Use Designations
July 28, 2026 Agenda Item 12.a Informational Update on the Northeast Growth Area Planning Study - Slide 14 of 32 Note: The General
Plan land use
designations would
be updated through
a Specific Plan
process.
Item 12.a
July 28, 2026 Agenda Item 12.a Informational Update on the Northeast Growth Area Planning Study - Slide 15 of 32 Alternative A
Most employment-heavy option with
no residential land uses
Item 12.a
Alternative A: Buildout
July 28, 2026 Agenda Item 12.a Informational Update on the Northeast Growth Area Planning Study - Slide16 of 32 Item 12.a
July 28, 2026 Agenda Item 12.a Informational Update on the Northeast Growth Area Planning Study - Slide 17 of 32 Alternative B
Includes some residential development at the south
end of the study area.
Item 12.a
Alternative B: Buildout
July 28, 2026 Agenda Item 12.a Informational Update on the Northeast Growth Area Planning Study - Slide18 of 32 Item 12.a
July 28, 2026 Agenda Item 12.a Informational Update on the Northeast Growth Area Planning Study - Slide 19 of 32 Alternative C
Includes more residential land uses
Item 12.a
Alternative C: Buildout
July 28, 2026 Agenda Item 12.a Informational Update on the Northeast Growth Area Planning Study - Slide 20 of 32 Item 12.a
Land Use Comparison
July 28, 2026 Agenda Item 12.a Informational Update on the Northeast Growth Area Planning Study - Slide 21 of 32 Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C
Industrial Park
Business Park
Highway Commercial
Accessible Open
Space, Buffers, &
Easements
Park
Residential High
Density
Residential Medium
Density
Residential Medium
High Density
25%
48%
3%
13%
5%
4% 2%
26%
50%
6%
13%
5%
18%
37%
6%
15%
5%
5%
11%
3%
Item 12.a
Buildout Comparison
July 28, 2026 Agenda Item 12.a Informational Update on the Northeast Growth Area Planning Study - Slide 22 of 32 Residential Units
Nonresidential Square Footage
• Alternative A has the
most land dedicated to
industrial uses and no
residential land uses.
• Alternative C has the
highest distribution of
residential uses, with
217 acres of residential
land.
• Alternative B is between
the two, with 70 acres of
residential land.
Residential High Density Residential Medium High Density Residential Medium Density Industrial Park Business Park Highway Commercial
Item 12.a
Transportation Comparison
July 28, 2026 Agenda Item 12.a Informational Update on the Northeast Growth Area Planning Study - Slide 23 of 32 Alternative A:
regular, grid-like roadway layout
Alternative B:
curvilinear layout
Alternative C:
characteristics of both
Orange Drive: Connection +
Alternative Alignment
Orange Drive: Connection +
General Plan Alignment
Orange Drive: Connection +
Alternative Alignment
Item 12.a
Transportation Comparison
• A transportation analyzed development impacts on circulation and infrastructure.
• GHD evaluated 18 intersections based on their proximity and expected impact from the envisioned land uses.
• Used the City of Vacaville’s travel demand model in Bentley CUBE, a travel demand modeling tool.
• Estimated traffic conditions assuming no development or transportation improvements for the year 2050 (No Build Scenario). • Evaluated the traffic conditions that would result from the buildout of each alternative in 2050, comparing them to the No Build Scenario. • These were assessed on weekday AM and PM peak hour
conditions.
July 28, 2026 Agenda Item 12.a Informational Update on the Northeast Growth Area Planning Study - Slide 24 of 32 Item 12.a
Transportation Comparison
July 28, 2026 Agenda Item 12.a Informational Update on the Northeast Growth Area Planning Study - Slide 25 of 32 Item 12.a
Transportation Comparison
July 28, 2026 Agenda Item 12.a Informational Update on the Northeast Growth Area Planning Study - Slide26 of 32 • These LOS do not
include the 2025
Transportation Impact
Fee (TIF) Program
Improvements.
• GHD identified
improvements and
mitigation measures
that would allow all
intersections to reach
acceptable levels.
Item 12.a
2025 TIF Improvements
July 28, 2026 Agenda Item 12.a Informational Update on the Northeast Growth Area Planning Study - Slide 27 of 32 • Intersection #1: Leisure Town
Road/Orange Drive
• Intersection #3: Leisure Town Road
and I‐80 EB Off Ramp/Driveway
• Intersection #12: I-505 Northbound
Ramps/Midway Road
• Intersection #13: I-505 Southbound
Ramps/Midway Road
• Midway Road Widening between west
City Limit and O’Day Road/I-80WB Off
Ramp
• Leisure Town Road Widening between
Elmira Road and Orange Drive
Item 12.a
Leisure Town Road and Orange Drive
• The transportation analysis evaluated the 2025 TIF improvements for the intersection of Leisure Town Road and Orange Drive. • The intersection currently provides substantial geometric capacity. • These improvements are analyzed but not recommended at this stage, as any required level of improvements would require significant expansion.
• At this stage, recommended mitigations represent a high-level infrastructure assessment rather than fixed design commitments. • It is recommended that this intersection be evaluated during future planning phases where additional systemic improvements may be considered.
July 28, 2026 Agenda Item 12.a Informational Update on the Northeast Growth Area Planning Study - Slide28 of 32 Item 12.a
Infrastructure Comparison
July 28, 2026 Agenda Item 12.a Informational Update on the Northeast Growth Area Planning Study - Slide 29 of 32 = 1 MGD
= $10 million
= ¾ MGD
= $2.5 million
= ½ MGD = ¼ MGD
Item 12.a
Infrastructure Comparison
• Water: Alternative A has the lowest water demand of the three alternatives for ADD, MDD, and PHD and Alternative C has the highest demand.
