Agenda, regular meeting, first session — Vacaville City Council, September 8, 2026 (part 1 of 2)

City of Vacaville Agenda for the City Council,
Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency, Housing Authority, Groundwater Sustainability Agency and Public Financing Authority Tuesday, September 08, 2026
Closed Session: 05:00 PM
Regular Meeting: 06:00 PM

Vacaville City Hall Council Chamber
650 Merchant Street
Entrance to the council Chamber is located
in the parking area off of Walnut Avenue
___________________________________________________________________________

City Council In-Person and Virtual Meeting
Attendees may observe and participate in this meeting in person or remotely via Zoom or telephone.

Join the Meeting in Zoom Webinar
Download and use the Zoom application for desktop and mobile. Participants are encouraged to join the meeting up to 10 minutes before the meeting begins.

Zoom: CityofVacaville.gov/CouncilMeeting
By Telephone: (877) 853-5257 or (888) 475-4499
Meeting ID: 872 8632 1179
Passcode: 123456

Public Comments
Comments on agenda items can be emailed to the City Clerk up to 3:30PM prior to the meeting.

Comments received are kept as part of the record of the meeting. Comments during the meeting must be a maximum of three minutes (per Government Code 54954.3(a); VMC 2.0.4.130) and the Mayor has the discretion to change the time limit to accommodate the meeting schedule and public interest.

Email: [email protected]

Speaking During the Meeting
In the Zoom Webinar, use the raise hand function or if dialing in press *9 on your phone.• When it is your turn to speak, you will be unmuted by the host.• Participants joining by telephone may also press *6 to mute/unmute if needed.• To view the Meeting from Computer, Tablet, or Smartphone Via Access TV: Access Vacaville
YouTube channel: http://www.youtube.com/@CityofVacaville

Special Assistance
In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at (707) 449-5100.

Roll Call for Closed Session - 5:00 pm 1.

Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54950, et seq.

Public Employment (Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957(b)(1)) Position:

Fire Chief

Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation
Initiation of litigation pursuant to paragraph (4) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9: (one potential case)
Roll Call for the Regular Meeting - 6:00 pm
Mayor/Chair John Carli
Vice Mayor/Vice-Chair Michael Silva, District 3
Council/Agency/Authority Member Roy Stockton, District 1 Council/Agency/Authority Member Greg Ritchie, District 2 Council/Agency/Authority Member Sarah Chapman, District 4 Council/Agency/Authority Member Ted Fremouw, District 5 Council/Agency/Authority Member Jeanette Wylie, District 6 Moment of Silence followed by the Pledge of Allegiance
Report out of Closed Session
Approval of Agenda
Reports of the City Council
Update on Recent Attended Boards, Commissions, and Committee Meetings Reports of City Manager
Presentations
I-80 Solano Express Lanes Operations and Weekend Pilot Update (Nick Burton, Director of Projects, Solano Transportation Authority) Consent Calendar
Items on the Consent Calendar are routine business items that require no discussion and are acted upon in one motion. However, any item on the Consent Calendar can be removed and discussed separately upon request.

Resolution Updating the City of Vacaville Standard Conflict of Interest Code (Staff Contact: Michelle Thornbrugh, City Clerk (707) 449-5100) Individual Action: By simple motion, adopt the subject resolution.

Fiscal Impact:

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

Funding Source: General Fund (1001)

1.a

1.b

2. 3.

4. 5.

6. 6.a

7. 8.

8.a

9. 9.a
Tuesday, September 08, 2026
Budget Distribution: The costs of staff time associated with this item are covered within the existing City Manager's operating budget.

Strategic Plan Goal:

Organizational Culture
Subject to Levine Act: No
Approval of Minutes – Approve the Minutes for the Meeting of August 25, 2026 (Staff Contact: Michelle Thornbrugh, City Clerk (707) 449-5100) Individual Action: By simple motion, approve the minutes.

Fiscal Impact:

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

Funding Source: Not applicable
Budget Distribution: The costs of staff time associated with this item are covered within the existing City Clerk's operating budget.

Strategic Plan Goal:

Organizational Culture
Subject to Levine Act: No
Approval of Accounts Payable and Payment of Payroll Claims for the Weeks Ending August 21, 2026; and August 28, 2026; and Wire and ACH Disbursements for the Month of August 2026

(Staff Contact: Crystal Fair Welty, Management Analyst (707) 449-5121) Individual Action: By simple motion, approve the item.

Fiscal Impact:

The claims for the period total $18,854,219.32
Amount Requested: There are no funds requested for this item.

Funding Source: Various
Budget Distribution: The costs associated with staff time for this item are fully supported within the Finance Department's operating budget.

Strategic Plan Goal:

Fiscal Health
Subject to Levine Act: No
Resolution Approving Two (2) Agreements and Contract Amendments Totaling $1,122,911.31 Supporting Essential City Operations, Capital Projects, Regulatory Compliance, and Organizational Services

(Staff Contact: GeorgeAnne Meggers-Smith, Assistant City Manager (707) 449-5651) Individual Action: By simple motion, adopt the subject resolution.

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 contract is included in the FY 2026-27 budget, approved by City Council on June 23, 2026.

Strategic Plan Goal:

9.b

9.c

9.d
Tuesday, September 08, 2026
Organizational Culture
Economic Development
Quality of Life
Public Safety and Infrastructure
Fiscal Health
Levine Act: Yes
Business from the Floor
This is the time to address the Council with issues that are not on the agenda that are within the Council’s subject matter jurisdiction. With certain exceptions, the City Council may not discuss or take action on items that are not on the agenda. Members of the audience wishing to address a specific agendized item are encouraged to offer their public comment during consideration of that item.

Comment is limited to three minutes per speaker or group spokesperson per Government Code §54954.3(a); VMC §2.04.130.

Public Hearings - None
Resolution Adopting the 2026 Agricultural and Avian Species Impact Mitigation Fee Study Update; Updating the Agricultural and Avian Species Foraging Habitat Mitigation Fee Schedule by Increasing the Agriculture-Only Mitigation Fee from $4,687 per acre to $8,800 per acre, Maintaining the Avian-Only Mitigation Fee at $7,832 per acre, and Maintaining the Agriculture and Avian Species (Stacked) Mitigation Fee at $12,832 per acre

(Staff Contact: Albert Enault, Acting Planning Manager (707) 449-5364) Recommended Action: By simple motion, adopt the subject resolution.

Fiscal Impact:

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

Funding Source: Community and Economic Development (2022) Budget Distribution: The costs of staff time associated with this item is included in the Community and Economic Development operating budget.

Strategic Plan Goal: Economic Development
Subject to Levine Act: Yes
Business
Resolution to Authorize an Exclusive Negotiating Rights Agreement with Community Development Partners for Development of Affordable Housing on City-Owned Property Located North of and Adjacent to the Vacaville Transportation Center on Allison Drive to Implement the Housing Element of the General Plan and Advance Transit-Oriented Development Objectives within the Allison Priority Development Area

(Staff Contact: Tamara Colden, Director of Housing and Community Services (707) 449-5671) Recommended Action: By simple motion, adopt the subject resolution.

Fiscal Impact:

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

Funding Source: Housing and Community Services
Budget Distribution: The costs of staff time associated with this item are covered in the existing

10. 11.

11.a

12. 12.a
Tuesday, September 08, 2026
Housing and Community Services operating budget.

Strategic Plan Goal: Quality of Life
Subject to Levine Act: Yes
Adjournment
All public records relating to an open session item that are not exempt from disclosure pursuant to the Public Records Act and that are distributed to a majority of the City Council will be available for public inspection during normal business hours at the City Administration Counter at City Hall, 650 Merchant Street. The City may charge customary photocopying charges for requested copies of such documents.

This agenda and related materials are also available on the City's website under Agendas and Minutes To view City Council meetings, tune in to cable Channel 26, the City's YouTube channel, or on the City's website at www.cityofvacaville.gov. If you have any questions, please contact the City Clerk's office at (707) 449-5100.

I declare that the agenda for the Regular Meeting of the City Council/Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency/Groundwater Sustainability Agency/Public Financing Authority was posted and available for review by the time and place prescribed by law. ______________________________
Michelle A. Thornbrugh, City Clerk

13. Tuesday, September 08, 2026
1 I-80 Solano Express Lanes
Operations and Weekend Pilot Update
September 8, 2026
Item 8.a
2State-Authorized Network
of Express Lanes
• 550-mile express lanes network
• 4 express lanes operators
• Continue to build out the network as
envisioned by Plan Bay Area
• Increase collaboration and regional
consistency
Item 8.a
Express Lane Operations
3 Consistent Throughout Bay Area
• Signage
• Operating hours: 5am – 8pm
(traditionally Mon-Fri)
• HOVs free; toll option for others
• Electronic tolls change with congestion
• FasTrak required
• Regional Customer Service Center
• Income-eligible payment plan
Item 8.a
I-80
$85M RM3
$123M SB1
I-580 / I-680
$130M RM3
$116M MEGA
US 101 / SR85 /
SR237
$85M RM3
$200M SB1 3
1 2
2020: Regional Measure 3
Invested in Express Lanes
4 • $300M for express lanes in Regional
Measure 3 (RM3)
• Deliver seamless system to Bay Area
commuters
• Meet commitments by making regional
funds available when needed
• RM3 to leverage state and federal
funding in 3 major express lane corridors
Item 8.a
Corridor Overview
• Partnership between STA, Caltrans, and
BAIFA
• Relieves bottleneck and improves
reliability
• Added new Express Lane in east segment
• Airbase Parkway to I-505
interchange
• Converted one HOV lane in west segment
to Express Lane
• Red Top Rd. to Airbase Parkway
• New condition: 1 Express Lane and 4
general purpose lanes
• Opened December 16, 2025
5 Item 8.a
I-80 Express Lane Weekend Pilot
• Express lane policies:
• HOV3+ free; HOV2 discounted toll
• Monday to Friday 5 a.m. – 8 p.m.
• 3-year weekend express lane pilot:
• Saturday and Sunday 5 a.m. – 8 p.m.
• Why pilot weekend express lanes?
• Weekend traffic similar to weekday
• Reliable option for commuters, carpools,
and transit
• Potential to generate revenue that would
be invested in the corridor
• Simplified messaging by introducing
at opening
• Aligns with upcoming Yolo County
weekend policy
6 Item 8.a
• Expand income-eligible discount pilot (Express Lanes
START)
• Regular updates on weekend pilot performance and
request for STA support at conclusion of pilot period
• Funding support for Project Improvement Document for
express lane expansion through Dixon
• Broad outreach plan
• Development with STA of remaining revenue policy
with a return to source
7 Starting Fall '26
Meeting our Commitments
Conditions of STA Support
On-going
Item 8.a
Comprehensive Weekend Pilot Evaluation
8 Partnership with Caltrans & STA
• Freeway & local streets
performance
• Traffic volume, person
throughput and speeds
• Congestion and travel time
• Traffic incidents
• Diversions & community impact
• Express Lanes START enrollment
• Revenue and cost understanding
Item 8.a
Reporting and Decision on Weekend Pilot
9 • Regular reporting
• Quarterly express lanes report
• Weekend pilot evaluation reports at
end of Year 1 & 2 (Spring 2027 &
2028)
• Recommendation to make weekend
operations permanent, extend pilot or
terminate by end of 2028
• To STA board for support
• To BAIFA for approval and update to
toll ordinance
Item 8.a
Early Observations
10 General
Purpose Lane
Weekday
Eastbound
Weekday
Westbound
Weekend
Eastbound
Weekend
Westbound
2026 56 mph 67 mph 69 mph 69 mph
2023 55 mph 63 mph 62 mph 58 mph
Express lanes speeds averaging 10 mph faster than GP lane speeds • Data Available: Dec. 16, 2025 through
March 30, 2026
• Lower traffic volumes during holidays
• Drivers familiarizing with new
operations
• Average speeds faster in all lanes, all
days in both directions
Item 8.a
Average Daily Trips and Average Hourly Tolls
11 2026
Quarter 1
Total EL
Trips
Operating
Days
Average
Daily Trips
Weekend 634,500 26 24,400
Weekday 1,335,100 63 21,200
Average peak tolls paid:
• Weekday: $5.50 eastbound
5-6 pm
• Weekend: $2.30 westbound 4-
5 pm
Average hourly tolls are the
average full-price toll paid per
trip during a given hour. Individual
tolls vary based on traffic
conditions and trip distance.

Item 8.a
Reduction in Eastbound Weekday Congestion
12 Winter 2023 January-February 2026
I-80 Eastbound Weekdays – PM Peak (4-5PM) Speed Maps
Data source: Inrix
Item 8.a
Westbound Weekday at or Near Free Flow
13 Winter 2023
Data source: Inrix
I-80 Westbound Weekdays – AM Peak (7-8AM) Speed Maps
January-February 2026
Item 8.a
Reduction in Eastbound Weekend Congestion
14 I-80 Eastbound Weekends – Mid Peak (12-1 PM) Speed Maps Winter 2023 January-February 2026
Data source: Inrix
Item 8.a
Reduction in westbound Weekend Congestion
15 I-80 Westbound Weekends – PM Peak (4-5 PM) Speed Maps Data source: Inrix
Winter 2023 January-February 2026
Item 8.a
Early I-80 Performance Data
16 Trip Type Weekday Weekend Pilot
SOV 46% 42%
HOV3+ 26% 27%
HOV2 8% 7%
No Account 20% 24%
Weekday Weekend Pilot
Incidents per day across
all lanes 2.5 1.5
Future reports to include travel time savings, diversion statistics and revenue and cost information
Item 8.a
Express Lanes START ℠
Pilot Update
Item 8.a
18 History of Express Lanes START
• Pilot program that provides eligible users a 50% discount on express lane tolls on I-880 and I-80
• Launched on I-880 in April 2023
• Expanded to I-80 when new lanes opened in December 2025 • Current pilot end date is March 2029
Item 8.a
19 Express Lanes START Basics
• To qualify, applicant must:
• Be a Bay Area resident (9 counties)
• Have a household income <=
200% of the federal poverty level
• Have (or open) a FasTrak account
with at least one toll tag
• Applicants provide proof of
identity and income
• Discount is applied as account
credit after each trip
Item 8.a
20 • Tailored mix of advertising strategies includes both internet and out-of-home channels
• Billboards
• Paid digital
• DMV TV in Fairfield, Vacaville
• Amazon lockers (9 sites)
• Programmatic video ad
• Direct mail (planned)
Marketing Efforts for I-80 Launch
Item 8.a
21 Local Outreach Efforts in Solano
• Local Agency Partnership
• Solano Health & Social Services
• Street Team
• In-person tabling at over 13 events in Solano
County since launch
• CBOs will act as in-person Hubs
• Fighting Back Partnership in Vallejo
• Solano Community College Basic Needs in
Fairfield
• Dixon Family Services
Item 8.a
22 More information:
www.expresslanesstart.org
Item 8.a
23 www.BayAreaFastrak.org
Item 8.a

CITY OF VACAVILLE

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT

Meeting Date: September 8, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
Attention: Savita Chaudhary, City Manager
From: Michelle Thornbrugh, City Clerk
(Michelle Thornbrugh, City Clerk (707) 449-5100)
Subject: Resolution of the City Council of the City of Vacaville Updating the City of Vacaville Standard Conflict of Interest Code Actions for Consideration:

Approve a resolution accepting the updated City of Vacaville Conflict of Interest Code.

Recommendations:

By simple motion, adopt the subject resolution.

Background:

Government Code §87300 requires state and local agencies to adopt a conflict of interest code.

A conflict of interest code is a document that identifies the positions within an agency which may participate in making governmental decisions that could have a foreseeable material effect on any personal financial interest and establishes financial reporting requirements for the identified positions. The Political Reform Act further requires that the local Conflict of Interest Code be reviewed and, if necessary, updated on a biennial basis.

Discussion:

A Conflict of Interest Code designates positions within an agency that make, or participate in making, governmental decisions that may have a material effect on the financial interest of the person holding such position. A Conflict of Interest Code also indicates disclosure categories, which list the specific types of financial interests that must be disclosed annually by the designated official or employee. Designated positions can only be required to disclose interests that they may effect in the course of performing the position’s duties. Disclosure is in accordance with the Political Reform Act regulations and is completed on a Form 700.

To comply with the Political Reform Act, the City is required to review the Conflict of Interest Code every two years to determine if amendments are necessary to include new positions, delete abolished positions, revise job titles or revise disclosure categories.

Item 9.a

Over the past two years, various titles have been revised for existing positions and a number of positions have been added or removed due to changes within and amongst departments.

Therefore, it is necessary to review the City’s Conflict of Interest Code to reflect these changes.

The updated list of designations with highlighted changes is reflected under Appendix B in the updated Conflict of Interest Code (Attachment 1).

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: There are no funds requested for this item.

Funding Source: General Fund (1001)
Budget Distribution: The costs of staff time associated with this item are covered within the existing City Manager's Department operating budget.

Alternatives:

This is a requirement of the California Government Code and Political Reform Act and therefore there are no alternative actions.

Strategic Plan Goal:

Organizational Culture
Subject to Levine Act:

No
Attachments:

Resolution – Action Item
Attachement 1: Updated Conflict of Interest Code

Item 9.a

CITY OF VACAVILLE

RESOLUTION NO. 2026-
Resolution of the City Council of the City of Vacaville Updating the City of Vacaville Standard Conflict of Interest Code

Whereas, the Political Reform Act (Government Code Sections 81000 et seq.) requires state and local government agencies to adopt and promulgate conflict of interest codes; and Whereas, the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) has adopted a regulation (2 Cal. Code of Regs. Section 18730), which contains the terms of a standard Conflict of Interest Code, which can be incorporated by reference and which may be amended by the FPPC after public notice and hearings to confirm amendments to the Political Reform Act; and Whereas, the City of Vacaville has previously adopted the FPPC’s standard Conflict of Interest Code as the City’s Conflict of Interest Code; and Whereas, the Political Reform Act requires review of the Conflict of Interest Code every two years to determine whether it is accurate or whether it should be amended; and Whereas, the City desires to update its current Conflict of Interest Code to incorporate certain positions which have been added or removed from the organization, and/or have revised titles of existing positions.

Now, therefore, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Vacaville as follows:

1. That the terms of 2 Cal. Code of Regs. Section 18730 and any amendments thereto duly adopted by the FPPC are hereby incorporated by reference and, along with the attached Appendix A in which members and employees are designated and disclosure categories are set forth constitutes the Conflict of Interest Code of the City of Vacaville.

2. Persons holding designated positions as identified in Appendix A shall file Statements of Economic Interest (Form 700) with the City Clerk to whom the City Council hereby delegates the authority to carry out the duties of both filing official and filing officer.

3. The City of Vacaville will maintain the statements and the City Clerk will make the statements available for public inspection upon request.

I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and passed at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Vacaville held on the 8th day of September 2026 by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Item 9.a

Attest:

_____________________________
Michelle A. Thornbrugh, City Clerk
Item 9.a

CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE

OF THE CITY OF VACAVILLE

The Political Reform Act (Government Code Section 81000, et seq.) requires state and local government agencies to adopt and promulgate conflict of interest codes. The Fair Political Practices Commission has adopted a regulation ( 2 California Code of Regulations Section 18730 ) that contains the terms of a standard conflict of interest code, which can be incorporated by reference in an agency’s code. After public notice and hearing, the standard code may be amended by the Fair Political Practices Commission to conform to amendments in the Political Reform Act. Therefore, the terms of 2 California Code of Regulations Section 18730 and any amendments to it duly adopted by the Fair Political Practices Commission are hereby incorporated by reference. This regulation and the attached Appendix [or Appendices], designating positions and establishing disclosure categories, shall constitute the conflict of interest code of the City of Vacaville.

Individuals holding designated positions shall file their statements of economic interests with the City Clerk, which will make the statements available for public inspection and reproduction (Gov. Code Sec. 81008).

Statements filed by all individuals in designated positions will be retained by the Office of the City Clerk.

Each person identified in this Appendix “A” as either a “Government Code Section 87200 Filer” or as a “designated employee” shall file with the City Clerk a Statement of Economic Interest (providing the information required by the relevant Disclosure Category identified on this Appendix “A” and Appendix “B”). Statements of Economic Interest shall be made on forms prescribed by the Fair Political Practices Commission and supplied by the City Clerk, and they shall contain the information required by FPPC Regulations Subsections 18730(b)(5.5), (6), and (7), as supplemented by this Conflict of Interest Code. Beginning in the filing year 2022, the City Clerk is authorized to permit electronic filing of a Statement of Economic Interest, using an electronic filing system approved by the Fair Political Practices Commission.

This Conflict of Interest Code applies to the City of Vacaville, as well as designated “City agencies” (the Housing Authority of the City of Vacaville, the Vacaville Groundwater Sustainability Agency, the Successor Agency to the Vacaville Redevelopment Agency, the Lagoon Valley Geologic Hazard Abatement District and the Vacaville Public Financing Authority). Therefore, to the extent that this Conflict of Interest Code identifies obligations of a “City agency,” or an officer or employee of a “City agency,” the phrase “City” shall refer to each of the “City agencies”; and the phrase “City Council” shall refer to the governing body of each of the “City agencies.”

The following positions defined in Government Code Section 87200, are NOT subject to the City’s Code but must file disclosure statements under Government Code Section 87200 et seq.:

a. Mayor
b. Each City Councilmember
c. Each Planning Commissioner
d. City Manager
e. City Attorney
f. City Treasurer

Item 9.a

APPENDIX A

CITY OF VACAVILLE

DESIGNATED OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES

Each member of the following Legislative Bodies, that are City Agencies, shall be deemed positions requiring full disclosure of interests, pursuant to California Government Code Section 87200 and shall file a Form 700:

▪ Housing Authority of the City of Vacaville
▪ Vacaville Public Financing Authority
▪ Successor Agency to the Vacaville Redevelopment Agency ▪ City of Vacaville Groundwater Sustainability Agency
▪ Lagoon Valley Geologic Hazard Abatement District

The following officials, employees and consultants are in the following disclosure categories:

POSITION CATEGORY

Boards and Commissions
Parks and Recreation Commission .....................................................................................................1 Citizen’s Oversight Committee ............................................................................................................1 New Board and Commission Members created by the City Council ..................................................11

City Attorney
Senior Assistant City Attorney .............................................................................................................1 Assistant City Attorney .........................................................................................................................1 Deputy City Attorney I/II .......................................................................................................................1 Legal Services Manager ......................................................................................................................3 Principal Risk Analyst .........................................................................................................................3 Management Analyst ...........................................................................................................................2

City Manager
Assistant City Manager ........................................................................................................................1 City Clerk .............................................................................................................................................2 Public Relations Manager ....................................................................................................................2 Municipal Clerk Services Manager ......................................................................................................2 Economic Development Services Director ...........................................................................................1 Economic Development Manager ........................................................................................................1 Program Manager ................................................................................................................................2 Information Technology Division Manager ...........................................................................................2 Cybersecurity Analyst ..........................................................................................................................2 GIS Administrator .................................................................................................................................3

Community & Economic Development
Director of Community & Economic Development ...............................................................................1 Assistant Director of Community & Economic Development ...............................................................1

1 Other than those which are solely advisory, when a board or commission is formed, the members must file under full disclosure until the positions are included in a conflict of interest code.

Item 9.a

APPENDIX A

Economic Development Manager ........................................................................................................1

Chief Building Official ...........................................................................................................................4 Planning Manager ................................................................................................................................4 Senior Planner .....................................................................................................................................4

Finance
Director of Finance Director .................................................................................................................1 Assistant Director of Finance ...............................................................................................................1 Accounting Manager .........................................................................................................................1 2 Budget Manager ...............................................................................................................................1 2 Financial Analyst ..................................................................................................................................2 Budget Analyst .....................................................................................................................................2 Buyer ....................................................................................................................................................2

Fire
Fire Chief .............................................................................................................................................1 Fire Deputy Chief .................................................................................................................................1 Battalion Chief ......................................................................................................................................2 Fire Marshal .........................................................................................................................................1

Housing & Community Services
Director of Housing and Community Services .....................................................................................1 Assistant Director of Housing and Community Services ......................................................................1 Housing Services Administrator ...........................................................................................................2 Management Analyst I/II ......................................................................................................................3 Senior Housing & Community Services Specialist I/II ..........................................................................3 Housing Specialist ...............................................................................................................................3

Human Resources
Director of Human Resources .............................................................................................................2 Employee Relations ManagerAssistant Director of Human Resources ...............................................2 Senior Principal Human Resources Analyst ........................................................................................2 Employee Services Human Resources Manager ................................................................................2

Information Technology
Director of Information Technology ......................................................................................................1 Information Technology Division Manager ...........................................................................................2 Information Technology Operations Manager ......................................................................................2 GIS Administrator .................................................................................................................................3

Parks & Recreation
Director of Parks and Recreation .........................................................................................................1 Park Planning Manager .......................................................................................................................1 Recreation Manager ............................................................................................................................2 Senior Planner ...................................................................................................................................31 Special Project Coordinator .................................................................................................................3

Police
Police Chief ..........................................................................................................................................1 Item 9.a

APPENDIX A

Police Captain ......................................................................................................................................1 Police Lieutenant .................................................................................................................................2 Police Fiscal Manager ..........................................................................................................................2 Police Services Manager .....................................................................................................................2 Police Communications Supervisor .....................................................................................................3 Police Records Supervisor ...................................................................................................................3 Clinical Services Administrator ............................................................................................................3

Public Works
Director of Public Works ......................................................................................................................1 Assistant Director of Public Works .......................................................................................................1 Assistant Director or Public Works, Engineering/City Engineer ...........................................................1 Assistant Director of Public Works, Maintenance ................................................................................1 City Engineer .......................................................................................................................................1 Senior Civil Engineer ...........................................................................................................................4 Deputy Director/City Traffic Engineer ..................................................................................................1 Engineering Manager ...........................................................................................................................3 Fleet & Facilities Manager ...................................................................................................................2 Parks Manager .....................................................................................................................................3 Public Works Superintendent ...............................................................................................................2 Public Works Manager
Transit Manager
Public Works Program Manager

Utilities
Director of Utilities ................................................................................................................................1 Assistant Director of Utilities ................................................................................................................1 Engineering Manager ...........................................................................................................................3 Senior Civil Engineer ...........................................................................................................................4 Utilities Administrative Manager ...........................................................................................................3 Utilities Operations Manager ................................................................................................................2 Water Quality Manager ........................................................................................................................4

Consultants
Consultants, as defined by FPPC Regulations Section 18700.3, are required to file a Statement of Economic Interests Form within 30 days of approval of a contract services agreement with the City (or City entity), on an annual basis thereafter, during the term of the contract, and within 30 days of completion of the contract2. ........................................................................................................................................1

Candidates
Electoral Candidates3 ..........................................................................................................................2

2 Individuals serving as a consultant as defined in FPPC Reg 18700.3(a) that make or participates in making decisions must file under the broadest disclosure set forth in this Code subject to the following limitation: The City Attorney may determine that, due to the range of duties or contractual obligations, it is more appropriate to assign a limited disclosure requirement. A clear explanation of the duties and a statement of the extent of the disclosure requirements must be in a written document. (Gov. Code Sec. 82019; FPPC Regulations 18219 and 18734.). The City Attorney’s determination is a public record and shall be retained for public inspection in the same manner and location as this Conflict of Interest Code. (Gov. Code Sec. 81008.)

3 Every candidate for an elective office that is designated in a conflict of interest code shall file a statement disclosing his or her investments, business positions, interests in real property, and income received during the immediately preceding 12 months, as enumerated in the disclosure requirements for that position. The statement shall be filed with the FPPC and shall be filed no later than the final filing date for the declaration or nomination documents. (Gov. Code Sec. 87302.3(a))

Item 9.a

APPENDIX A

Newly Created Positions ...................................................................................................................1 Persons in newly created positions must file a Form 700 within thirty days of assuming office. In accordance with FPPC Regulations Section 18734, persons in newly created positions shall file under the broadest disclosure category in the agency’s Conflict of Interest Code4

4 Individuals serving in a newly created position as defined in FPPC Reg 18700.3(a) that make or participates in making decisions must file under the broadest disclosure set forth in this Code subject to the following limitation: The City Attorney may determine that, due to the range of duties, it is more appropriate to assign a limited disclosure requirement. A clear explanation of the duties and a statement of the extent of the disclosure requirements must be in a written document. (Gov. Code Sec. 82019; FPPC Regulations 18219 and 18734.). The City Attorney’s determination is a public record and shall be retained for public inspection in the same manner and location as this Conflict of Interest Code. (Gov. Code Sec. 81008.).

Item 9.a

APPENDIX B

DISCLOSURE CATEGORIES

The disclosure categories listed below identify the types of economic interests that the designated position must disclose for each disclosure category to which he or she is assigned.5

Description

1 Investments, Interests in Real Property, Income/Business Positions, Gifts/Travel (Full Disclosure; File Schedules A-1, A-2, B, C, D, E – if applicable)

All investments and business positions in business entities, and sources of income, including gifts, loans and travel payments; and

All investments, business positions and income, including gifts, loans and travel payments, or income from a nonprofit organization, if the source is of the type to receive grants or other monies from or through the City or City Agencies; and

All interests in real property which is located in whole or in part within, or not more than two (2) miles outside, the boundaries of the City of Vacaville, including any leasehold, beneficial or ownership interest or option to acquire property.

2 Investments, Income/Business Positions, Gifts/Travel
(All Income Excluding Interests in Real Property; Schedules A-1, A-2, C, D, E – if applicable)

All investments and business positions in business entities, and sources of income, including gifts, loans and travel payments, that provide services, products, materials, machinery, vehicles or equipment of a type purchased or leased by the City; and

3 Investments, Income/Business Positions, Gifts/Travel
(City Department Related Income; Schedules A-1, A-2, C, D, E – if applicable)

4 Investments, Income/Business Positions, Gifts/Travel
(Regulatory, Permitting, Licensing; Schedules A-1, A-2, C, D, E – if applicable)

All investments and business positions in business entities, and sources of income, including gifts, loans and travel payments, in any business entity subject to the City of Vacaville’s regulatory, permit, or licensing authority (including but not limited to developers, architects, engineers, consultants, contractors, subcontractors, and suppliers).

(See next page)

5 This Conflict of Interest Code does not require the reporting of gifts from outside this agency’s jurisdiction if the source does not have some connection with or bearing upon the functions or duties of the position. (Reg. 18730.1)

Item 9.a

APPENDIX B

5 Interests in Real Property
(Schedule B – if applicable)
All interests in real property which is located in whole or in part within, or not more than two (2) miles outside, the boundaries of the City of Vacaville, including any leasehold, beneficial or ownership interest or option to acquire property.

Item 9.a

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, August 25, 2026

1. Roll Call for Closed Session - 5:00 pm

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

1.a Public Employee Performance Evaluation (Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957) Position: City Attorney

2. Roll Call for the Regular Meeting - 6:00 pm
The Mayor called the Regular Meeting of the City Council to order at 6:04 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 Stockton led the Pledge of Allegiance.

4. Report out of Closed Session
There were no actions to report.

5. Approval of Agenda
On a motion by Councilmember Ritchie, seconded by Vice Mayor Silva, the Council unanimously approved the agenda of the regular meeting as written.

6. Reports of the City Council
Item 9.b

6.a League of California Voting Delegate
Mayor Carli was elected as the Voting Delegate for the League of California Cities Annual Conference in Anaheim.

6.b Update on Recent Attended Boards, Commissions, and Committee Meetings Councilmember Stockton supported learning more about data centers. He also reminded everyone that on Sept 1st at Ulatis Community Center from 4-9pm there is a meeting for the community members to talk about the Corby Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) project outside of Vacaville City limits.

Vice Mayor Silva recently talked with students about tobacco sales near schools and admired their engagement. He also noted that Trower Park is open and has amenities like a zipline and misting station, and is appealing to those outside of the Vacaville community. He reported that there is interest in starting an art club in this new space. Lastly, he thanked staff for their maintenance and upkeep of these parks.

Mayor Carli congratulated downtown business owners Wendy and Dallas Jackson who recently celebrated 25 years of running a small business in Downtown Vacaville (Jackson Medical Supply).

Councilmember Chapman also had a student reach out about tobacco sales near schools. She also recently attended the event where the City received a check from Congressman Mike Thompson to assist with the Harmony Village Habitat for Humanity project .

Councilmember Wylie recently attended the Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR) event honoring the 250th US anniversary and the role Spanish patriots played in the region. She also attended the luncheon on the Solano County Commission on Women and Girls which focused on the efforts of women throughout history. Councilmember Wylie included a shoutout to Tamara Colden, Director of Housing and Community Services who presented at the most Homeless Roundtable meeting. She also noted that she will be attending League of California Cities event in American Canyon. Lastly, she mentioned residents in District 6 are concerned about the Fairfield data center project because it is close to the Vacaville border. She inquired if there was interest in a study session or meetings for staff to provide information about the pros/cons of data centers.

The City Manager noted that she will work with staff to bring information to the Council.

7. Reports of City Manager
City Manager Chaudhary shared that there is now a dedicated page where the public can find information about the Pilot Truck Center Project. It includes links to the public portal where members of the public can see all documents submitted by the project applicant.

She then asked staff to play a video produced by the City's college interns regarding their experience working for the City. The video will be shared on the City's social media outlets soon.

CM Chaudhary also had staff demonstrate three new tools for the community. The first is a Get to Know Your City Council StoryMap which allows users to select their district and view a picture and bio for that district's elected official. The second tool is Get to Know Your Council Candidates StoryMap, which allows users to see those running for elected office in Vacaville Council districts 2, 4, 6 and the Mayor prior to the Nov 3rd General Election. Candidate pictures and statements are posted to the StoryMap in the same language(s) that they will be in the Voter Guide. Lastly, the new CIP Dashboard is a GIS map integration that allows users to filter current CIP projects by phase and categories and Item 9.b
view a description, budget, and timeline details.

8. Presentations - None

9. Consent Calendar
Motion: Councilmember Wylie
Second: Councilmember Ritchie
Action: Approve all items on the consent calendar
Vote Unanimously Approved

9.a 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 (Second Reading)
Approved Ordinance No. 2024; 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

9.b Ordinance Amending Title 5, Chapters 5.04 through 5.36 of the Vacaville Municipal Code, Relating to Business Licenses (Second Reading)
Approved Ordinance No. 2025; Ordinance Amending Title 5, Chapters 5.04 through 5.36 of the Vacaville Municipal Code, Relating to Business Licenses

9.c Resolution Rescinding Resolution 2020-086 and Updating Those Authorized to Invest Monies in the Local Agency Investment Fund
Approved Resolution No. 2026-129; Resolution Rescinding Resolution 2020-086 and Updating Those Authorized to Invest Monies in the Local Agency Investment Fund

9.d Resolution of Successor Agency of the Vacaville Redevelopment Agency, Rescinding Resolution SA2020-002 and Updating Those Authorized to Invest Monies in the Local Agency Investment Fund
Approved Resolution No. SA 2026-02; Resolution of Successor Agency of the Vacaville Redevelopment Agency, Rescinding Resolution SA 2020-002 and Updating Those Authorized to Invest Monies in the Local Agency Investment Fund

9.e Approval of Minutes – Approve the Minutes for the Meeting of August 11, 2026

9.f Approval of Accounts Payable and Payment of Payroll Claims for the Weeks Ending August 7, 2026 and August 14, 2026

9.g Resolution Approving One (1) Agreement and Contract Amendment Totaling $93,450 Supporting Essential City Operations, Capital Projects, Regulatory Compliance, and Organizational Services
Approved Resolution No. 2026-130; Resolution Approving One (1) Agreement and Contract Amendment Totaling $93,450 Supporting Essential City Operations, Capital Projects, Regulatory Compliance, and Organizational Services

Item 9.b

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: tobacco and smoke shops near schools, conversion of agricultural land, California Forever, construction apprentice opportunities, posting outcomes of community engagement and surveys, and previous Council decision to join SCIP Program.

11. Public Hearings - None

12. Business

12.a Informational Update on the Development Review Process Improvements Initiative Council received an informational update on the Development Review Process Improvements initiative.

12.b Resolution Adopting the Vacaville Sales Tax Citizens' Oversight Committee Governance and Operating Guidelines
Motion: Councilmember Ritchie
Second: Councilmember Stockton
Action: Approve Resolution No. 2026-131 Adopting the Vacaville Sales Tax Citizens' Oversight Committee Governance and Operating Guidelines
Vote Unanimously Approved

12.c Informational Update on Malaquias Montoya Community Center at De Colores Park Council received an informational update on the status of the Malaquias Montoya Community Center at De Colores Park.

At 9:20 p.m. there was a disruption in the broadcast service, which is required for remote participation. Under Government Code section 5493.4 the City took a required recess to allow staff to diagnose the disrupted service. Service was restored and the meeting was reconvened at 9:36 p.m.

Councilmember Fremouw made a motion that was seconded by Councilmember Stockton to place an action on the next Council agenda providing that the De Colores and Montoya Community Park will continue as previously approved if Measure V passes and if Measure V fails the Council’s prior project and funding authorization will be rescinded upon certification.

Motion: Councilmember Chapman
Action: Call to the question (motion to end discussion) Ayes (3): Councilmember Ritchie, Vice Mayor Silva, and Councilmember Chapman Noes (4): Mayor Carli, Councilmember Stockton, Councilmember Fremouw, and Councilmember Wylie
Vote Failed (3 to 4)

Motion: Councilmember Fremouw made an amended motion seconded by Councilmember Stockton
Action: Direct staff to bring back an item at the next Council meeting with options to have further discussion to re-condition and/or rescind the funds associated with this project.

Item 9.b

Ayes (3): Mayor Carli, Councilmember Stockton, and Councilmember Fremouw Noes (4): Councilmember Ritchie, Vice Mayor Silva, Councilmember Chapman, and Councilmember Wylie
Vote Failed (3 to 4)

Motion: Councilmember Fremouw
Second: Councilmember Stockton
Action: Motion to agendize an item to be brought back at the next City Council meeting to rescind the funds for this project.

Ayes (3): Mayor Carli, Councilmember Stockton, and Councilmember Fremouw Noes (4): Councilmember Ritchie, Vice Mayor Silva, Councilmember Chapman, and Councilmember Wylie
Vote Failed (3 to 4)

13. Adjournment
There being no further business, the regular meeting was adjourned at 10:36 p.m.

Item 9.b

CITY OF VACAVILLE

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT

Meeting Date: September 8, 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 August 21, 2026; and August 28, 2026; and Wire and ACH Disbursements for the Month of August
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:

Item 9.c

Fiscal Impact:

The claims paid for the period total $18,854,219.32
Amount Requested: There are no funds requested for this item.

Funding Source: Various
Budget Distribution: The costs of staff time associated with this item are covered within the existing Finance Department operating budget.

Alternatives:

No alternative recommendation.

Strategic Plan Goal:

Fiscal Health
Subject to Levine Act:

No
Attachments:

Attachment 1: Affidavit of Finance Director

Item 9.c
Affidavit of Finance Director Attachment 1
Accounts Payable Check Register(s) for Week Ending:Register Total(s) August 21, 2026 2,065,507.14$
August 28, 2026 2,231,801.64$
Payroll Check Register(s) for Week Ending: Register Total(s) August 21, 2026 -$
August 28, 2026 2,386,973.77$
Wire and ACH Transfers Monthly Total
Month of August 2026 12,169,936.77$
Grand Total 18,854,219.32$
_______________________________________________________________________________ Ken Matsumiya, Finance Director
Item 9.c
Item 9.c
Item 9.c
Item 9.c
Item 9.c
Item 9.c
Item 9.c
Item 9.c
Item 9.c
Item 9.c
Item 9.c
Item 9.c
Item 9.c
Item 9.c
Item 9.c
Item 9.c
City of Vacaville, CA - Live

DETAIL PROOF - FINAL REPORT
Report generated: 08/26/2026 14:32
User: 6582szamora
Program ID: prpyddpf

Page 502 ends

Pay Period 08/02/26 To 08/15/26
WARRANT: 082826 PAYROLL TYPE: BIWEEKLY C CHECK DATE: 08/28/2026 Earnings-Deductions Proof Summaries
9996 DIR DEP % 10,883.80 0.00 10,883.80 42,051.11 9997 DIR DEP % 1,538.46 0.00 1,538.46 10,167.03 9998 DIR DEP % 2,241.01 0.00 2,241.01 17,468.87 9999 DIRECT DEP N 2,294,078.30 0.00 2,294,078.30 3,618,895.98 Total: 3,623,916.08 3,394,882.94
Total Females: 355 Gross Pay: 1,101,220.72
Total Males: 543 Gross Pay: 2,532,601.89
Total Employees: 898 Gross Pay: 3,633,822.61
Total Pre-Notes: 3
Benefits Only Employees: 604 Employer Amount:

Available Cash Balance after payroll: -434,170,269.20 Total Cash Requirements:

Total Employee Checks: 11,801.06 Total Employee/Employer ACH Transactions: 2,375,172.71 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: 2,386,973.77 Payments to be Processed:

Total Telephone Transfers: 0.00 Remaining Payroll Liabilities:

Total Employee/Employer (Check type = No check): 4,620,005.61 Total Pay Escrow: 0.00 Total Escrow Balance: 0.00 Total Invoices this payroll: 25,346.68 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: 4,645,352.29 * Employee Accruals Exist Outside Payroll Date Range - Check Accrual Out of Range Report Item 9.c

CITY OF VACAVILLE

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT

Meeting Date: September 8, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
Attention: Savita Chaudhary, City Manager
From: GeorgeAnne Meggers-Smith, Assistant City Manager
(GeorgeAnne Meggers-Smith, Assistant City Manager (707) 449-5651) Subject: Resolution of the City Council of the City of Vacaville Approving Two (2) Agreement and Contract Amendment
Totaling $1,122,911.31 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;
Item 9.d

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

4. Legal, regulatory, and compliance requirements;

5. Health, safety, and risk management obligations;

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 two (2) agreement and contract amendments totaling approximately $1,122.911.31. A copy of these agreements can be found on the City’s transparency portal at https://www.cityofvacaville.gov/government/transparency-portal#Contracts. 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.

These agreements are funded through the FY 2026-27 budget and are necessary to maintain essential City operations, regulatory compliance, public safety, infrastructure maintenance, and organizational support services.

Item 9.d

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:
• 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-to- day 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.

Item 9.d

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.

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:

Fiscal Impact:

Amount Requested: No additional appropriations are requested. Funding for the agreements identified in Attachment 1 is included in the proposed 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 FY2026-27 budget, approved by City Council on June 23, 2026. The costs of staff time associated with this item are covered within the existing City Manager Department’s operating budget.

Item 9.d

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.

Strategic Plan Goal:

Organizational Culture
Economic Development
Quality of Life
Public Safety and Infrastructure
Fiscal Health
Subject to Levine Act:

Yes
Attachments:

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.d

CITY OF VACAVILLE

RESOLUTION NO. 2026-
Resolution of the City Council of the City of Vacaville Approving Two (2) Agreement and Contract Amendments Totaling Approximately $1,122,911.31 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, the original contract amount, cumulative contract amount including amendment, contract term and other details are provided with the attached contract list; 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 listed one agreement and contract amendments totaling $93,450.

Contract or Amendment Name Total Approved with this Resolution REV Ambulance Group Inc. $812,911.31
Coast Counties Peterbilt $310,000.00

I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and passed at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Vacaville held on the 25th day of Aug 2026 by the following vote:

Item 9.d

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Attest:

_____________________________
Michelle A. Thornbrugh, City Clerk

Item 9.d

CITY OF VACAVILLE

In accordance with the 2023 Fire Fleet Utilization and Staffing Study conducted by Matrix Consulting, the useful life of an ambulance is estimated at 110,000 miles (pg. 8) for front line ambulances. The City has two ambulances, units 793 & 798, both of which are estimated to have mileage that exceeds the recommended useful life by the delivery date and are due for replacement. Emergency Vehicle Group, EVG, has provided a competitive quote utilizing the Sourcewell pricing contract #122123-RVG for the replacement of two (2) 2026 Road Rescue Type 1 Metromedic 1170 Ambulance(s) built in compliance with City of Vacaville Fire Department vehicle specifications. These ambulances are available for delivery within this fiscal year with an estimated delivery date of December 2026.

Cooperative Purchase Agreement Approval Form

Department: Fire

Cooperative Type: Sourcewell

Effective Date: 3/2/2024

Cooperative Info:

Cooperative
Agreement Use:

Expected Expense:

Discussion:

Funding:

________________________ ___________
Department Head Signature Date

Pricing for contract #122123-RVG offers Sourcewell participating agencies the following discounts: 3%-10% discount off the list price for Sourcewell members. This agreement will be utilized to purchase two (2) 2026 Road Rescue Type 1 Metromedic 1170 Ambulance(s) from Anaheim, CA-based company, Emergency Vehicle Group, Inc., an authorized dealer of REV Group, Inc. which was awarded contract #122123-RVG as the primary contractor by Sourcewell.

FY 2027: $ 812,911.31
Council has previously approved funding for these vehicles as part of the financing agreement with Webster Bank, National Association per Resolution 2025-026.

Sourcewell contract 122123-RVG
Docusign Envelope ID: E7221517-0021-8372-8279-4935AED5F67A 8/18/2026
Item 9.d
Item 9.d

CITY OF VACAVILLE

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT

Meeting Date: September 8, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
Attention: Savita Chaudhary, City Manager
From: Erin Morris, Community & Economic Development Director (Staff Contact: Albert Enault, Acting Planning Manager
(707) 449-5364)
Subject: Resolution of the City Council of the City of Vacaville adopting the 2026 Agricultural and Avian Species Impact Mitigation Fee Study Update; Updating the Agricultural and Avian Species Foraging Habitat Mitigation Fee Schedule by Increasing the Agriculture-Only Mitigation Fee from $4,687 per acre to $8,800 per acre, Maintaining the Avian-Only Mitigation Fee at $7,832 per acre, and Maintaining the Agriculture and Avian Species (Stacked) Mitigation Fee at $12,832 per acre.

Actions for Consideration:

The City Council will consider updating the City’s Agricultural and Avian Species Foraging Habitat Mitigation Fee Program by increasing the agricultural mitigation fee from $4,687 per acre to $8,800 per acre.

Recommendations:

By simple motion, adopt the subject resolution.

Background:

On March 26, 2019, the City Council adopted the Agricultural and Avian Species Foraging Habitat Mitigation Fee Program to provide an optional in-lieu mitigation pathway for qualifying development projects. The program implements General Plan policies requiring mitigation for the conversion of important agricultural land and protected avian foraging habitat while allowing applicants to satisfy those obligations through payment of an in-lieu fee rather than independently acquiring conservation easements.

Concurrent with adoption of the program, the City established an Agricultural and Avian Foraging Habitat Mitigation Fee and subsequently entered into an implementation agreement with Solano Land Trust in 2021. Under that agreement, the City collects mitigation fees, retains allowable administrative costs, and transfers the remaining funds to Solano Land Trust for acquisition, Item 11.a

stewardship, monitoring, and enforcement of perpetual conservation easements that satisfy project-specific mitigation obligations. The following table shows the adopted fees.

