Vallejo City Council
October 13, 2026

City of Vallejo Transportation Analysis Guidelines | 24 Screening Criteria 2: Low VMT
Area Screening
Residential and employment-generating
projects located within a low VMT generating
area of the city may be presumed to have a
less than significant impact absent substantial
evidence to the contrary. For this screening,
Solano-Napa County Activity Based Travel
Demand Model shall be used to compare the
project’s characteristics to land uses currently
in the low-VMT area and for individual traffic
analysis zones (TAZs). TAZs are geographic
polygons (like census block groups) used to
represent areas of homogenous travel
behavior. For the low VMT area screening
criterion to be satisfied, the analyst must verify
that the project land uses would not alter the
existing built environment in such a way as to
increase the rate or length of vehicle trips
(e.g., the proposed project is consistent with
existing land use in the area, the project would
be expected to contribute VMT consistent
with existing land use in the area, and the
project would not significantly alter travel
patterns in the area).

A low VMT area is defined as follows:
• For housing projects: TAZs that have a
baseline home-based VMT per capita that
is 85 percent or less of the existing
citywide average.
• For employment-generating projects: TAZs
that have baseline home-work VMT per
worker that is 85 percent or less of the
existing regionwide average.

To determine if a project is in a low VMTgenerating area, the analyst may review the screening maps provided as Figure 2
(residential project mapping) and Figure 3
(employment-generating project mapping).

Projects located in TAZs that are 15 percent
below the relevant threshold (indicated in
green on Figure 2 and Figure 3) can be
presumed to have a less than
significant impact.

Additionally, as noted above, the analyst must
identify if the project is consistent with the
General Plan land use designation(s) and
zoning district(s) within that TAZ (e.g., if the
project is proposing single-family housing,
there should be existing single-family housing
of approximately the same density) and use
professional judgement to confirm that there
is nothing unique about the project that would
otherwise be misrepresented utilizing the data
from the travel demand model.

443
394
393
389
395 415
455
418
410
420
441
447
452
444
451
341
344
350
340 338
337
348
335
334
326
325
327
324
323
311
429
313
314
312
431
436
430
396
445
446
345
354
379
352
351
380 382
401
397
377
381
386
405
378
361 362
449
448
453
450
454
383
384
388 387
385
349
347
363
346
359
360
358
355
357
356
353
364
370
409
402
407
372
403
369
408
367
373
365
375
404
374
376
398
406
399
400
371
368
366
343 342
331
315
426
423
425
424
422
421
320
318
339
328
329
333
330
332
322
336
321
319
427
428
432
317
437
434
433
438
439
435
440
316
442
419
390
391
411
414
413
412
392
417
416
Napa-Sonoma Vallejo Swett
Marshes
Wildlife Area
Benicia
SRA
Eastern
Swett
Glen
Cove
Parkway
Ma
ripos
a
Stre
e
t
Redwood Pw
Elliott
Dr vi e
San Pablo Av
West 7th St
Wetla
nds
Edge
Road
Bro
a
d
w
a
y
Southampton Road
Steffa
n
St
Foot
hill D
rive
Columbus
Parkway
Ascot Parkway
West K Street
North Regatta Dr
O
a
kwoodAv
Azuar Drive
Rollingwood Drive
American Canyon Road
Curtola Pw
T
u
olu
m
n
e
Stre
et
Sonoma Boulevard
Benicia Road
Tennessee Street
HastingsDrive
Admiral Callaghan Lane
Meadows Drive
Fairgrounds Dr
Borges Lane
Wanda St
Land ma rk
D
r
Mare Isla
nd Wy
Redwood St
Maritime Academy Drive
Walnut Avenue
DanielsAv
SeverusDrive
ColumbusParkway
MiniDrive
Tobin Drive
Railroad Avenue
Wallace Av
Wilson Avenue
B W Williams Drive
C
ul b
Drive
Magazine Street
Porter Street
SerenoDr
Keats Driv
e
SilverOak Trail
Maine Street
Flosden Road
Donaldson Wy East
Georgia Street
McGary Road
Rio del Mar
SkylineDr
Benningto
n
D
r
vi e
N
orth
C
a
min
o
Alto
Nebraska Street
Lake Herman Road
Rose Drive
City of Vallejo
2025 Residential VMT Per Resident
Compared to Citywide Average
Figure 2
Source: Solano-Napa Activity Based Model, Solano Transportation Authority and TJKM (2024) 15% below Vallejo City average
Between 15%-0% below Vallejo City average
Above Vallejo City average
TAZ with no (or very low) population
### TAZ ID
Vallejo City Average: 24.6

443
394
393
389
395 415
455
418
410
420
441
447
452
444
451
341
344
350
340 338
337
348
335
334
326
325
327
324
323
311
429
313
314
312
431
436
430
396
445
446
345
354
379
352
351
380 382
401
397
377
381
386
405
378
361 362
449
448
453
450
454
383
384
388 387
385
349
347
363
346
359
360
358
355
357
356
353
364
370
409
402
407
372
403
369
408
367
373
365
375
404
374
376
398
406
399
400
371
368
366
343 342
331
315
426
423
425
424
422
421
320
318
339
328
329
333
330
332
322
336
321
319
427
428
432
317
437
434
433
438
439
435
440
316
442
419
390
391
411
414
413
412
392
417
416
Napa-Sonoma Vallejo Swett
Marshes
Wildlife Area
Benicia
SRA
Eastern
Swett
Glen
Cove
Parkway
Ma
ripos
a
Stre
e
t
Redwood Pw
Elliott
Dr vi e
San Pablo Av
West 7th St
Wetla
nds
Edge
Road
Bro
a
d
w
a
y
Southampton Road
Steffa
n
St
Foot
hill D
rive
Columbus
Parkway
Ascot Parkway
West K Street
North Regatta Dr
O
a
kwoodAv
Azuar Drive
Rollingwood Drive
American Canyon Road
Curtola Pw
T
u
olu
m
n
e
Stre
et
Sonoma Boulevard
Benicia Road
Tennessee Street
HastingsDrive
Admiral Callaghan Lane
Meadows Drive
Fairgrounds Dr
Borges Lane
Wanda St
Land ma rk
D
r
Mare Isla
nd Wy
Redwood St
Maritime Academy Drive
Walnut Avenue
DanielsAv
SeverusDrive
ColumbusParkway
MiniDrive
Tobin Drive
Railroad Avenue
Wallace Av
Wilson Avenue
B W Williams Drive
C
ul b
Drive
Magazine Street
Porter Street
SerenoDr
Keats Driv
e
SilverOak Trail
Maine Street
Flosden Road
Donaldson Wy East
Georgia Street
McGary Road
Rio del Mar
SkylineDr
Benningto
n
D
r
vi e
N
orth
C
a
min
o
Alto
Nebraska Street
Lake Herman Road
Rose Drive
City of Vallejo
2025 Work Tour VMT Per Employee
Compared to Bay Area Regional Average
Figure 3
Source: Solano-Napa Activity Based Model, Solano Transportation Authority and TJKM (2024) 15% below Bay Area average
Between 15%-0% below Bay Area average
Above Bay Area average
TAZ with no (or very low) employment
### TAZ ID
Bay Area Average: 19.9

City of Vallejo Transportation Analysis Guidelines | 27 Screening Criteria 3: Proximity
to Transit
Projects located within a Transit Priority Area
(TPA)4 may be presumed to have a less than
significant impact, absent substantial evidence
to the contrary. This includes residential, retail,
office projects, or mixed-use projects
proposed within one half mile of an existing
major transit stop or an existing stop along a
high-quality transit corridor. In Vallejo, the
Downtown and Mare Island Ferry Terminals are
currently considered major transit stops (July
2026). This presumption would not apply,
however, if project-specific or locationspecific information indicates the project will still generate significant levels of VMT. For
example, the presumption might not be
appropriate if the project:

1. Has a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of less
than 0.75;

2. Includes more parking for use by
residents, customers, or employees of the
project than the maximum allowed by the
city (if the city requires the project to
supply parking);

3. Is inconsistent with the applicable
Sustainable Communities Strategy/Plan
Bay Area 2050;
4 A TPA is defined as a half mile area around an
existing major transit stop or an existing stop
along a high-quality transit corridor per the
definitions below. The city measures the half mile
based on actual walking routes. Academic
research has demonstrated that walking distance
is an important factor that influences the choice
to take transit and thereby reduce VMT. For more
background on this, see the following article:
http://www.reconnectingamerica.org/assets/Uploa
ds/20111018UCB-ITS-VWP-2011-5.pdf).

4. Replaces existing deed-restricted
affordable residential units with a smaller
number of moderate- or high-income
residential units; or

5. Has a retail component greater than
50,000 square feet.

Projects in proximity to an existing major
transit stop or an existing stop along a highquality transit corridor that do not satisfy all these criteria shall prepare a detailed
VMT analysis. At the time of the preparation of
these guidelines no transit lines within the city
qualified as high quality transit corridors.

However, transit lines and bus schedules are
dynamic and change in response to demand
and funding levels. Current transit service
levels should be reviewed at the time of a
project’s application is deemed complete or a
project’s Notice of Preparation (NOP) to
determine if this screening criteria is satisfied.

VMT Assessment for
Non-Screened
Development
Projects not screened through the steps above
should prepare a complete VMT analysis and
forecasting through SNABM to determine if
they have a significant VMT impact. This
analysis shall include “projected generated
Pub. Resources Code, § 21064.3 – ‘Major transit
stop’ means a site containing an existing rail
transit station, a ferry terminal served by either a
bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of
two or more major bus routes with a frequency of
service interval of 20 minutes or less during the
morning and afternoon peak commute periods.’
Note that this requirement means that both
intersecting routes must have the 20-minute or
less frequency of service interval.

Pub. Resources Code, § 21155 – For purposes of
this section, a ‘high-quality transit corridor’ means
a corridor with fixed route bus service with
service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during
peak commute hours.

City of Vallejo Transportation Analysis Guidelines | 28 VMT” and “project effect VMT” estimates for
the project TAZ(s) under the
following scenarios:
• Baseline Conditions – This data is available
from the SNABM travel demand model;
analysts should use caution to ensure the
calculated baseline values reflect values at
the time the Notice of Preparation for a
project was released (consistent with
guidance from LCI). The screening maps
also provide the baseline VMT per capita in
the City of Vallejo.
• Baseline Plus Project – The project land
use would be added to the project TAZ, or
a separate TAZ would be created to contain
the project land uses. A full base year
model run would be performed and VMT
changes must be isolated for the project
TAZ and across the full model network. The
model output must include reasonableness
checks of the production and attraction
balancing to ensure the project effect is
accurately captured. If this scenario results
in a less-than-significant impact, then
additional cumulative scenario analysis may
not be required.

The results of the project’s VMT analysis
conducted as part of the Baseline Plus Project
model evaluation should be compared against
the relevant significance criteria presented
above. If the conclusion is that the project
would have the potential to cause a significant
VMT impact per one or more of the
significance thresholds defined above, then
mitigation is required. Additional details on
VMT mitigation are presented in the section
below. CEQA requires that all feasible
measures be implemented to reduce identified
impacts to less-than-significant levels.

Projects that are unable to mitigate their
project-specific VMT impacts to less-thansignificant levels require a Cumulative VMT analysis.

The flowchart on the next page details the
step-by-step methodology for assessing VMT
impacts, including the cumulative evaluation.

Cumulative Analysis
The cumulative analysis of a project involves
understanding the project’s effect on overall
VMT within its study area. This analysis is
needed to address circumstances where an
individual project might affect travel patterns
from other developments in the broader area;
this might happen for a variety of reasons,
such as that the project offers different
housing, employment or other opportunities
than would otherwise exist in the area and that
causes other users to change their travel
decisions, or because the drivers and transit
users generated by the project take up
available system capacity and cause other
users to change their travel routes or modes.

The cumulative analysis shall identify the
project’s effect on overall VMT within the
study area under the following scenarios:
• Cumulative No Project– This data is
available from the SNABM travel demand
model. The recommended cumulative year
is the horizon year of the current SNABM
(currently 2040), but should be confirmed
with City staff prior to beginning
the analysis.
• Cumulative Plus Project – The project land
use would either be added to the project
TAZ, or a separate TAZ would be created to
contain the project land uses. The addition
of project land uses may need to be
accompanied by a reallocation of a similar
amount of land use from other TAZs;
especially if the proposed project is
significant in size such that it could change
other future developments. Land use
projects are often represented in the
assumed growth of the cumulative year
population and employment. It may be
appropriate to remove land use growth that
represents the project from the cumulative
year model to represent the cumulative no
project scenario. If project land uses are
simply added to the cumulative no project
scenario, then the analysis should reflect
this limitation in the methodology and

City of Vallejo Transportation Analysis Guidelines | 29 acknowledge that the analysis may
overestimate the project’s effect on VMT.

The model output should include total VMT,
which includes all vehicle trips and trip
purposes, and VMT per service population
(population plus employment), home-based
VMT per resident for residential, and homebased work VMT per worker for employment uses. Total VMT (by speed bin, which
documents how total VMT occurs across
various travel speeds) is a required input for
air quality, greenhouse gas (GHG), and energy
impact analysis while total VMT per service

City of Vallejo Transportation Analysis Guidelines | 30 population is recommended for the CEQA
transportation impact assessment.

The project’s effect on VMT should be
measured by defining a VMT study area and
calculating the total VMT occurring on all
network links inside that study area, in both
the cumulative no project and cumulative plus
project scenarios. To allow for a reasonable
comparison between those two scenarios, the
total study area VMT should be normalized in
some fashion to reflect that there are different
numbers of people within the study area (i.e.,
because the project has added people to the
study area as compared to the no project
scenario). If the project adds residents to the
study area, then it would be reasonable to
present the VMT results as total study area
VMT divided by number of study area
residents. If the project adds employees to the
study area, then it would be reasonable to use
total study area VMT divided by number of
study area employees. The exact method for
normalizing the VMT number is not critical;
what is essential is that the same method be
used for both the cumulative no project and
the cumulative plus project scenarios, to allow
for an apples-to-apples comparison between
the two scenarios.
• Cumulative Significance Threshold –
Cumulative VMT impacts should be
considered significant if there is a net
increase in the total study area VMT
normalized to the number of people within
the study area, when comparing cumulative
no project to cumulative plus
project conditions.

Detailed VMT Forecasting
Information (SNABM)
Travel demand models generate daily person
trip-ends for each TAZ across various trip
purposes (Home-Based-Work, Home-BasedOther, and Non-Home-Based, for example) based on population, household, and
employment variables. Travel demand models
are simplifications of reality and as such, TAZs
often contain a large amount of population,
households, and employment. Travel models
do not tie trip generation to individual land
uses but instead aggregate them all up to the
TAZ level. This can create challenges for
complying with the SB 743 guidance because
the thresholds are tied to specific land use
categories and their behavior. The following
methodology addresses this
particular challenge.

To better understand the trips used in each
metric, consider the following daily vehicle trip
tour for an individual residential worker in a
given TAZ. Note that each TAZ would have
many individual residential workers and thus
the calculations would be a sum of these
individual calculations:

These nine daily vehicle trips include a variety
of trip purposes: home-based work (HBW),
home-based other (HBO), work-based other
(WBO), and other-based other (OBO). WBO
and OBO trips are often grouped into a nonhome based (NHB) category. The table below categorizes the nine daily trips into
trip purposes.

City of Vallejo Transportation Analysis Guidelines | 31 SNABM is an activity-based model that links
an individual’s trips into “tours.” Therefore, it is
straightforward to calculated VMT associated
with residential or work locations based on the
type of “tour.” The table below describes the
calculation for the partial VMT metrics.

Description Trips VMT Comments
Residential
Tour 1-9 32
miles
Includes all
trips by a
resident
HomeWork Tour 1, 2, 6 23
miles
Includes all
trips part of a
home-work
tour
The Total VMT calculation (all trip purposes for
both resident and worker) is more easily
calculated using the final origin-destination
vehicle matrices and summing all origin and
destination trip ends for each TAZ. The Total
VMT calculation includes all trips, all trip
purposes, for any interaction with the TAZ
regardless of whether they are a resident or
worker of the TAZ.

Each of these metrics needs to be adjusted to
account for the length of trips that get
truncated at the travel model boundary.

Adjusting the length of trips leaving a model
boundary requires appending extra distance at
the model gateway zone (or external centroid)
connector based on calculations from a parent
travel demand model, such as the California
Statewide Travel Demand Model (CSTDM).

This process results in new gateway distances
that are weighted based on the amount and
location of external travel origins and
destinations. The calculations would need to
address the distance of trips outside the travel
model boundary; in the case of SNABM, this is
the nine-county Bay Area.

Detailed VMT Calculation
Instructions
The following outlines the process used to
estimate City of Vallejo VMT Metrics
via SNABM.

1. Adapted MTC’s “Core Summaries” R script
that was used for MTC Travel Model 1 to
work for SNABM (script available upon
request). The script takes approximately
5-15 minutes to run after a complete
SNABM model run and summarizes the
large trip and tour list files used in SNABM
for use in further VMT summaries

2. Output of script is collection of files in new
“core_summaries” and “updated_output”
folders within model scenario folder
(see below)
Trip Tour Origin Destination Purpose Distance
1 Work Residence Coffee Shop HBO 2 miles
2 Work Coffee Shop Work WBO (NHB) 10 miles
3 Work Work ATM WBO (NHB) 1 mile
4 Work ATM Sandwich Shop OBO (NHB) 1 mile
5 Work Sandwich Shop Work WBO (NHB) 1 mile
6 Work Work Residence HBW 11 miles
7 Home Residence Gas Station HBO 3 miles
8 Home Gas Station Grocery Store OBO (NHB) 1 mile
9 Home Grocery Store Residence HBO 2 miles

City of Vallejo Transportation Analysis Guidelines | 32

3. The files needed to calculate Residential
and Office/Employment VMT metrics are
the following:
a. AutoTripsVMT_personHome.csv –
summarizes population for each TAZ as
output from the population synthesizer
b. AutoTripsVMT_perHome.csv –
summarizes all VMT made by resident
tied back to residence TAZ, sorted by
tour purpose and trip purpose
c. AutoTripsVMT_personsWork.csv –
summarizes workers/employees for
each TAZ as output from the population
synthesizer
d. AutoTripsVMT_perwork.csv –
summarizes all VMT made by workers
tied back to workplace TAZ, sorted by
tour purpose and trip purpose. Note that
WorkLocation = 0 means VMT made by
non-workers

4. Summarizing Residential VMT Metric
a. Defined as all trips/VMT by resident
traced back to the residence location
b. To summarize by TAZ: sum of all VMT
records on
‘AutoTripsVMT_perHome.csv’ by TAZ
divided by sum of all population records
on ‘AutoTripsVMT_personsHome.csv’ by
TAZ
c. To summarize by jurisdiction
(place/county/etc.): sum of all VMT
records on
‘AutoTripsVMT_perHome.csv’ by TAZs
corresponding to jurisdiction divided by
sum of all population records on
‘AutoTripsVMT_personHome.csv’ by
TAZs corresponding to jurisdiction
d. To summarize by region: same process
described above for jurisdiction, but
including all TAZs in Bay Area counties

5. Summarizing Office/Employment
VMT Metric
a. Defined as all trips part of home-work
tour traced back to the workplace
location
b. To summarize by TAZ: sum of VMT
records with home-work tour purposes
(see below) on
‘AutoTripsVMT_perWork.csv’ by TAZ
divided by sum of all worker records on
‘AutoTrips_VMT_personsWork.csv’ by
TAZ
c. Home-work tour purposes defined as
‘work_low,’ ‘work_med,’ ‘work high,’ and
‘work_very_high’
d. To summarize by jurisdiction
(place/county/etc.): sum of VMT records
with home-work tour purposes (see
below) on ‘AutoTripsVMT_perWork.csv’
by TAZs corresponding to jurisdiction
divided by sum of all worker records on
‘AutoTrips_VMT_personsWork.csv’ by
TAZs corresponding to jurisdiction
e. To summarize by region: same process
described above for jurisdiction, but
including all TAZs in Bay Area counties

6. Adjust VMT metrics to account for length
of trips that get truncated at travel
model boundary
a. Run the California Statewide Travel
Demand Model (CSTDM) to estimate
amount of extra distance to append to
trips leaving the SNABM model area
b. Select zone of SNABM model area zones
within CSTDM and calculation of trip
lengths outside of SNABM model area
for internal-external (IX)/ externalinternal (XI) trips by gateway. c. Apply this average extra distance by
gateway to SNABM model estimate of
IX/XI trips and summarize “extra” VMT
per TAZ (on top of the VMT already
summarized within the
model boundaries)
i. Thus, TAZs with more IX/XI trips
(e.g., near a model boundary) would

City of Vallejo Transportation Analysis Guidelines | 33 take on more extra distance than a
TAZ with fewer IX/XI trips (e.g.,
within the core Bay Area)
d. End product is “extra” VMT to add to
the VMT metrics calculated in
previous steps
VMT Mitigation
Measures
To mitigate VMT impacts, the following
general choices are available to
development projects:
• Modify the project’s design features and/or
land uses to reduce project trips or reduce
trip length.
• Moving the proposed development to a
more travel-efficient area (i.e., area with
access to high-quality transit, or other
transportation solutions that reduce the
length/number of trips).
• Implement Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) measures to reduce
VMT generated by the project.

Of the strategies included within these general
categories, only a subset of the strategies is
likely to be effective in a suburban setting
such as Vallejo. Proposed projects shall utilize
the latest version of the California Air Pollution
Control Officers Association (“CAPCOA”)
Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation
Measures document to estimate the maximum
feasible VMT mitigation. However, it should be
noted that most of the data used to develop
the CAPCOA mitigation strategies are based
on projects from urban or relatively dense
suburban areas. The effectiveness of VMT
mitigations will vary from project to project
based on the surrounding land use context,
the combination of its uses, and the availability
of alternative transportation modes. The
proposed project’s transportation impact
analysis must quantifiably demonstrate,
through the use of reliable calculation tools,
that proposed VMT mitigations will result in
the estimated reductions when applied to the
project. In the event a proposed project’s
characteristics render most or all the
aforementioned mitigation strategies
infeasible or ineffective, city staff will consider
other mitigation options.

The following VMT mitigation strategies may
be considered by projects for the mitigation of
VMT impacts within the city. The numbering
and titling of the mitigation measures, along
with the maximum effectiveness, are taken
from the CAPCOA Handbook for Analyzing
Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions,
Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and
Advancing Health and Equity, Final Draft,
October 2024.

Land Use
T-1: Increase Residential Density – This
measure accounts for the VMT reduction
achieved by a project that is designed with a
higher density of dwelling units (du) compared
to the average residential density in the U.S.

Increased densities affect the distance people
travel and provide greater options for the
mode of travel they choose. Increasing
residential density results in shorter and fewer
trips by single-occupancy vehicles and thus a
reduction in GHG emissions. This measure is
best quantified when applied to larger
developments and developments where the
density is somewhat similar to the surrounding
area due to the underlying research being
founded in data from the neighborhood level.

T-2: Increase Job Density – This measure
accounts for the VMT reduction achieved by a
project designed with a higher density of jobs
compared to the average job density in the
U.S. Increased job densities affect the distance
people travel and provide greater options for
the mode of travel they choose. Increasing job
density results in shorter and fewer trips by
single-occupancy vehicles and thus a
reduction in GHG emissions.

T-3: Provide Transit-Oriented Development –
This measure would reduce project VMT in the

City of Vallejo Transportation Analysis Guidelines | 34 study area relative to the same project sited in
a non-transit-oriented development (TOD)
location. TOD refers to projects built in
compact, walkable areas with easy access to
public transit, ideally in a location containing a
mix of uses including housing, retail offices,
and community facilities. Project site
residents, employees, and visitors would have
easy access to high-quality public transit,
thereby encouraging transit ridership and
reducing the number of single-occupancy
vehicle trips and associated GHG emissions.

T-4: Integrate Affordable and Below Market
Rate Housing – This measure requires below
market rate (BMR) housing. BMR housing
provides greater opportunity for lower income
families to live closer to job centers and
achieve a jobs/housing match near transit. It is
also an important strategy to address the
limited availability of affordable housing that
might force residents to live far away from
jobs or school, requiring longer commutes.

Incorporating affordability by design, such as
the provision of ADUs could also qualify for
this reduction. The quantification method for
this measure accounts for VMT reductions
achieved for multifamily residential projects
that are deed restricted or otherwise
permanently dedicated as affordable housing.

T-17: Improve Street Connectivity – This
measure accounts for the VMT reduction
achieved by a project designed with a higher
density of vehicle intersections compared to
the average intersection density in the U.S.

Increased vehicle intersection density is a
proxy for street connectivity improvements,
facilitating a greater number of shorter trips
and thus a reduction in GHG emissions.

T:55: Infill Development – This measure
accounts for the VMT reduction achieved by
infill housing development programs that allow
residents to live closer to downtown areas
where there is greater access to jobs and
activities. Residents living at infill development
projects typically do not need to travel as far
to access essential destinations. This leads to
lower VMT and associated GHG emissions
compared to similar projects located farther
from a downtown area. An example
implementation of this measure is Sacramento
Area Council of Government’s Green Means
Go program (SACOG 2021a, 2021b).

Trip Reduction Programs
T-5: Implement Commute Trip Reduction
Program (Voluntary) – This measure will
implement a voluntary commute trip reduction
(CTR) program with employers. CTR programs
discourage single-occupancy vehicle trips and
encourage alternative modes of transportation
such as carpooling, riding transit, walking, and
biking, thereby reducing VMT and GHG
emissions. Voluntary implementation elements
are described in this measure.

T-6: Implement Commute Trip Reduction
Program (Mandatory Implementation and
Monitoring) – This measure will implement a
mandatory CTR program with employers. CTR
programs discourage single-occupancy
vehicle trips and encourage alternative modes
of transportation such as carpooling, riding
transit, walking, and biking, thereby reducing
VMT and GHG emissions.

T-7: Implement Commute Trip Reduction
Marketing – This measure will implement a
marketing strategy to promote the project site
employer’s CTR program. Information sharing
and marketing promote and educate
employees about their travel choices to the
employment location beyond driving such as
carpooling, riding transit, walking, and biking,
thereby reducing VMT and GHG emissions.

T-8: Provide Ridesharing Program – This
measure will implement a ridesharing program
and establish a permanent transportation
management association with funding
requirements for employers. This strategy
includes measures such as designating a
proportion of parking spaces exclusive to ride
sharing vehicles, providing adequate loading
and unloading areas for passengers of ridePage 272 of 383 City of Vallejo Transportation Analysis Guidelines | 35 sharing vehicles and generating a web site or
message board for ride coordination. The
focus of this strategy is to increase vehicle
occupancy by ridesharing between people
driving similar trips, which will result in fewer
cars, and thus a decrease in VMT.

T-9: Implement Subsidized or Discounted
Transit Program – This measure will provide
subsidized or discounted, or free transit
passes for employees and/or residents.

Reducing the out-of-pocket cost for choosing
transit improves the competitiveness of transit
against driving, increasing the total number of
transit trips and decreasing vehicle trips. This
decrease in vehicle trips results in reduced
VMT and thus a reduction in GHG emissions.

T-10: Provide End-of-Trip Bicycle or Scooter
Facilities – This measure will install and
maintain end-of-trip facilities for employee
use. End-of-trip facilities include bike parking,
bike lockers, showers, and personal lockers.

Charging stations for e-bikes and/or scooters
can also qualify for this reduction. The
provision and maintenance of secure bike
parking and related facilities encourages
commuting by bicycle, thereby reducing VMT
and GHG emissions.

T-11: Provide Employer-Sponsored Vanpool –
This measure will implement an employersponsored vanpool service. Vanpooling is a flexible form of public transportation that
provides groups of 5 to 15 people with a costeffective and convenient rideshare option for commuting. This strategy is appropriate for
office, industrial, and mixed-use projects. In
some cases this can be a community strategy,
with employers within a particular area pooling
resources to provide shuttles to transit. The
mode shift from long-distance, singleoccupancy vehicles to shared vehicles reduces overall commute VMT, thereby
reducing GHG emissions.

T-12: Price Workplace Parking – This measure
will price on-site parking at workplaces.

Because free employee parking is a common
benefit, charging employees to park on-site
increases the cost of choosing to drive to
work, so employees consider alternative
modes. It may include explicitly charging a
parking fee for its employees, implementing
above market rate pricing, validating parking
only for invited guests, not providing
employee parking while offering transportation
allowances, and educating employees about
available alternatives. This is expected to
reduce single-occupancy vehicle commute
trips, resulting in decreased VMT, thereby
reducing associated GHG emissions.

T-13: Implement Employee Parking Cash-Out
– This measure will require project employers
to offer employee parking cash-out. Cash-out
is when employers provide employees with a
choice of forgoing their current
subsidized/free parking for a cash payment
equivalent to or greater than the cost of the
parking space. This encourages employees to
use other modes of travel instead of singleoccupancy vehicles. This mode shift results in people driving less and thereby reduces VMT
and GHG emissions.

T-23: Community-Based Travel Planning –
This measure will target residences in the
plan/community with community-based travel
planning (CBTP). CBTP is a residential based
approach to outreach that provides
households with customized information,
incentives, and support to encourage the use
of transportation alternatives in place of
single-occupancy vehicles, thereby reducing
VMT and associated GHG emissions.

