Agenda, first session — Fairfield City Council, October 4, 2022 (part 2 of 2)

“Single-use foodware accessory” means all of the following single-use items provided alongside ready-to-eat food: Utensils, which is defined as forks, knives, spoons, and sporks, chopsticks, condiment cups and packets, straws, stirrers, splash sticks and cocktail sticks.

“Standard condiment” means relishes, spices, sauces, confections, or seasonings that require no additional preparation and that are usually used on a food item after preparation, including ketchup, mustard, mayonnaise, soy sauce, hot sauce, salsa, salt, pepper, sugar, and sugar substitutes.

“Third-party food delivery platform” means a business engaged in the service of online food ordering and delivery from a food facility to a consumer and as further defined in Health and Safety Code Section 113930.5. A food facility does not include a grocery store, as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 113948, or a room, building, or place or portion thereof, excluding a restaurant, used to sell to a customer primarily the following products: fresh produce, meat, poultry, fish, deli products, dairy products, perishable beverages, baked foods, and prepared foods.

“Refillable Self-service Dispenser” means a container or equipment that is used to hold disposable foodware accessories for customers to obtain at their discretion.

9.580 Requirements for Food Facilities and Third-Party Food Delivery Platforms.

A. Except as provided in paragraph C below, a food facility, for on-premises dining or when using a third-party food delivery platform, shall not provide any single-use foodware accessory or standard condiment packaged for single use to a consumer unless the single-use foodware accessory or standard condiment is requested by the consumer.

B. Single-use foodware accessories and standard condiments packaged for single use provided by food facilities for use by consumers shall not be bundled or packaged in a manner that prohibits a consumer from taking only the type of single-use foodware accessory or standard condiment desired without also having to take a different type of single -use foodware accessory or standard condiment.

C. A food facility may ask a drive-through consumer if the consumer wants a single-use foodware accessory if the single-use foodware accessory is necessary for the consumer to consume ready-to-eat food, or to prevent spills of or safely transport ready-to-eat food.

D. A third-party food delivery platform shall provide consumers with the option to request single-use foodware accessories or standard condiments from a food facility serving ready- to-eat food.

E. If a food facility uses any third-party delivery platform for ready-to-eat food, the food facility shall customize its menu with a list of available single-use foodware accessories and standard condiments, and only those single-use foodware accessories or standard condiments selected by the consumer shall be provided by the food facility. If a consumer does not select any single-use foodware Packet Page 117 of 224Attachment 1 Page 2 of 4

ORD. NO. 2022-10

Page 3 ends

accessories or standard condiments, no single-use foodware accessory or standard condiment shall be provided by the food facility for delivery of ready-to-eat food.

F. Nothing in this section shall prohibit a food facility from making unwrapped single- use foodware accessories available to a consumer using refillable self-service dispensers that dispense one item at a time to allow for single-use foodware accessories to be obtained.

G. Nothing in this section shall prohibit a food facility from making standard condiments available to a consumer using refillable self-service dispensers to allow for standard condiments to be obtained. A food facility that offers standard condiments is encouraged to use bulk dispensers for the condiments rather than condiments packaged for single use.

H. A food facility is encouraged, but not required, to take actions in addition to the requirements of this section that support a goal of reducing the use of and waste generated by all single-use food service products.

9.590 Exemptions.

This Article shall not apply to the following institutions or facilities: (a) correctional institutions, which has the same meaning as in Section 7502 of the Penal Code; (b) health care facilities licensed pursuant to Article 1 (commencing with Section 1250) of Chapter 2 of Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code or facilities that are owned or operated by a health care service plan licensed pursuant to Chapter 2.2 (commencing with Section 1340) of Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code; (c) residential care facilities licensed pursuant to Division 2 (commencing with Section 1200) of the Health and Safety Code; and (d) public and private school cafeterias, as referenced in paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 113789 of the Health and Safety Code.

9.600 Enforcement and Penalties.

A. The City Manager or their designee (“City Manager”) shall have primary responsibility for enforcement of this Article and shall have authority to issue citations for violation of any provision of this Article. The City Manager may establish administrative procedures and take any actions reasonable and necessary to further the purposes of this Article or to obtain compliance with this Article.

B. Any person, food facility or third-party delivery platform that violates or fails to comply with any of the requirements of this Article shall be subject to the administrative citation procedures set forth in Article II of Chapter 1 of the Fairfield Municipal Code.

C. Notwithstanding the provisions of Chapter 9, Section 9.360 the first and second violations of this Article shall result in a notice of violation, and any subsequent violation shall constitute an infraction punishable by a fine of twenty-five dollars ($25) for each day in violation, but not-to-exceed three hundred dollars ($300) annually.”

SECTION 2. Severability. If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance for any reason is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision Packet Page 118 of 224Attachment 1 Page 3 of 4

ORD. NO. 2022-10

Page 4 ends

of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance, and each section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof, without regard to whether any one or more sections, su bsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions thereof be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 3. Publication. A summary of this ordinance shall be printed and published twice in the Daily Republic, a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published in the City of Fairfield.

SECTION 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective 30 days following its adoption by the council. A summary of this ordinance shall, within 15 days after passage, be published in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code of the State of California with the names of the councilmembers voting for and against it.

SECTION 5. Certification. The city clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published or posted in the manner prescribed by law.

INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the council of the City of Fairfield on the 6th day of September, 2022, and

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 4th day of October, 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 119 of 224Attachment 1 Page 4 of 4

Assembly Bill No. 1276
CHAPTER 505
An act to amend Sections 42270 and 42271 of, to amend the heading of Chapter 5.2 (commencing with Section 42270) of Part 3 of Division 30 of, and to add Sections 42272 and 42273 to, the Public Resources Code, relating to solid waste.
[Approved by Governor October 5, 2021. Filed with Secretary of State October 5, 2021.]
legislative counsel’s digest
AB 1276, Carrillo. Single-use foodware accessories and standard condiments.

Existing law prohibits a full-service restaurant, as specified, from providing single-use plastic straws, as defined, to consumers unless requested by the consumer, and places the duty to enforce this prohibition on specified state and local health and environmental health officers and their agents.

Existing law specifies that the first and 2nd violations of these provisions result in a notice of violation, and any subsequent violation is an infraction punishable by a fine of $25 for each day the full-service restaurant is in violation, but not to exceed an annual total of $300.

This bill would instead prohibit a food facility from providing any single-use foodware accessory or standard condiment, as defined, to a consumer unless requested by the consumer, as provided. The bill would prohibit those items from being bundled or packaged in a way that prohibits the consumer from taking only the item desired. The bill would authorize a food facility to ask a drive-through consumer, or a food facility located within a public airport to ask a walk-through consumer, if the consumer wants a single-use foodware accessory in specified circumstances. The bill would require a food facility using a third-party food delivery platform to list on its menu the availability of single-use foodware accessories and standard condiments and only provide those items when requested, as provided. The bill would exclude from these requirements correctional institutions, health care facilities, residential care facilities, and public and private school cafeterias.

This bill would require a city, county, or city and county, on or before June 1, 2022, to authorize an enforcement agency to enforce these requirements. The bill would specify that the first and 2nd violations of these provisions result in a notice of violation, and any subsequent violation is an infraction punishable by a fine of $25 for each day in violation, but not to exceed an annual total of $300. By creating a new crime and imposing additional duties on local governing bodies, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

89 Packet Page 120 of 224Attachment 2 Page 1 of 4

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

The people of the State of California do enact as follows:

SECTION 1. The heading of Chapter 5.2 (commencing with Section 42270) of Part 3 of Division 30 of the Public Resources Code is amended to read:

Chapter 5.2. Single-Use Foodware Accessories and Condiments SEC. 2. Section 42270 of the Public Resources Code is amended to read:
42270. For purposes of this chapter, the following definitions apply:
(a)  “Consumer” has the same meaning as in Section 113757 of the Health and Safety Code.
(b)  “Food facility” has the same meaning as in Section 113789 of the Health and Safety Code.
(c)  “Ready-to-eat food” has the same meaning as in Section 113881 of the Health and Safety Code.
(d)  “Single-use” means designed to be used once and then discarded, and not designed for repeated use and sanitizing.
(e)  “Single-use foodware accessory” means all of the following single-use items provided alongside ready-to-eat food:
(1)  Utensils, which is defined as forks, knives, spoons, and sporks. (2)  Chopsticks.
(3)  Condiment cups and packets.
(4)  Straws.
(5)  Stirrers.
(6)  Splash sticks.
(7)  Cocktail sticks.
(f)  “Standard condiment” means relishes, spices, sauces, confections, or seasonings that require no additional preparation and that are usually used on a food item after preparation, including ketchup, mustard, mayonnaise, soy sauce, hot sauce, salsa, salt, pepper, sugar, and sugar substitutes. (g)  “Third-party food delivery platform” has the same meaning as in Section 113930.5 of the Health and Safety Code.

SEC. 3. Section 42271 of the Public Resources Code is amended to read:
42271. (a) Except as provided in subdivisions (c) and (d), a food facility, for on-premises dining or when using a third-party food delivery platform, 89 — 2 — Ch. 505 Packet Page 121 of 224Attachment 2 Page 2 of 4

shall not provide any single-use foodware accessory or standard condiment packaged for single use to a consumer unless the single-use foodware accessory or standard condiment is requested by the consumer. (b)  Single-use foodware accessories and standard condiments packaged for single use provided by food facilities for use by consumers shall not be bundled or packaged in a manner that prohibits a consumer from taking only the type of single-use foodware accessory or standard condiment desired without also having to take a different type of single-use foodware accessory or standard condiment.
(c)  A food facility may ask a drive-through consumer if the consumer wants a single-use foodware accessory if the single-use foodware accessory is necessary for the consumer to consume ready-to-eat food, or to prevent spills of or safely transport ready-to-eat food.
(d)  A food facility that is located entirely within a public use airport, as defined in Section 77.3 of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, may ask a walk-through consumer if the consumer wants a single-use foodware accessory if the single-use foodware accessory is necessary for the consumer to consume ready-to-eat food, or to prevent spills of or safely transport ready-to-eat food.
(e)  (1)  A third-party food delivery platform shall provide consumers with the option to request single-use foodware accessories or standard condiments from a food facility serving ready-to-eat food. (2)  If a food facility uses any third-party delivery platform for ready-to-eat food, the food facility shall customize its menu with a list of available single-use foodware accessories and standard condiments, and only those single-use foodware accessories or standard condiments selected by the consumer shall be provided by the food facility. If a consumer does not select any single-use foodware accessories or standard condiments, no single-use foodware accessory or standard condiment shall be provided by the food facility for delivery of ready-to-eat food.
(f)  Nothing in this section shall prohibit a food facility from making unwrapped single-use foodware accessories available to a consumer using refillable self-service dispensers that dispense one item at a time to allow for single-use foodware accessories to be obtained.
(g)  Nothing in this section shall prohibit a food facility from making standard condiments available to a consumer using refillable self-service dispensers to allow for standard condiments to be obtained. A food facility that offers standard condiments is encouraged to use bulk dispensers for the condiments rather than condiments packaged for single use. (h)  Nothing in this section shall prevent a city, county, city and county, or other local public agency from adopting and implementing an ordinance or rule that would further restrict a food facility or a third-party food delivery platform from providing single-use foodware accessories or standard condiments to a consumer.
(i)  A food facility is encouraged, but not required, to take actions in addition to the requirements of this section that support a goal of reducing the use of and waste generated by all single-use food service products. 89 Ch. 505 — 3 — Packet Page 122 of 224Attachment 2 Page 3 of 4

SEC. 4. Section 42272 is added to the Public Resources Code, to read:
42272. (a) On or before June 1, 2022, a city, county, or city and county shall authorize an enforcement agency to enforce this chapter. (b) The first and second violations of this chapter shall result in a notice of violation, and any subsequent violation shall constitute an infraction punishable by a fine of twenty-five dollars ($25) for each day in violation, but not to exceed three hundred dollars ($300) annually.

SEC. 5. Section 42273 is added to the Public Resources Code, to read:
42273. This chapter does not apply to any of the following:
(a)  Correctional institutions, which has the same meaning as in Section 7502 of the Penal Code.
(b)  Health care facilities licensed pursuant to Article 1 (commencing with Section 1250) of Chapter 2 of Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code or facilities that are owned or operated by a health care service plan licensed pursuant to Chapter 2.2 (commencing with Section 1340) of Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code.
(c)  Residential care facilities licensed pursuant to Division 2 (commencing with Section 1200) of the Health and Safety Code.
(d)  Public and private school cafeterias, as referenced in paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 113789 of the Health and Safety Code.

SEC. 6. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution for certain costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district because, in that regard, this act creates a new crime or infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution.

However, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains other costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.

O
89 — 4 — Ch. 505 Packet Page 123 of 224Attachment 2 Page 4 of 4

Agenda Item No: 12.

AGENDA REPORT
DATE:October 4, 2022
TO:Mayor and City Council
FROM:David Gassaway, Interim City Manager
SUBJECT:Resolution 2022265 of the City Council of the City of Fairfield Accepting the Allan Witt Community Park Tennis Courts Resurfacing Maintenance Project as Complete RECOMMENDED ACTION
Adopt resolution.

STATEMENT OF ISSUE
The adoption of this resolution accepts the Allan Witt Community Park Tennis Courts Resurfacing Maintenance Project as complete.

DISCUSSION
On May 3, 2022, the City adopted Resolution No. 202293 approving a contract with First Serve Production, Inc. for the Allan Witt Community Park Tennis Courts Resurfacing Maintenance Project (Project). The Project included renovating existing tennis courts and adding pickleball and futsal courts.

The Project was completed and opened to the public on August 18, 2022.

The construction authorization for the Project was approved for $419,545. This amount included a total bid of $349,621 and a 20% contingency of $69,924. The final cost for the Project was $419,544.86, which is just below the amount authorized for construction.

FINANCIAL IMPACT
Acceptance of the Project obligates the City to provide ongoing maintenance and repair of the improvements which will be paid from the Parks and Recreation Park Facilities Fund (Fund 101, Organization Code 30504).

PUBLIC CONTACT/ADVISORY BODY RECOMMENDATION
N/A
ALTERNATIVE ACTION
If the City Council has any questions, acceptance may be delayed so that staff may provide the necessary additional information.

Packet Page 124 of 224

Agenda Item No: 12.AGENDA REPORTDATE:October 4, 2022 TO:Mayor and City CouncilFROM:David Gassaway, Interim City ManagerSUBJECT:Resolution 2022265 of the City Council of the City of Fairfield Accepting the Allan WittCommunity Park Tennis Courts Resurfacing Maintenance Project as CompleteRECOMMENDED ACTIONAdopt resolution.STATEMENT OF ISSUEThe adoption of this resolution accepts the Allan Witt Community Park Tennis Courts ResurfacingMaintenance Project as complete.DISCUSSIONOn May 3, 2022, the City adopted Resolution No. 202293 approving a contract with First ServeProduction, Inc. for the Allan Witt Community Park Tennis Courts Resurfacing Maintenance Project(Project). The Project included renovating existing tennis courts and adding pickleball and futsal courts.The Project was completed and opened to the public on August 18, 2022. The construction authorization for the Project was approved for $419,545. This amount included a totalbid of $349,621 and a 20% contingency of $69,924. The final cost for the Project was $419,544.86,which is just below the amount authorized for construction.FINANCIAL IMPACTAcceptance of the Project obligates the City to provide ongoing maintenance and repair of theimprovements which will be paid from the Parks and Recreation Park Facilities Fund (Fund 101,Organization Code 30504).PUBLIC CONTACT/ADVISORY BODY RECOMMENDATIONN/AALTERNATIVE ACTIONIf the City Council has any questions, acceptance may be delayed so that staff may provide the necessary additional information.

STAFF CONTACT
Roger Dunham, Public Works Construction Manager
(707) 4287478
[email protected]
COORDINATED WITH
N/A
ATTACHMENTS:

Description
Proposed Resolution
REVIEWERS:

Reviewer Action Date
Kaushal, Paul Approved 9/19/2022 3:00 PM
Beavers, Esther Approved 9/19/2022 7:15 PM
Beavers, Esther Approved 9/19/2022 8:26 PM
Packet Page 125 of 224

CITY OF FAIRFIELD

RESOLUTION NO. 2022-265

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAIRFIELD ACCEPTING THE ALLAN WITT

COMMUNITY PARK TENNIS COURTS RESURFACING MAINTENANCE PROJECT AS COMPLETE

WHEREAS, the City Council approved a contract with First Serve Production, Inc., for Allan Witt Community Park Tennis Courts Resurfacing Maintenance Project (Project) on May 3, 2022, by Resolution No. 2022-93; and

WHEREAS, First Serve Production, Inc. has completed the Project in accordance with the contract approved by the council.

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

Section 1. The City of Fairfield hereby accepts the Project as complete pursuant to the agreement between the City of Fairfield and First Serve Production, Inc. approved by the council on May 3, 2022.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 4th day of October, 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 126 of 224Attachment 1 Page 1 of 1

Agenda Item No: 13.