Agricultural Mitigation Fee Avian Foraging Mitigation Fee Combined Stacked Mitigation Fee $4,687 per acre $7,832 per acre $12,832 per acre
Since implementation of the Agricultural and Avian Species Foraging Habitat Mitigation Fee Program, and execution of the agreement with Solano Land Trust in 2021, the City has successfully administered the collection and transfer of mitigation fees for multiple development projects electing to participate in the optional in-lieu fee program. Participating developments include Roberts Ranch (Villages A through H and Village L), Farmstead, Vaca Valley Hotel, and the Weber Road Construction Yard. Between October 2021 and August 2024, the City transferred approximately $2.20 million (see table below) in mitigation fees to Solano Land Trust for the acquisition, stewardship, monitoring, and long-term management of qualifying agricultural conservation easements in accordance with the implementation agreement. These transactions demonstrate that the program has become an effective and predictable mitigation option for the development community while providing a reliable funding source to permanently conserve agricultural land and avian foraging habitat consistent with the City's General Plan and Municipal Code requirements.

Description Transferred to SLT Project Area Amount
Roberts’ Ranch Villages A, B, C 10/14/2021 58.32 acres $737,416.63 Farmstead Subdivision 10/27/2022 20.57 acres $217,239.77 Vaca Valley Hotel 10/27/2022 5.60 acres $43,859.20
Roberts’ Ranch Village E 04/20/2023 14.65 acres $161,592.55 Roberts’ Ranch Village L 01/18/2024 18.58 acres $228,515.42 Roberts’ Ranch Village D 01/18/2024 7.13 acres $87,691.87 Weber Road Construction Yard 01/18/2024 41.048 acres $312,457.38 Roberts’ Ranch Village F, G, H 08/08/2024 33.30 acres $409,556.70 199.198 acres $2,198,329.52
All Weather Heating & Air
Expansion
Outstanding
Remittance 5.71 acres $43,464.52

Vacaville Municipal Code (VMC) Section 14.28.001.050.A requires periodic evaluation of the fee schedule to ensure that the fees continue to reflect the actual costs of acquiring conservation easements, administering the program, and providing perpetual stewardship of conserved lands.

To satisfy that requirement, the City retained BAE Urban Economics to prepare the 2026 Agricultural and Avian Species Impact Mitigation Fee Study Update.

Item 11.a

Discussion:

The 2026 Agricultural and Avian Species Impact Mitigation Fee Study Update evaluates whether the existing fee schedule continues to reflect the actual costs of implementing the program. As part of the study update, the consultant updated assumptions regarding agricultural land values, conservation easement transactions, appraisal and escrow costs, legal expenses, biological review, title work, stewardship endowments, long-term monitoring, and program administration.

The study also evaluated revised projections of future development acreage subject to mitigation and confirmed that adequate mitigation opportunities remain available within the region.

A principal component of the update was an evaluation of two easement acquisition methodologies: (1) Buy-Protect-Sell and (2) Purchase Easement Under the Buy-Protect-Sell approach, a conservation entity acquires fee title to agricultural property, records a permanent conservation easement, and subsequently sells the encumbered property to recover a portion of the acquisition cost. Under the Purchase Easement approach, the conservation entity purchases only the development rights from a willing landowner while the property remains in private ownership and agricultural production. Based on current market conditions and recent transactions, BAE concluded that the Purchase Easement approach provides the most representative basis for estimating long-term mitigation costs.

The study further compared current implementation costs with the assumptions used to establish the original 2019 fee schedule. While stewardship and administrative assumptions remain generally consistent with the original program, agricultural land values and conservation easement acquisition costs have increased since 2019. As a result, the consultant determined that the Agriculture-Only mitigation fee no longer fully reflects the cost of acquiring equivalent conservation easements needed to satisfy future mitigation obligations.

Conversely, the consultant found that the existing Agriculture and Avian (Stacked) mitigation fee continues to provide adequate funding to implement the City's mitigation program. Maintaining the existing stacked fee provides an appropriate level of fiscal conservatism, recognizing that agricultural land values fluctuate over time and that conservation easements impose perpetual stewardship and monitoring obligations. Retaining the current stacked fee also avoids unnecessary revisions to a fee that continues to meet the program's long-term funding objectives.

Based on these findings, the consultant recommends increasing the Agriculture-Only mitigation fee to $8,800 per acre while maintaining the existing Agriculture and Avian (Stacked) mitigation fee of $12,832 per acre. The recommended fees would continue to recover costs associated with conservation easement acquisition, due diligence, legal documentation, appraisal services, title review, escrow, stewardship endowments, long-term monitoring, and program administration.

The proposed action updates only the fee schedule and does not modify the underlying mitigation requirements established by the General Plan, VMC, or conditions of project approval.

Developers may continue to either provide project-specific mitigation or participate in the City's optional in-lieu fee program. Adoption of the updated fee schedule will ensure that sufficient funding remains available to acquire permanent conservation easements as future development Item 11.a

occurs while continuing to implement the City's long-standing agricultural preservation and habitat conservation policies.

Recent Transaction from Solano Land Trust
To further evaluate whether the existing mitigation fee continues to reflect the actual cost of implementing the City's Fee Program, staff reviewed a recently completed conservation easement transaction undertaken by Solano Land Trust. In 2025, Solano Land Trust commissioned an independent appraisal of the KC Farming Property, an approximately 94.28-acre agricultural property located in unincorporated Solano County near Dixon. The appraisal determined the fair market value of the proposed perpetual agricultural and raptor foraging conservation easement to be $603,000, or approximately $7,179 per acre, using a before-and-after valuation methodology consistent with professional appraisal standards. The property was identified as highly productive agricultural land that also provides important raptor foraging habitat, making it representative of the types of properties the City's mitigation program seeks to permanently conserve.

While the appraised easement value represents the largest component of the acquisition cost, it does not reflect the full cost incurred to complete and permanently manage a conservation easement transaction. Solano Land Trust also documented the project development costs necessary to complete the acquisition, including staff time, appraisal services, legal review, baseline conservation documentation, survey work, escrow and closing costs, and the required stewardship endowment to provide perpetual monitoring and enforcement of the easement.

Collectively, these additional costs totaled approximately $150,670, increasing the total acquisition cost from $603,000 to $753,670, or approximately $8,972 per acre for the 84-acre easement area. Of the total project cost, approximately 80 percent was attributable to the easement purchase price, 12 percent to the stewardship endowment, 7 percent to project development activities, and less than 1 percent to closing costs.

The KC Farming transaction provides a recent, real-world example demonstrating that the total cost of acquiring and permanently protecting agricultural land extends well beyond the negotiated easement purchase price. Although each conservation easement transaction is unique, the project illustrates that the City's mitigation fee must account for all costs associated with implementing the program, including due diligence, legal documentation, stewardship funding, and long-term administration. The documented total acquisition cost of approximately $8,972 per acre supports the conclusions of the 2026 Agricultural and Avian Species Impact Mitigation Fee Study Update that the existing Agriculture-Only mitigation fee no longer fully reflects current implementation costs. The table below shows the total acres that have been satisfied by recent efforts from the Solano Land Trust. Attachment 1, Figures 2 and 3 identify potential land in Solano County and near Vacaville city limits that could be used to satisfy agricultural mitigation requirements; Figure 4 identifies potential land that could be used to satisfy avian mitigation requirements.

Agriculture Avian Foraging Stacked
Item 11.a

Land that must be mitigated through SLT
agreement 5.1425 acres 52.358 acres 147.4075 acres
KC Farming Purchase -84.00 acres
Soul Food Farm Purchase (Pending) -5.1425 acres -40.36 acres

Remaining Area to Conserve 0 11.998 acres 63.4075 acres

Staff Analysis
Staff has reviewed the updated BAE Urban Economics analysis together with information provided by Solano Land Trust regarding recent conservation easement transactions. Staff concurs that the agriculture-only fee should be updated to better reflect current market conditions and the actual costs associated with acquiring perpetual agricultural conservation easements.

Staff also agrees with the consultant's recommendation to maintain the existing stacked Agriculture and Avian mitigation fee. Although current estimated costs are below the existing fee level, maintaining the current fee provides an appropriate conservative funding strategy that protects the City and Solano Land Trust from future fluctuations in agricultural land values while ensuring adequate funding remains available to satisfy long-term conservation obligations.

The proposed fee schedule maintains the flexibility originally intended by the City Council.

Developers remain free to independently provide mitigation that satisfies applicable permit conditions or elect to participate in the City's in-lieu mitigation program. The fee update simply ensures that participants in the City's in-lieu program contribute an amount reasonably related to the actual cost of providing permanent mitigation.

For these reasons, staff recommends that the City Council accept the 2026 Agricultural and Avian Species Impact Mitigation Fee Study Update, adopt the findings of fact as described under Exhibit A, and adopt the updated fee schedule increasing the Agriculture-Only mitigation fee to $8,800 per acre while maintaining the Agriculture and Avian (Stacked) mitigation fee at $12,832 per acre.

Public Outreach
On July 23, 2026, the City published the draft report on the City’s website and provided additional notification through social media outlets and constant contact. In addition, newspaper notices were published in the Vacaville Reporter on two Saturdays, on August 22, 2026 and August 29, 2026, in accordance with applicable law. City staff believe that this public outreach, as required by the VMC and state law, is appropriate for the project because: (1) the study updates an existing program; (2) the mitigation fee increase to the agriculture-only component of the program is supported by recent costs documentation by SLT; and (3) the mitigation fee program continues to provide options for the development community to satisfy mitigation requirements.

Environmental Impact:

This resolution is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15307, 15313, and 15317, relating to actions taken for the protection of natural resources, acquisition of lands for wildlife conservation purposes, and establishment of agricultural and open-space easements, and independently pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Item 11.a

Section 15061(b)(3), because it can be seen with certainty that adoption of the updated fee schedule will not result in a significant effect on the environment.

Fiscal Impact:

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

Funding Source: Community & Economic Development Department (2022) Budget Distribution: The costs of staff time associated with this item are covered within the existing Community and Economic Development Department operating budget.

Alternatives:

The Council could choose not to increase the Agricultural-Only mitigation fee. This action is not recommended because the City and SLT have current costs to show the increase is necessary to complete the conservation easement process.

Strategic Plan Goal:

Economic Development
Subject to Levine Act:

Yes
Attachments:

Resolution – Action Item
Exhibit A – Findings of Fact
Attachment 1: Revised Draft Ag-Avian Mitigation Fee Study Update Attachment 2: SLT Memo on Conservation Easement Strategy Attachment 3: KC Farming Appraisal
Attachment 4: Levine Act Disclosure Forms
Attachment 5: Public Comment received

Item 11.a

CITY OF VACAVILLE

RESOLUTION NO. 2026-
Resolution of the City Council of the City of Vacaville adopting the 2026 Agricultural and Avian Species Impact Mitigation Fee Study Update; Updating the Agricultural and Avian Species Foraging Habitat Mitigation Fee Schedule by Increasing the Agriculture-Only Mitigation Fee from $4,687 per acre to $8,800 per acre, Maintaining the Avian-Only Mitigation Fee at $7,832 per acre, and Maintaining the Agriculture and Avian Species (Stacked) Mitigation Fee at $12,832 per acre.

Whereas, the City of Vacaville 2015 General Plan establishes policies requiring mitigation for the conversion of agricultural lands and non-riparian avian foraging habitat resulting from new development, including General Plan Policies LU-P2.4, LU-P5.2, COS-P1.6, COS-P1.12, and Action COS-A1.1; and
Whereas, the Vacaville General Plan recognizes that preserving agricultural lands and avian foraging habitat through permanent conservation easements is an effective means of mitigating the environmental impacts associated with urban development and authorizes the establishment of an optional in-lieu mitigation fee program in partnership with a qualified conservation organization; and
Whereas, on March 26, 2019, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2019-031 establishing the Agricultural and Avian Species Foraging Habitat Mitigation Fee Program and adopted Division 14.28 of the Vacaville Municipal Code to provide development projects the option of satisfying required agricultural and avian mitigation obligations through payment of a mitigation fee in lieu of independently securing conservation easements; and Whereas, the City commissioned BAE Urban Economics to prepare the 2019 Agricultural and Avian Species Mitigation Fee Study, which established the nexus and methodology for calculating optional in-lieu mitigation fees based on the anticipated costs of acquiring conservation easements, completing associated due diligence and transaction activities, providing perpetual stewardship, and administering the mitigation program; and Whereas, on May 20, 2021, the City and Solano Land Trust entered into an Agricultural and Avian Species Foraging Habitat Mitigation Agreement establishing procedures for the collection, transfer, expenditure, accounting, acquisition, stewardship, monitoring, and long-term management of mitigation funds collected through the City's in-lieu fee program; and Whereas, since implementation of the program, multiple development projects have elected to participate in the City's optional in-lieu mitigation fee program, providing funding for the acquisition and perpetual stewardship of qualifying agricultural conservation easements consistent with the City's General Plan and Municipal Code; and Whereas, Section 14.28 of the Vacaville Municipal Code provides that the mitigation fee shall be supported by a fee study and periodically evaluated and updated as necessary to ensure Item 11.a

that the fee continues to provide adequate funding for conservation easement acquisition, stewardship, administration, and long-term monitoring; and Whereas, in accordance with those requirements, the City retained BAE Urban Economics to prepare the 2026 Agricultural and Avian Species Impact Mitigation Fee Study Update, which evaluates current agricultural land values, conservation easement acquisition costs, transaction expenses, stewardship obligations, administrative costs, anticipated future development, and available mitigation lands; and
Whereas, the 2026 Fee Study Update concludes that sufficient mitigation land remains available to satisfy anticipated future development and recommends updating the Agriculture- Only mitigation fee to reflect current market conditions while maintaining the existing Agriculture and Avian (Stacked) mitigation fee as a conservative funding strategy to ensure adequate resources remain available throughout the life of the program; and Whereas, the City Council finds that the updated fee schedule remains reasonably related to the estimated costs of implementing the Agricultural and Avian Species Foraging Habitat Mitigation Fee Program, including conservation easement acquisition, due diligence, legal documentation, appraisal services, title review, stewardship funding, monitoring, enforcement, and program administration; and
Whereas, adoption of the updated fee schedule does not modify the City's mitigation requirements or authorize any specific development project, but instead updates the fee schedule used to implement the existing optional in-lieu mitigation fee program established by the Vacaville Municipal Code; and
Whereas, the City Council finds that adoption of this Resolution is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15307, 15313, and 15317, relating to actions taken for the protection of natural resources, acquisition of lands for wildlife conservation purposes, and establishment of agricultural and open-space easements, and independently pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), because it can be seen with certainty that adoption of the updated fee schedule will not result in a significant effect on the environment; and
Whereas, the City Council of the City of Vacaville held a duly noticed public hearing on September 8, 2026, to consider the updated fee schedule where they received testimony from City staff and all interested persons regarding the proposed fee increase.

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

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

2. The City Council hereby accepts the 2026 Agricultural and Avian Species Impact Mitigation Fee Study Update prepared by BAE Urban Economics as the basis for Item 11.a

updating the City's Agricultural and Avian Species Foraging Habitat Mitigation Fee Program.

3. The City Council hereby adopts the findings of fact as depicted under Exhibit A, and adopts the updated Agricultural and Avian Species Foraging Habitat Mitigation Fee Schedule as follows:
a. Agriculture-Only Mitigation Fee $8,800 per acre
b. Avian Foraging Mitigation Fee $7,832 per acre
c. Agriculture and Avian (Stacked) Mitigation Fee $12,832 per acre

4. The adopted fee schedule shall become effective on the date prescribed by applicable law and shall apply to all development projects electing to participate in the City's optional Agricultural and Avian Species Foraging Habitat Mitigation Fee Program thereafter.

5. The City Manager, or designee, is authorized to implement this Resolution and make such administrative changes as are necessary to administer the Agricultural and Avian Species Foraging Habitat Mitigation Fee Program consistent with this Resolution, the Vacaville Municipal Code, and the City's agreement with Solano Land Trust.

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 8th day of September 2026 by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Attest:

Michelle A. Thornbrugh, City Clerk
Attachments:

Exhibit A – Findings of Fact

Item 11.a

EXHIBIT A TO RESOLUTION NO. 2026-

Findings of Fact – Adoption of 2026 Updated Agricultural and Avian Species Impact Mitigation Fee Study and Update to the Agricultural and Avian Species Foraging Habitat Mitigation Fee Schedule by Increasing the Agriculture-Only Mitigation Fee from $4,687 per acre to $8,800 per acre, Maintaining the Avian-Only Mitigation Fee at $7,832 per acre, and Maintaining the Agriculture and Avian Species (Stacked) Mitigation Fee at $12,832 per acre

Pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code section 66000 et seq.), including Government Code section 66001, the City Council of the City of Vacaville hereby makes the following findings in connection with its adoption of the updated Agricultural and Avian Species Foraging Habitat Mitigation Fee Schedule (Mitigation Fees). Government Code section 66001 requires the City, when establishing or increasing a fee as a condition of approval of a development project, to identify the purpose of the fee and the use to which the fee will be put, and to determine that a reasonable relationship exists between the fee’s use and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed, between the need for the facilities or mitigation funded by the fee and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed, and between the amount of the fee and the cost attributable to the development project. The City Council makes these findings based upon the entire administrative record, including, but not limited to, the City of Vacaville General Plan, Vacaville Municipal Code Division 14.28, the 2026 Agricultural and Avian Species Impact Mitigation Fee Study Update (Fee Study Update), the City’s Agricultural and Avian Species Foraging Habitat Mitigation Agreement with Solano Land Trust, and other evidence and information presented to and considered by the City Council.

1. Purpose of the Mitigation Fees
The purpose of the Mitigation Fees is to provide an optional in-lieu mechanism through which development projects may satisfy requirements to mitigate impacts resulting from the conversion of important agricultural lands and avian species foraging habitat. The Mitigation Fees are intended to provide sufficient funding to permanently protect qualifying agricultural lands and avian foraging habitat through acquisition and stewardship of conservation easements and to fund the reasonable costs necessary to administer and implement the City's Agricultural and Avian Species Foraging Habitat Mitigation Fee Program.

The Mitigation Fees implement applicable policies of the Vacaville General Plan and Vacaville Municipal Code Division 14.28 by providing an alternative to applicants independently acquiring and establishing conservation easements to satisfy applicable mitigation requirements.

2. Use of the Mitigation Fees
Item 11.a

Revenue generated by the Mitigation Fees will be used solely for purposes associated with implementation of the Agricultural and Avian Species Foraging Habitat Mitigation Fee Program.

Such uses may include, but are not limited to, acquisition of qualifying conservation easements; appraisal, title, escrow, survey, legal, baseline documentation, and other due diligence and transaction costs; establishment of stewardship endowments; monitoring and enforcement of conservation easements; and reasonable administrative costs incurred by the City and Solano Land Trust in implementing the Program.

Pursuant to the City's agreement with Solano Land Trust, mitigation funds are used to acquire and permanently protect qualifying lands sufficient to satisfy the mitigation obligations associated with development projects participating in the Program.

3. Reasonable Relationship Between the Use of the Mitigation Fees and the Types of Development Upon Which the Fees Are Imposed
There is a reasonable relationship between the use of the Mitigation Fees and the types of development projects upon which the fees may be imposed. Development subject to the Program results in the conversion or loss of agricultural lands, avian species foraging habitat, or both, for which permanent off-site conservation may be required as mitigation.

The Mitigation Fees collected from participating development projects are used to acquire, protect, steward, monitor, and enforce conservation easements over qualifying lands to compensate for the agricultural and/or avian foraging habitat impacts attributable to those development projects. Accordingly, the conservation activities funded by the Mitigation Fees directly address the types of impacts created by the development projects electing to participate in the Program.

4. Reasonable Relationship Between the Need for Mitigation and the Types of Development Upon Which the Fees Are Imposed
There is a reasonable relationship between the need for the mitigation funded by the Mitigation Fees and the types of development projects upon which the fees may be imposed. New development that converts qualifying agricultural land or avian species foraging habitat creates a need to permanently protect replacement agricultural land and/or habitat in accordance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable environmental review documents, and project- specific mitigation requirements.

The need for conservation easements funded through the Program therefore arises from the impacts of development subject to those mitigation requirements. Projects that do not create an applicable agricultural or avian foraging habitat mitigation obligation are not required to participate in the Program.

5. Reasonable Relationship Between the Amount of the Mitigation Fees and the Cost Attributable to Development
Item 11.a

There is a reasonable relationship between the amount of each in-lieu Mitigation Fee and the cost of providing the mitigation attributable to development electing to participate in the Program. The Fee Study Update is based on a study that calculates the fees based upon the estimated per- acre cost of acquiring qualifying conservation easements and the associated costs necessary to complete and permanently administer those transactions.

The Fee Study Update evaluates current conservation easement acquisition costs, transaction and due diligence expenses, stewardship obligations, monitoring costs, and program administration. Based upon that analysis, the City Council finds that an Agriculture-Only Mitigation Fee of $8,800 per acre reasonably reflects the estimated cost of providing permanent agricultural mitigation.

Recent conservation easement acquisition experience provides additional support for this determination. In connection with the KC Farming property in Solano County, an independent appraisal commissioned by Solano Land Trust concluded that the fair market value of the proposed conservation easement was $603,000. When project development costs, the stewardship endowment, and closing costs are included, Solano Land Trust calculated a total easement acquisition cost of approximately $753,670 for 84 acres, or $8,972 per acre. This recent transaction provides additional evidence that the proposed $8,800-per-acre Agriculture-Only Mitigation Fee is reasonably related to contemporary costs of acquiring and permanently administering agricultural conservation easements.

The City Council further finds that maintaining the Avian-Only Mitigation Fee at $7,832 per acre and the Agriculture and Avian Species (Stacked) Mitigation Fee at $12,832 per acre is supported by the Fee Study Update and is reasonably related to the estimated costs of providing the corresponding mitigation.

6. No Funding of Existing Deficiencies or Unrelated Activities Mitigation Fee revenue shall not be used to fund unrelated City programs or activities. Fee revenue shall be used for conservation easement acquisition and associated implementation, stewardship, monitoring, enforcement, and administrative activities reasonably related to mitigating the impacts of development participating in the Program.

The fees are intended to fund mitigation attributable to new development and are not intended to fund existing deficiencies or conservation obligations unrelated to participating development projects.

7. Optional Nature of the In-Lieu Fee Program
The City Council further finds that payment of the Mitigation Fees is an optional method of satisfying applicable agricultural and avian species foraging habitat mitigation requirements.

Where permitted by the Vacaville Municipal Code and applicable project approvals, an applicant may elect to independently satisfy its mitigation obligations through acquisition or establishment of qualifying conservation easements rather than participating in the City's in-lieu mitigation fee program.

Item 11.a

The availability of this alternative ensures that the Mitigation Fees function as a mechanism for implementing an independently established mitigation obligation rather than creating an additional mitigation obligation beyond that attributable to the development project.

8. Incorporation of Fee Study and Administrative Record The City Council finds that the 2026 Agricultural and Avian Species Impact Mitigation Fee Study Update, together with the City's General Plan, Vacaville Municipal Code Division 14.28, the City's agreement with Solano Land Trust, the KC Farming conservation easement cost information, and the other evidence contained in the administrative record, provides substantial evidence supporting the foregoing findings and the updated Mitigation Fee amounts.

The City Council hereby incorporates the Fee Study Update and the evidence contained in the administrative record into these findings by reference.

Item 11.a

bae urban economics

DRAFT Vacaville Agriculture and Avian Species
Impact Mitigation Fee Study Update
July 2026
Item 11.a
bae urban economics
San Francisco Sacramento Los Angeles Washington DC Atlanta New York City

www.bae1.com

July 2, 2026

Mr. Albert Enault
Senior Planner
City of Vacaville
650 Merchant Street
Vacaville, CA 95688

Dear Albert:

Attached please find the Revised Draft Agricultural and Avian Species Mitigation Fee Study Update. We would like to thank you and your staff and Tracy Ellison of the Solano Land Trust, and our subconsultants Garland and Salmon, for assistance in compiling the information needed for this study.

I am available to discuss and review the Draft with you and to answer any questions. I look forward to your feedback on the Draft, and to finalizing the report to support the updated fee schedule.

Sincerely,

Matt Kowta, MCP
Managing Principal

Item 11.a

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ I INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 1 Fee Study Overview ...................................................................................................................... 1 City of Vacaville Mitigation Requirements .................................................................................. 1 ANTICIPATED VACAVILLE DEVELOPMENTS SUBJECT TO MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS ........... 5 ANTICIPATED MITIGATION LAND REQUIREMENTS ................................ ................................ .... 8 ANTICIPATED MITIGATION EASEMENT ACQUISITION COSTS ................................ ................... 16 Buy-Protect-Sell Approach ........................................................................................................ 16 Purchase Easement Approach ................................................................................................. 17 ANTICIPATED TRANSACTION AND ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS ................................ ................... 19 MONITORING, REPORTING, AND ADMINISTRATION COSTS ................................ .................... 21 Solano Land Trust Costs ........................................................................................................... 21 City of Vacaville Costs ............................................................................................................... 22 TOTAL PER ACRE MITIGATION FEE ................................ ................................ .......................... 24 Buy-Protect-Sell ......................................................................................................................... 24 Purchase Easement .................................................................................................................. 24 Mitigation Costs Recommended for the In-Lieu Fee Program ............................................... 25 FEE NEXUS DISCUSSION ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 27 APPENDIX A: GARLAND & SALMON MARKET STUDY ................................ ............................. 29 APPENDIX B1: SLT ONE-TIME TRANSACTION COSTS, BUY-PROTECT-SELL ............................ 44 APPENDIX B2: SLT ONE-TIME TRANSACTION COSTS, PURCHASE EASEMENT ....................... 45 APPENDIX C: SLT COMPLEXITY RATING TABLE AND ASSUMPTIONS ................................ ...... 46 APPENDIX D: SLT ENDOWMENT PRACTICE POLICY................................ ................................ 47 APPENDIX E: SLT AGRICULTURE MITIGATION ONGOING COSTS ................................ ............ 50 APPENDIX F: SLT AVIAN AND STACKED AGRICULTURE AND AVIAN MITIGATION ONGOING COSTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 54

Item 11.a

List of Tables

Table 1: Summary of Total Per Acre Mitigation Fee by Mitigation Type ........................................ ii Table 2: Anticipated Development Projects by Impact Type (Acres) ............................................. 7 Table 3: Anticipated Development Projects by Mitigation Type ..................................................... 8 Table 4: Vacaville Development Project Acreage Requiring Agricultural Mitigation by Soil Classification and Coverage Type .................................................................................................... 9 Table 5: Potential Solano County Agriculture Mitigation Land by Soil Classification and Coverage Type ................................................................................................................................. 10 Table 6: Vacaville Development Project Acreage Requiring Avian Mitigation by Soil Classification and Coverage Type .................................................................................................. 13 Table 7: Potential Avian Mitigation Land by Soil Classification and Coverage Type ................. 14 Table 8: Potential Buy-Protect-Sell Easement Acquisition Costs by Mitigation Type .................. 17 Table 9: Potential Easement Transaction and Administrative Costs by Mitigation Type, Buy- Protect-Sell ...................................................................................................................................... 20 Table 10: Potential Easement Transaction and Administrative Costs by Mitigation Type, Purchase Easement ........................................................................................................................ 20 Table 11: Potential Solano Land Trust Monitoring and Reporting Costs by Mitigation Type and Complexity ....................................................................................................................................... 21 Table 12: Potential City of Vacaville Ongoing Costs, 2018-2035 ................................................ 23 Table 13: Estimated Per Acre Mitigation Fee by Mitigation Type, Buy-Protect-Sell ................... 24 Table 14: Estimated Per Acre Mitigation Fee by Mitigation Type, Purchase Easement ............ 25

List of Figures

Figure 1: City of Vacaville Anticipated Developments Requiring Mitigation ................................. 6 Figure 2: Land Potentially Satisfying General Plan Policy LU-P2.4 (b) ....................................... 11 Figure 3: Land Potentially Satisfying General Plan Policy LU-P5.2 ............................................. 12 Figure 4: Potential Avian Mitigation Land by Soil Classification and Coverage Type ................ 15

Item 11.a

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We gratefully acknowledge the following people for their assistance in producing this study.

City of Vacaville
Albert Enault, Senior Planner, Community & Economic Development Department

Solano Land Trust
Nicole Byrd Braddock
Tracy Ellison

Garland & Salmon
Ronald Garland
Steve Salmon

Item 11.a

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Vacaville commissioned BAE Urban Economics to prepare this Agriculture and Avian Species Mitigation Fee Study Update. This study will serve as the basis for the City to adopt an updated optional fee for payments in lieu of developers independently establishing agricultural and habitat conservation easements when required as mitigation for development projects.

The Vacaville City Council adopted the original Agriculture and Avian Species Mitigation in-lieu fee program on March 26, 2019 (Resolution No. 2019-031). Vacaville Municipal Code (VMC) Section 14.28.001.050.A requires the City to evaluate and update this fee in order to account for changes in costs to acquire, protect, and provide for long-term stewardship for mitigation lands that would be established using the fee.

Developers of certain projects provide for these types of mitigations in compliance with the City’s General Plan requirements (Policy LU-P2.4) that new development mitigate for impacts on agricultural land and habitat for Swainson’s hawk (General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report1 Mitigation Measure BIO-10) and burrowing owls (General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Measure BIO-13). The Solano Land Trust, in partnership with the City of Vacaville, executed a mitigation agreement on May 20, 2021, to use the fee proceeds to secure conservation easements and provide for ongoing monitoring of easements in perpetuity.

In total, an estimated 3,341 acres of anticipated future development within the Vacaville Urban Growth Boundary will require avian foraging mitigation. Agricultural mitigation will also be required on 1,564 acres, which may be combined, or “stacked” with avian foraging mitigation land under certain circumstances. Using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) analysis from Solano Land Trust and GreenInfo Network, BAE concludes there is sufficient land suitable for each mitigation type to address the needs of anticipated development projects requiring agricultural and/or avian foraging mitigation (See Table 5, Table 7, Figure 2, Figure 3, and Figure 4).

This study has yielded updated estimates of mitigation costs for agriculture-only land protection and for agriculture/avian species land protection based on current conditions using two different approaches. The first, the “buy-protect-sell” approach indicated costs may be as low as approximately $4,000 to $4,300 per acre for agriculture-only protection and as low as approximately $4,700 to $5,000 for stacked agriculture/avian species protection. However, those estimates were based on unique market dynamics from 2023 which indicated relatively small differences in the value of easement-encumbered land versus unencumbered land which can shift relatively quickly based on year-to-year changes in crop prices, which is

1 https://www.cityofvacaville.gov/government/community-development/general-plan/general-plan-other/general- plan-and-ecas-eir-documents
Item 11.a

common. SLT’s more recent market observations and experience with actual easement transactions under current market conditions indicate that the costs for agriculture-only land protection are approximately $8,800 per acre and the costs for stacked agriculture/avian species protection are approximately $9,600 per acre.

BAE recommends that the City of Vacaville and SLT take a conservative approach and set the updated in-lieu fees at levels that would, at a minimum, be sufficient to fund conservation easements at the highest of the cost levels that have been analyzed over the life of the in-lieu fee program. Based on this, the existing in-lieu fee for agriculture-only mitigation could be increased to align with this study’s estimate of $8,800 per acre based on the current estimate of costs to protect land using a “purchase easement” approach. Because this study’s current estimates of costs for protecting stacked agriculture/avian habitat are less than the current in- lieu fee that the City charges, BAE recommends that the City and SLT maintain the current fee level of $12,832, to protect against the possibility that costs for this type of mitigation could rise above current levels within the fee program’s time horizon for a future update. Table 1 summarizes the recommended in-lieu fee levels, which include costs not only for easement acquisition, but also SLT’s one-time transaction and administrative costs associated with conducting outreach to property owners and identifying suitable properties, negotiating and placing easements, as well as long-term costs for stewardship and monitoring of protected lands and the City of Vacaville’s costs for administering the in-lieu fee program.

Table 1: Summary of Total Per Acre Mitigation Fee by Mitigation Type

Notes:
(a) Based on a mitigation parcel size of 100 acres.
(b) It is recommended that the in-lieu fee for agriculture/avian mitigation be maintained at its current level, rather than be reduced based on current cost estimates, to protect against possible market shifts that would increase costs before the next fee update.

Sources: Solano Land Trust, 2026; Garland and Associates, 2023; City of Vacaville, 2026; BAE, 2026.

The Mitigation Fee Act (AB 1600, California Government Code §§ 66000–66025) requires local agencies to establish a "reasonable relationship" (nexus) between development impact fees, the public facilities needed, and the specific project's impact. It mandates that agencies identify the fee's purpose, use, and proportionality, alongside strict annual reporting and accounting requirements for collected funds. Because payment of this fee is not a requirement of land development, but a voluntary option in-lieu of providing mitigation land, the City of Vacaville does not believe that agriculture and avian mitigation fee payments would be subject to the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act (AB 1600). Nevertheless, this study explains how the fees are reasonably related to the impact of new development.

Mitigation Type
Stacked Agriculture &
Agriculture Avian Foraging
Total Per Acre Mitigation Fee (a) $8,800 $12,832 (b)
Item 11.a

1 INTRODUCTION
Fee Study Overview
This report serves as the basis for the City of Vacaville to adopt an updated fee for payments in lieu of the development community separately establishing agricultural and habitat conservation areas through independent mitigation banks, in compliance with City of Vacaville General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report, VMC Chapter 14.28.001, and the Draft Solano Multispecies Habitat Conservation Plan requirements that new development mitigates impacts on agricultural land, and habitat for avian species such as Swainson’s hawk and burrowing owls.

The purpose of the fee is to collect funds in-lieu of requiring developers subject to agricultural land and avian species habitat mitigation requirements to independently arrange for the required conservation projects. The fee is designed to provide the necessary funding for the Solano Land Trust to carry out an agreement with the City of Vacaville to secure conservation easements and monitor them in perpetuity, to fulfill the conservation requirements on behalf of the development projects that request to pay the fee, in-lieu of arranging for their own conservation projects.

The fee proceeds will be used to provide the Solano Land Trust with funding to secure conservation easements and provide for ongoing monitoring of easements in perpetuity, to fulfill the conservation requirements that participating development projects would otherwise be required to arrange on their own. The specific lands to be conserved cannot be identified in advance, as easement purchases will only involve willing sellers and the specific timing and availability of easements for purchases will have to be coordinated with the timing for individual development projects that will occur over a long-term development horizon.

This study calculates the total number of developable acres subject to the different types of mitigation requirements and the costs to secure appropriate conservation easements and to administer ongoing monitoring and reporting efforts on a per-acre basis. This study then calculates the one-time per acre fees needed to adequately fund the mitigation efforts, including the initial acquisition of easements to protect agricultural land and avian habitat areas, as well as the on-going mitigation land stewardship costs, and program monitoring, administration, and reporting costs. Fees are calculated for agriculture-only mitigation needs, avian-only mitigation needs, and for situations where a combined agriculture and avian mitigation (i.e., “stacked” mitigation) is possible.

City of Vacaville Mitigation Requirements
The City of Vacaville General Plan Land Use Element, Conservation and Open Space Element, and General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report lay the groundwork for agricultural and avian species mitigation requirements and associated mitigation fees for new development.

Item 11.a

2 Agriculture Mitigation
The General Plan Land Use Element outlines the requirements for agricultural mitigation for new development. Policy LU-P2.4 requires that development on any land classified by the California Department of Conservation (DOC) as Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, or Unique Farmland, purchase conservation easements to permanently protect agricultural land of equal or greater value at a ratio of one acre of conserved agricultural land per one acre of developed agricultural land. The General Plan defines these land classifications as follows:

Prime Farmland: The best combination of physical and chemical features able to sustain long- term agricultural production. Prime farmland has the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to produce sustained high yields. Land must have been used for irrigated agriculture production at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date.

Farmland of Statewide Importance: Similar to prime farmland, but with minor shortcomings, such as steeper slopes or less ability to store moisture. Land must have been used for irrigated agricultural production at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date.

Unique Farmland: Consists of lesser quality soils used for the production of the State’s leading agricultural crops. This land is usually irrigated, but may include non-irrigated orchards or vineyards as found in some climatic zones in California. Land must have been farmed some time during the four years prior to the mapping date.

Additionally, LU-P5.2 requires that for each acre of new urban land developed within the East of Leisure Town Road Growth Area, the developer must mitigate impacts on agricultural and open space land by preserving at least one acre of land outside the urban growth boundary (UGB), but within Pleasants Valley, Upper Lagoon Valley, Vaca Valley, or any other location within one mile of the UGB, for each acre developed. In some cases, it may be possible to preserve land that is lesser quality, but which can be made equal to the agricultural value of the replaced land. Alternatively, qualifying developments within the Growth Area may pay an equivalent in-lieu fee, to be determined by the City in consultation with SLT, who have first right-of-refusal for land acquired directly or with fees collected pursuant to Land Use Policy LU- P5.2. This study provides the basis to establish the in-lieu fee. The City of Vacaville can also adopt the in-lieu fee to be applicable to other developments outside of the Growth Area that are subject to agricultural mitigation requirements.

Avian Species Mitigation
The General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element outlines policies to protect and enhance habitat for sensitive species found in and around Vacaville. Policy COS-P1.1 establishes the City’s commitment to the preparation and implementation of the Draft Solano Item 11.a

3 Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP)2, which includes Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures for Swainson’s hawk and burrowing owl foraging and nesting habitats, among other species and habitats present outside the City of Vacaville’s UGB. Although the HCP is in draft form, the General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element Policy COS- P1.12 contemplates compliance with the Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures listed in Appendix A of the General Plan that are based on measures found in the draft HCP until the SCWA formally adopts the final HCP. Furthermore, the 2015 General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report included a mitigation monitoring and reporting program with mitigation measures BIO-10 and BIO-13, which requires replacement for the permanent loss of habitat for specific avian species (Swainson’s hawk and burrowing owl).3

Swainson’s hawk and burrowing owls inhabit and forage in open grassland and agricultural lands. Although not referenced in Appendix A to the General Plan, the Draft HCP provides standards that can be used to provide guidance for establishing mitigation areas, including:

• Mitigation site cannot be within 1 mile of existing or planned development to avoid future abandonment of rest territories due to increased human disturbance.

• Reserves may not be within 2 miles of existing or planned wind turbine to avoid potential mortality to avian species.

• Reserves currently or likely to be surrounded by incompatible land uses should be not less than 80 to 100 acres.

• Reserves cannot contain orchards and/or vineyards that produce fruits, nuts, or berries, except in designated farmstead areas.

• Reserves cannot contain cultivation of perennial vegetable crops such as artichokes and asparagus, as well as annual crops such as cotton or rice.

• Reserves cannot contain commercial feedlots, which are defined as any open or enclosed area where domestic livestock owned by other than the Grantor are grouped together for intensive feeding purposes.

• Reserves cannot contain horticulture specialties, including sod, nursery stock, ornamental shrubs, ornamental trees, Christmas trees, or flowers.

• Reserves cannot contain commercial greenhouses or plant nurseries.

2 https://scwa2.com/solano-multispecies-habitat-conservation-plan/ 3 https://www.cityofvacaville.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/5437/638856857622030000 Item 11.a

4 • Reserves cannot contain commercial aquaculture of aquatic plants and animals and their byproducts.

The draft HCP establishes a process by which the SCWA or another conservation entity acquires and manages the reserve for each required mitigated species in perpetuity through acquisition or establishment of a conservation easement, funded by the developer of the project requiring mitigation. The City of Vacaville chose to partner with SLT to acquire and manage reserve areas for new development to mitigate for impacts on agricultural land, and habitat for Swainson’s hawk and burrowing owls. The process to establish and manage a mitigated species reserve is as follows:

1. Conduct a baseline survey to document the occurrence, distribution, and relative abundance of applicable species and characterize the site’s biological resources.

2. Establish a conservation easement in perpetuity, consistent with California Civil Code 815 et seq. In many cases, this will involve land acquisition.

3. Adopt a Resource Management Plan consistent with the HCP.

4. Provide funding for the interim and long-term management of established reserves, including insurance, property taxes, and legal defense.

5. Adopt a Restoration and Enhancement Plan consistent with the HCP.

6. Establish a monitoring and reporting program, including required annual reports to the SCWA documenting management activities over the preceding year.

Swainson’s hawk and burrowing owls require similar habitats; therefore, a singular reserve meeting the previous listed conditions will satisfy both species mitigation requirements.

Additionally, preserved agricultural land meeting the previously listed conditions can also satisfy the General Plan agricultural mitigation requirement discussed in the Agricultural Mitigation subsection.

Item 11.a

5 ANTICIPATED VACAVILLE DEVELOPMENTS

SUBJECT TO MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS
Figure 1 illustrates the geographic location of developments requiring agriculture and/or avian mitigation, while Table 2 summarizes the acreage of properties and Plan areas where the City anticipates new development will occur. As shown in the figure and table, the largest concentration of anticipated development falls within the East of Leisure Town Road and Northeast Growth Areas. The East of Leisure Town Road Growth Area lies within the City’s UGB east of Leisure Town Road and between the Locke Paddon Community areas on the north, and New Alamo Creek on the south. The Northeast Growth Area extends from the UGB to the east and north, to Meridian Road North and Interstate 80 (I-80) to the west, and Kilkenny Road and the Quality Inn Suites to the south.

In total, 3,341 acres require avian foraging mitigation, 1,778 acres of which also require agricultural mitigation. Based on estimates prepared for the Vacaville General Plan 2035 Update, and the proportion of the General Plan planning period that has already lapsed, BAE estimates that approximately 1,200 acres requiring agriculture or agriculture-avian mitigation, will develop through the planning horizon year of 2035. This assumption is used in this study to estimate the quantity of mitigation activity that will occur through 2035, which is needed to calculate average per-acre costs for certain program elements.

Item 11.a

6 Figure 1: City of Vacaville Anticipated Developments Requiring Mitigation

Item 11.a

7 Table 2: Anticipated Development Projects by Impact Type (Acres)

Sources: City of Vacaville, 2025; BAE, 2025.

Impact Type (Acres)
Agriculture Total
Project Name Avian Only and Avian Acres
Airport Business Area 38.89 0.00 38.89
Brighton Landing 0.00 58.63 58.63
Centennial Park 214.38 0.00 214.38
East of Leisure Tow n Grow th Area 28.59 748.39 776.98
Former Gibson Canyon WWTP 52.40 0.00 52.40
Gaspare Property 9.51 0.00 9.51
Interchange Business Park 121.45 0.00 121.45
Lagoon Valley High Density Site 17.53 0.00 17.53
Miscellaneous Infill Properties 28.94 0.00 28.94
Northeast Grow th Area 577.32 577.05 1,154.38
Nut Tree Ranch 3.70 0.00 3.70
Peirson Property 23.81 0.00 23.81
Roberts' Ranch 0.00 144.33 144.33
Rural Cheyenne Area 169.08 0.00 169.08
The Farm at Alamo Creek 0.00 249.21 249.21
Vaca Valley Business Park 154.01 0.00 154.01
Vacaville-Golden Hills Business Park 89.37 0.00 89.37
VandenGate/VandenCove 34.62 0.00 34.62
Totals 1,563.60 1,777.62 3,341.22
Item 11.a

8 ANTICIPATED MITIGATION LAND

REQUIREMENTS
Table 3 shows that newly developed acreage subject to the agricultural mitigation requirement must replace the acreage at a ratio of 1:1, while developments subject to the avian foraging mitigation must also replace acreage at a ratio of 1:1.

Table 3: Anticipated Development Projects by Mitigation Type

Sources: City of Vacaville, 2025; BAE, 2025.

By multiplying the required acreage data presented in Table 2 by the mitigation ratios presented in Table 3, the table calculates that a total of 1,564 acres are required to mitigate agricultural impacts attributed to new development, while 1,778 acres are required to mitigate impacts to burrowing owl and Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat.

Utilizing geographic information systems (GIS) software, SLT and GreenInfo Network further analyzed the soil conditions and crop type for developments requiring agriculture and avian mitigation and estimated the amount of potentially suitable replacement land based on the various mitigation requirements outlined previously. Soil quality classification data comes from the California Department of Conservation (DOC) Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) while the Solano County Agricultural Commissioner’s office provided crop coverage data distinguishing orchard and vine crops from other crop types. Other data used in this analysis are discussed below in the agricultural and avian mitigation analysis discussions.

It is important to note that the total mitigation acreage presented in the following tables may not align precisely with the acreages presented in Table 2 due to methodological differences.

Mitigation Acres Required
Total Impact Type (Acres) and Mitigation Ratios Avian Ag+Avian Total Project Mitigation Agriculture Mitigation Mitigation Mitigation Mitigation Project Name Acres Avian Only Ratio and Avian Ratio Acres Acres Acres Airport Business Area 38.89 38.89 1.00 0.00 38.89 0.00 38.89 Brighton Landing 58.63 0.00 58.63 1.00 0.00 58.63 58.63 Centennial Park 214.38 214.38 1.00 0.00 214.38 0.00 214.38 East of Leisure Tow n Grow th Area 776.98 28.59 1.00 748.39 1.00 28.59 748.39 776.98 Former Gibson Canyon WWTP 52.40 52.40 1.00 0.00 52.40 0.00 52.40 Gaspare Property 9.51 9.51 1.00 0.00 9.51 0.00 9.51
Interchange Business Park 121.45 121.45 1.00 0.00 121.45 0.00 121.45 Lagoon Valley High Density Site 17.53 17.53 1.00 0.00 17.53 0.00 17.53 Miscellaneous Infill Properties 28.94 28.94 1.00 0.00 28.94 0.00 28.94 Northeast Grow th Area 1,154.38 577.32 1.00 577.05 1.00 577.32 577.05 1,154.38 Nut Tree Ranch 3.70 3.70 1.00 0.00 3.70 0.00 3.70
Peirson Property 23.81 23.81 1.00 0.00 23.81 0.00 23.81 Roberts' Ranch 144.33 0.00 144.33 1.00 0.00 144.33 144.33 Rural Cheyenne Area 169.08 169.08 1.00 0.00 169.08 0.00 169.08 The Farm at Alamo Creek 249.21 0.00 249.21 1.00 0.00 249.21 249.21 Vaca Valley Business Park 154.01 154.01 1.00 0.00 154.01 0.00 154.01 Vacaville-Golden Hills Business Park 89.37 89.37 1.00 0.00 89.37 0.00 89.37 VandenGate/VandenCove 34.62 34.62 1.00 0.00 34.62 0.00 34.62 Totals 3,341.22 1,563.60 1,777.62 1,563.60 1,777.62 3,341.22 Item 11.a

9 Nevertheless, the following estimates provide a general representation of existing soil conditions and coverage type.

Table 4 presents the total Vacaville project area requiring agricultural mitigation by DOC soil classification and coverage type. The table presents acreage within the East of Leisure Town Road Growth Area separately from agricultural acreage outside the East of Leisure Town Road, due to the different General Plan Land Use Policy requirements (General Plan LU-P2.4 and LU- P5.2) governing mitigation for each. As shown in the table, of the 1,778 acres that require agricultural mitigation, 964 acres (54 percent) are considered Prime Farmland, 145 acres (8 percent) are considered Farmland of Statewide Importance, and 198 acres (11 percent) are considered Unique Farmland.