Parking or Road
Pricing/Management
T-14: Provide Electric Vehicle Charging
Infrastructure – Install onsite electric vehicle
chargers in an amount beyond what is
required by the 2019 California Green Building
Standards (CALGreen) at buildings with
designated parking areas (e.g., commercial,
educational, retail, multifamily). This will
enable drivers of PHEVs to drive a larger share

City of Vallejo Transportation Analysis Guidelines | 36 of miles in electric mode (eVMT), as opposed
to gasoline-powered mode, thereby displacing
GHG emissions from gasoline consumption
with a lesser amount of indirect emissions
from electricity. Most PHEVs owners charge
their vehicles at home overnight. When
making trips during the day, the vehicle will
switch to gasoline mode if/when it reaches its
maximum all-electric range.

T-15: Limit Residential Parking Supply – This
measure will reduce the total parking supply
available at a residential project or site.

Limiting the amount of parking available
creates scarcity and adds additional time and
inconvenience to trips made by private auto,
disincentivizing driving as a mode of travel.

Reducing the convenience of driving results in
a shift to other modes and decreased VMT
and thus a reduction in GHG emissions.

Evidence of the effects of reduced parking
supply is strongest for
residential developments.

T-16: Unbundle Residential Parking Costs from
Property Cost – This strategy separates
parking costs from property costs, removing
the burden from those who do not utilize
parking spaces and requiring those who wish
to do so to purchase parking spaces at an
additional cost. On the assumption that
parking costs are passed onto the vehicle
owners/drivers utilizing the parking spaces,
this measure results in decreased vehicle
ownership and, therefore, a reduction in VMT
and GHG emissions.

T-24: Implement Market Price Public Parking
(On-Street) – This measure will price all onstreet parking in a given community, with a focus on parking near central business
districts, employment centers, and retail
centers. Increasing the cost of parking
increases the total cost of driving to a location,
incentivizing shifts to other modes and thus
decreasing total VMT to and from the priced
areas. This VMT reduction results in a
corresponding reduction in GHG emissions.

Neighborhood Design
T-18: Provide Pedestrian Network
Improvements – This strategy focuses on
creating a pedestrian network and connecting
projects to nearby destinations via pedestrian
pathways. Projects in the City of Vallejo range
in size, so the emphasis of this strategy for
smaller projects would likely be the
construction of network improvements that
connect the project sites directly to nearby
destinations. For larger projects, this strategy
could focus on the development of a robust
pedestrian network within the project itself or
closing gaps that could connect the project to
other areas. This strategy could also include
improvements that improve safety outcomes
for people walking, especially walking to/from
transit stops. Alternatively, implementation
could occur through an impact fee program or
benefit/ assessment district based on local or
regional plans. Providing sidewalks and an
enhanced pedestrian network encourages
people to walk instead of drive. This mode
shift results in a reduction in VMT and GHG
emissions.

T-19-A: Construct or Improve Bike Facility –
This measure will construct or improve a
single bicycle lane facility (only Class I, II, or
IV) that connects to a larger existing bikeway
network. Providing bicycle infrastructure
improves biking conditions within an area. This
encourages a mode shift on the roadway
parallel to the bicycle facility from vehicles to
bicycles, displacing VMT and thus reducing
GHG emissions. When constructing or
improving bicycle facilities, the best practice
is to consider local or state bike lane width
standards. A variation of this measure is
provided as T-19-B, Construct or Improve
Bike Boulevard.

T-19-B: Construct or Improve Bike Boulevard
– This measure will construct or improve a
single bicycle boulevard that connects to a
larger existing bikeway network. Bicycle
boulevards are a designation within Class III

City of Vallejo Transportation Analysis Guidelines | 37 Bikeway that create safe, low-stress
connections for people biking and walking on
streets. This encourages a mode shift from
vehicles to bicycles, displacing VMT and thus
reducing GHG emissions. A variation of this
measure is provided as T-19-A, Construct or
Improve Bike Facility, which is for Class I, II, or
IV bicycle infrastructure.

T-20: Expand Bikeway Network – This
measure will increase the length of a city or
community bikeway network. A bicycle
network is an interconnected system of bike
lanes, bike paths, bike routes, and cycle tracks.

Providing bicycle infrastructure with markings
and signage on appropriately sized roads with
vehicle traffic traveling at safe speeds helps to
improve biking conditions (e.g., safety and
convenience). In addition, expanded bikeway
networks can increase access to and from
transit hubs, thereby expanding the
“catchment area” of the transit stop or station
and increasing ridership. This encourages a
mode shift from vehicles to bicycles,
displacing VMT and thus reducing GHG
emissions. When expanding a bicycle network,
the best practice is to consider bike lane width
standards from local agencies, state agencies,
or the National Association of City
Transportation Officials’ Urban Bikeway
Design Guide.

T-21-A: Implement Conventional Carshare
Program – This measure will increase carshare
access in the user’s community by deploying
conventional carshare vehicles. Carsharing
offers people convenient access to a vehicle
for personal or commuting purposes. This
helps encourage transportation alternatives
and reduces vehicle ownership, thereby
avoiding VMT and associated GHG emissions.

A variation of this measure, electric carsharing,
is described in Measure T-20-B, Implement
Electric Carshare Program.

T-21-B: Implement Electric Carshare Program
– This measure will increase carshare access
in the user’s community by deploying electric
carshare vehicles. Carsharing offers people
convenient access to a vehicle for personal or
commuting purposes. This helps encourage
transportation alternatives and reduces vehicle
ownership, thereby avoiding VMT and
associated GHG emissions. This also
encourages a mode shift from internal
combustion engine vehicles to electric
vehicles, displacing the emissions-intensive
fossil fuel energy with less emissions-intensive
electricity. Electric carshare vehicles require
more staffing support compared to
conventional carshare programs for shuttling
electric vehicles to and from charging points.

A variation of this measure, conventional
carsharing, is described in Measure T-21-A,
Implement Conventional Carshare Program.

T-22-A: Implement Pedal (Non-Electric)
Bikeshare Program – This measure will
establish a bikeshare program. Bikeshare
programs provide users with on-demand
access to bikes for short-term rentals. This
encourages a mode shift from vehicles to
bicycles, displacing VMT and thus reducing
GHG emissions. Variations of this measure are
described in Measure T-22-B, Implement
Electric Bikeshare Program, and Measure T22-C, Implement Scootershare Program.

T-22-B: Implement Electric Bikeshare
Programs – This measure will establish an
electric bikeshare program. Electric bikeshare
programs provide users with on-demand
access to electric pedal assist bikes for shortterm rentals. This encourages a mode shift from vehicles to electric bicycles, displacing
VMT and reducing GHG emissions. Variations
of this measure are described in Measure T22-A, Implement Pedal (Non-Electric) Bikeshare Program, and Measure T-22-C,
Implement Scootershare Program.

T-22-C: Implement Scootershare Program –
This measure will establish a scootershare
program. Scootershare programs provide
users with on-demand access to electric
scooters for short-term rentals. This
encourages a mode shift from vehicles to
scooters, displacing VMT and thus reducing

City of Vallejo Transportation Analysis Guidelines | 38 GHG emissions. Variations of this measure are
described in Measure T-22-A, Implement
Pedal (Non-Electric) Bikeshare Program, and
Measure T-22-B, Implement Electric
Bikeshare Program.

Transit
T-25: Extend Transit Network Coverage or
Hours – This measure will expand the local
transit network by either adding or modifying
existing transit service or extending the
operation hours to enhance the service near
the project site. Starting services earlier in the
morning and/or extending services to latenight hours can accommodate commute hours of alternative-shift workers. This will
encourage the use of transit and therefore
reduce VMT and associated GHG emissions.

T-26: Increase Transit Service Frequency –
This measure will increase transit frequency on
one or more transit lines serving the
plan/community. Increased transit frequency
reduces waiting and overall travel times, which
improves the user experience and increases
the attractiveness of transit service. This
results in a mode shift from single-occupancy
vehicles to transit, which reduces VMT and
associated GHG emissions.

T-27: Implement Transit-Supportive Roadway
Treatments – This measure will implement
transit-supportive treatments on the transit
routes serving the plan/community. Transitsupportive treatments incorporate a mix of roadway infrastructure improvements and/or
traffic signal modifications to improve transit
travel times and reliability. This results in a
mode shift from single-occupancy vehicles to
transit, which reduces VMT and associated
GHG emissions.

T-28: Provide Bus Rapid Transit – This
measure will convert an existing bus route to a
bus rapid transit (BRT) system. BRT includes
the following additional components,
compared to traditional bus service: exclusive
right-of-way (e.g., busways, queue jumping
lanes) at congested intersections, increased
limited-stop service (e.g., express service),
intelligent transportation technology (e.g.,
transit signal priority, automatic vehicle
location systems), advanced technology
vehicles (e.g., articulated buses, low-floor
buses), enhanced station design, efficient
fare-payment smart cards or smartphone
apps, branding of the system, and use of
vehicle guidance systems. BRT can increase
the transit mode share in a community due to
improved travel times, service frequencies,
and the unique components of the BRT
system. This mode shift reduces VMT and the
associated GHG emissions.

T-29: Reduce Transit Fares – This measure
will reduce transit fares on the transit lines
serving the plan/community. A reduction in
transit fares creates incentives to shift travel to
transit from single-occupancy vehicles and
other traveling modes, which reduces VMT
and associated GHG emissions. This measure
differs from Measure T-9, Implement
Subsidized or Discounted Transit Program,
which can be offered through employer-based
benefits programs in which the employer fully
or partially pays the employee’s cost of transit.

T-46: Provide Transit Shelters – For this
measure, a local government or transit agency
provides amenities that make it safer and
more comfortable to wait for the bus. The two
interventions that have proven to lead to
changes in rider perceptions are adding bus
shelters and adding real-time arrival
information. Research into transit ridership
shows that adding these amenities decreases
both the real and the perceived wait time for
riders, which impacts riders’ willingness
to ride.

Clean Vehicles and Fuels
T-30: Use Cleaner-Fuel Vehicles – This
measure requires use of cleaner-fuel vehicles
(electric vehicles, natural gas and propane
vehicles, and vehicles powered by biofuels) in

City of Vallejo Transportation Analysis Guidelines | 39 lieu of similar vehicles powered by gasoline or
diesel fuel.

The above list should not be considered
exhaustive, and projects can propose other
TDM measures if appropriate and desired.

VMT Mitigation
Measure Effectiveness
An important consideration when combining
TDM measures is whether a maximum VMT
reduction should be applied based on land use
context. The CAPCOA methodology identifies
VMT reduction maximums based on
community types tied to land use context. The
caps are applied at each step of the VMT
reduction calculation (i.e., at the strategy
scale, the combined strategy scale, and the
global scale). However, these caps are not
based on research related to the effectiveness
of VMT reduction strategies in different land
use contexts. The cap differences are largely
based on VMT generation differences within
different land use contexts and serve as a
proxy for potential limits on VMT reduction
strategy effectiveness. For suburban
jurisdictions such as Vallejo, CAPCOA
identifies a global VMT reduction maximum of
15 percent. Table 3 presents a summary of the
maximum allowable reductions recommended
for individual VMT mitigation measures based
on the available research and the city’s local
context.

If new or unusual VMT mitigation measures are
proposed and/or the study proposes using a
reduction near the higher end of the observed
range, the City may hire a consultant (at the
applicant’s expense) to peer review the VMT
study and recommendations. The cost of the
peer review will be borne by the
applicant/developer.

Each of the TDM measures described above
can be combined with others to increase the
effectiveness of VMT mitigation; however, the
interaction between the various TDM
measures is complex and sometimes
counterintuitive. Generally, with each
additional measure implemented, a VMT
reduction is achieved, but the incremental
benefit of VMT reduction may diminish. To
quantify the VMT reduction that results from
combining TDM measures, the analyst must
consider multiplicative dampening as outlined
in the CAPCOA documentation.

City of Vallejo Transportation Analysis Guidelines | 40 Table 3. VMT Mitigation Measure Reduction Caps
Mitigation Measure Maximum Potential
Reduction1
Land Use
T-1: Increase Residential Density 30.0%
T-2: Increase Job Density 30.0%
T-3: Provide Transit-Oriented Development 31.0%
T-4: Integrate Affordable and Below Market Rate Housing 28.6% T-17: Improve Street Connectivity 30.0%
T-55: Infill Development 30.0%
Trip Reduction Programs
T-5: Implement Commute Trip Reduction Program (Voluntary) 4.0% T-6: Implement Commute Trip Reduction Program (Mandatory Implementation and Monitoring) 26.0%
T-7: Implement Commute Trip Reduction Marketing 4.0%
T-8: Provide Ridesharing Program 8.0%
T-9: Implement Subsidized or Discounted Transit Program 5.5% T-10: Provide End-of-Trip Bicycle Facilities 4.4%
T-11: Provide Employer-Sponsored Van pool 8.1%
T-12: Price Workplace Parking 20.0%
T-13: Implement Employee Parking Cash-Out 12.0%
T-23: Community-Based Travel Planning 2.3%
Parking and Road Pricing/Management
T-14: Provide Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure 11.9% T-15: Limit Residential Parking Supply 13.7%
T-16: Unbundle Residential Parking Costs from Property Cost 15.7% T-24: Implement Market Price Public Parking (On-Street) 30.0% Neighborhood Design
T-18: Provide Pedestrian Network Improvements 6.4%
T-19-A: Construct or Improve Bike Facility 0.8%
T-19-B: Construct or Improve Bike Boulevard 0.2%
T-20: Expand Bikeway Network 0.5%
T-21-A: Implement Conventional Carshare Program 0.15%
T-21-B: Implement Electric Carshare Program 0.18%
T-22-A: Implement Pedal (Non-Electric) Bikeshare Program 0.02% T-22-B: Implement Electric Bikeshare Programs 0.06%

City of Vallejo Transportation Analysis Guidelines | 41 Mitigation Measure Maximum Potential
Reduction1
T-22-C: Implement Scootershare Program 0.07%
Transit
T-25: Extend Transit Network Coverage or Hours 4.6%
T-26: Increase Transit Service Frequency 11.3%
T-27: Implement Transit-Supportive Roadway Treatments 0.6% T-28: Provide Bus Rapid Transit 13.8%
T-29: Reduce Transit Fares 1.2%
T-46: Provide Transit Shelters 0.32%
1 These figures are the maximum potential reduction identified in the CAPCOA research. In general, lower reductions should be anticipated for land-use developments within Vallejo. For TDM reductions for projects within the city, supporting evidence and calculations should be provided.

Source: California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity, Final Draft, October 2024.

Other Environmental
Considerations
As noted in the Introduction, the updated
CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Checklist
contains three additional criteria beyond the
VMT evaluation criteria discussed in the
preceding section. They are listed below.

Would the project:

1. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or
policy addressing the circulation system,
including transit, roadway, bicycle, and
pedestrian facilities?

3. Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g., farm equipment)?

4. Result in inadequate emergency access?
The CEQA Transportation section should
address these three questions, considering the
unique characteristics of the project, including
its location, size, design, use mix,
transportation and urban form context, and
other relevant details. In the assessment of
transit, bicycle, and pedestrian networks, the
following standards of significance shall
be used.

Transit System – The project would create a
significant impact related to transit service if
the following criteria is met:

1. The project interferes with existing transit
facilities or precludes the construction of
planned transit facilities.

Bicycle System – The project would create a
significant impact related to the bicycle
system if any of the following criteria are met:

1. The project disrupts existing bicycle
facilities; or

2. Interferes with planned bicycle facilities; or

3. Creates inconsistencies with adopted
bicycle system plans, guidelines, policies,
or standards.

Pedestrian System – The project would create
a significant impact related to the pedestrian
system if any of the following criteria are met:

1. The project disrupts existing pedestrian
facilities; or

City of Vallejo Transportation Analysis Guidelines | 42

2. Interferes with planned pedestrian
facilities; or

3. Creates inconsistencies with adopted
pedestrian system plans, guidelines,
policies, or standards.

1 CITY OF VALLEJO PLANNING COMMISSION
PC26-16

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL AMEND VALLEJO GENERAL PLAN 2040 BY ADOPTING THE JULY 2026

TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS GUIDELINES
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
WHEREAS, the City of Vallejo has prepared updated Transportation Analysis Guidelines to establish a consistent methodology and set of requirements for evaluating the transportation effects of development projects, including roadway operations, access and circulation, safety, pedestrian, bicycle and transit facilities, roadway adequacy, traffic calming, and appropriate transportation improvements and mitigation; and
WHEREAS, the updated Guidelines distinguish between non-CEQA traffic analysis, which may continue to evaluate roadway and intersection operations and Level of Service (LOS), and CEQA transportation analysis, which implements Senate Bill 743 by using vehicle miles traveled (“VMT”) as the primary metric for evaluating transportation impacts and establishes City-specific VMT thresholds and screening criteria; and
WHEREAS, the updated Guidelines are proposed to be incorporated into the City’s General Plan through a General Plan amendment and would supersede and replace the City’s Interim CEQA Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines adopted in July 2020 and revised in October 2020 (currently incorporated into General Plan 2040 as Exhibit A), thereby providing updated technical direction for transportation impact analysis, VMT screening, thresholds of significance, and mitigation for development and transportation projects within the City of Vallejo (the “Project”); and
WHEREAS, Vallejo Municipal Code (VMC) Section 17.04.060 provides that the Vallejo General Plan 2040 may be amended when the City finds that doing so is in the public interest; and
WHEREAS, Government Code Section 65353 requires the Planning Commission to hold at least one noticed public hearing before approving a recommendation on the amendment of a general plan; and
WHEREAS, notices describing the Planning Commission's public hearing on the proposed General Plan amendment were mailed to all persons requesting notice pursuant to VMC Section 16.602.08, emailed to the members of the Planning Commission, and published in a 1/8th page advertisement in the Times-Herald, a newspaper of general circulation, on August 19, 2026, which date was not less than 10 days prior to the September 9, 2026 hearing, as required by Government Code Section 65090(a); and
WHEREAS, after giving all public notices required by State law and the VMC, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on September 9, 2026, to consider and receive public testimony on the proposed General Plan amendment and updated Guidelines.

2 NOW, THEREFORE, LET IT BE RESOLVED that the Planning Commission hereby finds, determines, and resolves as follows:

Section 1. Recitals.

The foregoing recitals are true and correct, and the same are incorporated herein by reference.

Section 2. Record.

The Record of Proceedings ("Record") upon which the Planning Commission bases its recommendation includes but is not limited to: (1) the staff report, City files and records, and other documents prepared for the Project; (2) the evidence, facts, findings, and other determinations set forth in this Resolution; (3) the Vallejo General Plan 2040 and its Final Environmental Impact Report; (4) the Vallejo Municipal Code; (5) all designs, plans, studies, data and correspondence submitted to the City in connection with the Project; (6) all documentary and oral evidence received at public meetings and hearings or otherwise submitted to the City relating to the Project; and (7) all other matters of common knowledge to the Planning Commission, including City, State, and federal laws, policies, rules, regulations, reports, records, and projections related to development within the City of Vallejo and its surrounding areas.

The location and custodian of the records is the Planning and Development Services Department of the City of Vallejo, 555 Santa Clara Street, Vallejo, California 94590.

Section 3. California Environmental Quality Act Findings.

Based on the Record as described above, and all matters deemed material and relevant prior to adopting this Resolution, the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council determine that the proposed amendment to the General Plan is not a project subject to CEQA pursuant to California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15378, because the amendment establishes transportation analysis policies, procedures, and methodologies for the evaluation of future development projects and does not approve or authorize any specific development project or physical improvement. The proposed amendment therefore does not have the potential to result in either a direct physical change in the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, and no further environmental review is required at this time.

The Planning Commission further recommends that the City Council find that the proposed amendment will not result in environmental impacts beyond those previously analyzed and considered in the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), certified in connection with adoption of General Plan 2040 in August 2017. Future development projects and transportation improvements will remain subject to applicable CEQA requirements and will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to determine whether additional environmental review is required.

Section 4. Findings.

In accordance with VMC Section 17.04.060 and applicable State law governing General Plan amendments, the Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings regarding the proposed General Plan amendment adopting the updated Guidelines, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference.

3 A. The proposed General Plan amendment is in the public interest.

Facts in support: The amendment will replace the interim 2020 transportation-analysis framework with comprehensive and current procedures for evaluating transportation effects associated with future development. The updated Guidelines will improve the consistency, transparency, predictability, and efficiency of transportation review for applicants, consultants, staff, decision-makers, and the public. They will also reduce unnecessary analysis for projects that recognize the transportation and environmental benefits of infill, local-serving, low-VMT, and transit-supportive development.

B. The proposed General Plan amendment is consistent with and advances the Vallejo General Plan 2040.

Facts in support: The updated Guidelines support Goal MTC-2, Mobile Community, and implement policies addressing transportation safety, citywide mobility, street performance, complete streets, transportation demand management, active transportation, infill development, and reduction of VMT. The updated Guidelines also support General Plan objectives to focus development near existing and planned transit facilities and expand alternatives to automobile travel.

C. The Vallejo General Plan 2040 will remain internally consistent following the amendment.

Facts in support: The amendment would remove and replace an existing transportationanalysis exhibit with an updated exhibit addressing the same subject. It will not amend the General Plan land-use map, change permitted uses or densities, increase development capacity, or modify the General Plan's growth assumptions.

D. The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or general welfare.

Facts in support: The updated Guidelines will strengthen the City's ability to evaluate roadway operations, collision history, pedestrian and bicycle conditions, emergency access, VMT, and feasible mitigation. They will not authorize development or reduce existing health or safety protections.

Section 5. Decision.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, based on the findings set forth herein and the Record as a whole, the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council amend the Vallejo General Plan 2040 by adopting the July 2026 Transportation Analysis Guidelines, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference, and by removing and replacing the City’s Interim CEQA Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines adopted in July 2020 and revised in October 2020, currently incorporated into the Vallejo General Plan 2040 as Exhibit A.

4 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Vallejo, State of California, on the 9th day of September 2026 by the following vote, to-wit:

AYES: Taylor, Blind, White, Ali, Ennis, Beasley-Stansberry, and Madeiros NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
_______________________________________________________

ANTHONY TAYLOR, CHAIRPERSON
City of Vallejo Planning Commission
Attest:
_______________________________
KRISTIN POLLOT, AICP – SECRETARY
City of Vallejo Planning Commission
Exhibits:

A. July 2026 Transportation Analysis Guidelines

Transportation
Analysis Guidelines
July 2026

P
Table of Contents
Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 1 Non-CEQA Traffic Impact Analysis.............................................................................................. 1 Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Study Requirement............................................................................................. 1 Trip Generation Estimates ..............................................................................................................................2 Trip Distribution Assumptions........................................................................................................................3 Study Area............................................................................................................................................................3 Analysis Procedure and Methodology .........................................................................................................3 Report Format.....................................................................................................................................................8 CEQA Transportation Assessment.............................................................................................. 9 SB 743 and the Updated CEQA Guidelines.......................................................................................................9 Can LOS Analysis Still be Conducted as Part of Development Review? ..........................................10 Congestion Management Program Compliance Changes....................................................................11 VMT Analysis ..............................................................................................................................................................11 VMT Thresholds of Significance....................................................................................................................11 Project VMT Screening...........................................................................................................................................12 VMT Screening Criteria...................................................................................................................................12 VMT Assessment for Non-Screened Development ......................................................................................27 Cumulative Analysis ....................................................................................................................................... 28 Detailed VMT Forecasting Information (SNABM) ................................................................................. 30 Detailed VMT Calculation Instructions .......................................................................................................31 VMT Mitigation Measures .....................................................................................................................................33 Land Use.............................................................................................................................................................33 Trip Reduction Programs.............................................................................................................................. 34 Parking or Road Pricing/Management...................................................................................................... 35 Neighborhood Design.....................................................................................................................................36 Transit ................................................................................................................................................................ 38 Clean Vehicles and Fuels.............................................................................................................................. 38 VMT Mitigation Measure Effectiveness ............................................................................................................39 Other Environmental Considerations .................................................................................................................41

P
List of Figures
Figure 1. Small Project VMT Screening Subareas .................................................................................................. 15 Figure 2. Baseline Residential TAZ VMT Map........................................................................................................ 25 Figure 3. Baseline Employment TAZ Map............................................................................................................... 26 List of Tables
Table 1. Small Project VMT Screening Criteria ....................................................................................................... 14 Table 2: Small Project ADT Screening Thresholds.................................................................................................16 Table 3. VMT Mitigation Measure Reduction Caps..............................................................................................40

City of Vallejo Transportation Analysis Guidelines | 1
Introduction
These Transportation Analysis Guidelines
establish general transportation impact study
procedures and requirements for development
projects within the City of Vallejo. They are
designed for transportation engineering and
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
professionals because of their technical
contents. The term “guideline” is important:
the City recognizes that every project and
study context is unique. The guidelines are
intended as a checklist for study preparers to
ensure all required study items are included.

They establish a uniform approach,
methodology, and tool set to evaluate the
effects of land use decisions and related
transportation projects on the City’s
transportation system. They are not intended
to eliminate professional judgment or
creativity; however, the need for and final
scope of a TIA shall be determined by the
City of Vallejo.

The guidelines contain two sections which
describe different analyses and requirements.

The first section details the City’s
requirements related to the type of non-CEQA
traffic analysis necessary for development
projects, particularly as they relate to roadway
levels of service (LOS). The second section
details the City’s transportation analysis
requirements for CEQA projects, including the
City’s guidelines related to implementation of
Senate Bill 743 (SB 743). SB 743 shifted the
State of California’s environmental regulations
away from automobile delay and LOS to
vehicle miles traveled (VMT). However,
SB 743 does not prevent a city from
continuing to analyze delay or level of service
outside of CEQA review for other
transportation planning or analysis purposes
(i.e., general plans, impact fee programs,
corridor studies, congestion mitigation, or
ongoing network monitoring); but these
metrics may no longer constitute the sole
basis for CEQA impacts.

Non-CEQA Traffic
Impact Analysis
The City Engineer, under the authority of the
Public Works Director and recommendations
from the City Traffic Engineer, will make the
final decision on the requirement for a Traffic
Impact Analysis (TIA) Study. The purpose of
the TIA Study is to identify the impacts to
traffic operations, including roadway network
LOS calculations and identify feasible solutions
to mitigate impacts of new development. The
purpose of these guidelines is to provide the
standard requirements for the preparation of a
TIA study.

Traffic Impact
Analysis (TIA) Study
Requirement
The City’s Public Works Department shall do
an initial assessment of the project based
upon the description and proposed land
use(s). All consulting fees to perform the TIA
study will be borne by the applicant. All studies
shall be completed consistent with the City’s
General Plan and/or Solano Transportation
Authority policies. The City may assume
responsibility for administering the consultant
agreement to perform the TIA study in certain
circumstances (to be determined by the City
at our sole discretion). In general, the
requirement for a TIA study as part of the
project review process will be based upon, but
not limited to, the following criteria:
• Any project with initial traffic generation
estimates showing that the project is likely
to add 500 or more daily trips, and/or likely
to add 100 or more trips in either peak
period to the existing circulation system,
without consideration of pass-by trip
reductions. Phased projects must be
evaluated assuming full build-out

City of Vallejo Transportation Analysis Guidelines | 2
conditions for purposes of determining the
need for a TIA.
• Any project within a 1½-mile radius of any
key intersections that currently operate at a
level of service (LOS) D or worse and
project is likely to contribute traffic and
worsen this condition.
• Any project that generates more than 40
percent of its total traffic in the form of
truck traffic using passenger car
equivalents (PCE).
• Any project that intensifies the usage,
density, or traffic generation of the site
above the level currently allowed by zoning
codes, requiring a General Plan or Zoning
Amendment.
• Modifications are required to the original
TIA that is more than three years old, or
where the increase in traffic volume as
measured by ADT, peak hour, or peak hour
of the critical movement is more than 10%.

Trip Generation Estimates

1. Trip Generation Rates: Passenger vehicle
trips shall be estimated using the rates and
methodologies outlined in Trip Generation,
latest edition, published by the Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE). Approval
must be obtained from the Public Works
Director, City Engineer, or City Traffic
Engineer prior to using any other source to
establish project trips.

2. Trip Generation Basis: The basis of all trip
generation calculations will depend on the
type of land use proposed. The trips
generated by most commercial and
industrial uses should be based on gross
floor area. The trips generated by most
residential uses should be based on the
number of dwelling units. A basis for how
trips are established, including any
methodologies and assumptions shall be
noted in the report. An alternate basis for
estimating the project trips may be
approved and/or required by the Public
Works Director, City Engineer, or City
Traffic Engineer for certain special uses
where more appropriate and known
features of the project will result in a more
accurate estimate.

3. Unknown Trip Generation Rates: Some
unique types of development or uses may
not have rates/formulas published by ITE.

In this case, a trip generation study may be
conducted at a similar existing facility to
determine acceptable trip generation rates
to be used in the study. The type and
location of the similar existing facility and
the study methodology must be preapproved by the Public Works Director, City Engineer, or City Traffic Engineer.

4. Pass-By and Diverted-Link Trips: With
prior Public Works Director, City Engineer,
or City Traffic Engineer approval, pass-by
and/or diverted-link trips may be
calculated and used in estimating the
project-generated trips using the
procedures specified in the latest edition
of Trip Generation. The pass-by and/or
diverted-link trips must be justified by
appropriate calculations. However, the
reduced or net trips generated by the
project should not be used to analyze
project driveways and intersection(s)
immediately adjacent to the project site
(i.e., driveways and intersections in the
immediate vicinity shall be analyzed using
the full trip generation of the project).

