Agenda, first session — Fairfield City Council, June 21, 2022 (part 6 of 6)

increasing risks associated with the spread of illnesses, and frustrating the public purpose for which such Public Property is dedicated; and

WHEREAS, the council has heard extensive testimony and been provided wide-ranging data on the deleterious impacts of homelessness on individuals that lack shelter and the community at large, and many homeless camps are unsanitary and vulnerable to theft, crime, and extreme weather conditions, threatening the physical and mental health of the individuals living in these camps; and

WHEREAS, the City, through its efforts to increase availability and access to emergency shelter on an overnight basis, in order to provide a place for homeless persons to take shelter who might otherwise spend the night on the streets, sidewalks and parks of the city without shelter; and

WHEREAS, the City desires to partner with local organizations to provide shelter for individuals experiencing homelessness within the city in order to permanently reduce homelessness, and SHELTER Solano, Inc. located at 310 Beck Avenue, Fairfield, CA 94533-6836 can provide such shelter and other supportive resources; and

WHEREAS, part of the supportive services at SHELTER Solano, Inc. includes the healthy food that both the body and mind need to operate at its best. And while the current site has always provided meals, the leadership of SHELTER Solano, Inc. aspires to do better – and the dining hall and kitchen envisioned as part of the original site plan is the first step; and

WHEREAS, the purpose of this MOU is to support SHELTER Solano, Inc. in bringing the dining hall and kitchen to completion, which will help SHELTER Solano, Inc. to be able to maximize its impact in serving capacity; and
WHEREAS, the added facility will also be able to become a training program through which the homeless and low-income residents of Solano County can increase their economic mobility through an envisioned Culinary Arts job skills program, the very foundation of stable housing; and
WHEREAS, the SHELTER Solano, Inc. intends to build out social enterprise programs that will provide ongoing funding for the operations of this project and support community groups who look to partner with the services of the shelter Culinary Arts program ; and

WHEREAS, each party has caused this MOU to be duly approved by its respective governing body, and by so doing, has found, and determined that this MOU furthers the health, safety, and general welfare of their respective residents; and
Packet Page 681 of 798Attachment 1 Page 2 of 4

RES. NO. 2022-145

Page 3 ends

WHEREAS, the council finds that this Resolution is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Government Code Section 8698.4(a)(4), as an action taken by the City to provide financial assistance to a homeless shelter constructed or allowed pursuant to that section; and

WHEREAS, funding was not allocated in the City’s Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Budget thus requiring an adjustment in the amount of $1,000,000 to cover the project costs ; and

WHEREAS, the revised appropriation constitutes an update to the 2022-2023 Budget approved pursuant to Resolution No. 2021-126.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAIRFIELD HEREBY RESOLVES:

Section 1. The above recitals are true and correct and are a substantive part of this resolution.

Section 2. The city manager, or his designee, is hereby authorized to negotiate and execute a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with SHELTER Solano, Inc. to support the Kitchen Build- out Completion Project at 310 Beck Avenue in Fairfield, and to do all things necessary or proper to implement the MOU. The MOU shall have a not-to-exceed amount of $1,000,000 and be substantially in the form of the MOU attached to the staff report associated with this resolution, with such changes as may be approved by the city attorney.

Section 3. The city manager, or his designee, is hereby authorized and directed to do all things necessary and proper to effectuate the purpose of this resolution.

Section 4. The city manager is authorized to approve amendments to the contract amount that are within the city manager’s signing authority.

Section 5. The council hereby approves a budget adjustment of $1,000,000 from the Intergovernmental Services Fund (Fund 551) to fund this project.

Section 6. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption.

Packet Page 682 of 798Attachment 1 Page 3 of 4

RES. NO. 2022-145

Page 4 ends

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 21st day of June, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: PRICE / BERTANI / MOY / PANDURO / TIMM / TONNESEN / VACCARO

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

MAYOR

ATTEST:

____________________________

CITY CLERK

Packet Page 683 of 798Attachment 1 Page 4 of 4

Page 1 of 11 ends

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
BETWEEN THE CITY OF FAIRFIELD AND SHELTER, SOLANO, INC.

TO SUPPORT THE KITCHEN BUILD-OUT COMPLETION PROJECT AT 310 BECK

AVENUE IN FAIRFIELD
THIS MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (“MOU”) is entered into as of this 1st day of May 2022, (“Effective Date”) between the City of Fairfield (“CITY”), a municipal corporation and SHELTER, Solano, Inc. (“PROVIDER”). Unless specifically identified, each may be referred to individually as “Party” or collectively as “Parties”, as the context may require.

RECITALS
WHEREAS, since 2017, the Fairfield City Council has adopted, implemented, and followed comprehensive policies and procedures in line with the City’s formal Homeless Strategy in order to permanently reduce homelessness and increase permanent supportive housing; and

WHEREAS, on September 4, 2018, the Fairfield City Council adopted Resolution No. 2018-223 declaring a shelter crisis pursuant to SB 850 (Chapter 48, Statutes of 2018) and authorizing the City to participate in the State Homeless Emergency Aid Program; and

WHEREAS, permanently reducing homelessness continues to be a top priority for City Council. As such, City staff continues to identify opportunities that provide safe and secure temporary shelter and transitional housing, while also limiting impacts to the surrounding community; and

WHEREAS, according to the 2019 Solano County Homeless Point-In-Time Count, at any point in time, 1,151 individuals within Solano County are experiencing homelessness. This population includes veterans, women, children, individuals with disabilities, senior citizens, and other vulnerable groups; and

WHEREAS, like many other cities in California, the City of Fairfield has seen a rapid and troubling growth in chronic and newly homeless over the past several years, a condition that has been difficult to address given the high cost of housing and property in the area, and the shortage of emergency, transitional, and affordable housing available in the county to serve this population; and

WHEREAS, as a result, local jurisdictions throughout the region have experienced increased incidents of unlawful camping and loitering activities in and upon portions of the public rights- of-way, parks, and other public facilities (“Public Property”) in violation of local anti-camping, anti-loitering, and/or park closure ordinances and regulations (“Anti-Camping Ordinances”); and

WHEREAS, the use of Public Property in this manner creates health and safety risks to homeless persons due to traffic hazards, exposure to weather, inadequate sanitation, and other conditions detrimental to their well-being, and negatively impacts the health, safety, and general welfare of the community by degrading the environmental and physical condition of such Public Property, Packet Page 684 of 798Attachment 2 Page 1 of 11

Page 2 of 11 ends

increasing risks associated with the spread of illnesses, and frustrating the public purpose for which such Public Property is dedicated; and

WHEREAS, the Fairfield City Council has heard extensive testimony and been provided wide- ranging data on the deleterious impacts of homelessness on individuals that lack shelter and the community at large, and many homeless camps are unsanitary and vulnerable to theft, crime, and extreme weather conditions, threatening the physical and mental health of the individuals living in these camps; and

WHEREAS, the CITY, through its efforts to increase availability and access to emergency shelter on an overnight basis, in order to provide a place for homeless persons to take shelter who might otherwise spend the night on the streets, sidewalks and parks of the city without shelter; and

WHEREAS, the CITY desires to partner with local organizations to provide shelter for individuals experiencing homelessness within the city in order to permanently reduce homelessness, and PROVIDER operates SHELTER Solano located at 310 Beck Avenue, Fairfield, CA 94533-6836 (“Property”) that can provide such shelter and other supportive resources; and

WHEREAS, part of the supportive services at SHELTER Solano includes the healthy food that both the body and the mind need to operate at its best. And while the current site has always provided meals, the leadership of PROVIDER aspire to do better – and the dining hall and kitchen envisioned as part of the original site plan is the first step; and

WHEREAS, the purpose of this MOU is to support SHELTER Solano in bringing the dining hall and kitchen to completion, which will help SHELTER Solano to be able to maximize its impact in serving capacity; and
WHEREAS, the added facility will also be able to become a training program through which the homeless and low-income residents of Solano County can increase their economic mobility through an envisioned Culinary Arts job skills program, the very foundation of stable housing; and
WHEREAS, the PROVIDER intends to build out social enterprise programs that will provide ongoing funding for the operations of this project and support community groups who look to partner with the services of the shelter Culinary Arts program; and WHEREAS, each Party has caused this MOU to be duly approved by its respective governing body, and by so doing, has found and determined that this MOU furthers the health, safety, and general welfare of their respective residents.

Packet Page 685 of 798Attachment 2 Page 2 of 11

Page 3 of 11 ends

AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties agree as follows:

Part I
Roles and Responsibilities
A. CITY’s Role and Responsibilities.

1. CITY, through the City Manager or Designee, shall designate a primary point of contact for all matters related to the performance of this Agreement (“City Liaison”).

2. CITY’s role is to provide administrative oversight and monitoring of the Agreement.

B. PROVIDER’s Role and Responsibilities.

1. PROVIDER shall designate a primary point of contact for all matters related to the performance of this Agreement (“Provider Liaison”).

2. PROVIDER shall use funds, subject to the requirements of the SHELTER, Solano, Inc.

Program Budget as attached in Exhibit “A”, and Insurance Requirements as attached in Exhibit “B”.

3. PROVIDER will ensure that the Property will meet Health and Safety Requirements and comply with local codes, as appropriate, have appropriate security personnel, be accessible to participants, and have a sufficient staff and funds to complete the Kitchen Build-out Project.

4. PROVIDER shall make available construction reporting data for the length of this Agreement, including all construction related expenses set forth in Exhibit “A” for the prior month with the proper back-up documentation (i.e., invoices with receipts, timesheets, general ledger or payroll register or payroll stubs, occupancy data etc.).

Any expense not authorized by this Agreement as set forth in Exhibit “A” and/or submitted without proper back-up documentation will be disallowed and must be reimbursed to the CITY.

5. PROVIDER shall provide the CITY within five (5) business days such reports and information as the CITY may reasonably request.

6. PROVIDER, at its own expense, shall procure and maintain for the duration of this Agreement policies of insurance, the requirements for which are set forth in Exhibit “B”.

C. Mutual Roles and Responsibilities
Packet Page 686 of 798Attachment 2 Page 3 of 11

Page 4 of 11 ends

1. It is the intent of the Parties to be collaborative in all matters to ensure the health and safety of the residents of the City of Fairfield.

2. Parties agree that the Kitchen Build-out Project under this MOU will be completed at the following address (Property):

SHELTER, Solano, Inc.
310 Beck Avenue, Fairfield, CA 94533-6836

3. The Parties shall comply with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and all applicable state laws, regulations, and policies relating to client rights and confidentiality.

4. The PROVIDER and/or Contractor agrees to comply with all state and federal laws, rules and regulations that pertain to construction, health and safety, labor, fair employment practices, equal opportunity, and all other matters applicable to the grant, the Contractor, its Subrecipients, and any other grant activity.

Packet Page 687 of 798Attachment 2 Page 4 of 11

Page 5 of 11 ends

Part II
General Terms and Conditions
A. Term of Agreement.

The term of this Agreement shall begin on the Effective Date and shall remain in effect until June 30, 2023, unless earlier terminated in writing by the Parties.

B. Payment.

In consideration for the costs incurred for the services to be provided under this MOU, CITY shall pay to PROVIDER $300,000.00 within thirty (30) days of the Effective Date, and PROVIDER may request additional funds up to $700,000.00 on a reimbursement basis every thirty (30) days thereafter until the expiration or termination of this MOU. The payments made by CITY to PROVIDER under this MOU shall collectively be referred to as the “City Funds.” The total amount of the City Funds shall not exceed $1,000,000.00. City Funds must be spent in accordance with this MOU, and any expenses incurred prior to May 1, 2022 will not be considered eligible for reimbursement. Any City Funds remaining that are not expended or legally obligated for the services required to be provided by PROVIDER upon expiration or termination of this Agreement shall be returned to CITY within thirty (30) days. PROVIDER shall maintain invoices with receipts, or other documentation (i.e., invoices with receipts, timesheets, general ledger or payroll register or pay stubs, occupancy data etc.) supporting expenditures made pursuant to this Agreement and shall submit such documentation to CITY within thirty (30) days following receipt of initial payment of City Funds and by the 15th of every month thereafter. Any tangible property purchased with City Funds during the duration of this Agreement is considered the property of the CITY.

C. Indemnification.

Each Party shall indemnify, defend, protect, hold harmless, and release the other Party and its elected bodies, officers, agents, and employees, from and against any and all claims, losses, proceedings, damages, causes of action, liability, costs, or expense (including attorneys’ fees and witness costs) arising from or in connection with, or caused by any negligent act or omission or willful misconduct of such indemnifying Party. This indemnification obligation shall not be limited in any way by any limitation on the amount or type of damages or compensation payable to or for the indemnifying party under workers’ compensation acts, disability benefit acts, or other employee benefit acts.

D. No Waiver.

The waiver by any Party of any breach or violation of any requirement of this Agreement shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any such breach in the future, or of the breach of any other requirement of this Agreement.

E. Notices.

All notices required or authorized by this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be delivered in person or by deposit in the United States mail, by certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested. Any mailed notice, demand, request, consent, approval or communication that a Party desires to give to the other Parties shall be addressed to the other Parties at the addresses Packet Page 688 of 798Attachment 2 Page 5 of 11

Page 6 of 11 ends

set forth below. A Party may change its address by notifying the other Parties of the change of address. Any notice sent by mail in the manner prescribed by this paragraph shall be deemed to have been received on the date noted on the return receipt or five days following the date of deposit, whichever is earlier.

PROVIDER
John Eckstrom, CEO
SHELTER, Solano, Inc.

P.O. Box 5368
Concord, CA 94524-0368

CITY OF FAIRFIELD
David Gassaway, Interim City Manager
City of Fairfield
1000 Webster Street
Fairfield, CA 94533-4836

F. Amendment/Modification.

This Agreement may be modified or amended only in writing and with the prior written consent of the Parties.

G. Termination.

1. Termination for Convenience: Either Party may terminate this Agreement for any reason by notifying the other party in writing thirty (30) days prior to the effective date of termination.

2. Termination for Cause: If PROVIDER fails to perform any of responsibilities under this Agreement or if PROVIDER fails to comply with any other provisions of this Agreement, the CITY may terminate this Agreement for cause. Termination shall be effected by serving written notice of termination on the PROVIDER setting forth the manner by which PROVIDER is in default.

If it is later determined by the CITY that the PROVIDER had an excusable reason for not performing, such as an epidemic, fire, or other events which are not the fault of or are beyond the control of the PROVIDER, the CITY, after setting up a new delivery of performance schedule, may allow the PROVIDER to continue work, or treat the termination as a termination for convenience.

3. Opportunity to Cure: The CITY in its sole discretion may, in the case of a termination for breach or default, allow the PROVIDER five (5) days in which to cure the defect. In such case, the notice of termination will state the time period in which cure is permitted and other appropriate conditions.

If PROVIDER fails to remedy to CITY’s satisfaction and within five (5) days of receipt of the written notice of termination, CITY shall have the right to terminate the Agreement without any further obligation to PROVIDER.

4. Waiver of Remedies: In the event that CITY elects to waive its remedies for any breach by PROVIDER of any covenant, term or condition of this Agreement, such waiver by Packet Page 689 of 798Attachment 2 Page 6 of 11

Page 7 of 11 ends

CITY shall not limit CITY’s remedies for any succeeding breach of that or of any other term, covenant, or condition of this Agreement.

H. Severability.

If any provision or portion of this Agreement is found by any court of competent jurisdiction to be unenforceable or invalid for any reason, such provision shall be severable and shall not in any way impair the enforceability of any other provision of this Agreement.

I. Compliance with all Laws. Venue.

The Parties shall observe and comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, ordinances, and codes. Venue for any legal dispute shall be the Solano County Superior Court or the United States Eastern District of California.

J. Non-Discrimination Clause.

1. During the performance of this Agreement, the Parties and their subcontractors shall not deny any benefits or privileges to any person on the basis of race, religion, color, ethnic group identification, national origin, ancestry, physical handicap, mental disability, medical condition, marital status, age, sex or sexual orientation, nor shall they discriminate unlawfully against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, religion, color, ethnic group identification, national origin, ancestry, physical handicap, mental disability, medical condition, marital status, age, sex or sexual orientation. Each Party shall ensure that the evaluation and treatment of employees and applicants for employment are free of such discrimination.

2. The Parties shall comply with the provisions of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (Government Code section 12900, et seq.), regulations promulgated pursuant to it (Title 2, California Code of Regulations, section 7285.0, et seq.), the provisions of Article 9.5, Chapter 1, Part 1, Division 3, Title 2 of the Government Code (sections 11135-11139.5) and any state or local regulations adopted to implement any of the foregoing, as such statutes and regulations may be amended from time to time.

K. Access to Records and Retention.

All Parties, acting through their duly authorized representative, as well as any federal or state grantor agency providing all or part of the funding associated with this Agreement, the State Controller, the Comptroller General of the United States, and the duly authorized representatives of any of Parties, shall have access to any books, documents, papers and records of any Party which are directly pertinent to the subject matter of this Agreement for the purpose of making audit, examination, excerpts and transcriptions. Except where longer retention is required by any federal or state law, the Parties shall maintain all required records for three years after final payment for any work associated with this Agreement, or after all pending matters are closed, whichever is later.

L. Assignment.

Except as otherwise permitted by this Agreement, no assignment of rights and obligations hereunder shall be valid without prior written consent of the non-assigning Party.

Packet Page 690 of 798Attachment 2 Page 7 of 11

Page 8 of 11 ends

M. Entirety of Agreement.

This Agreement constitutes the entire Agreement between the Parties relating to the subject matter of this Agreement and supersedes all previous agreements, promises, representations, understandings and negotiations, whether written or oral, among the Parties with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement. This agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement was executed by the Parties as of the date first above written.

PROVIDER

By: ___________________

CITY OF FAIRFIELD, a municipal corporation

By: ___________________
David Gassaway, Interim City Manager

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By: ___________________
City Attorney
Packet Page 691 of 798Attachment 2 Page 8 of 11

Page 9 of 11 ends

EXHIBIT A

SHELTER SOLANO PROGRAM BUDGET

[attached]

Income Budgeted Updated Budget
HEAP 1,700,000$ 1,700,000$
HEAP Transfer 111,000$ 111,000$
CDBG (City of FF)397,974$ 397,974$
HHAP 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$
Solano County 300,000$ 300,000$
City of FF 750,000$ 1,000,000$
Syar Foundation 15,000$ 15,000$
Valero Refinery Donation 50,000$ 50,000$ Irwin Foundation 150,000$ 150,000$
Total Income:4,473,974$ 4,723,974$
Expenses Budgeted Updated Budget
Building Construction*3,650,000$ 3,943,528$
Kitchen Equipment*400,000$ 460,000$
Dining Hall Furniture*25,000$ 25,000$
Security Cameras 10,000$ 35,000$
ADA Assist Doors- included in build 35,000$
Parking Lot resurface 80,000$ 125,000$ Landscape 35,000$ 135,000$
5% Contingency 211,750$
Total Expenses:4,446,750$ 4,723,528$
Net profit/(loss):27,224$ 446$
Profit & Loss:

SHELTER Solano New Dining Hall and Kitchen
*City Funds will be used to fund a combination of expenses from these categories:
1) Building Construction, 2) Kitchen Equipment, and 3) Dining Hall Furniture.

Packet Page 692 of 798Attachment 2 Page 9 of 11

Page 10 of 11 ends

EXHIBIT B

INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
PROVIDER shall procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the PROVIDER, its agents, representatives, or employees. 1) MINIMUM SCOPE AND LIMITS OF INSURANCE
a) Commercial General Liability coverage (occurrence Form CG 00 01) with minimum limits of $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury, products and completed operations, and property damage. If Commercial General Liability or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit. b) Automobile Liability coverage (Form CA 00 01 with Code 1 – any auto) with minimum limits of $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage. c) Workers’ Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employers’ Liability insurance, each in the amount of $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease.
2) INSURANCE PROVISIONS
a) DEDUCTIBLES AND SELF-INSURED RETENTIONS. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the CITY. At the option of the CITY, either the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects the CITY, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers; or the PROVIDER shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration and defense expenses.
b) The general and automobile liability policies (and if applicable, pollution liability, garage keepers liability and builder’s risk policies) are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions:
i) The CITY, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers are to be covered as insureds as respects: liability arising out of work or operations performed by or on behalf of the PROVIDER; products and completed operations of the PROVIDER; premises owned, occupied or used by the PROVIDER; and automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the PROVIDER. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the CITY, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers. ii) For any claims related to this project, the PROVIDER’s insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the CITY, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers.

Any insurance or self-insured maintained by the CITY, its officers, officials, employees or Packet Page 693 of 798Attachment 2 Page 10 of 11

Page 11 of 11 ends

volunteers shall be excess of the PROVIDER’s insurance and shall not contribute with it. iii) Any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the policies including breaches of warranties shall not affect coverage provided to the CITY, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers.
iv) The PROVIDER’s insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer’s liability. v) Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, canceled by either party, reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty (30) days’ prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the CITY.
vi) The policy limits of coverage shall be made available to the full limits of the policy. The minimum limits stated above shall not serve to reduce the PROVIDER’s policy limits of coverage. Therefore, the requirements for coverage and limits shall be (1) the minimum coverage and limits specified in this Agreement, or (2) the broader coverage and maximum limits of coverage of any insurance policy or proceeds available to the named insured, whichever is greater.
c) ACCEPTABILITY OF INSURER. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M.

Best’s rating of no less than A:VII, unless otherwise acceptable to the CITY. d) VERIFICATION OF COVERAGE. PROVIDER shall furnish the CITY with original endorsements effecting coverage required by this Exhibit. The endorsements are to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf; on forms equivalent to CG 20 10 11 85, subject to CITY approval; and submitted electronically through the Exigis insurance system to:
[email protected]. All insurance certificates and endorsements are to be received and approved by the CITY before work commences. At the request of the CITY, PROVIDER shall provide complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements effecting the coverage required by these specifications. e) SUB-CONTRACTORS. PROVIDER shall require all subcontractors to procure and maintain insurance policies subject to the requirements this Exhibit. Failure of PROVIDER to verify existence of sub-contractor’s insurance shall not relieve PROVIDER from any claim arising from sub- contractors work on behalf of PROVIDER.

Packet Page 694 of 798Attachment 2 Page 11 of 11

Agenda Item No: 32.

AGENDA REPORT
DATE:June 21, 2022
TO:Mayor and City Council
FROM:David Gassaway, Interim City Manager
SUBJECT:Public Hearing; and
Resolution 2022146 of the City Council of the City of Fairfield Adopting Updated Nexus Studies for the Citywide AB1600 Traffic Impact Fee and for the Northeast Area Development Fees
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Hold public hearing and adopt resolution.

STATEMENT OF ISSUE
Chapter 25, Article XI of the City Code requires a periodic update to the City’s adopted Development Impact Fees. The proposed nexus studies would establish the maximum amounts the City can collect for Citywide Traffic Impact Fees and various fees supporting development in Northeast Fairfield.

DISCUSSION
Background:Over the next 30 years, the City forecasts the construction of more than 12,000 housing units, along with approximately 6 million square feet of industrial and commercial uses. The new development will require an extensive amount of new infrastructure to serve it. State law allows the City to collect impact fees from new development to pay for the infrastructure it needs.

In 2013, the City updated or established a set of impact fees to pay for various infrastructure and other improvements to support new development. Some expenses, including new roadways and traffic signals, pay for improvements citywide. Additional fees pay for enhancements specific to the northeast part of the City, an area with more significant infrastructure needs. Fees for the Northeast Area fund linear parks, open space, storm drainage, sewers, the Specific Plan for the Train Station area, and a list of capital improvements to support the Train Station area. The City’s set of impact fees is described in detail in Chapter 25, Article XI of the Fairfield Municipal Code.

Under State law, the City may establish or update its impact fees based on an analysis of the relationship between the cost of public facilities attributable to new development and the proposed fees that the City would charge. This analysis called a “nexus study,” identifies the maximum fees that the City can reasonably charge for a unit of new development (i.e., a house, a square foot of retail development, etc.). The City adopted nexus studies for Citywide traffic infrastructure and Northeast Packet Page 695 of 798

Municipal Code section 25.1509 directs the City to periodically update the impact fees collected to pay for new development. With various changed conditions since 2013, the City hired the independent consulting firm Economic and Planning Systems (EPS) to help update its fees. EPS is the same firm that prepared the nexus studies in 2013. To support the fee update, EPS has designed two new nexus studies. One identifies updated maximum fees that the City can charge for transportation infrastructure throughout the City. The other identifies updated maximum fees for improvements serving the Northeast Area. The proposed Resolution includes the updated nexus studies as exhibits. Proposed maximum fees shown in the two studies are based on current information regarding forecast new development, the infrastructure required to serve it, and updated costs for the infrastructure. The following section discusses significant changes in the fee program, as supported by the two studies.