Table 4: Vacaville Development Project Acreage Requiring Agricultural Mitigation by Soil Classification and Coverage Type

Notes:
(a) Based on the California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) soil classification system. (b) Represents existing soil and agricultural coverage conditions of all Vacaville project Areas listed in Table 2 for which Vacaville General Plan Policy LU-P2.4 requires agricultural mitigation. This excludes projects in the East of Leisure Town Road area, which have separate mitigation requirements.
(c) Represents existing soil conditions of projects sites in the East of Leisure Town Road Growth Area, for which Vacaville General Plan Policy LU-P5.2 require agricultural and open space mitigation. (d) Includes additional project acreage for which soil type and/or coverage type is not available. (e) Total acres may not align exactly with acreages shown in Table 2 due to methodological differences and varying source data, but are still representative of general soil conditions and coverage type.

Sources: City of Vacaville; Solano County Agricultural Commissioner; State of California Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program; BAE, 2025.

Coverage Type (Acres)
Soil Classification (a) Orchard/Vine Other Total Acres
All Projects Excluding the East of Leisure Tow n Road Grow th Area (b) Prime 108 209 317
Statew ide Importance 20 116 136
Unique 84 101 185
Subotal Acres with FMMP Land Use Type 212 426 638
East of Leisure Tow n Grow th Area (c)
Prime 180 467 647
Statew ide Importance 0 10 10
Unique 0 9 9
Grazing Land 0 0 0
Subotal Acres with FMMP Land Use Type 180 487 666
Other Acreage (d) n.a. n.a. 473
Total Project Acres (e) 392 912 1,778
Item 11.a

10 Table 5 summarizes the total acreage not already protected by the Solano Land Trust that could potentially satisfy the General Plan LU-P2.4 and LU-P5.2 agricultural mitigation requirements by DOC soil classification and coverage type. BAE determined that Solano County has more than enough land to satisfy the like-for-like replacement of agricultural land within Solano County that the General Plan LU-P5.2 policy requires, excluding land that could potentially satisfy General Plan LU-P5.2 (East of Leisure Town Road Growth Area requirements). As shown in the upper part of the table, Solano County has 124,739 acres of Prime Farmland, 6,907 acres of Farmland of Statewide Importance, and 19,687 acres of Unique Farmland with which to potentially mitigate the project acreage presented in the top portion of Table 4.

Similarly, BAE concluded that there is ample acreage to satisfy the East of Leisure Town Road Growth Area mitigation requirements (LU-P5.2), which state that mitigated land must be located within the Pleasants Valley, Vaca Valley, or Upper Lagoon Valley, or within one mile of Vacaville’s UGB. As shown in the lower part of Table 5, there are 4,421 acres of Prime Farmland, 698 acres of Farmland of Statewide Importance, 1,697 acres of Unique Farmland, and 14,795 acres of Grazing Land within the defined area that could potentially mitigate the project acreage presented in the bottom section of Table 4.

Table 5: Potential Solano County Agriculture Mitigation Land by Soil Classification and Coverage Type

Notes:
(a) Based on the California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) soil classification system.
(b) Represents all Solano County land with the potential to satisfy Vacaville General Plan Policy LU-P2.4 mitigation requirements. Excludes Vacaville project areas and land with existing Solano Land Trust conservation easements, and land that could be used to satisfy requirements for East of Leisure Town Road Growth Area mitigation requirements.
(c) Represents potential agricultural land within Pleasants, Upper Lagoon and Vaca Valleys or within one-mile of the City of Vacaville Urban Growth Boundary, in accordance with the Vacaville General Plan Policy LU-P5.2.

Excludes Vacaville project areas and land with existing Solano Land Trust conservation easements.

Sources: City of Vacaville; Solano County Agricultural Commissioner; State of California Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program; GreenInfo Network; Solano Land Trust; BAE, 2025.

Coverage Type
Soil Classification (a) Orchard/Vine Other Total
Satisfies Vacaville General Plan LU-P2.4 (b)
Prime 30,258 94,481 124,739
Statew ide Importance 1,138 5,768 6,907
Unique 4,443 6,245 10,687
Total 35,839 106,494 142,333
Satisfies Vacaville General Plan LU-P5.2 - East of Leisure Tow n Road (c) Prime 1,588 2,833 4,421
Statew ide Importance 318 380 698
Unique 1,005 692 1,697
Grazing Land 190 14,605 14,795
Total 3,101 18,511 21,612
Item 11.a

11 Figure 2: Land Potentially Satisfying General Plan Policy LU-P2.4 (b) Source: GreenInfo Network, 2026.

Item 11.a

12 Figure 3: Land Potentially Satisfying General Plan Policy LU-P5.2 Source: GreenInfo Network, 2026.

Item 11.a

13 Table 6 presents the total Vacaville project area requiring avian habitat mitigation by DOC soil classification and coverage type. As shown in the table, of the 1,554 acres that require avian mitigation, 48 acres (4 percent) are considered Prime Farmland, 14 acres (one percent) are considered Farmland of Statewide Importance, 100 acres (nine percent) are considered Unique Farmland, and 1,008 acres (86 percent) are considered Grazing Land.

Table 6: Vacaville Development Project Acreage Requiring Avian Mitigation by Soil Classification and Coverage Type

Notes:

Represents existing soil and agricultural coverage conditions of all Vacaville project areas listed in Table 2 for which the Vacaville General Plan Policy COS-P1.12 and the Solano County Water Agency's Draft Habitat Conservation Plan require Swainson's Hawk and Burrowing Owl Mitigation.

(a) Based on the California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) soil classification system. (b) Totals acres may not align exactly with acreages shown in Table 1 due to methodological differences and varying source data, but are still representative of general soil conditions and coverage type. (c) Includes additional project acreage for which soil type and/or coverage type is not available. (d) Total acres may not align exactly with acreages shown in Table 2 due to methodological differences and varying source data, but are still representative of general soil conditions and coverage type.

Sources: City of Vacaville; Solano County Agricultural Commissioner; State of California Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program; BAE, 2025.

Table 7 summarizes total acreage not already protected by a Solano Land Trust avian easement that could potentially satisfy the General Plan Policy COS-P1.1 and HCP criteria for avian mitigation listed in the previous section by DOC soil classification and coverage type. In order to eliminate parcels within two miles of existing wind turbines, GreenInfo Network acquired data from the U.S. Wind Turbine Database (USWTDB)4, which provides the locations of land-based and offshore wind turbines in the United States. As with agricultural mitigation, BAE found that there is ample land within the required areas to mitigate avian habitats displaced by Vacaville development projects. As shown in the table, Solano County has approximately 105,674 acres of Prime Farmland, 5,791 acres of Farmland of Statewide Importance, 8,686 acres of Unique Farmland, and 130,266 acres of Grazing land which is not planted with orchard or vines that could potentially mitigate the project acreage presented in Table 6.

4 Available at: https://energy.usgs.gov/uswtdb/assets/data/uswtdbSHP.zip Coverage Type
Soil Classification (a) Orchard/Vine Other Total
Prime 28 20 48
Statew ide Importance 12 1 14
Unique 100 0 100
Grazing Land 2 1,006 1,008
Subotal Acres with FMMP Land Use Type 141 1,028 1,169
Other Acreage (c) 394
Total Project Acres (d) 141 1,028 1,564
Item 11.a

14 Table 7: Potential Avian Mitigation Land by Soil Classification and Coverage Type

Notes:

Includes agricultural land that is located at least one mile from project areas listed in Table 1, and not within two miles of existing wind turbines, in accordance with the Vacaville General Plan Policy COS-P1.12 and the Solano County Water Agency’s Draft Solano Habitat Conservation Plan Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures. Excludes land with existing Solano Land Trust Swainson's Hawk easements. This analysis does not account for other required restraints, such as the presence of commercial feed lots, perennial and annual vegetables, horticulture specialties, commercial greenhouses and plant nurseries, and commercial aquaculture.

(a) Based on the California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) soil classification system.

It is assumed that the agricultural and avian mitigations can be “stacked”, meaning that a single replacement property that meets the criteria for both agriculture and burrowing owl and Swainson’s hawk mitigations must fulfill both mitigation requirements through the stacked fee.

Coverage Type
Soil Classification Orchard/Vine Other Total
Prime 31,441 74,233 105,674
Statew ide Importance 1,036 4,755 5,791
Unique 4,111 4,575 8,686
Grazing Land 2,429 127,838 130,266
Total 39,016 211,401 250,417
Item 11.a

15 Figure 4: Potential Avian Mitigation Land by Soil Classification and Coverage Type

Source: GreenInfo Network, 2026.

Item 11.a

16 ANTICIPATED MITIGATION EASEMENT

ACQUISITION COSTS
This section considers potential costs for two approaches to securing mitigation land for impacts to agricultural land only, and for impacts to lands that serve as avian species habitat.

The first approach considered is referred to as “buy-protect-sell”. As the term implies, the mitigation strategy involves purchasing land in fee title, placing the required agricultural easement or agricultural/avian species habitat easement on the land, and then selling the encumbered property to a new owner who agrees to abide by the conditions of the applicable easement. The second approach is the more traditional approach of entering into an easement agreement (either agriculture-only or agriculture/avian habitat) with an existing owner who intends to maintain ownership of the property in compliance with the new easement terms. SLT has indicated that while current market dynamics may be conducive to using the “buy-protect-sell” approach in certain circumstances, the more traditional “buy easement” strategy will remain the preferred approach for the foreseeable future, due to its greater simplicity.

Buy-Protect-Sell Approach
BAE subcontracted with Garland & Salmon in 2023 to perform an agricultural real estate market study to determine the anticipated cost to secure agricultural and avian foraging easements within the Solano County area. Garland & Salmon determined that the mitigation target areas fall generally within the broad Vacaville/Dixon region of Solano County. Within the Vacaville/Dixon region, agricultural generally can be segregated into four quality tiers, from First to Fourth, roughly corresponding with farming capabilities consistent with soil Types I, II, III, and IV. For each tier, Garland & Salmon determined the likely per acre acquisition costs for unencumbered land to inform this fee study update. Appendix A contains the entire Garland & Salmon report.

Due to prevailing market conditions at the time, the Garland & Salmon study assumed that SLT would use agriculture and avian mitigation fee funds collected by the City of Vacaville to purchase suitable land not already protected by easements, place the requisite easements on the property, and then re-sell the easement-protected property to buyers interested in using the property for agricultural purposes consistent with the easement terms. This buy-protect- sell approach could be more successful under market conditions when easement values are not sufficiently high to entice owners to encumber their properties, whereas agricultural users are not expected to discount the value of previously encumbered properties that are offered for re-sale, because the easements to not preclude the use of the property for its highest and best use (e.g., growing of processing tomatoes under current conditions).

Item 11.a

17 Table 8 summarizes the Garland & Salmon cost findings for each of the four land quality tiers.

The costs are presented as ranges in this study, to reflect the costs likely to be encountered when seeking land for mitigation purposes, with land suitable for “stacking” both agriculture and avian foraging mitigation mitigations costing somewhat more than land suitable only for agricultural mitigations within a given quality tier. To estimate per-acre mitigation costs, it is necessary for this study to incorporate an assumption regarding the minimum acceptable size of a conservation parcel, from both agricultural and habitat functionality and from administrative efficiency standpoints. For this purpose, this study assumes that the average parcel size for mitigation acquisitions will be 100 acres. Although suitable mitigation areas may be larger or smaller than 100 acres, input from the Solano Land Trust along with analysis of the distribution of parcels by parcel size indicates that this is a reasonable assumption for purposes of calculating program costs. As shown, Table 8 assumes that the fee program would target land in the top two quality tiers, with a typical property size of approximately 100 acres. Based on these assumptions the estimated cost per property would range between $400,000 and $600,000 for agricultural mitigation parcels and between $600,000 and $800,000 for parcels capable of supporting stacked agricultural and avian mitigation.

Table 8: Potential Buy-Protect-Sell Easement Acquisition Costs by Mitigation Type

Notes:
(a) Tiers 1, 2, 3, and 4 generally correspond to land with farming capabilities consistent with soil Types I, II, III, and IV.

For the full cost report, see Appendix A.
(b) Based on the range of potential easement values of land in the Vacaville/Dixon area suitable for agricultural mitigation. (c) Based on the range of potential easement values of land in the Vacaville/Dixon area suitable for combined agricultural and avian mitigation.
(d) Based on a parcel size of 100 acres. Assumes that conservation easements would be targeted for land in the top two quality tiers.

Sources: Garland and Associates, 2023; BAE, 2025.

Purchase Easement Approach
SLT has provided information based on its ongoing outreach to property owners and ongoing market observations, along with its experience with its own recent conservation easement transactions, to estimate the potential cost of additional easement purchases to fulfill agriculture-only, or agriculture/avian mitigation requirements under current conditions. This included a recent transaction involving an agricultural/avian mitigation easement with a Mitigation Type
Stacked Agriculture &
Agriculture (b) Avian Foraging (c)
Land Quality (a) (Potential Easement Cost/Acre) Low High Low High Top Tier $4,000 - $6,000 $6,000 - $8,000
Second Tier $4,000 - $6,000 $6,000 $8,000
Third Tier $2,000 - $4,000 $3,000 $5,000
Fourth Tier $2,000 - $4,000 $2,000 $3,000
Estimated Cost Per Property (d) $400,000 - $600,000 $600,000 - $800,000 Item 11.a

18 purchase cost that yielded an average cost of approximately $7,200 per acre, not including one-time transaction costs or long-term stewardship costs. SLT staff indicate that this is a reasonable approximation of representative costs for acquisition of agriculture/avian mitigation easements under today’s and reasonably foreseeable market conditions. SLT also shared costs for two current agriculture-only easement transactions, which ranged between approximately $6,000 per acre and $7,400 per acre. Based on consultation with SLT, for the purposes of this report, a mid-point cost of $6,700 per acre is assumed to be representative of the cost of acquisition for agriculture-only easements.

Item 11.a

19 ANTICIPATED TRANSACTION AND

ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS
SLT will incur a range of costs to carry out the process of identifying suitable lands, identifying willing sellers, placing easements on the properties, and then re-selling the protected properties. SLT will need to pay for the initial purchase cost as well as costs to place the easements on the properties and then re-sell the properties. In addition to various fees charged by third parties, such as appraisal fees, escrow fees, title fees, and recording fees, SLT will also incur its own administrative costs to conduct and coordinate this process. SLT will also need to be prepared for the possibility that buyers may demand some level of discount on the encumbered properties versus the price paid for unencumbered purchase prices, given that all else being equal, a buyer may prefer an unencumbered property if that choice is available to them at the time they are purchasing land, even if the easements do not restrict them from the highest and best agricultural use of the property. BAE consulted with SLT staff to estimate the one-time transaction and administrative costs associated with the purchase of unencumbered land, placement of easements, and re-sale. This also includes potential holding costs for a period of up to two years, including real estate taxes. Although SLT will market the easement-protected properties in order to achieve the highest possible selling prices based on competitive sales, these calculations provide an allowance for up to a 15 percent discount on re-sale prices relative to the initial acquisition costs due to the presence of the easements.

Appendix B1 presents a detailed summary of these costs for a “buy-protect-sell” transaction and Appendix B2 presents a summary of costs for a “purchase easement” transaction, while Item 11.a

20 Table 9 summarizes the total one-time transaction and administrative cost for each mitigation type using the “buy-protect-sell” strategy and Table 10 summarizes the one-time transaction and administrative costs for each mitigation type using the “purchase easement” strategy. As shown in the table, it is estimated that securing an agriculture easement on a 100-acre property will cost SLT approximately $181,000, while securing an avian foraging or stacked agriculture and avian foraging easement will cost SLT just under $200,000 on a 100-acre property using the “buy-protect-sell” strategy. Costs using the “purchase easement” strategy would be $45,250 for agriculture-only, or $53,100 for agriculture/avian. The primary difference in costs results from the number of SLT staff hours required to oversee the transaction. Stacking agriculture and avian foraging mitigation does not result in any cost savings compared to the avian only mitigation, because the same amount of staff hours and transaction costs apply.

Item 11.a

21 Table 9: Potential Easement Transaction and Administrative Costs by Mitigation Type, Buy-Protect-Sell

Note:
(a) Includes transaction and administrative costs such as taxes, fees, and administrative documents, as well as staffing costs. Does not include initial land purchase costs or re-sale proceeds. Includes transaction and administrative costs associated with initial property acquisition, establishment of easement, and sale of easement-encumbered property. Based on typical 100-acre parcel. See Appendix B1 for a detailed listing of costs.

Sources: Solano Land Trust, 2025; BAE, 2025.

Table 10: Potential Easement Transaction and Administrative Costs by Mitigation Type, Purchase Easement

Note:
(a) Includes transaction and administrative costs such as taxes, fees, and administrative documents, as well as staffing costs. Does not include easement purchase costs. See Appendix B2 for a detailed listing of costs.

Sources: Solano Land Trust, 2025; BAE, 2025.

Mitigation Type
Stacked
Agriculture &
Agriculture Avian Foraging Avian Foraging
Estimated Cost Per Transaction (a) $181,050 $199,800 $199,800 Mitigation Type
Stacked
Agriculture &
Agriculture Avian Foraging Avian Foraging
Estimated Cost Per Transaction (a) $45,250 $53,100 $53,100 Item 11.a

22 MONITORING, REPORTING, AND

ADMINISTRATION COSTS
In addition to one-time easement acquisition costs, both SLT and the City of Vacaville will incur costs to carry out ongoing responsibilities related to monitoring and reporting on compliance with easement conditions and administering the in-lieu fee program.

Solano Land Trust Costs
BAE worked with SLT to calculate costs related to ongoing monitoring and reporting of the status of easement-encumbered properties in perpetuity, in the form of a one-time endowment to SLT. Costs included in this calculation include travel, supplies, legal, and staffing needs related to monitoring, issue resolution, permitted use requests, and easement violations.

These calculations are based on SLT’s endowment practice policy, which calculates the annualized cost of property/project in-perpetuity requirements for varying degrees of property/project complexity. Appendix C describes the three levels of project complexity and the endowment calculation assumptions. Appendix D contains the Solano Land Trust’s guiding land stewardship policy.

As shown on Table 11, based on an average parcel size of 100 acres, perpetual stewardship of an agricultural easement will cost SLT between $125,261 and $150,814, depending on property/project complexity. Stewardship of an avian foraging easement or a stacked agricultural and avian easement will cost SLT between $150,814 and $178,752, depending on property/project complexity. Appendices E and F detail the ongoing costs associated with SLT’s stewardship of agricultural easements and agricultural/avian foraging easements at varying levels of complexity, for agricultural mitigation lands and for avian-only or ag-avian stacked mitigation lands, respectively.

Table 11: Potential Solano Land Trust Monitoring and Reporting Costs by Mitigation Type and Complexity

Notes:
(a) Assumes average parcel size of 100 acres. Includes supply and travel costs, as well as staffing costs. See Appendix D for a detailed cost summary.
(b) Represents the endowment cost necessary for mitigation and monitoring in perpetuity. (c) The Solano Land Trust calculates endowment costs based on the complexity of the mitigation. Appendix C details Solano Land Trust's complexity assumptions.

Sources: Solano Land Trust, 2025; BAE, 2025.

Estimated Cost
Per Mitigation Parcel (a)(b)
Complexity (c)
Mitigation Type 1 2 3
Agriculture $125,261 $139,172 $150,814
Avian Foraging $137,992 $159,979 $178,752
Agriculture & Avian Foraging $137,992 $159,979 $178,752 Item 11.a

23 City of Vacaville Costs
BAE also consulted with City of Vacaville staff to determine the ongoing costs the City would accrue in association with its role in implementation, review and updates to the mitigation in- lieu fee program. This analysis considers expected costs through the 2035 General Plan time horizon, so that total City costs for this time period can be divided by the total acreage expected to be subject to the mitigation requirements through 2035, to estimate an average cost per acre.

Based on information provided by City staff, staff may report annually to the City Council regarding the program’s progress, with comprehensive program reviews occurring every three years, through the 2035 General Plan horizon. The annual reporting cost $2,574 is based on the fee charged for an annual Development Agreement review and includes staff time for interim annual reporting to the City Council and to any outside agencies regarding projects subject to the mitigation requirements. Any ongoing staff time devoted to interacting with developers and SLT that relates to projects requiring mitigation will be covered by regular project filing fees. As shown in Table 12, the cost associated with eight years of standard annual reporting that would occur through 2035 totals $20,592. The comprehensive program review that would occur every third year would cost $8,295. This cost is based on the fee charged for a comprehensive annexation plan amendment. In addition, the City anticipates the need for consulting services costing approximately $65,000 for each comprehensive program review, to update the appraisal and fee study, plus the cost of any additional staff time to prepare reports and recommendations to the City Council regarding the program update. Staff estimates the cost for additional staff time devoted to the comprehensive review will equal approximately 15 percent of the cost for consulting services, or $9,750. Table 12 shows that the estimated total cost for the three comprehensive reviews necessary through the 2035 General Plan horizon will total $249,135. In total, the City of Vacaville will accrue $269,727 in costs associated with implementing, reviewing, and updating the mitigation policy through 2035. Based on the 1,200 acres requiring mitigation that is anticipated to develop before the 2035 General Plan horizon (see Table 2), this translates to an average cost of $225 per acre.

Item 11.a

24 Table 12: Potential City of Vacaville Ongoing Costs, 2018-2035

Notes:

Project horizon based on the Vacaville General Plan 2035 horizon. (a) Includes staff time for interim annual reporting to the City Council and to any outside agencies regarding projects subject to the mitigation requirements. This fee reflects the same rate the City of Vacaville charges for a Development Agreement Annual Review. Ongoing staff time devoted to interacting with developers and the Solano Land Trust that relate to projects requiring mitigation will be covered by regular project filing fees. (b) The City will conduct a comprehensive program review every three years, in place of annual reporting. (c) This includes the costs associated with City Staff reviewing the appraisal report, estimating a new fee amount, and going
before the City Council to adopt the fee update. The fee reflects the same rate the City of Vacaville charges for a Comprehensive Annexation Plan Amendment.
(d) Includes consultant costs for updating the appraisal and fee study. (e) Includes the cost of additional staff time required to prepare reports and recommendations to the City Council regarding the fee program update. The City would charge roughly 15 percent of the estimated consultant costs. (f) Estimated portion of total acreage within General Plan subject to mitigation requirements that would build out by 2035. Assumes all affected projects would pay the in-lieu fee.

Sources: City of Vacaville, 2025; BAE, 2025.
# of Cycles
Costs $ Per Year 2025-2035 Total Cost
Annual Reporting (a) $2,574 8 $20,592
3-Year Comprehensive Review (b) $83,045 3 $249,135
Comprehensive Program Review (c) $8,295 3 $24,885
Consulting Costs (d) $65,000 3 $195,000
Additional Staff Time (e) $9,750 3 $29,250
Total Costs $269,727
# of Acres Participating in Fee Program by 2035 (f) 1,200 Cost per Acre $225
Item 11.a

25 TOTAL PER ACRE MITIGATION FEE
Buy-Protect-Sell
Table 13 summarizes SLT’s cost of easement acquisition, one-time transaction and administrative costs associated with initial land acquisition, placing the easements on the land and associated holding costs, costs and proceeds from selling the easement-protected land, and ongoing SLT and City of Vacaville costs associated with the stewardship of the different mitigation types. Based on feedback from SLT staff, the estimated SLT monitoring and mitigation costs assume a complexity ranking of 2. As shown in the table, SLT’s portion of the costs for the mitigation fee program total to between $3,802 and $4,798 per acre, assuming a 100-acre site. After factoring in the 11-year City of Vacaville cost of $269,727, or $225 per acre based on an estimated 1,200 acres developing during the remainder of the General Plan horizon, the total per acre cost for agricultural mitigation ranges from $4,027 and $4,327.

Following the same methodology, the cost for avian foraging mitigation or for stacked agriculture and avian foraging mitigation ranges from $4,723 to $5,023 per acre.

Table 13: Estimated Per Acre Mitigation Fee by Mitigation Type, Buy-Protect-Sell

Notes:
(a) Assumes a complexity ranking of 2 for all mitigation types. (b) Based on a mitigation parcel size of: 100 acres.
(c) Based on estimated 11-year participation of projects totaling: 1,200 acres.

Sources: Solano Land Trust, 2025; Garland and Associates, 2023; City of Vacaville, 2026; BAE, 2026.

Purchase Easement
Table 14 summarizes SLT’s one-time cost for easement acquisition, one-time transaction and administrative costs associated with the easement acquisition, ongoing SLT and City of Vacaville costs associated with the stewardship and administration of the different mitigation types, using the “purchase easement” strategy. Based on feedback from SLT staff, the Mitigation Type
Stacked Agriculture &
Agriculture Avian Foraging Avian Foraging
Low High Low High Low High
Estimated SLT Costs Per 100-Acre Parcel
Property Acquisition $400,000 - $600,000 $600,000 - $800,000 $600,000 - $800,000 Easement Transaction and Admininstration
Monitoring and Mitigation (a)
Total Estimated SLT Costs Per 100-Acre Parcel $720,222 - $920,222 $959,779 - $1,159,779 $959,779 - $1,159,779 Estimated Sales Proceeds Per 100-Acre Encumbered Parcel $340,000 $510,000 $510,000 $680,000 $510,000 $680,000 Estimated SLT Net Cost/Acre (b) $3,802 - $4,102 $4,498 - $4,798 $4,498 - $4,798 Estimated City of Vacaville Program Costs (11 Years)
Estimated City of Vacaville Cost/Acre (c)
Total Per Acre Mitigation Fee $4,027 - $4,327 $4,723 - $5,023 $4,723 - $5,023 $181,050 $199,800 $199,800
$159,979$159,979$139,172
$225 $225 $225
$269,727 $269,727 $269,727
Item 11.a

26 estimated SLT monitoring and mitigation costs assume a complexity ranking of 2. As shown on the table, SLT’s portion of the costs for the mitigation fee program total to between $8,544 and $9,331 per acre, for agriculture-only mitigation and avian or agriculture/avian mitigation, respectively, assuming a 100-acre site. After factoring in the 11-year City of Vacaville cost of $269,727, or $225 per acre based on an estimated 1,200 acres developing during the remainder of the General Plan horizon, the total per acre cost for agricultural mitigation ranges between $8,769 and $9,556, for the “purchase easement” strategy.

Table 14: Estimated Per Acre Mitigation Fee by Mitigation Type, Purchase Easement

Sources: Solano Land Trust, 2026; City of Vacaville, 2026; BAE, 2026

Mitigation Costs Recommended for the In-Lieu Fee Program This study has identified potential mitigation costs for agriculture and stacked agriculture/avian species land mitigation using two different approaches to securing conservation easements. The first, the “buy-protect-sell” approach indicated costs may be as low as approximately $4,000 to $4,300 per acre for agriculture-only protection and as low as approximately $4,700 to $5,000 for stacked agriculture/avian species protection. However, those estimates were based on unique market dynamics from 2023 which indicated relatively small differences in the value of easement-encumbered land versus unencumbered land which can shift relatively quickly based on year-to-year changes in crop prices, which is common. SLT’s more recent market observations and experience with actual easement transactions under current market conditions indicate that the costs for agriculture-only land protection are approximately $8,800 per acre and the costs for stacked agriculture/avian species protection are approximately $9,600 per acre.

Mitigation Type
Stacked Agriculture
Estimated SLT Costs Per 100-Acre Parcel Agriculture Avian Foraging & Avian Foraging Easement Acquisition $670,000 $720,000 $720,000
Easement Transaction and Administration $45,250 $53,100 $53,100 Monitoring and Mitigation (a) $139,172 $159,979 $159,979 Total Estimated SLT Costs Per 100-Acre Parcel $854,422 $933,079 $933,079 Estimated SLT Costs/Acre (b) $8,544 $9,331 $9,331
Estimated City of Vacaville Program Costs (11 Years) $269,727 $269,727 $269,727 Estimated City of Vacaville Cost/Acre (c) $225 $225 $225 Total Per Acre Mitigation Fee $8,769 $9,556 $9,556
Item 11.a

27 The above estimates compare to the current City of Vacaville agriculture and avian species in- lieu fees of $4,687 for agriculture-only and $12,832 for stacked agriculture/avian species land protection, which were based on market conditions in 2018. Just as there have been changes in the Solano County agriculture land market that have created significant shifts in the costs to secure conservation easements between 2018, 2023, and the precent, further shifts in market dynamics and resulting costs to secure conservation easements can be expected over the next five years, before the next update to the in-lieu fee study. At the same time, due to the complex process and timing involved in identifying willing sellers, evaluating potential properties for conservation easements, and negotiating and closing easement transactions, in-lieu fee monies are typically spent well after they are collected. This creates the risk that the fees collected for a given amount of acreage to be protected could be insufficient to fund protection of the same number of acres, if easement acquisition costs increase in the interim. For this reason, BAE recommends that the City of Vacaville and SLT take a conservative approach and set the in-lieu fee at a level that would, at a minimum, be sufficient to fund conservation easements at the highest of the levels analyzed over the life of the in-lieu fee program. Based on this, the current in-lieu fee for agriculture-only mitigation could be increased to align with the estimate of $8,800 per acre based on the current estimate of costs to protect land using a “purchase easement” approach. Because the current estimates of costs for protecting stacked agriculture/avian habitat are less than the current in- fee that the City charges, BAE recommends that the City and SLT maintain the current fee level of $12,832, to protect against the possibility that costs for this type of mitigation could rise above current levels within the fee program’s time horizon for a future update.

Item 11.a

28 FEE NEXUS DISCUSSION
The City of Vacaville would offer payment of a fee as an option for developers to satisfy their requirements for agricultural and avian impacts mitigation (“in-lieu fee”). Because payment of this fee is not a requirement of land development, but a voluntary option in-lieu of providing mitigation land, the agriculture and avian mitigation fee payments would be regulatory fees and not development impact fees. The following discussion outlines how the fees are reasonably related to the impact of new development.

The Purpose of the Fee
The purpose of the fee is to collect funds in-lieu of requiring developers subject to agricultural land and avian species habitat mitigation requirements to independently arrange for the required conservation projects. The fee is designed to provide the necessary funding for the Solano Land Trust to carry out an agreement with the City of Vacaville to secure conservation easements and monitor them in perpetuity, to fulfill the conservation requirements on behalf of the development projects that request to pay the fee in-lieu of arranging for their own conservation projects.

Identification of the Use to Which the Fee is to Be Put The fee proceeds will be used to provide the Solano Land Trust with funding to secure conservation easements and provide for ongoing monitoring of easements in perpetuity, to fulfill the conservation requirements that participating development projects would otherwise have been required to arrange on their own. The specific lands to be conserved cannot be identified in advance, as easement purchases will only involve willing sellers and the specific timing and availability of easements for purchases will have to be coordinated with the timing for individual development projects that will occur over a long-term development horizon.

Relationship Between the Fee’s Use and the Type of Development Project on Which the Fee is Imposed
The fee will be used to fund the process of establishing conservation easements on land necessary to fulfill mitigation requirements for new development projects. Only development projects that involve conversion of agricultural land and/or avian foraging habitat areas will have the option to participate in the fee program. The fee program provides a mechanism for the affected development projects to fulfill their mitigation obligations by paying the fee, in-lieu of their obligations to arrange for the conservation easements on their own.

Relationship Between the Need for the Public Facility and the Type of Development Project on Which the Fee is Imposed
In converting agricultural land and/or land that serves as foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawk and/or burrowing owls, participating projects are reducing the amount of land that is available for agricultural use and/or foraging habitat for the affected avian species. The loss of Item 11.a

29 agricultural land and the loss of habitat for the affected species is considered a significant environmental impact that should be mitigated. Securing conservation easements to ensure the permanent protection of equal amounts of land suitable for these uses will help to ensure that these important environmental resources will not be totally depleted by ongoing development.

Relationship Between the Amount of the Fee and the Cost of the Public Facility Attributable to the Development on Which the Fee is Imposed
Developments projects opting to participate in the fee program will have mitigation requirements for agricultural land, avian foraging habitat, or both. The recommended fee amounts are expressed in terms of the per acre fees for agricultural mitigation alone, avian habitat mitigation alone, or for agricultural and avian mitigation combined (i.e., “stacked”).

Fees collected from participating development projects will be calculated based on the amount of each type of conservation acreage needed, as appropriate to mitigate the development’s specific impacts on agricultural land and/or avian foraging habitat. The per acre fee costs have been calculated to reflect the expected costs that Solano Land Trust will incur to secure easements for the different types of mitigation lands and provide for monitoring of the easements in perpetuity. In addition, it is presumed that development projects opting to participate in the in-lieu fee program will conduct their own due diligence regarding their options to fulfill their mitigation obligations and will only opt into the in-lieu fee program if they believe that the amount of the fees that they would pay represents a reasonable amount in comparison to the costs that they otherwise would have to incur to provide for the required mitigations independently.

Item 11.a

30 APPENDIX A: GARLAND & SALMON MARKET
STUDY

Item 11.a
Ronald G. Garland, MAI, SRA
Steve Salmon, MAI
Marc Tonnessen
Matt AtwoodGARLAND &
SALMON

REAL PROPERTY ECONOMICS ANALYSTS & APPRAISERS

Matt Kowta, MCP, Managing Principal
BAE Urban Economics
803 2nd Street, Suite A
Davis, CA 95616

November 22, 2023
Subject: Garland & Salmon Market Study and Formation of Opinions of Anticipated Conservation Easement Property Rights Acquisition Costs Intended for Use in Conjunction with the BAE Urban Economics Vacaville Agricultural & Avian Species Impact Mitigation Fee Study Dear Mr. Kowta:

BAE Urban Economics has entered into a contract with the City of Vacaville to perform an Agricultural & Avian Species Impact Mitigation Fee Study. We have subcontracted with BAE Urban Economics to perform a market study and analysis to determine our opinion of the anticipated Conservation Easement property rights acquisition costs associated with the City of Vacaville easement acquisitions within the City’s target acquisition area.

This market study, analysis, and report summary are updates to the previous report delivered in 2018. Since our previous report, there have been shifts in the Agricultural land marketplace, which have impacted the costs associated with Conservation Easement property rights acquisitions. As addressed in our previous report, the Agricultural land marketplace does not typically change quickly. However, as of this writing, the 2012-2020 orchard development boom has ended which has caused the cost of Avian Easement acquisitions to diminish at a rate slightly greater than land values have diminished since our last report. 744 Empire St. Suite 260, Fairfield, California, 94533 Ë Phone 707/429-8660 Item 11.a
2 The overarching changes in the Ag Land marketplace and national economy have resulted in buyers being more selective in their acquisitions and general softening in pricing. The resulting changes in market values do not result in substantial changes to our previous Ag easement acquisition cost estimates.

Notable Ag Land Market Changes Since our 2018 Report
Demand for orchard development land has virtually evaporated during the past three years. The pace of orchard development throughout California has slowed such that orchard development soil/drainage/water source characteristics no longer create the unitary land value factor market which existed five years ago.

GARLAND &
SALMON
BAE – Vacaville Ag/Avian Mitigation Fee Study, 11/23 #222547 v5 Item 11.a
3 Of particular note during the past seven years the walnut commodity price averaged slightly less than $0.80/lbs. This is in comparison to a $1.00+/- typical direct operating costs (exclusive of capital costs) of producing walnuts. Also, this is in comparison to a walnut commodity price of more than $2.00/lbs in 2014 at the beginning of the walnut orchard development boom. Not only are walnut orchards not currently being developed, but many even good producing walnut orchards are currently being, or are planned, to be pulled. With all walnut orchards now operating at a loss, with direct farming costs exceeding sales revenues, these orchards are being pulled. The market has come to grips with the marketplace fact that walnut orchards were massively over planted during the walnut planting boom phase of 2012 through 2016.

The pace of almond orchard development across California has essentially evaporated since our report five years Ago. In large part the end of the almond orchard planting boom was because of a 40% decline in almond commodity pricing between the 2020 and 2023 crop years. For a frame of reference, at the current $1.50±/lb commodity prices almond orchards are likely only marginally profitable and then only when they are high producing orchards on land with reasonable water costs. We also believe that the walnut commodity price and orchard value cycle has rightfully caused concerns of a similar almond orchard over supply leading to ruinous commodity prices. We believe if almond commodity prices continue at less than $2.00±/lb we will see significant acres of almond orchards pull out. These are likely to be older orchards in production decline, and newer low production almond orchards developed on speculative orchard land during this recent boom.

The pace of pistachio orchard development has also moderated during the past three to four years but in total pistachios have not been a land value driving factor in the way that walnuts and almonds were during the 2012 to 2020 market cycle.

The 2012 to 2020 nut orchard development boom dramatically increased land prices. With the recent significant decline in demand for orchard development land, one would reasonably expect a significant recent decline in land prices. However, as is common there has been some price stickiness on the early side of a downward value trending marketplace. There has been softening of land prices at a rate far less than the decline in nut commodity prices.

The moderating of land value decline appears to be significantly related to strengthening of cannery tomato commodity prices. A dramatic 2023 30% increase in cannery tomato commodity price has regionally buoyed land values of what previously was prime orchard development land.

Regionally, currently annual tomato planting has replaced new orchard development as the primary driver of land value. How long this will last is not clear. However, this strong tomato

GARLAND &
SALMON
BAE – Vacaville Ag/Avian Mitigation Fee Study, 11/23 #222547 v5 Item 11.a
4 cycle is likely to only last a few years, as the 2023 contract commodity price produced more product than the canneries had capacity to process. While nothing is certain, a 2024 cannery tomato commodity price is likely to fall below the 2023 price level.

At this point it appears that California Ag Land prices are in decline as the market seeks a value defining major commodity which will drive Ag Land value as this declining market bottoms out.

Our opinion is that the implementation of the "Sustainable Groundwater Management Act" has caused much of the fertile farm ground in the San Joaquin Valley (the primary source of cannery tomatoes) to remain fallow while its now limited water resources have recently been used to maintain permanent plantings.

The dramatic decline in the farmed acres in the San Joaquin Valley has led to a shortage of cannery tomatoes, which resulted in higher tomato commodity prices. However, significant amounts of future nut orchard removal will likely occur. This will likely free up limited San Joaquin Valley water resources. The likely freeing up of some San Joaquin Valley water resources is likely to expand San Joaquin Valley tomato acres in the coming years, thereby likely reducing cannery tomato commodity prices in the coming years.

The relevancy of the tomato commodity pricing to this study is that tomatoes have largely replaced orchard development as the economically dominant use of the best soil, drainage, and water source Ag Land within the central valleys of California. Because of the loss of near by canneries, and the typically smaller property sizes within the target acquisition areas around Vacaville, the tomato boom influences land values within the target acquisition area only by competitive regional land value influence, not direct influences.

Inflation and interest rates influence Ag Land value change over time. Inflation tends to increase Ag Land values as capital seeks Ag Land as hedge against inflation. Inflation also tends to increase Agricultural commodity prices over time.

On the other hand inflation brings increasing interest rates. Increasing interest rates increase the effective acquisition cost. That is; higher interest rates increase the cost of purchasing land, even if the land price were to remain level. Increasing interest rates reduce effective demand in the marketplace. When our 2018 study was performed, the Federal Discount Rate was hovering around 2%. As of the writing of this report the Federal Discount Rate is hovering around 5.3%.

Also relevant is that during these intervening five years during the COVID pandemic years the Federal Discount rate dropped to 0%. This increased borrowing cost has tended to suppress Ag

GARLAND &
SALMON
BAE – Vacaville Ag/Avian Mitigation Fee Study, 11/23 #222547 v5 Item 11.a
5 Land values to a greater extent than inflation has pushed up Ag Land prices.

During the mid 2010's relatively low investment yield rates had a tendency to drive many managers of financial institutions to Ag Land acquisitions as other traditionally higher investment opportunities evaporated which lead to an unprecedented amount of institutional investor Ag Land acquisitions in the Central Valleys of California.

Increased interest rates, and the resulting broad band of investment yield increases across many competitive investment marketplaces has beaten the California Ag Land in the yes of almost all institutional investors. Increasing investment yield rates in alternate investments has regionally nearly eliminated institutional investors as buyers within the California Ag Land marketplaces.

Within this report’s study area of this dramatic diminishing of institutional investor acquisitions is evidenced in Trinitas’ lack of Solano County acquisitions over the past four or so years.

During the peak of the almond planting boom Trinitas Investments (a Silicone Valley money manager) acquired several thousand acres within the study area of this report. The exodus of that institutional investor buyer profile from the marketplace has significantly softened Ag Land demand, and contributed to a softening of Ag Land prices within the study area.

Market Stratification
The orchard development matrix is no longer the nearly sole Ag Land market pricing stratification that it was during our prior report in 2018. Consequently, it is not appropriate for us to report current Ag Land pricing strata by a matrix which no longer defines the marketplace.

We will be reporting Ag Land pricing by the matrix of:
ꞏ Top tiered
ꞏ Second tiered
ꞏ Third tiered
ꞏ Fourth tiered
In general, these Ag Land pricing tiers relate to the farming characteristics of the USDA soil classes I, II, III, & IV. We want to stress that we are relating to the USDA described Agricultural characteristics. However, this is not related to the May 1977 USDA Soil Survey of Solano County, California, delineation of specific soils on specific properties. For reasons to be explained later we believe that the USDA Soil Survey of Solano County does not reliably accurately report the Agricultural character of specific properties.

GARLAND &
SALMON
BAE – Vacaville Ag/Avian Mitigation Fee Study, 11/23 #222547 v5 Item 11.a
6 However, the USDA defined Agricultural character of the USDA defined soil classes I, II, III, & IV matches well with current market land value stratifications. In many cases, the 1977 soil survey simply does not accurately represent current soil characteristics.

The typically observed farming uses of the four land pricing tiers generally include:
• Pricing Top tiered properties frequently host, orchard, tomatoes, and other high value row crops, including the row crops farmed in years between tomato crop stressing of soils. All USDA Soil Survey of Solano County reported Class I soils fall within the Top tiered pricing strata, as do some Soil Survey reported Class II soils which farm better than described by the 1977 Soil Survey.
• Pricing Second tiered properties tend to host less productive orchards and tomatoes, and lower value row crops, and alfalfa. These include Soil Survey delineated Class II soil properties which farm as described within the Soil Survey, and some Soil Survey delineated Class III soil properties which farm with Class II soil characteristics. • Pricing Third tiered properties tend to primarily host, field crops, and alfalfa, with some low-end row crops. These include Soil Survey delineated Class III soil properties which farm as described within the Soil Survey, and some Soil Survey delineated Class II and IV soil properties which farm with Class III characteristics. • Pricing Fourth tiered properties primarily hosts irrigated pasture with some Alfalfa.

These include Soil Survey delineated Class IV soil properties which farm as described within the Soil Survey, and some Soil Survey delineated Class III, V & VI soil properties which farm with Class IV characteristics.

Initial Statement of Findings, Conclusions, and Opinions Regarding the Marketplace • Conservation easements are not traded in an open and free marketplace. Because of the lack of an open free-trading conservation easement marketplace, there is not any direct marketplace-driven conservation easement market value.
• There is, however essentially a legally defined market value; defined as the market value of the property prior to imposing the conservation easement, less the market value of the same property after the conservation easement encumbrance is imposed.

GARLAND &
SALMON
BAE – Vacaville Ag/Avian Mitigation Fee Study, 11/23 #222547 v5 Item 11.a
7 • The Ag Land marketplace is currently less rural residential demand influenced in comparison to historic land markets.
• Rural residential demand is not currently a major value influence in the Ag Land marketplace, which leads to Agricultural characteristics currently uncharacteristically being the dominant economic characteristic in Ag Land values. • The Pleasants Valley, Upper Lagoon Valley and Vaca Valley market areas have transitioned from being an Ag dominated land marketplace to a rural residential, and primarily a rural estate residential driven marketplace. There is not an active Ag Land marketplace within the Pleasants Valley, Upper Lagoon Valley and Vaca Valley market areas location from which to extract independent Ag Land pricing data. However, historical trends indicate that true Ag Land in these marketplaces generally trade at a slightly greater pricing level than within the greater Vacaville Dixon Ag Land pricing.

The Pleasants Valley, Upper Lagoon Valley and Vaca Valley market areas tend to trade at a little higher price level than the Vacaville Dixon market area. Historically, both the fee simple, and conservation easement Ag Land values in the Pleasants Valley, Upper Lagoon Valley and Vaca Valley market areas have trended higher than the Vacaville Dixon market area. Our observation of historic trends suggests that the conservation easement diminution in land values in the Pleasants Valley, Upper Lagoon Valley and Vaca Valley market areas have tended to be similar to up to 20% greater than price levels within the Vacaville Dixon market area.

• Currently, conservation easements on Ag Land are not extinguishing significant rural residential demand value; therefore, the market value of conservation easements is at historic low values.
• Because of the recent Agricultural use dominant influence upon Ag Land values, conservation easements are currently at the lowest percentage of fee value ever. • In our opinion it warrants budgeting consideration that currently conservation easement acquisition costs are at a historic low. It appears reasonable to us to consider the significant likelihood that easement acquisition costs will increase in the future when the City is using current fee collections to acquire conservation easements for mitigation use.

We are expressing our opinion of conservation easement typical market values as dollars per

GARLAND &
SALMON
BAE – Vacaville Ag/Avian Mitigation Fee Study, 11/23 #222547 v5 Item 11.a
8 acre ($/Ac).

In our opinion, your Ag Land mitigation target area for this project crosses two distinct market areas. We have named these the Vacaville Dixon market area, and the Pleasants Valley, Upper Lagoon Valley, and Vaca Valley market areas.

As noted in our previous report, the Pleasants Valley, Upper Lagoon Valley, and Vaca Valley market area consists of few properties of mitigation suitable size and character as well as insufficient sale activity of Ag Land properties from which to base a reliable study. Based on the continued lack of market transactions of Ag Land, fee or encumbered, since our last report, as well as our knowledge of how the regional Ag Land marketplace has operated over the last three decades, we have chosen for this report to no longer produce numerical indications of the Ag Land and corresponding conservation easement values for the specific Pleasants Valley, Upper Lagoon Valley, and Vaca Valley market areas; as reporting a pricing level which is nonexistent representation would be a misleading representation in a data deficient marketplace.

The indicated Vacaville Dixon Agricultural land and conservation easement (CE) market values provide the best base for inferring slightly greater values for the Pleasants Valley, Upper Lagoon, Valley, and Vaca Valley market areas. The Pleasants Valley, Upper Lagoon Valley, and Vaca Valley Ag Land market follows the larger marketplace trends; although with more variation due to; the lack of an active and orderly marketplace, as well as other factors typical in the Ag Land markets such as views. The Pleasants Valley, Upper Lagoon Valley, and Vaca Valley land values for both CE unencumbered and CE encumbered land are greater than those of the Vacaville Dixon Agricultural land market, but we anticipate that the value difference between CE unencumbered and CE encumbered land in the Pleasants Valley, Upper Lagoon Valley, and Vaca Valley will be similar to the reported differences within the Vacaville Dixon market area.

With four market land pricing strata categories, two conservation easement types, and now one market area, there are eight conservation easement market value categories that potentially might occur. Our attempt to create some order out of that massive amount of information has led us to develop the following two conservation easements typical market value tables.