Typically, pass-by trips are associated with
new fast-food restaurants, gas stations,
and shopping centers, etc.

5. Truck Trips: Truck trips shall be calculated
and shown separately. Peak hour
distribution of inbound and outbound
trucks shall be identified separately from
passenger cars. For light industrial,
industrial parks and warehouse uses, trip
rates contained in the latest edition of Trip
Generation shall be used. All truck trips
shall be converted into passenger car
equivalents (PCE) for intersection capacity
analysis using the following factors:
• 2-axle trucks: 2.0 PCE
• 3-axle trucks: 2.5 PCE
• 4- and more axle trucks: 3.0 PCE

City of Vallejo Transportation Analysis Guidelines | 3
Trip Distribution Assumptions
The study preparer shall specify, either
independently or in consultation with the
Public Works Department, the trip distribution
assumptions to be used in the study and have
them approved by the Department prior to
completing the study. The distribution should
be based on general socioeconomic
characteristics of the study area, location and
intensity of major trip generation and
attraction centers, trip length information,
origin-destination information (specifically for
industrial and warehouse uses) and any other
known but verifiable information. For heavy
truck related uses, where truck trips comprise
a minimum of 20 percent of the total
generated trips after converting into
passenger car equivalents, trip distribution
assumptions for truck trips should be shown
separately and presented in the report text
and figures separately. Use of the Solano Napa
Activity-Based Model (SNABM) or other
approved model may be required to establish
the project trip distribution.

Study Area
The scope of the TIA shall include at a
minimum any key intersection or roadway
segment within a one and a half (1 ½) mile
radius area from the project site. All key
intersections and roadway segments within
this study area must be analyzed to identify
impacts to capacity and LOS. The study
intersections and roadway segments should be
clearly identified for review and approval by
the Public Works Department prior to initiating
the study.

Projects located within Specific Plan areas for
which a program level Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) has been previously approved by
the city, may be allowed to use a study area
limited to the immediate vicinity of the project
to determine the need for any traffic
improvements, in addition to those already
identified in the EIR. The TIA for this type of
project must specifically identify any
differences between the project and the land
use assumed for the site in the Specific Plan
and EIR. A meeting with Public Works or
Planning Department staff will generally be
necessary to discuss the specific scope of the
study prior to preparing the study.

Analysis Procedure
and Methodology

1. Traffic Counts: Existing average daily
traffic volumes for study intersections and
roadways shall be developed from 24-
hour automatic machine counters or a
recognized traffic counting agency or
company. Existing peak period
intersection turning movement volumes
shall be developed from skilled
personnel/technician manual counts or a
recognized traffic counting agency or
company. Typical count days are Tuesday,
Wednesday, and Thursday of a typical
non-holiday work week when local schools
are in normal session. Counts taken on
holidays and the day before and after a
holiday should not be used. Days with
abnormal traffic conditions (such as rain,
construction activities, road closures, etc.)
must be avoided. Counts in the vicinity of
schools should be taken when the school
is in session and pick-up and drop-off are
occurring. New traffic counts may not be
necessary if counts are available from
another source such as traffic studies
and/or City records if they have been
obtained within the last two years and are
pre-approved for use by the Public
Works Department.

2. Peak Periods: Generally, both weekday
morning (7 a.m. to 9 a.m.) and evening (4
p.m. to 6 p.m.) peak periods should be
used in the analysis to identify traffic
impacts and any level of service problems.

In some cases, an off-peak or weekend
period may be required as directed and
approved by the Public Works Director,
City Engineer, or City Traffic Engineer. The
peak hours will be verified by 24-hour
volume counts.

City of Vallejo Transportation Analysis Guidelines | 4

3. Analysis Scenarios: The following analysis
scenarios, in the order shown, shall be
included for roadway and intersection
capacity analysis:
a. Existing Year Traffic Condition (identify
any existing deficiencies)
b. Project Opening (Near - Term) Year
Base Traffic Condition
c. Project Opening (Near - Term) Year
Base plus Other Proposed Projects
Traffic Condition (Obtain Other
Proposed Project information from the
City in advance)
d. Project Opening (Near - Term) Year
Base plus Other Projects plus Project
Traffic Condition
e. Project Opening (Near - Term) Year
Base plus Other Projects plus Project
Traffic Condition with Mitigations, if
necessary
f. Future Build-out Year Cumulative Base
(TBD - approved projection method)
Traffic Condition
g. Future Build-out Year Cumulative Base
plus Project Traffic Condition
h. Future Build-out Year Cumulative Base
plus Project Traffic Condition with
Mitigations, if necessary
Additionally, a staging analysis may be
required for phased projects to identify the
timing of future phases and needed
mitigation measures.

4. Internal Circulation & Access
Management: Include a discussion on
internal circulation and proposed on-site
parking. Show and discuss how vehicles
would enter and exit via the main access
driveways and identify any on-site or offsite circulation problems. Identify the need for signal controls using traffic signal
warrants specified in the latest edition of
the California Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices (CAMUTCD).

Requests for site access or access
modification shall be addressed in the
Traffic Impact Analysis. Study
recommendations shall include site access
and transportation improvements needed
to maintain traffic flow to, from, within, and
past the site at an acceptable and safe
level of service. Areas to address include:
• Separate conflict areas. Reduce the
number of access points or increase
their spacing so conflict areas or
maneuvering areas do not overlap.
• Limit the type of conflict areas by
preventing certain maneuvers.
• Remove turning vehicles or queues
from through lanes
• Safety of a proposed access (sight
distance both horizontally and
vertically), including
pedestrian features.
• Reduce the speed differential in
through lanes between through
vehicles and turning vehicles.
• Consider the impact of access points
on adjacent or nearby properties on
both sides of the roadway.

Improvements include such things as:
relocation, restriction, or elimination of
access points, roadway widening, turning
lanes, traffic signals, and
pedestrian facilities.

The number of vehicle access points
should be minimized by sharing driveways
and linking parking lots between adjacent
uses. Commercial developments shall
provide coordinated internal circulation
and connected parking facilities. Welldefined accessible walkways must be designed into all parking lots, with
interconnections between walkways to
create safe walking conditions and access
to the site from the public right of way.

5. Capacity Analysis Method: The latest
version of the Transportation Research
Board’s Highway Capacity Manual (HCM)
shall be the basis for operational delay/LOS

City of Vallejo Transportation Analysis Guidelines | 5
calculations for signalized and unsignalized
intersections. Several software packages
are available for conducting LOS analysis.

The latest version of the software package
used must be identified in the report.

6. Traffic Growth: Use of the SNABM or other
approved model may be required to
determine the future traffic volumes and
growth. It shall be the responsibility of the
traffic consultant to obtain these from
whatever source that provides the most
accurate projection within that area.

In the absence of traffic model
information, the future build-out year base
traffic volumes shall be estimated using an
annual growth factor of 2 percent per year,
unless a different rate can be justified and
is approved and/or required by the Public
Works Department. The horizon year for
the cumulative analysis shall be the current
horizon year of the SNABM travel demand
model at the time of the TIA’s preparation.

7. Traffic Impacts: The following criteria shall
be used to assess when a project is
determined to have a “significant” impact
related to the operations of
roadway facilities:

The project deteriorates the operations of
a signalized intersection from acceptable
to unacceptable based on the level of
service standard established in the
General Plan.
• The project results in a signalized
intersection deteriorating from LOS E
to LOS F.
• The project adds ten or more trips to a
signalized intersection projected to
operate at an unacceptable level F prior
to the addition of project traffic.
• The project deteriorates the operations
of a controlled movement at an
unsignalized intersection from LOS E or
better to LOS F, or at intersections
where a controlled movement already
operates at LOS F, one of the following:
• Project traffic results in satisfaction
at the peak hour volume traffic signal
warrant; or
• Project traffic increases minor
movement delay by more than 30
seconds; or
• Where the peak hour volume signal
warrant is met without project traffic
and delay cannot be measured,
project increases traffic by 10 or
more vehicles per lane on the
controlled approach.
• The addition of project traffic at a study
intersection would result in the 95th
percentile vehicle queue exceeding the
available storage or would increase
95th percentile queue by more than
two vehicles (50 feet) where the queue
already exceeds the available storage
space (for example, vehicle queues
spilling back from ramp terminal
intersections to the freeway mainline,
or vehicle queues extending beyond
the available turn pocket length,
impeding travel in the adjacent lanes).

8. Mitigation Requirements: The report
should identify level of service problems
under existing conditions and identify
measures that will provide an acceptable
LOS. These measures shall be assumed to
be in place for subsequent analyses.

Mitigation measures must be identified for
intersections that show a significant
project impact per item 7 above and
operate at LOS E or worse under the
conditions identified in Items 3d and/or 3g
above. The LOS with mitigation must be
improved to LOS D or better for
intersections and LOS C or better for
roadway segments, under the conditions
identified in Items 3e and/or 3h above.

Identify mitigation measures for both
opening year and future build-out year
conditions. Mitigation measures may need
to be identified for other conditions,
depending on the project phasing
and timing.

City of Vallejo Transportation Analysis Guidelines | 6

9. Mitigation Fair-share Cost Calculations:

The percentage of fair-share for the
project shall be calculated at each location
using the total trips generated by the
project divided by the total “new” traffic,
which is the net increase in traffic volume
from all proposed projects (Other Projects
plus Project) and growth. The cost of
mitigation shall be estimated using
verifiable cost estimates from reliable and
recognized sources. Fair-share cost of
mitigation shall be calculated using the
fair-share percentage of the project
volumes multiplied by total estimated cost
of mitigation.

10. Sight Distance: Sight distance restrictions
shall be addressed in the TIA. Sight
distance is the length of roadway visible to
the driver. Specified areas along
intersection approach legs and across
their included corners should be clear of
obstructions that might block a driver’s
view of potentially conflicting vehicles.

These specified areas are known as clear
sight triangles. The dimensions of the legs
of the sight triangles depend on the design
speeds of the intersecting roadways and
the type of traffic control used at the
intersection. Intersection sight distance
calculations shall be based on the most
recent edition of the AASHTO Manual or
Caltrans Highway Design Manual.

11. Alternate Modes of Transportation: The
TIA shall identify other transportation
modes that may be applicable, such as
transit use, bicycle, and pedestrian
facilities. New developments are
encouraged to implement Transportation
Demand Management practices and
introduce methods for trip reduction.

12. Safe Walking Conditions: The TIA must
consider pedestrian connections and
provision of safe and accessible walking
routes. It shall consider sidewalks and
other planning features to assure safe
walking conditions. For sites near schools,
the TIA will consider how site conditions
will support safe routes to school
for students.

13. Road Adequacy: The TIA shall include
detailed discussion and analysis of the
adequacy of roads serving the site and
within the project. Recommendations for
needed upgrades to local roadways shall
be included in the TIA. For projects with
significant heavy vehicle traffic, a
preferred access route to/from the site for
most heavy vehicle trips will be identified
and the road segment’s traffic index along
that route will be analyzed.

14. Collision History: The TIA shall evaluate
the most recent five years of vehicle,
pedestrian, and bicycle collision data for
all study intersections plus roadway
segments in proximity to the project site
as determined by the scope of work. The
analysis shall:
• Calculate street segment and
intersection collision frequencies based
on existing geometric configurations
and five years of collision data.
• Identify if there are crash patterns in
the data by analyzing vehicle,
pedestrian, and bicycle collisions by
collision type, severity, primary collision
factor, and movement. Summarize
findings and observations, and collision
rate using tables and narrative. For
additional guidance, see chapters 5 and
6 of the AASHTO Highway Safety
Manual (HSM).
• Determine if the project would
contribute to an existing problem or if
any improvements are recommended
to alleviate potential effects of the
project. Consult the Federal Highway
Administration’s Crash Modification
Factor (CMF) Clearinghouse and/or
Part D of the HSM to identify potential
needed safety treatments at study
intersections. Review available CMFs
related to assess potential treatments
for the purposes of addressing project
effects on safety. Identify the CMFs
that are applicable based on the study

City of Vallejo Transportation Analysis Guidelines | 7
intersection characteristics and the
source of the CMFs. Include a listing of
CMF values, CMF standard errors (if
given), and CMF quality based on
FHWA 5-star rating system, with a
focus on CMFs with 4-star or
5-star ratings.
• Identify potential improvements to
geometric design, lane configuration,
and/or signal equipment to improve
transportation safety at
study intersections.

15. Traffic Calming: Internal traffic calming
shall be incorporated into all
developments to control cut-through
traffic and reduce speed within the
development. The Traffic Impact Analysis
shall identify and propose specific traffic
calming measures and locations to be
incorporated in the development. Traffic
calming shall be aesthetically pleasing.

Public transportation shall also be
evaluated. The traffic-calming plan shall
include an overall drawing of the
development and identify specific
locations and features to be included in
the development. The proponent’s traffic
engineer shall work with the City Traffic
Engineer to develop a traffic-calming plan
for the development.

City of Vallejo Transportation Analysis Guidelines | 8
Report Format
To address traffic impact concerns, the TIA
report shall contain the following:

Cover Page with an appropriate title of the
Study and applicable application numbers,
Preparer’s name, mailing address, email
address, phone and fax numbers, and
preparation date.

Certification Page with a statement indicating
that the study has been prepared by, or under
the supervision of, a registered traffic engineer
or professional engineer licensed to practice
as a traffic engineer, and the preparer’s
signature and seal of registration.

Table of Contents
An Executive Summary (describing the study
scope and findings) Introduction – (describing
the project and the purpose of the study) Data
Collection, Data Source and Analysis
Methodology
Documentation of Analysis and Findings
(details may be included in an appendix)
Identification of traffic impacts associated
with the project
Identification of measures required to mitigate
the traffic impacts associated with the project
and their timing, if needed
Project Mitigation Fair-Share Cost Calculation
as a percent of impact, if needed
Figures showing, at a minimum, the following:
• Vicinity Map
• Site Plan showing project driveways
• Existing traffic volumes (peak hours
and ADT)
• Existing intersection lane configuration and
traffic control Location of Related Projects
• Cumulative traffic volumes from other
projects Project trip distribution
percentages
• Project related traffic volumes, including at
site-access driveways Project opening year
cumulative traffic volume
• Build-out year traffic volume with Project
• Future lane configuration and traffic control
used in future analysis
• Future lane configuration and traffic control
used in future analysis with identified
mitigation, if necessary.

Tables showing, at a minimum, the following:
• Project trip generation
• Other projects’ trip generation
• Intersection Capacity Analysis results for
various scenarios, identifying locations with
significant impacts that require mitigation,
if necessary
• Mitigation Measures, if necessary
• Calculation of Project’s fair-share cost of
mitigation, if necessary
Discussion of internal circulation and access
management
Sight distance and safety at intersections and
access points Transit, pedestrian, and bike
access opportunities
Roadway adequacy
Conclusion

City of Vallejo Transportation Analysis Guidelines | 9
CEQA
Transportation
Assessment
This section describes the transportation
analysis guidelines that establish general
procedures and requirements for the
preparation of California Environmental Quality
Act compliant transportation studies for landuse development projects within the City of Vallejo. The guidelines outlined in this section
shall be used in the preparation of the analysis
contained within the transportation and
circulation section of a CEQA document. This
CEQA Transportation section is a standalone
document different and separate from the TIA
report outlined on pages 1 through 8 of this
document. In general, the guidelines are
designed for use by transportation engineering
and CEQA professionals. These guidelines
supersede and replace the City of Vallejo’s
prior guidelines on this topic (City of Vallejo
CEQA Transportation Impact Analysis
Guidelines, Fehr & Peers, July 2020, Revised
October 2020).

SB 743 and the
Updated CEQA
Guidelines
Senate Bill 743, signed by the governor in
2013, changed the way transportation impacts
are identified and measured in California.

Specifically, the legislation directed the then
Office of Planning and Research (now the
Office of Land Use and Climate
Innovation/LCI) to consider different metrics
for identifying transportation impacts under
the California Environmental Quality Act.

OPR/LCI released its Technical Advisory on
Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA1 in
1 http://opr.ca.gov/docs/20190122-
743_Technical_Advisory.pdf
December 2018 in conjunction with the formal
adoption of the CEQA Guidelines requiring
vehicle miles traveled analysis for CEQA
transportation analyses after July 1, 2020.

The updated guidelines include revised CEQA
Appendix G Checklist criteria for
transportation impact evaluation. The four
criteria are as follows:

Would the project:

1. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or
policy addressing the circulation system,
including public transit, roadway, bicycle,
and pedestrian facilities?

2. Would the project conflict or be
inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section
15064.3, subdivision (b)?

3. Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?

4. Result in inadequate emergency access?
Criteria 2 addresses the implementation of the
SB 743 requirement. CEQA Guidelines section
15064.3, subdivision (b) reads, in part, as
follows:

1. Land Use Projects. Vehicle-miles traveled
exceeding an applicable threshold of
significance may indicate a significant
impact. Generally, projects within one halfmile of either an existing major transit stop or a stop along an existing high-quality
transit corridor should be presumed to
cause a less than significant transportation
impact. Projects that decrease vehicle
miles traveled in the project area compared
to existing conditions should be presumed
to have a less than significant
transportation impact.

2. Transportation Projects. Transportation
projects that reduce, or have no impact

City of Vallejo Transportation Analysis Guidelines | 10 on, vehicle miles traveled should be
presumed to cause a less than significant
transportation impact. For roadway
capacity projects, agencies have
discretion to determine the appropriate
measure of transportation impact
consistent with CEQA and other applicable
requirements. To the extent that such
impacts have already been adequately
addressed at a programmatic level, such
as in a regional transportation plan EIR, a
lead agency may tier from that analysis as
provided in Section 15152.

3. Qualitative Analysis. If existing models or
methods are not available to estimate the
vehicle miles traveled for the particular
project being considered, a lead agency
may analyze the project’s vehicle miles
traveled qualitatively. Such a qualitative
analysis would evaluate factors such as the
availability of transit, proximity to other
destinations, etc. For many projects, a
qualitative analysis of construction traffic
may be appropriate.

4. Methodology. A lead agency has discretion
to choose the most appropriate
methodology to evaluate a project’s
vehicle miles traveled, including whether
to express the change in absolute terms,
per capita, per household, or in any other
measure. A lead agency may use models
to estimate a project’s vehicle miles
traveled and may revise those estimates to
reflect professional judgment based on
substantial evidence. Any assumptions
used to estimate vehicle miles traveled
and any revisions to model outputs should
be documented and explained in the
environmental document prepared for the
project. The standard of adequacy in
Section 15151 shall apply to the analysis
described in this section.

Can LOS Analysis Still be
Conducted as Part of
Development Review?
A key element of SB 743 is the elimination of
automobile delay and Level of Service (LOS)
as the sole basis of determining CEQA
impacts. The most recent CEQA guidelines,
released in December 2018, recommend VMT
as the most appropriate measure of project
transportation impacts. However, SB 743 does
not prevent a city or county from continuing to
analyze delay or LOS outside of CEQA review
as part of other transportation planning or
analysis purposes (i.e., general plans, impact
fee programs, corridor studies, congestion
mitigation, or ongoing network monitoring);
but these metrics may no longer constitute the
sole basis for CEQA impacts. These guidelines
provide technical direction regarding the
assessment of VMT, thresholds of significance,
and mitigation measures for land development
and transportation projects within the
City of Vallejo.

The City’s General Plan 2040 establishes an
advisory standard of LOS E or better, to be
considered along with, but not override,
metrics for pedestrian, bicycle, transit, and
emergency access performance (General Plan
Policy MTC-2.5). LOS can continue to be
assessed relative to this standard during
development review, to promote the city’s
interest in maintaining and operating a
functional roadway network. However,
assessment of a development project’s effect
on intersection level of service must be
conducted outside the CEQA process. The
assessment can be performed as part of a
General Plan consistency assessment, within a
separate traffic impact analysis document.

Within the City of Vallejo, this is performed
within a non-CEQA Traffic Impact Analysis per
the guidelines on pages 1 through 8 of this
document.

City of Vallejo Transportation Analysis Guidelines | 11 Congestion Management
Program Compliance Changes
SB 743 contains amendments to current
congestion management law that allows cities
and counties to effectively opt-out of the LOS
standards that would otherwise apply in areas
where Congestion Management Programs
(CMPs) are still used (see Government Code
Sections 65088.1 and 65088.4). Solano
County’s Congestion Management Program
was recently updated in September 2023. The
CMP network in Vallejo includes I-80, SR 37,
SR 29 (Sonoma Boulevard), Curtola Parkway,
Mare Island Way, and Tennessee Street west
of I-80. Three intersections are also monitored
in the CMP: Tennessee Street/Sonoma
Boulevard, Tennessee Street/Mare Island Way,
and Curtola Parkway/Sonoma Boulevard. The
LOS standard for these intersections is LOS E.

The 2023 monitoring indicated all three
intersections operated at LOS D or better.

VMT Analysis
For the purposes of SB 743 compliance, a
VMT assessment should be conducted for land
use projects. In general, VMT is an efficiency
metric and should be normalized on a per
capita basis relative to the number of
residents, employees, or service population
depending on the project type (service
population is residents plus
employees).Normalizing VMT per service
population, resident, or employee essentially
provides a transportation efficiency metric.

Using an efficiency metric allows the analyst to
compare the project to the city, region, or
county, for purposes of identifying
transportation impacts.

For the purposes of assessing significant
impacts, the City of Vallejo has established the
following standards of significance.

VMT Thresholds of Significance
The following are the City of Vallejo’s
thresholds of significance related to
substantial additional VMT:
• For residential projects, a project would
cause substantial additional VMT if it
exceeds existing citywide household
VMT per capita minus 15 percent.
• For employment projects, a project
would cause substantial additional VMT
if it exceeds the existing regionwide
VMT per employee minus 15 percent.
• For regional retail projects a project
would cause substantial additional VMT
if it would increase net regional VMT.
• Mixed-use projects shall be divided into
their individual constituent parts and
evaluated against their individual
components’ standards.

City of Vallejo Transportation Analysis Guidelines | 12 Project VMT
Screening
The State of California allows, and the City of
Vallejo has adopted screening criteria that can
be used to quickly assess if certain project
types can be presumed to have a less than
significant adverse impact relative to VMT. If a
project or components of the project meet any
of the adopted screening criteria, then it is
presumed VMT impacts would be less than
significant for the project or component of the
project, and a detailed VMT analysis is not
required. City staff can deny the use of
screening criteria if substantial evidence
suggests the project is not appropriate
for screening. Projects meeting the screening
criteria would not be subject to a VMT analysis
for the purposes of the CEQA Transportation
section; however, a project’s effect on VMT, or
the VMT generated by the project, would still
be studied as part of the CEQA Air Quality,
Greenhouse Gas, and/or Energy sections, as
applicable.

The screening criteria are—in addition to other
CEQA exemptions—unchanged by SB 743,
including CEQA exemptions for projects
consistent with an adopted General or Specific
Plan (CEQA Guidelines §15183). Claiming a
CEQA exemption on the basis of §15183 may
carry additional legal risk in the post-SB 743
CEQA legal environment, especially if the EIR
for the General Plan does not include an
analysis of VMT; the city may choose to
require an informational VMT analysis to prove
that a project is consistent (on a VMT basis)
with the land uses previously environmentally
cleared as part of an adopted Specific Plan or
General Plan. This approach is similar to the
approach taken when CEQA Transportation
section impacts were evaluated on the basis of
delay and level of service, whereby a project
applicant would be required to provide a trip
generation memorandum prepared by a
qualified consultant to demonstrate that a
project adds a negligible number of trips to
the roadway system.

Absent substantial evidence that the project in
question might generate a potentially
significant level of VMT, projects that meet at
least one of the following screening criteria
would be presumed to cause a less-thansignificant VMT impact and would not require VMT analysis.

VMT Screening Criteria
The City of Vallejo has three key screening
criteria for projects: project type, project
location in a low VMT area, and project
location near transit stations. A project only
needs to meet one of the three screening
criteria to “screen out.” Projects that do not
meet any of the identified screening criteria
are required to conduct a detailed VMT
assessment.

Screening Criteria 1: Project Type
Absent evidence indicating that a project
would generate a potentially significant level of
VMT, the following types of projects should be
expected to cause a less-than-significant
impact under CEQA and would not require
further VMT analysis. Evidence indicating that
a project may not be eligible to screen could
include unusual or unique land use types or
uses, site locations requiring atypical travel or
other characteristics identified by city staff.
• Small Scale, Local-Serving Retail: Localserving retail projects are defined as projects of less than or equal to 50,000
square feet in size on the basis that they
attract trips that would otherwise travel
longer distances. Local-serving retail
generally improves the convenience of
shopping and other activities close to
home and has the effect of reducing
vehicle travel.
• Transportation Projects Not Likely to Lead
to Substantial Increase in Vehicle Travel:

Screened transportation projects include

City of Vallejo Transportation Analysis Guidelines | 13 transit projects, bicycle and pedestrian
projects, and roadway projects that do not
result in vehicle capacity increase.
• Public Services: Police stations, fire
stations, public utilities, and parks do not
generally generate VMT. Instead, these land
uses are often built in response to
development from other land uses (e.g.,
office and residential). Therefore, these
land uses can be presumed to have lessthan-significant impacts on VMT. However, this presumption would not apply if the
project is sited in a location that would
require employees or visitors to travel
substantial distances (such as locations on
the outskirts of the city or sites requiring
abnormal levels of vehicle travel), and the
project is not located within one half-mile
of a major transit stop or does not meet the
small project screening criterion.
• Small Projects: Projects that generate very
few trips per day can be reasonably
expected to not generate significant
impacts related to greenhouse gas
emissions (GHG).

According to findings from the CAPCOA’s
CEQA and climate change white paper
(Evaluating and Addressing Greenhouse
Gas Emissions from Projects Subject to the
California Environmental Quality Act,
CAPCOA, January 2008), small
developments that generate less than 900
MTCO2 per year are considered to have de
minimis impact on GHG emissions.

The CAPCOA screening level threshold of
900 MTCO2 is more conservative than the
level provided historically by BAAQMD. The
CAPCOA threshold is in line with the post2020 reduction goals established by SB 32.

Thus, for the purposes of this assessment,
the 900 MTCO2 per year screening level
was examined in accordance with CAPCOA
2 California Air Resources Board (November 2025).
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2025-
11/nc-2000_2023_ghg_inventory_trends.pdf
guidance. The screening level does not
indicate impact significance; rather, it is
intended to screen out smaller projects that
do not generate substantial amounts of
GHG emissions, and it allows regulatory
and discretionary actions to focus on more
significant sources of GHG emissions.

Projects that emit less than 900 MTCO2 per
year would likely not be considered
cumulatively considerable and would not
interfere with the ability of the state to
achieve its GHG reduction targets.

METHODOLOGY TO DETERMINE SMALL

PROJECT TRIP THRESHOLD
The methodology for applying the de minimis
GHG emissions screening threshold to
develop a locally applicable VMT screening
threshold involves calculating how many daily
residential or commercial trips would equate
to the transportation-related GHG emissions
of a local development whose total annual
emissions would fall under the 900 MTCO2 per
year level. CARB estimated the on and off-site
transportation-related emissions (including
energy production for transportation) to be
approximately 37% of regional GHG
emissions. 2 Therefore, the transportation
component of a development’s total emissions
falling under the screening threshold would be
333 MTCO2 per year.

The methodology estimates the annual GHG
emissions from a given number of daily vehicle
trips as the sum of vehicle starting emissions
and vehicle running emissions, multiplied by
an annualization factor. The vehicle starting
emissions are proportional to the daily vehicle
trips and the vehicle running emissions are
proportional to the daily VMT, both of which
are obtained from the Solano Napa Activity
Based Model (SNBAM), which is locally
approved and calibrated. Parameters from the
California Emissions Estimator Model

City of Vallejo Transportation Analysis Guidelines | 14 (CalEEMod) Version 2020.4.0 informed the
conversion of vehicle trips and VMT to CO2-
equivalent emissions. 3 Analysis of countywide
StreetLight data resulted in a VMT
annualization factor of 353.

Figure 1 illustrates the subareas by which small
project VMT screening should be conducted.

These areas were developed through multiple
runs of the SNBAM to assess geographic areas
and boundaries that represent land uses with
comparable and analogous travel behavior.

Table 1 shows the maximum daily residential or
commercial trips that generate annual GHG
emissions falling under the 333 MTCO2 per
year threshold, for each subarea.

Developments that generate fewer daily trips
than those presented in the table as the
threshold can be “screened out” and
presumed to have a less than significant
impact on VMT.

The thresholds differ by subarea based on the
average trip distance for household and
employee trips. Some geographic subareas
are more VMT efficient than others. Table 2
provides more detailed information for
each area.
3 CAPCOA (2021). Appendix D: Default Data Tables.
https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/caleemod/user-guide-2021/appendixd2020-4-0-full-merge.pdf?sfvrsn=12.

Table 1. Small Project VMT
Screening Criteria
Subarea
Daily
Residential
Trips1
Daily
Employment
Trips1
One 300 220
Two 310 180
Three 300 230
Four 330 200
Five 300 220
Six 250 110
Seven 280 200
Citywide 300 190
Source: SNABM and Fehr & Peers.
1 Value is rounded down to the nearest 10.