AGENDA REPORT
DATE:October 4, 2022
TO:Mayor and City Council
FROM:David Gassaway, Interim City Manager
SUBJECT:Resolution 2022266 of the City Council of the City of Fairfield Accepting the Heart of Fairfield Downtown Striping and Intersection Improvement Project as Complete RECOMMENDED ACTION
Adopt resolution.

STATEMENT OF ISSUE
The adoption of this resolution accepts the Heart of Fairfield Downtown Striping and Intersection Improvement Project as complete.

DISCUSSION
On April 5, 2022, the City adopted Resolution No. 202257 approving a contract with W. Bradley Electric, Inc. for the Heart of Fairfield Downtown Striping and Intersection Improvement Project (Project).

The Project included installing bicycle lanes, removing left turn pockets, converting intersections into all way stops, and creating oneway streets. The Project was completed on July 24, 2022.

The construction authorization for the Project was approved for $344,227. This amount included a total bid of $299,327.75 and a 15% contingency of $44,899.25. The final cost for the Project was $304,334.40, which is approximately 12% below the amount authorized for construction.

FINANCIAL IMPACT
Acceptance of the Project obligates the City to provide ongoing maintenance and repair of the improvements which will be paid from the Public Works Traffic Operations and Maintenance Fund (Fund 101, Organization Code 60202).

PUBLIC CONTACT/ADVISORY BODY RECOMMENDATION
N/A
ALTERNATIVE ACTION
If the City Council has any questions, acceptance may be delayed so that staff may provide the necessary additional information.

Packet Page 127 of 224

Agenda Item No: 13.AGENDA REPORTDATE:October 4, 2022 TO:Mayor and City CouncilFROM:David Gassaway, Interim City ManagerSUBJECT:Resolution 2022266 of the City Council of the City of Fairfield Accepting the Heart ofFairfield Downtown Striping and Intersection Improvement Project as CompleteRECOMMENDED ACTIONAdopt resolution.STATEMENT OF ISSUEThe adoption of this resolution accepts the Heart of Fairfield Downtown Striping and IntersectionImprovement Project as complete.DISCUSSIONOn April 5, 2022, the City adopted Resolution No. 202257 approving a contract with W. BradleyElectric, Inc. for the Heart of Fairfield Downtown Striping and Intersection Improvement Project (Project).The Project included installing bicycle lanes, removing left turn pockets, converting intersections into allway stops, and creating oneway streets. The Project was completed on July 24, 2022. The construction authorization for the Project was approved for $344,227. This amount included a totalbid of $299,327.75 and a 15% contingency of $44,899.25. The final cost for the Project was$304,334.40, which is approximately 12% below the amount authorized for construction.FINANCIAL IMPACTAcceptance of the Project obligates the City to provide ongoing maintenance and repair of theimprovements which will be paid from the Public Works Traffic Operations and Maintenance Fund(Fund 101, Organization Code 60202).PUBLIC CONTACT/ADVISORY BODY RECOMMENDATIONN/AALTERNATIVE ACTIONIf the City Council has any questions, acceptance may be delayed so that staff may provide the necessary additional information.

STAFF CONTACT
Roger Dunham, Public Works Construction Manager
(707) 4287478
[email protected]
COORDINATED WITH
N/A
ATTACHMENTS:

Description
Proposed Resolution
REVIEWERS:

Reviewer Action Date
Kaushal, Paul Approved 9/19/2022 3:06 PM
Beavers, Esther Approved 9/19/2022 8:26 PM
Beavers, Esther Approved 9/19/2022 8:27 PM
Packet Page 128 of 224

CITY OF FAIRFIELD

RESOLUTION NO. 2022-266

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAIRFIELD ACCEPTING THE HEART OF

FAIRFIELD DOWNTOWN STRIPING AND INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AS

COMPLETE

WHEREAS, the City Council approved a contract with W. Bradley Electric, Inc. for the Heart of Fairfield Downtown Striping and Intersection Improvement Project (Project) on April 5, 2022, by Resolution No. 2022-57; and

WHEREAS, W. Bradley Electric, Inc. has completed the Project in accordance with the contract approved by the council.

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

Section 1. The City of Fairfield hereby accepts the Project as complete pursuant to the agreement between the City of Fairfield and W. Bradley Electric, Inc. approved by the council on April 5, 2022.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 4th day of October, 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 129 of 224Attachment 1 Page 1 of 1

Agenda Item No: 14.

AGENDA REPORT
DATE:October 4, 2022
TO:Mayor and City Council
FROM:David Gassaway, Interim City Manager
SUBJECT:Resolution 2022267 of the City Council of the City of Fairfield Approving the Plans and Specifications and Awarding a Contract to Kerex Engineering for the Waterman Boulevard Sidewalk Project and Rancho Solano Median Extensions Project RECOMMENDED ACTION
Adopt resolution.

STATEMENT OF ISSUE
The existing sidewalk on Waterman Boulevard between Vista Grande and Vista del Rancho has been susceptible to root intrusion and degradation over time. This has led to the emergence of tripping hazards and increased maintenance. The proposed Waterman Boulevard Sidewalk Project will remove and replace the existing asphalt sidewalk with durable Portland Cement Concrete (PCC).

Rancho Solano’s Safety and Security Committee (Committee) have observed drivers improperly entering the community through the exit gates at five gate locations: Ascot Drive, Pebble Beach Circle (north and south), Quail Hollow Drive, and Seminole Drive. The proposed Rancho Solano Median Extensions Project will extend gate medians at the locations identified to deter any unauthorized entry.

The proposed resolution approves the plans and specifications for the Waterman Boulevard Sidewalk Project and Rancho Solano Median Extensions Project (Project) and awards the contract in the amount of $579,650 to Kerex Engineering of Pleasant Hill, California.

DISCUSSION
The Public Works Department strives to provide the community with safe, pedestrianfriendly sidewalks to contribute to the livability and aesthetic image of Fairfield. With limited available funding compared to what is required, the department is strategic in its approach to maintain over 630+ miles of concrete sidewalks, curbs and gutters, and thousands of pedestrian curb ramps within the city. As funding becomes available, staff has identified and prioritized sidewalk segments that serve the highest level of pedestrian traffic and are in close proximity to key community destinations (e.g., schools, public transportation, parks, grocery stores, business, and jobs) to be addressed by the capital improvement program.

Packet Page 130 of 224

Waterman Boulevard Sidewalk Project
The asphalt sidewalk along westbound Waterman Boulevard, between Vista Grande and Vista del Rancho, is frequently utilized by residents and students from adjacent subdivisions. Tree roots have lifted the sidewalk resulting in potential trip hazards and drainage concerns over time. Per the California Streets and Highways Code (Sections 56105618) and the City of Fairfield Municipal Code (Section

16.14), property owners are responsible for the maintenance and repair of the sidewalk fronting and or adjacent to their homes or businesses; however, this stretch of sidewalk on Waterman Boulevard is along a major arterial with no fronting property owners.

Staff has identified approximately 19,100 square feet of sidewalk between Vista Del Rancho and Vista Grande as the primary area of concern due to its proximity to K.I. Jones Elementary School, Mankas Neighborhood Park, and neighboring residential subdivisions. Despite routine maintenance to fill cracks and patch the aging asphalt walkway, staff has determined that complete replacement is the appropriate remedy. The asphalt concrete will be replaced with PCC due to its increased life expectancy and durability compared to asphalt concrete. The PCC sidewalk will provide a safe and accessible path of travel while reducing future maintenance and repair costs.

Rancho Solano Median Extensions Project
The Committee identified safety concerns at five gated entryways: Ascot Drive, Pebble Beach Circle (north and south entryways), Quail Hollow Drive, and Seminole Drive. At these locations, vehicles were observed entering the community through exit gates. The proposed Rancho Solano Median Extensions Project will extend the raised medians to safely direct traffic flow at the five locations. The Committee has reviewed staff’s recommendations and has requested to proceed with the project utilizing maintenance district funding.

Staff contracted with Bennett Engineering to prepare the plans, specifications, and engineer’s estimates for the Project. Based on the current bidding climate and in an effort to gain an economy of scale, staff decided to combine the two improvement projects to potentially receive favorable bids. The project has received the required project approvals necessary to start construction.

Six bids were received and opened on August 30, 2022. The bids ranged from $579,650 to $947,477.82 for the total bid (Bid Schedule A – Waterman Boulevard Sidewalk Project plus Bid Schedule B – Rancho Solano Median Extensions Project). The total engineer’s estimate was $567,549 and consisted of $428,461 for Bid Schedule A and $139,133 for Bid Schedule B. The apparent low bidder is Kerex Engineering of Pleasant Hill, California, with a bid amount of $579,650. Staff has reviewed the bid submitted by Kerex Engineering and has determined that it meets all bid requirements as a responsive and responsible bid. Kerex Engineering is appropriately licensed with the Contractor’s State Licensing Board (CSLB) as well as the California Department of Industrial Relations (CADIR).

FINANCIAL IMPACT
The construction authorization for the Project is $637,615 which is the total bid amount plus a 10% contingency ($579,650 total bid + $57,965 contingency). Funding for Bid Schedule A – Waterman Boulevard $490,050 is budgeted under the Capital Streets Fund (Fund 252, Organization Code 60199, Project 10246). Funding for Bid Schedule B – Rancho Solano Median Extensions Project $147,565 is budgeted under the Smith Ranch Maintenance District Fund (Organization Code 1789505).

PUBLIC CONTACT/ADVISORY BODY RECOMMENDATION
On June 22, 2021, staff provided a design memorandum for the Rancho Solano Median Extensions Project to members of the Committee that outlined the basis of design and vehicle turning movements at the five proposed locations. The Committee affirmed agreement with the design.

Packet Page 131 of 224

Agenda Item No: 14.AGENDA REPORTDATE:October 4, 2022 TO:Mayor and City CouncilFROM:David Gassaway, Interim City ManagerSUBJECT:Resolution 2022267 of the City Council of the City of Fairfield Approving the Plans andSpecifications and Awarding a Contract to Kerex Engineering for the WatermanBoulevard Sidewalk Project and Rancho Solano Median Extensions ProjectRECOMMENDED ACTIONAdopt resolution.STATEMENT OF ISSUEThe existing sidewalk on Waterman Boulevard between Vista Grande and Vista del Rancho has beensusceptible to root intrusion and degradation over time. This has led to the emergence of trippinghazards and increased maintenance. The proposed Waterman Boulevard Sidewalk Project will removeand replace the existing asphalt sidewalk with durable Portland Cement Concrete (PCC). Rancho Solano’s Safety and Security Committee (Committee) have observed drivers improperlyentering the community through the exit gates at five gate locations: Ascot Drive, Pebble Beach Circle(north and south), Quail Hollow Drive, and Seminole Drive. The proposed Rancho Solano MedianExtensions Project will extend gate medians at the locations identified to deter any unauthorized entry. The proposed resolution approves the plans and specifications for the Waterman Boulevard SidewalkProject and Rancho Solano Median Extensions Project (Project) and awards the contract in the amountof $579,650 to Kerex Engineering of Pleasant Hill, California.DISCUSSIONThe Public Works Department strives to provide the community with safe, pedestrianfriendly sidewalksto contribute to the livability and aesthetic image of Fairfield. With limited available funding compared towhat is required, the department is strategic in its approach to maintain over 630+ miles of concretesidewalks, curbs and gutters, and thousands of pedestrian curb ramps within the city. As fundingbecomes available, staff has identified and prioritized sidewalk segments that serve the highest level ofpedestrian traffic and are in close proximity to key community destinations (e.g., schools, publictransportation, parks, grocery stores, business, and jobs) to be addressed by the capital improvementprogram. Waterman Boulevard Sidewalk ProjectThe asphalt sidewalk along westbound Waterman Boulevard, between Vista Grande and Vista delRancho, is frequently utilized by residents and students from adjacent subdivisions. Tree roots havelifted the sidewalk resulting in potential trip hazards and drainage concerns over time. Per the CaliforniaStreets and Highways Code (Sections 56105618) and the City of Fairfield Municipal Code (Section16.14), property owners are responsible for the maintenance and repair of the sidewalk fronting and oradjacent to their homes or businesses; however, this stretch of sidewalk on Waterman Boulevard isalong a major arterial with no fronting property owners. Staff has identified approximately 19,100 square feet of sidewalk between Vista Del Rancho and VistaGrande as the primary area of concern due to its proximity to K.I. Jones Elementary School, MankasNeighborhood Park, and neighboring residential subdivisions. Despite routine maintenance to fillcracks and patch the aging asphalt walkway, staff has determined that complete replacement is theappropriate remedy. The asphalt concrete will be replaced with PCC due to its increased lifeexpectancy and durability compared to asphalt concrete. The PCC sidewalk will provide a safe andaccessible path of travel while reducing future maintenance and repair costs. Rancho Solano Median Extensions ProjectThe Committee identified safety concerns at five gated entryways: Ascot Drive, Pebble Beach Circle(north and south entryways), Quail Hollow Drive, and Seminole Drive. At these locations, vehicles wereobserved entering the community through exit gates. The proposed Rancho Solano Median ExtensionsProject will extend the raised medians to safely direct traffic flow at the five locations. The Committeehas reviewed staff’s recommendations and has requested to proceed with the project utilizingmaintenance district funding. Staff contracted with Bennett Engineering to prepare the plans, specifications, and engineer’sestimates for the Project. Based on the current bidding climate and in an effort to gain an economy ofscale, staff decided to combine the two improvement projects to potentially receive favorable bids. Theproject has received the required project approvals necessary to start construction. Six bids were received and opened on August 30, 2022. The bids ranged from $579,650 to$947,477.82 for the total bid (Bid Schedule A – Waterman Boulevard Sidewalk Project plus BidSchedule B – Rancho Solano Median Extensions Project). The total engineer’s estimate was $567,549and consisted of $428,461 for Bid Schedule A and $139,133 for Bid Schedule B. The apparent lowbidder is Kerex Engineering of Pleasant Hill, California, with a bid amount of $579,650. Staff hasreviewed the bid submitted by Kerex Engineering and has determined that it meets all bid requirementsas a responsive and responsible bid. Kerex Engineering is appropriately licensed with the Contractor’sState Licensing Board (CSLB) as well as the California Department of Industrial Relations (CADIR).FINANCIAL IMPACTThe construction authorization for the Project is $637,615 which is the total bid amount plus a 10%contingency ($579,650 total bid + $57,965 contingency). Funding for Bid Schedule A – WatermanBoulevard $490,050 is budgeted under the Capital Streets Fund (Fund 252, Organization Code 60199,Project 10246). Funding for Bid Schedule B – Rancho Solano Median Extensions Project $147,565 isbudgeted under the Smith Ranch Maintenance District Fund (Organization Code 1789505).PUBLIC CONTACT/ADVISORY BODY RECOMMENDATIONOn June 22, 2021, staff provided a design memorandum for the Rancho Solano Median ExtensionsProject to members of the Committee that outlined the basis of design and vehicle turning movements at the five proposed locations. The Committee affirmed agreement with the design.

A notice inviting bids for the Project was advertised twice in the Daily Republic newspaper, on July 22, 2022, and July 29, 2022. In addition, the Plans and Specifications were hosted through BPX Printing & Graphics on their online Planroom. The initial advertisement emailed a notice of the Project and complete bid package to 10 builder's exchanges in the State of California, covering the area from Redding to San Jose and Stockton to Santa Rosa. A total of eight contractors purchased bid documents for this Project.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION
The City Council could choose not to award the contract, reject all bids and restart the bid process.

However, a delay in the award could significantly and negatively impact the Project construction schedule.

STAFF CONTACT
Pavan Prasad, Junior Engineer
(707) 4287431
[email protected]
COORDINATED WITH
Rancho Solano Safety and Security Committee
ATTACHMENTS:

Description
Proposed Resolution
Bid Results
REVIEWERS:

Reviewer Action Date
Kaushal, Paul Approved 9/22/2022 5:01 PM
Beavers, Esther Approved 9/22/2022 5:17 PM
Beavers, Esther Approved 9/22/2022 5:18 PM
Packet Page 132 of 224

CITY OF FAIRFIELD

RESOLUTION NO. 2022-267

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAIRFIELD APPROVING THE PLANS AND

SPECIFICATIONS AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO KEREX ENGINEERING FOR THE

WATERMAN BOULEVARD SIDEWALK PROJECT AND RANCHO SOLANO MEDIAN EXTENSIONS

PROJECT

WHEREAS, the bid opening for the Waterman Boulevard Sidewalk Project and Rancho Solano Median Extensions Project took place on August 30, 2022; and

WHEREAS, the apparent low bidder was Kerex Engineering in the amount of $579,650; and

WHEREAS, staff has reviewed the bid documents from Kerex Engineering and found them to be in order; and

WHEREAS, staff is recommending the City Council award the contract to Kerex Engineering as the lowest responsive and responsible bidder.

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

Section 1. The plans and specifications for Waterman Boulevard Sidewalk Project and Rancho Solano Median Extensions Project are hereby approved.

Section 2. The city manager is authorized to enter into a contract with Kerex Engineering, for the Waterman Boulevard Sidewalk Project and Rancho Solano Median Extensions Project in the amount of $579,650.