• 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.
• Stormwater Drainage: Water quality treatment areas and costs do not vary much between the three alternatives.
• Connection & Realignment: Water connections and alignment recommendations are consistent across the three alternatives July 28, 2026 Agenda Item 12.a Informational Update on the Northeast Growth Area Planning Study - Slide 30 of 32 Item 12.a
Fiscal Impact Findings
• At buildout, all three Alternatives would be expected to create a net fiscal surplus of the City’s General Fund.
• Alternative A is focused on economic development and job growth • Residential and commercial land uses are more favorable than industrial uses as they provide greater property tax and sales tax revenues.
• It is estimated that Alternative C would create the greatest net fiscal surplus, and Alternative B would generate the least net fiscal surplus. • Residential uses result in increased operations and maintenance (O&M) costs due to services such as police, fire, and infrastructure maintenance.
• Alternative C has higher demand for service and highest long-term expenditures
July 28, 2026 Agenda Item 12.a Informational Update on the Northeast Growth Area Planning Study - Slide31 of 32 Item 12.a
Questions or Comments
July 28, 2026 Agenda Item 12.a Informational Update on the Northeast Growth Area Planning Study - Slide 32 of 32 Item 12.a
Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor, and Members of the Vacaville City Council, I respectfully request that the Council pause further action on Agenda Item 12A, the Northeast Growth Plan, until meaningful community input has been fully incorporated and transparently reflected in the planning process.
I recognize that the City has engaged a consultant to prepare this study. However, hiring a consultant does not replace or diminish the importance of genuine community engagement. Residents participated in good faith, including a well-attended meeting at Three Oaks over a year ago where many expressed a clear desire to maintain the area’s agricultural zoning. That input deserves to be meaningfully reflected in the current planning process, not treated as a historical footnote.
When the consultant presented at the Planning Commission meeting last month, community engagement was referenced only briefly, without detail or explanation of how public input influenced the plan. The absence of a clear, transparent accounting of community feedback creates avoidable distrust and undermines confidence in the process. If residents are asked to participate, they should be able to see how their input is being used.
A single outreach meeting over a year ago, without ongoing engagement or visible integration of feedback into the current proposal, is not sufficient for a plan of this scale and long-term impact. I respectfully ask the Council to ensure that community input is not only collected, but meaningfully incorporated before advancing this plan further.
With that in mind, I have several questions I would appreciate the City addressing:
1. Why was community feedback from prior outreach efforts not clearly reflected or explained in the consultant’s presentation?
2. Why is annexation of agricultural land from the County necessary for this growth plan?
a. If this land were not annexed into the City, would it still be eligible for rezoning under Measure T and County “Orderly Growth” policies? i. If not, outside of a blanket General Plan statement, what is the policy justification for allowing rezoning after annexation?
3. What would the Northeast Growth Plan look like if it were limited to existing City boundaries and did not rely on annexation of County agricultural land?
4. What potential impacts would the Corby and Vaca-Dixon BESS proposals have on this plan if approved by the State CEC?
5. To what extent would the City anticipate the use of police powers or eminent domain affecting long-standing residents under this plan? a. If agricultural production is considered a community benefit, how is the displacement of residents justified in exchange for other proposed benefits?
6. Will Caltrans be required to expand I-80 capacity to accommodate the projected 1,400-acre expansion and associated traffic increases at full buildout? Item 12.a
I also want to acknowledge that identifying concerns is only part of the responsibility of public participation. I am committed to contributing constructive ideas toward solutions that balance housing and business needs, infrastructure capacity, and the preservation of agricultural land. I am still developing those ideas, but I want to begin by clearly communicating my concerns and priorities.
I would also welcome the opportunity to meet with staff or Council members outside of public comment, as the three-minute format does not allow sufficient time to fully address these issues.
Thank you for your time, your service, and your consideration of these concerns.
Respectfully,
Chris Whitaker
Vacaville resident
Item 12.a
Hi Erin,
Thank you for taking the time to meet with me today. I really appreciated the conversation and the background on where the planning study stands.
I wanted to follow up in writing, both to you and for the record ahead of the July 28 City Council meeting.
First and most importantly: we support the City moving forward with development in the Northeast Growth Area. Our family has owned land in Vacaville for many years, and we're genuinely excited to see the City creating real economic opportunity in this area. We participated in the stakeholder interviews last fall, and we want to see this effort succeed.
From our perspective, advancing a plan is far better than the status quo.
Our one request relates to our parcels: the approximately 33 acres at the I-80 / Leisure Town Road–Vaca Valley Parkway interchange in the southwest corner of the study area. As the study is finalized, we ask that our parcel be designated Residential High Density, consistent with how it is shown in Alternatives B and C.
The demand for that use is real and demonstrated. We have been in contract with multifamily developers on this parcel more than once, and there is active developer interest today. We believe residential development on our parcel can help drive the broader buildout of the growth area, and we're ready to be part of making that happen.
We understand Alternative A currently shows a Community Park on our parcel. We fully support the community park being part of the plan — we'd simply ask that it be sited elsewhere in the area, and we appreciated hearing that siting can be adjusted as the study is refined.
We'd like to stay engaged as this moves toward July 28 and beyond, and we're happy to make ourselves available to you and your team any time. Thank you again for the direct line and for your work on this.
Best regards,
Jed
Jed Prichard
Director of Asset & Portfolio Management, Aborn Powers
Item 12.a
Item 12.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 12.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 12.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 12.a