EXAMPLE OF SMALL PROJECT SCREENING

CRITERIA USE
To assess if a project falls below the City’s
small project screening criteria, an analyst
would first calculate the number of daily trips
that the development would generate. Then
the analyst would locate the project site on
Figure 1 and compare the daily trip calculation
to the values in Table 1. As an example, a
residential project in Subarea 6 would be
screened out if it generated less than 250
daily trips.

Benicia
State
Recreation
Area
Napa-Sonoma Marshes
Wildlife Area
San Pablo
Bay
Napa
River
Carquinez
Strait
American
Canyon
Crockett
Mare
Island
Vallejo
Benicia
29 29
80 80
80 37
37 780
780
6 7
5 4
2 3
1 0 1 2
Miles
Subareas
VMT Screening Subareas
FIGURE 1

City of Vallejo Transportation Analysis Guidelines | 16 Table 2: Small Project ADT Screening Thresholds
Area One: Residential Area One: Employment
Veh.
trips/day
(HB VT)
VMT/day
(HB VMT)
CO2 Eq. Veh. trips/day
(HB VT)
VMT/day
(HB VMT)
CO2 Eq.
g/year MT/year g/year MT/year
200 1,684.2 216,003,726 216.0 200 2,342.1 298,357,059 298.4 250 2,105.2 270,004,658 270.0 223 2,611.5 332,668,121 332.7 300 2,526.2 324,005,589 324.0 250 2,927.7 372,946,324 372.9 305 2,568.4 329,405,683 329.4 300 3,513.2 447,535,588 447.5 350 2,947.3 378,006,521 378.0 350 4,098.7 522,124,853 522.1 400 3,368.3 432,007,453 432.0 400 4,684.3 596,714,118 596.7 450 3,789.4 486,008,384 486.0 450 5,269.8 671,303,382 671.3 500 4,210.4 540,009,316 540.0 500 5,855.3 745,892,647 745.9 550 4,631.5 594,010,247 594.0 550 6,440.9 820,481,912 820.5 600 5,052.5 648,011,179 648.0 600 7,026.4 895,071,176 895.1 650 5,473.5 702,012,110 702.0 650 7,611.9 969,660,441 969.7 676 5,692.5 730,092,595 730.1 676 7,916.4 1,008,446,859 1008.4 700 5,894.6 756,013,042 756.0 700 8,197.5 1,044,249,706 1044.2 750 6,315.6 810,013,974 810.0 750 8,783.0 1,118,838,971 1118.8 800 6,736.7 864,014,905 864.0 800 9,368.5 1,193,428,235 1193.4 850 7,157.7 918,015,837 918.0 850 9,954.1 1,268,017,500 1268.0 900 7,578.7 972,016,768 972.0 900 10,539.6 1,342,606,765 1342.6 Average trip distance: 8.42 miles Average trip distance: 11.71 miles Annualization factor for VMT: 353
Yolo/Solano AQMD 2026 Annual CO2 Running for LDA (g/VMT): 354.57 [1] Yolo/Solano AQMD 2026 Annual CO2 Starting for LDA (g/VT):73.77 [1] [1] https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/user-guide-2021/appendix-d2020-4-0-full-merge.pdf?sfvrsn=12

City of Vallejo Transportation Analysis Guidelines | 17 Area Two: Residential Area Two: Employment
Veh.
trips/day
(HB VT)
VMT/day
(HB VMT)
CO2 Eq. Veh. trips/day
(HB VT)
VMT/day
(HB VMT)
CO2 Eq.
g/year MT/year g/year MT/year
200 1,635.0 209,852,939 209.9 188 2,620.3 332,861,786 332.9 250 2,043.8 262,316,174 262.3 200 2,787.6 354,108,284 354.1 300 2,452.5 314,779,409 314.8 250 3,484.5 442,635,354 442.6 316 2,583.3 331,567,644 331.6 300 4,181.3 531,162,425 531.2 333 2,722.3 349,405,144 349.4 350 4,878.2 619,689,496 619.7 400 3,270.0 419,705,878 419.7 400 5,575.1 708,216,567 708.2 450 3,678.8 472,169,113 472.2 450 6,272.0 796,743,638 796.7 500 4,087.6 524,632,348 524.6 500 6,968.9 885,270,709 885.3 550 4,496.3 577,095,583 577.1 550 7,665.8 973,797,780 973.8 600 4,905.1 629,558,817 629.6 600 8,362.7 1,062,324,851 1062.3 650 5,313.8 682,022,052 682.0 650 9,059.6 1,150,851,921 1150.9 676 5,526.4 709,302,934 709.3 676 9,422.0 1,196,885,998 1196.9 700 5,722.6 734,485,287 734.5 700 9,756.5 1,239,378,992 1239.4 750 6,131.3 786,948,522 786.9 750 10,453.4 1,327,906,063 1327.9 800 6,540.1 839,411,756 839.4 800 11,150.2 1,416,433,134 1416.4 850 6,948.8 891,874,991 891.9 850 11,847.1 1,504,960,205 1505.0 900 7,357.6 944,338,226 944.3 900 12,544.0 1,593,487,276 1593.5 Average trip distance: 8.18 miles Average trip distance: 13.94 miles Annualization factor for VMT: 353
Yolo/Solano AQMD 2026 Annual CO2 Running for LDA (g/VMT): 354.57 [1] Yolo/Solano AQMD 2026 Annual CO2 Starting for LDA (g/VT):73.77 [1] [1] https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/user-guide-2021/appendix-d2020-4-0-full-merge.pdf?sfvrsn=12

City of Vallejo Transportation Analysis Guidelines | 18 Area Three: Residential Area Three: Employment
Veh.
trips/day
(HB VT)
VMT/day
(HB VMT)
CO2 Eq. Veh. trips/day
(HB VT)
VMT/day
(HB VMT)
CO2 Eq.
g/year MT/year g/year MT/year
200 1,691.0 216,859,636 216.9 200 2,213.9 282,309,211 282.3 250 2,113.8 271,074,545 271.1 235 2,601.4 331,713,323 331.7 300 2,536.5 325,289,454 325.3 250 2,767.4 352,886,514 352.9 307 2,595.7 332,879,541 332.9 300 3,320.9 423,463,817 423.5 350 2,959.3 379,504,363 379.5 350 3,874.4 494,041,119 494.0 400 3,382.0 433,719,272 433.7 400 4,427.8 564,618,422 564.6 450 3,804.8 487,934,181 487.9 450 4,981.3 635,195,725 635.2 500 4,227.5 542,149,090 542.1 500 5,534.8 705,773,028 705.8 550 4,650.3 596,363,999 596.4 550 6,088.3 776,350,331 776.4 600 5,073.0 650,578,908 650.6 600 6,641.8 846,927,633 846.9 650 5,495.8 704,793,817 704.8 650 7,195.2 917,504,936 917.5 676 5,715.6 732,985,570 733.0 676 7,483.0 954,205,134 954.2 700 5,918.5 759,008,726 759.0 700 7,748.7 988,082,239 988.1 750 6,341.3 813,223,636 813.2 750 8,302.2 1,058,659,542 1058.7 800 6,764.0 867,438,545 867.4 800 8,855.7 1,129,236,844 1129.2 850 7,186.8 921,653,454 921.7 850 9,409.2 1,199,814,147 1199.8 900 7,609.5 975,868,363 975.9 900 9,962.6 1,270,391,450 1270.4 Average trip distance: 8.46 miles Average trip distance: 11.07 miles Annualization factor for VMT: 353
Yolo/Solano AQMD 2026 Annual CO2 Running for LDA (g/VMT): 354.57 [1] Yolo/Solano AQMD 2026 Annual CO2 Starting for LDA (g/VT):73.77 [1] [1] https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/user-guide-2021/appendix-d2020-4-0-full-merge.pdf?sfvrsn=12

City of Vallejo Transportation Analysis Guidelines | 19 Area Four: Residential Area Four: Employment
Veh.
trips/day
(HB VT)
VMT/day
(HB VMT)
CO2 Eq. Veh. trips/day
(HB VT)
VMT/day
(HB VMT)
CO2 Eq.
g/year MT/year g/year MT/year
200 1,551.6 199,405,871 199.4 200 2,539.0 322,995,804 323.0 250 1,939.4 249,257,339 249.3 206 2,615.2 332,685,678 332.7 300 2,327.3 299,108,806 299.1 250 3,173.7 403,744,755 403.7 333 2,583.3 332,010,775 332.0 300 3,808.5 484,493,706 484.5 350 2,715.2 348,960,274 349.0 350 4,443.2 565,242,657 565.2 400 3,103.1 398,811,742 398.8 400 5,078.0 645,991,608 646.0 450 3,491.0 448,663,210 448.7 450 5,712.7 726,740,559 726.7 500 3,878.9 498,514,677 498.5 500 6,347.5 807,489,510 807.5 550 4,266.8 548,366,145 548.4 550 6,982.2 888,238,461 888.2 600 4,654.7 598,217,613 598.2 600 7,617.0 968,987,411 969.0 650 5,042.6 648,069,081 648.1 650 8,251.7 1,049,736,362 1049.7 676 5,244.3 673,991,844 674.0 676 8,581.8 1,091,725,817 1091.7 700 5,430.4 697,920,548 697.9 700 8,886.5 1,130,485,313 1130.5 750 5,818.3 747,772,016 747.8 750 9,521.2 1,211,234,264 1211.2 800 6,206.2 797,623,484 797.6 800 10,155.9 1,291,983,215 1292.0 850 6,594.1 847,474,951 847.5 850 10,790.7 1,372,732,166 1372.7 900 6,982.0 897,326,419 897.3 900 11,425.4 1,453,481,117 1453.5 Average trip distance: 7.76 miles Average trip distance: 12.96 miles Annualization factor for VMT: 353
Yolo/Solano AQMD 2026 Annual CO2 Running for LDA (g/VMT): 354.57 [1] Yolo/Solano AQMD 2026 Annual CO2 Starting for LDA (g/VT):73.77 [1] [1] https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/user-guide-2021/appendix-d2020-4-0-full-merge.pdf?sfvrsn=12

City of Vallejo Transportation Analysis Guidelines | 20 Area Five: Residential Area Five: Employment
Veh.
trips/day
(HB VT)
VMT/day
(HB VMT)
CO2 Eq. Veh. trips/day
(HB VT)
VMT/day
(HB VMT)
CO2 Eq.
g/year MT/year g/year MT/year
200 1,678.1 215,246,956 215.2 200 2,323.7 296,049,707 296.0 250 2,097.6 269,058,695 269.1 224 2,602.5 331,575,671 331.6 300 2,517.2 322,870,434 322.9 250 2,904.6 370,062,133 370.1 309 2,592.7 332,556,547 332.6 300 3,485.5 444,074,560 444.1 350 2,936.7 376,682,173 376.7 350 4,066.5 518,086,987 518.1 400 3,356.2 430,493,912 430.5 400 4,647.4 592,099,413 592.1 450 3,775.8 484,305,651 484.3 450 5,228.3 666,111,840 666.1 500 4,195.3 538,117,390 538.1 500 5,809.2 740,124,266 740.1 550 4,614.8 591,929,129 591.9 550 6,390.2 814,136,693 814.1 600 5,034.4 645,740,868 645.7 600 6,971.1 888,149,120 888.1 650 5,453.9 699,552,607 699.6 650 7,552.0 962,161,546 962.2 676 5,672.0 727,534,711 727.5 676 7,854.1 1,000,648,008 1000.6 700 5,873.4 753,364,346 753.4 700 8,132.9 1,036,173,973 1036.2 750 6,292.9 807,176,085 807.2 750 8,713.9 1,110,186,400 1110.2 800 6,712.5 860,987,824 861.0 800 9,294.8 1,184,198,826 1184.2 850 7,132.0 914,799,563 914.8 850 9,875.7 1,258,211,253 1258.2 900 7,551.5 968,611,302 968.6 900 10,456.6 1,332,223,680 1332.2 Average trip distance: 8.39 miles Average trip distance: 11.62 miles Annualization factor for VMT: 353
Yolo/Solano AQMD 2026 Annual CO2 Running for LDA (g/VMT): 354.57 [1] Yolo/Solano AQMD 2026 Annual CO2 Starting for LDA (g/VT):73.77 [1] [1] https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/user-guide-2021/appendix-d2020-4-0-full-merge.pdf?sfvrsn=12

City of Vallejo Transportation Analysis Guidelines | 21 Area Six: Residential Area Six: Employment
Veh.
trips/day
(HB VT)
VMT/day
(HB VMT)
CO2 Eq. Veh. trips/day
(HB VT)
VMT/day
(HB VMT)
CO2 Eq.
g/year MT/year g/year MT/year
200 2,077.4 260,167,456 260.2 118 2,654.5 332,440,545 332.4 250 2,596.8 325,209,320 325.2 200 4,499.1 563,458,550 563.5 255 2,648.7 331,713,506 331.7 250 5,623.9 704,323,188 704.3 300 3,116.1 390,251,184 390.3 300 6,748.7 845,187,825 845.2 350 3,635.5 455,293,048 455.3 350 7,873.5 986,052,463 986.1 400 4,154.8 520,334,912 520.3 400 8,998.3 1,126,917,100 1126.9 450 4,674.2 585,376,776 585.4 450 10,123.1 1,267,781,738 1267.8 500 5,193.5 650,418,640 650.4 500 11,247.8 1,408,646,375 1408.6 550 5,712.9 715,460,504 715.5 550 12,372.6 1,549,511,013 1549.5 600 6,232.2 780,502,368 780.5 600 13,497.4 1,690,375,650 1690.4 650 6,751.6 845,544,232 845.5 650 14,622.2 1,831,240,288 1831.2 676 7,021.6 879,366,001 879.4 676 15,207.1 1,904,489,899 1904.5 700 7,270.9 910,586,096 910.6 700 15,747.0 1,972,104,925 1972.1 750 7,790.3 975,627,960 975.6 750 16,871.8 2,112,969,563 2113.0 800 8,309.6 1,040,669,824 1040.7 800 17,996.6 2,253,834,200 2253.8 850 8,829.0 1,105,711,688 1105.7 850 19,121.3 2,394,698,838 2394.7 900 9,348.3 1,170,753,552 1170.8 900 20,246.1 2,535,563,475 2535.6 Average trip distance: 10.39 miles Average trip distance: 22.50 miles Annualization factor for VMT: 353
Yolo/Solano AQMD 2026 Annual CO2 Running for LDA (g/VMT): 354.57 [1] Yolo/Solano AQMD 2026 Annual CO2 Starting for LDA (g/VT):73.77 [1] [1] https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/user-guide-2021/appendix-d2020-4-0-full-merge.pdf?sfvrsn=12

City of Vallejo Transportation Analysis Guidelines | 22 Area Seven: Residential Area Seven: Employment
Veh.
trips/day
(HB VT)
VMT/day
(HB VMT)
CO2 Eq. Veh. trips/day
(HB VT)
VMT/day
(HB VMT)
CO2 Eq.
g/year MT/year g/year MT/year
200 1,824.0 233,524,367 233.5 200 2,522.3 320,929,482 320.9 250 2,280.0 291,905,458 291.9 207 2,610.6 332,162,013 332.2 285 2,599.1 332,772,223 332.8 250 3,152.9 401,161,852 401.2 300 2,735.9 350,286,550 350.3 300 3,783.4 481,394,222 481.4 350 3,191.9 408,667,642 408.7 350 4,414.0 561,626,593 561.6 400 3,647.9 467,048,734 467.0 400 5,044.6 641,858,963 641.9 500 4,559.9 583,810,917 583.8 500 6,305.7 802,323,704 802.3 550 5,015.9 642,192,009 642.2 550 6,936.3 882,556,075 882.6 600 5,471.9 700,573,100 700.6 600 7,566.9 962,788,445 962.8 650 5,927.9 758,954,192 759.0 650 8,197.4 1,043,020,815 1043.0 676 6,165.0 789,312,360 789.3 676 8,525.3 1,084,741,648 1084.7 700 6,383.9 817,335,284 817.3 700 8,828.0 1,123,253,186 1123.3 750 6,839.9 875,716,375 875.7 750 9,458.6 1,203,485,556 1203.5 800 7,295.9 934,097,467 934.1 800 10,089.2 1,283,717,927 1283.7 850 7,751.8 992,478,559 992.5 850 10,719.7 1,363,950,297 1364.0 900 8,207.8 1,050,859,650 1050.9 900 11,350.3 1,444,182,667 1444.2 Average trip distance: 9.12 miles Average trip distance: 13.33 miles Annualization factor for VMT: 353
Yolo/Solano AQMD 2026 Annual CO2 Running for LDA (g/VMT): 354.57 [1] Yolo/Solano AQMD 2026 Annual CO2 Starting for LDA (g/VT):73.77 [1] [1] https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/user-guide-2021/appendix-d2020-4-0-full-merge.pdf?sfvrsn=12

City of Vallejo Transportation Analysis Guidelines | 23 Citywide: Residential Citywide: Employment
Veh.
trips/day
(HB VT)
VMT/day
(HB VMT)
CO2 Eq. Veh. trips/day
(HB VT)
VMT/day
(HB VMT)
CO2 Eq.
g/year MT/year g/year MT/year
200 1,708.8 219,104,449 219.1 196 2,612.7 332,138,189 332.1 250 2,135.9 273,880,562 273.9 200 2,666.0 338,916,519 338.9 300 2,563.1 328,656,674 328.7 250 3,332.5 423,645,649 423.6 303 2,588.8 331,943,241 331.9 300 3,999.0 508,374,778 508.4 350 2,990.3 383,432,787 383.4 350 4,665.5 593,103,908 593.1 400 3,417.5 438,208,899 438.2 400 5,332.0 677,833,038 677.8 500 4,271.9 547,761,124 547.8 500 6,665.0 847,291,297 847.3 550 4,699.1 602,537,236 602.5 550 7,331.5 932,020,427 932.0 600 5,126.3 657,313,348 657.3 600 7,998.0 1,016,749,557 1016.7 650 5,553.5 712,089,461 712.1 650 8,664.5 1,101,478,687 1101.5 676 5,775.6 740,573,039 740.6 676 9,011.1 1,145,537,834 1145.5 700 5,980.6 766,865,573 766.9 700 9,331.0 1,186,207,816 1186.2 750 6,407.8 821,641,685 821.6 750 9,997.5 1,270,936,946 1270.9 800 6,835.0 876,417,798 876.4 800 10,664.0 1,355,666,076 1355.7 850 7,262.2 931,193,910 931.2 850 11,330.5 1,440,395,206 1440.4 900 7,689.4 985,970,022 986.0 900 11,997.0 1,525,124,335 1525.1 Average trip distance: 8.54 miles Average trip distance: 13.33 miles Annualization factor for VMT: 353
Yolo/Solano AQMD 2026 Annual CO2 Running for LDA (g/VMT): 354.57 [1] Yolo/Solano AQMD 2026 Annual CO2 Starting for LDA (g/VT):73.77 [1] [1] https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/user-guide-2021/appendix-d2020-4-0-full-merge.pdf?sfvrsn=12

City of Vallejo Transportation Analysis Guidelines | 24 Screening Criteria 2: Low VMT
Area Screening
Residential and employment-generating
projects located within a low VMT generating
area of the city may be presumed to have a
less than significant impact absent substantial
evidence to the contrary. For this screening,
Solano-Napa County Activity Based Travel
Demand Model shall be used to compare the
project’s characteristics to land uses currently
in the low-VMT area and for individual traffic
analysis zones (TAZs). TAZs are geographic
polygons (like census block groups) used to
represent areas of homogenous travel
behavior. For the low VMT area screening
criterion to be satisfied, the analyst must verify
that the project land uses would not alter the
existing built environment in such a way as to
increase the rate or length of vehicle trips
(e.g., the proposed project is consistent with
existing land use in the area, the project would
be expected to contribute VMT consistent
with existing land use in the area, and the
project would not significantly alter travel
patterns in the area).

A low VMT area is defined as follows:
• For housing projects: TAZs that have a
baseline home-based VMT per capita that
is 85 percent or less of the existing
citywide average.
• For employment-generating projects: TAZs
that have baseline home-work VMT per
worker that is 85 percent or less of the
existing regionwide average.

To determine if a project is in a low VMTgenerating area, the analyst may review the screening maps provided as Figure 2
(residential project mapping) and Figure 3
(employment-generating project mapping).

Projects located in TAZs that are 15 percent
below the relevant threshold (indicated in
green on Figure 2 and Figure 3) can be
presumed to have a less than
significant impact.

Additionally, as noted above, the analyst must
identify if the project is consistent with the
General Plan land use designation(s) and
zoning district(s) within that TAZ (e.g., if the
project is proposing single-family housing,
there should be existing single-family housing
of approximately the same density) and use
professional judgement to confirm that there
is nothing unique about the project that would
otherwise be misrepresented utilizing the data
from the travel demand model.

443
394
393
389
395 415
455
418
410
420
441
447
452
444
451
341
344
350
340 338
337
348
335
334
326
325
327
324
323
311
429
313
314
312
431
436
430
396
445
446
345
354
379
352
351
380 382
401
397
377
381
386
405
378
361 362
449
448
453
450
454
383
384
388 387
385
349
347
363
346
359
360
358
355
357
356
353
364
370
409
402
407
372
403
369
408
367
373
365
375
404
374
376
398
406
399
400
371
368
366
343 342
331
315
426
423
425
424
422
421
320
318
339
328
329
333
330
332
322
336
321
319
427
428
432
317
437
434
433
438
439
435
440
316
442
419
390
391
411
414
413
412
392
417
416
Napa-Sonoma Vallejo Swett
Marshes
Wildlife Area
Benicia
SRA
Eastern
Swett
Glen
Cove
Parkway
Ma
ripos
a
Stre
e
t
Redwood Pw
Elliott
Dr vi e
San Pablo Av
West 7th St
Wetla
nds
Edge
Road
Bro
a
d
w
a
y
Southampton Road
Steffa
n
St
Foot
hill D
rive
Columbus
Parkway
Ascot Parkway
West K Street
North Regatta Dr
O
a
kwoodAv
Azuar Drive
Rollingwood Drive
American Canyon Road
Curtola Pw
T
u
olu
m
n
e
Stre
et
Sonoma Boulevard
Benicia Road
Tennessee Street
HastingsDrive
Admiral Callaghan Lane
Meadows Drive
Fairgrounds Dr
Borges Lane
Wanda St
Land ma rk
D
r
Mare Isla
nd Wy
Redwood St
Maritime Academy Drive
Walnut Avenue
DanielsAv
SeverusDrive
ColumbusParkway
MiniDrive
Tobin Drive
Railroad Avenue
Wallace Av
Wilson Avenue
B W Williams Drive
C
ul b
Drive
Magazine Street
Porter Street
SerenoDr
Keats Driv
e
SilverOak Trail
Maine Street
Flosden Road
Donaldson Wy East
Georgia Street
McGary Road
Rio del Mar
SkylineDr
Benningto
n
D
r
vi e
N
orth
C
a
min
o
Alto
Nebraska Street
Lake Herman Road
Rose Drive
City of Vallejo
2025 Residential VMT Per Resident
Compared to Citywide Average
Figure 2
Source: Solano-Napa Activity Based Model, Solano Transportation Authority and TJKM (2024) 15% below Vallejo City average
Between 15%-0% below Vallejo City average
Above Vallejo City average
TAZ with no (or very low) population
### TAZ ID
Vallejo City Average: 24.6

443
394
393
389
395 415
455
418
410
420
441
447
452
444
451
341
344
350
340 338
337
348
335
334
326
325
327
324
323
311
429
313
314
312
431
436
430
396
445
446
345
354
379
352
351
380 382
401
397
377
381
386
405
378
361 362
449
448
453
450
454
383
384
388 387
385
349
347
363
346
359
360
358
355
357
356
353
364
370
409
402
407
372
403
369
408
367
373
365
375
404
374
376
398
406
399
400
371
368
366
343 342
331
315
426
423
425
424
422
421
320
318
339
328
329
333
330
332
322
336
321
319
427
428
432
317
437
434
433
438
439
435
440
316
442
419
390
391
411
414
413
412
392
417
416
Napa-Sonoma Vallejo Swett
Marshes
Wildlife Area
Benicia
SRA
Eastern
Swett
Glen
Cove
Parkway
Ma
ripos
a
Stre
e
t
Redwood Pw
Elliott
Dr vi e
San Pablo Av
West 7th St
Wetla
nds
Edge
Road
Bro
a
d
w
a
y
Southampton Road
Steffa
n
St
Foot
hill D
rive
Columbus
Parkway
Ascot Parkway
West K Street
North Regatta Dr
O
a
kwoodAv
Azuar Drive
Rollingwood Drive
American Canyon Road
Curtola Pw
T
u
olu
m
n
e
Stre
et
Sonoma Boulevard
Benicia Road
Tennessee Street
HastingsDrive
Admiral Callaghan Lane
Meadows Drive
Fairgrounds Dr
Borges Lane
Wanda St
Land ma rk
D
r
Mare Isla
nd Wy
Redwood St
Maritime Academy Drive
Walnut Avenue
DanielsAv
SeverusDrive
ColumbusParkway
MiniDrive
Tobin Drive
Railroad Avenue
Wallace Av
Wilson Avenue
B W Williams Drive
C
ul b
Drive
Magazine Street
Porter Street
SerenoDr
Keats Driv
e
SilverOak Trail
Maine Street
Flosden Road
Donaldson Wy East
Georgia Street
McGary Road
Rio del Mar
SkylineDr
Benningto
n
D
r
vi e
N
orth
C
a
min
o
Alto
Nebraska Street
Lake Herman Road
Rose Drive
City of Vallejo
2025 Work Tour VMT Per Employee
Compared to Bay Area Regional Average
Figure 3
Source: Solano-Napa Activity Based Model, Solano Transportation Authority and TJKM (2024) 15% below Bay Area average
Between 15%-0% below Bay Area average
Above Bay Area average
TAZ with no (or very low) employment
### TAZ ID
Bay Area Average: 19.9

City of Vallejo Transportation Analysis Guidelines | 27 Screening Criteria 3: Proximity
to Transit
Projects located within a Transit Priority Area
(TPA)4 may be presumed to have a less than
significant impact, absent substantial evidence
to the contrary. This includes residential, retail,
office projects, or mixed-use projects
proposed within one half mile of an existing
major transit stop or an existing stop along a
high-quality transit corridor. In Vallejo, the
Downtown and Mare Island Ferry Terminals are
currently considered major transit stops (July
2026). This presumption would not apply,
however, if project-specific or locationspecific information indicates the project will still generate significant levels of VMT. For
example, the presumption might not be
appropriate if the project:

1. Has a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of less
than 0.75;

2. Includes more parking for use by
residents, customers, or employees of the
project than the maximum allowed by the
city (if the city requires the project to
supply parking);

3. Is inconsistent with the applicable
Sustainable Communities Strategy/Plan
Bay Area 2050;
4 A TPA is defined as a half mile area around an
existing major transit stop or an existing stop
along a high-quality transit corridor per the
definitions below. The city measures the half mile
based on actual walking routes. Academic
research has demonstrated that walking distance
is an important factor that influences the choice
to take transit and thereby reduce VMT. For more
background on this, see the following article:
http://www.reconnectingamerica.org/assets/Uploa
ds/20111018UCB-ITS-VWP-2011-5.pdf).

4. Replaces existing deed-restricted
affordable residential units with a smaller
number of moderate- or high-income
residential units; or

5. Has a retail component greater than
50,000 square feet.

Projects in proximity to an existing major
transit stop or an existing stop along a highquality transit corridor that do not satisfy all these criteria shall prepare a detailed
VMT analysis. At the time of the preparation of
these guidelines no transit lines within the city
qualified as high quality transit corridors.

However, transit lines and bus schedules are
dynamic and change in response to demand
and funding levels. Current transit service
levels should be reviewed at the time of a
project’s application is deemed complete or a
project’s Notice of Preparation (NOP) to
determine if this screening criteria is satisfied.

VMT Assessment for
Non-Screened
Development
Projects not screened through the steps above
should prepare a complete VMT analysis and
forecasting through SNABM to determine if
they have a significant VMT impact. This
analysis shall include “projected generated
Pub. Resources Code, § 21064.3 – ‘Major transit
stop’ means a site containing an existing rail
transit station, a ferry terminal served by either a
bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of
two or more major bus routes with a frequency of
service interval of 20 minutes or less during the
morning and afternoon peak commute periods.’
Note that this requirement means that both
intersecting routes must have the 20-minute or
less frequency of service interval.

Pub. Resources Code, § 21155 – For purposes of
this section, a ‘high-quality transit corridor’ means
a corridor with fixed route bus service with
service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during
peak commute hours.

City of Vallejo Transportation Analysis Guidelines | 28 VMT” and “project effect VMT” estimates for
the project TAZ(s) under the
following scenarios:
• Baseline Conditions – This data is available
from the SNABM travel demand model;
analysts should use caution to ensure the
calculated baseline values reflect values at
the time the Notice of Preparation for a
project was released (consistent with
guidance from LCI). The screening maps
also provide the baseline VMT per capita in
the City of Vallejo.
• Baseline Plus Project – The project land
use would be added to the project TAZ, or
a separate TAZ would be created to contain
the project land uses. A full base year
model run would be performed and VMT
changes must be isolated for the project
TAZ and across the full model network. The
model output must include reasonableness
checks of the production and attraction
balancing to ensure the project effect is
accurately captured. If this scenario results
in a less-than-significant impact, then
additional cumulative scenario analysis may
not be required.