Section 3. The city manager is authorized to enter into an escrow agreement for security deposits in lieu of retention for said contract, if necessary.

Section 4. The city manager is hereby authorized to implement the above -mentioned contract and escrow agreement.

Packet Page 133 of 224Attachment 1 Page 1 of 2

RES. NO. 2022-267

Page 2 ends

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 4th day of October, 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 134 of 224Attachment 1 Page 2 of 2

City of Fairfield
Public Works Department

Waterman Sidewalk Replacement Project & Rancho
Solano Median Extensions Project

NAME OF PROJECT
August 30, 2022, 2:00 p.m.

DATE OF BID

NO. BIDDER AMOUNT
1 Kerex Engineering Pleasant Hill, CA $579,650.00
2 Ghilotti Bros., Inc. San Rafael, CA $585,095.00
3 Nor-Cal Concrete Suisun City, CA $617,350.00
4 Lister Construction Inc. Vacaville, CA $669,349.30
5 J.A. Gonslaves & Son Napa, CA $802,990.00
6 MBC Enterprises Inc. Huntington Beach, CA $947,477.82

Engineer’s Estimate $567,549.00

Packet Page 135 of 224Attachment 2 Page 1 of 1

Agenda Item No: 15.

AGENDA REPORT
DATE:October 4, 2022
TO:Mayor and City Council
FROM:David Gassaway, Interim City Manager
SUBJECT:Resolution 2022268 of the City Council of the City of Fairfield Approving the Fire Department to Apply Through Solano LAFCO for ShortTerm and LongTerm Contract for Service Agreements with the Cordelia Fire Protection District RECOMMENDED ACTION
Adopt resolution.

STATEMENT OF ISSUE
Due to staffing and retention struggles as a result of the highly competitive market for qualified fire personnel, the Cordelia Fire Protection District (CFPD) is no longer able to provide 24/7 emergency response to its jurisdiction.

DISCUSSION
The CFPD is facing a public health and safety emergency. In the spirit of collaboration and maintaining continuity of service for our neighbors within the CFPD, the Fire Department is seeking City Council approval to apply through Solano Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) to enter a shortterm and longterm contract for service with the CFPD under Government Code section 56133(c).

The shortterm arrangement would be limited to 911/emergency calls for service, to include Fairfield fire apparatus response and chief officer coverage. The shortterm agreement will not include prevention, administration, or any other auxiliary functions of the Fire Department. In the shortterm, the Fire Department is willing and equipped to accommodate the CFPD’s roughly 50 calls per month under a ‘fee per call’ model while maintaining service levels in its own jurisdiction.

The Fire Department has already started response coverage upon request when CFPD is unable to adequately staff its units and would like to formalize the relationship as soon as possible. Ideally the shortterm agreement will remain in effect no later than June 30, 2023. At which point, if a longterm agreement has not been reached, the shortterm agreement should be reevaluated. The intent of the shortterm agreement is to bridge the gap until the longterm solution is approved through Solano LAFCO.

FINANCIAL IMPACT
Packet Page 136 of 224

Agenda Item No: 15.AGENDA REPORTDATE:October 4, 2022 TO:Mayor and City CouncilFROM:David Gassaway, Interim City ManagerSUBJECT:Resolution 2022268 of the City Council of the City of Fairfield Approving the FireDepartment to Apply Through Solano LAFCO for ShortTerm and LongTerm Contractfor Service Agreements with the Cordelia Fire Protection DistrictRECOMMENDED ACTIONAdopt resolution.STATEMENT OF ISSUEDue to staffing and retention struggles as a result of the highly competitive market for qualified firepersonnel, the Cordelia Fire Protection District (CFPD) is no longer able to provide 24/7 emergencyresponse to its jurisdiction. DISCUSSIONThe CFPD is facing a public health and safety emergency. In the spirit of collaboration and maintainingcontinuity of service for our neighbors within the CFPD, the Fire Department is seeking City Councilapproval to apply through Solano Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) to enter a shorttermand longterm contract for service with the CFPD under Government Code section 56133(c).The shortterm arrangement would be limited to 911/emergency calls for service, to include Fairfieldfire apparatus response and chief officer coverage. The shortterm agreement will not includeprevention, administration, or any other auxiliary functions of the Fire Department. In the shortterm, theFire Department is willing and equipped to accommodate the CFPD’s roughly 50 calls per month undera ‘fee per call’ model while maintaining service levels in its own jurisdiction.The Fire Department has already started response coverage upon request when CFPD is unable toadequately staff its units and would like to formalize the relationship as soon as possible. Ideally theshortterm agreement will remain in effect no later than June 30, 2023. At which point, if a longtermagreement has not been reached, the shortterm agreement should be reevaluated. The intent of theshortterm agreement is to bridge the gap until the longterm solution is approved through SolanoLAFCO.

FINANCIAL IMPACT
The desired shortterm arrangement is a ‘fee per call’ model based on the Fire Department’s established 1st Responder Fee ($475 per call effective fiscal year (FY) 20222023). At roughly 50 calls per month, the Fire Department estimates $213,000 in revenue for the duration of the agreement. In the longterm, the CFPD has contracted with a consultant to work with Solano LAFCO and the Fire Department to develop a service plan and financial arrangement that is acceptable to both parties. The longterm contract for service is likely to reflect the current CFPD budget, or roughly $800,000 annually (Fund 101, Organization Code 55100).

PUBLIC CONTACT/ADVISORY BODY RECOMMENDATION
N/A
ALTERNATIVE ACTION
The council may choose not to approve the Fire Department to apply through LAFCO for shortterm and longterm service agreements, which would leave neighboring CFPD without adequate emergency response coverage.

STAFF CONTACT
Taylor Armour, Administration Division Manager
(707) 4287593
[email protected]
COORDINATED WITH
City Attorney's Office, City Manager's Office
ATTACHMENTS:

Description
Proposed Resolution
Solano LAFCO Letter
REVIEWERS:

Reviewer Action Date
Armour, Taylor Approved 9/22/2022 4:58 PM
Armour, Taylor Approved 9/22/2022 4:59 PM
Luckenbach, Matt Approved 9/22/2022 5:09 PM
Beavers, Esther Approved 9/22/2022 5:14 PM
Beavers, Esther Approved 9/22/2022 5:15 PM
Packet Page 137 of 224

CITY OF FAIRFIELD

RESOLUTION NO. 2022-268

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAIRFIELD APPROVING THE FIRE

DEPARTMENT TO APPLY THROUGH SOLANO LAFCO FOR SHORT -TERM AND LONG-TERM

CONTRACT FOR SERVICE AGREEMENTS WITH THE CORDELIA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT

WHEREAS, the Cordelia Fire Protection District (CFPD) is no longer able to provide 24/7 emergency response coverage and is facing a public health emergency; and

WHEREAS, under a short-term agreement, the Fire Department is willing and equipped to accommodate the CFPD’s roughly 50 calls per month under a ‘fee per call’ model while maintaining service levels in its own jurisdiction; and

WHEREAS, the intent of the short-term agreement is to bridge the gap until a long-term solution is approved through Solano LAFCO; and

WHEREAS, in the spirit of collaboration and maintaining continuity of service for our neighbors within the CFPD, the Fire Department is seeking Council approval to apply through Solano LAFCO to enter short-term and long-term contracts for service with the CFPD under Government Code section 56133(c).

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

Section 1. The City of Fairfield City Council hereby directs the Fire Department to apply through Solano LAFCO to enter short-term and long-term contracts for service with the CFPD.

Section 2. The city manager and fire chief are hereby authorized to do all things necessary and proper to implement this resolution and enter into a short-term agreement if granted approval by Solano LAFCO.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 4th day of October, 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 138 of 224Attachment 1 Page 1 of 1

FIRE DEPARTMENT

September 19, 2022

Rich Seithel
Executive Officer
Solano LAFCO
675 Texas Street
Suite 6700
Fairfield, California 94533

Re: Short‐Term Contract for Service between City of Fairfield Fire Department & Cordelia Fire Protection District

Dear Mr. Seithel:

The City of Fairfield Fire Department (FFD) is seeking Solano LAFCO approval to enter a short‐ term contract for service with the Cordelia Fire Protection District (CFPD) under Government Code section 56133(c) on the grounds that the Cordelia Fire Protection District is facing a public health and safety emergency.

The desired arrangement is limited to 9‐1‐1/emergency calls for service (fee per call), to include FFD apparatus response and chief officer coverage. The short‐term agreement will not include prevention, administration, or any other auxiliary functions of FFD. In the short‐term, FFD is willing and equipped to accommodate the CFPD’s roughly 50 calls per month under a ‘fee per call’ model while maintaining service levels in its own jurisdiction. FFD currently has two fully staffed advanced life support (ALS) crews deploying from Fire Station 35, located at 600 Lopes Road which is currently the station with quickest response to the majority of CFPD’s response area.

Packet Page 139 of 224Attachment 2 Page 1 of 2

Rich Seithel
Re: Short‐Term Contract for Service between City of Fairfield Fire Department & Cordelia Fire Protection District
September 19, 2022

Page 2 ends

FFD has already started response coverage upon request when CFPD is unable to adequately staff its units and would like to formalize the relationship as soon as possible in an effort to recover some costs. Ideally the short‐term agreement will remain in effect no later than June 30, 2023 or until a long‐term solution has been reached.

Regards,

MATT LUCKENBACH
Fire Chief

cc: John Sturdee, Deputy Chief of Operations
Robb Herrick, Deputy Chief of Support Services
Steven Conti, Fire Marshal
Taylor Armour, Administration Division Manager

Packet Page 140 of 224Attachment 2 Page 2 of 2

Agenda Item No: 16.

AGENDA REPORT
DATE:October 4, 2022
TO:Mayor and City Council
FROM:David Gassaway, Interim City Manager
SUBJECT:Continued Minute Action Approving Response to the 20212022 Grand Jury Report Entitled “Shelter Solano, Inc.: A Review of its First Three Years Operating an Emergency Shelter in Solano County;” and
Discussion on Grand Jury Recommendation of Forensic Audit RECOMMENDED ACTION
Approve the response letter to the Grand Jury and discuss the Grand Jury recommendation of a forensic audit.

STATEMENT OF ISSUE
This item was originally introduced at the September 20, 2022, City Council meeting and is continued to October 4, 2022. The 20212022 Grand Jury issued a report entitled “Shelter Solano, Inc.: A Review of its First Three Years Operating an Emergency Shelter in Solano County.”In the report, there are eleven findings and recommendations that the City of Fairfield needs to respond to in writing. The response requires City Council concurrence.

DISCUSSION
State law requires the City of Fairfield to respond to findings and recommendations contained in the 20212022 Solano County Grand Jury report by October 3, 2022. City staff has prepared their response and is asking council to approve the attached letter.

At the July 19th City Council Meeting, council asked to agendize a discussion on the Grand Jury Recommendation "14 B: County performs or hires a Forensic Accountant to perform a Forensic Audit on money being spent across the continuum of homeless services in Solano County." Staff seeks direction from council on how to proceed from this discussion and if so, in what format.

FINANCIAL IMPACT
N/A
PUBLIC CONTACT/ADVISORY BODY RECOMMENDATION
N/A
Packet Page 141 of 224

Agenda Item No: 16.AGENDA REPORTDATE:October 4, 2022 TO:Mayor and City CouncilFROM:David Gassaway, Interim City Manager SUBJECT:Continued Minute Action Approving Response to the 20212022 Grand Jury ReportEntitled “Shelter Solano, Inc.: A Review of its First Three Years Operating anEmergency Shelter in Solano County;” andDiscussion on Grand Jury Recommendation of Forensic AuditRECOMMENDED ACTIONApprove the response letter to the Grand Jury and discuss the Grand Jury recommendation of aforensic audit.STATEMENT OF ISSUEThis item was originally introduced at the September 20, 2022, City Council meeting and is continuedto October 4, 2022. The 20212022 Grand Jury issued a report entitled “Shelter Solano, Inc.: A Reviewof its First Three Years Operating an Emergency Shelter in Solano County.”In the report, there areeleven findings and recommendations that the City of Fairfield needs to respond to in writing. Theresponse requires City Council concurrence.DISCUSSIONState law requires the City of Fairfield to respond to findings and recommendations contained in the20212022 Solano County Grand Jury report by October 3, 2022. City staff has prepared theirresponse and is asking council to approve the attached letter.At the July 19th City Council Meeting, council asked to agendize a discussion on the Grand JuryRecommendation "14 B: County performs or hires a Forensic Accountant to perform a Forensic Auditon money being spent across the continuum of homeless services in Solano County." Staff seeksdirection from council on how to proceed from this discussion and if so, in what format.FINANCIAL IMPACTN/A PUBLIC CONTACT/ADVISORY BODY RECOMMENDATION
N/A
ALTERNATIVE ACTION
Council may choose to revise the attached letter, but postponing the concurrence of this response will result in noncompliance with State law and the October 3, 2022, deadline.

STAFF CONTACT
Dawn La Bar, Homeless Services Manager
(707) 4287749
[email protected]
COORDINATED WITH
ATTACHMENTS:

Description
Proposed Response Letter
20212022 Grand Jury Report Entitled Shelter Solano, Inc.: A Review of its First Three Years Operating an Emergency Shelter in Solano County
REVIEWERS:

Reviewer Action Date
Beavers, Esther Approved 9/29/2022 9:29 AM
Packet Page 142 of 224

CITY MANAGER’S OFFICE

October 5, 2022

Honorable Wendy G. Getty
Presiding Judge of the Superior Court SENT VIA EMAIL
Solano County Superior Court
600 Union Avenue
Fairfield, CA 94533

Re: City of Fairfield Response to 2021-2022 Grand Jury Report Entitled: Shelter Solano, Inc.:

A Review of its First Three Years Operating an Emergency Shelter in Solano County

Honorable Judge Getty:

The following is the City of Fairfield’s response to the above-mentioned Grand Jury Report which was approved by the City Council on October 4, 2022:

Finding 1 – “Shelter Solano, Inc.’s lack of unrestricted funding prevents the shelter from operating at capacity.”
City Response F1: The City agrees with the finding.

Recommendation 1A: “Local agency partners associated with Shelter Solano, Inc. must assist in acquiring funding streams that increase the number of unrestricted beds.”

Recommendation 1B: “Local agency partners adopt a regionalized service delivery and funding model that does not restrict bed usage based on a bed-night rate agreement with the county and/or donor city, but rather allows access to beds based on client need regardless of the city of origin and works toward reducing the number of homeless living on the streets.”

City Response R1A & R1B: The recommendation has not yet been implemented. The City, along with regional partners of the CAP Solano Joint Powers Authority (CAP Solano JPA), including staff from the cities of Vacaville, Suisun City, Benicia, Vallejo, and the County of Solano began discussions in 2021 with SHELTER Solano, Inc. to modify the funding plan and transition away from ‘per bed’ rates. The City of Fairfield anticipates this will be complete when the facility is fully converted as part of a Regional Navigation Center Plan in 2022 – 2023.

Packet Page 143 of 224Attachment 1 Page 1 of 7

Letter to Honorable Judge Getty
Re: City of Fairfield Response to 2021-2022 Grand Jury Report Entitled: Shelter Solano, Inc.: A Review of its First Three Years Operating an Emergency Shelter in Solano County October 5, 2022

Page 2 ends

Finding 2: “The Solano County Civil Grand Jury found it difficult to track money and funding between SHELTER, Inc., and Shelter Solano, Inc. Often, the names of the two entities are used interchangeably. It is unclear which funding sources are specifically awarded to Shelter Solano, Inc. and which funding sources are awarded to SHELTER, Inc.”

City Response F2: The City partially disagrees with this finding. For the most part, after a comprehensive review, the City of Fairfield finds our contracts clear in designating which legal entity, either SHELTER, Inc. or SHELTER Solano, Inc., receives funding for the services subject to the individual contracts. However, our review of all contracts found a Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding agreement, dated July 1, 2021, for $50,000, was confusing. The Subrecipient was identified as SHELTER, Inc., who was “responsible for administering the SHELTER Solano, Inc.” program. Under Exhibit F of the agreement, SHELTER, Inc. was again named as subrecipient, but the Duns and Bradstreet number provided identified SHELTER Solano, Inc.

Recommendation 2: “Local agency partners establish a transparent system of tracking and reporting funds that clearly differentiates between SHELTER, Inc. and Shelter Solano, Inc.”

City Response R2: The City will implement tighter internal controls to ensure funding agreements with SHELTER Inc. and SHELTER Solano provide a clear delineation of services moving forward.

Finding 3: “Confusion exists in the Solano community regarding what services and/or programming in Solano County is provided by SHELTER, Inc. and what is provided by Shelter Solano, Inc.”

City Response F3: The City agrees with the finding. The City of Fairfield provides no transparent way for the community to review what services are provided by the various agencies and from what funding sources.

Recommendation 3: “Local agency partners work together to develop and implement transparent reporting of services and programming that clearly differentiates between those provided by SHELTER, Inc. and those provided by Shelter Solano, Inc.”