GARLAND &
SALMON
BAE – Vacaville Ag/Avian Mitigation Fee Study, 11/23 #222547 v5 Item 11.a
9 Typical Vacaville Dixon Agricultural Land and
Ag Easement Per Acre Values as of June 2023
Property Rights
Category
Not CE Encumbered
Fee interest
Ag Easement
Encumbered Fee
Typical Ag Easement
Market Value
Typical Per Acre
Price Range
Low
$/AC
High
$/AC
Low
$/AC
High
$/AC
Low
$/AC
High
$/AC
Marketplace
Land Category
Top Tiered $20,000 $23,000 $15,000 $19,000 $4,000 $6,000 Second Tiered $14,000 $20,000 $10,000 $13,000 $4,000 $6,000 Third Tiered $10,000 $14,000 $7,000 $11,000 $2,000 $4,000 Fourth Tired $5,000 $9,000 $4,000 $6,000 $2,000 $4,000
Typical Vacaville Dixon Agricultural Land and Avian Easement Per Acre Values as of June 2023
Property Rights
Category
Not CE Encumbered
Fee interest
Avian Easement
Encumbered Fee
Typical Avian Easement
Market Value
Typical Per Acre
Price Range
Low
$/AC
High
$/AC
Low
$/AC
High
$/AC
Low
$/AC
High
$/AC
Marketplace
Land Category
Top Tiered $20,000 $23,000 $12,000 $14,000 $6,000 $8,000 Second Tiered $14,000 $20,000 $10,000 $12,000 $6,000 $8,000 Third Tiered $10,000 $14,000 $6,000 $9,000 $3,000 $5,000 Fourth Tired $5,000 $9,000 $4,000 $7,000 $2,000 $3,000
*We note that the Pleasants Valley, Upper Lagoon Valley, or Vaca Valley market areas Ag Land and avian easement market values generally follow that of the typical Vacaville Dixon market area, albeit with high variation due to lack of an active and orderly marketplace, and the presence of a high-end residential estate market influence.

Generally softening Ag Land values, increases in row crop commodity prices, and the virtual collapse of orchard development factors have in concert tended to reduce avian easement acquisition cost as currently this Highest and Best Use of unencumbered fee interests in the study area does not include orchard development.

GARLAND &
SALMON
BAE – Vacaville Ag/Avian Mitigation Fee Study, 11/23 #222547 v5 Item 11.a
10 Marketplace Overview
The local Ag Land marketplace is cyclical, as are all real estate markets. These market cycles are inevitable because of the virtually unlimited volatility of demand, or the economic elasticity of demand, matched with the virtually fixed supply of land or the economic inelasticity of land supply. The inherently cyclical nature of Ag Land values is a reasonable material marketplace factor in budgeting to accumulate fees over time for future easement acquisitions.

For decades the Solano County Ag Land marketplace has been largely tied to residential market cycles. In our opinion, the Ag Land market correlation with residential market cycles was largely driven by the ebb and flow of rural residential demand. The residential boom markets of the late 2010s, and then similar expansion during the COVID-19 pandemic of 2020-2022, have had a less significant rural residential demand component of the Ag Land marketplace when compared to the historical boom residential market cycles of the prior five decades.

Due to the decade or so long drought, along with the effects of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act and comparatively strong irrigation water characteristics of northeastern Solano County, there continues to be some statewide Agricultural land demand shift to Solano County. The drought and SGMA have caused many Ag Land buyers to prioritize strong irrigation water characteristics over proximity to existing farming operations. This trend has continued as the Solano County irrigation water characteristics are still seen as superior to many other Agricultural areas of California.

A byproduct of the current Agriculture land pricing marketplace is Ag and Avian CEs, which do not materially change the best Agricultural use of the property and have significantly lower easement values than at any time in the past, when rural residential demand was a greater value influence. In the current market, the ratio of contributory value of rural residential demand is lower than at any time in the past four or five decades.

Again, strengthening of tomato commodity pricing has significantly diminished the cost of acquiring Avian Easements, because Avian Easements no longer extinguish the highest use of the Top and Second tiered priced properties.

GARLAND &
SALMON
BAE – Vacaville Ag/Avian Mitigation Fee Study, 11/23 #222547 v5 Item 11.a
11 Market Survey
Our opinions of land value ranges are largely based on our broader marketplace experience.

However, we have honed those opinions through research and analysis of specific relevant land sales.

In general, our Market Survey land sales search criteria were:
• Generally level land
• Irrigated land
• Ag Land sold within the last three years
• Located in the general Vacaville and Dixon area
• Due to the limited volume of sales in the Vacaville and Dixon areas, we expanded the search into southern Yolo County in order to identify a sufficient number of sales to observe market area pricing trends.
• Properties from 40 acres to 2,000 acres in size, with a focus on properties of 80 acres or larger in size.
• No or little contributory building value
• Without foreseeable future urban development potential This search yielded 26 unencumbered fee interest sales, of which 19 are in Solano County and 7 are in Yolo County. The available sales data took some analysis and professional judgment in order to form our opinions of Land value ranges.

However, the sales data available is sparse enough that opinions of Ag Land value ranges are just that; opinions, they are not facts.

GARLAND &
SALMON
BAE – Vacaville Ag/Avian Mitigation Fee Study, 11/23 #222547 v5 Item 11.a
12 Row crops have replaced orchard development as the value defining factor of properties within the top two strata of the pricing tiers.

Irrigated pasture is the value defining factor of properties within the lower two strata of the pricing tiers.

The volume of irrigated pasture sales data is very limited. However, that limited sales volume is not because of limited demand. Rather the number of sale transactions is largely limited because most of that inventory of irrigated pastureland in the market area is held in long-time family ownerships not interested in selling. However, rapidly increasing irrigated pasture land prices over the last decade indicate the demand side of the balance is greater than the available supply side.

The available sale data discovered for conservation easement encumbered properties was sparse.

Our search criteria were the same as the unencumbered property sale search criteria, further limiting the search results to properties encumbered by Ag or Swainson's Hawk CEs. This search yielded only eight sales and two active listings. Seven of the properties were encumbered with Ag CEs and four were encumbered by Avian CEs.

The limited amount of conservation easement (CE) encumbered sales meant that we had to utilize some transactions which are more complex and required significant professional judgment in allocating sales prices between such things as existing orchard improvements and land, or allocating the sale price between portions of the property; (a) not CE encumbered and (b) Swainson's Hawk CE encumbered.

Again we see the local Ag Land marketplace largely divided into four market driven price strata categories as:
• Top Tiered
• Second Tiered
• Third Tiered
• Fourth Tiered

GARLAND &
SALMON
BAE – Vacaville Ag/Avian Mitigation Fee Study, 11/23 #222547 v5 Item 11.a
13 With four marketplace defined pricing strata and only seven Ag CE encumbered, and four Avian Foraging Habitat CE encumbered recent market indications, forming an opinion of the CE encumbered land values is inherently more judgment based than fact proven.

However, our professional experience and background which are the basis of the judgment, include three decades of researching and analyzing sales of CE encumbered properties throughout Northern California. The development of our opinion is not only based on the analysis of specific data located for this analysis, but also three decades of experience, and studying CE values regionally has helped bridge market data deficiencies.

Agricultural real estate marketplaces are not abundant. Consequently, the limited sales data, and sale price inconsistences between individual transaction leads to the lack of a fact as to the price level of any segment of the marketplace. There is no fact to be found relating to the value of Ag properties. There is only opinion.

Our opinions are sound professional analysis-based opinions, but they are nevertheless, opinions not facts.

Our conclusions relating to the local Ag Land market and land values are:
• Currently, the two hottest land category commodities in this market area are Row Crop and Irrigated Pasture. The nexus of that marketplace supply and demand factors is such that Ag Land buyers are willing to accept Ag CE encumbered land with little CE encumbrance price discounts compared to similar unencumbered fee interests. • Field Crop lands are not currently such hot commodities in the marketplace. Field Crop lands supply and demand quantities are more nearly in balance. Because of those more balanced market conditions, buyers have a greater inventory of properties available for sale from which to choose. This broader inventory of Field Crop land relative to a limited number of buyers results in greater buyer leverage to consistently negotiate lower CE encumbered prices relative to equivalent unencumbered property prices.

Our concluded land value ranges are expressed as ranges because land marketplaces are simply not that precise. There are inherently transaction-to-transaction price differences not based on specific factual conditions but rather are the result of the imperfections of real estate markets.

These stated ranges should not be interpreted as fixed finite ranges in the marketplace. Rather the stated ranges should be considered a representation of central tenancies in which some individual

GARLAND &
SALMON
BAE – Vacaville Ag/Avian Mitigation Fee Study, 11/23 #222547 v5 Item 11.a
14 sales will fall outside of the stated ranges, but the preponderance of the sales are expected to fall within the stated ranges.

There are many factors that drive individual prices within, or even outside of these central tendency ranges. Four of the most important of these categories include:
• Transaction Character
• Property Size Character
• Soil Characteristic
• Irrigation Water Source
Discussion of each of these four major categories of sale price influence follows:

1. Transaction Influence Upon Per Acre Sale Prices
To a greater extent than many people are aware, there are significant transaction-based sale price variations in the Ag Land marketplace. That is, there are variations created by:
• Specific motivations and objectives of individual buyers and sellers • The price influence of differences between the financial stature of individual buyers and sellers.
• Negotiation skill variations between parties, even negotiating skills variations when buyers and sellers are broker represented
With the understanding it is not possible, but if it were possible for the same property to be bought and sold one hundred times in identical market conditions between different buyers and sellers, the sales prices would not be consistent. In fact, even in that situation, there would be a range of sales prices. Interestingly, if those 100 sales prices were to be plotted, they would plot as a statistical bell curve, not a point.

GARLAND &
SALMON
BAE – Vacaville Ag/Avian Mitigation Fee Study, 11/23 #222547 v5 Item 11.a
15 2. Property Size Influence Upon Per Acre Sale Prices Property size was historically a significant influence upon per acre sales prices. During our four decades of appraising Ag Land, there has generally always been an inverse size versus per acre sale price relationship; small property tends to sell for greater per acre prices than similar larger properties.

This inverse size/per acre sale price relationship was fundamental because rural residential use was a dominant land value influence, and additional land had little influence upon the quality of rural life experience. Rural residential demand adds an additional land use value component to Ag use and adds an additional element of the demand curve. Smaller properties, which have greater per acre prices, still have smaller purchase prices. This smaller total price is affordable to a larger portion of the rural homesite spectrum of the market, leading to a broader base of demand for comparatively small rural properties.

For reasons not entirely clear to us, the residential boom market of the last three years has had a weaker rural residential demand component in comparison to the historical residential boom markets of the four prior decades. Even though the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in increased demand for rural living, this has predominantly been focused on markets with 40-acre or smaller properties and not within the Ag Land segment of the marketplace.

This unusually weak rural residential market cycle happens to currently coincide with relatively strong markets in the high-end Row Crop, and Irrigated Pasture markets. Top Tiered and Second Tiered land values are softer than five years ago but are still relatively high in a historical perspective. In the current cycle, the economics of producing row crops and irrigated pasture have in comparison to the markets of 1960s into the early 2000s lessened the rural residential influence upon Ag Land values.

In most cases there are farming economies of scale such that larger is currently atypically more valuable per acre than smaller.

GARLAND &
SALMON
BAE – Vacaville Ag/Avian Mitigation Fee Study, 11/23 #222547 v5 Item 11.a
16 The strength of Agriculture and the waning of rural residential dominance of Ag Land values has caused less property size land value differentiation then existed during the 1960s into the early 2000s
• In our opinion, in both the Row Crop, and Irrigated Pasture segments of the marketplace 500 acres in a contiguous block is more valuable per acre than 100 acres. Further, 1,000 acres in a contiguous block is more valuable per acre than 500 acres. This relationship has never existed before. If agricultural rather than rural residential uses continue to dominate the marketplace then this reduction of size land value influence is likely to continue
• With increasing interest rates, institutional money manager investors have largely left the California Ag Land market, as better investment returns are available elsewhere.

Consequently, we have observed state-wide that per acre land values within in the 100 to 1,000 acre range have flattened in comparison to our study five years ago.

3. Soil Characteristics Influence Upon Per Acre Sale Prices People generally tend to believe soils are the primary determinant of per acre sales prices, which in a broad sense, we agree with. Soils are, at a minimum, the primary determinant between our four-market pricing strata. Consequently, soils are land value influences in a broad perspective.

One of the challenges in analyzing soil character influences upon sales prices is that most Ag properties have soil variations and frequently significant soil variation across the property.

Monolithic soil characteristics across an Ag property in this market area are rare. Consequently, the available market data does not provide sufficient direct comparison analytical opportunities to definitively numerically quantify soil characteristics sale price correlations. While there are clearly general price trends of better soils being more valuable than lesser quality soils, a fixed mathematical relationship in the marketplace does not exist.

Another challenge in analyzing soil character and sale price correlations is that, for the most part, soils are identified in the marketplace by the USDA Soil Survey of Solano County, California, published in May 1977. In our opinion, that mapping is not that accurate in comparison to today's digital information standards. The Solano County aerial imagery, and analysis of that imagery, were largely performed during the decade prior to publishing the Soil Survey in 1977.

All of those technologies have improved dramatically during the four decades since the Soil Survey was published in 1977. We are not saying that this Soil Survey is not reliable. What we

GARLAND &
SALMON
BAE – Vacaville Ag/Avian Mitigation Fee Study, 11/23 #222547 v5 Item 11.a
17 are saying is one should not project today's confidence in technological accuracy on the information in this four-decade-old soil survey report.

A third complexity is the soil rating systems are numerically based, such as Class I to VIII or Stories index rating of 0 to 100. Because these are numerically identified categories does not mean that the marketplace correlates those numeric identifications to per acre sale prices. While there is a numerical ranking of soils, the scale or units of measure of those soil characteristics are soil science based. Those soil rating gradations are not market value ranking gradations.

Yet another complexity in correlating soil characteristics with sale prices is that over the past four decades, there have been technological advances in improving and managing less desirable soil characteristics. Some of the areas of technological advancement include:
• Balancing of soil chemistry PH
• Chemically reducing adhesion between clay partials to improve drainage • Very deep hardpan ripping, and backhoe excavation breaking up hardpans for orchard development
• Improvements in irrigation technology reduci ng the adverse growing influence of slow drainage soils
• Improvement in drainage systems
In many situations, we have observed soils identified by the Solano County Soil Survey as Class IV soils with Storie index ratings in the range of 40 to 50 that farm just as well as soils identified by that Soil Survey as Class II soils with Storie index ratings in the 75 to 85 range.

In many cases, the USDA Soil Survey of Solano County, California, published in May 1977, simply does not accurately reflect current soil characteristics.

GARLAND &
SALMON
BAE – Vacaville Ag/Avian Mitigation Fee Study, 11/23 #222547 v5 Item 11.a
18 4. Irrigation Water Source Influence Upon Per Acre Sale Prices Irrigation water sources have always been considered an Ag Land per acre sale price factor. The Northern California orchard development boom of 2012 through 2018 largely overlapped the most recent decade long Northern California drought. The intersection of these two events has re-ordered Ag Land marketplace price priorities throughout Northern California.

In the Ag Land market, several independent factors drive sale prices. Some of the major Ag Land sale price factors include; soil, irrigation water source, rural residential demand, access, etcetera. This reordering of Ag Land marketplace priorities has clearly moved irrigation water characteristics up in the pecking order of marketplace property preference priority.

In particular, the Northern California Ag Land marketplace has come to recognize the stellar characteristics of the Solano Irrigation District (SID). The reliability of service during drought conditions, the water quality, the duration of the irrigation season, and the relatively low water cost are attracting out-of-area Ag Land buyers into the SID service territory.

In our opinion, the Solano County marketplace's ranking priorities of irrigation water sources are:

1. Solano Irrigation District (SID)

2. North Delta Water Agency

3. Relatively new good deep wells with big pumps

4. Reclamation districts not covered by the North Delta Water Agency Agreements, and Maine Prairie Water District

6. Relatively old shallow wells with small old pumps
Please note that during the past five to eight years the market has evolved into showing a strong preference in dual water sources. Typically dual water sources means a surface water provider, plus owned ground wells. As an example this means that a property with say Maine Prairie Water District water with a relatively new deep well with a large pump is likely market preferred to a North Delta Water Agency served property without a well.

Groundwater service with wells and pumps in the above table is actually a spectrum. The two well/pump bullet points above brackets the groundwater spectrum range in the array of Solano County irrigation water source market preferences.

GARLAND &
SALMON
BAE – Vacaville Ag/Avian Mitigation Fee Study, 11/23 #222547 v5 Item 11.a
19 While still in the early phases of regulation of long-term impacts on California's groundwater levels, the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) has put market pressure on groundwater pumping in regions throughout the State. So far, the Groundwater Sustainability Agencies located within Solano County's Agricultural areas have generally not seen significantly over drafting of the groundwater tables. In significant part the relative stability of Solano's groundwater tables is due to the quality, quantity, and durability of SID water. Currently, limiting drilling of new wells and groundwater pumping has only significantly impacted the San Joaquin Valley. In the future, groundwater issues might result in further stratification in the marketplace of Solano County as water issues continue to worsen Statewide.

Final Conclusions and Opinions
There are a few areas of difficulty in budgeting land acquisition costs for The Vacaville Agricultural & Avian Species Impact Fee Study (VAASIFS). These include:

1. The Agricultural mitigation is to mitigate for the loss of Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, and Unique Farmland. These are discrete, defined land categories.

The mitigation budgeting challenge is that these land categorization systems do not match marketplace pricing structures. The marketplace pricing categories are simply a different basis from these defined categories.

2. There is a stated preference to locate mitigation in Pleasants Valley, Upper Lagoon Valley, or Vaca Valley. In the big picture, these are relatively small areas with limited mitigation hosting opportunities. These are almost exclusively rural residential and specifically rural estate driven market areas not Agricultural driven market areas.

The number of properties of mitigation suitable size, with mitigation suitable character within these three areas, is limited. In our broader market study area, few Ag Land sales are available for analysis. None of our identified sales during the past three years are in Pleasants Valley, Upper Lagoon Valley, or Vaca Valley; historically, few happen each decade. There were simply no sales of properties found in these three areas with characteristics that fell within the project mitigation hoisting priority criteria or our earlier stated sale search criteria.

Everything else being equal, it appears that mitigation in the Pleasants Valley, Upper Lagoon Valley, or Vaca Valley areas, and actually also the rural residential part of the Putah Creek corridor, will cost up to 20% more than the same mitigation in the Vacaville

GARLAND &
SALMON
BAE – Vacaville Ag/Avian Mitigation Fee Study, 11/23 #222547 v5 Item 11.a
20 Dixon market area.

However, so few objective fulfilling mitigation hosting potentials exist within Pleasants Valley, Upper Lagoon Valley, or Vaca Valley that years, or decades, may go by without any of those property owners being willing CE sellers.

If there is a desire to budget price premiums to induce property owners to become willing sellers when they are not already sellers in the marketplace, in our opinion, that likely takes quite large premiums over what might be construed as market value.

3. When the market was such that conservation easements were buying out markets strongly driven homesite entitlements, it was common for conservation easement values to be in the range of 30% to 50% of the unencumbered value. When CEs were 30% to 50% of the unencumbered value, CE sellers willingly came to the marketplace. These CE sale proceeds were frequently used to recapitalize farming operations such as funding permanent plantings, paying off debt or estate taxes, buying out family members, or other capital-intensive objectives. In the current market, CE values are not great enough to fund these kinds of seller objectives and do not typically motivate landowners to become willing conservation easement sellers.

In our opinion, the predicament in implementing this mitigation plan is outlined in the four following bullet points:
• We believe as a government agency, there is the possibility the City of Vacaville, may be legally prohibited from paying prices significantly above legally defined Market Value. • There is no open and free trading marketplace for conservation easements, and therefore no true competitive marketplace driven market value of a conservation easement. • There is, however, essentially a legally defined conservation easement market value. This legally defined Market Value is the difference between the market value of the fee interest prior to the conservation easement encumbrance less the value of the property as conservation easement encumbered.
• That is all well and good, except when the legally defined price limits what a government agency can pay for a conservation easement is insufficient to induce willing conservation easement sellers. We believe this may be the current legal and marketplace conundrum

GARLAND &
SALMON
BAE – Vacaville Ag/Avian Mitigation Fee Study, 11/23 #222547 v5 Item 11.a
21 for the City of Vacaville.

In our opinion, a business plan of soliciting conservation easement sellers is likely to be challenging in the current market. Further, in our opinion for the plan to be successfully implemented in the current market, the plan may need to focus on acquiring unencumbered fee interests, encumber the acquired fee interests with conservation easements, then sell the conservation easement encumbered properties.

It simply a marketplace fact that there are more willing buyers of conservation easement encumbered properties, than there are willing sellers of conservation easements.

As a note many clients of ours including the Nature Conservancy, The Trust for Public Land, and the Conservation Fund have told us of their organization’s need to in many instances change their conservation easement acquisition strategy from the very complex transaction model of a direct conservation easement acquisition to simpler acquisition model of acquiring a fee interest, encumbering the property with the desired conservation easement, then reselling the easement encumbered property.

There are somewhat more direct costs to the fee acquisition and easement encumbered resale model in comparison to a direct the direct conservation easement acquisition model. These additional costs include such costs as brokerage commissions, property taxes, insurance, and management costs, and such additional costs.

The fee acquisition and easement encumbered resale strategy will cost slightly more. However, there is the mitigation project enhancement of a much broader selection of mitigation opportunities. The practicality of a broader selection of actual opportunities is that this model likely provides opportunities to select a mitigation hosting property which better suits the location and mitigation objectives of the City of Vacaville.

Our reported opinions of typical Ag and Avian Easement Market Value per acre ranges do not include:
• Purchase and sale transaction costs
• Easement development costs
• Property holding costs between the acquisition of unencumbered property and out sale of

GARLAND &
SALMON
BAE – Vacaville Ag/Avian Mitigation Fee Study, 11/23 #222547 v5 Item 11.a
22 that conservation easement encumbered property if that acquisition strategy is exercised • Program operational costs
• On going mitigation monitoring and enforcement
We have extensive experience appraising Agricultural properties in Solano County, and during that time, we witnessed many shifts in the Agricultural land marketplace. The blowing sands of the Ag Land marketplace are constantly in movement. The only thing that we can say for certain about future marketplaces is that they will change. The only constant in real estate markets is change.

This study is inherently a snapshot in time. Continually updating these professional opinions for changing market conditions in the future will be necessary. Figuring out the appropriate frequency of updating this study is a challenge. Our input includes:
• Typically, during any given year, there is not sufficient sales volume to differentiate transaction-to-transaction sale price variations from emerging new market pricing trends. • By the time there are enough sales data to measure that the market has changed, then the market has changed without you having budgeted for that change. • In Ag Land markets, most of the time, it takes about three years of sales transaction volume to create a sufficient volume of data to measure marketplace pricing shift trends. • We have personally never experienced a five-year time period during which there has not been measurable market pricing shifts.

Again, the only certainty is the market will change. How, why, in what direction, and to what magnitude those changes will occur is uncertain. Only time can tell that story.

Sincerely,
Ronald G. Garland, MAI, SRA Matt Atwood
CA #Ag001622 CA #3005100

GARLAND &
SALMON
BAE – Vacaville Ag/Avian Mitigation Fee Study, 11/23 #222547 v5 Item 11.a

APPENDIX B1: SLT ONE-TIME TRANSACTION

COSTS, BUY-PROTECT-SELL

Notes:
(a) Based on a parcel size of 100 acres and approximate value of $1 million. (b) Includes escrow, recording and closing costs fees.
(c) Assumes SLT may have up to 2-year holding period before selling easement encumbered property.

Sources: Solano Land Trust, 2025; BAE, 2025.

Unencumbered Land Purchase Costs
Agriculture Mitigation Avian Mitigation Ag./Avian Mitigation Staff Costs Hours Rate Hours Rate Hours Rate
Executive Director 15.0 $250.00 15.0 $250.00 15.0 $250.00 Conservation Director 55.0 $250.00 70.0 $250.00 70.0 $250.00 Transaction Specialist 20.0 $100.00 25.0 $100.00 25.0 $100.00 Attorney 10.0 $500.00 10.0 $500.00 10.0 $500.00
Total Staff Costs $24,500.00 $28,750.00 $28,750.00
Purchase Costs
Appraisal $7,000.00 $8,000.00 $8,000.00
Escrow and Recording Fees $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 Real Estate Taxes $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00
Insurance and Title Policy $3,200.00 $3,200.00 $3,200.00 Total Purchase Costs $15,700.00 $16,700.00 $16,700.00
Costs to Establish Easements/Holding Costs
Staff Costs Hours Rate Hours Rate Hours Rate
Executive Director 10.0 $250.00 10.0 $250.00 10.0 $250.00 Conservation Director 70.0 $250.00 85.0 $250.00 85.0 $250.00 Transaction Specialist 30.0 $100.00 30.0 $100.00 30.0 $100.00 Attorney 10.0 $500.00 20.0 $500.00 20.0 $500.00
Total Staff Costs $28,000.00 $36,750.00 $36,750.00
Transaction and Administrative Costs:

Survey $1,500.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
Travel and Parking $300.00 $300.00 $300.00
Real Estate Taxes (a) (c) $24,000.00 $24,000.00 $24,000.00 Recording Fees $250.00 $250.00 $250.00
Baseline Report $5,500.00 $5,500.00 $5,500.00
Total Costs $31,550.00 $32,050.00 $32,050.00
Costs to Sell Easement Encumbered Property
Agriculture Mitigation Avian Mitigation Ag./Avian Mitigation Staff Costs Hours Rate Hours Rate Hours Rate
Executive Director 15.0 $250.00 15.0 $250.00 15.0 $250.00 Conservation Director 55.0 $250.00 70.0 $250.00 70.0 $250.00 Transaction Specialist 20.0 $100.00 25.0 $100.00 25.0 $100.00 Attorney 10.0 $500.00 10.0 $500.00 10.0 $500.00
Total Staff Costs $24,500.00 $28,750.00 $28,750.00
Transaction and Administrative Costs:

Broker Fees (a) $50,000.00 $50,000.00 $50,000.00
Insurance and Title Policy (a) $3,200.00 $3,200.00 $3,200.00 Transfer Tax (a) $1,100.00 $1,100.00 $1,100.00
Escrow and Recording Fees (a) (b) $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 Total Sale Costs $56,800.00 $56,800.00 $56,800.00
Item 11.a

APPENDIX B2: SLT ONE-TIME TRANSACTION

COSTS, PURCHASE EASEMENT

Sources: Solano Land Trust, 2026; BAE, 2026.

Costs to Establish Easements
Agriculture Mitigation Ag./Avian Mitigation
Staff Costs Hours Rate Hours Rate
Chief Program Officer 5.0 $250.00 5.0 $250.00
Conservation Director 20.0 $250.00 25.0 $250.00
Project Manager 50.0 $100.00 60.0 $100.00
GIS Specialist/CE Stew ard 10.0 $100.00 10.0 $100.00
Attorney 15.0 $600.00 20.0 $600.00
Sub-Total Staff Costs $21,250.00 $26,500.00
Transaction and Administrative Costs
Appraisal $7,000.00 $9,000.00
Survey $1,700.00 $2,300.00
Baseline Report $6,000.00 $6,000.00
Mineral Remotenss Report $4,500.00 $4,500.00
Escrow Fees and closing costs $3,300.00 $3,300.00
Title Policy $1,500.00 $1,500.00
Other Costs
Sub-Total Transaction/Admin. Costs $24,000.00 $26,600.00 TOTAL ONE-TIME COSTS/TRANSACTION $45,250.00 $53,100.00 Item 11.a

APPENDIX C: SLT COMPLEXITY RATING TABLE

AND ASSUMPTIONS

Notes:
(a) Property has general restrictions (e.g., no subdivision) with 1 to 2 uses requiring approval. (b) Property has specific restrictions (limited and specific ag use), farmstead not yet built, 3 or 4 permitted uses requiring approval. Potential transportation corridor being next to I80. (c) Property has complex restrictions for different parts of the property, with more than five permitted uses requiring approval.

Sources: Solano Land Trust, 2025; BAE, 2025.

Permitted Uses Violations
# of Permitted Annual Probability # of Violations Annual Use Requests Per of Permitted Use Experienced Probability Rating 20 years Requests Per 20 Years of Violation
1 (a) 1.5 7.5% 1.0 5.0%
2 (b) 3.5 17.5% 2.0 10.0%
3 (c) 4.5 22.5% 3.0 15.0%
Item 11.a

APPENDIX D: SLT ENDOWMENT PRACTICE
POLICY

Item 11.a

ENDOWMENT PRACTICE
Adopted by Executive Committee: August 19, 2015
This document provides the details of Solano Land Trust’s practice of endowment management and calculation. It references SLT’s current Board approved policy documents and fee structure and terms.

SLT Endowment Practice.

SLT holds endowments for our fee owned lands for maintenance of the property, facilities and projects on them SLT also holds endowments for easement stewardship where SLT is the easement holder on properties owned by others. The endowment purpose is for in-perpetuity maintenance of the conservation values of the property/project. Some endowments have specific task requirements, such as for mitigation projects which have specific goals. Other endowments, such for agricultural easement stewardship, have standard monitoring requirements and reporting. All endowments have contracts or agreements which detail the purpose and specifics of the required tasks that should be carried out in- perpetuity. All contracts and agreements are subject to SLT Board approval.

Endowment Management
SLT relies on our Board approved policy documents for endowment guidance. The SLT Cash and Investment Policy (2012 update 2015?) discusses the way SLT manages endowment funds as permanently restricted funds. These funds serve the purpose of providing an income stream to SLT to carry out the contracted work over time. SLT uses UPMIFA (spell out) guidelines to determine the draw from these funds. Earning on funds may be drawn annually or periodically as needed to serve the property/project. The goal is to build up earnings in these funds to keep up with inflation. To achieve this goal, a portion of the earnings remain in the fund each year. An annual review of funds ensures that contractual obligations are being met.

The Cash and Investment Policy has a target earning percent of 7% and typically draws 4% for annular costs, leaving 3% in the fund to account for inflation. If the fund does not earn 7% the draw may be less. If the fund earns more than 7% the draw may be up to 7% in accordance with UPMIFA and SLT Policy. 12.2 SLT may also use any earnings available from the endowment earnings, beyond those necessary for management, maintenance and preservation of the Mitigation Site as defined in the mitigation plan and agreement.

Item 11.a
Endowment Practice August 2015

Page 2 ends

Endowment Calculation
SLT uses standard PAR (spell out) guidelines to calculate the annualized cost of property/project in- perpetuity requirements. Labor and expense The PAR typically adds a contingency to the annualized cost to account for risk, pricing increases above estimated inflation, and task requirement variables.

Typically SLT uses the following metrics for estimating earnings and yield:

Earnings on the endowment 6.5%
Inflation 3.0%
Finance management 0.5%
Yield 3.0%

The annualized cost requirements (PAR) multiplied by the yield provides an estimate of the total proposed endowment.

Should the annualized cost estimate provide for finance management as an administrative cost the yield could be negotiated by the SLT Executive Director at 3.5%. The labor and overhead rates used by SLT are our board approved standard mitigation rates (Mitigation Project or Easement Stewardship Fee Structure and Terms, 2015-16). The SLT Board may negotiate a different labor rate or terms for specific projects that have appropriate circumstances.

Item 11.a

APPENDIX E: SLT AGRICULTURE MITIGATION

ONGOING COSTS

Item 11.a

General Assumptions

2. Wages (hourly at FY 2025-2026 Mitigation rates)
Executive Director 250.00$
Conservation Director 250.00$
Transaction Specialist 100.00$
Conservation Project Coordinator 100.00$
Attorney 500.00$

3. Travel
Cost per mile 0.70$
Distance from office to site (miles) 25
Average number round trips per year 1
Subtotal 35.00$

4. Office Supplies
General office supplies and equipment 25.00$
Other equipment (annual costs) 25.00$
Subtotal 50.00$

5. Responses to Notices or Permitted Use Requests
Executive Director 0.3
Conservation Director 1.0
Conservation Project Coordinator 3.0
Attorney hours per request 1.0
Subtotal 84.38$

6. Monitoring
Conservation Director (oversight, training and review) 1.0 Conservation Project Coordinator (monitoring property and writing report) 10.0 Subtotal 1,250.00$

7. Easement Violations and Issues
Executive Director 1.0
Conservation Director 5.0
Conservation Project Coordinator 10.0
Attorney 4.0
Subtotal 225.00$

8. Annual Landowner Relations/ Coordinating with Landowner and City of VV Executive Director 1.0
Conservation Director 2.5
Conservation Project Coordinator 5.0
Attorney hours
Subtotal 1,375.00$

9. Contingencies
10% of total costs above 301.9375
Subtotal 301.94$

10. Administration and Finance
20% of total costs above including Contingencies 664.26 Subtotal 664.26$
Calculation of Easement Stewardship Fund
Annual Estimated Cost of Conservation Easement Stewardship 3,986$ Capitalization Rate Assumption 3.50%
Base Easement Stewardship Funding 113,874$
Legal Defense Fund Contribution (10% of Base Easement Stewardship Fund) 11,387$ Total Easement Stewardship Fund 125,261$
Appendix E-1: Solano Land Trust
Stewardship Fund Calculator for
Agricultural Easement Monitoring
September, 2025

1. Complexity Rating (1, 2, or 3 - see Appendix C) 1
Item 11.a

General Assumptions

2. Wages (hourly at FY 2025-2026 mitigation rates)
Executive Director 250.00$
Conservation Director 250.00$
Transaction Specialist 100.00$
Conservation Project Coordinator 100.00$
Attorney 500.00$

3. Travel
Cost per mile 0.70$
Distance from office to site (miles) 25
Average number round trips per year 1
Subtotal 35.00$

4. Office Supplies
General office supplies and equipment 25.00$
Other equipment (annual costs) 25.00$
Subtotal 50.00$

5. Responses to Notices or Permitted Use Requests
Executive Director 0.3
Conservation Director 1.0
Transaction Specialist 0.0
Conservation Project Coordinator 3.0
Attorney hours per request 1.0
Subtotal 194.69$

6. Monitoring
Conservation Director 1.0
Conservation Project Coordinator (monitoring property and writing report) 10.0 Subtotal 1,250.00$

7. Easement Violations and Issues
Executive Director 1.0
Conservation Director 5.0
Conservation Project Coordinator 10.0
Attorney 4.0
Subtotal 450.00$

8. Annual Landowner Relations/ Coordinating with Landowner and City of VV Executive Director 1.0
Conservation Director 2.5
Conservation Project Coordinator 5.0
Attorney hours
Subtotal 1,375.00$

9. Contingencies
10% of total costs above 335.46875
Subtotal 335.47$

10. Administration and Finance
20% of total costs above including Contingencies 738.03 Subtotal 738.03$
Calculation of Easement Stewardship Fund
Annual Estimated Cost of Conservation Easement Stewardship 4,428$ Capitalization Rate Assumption 3.50%
Base Easement Stewardship Funding 126,520$
Legal Defense Fund Contribution (10% of Base Easement Stewardship Fund) 12,652$ Total Easement Stewardship Fund 139,172$
Appendix E-2: Solano Land Trust
Stewardship Fund Calculator for
Agricultural Easement Monitoring
September, 2025

1. Complexity Rating (1, 2, or 3 - see table on next tab for description of complexity) 2 Item 11.a

General Assumptions

2. Wages (hourly at FY 2025-2026 mitigation rates)
Executive Director 250.00$
Conservation Director 250.00$
Transaction Specialist 100.00$
Conservation Project Coordinator 100.00$
Attorney 500.00$

3. Travel
Cost per mile 0.70$
Distance from office to site (miles) 25
Average number round trips per year 1
Subtotal 35.00$

4. Office Supplies
General office supplies and equipment 25.00$
Other equipment (annual costs) 25.00$
Subtotal 50.00$

5. Responses to Notices or Permitted Use Requests
Executive Director 0.3
Conservation Director 1.0
Transaction Specialist
Conservation Project Coordinator 3.0
Attorney hours per request 1.0
Subtotal 250.31$

6. Monitoring
Conservation Director 1.0
Conservation Project Coordinator (monitoring property and writing report) 10.0 Subtotal 1,250.00$

7. Easement Violations and Issues
Executive Director 1.0
Conservation Director 5.0
Conservation Project Coordinator 10.0
Attorney 4.0
Subtotal 675.00$

8. Annual Landowner Relations/ Coordinating with Landowner and City of VV Executive Director 1.0
Conservation Director 2.5
Conservation Project Coordinator 5.0
Attorney hours
Subtotal 1,375.00$

9. Contingencies
10% of total costs above 363.53125
Subtotal 363.53$

10. Administration and Finance
20% of total costs above including Contingencies 799.77 Subtotal 799.77$
Calculation of Easement Stewardship Fund
Annual Estimated Cost of Conservation Easement Stewardship 4,799$ Capitalization Rate Assumption 3.50%
Base Easement Stewardship Funding 137,103$
Legal Defense Fund Contribution (10% of Base Easement Stewardship Fund) 13,710$ Total Easement Stewardship Fund 150,814$
Appendix E-3: Solano Land Trust
Stewardship Fund Calculator for
Agricultural Easement Monitoring
September, 2025

1. Complexity Rating (1, 2, or 3 - see table on next tab for description of complexity) 3 Item 11.a

APPENDIX F: SLT AVIAN AND STACKED

AGRICULTURE AND AVIAN MITIGATION

ONGOING COSTS
Item 11.a

General Assumptions

2. Wages (hourly at FY 2025-2026 Mitigation rates)
Executive Director 250.00$
Conservation Director 250.00$
Transaction Specialist 100.00$
Conservation Project Coordinator 100.00$
Attorney 500.00$

3. Travel
Cost per mile 0.70$
Distance from office to site (miles) 25
Average number round trips per year 1
Subtotal 35.00$

4. Office Supplies
General office supplies and equipment 25.00$
Other equipment (annual costs) 25.00$
Subtotal 50.00$

5. Responses to Notices or Permitted Use Requests (w/Avain restrictions) Executive Director 0.3
Conservation Director 1.5
Transaction Specialist
Conservation Project Coordinator 6.0
Attorney hours per request 1.0
Subtotal 116.25$

6. Monitoring (w/Avain restrictions)
Conservation Director (oversight, training and review) 1.5 Conservation Project Coordinator (monitoring property and writing report) 10.0 Subtotal 1,375.00$

7. Easement Violations and Issues (w/Avian restrictions) Executive Director 2.0
Conservation Director 10.0
Conservation Project Coordinator 15.0
Attorney 6.0
Subtotal 375.00$

8. Annual Landowner Relations/ Coordinating with Landowner and City of VV Executive Director 1.0
Conservation Director 2.5
Conservation Project Coordinator 5.0
Attorney hours
Subtotal 1,375.00$

9. Contingencies
10% of total costs above 332.625
Subtotal 332.63$

10. Administration and Finance
20% of total costs above including Contingencies 731.78 Subtotal 731.78$
Calculation of Easement Stewardship Fund
Annual Estimated Cost of Conservation Easement Stewardship 4,391$ Capitalization Rate Assumption 3.50%
Base Easement Stewardship Funding 125,447$
Legal Defense Fund Contribution (10% of Base Easement Stewardship Fund) 12,545$ Total Easement Stewardship Fund 137,992$
Appendix F-1: Solano Land Trust
Stewardship Fund Calculator for
Avian or Ag-Avian Stacked Easement Monitoring
September, 2025

1. Complexity Rating (1, 2, or 3 - see table on next tab for description of complexity) 1 Item 11.a

General Assumptions Fill in Pink Boxes

2. Wages (hourly at FY 2025-2026 Mitigation rates)
Executive Director 250.00$
Conservation Director 250.00$
Transaction Specialist 100.00$
Conservation Project Coordinator 100.00$
Attorney 500.00$

3. Travel
Cost per mile 0.70$
Distance from office to site (miles) 25
Average number round trips per year 1
Subtotal 35.00$

4. Office Supplies
General office supplies and equipment 25.00$
Other equipment (annual costs) 25.00$
Subtotal 50.00$

6. Monitoring (w/Avain restrictions)
Conservation Director (oversight, training and review) 1.5 Conservation Project Coordinator (monitoring property and writing report) 10.0 Subtotal 1,375.00$

7. Easement Violations and Issues (w/Avian restrictions) Executive Director 2.0
Conservation Director 10.0
Conservation Project Coordinator 15.0
Attorney 6.0
Subtotal 750.00$

8. Annual Landowner Relations/ Coordinating with Landowner and City of VV Executive Director 1.0
Conservation Director 2.5
Conservation Project Coordinator 5.0
Attorney hours
Subtotal 1,375.00$

9. Contingencies
10% of total costs above 385.625
Subtotal 385.63$

10. Administration and Finance
20% of total costs above including Contingencies 848.38 Subtotal 848.38$
Calculation of Easement Stewardship Fund
Annual Estimated Cost of Conservation Easement Stewardship 5,090$ Capitalization Rate Assumption 3.50%
Base Easement Stewardship Funding 145,436$
Legal Defense Fund Contribution (10% of Base Easement Stewardship Fund) 14,544$ Total Easement Stewardship Fund 159,979$
Appendix F-2: Solano Land Trust
Stewardship Fund Calculator for
Avian or Ag-Avian Stacked Easement Monitoring
September, 2025

1. Complexity Rating (1, 2, or 3 - see table on next tab for description of complexity) 2 Item 11.a

General Assumptions

2. Wages (hourly at FY 2025-2026 Mitigation rates)
Executive Director 250.00$
Conservation Director 250.00$
Transaction Specialist 100.00$
Conservation Project Coordinator 100.00$
Attorney 500.00$

3. Travel
Cost per mile 0.70$
Distance from office to site (miles) 25
Average number round trips per year 1
Subtotal 35.00$

4. Office Supplies
General office supplies and equipment 25.00$
Other equipment (annual costs) 25.00$
Subtotal 50.00$

6. Monitoring (w/Avain restrictions)
Conservation Director (oversight, training and review) 1.5 Conservation Project Coordinator (monitoring property and writing report) 10.0 Subtotal 1,375.00$

7. Easement Violations and Issues (w/Avian restrictions) Executive Director 2.0
Conservation Director 10.0
Conservation Project Coordinator 15.0
Attorney 6.0
Subtotal 1,125.00$

8. Annual Landowner Relations/ Coordinating with Landowner and City of VV Executive Director 1.0
Conservation Director 2.5
Conservation Project Coordinator 5.0
Attorney hours
Subtotal 1,375.00$

9. Contingencies
10% of total costs above 430.875
Subtotal 430.88$

10. Administration and Finance
20% of total costs above including Contingencies 947.93 Subtotal 947.93$
Calculation of Easement Stewardship Fund
Annual Estimated Cost of Conservation Easement Stewardship 5,688$ Capitalization Rate Assumption 3.50%
Base Easement Stewardship Funding 162,501$
Legal Defense Fund Contribution (10% of Base Easement Stewardship Fund) 16,250$ Total Easement Stewardship Fund 178,752$
Appendix F-3: Solano Land Trust
Stewardship Fund Calculator for
Avian or Ag-Avian Stacked Easement Monitoring
September, 2025

1. Complexity Rating (1, 2, or 3 - see table on next tab for description of complexity) 3 Item 11.a

Get Involved! Learn more – join us – donate – land connects us all 198 Dobbins Street, Suite A, Vacaville, CA 95688 ● 707-432-0150 ● solanolandtrust.org ● Original art by Don Birrell

Board Members

Officers
Steven Pressley
President

Deborah Durr Ferras
Immediate Past
President

Carolyn West
Vice President

Aldo Jordan
Treasurer

Jennifer Leonard
Secretary

Directors
Bruce Brazelton
Mary Burczyk
Lorraine Fernandez
Jessie Hernandez
Kristina Kaunzinger
Roger Merrill
Jeanne Scherer-Kluge
Curtis Stocking
Wanda Williams

Land connects us all – protecting it today, saving it for tomorrow

Date: June 5, 2026
To: Vacaville Planning
From: Tracy Ellison, Conservation Director
Subject: Agricultural/Avian Mitigation Program – Conservation Easement Strategy Update RECOMMENDED ACTIONS:

No action required at this time. This memo is provided for informational purposes to update Vacaville Planning on Solano Land Trust’s current conservation easement strategy and approach under the Agricultural/Avian mitigation and in-lieu fee program.

REASON FOR RECOMMENDED ACTION/CONSISTENCY WITH MISSION:

Solano Land Trust’s conservation easement program directly supports its mission to permanently protect Solano County’s agricultural lands, open space, and natural habitat. The Ag/Avian mitigation program furthers this mission by partnering with the City of Vacaville and developers to direct mitigation funds toward lasting land protection. SLT’s preferred approach prioritizes willing landowner relationships and long-term stewardship over expedient transactions, ensuring that protected properties remain ecologically and agriculturally significant in perpetuity.

BACKGROUND:

Solano Land Trust offers conservation easements as a mitigation tool to the City of Vacaville and developers to meet their mitigation obligations. A typical engagement involves outreach to landowners to explore placing a conservation easement on their property. Project development work includes evaluating the potential easement acquisition value on a per-acre basis.

Landowner outreach is an educational process, helping property owners understand what is being offered and what a conservation restriction means for their land. Building this trust takes time, and the value offered through an easement may not be sufficient to make a landowner an immediate willing seller. While the in-lieu fee program operates on a defined timeline, SLT continues to cultivate these relationships, which tend to yield results over time and can ultimately serve the mitigation effort.

SLT’s preferred approach is to lead with the easement acquisition and to hold the Buy-Protect- Sell program in reserve as a final option if needed. Since the in-lieu fee was established, market conditions have shifted considerably. Nut orchard crops are no longer the dominant driver of land values in the area, and as a result, easement values have declined per the 2023 update by Garland and Salmon. This reduction in easement value further limits the pool of willing sellers.

Item 11.a

In response to these challenges, SLT staff are actively exploring lands farther from the pressure of development – properties with strong soil quality, agricultural production potential, and favorable water and climate conditions that are functionally comparable to the original target parcels. Because landowners on these more remote parcels do not perceive development risk on their land, they are more motivated to accept a range in value offered with a Conservation Easement. As of June 2026, SLT has seen different sets of values come to light in the recently recorded KC Farming Conservation Easement project. See the attached closing costs chart for KC Farming. The nut orchard market may have come up since 2023, the purchase price for land for trees or tomatoes may have risen and leveled out. The market is always fluctuating, and the landowner and the fee need to have space to work together. SLT staff have found positive interactions with landowners further out from the one- and two- mile suggested easement placement areas from the city's general plan. Again, landowners that have property characteristics that meet the mitigation requirements but may not have the same development pressure, those landowners still understand the market and the value of the restriction while interested in the tool of a conservation easement and with the most recent project we see there is a willingness to learn more and consider.

Solano Land Trust
Tracy Ellison
Conservation Director
707-580-4263
[email protected]

Item 11.a
KC Farming – Cost Breakdown
84 acres | FY 2024–25 | Solano Land Trust
PROJECT DEV.
$55,338
$659 / acre

EASEMENT

PURCHASE PRICE
$603,000
$7,179 / acre

STEWARDSHIP

ENDOWMENT
$91,000
$1,083 / acre

CLOSING COSTS
$4,332
$52 / acre

TOTAL EASEMENT

PURCHASE COST
$753,670
84 acres

FINAL / ACRE
$8,972
per acre

COST COMPOSITION
Dev.