The results of the project’s VMT analysis
conducted as part of the Baseline Plus Project
model evaluation should be compared against
the relevant significance criteria presented
above. If the conclusion is that the project
would have the potential to cause a significant
VMT impact per one or more of the
significance thresholds defined above, then
mitigation is required. Additional details on
VMT mitigation are presented in the section
below. CEQA requires that all feasible
measures be implemented to reduce identified
impacts to less-than-significant levels.

Projects that are unable to mitigate their
project-specific VMT impacts to less-thansignificant levels require a Cumulative VMT analysis.

The flowchart on the next page details the
step-by-step methodology for assessing VMT
impacts, including the cumulative evaluation.

Cumulative Analysis
The cumulative analysis of a project involves
understanding the project’s effect on overall
VMT within its study area. This analysis is
needed to address circumstances where an
individual project might affect travel patterns
from other developments in the broader area;
this might happen for a variety of reasons,
such as that the project offers different
housing, employment or other opportunities
than would otherwise exist in the area and that
causes other users to change their travel
decisions, or because the drivers and transit
users generated by the project take up
available system capacity and cause other
users to change their travel routes or modes.

The cumulative analysis shall identify the
project’s effect on overall VMT within the
study area under the following scenarios:
• Cumulative No Project– This data is
available from the SNABM travel demand
model. The recommended cumulative year
is the horizon year of the current SNABM
(currently 2040), but should be confirmed
with City staff prior to beginning
the analysis.
• Cumulative Plus Project – The project land
use would either be added to the project
TAZ, or a separate TAZ would be created to
contain the project land uses. The addition
of project land uses may need to be
accompanied by a reallocation of a similar
amount of land use from other TAZs;
especially if the proposed project is
significant in size such that it could change
other future developments. Land use
projects are often represented in the
assumed growth of the cumulative year
population and employment. It may be
appropriate to remove land use growth that
represents the project from the cumulative
year model to represent the cumulative no
project scenario. If project land uses are
simply added to the cumulative no project
scenario, then the analysis should reflect
this limitation in the methodology and

City of Vallejo Transportation Analysis Guidelines | 29 acknowledge that the analysis may
overestimate the project’s effect on VMT.

The model output should include total VMT,
which includes all vehicle trips and trip
purposes, and VMT per service population
(population plus employment), home-based
VMT per resident for residential, and homebased work VMT per worker for employment uses. Total VMT (by speed bin, which
documents how total VMT occurs across
various travel speeds) is a required input for
air quality, greenhouse gas (GHG), and energy
impact analysis while total VMT per service

City of Vallejo Transportation Analysis Guidelines | 30 population is recommended for the CEQA
transportation impact assessment.

The project’s effect on VMT should be
measured by defining a VMT study area and
calculating the total VMT occurring on all
network links inside that study area, in both
the cumulative no project and cumulative plus
project scenarios. To allow for a reasonable
comparison between those two scenarios, the
total study area VMT should be normalized in
some fashion to reflect that there are different
numbers of people within the study area (i.e.,
because the project has added people to the
study area as compared to the no project
scenario). If the project adds residents to the
study area, then it would be reasonable to
present the VMT results as total study area
VMT divided by number of study area
residents. If the project adds employees to the
study area, then it would be reasonable to use
total study area VMT divided by number of
study area employees. The exact method for
normalizing the VMT number is not critical;
what is essential is that the same method be
used for both the cumulative no project and
the cumulative plus project scenarios, to allow
for an apples-to-apples comparison between
the two scenarios.
• Cumulative Significance Threshold –
Cumulative VMT impacts should be
considered significant if there is a net
increase in the total study area VMT
normalized to the number of people within
the study area, when comparing cumulative
no project to cumulative plus
project conditions.

Detailed VMT Forecasting
Information (SNABM)
Travel demand models generate daily person
trip-ends for each TAZ across various trip
purposes (Home-Based-Work, Home-BasedOther, and Non-Home-Based, for example) based on population, household, and
employment variables. Travel demand models
are simplifications of reality and as such, TAZs
often contain a large amount of population,
households, and employment. Travel models
do not tie trip generation to individual land
uses but instead aggregate them all up to the
TAZ level. This can create challenges for
complying with the SB 743 guidance because
the thresholds are tied to specific land use
categories and their behavior. The following
methodology addresses this
particular challenge.

To better understand the trips used in each
metric, consider the following daily vehicle trip
tour for an individual residential worker in a
given TAZ. Note that each TAZ would have
many individual residential workers and thus
the calculations would be a sum of these
individual calculations:

These nine daily vehicle trips include a variety
of trip purposes: home-based work (HBW),
home-based other (HBO), work-based other
(WBO), and other-based other (OBO). WBO
and OBO trips are often grouped into a nonhome based (NHB) category. The table below categorizes the nine daily trips into
trip purposes.

City of Vallejo Transportation Analysis Guidelines | 31 SNABM is an activity-based model that links
an individual’s trips into “tours.” Therefore, it is
straightforward to calculated VMT associated
with residential or work locations based on the
type of “tour.” The table below describes the
calculation for the partial VMT metrics.

Description Trips VMT Comments
Residential
Tour 1-9 32
miles
Includes all
trips by a
resident
HomeWork Tour 1, 2, 6 23
miles
Includes all
trips part of a
home-work
tour
The Total VMT calculation (all trip purposes for
both resident and worker) is more easily
calculated using the final origin-destination
vehicle matrices and summing all origin and
destination trip ends for each TAZ. The Total
VMT calculation includes all trips, all trip
purposes, for any interaction with the TAZ
regardless of whether they are a resident or
worker of the TAZ.

Each of these metrics needs to be adjusted to
account for the length of trips that get
truncated at the travel model boundary.

Adjusting the length of trips leaving a model
boundary requires appending extra distance at
the model gateway zone (or external centroid)
connector based on calculations from a parent
travel demand model, such as the California
Statewide Travel Demand Model (CSTDM).

This process results in new gateway distances
that are weighted based on the amount and
location of external travel origins and
destinations. The calculations would need to
address the distance of trips outside the travel
model boundary; in the case of SNABM, this is
the nine-county Bay Area.

Detailed VMT Calculation
Instructions
The following outlines the process used to
estimate City of Vallejo VMT Metrics
via SNABM.

1. Adapted MTC’s “Core Summaries” R script
that was used for MTC Travel Model 1 to
work for SNABM (script available upon
request). The script takes approximately
5-15 minutes to run after a complete
SNABM model run and summarizes the
large trip and tour list files used in SNABM
for use in further VMT summaries

2. Output of script is collection of files in new
“core_summaries” and “updated_output”
folders within model scenario folder
(see below)
Trip Tour Origin Destination Purpose Distance
1 Work Residence Coffee Shop HBO 2 miles
2 Work Coffee Shop Work WBO (NHB) 10 miles
3 Work Work ATM WBO (NHB) 1 mile
4 Work ATM Sandwich Shop OBO (NHB) 1 mile
5 Work Sandwich Shop Work WBO (NHB) 1 mile
6 Work Work Residence HBW 11 miles
7 Home Residence Gas Station HBO 3 miles
8 Home Gas Station Grocery Store OBO (NHB) 1 mile
9 Home Grocery Store Residence HBO 2 miles

City of Vallejo Transportation Analysis Guidelines | 32

3. The files needed to calculate Residential
and Office/Employment VMT metrics are
the following:
a. AutoTripsVMT_personHome.csv –
summarizes population for each TAZ as
output from the population synthesizer
b. AutoTripsVMT_perHome.csv –
summarizes all VMT made by resident
tied back to residence TAZ, sorted by
tour purpose and trip purpose
c. AutoTripsVMT_personsWork.csv –
summarizes workers/employees for
each TAZ as output from the population
synthesizer
d. AutoTripsVMT_perwork.csv –
summarizes all VMT made by workers
tied back to workplace TAZ, sorted by
tour purpose and trip purpose. Note that
WorkLocation = 0 means VMT made by
non-workers

4. Summarizing Residential VMT Metric
a. Defined as all trips/VMT by resident
traced back to the residence location
b. To summarize by TAZ: sum of all VMT
records on
‘AutoTripsVMT_perHome.csv’ by TAZ
divided by sum of all population records
on ‘AutoTripsVMT_personsHome.csv’ by
TAZ
c. To summarize by jurisdiction
(place/county/etc.): sum of all VMT
records on
‘AutoTripsVMT_perHome.csv’ by TAZs
corresponding to jurisdiction divided by
sum of all population records on
‘AutoTripsVMT_personHome.csv’ by
TAZs corresponding to jurisdiction
d. To summarize by region: same process
described above for jurisdiction, but
including all TAZs in Bay Area counties

5. Summarizing Office/Employment
VMT Metric
a. Defined as all trips part of home-work
tour traced back to the workplace
location
b. To summarize by TAZ: sum of VMT
records with home-work tour purposes
(see below) on
‘AutoTripsVMT_perWork.csv’ by TAZ
divided by sum of all worker records on
‘AutoTrips_VMT_personsWork.csv’ by
TAZ
c. Home-work tour purposes defined as
‘work_low,’ ‘work_med,’ ‘work high,’ and
‘work_very_high’
d. To summarize by jurisdiction
(place/county/etc.): sum of VMT records
with home-work tour purposes (see
below) on ‘AutoTripsVMT_perWork.csv’
by TAZs corresponding to jurisdiction
divided by sum of all worker records on
‘AutoTrips_VMT_personsWork.csv’ by
TAZs corresponding to jurisdiction
e. To summarize by region: same process
described above for jurisdiction, but
including all TAZs in Bay Area counties

6. Adjust VMT metrics to account for length
of trips that get truncated at travel
model boundary
a. Run the California Statewide Travel
Demand Model (CSTDM) to estimate
amount of extra distance to append to
trips leaving the SNABM model area
b. Select zone of SNABM model area zones
within CSTDM and calculation of trip
lengths outside of SNABM model area
for internal-external (IX)/ externalinternal (XI) trips by gateway. c. Apply this average extra distance by
gateway to SNABM model estimate of
IX/XI trips and summarize “extra” VMT
per TAZ (on top of the VMT already
summarized within the
model boundaries)
i. Thus, TAZs with more IX/XI trips
(e.g., near a model boundary) would

City of Vallejo Transportation Analysis Guidelines | 33 take on more extra distance than a
TAZ with fewer IX/XI trips (e.g.,
within the core Bay Area)
d. End product is “extra” VMT to add to
the VMT metrics calculated in
previous steps
VMT Mitigation
Measures
To mitigate VMT impacts, the following
general choices are available to
development projects:
• Modify the project’s design features and/or
land uses to reduce project trips or reduce
trip length.
• Moving the proposed development to a
more travel-efficient area (i.e., area with
access to high-quality transit, or other
transportation solutions that reduce the
length/number of trips).
• Implement Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) measures to reduce
VMT generated by the project.

Of the strategies included within these general
categories, only a subset of the strategies is
likely to be effective in a suburban setting
such as Vallejo. Proposed projects shall utilize
the latest version of the California Air Pollution
Control Officers Association (“CAPCOA”)
Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation
Measures document to estimate the maximum
feasible VMT mitigation. However, it should be
noted that most of the data used to develop
the CAPCOA mitigation strategies are based
on projects from urban or relatively dense
suburban areas. The effectiveness of VMT
mitigations will vary from project to project
based on the surrounding land use context,
the combination of its uses, and the availability
of alternative transportation modes. The
proposed project’s transportation impact
analysis must quantifiably demonstrate,
through the use of reliable calculation tools,
that proposed VMT mitigations will result in
the estimated reductions when applied to the
project. In the event a proposed project’s
characteristics render most or all the
aforementioned mitigation strategies
infeasible or ineffective, city staff will consider
other mitigation options.

The following VMT mitigation strategies may
be considered by projects for the mitigation of
VMT impacts within the city. The numbering
and titling of the mitigation measures, along
with the maximum effectiveness, are taken
from the CAPCOA Handbook for Analyzing
Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions,
Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and
Advancing Health and Equity, Final Draft,
October 2024.

Land Use
T-1: Increase Residential Density – This
measure accounts for the VMT reduction
achieved by a project that is designed with a
higher density of dwelling units (du) compared
to the average residential density in the U.S.

Increased densities affect the distance people
travel and provide greater options for the
mode of travel they choose. Increasing
residential density results in shorter and fewer
trips by single-occupancy vehicles and thus a
reduction in GHG emissions. This measure is
best quantified when applied to larger
developments and developments where the
density is somewhat similar to the surrounding
area due to the underlying research being
founded in data from the neighborhood level.

T-2: Increase Job Density – This measure
accounts for the VMT reduction achieved by a
project designed with a higher density of jobs
compared to the average job density in the
U.S. Increased job densities affect the distance
people travel and provide greater options for
the mode of travel they choose. Increasing job
density results in shorter and fewer trips by
single-occupancy vehicles and thus a
reduction in GHG emissions.

T-3: Provide Transit-Oriented Development –
This measure would reduce project VMT in the

City of Vallejo Transportation Analysis Guidelines | 34 study area relative to the same project sited in
a non-transit-oriented development (TOD)
location. TOD refers to projects built in
compact, walkable areas with easy access to
public transit, ideally in a location containing a
mix of uses including housing, retail offices,
and community facilities. Project site
residents, employees, and visitors would have
easy access to high-quality public transit,
thereby encouraging transit ridership and
reducing the number of single-occupancy
vehicle trips and associated GHG emissions.

T-4: Integrate Affordable and Below Market
Rate Housing – This measure requires below
market rate (BMR) housing. BMR housing
provides greater opportunity for lower income
families to live closer to job centers and
achieve a jobs/housing match near transit. It is
also an important strategy to address the
limited availability of affordable housing that
might force residents to live far away from
jobs or school, requiring longer commutes.

Incorporating affordability by design, such as
the provision of ADUs could also qualify for
this reduction. The quantification method for
this measure accounts for VMT reductions
achieved for multifamily residential projects
that are deed restricted or otherwise
permanently dedicated as affordable housing.

T-17: Improve Street Connectivity – This
measure accounts for the VMT reduction
achieved by a project designed with a higher
density of vehicle intersections compared to
the average intersection density in the U.S.

Increased vehicle intersection density is a
proxy for street connectivity improvements,
facilitating a greater number of shorter trips
and thus a reduction in GHG emissions.

T:55: Infill Development – This measure
accounts for the VMT reduction achieved by
infill housing development programs that allow
residents to live closer to downtown areas
where there is greater access to jobs and
activities. Residents living at infill development
projects typically do not need to travel as far
to access essential destinations. This leads to
lower VMT and associated GHG emissions
compared to similar projects located farther
from a downtown area. An example
implementation of this measure is Sacramento
Area Council of Government’s Green Means
Go program (SACOG 2021a, 2021b).

Trip Reduction Programs
T-5: Implement Commute Trip Reduction
Program (Voluntary) – This measure will
implement a voluntary commute trip reduction
(CTR) program with employers. CTR programs
discourage single-occupancy vehicle trips and
encourage alternative modes of transportation
such as carpooling, riding transit, walking, and
biking, thereby reducing VMT and GHG
emissions. Voluntary implementation elements
are described in this measure.

T-6: Implement Commute Trip Reduction
Program (Mandatory Implementation and
Monitoring) – This measure will implement a
mandatory CTR program with employers. CTR
programs discourage single-occupancy
vehicle trips and encourage alternative modes
of transportation such as carpooling, riding
transit, walking, and biking, thereby reducing
VMT and GHG emissions.

T-7: Implement Commute Trip Reduction
Marketing – This measure will implement a
marketing strategy to promote the project site
employer’s CTR program. Information sharing
and marketing promote and educate
employees about their travel choices to the
employment location beyond driving such as
carpooling, riding transit, walking, and biking,
thereby reducing VMT and GHG emissions.

T-8: Provide Ridesharing Program – This
measure will implement a ridesharing program
and establish a permanent transportation
management association with funding
requirements for employers. This strategy
includes measures such as designating a
proportion of parking spaces exclusive to ride
sharing vehicles, providing adequate loading
and unloading areas for passengers of ridePage 321 of 383 City of Vallejo Transportation Analysis Guidelines | 35 sharing vehicles and generating a web site or
message board for ride coordination. The
focus of this strategy is to increase vehicle
occupancy by ridesharing between people
driving similar trips, which will result in fewer
cars, and thus a decrease in VMT.

T-9: Implement Subsidized or Discounted
Transit Program – This measure will provide
subsidized or discounted, or free transit
passes for employees and/or residents.

Reducing the out-of-pocket cost for choosing
transit improves the competitiveness of transit
against driving, increasing the total number of
transit trips and decreasing vehicle trips. This
decrease in vehicle trips results in reduced
VMT and thus a reduction in GHG emissions.

T-10: Provide End-of-Trip Bicycle or Scooter
Facilities – This measure will install and
maintain end-of-trip facilities for employee
use. End-of-trip facilities include bike parking,
bike lockers, showers, and personal lockers.

Charging stations for e-bikes and/or scooters
can also qualify for this reduction. The
provision and maintenance of secure bike
parking and related facilities encourages
commuting by bicycle, thereby reducing VMT
and GHG emissions.

T-11: Provide Employer-Sponsored Vanpool –
This measure will implement an employersponsored vanpool service. Vanpooling is a flexible form of public transportation that
provides groups of 5 to 15 people with a costeffective and convenient rideshare option for commuting. This strategy is appropriate for
office, industrial, and mixed-use projects. In
some cases this can be a community strategy,
with employers within a particular area pooling
resources to provide shuttles to transit. The
mode shift from long-distance, singleoccupancy vehicles to shared vehicles reduces overall commute VMT, thereby
reducing GHG emissions.

T-12: Price Workplace Parking – This measure
will price on-site parking at workplaces.

Because free employee parking is a common
benefit, charging employees to park on-site
increases the cost of choosing to drive to
work, so employees consider alternative
modes. It may include explicitly charging a
parking fee for its employees, implementing
above market rate pricing, validating parking
only for invited guests, not providing
employee parking while offering transportation
allowances, and educating employees about
available alternatives. This is expected to
reduce single-occupancy vehicle commute
trips, resulting in decreased VMT, thereby
reducing associated GHG emissions.

T-13: Implement Employee Parking Cash-Out
– This measure will require project employers
to offer employee parking cash-out. Cash-out
is when employers provide employees with a
choice of forgoing their current
subsidized/free parking for a cash payment
equivalent to or greater than the cost of the
parking space. This encourages employees to
use other modes of travel instead of singleoccupancy vehicles. This mode shift results in people driving less and thereby reduces VMT
and GHG emissions.

T-23: Community-Based Travel Planning –
This measure will target residences in the
plan/community with community-based travel
planning (CBTP). CBTP is a residential based
approach to outreach that provides
households with customized information,
incentives, and support to encourage the use
of transportation alternatives in place of
single-occupancy vehicles, thereby reducing
VMT and associated GHG emissions.

Parking or Road
Pricing/Management
T-14: Provide Electric Vehicle Charging
Infrastructure – Install onsite electric vehicle
chargers in an amount beyond what is
required by the 2019 California Green Building
Standards (CALGreen) at buildings with
designated parking areas (e.g., commercial,
educational, retail, multifamily). This will
enable drivers of PHEVs to drive a larger share

City of Vallejo Transportation Analysis Guidelines | 36 of miles in electric mode (eVMT), as opposed
to gasoline-powered mode, thereby displacing
GHG emissions from gasoline consumption
with a lesser amount of indirect emissions
from electricity. Most PHEVs owners charge
their vehicles at home overnight. When
making trips during the day, the vehicle will
switch to gasoline mode if/when it reaches its
maximum all-electric range.

T-15: Limit Residential Parking Supply – This
measure will reduce the total parking supply
available at a residential project or site.

Limiting the amount of parking available
creates scarcity and adds additional time and
inconvenience to trips made by private auto,
disincentivizing driving as a mode of travel.

Reducing the convenience of driving results in
a shift to other modes and decreased VMT
and thus a reduction in GHG emissions.

Evidence of the effects of reduced parking
supply is strongest for
residential developments.

T-16: Unbundle Residential Parking Costs from
Property Cost – This strategy separates
parking costs from property costs, removing
the burden from those who do not utilize
parking spaces and requiring those who wish
to do so to purchase parking spaces at an
additional cost. On the assumption that
parking costs are passed onto the vehicle
owners/drivers utilizing the parking spaces,
this measure results in decreased vehicle
ownership and, therefore, a reduction in VMT
and GHG emissions.

T-24: Implement Market Price Public Parking
(On-Street) – This measure will price all onstreet parking in a given community, with a focus on parking near central business
districts, employment centers, and retail
centers. Increasing the cost of parking
increases the total cost of driving to a location,
incentivizing shifts to other modes and thus
decreasing total VMT to and from the priced
areas. This VMT reduction results in a
corresponding reduction in GHG emissions.

Neighborhood Design
T-18: Provide Pedestrian Network
Improvements – This strategy focuses on
creating a pedestrian network and connecting
projects to nearby destinations via pedestrian
pathways. Projects in the City of Vallejo range
in size, so the emphasis of this strategy for
smaller projects would likely be the
construction of network improvements that
connect the project sites directly to nearby
destinations. For larger projects, this strategy
could focus on the development of a robust
pedestrian network within the project itself or
closing gaps that could connect the project to
other areas. This strategy could also include
improvements that improve safety outcomes
for people walking, especially walking to/from
transit stops. Alternatively, implementation
could occur through an impact fee program or
benefit/ assessment district based on local or
regional plans. Providing sidewalks and an
enhanced pedestrian network encourages
people to walk instead of drive. This mode
shift results in a reduction in VMT and GHG
emissions.

T-19-A: Construct or Improve Bike Facility –
This measure will construct or improve a
single bicycle lane facility (only Class I, II, or
IV) that connects to a larger existing bikeway
network. Providing bicycle infrastructure
improves biking conditions within an area. This
encourages a mode shift on the roadway
parallel to the bicycle facility from vehicles to
bicycles, displacing VMT and thus reducing
GHG emissions. When constructing or
improving bicycle facilities, the best practice
is to consider local or state bike lane width
standards. A variation of this measure is
provided as T-19-B, Construct or Improve
Bike Boulevard.

T-19-B: Construct or Improve Bike Boulevard
– This measure will construct or improve a
single bicycle boulevard that connects to a
larger existing bikeway network. Bicycle
boulevards are a designation within Class III

City of Vallejo Transportation Analysis Guidelines | 37 Bikeway that create safe, low-stress
connections for people biking and walking on
streets. This encourages a mode shift from
vehicles to bicycles, displacing VMT and thus
reducing GHG emissions. A variation of this
measure is provided as T-19-A, Construct or
Improve Bike Facility, which is for Class I, II, or
IV bicycle infrastructure.

T-20: Expand Bikeway Network – This
measure will increase the length of a city or
community bikeway network. A bicycle
network is an interconnected system of bike
lanes, bike paths, bike routes, and cycle tracks.

Providing bicycle infrastructure with markings
and signage on appropriately sized roads with
vehicle traffic traveling at safe speeds helps to
improve biking conditions (e.g., safety and
convenience). In addition, expanded bikeway
networks can increase access to and from
transit hubs, thereby expanding the
“catchment area” of the transit stop or station
and increasing ridership. This encourages a
mode shift from vehicles to bicycles,
displacing VMT and thus reducing GHG
emissions. When expanding a bicycle network,
the best practice is to consider bike lane width
standards from local agencies, state agencies,
or the National Association of City
Transportation Officials’ Urban Bikeway
Design Guide.

T-21-A: Implement Conventional Carshare
Program – This measure will increase carshare
access in the user’s community by deploying
conventional carshare vehicles. Carsharing
offers people convenient access to a vehicle
for personal or commuting purposes. This
helps encourage transportation alternatives
and reduces vehicle ownership, thereby
avoiding VMT and associated GHG emissions.

A variation of this measure, electric carsharing,
is described in Measure T-20-B, Implement
Electric Carshare Program.

T-21-B: Implement Electric Carshare Program
– This measure will increase carshare access
in the user’s community by deploying electric
carshare vehicles. Carsharing offers people
convenient access to a vehicle for personal or
commuting purposes. This helps encourage
transportation alternatives and reduces vehicle
ownership, thereby avoiding VMT and
associated GHG emissions. This also
encourages a mode shift from internal
combustion engine vehicles to electric
vehicles, displacing the emissions-intensive
fossil fuel energy with less emissions-intensive
electricity. Electric carshare vehicles require
more staffing support compared to
conventional carshare programs for shuttling
electric vehicles to and from charging points.

A variation of this measure, conventional
carsharing, is described in Measure T-21-A,
Implement Conventional Carshare Program.

T-22-A: Implement Pedal (Non-Electric)
Bikeshare Program – This measure will
establish a bikeshare program. Bikeshare
programs provide users with on-demand
access to bikes for short-term rentals. This
encourages a mode shift from vehicles to
bicycles, displacing VMT and thus reducing
GHG emissions. Variations of this measure are
described in Measure T-22-B, Implement
Electric Bikeshare Program, and Measure T22-C, Implement Scootershare Program.

T-22-B: Implement Electric Bikeshare
Programs – This measure will establish an
electric bikeshare program. Electric bikeshare
programs provide users with on-demand
access to electric pedal assist bikes for shortterm rentals. This encourages a mode shift from vehicles to electric bicycles, displacing
VMT and reducing GHG emissions. Variations
of this measure are described in Measure T22-A, Implement Pedal (Non-Electric) Bikeshare Program, and Measure T-22-C,
Implement Scootershare Program.

T-22-C: Implement Scootershare Program –
This measure will establish a scootershare
program. Scootershare programs provide
users with on-demand access to electric
scooters for short-term rentals. This
encourages a mode shift from vehicles to
scooters, displacing VMT and thus reducing

City of Vallejo Transportation Analysis Guidelines | 38 GHG emissions. Variations of this measure are
described in Measure T-22-A, Implement
Pedal (Non-Electric) Bikeshare Program, and
Measure T-22-B, Implement Electric
Bikeshare Program.

Transit
T-25: Extend Transit Network Coverage or
Hours – This measure will expand the local
transit network by either adding or modifying
existing transit service or extending the
operation hours to enhance the service near
the project site. Starting services earlier in the
morning and/or extending services to latenight hours can accommodate commute hours of alternative-shift workers. This will
encourage the use of transit and therefore
reduce VMT and associated GHG emissions.

T-26: Increase Transit Service Frequency –
This measure will increase transit frequency on
one or more transit lines serving the
plan/community. Increased transit frequency
reduces waiting and overall travel times, which
improves the user experience and increases
the attractiveness of transit service. This
results in a mode shift from single-occupancy
vehicles to transit, which reduces VMT and
associated GHG emissions.

T-27: Implement Transit-Supportive Roadway
Treatments – This measure will implement
transit-supportive treatments on the transit
routes serving the plan/community. Transitsupportive treatments incorporate a mix of roadway infrastructure improvements and/or
traffic signal modifications to improve transit
travel times and reliability. This results in a
mode shift from single-occupancy vehicles to
transit, which reduces VMT and associated
GHG emissions.

T-28: Provide Bus Rapid Transit – This
measure will convert an existing bus route to a
bus rapid transit (BRT) system. BRT includes
the following additional components,
compared to traditional bus service: exclusive
right-of-way (e.g., busways, queue jumping
lanes) at congested intersections, increased
limited-stop service (e.g., express service),
intelligent transportation technology (e.g.,
transit signal priority, automatic vehicle
location systems), advanced technology
vehicles (e.g., articulated buses, low-floor
buses), enhanced station design, efficient
fare-payment smart cards or smartphone
apps, branding of the system, and use of
vehicle guidance systems. BRT can increase
the transit mode share in a community due to
improved travel times, service frequencies,
and the unique components of the BRT
system. This mode shift reduces VMT and the
associated GHG emissions.

T-29: Reduce Transit Fares – This measure
will reduce transit fares on the transit lines
serving the plan/community. A reduction in
transit fares creates incentives to shift travel to
transit from single-occupancy vehicles and
other traveling modes, which reduces VMT
and associated GHG emissions. This measure
differs from Measure T-9, Implement
Subsidized or Discounted Transit Program,
which can be offered through employer-based
benefits programs in which the employer fully
or partially pays the employee’s cost of transit.

T-46: Provide Transit Shelters – For this
measure, a local government or transit agency
provides amenities that make it safer and
more comfortable to wait for the bus. The two
interventions that have proven to lead to
changes in rider perceptions are adding bus
shelters and adding real-time arrival
information. Research into transit ridership
shows that adding these amenities decreases
both the real and the perceived wait time for
riders, which impacts riders’ willingness
to ride.

Clean Vehicles and Fuels
T-30: Use Cleaner-Fuel Vehicles – This
measure requires use of cleaner-fuel vehicles
(electric vehicles, natural gas and propane
vehicles, and vehicles powered by biofuels) in

City of Vallejo Transportation Analysis Guidelines | 39 lieu of similar vehicles powered by gasoline or
diesel fuel.

The above list should not be considered
exhaustive, and projects can propose other
TDM measures if appropriate and desired.