City Response R3: The recommendation has not yet been implemented. By January 2023, the City will create a summary of contracts for services provided by SHELTER, Inc., SHELTER Solano, Inc., as well as other services providers providing homeless services in Fairfield. The City further commits to working with CAP Solano JPA to create and maintain a public report to be located on the CAP Solano JPA website that will provide a list of all CAP Solano JPA and Packet Page 144 of 224Attachment 1 Page 2 of 7

Page 3 ends

Continuum of Care (CoC) funded agencies, the amount of funding received, what the funding is to be used for, and subsequent outcomes.

Finding 4: “The Solano County Civil Grand Jury found it unclear which funding sources awarded to SHELTER, Inc, are specifically assigned to Shelter Solano, Inc., and which funding sources were awarded to SHELTER, Inc. to provide services in Solano County.”

City Response F4: The City partially disagrees with this finding. Please see the City’s response to Finding 2 for specific detail.

Recommendation 4: “Local agency partners work with SHELTER, Inc. and funding providers to establish a more transparent and reconciliation method to clearly disclose which funding sources they receive specifically for Shelter Solano, Inc. and which funding sources SHELTER, Inc. receives that are earmarked for SHELTER, Inc. to provide services in Solano County.”

City Response R4: This recommendation has not yet been implemented. See the City’s response to Recommendation 3 for further detail.

Finding 6: “Despite improved collaboration between the service providers, funders, municipal government, and county, there remains a lack of an overall leadership role/authority.”

City Response F6: The City agrees with this finding. The newly restructured CAP Solano JPA will be the central coordinator of services and funding, providing a countywide, centralized agency for establishing and distributing necessary resources. This restructuring is expected to be complete in the fall of 2022.

Recommendation 6 A: “Overall leadership with authority to address homelessness is required to provide direction, ensure timely coordination of services, demand accountability, and liaison with the community.”

City Response R6A: The recommendation has been implemented. The CAP Solano JPA has been reformed to take a leadership role to address homelessness.

Recommendation 6 B: “All stakeholders request the county provide the leadership, authority, and accountability to ensure timely coordination of services delivered in the most efficient, effective manner.”

City Response R6B: The recommendation has been implemented. The CAP Solano JPA has been reformed to take a leadership role to address homelessness.

Packet Page 145 of 224Attachment 1 Page 3 of 7

Page 4 ends

Finding 8: “The public is unaware of the volume of money coming into Solano County to address the homeless issue.”

City Response F8: The City agrees with this finding.

Recommendation 8: “CAP Solano, JPA should create a dashboard disclosing the money coming into Solano County; how it is used, by whom, and their return on investment (program outcomes).”

City Response R8: This recommendation has not yet been implemented but will be implemented in the future. The City, through our role with CAP Solano JPA, can raise the recommendation to create a dashboard, but as one member of the JPA cannot independently control the timing for the creation of a dashboard.

Finding 10: “Lack of housing makes it difficult for individuals to successfully graduate out of Shelter Solano, Inc. into permanent housing as required by the Housing First Delivery Model used in Solano County.”

City Response F10: The City agrees with this finding.

Recommendation 10 A: “To successfully address homelessness in Solano County requires that the county and cities work together to secure housing in their respective communities.”

City Response R10A: The recommendation has not yet been implemented but will be implemented in the future. The timeframe for implementation is many years given the complexity and resources required to develop affordable housing.

Recommendation 10 B: “Engagement and education of the general public around homelessness is required to gain the public’s understanding, trust, and input in supporting the county’s homeless residents.”

City Response R10B: The recommendation has not yet been implemented but will be implemented in the future. By June 2023, the City of Fairfield will provide more information on our website to educate the general public around homelessness.

Finding 11: “Ongoing delays in the completion of the dining hall has impacted Shelter Solano, Inc.’s ability to operate at capacity and contributes to the rising number of individuals living unsheltered.”
Packet Page 146 of 224Attachment 1 Page 4 of 7

Page 5 ends

City Response F11: The City disagrees partially with this finding. The City agrees that delays in the completion of the dining hall have impacted SHELTER Solano, Inc.’s ability to operate at capacity. The City disagrees that this contributes to the rising number of individuals living unsheltered.

Recommendation 11: “Continue working towards the projected June 2022 completion date to ensure Shelter Solano, Inc. can operate at full capacity.”

City Response R11: The recommendation has been implemented. The City worked with State Assemblymember Lori Wilson to secure $1.2 million in kitchen construction funding to complete the project.

Finding 12: “Direct observation and feedback received during Shelter Solano, Inc. site visit revealed shelter maintenance has been neglected.”

City Response F12: The City disagrees partially with the finding as we do not know what the SCCGJ observed during their visit. The City is aware that in 2018 the previous operator was not providing ongoing maintenance due to a lack of funding and the property was severely neglected.

Recommendation 12 A: “Adoption of a Regional Service Delivery model in Solano County that stabilizes funding to consistently meet operational needs.”

City Response R12A: This recommendation has not yet been implemented but may be implemented by the newly reformed CAP Solano JPA.

Recommendation 12 B: “Scheduled maintenance becomes a high priority budget item as funding streams stabilize.”

City Response R12B: The recommendation has not yet been implemented fully, but SHELTER Solano has secured funding through grants and other sources to rehab the buildings and add the commercial kitchen, as well as provide for ongoing maintenance. Additionally, the Fairfield Community Services Foundation has provided volunteers and resources to update and improve the landscaping and children’s play area, providing for a more welcoming and attractive site.

Finding 13: “Direct observation, document review, and feedback during the Solano County Civil Grand Jury investigation revealed gaps in service delivery along the entire continuum of services.”

Packet Page 147 of 224Attachment 1 Page 5 of 7

Page 6 ends

City Response F13: The City agrees with this finding.

Recommendation 13 A: “The county secures a comprehensive independent assessment across the continuum of homeless services to include:
• leadership
• level of collaboration among stakeholders
• funding
• how services are accessed
• quality of services provided
• measurement of outcomes
• mechanism to ensure accountability
• transparency of reporting”

City Response R13A: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not reasonable. The City of Fairfield has no say over the County of Solano and therefore cannot implement any recommendations identified for the County.

Recommendation 13 B: “The county develops a strategic plan that includes a timeline for the implementation of recommendations from the independent assessment in recommendation 13 A.”

City Response R13B: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not reasonable. The City of Fairfield has no say over the County of Solano and therefore cannot implement any recommendations identified for the County.

Finding 14: “A document review conducted by the Solano County Civil Grand Jury revealed discrepancies and inconsistent accounting and reporting practices among the entities providing services to the homeless in Solano County.”

City Response F14: The City disagrees partially with this finding. The City is not aware of all documents, and for what agencies, the Grand Jury reviewed and therefore cannot agree with the finding on face value. The City does agree that there are inconsistent reporting practices among agencies receiving funding from CAP Solano JPA and the Continuum of Care (CoC).

Recommendation 14 A: “Entities use a consistent reporting mechanism for the awarding of funding to keep the community informed and assured that the money is being spent effectively and as intended.”

City Response R14A: The recommendation has not yet been implemented but may be Packet Page 148 of 224Attachment 1 Page 6 of 7

Page 7 ends

implemented by the newly reformed CAP Solano JPA.

Recommendation 14 B: “County performs or hires a Forensic Accountant to perform a Forensic Audit on money being spent across the continuum of homeless services in Solano County.”

City Response R14B: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not reasonable. The City of Fairfield has no say over the County of Solano and therefore cannot implement any recommendations identified for the County.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

DAVID J. GASSAWAY
Interim City Manager

Attachment 1: Solano County Grand Jury letter dated 06/29/22 Attachment 2: 2021-2022 Grand Jury Report Entitled: Shelter Solano, Inc.: A Review of its First Three Years Operating an Emergency Shelter in Solano County

cc: Dawn La Bar, Homeless Services Manager
Packet Page 149 of 224Attachment 1 Page 7 of 7

2021-2022

Shelter Solano, Inc.

A Review of its First Three Years Operating an Emergency Shelter in Solano County Packet Page 150 of 224Attachment 2 Page 1 of 17

- 2 -

Shelter Solano, Inc.

A Review of its First Three Years Operating an Emergency Shelter in Solano County Solano County Civil Grand Jury 2021-2022

I. SUMMARY

Civil Grand Juries are formed in each county in California as watchdogs to examine the operations of departments/entities receiving county funding. The information gathered is provided to the citizens of the county to keep them informed of where, and on what, their tax dollars are spent.

The Solano County Civil Grand Jury (SCCGJ) of 2021-2022 examined the issue of homelessness, and Shelter Solano, Inc.’s role in serving the homeless community. The SCCGJ’s investigation found that Shelter Solano, Inc. is not currently operating at full capacity or meeting stakeholder (service providers, funders, government entities, and Solano County citizens) expectations. In addition, the SCCGJ identified many gaps along the continuum of homeless services, which prevent Solano County from effectively supporting those experiencing homelessness.

II. INTRODUCTION

Section 330(h)(5)(A) of the federal Public Health Service Act defines the term homeless individual as “an individual who lacks housing (without regard to whether the individual is a member of a family), including an individual whose primary residence during the night is a supervised public or private facility (e.g., shelters) that provides temporary living accommodations, and an individual who is a resident in transitional housing.”

SCCGJ investigations in 2014 and 2016 related to homelessness in Solano County generated findings and recommendations calling for increased leadership, collaboration between agencies, and improved coordination of care. These needs were echoed in a 2019 Solano County Human Services Needs Assessment (Exhibit 1). The 2021-2022 Civil Grand Jury found that the recommendations were not addressed and the needs remain outstanding.

Exhibit 1: Source - Solano County Health & Human Services Needs Assessment (Applied Survey Research)

Packet Page 151 of 224Attachment 2 Page 2 of 17

- 3 -

The 2019 Point-In -Time (PIT) Count, a Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requirement identified 1,151 homeless individuals in Solano County. Of the 1,151 identified, 932 were unsheltered. The PIT Count has two components: sheltered and unsheltered. The sheltered PIT counts the number of persons who are in an emergency shelter or transitional housing.

The unsheltered PIT counts the number of persons who are observed on the street.

Housing and Urban Development (HUD) defines an emergency shelter as “housing with minimal supportive services for homeless persons that is limited to occupancy of six months or less. No individual or household may be denied emergency shelter because of an inability to pay.” (See California Government Code § 65582, subd. (d) and Health and Safety Code § 50801, subd. (e).)

Note: Results of the most recent Point-In-Time Count, conducted in February 2022 are not available at the writing of this report.

A BIT OF HISTORY

Mission Solano Rescue Mission, a non-profit organization, was founded in 1998. The organization grew from a one-person operation in a donated office in Vacaville to the multi- million-dollar Bridge to Life shelter at 310 Beck Ave. in Fairfield. Mission Solano’s mission was to “provide an economic and spiritual bridge for homeless/disadvantaged people striving to regain the basics of life and restoring hope in themselves and their future by achieving economic stability so that they are able to rejoin the community as productive participants.” Mission Solano operated with great support from the community utilizing staff and volunteers to provide services. Accepting walk-in clients, Mission Solano reportedly had the capacity to serve up to 208 individuals, providing food, housing, and support to clients working to get on their feet and secure appropriate housing. Clients from all over Solano County utilized this shelter.

In April 2018, one year after the retirement of its founder, Mission Solano came to the City of Fairfield advising they were unable to meet payroll. In June 2018, Mission Solano filed for bankruptcy in the US Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of California in Sacramento, CA.

According to tax filings, declining revenue, lack of private funding, $2.7 million in secured mortgage payments, and $1.2 million in payroll created a financial shortfall.

Bridge funding was provided by the Solano Coalition for Better Health with support from local hospitals, community organizations, and the City of Fairfield to keep the shelter operational until new shelter management could be selected.

This report focuses on Shelter Solano, Inc. which began operating the emergency shelter in January 2019. The shelter is located at 310 Beck Avenue on property owned by the Sheldon Family and leased to the City of Fairfield.

Packet Page 152 of 224Attachment 2 Page 3 of 17

- 4 -

III. METHODOLOGY

Site Visit:

Shelter Solano, Inc., 310 Beck Ave. Fairfield, CA

Interviews:

Community Action Partnership Solano, Joint Powers Authority Board Member Continuum of Care Board Member
County Board of Supervisors (Past and Present)
Fairfield City Management
SHELTER, Inc. staff
Shelter Solano, Inc. Advisory Council Member
Solano County Health & Social Services Department staff

Documents Reviewed:

Articles:

Daily Republic Article by Todd R Hanson published April 14, 2018 “Healthcare Groups Pony up $100K to Keep Mission Solano Open”

Daily Republic Article by Glen Faison published June 1, 2018 “Mission Solano to file bankruptcy, shut down related nonprofit.”

Daily Republic Article by Staff Reporter published November 19, 2021 “Shelter Inc. lands $5M to address homelessness.”

Daily Republic Article by Todd R Hanson published September 24, 2019 “Vallejo, County Working on Navigation Center for Homeless”

San Francisco Examiner Article by Carly Graf published October 2021 “San Francisco’s Broken Promise to Resolve Homeless Encampments

Vallejo Times Herald Article by Richard Freedman published June 27, 2021, and updated June 30, 2021 “Homeless in Vallejo: ‘It’s not going away’. As the effort continues, real progress is hard to find.”

Documents:

City of Fairfield Agenda Report to the Fairfield Housing Authority Chairman and Commissioners, dated January 15, 2019
Financial spreadsheets provided by Homebase
Financial spreadsheets provided by Shelter, Inc
Housing First in Permanent Supportive Housing Brief
H&SS Contracts with Shelter Solano, Inc., August 2018-July 30, 2021, Attachment A IRYNA Accountancy Corp. Financial Statement & Independent Auditor’s Report 6/2019 IRYNA Accountancy Corp. Financial Statement & Independent Auditor’s Report 6/2020 Legal Services of Northern California Request for Information (RFI) Response Packet Page 153 of 224Attachment 2 Page 4 of 17

- 5 -

Mission Solano Rescue Mission Form 990 Tax Statements 2017-2019 Regional Navigation Proposed Program from the Homeless Services Manager, City of Fairfield
RFQ Fairfield Homeless Shelter Operator submission, Shelter Inc. dated August 2, 2018 Responses to Requests for Information (RFI)
Shelter Solano Management Plan, Approved Dec 7, 2018
Shelter Solano, Inc. Report Card Fiscal Year to Date from July 1, 2020 – June 30, 2021 Solano County Human Services Needs Assessment June 2019. Prepared by Applied Survey Research
Solano County Regional Homeless Collaborative For HUD, State & Regional Funding

Websites:
https://endhomelessness.org/resource/housing-first/

https://liviakislaw.com/blog/news/fairfield-bankruptcy-watch-mission-solano/

https://soarworks.samhsa.gov/article/definitions-homelessness

https://bphc.hrsa.gov/programrequirements/policies/pin200905specialpops.html

https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/building-blocks/housing-needs/people- experiencing-homelessness.shtml

https://www.hrsa.gov/sites/default/files/grants/apply/assistance/Buckets/definitions.pdf

https://www.hoover.org/research/despite-spending-11-billion-san-francisco-sees-its- homelessness-problems-spiral-out-control

http://www.housingfirstsolano.org/hic-pit-count.html

V. STATEMENT OF FACTS

The City of Fairfield used the RFQ (Request for Qualifications) selection process to evaluate four applicant organizations to replace Mission Solano as the operator of the shelter. Only two (SHELTER Inc, Berkeley Food and Housing) of the four applicants were moved forward in the RFQ process based on the RFQ Rank and Review panel’s scoring.

A site visit of SHELTER Inc. in Contra Costa County was conducted by local leaders in July of 2017. The group conducted site visits at Homeward Bound (Marin County) and The Palms (Santa Rosa) as well. The purpose of these visits was to review, evaluate, and consider service delivery models being used by other counties. The site visit to SHELTER, Inc. was conducted prior to and independent of the RFQ process. A site visit to Berkeley Food and Housing was not conducted.

On September 18, 2018, the Fairfield City Council selected SHELTER, Inc. (operating as Shelter Solano, Inc.) as the new shelter manager. SHELTER, Inc. created Shelter Solano, Inc. as a Packet Page 154 of 224Attachment 2 Page 5 of 17

- 6 -

separate subsidiary to mitigate the risk of insolvency should additional funds from the county and cities not become available. Shelter Solano, Inc. as a subsidiary corporation of SHELTER, Inc., is a California nonprofit corporation. Both Shelter Solano, Inc. and SHELTER, Inc. maintain individual 501(c)(3) status with unique Employer Identification Numbers (EIN).

SHELTER, Inc. was selected based on its financial stability, long-standing reputation for working with the homeless in Contra Costa County, its programs in Solano County, and demonstrated ability to garner and manage diverse funding streams. Staff was directed to enter negotiations transitioning the facility and obligations.

Mission Solano’s bankruptcy left several outstanding loans. In recognition of the public benefit provided by the continued operation as a shelter facility and an emergency shelter, Solano County excused all outstanding obligations (forgave a $750,000 loan) in exchange for three county-reserved beds for three years and one county-reserved bed at the shelter facility for the period of ten years. Existing loans owed to the City of Fairfield, the Sewer District, and the Federal Home Loan Bank were assumed by Shelter Solano, Inc. as the new operator.