Purchase price
Endowment
Project dev. – $55,338 (7.3%)
Purchase price – $603,000
(80.0%)
Stew. endowment – $91,000
(12.1%)
Closing costs – $4,332 (0.6%)
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT LINE ITEMS (FY 24–25)
Description
Category
Amount
Staff time
Time
$8,100.00
Staff time
Time
$4,300.00
Staff time
Time
$6,838.00
Staff time
Time
$4,000.00
Staff time
Time
$1,000.00
Staff time
Time
$2,089.50
Appraisal fee
Application
$4,000.00
Appraisal fee
Application
$4,000.00
Legal fees
Legal
$3,375.00
Legal fees
Legal
$1,110.50
Legal fees
Legal
$1,022.00
Legal fees
Legal
$3,757.50
Legal fees
Legal
$146.00
Baseline conservation report
Baseline con.
$8,135.43
Baseline conservation report
Baseline con.
$1,763.75
Survey
Survey
$1,700.00
Total project development
$55,337.68
Solano Land Trust | KC Farming Easement | Prepared June 2026 Item 11.a
House
Agricultural
Consultants
Providing expertise in agricultural science,
management, & appraisal since 1977.

Appraisal of a Conservation
Easement for Raptor Foraging
and Agricultural Open Space
KC Farming Property, Mail Prairie
Road, Central Solano County
Gregory A. House & Henry House
House Agricultural Consultants
1105 Kennedy Place, Suite 1
Davis, California 95616
530·753·3361
www.houseag.com
Item 11.a
The publishing date of this report is 2025-10-07 (revision number 15840). This report supersedes any previous version having a smaller revision number or older date.

N.B.—If you have received this document electronically and wish to print it, duplex printing is recommended for best results, as this document is formatted for double-sided paper.

Item 11.a
3 House Agricultural Consultants
Contents
1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

1.1 Appraisers’ message of transmittal to client . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

1.2 Summary of appraisal ﬁndings and factual data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

1.3 Identiﬁcation of client and authorized users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

1.4 Eﬀective date of value, appraised interest, and purpose of the appraisal . . . . . . . . 11

1.4.1 Date of valuation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

1.4.2 Interest appraised . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

1.4.3 The appraisal problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

1.5 Market analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

1.5.1 Land use and inﬂuences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

1.5.2 Signiﬁcance of proposed easement restrictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

1.6 Valuation method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

1.7 Standard compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

1.8 Appraisal assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

1.8.1 Premise of value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

1.8.2 Extraordinary assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

1.8.3 Hypothetical condition: Existence of the subject conservation easement on 2025-10-07 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

1.8.4 Additional disclosures, assumptions, and limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 2 Factual data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

2.1 Identiﬁcation of the subject property . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

2.1.1 Legal description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

2.2 Location of the subject property: Neighborhood, region, and market area . . . . . . 19

2.2.1 Regional and market-area analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

2.2.2 Neighborhood of subject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

2.2.3 Geography and demographics of market the area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

2.2.4 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

2.3 Subject’s ownership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

2.3.1 Marketing and oﬀers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

2.3.2 Ownership and use history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

2.4 Property description: Physical characteristics, land use, and legal characteristics 29

2.4.1 Soils, topography, and prime-farmland classiﬁcation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

2.4.2 Building improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

2.4.3 Perennial crops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

2.4.4 Water and irrigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

2.5 Legal characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

2.5.1 Proposed and assumed conservation easement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

2.5.2 Leases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

2.5.3 Existing easements and other encumbrances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

2.5.4 Zoning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

2.5.5 Property taxes and tax assessments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

2.5.6 Other encumbrances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 3 Market conditions and real-estate trends in Solano County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

3.1 Land use and inﬂuences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

3.1.1 General agriculture outlook: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

3.1.2 Shrinking proﬁt margins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Item 11.a
4 KC Farming Conservation Easement, Central Solano County House Agricultural Consultants

3.1.3 Outlook for farm- and ranch-land prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

3.2 Urban-expansion and zoning changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

3.3 Rural-residential and rural-recreational demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

3.4 Farming and ranching demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

3.4.1 Large-scale investors’ interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

3.4.2 Small-scale grower’s interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

3.4.3 Recent area trends in tree crops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 4 Valuation preliminaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

4.1 A new conservation easement for the beneﬁt of raptors’ foraging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

4.2 Signiﬁcance of proposed easement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

4.2.1 Informal parameters of the appraised conservation easement . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

4.3 Highest and best use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

4.3.1 Four tests of highest and best use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

4.3.2 Conclusion of highest and best use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

4.3.3 Remark on buildings—present both before and after easement . . . . . . . . . . 50

4.4 Scope of the valuation process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

4.5 Valuation method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

4.5.1 The three approaches to valuation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

4.5.2 Before-and-after method of valuing an easement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

4.5.3 This appraisal’s valuation method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

4.6 Deﬁnition of fair market value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

4.7 Comparable sales from the subject’s market area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

4.7.1 Set S: Comparable sales for the before-condition subject and unencumbered after-condition remainder area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 5 The before-condition: Analysis by the sales-comparison approach to valuation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

5.1 Unit of comparison: Acre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

5.2 Elements of comparison and adjustments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

5.2.1 Adjustments to transactions prior to comparison with the subject . . . . . . . 58

5.2.2 Qualitative elements of comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

5.3 Discussion and analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

5.4 Indication of the before-condition analysis scenario, subject as existing before easement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 6 The after-condition: Analysis by the cost approach to valuation . . . . . . . . . . 65

6.1 Component of 84 acres of the subject’s land within the easement area . . . . . . . . . 65

6.1.1 Comparable sales for capitalization rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

6.1.2 Indicated capitalization rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

6.1.3 Capitalized value of the subject 84 acres . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

6.1.4 Indicated value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

6.2 Component of 10.28 acres of the subject’s land outside the easement area . . . . . . 68

6.2.1 Unit of comparison: Acre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

6.2.2 Elements of comparison and adjustments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

6.2.3 Discussion and analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

6.3 Component of subject’s improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

6.4 Indication for the whole subject by the cost approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Item 11.a
5 House Agricultural Consultants
7 Conclusion of valuation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

7.1 Diﬀerence between before-condition and after-condition fee indications—value of easement, v = b−a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

7.2 Concluding discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

7.2.1 Easement percentage, or ratio of value of easement to value of unencumbered subject, v/b . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

7.2.2 Appropriateness and accuracy of the techniques and quantity of the evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

7.2.3 Exposure and marketing time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 8 Certiﬁed ﬁnal opinion of value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 9 Sources referenced . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 10 Details on comparable sales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 11 Method of analysing contributory values of improvements:

Depreciated replacement cost new and age-life depreciation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

11.1 Age-life method of depreciation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 12 Appendix: Soils maps of the subject property. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 13 Appendix: Scope of work—deﬁnitions, assignment conditions, and other disclosures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

13.1 Appraisal parameters and deﬁnitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

13.1.1 Identiﬁcation of client . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

13.1.2 Intended and authorized users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

13.1.3 Purpose of appraisal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

13.1.4 Interest appraised . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

13.1.5 Intended use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

13.1.6 The appraisal assignment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

13.1.7 Date of valuation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

13.1.8 Report publishing date . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

13.1.9 Standard compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

13.1.10 Market value deﬁned (deﬁnition of value) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

13.1.11 Type of assignment and research performed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

13.2 Assignment conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

13.2.1 General assumptions and conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

13.2.2 Special conditions and extraordinary assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

13.3 Other disclosures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

13.3.1 Competency and impartiality of appraisers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

13.3.2 Appraisers’ history of services regarding subject property . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

13.3.3 Certiﬁcation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 14 Appendix: Client-provided exhibits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

14.1 Project information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

14.2 Draft instrument of the subject easement valued in the this appraisal . . . . . . . . . 107

14.3 Subject’s title report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 Item 11.a
6 KC Farming Conservation Easement, Central Solano County House Agricultural Consultants
15 Appendix: Reconciliation with appraisal guidelines of the Department of General Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 16 Appraisers’ qualiﬁcations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159

16.1 Qualiﬁcations of Gregory A. House . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159

16.2 Qualiﬁcations of Henry House . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 Figures

2.1 Boundaries of the subject (blue outline), as derived from the county assessor’s plat maps. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

2.2 Location of the subject in its Solano County neighborhood. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

2.3 Representative photograph of the subject property taken during inspection (1). . . . . 20

2.4 Representative photograph of the subject property taken during inspection (2). . . . . 20

2.5 Representative photograph of the subject property taken during inspection (3). . . . . 21

2.6 Representative photograph of the subject property taken during inspection (1). . . . . 21

2.7 Building site on Main Prairie Road, featuring a shop. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

2.8 Subject’s well and pump. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

4.1 Comparable sales selected for comparison with the subject: set S. Note that number 3 is the subject property itself. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Tables

1.1 Summary of salient facts regarding the subject property and this appraisal’s ﬁndings. 11

2.1 Identiﬁcation of the subject property. See narrative for additional remarks. . . . . . . . . 17

2.2 Demographics of Solano County per 2011 United States Census Bureau survey. . . . . 23

2.3 Demographics of Yolo County per 2011 United States Census Bureau survey. . . . . . . 24

2.4 Yolo County’s top ten agricultural enterprises ranked by gross value in 2023. . . . . . . . 25

2.5 Solano County’s top ten agricultural enterprises ranked by gross value in 2023. . . . . . 26

2.6 Top employers in the City of Dixon, according to Annual Comprehensive Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2022. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

2.7 Top employers in the City of Davis, according to City of Davis Comprehensive Annual Financial Report: Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2020. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

2.8 Land-use areas of subject with estimated areas of each. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

2.9 Additional physical characteristics of the subject property. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

2.10 Soil units of the subject property, according to the USDA–NRCS’s Web Soil Survey. 31

2.11 The subject’s buildings improvements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

3.1 Five years of recent almond statistics for Solano County, according to the county agriculture department’s annual crop reports. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

4.1 Comparable sales selected for comparison with the subject: set S. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

5.1 Set B of comparable sales. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

5.2 Quantitative adjustment to set S sales for comparison to the subject property.

Once adapted for this before-condition analysis, we designate the adjusted transactions as set B. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

5.3 Qualitative comparison of date of sale, an element of comparison in set B, before-condition sales. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

5.4 Qualitative comparison of property rights transferred, an element of comparison in set B, before-condition sales. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Item 11.a
7 House Agricultural Consultants

5.5 Comparison of whole-property size, an element of comparison in set B, before-condition sales. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

5.6 Comparison of location, an element of comparison in set B, before-condition sales. . . 61

5.7 Comparison of land utility, an element of comparison in set B, before-condition sales. 62

5.8 Comparison of water supply, an element of comparison in set B, before-condition sales. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

5.9 Comparative analysis of set B transactions compared to the subject property in its before-condition. Each column represents a factor of comparison. . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

6.1 Set I of supplementary comparable sales for deriving a capitalization rate. All . . . . . 66

6.2 Income-capitalization analysis of subject’s 84 acres of land subject to easement restrictions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

6.3 Set A of comparable sales. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

6.4 Quantitative adjustment to set A sales to obtain their land-only prices. . . . . . . . . . . . 70

6.5 Qualitative comparison of date of sale, an element of comparison in set A, after-condition sales. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

6.6 Qualitative comparison of property rights transferred, an element of comparison in set A, after-condition sales. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

6.7 Comparison of whole-property size, an element of comparison in set A, after-condition sales. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

6.8 Comparison of location, an element of comparison in set A, after-condition sales. . . . 72

6.9 Comparison of land utility, an element of comparison in set A, after-condition sales. 73

6.10 Comparison of water supply, an element of comparison in set A, after-condition sales. 74

6.11 Comparative analysis of set A transactions compared to the subject property in its before-condition. Each column represents a factor of comparison. . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

6.12 Summation of the cost approach. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

10.1 Comparable sales selected for comparison with the subject: set S. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 Item 11.a
8 KC Farming Conservation Easement, Central Solano County House Agricultural Consultants
Item 11.a
Introduction 9
House Agricultural Consultants
1 Introduction
This is an appraisal of a proposed agricultural-conservation easement that would encumber certain irrigated farmland with and an agricultural-utility building in Solano County of California (here- inafter, the subject property, or the subject). This appraisal report has been prepared by House Agricultural Consultants (hereinafter, the appraisers, or we).1 This introductory section serves as our letter of transmittal to our client, Solano Land Trust.2

1.1 Appraisers’ message of transmittal to client
October 7, 2025.—Dear Ms. Ellison:

At your request, we, House Agricultural Consultants, have appraised a conservation easement proposed on 94.28 acres lying in unincorporated Solano County near Dixon, which the intended users of this appraisal have proposed to acquire for conservation purposes. This property, known as the KC Farming property, has high conservation value to Solano County and to the Northern California region, being productive farmland with open-space value, which is particularly notable in its area for providing foraging habitat for raptors.

Table 1.1 summarizes key factual data and ﬁndings of this appraisal. This appraisal opines current fair market value (highest price, per deﬁnition) for an easement under the premise of value diminution to the fee estate (before-and-after method), with the subject’s land as-is in physical condition, subject to a hypothetical condition regarding legal status of the conservation easement as of October 7, 2025. The reason for the hypothetical condition is that this appraisal’s purpose is to value a proposed conservation easement that does not yet exist.3 The following subsections within this introduction of our report detail notable other assumptions and parameters of this appraisal.4 Beginning on page 17, our narrative presents the factual information about the subject property that informs the analyses that follow. The valuation narrative begins on page 47, presenting the market data underlying the valuation and then detailing our resulting analyses and consequent conclusion under the before-and-after value premise that is familiar among land conservationists.

Our goal in this appraisal has been to take the approach of determining the fair market value of the easement itself (that is, considered directly, not as an a priori formula of before-minus-after), as per our discussion that approach would be most appropriate for your intended use of this appraisal.

This led us to consider a greatest-impact scenario to the easement’s value, as consistent with the “highest price” phrase within the deﬁnition of fair market value:
(a) The fair market value of the property taken is the highest price on the date of valuation that would be agreed to by a seller, being willing to sell but under no particular or urgent necessity for so doing, nor obliged to sell, and a buyer, being ready, willing, and able to buy but under no particular For correspondence regarding this appraisal, e-mail Mr. Henry House at⟨[email protected]⟩.1 It has been customary among appraisers to draft a letter, separate from the narrative appraisal report, summariz-2 ing the report’s ﬁndings, which has come to be known as a letter of transmittal. The current Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice do not require a letter of transmittal. A separate letter is discouraged by recognized appraisal authorities, as, separated and read apart from the report, it could be mistaken for an appraisal. As this appraisal is to be used only in its entirety and no part is to be used separately from the whole report (see its limit- ing conditions, page 94), a separate letter could be misleading. We have therefore integrated our letter of transmittal into this unitary report, per current best practice—for example, as recommended by the Appraisal Institute; see ⟨ https://www.appraisalinstitute.org/assets/1/7/guide-note-8.pdf⟩.

We have relied on your draft easement for this appraisal, dated 2025-06-30 (date we received the draft by electronic3 mail).

See the appendices of this report, beginning on page 93, for this appraisal’s full scope of work, including limiting4 conditions, additional assumptions, and disclosures.

Item 11.a
10 KC Farming Conservation Easement, Central Solano County House Agricultural Consultants
necessity for so doing, each dealing with the other with full knowledge of all the uses and purposes for which the property is reasonably adaptable and available. (b) The fair market value of property taken for which there is no relevant, comparable market is its value on the date of valuation as determined by any method of valuation that is just and equitable.

This greatest-impact premise led us to utilize income analysis in our after-condition analysis.

In other words, we apply the “highest price” premise to the easement as a whole, not to the two stages of valuation analysis each individually. While we still employ a before-and-after method, and thus this appraisal’s method superﬁcially resembles a standard before-and-after appraisal’s formula premise, we ﬁnd that our method does fairly capture the full impact of the easement on the subject land in a way that a standard easement appraisal (which universally employs sales comparison in both stages) would not. Ideally, we would also consider open-market sales of easement interests, which are few and far between. Should this subject easement transaction become a reality, it would be a comparable sale for such a direct comparison in in a future appraisal.

On the basis of our parameters and assumptions, our opinion is $603,000 as of October 7, 2025.

As the conclusion of this appraisal’s valuation explains, this is 42.64 percent of before-condition value; see page 77 for discussion. Our certiﬁcation of the easement’s value is on page 81.

We understand that this report is to be reviewed internally by you. Consequently, we have included a checklist of appraisal contents to help in the review on page 157. This report’s intended and authorized users of this appraisal are you, only.

We are experienced appraisers who have valued numerous rural properties for intended uses of conservation in northern California—including both easements and fee acquisitions—over a period of many years. Our professional qualiﬁcations are detailed in the appendices of this report.

Sincerely,
Henry House Gregory A. House
California license no. AG-3010876 AFM, ARA, CPAg

1.2 Summary of appraisal ﬁndings and factual data
Table 1.1 summarizes our appraisal ﬁndings and key factual data regarding the subject.5

1.3 Identiﬁcation of client and authorized users
This appraisal is authorized by and written for Solano Land Trust 6 (hereinafter known as the client) for the purpose of assisting the client in purchasing the subject conservation easement from the landowner (this appraisal’sintended use). Intended and authorized users of this report consist of the client, only.7
See the appendices of this report (section 13 on 93) for the full scope of work, assumptions, limiting conditions, and5 appraisal disclosures. The signed appraisal certiﬁcation is on page 81.

Representative Tracy Ellison, 198 Dobbins St, Unit A, Vacaville, CA 95688.6 No rights to use or rely on this report are given to anyone other than the authorized users speciﬁed without the written7 consent of House Agricultural Consultants. This appraisal is to be used only in its entirety for the intended use stated and no part is to be used separately from the whole report.

Item 11.a
Introduction 11
House Agricultural Consultants
Table 1.1 Summary of salient facts regarding the subject property and this appraisal’s ﬁndings.

Item of information Fact or ﬁnding on subject property
summary description subject is irrigated farmland with and an agricultural-utility building identiﬁcation of real estate 0143-170-100, one assessor’s parcel in Solano County * subject’s land area 94.28 acres, more or less†
subject’s location 6753 Main Prairie Road, Dixon‡, lying in unincorporated Solano County subject’s improvements walnut orchards, fruit orchards, two dwellings, a utility building, and site improvements
interest appraised a proposed perpetual conservation easement as described herein§ eﬀective date of value October 7, 2025
appraisal client Solano Land Trust
intended use of appraisal assisting the client in purchasing the subject conservation easement from the landowner
valuation method the before-and-after method using an appropriate approach in each con- dition, the sales-comparison approach before the easement and the cost approach after the easement||
value conclusion, real property $603,000
—which is current fair market value (highest price, per deﬁnition) for an easement under the premise of value diminution to the fee estate (before-and-after method), with the subject’s land as-is in physical condition, subject to a hypothetical condition regarding legal status of the conservation ease- ment¶
additional remarks on conclusion See page 77 for our concluding remarks to help the reader understand this appraisal’s conclusion.

Further explained on page 17.*
According to the county assessors’ plat maps. No survey has been made by the appraisers.† Address per the county assessor’s records.‡
Subject to the assumptions enumerated in section 13.2 (page 94). No leases in eﬀect in eﬀect as of the date of valuation have been§ disclosed to us. Thus, we have assumed a landowner’s estate fee-simple title, i.e., one-hundred percent interest (assumed) in title to real estate, not subject to any long-term lease or other encumbering estate See section 4.5 (page 52), “Valuation method”.||
Our appraisal certiﬁcation is on page 81 under the heading “Certiﬁed ﬁnal opinion of value”.¶

1.4 Eﬀective date of value, appraised interest, and purpose of the appraisal

1.4.1 Date of valuation
This appraisal’s eﬀective date of valuation is October 7, 2025, which is the date of our ﬁnal inspection within the scope of this appraisal assignment and a current date of value appropriate to the client’s intended use of this appraisal.

1.4.2 Interest appraised
The appraised interest is a proposed perpetual conservation easement as described herein.8 This is an assumed one-hundred percent interest.8
Item 11.a
12 KC Farming Conservation Easement, Central Solano County House Agricultural Consultants

1.4.3 The appraisal problem
The appraisal problem in this report is to opine 9 the fair market value10 of the appraised interest in the subject property (described as irrigated farmland with and an agricultural-utility building), as of the date of valuation and in terms of ﬁnancial arrangements equivalent to cash, given the assumptions and other limiting conditions noted (see section 13.2).

Therefore, the purpose of this appraisal assignment is to opine and report the market value of said interest, subject to the assumptions herein. Improvements on the subject land are considered and valued as a part of the whole subject property. This appraisal is a valuation of real property only; any personal property (such as crops and emblements, vehicles, mobile equipment, trade ﬁxtures, temporary structures, etc.) located on the subject property is excluded from this appraisal.

All intangible personal property (goodwill, etc.) is excluded from this appraisal.

The subject property of this appraisal is irrigated farmland with and an agricultural-utility building which is located in unincorporated Solano County, about ﬁve miles east of Vacaville and ﬁve to six miles south of Dixon. As will be discovered in this report, the key to understanding the subject property’s economic inﬂuences both before and after the proposed conservation easement (and hence the fair market value of the subject easement itself) is the demand for productive farmland for nut orchards. Demand for country rural residences and rural-recreational property are secondary inﬂuences. Long-term speculation also inﬂuences the overall market.

1.5 Market analysis

1.5.1 Land use and inﬂuences
In brief summary, the subject property lies in unincorporated Solano County and is in current use for commercial agriculture, but its land-use pattern and future are strongly inﬂuenced by region- wide trends of agricultural economics. As will be discovered in this report, the subject property of this appraisal is farmland of high agricultural value in a region and neighborhood where land is being sought for many kinds of orchards, row crops, and other agricultural enterprises. We discuss the market conditions and trends in the subject’s market area in section 3 and discuss the consequent position of the subject itself in its market in section 4.3 on the subject’s highest and best use.

1.5.2 Signiﬁcance of proposed easement restrictions
The proposed conservation easement greatly aﬀects the use of the subject land in perpetuity. In contrast with many agricultural-conservation easements, after the easement not all forms of agri- culture will allowed (notably preventing a change from the current agricultural system of annual crops to perennial crops, but, however, allowing a various annual crops or the development of irrigated pasture for cattle, depending on future economics and operator’s preferences), thus it is the limitation of agricultural options that has the greatest impact on remaining uses and value.

Section 2.1.1 (page 17) discusses the subject easement and summarizes its major terms. No legal lots are extinguished by the proposed easement. We discuss the signiﬁcance of the easement’s restrictions to the subject’s fair market value under our analysis of highest and best use, section

4.3 (page 47) and again in this appraisal’s concluding discussion, section 7.2 (page 77).

The opined value is presented in section 8 (page 81) and applies to the whole subject property, only; all other value9 ﬁgures considered in this report are intermediate calculations stated for purposes of analysis, only.

As deﬁned in section 4.6.10
Item 11.a
Introduction 13
House Agricultural Consultants

1.6 Valuation method
Section 4.5 (page 52) describes the valuation method we have employed in this appraisal. In brief, we have used the before-and-after method using an appropriate approach in each condition, the sales-comparison approach before the easement and the cost approach after the easement.11

1.7 Standard compliance
We have completed this appraisal in compliance with the Uniform Standards of Professional Ap- praisal Practice (hereinafter, USPAP), 2024 edition (current as of the publishing of this report).

In conducting this appraisal, we have heeded guidance from the client on the requirements for this valuation problem and report. For the beneﬁt of reviewers, we have reconciled this appraisal report’s contents with our understanding of the current DGS guidelines (although this report is not intended for DGS review) in the appendices of this report; see page 157.

For details on the scope of work, assumptions, and limitations of this appraisal, see section 13.2 (page 94).

1.8 Appraisal assumptions

1.8.1 Premise of value
Our premise of value in this appraisal is current fair market value (highest price, per deﬁnition) for an easement under the premise of value diminution to the fee estate (before-and-after method), with the subject’s land as-is in physical condition, subject to a hypothetical condition regarding legal status of the conservation easement—that is, we have appraised the subject in under the hypothetical legal condition that follows regarding the subject conservation easement but in its actual physical condition as we found it during our inspection.

This appraisal is subject to the following extraordinary assumptions, which presume to be factual information that is uncertain but reasonably believed by the appraisers to be true.12

1.8.2 Extraordinary assumptions
Our analyses and consequent results in this report are subject to the extraordinary assumptions of:—
1) Accurate information provided by others.—As explained on page 50, we have relied on fac- tual data reported by the client’s and owner’s representatives as well as public records. We have examined the data available to us to the extent of verifying that they are reasonable, consistent, Section 8 (page 81) presents our opinion of market value, which applies to the whole subject property, only; all other11 value ﬁgures considered in this report are calculations stated for purposes of intermediate analysis or explanation of the opined value, only.

The Appraisal of Real Estate, ﬁfteenth edition, page 43, states that an “extraordinary assumption is something that is12 believed to be true as of the eﬀective date of the appraisal” and that is “appropriate for the intended use of the appraisal”.

We use extraordinary assumptions because of practical limitations on the scope of our information gathering and because it is not possible to audit all information provided to us by others or to make determinations that would require technical or legal expertise outside of the scope of the appraisal profession. The use of these extraordinary assumptions and the other assumptions listed in section 13.2 may have aﬀected the results of this assignment. If additional information becomes available at a later date that proves any of these extraordinary assumptions invalid, the ﬁndings and opinions of this report could be aﬀected or invalidated.

Item 11.a
14 KC Farming Conservation Easement, Central Solano County House Agricultural Consultants
commensurate with expected values for similar properties, and in agreement with our own obser- vations as described herein; however we have not comprehensively veriﬁed the supplied ﬁgures, records, or other data, which we have consequently assumed accurate. 2) Sale of the subject as a unit under market-typical terms.—This appraisal values the subject property under the premise that the entire subject be sold as a unit, by itself, in a orderly sale after appropriate marketing and exposure. We have not analyzed any scenario of liquidation, subdivision, or bundling or pooling with other property. We have appraised (as a stage of analysis for the subject easement) an assumed one-hundred percent interest in the subject’s fee estate. 3) Clear title.—No authoritative title search has been undertaken for this report by the apprais- ers. In conducting this appraisal, we have referenced a recent client-provided title report (policy number FSSE-6032302864 dated 2025-04-11 from Fidelity National Title Company), which we dis- cuss on page 37; furthermore we have relied on the accuracy of the client’s representations on the subject’s condition of title. As an opinion on condition of title would call for a legal conclusion outside the scope of the appraisal profession, the condition of the owner’s title to the entire subject property that we discuss on page 37 is an assumption of this appraisal; in brief, the subject’s con- dition of title is assumed for purposes of this appraisal to be free of encumbrances, encroachments, and other adverse legal conditions that would detriment the value of the interest appraised, except as speciﬁcally identiﬁed herein.
4) As appraisers are not legally qualiﬁed13 to opine on the legal-lot status of any property, this is an assumption of this appraisal.
5) Accurate lot-size measurement, 94.28 acres total.—As surveying is outside the scope of the appraisal profession, we have sourced the land area of the subject from the county assessor’s plat map (which is not a survey), which indicates 94.28 acres. We have assumed this ﬁgure accurate and correct.14
6) Validly permitted land use.—It is assumed that any use permits that may be required by the County of Solano, or any other jurisdiction, for the subject’s land uses are currently valid. A comprehensive investigation of the subject property’s legal status with respect to zoning, building, accessibility, and other use codes has not been performed, as this would call for legal conclusions that are outside the scope of the appraisal profession. 7) No change in condition from 2025-10-07.—This is a current-value appraisal. We inspected the subject property on 2025-08-11 (ﬁrst and main inspection) and 2025-10-07 (ﬁnal inspection) and have assumed that our observations of the subject’s condition have remained current as of this report’s publishing.
8) Water rights, groundwater supply, and other water matters.—The land that is the subject of this appraisal is supplied with irrigation water by an agricultural well. Perpetual rights to this water source form a part of the subject property of this appraisal. The permitting and legal status of these water rights lies outside the scope of the appraisal inspection. We have relied on others for understanding of all such matters in this appraisal. 9) No substantial impact from leases, which are not considered in this appraisal.—No leases to which the subject property is subject have been disclosed to us. We have therefore assumed an estate of fee-simple title to the subject under the extraordinary assumption that any current lease encumbrance, if it exists, is of short-term character, only, not a substantial obstacle to a buyer’s own occupancy of the subject property, as understood by market participants that could have bought the subject property on 2025-10-07. We note that any lease that existed would exist unchanged Determination of legal lots is a power exclusively of the controlling county government. The county will not make such a13 determination unless the property owner applies to the county for it—the legal-lot status of a property does not exist in the public records absent a formal request. Such a request, in the form of an application for a certiﬁcate of compliance, requires fees and typically has a prerequisite of background investigation by a title company.

Though they are not represented as accurate, areas per the assessor’s plat maps are typically used by buyers and sellers14 in the market. Our reliance on these ﬁgures thus reﬂects market behavior, but has no other signiﬁcance.

Item 11.a
Introduction 15
House Agricultural Consultants
after the subject easement is established. Neither do the terms of the proposed easement impact the landowner’s right to lease the subject property for permitted agricultural purposes, nor has to our knowledge any existing lease conveyed any land-use rights to a tenant that the landlord will give up by granting the subject easement. To avoid unnecessary complexity in our before-and-after method of valuation, therefore, we have analyzed an assumed interest of fee-simple title to the subject in both conditions of our before-and-after method of valuation.

1.8.3 Hypothetical condition: Existence of the subject conservation easement on 2025-10-07
A hypothetical condition has been used is this appraisal, which has aﬀected the results of this appraisal assignment. A hypothetical condition is a condition of the subject property that the appraisers know to be contrary to what exists—i.e., a hypothetical counterfactual—but is supposed for the purpose of analysis. The Appraisal of Real Estate, ﬁfteenth edition, page 44, states that a hypothetical condition “is something that is known to be contrary to fact as of the eﬀective date of the appraisal but is taken to be true for the purposes of the appraisal”—i.e., for exploratory analysis of a special question that the appraisal seeks to answer.

This is an appraisal of a proposed conservation easement aﬀecting 94.28 of land, which did not exist as of the date of valuation or the publishing of this report. As analyzing the easement is the reason for this appraisal, we have necessarily analyzed the subject property as if were already encumbered by the subject easement on the date of valuation.

Thus, this appraisal is subject to a hypothetical condition: that the subject conservation ease- ment described herein were recorded in Solano County and in full legal force and eﬀect as of the eﬀective date of valuation, for purposes of analyzing the fair market value of this proposed sub- ject easement. This has aﬀected the results of this appraisal, which we have conducted by the before-and-after method of valuation (see page 52).

1.8.4 Additional disclosures, assumptions, and limitations For the full scope of work of this appraisal, which includes additional disclosures, assumptions, and limiting conditions, see section 13.2 (page 94) in the appendices of this report.

Item 11.a
16 KC Farming Conservation Easement, Central Solano County House Agricultural Consultants
Item 11.a
Factual data 17
House Agricultural Consultants
Table 2.1 Identiﬁcation of the subject property. See narrative for additional remarks.

Data item Data value for subject property
county’s parcel identiﬁcation 0143-170-100 in the County of Solano illustration see ﬁgure 2.1, parcels numbered 1 and 2, respectively land area 94.28 ac (per assessor)
postal address 6753 Main Prairie Road, Dixon
title report referenced policy number FSSE-6032302864 dated 2025-04-11 from Fidelity National Title Company; see section 14.3 (page 142 in appendices of this report* shape of subject roughly rectangular
boundaries of subject formed by Rio Dixon Highway (Highway 113) on its west, Main Prairie Road on its south, and other private ownerships on its east; Alamo Creek adjoins the subject’s north boundary
In this appraisal, we have referenced a client-provided preliminary title report on the subject property. As authoritatively interpreting* surveyor’s formal language is outside of the scope of the appraisal profession, we have used the maps and other ﬁgures provided to us informal guidance to locate the boundaries of the subject property. 2 Factual data

2.1 Identiﬁcation of the subject property
The subject property consists of 94.28 acres, more or less, lying in a neighborhood of unincorporated Solano County, California.15 It is identiﬁed by the Solano County Assessor’s oﬃce as 0143-170-100, one assessor’s parcel.

Table 2.1 summarizes the subject’s identifying characteristics from the public records of Solano County. Figure 2.1 illustrates the subject property, showing its boundaries as derived from the county assessor’s plat maps. The plat maps themselves, depicting the subject, are found within a title report that is reproduced in the appendices of this report; see page 142. Figure 2.2 and illustrate the subject’s location in its neighborhood and area.

The area that is proposed to be subject to the restrictive land-use encumbrance of the subject conservation easement, as explained in detail later in this report, is an 84-acre area within the whole subject property. This is easement area. See section 2.5.1 that follows for details. 16 Figure 2.1 illustrates the subject property. Figure 2.2 shows the subject’s location in context in its neighborhood and area. Figures 2.3 through 2.6 are representative photographs of the subject property taken during our inspection for this appraisal.

Figures 2.3 through 2.6 are representative photographs of the subject property taken during our inspection for this appraisal.

As the ﬁgures show, the subject property is roughly rectangular in shape. The subject is bounded by Rio Dixon Highway (Highway 113) on its west, Main Prairie Road on its south, and other private ownerships on its east; Alamo Creek adjoins the subject’s north boundary.

2.1.1 Legal description
The legal description of the subject property, is provided in the subject’s title report. See section

14.3 in the appendices of this report, which reproduces the title report, as it has been provided to us.

Land area according to the county assessor’s plat maps. No survey has been made.15 According to the best information available to us as of this report’s publishing; no survey has been made by the appraisers.16 We have relied on the exhibits within the draft easement of 2025-06-30 (date we received the draft by electronic mail) for all land areas.

Item 11.a
18 KC Farming Conservation Easement, Central Solano County House Agricultural Consultants
Figure 2.1 Boundaries of the subject (blue outline), as derived from the county assessor’s plat maps.

In
the narrative that follows, we use the term subject property, not further qualiﬁed, to refer to this property, which is the land underlying the interest that we have valued (a conservation easement) in this appraisal.

The legal description from the title report is in surveyors’ terminology. Within the limits of our ability to interpret the legal description, the property appraised is the same property as described in the referenced title report As authoritatively interpreting surveyors’ formal language of legal descriptions is outside of the scope of the appraisal profession, we have used the maps and other ﬁgures provided to us informal guidance to locate the boundaries of the subject property. Thus, in this appraisal, the assumed legal description of the subject property is 0143-170-100, described as 94.28 acres, more or less , and as illustrated by the ﬁgures herein.

We understand that the current owner (client) has held title to the subject for more than three years and there is no controversy regarding the subject’s boundaries. We judge that further investigation is not necessary for the intended use of this appraisal. The subject’s title report, as provided to us for reference in preparing this appraisal, is reproduced in the appendices of this report (page 142).

Item 11.a
Factual data 19
House Agricultural Consultants
Figure 2.2 Location of the subject in its Solano County neighborhood.

2.2 Location of the subject property: Neighborhood, re- gion, and market area
The subject is located in the Dixon area in an unincorporated rural neighborhood of Solano County (see ﬁgure 2.2), approximately ﬁve to six miles south of Dixon and ﬁve miles east of Vacaville, both incorporated cities in Solano County. The subject’s situs city (city part of its mailing address) is Dixon as stated by the county assessor’s records, but this does not reﬂect the physical reality that the property lies in the open countryside.

2.2.1 Regional and market-area analysis
The region containing the subject property is the Sacramento Valley in northern California, roughly deﬁned as the low-elevation land in ten counties of adjoining physically similar ﬂat lands around Sacramento: Butte, Colusa, Glenn, Placer (western low-elevation portion, only), Sacramento, Solano, Sutter Tehama, Yolo, and Yuba.

We have identiﬁed themarket area of the subject property (i.e., the area typically perceived by market participants as the common market for competitive and comparable properties) as climati- cally similar Sacramento Valley lands of northern California, an area approximately spanning from Item 11.a
20 KC Farming Conservation Easement, Central Solano County House Agricultural Consultants
Figure 2.3 Representative photograph of the subject property taken during inspection (1).

Figure

2.4 Representative photograph of the subject property taken during inspection (2).

Butte,
Glenn, and Tehama counties in the north to Solano County in the south (excepting the urban portions of this area), with the most relevant submarket being ﬂat historically tilled lands Item 11.a
Factual data 21
House Agricultural Consultants
Figure 2.5 Representative photograph of the subject property taken during inspection (3).

Figure 2.6 Representative photograph of the subject property taken during inspection (1).

Item 11.a
22 KC Farming Conservation Easement, Central Solano County House Agricultural Consultants
of central Solano County lying east of Vacaville and up to a few miles south of Dixon..

2.2.2 Neighborhood of subject
The subject property lies in a rural neighborhood of unincorporated Solano County. The surround- ing lands feature occasional rural residences and minimal commercial activity, with agricultural uses predominant.

The subject property has good access to the region’s urban areas, being located on California Highway 113.

Neighborhood land uses. The surrounding lands feature both properties used for intensive cropping and some other activities including cattle grazing and limited rural recreation. Thus, we characterize the subject’s neighborhood as rural and agricultural in character, though inﬂuenced by the nearby cities of Dixon, Davis, and Vacaville and the other land uses of the greater area, notably, commerce and industry along the I-80 corridor that bisects Solano County and the large and active campus of the University of California–Davis in neighboring Yolo County, as well as, more distantly, Fairﬁeld, Sacramento and the other large cities of the surrounding metropolitan areas.

The closest incorporated city is Vacaville.

Neighborhood planning. Solano County has a current policy of directing urban growth to the existing towns and cities, in order to maintain certain areas of the county as open and undeveloped, as stated in its general plan. Furthermore, according to the current general plan of the County of Solano, no substantial land-use change in the foreseeable future is anticipated in the neighborhood of the subject property.

As a result, agriculture is expected to remain dominant in the unincorporated areas of Solano County for many years to come. The current infrastructure of the county is well-developed for serving agriculture and related industries.

Summary. Thus, in summary, the existing character of the subject’s neighborhood is not expected to change substantially for the foreseeable future. The immediate neighborhood is rural, though inﬂuenced by the cities towns of its greater neighborhood (which are likely to continue growing in an orderly fashion) as well as by proximity to the metropolitan areas of its region, especially those of Vacaville and Dixon, as well as, more distantly, the Sacramento metropolitan area, to which the nearby City of Davis is broadly considered to belong.

2.2.3 Geography and demographics of market the area
As noted, the subject property is located in unincorporated Solano County. Other nearby cities within the market area of the subject include Davis (Yolo County—population 66,850), Winters (Yolo County—population 7,315), Vacaville (Solano County—population 102,386), and Fairﬁeld (county seat of Solano County—population 119,881); at approximately eight, ﬁfteen, and sixteen miles distance, respectively. 17 Dixon’s location in the north of Solano County places it closer to the southern cities of nearby Yolo County, Davis and Winters, than to the other cities of Solano County.

Population ﬁgures are as of the 2020 census, except for that of Winters, which is a 2019 estimate. However, current17 population ﬁgures are not expected to be substantially larger than 2019 or 2020 ﬁgures.

Item 11.a
Factual data 23
House Agricultural Consultants
Table 2.2 Demographics of Solano County per 2011 United States Census Bureau survey.a Newer demographic estimates at this level of detail were not available as of the date of this report.a Place name Population
Income
—per capita —median household —median family
Allendale (CDP) 1,968 $41,928 $112,837 $119,063
Benicia (city) 26,981 $41,854 $90,338 $102,571
Dixon (city) 18,141 $27,624 $72,626 $76,038
Elmira (CDP) 251 $22,069 $73,438 $85,650
Fairﬁeld (city) 104,404 $26,785 $68,037 $75,717
Green Valley (Solano County) (CDP) 1,719 $67,828 $125,669 $145,781 Hartley (CDP) 2,229 $41,041 $87,841 $106,786
Rio Vista (city) 7,088 $34,332 $58,701 $68,156
Suisun City (city) 27,900 $26,148 $71,411 $76,286
Vacaville (city) 92,217 $29,687 $73,302 $85,790
Vallejo (city) 116,021 $27,375 $62,325 $72,717
A
ccording to the United States Bureau of the Census, Solano County has a total area of 906 square miles (2,350 square kilometers), of which 84 square miles (9.3 percent of its area), are water. Solano County is one of California’s historical twenty-seven counties, created in conjunction with California’s statehood in 1850. Its neighboring counties are Yolo (north), Sacramento (east), Contra Costa (south), Napa (west), and Sonoma (west).

Solano County is named after Chief Solano (a.k.a. Francisco Solano) of the Suisun people (about 1798–1851). It is one of the twenty-seven original counties created on California’s statehood.

Solano County is considered one of the nine counties composing the San Francisco Bay Region, the area that borders the San Francisco Bay. According to the State of California Department of Finance, as of January 1, 2018, Solano County had a total population of approximately 439,793, ranking it seventh in county population of the nine San Francisco Bay Region counties. As of the 2020 United States Census, its total population had grown modestly to 453,491 (ranking Solano as California’s nineteenth most-populous county) with 154,987 households, 164,682 housing units, and a median household income of $97,037. Table 2.2 summarizes the demographic and economic statistics of the cities and other census-designated places (CDPs) of Solano County.

We also provide information on nearby Yolo County, whose agricultural lands are geographically contiguous with and similar in character to the subject’s area. According to the United States Cen- sus Bureau, Yolo County has a total area of 1,023 square miles (2,649 square kilometers), of which 1,013 square miles are land and ten square miles are water. Yolo County is located between the San Francisco Bay Area and the Sacramento metropolitan area on the corridor of Interstate 80. Its neighboring counties are Sacramento (east), Solano (south), Napa (west), Lake (northwest), Colusa (north), and Sutter (northeast). There are four incorporated cities in Yolo County: Davis, West Sacramento, Winters, and Woodland (the county seat). Other towns and census-designated places include Brooks, Clarksburg, Dunnigan, El Macero, Esparto, Guinda, Knights Landing, Madison, Rumsey, Yolo, Zamora, and the Davis campus of the University of California. Yolo County is often considered part of the greater Sacramento area due to its close proximity to Sacramento County; the county is a member of the Sacramento Area Council of Governments, an association of local governments active in planning transportation and other matters of regional importance.

The University of California–Davis (U.C. Davis) is located mostly in Yolo County, with some of its land also in neighboring Solano County. The university’s central campus is located adjacent to the City of Davis; the entire campus, which includes extensive tracts of Yolo County agricultural Item 11.a
24 KC Farming Conservation Easement, Central Solano County House Agricultural Consultants
Table 2.3 Demographics of Yolo County per 2011 United States Census Bureau survey.a Newer demographic estimates at this level of detail were not available as of the date of this report.a Place name Population
Income
—per capita —median household —median family
Clarksburg (CDP) 423 $41,657 $57,625 $52,750
Davis (city) 65,359 $33,256 $61,182 $106,586
Dunnigan (CDP) 1,043 $23,883 $61,597 $87,778
Esparto (CDP) 2,877 $23,996 $61,979 $75,461
Guinda (CDP) 450 $32,398 $115,278 $119,196
Knights Landing (CDP) 958 $25,741 $47,864 $39,630
Madison (CDP) 287 $11,478 $33,906 $38,636
Monument Hills (CDP) 1,512 $48,180 $137,273 $138,523
University of California, Davis (CDP) 6,805 $7,138 $26,053 $26,875 West Sacramento (city) 47,278 $24,621 $54,040 $61,489
Winters (city) 6,616 $25,973 $59,559 $68,917
Woodland (city) 55,229 $26,416 $56,859 $67,784
Yolo (CDP) 335 $18,759 $28,929 $31,447
land used for agricultural and biotechnological research and teaching, is approximately 5,300 acres in Yolo County and 2,000 in Solano County. The university had 40,850 enrolled students (31,797 undergraduates, 9,053 postgraduates) as of fall 2023.

As of the 2020 United States Census, Yolo County’s population was 216,403, with a median household income of $54,099; the City of Davis and the adjoining neighborhood of El Macero (an unincorporated census-designated place) had a population of 66,850 and 1,074, respectively. Table

2.3 summarizes the demographic and economic statistics of the cities and other census-designated places (CDPs) of Yolo County.

Climate. The valley area of Solano County containing the subject property has a Mediterranean- type climate, characterized by hot, dry summers and cool, wet winters. This area has a growing season of approximately ten months and lies within USDA plant-hardiness zone 9. The annual rainfall of about twenty inches per year is concentrated from November through April, with summer being entirely rainless most years.

Historical weather statistics indicate that the average daily maximum temperature in Davis (representative of the subject’s location in north-central Solano County near Dixon) is 93.3 and

92.8 degrees Fahrenheit in July and August (the hottest months of the year), respectively; the average daily minimum temperature is 37.9 and 38.4 Fahrenheit in December and January (the coldest months), respectively. The ﬁrst freezing temperature can be expected in late November or early December, and the last freezing temperature of the winter generally comes the last week of February or the ﬁrst week in March. Thus, the frost-free period lasts 270 to 280 days per year.

Snowfall is rare and does not occur most years; the most recent snowfall of any signiﬁcance in the area occurred in December 1988, when one inch was recorded in the City of Winters.

The area around Dixon is well known for its diverse agricultural production. When suﬃcient irrigation is available and soil quality is not a limitation, the area’s climate is suitable for a wide variety of agricultural-crop and livestock enterprises. It is especially suited to producing nuts, alfalfa, and heat-loving summer vegetables such as tomatoes and melons. The portion of the county where the subject lies is also particularly suited to summer cattle grazing due to generally inexpensive irrigation water, clayey soils, and consistent cooling breezes from the Sacramento Item 11.a
Factual data 25
House Agricultural Consultants
Table 2.4 Yolo County’s top ten agricultural enterprises ranked by gross value in 2023.a Area ﬁgures are bearing acres, only.a
Crop or enterprise Gross value, 2023 Quan
tity, 2023 Gross
value, 2022 Quan
tity, 2022
tomatoes, processing $236,717,000 33,050
acres $183,612,000 35,074 acres
almonds
(meats) $120,922,000 43,747
acres $60,576,000 47,900 acres
grap
es, wine (all) $101,383,000 17,783
acres $65,042,000 18,884 acres
organic
production (all) $63,898,000 16,481
acres $51,793,000 18,838 acres
rice $54,272,000 29,974 acres $23,224,000 9,507 acres
pistac
hios $29,124,000 7,645
acres $27,606,000 5,581 acres
ha
y, alfalfa $25,730,000 18,837
acres $39,324,000 20,182 acres
n
ursery (all) $26,752,000 111
acres $23,169,000 81 acres
sunﬂo
wer seed $24,292,000 10,414
acres $27,038,000 12,093 acres
apiary* $23,738,000 – $21,173,000 –
Including
colonies, honey, package bees, pollination, queens, and wax.* Delta. Other suitable agricultural enterprises are nursery stock, mixed vegetables for local sales or specialty marketing, and livestock grazing on irrigated pasture. Agricultural land uses that require no irrigation are crops of hay, of various types, or, alternatively, seasonal livestock grazing.