VMT Mitigation
Measure Effectiveness
An important consideration when combining
TDM measures is whether a maximum VMT
reduction should be applied based on land use
context. The CAPCOA methodology identifies
VMT reduction maximums based on
community types tied to land use context. The
caps are applied at each step of the VMT
reduction calculation (i.e., at the strategy
scale, the combined strategy scale, and the
global scale). However, these caps are not
based on research related to the effectiveness
of VMT reduction strategies in different land
use contexts. The cap differences are largely
based on VMT generation differences within
different land use contexts and serve as a
proxy for potential limits on VMT reduction
strategy effectiveness. For suburban
jurisdictions such as Vallejo, CAPCOA
identifies a global VMT reduction maximum of
15 percent. Table 3 presents a summary of the
maximum allowable reductions recommended
for individual VMT mitigation measures based
on the available research and the city’s local
context.

If new or unusual VMT mitigation measures are
proposed and/or the study proposes using a
reduction near the higher end of the observed
range, the City may hire a consultant (at the
applicant’s expense) to peer review the VMT
study and recommendations. The cost of the
peer review will be borne by the
applicant/developer.

Each of the TDM measures described above
can be combined with others to increase the
effectiveness of VMT mitigation; however, the
interaction between the various TDM
measures is complex and sometimes
counterintuitive. Generally, with each
additional measure implemented, a VMT
reduction is achieved, but the incremental
benefit of VMT reduction may diminish. To
quantify the VMT reduction that results from
combining TDM measures, the analyst must
consider multiplicative dampening as outlined
in the CAPCOA documentation.

City of Vallejo Transportation Analysis Guidelines | 40 Table 3. VMT Mitigation Measure Reduction Caps
Mitigation Measure Maximum Potential
Reduction1
Land Use
T-1: Increase Residential Density 30.0%
T-2: Increase Job Density 30.0%
T-3: Provide Transit-Oriented Development 31.0%
T-4: Integrate Affordable and Below Market Rate Housing 28.6% T-17: Improve Street Connectivity 30.0%
T-55: Infill Development 30.0%
Trip Reduction Programs
T-5: Implement Commute Trip Reduction Program (Voluntary) 4.0% T-6: Implement Commute Trip Reduction Program (Mandatory Implementation and Monitoring) 26.0%
T-7: Implement Commute Trip Reduction Marketing 4.0%
T-8: Provide Ridesharing Program 8.0%
T-9: Implement Subsidized or Discounted Transit Program 5.5% T-10: Provide End-of-Trip Bicycle Facilities 4.4%
T-11: Provide Employer-Sponsored Van pool 8.1%
T-12: Price Workplace Parking 20.0%
T-13: Implement Employee Parking Cash-Out 12.0%
T-23: Community-Based Travel Planning 2.3%
Parking and Road Pricing/Management
T-14: Provide Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure 11.9% T-15: Limit Residential Parking Supply 13.7%
T-16: Unbundle Residential Parking Costs from Property Cost 15.7% T-24: Implement Market Price Public Parking (On-Street) 30.0% Neighborhood Design
T-18: Provide Pedestrian Network Improvements 6.4%
T-19-A: Construct or Improve Bike Facility 0.8%
T-19-B: Construct or Improve Bike Boulevard 0.2%
T-20: Expand Bikeway Network 0.5%
T-21-A: Implement Conventional Carshare Program 0.15%
T-21-B: Implement Electric Carshare Program 0.18%
T-22-A: Implement Pedal (Non-Electric) Bikeshare Program 0.02% T-22-B: Implement Electric Bikeshare Programs 0.06%

City of Vallejo Transportation Analysis Guidelines | 41 Mitigation Measure Maximum Potential
Reduction1
T-22-C: Implement Scootershare Program 0.07%
Transit
T-25: Extend Transit Network Coverage or Hours 4.6%
T-26: Increase Transit Service Frequency 11.3%
T-27: Implement Transit-Supportive Roadway Treatments 0.6% T-28: Provide Bus Rapid Transit 13.8%
T-29: Reduce Transit Fares 1.2%
T-46: Provide Transit Shelters 0.32%
1 These figures are the maximum potential reduction identified in the CAPCOA research. In general, lower reductions should be anticipated for land-use developments within Vallejo. For TDM reductions for projects within the city, supporting evidence and calculations should be provided.

Source: California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity, Final Draft, October 2024.

Other Environmental
Considerations
As noted in the Introduction, the updated
CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Checklist
contains three additional criteria beyond the
VMT evaluation criteria discussed in the
preceding section. They are listed below.

Would the project:

1. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or
policy addressing the circulation system,
including transit, roadway, bicycle, and
pedestrian facilities?

3. Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g., farm equipment)?

4. Result in inadequate emergency access?
The CEQA Transportation section should
address these three questions, considering the
unique characteristics of the project, including
its location, size, design, use mix,
transportation and urban form context, and
other relevant details. In the assessment of
transit, bicycle, and pedestrian networks, the
following standards of significance shall
be used.

Transit System – The project would create a
significant impact related to transit service if
the following criteria is met:

1. The project interferes with existing transit
facilities or precludes the construction of
planned transit facilities.

Bicycle System – The project would create a
significant impact related to the bicycle
system if any of the following criteria are met:

1. The project disrupts existing bicycle
facilities; or

2. Interferes with planned bicycle facilities; or

3. Creates inconsistencies with adopted
bicycle system plans, guidelines, policies,
or standards.

Pedestrian System – The project would create
a significant impact related to the pedestrian
system if any of the following criteria are met:

1. The project disrupts existing pedestrian
facilities; or

City of Vallejo Transportation Analysis Guidelines | 42

2. Interferes with planned pedestrian
facilities; or

3. Creates inconsistencies with adopted
pedestrian system plans, guidelines,
policies, or standards.

City of Vallejo
CEQA Transportation
Impact Analysis
Guidelines
Prepared for:

City of Vallejo
July 2020
WC19-3631
Propel Vallejo General Plan 2040 - Exhibit A

Table of Contents
Introduction................................................................................................................................... 1 SB 743 and the Updated CEQA Guidelines........................................................................................................................1 City of Vallejo SB 743 Implementation Process ...............................................................................................................2 CEQA Transportation Impact Analysis and City Development Review...................................................................3 Can LOS Analysis Still be Conducted as Part of Development Review? ........................................................3 Congestion Management Program Compliance Changes..................................................................................4 VMT Analysis ................................................................................................................................. 5 Analysis Methodology ...............................................................................................................................................................5 Consistency with the Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy.......................5 Project Screening.................................................................................................................................................................5 VMT Assessment for Non-Screened Development ...............................................................................................9 Significance Thresholds ...........................................................................................................................................................10 VMT Mitigation Measures ......................................................................................................................................................11 Potential VMT Reduction Measures ...........................................................................................................................12 Potential Future Changes to City VMT Evaluation Methodology...........................................................................12 Analysis for Other Appendix G Checklist Criteria .................................................................... 14 Attachments
A. VMT Analysis Process Flowchart
B. Detailed VMT Forecasting Information
C. Mitigation Measures

City of Vallejo CEQA TIA Guidelines 1
Introduction
SB 743 and the Updated CEQA Guidelines
SB 743, signed by the Governor in 2013, is changing the way transportation impacts are identified.

Specifically, the legislation directed the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to consider different metrics for identifying transportation impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The OPR finalized updates to the CEQA Guidelines in December 2018; the updated Guidelines identify vehicle miles of travel (VMT) as the preferred transportation impact metric. The updated Guidelines state that, by July 2020, all lead agencies must use VMT as the new transportation metric for identifying impacts of land use projects.

The updated Guidelines include revised Appendix G Checklist questions for transportation impact evaluation. The four questions are:

Would the project:

1. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?

2. Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?

3. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)?

4. Result in inadequate emergency access?
Criteria 2 is the implementation of the SB 743 requirement. CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3(b) reads, in part, as follows:
(1) Land Use Projects. Vehicle-miles traveled exceeding an applicable threshold of significance may indicate a significant impact. Generally, projects within one-half mile of either an existing major transit stop or a stop along an existing high-quality transit corridor should be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact. Projects that decrease vehicle miles traveled in the project area compared to existing conditions should be presumed to have a less than significant transportation impact.
(2) Transportation Projects. Transportation projects that reduce, or have no impact on, vehicle miles traveled should be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact. For roadway capacity projects, agencies have discretion to determine the appropriate measure of transportation impact consistent with CEQA and other applicable requirements. To the extent that such impacts have already been adequately addressed at a programmatic level, such as in a regional transportation plan EIR, a lead agency may tier from that analysis as provided in Section 15152.

City of Vallejo CEQA TIA Guidelines
July 2020
2 (3) Qualitative Analysis. If existing models or methods are not available to estimate the vehicle miles traveled for the particular project being considered, a lead agency may analyze the project’s vehicle miles traveled qualitatively. Such a qualitative analysis would evaluate factors such as the availability of transit, proximity to other destinations, etc. For many projects, a qualitative analysis of construction traffic may be appropriate.
(4) Methodology. A lead agency has discretion to choose the most appropriate methodology to evaluate a project’s vehicle miles traveled, including whether to express the change in absolute terms, per capita, per household or in any other measure. A lead agency may use models to estimate a project’s vehicle miles traveled and may revise those estimates to reflect professional judgment based on substantial evidence. Any assumptions used to estimate vehicle miles traveled and any revisions to model outputs should be documented and explained in the environmental document prepared for the project. The standard of adequacy in Section 15151 shall apply to the analysis described in this section.

City of Vallejo SB 743 Implementation Process
In anticipation of the change to the VMT metric, the City of Vallejo initiated and is nearing completion of a SB 743 Implementation Study. The study included the following steps. • Review of relevant policies related to greenhouse gas reduction, multimodal transportation, and VMT (memorandum dated October 28, 2019).
• Review of potential travel demand models for use in VMT analysis (memorandum dated October 28, 2019).
• Presentation to City Planning Commission on SB 743 background and implementtion guidance from OPR and other sources (presentation on January 6, 2020). • Preparation of methodology and threshold options based on guidance in the Office of Planning and Research’s Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (December 2018) and other research regarding VMT reductions needed to achieve the state’s greenhouse gas reduction goals (memorandum dated January 31, 2020).
• Preparation of City staff methodology and threshold recommendations for Planning Commission consideration (memorandum dated April 6, 2020).
• Presentation of City staff-recommended methodology and thresholds (presentation on April 20, 2020).

The Planning Commission expressed support for the City staff-recommended methodology and thresholds, and the recommendation will be considered at the June 23, 2020 City Council Meeting.

City of Vallejo CEQA TIA Guidelines 3
As noted in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7(b) below, lead agencies are encouraged to formally adopt their significance thresholds and this is key part of the SB 743 implementation process. (b) Each public agency is encouraged to develop and publish thresholds of significance that the agency uses in the determination of the significance of environmental effects.

Thresholds of significance to be adopted for general use as part of the lead agency’s environmental review process must be adopted by ordinance, resolution, rule, or regulation, and developed through a public review process and be supported by substantial evidence.

Lead agencies may also use thresholds on a case-by-case basis as provided in Section 15064(b)(2).

CEQA Transportation Impact Analysis and City Development Review One of the fundamental roles of government agencies is the construction and maintenance of public infrastructure facilities including roadways, rail and bus facilities, bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, water lines, sanitary sewer lines, stormwater treatment facilities, parks, and other public facilities. When private development occurs, it is the responsibility of government to ensure that there are adequate public facilities to serve incremental population and employment growth. For the transportation system, one way to address this issue has been the preparation of a Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA).

For the past several decades, the preparation of a TIA was integrated into the CEQA process, in which the TIA was used primarily to analyze a project’s impacts under CEQA. However, with the passage of SB 743, changes to this process are necessary. Specifically, a Transportation Assessment (TA) may need to be prepared as a stand-alone document, as part of the project approval process, including information for the decision makers that is not required as part of the CEQA process. A separate Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) would contain the information specifically needed for the CEQA document.

The purpose of this TIA Guidelines document is to provide instructions for analyzing the potential transportation impacts of proposed development projects, for purposes of the CEQA evaluation. These guidelines present the recommended methodology that should generally be utilized in the preparation of TIAs. These recommendations are general guidelines and the City of Vallejo may modify the TIA requirements based on the unique characteristics of a particular project.

Can LOS Analysis Still be Conducted as Part of Development Review? SB 743 does not prevent a city or county from continuing to analyze delay or LOS outside of CEQA review for other transportation planning or analysis purposes (i.e., general plans, impact fee programs, corridor studies, congestion mitigation, or ongoing network monitoring); but these metrics may no longer constitute the sole basis for CEQA impacts.

The City’s General Plan 2040 has an advisory standard of LOS E or better, to be considered along with, but not to override, metrics for pedestrian, bicycle, transit and emergency access performance (General Plan Policy MTC-2.5). LOS can continue to be assessed relative to this standard during development review, to promote the City’s interest in maintaining and operating a functional roadway network. However,

City of Vallejo CEQA TIA Guidelines
July 2020
4 assessment of a development project’s effect on intersection level of service must be conducted outside the CEQA process. The assessment can be performed as part of a General Plan consistency assessment, within a separate Transportation Assessment document. City planning and traffic engineering staff will define the scope and methodology for project-level of service analysis as part of the development review process.

Congestion Management Program Compliance Changes
A key element of SB 743 is the elimination of auto delay, level of service (LOS), and other similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion as a basis for determining significant impacts. This change is intended to assist in balancing the needs of congestion management with statewide goals related to infill development, promotion of public health through active transportation, and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.

SB 743 contains amendments to current congestion management law that allows cities and counties to effectively opt-out of the LOS standards that would otherwise apply in areas where Congestion Management Programs (CMPs) are still used (see Government Code Sections 65088.1 and 65088.4).

Solano County’s Congestion Management Program was recently updated in October 2019. The CMP network in Vallejo includes I-80, SR 37, SR 29 (Sonoma Boulevard), Curtola Parkway, Mare Island Way, and Tennessee Street west of I-80. Three intersections are monitored in the CMP: Tennessee Street/Sonoma Boulevard, Tennessee Street/Mare Island Way, and Curtola Parkway/Sonoma Boulevard. The LOS standard for these intersections in LOS E. The 2019 monitoring indicated all three intersections operated at LOS D or better. However, as noted here, the City of Vallejo may choose to opt out of compliance with the LOS E standard.

City of Vallejo CEQA TIA Guidelines 5
VMT Analysis
A key element of SB 743, signed in 2013, is the elimination of automobile delay and LOS as the sole basis of determining CEQA impacts. The most recent CEQA guidelines, released in December 2018, recommend VMT as the most appropriate measure of project transportation impacts. However, SB 743 does not prevent a city or county from continuing to analyze delay or LOS as part of other plans (i.e., the general plan), studies, or ongoing network monitoring.

The following methodology should be used to determine VMT impact thresholds and mitigation requirements for land use project TIAs. These recommendations were developed by City of Vallejo staff with guidance from Fehr & Peers, and are based on the updated CEQA Guidelines (December 2018) and the Office of Planning and Research guidance document Technical Advisory on Analyzing Transportation Impacts in CEQA (December 2018) (Technical Advisory).

Analysis Methodology
For purposes of SB 743 compliance, a VMT analysis should be conducted for land use projects as deemed necessary by the City Planning Manager and Traffic Engineer, and would apply to projects that have the potential to increase the average VMT per service population, resident, or employee, depending on the project type. (Service population is residents plus employees.) Normalizing VMT per service population, resident, or employee essentially provides a transportation efficiency metric. Using this efficiency metric allows the analyst to compare the project to the city as a whole, for purposes of identifying transportation impacts.

In addition to assessing the project’s VMT efficiency, the project’s effect on total countywide VMT is also calculated, to assess how the project may change VMT within the county as it interacts with other county land uses.

Attachment A provides a flowchart outlining the process described below.

Consistency with the Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy The first step in assessing project impacts is to determine if the project land use is contained within the City of Vallejo residential and non-residential land use allocations in the current Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), and if the project is consistent with the City of Vallejo General Plan. As of June 2020, the current RTP/SCS is Plan Bay Area 2040, adopted in 2017. If the project is not consistent with the RTP/SCS and/or the General Plan, amendments to those documents would be needed prior to proceeding with the project review.

Project Screening
There are three types of screening that lead agencies can apply to effectively screen projects from projectlevel assessment. These screening steps are summarized below:

City of Vallejo CEQA TIA Guidelines
July 2020
6 Step 1: Transit Priority Area (TPA) Screening
Projects located within a TPA1 may be presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. This presumption may NOT be appropriate if the project:

1. Has a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of less than 0.75;

2. Includes more parking for use by residents, customers, or employees of the project than required by the City (if the City requires the project to supply parking);

3. Is inconsistent with the applicable Sustainable Communities Strategy (as determined by the City, with input from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission); or

4. Replaces affordable residential units with a smaller number of moderate- or high-income residential units.

Step 2: Low VMT Area Screening
Citywide VMT Averages
Table 1 shows the citywide average VMT metrics as reported by the Solano-Napa Activity Based Travel Demand Model (SNABM).

Table 1: City of Vallejo VMT Metrics
Land Use City of Vallejo
Baseline Year (2015)
City of Vallejo
Cumulative Year (2040)1
Residential 26.0 VMT/resident In Progress
Office/Employment 31.5 VMT/employee In Progress

1. Adjustments which were made to the 2015 model to improve performance are currently being transferred to the 2040 model; the adjusted 2040 model results will be available by mid-August, 2020.

Source: Solano-Napa Activity Based Travel Demand Model; Fehr & Peers, July 2020.

For information, the City of Vallejo metrics are compared to countywide and nine-county Bay Area metrics in Table 2. As the table indicates, Vallejo’s residential home-based VMT per resident is lower than the Solano County average but higher than the Bay Area average. Vallejo’s employment home-work VMT per employee is higher than both the Solano County and Bay Area averages. 1 A TPA is defined as a half mile area around an existing major transit stop or an existing stop along a high quality transit corridor per the definitions below.

Pub. Resources Code, § 21064.3 - ‘Major transit stop’ means a site containing an existing rail transit station, a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods.

Pub. Resources Code, § 21155 - For purposes of this section, a ‘high-quality transit corridor’ means a corridor with fixed route bus service with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours.

City of Vallejo CEQA TIA Guidelines 7
Table 2: City of Vallejo VMT Metrics Compared to County and Region Land Use
Baseline
(2015)
City of Vallejo
Baseline
(2015)
Solano County
Baseline
(2015)
Bay Area
Cumulative
(2040)
City of
Vallejo1
Cumulative
(2040)
Solano
County1
Cumulative
(2040)
Bay Area1
Residential 26.0
VMT/resident

28.8 VMT/resident

23.4 VMT/resident In Progress In Progress In Progress
Office/Employment 31.5
VMT/employee

30.9 VMT/employee

24.0 VMT/employee In Progress In Progress In Progress

1. Adjustments which were made to the 2015 model to improve performance are currently being transferred to the 2040 model; the adjusted 2040 model results will be available by mid-August, 2020.

Source: Solano-Napa Activity Based Travel Demand Model; Fehr & Peers, July 2020.

Project VMT Screening Based on Low-VMT Area
Residential and office projects located within a low-VMT generating area of the city (i.e., lower than citywide average levels, based on the significance thresholds in this document) may be presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. In addition, other employmentrelated and mixed-use land use projects may qualify for the use of screening if the project can reasonably be expected to generate VMT per resident, per worker, or per service population that is similar to the existing land uses in the low-VMT area.

The SNABM was reviewed and found to not provide reasonable traffic analysis zone (TAZ)-level results for purposes of identifying low-VMT areas of the city. Therefore, a project applicant and their analyst may present other data, if feasible, to identify if the project is in a low-VMT generating area. One potential data source would be trip generation and trip length information from a location-based services data vendor, demonstrating that similar uses near the project site generate VMT per service population, per resident, or per employee that is no higher than the citywide average. The analyst should use professional judgement to ensure that there is nothing unique about the project that would otherwise be mis-represented utilizing the vendor data.

Other methods for identifying low-VMT areas of the city may become available in the months and years ahead. Therefore, the City may consider other screening methods, supported by substantial evidence for their use.

For low VMT area screening to be satisfied, the analyst must verify that the project land uses would not alter the existing built environment in such a way as to increase the rate or length of vehicle trips (e.g. the proposed project is consistent with existing land use in the area, the project would be expected to contribute VMT consistent with existing land use in the area, and the project would not significantly alter travel patterns in the area).

City of Vallejo CEQA TIA Guidelines
July 2020
8 Step 3: Project Type Screening
The Technical Advisory states that local-serving retail projects less than 50,000 square feet may be presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. Local-serving retail generally improves the convenience of shopping and other activities close to home and has the effect of reducing vehicle travel.

The following uses can also be presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary, as their uses are local serving in nature; however, note that it is recommended that as much substantial evidence as possible be provided for the local-serving nature of a given project:
• Local-serving K-12 public schools
• Local parks
• Day care centers
• Local-serving retail uses less than 50,000 square feet, including:
◦ Gas stations
◦ Banks
◦ Restaurants
◦ Shopping centers
• Local-serving hotels (e.g. non-destination hotels)
• Student housing projects on or adjacent to college campuses • Local-serving assembly uses (places of worship, community organizations) • Community institutions (public libraries, fire stations, local government facilities) • Local serving community colleges that are consistent with the assumptions noted in the RTP/SCS • Affordable or supportive housing2
• Assisted living facilities
• Senior housing (as defined by HUD)
• Projects generating less than 110 daily vehicle trips3 ◦ This generally corresponds to the following “typical” development potentials:
2 The project must provide 100% of residential units as affordable or supportive housing. 3 This threshold ties directly to the OPR technical advisory and notes that CEQA provides a categorical exemption for existing facilities, including additions to existing structures of up to 10,000 square feet, so long as the project is in an area where public infrastructure is available to allow for maximum planned development and the project is not in an environmentally sensitive area. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15301, subd. (e)(2).) Typical project types for which trip generation increases relatively linearly with building footprint (i.e., general office building, single tenant office building, office park, and business park) generate or attract an additional 110-124 trips per 10,000 square feet.

Therefore, absent substantial evidence otherwise, it is reasonable to conclude that the addition of 110 or fewer trips could be considered not to lead to a significant impact.

City of Vallejo CEQA TIA Guidelines 9
▪ 11 single family housing units
▪ 16 multi-family, condominiums, or townhouse housing units ▪ 10,000 sq. ft. of office
▪ 15,000 sq. ft. of light industrial4
▪ 63,000 sq. ft. of warehousing
▪ 79,000 sq. ft. of high cube transload and short-term storage warehouse7 Any project that uses the designation of “local-serving” should be able to demonstrate that its users (employees, customers, visitors) would come primarily from within the city limits. The project would therefore not generate new “demand” for the project land uses, but would meet at existing demand that would shorten the distance existing residents, employees, customers, or visitors would need to travel.

VMT Assessment for Non-Screened Development
Projects not screened through the steps above should complete a VMT analysis using the SNABM to determine if they have a significant VMT impact. This analysis should include ‘project generated VMT’ and ‘project effect on VMT’ estimates for the project as follows. Thresholds of significance are discussed in the next section. Attachment B provides more detailed direction on the steps below. • Baseline Conditions – Conditions in the baseline year for the CEQA analysis, which is most often chosen as the time of notice of preparation (NOP) of an environmental document, but may be chosen as the baseline year of the SNABM, if land use and transportation network conditions can be considered largely unchanged between the model baseline year and the date of the NOP. VMT for the project TAZ and citywide total should be calculated. • Baseline Plus Project - The project land use is added to the project TAZ or a separate TAZ may be created to contain the project land uses. A full model run is performed and VMT changes (by metric of choice) is isolated for the project TAZ and across the full model network. The model output must include reasonableness checks of the production and attraction balancing to ensure the project effect is accurately captured. If this scenario results in a less-than-significant impact, then additional cumulative scenario analysis may not be required (more information about this outcome can be found in the Thresholds Evaluation discussion later in this section). • Cumulative No Project– Conditions in the future year travel demand model (current future year is 2040).
• Cumulative Plus Project - The project land use is added to the project TAZ or a separate TAZ is created to contain the project land uses. The addition of project land uses may be accompanied by a reallocation of a similar amount of land use from other TAZs throughout the model area (focusing on Solano and Napa Counties), especially if the proposed project is significant in size such that it would potentially reduce the potential for development throughout the rest of the model area. Land use projects will generally not change the cumulative no project control totals 4 Threshold may be higher depending on the tenant and the use of the site. This number was estimated using rates from ITE’s Trip Generation Manual.

City of Vallejo CEQA TIA Guidelines
July 2020
10 for population and employment growth within the model area. Instead, they will influence the land use supply through changes in general plan land use designations and zoning. If project land uses are simply added to the cumulative no project scenario, then the analysis should reflect this limitation in the methodology and acknowledge that the analysis may overestimate the project’s effect on VMT. A full model run is performed and VMT changes (by metric of choice) would be isolated for the project TAZ and across the full model network. The model output must include reasonableness checks of the production and attraction balancing to ensure the project effect is accurately captured.

The model output should include total network-based boundary VMT by speed bin, which includes all vehicle trips and trip purposes in a defined boundary5to measure the project effect on VMT. The model output should include the following project-generated VMT: Total Project VMT (all trip purposes) per service population (population plus employment); Residential Tour VMT per resident (for residential projects) and Home-Based-Work Tour VMT per employee (for office/employment uses). The networkbased boundary VMT is needed as an input for air quality, greenhouse gas (GHG), and energy impact analysis, while the project-generated VMT metrics are used for the transportation impact analysis.

Both “plus project” scenarios noted above will summarize two types of VMT: (1) the project effect on VMT, comparing how the project changes VMT on the boundary network looking at citywide VMT in absolute terms and also per service population, comparing these to the No Project condition, and (2) projectgenerated VMT per service population, per resident, or per employee, with a comparison to the appropriate benchmark noted in the thresholds of significance.

Project-generated VMT should be extracted from the travel demand forecasting model by combining either the origin-destination (for total VMT) or production-attraction (for the other metrics) trip matrices and congested skims from final assignment. The VMT should be adjusted to reflect trips that extend beyond the model boundary (this is described in more detail in Attachment B). The project’s effect on VMT should be estimated using the regional boundary (recommended region is Solano County) and extracting the total link-level VMT for both the No Project and With Project condition.

If a project is mixed-use (i.e. composed of both residential and retail/office uses) project-generated VMT should be extracted for both the total VMT and VMT per service population (residents and employees).

Significance Thresholds
The City has adopted the following thresholds of significance. These thresholds are intended to hold new development VMT generation at or below citywide VMT generation levels, for the baseline and cumulative scenarios. This is expected to result in declining VMT over time, as compared to a business as usual condition with no VMT limits. The thresholds balance the City’s priorities with respect to competing 5 Network-based VMT is also referred to as boundary method VMT. For most projects, boundary method for the City should be adequate. For projects located near the City limit, an alternative boundary should be considered that captures the true effect the project has on local traffic. This could be determined using average trip length to/from the site or other approach to completely capture changes in VMT.

City of Vallejo CEQA TIA Guidelines 11
objectives including Vallejo’s geographic and transportation context, greenhouse gas reduction goals, interest in achieving the state’s greenhouse gas reduction goals, and General Plan 2040 goals and policies related to land use mix, economic development, and housing provision.

Threshold 1: Project Generated VMT (Residential and Office/Industrial Projects) - Baseline Project-generated Residential Tour VMT per resident (for residential projects), Home-Based-Work Tour VMT per employee (for office/industrial projects) or Total VMT per service population (for mixed-use projects) is no higher than the baseline citywide Residential Tour VMT per resident, Home-Based-Work Tour VMT per employee, or Total VMT per service population.

Threshold 2: Project Generated VMT (Residential and Office/Industrial Projects) - Cumulative Project-generated Residential Tour VMT per resident (for residential projects), Home-Based-Work Tour VMT per employee (for office/industrial projects), or Total VMT per service population (for mixed-use projects) is no higher than the cumulative citywide Residential Tour VMT per resident, Home-Based-Work Tour VMT per employee, or Total VMT per service population. This threshold does not apply if it can be demonstrated that VMT rates are declining at the time of the analysis.

Threshold 3: Project’s Effect on VMT (Residential and Office/Industrial Projects) -- Cumulative The Project reduces or has no effect on the citywide total VMT under cumulative conditions.

Threshold 4: Project-Generated VMT and Project’s Effect on VMT (Other Project Types)
VMT thresholds for other project types (for example, institutional, destination hotel, or cultural projects) would be developed using considerations unique to the individual project. The thresholds will incorporate the principles of Thresholds 1 – 3, i.e., projects that are not expected to generate VMT above a relevant baseline level and/or are not expected to increase VMT in the cumulative condition would be considered to have a less than significant impact with respect to VMT.

VMT Mitigation Measures
To mitigate VMT impacts, the following choices are available to the applicant:

1. Modify the project’s built environment characteristics to reduce VMT generated by the project

2. Implement transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures to reduce VMT generated by the project.

3. Participate in a VMT fee program and/or VMT mitigation exchange/banking program (if they exist) to reduce VMT from the project or other land uses to achieve acceptable levels As part of the Vallejo SB 743 Implementation Study, key VMT reduction measures that are appropriate to the Vallejo land use, urban form and transportation context were identified. These measures are

City of Vallejo CEQA TIA Guidelines
July 2020
12 summarized below, with additional effectiveness estimates and background information provided in Attachment C.