On January 22, 2019, the county initiated a start-up agreement with Shelter Solano, Inc. to match start-up funding contributions from incorporated cities in Solano County up to $270,000. These funds were to provide housing and other services for individuals and families living in the shelter at the time Shelter Solano, Inc. commenced operations.

Shelter Solano, Inc.’s maximum length of stay for shelter participants is 6 months which adheres to Government Code section 65582 (d) and Health and Safety Code section 50801 (e) for an Emergency Shelter. The term Emergency Shelter is often confused by the stakeholders with the terms walk-in or drop-in services. It’s important to note that operating an Emergency Shelter does not require walk-in or on-demand services under the government codes cited above.

As required by the City of Fairfield’s agreement with the property owner, Shelter Solano, Inc. is a closed campus and does not operate as a walk-in or an on-demand overnight shelter.

Admissions are referred either through specific closed-funding programs based on partner/funder requirements or the Coordinated Entry System (CES). The CES is a centralized assessment system required by HUD’s interim rule 24 CFR 578.7(a)(8) and mandated by the Housing First policy. CES uses a uniform information gathering system (Homeless Management Information System, HMIS) to ease access and remove barriers. There are no additional requirements or pre- conditions for admission beyond demonstration of homeless status and any eligibility requirements imposed by the funder. Despite multiple presentations to county and city stakeholders clearly outlining Shelter Solano, Inc.’s intended service delivery model, the lack of walk-in or on-demand services has caused stakeholder confusion as it differs from their understanding of the services Shelter Solano, Inc. would provide.

In general, referrals and admissions occur during regularly scheduled business hours, Monday-Friday. After-hours or weekend admission may occur based on bed availability, funder program requirements, and special circumstances. Participants must engage in the creation and completion of a housing plan. The requirement for each person or household is to focus on exiting to permanent housing. In extenuating circumstances, a stay may be extended on Packet Page 155 of 224Attachment 2 Page 6 of 17

- 7 -

a month-by-month basis if the participants are progressing with their housing plan and the participant’s funding source approves.

Shelter Solano, Inc. states that participants are supported at no cost with shelter, meals, personal security, and a range of resources leading to housing stability and self-sufficiency. To foster greater independence, participants are encouraged to independently organize and manage their medical, financial, and other services as appropriate to their abilities.

Shelter Solano, Inc. states that Case Managers provide referrals and information about community-based services. Together the participant and case manager complete a Housing Stabilization Plan. Participants are assisted, but ultimately responsible for their own housing search. Participants are aware of the timeline for their exit, as they have been involved in formulating their exit plan. Participants are evaluated every 30 days to see if they are working toward a housing solution, if they are not, they may be asked to exit at 90 days. Case Managers provide monthly follow-ups for six months for all participants who have left the program and again after one year.

Direct observation, document review, and feedback from most of the stakeholders interviewed illustrate that Shelter Solano, Inc. is not currently meeting stakeholder expectations. Specific concerns voiced:
• low numbers served
• lack of unrestricted beds
• lack of drop-in services
• delay in access to services (partially due to untimely coordinated entry response) • level of case management being received by participants • inconsistent post exit check-ins
• campus safety
• facility maintenance deficiencies
• lack of follow through and/or timely follow through
• delays in dining room completion, forcing delays in operating at full capacity • defensive when given feedback

One example of a facility maintenance deficiency is the SCCJG direct observation of an inoperable shower during its September 2021 Shelter Solano, Inc. site visit. As of the SCCGJ December 2021 interview, Shelter Solano, Inc. staff reported that the shower remained inoperable.

Another concern shared with the SCCGJ was an inconsistent understanding by stakeholders of Shelter Solano, Inc.’s maximum capacity. Shelter Solano, Inc. staff stated the shelter will be able to operate at a maximum capacity of 138 beds (including infirmary beds) at the Beck Ave. site once the dining hall is completed, anticipated in June 2022. Shelter Solano, Inc. operating at maximum capacity will reduce the number of homeless individuals living on the street. It should be noted that at the time of the SCCGJ site visit in September 2021, there were 60-70 participants. During an interview with Shelter Solano staff in December 2021, there were 90 Packet Page 156 of 224Attachment 2 Page 7 of 17

- 8 -

participants for 123 available beds. These numbers consistently reflect the underutilization of the shelter.

In addition, the SCCGJ found no evidence of oversight that would ensure funding is being used effectively and meeting funding requirements. Some funders/contracts require self-reporting documents, however, the SCCGJ found no mechanism of review to ensure the self-reporting documents were accurate, nor do they verify that Shelter Solano, Inc. clients are receiving the services promised.

Despite the pervasive belief reported by stakeholders that Shelter Solano, Inc. is not performing at a level that meets stakeholder expectations, the SCCGJ found no evidence of a strategic plan in place to move Shelter Solano, Inc. towards a level of performance that meets stakeholder expectations and community needs. Despite stakeholder concerns regarding their level of performance, SHELTER Inc. states that they are delivering on all commitments and services to the city and the county as promised.

Note: Subsequent to the completion of its investigation, the SCCGJ received information from the City of Fairfield citing oversight in the form of:
• weekly case conferences
• weekly updates regarding the completion of the commercial kitchen • the City of Vacaville, acting as the fiduciary agent, will not issue payments for expenses that are not meeting funding requirements

A. Housing First Model

Shelter Solano, Inc. uses a Housing First approach to address homelessness. Housing First California law SB 1380 requires all state-funded housing programs to adopt Housing First. The Housing First approach asserts that a homeless individual’s primary need is stable housing, without regard to substance abuse or mental health concerns, and that, once settled, they are more amenable to accepting services and treatment. Prioritizing permanent housing to people experiencing homelessness serves as a platform from which they can pursue personal goals and improve their quality of life. Housing First is also based on the theory that client choice is valuable in housing selection and supportive service participation, and that exercising that choice is likely to make a client more successful in remaining housed and improving their life.

According to the National Alliance to End Homelessness, Housing First is an effective way for people to exit homelessness. However, it takes a long time, and a lot of money to build required housing, and does not address underlying causes of homelessness such as Substance Use Disorder (SUD) and mental health concerns. In the meantime, there remains an imbalance between the number of homeless individuals and available shelter beds. Homeless individuals continue to wait on the street. In addition, homeless individuals who receive housing, but lack support and/or the skills required to find and maintain a home, sustain employment, or manage a budget are at risk of returning to life on the streets.

Shelter Solano, Inc.’s reporting states that from July 1, 2020 – to June 30, 2021, SHELTER, Inc. served 252 people of which 51 had a successful exit to housing/diversion and 106 unsuccessful Packet Page 157 of 224Attachment 2 Page 8 of 17

- 9 -

exits to the street/unknown. This reporting reveals twice as many negative outcomes as positive ones.

B. Coordinated Entry System
Access to Shelter Solano, Inc. is provided by the Coordinated Entry System or arranged by funders. The Coordinated Entry System (CES) is a uniform information gathering system (HMIS), required by HUD and mandated by the Housing First policy. The CES processes must cover the entire Continuum of Care (CoC; Exhibit 2), be easily accessible, well-advertised, and include standardized tools and processes. It must cover access, assessment, and referral. In Solano County, the CES is administered by Resource Connect Solano (RCS) which identifies homelessness history, special needs, and determines a vulnerability index using the Vulnerability Index Prioritization Decision Assistance Tool (VI-SPDAT). The VISPDAT identifies the most vulnerable individuals and prioritizes them for immediate shelter placement.

Feedback from multiple stakeholders and document review during the SCCGJ’s investigation revealed that Solano County’s Coordinated Entry System administered by RCS 1 is in its infancy and has not reached its full potential in providing the expected services to the community.

From the onset of the SCCGJ investigation in July 2021, there have consistently been over 3,000 individuals waiting for services. As of January 2022, Solano County’s CES queue has 3,022 individuals awaiting assistance. Interviews conducted, document review, and direct observation by the SCCGJ revealed that the primary complaint surrounding RCS is its failure to communicate in a timely manner. Legal Services of Northern California (LSNC) report similar experiences. Most of the complaints LSNC has received involve clients attempting to get in touch with RCS usually via phone, leaving messages, and not receiving calls back.

C. CAP Solano, JPA and Continuum of Care
CAP Solano, JPA is a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) public agency comprised of all Solano cities (except Dixon) and the County of Solano. Each entity has one seat on the JPA board. CAP Solano, JPA’s purposes include serving as a conduit for safety net funding, administering funds, and making grants available for homeless services. HUD requires that each county assign an organization to be its CoC organization, the agency that receives and manages federal homeless funding. Although Housing First Solano is the CoC in Solano County, CAP Solano, JPA is the collaborative applicant. CAP Solano, JPA contracts with Homebase, The Center for Common Concerns (Homebase) to fulfill its purposes (Exhibit 2).

The scope of services between CAP Solano, JPA and Homebase is extensive and includes the following key services:
• Homebase assists the JPA in applying for and securing HUD and local jurisdictional funds to support CES.

1 CAP Solano, JPA will release a new RFP for CES in Solano County in 2022.

Packet Page 158 of 224Attachment 2 Page 9 of 17

- 10 -

• Homebase ensures that the CoC is implementing all HUD requirements and provides best practices research and case studies to support CoC planning and program developments. • Homebase assists the JPA and CoC in identifying other federal, state, private, and other funding opportunities for homeless services and housing.

As a JPA, Cap Solano, JPA is responsible for compliance with Government Code section 53051, which requires submission of a Registry of Public Agencies Form 405 to the Secretary of State and the county and updating its information as needed with those agencies. The SCCGJ has found no evidence that CAP Solano, JPA is in compliance with this requirement.

Stakeholder feedback and document review revealed recent efforts to improve collaboration between service providers, funders, municipal government, and the county must continue in order to create an environment where it benefits stakeholders to collaborate rather than compete.

The SCCGJ found no evidence that the recommendation to assign an overall leadership role with the authority to hold service providers accountable is being addressed.

Packet Page 159 of 224Attachment 2 Page 10 of 17

- 11 -

The chart below describes the relationship between the collaborative funding agencies:

Exhibit 2: Source CAP Solano, JPA

D. Funding Streams for Shelter Solano, Inc.

Shelter Solano, Inc. reports the annual cost of operating the shelter is three million dollars. It receives funding from several sources including individual contracts, federal and state funding, and donations.

1. Individual Contracts

The current delivery model relies on individual contracts with funders that reserve a specific number of beds for their intended population. This delivery model restricts bed availability. By contract, if the bed goes unfilled by the funder, the bed cannot be used by someone else in need.

Packet Page 160 of 224Attachment 2 Page 11 of 17

- 12 -

Some examples:
• Police departments from Benicia, Suisun & Vacaville collectively (8 beds) • Solano County (1 bed)
• Solano Behavioral Mental Health (15 beds)
• NorthBay Health (3 beds)
• Prop 47/SUD (10 beds)
• Partnership Health Plan (3 beds)
• Veteran’s Administration (18 beds)

Feedback from the majority of those interviewed revealed that the current delivery model is ineffective and unsustainable. Continuing to fund the current delivery model without performing an independent assessment to identify, address, and correct service delivery gaps across the continuum of services will do little to decrease the number of sheltered and unsheltered homeless in Solano County. Additionally, the public is unaware of the volume of money coming into Solano County to address the homeless issue.

Document review by the SCCGJ revealed restrictive individual contracts awarding Shelter Solano, Inc. more than $3,731,530 between February 2019 and June 2022. This dollar amount is not all-inclusive.

2. Federal and State Funding

As shown below, through the collaborative work of CAP Solano, JPA, CoC, and Homebase over 37 million dollars have come into Solano County to combat homelessness since 2018. CAP Solano, JPA reports that Shelter Solano, Inc. was awarded $4,265,431 during this period, and SHELTER Inc. received $3,595,474.49.

2018 2019 2020 2021 Total 2018-2021
$7,724,125 $7,969,226 $12,880,466 $8,901,617 $37,475,434 Source: Attachment A CAP Solano JPA & HFS CoC 2002-2021 Funding History

SCCGJ found it difficult to differentiate between SHELTER, Inc. and Shelter Solano, Inc. as both names are used interchangeably on several documents. It is unclear how SHELTER, Inc. tracks funding awarded specifically for Shelter Solano, Inc. and how much money is awarded to SHELTER, Inc. for use in Solano County. Audit reviews illustrate that SHELTER, Inc. consistently receives “clean” or “unqualified” financial audits. However, the use of both names interchangeably makes it difficult to understand who was awarded the funds, for use by which entity, and whether the awarded funds were used for Solano County residents and programs.

For example, IRYNA Accountancy Corporation completed a Financial Statement and Independent Auditor’s Report for Shelter Solano, Inc. dated June 30, 2020. The report contained a line item of $37,538. for office rent. The SCCGJ December 2021 interview of Shelter Solano, Inc. staff confirmed that Shelter Solano, Inc. does not rent additional offices in Fairfield.

SHELTER, Inc. does however, rent two offices in Fairfield.

Packet Page 161 of 224Attachment 2 Page 12 of 17

- 13 -

The use of both names interchangeably also confuses the reporting of performance outcomes.

For example, reporting does not clearly identify how many individuals and/or families are served by Shelter Solano, Inc. in a specific reporting period.

Specifically, a Shelter Solano, Inc. Homeless Prevention Solano County Report Card, identified unique participants served. Because it is a Shelter Solano, Inc. report card, the number of individuals served should only include those served by Shelter Solano, Inc. However, the number served was a combination of both Shelter Solano, Inc. and SHELTER, Inc. This example was called to Shelter Solano, Inc’s attention during its interview with the SCCGJ. The SCCGJ was assured that moving forward the correction would be made.

3. Philanthropic Donations
One reason cited for selecting SHELTER, Inc. was its ability to garner and manage diverse funding streams. Its performance in Contra Costa County demonstrated significant community backing which included private funding sources totaling $2.5 million annually (foundations, major donors, faith community, local businesses, and individual community members). In addition, an estimated 1,750 volunteers support its efforts. Shelter Solano, Inc. to date has not generated this level of philanthropy or community support in Solano County. For example, SHELTER, Inc. reports that for every dollar raised in Solano County, it is able to raise nearly $300 dollars in Contra Costa County.

V. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
FINDING 1: Shelter Solano, Inc.’s lack of unrestricted funding prevents the shelter from operating at capacity.

RECOMMENDATIONS 1 A: Local agency partners associated with Shelter Solano, Inc. must assist acquiring funding streams that increase the number of unrestricted beds.

RECOMMENDATION 1 B: Local agency partners adopt a regionalized service delivery and funding model that does not restrict bed usage based on a bed-night rate agreement with the county and/or donor city, but rather allows access to beds based on client need regardless of the city of origin and works toward reducing the number of homeless living on the streets.

FINDING 2: The Solano County Civil Grand Jury found it difficult to track money and funding between SHELTER, Inc., and Shelter Solano, Inc. Often, the names of the two entities are used interchangeably. It is unclear which funding sources are specifically awarded to Shelter Solano, Inc. and which funding sources are awarded to SHELTER, Inc.

RECOMMENDATION 2: Local agency partners establish a transparent system of tracking and reporting funds that clearly differentiates between SHELTER, Inc. and Shelter Solano, Inc.

FINDING 3: Confusion exists in the Solano community regarding what services and/or programming in Solano County is provided by SHELTER, Inc. and what is provided by Shelter Solano, Inc.

Packet Page 162 of 224Attachment 2 Page 13 of 17

- 14 -

RECOMMENDATION 3: Local agency partners work together to develop and implement transparent reporting of services and programming that clearly differentiates between those provided by SHELTER, Inc. and those provided by Shelter Solano, Inc.

FINDING 4: The Solano County Civil Grand Jury found it unclear which funding sources awarded to SHELTER, Inc, are specifically assigned to Shelter Solano, Inc., and which funding sources were awarded to SHELTER, Inc. to provide services in Solano County.

RECOMMENDATION 4: Local agency partners work with SHELTER, Inc. and funding providers to establish a more transparent and reconciliation method to clearly disclose which funding sources they receive specifically for Shelter Solano, Inc. and which funding sources SHELTER, Inc. receives that are earmarked for SHELTER, Inc. to provide services in Solano County.

FINDING 5: There is a lack of metrics and comprehensive data collection to inform decision- making, to monitor and measure program efficacy and performance, as well as outcomes across the homeless service continuum.

RECOMMENDATION 5: Across the continuum of services, develop metrics to measure and monitor program efficacy, performance and outcomes, to include a transparent system of reporting.

FINDING 6: Despite improved collaboration between the service providers, funders, municipal government, and county, there remains a lack of an overall leadership role/authority.

RECOMMENDATION 6 A: Overall leadership with authority to address homelessness is required to provide direction, ensure timely coordination of services, demand accountability, and liaison with the community.

RECOMMENDATION 6 B: All stakeholders request the county provide the leadership, authority, and accountability to ensure timely coordination of services delivered in the most efficient, effective manner.

FINDING 7: The SCCGJ found no evidence that CAP Solano, JPA is registered as a public agency with the State of California or Solano County as required.