At the June 21, 2022, City Council meeting, the City requests the council to adopt the two nexus studies. Adopting the studies does not set the actual fees that will be charged, just the maximum that the City can charge. Setting exact fee amounts is a policy choice for the council. Staff plans to return in July 2022, with a proposed resolution setting the amount of each fee to charge up to the maximum. Staff proposes a later date to adopt the fees to allow additional time to evaluate the proposed fee list. Staff recommends that the nexus studies be adopted before July 1, 2022, to avoid needing to revise the documents to comply with a State law that goes into effect on July 1. In the forthcoming report and presentation for the adoption of fees, staff will provide a detailed comparison of current and proposed costs and fees in other similar jurisdictions.
2022 Nexus Studies – notable updates:The 2022 nexus studies propose five fundamental changes compared to the 2013 studies. These include:

1. New geography for collecting fees.Under the 2013 nexus studies, the methodology to assign fees to new development concluded that a different nexus existed for two broad geographies – development east of Claybank Road (i.e., Northeast development) and growth elsewhere in the City. With the 2022 update, the nexus studies further refine the methodology, identifying three distinct geographies. While the bounds of Northeast development are unchanged, the remaining areas to the west are divided into a “Heart of Fairfield” (HOF) zone and a “rest of City” zone. The methodology for identifying maximum fees in the Northeast area and “rest of City” is similar to the 2013 methodology. For the HOF, with a development plan adopted after 2013, the methodology recognizes factors unique to this area, greater planned density and higher transit access and use.

These factors support lower maximum fees compared with the other two zones.

2. An additional industrial fee category.The 2013 nexus studies identify a single land use category for charging industrial fees. The 2022 updated studies split Industrial into two categories: “Manufacturing” and “Warehouse/Distribution/and Speculative use.” This split allows the City to evaluate different industrial uses better and, should it choose, set a lower fee for manufacturing uses if it wishes to encourage more and higherpaying jobs.

3. Updated development forecast.The City revised the 2013 development forecast to subtract development that occurred since 2013 and adds new information about forecast development.

Further information includes more refined estimates of growth in Northeast Fairfield based on project entitlements since 2013, newly planned areas such as the Heart of Fairfield, and new information about the development climate for nonresidential development. The updated development forecast is shown in Table 6 of the Citywide Transportation Fee nexus study, included as Attachment “A”to the proposed resolution.

4. Updated infrastructure list and related cost estimates.The 2022 nexus studies utilize the development forecast to develop a list of improvements to fund. Staff and project consultants developed the list of infrastructure, then developed updated cost estimates for each improvement.

Notable changes to the transportation infrastructure list include a revised set of I80 and 680 interchange improvements, reflecting current plans to overhaul the Highway 8068012 interchange. Changes also involve eliminating an extension of Walters Road between Air Base Parkway and Cement Hill Road. This improvement is no longer viable due to a significant increase in mitigation costs for environmental impacts and the loss of a key outside funding partner.

Notable changes to the Northeast Fee include modifications to the Linear Park design to reflect the Linear Park better, as shown in the Train Station Specific Plan. Improvements also reflect revisions to the Linear Park location within the One Lake subdivision.

Notable changes to cost estimates include, but are not limited to: a more refined estimate of environmental mitigation costs and newly understood expenses that were not included as line items in 2013 cost estimates. One example is the cost, unknown in 2013, for Vanden Road to cross the State’s water line near the One Lake project.

For the complete updated list and costs of planned roadway infrastructure, including that within the Northeast Area, see Appendix A to the Citywide Transportation Fee nexus study. The list and costs for Northeast Area nonroadway infrastructure are shown in different sections of the Northeast Area nexus study, split by type of infrastructure (Sewer, Storm Drainage, etc.).

5. New maximum fee amounts; Utilizing the three geographies, updated development forecast by landuse type, infrastructure list, and cost estimates, the nexus studies identify updated maximum fee amounts that the City can charge for new development.

Maximum “Citywide” and “Northeast Area” transportation improvement fees are shown for the three geographies (Northeast, HOF, and Rest of City Development) in Tables 16, 17, and 18 of the Citywide nexus study. The maximum Citywide Traffic Impact fee is listed as the “Base Portion” fee in the “Maximum Fee” column, with the Northeast Fee maximum shown in the next column to the right. The nexus study determined that all three geographies have some nexus towards roadway improvements in the Northeast area. Thus, the City can charge development in all areas of the City some amount for northeast area roads, up to the maximum allowed for each geography. For other northeast infrastructure (storm drains, linear parks, etc.), only development in Northeast Fairfield has nexus. The development outside the northeast area is exempt from paying those fees. Maximum fees the City can charge for nonroadway infrastructure in the Northeast are shown in Tables 13, 15, 17, 18, 20, and 22. On the whole, the total costs for the development of northeast area infrastructure, when equalized for inflation, are higher than in 2013.

Costs for roadway infrastructure elsewhere are lower due to a smaller list of improvements.

FINANCIAL IMPACT
There is no financial impact from adopting the nexus studies. The studies, however, provide the basis for future action by the City Council to adopt impact fees that would fund more than $342 million of infrastructure needed to support new development. The Citywide Traffic Impact Fee nexus study provides for the collection of $287 million to fund roadway infrastructure throughout the City. The Northeast Areas Development Impact Fee nexus study offers an additional $55 million supply to support nonroadway infrastructure in the City's Northeast area.

PUBLIC CONTACT/ADVISORY BODY RECOMMENDATION
Notice of the public hearing for this item was published in the Daily Republic on Sunday, May 22, and mailed to entities that requested information about the hearing. The City also sent the notice to numerous large developers. In April, staff met with seven of the largest residential and industrial developers to discuss draft versions of the nexus studies and the maximum fee amounts supported by the studies. Final versions of the studies incorporate, where appropriate, developer feedback.

No advisory body provided a recommendation on the studies.

Packet Page 697 of 798

Agenda Item No: 32.AGENDA REPORTDATE:June 21, 2022 TO:Mayor and City CouncilFROM:David Gassaway, Interim City ManagerSUBJECT:Public Hearing; andResolution 2022146 of the City Council of the City of Fairfield Adopting UpdatedNexus Studies for the Citywide AB1600 Traffic Impact Fee and for the Northeast AreaDevelopment FeesRECOMMENDED ACTIONHold public hearing and adopt resolution.STATEMENT OF ISSUEChapter 25, Article XI of the City Code requires a periodic update to the City’s adopted DevelopmentImpact Fees. The proposed nexus studies would establish the maximum amounts the City can collectfor Citywide Traffic Impact Fees and various fees supporting development in Northeast Fairfield.DISCUSSIONBackground:Over the next 30 years, the City forecasts the construction of more than 12,000 housingunits, along with approximately 6 million square feet of industrial and commercial uses. The newdevelopment will require an extensive amount of new infrastructure to serve it. State law allows the Cityto collect impact fees from new development to pay for the infrastructure it needs.In 2013, the City updated or established a set of impact fees to pay for various infrastructure and otherimprovements to support new development. Some expenses, including new roadways and trafficsignals, pay for improvements citywide. Additional fees pay for enhancements specific to the northeastpart of the City, an area with more significant infrastructure needs. Fees for the Northeast Area fundlinear parks, open space, storm drainage, sewers, the Specific Plan for the Train Station area, and alist of capital improvements to support the Train Station area. The City’s set of impact fees is describedin detail in Chapter 25, Article XI of the Fairfield Municipal Code. Under State law, the City may establish or update its impact fees based on an analysis of therelationship between the cost of public facilities attributable to new development and the proposed feesthat the City would charge. This analysis called a “nexus study,” identifies the maximum fees that theCity can reasonably charge for a unit of new development (i.e., a house, a square foot of retaildevelopment, etc.). The City adopted nexus studies for Citywide traffic infrastructure and NortheastArea improvements in 2013.Municipal Code section 25.1509 directs the City to periodically update the impact fees collected to payfor new development. With various changed conditions since 2013, the City hired the independentconsulting firm Economic and Planning Systems (EPS) to help update its fees. EPS is the same firmthat prepared the nexus studies in 2013. To support the fee update, EPS has designed two new nexusstudies. One identifies updated maximum fees that the City can charge for transportation infrastructurethroughout the City. The other identifies updated maximum fees for improvements serving the NortheastArea. The proposed Resolution includes the updated nexus studies as exhibits. Proposed maximumfees shown in the two studies are based on current information regarding forecast new development,the infrastructure required to serve it, and updated costs for the infrastructure. The following sectiondiscusses significant changes in the fee program, as supported by the two studies. At the June 21, 2022, City Council meeting, the City requests the council to adopt the two nexusstudies. Adopting the studies does not set the actual fees that will be charged, just the maximum that theCity can charge. Setting exact fee amounts is a policy choice for the council. Staff plans to return in July2022, with a proposed resolution setting the amount of each fee to charge up to the maximum. Staffproposes a later date to adopt the fees to allow additional time to evaluate the proposed fee list. Staffrecommends that the nexus studies be adopted before July 1, 2022, to avoid needing to revise thedocuments to comply with a State law that goes into effect on July 1. In the forthcoming report andpresentation for the adoption of fees, staff will provide a detailed comparison of current and proposedcosts and fees in other similar jurisdictions.2022 Nexus Studies – notable updates:The 2022 nexus studies propose five fundamental changescompared to the 2013 studies. These include:1. New geography for collecting fees.Under the 2013 nexus studies, the methodology to assignfees to new development concluded that a different nexus existed for two broad geographies –development east of Claybank Road (i.e., Northeast development) and growth elsewhere in theCity. With the 2022 update, the nexus studies further refine the methodology, identifying threedistinct geographies. While the bounds of Northeast development are unchanged, the remainingareas to the west are divided into a “Heart of Fairfield” (HOF) zone and a “rest of City” zone. Themethodology for identifying maximum fees in the Northeast area and “rest of City” is similar to the2013 methodology. For the HOF, with a development plan adopted after 2013, the methodologyrecognizes factors unique to this area, greater planned density and higher transit access and use.These factors support lower maximum fees compared with the other two zones.2. An additional industrial fee category.The 2013 nexus studies identify a single land usecategory for charging industrial fees. The 2022 updated studies split Industrial into twocategories: “Manufacturing” and “Warehouse/Distribution/and Speculative use.” This split allowsthe City to evaluate different industrial uses better and, should it choose, set a lower fee formanufacturing uses if it wishes to encourage more and higherpaying jobs.3. Updated development forecast.The City revised the 2013 development forecast to subtractdevelopment that occurred since 2013 and adds new information about forecast development.Further information includes more refined estimates of growth in Northeast Fairfield based onproject entitlements since 2013, newly planned areas such as the Heart of Fairfield, and newinformation about the development climate for nonresidential development. The updateddevelopment forecast is shown in Table 6 of the Citywide Transportation Fee nexus study,included as Attachment “A”to the proposed resolution.4. Updated infrastructure list and related cost estimates.The 2022 nexus studies utilize thedevelopment forecast to develop a list of improvements to fund. Staff and project consultantsdeveloped the list of infrastructure, then developed updated cost estimates for each improvement.Notable changes to the transportation infrastructure list include a revised set of I80 and 680interchange improvements, reflecting current plans to overhaul the Highway 8068012interchange. Changes also involve eliminating an extension of Walters Road between Air BaseParkway and Cement Hill Road. This improvement is no longer viable due to a significantincrease in mitigation costs for environmental impacts and the loss of a key outside fundingpartner.Notable changes to the Northeast Fee include modifications to the Linear Park design to reflectthe Linear Park better, as shown in the Train Station Specific Plan. Improvements also reflectrevisions to the Linear Park location within the One Lake subdivision.Notable changes to cost estimates include, but are not limited to: a more refined estimate ofenvironmental mitigation costs and newly understood expenses that were not included as lineitems in 2013 cost estimates. One example is the cost, unknown in 2013, for Vanden Road tocross the State’s water line near the One Lake project.For the complete updated list and costs of planned roadway infrastructure, including that within theNortheast Area, see Appendix A to the Citywide Transportation Fee nexus study. The list andcosts for Northeast Area nonroadway infrastructure are shown in different sections of theNortheast Area nexus study, split by type of infrastructure (Sewer, Storm Drainage, etc.).5. New maximum fee amounts; Utilizing the three geographies, updated development forecast bylanduse type, infrastructure list, and cost estimates, the nexus studies identify updated maximumfee amounts that the City can charge for new development.Maximum “Citywide” and “Northeast Area” transportation improvement fees are shown for thethree geographies (Northeast, HOF, and Rest of City Development) in Tables 16, 17, and 18 ofthe Citywide nexus study. The maximum Citywide Traffic Impact fee is listed as the “Base Portion”fee in the “Maximum Fee” column, with the Northeast Fee maximum shown in the next column tothe right. The nexus study determined that all three geographies have some nexus towardsroadway improvements in the Northeast area. Thus, the City can charge development in all areasof the City some amount for northeast area roads, up to the maximum allowed for eachgeography. For other northeast infrastructure (storm drains, linear parks, etc.), only developmentin Northeast Fairfield has nexus. The development outside the northeast area is exempt frompaying those fees. Maximum fees the City can charge for nonroadway infrastructure in theNortheast are shown in Tables 13, 15, 17, 18, 20, and 22. On the whole, the total costs for thedevelopment of northeast area infrastructure, when equalized for inflation, are higher than in 2013.Costs for roadway infrastructure elsewhere are lower due to a smaller list of improvements.FINANCIAL IMPACTThere is no financial impact from adopting the nexus studies. The studies, however, provide the basisfor future action by the City Council to adopt impact fees that would fund more than $342 million ofinfrastructure needed to support new development. The Citywide Traffic Impact Fee nexus studyprovides for the collection of $287 million to fund roadway infrastructure throughout the City. TheNortheast Areas Development Impact Fee nexus study offers an additional $55 million supply to supportnonroadway infrastructure in the City's Northeast area.PUBLIC CONTACT/ADVISORY BODY RECOMMENDATIONNotice of the public hearing for this item was published in the Daily Republic on Sunday, May 22, andmailed to entities that requested information about the hearing. The City also sent the notice tonumerous large developers. In April, staff met with seven of the largest residential and industrialdevelopers to discuss draft versions of the nexus studies and the maximum fee amounts supported bythe studies. Final versions of the studies incorporate, where appropriate, developer feedback.

No advisory body provided a recommendation on the studies.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION
The council could choose not to adopt the 2022 nexus studies or could direct staff to modify the Studies to address any issues identified by the council. The council may choose not to adopt the Studies; the City would continue to collect fees based on the 2013 nexus studies.

Such fees, however, may not be sufficient to fund the required infrastructure. Further, if the 2022 nexus studies are adopted July 1, 2022, or later, they will need to be modified to address changes in State law that go into effect on that date.

STAFF CONTACT
David Feinstein, Planning Division Manager
(707) 4287448
[email protected]
COORDINATED WITH
Community Development Department
ATTACHMENTS:

Description
Attachment 1: Proposed Resolution
Attachment 2: Exhibit A
Attachment 3: Exhibit B
REVIEWERS:

Reviewer Action Date
Beavers, Esther Approved 6/13/2022 3:31 PM
Packet Page 698 of 798

CITY OF FAIRFIELD

RESOLUTION NO. 2022-146

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF FAIRFIELD ADOPTING UPDATED NEXUS STUDIES FOR THE CITYWIDE AB1600 TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE AND FOR NORTHEAST AREA DEVELOPMENT FEES

WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Ordinance 2013-11 to add Article XI to Chapter 25 of the City of Fairfield Municipal Code to codify provisions for impact fees, including the citywide Traffic Impact Fee and various Northeast Area Development Impact Fees (collectively the “Fees”); and

WHEREAS, the purpose of the Fees, as stated in Ordinance 2013-11, is to impose upon future development projects an equitable share of the cost to mitigate future demand for public facilities created by such projects; and

WHEREAS, on May 7, 2013, the council approved Fee amounts based on nexus studies demonstrating a reasonable relationship between amount of the Fees and the portion of the total cost of the public facilities attributed to each development project; and

WHEREAS, section 25.1509 of Article XI of Fairfield Municipal Code Chapter 25 requires the City to periodically review the City’s program for infrastructure and increase or decrease fees based on updated project costs, project needs, available alternative revenue sources, and other economic considerations; and

WHEREAS, the City caused to be prepared updated development impact fee nexus studies (the “2022 Nexus Studies” entitled “Revised Report Citywide Transportation Impact Fee Update” and “Revised Report Northeast Area Development Impact Fee Update ;” and

WHEREAS, the purpose of the 2022 Nexus Studies is to support an increase or decrease in fees pursuant to Fairfield Municipal Code Section 25.1509; and

WHEREAS, the council conducted a public hearing on the nexus studies on June 21, 2022, following notice of the hearing given on May 22, 2022, in accordance with Government Code section 66016.5; and

WHEREAS, the council determined that the 2022 Nexus Studies comply with California Government Code section 66000 et. seq; and

WHEREAS, the council determined that adoption of this Resolution is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This action is not a “project” within the meaning of the CEQA Guidelines Section 15378 and has no potential for physical effects on the environment because it involves a study supporting the future adoption of fees, but does not commit the City to any specific project which may result in a potentially significant effect on the environment. Pursuant Packet Page 699 of 798Attachment 1 Page 1 of 2

RES. NO. 2022-146

Page 2 ends

to CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(4), the creation of government funding mechanisms which do not involve any commitment to any specific project which may cause significant effect on the environment, is not defined as a “project” under CEQA. Therefore, approval of the 2022 Nexus Studies to support future adoption of the Fees is not a “project” for purposes of CEQA; and even if considered a “project” under CEQA, is exempt from CEQA review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that approval of a study for future adoption of fees may have a significant effect on the environment.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAIRFIELD HEREBY RESOLVES:

Section 1. The nexus study “Revised Report Citywide Transportation Impact Fee Update ,” prepared by Economic and Planning Systems, Incorporated, dated June 10, 2022, and contained in Exhibit “A” to this Resolution is adopted.

Section 2. The nexus study “Revised Report Northeast Area Development Impact Fee Update” Citywide Transportation Impact Fee Update”, prepared by Economic and Planning Systems, Incorporated, dated June 10, 2022, and contained in Exhibit “B” to this Resolution is adopted.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 21st day of June, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES: MEMBERS: PRICE / BERTANI / MOY / PANDURO / TIMM / TONNESEN / VACCARO

NOES: MEMBERS:

ABSENT: MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: MEMBERS:

MAYOR

ATTEST:

____________________________

CITY CLERK
Packet Page 700 of 798Attachment 1 Page 2 of 2

EXHIBIT “A”

Revised Report
Citywide Transporation Impact Fee Update
Packet Page 701 of 798Attachment 2 Page 1 of 50

Revised Report
Citywide Transportation Impact Fee
Update

Prepared for:

City of Fairfield

Prepared by:

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

In association with:

Coastland Civil Engineering
Fehr & Peers
CBG

June 10, 2022

EPS #191133
Packet Page 702 of 798Attachment 2 Page 2 of 50

Table of Contents

1. BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................... 5 Requirements of AB 1600 ......................................................................................... 5 Update Procedures and Use of Funds ......................................................................... 7

2. SUMMARY OF RESULTS ............................................................................................. 8 Updated Citywide Transportation Impact Fees ............................................................. 8

3. DEVELOPMENT FORECAST ........................................................................................ 13

4. CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION FEE ............................................................................... 16 Nexus Findings ..................................................................................................... 16 Technical Fee Calculations ...................................................................................... 17 Proposed Citywide Transportation Fees .................................................................... 32 Other Funding Required ......................................................................................... 37

Appendix A: Comprehensive List of Transportation Projects Appendix B: Traffic Model Detail (Fehr & Peers)

Packet Page 703 of 798Attachment 2 Page 3 of 50

List of Tables
Table 1 Proposed Citywide Transportation Fees Summary – Rest of City (Non-HoF) ............. 9 Table 2 Proposed Citywide Transportation Fee Summary – Heart of Fairfield (HoF) ............ 10 Table 3 Proposed Citywide Transportation Fee Summary – Northeast Area ....................... 11 Table 4 Citywide Maximum and Recommended Transportation Impact Fees, by Zone ......... 12 Table 5 Development Projections ................................................................................ 14 Table 6 Existing Development and 2040 Forecasted Development ................................... 15 Table 7 Transportation Improvement Program Projects and Costs ................................... 18 Table 8 Net Transportation Improvement Program Costs ................................................ 19 Table 9 TIP Net Costs, Organized by Northeast and Citywide-Serving Projects ................... 21 Table 10 Net Transportation Costs to Citywide and Northeast Fee Programs ....................... 25 Table 11 Total Trip Generation by 2040 ......................................................................... 27 Table 12 Average Cost per Trip – Citywide and NE Area Projects ....................................... 28 Table 13 Maximum Citywide Fee for Rest of City (RoC) Development ................................. 29 Table 14 Maximum Citywide Fees for Northeast Area Development ................................... 30 Table 15 Maximum Citywide Fees for Heart of Fairfield (HoF) Development ........................ 31 Table 16 Current, Maximum, and Proposed Transportation Fees – Rest of City Development (Non-HoF) .................................................................................................... 34 Table 17 Current, Maximum, and Proposed Transportation Fees – Heart of Fairfield (HoF) Development ................................................................................................ 35 Table 18 Current, Maximum, and Proposed Citywide Transportation Fees – Northeast Area Development ................................................................................................ 36

Packet Page 704 of 798Attachment 2 Page 4 of 50

List of Figures
Figure 1 Transportation Improvement Program Total Costs by Category ............................ 17 Figure 2 Transportation Improvement Program Net Costs by Category .............................. 20 Figure 3 Step 1 in the Fee Allocation: Two-Thirds/ One-Third Split for NE Projects .............. 22 Figure 4 Step 2 in Fee Calculation: 93/7 Split for Non-Northeast Projects .......................... 24 Figure 5 Current, Maximum, and Proposed Citywide Fee Burdens per Single-Family Residential Unit .................................................................... 37 Figure 6 Total Program, Identified Funding, and Funding Needed (millions) ........................ 38 Figure 7 Illustration of $418 Million Program, by Funding Source ...................................... 38

Packet Page 705 of 798Attachment 2 Page 5 of 50

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 5

1. BACKGROUND
This Report provides the 2022 update to the City of Fairfield’s Citywide Development Transportation Impact Fee. The City first established its Citywide transportation impact fee, along with a number of other AB 1600 fees, in 1995. In 2013, the City completed a new nexus study that updated the Citywide transportation impact fee. At that time, a new Northeast Area Development Impact Fee was also established that required new development in the Northeast Area of the City to pay the additional Northeast Area fee.1 Since 2013, the City has adjusted these fees annually using an inflation index consistent with its enabling ordinance.

This Report provides the technical documentation to support the update of the Citywide Transportation Impact fees consistent with the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Section 66000). This update is necessary due to the passage of time and changes in expected future development, improvement costs, and expected outside funding sources, among other factors.

The updated Citywide transportation fee includes two components: (1) a base fee that will apply to all new development in the City (including Northeast Area development), and (2) an additional component that will apply to new development outside of the Northeast Area that will ensure that this development contributes its proportionate share towards Northeast Area transportation improvements.2
Requirements of AB 1600
The updated development impact fees, if approved, will be adopted by the City Council as a resolution under the City’s general police powers and under the Mitigation Fee Act Government Code Section 66000 et seq. established by AB 1600 in 1988. The Mitigation Fee Act applies to all local agencies, as defined in Government Code section 66000(c), to include cities (both general law and chartered), counties, special districts, school districts, other municipal public corporations, and political subdivisions of the State. The legislation was drafted to establish a uniform process for formulating, adopting, imposing, collecting, accounting for, and protesting fees. The Mitigation Fee Act describes necessary actions and limits associated with establishing nexus, adopting the fee, payment of the fee, updating the fee, fee credits and reimbursements, surplus funds, and fee protests. Selected critical points associated with fee use, estimation and establishment are described below.

1 The Northeast Area fee helps fund a set of capital improvements in the northeast area of the City that are required to support new growth in the City. The fee includes and covers the portion of Northeast Area transportation facilities costs that can be allocated to new Northeast Area development. It is only paid by Northeast Area development. 2 This represents a change from the approach in 2013. In 2013, the proportionate share of Northeast Area transportation improvement costs that was allocated to new development outside of the Northeast Area was assumed to be covered by other funding sources. As these additional funding sources have not materialized, the 2022 update now requires new development outside of the Northeast Area to pay the appropriate additional fees to cover these impacts.