Potential VMT Reduction Measures
• Increase transit accessibility: provide transit stops, fund or contribute to shuttle service, provide transit subsidies to project residents or employees, or other actions that increase the ability of residents or employees to use transit
• Provide pedestrian network improvements: eliminate sidewalk gaps which create barriers to offsite activity centers, or enhance the width or design of existing off-site sidewalks or paths • Provide bicycle network improvements: eliminate bike facility gaps, add new bike lanes, protected bike lanes, or off-street multi-use paths connecting to key off-site activity centers • Provide traffic calming measures: construct off-site traffic calming measures which slow auto traffic and create a more comfortable walking and bicycling environment • Implement a car-sharing program: provide car sharing within a project, or contribute funding to an off-site car sharing site, reducing the need for site employees to commute by car or the need for site residents to own a car
• “Un-bundle” private parking: lease parking separately from office space or residential units within a project site, thus encouraging site users to consider the independent value of the parking and potentially reducing car use
• Implement market-rate public parking: price all public parking within a particular area (downtown, for example) to encourage “park once” behavior, reducing automobile circulation • Increase transit service frequency: contribute funding to allow transit agencies to provide shorter headways and improve transit trip speed and reliability • Encourage telecommuting and alternative work schedules: provide telecommuting incentives to reduce employee commuting by automobile
Evaluation of VMT reductions should be conducted using state-of-the-practice methodologies recognizing that many of the TDM strategies are dependent on building occupant performance over time.

As such, actual VMT reduction cannot be reliably predicted and monitoring may be necessary to gauge performance related to mitigation expectations.

Potential Future Changes to City VMT Evaluation Methodology An alternative approach to assessing VMT impacts is to conduct a CEQA analysis of the VMT associated with the City’s General Plan, and use that evaluation to support analysis of individual projects subsequent to the General Plan-level evaluation. This approach acknowledges that the City of Vallejo General Plan land use allocations and associated VMT have already been planned for and determined to be acceptable by the City. It also allows the City to set a citywide VMT reduction target and threshold of significance, and plan VMT reduction strategies and programs in a more holistic, effective, and equitable manner than would be possible using project-by-project impact evaluations. It would also provide opportunities for streamlined review of projects under CEQA Guidelines section 15183.

City of Vallejo CEQA TIA Guidelines 13
The City of Vallejo intends to prepare an updated General Plan and EIR as described above. When that process is complete, this guideline document will be revised to reflect the new citywide VMT thresholds of significance, VMT reduction targets, VMT reduction policies and TDM measures, and analysis methodology for individual project level reviews

City of Vallejo CEQA TIA Guidelines
July 2020
14 Analysis for Other Appendix G
Checklist Criteria
As noted in the Introduction, the updated CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Checklist contains three additional criteria beyond the VMT evaluation criteria discussed in the preceding section. They are listed below.

Would the project:

1. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?

3. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)?

4. Result in inadequate emergency access?
TIAs should address these three questions, considering the unique characteristics of the project, including its location, size, design, use mix, transportation and urban form context, and other relevant details.

Attachments

A. VMT Analysis Process Flowchart

B. Detailed VMT Forecasting Information
Travel demand models generate daily person trip-ends for each TAZ across various trip purposes (HomeBased-Work, Home-Based-Other, and Non-Home-Based, for example) based on population, household, and employment variables. Travel demand models are simplifications of reality and as such, TAZs often contain a large amount of population, households, and employment. Travel models do not tie trip generation to individual land uses but instead aggregate all up to the TAZ level. This can create challenges for complying with the SB743 guidance because the thresholds are tied to specific land use categories and their behavior. The following methodology addresses this particular challenge among others.

To better understand the trips used in each metric, consider the following daily vehicle trip tour for an individual residential worker in TAZ. Note that each TAZ would have many individual residential workers and thus the calculations would be a sum of these individual calculations:

These nine daily vehicle trips include a variety of trip purposes: home-based work (HBW), home-based other (HBO), work-based other (WBO), and other-based other (OBO). WBO and OBO trips are often grouped into a non-home based (NHB) category. The table below categorizes the nine daily trips into trip purposes.

Trip Tour Origin Destination Purpose Distance
1 Work Residence Coffee Shop HBO 2 miles
2 Work Coffee Shop Work WBO (NHB) 10 miles
3 Work Work ATM WBO (NHB) 1 mile
4 Work ATM Sandwich Shop OBO (NHB) 1 mile
5 Work Sandwich Shop Work WBO (NHB) 1 mile
6 Work Work Residence HBW 11 miles
7 Home Residence Grocery Store HBO 3 miles
8 Home Grocery Store Gas Station OBO (NHB) 1 mile
9 Home Gas Station Residence HBO 2 miles
The SNABM is an activity-based model that uses links an individual’s trips into “tours.” Therefore it is straightforward to calculated VMT associated with residential or work locations based on the type of “tour.” The table below describes the calculation for the partial VMT metrics.

Description Trips VMT Comments
Residential Tour 1-9 32 miles Includes all trips by a resident Home-Based-Work Tour 6 11 miles Includes all home-based-work trips The Total VMT calculation (all trip purposes for both resident and worker) is more easily calculated using the final origin-destination vehicle matrices and summing all origin and destination trip ends for each TAZ. The Total VMT calculation is includes all trips, all trip purposes, for any interaction with the TAZ regardless of whether they are a resident or worker of the TAZ.

Each of these metrics need to be adjusted to account for the length of trips that get truncated at the travel model boundary. Adjusting the length of trips leaving a model boundary requires appending extra distance at the model gateway zone (or external centroid) connector based on calculations from a parent travel demand model, such as the California Statewide Travel Demand Model (CSTDM). This process results in new gateway distances that are weighted based on the amount and location of external travel origins and destinations. The calculations would need to address the distance of trips outside of travel model boundary; in the case of the SNABM this is the nine county Bay Area.

C. Mitigation Measures
A list of mitigation measures which are considered appropriate for Vallejo’s geographic and transportation context is provided in the following pages. Potential effectiveness in reducing VMT, along with the basis for the effectiveness finding, is also given. More information on the effectiveness estimates is provided in the Technical Memorandum VMT Analysis Methodology and Significance Thresholds for City of Vallejo Transportation Impact Assessment: Summary and Next Steps (April 6, 2020).

For each project mitigation evaluation, the analyst should consider the potential effectiveness for the specific project being evaluated, including its location within Vallejo, multi-modal transportation network and services available to the project, project transportation amenities and proposed improvements to the surrounding network, and other relevant characteristics.

New information
Change in VMT
reduction compared
to CAPCOA(1) Literature or Evidence Cited
Land Use/Location 3.1.1 LUT-1 Increase Density 0.8% - 30% VMT reduction due to increase in density
Adequate Increasing residential density is associated
with lower VMT per capita. Increased residential density in areas with high jobs access may have a greater VMT change than increases in regions with lower jobs access. The range of reductions is based on a range of elasticities from -0.04 to -0.22. The low end of the reductions represents a -0.04 elasticity of demand in response to a 10% increase in residential units or employment density and a -0.22 elasticity in response to 50% increase to residential/employment density.

0.4% -10.75% Primary sources:

Boarnet, M. and Handy, S. (2014). Impacts of Residential Density on Passenger Vehicle Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions - Policy Brief and Technical Background Document. California Air Resources Board. Retrieved from: https://arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/policies/policies.htmSecondary source:Stevens, M. (2017). Does Compact Development Make People Drive Less? Journal of the American Planning Association, 83(1), 7-18.

Land Use/ Location 3.1.3 LUT-3 Increase Diversity of Urban and Suburban Developments
9%-30% VMT reduction due to mixing land uses within a single development Adequate 1] VMT reduction due to mix of land uses
within a single development; 2] Reduction in VMT due to regional change in entropy index of diversity. 1] 0%-12% 2] 0.3%-4%
1] Ewing, R. and Cervero, R. (2010). Travel and the Built Environment - A Meta-Analysis. Journal of the American Planning Association,76(3),265-294. Cited in California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. (2010).Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures. Retrieved from: http://www.capcoa.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/CAPCOA-Quantification-Report-9-14-Final.pdfFrank, L., Greenwald, M., Kavage, S. and Devlin, A. (2011). An Assessment of Urban Form and Pedestrian and Transit Improvements as an Integrated GHG Reduction Strategy. WSDOT Research Report WA-RD 765.1. Washington State Department of Transportation. Retrieved from: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/research/reports/fullreports/765.1.pdfNasri, A. and Zhang, L. (2012). Impact of Metropolitan-Level Built Environment on Travel Behavior. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2323(1), 75-79.Sadek, A. et al. (2011). Reducing VMT through Smart Land-Use Design. New York State Energy Research and Development Authority. Retrieved from: https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/technical-services/trans-r-and-d-repository/C-08-29%20Final%20Report_December%202011%20%282%29.pdf Spears, S.et al. (2014). Impacts of Land-Use Mix on Passenger Vehicle Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions- Policy Brief and Technical Background Document. California Air Resources Board. Retrieved from: https://arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/policies/policies.htm2] Zhang, Wengia et al. "Short- and Long-Term Effects of Land Use on Reducing Personal Vehicle Miles of Travel." CAPCOA Category CAPCOA # CAPCOA Strategy CAPCOA Reduction Strength of Substantial
Evidence for CEQA Impact
Analysis?
New Information Since CAPCOA Was Published in 2010
Attachment 3
Mitigation Measures:VMT Reduction Strategies Based on Vallejo's Land Use and Transportation Context

New information
Change in VMT
reduction compared
to CAPCOA(1) Literature or Evidence Cited
TDM STRATEGY EVALUATION Relevant Strategies for Implementation in Vallejo Due to Land Use Context CAPCOA Category CAPCOA # CAPCOA Strategy CAPCOA Reduction Strength of Substantial
Evidence for CEQA Impact
Analysis?
New Information Since CAPCOA Was Published in 2010
Land Use/ Location 3.1.5 LUT-5 Increase Transit Accessibility 0.5%-24.6% reduce in VMT due to locating a project near high-quality transit
Adequate 1] VMT reduction when transit station is
provided within 1/2 mile of development (compared to VMT for sites located outside 1/2 mile radius of transit). Locating high density development within 1/2 mile oftransit will facilitate the use of transit by people traveling to or from the Project site. The use of transit results in a mode shift and therefore reduced VMT.2] Reduction in vehicle trips due to implementing TOD. A project with a residential/commercial center designed around a rail or bus station, is called a transit-oriented development (TOD). The project description should include, at a minimum, the following design features:• A transit station/stop with high-quality, high-frequency bus service located within a 5-10 minute walk (or roughly ¼ mile fromstop to edge of development), and/or• A rail station located within a 20 minute walk (or roughly ½ mile from station to edge of development)• Fast, frequent, and reliable transit service connecting to a high percentage of regional destinations• Neighborhood designed for walking and cycling
1] 0%-5.8% 2] 0%-7.3%
1] Lund, H. et al. (2004). Travel Characteristics of Transit-Oriented Development in California.Oakland, CA: Bay Area Rapid Transit District, Metropolitan Transportation Commission, and Caltrans. Tal, G. et al. (2013). Policy Brief on the Impacts of Transit Access (Distance to Transit) Based on a Review of the Empirical Literature. California Air Resources Board. Retrieved from: https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/policies/transitaccess/transit_access_brief120313.pdf2] Zamir, K. R. et al. (2014). Effects of Transit-Oriented Development on Trip Generation, Distribution,and Mode Share in Washington, D.C., and Baltimore, Maryland. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board. 2413, 45–53. DOI: 10.3141/2413-05 Neighborhood Site Enhancements

3.2.1 SDT-1 Provide Pedestrian Network
Improvements
0%-2% reduction in VMT for creating a connected pedestrian network within the development and connecting to nearby destinations Adequate VMT reduction due to provision of complete
pedestrian networks.

0.5%-5.7% Handy, S. et al. (2014). Impacts of Pedestrian Strategies on Passenger Vehicle Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions - Policy Brief and Technical Background Document. California Air Resources Board. Retrieved from: https://arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/policies/policies.htm Neighborhood Site Enhancements

3.2.2 SDT-2 Provide Traffic Calming
Measures

0.25%-1% VMT reduction due to traffic calming on streets within and around the development Adequate Reduction in VMT due to building out a lowstress bike network; reduction in VMT due to expansion of bike networks in urban areas.
0%-1.7% 1] California Air Resources Board. (2016). Greenhouse Gas Quantification Methodology for the California Transportation Commission Active Transportation Program Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund Fiscal Year 2016-17. Retrieved from: https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/capandtrade/auctionproceeds/ctc_atp_finalqm_16-17.pdf.2] Zahabi, S. et al. (2016). Exploring the link between the neighborhood typologies, bicycle infrastructure and commuting cycling over time and the potential impact on commuter GHG emissions. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment. 47, 89-103.

Neighborhood Site Enhancements

3.4.9 TRT-9 Implement Car-Sharing Program 0.4% - 0.7% VMT reduction due to lower vehicle ownership rates and general shift to non-driving modes Adequate Vehicle trip reduction due to car-sharing
programs; reduction assumes 1%-5% penetration rate.Car sharing effect on VMT is still evolving due to TNC effects. UCD research showed less effect on car ownership due to car sharing participation and an uncertain effect on VMT.

0.3%-1.6% Lovejoy, K. et al. (2013). Impacts of Carsharing on Passenger Vehicle Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions - Policy Brief and Technical Background Document. California Air Resources Board. Retrieved from: https://arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/policies/policies.htmClewlow, Regina R. and Mishra, Gouri Shankar, (2017). Disruptive Transportation: The Adoption, Utilization, and Impacts of Ride-Hailing in the United States. UC Davis, Institute of Transportation Studies. Research Report - UCD-ITS-RR-17-07.

New information
Change in VMT
reduction compared
to CAPCOA(1) Literature or Evidence Cited
TDM STRATEGY EVALUATION Relevant Strategies for Implementation in Vallejo Due to Land Use Context CAPCOA Category CAPCOA # CAPCOA Strategy CAPCOA Reduction Strength of Substantial
Evidence for CEQA Impact
Analysis?
New Information Since CAPCOA Was Published in 2010
Parking Pricing 3.3.3 PDT-3 Implement Market Price Public Parking

2.8%-5.5% VMT reduction due to "park once" behavior and disincentive to driving Adequate Implement a pricing strategy for parking by
pricing all central business district/employment center/retail center onstreet parking. It will be priced to encourage park once" behavior. The benefit of this measure above that of paid parking at the project only is that it deters parking spillover from project supplied parking to other public parking nearby, which undermine the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) benefits of project pricing. It may also generate sufficient area-wide mode shifts to justify increased transit service to the area. VMT reduction applies to VMT from visitor/customer trips only. Reductions higher than top end of range from CAPCOA report apply only in conditions with highly constrained on-street parking supply and lack of comparably-priced off-street

2.8%-14.5% Clinch, J.P. and Kelly, J.A. (2003). Temporal Variance Of Revealed Preference On-Street Parking Price Elasticity. Dublin: Department of Environmental Studies, University College Dublin. Retrieved from: http://www.ucd.ie/gpep/research/workingpapers/2004/04-02.pdf. Cited in Victoria Transport Policy Institute (2017). Transportation Elasticities: How Prices and Other Factors Affect Travel Behavior. Retrieved from: http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm11.htmHensher, D. and King, J. (2001). Parking Demand and Responsiveness to Supply, Price and Location in Sydney Central Business District. Transportation Research A. 35(3), 177-196.Millard-Ball, A. et al. (2013). Is the curb 80% full or 20% empty? Assessing the impacts of San Francisco's parking pricing experiment. Transportation Research Part A. 63(2014), 76-92. Shoup, D. (2011). The High Cost of Free Parking. APA Planners Press. p. 290. Cited in Pierce, G. and Shoup, D. (2013). Getting the Prices Right. Journal of the American Planning Association. 79(1), 67-81.

Transit System 3.5.4 TST-4 Increase Transit Service
Frequency/Speed

0.02%-2.5% VMT reduction due to reduced headways and increased speed and reliability Adequate Reduction in vehicle trips due to increased
transit frequency/decreased headway.

0.3%-6.3% Handy, S. et al. (2013). Impacts of Transit Service Strategies on Passenger Vehicle Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions - Policy Brief and Technical Background Document. California Air Resources Board. Retrieved from: https://arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/policies/policies.htm Commute Trip Reduction

3.4.6 TRT-6 Encourage Telecommuting and
Alternative Work Schedules

0.07%-5.5% commute VMT reduction due to reduced commute trips Adequate - Effectiveness is building/tenant specific. Do not use with "TRT-1 Implement CTR Program - Voluntary" or "TRT-2 Implement CTR Program - Required Implementation/Monitoring." VMT reduction due to adoption of telecommuting

0.2%-4.5% Handy, S. et al. (2013). Policy Brief on the Impacts of Telecommuting Based on a Review of the Empirical Literature. California Air Resources Board. Retrieved from: https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/policies/telecommuting/telecommuting_brief120313.pdf NOTES:(1) For specific VMT reduction ranges, refer to the cited literature.

ACTION ITEM 9.D.

DATE: October 13, 2026
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Kristin Pollot, AICP, Planning & Development Services Director SUBJECT: ADOPT A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A LIMITED, APPROXIMATELY ONE-YEAR

BUILDING PERMIT FEE REDUCTION PILOT PROGRAM FOR LOW-INCOME

HOMEOWNERS

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution establishing a limited, approximately one-year fee reduction pilot program, to offer fee reductions for certain minor residential building permit types that are commonly required for single-family home improvements/repairs.

REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION
A limited-term Building Permit fee reduction program targeted at low-income residential homeowners, would help to address fee-equity concerns previously raised by the City Council, and would ensure the City is providing support for low-income households and not discouraging code compliance with fees that are too high. The proposed fee reduction program would be cost-neutral against the adopted FY 2026-27 Planning and Development Services budget. As proposed, the program would be authorized on a first-come, firstserved basis, and would include a cap of $100,000.

BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
On July 14, 2026, the City Council adopted a new Master Fee Schedule for the Building & Planning Divisions which included new fees that anticipate an increase in the average cost recovery rates for the Building Division, specifically, from 59% to 73% cost recovery. While none of the newly adopted fees are expected to cover the full cost of staff time required to process individual permits, the new fee schedule has established a new baseline that is expected to exceed the original budget revenue projections for the department by approximately $100k.

During the adoption process for the new Master Fee Schedule, concerns were raised by the City Council about the potential impact of higher fees on low-income homeowners. Specifically, there was a concern raised that the newly increased fees may deter property owners from pulling permits for certain small scale home improvements/repairs, resulting in a potential lower participation overall, in the permitting process.

In light of the anticipated increased revenue projections, paired with the previous concerns raised about new higher fees acting as a deterrent for low-income homeowner participation in the permitting process, staff is now proposing to utilize the anticipated surplus department revenue to a establish a limited term Building Permit Fee Reduction Program as a pilot program to help low-income homeowners.

Proposed Low-Income Permit Fee Reduction Program
Attached to this report is a draft Building Permit Fee Reduction Program that has been designed as a limitedterm fee reduction program to assist lower-income, single-family residential homeowners with offsetting the new increased permitting costs for minor repairs to their homes. As proposed, the program would offer a potential 50% fee reduction for the following fee types:

Date: October 13, 2026
Subject: ADOPT A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A LIMITED, APPROXIMATELY ONE-YEAR

BUILDING PERMIT FEE REDUCTION PILOT PROGRAM FOR LOW-INCOME

HOMEOWNERS

• Residential re-roof permits
• Residential window or door replacements
• Lighting, receptacle, switch additions or replacements • Restoration of electrical or natural gas services
• Dishwasher, sinks, and other leak repairs
• Water heater replacements
• Furnace, wall heaters and/or AC condenser repairs/replacements The proposed program would allow one fee reduction per permit type, per property, during the program period.

The program would be available on a first-come, first-served basis for qualifying low-income homeowners, and would include an overall cap on the total amount of fee reductions provided, to be set at $100,000. In order to be eligible for the program, applicants must be the owner of the single-family home for which the permit is being obtained, and they must be enrolled in the PG&E CARE program. Verification of PG&E CARE enrollment provides a simple vetting process for staff to verify an applicant’s need for the program assistance.

If approved, staff will track data during the program and report back to City Council certain metrics related to the total number of reduced permits issued, as well as total permits requested compared to previous years, in order to assess the program's impacts and whether it should be continued beyond the initial period.

FISCAL IMPACT
The program would not require any direct funding for administration, and it would have no anticipated direct fiscal impact at this time. The identified $100,000 cap in total fee reductions allowed during the program period will align with the anticipated increased revenue projections for the department, resulting from the newly adopted Master Fee Schedule. It should be noted that none of the newly adopted fees provide full cost recovery of staff time, so the $100,000 to fund the program would remain as a previously approved General Fund subsidy for the department.

If actual revenues fall short of the projected amounts during the program period, staff will reassess the program as part of the FY 2026-2027 Midyear Budget process and determine whether additional funding or adjustments to the program are necessary.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Establishing a permit fee reduction program is not considered a “project” under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and is therefore exempt from review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(4).

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution Establishing Building Permit Fee Reduction Program_CAO Stamp

2. Resolution Exhibit A

CONTACT
Kristin Pollot, Planning & Development Services Director [email protected]

1 RESOLUTION NO. 26-_____ N.C.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VALLEJO

ESTABLISHING A LIMITED, APPROXIMATELY ONE-YEAR BUILDING PERMIT FEE

REDUCTION PROGRAM FOR LOW-INCOME HOMEOWNERS
WHEREAS, the City of Vallejo (“City”) is authorized to prescribe fees for building permits pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 17951 and other applicable law.

Building permit fees may not exceed the amount reasonably required to administer or process the applicable permits or to defray the costs of enforcement, and may not be levied for general revenue purposes; and
WHEREAS, the City periodically amends and updates its Master Fee Schedule to account for the various cost increases relating to municipal programs, services and activities; and
WHEREAS, on July 14, 2026, the City Council adopted a new Master Fee Schedule for the Building & Planning Divisions which included new fees that anticipate an increase in the average cost recovery rates for the Building Division, specifically, from 59% to 73% cost recovery; and
WHEREAS, while none of the newly adopted fees are expected to cover the full cost of staff time required to process individual permits, the new fee schedule has established a new baseline that is expected to exceed the original budget revenue projections for the department by approximately $100,000; and
WHEREAS, the City has an interest in ensuring that building permit fees do not create an undue financial barrier to lower-income homeowners seeking to obtain permits and comply with applicable building codes; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to establish a fee reduction program for eligible low-income homeowners to promote equitable access to the City’s building permit process, reduce financial barriers to obtaining permits, and encourage compliance with applicable building codes; and
WHEREAS, the establishment of a permit fee reduction program is not considered a “project” under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and is therefore exempt from review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(4).

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Vallejo City Council does hereby establish the Building Permit Fee Reduction Program as a limited-term program, as set forth in Exhibit A, effective through June 30, 2027. In no event shall the aggregate amount of fee reductions provided under the Program exceed $100,000.

2 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Vallejo at a regular meeting held on September 22, 2026, with the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:
____________________________________

ANDREA SORCE, MAYOR
ATTEST: _____________________________________
DAWN G. ABRAHAMSON, CITY CLERK

City Manager’s Office ∙ 555 Santa Clara Street ∙ Vallejo ∙ CA ∙ 94590 Vallejo Building Fee Reduction Program
The Vallejo Building Fee Reduction Program is designed to support income-qualifying single-family homeowners by reducing the financial burden of essential home repairs and improvements. This initiative offers a 50% reduction of select building permit fees for homeowners who demonstrate eligibility, as detailed below. Program eligibility will be based on a first-come, first-served basis, with a total cap on fee reductions set at $100,000 per fiscal year.

Eligibility
• Applicant must be the owner of the single-family residential home within Vallejo city limits. • Income qualification is determined by current enrollment in the PG&E CARE program. Applicants must provide proof of CARE enrollment at the time of permit application. • Only one 50% fee reduction per property, per year, may be applied to any of the eligible residential permit fee types listed below.

Eligible Permit Fee Types
The following residential permit fees are eligible for a 50% reduction under this program:

1. Residential re-roof permit

2. Residential re-roof permit with existing solar panel removal & reinstallation

3. Residential window or door replacement (per window or door)

4. Lighting, receptacle, switch additions or replacements

5. Restoration of service

6. Dishwasher, sinks, toilet, faucets, leak repair, etc.

7. Water heater replacement

8. Furnace and/or AC condenser

9. Wall furnace or wall heater
Application Process

1. Submit permit application for eligible work through the City of Vallejo’s Building Division.

2. Provide proof of ownership for the property subject to the application.

3. Provide proof of PG&E CARE enrollment (current utility bill or CARE approval letter).

4. City staff will verify eligibility and apply the 50% fee reduction to qualifying permits.

5. Permits and inspections proceed as usual; all other requirements and standards remain unchanged.

Contact
For questions or assistance, contact the Vallejo Building Division at [email protected], or (707) 648- 4522.

Exhibit A

ACTION ITEM 9.E.

DATE: October 13, 2026
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Natalie Peterson, Assistant to the City Manager
SUBJECT: NOTICE OF INTENT TO AMEND THE FISCAL YEAR 2026-2027 BUDGET TO APPROPRIATE $76,400 OF MEASURE P FUNDS TO PROVIDE WARMING CENTER ACTIVITIES AT THE VALLEJO NAVIGATION CENTER (STEP 1 of 2)

RECOMMENDATION
Provide a Notice of Intent to Amend the Fiscal Year (FY) 2026-27 Budget to appropriate $76,400 in Measure P funding to provide warming center activities at the Vallejo Homeless Navigation Center.

REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION
Five Keys Schools and Programs is the current operator of the Navigation Center and has demonstrated the operational capacity, experience, and staffing infrastructure necessary to safely and effectively operate a warming center. The Navigation Center is an appropriate facility for this use, as it is already designed to provide congregate shelter services, is equipped with the necessary systems, accessibility features, and onsite support services and provided warming center operations in Janurary - March 2026.

Utilizing the existing operator allows the City to deploy warming center services rapidly during periods of inclement weather. Five Keys’ experienced staff are already familiar with the site layout, safety protocols, emergency procedures, and client population, which reduces implementation risk and supports continuity of care for unsheltered individuals seeking temporary relief from inclement weather.

The proposed use of Measure P funding is consistent with the Measure P category of Address Homelessness.

Providing a warming center during periods of inclement weather directly supports the City’s efforts to address the immediate needs of individuals experiencing homelessness by providing a safe, accessible location where unsheltered individuals can temporarily seek protection from cold and other hazardous weather conditions.

The use of Measure P funds for these services will help provide a critical safety resource to the unhoused community while connecting individuals to existing shelter and support services available through the Navigation Center.

Approving the appropriation of Measure P funding promotes the efficient use of existing resources, ensures compliance with applicable safety and operational standards, and enhances the City’s ability to respond to seasonal weather-related risks for the unhoused community.

The additional use of these funds will be to support individuals with transportation through SolTrans to get a free ride to and from the Navigation Center during the warming center operations. Providing transportation removes a potential barrier for individuals experiencing homelessness who may otherwise be unable to access the warming center, thereby increasing accessibility and ensuring the Measure P-funded service reaches those most in need.

Date: October 13, 2026
Subject: NOTICE OF INTENT TO AMEND THE FISCAL YEAR 2026-2027 BUDGET TO APPROPRIATE $76,400 OF MEASURE P FUNDS TO PROVIDE WARMING CENTER ACTIVITIES AT THE VALLEJO NAVIGATION CENTER (STEP 1 of 2)

BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
In September 2018, the City of Vallejo declared a shelter crisis and directed staff to move forward with establishing a shelter within the City. Following several years of planning and construction, the Vallejo Navigation Center opened its doors on June 23, 2025.

On June 3, 2025, by Resolution No. 25-085 N.C., the City Council approved an operational agreement with Five Keys Schools and Programs to serve as the operator of the Vallejo Navigation Center. The Vallejo Navigation Center provides shelter and supportive services for individuals aged 18 and older and operates as a low-barrier shelter. Low-barrier sheltering minimizes entry requirements, increasing access for individuals who may face challenges meeting traditional shelter criteria. While entry requirements are minimal, participants are required to agree to and comply with a code of conduct to ensure the safety and well-being of residents, staff, facilities, and the surrounding community.

On October 29, 2025, the City issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) seeking operators for warming center services. The response received did not meet the required criteria. Following the RFP, staff engaged partner agencies, community-based organizations, and faith-based organizations in an effort to identify a suitable facility or short-term warming center solution.

In response to this outreach, the operator of the Vallejo Navigation Center, Five Keys agreed to operate a temporary warming center at the Navigation Center facility for 75 days during January through March 2026. The services were provided continuously ,regardless of daily weather conditions or the activation threshold for the Extreme Weather policy established by the City of Vallejo.

Staff are recommending utilizing the Vallejo Navigation Center to act as the warming center for the 2026- 2027 winter season, utilizing Five Keys Schools and Programs as the operator.

Services will include up to 20 mat spaces and the use of any additional unoccupied shelter beds for individuals seeking protection from inclement weather on a first-come, first-serve basis. Participants will be provided with meals and have access to the community room and shower facilities, as available.

Overnight storage of personal belongings will be provided; however, participants must remove belongings upon exiting the site. All Warming Center participants will do an intake process every evening.

