Vacaville council directs staff to refine and phase in increased development impact fees after long hearing

Following a six‑hour public hearing on Jan. 13 that drew dozens of developers, builders and residents, the Vacaville City Council directed staff to proceed with adoption of the city’s 2025 Development Impact Fee (DIF) Nexus study but asked staff to return with alternative implementation schedules and mitigation options for vested projects.

Staff presented a revised Nexus study and a package of changes that reduced the scope and cost of proposed transportation and parks projects (a combined reduction staff described as roughly $289 million from earlier drafts). The proposal included a recommended three‑year phase‑in beginning Jan. 1, 2027, along with policy options such as fee deferrals to certificate of occupancy, Quimby Act/park conversion strategies and targeted incentives for affordable housing and advanced manufacturing.

The hearing drew sustained opposition from builders representing large master‑planned projects, who said the increases would make development financially infeasible. Carson Bolin of Triad Development, representing Lagoon Valley, told the council, "That's insane," as he described cumulative fee increases developers face and warned of a chilling effect on housing supply. Other speakers from the building industry and the Home Builders Association asked the council to cap increases, grandfather vested projects and consider converting fees to a per‑square‑foot structure to preserve middle‑income housing feasibility.

City staff and the consultant defended the methodology and the public process, noting eight public meetings and multiple meetings with the development community during the study. Staff said the revised study reflects council direction to reduce scope and recommended a three‑year phase‑in; they also outlined legal mechanisms that allow council to reduce or defer fees for individual projects through development‑agreement amendments.

An initial motion to adopt staff’s recommendation failed on a roll‑call vote. After further discussion, Mayor John Carley offered direction for staff to return with modeled alternatives that would either (a) defer the first increase and then phase the remainder over three years (total four‑year window) or (b) implement an evenly spread four‑year phase‑in; staff were also asked to include an option that retains the staff‑recommended three‑year phase‑in for comparison. On that direction, the council voted to move forward for staff to prepare those options and implementation schedules. The final council direction passed on roll call (five in favor, two opposed).

Councilmembers emphasized the need to protect already invested or vested projects, noting development‑agreement amendments as the proper mechanism for project‑specific relief rather than a blanket grandfathering approach. City staff committed to returning in the spring with comparative fee schedules, legal analysis and an implementation plan that includes procedural tools such as defer‑to‑occupancy options and an appeals/petition process codified under the city’s fee ordinance.

The council’s decision sets the stage for a return hearing with specific fee schedules and the staff‑recommended Nexus study supporting whichever option council selects. Staff estimated the earliest implementation could be 2027 under some options; council directed staff to bring back comparative materials on a prompt schedule to allow council consideration before the proposed effective dates.