RECOMMENDATION 7: CAP Solano, JPA file the necessary forms with the State of California and Solano County and consistently meet filing requirements.

FINDING 8: The public is unaware of the volume of money coming into Solano County to address the homeless issue.

RECOMMENDATION 8: CAP Solano, JPA should create a dashboard disclosing the money coming into Solano County; how it is used, by whom, and their return on investment (program outcomes).

Packet Page 163 of 224Attachment 2 Page 14 of 17

- 15 -

FINDING 9: Feedback from multiple stakeholders and document review during the SCCGJ’s investigation revealed that CES is not currently providing the expected services.

RECOMMENDATION 9 A: The appropriate authority assesses Resource Connect’s current state of operations to identify its readiness to provide the expected services in a user-friendly, timely manner, that reduces the long waitlists currently in place.

RECOMMENDATION 9 B: Create a post-assessment strategy to move Resource Connect towards operating at a level that meets standard expectations for their role.

FINDING 10: Lack of housing makes it difficult for individuals to successfully graduate out of Shelter Solano, Inc. into permanent housing as required by the Housing First Delivery Model used in Solano County.

RECOMMENDATION 10 A: To successfully address homelessness in Solano County requires that the county and cities work together to secure housing in their respective communities.

RECOMMENDATION 10 B: Engagement and education of the general public around homelessness is required to gain the public’s understanding, trust, and input in supporting the county’s homeless residents.

FINDING 11: Ongoing delays in the completion of the dining hall has impacted Shelter Solano, Inc.’s ability to operate at capacity and contributes to the rising number of individuals living unsheltered.

RECOMMENDATION 11: Continue working towards the projected June 2022 completion date to ensure Shelter Solano, Inc. can operate at full capacity.

FINDING 12: Direct observation and feedback received during Shelter Solano, Inc. site visit revealed shelter maintenance has been neglected.

RECOMMENDATION 12 A: Adoption of a Regional Service Delivery model in Solano County that stabilizes funding to consistently meet operational needs.

RECOMMENDATION 12 B: Scheduled maintenance becomes a high priority budget item as funding streams stabilize.

FINDING 13: Direct observation, document review, and feedback during the Solano County Civil Grand Jury investigation revealed gaps in service delivery along the entire continuum of services.

RECOMMENDATION 13 A: The county secures a comprehensive independent assessment across the continuum of homeless services to include:
• leadership
• level of collaboration among stakeholders
• funding
• how services are accessed
Packet Page 164 of 224Attachment 2 Page 15 of 17

- 16 -

• quality of services provided
• measurement of outcomes
• mechanism to ensure accountability
• transparency of reporting

RECOMMENDATION 13 B: The county develops a strategic plan that includes a timeline for the implementation of recommendations from the independent assessment in recommendation 13 A.

FINDING 14: A document review conducted by the Solano County Civil Grand Jury revealed discrepancies and inconsistent accounting and reporting practices among the entities providing services to the homeless in Solano County.

RECOMMENDATION 14 A: Entities use a consistent reporting mechanism for the awarding of funding to keep the community informed and assured that the money is being spent effectively and as intended.

RECOMMENDATION 14 B: County performs or hires a Forensic Accountant to perform a Forensic Audit on money being spent across the continuum of homeless services in Solano County.

COMMENTS:

1. The 2021 -2022 SCCGJ found it concerning that Solano County Civil Grand Jury reports of 2014, 2016, and a 2019 Health & Human Services Needs Assessment highlighted the need for leadership with the authority to hold agencies accountable, yet in 2022 these needs remain unaddressed.

2. Solano County Civil Grand Jury has concerns that the lack of effective oversight and accountability in the way homelessness is being addressed in the community opens the door to the potential for a homeless industrial complex that benefits the nonprofits without accomplishing the task at hand. Continuing to allocate funds into an ineffective delivery system without correcting service delivery gaps funds a problem that continues to grow.

3. Recent Hoover Institution research highlighting spending on homelessness in San Francisco should cause Solano County and its cities to assess their own policies and spending. “San Francisco is slightly smaller than Jacksonville, Florida. Yet San Francisco’s homelessness budget—$1.1 billion in fiscal year 2021–22—is nearly 80 percent of Jacksonville’s entire city budget…Since fiscal year 2016–17, San Francisco has spent over $2.8 billion on homelessness. Since 2016, the number of homeless in San Francisco has increased from 12,249 to 19,086, which comes out to about $57,000 in spending per homeless person per year. With a total population of about 860,000, roughly 2.2 percent of San Francisco residents are homeless, which is over 12 times the national average…. An important reason why San Francisco policies continue to fail is that there is little or no accountability within the city’s government to evaluate the efficacy of its spending.”

Packet Page 165 of 224Attachment 2 Page 16 of 17

- 17 -

4. Homeless advocates are moving toward a Navigation Center approach to homelessness. The goal of the Navigation Center is to provide access to services (even if not shelter). The thought is that some individuals are homeless because they are unaware of available resources. Additionally, the lack of temporary shelter and permanent supportive housing limits the number of individuals served. A successful Navigation Center may increase the number of individuals receiving services and provide the tools and skills needed.

5. Homelessness is an issue that affects every city in Solano County. To that end, a Regional 2x2 Homeless Committee was formed in May 2021 to address regional homeless issues in Solano County. Committee representatives from each city are the policymakers/elected officials of each respective city, which helps to create a regional focus on the issue. The committee’s intent is to address the coordination of homeless services at the city and county executive/elected levels. The 2x2 Homeless Committee is in its infancy at the writing of this report and its effectiveness is yet to be determined. If successful, the Regional 2x2 Homeless Committee may be Solano County’s opportunity to provide the overall leadership and collaboration needed.

6. Resource Referral Services provided by Shelter Solano, Inc, refer clients to 211. 211 is a free information and referral service that connects people to Health and Human Services in their community 24/7. Unfortunately, 211 is difficult to navigate, is not a local organization familiar with available resources in Solano County, and does not effectively provide linkage to the services needed.

REQUIRED RESPONSES
City of Fairfield (Findings 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14) Solano County Administrator ((Findings 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, and 14) CAP Solano, JPA (Findings 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, and 14)

VOLUNTARY RESPONSES (NOT REQUIRED BY STATUTE)
Shelter Solano, Inc. (All findings except for 7)
Resource Connect Solano (Caminar) (Findings 1, 5, 6, 8, 9, 13, and 14)

COURTESY COPIES
Solano County Board of Supervisors
City Managers
Legal Services of Northern California
Homebase

Packet Page 166 of 224Attachment 2 Page 17 of 17

Agenda Item No: 17.

AGENDA REPORT
DATE:October 4, 2022
TO:Mayor and City Council
FROM:David Gassaway, Interim City Manager
SUBJECT:Public Hearing; and
Resolution 2022269 of the City Council of the City of Fairfield Setting the Amount of Certain Development Impact Fees Established by Ordinance No. 201311; and First Reading and Introduction of Ordinance 202212 of the City Council of the City of Fairfield Amending Chapter 25, Article XI of the Fairfield Municipal Code RECOMMENDED ACTION
Hold public hearing; adopt resolution; waive full reading, read by title only; and introduce ordinance for first reading.

STATEMENT OF ISSUE
The City’s municipal code requires periodic updates to Chapter 25, Article XI, Development Impact Fees. On June 21, 2022, the City Council passed Resolution 202275 approving two nexus studies to help update its fees. One study identifies updated maximum fees that can be charged for transportation infrastructure throughout the City. The other identifies updated maximum fees for various improvements serving the Northeast Area. The proposed resolution would update various impact fees. The proposed ordinance would allow the City to charge development outside the City’s Northeast Area for its impacts on roadways within the Northeast Area.

DISCUSSION
In 2013, the City updated and established a set of impact fees to pay for various infrastructure and other improvements to support new development. Some fees, including those for new roadways and traffic signals, pay for improvements citywide. Other fees pay for improvements specific to the northeast part of the city, an area with greater infrastructure needs than other parts of the city. 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, adopted in 2013.

Concurrent with the adoption of Ordinance No. 201311, the council also passed Resolution No. 2013 69, establishing the amount to be collected for each impact fee, based on the type of development and its location in the city.

Packet Page 167 of 224

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 the construction of an extensive amount of new infrastructures to serve it. State law allows the City to collect impact fees from new development to pay for the infrastructure it requires.

Municipal Code section 25.1509 directs the City to periodically update the impact fees. Under State law, an update requires an analysis to update impact fees. The analysis, called a “Nexus Study”, determines the maximum the City can reasonably charge for each impact.

The agenda report and supporting Resolution No. 202275 contained information on the updated nexus studies, including information about:

New geographic boundaries for collecting fees.

An updated development forecast.

An updated infrastructure list and costs.

A split of the Industrial fee category into a “Manufacturing” and “Warehouse/Distribution/Speculative” category.

New maximum fee amounts that can be charged for various types of development in different geographies of the city.

The proposed actions within this agenda report include:

An ordinance amending Chapter 25, Article XI; and
A resolution to adopt updated fees, based on the conclusions of the 2022 Nexus Studies (Studies).

The following discusses contents of the ordinance and resolution.

Ordinance:As originally adopted, Article XI only authorizes the City to charge development within the Northeast Area for roadway infrastructure needs in that area. The adopted Studies identifies that development outside the Northeast Area causes some of the need for new roadways in the Northeast.

As such, Article XI must be amended to allow the City to charge development outside the Northeast area for its impacts on roadways in the Northeast.

The ordinance contains two proposed amendments. One, adds a definition of the geographic area outside the Northeast that can be charged for Northeast area roadway infrastructure. The second amendment adds language authorizing the City to charge the Northeast Area Traffic Impact Fee within the added geographic area.

Resolution:The proposed resolution establishes the amount for certain impact fees to be charged on various development types (single family, multifamily, retail, etc.) within three geographies of the city.

The geographies include, the Heart of Fairfield Specific Plan area, the Northeast Area (generally east of Claybank Road), and the Rest of the City. Impact fee types include a Citywide traffic impact fee, a Northeast Area traffic impacts fee, and various fees for infrastructure and costs to serve the Northeast Area. These include fees for linear parks, open space, sewers, storm drainage, miscellaneous capital improvements, and for planning.

The City’s General Plan includes a policy that new development pay for the costs of the infrastructure needs it creates. As such, most of the proposed fees are those identified in the adopted Studies as “maximum fees”. The proposed fees are shown in Sections 1 through 8 of the attached Resolution.

As discussed in the June 21, 2022, Agenda Report, the “maximum fees” that can be charged for the new “Heart of Fairfield” fee area are lower than those for other areas of the city. Thus, with this proposed resolution, the City would set for the first time, a distinctly lower fee for new development in the Heart of Fairfield, incentivizing new development in that area when compared with other areas of the city.

Packet Page 168 of 224

Staff proposes several areas where certain fees would be set at a lower level than the “maximum.” These include:

1. “Northeast Area Traffic Impact Fee” for residential development in the Heart of Fairfield Area. The Studies allow the City to charge singlefamily development in this area at $7,114 per unit, and multifamily; $3,984 per unit. The attached resolution proposes the City not charge these fees to residential development in the Heart of Fairfield. This would add to the incentives created by the City to spur development in this area.

2. “Citywide” and “Northeast Area” traffic impact fees for Retail and Commercial uses.

Development. Maximum fees for these activities identified in the Studies are very high, up to as much as $156 per square foot. Collecting such fees would essentially preclude new retail and commercial uses. Thus, the resolution proposes to keep these fees at their current amounts in the Heart of Fairfield, and to allow fees to rise at the same percentage that traffic impact fees would increase for a typical house in Northeast Fairfield – approximately 7%.

3. “Northeast Area Traffic Impact fees” for various Industrial uses in the Heart of Fairfield. Fees are proposed at a lower rate to reflect the potential that a greater amount of development might occur than previously forecast, and to reflect an existing development agreement with the sole developer of industrial uses in the boundary of the Northeast Area.

The proposed resolution also includes definitions to distinguish between Manufacturing industrial uses and Warehouse/Distribution/Speculative (WDS) industrial uses. As noted earlier in this report, the Studies identify maximum fees that can be charged for these two categories. Previous nexus studies considered them as one. Under the new Studies, the maximum fees for Manufacturing are lower than those for WDS, incentivizing new manufacturing development. The proposed definitions in Section 10 of the attached resolution make clear the site development factors that qualify a building for the lower manufacturing fee.

FINANCIAL IMPACT
Adoption of the proposed impact fees would fund more than $342 million of infrastructure needed to support new development. The Citywide and Northeast Area Traffic Impact Fees provides for the collection of $287 million to fund roadway infrastructure throughout the City. The Northeast Areas Development Impact Fees provide for the collection of an additional $55 million to fund nonroadway infrastructure in the Northeast area of the city. Not collecting the “maximum” fees for certain activities identified in this report will cost approximately $6.5 million in today’s dollars over approximately 30 years. To fully build all infrastructure during this period, the City would need to identify alternate funding sources for this shortfall, likely towards the end of the 30year period. Such alternative sources include state and federal transportation grants or charging the fees following a future fee update.

PUBLIC CONTACT/ADVISORY BODY RECOMMENDATION
Notice of the Public Hearing for this item was published in the Daily Republic on Friday, September 23, 2022, and Thursday, September 29, 2022. Notice was also mailed to entities that requested notice of the hearing and various large developers. In April, staff met with seven of the largest residential and industrial developers to discuss Nexus Studies and the maximum fee amounts supported by the studies. Final versions of the studies incorporate, where appropriate, feedback provided by developers. Following adoption of the Studies in June 2022, staff has continued to meet with two developers who expressed concerns about the contemplated fee amounts. These developers have now indicated to staff general support for adoption of the proposed fees.

No advisory body provided a recommendation on the studies.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION
The City Council may choose not to adopt updated fees or could modify the proposed fee amounts.