Packet Page 706 of 798Attachment 2 Page 6 of 50

Citywide Transportation Impact Fee and Park Impact Fee Update Report – June 10, 2022

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 6
Fee Estimation and Establishment
On a broad level, development impact fee programs must be consistent with the following:

1. The facilities to be built with the fee relates to the development subject to the fee and

2. The fee cannot exceed the estimated reasonable cost of the development’s proportionate share of the proposed facilities.

In establishing, increasing, or imposing a fee as a condition for the approval of a development project, Government Code 66001(a) and (b) state that the local agency must:

1. Identify the purpose of the fee;

2. Identify how the fee is to be used;

3. Determine how a reasonable relationship exists between the fee use and type of development project for which the fee is being used;

4. Determine how the need for the public facility relates to the type of development project for which the fee is imposed; and,

5. Show the relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility.

These statutory requirements have been followed in establishing this 2022 Fee Update.

Fee Levels
Fee studies establish the maximum justifiable fees under the Mitigation Fee Act. No land uses can be charged fees above these maximum levels. Cities do have the option of charging fees below the maximum for specific land uses or specific geographic areas for policy reasons. In this 2022 Fee Update, fees below the maximum level are proposed for some non-residential land uses (to address development feasibility concerns) and in the Heart of Fairfield (to support Heart of Fairfield Specific Plan policy goals).

Use of Fee Revenues
Under Government Code 66000b a “fee” is defined as “a monetary exaction, other than a tax or special assessment…that is charged by a local agency to the applicant in connection with the approval of a development project for the purpose of defraying all or a portion of the cost of public facilities related to the development project.”3 Development impact fees provide funding for public capital improvements. The public facilities that can be funded by fees include public improvements and community amenities. Fees cannot be used for maintenance or services. Fees can be used for any development project, defined as “any project undertaken for the purpose of development” (Government Code 66000a).

3Abbott, William et al. (2012) Exactions and Impact Fees in California. Solano Press Books, Point Arena, California, p. 299.

Packet Page 707 of 798Attachment 2 Page 7 of 50

Citywide Transportation Impact Fee and Park Impact Fee Update Report – June 10, 2022

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 7
Update Procedures and Use of Funds
This 2022 fee update represents a detailed update to the Citywide transportation impact fee last fully updated in 2013. The future capital facilities investments are considered in conjunction with future development’s proportionate share contribution to these investments based on cost allocation procedures consistent with nexus and other Mitigation Fee Act requirements. The 2022 fee update identifies the maximum justifiable fees for Citywide transportation impact fees. It also provides a proposed set of updated Citywide transportation impact fees that, for some land uses and areas, are below the maximum justifiable level.

Beyond this 2022 update, City staff will continue to apply an inflation (or deflation) index factor to its development impact fees on an annual basis in April of each year. Staff will also conduct a technical update similar to this Report on a periodic basis examining the infrastructure programs and their costs and updating the expected development based on changes in the City’s plans or on what development actually occurs.

The City of Fairfield has developed specific capital improvement programs comprised of a listing of development impact fee eligible projects as a basis for the fee calculation. It is important to note that, as part of the fee update, the list of capital improvements as well as their costs often change. These individual projects may be altered or replaced over time (with other qualifying projects) as the City administers the Development Impact Fee Program and builds the infrastructure needed to serve new development.

This Citywide transportation impact fee (AB 1600) update was developed collaboratively by EPS, Coastland Civil Engineering, Fehr and Peers (F&P), and CBG with extensive input and guidance from City staff. This Report provides both maximum justifiable and City staff proposed fee levels.

The revised fee schedules included in this Nexus Study Update can, at the discretion of the City Council, be adopted and implemented. The City Council can also choose to adopt a different set of updated fee levels as long as all fees are at or below the maximum justifiable level. The technical components of the update can also be used as a technical basis and guide for subsequent annual reviews and updates that may occur in the future.

Packet Page 708 of 798Attachment 2 Page 8 of 50

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 8

2. SUMMARY OF RESULTS
This chapter summarizes the proposed new Citywide transportation development impact fees.

The technical analysis and justification for the maximum and proposed fee levels is provided in the subsequent chapters.

Updated Citywide Transportation Impact Fees
The Citywide development impact fees are differentiated by area. The three distinct areas include:
• Rest of City
• Heart of Fairfield
• Northeast Area, including TSSP
For all three areas, there is a “Base Citywide Fee” that is charged to new development in each of the three areas. In addition, there is an additional “Citywide Northeast Fee” component that applies to the areas outside of the Northeast Area – i.e., Rest of City and Heart of Fairfield. This additional fee component reflects the expected proportionate use of Northeast Area transportation improvements by new development in these areas. This fee component is not applied to the new development in the Northeast Area as that development is charged a distinct, larger Northeast Area fee that encompasses their share of Northeast Area transportation improvement costs.

In the 2013 fee update, the City identified sufficient other funding to support Northeast Area transportation improvements so that it was not necessary to charge new development outside of the Northeast Area that additional fee component. That is no longer the case and the 2022 update does propose charging that fee component to development in the Rest of the City. The Heart of Fairfield, however, because of its prioritization as a development area by the City, is proposed not to be charged the additional fee component.

The sections below describe the proposed Citywide transportation impact fees. City staff identified the circumstances where the proposed 2022 updated fees are below the maximum level.

Updated Citywide Transportation Fees - Rest of City
Table 1 shows the current and proposed Citywide transportation impact fees for developments in the Rest of City (outside of both the Northeast Area and the Heart of Fairfield). As shown, total citywide fees on new residential development increases substantially, with single family fees increasing by 86 percent and multifamily fees increasing by 60 percent. The primary driver of these increases, as noted above, is the need to charge Rest of City development its full contribution towards new Northeast Area transportation infrastructure. In 2013, the non- residential development impact fees were also set well below the maximum allowable due to concerns about development feasibility. The proposed 2022 update increases to all non- residential development (with the exception of Warehouse/ Distribution/ Speculative (WDS)) Packet Page 709 of 798Attachment 2 Page 9 of 50

Citywide Transportation Impact Fee and Park Impact Fee Update Report – June 10, 2022

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9
were constrained to 7.3 percent.4 Fees for WDS uses were increased to their maximum allowable level, an increase of 66 percent.

Table 1 Proposed Citywide Transportation Fees Summary – Rest of City (Non- HoF)

Updated Citywide Transportation Fees – Heart of Fairfield Table 2 shows the current and proposed Citywide transportation impact fees for developments in the Heart of Fairfield. As shown, total citywide fees on new residential development are proposed to decrease by 24 percent for single family development and 35 percent for multifamily development. The drivers of these decreases are (1) the expectation of lower trip generation rates in the Heart of Fairfield than in the rest of the City; and (2) a policy decision not to charge new Heart of Fairfield development for their demand for/ impacts on new Northeast Area transportation improvements. The proposed fees for all non-residential development in the Heart of Fairfield with the exception of WDS and Manufacturing uses are proposed to remain at current

4 The 2022 Northeast Area Fee Update (under separate cover) identified a maximum Northeast Area fee increase of 7.3 percent for new single-family development; City staff proposes limiting increases in selected Citywide non-residential fees to this same level of increase.

Development Type in
Rest of City (Non-HoF)Current1 Proposed2 % Change
Residential (per unit)
Single-Family $8,112 $15,079 86%
Multifamily $5,276 $8,444 60%
Nonresidential (per sq. ft.)
Retail $18.69 $20.05 7.3%
Commercial $7.51 $8.06 7.3%
Office/ Medical $4.54 $4.87 7.3%
Industrial $3.17 --
WDS -$5.28 66%
Manufacturing -$3.40 7.3%
Total Citywide Fee Burden
Source: Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
[1] Per City of Fairfield Development Department Fees Effective April 1, 2021. Current fees for Industrial development are imposed on all Industrial development equally. The new fee structure will break Industrial land uses into two categories: Manufacturing and Warehouse/Distribution/Speculative (WDS).
[2] The proposed fee levels are set at or below the maximum allowable levels, as described in the Proposed Citywide Transportation Fees section of the report.

Packet Page 710 of 798Attachment 2 Page 10 of 50

Citywide Transportation Impact Fee and Park Impact Fee Update Report – June 10, 2022

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 10
levels. Proposed fees on WDS and Manufacturing uses in the HoF are proposed to increase by 47 percent and 7 percent, respectively, though limited amounts of this development are expected in this area of the City.

Table 2 Proposed Citywide Transportation Fee Summary – Heart of Fairfield (HoF)

Updated Citywide Transportation Fees – Northeast Area
Table 3 shows the current and proposed Citywide transportation impact fees for developments in the Northeast Area. As shown, total citywide fees on new residential development are proposed to decrease by 14 percent for single family development and to decrease by 26 percent for multifamily development (these are the maximum justifiable fees). Proposed fee levels for all non-residential uses with the exception of WDS and Manufacturing increase by the same 7 percent as the single-family total fee burden (inclusive of NE Area fees). Proposed fees for both WDS and Manufacturing decrease by 23 percent (these are the maximum justifiable fees). As indicated in the first footnote of Table 3, Northeast Area development does not pay the Northeast Area component of the Citywide fee as it contributes separately to Northeast Area infrastructure costs through the Northeast Area fee; as a result, the values shown below do not represent the full transportation fee burden charged to new developments in the Northeast Area.

Development Type in
Heart of Fairfield (HoF)Current1 Proposed2 % Change
Residential (per unit)
Single-Family $8,112 $6,155 -24%
Multifamily $5,276 $3,447 -35%
Nonresidential (per sq. ft.)
Retail $18.69 $18.69 0%
Commercial $7.51 $7.51 0%
Office/ Medical $4.54 $4.54 0%
Industrial $3.17 --
WDS -$4.64 47%
Manufacturing -$3.40 7%
Source: Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

Total Citywide Fee Burden
[1] Per City of Fairfield Development Department Fees Effective April 1, 2021. Current fees for Industrial development are imposed on all Industrial development equally. The new fee structure will break Industrial land uses into two categories: Manufacturing and Warehouse/Distribution/Speculative (WDS).
[2] The proposed fee levels are set at or below the maximum allowable levels, as described in the Proposed Citywide Transportation Fees section of the report.

Packet Page 711 of 798Attachment 2 Page 11 of 50

Citywide Transportation Impact Fee and Park Impact Fee Update Report – June 10, 2022

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 11
Table 3 Proposed Citywide Transportation Fee Summary – Northeast Area

Maximum and Proposed Fee Levels
The technical analysis in the following chapters calculates the maximum justifiable Citywide transportation impact fee for new development in three City geographies – the Northeast Area, the Heart of Fairfield, and the Rest of City. In several cases, however, the proposed fees are below the maximum fee level. These recommendations are driven by consideration of potential impacts on development feasibility (e.g., fee levels on certain non-residential uses) and City policy goals (e.g., encouragement of new development in Heart of Fairfield). Detailed calculations determining the maximum and proposed fees are provided in Chapter 4.

A summary comparison of the potential maximum development impact fees with the proposed fees is provided below in Table 4.

Development Type in
Northeast Area Current2 Proposed3 % Change
Residential (per unit)
Single-Family $8,112 $6,994 -14%
Multifamily $5,276 $3,917 -26%
Nonresidential (per sq. ft.)
Retail $18.69 $20.05 7%
Commercial $7.51 $8.06 7%
Office/ Medical $4.54 $4.87 7%
Industrial $3.17 --
WDS -$2.45 -23%
Manufacturing -$2.45 -23%
Source: Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
[3] The proposed fee levels are set at or below the maximum allowable levels, as described in the Proposed Citywide Transportation Fees section of the report.

Total Citywide Fee Burden1
[1] Note these fee levels do not account for the Northeast Area Fee that is charged to Northeast Area developments to fund their share of new Northeast Area transportation improvements. These additional fees are documented in a separate Northeast Area Fee Report.
[2] Per City of Fairfield Development Department Fees Effective April 1, 2021. Current fees for Industrial development are imposed on all Industrial development equally.

The new fee structure will break Industrial land uses into two categories:

Manufacturing and Warehouse/Distribution/Speculative (WDS).

Packet Page 712 of 798Attachment 2 Page 12 of 50

Citywide Transportation Impact Fee and Park Impact Fee Update Report – June 10, 2022

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 12
As shown in Table 4, the proposed citywide transportation fee levels for residential developments are set at the maximum levels everywhere except the Heart of Fairfield as the proposed fees for developments in this area are not proposed to contribute to the NE Area portion of the citywide fee. The proposed non-residential fee levels are substantially below the maximum for all but Northeast Industrial development and Warehouse/Distribution/Speculative (WDS) development in the RoC or HoF, which are set at the maximum allowable levels.

Table 4 Citywide Maximum and Recommended Transportation Impact Fees, by Zone

Development Type Maximum Proposed Maximum Proposed Maximum Proposed Residential (per unit)
Single-Family $6,994 $6,994 $15,079 $15,079 $13,269 $6,155 Multifamily $3,917 $3,917 $8,444 $8,444 $7,431 $3,447 Nonresidential (per sq. ft.)
Retail $72.60 $20.05 $156.52 $20.05 $137.74 $18.69
Commercial $14.13 $8.06 $30.46 $8.06 $26.80 $7.51
Office/ Medical $11.40 $4.87 $24.58 $4.87 $21.63 $4.54
Industrial $2.45 -$5.28 -$4.64 -
WDS -$2.45 -$5.28 -$4.64
Manufacturing -$2.45 -$3.40 -$3.40
[1] Note that fees shown here are the total transportation impact fee burden for the Citywide Transportation Fee program shown in Tables 1, 2 and 3. Northeast Area development is additionally subject to a separate Northeast Area transportation fee which is documented in a separate report.

Source: Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

Northeast Area Rest of City Heart of Fairfield
Zone Fee1 Zone Fee1 Zone Fee1
Packet Page 713 of 798Attachment 2 Page 13 of 50

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 13

3. DEVELOPMENT FORECAST
Estimates of the new maximum, nexus-supported Citywide Transportation fees are, in part, driven by forecasts of new development growth in the City of Fairfield. City staff developed a growth forecast for 2020 to 2040 based on a detailed review of developable land capacity, General Plan land use designations, anticipated development densities, development applications which have been filed with the City, and market expectations. City staff and F&P worked closely together to ensure that existing 2020 development and forecasted 2020 to 2040 growth was allocated appropriately to each traffic analysis zone (TAZ) in the City. Existing and new development growth by TAZ was distinguished by development types (residential units and nonresidential square footage) and by geographic area (Northeast Area; Heart of Fairfield; Rest of City). These development allocations supported the modeling and analysis required to estimate maximum fees by land use and by area for the transportation fee update.

These development forecasts were developed at the point in time when the technical analysis was undertaken. It is also important to note that while there is uncertainty concerning final development densities/ plans, these forecasts represent best estimates based on recent development entitlements, development submissions, and developer communications.

The growth forecasts for 2020 to 2040 are shown in Table 5 for the Northeast Area (including the Fairfield Train Station Specific Plan area and the rest of the Northeast Area) and the Rest of the City (including the Heart of Fairfield). Forecast growth relative to 2020 development levels is shown in Table 6. Growth data is summarized below:
• New Residential Development. A total of about 12,300 new residential units are forecast to be added in the City between 2020 and 2040. About half of these units are expected to be single-family and half multifamily. In this case, single-family includes all single-family detached development and two-attached unit developments (i.e., duplex or attached units on separate lots). Multifamily includes developments with three or more attached units. About 60 percent of projected residential growth is expected to occur in the Northeast Area of the City.
• Nonresidential Residential. About 6.0 million new square feet of nonresidential development are forecast, including 4.5 million in industrial development, 440,000 square feet in office/medical development, 53,000 square feet of “high-trip” retail (fast-food, gas stations, etc.), and 960,000 square feet in commercial, service, and hospitality development (all other retail, commercial, hotel/motels). Most of this growth is expected to occur outside of the Northeast area of the City. Note that the Train Station Specific Plan area has development capacity for more industrial development than the net growth of 1 million square feet forecast assumed as part of the City’s 4.5 million square feet forecast, though some of that industrial development is expected to occur beyond 2040.

Packet Page 714 of 798Attachment 2 Page 14 of 50

Citywide Transportation Impact Fee and Park Impact Fee Update Report – June 10, 2022

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 14
• Existing and New Development. In 2020, Fairfield had over 38,000 residential units and more than 24 million square feet of nonresidential development. As shown in Table 6, growth expected through 2040 will increase the City’s residential development by over 30 percent and its nonresidential development base by 25 percent.

Table 5 Development Projections

Development Type
Total
TSSP Other NE Total NE HoF Other RoC Total RoC City
Residential (units)
Single-Family 3,242 1,537 4,779 6 1,541 1,547 6,326
Multifamily 2,301 280 2,581 1,447 1,983 3,430 6,011
Total Residential 5,543 1,817 7,360 1,453 3,524 4,977 12,337 Nonresidential (sq. ft.)
Retail1 - 19,102 19,102 12,632 21,072 33,704 52,806 Commercial2 46,555 23,954 70,508 200,288 687,953 888,241 958,750 Office/ Medical - - - - 439,681 439,681 439,681 Industrial 1,000,000 - 1,000,000 - 3,520,192 3,520,192 4,520,192 Total Nonresidential 1,046,555 43,056
1,089,610 212,920 4,668,898 4,881,818 5,971,428
Source: City of Fairfield development forecast; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

Forecasted Growth Between 2020 and 2040
Rest of City (RoC)
[1] Retail land use only includes those retail uses with high-trip generation rates such as fast food locations with drive-through services and gas stations.
[2] Commercial includes all other retail uses (all with relatively low trip generation rates). This category also includes hospitality uses like hotels and motels.

Northeast Area
Packet Page 715 of 798Attachment 2 Page 15 of 50

Citywide Transportation Impact Fee and Park Impact Fee Update Report – June 10, 2022

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 15
Table 6 Existing Development and 2040 Forecasted Development Existing City,Forecasted Growth Total City,% Change
Development Type 2020 2020 - 2040 2040 2020 - 2040
Residential (Units)
Single Family 29,327 6,326 35,653 22%
Multifamily 8,715 6,011 14,726 69%
Total Residential 38,042 12,337 50,379 32%
Nonresidential (Sq. Ft.)
Retail1 1,012,000 52,806 1,064,806 5%
Commercial2 5,483,000 958,750 6,441,750 17%
Office/ Medical 4,392,000 439,681 4,831,681 10%
Industrial 13,273,000 4,520,192 17,793,192 34%
Total Nonresidential 24,160,000 5,971,428 30,131,428 25% Source: City of Fairfield development forecast; Fehr & Peers; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. [1] Retail land use only includes those retail uses with high-trip generation rates such as fast food locations with drive-through services and gas stations.
[2] Commercial includes all other retail uses (all with relatively low trip generation rates).

Packet Page 716 of 798Attachment 2 Page 16 of 50

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 16

4. CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION FEE
This chapter presents the methodology and fee calculation for the capital facilities related to the Citywide Transportation fee. This chapter also describes the necessary "nexus" between new development in the City of Fairfield and the new transportation improvements, as required under Government Code Section 66000 (AB 1600). The new Citywide Transportation Fee estimates will replace the existing Citywide Transportation Fee schedule, last formally updated in 2013, though adjusted annually through the indexing process. As described in Chapter 1, the fee update focuses on future development and future transportation improvements, recognizing that past development has made its fair share contribution. While a new Northeast Transportation fee is derived in a separate technical report, this Report and the Northeast Fee Report make findings related to transportation improvements located in the Northeast area of the City.

Nexus Findings
Nexus findings are provided below addressing: 1) the purpose of the fee and a related description of the facility for which fee revenue will be used; 2) the specific use of fee revenue; 3) the relationship between the facility and the type of development; 4) the relationship between the need for the facility and the type of development; and 5) the relationship between the amount of the fee and the proportionality of cost specifically attributable to development. The technical calculations described in the sections below are consistent with these nexus findings/requirements.

Purpose
The fee will help maintain adequate levels of transportation service in Fairfield.

Use of Fee
Fee revenue will be used to fund City transportation improvements, including roadway, intersection, interchange, and traffic signal improvements, as well as the reimbursement of upfront investments from other City funds for transportation improvements required to serve future growth. A representative list of projects and costs is included in the next section of this chapter.

Relationship
New development in the City of Fairfield will increase demands for and travel on the City’s transportation network. Transportation fee revenue will be used to fund additional transportation capacity necessary to meet adopted standards. New development will benefit from the increased transportation capacity.

Need
Each new development project will add to the incremental need for transportation capacity and improvements. The transportation improvements considered in this study are considered necessary to meet the City's future transportation needs.

Packet Page 717 of 798Attachment 2 Page 17 of 50

Citywide Transportation Impact Fee and Park Impact Fee Update Report – June 10, 2022

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 17
Proportionality
The fee levels are tied to the extent to which new development serves new development and/or fills existing deficiencies as well as fair share cost allocations based on the transportation model developed and operated by F&P.

Technical Fee Calculations
The technical derivation of the maximum nexus-supported Citywide transportation fees is provided below. The technical calculations follow nexus requirements and focus on transportation needs and costs and the fair share apportionment to new development in the City.

Transportation Improvement Program Projects and Total Project Costs Table 7 shows the City’s list of transportation improvement projects expected to be required, in part or in whole, to serve new development in the City between 2020 and 2040. The total cost is estimated at $417.6 million. Figure 1 shows that 69 percent of the costs are for Roadway projects, 25 percent are for interchanges and the rest of the program costs are for intersection and traffic signal improvements. Because these new transportation improvement projects are not required to fill existing deficiencies and are primarily to serve new development, the large majority of these costs are allocated to new development.

Figure 1 Transportation Improvement Program Total Costs by Category

All $$s in
millions.

Chart sums to
$417.6 million.

Totals may not
sum due to
rounding.

Packet Page 718 of 798Attachment 2 Page 18 of 50

Citywide Transportation Impact Fee and Park Impact Fee Update Report – June 10, 2022

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 18
Table 7 Transportation Improvement Program Projects and Costs

Improvement Item Gross Improvement Cost1
Roadways
Manuel Campos Parkway $51,688,991
Vanden Road $57,746,000
Peabody Road $37,013,000
New Cannon Road $62,930,000
McCrory Road Extension $14,398,000
West Texas Complete Streets $17,230,000
General, ITS $46,283,000
Subtotal: Roadways $287,288,991
Intersections
Air Base Parkway at Walters $1,317,500
Air Base Parkway at Clay Bank $144,925
Air Base Parkway at Dover $8,807,000
Subtotal: Intersections $10,269,425
Interchanges
I-80 / SR 12 at Red Top / Business Center Drive $75,413,000 I- 80 at Green Valley Road $10,400,000
I- 80 at Suisun Valley Road $16,532,000
Subtotal: Interchanges $102,345,000
Misc. Signals
Northeast Traffic Signal Improvements $8,260,547
Citywide Traffic Signal Improvements $9,410,781
Subtotal: Misc. Signals $17,671,328
Total Project Costs $417,574,745
Source: City of Fairfield; Coastland; CBG; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. [1] Cost estimates by Coastland, CBG, and City staff and are in 2022 dollars.

Packet Page 719 of 798Attachment 2 Page 19 of 50

Citywide Transportation Impact Fee and Park Impact Fee Update Report – June 10, 2022

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 19
Transportation Improvement Program Net Costs
Table 8 shows the specific non-fee funding that is expected to be allocated for transportation improvements. This funding is netted out of the total transportation improvement costs to determine the net transportation costs. The total identified funding sums to $130.2 million, leaving a total net transportation improvement cost of $287.4 million. These total net costs will be allocated to the fee program based on the demand for transportation improvements generated by new growth in the City. Figure 2 illustrates the net program costs by project category.