Uncultivated and undeveloped areas of Solano County support chaparral and grassland biomes on ﬂat land, with stands of valley oak on the untilled land, especially hills, and riparian forest and wetlands around the waterways.

Area economy and land uses. Solano County has a diverse economy, with a signiﬁcant agricultural sector: agriculture takes place on 62 percent of the land in Solano County, with irrigated agriculture making up half of the county’s agricultural lands. The remainder is devoted to dryland farming in the Montezuma Hills as well as grazing and pasturage throughout the county.

Leading crops or commodities in Solano County are nursery stock, cattle and calves, processing tomatoes, alfalfa hay, feeder lambs, wine grapes, milk, walnuts, dairy cows, and irrigated wheat.

Solano County has historically ranked as one of the top ﬁve counties in California for production of sheep and lambs, grain corn, sudangrass hay, and saﬄower. Agricultural production and related businesses continue to be a signiﬁcant contributor to the county’s economy, generating almost $1.3 billion each year in gross output value. Agriculture provides 4,187 jobs to persons directly employed on ranches and farms plus 5,890 indirect jobs through the multiplier eﬀect.

Agriculture is the major industry of neighboring Yolo County; as noted, many crops can be seen growing just outside the cities every summer. Rice is a common crop in the Yolo Bypass, a levee- bounded area just east of Davis that accepts winter ﬂood waters from the region to protect the cities. Livestock agriculture, principally beef-cattle grazing in area between Davis and Dixon, as well egg production and aquaculture by a few local specialists, round out the agricultural enterprises typical of the area.

Tables 2.4 and 2.5 summarize the top agricultural enterprises of the two counties as ranked by gross value produced, according to the agriculture departments’ annual crop reports. Note that gross value produced is an indication of economic impact, but does not reﬂect net income to farmers and ranchers.

Major employers in Yolo County other than agriculture are government (federal, state, and local), education (University of California–Davis, among others), and Indian gaming in the Capay Valley, an area of unincorporated communities lying west of Woodland.

Item 11.a
26 KC Farming Conservation Easement, Central Solano County House Agricultural Consultants
Table 2.5 Solano County’s top ten agricultural enterprises ranked by gross value in 2023.a Area ﬁgures are bearing acres, only.a
Crop or enterprise Gross value, 2023 Quantity, 2023 Gross value, 2022 Quantity, 2022 tomatoes, processing $101,518,000 14,700 acres $47,353,000 9,500 acres almonds (meats) $43,779,000 23,600 acres $21,290,000 17,940 acres nursery* $41,452,000 1,400 acres $43,698,000 1,340 acres cattle and calves† $40,461,000 43,400 head $36,218,000 22,500 head grapes, wine (all) $35,044,000 3,994 acres $26,164,000 3,895 acres hay, alfalfa $19,617,000
prunes (dried) $12,014,000 1,920 acres $9,009,000 1,580 acres walnuts $11,202,000 6,120 acres $11,304,000 10,200 acres pollination $8,479,000 50,000 colonies $9,340,000 60,000 colonies sunﬂower seed $7,087,000 3,920 acres $7,487,000 4,420 acres Includes Christmas trees, cut ﬂowers, greenhouse plants, herbaceous and woody ornamentals, turf, and grapes (grafted vines, rootstock,* and cuttings.

Includes beef stocker gain value, dairy calves, dairy yearlings, dairy replacement heifers, and cull dairy cows.† Table 2.6 Top employers in the City of Dixon, according to Annual Comprehensive Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2022.

Rank
Employer Number of employees
1 Dixon Uniﬁed School District 346
2 Walmart 300
3 Cardinal Health 250
4 Basalite 193
5 Altec Industries 190
6 Dixon Canning (a.k.a. Campbell’s Soup Supply Company) 182 7 Superior Packing 164
8 City of Dixon 156
9 Gold Star Foods 99
10 First Northern Bank 74
Major employers in Solano County other than agriculture are government (federal, state, and local), military, healthcare, and industrial research. The largest employer in the county is Travis Air Force Base, with “more than 26,000 active-duty military personnel, reservists, and civilian employees (according to the United States Air Force’s fact sheets as of the date of this report); the base is home to the 60th Air Mobility Wing, 621st Contingency Response Wing, and the 349th Air Mobility Wing. Candy manufacturing (Jelly Belly Candy Company and Guittard Chocolate Company, both in Fairﬁeld), various chain retailers, and various healthcare providers, such as Kaiser Permanente, NorthBay Healthcare System, and various specialty-industrial companies such as Collins Aerospace (manufacturer of aircraft components, Fairﬁeld) are also major employers. Six Flags Discovery Kingdom is an amusement park featuring dolphins that has operated in Vallejo since 1968 (formerly known as Marine World), employing about 2,000 persons.

The urban economy of both counties and of Dixon beneﬁts from a favorable location within convenient travel distance of both the Sacramento and the San Francisco Bay Area, to which the cities are linked by Interstate Highway 80 and regular Amtrak passenger-rail service (stations are in Davis and Vacaville), allowing many Dixon residents to commute to employment in Sacramento or Bay Area cities. The area’s major airports are located in neighboring counties: Sacramento Item 11.a
Factual data 27
House Agricultural Consultants
T
able 2.7 Top employers in the City of Davis, according toCity of Davis Comprehensive Annual Financial Report: Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2020.

Rank Emplo
yer Num
ber of employees
1 Univ
ersity of California, Davis 25,227
2 Davis Joint Uniﬁed School District 1,120
3 Sutter Health 505
4 City of Davis 341*
5 Nugget Markets 265
6 Unitrans 260
7 Safeway 188
8 Courtyard Healthcare Center 162
9 University Retirement Community 160
10 Davis Food Co-op 117
Full-time equivalent.*
In
ternational Airport, the Oakland International Airport, and the San Francisco International Airport. The area has one seaport: the Port of West Sacramento in Yolo County, which is connected to the San Francisco Bay via the Sacramento Deep Water Ship Channel.

With respect to physical geography, Solano County can be roughly divided into four physical zones: (1) the corridor of Benicia through Vallejo, Fairﬁeld, and Vacaville (an integrated part of the San Francisco Bay Area urban economy) that contains the greater part of the population featuring rolling hills and extensive urban development; (2) a largely-rural northern portion around the cities of Winters and Dixon, including some contiguous area east of Vacaville, featuring level lands dominated by irrigated agriculture and geographically more closely linked to Davis and its university than to the Bay Area; (3) rural rolling lands forming a central band through the county from the English Hills north of Vacaville to just north of Rio Vista, mostly used agriculturally as dry rangeland grazed by cattle and sheep, occasionally for dry-farmed cereals; and lastly (4) marshlands and reclaimed islands lying generally south of Fairﬁeld and southwest of Rio Vista that form a part of the California Delta, used agriculturally for numerous ﬁeld, row, and vegetable crops.

Being in the ﬂat lands near Vacaville and Dixon, lies in Solano County’s northern second zone.

Analysis of market conditions and trends. See section 3 on page 41 for discussion of the market conditions and trends aﬀecting the subject’s neighborhood and market area.

2.2.4 Conclusion
The neighborhood of the subject property is rural and substantial change in the direction of bona ﬁde urban development is unlikely in the foreseeable future. The subject’s land-use pattern and future, however, are strongly inﬂuenced both by broad urban economic trends in the region as well as by demand in the neighborhood for irrigated farmland as well as for rural residences by area farmers and numerous other market participants. We have chosen our comparable-market data in the valuation that follows in reﬂection of these inﬂuences.

2.3 Subject’s ownership
Per the subject’s title report, fee title to the subject is currently held by Item 11.a
28 KC Farming Conservation Easement, Central Solano County House Agricultural Consultants
Kevin Simonis and Catie Simonis, husband and wife as community property with right of survivor- ship.18
The subject is not currently listed for sale.

2.3.1 Marketing and oﬀers
No oﬀers on the subject property, changes in its ownership, or eﬀorts to sell it from the current landowner’s acquisition of the subject property through the date of this report have been reported to us (no listing agreements have been disclosed to us) apart from the easement transaction con- templated in this report. We understand that the landowner and client have been in discussions about establishing the subject conservation easement since April 2025.

2.3.2 Ownership and use history
The current owner recently purchased the subject property on April 7, 2025. Due to the current landowner’s recent purchase of the subject in, no further ownership history has been disclosed to us.

Thus, no other change in fee title in the three years preceding the date of valuation has has been disclosed to us, other than as stated herein, but we cannot represent this statement of ownership history as comprehensive.

It is standard in appraisal to analyze all available evidence of the subject’s market value that is available to the appraiser, including contracts of sale, options, and so on. It is further recognized in appraisal practice that an arms’-length transaction of the subject property itself, when available, is a good indicator of its market value; therefore, it is both useful and analytically necessary to consider a transaction of the subject property as a comparable sale for the subject itself when such a transaction on the open market is known to the appraisers, provides adequate information for interpretation, and is suﬃciently recent to shed light on the current market. Furthermore, USPAP deems analysis of any reasonably recent sale of the subject property necessary for credible assignment results, with its standard rule 1-5(b) requiring appraisers to “analyze all sales and other transfers of the subject property” that occurred within the three years preceding the eﬀective date of valuation.19 Given the foregoing, the subject’s currently pending sale requires analysis and discussion. Thus, we have considered the subject’s own sale utilizing it as a comparable transaction in the valuation analysis that follows.

The most prominent land use of the subject property is irrigated agriculture: at present the subject is being used for (as described by the landowner) hay farming and cattle grazing. We understand that the subject has been some variation of the same use for several decades, but we have no detailed historical information about the subject due to its recent acquisition by the current landowner. A building site featuring a shop, built recently before the current owner’s purchase, is a secondary land use.
the subject’s title report18
Guidance published by the Internal Revenue Service on property valuation for tax purposes likewise urges use of a19 subject’s own sale as a comparable transaction: “The sale price of the property itself in an arm’s-length transaction in an open market is often the best evidence of its value. When you rely on sales of comparable property, the sales must have been made in an open market.—Determining the Value of Donated Property, Internal Revenue Service publication number 561.

Item 11.a
Factual data 29
House Agricultural Consultants
Table 2.8 Land-use areas of subject with estimated areas of each.a Appraisers’ informal area estimates only; no survey has been made.a Data item Data
value for subject property
1)
irrigated and cultivated zone, including water buﬀers 91.78 acres*

1.1)
easement area, included within irrigated zone 84
acres†

1.2)
waterways (Alamo Creek and Ulatis Creek) included within easement area
3‡

1.3)
other irrigated and cultivated land excluded from easement area 4¼ § 2)
borders and buﬀers adjoining Main Prairie Road and Highway 113, including building site

2.5 acres||
Appraisers’
estimate.*
According to the client.†
Appraisers’ estimate.‡
Appraisers’ estimate.§
Ditto.||

2.4 Property description: Physical characteristics, land use, and legal characteristics
The most prominent land use of the subject property is irrigated agriculture: at present the subject is being used for (as described by the landowner) hay farming and cattle grazing. We understand that the subject has been some variation of the same use for several decades, but we have no detailed historical information about the subject due to its recent acquisition by the current landowner. A building site featuring a shop, built recently before the current owner’s purchase, is a secondary land use.

Table 2.8 describes the land-use areas of the subject property and provides our best estimates of the area of each. We have relied on the client’s landowner’s estimates of each of the subject’s land-use areas; these are the best estimates of these areas available to us at present as, to our knowledge, there has never been an accurate survey of the subject’s land-use areas.20 Recall ﬁgure 2.1 (page 18) for an overview illustration of the land-use areas.

Table 2.9 and the subsections that follow describe the subject’s use and summarize additional physical characteristics of the subject. Figures 2.3 through 2.6 on page 20 are representative photographs of the subject taken during inspection on 2025-08-11 (ﬁrst and main inspection) and 2025-10-07 (ﬁnal inspection).

2.4.1 Soils, topography, and prime-farmland classiﬁcation Background: Soil units and the Land Capability Classiﬁcation System.The Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA–NRCS, formerly the Soil Conservation Service), a unit of the United States Department of Agriculture, has completed soil surveys of most of the agricultural land in the United States. The NRCS soil surveys are widely used as an objective, consistent measurement of the utility of land for agriculture. Current surveys are provided in digital form in a geographic information system. We have referenced the NRCS’s current digital mapping data covering the subject property for this study.

W
e urge the client to obtain an accurate current survey of the subject’s land use areas if there is any concern. Surveying20 lies outside the scope of the appraisal profession.

Item 11.a
30 KC Farming Conservation Easement, Central Solano County House Agricultural Consultants
Table 2.9 Additional physical characteristics of the subject property.

Data item Data value for subject property
access Main Prairie Road, Rio Dixon Highway.. The subject has all-weather access from Rio Dixon Highway and Main Prairie Road, both paved public roads of Solano County.

The building site’s driveway adjoins Main Prairie Road; Rio Dixon Road provides alternate legal access, which would be physically usable with the construction of a new driveway.
utilities Electricity service is available to the subject property’s building site as well as some telecommunications services, which are adequate for subject’s current uses. Other urban services are unavailable, as is typical of an unincorporated rural neighborhood.

Septic systems provide for the building’s sewer needs.
ﬂood hazard According to public records, it does not appear to us that the majority portion of the subject or any of its building site lie in the 100-year ﬂoodplain. A minor proportion of its area, approximately ﬁve acres or fewer, which adjoins Alamo Creek and Ulatis Creek, is mapped within the ﬂoodplain. However, a comprehensive investigation has not been performed.
toxic contamination No toxic contamination or condition of environmental hazard has been observed by or disclosed to the appraisers.*
The appraisers are not professionally qualiﬁed to detect such substances or conditions. See the assumptions and limiting conditions of* this appraisal, page 94.

The USDA–NRCS soil surveys depictsoil units, which are distinct areas of soil that have a com- mon geologic origin and perform similarly under agricultural use. To permit objective comparison of soils, NRCS has devised the Land Capability Classiﬁcation System, which rates soil units on a scale of I (most favorable) to VIII (the least favorable). These eight Roman-numeral levels, which are referred to as capability classes, broadly indicate the agricultural utility and adaptability of the soil. Class I is the best rating, indicating few or no limitations to the land’s agricultural uses, no special management requirements, and adaptability to many diﬀerent crops. As the Roman numeral increases, the limitations to agricultural uses and management requirements for successful use increase. A class-II soil, for instance, can be used for many of the same crops as a soil rated class I, but will typically yield less (although the yield penalty can often be minimized under opti- mal husbandry), require special management, or both. Typically cropping uses cease after class IV; class-V through class-VII soils are generally used for livestock range or timber. Class-VIII soils are rocky outcroppings, gravel beds, and the like, with very minimal agricultural utility. Capability classes are speciﬁc to the irrigation regime (irrigated or nonirrigated); thus some soil units have two ratings, one when irrigated and one when not irrigated. The nonirrigated status is generally inferior to the irrigated status, and therefore downgraded to reﬂect a penalty for lack of water.

Within the capability classes, further characterization of the soils may be speciﬁed by additional letter and numeric suﬃxes following the Roman numeral; these indicate the type or types of lim- itations likely to be present in these soils. The full rating code (Roman-numeral class plus any additional suﬃxes) is called the capability unit.21
An alternative rating system used by NRCS soil surveys in California side-by-side with the capability-class system is the Storie index, which is a simple numerical scale from one to one hundred; larger numbers indicate better fertility and lesser limitations on agricultural use. This rating system, developed by Dr. Earl Storie of the University of California at Davis, is based on a number of factors including soil proﬁle, texture, slope, and other conditions such as poor drainage, See Land Capability Classiﬁcation System: Agriculture Handbook No. 210. US Department of Agriculture–Soil Conser-21 vation Service, 1961. Available from⟨http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_052290.pdf⟩.

Item 11.a
Factual data 31
House Agricultural Consultants
Table 2.10 Soil units of the subject property, according to the USDA–NRCS’sWeb Soil Survey.

Soil-map symbol Soil
unit Capabilit
y rating % of area
Ca Capa
y silty clay loam I
Is-3 (17) 21.09
SeA San
Ysidro sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes IV
s-3 (17) 18.33
SfA San
Ysidro sandy loam, thick surface , 0 to 2 percent slopes IV e-3 (17) 45.70
Sh Solano
loam IV
s-6 (17) 11.12
W w
ater – 3.76
c
hemical problems, or unfavorable micro-relief. A rough comparison of the Storie Index with the land capability classiﬁcation system would place class-I soils at a Storie index of 80 or above, class-II soils between 45 and 79.

Soil units of the subject.Table 2.10 summarizes the soil units of the subject property, according to the USDA–NRCS’sWeb Soil Survey.22 The appendices of this report include complete maps and additional details on the subject’s soil units; page 89.

As the table shows, both the subject as a whole and the easement area are predominated by soils rated class-III and -IV by USDA–NRCS’s Land Capability Classiﬁcation System, meaning that these soils have substantial limitations to cropping choices and general agricultural utility.

These class-III and -IV soils in three units, predominated by the San Ysidro series, are collectively about 83 to 84 percent of the easement area’s soils. Such soils are adapted to the orchard crops that are common subject’s neighborhood under appropriate management, in the sense that the market accepts them for orchard development. A small amount of the subject’s land is classiﬁed as permanent water by the soil survey, as it is occupied by the bed and bank of Ulatis Creek, which crosses the subject’s northeast corner, and Alamo Creek, which parallels the subject’s north side.

The principle limitation of the subject’s class-III and -IV San Ysidro soils is slow runoﬀ combined with limited rooting depth. Historically, these soils have been utilited for irrigated pasture, dry pasture, and sugarbeets, according to the Soil Survey of Solano County, California (1977). This is especially the approximately 18.3-percent portion of the whole subject ptoperty, located in its northwest corner, that is class-IV San Ysidro sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes. Today these soils are accepted by the market for almond orchards and for other ﬁeld and row crops typical of the area.

Thus, these soils are suitable under appropriate management, as accepted by market participants, for orchards as well for as many other crops, but are not the ﬁrst choice by area growers for orchards or for most row crops.

The subject’s slope and terrain are not signiﬁcantly limiting to its highest and best use for irrigated agriculture. Apart from the creeks, the subject’s topography varies only minimally; the land is more-or-less level terrain with a slope of zero to two percent in all farmed areas.

Classiﬁcationasprimefarmland. USDA–NRCS has established criteria for designating certain soils as prime farmland, deﬁned23 as
Land that has the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for producing food, feed, forage, ﬁber, and oilseed crops and is also available for these uses. It has the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to produce economically sustained high yields of crops when treated and managed according to acceptable farming methods, including water management.

In general, prime farmlands have an adequate and dependable water supply from precipitation or No
survey has been made of the subject property.22
Source: USDA’sLand Capability Classiﬁcation System: Agriculture Handbook No. 210.23 Item 11.a
32 KC Farming Conservation Easement, Central Solano County House Agricultural Consultants
Table 2.11 The subject’s buildings improvements.a
Lightly built sheds and similar structures that were observed during the property inspection are judged to be temporarya in nature, and thus personal property not valued in this appraisal.

Improvement Condition Size, ft/two.superiorRemarks
shop good 3,750 * Agricultural shop, class-S (metal), good quality. site improvements very good – Paving, landscaping, agricultural well with pressure tank for do- mestic water supply, septic system. Functionally adequate to ca- sual inspection (no problems disclosed).
perimiter fencing fair–good – Perimiter fencing around the whole subject, wire and tee posts, with a gate at the driveway to the building site. Functionally ade- quate.

Appraisers’ estimate.*
irrigation, a favorable temperature and growing season, acceptable acidity or alkalinity, acceptable salt and sodium content, and few or no rocks. They are permeable to water and air. Prime farmlands are not excessively erodible or saturated with water for a long period of time, and they either do not ﬂood frequently or are protected from ﬂooding.

Irrigated class-I and -II soils are classiﬁed by the United States Department of Agriculture as prime farmland; therefore, having class-II soils on 21.1.7 percent of its land area, it appears that

21.1 percent of the subject property, more or less, is classiﬁed as prime farmland, while the balance is not.

Limitations due to drainage, terrain, and slope.The subject property is adequately drained, though with slow runoﬀ, due to the structure of its soils. During our inspection, we did not observe any wet or poorly-drained areas or drainage ditches; thus, drainage appears from inspection to be entirely on-site.

Slope is an important consideration in agriculture in that slopes greater than ﬁfteen percent are generally not tilled or planted due to erosion hazard. As already noted, the slope and terrain of the subject property are not signiﬁcant limitations to either agricultural or construction land uses in this appraisal.

Elevation. The subject’s average elevation is approximately thirty feet above sea level. Its elevation is not a limiting factor for its land uses.

2.4.2 Building improvements
There are building improvements on the subject property. In summary, there is one building site with one main structure, a shop of 3,750 square feet. Table 2.11 lists the building improvements that we have valued in this appraisal.24
The major structure is a shop, illustrated by ﬁgure 2.7. The shop is a metal-sided, metal-framed agricultural-utility building of average quality. We have inspected its interior. The structure has running water from a domestic well and electricity. The structure also has a surrounding pad and driveway of concrete, increasing its utility.

Any other structures not listed that may have been present on the subject property as of the date of valuation are judged24 to have been temporary structures, which are personal property, not valued in this appraisal.

Item 11.a
Factual data 33
House Agricultural Consultants
Figure 2.7 Building site on Main Prairie Road, featuring a shop.

2.4.3 Perennial crops
The subject is not improved with any perennial crops (permanent crops—orchard trees or vines) of signiﬁcant contributory value in this appraisal. Assorted plants around the building sites and on its borders are landscaping, contributing to the aesthetic character of the subject property.

2.4.4 Water and irrigation
Irrigation water is provided by an agricultural well. Figure 2.8 illustrate the well and pump. The agricultural well is also the source of domestic water for the building site: it features an apparatus to provide standard-pressure water to the building consisting of a holding tank, a pressure system, and plumbing devices tying the components.

Plumbing to distribute the irrigation water to the subject’s entire farmed area was being in- stalled on the date of the ﬁrst appraisal inspection. As of the publishing of this report, the irrigation system is partially installed and anticipated to be fully installed in early 2026, though water can already be delivered to the farmed land. The unﬁnished component is a new pipeline, which will increase operational ﬂexibility and eﬃciency when completed.

To our understanding from interviewing the landowner’s representative, the well is a reliable source of water, physically adequate to irrigate the subject’s farmable area. As noted, a new pipeline that will improve this irrigation system was being installed during the appraisal inspection, but the new pipe is not required to irrigate the land. Existing other components of the subject’s water system appeared during inspection to be in good condition, within the limits of our casual inspection.

We have not been provided with any information about any investigation into the subject’s groundwater, nor any evidence that its groundwater cannot be developed in the future. Given the subject’s reportedly reliable and historically adequate existing supply of water, we do not judge groundwater status to be a signiﬁcant limiting factor to the subject property’s agricultural use. All water rights are valued in this appraisal as appurtenant to the surface rights.25 Item 11.a
34 KC Farming Conservation Easement, Central Solano County House Agricultural Consultants
Figure 2.8 Subject’s well and pump.

2.5 Legal characteristics

2.5.1 Proposed and assumed conservation easement
Purpose. This report is an appraisal of a proposed conservation easement that will be held by the client. It is our understanding from reviewing a draft grant deed of conservation easement 26 (reproduced in the appendices of this report (section 14.2, page 107) and our discussions with Solano Land Trust that the purpose and intent of the proposed easement is to restrict the land use of the subject property in perpetuity in order that it be conserved in its current agricultural land use. In essence, the subject will be maintained as it is.

An easement is an interest in real property that conveys use but not ownership, typically perpetual and thus binding on all future owners. In the case of a conservation easement, the use that is conveyed is those elements of the ordinary real-property bundle of rights that are incompatible with the conservation goal of the easement, conveyed for the purpose of extinguishing their future possibility of being exercised. Thus it is an easement whose purpose is to preserve the subject property in its existing land use and character for the beneﬁt of the public. The easement transfers the extinguished rights to a land trust or similar third-party public-beneﬁt entity that will A comprehensive investigation has not been performed. The legal status of water rights is a latter outside the scope of25 the appraisal profession.

The document provided to us is a draft, dated 2025-06-30 (date we received the draft by electronic mail). As this26 easement was not in fact in eﬀect as of the date of valuation, nor is its ﬁnal language written as of the date of the report, we have assumed for purposes of this appraisal that the client’s current draft is representative of legal instrument that will establish the subject conservation easement as appraised herein, assuming that the grant of easement from landowner to Solano Land Trust takes place.

Item 11.a
Factual data 35
House Agricultural Consultants
not exercise such rights but rather hold them in trust in perpetuity to carry out the easement’s conservation purpose and monitor landowner for compliance. In other words, some rights that a property owner formerly held as an ordinary part of the bundle of rights that comprise land ownership become negative rights by the land trust against the landowner. Such conservation easements are common in California and are a preferred tool employed by governments, nonproﬁt organizations, and concerned citizens to protect both farmland and wildlife habitat from the threat of urban development.

Often easement’s establishment is facilitated by grant funding and tax policy, which requires that the conservation easement be held by a qualiﬁed land trust, as deﬁned by California and federal regulations. This qualiﬁed land trust is typically intimately involved in drafting the language of the easement and customizing the speciﬁc land-use restrictions for the parties’ needs and the locally appropriate conservation purpose. It is our understanding is that this the process that Solano Land Trust, client of this appraisal, is current undertaking and that the client will hold the easement.

The purpose of this appraisal, then, is to quantify the value that will be given up by the landowner by granting the subject easement. The draft easement’s preamble states that subject’s owner grants as a perpetual estate an easement over “an approximately 84-acre portion” of the subject property for “the purpose of ensuring that the Easement Area’s soils, the potential for Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni) and burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) foraging habitat, and the open-space character of the Easement Area will be conserved and maintained” and incompatible land uses precluded. The easement deed, as it has been provided to us is reproduced in the appendices of this report; section 14.2 (page 107). 27
Summary of subject easement’s restrictions.Allowed land uses:— Agriculture with restrictions against perennial crops.—We understand that agriculture is gen- erally allowed, but not in all forms: orchard, vineyards, perennial vegetables, and horticultural crops are speciﬁcally disallowed, while the easement is silent on most ﬁeld and row crops typical of the area, thus allowing them. Within the restrictions, other forms of agriculture are allowed, including allowing a change from the current agricultural system conﬁgured for ﬁeld crops to, for example, row crops or irrigated pasture for cattle, depending on future economics and operator’s preferences. We understand livestock agriculture to be generally allowed, other than conﬁnement forms of husbandry in buildings (which are restricted) and to the extent that does not impair soil health or other aspects of the easement’s conservation purpose.

Existing and future building sites.—The easement area does not cover the subject’s existing building site. Thus, in essence, the approximately ten acres adjoining Main Prairie Road is a reserved building envelope, which may, under Solano County zoning, contain a primary residence (not yet existing), a secondary residence, farm-labor housing, and accessory buildings (one currently existing, a shop).

Disallowed land uses:—
Subdivision.—As encumbered, the entire 94.28-acre subject property must remain in com- mon ownership. The landowner may no longer apply to the County of Solano for subdivision.

Urban development—a remote but not altogether negligible future possibility in the subject’s neighborhood—is extinguished.

The document provided to us is a draft, dated 2025-06-30 (date we received the draft by electronic mail). As this27 easement was not in fact in eﬀect as of the date of valuation, nor is its ﬁnal language written as of the date of the report, we have assumed for purposes of this appraisal that the client’s current draft is representative of legal instrument that will establish the subject easement as appraised herein, assuming that the grant of easement from landowner to Solano Land Trust takes place.

Item 11.a
36 KC Farming Conservation Easement, Central Solano County House Agricultural Consultants
Building and construction.—With the subject easement in place, no dwellings or other build- ings (which might otherwise be allowed by the subject’s Solano zoning subject to building-permit requirements) will be legally possible on the subject property except within the ten-acre building envelope—in other words, not within the 84-acre easement area. As the subject has been repre- sented to us as a single legal lot, no homesite entitlements are extinguished by the subject easement.

There are no explicit restrictions on the size of any building in the draft easement and building construction does not require permission from the easement holder, though in a more-general sense, the use of the entire subject property is subject to the land trust’s oversight and the easement’s general prohibition on land use harmful to the easement’s conservation purpose. There are some statements in the draft easement about allowed expansion to existing improvements within the easement area, which appear to us to have no eﬀect, as there are no existing buildings within the easement area.

Mining.—Within the easement area, the landowner may not engage in commercial surface mining of sand, gravel, etc. The draft easement is silent regarding hydrocarbon extraction, sub- terranean carbon storage, and other forms of development of subterranean resources besides sand, gravel, and similar.

Commercial hunting and ﬁshing.—These recreational uses are, in essence, limited to a noncom- mercial basis for the landowner’s private enjoyment, only (commercial hunting could be allowed by permission of the easement holder, which the easement holder has no obligation to grant).

Sale of water rights.—The landowner may not sell any water rights appurtenant to the property (as may otherwise be legally possible without the easement) with limited exceptions for short-term annual transfers of surplus water that do not impact the subject’s agricultural productivity.

Special burdens on the landowner:—
Notiﬁcation of sale.—When selling the subject property, the landowner must generally notify the easement holder thirty days in advance, subject to limited exceptions.

Transfer fee.—The easement holder is entitled to a fee of one percent of the sale price allocated to land when the subject property is sold. This calculation excludes the contributory value of improvements. To our reading, this fee is calculated as one percent of the sale price of the en- tire subject property’s land component, not limited to the approximately 84 acres of land of the easement area.

Full enjoyment of private property without involvement of another party is not legally possible.— Although perhaps of lesser consequence than the speciﬁc restrictions and requirements just enu- merated, it should be further noted that the subject property, with the subject easement in place, no longer has the character of entirely private property. Although the easement does not allow for any public access, with the easement in eﬀect, the landowner is subject to the land trust’s management of its rights to the subject property and ongoing compliance monitoring, including by physical entry for inspection annually, co-ordination on sale, and reduction in proceeds from the subject’s future sale by the transfer fee.

The foregoing is our informal description and summary of the easement’s proposed terms and restrictions, as we have understood them for purposes of this appraisal. See section 14.2 in the appendices of this report for the full terms of the proposed conservation easement as they exist as of the publishing date of this report.

Subject easement is substantially more restrictive than the California model easement.

The California Department of Conservation publishes a Model Conservation Easement, which is the principle point of reference for a standard or typical agricultural-conservation easement in the market area. Such an easement generally allows all forms of crops and livestock production, and also can accommodate a building site for a single family residence and agricultural buildings.

Item 11.a
Factual data 37
House Agricultural Consultants
In our judgement, the subject easement is generally similar in its character and degree of land- use restrictions to the model easement, except for the cropping limitations; in that sense, the subject easement is a typical habitat-conservation easement on farmland. We have considered its character in the valuation that follows and consider it again within our concluding discussion on page 77.

2.5.2 Leases
No leases on the subject property in eﬀect as of the date of valuation have been disclosed to us.

We have therefore assumed an estate of fee-simple title to the subject under the extraordinary assumption that any current lease encumbrance, if it exists, is of short-term character, only, not a substantial obstacle to a buyer’s own occupancy of the subject property, as understood by market participants that could have bought the subject property on 2025-10-07. We note that any lease that existed would exist unchanged after the subject easement is established. Neither do the terms of the proposed easement impact the landowner’s right to lease the subject property for permitted agricultural purposes, nor has to our knowledge any existing lease conveyed any land-use rights to a tenant that the landlord will give up by granting the subject easement. Furthermore, a market- typical short-term residential lease (if one existed on the subject) would regardless not have any substantial impact on the fair market value of the subject’s fee estate, positive or negative, as of the date of valuation.

To our understanding the subject is currently owner-operated.

To avoid unnecessary complexity in our before-and-after method of valuation, therefore, we have analyzed an assumed interest of fee-simple title to the subject in both conditions of our before-and-after method of valuation.

2.5.3 Existing easements and other encumbrances
Aneasement is deﬁned in theDictionary of Real Estate, third edition, by the Appraisal Institute, as “an interest in real property that conveys use but not ownership of a portion of an owner’s property”.

Easements are typically perpetual, running with the land so that their terms are binding on all future fee-title owners of the property. We have observed evidence of existing utility easements, including power poles, at the subject property (and we note easements for utility purposes in the subject’s title report (summary follows). Such easements are common on rural properties in the area, are compatible with the highest and best use of the subject described in section 4.3, and do not adversely aﬀect the market value of the subject property.

This section discusses the existing easements and encumbrances that apply to both the before- condition and after-condition stages of analysis of this appraisal of a conservation easement. Recall prior section 2.1.1 (page 34) for discussion of the conservation easement that is the subject appraised interest of this report.

We not aware of any signiﬁcant existing easements that aﬀect the usage of the subject property for its highest and best use as of the date of valuation. In other words, the subject has no existing conservation easement.

We have observed evidence of existing utility easements, including power poles, at the subject property (and we note easements for utility purposes in the subject’s title report (summary follows).

Such easements are common on rural properties in the area, are compatible with the highest and best use of the subject described in section 4.3, and do not adversely aﬀect the market value of the subject property.

Item 11.a
38 KC Farming Conservation Easement, Central Solano County House Agricultural Consultants
As noted, the subject’s preliminary title report lists numerous exceptions to title, which we summarize here. It is typical for a rural property similar to the subject that adjoins a major waterway and a public road to have similar exceptions to title in its preliminary title report and we do not judge any of these listed exceptions to be unusual or substantially detrimental to the appraised interest of this valuation. We summarize the notable exceptions to title.

Water channels. An easement to Solano County Flood Control and Water Conservation District for “water channels”, recorded December 13, 1965, 34007, book 1372, page 681, of oﬃcial records, aﬀecting the “Northerly portion of the premises”. This appears to us to correspond to the channels of Alamo Creek and Ulatis Creek.

Right of way.A right of way is held by Solano County for the public on the “Southerly portion of the premises”. This appears to us to refer to any portion of the subject land lying within the area commonly known as Main Prairie Road.

Mineral rights. We understand that all not all mineral rights are intact with the subject’s surface rights: The subject’s title report does notes a one-third interest mineral rights separated from the rights of surface ownership.

To quote the subject’s title report:

EXCEPTING THEREFROM A 1/3 INTEREST IN AND TO ALL MINERALS, MINERAL DE-

POSITS, OIL, GAS AND OTHER HYDROCARBON SUBSTANCES OF EVERY KIND AND

CHARACTER CONTAINED IN, UNDER OR UPON THE HEREINABOVE DESCRIBED PROP- ERTY AS EXCEPTED IN THE DEED RECORDED NOVEMBER 15, 1994 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 1994-0099283, SOLANO COUNTY RECORDS.

The subject does not lie within any active oil or gas ﬁeld nor does it have any wells or exploration sites. We have not separately valued or considered these rights in this report and therefore no value has been allocated to mineral rights or deposits. 28
Williamson Act contract.The subject property has been held under a Williamson Act contract since 1969, per its title report. Under terms of the contract the property is assessed for tax purposes based on the Board of Equalization formula for Williamson Act properties and in exchange, the use of the land within the preserve is restricted by the contract to agricultural, recreational, open-space, and other approved compatible uses.

To quote the subject’s title report:

Covenants and restrictions imposed by a Land Conservation Contract executed pursuant to Section 51200 et seq. California Government Code (Williamson Act) authorizing the establishment of agri- cultural preserves. The use of the land within the preserve may be restricted by the contract to agricultural, recreational, open-space, and other approved compatible uses.

Dated: December 13, 1965
Executed by: Arthur J. Brown and Freda L. Brown, his wife and the County of Solano Recording Date: May 5, 1969
Recording No.: 8359, Book 1562, Page 191, of Oﬃcial Records Aﬀects: The herein described and other property.

As authoritative title research is outside the scope of the appraisal profession, this is an assumption of this appraisal28 (see section 13.2 for the list of assumptions of this appraisal).

Item 11.a
Factual data 39
House Agricultural Consultants
Encroachments and implied dedication. No evidence of encroachments, prescriptive rights to the public or any other party, or other such adverse conditions have been observed by the appraisers during the property inspection, nor have any such rights been disclosed by the client.

To our best knowledge, no intended user of this report has any real-property interest in the subject, by prescriptive easement or otherwise, nor have we observed any evidence of such an interest in favor of the client.29

2.5.4 Zoning
The subject property lies in the agricultural (AG-80) zone of Solano County, according to the currently posted zoning map of the county’s planning department, and is designated the same in the current general plan of Solano County. The minimum lot size in the AG-80 zone is eighty acres.30
Allowed uses include essentially any farming or ranching use (including orchards, ﬁeld crops, and livestock grazing), as well as accessory uses that enhance the agricultural land use. We note (see below) that this property’s proposed conservation easement restricts some of these uses allowed by the zoning ordinance of Solano County.

The subject is appraised as one legal lot in Solano County (assumed).31 The subject appears to be subject to a current Williamson Act land-conservation contract with Solano County.

2.5.5 Property taxes and tax assessments
Information on the subject’s property taxes and tax assessments is found in the subject’s prelim- inary title report; page 142. Property-tax assessments are not an indication of the subject’s fair market value.

2.5.6 Other encumbrances
No other clouds to the subject property’s title or unusual or detrimental encumbrances have been disclosed to us by the client or landowner’s representatives, except as stated. On that basis, we have appraised the subject as free and clear of easements and other encumbrances that would have an adverse eﬀect on its market value. See section 13.2 (page 94) for the full enumeration of assumptions and limiting conditions of this appraisal.

Title research, however, lies outside the scope of the appraisal profession. No title research has been performed by the29 appraisers.

The nominal minimum lot size per zoning creates a legal right for the landowner to apply for subdivision in the case of30 a property that could yield two new parcels each meeting the minimum lot size, but as approval or disapproval of the subdivision is at the discretion of the local government, there is no subdivision entitlement in the absence of an approved subdivision map or certiﬁcate of compliance on ﬁle in the public records. No applications for subdivision or rezoning in Solano County have been disclosed to the appraisers. Regardless, the issue is moot as the subject’s existing legal lot, as it has been reported to us, is not eligible for subdivision under the lot-size rule.

As noted in section 13.2, we have appraised the subject property as a unit and under legal-lot status as reported to31 us. We oﬀer no opinion on matters of planning or title research, as these matters lie outside the scope of the appraisal profession, and thus legal-lot status is an assumption of this appraisal.

Item 11.a
40 KC Farming Conservation Easement, Central Solano County House Agricultural Consultants
Item 11.a
Market conditions and real-estate trends in Solano County 41 House Agricultural Consultants
3 Market conditions and real-estate trends in
Solano County
Key to understanding the subject property is its combination of quality soils, water availability, and favorable climate in an area featuring consistent demand for properties of various sizes for tree crops, including at the scale of eight-plus acres like the before-condition subject.

3.1 Land use and inﬂuences
Agriculture remains the most important land use in the market area containing the subject, with orchards, especially almonds, as well as open crop land found within the subject’s neighborhood.

3.1.1 General agriculture outlook:

The current year 2025 continues many of the general agricultural economy trends of the past several years. Following boom years in the mid 2010s, when farm-commodity prices, especially nut crops, experienced sharp increases, the balance of economic forces shifted for agriculture in 2020.

3.1.2 Shrinking proﬁt margins
A number of factors have combined to reduce proﬁt margins in most farm commodities.

Lower prices for many commodities.Since 2020 overall farm commodity prices have mostly leveled oﬀ or declined. This is especially evident in the nut crops—almonds and walnuts. Cattle prices are an exception: live-cattle prices have been rising during the past four to ﬁve years as cattle inventories have been reducing.

Increasing input costs. Since 2020 there has been sharp increase in many key inputs to farming and ranching, including power and fuel, fertilizers and chemicals, all of which has lead to signiﬁcantly higher production costs, as much as twenty-ﬁve to thirty-three percent since 2020.

The trend appears to be leveling oﬀ as of the date of this report, but the steep increase over the past four to ﬁve years has greatly reduced proﬁt margins.

Rising interest rates. Despite recent modestly lowered Fed rates, mid- to long-term interest rates for production loans and farmland are still unpalatably high for many market participants who hope for further rate lowering, which dampens demand for most kinds of farm-production land and increase costs for producers.

Input shortages and disruptions.Beginning in 2020 and continuing today, availability of key production inputs, from water to fertilizers to parts to labor, has decreased or experienced disrup- tions and delays, or both. A number of relatively intractable factors are responsible, including the corona virus pandemic, tariﬀs, overseas wars, new labor laws, increasing environmental regulations, and consumer preferences and purchasing power.

Item 11.a
42 KC Farming Conservation Easement, Central Solano County House Agricultural Consultants

3.1.3 Outlook for farm- and ranch-land prices
With the overall somber economic outlook for most farming enterprises, a stable to slightly decreas- ing market trend appears evident.

While the days of nut production expanding into marginal or at least previously-not-considered land for nut production appear to be numbered, properties with amble and reliable water will remain in high demand, as groundwater throughout much California comes under increasing reg- ulation and restriction of usage in some key production areas of the central and southern San Joaquin Valley.

Recent market data have indicated moderate transaction activity and general stability, with little overall trend in either direction in average prices paid in 2023 and 2024. As we move into late 2025, the indications of general stability for properties similar to the subject continue as of the date of this report.

3.2 Urban-expansion and zoning changes
The likelihood of urban expansion or extensive residential development in the near future in the neighborhood of the subject property is low due to Solano County’s stated intent in its general plan to maintain the area in agricultural use and to direct urban expansion to its existing cities and towns. Thus, value trends for urban real estate in the region are not of great relevance to the appraisal problem in this report; nevertheless long-term speculation continues in the background.

3.3 Rural-residential and rural-recreational demand
By rural-residential demand, we refer to demand for rural properties from buyers whose primary interest is having a rural residence, and who only secondarily look to farming as a practical use of the property. Such buyers would include those interested in horse-keeping and equestrian activi- ties, hobby farming, small commercial farms, and rural recreation, especially hunting and ﬁshing.

Such buyers are frequently not unaware of the agricultural utility of properties, and take it into consideration, especially in regard to irrigated properties of twenty acres and larger, but as a secondary consideration to homesite utility. Local farmers continue to buy properties and erect new homes, albeit at a slower pace. Overall, the market demand for rural-residential uses in the subject’s neighborhood is low to moderate, balanced by the strictly agriculturally oriented demand discussed below, especially for parcels larger than approximately forty acres.

The subject’s immediate neighborhood is not an area desirable for rural residences and while this use might not be legally prohibited by county zoning or wildlife-habitat easements, or entirely precluded by physical limitations, demand for such a use relative to the subject is low. Size is a key factor here: the before-condition subject property, whose 94-acre size exceeds the range of twenty to forty acres favored by market participants, fall into a diﬀerent market segment from properties sought by these rural-residential buyers.

3.4 Farming and ranching demand
The subject property’s region, which encompasses the Sacramento Valley and is economically inﬂuenced by trends in both the lower elevation regions of the Sacramento Valley and the San Joaquin Valley areas. As noted above, numerous economic factors of the past several years have generally weakened demand for medium-to-large tracts of crop land and has led buyers to look for production advantages—low cost due to location factors, or resources, such as water and power, best micro-climates, better soils.

Item 11.a
Market conditions and real-estate trends in Solano County 43 House Agricultural Consultants
Prices paid for open land suitable for planting nut trees in northern California have leveled but not generally declined, stabilizing at $12,000 to $17,000 dollars per acre for large tracts of land.

The after-condition subject, lacking any exceptional features that would insulate it from current trends and having the detriment of a conservation easement, falls in to the lower end of this range, as will become apparent in the discussion of recent area comparable sales in the valuation that follows.

Animal grazing, generally cattle, is another agricultural use of some nearby properties and is in demand.

Trends in Agricultural Land and Lease Values, an annual publication of the California Chapter of the American Society of Farm Managers & Rural Appraisers, reports a stable market in the region in 2024, in concurrence with the appraisers’ own observations.

3.4.1 Large-scale investors’ interest
The region’s farmland continues to be of interest to large-scale private and institutional investors.

Farmland has the reputation and the attraction of a relatively steady return on investment—from both nut farming and longer-term land-value appreciation—compared to other less-predictable and often underperforming investment classes. The old saw, “farmland: they’re not making any more of it” continues to motivate such investors in properties in the value-scale class of ten million and upwards.

Although such buyers are active in the subject’s market area, the subject itself, at 94.28 acres, is too small in either condition of analysis to beneﬁt from this category of market demand.

3.4.2 Small-scale grower’s interest
On the other hand, before the conservation easement, the subject is well positioned to satisfy demand for the small-scale commercial farming (especially of almonds) that is common in its neighborhood and area. This demand is somewhat entangled with the rural-residential demand already discussed.

3.4.3 Recent area trends in tree crops
Prunes have been in long-term statewide acreage decline since their peak acreage of 86,000 acres in 2001. There were 37,000 bearing acres in 2023. Decreasing bearing acreage and recent low production have helped maintain crop prices. According to the 2025 edition of Trends in Agricultural Land and Lease Values, there were very limited number of prune-orchard sales in 2024, with identiﬁed sales varying from roughly $13,000 to $24,000 per acre. The publication notes:
“With elevated commodity prices and a recent decrease in orchard supply due to conversion to other permanent plantings with higher economic returns, the market appears to be reaching some level of balance not seen in recent years. However, the overall outlook for prune orchards remains uncertain long-term.”
Almonds are the dominant tree crop in the subject’s immediate neighborhood. Average prices paid for almond orchards in the Sacramento Valley have softened since 2023, with substantially fewer new orchards planted in 2024 and 2025, compared to the prior period. Nevertheless, the appraisers are aware of at least one new orchard planted in the Dixon area in 2025, indicating that area growers continue to stay the course, albeit with reduced exuberance. Current conditions are a combination of several years of depressed commodity prices, unfavorable interest rates for Item 11.a
44 KC Farming Conservation Easement, Central Solano County House Agricultural Consultants
loan-ﬁnanced new orchards, and continually rising costs. The result for real-estate values has been narrowing of the range of prices typically paid for established orchards with decline seen for the least-desirable orchards, to approximately $14,000 to $26,000 dollars per acre, compared to $25,000 $35,000 dollars per acre observed in the prior period.

The real-estate value of established almond orchards, and to a lesser extent open land perceived by the market as suitable for orchard development, has historically been aﬀected by the value almonds as a commodity. Average prices paid to area growers for Solano County almond crops are available from the annual crop reports of the Solano County’s agriculture department32. Table 3.1 lists Solano County’s statistics of price and yield.

As the table shows, prices paid for Sacramento Valley and Solano County almonds have varied greatly from a peak of approximately $3.75 dollars per pound in 2014 to a low of $1.35 dollars per pound in 2022 following two crop years (2020 and 2021) of exceptionally high yields state-wide.

The ensuing large supply together with decreased exports in the confusion following 2020’s unusual events and consequent global economic disruption combined to depress prices paid to growers for their almonds. The year 2022 was a double blow to Solano County growers, who suﬀered both a low ebb in the market price and a low yield from poor spring weather, with some area growers experiencing total crop loss from late-spring frost. A very slight trend towards recovery became apparent in 2023’s average price to growers of $1.60 dollars per pound33, sustained into 2024 with $2.01 dollars per pound reported as the Solano County average. As of the date of this report, 2025 ﬁgures are not available, as the 2025 crop is still in the early stages of marketing and the county’s annual report is not expected for many months.