Packet Page 169 of 224

Agenda Item No: 17.AGENDA REPORTDATE:October 4, 2022 TO:Mayor and City CouncilFROM:David Gassaway, Interim City ManagerSUBJECT:Public Hearing; andResolution 2022269 of the City Council of the City of Fairfield Setting the Amount ofCertain Development Impact Fees Established by Ordinance No. 201311; andFirst Reading and Introduction of Ordinance 202212 of the City Council of the City ofFairfield Amending Chapter 25, Article XI of the Fairfield Municipal CodeRECOMMENDED ACTIONHold public hearing; adopt resolution; waive full reading, read by title only; and introduce ordinance forfirst reading.STATEMENT OF ISSUEThe City’s municipal code requires periodic updates to Chapter 25, Article XI, Development ImpactFees. On June 21, 2022, the City Council passed Resolution 202275 approving two nexus studies tohelp update its fees. One study identifies updated maximum fees that can be charged for transportationinfrastructure throughout the City. The other identifies updated maximum fees for various improvementsserving the Northeast Area. The proposed resolution would update various impact fees. The proposedordinance would allow the City to charge development outside the City’s Northeast Area for its impactson roadways within the Northeast Area.DISCUSSIONIn 2013, the City updated and established a set of impact fees to pay for various infrastructure and otherimprovements to support new development. Some fees, including those for new roadways and trafficsignals, pay for improvements citywide. Other fees pay for improvements specific to the northeast partof the city, an area with greater infrastructure needs than other parts of the city. Fees for the NortheastArea fund linear parks, open space, storm drainage, sewers, the Specific Plan for the Train Stationarea, and a list of capital improvements to support the Train Station area. The City’s set of impact feesis described in detail in Chapter 25, Article XI of the Fairfield Municipal Code, adopted in 2013.Concurrent with the adoption of Ordinance No. 201311, the council also passed Resolution No. 201369, establishing the amount to be collected for each impact fee, based on the type of development andits location in the city. Background: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 the construction of an extensive amount of new infrastructures to serve it. Statelaw allows the City to collect impact fees from new development to pay for the infrastructure it requires.Municipal Code section 25.1509 directs the City to periodically update the impact fees. Under Statelaw, an update requires an analysis to update impact fees. The analysis, called a “Nexus Study”,determines the maximum the City can reasonably charge for each impact. The agenda report and supporting Resolution No. 202275 contained information on the updated nexusstudies, including information about:New geographic boundaries for collecting fees.An updated development forecast.An updated infrastructure list and costs.A split of the Industrial fee category into a “Manufacturing” and“Warehouse/Distribution/Speculative” category.New maximum fee amounts that can be charged for various types of development in differentgeographies of the city.The proposed actions within this agenda report include:An ordinance amending Chapter 25, Article XI; andA resolution to adopt updated fees, based on the conclusions of the 2022 Nexus Studies(Studies).The following discusses contents of the ordinance and resolution. Ordinance:As originally adopted, Article XI only authorizes the City to charge development within theNortheast Area for roadway infrastructure needs in that area. The adopted Studies identifies thatdevelopment outside the Northeast Area causes some of the need for new roadways in the Northeast.As such, Article XI must be amended to allow the City to charge development outside the Northeastarea for its impacts on roadways in the Northeast.The ordinance contains two proposed amendments. One, adds a definition of the geographic areaoutside the Northeast that can be charged for Northeast area roadway infrastructure. The secondamendment adds language authorizing the City to charge the Northeast Area Traffic Impact Fee withinthe added geographic area. Resolution:The proposed resolution establishes the amount for certain impact fees to be charged onvarious development types (single family, multifamily, retail, etc.) within three geographies of the city.The geographies include, the Heart of Fairfield Specific Plan area, the Northeast Area (generally eastof Claybank Road), and the Rest of the City. Impact fee types include a Citywide traffic impact fee, aNortheast Area traffic impacts fee, and various fees for infrastructure and costs to serve the NortheastArea. These include fees for linear parks, open space, sewers, storm drainage, miscellaneous capitalimprovements, and for planning. The City’s General Plan includes a policy that new development pay for the costs of the infrastructureneeds it creates. As such, most of the proposed fees are those identified in the adopted Studies as“maximum fees”. The proposed fees are shown in Sections 1 through 8 of the attached Resolution.As discussed in the June 21, 2022, Agenda Report, the “maximum fees” that can be charged for thenew “Heart of Fairfield” fee area are lower than those for other areas of the city. Thus, with thisproposed resolution, the City would set for the first time, a distinctly lower fee for new development inthe Heart of Fairfield, incentivizing new development in that area when compared with other areas of thecity. Staff proposes several areas where certain fees would be set at a lower level than the “maximum.”These include:1. “Northeast Area Traffic Impact Fee” for residential development in the Heart of Fairfield Area. TheStudies allow the City to charge singlefamily development in this area at $7,114 per unit, andmultifamily; $3,984 per unit. The attached resolution proposes the City not charge these fees toresidential development in the Heart of Fairfield. This would add to the incentives created by theCity to spur development in this area.2. “Citywide” and “Northeast Area” traffic impact fees for Retail and Commercial uses.Development. Maximum fees for these activities identified in the Studies are very high, up to asmuch as $156 per square foot. Collecting such fees would essentially preclude new retail andcommercial uses. Thus, the resolution proposes to keep these fees at their current amounts in theHeart of Fairfield, and to allow fees to rise at the same percentage that traffic impact fees wouldincrease for a typical house in Northeast Fairfield – approximately 7%.3. “Northeast Area Traffic Impact fees” for various Industrial uses in the Heart of Fairfield. Fees areproposed at a lower rate to reflect the potential that a greater amount of development might occurthan previously forecast, and to reflect an existing development agreement with the soledeveloper of industrial uses in the boundary of the Northeast Area.The proposed resolution also includes definitions to distinguish between Manufacturing industrial usesand Warehouse/Distribution/Speculative (WDS) industrial uses. As noted earlier in this report, theStudies identify maximum fees that can be charged for these two categories. Previous nexus studiesconsidered them as one. Under the new Studies, the maximum fees for Manufacturing are lower thanthose for WDS, incentivizing new manufacturing development. The proposed definitions in Section 10of the attached resolution make clear the site development factors that qualify a building for the lowermanufacturing fee.FINANCIAL IMPACTAdoption of the proposed impact fees would fund more than $342 million of infrastructure needed tosupport new development. The Citywide and Northeast Area Traffic Impact Fees provides for thecollection of $287 million to fund roadway infrastructure throughout the City. The Northeast AreasDevelopment Impact Fees provide for the collection of an additional $55 million to fund nonroadwayinfrastructure in the Northeast area of the city. Not collecting the “maximum” fees for certain activitiesidentified in this report will cost approximately $6.5 million in today’s dollars over approximately 30years. To fully build all infrastructure during this period, the City would need to identify alternate fundingsources for this shortfall, likely towards the end of the 30year period. Such alternative sources includestate and federal transportation grants or charging the fees following a future fee update.PUBLIC CONTACT/ADVISORY BODY RECOMMENDATIONNotice of the Public Hearing for this item was published in the Daily Republic on Friday, September 23,2022, and Thursday, September 29, 2022. Notice was also mailed to entities that requested notice ofthe hearing and various large developers. In April, staff met with seven of the largest residential andindustrial developers to discuss Nexus Studies and the maximum fee amounts supported by thestudies. Final versions of the studies incorporate, where appropriate, feedback provided bydevelopers. Following adoption of the Studies in June 2022, staff has continued to meet with twodevelopers who expressed concerns about the contemplated fee amounts. These developers have nowindicated to staff general support for adoption of the proposed fees. No advisory body provided a recommendation on the studies.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION
The City Council may choose not to adopt updated fees or could modify the proposed fee amounts.

Under state law, however, fees that are proposed at the maximum amount identified in the 2022 Nexus Studies cannot be set higher than those amounts.

STAFF CONTACT
David Feinstein, Planning Division Manager
(707) 4287448
[email protected]
COORDINATED WITH
City Attorney's Office, City Manager's Office, Public Works Department ATTACHMENTS:

Description
Proposed Resolution
Proposed Ordinance
REVIEWERS:

Reviewer Action Date
Beavers, Esther Approved 9/21/2022 2:27 PM
Packet Page 170 of 224

CITY OF FAIRFIELD

RESOLUTION NO. 2022-269

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAIRFIELD SETTING THE AMOUNT OF CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES ESTABLISHED BY ORDINANCE NO. 2013-11

WHEREAS, on July 25, 1995, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing regarding adopting and imposing city-wide development impact fees to require every person who develops land to mitigate the impacts of that development on the City’s public improvements, public services, and community amenities, as provided in Ordinance No. 95-15, entitled “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Fairfield Adopting and Imposing Development Impact Fees.” Following the receipt of all staff reports, public testimony, and other evidence, the public hearing was closed and the council adopted Ordinance No. 95-15 adopting and imposing a Traffic Impact Fee, Urban Design Impact Fee, Public Facilities Impact Fee, and Park and Recreational Facilities Impact Fee. All other prerequisites to the adoption of Ordinance No. 95-15, as specified by the Mitigation Fee Act, being Chapters 6, 7, 8, and 9 of Division 1 of Title 7 of the California Government Code (Sections 66000 – 66025) were satisfied; and

WHEREAS, the council adopted Ordinance No. 2013-11 (Development Impact Fee Ordinance), which added Article XI to Chapter 25 of the City of Fairfield Municipal Code, to establish provisions for the Traffic Impact Fee, Urban Design Impact Fee, Public Facilities Impact Fee , Park, and Recreational Facilities Impact Fee, and to establish and impose development impact fees for the Northeast Area; and

WHEREAS, the council adopted Resolution 2013-69, which established the amount of the Traffic Impact Fee and the Northeast Area development impact fees (together “The Fees”); and

WHEREAS, the purpose of this resolution is to modify the amount of the Fees set by Resolution 2013-69, as authorized by Sections 25.1504 and 25.1505 of the Development Impact Fee Ordinance and to modify the amounts of the development impact fees for the Northeast A rea, as authorized by Section 25.1505 of the Development Impact Fee Ordinance, in accordance with the 2022 Nexus Studies (defined below); and

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

WHEREAS, the 2022 Nexus Studies demonstrate the reasonable relationship between the need for each fee and the type of development on which each fee will be imposed, and determine amounts for each fee based on those reasonable relationships; and

Packet Page 171 of 224Attachment 1 Page 1 of 8

RES. NO. 2022-269

Page 2 ends

WHEREAS, on June 21, 2022, the council adopted Resolution No. 2022-146, adopting the 2022 Nexus Studies as contained in Exhibits “A” and “B” to that resolution; and

WHEREAS, the 2022 Nexus Studies substantiate the need for the update of the Fees; and

WHEREAS, the Fee amounts established in this resolution, pursuant to the provisions of Article XI of the Fairfield Municipal Code, are based on the 2022 Nexus Studies ; 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 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 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 Fees pursuant to the 2022 Nexus Studies 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. Citywide Traffic Impact Fee: The amount of the Traffic Impact Fee imposed by Section

25.1504 of the Development Impact Fee Ordinance is established by land use category as follows:

Retail Commercial Office Manufacturing WDS
Per Square Foot:
in Heart of Fairfield $18.69 $7.51 $4.54 $2.15 $2.15
in Northeast Area $20.05 $8.06 $4.87 $2.45 $2.45
in Rest of City $20.05 $8.06 $4.87 $2.45 $2.45

Single Family Multifamily
Per Dwelling Unit:
in Heart of Fairfield $6,115 $3,447
in Northeast Area $6,994 $3,917
in Rest of City $6,994 $3,917

SECTION 2. Northeast Area Transportation Impact Fee: The amount of the Northeast Area Transportation Impact Fee imposed by Section 25.1505 of the Development Impact Fee Ordinance, and any amendments thereto, is established by land use category as follows:

Packet Page 172 of 224Attachment 1 Page 2 of 8

RES. NO. 2022-269

Page 3 ends

Commercial Manufacturing WDS
Per Square Foot Fee:
in Heart of Fairfield n/a $1.25 $2.49
in Northeast Area $4.24 $3.34 $3.34
in Rest of City n/a $0.95 $3.34

Low Density Medium Density High Density Single Family Multifamily Per Dwelling Unit:
in Northeast Area $18,476 $14,042 $10,347 n/a n/a
in Rest of City

n/a n/a n/a $8,085 $4,527

SECTION 3. Northeast Area Linear Park Fee: The amount of the Northeast Area Linear Park Fee imposed by Section 25.1505 of the Development Impact Fee Ordinance is established by land use category as follows:

Low Density Medium Density High Density
Per Dwelling Unit:
in Northeast Area $4,591 $4,082 $4,573

SECTION 4. Northeast Area Greenbelt Fee: The amount of the Northeast Area Greenbelt Fee imposed by Section 25.1505 of the Development Impact Fee Ordinance is established by land use category as follows:

Low Density Medium Density High Density
Per Dwelling Unit:
in Northeast Area $366 $183 $91

SECTION 5. Northeast Area Sewer Impact Fee: The amount of the Northeast Area Sewer Impact Fee imposed by Section 25.1505 of the Development Impact Fee Ordinance is established by land use category as follows:

Low Density Medium Density High Density
Per Dwelling Unit:
in sewer Shed 1: $1,217 $ 974 $ 730
in sewer Shed 2: $3,301 $2,641 $1,980

Packet Page 173 of 224Attachment 1 Page 3 of 8

RES. NO. 2022-269

Page 4 ends

SECTION 6. Northeast Area Storm Drainage Fee: The amount of the Northeast Area Storm Drainage Fee imposed by Section 25.1505 of the Development Impact Fee Ordinance is established by land use category as follows:

Commercial:

Per Acre:
in drainage Shed 2, 3A &4: $49,803

Low Density Medium Density High Density

Per Dwelling Unit:
in drainage Shed 1: $3,975 n/a n/a
in drainage Shed 2, 3A &4: $6,225 $3,632 $2,075
in drainage Shed 10: $5,510 $3,858 $1,837

SECTION 7. Train Station Specific Plan Capital Improvement Fee: The amount of the Train Station Specific Plan Capital Improvement Fee imposed by Section 25.1505 of the Development Impact Fee Ordinance is established by land use category as follows:

Low Density Medium Density High Density
Per Dwelling Unit:
in Northeast Area $1,767 $1,571 $1,375

SECTION 8. Train Station Specific Plan Planning Cost Recovery Fee: The amount of the Train Station Specific Plan Planning Cost Recovery Fee authorized by Government Code Section 65456(a) is established by land use category as follows:

Low Density Medium Density High Density

Per Dwelling Unit: $1,648 $824 $412

SECTION 9. For a development project that contains more than one land use (e.g., commercial use on the first floor and residential on the second floor), the fee required by Article XI of the Fairfield Municipal Code shall be the combined sum of the fees calculated for each land use.

SECTION 10. Definitions.

(a) For the purposes of this Resolution, the following words and phrases shall be defined as follows:

i. “Heart of Fairfield” and “HOF” means land identified as “Plan Area” in Figure 1.2 of the Heart of Fairfield Specific Plan, as contained in Exhibit “A -1” to City Council Packet Page 174 of 224Attachment 1 Page 4 of 8

RES. NO. 2022-269

Page 5 ends

Resolution 2017-95.

ii. “Northeast” means that land as shown in Figure 1 of Exhibit “B” of Resolution 2022-146, entitled “Revised Report Northeast Area Development Impact Fee Update.”

iii. “Rest of City” means all land within the City of Fairfield that is not within the Heart of Fairfield Area or Northeast Area.

iv. “Commercial Development” means development primarily used for the conduct of commercial activity including service commercial uses, discount retailers, shopping centers, grocery and drug stores over 15,000 square feet, home improvement stores, and other retail and service commercial uses with low or moderate traffic volumes.

v. “Industrial – Manufacturing” or “Manufacturing” means development specifically intended to support the production or assembly of goods. Such development must provide parking supply that meets the requirements of the “Manufacturing and Assembly” land use in Table 25-17 of the Fairfield Zoning Ordinance, and is characterized at the time of fee payment by one or more of the following:

 distinctly taller building height than typical buildings occupied by warehousing and distribution activities in Fairfield;
 power supply greater than that for typical buildings occupied by warehousing and distribution activities in Fairfield;
 tenant improvements that facilitate the production or assembly of goods but would not typically be associated with warehousing or distribution activities.

vi. “Industrial - Warehouse/Distribution” or “WDS” means development primarily used for the warehousing or distribution of products, or for other speculative industrial activities that do not meet the definition of “Manufacturing.” Buildings with multiple wall planes that serve loading docks shall be defined as WDS unless distinct evidence is provided that the primary long-term activity in the building is intended to be the production or assembly of goods.

vii. “Office Development” means development primarily used for the conduct of business or a profession as distinguished from residential, commercial, retail, industrial, or recreational development.

viii. “Retail Development” means development primarily used for the conduct of convenience-oriented commercial or retail activity including fast food, mini- markets, retail banks with drive-thru’s, small grocery and drug stores of 15,000 or Packet Page 175 of 224Attachment 1 Page 5 of 8

RES. NO. 2022-269

Page 6 ends

less square feet, and other retail and commercial uses with high traffic volumes.

ix. “Residential, Low Density” means residential development on land designated by the Land Use Plan of the TSSP as “LR” or residential development on other land within the zoning districts “Residential, Very Low Density,” “Residential, Low Density,” or “Residential, Low-Medium Density,” as shown on the City of Fairfield Zoning Map.

x. “Residential, Medium Density” means residential development on land designated by the Land Use Plan of the TSSP as “MR” or residential development on other land within the zoning district “Residential, Medium Density,” as shown on the City of Fairfield Zoning Map.

xi. “Residential, High Density” means residential development on land designated by the Land Use Plan of the TSSP as “HR,” or residential development on other Northeast Area land within the zoning district “Residential, High Density” or “Residential, Very High Density,” as shown on the City of Fairfield Zoning Map.

xii. “Single Family” means an individual dwelling unit defined in Chapter 25, Article I of the Fairfield Municipal Code as “Dwelling, Single Family Detached ,” “Duet” unit, or “Duplex” unit.

xiii. “Multi-family” means an individual dwelling unit within a building defined in Chapter 25, Article I of the Fairfield Municipal Code as “Dwellings, Multi-family.”

(b) The Chief Building Official shall have the responsibility of determining the appropriate land use category for a development project by applying the definitions of the land use categories provided in this section.

(c) For purposes of clarifying the difference between “retail” and “commercial” land uses, the following examples of each category are provided:

i. Retail:
 any retail uses with drive-thru windows;
 entertainment, such as video stores, video arcades, poo l halls, etc.;  gas stations, with or without convenience markets;
 liquor and tobacco;
 personal care and services, such as dry cleaners, salons, beauty supplies, nail shops, etc.;
 restaurants and food establishments, including fast food, drive-thru and sit down, yogurt and ice cream stores, cafes, donut shops, etc.;  retail banks, including those with ATM machines and drive-thru windows; Packet Page 176 of 224Attachment 1 Page 6 of 8

RES. NO. 2022-269

Page 7 ends

 small drugs and medical supply stores, less than 15,000 square feet in size;  small groceries and sundry stores, including convenience markets, butcher shops, bakeries, produces stores, fish markets, etc., less than 15,000 square feet in size; and
 shopping centers with multiple uses, less than 15,000 square feet in total size. ii. Commercial:
 auto service, dealers and suppliers, except gas stations;  all service commercial uses, including repair shops, upholstery shops, etc.;  all types of large discount or membership clubs and stand alone retailers;  apparel and sporting goods stores;
 groceries and sundries, supermarkets, grocery/drug stores over 15,000 square feet;
 fabric and craft shops;
 hardware, home improvement and home furnishing stores, linen stores, and nurseries;
 leisure goods, including books, entertainment and electronic equipment games and other entertainment type stores;
 non-retail banks and other financial institutions;
 regional shopping malls and centers; and
 shopping centers over 15,000 square feet.

(d) Power generation plants located in Public Facility (PF) zoning shall be charged at the industrial rate.

SECTION 11. The fees shown in Sections 1 through 8 shall be automatically increased or decreased each April 1st starting on April 1, 2023, by the same percentage as the percentage increase or decrease in the Engineering News-Record (ENR) Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco area, as shown in the second weekly ENR issue in December of the preceding year. Per dwelling unit and per acre fees can be rounded to the nearest $1.00 for ease of computing . Per square foot fees shall be calculated to the nearest tenth of a cent and then rounded to the nearest cent for ease of computing.