Table 8 Net Transportation Improvement Program Costs

Gross Identified Net Improvement
Improvement Item Improvement Cost1 Outside Funding2 Costs Roadways
Manuel Campos Parkway $51,688,991 $8,501,466 $43,187,525 Vanden Road $57,746,000 $23,640,167 $34,105,833
Peabody Road $37,013,000 $9,521,750 $27,491,250
New Cannon Road $62,930,000 $5,130,000 $57,800,000
McCrory Road Extension $14,398,000 $5,807,000 $8,591,000 West Texas Complete Streets $17,230,000 $11,436,900 $5,793,100 General, ITS $46,283,000 $800,000 $45,483,000
Subtotal: Roadways $287,288,991 $64,837,283 $222,451,708 Intersections
Air Base Parkway at Walters $1,317,500 $0 $1,317,500
Air Base Parkway at Clay Bank $144,925 $144,925 $0
Air Base Parkway at Dover $8,807,000 $0 $8,807,000
Subtotal: Intersections $10,269,425 $144,925 $10,124,500 Interchanges
I-80 / SR 12 at Red Top / Business Center Drive $75,413,000 $59,247,000 $16,166,000 I- 80 at Green Valley Road $10,400,000 $4,136,500 $6,263,500 I- 80 at Suisun Valley Road $16,532,000 $0 $16,532,000
Subtotal: Interchanges $102,345,000 $63,383,500 $38,961,500 Misc. Signals
Northeast Traffic Signal Improvements $8,260,547 $0 $8,260,547 Citywide Traffic Signal Improvements $9,410,781 $1,836,758 $7,574,023 Subtotal: Misc. Signals $17,671,328 $1,836,758 $15,834,570 Total Project Costs $417,574,745 $130,202,466 $287,372,279 Source: City of Fairfield; Coastland; CBG; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. [1] Cost estimates by Coastland, CBG, and City staff and are in 2022 dollars. [2] Outside funding sources include county, regional, state, and federal transportation resources. Funding for improvements at project approvals may occur if the need for a specific improvement (typically traffic signals) is triggered by the project seeking approval.

Packet Page 720 of 798Attachment 2 Page 20 of 50

Citywide Transportation Impact Fee and Park Impact Fee Update Report – June 10, 2022

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 20
Figure 2 Transportation Improvement Program Net Costs by Category

Transportation Improvement Program: Northeast and Citywide Projects The net transportation costs of $287 million are allocated between different sources of travel demand based on the findings of the F&P traffic analysis (see Appendix B) and City input. In 2013, F&P analyzed transportation demand based on projected growth in trips in Fairfield and identified projects where demand is being primarily driven by growth in the Northeast and projects where demand is primarily driven by growth throughout the City. These improvement- specific analyses identified several projects where demand was primarily driven by in the new Northeast development. All of these projects are located in or adjacent to the Northeast growth area. Projects were then grouped as those primarily serving the Northeast area and those primarily serving growth Citywide. The 2022 F&P transportation analysis conducted similar transportation analysis for the updated set of transportation improvement projects that primarily serve the Northeast Area and those that more evenly serve growth throughout the City.

Because the new transportation improvement projects are not required to fill existing deficiencies, the 2022 F&P transportation analysis allocated improvement costs between different types of new growth. Table 9 reports the same net improvements costs shown in Table 8 but separated into these two categories of projects and indicates:
• Northeast Transportation Improvements. Net costs of projects primarily serving growth in the Northeast sum to $179.4 million.
• Citywide Transportation Improvements. Net costs of projects serving the growth in the City as a whole sum to $107.9 million.

All $s in millions.
$287.4 million in net
costs. Totals may not
sum due to rounding.

Packet Page 721 of 798Attachment 2 Page 21 of 50

Citywide Transportation Impact Fee and Park Impact Fee Update Report – June 10, 2022

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 21
Table 9 TIP Net Costs, Organized by Northeast and Citywide-Serving Projects

Improvement Item Net Improvement Cost
Roadway Improvements
Northeast Roadways
Manuel Campos Parkway $43,187,525
Vanden Road $34,105,833
Peabody Road $27,491,250
New Cannon Road $57,800,000
McCrory Road Extension $8,591,000
Subtotal Northeast $171,175,608
Citywide-Serving Roadways
West Texas Complete Streets $5,793,100
General, ITS $45,483,000
Subtotal Citywide $51,276,100
Total Roadway Improvements $222,451,708
Intersection Improvements
Citywide-Serving Intersections
Air Base Parkway at Walters $1,317,500
Air Base Parkway at Clay Bank $0
Air Base Parkway at Dover $8,807,000
Total Citywide Intersections $10,124,500
Traffic Signal Improvements
Northeast Traffic Signal Improvements $8,260,547
Citywide Traffic Signal Improvements $7,574,023
Total Traffic Signal Improvements $15,834,570
Interchanges
Citywide-Serving Interchanges
I-80 / SR 12 at Red Top / Business Center Drive $16,166,000 I- 80 at Green Valley Road $6,263,500
I- 80 at Suisun Valley Road $16,532,000
Total Citywide Interchanges $38,961,500
Total Northeast $179,436,155
Total Citywide-Serving Projects, located outside NE Area $107,936,124 Total Transportation Costs $287,372,279
Source: City of Fairfield; Coastland; CBG; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

Packet Page 722 of 798Attachment 2 Page 22 of 50

Citywide Transportation Impact Fee and Park Impact Fee Update Report – June 10, 2022

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 22
Transportation Improvement Program Cost Allocation
The net transportation costs of $287 million are allocated between different sources of travel demand based on the findings of the F&P traffic analysis. These findings were used to allocate the appropriate costs to the Northeast Area Fee program and the Citywide Fee program. As described further below, the Citywide Fee program was divided into a Northeast Zone and a Rest of City Zone (that encompasses the Heart of Fairfield) to ensure cost allocations met nexus requirements. There are two primary steps in the cost allocation process as described below.

Step 1: Allocate Northeast Transportation Improvement Costs to Northeast Fee Program and Citywide Fee Program (and associated zones) based on Traffic Analysis.

Northeast transportation
projects would not be
required but for the new
development plans in the
northeast, so all net costs are
allocated to new development.

Northeast transportation projects
will primarily serve new northeast
development but will also serve
new development elsewhere in the
City. As described in Appendix B,
about two-thirds of trips from new
Fairfield development are expected
to be generated by Northeast
Fairfield development, while one-
third of trips are expected from
new development elsewhere in the
City of Fairfield.

Figure 3 illustrates this allocation,
showing:
• Gross program costs totaling
$418 million
• (less) outside funding, results
in $287 million
• Separation of projects into their
primary geographies
— Projects in the rest of the
City total $108 million

Figure 3 Step 1 in the Fee Allocation: Two-Thirds/ One- Third Split for NE Projects
*Numbers may
not sum due to
rounding
Packet Page 723 of 798Attachment 2 Page 23 of 50

Citywide Transportation Impact Fee and Park Impact Fee Update Report – June 10, 2022

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 23
— Projects in the Northeast Area total $179 million
o Allocation of Northeast Area project costs two-thirds to the northeast development (see Northeast Fee Report) and one-third to Non-Northeast (Rest of City) Fee Zone in this Citywide Fee Report
As a result of this split, of the $179 million in net Northeast Area project costs, about two-thirds of the costs, $120 million, are allocated to new development in the Northeast Area. The remaining one-third of Northeast Transportation costs associated with new development in the rest of the City ($60 million) is allocated to the Citywide Fee Program, but only to the growth in the Rest of City Zone.

The 67 percent/33 percent allocation to the Northeast Area/Rest of City for the Northeast Area improvement projects was maintained from the prior DIF Study based on the F&P travel demand modelling results and consultation with the City, including the following specific items and considerations:
• Proportional gross trip generation for the two areas. • Proportional trip assignment to the specific improvement locations for the two areas, including a review of alternative ways of assigning responsibility for trips that travel between the two areas to assess the range of proportional outcomes. • The fact that many of the Northeast Area improvement projects will provide direct access to new Northeast Area development and would not be constructed but for that new development.

Packet Page 724 of 798Attachment 2 Page 24 of 50

Citywide Transportation Impact Fee and Park Impact Fee Update Report – June 10, 2022

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 24
Step 2: Allocate Transportation Improvement Costs Outside of Northeast Area to Citywide Fee Program based on Traffic Analysis.

The projects outside of
the Northeast Area, with
a net cost of $108
million, will serve all
City development,
including new
development in the
northeast and in the
rest of the City. Based
on the traffic analysis
in Appendix B, about
7 percent of the
Citywide
transportation
improvements costs,
$8 million, are
associated with
growth from outside
the City. The
remaining 93 percent,
$100 million, is
associated with new
Citywide growth.

Figure 4 illustrates
this allocation as
Figure 3 does, from
gross to net costs,
focusing on the $108
million cost
associated with
transportation
projects outside of
the Northeast area.

Table 10 reports the net project costs and allocations to Citywide growth, Northeast growth, Rest of City growth, and Existing development.

Figure 4 Step 2 in Fee Calculation: 93/7 Split for Non- Northeast Projects
*Numbers may
not sum due to
rounding
Packet Page 725 of 798Attachment 2 Page 25 of 50

Citywide Transportation Impact Fee and Park Impact Fee Update Report – June 10, 2022

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 25
Table 10 Net Transportation Costs to Citywide and Northeast Fee Programs

Improvement Net
Item
Citywide
Growth
Rest of City
Growth, Non-
Northeast
Northeast
Growth
Existing
Development /
Growth from
Outside Fairfield
Northeast Projects
Northeast Roadways (5)
Manuel Campos Parkway $43,187,525 0%
Vanden Road $34,105,833 0%
Peabody Road $27,491,250 0%
New Canon Road $57,800,000 0%
McCrory Road Extension $8,591,000 0%
Northeast Roadways Total $171,175,608 $0 $57,058,536 $114,117,072 $0 Northeast Traffic Signal Improvements $8,260,547 0%33%67% Northeast Traffic Signal Improvements Total $2,753,516 $5,507,031 Total Northeast $179,436,155 $0 $59,812,052 $119,624,104 $0 Northeast Projects Allocation 100% 0%33.3%66.7%0%
Citywide-Serving Projects, Located outside of NE Area
Roadways
West Texas Complete Streets $5,793,100 97%0%0%3%
General, Intelligent Transportation Systems $45,483,000 100%0%0%0% Citywide Roadways Total $51,276,100 $51,102,307 $0 $0 $173,793 Intersections
Air Base Parkway at Walters Road $1,317,500 72%0%0%28%
Air Base Parkway at Clay Bank Road $0 89%0%0%11%
Air Base Parkway at Dover Avenue $8,807,000 83%0%0%17%
Citywide Intersections Total $10,124,500 $8,258,410 $0 $0 $1,866,090 Citywide Traffic Signal Improvements $7,574,023 100%0%0%0% Citywide Traffic Signal Improvements Total $7,574,023 $7,574,023 $0 $0 $0 Interchanges
I-80 / SR 12 at Red Top / Business Center Drive $16,166,000 65%0%0%35.0% I-80 at Green Valley Road $6,263,500 98%0%0%2%
I-80 at Suisun Valley Road $16,532,000 100%0%0%0%
Citywide Interchanges Total $38,961,500 $33,178,130 $0 $0 $5,783,370 Total Citywide-Serving Projects, located outside
NE Area $107,936,124 $100,112,871 $0 $0 $7,823,253
Citywide Projects Allocation 100% 93%0%0%7%
Total Net Costs: Northeast + Citywide $287,372,279 $100,112,871 $59,812,052 $119,624,104 $7,823,253 (1) Costs after identified outside funding has been subtracted from the total project costs, see previous table. (2) Percent allocations are based on a review of the traffic model for the City and broader region. (3) Citywide Development Program is the subject of this Report. The costs in these columns are carried through the rest of the Report.

Source: Coastland; Fehr & Peers; CBG; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (4) Other Funding needed reflects costs allocated to the Northeast Fee Program (documented in a separate report) and costs associated with growth outside of Fairfield. The costs in these columns are not carried forward in this Report in terms of calculating the fee. (5) See Appendix B for traffic analysis which is the basis for the one-third/two-thirds cost split to Citywide Development Fee and Northeast Area fee.

Funding Sources
Percent Allocation (2) to:

Improvement
Costs (1)
Citywide Development Fee (3)Other Funding (4)
33%67%0%
Packet Page 726 of 798Attachment 2 Page 26 of 50

Citywide Transportation Impact Fee and Park Impact Fee Update Report – June 10, 2022

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 26
Step 3: Aggregation of Costs to the Northeast Fee and Citywide Fee Programs. • Northeast Fee Program. Consistent with the cost allocations described in Step 1, the maximum Northeast Area transportation impact fee can be estimated based on a cost of allocation of $120 million to new Northeast development. The Northeast fee program and associated additional technical analysis is documented in the separate Northeast Fee technical report. Therefore, the $120 million net costs in the Northeast Fee Program are not analyzed further in this Report.
• Citywide Development Fee. Consistent with the cost allocations described in Steps 1 and 2, the Citywide Transportation Impact Fee by Zone can be estimated based on $100 million in non-Northeast project costs allocated to new growth Citywide and $60 million in Northeast area projects allocated to growth in the Rest of the City (all areas outside of the Northeast), as shown in Table 10.

Step 4: Derive Average Cost per Trip
Trip generation rates by land use category are used to determine the number of trips generated by new development by 2040 (see Appendix B for details on trip generation rates). The 2020- 2040 development projections (Table 5) are multiplied by each land use’s trip generation rate to derive the total number of new trips generated by 2040. Table 11 multiplies the development projections from Table 5 by the relevant trip generation rates to arrive at the total number of trips generated by development area. Note that development in the Heart of Fairfield (HoF) is attributed lower trip generation rates as it is a Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) area. As shown, a total of 14,313 additional trips are projected to be generated by new development by 2040, with 6,915 generated from the Northeast Area and 7,398 from the Rest of City.

Packet Page 727 of 798Attachment 2 Page 27 of 50

Citywide Transportation Impact Fee and Park Impact Fee Update Report – June 10, 2022

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 27
Table 11 Total Trip Generation by 2040

Development Type
Northeast Total
Citywide HoF Area HoF Non-HoF Total RoC City
Growth
Residential (Units)
Single-Family 4,779 6 1,541 1,547 6,326
Multifamily 2,581 1,447 1,983 3,430 6,011
Total Residential 7,360 1,453 3,524 4,977 12,337
Nonresidential (Sq. Ft.)
Retail 19,102 12,632 21,072 33,704 52,806
Commercial2 70,508 200,288 687,953 888,241 958,750
Office/ Medical 0 0 439,681 439,681 439,681
Industrial 1,000,000 0 3,520,192 3,520,192 4,520,192
Total Non-Residential 1,089,610 212,920 4,668,898 4,881,818 5,971,428 Trips3
Residential (Units)
Single-Family 1.00 0.88 4,779 5 1,541 1,546 6,325
Multifamily 0.56 0.49 1,445 713 1,110 1,824 3,269
Total Residential 6,224 718 2,651 3,370 9,594
Nonresidential (Sq. Ft.)
Retail 10.38 9.13 198 115 219 334 532
Commercial2 2.02 1.78 142 356 1,390 1,746 1,888
Office/ Medical 1.63 1.43 0 0 717 717 717
Industrial 0.35 0.31 350 0 1,232 1,232 1,582
Total Non-Residential 691 471 3,557 4,029 4,719
Total Trips 6,915 1,190 6,209 7,398 14,313
Source: Fehr & Peers; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

New Trips per Unit
/ 1,000 Sq. Ft.1
[1] Trip generation rates from Fehr & Peers traffic modeling, see Appendix B. [2] Commercial includes retail uses with relatively low trip generation rates. [3] Multiplies growth values by relevant New Trips per Unit / 1,000 Sq. Ft. values.

Rest of City (RoC)
Packet Page 728 of 798Attachment 2 Page 28 of 50

Citywide Transportation Impact Fee and Park Impact Fee Update Report – June 10, 2022

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 28
An average cost per trip is derived for both the Citywide-Serving Projects cost and the portion of the NE Area Projects cost allocated to Rest of City development by dividing these costs by the trip generation totals both Citywide and for the Rest of City (Non-Northeast Area) development.

For the Citywide-Serving Project portion, the total cost for citywide-serving transportation projects derived in Table 10 (less the seven percent attributable to existing growth / growth outside of Fairfield) is divided by the total trip generation from all new development citywide (per Table 11) to arrive at the average per-trip cost of $6,994 shown in Table 12. For the NE Area Project portion, the cost of NE Area Projects that are attributed to Rest of City growth from Table 10 is divided by the new trips generated from Rest of City growth (Table 11) to arrive at the average per-trip cost of $8,085 for NE Area Projects in Table 12.

Table 12 Average Cost per Trip – Citywide and NE Area Projects

Item Citywide Projects NE Area Projects
Total CIP Cost $100,112,871 1 $59,812,052 2
New Trips Generated by
Projected Area Growth3 14,313 7,398
Average Cost per Trip $6,994 $8,085
Source: Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
[1] Per Table 10. Represents total Citywide-Serving Project costs allocated to total citywide growth. Excludes the $7,823,253 allocated to Existing Development / Growth from Outside Fairfield and excluded from Fee Program.
[3] Per Table 11.
[2] Per Table 10. Represents total Northeast Area Project costs allocated to Rest of City (Non- Northeast Area) development.

Packet Page 729 of 798Attachment 2 Page 29 of 50

Citywide Transportation Impact Fee and Park Impact Fee Update Report – June 10, 2022

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 29
Step 5: Derive Citywide Development Fee Levels Based on Trips by Land Use Trip generation rates are a typical measure of demand for new transportation infrastructure (see Appendix B for details on trip generation rates by land use category). There are three separate zones in the City with varying fee levels – The Northeast Area, the Heart of Fairfield (HoF), and the Rest of City (RoC). The Rest of City (RoC) area, which includes all development that is outside both the NE Area and the HoF, is addressed first. The average costs per trip derived in Table 12 are carried into Table 13 where they are multiplied by each land use category’s specified trip generation rate. For each single-family unit built in the RoC area, the maximum nexus-justified fee level is $15,079, comprised of $6,994 for Citywide-Serving Projects and $8,085 for the RoC’s portion of NE Area Projects.

Table 13 Maximum Citywide Fee for Rest of City (RoC) Development

Table 14 below uses the same logic described above to derive the maximum Citywide fee results for developments built in the NE Area. Note that only the Citywide Fee portion for NE Area development is shown below, as the NE Area Project-based Fee for NE Area development is documented in a separate NE Area Fee Report, so the fee burden shown is not the total maximum transportation fee burden that can be charged to NE Area development.

New Trips
per Unit /Citywide Project NE Area Project Total Transportation Development Type 1,000 Sq. Ft.1 (Base) Portion2 Portion2 Fee Burden Baseline Cost per Trip3 $6,994 $8,085
Residential (Per Unit)
Single-Family 1.00 $6,994 $8,085 $15,079
Multifamily 0.56 $3,917 $4,527 $8,444
Nonresidential (Per Sq. Ft.)
Retail 10.38 $72.60 $83.92 $156.52
Commercial 2.02 $14.13 $16.33 $30.46
Office/ Medical 1.63 $11.40 $13.18 $24.58
Industrial 0.35 $2.45 $2.83 $5.28
Source: Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

Maximum Fees for RoC Development (Non-HoF)
[2] Values in this column derived by multiplying the Baseline Cost per Trip by each land use category's specific trip generation rate.

Note that Nonresidential trip generation rates are per-1,000 square feet but maximum fee levels shown are converted to a per- square foot basis.
[3] Per Table 12.
[1] Trip generation rates from Fehr & Peers traffic modeling, see Appendix B.

Packet Page 730 of 798Attachment 2 Page 30 of 50

Citywide Transportation Impact Fee and Park Impact Fee Update Report – June 10, 2022

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 30
Table 14 Maximum Citywide Fees for Northeast Area Development

As shown in Table 14, the maximum Citywide Fee portion from citywide-serving projects is the same for developments built both in the Northeast Area and the RoC at $6,994 per Single-Family unit. Table 15 demonstrates the maximum Citywide Transportation Fee for developments built in the Heart of Fairfield (HoF) area. The same baseline costs per trip are used, and with the lower trip generation rates attributable to HoF development due to their TOD discount, the maximum fee levels are subsequently lower. The total maximum transportation fee burden for a Single-Family unit built in the HoF is $13,269, consisting of $6,155 from the Citywide Project portion and $7,114 from the NE Area Project portion.

New Trips per Unit
Development Type / 1,000 Sq. Ft.1 Citywide Project (Base) Portion2 Baseline Cost per Trip3 $6,994
Residential (Per Unit)
Single-Family 1.00 $6,994
Multifamily 0.56 $3,917
Nonresidential (Per Sq. Ft.)
Retail 10.38 $72.60
Commercial 2.02 $14.13
Office/ Medical 1.63 $11.40
Industrial 0.35 $2.45
Maximum Citywide Transportation
Fees for NE Area Development
[3] Per Table 12.

Source: Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
[1] Trip generation rates from Fehr & Peers traffic modeling, see Appendix B. [2] Values in this column derived by multiplying the Baseline Cost per Trip by each land use category's specific trip generation rate. Note that Nonresidential trip generation rates are per-1,000 square feet but maximum fee levels shown are converted to a per-square foot basis.

Packet Page 731 of 798Attachment 2 Page 31 of 50

Citywide Transportation Impact Fee and Park Impact Fee Update Report – June 10, 2022

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 31
Table 15 Maximum Citywide Fees for Heart of Fairfield (HoF) Development

New Trips
per Unit /Citywide Project NE Area Project Total Transportation Development Type 1,000 Sq. Ft.1 (Base) Portion2 Portion2 Fee Burden Baseline Cost per Trip3 $6,994 $8,085
Residential (Per Unit)
Single-Family 0.88 $6,155 $7,114 $13,269
Multifamily 0.49 $3,447 $3,984 $7,431
Nonresidential (Per Sq. Ft.)
Retail 9.13 $63.89 $73.85 $137.74
Commercial 1.78 $12.43 $14.37 $26.80
Office/ Medical 1.43 $10.03 $11.60 $21.63
Industrial 0.31 $2.15 $2.49 $4.64
Maximum Fees for HoF Development
[1] Trip generation rates from Fehr & Peers traffic modeling, see Appendix B. [2] Values in this column derived by multiplying the Baseline Cost per Trip by each land use category's specific trip generation rate.

Note that Nonresidential trip generation rates are per-1,000 square feet but maximum fee levels shown are converted to a per- square foot basis.
[3] Per Table 12.

Source: Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

Packet Page 732 of 798Attachment 2 Page 32 of 50

Citywide Transportation Impact Fee and Park Impact Fee Update Report – June 10, 2022

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 32
Proposed Citywide Transportation Fees
Cities can choose to set fees at a rate equal to or lower than the maximum justifiable fees in order to advance policy objectives (e.g., to lessen the cost burden of fees on certain types of new development). To the extent the City does charge fees below the maximum allowable levels (without reducing service standards or removing capital improvements), the City will need to use other sources of funding.

City staff provided direction on when fees should be reduced below the maximum levels based on funding and policy considerations. Those cases included limiting fees on certain non- residential uses where the maximum fees could cause development feasibility issues as well as limiting the level of development impact fees charged to new development in the Heart of Fairfield Specific Plan area. Where non-residential fee increases were constrained below the maximum level, City staff proposed that increases be limited to 7.3 percent.5 Unlike in 2013, the 2022 Update proposes to charge new residential development in the Rest of the City its maximum allowable contribution to Northeast Area improvements through the Citywide transportation impact fee.

City staff direction on proposed fee levels and the associated differences between maximum justifiable fees and proposed fees are described below.

Proposed Fee Levels for Rest of City (RoC) Development
For developments built in the RoC (outside of the Heart of Fairfield), the proposed fee levels for residential developments are set at the maximum allowable levels. At present, developments in the RoC do not contribute to NE Area transportation improvement projects, though the new proposed fee levels envision charging the full allowable NE Area project portion fees to these developments. The proposed fee levels for non-industrial commercial land uses (Retail, Commercial, and Office/ Medical) and Manufacturing are set at a 7.3 percent increase over current levels. The Warehouse/Distribution/Speculative (WDS) proposed fee levels are set at the maximum allowable levels.

Proposed Fee Levels for Heart of Fairfield (HoF) Development Fee levels for residential development built in the HoF are proposed to decrease by 24 percent for single-family and 35 percent for multifamily uses over current fee levels. These decreases are the result of: (1) the lower trip generation rates associated with new development in the HoF; and (2) a policy decision to not charge the portion of the fees that help fund NE Area transportation improvement projects to new HoF development. Proposed fee levels for all non- industrial commercial uses are proposed to be unchanged and set at the current existing fee levels. Proposed fee levels for WDS uses are set at the full maximum allowable fee burden, while the proposed fee levels for Manufacturing uses increase by the same 7.3 percent over existing levels as described in the above paragraph.

5 The 2022 Northeast Area Fee Update (under separate cover) identified a maximum Northeast Area fee increase of 7.3 percent for new single-family development; City staff proposes limiting increases in selected Citywide non-residential fees to this same level of increase.