As of the late-2025 date of valuation, an near balance existed between upward and downward pressures on price, with, in our judgement, slightly greater indications of upward pressure. On the one hand, a return to more-normal weather conditions had resulted in an anticipated return to the approximate historical norm in annual supply, a relative increase from the low-yield prior year of 2022, which would place downward pressure on market prices. On the other hand, the export markets that have historically consumed two-thirds of California’s almond crop had generally recovered from the disorder of prior years, with a notable bright spot regarding the Indian market, the second-largest export market for California’s almond crop. In September 2023, India dropped its tariﬀs on American almonds, which had previously been the victim of retaliatory tariﬀs imposed in a 2019 trade dispute. 34 Tariﬀs are the major topic of public conversation once again as of the date of this report, with California almonds recently a victim of the current trade war with the European Union.

A ﬁnal factor that was extant in late 2025, and likely still relevant for many years to come, is an anticipated modest decline in the number of acres of almonds in the San Joaquin Valley, as older orchards have been taken out of production and some orchards in areas served by district water only have had to be removed due to water-allocation cuts (which are expected to continue for the foreseeable future). According to our research, total bearing almond acreage in California’s San Joaquin Valley, which has held steady the past few years due to a balance between new orchards coming into production and orchards being removed, can be anticipated to decline modestly in San Joaquin Valley counties and state-wise for the next several years of the foreseeable future, as surface water becomes scarcer in the San Joaquin.

Each county of California publishes a report annually that summarizes the acreage, production quantity, and gross value32 of its agricultural production in accordance with sections 2272 and 2279 of the California Food and Agricultural Code.

According to Solano County agriculture department’s annual report.33 ⟨https://www.fas.usda.gov/data/india-success-story-india-cuts-retaliatory-tariﬀs-us-almonds-apples-walnuts-chickpeas-lentils⟩.34 Item 11.a
Market conditions and real-estate trends in Solano County 45 House Agricultural Consultants
T
able 3.1 Five years of recent al-
mond statistics for Solano County, ac-
cording to the county agriculture de-
partment’s annual crop reports.

Year
Area
in county
ac
Yield
lb/ac
V
alue
$/lb
2024 24,700 1,680 2.01
2023 23,600 1,240 1.595
2022 17,940 880 1.345
2021 22,400 1,740 1.82
2020 18,300 1,540 1.795
As
of the date of this report, sporadic incidents of spot prices for nut near near $3.00 dollars per pound for in-shell Nonpareils have fueled hope and renewed interest by orchard buyers. Currently, we judge that almonds are the best positioned of the tree crops of the local area in the perception of market participants.

Walnuts are in a very early stage of recovery. In the past year, we have observed sales of area wal- nut orchards at zero to approximately $2,000 to $3,000 per acre above bare-land value, depending on condition and remaining economic life. The historically highest prices for walnut orchards—for the most proﬁtable and productive orchards—peaked in 2015 at approximately $35,000 per acre followed by years of decline, by 2023 fallen to values just above bare land for all but the best orchards. This was a consequence of deep decline in the world-wide walnut-commodity price that reached its nadir in 2022. In late 2022, the market for existing walnut orchards essentially collapsed due to poor market prices received by growers for the 2022 crop, approximately $0.40 dollars per pound (average), according to the county Agriculture Department’s annual crop reports. This was below the annual cost of production for many if not most area growers. There was little relief in 2023, with the average price to growers reported as $0.50 dollars per pound. Market participants interviewed in early 2025 by the appraisers expressed hope of higher prices for the recently har- vested 2024 and upcoming 2025 crops, but the data have yet to emerge as 2024’s crop is still being marketed.

The Trends publication states that area walnut orchards’ values in 2024 “continued to decline with few sales occurring during 2024, most of which involving some degree of motivated or ﬁnan- cially distressed sellers. . . . Markets climbed rapidly [in late 2024], with most of the industry conﬁdent in $0.85/lb. to $1.10/lb. for Chandlers. For the second year in a row, total bearing acres have decreased, currently at 370,000 acres, down from the high of 400,000 in 2022. . . . Values for walnut orchards in the Sacramento Valley have fallen to ±$20,000/acre to ±$13,000/acre for the bulk of observed sales. As with almonds, outliers are noted. The current market involves a large number of walnut orchards currently being oﬀered for sale, with minimal albeit expectedly increasing buyer interest, following sharply rebounding commodity prices.” Our sources indicate the beginning of a modest recovery in progress as of the date of this report, in concurrence with the prediction ofTrends.

Item 11.a
46 KC Farming Conservation Easement, Central Solano County House Agricultural Consultants
Item 11.a
Valuation preliminaries 47
House Agricultural Consultants
4 Valuation preliminaries

4.1 A new conservation easement for the beneﬁt of raptors’ foraging
This report is an appraisal of a conservation easement that will be held by the client, which will be perpetual and thus binding on all future owners.

4.2 Signiﬁcance of proposed easement
At a high level, the prime signiﬁcance of the subject easement is to limit the landowner’s cropping choices. The draft lists agricultural activities that, in order to ensure suitable foraging habitat for the Swainson’s hawk and burrowing owl, are prohibited on the 84-acre easement area:
i. The planting and/or cultivation of the following crops: orchards, vineyards, artichokes, asparagus, cotton, and rice.
ii. The importation of raw material(s) (commodities or livestock not produced as a result of the harvest of forage or agricultural crops on the Easement Area) onto the Easement Area for the purpose of fattening livestock for commercial slaughter (i.e., a concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO) or feed lot) . . .
iii. The cultivation of horticultural specialties, including sod, nursery stock, ornamental shrubs, ornamental trees, Christmas trees, or ﬂowers;
iv. The construction or placement of commercial greenhouses or plant nurseries; and v. Commercial aquaculture of aquatic plants, animals, and their by-products.

4.2.1 Informal parameters of the appraised conservation easement Recall the previous discussion, page 34 for a summary of the proposed easement’s other parameters and restrictions.

Easement’s eﬀect on agricultural uses.The proposed conservation easement greatly aﬀects the use of the subject land in perpetuity, in essence, limiting it to its current land use of ﬁeld- crop agriculture and maintaining its existing open-space character. This change is the key to understanding the valuation analyses and conclusion that follow.

4.3 Highest and best use
The subject property is appraised for its highest and best use, meaning the probable (in-demand) land use or combination of land uses that would support the highest present value as of the valuation date of the appraisal.35 Therefore, the ﬁrst stage of the appraisal process is identifying the highest and best use of the subject property.

The Appraisal of Real Estate, fourteenth edition, by The Appraisal Institute, gives this full deﬁnition ofhighest and best35 use on page 333: “The reasonably probable and legal use of vacant land or an improved property that is physically possible, appropriately supported, ﬁnancially feasible, and that results in the highest value. The four criteria the highest and best use must meet are legal permissibility, physical possibility, ﬁnancial feasibility, and maximum productivity.

Alternatively, the probable use of land or improved property—speciﬁc with respect to the user and timing of the use— that is adequately supported and results in the highest present value.” Implicit in the deﬁnition is limiting the highest and best use to uses that are reasonably probable in the subject’s market, while excluding any use whose occurrence is purely speculative.

Item 11.a
48 KC Farming Conservation Easement, Central Solano County House Agricultural Consultants

4.3.1 Four tests of highest and best use
The four criteria that the highest and best use must meet are legal permissibility, physical possibility, ﬁnancial feasibility, and maximum productivity.

We consider these criteria for both the before- and the after-condition analyzes of the subject property.

What are the legal uses of the subject property? Before-easement condition. As previously noted, the subject is zoned for agricultural rural use (rural-residential and recreational uses, accessory to allowed agricultural uses) and is designated to remain so by the current general plan of Solano County. Legal land uses under the subject property’s zoning in Solano County are consequently agriculture and allowed accessory uses, such as shops and sheds in support of agricultural operations and one homesite per legal lot; the single homesite may contain one single- family dwelling, labor housing, and, with a use permit, an accessory dwelling.

Thus, the subject property’s current combination of land uses—ﬁeld crops—appears to be in compliance with the county’s zoning regulations, i.e., the existing land uses are legal. Likewise, a change or intensiﬁcation of the subject’s agricultural land use, including new orchard development, is legal.

In other words, the existing legal condition of the subject property does not legally preclude any perennial crop (e.g., nut orchard, wine-grape vineyard) seen in the area. This is the primary facet of the market’s response to the subject before the easement, as will be discovered in the sales-comparison analysis that follows.

After-easement condition. After the conservation easement is imposed, the subject property would still be legally usable for agriculture, as a rural residence, and for limited rural recreation (with restrictions).

As previously noted, the subject property after the easement may no longer be developed to an orchard or vineyard, substantially limiting the landowner’s choices for change or intensiﬁcation of the subject’s agricultural land use.

The subject conservation easement is a legal restriction beyond Solano County zoning on the subject property, extinguishing also any future possibility of subdivision—that is to say, mandating that the subject remain a single unit of ownership in perpetuity by disallowing the separate sale of any portion of the subject land. This is signiﬁcant, though a secondary factor to the major and primary feature of the easement in the after-condition scenario of analysis of restricting cropping choices.

The easement additionally extinguishes speculation on the subject’s future urban development, a restriction of lesser signiﬁcance in the present market. Buildings are allowed, subject to county zoning and permitting policy, both before the easement, and, with some locational restrictions, after the easement.

For which of those uses is the property physically adapted?Before-easement con- dition. The current use of the subject property is ﬁeld crops. The subject property has been developed for this purpose is physically adapted to this land use.

It is common in the area for cropland to be used either for tree crops, row crops, irrigated ﬁeld crops, or irrigated pasture, depending on situational economics and grower/rancher’s skills and preferences. The subject property is physically adapted for all these land uses.

Item 11.a
Valuation preliminaries 49
House Agricultural Consultants
With respect to the improvements currently existing on the subject, the property is physically adapted for their continued use. The subject property is also physically adapted for a larger density of buildings (a residence or residences to be developed or additional agricultural-utility structures) than currently exists.

Of those probable, legal, and physically possible uses, which are ﬁnancially feasible on the subject? Before-easement condition. Parcels of land similar physically and with respect to zoning to the subject in the market area are utilized for intensive agriculture alone, for homesites with rural recreation (typical of smaller parcels), and for various combinations of intensive agriculture, such as nut orchards, ﬁeld crops, and irrigated pasture, with buildings similar to the subject’s. Dryland forms of livestock agriculture (i.e., seasonal rangeland grazing) are also common in the area, but typically restricted to lands having greater soil-quality and topography limitations compared to the subject.

In the subject’s neighborhood, speciﬁcally, we have observed numerous neighborhood parcels in current use for almonds as well as other forms of irrigated agriculture, including irrigated pasture, commonly in combination with a homesite and utility buildings, indicating demand in the area for all these land uses in diverse combinations. The subject features a utility buiding. There exists reasonable evidence of market acceptance of utility buildings of similar age and condition.

Thus, the present agricultural land use of the subject is found ﬁnancially feasible. We further- more ﬁnd the existing improved use of the subject ﬁnancially feasible, as the cost to develop the subject to its current state, when hypothetically considered as if were being acquired with the existing improvements absent, is at least equal, apart from curable depreciation, to its value in its existing developed condition.36
In conclusion, irrigated agriculture, including orchards to be developed, with buildings as rep- resented by the existing combination of land uses is ﬁnancially feasible.

After-easement condition. After the easement, the ﬁnding of ﬁnancial feasible remains the same, but under greater restrictions on cropping systems allowed.

Oftheidentiﬁedfeasibleuses, whichwouldbringthegreatestreturn? Before-easement condition. Given the available options and restrictions, we ﬁnd that the greatest return would derive from the existing land use of improved irrigated agriculture; this is broadly true both before and after the subject conservation easement’s establishment, but with a critically important dif- ference: whether the subject can be developed to an orchard or any other economically favorable agricultural enterprise without restriction. Before the easement, the answer is aﬃrmative.

After-easement condition. On the other hand, the after-condition subject’s agricultural use is restricted, as previously detailed.

A land use is deﬁned as ﬁnancially feasible when its cash costs of acquisition and development do not exceed the36 anticipated market value of the resulting developed property. Stated another way, an existing improvement is a ﬁnancially feasible land use when it at least as economically rational to continue using the improvement rather than removing the improvement to free the land for a diﬀerent incompatible use; a proposed land use is ﬁnancially feasible when its cash costs of acquisition and development do not exceed the anticipated market value of the resulting developed property.

Item 11.a
50 KC Farming Conservation Easement, Central Solano County House Agricultural Consultants

4.3.2 Conclusion of highest and best use
This report values the easement using the before-and-after method: we have considered the subject property both before (without) and after (with, as encumbered by) the subject easement. In other words, we have considered a change in the subject’s highest and best use. The conservation easement allows agriculture with signiﬁcant restrictions, as well as buildings with only modest restrictions.

We conclude that the highest and best use of the subject property diﬀers as it is today, before the easement, and as it would be with the easement—that is, as if the conservation easement that is the subject easement of this appraisal were recorded and in fully legal force and eﬀect as of October 7, 2025.

Before conservation easement. We conclude that the highest and best use of the subject is, broadly, its current combination of land uses, with a very signiﬁcant contribution from the operator’s option to choose any cropping system suiting current economic conditions and the operator’s preferences and abilities. The most probable buyer in the before-condition (without the subject conservation easement) would have kept in mind the speculative possibility of future further subdivision.

After conservation easement. We conclude that the highest and best use of the subject is, broadly, its current combination of land uses, with a substantial limitation that neither orchards, nor vineyards, not other perennial crops common in the area may be developed. The most probable buyer in the after-condition would have been aware that even the speculative possibility of future subdivision did not exist for the subject property.

4.3.3 Remark on buildings—present both before and after easement In order to shed light on the contributory value of improvements, it is typical when appraising an improved subject property to consider the highest and best use both from the perspective of the subject in its actual improved state—its highest and best useas improved—and hypothetically as if the subject property were free of improvements—its highest and best use as if vacant. Our analysis indicates that the subject’s existing improvements do contribute value to the subject, both with and without a conservation easement. The highest and best use of the subject in either condition, as improved, includes maintaining the existing improvements, and as if vacant, includes constructing similar improvements. In either valuation scenario (before or after), the most probable buyer might pursue expanding the property’s building amenities; given that the subject easement reserves a building site, we do not ﬁnd the easement’s restrictions on buildings within the easement area substantially burdensome in the present market. As the improvements (principally, a shop) exist unchanged in both valuation scenarios, with and without conservation easement, we deem the consideration of highest and best use as improved and as if vacant to be a formality, important for the completeness of this appraisal, but not major point of discussion in this valuation.

4.4 Scope of the valuation process
This report values the easement using the before-and-after method: we have considered the subject property both before (without) and after (with, as encumbered by) the subject easement. In other words, we have considered a change in the subject’s highest and best use.

Item 11.a
Valuation preliminaries 51
House Agricultural Consultants
This valuation is an appraisal report, as deﬁned by USPAP, presented in a brief narrative format.37 In the course of collecting information for this valuation report, county public records were examined and county staﬀ were contacted regarding the subject property. Real-estate agents and other knowledgeable persons were contacted regarding the current status of real-estate and economic conditions in the area. An analysis has been made of demographic and economic trends, amenities, services, facilities, and other factors in the surrounding area that inﬂuence property values. Market trends, including the supply of and demand for properties of this type in the market area, have been examined and considered.

This appraisal includes the value of the improvements present on the subject property—walnut orchards, fruit orchards, two dwellings, a utility building, and site improvements—as a part of the subject real estate. This appraisal is a valuation of real property only; any personal property (such as crops and emblements, vehicles, mobile equipment, trade ﬁxtures, temporary structures, etc.) located on the subject property is excluded from this appraisal. All intangible personal property (goodwill, etc.) is excluded from this appraisal.

We have relied on the county assessor’s plat maps and maps supplied by the client to informally locate the boundaries of the subject property. A survey of the subject property has not been made as part of this appraisal (see our assumptions, page 13).

Appraiser Henry House inspected the subject property on 2025-08-11 (ﬁrst and main inspection) and 2025-10-07 (ﬁnal inspection). We were met brieﬂy for the inspection at the building site by Kevin Simonis and unaccompanied during the inspection of the farmland. During the inspection meeting, we interviewed Mr. Simonis regarding the subject’s operation and characteristics. Prior to inspecting the subject, we familiarized ourselves with its factual characteristics by reading client- provided documentation on the subject.

We have contacted the county’s planning staﬀ to discuss the subject property, including its current use as a commercial agricultural enterprise, as previously noted under our discussion of highest and best use. Other organizations and regulatory entities were contacted as necessary regarding the status of the property during the course of the analysis.

We have considered transaction data for a ﬁve-year period preceding the date of valuation as well as transactions that occurred after the date of valuation up to the publishing date of this report.; we have placed greater weight on those transactions that occurred closer to the date of valuation. Transactions involving comparable properties that we analyze in the valuation that follows have been veriﬁed by oﬃcial recorded documents, or by a party directly involved in or knowledgeable about the transaction (e.g., buyer, seller, agent, licensed appraiser, etc.), or both.

We have tailored the scope of our valuation process to the intended use of this appraisal: the subject property is appraised as a unit, corresponding to its assumed single legal lot (meaning, we have analyzed the subject as if it were being sold at arms’ length on the date of valuation by one seller and one buyer in one transaction); we have made no conclusions that would call for expertise of a legal nature or otherwise outside the scope of the appraisal profession (for example, regarding condition of title or the permitting status any land use); we have made no separate allocation to mineral rights or similar special rights; we have relied on the accuracy of public records and the landowner’s representations for information on building structural condition, drainage, and other physical characteristics not plainly apparent during our inspection; we have relied on factual data reported by the client (not including any historical crop yields and prices, which were not available due to landowner’s limited history with the subject property) and other parties believed to be reliable and knowledgeable to understand the subject’s condition as of the date of valuation and As an appraisal assignment, this report is performed in such a manner that the analysis results, opinions, and conclusions37 are those of a disinterested third party. The property is not appraised with a predetermined value or direction of value that favors the cause of the client, the amount of the value opinion, the attainment of a stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event.

Item 11.a
52 KC Farming Conservation Easement, Central Solano County House Agricultural Consultants
to inform our analyses, examining ﬁgures provided to us to the extent of verifying that they are reasonable, consistent, commensurate with expected values for similar properties in the region and in agreement with our own observations as described herein.

This is a present-value appraisal, eﬀective as of a recent date reﬂective of current market value as of the publishing of this report. Appraisers Henry House inspected the subject property on the eﬀective date of valuation and we have additionally relied on records and guidance from others to understand its characteristics and its condition as of the date of valuation. This appraisal has been prepared for the use of a land trust in a funds-stewardship context, speciﬁcally to assist the client in establishing the conservation easement described herein with monies of a fund established for the purpose under an agreement with the City of Vacaville. To our understanding, the transaction analyzed herein is a would be a private matter between the client and the landowner, not subject to review or approval by any other party. The appraisers have relied on the client (land trust) for legal guidance, as applicable to this appraisal assignment, which have aﬀected the results of this appraisal. Advising on legal or tax matters is outside the scope of the appraisal profession. We oﬀer no tax advice or legal opinions on the terms of the proposed conservation easement.

See section 13 (page 93) in the appendices of this report for deﬁnitions, additional conditions, and disclosures that form the scope of work of this appraisal.

4.5 Valuation method
Recognized appraisal practice calls for analysis of property values by one or more of the established three approaches to valuation: (1) sales comparison, (2) cost, and (3) income capitalization. In this appraisal, we have used the before-and-after method using an appropriate approach in each condition, the sales-comparison approach before the easement and the cost approach after the easement. We have chosen this overall method as the best model for the motivations of market participants, in light of our research on the subject’s market that we have previously discussed.

4.5.1 The three approaches to valuation
Every process of appraisal reasoning falls into one of the three recognized approaches, each of which proceeds from its own distinctive central premise leading to its own speciﬁc methods to shed light on the subject property’s value.

The premise of the sales-comparison approach is that informed buyers and sellers expect to price some whole subject property in relationship to other whole properties in the same market that could substitute for the subject. To deduce the relationship, this approach analyzescomparable sales, properties reasonably similar to the subject property that have recently been sold at arms’ length in the subject’s market and for which the price, terms, and conditions of the sale are known.

Sales comparison38 of each whole property, comparable or subject, to another is the overall method and organization of this approach.39
The sales-comparison approach is a good indicator of value when the comparable-sale properties have the same highest and best use as the subject property and have a similar combination of land and improvements as the subject and is a commonly preferred approach for many appraisal problems.

Sales comparisoncompares the subject property with the comparable sales viaelements of comparison, which are speciﬁc,38 independently variable characteristics found to aﬀect property value in the subject’s market area, in which characteristics a comparable property may be ranked as inferior, superior, or similar compared to the subject with respect to that facet of its value. By such comparison, the unknown market value of the subject property (the most probable price at which it would sell) can be deduced.

What distinguishes the sales-comparison approach from the use of comparable sales in the cost approach is the former39 approach’s exclusive reliance on sales comparison on a direct, whole-property basis.

Item 11.a
Valuation preliminaries 53
House Agricultural Consultants
The premise of thecost approachis that informed buyers and sellers expect to price some whole subject property in relationship to the cost to assemble or develop a similar property, in other words, a substitute for the subject. This approach’s piecemeal method divides the property being appraised into parts that each contribute value to the whole (such as bare land and buildings, or diﬀerent land zones), looking at each component separately. The sum of the contributions of all the components indicates the value of the whole subject in this approach.

The cost approach can be a good indicator of value for a subject property that is substantially improved or is natural to consider in zones or pieces (any valuation organized around an assemblage or summation falls under the cost approach). It is most commonly used in appraisal when the subject property is diﬀerently improved from any of the recently sold comparable properties in its market or when the subject’s major feature is a recently constructed building. Although the subject’s buildings are not recently constructed, the subject meets the other criteria of having a diﬀerent combination of improvements from the comparable-sale properties available to us and being natural to consider in zones (the orchard and the buildings).

The premise of theincome-capitalization approach, often simply called the income approach, is that informed buyers and sellers expect to price some whole subject property in relationship to its anticipated yield of income (most typically, understood to be rental income to an absentee landlord).

Thus, this approach analyzes the property as an investment, numerically processing projected net income to arrive at an indication of capitalized value, a concept that follows from the time value of money.40 The income approach can be a good indicator of value when the subject property’s highest and best use is income-generating, an average or probable income can be imputed and related to market behavior, and direct capitalization or similar such income analysis is commonly used as a basis for price negotiations by market participants, although its accuracy is sensitive to the assumptions necessarily used in any income analysis.

4.5.2 Before-and-after method of valuing an easement
This is an appraisal of a conservation easement. Recognized appraisal practice accepts before-and- after premise of valuing an easement in this appraisal—the premise that the fair market value of an easement equals the diminution to the subject property’s fair market value after the easement has been recorded in comparison to the subject’s fair market value before the easement.

In other words, the method is to analyze the value of the landowner’s interest in the underlying subject real estate in two scenarios of analysis, one with and one without considering the subject easement. We have already introduced the self-explanatory terminology for these two scenarios of analysis, the before-condition and the after-condition steps of this appraisal.

These two steps yield two numbers, b (subject’s indicated value before easement) and a (indi- cated value after). The formula for the fair market value of the easement itself is v = b−a.

This premise leads us to conduct the approaches to valuation in each stage of analysis, in other words, twice, as if there were two appraisals. It is important to understand, however, that the before-easement and after-easement scenarios’ approaches and their indicated numbersb and a are intermediate stages of the appraisal analysis, only, and not the our opinion of the fair market value of the subject property. The only value opined by this report is that stated in section 8 under the heading “Certiﬁed ﬁnal opinion of value”.

The time value of money : the theory that some future ﬁnancial beneﬁt is quantiﬁably less valuable than it would be40 in the present, which consequently provides functions to quantitatively link such anticipated future ﬁnancial beneﬁts to value in the present.

Item 11.a
54 KC Farming Conservation Easement, Central Solano County House Agricultural Consultants

4.5.3 This appraisal’s valuation method
This appraisal employs the sales-comparison approach and the cost approach in its before-condition and after-condition analysis, respectively.

In the before-condition stage of this appraisal, we have employed the sales-comparison ap- proach as the criteria for the sales-comparison approach are met in this appraisal problem and this approach analyzes the market data most directly in relation to the subject, with the fewest assumptions.

In the after-condition valuation stage, we have turned to the cost approach as satisfactory comparable sales of whole properties similar to the after-easement subject are not available for whole-property comparison. Our cost approach incorporates the methods of sales comparison and income analysis.

We have not employed the income approach in this appraisal, as a stand-alone approach for whole-property analysis, as evidence is wanting that buyers and sellers in the subject’s market today employ mathematical income analysis (capitalization rates, etc.) in their price negotiations whole regarding properties similar to the subject in either scenario.

The before-condition scenario of analysis using the sales-comparison approach is section 5, page

57. The after-condition scenario of analysis using the cost approach is section 6, page 65. The conclusion of the valuation on page 77 computes the diﬀerence, which is the value of this easement.

4.6 Deﬁnition of fair market value
Because common English usage of terms such as “value”, “market value”, and “fair market value” varies, the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) require appraisers to precisely deﬁne what value the appraisal opines for the subject, which in this assignment is fair market value. In this report, we speak of “fair market value” and “market value” interchangeably, as synonyms.

The 2024 edition of USPAP (current as of the publishing of this report) states that market value in appraisal is
A type of value, stated as an opinion, that presumes the transfer of a property (i.e., a right of ownership or a bundle of such rights), as of a certain date, under speciﬁc conditions set forth in the value deﬁnition of the term that is identiﬁed by the appraiser as applicable in an appraisal.

In this report, to deﬁne fair market value, we have selected the speciﬁc deﬁnition of value, as applicable in this appraisal, to be the California statutory deﬁnition of “fair market value”, to wit:
(a) The fair market value of the property taken is the highest price on the date of valuation that would be agreed to by a seller, being willing to sell but under no particular or urgent necessity for so doing, nor obliged to sell, and a buyer, being ready, willing, and able to buy but under no particular necessity for so doing, each dealing with the other with full knowledge of all the uses and purposes for which the property is reasonably adaptable and available. (b) The fair market value of property taken for which there is no relevant, comparable market is its value on the date of valuation as determined by any method of valuation that is just and equitable. [—California Code of Civil Procedure § 1263.320; cited by appraisal speciﬁcations of the Califor- nia Department of General Services.]
The foregoing is the value that we analyze in this report, in its entire formal deﬁnition as applicable in this appraisal. Under our value-diminution premise of value, it guides our reasoning about the before-easement and after-easement stages of our valuation analysis. As an interpretation, we reason that implicit within this deﬁnition of fair market value, as applied to this appraisal Item 11.a
Valuation preliminaries 55
House Agricultural Consultants
problem, is consummation of a sale at arms’ length within a freely competitive market as of a speciﬁed date (i.e., this appraisal’s eﬀective date of valuation) and passing of property rights from seller to buyer under conditions whereby:
1) On that date, an assumed seller grants ownership of the appraised interest in the subject property to a buyer in ordinary lawful manner. That seller receives simultaneously in exchange a consideration of United States dollars (USD) that is mutually agreed and understood to be the property’s price, either all cash or a ﬁnancial equivalent. The price measured is the proper price, which diﬀers from the seller’s proceeds that might be reduced by any transaction costs that conventions of the marketplace require that a seller bear. 2) The seller and the buyer are assumed in the sense that the seller that is contemplated represents persons generally that might sell the subject, if one were its owner (that is, that assumed seller does not necessarily represent the current particular owner with the peculiarities thereof) and similarly the contemplated buyer represents persons generally that might buy the subject who currently exist or can reasonably be expected to exist in the future (not a particular actual buyer). 3) These parties are both solvent and willing, but neither is aﬀected by unusual circumstances or urgency; both have reasonable knowledge of the circumstances, facts, and conditions that informed parties who deal in the subject type of property would generally know, have reasonable ﬁnancial sophistication, and act in what they consider the rational pursuit of their own ﬁnancial interests. 4) Any ﬁnancing employed is conventional and any inducements oﬀered by either party to the other are ordinary for the time, location, and subject type of property. 5) Given all of the foregoing, the hypothetically transaction considered to have occurred on the date of valuation that is contemplated in the appraisal process (for purposes of valuation) is, in all substantive aspects, ordinary for the subject type of interest and property such that an appraiser’s analysis of this transaction result in an opinion of value reﬂecting the marketplace in aggregate, only, unaﬀected by extraneous factors such as an appraisal user’s desires.

4.7 Comparable sales from the subject’s market area
As noted, we have employed sales comparison in this appraisal. We have drawn comparable transactions from the market area of the subject property, preliminarily considering a large set of market transactions, whose details are in our work ﬁle. Through our research, we have winnowed down the larger set of potentially useful comparable-sale transactions in the subject’s market area to the ﬁve transactions (all bona ﬁde consummated sales) that we judge most useful to shed light on the market value of the subject. This section introduces the comparable sales. The sections detailing our two scenarios of sales comparison (before- and after-condition comparisons) that follow provide additional information. Additional data are found in the appendices of this report starting on page 85. 41 In the analyses and discussion that follow, each comparable property maintains its same identiﬁcation number from the tables that introduced the sales for consistent reference.

4.7.1 Set S: Comparable sales for the before-condition subject and unencumbered after-condition remainder area
Through our research, we have identiﬁed and selected ﬁve comparable-sale transactions appropriate for this before-easement comparison with the subject that are suﬃciently recent to reﬂect current market conditions and were in reasonably similar use when sold. Table 4.1 summarizes this set of comparable sales, designated set S. Figure 4.1 (page 56) illustrates their locations.

Our notes of additional details on these sales, which are not germane to the reader’s understanding of this valuation41 narrative, are maintained in the appraisers’ work ﬁle.

Item 11.a
56 KC Farming Conservation Easement, Central Solano County House Agricultural Consultants
Table 4.1 Comparable sales selected for comparison with the subject: set S.

No. Date
Price
$ Acres
Price
$/ac
Land
use Lo
cation
1 2025-06-26 1,140,000 101.80 11,198 ro
w crops; no buildings Rio
Dixon Rd. and Binghampton Rd.
2 2025-04-07 2,800,000 314.54 8,902 ro
w crops; no buildings Robb
en Rd. and Binghampton Rd.
3 2025-04-07 1,400,000 94.28 14,849 ﬁeld
crops; shop, 3750 ft/two.superior sub
ject itself
4 2023-07-21 1,899,000 155.26 12,231 ﬁeld
crops; no buildings F
ry Rd., 1½ miles west of Hwy. 113
5 2021-09-03 2,650,000 148.5 17,845 ro
w crops; dwelling, 2,621 ft/two.superior Rio
Dixon Rd. ½ miles north of subj.

Figure

4.1 Comparable sales selected for comparison with the subject: set S.

Note that number 3 is the subject property itself.
6 5
1 2
1 2
5 4
3 3
In table 4.1, all sales reﬂect price paid for each whole property, including improvements present at time of sale, if any. Likewise, we have not adjusted these sales for time or conditions of sale.

In other words, we have not employed any quantitative time adjustments in our analysis of these comparable sales, preferring to address the date of each sale relative to our valuation date qual- itatively; we did not ﬁnd evidence of unusual conditions of sale that would indicate a need for adjustment for the conditions of any property’s sale. As noted, these are comparable transactions of physically similar land in use for agriculture. All are drawn from the subject’s Solano County neighborhood. One of these properties is the subject property itself, in its recent sale by which the current landowner acquired it. Three of the ﬁve comparable sales are very recent, while the other two are older sales, still relevant and chosen because of their proximity and similar physical and locational character to the subject. Having a solid set of sales from the subject’s own neighborhood, including the best possible comparable sale with respect to location (the subject’s own sale), we did not judge it warranted to include any further-away comparable properties.

Item 11.a
The before-condition: Analysis by the sales-comparison approach to valuation 57 House Agricultural Consultants
Table 5.1 Set B of comparable sales.

No. Date A
cres
Adj. price*
$/ac Land
use Lo
cation
1 2025-06-26 101.80 12,652 ro
w crops Rio
Dixon Rd. and Binghampton Rd.
2 2025-04-07 314.54 9,372 ro
w crops Robb
en Rd. and Binghampton Rd.
3 2025-04-07 94.28 14,849 ﬁeld
crops sub
ject itself
4 2023-07-21 155.26 13,184 ﬁeld
crops F
ry Rd., 1½ miles west of Hwy. 113
5 2021-09-03 148.5 15,057 ro
w crops Rio
Dixon Rd. ½ miles north of subj.

See table 5.2.*
5 The before-condition: Analysis by the sales-
comparison approach to valuation
As noted, we have employed the sales-comparison approach to valuation. The premise of this approach is that informed market participants price some whole subject property in relationship to other whole properties in the same market that could substitute for the subject; thus this approach employs sales comparison on a whole-property basis. The whole subject property consists of irrigated farmland with and an agricultural-utility building. Thus, our chosen comparable sales are properties including similar uses. Table 5.1 recapitulates the comparable sales of set S, introduced previously. These sales are adjusted for this before-condition comparison, which we have indicated by giving the set a new name: this new set of comparable sales as adjusted for before-easement analysis is designated set B. The property numbers are the same as before. Table

5.2 explains the adjusted transaction prices that change the S sales to B sales that we will use for further analysis.

5.1 Unit of comparison: Acre
In the sales-comparison method, the ﬁrst stage of analysis is choosing the unit of comparison between the subject property and the comparable sales that will best reveal the patterns in the data. We have chosen to compare properties by the acre and thus will report the sale prices of each comparable property for analysis in units of dollars per acre (whole-property area, often called gross acres), in reﬂection of the preferences of market participants for agricultural properties of similar scale to the subject.42

5.2 Elements of comparison and adjustments
The next stage of the sales-comparison method is the elements of comparison. We have identiﬁed the salient elements of comparison that are signiﬁcant in the real-estate market of the subject property and that are diﬀerentiating among the sales that we have chosen for comparison with the subject in this valuation.

In
sales comparison, various units such as a gross acre of land, a square foot of building area, etc., are possible. The42 most appropriate choice of a unit of comparison is that which best reveals patterns in the market data between similar properties to best shed light on the subject property. The gross acre of whole-property area is common in rural appraisal, reﬂecting well the habits of buyers and sellers who commonly negotiate sales in dollars per acre.

Item 11.a
58 KC Farming Conservation Easement, Central Solano County House Agricultural Consultants
In recognized appraisal practice, a rubric for those facets comparable transactions that could be diﬀerentiating between comparable sales and subject and that are thus considered by the appraiser in any sales-comparison analysis can be summarized as (i) property rights transferred (if other than a fee estate, not subject to a long-term lease or other signiﬁcant encumbering estate), (ii) ﬁnancing terms (if other than all cash to seller), (iii) sale conditions (if other than arms’-length), (iv) immediate expenditures by the buyer (if applicable), (v) market conditions (as of date of sale), (vi) property’s location, (vii) property’s physical characteristics (divided into multiple elements for discussion as appropriate), (viii) property’s economic characteristics (if applicable), (ix) use (including zoning and other legal restrictions), (x) nonrealty components of value (if any are in- cluded with a sale transaction). We have considered all of these groups of characteristics. Those elements of comparison that are substantially diﬀerentiating in this valuation and which we have thus chosen detailed discussion are, in brief, date of sale, property rights, size, location, land utility, water supply, and contributory value of building improvements.

5.2.1 Adjustments to transactions prior to comparison with the subject Before beginning an analysis of comparable sales, it is customary to consider whether any numerical adjustments to sale prices are appropriate, prior to assembling a sales-comparison grid, for any of these elements of comparison—in other words, to consider whether the most useful value indications for the subject property from the comparable sales are the actual prices paid for each comparable property or are those prices that would have been paid for the each comparable property if it had been more similar to the subject in one or more property characteristics.

In this report we do not apply any time or market-conditions adjustments, but we do apply an adjustment for the contributory value of the subject’s key building improvement, a shop building.

We choose this quantitative adjustment as the subject has this useful building in contrast to the bulk of the sales which have no building improvements.

No time/market conditions adjustment. While two of the sales could be considered “old”, sales activity in the neighborhood has been modest for numerous years and conditions have been largely stable for open-land properties similar to the subject. Thus, all these sales, including the two older sales, remain useful in this appraisal and have been included due to their geographic proximity. We do not have suﬃcient market evidence to accurately quantify a mathematical adjustment for the time diﬀerence spanned by this set of sales; thus, a quantitative adjustment for time would introduce excessive variation into the analysis. Consequently, we have preferred to consider the element of time qualitatively in the comparisons that follow.

Adjustment for value of subject shop. Since only one of the ﬁve sales included a shop building—the sale of the subject itself—a qualitative comparison of the comparable properties in building improvements to the subject would not capture the signiﬁcant contribution that its shop brings to our subject property. We therefore make a dollar adjustment to the various sales to bring the subject’s building’s value into focus and make them comparable to the subject in this comparison element of building improvements. The adjustment is performed as follows:

The subject property has a metal shop of good quality, size is 50 by 75 feet, or 3,750 square feet.

We estimate its replacement-cost-new (RCN) at $34.91 dollars per square foot 43 for the building proper plus an additional contribution of $30,000 for the pad, domestic-water system, etc.; total RCN $42.91 dollars per square foot. At 3,750 square feet, this equals a replacement cost new of $160.912. It has only minimal depreciation, given its recent construction and very good condition.

Reference: Assessor’s Handbook, see appendices.43
Item 11.a
The before-condition: Analysis by the sales-comparison approach to valuation 59 House Agricultural Consultants
Table 5.2 Quantitative adjustment to setS sales for comparison to the subject property.

Once adapted for this before-condition analysis, we designate the adjusted transactions as set B.

No.

Price before adj.
$ Acres
Contribution buildings
$
Amount to add
$
Adj. price
$
A
dj. price
$/ac
1 1,140,000 102 0 148,000 1,288,000 12,652
2 2,800,000 315 0 148,000 2,948,000 9,372
3 1,400,000 94 148,000 0 1,400,000 14,849
4 1,899,000 155 0 148,000 2,047,000 13,184
5 2,650,000 149 562,000 -414,000 2,236,000 15,057
With an estimated remaining useful life of ﬁfty-ﬁve years out of a nominal useful service life of sixty years, which is a depreciation factor of 55
60, the current depreciated value of the subject’s building with associated site improvements is $148,000 (rounded to the nearest $1,000; exact computation, $147,503.10).

This lump sum of $148,000 is added to all of the sales which have no buildings to bring them to equality to the subject in buildings. For sale number 5, which included a residence, there is an intermediate step of subtracting the estimated contributory value of its buildings (subtracting because they are not similar to the subject’s shop) from the current depreciated, contributory value of the subject’s shop (shown in the table as a net negative adjustment). Sale number 3 is the recent sale of the subject itself, requiring no adjustment.

This simple mathematical procedure is performed and tabulated in table 5.2.

5.2.2 Qualitative elements of comparison
As noted, we have identiﬁed the salientelements of comparisonthat are signiﬁcant in the real-estate market of the subject property and that are diﬀerentiating among the sales that we have chosen for comparison with the subject in this valuation, ﬁnding it appropriate to adjust the comparable sales for building improvements before further analysis of this set B. Taking the transaction prices adjusted thus (table 5.2) as the base for subsequent stages of analysis, we next consider the qualitative comparison factors of date of sale, size, location, land utility, water supply, and prior easements. Each of these elements is evaluated qualitatively in comparison to the subject property, and the sale is recorded as being superior, inferior, or similar more-or-less to the subject property in that particular element. The qualitative elements in detail are as follows.

Date of sale. In this current-value appraisal, this comparison element is a straightforward mea- surement of the comparable transaction’s age. Before assuming one point in time to be superior to another, we simply compare how near or distantly in time this sale occurred relative to the eﬀective date of this appraisal valuation, which is October 7, 2025; Table 5.3 summarizes relative similar- ity or dissimilarity of each sale to the subject in this element. We will reference this qualitative comparison rating again when reconciling the indications from these comparable sales.

Property rights transferred. It is sometimes necessary to rank and compare the comparable sales by the kind of estate sold—in other words, by the property rights transferred by the sale— if any of the comparable properties was sold subject to a long-term lease or other signiﬁcant encumbering estate. In this set of transactions, number 1 and number 2 were both leased-fee sales, properties sold subject to a long-term lease. According to the seller’s agents, Mr. Brennan and Item 11.a
60 KC Farming Conservation Easement, Central Solano County House Agricultural Consultants
Table 5.3 Qualitative comparison of date of sale,
an element of comparison in set B, before-condition
sales.

No.

A
dj. price
$/ac Date
of sale Acres Similarity
1 12,652 2025-06-26 101.80 most similar
2 9,372 2025-04-07 314.54 more similar
3 14,849 2025-04-07 94.28 more similar
4 13,184 2023-07-21 155.26 less similar
5 15,057 2021-09-03 148.5 least similar
Table 5.4 Qualitative comparison of property rights trans- ferred, an element of comparison in setB, before-condition sales.

No.

Adj. price
$/ac Estate Rank
1 12,652 leased fee, encumbered through 2030 inferior
2 9,372 leased fee, encumbered through 2030 inferior
3 14,849 fee, not lease-encumbered similar
4 13,184 fee, not lease-encumbered similar
5 15,057 fee, not lease-encumbered similar
Mr. Hacket of Brennan, Jewett, Hacket, who brokered both sales from the same seller, the two properties were leased to a hay grower through November 1, 2030. This condition is inferior to the subject’s assumed estate of fee-simple title. The other comparable properties were sold without any such long-term lease encumbrance, ranking similar to the subject in this element of comparison.

Table 5.4 summarizes the rank comparison of each sale in this element, which we label “estate” in our tables.

Size. This comparison element, which we term in full aswhole-property size, exists in this appraisal as a consequence of our choice of the gross acre as the unit of comparison.

Appraisers typically ﬁnd that larger properties generally realize a lower price per acre compared to smaller properties, other factors being equal. This common observation generally holds in large part because there exists a lesser potential pool of buyers for larger properties than smaller ones.

This factor of comparison is applied in this analysis. The subject property, at 94 acres, is not quite bracketed by the comparable sales, which vary in size from 315 acres at the largest to 101 acres at the smallest, exclusive of the subject’s own sale (sale number 3). However, we consider the slightly larger property number 1 and the subject to be in the same size class.

The market’s pricing response for commercial-agriculture properties by whole-property size is complicated by the need for, or beneﬁt of, the property to be large enough to provide enough scale for economical operations; this is balanced, however, in small properties, by the legal homesite allowance (one homesite per legal lot, perhaps modiﬁed by the terms of a conservation easement) being spread over a lesser number of acres compared to larger properties. Overall, the per-unit value beneﬁt to smaller properties generally wins out. Thus, in this comparison, a property smaller than the subject would be superior (other factors being equal) to the subject and thus in this particular Item 11.a
The before-condition: Analysis by the sales-comparison approach to valuation 61 House Agricultural Consultants
Table 5.5 Comparison of whole-
property size, an element of comparison
in set B, before-condition sales.

No.

Adj. price
$/ac Acres Rank
1 12,652 101.80 nearly similar
2 9,372 314.54 inferior
3 14,849 94.28 similar
4 13,184 155.26 inferior
5 15,057 148.5 inferior
Table 5.6 Comparison of location, an element of comparison in set B, before-condition sales.

No.

Adj. price
$/ac Location Rank
1 12,652 Rio Dixon Rd. and Binghampton Rd. similar
2 9,372 Robben Rd. and Binghampton Rd. inferior
3 14,849 subject itself similar
4 13,184 Fry Rd., 1½ miles west of Hwy. 113, closer to Vacaville than subj. superior 5 15,057 Rio Dixon Rd. ½ miles north of subject similar element of comparison rank superior (there are none in this set of sale, however); an approximately similarly sized property ranks similar (one sale, number 1), and a property substantially larger than the 94.28-acre subject is inferior (other factors being equal).

Table 5.5 summarizes the rank comparison of each sale in this element.

Location. Within this comparison element, we have considered all locational inﬂuences on property value. Generally in appraisal it is found that properties located closer to urban population centers and having easier, more-direct access from the area’s public roads are priced higher by the market than more-remote properties, other factors being equal. As all of this set B of comparable properties is drawn from the general neighborhood of the subject property, all are close to similarly situated with respect to overall remoteness from urban centers. Thus, the diﬀerentiation within this set by this factor is modest. Table 5.6 summarizes the rank comparison of each sale in this element.

Land utility. This comparison element is a measure of the quality of a property’s quality for agricultural uses and utility and desirability for all land uses: orchard agriculture, irrigated agriculture in general, and potential alternative agricultural enterprises such as livestock grazing.

Item 11.a
62 KC Farming Conservation Easement, Central Solano County House Agricultural Consultants
Table 5.7 Comparison of land utility, an element of comparison in setB, before-condition sales.

No.

Adj. price
$/ac Land utility Rank
1 12,652 100 % II Capay units, Storie 64 superior
2 9,372 100 % II Capay units, Storie 64 superior
3 14,849 mixture of class-II Capay units, class-III and -IV San Ysidro units of Storie 67
exactly similar—the subject itself
4 13,184 just over ½ class-II, balance class-III and -IV San Ysidro units of Storie 67
slightly superior
5 15,057 100 % class-II, Storie 64 superior
T
able 5.8 Comparison of water supply, an element of
comparison in set B, before-condition sales.

No.

A
dj. price
$/ac W
ater source Rank
1 12,652 MPWD inferior
2 9,372 MPWD inferior
3 14,849 MPWD
and well very slightly inferior
4 13,184 Solano
Irrig. District inferior
5 15,057 MPWD inferior
W
ater supply. We have considered the water supply of each comparable property. The source and quality of a property’s water for irrigation purposes is a key factor evaluated by market participants to diﬀerentiate area farm properties. An available agricultural well is superior to district water only, as it is considered a more-reliable water source compared to district that may have shortages in drought years or may not be in operation during winter and early spring (a nonissue for annual cropping, but a limitation orchardists, as orchards may require water early in the year after a droughty winter). Access to either source is best of all, allowing the operator to choose the less-costly (typically) surface water when it is available. All of the properties in set B have a surface water source similar to the subject’s access to the Main Prairie Water District (MPWD). The subject additionally has an agricultural well, and thus meets the ideal of access to dual sources. The subject’s own sale earlier in 2025, number 3, ranks slightly inferior to the present subject, as the current ownership has recently improved the subject’s irrigation system with some new plumbing that was not present at the time of its sale. Table 5.8 summarizes the rank comparison of each sale in this element.

5.3 Discussion and analysis
Table 5.9 is a comparison grid that summarizes our analysis of set B of sales compared to the subject in its before-easement condition. The subject property has a good-quality shop, which is valuable for agricultural use, while the comparable properties are not similarly improved. However, in each case, we have taken the contributory value of the subject’s building into consideration; after quantitative adjustment (recall table 5.2), the sales are all similar to the subject, meaning that the adjusted price of each sale in table 5.9 reﬂects the price that the comparable property would have been sold for if it had featured improvements similar to the subject’s. Thus, the table does not include a column for building improvements but does include date, estate (property rights transferred in the sale), size, location, land utility, and water supply.