SECTION 12. In accordance with Government Code section 66017, this Resolution shall become effective 60 days after its adoption.

Packet Page 177 of 224Attachment 1 Page 7 of 8

RES. NO. 2022-269

Page 8 ends

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 4th day of October, 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 178 of 224Attachment 1 Page 8 of 8

CITY OF FAIRFIELD

ORDINANCE NO. 2022-12

ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAIRFIELD AMENDING CHAPTER 25,

ARTICLE XI OF THE FAIRFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAIRFIELD DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Statement of Intent

A. Pursuant to the City of Fairfield’s General Plan Policy PF 2.1, new development shall be responsible for its public costs, including the provision of streets .

B. In 2013, the City Council adopted Ordinance 2013-11, which added Article XI to Chapter 25 of the City of Fairfield Municipal Code to establish provisions for various fees to pay for the public costs of new development. These fees include a fee to pay for roadway infrastructure in the City’s Northeast Area called the “Northeast Area Traffic Impact Fee.”

C. Provisions of Ordinance 2013-11 only allow the Northeast Area Traffic Impact Fee to be charged on development within a specified geographic portion of the City, generally east of Clay Bank Road, identified in the Ordinance as the “Northeast Area.”

D. In 2022, the City prepared and adopted a nexus study that identifies the public costs for the provision of new roadway infrastructure in the Northeast Area.

E. The nexus study also establishes a reasonable relationship between the need for the Northeast Area Traffic Impact Fee and the type and location of development on which that fee will be imposed and determines amounts for the Fee based on those reasonable relationships.

F. The nexus study concludes that development outside the Northeast Area creates a portion of the need for roadway infrastructure within the Northeast Area.

G. This Ordinance modifies Article XI of Chapter 25 of the Fairfield Municipal Code to allow the City to charge development outside the Northeast Area for its share of roadway infrastructure to be built within the Northeast Area.

H. The City has held a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed revisions to Chapter 25, Article XI, in accordance with the rules and regulations regarding such.

SECTION 2. Chapter 25, Article XI, Section 25.1503 of the Fairfield Municipal Code is modified to add a definition for “Rest of City” to the end of the section which reads as follows:

Packet Page 179 of 224Attachment 2 Page 1 of 3

ORD. NO. 2022-12

Page 2 ends

“Rest of City” means that area of the City that is neither in the Northeast Area nor in the Plan Area for the Heart of Fairfield Specific Plan as shown in Figure 1.2 of the Heart of Fairfield Plan adopted by City Council Resolution 2017-95

SECTION 3. Chapter 25, Article XI, Section 25.1505 of the Fairfield Municipal Code is modified to add the following text to the end of the section:

“A developer of property in the Rest of City shall also pay the Northeast Area Traffic Impact Fee pursuant to the procedures set forth in this article and in a n amount established by resolution of the City Council.”

SECTION 4. The City Council hereby makes the following finding pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA):

The council determines that the proposed amendments to the text of Chapter 25, Article XI of the Fairfield Municipal Code are not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). These amendments do not constitute a “project” within the meaning of the CEQA Guidelines Section 15378 and have no potential for physical effects on the environment because they involve provisions for the payment of impact fees to support new infrastructure, but do not commit the City to any specific project which may result in a potentially significant effect on the environment. Pursuant 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 a significant effect on the environment, is not defined as a “project” under CEQA. Therefore, approval of the amendments that support payment of impact 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) becau se 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.

SECTION 5. This ordinance shall be effective 30 days following its adoption by the council. A summary of this ordinance shall, within fifteen (15) days after passage, be published in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code of the State of California with the names of the council members voting for and against it.

INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Fairfield on the 4th day of October, 2022, and

Packet Page 180 of 224Attachment 2 Page 2 of 3

ORD. NO. 2022-12

Page 3 ends

PASSED AND ADOPTED this ___ day of _________________, 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 181 of 224Attachment 2 Page 3 of 3

Agenda Item No: 18.

AGENDA REPORT
DATE:October 4, 2022
TO:Mayor and City Council
FROM:David Gassaway, Interim City Manager
SUBJECT:Public Hearing;
and First Reading and Introduction of Ordinance 202213 of the City Council of the City of Fairfield Approving the First Amendment to the Restated and Amended Development Agreement By and Between the City of Fairfield and Albert D. Seeno Construction Co., a California Limited Partnership, Seecon Financial and Construction Co, Inc., a California Corporation, and West Coast Homebuilders Inc., a California Corporation RECOMMENDED ACTION
Hold public hearing; waive full reading, read by title only and introduce ordinance for first reading.

STATEMENT OF ISSUE
The City of Fairfield (City) and three related developers are partners in a development agreement covering various properties on the east side of Interstate 680, south of Interstate 80. The parties seek to amend several terms of the agreement.

DISCUSSION
In the 2000s, the City entered into a development agreement with various entities related to the Albert D. Seeno Corporation (Seeno). The development agreement addressed a range of issues pertaining to various Seeno construction projects in Cordelia, south of Interstate 80. In 2014, the development agreement was readopted as a Restated and Amended Development Agreement (2014 DA) Key provisions of the 2014 DA include:

An obligation for Seeno to construct a new fire station for the City along Lopes Road.

A requirement for Seeno to design and construct a Zone 2 pump station prior to the issuance of the 70th building permit within a listed set of developments.

A requirement for Seeno to construct a fourlane segment of Red Top Road prior to the 90th building permit within a listed set of developments.

A commitment by Seeno to not challenge the development impact fees adopted by the City as of the date of the 2014 DA.

In exchange for these commitments by Seeno, the City agreed to:

Packet Page 182 of 224

In exchange for these commitments by Seeno, the City agreed to:

Vest several of Seeno’s development rights.

Limit the development impact fees paid by Seeno for various projects in Cordelia. Notably, the Fieldcrest project, whose traffic impact fees are limited to those in effect at the time of the original approval in 2000.

The current development agreement is set to expire on September 11, 2025.

In June 2022, the City Council approved nexus studies allowing the City to set new fee rates for various development impact fees. For many of Seeno’s development projects, the 2014 DA allows the City to set new development impact fees. In such case, however, Seeno, may challenge those fees in court.

Prior to the City’s approval of the 2022 nexus studies, Seeno expressed concerns regarding the proposed fee updates. The City Council approved the studies but directed staff to seek a way to resolve Seeno’s concerns. Staff and Seeno negotiated an amendment to the 2014 DA that addresses this matter and includes various benefits for the City.

The proposed amendment leaves most language in the 2014 DA intact but includes the following revised provisions:

An obligation to complete Zone II pump station and Red Top Road improvements by December 31, 2023.

A commitment by Seeno to not challenge in court any amendments to the City’s impact fees.

An updated schedule of impact fees to be paid by Seeno for various developments.

A fiveyear extension for the DA, including vesting guarantees.

The City benefits from approving these amendments. First, the 2014 DA ensures completion of Zone II pump and Red Top Road improvements, but only if Seeno constructs housing units. The proposed amendment guarantees a date certain – in less than 15 months for the work on these projects to be completed. Second, the amendments guarantee the City can adopt updated development impact fees without concern of a lawsuit from the development. Even if the City were successful in such a suit, it would delay the City’s ability to collect adequate fees from development throughout the City. It would also delay the adoption of lower fees for the Heart of Fairfield area, an incentive desired by the City to spur development in this highpriority area. Finally, the agreement allows the City to update the reduced impact fee amounts in the 2014 DA, including the older fees from the year 2000 for Fieldcrest. Notably, the update commits all of Seeno’s residential projects to pay for transportation improvements in Northeast Fairfield, though at a reduced rate. The current DA does not allow the City to charge such a fee.

FINANCIAL IMPACT
The financial impacts to the City cannot be precisely quantified as the fees Seeno would pay in its absence have not been set. Further not adopting the development agreement amendments creates a risk of delay, of unknown length, in updating impact fees citywide. The financial impacts are uncertain.

Adopting the amendments, however, help ensure that the City can update its development impact fees throughout the City without delay and ensures that Seeno projects will pay for transportation impacts in Northeast Fairfield.

PUBLIC CONTACT/ADVISORY BODY RECOMMENDATION
Notice for the Public Hearing was published in the Daily Republic on Sunday, September 25, 2022.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION
The City Council may choose not to approve the Development Agreement amendments or may direct staff to negotiate terms further.

Packet Page 183 of 224

Agenda Item No: 18.AGENDA REPORTDATE:October 4, 2022 TO:Mayor and City CouncilFROM:David Gassaway, Interim City ManagerSUBJECT:Public Hearing;and First Reading and Introduction of Ordinance 202213 of the City Council of the Cityof Fairfield Approving the First Amendment to the Restated and Amended DevelopmentAgreement By and Between the City of Fairfield and Albert D. Seeno Construction Co.,a California Limited Partnership, Seecon Financial and Construction Co, Inc., aCalifornia Corporation, and West Coast Homebuilders Inc., a California CorporationRECOMMENDED ACTIONHold public hearing; waive full reading, read by title only and introduce ordinance for first reading.STATEMENT OF ISSUEThe City of Fairfield (City) and three related developers are partners in a development agreementcovering various properties on the east side of Interstate 680, south of Interstate 80. The parties seek toamend several terms of the agreement.DISCUSSIONIn the 2000s, the City entered into a development agreement with various entities related to the AlbertD. Seeno Corporation (Seeno). The development agreement addressed a range of issues pertainingto various Seeno construction projects in Cordelia, south of Interstate 80. In 2014, the developmentagreement was readopted as a Restated and Amended Development Agreement (2014 DA) Key provisions of the 2014 DA include:An obligation for Seeno to construct a new fire station for the City along Lopes Road.A requirement for Seeno to design and construct a Zone 2 pump station prior to the issuance ofthe 70th building permit within a listed set of developments.A requirement for Seeno to construct a fourlane segment of Red Top Road prior to the 90thbuilding permit within a listed set of developments.A commitment by Seeno to not challenge the development impact fees adopted by the City as ofthe date of the 2014 DA.In exchange for these commitments by Seeno, the City agreed to: Vest several of Seeno’s development rights.Limit the development impact fees paid by Seeno for various projects in Cordelia. Notably, theFieldcrest project, whose traffic impact fees are limited to those in effect at the time of the originalapproval in 2000.The current development agreement is set to expire on September 11, 2025. In June 2022, the City Council approved nexus studies allowing the City to set new fee rates for variousdevelopment impact fees. For many of Seeno’s development projects, the 2014 DA allows the City toset new development impact fees. In such case, however, Seeno, may challenge those fees in court. Prior to the City’s approval of the 2022 nexus studies, Seeno expressed concerns regarding theproposed fee updates. The City Council approved the studies but directed staff to seek a way toresolve Seeno’s concerns. Staff and Seeno negotiated an amendment to the 2014 DA that addressesthis matter and includes various benefits for the City.The proposed amendment leaves most language in the 2014 DA intact but includes the followingrevised provisions: An obligation to complete Zone II pump station and Red Top Road improvements by December31, 2023.A commitment by Seeno to not challenge in court any amendments to the City’s impact fees.An updated schedule of impact fees to be paid by Seeno for various developments.A fiveyear extension for the DA, including vesting guarantees.The City benefits from approving these amendments. First, the 2014 DA ensures completion of Zone IIpump and Red Top Road improvements, but only if Seeno constructs housing units. The proposedamendment guarantees a date certain – in less than 15 months for the work on these projects to becompleted. Second, the amendments guarantee the City can adopt updated development impact feeswithout concern of a lawsuit from the development. Even if the City were successful in such a suit, itwould delay the City’s ability to collect adequate fees from development throughout the City. It wouldalso delay the adoption of lower fees for the Heart of Fairfield area, an incentive desired by the City tospur development in this highpriority area. Finally, the agreement allows the City to update the reducedimpact fee amounts in the 2014 DA, including the older fees from the year 2000 for Fieldcrest. Notably,the update commits all of Seeno’s residential projects to pay for transportation improvements inNortheast Fairfield, though at a reduced rate. The current DA does not allow the City to charge such afee.FINANCIAL IMPACTThe financial impacts to the City cannot be precisely quantified as the fees Seeno would pay in itsabsence have not been set. Further not adopting the development agreement amendments creates arisk of delay, of unknown length, in updating impact fees citywide. The financial impacts are uncertain.Adopting the amendments, however, help ensure that the City can update its development impact feesthroughout the City without delay and ensures that Seeno projects will pay for transportation impacts inNortheast Fairfield.PUBLIC CONTACT/ADVISORY BODY RECOMMENDATIONNotice for the Public Hearing was published in the Daily Republic on Sunday, September 25, 2022.ALTERNATIVE ACTIONThe City Council may choose not to approve the Development Agreement amendments or may direct staff to negotiate terms further.

STAFF CONTACT
David Feinstein, Planning Manager
(707) 4287448
[email protected]
COORDINATED WITH
City Manager's Office
ATTACHMENTS:

Description
Proposed Ordinance
Proposed Agreement
REVIEWERS:

Reviewer Action Date
Beavers, Esther Approved 9/22/2022 4:49 PM
Packet Page 184 of 224

CITY OF FAIRFIELD

ORDINANCE NO. 2022-13

ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAIRFIELD APPROVING THE FIRST

AMENDMENT TO THE RESTATED AND AMENDED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF FAIRFIELD AND ALBERT D. SEENO CONSTRUCTION CO., A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, SEECON FINANCIAL AND CONSTRUCTION CO. INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, AND WEST COAST HOMEBUILDERS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAIRFIELD DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The City Council hereby approves the First Amendment to the Restated and Amended Development Agreement by and between the City of Fairfield and Albert D. Seeno Construction Co, a California limited partnership, Seecon Financial and Construction Co. Inc., a California corporation, and West Coast Homebuilders, Inc., a California corporation, attached hereto, based on the facts set forth in the Recitals to the First Amendment to the Restated and Amended Development Agreement.

SECTION 2. The city manager is hereby authorized to execute the First Amendment to the Restated and Amended Development Agreement and to take all other steps necessary and appropriate to implement the actions of the City required by the First Amendment.

SECTION 3. This ordinance shall be effective 30 days following its adoption by the council. A summary of this ordinance shall, within 15 days after passage, be published in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code of the State of California with the names of the councilmembers voting for and against it.

INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Fairfield on the 4th day of October, 2022, and

PASSED AND ADOPTED this ___ day of _________________, 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 185 of 224Attachment 1 Page 1 of 1

Packet Page 186 of 224Attachment 2 Page 1 of 39

Packet Page 187 of 224Attachment 2 Page 2 of 39

Packet Page 188 of 224Attachment 2 Page 3 of 39

Packet Page 189 of 224Attachment 2 Page 4 of 39

Packet Page 190 of 224Attachment 2 Page 5 of 39

Packet Page 191 of 224Attachment 2 Page 6 of 39

Packet Page 192 of 224Attachment 2 Page 7 of 39

Packet Page 193 of 224Attachment 2 Page 8 of 39

Packet Page 194 of 224Attachment 2 Page 9 of 39

Packet Page 195 of 224Attachment 2 Page 10 of 39

Packet Page 196 of 224Attachment 2 Page 11 of 39

Packet Page 197 of 224Attachment 2 Page 12 of 39

Packet Page 198 of 224Attachment 2 Page 13 of 39

Packet Page 199 of 224Attachment 2 Page 14 of 39

Packet Page 200 of 224Attachment 2 Page 15 of 39

Packet Page 201 of 224Attachment 2 Page 16 of 39

Packet Page 202 of 224Attachment 2 Page 17 of 39

Packet Page 203 of 224Attachment 2 Page 18 of 39

Packet Page 204 of 224Attachment 2 Page 19 of 39

Packet Page 205 of 224Attachment 2 Page 20 of 39

Packet Page 206 of 224Attachment 2 Page 21 of 39

Packet Page 207 of 224Attachment 2 Page 22 of 39

Packet Page 208 of 224Attachment 2 Page 23 of 39

Packet Page 209 of 224Attachment 2 Page 24 of 39

Packet Page 210 of 224Attachment 2 Page 25 of 39

Packet Page 211 of 224Attachment 2 Page 26 of 39

Packet Page 212 of 224Attachment 2 Page 27 of 39

Packet Page 213 of 224Attachment 2 Page 28 of 39

Packet Page 214 of 224Attachment 2 Page 29 of 39

Packet Page 215 of 224Attachment 2 Page 30 of 39

Packet Page 216 of 224Attachment 2 Page 31 of 39

Packet Page 217 of 224Attachment 2 Page 32 of 39

Packet Page 218 of 224Attachment 2 Page 33 of 39

Packet Page 219 of 224Attachment 2 Page 34 of 39

Packet Page 220 of 224Attachment 2 Page 35 of 39

Packet Page 221 of 224Attachment 2 Page 36 of 39

Packet Page 222 of 224Attachment 2 Page 37 of 39

Packet Page 223 of 224Attachment 2 Page 38 of 39

Packet Page 224 of 224Attachment 2 Page 39 of 39

Fairfield City CouncilOctober 4, 2022

Fairfield City Council
October 4, 2022