Packet Page 733 of 798Attachment 2 Page 33 of 50

Citywide Transportation Impact Fee and Park Impact Fee Update Report – June 10, 2022

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 33
Proposed Fee Levels for Northeast Area Development
In the Northeast Area, proposed fee levels for residential developments are set at the maximum allowable levels. The proposed fee levels for non-industrial commercial land uses (Retail, Commercial, and Office/ Medical) are set at a 7.3 percent increase over current levels, which is well below the maximum allowable levels. The Warehouse/Distribution/Speculative (WDS) and Manufacturing proposed fee levels are set at the maximum allowable levels. As noted previously, the additional Northeast Area fee component of the Citywide transportation fee does not apply to new Northeast Area development as it covers its obligation to those improvements through the separate 2022 Northeast Area fee (developed under separate cover/ nexus study).

Table 16, Table 17, and Table 18 report the current fees, maximum supportable fees based on nexus criteria, proposed fees based on City policy direction, and the percent change these proposed fees represent from the current fees for each development area in the City. Table 16 shows these values for developments built in the Rest of City (Non-HoF outside of the NE Area), Table 17 shows values for Heart of Fairfield development, and Table 18 for Northeast Area development. Note that the fee levels shown for the Northeast Area represent only the Citywide Fee portion charged to Northeast Area Development and are not reflective of their total fee burden. These developments will also be charged a Northeast Area Fee in addition to the values shown in Table 18 which are documented in a separate report.

Figure 5 illustrates the current, maximum, and proposed Citywide transportation fees for single- family residential development in all three areas of the City. Note the Northeast Area values shown in Figure 5 represent only the Citywide portion of transportation impact fees charged to developments in the Northeast Area - the total fee burden for Northeast Area developments also includes an additional Northeast Area fee which is documented in a separate report.

Note that in the tables below, the Industrial development type has been split into either Warehouse / Distribution / Speculative (WDS) or Manufacturing. This split is based on further policy direction from the City, and the proposed fees for these new land uses are based on the nexus criteria for the overarching Industrial category.

Packet Page 734 of 798Attachment 2 Page 34 of 50

Citywide Transportation Impact Fee and Park Impact Fee Update Report – June 10, 2022

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 34
Table 16 Current, Maximum, and Proposed Transportation Fees – Rest of City Development (Non-HoF)

Rest of City (RoC)Base NE Area Total Fee Base NE Area Total Fee Base NE Area Total Fee Current to Current to Development Type Portion Portion Burden Portion Portion Burden Portion Portion Burden Maximum Proposed Residential (Per Unit)
Single-Family $8,112 $0 $8,112 $6,994 $8,085 $15,079 $6,994 $8,085 $15,079 86% 86% Multifamily $5,276 $0 $5,276 $3,917 $4,527 $8,444 $3,917 $4,527 $8,444 60% 60% Nonresidential (Per Sq. Ft.)
Retail $18.69 $0.00 $18.69 $72.60 $83.92 $156.52 $20.05 $0.00 $20.05 737%7% Commercial $7.51 $0.00 $7.51 $14.13 $16.33 $30.46 $8.06 $0.00 $8.06 306%7% Office/ Medical $4.54 $0.00 $4.54 $11.40 $13.18 $24.58 $4.87 $0.00 $4.87 441%7% Industrial $3.17 $0.00 $3.17 $2.45 $2.83 $5.28 - - -
WDS4 - - - - - -$2.45 $2.83 $5.28 66% 66%
Manufacturing - - - - - -$2.45 $0.95 $3.40 66%7%
Source: City of Fairfield; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. [3] Based on policy direction from City of Fairfield.

Current Fees1 Maximum Fees2 Proposed Fees3
[4] Warehouse / Distribution / Speculative. This and the Manufacturing development type create two subcategories into which new Industrial developments will be grouped. % Change: Total Fee Burden
[1] Per City of Fairfield Development Department Fees Effective April 1, 2021. [2] Maximum fees as reported in Table 13.

Packet Page 735 of 798Attachment 2 Page 35 of 50

Citywide Transportation Impact Fee and Park Impact Fee Update Report – June 10, 2022

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 35
Table 17 Current, Maximum, and Proposed Transportation Fees – Heart of Fairfield (HoF) Development Heart of Fairfield (HoF)Base NE Area Total Fee Base NE Area Total Fee Base NE Area Total Fee Current to Current to Development Type Portion Portion Burden Portion Portion Burden Portion Portion Burden Maximum Proposed Residential (Per Unit)
Single-Family $8,112 $0 $8,112 $6,155 $7,114 $13,269 $6,155 $0 $6,155 64% -24% Multifamily $5,276 $0 $5,276 $3,447 $3,984 $7,431 $3,447 $0 $3,447 41% -35% Nonresidential (Per Sq. Ft.)
Retail $18.69 $0.00 $18.69 $63.89 $73.85 $137.74 $18.69 $0.00 $18.69 637%0% Commercial $7.51 $0.00 $7.51 $12.43 $14.37 $26.80 $7.51 $0.00 $7.51 257%0% Office/ Medical $4.54 $0.00 $4.54 $10.03 $11.60 $21.63 $4.54 $0.00 $4.54 376%0% Industrial $3.17 $0.00 $3.17 $2.15 $2.49 $4.64 - - -
WDS4 - - - - - -$2.15 $2.49 $4.64 47% 47%
Manufacturing - - - - - -$2.15 $1.25 $3.40 47%7%
[3] Based on policy direction from City of Fairfield.
[4] Warehouse / Distribution / Speculative. This and the Manufacturing development type create two subcategories into which new Industrial developments will be grouped.

Source: City of Fairfield; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

Current Fees1 Maximum Fees2 Proposed Fees3 % Change: Total Fee Burden [1] Per City of Fairfield Development Department Fees Effective April 1, 2021. [2] Maximum fees as reported in Table 15.

Packet Page 736 of 798Attachment 2 Page 36 of 50

Citywide Transportation Impact Fee and Park Impact Fee Update Report – June 10, 2022

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 36
Table 18 Current, Maximum, and Proposed Citywide Transportation Fees – Northeast Area Development

Northeast Area Current to Current to
Development Type Current Fees1 Maximum Fees2 Proposed Fees3 Maximum Proposed Residential (Per Unit)
Single-Family $8,112 $6,994 $6,994 -14% -14%
Multifamily $5,276 $3,917 $3,917 -26% -26%
Nonresidential (Per Sq. Ft.)
Retail $18.69 $72.60 $20.05 288%7%
Commercial $7.51 $14.13 $8.06 88%7%
Office/ Medical $4.54 $11.40 $4.87 151%7%
Industrial $3.17 $2.45 -
WDS5 --$2.45 -23% -23%
Manufacturing --$2.45 -23% -23%
% Change: Citywide Fees
[3] Based on policy direction from City of Fairfield.
[4] Warehouse / Distribution / Speculative. This and the Manufacturing development type create two subcategories into which new Industrial developments will be grouped.

Source: City of Fairfield; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. [1] Per City of Fairfield Development Department Fees Effective April 1, 2021. [2] Maximum fees as reported in Table 14.

Packet Page 737 of 798Attachment 2 Page 37 of 50

Citywide Transportation Impact Fee and Park Impact Fee Update Report – June 10, 2022

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 37
Figure 5 Current, Maximum, and Proposed Citywide Fee Burdens per Single- Family Residential Unit

Other Funding Required
The transportation program for Citywide and Northeast projects totals $419 million. Figure 6 illustrates the various allocations of that amount and identifies additional funding that is needed, with the bars showing the following (from left to right):
• Total program is $418 million.
• $130 million has already been identified from other funding sources, leaving $287 million. • $120 million is allocated to the Northeast Fee Program (see separate report), of which $113 million is anticipated in revenue from the proposed Northeast Fee levels, leaving $175 million.
• $119 million is expected in revenue from the proposed Citywide transportation fees. • $56 million in costs are identified as needing additional funding. $0
$2,000
$4,000
$6,000
$8,000
$10,000
$12,000
$14,000
$16,000
Rest of City Northeast Area Heart of Fairfield
Current Maximum Proposed
Packet Page 738 of 798Attachment 2 Page 38 of 50

Citywide Transportation Impact Fee and Park Impact Fee Update Report – June 10, 2022

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 38
Figure 6 Total Program, Identified Funding, and Funding Needed (millions)

Figure 7 illustrates this same concept but in pie chart format which shows the relative proportions of costs. The City intends to raise the additional funding required over time from a range of sources, including the pursuit of additional State and federal transportation funding.

Figure 7 Illustration of $418 Million Program, by Funding Source

$418
$287
$175
$56
$130
$243
$362
$0
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
$300
$350
$400
$450
Total Program Identified Funding ID'ed + Northeast Fee
Funding
ID'ed + Northeast + Citywide
Fee Funding
Total Program and Funding Needs Additional Funding Needed Funding Source Known Total
Program
Identified
Funding ID'ed +
NE Fee
Funding
ID'ed +
NE Fee +
Citywide
Fee
Funding
Identified Other
Funding,
$130.2,
31%
Northeast Fee
Funding,
$112.6,
27%
Citywide Fee
Funding,
$118.7,
29%
Other Funding
Needed,
$56.1,
13%
$418 million in gross costs.

Packet Page 739 of 798Attachment 2 Page 39 of 50

APPENDIX A:

Comprehensive List of Transportation Projects
Packet Page 740 of 798Attachment 2 Page 40 of 50

Improvement Segment Costs Net Costs
Cost Previously Regional/Grant Developer Total Identified Citywide Rest of NE Area General Citywide Rest of NE Area General Allocated Funding Share Funding AB 1600 City NE AB 1600 City AB 1600 City NE AB 1600 City

NE AREA ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS
1 MANUEL CAMPOS PARKWAY DOVER TO MYSTIC 1 $63,000 $63,000 $0 0%$63,000 $0 0%33%67%0%$0 $0 $0 $0 2 MYSTIC TO DICKSON HILL - PHASE 1 1 $7,348,991 $6,529,466 $0 0%$6,529,466 $819,525 0%33%67%0%$0 $273,175 $546,350 $0 3 MYSTIC TO DICKSON HILL - PHASE 2 1 $1,909,000 $1,909,000 $0 0%$1,909,000 $0 0%33%67%0%$0 $0 $0 $0 4 DICKSON HILL TO CLAY BANK - WEST BOUND LANES $2,592,000 $0 $0 0%$0 $2,592,000 0%33%67%0%$0 $864,000 $1,728,000 $0 5 CLAY BANK TO PORTLAND DRIVE - PHASE 1 $2,287,000 $0 $0 0%$0 $2,287,000 0%33%67%0%$0 $762,333 $1,524,667 $0 6 CLAY BANK TO PORTLAND DRIVE - PHASE 2 $1,130,000 $0 $0 0%$0 $1,130,000 0%33%67%0%$0 $376,667 $753,333 $0 7 PORTLAND DRIVE TO WALTERS - PHASE 1 $10,631,000 $0 $0 0%$0 $10,631,000 0%33%67%0%$0 $3,543,667 $7,087,333 $0 8 PORTLAND DRIVE TO WALTERS - PHASE 2 $4,592,000 $0 $0 0%$0 $4,592,000 0%33%67%0%$0 $1,530,667 $3,061,333 $0 9 PORTLAND DRIVE TO WALTERS - PHASE 3 $290,000 $0 $0 0%$0 $290,000 0%33%67%0%$0 $96,667 $193,333 $0 10 WALTERS TO NOONAN - PHASE 1 $10,683,000 $0 $0 0%$0 $10,683,000 0%33%67%0%$0 $3,561,000 $7,122,000 $0 11 WALTERS TO NOONAN - PHASE 2 $4,838,000 $0 $0 0%$0 $4,838,000 0%33%67%0%$0 $1,612,667 $3,225,333 $0 12 NOONAN TO PEABODY $4,075,000 $0 $0 0%$0 $4,075,000 0%33%67%0%$0 $1,358,333 $2,716,667 $0 13 RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION $1,250,000 $0 $0 0%$0 $1,250,000 0%33%67%0%$0 $416,667 $833,333 $0 SUBTOTAL MANUEL CAMPOS PARKWAY $51,688,991 $8,501,466 $0 $8,501,466 $43,187,525 $0 $14,395,842 $28,791,684 $0 14 VANDEN ROAD PEABODY TO WEST COLLECTOR (INTERSECTION #68) 1 $3,543,000 $3,543,000 $0 0%$3,543,000 $0 0%33%67%0%$0 $0 $0 $0 15 WEST COLLECTOR TO LAKE ENTRANCE (INTERSECTION #41) 1 $9,433,000 $9,433,000 $0 0%$9,433,000 $0 0%33%67%0%$0 $0 $0 $0 16 LAKE SIGNAL TO PHASE 2A LIMIT 1 $7,852,000 $7,852,000 $0 0%$7,852,000 $0 0%33%67%0%$0 $0 $0 $0 17 PHASE 2A LIMIT TO SOUTH SIDE OF EMBANKMENT 2 $7,683,000 $210,642 $0 0%$210,642 $7,472,358 0%33%67%0%$0 $2,490,786 $4,981,572 $0 18 SOUTH SIDE OF EMBANKMENT TO NEW CANON 2 $6,554,000 $179,689 $0 0%$179,689 $6,374,311 0%33%67%0%$0 $2,124,770 $4,249,541 $0 19 NEW CANON TO NORTH SIDE OF EMBANKMENT 2 $16,007,000 $438,858 $0 0%$438,858 $15,568,142 0%33%67%0%$0 $5,189,381 $10,378,761 $0 20 NORTH SIDE OF EMBANKMENT TO CITY LIMIT 2 $6,674,000 $1,982,979 $0 0%$1,982,979 $4,691,021 0%33%67%0%$0 $1,563,674 $3,127,348 $0 SUBTOTAL VANDEN ROAD $57,746,000 $23,640,167 $0 $23,640,167 $34,105,833 $0 $11,368,611 $22,737,222 $0 21 PEABODY ROAD AIR BASE PARKWAY TO DOBE LANE 1 $2,111,000 $2,111,000 $0 0%$2,111,000 $0 0%33%67%0%$0 $0 $0 $0 22 DOBE LANE TO HUNTINGTON $2,250,000 $0 $0 0%$0 $2,250,000 0%33%67%0%$0 $750,000 $1,500,000 $0 23 HUNTINGTON TO NEW MARKELEY $2,093,000 $1,569,750 $0 0%$1,569,750 $523,250 0%33%67%0%$0 $174,417 $348,833 $0 24 NEW MARKELEY TO VANDEN $87,000 $0 $0 0%$0 $87,000 0%33%67%0%$0 $29,000 $58,000 $0 25 UPRR OVERCROSSING 1 $5,841,000 $5,841,000 $0 0%$5,841,000 $0 0%33%67%0%$0 $0 $0 $0 26 VANDEN TO 350' PAST VANDEN $1,098,000 $0 $0 0%$0 $1,098,000 0%33%67%0%$0 $366,000 $732,000 $0 27 350' PAST VANDEN TO INTERSECTION #44 $2,082,000 $0 $0 0%$0 $2,082,000 0%33%67%0%$0 $694,000 $1,388,000 $0 28 INTERSECTION #44 TO INTERSECTION #45 $3,534,000 $0 $0 0%$0 $3,534,000 0%33%67%0%$0 $1,178,000 $2,356,000 $0 29 INTERSECTION #45 TO LINEAR PARK $2,650,000 $0 $0 0%$0 $2,650,000 0%33%67%0%$0 $883,333 $1,766,667 $0 30 LINEAR PARK TO PUTAH SOUTH CANAL $236,000 $0 $0 0%$0 $236,000 0%33%67%0%$0 $78,667 $157,333 $0 31 PUTAH SOUTH CANAL BRIDGE $3,416,000 $0 $0 0%$0 $3,416,000 0%33%67%0%$0 $1,138,667 $2,277,333 $0 32 PUTAH SOUTH CANAL BRIDGE TO CHUCK HAMMOND DRIVE $1,266,000 $0 $0 0%$0 $1,266,000 0%33%67%0%$0 $422,000 $844,000 $0 33 CHUCK HAMMOND DRIVE TO McAVENIA DRIVEWAY $717,000 $0 $0 0%$0 $717,000 0%33%67%0%$0 $239,000 $478,000 $0 34 McAVENIA DRIVEWAY TO NEW CANON ROAD $3,252,000 $0 $0 0%$0 $3,252,000 0%33%67%0%$0 $1,084,000 $2,168,000 $0 35 NEW CANON ROAD TO CITY LIMITS $5,130,000 $0 $0 0%$0 $5,130,000 0%33%67%0%$0 $1,710,000 $3,420,000 $0 36 RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION $1,250,000 $0 $0 0%$0 $1,250,000 0%33%67%0%$0 $416,667 $833,333 $0 SUBTOTAL PEABODY ROAD $37,013,000 $9,521,750 $0 $0 $9,521,750 $27,491,250 $0 $5 $11 $0 $0 $9,163,750 $18,327,500 $0 37 NEW CANON ROAD PEABODY TO PUTAH SOUTH CANAL $6,605,000 $0 $0 0%$0 $6,605,000 0%33%67%0%$0 $2,201,667 $4,403,333 $0 38 PUTAH SOUTH CANAL TO RESIDENTIAL COLLECTOR $5,652,000 $0 $0 0%$0 $5,652,000 0%33%67%0%$0 $1,884,000 $3,768,000 $0 39 RESIDENTIAL COLLECTOR TO VANDEN $4,365,000 $0 $0 0%$0 $4,365,000 0%33%67%0%$0 $1,455,000 $2,910,000 $0 40 VANDEN TO McCRORY (INTERSECTION #39)$36,017,000 $0 $0 0%$0 $36,017,000 0%33%67%0%$0 $12,005,667 $24,011,333 $0 41 McCRORY TO END OF INDUSTRIAL $5,130,000 $0 $0 100%$5,130,000 $0 0%33%67%0%$0 $0 $0 $0 42 END OF INDUSTRIAL TO NORTHGATE $5,161,000 $0 $0 0%$0 $5,161,000 0%33%67%0%$0 $1,720,333 $3,440,667 $0 SUBTOTAL NEW CANON ROAD $62,930,000 $0 $0 $5,130,000 $57,800,000 $0 $19,266,667 $38,533,333 $0 43 McCRORY ROAD EXTENSION NEW CANON TO INDUSTRIAL $8,591,000 $0 $0 0%$0 $8,591,000 0%33%67%0%$0 $2,863,667 $5,727,333 $0 44 INDUSTRIAL TO OLD McCRORY ROAD $5,807,000 $0 $0 100%$5,807,000 $0 0%33%67%0%$0 $0 $0 $0 SUBTOTAL McCRORY ROAD EXTENSION $14,398,000 $0 $0 $5,807,000 $8,591,000 $0 $2,863,667 $5,727,333 $0 45 WALTERS ROAD AIR BASE PARKWAY TO MANUEL CAMPOS PARKWAY 3 N/A SUBTOTAL WALTERS ROAD $0 $0
46 NE AREA TRAFFIC SIGNALS VARIOUS LOCATIONS (17)$8,260,547 $0 $0 0%$0 $8,260,547 0%33%67%0%$0 $2,753,516 $5,507,031 $0 SUBTOTAL NE AREA TRAFFIC SIGNALS $8,260,547 $0 $0 $0 $8,260,547 $0 $2,753,516 $5,507,031 $0 $232,036,538 $41,663,383 $0 $52,600,383 $179,436,155 $0 $59,812,052 $119,624,104 $0

CITYWIDE ROADWAYS
47 WEST TEXAS BECK TO PENNSYLVANIA - COMPLETE STREETS $17,230,000 $516,900 $10,920,000 0%$11,436,900 $5,793,100 97%0%0%3%$5,619,307 $0 $0 $173,793 48 NORTH CONNECTOR WEST SEGMENT 4 N/A $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
SUBTOTAL - CITYWIDE ROADWAYS $17,230,000 $516,900 $10,920,000 $11,436,900 $5,793,100 $5,619,307 $0 $0 $173,793

INTERSECTIONS
49 AIR BASE PARKWAY AT WALTERS $1,317,500 $0 $0 0%$0 $1,317,500 72%0%0%28%$948,600 $0 $0 $368,900 50 AIR BASE PARKWAY AT CLAYBANK $144,925 $144,925 $0 0%$144,925 $0 89%0%0%11%$0 $0 $0 $0 51 AIR BASE PARKWAY AT DOVER $8,807,000 $0 $0 0%$0 $8,807,000 83%0%0%17%$7,309,810 $0 $0 $1,497,190 SUBTOTAL - INTERSECTIONS $10,269,425 $144,925 $0 $144,925 $10,124,500 $8,258,410 $0 $0 $1,866,090

INTERCHANGES
52 SR12 AT RED TOP/NORTH CONNECTOR 4 $75,413,000 $0 $59,247,000 0%$59,247,000 $16,166,000 65%0%0%35%$10,507,900 $0 $0 $5,658,100 53 I80 AT GREEN VALLEY ROAD $10,400,000 $4,136,500 $0 0%$4,136,500 $6,263,500 98%0%0%2%$6,138,230 $0 $0 $125,270 54 I80 AT SUISUN VALLEY ROAD $16,532,000 $0 $0 0%$0 $16,532,000 100%0%0%0%$16,532,000 $0 $0 $0 SUBTOTAL - INTERCHANGES $102,345,000 $4,136,500 $59,247,000 $63,383,500 $38,961,500 $33,178,130 $0 $0 $5,783,370

TRAFFIC SIGNALS
55 ARTERIAL/ARTERIAL NEW (3)$1,950,000 $0 $0 0%$0 $1,950,000 100%0%0%0%$1,950,000 $0 $0 $0 56 ARTERIAL/ARTERIAL MODIFY EXISTING (2)$1,218,750 $0 $0 0%$0 $1,218,750 100%0%0%0%$1,218,750 $0 $0 $0 57 ATERIAL/COLLECTOR NEW (8)$4,680,000 $0 $0 25%$1,170,000 $3,510,000 100%0%0%0%$3,510,000 $0 $0 $0 58 ATERIAL/COLLECTOR MODIFY EXISTING (1)$457,031 $0 $0 25%$114,258 $342,773 100%0%0%0%$342,773 $0 $0 $0 59 COLLECTOR/COLLECTOR NEW (2)$1,105,000 $0 $0 50%$552,500 $552,500 100%0%0%0%$552,500 $0 $0 $0 60 ITS CITYWIDE $46,283,000 $0 $800,000 0%$800,000 $45,483,000 100%0%0%0%$45,483,000 $0 $0 $0 SUBTOTAL - TRAFFIC SIGNALS $55,693,781 $0 $800,000 $2,636,758 $53,057,023 $53,057,023 $0 $0 $0 $185,538,207 $4,798,325 $70,967,000 $77,602,083 $107,936,124 $100,112,871 $0 $0 $7,823,253 GRAND TOTAL $417,574,745 $46,461,708 $70,967,000 $130,202,466 $287,372,279 $100,112,871 $59,812,052 $119,624,104 $7,823,253 (1)Project has been assigned or completed.
(2)A portion of the project has been assigned or completed. (3)Due to the loss of regional funding and the cost of this project, it has been deleted from the project list. (4)Projects 48 and 52 have been combined by Caltrans into a single project; I80/680/12 Phase 5. Per Caltrans June 2019 Financial Plan, the local share for this grouping is $16.166 million with $6.9M to PS&E, $7M to ROW/Utilities, and $2,250 to Construction. Caltrans total estimated cost for this combined project is $75.413 million.

Identified Funding Sources Percent Cost Allocation Dollar Cost Allocation to:

TOTAL - NE AREA ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS

TOTAL - CITYWIDE IMPROVEMENTS
Packet Page 741 of 798Attachment 2 Page 41 of 50

APPENDIX B:

Traffic Model Detail (Fehr & Peers)
Packet Page 742 of 798Attachment 2 Page 42 of 50

100 Pringle Avenue | Suite 600 | Walnut Creek, CA 94596 | (925) 930-7100 | Fax (925) 933-7090 www.fehrandpeers.com
Memorandum

Date: January 26, 2022
To: Teifion Rice-Evans and Luke Foelsch, EPS
From: Ellen Poling and Mackenzie Watten, Fehr & Peers
Subject: Fairfield Traffic Impact Fee Program Update – Transportation Analysis WC20-3687
Introduction
The purpose of this memorandum is to describe technical work Fehr & Peers prepared in support of Fairfield’s updated traffic impact fee. Specifically, this memorandum documents the analytical approach for determining the nexus between the fees and the local transportation impacts created by anticipated development in Fairfield. The memo addresses the steps in the analytical process used to determine nexus, including identification of existing deficiencies, assumptions about existing and future land uses, categorization of transportation improvement projects, modeling procedures, and determination of fair-share contributions from new development. The most up-to-date versions of the available analytical tools and techniques were used to ensure the highest level of consistency with current standards.