Five Keys – Warming Center Budget:

Activity Cost
(1) Ambassador – 8 hours/day – 150 days $30,000.00
Fringe (38%) $11,400.00
Subtotal Salary $41,400.00
Janitorial Supplies $10,000.00
Guest Supplies $10,000.00
Subtotal Operating $20,000.000
Indirect Fee (15%) $3,000
Total $64,400.00

Date: October 13, 2026
Subject: NOTICE OF INTENT TO AMEND THE FISCAL YEAR 2026-2027 BUDGET TO APPROPRIATE $76,400 OF MEASURE P FUNDS TO PROVIDE WARMING CENTER ACTIVITIES AT THE VALLEJO NAVIGATION CENTER (STEP 1 of 2)

Additionally, staff are recommending utilizing SolTrans to provide free round trip rides to and from the Warming Center during the operations of the Navigation Center. SolTrans will provide rides to unhoused individuals from any SolTrans bus stop within the city of Vallejo to the Tuolumne Street bus stop, which is the closest to the Navigation Center and provide return transportation the following day from the Tuolumne Street bus stop to their desired destination.

SolTrans Warming Center Budget
$4 per rider x 20 riders (estimated number of riders) x 150 days (November 1, 2026 – March 30, 2027) = $12,000
If step 1 of the budget amendment is approved by City Council on October 13, 2026 step 2 to amend the budget and the associated agreements will come before City Council for review and potential approval at the October 27, 2026 City Council Meeting.

FISCAL IMPACT
The notice of intent does not have any direct fiscal impact. If the City Council approves tonight’s recommendation, this item will return at a future meeting.

The fiscal impact of the final action would be to allocate $76,400 from Measure P Fund Balance for the operations of the Warming Center at the Vallejo Navigation Center.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it is not a project which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, pursuant to CEQA Guideline section 15378.

ATTACHMENTS
None

CONTACT
Natalie Peterson, Assistant to the City Manager
[email protected]

ACTION ITEM 9.F.

DATE: October 13, 2026
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Kristin Pollot, AICP, Director of Planning & Development Services SUBJECT: PROVIDE DIRECTION TO STAFF RELATED TO COMMENCING WORK AND

PROCEEDING WITH A FUTURE AGENDA ITEM RELATING TO TWO SEPARATE CITY

COUNCIL REFERRALS REQUESTING CONSIDERATION OF TEMPORARY DEVELOPMENT MORATORIUMS FOR: 1) SELF-STORAGE AND CAR WASH USES CITYWIDE, AND 2) ANY NEW DEVELOPMENT ALONG SONOMA BLVD., DOWNTOWN,

AND THE WATERFRONT

RECOMMENDATION
Provide direction on whether to proceed with further analysis and/or potential preparation of a temporary development moratorium(s) for: 1) self-storage and car wash uses citywide (Request #1), and/or 2) any new development activity along Sonoma Blvd, within the downtown, and along the waterfront (Request #2)

REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION
The City Council has previously expressed concerns on multiple occasions about potential over-concentration on self-storage and car wash uses, citywide. More recently, additional concerns have been raised (more broadly) about development patterns along Sonoma Blvd., within the downtown, and along the waterfront, which do not appear to be happening in alignment with the adopted vision for these areas.

Since both topics are loosely related, this report presents them together and provides additional context, an overview of the existing regulatory framework, and a potential preliminary scope of work, should the council provide direction to proceed with further analysis. This report is intended to serve as a starting point for City Council conversations about whether to proceed and further explore temporary development moratoriums for the two separate Council referrals made on September 22, 2026.

BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
On November 4, 2025, Councilmembers Matias and Palmares made a request for the full City Council to initiate a referral to "explore a possible moratorium on self-storage and car wash uses," citing concerns related to over-concentration (referred to as Request #1, below). At this meeting, the City Council unanimously voted to proceed with the next step in the referral process.

On September 22, 2026, Councilmember Matias raised the referral request from November 2025 related to self-storage and car wash uses. At this meeting, he requested that the item come back for consideration at the next regularly scheduled meeting on October 13, 2026. The City Council subsequently voted unanimously to proceed with the next step in the referral process and agendize the item for discussion on October 13, 2026.

At this same meeting on September 22, 2026, a new referral request was made by Councilmember Lediju to consider a broad moratorium on all development along Sonoma Boulevard, within the Downtown and the Waterfront, citing concerns that there may be a “disconnect between what our planning documents envision and what we are actually producing on the ground.” This request was amended by Councilmember Gordon to clarify that the scope should extend from Mare Island Way to the Carquinez Bridge. The City Council considered the amended request (referred to as Request #2, below) and subsequently voted unanimously to

Date: October 13, 2026
Subject: PROVIDE DIRECTION TO STAFF RELATED TO COMMENCING WORK AND

PROCEEDING WITH A FUTURE AGENDA ITEM RELATING TO TWO SEPARATE

CITY COUNCIL REFERRALS REQUESTING CONSIDERATION OF TEMPORARY DEVELOPMENT MORATORIUMS FOR: 1) SELF-STORAGE AND CAR WASH USES CITYWIDE, AND 2) ANY NEW DEVELOPMENT ALONG SONOMA BLVD.,

DOWNTOWN, AND THE WATERFRONT

proceed with the next step by agendizing on October 13, 2026, the question of whether staff should proceed to work on and place on an agenda the consideration thereof.

What is a Moratorium, and How Can It Be Applied?
Under California Government Code Section 65858, a moratorium is an interim ordinance that temporarily prohibits or restricts specified uses or development activities while the City considers amending a general plan, specific plan, or zoning regulation. It effectively places a temporary pause on specified development or land-use activities while the City determines what permanent regulations should apply.

Section 65858 authorizes a City Council to adopt, by a four-fifths vote—six votes when there is a sevenmember legislative body—an urgency interim ordinance that prohibits uses that may be inconsistent with a contemplated general plan, specific plan, or zoning proposal or that imposes other temporary restrictions necessary to protect the public health, safety, or welfare while the City studies and considers permanent regulations.

The City Council may impose a moratorium for an initial period of 45 days without a public hearing and, following a hearing, may extend the moratorium for up to a total of 24 months. Specific findings must be made, specifically that there is a current threat to the public health, safety, or welfare and that approval of the specific entitlements for the uses or land use activities at issue would result in a threat to the public health, safety, or welfare.

REQUEST #1
Existing Applications
There is currently one application pending for self-storage use within the City, and that proposal has been in progress since August 2024, prior to the Council referral request (application is for DXD Self-Storage, PLN25- 0027, located at 1609 Lewis Brown Drive). This pending application received a recommendation for approval from the Design Review Board on October 9, 2025, and is tentatively scheduled for Planning Commission consideration on October 19, 2026.

With regard to car wash uses, there are currently two applications pending. Those applications have been pending since June 2025 (Surf-Thru Car Wash, PLN25-0054, located on a vacant lot on Sonoma Blvd. near Mini Drive) and August 2024 (Blue Wave Carwash, DVR24-0006, located at 4375 Sonoma Blvd.). Surf-Thru Carwash has been deemed complete, determined exempt from CEQA, and is tentatively scheduled for Planning Commission consideration on October 19, 2026.

Should the City Council provide direction to proceed with a potential moratorium for these uses, staff would recommend that existing applications in progress (as referenced above) be excluded from the moratorium, since they were all submitted prior to the initial November 2025 referral request.

It should also be noted that no new applications for self-storage uses and/or standalone car washes, have been filed since the original November 2025 referral request.

Self-Storage Uses – Existing Regulatory Framework

Date: October 13, 2026
Subject: PROVIDE DIRECTION TO STAFF RELATED TO COMMENCING WORK AND

PROCEEDING WITH A FUTURE AGENDA ITEM RELATING TO TWO SEPARATE

CITY COUNCIL REFERRALS REQUESTING CONSIDERATION OF TEMPORARY DEVELOPMENT MORATORIUMS FOR: 1) SELF-STORAGE AND CAR WASH USES CITYWIDE, AND 2) ANY NEW DEVELOPMENT ALONG SONOMA BLVD.,

DOWNTOWN, AND THE WATERFRONT

Self-storage uses are referenced throughout the Vallejo Municipal Code (VMC) as either “self-service storage,” “personal storage,” or “mini-storage” facilities. VMC section 16.701.02 provides a formal definition as follows:
"Mini-storage." A storage facility that is characterized by individual separate spaces which are accessible by customers for the storing and retrieval of personal effects, household goods, business supplies or products offered for off-site sales. In no case shall storage spaces be used for manufacturing, retail or wholesale selling, office or other business services, or human habitation on the premises. Also called self-service storage or personal storage facilities.

According to the Land Use Standards Table (VMC 16.301-A), these uses are currently allowed in only two zoning districts: Limited Industrial (IL) and General Industrial (IG), and in both instances, a Major Use Permit (discretionary approval) is required. The permitting authority is the Planning Commission. Attached to this report is a map showing the location of all IL and IG zoning districts.

In addition, VMC Chapter 16.331 includes further regulations of any new “Personal Storage” use. These requirements prohibit various types of activity that might occur within/or in conjunction with the use, including the storage of hazardous materials, installation of utilities to individual spaces, and human habitation. (See attached for the specific code language.)
Car Wash Uses – Existing Regulatory Framework
Standalone car wash uses (not including small accessory car washes attached to service stations) are defined in VMC section 16.701.02 as follows:
"Auto/vehicle washing/detailing." Washing, detailing, waxing or cleaning of automobiles or similar light duty motor vehicles including self-service washing facilities.

According to the Land Use Standards Table (VMC 16.301-A), these uses are allowed in five different zoning districts: Neighborhood Mixed-Use (NMX), Central Corridor Commercial (CC), Regional Commercial (RC), Limited Industrial (IL), and General Industrial (IG). The use requires a Minor Use Permit in the NMX, CC and RC zoning districts, which is typically a discretionary approval issued by the Director, unless the director refers the request up to the Planning Commission. For the IL and IG zoning districts, the use would be considered permitted (no discretionary approval required). Attached to this report is a map showing the location of all NMX, CC, RC, IL and IG zoning districts for context.

In addition, VMC Chapter 16.310 includes specific development and operational standards applicable to any new “Automobile/Vehicle Washing” use. These regulations include limitations to prohibit car washes from locating next to residential zones, a requirement that they use only recycled water, standards for landscaping, requirements related to the location of activities on the site, limitations on the hours of operation, and a prohibition against outdoor loudspeakers. (See attached for the specific code language.) REQUEST #2
Zoning - Existing Regulatory Framework
Attached to this report is an overarching map showing the applicable zoning designations along the entire

Date: October 13, 2026
Subject: PROVIDE DIRECTION TO STAFF RELATED TO COMMENCING WORK AND

PROCEEDING WITH A FUTURE AGENDA ITEM RELATING TO TWO SEPARATE

CITY COUNCIL REFERRALS REQUESTING CONSIDERATION OF TEMPORARY DEVELOPMENT MORATORIUMS FOR: 1) SELF-STORAGE AND CAR WASH USES CITYWIDE, AND 2) ANY NEW DEVELOPMENT ALONG SONOMA BLVD.,

DOWNTOWN, AND THE WATERFRONT

stretch of Sonoma Blvd., extending north to south. The maps also indicate boundaries for the existing Sonoma Boulevard Specific Plan area (which extends along Sonoma Blvd., from Curtola Pkwy to Redwood Street), the existing Downtown Specific Plan area, and the existing Waterfront Planned Development Master Plan area.

Within these specific plan areas, three main zoning districts apply, including: Downtown Mixed-Use (DMX), Waterfront Mixed-Use (WMX), and Central Corridor Commercial (CC). It should be noted that the CC district applies only along Sonoma Blvd. and within the Sonoma Boulevard Specific Plan boundaries (and nowhere else in the City), so this zoning district acts as a direct implementation path for the vision adopted by the Sonoma Boulevard Specific Plan.

It should also be noted that the Sonoma Boulevard Specific Plan does not cover the entirety of Sonoma Boulevard within the jurisdictional bounds of the City, so if the Council provides direction to proceed with further analysis, the geographic scope of work will need to be further clarified to confirm whether the analysis will focus on the Specific Plan areas, or extend beyond, into adjacent zoning districts.

Attached to this report is an excerpt from the VMC Land Use Regulations Table (VMC Table 16.301-A), which shows the allowable (and unpermitted) uses within the three zoning districts referenced (DMX, WMX & CC).

Recent Approved Applications
Since this referral request was first raised in response to a concern about a potential disconnect between what the Vallejo planning documents envision and what is actually being approved, staff has collected a snapshot of the various planning applications that have been approved over the last 2.5+ years (between January 2024 and September 2026), for the Sonoma Blvd. corridor. (See attached). Running a similar report for the waterfront and downtown areas is feasible but would take more time to produce.

Some of the noteworthy applications approved within this area (Sonoma Blvd.) over the last 2.5+ years, include a new full-service automotive dealership near the intersection of Redwood and Sonoma Blvd, a remodel of the existing Burger King restaurant, a façade update for the Jeep/Dodge dealership, a use permit to legalize an existing ‘cash for gold’ business, several cannabis license renewals, a high number of tobacco retail license applications/renewals, and a high number of sign permits.

General Plan – Community Vision & Existing Specific Plans The General Plan states that the “vision for Vallejo in the planning horizon year 2040 is one anchored by a vibrant downtown and waterfront, which together are a focus of local life and a regional tourist attraction.” The General Plan promotes transit-oriented uses around the bus and ferry terminals, and commercial development, such as office, retail, and visitor-serving uses, within the Downtown, promoting a clear connection to the waterfront area. The General Plan also provides a vision for ‘employment centers’ south of downtown and in the Sonoma-Broadway area, mixed-use ‘corridors and urban villages’ connecting Vallejo neighborhoods to key destination points around town including the downtown/waterfront areas, and ‘gateway areas’ to welcome people into the city at the northernmost city edge, along Sonoma Blvd near the boarder of American Canyon, around the I80/SR37 interchange, and in South Vallejo near the Cal Poly Maritime Academy campus.

The full draft of the 2040 General Plan is available online (Vallejo General Plan, 2040) for further review (see Chapter 2 for a high-level overview of the community vision).

Date: October 13, 2026
Subject: PROVIDE DIRECTION TO STAFF RELATED TO COMMENCING WORK AND

PROCEEDING WITH A FUTURE AGENDA ITEM RELATING TO TWO SEPARATE

CITY COUNCIL REFERRALS REQUESTING CONSIDERATION OF TEMPORARY DEVELOPMENT MORATORIUMS FOR: 1) SELF-STORAGE AND CAR WASH USES CITYWIDE, AND 2) ANY NEW DEVELOPMENT ALONG SONOMA BLVD.,

DOWNTOWN, AND THE WATERFRONT

In addition to the guidance provided by the General Plan, there are three separate specific plans that provide a development vision applicable to the areas in question, including:
• the Downtown Vallejo Specific Plan, adopted in September 2005, • the Vallejo Waterfront Planned Development Master Plan and Design Guidelines, adopted in March 2007; and
• the Sonoma Boulevard Specific Plan, which is the most recent planning document, adopted in conjunction with the current General Plan in August 2017.

An update to both the Downtown and Waterfront plans will be kicking off in October 2026, utilizing approximately $2.4 million in previously approved grant funds from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission MTC/Bay Area Metro. This work is expected to take approximately 1–2 years to complete and will include development of new community-supported and implementable plans that address land use, mobility, infrastructure, housing, equity, economic development, and environmental sustainability. The process will build consensus through meaningful public engagement, integrate market realities and infrastructure needs, and ensure full compliance with state statutes, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and MTC’s Transit-Oriented Communities (TOC) Policy.

Next Steps & Process
Should the City Council provide direction to move forward with a more detailed analysis to consider a potential moratorium(s) related to one or both of the referral requests described above, the process would require additional analysis by City staff, followed by at least one public hearing to consider adoption of an urgency ordinance(s). As mentioned above, adoption of an urgency ordinance would require six votes in order to be approved.

Staff time associated with preparation of materials and analysis required to fully consider each request could take anywhere from approximately 80–160 hours (depending on the scope and specific direction received) in order to complete the analysis, and draft/present the temporary moratorium(s), if/as appropriate.

If directed to proceed, this effort would be primarily undertaken by the Planning Division and the City Attorney’s Office, both of which currently have a high workload with numerous competing priorities, meaning the final product(s) would likely not return to the City Council for consideration until approximately the first quarter of 2027.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no immediate fiscal impact associated with providing direction to staff. Future costs associated with ordinance development and implementation would depend on the approach directed by Council.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it is not a project which has potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable

Date: October 13, 2026
Subject: PROVIDE DIRECTION TO STAFF RELATED TO COMMENCING WORK AND

PROCEEDING WITH A FUTURE AGENDA ITEM RELATING TO TWO SEPARATE

CITY COUNCIL REFERRALS REQUESTING CONSIDERATION OF TEMPORARY DEVELOPMENT MORATORIUMS FOR: 1) SELF-STORAGE AND CAR WASH USES CITYWIDE, AND 2) ANY NEW DEVELOPMENT ALONG SONOMA BLVD.,

DOWNTOWN, AND THE WATERFRONT

indirect physical change in the environment, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15378.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Request 1_Additional Information

2. Request 2_Additional Information

CONTACT
Kristin Pollot, AICP, Director of Planning & Development Services [email protected]

SELF-STORAGE ALLOWABLE LOCATIONS - IL & IG Zoning Districts (MJP)
(MJP)

Chapter 16.331 - PERSONAL STORAGE

16.331.01 - Purpose and applicability.

These provisions present regulations for personal storage facilities, while not generating adverse impacts on its surroundings, such as parking demand, traffic generation, fire, or safety hazard, visual blight, or use indirectly supportive of illegal or criminal activity.

Personal storage uses shall be located, developed, and operated in compliance with the following standards and apply to all new and existing facilities where the storage area of the existing business is expanded. All new personal storage facilities and any increase in the floor area or number of units in an existing facility shall require a major use permit, as provided in Chapter 16.606, Minor and Major Use Permits.

16.331.02 - Requirements.

A. Business Activity. The use of personal storage facilities by customers shall be limited to inactive storage only. No retail, repair, or other business activity shall be conducted out of the individual rental storage units. No activities other than rental of storage units and pick-up and deposit of storage shall be allowed on the premises. Examples of activities prohibited in said facilities include, but are not limited to the following:

1. Auctions, commercial wholesale or retail sales, or miscellaneous garage sales. An exception is made for auctions required by law to comply with lien sale requirements. During the course of said lien sales, customer vehicles shall not be allowed to obstruct circulation within the personal storage facility.

2. The servicing, repair, or fabrication of motor vehicles, boats, trailers, lawn mowers, appliances, or other similar equipment.

3. The operation of power tools, spray-painting equipment, table saws, lathes, compressors, welding equipment, kilns, or other similar equipment.

4. The establishment of a transfer and storage business.

B. Enclosure. Outdoor storage is prohibited. No boats, trailers, and/or other vehicles shall be parked or otherwise stored outside the storage units except in areas approved for such storage.

C. Hazardous Materials. No caustic, hazardous, toxic or flammable or explosive matter, material, liquid, or object, nor any matter, material, liquid or object that creates obnoxious or offensive dust, odor or fumes shall be stored in a personal storage unit.

D. Utilities. Water, gas or telephone service to any rental space is prohibited.

E. Habitation. Human habitation of any rental space is prohibited.

F. Notice to Tenants. As part of the rental process, the facility manager shall inform all tenants of conditions restricting storage of hazardous materials and limitation on the use of the storage units. These restrictions shall be included in rental contracts and posted in a conspicuous location within the front of each rental unit.

CAR WASH ALLOWABLE LOCATIONS - NMX, CC, RC, IL, & IG Zoning Districts (MNP)
(MNP)
(MNP)
(P)
(P)

Chapter 16.310 - AUTOMOBILE/VEHICLE WASHING

16.310.01 - Purpose and applicability.

These provisions are intended to ensure that automobile and vehicle washing facilities, including small-scale facilities that are not accessory to another auto-related use are located, and operate in a manner that minimizes or prevents adverse effects on the environment, and to surrounding development.

16.310.02 - Development standards.

A. Locational Limitations. Regular facilities shall not abut a residential zoning district.

B. Washing Facilities. A recycled water system is required.

C. Landscaping. In addition to complying with the landscaping standards in Chapter

16.504, Landscaping, and Section 16.504.09, Water-Efficient Landscape Requirements, additional screening and landscaping may be required where necessary to prevent visual impacts of a small-scale facility that is adjacent to a residential zoning district. The following landscaping standards shall also apply:

1. A minimum of fifteen percent of the site shall be landscaped. A planting strip at least five feet wide shall be provided along all interior parcel lines, nondriveway street frontages, and adjacent to buildings. Planters shall be surrounded by masonry or concrete curbs and arranged to preclude motor vehicles from driving across the sidewalk at locations other than access driveways. Permanent opaque landscaping or berm, as defined in Chapter

16.505, Fences, Walls and Screening shall be provided and maintained in the planters at a height of not less than three feet above the average adjacent grade.

2. A landscape planter at least fifty square feet in area shall be provided at the intersection of two property lines at a street corner.

3. All street trees shall be preserved or replaced where missing, as required by the city, and driveways and vehicle approaches shall be designed so as not to necessitate the removal of any existing street trees.

D. Location of Activities. All washing, vacuuming, waxing, machine drying, and related activities and operations shall be conducted entirely within an enclosed service building, except hand drying of vehicles.

16.310.03 - Operating standards.

A. Hours of Operation. Washing facilities are limited to 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., seven days a week except for the following additional restrictions:

1. When abutting or adjacent to a residential zoning district, the hours of operation are limited to 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., seven days a week.

B. Outdoor Loudspeakers. There shall be no outdoor loudspeakers or public address systems.

EXISTING ZONING DESIGNATIONS – SONOMA BLVD, DOWNTOWN & WATERFRONT

AGRICULTURAL
Animal Husbandry - - -
Cultivation - - -
Agricultural Processing - - -
Agricultural Production - - -
Adult Use Business - - MJP
Adult Motion Picture - - MJP
Adult Retail Store MJP/11 - MJP
Animal Care, Sales and Services
Animal Boarding - - -
Auctioning - - -
Grooming and Pet Store P/11 - P
Horse Stables - - -
Kennel - - -
Pet Clinic/Hospital MNP - P
Pet Day Care Service P MNP P
Auto/Vehicle and Equipment Facilities
Commercial Vehicle/Fleet Storage,
Commissary - - -
Commercial Vehicles and Equipment - - MNP
Recreational Vehicles Storage, Public - - -
Auto/Vehicle Sales
Auto Broker, Office Only P P P
Auto Broker, Office w/Indoor Display - - P
Auto/Vehicle New Sales, Leasing and Rentals -
Major - - MNP
Auto/Vehicle New Sales, Leasing and Rentals -
Minor MNP/11, 26 - MNP/16
Auto/Vehicle Used Sales - - MNP
Auto/Vehicle Services
Alternative Fuels and Recharging Facilities P P P
Auto Vehicle Storage - - -
Auto/Vehicle Washing Detailing - - MNP
Auto/Vehicle Washing/Detailing, Under
2,500 sq ft - - P
Auto/Vehicle/Equipment Repair - Heavy - - P
Auto/Vehicle/Equipment Repair - Light - - P
Service Station - Full Service - - MNP
Service Station - Minimum Service - - MNP
Salvage and Wrecking - - -
VMC TABLE 16.301-A: LAND USE REGULATIONS (EXCERPT ONLY)

USE TYPES
DMX
(Downtown
Mixed-Use)
WMX
(Waterfront
Mixed-Use)
Development Review (Section 16.605) is required for new construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation alteration, or other improvements to the KEY:

P: Permitted; may be subject to Zoning Compliance Review determination; ZC: Zoning Compliance Review required; MNP: Minor Use Permit

ADDITIONAL REGULATIONS
CC
(Central Commercial
Cooridor - Sonoma Blvd
Specific Plan)
Note 6, Note 8, and Chapter 16.304,
Adult Use Regulations

COMMERCIAL
Chapter 16.306, Animal Keeping and
Services
Chapter 16.306, Animal Keeping and
Services
Chapter 16.310, Automobile/Vehicle
Washing
Chapter 16.309, Automobile/Vehicle
Repair, Light and Heavy
Chapter 16.308, Automobile/Vehicle
Sales, Leasing and Rentals
Chapter 16.307, Automobile Service
Stations
Chapter 16.309, Automobile/Vehicle
Repair, Light and Heavy

Banks and Financial Institutions
Bank and Credit Union P P P
Check Cashing Business MNP - P
Business Services P P P
Catering Service MNP P P
Commercial Entertainment and Recreation
Electronic Game Center MNP/11 MNP P
Entertainment Facility, Large-scale (Indoor) MNP MNP -
Entertainment Facility, Large-scale (Outdoor) MJP/11 MJP MNP Entertainment Facility, Small-Scale P MNP P
Live Theatre MNP MNP MNP
Movie Theater MNP MNP MNP
Tobacco-Cigar Bar or Lounge MJP MJP MJP
Eating and Drinking Establishments
Bar/Tavern/Lounge MNP MNP MNP
Brewpub MNP MNP MNP
Nightclub MNP MNP MNP
Restaurant with Drive-Through - - MJP
Restaurant, Full Service P P P
Restaurant, Limited Service P P P
Tasting Room/Wine Bar MNP MNP MNP
Mobile Food Vending, Off-street ZC ZC ZC
Equipment Rental - P/12 P
Financial, Insurance and Real Estate
Services P P P
Food and Beverage Retail Sales
Farmers' Market MNP MNP MNP
Grocery Store/Supermarket Medium (10,000
sf - 50,000 sf) MNP MNP P
Grocery Store/Supermarket Large (50,001 to
75,000 sf) MJP MJP MNP
Liquor Store MJP MJP MJP
Produce Store P P P
Public Market Small (Less than 30,000 sf) MJP MJP MNP
Public Market Large (30,000 or More) MJP - MJP
Funeral and Interment Service - - MJP
Laboratory P - P
Live/Work Unit ZC MNP ZC
Lodging
Bed and Breakfast - MNP -
Campground - - -
Hotels, Motels MNP MNP P
Maintenance or Repair Services P - P
Nursery and Garden Center
Note 8
Note 8, Note 10, Chapter 16.304, Adult
Use Regulations, and 16.305, Alcoholic
Beverage Sales
Chapter 16.327, Mobile Food Vending
Note 8, Note 10; Chapter 16.305,
Alcoholic Beverage Sales, 16.316, and

16.330
Note 21; Chapters 16.318, Farmer's
Grocery Store/Supermarket Small (Less than
10,000 sf)
Note 8, Note 10; Chapter 16.305,
Alcoholic Beverage Sales Convenience Store P MNP MNP/13 Note 8, Note 10; Chapter 16.305,
Note 8
Note 8, Note 10; Chapter 16.305,
Alcoholic Beverage Sales
P P P
Chapter 16.311, Bed and Breakfast
Lodging
Chapter 16.324, Live/Work Units

Nursery and Garden Center, Small (Less than
10,000 sf) P - P
Nursery and Garden Center, Large (10,000 sf
or More) - - P
Offices
Business and Professional Offices P P P
Parking Facilities, Commercial MNP MNP MNP
Personal Services
Massage Service ZC/7, 11 ZC/7 ZC/7
Massage Therapy ZC ZC ZC
Personal Services, Physical Training - - P
Retail Sales
Building Materials, Sales and Services MNP/26 - MNP
Firearm Sales - - MNP
General Retail Large (10,000 sf - 75,000 sf) - MNP P
Large Format Retail (More than 75,000 sf) - - MJP
Pawnshop MNP - MNP
Tobacco Retail Store-Major (More than 20%
of retail area dedicated to Tobacco Products) MJP/8 - MJP/8 Swap Meet (Indoor) P P P
Swap Meet (Outdoor) - - MNP
Artisan/Small-Scale Manufacturing P P P
Artist's Studio
Artist's Studio-Light P P P
Artist's Studio-Heavy MNP MNP MNP
Breweries
Brewery, Brew-on-Premises - - -
Brewery Production - Micro MNP MNP MNP
Brewery Production - Large MNP MNP MNP
Cannabis
Cannabis Cultivation - - MNP/15
Cannabis Distribution - - MNP/15
Cannabis Manufacturing - - -
Cannabis Business Retailer - - MNP
Cannabis Testing Laboratory - - -
Contractors' Yard - - -
Industry, General - - -
Media Production
Media Production Support Facility P P P
Recycling Facilities
Recycling, Large - - MJP
General Personal Services
Medical and Dental Office P P P
P P -
Chapter 16.326, Massage
Establishments
Note 8, Note 10; Chapters 16.322,
Large Format Retail and 16.305,
Note 8, Note 10; Chapter 16.305,
Alcoholic Beverage Sales
General Retail Small (Less than 10,000 sf) P P P
MNP MNP MNP/13 Tobacco Retail Store-Minor (20% or less of retail area dedicated to Tobacco Products)
Note 8.

INDUSTRIAL
Note 8, Note 10; Chapter 16.305,
Alcoholic Beverage Sales and Chapter
Note 8, Note 19; Chapter 16.305,
Chapter 16.501.06, Outdoor Storage
Note 8; Vallejo Municipal Code Chapter

7.200, Marijuana; Chapter 16.312,
Cannabis Processing, Cultivation,
Distribution, Testing and Retail
Chapter 16.333, Recycling Facilities