Item 11.a
The before-condition: Analysis by the sales-comparison approach to valuation 63 House Agricultural Consultants
Table 5.9 Comparative analysis of set B transactions compared to the subject property in its before-condition. Each column represents a factor of comparison. a The abbreviation “sl.” means “slightly”.a
No.

Adj. price
$/ac Date of sale Estate Size Lo
cation Utility Water Overall comparison
1 12,652 most similar inferior nearly
similar similar sup
erior inferior inferior
2 9,372 more similar inferior inferior inferior superior inferior strongly inferior 3 14,849 more similar similar similar similar similar sl. inferior very sl. inferior 4 13,184 less similar similar inferior sup
erior sl.
superior inferior inferior
5 15,057 least similar similar inferior similar superior inferior sl. superior T
able 5.9 summarizes this sales comparison. The analysis employs qualitative comparison in the traditional grid format with these comparable transactions; the unit of comparison is per acre.

The rightmost column of the table reconciles the elements of comparison for each comparable transaction, ranking the comparable sale as superior or inferior to the subject overall when all the elements are considered in aggregate. In this reconciliation, we have mirrored the preferences of market participants by placing greatest weight on the most-diﬀerentiating factors in this set of estate (rights transferred) and size.

The sales which are deemed inferior to the subject property present a range of value from number 2 at $9,372 to number 3 (the subject itself, sold a few months ago) at $14,849 dollars per acre. Number 3, the subject’s own sale, is recent enough to be still quite current as of the date of this report. However, all the sales in this set are useful to shed light on the current subject.

As noted and analyzed in table 5.9, both number 1 and number 3 are found to be inferior to the subject but sale 3, being the subject property itself, inarguably is the most similar of the sales to the present subject in a majority of factors, and we therefore establish sale 3, slightly inferior at $14,849, as the lower limit to value for the subject property. This is an exclusive lower bracket, indicating for the subject more than $14,849 dollars per acre. This sale is a very good indicator for the subject.

There is one superior sale, number 5. This one local-neighborhood sale found to be superior— slightly superior—to the subject property, establishes an exclusive upper bracket on the subject at just over $15,000 per acre. Although an older sale, in light of the general stability of the local market for properties similar to the subject, we judge number 5 to be a very good indicator for the subject.

We have thus bracketed the subject property’s before value between $14,849 and $15,057 dollars per acre, with a central tendency at approximately $14,953 per acre. A reasonable reconciliation of these data is a central and rounded value of $15,000 dollars per acre, which in our judgement is representative of how the most probable buyer of the subject would approach the market data and reason about the subject.

5.4 Indication of the before-condition analysis scenario, subject as existing before easement
On the basis of the foregoing, the indicated value of the subject property before the easement is $15,000 dollars per acre, or a lump sum of $1,414,000.

Item 11.a
64 KC Farming Conservation Easement, Central Solano County House Agricultural Consultants
Item 11.a
The after-condition: Analysis by the cost approach to valuation 65 House Agricultural Consultants
6 The after-condition: Analysis by the cost ap-
proach to valuation
The premise of the cost approach is that informed market participants price a whole, or entire, subject property as a sum of identiﬁable components that each contribute value to the whole. Our emphasis in this appraisal is on the subject property’s land, as the subject’s building improvements exist unchanged both before and after the conservation easement. Nevertheless, as a matter of correct appraisal terminology, our method is classiﬁed as a cost approach, due to this approach’s deﬁnition that encompasses component-based valuations.

6.1 Component of 84 acres of the subject’s land within the easement area
The ﬁrst component of the cost approach in this after-condition valuation analysis of the subject property is the subject’ land of the 84-acre easement area, which is analyzed by income analysis.

Due to the combination of the restrictive nature of its conservation easement and area covered by the easement being less than the whole subject property, this land is highly unusual unique in the market area, according to our research. We were unable to ﬁnd any appropriate comparable sales of land with a similar easement encumbrance that also occurred suﬃciently recently to reﬂect current market conditions. While comparable sales of farmland encumbered with a conservation easement exist, the sales are all too old for direct comparison to the subject land (and we lack data for an accurate quantitative adjustment for time). Furthermore, the per-acre indications from such sales would be misleading when applied to this subject land, as those sales are whole properties having each having its entire area encumbered by a conservation easement, whereas this subject land is only a portion of the whole subject property.

Our solution is to turn to income analysis, which allows us to accurately measure the contri- bution of land as a component of a property. Moreover, as the calculation is based market rates of return at the time of each transaction, the diﬀerence in time is addressed. Income analysis can be a good method of comparison to market transactions and an alternative approach to analyzing the subject’s value on a whole-property basis (when that is not possible) if the subject has an income-generating land use or is is a component of a combination of land types, as is the case in this instance. Such evaluation is used by market participants who take an investment approach to evaluating properties, which we judge to be an applicable probable buyer motivation in this instance. This method addresses the restrictions of the conservation easement by analyzing the subject’s standard operating income in its current land and likely future continuing land use (as allowed by the easement), which is irrigated pasture, and by utilizing a capitalization rate derived from agricultural properties with similar conservation-easement restrictions.

6.1.1 Comparable sales for capitalization rate
Table 6.1 lists our supplementary comparable sales, set I, which we have utilized to derive a capitalization rate representative of the market. All are farmland properties encumbered by a conservation easement in the subject’s market area.

Details on saleI1. Grantor.—Haag Living Trust.

Grantee.—Sidhu Farms, LLC.

Item 11.a
66 KC Farming Conservation Easement, Central Solano County House Agricultural Consultants
Table 6.1 Set I of supplementary comparable sales for deriving a capitalization rate. All No. Date Location Indicated capitalization rate Remarks I1 2023-10-27 Esparto,
Yolo Cty. (62.25)(500)−6,012)
975,000 =

0.02575736 Based on market rent for 62.25 ac
Capay farmland @ $500/ac, less
landlord’s expenses (taxes and in-
surance) of $6,012, divided by price
allocated to land.

I2 2021-04-15 Yolo Bypass, Yolo Cty. ‘410)(300)−17,201) 2,336,000 =

0.04529054 Market rent for 410 ac @ 300 ac
irrigated pasture @ $300/ac, less
landlord’s expenses (taxes and in-
surance) of $17,201, divided by
price.

I3 2018-09-05 Hay Road, Solano Cty. ‘125)(400)−6,985)
875,000 =

0.04916039 Market rent for 125 ac farmland
@ $400/ac, less landlord’s expenses
(taxes and insurance) of $6,985, di-
vided by price. Listed June 2024
for $950,000; the listing expired
unsold, indicating stability in this
property’s market value.
—— —— —— ——
– – – 0.045 (4.5 percent) Reconciliation of the three sales’ rate indications.

Date recorded.—October 27, 2023. 56
Land area.—68.74 ac.

Sale price.—$1,600,000, or $23,276 dollars per acre.

Location.—County Road 87, just outside of Esparto, Yolo County.

APNs.—049-140-018, -019, -020, and -021.

Land & site characteristics.—62.25 acres were planted with walnuts at time of sale; however, the walnuts had not been actively farmed from 2021 onwards. The soils are a mixture of 23 percent class-I and 77 percent class-II units. Water source is from groundwater (wells).

Conservation easement.—Sold encumbered by a perpetual conservation easement with Yolo Land Trust. Appraiser Henry House was involved in the establishment of the easement in 2018 and discussed the easement extensively with Yolo Land Trust at the time. The major easement restrictions are as follows: The property may be sold only as a unit. All development rights are ex- tinguished. Dwellings and other buildings are limited to a single reserved site and building envelope of 4.0 acres with square-footage limitations. All commercial uses and conservation-incompatible land uses are disallowed, in essence, limiting the property’s economic use to crop agriculture, non- conﬁnement livestock agriculture (excepting horse boarding), limited agriculture-related industry (i.e., produce packing), and accessory residences (existing dwelling and future labor housing).

Improvements.—Improvements at time of sale consisted of a high-quality dwelling of 1,900 square feet, outbuildings, and an old walnut orchard. The orchard was in poor condition and near the end of its economic life at time of sale, while the dwelling was in very good condition. We estimate that improvements contributed $625,000 to the sale price. Thus, we estimate an allocation of the sale price to bare land (exclusive of improvements—orchards and buildings) of $975,000, or $14,184 dollars per acre.

Details on saleI2. Grantor.—Running W Land, LLC.

Grantee.—Frank Webb Properties, Inc.

Item 11.a
The after-condition: Analysis by the cost approach to valuation 67 House Agricultural Consultants
Date recorded.—2021-04-15, document 2021R0015139 in Yolo County records. Land area.— 410.0 acres. Sale price.—$2,336,000, or $5,698/acre.

Buyer motivation.—Agriculture (cattle grazing)..

Location.—Yolo Bypass, unincorporated Yolo County.

APNs.—033-190-035, 033-190-037 in Yolo County.

Land & site characteristics.—Level, low-elevation land physically typical of the Yolo Bypass area.

Conservation easement.—Encumbered by a wildlife-habitat easement, granted to Wildlife Her- itage Foundation, that, in essence, limits its land use to irrigated pasture, grazing, and recreation; cropping is not allowed. The land use at time of sale was irrigated pasture.

Improvements.—Site improvements for cattle in poor condition, old residence in poor condition; minimal contributory value.

Remarks.—The buyer undertook numerous improvements for cattle ranching consisting of new fencing, new stock troughs, corrals and other handling equipment at a headquarters area, etc.

Details on saleI3. Grantor.—Brighton Land, LLC.

Grantee.—Hay Properties, LLC.

Date recorded.—September 5, 2018.

Conservation easement.—Habitat-type easement similar to the subject easement, precluding trees and vines but otherwise generally allow agricultural uses. The easement does not allow a building site.

Improvements.—Limited to perimeter fencing and other site improvements. No buildings.

Land area.—125.12 acres.

Sale price.—$875,000.

Location.—Hay Road, Solano County.

APNs.—0142-310-080.

Land & site characteristics.—Open land with mixed class-II and class-III soils in use at time of sale as certiﬁed-organic irrigated pasture. Irrigation supplied by a well.

Remarks.—In June 2024 this property was again on the market, listed for $950,000. The listing expired without a sale, indicating stability in this property’s market value. Recomputing the capitalization rate from a hypothetical sale price of $950,000, with slightly increased landlord’s expenses of $7,285 annually, we obtain a rate of 0.04496352. This should be interpreted as a lower- bound indication of the capitalization rate, as no sale occurred at that price, indicating that the property’s recent market value is less than $950,000.

6.1.2 Indicated capitalization rate
The three sales in table 6.1 indicate varying rates. In reconciling the rate indications from the three sales, we prefer number 2 and number 3 to number 1, the former two of which are more similar in character to the subject, especially number 2, which is more recent. Property 1’s lower rate is explained by contributory homesite value and a desirable Capay Valley location, not applicable to the subject’s situation. A reasonable reconciliation of these market data is a rate of 0.045.

On the basis of the foregoing and as stated by table 6.1, our chosen capitalization rate is 0.045.

6.1.3 Capitalized value of the subject 84 acres
Our method is direct capitalization of the property’s net rental income to an assumed landlord.

While the subject property is currently owner-operated, analyzing the subject as well as the com- parable properties that are the source of market data on a rental basis reduces variation in the Item 11.a
68 KC Farming Conservation Easement, Central Solano County House Agricultural Consultants
Table 6.2 Income-capitalization analysis of subject’s 84 acres of land subject to easement restric- tions.

Line item Computation Remark
income:
84 acres irrigated farmland + 26,040 Imputed average annual rent, cash basis or cash- equivalent share, at $310 per acre based on current area data.
expense: insurance −1,500 Minimal policy for a passive landlord; tenant carries business insurance.
expense: property taxes −742.23 Portion of the subject’s taxes allocated to the 84 acrs, only.
—— —— ——
i,
net income = $23,797.77 Standardized annual net operating income for the 84 acres.
r, capitalization rate ÷ 0.045 Divided by capitalization rate. v, indicated value (exact). = 528,839 v = i/r, the capitalized-value formula applied. v, indicated value. = 529,000 v = i/r, rounded to the nearest $1,000. income-stream model; for this reason such a rental basis is the most typical method of analysis for rural properties in commercial agricultural use. This ﬁgure of each property’s net operating income to its landlord, is net of property taxes and a landlord’s insurance policy; the tenant is assumed to pay for the variable costs of agricultural operations—irrigation, ground preparation, etc.—as well as routine property maintenance, e.g., weed control in buﬀers and yards, well servicing, and miscellaneous upkeep, as is typically speciﬁed by agricultural leases in the market area.

Table 6.2 shows the subject’s income analysis and resulting value indication by the income- capitalization formula, which isv = i/r, meaning that value equals income divided by capitalization rate.

The subject’s net operating income is its imputed rental income as if under standard man- agement, less property taxes and landlord’s property insurance (a minimal policy for a passive landlord44 This is the income from the easement-encumbered farmland, only; the subject’s build- ings and unencumbered land are not part of this subject land component currently under analysis.

6.1.4 Indicated value
On the basis of the foregoing and as shown by table 6.2, the indicated value of the easement area’s 84 acres of land, as a component of the whole subject, is a lump sum of $529,000.

6.2 Component of 10.28 acres of the subject’s land outside the easement area
Table 5.1 recapitulates the comparable sales of set S, introduced previously. These sales are adjusted for this after-condition comparison, which we have indicated by giving the set a new name: this new set of comparable sales as adjusted for after-easement analysis is designated set A.

The property numbers are the same as before. Table 6.4 explains the adjusted transaction prices that change the S sales to A sales that we will use for further analysis.

The
tenant is assumed to maintain a standard business-insurance policy. Agricultural leases typical of the area require44 the tenant to carry such insurance with the landlord named as an additional insured.

Item 11.a
The after-condition: Analysis by the cost approach to valuation 69 House Agricultural Consultants
Table 6.3 Set A of comparable sales.

See table 6.4.*

6.2.1 Unit of comparison: Acre
In the sales-comparison method, the ﬁrst stage of analysis is choosing the unit of comparison between the subject property and the comparable sales that will best reveal the patterns in the data. We have chosen to compare properties by the acre and thus will report the sale prices of each comparable property for analysis in units of dollars per acre (whole-property area, often called gross acres), in reﬂection of the preferences of market participants for agricultural properties of similar scale to the subject.45

6.2.2 Elements of comparison and adjustments
The next stage of the sales-comparison method is the elements of comparison. We have identiﬁed the salient elements of comparison that are signiﬁcant in the real-estate market of the subject property and that are diﬀerentiating among the sales that we have chosen for comparison with the subject in this valuation.

Those elements of comparison that are substantially diﬀerentiating in this valuation and which we have thus chosen detailed discussion are, in brief, date of sale, property rights, size, location, land utility, water supply, and contributory value of building improvements.

Adjustments to transactions prior to comparison with the subject. Before beginning an analysis of comparable sales, it is customary to consider whether any numerical adjustments to sale prices are appropriate, prior to assembling a sales-comparison grid, for any of these elements of comparison—in other words, to consider whether the most useful value indications for the subject property from the comparable sales are the actual prices paid for each comparable property or are those prices that would have been paid for the each comparable property if it had been more similar to the subject in one or more property characteristics.

In this report we do not apply any time or market-conditions adjustments, but we do apply an adjustment for improvements to obtain the bare-land price of each comparable transaction, as appropriate for this cost approach to valuation that examines land and improvements separately.

No time/market conditions adjustment. While two of the sales could be considered “old”, sales activity in the neighborhood has been modest for numerous years and conditions have been largely stable for open-land properties similar to the subject. Thus, all these sales, including the two older sales, remain useful in this appraisal and have been included due to their geographic In
sales comparison, various units such as a gross acre of land, a square foot of building area, etc., are possible. The45 most appropriate choice of a unit of comparison is that which best reveals patterns in the market data between similar properties to best shed light on the subject property. The gross acre of whole-property area is common in rural appraisal, reﬂecting well the habits of buyers and sellers who commonly negotiate sales in dollars per acre.

Item 11.a
70 KC Farming Conservation Easement, Central Solano County House Agricultural Consultants
Table 6.4 Quantitative adjustment to set A sales to obtain their land-only prices.

No.
p, price before adj.
$ A
cres
b,
Contribution of buildings
$
p−b,
adj. price
$
A
dj. price
$/ac
1 1,140,000 102 0 1,140,000 11,198
2 2,800,000 315 0 2,800,000 8,902
3 1,400,000 94 148,000 1,252,000 13,280
4 1,899,000 155 0 1,899,000 12,231
5 2,650,000 149 562,000 2,088,000 14,061
pro
ximity. We do not have suﬃcient market evidence to accurately quantify a mathematical adjustment for the time diﬀerence spanned by this set of sales; thus, a quantitative adjustment for time would introduce excessive variation into the analysis. Consequently, we have preferred to consider the element of time qualitatively in the comparisons that follow.

Adjustment to obtain bare-land prices. In this sales comparison, we are analyzing the subject’s land as a component of the whole subject property, considered as if separate from its improvements. In other words, for this sales-comparison analysis, we consider the subject’s land as if it were bare and compare it to the that component of each of the sales’ prices attributable to land. Since some of the sales included buildings, we therefore make a dollar adjustment to the various sales to obtain a bare-land price indication from each. The subject property, which is comparable sale 3, was sold with a metal shop of good quality, whose current contributory value to the subject, and thus also its contributory value to the subject’s recent sale, is $148,000 (recall discussion in section 5.2.1.2, page 58). This lump sum is deducted from sale 3. The other property sold with buildings, number 5, likewise is subjected to a deduction equal to their contribution to the sale. The other three sales, with no buildings as sold, require no adjustment to obtain their land-only prices.

This simple mathematical procedure is performed and tabulated in table 5.2. The adjustment is downward or zero for all the sales. The adjusted land-only price for the sales comparison that follows is the result of column p minus column b as shown.

Qualitative elements of comparison. As noted, we have identiﬁed the salient elements of comparison that are signiﬁcant in the real-estate market of the subject property and that are dif- ferentiating among the sales that we have chosen for comparison with the subject in this valuation, ﬁnding it appropriate to adjust the comparable sales for building improvements before further analysis of this set A. Taking the transaction prices adjusted thus (table 5.2) as the base for subsequent stages of analysis, we next consider the qualitative comparison factors of date of sale, size, location, land utility, water supply, and prior easements. Each of these elements is evaluated qualitatively in comparison to the subject property, and the sale is recorded as being superior, inferior, or similar more-or-less to the subject property in that particular element. The qualitative elements in detail are as follows.

Date of sale. In this current-value appraisal, this comparison element is a straightforward measurement of the comparable transaction’s age. Before assuming one point in time to be su- perior to another, we simply compare how near or distantly in time this sale occurred relative to the eﬀective date of this appraisal valuation, which is October 7, 2025; Table 6.5 summarizes relative similarity or dissimilarity of each sale to the subject in this element. We will reference this qualitative comparison rating again when reconciling the indications from these comparable sales.

Item 11.a
The after-condition: Analysis by the cost approach to valuation 71 House Agricultural Consultants
Table 6.5 Qualitative comparison of date of sale,
an element of comparison in set A, after-condition
sales.

No.

Adj. price
$/ac Date of sale Acres Similarity
1 11,198 2025-06-26 101.80 most similar
2 8,902 2025-04-07 314.54 more similar
3 13,280 2025-04-07 94.28 more similar
4 12,231 2023-07-21 155.26 less similar
5 14,061 2021-09-03 148.5 least similar
Table 6.6 Qualitative comparison of property rights trans- ferred, an element of comparison in set A, after-condition sales.

No.

Adj. price
$/ac Estate Rank
1 11,198 leased fee, encumbered through 2030 inferior
2 8,902 leased fee, encumbered through 2030 inferior
3 13,280 fee, not lease-encumbered similar
4 12,231 fee, not lease-encumbered similar
5 14,061 fee, not lease-encumbered similar
Property rights transferred. It is sometimes necessary to rank and compare the comparable sales by the kind of estate sold—in other words, by the property rights transferred by the sale— if any of the comparable properties was sold subject to a long-term lease or other signiﬁcant encumbering estate. In this set of transactions, number 1 and number 2 were both leased-fee sales, properties sold subject to a long-term lease. According to the seller’s agents, Mr. Brennan and Mr. Hacket of Brennan, Jewett, Hacket, who brokered both sales from the same seller, the two properties were leased to a a hay grower through November 1, 2030. This condition is inferior to the subject’s assumed estate of fee-simple title. The other comparable properties were sold without any such long-term lease encumbrance, ranking similar to the subject in this element of comparison.

Table 6.6 summarizes the rank comparison of each sale in this element, which we label “estate” in our tables.

Size. This comparison element, which we term in full aswhole-property size, exists in this appraisal as a consequence of our choice of the gross acre as the unit of comparison.

No.

Adj. price
$/ac Acres Rank
1 11,198 101.80 nearly similar
2 8,902 314.54 inferior
3 13,280 94.28 similar
4 12,231 155.26 inferior
5 14,061 148.5 inferior
Table 6.8 Comparison of location, an element of comparison in set A, after-condition sales.

No.

Adj. price
$/ac Location Rank
1 11,198 Rio Dixon Rd. and Binghampton Rd. similar
2 8,902 Robben Rd. and Binghampton Rd. inferior
3 13,280 subject itself similar
4 12,231 Fry Rd., 1½ miles west of Hwy. 113, closer to Vacaville than subj. superior 5 14,061 Rio Dixon Rd. ½ miles north of subject similar allowance (one homesite per legal lot, perhaps modiﬁed by the terms of a conservation easement) being spread over a lesser number of acres compared to larger properties. Overall, the per-unit value beneﬁt to smaller properties generally wins out.

In this comparison, we are careful to remember that although this particular land component of the subject is only 10.28 acres, this land is tied to the whole subject property of 94.28 acres.

The appropriate reference point for the comparison is the size of the whole subject property, not the size of this component land zone, which is not separately saleable from the rest of the subject.

Thus, in this comparison, a property smaller than the 94.28-acre whole subject would be superior (other factors being equal) to the subject and thus in this particular element of comparison rank superior (there are none in this set of sale, however); an approximately similarly sized property ranks similar (one sale, number 1), and a property substantially larger than the 94.28-acre subject is inferior (other factors being equal).

Table 6.7 summarizes the rank comparison of each sale in this element.

Location. Within this comparison element, we have considered all locational inﬂuences on property value. Generally in appraisal it is found that properties located closer to urban population centers and having easier, more-direct access from the area’s public roads are priced higher by the market than more-remote properties, other factors being equal. As all of this set A of comparable properties is drawn from the general neighborhood of the subject property, all are close to similarly situated with respect to overall remoteness from urban centers. Thus, the diﬀerentiation within this set by this factor is modest. Table 6.8 summarizes the rank comparison of each sale in this element.

Item 11.a
The after-condition: Analysis by the cost approach to valuation 73 House Agricultural Consultants
Table 6.9 Comparison of land utility, an element of comparison in set A, after-condition sales.

No.

Adj. price
$/ac Land utility Rank
1 11,198 100 % II Capay units, Storie 64 very superior
2 8,902 100 % II Capay units, Storie 64 very superior
3 13,280 mixture of class-II Capay units, class-III and -IV San Ysidro units of Storie 67 superior 4 12,231 just over ½ class-II, balance class-III and -IV San Ysidro units of Storie 67 superior 5 14,061 100 % class-II, Storie 64 very superior
Land utility. This comparison element is a measure of the quality of a property’s quality for agricultural uses and utility and desirability for all land uses: orchard agriculture, irrigated agriculture in general, and potential alternative agricultural enterprises such as livestock grazing.

We have drawn on the USDA’s soil-survey data to qualitatively rank each comparable property in this factor, relative to the subject, ﬁnding that these comparable properties present a range bracketing the subject. The diﬀerentiation is modest compared to other factors, as all properties considered are suitable for the orchard and ﬁeld typical of the area in the perception of market participants. This comparison is for the 10.28 acres of the subject property’s land surrounding its building site on Main Prairie Road. Although no exact map of this land area has been provided to us, from is description, it appears to correspond largely to a zone of class-IV Solano loam of approximately ten-and-a-hand acres adjoining Main Prairie Road and the subject’s south border.

Thus, the subject’s soils in this comparison are this area of class-IV Solano soil, perhaps with also a trivial amount of class-III San Ysidro sandy loam, thick surface , 0 to 2 percent slopes . This area is inferior to the subject property taken as a whole, thus inferior to sale 3, which is the whole subject property, itself.

Table 6.9 summarizes the rank comparison of each sale in this element. As the table shows, this subject land is not bracketed.

W ater supply. We have considered the water supply of each comparable property. The source and quality of a property’s water for irrigation purposes is a key factor evaluated by market participants to diﬀerentiate area farm properties. An available agricultural well is superior to district water only, as it is considered a more-reliable water source compared to district that may have shortages in drought years or may not be in operation during winter and early spring (a nonissue for annual cropping, but a limitation orchardists, as orchards may require water early in the year after a droughty winter). Access to either source is best of all, allowing the operator to choose the less-costly (typically) surface water when it is available. All of the properties in set B have a surface water source similar to the subject’s access to the Main Prairie Water District (MPWD). The subject additionally has an agricultural well, and thus meets the ideal of access to dual sources. The subject’s own sale earlier in 2025, number 3, ranks slightly inferior to the present subject, as the current ownership has recently improved the subject’s irrigation system with some new plumbing that was not present at the time of its sale. Table 6.10 summarizes the rank comparison of each sale in this element. _A

6.2.3 Discussion and analysis
Table 6.11 is a comparison grid that summarizes our analysis of set A of sales compared to the subject land in after-easement condition. This is a bare-land comparison (recall table 6.4), mean- ing that the adjusted price of each sale in table 6.11 reﬂects the price paid for that comparable Item 11.a
74 KC Farming Conservation Easement, Central Solano County House Agricultural Consultants
Table 6.10 Comparison of water supply, an element of
comparison in set A, after-condition sales.

No.

Adj. price
$/ac Water source Rank
1 11,198 MPWD inferior
2 8,902 MPWD inferior
3 13,280 MPWD
and well very slightly inferior
4 12,231 Solano
Irrig. District inferior
5 14,061 MPWD inferior
T
able 6.11 Comparative analysis of set A transactions compared to the subject property in its before-condition. Each column represents a factor of comparison. a The abbreviation “sl.” means “slightly”.a
No.

A
dj. price
$/ac Date
of sale Estate Size Lo
cation Utilit
y W
ater Ov
erall comparison
1 11,198 most
similar inferior nearly
similar similar v
ery superior inferior inferior
2 8,902 more
similar inferior inferior inferior v
ery superior inferior strongly inferior
3 13,280 more
similar similar similar similar sup
erior sl. inferior sl. superior
4 12,231 less
similar similar inferior sup
erior superior inferior inferior
5 14,061 least
similar similar inferior similar v
ery superior inferior superior
prop
erty’s land, only, exclusive of any improvements present—as appropriate to this analysis of the subject’s land component. Thus, the table does not include a column for building improvements but does include date, estate (property rights transferred in the sale), size, location, land utility, and water supply.

Table 5.9 summarizes this sales comparison. The analysis employs qualitative comparison in the traditional grid format with these comparable transactions; the unit of comparison is per acre.

The sales which are deemed inferior to the subject property present a range of value from number 2 at $8,902 to number 4 at $12,231 dollars per acre. An exclusive lower bracket on the subject of $12,231 dollars per acre is indicated.

There are two superior sales, number 3 and number 5. As noted and analyzed in table 5.9, both number 3 and number 5 are found to be superior to the subject; and we therefore establish the lower sale 3, slightly superior at $13,280, as the upper limit to value for the subject property. This is an exclusive upper bracket, indicating for the subject less than $13,280 dollars per acre. This sale is a very good indicator for the subject.

We have thus bracketed the subject property land of this component between $12,231 and $13,280 dollars per acre, with a central tendency at approximately $12,755 per acre. We strongly prefer sale 3, which, being the whole subject property itself, is inarguably the most similar of the sales to the present subject’s land component in a majority of factors. A reasonable reconciliation Item 11.a
The after-condition: Analysis by the cost approach to valuation 75 House Agricultural Consultants
Table 6.12 Summation of the cost approach.
+ Contributory category Value

10.28 acres of remainder land not subject to easement’s land-use restrictions $134,000 + 84 acres of land subject to easement’s land-use restrictions $529,000 + improvements: shop building and site improvements $148,000 = total analyzed value of fee estate after easement $811,000 of these data is a central and rounded value of $13,000 dollars per acre, which in our judgement is representative of how the most probable buyer of the subject would approach the market data and reason about the subject.

6.3 Component of subject’s improvements
The next and ﬁnal component of the cost approach in this after-condition valuation analysis of the subject property is the subject’s improvements, which we have already analyzed by the method of depreciated replacement cost previously on page 58. In other words, we have computed the contributory value based on the model of replacement-cost-new, including all proper direct and indirect costs of construction, then adjusted the replacement costs downward for all forms of depreciation.46 Recall the discussion on page 58, which we need not repeat.

As stated on page 58, the contributory value of this component is a lump sum of $148,000.

6.4 Indication for the whole subject by the cost approach The indicated value of the subject property by the cost approach is the sum of the foregoing contributory components, tallied in table 6.12. The total is $811,000.

Our conclusion is appropriately rounded for a transaction on the scale of the subject property.

On the basis of the foregoing, the indicated value of the subject property’s after-condition is $811,000.

Depreciation of improvements primarily considers condition—deterioration due to the passage of time, such as the46 dilapidation of a building due to its age—but also includes a consideration of functional and economic obsolescence.

Item 11.a
76 KC Farming Conservation Easement, Central Solano County House Agricultural Consultants
Item 11.a
Conclusion of valuation 77
House Agricultural Consultants
7 Conclusion of valuation
This appraisal is a valuation of the fair market value of a conservation easement. The analysis completed to this point is of a fee estate in the subject property. Thus, ﬁnal reconciliation stage of this appraisal is to complete the before-and-after method to ﬁnd the value of the conservation easement from the two condition scenarios of the subject’s fee estate.

7.1 Diﬀerencebetweenbefore-conditionandafter-condition
fee indications—value of easement,v = b − a
Recall that the before-and-after method determines the easement’s fair market value as a formula, b−a, which is the diﬀerence between the before-condition value indication,b, and the after-condition value indication, a, of the subject property. For this subject easement, we have before-condition fee estate’s analysis (page 57): b = $1,414,000 after-condition
fee estate’s analysis (page 65): a = $811,000
diﬀerence
of the two conditions—value of easement: v = b−a = $603,000.

On
the basis of the foregoing, the ﬁnal value (fair market value of the subject easement) is $603,000.

Our certiﬁed ﬁnal opinion of value follows, after concluding discussion.

7.2 Concluding discussion

7.2.1 Easement percentage, or ratio of value of easement to value of unencumbered subject, v/b
For allocation purposes (for example, for allocating the proceeds of any future payment made for an eminent-domain taking of the subject property) and as an informational statistic, we provide the ratio of the value of the easement to the value of the unencumbered subject property, that is, the value of the subject easement,v, divided by our ﬁnding,b, of the before-condition when we analyzed the subject’s fee estate:v/b. This ratio is 603/1,414 (exact fraction), or 42.64 percent (rounded to the nearest 0.01). We suggest basing any future calculations on the fraction for accuracy.47

7.2.2 Appropriateness and accuracy of the techniques and quantity of the evidence
The concluding stage of our appraisal process is to take a ﬁnal look back at the valuation method to assess how the path of reasoning that we have followed has shed light on the appraisal problem that motivated this report. Before opining the ﬁnal conclusion of value, then, let us weigh the appropriateness and accuracy of the techniques and quantity of evidence that we have employed in our analyses.

The
percentage is rounded because it would need inﬁnitely many decimal digits to be exact, due to prime numbers other47 than two or ﬁve in the ratio’s denominator.

Item 11.a
78 KC Farming Conservation Easement, Central Solano County House Agricultural Consultants
An appraisal technique can be said to be appropriate if it models the behavior of market par- ticipants evaluating similar properties. It is common for buyers and sellers of agricultural and rural properties in the market area to base their price negotiations primarily on direct comparison with other similar whole properties. This is the premise of the sales-comparison approach. Our interviews with brokers active in the area and other market participants within the scope of this appraisal and for previous appraisals have indicated that a whole-property approach is most typi- cal when reasonably similar whole properties that have been recently sold are available for market participants to reference—that is, comparable sales similarly similarly improved, with the same signiﬁcant features of the subject property found together in the comparable properties. Appro- priately, then, this is the approach taken for this appraisal for the before-easement scenario of valuation analysis. That was not the case, however, in this instance, in the after-easement valua- tion scenario due to the paucity of sales of area properties similarly encumbered by conservation easements as restrictive as the subject’s easement (which prohibits the orchard crops typical of the subject’s neighborhood). Thus, it was necessary to analyze the subject property as by a diﬀerent method from whole-property direct comparison.

It is also observed that, when multiple markedly diﬀerent land areas—the subject has multiple land blocks—are included within the same subject property, buyers and sellers of agricultural properties in the area may base their price negotiations on comparison with other reasonably similar properties for each land area separately. This behavior, is appropriately modeled by zonal paritioning of the subject’s land into zones of value, which method formally falls under the rubric of the cost approach. For the subject property under the proposed conservation easement, this situation exists as a consequence of the easement area being smaller than the whole subject property; thus; the zones of value are two: (1) the easement area of about 84 acres with substantial limitations on agriculture to achieve the easement’s habitat-conservation purpose, which we have valued by income analysis, and (2) and the remaining land not so restricted, though tied to the whole subject property, for which we have employed sales comparison. Thus, we ﬁnd our choice to include this component-based method of valuation analysis appropriate in this appraisal. We emphasize that while our approach to valuation is classiﬁed as a cost approach, it is thoroughly based on sales comparison and income analysis.

A reasonable measure of accuracy is to evaluate how closely do our value conclusions allow us to rank the subject property within the market for area properties with the same highest and best use, which we can broadly summarize as irrigated ﬁeld-crop agriculture, with potential for conversion to other cropping enterprises (such as fruit or nut orchards—before easement, only—or to irrigated pasture—regardless of the easement) as suits operator preference and changing economic conditions.

In our analyses, we have employed elements of comparison commonly evaluated by buyers and sellers of agricultural properties suitable for similar uses as the subject in the subject’s market area. These elements—location, whole-property size, agricultural productivity, etc.—are all key considerations of buyers and sellers in this market. These are well-modeled by our sales-comparison approach to valuation that incorporates both quantitative and qualitative analysis in both scenarios of analysis with respect to the subject easement, before and after.

We conclude that our valuation of the subject property by our sales-comparison and income methods within the rubric of the sales-comparison approach (before-condition) or cost approach (after-condition stage of analysis) is credible as we have employed methods recognized by appraisal- literature authorities as well as market participants, although our conclusions could be aﬀected by additional speciﬁc data on the subject property if such data become available.

As to the quantity of evidence, we have made a thorough search of publicly available sales data and other market evidence speciﬁcally within the subject’s neighborhood as well as its market area at large. We have spoken to brokers and other market participants and consequently have good reason to believe that our search has been comprehensive and our understanding of market participants’ motivations thorough. The resulting selection of comparable sales was a set of ﬁve Item 11.a
Conclusion of valuation 79
House Agricultural Consultants
transactions (all bona ﬁde consummated sales) in the subject’s market area are considered, all of which would have been highly relevant to market participants seeking a property similar to the subject.

On the basis of the foregoing, we aﬃrm our conclusion of $603,000, which relies on sales comparison and the before-and-after method. Our certiﬁed ﬁnal opinion of value follows.

7.2.3 Exposure and marketing time
It is common (though optional) in appraisal to opine the subject property’s marketing time and exposure time.48
Having surveyed recently closed sales, current listings, and other market signs of absorption rate for properties similar to the subject, we opine marketing time of six to twelve months for the subject property.

Similarly, we opine exposure time of six to twelve months for the subject property.

N.B.—These opinions are about the subject property, i.e., the land underlying the subject easement that is the appraised interest of this report. Such easement interests are rarely marketed and exposed in the subject’s market in the sense of these terms. Thus, we consider the marketing and exposure time of the subject easement to be undeﬁned.

Marketing time in appraisal is the length of time following the eﬀective date of valuation that would have been required48 to sell a property at its opined market value. Exposure time is the length of time that some property is marketed prior to its sale. Thus, in an appraisal, it is a hypothetical period of marketing the subject property that would have preceded the eﬀective date of valuation—i.e., in this appraisal, the length of time for which the subject would have been listed and actively marketed preceding 2025-10-07 such that a sale would have been realized on that date at its opined market value.

Item 11.a
80 KC Farming Conservation Easement, Central Solano County House Agricultural Consultants
Item 11.a
Certiﬁed ﬁnal opinion of value 81
House Agricultural Consultants
8 Certiﬁed ﬁnal opinion of value
The only value for the subject property opined by this report is that below. Our opinion of the fair market value of the subject property as described herein, a premise of: current fair market value (highest price, per deﬁnition) for an easement under the premise of value diminution to the fee estate (before-and-after method), with the subject’s land as-is in physical condition, subject to a hypothetical condition regarding legal status of the conservation easement. for an interest of: a proposed perpetual conservation easement as described herein as of: October 7, 2025.
is: $603,000 United States dollars.

Henry
House Gregory
A. House, AFM, ARA, CPAg
California
license no. AG-3010876
Each appraiser that prepared this report certiﬁes:

To the best of my knowledge and belief, the statements of fact in this report are true and correct.

The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the stated assumptions and limiting conditions contained in my working ﬁle and are my personal, unbiased, professional analyses, opinions, and conclusions. I have no present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this report. I have no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved.

Neither my compensation nor my engagement in this appraisal assignment have been not contingent upon a predetermined value or direction in value favoring the cause of the client, the amount of the value opined, attainment of a stipulated result, or occurrence of a subsequent event, or any other predetermined outcome. I have performed no services regarding the subject property in the past three years for the client or any other party. I have made a personal inspection of the property that is the subject of this report on 2025-08-11 (ﬁrst and main inspection) and 2025-10-07 (ﬁnal inspection). No one other than myself prepared the analyses, conclusions, and opinions concerning real estate that are set forth in this appraisal report. My analyses, opinions, and conclusions have been developed, and this report has been prepared, in conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice and in conformity with, and subject to, the Professional Code of Ethics and the Standards of Professional Practice of the American Society of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers. No other party was involved in the preparation of this report or the opinions and analyses set forth herein.

Our ﬁnal opinion of value above is conditioned as described in section 13.2 (page 94) and subject to the deﬁnitions included in this report, all other particulars described in the scope of work, and this certiﬁcation. All assumptions listed in section 13.2 were believed valid by us at the time this report was published. If any are subsequently found invalid, our opined value and all other ﬁndings of this report are invalid and may not be used for any purpose. This appraisal report is based on knowledge available to the appraisers at the time of its issue. If additional information becomes available at a later date, our opinion of value could be aﬀected or the analyses in this report could be determined to be invalid.

Item 11.a
82 KC Farming Conservation Easement, Central Solano County House Agricultural Consultants
The value opined by this report applies to the appraised interest in the entire subject property, only. This report is not valid if it has been altered in any way by a party other than the appraisers.

This report and the opinion of value above are not valid unless each appraiser has signed above.

This report is a completed, ﬁnal work product. This report is the only published revision of this appraisal. Please heed the notice about electronic signing explained in the appendices of this report, page 96. Contact House Agricultural Consultants to verify the authenticity of this report’s signed certiﬁcation.

Item 11.a
Sources referenced 83
House Agricultural Consultants
9 Sources referenced
The sources of data employed in the analyses in this appraisal included the appraisers’ ﬁles, knowl- edge, and experience from appraisal and agricultural consulting in the area (see the list of qualiﬁca- tions in the appendices of this report, page 159). Speciﬁc research performed for this assignment is detailed in section 4.4 (page 50). Additionally, appropriate published sources have been referenced in the preparation of this appraisal. These include:
– California Chapter of the American Society of Farm Managers & Rural Appraisers. Trends in Agricultural Land and Lease Values, annual editions of 2005 through 2025. This book has been published annually since 1990; each annual issue is published in the spring to summarize changes to the California’s agricultural-land market in the preceding year, reporting typical transaction prices observed by region with trend analysis by experts in each region.49 – California State Board of Equalization.Assessor’s Handbook: Section 531—Residential Build- ing Costs and Assessor’s Handbook: Section 534—Rural Building Costs(various annual editions).

State Board of Equalization (P.O. Box 942879, Sacramento, CA 94279), various years.50 – Hasey, Janine K.; Jarvis-Shean, Katherine; Milliron, Luke; Hanson, Brad; Pierce, Curt; Gyawaly, Sudan; Murdock, Jeremy; Goodrich, Brittney. 2022 Sample Costs to Establish and Produce English Walnuts: In the Sacramento Valley—Micro Sprinkler Irrigated. University of Cal- ifornia Cooperative Extension, University of California Agricultural Issues Center, and U.C. Davis Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 2022. – Kutner, Nachtsheim, Neter, and Li. Applied Linear Statistical Models, 5th edition. McGraw- Hill Irwin, 2005.
– Marshall & Swift (a CoreLogic brand). Marshall & Swift Valuation Service. CoreLogic, 40 Paciﬁca, Suite 900, Irvine, CA 92618.51
– Moselle, Ben. National Building Cost Manual annual series. Craftsman Book Company, various years.
– ParcelQuest (corporate author). ParcelQuest Online (data service providing county public- records data on real property). ParcelQuest, 193 Blue Ravine Road, Suite 120, Folsom, CA 95630.52 – The R Project (Vienna, Austria). R: A language and environment for statistical computing.

Computer software, 2022. R is a language and environment for statistical computing and graphics, providing a wide variety of statistical (linear and nonlinear modelling, classical statistical tests, time-series analysis, etc.), available in source-code form Software under the terms of the Free Software Foundation’sGNU General Public License in source-code form.53 ⟨https://calasfmra.com/ag-land-trends⟩.49
⟨www.boe.ca.gov/proptaxes/ahcont.htm⟩.50
⟨www.corelogic.com/solutions/marshall-swift.aspx⟩.51
⟨https://www.parcelquest.com⟩.52
⟨https://www.R-project.org⟩.53
Item 11.a
84 KC Farming Conservation Easement, Central Solano County House Agricultural Consultants
Item 11.a
Details on comparable sales 85
House Agricultural Consultants
T
able 10.1 Comparable sales selected for comparison with the subject: set S.

No. Date
Price
$ Acres Location APNs Deed Seller Buy
er
1 2025-06-26 1,140,000 101.80 Rio
Dixon Rd. and
Binghampton
Rd.
0143-130-030 202500028736 J
and L Pi-
chon Irrevo-
cable Marital
Trust
Jennifer Pi-
chon*
2 2025-04-07 2,800,000 314.54 Robb
en Rd. and
Binghampton
Rd.
0143-140-060,
0143-180-100
202500015071 J
and L Pi-
chon Irrevo-
cable Marital
Trust
Christine Ma-
honey Limited
Partnership
3 2025-04-07 1,400,000 94.28 sub
ject itself 0143-170-100 202500015171 George
J Se-
feroglou and
Christina Se-
feroglou Re-
vocable Liv-
ing Trust
Catie and Kevin
Simonis
4 2023-07-21 1,899,000 155.26 F
ry Rd., 1½
miles west of
Hwy. 113
0142-230-160 202300031005 José
and Mary
Alberdi
Joginder Singh
Tust
5 2021-09-03 2,650,000 148.5 Rio
Dixon Rd. ½
miles north of
subj.
0142-190-070 202100093527 Tijero
et al. Amarpreet Singh
Trust
Though
the parties are related, this was an arms’-length sale.* 10 Details on comparable sales
Item 11.a
86 KC Farming Conservation Easement, Central Solano County House Agricultural Consultants
Item 11.a
Method of analysing contributory values of improvements: Depreciated replacement cost new and age-life depreciation87 House Agricultural Consultants
11 Method of analysing contributory values of
improvements: Depreciated replacement cost
new and age-life depreciation
In this appraisal, we have used the method of replacement cost new (RCN) coupled with depreci- ation adjustment to identify the contributory values of real-estate improvements. In other words, the contributory value of some improvement to a whole property is taken to be its depreciated replacement cost new.

This concept of the depreciated replacement cost new begins by analyzing the cost of a new improvement (such as a building or an orchard) with equivalent function and utility. This is the replacement cost new: what the contributory value of the improvement would be, had it just been created as of the date of valuation (in the case of the subject property) or date of sale (in the case of a comparable sale).

For replacement costs, we have drawn on multiple relevant sources, including our ﬁles and ex- perience, as well as referencing reliable published sources, such as the Marshall & Swift Valuation Service (a service which maintains up-to-date costs for buildings and other real estate improve- ments world-wide, including appropriate regional and local adjustments), the State of California’s Assessor’s Handbook: Section 531—Residential Building Costs and Section 534—Rural Building Costs, and the 2021 National Building Cost Manual and 2023 National Construction Estimator (both by Craftsman Book Company). Reference replacement costs are typically given as unit costs (cost per standardized unit), such as dollars per square foot and thus our computations with these unit costs are on a comparative-unit basis Unit costs incorporate adjustments for the subject’s speciﬁc location and the speciﬁc eﬀective date of value if appropriate.

11.1 Age-life method of depreciation
Then, a downward adjustment is applied for depreciation to adjust for the diﬀerence in value be- tween a new building or orchard and the existing improvement as it exists today. The depreciation adjustment reﬂects the eﬀective age as eﬀective ages are more pertinent to appraisal than actual ages, as the former is a better indication of the future utility of the improvement. The depreciation adjustment primarily considers deterioration due to the passage of time, such as the health decline of an orchard tree or the dilapidation of a building due to its age, but also includes a consideration of functional and economic obsolescence.

To determine appropriate depreciation adjustments, we have drawn on the age-life method, calculated using straight-line computation. This method assumes that each building or other im- provement has aneconomic life, the time period during which the improvement has more economic utility in place and in use than removed to free the land for a new use.

The straight-line computation then method expresses the depreciation adjustment as a ratio coeﬃcient, which is multiplied times the RCN. For example, if an improvement having an RCN of $30,000 is estimated to have a total economic life of sixty years, of which one-third is past and two-thirds are still to come, (based on its eﬀective age and taking into consideration all forms of depreciation, then the ratio of depreciated (current) contributory value of this improvement remaining relative to its original value (RCN) is 2

3. The adjusted value (RCN adjusted downward
by depreciation) is the contributory value of the improvement. This example equals $20,000; this improvement can equivalently be said to be 66.7-percent good and 33.3-percent depreciated (with rounding).

Item 11.a
88 KC Farming Conservation Easement, Central Solano County House Agricultural Consultants
Item 11.a
Appendix: Soils maps of the subject property. 89
House Agricultural Consultants
12 Appendix: Soilsmapsofthesubjectproperty.

Item 11.a
90 KC Farming Conservation Easement, Central Solano County House Agricultural Consultants
MULTI PARCEL SOIL REPORT
Visit us: www.ParcelQuest.com

Page 1 ends

Vacaville City CouncilSeptember 8, 2026

Vacaville City Council
September 8, 2026