Existing Deficiencies
Impact fees are intended to capture the fair-share contributions from new development to cover the costs associated with providing public facilities and services for that development. As such, the fees are not intended to correct existing deficiencies in the public facilities or services. In order to evaluate the current status of the City’s transportation system and determine whether there are any existing deficiencies at intersections or along roadway segments included in the fee program, the project team reviewed the most recent transportation studies conducted in the City, including the Heart of Fairfield Specific Plan EIR (2017), and requested deficiency information from city staff. This review and consultation indicated that none of the projects in the updated fee program have current deficiencies. Therefore, the nexus analysis for the fee update did not incorporate any existing deficiencies. A description of how deficiency analysis is incorporated into a nexus analysis is included as Attachment A, for information.

Packet Page 743 of 798Attachment 2 Page 43 of 50

Teifion Rice-Evans and Luke Foelsch
January 26, 2022

Page 2 of 6 ends

Land Use Assumptions
One of the key elements of the impact fee calculation is estimating the growth in land use between now and 2040. The City of Fairfield provided detailed growth forecasts for the entire city that were then allocated into traffic analysis zones (TAZ s) in the Fairfield Travel Demand Model.2 Table 1 shows the anticipated growth in Fairfield between 2020 and 2040, divided into the two geographic areas of the Northeast Area and the remainder of the City. The definitions of these areas were based on conversations with Fairfield staff to fairly allocate the cost of providing transportation infrastructure to new developments in different parts of the city, and the amounts of growth anticipated in the Northeast Area and in the Rest of the City were provided by City staff. Overall, Table 1 shows that the Northeast Area is expected to add 7,300 new housing units, one million square feet of industrial uses, and about 90,000 square feet of retail and commercial uses. The rest of the city, including the Heart of Fairfield Speci fic Plan area, is anticipated to add just under 5,000 housing units, about 3.5 million square feet of industrial uses, about 922,000 square feet of retail and commercial uses, and about 440,000 square feet of office and medical office uses.

Table 1: Projected Land Use Growth in Fairfield
Land Use Category Northeast Area Rest of City
Single Family Dwelling Units 4,779 1,547
Multi-Family Dwelling Units 2,581 3,430
Retail1 (1,000 square feet) 19.102 33.704
Office/Medical Office (1,000 square feet) 0 439.681
Service Commercial1 (1,000 square feet) 70.508 888.241
Industrial (1,000 square feet) 1,000 3,520.192
Note: 1 The Retail category includes high-trip-generating retail uses. The Service Commercial category contains low-trip- generating retail uses, hospitality uses such as hotels, and relatively low-volume services such as auto repair shops.

Source: City of Fairfield, EPS, and Fehr & Peers, March 2021.

In addition to growth within the city, additional growth in the nearby City of Suisun City was also accounted for. These growth forecasts were based on the model adjustments made as part of the Suisun City 2035 General Plan (2015). Also, through trips (that is, trips that pass through Fairfield but do not either begin or end in Fairfield) were estimated using the Fairfield Travel Demand Model.

2 TAZs are block-sized geographic areas that are used in the Fairfield Travel Demand Model to summarize existing and future land uses. There are approximately 400 TAZs in the model.

Packet Page 744 of 798Attachment 2 Page 44 of 50

Teifion Rice-Evans and Luke Foelsch
January 26, 2022

Page 3 of 6 ends

Transportation Improvement Projects
The City of Fairfield provided a comprehensive list of transportation improvement projects that are to be included in the updated impact fee program; these projects are listed in Table 2 (please see the fee program nexus report for the project costs and other details).

Table 2: Transportation Improvement Projects for Inclusion in Fee Program Project Description/Scope
Interchange Projects
I-80/SR 12 at Red Top Road/Business Center Drive Interchange I-80 at Green Valley Road Interchange
I-80 at Suisun Valley Road Interchange
Roadway Improvement Projects
Manuel Campos Parkway Dover Street to Peabody Road
Vanden Road Peabody Road to Fairfield City Limits
Peabody Road Air Base Parkway to Vanden Road
New Canon Road Vanden Road to North Gate Road
McCrory Road Extension New Canon Road to McCrory Road
West Texas Complete Streets Beck Avenue to Pennsylvania Avenue Intelligent Transportation Systems N/A
Intersection Improvement Projects
Air Base Parkway at Walters Road N/A
Air Base Parkway at Clay Bank Road N/A
Air Base Parkway at Dover Avenue N/A
New Signals N/A
Signal Upgrades N/A
Source: City of Fairfield, 2012.

Modeling Procedures
The Fairfield Travel Demand Model was updated as part of this work to reflect the 2020 land uses and network for the base year, in collaboration with City staff. The 2040 model was developed to include the land use growth and network improvements described above. Details about the travel demand forecasting model’s structure, assumptions, and limitations are described in the City of Fairfield Travel Demand Forecasting Model: Final Model Development Report (Fehr & Peers, 2011).

Packet Page 745 of 798Attachment 2 Page 45 of 50

Teifion Rice-Evans and Luke Foelsch
January 26, 2022

Page 4 of 6 ends

The travel demand forecasting model was run for the 2020 and 2040 scenarios to determine the share of growth in traffic volumes on all of the transportation facilities listed in Table 2 that is attributable to new development in Fairfield. The projects were divided into two sections: those that would be part of the Northeast Fee area, and those that would be part of the Citywide Fee area; please refer to the fee program nexus report for more information on the distinction between these two fee programs.

For those projects that are to be included in the Northeast Fee area, shown in Table 3, the travel model was used to determine the proportionate share of traffic usage on those facilities that was generated by new growth in the Northeast Area versus new gr owth in the rest of the City. It is important to note that the Northeast Area is currently relatively undeveloped, so the future infrastructure improvements are primarily planned to serve new growth in that area. As noted above, existing deficiencies were also considered, but no information on existing deficiencies was provided as part of this analysis. The projects in the Northeast Fee area had varied percentage share results between the Northeast area development and citywide development. Overall the findings support the retention of the uniform split of two-thirds (67%) Northeast Fee and one- third (33%) Citywide Fee to all of the projects listed in Table 3 , consistent with the findings for the 2013 fee nexus study.

Table 3: Northeast Fee Area Projects and Trip Percentages Project Location Description
Percentage Share Attributable to:

NE Fee
Area
City Fee
Area
Existing
Deficiency
Roadway Improvement Projects
Manuel Campos Parkway Dover Street to Peabody Road 67% 33% 0% Vanden Road Peabody Road to Fairfield City Limits 67% 33% 0% Peabody Road Air Base Parkway to Fairfield City Limits 67% 33% 0% New Canon Road Vanden Road to North Gate Road 67% 33% 0% McCrory Road Extension New Canon Road to McCrory Road 67% 33% 0% Source: Fehr & Peers, 2012
For those projects that are to be included in the Citywide fee program, shown in Table 4, the travel model was used to determine the proportionate share of tr affic usage on those facilities generated by new growth in the City and growth from outside of Fairfield. Because these percentage share results varied quite widely between different projects, it was decided to use the results in Table 4 directly for each individual project. Please refer to the fee program nexus report for more detail on how these percentage shares were applied in the fee calculations.

Packet Page 746 of 798Attachment 2 Page 46 of 50

Teifion Rice-Evans and Luke Foelsch
January 26, 2022

Page 5 of 6 ends

Table 4: Citywide Fee Area Projects and Trip Percentages Project Location Description
Percentage Share Attributable to:

Citywide
Growth
Existing
Deficiencies
Growth from
Outside Fairfield
Interchange Projects
I-80/SR 12 at Red Top Road Interchange 65% 0% 35%
I-80 at Green Valley Road Interchange 98% 0% 2%
I-80 at Suisun Valley Road Interchange 100% 0% 100%
Roadway Improvement Projects
West Texas Complete Streets N/A 97% 0% 3%
Intelligent Transportation Systems N/A 100% 0% 0%
Intersection Improvement Projects
Air Base Parkway at Walters Road N/A 72% 0% 28%
Air Base Parkway at Clay Bank Road N/A 89% 0% 11%
Air Base Parkway at Dover Avenue N/A 83% 0% 17%
New Signals N/A 100% 0% 0%
Signal Upgrades N/A 100% 0% 0%
Source: Fehr & Peers, March 2021
Trip Generation Equivalents
Impact fees are charged to a wide range of land use types, and there must be a mechanism by which the different land uses are treated equitably with respect to the burden each places on the transportation system. A common method to determine an equitable distribution of fees across land use types is by taking account of the trip generation rates and percentages of pass-by trips attributable to different land uses.

For the purposes of this evaluation, trip generation rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition were used to apportion the relative trip contribution potential of different land uses. Table 5 shows the PM peak hour trip generation rate for each land use category, as well as the percentage of new trips (as opposed to “pass-by” trips which are made opportunistically during a primary trip between origin and destination) attributable to each category from a commonly-accepted reference document on this subject, the San Diego Association of Governments Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates (April 2002). These figures are multiplied together to determine the number of new trips per unit of Packet Page 747 of 798Attachment 2 Page 47 of 50

Teifion Rice-Evans and Luke Foelsch
January 26, 2022

Page 6 of 6 ends

development for each of the standard land use categories (per dwelling unit for residential uses, and per thousand square feet for non-residential uses).

Table 5: Calculation of Trip Generation Equivalents by Land Use Category Land Use Unit1
PM Peak Hour
Trip Rate2
(a)
% New Trips3
(b)
New Trips per Unit
(a * b)
Single-Family Residential DU 1.00 100 1.00
Multi-Family Residential DU 0.56 100 0.56
Retail KSF 20.76 50 10.38
Office / Medical KSF 2.33 70 1.63
Service Commercial KSF 4.04 50 2.02
Industrial KSF 0.41 85 0.35
Notes:

DU = dwelling unit; KSF = thousands of square feet.

ITE, Trip Generation, 10th Edition. Rates referenced include: Single Family (Use 201); Multi-Family (Use 221); Retail (Use 820); Service Commercial (Uses 820, 848 and 857); Office/Medical Office (Uses 710 and 720); Industrial (Uses 110 and 150).

SANDAG Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates, April 2002.

Source: Fehr & Peers, March 2021.

Note that, for development in the Heart of Fairfield Specific Plan area, the dwelling unit equivalents were reduced by 12 percent to reflect the analysis conducted for that Specific Plan EIR, which indicated that the density and mixed-use characteristics of the Specific Plan development would reduce external vehicle trip making by 12 percent; i.e., those trips would be made by bus, walking of bicycling.

Conclusions
This memorandum summarizes the key technical approaches used to allocate the cost of the transportation improvements to the new development in the City of Fairfield. A method was presented to demonstrate a nexus between transportation projects and impact fees in the City. In addition, trip rates were calculated to assist in equitably distributing fees across land use categories. Application of the methodologies described in this memorandum will ensure that the transportation project costs are equitably distributed to different types of development in rela tion to their relative demands on the transportation system.

Attachment
A – Existing Deficiency Process in Nexus Studies

Packet Page 748 of 798Attachment 2 Page 48 of 50

ATTACHMENT A: EXISTING DEFICIENCY PROCESS IN NEXUS STUDIES Note: This overview references the current Fairfield General Plan (2002), because the General Plan Update had not started when the Fairfield Fee Update work was performed. As stated in the memorandum, no existing deficiencies were identified for this fee update cycle.

Impact fees are intended to capture the fair-share contributions from new development to cover the costs associated with providing public facilities and services for that development. As such, the fees are not intended to correct existing deficiencies in the public facilities or services. The following process describes how existing deficiencies are identified and extracted from the proportional share calculations in a nexus analysis.

To measure and describe the operational status of the local roadway network, transportation engineers and planners commonly use a grading system called level of service (LOS). Level of service is a description of a facility’s operation, ranging from LOS A (indicating free-flow traffic conditions with little or no delay) to LOS F (representing over-saturated conditions where traffic flows exceed design capacity, resulting in long queues and delays).

The City’s General Plan (June 2002) contains policy direction about what constitutes acceptable operations on the City’s street network. The policy direction states that it is the City’s desire to “maintain a PM peak hour level of service of ‘D’ or better for arterial streets, level of service ‘C’ or better for collector streets, and ‘B’ or better for local streets...” Given that the focus of the traffic impact fee is on arterial streets, the existing deficiency assessment would be based on the LOS D standard.

If an existing deficiency is identified, a methodology to account for the deficiency within the nexus calculation is applied. The basic elements of the existing deficiency calculation are summarized in the flowchart below.

Determine the volume of “excess”
traffic causing deficient operations
Calculate the growth in traffic
between existing and future
conditions
Determine the share of existing
“excess” traffic relative to new
growth
Exclude the share of “excess” traffic
from the fee calculation
Packet Page 749 of 798Attachment 2 Page 49 of 50

As shown in the flowchart on the preceding page, at project locations where there is an existing deficiency, the number of “excess” trips that causes the intersection to operate at LOS E or F is calculated.

The Synchro traffic operations software is typically used for excess traffic calculation. This number of excess trips is next added to the total number of new trips associated with land use growth between the base year and the forecast year at the subject location. Next, the share of existing deficiency traffic relative to new traffic growth is calculated. This existing deficiency traffic share is then excluded from the traffic impact fee so that new growth is not subject to paying for existing traffic deficiencies.

To help put the methodology described above into perspective, consider the following examples. In locations where there is no existing deficiency, all of the new development trip growth is allocated to the fee and therefore the entire project cost is attributable to new development (with the exception of any through trips). At locations with existing deficiencies, the existing deficiency share of new traffic growth is applied to the project cost and excluded from the fee. The graphic below uses a hypothetical example to demonstrate how the existing deficiency share is calculated.

Excess traffic causing
existing deficiency:
100 vehicles
Traffic growth from
new development:
100 vehicles
Total traffic:
200 vehicles
Existing deficiency
share:
100/200 = 50%
Packet Page 750 of 798Attachment 2 Page 50 of 50

EXHIBIT “B”

Revised Report
Northeast Area Development
Impact Fee Update
Packet Page 751 of 798Attachment 3 Page 1 of 48

Revised Report
Northeast Area Development
Impact Fee Update

Prepared for:

City of Fairfield

Prepared by:

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

In association with:

Coastland Civil Engineering
Fehr & Peers
CBG

June 10, 2022

EPS #191133
Packet Page 752 of 798Attachment 3 Page 2 of 48

Table of Contents

1. BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................... 5 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 5 Purpose ................................................................................................................. 6 Requirements of AB 1600 ......................................................................................... 6 Update Procedures and Use of Funds ......................................................................... 8 Content of This Nexus Report ................................................................................... 8

2. SUMMARY OF RESULTS ............................................................................................. 9 Northeast Area Transportation, Linear Park, and Greenbelt Preservation Impact Fees ....... 9 Northeast Subarea Fees ......................................................................................... 11

3. DEVELOPMENT FORECAST ........................................................................................ 12

4. NORTHEAST-WIDE TRANSPORTATION, LINEAR PARK AND GREENBELT PRESERVATION FEES ........... 14 Transportation and Linear Park Fees ........................................................................ 14 Greenbelt Fees ..................................................................................................... 27

5. SEWER, STORM DRAINAGE, AND SPECIFIC PLAN AREA FEES ............................................... 29 Sewer and Storm Drainage Fees ............................................................................. 29 Additional Train Station Specific Plan Fees ................................................................ 36

Appendix A: Traffic Model Detail (Fehr & Peers)

Packet Page 753 of 798Attachment 3 Page 3 of 48

List of Tables
Table 1 Maximum and Proposed Transportation, Linear Park, and Greenbelt Preservation Fees ........................................................................... 10 Table 2 Proposed Northeast-Area Sewer, Storm Drainage, and Other Fees ........................ 11 Table 3 Development Projections ................................................................................ 13 Table 4 Existing Development and 2040 Forecasted Development ................................... 13 Table 5 Transportation and Linear Park Total and Net Costs ............................................ 17 Table 6 Transportation and Linear Parks Allocation Factor Descriptions ............................. 18 Table 7 Cost Allocation to Fee Program ........................................................................ 19 Table 8 Total Trip Generation by 2040 ......................................................................... 20 Table 9 Average Cost per Trip – Northeast Area Developments ....................................... 21 Table 10 Aggregated Commercial Trip Generation Rate .................................................... 22 Table 11 Maximum Fee Calculation by Land Use Based on Trip Generation ......................... 23 Table 12 Linear Park Allocation: Persons per Unit Calculation ............................................ 24 Table 13 Linear Park Maximum Fee Calculation ............................................................... 25 Table 14 Maximum and Proposed Transportation and Linear Park Fees ............................... 26 Table 15 Greenbelt Preservation Fee Calculation ............................................................. 28 Table 16 Sewer and Storm Drainage Program Costs ........................................................ 32 Table 17 Sewer Maximum Fee/Proposed Fee .................................................................. 33 Table 18 Storm Drainage Maximum Fee/Proposed Fee ..................................................... 34 Table 19 Additional Specific Plan Capital Improvement Costs ............................................ 36 Table 20 Additional Specific Plan Capital Improvement Fees ............................................. 37 Table 21 Additional Specific Plan Planning Costs ............................................................. 38 Table 22 Additional Specific Plan Planning Costs Maximum/Proposed Fee ........................... 38

Packet Page 754 of 798Attachment 3 Page 4 of 48

List of Figures
Figure 1 Northeast Area Fee Boundary Map (Illustrative) ................................................. 14 Figure 2 Sewer Shed Fee Boundaries Map (Illustrative) ................................................... 30 Figure 3 Storm Drainage Fee Boundaries Map (Illustrative) .............................................. 31 Figure 4 TSSP Capital Improvement Fee Boundary Map (Illustrative) ................................ 35

Packet Page 755 of 798Attachment 3 Page 5 of 48

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 5

1. BACKGROUND
Introduction
This Report provides the 2022 update to the City of Fairfield Northeast Area Development Impact Fee (Northeast Area fee). The City’s prior transportation impact fee Northeast Area Nexus Study was completed in 2013. This update provides the technical documentation to support the update of the Northeast Area fees consistent with the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Section 66000). This Report covers a number of different fee categories including some fees covering new development throughout the Northeast Area and others associated with the Train Station Specific Plan (TSSP) Area or parts of it. Most of these fees will fund a range of major infrastructure improvements and public facilities required to serve new development in the Northeast Area of City. The TSSP preparation cost recovery fee, established under Government Code Section 65456(a), is also updated as is the greenbelt fee that is required under pertinent environmental law. The fee categories include:
1) Transportation
2) Linear parks
3) Greenbelt preservation
4) Sewer
5) Storm Drainage
6) Train Station Specific Plan Additional Capital Improvements 7) Train Station Specific Plan Preparation Fee
This updated Report identifies infrastructure, capital facilities, and other cost items for each fee category, estimates updated costs for each of these items, establishes the nexus for imposing a fee on new development in the Northeast Area to pay for its fair share of these costs, and calculates fees on new development based on project costs and anticipated development levels.

Note that the fees calculated in this Report are in addition to various citywide impact fees and fees of other agencies that will also apply to new development in the Northeast Area including:
• AB1600 Citywide fees for transportation, parks, urban design, and public facilities 1 • Parkland Dedication
• Bedroom Tax

1 A 2022 update to the Citywide Transportation Impact Fee has also been conducted. This report, under separate cover, establishes the updated Citywide Transportation Impact Fee. It is important to note that the updated Citywide transportation fee includes two components; a base fee that will apply to all new development in the City (including Northeast Area development) and a second component that will apply to new development outside of the Northeast Area that will ensure that this development contributes its fair share towards Northeast Area transportation improvements.

Packet Page 756 of 798Attachment 3 Page 6 of 48

Northeast Area Development Impact Fee Update
Report – June 10, 2022

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 6
• Water and Sewer connection fees
• School District facilities
• County facilities
Purpose
About a decade ago, the City of Fairfield developed the Train Station Specific Plan (TSSP) to respond to and support the plans for a new train station project along the Capitol Corridor 2 at the corner of Peabody Road at Vanden Road in Fairfield. The Specific Plan covers approximately 2,970 acres of land near the station. In addition to new development within the TSSP, the City has long planned for growth to occur elsewhere in the broader Northeast Area of Fairfield. To support growth in this area of the City, improvement to public infrastructure and facilities are needed along with other specific investments.

Since the new investments were and are needed primarily to serve new growth in the Northeast Area, the City established the Northeast Area fee to ensure new development in the Northeast covered its appropriate share of the required public infrastructure and capital facilities. This Report updates the set of fees established, under the Mitigation Fee Act, in 2014. As indicated below, some of these fees apply to all new development in the entire Northeast Areas while other fees apply to portions of new growth in the TSSP subarea only.

Fee Category Geographic Application
1) Transportation Northeast-wide
2) Linear parks Northeast-wide
3) Greenbelt Preservation Northeast-wide
4) Sewer Portion of the Northeast Area
5) Drainage Portion of the Northeast Area
6) Train Station Specific Plan Additional
Capital Improvements
All of TSSP subarea
7) Train Station Specific Plan Preparation Fee All of TSSP subarea R equirements of AB 1600
The updated Northeast Area development impact fees – transportation, linear parks, sewer, drainage, and additional TSSP capital improvements - if approved, will be adopted by the City Council as a resolution under the City’s general police powers and under the Mitigation Fee Act Government Code Section 66000 et seq. established by AB 1600 in 1988. The Mitigation Fee Act

2 The Capitol Corridor is an intercity passenger train service with 17 stations in eight Northern California counties from Auburn, Placer County through Fairfield, Solano, County and south to San Jose in Santa Clara County. The Fairfield station opened in November 2017.

Packet Page 757 of 798Attachment 3 Page 7 of 48

Northeast Area Development Impact Fee Update
Report – June 10, 2022

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 7
applies to all local agencies, as defined in Government Code section 66000(c), to include cities (both general law and chartered), counties, special districts, school districts, other municipal public corporations, and political subdivisions of the State. The legislation was drafted to establish a uniform process for formulating, adopting, imposing, collecting, accounting for, and protesting fees. The Mitigation Fee Act describes necessary actions and limits associated with establishing nexus, adopting the fee, payment of the fee, updating the fee, fee credits and reimbursements, surplus funds, and fee protests. Selected critical points associated with fee use, estimation and establishment are described below.

Fee Estimation and Establishment
On a broad level, development impact fee programs must be consistent with the following:

1. The facilities to be built with the fee relates to the development subject to the fee, and

2. The fee cannot exceed the estimated reasonable cost of the development’s proportionate share of the proposed facilities.

In establishing, increasing, or imposing a fee as a condition for the approval of a development project, Government Code 66001(a) and (b) state that the local agency must:

1. Identify the purpose of the fee;

2. Identify how the fee is to be used;

3. Determine how a reasonable relationship exists between the fee use and type of development project for which the fee is being used;

4. Determine how the need for the public facility relates to the type of development project for which the fee is imposed; and,

5. Show the relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility.

These statutory requirements have been followed in establishing this 2022 fee update.

3 Abbott, William et al. (2012) Exactions and Impact Fees in California. Solano Press Books, Point Arena, California, p. 299.

Packet Page 758 of 798Attachment 3 Page 8 of 48

Northeast Area Development Impact Fee Update
Report – June 10, 2022

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 8
can be used for any development project, defined as “any project undertaken for the purpose of development” (Government Code 66000a).

Update Procedures and Use of Funds
This Fee Update represents the first comprehensive update following from the original adoption of the Northeast Area Fee program in 2013. The City of Fairfield has updated the specific capital programs comprised of a listing of development impact fee eligible projects as a basis for the updated fee calculation. These individual projects may be altered or replaced over time (with other qualifying projects) as the City administers the Development Impact Fee Program and builds the infrastructure needed to serve new development in the Northeast.

The traffic component of the Northeast Area AB 1600 Fee Update was developed collaboratively by EPS, transportation consultants Fehr and Peers (F&P), Coastland Civil Engineering, and CBG, with extensive input and guidance from City staff. Other fee categories were developed by EPS with extensive input and guidance from City staff and Coastland Civil Engineering. The revised fee schedules included in this Nexus Study can, at the discretion of the City Council, be implemented through a revised Development Impact Fee resolution. The technical components of the update can also be used as a technical basis and guide for subsequent annual reviews and updates that may occur in the future.

Content of This Nexus Report
This Report is divided into five chapters:
• Chapter 1 Background provides a summary of the background and need for the analysis. • Chapter 2 Summary of Results summarizes the results including the maximum and proposed fee levels.
• Chapter 3 Development Forecast describes the expected new development for the TSSP, the Northeast Area, and the City.
• Chapters 4 Northeast Area-wide Transportation, Linear Park, and Greenbelt Preservation Fees provides the necessary background for the transportation, linear park, and Greenbelt Preservation fees including project list, costs, cost allocation calculation for deriving the maximum fees, proposed fees, and nexus findings. • Chapter 5 Sewer, Storm Drainage, and Specific Plan Area Fees provides the necessary background for fees which apply to only specific portions of development in the TSSP.

Packet Page 759 of 798Attachment 3 Page 9 of 48

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9

2. SUMMARY OF RESULTS
This chapter summarizes the proposed new Northeast Area fees. The technical analysis and justification for the proposed fee levels is provided in the subsequent chapters.

Northeast Area Transportation, Linear Park, and
Greenbelt Preservation Impact Fees
Table 1 shows the maximum and proposed Northeast Area fees to fund improvements to the transportation network and linear parks and to preserve a greenbelt around the project area.

Public entities may elect to charge lower fees for particular land uses, areas of the city, or across the board in the interest of achieving certain policy goals. As lower fee revenues are collected, other funding sources will need to be identified to fill any funding gaps created by setting fees below the maximum allowable levels. The maximum and proposed fees are the same for residential uses, with the full fee amounts allocated to residential uses proposed to be charged.

The combined per unit fees for these three fee categories vary by zoned density and range from $14,012 for high-density residential uses to $23,433 for lower-density residential development.

Costs for transportation facilities are allocated on a trip generation basis, linear park costs are allocated based on projected population, and greenbelt preservation costs are allocated based on developed acres.

Non-residential development in the Northeast Area pays transportation fees, but not linear parks or greenbelt preservation fees. The proposed commercial fees are significantly below the maximum calculated fees. As a policy matter, the City determined that the proposed commercial fees should be set below the maximum potential fees. Based on City input, the proposed fees for commercial uses are $4.24 per square foot. Industrial uses have been split into two subcategories – Warehouse / Distribution / Speculative (WDS) and Manufacturing. Proposed fees for WDS uses have been set at the maximum of $6.47 per square foot while proposed fees on Manufacturing uses are set at the lower $2.03 per square foot.

Detailed calculations determining the maximum and proposed fees are provided in Chapter 4.

Note that Northeast Area development is subject to both the Northeast Development Impact fee as well as the Citywide Transportation Impact fee (updated in a separate technical report).

Packet Page 760 of 798Attachment 3 Page 10 of 48

Northeast Area Development Impact Fee Update
Report – June 10, 2022

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 10
Table 1 Maximum and Proposed Transportation, Linear Park, and Greenbelt Preservation Fees

Development Type Maximum Proposed1 Maximum Proposed1 Maximum Proposed1 Maximum Proposed1 Residential (per unit)
Residential Low/ Low Medium
Density (RL/RLM)$18,476 $18,476 $4,591 $4,591 $366 $366 $23,433 $23,433 Residential Medium Density (RM)$14,042 $14,042 $4,082 $4,082 $183 $183 $18,307 $18,307 Residential High Density (RH)$10,347 $10,347 $3,573 $3,573 $91 $91 $14,012 $14,012 Nonresidential (per sq. ft.)
Overall Commercial $70.25 $4.24 $70.25 $4.24
Industrial $6.47 -$6.47 -
WDS2 -$6.47 $6.47
Manufacturing -$2.03 $2.03
Source: City of Fairfield; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. [2] Warehouse / Distribution / Speculative. This and the Manufacturing development type create two subcategories into which new Industrial developments will be grouped.

Transportation Linear Park Greenbelt Preservation Combined Fees [1] Proposed fee levels based on direction from City staff.

N / A N / A

N / AN / A
Packet Page 761 of 798Attachment 3 Page 11 of 48

Northeast Area Development Impact Fee Update
Report – June 10, 2022

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 11
Northeast Subarea Fees
Sewer and Storm Drainage
Sewer and storm drain fees only apply by shed area corresponding to particular subareas in the Northeast Area. Table 2 shows the proposed fees to fund improvements to the sewer and storm drainage infrastructure for certain areas of the TSSP area. The maximum and proposed fees are equivalent for all uses. All sewer and storm drainage facilities and associated costs are required to serve new development and hence allocated to new development. The improvements are associated with particular sewer and storm drainage sheds; all improvement costs located in a particular shed are allocated to that same shed. Within a particular shed, costs are allocated to residential and nonresidential uses based on sewer generation and impervious acres developed.

Additional Specific Plan Fees
There are an additional set of fees that apply more broadly to TSSP development. Table 2 also shows the proposed fees to fund capital improvements serving TSSP development and fees reimbursing the City for costs to prepare the Specific Plan document and other planning efforts.

The proposed Additional Train Station Specific Plan Fees are set at the calculated maximums.

The capital improvement costs have been allocated on a population basis while the Plan preparation costs are allocated on a developed acres basis.

Table 2 Proposed Northeast-Area Sewer, Storm Drainage, and Other Fees

Detailed calculations determining the maximum and proposed fees are provided in Chapter 5.

Note that Northeast Area development is subject to both the Northeast Development Impact fee as well as the Citywide Transportation Impact fee (updated in a separate technical report).

Commercial Industrial
Low / Low Medium Medium High (Fee per Acre)
Fee Items1 Density (RL / RLM)Density (RM)Density (RM)
Sewer
Shed 1 $1,217 $974 $730 N / A N / A
Shed 2 $3,301 $2,641 $1,981 N / A N / A
Storm Drainage
Shed Area 1 $3,975 N / A N / A N / A N / A
Shed Areas 2, 3A, & 4 $6,225 $3,632 $2,075 $49,803 N / A Shed Area 10 $5,511 $3,858 $1,837 N / A N / A
Additional Train Station Specific Plan Fees
Capital Improvements $1,767 $1,571 $1,375 N / A N / A
Specific Plan Planning $1,648 $824 $412 N / A N / A
Source: City of Fairfield; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. [1] Proposed fee levels based on direction from City staff. Note that the various fees listed in the table will each apply to a different subset of the geographic areas contained in the Northeast Area. They should not be added together but should be estimated based on a specific project's location. Refer to relevant sections of the Report for more details.

Residential (Fee per Unit)
Packet Page 762 of 798Attachment 3 Page 12 of 48

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 12

3. DEVELOPMENT FORECAST
Estimates of the maximum, nexus-supported Northeast Area Transportation and Linear Parks fees are, in part, driven by forecasts of new development growth in the City of Fairfield. City staff developed a growth forecast for 2020 to 2040 based on a detailed review of developable land capacity, General Plan land use designations, zoning, development applications which have been filed with the City, and market expectations. City staff and F&P worked closely together to ensure that existing 2020 development and forecasted 2020 to 2040 growth was allocated appropriately to each traffic analysis zone (TAZ) in the City. Existing and new development growth by TAZ was distinguished by development types (residential units and nonresidential square footage) and by geographic area (Northeast vs. Rest of City). These development allocations supported the modeling and analysis required to estimate maximum fees by land use and by area for the transportation fee update as well as the overall estimates of growth required for the parks fee update.

The growth forecasts for 2020 to 2040 are shown in Table 3 for Fairfield, with growth in the Northeast Area (including the Fairfield Train Station Specific Plan area and the rest of the Northeast Area) shown separately. This growth is shown relative to 2020 levels in Table 4.

Growth data is summarized below:
• New Development Citywide. A total of about 12,300 new residential units are forecast to be added in the City between 2020 and 2040. About 6.0 million new square feet of nonresidential development are forecast, including 4.5 million in industrial development and

1.5 million in office/medical development, service commercial, and retail uses. • New Development in the Northeast Area.4 New residential growth in the Northeast Area is expected to sum to about 7,400 units by 2040. These units represent about 60 percent of the 12,300 residential units expected in Fairfield through 2040. While most of the nonresidential growth is expected outside of the Northeast Area, almost 1.1 million square feet of primarily new industrial space is expected to be developed. • Existing and New Development. In 2020, Fairfield had over 38,000 residential units and more than 24 million square feet of nonresidential development as documented in the transportation model. As a point of reference, and as shown in Table 4, growth expected through 2040 is estimated to increase the City’s residential development by over 30 percent and its nonresidential development base by 25 percent.

4 The following documents provide the full descriptions of land uses: (1) for new development occurring within the Northeast Area and outside of the Train Station Specific Plan (TSSP), land uses are as described in the General Plan Diagram and (2) for new development within the TSSP, the land uses are as described in the TSSP land use exhibit.

Packet Page 763 of 798Attachment 3 Page 13 of 48

Northeast Area Development Impact Fee Update
Report – June 10, 2022

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 13
Table 3 Development Projections

Table 4 Existing Development and 2040 Forecasted Development

Development Type TSSP Other NE Total NE Rest of City Total City Residential (Units)
Residential Low / Low Medium Density (RL / RLM)2,030 913 2,943 1,547 4,490 Residential Medium Density (RM)1,212 624 1,836 0 1,836
Residential High Density (RH)2,301 280 2,581 3,430 6,011 Total Residential 5,543 1,817 7,360 4,977 12,337
Nonresidential (Sq. Ft.)
Retail1 0 19,102 19,102 33,704 52,806
Commercial2 46,555 23,954 70,508 888,241 958,750
Office / Medical 0 0 0 439,681 439,681
Industrial 1,000,000 0 1,000,000 3,520,192 4,520,192
Total Nonresidential 1,046,555 43,056 1,089,610 4,881,818 5,971,428 Source: City of Fairfield; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

Northeast Area
[1] Retail land use only includes those retail uses with high-trip generation rates such as fast food locations with drive-through services and gas stations.
[2] Commercial includes all other retail uses (all with relatively low trip generation rates).

Existing Forecasted Total Percent
City,Growth City,Change
Development Type 2020 2020 - 2040 2040 2020 - 2040
Residential Units 38,042 12,337 50,379 32%
Nonresidential (Sq. Ft.)
Non-Industrial1 10,887,000 1,451,237 12,338,237 13%
Industrial 13,273,000 4,520,192 17,793,192 34%
Total Nonresidential 24,160,000 5,971,428 30,131,428 25% Source: City of Fairfield; Fehr and Peers; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. [1] Non-Industrial land uses include retail, office, and medical uses.

Packet Page 764 of 798Attachment 3 Page 14 of 48

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 14

4. NORTHEAST-WIDE TRANSPORTATION, LINEAR PARK AND

GREENBELT PRESERVATION FEES
This chapter presents the methodology and fee calculations for the Northeast Area transportation, linear park, and Greenbelt Preservation fees. Figure 1 below illustrates the boundaries of this area. This chapter describes the necessary "nexus" between new development in the Northeast Area of Fairfield and the new transportation improvements and linear parks, as required under Government Code Section 66000 (AB 1600). An update to the Citywide Transportation AB1600 fees is provided in a separate technical report.

Figure 1 Northeast Area Fee Boundary Map (Illustrative)

Transportation and Linear Park Fees
Nexus Findings
Nexus findings are provided below addressing: 1) the purpose of the fee and a related description of the facility for which fee revenue will be used; 2) the specific use of fee revenue; 3) the relationship between the facility and the type of development; 4) the relationship between the need for the facility and the type of development; and 5) the relationship between the amount of the fee and the proportionality of cost specifically attributable to development. The technical calculations described in the sections below are consistent with these nexus findings/requirements.

Packet Page 765 of 798Attachment 3 Page 15 of 48

Northeast Area Development Impact Fee Update
Report – June 10, 2022

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 15
Transportation
Purpose
The fee will help provide adequate levels of transportation service in the Northeast Area of Fairfield.

Use of Fee
Fee revenue will be used to fund transportation improvements in the Northeast Area, mainly consisting of new roadways. A representative list of transportation projects and costs is included in the next section of this chapter.

Relationship
New development in the Northeast Area of Fairfield will increase demands for and travel on Northeast transportation improvements. Northeast transportation fee revenue will be used to fund additional transportation improvements, thus increasing capacity to serve new Northeast development.

Need
Each new development project will add to the incremental need for transportation improvement capacity and improvements. The Northeast transportation improvements considered in this study are considered necessary to meet the Northeast Area’s future transportation needs.

Proportionality
The fee levels are tied to fair share cost allocations to new Northeast development as determined by F&P in their transportation model.

Linear Park
Purpose
The fee will support the development of linear parks in the Northeast Area of the City.

Use of Fee
Fee revenue will be used to fund linear parks in the Northeast Area. A representative list of projects and costs is included in the next section of this chapter.

Relationship
New development in the Northeast Area of Fairfield will generate demand for linear parks. Linear park fee revenue will be used to fund the development of linear parks in the Northeast of the City to serve new Northeast residents.

Need
Each new development project will add to the incremental need for parks. The linear park improvements considered in this study are considered necessary to help meet the parks and recreation needs for the Northeast Area of the City.

Proportionality
The fee levels are tied to fair share cost allocations to new Northeast development based on the population expected to be added through new residential development. New employees are not expected to add significant demand for park facilities.

Packet Page 766 of 798Attachment 3 Page 16 of 48

Northeast Area Development Impact Fee Update
Report – June 10, 2022

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 16
Technical Fee Calculations
The technical derivation of the maximum nexus-supported Northeast transportation and linear parks fees is provided below. The technical calculations follow nexus requirements and focus on the need for the improvements and the fair share apportionment to new development.

Table 5 shows the City’s list of transportation and linear park improvement projects expected to be required, in part or in whole, to serve new development in the Northeast Area of City between 2020 and 2040. The gross cost is estimated at $270 million. The table also shows specific non- fee funding that has already been identified for some improvements. This funding is deducted from the total improvement costs to determine the net costs. The total identified funding sums to $60.4 million, leaving a total net improvement cost of $209.7 million. Transportation project costs were provided by Coastland and the City of Fairfield Public Works Department, and Linear Park project costs were provided by CBG.

Table 6 reports the basis by which the net costs shown in the previous table are allocated to new development. Transportation costs are allocated based on new development’s relative contribution to demand for transportation improvements, based on the number of peak car trips projected during the PM-peak hours. Linear park costs are allocated on a per capita basis based on the expected primary driver of use and demand for linear parks.

Packet Page 767 of 798Attachment 3 Page 17 of 48

Northeast Area Development Impact Fee Update
Report – June 10, 2022

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 17
Table 5 Transportation and Linear Park Total and Net Costs

Gross Identified Net
Improvement Outside Improvement
Improvement Item Cost1 Funding2 Costs
Transportation
Roadways
Manuel Campos Parkway $51,688,991 $8,501,466 $43,187,525 Vanden Road $57,746,000 $23,640,167 $34,105,833
Peabody Road $37,013,000 $9,521,750 $27,491,250
New Cannon Road $62,930,000 $5,130,000 $57,800,000
McCrory Road Extension $14,398,000 $5,807,000 $8,591,000 Roadways Subtotal $223,775,991 $52,600,383 $171,175,608 Northeast Traffic Signal Improvements $8,260,547 $0 $8,260,547 Reimbursable Northeast Prior Projects
Viking Lane $1,259,000 $1,259,000 $0
Manuel Campos (N. Texas to Dover)$5,087,000 $5,087,000 $0 Peabody (St. Gobain) $1,408,000 $1,408,000 $0
Reimbursables Subtotal $7,754,000 $7,754,000 $0
Transportation Subtotal $239,790,538 $60,354,383 $179,436,155 Linear Parks
Clay Bank Road to Portland Drive $473,902 $0 $473,902
Portland Drive to Walters Road $3,536,489 $0 $3,536,489 Walters Road to Peabody $6,432,960 $0 $6,432,960
Peabody to Lake Trail $3,609,499 $0 $3,609,499
Linear Park Trail to Vanden Road $4,164,150 $0 $4,164,150 Vanden Road to Center School $4,180,304 $0 $4,180,304
Lake Park Trail to New Canon Road $1,584,950 $0 $1,584,950 Lake Park Trail to Vanden Road $3,525,966 $0 $3,525,966 Noonan Connection $835,367 $0 $835,367
Vanden Bridge Allowance $1,885,000 $0 $1,885,000
Linear Parks Subtotal $30,228,587 $0 $30,228,587
Total Transportation and Linear Parks Cost $270,019,125 $60,354,383 $209,664,742 Source: City of Fairfield; Coastland; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. [1] Transportation cost estimates by Coastland and City staff, Linear Park costs provided by CBG. All cost figures in 2022 dollars.
[2] Outside funding sources include county, regional, state, and federal transportation resources. Funding for improvements at project approvals will occur if the need for a specific improvement (typically traffic signals) is triggered by the project seeking approval.

Packet Page 768 of 798Attachment 3 Page 18 of 48

Northeast Area Development Impact Fee Update
Report – June 10, 2022

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 18
Table 6 Transportation and Linear Parks Allocation Factor Descriptions

Maximum Transportation Fees
The net transportation costs of about $180 million were allocated between different sources of travel demand based on the findings of the F&P traffic analysis. These findings were used to allocate the appropriate costs to the Northeast Fee program and the Citywide Fee program.

There are two primary steps in the cost allocation process as described below.

Step 1: Allocate Northeast Transportation Improvement Costs to Northeast Fee Program and Citywide Fee Program based on Traffic Analysis.

The F&P analysis findings included the following:
• Northeast transportation projects would not be required but for the new development in the City so all costs were allocated to new development.
• Northeast transportation projects will primarily serve new northeast development but will also serve new development elsewhere in the City.
• About two-thirds of trips from new Fairfield development are expected to be generated by Northeast Fairfield new development (see Appendix A).
• One-third of trips are expected from new development elsewhere in the City of Fairfield (see Appendix A).

Table 7 illustrates this two-third/one-third split of the Northeast projects. As a result of this split, of the $180 million in net Northeast transportation improvement costs, about two-thirds of the costs, $120 million, are allocated to new development in the Northeast. The remaining one- Net Improvement Allocation
Improvement Item Costs Factor Source
Transportation
Roadways $171,175,608
Reimbursables $0
Traffic Signals $8,260,547
Transportation Subtotal $179,436,155
Linear Parks $30,228,587 Persons per Unit Census, ACS 2015-2019 Est.

Total Transportation and
Linear Parks Cost $209,664,742
Source: City of Fairfield; Coastland; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

PM Peak Hour Trip
Rates
Fehr & Peers
Transportation Analysis
(Appendix A)
Packet Page 769 of 798Attachment 3 Page 19 of 48

Northeast Area Development Impact Fee Update
Report – June 10, 2022

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 19
third of Northeast Transportation costs associated with new development in the rest of the City is allocated to the Citywide Fee Program (documented in a separate Report).

Table 7 Cost Allocation to Fee Program

Step 2: Derive Average Cost per Trip
PM peak hour trip generation rates by land use category are used to determine the number of trips generated by new development by 2040. See Appendix A for details on trip generation rates. The 2040 development projections for the Northeast Area (Table 3) are multiplied by each land use’s trip generation rate to derive the total number of new trips generated by 2040.

The development projections for non-Northeast Area development are not carried forward as they are unnecessary for the Northeast Area fee calculations. Table 8 multiplies the development projections from Table 3 by the relevant trip generation rates to arrive at the total number of trips generated by development area. As shown, 6,474 additional trips are projected to be generated by new Northeast Area development by 2040.

Northeast
Development Fee3 Citywide Fee Program4
Improvement Item
Northeast Growth Rest of City Growth, Non-
Northeast
Northeast Projects
Northeast Roadways5
Manuel Campos Parkway $43,187,525
Vanden Road $34,105,833
Peabody Road $27,491,250
Peabody Road - County Segment $0
New Canon Road $57,800,000
McCrory Road Extension $8,591,000
Northeast Roadways Total $171,175,608 $114,117,072 $57,058,536 Northeast Traffic Signals $8,260,547 67%33%
Northeast Traffic Signals Total $5,507,031 $2,753,516
Total Northeast $179,436,155 $119,624,104 $59,812,052
Source: Coastland; Fehr & Peers; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (4) Costs allocated to the Citywide Fee Program are further documented in a separate report. The costs in this column are not carried forward in this Report in terms of calculating the fee. (5) See Appendix B for traffic analysis which is the basis for the one-third/two-thirds cost split to Citywide Development Fee and Northeast Area fee.

Percent Allocation2 to:

Net
Improvement
Costs1
33%67%
(3) Northeast Fee Program is the subject of this Report. The costs in these columns are carried through the rest of the Report. (1) Costs after identified outside funding has been subtracted from the total project costs, see Table 5. (2) Percent allocations are based on a review of the traffic model for the City and broader region.

Packet Page 770 of 798Attachment 3 Page 20 of 48

Northeast Area Development Impact Fee Update
Report – June 10, 2022

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 20
Table 8 Total Trip Generation by 2040

New Trips per Unit Northeast
Development Type / 1,000 Sq. Ft.1 Area
Growth
Residential (Units)
Residential Low / Low Medium Density (RL / RLM)2,943
Residential Medium Density (RM)1,836
Residential High Density (RH)2,581
Total Residential 7,360
Nonresidential (Sq. Ft.)
Retail2 19,102
Commercial3 70,508
Office / Medical 0
Industrial 1,000,000
Total Non-Residential 1,089,610
Trips4
Residential (Units)
Residential Low / Low Medium Density (RL / RLM)1.00 2,943 Residential Medium Density (RM)0.76 1,395
Residential High Density (RH)0.56 1,445
Total Residential 5,784
Nonresidential (Sq. Ft.)
Retail2 10.38 198
Commercial3 2.02 142
Office / Medical 1.63 0
Industrial 0.35 350
Total Non-Residential 691
Total Trips 6,474
Source: Fehr & Peers; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. [1] Trip generation rates from Fehr & Peers traffic modeling, see Appendix A. [3] Commercial includes all other retail uses (all with relatively low trip generation rates). [4] Multiplies growth values by relevant New Trips per Unit / 1,000 Sq. Ft. values. [2] Retail land use only includes those retail uses with high-trip generation rates such as fast food locations with drive-through services and gas stations.

Packet Page 771 of 798Attachment 3 Page 21 of 48

Northeast Area Development Impact Fee Update
Report – June 10, 2022

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 21
An average cost per trip is derived for the portion of the Northeast Area Projects cost allocated to Northeast Area development ($119,624,104) by dividing this cost by the trip generation total for Northeast Area development (6,474 new trips). As shown in Table 9, this results in an average cost of $18,476 per trip.

Table 9 Average Cost per Trip – Northeast Area Developments

NE Area Project Costs
Item Allocated to NE Area Dev.

Total CIP Cost1 $119,624,104
New Trips Generated by
Projected Area Growth2 6,474
Average Cost per Trip $18,476
Source: Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
[1] Per Table 7. Represents total Northeast Area Project costs allocated to Northeast Area development.
[2] Per Table 8.

Packet Page 772 of 798Attachment 3 Page 22 of 48

Northeast Area Development Impact Fee Update
Report – June 10, 2022

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 22
Step 3: Aggregate Retail, Commercial, and Office / Medical Uses into Single Category For nonresidential development, Northeast Area fees are charged to either “Commercial” or “Industrial” uses, where Commercial uses encompass the three land uses that have thus far been referred to as Retail, Commercial, and Office / Medical. Since this generalized, aggregated Commercial land use category does not have a specific traffic generation rate, it is necessary to derive one prior to proceeding to the next step. Table 10 demonstrates this calculation, with the sum of projected new Retail, Commercial, and Office / Medical development in the Northeast Area being divided by the sum total of new trips generated by these three uses to arrive at a weighted average trip generation rate of 3.80. This value is carried forward to the next step to determine maximum fee levels.

Table 10 Aggregated Commercial Trip Generation Rate

Item Retail Commercial Office / Medical Total
Projected New Development
Square Feet (in thousands)1
New Trips Generated1 198 142 0 341
Trip Generation Rate (per 1,000 Sq. Ft.)2 10.38 2.02 1.63 3.80 Source: Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
[1] Per Table 8.
[2] The Total value (3.80) represents the weighted average of the Trip Generation Rates of each of the three land uses included in this aggregated Commercial land use category. It is found by dividing the 341 generated trips by the 89.61 thousands of new square feet of development.

NE Area Nonresidential Land Uses

19.102 70.508 0 89.610
Packet Page 773 of 798Attachment 3 Page 23 of 48

Northeast Area Development Impact Fee Update
Report – June 10, 2022

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 23
Step 4: Derive Northeast Area Development Fee Levels Based on Trips by Land Use Trip generation rates are a common measure of demand for new transportation infrastructure.

See Appendix A for details on trip generation rates by land use category. Table 11 documents how each land use category’s trip generation rate is used to arrive at the maximum Northeast Area fee levels for Northeast Area development. The average cost per trip calculated in Table 9 is carried into Table 11 where it is multiplied by each land use category’s specified trip generation rate. For each Residential Low / Low Medium Density (RL / RLM) unit built in the Northeast Area, the maximum nexus-justified Northeast Area fee level is $18,476. Note that the values shown in Table 11 don’t represent the full maximum transportation fee burden that can be charged to Northeast Area development, as the Citywide transportation fee still applies (documented in a separate report).

Table 11 Maximum Fee Calculation by Land Use Based on Trip Generation

New Trips Maximum NE Area
per Unit Transportation Fees for
Development Type / 1,000 Sq. Ft.1 NE Area Development2
Baseline Cost per Trip3 $18,476
Residential (Per Unit)
Residential Low / Low Medium Density (RL / RLM)1.00 $18,476 Residential Medium Density (RM)0.76 $14,042
Residential High Density (RH)0.56 $10,347
Nonresidential (Per Sq. Ft.)
Commercial 3.80 $70.25
Industrial 0.35 $6.47
[1] Trip generation rates from Fehr & Peers traffic modeling, see Appendix A. See Table 10 for derivation of Commercial rate.
[2] Values in this column derived by multiplying the Baseline Cost per Trip by each land use category's specific trip generation rate. Note that Nonresidential trip generation rates are per-1,000 square feet but maximum fee levels shown are converted to a per-square foot basis.
[3] Per Table 9.

Source: Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

Packet Page 774 of 798Attachment 3 Page 24 of 48

Northeast Area Development Impact Fee Update
Report – June 10, 2022

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 24
Maximum Linear Park Fees
The linear park costs of $33.9 million are allocated among the development prototypes on a per capita basis. Table 12 reports the expected number of persons per household built in the Northeast Area. As shown, at build out the Northeast Area is expected to house about 21,400 people.

Table 12 Linear Park Allocation: Persons per Unit Calculation

Table 13 reports the distribution of new population by development type and shows the maximum fee calculations. The highest proportion of the population is expected to reside in the RL/RLM residential type, with 45 percent, 25 percent is projected for the RM category, and 31 percent is expected in the RH units. Table 13 shows the linear park net costs allocated among the three residential development types based on each type’s generation of new residents. Based on the number of units projected in each category, a maximum fee level is estimated for linear parks.

Residential Development Projected Persons Total
in Northeast Area New Units Per HH1 Population
Residential Low/ Low Medium Density (RL/RLM)2,943 3.25 9,566 Residential Medium Density (RM)1,836 2.89 5,306
Residential High Density (RH)2,581 2.53 6,530
Total 7,360 21,402
[1] Persons per Household (PPH) values based on population and housing data from the 2015-2019 American Community Survey 5-year estimates for Fairfield. RL/RLM density has been assigned the average PPH for single family housing in Fairfield while the RH uses are assigned the average PPH for multifamily housing in buildings with 5 or more units in Fairfield. RM uses are assigned an average between RL/RLM and RH.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2015-2019 American Community Survey; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

Packet Page 775 of 798Attachment 3 Page 25 of 48

Northeast Area Development Impact Fee Update
Report – June 10, 2022

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 25
Table 13 Linear Park Maximum Fee Calculation

Proposed Fees
Public entities can choose to set capital facilities fees at a rate lower than the maximum that may be charged. As lower fee revenues are collected, other funding sources will need to be identified to fill the gap left from setting fees below the maximum allowable. City staff have recommended that the Northeast transportation development impact fees should be set at the maximum for residential uses and below the maximum for some nonresidential uses. Linear parks fees are set at the maximum supportable level. Based on this direction, Table 14 reports the maximum supportable fees based on nexus criteria and the proposed fees based on City policy direction.

Residential Development Total % Cost Cost Maximum
in Northeast Area Population1 Distribution2 Allocation3 Fee per Unit4 Residential Low/ Low Medium Density (RL/RLM)9,566 45% $13,510,730 $4,591 Residential Medium Density (RM)5,306 25% $7,494,783 $4,082 Residential High Density (RH)6,530 31%$9,223,074 $3,573 Total 21,402 100% $30,228,587
[1] per Table 12.
[2] Cost Distribution based on population distribution by development type. [3] Allocates total cost per Table 6 by % Cost Distribution. [4] Divides Cost Allocation values by total units in Table 12.

Source: Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

Packet Page 776 of 798Attachment 3 Page 26 of 48

Northeast Area Development Impact Fee Update
Report – June 10, 2022

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 26

Table 14 Maximum and Proposed Transportation and Linear Park Fees

Item Maximum Proposed1 Maximum Proposed1 Maximum Proposed1 Residential (Per Unit)
Residential Low / Low Medium Density (RL / RLM)$18,476 $18,476 $4,591 $4,591 $23,067 $23,067 Residential Medium Density (RM)$14,042 $14,042 $4,082 $4,082 $18,124 $18,124 Residential High Density (RH)$10,347 $10,347 $3,573 $3,573 $13,920 $13,920 Nonresidential (Per Sq. Ft.)
Commercial $70.25 $4.24 N / A N / A $70.25 $4.24
Industrial $6.47 -N / A N / A $6.47 -
WDS2 -$6.47 N / A N / A $6.47 $6.47
Manufacturing -$2.03 N / A N / A $6.47 $2.03
Transportation + Linear Park Fees
[2] Warehouse / Distribution / Speculative. This and the Manufacturing development type create two subcategories into which new Industrial developments will be grouped.

Source: City of Fairfield; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. [1] Proposed fee levels based on direction from City staff.

Transportation Linear Park Total Both Fees
Packet Page 777 of 798Attachment 3 Page 27 of 48

Northeast Area Development Impact Fee Update
Report – June 10, 2022

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 27
Greenbelt Fees
In the mid-1990’s, the Solano/Vacaville/Fairfield Joint Powers Authority (JPA) was established.

The JPA designated a greenbelt preservation area in response to State and federal environmental laws and placed requirements on residential development in the Northeast Area of the City to contribute towards the permanent protection of the greenbelt area. These mitigation obligations were included in the prior Northeast Area fee described in Chapter 1. As part of the prior Northeast Area Fee report, the City determined that the greenbelt preservation obligation associated with proposed new development in the Northeast of the City is for the acquisition of conservation easements of 200 acres at an estimated cost of $7,000 per acre (consistent with prior 2003 cost estimates). This cost estimate has been adjusted consistent with the Consumer Price Index to arrive at an updated cost figure. Areas to be preserved are generally on the west and east side of Peabody Pool currently preserved either via conservative easement or Development Agreement. As a result, new residential development in the Northeast Area will be required to fund $1.6 million through a greenbelt fee. This cost was allocated between residential land use categories based on a measure of their relative land disturbance (expected residential densities) and results in the fees shown in Table 15.

Packet Page 778 of 798Attachment 3 Page 28 of 48

Northeast Area Development Impact Fee Update
Report – June 10, 2022

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 28
Table 15 Greenbelt Preservation Fee Calculation

Forecasted Average Forecasted Maximum
Residential New NE Area Dwelling Units Acres % Cost Cost Fee Development Type Units per Acre1 Developed Distribution Allocation2 per Unit Residential Low/
Low Medium Density (RL/RLM)2,943 6 491 65.3% $1,075,691 $366 Residential Medium Density (RM)1,836 12 153 20.4% $335,537 $183 Residential High Density (RH)2,581 24 108 14.3%$235,844 $91 Total 7,360 751 100.0% $1,647,072
[1] Per City staff estimates.
[2] Total greenbelt costs are based on values from the 2013 Fee Study inflated using the Consumer Price Index.

Source: City of Fairfield; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

Packet Page 779 of 798Attachment 3 Page 29 of 48

Northeast Area Development Impact Fee Update
Report – June 10, 2022

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

29 5. SEWER, STORM DRAINAGE, AND SPECIFIC PLAN AREA FEES This chapter presents the methodology and fee calculations for new fees applicable to subareas within the Northeast Area. This includes capital facilities fees under the Mitigation Fee Act to fund sewer and storm drainage improvements in specific sheds within the Northeast Area, as well as fees required to fund a range of other capital facility improvements specifically within the Train Station Specific Plan Area. It also includes a Specific Plan fee, under Government Code 65456(a), to defray the costs of preparing the Specific Plan.

Sewer and Storm Drainage Fees
Nexus Findings
Nexus findings are provided below addressing: 1) the purpose of the fee and a related description of the facility for which fee revenue will be used; 2) the specific use of fee revenue; 3) the relationship between the facility and the type of development; 4) the relationship between the need for the facility and the type of development; and 5) the relationship between the amount of the fee and the proportionality of cost specifically attributable to development. The specific categories for each of the following departments/facilities are presented below:

Sewer
Purpose
The fee will provide the necessary sewer facilities in different sewer sheds within the TSSP Area.

Geography
Figure 2 illustrates the geographic areas where the sewer fee will apply. Note that areas to which the fees do not apply either are not in need of upgrades or will be supplying sewer facilities outside of the fee program.

Packet Page 780 of 798Attachment 3 Page 30 of 48

Northeast Area Development Impact Fee Update
Report – June 10, 2022

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 30
Figure 2 Sewer Shed Fee Boundaries Map (Illustrative)

Use of Fee
Fee revenue will be used to fund development of a new sewer trunk line and a pump system.

Relationship
New TSSP development will increase the demand for sanitary sewer flow. Fee revenue will be used to fund the necessary sewer facilities.

Need
Each new development project will be hooked up to the City’s sanitary sewer infrastructure. New growth in Sheds 1 and 2 will need access to a new trunk line while growth in Shed 2 will also need access to a pump system.

Proportionality
All identified improvements and costs are directly associated with new development in specific sewer sheds. Fee levels for development within the sewer sheds are directly tied to the cost of sewer facilities required with costs allocated between land uses based on sewer generation factors.

Storm Drainage
Purpose
The fee will provide the necessary storm drainage facilities for new development in specific storm drainage sheds in the Northeast Area.

Packet Page 781 of 798Attachment 3 Page 31 of 48

Northeast Area Development Impact Fee Update
Report – June 10, 2022

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 31
Geography
Figure 3 illustrates the geographic areas where storm drain fees will apply. Note that areas to which the fees do not apply either have sufficient drainage capacity or will construct required facilities outside of the fee program.

Figure 3 Storm Drainage Fee Boundaries Map (Illustrative)

Use of Fee
Fee revenue will be used to fund development of new storm drainage basins.

Relationship
New development in the respective storm drainage sheds will increase impervious development and drive the demand for storm water detention and treatment in the specific shed.

Need
Each new development project will include the conversion of uncovered land to impervious land which will create storm water runoff. New storm drainage basins are needed to retain and treat the storm water.

Packet Page 782 of 798Attachment 3 Page 32 of 48

Northeast Area Development Impact Fee Update
Report – June 10, 2022

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 32
Proportionality
All identified improvements and costs are directly associated with new development in specific storm drainage sheds. Fee levels for development within storm drainage sheds are directly tied to the cost of the required storm drainage facilities with costs allocated between land uses based on expected impervious development.

Sewer and Storm Drainage Fees
Sewer costs across two shed areas (1 and 2) sum to about $4.5 million. Storm drainage basin costs for several shed areas total $9.9 million. These cost estimates are derived based on values from the 2013 Fee Study inflated to 2021 using the Consumer Price Index. Table 16 provides the cost estimates and allocation factors used for each cost category. Subsequent tables and text describe these factors in more detail. Note that the City does not expect to secure any outside funding for these improvements so all the costs will be allocated to the maximum fee calculation.

Table 16 Sewer and Storm Drainage Program Costs

Table 17 reports the maximum fee per unit for sewer facilities, based on a sewer generation factor. As shown, the largest residential category in terms of square footage (RL/RLM) has been assigned the highest sewer factor. This is because these larger units are expected to house more people and people generate sewer demand. The sewer factors were developed by EPS in consultant with City staff. Based on the number of units in Sheds 1 and 2 and the sewer factors, the maximum fee per unit is shown for the system that serves both sheds (Clay Bank bypass sewer and trunk downstream of a new force main). The force main and trunk upstream of the force main costs are also shown allocated to units in Shed 2 only, due to the need for the facility in that area only. The maximum fees for sewer improvements range from $730 to $1,217 in Shed 1 and from $1,981 to $3,301 in Shed 2.

Improvement Allocation
Improvement Item Cost Factor1
Sewer Systems
Sewer System Serving Sheds 1 and 2 $1,883,348
Sewer System Serving Shed 2 only $2,588,629
Total Sewer Systems $4,471,977
Storm Drainage Basins
Shed 1 Area Basin $1,292,000
Sheds 2, 3A, and 4 Area Basin $6,367,000
Shed 10 Area Basin $2,239,000
Total Storm Drainage Basins $9,898,000
Sewer generation factor
based on unit size
Impervious acres
generated by
development
[1] per City of Fairfield in consultation with EPS.

Source: City of Fairfield; CBG; Coastland; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

Packet Page 783 of 798Attachment 3 Page 33 of 48

Northeast Area Development Impact Fee Update
Report – June 10, 2022

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 33
Table 17 Sewer Maximum Fee/Proposed Fee

Table 18 reports the maximum fee per unit for storm drainage basins, based on the amount of acreage that will become impervious to storm water due to development. Shed areas 1, 2, 3A, 4, and 10 have planned development across about 250 acres. This results in 175 acres of new impervious surfaces that will create storm water runoff. Costs to develop storm water basins are spread across the development types, based on their contributions to the 175 impervious acres.

Maximum fees for residential units in these sheds range from $1,837 to $6,225. The maximum fee for commercial uses in shed areas 2, 3A, and 4 is $49,803 per developed acre.

Total Total Costs /
Unit Sewer Shed 1 Shed 2 Dwelling Sewer Costs per Unit Maximum Facility Type Factor1 DUs2 DUs2 Units Units Type3 Fee per DU Sewer System Serving Both Shed 1 and Shed 2
RL / RLM 1.00 133 747 880 880 $1,071,191 $1,217
RM 0.80 215 409 624 499 $607,657 $974
RH 0.60 0 280 280 168 $204,500 $730
Total 348 1,436 1,784 1,547 $1,883,348
Sewer System Serving Shed 2 Only
RL / RLM 1.00 -747 747 747 $1,556,678 $2,084
RM 0.80 -409 409 327 $681,854 $1,667
RH 0.60 -280 280 168 $350,096 $1,250
Total 1,436 1,436 1,242 $2,588,629
Maximum / Proposed Sewer Fees
Shed 1
RL / RLM $1,217
RM $974
RH $730
Shed 2
RL / RLM $3,301
RM $2,641
RH $1,981
[1] Sewer factors reflect the amount of sewer demand expected for that land use category, relative to other categories. In this table, the RL/RLM category has been assigned a factor of 1.00 and the other development types are assigned factors based on their expected sewer demand relative to the RL category. RM and RH units are smaller on average than those in the RL/RLM category and thus house fewer people, resulting in a lower sewer demand. The factors were developed in consultation with City staff. [2] City staff provided estimates of the number of Dwelling Units expected in each Shed. [3] Total Costs from Table 16 are allocated in this column based on the proportion of Sewer Units attributed to each Unit Type.

Source: City of Fairfield; CBG; Coastland; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

Packet Page 784 of 798Attachment 3 Page 34 of 48

Northeast Area Development Impact Fee Update
Report – June 10, 2022

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 34
Table 18 Storm Drainage Maximum Fee/Proposed Fee
Area / Cost per Average Maximum Fee
Development Area Percent Impervious Basin Impervious Units per Total per Unit / Category (acres)1 Impervious2 Acres3 Cost4 Acre5 Acre6 Units per Nonres. Acre7 Shed Area 1
RL / RLM 54.17 60%32.50 6.0 325 $3,975
RM 0.00 70%0.00 -0 $0
RH 0.00 80%0.00 -0 $0
Commercial 0.00 80%0.00 -0 $0
Industrial 0.00 80%0.00 - 0 $0
Total 54.17 32.50 325
Shed Areas 2, 3A, and 4
RL / RLM 19.23 60%11.54 6.0 115 $6,225
RM 27.04 70%18.93 12.0 324 $3,632
RH 53.01 80%42.41 24.0 1,272 $2,075
Commercial 36.75 80%29.40 -37 $49,803
Industrial 0.00 80%0.00 - 0 $0
Total 136.03 102.27 1,749
Shed Area 10
RL / RLM 4.00 60%2.40 6.0 24 $5,511
RM 42.04 70%29.43 10.0 420 $3,858
RH 11.00 80%8.80 24.0 264 $1,837
Commercial 0.00 80%0.00 -0 $0
Industrial 0.00 80%0.00 - 0 $0
Total 57.04 40.63 708
[7] Maximum fee shown is per residential dwelling unit or per commercial/industrial developed acre.

Source: City of Fairfield; CBG; Coastland; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. [1] Area is the total land area anticipated to be developed, by shed and by land use category. [2] The percent impervious refers to the proportion of the land expected to be developed that is projected to be impervious to storm water (i.e., paved). These percentages were developed in consultation with City staff. [3] Impervious acres is equal to the number of acres to be developed multiplied by the percent impervious factor. [4] per Table 16.
[5] Basin cost divided by number of impervious acres.
[6] Density estimated by City staff for this geography. $1,292,000 $39,751
$6,367,000 $62,254
$2,239,000 $55,110
Packet Page 785 of 798Attachment 3 Page 35 of 48

Northeast Area Development Impact Fee Update
Report – June 10, 2022

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

35 Additional Train Station Specific Plan Capital Improvement Fee Purpose
The TSSP capital improvement fee will fund a number of public improvements required in the TSSP Area.

Geography
Figure 4 illustrates the Train Station Specific Plan area where the capital improvement fee will apply. These areas are those most benefited by the improvements.

Figure 4 TSSP Capital Improvement Fee Boundary Map (Illustrative)

Use of Fee
Fee revenue will be used to fund a range of public improvements, including a civic boulevard, bridges, and gateways and entries.

Relationship
The new public improvements will serve new TSSP residents.

Need
The public improvements are called for in the TSSP adopted under State law and through substantial community input.

Packet Page 786 of 798Attachment 3 Page 36 of 48

Northeast Area Development Impact Fee Update
Report – June 10, 2022

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 36
Proportionality
All identified TSSP capital improvements will directly serve new TSSP development. The fee levels are tied to fair share cost allocations to new development based on the population expected to be added through new residential development. New employees are not expected to add significant demand for park facilities.

Additional Train Station Specific Plan Fees
TSSP Capital Improvement Fee
Total capital improvements planned for the Train Station Specific Plan area, as shown in Table 19, sum to $8.7 million. There is no other identified funding for these items, leaving a net Specific Plan capital improvement cost of $8.7 million. These remaining costs were allocated to new TSSP residential development based on a persons-per-unit basis. The estimated Specific Plan capital improvement fees are shown in Table 20.

Table 19 Additional Specific Plan Capital Improvement Costs

Gross Improvement Other Net
Item Costs1 Funding Costs
Additional Specific Plan Costs
Capital Improvements
Civic Boulevard $1,028,244 --
Joseph Gerevas Bridge $1,850,603 --
Train Station Enhancement $1,176,480 --
Neighborhood Center $294,120 --
3 Community Gateways $1,764,720 --
3 Major Neighborhood Entries $529,416 --
4 Minor Neighborhood Entries $470,592 --
Great Park Bike & Ped Bridge over Union Creek $364,709 -- Trunk Sewer Main $1,176,480 --
Total $8,655,363 $0 $8,655,363
[1] Per 2013 Fee Study values inflated using Consumer Price Index.

Source: City of Fairfield; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

Packet Page 787 of 798Attachment 3 Page 37 of 48

Northeast Area Development Impact Fee Update
Report – June 10, 2022

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 37
Table 20 Additional Specific Plan Capital Improvement Fees

Specific Plan Preparation Costs
Under California Government Code 65456(a), the City can impose a Specific Plan Fee to defray the costs of preparing the Specific Plan and supporting documents. Fee revenue will be used to reimburse the City for expenses incurred during the preparation of the TSSP and supporting documentation.

Total Specific Plan and related planning costs, as shown in Table 21, sum to $5.5 million. The Cannon Station Development Agreement required a $179,400 contribution to cover commercial and industrial contributions to the Specific Plan preparation costs. These contributions from industrial and commercial development will cover about three percent of these costs, leaving a net Specific Plan preparation cost of $5.3 million. These remaining costs were allocated to new TSSP residential development and based on an estimate of relative land development (using average residential densities). The estimated Specific Plan fees are shown in Table 22.

Fee Category /Forecasted Persons Maximum
Residential New TSSP per Forecasted % Cost Cost Fee
Development Type Units Unit1 Population Distribution Allocation2 per Unit Capital Improvements
RL/RLM 2,030 3.25 6,598 41.4% $3,586,534 $1,767
RM 1,212 2.89 3,503 22.0% $1,904,128 $1,571
RH 2,301 2.53 5,822 36.6%$3,164,701 $1,375
Total 5,543 15,922 100.0% $8,655,363
[1] Persons per Household (PPH) values based on population and housing data from the 2015-2019 American Community Survey 5- year estimates for Fairfield. RL/RLM density has been assigned the average PPH for single family housing in Fairfield while the RH uses are assigned the average PPH for multifamily housing in buildings with 5 or more units in Fairfield. RM uses are assigned an average between RL/RLM and RH.

Source: City of Fairfield; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. [2] Total value per Table 19, distributed to residential development types via their respective values in the % cost distribution column.

Packet Page 788 of 798Attachment 3 Page 38 of 48

Northeast Area Development Impact Fee Update
Report – June 10, 2022

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 38
Table 21 Additional Specific Plan Planning Costs

Table 22 Additional Specific Plan Planning Costs Maximum/Proposed Fee

Gross Other Net
Item Costs Funding1 Costs
Additional Specific Plan Costs
Planning Cost Recovery
Specific Plan Cost Allowance $5,176,512 --
LAFCO Annexation Allowance $294,120 --
Total $5,470,632 $179,428 $5,291,204
[1] Per 2013 Fee Study values inflated using Consumer Price Index. [2] Includes contributions from commercial and industrial new development, per a development agreement with the City.

Source: City of Fairfield; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

Fee Category /Forecasted Average Forecasted Percent Maximum Residential New TSSP D.U.Acres Cost Cost Fee
Development Type Units per Acre1 Developed Distribution Allocation per Unit Capital Improvements
RL/RLM 2,030 6 338 63.2% $3,344,848 $1,648
RM 1,212 12 101 18.9% $998,511 $824
RH 2,301 24 96 17.9%$947,844 $412
Total 5,543 535 100.0% $5,291,204
[1] Dwelling Units per Acre based on City staff estimates.

Source: City of Fairfield; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. [2] Total greenbelt costs are based on values from the 2013 Fee Study inflated using the Consumer Price Index.

Packet Page 789 of 798Attachment 3 Page 39 of 48

APPENDIX A:

Traffic Model Detail (Fehr & Peers)
Packet Page 790 of 798Attachment 3 Page 40 of 48

100 Pringle Avenue | Suite 600 | Walnut Creek, CA 94596 | (925) 930-7100 | Fax (925) 933-7090 www.fehrandpeers.com
Memorandum

Packet Page 791 of 798Attachment 3 Page 41 of 48

Teifion Rice-Evans and Luke Foelsch
January 26, 2022

Page 2 of 6 ends

Source: City of Fairfield, EPS, and Fehr & Peers, March 2021.

2 TAZs are block-sized geographic areas that are used in the Fairfield Travel Demand Model to summarize existing and future land uses. There are approximately 400 TAZs in the model.

Packet Page 792 of 798Attachment 3 Page 42 of 48

Teifion Rice-Evans and Luke Foelsch
January 26, 2022

Page 3 of 6 ends

Packet Page 793 of 798Attachment 3 Page 43 of 48

Teifion Rice-Evans and Luke Foelsch
January 26, 2022

Page 4 of 6 ends

Table 3: Northeast Fee Area Projects and Trip Percentages Project Location Description
Percentage Share Attributable to:

Packet Page 794 of 798Attachment 3 Page 44 of 48

Teifion Rice-Evans and Luke Foelsch
January 26, 2022

Page 5 of 6 ends

Table 4: Citywide Fee Area Projects and Trip Percentages Project Location Description
Percentage Share Attributable to:

Teifion Rice-Evans and Luke Foelsch
January 26, 2022

Page 6 of 6 ends

development for each of the standard land use categories (per dwelling unit for residential uses, and per thousand square feet for non-residential uses).

DU = dwelling unit; KSF = thousands of square feet.

SANDAG Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates, April 2002.

Source: Fehr & Peers, March 2021.

Attachment
A – Existing Deficiency Process in Nexus Studies

Packet Page 796 of 798Attachment 3 Page 46 of 48

Fairfield City CouncilJune 21, 2022

Fairfield City Council
June 21, 2022